By Ben Neary
NMWF Conservation Director
A bill that would have broadened wildlife management in New Mexico while increasing hunting opportunities for state residents failed to advance through its first legislative committee hearing on Tuesday.
Members of the Senate Conservation Committee deadlocked 4-to-4 on Senate Bill 312 after several hours of testimony. Senators who ultimately voted against moving the bill forward expressed concern that the bill sought to address too many issues.
“I think it came out a couple of times that if this was three separate bills, you might have passed a couple of them,” Committee Chair Sen. Elizabeth Stefanics, D-Cerrillos, told supporters at the end of the meeting.
In addition to proposing to change the name of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to the Department of Wildlife Conservation, the bill would have allowed the commission that oversees the department to expand management over a wider range of species in the state. The bulk of the bill’s content — more than 200 pages — was devoted to noting areas in state law where the department and commission names would have to be changed.
Other provisions of the bill called for repealing a provision of law that currently allows landowners to kill deer, elk and other protected wildlife without game department permission or oversight because the wildlife posed a perceived threat to their crops. That provision has resulted in the wasteful killing of elk, pronghorn and other species. It also would have expanded the state’s definition of “waste of game” to prohibit leaving edible portions of bear, cougar and javelina in the field.
Jesse Deubel, executive director of the NMWF, told the committee in an opening statement that he viewed the legislation as critical for the future of hunting and sustainable wildlife populations in the state. He served as an expert witness for the sponsors, Sen. Jeff Steinborn and Rep. Nathan Small, both Las Cruces Democrats.
Steinborn said the bill would put New Mexico’s wildlife management on a modern path, but wouldn’t change the management of any given species unless the Legislature did so by law, or the commission did so by rule.
New Mexico is among the most biodiverse states in the country, Steinborn said, being home to many different species.
“But really we manage them almost with a 19th century system, designed for a different era and time,” Steinborn said. “And now, quite frankly with the challenges of climate change and species decline, it’s just crucially important that we give modern management guidance to our department, and that’s what this bill does.”
In addition to the NMWF, the bill drew support from a wide range of conservation groups, including the Sierra Club; Audubon Society; Animal Protection Voters of NM; NM Wild, Conservation Voters of NM; Backcountry Hunters & Anglers of NM; Impact Outdoors; Endangered Species Coalition; the National Wildlife Federation; WildEarth Guardians; Friends of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks; New Mexico Avid Hunters and Anglers; New Mexico Land Conservancy; Project Coyote, the Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project; Dona Ana County Consolidated Sportsmen; Southwest Environmental Center; Defenders of Wildlife and Hispanics Enjoying Camping Hunting and the Outdoors (HECHO). Deubel said he was pleased with the wide-ranging coalition and looks forward to continuing to work with the groups.
Most criticism of the bill at Tuesday’s hearing focused on a provision that would have ended the state’s current 10-percent set-aside of public land hunting licenses for those hunters who retain an outfitter. The state also earmarks an additional 6 percent of public land tags to nonresident hunters. Many hunters who retain outfitters are also nonresidents.
Deubel and other witnesses emphasized that New Mexico is alone among states in the West in setting aside permits to support the outfitting industry. Many other states reserve 90 percent of tags for their own residents.
Deubel noted that an audit released last fall by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Finance Committee found that New Mexico’s current system of allocating elk licenses benefits private landowners and out-of-state hunters at the expense of residents. The audit found that New Mexico grants a much greater percentage of available elk licenses to private landowners than neighboring states.
Gabe Vasquez. a Las Cruces city councilor and founder of the Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project, testified that youth in the state’s underserved communities deserve the same opportunities to enjoy and learn from wildlife and the great outdoors as those with wealth and privilege.
“SB 312 is truly transformative in the way that it reallocates an unfair subsidy that benefits out of state wealthy hunters and returns in-state hunting opportunity to in-state residents, families and youth,” Vasquez said.
Kerrie Cox Romero, executive director of the New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides, told the committee the proposed elimination of the 10-percent license set-aside for hunters who retain outfitters was her group’s primary concern.
“The outfitter pool is a successful and classic example of the Legislature providing industry incentives to help promote local businesses,” Romero said. “Outfitters provide employment, gross receipts taxes and they help support New Mexico’s most rural communities where hunting and fishing are often the only tourism draw in the area.”
While supporters of the bill represented a wide spectrum of New Mexico organizations, opponents included representatives of the National Rifle Association and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, both national groups.
Sen. Bill Soules, D-Las Cruces, said he had concerns about the state’s current 10-percent set-aside of tags to support the outfitting industry.
“I couldn’t think of any other place where a public resource has a guaranteed set-aside for a private business,” Soules said. “And so, I realize that the guides and outfitters have enjoyed that. It’s been very lucrative for them. I believe the cost for hiring a guide for that 10-percent guaranteed set-aside is on the order of $5,000, and then the purchase of the tag, or the right to buy the tag, is another couple of thousand dollars for an elk. And so, we as a state are giving some of our state resources to private entities and I’m not a lawyer but that sure seems like that’s violating some of the anti-donation clauses that we have in the state.”
Sen. Gregg Schmedes, R-Tijeras, noted that while the New Mexico State Constitution specifies that the public owns the waters of the state, the state still allocates water rights to individuals and corporations.
Schmedes noted that private landowners have developed ground water resources that benefit wildlife. In exchange, he said they’re compensated by being able to sell elk tags.
“If we devalue wildlife, woe to the wildlife,” Schmedes said. “If private property owners quit pumping water at their expense, what’s going to happen to not only elk, but a lot of other animals that benefit from that water.”
Schmedes noted that other states in the West have programs of compensating private property owners for supporting wildlife on their lands.
Before the vote on a motion to table the bill, Stefanics said, “I continue to have reservations, and I would like to point out that my district is parts of six counties, and it is all rural. And I in this case am going to have to support my constituents.”
The following senators voted to table the bill: Schmedes, Stefanics and Steven P. Neville, R-Aztec; and David M. Gallegos, R-Eunice. Voting against tabling the bill were Sens. Soules; Carrie Hamblen, D-Las Cruces; Harold Pope Jr, D-Abq.; and Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Abq. Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, did not vote.