SB 312 - eliminating outfitter set asides.
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
would this kick up the 6% tags for non-res to 10% for the d i y pool?
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
I'm probably restating what's already been explained, but I'll try it again (and I'll try not to fuel the emotional side of the things in the process). What folks are saying here is that one's draw odds aren't the primary concern. The big-picture analysis of tag allocation models like New Mexico's shows that a significant portion of the hunting opportunity has been designated for outfitter/landowner use. Whenever wildlife, a public resource, is allocated for the financial benefit of a specific interest group, the central Public Trust tenants of the North America Model are undermined. Maintaining or improving nonresident draw odds aren't the end goal or chief concern of the accomplished public land and wildlife advocates on this site. Their primary concerns are the appropriate management of the wildlife resource and the continuance of the very model that has proven itself for over a century. That's precisely how hunters can advocate for something that might not improve their opportunity to draw a tag. And, if you stop and think about it, that might be the best litmus test for someone's motives. If a person advocates for something that does not necessarily benefit their own selfish interest, then that individual is motivated by something else. And that "something else" is often the right answer for the resource in question.
Last edited:
Khunter
Well-known member
so what. a 90/10 split is plenty equitable and has withstood challenge. Nobody is limitimg your access to visit the Fed lands. The state owns and manages game animals and therfore makes the rules on hunting them . You really are quite new to this and surprisingly opinionated beyond what your grasp.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Given your agitation level, I am not sure whether I should recommend switching to de-caf or a good hemorrhoid cream
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
Jeeez, forget it JLS. Mariano doesn't get it, the birds in the trees understand but he doesn't and evidently, never will.
Khunter
Well-known member
Index of what the proposed bill entails. Even as a nonres I support a 90/10 split. Just wish my own state, Colo, could stop with the outfitter and landowner welfare vouchers and tags and stop dedicating such a high percent of what is left to a nonresident pool. 10% for nonresidents is fair (and I am a nonresident for most of my hunts.) Tags should almost exclusively be doled out via a draw and not via landowner tags.
Not part of the bill but wiping out the Eplus tags in addition to a hard 90/10 split would benefit ALL hunters res and nonres alike.
If a landowner hosts significant wildlife they can easily make $$ charging for access rather than selling vouchers.
Not part of the bill but wiping out the Eplus tags in addition to a hard 90/10 split would benefit ALL hunters res and nonres alike.
If a landowner hosts significant wildlife they can easily make $$ charging for access rather than selling vouchers.
Last edited:
mariano742
Active member
yeah. OMG. JLS and VikingsGuy on Hunt talk I had no idea i was up against the justice league of super heroes Oh no.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Sadly, I think that makes me Zan of the Wonder Twins - but maybe JLS fancies himself Aquaman
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Could you not hear the sound of their HT capes trailing in the Jetstream behind the onslaught of their weapons of wisdom?!
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Ok, now I am going to really hijack this - my apologies.Sadly, I think that makes me Zan of the Wonder Twins - but maybe JLS fancies himself Aquaman
Let's make BigFin Superman, Ben Lamb is Batman, wllm is Robin, JLS is Aquaman, Hunting Wife is Wonderwoman, BuzzH is Hulk, VG is Zan, Panda Bear is Zayna and JLS's dog is Gleek.
Last edited:
Nick87
Well-known member
Low blow.
NMGuy
Well-known member
Instead of the current 84/6/10 split for resident/NR/Outfitter, it would go to a straight 90/10 split for R/NR. There would be no special Outfitter pool anymore.
What Mariano is so passionately trying to express is that this can be seen as a reduction in NR tags since most of that 10% outfitter pool is currently used by NR hunters. You will have more people competing for a smaller pool of total tags in some areas, which will likely decrease NR odds. I suspect other areas might not see as much of an impact due to being poor elk units, but only time will tell.
At the end of the day, more tags for me as a NM resident sounds great.
The physiques are strikingly similar, but my beard is far more anemic.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Maybe, but I gave myself the most pathetic character of the bunch. Even JLS’ dog got a better character
TwistedSage
Well-known member
+1. If you are a NR diy hunter that will never apply in the outfitter pool your odds just went up. The NR hunters that were able to afford to apply with and hire a outfitter if only to increase they're odds are upset about it, they just lost their chance to gain the advantage of drawing over NR unguided hunters. Sucks to loose something, I can understand being a bit salty but I'd wager to say there are far more nr diy hunters whose odds just increased than than there are hunters that counted on that outfitter pool as part of their draw strategy.
I can guarantee you will still have a better chance to hunt elk in NM as a NR then I ever will to hunt moose in Maine. There are perks to being a resident in any state and nothing is perfect for everyone. I still see moving away from set aside outfitter tags as a step in the right direction.
SummitsCalling
Member
I'm against an industry recieving special set asides that couldn't operate without them. If outfitters are so needed, they'd be able to operate and survivor without a special pool. "It guarantees x amount of hunters". Ok, but how many outfitters are full time and don't do it as a side gig? Love to see the numbers on that, NV has the same problem in my opinion along with many other states.
Just like my opinion with WY and MT, I don't live in the state so what does my opinion matter? Just don't come calling for support (like was just recently done) when I'm told to shut up and be thankfull in overpaying to hunt "your animals".
Just like my opinion with WY and MT, I don't live in the state so what does my opinion matter? Just don't come calling for support (like was just recently done) when I'm told to shut up and be thankfull in overpaying to hunt "your animals".
Gosh it drives me nuts when people are only public land advocates when it suits them.
