Normally, the price goes up because demand is down. Doesn't seem to be the case here, because we know a lot of people still hunt. I think CO just followed suit because neighboring states like NM and UT jacked up the price of non resident tag fees.
That said, CO treats their elk herd like a cash nipple. Other states manage their herds without the kind of money that CO rakes in. CO could make the OTC experience better if they took some lessons from surrounding states.
It's the other way around the higher the demand for goods and service the higher the price for those goods and services. If if the demand is going down at the current price, one is not going to stimulate the buyers by raising prices. Colorado game and fish has been advertising aggressively the past couple of years, apparently its paying off with increase hunter numbers. Us NR as a group must be flush with cash as most states aren't shy about in raising tag prices or application fees and the point game. I am sure a bunch could chime in about the 500-900 a year they spend just to be in the point game in a half a dozen states and not even draw one tag.
The likes of Nevada and Arizona your shelling out plus $150 a year to get in the draw and build points if go ten years you will have $1500 plus the tag fee of plus $500. OTC Colorado looks like a bargain tag fee wise anyways.
HDE's Link
Even though the quantity demanded increases and price is evidently going up, could it be safe to say that hunting tags are a Giffen Good?
As for me, I will keep shelling it out as long as I can, but after I retire (in 7-8 years) may just have to hunt them with a camera. Since we get an automatic raise EVERY year, it will probably be in the $900 range by then.
Simply putting it, Look at any Market equilibrium table describing increasing demand in a market. With supply being a function of demand. Increasing demand increases price.
God Bless
I suppose it depends on which curve shifts. If demand shifts (to the right) along the supply curve, then yes, as quantity demanded goes up so will price. If supply shifts (to the right) along the demand curve, as the quantity demanded goes up price decreases. Usually the interpretive outcome is 'Ambiguous'.
Market equilibrium is just the price point that buyers are willing to pay and the amount vendors are willing to sell. The quantity supplied is is infinite, so that is not a driving mechanism for price point, popularity of the activity and opetating cost are. The only reason price can increase is there is ample supply and the ones willing to pay will regardless. The demand will never change, but the quantity will always vary.
The REAL dagger though is that they put in the law that NRs get an automatic "cost of living" increase EVERY year. Resident pricing is locked at current levels and each and every price increase has to be approved by the legislature.
So we are the frog who was put in cold water and a fire built under it. He doesn't notice that he is being boiled to death because the heat goes up gradual, just like our fees go up. And just like compounded interest, X% of $650 is more than X% of $350
If I want to go elk hunting and I Dont draw elsewhere, I'm going. I'm not getting any younger, I have a limited number of Septembers left, and I'm not going to let 600 dollars stop me from enjoying them.
Everyone wants to complain about numbers, but doing anything else means we will not get to hunt every year. It also does not mean you will see any less hunters where you like to hunt. In some cases (actually many) forcing a draw means the people in the unit will hunt harder and as a result the best areas will become even more crowded.
If you do not like the OTC units you can choose every year to put in for one of the many limited units that require only a couple points to draw.
People complain about the price of the tag all the time, yet we are still seeing more and more hunters in CO.
Again the value comes in being able to hunt every single year in the same unit etc. No other state really allows this for NR except maybe Idaho.
Living somewhere besides Colorado is often way cheaper and is often the least expensive way to go for an elk hunter. Elk season is a month long but really a 1 or 2 week deal for most hunters. A guy can live somewhere close to great whitetail and turkey hunting on a few acres cheaper than what many Coloradoans pay for a home in a subdivision. on a postage stamp size lot.
And yes, I would choose going all limited and only hunt every other year if it means that some of my friends didn't get priced out, which they have. But the CP&W can't/won't do that, because it would mean less revenue!
I just want a quality hunt when I hit the woods each year (selfish I know), and I think that is right thing to do for nonresidents travelling 1000's of miles and paying a lot of hard earned money to come hunt.
I don't necessarily accept that the current size of CPW budget is required to manage our wildlife but the CPW is convinced its not enough, so anything that reduces revenue will be a fight.
Then the question is this... there are units in the states where A NR can draw every 2-3 years. The crowding is less and the numbers are limited. There is nothing right now saying you have to hunt in an OTC unit.
It is a choice we all make... On the flip side as a resident or a nonresident, I would much rather have an option to hunt every year (even if it is not a "quality" option).
That being said I would gladly help you out in finding a better hunt every couple of years.
In general most OTC units tend to flow on some level, and even areas with in the units tends to flow with pressure. This however happen everywhere. Some word gets out that a bull was seen in a certain area, and for the next 2 weeks everyone is hunting that area. Or in my case they kill a huge bull in the unit and suddenly the next year there are 5 to 6 times more NR resident hunters on that very ridge. After 2 years they all but disappear.
So the real question is, what do you expect for $600 and is there a unit or a hunt that can meet that expectation?
If you go to a limited unit, realize there may not be any less hunters in the area you select, but the nice part is every year the number of hunters will remain pretty similar.
Also for limited hunts there are lots of other options as well. Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Montanna, Idaho, new Mexico, etc.
Lots of guys use Colorado as a plan C. Did not draw Utah, Did not draw WY, At least I can still make it to Colorado.
I don't normally run into a lot of hunters where I hunt, even though its an OTC area. I'm finding there are a lot more muzzleloader guys hitting the bush.
No doubt there are plenty of hunters roaming around. Here is some logic for you. The price of licenses in Colorado for elk are cheaper than any other state. AND you are guaranteed to hunt elk in the OTC areas.
On the other hand, I do believe there is an assault on hunting in general in an incremental fashion. I eventually believe it will be a rich man's indulgence at some point in the future, not unlike Germany and other European countries. For southern deer populations hunting is safer due to the massive herds.
It would be intellectually dishonest to say that our future is bright in some respects. The cost of licenses never goes down. Ever notice that? Nothing ever goes down unless its an influenced commodity such as fuel of food.
And I can afford the cost, but have friends who for whatever reason have been effectively priced out of coming. And who knows whether or not I can afford it in retirement because it will be $1000 before I am done wanting to come.
So my beef is not overcrowding, but the ever year slow boiling frog increases. "It is only 2%, 3% etc" still adds up. I dare say residents wouldn't agree to the same deal. Whether or not they should is a whole other argument.
Actually it was proposed by several resident hunters and groups to tie resident fees to the CPI in the same manner as the NR fees. In our current funding model the preice of tags increase at one time. When increased it puts the CPW into the Black and they have excess money compared to budget. This allows the CPW to fix big projects that have been hanging over head, and also allows them to increase the fund balance and create a surplus amount of money. With time cost increase, but the revenue is flat. After a couple years the CPW hits a break even year then slowly slips into the red. As the budget slips into the red it pulls money from the fund balance to off set increases and starts to cut programs and staff. Eventually getting to a point where they have to go back in and increase revenue again by increasing cost. This has been the resident model for tag cost since before I could hunt. In the early 90s we saw a price hike, then early 2000 a small kick, then 2008 a chunk and now another chunk.
Under this model every single price hike must be approved by the state. For NR the statute ties the increase and thus the increase occurs regardless. For many of us we would rather see a slow progressive increase each year as opposed to a 25%, 50% 100% jump every 8-10 years....
So to a certain extent yes residents have asked for and many would like the price to be tied in stone and somewhat predictable as opposed to the issues we have now.
Let me ask you what sort of demand do you have for NR hunts in the North East? How many magazine articles feature the vast public lands and unspoiled wilderness of up state New York? How many TV shows dedicate entire seasons to covering the abundant Nonresident hunting opportunities in Vermont?
Sorry but the ratio does not matter at all. For a single license you are correct on the ratio, but residents also buck up a fair share of other fees and lic. For example the average resident buys more licenses... 2 elk tags, 1 deer tag, a small game lic. a fishing lic. bear tag etc. While you may buy one or 2 expensive tags we are buying 5-6 lower tags. Add inteh fact that buy buying multiple tags the state gets additional federal funding and things can balance out pretty fast.
Glad to hear there is some movement in that direction. It really makes a lot of sense. However, if that actually happens, I will buy you a 6 pack of your choice. :-) Just don't think it will pass and I think you have a big hurdle to ever get there. Doesn't each and every "tax increase" have to be approved by law? Maybe lawyers know a loophole in that?
As others have said, that's the opposite of how micro-economics works. The chart that you linked to is one where supply is increasing and demand is decreasing. The opposite is in play here. If they followed true supply and demand principals, they would continue to raise the price each year until supply equals demand, which would yield a price MUCH higher than it is today. Strangely enough, when I took Micro-Economics in college (Arizona), the professor was an avid elk hunter and used supply and demand of elk permits as examples constantly! He felt that Arizona should increase the price of elk permits until supply equals demand, and many students argued that it would then become a wealthy person's sport.
But to answer the original question, it is nice that Colorado has a mix of both. They should possibly continue to raise the price of limited entry permits until supply equals demand, but have OTC maintain a more reasonable price to give everyone a chance to hunt. Living in a state where elk permits are normally closer to once per decade than every year, be careful what you are willing to give-up!
Anywhere along the demand curve, as quantity increases, price decreases, usually following how much is available or supplied, bringing the price back up (demand shifts to the right). The price will increase for demand to match a supplied quantity. Basically, a game department can charge whatever they want (up to a point) and people will pay. The price is a projection at how many tags they think they can sell. Supply lags behind demand as far as price goes.
There are two schools, among many, of economic thought, supply side and demand side. One where supply is the driver, the other where demand is.
It is not just simple 'as demand goes up, so does price'.
The last paragraph above in StickFlickers' post is what NM and UT do, but NM comes up short in the OTC department.
It's supply and demand and it isn't going to get any better or cheaper. Never has, never will.
From many of hunters I know from back east have said, I believe they are correct. I myself don't think I would pay the cost to hunt a Colorado otc unit. I hear many of folks that have hunted in past years say the hunting in Colorado is not as good as 10 years ago. Haven hunted Colorado many of times since the 90's, I also believe the hunting in Colorado is not as good as 10 years ago. I have not seen as many elk as I did 10 years ago and I'm sure I'm a much better elk hunter now, than then. Will I hunt a otc unit again.. Not sure?? Ed
I came close to letting the air out of their tires, but wound up just going the other direction.
People are disappointing at times.
Good for you for just walking the other way.
That said, all ATVs in CO have to have a sticker/license. Why not take a picture of the ATV and license, then get enough of the background to prove where it was and turn those pics over to the DOW. Not sure if that is enough to prosecute them, but they could at least look them up and give them a call.
Cow licenses went way up that year due to the booming elk population, which is reflected in the quota line.
Yes, but there is no quota on the OTC licenses, which are included in total sales on that graph. My point was that OTC sales seem to be somewhat stable, as the limited quota line and total sales line trend the same way. Above it was mentioned that a CPW employee noted the large loss of hunters. That would appear to be due to lower limited license quotas, versus the cited "cost of the license and hunter satisfaction."
If I could go to another state and buy an elk license over the counter for $600, i would go there and hunt. maybe not every year.
Colorado has a problem with hunting pressure. most areas i used to hunt, i dont bother anymore. elk numbers are down, bull numbers are down, bull quality is down, hunt quality is down. but, hunter numbers are up.
it is management for "maximum opportunity", i call it maximum revenue.
I think they (Dow) knows what's going on. Now we will have to see if they can make change.
I used to go to Colorado just about every year. With the cost of the License and my lower satisfaction. I don't anymore. This year I had a good hunt in Colorado. But that was a drew unit that I used 17 points on. I will get a point next year for only 3 dollars. But will I spend 40 for a point I'll have to wait and see. I would spend $800 on a Colorado license if I thought I would get a good hunt. But don't at this time think I would spend 600 for a poor hunt. That's what I told the biologist doing field work.
Ed
So, I must be missing something. Price increase is due to what then??
The costs for everything in Colorado is skyrocketing and its going to get worse!
NR price increase? NR prices are tied to the CPI and are adjusted annually. Usually the CPI goes up, but not always. So NR prices usually go up annually, but not always.
The flip side is that R prices have not increased since 2006. The purchasing power of each dollar collected today has dropped to $0.83 since that fee increase due to the CPI increase.
cnelk's Link
See link
