CPW screwing Residents yet again….

[f16jack]

In other states it’s called a Pref Point fee

Utah: nonrefundable application fee for each species or bonus point you apply for. The application fee is $10 for residents and $15 for non-residents. You get a point automatically if you are not drawn (just like Colorado primary draw). Utah non-res elk tag, $593. Includes 365 day fishing. Charged only if drawn.

Colorado non res elk tag. $761 (inlcudes fishing). But you can't put the application in your basket unless you buy a Habitat stamp and a small game ($11.50 and $86.50 = $98). Application Fee $10. Total $108

Price in UT if not drawn as a non-resident: $15 (edit + $72 =$87)
Price in CO if not drawn as a non-resident: $108
someone is laughing all the way to the bank (edit - at both states)

edit: I've been educated that Utah also has the requirement for the non-res basic hunting license ($72). So the states have the same behavior.

 

[svivian]

I'm happy to pay for the tag if I'm going to hunt. I'm happy to pay for the processing fees for the application. The $100 soak the applicant is not valid. It's a case of charging folks who have no say. Improper way for anyone to do business.

You better tell Utah the same thing then. AZ, NM while you are at it too.

 

[f16jack]

You better tell Utah the same thing then. AZ, NM while you are at it too.

See reply above. I'm not familiar how AZ and NM treat non residents. I think I have accurately shown the difference between fees between UT and CO. [edit - I was wrong - Utah also had the small game license requriement]. I don't mind paying whatever fee the state wants to charge if I'm drawn. Not a prob. Charge the folks that are actually coming to hunt.

 

[svivian]

Utah: nonrefundable application fee for each species or bonus point you apply for. The application fee is $10 for residents and $15 for non-residents. You get a point automatically if you are not drawn (just like Colorado primary draw). Utah non-res elk tag, $593. Includes 365 day fishing. Charged only if drawn.

Colorado non res elk tag. $761 (inlcudes fishing). But you can't put the application in your basket unless you buy a Habitat stamp and a small game ($11.50 and $86.50 = $98). Application Fee $10. Total $108

Price in UT if not drawn as a non-resident: $15
Price in CO if not drawn as a non-resident: $108
someone is laughing all the way to the bank

 

[f16jack]

I think we are hijacking the original post. Sorry for the detour. Perhaps back to the % split on resident/non-resident discussion.

 

[f16jack]

View attachment 527773

My error. I retract all statements I have made above. Thanks for educating me.

 

[Foldem]

My error. I retract all statements I have made above. Thanks for educating me.

They won’t let you buy a 3-day to apply in Utah. It has to be an annual.

 

[f16jack]

They won’t let you buy a 3-day to apply in Utah. It has to be an annual.

Thanks again. I normally buy a 2-year I think so I've never even known that it was a requirement.

 

[dieselchessy]

Thanks again. I normally buy a 2-year I think so I've never even known that it was a requirement.

Colorado is being loved to death by all user groups. So is pretty well everywhere else.

I’m pretty sure the states have you get a license due to Pitman Robertson type funds being doled out partly based on numbers of licensed hunters. It’s the farce that hoses all the licensed hunters survey data folks often cite. There is no way for the data to accurately reflect what’s really going on.
I’m a licensed hunter in several states I never set foot in every year. So how’s that look in the data set?
For Alaska you can enter the draw every year with only buying the license every other year. So I’m a licensed hunter in Alaska about half as often as I am in other states, even though I hunt Alaska about twice as often. How’s that nonsense look in the data?

The remainder of the trust fund is then divided in half with 50 percent apportioned to states based on the land area of the state in proportion to the total land area of the country. The remaining 50 percent is apportioned based on the number of individual paid hunting license holders in the state in proportion to the national total.

 

[camelcluch]

I see the 75/25 as an improvement. Not much but at least it will be harder from them to slide tags around without being notice like the 65/35. There is still the issue that the deer and elk heard can not keep up with the rising pressure. I have said it before; I don’t hate the nonresident, we just can’t have all the nonresidents. I say that being a nonresident hunter in multiple states. I do believe that residents in any state should have priority with opportunities for nonresidents too.
By the way, the CO Commission sucks at animal management.

 

[ColoradoV]

It is going to be 75-25% so it should be 75% minimum of all tags..

First draw, second draw, youth, and returned tags. No reason lo tags can’t be set aside at the 75-25 split as well. If no resident wants a license then it can be placed on the leftover list for everyone.

I don’t think too many folks see how much 75% minimum of all available tags would help residents hunters. In reality it would bump tag availability up to 25% or more on opportunity tags so locals can still hunt every year. Or better deal for residents than 80-20 by a long shot.

No reason to spend any time bellyaching over banking or sharing points as the idea is dead, gone, kaput..

So if you residents are sending input to commissioners send it 75% min of all tags sold to residents. Easy change for commissioners and actually a win for residents.

 

[Ucsdryder]

It is going to be 75-25% so it should be 75% minimum of all tags..

First draw, second draw, youth, and returned tags. No reason lo tags can’t be set aside at the 75-25 split as well. If no resident wants a license then it can be placed on the leftover list for everyone.

I don’t think too many folks see how much 75% minimum of all available tags would help residents hunters. In reality it would bump tag availability up to 25% or more on opportunity tags so locals can still hunt every year. Or better deal for residents than 80-20 by a long shot.

No reason to spend any time bellyaching over banking or sharing points as the idea is dead, gone, kaput..

So if you residents are sending input to commissioners send it 75% min of all tags sold to residents. Easy change for commissioners and actually a win for residents.

Yes to leftover at 75/25!!

 

[ColoradoV]

Yep usc now are you sending a email to the commission and putting this on the cpw input page? If even 50 of us do we would pry get 75% minimum of all tags.

Residents say it again 75% minimum. From
who I talk with is is achievable if we send in feedback…

I sent in mine how about you?

 

[sndmn11]

Yes to leftover at 75/25!!

Reissue

 

[ColoradoV]

Reissue

All at 75-25%!!

 

[bjsully]

as a CO resident I would be more worried about having to hunt with a point aspen stick then the R/NR allocation. This state has way more f'd up stuff going on that will do long term damage and is harder to unwind then a percentage allotment from CPW. Look at any of the legislation entering CO legislature these days.

 

[cnelk]

Here's where you can send in your license distribution comments -

Big Game License Distribution

Please see below for the current status on license distribution topics and updates. In response to the Commission’s request during the March Commission meeting, staff brought back final regulations for approval implementing staff’s recommendation of a 75/25 (Resident

engagecpw.org

 

[Bearded Bowhunter]

It was, cpw set it up to get the answer they wanted. If 80/20 across the board had been an option (as it should have been) it would have overwhelmingly been supported over status quo.

I can see your point here. My counter would be then why was 90/10 across the board less popular than 75/25? This would obviously be the most favorable to residents from a tag availability perspective, putting conservation dollars lost from non-res tag sales aside.

 

[camelcluch]

Because it’s not a great choice. The survey, as mentioned before, was terrible. There were some extreme choices and not a lot of common sense good options. So, ask a nonresident if they want 90/10 and it’s a quick no. Ask a resident if they want 90/10 and double your tag fee, no. It was like no real thought went into how to manage the issues, just quick thoughts and how to make it different. Pretty poor really.

 

[sndmn11]

I can see your point here. My counter would be then why was 90/10 across the board less popular than 75/25? This would obviously be the most favorable to residents from a tag availability perspective, putting conservation dollars lost from non-res tag sales aside.

What are conservation dollars?

Many Colorado residents have friends and family who we enjoy hunting with who do not have Colorado residency.