Here is a copy of what was sent to the Attorney General and Governor.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
Office of the Governor of New Mexico
490 Old Santa Fe Trail
Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501
SENT VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Hector Balderas
New Mexico Attorney General
408 Galistero Street
Villagra Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501
SENT VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Sharon Salazar Hickey
Chair of the New Mexico State Game
Commission
P.O. Box 25112
Santa Fe, NM 87504
SENT VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Michael Sloane
Director of the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish
P.O. Box 25112
Santa Fe, NM 87504
SENT VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Re: New Mexico Senate Bill 32
Our File No. 20716-0001
Dear Governor Grisham, Attorney General Balderas, Commissioner Hickey, and Director
Sloane:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to you in opposition of New Mexico Senate Bill 32—
Game and Fish and Wildlife Changes (SB 32). The provisions in SB 32 banning trapping and
snaring on public lands will negatively impact the religious and ceremonial traditions a number
of our members have enjoyed for generations. As such, we demand that this bill be vetoed when
it is presented before the Governor.
While there are many benefits to trapping for wildlife management purposes, we write to
specifically point out that SB 32, Section 4(H) provides an exception to “enrolled members of a
federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo when trapping is conducted solely for
religious or ceremonial purposes." There is no such allowance for tribal members of nonfederally
recognized nations or tribes, for non-members of any Indian nation or tribe, for nonNative
American adherents to Native American Religions, or for other religions or traditions that use
trapping for religious or ceremonial purposes. Moreover, while SB 32 prohibits trapping on
“public land,” Section 2(K) excludes “the interior of physical structures or land belonging to or
held in trust for an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo.” There are no “religious or ceremonial
purposes” derived from trapping anything in “the interior of physical structures.” The above
provisions make it clear that the bill is blatantly discriminatory, violates equal protections, and
unlawfully restricts many individuals’ free exercise of religion.

New Mexico statutes, including the purposed language under SB 32, which limit allowances for
some individuals but not others based on religious grounds, must meet the requirements of the
New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA),1 which is the state’s version of the
federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).2 Similar to the federal version,
NMRFRA states that the government shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless
“the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental
interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
There was discussion at the New Mexico House Committee Hearing on March 13, 2020 that SB
32 should be permitted based on United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2011). While
this case was decided under the federal version of RFRA, the underlying policy is the same as
both NMRFRA and RFRA implement the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive
means test. Wilgus is a case regarding the collection and possession of eagle feathers, which was
allowed for Native Americans, but not for non-Native Americans. Under the system in place in
Wilgus, enrolled members of federally recognized tribes could apply for the feathers necessary to
perform the rituals that form part of their faiths. Non-Native American adherents to the very
same religions, however, were not only ineligible to apply, but were subject to criminal
prosecution if they possessed eagle feathers at all. While the court held that the permitting
process struck an appropriate balance between the government’s two compelling interests of
protecting bald eagles and preserving the culture and religion of Native American tribes in the
least restrictive manner, and therefore did not violate RFRA, it is vital to consider the limitations
of this holding and the differences presented by SB 32.
First, the court in Wilgus found that the government has a compelling interest in protecting eagles
because the bald eagle is a “national symbol.” By contrast, no furbearer in New Mexico operates
as a symbol of this degree, and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest that protection of
furbearers would be considered a compelling governmental interest. Additionally, the
government explained it had a compelling interest in protecting the culture and religion of Native
American tribes. While a compelling interest, the court explained that the permitting process was
necessary to protect this interest because eagle feathers are a “very scarce resource.” In essence,
the court explained that where “the demand for eagle feathers and parts by tribal members for
their religious practices already greatly outstrips the supply available,” the permitting process
was necessary to protect the culture and religion of Native American tribes. In the context of SB
32, however, there is no such limited supply of furbearing animals in New Mexico. There is no
justification that a trapping ban for non-native individuals would be necessary to further the
interest of protecting Native American culture and religion when supply is not limited, or that an
outright ban on trapping would be the least restrictive means of doing so. Accordingly, where

1 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-22-1 et seq.
2 42 U.S.C.S. Section 2000bb et seq.

furbearing animals in New Mexico are not national symbols, and are not limited in supply, there
is not a compelling governmental interest that could be served by an outright ban on trapping for
non-native individuals. Therefore, SB 32 violates NMRFRA and the rights guaranteed by law to
the citizens of New Mexico.
As a result, because current exemptions under SB 32 only apply to specific members of specific
Native American religions, a wide range of New Mexico residents will be prevented from fully
practicing their religions, rights, and ceremonies. Our organizations have members that fall under
these wide-ranging categories, who will suffer greatly from this bill.
Should SB 32 be signed into law, our organizations will have no choice but to pursue the proper
legal remedies. We will seek to have SB 32 deemed unconstitutional for violating NMRFRA as
well as to recover all damages legally available.
For these reasons, we the undersigned organizations respectfully demand that New Mexico
Senate Bill 32 bill be vetoed when it is presented to the Governor.
Sincerely,

New Mexico Trappers Association
National Trappers Association
Fur Takers of America
Cc: Gary R. Leistico
Email: gleistico@rinkenoonan.com
Office Ph: (320) 251-6700

Fingers crossed

Clearly a racist bill that favors one race over another and, promotes certain religious beliefs over others.

Good luck to you folks!

I like it! When I e-mailed them and called the Governor's office I just told them that if they pass SB 32 that instead of spending $10,000 on an elk hunt of a lifetime in New Mexico, that I would take my money to a state that believes in wildlife management and science.

How about the fact that we are being discriminated against as a group by not allowing us to us federal lands in an activity that is one of the most regulated activities on federal land. NM trappers have to pass a trapper certification we practice BMP. May head is spinning Wow.

I forgot to tell you, thanks a million for keeping up the fight.

I apologize for so many post. Is there any reason there aren’t more organizations listed.
*Cattle grows
*Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Every magazine has a Predator management article. Time to put there money where there mouth is.
*Mule deer foundation, biggest threat to mule deer are bobcats and coyotes
*sheep grows, never known a coyote to turn down a meal of mutton.

I agree, why were they not there? I hope sportsmans alliance was there. Good luck New Mexico.

... hoping y’all get through to the governor and keep your trapping access to public land