Petition - OTC for Colorado Residents

[Mykolaivka887]

I did not realize you were that bad with google. One example is Mount Whitney (the wilderness area)

I mentioned the five, which includes that one (lol). Washington DC views California a bit differently than say, Arizona or Montana or Alaska (for instance).

 

[___DAN___]

You’re wasting your time. Some people just don’t get it. You can hike and camp in national forest all you want. If you want to hunt animals, OWNED AND MANAGED BY THE STATE, you have to play by the states rules. It’s a simple concept, but for some reason it’s just too difficult for people to understand.

Where do you think the majority of the State's funding comes from? IT'S NOT FROM THE CO RESIDENTS.

 

[MallardSX2]

The writing is on the wall. OTC tags are going away sooner than later.
Just please remember this the next time some dumbshit person/organization tells you what we need more hunters. The demand outweighs the supply currently. Adding more people to draw on that resource is not going to improve it in any way, shape or form.

This 100%

 

[Mykolaivka887]

They haven’t needed a petition yet and they’re getting closer every day.

True that.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Where do you think the majority of the State's funding comes from? IT'S NOT FROM THE CO RESIDENTS.

What’s your point? The courts have found that the animals are owned by the residents, managed by the state.

 

[MallardSX2]

Where do you think the majority of the State's funding comes from? IT'S NOT FROM THE CO RESIDENTS.

Oh.

No.

You.

Didnt.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

The writing is on the wall. OTC tags are going away sooner than later.
Just please remember this the next time some dumbshit person/organization tells you what we need more hunters. The demand outweighs the supply currently. Adding more people to draw on that resource is not going to improve it in any way, shape or form.

It's a Catch-22, but I do agree with that.

 

[Bubblehide]

I mentioned the five, which includes that one (lol). Washington DC views California a bit differently than say, Arizona or Montana or Alaska (for instance).

Really. How about Indian Peaks Wilderness?

 

[Archer86]

Where do you think the majority of the State's funding comes from? IT'S NOT FROM THE CO RESIDENTS.

Oh dang colorado resident don't pay taxes since when?

 

[Poser]

Where do you think the majority of the State's funding comes from? IT'S NOT FROM THE CO RESIDENTS.

From what I’m seeing, the majority of the general fund comes from individual income tax with sales tax coming in at less than 50%. Then, smaller contributors are corporate income tax, excise tax and insurance tax.

Income tax implies resident contributions.

Total operating budget is 55.9 Billion with 24.9% coming from general fund, 31.3% from cash funds and 43.8% from federal funds. Perhaps this is what you are referencing, but it’s less than 50% and mostly particular to health care, labor and employment, higher Ed etc.

Do you have stats that show otherwise?

 

[___DAN___]

Oh dang colorado resident don't pay taxes since when?

Here we go........................

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Really. How about Indian Peaks Wilderness?

Definitely a high use area during June, July and August, being that it's right on Denver's doorstep. Pretty tame country because of that. Definitely wouldn't be a place I'd want too hunt. Too many eco-freaks for my taste. A lot like California, Orgon and Washington State areas.

 

[___DAN___]

From what I’m seeing, the majority of the general fund comes from individual income tax with sales tax coming in at less than 50%. Then, smaller contributors are corporate income tax, excise tax and insurance tax.

Income tax implies resident contributions.

Total operating budget is 55.9 Billion with 24.9% coming from general fund, 31.3% from cash funds and 43.8% from federal funds. Perhaps this is what you are referencing, but it’s less than 50% and mostly particular to health care, labor and employment, higher Ed etc.

Do you have stats that show otherwise?

Colorado Parks and Wildlife relies primarily on license sales, state park fees, and registration fees to support its operations and mission to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado’s natural resources. CPW is a state government agency with what is known as “enterprise status,” meaning CPW generates over 90% of its annual funding from sources other than taxes or the state’s general fund.

(I googled, and copied and pasted too)

 

[Bubblehide]

Definitely a high use area during June, July and August, being that it's right on Denver's doorstep. Pretty tame country because of that. Definitely wouldn't be a place I'd want too hunt. Too many eco-freaks for my taste. A lot like California, Orgon and Washington State areas.

Well, at least now you are aware that access can be regulated on Department of Agriculture lands, and actually is in some areas. Obviously it can be expanded.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Well, at least now you are aware that access can be regulated on Department of Agriculture lands, and actually is in some areas. Obviously it can be expanded.

Yes, I did find the five on the federal website.

 

[___DAN___]

Most of the time you don’t get back conquered land. If I’m giving it back to anybody, let’s give it back to the dinosaurs, to hell with it.

 

[Doc Holliday]

There is nothing wrong with collecting points and having a target in mind. You make it sound bad to say, I'm gonna collect enough points to hunt "that unit" and keep saving for them.

Nothing wrong with building points up in a state. I said "point hoarders who have their cake and eat it too" = people who buy a Colorado elk pref point, and then buy a Colorado OTC license to hunt elk that same year. This is a big reason why there is point creep. If you hunt elk in a state as a NR, you should be at zero points. The hunting experience will be better for everyone, and it will help to erode the bank of points people are sitting on. OTC was good for awhile, but there are too many people now who want to hunt. You will need either points or money (landowner tag).

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Well, at least now you are aware that access can be regulated ..... Obviously it can be expanded

Unfortunately, any American President can direct their administration to do so. Would be a sad day in American history when that requirement became nationwide and then, turned against consumptive users on a non-hunting agenda.

 

[pcrossett]

Do you have the revenue numbers breaking down hunting, skiing, leafing, etc., contribution to "tourism", and further broken down into state of residency?

Most CO towns look deserted in hunting season compared to winter and summer.

Was thinking the same thing. Driving in to the mountains during ski season is a whole lot different than during say September archery (minus the majority of leaf peepers on I-70).

 

[Poser]

Nothing wrong with building points up in a state. I said "point hoarders who have their cake and eat it too" = people who buy a Colorado elk pref point, and then buy a Colorado OTC license to hunt elk that same year. This is a big reason why there is point creep. If you hunt elk in a state as a NR, you should be at zero points. The hunting experience will be better for everyone, and it will help to erode the bank of points people are sitting on. OTC was good for awhile, but there are too many people now who want to hunt. You will need either points or money (landowner tag).

Oh, we’re talking CPW. Your said “the majority of the state’s funding,” which seems to imply the state of CO’s general fund is entirely dependent upon non resident hunters to function.

I’m having a difficult time finding a R/NR breakdown for CPW. The Colorado Outfitters Association states 54% of CPW’s budget comes from NR, but not way to verify that and I wonder if that is just for tags vs. other revenue streams like state park passes and SWA permits.