House committee advances Senate Bill 5 to restructure Game and Fish agency, raise select license fees

Senate Bill 5, a package of reforms to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the Game Commission, was given a do-pass recommendation by the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday by a 6–4 vote.

The bill, as amended, would clarify the department’s authority to conserve and manage “wildlife” broadly (including non‑game and certain invertebrate species), create a new nominating committee and fixed terms for commissioners, add four non‑voting advisory seats for related state agencies, and raise select license fees with an indexing provision tied to inflation.

Proponents described the bill as a years‑long negotiation aimed at stabilizing the commission and providing more dedicated funding to wildlife conservation. "This bill honors [New Mexico’s] traditions and ensures we hand down a well‑funded department and functioning game commission to future generations of our great state," Senator Campos told the committee. Representative McQueen, one of the House sponsors, said the changes are intended to depoliticize appointments and to give the agency clearer authority and predictable funding.

Supporters — including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Audubon Southwest and outfitters and guides — said the department already does nongame work and that clarifying authority and adding sustained funding will help prevent threatened species from becoming federally listed. Jesse Duvel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, told the committee the commission has been “extremely dysfunctional,” citing turnover and difficulty achieving quorums.

Opponents — including livestock groups, some county and rural representatives and several public commenters — argued the bill transfers too much power from the legislature to the commission and could dilute management focus on game species important to hunters and agricultural producers. Tom Patterson, speaking for the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, said sections of the bill would let the commission decide which species to manage statewide and that the association opposed the measure.

A major point of contention was fees. The amendment presented to the committee consolidated a set of changes proposed in the Senate and earlier committee reports. Sponsors said they had scaled back initial proposals for some nonresident fees after feedback: the amendment reduced an initially larger increase for Bighorn sheep nonresident tags to a lower figure (the sponsors described an iteration that reduced an earlier Senate proposal) and adjusted other fees to try to maintain regional parity. Public commenters offered alternate funding ideas, including buy‑downs of nonresident private‑land tags to benefit residents.

The committee adopted the house amendment and several verbal amendments before voting on final passage. Representative Garcia moved the do‑pass recommendation for SB 5, which the committee adopted by roll call: Representatives Abeta, Dixon, Garcia, Gorilla, Small and Chair McQueen voted yes; Representatives Henry, Montoya, Murphy and Sena Cortez voted no. After the vote, Chair McQueen said the bill would be reported to the House with the committee’s recommendation.

The bill’s sponsors and several conservation organizations emphasized that the measure is paired with proposed and existing funding streams: Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund allocations and proposed appropriations in the executive budget. Supporters said those funds, along with the fee adjustments, are intended to provide recurring resources for habitat work and nongame conservation.

Committee members repeatedly asked for clarity about the limits of state authority. Witnesses and sponsors repeatedly stated the bill does not create federal powers — the state cannot designate “critical habitat” or change federal endangered‑species designations — and that the department’s authority would remain limited to habitat projects, monitoring and regulating direct take.

What’s next: With the committee’s do‑pass recommendation, SB 5 will be placed on the House calendar for further consideration. Because the bill was amended in the House, sponsors and staff noted changes will likely require concurrence from the Senate or a legislative conference if the chambers do not agree on final language.

Ending: The committee recorded the roll call and moved on after a brief recess. Supporters said they would continue outreach to private landowners and agricultural stakeholders as the bill proceeds through the House.