Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: artelkhunter on January 20, 2011, 09:33:00 PM
-
Just wanted everone to know the New Mexico G&F have been hit with a lot of pressure from the local media and in state sportsman groups to reduce the number of non residence tags to 10%. This would mirror their neighbor Arizona. The land owner tags for elk and antelope are also being looked at. The problem as I see it is that most of the land were talking about hunting through out the state is federal land that we all own. I personally hope this is a issue the court have to decide. Non-residence hunters for to long have been used and abused by the western states.
-
NMG&F has a LOT of problems...not the least of which is the ranchers who make the rules. I'll likely not ever hunt NM again when I leave. As a resident, I don't like not being drawn because so many from out of state apply; however, I've been on the other side of the state line, too, and understand the argument re: ownership of federal land. Back when licenses were all OTC, there were way more muleys, but fewer elk, in the areas I usually hunt. Now there are lots of elk and the ranchers control access...even to parts of the Lincoln Nat'l Forest. They outfit in there while keeping the public out because they control the surrounding state lands. :mad:
-
That's to bad. It's tough enough to draw a tag now.
Not to change the subject but ... If ranchers that are issued landowner tags aren't their lands open to people who draw tags in the unit that the ranch is in? I may be misinformed but this is what one outfitter told me? That the ranch must give access? You have to do some homework and find out what ranches were issued tags.
I have hunted public lands in Lincoln and access was not a problem there.
-
Public access is a joke in New Mexico. Landowners are SUPPOSED to give access in return for tags. Many "FORGET" to unlock gates and by the time you track anybody down the morning is lost. There is another area called the checkerboard I hunted once. Public land intespersed with private. You never really knew where you were until ranch hands came up and harrassed you about being on private property. I LIVE in New Mexico but I HUNT out of state. We got a new governor who I have high hopes may end the politics in our game commission but that remains to be seen.
-
My response is not to diminish any problems with the NMG&F or the frustration of trying to obtain non-res tags, so please don't think of me as an elitist. I also don't know the state laws for NM.
We hear the same argument about Federally managed land and non-resident tag availability in Idaho, too. Idaho has the same 10% cap. In Idaho by law, the game animals belong to the state, thus the residents and are managed by the IDF&G, no matter what land they are on. In view of the law, you are free to come and recreate on Federally managed land to your heart's content but the state controls the issuance of hunting licenses and tags. I would face the same frustration as you if I were to apply in any state's non-res draw, so I understand your frustrations.
Unfortunately, the imported wolves are not being managed in the same vein at this time but that is a whole 'nother matter :mad:
-
Regarding ermont's comments: we face the same problems with access to state and federally managed lands. Some of these lands are landlocked by private property and it can be a booger to get to public land in certain areas. Of course, we do have large areas of public land with easy access also, so that is where I hunt. Just the nature of the beast, I guess.
-
Guys the landowner issue is divided by two types of landowner tags. This is decided by the owner. Its is either unit wide tag, in which the landowner must allow trespass to all who possess a tag for that hunt in that unit, or a ranch only tag, in which the hunter must stay on the private land in which the tag has been issued. This allow the landowner to use the tags the way he wants to. There is the argument that the landowners feed the elk almost year round in most cases, so they should benifit from the sale of the tags. Sadly it gets down to a money issue. The best ranches get the highest price for there hunts. The only way around this is through the draw, if the tags are reduced for non-residence hunters it will force the price of these tags to go up and will turn NM into another Arizona or Utah were the avg Joe may draw a tag once in a life time. At the moment 10% of the nonres tags go in the open draw and 12% to the outfitter draw. Either way it is hard to draw a tag in any of the better units.
-
10-4 on the wolves Ray!!!
-
Originally posted by coaster500:
If ranchers that are issued landowner tags aren't their lands open to people who draw tags in the unit that the ranch is in? I may be misinformed but this is what one outfitter told me? That the ranch must give access? You have to do some homework and find out what ranches were issued tags.
I have hunted public lands in Lincoln and access was not a problem there.
The problem lies with the state lands that often surround federal lands, or that contain the access points to federal land. The state lands are supposed to be available for access, but many ranchers simply lock their gates and cannot be found during the season. I contacted the Pinon Cattle Co. one year and requested permission to cross their land...state land...to access part of the Lincoln National Forest. They denied access, by phone, saying there wasn't a huntable population deer where I wanted to go. They directed me to a different access point that proved to be impassable, even in my highly modified Jeep. It was difficult to even walk (read climb) that place. They wouldn't even allow me access by foot through their ranch. They also outfit high-dollar elk hunts based from their ranch hunting into the area I used to drive to.
As far as land owner tags go, they are issued to the land owners, who usually sell them either to outfitters or individual hunters. Simply having a tag for a particular unit doesn't guarantee access, unless it can be totally accessed by federal property.
One year, the elk in unit 12 (IIRC) had become competitive with one of the rancher's cattle for grazing. He was on the board (the name of which I've forgotten) and he & his chronies simply made OTC unlimited licenses available. Their aim, as stated to some, was to eradicate the elk from the unit, so his cattle would have more to graze. :mad:
The other thing about some of the ranches in NM is that the ranchers often lease federal lands for a few $ and acre, for grazing, then deny access because they have cattle on the public lands.
-
Again, it depends on whether the landowner tag ia a unit wide tag or a RANCH only tag. If the landowner sells there tags as UNIT wide then they have to allow tresspass by all who have unit wide landowner tags or a NMDW drawn tag. If the landowner tag is issued as RANCH only that ranch is the only area that can be hunted. And consequently the ranch owner does not have to allow trespass by other tag holders.
-
Hi Artelkhunter,
The only experience I have with landowner tags are antelope tags, which were issued for a particular ranch, not for a particular unit.
-
URGENT NEW MEXICO ACTION ITEM
Email or call your Senators now before they VOTE !!!
New Mexico Senate Bill SB196 has recently passed the Senate Conservation Committee and is heading to the Senate Fiscal Committee. Regular non-resident applicants will be limited to 2% of the total number of tags where guided hunters (residents and non-residents) may get 8% of the tags for any given hunt!
New Mexico currently allocates permits in the antelope, Mule deer, and elk drawing as follows: 78% to residents, 12% to non-residents contracted with an outfitter, and 10% to regular non-resident applicants. This bill in the New Mexico legislature would eliminate the current allocation to non-residents giving 90% to residents and 8% to non-residents and residents who contract with an outfitter and only 2% to regular non-resident applicants.
In addition to the split the bill considers implementing the requirement to purchase a non-refundable hunting license to apply which is estimated at $90 for non-residents as well as other non-refundable application fees.
It is our understanding that the changes listed below have strong support and have a great chance to pass:
- Permit allocation: 90% to resident, 8% to non-residents and residents with an outfitter, and 2% to regular non-resident applicants.
- Add a required $90 non-fundable hunting license to apply (plus regular application fees per species)
- Still no point system
- Allocation may apply to other species as well (sheep, oryx, and ibex)
Bill details: http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/_session.aspx?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=%20196&year=11
Bill amendments/committee report: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0196CO1.pdf
We have made it very easy to submit your comments to every Senator in New Mexico. Simply enter your information and comments below and each member will be emailed.
If this passes it will greatly affect all non-residents opportunity to hunt New Mexico. No matter what your opinion is of these potential changes to New Mexico permit allocation and the application process, we encourage you to voice your thoughts. New Mexico needs to hear from non-residents!
-
It is truly tragic that as a non resident hunter I have never been treated with any amount of parity when applying for big game tags in western states. New mexico has always been a state that has had my addition,one because its close to my home state of Oklahoma, but mostly because I'm an elk hunter. I've drawn one tag in 15 years in New Mexico system of draw. I've bought land owner tags, not because I wanted to but because it was the only way I could get a tag. Now it looks as though I may never draw a tag again. The federal lands western states are allowed to manage belong to all of America. Not just a select few that reside there. Do I believe residence should have an advantage in the draw? Sure. But to have a 10-1 disadvantage is just not fair. Period. I guess the courts will ultimatly decide whether its fair or not. Art Smith
Muskogee OK
-
This issue has already been decided in the courts. All non-migratory game animals are owned by the residents of that state and the state is entrusted to manage them for the primary benefit of current and future residents. If the resource is large enough to share with nonresident than they are given the opportunity to enjoy a portion of it.
It doesn't matter if the state has lots of public land or not because in North America land ownership does not equate to wildlife ownership. The public lands of any state are open to all for recreation but just because those lands are owned by the U.S. government does not mean the U.S. public has equal rights to the game animals.
It is perfectly legal for a state government to restrict access to nonresidents while favoring residents because it is the resident's resource, not the nation's when it comes to consumptive use of that resource.
If a state has a high-demand resource it cannot service the desires of the nation and maintain that resource. Access to the resource must be limited and residents should be favored as they are the ones who live there. A nonresident should not expect equal treatment because they do not deserve it. You are part owner of the wildlife resources of your state and New Mexico residents are the owners of theirs.
It is ironic to ask nonresidents to call NM legislators to encourage them to not favor residents in the allocation of the state's wildlife resources. It is the residents that voted these people into office and it will be residents who keep them in office, not nonresidents. If the legislators have sold out resident interests in the past with regards to access to their resources, they have violated a trust and I wish NM residents luck in regaining the access to THEIR wildlife that they deserve. Why should nonresidents have greater access to the high-demand wildlife resources of NM than they do in other states?
We all need to appreciate the wildlife resources of our own state and be thankful when we have the opportunity to be a guest of another state. And a person always has the option of moving to another state and becoming a resident there if access to the wildlife resources is that important to you. Sure, you would have to give up some things and make some concessions; just like those who already live there have.
-
Well Iowa Tom we sure all have the right to our voices to be heard requardless of whether we are residents or non. I will assure you that this matter has not be decided in the courts on this particuler issure. Every American has what is called prevailing rights. In the case of New Mexico they have for years followed Colorado in allowing 20 plus percent of the tags to non-residents. Tax dollars from all America support the funding of national forest. Employment and up keep needed to maintain these areas are further paid from sporting good sales tax nation wide. I'm well aware that Iowa restricts non-residents to a very small allocation. My home state of Oklahoma allows anyone to apply and hunt big game in our state. Maybe this is a practice other states should follow.
-
I just hope Tom that you don't have a desire to hunt Elk in a western state as the opportunities are fast becoming harder to obtain. It is as Art says a truly tragic for us, our kids and theirs. I hope they bring elk back to Iowa for you it may soon be your only chance for a tag.
Good luck
Kip
-
ryan; i tried to click on the links you provided and was told IE could not access them. (or something) is there any other way? thanks.
-
Check your security settings. I just opened both links and they worked fine. These links are the web addresses?
Good luck
-
You have me Art on "prevailing rights" as I know nothing about them and could find no mention of them in a search relating to wildlife resources. But, Pittman-Robertson dollars are allocated to the state agencies for state projects, and are not utilized to pay for the salaries of Forest Service employees or for general Forest maintenance although state and federal agencies will collaborate on projects at times with PR dollars being utilized. This money is distributed based on the size of the state and the number of hunting licenses it sells.
Iowa with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses provides a good example of how nonresident demand can vary among states. The neighboring states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin all sell nonresident deer hunting licenses over-the-counter. In these states nonresident hunters make up from less than 3% to a little over 5% of each state's deer hunters.
In Iowa, with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses, nonresident hunters make up over 5% of its deer hunters. The difference is purely demand; what one would consider to be "wide open" in one state is suddenly "restrictive" in another because the demand is higher.
If an individual is a resident of a state without a wildlife resource that is in high demand, over-the-counter license sales work fine. But for other states it does not work as well.
Since elk would not be a good fit for Iowa; a state that is dominated almost entirely by row crops, I will not hope for them here. But I trust elk hunting opportunities will remain available and understand a license may not be able to be obtained on an annual basis just as some nonresidents find when their desire is to hunt Iowa whitetails.
-
Well Tom it is clear that you are NOT an ELK hunter and never intend to be. If you were you would fine the trend western states are following is disturbing. U.S. outfitters did win a law suit over non-resident tags in federal court against the state of Arizona unfortunately it was over turned by appeal. I do not believe that this case set presidence because that state had never allow more than 10% tag allowance. And you may want to study up a bit on the funding of the Pitman Robertson Act. Those funds can and are being used by both state and federal agencies.
-
Actually Art, I have hunted elk before (do-it-yourself hunts), but you are right, I do not define myself as an "elk hunter"; I am a hunter.
The U.S. Outfitters utilized the Commerce Clause in their successful suit regarding license allocations (although the Court acknowledged that the purpose of the license regulations was sound). This concerned many states as it would have had an immediate effect on license allocations no matter what their current allocation percentages were.
However, it was felt the Commerce Clause was never intended to be utilized for this nation's wildlife resources (one could have argued that the prohibition of market hunting violated the Commerce Clause) and this prompted our federal government to ratify the following law in 2005 (it was passed as an attachment to a budget resolution):
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 339
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 9, 2005
Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. HATCH, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 21, 2005
Reported by Mr. SPECTER, without amendment
________________________________________
A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.
(a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
END
Here is a very recent link that addresses the impact of this law and other cases and it even makes mention of a "Privileges and Immunities Clause", perhaps these are the provisional rights you speak of?
Recent Attorney General Opinion (http://www.nmag.gov/pdf/4%20January%202011-Tod%20W%20Stevenson-Advisory%20Letter%5B1%5D.pdf)
I believe you will find if you investigate that projects on federal lands where PR funds are utilized are collaborative projects with the state agencies as these funds are allocated to state wildlife agencies. If you care to do some research here are two links; one gives a summary of the act and how the funds are distributed and the other is the US Code that regulates the accrual and distribution of these funds. If you find the source that cites dispersal of these funds to federal agencies I would be interested in seeing it.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act Summary (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FAWILD.HTML)
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration - US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/usc_sup_01_16_10_5B.html)
The funding regarding our country's wildlife resources is complex and I do not pretend to be well-versed on all aspects but I do have some knowledge. The same is true for who has "rights" to those resources at a state and nationwide level. However, it seems that there was a lot less argument over wildlife resources when they were treated as a source for recreation/food rather then commercialized into businesses and big dollars.
Just my thoughts.
-
Reguardless of what some would reguard as States rights to regulate the fish and game, one must remember National Parks, National forest,lakes and interstate waterways all fall under the right of use clause. This is the very reason that states can not totally prohibit non-residents from at lest a persentage of the tags issued. The only exception I can remember in resent years would be when Colorado prohibited non-resident from applying for there "ranching for wildlife program". If this were not the case states would be able to lock out all non-residents as some would like to do. Basicly non-residents have been losing ground for quite sometime. The fact that you dont concider yourself an elk hunter is consistent with your attitude in the matter!
-
Brovo Iowa Tom, I could not have said it better myself. In western states like AZ and NM demand for tags far outweighs their availabilty. People can't expect to have their cake and eat it too.
Agencies like the Forest Service and BLM manage the land. The state's wildlife agency manages the wildlife which belong to the state's residents.
Pittman/Robertson Tax funds are allocated to each state based on population, geographic size, and number of hunting licenses sold annualy.
As a Resident of AZ I have drawn 2 bull elk tags in the last 15 years. I don't think a nonresident drawing one or two AZ bull tags in their lifetime is a great social injustice considering the demand from both res/nonres hunters.
-
you can go a life time as a resident and never draw a tag in AZ. If one only applyed for the early bull tags with a rifle or a muzzleloader or even archery tags in unit 8,9,or 10 you may never drawn a tag. All of these elk tags are almost impossible to draw as a NON-resident. The real unfairness is how this state mandates how NON-residents apply. NON-residents have to buy a out of state hunting license to even apply for tags. The license alone cost 151.00 then after applying for say 7 or 8 years to have a chance to draw any tag NON-residents the pool they have to draw from is only 10%. Again despite what the Loons in Washington have ruled, 85% of the lands in AZ hunted are owned by the fed. NOT the state. I agree resident hunters should have an advantage by a wide margin. But to only give the NON-resident a meger 10% is just not American.
-
Gentlemen,
I gotta say here NM is not a western state, though many think it qualifies. If you want to hunt elk you are looking in the wrong part of the country. Washington State has over the counter archery tags for the majority of the state. The prime zones are spike only and draw for branch antler tags. Much of the state early season you can hunts bulls anywhere you want.
The state owns the animals and the people of that state have the right to decide to limit out of state tags or even do away with them entirely. If you a want a good changce to hunt prime country with record book bulls then it is better to live in the state where those units exist. If you don't like the out of state rules move! Then you can vote and make change in that state. Guess what, I have never heard a resident new or otherwise argue for more out of state tags to be granted.
This is a free country and you can choose to move to optimize your chances to hunt elk. Lots of folks like to point fingers and be frustrated when they feel thwarted. The state owns the animals and the states make the call.
If you want to have great elk hunting come to Washington. Pull your over the counter tags and have at it. We have tons of elk, tons of open hunting lands, and great early season weather. I hosted a california hunter here last early season and we got on a lot of elk. Throw in that Washington is pretty darn cheap on tags and licenses and you have a win win for everyone.