Caveat emptor (loosely speaking), I’m not an attorney or anyone of that ilk, a NM state employee or anyone with any authority to legally interpret any NM State laws, statutes, orders or policies. The below is my personal opinion addressing how I interpret some of the statements outlined in the New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 and the New Mexico 2020-2021 Hunting Proclamation.
Successful applicants for non-resident tags are not required to be under contract with an outfitter to hunt in NM. A non-resident applicant can apply directly as a Non-resident Applicant or apply as an Outfitted Applicant. The contract between applicant and outfitter must be in place before applying for an Outfitted Applicant tag, and applies to both resident and non-resident applicants for those who want to be included in the Outfitted Applicant pool of applicants. A successful applicant (both resident and non-resident) can contract an outfitter afterwards if they want to do so. There are further combinations of non-resident tags and hunting such as hunting on private land only that would change the interpretation of how New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 would apply. For a non-resident applying as an Outfitted Applicant, the non-resident should fall under the clause of [contracted by an “essential business”] and be exempted from the quarantine order. This has already been stated previously.
Several gray areas arise for non-resident hunters on public lands and who are not contracted with an outfitter. One consideration to make would be to avoid hunting on NM State Trust Lands, if possible. Although these lands are open to the general public for some activities, these lands are not considered ‘public lands’ by the state and New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 might be interpreted/enforced differently on these lands. (BTW, camping on NM State land is not permitted except by written permission from the State Land Commissioner, but see below.) The following is something new to me, a Recreational Access Permit. Click on ‘Download Recreational Access Permit’ at https://www.nmstatelands.org/resources/recreational-access/recreational-areas/ for more info. These permits in and of themselves don't give permission to camp on NM State Trust Lands.
For the specifics of hunting on NM State Trust Lands, see page 41 of the NMDGF 2020-2021 Hunting Proclamation. An agreement exists between the New Mexico Game Commission and the Commissioner of Public Lands. Hunting/fishing only on these lands does not require you to have a Recreational Access Permit, as far as I can tell. For camping, “Camp with the permission of the State Trust Land agricultural lessee, in campsites designated under this agreement and shown on HMSLO’s interactive map, or as otherwise authorized by the commissioner”. The difference hunting/fishing purposes vs. other recreational activities on NM Trust Lands is that you can get permission to camp on these lands from the agricultural lessee and not solely the Commissioner.
For public lands (loosely speaking) which consist primarily of U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands, again, gray areas exist within the context of the New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056.
1. #1] …all persons who have arrived in New Mexico from a location outside of the State must self-isolate or self-quarantine for a period of at least 14 days from the date of their entry into the State of New Mexico or for the duration of their presence in the State, whichever is shorter.
If you’re staying more than one night in the state and you’ve arrived from outside the State then you start your quarantine from day one. If you decide to leave the state sooner than 14 days then you just go. There’s no requirement to remain a minimum of 14 days no matter what.
2. #2] The terms “self-isolate” or “self-quarantine” refer to the voluntary physical separation of a person or group of people in a residence or other place of lodging.
If you’re from out of state and you don’t have any residences in the state then you’d fall under ‘other place of lodging’. I didn’t scour the NM Department of Health, or any other source for that matter, for an officially sanctioned, NM State definition of ‘other place of lodging’. I’ll leave that to someone else, and might have to amend my opinion based upon that definition. For someone coming from out of state and going to a camping location on FS or BLM lands, I would then define the campsite as an ‘other place of lodging’. What, then, defines the boundary of this lodging? Do you stay in a tent the entire time, not even going outside to take a dump? Yeah, right. I'm not aware of any formal (legal) definitions for the boundary of ‘other place of lodging’, especially if you’re camping outside of an official campground, that, BTW, are closed for the most part now anyway. For me, the entire forest or area of BLM land becomes the ‘other place of lodging’. For me, #2 in combination with #1 means to go camping, stay away from others not in your group, finish your hunt and leave. This sounds reasonable to me.
3. #3] …and persons who are employed or contracted by an “essential business”, as defined by the operative public health order addressing mass gathering restrictions and business closures, and who are traveling into New Mexico to conduct business activities.
Non-resident hunters should fall under the “essential business” definition described in previous posts, even though they are not under an outfitter contract. I'd argue that they are under a contract with NMDGF. Legal word-wranglers may or may not agree that this would be the case but whenever anyone receives a hunting tag from the NMDGF, then, all things being equal, there is a legal obligation from NMDGF to allow you to fill that tag within all of the restrictions of the tag. In effect, a contract. You, as the hunter, can effectively rescind that contractual agreement by not going hunting, going hunting and voluntarily not filling that tag or donating that tag back within the guidelines of the proclamation. Again, I didn’t scour any formal or informal definitions for ‘contract’, and seeing a legal definition of such in this context might change my opinion here.
4. #5] Individuals who do not comply with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives set forth above shall be subject to involuntary isolation or quarantine by the New Mexico Department of Health under the Public Health Emergency Response Act.
I didn’t read the Public Health Emergency Response Act. I don’t know if it gives law enforcement arresting powers for those who violate compliance with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives. The Governor has issued an order indicating that not wearing a mask in public is a citeable offense of $100, but it isn’t a violation subject to arrest. However, I don’t know if individuals who do not comply with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives are subject to arrest by law enforcement. I suppose the biggest burden would be to prove that a person or group of people are not complying. See #6 below.
5. #6] I further direct the New Mexico Department of Health, with the cooperation and assistance of all other executive agencies, to take all necessary steps to ensure the screening and appropriate isolation and quarantine of individuals covered by this Order. This will include making temporary holds of individuals or groups, obtaining court orders requiring isolation or quarantine in compliance with the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act, and imposing any civil or criminal penalties warranted under the Public Health Emergency Response Act and the Public Health Act when individuals do not self-isolate or self-quarantine as required by this Order.
This part of the order implies that there could be arresting powers under the Public Health Emergency Response Act, although nothing explicit is mentioned in this Order that a ‘temporary hold of individuals or groups’ directs law enforcement to arrest individuals or groups. This could be in the Public Health Emergency Response Act. I guess I'll have to develop a healthy dose of insomnia and read through the Public Health Emergency Response Act.
You as the individual hunter ultimately make your own judgements and decisions. You’re free to interpret the specifications of the Order as liberally or as conservatively as you like. In my personal opinion, though, if I were a non-resident, non-outfitter contracted hunter, especially if I had a once-in-a-lifetime tag, I feel that I could reasonably meet the conditions of the Order, have a successful hunt within a period of less than 14 days and not put anyone at risk of coronavirus infection. But again, this is my own personal opinion. This Order can also change by the time your hunt arrives anyway, as these Orders seem to change with the direction and frequency of the wind. My strong advice that I would give is to just wear the stupid mask in places you'll be seen by others and don’t make an issue out of it. If you arrive in the state with out-of-state license plates then you’re going to be profiled anyway. No need to throw gas on the fire.
Another item in the posts of concern is the expression of % mortality and related computations. As a professional in the area, I don’t agree with the various cipherings going on within these posts. Using number died from COVID-19 infections in the numerator and total population (of the U.S.) in the denominator is comparing apples to oranges. Or at least Granny Smith apples with Gala apples. If you want to compute mortality as a percent then the numerator would be the same but the denominator should be the number who test positive, for the most accurate calculation. There are models to extrapolate the total number of those who should test positive in the entire U.S. population but that number will still be less than the total U.S. population. One estimate of the current overall mortality in the U.S. is 7.8% (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html). Approximately 10% of the U.S. population has tested positive (3,305,091 out of about 331,002,651). Here is another site (https://g.co/kgs/fsqatj) that presents 5,150,171 confirmed cases with 163,432 deaths, for a percentage of 3.2. If you want to extrapolate the number of deaths expected for the total U.S. population, assuming that the entire population eventually tests positive, then one estimate would be 0.032 x 331,002,651 = 10,592,084 and the other estimate would be 0.078 x 331,002,651 = 25,818,206. This is considering everybody lumped together. Percent mortality changes greatly when age groups are considered, where the older age groups suffer much higher mortality than younger age groups. Also, mortality is higher in groups with existing risk conditions like diabetes, obesity, various respiratory ailments, etc. So overall mortality is expected to be less than applying one percentage to the entire U.S. population. But two things are certain: mortality in the U.S. for this disease is NOT 1%, it's much higher, and mortality from COVID-19 illness and complications are higher than for flu. Estimates for flu mortality in the U.S. run around 0.18%. (No, I didn’t misplace the location of the decimal point, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html). COVID-19 mortality, so far, is about 27 times greater than flu mortality. It’s a real disease. Bottom line is that even though Fauci mentioned that 20 – 40% (a ridiculously wide range) people testing positive are asymptomatic, there are many things about this virus that are unknown, especially any long term effects and how effective vaccinations will be. It isn’t the flu. It can and has attacked organ systems in the body that the flu doesn’t, like the brain and heart. Best thing to do is to not get it and if you have it, then don’t knowingly give it to someone else. That being said, the current probability of getting it remains relatively low, particularly when exercising current guidelines imposed by many states.
5 years ago
14-day quarantine required for nonresident New Mexico huntersCaveat emptor (loosely speaking), I’m not an attorney or anyone of that ilk, a NM state employee or anyone with any authority to legally interpret any NM State laws, statutes, orders or policies. The below is my personal opinion addressing how I interpret some of the statements outlined in the New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 and the New Mexico 2020-2021 Hunting Proclamation.
Successful applicants for non-resident tags are not required to be under contract with an outfitter to hunt in NM. A non-resident applicant can apply directly as a Non-resident Applicant or apply as an Outfitted Applicant. The contract between applicant and outfitter must be in place before applying for an Outfitted Applicant tag, and applies to both resident and non-resident applicants for those who want to be included in the Outfitted Applicant pool of applicants. A successful applicant (both resident and non-resident) can contract an outfitter afterwards if they want to do so. There are further combinations of non-resident tags and hunting such as hunting on private land only that would change the interpretation of how New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 would apply. For a non-resident applying as an Outfitted Applicant, the non-resident should fall under the clause of [contracted by an “essential business”] and be exempted from the quarantine order. This has already been stated previously.
Several gray areas arise for non-resident hunters on public lands and who are not contracted with an outfitter. One consideration to make would be to avoid hunting on NM State Trust Lands, if possible. Although these lands are open to the general public for some activities, these lands are not considered ‘public lands’ by the state and New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056 might be interpreted/enforced differently on these lands. (BTW, camping on NM State land is not permitted except by written permission from the State Land Commissioner, but see below.) The following is something new to me, a Recreational Access Permit. Click on ‘Download Recreational Access Permit’ at https://www.nmstatelands.org/resources/recreational-access/recreational-areas/ for more info. These permits in and of themselves don't give permission to camp on NM State Trust Lands.
For the specifics of hunting on NM State Trust Lands, see page 41 of the NMDGF 2020-2021 Hunting Proclamation. An agreement exists between the New Mexico Game Commission and the Commissioner of Public Lands. Hunting/fishing only on these lands does not require you to have a Recreational Access Permit, as far as I can tell. For camping, “Camp with the permission of the State Trust Land agricultural lessee, in campsites designated under this agreement and shown on HMSLO’s interactive map, or as otherwise authorized by the commissioner”. The difference hunting/fishing purposes vs. other recreational activities on NM Trust Lands is that you can get permission to camp on these lands from the agricultural lessee and not solely the Commissioner.
For public lands (loosely speaking) which consist primarily of U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands, again, gray areas exist within the context of the New Mexico EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-056.
1. #1] …all persons who have arrived in New Mexico from a location outside of the State must self-isolate or self-quarantine for a period of at least 14 days from the date of their entry into the State of New Mexico or for the duration of their presence in the State, whichever is shorter.
If you’re staying more than one night in the state and you’ve arrived from outside the State then you start your quarantine from day one. If you decide to leave the state sooner than 14 days then you just go. There’s no requirement to remain a minimum of 14 days no matter what.
2. #2] The terms “self-isolate” or “self-quarantine” refer to the voluntary physical separation of a person or group of people in a residence or other place of lodging.
If you’re from out of state and you don’t have any residences in the state then you’d fall under ‘other place of lodging’. I didn’t scour the NM Department of Health, or any other source for that matter, for an officially sanctioned, NM State definition of ‘other place of lodging’. I’ll leave that to someone else, and might have to amend my opinion based upon that definition. For someone coming from out of state and going to a camping location on FS or BLM lands, I would then define the campsite as an ‘other place of lodging’. What, then, defines the boundary of this lodging? Do you stay in a tent the entire time, not even going outside to take a dump? Yeah, right. I'm not aware of any formal (legal) definitions for the boundary of ‘other place of lodging’, especially if you’re camping outside of an official campground, that, BTW, are closed for the most part now anyway. For me, the entire forest or area of BLM land becomes the ‘other place of lodging’. For me, #2 in combination with #1 means to go camping, stay away from others not in your group, finish your hunt and leave. This sounds reasonable to me.
3. #3] …and persons who are employed or contracted by an “essential business”, as defined by the operative public health order addressing mass gathering restrictions and business closures, and who are traveling into New Mexico to conduct business activities.
Non-resident hunters should fall under the “essential business” definition described in previous posts, even though they are not under an outfitter contract. I'd argue that they are under a contract with NMDGF. Legal word-wranglers may or may not agree that this would be the case but whenever anyone receives a hunting tag from the NMDGF, then, all things being equal, there is a legal obligation from NMDGF to allow you to fill that tag within all of the restrictions of the tag. In effect, a contract. You, as the hunter, can effectively rescind that contractual agreement by not going hunting, going hunting and voluntarily not filling that tag or donating that tag back within the guidelines of the proclamation. Again, I didn’t scour any formal or informal definitions for ‘contract’, and seeing a legal definition of such in this context might change my opinion here.
4. #5] Individuals who do not comply with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives set forth above shall be subject to involuntary isolation or quarantine by the New Mexico Department of Health under the Public Health Emergency Response Act.
I didn’t read the Public Health Emergency Response Act. I don’t know if it gives law enforcement arresting powers for those who violate compliance with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives. The Governor has issued an order indicating that not wearing a mask in public is a citeable offense of $100, but it isn’t a violation subject to arrest. However, I don’t know if individuals who do not comply with the self-isolation and self-quarantine directives are subject to arrest by law enforcement. I suppose the biggest burden would be to prove that a person or group of people are not complying. See #6 below.
5. #6] I further direct the New Mexico Department of Health, with the cooperation and assistance of all other executive agencies, to take all necessary steps to ensure the screening and appropriate isolation and quarantine of individuals covered by this Order. This will include making temporary holds of individuals or groups, obtaining court orders requiring isolation or quarantine in compliance with the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act, and imposing any civil or criminal penalties warranted under the Public Health Emergency Response Act and the Public Health Act when individuals do not self-isolate or self-quarantine as required by this Order.
This part of the order implies that there could be arresting powers under the Public Health Emergency Response Act, although nothing explicit is mentioned in this Order that a ‘temporary hold of individuals or groups’ directs law enforcement to arrest individuals or groups. This could be in the Public Health Emergency Response Act. I guess I'll have to develop a healthy dose of insomnia and read through the Public Health Emergency Response Act.
You as the individual hunter ultimately make your own judgements and decisions. You’re free to interpret the specifications of the Order as liberally or as conservatively as you like. In my personal opinion, though, if I were a non-resident, non-outfitter contracted hunter, especially if I had a once-in-a-lifetime tag, I feel that I could reasonably meet the conditions of the Order, have a successful hunt within a period of less than 14 days and not put anyone at risk of coronavirus infection. But again, this is my own personal opinion. This Order can also change by the time your hunt arrives anyway, as these Orders seem to change with the direction and frequency of the wind. My strong advice that I would give is to just wear the stupid mask in places you'll be seen by others and don’t make an issue out of it. If you arrive in the state with out-of-state license plates then you’re going to be profiled anyway. No need to throw gas on the fire.
Another item in the posts of concern is the expression of % mortality and related computations. As a professional in the area, I don’t agree with the various cipherings going on within these posts. Using number died from COVID-19 infections in the numerator and total population (of the U.S.) in the denominator is comparing apples to oranges. Or at least Granny Smith apples with Gala apples. If you want to compute mortality as a percent then the numerator would be the same but the denominator should be the number who test positive, for the most accurate calculation. There are models to extrapolate the total number of those who should test positive in the entire U.S. population but that number will still be less than the total U.S. population. One estimate of the current overall mortality in the U.S. is 7.8% (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html). Approximately 10% of the U.S. population has tested positive (3,305,091 out of about 331,002,651). Here is another site (https://g.co/kgs/fsqatj) that presents 5,150,171 confirmed cases with 163,432 deaths, for a percentage of 3.2. If you want to extrapolate the number of deaths expected for the total U.S. population, assuming that the entire population eventually tests positive, then one estimate would be 0.032 x 331,002,651 = 10,592,084 and the other estimate would be 0.078 x 331,002,651 = 25,818,206. This is considering everybody lumped together. Percent mortality changes greatly when age groups are considered, where the older age groups suffer much higher mortality than younger age groups. Also, mortality is higher in groups with existing risk conditions like diabetes, obesity, various respiratory ailments, etc. So overall mortality is expected to be less than applying one percentage to the entire U.S. population. But two things are certain: mortality in the U.S. for this disease is NOT 1%, it's much higher, and mortality from COVID-19 illness and complications are higher than for flu. Estimates for flu mortality in the U.S. run around 0.18%. (No, I didn’t misplace the location of the decimal point, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html). COVID-19 mortality, so far, is about 27 times greater than flu mortality. It’s a real disease. Bottom line is that even though Fauci mentioned that 20 – 40% (a ridiculously wide range) people testing positive are asymptomatic, there are many things about this virus that are unknown, especially any long term effects and how effective vaccinations will be. It isn’t the flu. It can and has attacked organ systems in the body that the flu doesn’t, like the brain and heart. Best thing to do is to not get it and if you have it, then don’t knowingly give it to someone else. That being said, the current probability of getting it remains relatively low, particularly when exercising current guidelines imposed by many states.