Colorado Senate Bill 21-150

[Lukem]

36% of Colorado is owned by the federal government. 65% of the forested area of the state (which is basically 80% of everything west of the front range) is owned by the fed. I don’t buy the “animals are ours” argument for state residents. They are “ours” (US Citizens).

These federal lands were created for all of us. It’s not like they make up a small percentage of area. It’s the majority of hunting land.

How do you handle wildlife on private lands then? Owned by the landowner?

36% of CO isn't a majority.

 

[Mosby]

I think driving through the state of Missouri is a privilege and the state should limit NR drivers to 30% of vehicles on I70 and I35. Federal highways controlled and maintained by the State. Not much different than Federal land. Put toll booths at the state borders and make everyone apply for an expensive annual tag to drive through the state or go somewhere else. Raise significant revenue for the residents and reduce out of state thru traffic on the highways. Missouri is lucky if most NR buy more than a tank a gas and a cup of coffee driving through anyway. Access costs money. Right now most midwest states are free and they could all do the same. Quid pro quo. Eventually we won't be able to leave our house or state without paying a fee to someone. Progress.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I think it’s interesting, when it’s an elk or a moose, people are on here saying it’s fed land it’s fed animals, should be fed tags. When it’s a wolf or a griz, people are on here saying states problem, state needs to manage, feds stay out. So which is it? We can’t have it both ways (that’s the other side’s thing...)

The majority opinion I've seen expressed on this forum is in favor of fed lands, state animals, state tags regardless of species. Federal land is great for hunters residing in the particular state containing that land: they get cheap and easy access to hunt habitat subsidized by residents of the other 49 states. I rarely see anyone arguing for federal game management or for transferring federal lands to state control, though either of those options would be more logically consistent than the current federal land-state animals/tags dichotomy.

 

[Ucsdryder]

How do you handle wildlife on private lands then? Owned by the landowner?

36% of CO isn't a majority.

Animals are owned by the state. We already went down this road and the courts, supreme, I believe, backed the states. If you don’t like it, MOVE TO COLORADO! Bring 600k for a DECENT house, and enjoy 9% sales tax in most counties, oh and the traffic. And the liberal policies.


you’re welcome to come and hike on the federal lands until your little hearts content! If you want to shoot something, buy a state issues license.

 

[TexasCub]

No complaints from me, 90/10 would be a hell of a lot better than the current numbers. I was just looking at some units for my son to hunt deer in, he has two points and has no desire to wait years to hunt deer. Some of the units I was looking at allow non-residents at least a 30-35% chance of drawing the same unit with the same points.

 

[BuzzH]

Why do all the whambulances come out when Colorado tries to make any changes in residents favor. Many states are at ZERO to 10% max. Colorado whores out tags. God forbid they update the policies just a little! Like @cnelk said, they haven’t updated some of these units in 12 years!!

Just go 80/20 across the board for any unit that isn’t OTC and be done with it. You still get your money from otc non residents who come to Colorado to take their bows for a walk.

Same reason that it happens in Wyoming.

I believe its because WY and CO have been too good for too long to NR hunters and with that comes the illogical reasoning that they're now entitled to our State's wildlife assets.

To the point that we're hit with being "greedy bastards" and then threatened that our GF departments will go underfunded, hunting will be gone, they'll sue the States, they won't advocate for public lands,...all the same tired threats that simply aren't true.

They aren't entitled to a single tag and CO should have made changes a long time ago...and Wyoming should have too.

 

[MtnHunterCO]

CO awards no more than 20% of tags to nonresidents in unit requiring over 6 preference points and not more than 35% in units requiring less. The only time a unit has more than 35% is if all resident first choices have been awarded in that unit. So the only thing that I can see this having an affect on is those rare occasions that a unit falls in points. Which sometimes happens after a big fire. The Bill would then strictly limit those units to 33% percent rather than 35% and not allow that percentage to be exceeded if all resident first choice apps were filled. At least this is the way I read it. So the bill doesn’t seem to really affect anything. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This simply isn't true. There is one cow moose tag available in my unit where I live each year. I have applied for it the last three years. Every year it has gone to out of state hunters with LESS preference points than me. Your statement isn't true sir.

 

[AG8]

I rarely see anyone arguing for federal game management

I have to disagree that no one is arguing for it. Every time someone says ‘It’s public land, it’s not fair I can’t get more tags to hunt on it’ or ‘it’s not fair they cost so much, we all own the land’ (which happens pretty frequently), that is exactly what they are arguing for. Even those arguing against the WY wilderness rule are effectively making the same argument. ‘It’s federal land, I should be allowed to hunt it when and how I want’. Most probably don’t realize that is what they are advocating and so are not saying it outright. ‘It’s our land so it should be ours to use’ implies federal regulation/control. ‘We the people’ are federal after all. The precedent that private land owners do not own the game residing on their land is just as applicable to the federal government not owning the game on that land. But someone has to take control, and if it is not going to be the federal government, it has to be the states. And as far as I know, all 50 states have decided that their residents will get preferential treatment in this regard. It’s a can of worms however you slice it for sure.

 

[cnelk]

This simply isn't true. There is one cow moose tag available in my unit where I live each year. I have applied for it the last three years. Every year it has gone to out of state hunters with LESS preference points than me. Your statement isn't true sir.

I believe he was referring to elk/deer.

Moose doesn’t apply to those %’s

 

[Lukem]

Animals are owned by the state. We already went down this road and the courts, supreme, I believe, backed the states. If you don’t like it, MOVE TO COLORADO! Bring 600k for a DECENT house, and enjoy 9% sales tax in most counties, oh and the traffic. And the liberal policies.


you’re welcome to come and hike on the federal lands until your little hearts content! If you want to shoot something, buy a state issues license.

Oh I know...wildlife are owned by the people of the state and held in trust by the state agency. I'm just trying to figure out how someone that thinks wildlife on federal grounds are owned by all US citizens then approaches wildlife of private property.

 

[Okhotnik]

So BHA members that love hunting the west in MN, NY NJ TX IA WI. NC AL Etc send their hard earned money money in to BHA so that BHA supposedly keeps public land open For all hunters in the US to hunt elk and deer lope in WY and Colorado . But they can’t even hunt those states as non residents most years. And the trend is worsening. But it appears only BHA members in WY and Colorado are benifiting.

sounds like a great deal to me!!

 

[BuzzH]

So BHA members that love hunting the west in MN, NY NJ TX IA WI. NC AL Etc send their hard earned money money in to BHA so that BHA supposedly keeps public land open For all hunters in the US to hunt elk and deer lope in WY and Colorado . But they can’t even hunt those states as non residents most years. And the trend is worsening. But it appears only BHA members in WY and Colorado are benifiting.

sounds like a great deal to me!!

Life choices and the way the US has chosen to allocate its wildlife resources is all it is.

If hunting is a big priority, leverage yourself to make it happen....make more money or move to a State where the Resident opportunities exist that are most important to you. Its unreasonable and ridiculous to expect Residents to lose opportunity so a NR can hunt the State you've prioritized to live in as a Resident. Makes ZERO sense.

Then of course there's just the case law, regulations, and federal legislation that allows states to discriminate and differentiate between R and NR hunters including but not limited to: price, allocation of tags, or even if they don't want to give NR a single tag.

Further, NR opportunities are going to decrease as Resident demand for tags increases, exactly the way it should be. Residents come first.

 

[street]

So BHA members that love hunting the west in MN, NY NJ TX IA WI. NC AL Etc send their hard earned money money in to BHA so that BHA supposedly keeps public land open For all hunters in the US to hunt elk and deer lope in WY and Colorado . But they can’t even hunt those states as non residents most years. And the trend is worsening. But it appears only BHA members in WY and Colorado are benifiting.

sounds like a great deal to me!!

CO has unlimited elk tags, tons of 0pt deer tags... should push for 80/20 no wilderness for NR.

 

[30338]

I moved a young family here over 20 years ago in order to hunt, ski, and outdoor recreate. We've lived through the good and the bad. Paid higher prices for housing and cost of living. Dealt with liberal policies and it appears more are coming. I have zero concern for NR hunters. None. They can cut back at as I refer to them "Parks and Rec" or they can raise residents rates.

Living in a free country, ahem, if I tire of this crap, I'll move to a state that is more inline with how I want to live my retired life. For now, killing the hell out of critters cheap here. Shot my bighorn in 1999 with 6 points and a $150 tag lol.

Really glad to have all the federal land to hunt our state's animals on. Huge advantage for sure of CO residents. And thanks to those out of state BHA members!

 

[PTArcher1]

While I get the frustration residents have regarding tag allocation percentages, I shake my head when many also include overcrowding in this same argument. Simply reallocating license sales percentages will not change the overall number of hunters in the field. Moving from an 80/20 split in limited entry tags to 90/10, as some have suggested, will add a few tags to the residents overall, but the real effect on draw success, and points required to draw, will only be minimally improved at best.

According to the CPW, non residents purchased 28% of the big game licenses in CO in 2018-19. That 28% accounted for 80% of the overall license revenue. The fiscal reality is that the non resident carries the CPW budget, with regard to license sales at least. Moving from OTC license sales to an "all draw" situation may help with overcrowding, but less license sales, especially non resident sales, could have significant budgetary implications.

The point I'm making is that this is a complex issue and reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the equation (res v nonres). Generally, I agree that residence should have its privilege. The question then becomes, how can that be balanced within the overall demand and economic realities of the situation?

 

[cnelk]

^^^ You need to add the new 'Qualifying License Fee' generated to that license revenue

 

[SIR_34:16]

. I am 100% in favor of a relatively large increase in resident prices to at least partially account for the loss in revenue from non-residents.

This. The one thing all threads like this have in common is the wildlife is treaded as a commodity. Who "owns" the commodity and what is an equitable distribution of access to that commodity. Hunting is one of only a few cases where the product/service/commodity costs significantly more or less depending on whether or not you are a state resident. Want to buy a Big Mac/truck/house? Costs the same for residents and NRs. The fact is, all hunters are consumers buying a product from state wildlife agencies. NRs are given less access to a commodity AND pay significantly more for it. If a State chooses to limit access to a commodity for NRs, I understand that. But then they charge significantly more on top of that to subsidize the lower cost of resident licenses. Seems like the cost of a Big Mac should be what it is for everyone. If a state wants to limit how many of it's Big Mac's it sells to NR, so be it, we have three options: 1) wait in line, 2) leave the line, or 3) band together and say none of us are going to buy Big Macs anymore ( I know, not gonna happen).

 

[mavinwa2]

If there's one state that I think could justify a decrease in tag allotment to non-residents it's Colorado, at least for limited entry units. Most states give a much smaller percentage of tags to non-residents than Colorado, so I don't blame them for trying to level up with other western states. I am 100% in favor of a relatively large increase in resident prices to at least partially account for the loss in revenue from non-residents.

yes this....all states limiting NR tags to % should do this. Simple business theory, supply & demand. Apply this theory to residents too.

increase the resident license & tag fees. Say 40% in lieu of NR dollars lost. Then residents can really start contributing for "their animals".
BTW: your state taxes paid don't contribute as much to wildlife as you might think!
So don't pull the "I pay state taxes bs"

Youth and adult resident fees too.

 

[30338]

Let's not forget the Pittman Robertson funds have been flowing in record amounts. At some point, if those drop off, you'll hear screeching and moaning from the folks at Parks and Rec about how it isn't fair lol. If any state can't run a surplus in these times on tag sales and PR funds, then they need to seriously lay off some folks.

 

[cmeadors13]

bureaucracy