SG2
NM Senate bill 132
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
Get it done 03-Feb-21
Get it done 03-Feb-21
trophyhill 03-Feb-21
ohiohunter 03-Feb-21
Lost Arra 04-Feb-21
Shiras42 04-Feb-21
Bowfreak 04-Feb-21
ohiohunter 04-Feb-21
Brotsky 04-Feb-21
ohiohunter 04-Feb-21
LINK 04-Feb-21
ohiohunter 04-Feb-21
StickFlicker 04-Feb-21
trophyhill 04-Feb-21
WapitiBob 04-Feb-21
trophyhill 04-Feb-21
WapitiBob 04-Feb-21
MichaelArnette 04-Feb-21
MichaelArnette 04-Feb-21
HDE 04-Feb-21
Muddyboots 04-Feb-21
ohiohunter 04-Feb-21
smarba 04-Feb-21
mrelite 04-Feb-21
Roper 04-Feb-21
standswittaknife 04-Feb-21
ohiohunter 05-Feb-21
Dogman 05-Feb-21
Roper 05-Feb-21
jayhawkmarauder 05-Feb-21
WapitiBob 05-Feb-21
trophyhill 05-Feb-21
mrelite 05-Feb-21
smarba 05-Feb-21
Z Barebow 05-Feb-21
smarba 05-Feb-21
wilhille 05-Feb-21
trophyhill 05-Feb-21
steve 05-Feb-21
Matt 05-Feb-21
steve 05-Feb-21
trophyhill 05-Feb-21
TNHUNTER 06-Feb-21
trophyhill 06-Feb-21
Z Barebow 06-Feb-21
KHunter 11-Feb-21
KHNC 11-Feb-21
trophyhill 11-Feb-21
ohiohunter 12-Feb-21
trophyhill 13-Feb-21
ohiohunter 13-Feb-21
Spiral Horn 13-Feb-21
jdee 13-Feb-21
Dogman 14-Feb-21
From: Get it done
03-Feb-21
Up for legislation this year is to remove the outfitter quota that is given to them . Thoughts ? Sorry don’t have a link

From: Get it done
03-Feb-21

Get it done's embedded Photo
Get it done's embedded Photo
Get it done's embedded Photo
Get it done's embedded Photo
Sorry senate bill 312

03-Feb-21
My thoughts are there is a lot more too it than that! Have you read the bill? There are environmental and activist elements/overtones that go along with it. Changing the name from NMDGF to some other name. Adding positions or responsibilities for other wildlife like endangered species and whatever else they are sure to come up with. And a lot of other stuff. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I’m sure as with any other bill, it will be altered and modified so we shall see. Who is sponsoring the bill? Will money from NMGF start getting pilfered and skimmed? A lot of questions enter the fray if you are being objective....

From: ohiohunter
03-Feb-21
I haven’t had a chance to read it but I’ve heard there is all kinds of bad tag alongs... and maybe a point system.

From: Lost Arra
04-Feb-21
Guided hunting in NM brings in a billion tourism dollars??????

From: Shiras42
04-Feb-21
Not a good idea IMO. Also says it is a step toward landowner tag elimination. Bad for business all around...

From: Bowfreak
04-Feb-21
It won't happen. There is a reason for the outfitter pool and the landowner tags. The have the ear of the elected officials.

From: ohiohunter
04-Feb-21
Also they are trying to rename G&F.

From: Brotsky
04-Feb-21
Never underestimate the ability of left leaning politicians to mess things up more than they already are!

From: ohiohunter
04-Feb-21
They’re trying to broaden the department’s responsibilities to manage non game species, which seem to be part of the reason for the nomenclature. My take, G&F is independent financially... tasking them with extracurricular duties non game related should come with funding, state funding, and not bleed off GF income from licenses. This would probably result in increased fees, all while the state is trying to eliminate trapping and whatever income that creates.

From: LINK
04-Feb-21
The vast majority of guided hunters are non resident. Now the nr abs guided percentage totals 16%. Putting the guided hunters in the NR group and dropping it to 10% would only hurt me. So if I agreed with everything else in the bill I still wouldn’t vote for it. I guess doing away with the landowner tags at the same time could possibly offset a little of the lost percentage. As a rancher though I support the land owner system. When land owners have 100 elk grazing their field they either need to be able to hunt them to control their numbers or receive something for wintering the states elk.

From: ohiohunter
04-Feb-21
There’s more to this than just tags, the tags are the bait.

One group pushing this bill is the same group that is pushing the trapping ban, they also helped end coyote contests.

From: StickFlicker
04-Feb-21
As to the points system that it might include, YOU DO NOT WANT A POINT SYSTEM!. I know it sounds attractive, for those that haven't drawn in a while, but you don't want it.

04-Feb-21
Yes there are tag $$$ increases. For non residence. I smell another boycot coming on. Yes bow freak, the outfitting and landowners have their ear. But in case you don’t guide here and haven’t noticed, there’s a new sherif in town. The oil and gas industry had there ear too and they are being stifled so don’t think it can’t happen to an industry who is having things given to them at no cost......

From: WapitiBob
04-Feb-21
It would be a benefit to read the Bill; it has nothing to do with LO tags or a point system. And just about every western game dept manages for non game species. Regular Elk NR would go to $700.

link https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0312.pdf

04-Feb-21
I think you have to pass it to see what’s really in it Bob. If it passes it opens doors to a whole lot of possibilities. Some good and some not good but that would only be speculation at this point.

From: WapitiBob
04-Feb-21

WapitiBob's Link
pdf of the Bill

start on page 112 or so

04-Feb-21
Well here’s the problem with the way New Mexico runs things. Number one landowner tags really hurt resident access in a huge way. I have family who live in New Mexico and they have a really hard time hunting. Also, I really think that the outfitters and landowners benefit from the economic boost more than the other portions of the economy like restaurants and hotels because often times they provide lodging and food etc.

Also, the state loses because many people did not put in for the tags especially non-residence due to the fact that they want to plan to do it yourself hunt and cannot afford an outfitter should they even draw a tag.

Interested in everyone’s input on this law and especially on the other inclusions and pork that may be included in the bill

04-Feb-21
Thanks for the link wapiti bob

From: HDE
04-Feb-21
"But in case you don’t guide here and haven’t noticed, there’s a new sherif in town. The oil and gas industry had there ear too and they are being stifled..."

And that industry will again once the push for "green" energy belly-flops.

From: Muddyboots
04-Feb-21
I would be pleased to see the guided/non-resident pool deleted. Non-residents who draw can still hire a guide if they so choose.

From: ohiohunter
04-Feb-21
Too much guff in that bill, but everyone keeps talking about the tag allotments... guess we will see when they take the bait.

From: smarba
04-Feb-21
Although there may be much bluster about removing guided pool and more tags allocated to residents and DIY NRs, even without reading the bill methinks this is just a teaser to obtain hunter support. Given our leadership in NM and the way it leans, I would all but guarantee NOTHING is intended to be changed that will improve things for hunters...

From: mrelite
04-Feb-21
I think if they were after hunter support they would have tried to incorporate some of that support prior to submitting the bill. I am afraid that hunter support doesn't really mean much, just look at the trapping ban bill, it has the real possibility of passing. Fricken city dwellers banning trapping in rural NM, I hope something happens and it stalls out but if it does it isn't because of Joe hunter putting pressure on anyone, it will probably be because of the outfitters, LO's, cattle growers, the trappers association, BHA and NMWF has also come out against the trapping bill.

SB312, Looking at the bill it seems very long but most of it is already on the books, basically a cut and paste with the only changes being crossed out and the replacement verbiage underlined so it' pretty easy to skim quickly through it.

Things I can be in agreement with the bill. The 90/10 no outfitter pool, anyway you look at this residents should be happy, NR's probably stay at similar draw odds and LO tags skyrocket. The bill deals with the Jennings law, the first step in revamping the depredation and E-Plus issue. The bill adds a couple species to the Wanton Waste law, bears and lions I think, bears and lions are perfectly edible so it's a good thing. I think it adjusts some fees for tags but I didn't look close at it. I also think it gives the department the ability to create a depredation stamp if they feel the need. This is just what I think I read...........I don't know how to make heads or tails out of other things in the bill

From: Roper
04-Feb-21
samrba x 100

04-Feb-21
samrba... interesting take...

From: ohiohunter
05-Feb-21
JP, proposed is flat fee for bull NR tags. There will no longer be a cheaper standard hunt compared to the quality hunt seasons. All bull tags will be $700+/- and no more $540 tags.

The additional wildlife duties will carry financial burden but they’ve agreed to give X amount allotment one time contribution. Hence the name change, which will carry its own Unnecessary financial burden.

GF literally just implemented a scoring system for E-Plus eligibility which I felt weeded out the 5acre nothing ranches getting tags. If the E-Plus is eliminated there will be more tags on the same amount of public land which will lessen the quality of the experience, some units are already crowded. Those same units carry a lot of E-Plus tags. Idk how they plan to proceed from there but I think I read that LO’s will be given money for wildlife destruction and grazing... it would be nice if those ranches receiving aid had to comply to an open gate policy. That could be interesting, but nonetheless there are groups pushing this bill that are not good for sportsmen and that alone makes me leery.

From: Dogman
05-Feb-21
If Defenders of Wildlife advocates for it you need to oppose it.

MichaelA, how on earth do you think landowner tags hurt access? The UW EPLUS tags do the exact opposite.

From: Roper
05-Feb-21
UW LO a tags were the best thing that ever happened to elk hunting here IMO. You have all those big ranches open to the public plus all the small places open too and they don’t just give out tags to just any resident LO you have to have land in elk country and qualify for LO tags. Most people come to NM and don’t know the good places to hunt UW places but the e plus program made it great if you know what your doing!! Plus if you don’t draw you can buy a LO tag, might have to save for a year or two but I know guys that buy tags every two years. I have been involved with eplus LO tags for a long time and every time I see a thread like this about them I can tell most the people don’t know what their talking about. I’m sure the nutty liberals in this state will do what ever they want in the end but right now NM elk hunting is as good as ever. The one thing I do wish NMG&F would do is manage some of these units for quality and not quantity some of them are slipping bad all in the name of $$ . So quit your b=%#@“;$ and put in for the draw or buy a LO tag and come out and go elk hunting.

05-Feb-21
Wouldn"t odds decrease, by adding more applicants from the outfitter that would by far offset the increased tags. Someone do the math.

From: WapitiBob
05-Feb-21
Yes, NR odds will decrease if the Bill passes.

05-Feb-21
No, odds would not decrease because those applying in the outfitter pool would boycott and go to Montana if that passes ;)

From: mrelite
05-Feb-21
A percentage of those in that applied in the OF pool will gobble up LO tags prior to the draw because they know it will be a dog race to buy LO tags afterwards. I think it will balance out and be similar odds for NR's, either way the odds go LO tags will probably cost more.

From: smarba
05-Feb-21

smarba's embedded Photo
smarba's embedded Photo
I'm not sure if this will work, but I attempted to read through and weed out the instances of name changes "game and fish" to "wildlife" and non-essential information and pasted it into a photo - we'll see if it's legible. I attempted to included page numbers in the screenshots so those who are interested can quickly skim to the area in the original document. I also included red lines as separators between screenshots to identify where different pages begin.

PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME I CAUGHT EVERY INSTANCE OF PERTINENT CHANGES AND READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT FOR YOURSELF!!!!

From: Z Barebow
05-Feb-21
I would rather deal with the devil I know vs the devil I do not know. Support from Defenders of Wildlife is a negative indicator. The change of name may appear to be innocent. I can assure you it is not. Look at when Colorado merged the Division of Wildlife and Parks. This was not done for efficiency. (Although that is what many advocates stated) . DOW had plenty of revenue. Parks department was not self sustaining. What better way to fund Parks (Bike trails, green spaces etc) than leverage the revenue from DOW (Primarily hunting/fishing license money) As smarba mentioned, who is supporting this? And why? The bedfellows on this bill are not friendly to hunters. Don't try and kick the football Charlie Brown(hunters). We know how this will end.

From: smarba
05-Feb-21
Z Barebow, I share your feelings. Name changes aren't just done just for the heck of it. Any changes are carefully thought out with a purpose. At this point I'm not exactly sure what the ramifications are even if things sound fine at face value.

Regarding your concern for funding bike trails or whatever, this already occurs. NMDGF is self-sustaining and generates excess revenue every year. They are allocated an annual budget and the excess revenue is rolled into the General Fund so sportsman/women's $ is already being skimmed.

From: wilhille
05-Feb-21
Would love to get rid of jennings law.

This thing doesn't sit right with me though. It appears that there are additional hands trying to get into the cookie jar.

05-Feb-21
The name change is simple. They, meaning anti American liberals, are attempting to fundamentally change the department. This just helps set the table. It’s quacking like a duck.

As a hunter, I love having LO tags available for me. It adds opportunities. If you are against land owner tags, you are for less opportunity.

I don’t know anyone who is for the Jennings Law. But it sure does get used as a bargaining chip. The only way to level the playing field is to just get rid of it.

From: steve
05-Feb-21
David, please explain to me what the"Jennings Law is. Is it exclusive to NM ? Never hunted NM, elk hunted out of Bayfield, CO for about 4 years. We got down into the Chama area, that's beautiful country. You ever come to Mt to hunt you're always welcome in my camp. Steve

From: Matt
05-Feb-21
California changed the name from its Department of Fish & Game to Fish & Wildlife a number of years ago. Sounds like this is an attempted move in the same vein.

From: steve
05-Feb-21
Sorry for the above post folks, that was meant to be a PM to David, not a thread reply, my screw up ! First one today, maybe !LOL

05-Feb-21
No worries Steve. I screw up at least a couple times a day. I think I got you beat

From: TNHUNTER
06-Feb-21
Just a question. Why not have LO tags but make them for the specific land that was granted them ? No unit wide tags. Wouldn’t that increase the amount of tags on public ground. A hunter won’t buy a LO tag from a guy with 30 acres.

06-Feb-21
They claim that all the damage to crops by ungulates is not being done during hunting seasons so they need the UW tags. Look. Bottom line is the bottom line. It’s all about the money. Which as a resident hunter I don’t mind paying $600 dollars for a cow tag. However when I see a cow tag go for $1000 dollars, I will take my money to CO for half that. But at least I have that choice.

Now all that being said, rumor has it that there is no give and take with the outfitters and landowners. It’s their way or no way. So frankly they will get what they deserve and can rely on cattle. Which is their business and leave the hunting to the public. And another thing that really pisses me off is these landowners piss and moan about ungulates eating their crops, yet their cattle are all over public land and in some cases decimating the habitat for the wildlife. Particularly when we have drought conditions and not taking care of the guzzlers so the game almost has no choice but to feed and water on private.

From: Z Barebow
06-Feb-21
Re Jennings Law. If I recall, Rancher had elk hitting his alfalfa fields. G & F was willing to fence his field. He refused. He claimed private property rights. Real goal is He wanted to sell LO tags. But he only owned ag fields. ( not where elk were huntable ) So he started shooting elk ( in the summer) At one point he had 20-30 dead elk. Very public w/dead elk in various states of decomposition. They tried charging him but he put blame on G and F for not giving him tags. He was trying to make a statement. Ultimately I believe a legislator(Jennings) picked up the cause and the law was passed.

From: KHunter
11-Feb-21

KHunter's embedded Photo
KHunter's embedded Photo
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.

From: KHNC
11-Feb-21
IF they eliminated Land Owner tags , or at least changed them to "ranch only" , it would be awesome!! Put those tags in the regular draw. 90/10 with ZERO outfitter pool would be great as well. I dont know about the rest, but i totally agree with these two things happening! long overdue!

11-Feb-21
There is a very significant amount of tags that go to landowners as you know Kenny. I’ve heard as much as 50% of all tags. Many of those tags are UW.

From: ohiohunter
12-Feb-21
Khnc, that would not be awesome. It would take some delicate legislation to make it beneficial to the public hunter. Some ranches provide access due to the tags issued, without that access it would cut off public land. Furthermore the reduced huntable land would suffer 2 fold from increased pressure due to less access and more tags.

13-Feb-21
Anyone who thinks there is increased access because LO’s selling IW tags are supposed to open their gates to the public is kidding themselves. On paper it all looks good but the reality is the information needed to access these lands is buried so deep that the average hunter has no idea where to look to find out where the access points are. What’s that? The G&F has a listing with phone numbers to unlock gates? Good luck with that. The simple fix is to get the access points available to OnX, GAIA, Garmin etc. the tech is there. Make it available. Otherwise it’s all talk.

From: ohiohunter
13-Feb-21
They aren’t abundant but they exist. In fact a friend of mine did his research This year and killed his fist bull on private prop open to the public. Or you could take the tag bait and vote yes on this bill. How does this bill address private land hunting?? Sure would hate to see it go the way antelope did, unlimited otc.

From: Spiral Horn
13-Feb-21
See these threads on pending western state legislative issues coming up with increasing frequency. Don’t the organizations representing hunters within your states have any lobbyists or connections to lobbyists? Understanding all of the potential effects of pending legislation is a pretty specialized skill and there are folks really good at it. Folks here are really passionate hunters who get really spun up about what they perceive as the core issues, but they are often misinformed. If there are hearings on these matters and arguments on these matters contain misinformation they are usually dismissed by those making the decisions. So, if interested in preserving hunting and scientific sustainable use of wildlife it would be well worth it to get the assistance of or be in the information loop of experts in this sort of thing. Certainly wouldn’t hurt the cause.

From: jdee
13-Feb-21
If they do away with LO UW tags most of you will still b&#$@ because you didn’t draw but then the opportunity to buy a tag will be gone. I think they have been great, they have provided some great elk hunting land. Save some money, buy a UW tag every few years and do some of the finest elk hunting there is. Without them put in and then sit home and complain about not hunting.

From: Dogman
14-Feb-21
“On paper it all looks good but the reality is the information needed to access these lands is buried so deep that the average hunter has no idea where to look to find out where the access points are.”...

If you know how to post on bowsite you should be able to figure out how to get the UW EPLUS maps. They are right on the G&F website. If you can’t figure that out you probably shouldn’t be handling lethal weaponry.

As far as EPLUS tags go they are doled out based on the % of private vs public land in a given unit. 100% public= no landowner tags. 100% private means all the tags are private and unlimited (which is the case in a few units). The landowners choose RO or UW. The benefit of the UW tag is you get access. Those that spout off garbage like the tags should all be RO don’t understand the program and should do some more homework. The virtue signaling in such ignorant talk is nauseating. For the record ~75% of land in the primary management zone is public. Therefore 3/4 of the tags in those units are in the public draw. If you look at NM as a whole and talk about “half the elk permits are given to landowners”, that narrative is disingenuous and used solely to push an agenda. In a state that is well over half private land that you can’t access without permission why on earth would you think the EPLUS program is anything but a positive thing for hunters, and hunter/landowner relations.

  • Sitka Gear