COLORADO NONRESIDENTS - CO WILDLIFE COMM INPUT NEEDED

[BUCKSPY]

Lots of people care about those tough to draw units and the whole purpose of this thread is to get sportsmen involved and motivated enough to self-advocate, and to discuss the percieved inequities of resident and non-resident license distribution.

But,I'm glad your excited and congratulations on your new meat grinder.

 

[COSA]

waltenhunter,
I am in agreement with Colorado managing elk more like theie deer. But, its probabbly not going to happen because of economics. That's why I threw out the 5 point restriction. It's definately not a cure for the lack of mature bulls, but something that could happen to take a step in the right direction.

 

[Budrow]

The whole state needs to be draw on bull elk. That will not happen just yet!! The DOW needs money and a lot of the residents hunters like hunting rag horns while trying to draw the good units.With the residents and nonresident fighting over the better units should send the DOW a message.They are pricing themselves out of business.My opinon there are three kinds of bull elk hunts good, average, below average and all for the same price!Increase the residents lic.to $98 for bulls(like New Mexico)and see if resident hunters start hunting cows rather than bulls in average and below average units. As a resident I will only hunt the good units for bulls or cows.

 

[Devlin]

BUCKSPY what unit did your friend put in for? I find that hard to believe he couldn't get a tag with that many points,he must be pretty unlucky....Devlin

 

[BCHunter]

Buckspy, It does not only apply to the NW units. In unit 61 it took 6 points for a R and 8 for NR. I have 6 points and if the odds just doubled then I am out a minimum of 10-12 more years and thats not a great LE unit.

I would not be so upset if there was some type of parity in the system. There is none. NR pay 10 times more money, will have an 80% less chance of drawing, can't buy Cow Tags without points and are told we are lucky to get all this.

Myself and another individual are looking at land in CO. We might just move there take up already shrinking habitat because the R feel they have the right to hunt on other peoples dime. I'll quit saying that if the R tag would go up to something reasonable. $40 dollars is a joke but I don't see many R signing as petition for that move. As you said Buckspy, raising the R tag to something that isn't embarrassing would aleviate alot of the problems and maybe would allow them to go to a draw Statewide because they would have additional funds coming in to offset any people not applying.

To answer a gentlemens comment, it is obviouse I am passionate about this topic. I'm not just on this Board griping. I have written several letters to the CDOW, have called the CDOW, contacted local Chamber of Commerce offices, talked to the RMEF and contacted my US Senator (whether you like it or not it is Federal Land owned by everybody). The AZ problem brought this to everybodies attention. If NR continue to be treated like second class citizens, enough phone calls will be made to get the Federal Government to look further into the works of the Federal Land system.

 

[org]

Federal land is owned by the Federal government. True. Private land is owned by individuals. Also true.

Both federal and private lands are part of the sovereign state of Colorado. Just as a private individual cannot decide who gets hunting licenses (even to hunt only on his land) neither can the federal government. Both are owners and can allow or restrict access for other purposes, but only the state controls the issuance of hunting licenses.

This fight was fought by USO and lost, and rightly so.

The DOW and commission set the seasons and licensing methods, but the reality is they are greatly influenced by politics (surprise!!!). The state government answers to those who live (and vote) in the state. If enough residents of the state express strongly an opinion (such as when the landowners tried to hijack more vouchers) the DOW and commission will be heavily influenced by that. They know that if they are too unresponsive, they'll be pressured by the legislature and maybe the Governor. Remember, a politician's first concern is reelection and nonresidents don't have a lot to do with that.

While economics are important, the DOW and commission have to walk a tightrope between satisfying the residents and economics. If they fail to find the balance, then the legislature gets involved. Not good.

Personally, I'd accept the resident fees doubling, if this would lead to a solution to the overcrowding problem...and it is a problem. Anyone who doesn't think so should just drive east from Yellowjacket Pass or along Divide Road during hunting season. Making all big game a draw would help, but only of reasonable restrictions on numbers is part of the plan. Will it happen? Who knows.

I'm a resident, but my hunting buddy of over 25 years is a non. Every year we put in for one of the less popular totally limited (for both deer and elk) areas. Not so much because of trophy potential, though it is there in a limited way, but because hunter numbers are low and we can have a great experience and maybe shoot something. When we don't draw, we end up over the counter and still have a good time, but would rather be less crowded.

I can see both sides, since I apply with my nonresident friend and we are limited by his points total, not mine. I do NOT want him excluded, and I don't really see that happening. Just because we can't draw in the high points areas doesn't mean we or anyone else (resident or nonresident)can't hunt. There are plenty of over the counter and leftover licenses.

 

[Budrow]

Yes, the state controls how lic. are allocated for now, but it could be overturned! It passed because it was attached to the War
Bill. Cheap shot!!!!If you have ever read Federal Law it states when providing opportunities on Federal Land you can not discriminate. So it is it legal for the DOW to issue lic that provide hunting opportunities to hunt on Federal Land to whom ever they like????? Residents keep comparing to other western states! I know that New Mexico and Arizona are staight across 78/22% and 90/10% on all units. Colorado wants to be 80/ up to 20% and 65/up to 35%.Are we opening a can of worms that might get the Fed's involed? I hope not!

 

[org]

If you have ever
>read Federal Law it states
>when providing opportunities on Federal
>Land you can not discriminate.
>

Well, I haven't read all the federal laws...can you please tell us what federal law in particular you're talking about? The only anti discrimination laws I know of only speak of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and so forth. I've seen nothing about residents of other states or countries.

 

[COHunter]

I have a question for the folks that keep saying Colorado Residents need to pay more for a tag because they pay "X" amount more as a Nonresident.

What does a tag cost in your state for a Resident?

When I was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, I paid around $30 for a combo hunting/fishing license that included "ALL" my deer & turkey tags, and I was allowed to shoot 4 deer over a two month period. I just bought my Combo small game and fishing license here yesterday for $51. Now I'll have to pay an additional $34 for "1" deer tag good for 7 days.

So why should we (CO Res) pay more than what everyone else pays where they live?

 

[4000fps]

I think that most residents including myself could care less if a nonresident paid the same price as a resident, but with the current situation, the state would be over run with hunters. It is already very crowded, and the higher price is the only thing keeping the numbers down due to crappy managment from the DOW.

If the state went to total draw for elk, then it would accomplish the same thing, less hunters, more big bulls, and a better hunt. At the same time, if CO started producing more 300 class bulls on public land, people would line up to pay $500 for a nonresident tag.

Grasshopper: You imply that if an unfilled archery tag were good during rifle season, then more people would hunt archery that weren't qualified to do so. How can you make such a statement that the current bowhunters are qualified to be shooting at real animals with their bows? There are a lot of good shots in the woods, but there are a ton of morons that like to boast that they are great hunters simply because they wander around the woods every fall with a bow which they cannot shoot. IE: 90% of traditional shooters are an accident waiting to happen. I have shot 3d with a lot of those guys and the target even looked scared waiting to get shot in the ass.

 

[schmalts]

>I have a question for the
>folks that keep saying Colorado
>Residents need to pay more
>for a tag because they
>pay "X" amount more as
>a Nonresident.
>
>>
>>
>So why should we (CO Res)
>pay more than what everyone
>else pays where they live?
>
You should pay more if you think that nonres tags should be cut. If you want less nonresidents you should also anti up the cash to make up the difference that will be lost in revenues. Cant have your cake and eat it too. Have a little respect for the ones flipping the tab for the rest of you guys. You know damn well your tag prices are low because of the high percentage of nonres hunter that come there. I bet the same guys that whine about too many nonres hunters would also be the first to whine about paying the exta money lost from cut nonres tags.
Game management costs money, We all should pay for it.

 

[Grasshopper]

If the discussion has digressed to lack of shooting proficency, I give up. I am not really here to discuss which category has more, as you put it, "morons". It is not exclusive to any group other then the group of mankind.

I think the real "morons" are anti-hunters, and rather then place discouraging remarks and negative energy towards fellow hunters, I'll pass.

 

[4000fps]

>
>I think the real "morons" are
>anti-hunters, and rather then place
>discouraging remarks and negative energy
>towards fellow hunters, I'll pass.
>

Kind of like the CBA?

 

[chambero]

I don't have time to look up the exact number, but Texas now costs its residents up close to $100 for a "super combo" license which includes your deer/turkey/fishing tags/stamps, etc.

Personally, I don't think your resident costs are out of line. I just think the price that nonresidents pays should put us on equal footing with residents for opportunity at licenses. That being said, I can still draw some kind of a tag every year to hunt in Colorado as well as most other states I try for. This is all a bunch of hooplah about a very few units for the most part.

 

[chambero]

Where does DOW's money really go? I don't think it is to game wardens. I've been hunting CO since 1990 and have never been checked in the field. If the money is used for that, fine.

I seem to remember that a lot of the hunting license revenue goes to support the fishing program. A little increase in everybody's fishing license might go a long ways if that is the fact.

I suspect a lot of the money goes to figuring out how to manage these ridiculously overcomplicated licensing and season systems they manage. A little simplification might go a long way. And no, I don't know how to go about that exactly.

 

[4000fps]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-06 AT 10:24AM (MST)[p]I have been hunting and fishing in Colorado since 1982. I have been check fishing one time in 1987, and once for hunting in 2004. I saw a guy poach a 6 point bull, and got transfered all over to 2 different wardens and the state patrol. One warden was on his day off, the other was on vacation. Then the state patrol told me they could not find the address! Needless to say the guy never got caught.

Typical state agency, they hire on skin color and gender, not on qualifications.

 

[COHunter]

You want to know where the money goes?

Well I can tell you that a whopping $2.9 million go towards Deer and Elk (combined) out of a $100+ million budget.

"Fishing Recreation" will get more than hunting this year with just over $14 million earmarked for fishing programs

"Hunting Recreation" will get around $13 million, with over $3 million going towards "Game damage payments" and "Improving Landowner Relations". Doesn't sound like recreation to me.

About 30% goes to overhead and the rest goes towards Jumping Mice, Plovers, Ferret, Canadian Lynx's, etc and other critters that your average everyday state citizen should be paying for instead of hunters.

 

[chambero]

Thanks for the data. Another issue here is that not that much of DOW's money goes to managing wildlife habitat. The overwhelming share of habitat management is paid for by the federal land management agencies. If DOW disappeared tomorrow, the elk/deer herds wouldn't begin starving all of a sudden and you wouldn't notice any great change in their habitat.

These agencies (all states - not just CO) have created one heck of a bureacracy that requires a whole of lot of money from a whole lot of people to sustain itself. I love to fish, but they spend a lot more money stocking fish than they do on controlled burns, brush control, etc. for game animals.

You hunters in Colorado ought to push for higher fishing license prices for residents instead of higher resident hunting licenses. Same thing for nonresidents. It would spread things out a little more evenly. A $1 increase on all fishing license costs would bring in a lot more money probably than a $50 bump in resident hunting licenses.

 

[Grasshopper]

Those who do not know....criticize.

Set the bar a little higher 4000fps.

 

[Vince (Colorado)]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-06 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]Later,
Vince (Colorado)

 

[Vince (Colorado)]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-06 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]4000FPS,

The CBA is here to make certain that we (Bowhunters) do not loose Bowhunting in Colorado, plain and simple. I can assure you that not all members shoot only Traditional bows, Compound bows or are "anti-rifle". Some of us shoot all.

In case you can't see it very well, that is a Winchester 30-06 in the pic.

It sounds like you have a personal issue with the CBA or Grasshopper ?

Later,
Vince (Colorado)

 

[BeanMan]

Here is another point to consider when bashing the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The real decisions on how many licences to sell and who gets them comes from the Wildlife Commission and not from the DOW itself. The "Commission" does not make their decisions based on biology or hunter sentiment for the most part. I think that they are appointed by the Governor, although the makeup of the commission has to include memebrs from different groups. Someone who knows how that is done should bring us up to speed on it.

Thanks,

BeanMan

 

[james_wvu]

I keep hearing everyone say, "Congress reaffirmed that states can limit nonresidents..." I don't care which side of the issue you are, this statement is misleading. Congress did not reaffirm anything. The Constitution say anything that affects or is an instrumentality of interstate commerce is in the Congressional relm. That is what that USO v. AZ case was all about. The court said AZ was restricting interstate commerce which power belongs to Congress. Instead of more court and an iffy outcome, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. McCain and a few others just slipped some legislature through attached to the Defense Spending Bill for our soldiers in Iraq. The legislation said Congress is not interested in regulating this area so its ok for states to legislate here. No Senator in his right mind was going to vote against our soldiers, except maybe Feinstein. Thus, please stop acting like you have a Congressional mandate because all you got is some bacon grease on your face from the pork barrel legislation. Congress could just as easily change it in favor of non-residents if they chose too, but it will never happen.

 

[freedivr2]

Rag on the DOW all you want (heck, they ARE a government agency so they'll never be right anyway), but the Colorado DOW is sure doing a whole bunch better managing their big game than states like Utah, one of those states that issued the same amount of deer tags even though many of the deer herds had been all but wiped out from the long drought.

Colorado is a great place for a lot of good reasons.

 

[Grasshopper]

Thank goodness after the final vote today, the commercialization interests favored by crammer, dboone, bucarrow and USO lost today! Now it would be hreat if everyone would right the commision a letter of thanks because they did the right thing!

 

[McKinney]

From what I understand Colorado voted 6 to 5 in favor of changing the license allocation to 65% Resident; 35% Non-Resident and in units that take 5 PP or more 80% Resident; 20% Non-Resident. Keep in mind that landowners get 15% of the tags off of the top and then Colorado splits the tags 65/35 and 80/20.
Example....100 tags for a certain unit...65/35 split
Landowners get 15
Residents get 55
Non-Residents get 30


I agree with Grasshopper. Lets write and thank them.

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6

 

[BCHunter]

As a NR, WHY?

 

[freedivr2]

Yep, that just dilutes the opportunities for non-resident hunters with the high priced tags. Bummer, but still, I love the people and lands of Colorado so much, it sure would be hard to pull up stakes just because of another slap in the face. Peace.

 

[Ram187]

Looks like the CO wildlife commission adopted the Non-Res. 65-35 and 80-20 changes on 1-12-06

 

[COElknut]

In the process of moving the resident allocation up they removed PLO tags from the percentage. Now Colorado residents receive 65% of the tags after the 15% for landowner vouchers and after the 14% of PLO tags. That drops us to 46% of the licenses allocated to residents from 51%. We lose again!!!

 

[walltenthunter]

COElknut- I am not sure you are correct. I was there at the Commission meeting, yet there was a lot of dialogue. Based on an e-mail I got today representing exactly what you contended, I called DOW information at the headquarters. They said PLO tags are not changed, excepting those affected in the 'pilots'. Therefore, that would say the PLO tags are (1) still in the general draw, (2) not controlled by landowners, and (3) basically unchanged statewide from how they were allocated before (excepting elk units 10, 1 and the plains antelope units).

 

[blacktailBC]

Did they approve the Early High Country hunts? If so what are the seasons? I can not find it on their web site.
thanks

 

[walltenthunter]

I know they approved a White River area high country hunt, this one to commence after the end of bow season so as to not have any conflicts with bow hunters. Another Gunnison area high country hunt is not for 2006 yet may happen in 2007.