CPW - ‘Righting’ some Wrongs

[streetdoctor]

As a resident I would pay non-resident prices if there were no NR OTC tags.

 

[Archer86]

I’m fine with residents wanting more for themselves. But don’t come asking for help with one hand while taking away stuff with the other.

That's a great idea so you mean like the 20 plus years of nr asking for the western states to support there hunting because there home states have no public land hunting and the leases are to expensive or whatever else prevents them from hunting at home. Maybe try and increase the opportunity in your home state instead of spending the money on nr tag fees if you don't like what western states are doing with allocation

 

[Mosby]

I'll be the contrarian. IMO, the best thing we could do for hunting isn't being more restrictive on access and tags....it is being less restrictive but more consistent between states and providing broader access to larger amounts of national forest and tags. The current bifurcated system of state by state game management on national forests is starting to fail IMO, especially with the introduction of wolves and grizzly, loss of habitat and declining game populations.. Politicians, corporations, outfitters and ranchers have taken control of game management and our licensing and tags in most western states and they have turned our national forests and hunting into the equivalent of state run casino's. The cost keeps going up, along with the odds and the house always wins.

If all the western states made it more consistent and easier to get NR tags....then no one state or area would get inundated with out of state hunters. When you limit the flow of tags and options....you create funnels and right now its called Colorado. If Colorado, Montana, NM. WY etc., created a single and a more fair system for tag allocation in NF that wasn't driven by individual state politicians, outfitters and ranchers, it would allow for more options and less crowding.

At some point the increasing cost, odds and restrictions is going to outweigh the benefit of buying a license and applying for tags at all and there are always going to be unintended consequences...like significantly fewer hunters.....which makes us politically irrelevant at some level and could eventually kill hunting all together in some states.

Attacking or blaming NR hunters for over crowding and pressuring state politicians to limit local level access is a short term approach playing right into the hands of those among us who want to end hunting and gun ownership all together. NR hunters are going where they are being funneled....not necessarily where they want to.

Forest through the trees....divide and conquer.....take your pick but blaming other hunters for over crowding or making hunting so expensive and restrictive that it becomes reserved for the elite or unobtainable for most isn't much of a solution to me....regardless of which state you call home.

 

[sndmn11]

I'll be the contrarian. IMO, the best thing we could do for hunting isn't being more restrictive on access and tags....it is being less restrictive but more consistent between states and providing broader access to larger amounts of national forest and tags.

There are 50 states in the USA, you named four. The topic is also about resident and non-resident license allocations.


What is being done in the resident state of hunters who do not reside in Colorado that isn't the solution to "access and tags"? Whatever state someone chooses to reside in should be the first place that they are making sure they see opportunity; that wildlife is theirs. Folks from Missouri should lobby for "access and tags" in Missouri, those in TX should worry about Texas, if you live in Ohio get your access and tags there. Colorado, Wyoming, Montana have no obligation to cater to people who are not the owners of the wildlife within its borders.

Attacking or blaming NR hunters for over crowding and pressuring state politicians to limit local level access is a short term approach playing right into the hands of those among us who want to end hunting and gun ownership all together. NR hunters are going where they are being funneled....not necessarily where they want to.

Forest through the trees....divide and conquer.....take your pick but blaming other hunters for over crowding or making hunting so expensive and restrictive that it becomes reserved for the elite or unobtainable for most isn't much of a solution to me....regardless of which state you call home.

Nobody is attacking or blaming nonresident hunters, we just don't want to continue getting the short end of the stick. The argument of a non-resident hunter to Colorado quits hunting and turns on hunters and firearms in a political sense is one of the things that swayed more so into limiting non-resident hunters. It is such an illogical statement. Every single non-resident hunter to Colorado is a resident hunter somewhere. I have never hunted in any state other than Colorado and Kansas, and never held a non-resident big game license. That fact doesn't mean that I am now anti-hunting or anti-gun, it just means that I keep my nose in my own yard before peeking over the fence and barking at my neighbor.

 

[wytx]

Sorry but not too steep just not necessary for say drawing a deer licenses.
What license plate is on your truck Backcountry ? It won't be missed either I bet.

See, the NR bashing didn't take long at all.

 

[cnelk]

The CPW has publicly stated that they don’t care what other states are doing - they will do what they think is right for Colorado

 

[Mosby]

The argument of a non-resident hunter to Colorado quits hunting and turns on hunters and firearms in a political sense is one of the things that swayed more so into limiting non-resident hunters. It is such an illogical statement.

That isn't what I said. Fewer hunters benefit groups and organizations who want to eliminate hunting and easier on politicians. Nothing to do with NR hunters becoming anti hunters or whatever. Hunters fighting to reduce hunting opportunities for other hunters isn't a successful long term political strategy that will benefit hunting or any of us in the long term....IMO.

 

[tdhanses]

Truthfully there are always options to hunt, I think as prices keep sky rocketing people should consider other countries such as Argentina where it’s cheaper to hunt with an outfitter then WY or CO, https://www.tsbuenosaires.com/argentina-hunting-big-game

 

[JMasson]

The CPW has publicly stated that they don’t care what other states are doing - they will do what they think is right for Colorado

And rightly so. I’m a nonresident hunter in all the Rocky Mountain states but I will never think that any of them need to cater to me. I’ll take whatever opportunity is afforded to me, with a smile on my face and be grateful for it.

 

[Gapmaster]

And rightly so. I’m a nonresident hunter in all the Rocky Mountain states but I will never think that any of them need to cater to me. I’ll take whatever opportunity is afforded to me, with a smile on my face and be grateful for it.

This is a good statement. I’m in no way ungrateful for opportunities in other states. I just hate to see any opportunities taken away. As much as I hate to see NR tagged rigs at my favorite spots here at home, I would also hate to see them lose the chance to hunt here. I understand that the area I live affords an opportunity that isn’t necessarily available to them in their state. We have a small elk population in my state which I apply for every year but most likely will never get a chance to hunt. I constantly donate any spare money to conservation programs for elk and other mountain species. They are a resource worth protecting and promoting. Elk hunting and the mountains are something I’m extremely passionate about and hate to see it become a thing of the past. No, it’s not going away anytime soon, but every lost opportunity is one that will never be again. I can remember going to NM multiple years in a row. To the Gila of all places, but those days are gone. I’m sure plenty of residents of the mountain states can say the same. They’ve lost opportunities in their own states, which is wrong in itself.

At the end of the day I believe we all want the same things. A healthy elk herd, less pressured animals, healthy forest and an opportunity for our children to see and and experience the things we have seen and done.

 

[JMasson]

This is a good statement. I’m in no way ungrateful for opportunities in other states. I just hate to see any opportunities taken away. As much as I hate to see NR tagged rigs at my favorite spots here at home, I would also hate to see them lose the chance to hunt here. I understand that the area I live affords an opportunity that isn’t necessarily available to them in their state. We have a small elk population in my state which I apply for every year but most likely will never get a chance to hunt. I constantly donate any spare money to conservation programs for elk and other mountain species. They are a resource worth protecting and promoting. Elk hunting and the mountains are something I’m extremely passionate about and hate to see it become a thing of the past. No, it’s not going away anytime soon, but every lost opportunity is one that will never be again. I can remember going to NM multiple years in a row. To the Gila of all places, but those days are gone. I’m sure plenty of residents of the mountain states can say the same. They’ve lost opportunities in their own states, which is wrong in itself.

At the end of the day I believe we all want the same things. A healthy elk herd, less pressured animals, healthy forest and an opportunity for our children to see and and experience the things we have seen and done.

I’m from Florida but don’t currently reside there. I’m semi-nomadic at this point in my life and move roughly every 3 years. I’ll put down roots in West Virginia when I retire from the service. Throughout my childhood I grew up watching an ever-increasing stream of nonresidents coming to fish in Florida. Their trucks and trailers filled the boat ramps, their RVs and tents filled the campsites, they were all over the water…even the real skinny backwater creeks. I very much sympathize with the residents of the western states. Granted, the Gulf of Mexico has some more room to spread out but when you’re trying to fly fish the shallow inland waterways, added pressure makes it difficult and I often found myself wishing they would find somewhere else to fish. Turkey hunting was worse. I lost many turkey spots, even areas that didn’t have Osceolas, to nonresident/ outfitter pressure. Thankfully, I still have one or two spots I can go to that I will never lose that privilege. I have no issue with states prioritizing their resident opportunities over the increased fees that nonresidents pay. If Florida did that I’d have twenty farms I could turkey hunt, instead of two. Maybe that’s not the best comparison, Florida has very little public land but it’s hard to draw a turkey permit on most of it and the places that don’t have a quota have a turkey-to-hunter ratio of about 100:1.

 

[sndmn11]

That isn't what I said. Fewer hunters benefit groups and organizations who want to eliminate hunting and easier on politicians. Nothing to do with NR hunters becoming anti hunters or whatever. Hunters fighting to reduce hunting opportunities for other hunters isn't a successful long term political strategy that will benefit hunting or any of us in the long term....IMO.

It isn't a reduction in hunting opportunities, the quantity of licenses is not changed at all.

 

[sveltri]

If you want to limit NR in favor of more residents, I understand. But the problem isn’t the NRs. The problem is mismanagement by the state in every aspect.

100% agree

 

[cuerro viejo]

So since the Feds, who distribute PR funds, have a "loop-hole" in their system that nearly all western states "abuse" how is it Colorado's fault? If they change the rules to be only resident hunters, fine so be it, but otherwise why should Colorado screw itself?

So since the Feds, who distribute PR funds, have a "loop-hole" in their system that nearly all western states "abuse" how is it Colorado's fault? If they change the rules to be only resident hunters, fine so be it, but otherwise why should Colorado screw itself?

The small game license and draw application fee are about $100...if that's too steep for you then buy OTC, since it doesn't require a qualifying license or draw application fee, or better yet don't hunt here. I'm sure no one will miss one less Texas license plate at the trailhead.

It’s not the cost, I hunt 3-4 states a year. Just principle of how bad the mismanagement, recruitment and retention of hunters is in CO

Instead of crying about out of state license plates might want to focus on the recruitment and the retention part of the equation.

Those idiots in Texas sale 2.7 million hunting and fishing licenses a year and don’t require a license to enter their draws. Infact all youth(Res and NR) hunt applications are free.

Maybe instead of whining about Out of state hunters, maybe you should mandate 5% of all tags go to youth…… then maybe you wouldn’t have to game the system for PR money, or ask NR for legislative support. I think NM and TX both do a great job at this. Wish more states did. I’d even be cool with 80/5/15

 

[dirtytough]

That's a great idea so you mean like the 20 plus years of nr asking for the western states to support there hunting because there home states have no public land hunting and the leases are to expensive or whatever else prevents them from hunting at home. Maybe try and increase the opportunity in your home state instead of spending the money on nr tag fees if you don't like what western states are doing with allocation

Holy run on sentence batman!!

I'm curious where for the last 20 years non res non res asked anyone to support 'their' hunting? Non res have fought losing opportunity over and over. I haven't seen one non res ask to pay less than a resident, ask for 90% non res 10% res tag distribution, etc.

Please show me a state that non res ask the state to support them? Don't non res make up over 50% of most western states budgets? So who is supporting who? Non res also pay way more to support public land than any of the western states residents pay. That public land is then used to support the western states animals. So again who is supporting who?

Lets see, game and fish budgets would be shot without non residents. Thanks for the support non res. Animals owned by the citizens of the state are living for free on public land that is mostly supported by non res. Thanks non res for funding that public land for the residents, and letting the state owned animals consume every US citizens resources for free.

Interesting when you look at it who is supporting who.

 

[wytx]

How in the heck do NR pay more to support public lands, they do not. Residents pay just as much for supporting public land as NR. Now the wildlife on those lands may be supported by NR license fees but not for public land management.
Every tax payer supports public lands, not just NRs.

There thread after threads about NR wanting the same licenses fees as residents on public lands.
Some folks are either unwilling or uneducated on written law about states rights to manage their wildlife. It is settled.

 

[Archer86]

Holy run on sentence batman!!

I'm curious where for the last 20 years non res non res asked anyone to support 'their' hunting? Non res have fought losing opportunity over and over. I haven't seen one non res ask to pay less than a resident, ask for 90% non res 10% res tag distribution, etc.

Please show me a state that non res ask the state to support them? Don't non res make up over 50% of most western states budgets? So who is supporting who? Non res also pay way more to support public land than any of the western states residents pay. That public land is then used to support the western states animals. So again who is supporting who?

Lets see, game and fish budgets would be shot without non residents. Thanks for the support non res. Animals owned by the citizens of the state are living for free on public land that is mostly supported by non res. Thanks non res for funding that public land for the residents, and letting the state owned animals consume every US citizens resources for free.

Interesting when you look at it who is supporting who.

Personal attack nice I am no grammar expert.....and I really don't give a sh!t.

Nr hunting is supplemented by western states I don't care what they charge. we are fortunate as a nr hunters to have the opportunity to hunt.

Every year a nr hunter applys for a hunting tag they are asking that state to support there hunting. Again I don't care what nr pay for a tag I would rather see it not price out the average diy guys but we have no control over that and it really doesn't matter how much of the budget nr fund.

Hunters make up 4 percent of the population nationwide likely double that percentage in western states so what group of hunters pay more in taxes per state.

If you want to go down the path of taxes non hunters pay a substantial amount more to support public land so why don't you ask them what they would prefer to happen with hunting on public lands.

After all these threads bashing resident hunters I would gladly pay the same prices nr currently pay in my home state for my entire family and completely eliminate nr hunters.

Hurry up colorado eliminate nr otc tags!

 

[dirtytough]

How in the heck do NR pay more to support public lands, they do not.

LOL yes they do. I'll break it down as simple as possible for you.

Residents pay just as much for supporting public land as NR.

Um wrong again.

Lets use Wyoming for example. Wyoming is one of the least populated states. Wyoming household income averages $65k. New York household income averages $71k. So fairly close. There are almost 600,000 residents in Wyoming. There are almost 20 million residents in NY. Pretty simple to see just the residents of NY monetarily support public land way more than Wyoming residents could dream of.

Even if you broke it down by resident hunter/non resident hunter. Wyoming has 131k licensed residents. NY has 700k. Texas has over 1 million. Just those 2 states would probably have as many licensed resident hunters as ID, MT, WY, CO, AZ, NM, NV, and UT combined. Then add WI, MN, PA, etc.

It is extremely simple to see that public lands in the west are mostly paid for with non res dollars.

 

[PathFinder]

What exactly is it that you think all of those residents in other states are paying for?
They didn't buy the land. The land doesn't disappear if more money isn't thrown at it every year.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie Brown]

You can enjoy the federal ground, however you don't have a right to the state's animals when you already have a right to your state's animals.

There doesn't have to be any middle ground. The revenue aspect shouldn't cause confusion between privilege and a right. There also are a cool round zero towns in the state of Colorado that rely on hunters; don't confuse hunting with skiing.

Don't ever think the revenue aspect (money) doesn't count. Residents will soon be making up the loss in nonresident sales. It's always about the money when government is involved.