CPW - ‘Righting’ some Wrongs

[eltaco]

When you purchase a small game license, the result is you can hunt small game. You do not get a preference point.

You purchase a habitat stamp, you get to access state lands that are wildlife related. You do not get a preference point. You don't need to purchase a hunting license to purchase a habitat stamp.

You can purchase 10 habitat stamps and 10 small game licenses over ten years, and you will receive zero preference points. What you do receive is the privilege to hunt small game and access state wildlife land over those ten years.

Uh oh! I want to apply for Desert Bighorn, I bought my habitat stamp and small game license (because I was told those were necessary to get a point) but I didn't get a point! What happened? You don't get a point through purchasing a small game license.

I'd like to apply for deer, elk, moose, mountain goat, bear, rocky mountain bighorns, turkey and phorns, do I need to buy eight small game licenses so I can get eight points? Nope! I do need to pay eight application fees to obtain a preference point or license per species through the PRIMARY draw only. (Note that purchasing an application fee doesn't guarantee the result of a point).

I bought a small game license on April 1st, but didn't apply for any species in the primary draw, only in the secondary draw for elk. Where's my preference point? Hopefully it is clearer now...you don't get any point for purchasing a small game license.

Since it seems expenses are being sought after to inflate costs attributed to "purchasing a point", you don't get a point for purchasing/renting internet access to apply. You don't get a point for purchasing/renting a computer/device so that you can apply...even though both are necessary.

So in the end, it costs money to enable a person to apply to receive a preference point, correct?

Math is hard.

I’m not even against doing it, but to say it’s a free opportunity is simply incorrect. Each state has their own costs, and CO is certainly not the highest… but for those of us who apply to multiple states to build points, there is a legitimate cost that goes along with building those points.

The fact that I receive a license of any kind is truly irrelevant. I don’t have the option to defer that expense full well knowing it’s not going to be used. It’s forced on me for my “opportunity” to put my name in a 0% chance of drawing a unit I don’t currently have enough points for.

Again, not complaining as I’m quite happy to have the chance to come hunt elk when I choose to do so, but yes… there’s a real cost for doing so.

 

[Billy Goat]

I have a buddy that has his wife convinced that tag fees come out of the grocery account.


I can't say that I agree, but your checkbook, balance it how you want.

 

[sndmn11]

So in the end, it costs money to enable a person to apply to receive a preference point, correct?

Math is hard.

I’m not even against doing it, but to say it’s a free opportunity is simply incorrect. Each state has their own costs, and CO is certainly not the highest… but for those of us who apply to multiple states to build points, there is a legitimate cost that goes along with building those points.

The fact that I receive a license of any kind is truly irrelevant. I don’t have the option to defer that expense full well knowing it’s not going to be used. It’s forced on me for my “opportunity” to put my name in a 0% chance of drawing a unit I don’t currently have enough points for.

Again, not complaining as I’m quite happy to have the chance to come hunt elk when I choose to do so, but yes… there’s a real cost for doing so.

The most it costs is a $2.04 difference per species between non-residents and residents for a preference point/success for deer/elk/pronghorn/bear/turkey. $52.04 for moose, RMBS, mountain goat since a few years ago.

No NR has thousands of dollars more "invested" in Colorado preference points than any resident.

The habitat stamp and small game license are their own expense; just like whatever expense one has tied up in their (required) mailing address, (required) email address, (required) state issued ID, (semi-required) hunter's safety.

 

[Lawnboi]

The most it costs is a $2.04 difference per species between non-residents and residents for a preference point/success for deer/elk/pronghorn/bear/turkey. $52.04 for moose, RMBS, mountain goat since a few years ago.

No NR has thousands of dollars more "invested" in Colorado preference points than any resident.

The habitat stamp and small game license are their own expense; just like whatever expense one has tied up in their (required) mailing address, (required) email address, (required) state issued ID, (semi-required) hunter's safety.

I was under the impression that the small game license was just a money grab

 

[sndmn11]

Just because you keep typing it over and over doesn't change this narrative is at best a tired played out argument.

It's a fact Colorado wants more P&R funds so it REQUIRES a qualified license purchase to get more federal money. I'm guessing you think they are entitled to it.




Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Similar to how folks keep typing out NR deserve more doesn't change the narrative that state's are in charge of their own wildlife?

We constantly hear a bunch of fringe ways that NR "invest" more in points that have literally $0 value. The objective fact is that they are buying a small game license with which they can hunt small game the same as a resident, the same as any person who buys one and chooses not to participate in big game hunting, or in either of the two big game draws. The primary purpose of that small game licenses is just that, and it doesn't become a wild card expense if a person makes the choice not to utilize it.

I know hundreds of people with a qualifying license who don't have a clue what a preference point is or how to apply for a big game license. Are they owed anything on that "investment"?

 

[Lawnboi]

If management mandates less nr tags I have no complaint. But it’s about time the state agencies stop ******* NR in the ass with all these bullshit money grabs.

 

[realunlucky]

Similar to how folks keep typing out NR deserve more doesn't change the narrative that state's are in charge of their own wildlife?

We constantly hear a bunch of fringe ways that NR "invest" more in points that have literally $0 value. The objective fact is that they are buying a small game license with which they can hunt small game the same as a resident, the same as any person who buys one and chooses not to participate in big game hunting, or in either of the two big game draws. The primary purpose of that small game licenses is just that, and it doesn't become a wild card expense if a person makes the choice not to utilize it.

I know hundreds of people with a qualifying license who don't have a clue what a preference point is or how to apply for a big game license. Are they owed anything on that "investment"?

Frankly the idea it doesn't have everything to do about federal PR funding to me is just naive.

Alas this side bar of PR fund talk distracts from the OP intent of this thread.

I personally find it disheartening to see a trend where non-resident tag allocation is seen by short sighed residents as the savior of an entire failed draw system.

So the choice is to -

-Pay the money to stay the course hoping to cash out before the rules change again

- Stop and just give up throwing away any chance of drawing wasting all the years waiting and all fees accumulated

Luckily we have until April to decide



















Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Billy Goat]

Frankly the idea it doesn't have everything to do about federal PR funding to me is just naive.

Alas this side bar of PR fund talk distracts from the OP intent of this thread.

I personally find it disheartening to see a trend where non-resident tag allocation is seen by short sighed residents as the savior of an entire failed draw system.

So the choice is to -

-Pay the money to stay the course hoping to cash out before the rules change again

- Stop and just give up throwing away any chance of drawing wasting all the years waiting and all fees accumulated

Luckily we have until April to decide



















Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Option 3:

Everyone goes and makes use of their small game license. Walk around and grouse/squirrel/rabbit hunt, zoom around on utv all over forest service roads (with ohv permit of course).


Maybe popularize the solo backcountry grouse hunt.




I don't know what option I'll yet choose.

 

[realunlucky]

Option 3:

Everyone goes and makes use of their small game license. Walk around and grouse/squirrel/rabbit hunt, zoom around on utv all over forest service roads (with ohv permit of course).


Maybe popularize the solo backcountry grouse hunt.




I don't know what option I'll yet choose.

Actually I've decided to buy the turkey tag. Looking forward to being in some residents honey hole come opening morning.
Hearing them pout about crowding all year is almost better than actually killing a turkey.

 

[Billy Goat]

Actually I've decided to buy the turkey tag. Looking forward to being in some residents honey hole come opening morning.
Hearing them pout about crowding all year is almost better than actually killing a turkey.

Don't forget your e-bike.

Need ebikes for turkey, gotta cruise around and listen for them silently.

 

[fngTony]

Actually I've decided to buy the turkey tag. Looking forward to being in some residents honey hole come opening morning.
Hearing them pout about crowding all year is almost better than actually killing a turkey.

A honey hole for turkey on public land is more rare here than one for elk.

 

[svivian]

Frankly the idea it doesn't have everything to do about federal PR funding to me is just naive.

Alas this side bar of PR fund talk distracts from the OP intent of this thread.

I personally find it disheartening to see a trend where non-resident tag allocation is seen by short sighed residents as the savior of an entire failed draw system.

So the choice is to -

-Pay the money to stay the course hoping to cash out before the rules change again

- Stop and just give up throwing away any chance of drawing wasting all the years waiting and all fees accumulated

Luckily we have until April to decide



















Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I’m asking a genuine question

What are you doing to change things in Utah to allow more tags for NR?

 

[sndmn11]

Actually I've decided to buy the turkey tag. Looking forward to being in some residents honey hole come opening morning.
Hearing them pout about crowding all year is almost better than actually killing a turkey.

Haha! I was going to suggest turkey or fishing and small game. Then go in some ridiculous line of questioning about if one hunts their turkey license does that mean it wasn't considered a preference point expense. I see turkeys everyday scouting and hunting, and no interest in them. I'll give you that honey hole, c'mon out.

Of course it has to do with PR allocation. I've also got a bunch of years' worth of UT licenses (or something) from putting in for WHCE tags. Whatever that license is is simply an expense for whatever that license is. It's also my own choice to not partake in whatever that license is for. Lastly, I'm not going to tally up my fuel, hotels, food, nonsense I purchase at WHCE, etc. over many years, and tell UT residents how my tag "investment" is greater than theirs. Those expenses are direct costs of enjoying WHCE, nothing more.

There's no reason that isn't silly to start shoveling in indirect costs to try and prop up one's position. Just like how ridiculously silly it is to think about throwing in your internet access, mailing address, etc.

Not a single person lost their place in line due to the small change that occurred. NR#1 is still #1, NR#200 is still #200.

 

[realunlucky]

I’m asking a genuine question

What are you doing to change things in Utah to allow more tags for NR?

Utah is a 90/10 split so valid question. I applied both my oldest children for every single big game opportunity available to 12 year old and neither drew a tag thier first year applying.

Just using that to illustrate Utah has significantly less opportunity than Colorado. Reasons being two fold-- management priorities of quality over opportunity and that our drier climate habitat has lower carrying capacity.

All that said I have been very active in advocating for a shift back to managing the game for opportunity by eliminating the focus on reducing tags to increase age structure. Increasing opportunities brings more tags to the draw for residents and non residents alike.
While having multiple hours volunteering my labor for habitat improvement there's undoubtedly room for more involvement from me. Putting more animals on the landscape should provide opportunities to issue more tags.

I honestly support a 80/20 split which I believe would be a viable option with the return of expo tags to the state draw.

Speaking of the expo, there are multiple tags reversed solely for nonresidents. Also the standard draw for 200 tags does not distinguish between residents and nonresidents give equal odds to everyone.


Edit to add--
I am frustrated with Utah and thier nonresident tag allocation. With limited resident hunt opportunity I've had to expanded my hunting passion to encompass multiple states. It's truly shameful that I can't reciprocate the hospitality to my nonresident friends and family that help me hunt in states. I also worry about my children leaving Utah for better job opportunities and never being able to return for a family hunt. It's not

 

[svivian]

Utah is a 90/10 split so valid question. I applied both my oldest children for every single big game opportunity available to 12 year old and neither drew a tag thier first year applying.

Just using that to illustrate Utah has significantly less opportunity than Colorado. Reasons being two fold-- management priorities of quality over opportunity and that our drier climate habitat has lower carrying capacity.

All that said I have been very active in advocating for a shift back to managing the game for opportunity by eliminating the focus on reducing tags to increase age structure. Increasing opportunities brings more tags to the draw for residents and non residents alike.
While having multiple hours volunteering my labor for habitat improvement there's undoubtedly room for more involvement from me. Putting more animals on the landscape should provide opportunities to issue more tags.

I honestly support a 80/20 split which I believe would be a viable option with the return of expo tags to the state draw.

Speaking of the expo, there are multiple tags reversed solely for nonresidents. Also the standard draw for 200 tags does not distinguish between residents and nonresidents give equal odds to everyone.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

That’s fair, I ask because there are a few trophy units NR can’t hunt.

It also adds value for those who are advocating that other states change how they allocate their tags while also being a voice in their own state.

Nothing I hate more than people bitching about what other states are doing yet do nothing to change about their own.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Lawnboi]

I think there’s a difference between not advocating for more nr tags in your own state and cheering on a state agency sticking it to the nr.

 

[sndmn11]

Just using that to illustrate Utah has significantly less opportunity than Colorado.

You have those bison though!

 

[tdhanses]

A honey hole for turkey on public land is more rare here than one for elk.

I’ve found turkey pretty easy to find, have had them walk 15ft from me in CO.

 

[fngTony]

I’ve found turkey pretty easy to find, have had them walk 15ft from me in CO.

Take that spot to your grave.

 

[tdhanses]

Take that spot to your grave.

Guess I should consider a turkey tag. Screen shot from a video.