Special Interest group stealing resident tags

ColoradoV

Very Active Member
Oct 4, 2011
820
941
This has not been posted here so I thought I would add it. If you are not aware there is a movement in the Colorado Wildlife Commission to decrease the allocation of resident tags. What is disturbing is that the Commissioners and special interests have "huddled" up to do this with as little of input from resident hunters as they can.

Below is the record from the last commission meeting min as well as a Denver Post article where some of the Commissioner have been "extremely lucky" and received over 1 million $ in Gov't Grants and handouts..

All resident hunters should be extremely upset by this push and we all need to band together, write letters, and do what ever it takes to stop this tag grab. The next commission meeting is September 11 th in Glenwood Springs.

Thanks

Here is the DENVER POST article about the lucky Robert Bray.

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.
 

ColoradoV

Very Active Member
Oct 4, 2011
820
941
Another Cut and Paste but worth the read..

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.”
 

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,377
4,778
83
Dolores, Colorado
Money talks...especially in politics & government.

For years I have testified and written to the commission and its like beating your head against a brick wall. I guess it has to start with our elected officials as that is where the appointments come from. Parks & Wildlife is a fault too. They are becoming more "distant" from the public than ever before. Last week I was in the Durango Regional Office and asked to speak to the Regional Manager. I was told that the regional staff was in a new office in Bodo Park area of town and the public could not visit it without permission. This is just crazy!

This whole stinking mess just cries out for some organized sportsman action.
 

ColoradoV

Very Active Member
Oct 4, 2011
820
941
I think most Colorado residents are ok with the current allocation as when compared to other states is pretty fair. The change is what the resident hunters of Co are concerned with.

If you would like to send letters I will post a list here when I get a chance of all the commission members as well as some media outlets that may be willing to pick up the story. I know sometimes the letters to CPW get no where but media will listen and then the CPW will have to.
 

Wapiti_Hunter

Member
Aug 8, 2014
108
0
Westminster CO
Another reason I will never give a penny to outfitters. They contribute to the problem as well. I have watched numerous outfitters in quite a few different units across the state use dirty tactics to ensure their clients get the animals they paid to hunt. I have heard stories of them doing it in the units I don't hunt as well. I have been bullied on public land by them and know they do it to others as well. They do all this in the name of profit, fulfilling the promise to their client that they will have a shot at animals, all the while claiming they are good hunters, when in fact they are simply dirty. I know some of you can list good outfitters and not all of them are dirty, but its upsetting that the dirty ones still operate in this state simply because they bring money in. I apologize for the rant on outfitters but I believe they contribute to the overall problem.

As for dirty board members, ranchers, and politicians... we live in a greedy world, I can't say I'm surprised, we just have to do what we can to stop them. It's all about money money money, and that's sad.
 

In God We Trust

Very Active Member
Mar 10, 2011
805
0
Colorado
How about everyone that reads this on the forum spreads the word to everyone they know and asks them to start showing up to these commission meetings. Also contact your districts state legislature rep and ask him to look into this whole pile of stinking expletive and demand that they hold the commission accountable and open an investigation into the politics plaguing the whole system that controls the PEOPLES wildlife. If people are not vigilant and then they will be run over.
On a side note I contacted the Parks and Wildlife and was told if you want to speak at these things then you have to be put on the docket. I said " I don't see this guy Bray allowing me to speak if I am going to call him out on dirty politics regarding over a million dollars of grants he received through improper ways and then trying to pay back his rancher buddy with more vouchers". The gentleman on the phone said "probably not". But you can show up to one of these and just start asking questions anyways and make them feel uncomfortable. Maybe hundreds of us should show up and demand accountability from these people. If anyone else is interested I would be willing to drive from Denver to Brush in November or Colorado Springs in December.
Thanks for the heads up Colorado V!
Hey Eastmans, how about an article in one of the upcoming magazines calling this out for what it is. I like the way you guys are not afraid to call out land owner vouchers and your magazine reaches a huge audience. It would go a long way to help the "average Joe" that reads and supports your magazine!
 
Last edited:

In God We Trust

Very Active Member
Mar 10, 2011
805
0
Colorado
I would also like to say that anyone who buys these vouchers are supporting this garbage. I know this isn't a popular stance with everyone on here and some do buy the tags but fact are facts. The more there is a market for these tags the more the land owners will try to take tags out of the system for their gain. If there wasn't a market for them they wouldn't exist! We can't keep letting the rich have special access to the hunting while the rest of us wait our turn.
 
Last edited:

shootbrownelk

Veteran member
Apr 11, 2011
1,535
196
Wyoming
I would also like to say that anyone who buys these vouchers are supporting this garbage. I know this isn't a popular stance with everyone on here and some do buy the tags but fact are facts. The more there is a market for these tags the more the land owners will try to take tags out of the system for their gain. If there wasn't a market for them they wouldn't exist! We can't keep letting the rich have special access to the hunting while the rest of us wait our turn.
Amen to your last sentence. Wyoming doesn't have landowner tags that can be sold....yet. But I'm sure the Ag/outfitters are formulating a plan. They wanted sellable landowner tags for years. We sportspeople put the "kibosh" on that years ago.
They did however, get that law pushed through that forces NonResidents to hire a guide in wilderness areas. Courtesy of the Ag controlled legislature here.
 

cjoutfit

New Member
Sep 7, 2014
2
0
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.
 

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,377
4,778
83
Dolores, Colorado
Some of what you say is true and some is pure BS.

You think that we should divide "residents" into 2 classes of residents. Whats the difference if I moved here in 1999 or 2000, of for that matter 1950? So do we create different tiers of residents for tax purposes too?

The fact that the Commission sets the rules and it's votes favor landowners and outfitters in allocations of licenses, doesn't solve any of dow's $$$ money problems, it just fills the pockets of the set asides with $$. The game animals belong to everyone, not just the large landowners and outfitters.

I believe that it's more mismanagement than anything else, not of the resource, just the business side of things. As you point out the parks side of the house isn't in the same money pinch that the wildlife side is.

The 40,000 lost non resident hunters IMHO is not really the reason for lost revenue. Prior to 2000 Colorado's NR rate structure was one of the lowest for biggame, and I believe inflated because of that. Other states like Wyoming had raised their fees and lots of big game hunter came here because of that. After 2000 when Colorado raised the fees and were on par with the other states, lots of them left.

Another problem is that the sportsman (hunters & fisherman) are the ones who pay for the management of our wildlife for the benefit of all Coloradians. Most of the states suffer with same situation. The legislature made the CPW an enterprise and a stand alone organization as far as funding goes. So the users are the only ones who contribute to it and they really don't have much say in how it is run.

Somehow some sanity and business management needs to apply.
 

ColoradoV

Very Active Member
Oct 4, 2011
820
941
Thanks for the first cut n paste post Cj now what outfitter do you own or work for? There is a new members section so how about you stop by and tell us all a bit about yourself.

As far as educating ourselves well I spent 6 years as a "outfitter" rep elected by my peers on a advisory committee to the CPW so I know a bit about what is going on. From what I see this is dirty dirty dirty... The DOW has a mandate when to move units to 80-20 and yes they were following it when Robert Bray and others decided to run the train off the tracks for personal reasons that go back before 2005. The mandate should be followed and the units should be moved to 80-20 plain and simple.

I have also seen first hand how chummy the CPW and "huddle" is and it is sickening how the landwoners/outfitters are attempting to find any way around the mandate that the CPW set up to further line their pockets - flat plain and simple.

As far as native residents give me a break man how about 4th generation residents? I would apply how about you? Wait no my 4th would be wyoming but that is pretty close. Flat stupid idea bud.

It is what it is or a movement by pushed only by select outfitters and select landowners who stand to make a ton of money and stick it to the residents in the mean time. They would rather change mandate that follow it and this is what IMO this is about. For outfitters and landowners to drag veterans and god into the discussion is deplorable.

The CPW will be fully funded dont ever doubt that. Repeat the CPW will be fully funded dont ever doubt that - or the CPW is looking at a hunting license similar to what AZ, NV, UT, and many other states require just to put in. $75 to $95 would be plenty to get the CPW all it needs to run for the foreseeable future.

Also I disagree about residents and cost of the license but if most residents were presented with a 80 - 20 hard cap in every single draw unit every hunter I know would have no problem paying a bit more and with the added hunting license revenue will work. The residents will not pay more is a scare tactic used by outfitters and landowners and is not true. If it gets to high for a resident they can opt out but plenty will opt in...

Again I believe your perspective is that of a outfitter and not a resident hunter so it is fair to let folks know who you are and who you are speaking for. What Robert Bray and the huddle is doing is in no way positive for any resident hunter and will end in less tags for the NR hunter. The idea of a ballot initiative for a solid 80-20 split is gaining traction and if outfitters and landowners take enough from the resident hunter it may just be time for a vote.
 
Last edited:

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,377
4,778
83
Dolores, Colorado
Also I disagree about residents and cost of the license but if most residents were presented with a 80 - 20 hard cap in every single draw unit every hunter I know would have no problem paying a bit more and with the added hunting license revenue will work. The residents will not pay more is a scare tactic used by outfitters and landowners and is not true. If it gets to high for a resident they can opt out but plenty will opt in...

Again I believe your perspective is that of a outfitter and not a resident hunter so it is fair to let folks know who you are and who you are speaking for. What Robert Bray and the huddle is doing is in no way positive for any resident hunter and will end in less tags for the NR hunter. The idea of a ballot initiative for a solid 80-20 split is gaining traction and if outfitters and landowners take enough from the resident hunter it may just be time for a vote.
You are spot on. Sure like to know where this poster came from.
 

ivorytip

Veteran member
Mar 24, 2012
3,769
50
44
SE Idaho
if it ever came to a vote and it wasnt rigged somehow we all know who would win, the average comon hunter. it has indeed started becoming a rich mans sport, not cool. cj outfitters is in craig colorado.
 
Last edited:

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
if it ever came to a vote and it wasnt rigged somehow we all know who would win, the average comon hunter. it has indeed started becoming a rich mans sport, not cool. cj outfitters is in craig colorado.
Of course a vote would go that way, but it's a huge conflict of interest.
 

Wapiti_Hunter

Member
Aug 8, 2014
108
0
Westminster CO
I'm with you guys, I doubt we will here from CJ outfit again, they tried to convince us of a falsehood but when they realize we are not stupid they bow out... I hope they run a quality, honest operation but don't blast onto the forum scene like that, it makes you seem shady.
 

cjoutfit

New Member
Sep 7, 2014
2
0
Amen to your last sentence. Wyoming doesn't have landowner tags that can be sold....yet. But I'm sure the Ag/outfitters are formulating a plan. They wanted sellable landowner tags for years. We sportspeople put the "kibosh" on that years ago.
They did however, get that law pushed through that forces NonResidents to hire a guide in wilderness areas. Courtesy of the Ag controlled legislature here.
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.