2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 17 - Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation › Article 2 - Hunting and Fishing Regulations › Part 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS › Section 17-2-7 - Unlawful hunting or fishing.

A. Except as permitted by regulations adopted by the state game commission or as otherwise allowed by law, it is unlawful to:
(1) hunt, take, capture, kill or attempt to take, capture or kill, at any time or in any manner, any game animal, game bird or game fish in the state; or
(2) possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase or purchase in the state all or any part of any game animal, game bird or game fish.
B. Notwithstanding any other law, the owner of domestic livestock in this state or his regular employee may hunt, take, capture or kill any cougar or bear which has killed domestic livestock. The owner of livestock or his regular employee who takes action under this provision will report this action to the department of game and fish, who will verify the necessity of the action taken.
C. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in Section 17-2-10 NMSA 1978.
D. The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the possession of game animals, birds or fish taken legally in any other jurisdiction.
History:
Laws 1931, ch. 117, § 8; 1941 Comp., § 43-207; 1953 Comp., § 53-2-7; Laws 1971, ch. 75, § 2; 1979, ch. 340, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references.
— For penalty for taking fish or killing animals in state park,
see
16-2-32 NMSA 1978.
Plain view exception to search warrant requirement.
— Plain view exception did not apply to warrantless search of defendant's home for violation of game and fish laws under Section 17-2-7 NMSA 1978, because incriminating nature of hunting trophies would not have been immediately apparent to any lawfully positioned officer.
State v. Moran
, 2008-NMCA-160, 145 N.M. 297, 197 P.3d 1079.
Indian reservations.
— Where an Indian tribe working with the federal government exercises its authority to develop and manage the reservation's resources for the benefit of its members and the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the state would nullify the tribe's authority to regulate the use of its resources by tribal members and non-members, and would interfere with the comprehensive tribal regulatory scheme and threaten congress' commitment to tribal self-sufficiency and economic development, and in the absence of state interests which would justify assertion of concurrent authority, the application of the state's hunting and fishing laws to the reservation are preempted.
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. State of New Mexico
, 677 Fed. 55 (10th Cir. 1982),
aff'd
, 462 U.S. 324, 103 S.Ct. 2378, 76 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1983).
Evidence of unlawful possession held sufficient.
— Where evidence showed defendant had no permit to possess elk meat, refrigerator in the home of defendant contained three packages of elk meat and defendants had discussed the tracking and killing of the elk before witnesses, evidence supported conviction for unlawful possession of elk meat.
State v. Booher
, 1967-NMCA-004, 78 N.M. 76, 428 P.2d 478.
Cruelty to animals provisions inapplicable to wild animals.
— Section 30-18-1 NMSA 1978 applies only to cruelty to domesticated animals and wild animals previously reduced to captivity, and under the "general-specific" rule of statutory construction, treatment of wild animals is presumed to be governed by the comprehensive hunting and fishing laws contained in this chapter.
State v. Cleve
, 1999-NMSC-017, 127 N.M. 240, 980 P.2d 23.
Possession of game obtained with tribal license on Indian reservation.
— Absent justification, the state may not discriminatorily prohibit possession of game lawfully obtained from an Indian reservation while permitting possession of game elsewhere and the state may not prohibit the possession of game legally obtained from an Indian reservation with a proper tribal license.
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. State of N.M.
, 630 F.2d 724 (1980).
Return of game or proceeds after wrongful confiscation.
— Where the department of game and fish confiscated an elk from a person charged with a hunting misdemeanor, and the magistrate court dismissed the case because the game officer failed to identify the defendant at the hearing as the person charged, the department was not required to return the elk, or the proceeds from the sale of the elk, to that person. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-43.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
35 Am. Jur. 2d Fish and Game § 38.
Entrapment with respect to violation of fishing or game laws, 75 A.L.R.2d 709.
Possession of game or of specified hunting equipment as prima facie evidence of violation, 81 A.L.R.2d 1093.
Right to kill game in defense of person or property, 93 A.L.R.2d 1366.
Validity, construction and application of state wildlife possession laws, 50 A.L.R.5th 703.
36A C.J.S. Fish § 28; 38 C.J.S. Game §§ 8, 22-28, 30, 51, 76.