Whats Fair for Tags

COHunter · May 5, 2005

Recently the Colorado DOW has put together a group of people from various backgrounds (sportsmen, ranchers, outfitters, etc) to discuss Biggame License Allocations for the future.

What do you think would be a "FAIR" distribution of Tags?

I'd like to see an 80/20 Res/Nonres. split for the "Limited" Licenses.

Just curious to hear what folks think?

rocketman · May 5, 2005

I will be going to the next meeting in Buena
Vista May 13-14. Being a Colo res I would like
the 80-20 split but it wont happen. One guideline
they must follow is "no loss in revenue" to DOW.
Almost certainly the 60-40 will stay. Roy in
Montrose

BeanMan · May 5, 2005

80/20 would be fine by me

BeanMan

Founder · May 5, 2005

Well, I'm a Utard who likes to hunt Colorado, so I'd like to see it stay at 60/40 split. I would even be willing to pay a higher fee to keep the split the same.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

BOBCATBEST · May 5, 2005

I will get a hold of DK Peay and get back to you!!!!!

The only bobcat looking for some sound advice!!!!

Someburro · May 5, 2005

40% to NR's is ridiculus. Residents should get first choice on all tags and then if there are any left over they should go to NR's. That's for every state, not just CO.

rost495 · May 6, 2005

Someburro

I can't agree. I won't say that we need tags like USO says. But somewhere around 75/25 give or take is fair. After all I pay my federal taxes and lots of the land is federal. Even though the state spends lots of bucks managing.

If you went to all to R and leftovers to NR(IE usually none) then it should be that way for all states. You stay in yours and don't come to mine.

I hope that never happens though. I've always loved the variety. Its my country. Why can't I go here and there for a change of pace?

Just my thoughts, Jeff

COHunter · May 6, 2005

rocketman,
I dont think revenue would be affected by an 80/20 split for "limited licenses" because we've been averaging 8,000+ new Nonresident Elk hunters a year for the past 3 years.
2001 = 69,860 Nonresident Elk tags sold
2004 = 95,220 Nonresident Elk tags sold
Thats 25,360 more Nonresident Elk tags sold in 3 years time
25,360 X $490 = $12,426,400

Even if 1/4 were cow tags at $250 they'd make $10,904,500 during the same 3 year period.

They are way ahead of inflation IMO

Plus we've picked up around 5,500 new Nonresident deer hunters during the last 3 years too
5,500 X 290 = $1,595,000

Plus...Next year residents are going to pay more too

Our DOW is one heck of a money making machine!

They can afford to give us (Residents) more tags IMO

Waygoner · May 6, 2005

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you factor in the landowner and outfitter tags that are primarily sold to non-residents, the current split is really closer to 50/50. At this point I'd be happy to get an honest 60/40 split. I doubt anything will change though, money is the driving force behind DOW decisions and any reduction in non-res tags means less $$$$.

Todd in Gunnison

fowladdict · May 6, 2005

Ditto to what rost495 said.I too like the ability to hunt several states, especially since I have family that I hunt with from other states.

Cowkiller · May 6, 2005

Anything from 20% to 30% is fair. Colorado has always been ridiculously generous to nonresidents. I'm a Colorado resident. Just getting the 40% nonresident quota was a difficult fight a few years ago. Like Waygoner I would be happy to see Colorado give residents an honest 60% of the tags for each unit.

Rocketman, I'm glad your going to the meeting. Maybe we should try a common tactic of developers and others. Insist on a 5% nonresident quota and then happily settle for the 25% compromise.

gleninaz · May 6, 2005

Not to be a hypocrite, I think what's fair is whatever your state says is fair and I will live with it. I hunt as a NR and figure that residents should decide what revenue they need vs. keeping the people in that state happy. A balance will be reached that is different for every state.

Someburro · May 6, 2005

90% of the hunters do not care about hunting in other states, but would just like to be able to hunt their own states on a regular basis. When it gets to be a 5 year wait between tags in your own state, we will lose our sport because a lot of people will just give up.

Bugler · May 6, 2005

It's gonna be up to the president now. SB339 has passed both the house and senate and if signed by the W will give the states back their right to regulate hunting and fishing witrhin it's respective borders, and take it away from the federal courts.
This should nail the USO coffin shut .

rost495 · May 6, 2005

Someburro

If a lot of people give up you'll have your more tags ;-)

Residents wait 5 years. In some states Non Residents put in for draws all their life and never draw.

Here in TX I can actually hunt every year. But excepting some does for the freezer its about 7-10 years between bucks. So I'm not that much different.

If I were in your situation I'd be happily hunting other opportunities. Except that then you'd be a non resident and in our shoes.

Heck we are all really in the same shoes anyway.

Firsty · May 6, 2005

I'm a non-res who hunts CO every year and I feel bad for the residents with the 60-40.

txhunter58 · May 7, 2005

LAST EDITED ON May-07-05 AT 06:16PM (MST)[p]Someburro said:

"90% of the hunters do not care about hunting in other states, but would just like to be able to hunt their own states on a regular basis. When it gets to be a 5 year wait between tags in your own state, we will lose our sport because a lot of people will just give up."

In Colorado, unless I am way off base, a resident can hunt every year for deer and elk, so they don't have the problem that other states do.

However,I can understand wanting a higher percentage of the coveted limited tags, and I think more than 60% in the hard to draw areas would be in order.

txhunter58

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

graybeard · May 7, 2005

My guess is if the residents want a higher percentage of tags, they'll have to buck up and pay more per tag. The state has made a good living off the elk herd and non-resident funds. And the small towns love the revenue too. They'll be hard pressed to let loose their grip on that money...I'd have to aggree that the premium tags should rightfully go to more residents, and I'm a non-resident...just my 2 cents...Steve

kingfish · May 8, 2005

60-40 sounds good to me!! But even more importantly lets get the nonresident tag cost down to something resonable. No way should a nonresident have to pay 100x that of a resident.