What about NM outfitters screwing other nonres.

[schmalts]

I saw on a different message board NM is thinking about lowering the nonres qouta.
That sucks but get this.... the nonres who apply with an outfitter would drop from 12% to 10 percent. But the real hunters who want to do it on thier own would drop from 10% to only 5 %!!! now figure in the numbers of apps for non outfitter guys who greatly outnumber the ouftitter users and you pretty much have no chance at drawing a tag anymore in NM and the odds between nonguided VS guided will be more surely than tenfold. USO helped push all of the outfitter crap through in the first place, and now he's going after AZ for his private enterprise.
If anyone thinks its unfair to see states like NM whos bulk of applications for nonres tags are on Federal land do this lets here it. The big slap in the face when argeuing with the NM guides is that "we are poor and this helps us" Well i tell you what, find a different way to make money because we are watching out pastime become a rich mans only private club, and on our taxpayers land on top of it.
I have a idea for us who apply without an outfitter in NM. Actually i have 2! if you think this has gone far enough with USO and other outfitters bullying us out of hunting with our kids for less than 8000$ lets here it. the power of the net can be used to do something with a devious mind like mine!
One idea would be to get an attorney to do what USO has done to AZ and use pretty close to the same complaint to the US court as GT did. He is denying us rights to harvest animals for $ and trade (although we dont do it for $ the point is the same)
We could set up a fund for donations and surely find a hunter of an attorney to take the case.
Second idea, One of us become an outfitter in NM, share the small fees involved and the rest of us become guides. I inquired about guides liscenses in NM and anyone can take the test in their own state, i believe it was 25$. Any moron can pass the test too. Then we can all apply under the outfitter preference and have 3-6 times better odds at drawing tags with the current numbers!!
Now i am not against guides at all so dont some of you get all wound up and start posting , but i think someone can get a guide after they draw the tag and have no draw preference over the average JOE.

 

[danr55]

I've got a better idea Schmaltz. George and Co. Advertise in several hunting magazines. They support lots of products, like Real tree camo. They appear in and sponsor videos that we all enjoy watching. So boycott anything with George Taulman in it, on it, or behind it. Write the editors of the magazines, the folks at Real tree, Cabellas, Bass Pro Shops, Eastmans, Trophy Hunter, etc. and tell them that you won't buy or support anything that smells of Taulman or USO. Hit them in the wallet where they will really feel it.

 

[Tom]

I like the idea of increasing our odds somehow and would likely pitch in on it. I've heard the outfitter liscense is like $500 and you have to have $100,000 or $1 million in insurance too and that just having an outfitter liscense on the application increases the chances of being drawn. New Mexico residents have trouble getting tags too I think. There's just not enough hunting to go around, hence these lotteries, etc.

 

[GilaMonster]

Something that may come to a shock is that the majority of oufitters here and guides are definately against the proposed changes. The problem derives from the vast number of uneducated, unethical, once a year gun toters we have in our state. Notice that I never called them hunters. The outfitters license costs $500. You will need a high priced liability insurance policy that lists your hunters specificcally. You will also need the proper lease documents from the US Forest Service or BLM, and supply a complete list of all hunters that were guided to the NM Game Dept. There are many other smaller regulations that go along with it, but these are a few of the major ones. There must be at least one guide for each four licensed hunters. Guide registration is $50. A guide can not legally work for hire unless working directly under a registered outfitter. Hope this helps you guys.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-14-2003 18:36: Message edited by: GilaMonster ]</font>

 

[schmalts]

Danr55, i think that would not help because you will always have the guys who like someone to cook them stakes at nite and draw them tags, thats why that greedy SOB is so rich. The 2 options i have would be better i think . actually i would be in for both.
The insurence policy is what we all need to chip in for , but its not going to be as expensive as you think when we put in the policy that the coverage will only be for real shady accidents. The state does not check out the policies i bet so get a real shady policy that covers the amount required but have a private clause with the insurence company to make it basicly a useless policy on the side. Make it so the insurence guy gets a few hundred buck for writing a polocy that can never really have a claim. (or find an insurence salesaman that likes elk hunting and let him use the outfitter preference for writing it!!)
The guides fees are very small and the test can easily be passed. If you go with a friend only one need to be a guide as long as you hunt together! this is so sweet!!!! between all the hunt message boards i know this will work!!
Thanks Gila, i already knew about the fact that the guide needs an outfitter, I tried to do that last year and that put a kibash on my plan. Thats why this new plan may work. Anyone know an insurence salesman who likes elk hunting or has a family member who can help out for a nominal fee to write a worthless policy??
I can imagine that the outfitters are against the changes, they will lose aproximately 15% of tags. I bet they havent said the nonres W/O guide changes are unfair even though we would lose 50% of a much smaller cut already.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-14-2003 18:56: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[Bear Creek Adventures]

Schmalts,

First of all, I need to tell you that I am an outfitter in New Mexico and your post is the first I have heard of this, but I will find out more. I will say that if it is true about the legislature cutting the number of non-resident tags (requiring an outfitter or not requiring an outfitter) I am opposed to it as I am sure every other outfitter in the state is. My business is composed of 90% non-resident hunters and 10% residents, so naturally, the more non-resident tags available, the better chance my hunters have of drawing a tag. Also, let me state that I am in no way trying to defend USO or their actions, and I am not trying to complicate the issue, just pointing out some facts.

In your last post you stated, "I can imagine that the outfitters are against the changes, they will lose aproximately 15% of tags. I bet they havent said the nonres W/O guide changes are unfair even though we would lose 50% of a much smaller cut already." This statement is incorrect, at least in regard to my business. You need to understand that the current law does not say that non-residents that apply into the 12% pool are NOT ALLOWED to hire an outfitter, it says that they have the choice of utilizing an outfitter or going on their own if they choose. Therefore, many non-residents that hire an outfitter choose to apply into the 10% pool if they feel they have a better chance of drawing a tag and in many areas they do have a better chance if they apply into the 10% pool as opposed to the 12% pool because of the number of outfitters that may be operating in that area. In addition, outfitters receive much of their business from folks who apply into the 10% pool with the intentions of hunting unguided by providing drop camps, packing out game, etc. So, in that respect, you can see that outfitters will be opposed to reducing the number of non-resident tags in either category. I don't know why you think that USO had anything to do with reducing the number of non-resident tags, and maybe they did, but I can not for the life of me understand whey they would be in favor of limiting the number of tags going to non-residents.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you have a rather simplistic way of viewing the issue of obtaining an outfitter license in New Mexico. First of all, to obtain an outfitter license, you first must be a NM registered guide for a minimum of three years and work under a registered outfitter. After the three years, the outfitter must recommend the guide to the NMDG&F for an outfitter license. Then, as has been mentioned before, you must pass a written test, have an active $500,000 liability insurance policy in place, submit to a back ground investigation (must have no felony convictions) and pay $500 per year. That is the easy part.

Now, here is the kicker. In addition to the outfitter and guide license, you must have a permit from the land management agency of the area(s) you plan to hunt. I have never dealt with the BLM, but I can tell you how the Forest Service works. First off, you will have to apply for a permit for each area you wish to hunt. There are many different National Forests and districts in New Mexico and each Forest and/or district has different restrictions in regard to outfitters. Many districts are already at capacity in regard to outfitters and in some there are waiting lists of outfitters just waiting for an opening. If you do find a forest that has room for another outfitter, you will have to show them proof of insurance, outfitter license and CRS tax number, submit a financial statement and a five-year business plan for your company. If you provide all this and you are issued a permit to operate, you will have to prove within a certain amount of time that the business is a viable one, ie. making a profit, providing good customer service, no complaints, no legal actions, etc. Don't forget that each and every trip you take has to be approved at the time you apply for the permit by the Forest Service including camp locations, trails you will be using, how many hunters you will be "guiding," the specific dates, etc. If horses or mules will be involved, that opens up a whole new can of worms. And did I mention that you have to go through an annual performance appraisal?

If you get an outfitters license and are able to acquire the necessary permits from the land management agency, you will be directly responsible for your "guides" and their action. Therefore, any illegal activity that occurs will be directed toward you and it does not take very many violations to lose your permit and your state license. Typically, if you lose your permit on one forest, other forests will also drop you. If you are convicted of a felony violation, you will lose your state outfitter license and as a result lose your permits as well.

I agree with you very strongly about not wanting to make hunting a rich mans sport. I feel that everyone should be entitled to enjoy their National Forests in the way they choose whether it be hunting, hiking, whatever. I as an outfitter do not want to corner the market on non-resident hunters, my goal is to provide a service to those residents and non-residents that opt to hire an outfitter for whatever reason that may be.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-14-2003 21:55: Message edited by: Bear Creek Adventures ]</font>

 

[Deerslayer]

Great post Eric.......I was going to say something, but opted to let someone with more knowledge on the subject speak...and glad I did.

In almost every state, there are restrictions on how many guiding services can operate, and most all have a waiting list. And the states put these caps for good reason. Otherwise, every Tom, Dick and Harry would decide next week to be a guide instead of making that trip down to the bread line.

The thing about loop holes is......most have been tried before, and since this is not the state's first day on the job, those holes tend to close very quickly.

Danr's idea can be quite effective.......but you can't just stop buying the products and boycotting the shows....you have to do the follow up letter explaining exactly why you feel that way.

Eric did a good job of explaining how the outfitter is the non-res's friend in states like New Mexico.......where they will continue to lobby and fight for our quotas......they know well where their bread is buttered. I like knowing they will not lay down while some bullshit plan gets pushed through against non-res. It may very well happen, but not without a fight from the state outfitters.

That being said.......you guys should not be interested in hunting New Mexico anyway......it is very over pressured and way overrated and the tags are too damn high anyway. Save your money and hassle and go somewhere else

 

[schmalts]

I know it sound complicated but i am sure there is enough frustration with others on this. Outfitters will lobby but if they are anything like USO they will try to shut out anyone without an outfitter. I am not saying all will but its the outfitters that pushed the bullshit outfitter preference crap in the first place with lobbying.
Bear creek, i have to either disagree with what you said or i dont get what you just said. You said "You need to understand that the current law does not say that non-residents that apply into the 12% pool are NOT ALLOWED to hire an outfitter, it says that they have the choice of utilizing an outfitter or going on their own if they choose". On my application if you want to be put in the 12% pool you need to fill in the outfitter preference area with a outfitter number. Are you giving us a loophole here?? I was told in order to get into the 12% pool you had to fill that in, and do the tags get sent to the outfitter then? Also, you said"Don't forget that each and every trip you take has to be approved at the time you apply for the permit by the Forest Service including camp locations, trails you will be using, how many hunters you will be "guiding," the specific dates" if this is true how come a guy can go to lets say chama Nm and without notice, show up in town and hire an outfitter for the next day? not saying your wrong but looking for clarification.
I have talked with the people at the fish and game about an outfitter permit. I did get some of the same info you said but a lot of it was different than what i was told.
DS, Last time i hunted NM it was well worth the $ and i would do it every year. I found that like most states if i went the extra mile (hike) i found real nice elk. I have never seen anything like that in Colorado yet so i would not hesitate to spend the cash and just go to NM instead. I saw 2 7x7's that would both easily score over 370 pts, and 4-5 other bulls that would go 320 or better in 12 days. I was bowhunting and it was real early and hot in the season and my first time out there so i didnt have the right luck that year. I have applied for the gila for 5 years now and never drew, the year i was out there i didnt draw, its a whole big story but thats a differnt issue. I know someone that applies with USO and drawn 4 of 5 years. Thats not right. The residents i met say they draw every year in that unit and season(early bow 16a), and most were opposed to the outfitters preference too.
I think the lawsuit would work because the truth is, if it went to non hunters sitting behind the court bench i bet they would really go for our side. The truth is no one has ever even threatened to do this because us hunters have no voice as a group compared to the outfitters. The outfitters got preference by lobbying but i bet if the hunters pushed a court case the feds would see that the outfitters are in fact UNDENIABLY infringing on our rights to hunt federal (and state)land. The same arguement USO used to force the AZ lawsuit but with a different twist. If USO can get the resident cap changed i am sure that the hunters can get the outfitter preference dropped. There is no federal law stating that outfitters need to make money from hunters so bad that they need to shut out other hunters. Is anyone out there interested in helping this cause?? would anyone be interested to spend lets say 20$ or more to a cause like this? A fund could easily be set up. there are lots of attorneys that hunt too that i am sure would be interested in a case like this.
I hate to sound like a rebel but if you dont start standing up for fairness for hunting on your own you will be priced and tagged out of NM and other states possibly as greed spreads in huntings sport. Even if this new qouta does not go through dont you guys think that the Quota should be the other way around or just dropped???
NM is nothing like the wilderness of MT or WY where at high altitudes you can really get into trouble with grizzly and not nearly the chance of weather playing with you. Its not like they need to protect us out there.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-15-2003 22:42: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[DM423]

Due to the lowering draw success and outfitters wanting to take in the same money, therefore price goes up, I will be hunting elsewhere. I hunted NM 2 seasons ago and wasn't too impressed. The scenery was great but only saw a couple cows. I had just as much enjoyment in Montana and the kill ratio was the same,0. Filling a tag is not the highest priority, it's just an added bonus, so why spend the extra money for the hike. My next Elk adventure will be 2004, just not sure where yet.

 

[schmalts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DM423:
Due to the lowering draw success and outfitters wanting to take in the same money, therefore price goes up, I will be hunting elsewhere. I hunted NM 2 seasons ago and wasn't too impressed. The scenery was great but only saw a couple cows. I had just as much enjoyment in Montana and the kill ratio was the same,0. Filling a tag is not the highest priority, it's just an added bonus, so why spend the extra money for the hike. My next Elk adventure will be 2004, just not sure where yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee DM, really sounds like your willing to fight for whats right

But instead just walk away. I guess you will never care to take your kid elk hunting someday. Maybe you just had a bad spot because the kill odds in most of the gila for bow alone was in the 25-35ish range. You should consider a different area or do some research with the forest service and such to find better spots. No offence i hope but you gotta find the elk before you hunt them.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-16-2003 08:09: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Schmalts, I agree with you that hunters have to organize and lobby more if they want the same voice that outfitters do.

However, I would really recommend thinking things over very carefully before heading to the courtroom. What I believe you just proposed in nothing better than what USO has just done in AZ. You feel slighted because the residents and outfitted NR get licenses while you fail to draw. I can certainly understand that. But, I still believe the bulk of hunting licenses should be given to the resident hunters, always (whether its private or public land). What I think you should explore, if you're really serious, is to not fight the resident hunters, but fight outfitter sponsored licenses. THAT is the main reason why you arent drawing in NM, MT has the same problem. You wont ever get the same draw odds as residents, but they'd improve greatly if all NR's were in one pool.

I say quit subsidizing the outfitter industry, the landowner permits, and things like that. Make it an open draw and let hunters choose whether or not they want a guide.

If enough NR hunters and the residents NM got together on an issue like that, I bet you'd see changes, but it would be an ugly fight.

 

[schmalts]

Buzz, thats my exact plan. I never said i wanted to take anything from the residents. My entire beef is with the outfitter preference alone as long as they keep the total for nonres the way it is. I can handle drawing a tag every couple or 3 years but cannot stand to see the outfitted hunters get drawn almost every year.

 

[Deerslayer]

You gotta be kidding me scmaltz!

-------------------
"I can handle drawing a tag every couple or 3 years but cannot stand to see the outfitted hunters get drawn almost every year."
--------------------

In one unit last year, there were 131 unguided non-resident first choice applicants applying, and 94 drew out.......and in the same unit there were 103 guided non-resident first choice applicants, and 71 drew out. So in this instance an unguided non-resident had better odds than a guided non-resident. What Eric was trying to tell you is this........some non res may put in for unguided if they feel the guided non-res totals are high.....then they can decide after drawing to hire an outfitter. It is very similiar to Wyoming draw for non-res concerning the "regular draw" and the "special draw". Your odds can be better in either....just depends on which has more applicants for that unit that particular year.

I do like Buzz's idea of combing all non-res in one drawing. That takes some guess work out. But I think the 22% overall non-res quota is quite generous .

The talk of getting a hunter lawyer and lawsuits is really quite funny to me. But us grouping together and buying an outfitters license and the rest of us becoming guides takes the cake

.......I think in the end, the answer will be to just keep applying and biding your time......'cause lawyers and court cases can get expensive and guides already get a bad enough rap.....the last thing that group needs is this board joining their ranks

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-16-2003 18:28: Message edited by: Deerslayer ]</font>

 

[DM423]

schmalts: its not a matter of walking away, I'm will not justify the actions of these folks by lining their pockets. Maybe if enough people didn't show up and they got hungry they would rethink. Maybe informing the environmental dept of NM that they are killing the tourism dollars would have a positive affect. I say that because the last time I was there I saw a sign that reminded locals that one of the biggest industries was tourism.

 

[schmalts]

DS, what do you mean I gotta be kidding. You are qouting numbers from only one unit man, remember too that you are quoting from the worst case for those units because no matter what they will draw 20% more tags that the nonguided because of the qouta itself so your numbers are a smokescreen. I think you gotta be kidding? So your saying that Lets say USO for example can have half of thier clients apply using the outfitter preference and the other half without? that even makes it more chanches that thier client will draw! thats a crock. If the outfitter preference isnt in thier favor they can go steal up the nonguided tags too by having them apply that way? talk about a double standard isnt it?? I cant apply for the giuded tags and then dump my guide! Where did you come up with the numbers you qouted, i would like to see that info.
And as far as putting in my time applying, they dont have a bonus point system to make it so time helps.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-17-2003 06:19: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>

 

[danr55]

My question about this whole thing is "Why do those who hire an outfitter get separated from those who don't?" What is it about hiring any outfitter that should change the general odds of drawing a tag? If you want discrimination, there you have it. Preferential treatment because you hire a licensed outfitter is just that. If outfitters can't make a living buying landowner tags or working off of the general draw, then maybe they should get a real job. (Not to imply that outfitting is not hard work, it is.) Perhaps too many folks are trying to be outfitters..

Oh, Schmaltz. Your scheme regarding the insurance company is what's commonly referred to as fraud. Discussing it in and open forum constitutes conspiracy to commit fraud. The first could be considered a misdemeanor, but the conspiracy is a federal felony. If you want to discuss issues like that, I suggest you do it quietly and off line. Just a clue because you never know who's looking in...

 

[schmalts]

Actally its not fraud. If you get the permits and insurence policy thats it. There is nothing fraudulant about charging your buddy lets say 10$ for guiding him. Its a loophole not fruad.
Heres another example of a loophole, i know its not the same as the outfitter deal but it puts things into perspective. As a private pilot i cannot charge you for flying you somewhere, its against the law because i dont have a commercial rating. But.. As a privat pilot i can however split the fuel charges with you. even if its a 99/1 split. So if i flew you to florida i can split the 300$ fule charges with you, you pay 299 and i pay 1$. Its legal.
There is no fraud as there is no law that tells you exactly how much you need to show profit. most all small businesses show a loss for the first 3 years. Maybe you need to show an intent to make money but promotions need to be done too.

Business expenses and trips,ect

 

[Tom]

I used to be in a cooperative hunting group here in Texas. We have private land leases. Most often its 5-10 hunters leasing one ranch area to hunt. That coop. had about 200 members when I was first in it. We had many ranches, many parts of the state to hunt, many species, many seasons. We used it as a reservation system. If a ranch held 10, there could be 10 reservations. If that was full when you made your next reservation, you picked some other ranch or some other date. It worked great by increasing from the normal single lease availabe to having many available.

Hunter cooperatives can work if you work out all the bugs and manage them well. I suppose an idea for this group would be to buy landowner tags and have a system to use them fairly. I don't see how to use the draw system that way, unless at least one of us became guides with some outfitter for 3 years first as mentioned above. Much more would have to be worked out it appears also.

 

[Oak]

Well, I have to agree with Dan on this one. This sounds like fraud to me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The insurence policy is what we all need to chip in for , but its not going to be as expensive as you think when we put in the policy that the coverage will only be for real shady accidents. The state does not check out the policies i bet so get a real shady policy that covers the amount required but have a private clause with the insurence company to make it basicly a useless policy on the side. Make it so the insurence guy gets a few hundred buck for writing a polocy that can never really have a claim. (or find an insurence salesaman that likes elk hunting and let him use the outfitter preference for writing it!!)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once you've done one thing illegal like that, it makes everything after the fact illegal. Then you'd be getting in trouble with the F&G for having the wrong licenses. Then you're talking about losing hunting privileges. I think NM is a compact state, which means you'd lose privileges in over 20 states. Too big a risk for someone who really enjoys hunting.

I agree that those being outfitted shouldn't be in a separate draw pool. That's the angle to attack.

Oak

 

[Tom]

If we bought X landowner tags, that would be
X guaranteed hunts. If we pitch in 50% each, half will hunt every year and for 50% the cost and we could arrange our every other year however we want. No insurance needed, just hunt, with good odds at a reduced rate/year but pay 50% every year to be guaranteed every other year. We could pay 20% for 5 years and be guaranteed one year. If there is a long term contract on the landowner tags, they might be reduced in cost as he has repeat hunters that would follow our own consistent rules for using their land and he would not have to work to sell the tags that we guarantee to buy each year. That's the idea for how a cooperative group works for hunting. That could increase chances at more affordable annual costs per hunter.

Lobbying for those other changes or going to court is some other issue than the coop. idea here.