COLORADO NONRESIDENTS - CO WILDLIFE COMM INPUT NEEDED

D

dboone70

Guest
The Colorado Wildlife Commission will meet in approx. two weeks to decide on changes to nonresident hunting in Colorado. Nonresidents need to send their input to [email protected]
and, post your comments on this thread which will become part of the public record.

In the past few years, Colorado has significantly increased the price of nonresident tags and also preluded nonresidents from drawing in the RFW program. More recently, there is a cap of 40% on draw tags for nonresidents, which resulted in the nonresident draw % falling to 33% overall (the cap only affects quality units and residents tend to take greater than 60% in the less desirable units). Even with these changes to limit the nonresident hunt options, the nonresidents still provide the majority of the revenue for the DOW, whose budget has grown to three times the size of some surrounding states while some of the enforcement agents in the field are paid so poorly that they rely on public assistance.

The proposed changes include a higher fee for prefernce points, and a limit of 20% for nonresidents in certain "high demand" units. We may see higher nonresident tag fees in the future. Thus, as nonresidents, we are supporting the Colorado DOW but being "asked" to hunt in the lesser quality units. At some point, since we nonresidents are supporting Colorado, not only during hunting season but on family vacations, business trips, etc, we need to express ourselves and make sure the Colorado Wildlife Commission understands we do not have to come to Colorado to hunt. We have other options, and 2006 might be a good year to stay home or go to WY or NM, so they can understand the important role we play in the economy of Colorado and the revenue of the Colorado DOW. With the cost of fuel (diesel was $3.49 a gallon when i went to Colorado in September), driving 1650 miles each way to hunt the lesser quality units is not appealing.

Colorado today, even with the costs and limitations, a good value for the nonresident hunter. But combining the economics of travel to Colorado and the proposed restrictions, I personally will probably not stay in the preference point game or come to Colorado to hunt via an over the counter tag. This means I likely will not come skiing in the winter or bring my family on a vacation in the summer. I recommend we ask the Colorado Wildlife Commission to leave the current system intact. It allows us a fair number of tags given the financial support we provide as nonresident hunters, and it allows us the predictability for drawing tags based upon a stable draw system that is balanced such that nonresident preference point requirements are not significantly different that those of residents. Many nonresidents hunt with family and friends who live in CO, and once it starts taking 10 points for nonresidents versus 5 points for residents, those relationships and hunting camps will cease to exist.

Send the commission an email now stating your feelings on the proposed changes, and be clear on how it will affect your plans for the future to hunt in Colorado, so they will clearly understand the potential economic impact of the proposed changes to the nonresident draw system. Nonresidents are clearly stakeholders in the finances of the Colorado DOW and the state of COlorado economy, and thus we should not be relegated to the poor quality units. Leave the system alone with respect to nonresident participation.
 
Here's a thought. Support the new draw percentages, which are very generous compared to other states, and let NR's have all of the RFW licenses.

BeanMan
 
while the press release indicated they had approved the changes, i understand that there were some administrative issues that precluded the effectiveness of the october vote (public meeting, comments, etc). at the meeting coming on jan 12, the chambers of commerce, the local businesses and the local elected officials are attending to express their concern with the proposed changes. i believe the wildlife commission will listen and the nonresidents need to go on record that we are solidly against the changes. they will then actually do an official vote.
 
You're correct David. The percentages were already adopted. There are a few more items to be finalized in the January meeting, specifically a proposed trial in an increase of landowner vouchers for some northwest elk units and I believe, eastern plains buck antelope.

There was overwhelming public support for a reduction in non-resident license percentages for limited units.

Walltenthunter a.k.a. Kent Ingram was on the committee that was part of the recommendation process and could probably add far greater accuracy to this than my anecdotal recollection.
 
As a resident of Colorado I would like to commend you nonresidents for your desire to hunt in a great place. I honestly don't know how you guys do it year after year. Granted with any state you have its certain problems but Colorado's DOW is starting (if not already) making even its own residents angry with all the bullcrap and hoops a person must jump through just to hunt. So I comment you fellers and hope you nonres guys keep coming back.
 
Gentlemen

I am an "out of state" hunter who has been coming to Colorado for over 50 years
to hunt and fish.

I cannot calculate the $$ I have spent in that time but it would surely buy a new pair of boots and good Stetson hat for all of you bureaucrats who are discriminating against us "outsiders".

We hunt on FEDERAL land which we all support with our taxes.

The 80/20 point system you guys support is an insult and shows how short sighted you are - in time you will regret this action, it will cause "out of state " sportsmen to seek other places, who are more "welcoming", to hunt, vacation and spend our money.

Shame on you!!!

Respectfully

##### Lindsay
Graham, TX
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-31-05 AT 11:39AM (MST)[p]I'm not a redident of Colorado myself, but I would bet that the vast majority of Colorado sportsman could give a rat's behind how much non-residents spend during their annual trip. I think that Colorado has been very generous with the 40% quota. I think that a 33% quota across the board would be fair. I don't like the 20% quoata for hunt's taking more than 5 points because this is just going to cause areas that take 2-3 points now to become 5 point areas within a couple of years. Also, people who purchase landowner tags should lose their points. This would alleviate much of the "points banking" problems. I would also not be against Colorado raising the application/bonus point fee to $10-$20. The $3 they charge now probabbly does not even cover their processing/mailing costs.
 
Just curious to know where folks will go when they claim they wont come and hunt Colorado and take their business elsewhere in protest?

Will you have a better chance at a tag in WY, MT, UT, NM, AZ, ID, NV, etc, etc...

Colorado has spoiled nonresident hunters for far too long. Even if they went to 80/20 across the board (which they should), Colorado would still be the most Nonresident friendly state in the West in terms of tag numbers given to nonresidents.

I remember in 2001 when they raised the fee's on NR's and they all said they wouldn't hunt here, well guess where they're still hunting cause every other western state limited them to 10% of the tags and at the same or higher fee.
 
Good point, where else are nonresidents going to go for a guaranteed tag, hunting options from August- November, and for that price?

I see more and more hunters every year despite the increase. they only increased the tag by $200 anyway. If you cannot afford $200, then you cannot afford to hunt out of state. I just wish Colorado would cap it like the rest of the western states and make the whole state draw for bulls. AZ, NM, and UT did not become big bull factories by having unlimited hunters like Colorado.

Nonresidents don't seem to see a problem with the fact a lot of Colorado people don't get to hunt deer in their home units because they are competing with nonresidents. And a lot of nonresidents get to hunt multiple deer each year at home. They are spoiled.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-31-05 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]Colorado is a great place to hunt. For decades we could apply side by side with resident hunters with an equal chance in the draw.

It is my understanding that they went to a 40% limitation on nonresidents because approximately 40% of the state is federal land. Guess what you residents of Colorado, that land belongs to me as much as it does to you.

You Colorado residents can say the game belongs to you, but who has paid for the management and in some cased restoration of that game. Nonresident hunting license fees have supported the Colorado Division of Wildlife for decades. Pitman - Roberts monies collected accross the USA have been and are being spent on Colorado's game. Colorado resident hunters have had a free ride for decades, paid for by nonresident hunters.

Colorado has had it good as we nonresidents have paid, so that they could play. A whole industry has developed in Colorado around the money we bring to Colorado.

I say we nonresidents have a right to hunt Colorado. We paid for the wildlife and we are part owners in 40% of the state. We have a vested interest in Colorado's Wildlife and hunting in Colorado.

So where will we go if we can't hunt Colorado. How about Washington DC. I'll bet we can convince enough of those eastern senators and representatives that we have a right that they pass a law that gives us 50% of the tags on federal lands.

Or we can just stay home and see how long Colorado resident hunters like paying their own way.

Speak up folks, write the Colorado Wildlife Commission and tell them to leave it at 40%. If you don't, then they will just keep charging you more and letting you hunt less, because there are a few greedy resident hunters behind this that want the best hunting for themselves and they are not going to quit. The DOW threw them this bone to try to please them and they immediately went to work on legislation. They want 90%

Stop it now or someday we will be fighting to save 20% for nonresidents. Or we will just wake up some day and find it just as hard to draw in Colorado as all the rest of the western states.

[email protected]
 
The reason they limited the nonresidents in the first place because they actually had more nonresidents hunting the state than residents! It was an absolute zoo. And increasing the license fees did not seem to change anything. I would gladly pay twice as much as a resident for a quality hunt, rather than seeing a sea of orange when the sun comes up.

Why doesn't anyone complain about UT, NM, AZ, NV, WY or MT? They are already draw, yet everyone complains about how bad they have in it Colorado.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-31-05 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p]When Colorado limited nonresidents to 40%, it applied only to draw hunts. It is still unlimited over the counter for Elk during archery, 2nd & 3rd rifle season in non totally draw units. When they went to the 60/40 there was still a lot of unlimited over the counter Deer hunting as well.

Colorado residents in 2000 asked for more quality Elk units and the Wildlife Commission made it policy to have 30% of the Elk units totally draw quality units. At this time it is only 17%. When they take it to 30% or 100% like Deer, what happens to nonresident opportunity in Colorado?

4000fps would "gladly pay twice as much as a resident for a quality hunt, rather than seeing a sea of orange when the sun comes up."

Nonresidents have been paying over 16 times as much to hunt Elk & Deer. Even with resident license fees going up this year, nonresidents will still pay 11 times as much.

Colorado does not guarantee a single license to nonresidents. They do guarantee that no matter how many preference points a resident has, 60% of the licenses in limited units will go to residents. If there are still residents with more points than nonresidents after they get their 60% they get more till nonresidents have more points than the remaining residents.

Now Colorado wants to guarantee 80% of the licenses in quality units for residents and 65% in the rest of the draw units.

Nonresidents will lose 50% of their unguaranteed opportunity in the quality units and 12.5% of their unguaranteed opportunity in the rest of the draw units AND THEY WILL PAY 11 TIMES AS MUCH WHEN THEY DO DRAW.

Colorado wants nonresidents to come hunt the over the counter no or low quality units where you do see "a sea of orange when the sun comes up" and they expect them to pay 11 times as much.

The best thing that nonresidents could do is stop coming to hunt the over the counter units. Nonresidents should just apply for hunts in limited units and wait. The Colorado DOW would go broke or you residents would have to pay a whole lot more.

Colorado sold 107,568 Elk licenses to nonresidents in 2000 and in in 2004 sold 77,464 or 72% of what they did before they raised the price. On the Deer side, they sold 29,392 in 2000 and in 2004 sold 21,548 or 73%. Of course they are making more money. But the price increase cut out 27% to 28% of the nonresident hunters.

This allocation change will cut some more nonresidents. Will it be you?
 
I agree with what has already been said. colorado has been very generous. now they are coming more in line with what the other states are doing and i see no problems with it. it is just part of hunting out of state.
 
Bucarrow: that is a pretty general conclusion that the nonresident license sales were down due to price increases. A lot of numbers were down to gas prices etc., and the economy was down as a whole the last two years. Going out of state is a luxury. And it doesn't matter if license numbers are down if the people are paying more it tends to even out. If the price goes up 50%, and hunter numbers go down 50%, there is still the same profit margin. Look at what you wrote, prices went almost doubled, yet the numbers only dropped 30%, so they still came out ahead.

And you scoff that I would agree to pay more as a resident. What state do you live in where the resident hunter pays $450? Doesn't exist.
 
4000fps. Let me help you with the math. If you reduce the quantity of something by 50%, you must increase the price by 100%. Q x P = Revenue. 100*50=5000. 50*75=3750. If Colorado experiences a 33.3% reduction in nonresident hunters, the requirement for a revenue neutral equation is that nonresident price must increase by 50%. I do not believe that the revenue from applicant fees to accumulate preference points will be enough. But this is the lesser issue. How much money do the 33.3% bring to the Colorado economy? Even if the effect is a 10% overall reduction in business revenues, how many businesses can stand that. Unfortunately, it there will be no "average" of 10%. Some, such as western slope outfitters, hotels, gas and convenience stores, grocery stores, bars and resturants, will be hit harder and ultimately will cease to exist as businesses. This then affects tax revenues, the schools and municipalities, employment and the rural lifestyle that depends upon the tourism revenue, during hunting season and also during the balance of the year, for their vitality. I guarantee you that over the counter tags will not sell as well if they are increased in price by 50%. There is already comment related to the prices for female specie licenses.

I think the desires of the resident hunters are clearly understood, but attempts to reduce access to the quality hunts and ultimately increase (or even maintain) revenues from nonresidents will find the "knee of the curve" when it comes to price elasticity. This could be the great economic trainwreck, so I hope the issue is tabled and a five year plan is developed that addresses all the stakeholder issues, esp. those issues for rural Colorado.
 
4000fps You need to read at slightly less that 4000fps. If you had, you would have seen that I said that they are making more money.

You must be a Colorado resident.

As far as saying the license sales were down due to the price increase, that really is the only conclusion. I could have used the sales from 2001 when they dipped to 65% of 2000. Or aveeraged 01, 02, 03 & 04 but that number is pretty near the one I gave. It was the price increase.

NOnresident Elk license fees for 2006 go up to $506 over the counter. $509 for an applied for license. Plus residents and nonresidents will pay an additional $10 for a habitat stamp to go with each big game license. To add insult to injury, if you don't draw and want a preference point or just apply for a preference point, you get to pay an additional $25 for each preference point you get.

Residents get a break on the preference point charge because if you buy an annual license of any kind, you don't have to pay for preference points. Most residents are going to buy at least a small game license.

So what did they do. They just raised the price on nonresidents AGAIN. This time, while they are taking opportunity away from them.

Seems like an insult to me.
 
I just noticed that the orriginal message from dboone70 has the e-mail address for the Colorado Wildlife Commission wrong.

The correct address is [email protected]

dboone70 how about editing that and correcting it.

PLEASE nonresidents send the commission an e-mail and tell them that you don't think it is a good idea.

THERE ARE A THOUSAND OF YOU FOR EACH OF THE GREEDY RESIDENT HUNTERS THAT ARE BEHIND THIS.

The recent history is that Colorado is step by step taking away our opportunity to hunt while they ask us to pay more so that they can continue to pay the bills at their Division of Wildlife to manage their game with our money.

Every change cuts a few more of us out.

I like hunting Colorado and I like hunting on my federal lands and I like hunting the game that we nonresidents have supported and continue to support with our license fee.

This change is not going to be the end of it. The resident group that is behind these limitations on us isn't happy with 80/20 & 65/35. They are already asking for more.

Time to take a stand.

e-mail the Colorado Wildlife Commission NOW

[email protected]
 
It sure would would be nice to just charge everyone the same price Resident or non-resident, Don't tell me that all the residents would quit hunting if they had to pay the same prices as a non-resident. I know that "old augement" about as resident we are entitled to hunt are own State, just be glad you don't have to travel to hunt. I think if the States out-west get to far out-of-hand you will see Eastern Senators and such getting their sticky little paws into it and then you can really holler.A good solution is to have everyone pay the same amount.
 
"THERE ARE A THOUSAND OF YOU FOR EACH OF THE GREEDY RESIDENT HUNTERS THAT ARE BEHIND THIS."

What a ludicrous statement.
 
As a Colorado resident I would be glad to pay the same fee's that the non-residents now enjoy. Then maybe Colorado will limit hunting license's in numbers and increase the length of the hunting seasons. Colorado still has unlimited over the counter license's how can you beat that if you want to hunt? Why don't you guys ##### about other states that don't give you a hunting opportunity?
 
Colorado DOW got about 800 responses from residents that want this allocation change. Most of them were probably buying into the - if your talking about giving me something, I'll sign on - attitude. So even if half of them are seriously behind this and I suspect that it is probably way less than that, then it isn't too ludicrous to think that the hundreds of thousands of hunters around the country out number them.

Even if every resident hunter paid the same as the nonresidents are, the money they spend in the hunting industry would not change.

Residents can't support the industry by themselves, so their desire to have all the hunting means that what they are doing is saying to get it they are willing to put fellow citzens out of work, out of business, hurt their local economies and Colorado's economy.

Colorado could give residents 100% of the tags in the 5 point or better hunt codes and a resident wouldn't be able to notice a difference in how soon he draws in them.

The wildlife in Colorado belongs to all of the citizens of Colorado. The only way that all of them benefit from that wildlife is through the hunting industry and nonresident monies are that industry.

Add the federal lands, the fact that nonresidents have paid to manage and maintain Colorado's wildlife, and I'd say we have a right to hunt Colorado and a right to speak up and defend that right.

Come on nonresidents. Read this thread and learn. The residents that are here are exposing themselves. Then just write the Colorado Wildlife Commissioners.

[email protected]
 
bucarrow-Your whole arguement is based upon a miriad of assumptions. You assume that the residents of Colorado are a bunch of greedy, apathetic idiots whose only agenda is to put the screws to the poor non-residents who don't pay taxes or participate in the Colorado economy 365 days per year. You assume also that this is just the first of many percentage reductions and that the greedy residents wont stop until we have eliminated all the non-resident opportunity. You assume that residents are for putting the screws to non-resident license costs when polls have shown that residents are willing to pay more for their licenses in exchange for reduction in overall hunter numbers to reduce some serious overcrowding in the field in some areas.

You also assume that most non-residents see this realistic and fair proportioning of licenses as totally screwing them of their opportunity. You assume that because the land in which the wildife is on is federally owned that it should be a free-for-all opportunity for all citizens. It is. Just not for hunting because obviously the federal government has chosen to let the management of wildlife remain in the hands of the state. Take up that fight and see how much backing you get from anyone other than entitlement mentality blowhards.

You assume that the members of the Colorado Wildlife commision who oversees the Divsion of Wildlife is not cognizant of the vital importance of the non-resident hunting dollar both in terms of funding the Division and for the ecomnomic impact of small communities that rely on the financial support that the non-resident hunter brings to otherwise lean times. You assume that this is a knee-jerk reaction to reduce non-resident quotas in Colorado and that the time that was spent by the Division, concerned and involved resident hunters, and the License Allocation Group commitee meetings statewide over the last year totally discount the importance of a realistic and comparably fair license percentage distribution.

Involved and concerned sportmen and women have been fully aware of the potential changes during the last year and have had a chance to help shape the changes in license allocation in the state of Colorado. I encourage anyone who feels strongly about this subject to send a clearly written, concise letter voicing their opinion.

Or, you could send a 4 page letter, laced with inflammatory rhetoric and imply underhandedness and inconsideration on the part of the collective voices who have shaped and drafted these changes and know that it will get filed in the "another letter from a blowhard whacko" catagory.
 
I'm a Colorado resident and can see both sides of this argument. But when some of you say you'd be willing to pay the same as a non-resident for a license I think you're in the minority. The same group who is pushing the 80-20 issue so hard is also the group who opposed the license fee increase for residents in 2006.

As for comparing Colorado opportunity with for non-residents to those in other states - it's like comparing apples to oranges. Arizona has no where near the number of elk that we have in Colorado, and now that they've gone to 90-10 not even residents can draw. So do you really want to compare CO to AZ? It's not the same issue at all.

I know that as a rancher with lots of private ground that if it weren't for the non-residents hunters that pay to hunt on my land you guys on the public ground would really be hurting. My ranch borders the forest and I know what happens when pressure on the forest starts up cause my property loads up. If I didn't hunt it where do you suppose the elk would stay? Eventually they would leave on their own, but my hunters help disburse the herds. And I can make you a promise, that if the time comes when my hunters can't draw licenes anymore, I won't be opening my gates and inviting the public in.

Something else you need to consider. Yes the locals support the local businesses as much as they can, but the meat processors, motels, restaurants, sporting good stores, etc. make the majority of their profits during hunting season. And like it or not, those tax dollars that are collected from the non-residents/tourists benefit the whole state. I know that a lot of non-resident hunters bring their families back to CO to ski, float the rivers, hike, etc. Do we really want to discourage them from coming back for those activities as well? How long could the ski resorts stay open if they could only sell 20% of their lift tickets to non-residents?

Now may be a good time to ask for a new definition of "resident". I'd like them to require that in order to qualify as a resident you have to reside in the same DAU that you're applying for. Then the local resident would be able to draw quicker.

The guys pushing 80-20 are implying that as a resident you'll be able to draw in the trophy areas quicker. In 201 they issue 30 permits, it's taking residents 15 points to draw, and even if you give them 100% they still won't be able to draw before 15 years!

I'm really afraid of the precedent 80-20 sets - there will be more units affected every year. In October they said 174 licenses would be affected - now the latest figure is over 1100 and growing.

60-40 was working fine and I'd like to encourage the commission to leave things as they are. There are no biological reasons to change and the economic issues have not been addressed by the DOW to my satisfaction.
 
Some comments from a Colo res. Colo has the LEAST
fed land in the west, about 36% ALL other western
states have more fed land than Colo. No other state
allows you to hunt if you dont draw a limited tag
for elk. Local businesses on the west slope and
hunting. For almost every town on the w slope
hunting is decreasing as a % of income every year
for the last 15 years and for the future as well.
Here in Montrose it is a steady line downward as
a % of spending. Craig and Meeker may be the
exceptions. Why cant us res be treated like
res of other western states are treated. Because
we are 2nd class citizens of our own state.
Roy in Montrose
 
Toby, that was a very lucid, excellent post, thank you. Your open-mindedness, respect and friendly attitude toward non-residents is typical of every Colorado resident I've ever met personally or on the phone. All you guys in Colorado are in extremely good company I assure you......

I'm a resident of California. Over the past 14 years we've had our deer (and more recently, bighorn) populations decimated from eco-freak mountain lion hugging do gooders (the enactment of Prop 117 in 1991). Because of that, I started hunting Colorado in 1995 and am EXTREMELY grateful for the opportunity the state gives to non-residents like me. I am also happy to know that the increased fees I pay as a non-resident help Colorado big game species thru habitat improvement and the like. And the DOW has been doing a very good job managing big game to date.

The only thing I do not understand is why is the Commission considering this change? Wildlife management must be based on biological facts, that's a given. So how does these proposed changes benefit wildlife? From what I've read here, it doesn't. All this sounds like it's doing is trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of non-residents and appease perhaps some very vocal residents with regards to preference points.

Most recently, I've learned to care a whole lot less about building up preference points for top draw units, so that's not my thinking here on the 80/20 proposal. I enjoy coming to Colorado and seeing a lot of critters, simple as that. But I'm concerned about the Commission's reasoning, and if it's not for the benefit of Wildlife, then I think they've taken a wrong turn.

I'm pretty sure that if non-residents are continually pinched every few years, that one by one, we will likely find other places to hunt, like Montana, New Mexico or Wyoming. Everyone, residents and non-residents alike, appreciate the respect of understanding the "whys" of changes. When we don't hear the reasoning, then the truth is, we believe we're getting gouged. And, as we all can relate to with gas prices since last spring, nobody digs that. In this case, we can choose not to be gouged and go to another state and help wildlife there. Might not be such a bad thing, either. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents, I could be wrong....
 
Rocket,
I bought an over the counter bull tag in Idaho this year. Never had to draw...... in fact most of the state is not a draw. Also for about 135 bucks less than Colorado. As a longtime hunter of Colorado I will send them my opinion, but who knows what good it will do.
 
I hope that the readers of this thread are smarter than buckspy assumes they are.

I never assumed that "the residents of Colorado are a bunch of greedy, apathetic idiots whose only agenda is to put the screws to the poor non-residents". I stated that a few residents are greedy and presented what I think is a very convincing argument as to why I feel that way.

I don't think it is an assumption to state that this opens the door to further reductions in nonresident participation. That looks very obvious to me. The 5 point limit to go 80/20 will add more units over time to the 80/20 category. Duh??? If the Commission does make more totally limited units or seasons, they automatically fall into these restrictions. Duh???

I don't remember stating or assuming "that residents are for putting the screws to non-resident license costs" I did state the facts (verifiable on line) that Colorado is raising the cost of nonresident licenses in 2006 and adding additional charges, one of which was prejudice to nonresidents.

Buckspy it is you that assumes that most non-residents see this as realistic and fair re-proportioning of licenses. I stated that only 800 or so residents responded to the DOW public input survey and that 800 certainly doesn't represent all of Colorado's resident hunters. 800 is only 1/2 of 1 percent of the Elk licenses sold to residents in 2004.

Buckspy your whole argument is putting words in my mouth that I have not said. All I see in your ranting is an attempt to discredit me for your cause. I have presented facts and numbers and I have heard nothing like it from those that want this change.

You accuse me of underestimating the DOW and the commission. But show me the cost benefit analysis that they did to see what affect this change will have on local and state economies. They have not done any.

It looks to me by studying the DOW website and Colorado Revised Statutes on line that they in fact have tried very hard to get this issue into regulation without proper notice, public input and consideration. That seems a bit unfair.

Tell me how fair and understanding The DOw and commission were of the people that served on that license allocation working group. They came to a compromise agreement that worked for all of them except the 90/10 representative,and presented it to the DOW. The DOW recommends this 80/20 and 65/35 allocation that is nothing like what the group came up with and has the gall to make it appear in press releases that they are doing what the group wanted.

I can only conclude that my facts and statements are hitting home true. Your accusations, lies and distortions with your insults are so revealing and so unnecessary. If you have facts to put mine down with, then present them. Document them. Be honest so that the average resident or nonresident sportsman or woman that reads this has a real chance at making an informed decision. That is all I am trying to do.
 
Rocketman Roy in Montrose.

Please share with us where you get the economic figures to back up your statement; "For almost every town on the w slope
hunting is decreasing as a % of income every year
for the last 15 years and for the future as well."

If you think resident hunters should be treated the same in Colorado as they are in other western states, would you mind if Colorado landowners got treated the same as they are in other western states? Some of those states give landowners licenses every year, to do with as they please. No draw and no restrictions.

Why do you consider yourself a 2nd class citizen as concerns hunting in a state with so much game, where your license fees are so low and your opportunity so high. Work it right and you can hunt 2 maybe 3 Elk a year. Colorado does not guarantee a single license to nonresidents. Colorado residents have first shot at every one of them in the draw and equal opportunity over the counter and in raffles, auctions and voucher situations. None of your state taxes go to the DOW or wildlife management.

Colorado lets nonresidents pay for it all. Or they have been.

If you get your way, you might just be shooting the goose that laid the golden egg.
 
What I also don't understand is why everyone has such a hardon to hunt elk in Colorado? It certainly isn't for the quality of bulls. Could it be because of the guaranteed tags and price??? And while units like 201 have good bulls for Colorado, it certainly doesn't compare to AZ, NM and UT.

And how can someone complain that there is going to be a $25 fee for a preference point? I burn up over $100 in AZ, and over $100 in NV just for a point there. What the DOW is trying to do is eliminate out of staters that stockpile points in CO, which bumps it up for everyone. I don't believe a $25 fee will have an effect though. I live in Colorado and am smart enough to keep putting in for tags in NM, AZ, UT, and NV for bulls. And I don't gripe about the price even though I know if I ever get lucky enough to draw NM it will run me $760. I buy a point every year in AZ, and if I finally get lucky enough to draw that tag in 10 years, go ahead an tack on another $1000+ that I spent on points alone. Boo-hoo.
 
Over the past six months or so I have posted a number of comments on Big Game License Allocation, as I had the opportunity to represent Sportmen on the License Allocation Working Group. What I stood for in the end is documented on our Colorado Wildlife Federation website. Hunters the big battle is not resident vs. non-resident but rather keeping a lid on landowner preference and all its problems.

Nevertheless, let me make a couple of comments.
I am a Colorado resident, and have been for most of the past 56 years, yet often in LAWG I spoke to the importance non-resident hunters have in wildlife management in Colorado. The facts are that over the past years resident hunter deer and elk license purchases are up about 10% and non-resident hunter #s down about 10%. The Colorado population in 1950 was 1.5 million, and was 4.5 million in 2000 and is projected to double again inside of the next 15 years. Many of these residents come here for the natural resources / hunting / fishing opportunities. Likely this is why our resident elk and deer tags purchased are as a trend up. NR license increases and the economy I know too have impacted your travels to Colorado to hunt.

An across the board 80/20 is what more than just a few Colorado sportsmen believe is warranted, especially comparing Colorado to other western states in non-resident allocations. Colorado is by far the most liberal state in terms of big game licenses allocated to non-residents. In the LAWG meetings it was consensus the 80/20 across the board was too high, yet the middle ground was the next 10% for residents (to 70%). As the Commission factored in all input earlier this fall, the favored allocation arising to consider all stakeholders was the 65/35 statewide (after landowner preference), and 80/20 for hunt codes requiring 5 or more preference pts. This choice ends up relatively income neutral, projections showing a $2.5MM loss on elk income, yet those projections not factoring in 2006 resident license increases, or for that matter the (new) Habitat Stamp income. It is believed these two sources of income will raise $5 million additional income in 2006.


The Wildlife Commission in January will as I understand finalize big game license allocations, and vote on the more recently proposed 'pilots'. I think the economic interest folks and NR hunters will ask the Commission to go back to the 60/40, and yet the Colorado State Shooters Association and certain other west slope sportsmen especially will lobby for a straight 80/20.

I continue to see the moderate approach the best, that being 65/35 statewide with 80/20 on 5 + pref pt. hunt codes. The impacts I saw in numbers presented were only 151 licenses more to residents (beyond the 65/35) for the units qualifying for 80/20 (3 year averaging.

As for the pilots, I see them approvable, yet with danger they any time in the future be used (which they never should be) as precident for changes in allocation of landowner preference.
As Charlie Meyers of the Denver Post wrote, "landowner interests never sleep". Still in all, the pilots can be supportable if properly framed. The pilots are:
(a) a eastern plains antelope only, 10% increase to landowner preference (15% to 25%), the 10% increase in tags being ranch immediate family only, non-transferable, private lands tags (novel idea huh?). One risk is what happens to undersubscribed tags here. Landowners are lobbying to have them revert back into the leftover draw of landowner preference, a reincarnation of sorts into a bona-fide voucher which then could be sold. We are telling DOW to not allow these undersubscribed tags go anywhere. Non-transferable means non-transferable.

(b) The initially proposed elk pilot for unit 10 has now been expanded to unit 1 also. Why these units measure up and other units do not ties to the 'limited' nature of these pilots, how these two units profile as mostly private lands, high sex ratios (high #s of bulls, mature bulls, high bull to cow ratios). The 2 elk pilots will encompass of total of 20 bull tags, 10 tags per hunt, split 50/50 in a draw, 5 to sportsmen and 5 to landowners as vouchers. The vouchers will be sold and fetch a minimum of $7,000+ per landowner tag. The public hunters getting one of the 5 tags per unit will also get automatic permission on all 5 landowners ranches whom in turn draw the 5 bull tag vouchers, plus public hunters will get a component of cow elk hunter access tied to a formula, good for access to the ranches that got the bull tags.

In summary, while the posts herein are almost all about resident vs. non residents, no one with proper perspective is going to cut out NR hunter opportunity. Colorado is as good as it gets in the U.S. for championing the non resident hunter. If you doubt it, call Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. Residents in those states by far more than 60% of 85% (landowner tags come off the quota before anyone else) of the limited licenses. Might I point out Colorado is the only 'Over the Counter'state for elk.

The real dark clouds over average hunter interests.... landowner preference. If you are not engaged trying to protect the general pool of licenses allocated in the public draw in Colorado (to public hunters), then you are asleep at the wheel.

Regardless, if you have an opinion, share it with the Commission.
 
Walltent,
Good post......just to clear up any confusion again.....IDAHO has "over the counter" Bull tags. As well as cow tags that are draw but are undersubscribed and don't sell out. Making them pretty much over the counter. I bought an "over the counter" bull tag this year in Idaho (McCall region). $376 I believe.
 
bucarrow,
I enjoyed your statement that instead of hunting CO you will go to DC and get some east coasters to try to strong arm the CO DOW. Apparently what you missed was the bill that was just passed a couple months ago which gave individual states the right to determine their own allocations, instead of being decided by the federal government.

I also enjoyed your dislike of BUCKSPY's post, I hate it when somebody nails me to the wall as well. To truly understand where his oppinion is coming from, you would probably have to have sat next to him and myself at the last couple Wildlife Commission meetings. We get to hear all these bleeding heart stories from the outfitters about how their clients deserve the right to have as many licenses as residents, but the only reasons that they can give are $$$$ related. Why do you have the same right as me to hunt CO? Your state doesnt give me the same rights as you to hunt your state. Truth is that CO is behind the 8 ball a bit, because they were very kind to Non-Residents for too long, and while all the other states where lowering their NR allocation, CO kept dishing them out. I challenge you to list one other state in the west that even comes close to CO's NR allocation(even the 65/35)? I'll give you a second.....need another???? Tough one isnt it? Be thankful for what we are giving you and we'll see you in the hills.

The last thing is that I dont think you should be so hard on old Roy. He is right on with what he is saying. If you have been in the CO hunting economy for the last 5,10,20 years you know that the only place that out of state revenue has gone up is in the pockets of the DOW and the outfitters. Todays hunter gets licenses through draws, hunting equip through mail order, and grocery's and fuel locally. The thing is that resident sportsmen spend money in the community every day 365 days a year. The DOW has almost completely cut the retailers out of the business, and that is one reason why you are seeing a huge drop in public support of out-of-staters. So the resident hunting public could for the most part care less if you are here, and would probably prefer that you go hunt somewhere else.

Bottom line is I dont blame you for what you are trying to do. You obviously enjoy hunting CO and dont want to lose that, but I ask that you accept our rules like I do when hunting other states, and try to take an honest look at what you DO get, and not what you DONT.

BTW, I know a guy who owns a gas station, and he said that the tycoons in TX wanted to thank you for buying that expensive fuel here that one time in September.
 
Rocketman,

New Mexico still has over-the-counter tags. They even have a late season over-the counter bow hunt for BIG BULLS!!!!
 
Obviously all decisions made by the commission are not based on biological factors. Anyone that thinks so should go back and look at a few of the changes over the last 15 years or so. Unfortunately, the DOW seems to allow those who make money from hunting more voice in the process than the hunters. This includes the ranchers that sell vouchers and or charge access fees (sometimes to public land, but that's a different subject)and the local business owners. As long as the "Wal Mart" approach to license issuance is being used, there will be pressure from residents (and some non residents) to cut the numbers of hunters. This appears to be just that along with an attempt to placate residents that are tired of seeing their preference points falling behind the number needed for even the less popular limited units.

As for leaving CO for Montana, Wyoming, etc, knock yourself out. Those states have already become harder and mostly more expensive than Colorado to buy licenses in. I don't hear much complaining about them. You can still buy an over the counter license in CO; try that in Arizona or Nevada and get back to us about the response you get. Colorado is STILL the most generous state in the west to nonresidents as far as ease of getting a license. If you want to be treated the same as a resident, move here (might as well, everybody else is.)

Eastern Senators??? They don't give a rat's behind about a few nonresident (or resident) hunters. Even if they did, they'd be in court for years over state's rights issues. The congress just last year reaffirmed that the states control hunting EVEN THOUGH federal land is involved, remember the USO/AZ fiasco?

Bluster won't get you anywhere. If you want to affect the process, a reasoned, coherant letter to the Wildlife Commission or DOW is the way to go.

Having said all the above, I'm a resident that hunts with the same nonresident buddy (21 years and counting) so I don't want nonresidents excluded either. I also don't want any increase in number of hunters, so it's a balancing act that will be difficult and I'm sure no solution will please everyone.

org
 
Peashooter,
I've been at the Commission meetings as well and to date I haven't heard anyone advocating a 50-50 split. Also, you state that only outfitters are crying about the money they're going to lose. Didn't you hear the comments made by economic business developers, local business people, concerned citizens? Don't just point to the outfitters. Yes there were comments from a couple of outfitters but don't forget the landowners and business people who have concerns about the overall economy, & not just businesses who are not directly involved with hunting.

Colorado is a big state and we shouldn't approach any situation with a one-size fits all solution. Maybe in your community NR hunters have no impact on many businesses. I doubt that Cherry Creek (where Mr. Enstrom lives) sees much hnting related business. I know you can't even find a hunting magazine in Greeley. But when 70% of the elk herd is in NW Colorado, it might be that those businesses do have a genuine concern about the economy. Again, I ask how many ski resorts could stay alive if only residents could ski. In my part of the country it wouldn't affect me at all, but it might close down a lot of businesses who rely on huge numbers of skiiers. So we need to keep an open mind about some of these issues.

If 80/20 becomes a reality it won't affect me personally one iota. My life won't change & my income won't be affected at all. But I do see the possibility that many businesses won't be as fortunate.

I hate to see this issue divide hunters - we have too many anti-hunters out there who will feed on that - to let this kind of situation cause us to turn on each other. Yes, I welcome NR visitors, and I agree that they need to abide by our State laws, just as we do when we visit their state. But I know for a fact, that when I deal with trespassers on my property the majority of them are unfortunately hunters from Colorado - and even some locals.

We all love to hunt & I hope we can find a solution to this that will let all of us enjoy this wonderful state and the resources we have.

The DOW is supposed to be managing game - not playing political games. A dead elk is just as dead if the shooter was from CO as the elk shot by a NR. The DOW set up LAWG and then refused to implement the recommendation they made and came up with an opion that was not the consensus from the group?? What gives with that? And besides - if we don't do something about the wolf we won't have to worry about our deer or elk herds, the DOW or any hunters from any state.

My humble opinion.
 
The comments about NM and Idaho OTC. Idaho
puts a cap on non res and NM offers VERY FEW
otc units. In Colo 83% of the elk pop is in OTC
units. My figures for hunting revenue being
smaller every year and for the future in W Colo
Just look around in Durango Pagosa Montrose
GJ Eagle Glenwood etc. Do these towns look
like hunting revenue is that important?The last 45 years
in W colo I have lived; this is not the same place of years ago.
Roy in Montrose
 
You are right some areas in Colorado do not depend on hunters!

Fishermen bring in more overall economey to counties in Colorado,
Is this right? or wrong?

What helps pays for the fishing, nonresident big Lic.!!!!
I'm I not right!!!!
 
I started this thread looking for candid input regarding the issues before the Wildlife Commission, anticipating that we would take a few detours onto other topics. I want to thank everyone who posted comments, and I ask that we end the thread so to not let this degenerate into something that can work against all hunters. It is obvious that residents and nonresidents are very passionate about the hunting resource in Colorado. This is outstanding. There will be lots of stakeholders and caretakers of the resources in the future. With the population growth in Colorado, the demand for tags, esp. premium tags and the advent of the tag "pimps" (we know who they are), we are faced with significant issues. It is about supply and demand, and who pays the bills. The tug of war over allocation, while important, does not solve the problems. The residents of Colorado will influence the Commission and whatever happens will happen. I do hope that it is well thought out, though, and incorporated in a broader longer term plan.

Here are my observations, and they will be presented at the meeting on the 12th.

The allocation issue is emotional on both sides. However, taking the current 60/40 to 100/0 still will not solve the problems of demand exceeding supply over the longer term.

Splitting the pie differently does not make more pie. I think this means that hunting bulls and bucks each year, esp. in "premium units" will end. This may occur with a waiting period after harvest, much like sheep and goat.

Should there be more premium units? I think so, since the demand issues are related to these premium units.

Should rifle hunts all be via the draw system (muzzleloader already are). The leftover tag option will replace OTC for firearms hunts.

Should any premium tag, irrespective of how acquired (draw, second choice draw, landowner voucher, leftover, etc) reset the PP to zero. Probably so.

Landowners are a critical piece of the overall strategy going forward. The landowner tag program should continue, but with enforcement of the "reasonable access by the public" clause in the statute. It is not illogical to have the portion of landowner tags in a unit proportional to the ratio of quality habitat that is privately owned (notice that quality habitat does not equal land ownership).

Who pays the bills? Will the price for resident tags increase to fund the portion of the budget that is equal to the resident allocation? Or, can the DOW reduce their expenditures to make this happen without increasing resident fees? Reducing expenditures likely will mean less employees, esp. middle and senior executives, and probably will require looking at using "services" to run drawings, programs, etc. It works in the private sector. Also, will the price for premium tags increase? Unquestionably, either more revenue from residents will be required, or less expenditure by the DOW will need to occur. The allocation creep will necessitate this, as the nonresident revenue from tag sales will plateau.

Finally, does any allocation adjustment solve any problem, esp. preference point creep?

It would be great if the Commission actually involved a few reasonable nonresidents in the discussions as stakeholders, and developed a system that maximizes nonresident support of the Colorado system - measured in revenue, satisfaction, etc.

The worst thing that can happen is to pit resident v. nonresident, landowners v. all others, rifle hunters v. archers, "trophy" hunters v. those who define their trophy without a B&C score, etc.

To do that, I recommend that the issues be tabled and evaluated for implementation in 2007.
 
Thank you for weighing in BigCountry. I agree, hunters would do better to worry about issues that really affect hunting. Wolves, development, oil & gas exploration, etc. We have bigger battles to fight and don't need to be divided by any issues right now.

Rocketman Roy ? your observations are not facts. Find some tax records or a study that was done and then we can believe you.

Peashooter ? apparently what you don't know is congress makes the laws. They can do this on federal lands if they want. You also don't know anything about me except that I have my facts straight and you don't like me.
 
Thank you Sir,

You have stated you case very well and honorably.

I have no problem with ending this thread here. When a debate degenerates to insults it is no longer a debate.

I agree that it is appropriate to table this for now. But implementation of this or anything close to this is not in the best interest of the citizens of Colorado.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-06 AT 07:37PM (MST)[p]4000fps, I guess by your theory then let's try to make hunting a rich mans sport. Average Joe just keep working and paying federal taxes and maybe occasionally he can get on the internet and look at pictures of what rich guys are hunting. Try thinking then typing.
 
I think by the time CO realizes they are biting the hand that feeds them it will be too late.
 
Why don't you guys (dboone & crammer) just be straight with your hidden agenda, your outfitters who are making a last ditch effort to retain profit.

People aren't here for debates. You have about 3 sentences to get your point across in a post, any longer, and you've lost your audience.

I really could care less about ecomomic factors from prostitution and commercialization of a public resource, it is not inspiring. Inspiration is what it takes to sway opinion and you guys have totally missed the mark on this site and the bowsite.
 
Bucarrow,
It has nothing to do with me not liking you, I'm sure you a nice guy, and we would probably get along just fine. You are right about me not knowing anything about you, but I think your "facts" are fuzzy at best, and I think it is obvious what your agenda is focused on.

Dboone70,
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting on the 12th, I'm sure that all the outfitters will come out of the woodwork again, just like they did at the October meeting. The good news is that us sportsmen will be there, just like we have been at every meeting regarding this for the last year. It is very obvious to the Commission where the support for this issue lies, and if it wasnt for Ray, Bray, and their puppet Shoemaker, it wouldnt even be a contested issue.

BigCountry,
I like your post, at least it is rational. I think I remember you from the October meeting in Salida? Were you there? The reason I ask is that someone brought up that same argument about the ski areas and non residents. I couldnt figure out how that stretch comparison was made then, and it still doesnt make sense now. You know as well as I do that the folks that you talk about from Moffat County that were against the new allocation were all doing it to help support their outfitter friends. My favorite was the Outfitter that was about 5' tall, but had 5" heels on his boots. He was crying that he only make 150k a year and doesnt know how he will support his family with the new allocation, excuse me while I get a tissue! Those Moffat County businesses that claim they will go out of business are lying. They are so busy with oil field workers now that they probably wont even notice when hunting season is anymore. Bottom line is that it is time for a change. I'm not saying that the 65/35 80/20 solution is the only one, but I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better one.

Again, nothing personal against any of you, I just feel like your agenda is pretty transparent, and I look forward to the commission seeing the same thing AGAIN. Either way I dont think that any of us will die from the decision, and I'm sure we'll learn to live with it, whatever it is.

See ya on the 12th
 
My letter to the Commission. Feel free to use it as well.

The wildlife of Colorado belongs to the people of the State of Colorado. The current question is which residents of Colorado get to stake a claim on the wildlife resource, hunters or commercial interests. Hunters, outfitters, landowners, sporting goods stores, motel owners, and chambers of commerce have all been vying for a bigger piece of the pie.

Other Rocky Mountain States allocate only 10 to 25% of big game licenses to nonresident hunters. Colorado on the other hand sells elk licenses over the counter with no limitation on nonresidents. In our limited units nonresidents have up to 45% of the licenses available. Colorado resident hunters do not have parity with hunters from other surrounding states. We can not draw their licenses as easily as they can draw ours, and we have our hunting experience degraded by sharing our deer and elk with so many nonresidents.

What impact will transferring licenses from nonresidents to residents have on the economy of Colorado? The most recent USFWS survey on hunters? expenditures indicates that nonresidents spend $1991 per person on hunting in Colorado. It also shows that residents spend $4449 per person on hunting. Residents purchase big ticket items in Colorado that nonresidents do not, such as ATV?s, rifles, bows, campers, and trucks. Resident hunters also own businesses and contribute to the economy in many other ways.

Nonresident hunters will not be turned away at the border by limited licenses. Each nonresident that does not draw a limited license has the option of buying an over the counter license, or a landowner voucher, or a Ranching for Wildlife license.

Nonresident hunter numbers have been down since 9/11 and the hunting fee increase. Currently residents garner 60% of the limited bull licenses, 74% of the limited cow licenses, 73% of buck licenses, and 98% of the doe licenses. If residents were allocated 70% of all licenses (still low compared to other states) only limited bull licenses would be affected. Nonresidents stand to loose 4570 bull licenses yet 4596 cow licenses would be available to them as well as OTC licenses. We do not wish to go back to the year 2000 where residents received only 43.7% of the bull licenses in the draw.

What happens when we loose resident hunters? Anti-hunters have a better opportunity to reduce or eliminate forms of hunting at the ballot box. Resident deer license sales have already fallen from 159,000 in 1990 to 74,000 in 2004.

Colorado is taking great strides towards commercialization of our wildlife. We are moving to the European model of wildlife management where the kings owned the wildlife and only the aristocracy and the rich were able to hunt. When we declared our independence from England we passed this ownership of wildlife to the people of each state. Now we are deciding for Colorado if the wildlife resource is to be used by the average resident or for sale to the highest bidder.


##### Steele DVM
Western Colorado Sportsmens Council
 
Thanks for the great letter without a hidden agenda, I'll just cut and paste it like outfitters crammer and dboone have done across the various internet sites!
 
Who gives a crap about bowsite? If those guys had their way, there wouldn't even be rifle hunting in Colorado. I think archery is the fastest growing segment of hunters in Colorado. Everyone and their grandma is a "bowhunter" now, but 99% of them have never killed anything. Yet these guys are going to dictate to the rest of us?
 
Someone's comment earlier on about the only resident preference should be for someone living in the same unit they want to hunt. THAT is a valid argument.

Someone from Denver is about as much of a nonresident as someone from Fort Worth - from both sides of the argument. They spend as much hunting in local economies as do out-of-staters. Frankly (in my highly biased opinion), you shouldn't have any more of a chance to draw a tag in NW Colorado than a Texan does. Your advantage should come in the price of your tag - or vice versa.

This whole debate is pointless. Everyone argues for their own self-interest - me included. There isn't anything biological, fair, or nonpolitical about it from anybodies perspective. 80-20, 50-50, 60-40 splits are all arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Your zipcode determines where it is fair or not. Not just Colorado, but every other state where demand for hunting opportunity exceeds the availability of the resource.

The root of the real problem is that urban areas in western states are really growing population wise - therefore more pressure for resident tag opportunity. What you guys better realize is that most of that growth is from people who either don't care or who are avidly against hunting. As can be demonstrated by several well known cases (including spring bear hunting in CO), you "residents" are outnumbered in your own states by non or antihunters. You lose every time some referendum comes up for a state vote.

If your in-state special interest groups succeed in chasing off enough the average middle-class out-of-staters with interest in hunting your states 20-30 years from now due to price, difficulty in understanding your tag application rules,....... you will find yourselves on an island someday with complete indifference from the outside world when you scream for help.

Don't think that out-of-state interest in hunting your states doesn't help keep things in check in D.C. in how USFWS, USFS, BLM, and other agencies in managed and which laws are passed. Don't think for a second that that Congress couldn't pass a law cutting out hunting on all public lands. Sounds radical, but there is already plenty of precedent with National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, etc. Don't think a Texas congressman wouldn't catch holy hell if he/she supported such a thing. If for nothing else, his/her cousin/brother/friend probably has gone every year for the last 30 years. You really want that support to disappear in a couple of decades. It could.

We should all be very careful in what we wish for. And spend more time planning next years hunt.

304099.jpg
 
Denver residents pay state taxes, Texans don't. Don't get me wrong though, there is a lot of animosity in the smaller towns against "Denver Hunters", as much as non-residents.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-06 AT 06:32PM (MST)[p]You are correct on that point obviously, but I bet the portion of the state taxes that the average Coloradan pays that goes to the DOW isn't as much we pay per person in nonres license costs.

There really is an argument to every side. Frankly, nobody is "wrong". And there shouldn't be anymore animosity towards "Denver" hunters than there is anybody else.

304099.jpg
 
chambero - The Colorado Division of wildlife is a self funded agency. It gets none of its funding from taxes.

Thank you for the very excellent and well stated point that you make about a possible future consequences of running off the nonresidents.
 
COElknut ? ##### Steele - Thank you for bringing something other than insults to the discussion.

No one is saying that the resident hunter does not contribute to the resident economy. But to say or even imply that they do or can support the existing hunting industry is a joke.

The hunting and fishing industry has been around for at least a century and it provides 20,000 full time jobs in Colorado. It is a 1.5 billion dollar industry and contrary to your statement, ?outfitters, landowners, sporting goods stores, motel owners, and chambers of commerce have all been vying for a bigger piece of the pie.? The reality is that these people have not been asking for anything but a chance to keep what they have; their businesses, homes, land and way of life. They have not been asking for a bigger piece of the pie, you have.

You outline a very good picture of what has happened in Colorado since 9/11 and it proves why these people have had to fight for their lives. Nonresident participation has declined by almost a third due to price increases and regulation. Using the Division of Wildlife study that I have used before, that decline equals a loss in revenue to Colorado of 3/4 billion dollars. How many jobs & businesses have already been sacrificed to resident hunter opportunity? How much has this hurt local economies and the state that suffers a budget shortfall?

Your biggest rallying cry is that other states have stricter limits on nonresidents so Colorado should too. You claim that it isn't fair that Colorado doesn't limit nonresidents the same. Colorado gives its resident hunters the best opportunity to hunt of any western state. If you think they have it better in these other western states, move to one of them?

This allocation change is a bad idea for Colorado and bad regulation because of the real and potential damage it can do. The limit of that damage is not just the ?4570 bull licenses? you speak of. The real truth is that if the commission makes it limited draw in all Elk units, or created more quality units, or the demand shifts with the allocation change and more units require 5 points, then it becomes a much bigger number.

You think, ?The current question is which residents of Colorado get to stake a claim on the wildlife resource, hunters or commercial interests.?

That question has already been answered. The wildlife belongs to all of the citizens of Colorado and the only way that ALL of the citizens of Colorado benefit from wildlife, is economically.

A better question is: In a free market economy, where a government agency manages a resource for all of the citizens of a state, is the hunting opportunity of a very few of those citizens going to be put ahead of the economic welfare of all???
 
Bucarrow
Yes the businesses are vying for a bigger piece of the pie which is the return of nonresident hunters to buy all 30% of draw tags and all 15% of the landowner licenses. They would like to see us return to the year 2000 when nonresidents drew 56.3% of our bull/either-sex licenses and purchased 53.8% of our over the counter bull/either-sex licenses.

The loss of nonresidents has been largely hidden by the boom in housing and oil and gas production in Colorado. Most outfitters in our area have other jobs, usually in construction.
As to the other states limitations, I compete with hunters from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah for limited licenses in my area. Why should they get 30% of our tags when they only offer 10% of their licenses to me?

As to all elk units going draw, I have been fighting for that for 15 years and we are no closer than we were 15 years ago. I pushed for just caps on license numbers by area in the last 5 year season structure just so the N/R limitations would not kick in.

Do we then manage big game for the 1000 outfitters and 500 businesses and ignor the 200,000 hunters in this state?
#####
 
I keep seeing that residents bring more to the economy than non-residents. I'm sure part of that is true but are you not going to buy a pickup or rifle because you can't have a lion share of the tag as a resident. Those dollars are going to be spent in the economy wether it is on hunting or something else. Out of state hunters bring money into the economy from out of the state that would not have been spent there. Don't get me wrong, I think Colorado has been more than fair to NR's compared to other states including my own. I think that even 80/20 is fair and If I lived in Colorado I would be upset also. Just because other states are unfair with tag allocations does that make it right? Most of you are passionate here about hunting. I wanted to thank the folks here that are involved in the process whatever the outcome. It is much easier to sit back and monday morning quarterback than take an active approach and be involved. Good luck in the upcoming draws
 
COElknut - Thank you for making my case very clear.

Businesses in Colorado are fighting to hang on after resident hunters received 30% of the tags that nonresidents had gotten before their license fees increased. They are not asking for more, just fighting to survive.

Your argument remains that because other states manage their game their own way, we shouldn't do it our way because you don't think it is fair. That isn't much of an argument.

You are fighting for this allocation change and even more draw units, which proves that the 30% you got since 2000 and your gains if this passes are still not good enough. You want more draw units so that this allocation change will give you even more licenses.

You totally ignore the truth of the situation. The wildlife in Colorado doesn't belong to just the resident hunters. The wildlife belongs to all of the residents of Colorado.

The Wildlife Commission is supposed to manage that wildlife resource with sound biology FOR THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO, not just for the resident hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-06 AT 08:16AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-06 AT 07:36?AM (MST)

Bucarrow, (or should I call you Cammey)

You make the point that the economies of small western slope towns depend on NR hunters. Well, big oil and gas has arrived and taken care of that problem for you. Unfortunatley with the 13,000 new well permits in the Meeker area alone it will impact hunting, hunters, and habitat in a big way. Much bigger than changing the NR allocation of draw only tags to 80-20 (65-35 in the vast majority of units) in units requiring 5pts or more to draw (3 year average of points and only a few units currently). Us greedy Colorado residents also fought off, for the short term, the greedy landowners who wanted 25% of all licenses off of the top (Vouchers). They ONLY get 15% now in most units, up to 25% in some. That is before the allocation. That really makes the allocation numbers 75-17 and not 80-20 (55-30 in MOST units). I hope you were in on that fight and were not behind it.

BeanMan
Western Slope of Colorado
 
BeanMan, keep up the good fight against them landowners. That program is the biggest crock o'$hit in western hunting.
 
Grasshopper, I wonder how these guys would feel if they knew you worked for the Colorado Bowhunters Association, a group that is anti-rifle hunting?

And while I, and most of us here, don't agree with landowner vouchers, it is funny that this site has a large banner ad across the page exploiting these tags!
 
Nope, your wrong on that, not anti-rifle at all, but defintely pro-bowhunting. No need for 4000fps, 200fps get the job done just fine. Take the challenge!
 
Also forgot to mention....I don't work for the CBA, nobody does...it is all volunteer with the excpetion of a paid lobbyist that ALL hunters benefit from. I am NOT on the board of directors, so I am not speaking for them either, the opinions expressed here, by me, are solely my own opinion (although they are 100% righteous).
 
I have posted on here numerous times and it is no secret where I stand on this issue. I sent my letter to the DOW 2 weeks ago. I do find it interesting that the R keep saying that they want CO to look like AZ or whatever State. CO has over 300,000 animals and the DOW is trying to get those numbers down by letting R take as stated above 2 and somtimes 3 elk and/or deer. Most Western States are trying to build their herds in most places. I do not have a problem with that the R having additional opportunities. That is an advantage of being a R.

The rub for most NR is the allocation of LE tags. I love to Elk hunt. I think any animal taken fair chase whether it be taken by bow, rifle or sling shot is a trophy. That being said, I would like the opportunity to at least once hunt an LE unit. The DOW said that if this is put into effect then me and my 6 points at 43 years of age has ZERO not small but ZERO chance at a good LE unit in my life time in CO. I believe the 65/35 is fair.

If NR are repeatedly told we do not matter (not just saying that for CO but all) then why would I support additional Federal fundings on Federal land that I am told I can not hunt. The anti's are looking for any foothold they can get and if the Western States keep telling NR hunters that we are second class citizens then support will start to fall off giving them the foothold they are looking for.

I know you CO and/or Western State R think this sounds like blackmail (sounded that way when I typed it), but I do believe that since we are paying the lions share of the cost we ought to be given a fair shake. 80/20 in any State is not a fair shake.

Now that I have pissed off everybody West of Texas I'll shut up.
 
>Nope, your wrong on that, not
>anti-rifle at all, but defintely
>pro-bowhunting. No need for 4000fps,
>200fps get the job done
>just fine. Take the challenge!
>


How many animals have you killed with a bow? Maybe the challenge is too much for you.
 
The problem as of today! There are too many people in the United States and the state of Colorado as to 20/30 years ago. Isn't Colorado one of the fast growing states? If you gave residents 100% on the good units, in a short time residents would be fighting residents over the better tags!! I think that has already started!!!So make the whole state draw on bulls and bucks.Then change residency.
 
The question is not resident vs. non-residnet, yet how much we allow to go into the general pool of limited licenses in Colorado. A loss one more license within the quota is a loss to all resident and non-resident hunters whom would apply thru the public draw. The truth is the current favored proposals before DOW (65/35 and the 80/20 for hunt codes requiring 5+ pts) will move license allocations in Colorado in the directions they should be, tilted a bit more, yet reasonably so, to residents. On the other hand, no one can dispute even 35% overall is one whale of a lot more licenses reserved for non-residents in other states. Therefore, forget about prefernce point hoarding and simply hunt Colorado every year. If necessary buy a OTC tag. Some day a limited resource will require all elk tags be limited. More than a few enlightend sportsmen see that time overdue now. Perhaps then Colorado could profile across all game management units with more than 13 spikes, 5.4 rag horns, and 1.5 mature bulls per 100 cows, post hunts.

Most of us here could share the same elk camp and have a marvelous time. Some though want more, and more, and more, and more...the never satisfied in landowner preference. To them a 180 buck or a 315 bull is about money. To me, those animals are anything but money. Hunters... find a real mission to save your very sport as most of us have known, and if I can point you in the direction, it is the forest (privatization and commercialization of hunting, i.e. landowner preference)
 
4000fps:

You have pointed out the exact difference between you and I....it is how we measure success! I am successful every year, whether I harvest or not.

The core essence of Bowhunting is about the spiritual hunting experience with nature, all of it. For you, it appears it is simply whether you killed something or not. That is sad, and I feel for you!
 
First, I'm a little bit pissed that USC got robbed tonight (yeah, that quarterbacks' knee was down when he pitched out for a touchdown).

I don't want to be anywhere I'm not wanted. If Colorado wants less nonresidents, I will decide either to oblige them or aggravate that situation, whatever I see fit to do..........

Sorry if that sounds a little bit independent and the soul of an American, but that's just me and I could care less about your opposing opinion.

P.S. I only hunt on public lands, so a lot of the previous discussions don't affect where I hunt as a non-resident in Colorado. But as far as I'm concerned, all the bloodsucking private landowners charging people extra bucks for tags should be strung up by their balls. They don't own those animals and have no right to profit from them. And sorry if you disagree.
 
The funny part is a reduction in hunter numbers would benefit the nonresidents as well. I would think anyone would want a better hunt, with less people. And logically, if there are too many people in the woods, then the first tags to get reduced are the nonresidents.
 
walltenthunter, You are saying that NR should be happy just to be able to hunt and not expect a reasonable opportunity at an quality LE unit when we are paying the lions share of the expense? Talk about a one-sided opinion. If all you guys want is our money then it is going to fall apart at some point.

The way it is going, we will turn hunting into a rich mans sport or will be totally regulated by the Federal Government (it's Federal Land). Which is what the anti's want.
 
NEWSFLASH...It is already a rich man's sport.

And, the Federal land arguement holds no merit. It is considered multiple use. There is nothing stopping someone from hiking, fishing, camping or shooting on Federal land. It is not even open to use 365 days a year. A lot of places in Colorado won't allow you access onto certain public tracts from December-April 15th. This is to allow deer and elk to not be messed with during the winter. And the real kicker is, they didn't use to close it during these months until recently, which happened to coincide with development of adjacent private land by housing developers! The general public does not own federal land! The government owns it, and allows the public certain restricted access. The government can sell it, close it, do whatever they want without public approval.
 
How do you figure it is a rich man's sport? I'm not rich and I have opportunities to hunt. I may be considered rich if you are looking at this from a R paying $45 and me having to pay $500. NEWS FLASH The Federal Land statement does have merit. You stated it is owned by the Federal Government and is multi-use. Whether it is open 365 or 10 does not matter. For some reason you think you should have more uses of this land than me when it is open and I pay more to up-keep the land than you. Why?

I'm not trying to start a fight with the rest of you. I want 4000fps to explain this to me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-06 AT 03:04PM (MST)[p]I am not rich, you missed my point! You haven't noticed that outfitters charge $3000+, landowner tags are selling for as much as $10K, optics are selling for up to $2000, guns are selling for $500, bows are selling for $600.

If you are a working stiff, then you are stuck playing the points game, and saving up money to go on a hunt. If you are rich, you just contact the guys in the banner ad for this site, or Garth Carter and buy yourself a landowner tag to hunt premium units every year. Unless you live somewhere other than the west, you are paying to play.

The only thing federal land currently grants you, is a place to go if you are lucky enough to get a tag. And that could change. Just this year they wanted to sell federal land in Colorado to pay for people in Louisiana! Who would that affect the most, residents of Colorado, or some guy from Texas? AND...no one is denying you a hunt in OTC units, you just have to cough up a little more. The ones willing to do it will have a better hunt thanks to the ones that won't. If I paid $760 to go hunt New Mexico, and they let 100,000 other hunters in there to compete with me, I would be pissed and not go back. It isn't the license, you are paying for the quality of the hunt. Nonresidents and residents both should be excited that there could possibly be less hunters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-06 AT 06:20PM (MST)[p]You're a R and you don't care whether I have a quality opportunity. The DOW told me personally that I would never draw in my life time (I'm 43). If hunting with a OTC tag is a quality hunt then why are you guys trying so hard to get the tags in a quality unit? There maybe less hunters but they will be less NR hunters. You guys make out like a bandit.

The Reports just released indicate that they are projecting a loss in revenue of approximately $2.5MM next year in a Budget that is already running at a deficit. They also estimate a loss of 31 jobs (not really important unless you are 1 of the 31) and that is just the first year. I just hope it is worth it to you R.

They state the only reason for the making any changes is to make the R happy and to keep you guys from pursueing (sp) legal action. There is no economic value or herd management value to making the changes. Oh Well

Also, if they sell the Federal Land in CO, it affects me just as much as you (sorta it affects you 80% and me 20%) unless you live on the Land.
 
One reason limited license allocation is getting more important to everyone, residents and non-residents included, is that in Colorado deer and antelope are 100% limited, and elk units (previously 17% limited) have a green light to at least seek up to 30% limited. Years ago I hunted one unit alot, all OTC tags, and now that unit takes 2-4 pref. pts. The plains units when I hunted them in the early 90s could be had for 2 pts., and 0 for some I hunted. These years the better units in eastern Colorado take 4 pts or so.

Preference points hunters have changed hunting opportunity. Elk needs go 100% limited, at least from my perspective, if for no other reason one cannot place unlimited hunting pressure on a limited resource. Just because tags get sold does not necessary equate to better hunting for everyone that does hunt.

As for residents, we are not opposed to non-residents. I hunt small game outside of Colorado as a non-resident. What we do want though is advantage for living here in Colorado, supporting the economy 365 days a year, buying licenses every year for over 5 decades, advocating for all sportsmen in DOW matters, including the legislature, essentially busted our behinds for the resource, hunting, fishing, and the environment. We do that 365 days a year, and we make a difference for the wildlife non-residents hunt when they come here to Colorado.

That said, all I see is orange when I see a hunter, and I 100% of the time help non-residents like any hunter when I see them in the field.

This year I took an inquiry off MonsterMuleys and gave a non-resident hunter some great advise on where he could likely take a good buck. He, from W. V., got a 180 buck, and I am so proud of him. He got my best area, where to access from, where I had seen bucks one week before he left. He and I are brothers. He also said he would keep my spot 'cool'. I took the chance though and helped him.

Instead of bickering and having these petty wars of words, I would like to suggest we all live with whatever the WC comes up with in license allocation, and either way we express our perspectives to the Wildlife Commission. They need to know you care, and that you have something relatively intelligent to say.

Lastly, Thank DOW and the Commission. A tough job, yet the Supreme Court of Wildlife in Colorado.
 
As a resident I will never be able to hunt in some of the states best areas. Why? Because I like to hunt every year this coming year will burn up my 1 point that I recieved from last years draw. I won't save points for a hunt in 20 years I gladly settle for areas that I can draw for with 0 or 1 point. These areas offer plenty of quality hunting, maybe not a trophy as you may see it but you can get away from the crowds if you want too. I don't think it's right for someone be it a resident or a non resident to sit back and collect points until they draw. There's no way to please everyone. I think Colorado does a good job overall giving a lot of people the chance to hunt.
 
If people are going to post facts, at least tell the whole story.

The loss of $2.5 million is a "worste case" senerio and represents a .34% drop in the overall statewide loss of revenue (less than half of 1%) . Thats assuming that all the Nonresidents that dont draw a tag, wont buy a OTC tag either.

In 2004 Colorado sold 95,220 Nonresident Elk tags & 26,535 Nonresident Deer tags. They say in 2005 we gained 14,000 MORE Nonresident hunters. Enough is enough! This year in the area I hunt, the crowding was unreal. We felt like we were being followed by the KGB with people watching our every move. When we dragged my sons 2X1 out, just about every truck that saw us was in the same area the next morning!

I dont want to ban Nonresident hunting in Colorado, but lets be honest. For a Nonresident, coming to Colorado is they're "BONUS" hunt in addition to the hunts they go on in they're home states, and if you guys felt crowded out or denied hunting in your favorite area's, you'd feel the same way.
 
I'll chime in one more time on this one. DOW should worry a lot more about taking care of people with viewpoints on the subject similar to Contenders. I too like to hunt elk too much to wait years on a tag. I can hunt perfectly good areas in Colorado and other states I'm interested in (i.e. WY) every other year or so. I still have plenty of opportunity as a nonresident. You residents do too. We can still hunt somewhere about as often as we want to.

The fuel behind this whole argument is really the guys who are fighting and scrapping to get into the few "high quality" units. Trying to take the problems associated with getting a tag in the premium units and gaming the system to affect the whole state is a bunch of bull (no pun intended). In my opinion, guys willing to wait a decade plus to draw tag isn't that interested in hunting. He is interested in killing.
After listening to the bickering going back and forth, I've come to a few personal conclusions regarding CO hunting:

1. There apparently aren't enough mature bulls out there to allow everyone to hunt one every year (residents and nonresidents). Right now, everyone is banking points and buying over-the-counter tags. It would probably be a lot more fair to institute a system where if you get a bull tag, you use up your points. Period. No exceptions. Whether by draw, over the counter, or purchase through a landowner. It would be easy enough to deduct someones points that buy OTC. It would be painful for a little bit, but I bet the hunting would get better in a hurry. And chances at drawing tags would at least be more reasonable. The point totals required to have a chance to draw a tag in premium units would drop in a hurry.

2. Colorado's preference points system for elk (and to a lesser extent deer) doesn't really work anymore, especially for the premium units. There is as much demand for those units as there are sheep tags. Why not use the same draw method for them as they do for sheep?

3. There should be zero loopholes to get around the draw for hunting on public land. There should be no tags good for public land that are given to private landowners - unless those tags are nontransferrable. Someone living in the NW part of the state should have the right to hunt that area, but they shouldn't be able to sell that right to the highest bidder. Selling of private land only tags are fine, but not ones good on public land.

4. DOW got it right on deer. They might as well make all bull elk hunting draw. I think their fear is they won't get enough elk shot. Take care of that by making a set numbers of cow tags available for purchase OTC every where - first come, first served up to whatever limit they want to set on it. And make them cheap - to residents and nonresidents alike.


304099.jpg
 
Great post guys. I guess there are few points we just agree to disagree on. Hunting in CO is not a bonus hunt. No Elk hunt in Texas and very limited Federal Land. You already have lots of advantages for living in CO. Access to extra tags for all game species and better odds of drawing an LE tag. If the regs are changed you could statically hunt in a premium unit 2 or 3 times before I can except they told me I would NEVER hunt there. Most of you seem to think that is OK. I don't.

I just think you are compounding the problem. More NR that can't draw will pursue Land Owner tags and the law of economics will force a change in the near future. I can't afford to pay for a LO tag so that means I'm out. Some have posted that if I want to hunt like a R then move there. We are already losing land to developers at an alarming rate. NR loading up and moving there will only accelarate the loss of habitat. If you see this as ineviable (sp) are trying to get the Big Elk for it is all gone, that is short sighted but I understand your motive. I'm not just picking on CO. I think all Western States are adding to the problem.

Have a great day gentlemen.
 
chambero, Great post. The reasoning and solutions are right on. It's ridiculous that people are so bent out of shape because it takes 15+ years to draw some coveted units under the preference point system. These same folks are applying for early bull hunts in Arizona. They have a chance there to draw in under 15 years but what are the odds? Something like 1000 to 1. Apparently that slight chance is all it takes to make people feel good and not complain. The down side in Arizona is that most will never draw in a lifetime. Yep, different system, same results. Except for the occasional 15 year old kid that draws on his first try.

I like Colorado's preference system just the way it is. I like the fact that thousands of people are hoarding points for a few coveted units. That helps me, because I'm stacking up six-point bulls in a hunt that takes 0-1 point to draw. I sure don't want all those folks putting in for my hunt.
 
Cowkiller, not 15 years NEVER according to CDOW in Denver. It would have taken 15+ years under the current system. Just thought I would clarify that. You have NR that have been trying to get into those units for 10 to 15 years already. With them being pushed back another 10 years or so then a NR trying for those units will have to start applying in their teens to able to hunt by the time they are in their 40's. Just telling what the CDOW told me.
 
BChunter: I won't ever draw those tags you speak of either, I am behind the game in preference points. That is why CO needs to go to a bonus point system.

OR...Better yet, they just need to make the whole state draw for bulls. There is a misconception about Colorado. The NW units are only good because it is a limited unit. The feed sucks, there is no water, and the genetics aren't great. The only reason the bulls are decent is because they don't all get shot as 2.5 year olds. If they state went total draw for elk, you could be shooting a monster bull anywhere in the state every 3 years. The central part, and southern part of the state has great habitat and genetics, there are just 100,000 hunters shooting at anything that moves.
 
I agree 4000 with what you are saying. If they could keep the herd numbers under control under that system that would be great. We would buy additional cow tags every year if they would let us without using our points.
 
Colorado still has some of if not the best genetics, both deer and elk, in the Rockies, if only we'd let them live long enough to get in their prime. Our deer quality is coming back and going to a 100% Deer draw is one one the smartest things DOW has done in a long time. I think it would be smart to go to a 100% Bull Elk draw too and give those rag horns a chance grow up. It would be nice to see 350 class bulls in every unit and if there was, the pressure would be off of unit 201,10,1 etc.

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
Two more things I don't understand about the DOW. They are trying to rebuild the deer herds, yet they issue doe tags?

They want to knock down the elk herds, yet they don't allow an archery bull tag to be used during rifle if you didn't fill it during archery. Some western states currently allow this, nto sure why Colorado won't since the elk are supposedly so over populated.

We should follow the lead of UT. If the state went full draw for bulls, then they could still offer cow tags for those that didn't draw.

Nonresidents should boycott Colorado until they go full draw for elk, otherwise you are just paying even more money for crap hunting of 2.5 year olds. I think too many residents and nonresidents are ok with shooting rag bulls every year and just accept it.
 
Hey Walltenthunter, thanks for helping out one of my fellow West Virginians. I hope everyone saw the Mountaineers kick @$$ on New Years.
Anyways, if this goes through, as a nonresident of CO I'm going to start saving up so I can meet one of those tag pimps in an alley somewhere because that is the only chance I'll have at a great limited entry area. We all don't understand the full effect of this yet and we won't for sometime. It's going to change everything in CO. The market works in weird ways sometimes. More nonresidents are going to buy landowner tags, driving up the prices on them creating more lobbying by the landowners who are going to try to cut into residents for more tags. Ya know the saying, what goes around comes around. Ripples will be felt from this for years and I doubt residents will like how it turns out.
I guess the thing that angers me about it is the way they change the rules in the middle of the game after I've been playing it so long.
 
4000fps,

you seem to speak with two tongues, first you say bowhunters never kill anything, then you encourage double participation.

"yet they don't allow an archery bull tag to be used during rifle if you didn't fill it during archery."

Colorado is an "either or" state, you can either hunt with a rifle, or bow. You can't do both on the same license. The CBA had this succesfully implemented years ago, and still supports it. If your serious about bowhunting, "either or" works well.

1. If dual participation was allowed, archery hunter density would make the hunt suck. I don't care to see participation double overnight with less then seriously commited bowhunters.

2. If it was allowed, many existing bowhunters would fear an influx of folks who spend little time and devotion to aquire the neccesary profecient shooting and hunting skills required to humanely take animals with archery equipment(close range, correct shot selection). Although I encourage folks to take the challenge, I would discourage one from buying a bow 2 days before season, then hunting without the neccesary devotion to practice, preparation and skill acquisition.

Guess you didn't care to respond to me about how bowhunters measure success, but I would still encourage you to look inside and re-evaluate how you measure it.
 
4000FPS,

Totally limiting Elk licenses would be a great idea, I'd love for that to happen. I doubt that will ever happen.

BM
 
Agreed Beanman. Nonresident over-the-counter bull elk licenses are the "cash cow" for the CDOW right now. Many purchasers of these also get cow tags and buck tags but it the easy access to these tags that keep tens of thousands of hunters coming back annually. For many, Colorado is the easy state of opportunity for elk hunters who neither want to or chose to participate in low chance draw odds hunts for elk in other western states. A Colorado elk hunt can be counted upon as an absolute opportunity to hunt as opposed to rolling the dice. It can be planned on, vacation time can be planned and taken and it makes alot of sense from a logistic standpoint as much of the prime elk country can be easily accessed by roadside camps for the average Joe do-it-yourselfer. I would like to see a few more quality managed hunt units in Colorado especially in some of the high alpine west slope units where a hunt like Unit 76 could be managed. Most quality elk units are Pinion Juniper Sagebrush hunts and it would be nice to have some Western units managed like 76.

An interesting point to be made to non-residents of Colorado is that Coloradoans are non-residents to other western states. I have applied in 5 other western states and have only been fortunate to hunt Wyoming twice. I don't have a sense of entitlement in hunting these states and only hope to be fortunate to draw a license at some point in my life.
 
What would happen if they put a 5 point or bigger point restriction on these over the counter units? The hunting would be pretty poor for a couple of years, but then success rates would rise to close to what they were prior to the restriction, plus everyone would be harvesting bigger bulls.
 
Buckspy, The key phrase in there is the oppotunity to hunt. I was told by the CDOW in Denver that if the new system is put in place I will NEVER draw. I'm not sure what your definition of opportunity is but NEVER does not sound like much of an opportunity.

You indicate that NR should be lucky that we have the OTC tags and be happy. I guess we should say you are lucky we pay for your right to hunt with a $40 tag on Land that is owned by everyone in the USA not CO. You already have advantages over NR with access to additional tags.

I guess you could make an arguement that the Federal Government could leave the management of the Federal Land in the hands of the States, but could make all tags available on Federal Land the same price. What is unfair about that? I don't agree with that but it sure makes since. If the DOW's out West keep having Budget problems, they may go to this. We as NR already pay over 10 times what you pay. I don't see how the R keep thinking that is not an advantage and just keep wanting more of everything.

Almost sounds like our welfare system.
 
COSA and all,
I would be all for a 100% Draw for Bull elk. The problem with having a 5 point restriction is, 3 and 4 pointers will be shot and left to rot. There's a lot of Bulls out there that only grow 1 brow tine and it's hard to get good counts when elk are in black timber, that's one of the reasons we went to "1 brow tine that's at least 5" in length" law. So hunters can just look for brow tines. The limited draw is the only way to regulate the harvest of elk and especially bulls but, like as been stated previously, OTC tags are "the cash cow" for DOW and I doubt it if Colorado will go to a 100% draw anytime soon. I personally am not a fan of Utah's system either, the way they take almost half of the LE NR tags and raffle or auction them off. Don V had some numbers and stats over on Bowsite that turned my stomach. I do hope that DOW will look at some of your suggestions and listen but as a rule they don't give a rip what we think, perfect example is the raising of the trespass fee of 100 to 500 dollars and the landowners still get crop damage money. On the surveys we filled out almost all of us voted against that and DOW still passed it, which I personally think is a crock!

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
Cosa: B.C. years ago went to a 6 point only hunt, as a means to increase mature bulls. Oregon (as I recall) also had positive success in getting more bulls to advance to maturity by simply allowing hunting of spikes. Hunting spikes seems on the surface not to be the answer, yet spikes shot equate to less pressure on 2.5 yr. old 4/5/small 6 points. My statement I still stand behind is how a limited resource can withstand unlimited presssure. Also, in the woods, the animals sense pressure, and simply move less. Colorado is obviously a much larger resource to manage in the effort to effect more quality in elk hunting, i.e. more mature bulls. One easy, minimal impact way though, would simply be to take present day total elk tags, both limited and OTC, and now consider them one pool of licenses to then be allocated per unit, and down to specific hunt codes. The impact effects limited on elk, yet with no day one decrease in hunter opportunity. What we saw in terms what going limited statewide on deer did for quality of hunting is something Colorado needs seriously factor into how we consider doing for elk. The result would I contend be more mature bulls, something always better in elk populations. As a cow elk hunter once proclaimed to me, "Even cow elk hunters never forget seeing a mature bull". I wnat the larger bulls there for genetics, and what I think everyone wants in elk populations... good numbers of mature bulls.

Why it would likely have massive opposition--- economic interests in hunting. That is why you individual hunters need make your perspectives known.

Just my thoughts.
 
What makes you think this is a nonresident only situation, anyway? I'm a resident and I'll never draw lots of the GMUs. So what. You still have the opportunity to hunt in CO. Just buy an over the counter license or put in for a less popular unit, like I and most others do between drawing licenses. The federal land argument is a non starter and has been beat to death countless times before. If you want to go hiking, have at it. The trails are federal, the game belongs to the state and it's people. All the complaining on forums won't change it and the congress just reaffirmed it.

I don't know of any state that allows the same opportunities for nonresidents as residents, but CO is a lot closer than most.
 
BCHUNTER-Big time complicated issue here. As far as you never drawing in your lifetime, I can only assume it is for one of the highly overrated NW elk units. Don't know what I could tell you. I wish I had gotten in the Wyoming bighorn sheep preference point game in the beginning, but I didn't and its basically astronomical odds and tough shitz for me now.

I think that we(residents) pay way too little for the priviledge of hunting Colorado's big game. A tank of fuel for a pickup is roughly 75 bucks right now and quads are $7,000 and we pay chump change for a tag. The only bargain should be the youth tags for obvious reasons not to be belabored here. I would gladly pay more as would many others who desire a more "quality" type hunt experience.

For every guy that thinks the system to be implimented is inequitable, I believe there are dozens who are grateful for the opportunity to come and buy an over-the-counter tag and many more that are willing to pay thousands for landowner tags that circumvent a fair draw system and cheat average joe hunters out of opportunity.
 
I have a resident buddy who has 18 points for bull elk and still didn't draw in 2005. His teenage son will never in his lifetime have the mathematical odds to draw the same tag based on the preference point creep. Is this unfair or just a tough fact of life?
 
Who cares about those tough to draw units. I am so pumped up about elk hunting because of this discussion, tonight I ordered a new electric meat grinder from cabela's. Only nine more months.
 

Similar threads

HntHrdr
Last minute meeting to change Co tag allocation
Replies
12
Views
2k
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
LIK2HNT
Draws
Replies
4
Views
627
JPickett
JPickett
tnvol
SE Utah general unit vs Colorado units
Replies
7
Views
1k
littlebighorn
littlebighorn

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

DSCN1161.JPG
03B1D327-E319-436F-A8FA-04891CB2A9E3.jpeg
IMG_2091.jpeg
06695BC2-F078-4A31-9FFB-EC72323AC797.jpeg
106831.jpeg
C29F9491-2A6E-4AAD-8205-DC4285C984EF.jpeg
buffalo.jpg
Screenshot_20230718-151302_Messages.jpg
E8C45A0F-1247-4B6D-806F-F7E906AA8EF2.jpeg
IMG_7564.jpg
F812C890-A1C1-4E97-87CD-F1E92B335F8E.jpeg
619BB744-B96E-4401-BD61-F764454EB9DE.png
Back
Top Bottom