NMSGC minutes

AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. Meeting Called to Order

The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. Roll Call

Director Bell called roll:
Commissioner David Henderson - Absent
Commissioner Alfredo Montoya - Present
Commissioner Jennifer Montoya - Present
Commissioner Peter Pino - Absent
Commissioner Guy Riordan - Present
Commissioner Leo Sims - Present
Chairman Tom Arvas - Present

Director Bell stated that there is a quorum.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. Introduction of Guests

Chairman Arvas requested members of the audience introduce themselves.

Guests and staff introduced themselves.

Director Bell requested the record reflect Commissioner Dave Henderson and Commissioner Peter Pino are now in attendance.

Director Bell introduced Dale Hall, Regional Director with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Director Bell stated Director Hall is an asset to our State and to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dale Hall felt it was essential that the Commission be aware that the Department of Game and Fish has always been willing to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Work is based on good science, working with people and knowing the fact that work cannot be done alone. Hall further stated there are more opportunities than there are obstacles and feels the biggest challenge will be trying to figure out how to take advantage of the opportunities to work with people. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would like to have an equal partnership with the Department in the natural resource arena.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. Approval of Minutes (March 06, 2003)

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to accept the minutes as presented.

Commissioner Sims seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. Approval of Agenda (April 03, 2003)

Director Bell requested Agenda Item No. 16 follow Agenda Item No. 10. Item 16 is a carry-over from the last meeting’s agenda and should be placed under old business. Also requested was to remove revocations from the Consent Agenda and that it be made the last order of business.

MOTION: Commission Pino moved to accept the agenda as presented with amendments. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. Consent Agenda

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to remove item 6 from the agenda. Commissioner Montoya seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

Commissioner Riordan stated he would be interested in obtaining more information on the Jeffrey Miller case and would like to meet with Mr. Brooks to review and discuss the evidence.

Dan Brooks asked the Commission if they were requesting the Department do something within the Rule regarding revocations and also if the request is for the Department to tabulate, accumulate or transcribe the information the Commission is seeking? If this is the case do they wish information on all revocations or just certain ones?

MOTION WITHDRAWN: Commissioner Riordan withdrew motion.

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to remove Mr. Miller’s revocation from the Consent Agenda for further review.

Commissioner Pino seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

Dan Brooks informed the Commission that reports of the Hearing Officers findings were available in the Commission books. People facing potential revocation have 15 days to respond in writing to the Department. The Department has received no exceptions.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to accept recommendations made by Brooks on revocation.

Commissioner Sims asked why, if a person has 20 points we are asking for only a one-year revocation. Brooks stated the Hearing Officer hears the case and recommendations are offered to the Department on the length of revocation time based on mitigating circumstances.

Director Bell stated it would also be relative to entertain a motion to adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Officer for those individuals remaining on the Consent Agenda and then proceed with a discussion of the Miller case.

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to accept the Consent Agenda for the revocations with the exception of Jeffrey Miller. Commissioner Alfredo Montoya seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

Brooks stated a transcription of the Miller hearing will be provided to the Commission along with evidence collected for review by the Commission at the next scheduled meeting.

Chairman Arvas introduced past Mayor of Albuquerque, Jim Baca, and thanked him for taking time out of his busy schedule to attend today’s meeting.

Mr. Baca stated he is the newly appointed New Mexico Natural Resources Trustee and will be working very closely with the Department of Game and Fish. He requested to be allowed to make a presentation before the Commission at a future date on how they wish to work with the Department.

Commissioner Riordan congratulated Mr. Baca on his appointment and stated the Commission is very lucky to have him as the Nature Trustee.

OLD BUSINESS

AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. Marquez Wildlife Area Access Update.

Presented by Jim Karp - Pursuant to prior instructions from the Commission a water rights survey with regard to the Marquez Wildlife Area has been initiated. The survey had to be temporarily put on hold pending permission from the Fish and Wildlife Service for limited grazing on the Marquez. The permission would impact the Department’s overall strategy with respect to resolving various issues concerning the Marquez. The Fish and Wildlife Service has provided the Department with written permission for such limited grazing, provided that it is not detrimental to wildlife, and second that it is not contingent upon acquisition of permanent public access rights. In light of this permission from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department seeks further instructions from the Commission to pursue the resolution of the various issues involved with the Marquez Wildlife Area, including limited grazing rights, the resolution of water and title issues, and the issue of permanent public access.

Director Bell states this agenda item is to provide an update to the Commission relative to the request previously made that the Department proceed in determining these things. Response on the grazing has been received and the Department is in a position to do the water abstract should it become necessary. Further discussion relative to strategies and implementation will be heard in Closed Executive Session.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henderson stated he that he assumes that the response from the Fish and Wildlife Service is that they will permit grazing as long as it is not detrimental to wildlife and feels it is up to the Director. He asked if the staff would do an evaluation of the relative impacts of grazing as it relates to wildlife.

Director Bell stated it would be done. Some studies have been done to determine the proper grazing regime for that area but will be reviewed given the drought for the appropriate number of livestock that could be placed on the property without causing detriment to wildlife habitat management.

Chairman Arvas asks Mr. Karp to update the audience on existing problems with the Marquez and how the Department is attempting to resolve them. Jim Karp stated the problems are basically twofold. The principal problem is that there is no permanent access right to the Marquez and this is a prime issue for the public. Second, there is an issue that the Department and/or Commission may not have valid water rights with respect to either the well on the Marquez or the town lots. Also the Department may not have clear title to the town lots. The Department is attempting to resolve all these issues in the interest of the public. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya mentioned this Commission has been presented with testimony from the public regarding the condition of the Marquez and they have not been provided with the forage availability information. It is not clear to her exactly what the reasons are that public grazing could be feasible on the Marquez. She is really interested in being sensitive to the community, but does not believe the Commission has been given the full information available. Chairman Arvas asks Director Bell to comment. Director Bell stated Commissioner Montoya is correct in that the Department had not provided that information to the Commission but will do so in the future as discussions and negotiations continue. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked if there has been a discussion for purchasing grazing rights? Director Bell replied that this had not currently been a consideration simply because in years past the grazing has been directly tied to the access. It is the preference of the Department that the two issues be separated and a determination made. Does the Commission want to allow grazing on the property and then as a separate issue how is the Commission going to obtain access to the property? If the Commission makes the decision that they want to graze the property then under the State system, the grazing rights would have to be put out for bid and the award be given to the highest bidder.

Commissioner Riordan mentioned to Jim Karp that the Commission has formed a committee that is going to visit the Marquez this weekend and also some of the other properties that have been presented to the Commission. Commissioner Riordan stated he has also personally met with some of the sportsmen that are interested in the Marquez and has a lot of information that he would be happy to share with Mr. Karp regarding access. Mr. Karp was invited by Chairman Arvas to join the committee in the viewing of the properties. Commissioner Sims felt the Commission has only heard one side questioning if the Commission has permanent access rights, water rights and clear title. Karp stated that was correct and this is the purpose for the water rights survey and the Department will go forward if it is the desire of the Commission. What the Department is saying basically is that we may have an opportunity to determine the issues based on the availability if the Commission so approves of limited grazing rights on the Marquez. Commissioner Sims asked if the grazing rights issues are going to reflect whether we have permanent access rights, water rights and clear title? Karp stated no. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service has required that the issues be separated and that they not be tied together. Chairman Arvas mentioned this has been an object of controversy for about 25 years and the grazing rights and the access privileges are separated at this point. The Commission needs to decide whether or not they understand, and if they can validate the Commission’s actual rights on the property itself. He further stated the Commission cannot proceed with anything in terms of considering a trade or anything along those lines until it is actually known whether or not the Commission has the rights. The Commission wants to resolve the issue as soon as possible so that it can look at other possibilities that are available. Karp stated this is correct and this is the reason we were looking at all the alternatives and one of the alternatives does include the possibility of limited grazing. Chairman Arvas stated the Commission would like to see all the issues clarified in advance of them making any judgment as to whether or not it wants to retain the Marquez as is, or whether it wants to trade the Marquez. The facts need to be known before proceeding.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Oscar Simpson – Has followed the Marquez Wildlife Area issue for a number of years. It is obvious that after 25 years the grazing has degraded the Marquez Wildlife Area and the Game Department has not upheld the grazing violations, in other words eliminated the grazing. He would like to see the Department go in and do an assessment and find out what is really on the ground, what biologically is the problem, what can be done. He feels the Department has ignored numerous violations and has not acted in accordance.

Chairman Arvas requested Director Bell respond to these allegations.

Director Bell stated he would prefer not to get into an argument with Mr. Simpson at this point, but feels it is best to answer as he recalls that this is the same request from Commissioner Montoya and that the Department will complete a range analysis study prior to moving forward with any additional grazing on the Marquez Wildlife Area. This will provide the Department with the best data in order to guide the Commission in their decision.

Doug Auckland, NM Bow Hunters Association - Asked Director Bell what the present options for access and trade are of the land?

Director Bell – There are currently 4 proposals on the table. One is of long term grazing which can be achieved. The Department can probably work out a permanent access agreement independent of the grazing but is somewhat tied to it with the Juan Tafoya Land Grant. There is a proposal from the Caprock Pipe and Supply to trade easement for easement and the details of coming across the Jack Dilts property would be worked out. They would then want an easement in exchange of the west side of the Marquez Wildlife Area. There is a proposal from Jack Dilts that he would provide the access across his property in exchange for a certain portion of the Marquez Wildlife Area giving deed and title to him. There is a 4th option the Commission is considering and that is exchanging the Marquez Wildlife Area in whole, or in part for the Pipe Ranch.

Doug Auckland – recommends that there is an easement actually allocated to the Marquez and therefore basically retaining its integrity and therefore not setting up a trade where it would become a private hunting sanctuary.

Director Bell – Stated this is exactly what the Department wants. Under any of these scenarios the Department receives, in the end, a permanent easement to the area that will guarantee public access.

Ellery Worthen – Has been shown by someone that there is another easement onto the property but it requires that we revise Statute 2477 of the 1866 Mining Act which could then be enforced upon the County. He can furnish this information if the Commission wants. If this option is pursued, it would be possible that there would be another easement.

Chairman Arvas – Asked Mr. Worthen to give any material he has to the Director and it will be reviewed.

Larry Caudill, Sportsman - Understands that the Commission was going to solicit the position of the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding continued grazing. Is confused by the wording in Director Bell’s letter. Secondly, if grazing is determined to be appropriate, he would like to see separate legitimate regulated grazing on the upper portion of the property from the 30 year history of trespass grazing on the lower portion. He urged the Commission to go on the visit so they can see the damage. If there is a determination that grazing should be allowed, it should be on a 1-year basis and not a long-term situation.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Director Bell stated it is not the role, nor the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a determination if grazing should be allowed or not. For us to request that of them, would have been an improper request. Their role is to determine if the property’s being legitimately used for purposes prescribed under the act and so in asking if grazing would be allowed under the act, was exactly the appropriate question and requesting that such issues be looked into, was appropriate. This is a State owned property and it is managed and controlled by the Commission. How it is used, and when it is used is subject to their approval and not the approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Commissioner Henderson asked if the Commission needed to act on Mr. Karp’s request to direct the Department to pursue the water survey and the title and right-of-way survey? Director Bell stated yes. A motion would make it absolutely clear.

Chairman Arvas entertains a motion to direct the Department on the issue of the Marquez Wildlife Area.

MOTION: Commissioner Henderson moved the Commission direct the Department to pursue a water rights survey, determine title for the complete Marquez property and determine easement right-of-ways as determined by the investigation. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya seconded motion.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya asked about the assessment regarding the RS 2477 roadways. He felt those are legitimate, and recognized by the Federal government and counties to have the authority as part of Mr. Karp’s analysis and research. He encouraged Mr. Karp to review this. Chairman Arvas asked if the Department has an estimate as to the cost of the water study? Director Bell stated yes, but did not recall the figures and asked Jim Karp to state what the cost. Karp stated the preliminary estimated cost of the survey is between 2 and 4 thousand dollars, depending on the scope of the survey.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried

AGENDA ITEM NO. 8. Existing Commission Policies.

The Department will present these policies one at a time for discussion and then for the Commission to act upon.

Presented by Larry Bell – Director Bell stated that the Importation of Exotic Wildlife Species and their Hybrids and Retention of Exotic Species of Protected Animals and Their Hybrids is a June 24, 1992 policy. This policy has been superseded by the importation regulation that addresses each and every one of the concerns addressed in the policy. It is the Department’s belief this policy is no longer valid and could be repealed and removed from the long-standing Commission policies. The next policy is importation of Elk Species and their Hybrids, in the new importation rule the Department has specifically addressed the issues of importation of elk and all other wildlife. It set-up very strict and stringent conditions by which these animals can be brought into the State and by whom. This is also superseded by the importation regulation and this policy can be removed since the Department relies on the rule. The Department requested that the Commission discuss these two, since they are related both to importation, and make a determination before moving on.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

John Dimas – Is opposed to exotics and has been for 35 years.

Commissioner Riordan – Feels that in the State of New Mexico, Oryx, Ibex and Barbary Sheep hunting has had a tremendous beneficial economic impact on what’s happened in this state. He is not saying that everything stated by Mr. Dimas is wrong but there is balance and you don’t get rid of all the animals that are contributing to some of the sportsman.

Steve Balok, President, NM Elk Producers Association - Presented handout to Commission. Feels the Class “A” Parks are the ones being punished because of CWD. Would like exotics to be considered for importing on the Class “A” Parks. Commissioner Riordan stated he listed his problems but asks what the solutions are. Balok believes the solution for CWD has been addressed in the importation regulation. New Mexico has the most stringent CWD importation regulation in North America. Would like to put the importation regulation into effect and give them the opportunity to work by it. Balok recently lost 2 hunting season, a lot of the hunting that goes on in the State depends on being able to import animals for harvest for that hunting season. He further stated this is the second year he has not been able to do that. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asks Director Bell about an article regarding CWD being found in Game Park elk in Wisconsin and asked how the Department regulated importation and how the Department assured the Class “A” Parks were not importing? Director Bell stated current regulation for importation of cervid requires that any cervid imported into the State come from a certified disease free facility for both tuberculosis and brucellosis. In addition, they have conducted CWD testing and that they have been free from any outbreak for a 60 month period. He feels that this State’s borders must remain closed to the import of cervid until CWD tests can be improved. Balok understood that it is the responsibility of Game and Fish to protect the free ranging animals of the State, but would also like the opportunity to present their position. They certainly do not want animals imported that harbor any sort of disease. They are looking for a happy middle ground, possibly a round-table to discuss this and find out what they can do to get importation opened back up and reassess the risk. They would rely on the Commission to bring in the experts. There are a number of states that have started to move animals and feel they can draw off some of this and see if all can come to a happy medium. Chairman Arvas would like to see Mr. Balok and the Department meet to resolve the stated concerns. Commissioner Riordan stated he is always open to discuss the issue. He is in favor of Class “A” Parks and what they bring to the State. Director Bell understands what is being said and would be happy to reconvene the Animal Health Emergency Committee established by the Department’s regulation. This Committee would bring in people from the United States Department of Agriculture, Veterinary Services, the state veterinarian, representatives from the Office of the Attorney General and experts from within the Department. It also will bring in those people affected by the decision. Balok offered to supply CWD packets to the Commission.

Marvin Cromwell, Pearson Ranch - On September 26, 2001 received a call from Dan Brooks regarding the possibility that 3 of his elk imported from Colorado had been exposed to CWD. One week later on October 5th, 10 Game Wardens and 3 Division Chiefs began the complete eradication of his herd. Cromwell stated he fully cooperated and appreciated the professionalism of Director Bell. To this date, the State continues to allow the importation of whole harvested carcasses from any state, even carcasses from epidemic states like Colorado and that perhaps this is how White Sands came to have CWD. Cromwell went on to say CWD is here in New Mexico and has always been here and feels he is not being treated fairly. He feels the Department’s own animal health expert, Kerry Mower, has stated the incubation period for CWD is 18 to 60 months and asked why the borders are closed to park owners that want to import animals that meet or exceed the regulation? The Department violated the Sherman Act, the US Anti-Trust Laws when it exported for barter, elk to Kentucky that did not meet its own regulations. Cromwell would like the animal health emergency lifted. Director Bell stated that his earlier comments head us in the direction, he does not know what the outcome of the committee will be but it does give the Department that opportunity.

John Dimas – Spoke earlier on exotics and is now speaking on Class “A” Parks. States that every one of the Class “A” Parks has had escapes with the exception of one. They have all had diseases. The parks are not an asset but a liability. The Class “A” Parks need to be liable when they introduce a disease that goes into the wild population and need to pay for it.

Larry Caudill – Urges the Commission to err on the side of caution. He reminded the Commission that the wellspring for CWD comes from a game park in Colorado that shipped infected elk to no less than 5 separate states. An analysis from Wisconsin shows that hundreds of white tails have escaped from their own game parks. This is nothing to fool around with. He feels that the importation requirements should be retained. Further stated that if caution with trout had been taken most of the hatcheries would not have been closed due to whirling disease.

Debbie Hughes, Represents a Class “A” Game Park that they do own - Has worked with the Department on regulations and supports the repeal of the current policies because there are a lot stricter regulations. Wants to look at the fact that maybe private industry should be able to bring in exotics. If the Game and Fish can, there should be equal rights for private industry. Urged the Commission to continue to look at this and would like to see the Class “A” Game Park owners have a seat on the committee.

Carol Ansley, Red Canyon Ranch - Invites the Commission to their ranch to view their park. Would like the Commission to come to an elk ranch to see how the animals are handled, vaccinated, wormed and cared for. They feel that if the Commission can see this, then they can understand the type of animals they want to bring into the State. They want to bring in very well conditioned animals.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to retain, amend or repeal the first two items under existing Commission policies.

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to retain the importation of the exotic wildlife species and their hybrids and also the importation of elk species and their hybrids. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion.

Director Bell asked if the motion was is to retain both of these as Commission policies? Chairman Arvas stated that was correct, but without amending or repealing.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya for clarification, asked Director Bell if it was accurate that he indicated that the two policies in question are already covered in the importation regulations? He also wondered if this is redundant since they are already covered. Alvin Garcia stated policies are one thing but regulations are the enforceable provisions of the law. Commissioner Alfredo Montoya just wanted clarification whether these policies were already addressed in the importation regulations and if so felt there is no use in having them. Director Bell stated the importation rule adopted by the State Game Commission and filed addresses each and every item contained in these policies and allows the Department working framework for that importation. The policies are not needed and it is cleaner to probably repeal them, but if the Commission desires to keep them the Department will do so. Chairman Arvas, asked Director Bell for clarification on the issue to explain to the Commission what the repealing vote would actually do. Director Bell stated that the repealing vote would do away with both these policies and allow the rule to be the guiding documents for importation for wildlife species. That would then be the only guiding document instead of having two policies and a rule addressing the same issue. Commissioner Riordan asks Director Bell to discuss what the rule is. Dan Brooks reviewed the Rule.

MOTION REPEALED: Commissioner Riordan withdrew his motion to retain the importation of the exotic wildlife species and their hybrids and also the importation of elk species and their hybrids. Commissioner Sims withdrew his second to the motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried

Director Bell – Stated Title 19, Chapter 35, Part 7 goes through a whole section of definitions. It states it shall be unlawful to import protected species of live animals, birds or fish as defined in statute into New Mexico without first obtaining appropriate permits issued by the Director of the Department of Game and Fish. Such permits issued only for those purposes named in sub-section A, and the purposes named would be importation of protected mammals or birds would be considered only if they were being imported into licensed Class “A” Parks, zoos, shooting preserves, licensed game bird propagation facilities, rehabilitation facilities, educational facilities for scientific study, for field trials, for Indian religious purpose or by a permitted falconer. Also stated is the Director can, in times of animal health emergencies suspend all animal importation activities to protect our wildlife populations along with criteria that all imported animals must meet. Methods for testing were reviewed. Commissioner Riordan asked if the Department would have better clarification if the policies were repealed? Director Bell answered the repeal of the policies has no bearing on the Class “A” Parks. The Department would just follow the regulation to make a determination as to the appropriateness of an import consistent with that Rule. Commissioner Riordan asks if repealing has anything to do with the importation of exotics, there are still rules allowing that with review from the Director and Commission. Director Bell stated the only thing considered is the import of those listed as protected game animals, and in this case the exotics in question would be oryx, ibex and Barbary sheep. These are listed as protected game animals.

MOTION: Commissioner Riordan moved to repeal item one and item two of Agenda Item Number 8, which are the importation of exotic wildlife species and the importation of elk species and their hybrids. Commissioner Alfredo Montoya seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried

Director Bell stated at the 100th celebration of International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies the Association adopted the value of the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation contained within that, setting the stage for the future of conservation are six guiding principles that were adopted by the International Association and he thinks they are good guiding principles. If the Commission chooses to adopt these as their own guiding principles it would set a very good tone with the public: 1.) Commission would be committing to remain diligent in their effort to maintain principal authority and control over wildlife at the state level; 2.) They would remain diligent in meeting their obligation pertaining to importation, possession and use of wildlife and efforts would continue to include law enforcement programs that combat illegal trafficking and market hunting and commercialization; 3.) Commission and its affiliates would aggressively engage hunters and anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, other conservationists and the general public about the need to maintain wildlife as a public trust; 4.) Commission would renew their commitment to using scientific principles to improve resource management practices; 5.) Commission would remain diligent in an effort to perpetuate the role of hunting/fishing and trapping in this North American model and in their wildlife conservation practices; and 6.) Commission would embrace the task of establishing guidelines or criteria by which activities can be evaluated such that most of society will be satisfied as to our leadership. Director Bell also stated that members of the public asked the Commission to consider a 7th principle and that is, the Commission remain diligent in advocating the maintenance and enhancement of public wildlife habitat and support new and innovative means of developing, maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat on public and private lands.

Chairman Arvas would like to add the next two in this motion.

Director Bell stated these are items that set up the Commission Guidebook. Of particular note is an assurance of public input, stating the Commission shall take no final action until it determines the necessity of public input. The Department is to provide the Commission updates regarding the status of agenda items for which public input is being solicited. It is a very public friendly policy if it were to be adopted. It also sets up things the Commission should consider in its rule making process. Director Bell recommended adoption by the Commission. The last item the Commission should adopt is its own Rules of Order and he suggests Robert’s Rules of Orders as being the most familiar to the public and because it gives the Commission guidance.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to adopt all three of the items stated by Director Bell.

MOTION: Commissioner Jennifer Montoya moved to adopt the 7 Principles of Wildlife Management, Chapter 4 of the Game Commission Handbook, Commission Operations and Policies and Roberts Rules of Orders for conducting Commission meetings. Commissioner Riordan seconded the motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried

AGENDA ITEM NO. 9. 19.30.8 NMAC, The Guide and Outfitter Registration Rule.

Presented by Dan Brooks - 19.30.8 NMAC was opened for possible amendment at the March 5, 2003 meeting. A brief presentation on Outfitter/Guide registration was presented before the Commission and consisted of recommended amendments and deletions. The goal is that the Department’s provision of statewide system for hunting activities and self-sustaining and hatchery-supported fisheries satisfies the participation expectations for New Mexico residents and takes into consideration hunter safety, quality hunt, high demand areas, guides and outfitters, quotas and local and financial interests. Objectives include reducing incidences of confusion or discordance between the Game Commission and the Department; fewer incidents of confusion, contradictions and conflicts arising from regulatory complexity by 2005 than in past years; and that the public has the information it needs to support and participate in Department programs. The Department requested of the Commission, an amendment to Rule 19.30.8 NMAC, the Guide and Outfitter Registration Rule. This included, but was not limited to, history of violations, testing requirements, registration procedures, and proof of Outfitter Liability Insurance. Stated they adjusted one item from the last meeting, they have decided that they have added language to make the regulation a little more definitive under the $500,000 required insurance. The Department is going to allow the outfitters to determine if they want year round coverage or if they just want certain months, as long as the coverage is there, when they are operating. The Department will be working with the Guide and Outfitter Registrar who will find a way to track these dates within the database. Brooks thanked the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Council of Guides and Outfitter, John Boretsky and the Law Enforcement staff.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Chairman Arvas asked Brooks to repeat the wording for the requested change. Brooks stated instead of “proof” it is “acceptable proof”, the registration period from April 1 to March 31 is the actual license year that makes things a little easier and failure to provide the proof could result in suspension. This will not inhibit the registration, they can still register prior to the January 15 deadline, but when it comes time to be active during the actual registration period then they need to provide the Department with proof and it could be in the file already. For example, some insurance can go from October 1, 2002 to October 1, 2003 and when this expires they would need to send in the new insurance paperwork.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to have the amendment that would include, but is not limited to the history of the violations, to testing requirement, registration procedures and proof of outfitter liability insurance.

MOTION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya moved, on the guide and outfitter registration, to incorporate the amendments as presented. Commissioner Riordan seconded motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried

AGENDA ITEM NO. 10. Legislative Update

Presented by Larry Bell - The Department provided a final report on the 2003 Legislative session and any impacts on the Department. Director Bell felt the Department fared well and there are a number of bills that will provide a great service and benefit. Items that passed are as follow:

HB7 General Appropriations Act gave the Department adequate funding we did get an approved budget of $27,000,141 plus an additional of $50,000 from general fund for conservation services.

HB430 designated the Whiptail Lizard and Spadefoot Toad as official state reptile and amphibian of New Mexico.

HB516 requiring a stamp for fishing with 2 poles within NM waters did pass. It is set up as a $3.00 stamp. If it is signed, we will allow trout fisherman beginning this year after July 1 to fish with 2 rods, provided they have the additional $3.00 stamp, would not require any additional fee be paid by the warm water fisherman as they are currently receiving this benefit for free. Starting our next license year all fishermen would be required to buy the $3.00 second pole stamp.

HB560 has been signed; this creates the bear proof garbage containers initiative. Gives the Commission authority to designate animal nuisance areas relative to bears, it requires the individuals affected to put in place bear proof containers.

HB650/SB499 which creates the 2 elk licenses for the terminally ill children to be used through organizations such as “Hunt of a Lifetime.” We have asked the Governor to sign it.

SB499 Was carried by a sponsor requested by the Department.

HB656 creates a special wildlife art license plate. People will have the option of obtaining a state wildlife plate.

HB860 provided an additional $100,000 from the bighorn sheep enhancement fund to be used for bighorn sheep restoration. It was a request by the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, the bill passed, but the same $100,000 was incorporated into our budget as an increase so we have asked that the Governor not sign HB860 since it is already a portion of our existing budget.

SB59 is shooting artificial game or birds, initiative brought forward by our Conservation Officers Association, providing them a new tool in utilizing artificial wildlife during daytime operations to help in the apprehension of violators of the hunting laws. It should provide a safer hunting environment.

SB560 initiative requested by Mule Deer Foundation to create 2 deer enhancement permits, very similar to the ones for bighorn sheep and elk, setting aside 2 licenses; one for auction and one for raffle with all money generated being used for mule deer management in the State.

SB737 criminal trespass notices, changes the posting requirements for trespass. It makes it a strict liability law.

SB812 eliminated the size restrictions on game parks

HJM3 did pass, instructs the Department to work closely with Highway Department in curtailing vehicle/deer collisions through mechanisms such as highway crossings and underpasses

HJM30 instructs the Department to work closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to determine if there could be some type of reciprocal licensing agreement for fishing on Lake Maloya which the water of Lake Maloya spans the state line.

Chairman Arvas complimented the Department on their efforts and asked Director Bell to name the legislative group. Director Bell stated the team consisted of Assistant Director Roberta Salazar-Henry, Assistant Director Tod Stevenson, Dan Brooks, Barbara Morin, Pat Block, Luke Shelby. Appreciation was also given to various members of the public and other organizations.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Larry Caudill – Feels there are two bills in the package that are detrimental to the interests of sportsmen and contrary to the wildlife resource, they are SB812 and SB737. Stated the trespass law places the entire responsibility on the user. If he crosses onto private land he could be bagged without knowing it. It removes all obligations on the part of the landowner to post and mark boundaries and it pre-empts the Commission in terms of suspending licenses. Removes posting requirements, removes requirements to give property owners names so that if you wanted to call and ask you have no way to do so. SB812 - Currently Class “A” Parks are a maximum of 3,200 acres and it does not take much fence to completely bottle up a population and impede or contain a migration. Chama Land and Cattle was a problem several years ago. Would like to the Commission to call the Governor and request he not sign the two bills.

Bill Ferranti, Director of NM Wildlife for Responsible Wildlife Management - His organization proposed the trespass law. They have an Attorney General opinion that signage is not required in the new law and instead of signage they were proposing orange posts every 1,000 feet. They are not changing anything else. All they are asking for as private landowners and all they are trying to do is share responsibility with public as far as trespass. Does not see it as a problem, it just shares responsibility.

Oscar Simpson, NM Wildlife Federation - Feels the Commission should issue a public release on SB812. It has far reaching implications and broadens the scope of Class “A” Parks, it broadens the ability of the private landowner to take ownership of wildlife and then resource can be utilized as needed. The prior ability of the Game Department having to go in and condemn the wildlife, pay for the wildlife and then also have to clean up the ranch facilities. The funding comes out of the Game Protection Fund. The owner of the game park has no responsibility or liability because the Game Department has the requirement to condemn the wildlife, dispose of animals, reimburse them and also try and clean it up.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Riordan stated the Game and Fish Department with the assistance of Assistant Director Glenn Case made recommendations on SB812, and that was “do not pass” to the Governor.

Director Bell remarked that this is was odd time to be bringing up opposition on legislation that has already passed and expect the Commission to have true impact on this. While he saw many of the same faces there on the “feel-good bills” the “let’s-do-this-‘cause-it’s-right bills” he states that he did not see any of them standing at committee at the legislature supporting the Department’s FIR, supporting the agencies bill analysis in opposition to these measures. He did not see any of them stating this is bad public policy and felt it unfair for them to come in now and expect the Commission to come back around the corner and circumvent the entire legislative process. Director Bell stated they were out of synch, and coming to the Commission this late in the game was just a bit remiss. Director Bell hoped that lesson is learned and in the future will see more of the public there. Director Bell stated the same thing of Sandia Bear Watch in that they showed up for those bear proof container bills, but they did not show up on the bills that had true impact and long-ranging effect on wildlife management in the State of NM.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 16. Financial and Budget Updates

Budget Overview

Presented by Barbara Morin - Presentation consisted of budget composition by fund for fiscal year 2003. This included Sikes Act; Share with Wildlife; Endangered Species; Big Game depredation damage; Big Game Enhancement and Game Protection. Program appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 – Sport Hunting and Sport Fishing; Conservation Services; Administration; and Wildlife Depredation and Nuisance Abatement. Appropriations by division were presented along with 3 fiscal years operating budget comparison of all funds and budget comparison by fund and category for fiscal years ‘02, ‘03 and ‘04. Morin also spoke on ancillary budget concerns for 2004 and preliminary budget analysis for the game protection fund.

Department Participation in Federal Grant Programs

Presented by Lisa Evans - Approximately 1/3 of the Department’s revenue is derived from a variety of federal grant programs. Two major grant programs are Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. Monies collected come via excise taxes on guns, ammunition, bows, arrows, sport fishing equipment, and motorboat fuel. They are annually apportioned to states based on landmass and number of individual license buyers. Collective apportionment for these programs represents an average of $8 million annually. Long-term projections fluctuate based on national sales of taxed items and number of license buyers certified each year. Purpose of funding is the conservation, restoration, and or enhancement of wild birds, wild mammals, and sport fish and the provision for public use of and benefit from these resources, and the education of hunters. Projects are matched at a 3:1 ratio. Current Department projects fund most activities associated with management of fish, waterfowl, and big and small game species. These activities include research, species restoration, and development of management plans, surveys, disease testing, operation of fish hatcheries, maintenance of Commission owned properties, hunter and aquatic education, and boater access. Several other grant programs include Endangered Species, State Wildlife Grant Program, Wildlife Conservation program, and Landowner Incentive Program. Monies are authorized by congress and apportioned based on the percentage of listed animal and plant species in New Mexico compared to USFWS-Region 2 or landmass and population of New Mexico, depending on the program. Each program has a specific purpose but the primary focus is on the conservation of Federal or State Listed Species or their respective habitat on public and private land. Current Department projects fund research of several state/federal listed species, the development of a state comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan, two Department Recovery Biologist positions, habitat restoration at Bear Canyon Reservoir, and several cost-share agreements with private organizations. Wildlife conservation Restoration Program funds are being used to design and construct the conservation Education Center.

Evans stated the license fees collected by the Department might only be used for the administration of the Department. This means only those functions required to manage the fish and wildlife-oriented resources of the state for which the state has authority under state law. All property, real or personal must be maintained and utilized for the primary purpose for which it was acquired.

Revenue, Expenditures and the Game Protection Fund cash balance

Presented by Patrick Block – The purpose of the presentation was to briefly explain the relationship between revenue, expenditures and the cash balance for the Game Protection Fund; to show how the Game Protection Fund cash balance has increased in the past few years; and to show the long term cash balance projections. Items reviewed are as follow: Seasonal nature of license sales, flat expenditures, seasonal revenues, relationship of revenue, expenditures and the cash balance, budget requests and approved operating budgets, long term cash balance projections, license sales, and monthly license revenue. A nonresident fee increase took effect in 1994. A resident fee increase took effect in 1997. This increase included differential fees for bull and cow elk and the high demand and quality hunt fees. The Commission approved Department budget requests that sought to spend what was taken in. The legislative and executive budget analysts do not want to approve budgets that would hasten the next request for a fee increase. The final operating budgets have been lower than the Department’s income, helping build the cash balance. Block went on to say a large cash balance provides security and allows the agency to extend the interval between fee increases and a cash balance of 15-20% of the next year’s operating budget for proper cash flow during the seasonal lulls in income must be maintained. This amount is currently $5 million. What this means is the Department must continue to project into the future in order to manage the cash balance responsibly and to provide services to the citizens of New Mexico. The current cash balance cannot last indefinitely while maintaining current service levels and in order to maintain current service levels, the Department will need the next fee increase to pass no later than the 2005 legislative session. FY 2003 and proposed FY2004 Capital Project appropriations will cause the Department to delay funding additional projects, including construction of the Warm Water Hatchery in Santa Rosa. Block stated the alternative to increasing income is to cut back on staff and/or services to the public.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Riordan asked who managed the cash balance. Pat Block states the State Treasurer manages the Department’s cash balance. What they generally do is invest these in over-night investments. It is maintained in a state of full liquidity, it’s not invested longer than the over-night. Commissioner Pino asked for clarification, when Morin was making her presentation from the state side and when Evans was making her presentation she was from the Federal side, do we have different classes of employees? Pat Block stated no, Evans was talking about federal funds that the Department uses to help fund programs. Commissioner Henderson had a comment to follow-up with Director Bell. He has spent more years at the legislature than he cares to remember and every year he learns something new. He learned this year that legislators are willing to spend down the cash balances for their pet projects, they are not there to defend our portfolio but will defend theirs. He concurs with Director Bell that the Department needs to spend more time defending its own portfolio.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Michael Pacheco – has tried to follow the budget. Asks what percentage of the funds come from camping gear? Chairman Arvas stated approximately 1/3 of funds come from the camping gear. Michael Pacheco asked how much is going to habitat restoration. Director Bell states as a point of clarification the federal money that is generated through the sale of certain equipment contributes to about 1/3 of the budget but that is not camping equipment. The only money that the excise tax is on is sporting arms, ammunition, certain fishing equipment, rods, reels, salmon eggs and lures. The Department does not get a dime from anyone buying a bedroll or a camera. Feels that we spend about $1.4 million a year through money contributed by hunters and fishermen from the habitat stamp required on each hunting and fishing license.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 (Portion of)

Chairman Arvas introduced Director Elect, Bruce Thompson. Thompson gave a short biography. He received a BS in Wildlife Management in 1971 and an MS in Wildlife Ecology in 1976 and Ph.D. in Wildlife Science in 1982. Presently he is the leader of the NM Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit in Las Cruces. Thompson plans to move into the duties as Director on April 28. Thompson added that he grew up on a dairy, hog and chicken farm in Wisconsin and has lived in New Mexico for the last 13 years, and owned a small alfalfa and pecan farm in Mesilla Valley. He is married and has two children and is an avid outdoorsman and wildlife enthusiast. He is published on a wide array of wildlife conservation and management topics and is a major advisor and teacher to a number of wildlife and fisheries students. Thompson stressed the Department is going to face increasing future needs to ensure that conservation provisions are sufficient for the State’s wildlife, but most importantly that effective processes are in place for all constituents to contribute to the costs of managing these resources for generations to come.

NEW BUSINESS

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11. 19.31.8 NMAC, The Big Game Rule.

Presented by Bill Dunn– The Department is requesting the Commission open 19.31.8 NMAC to take public input through June 30, 2003 specific to bear hunting for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Big Game Seasons, prior to possibly amending the Rule. The Department outlined the public involvement process that will be utilized to take public input to be used in preparing possible harvest strategies.

A short summary of the process that resulted in the current 2003-05 bear-hunting season was presented and consisted of the following: Sport Hunting and Fishing program objective to minimize the negative impacts of anticipated drought conditions on game populations and sport hunting opportunity; Wildlife Depredation Program objective to keep the public safe from harm during encounters with potentially dangerous wildlife; and Administration Program objective to make the public aware the Department is a knowledgeable and competent manager of the State’s wildlife. Also reviewed: Estimated distribution, abundance, habitat requirements, breeding habitats, economic values; considerations regarding duplications and/or conflicts with existing Rules or Statutes; and description and summary of public involvement process and results.

Dunn stated the Bear Task Force objectives are how to best manage nuisance bears and how to optimize hunting opportunity. Evolution of the current season was reviewed and included Task Force, Department, and Commission decisions (2003 season).

Dunn stated options are: 1.) Leave current season in place; 2) Reconsider fall 2003 season; and 3) reconsider fall 2004 season.

Reconsideration of the 2003-2005 bear season

Presented by Bill Dunn – Dunn stated the objectives of the Bear Task Force is to manage nuisance bears and optimize hunting opportunity. Dunn went on to say the Task Force recommendations are two-fold. The Department received public input, mostly on pursuit season and most not being in favor of it. The Department went before the Commission with an August 15 – 31 hunt, and an October 1 – November 15 over the counter hunt. The Commission decided to open the full month of August and then September 25 – November 15 over the counter hunt.

Over the course of gathering information for the next two years of Big Game Regulations, public input was obtained and the decision that the 2003 season over the counter hunts be the same as 2002, the bow season was added and the Sandia/Manzano hunt cut back to one month, males only with dogs required for identification purposes.

The following items were also reviewed:

Beliefs vs. Fact:

1. Did recent harvest decrease population viability? The answer is no.

If we had 5500 bears and take away 712 through a harvest, you do not have 0 bears.

2. Reproduction did occur: 38% of the nuisance females with cubs (1.3 cubs/female)

Recruitment: possibly 250 bears into the population

3. Does summer pursuit kill bears? No

These statements are based on polar bear research which is indirect speculation.

There was some work from the University of Montana on polar bears. These bears are not comparable, completely different animals. There is a study in Eastern Oregon: they have captured over 250 bears all pursued by hounds and collared. They have had zero mortality.

4. Does 2-bear hunt result in excessive harvest? No

Only 15 of 712 that were harvested were 2nd bears. It did not really address our nuisance bear problem.

5. Are feeding stations the answer? No

Danger to public, there is no place in this state where we could dump food and not have a potential dangerous situation. It is an attractive nuisance: bears beget people, think Yellowstone. Artificially high population because those bears would not survive on their own. Better to let nature takes it’s course.

6. Does harvest remove nuisance bears? Maybe

Density reduction may help but often hunting is not feasible in the areas where there are nuisance bears, we can’t release hounds in a lot of the neighborhoods in the East Mountain area of the Sandia’s. Hunting often not feasible where nuisance occurs, how do you know you are taking a nuisance bear.

7. Will pursuit chase off nuisance bears? Maybe

Must be maintained. Bears will return when effort ceases unless attractant (garbage) is removed.

OPTIONS

1. Leave current season in place.

2. Reconsider fall 2003 season.

3. Reconsider fall 2004 season.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked why there was a difference in the recommendations between the Department and Task Force?

Bill Dunn stated the Task Force is an advisory committee only; they do not make the recommendation. There was a lot of public input against the pursuit season and the Department felt it was better to go for a straight hunt for the 2-week period. Director Bell stated the Department did recommend the 2-week August season and ultimately the Commission decided on a one-month season. It was based on the methodology for addressing the increased bear/human interaction problem. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked Director Bell if this information was provided to the previous Commission suggesting harvest of nuisance bears not being feasible and if they made the decision to extend to early August, even though it seems it may not help? Director Bell stated that was an assessment made by the Department in trying to determine if their strategy for reducing animal or bear/human conflicts was an effective strategy and as heard in Dunn’s presentation, had no impact on the number of depredation complaints received. Commissioner Pino asked if the fall of 2004 dates the same as the 2003 season?

Director Bell answered essentially yes.

Chairman Arvas asked for a show of hands to see how many wished to open the Rule. Revisit and reconsider

Those in favor of opening up the rule

Jeff Davis, Sandia Mountain Bear Watch

Jan Hays, Sandia Mountain Bear Watch

Deb Stefan, Sandia Mountain Bear Watch

Michael Pacheco, Las Vegas

Larry Caudill, Albuquerque

Oscar Simpson, NM Wildlife Federation

Aaron Jones, Rancho Lobo, Chama

Those not in favor of opening up the rule.

Jay Taylor, NM Houndsmen Association

Steve Lithgow, Las Cruces

George Hobs, New Mexico Houndsmen Association.

Larry Dwyer, Cliff, New Mexico

Jim Gierhart, Buckhorn, New Mexico

Greg McWhorter, Houndsmen, Cliff, New Mexico

Robert Seeds, Outfitter, Espanola, New Mexico

Marty Greenwood, Outfitter

David Heiss, Raton, NM

Les Gililland

Jess Gililland, NM Houndsmen Association

Jess Rankin, Outfitter, Roswell, NM

John Boretsky, NM Council of Outfitters and Guides

Bill Ferranti, HH Ranch

Gary Washburn, Biologist

Robyn Blackston, rancher, hunter

Eloy Giron

Richard Orona

Gabriel Ortiz

Doug Aukland, San Juan Archers

Don Gaitland, Houndsman

Debbie Boyer, Outfitter, Reserve, NM

Fred Gelley, Rainey Mesa Ranch, retired Forest Service employee

Dunn asked the Commission which option they preferred?

Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked Director Bell if the previous Commission made their decision based on scientific evidence, because there is a change in what the Department recommendation and what happened in the decision making process. Director Bell stated that was a strategy selected by the Commission to implement a sport harvest in lieu of a Department killing program. Another comment that is important and cannot be over looked is sound science and sound management have a wide array of activity that can be implemented and the only one to implement is the one that will get you to where your goal is. The question that no one is addressing is: How many bears are right for New Mexico? Not how many bears are right based on biology because, quite frankly, we will never get to carrying capacity. The Department’s statutory mandate says we have to manage these bears somewhere between carrying capacity and viability. The Department can manage for a much lower population and meet that mandate. The bears right now are telling us something and we have to ask ourselves: Why are so many bears coming to town? Is it because they enjoy people and because they like back yards? No, it is because there is something in the environment that is telling them to go to town. Bears are opportunists, but what is making them look for food is there’s a higher bear population than the States current habitat can sustain and they are having to range further and wider to find food. Director Bell felt the bear population is at or above what the current conditions can maintain and it may need to come down some, but any of this is the Commission charge in determining a viable management. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya stated she appreciated what Director Bell was saying in that the Commission needed to grapple with how many bears is the right number and it could be the question that comes out in another round of public meetings. Commissioner J. Montoya asked if it is time to re-open the rule so the Commission understand it better and that they get to review that the last decisions were made on sound input and does not know the difference between sport harvest and Department killing. Director Bell stated often times some get hung up on managing for a number of animals in the field of wildlife management. You will never know exactly how many animals you have. The more important question is: Is our current management providing the population trend that’s desirable? If the Department can get the public to agree on a trend and that trend could be increased, decreased or maintained then we can begin working in the same direction for the same purpose. The difference between sport harvest and Department killing is when we have a nuisance bear in town, or a bear that has attacked livestock, our officers kill the bear. The Department has a-three-strikes-and-you’re-out policy for bears that are nuisances. As opposed to our officers doing the killing, sport harvest opens the area up for the sale of licenses and for outfitters to have the opportunity. Commissioner J. Montoya presumed that was the reason the previous Commission added the additional 2 weeks and that was based an attempt to get a handle on the nuisance bear problem. Director Bell stated that was correct. It was their hope that as a result of these bears concentrating in and around town, that by using the first two weeks in August a number of sport hunters, outfitters or hounds men would hunt in and around those urban areas in order to push those bears back out, or harvest them before they got into town. Chairman Arvas asked if a motion was required to reopen the Rule? Director Bell’s answer was “no”? The rule is open by virtue of the advertisement in setting up the meeting that opened the rule for the Commission’s consideration. Commissioner Henderson asked, of the 340 how many were taken in the first two weeks? Dunn did not have the information available. Commissioner Pino stated some of the public gave testimony to the Commission regarding hounds and pursuit and requested Dunn explain the difference between pursuit and use of hounds. Dunn answered “the difference is with a regular hunt they are allowed to use hounds to tree and kill. In a pursuit season, they can just tree the bear and then they have to back off and the bear is allowed to escape. Commissioner Pino asked if one could pursue but not kill the bear between August 1 and 31? Dunn answered “no”. Regulation currently states they are allowed to hunt, pursue and kill the bear for the month of August. Commissioner Riordan asked Luke Shelby how many bears were taken from the Sandia’s this past season? Shelby stated there were six hunter-harvested bears in the Sandia Mountains (Unit 8). There were a couple killed by depredation complaints and a couple of road kills. There were 10 mortalities for bears in Unit 8. Department personnel trapped 50 bears 62 times in 2002. More than half were released in the Sandia’s and the rest in the Manzanos. Commissioner Riordan stated that unless the Department captured every bear in the Sandia’s, hunter harvest is just about 10 percent out of the 50 captured. His concern is that we are trying to limit the bear hunting in the Sandia’s when it seems to him that the hunting in the Sandia’s has an almost insignificant effect on the population. Shelby agreed with Commissioner Riordan’s comments. Commissioner Riordan believes in science as a tool to determine what our wildlife is, he also believes in common sense. Scientists are telling us we have a lot of bears, we have emotion on both sides, and both sides have reasons and interests. Recommended the hounds men not to take every bear they tree, but on the same hand, he understands the economic impact. Feels that if the Commission gives their word they have to stick by it. Director Bell added the Department had a very restrictive hunt package during the 8-year bear study. It was the intent that when we emerged from the study that we would implement a 3-year regulation and leave it in place to determine the impact of the regulation. Essentially there have been changes made every year so we do not have the ability to evaluate the effect of any single harvest strategy. Commissioner Henderson asked what the season was prior to the Commissions decision? Director Bell answered he would have to get the old regulations and research that information and bring the information forward to the Commission.

Chairman Arvas summed it up. The Commission has 3 choices and they can do as they want but the Commission depends on the recommendations of the Department.

Commissioner Riordan stated the 2003 season needs to stay as is and in the meantime the Commission can look at the information. Making a change is adversarial to the outfitters and it would have an economic impact. Chairman Arvas stated there is plenty of time between now and the scheduled hunt for this to be done and recommended a consideration. He further went on to say this is a new Commission and they have a responsibility to the bears and sportsmen. If the Commission chose to act on one of the three options today he would entertain a motion, but also felt there is time to reflect and review data and add additional data to the factors. He has also talked to Director Bell and feels that bear management could be handled similar to lion management with zones. Commissioner Alfredo Montoya is interested in learning more and getting a better handle on the numbers and his recommendation into zones and the other available options. Further stated was, as a Commission, they have come in a little late in the process. The Proclamation is out and contracts have been implemented. There are a lot of commitments that have been made and it would place a lot of pressure on everyone if delayed. He would like to see this season remain as is and work hard at getting a better handle and seeing the options for 2004. There has been a lot of activity that has occurred already in terms of producing the Proclamation and this is what prompts everyone to make commitments.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion.

MOTION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya moved to look at Option 3 – leaving this season alone and reconsidering the fall 2004 season. Commissioner Riordan seconded the motion.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Eloy Giron – Would like to include Unit 14. There are a few people who hunt 14 and they just want to pursue these bears.

Chairman Arvas asks Director Bell to reiterate the motion.

MOTION REITERATED:

Director Bell stated as the motion stands it would not impact any changes to Unit 14 as the motion would be to leave current seasons as are for the 2003 season.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jan Hays, Sandia Mountain Bear Watch – Is concerned about the Manzano’s. The 2001 harvest for the Manzano’s was 31 bears and the 2002 harvest and depredation was 26. This is 57 bears in 2 years out of the Game and Fish population of 123 bears for both the Sandia’s and Manzano’s. This is what the study says.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. Commissioner’s Henderson and Pino vote no. Motion carries 4-2.

Chairman Arvas stated this was Director Bell’s last NM State Game Commission meeting and requested a round of applause for Director Bell.

Bill Dunn reviewed the reconsideration process for the 2004 season: There are 7 stages to this process and considerable citizen participation was obtained.

Stage 1 - Identify current bear harvest rule issues

Stage 2 - Draft alternative harvest strategies

Stage 3 - Evaluate alternative strategies

Stage 4 - Draft proposed bear harvest rule

Stage 5 - Commission consideration of proposed harvest rule

Stage 6 - Commission adoption of harvest rule

Stage 7 - Implement harvest rule

Dunn stated there are set deadlines for completion of the seven stages and felt the Department needed to stick to the set dates in order to be able to print the Proclamation on time.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Chairman Arvas asked about previous Big Game Rules being in August and September and asked when the deadline date was to send the information in for the proclamation. Director Bell stated the Department prefers to get final adoption on all rules by the end of October in order to get it to the printer by December. Chairman Arvas feels the Commission is going to want the data because he does not feel that they can make a decision without it. Bill Dunn said he will obtain the information requested. Director Bell stated the Department intends to propose the entire gamete of options from: Restricting seasons, giving opportunity to hear issues about liberalizing seasons, going to zones, going to quotas, going to closed areas, etc.

Commissioner Sims asked if the Department was looking at forming another study group on these bears? Dunn answered yes. It would be a task force comprised of citizens. Commissioner Sims understood that the previous Commission gave their word and this Commission should uphold that decision.

Director Bell informed the Commission agenda items 12 and 13 were merely to open the Rule and provide information the Commission.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12. 19.31.5 NMAC, The Upland Game Rule.

Presented by Tim Mitchusson - The Department requested the Commission open 19.31.5 NMAC to take public input specific to the 2003-2004 upland game seasons through June 30, 2003, prior to adopting a Rule for the 2003-2004 seasons. The Department will outline the public involvement process that will be utilized to gather input to be used to prepare possible harvest strategies. Amendments to the 2003-04 Upland Game Regulations are necessary in order to update resident upland game regulations and conform to USFWS frameworks on migratory species (September teal, sandhill crane, dove, and band-tailed pigeon) and adjust hunting opportunity where appropriate. The Department recommends the following: (1) Adjust upland game season dates for current calendar year; (2) Season dates and bag limits for the special Middle Rio Grande Valley (MEGV), Southwestern New Mexico (SW) and Estancia Valley (EV) sandhill crane hunts; (3) Number of permits for the special sandhill crane hunts; (4) Eliminate waterfowl identification course requirement for MRGV sandhill crane hunts; (5) Allow MRGV sandhill crane hunters to hunt the Rio Grande River from San Acacia dam to Bosque del Apache NWR; (6) Add Eurasian-collared doves to the aggregate dove bag limit; (7) Eliminate separate Montezuma quail bag limit from the aggregate quail bag limit; (8) Eliminate requirement that a foot remain attached on harvested quail; (9) Adjust falconry upland game season dates for the current calendar year; and (10) Adjust September teal season dates for the current calendar year.

The Department’s sandhill crane plan is in development and hopefully will be approved by August. Migratory bird species management uses existing Flyway Council management plans that involve bag limits, season lengths, and beginning and ending season framework dates. Sandhill cranes in the MRGV are also managed using the Plan for the Management for Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, and other Migratory Birds in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Regulation changes are adjustments for a new calendar year, hunter opportunity and species biology.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Mr. Richards – Feels Department’s quail management program is not very good. Feels there are things that can be done. Study group needed and each area represented. Break up quail seasons into different areas. Reduce seasons by 15 days and harvest cut to 8 or 10. The state as a whole does not have enough quail.

Chairman Arvas asked Director Bell if there was a process where these meetings take place around the state? Director Bell stated the Department is attempting to go where groups are already gathered because when a meeting is scheduled they are poorly attended. The Department will be doing that on a statewide effort.

Oscar Simpson, President, N.M. Wildlife Association – He has not seen, in quail management plan, an assessment of habitat. Would like to see a habitat assessment done on BLM and Forest Service. Tim Mitchusson – The Department is currently holding meetings with the Forest Service and when working on a project they do take into consideration quail issues and other upland game. Mitchusson added studies conducted in Arizona with Mearns Quail showed bag limits did not matter. With Upland Game, management comes down to habitat and climatic factors.

Oscar Simpson - Would like to see habitat issue raised and let the public know what the Department is doing to address the habitat along with what other federal agencies are doing to address habitat issues.

Mitchusson stated he is not sure how the Bureau of Land Management stands on that but he would look into it.

Joe Runyon, Cliff, NM. - Is interested in the progress of all these investigations and suggested references to the documents submitted be placed on the Department’s web page.

Larry Caudill – Feels the private ranches that have the habitat, water and feeding can enhance the populations. Agrees that more conservative quail management needs to be looked into.

Ellery Worthen – Would like to see grouse season extended. Several other states around us have longer seasons and they do not seem to have a problem with bow or muzzle loader hunters.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13. 19.31.6 NMAC, The Waterfowl Rule.

Presented by Tim Mitchusson – The Department requested the Commission open 19.31.6 NMAC to take public input through July 31, 2003, prior to adopting a Rule for the 2003-2004 waterfowl seasons. The Department will outline the public involvement process that will be utilized to gather input to be used to prepare possible harvest strategies. Amendments to the 2003-2004 Waterfowl Regulations are necessary in order to update resident waterfowl regulations and conform to USFWS frameworks on migratory species and adjust hunting opportunity where appropriate. The Department is recommending the following: (1) Adjust waterfowl season dates for current calendar year dependent on the Adaptive Harvest Management duck season package selected by the USFWS; (2) Eliminate waterfowl identification course requirement for Bernardo/Casa Colorada WMA light goose hunts; (3) Adjust season dates and permit numbers for the Bernardo/Casa Colorada WMA light goose hunts; and (4) Adjust falconry waterfowl season dates for the current calendar year.

Migratory bird species management uses the existing Flyway Management Plan that involve bag limits, season lengths, and beginning and ending season framework dates. Waterfowl in the MRGV are also managed using the Plan for the Management for Waterfowl, Sandhill Cranes, and other Migratory Birds in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Regulation changes are adjustments for a new calendar year, hunter opportunity and species biology. The Department manages 26 waterfowl species occurring statewide. Waterfowl species abundance varies from increasing overabundant populations to declining populations. The declining species trends are mainly due to drought on the breeding grounds. Breeding habitats are dependent on the moisture conditions in the Prairie Pothole region, boreal forest, and the Arctic. New Mexico’s importance is as a migratory stop-over site and wintering grounds. Approximately 6500 waterfowl hunters harvest approximately 80,000 birds annually.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: None

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Dale Jones, Valencia Soil and Water Conservation District – Sees the possibility that if a private individual could grow corn, not harvest, but leave for birds it would assist in improving the waterfowl habitat. Obstacle would be baiting law but feels it could be overcome.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Jennifer Montoya – Asked Dale Jones if the “hobby farmers” were growing some of the native plants, would it still be considered baiting? Dale Jones thinks you could use natural habitat without getting into the baiting laws, but crops are what draw the cranes, geese and ducks. There are some milos that are good for pheasant and Texas is using this. Tim Mitchusson added that native plants can be planted and it would not be considered baiting, but generally what is needed for waterfowl food is the high carbohydrates like crop grains.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Ellery Worthern – would like to see Rail season start 2 weeks earlier and coincide with teal season because that is when they are here.

Larry Caudill – Asked if small fields where growing food supply for waterfowl and were not hunted because of the proximity of buildings and other things, then how could it be considered baiting? Baiting involves hunting over bait and if there was no hunting then would that not take care of the baiting issue?

Chairman Arvas stated yes. There would not be any problem with that.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 14. 19.31.8 NMAC, The Big Game Rule.

Presented by Luis Rios - The Department is requesting the Commission amend 19.31.8 NMAC, the Big Game Rule for the 2003-2004 season, including, but not limited to, changing hunt codes for two muzzleloader antelope hunts to conform to the Big Game Rules and Information Booklet. Due to typographical errors in the 2003-04 Big Game Rules and Information Booklet (RIB), two antelope muzzleloader codes (e.g., ANT-3-102 and ANT-3-103) were incorrectly published as ANT-3-103 and ANT-3-104 respectively. The Department seeks to amend the Big Game Rule 2003-04 antelope hunt codes to reflect the hunt codes as published in the RIB.

This will provide correct and consistent information to hunters wishing to participate in antelope hunting and lessen the probability of incorrectly rejecting special hunts applicants due to the discrepancy between the Big Game Rule and the RIB.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henderson asked if it was standard practice that it has to be revisited every year for minor changes. Chairman Arvas stated this was a typographical error.

Director Bell added the Fishing Rule is less controversial and is usually kept for 4 years. Upland and Waterfowl is reviewed on a yearly basis because of the federal frameworks.

MOTION: Commissioner Jennifer Montoya moved to accept the Departments recommendation correcting the Rule to read Antelope 103 and 104. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 15. Quarterly Depredation Report.

Presented by Brandon Griffith - A report was presented to the Commission presenting information on depredation complaints filed through the 3rd quarter of Fiscal Year 2003. The presentation consisted of a brief overview of the Depredation Program and summarized the majority of complaints filed through the 3rd quarter of Fiscal Year 2003. This consisted of number of complaints; number of complaints resolved; number of interventions; number of successful and unsuccessful interventions and wildlife taken. Brandon Griffith stated each individual complaint is contacted in person to determine interventions necessary to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant. Such contact remains until the complaint is resolved.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked Griffith what the nature of the badger complaints were. Griffith stated without the information right in front of him it would be difficult to determine exactly what the complaint was. But, a number of badger complaints are badgers coming into people’s lawns and digging holes, basically destroying some type of ornamental property.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 17. Commission/Department Discussion

Mexican Wolf Recovery and Reintroduction Management Agreement between the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Arizona Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Presented by Chuck Hayes – Purpose of presentation was to briefly provide some historical context on the Mexican wolf reintroduction program. Items reviewed are as follows: Status of Mexican Wolves; timeline of previous action; 3-year review, biological component; Stakeholder recommendations from 3-year review; Implementation of program improvement (six directives)

September 2002-positions taken by Arizona and New Mexico State Game Commission

1 Restructure roles on primary cooperators.

2 Ensure stakeholder inclusion in adaptive management process.

3 Restructure field team protocols.

4 Restructure public outreach.

5 Comply with all applicable rules, policies, protocols, and agreements.

6 Implement 3-year review and a 5-year review.

Where are we today? At least 8 packs of wolves in the wild – 6 in Arizona, 2 in New Mexico both in or near the edge of the Gila Wilderness, minimum 40 wolves in wild excluding pups, 6-7 in NM. 77% of prey to date (from scats) has been elk.

Progress toward 6 directives

1 Cooperator roles: Model of federally led recovery, state/tribally led reintroduction developed, implemented, being incorporated into draft cooperator MOU

2 Stakeholder input: Transition to state-led adapted management group as a state led project it can be opened to individuals and not just government entities. We have had 2 meetings and a 3rd is scheduled for 4/30 meeting at Hon-dah Resort in Arizona.

3 Protocols: 3 completed and distributed to cooperators.

4 Outreach: 1st draft of an outreach plan that has been produced that is actually being rolled into an adaptive management plan.

Upcoming decision points:

Structuring cooperator agreement – first draft of revised MOU has been expanded to not only include NM Game and Fish and Arizona Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service it would have five or six “primary” cooperators (adding USFS APHIS/WS, WMAT and others), plus different roles for other agencies. Revising federal recovery plan – Re-do plan to contain clear down listing/de-listing thresholds. Could do by plan addendum or re-write, and could identify any additional recovery areas up front or after recovery numbers are determined.

Director Bell pointed out there were two people in the audience to assist the Commission with any questions and introduced Joy Nicopolas with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Brian Kelly who works with the Wolf Recovery.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henderson mentioned it was his understanding that the prior Commission did not support the introduction for releases and asked if the prior Commission ever took an official position in support of the reintroduction. Chuck Hayes responded that there was formal opposition expressed by the previous Commission and Governor. They were in favor of being involved but not in favor of the program. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya stated in her packet there was reference to “the service will disband the Mexican Wolf recovery team and assemble a new one to revise the outdated current plan using the draft field plan?” Hayes understood there was an effort started a couple of years ago that started to re-do this but felt it was a partial product and reference should be deleted.

Commissioner Pino stated that the wolf is a natural hunter and asked if there had been any major problems with people in reference to wolf packs in New Mexico and Arizona. Hayes answered that this was one of the questions asked in the three-year review. There had been incidents that had occurred, but they were below what was projected. Commissioner Jennifer Montoya asked when the re-constituted recovery team is supposed to be in place? Hayes said this spring.

Brian Kelly, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, mentioned that the plan would seek the State’s input as how to re-constitute the recovery team. Who should serve on it and how should it work. They plan to defer to the Commission for input prior to any decision being made.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Fred Galley – Not in favor of wolf reintroduction. They (the feds or compensation group?) do not keep their word with the ranchers. The ranchers do not trust them. Nobody is getting paid for any of their livestock losses, the guidelines are very restrictive and it is impossible to meet their deadlines. The ranchers are supposed to be called when there is a wolf in their vicinity so that they can watch and be ready.

Chairman Arvas said these are the types of comments needed in order for the Commission to get back to Hayes and the other cohorts in order to relate the problems. He has been assured by Mr. Hall that the program has not gone as effectively as it should have gone and it did not have the administration it should have had. As a Commission and a Department they are going to be very sure that all the problems are not going to be there. Fred Galley stated the presentation was candy coated as though everything was wonderful and there is no problem with the program. If they are going to present their program to the public and have the stakeholders who live in the area have any trust then they need to tell it like it is. Hayes states that unconfirmed losses are clearly a concern of livestock owners and a concern of the agencies involved who want to see fair compensation. There is a permittee in Arizona where we have set up a program to essentially evaluate what level of success we are having and documenting those kills. They are ear tagging cows and monitoring to see what level of loss the program is documenting.

Don Gaitland - Asked what the number of wolfs needed in the woods was in order to de-list them? Director Bell answered this is one of the things being considered in the re-drafting of the recovery so that number is known but was unable to give it to him today. Gaitland asked how many landowners in New Mexico and Arizona were reimbursed for wolf depredation on livestock? Director Bell did not have the answer to that but will provide the information. Gaitland added the presentation stated 77% from the scat was elk. Is this elk caught by the wolves, or from road kill elk that the wolf people fed to the wolves? Gaitland also asked if the other 23% of the scat was dog food or beef? Recommends they set up rules for the wolf program for complaints from livestock owners like other depredation animals. They need to be responsible for what they are doing with their animals out there. He called the wolf people because there was a wolf in his yard and it took them 8 days to come over before they tried to get the wolf. He lost 3 calves and was not reimbursed. Director Bell stated this is also being addressed through the MOU, to bring in wildlife services where they can respond through a much more streamlined process than we now have making the response more rapid. We are not perfect, but we are making progress in the right direction. Commissioner Henderson felt the wolf is an emotional issue and by the time we are done, it will make the bear issue look pale in comparison. When the Commission makes a decision it will be made based upon the amount of documentary input from Fish and Wildlife, Game and Fish and field biologists. Suggested information should be supplied to the Commission from the livestock industry in a documented fashion so the Commission does not base science against emotion, but science against science.

Director Bell -dates for Commission calendars, some requiring Commission informing the Department of their desires:

1. Red Rock Sheep census on May 3 & 4

2. Board of Finance meeting on May 10 to seek the additional funding approval for the

Conservation Education Center. This is the authorization to use the additional $800,000 federal money that is coming in as currently slated for this activity.

3. Has sent out information regarding the deer management field trip to the Pipe Ranch offering a variety of dates and would like to hear back from the Commission on their interest and what dates they could attend. Would like to hear back within the next week so the Pipe Ranch can begin making plans for your arrival.

4. We are slated to jointly attend the AZ Game Commission meeting in Safford, AZ on May 17 and will need a head count at least 10 days prior so we would know if we need to do a public meeting announcement for a quorum of Commissioners in attendance. We are trying to see if AZ could accommodate us on the 16th.

5. Relative to the closed executive session are matters of litigate but not attorney client privilege. That would dispense with those items in closed executive session.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 18. General Public Comments: (Comments limited to 3 minutes.)

Larry Caudill – states the September 15 date is not cast in stone and if they feel the need for additional data on the bear the process could be delayed. Feels public was unfairly chastised by Director Bell for lack of participation in the legislative session. He pointed out that the Department staff is there on salary, they are close by and the public has to travel a minimum of one hour. He himself went up three times for a hearing where the bill did not get to the floor, the committee never met. The Department did very little to appraise those who might have been in attendance had they been provided with updated information. He resented the criticism since they are doing this as volunteers and has not gotten one nickel for a trip he has made on behalf of the Department or Commission. Chairman Arvas stated the comments that Director Bell made were not based on just one single legislative session. This occurs every legislative session and the public goes to great lengths to come to our meetings to make comment, which we appreciate. Where we lack support is when we go to the Legislature. We cannot lobby, we cannot give donations, we cannot support legislators in their efforts. We need the public to do that because it is you the legislators listen to. He felt that Director Bell’s comments were appropriate.

Bob Nordstrum states that if you have elk issues or anything you would like to know about elk or habitat he can supply this information. There is a Seeking Common Ground meeting on the Jemez Mountains on April 10 at 3:45 at the supervisor’s office in Santa Fe. On April 27 at 9:00 at the Santa Fe Office there is an advisory committee. He thanked Larry for his leadership on behalf of the RMEF.

R.L. Posey thanked Larry for all he has done. He said “the briefings have been outstanding, the visual aids are excellent.” He was talking with State Senator Tim Jennings about lion problems. He has a ranch about 25 miles east of Mayhill and he has lost about 40% of his lamb crop due to lions. He would like the lion issue to be addressed at a future meeting.

Bill Ferrenti thanked Larry from the landowners in Units 13, 17 and 14. He made great strides in game and fish/landowner relationships. He congratulates Mr. Thompson on his appointment. He also thanks the Department and Commission for joining forces with 7 different conservation groups in signing an agreement to do projects on the Double H Ranch.

Cecelia Abeyta, NM Farm and Livestock thanked Larry for a job well done. Commended the staff in the Department for the good job at the legislature.

Tim Turri, Otero County Sportsman, addressed the Unit 34 elk situation. There are a lot of issues he said. The Department is proposing to increase the permits for the fall hunt by 220 permits. His group is opposed to seeing any additional permits in this unit. This herd has been reduced by almost 50% in just the last 2 years and he is concerned about any further reductions.

Oscar Simpson encourages the Department to place all information provided to the Commission on the Department’s web page.

Glenn Case gives an overview of 3 cases filed against game and fish officers.

Gloria Dimas vs. Game and Fish – Claiming entrapment (killed elk on highway) new information surfaced and it turned out her boy friend killed the elk. She was found not guilty and has filed unlawful prosecution.

Mr. Manuel Martinez from La Jara, NM – Initially filed a claim for $7,000 from the Department for damage to irrigation pipe by officers working an elk depredation complaint on his property. The Risk Management investigation found no wrongful act by Department officers. He was advised they would refuse his claim and he has filed a suit for $7,000, plus attorney fees and losses of his production on alfalfa in the field. Risk Management is trying to settle the case.

Sterling Williams – Filed a complaint in March of 2003 claiming a violation of imminent domain by a Department officer. He was cited for a residency violation and a trophy deer was seized by officers when they filed the charges. Deer meat sold pursuant to state statute allowing such, antlers retained for evidence. He was found not guilty in court, antlers were returned, and officers attempted to give him the money that was obtained from the sale of the deer meat and he has since filed the suit against the State for the fair market value of the deer.

Alvin Garcia, Assistant Attorney General for the Commission provided an update on the Ty Piper case. The court of appeals rejected the appeal. It was a contract case where Ty Piper had appealed the grant of a contract to another contractor.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 19. Closed Executive Session –

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to enter into Closed Executive Session pursuant to Section NMSA Statute 10-15-A (H-A, H-7 and H-8) of the Open Meeting Act in order to discuss limited issues of personnel matters, litigation and land acquisition.

MOTION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya moved to enter into Executive Session. Seconded by Commissioner Sims.

Director Bell called the roll:

Commissioner Henderson Yes

Commissioner Alfredo Montoya Yes

Commissioner Jennifer Montoya Yes

Commissioner Peter Pino Yes

Commissioner Guy Riordan Absent from vote

Commissioner Leo Sims Yes

The motion carried.

Director Bell stated the Commission is now in Closed Executive Session.

Chairman Arvas entertained a motion to enter back into Open Session and stated that the matters discussed in the Closed Executive Session were limited to the items on the agenda for the closed session and no action was taken in the Closed Executive Session.

MOTION: Commissioner Pino moved to enter back into Open Session. Seconded by Commissioner Alfredo Montoya.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

MOTION: Commissioner Alfredo Montoya made a motion based on the presentation indicating that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the hearing process for 3 outfitters to assess penalties. The outfitters were: Jeffrey Roller, James Bayard and Steve Armstong. Made the motion to proceed with the hearing process based on the evidence they heard. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion.

Commissioner Alfredo Montoya wanted to amend his motion to also include proceeding with the notice of contemplated action. Commissioner Sims seconded the amendment.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

Director Bell makes a statement that it has been a pleasure and looks forward to working with the commission for the next several months.

MOTION: Commissioner Henderson makes a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Alfredo Montoya seconded the motion.

VOTE: Voice call vote taken. All present voted in the affirmative. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m.

___________________________________ ___________________________

Larry G. Bell, Secretary to the Commission Date

New Mexico State Game Commission

___________________________________ ___________________________

Tom Arvas, Chairman Date

New Mexico State Game Commission

Transcribed by: Kelly Muniz

Verena Lopez