Contributors to this thread:
Thank you BHA New Mexico
"According to Wynn, the change would not have happened without the efforts of the NMWF and the NM BHA chapter."
The change brings NMDGF back into compliance with state law. Whether you agree with the law or not is a whole different issue. As is, New Mexico residents are likely to get fewer tags than residents of other western states, like Arizona. Many NM residents would love to get rid of the outfitter pool and give non-residents up to 10% of licenses like Arizona.
Its good thing for NM residents, the law states they are to be allocated 84% of the tags to be placed in the resident draw. The state should follow its own laws. Furthermore, the state sportmans organizations are obligated to represent the STATES sportsmen, so NM chapter of BHA and NM Wildlife Federation are doing their job.
Seems to me a NR like myself would have to have more balls than brains to complain about the residents of the state getting the proper number of tags. NM has its issues, the outfitter pool and the landowner welfare is total BS, that said they have an excellent draw system and it very well executed.
I wouldn't have guessed this was in BHAs wheelhouse. I'm hoping they venture out of the land access/land use path a bit to help stop ballot box biology with the wolf issue we are facing here in CO.
Can’t get to the link.
Sounds like BHA helped out hunting in NM with the issue.
Just not sure exactly what the issue was there.
Unfortunately, groups like the BHA and NMWF are more like activists who support liberal agendas under the guise of being hunter friendly. They both talk a good game while pulling new members in. My guess is that they both support more wolves and would love to see Griz reintroduced.......
^^^ Look at who is on the national BOD... Thats why they won't help with wolf forcing. They have one of the chief forcing proponents among them.
Yep. And the BHA is strictly an access group when talking wolves. But, has zero problems commenting and getting involved in non access issues when it allows them to express national’s politics.
Wouldn’t it be great if we, in Colorado, had someone, BHA or otherwise, fighting to get resident tag allocations more in line with other western states?
Hoot, agree, and I've brought this up in Sportsmans Roundtable meetings. But the current CPW directive is that any changes must be revenue-neutral, so there's no way they will plug the butt of the goose that lays the golden eggs without a massive resident license price increase, which residents don't want. I often get the sense that if Colorado's license allocation shifted to 80-20 in favor of nonresidents, the CPW would be thrilled.
I know Lou, the bureaucrats won’t agree to anything until they have equal or more dollars to squander...uphill battle for sure, and not very likely to get an organized effort together to come up with actual solutions that cpw would consider in regards to their revenue “problems” and how that relates to R/NR allocations...
A national organization is not going to take the lead on reducing nonresident tags because their members are nonresidents in 49 states. BHA went through that recently when CO chapter said it would be in favor of it.
Colorado is leading with their Rezzy to NR ratio the other states need to get in line.
I think the NM draw system is the best there is right now. Not perfect but better than points for sure. I must be missing it but what I just read doesn’t give residents a single extra tag. It will reduce the total number of tags by reducing the tags to NRs and outfitters but it doesn’t look like an increase for residents. Am I reading it wrong?
Ruh roh. BHA making a positive difference? That’ll mess some folks up in here! Say it ain’t so! ;)
..."so there's no way they will plug the butt of the goose that lays the golden eggs without a massive resident license price increase, which residents don't want."
For the life of me, I don't get this. Most every CO resident hunter I know would gladly pay more for tags, if it meant fewer non-residents to compete with during hunting seasons, especially elk. Seems to me the hunters who don't want to have their cake and eat it too.
Matt, I agree. Yet when the recent resident price increase was being debated, hunter after hunter spoke at the public meetings to claim that a modest increase was making hunting a "rich man's sport". I finally had enough and told one grumpy whiner that if he couldn't afford a $60 resident elk tag. He had no business hunting in the first place.
Lou, yep. You can't complain about overcrowding due to non-residents, when they are funding the inflationary cost increases to wildlife management, while residents fees have basically remained constant for over a decade.
Gunnar, you've got it right. The number of tags issued will now match that listed in the regs prior to the draw. I agree that NM has one of the best draw systems.
CPw has a spending problem.
NR $$$$$’s are like crack cocaine to them.
Mind boggling that Colorado resident hunters were already paying much more than other states for more crowded, shorter, lower quality hunting (less) before the CPw resident price increases.
Nothing in the bill requires them to do anything to improve hunting in this state.
Really astounding that CPw was making more than any two western states on hunting licenses before. Now, probably more than any 3 western states.
And still no improvements to hunting in this state. Actually, some major losses for bowhunters...
Maybe I am the only one sore over the NM change. It was a rounding change where there were essentially no changes to the resident tag allocations but NR allocations lost tags due to the round-down rule. For example if there are 180 tags issued for a unit and NR get 6% it equates to 10.8 tags (rounded to 11 tags in the past). New changes require rounding down to 10 tags.
Non-residents pay a premium for tag allotments that are low to begin with.
I’m not debating that the 6% is unfair. My qualm is that this was a petty change that was punitive to NR whom are willing to pay a premium and the change offered no tangible benefit to residents.
I used to think a lot of BHA but if this is where folks are concentrating their time and energy then that is disappointing. I hope this is the exception rather than the rule.
"Mind boggling that Colorado resident hunters were already paying much more than other states for more crowded, shorter, lower quality hunting (less) before the CPw resident price increases."
Really? What states were those, besides Montana?
Rwd3, the benefit to residents comes in increased quotas for future years. The rounding error may be negligible for deer and elk herds, but it is quite significant for sheep, where the quotas are adjusted every year to meet population objectives.
"Maybe I am the only one sore over the NM change. It was a rounding change where there were essentially no changes to the resident tag allocations but NR allocations lost tags due to the round-down rule."
Think maybe there is another avenue to be more upset about. You think residents are happy with only getting 10% more than 3/4 the tags offered in their home state, many of which cannot afford to "pay a premium" in another state as a nonresident.
I posted this with a hint of sarcasm. Unless I am reading this wrong, no one received additional tags, Res or NR. I get the possibility that this might incrementally help someone who wants to draw a sheep tag. But for the rest of us (Res or NR) who don't apply for sheep, it appears to not help any deer or elk applicant. And it removes tags from NR's. The biological impact is and has been minuscule. In WYO, if someone can draw as a party even if only one tag is available, the whole party draws. The ungulate population appears to be doing just fine. I don't see how this helps hunting. Change my mind.
BHA was definitely not spearheading this movement. Wynn ensured the LAW was followed. Historically it had not been out of convenience.
Statute says 84% not 83.5.
"According to Wynn, the change would not have happened without the efforts of the NMWF and the NM BHA chapter"
Probably good to get the process running as it was supposed to be. Here in CO., I would be fine rounding res tags down if we could get 84% of limited tags. We are 65% and in some units its 65% after 20%-25% are taken off the top for land owners.
We do have 80%:20% in some high demand units. More qualify for that now but the Commission is in no hurry to include them.
Same three or four guys smashing on BHA every chance they get. It's hilarious. Also boring.
Glad to see a 5th gen, BHA leader take a position and win -- especially when it is outside the prototypical "access public lands" agenda. Then again, the SW CO Archery elk issue wasn't in BHA's "wheelhouse" either.
Wolves are high on my priority list. Very.
"Same three or four guys smashing on BHA every chance they get. It's hilarious. Also boring."
Very true Chase, what gets me is that it seems like they have no other life then waiting for a thread to pop up and cast aspersions. Guys,... get outside, go ice fishing, snowshoeing, or something. Focusing too much on this stuff constantly will turn you into grumpy old men.
If youre referriing to me as one of the "three or four guys", well, I don't sit around waiting for anything. Went snowshoeing yesterday, going fishing this morning.
BHA topics are hilarious, because fanboys scratch around trying to find any little morsel to try to show how BHA helps hunters. But when the rubber meets the road, when real hunting opportunities are threatened, BHA tends to "sit it out". That is what frustrates me. They could help, yet they do nothing.
I'll concede that there are probably a good number of BHA members who are individually very active in hunting issues, and perhaps a stray chapter or two. But at the national level or even state level, as a unified organization, pffffft. Easier to bash Trump appointees who are actually doing something to keep public lands open for hunting, rather than simply "keeping public lands public". Somehow I don't recall BHA leadership bashing Obama appointees who were trying to reduce hunting opportunities on public land.
Stix- where were you when BHA and its members were dangling from the Sierra Club teat and trashing my state bowhunting org? But you know we go wayyyyy back eh? You need not be worried about what I've become or what I participate in so as to become grumpy. Stop being my mommy ok?:) As long as BHA has a group in Pa and our vast source of acres upon acres of state owned game lands, Ill keep my youthful vigor by doing my best to provide preventive karma, protecting that land from the Feds and its minions like BHA.
you are correct Lou. BHA actually sat on one of Obama's committees. They are funded by extremists and "suckers" that donate their hard earned working class $ because they've been duped into believing this organization is a hunting organization when in reality they are a big part of the "anti" movement.
I'm not sure I agree that BHA is truly "anti", although they have some very questionable bedfellows. And many members truly value hunting. But they definitely also have many members and leaders for whom hunting is pretty far down on the priority list. I guess that's what frustrates me the most. They should rebrand as Backcountry Hikers and Anglers, and simply accept that many of their members hunt (like the Sierra Club used to be, before they jumped off the cliff.)