resident license loss at hand

[Grasshopper]

Guys, I need some help!

There is some critical things happening this month at the wildlife commission meeting take a look at the agenda at the link. I'd recommend you send your comments to the Parks and Wildlife commission for their consideration.

1. Somehow the topic of resident/nonresident license allocation made the commission agenda. This is a topic typically reserved for the 5 year season structure. The last time this discussion occurred a significant amount of GMU's should have shifted from a 65/35 allocation to 80/20. Instead, the commission decided not to shift any allocations, and resident hunters were denied access to coveted limited licenses they should have had under the prior policy. If you value your ability to draw a limited license as a first or second choice, this one is important.

I wrote the commission requesting they implement a hard cap for all limited GMU's, and that any unit requiring 5 or more resident preference points to draw move to an 80/20 resident to non resident allocation. I am asking you to do the same.

Personal opinion here, this one smells like fish to me. What I find particularly discouraging disheartening, and distasteful is that on Thursday the senate finance committee is hearing a bill that will raise resident license fees, and then on Friday we need to go to the commission to guard against a loss of licenses. That is just not cool.

2. At the same commission meeting, the commission is going to discuss alternatives for spending your habitat stamp dollars. Recently the commission decided to temporarily cease the RFP process which took your money, and bought crtitical winter range conservation and public access easements. I lodged comment asking they form a working group to examine the issue and get public input on how to overcome the legislative opposition this program is encountering. Personally, it is my opinion a reasonable portion of the funds should be spent on access leases.

As well, Public access to State Trust lands will also be a topic of discussion.

To complicate things, the commission meeting in Grand Junction is the same day as capitol hill testimony for the financial sustainability bill. Not sure how sportsmen can be heard at both.

This is your chance to voice your opinion on topics that matter.

Here is a link to the meeting agenda
http://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages...ing2017-5.aspx

you can email the Parks and Wildlife commission here:
[email protected]

 

[Cohntr62]

Don't forget that there are a lot of NRs hunting Colorado and we should have some rights as well. We pay much more for licenses and enjoy hunting there as much as residents, maybe even appreciate it more. I understand you're biased toward residents, but it's a matter of perspective and don't act like yours is the only point of view.

 

[JSTWIG22]

It is National Forest and we all pay taxes on it and it belongs to all tax payers, not just the residents....should be even draw....resident or not....only fair way to do it! Have all pay the same price as non residents and the state of Colorado be way ahead money wise

 

[El Gringo]

>Don't forget that there are a
>lot of NRs hunting Colorado
>and we should have some
>rights as well. We pay
>much more for licenses and
>enjoy hunting there as much
>as residents, maybe even appreciate
>it more. I understand you're
>biased toward residents, but it's
>a matter of perspective and
>don't act like yours is
>the only point of view.
>

Don't forget that even if every hunt code were split 80/20, that would be double the NR quota of just about any other western state (Az, NM, NV, Mt, Ut.....). Colorado is more than generous with our NR tag allocations.

 

[El Gringo]

> It is National Forest and
>we all pay taxes on
>it and it belongs to
>all tax payers, not just
>the residents....should be even draw....resident
>or not....only fair way to
>do it! Have all pay
>the same price as non
>residents and the state of
>Colorado be way ahead money
>wise


Ownership of federal lands, and management of the wildlife that reside within the states are not mutually exclusive. Management of wild game, falls under states rights, and is left to each state to manage. Randy Newberg has an excellent video on YouTube explaining this.

 

[DW]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-17 AT 04:10PM (MST)[p]We're still the selfish ones gringo. What other state can you go to after you failed to draw anywhere else and hunt elk? Answer: only Colorado! We're a buncha plicks alright!

 

[txhunter58]

So lobby to limit NR more and double your resident tag prices. No matter how you slice it, that is the only way it might work for you. I am sure like any govt agency, there is waste, but good luck in trying to get that reduced.....



txhunter58

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

 

[El Gringo]

>
>We're still the selfish ones gringo.
>What other state can you
>go to after you failed
>to draw anywhere else and
>hunt elk? Answer: only Colorado!
>We're a buncha plicks
>alright!


I apply in 6 states every year, so I'm completely sympathetic to the NR vs. Res debate.... None of this would affect the OTC opportunities, only Limited entry hunts, no different than any other state. I think it's awesome the opportunity that Colorado provides. Just trying to add some perspective to the discussion.

Other options: Montana General tag, Utah General Tag, Idaho Gen. tag, Wyoming Gen Tag (Every other year). There are options to hunt every year, even multiple states, if someone has the time and budget.

 

[DW]

Are you able to pull in the night before, buy a tag, and hunt in the am?

 

[Elkduds]

Email sent to Commission.

 

[nripepi]

I am guessing no one knew how quickly the points needed for tags would rise and then how much revenue they would lose going from 35% to 20%. If they truly didn't do it for that reason, I think that is wrong (coming from a non-resident point of view). If they had a better reason or wanted that 5 points on the demand side to be sustained for another year, than they need to let you all know that.

I think we are going to continue to see OTC elk licenses reduced as some areas are getting hunted too hard and the sex ratio too low to allow for all the cows to be bred. We'll see what happens, but there might be a time in the near future where you won't be able to show up the day before and hunt. I am happy with 20% across the board as a non-resident, just wish it was the same in other states!

 

[Sierra]

I heard that they want to make it 50/50 to maximize revenue.

 

[DW]

I heard he broke both his arms.

 

[elks96]

First of all, Colorado is more than generous to NR hunters. Sorry but any NR whining needs to realize this... What other state can you show up the night before the season begins and get an OTC Bull tag that is good for the vast majority of the elk hunting units.

This comes down to one thing and one things only...

Outfitter Well-fare program.

It is stupid and unacceptable that we as residents are supporting and stepping up to the plate that the commission would even consider such a move. Sorry but the 80/20 split is good when you consider it is only for the most coveted tags in the top units.

It should be honored that such units meeting the requirement be shifted.

Also if a NR resident really wants to hunt CO they can. After all putting in for a trophy unit cost you almost nothing.

I will make sure to speak up. Do we know when exactly the issue will be up for discussion?

 

[WoodsD9]

Colorado is definitely extremely generous to NR hunters compared to other states. The problem I feel is primarily with elk and the small number of limited entry hunts in the State. I really wish they would increase the number of units that are limited or put a quota on the NR otc hunts like Wyo.

This is just my opinion being as an X colorado resident and I would not mind having to choose every year between a point of otc hunt.