wildlife commission about to change resident license allocation for the worse?

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/CommissionMeeting2017-5.aspx

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

Won't virtually all deer units evolve to 80/20? Non-resident point creep will increase at top units as 20 is about half of 35. Point creep will cascade downward as well. Why stop at 20? Several states are under 20% and a few end up under 10% with "up to" provisions in place.

Is a deer hunt in CO worth an extra 5-20 years of fees for a non-resident to end up with a tag to hunt a 170 class buck? Time will tell. With winter kill reducing the number of mature bucks in the woods the wait for all hunters will increase as tags are cut and harvest rates for mature bucks takes a hit.

Some states make it easy to step back and put a pencil to things. NM did a few years ago. One aspect is when you shift from 35 of 100 tags being at a much higher price to only 20 of 100 or 10 of 100 then revenues decline without either raising the price for for residents which most politicians see as a tax hike and know will cost votes the next primary and avoid or you get more funding from non-hunting sources and that gives non-hunters a seat at the table when budgets get tight.

Will be interesting to see how the winter kill hurts revenues as tag numbers are cut and any change in allocation between resident and non-resident allocation.

Thanks for the heads up on this Steve and thanks to both you and Terry for testifying a few weeks ago at the capitol. It was interesting to hear the congresswoman from Las Animas county talk about her frustrations with CPW as a landowner in her district as she was apparently unhappy with the limited hunting opportunities at Bosque Del Oso SWA and the diminished tax revenues that are coming from this land (apparently the payment in lieu of taxes is less than traditional property taxes in the area); she even mentioned the lack of revenues effect on keeping at least one county building open for a standard 5 day week...valuable insight and CPW should keep these concerns in mind when buying and managing future properties whenever that time comes. I'm actually excited that the preclusion of fee title interest acquisitions in the new bill (not sure if this got amended) and the habitat stamp RFP issues could lead to increased public access through leasing of private and state lands and perhaps even lead to access easements where small parcels can lead to access on big chunks of previously isolated or inaccessible public lands.

Yea, I never understand the property tax argument. When land is zoned agricultural, the taxes aren't diddly squat. I own 545 acres in Larimer county. My property taxes with FA zoning are literally $120 a year. I wanted to speak up and say what are you talking about! but sometimes it pays to just keep your mouth shut.

I'm not a Colorado resident so I will be happy to write in and give my recommendation of the 65/35 split, not that a non residents opinion matters. The biggest thing the state of CO has going for it is the availability to NR and in turn provides a large portion of the states funding. I completely understand as a resident wanting to have the best odds but I would hopefully understand how much my license would have to increase to recoup the cost. I've applied for a tag this fall that takes 1 point as a resident and 6 points as a NR. Its crazy that this isn't good enough odds for the residents.

Nothing personal against the residents but I'll hunt as much as they'll let me so here is hoping to keep a 65/35 split.

Your profile says your from Fort Collins.

Everyone is a non resident somewhere. I have something like 17 points just to hunt a deer in Utah. I apply in Wyoming, and Montana too. I have drawn several elk in tags in Wyoming, and MT. If I ever draw there again, I'd skip CO in a heartbeat.

We have no limits for non resident elk hunters here. None. If 5 million people decided to come hunt, OTC elk tags are available.

I've got no issue with anyone lobbying to keep an opportunity available, but its not like you can't come.

That said, odds are nonresidents won't show up to help on habitat projects, or at the Boulder county meetings I attended where all the 60 year old women are telling the decision makers we should cull elk, or use birth control on them. We do things to make it possible for you to come, and in my opinion 80/20 is more than fair when you can hunt here every year and have the potential at good bulls.

Even though deer is totally limited, and has no OTC - I don't think its hard to get a good NR tag regularly.

It would be great of we could get some NR's to stand up for residents. I hold nothing against you if you don't though.

I am only in Fort Collins for a short time. I am from Mississippi. I am very thankful for the residents that are out there doing work to keep these opportunities available. And like I said I understand the want to have good odds as a resident. However, if you want nonresidents to stand up for residents then you might want to stand up for nonresidents once in a while.

I don't know why I'm even saying anything anyways, its nothing personal but this always happens. Residents always want nonresidents help to keep the land public, to help fight battles in their state, and fund a large part of the wildlife and fisheries. Nonresidents will always fuss because of the continuing price increases every year while seeing opportunities for decent hunts dwindle while being asked to stand up for the same residents who are seeking to reduce the NR opportunities.

And yes I still help on every project I can and write to every senator and politician I can when these public land and hunting issues arise no matter what state.

grasshopper said:

We have no limits for non resident elk hunters here. None. If 5 million people decided to come hunt, OTC elk tags are available.

Click to expand...

Which is why I don't understand why I cant buy a tag for every season if I wanted. Keep the bag limit one bull and/or one cow per year, but let me hunt every OTC season if I choose too.

jlmatthew said:

Which is why I don't understand why I cant buy a tag for every season if I wanted. Keep the bag limit one bull and/or one cow per year, but let me hunt every OTC season if I choose too.

Click to expand...

100% Agree. I would even do a system where I could pay $20 for a tag then $50 to hunt archery + $50 for 2nd rifle +$50 for 3rd rifle in an OTC unit. $170 to hunt all archery and rifle worth it!

publichunter1 said:

I am only in Fort Collins for a short time. I am from Mississippi. I am very thankful for the residents that are out there doing work to keep these opportunities available. And like I said I understand the want to have good odds as a resident. However, if you want nonresidents to stand up for residents then you might want to stand up for nonresidents once in a while.

I don't know why I'm even saying anything anyways, its nothing personal but this always happens. Residents always want nonresidents help to keep the land public, to help fight battles in their state, and fund a large part of the wildlife and fisheries. Nonresidents will always fuss because of the continuing price increases every year while seeing opportunities for decent hunts dwindle while being asked to stand up for the same residents who are seeking to reduce the NR opportunities.

And yes I still help on every project I can and write to every senator and politician I can when these public land and hunting issues arise no matter what state.

Click to expand...

...there it is gentlemen.

Colorado can't have its cake and eat it too. The state at some point made a decision to make money by maximizing the number of nonresident hunters for $$$$ sake. There would be a lot more "coveted tags" in the state if they scaled back the free for all 2nd and 3rd seasons and nearly statewide OTC archery hunts and carved out more defined time intervals and areas with fewer hunters where there are already plenty of elk regardless of the R/NR breakdown. Resident hunters paying more for in state tags could be viewed as buying out the NR hunters who currently prop CPW funding up but its going to take more than $50 or $100 to offset the $600 every NR is paying.

Complaining that you only get one bull elk season/weapon choice is silly in a state with whitetail deer, mule deer, antelope, elk and black bears that can be hunted every year. Colorado hunters certainly aren't without opportunity even if the quality is marginal.

Flatland Crusoe said:

Complaining that you only get one bull elk season/weapon choice is silly in a state with whitetail deer, mule deer, antelope, elk and black bears that can be hunted every year. Colorado hunters certainly aren't without opportunity even if the quality is marginal.

Click to expand...

I better call CPW and demand that they give me a rifle mule deer, whitetail deer, antelope, and bear tag..especially when I don't have the points to draw them...because you said I had the opportunity to hunt them every year. I can do antelope or bear (if I can get in before the cap sells out) with archery every year in part of the state and get males of the species, but I'd say about 80% of the hunters are rifle hunters.

Not sure if it's complaining or rather suggesting that it might be efficacious to revamp the OTC seasons. As long as OTC is a free for all why not let people by tags for two seasons at full price, but still only allow individuals to harvest a single animal. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Also please direct me to a unit with public land that I can hunt pronghorn in every year even with a bow... the OTC pronghorn tags in CO are a joke... has there ever in the history of Colorado been a pronghorn in Eagle County unit 44??? Open the Colorado hunt atlas with the pronghorn overall range layer on and then open up the big game brochure with the map of OTC tags...Note there is almost no public land in the eastern half of CO. I'm not saying OTC pronghorn is impossible just not really a viable option for more than a few people every year.

wllm1313 said:

.

Also please direct me to a unit with public land that I can hunt pronghorn in every year even with a bow... the OTC pronghorn tags in CO are a joke... has there ever in the history of Colorado been a pronghorn in Eagle County unit 44??? Open the Colorado hunt atlas with the pronghorn overall range layer on and then open up the big game brochure with the map of OTC tags...

Click to expand...

I hate when residents are inconvenienced by having to drive beyond their backyard to hunt a given species, let alone one that only exists in significant numbers across a few states.

CO residents don't have it great, nor have the access to significantly better units than NR's year over year like could be said of Wyoming or the never ending elk season in MT, but they certainly have more opportunity that residents of NM or AZ do.

I drive 8hrs to MT to hunt antelope every year and all over the state for elk and deer so not sure what your "inconvenienced" comment stems from. I was just calling you out for a misleading comment about opportunity for one particular species, pronghorn.

wllm1313 said:

I drive 8hrs to MT to hunt antelope every year and all over the state for elk and deer so not sure what your "inconvenienced" comment stems from. I was just calling you out for a misleading comment about opportunity for one particular species, pronghorn.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about him. He's just a troll that rears his head whenever anything about Colorado comes up.

Doesn't matter what forum it is, residents of the other 49 states are allowed to want and ask/get better opportunities for themselves, but here in Colorado we need to maintain the status quo of being the dumping grounds for everyone that failed to draw a tag in another state(s) so they can have a plan B. Personally I'd like to see all deer tags for first choice restricted to 90/10 draw percentages until the statewide herd objective is met. If nothing else at least reciprocate with the states that limit us to a certain percentage of tags like AZ, NM, UT, WY etc....

I do like the idea of set non-res v. res allocation across states as well as fixed res v. non res license cost percentages, eg all western states do a 90/10 or an 80/20 split and agree that they will charge a nonresident 8 or 9 times that of residents and have everything tied to CPI. Seems like it would help everyone's budget.

jlmatthew,

WY should not be on your list...we give NR hunters more than 10% of all tags for all species.

I don't disagree with you on elk, CO should pump the brakes on OTC NR elk hunting.

Buzz... I called the biologist and got the data on cow v. bull ratios in MT. You were right...