SANTA FE — New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez issued a legal opinion on Oct. 9 that the state’s practice of reserving ten percent of elk hunting licenses for clients of private outfitters violates the state Constitution’s anti‑donation clause. The opinion, announced Tuesday, Oct. 13, sets the stage for legislative action that could restore fair access to public hunting opportunities for New Mexico families.
Why the current system is unconstitutional
Torrez argues the arrangement gives private businesses an exclusive commercial advantage over a public resource without adequate compensation to the state. Outfitters pay a flat $500 registration fee, yet the market value of the licenses in the set‑aside pool could approach $15 million, according to the opinion’s estimate. That disparity, the AG says, breaches the anti‑donation clause because the state receives far less benefit than the private profit generated.
Impact on resident hunters
During the 2022‑23 season, 1,429 of the 1,584 elk licenses allocated through the outfitter pool – more than 90 % – went to non‑residents. New Mexico residents received only 155 licenses, or 9.8 % of that pool. The opinion notes that overall, about 65 % of all elk licenses statewide went to residents, a share well below neighboring western states.
“For generations, hunting elk on our public lands has been a way of life for New Mexicans,” Torrez said. “That tradition is being sold out from under working New Mexicans. Right now, a broken system lets wealthy out‑of‑state hunters buy their way to the front of the line while our own families wait year after year for a tag.”
Legislative response
Rep. Nathan Small (D‑Las Cruz), who chairs the Legislative Finance Committee, welcomed the opinion and said lawmakers will examine reforms during the upcoming session. “This opinion reaffirms what New Mexicans instinctively know: that we deserve fair access to hunting on our public lands,” Small said. He praised the AG for recognizing the need to protect everyday New Mexicans’ cherished hunting traditions.
Small and a bipartisan group of 18 legislators requested the AG’s review in April after constituents raised concerns that the system favors wealthy out‑of‑state hunters over local families. The request also carried signatures from southern New Mexico lawmakers Sen. William Soules, Rep. Sarah Silva and Sen. Carrie Hamblen.
What could change
Torrez is urging the Legislature to either repeal the outfitter set‑aside or restructure it to ensure resident hunters receive a meaningful share of elk tags. He warned that his office could pursue legal action if the Legislature fails to address the constitutional issues.
The opinion does not automatically invalidate the law or halt the program; it merely establishes the Justice Department’s legal position and provides a basis for future litigation or legislative amendment.
Background on the set‑aside
The 10 % pool was created in 2011 to encourage outfitters to invest in New Mexico by requiring them to employ state residents, pay state taxes and make property investments. A 2012 federal court decision blocked enforcement of several of those requirements, leaving the set‑aside intact but removing key economic commitments.
Outfitters charge thousands of dollars for guided elk hunts, with some trips costing $10,000 or more. The state does not collect a separate fee for access to the reserved license pool, relying only on the $500 annual registration fee.
Support from hunting and community groups
The opinion has drawn backing from the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, small‑business owners and tribal representatives who argue the current system unfairly disadvantages resident hunters. Jesse Deubel, executive director of the federation, said the finding validates concerns his organization has raised for years.
While no specific bill has been introduced yet, lawmakers are expected to debate options ranging from eliminating the set‑aside to creating a more balanced allocation that protects New Mexican families’ hunting heritage.
Original reporting: Organ Mountain News (Las Cruces / Doña Ana County) — read the source article.
