I know you Res don't like us NR, but we have just as much right to hunt that land as the Res. It's just frustrating to here that we don't have a right to tags when we pay as much and most cases more to take care of it.
Not true ......at least for me. I hunt NR in other states (& countries too) and see both sides of the coin. I help NR's here in Colorado as much as I can as I am sure several NRs here on the forum can attest. I don't think I am in the minority either.
CC, You're correct. Money generated thru tags sales & registrations (REs & NR tag sales) and grants (donations). All voluntary moneys ie "if you want to use the resource then you have to pay" which is fair. Didn't know about the Lottery but that's voluntary money as well.
My point is still the same. The Res don't pay any more to use the Land than a NR. The DOW and State Agencies have to maximize the income from the people who want to use the resource. If that means getting more tags in the hands of NR then they're going to do so because they have too.
Example: They allocate 300 hundred tags for Unit 61. Let them give all 300 to Res. and leave the NR out. To generate the same income, they would have to sell 960 tags. Beside there being a hunter behind every tree, the unit wouldn't be a quality unit very long at that rate.
I know you Res don't like us NR, but we have just as much right to hunt that land as the Res. It's just frustrating to here that we don't have a right to tags when we pay as much and most cases more to take care of it.
I probably haven't been winning friends and influencing people with my comments. However, I'll be in unit 62 in 3 weeks (first time back in 3 years) for the elk only season. Anyone here is welcome at my fire anytime.
Looks like the link has been shut down already. Go to Things to Do; Hunt Big Game and scroll down to
LANDOWNER PREFERENCE PROGRAM (LPP). It will show you the changes that will be in effect starting next year.
For any folks who are keeping up on this - here is the latest Denver Post article from a couple of weeks ago.
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.
That to a certain degree makes sense. It also boils down to money for the DOW and P&W (a subject he sidestepped). If the residents aren't willing to support a fee increase, the money has to come from somewhere. It's just simple math. That's why the DOW and P&W are listening to them.
For any folks who are keeping up on this - here is the latest Denver Post article from a couple of weeks ago.
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.
Just a couple of comments IMO land owners should be able to get tags based on the amount of land they have and the number of animals the land supports, but those tags should only be for deeded land and they can only sell a percentage of the tags ie. 50% of tags allowed. And must sell for the same as non res prices.
Yes its public land (federal)but the state ownes the animals and non res don't support it without paying through tag sells. Don't care for outfitters on public land ( ie. the Wy law) tell your congressman and senators to charge outfitters enough for permits that it doesn't pay. I'd be a lot more worried about the feds creating more wilderness areas that turn in to dead zones as the forest dies from lack of regrowth.
Just a couple of comments IMO land owners should be able to get tags based on the amount of land they have and the number of animals the land supports, but those tags should only be for deeded land and they can only sell a percentage of the tags ie. 50% of tags allowed. And must sell for the same as non res prices.
Yes its public land (federal)but the state ownes the animals and non res don't support it without paying through tag sells. Don't care for outfitters on public land ( ie. the Wy law) tell your congressman and senators to charge outfitters enough for permits that it doesn't pay. I'd be a lot more worried about the feds creating more wilderness areas that turn in to dead zones as the forest dies from lack of regrowth.
NV, As stated above in one of my post, a Res doesn't pay anymore for taking care of the land or animals and in most cases less than a NR. The only support Res give is thru tag sales. No State Taxes go to the DOW or P&W.
Just a question. What are the Landowners supposed to do with the other 50% of the tags they're allotted? I agree on the same price for the tag.
Red they should do the same as you or I would and go hunt. Then maybe the landowners wouldn't be so quick to lease everything to the outfitters.
As for the public land debate IMO until federal land ownership is matched in all states % wise then it should be up to the western states to have more say in managing the federal land in thier state. Federal lands actually cost us more due to not reciving property taxes on those lands .
NV, I agree in that it cost more money the way it is. I not sure on the Federal land matching. Because you have more land and less people, more of your funds are coming from out of the State. I agree that if your State Tax dollars start to help fund the DOW and P&W then you should have alot more say in how the lands are managed. However, as it stands right now, Res are footing less of the bill that the NR. Until that changes the DOW and P&W will try to get money however they can (NR Dollars) and since we're funding a significant portion of the management then we have a right to tags.
I do believe that if the Res want to build a fence around the hunting and they are willing to pay for it then get after it.
Colorado is no different than any other state in charging the NR hunter (& fisherman too) more money to hunt or fish. All the states view the NR the same way.....$$$. In fact Colorado charges the NR hunter a lot less than most other states and issues lots more tags because we have lots more animals to hunt. The only real difference is where the money comes from to operate and manage our Parks & Wildlife. It was a political decision a few years back to create "enterprise" units in the state government because of budget shortfalls. Right or wrong it is something we have to live with for now. My take is if NR's don't like it, don't come to Colorado. The lack of the NR's money will change things in a hurry. The same thing would occur in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico & Arizona if NR's would not apply for the tags there. Every one of these states charge the NR hunter more than Colorado does.
I understand CC. It's not the NR fees that's the point. The DOW and the P&W know that they can get more money by selling NR fees. That's the point. If the Res. don't want to see more tags go to NR then THEY need to agree on a fee increase to offset the loss in income.
Our group and several others did quit coming. The toal group was 17 people (all NR). That's $10,200 in lost revenue. The replace that income they would have to sell around 150 Res tags. That's 133 more hunters in the woods. That's also a point.
This is my first time back in 3 years. I've been to New Mexico and Booking a hunt in Utah. Also, have a hunt I'm trying to put together in Kansas.
What I find odd is I've never said a word in any of this complaining about the cost. It's the Res who are complaining about the tags and calling it a rich man's sport. Botton line is the money has to come from somewhere. We pay 12 times more than a Res (not complaining just stating a fact). When they need money they're going to go after the best way to get it.
Unless the Res come to the table with some type of agreement to increase fees then the DOW and P&W are going to listen to plans to get more tags in the hands of NR. It's simply economics.
Red I have to comment as you are not correct in some of your assumptions.
1st - lots of state money is now poured into the CPW - the CPW after about 3 years ago stands for Colorado PARKS and wildlife. Merging parks and wildlife was a big deal as the wildlife side gave up it's "enterprise" status so the new entity now gets money from lots of places other than hunters. Any atv, dirtbike, or snowmaching registration, anytime you kayak or raft on many rivers, any camping or other permit on state land, anytime you enter certain fishing easements - the list goes on and there is one more big one.. Yea they (CPW) get a yearly allowance straight from the general fund or the general STATE taxpayer. It is a fact... It is also a fact that the CPW will now never run out of money and is not tied as much to hunting sales.
2nd fishing out trumps hunting by about a 2 - 1 margin and the residents hold the largest percentage of yearly fishing licenses this revenue goes straight to the CPW..
3rd and there is talk in the CPW of adding a hunting license to even apply and this will solve any of the most greedy penny pushers at the CPW. It is a very good idea from where I sit and is starting to move forward. Or even if you want to apply every single out of state resident will have to purchase a $80 hunting license and any this will solve any revenue problem with in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This will also help with point creep as some will drop out by design.
4th Residents are willing to pay more. To say otherwise is a scare tactic used by some but the CPW knows that residents will pay more for a tag but will not have to due to point #3...
Right now this whole thing boils down to a couple of corrupt appointee's who are over stepping their bounds. Yea it is sad these groups choose to pit NR and Res hunters against each other but they have and the Res hunters I know are diggin in. It is also a fact that the resident hunter has lost tags so far in the process and if the corruption is allowed to will continue will loose more. This fight will not stop and if NR keep siding with Bray unfortunately they will loose in this process as the end will be a ballot initiative.
Red as I have said the NR hunter should fully and completely support the current split and folks like you should not try and take tags from local folks. If this is pushed to far the result will be a ballot initiative where the NR hunter looses big time. 80 - 20 solid split in the first and second draw is getting pushed at the legislative level as we speak...
It is a good discussion but your premise that state resident tax dollars do not support the CPW is now over 4 years old and incorrect. If you think Co is not fair please post up what Ut, Nv, Az, Wy, Nm, charge a NR to hunt. Colorado is overly fair.
Anyway I grew up in a small hunting town and most of the NR 60k hunting rigs coming thought here complete with 40k campers and have 30k in 4 wheelers in the back seem to bitch about the price of gas at the mom n pop gas station here in town being 4 cents higher so they will not shop there. No doubt the same folks who all their groceries at their local wal mart to save all of 10 bucks..
Your conception that us locals just sit up here and wait for the all glorious out of state hunter to bring in money and save us from our cold existence - is also out dated and just not true as most folks could care less about NR hunters.. While there are exceptions frankly due to their own actions like(forcing S&R go out daily, trespassing, historically some of the worst tippers at restaurants, entitlement, heavy drinking, shooting moose, shooting a local donkey?, the list goes on) most NR hunters have earned a bad rep in these small towns unfortunately giving all hunters a bad name and frankly with the demographics change here in Co - most locals would not miss you boys one bit....
