SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.

[Khunter]

Just curious, What is a mess about the EPLUS program?

These tags should be in the public draw, that is what is a mess. Colo where I live also has a bad LO tag system. A MASSIVE portion of all NM elk tags are given to landowners, which cuts into the draw tag pool of course. Frankly most of the eplus tags land in Nonres and outfitter hands, which is a huge ripoff for resident hunters.

Outfitter welfare apologists will say ‘anybody can buy the EPLUS LO tags. Which is a totally false and disingenuous narrative. Your average hunter cannot pay those steep prices, period.

Every state should heavily weight access to tags for the resident hunter. NM fails miserably (as does Colorado).

 

[Labman]

I have seen a LOT of them. Many are complete BS. May not be as bad as it was a few years ago when I last had a tag and looked at a lot of laughably inappropriate properties that were awarded LO tags. But it was horrible.

In the past many were BS. That has changed. Go check some out. Had a buddy send me a pic of a giant on a 20 acre piece in 2020, that property happens to be the only way to access an entire section of state ground.

 

[MTGomer]

Anyone who thinks that the support from WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club is a coincidence has blinders on.

NM is a deeply blue state. The only way to get something like this through is to attach it to a larger bill like this. Those groups support the changes to the Jennings Law. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t support it and after learning what the Jennings Law is, I can’t imagine hunters not supporting changing it either.

 

[Khunter]

They have to allow access. If they aren’t allowing it, you report them to the EPLUS manager and they get removed from the program. That simple.

Another false narrative. They get away with allowing different access for different parties which is illegal but all too common. Part of the problem that gets exploited is most hunters are there for a short hunt and have NO TIME to address the illegal efforts to block their access to UW lands. The system is built to make it easy to cheat lawful hunter access.

From experience with UW properties I have experienced where adjacent landowners and single landowners with multiple EPLUS property blocks will lock all but a gate INSIDE the property where two land locked property lines meet and all outer gates were locked. That collusion to create land locked gates constituted ‘access’ per the rules even though they also got away with letting paid hunters and friends etc drive through exterior gates but block draw hunters. That differential access is not supposed to be allowed but it happens often. In my case and complaint the Wildlife Officer mostly gave it the thumbs up when I took time out of my hunt to protest the issue after putting on the foot miles to access where I wanted and see others driving right to where I busted my butt to access.

Any welfare program that gives away civeted and valuable public resources is prone to abuse. Especially true with NM outfitter welfare program (EPLUS).

 

[Labman]

NM is a deeply blue state. The only way to get something like this through is to attach it to a larger bill like this. Those groups support the changes to the Jennings Law. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t support it and after learning what the Jennings Law is, I can’t imagine hunters not supporting changing it either.

Crazy that back in the day Jennings Law was sponsored by and passed by the deep blue.

 

[Labman]

Another false narrative. They get away with allowing different acess for different parties which is illegal but all too common. Part of the problem thzt gets exploited is most hunters are there for a short hunt and havev NO TIME to address the illegal efforts to block their access to UW lands. The system is built to maker it easy to cheat lawful hunter access.

From experience with UW properties I have experienced where adjacent landowners and single landowners with multiple EPLUS property blocks will lock all but a gate INSIDE the property where two land locked property lines meet and all outer gates were locked. They got away with letting paid hunters and friends etc drive through exterior gates but block draw hunters. Wildlife officer mostly gave it the thumbs up when I took time out of my hunt to protest the issue after putting on the foot miles to access where I wanted and see others driving right to where I busted my butt tio access.

Any welfare program that gives away civeted and valuable public resources is prone to abuse. Especially true with NM outfitter welfare program (EPLUS).

It isn’t a false narrative that they have to provide equal access. It is written in the EPLUS application the landowner signs. Record it in your phone and turn them in just like you should if you see someone poaching. Send the video to the EPLUS coordinator. Go over the local GWs head if you have to. There is a list of who these guys answer to all the way to the top. If it was a violation and you had the proof, don’t stop until they get booted out of the program. No different than someone poaching in in my opinion.
Also, I keep hearing UW properties don’t have any elk on them or the landowner would have made the tag RO. I am surprised to hear of someone actually hunting on one .

 

[Chadwick91]

It will be interesting to see who the NM legislators care about more; New Mexicans or Kyle Mcintyre from El Paso, TX.


Another way to look at it, is that (assuming you don't use an outfitter) is that you're now applying for 10% of the tags instead of 6%.
Hard to say what it will do to odds, since we don't know how many people will stop applying if they cant apply in the outfitter pool, where many times they get better odds than residents get.
People that can afford outfitters can still buy landowner tags. This doesn't do away with them.

With the existence of Landowner tags, plus 10% of draw tags, NM will still be giving NR much more opportunity than many western states.

I agree, This will give more opportunity to the Non resident who cant afford an outfitter or just doesn't want to use one. But it doesn't totally take the opportunity away for those who do, public land or private land. I for one have never used an outfitter (not that there is anything wrong with it) and this will increase my odds a little. The only thing I can see being detrimental is the possibility that the outfitters might not land as many tags for their clients which would hurt their business.

 

[Labman]

These tags should be in the public draw, that is what. Colo where I live also has a bad LO tag system. a MASSIVE portionn of all NM elk tags are given to landowners, which cuts into the draw tag pool of course. Frankly most of the eplus tags land in Nonres and outfitter hands, which is a huge ripoff for resident hunters.

OUtfitter welfare apologists will say ‘anybody can buy bthe LO tags. Which is a totally false and disingenuous narritive. Your average hunter cannot pay those steep prices, period.

Every state should heavily weight access to tags for the resident hunter. NM fails miserably (as does Colorado).

It isn’t a false or disingenuous narrative that “anyone can buy the tags”. It is simply fact. Who buys them? Aliens? Not all tags are overpriced 16D/16A bull or archery tags. Lots of average unit bull/archery stuff can be picked up for a few thousand bucks. Ok, you would like to see those tags in the draw. Noble vision. What about the landowners that have received UW tags in the past and provided access? They get the shaft and get nothing now?
“Most of the eplus tags land in Nonres and outfitter hands, which is a huge ripoff for resident hunters.”....please cite your source.

 

[Khunter]

It isn’t a false or disingenuous narrative that “anyone can buy the tags”. It is simply fact. Who buys them? Aliens? Not all tags are overpriced 16D/16A bull or archery tags. Lots of average unit bull/archery stuff can be picked up for a few thousand bucks. Ok, you would like to see those tags in the draw. Noble vision. What about the landowners that have received UW tags in the past and provided access? They get the shaft and get nothing now?
“Most of the eplus tags land in Nonres and outfitter hands, which is a huge ripoff for resident hunters.”....please cite your source.

So you support this massive outfitter welfare program or you maybe have the scratch to buy costly LO vouchers or for some other reason like seeing privatization of this publicly owner wildlife resource. Good for you.

Here is a question: how have you personally benefited from the EPLUS system, is it profitable to you or have you been able to put tags in your pocket without having to draw them?

Have multiple sources including having personally called DOZENS of landowners to enquire about the vouchers/tags and having spoken to many outfitters about same.

While what I say is as accurate as it needs to be based on what I know versus what I presume...my main point is the tags should be in the draw and available at normal tag fee costs.

The landowners can lease their land or sell access for a fee to replace the tag welfare they have been getting. At first it will sting for some but ending the massive privatization of control over elk tags and setting appropriate res/nonres quotas would be the right course. Free market will take care of the rest to put $$ in pockets of landowners hosting/supporting wildlife and keeping good outfitters in business.

 

[Labman]

So you support this massive outfitter welfare program or you maybe have the scratch to buy costly LO vouchers or for some other reason like seeing privatization of this publicly owner wildlife resource. Good for you.

Here is a question: how have you personally benefited from the EPLUS system, is it profitable to you or have you been able to put tags in your pocket without having to draw them?

Have multiple sources including having personally called DOZENS of landowners to enquire about the vouchers/tags and having spoken to many outfitters about same.

While what I say is as accurate as it needs to be based on what I know versus what I presume...my main point is the tags should be in the draw and available at normal tag fee costs.

The landowners can lease their land or sell access for a fee to replace the tag welfare they have been getting. At first it will sting for some but ending the massive privatization of control over elk tags and setting appropriate res/nonres quotas would be the right course. Free market will take care of the rest to put $$ in pockets of landowners hosting/supporting wildlife and keeping good outfitters in business.

I saved 4.5k and bought a Unit 12 UW rifle tag the first year it went into Primary Zone management. Had to beat up the phones a bit to get it but only took an hour or so. Sure, lots were spoken and outfitters no doubt ended up with plenty but why does that make a difference where they ended up? Great hunt at the time and there were tons of elk on most of the UW ranches we hunted. Never saw another hunter on any UW ranch.
So it sounds like you would like to see a total abolishment of the system, RO and UW tags? Or are my assumptions wrong there? That wouldn’t go well.
“While what I say is as accurate as it needs to be...”. So, you’re saying you can’t site a source and are basing your opinion off a dozen or calls. Got it. You may very well be right but there is absolutely no way of knowing if an outfitter bought a voucher. If you submitted a Public Info Request you could probably find out the number of R vs NR that activated the vouchers but that is it. Lots go in the trash and never even get validated.

 

[Buffs35]

It isn’t a false or disingenuous narrative that “anyone can buy the tags”. It is simply fact. Who buys them? Aliens? Not all tags are overpriced 16D/16A bull or archery tags. Lots of average unit bull/archery stuff can be picked up for a few thousand bucks. Ok, you would like to see those tags in the draw. Noble vision. What about the landowners that have received UW tags in the past and provided access? They get the shaft and get nothing now?
“Most of the eplus tags land in Nonres and outfitter hands, which is a huge ripoff for resident hunters.”....please cite your source.

A few thousand dollars is a lot to some of us.

 

[Labman]

A few thousand dollars is a lot to some of us.

It’s a lot to me too.

 

[hank4elk]

Got a note from NMWF about it.
IF it becomes law I will gladly except getting rid of the outfitter welfare pool.
I bet half the outfitters in NM I have met,I would call outlaws in my old life.

I remember the old 10% NR pool & drawing many tags. That was before anyone wanted to hunt NM too.....12+ yrs ago.

Looks like 90R/10%NR to me.

The E-plus system has undergone major changes.
Ranches have to meet criteria,have to give access under UW. Many small & or useless ranches are gone now that the changes where made in my unit.
I would say 3000 ac is benchmark minimum now,but score is more determining factor now.
The program has benefited elk & hunting in NM. Lots more elk than 10 years ago even.

I could not give away a MB LO tag 10 years ago,but I also could not afford a new truck.
Now they are in demand somewhat. I still can't afford a new truck.WAAAAH!!!
IMHO

 

[Montanan4life]

And Montana is trying to bring back Outfitter licenses?? smh

 

[abqbw]

While Montana looks at becoming New Mexico, New Mexico is looking at being less like New Mexico.

View attachment 172433

View attachment 172434

I recognize those red underlines! I’m glad you pulled this from a post of mine on Facebook and posted it here.
I support this bill.

With our bill trying to eliminate set aside and MT’s bill trying to create a set aside it is like New Mexico was hauling ass up the road trying to catch up to MT only to see MT hauling ass the opposite direction. Don’t be like New Mexico where nearly half our ek permits are private, nearly 2/3 (62.5%, 10/16) of all draw permits for all species available to nonresidents are reserved for hunters that pay an outfitter, and pronghorn and deer are entirely limited draw on public land and entirely unlimited on private land. You can’t make it up... New Mexico, hunting playground of kings and lords.

 

[abqbw]

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?

It is almost entirely nonresidents that apply in the outfitter set-aside pool. With the exception of pronghorn there are very few hunt codes where applying in the outfitter pool increases draw odds for a resident. As such a resident that applies in the outfitter pool would almost certainly be decreasing their draw odds. A resident can always hire an outfitter if they draw in the resident pool.

 

[abqbw]

How does a RO tag help anyone? The fact that a UW tag exists is great, it allows you and the average Joe access to that ground to hunt. If it has to be RO it still comes out of the tag numbers allocated for the unit and now you can’t go on that property. I see so many people advocating for the removal of UW tags and to make them RO, it tells me you don’t understand how the program works. What would be beneficial to the average guy by doing away with UW tags?

People that understand the system are advocating for the UW tags to be deprivitized and moved to the public draw.

 

[abqbw]

NM is a deeply blue state. The only way to get something like this through is to attach it to a larger bill like this. Those groups support the changes to the Jennings Law. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t support it and after learning what the Jennings Law is, I can’t imagine hunters not supporting changing it either.

On face value what you say seems true. But as someone that has been deeply involved, and almost entirely unsuccessful, in trying to scale back privatization of our hunting opportunity in NM I know that the sad fact is that the average hunter and our hunting opportunity are tangential considerations for our legislature, governors, game commission, and Department of Game and Fish. We have asked and asked and asked and always come up empty compared to the outfitting industry and landowner permit industry. A different way to look at this bill and what orgs support it is that it has taken the support and efforts of decidedly anti-hunting orgs to get a bill even introduced that puts tags in DIY hunters of average means back in our pockets. The real travesty is that New Mexico’s entire political cabal has hung us out to dry for decades.

 

[abqbw]

A note about why this bill is so long. It is because the name of the Department of Game and Fish is being changed. Wherever the name of the Department exists in the chapter of the wildlife statute (Chapter 17) has to be cited.

A way to zip through the bill fairly quickly and find changes is to look for strikeouts (language to be removed) and underlines (language to be added).

Hunters are wisely concerned by the orgs that support this bill. They support this bill because of the reform of the so-called “Jennings Law”. Under its current form a landowner can blast any number of game animals that they feel are depredating crops. The bill would require a landowner to obtain a permit specifying the number of animals they can blast and when. I would think any hunter would also support this change. The extended consequence of the current Jennings law is an egregious assault on good management and equitable hunting opportunity allocation as the mere blasting of the game animals. The extended consequence is that it is routine practice for landowners to leverage their privileges under Jennings to extort private landowner permits from the Department. If a landowner receives landowner permits they must forgo their privileges to blast wildlife under Jennings. During the mid 2000s there were quite a few instances of landowners blasting up to dozens of game animals. This has greatly diminished because they have largely extorted their way to private permits. One of the New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides chief pubic comments against this bill is in fact that correcting Jennings would harm our wildly expansive private elk permit system (EPLUS). They are tacitly saying that the Jennings law extortions exists as I say they do.

 

[Labman]

People that understand the system are advocating for the UW tags to be deprivitized and moved to the public draw.

The total permit numbers for any given unit are established by the G&F. Public permits and LO permit numbers are set in stone based off a formula taking into account private/public land mix. It doesn’t matter if every LO permit was RO or UW, each group gets their cut. The benefit to the public of the landowner choosing UW is access. Why do people care so much that they are able to be transferred? Many are used by the landowners, family, donated, and a pile are probably sold. Who cares? The landowner provided that public resource with food, water, and cover. They could have high fenced it and let them starve or die of thirst. Exactly how does anyone think that UW tags can just be done away with and added to the public draw tags, please explain?? WY has landowner tags and no one gripes. They are good UW, can’t transfer them, but the public also doesn’t get access. MT-similar to a certain extent, but not guaranteed every year, and not transferable, again no access. NV has them and they are transferable, but no access. Heck of a good deal that opens up about 600,000 acres of private ground and an unimaginable amount of landlocked public to hunting. With the dialogue of some desiring that UW tags should be swept away all I see is a landowner vs public hunter battle on the horizon. In a state that is 53% private land how does that end well?