NM now requires license purchase for draw - impact?

[sneaky]

You can buy otc deer tags in AZ and be hunting right now

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

You can buy otc deer tags in AZ and be hunting right now

I'm not in AZ, and not all that interested in deer tags. I'd take an OTC elk tag right now though.

 

[Gr8bawana]

To the OP. What do you wish to accomplish by complaining about having buy a $65 license to be able to apply? Their house, their rules. No one is forcing you to pay the fee, you are choosing to do so.
You can't change state game requirements as a non-resident and I seriously doubt residents are going to change them on your behalf if it means them paying more. I suggest you boycott all western states that make you buy the license up front.
Western states have no trouble selling out all their tags to non-res hunters so I can't see the trend of rising fees changing anytime soon.
I'm sure a lot of guys spend more than that on a bottle of booze to take on the hunt.

 

[3darcher2]

To the OP. What do you wish to accomplish by complaining about having buy a $65 license to be able to apply? Their house, their rules. No one is forcing you to pay the fee, you are choosing to do so.
You can't change state game requirements as a non-resident and I seriously doubt residents are going to change them on your behalf if it means them paying more. I suggest you boycott all western states that make you buy the license up front.
Western states have no trouble selling out all their tags to non-res hunters so I can't see the trend of rising fees changing anytime soon.
I'm sure a lot of guys spend more than that on a bottle of booze to take on the hunt.

I'm the OP, and if I complained, I sure don't remember it. My OP asked if people thought that there would be a general change in applicants enough to actually impact the odds. Several people have taken your "my way or the highway" approach, and others have been pragmatic pointing out they they only have so much money to spend on apps and tags.

I personally have not applied in NM and was planning to this year. Personally, I've decided with 99% certainty that I will not be applying because of this decision. I'm not complaining, but part of me was wondering if I could justify spending the money to apply because the odds would be improved. I don't see it enough to make a difference.

I've decided to add AZ to my list instead. The license is also required and is more than NM. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel there with bonus/preference and I will also apply for deer there. I'll wait for a year to see what the fallout is in NM, if any. I do believe that since about every DIY blog always recommended putting in for NM since it was so cheap, that a lot of people will back out as the main reason they were putting in was because it was so cheap. Since there are no points, etc., sitting out a year isn't really gonna hurt that much, and I will use that money to get things moving in AZ.

 

[weaver]

I think better draw odds are wishful thinking. The $65 license had to be paid upfront with the only difference being it won't be refunded anymore.
Honestly I think NM is less of a scam than the states selling you preference points to make you feel like you're getting something for your money when those points are basically worthless unless you outlive everybody ahead of you in the system.
Rant over

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[Nickofthewoods]

My application strategy may change slightly. I may not apply for one of my choices that has long odds this year, but it's less about the money and more about wanting a chance to hunt. So my only thought now is since I'm paying a larger amount of money to apply I may as well apply for realistic to attain hunts across the board. I live very close to New Mexico so my travel expenses are already low and the fee is essentially the cost of a tank of gas. I think the only people this will deter are those who were already on the fence about applying to NM in the first place.

 

[Rthur]

But you're not paying for the privilege "to hunt" NM........paying for the privilege to hunt NM is the cost of the tag which no one is arguing. You're paying for the opportunity "to apply", and may never draw. But it is what it is, and also why I've never applied in AZ.

Agreed, the privilege bs doesn't fly.
Everywhere I've hunted elk has been on National forest ground. Fairly clear who owns that.

R

 

[5MilesBack]

Agreed, the privilege bs doesn't fly.
Everywhere I've hunted elk has been on National forest ground. Fairly clear who owns that.

R

I agree that they can run their system however they want. We can choose to abide and apply, or choose to not apply. We all have choices, just as they do. At least they didn't mandate that every citizen has to pay the license fee even if they don't want to apply or hunt, like Obamacare did with health insurance. That's not a choice, that's a King's mandate.

 

[jspradley]

Agreed, the privilege bs doesn't fly.
Everywhere I've hunted elk has been on National forest ground. Fairly clear who owns that.

R

We all own the ground, the state owns the animals on it. That is indisputable

You can go hang out all you want on that ground, but you have to pay the state for the privilege to kill the animals.

 

[boom]

I can’t remember all the nuances; but we always needed the license to put in for the draw no?

I keep mine for the dove hunts anyways. On good years, I hunt a buddies ranch for mulies

 

[blb078]

I can’t remember all the nuances; but we always needed the license to put in for the draw no?

I keep mine for the dove hunts anyways. On good years, I hunt a buddies ranch for mulies

If I remember correctly there was an option to have it refunded if you didn't draw.

 

[boom]

If I remember correctly there was an option to have it refunded if you didn't draw.

Yes. Last year was like this. That’s what changed?

 

[3darcher2]

Yes. Last year was like this. That’s what changed?

Yes, the refund of license option will no longer be an option, effectively forcing the cost to apply for a single species to go from $13 to $78, My original question did people think that this would be a significant enough change that it would improve draw statistics due to lower application numbers.

Of course, you would get a hunting license so you could hunt small game or whatnot, but obviously applicants from 1000 or 1500 miles away are not going to flock to NM to hunt jackrabbits, so for many that will be of no value. No other changes were made, I.e., there are no bonus/preference points or changes to tag fees.

 

[JPD350]

Yes, the refund of license option will no longer be an option, effectively forcing the cost to apply for a single species to go from $13 to $78, My original question did people think that this would be a significant enough change that it would improve draw statistics due to lower application numbers.

Of course, you would get a hunting license so you could hunt small game or whatnot, but obviously applicants from 1000 or 1500 miles away are not going to flock to NM to hunt jackrabbits, so for many that will be of no value. No other changes were made, I.e., there are no bonus/preference points or changes to tag fees.

True, no one from far away will come hunt quail, dove or waterfowl but many from neighboring states will for sure. I think the license fee isn't without some value, in a little way it helps maintain/keep NM a place that you might want to come hunt, you could think of it like a non-profit organization that you are a member of, which maintains NM habitat and animals, I would like to see the cost of the license to be lowered to 40 dollars.

Look at what happened in Colo last year by doing 3 dollar points, it doubled the applicants but even when you pay 40 bucks for a point there were plenty of applicants to cause point creep so I don't think anyone will see much movement in future NR applicants in NM, this year and maybe next there might be fewer applicants but the odds will not change much.

 

[gonzaga]

There are no animals in NM. Please stop applying for these tags.....lol.
NM has very little to offer. Keep on going North....plenty if animals up there...lol

 

[Rthur]

We all own the ground, the state owns the animals on it. That is indisputable

You can go hang out all you want on that ground, but you have to pay the state for the privilege to kill the animals.

Read this article from NM:
http://magazine.wildlife.state.nm.us/century-wildlife-management-part-2/

R

 

[Okbow87]

I have no problem with them keeping my license fee if I don't draw. Several other states I apply for do the same. Hopefully NM will use that extra bump in money to hire some more game wardens.

 

[jspradley]

Read this article from NM:
http://magazine.wildlife.state.nm.us/century-wildlife-management-part-2/

R

Yep, all that is true.

Are you saying that because NM (and all states) recieve Federal conservation fund that the wildlife belongs to any entity other than the state itself? Because that's incorrect.

 

[Rthur]

Yep, all that is true.

Are you saying that because NM (and all states) recieve Federal conservation fund that the wildlife belongs to any entity other than the state itself? Because that's incorrect.

If you say so.
More of proof that without federal monies (taken from the PR act) most state wildlife programs wouldn't
be anywhere near as successful.
In essence they, the herds, are a result of federal efforts/taxes from hunters across all states.
The licenses and tags represent a controlled amount potential harvest to be taken.
In my home state we've a large number of whitetail.
For the state to claim they own them is another example of bs foisted on the public.
As in many areas animals migrate from state to state.
Who owns them?

R

 

[541hunter]

Copied from another source...

“After the American Revolution and during the 1800s, the increasing commercial value of wildlife and fisheries resulted in increased efforts by the states to control these natural resources. During the 1800's the Supreme Court, through a series of opinions, addressed the issue of ownership of wildlife. The first solid statement by the Court about state control or interest in wildlife was in McCready v. Virginia (see above), but the full articulation of the concept of state ownership of wildlife was not presented until 1896 in the case of Geer v. Connecticut , 161 U.S. 519 (1896).

Since Geer is considered the landmark case of this area of law, it will be helpful to examine it in some detail. The Connecticut statute in question prohibited the possession of certain game birds with intent to transport the birds beyond the state boundaries. The defendant was charged with the possession of woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail killed during the proper hunting season but with intent to transport the birds out of state. The defendant claimed the statute was unconstitutional since it interfered with the federal powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Justice White began the opinion with a very scholarly discussion of the history of governmental control over wildlife, covering Roman, English and French civil law concepts. His ultimate conclusion was:

Undoubtedly this attribute of government to control the taking of animals ferae naturae , which was thus recognized and enforced by the common law of England, was vested in the colonial governments, where not denied by their charters, or in conflict with grants of the royal prerogative. Its also certain that the power which the colonies thus possessed passed to the states with the separation from the mother country, and remains in them at the present day, in so far as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Thus, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the right of the states to control the access to and the use of wild animals. In addressing the statute in question , the Court noted that its purpose is to confine the enjoyment of a state resource to the boundaries of the state. “




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk