NEWS
Speak up for a change in antelope hunting opportunity
In early August the Department of Game and Fish released three options for revising the A-PLUS program, which has given certain landowners about 70 percent of antelope hunting opportunity to sell, use or throw away. Options 1 and 2 would continue A-PLUS with little or no change. Thousands of sportsmen are supporting Option 3, which would put most licenses in the Big Game Draw. Landowners who agreed to allow draw hunters on their land could get a single license for their own use as state law allows, and could negotiate a fee for access from individual hunters. Every other western state relies mostly or totally on the method outlined in Option 3, with good results.
But the Department released no details or analysis of the options in order to have informed comments and an informed decision by the State Game Commission. NMWF and hundreds of sportsmen requested a full analysis of all three options; just days before the Game Commission’s Aug. 28 meeting, the department released its analysis - of Option 3 only. But instead of shedding light on the option that is preferred by thousands of resident hunters, the department instead made the case to dismiss it.
The analysis fails to show how the straight draw option could be made to work, and instead relies on unsubstantiated fears to make a case that Option 3 will not work. It can work (other western states are prime examples of how this system works quite well.) But the department leadership apparently has chosen not to give a fair and unbiased analysis. Sportsmen need to speak up and demand that the nay-saying end and that the department leadership adopt a new, can-do attitude toward improving the hunting opportunity for New Mexico residents.
What’s wrong with the department analysis?
First, it breaks what had been a single option (Option 3) into four versions. And by posting the options this week, New Mexico hunters have far less than the 30 days required by law to consider the new options before Saturday’s meeting. Hundreds of hunters have already submitted comments based on the original three options.
Second, the analysis for the original Option 3 (now known as Option 3A) is based on “potential” problems plenty of other western states have successfully dealt with and historical financial data not reflective of the potential hunting opportunity potential of Option 3.
Third, the three new sub-options (3B, 3C and 3D) are fundamentally different options that do little or nothing to improve resident hunting opportunity. Here is a summation:
Option 3B would reduce hunting opportunity from current levels by roughly 70 percent by falsely assuming that draw hunters would only hunt on public land - even though hunting on private land would be allowed with landowners’ permission and trespass fees. It also seems to assert antelope do not move from public to private land and vice-versa. From a biological management perspective, this proposal seems at best ridiculous because a unit with all or mostly private land would receive zero hunting licenses.
Option 3C would offer unlimited over-the-counter licenses for private land, as is currently allowed for deer - an idea that was included in early planning for the A-PLUS overhaul but was dropped from the list of options offered for public comment earlier this month. This is merely a way to bypass the state’s quota law, which gives 78 percent of all licenses to resident hunters.
Option 3D would split the Big Game Draw in two - one for private land, one for public - creating an even more cumbersome bureaucracy to manage antelope and continuing the unfair allocation that currently exists. This also bypasses the state quota law.
Sportsmen should ask the Game Commission to reject sub-options 3B, 3C and 3D and instead concentrate on how to make actual, measurable improvement for resident hunter opportunity.
Option 3A puts control of hunting opportunity where it belongs:
The state - not landowners - would distribute licenses.
Landowners - not the state - would determine how many hunters they can allow on their property.
Hunters would negotiate with landowners for access, not for licenses that belong to the public.
Option 3A also would eliminate the politics of allocating transferable authorizations among landowners, and would reduce the amount of department staff time taken up by determining ranch allocations and settling disputes over those allocations.
The department leadership has said that Option 3A can’t work in New Mexico, but similar systems work just fine in Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming, according to representatives of those states’ wildlife management departments.
According to the NMDGF analysis, the first problem with Option 3A is “potential concentration of hunters and overharvest of pronghorn in localized areas due to inability to negotiate access onto private lands (emphasis added).” But spokesmen for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Colorado Division of Wildlife and Wyoming Game and Fish Department said their draw hunters have minimal problems negotiating access onto private lands - even though much of the antelope hunting is done on private land. In fact, most western states encourage landowners to host hunters through incentive programs. And several New Mexico landowners have told NMWF in recent months they are eager to allow antelope hunters who pay a trespass fee onto their land.
The Department could expand private land access through its Open Gate program. But in late August the department leadership decided not to apply for a $2 million federal grant that could have been used to pay willing landowners to allow hunting and fishing for the public. This could have provided a revenue boost to landowners and rural communities and more opportunity for hunting and fishing.
The NMDGF analysis, after assuming that hunters will not be able to negotiate for access, goes on to say: “This will likely lead to future reduction in hunting opportunities due to overharvest and increasing levels of hunter dissatisfaction (emphasis added).” Again, the spokesmen for Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana hunting agencies said they see no overharvest on private or public land or widespread hunter dissatisfaction, despite the fact that some or even most antelope hunting in those states is conducted by draw hunters on private land, with the landowners’ permission.
The NMDGF analysis also cites the “potential increase in trespass violations” if Option 3A were to pass. Why would NMDGF assume that law-abiding hunters will begin trespassing? As Tyler Baskfield of the Colorado Division of Wildlife said, most antelope hunting is done on the open plains, where hunters are visible from long distances. “Trespass is really not a problem,” he said.
NMDGF argues that Option 3A would be too costly, decreasing department revenue by $180,779 annually. But that figure incorporates income from more than 400 licenses that currently are given to landowners free of charge. And it does not account for the potential increase in opportunity as more public lands currently left out of A-PLUS are opened to hunting. If there is a cost of giving New Mexico resident hunters an extra 3,500 or more antelope licenses a year, it is unknown. Whatever the figure is, it could be made up easily by minor hunting license changes and by reducing the administrative cost of A-PLUS.
The department analysis also says the fiscal impact of Option 3A on New Mexico communities “is unknown, but is likely to be negative if fewer nonresidents are purchasing goods and services in these communities and that difference is not made up by resident hunters.” That’s an unsubstantiated assumption that suggests visitors are more likely than New Mexico residents to stop off for a cup of coffee or to fill their gas tank on a hunting trip. In fact, thousands of New Mexico residents have been forced to travel elsewhere to hunt because they can’t draw a license here. Don’t let anyone tell you that a hunter coming to New Mexico for two days from out of state is more important to the economy than a resident who lives, works and pays taxes here. In fact, economic studies show that the biggest financial gain from tourism is when a small business owner decides to relocate here after visiting. But who will relocate a small business here when residents are treated so poorly?