If this rule change passes, odds in the DIY pool will drop even farther as these minimally guided hunts have gained popularity over the last few years, spreading more applicants between the outfitter and DIY pool. Apparently the welfare some of these outfitters in NM currently receive isn't enough. They want more.
Contact the Game Commission if you feel inclined to voice your opinion.
Honestly the entire Outfitter pool should go away IMO. But it comes as no surprise that the NMCOG is pushing this: I'm surprised they didn't push it years ago. The fly-by-night guides offering this service (honestly it's also a bunch of guides who let their friends enter the draw with their number too) have cheapened the value of a guided tag.
In other words, an elk tag might be worth $5K (or way more) to a legitimate guide, but a hunter with fly-by-night draws it for $300. If even 25% of the outfitter pool tags are drawn by Self-Guided, that's a huge chunk of revenue lost for outfitters.
I've said for years that NMCOG should push to DO AWAY with the Outfitter pool. The fly-by-night guides would find themselves with no way to make a living and the outfitters that are above board and do a good job would continue to have clients, just like in every other state.
There appears to be a divide amongst the outfitters down there...
Edit, it appears some on the Outfitter Council brought this forward in an attempt to revert back to the days of 100% fully outfitted hunts. I should have dug deeper.
Or any other profession/industry. There should be no entitlement for outfitters getting a boost for business. If you're a good outfitter, you have nothing to worry about to do away with the outfitter pool.
In a way, the outfitters are getting exactly what they had coming to them. By creating the outfitter pool, every Tom, Dick, and Harry signed up to get a piece of it. Now they have 250+ licensed outfitters in their state to compete with, the vast majority of which would not be around if it were not for the outfitter pool of tags. They are reaping what they sowed and now that their spoils have soured, they are trying to change the rules. With the quality of hunting NM offers, a good outfitter should have no trouble staying booked without a special pool of licenses.
All of that aside, the fact remains that this rule change is bad for the hunter of average means who wants to experience New Mexico.
And I totally agree that they are reaping what they sowed. The only reason 250+ can be licensed is the fly-by-night guys who wouldn't be in business if there was no guaranteed outfitter pool.
I've nearly been assaulted for referring to the "set-aside" as a subsidy. I guess everyone has a different definition of welfare....excuse me, "government assistance".
If an outfitter pool of tags is not "government assistance" then I'm really not sure what is. Can't we just add those tags back to the general NR quota and send affected outfitters an EBT card with equivalent value?
I think a 10% quota is more than fair...
SB-196 is the program that allows minimal guiding. The hunters must shell out $838 for the Non-res. license and tag fees when they file the application. Costs to the outfitter: 2 hunters $1500 -3 hunters $1750 - and max of 4-hunters $2000 plus all must pay 7% tax on the transaction. Far from cheap, but less expensive than a fully guided hunt. You now have a guide (also expecting a tip) working for you to help you get into the game and hopefully get a shot. This program accommodates people that are comfortable hunting on there own, that can't afford a the fully guided option. Because of the costs and the required effort to make arrangements, the subscriber stands a better chance in the draw. Additionally, the hunters get a safety factor of having a guide for the a few days and gets an overview of the unit with a decent starting point and usually a plan "B". Often the guides will make a wellness check on the group, call, or text to see if your having any success and are otherwise OK. Looking at the draw results, the number of fully guided operations often account for much less than the 10% in a given unit. These tags might go under subscribed if not for the SB-196 program. These tags are not coming from the 84% resident pool and the residents can apply in the 10% outfitter pool if they wish. If eliminated as a option I simply will not go for a fully guided hunt that I can't afford. I just would not be able to go at all. The real well fair issue IMHO is the "Unit Wide landowner tag" issue. These tags are available to all residents and non-residents alike that can justify the high price of the permit. Once purchased, a Non-res. must apply for the tag to utilized in a particular hunt code and pay the same fees as every other non-resident. This option usually prices out 98% of the public. Outfitters often buy the UW tags from the landowners and direct them to there "high end" clients. At these prices, this a non starter for all but the elites. The non-res. must be very creative and diligent in his efforts to find a place to hunt elk or mule deer out of state. It is never easy and often costly. I just hope people don't jack with things too much and push me father out. We all love elk hunting and the opportunities are limited. It is what it is. LaGriz
LaGriz: nothing says that if you tag out you have to go home. One can camp, hike, etc. all they want to during a hunting season. Although you'd better be carful carrying a weapon around if you've already tagged out. Might be able to justify a handgun for self defense, but probably an uphill battle explaining why you're walking around in the woods with a bow unless you have a valid tag for something else.
Spin it any way you'd like, but the MAIN reason people apply for the "Self Guided" option of the Outfitter Pool is to take advantage of the better draw odds than NR DIY. I know of residents that do it for particular species/units in which the outfitter odds happen to be better than resident odds.
The outfitters themselves have "cheapened" their service by devaluing a $10K guided hunt to be a $500 Self-Guided and better draw odds. I'm guessing that too many of the allocated tags are getting drawn by $500 folks and the outfitters aren't making enough income off the welfare system.
I'm completely comfortable with 90/10 or 85/15 or anything in between. The real problem is that if we're at 90/10, we're still only getting about 90% of ROUGHLY HALF the tags that should be available in the draw. There are many layers to our problems. The outfitter set-aside is one, and our UW LO tags is another issue altogether.
As an aside, I'll be participating in a serious conversation with our Dept. this Saturday as they weigh suggestions from many groups about possibly outlawing trapping on public lands in NM. I've never been a trapper, but I'll be doing my best to fight for trappers rights this weekend.
You are absurdly mistaken. SB196 as originally drafted was a terrific solution and not the problem at all. The problem was, LO's and Outfitters rallied a huge effort of opposition from NR hunters. When it cam down to the final committee meeting there were two groups in the room at the Roundhouse, 1) Resident hunters supporting SB196 and Outfitters/LO's [coalition] opposing SB196.
A legislator completely amended the bill from how it was proposed to attempt to satisfy both groups present. The result was that DIY, NR's got HOSED!
I was at every meeting, every session, most "closed-door" roundtables, etc. The coalition [Outfitters and guides, cattlegrowers, SFW, wool growers, etc] recruited the heck out of NR's to fight SB196 as originally introduced and then completely shafted that same group when the amended bill was proposed in committee.
SB196 was the most resident-friendly piece of hunting legislation passed in recent history. Coincidentally, resident groups would have likely fought like hell to protect the NR DIY hunters also except that the "coalition" had already made NR's the enemies of residents. Then, when the amendment was introduced not one member of the coalition stood up to protect the DIY, NR hunter. That was a very sad day....but SB196 was absolutely not the problem.
During the legislative session wherein SB196 was passed NM residents began the session receiving 78% of the big game draw tags. DIY NR's were allocated 10% of the draw tags. Hunters obligated to an outfitter received 12% of the draw tags. SB196 was intended to keep DIY NR tags at 10% and increase resident opportunity to 90%....in line with other western states. As it turned out residents ended up with 6% fewer tags than the bill proposed. The outfitter pool, however captured the 10% of tags the bill was designed to eliminate....those in the outfitter pool! The only reason DIY NR's even get the 6% of tags they do today is because NM residents gave up that 6% and settled for 84% instead of 90%.
So, how again was SB196 the problem here?
Not one to criticize without solutions, I will pm you what I think should have been done and what I see as a good way to change this outfitter law.
Granted, yes, there will be a revenue issue. Only thing to do is raise tag price. I cannot speak for everyone, but I'd rather pay a little more instate to hunt more often than to pay an "equivalent" amount to hunt out of state because of difficulty to draw.
"Spin it any way you'd like, but the MAIN reason people apply for the "Self-Guided" option of the Outfitter Pool is to take advantage of the better draw odds than NR DIY. “I know of residents that do it for particular species/units in which the outfitter odds happen to be better than resident odds.”
This statement makes one of my points. These tags like the Land Owner tags are also equally available to the resident. The reason they are unpopular is #1 the costs, and the fact that the residents have a decent chance of drawing a 1st,2nd, or 3rd. choice hunt code without the added expense of an outfitter. Also remember that the WMA’s and cow tags are off limits to resident since the changes made a few years ago.
“You see outfitters and the “NR coalition” just needed the right feel good bill to latch this set-a-side to, and 196 was exactly that. Not one to criticize without solutions, I will pm you what I think should have been done and what I see as a good way to change this outfitter law.”
What exactly is a Non-resident coalition? It sounds like you think that a voice exists for them? I’m here to tell you I know of no such organization. We are at the mercy of your legislature (as are you) and have no voice. NM Sportsmen and Game & fish hold our fate as want-to be elk hunters in their hands. I’m just great full you have no preference point system and that when the stars all line up (on a rare occasion) I might get a chance to hunt.
It would be very helpful though to our NMDG&F Department's budget to reduce the cost of lease for hunting on State Trust Lands. Aubrey Dunn, extorted our department in a serious way. Garrett VeneKlasen is the candidate most likely to reverse that travesty.
And therein lies the problem.
It's actually not a problem. It's part of the "checks and balances". Since the governor appoints both the Director and all of the Commissioners, the legislature holds the proverbial "power of the purse". If the Department could come up with a plan, with public support, to effectively use the excess monies (see my posts in the proposed antelope thread) the Legislature would be inclined to do so. However with the current divide between LO's vs Sportsmen, there's alot of apprehension with the Legislature.
HDE, I understand the concept and am very well versed in this. The legislature has gradually been formed on three population centers (counties and districts). Mainly Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces (Bernalillo county, Sandoval, Valencia, Santa fe, and to a lesser extent Sierra and Dona Ana ) . Those three (combined) are the majority. There are more legilators who reside in Bernalillo, Sandoval And Santa Fe county alone to trump the other 30 counties. Yet many of these legislators in said districs are not sportsmen (hunters, trappers, fishermen etc.) and are not aware of the issues. They are attorneys, retired public servants, or other business owners (Landowners, Ranchers, Wool growers, etc.) who have the means to run for office and serve. Our legislature, Senate and House, does not get a salary (unlike most states), they are basically volunteers who only recieve a measly stipend while in a 60-90 day session and that's it. They generally hear from "special interest" groups who have funding to contribute to their campaign. I know this for a fact.
Many are elected by a very slim ratio, less then 20 votes sometimes. "Congress" is reserved for federally elected officials. There is no congress at the state level. It's the NM Senate and the NM House. They are all vulnerable and can be unelcted at any time, like Jennings.
Because - senate and reps make up a congress of "delegates" from various districts.
They are getting "something" from it, if not personally then a group they represent to give them preferential "favors".
We need to find new legislators who can make a difference, and there are still some up there. Unfortuntely the system here in NM is broken. Good leaders in local communities can't quit their day jobs (which feed themselves and family) to run for an unpaid position in the Legislature. It's that simple and that's why we have a bunch of wealthy attorneys, retired folks and landowners up in the legislature. They can afford it.
It would do you some good to not wear your feelings on your sleeve. No conspiracy and you did well in proving my point. They all get something from it - whether it be self serving or the gratification of making a positive difference. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they are a troll. Perhaps one day you'll figure that out.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find a sand box and hit it with a 10 lb sledge...
I read the post several times before replying and the words "something" and especially "favors" were used to imply a negative connotation amonst legistators. Every human does "something". It's a given. Yet that seemingly was not implied when using such a word in the context. Especially using "favors" along with it in a single sentence.