2020-2024 Colorado Big Game Season Structure Info

[5MilesBack]

You can research all you want, I've gone to meetings, I've expressed my concerns in writing directly to them, and I have a good understanding of their financials.........my statements stand. There's no anger involved, that would be an emotional response. They can run it all into the ground if they want, that's up to them.

 

[orionthehunter1]

elkelkgoose you are delusional. Non resident fees have gone up the last few years. CPW also screwed the pooch when they miss listed the non-resident desert bighorn fee (They have admitted to it). Half of their cost you just listed is because of their merger with parks. If you think they honestly listen at the meetings you are also delusional those are just feel good therapy sessions that fall on deaf ears. Maybe you should get out in the field more instead of hanging at CPW offices so you can see how they are mismanaging our resources.

 

[orionthehunter1]

elkelkgoose here is another one for you
For decades, Apker said, wildlife managers have relied on old studies that estimated Colorado was home to between 10,000 and 12,000 bears.

"That's what we hung our hat on for almost 15 years because we didn't have anything else," Apker said.

Too bad the population is double that since they decided to actually study it. Glad to know they just pulled a number out of their hat for 15 years instead of actually listening to outdoorsman and addressing a problem.

 

[tdhanses]

Man...I started to write a page explaining why their costs have gone up and revenue has stagnated but at some point its up to you to do a little research on your own before spewing opinions everywhere. Attend CPW meetings where they actually discuss these things and you can speak if you really think they are that incompetent.

Id start by googling the increase in invasive species costs....specifically zebra muzzles, cost of bucket biologists, general inflation, cost of dealing a massive increase in people in the mountains and cleaning up after them, etc. On the revenue side they havent been able to raise fees to keep up with any of this. Your general anger is pointed in the wrong direction and should be directed more towards the massive nonconsumtive croud using CPW resources and refusing to contribute anything.

Also, if people want to blame anyone for limited archery seasons you can easily find the culprits scrolling through your instagram feed.

I highly doubt the state is paying for the clean up of trash from people recreating on federal lands. Outside of the parks I highly doubt state land is seeing millions of visitors.

I also would say it’s probably a safe bet that the CPW is inefficient with its resources and could be improved, very few government agencies run efficiently.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I hope all you whinny CO residents that want Non residents out, get the fees lost passed directly right to you if that happens. It's public access or public owned land. Nothing is said that the state owes it residents preference to hunting rights on land owned equally by every American citizen. States are responsible for game management. I know that. I'm just tired of hearing Colorado hunters whine about "their" hunting. You live in a state that allows for you to elk hunt EVERY year. It just doesn't charge you enough to pay their bills. They use people like me to do that. Then I have to listen to you whine and moan about it.



Also, calf recruitment is directly related to the amount of bears and cats the state now has. Don't punish the people paying your bulls without addressing the real problem. Because if you do, you will be left in the cold. Then you can whine about having to drive 1600 miles one way, pay 3 times more then the resident of that state, just to hunt every 5 years. It'd be funny and just to see you then become what you say is your problem.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I'd gladly pay 100 plus for an elk tag if it meant Colorado went to a more even r/nr split like the rest of the western states

 

[ckleeves]

I hope all you whinny CO residents that want Non residents out, get the fees lost passed directly right to you if that happens. It's public access or public owned land. Nothing is said that the state owes it residents preference to hunting rights on land owned equally by every American citizen. States are responsible for game management. I know that. I'm just tired of hearing Colorado hunters whine about "their" hunting. You live in a state that allows for you to elk hunt EVERY year. It just doesn't charge you enough to pay their bills. They use people like me to do that. Then I have to listen to you whine and moan about it.



Also, calf recruitment is directly related to the amount of bears and cats the state now has. Don't punish the people paying your bulls without addressing the real problem. Because if you do, you will be left in the cold. Then you can whine about having to drive 1600 miles one way, pay 3 times more then the resident of that state, just to hunt every 5 years. It'd be funny and just to see you then become what you say is your problem.

None of that made any sense, but I haven’t seen people on this thread complaining about wanting non-residents out. I understand that non-res put a lot of money into the state. Resident tags prices need to increase along with application fees. I said that a few months ago and was told I was trying to turn hunting into a rich mans sport and kids wouldn’t have any opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LandYacht]

I hope all you whinny CO residents that want Non residents out, get the fees lost passed directly right to you if that happens. It's public access or public owned land. Nothing is said that the state owes it residents preference to hunting rights on land owned equally by every American citizen. States are responsible for game management. I know that. I'm just tired of hearing Colorado hunters whine about "their" hunting. You live in a state that allows for you to elk hunt EVERY year. It just doesn't charge you enough to pay their bills. They use people like me to do that. Then I have to listen to you whine and moan about it.



Also, calf recruitment is directly related to the amount of bears and cats the state now has. Don't punish the people paying your bulls without addressing the real problem. Because if you do, you will be left in the cold. Then you can whine about having to drive 1600 miles one way, pay 3 times more then the resident of that state, just to hunt every 5 years. It'd be funny and just to see you then become what you say is your problem.

Selfishly, I’d be more than happy to pay nonresident prices for my tags to eliminate half of the hunters in the field.

Now that would not be the best thing for the future of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I'd gladly pay 100 plus for an elk tag if it meant Colorado went to a more even r/nr split like the rest of the western states

Yeah but doubt you would be willing to pay $600 if it was in the interest of wildlife? Take the NR out of the picture and doubt many residents could afford or would be willing to pay for wildlife conservation at the state level. Same goes for every other state, yes many of us are willing to pay NR license fees but not in our own state.

Personally I don’t think there should be a price diff, the fee is for conservation/wildlife management and no other taxes a resident pays go into this funding mechanism. So yes we all pay income tax and property taxes in our states but the NR’s fund most state conservation efforts with hunting and fishing fees.

 

[tdhanses]

Selfishly, I’d be more than happy to pay nonresident prices for my tags to eliminate half of the hunters in the field.

Now that would not be the best thing for the future of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But is that selfish? If it would create more state level funding yet improve habitat and herd health? Because this would reduce resident participation as well. Two major downsides would be losing overall participation and people giving it up and secondly it would become even more of a rich mans sport

 

[orionthehunter1]

I'm not saying eliminate non residents I'm saying Colorado needs to get more in line with other western states.

 

[LandYacht]

But is that selfish? If it would create more state level funding yet improve habitat and herd health? Because this would reduce resident participation as well. Two major downsides would be losing overall participation and people giving it up and secondly it would become even more of a rich mans sport

I always laugh when I hear the term rich man’s sport and the relatively low prices of hunting tags when compared to other hobbies/interests. You’re not getting into a sporting event for the cost of a hunting tag. On top of that you’re comparing 3 hours of fun to one that allows for over a week of enjoyment!

For me it is just a prioritization issue as I would never be confused with a rich man. If it meant giving up cable/satellite TV for a year in order to afford the new tag costs it would be a no brainer.

I think the selfish part is what it would do to the future of hunting in terms of further reducing the number of interested people in our sport. Not everyone has the the same priorities that I have when it comes to hunting. Being conscious of all involved would make this proposal never happen, but it’s fun to toss ideas out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I'm not saying eliminate non residents I'm saying Colorado needs to get more in line with other western states.

I wasn’t implying that either just contemplating whether you think residents of any state would ever be willing to fund state wildlife conservation? Personally I don’t as most people are selfish and don’t want to pay to play.

If hunting and fishing license fees were the same for both residents and nonresident then both groups would have invested equally into wildlife management, currently residents do not invest much (per person) into their own resources yet many would like to see less participation during the season. I think a good middle ground would be to charge 60% of the NR fee for all and have a quota for all licenses, yet give residents better tag allocations with leftovers going to the NR pool, fewer residents would participate and fewer nonresidents would draw, all would invest equally.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I'd gladly pay 100 plus for an elk tag if it meant Colorado went to a more even r/nr split like the rest of the western states

It isn't a hundred plus. My NR tag costs me $660. Nor is it a B tag for what, $25 for residents. You don't get that opportunity now. It gets thrown into the general pool to be drawn for. And, if you get what the whiny boys are asking for, 25,000 permits won't be administered to the residents. So, you can add another $800 of fuel to hunt yearly. No scouting ether so success will go down. 3 days of travel off your vacation, Lodging fee's, etc.... It won't be long until the same Nancy's are whining about that too.

 

[tdhanses]

I always laugh when I hear the term rich man’s sport and the relatively low prices of hunting tags when compared to other hobbies/interests. You’re not getting into a sporting event for the cost of a hunting tag. On top of that you’re comparing 3 hours of fun to one that allows for over a week of enjoyment!

For me it is just a prioritization issue as I would never be confused with a rich man. If it meant giving up cable/satellite TV for a year in order to afford the new tag costs it would be a no brainer.

I think the selfish part is what it would do to the future of hunting in terms of further reducing the number of interested people in our sport. Not everyone has the the same priorities that I have when it comes to hunting. Being conscious of all involved would make this proposal never happen, but it’s fun to toss ideas out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I get exactly what you’re saying but those on welfare couldn’t participate then.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Selfishly, I’d be more than happy to pay nonresident prices for my tags to eliminate half of the hunters in the field.

Now that would not be the best thing for the future of hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You won't pay the NR fees. You'll be paying twice that amount. Minimum. Probably somewhere along the lines of 2.5 times the amount once demand really hits. you will hunt bi yearly at best in your home state.








You guys that suggest this really have put zero thought into what the effects of it would be to your state's wildlife.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

None of that made any sense, but I haven’t seen people on this thread complaining about wanting non-residents out. I understand that non-res put a lot of money into the state. Resident tags prices need to increase along with application fees. I said that a few months ago and was told I was trying to turn hunting into a rich mans sport and kids wouldn’t have any opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It makes all kinds of sense if you have read the thread and understand what some CO residents are suggesting. Emotional response's often generate from multiple experiences. Not just one thread.

 

[orionthehunter1]

It isn't a hundred plus. My NR tag costs me $660. Nor is it a B tag for what, $25 for residents. You don't get that opportunity now. It gets thrown into the general pool to be drawn for. And, if you get what the whiny boys are asking for, 25,000 permits won't be administered to the residents. So, you can add another $800 of fuel to hunt yearly. No scouting ether so success will go down. 3 days of travel off your vacation, Lodging fee's, etc.... It won't be long until the same Nancy's are whining about that too.

I kill plenty of game out of state so no whining from me

 

[ckleeves]

It isn't a hundred plus. My NR tag costs me $660. Nor is it a B tag for what, $25 for residents. You don't get that opportunity now. It gets thrown into the general pool to be drawn for. And, if you get what the whiny boys are asking for, 25,000 permits won't be administered to the residents. So, you can add another $800 of fuel to hunt yearly. No scouting ether so success will go down. 3 days of travel off your vacation, Lodging fee's, etc.... It won't be long until the same Nancy's are whining about that too.

What???? I’m not picking up on what your putting down here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LandYacht]

You won't pay the NR fees genius. You'll be paying twice that amount. Minimum. Probably somewhere along the lines of 2.5 times the amount once demand really hits. you will hunt bi yearly at best in your home state.








You guys that suggest this really have put zero thought into what the effects of it would be to your state's wildlife.

I don’t think you need to start calling names, but I can tell you’re much more emotionally invested in this than just the sharing of thoughts and ideas.

To put this back on track, your math doesn’t add up, but that’s beside the point, as it was a purely hypothetical proposal. It wouldn’t benefit the hunting community as a whole, so I wouldn’t expect something like it to see the light of day. If every resident hunter that hunted returned at nonresident prices the next year there would be more money than the year prior. An unlikely scenario, but again it was a purely hypothetical scenario.

If the only thing nonresident hunters are bringing to the table is money, you are selling your fellow hunters short. Money can be found somewhere, usually at the expense of something else however. It shouldn’t be the number one reason in your argument because you are selling yourself short. There is much more to our pursuit than plopping down cash.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk