Contributors to this thread:
Changes to NM Outfitter Guide Rule
It looks like New Mexico is considering changing their rules regarding the outfitter pool. Right now if you draw in the outfitter pool you are only required to be accompanied by your guide for a part of 2 days. You are then free to hunt unguided for the remainder of the season. The New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides is in the process of getting these rules changed so that your license is only valid for the days you are contracted with your outfitter and so that you need to be accompanied by a guide. So, you could draw 1st archery, a two week hunt, and be guided the first week only. Currently if you are unsuccessful you can continue to hunt. With the proposed changes, this would not be allowed.
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.
Odds will drop farther?! Odds will greatly increase, because currently a HUGE amount of hunters are doing the "Self-Guided" hunt where they pay ~$300-500 to get into the Outfitter pool, talk with the outfitter for part of 2 days (e.g. packed in and packed out via horse, then hunt on their own for a week).
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.
Odds will drop farther in the DIY (nonguided) pool is what I said, for exactly the reason you stated. Lots of hunters are doing the "minimal guided" hunt and they'll be forced into the nonguided pool. I agree, they should do away with the outfitter pool completely, but at least now, more hunters are spread out across the NR pools. These changes will just make it tougher for the hunters of average means to get a tag in NM.
The rule isn't changing that much but the Commission is interpreting the Statute to mean the license isn't valid when not accompanied by a guide.
There appears to be a divide amongst the outfitters down there...
Thanks for the correction, WB. From the email I received from an outfitter who does the minimally guided hunts, they made it sound like it was pressure from the NMCOG, on the commission, that spurred this.
Jim is just a tad upset. I helped the Dept employee who wrote that 2 day requirement and this interpretation is nowhere close to what was intended. The license being valid only when accompanied never came up and truthfully, is so absurd it wasn't even thought about.
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.
"...and do a good job would continue to have clients, just like in every other state."
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.
HDE, I agree 100%.
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.
Oregon has outfitter tags but our hunting sucks so nobody cares.
I understand your initial point Nowiser, and agree that the "Self-Guided" will migrate away from the Outfitter pool into the DIY. It will generally hurt NR DIY the most, because very few residents apply in the "Self-Guided" pool.
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.
Despite popular belief, Capitalism works. We just need to get a lot of industries in NM [Outfitters included] to agree to this "Only the strong survive" philosophy. Ironically, our outfitting industry is one of the most "conservative" groups on the planet. Mention Obamacare and you better be prepared for an onslaught of attacks. Meanwhile we've got Outfittercare and most in the same group would fight to defend it.
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 would prefer the extra tags be added to the resident pool instead of NR. 8^)
I think a 10% quota is more than fair...
HDE: 84% Res; 10% Outfitter; 6% NR DIY. So if (that's a huge if) the 10% outfitter were to go away that would leave only 6% for NR DIY. Off topic, but I think every state should be consistent across the board ~10-15% for NR. I think our allocation is in the ballpark at 16% for NR. It's the welfare allocation I can't stomach, and that the vast majority of LO tags go to NR.
This is a raw deal if passed, Under this proposed change, a tag acquired in the 10% outfitter pool would only be valid for the 6, 5, or 2 days of guiding contracted by the hunter, even though the tag clearly states it's good for 14 days or 10 days or what every other person hunting that same season enjoys. A hunter who tags out early may not be allowed to remain in the unit while his hunting partners continue there hunt.
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
smarba - my intent was taking the 10% pool and giving 4% more to NR's and 6% more to us resulting in a 90/10 split.
Agree with you on that HDE.
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.
SB 196 was the problem. A token bill, introduced with little consensus, is always the easiest to Frankenstein into something unexpected. This outfitter gimmee is a prime example of that.
arctic - by 50% of 90%, are you referring to LO tags as part of the loss to residents?
HDE, I am actually referring to the loss of public draw tags. This includes both residents and non-residents, but I believe it safe to say that most UW, LO Bull/ES tags are sold to NR's.
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?
Arctic, you made my point. You didn’t have the roundhouse support initially to keep it from morphing like it did. That was the problem. You see outfitters and the “NR coalition” just needed the right feelgood bill to latch this setaside 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.
Ok - my statement of a 90/10 split is 90% of all tags go to residents and 10% go to NR.
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.
"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 "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." - I have been told otherwise. Some stipulation that you can't be in the unit if your tag is rendered in valid mid hunt, even though you won the draw paid plenty for it.
"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.
IntruderBN, thank you very much for the PM.
HDE, There would likely be no revenue issue. Our department generally operates with a very substantial surplus. The challenge is that the State Legislature must approve the budget and often that surplus is not allocated for use by the Department...even though they single-handedly generated those funds. NMDG&F might be the only department in the state that does not receive money from the general fund. Historically, our game department sends surplus money to the general fund.
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.
"...the State Legislature must approve the budget and often that surplus is not allocated for use by the Department...even though they single-handedly generated those funds..."
And therein lies the problem.
G&F receives no money from the general fund. It is one of I believe two or three state departments who are fully self sufficient. That being said, the state General Fund receives no money from G&F. Surpluss revenues stay in the Game Protection Fund where it effectively "sits" until G&F can come up with a plan for effective use of it (help purchase Eagle Nest Lake for example). There have been repeated attempts by legislators to raid the Game Protection Fund, but they have been unsuccessful.
"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.
Actually, our state legislature is the problem, not the concept of it...
Thanks for setting me straight raceguy! I thought G&F surplus monies were distributed through the general fund. I appreciate you clearing that up.
No prob Arctic! It is what it is....
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.
And it's the majority of the state Congress is what I'm talking about. As far as no financial compensation - true. However, they are getting something out of it...
Some do not get anything out of it, some do. It is what it is. Yet the all powerfull 34- year Senator Tim Jennings was unelected by a local landowner who was outfunded by a 5-1 ratio.
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.
raceguy - appatently I should use quotes around things more often as 1) some terms are used "loosley" and 2) well, it was meant to be understood...
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".
HDE. Stop with this conciracy crap. There have been many legislaters who actually tried to do good things. I agree with you that there are legislators who participate for their own good. No doubt and no argument, but don't alienate every one. I'm skeptical as you are.
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.
Oh, and by the way HDE... My father served 8 years in the House and paid for it on his own nickle. We have a profitabable business in financial services. We didn't need any "something" or "favors" to do it. Go pound sand. He did it to try and make a difference in his local community. Take your unknowledgeble rant elsware or do something to actually make differnce instead of trollng on a forum.
Wow race guy, someone hit a nerve I think.
raceguy, raceguy, raceguy...
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...
Yes, it hit a nerve. And I will wear my feelings as I see fit. Perhaps I went overboard and I apologize for that.
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.
Funny what the "council" and the "associations" will try and have you believe. F-ing morons......
Just blows my mind that theres a such thing as an outfitter pool. Outfitting seems to be doing really well with less welfare allowances in many other states. There was outfitting long before the outfitter pool and there will be outfitting long after its gone. This whole rewarding someone with better odds for signing a bs contract blows my mind. JUST HUNT!!!!! I understand its hard to do when most of the tags are taken in the "outfitter" pool
swamp, I suspect the outfits behind this fear capitalism doesn't work for them. So it's either welfare through the set aside? Or welfare from the welfare office. Fair market is just a suggestion ;)
So rumor has it that the proposed rule change has been adopted...
Can anybody confirm this?
Now anyone who draws in the Outfitter pool has to be accompanied IN THE FIELD for a minimum of two days. Both the guide and client must have copies of their signed contract on them in the field . The hunter may continue to hunt if the season is still open,and upon meeting the requirements of the contract.
Huh, wonder what the going rate on a 2 day guided elk hunt is?
1500-2000 depending on accommodation,and number of hunters . Most don't even do two day deals in trophy units, but some do.
So can anybody confirm or deny? Cheesehead, you hear any more about it?
Splitlimb, your post above sounds like the way the rules have been in the past. What about the proposed changes that outfitter drawn tag is only good on days that the hunter is under contract? Did that not pass?
It's not the same. The guide or Outfitter in the past just needed to check in at camp or pay a visit for 2 days. Now "the hunter must be accompanied IN THE FIELD buy a licenced guide for a minimum of two days. Both the guide and client must have copies of their signed contract on them in the field . The hunter may continue to hunt if the season is still open,and upon meeting the requirements of the contract."
I am wondering how will the outfitters bend those requirements. What constitutes a "day"? Will there be sun up sun down or time requirements? Would 1 evening and the following morning be 2 days?
I think it is all a crock, if there has to be an outfitter pool then both the outfitter and the client need to be hooked to the hip for the whole duration the NR is hunting otherwise it is a complete joke and a slap in the face of all the NR's who can only afford to apply in the regular NR pool. Why do we need an outfitter pool if they only want or will settle for having a client for two days, it's more of a better odds at getting a tag brokerage then it is anything else. Isn't the sole purpose of the OF'er pool to give outfitters and all of their employees work? only full service outfitters should be in the OF'er pool and the 16% of NR tags should be split based on the percentage of applicants in each pool so the odds at drawing a NR tag are equal.
The bottom line should be equality in NR tag allocation and a level, fair playing field for "all" outfitting businesses .
Elite ,that was brought up. There was a law proposed to "hook the Outfitter and client at the hip" and it did not pass. Also the rule is very vague. It states two days. Not two consecutive days,or 48 hours, nothing .
Agreed JP, OF'rs were thrown a bone and all they did was take full advantage of it in the worst possible way. Now its time to take that bone, chop it in half, and give it to the little dog.
Split... Thats going to be the loop hole. What constitutes "a day"?? When it is not explicitly concise it is open to interpretation. I hope a lot of the corner cutting outfitters have to deal with this "interpretation" in court, during hunting months. Might as well call it the OF welfare program.
Ohio, I personally think it's negligence on the the gf department's behalf to not make it clear as Crystal about the two days. The law in the proclamation is so vague . If one was to get ticketed on a two day min hunt it's gonna be a sticky situation because the department failed to elaborate on the law. Example: a guy books a 2 day min and schedules the last two days of the hunt on the contract,he gets checked opening day and gets ticketed for not having a guide present, on what ground will the gf stand ?
I wish I knew the process for the literature, bc I wouldn't want to be a warden trying to argue such an open ended law to someone suspected of violating it. Even more so when time is of the essence on a 5 day hunt. Basically the G&F can tie up a law abiding (per their literature) NR and keep them from the field by jacking them around over the fine details of their hunt. This could end up in an abuse of authority or even targeting certain NR.... bottom line is its all bad, like most things in NM a bunch of under qualified dip squats climbed the gov't ladder and are making decisions that negatively impact the community.
I've already seen my fair share of dip squatted LE in my town, a bunch of 19yo kids fresh out of the academy who often times drive more hazardously than the teens and geriatrics.
I agree completely. They did a poor job writing this rule and will end up trying to get someone in trouble who TECHNICALLY is well inside the law.
Would be nice to read the actual language, does anyone have a link? Has anyone signed a contract or spoken to an outfitter about this scenario? Be interesting to get their take and I would be curious how much this fee actually is.
Meanwhile there is a LO proposal to close part of a road in the Felix canyon area.
ohiohunter you having a bad day?
Riplip which fee? Here it is in row F. Also "ACCOMPANIED" is now physically in the field with the client.
If the road closure proposal is granted I won't be happy, but otherwise for a Tuesday I'm fine... Why do you ask Priley?
Only contracting for 2 days shows that the whole pool is a joke, the "sole purpose is to put rural people to work" OF'ers should be demanding that every tag be full service anything less is undermining the premise of the pool and any law or rule maker should be demanding this as well. OF'ers can get all the drop camps they want from the regular NR pool, IMO this was a very stupid move by the OF'ers, cutting their own throats by showing how little they actually need this. What this also shows is why they need so many tags to "survive" if it was only a full service pool they could have easily split the NR tags equally with 8% each and survived even better than with 10%. IMO this could be the building block for tearing this sham of a pool apart.
Maybe this one is a little less distorted again it's letter f.
Ok, so the hunter may hunt after the 2 contracted guided days, but the last sentence in G clearly states that their tag is not valid when they are not accompanied by the guide. I think a 2nd grader could've written it better.
Agreed Ohio. Then you revert back to the two day minimum. When I call the lady who oversees guides and Outfitters I get more attitude than answers
At least is reads now where outfitters/guides cannot use themselves to draw tags from this pool. I know of some people that [ab]used this in the past and were able to draw and hunt every year, and in some really good areas...
Swamp, the harder we fight and prove unethical abuse of the OF'r pool the more likely more tags will go back into the DIY column. Its not gonna happen over night and it isn't gonna happen without a fight. Biggest problem is the NR have little to no face time with these issues here in NM. Almost need someone like Big Fin to represent the NR DIY'rs.
Did I misread or not understand the last sentence of (F)? If a guide draws a tag, they are not allowed to guide themselves? Huh?? So the guide would have to hire another guide to guide the guide??
I was referring to yesterday with the wind.
You read correctly. Another newly imposed rule. Which is fine by me. As stupid as it is . I talked to gf and expressed my concerns about the ignorant wording of the two day rule and they should write it in detail , seems they're basically trying to set people up for failure. So to clear the air, the clients tag is invalid until they've met the minimum two day requirement. So basically it's typically gonna be the first two days the hunter is able to hunt.
Yeah Priley, it was brutal. You could hear the wind beating up on the roof at work, thank god I didn't try to go barbary sheep hunting in that stuff. 50yd shot would need 2' of windage.
While I agree the change is in a positive direction, being unclear doesn't settle well with me. They should give examples of what is acceptable what is not. Ever try to make sense of the Calif. proc? Basically says you're a criminal until they prove you're not, at least thats what I remember of it.
Only if the guide draws using the outfitter pool. If they do it on their own, they don't need a guide.
O-H-I-O hunter. It's no longer a proposal. They closed it.
That sucks, its not an area that I can say I hunt, but surely someone does. I wonder if they closed it at 2 points or just one? Just more public land secured for the private use of some ranchers.
Where is the Felix Canyon road you are speaking of? There are several Felix canyons in the state.
South side of unit 32, runs north and south between 70 and 82. Basically between Picacho and Hope. Its Felix Canyon Rd, google will get you there.
Thanks. I used to live in Roswell and it sounded familiar but fortunately for me isn't one of my access points. Not that I will likely ever draw another tag to use the ones I have, but one can always hope . . . It does stink when roads are closed that give public hunters access and the result is more landlocked property that only benefits a very small minority.
Mike Castlebone owns the Treat ranch and has always been a prick. Probably stems from illegal hunting and vandalizing on the ranch. And yes there is public land that's been cut off from the highway 13 side. Some prime barber sheep country......
The employee who wrote the 2 day rule called and talked to me about my hunting in NM and NR hunting in other states in general before he drafted and submitted the language. It is written to provide the leeway needed for the intended purpose. That purpose was to allow NM Outfitters to provide a typical "drop camp"; typical in every western state except NM. Setting a hard time of 2 hours/day on two separate days or sunrise to sundown on two separate days isn't realistic for an outfitter that may have multiple camps in multiple units.
Then maybe the OF needs to choose one camp and one unit...
Worked just fine when the rule was first implemented. It's now forced them into a 2 day fully guided option and some don't like it. Until the residents, outfitters, and Commission agree on what's allowed and what isn't, it'll continue to be point of contention.
The way it's written now is crapping all over drop camps. I agree with an Outfitter not being able to contract his/her self, but I will say it's pretty ignorant a Registered guide needs a registered guide now.
The whole thing needs hashed out and re written.
Omg......if the outfitter is short handed, he should maybe hire a few guides? If he can't afford it and goes broke, that's capitalism at work baby. What's that? Some outfitters don't believe in capitalism? Gotcha ;)
As long as the capitalism comes with welfare! hahahhaha
Trophy ,lots of comments on this thread. Did I miss something? What you talking about Outfitters being short handed?
I’m still amazed that this remains an issue. Ok, outfitters get a subsidy, NR that want to hunt NM with friends or family have less of a chance than NR that choose to hire an outfitter.
outfitters want to be able to gain income by means of a legal contract to reap this benefit, yet still want the luxury to not have to actually provide a full service for the actual hunt, nearly a portion of.
Registered guides want to be able to apply with the benefit of being in the outfitter pool, yet should be granted the privilege of not having to pay a guide to guide them, although that is what they are applying for.
As a service provider, if you don’t have the resources to fulfill the contractual obligations, don’t make them.
I believe as a client that agrees on a contract to hunt to get into the outfitter pool your hunt is for how many days your contract is for regardless of how long the season is. Your intent to use that benefit is to utilize an outfitter, why try to find a loophole around it?
Get rid of the subsidy and get rid of the issue.
Bill, registered guide or not, if a guide applies in the Outfitter pool, that does not mean he does not have to pay the Outfitter for this privilege. The Outfitter pool is not designated for NR only! It's for anyone willing to pay for the service . If that means now having to have an extra guide to accompany another registered guide than so be it. It's just an unnecessary rule being imposed imo . I think the issue is the misconception that the outfitter pool is designed for NR ONLY!!
I previously stated that I agree with an Outfitter not being able to contract themselves, but if a guide pays the Outfitter and signs a contract, it's silly that another guide should have to accompany them.
Bill is right. Get rid of the whole damn thing but go 90% Resident and 10% NR like most other states and make the OF earn their dollar based on reputation.
Welcome to free market capitalism...
HDE , alot of us have been saying that for years, and while we are at it let's take away a the land owner tags!!! Haha its never gonna happen. Although it would be great.
So true splitlimb13.
I am sorry but a 2 day drop camp is not why there is an outfitter pool, it undercuts the very reason of having the pool...it basically fleeces the social program. The sole argument to have the pool is "to put rural people to work" & "the rural way of life depends on these tags from the OF'er pool" this is what I recall hearing people preaching to the lawmakers, how on earth can we provide these tags to outfitters if they are just going to broker them for 30% of the value to our rural communities ......what a crappy return! Given that the pool's purpose is to put as many people to work as possible and for every one of these tags that is used for a drop camp you are in essence taking a possible job from a New Mexican that lives in one of these rural communities. We should demand maximum economic return for the privilege of using this pool or have no outfitter pool at all, it's not about quick money for doing less work! I am all for the concept of quick money but not at the expense of this pathetic social program that takes a higher percentage of tags then the common NR pool. I hope this issue gets back to the roundhouse someday.
Did I say a drop camp was why there is an Outfitter pool of tags?
The wording of the rule was brought up so I clarified why it was worded as it is, nothing more. Drop camps were allowed under the rule as written. That rule has been changed and it appears a typical drop camp is no longer allowed, being changed into a 2 day guided hunt. If you feel that's not long enough and there needs to be a longer, fixed duration for a hunt under an outfitter tag, get the rule changed.
It would be easier to win the lottery than change a rule contrary to the "wellbeing" of an outfitter...
Yep, NR hunting "destination states" like NM, UT, and WY are seeing an unusually high degree of outfitter influence on regulations regarding license allocations from what I see. They're organized and have the "we bring in money" argument down pat. I'm also seeing the states land boards in some states starting to amp up the talk of higher hunting access fees. Where is that money going to come from? NM is paying 1 million/year and he tried to get 5. When it goes to 2 million who's going to provide that money to the dept? Utah is also talking about a several million per year increase in cost to their UDWR. It's a lot easier to get those millions from non residents than it is from residents. I think it's going to take a well thought out plan to drop the nr quota down, get rid of outfitter tags, and end up with a net increase in revenue so it has a chance of getting approved.
UT has it figured out - Expo tags.
So a hunter contracts for 2 days of "guided hunt". But outfitters are busy and everyone wants the first 2 days of the hunt period.
Fred contracts for the last 2 days of the hunt period. He hunts and kills a bull on day 1, has a signed contract on his person. Is he legal? Will he actually walk around in the woods with his guide for the last 2 days of the season given that he's already killed an elk?
Way too vague.
Carl , very good question is. I called Tish in Santa Fe and argued that very point and also told her with the way the rule is written it feels like guides and Outfitters are being set up for failure. If you scroll down to G believe, you'll see it says that the hunter's license is only valid AFTER meeting contract requirements. A fourth graders could have done a better job.
What is the reasoning that anything needed to be changed? Who wanted the rule changed? I think I've only applied in NM 3x. 2012-2014 maybe. We went in outfitter pool and contracted to have 1 guide for 2 hunters for 2 days. They weren't guaranteed to be the first 2 days and don't remember if they were consecutive days. We didn't draw so it was irrelevant. But what happened that a change was even needed in the rule?
What is the reasoning that anything needed to be changed? Who wanted the rule changed? I think I've only applied in NM 3x. 2012-2014 maybe. We went in outfitter pool and contracted to have 1 guide for 2 hunters for 2 days. They weren't guaranteed to be the first 2 days and don't remember if they were consecutive days. We didn't draw so it was irrelevant. But what happened that a change was even needed in the rule?
A group of Outfitters did , they wanted to get rid of the two day minimum all together. Instead now wilderness drop camps are done, Outfitters must have guides physically in the field for two days (which is fine ) an Outfitter can not contract himself( which is fine) and the silliest of all, a licensed guide drawn in the OF pool must be accompanied by another licence guide for the minimum duration. Sucks for the guys with shallow pockets ,I believe the OF POOL will get some better odds due to the change.Just department showing Outfitters they have the bigger set of testicles.
Split why do you say Wilderness drop camps are done? Couldn't a guy get packed in one evening, guide putter around with him the next morning and then leave him to hunt for a week or 2 and come back to get him whenever? Would fulfil the 2-days with a guide at your hip, no?
Carl, technically yes, you're right it can work out that way. Just an inconvenience in comparison to past practice. Previously just a couple of wranglers with mules and horses could just take the client in and come out the same day and never had to tie up one of the actual guides so they can concentrate on the guided clients in elk camp. So now basically the cost to the packer from the Outfitter has gone up substantially if we were to do it this way. Although your right it can be done. There is still money to be made through residents who need drops, more so than someone trying to apply the Outfitter pool.
Drop camps can be done by folks not in the subsidy pool all season long. Guys in the subsidy pool should have their contracted outfitter the whole time they are in the field for their contracted hunt. Just outfitters trying to get something for nothing.
Bill idk if you're theoretically speaking? Your right and wrong. People who draw and there own and need a drop can get one with no complications what so ever. Though people who draw in the Outfitter pool can continue hunting after contract requirements are full filed. I'm thinking that's your opinion.
I’m saying the client should have to be with the outfitter/guide for the amount of time he’s in contract. With no hunting after that, the privilege of getting in the outfitter pool should extend past the contracted time with the outfitter.
Essentially folks who can, pay extra to have a few % better odds to draw. For that benefit they should have to spend the time with the entity that gave them that priveilege.
Contract requirements is a joke. It's a loophole that allows outfitters to become tag brokers. Now is that my opinion? Or fact?
I'd say opinion. You have to be in possession of a tag in order to broker it. Unless of course you're referring to buying a ton of private land tags and selling them for 5× the amount .
Fair enough SL. But you know what they say. "If it quacks like a duck" ;)
Haha true . Gotta say g&f pretty much closed alot of holes.
I really don't care if the hunters in the outfitter pool hunt with a guide or not. If outfitters want to shoot them selves in the ass and minimize their potential revenue from the set aside they carved out for themselves that's their problem. Those 10% outfitter tags are gone to unguided nonresidents and residents.
That said the ouftitter tags were "sold" to the legislature because of the economic benefit to all New Mexicans that would result. Having semi-guided hunts compared to fully guided hunts greatly reduces the economic benefit that was promised.
Is there a way to find out exactly what percentage of set aside tags were converted into fully outfitted hunts since SB196 was passed?
There are a lot of fly-by-night type "guides" that let friends, family, etc. use their code to apply in the guided pool. Then there are a lot of "legitimate" guides who apparently try do everything by the book with regards to meeting their legal obligations for "self-guided" hunts. Between the two I bet 25% or less of the guided pool tags end up as full-guided hunts.
I bet most of the fully-guided hunts come from private LO tags.
Not sure there would be any way to determine this as I'm not aware of any requirement for guides to report exactly how the tag is used.
This just crossed my mind, not really thought out, but what if LO tags sold to NR's required a guide? Somewhat similar to WY wilderness rule. Do you think this would devalue some of those tags and make them a little more available to residents at a more affordable price? At the very least I'd hope it would shake up the LO tag industry.
Then we could eliminate or reduce the outfitter pool.
The outfitter set aside is a joke! These guys constantly get there way with the rules and yet here we are again. Excuse my language, but fuck those guys.......
Pretty strong feelings there Trophy.. everyone is entitled to their opinion so here's mine. Outfitters have to pay for permits to Outfittl, and to each forest or wilderness they are outfitting on. Can that 10% be utilized to better resident and NR odds? Of course! Game & fish watches guides and Outfitters very close year round. With the new law implementation of the two day minimum requirements the Outfitters who were hooking up their friends, and selling "self guided" hunts should be over.
What I believe is absolute BS is LO tags. ESPECIALLY unit wide. If I could see one thing go away it would be that! I'm a LO myself. If anybody in the state gets their way it's them.
Oh c'mon Splitlimb. You know as well as I do that LO's and outfitters are in bed together. I saw it first hand in Santa Fe a few years ago. Add politicians to the mix and it's a recipe for corruption. I stand by my not so nice comment earlier ;)
Not sure about all LO's, but the one I've bought some cow and bull tags from is not in league with outfitters. In fact, doesn't even care about the hunting world really.
I agree not all land owners. But enough......
Some are only about the money, some bigger LO’s hand everything over to an outfitter for one lump sum, some just ask market price to pay for fences and gen matainance. May be some I didn’t cover but all that said 90% just want easy money.
Welfare is welfare no matter what you rationalize it. Outfitters associations that lobby for it are a big black eye to principled conservatives everywhere and the biggest reason I will NEVER go on an outfitted hunt unless they change their tune across the board.