How will 75% Tag Allocation Affect Preference Points in CO?

[cnelk]

Also all the people talking about revenue you are forgetting key points. Qualifying license, habitat stamp, application fees.

Last year there were 113,125 NR adults that applied for a first choice elk. In order to apply they had to buy the $11.50 habitat stamp, qualifying license, and then the $10 application fee. The least expensive qualifying license is the annual small game $93.78.

11.50 + 93.78 + 10 = $115.28

$115.28 × 113,125 = $13,041,050 before even issuing a single elk tag.

This is FREE money to the CPW! By all means come out to Colorado and hunt small game.

For 2024 the prices increased.
HS $12.15
QL SG $98.92
APP $10
Total $121.07
I doubt we see a decrease in applicants

Im sure someone will say that ^^^ is included in the 'fees' of 66% of the budget [referencing the pie chart from page 4]

 

[mavinwa2]

Im sure someone will say that ^^^ is included in the 'fees' of 66% of the budget [referencing the pie chart from page 4]

"Elk licenses listed below include basic hunt license, Habitat Stamp, elk tag, elk app for draw."
mentioned ^^^^^ in my original post at 1pm yesterday, post #41

 

[IrkedCitizen]

CPW isn't hurting for funds. They will be once the herds are decimated by the wolves. So they should have just gone 90/10 in order to get used to not having money. Once the herds are gone so is the money.

 

[Woitey]

CPW isn't hurting for funds. They will be once the herds are decimated by the wolves. So they should have just gone 90/10 in order to get used to not having money. Once the herds are gone so is thee money.

I mentioned this on another forum. The only reason to introduce an apex predator into a pristine environment is to reduce or eliminate hunting. This goes hand in hand with Colorado's overt gun control. It's a two-pronged approach and they are winning in all the blue states. California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Oregon, New Mexico, New York. All have either draconian gun control laws, or laws pending with the dem supermajority. All are ignoring SCOTUS without penalty.
Along with the federal appeals courts. If struck down, they change a few words and reinstate the law, and the game begins again for ten years. Meanwhile, you have the decision to comply or go to jail.

 

[Mcribs]

I mentioned this on another forum. The only reason to introduce an apex predator into a pristine environment is to reduce or eliminate hunting. This goes hand in hand with Colorado's overt gun control. It's a two-pronged approach and they are winning in all the blue states. California, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Oregon, New Mexico, New York. All have either draconian gun control laws, or laws pending with the dem supermajority. All are ignoring SCOTUS without penalty.
Along with the federal appeals courts. If struck down, they change a few words and reinstate the law, and the game begins again for ten years. Meanwhile, you have the decision to comply or go to jail.

I mean that’s taking it into conspiracy theory territory. Sure blue states don’t care about quality hunting the way we would like, but back in the 90s, in a very red state, wildlife management was very much considering apex predator introductions as a benefit to ecosystems. Nothing to do with gun control.

 

[Woitey]

Well, then you're really going to like what is coming down the pike if Mr. 81 million votes is reelected along with his party's state legislatures.

 

[CoMulies]

Idaho just proposed non-resident draw for elk and deer to replace OTC. I have little faith but CO should follow suit

 

[Beendare]

Idaho just proposed non-resident draw for elk and deer to replace OTC. I have little faith but CO should follow suit

Where did you see that?

I took a look at the Idaho Game And Fish site and did not see anything on that.

 

[CoMulies]

Where did you see that?

I took a look at the Idaho Game And Fish site and did not see anything on that.

HOUSE BILL 587 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

 

[ColoradoCarp]

I'm not sure I can get into the politics or the financials of this, but as a resident of CO building elk points, I'm happy for the change and hoping it slows resident point creep just a bit. Perhaps now I can go on my trophy elk hunt in 2030 instead of 2031

 

[IrkedCitizen]

I'm not sure I can get into the politics or the financials of this, but as a resident of CO building elk points, I'm happy for the change and hoping it slows resident point creep just a bit. Perhaps now I can go on my trophy elk hunt in 2030 instead of 2031

If there are any elk left by then

 

[ColoradoCarp]

Idaho just proposed non-resident draw for elk and deer to replace OTC. I have little faith but CO should follow suit

@IdahoSwede ... ??

 

[Beendare]

Thanks for the Link @CoMulies !

 

[trophyhill]

I wouldn't bet on it. Since NM has increased resident preference to 90%, I haven't drawn a deer tag and I used to draw every year. I say smoke and mirrors with the opposite effect.....

 

[IdahoSwede]

HOUSE BILL 587 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

This is interesting. I'm a resident so it wouldnt impact me, but i would think this process may be preferable to the rat race that is Dec 1st for Non res hunters right now.

 

[mooster]

I love the R vs. NR conflict. Seems a fair argument on state lands, but not federal lands that are funded by us all, R & NR alike and equally. Wish we had national licenses for federal lands. And I hunt a lot in my home state on public, its all federal lands, or state managed lands leased from the federal govt. We all should have equal rights to such.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I appreciate the above post, good dialogue. Game within a state is property of that state, period.

This post is saying (proposing) if it is federal land, there should be national licenses to hunt said land that has state owned animals on it. Which would seem to say the Federal government dictates seasons and would manage it, not the state. How about game that belongs to the state on private land within any state, should landowners set hunting seasons and allocations by the same rule national tags should be allowed?

More folks should rejoice in hunting their own state. Pressure and overcrowding in the handful of western states is making it crap to hunt those states as residents. Simple solution, move.

I would wager out of state folks coming to most western states don't have problems with out-of-state overcrowding in whatever state they are coming from. Fact.

 

[CoMulies]

I appreciate the above post, good dialogue. Game within a state is property of that state, period.

This post is saying (proposing) if it is federal land, there should be national licenses to hunt said land that has state owned animals on it. Which would seem to say the Federal government dictates seasons and would manage it, not the state. How about game that belongs to the state on private land within any state, should landowners set hunting seasons and allocations by the same rule national tags should be allowed?

More folks should rejoice in hunting their own state. Pressure and overcrowding in the handful of western states is making it crap to hunt those states as residents. Simple solution, move.

I would wager out of state folks coming to most western states don't have problems with out-of-state overcrowding in whatever state they are coming from. Fact.

Exactly this. It’s well established doctrine that wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of its residents. Regardless of if they’re on federal land or not. Nonresident hunting is a privilege, not a right. When I decided I wanted to get serious about western hunting, I moved to a western state, simple as that. Western states need to put the interests of their own residents before those of nonresidents or hunt quality suffers and crowding is unbearable.