Tag Grab in the making... Watch out!

At a recent CPW meeting I learned about the formation of a special new task force being formed. The purpose of the group is to look at the resident and nonresident tag allocations again. Basically they are wanting to look at increasing NR allocations in all units again and specifically on limited licenses that qualified for the 80/20 split.

In the meeting I was assured that it would be fair and balanced. When I inquired about this special group make up I knew 3, 2 outfitters and one land owner! That is of the 5 total on the group!

The first meeting of this group will take place in Glenwood the day before the next commissioners meeting!

It is bull crap especially considering the most recent land owner tag grab. Also I was really upset that no one at the table had no idea or history how the last tag reallocation had proceeded!

I really feel they are trying to keep this quiet and slip it under the rug!


If anything we should be looking at the point creep and reassign the proper hunt codes that now take 5 or more resident points to the 80/20 split!

I'm not a big fan of voter ballot wildlife management, but I feel its time has come to reign in the Wildlife Commission. After taking a larger portion of the tag quota and handing them over to landowners, to even mention this now shows how little respect they have for resident hunters. In their defense though, residents will always take the abuse as long as they can go to Walmart and buy a OTC elk tag with a 15% success rate.

I also believe the very makeup of the Commission is wrong. Sportsmen should be the majority of the members, not landowners, outfitters, county commissioners and other types who have a vested interest in making money off the wildlife

For folks that are concerned about the issue, let the commission member know your feelings about it!

[email protected]

Gaspar Perricone [email protected]

William Kane [email protected]

Chris Castilian [email protected]

Robert Bray [email protected]

Jeanne Horne [email protected]

James Pribyl [email protected]

James Vigil [email protected]

Dean Wingfield [email protected]

Michelle Zimmerman [email protected]

Dale Pizel dale.pizel@state,co.us

Alexander Zipp [email protected]

Mike King [email protected]

You know why they are considering it: money! Just tell them to double your license fees instead of upping NR tags. What is good for the goose is good for the gander

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

Why should CO resident licenses be $62 for one deer, are they that much in Texas? Why do Easterners always think its Ok for them to have cheap tags but Westerners need to pay a lot more?

One thing I think most nonresidents are forgetting is that hunting Colorado is their bonus hunt in addition to the hunting they have at home. But for those of us that live here its all we got and to have to share so much of the quota to the point that deer hunting is fast approaching a every other year hunt is something nonresidents aren't considering. Would you like to deer hunt your state every other year? How about having a 9 day rifle season? You take for granted what you have, and then think we're selfish for wanting to hunt too. Just saying...

Yea this is a flat stupid idea and will receive some real push back. I have heard that there is already real and well financed talk of a ballot issue for a resident vote to stop any such nonsense.

Maybe residents should add on a requirement in the ballot initiative for NR to have a guide to hunt wilderness areas. Seems reasonable to me and it is done in Wyoming - I bet most residents would vote for it especially with the SAR going out every day this time of the year to rescue some other out of state yahoo out of a wilderness. You know the same outfitters who are pushing this stupid idea are all for it.

NR hunters have built up so many points that if it went to a smaller split and point banking comes back it will be hard for a resident to even hunt their back yard unit. That is very real and residents are getting fed up with it.

It will also end any chance all but 1% of resident hunters have at getting a 44 4th, 2,201, or other high point tag.

Residents will not let this happen and if the commission is flat out stupid enough to push this beyond a committee they will be looking at a state wide ballot initiative that will most likely take tags from the NR hunter as only resident hunters will be voting...

So yea be careful what you wish for.

>Why should CO resident licenses be
>$62 for one deer, are
>they that much in Texas?

Why should nonresidents pay $600 for a 5 day elk hunt? Because we will and Colorado wants to keep you fees low. The problem is not with us. The problem is that it is never enough(money). That is what is has become about. And after Montana they realize they are reaching the max price/return Even Colorado has lost 30,000 NR elk hunters and is advertising on hunting shows to try and lure us back. So you have three options. Get them to raise NR fees (they realize they are about maxed out), raise resident fees, or make do with less money. Good luck with that 3rd option even though it really is the best one. I agree with you that you should be able to hunt your state yearly at a reasonable price. And I love the bone they threw us. I am currently in your great state fishing on my elk tag/fishing license. On one thing there is no debate: you have a great state for hunting and fishing!


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

The bad part is listening to commissioner bray.... He wants to accomplish this under the current system. He seems to believe that they can do this with out having to visit the legislation. I'nfact everything he said and the entire way he presented it pissed me off to no end. He wanted to keep is hush hush, he wants to tweak the current system and wants to keep it quiet!

He knows that the CPW board is full of people who either stand to make money off this issue or do not understand the history and the pain we already went through to get current regulations.

He is the one that changed the 80/20 split from 5 to 6 points. He is also the one that every refuses to push in any new 5 point or better hunt codes....

Less than 1% of all limited tags fall into the 80/20 split and further looking at that it is only .5% deer and .5% elk. Preference point creep has made it to where an additional 30 or so hunt codes could be added to the 80/20 split but they refuse to recalculate... As residents we were promised those tags.... But they simply will not act as a board to move them forward...

LAST EDITED ON Aug-24-14 AT 00:20AM (MST)[p]>>Why should CO resident licenses be
>>$62 for one deer, are
>>they that much in Texas?
>
>Why should nonresidents pay $600 for
>a 5 day elk hunt?
> Because we will and
>Colorado wants to keep you
>fees low. The problem is
>not with us. The problem
>is that it is never
>enough(money). That is what is
>has become about. And after
>Montana they realize they are
>reaching the max price/return
> Even Colorado has lost
>30,000 NR elk hunters and
>is advertising on hunting shows
>to try and lure us
>back. So you have three
>options. Get them to raise
>NR fees (they realize they
>are about maxed out), raise
>resident fees, or make
>do with less money. Good
>luck with that 3rd option
>even though it really is
>the best one. I agree
>with you that you should
>be able to hunt your
>state yearly at a reasonable
>price. And I love the
>bone they threw us. I
>am currently in your great
>state fishing on my elk
>tag/fishing license. On one thing
>there is no debate:
>you have a great state
>for hunting and fishing!
>
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

You forgot one option, give the NR more limited entry tags, they would be happy to pay if the residents aren't.

The best way to raise revenue would be to charge everyone for a license, maybe 500 bucks or so. Then apply for a tag to use that license maybe another 500 bucks. Hey, if you don't draw maybe you will next year, no refunds. Talk about big money. How about getting rid of PP and charging a flat 20,000 for a tag. It seems the answers can be had.

Thanks for the heads up. The Commission always starts these things right before hunting season. I agree that ballot initiative is the way to take back our hunting opportunities. How about a ballot initiative that forces non sportsmen out of the Wildlife Commission? How about a measure that would ensure the hunting heritage of all Coloradans such as going to a more equitable 80% to 20% res/nonres split across all GMU's and no more LO vouchers?
Have we been pushed too far? Sportsmen for Wildlife in Utah sued their wildlife agency 25 years ago and secured untold opportunities for their residents and for future generations to come. I always laugh when a nonresident pipes up and proclaims that they and the high tag fees they pay are the reason for the fiscal success of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and therefore they should be given more preference. B.S.
CPW operates like the Federal Government does... with reckless abandon and very little attention to budgets all the while growing in size every year.
How does Wyoming, New Mexico and Montana operate their wildlife agencies with such minuscule gross revenues? Simple: they don't want to become self serving like CPW, these states excel at managing wildlife all the while making their resident sportsmen's opportunities something to brag about.
It's no wonder CPW is up to it's old tricks. They just simply cannot manage their huge revenues and again its the Resident sportsmen and our children that have to suffer.

I don't live in CO and CO is more than fair to NR's. This kind of issue pits NR vs R's and no one wins. If it goes to a vote of the people of CO all NR's lose. I feel fortunate to be able to hunt CO so please don't screw this up people.

Rich

Funding is not solely limited by NR tag fees. The orgaization is Colorado PARKS and Wildlife. If funding is the underlying issue and they wish to turn to sportsmen to fill the gap then I call BS. Wildlife in Colorado carrys a vast definition in comparison to most states which leaves the door open to multiple means to provide cash to the organization. Additionally Colorado has a fee based system for using parks and lakes owned and operated by the state and a means of funding these by issuing annual boating and OHV fees. This premise from the commission is complete poppycock and easily debunked. Fortunately Colorado makes it rather easy to get an item on the ballot and I agree a ballot issue would be a wonderful idea and if memory serves me Elk96 has been stating this for years and for dam good reason too. The issue I see with a ballot item is who would write it...

When we get close to a ballot item I know of a great contact who would likely offer his assistance and expertise as he is a native Colorado outdoorsman, conservationist, and a Denver lobbyist. Just let me know...

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."

Here is some more info and a very interesting article about Wildlife Commissioner Bray as he is the one pushing this change. Interesting read very interesting....

Here is the Denver Post article about Mr Bray and how he is a "remarkably lucky fellow" recieving over 1 million in taxpayer dollars and grants.

DENVER POST

To observers at recent Colorado Wildlife Commission meetings, it's come to be known as "the huddle," this strategic gathering of two commissioners and two key representatives of the agricultural community.

Heads wag knowingly as the quartet - commissioners Robert Bray and Bob Shoemaker, along with T. Wright Dickinson of the Colorado Cattleman's Association and Garin Bray of the Colorado Farm Bureau - drift off to coordinate their efforts toward skimming more valuable deer and elk licenses for resale by landowners.

On the surface, there's nothing unusual about a wildlife commissioner assuming a position of advocacy on various issues. Robert Bray and Shoemaker were appointed to the 11-member policy-making body specifically as agriculturalists, reflecting an enduring political culture in which farmers and ranchers seek uncommon sway in wildlife affairs.

Nor is it remarkable to find agents of the state's primary husbandry organizations hammering the commission for a bigger slice of a license pie that grows more valuable each year. That particular exercise began more than three decades ago, and ranchers have been sharpening their pencils ever since.

What becomes increasingly disturbing is the appearance of a conflict of interest that looms larger with two recent developments. One involves two major government grants to Bray worth more than $1 million. Another is tangled in the latest hot-button debate over landowner preference.

Through the Colorado Species Conservation Program administered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bray this year was awarded an allotment valued at approximately $800,000 to facilitate habitat development for the threatened Gunnison sage grouse on 900 acres of a large sheep and cattle ranch he operates near Redvale in the southwest corner of the state. Funding comes in part from a Great Outdoors Colorado grant, the rest from matching federal funds.

By all accounts, Bray's property contains prime grouse habitat suitable for inclusion in a recovery effort. It must be noted that the negotiation began long before he became a wildlife commissioner last March, but that certain elements remain unsettled. DOW officials say the exact dollar amount hasn't been determined.

Further, the deal is contingent upon Bray maintaining certain standards on the property subject to oversight by DOW. This puts the wildlife agency on shaky ground should these considerations put it at odds with a man who stands as one of its bosses. Can DOW actually hold Bray's feet to the fire if he hedges on the agreement?

Clearly, the recipient of a rich DOW grant now sits in judgment of the agency that gave it.

Things get stickier from here.

More recently, Bray, a remarkably lucky fellow, received another grant - this for $311,175 directly from Great Outdoors Colorado - for a conservation easement on a separate parcel of the ranch to ensure against future development, also for grouse protection.

This also is a process that began long before Bray was chosen for the wildlife commission in March, but the final vote of approval came just weeks ago. That's where Dickinson comes in. Owner of a large ranch in Moffat County, Dickinson is an elected county commissioner and appears often at various wildlife meetings, either as a stockman advocate or critic of the DOW.

More to the point, Dickinson also is a member of the GoCo Board of Directors; this month, he voted in favor of giving Bray more than $300,000. The two collude openly in an effort to expand the voucher system by which ranchers get off-the-top permits for the most prized deer and elk licenses.

This involves a two-part pilot program initiated in response to landowner demands. DOW proposes a test in Unit 10 by which ranchers get more elk vouchers while hosting public hunters. A second provision gives eastern Colorado landowners additional family-only tags for antelope. The "huddlers" immediately pushed to include several other West Slope units in the pilot and to expand the family tags to include deer.

Expansion of the pilot program is roundly viewed as a clever wedge to get ranchers the added vouchers they failed to obtain through a power play last fall, blunted by a sportsman uprising. A similar attempt earlier this year through a License Allocation Working Group stacked toward commercial interests also crashed, again from opposition by the hunting rank and file.

The quartet seemed to sway the commission at a November meeting in Greeley, but sentiment appeared to turn when sportsmen finally joined the debate at the December gathering.

Bray receives a substantial number of deer vouchers for sale from his ranch - DOW won't say how many - and potentially would benefit financially from any future percentage increase in vouchers. Dickinson's ranch would profit immediately and directly from Bray's proposal to expand the pilot to include units requiring five or more preference points.

Despite a familial connection and the obvious aspect of complicity, Garin Bray, Robert Bray's daughter and a representative of the Colorado Farm Bureau, was given one of the 15 seats on the LAWG and became a vocal advocate of a proposal to allow substantially more of these vouchers.

Yet when Robert Bray was asked at that Dec. 8 commission meeting about possible conflicts of interest, he bridled at the suggestion.

"I'll excuse myself from any vote that involves any conflict," Bray snapped before hurrying away.

The fact remains he already has spoken proactively and often on voucher issues that benefit himself and Dickinson, his ally and benefactor.

The question also arises why the administration would appoint a man in line to receive more than $1 million in state conservation funds and scads of money from the sale of license vouchers to a commission with oversight over some of the same programs. Or why Bray would accept.

Big game hunting has become big business in Colorado; vouchers that allow high rollers to stand first in line for hard-to-get licenses sometimes sell for five figures. The voucher system - from legislative action at a time when agricultural interests held much more political sway - bestows to landowners 15 percent of the most coveted licenses right off the top, before the rest of us can bid. These vouchers are bought and sold like stock options, traded variously among ranchers and outfitters, always to the highest bidder.

More recently, landowners began pushing for an even juicier share, a move that would push ordinary hunters farther back in line behind those with money. When it comes to hunting vouchers, greed knows no limits.

What does come as a shock is the sharp change in the tenor of the wildlife commission, heretofore a balanced group that typically made the well-being of the resource and of the average license buyer its primary concerns.

Robert Bray's voice is heard more than any other commissioner these days, always for mandates that line the pockets of stockmen. When he and Shoemaker aren't speaking, Dickinson and Garin Bray parade to the podium to drive the points home.

Considering all the possibilities inherent in "the huddle," it's enough to make one wonder.

I feel fortunate to be able to hunt Colorado as much as I do as well, and I think they are extremely generous with their tags to NR, but I am always surprised when people are unwilling to pay more for these tags, especially residents, their was just a long discussion similar to this in the Wyoming forum, where it eventually came out that Wyoming residents where in favor of fee increases, I am sure that it is incredibly expensive to manage big game herds and we as hunters need to be willing to pay, or I think we will be at risk.

Thanks for posting that article Kayak. I can't believe amount the greed that exists on commission. When will it ever be enough? When we go to 100% vouchers? Bray needs to be booted from the commission for his conflict of interest. It's time to send emails and let them know this latest greedy scheme is not welcome!

Never going to make everyone happy. But in the end $$$$ will drive the program. It's more about guide $$$ and landowner trespass fees that it is tags fees.

>Why should CO resident licenses be
>$62 for one deer, are
>they that much in Texas?
>Why do Easterners always think
>its Ok for them to
>have cheap tags but Westerners
>need to pay a lot
>more?


Well, in Texas, the license (supercombo @ $68) is the cheapest part of the equation. Then comes the trespass fees (leases + insurance?), and mgmt goal costs (nutrition, water, helicopter rental for surveys, etc). The cash cow in Co are the OTC NR tags sold, if revenue is an issue, create more OTC units.

Residents better stand up now, or we'll be bending over for years.


Here is the Denver Post writers email, encourage him to take up the subject as well~ [email protected]

I've done a little asking around and what I've found out is a sportsperson or outdoors persons bill of rights or right to hunt can be accomplished a couple of ways.

1. A ballot issue which will require 85,000 varified signatures orbin actuality about 110,000 to 120,000 as many will be dismissed.
2. A law maker willing to write a bill.
3. Get formally organized organization such as Mule Deer Federation or Mule Deer Association to begin an agressive drive pushing for an sportspersons bill of rights or somethimg similar.

The difficulty lays with the present powerful push within the state for LO's and NR's to receive a larger tag alotment and with the formulation of an organized group carrying the fight.

Seems Pheasants Forever has made some significant strides toward something similar which could be the basis for modelling such legislation.

Anyone aware of another active group in Colorado who might be willing to carry this or a similar agenda forward?

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."

Perhaps Colorado Bowhunters Assn?

Isn't there a new mule deer group created that was kinda a defect away from MDF?

I can see getting a representative to sponsor the bill as the biggest issue. Someone like Brophy wouldn't even think about it after the LO Voucher issue.

I believe that both a orginization and Rep will present themselves and it will be choosing the right one. There is almost no down side politically with only residents voting.

Also another cut and paste from the record of the last commission meeting.

Below are some transcriptions from the audio of the PWC discussion on this topic which show a clear desire by the Commission to make a change to allocation without public input.

This should be very concerning to all resident hunters in the state.

Chairman Kane at 57:45: ?Is there a way that we can refine the system we have, without having to go back and revisit the universe of the entire underlying philosophy of the whole 80/20 and 60/40 and re-invoke that whole statewide debate? I'm wondering if there aren't some tweaks and clarifications relative to perhaps the hybrid draw and firming up some of the caps in here to make more licenses available to out of state hunters and follow through on what Commissioner Bray thought was the deal in 2005. You know that just feels intuitively like a much more appealing thing for us rather than having to go back and rewrite the whole Constitution of the United States relative to this. Because I think that if we're going to approach it globally we are talking about reengagement with the public and statewide roundtables, and this is just an enormous commitment of both Commissioners? time and staff time and if there's a way we can get at it efficiently, as one Commissioner speaking, that sounds like a very attractive alternative.?

Chairman Kane at 1:04:40: ?We just have to change a spark plug here, let's not take the heads off.?

Commissioner Bray replied: ?I would support the Chairman?s recommendation that we can tweak things and don't have to recreate the world, or at least talk about tweaking things, and try to keep it civil and in-house, I think there are some things we can do that will make it a better system, without huge, wholesale changes.?

Chairman Kane at 1:19:00: ?The mission is to see what improvements can be made within our existing system structure to address what has been perceived by some as an inappropriately rigid system relative to the out of state hunter.?

Chairman Kane at 1:20:10: ?I don't think it should be burdensome; hopefully, you know, conference calls, you can do a lot of this over the phones and with email, and so that people aren't burning up the highways to get this done.?


It is sickening...

You grab that from Oak's post at HT?

Sounds like some folks not wanting resident public input within the descision to give NR's more tags. Apparently theses are Czars too now?

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

FYI - DOW staff tried to push through more 80/20 units without discussion or public involvement or explanation of it and the ramifications it would have, they called for a vote to approve it and that's when Commissioner Bray made a motion to put a freeze on any new 80/20 ​units until it was discussed further.

If any of you knew the history of the allocations both times when they were voted on - the allocations were supposed to be a hard cap (and commissioners who voted on them knew how they voted), and came out of regulations as a soft cap. After that process it was stated that this would cause the DOW to go broke - consequently they are. Politics and greed was the only reason for an allocation change in the first place by special interest groups. A cost analysis was requested as well as a business analysis and was determined that there would be a significant reduction in income.

The parks side of CPW at the time of the merger made the necessary cuts to remain in the black, DOW never made cuts until they had to and they were out of compliance on their reserve, they voted to lower the reserve amount and consequently now again they are out of the reserve.

For the record it should be noted that DOW revenues and expenditures stay with DOW, and Parks revenues and expenditures stay with Parks - there is no co mingling of funds or one draining the other, they stand on their own.


Friends, educate yourselves on some of the facts that have led to these discussions.

There is a great deal of politics in wildlife today and have made many issues complex and in reality divided sportsmen to where we are today. However in reality though it is a supply and demand issue and everything revolves around the supply, this 5 year season structure process should have made bigger strides and gains in obtaining those goals but election year politics has kept it suppressed and leaned another direction. ​Its too bad that sportsmen couldn't have banded together and pushed for some significant changes t​o improve overall wildlife benefits and opportunities. we had many ideas out there from a few different groups but staff kept them suppressed and we basically ended up with a status quo except for a few nuggets.

By legislative statute title 33-1-101 it is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. It is further declared to be the policy of this state that there shall be provided a comprehensive program designed to offer the greatest possible variety of wildlife-related recreational opportunity to the people of this state and its visitors and that, to carry out such program and policy, there shall be a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife related opportunities.

The bottom line though is it comes back to the dow and how they manage or mismanage wildlife, there are many differences of facts and opinions within dow that don't align with the majority of sportsmens. When populations of animals are reduced and are struggling to recover such as mule deer, antelope and elk in some areas - then all of these other issues become passionate and emotional for sportsmen and they look to point fingers and fight among each other about who should get the opportunity to hunt.

There have been multiple reasons why these discussions become more emotional such as,

DOW going broke - went from a 60 million dollar surplus to a 12 million dollar deficit in 8 years

Population declines

Increased Predation - DOW, bears, coyotes, lions, eagles, poachers, ravens, crows, etc...

Management for opportunity

Increased Mortality - highway, cwd, ehd, fences, etc...

Loss of non resident dollars - Colorado has lost over 40,000 non resident hunters since 2000, it currently takes 13 residents to equal 1 non resident. With more hunters in the field and fewer dollars coming into dow programs wildlife management suffers. Non resident license fees have almost tripled since 2000 with minimal increase in resident fees.
There is no tax money that comes to dow for wildlife management except Pittman Robertson and Dingel Johnson Funds and can only go for habitat and research etc...- not operating money, so the dow depends on the non resident hunter - always has. Out of the 59 million dollars that dow receives annually 45 million comes from the nr hunter, they pay for every program dow has and without it would cease to exist.FY 13-14 Q3 Financial Report
The problem is the average sportsman doesn't know enough details and they get on a rant, but the motive for dow is to get away from traditional funding and let the non consumptive user pay for wildlife management from a tax of some sort.

SCORP
Of Colorado voters
responding to the 2012
Conservation in the West
Poll, 86 percent said that
?Even with state budget
problems, we should still
find money to protect and
maintain Colorado?s land,
water and wildlife.? 82
percent said the same about
state parks.
?Conservation in the West Poll:
Colorado College State of the
Rockies Project.

Increase in resident hunters - moving here

Politics

It is really a supply and demand issue with no easy fixes until both populations of animals and quality increases,

The people who scream the loudest appear to have an entitlement mentality to the wildlife and are some of the ones who moved here and became in essence part of the problem, there is more burden upon the resource, animals, water, habitat etc... especially from the native resident standpoint, We didn't have any problems drawing licenses until more people started moving here, before the year 2000 when allocations were introduced and were supposed to be a 60/40 hard cap, 53% - 57% of the licenses went to Non residents! And you could get leftovers and hunt every year in almost every unit and still apply for a point in the limited units.
Now with the sheer number of them that moved here the native residents will never get an opportunity at some of the sheep, goat, moose and limited elk and deer licenses.

Residents currently get 50% of the landowner vouchers total.

The North American Model for Wildlife Conservation also calls for equal opportunity on public lands of which there are 23,000,000 million acres in Colorado.

A solution to it is if you don't want non residents to fund it for you then you need to pony up and pay for it, most residents will squall like a mashed cat over a $5 dollar increase - when some used to pay the NR fee.
Now some of these same people want to take away other hunters opportunities, talk about standing in a glass house casting stones!​
Just remember you want sportsmen to pay for wildlife management not non consumptive users - you can figure out why.

Another one of the solutions would be to redefine residency as,

Native residents - 50% of the licenses hard cap

Non native residents - 25% hard cap

and Non residents - 25% hard cap

Given the fact that public land belongs to all people regardless of where one lives there should be an equal opportunity for both res​idents​ and non. Some of these groups that scream the loudest ​about these allocations ​believe in this fact and post it in their mission statement and websites.

People who have represented this country and fought and died for it to give us the freedoms we enjoy shouldn't be discriminated against, they represented the United States and the people who live in it - not their home state. ​Say the pledge of allegiance - do you believe it?​

And the biggest reason of all ​for equal opportunity ​is that God created all men equal - without discrimination - such as loving your neighbor as yourself​. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it - Love your neighbor as yourself which on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Assuming all your facts and figures are accurate, very informative. However, this statement:

"Given the fact that public land belongs to all people regardless of where one lives there should be an equal opportunity for both res​idents​ and non. Some of these groups that scream the loudest ​about these allocations ​believe in this fact and post it in their mission statement and websites."

doesn't really apply. Yes, we all collectively own the federal LAND regardless of where we live. But legally, the people of the state own the animals/wildlife. So while we rightly all have equal opportunity to walk the land and VIEW the mountains and the wildlife, the state will always be in control of how they are hunted

But the hard economic facts you recite bring a stark reality to this emotional issue and I see really only 3 options: Substantially cut the budget of the CPW (DOW division), raise resident fees substantially, or continue to let NR hunt in fairly large numbers.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-14 AT 07:59AM (MST)[p]> Another one of the solutions
>would be to redefine residency
>as,
>
>Native residents - 50% of the
>licenses hard cap
>
>Non native residents - 25% hard
>cap
>
>and Non residents - 25% hard
>cap
>
>Given the fact that public land
>belongs to all people regardless
>of where one lives there
>should be an equal opportunity
>for both res​idents​ and non.
>Some of these groups that
>scream the loudest ​about these
>allocations ​believe in this fact
>and post it in their
>mission statement and websites.
>
>People who have represented this country
>and fought and died for
>it to give us the
>freedoms we enjoy shouldn't be
>discriminated against, they represented the
>United States and the people
>who live in it -
> not their home state.
>​Say the pledge of allegiance
>- do you believe it?​
>
>
>And the biggest reason of all
>​for equal opportunity ​is that
>God created all men equal
>- without discrimination - such
>as loving your neighbor as
>yourself​. Love the Lord your
>God with all your heart,
>with all your soul and
>all your mind This is
>the first and great commandment,
>and the second is like
>it - Love your neighbor
>as yourself which on these
>two commandments hang all the
>law and the prophets.

So Indian tribes historically in Colorado get 50% of tags, great idea, I got Comanche blood from Grandma, AWESOME!!! Veterans get to hunt too, I like that idea, I have a DD214 from the Army, do you cjoutfit? And since we're all created equal I can hunt any place in Colorado that God created since its technically his land. You mind sending me a map of all the land you lease? I'm really liking these idea's!!!

And be honest with the vouchers, break it down by male, either-sex and female vouchers, then post who are using them. How many nonresidents book hunts with you for a Doe?

As a resident I would gladly accept a $10-20 increase in tag prices. The reason this never gets any traction is because stockmen and outfitters wouldn't see a dime of this $$.

Remember the $34m mistake the DOW accounting office made a few years ago? I'm sure they haven't recovered from that. Their budget dwarfs all other western States. I think there's a whole bunch of fat that can be trimmed. Like most government agencies they're top heavy with management. Time to restructure and put a lot more officers in the field. In the 30+ years I've been hunting I've had my license checked twice!

Waygoner is absolutely correct. This has nothing to do with "fairness" to out of state hunters, what is best for the herds in Colorado or the DOW's budget. The only reason this is being pushed is that if the changes are made, outfitters and land owners with vouchers will benefit financially. Last year when the landowners received an addiitional 5% of the limited tags it was the same thing. Too bad the commission is not concerned with what is best for the herds that they are supposed to be looking out for.

"Too bad the commission is not concerned with what is best for the herds that they are supposed to be looking out for."

Restrict the LO tags to their land and see how many they want then...

LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-14 AT 06:17PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-14 AT 06:11?PM (MST)

>As a resident I would gladly
>accept a $10-20 increase in
>tag prices. The reason
>this never gets any traction
>is because stockmen and outfitters
>wouldn't see a dime of
>this $$.
>


If you are talking about stopping their push for more NR tags, then maybe a $10-15 increase might suffice. However, some are talking about reducing NR tags to what other states have ( 10%). If that was done you would probably have to at least triple/quadruple your tag prices. As stated, 1 NR tag is equivalent to more than 10 resident tags.

With no resident opposition to past large increases in NR prices and continued yearly increases for NRs while resident stand pat basically is telling DOW: "here is a teat full of milk (NR fees), get to sucking" Now that they are addicted to that revenue source that teat is running dry (NR numbers down) you are now stuck with a bureaucracy that needs lots of money.

I agree that there is fat to be cut, but you have to remember that Colorado has more land above 10,000 ft than all other 49 states COMBINED. And by far more animals than any other state.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

Who owns the animals?? Well the State started to have control of the animals after Harry Reid put an attachment to the Iraq War Funding Bill! The Iraq War Funding Bill and the attachments to the Bill have expired, so that means back to the ​North ​American Model ??​ The reaffirmation of the hunting and fishing act was introduced twice in the senate and failed to move forward therefore the reason for the attachment.​
​Think about it this way as well, as long as wildlife populations are thriving states have control over the licenses and hunting seasons, but if a species becomes threatened or endangered then the Feds step in - who really owns the animals?
It is up to the state to enhance wildlife populations and this is where the basis of all of these issues come from.​

Who owns the animals?? Well the State started to have control of the animals after Harry Reid put an attachment to the Iraq War Funding Bill! The Iraq War Funding Bill and the attachments to the Bill have expired, so that means back to the ​North ​American Model ??​ The reaffirmation of the hunting and fishing act was introduced twice in the senate and failed to move forward therefore the reason for the attachment.​
​Think about it this way as well, as long as wildlife populations are thriving states have control over the licenses and hunting seasons, but if a species becomes threatened or endangered then the Feds step in - who really owns the animals?
It is up to the state to enhance wildlife populations and this is where the basis of all of these issues come from.

>Waygoner is absolutely correct. This has
>nothing to do with "fairness"
>to out of state hunters,
>what is best for the
>herds in Colorado or the
>DOW's budget. The only reason
>this is being pushed is
>that if the changes are
>made, outfitters and land owners
>with vouchers will benefit financially.
>Last year when the landowners
>received an addiitional 5% of
>the limited tags it was
>the same thing. Too bad
>the commission is not concerned
>with what is best for
>the herds that they are
>supposed to be looking out
>for.


X1000

This is a movement by special interest groups (outfitters/landowners) that came about when the DOW was just following their mandate to move units to 80 - 20 (how dare they).

The special interests are looking to stick it to the resident hunter to line their pockets plain and simple.

September 11th seems a fitting day for this type of attack and is coming up please send in a letter if you have not already.

Here is what the CBA has to say about this so is any one in support well other than CJ and commissioner Bray?

Anyone?




The CBA will have representation at this meeting. This meeting will take place at the address and dates below. You may participate and contact them via the web site: http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx

Meeting Location:
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission
Subcommittee on Big Game License Allocation

5:00 ? 6:00 PM, Thursday, September 11, 2014

Ramada Inn

124 W. 6th Street

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

Letter Sent to Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission by the CBA BOD:
September 7, 2014

Chairman Bill Kane

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission

6060 Broadway

Denver, CO

Re: In Regards to Big Game License Allocations and the BGSS

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners:

The Colorado Bowhunters Association would like to express their concern regarding the decision to reassess the allocation of big game licenses between resident and nonresident hunters . The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is responsible for making policies and decisions that protect the wildlife of this great State, and protect the interests of resident hunters. At the August Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting, a subcommittee was formed to evaluate the reallocation percentages of highly desirable elk and deer tags from residents of Colorado to nonresidents. The CBA believes that this process is not justified, and that Colorado is already more than fair to nonresident hunters compared to other western states.

In addition, the Parks and Wildlife Commission recently approved a 5% increase in landowner vouchers which will become effective in 2015. Some of that reallocation will be coming from what is now the resident draw. Until sportsmen and other interested parties in Colorado have an opportunity to see the effects of that change, other compounding changes are unwise.

We ask that the Parks and Wildlife Commission Public terminate any consideration of changing license allocation at this time. If the Parks and Wildlife Commission does choose to proceed in this review, a full public involvement in this process is vital and that a working group of all affected parties should be convened to consider this issue. The development of a subcommittee to develop allocation options without complete constituent representation could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the outcome of the last Big Game License Allocation Work Group process. In the event of a public involvement process, the CBA would like to participate.

The Parks and Wildlife Commission is in a unique position in its responsibility to guide policy for wildlife management and conservation. There is no biological or wildlife management goal to be reached by increasing nonresident percentages. Current statistics show that in most years the current 35% allocated to nonresidents is not fully utilized. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the majority of nonresident hunters are satisfied with the current availability of licenses to nonresidents that hunt in Colorado. Colorado already has the highest percentages of licenses available to non-residents of any western state. Nonresidents can hunt elk every year if they choose with an over the counter license. Left over tags are available but underutilized by nonresidents. We recommend that the reallocation of licenses to nonresidents be removed from consideration because it is an unwarranted change.

Protecting our resident hunters should be a priority and not secondary to nonresident interests. The current percentages for allocation of licenses to nonresidents are under utilized on a yearly basis. An increase is not needed. For these reasons, we recommend the proposal for reallocation of nonresident licenses be removed from consideration and the current license allocation percentages be kept at the status quo.

Respectfully,

Mike Yeary

Chairman

Colorado Bowhunters Association

>
>
>Restrict the LO tags to their
>land and see how many
>they want then...


My position, exactly. LO's can get tags to sell, but they are only good on the LO's property.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-14 AT 03:29PM (MST)[p]Let's do the math. Under the 2014 allocations and outfitter-proposed 60/40 split, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 56
Non-residents - 29

80/20 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 68
Non-residents - 17

Proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 51
Non-residents - 34

Under the 2015 allocations, with an additional 5% going to landowners, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 52
Non-residents - 28

80/20 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 64
Non-residents - 16

Proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 48
Non-residents - 32

So the net effect in 2015 to hunters if the outfitters get their way would look like this:

Current 65/35 units, resident tags go from 56 to 48.
Current 65/35 units, non-resident tags go from 29 to 32.

Current 80/20 units, resident tags go from 68 to 48.
Current 80/20 units, non-resident tags go from 17 to 32.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-14 AT 04:49PM (MST)[p]Thanks for the info guys...

I have been emailing the commissioners but seems they have a deaf ear to us average joes as the majority of them have a special interest in NR and LO tags. My latest note...

Dear Commissioner, I have become aware of a proposal being set before the state wildlife commission with the intention of increasing the tag allocation to non residents. I am a citizen of Coloradon and I oppose this proposal and I stand behind the Colorado Bowhunters Associations opposition to this proposed tag grab and anyone else against this proposed change.

This is not a means of management of big game species but simply a financial discision. I would recommend the state evaluate their CPW organization and identifying efficiencies where fiscal cuts can be made and put some boots on the ground by do something to improve the herd numbers. Additionally the commission took another 5% of the tags off the top to put in the land owners tag pool. When is enough? We are already experiencing point creep and reduced opportunities for resident hunts and this proposal will do nothing but make these issues worse.

I encourage you to vote "NO" on the proposed nonresident tag increase...


If you can take a moment and send the commissioners a note expressing your opinion.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

Here is an article that ran in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel about the issue:

Outfitters on commission to decide license rules
By Dave Buchanan Saturday, September 6, 2014

In what appears to be the inmates running the jail, a pair of Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners, both of whom are registered big-game hunting outfitters, are set to play major roles in deciding how the state?s wildlife agency doles out big-game licenses.

More exactly, the decision will determine how many of the most-coveted of those hunting licenses will be taken from the allotment set aside for resident hunters and be given to nonresident hunters, who make up the great majority of the hunters who employ outfitters.

The two commissioners, Robert Bray of Nucla and Jean Horne of Meeker, comprise 40 percent of a five-member subcommittee established during the August parks and wildlife commission meeting in Fort Collins.

The subcommittee will have a public meeting at 5 p.m. Sept. 11, after the first day of the commission?s regularly scheduled meeting at the Ramada Glenwood in Glenwood Springs.

The subcommittee was formed last month after an attorney representing the Colorado Outfitters Association suggested the current method of allocating licenses between resident and nonresident hunters ?could be subject to challenge? under the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions.

Other members of the subcommittee include Gaspar Perricone, Denver (representing sportspersons on the CPW commission); Michelle Zimmerman, Breckenridge (nonprofit interests); and Alexander Zipp, Pueblo (sportspersons). Bray, who previously served on the wildlife commission from 2005-2009, represents agricultural interests while Horne is an outfitter representative.

Both Bray and Horne belong to the Colorado Outfitters Association, whose members stand to benefit should license allocations to nonresident hunters be increased.

Their presence on the subcommittee at best is a conflict of interest. It's hard to imagine either Bray or Horne, no matter how honorable their intentions, would have a unbiased view of whether nonresident hunters should get more of the coveted big-game limited license if doing so means putting more money in the outfitters? pockets.

It was apparent during the August commission meeting, whose sessions can be heard at the Parks and Wildlife website, cwp.state.co.us, that several key members of the commission have little or no background of how the allocation system works or how the current system came into being.

Some of that has to do with the natural progression of citizen committees but it also has to do with at least four key commission members coming from the parks side of the agency, where wildlife issues rarely are discussed.

Several times, commission chair Bill Kane mentioned his and other members? lack of background knowledge, saying ?I probably represent a fair numbers of members on the committee? lacking familiarity with the licensing system.

He purposefully asked for an outfitter to be on the subcommittee, but having two outfitters make up 40 percent of the subcommittee is overloading the ?wildlife as a commodity? side.

State Terrestrial Wildlife Programs supervisor John Broderick offered the services of his staff to meet with the commission in explaining the allocation system but Kane showed little interest, preferring instead to seek the counsel of Bray, a longtime outfitter who two years ago was accused of interfering with a hunter.

He told this reporter that the accusation, involving a father and son from California hunting on public land adjacent to Bray?s land, ?was settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved.?

The subcommittee is made of volunteers and it would make sense for both Bray, who sat on the Landowner Working Group during the 2005 big-game license hearings, and Horne to un-volunteer to clear away any suspicions of trying to fix the system to the benefit of nonresidents.
**************************************************************************************

And an article from the Denver Post:

Attempt to give out more nonresident licenses hurts most sportsmen

By Scott Willoughby
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/10/2014 12:01:00 AM MDT

An uprising is afoot among Colorado's rank-and-file sportsmen. The degree of revolt depends largely on discussion slated for 5 p.m. Thursday at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission's monthly meeting in Glenwood Springs. The general public is encouraged to attend.

At issue is the recent attempt by CPW commissioner Robert Bray to increase the proportion of big game license allocations for nonresident hunters in limited draw units at the expense of Colorado residents. A big game license subcommittee studying the proposal at commissioner Bray's behest is scheduled to make a preliminary presentation at the Glenwood Springs Ramada Inn on Thursday afternoon.

It's not the first time the two-time commissioner and big game hunting outfitter from southwestern Colorado has attempted to carve out a larger slice of the increasingly valuable license pie for large landowners and outfitters such as himself, nor is it likely to be the last. It is, after all, Bray's position as an "agricultural" representative of the commission to advocate on behalf of ranchers such as himself in an effort to maintain the considerable political clout that community has managed to achieve among wildlife affairs.

And it is clearly in his best interest as well to see a greater portion of limited license allocations awarded to out-of-state hunters who are more likely to hire the services of an outfitter such as himself or other members of the Colorado Outfitters Association. But it is certainly not in the best interest of the Colorado sportsmen who serve as the backbone of wildlife management and conservation statewide.

While there's no argument that nonresidents deserve a fair opportunity to hunt game in Colorado, there is a pretty compelling one recognizing that our state already offers the best opportunity for nonresidents to hunt big game in the nation. Nonresidents are allocated 35 percent of the limited license draw for big game tags in most units, and Colorado offers unlimited over-the-counter elk licenses to both resident and nonresident hunters in 92 game units statewide.

In addition, a full 15 percent of the licenses in every totally limited hunting unit is already set aside for landowners through the Landowner Preference Program that allows for lucrative transfers to non-resident hunters seeking a trophy from Colorado. That percentage increases next year by 5-10 percent, depending upon location.

Simply put, any nonresident can hunt elk, and usually deer, in Colorado every year already. With no change, there is no squabble. But changing the current allocations of resident to nonresident tags benefits few to the detriment of many.

The reasoning that an increase in nonresident license allocation translates to increased revenue for Colorado Parks and Wildlife dismisses the intrinsic value of resident sportsmen and their attendant contributions to wildlife management and conservation statewide. Reducing opportunity for high-quality hunts among residents is also likely to have a cascade effect on hunter recruitment and retention objectives, undermining the tradition of Colorado sportsmen and jeopardizing future generations critical to the success of state wildlife programs.

Big game hunting is big business in Colorado. But selling out to the highest bidder is not always the best business strategy, especially when it comes to the long-term interests of your most loyal stakeholders.

These articles will likely have an affect. Thanks again for posting these. I'll have to pass this along to the commissioners just in case they missed it which I highly doubt they did.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

OK!! We need to cut out the Cat Fighting on resident/ non resident issues, unless you are a born and raised in Colorado!

Also if you bad mouth Outfitters that are operating on Federal Lands you are bad mouthing the Federal Government. Outfitters are in partners with the Federal Government. Like it or not it is a recognized business and essential operation to the Forest Service. The Federal Government makes the rules, enforces the rules and recognizes all the values that hunting recreation provides. Outfitters would not be there if the Federal Government did not want them there, but also recognizes the fact that Outfitters cannot discriminate against anyone regardless of residency according to USFS regulations. Federal Lands and operations are funded by Federal monies and Outfitter user fees! ​

What is your point? The federal government does not have control over wildlife. They may own the land but the animals on that land belong to the state... More specifically to the people of that state. It has nothing to do with where you are born et . It has to do with your residency.

There is nothing that says we have to give equal opportunity to nonresident hunters. It has nothing to do with bemg fair and the courts have held the idea that state are supposed to run and manage wildlife in the state. The only exception to this rule is through the ESA.

No matter what, we are already the most NR friendly state in the west. We have already seen outfitter land owner welfare programs decrease all public tags.

At some point the people of the state are going to get fed up with the constant crap and when that happens things will probably look worse for both the outfitters and nonresidents.

The simple fact is, from all of this many residents and hunting groups in CO are looking to push more units that should be 80/20 to that level.

The commissioners sure wanted to keep this hush hush and slip it under the table quietly.

So you were born and raised in Colorado??

Educate yourself on Federal Laws, what is interstate commerce law then?? So are you a Harry Reid fan??

Well the State started to have control of the animals after Harry Reid put an attachment to the Iraq War Funding Bill! The Iraq War Funding Bill and the attachments to the Bill have expired, so that means back to the ​North ​American Model ??​

What is the American Model??

>So you were born and raised
>in Colorado??
>
>Educate yourself on Federal Laws, what
>is interstate commerce law then??
>So are you a Harry
>Reid fan??
>
>Well the State started to have
>control of the animals after
>Harry Reid put an attachment
>to the Iraq War Funding
>Bill! The Iraq War Funding
>Bill and the attachments to
>the Bill have expired, so
>that means back to the
>​North ​American Model ??​
>
>What is the American Model??

Again what is your point? I am a resident of Colorado. Legal and have been my entire adult life. Show me where the North American model calls for equal hunting rights and opportunity for all... Then show me one other state that has implemented that idea... Sorry but it is bull ##### and you know it.

The states have always controlled the wildlife and the wildlife has always been owned by the state. It has been this way since the founding fathers. They did not want a system like Europe where only the wealthy land owners had control of wildlife. As a result it is up to the states to determine what is the proper management of the wildlife!

The NR and the outfitters and landowners have things better in this state than in any other western state!

LAST EDITED ON Sep-10-14 AT 10:45PM (MST)[p]Ultimately Budrow, you are trying to argue that hunting, specifically the tag is a form of interstate commerce. You want the courts to rule based on the idea that it is a business and as such discriminatory laws against NR hunters are a violation of commerce laws!

This way of thinking is sickening. This mentality is ruining hunting as we know it. Gone is the heritage, the history and the hunt. You want hunting to do one thing only... Make you money!

As such any outfitter who argues for the increased commercialization of our wildlife should be put out of business!

In someways if you win this in court. The same will be true for all states and suddenly there would be no advantage to hunting CO vs another state...

You will eventually see an even greater decrease in resident hunters and resident hunter recruitment while at the same time see an increasing growth of anti hunting citizens. When that happens you would be up a creek with out a paddle...

Oh no! I am bad mouthing the federal government now!!! The shame...

Also as you sit an argue this, realize that just by offering more NR opportunity does not mean more money. With any hope the DIY mentality continues to be a strong trend and more hunters will enter the state and hunt on thier own. This trend by far is the biggest reason why outfitters have seen decreases in booking and hunter participation. Simply put more people have their own gear and do not need a guide to have a successful and enjoyable hunt. The answer to combating this issue is not more tags, but the outfitters will have to reinvent thier business model to get back a piece of the pie they have lost.

On the flip side... If you get your wish the only way to make things truly fair and even and hinder anything, then we would have to go to a true lottery system and we would also have to drop landowner vouchers as the are discriminator to smaller land owners etc. Put all tags back into a true lottery draw and get rid of PP systems. Both the landowners vouchers and the pp system are discriminator to equal and fair participation so be careful what you wish for as we can all use this to our advantage... Can you imagine how great you business would do with no predictability in co drawing tags, or the gaur tee of vouchers because we want equal,participation for all...

Slippery slope and if you want to head that direction do not be surprised when you end up loosing more than you gained!

Just stating the facts. Interstate Commerce on Wildlife was won in Federal Court after the Arizona lawsuit. After that is when Harry Reid put the attachment to the Iqar War Funding Bill, that the State would have control of wildlife. Now the Iqar War Funding Bill and attachments have expired. So by law where do we go from here?

We go back to the individual state charters as laid out and agreed upon between the feds and states when the states joined the union which is, states own the wildlife. If Reids bill had been challenged in courts it would not been sustained.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

Wildlife Management has always been left up to the State, until some idiot outfitter in New Mexico went and made things even worse for nonresident hunters in Arizona. Unfortunately Judges can and do rule on things they know nothing about or use "their" feelings to legislate from the bench. Look at the hell the States with Wolves went through until laws were passed to put the Judges in their place.

And I for one will never understand how baiting goes against fair chase, but using someone to guide you to animals doesn't??? Sure would be a bummer if the non-hunters in Denver ever had that ballot issue come up. Look what happened to spring bear hunting.

Landowners/Outfitters are one day gonna push the issue too far and that backlash against them could be really bad. I'm at the point now where I would sign a ballot petition to do away with vouchers and go to a 90/10 system. Bet you'd be hard pressed to find many resident who wouldn't sign that petition now if it ever comes up!

If the State ownes the animals then the State should pay grzing fees to help support Federal Lands. The cattlemen, sheep guys and outfitters pay grazing fees when their animals are grazing Federal Lands!

When the State brings exotic animals on Federal Land, maybe they should, but the Deer & Elk are as native as the aspen and pine tree's. Not to memntion that Colorado residents send more tax dollars to the Federal Govt than the Feds spend in Colorado, so you could say we pay for all the management of Federal Land here.

But the cattlemen, sheep guys and outfitters you mention do bring non-native animals on Federal Land and pay rock bottom prices to boot to graze the land. Now raising the price of grazing fee's is an issue that needs to be looked at! Maybe our Bighorn sheep herds would do a little better without domesticated sheep getting them sick all the time.

>If the State ownes the animals
>then the State should pay
>grzing fees to help support
>Federal Lands. The cattlemen, sheep
>guys and outfitters pay grazing
>fees when their animals are
>grazing Federal Lands!


At 4500 to 6500 per outfitted hunt I would think those grazing fees are a drop in the bucket, especially when you consider beef prices at the supermarket these days.

It is good to know what type of person is running the show down there in 76... Can you believe that he wants grazing fees for native wildlife? LOL, again be careful what you wish for Mr. Outfitter...

On the other hand you surely do not give a crap about hunting as you are intentionally trying to drive a deep wedge between outfitters and sportsmen. This will only serve your interest in the short term and hurt everyone in the long! Makes me wish I could to more to help more NR hunters DIY just so that I can keep money out of the hands of such thinkers....

>It is good to know what
>type of person is running
>the show down there in
>76... Can you believe that
>he wants grazing fees for
>native wildlife? LOL, again be
>careful what you wish for
>Mr. Outfitter...
>
>On the other hand you surely
>do not give a crap
>about hunting as you are
>intentionally trying to drive a
>deep wedge between outfitters and
>sportsmen. This will only serve
>your interest in the short
>term and hurt everyone in
>the long! Makes me wish
>I could to more to
>help more NR hunters DIY
>just so that I can
>keep money out of the
>hands of such thinkers....

They are birds of a feather, aren't they.

The sub-committee meeting last night was attended by 4 of the 5 committee members (Horne absent), Chairman Kane, Director Broscheid, CPW staff, a handful of outfitters/landowners and a handful of sportsmen. The committee heard background information on the current CPW allocation policy and the results of implementation of that policy over the last several years. They then discussed the merits of changing the allocation system or leaving it as is. After a bit of lively discussion the public was allowed to testify.

Four members of the public testified to leave the system as is. One member of the public testified in favor of the Commission making changes to the allocation system.

The committee ultimately decided to take a recommendation back to the full Commission today to leave the allocation system as is, including no changes to the 80/20 allocation list, and look at options of creating an indexing system during the next year that would keep the number of 80/20 units similar to when the 80/20 system was initially created. There will be opportunity for public input during that process.

Thanks for the update and thanks for representing us at the meeting. Encouraging news that it's going back to the full commission.

Thanks oak, appreciate your efforts and information...

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-14 AT 07:20AM (MST)[p]Thanks Oak, elks96, and others for your time and effort on this I for one do sincerely appreciate the updates and time you spend on this matter.

It is sad that guys like Chris Journey of CJ outfitters will do whatever it takes to steal tags from every resident hunter. How does that feel bud using corruption and back door methods to STEAL tags from your fellow Colorado residents?

Sickening the level of corruption on the commission and in the end it looks like the corruption has won out so far.

As I sit here wondering why outfitter like CJ continually attack the resident hunters. Maybe it is time to share a bit of information here on the grand old internet in exchange.

I know there are a lot of NR hunters who do not want to pay for a guided trip so us resident hunters could help them out by posting all the spots we know that outfitters set up and hunt!

Complete with pics and maps of where the outfitters take their clients. Totally legit and with all the guys on these forums we could probably point out just about every single camp and hunting area that is on public land. Then anyone could access this info for free and most of us res hunters avoid these spots anyway so no skin off our backs.

So I got about 10 different units that I know outfitters use every year and have successful clients and I will start to make up some maps.

Who else knows where we could send every poster who "wants info about a otc elk hunt" or "where to use my 4 co deer points"? People like this are basically looking for a guided hunt so lets give them a map to where the local outfitter feels is the best spot to hunt!

Personally I don't agree with residents getting 90% or more of the tags guaranteed, I am more of a NR than a Res.
I think CO's current is probably the fairest out of all states. If I was making the decision, I would say a state should average out the previous 5 years of hunters Res vs. NR and allot tags according to that percentage.
For example if the previous 5 years of applicants for deer were 75% resident then 75% of the tags would go to residents.
If 60% of the applications were for Residents then 60% of the tags go to residents.

This pissing contest between state limiting NR's is getting very stupid! MN, SD, WI, and ND did this years ago with pheasant, waterfowl and deer hunting, stupid then and stupid now. A bunch of self-centered dips*itz!



Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


>wah wah wah......
a certain individuals response on 8/12/2014 to anyone that commits suicide.
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID11/19864.html
There are many things that would be nice to wish for or say but then I would be just like him.

Fellow hunters, please remember that this is not Resident v. non-res. Unfortunately that is the way it seems to be playing out. This is a powerful minority that are trying to manipulate the system for their financial benefit. They don't care whether you are a Res or a NR. Remember just a few short months ago when the same group was able to get themselves an additional 5% of the limited tags? Money is their only interest. They don't care where you call home, they just want your money and they are more than willing to sacrifice the opportunities of those of us who don't have that money in order to make the opportunity available to the highest bidder.
This entire situation is very unfortunate. Divisions among people with similar interests. Poor recruitment of youth into the sport as it becomes more elitist. My kids don't want to go if I can't go with them.
Be aware that nothing happened this go around, however, they will be back with their hands out for your opportunity very soon. The incremental grabs will not seem like much but in the end they will control a majority if not all of the tags. Only those with the deepest pockets will have the opportunity for those tags. Thanks to the guys that attended the meetings and sounded the alarms on this grab.

I dont see it as Resident against Nonresident fight, but I think a lot of Nonresidents forget that for those of us that live in Colorado, this is "our main hunt" and not a bonus out-of-state hunt which it is for Nonresidents.

Bet a lot of Nonresidents would be equally upset/frustrated if they had the same amount of difficulty getting a tag in their home states as we do

>Fellow hunters, please remember that this
>is not Resident v. non-res.
>Unfortunately that is the way
>it seems to be playing
>out. This is a powerful
>minority that are trying to
>manipulate the system for their
>financial benefit. They don't care
>whether you are a Res
>or a NR. Remember just
>a few short months ago
>when the same group was
>able to get themselves an
>additional 5% of the limited
>tags? Money is their only
>interest. They don't care where
>you call home, they just
>want your money and they
>are more than willing to
>sacrifice the opportunities of those
>of us who don't have
>that money in order to
>make the opportunity available to
>the highest bidder.
>This entire situation is very unfortunate.
>Divisions among people with similar
>interests. Poor recruitment of youth
>into the sport as it
>becomes more elitist. My
>kids don't want to go
>if I can't go with
>them.
>Be aware that nothing happened this
>go around, however, they will
>be back with their hands
>out for your opportunity very
>soon. The incremental grabs will
>not seem like much but
>in the end they will
>control a majority if not
>all of the tags. Only
>those with the deepest pockets
>will have the opportunity for
>those tags. Thanks to the
>guys that attended the meetings
>and sounded the alarms on
>this grab.

^THIS!

Peanut, you hit the nail cleanly on the head... Very well stated.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."