If I am understanding your position, the assumption is virtually 100% of current outfitter pool applicants are nonresident? Does anyone know whether that is true?
SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
Yes it is, that is the NR outfitter pool. Currently they are allotted 10% of the tags, non guided non residents are allotted 6% and residents are allotted 84%.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
Pretty sure residents can also apply in the outfitter pool. Probably doesn’t happen often but i don’t think outfitter pool is for nonresidents exclusively.
I don't mean to be nitpicky but the outfitter pool, in fact, is not for nonresidents only but it could, in reality, be utilized overwhelmingly by nonresidents. I don't know that I have ever seen the outfitter applicant NR/R breakdown but I am curious.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
I guess I can't see what the benefit would be for a resident to limit themselves to such a small percentage of the draw would be.
SO7mm
Well-known member
We went in the outfitter draw last year for a semi-guided elk hunt just for the draw odds bump. There's a lot of guys that do that instead of the general pool. I agree some will buy tags but most of them will at least try and draw a tag first. It will be interesting to see what the odds do if it passes.
Here’s some odds for Mule deer, Elk and Antelope in that order, for the last three years.
In some cases, you’ll see the outfitter pool has much better odds than Residents.
Attachments
brownbear932008
Well-known member
I'm not so sure about this when you factor all the guided draw guys jumping into the 10%. I think odds go down even more probably imo.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
I guess I don't understand the math well enough to get how that works out. So is there some large contingent of residents that are applying in the outfitter pool?
NM really wants to fix something they need to fix the landowner tags! NONE should be unit wide! They should be private land only, immediate family! Rest of tags should go in draw pools, no more scalping tags. All tags for public land or public use should be advertised and transparent. This 6% reduction in tags is only going to increase demand and ultimately cost of those landowner tags as well as decreasing draw odds for those of us who cant afford to "buy" a tag.
Khunter
Well-known member
I support the flat 10% nonres allocation.
If only they would do away with the landowner tag mess....
If only they would do away with the landowner tag mess....
hogcarpy
Well-known member
I hope this passes, however, the landowner tag issue is far worse and will probably never get reversed. In some ways understandably so.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 486
The EPLUS program opens up about 600,000 acres of private ground and one could only guess the landlocked public it opens up. It is a pretty well run program now. Maps available online, properties are all looked at under a microscope. A huge benefit to the average DIY hunter.
NM34R
Member
Not sure of the total numbers but I know there are a few residents that apply in those units where the percentages favor the outfitters pool.
SameGuided folks will cry, I will now apply.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 486
Just curious, What is a mess about the EPLUS program?
blueridge
Well-known member
Got an email from a NM outfitter today regarding SB-312 with the opening line:
“Our hunting industry is under attack from anti hunters and residents who don't like nonresident hunting and outfitters.”
I guess that’s one way to try to frame the issue, but come on.
“Our hunting industry is under attack from anti hunters and residents who don't like nonresident hunting and outfitters.”
I guess that’s one way to try to frame the issue, but come on.
Mtnhunter1
Well-known member
If passed, this would be a win for the New Mexico resident hunter and a slight loss to the commercialization of wildlife industry. Retaining the landowner tags has more pluses than minuses as some of those landowners have been good stewards for wildlife.
I agree, might be time to apply in New Mexico again!
I agree, might be time to apply in New Mexico again!
Horse
Active member
I think I'm on same list. I attached as pics, didnt know how else to attach. My first thoughts were that NR odds are already low. Only really affects the guys playing only in the NR pool. And I agree that guys who are using outfitter pool will probably just buy a landowner tag, if that doesnt get drastically changed. I also agree that landowner tags showed only be on private land and not UW. I thought it kinda funny that they acknowledge how much NR hunting brings to the economy and NR should give more to help out.Got an email from a NM outfitter today regarding SB-312 with the opening line:
“Our hunting industry is under attack from anti hunters and residents who don't like nonresident hunting and outfitters.”
I guess that’s one way to try to frame the issue, but come on.
My second thought is maybe this is good in the long run for NR in NM(and Montana contemplating, WY same boat-meaning guide needed in wilderness/NR quota). NR lose out for a few years with less tags. Maybe after a few years, the state will see that they need to up the NR tag amounts for the additional revenue. As a resident its easy to think that less non residents is a good thing, but the local businesses will have a different view point. I assume the businesses complaining about a decrease in revenue will have more of an affect in the long run and will persuade the govt to make changes in NR hunting opportunity. That may be just wishful thinking.
Attachments
blueridge
Well-known member
If your existence is dependent not upon the quality of the experience and service you offer, but upon legislation making you necessary or appealing based upon a secondary benefit, you’ve proved yourself to be expendable in a market economy. If what you offer is valuable and needed, you’ll get business. If not, you won’t.
