You may copy and paste this email if you like.
I received emails back that agrred with me in principle and stated that more residents need to express their concerns on this issue I urge you in the highest possible terms to write to the and express your concerns on resident vs non resident license allocations:
To All,
After listening to commission meeting discussions on hard cap vs soft cap, one of the scenarios that was mentioned that in the current system, if in a 65/35 unit, the 35% of n/r is not achieved, the remainder may go to the resident allocation. I must point out that the same may happen in vice-versa (not reaching 65% quota-remainder may go to non-residents).
Also if these were to be made hard caps, and the 35% non-resident quota must be filled, it would mean that non-residents with lower preference numbers would be given preference over residents with higher preference point numbers. This would be a totally unacceptable result.
Our wildlife populations and wildlife management should not be held hostage to folks whose only interest is to make money. The greed associated with potential income to outfitters, landowners etc., is in no way mentioned in the North American Wildlife Management Model.
This issue would not even be considered if it wasn’t rooted in the love of money. Outfitters and landowners have made a choice to enter into this type of business to commercialize wildlife. Now with lobbying by these groups have reached a status on the wildlife commission with an agenda that is to only maximize income and cash flow. This agenda must be put into the correct perspective that it will not improve wildlife conservation one bit.
During the discussion, not one word was spoken about advantage or disadvantage to wildlife, conservation, or heritage, but the discussion was fully about budget, finances, and business. This is not the values that sportsmen and wildlife conservation professionals support. Our legacy should not be that we put budget, finance, and business over the health of our big game herds and the hunting heritage.
I stand as a resident sportsman in opposition to change allocations to hard caps or changing allocations unless it improves ALL allocations to 80/20 (resident 80,non-resident 20)
Thank You,
I for one don't understand how Bray & Horne can vote to change the system since it a huge conflict of interest since they stand to gain financially from it.
Colorado's Wildlife Commission system sucks.
I won't post them without their permission as not to breech trust from a public servant.
I implore you, write an email to them!
Bob Broscheid - DNR
Hi Steven, thanks for your comments. .......... it would be wise for those people who share them to attend future Commission Meetings and express them.
I can assure you that the Commission is taking this issue very seriously and will not reach a decision without very careful and exhaustive consideration and deliberation. This does not mean that folks should not get engaged or hope others handle it.............
Bob Bob Broscheid
Pribyl - DNR, James
Mr XXXXX, ..............................I would encourage the resident sportsmen-women community to make their voice heard to the commission.
Please email me anytime you wish. Jim Pribyl, Chair
Sent from my iPhone
Dan Prenzlow - DNR
Steve, thanks for the note and the thoughts............................... Encourage your continued participation! Dan
Sent from my iPhone
Unfortunately the other side is well financed and organized. They will not stop banging this drum and are in it for all the wrong reasons and selling out local hunters in the process.
Does anyone know if there is a colorado resident hunters group or any group that is representing resident hunters on this? The outfitters have a direct line to and the ear of the commission - unfortunately that is something "joe" hunter does not have..
Anyone know the res/nonres ratio for OTC tags purchased?
Residents do get access to 100% of the antlerless tags on RFW, but those aren't the higher demand tags that are the real issue.
Here is the regulation for the 35% NR cap and for he 20% NR cap that they aren't implementing on some hunt codes that have reached the 6 point resident threshold:
Article 1 Sect 206 Unless there is an insufficient number of resident applications, nonresident hunters shall receive no more than 35% of available deer and elk licenses for hunt codes requiring fewer than six preference points for resident hunters to draw in the regular drawing, and no more than 20% of available deer and elk licenses for hunt codes requiring six or more preference points for resident hunters to draw in the regular drawing as calculated using a three-year average for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 limited license draws. These drawing limitations do not apply to the issuance of Private Land Only and Ranching for Wildlife licenses.
Arizona - 10% maximum NR tags and 10% maximum for total sheep tags Idaho - 10% maximum NR tags New Mexico - 10% maximum NR tags with an outfitter, 6% without an outfitter Montana - 10% maximum NR tags for draw tags Wyoming - 15% maximum NR elk tags, 20% maximum NR deer, antelope, sheep, moose and goat tags California - 1 NR elk tag, 1 NR Antelope tag, 10% maximum NR sheep tags Oregon - 5% maximum NR deer and elk tags, 3% NR antelope tags, 10% NR sheep and goat tags. Utah - 10% maximum NR tags Nevada - 10% maximum NR tags
I think with the exception of one or two, these are maximum with no minimum or "set aside" non resident tags.
Colorado cuts 20% or 25% of the tags off the total allocation in cut one that go to landowners for their own use or to sell. Figure a 50/50 split on those tags.
Then the 65/35 or 80/20 split kicks in on the remainder.
Basically, for most of the draws, residents are stuck with 45% to 60% of the available tags.
One note on the RFW tags. I have worked at 3 different ranches in this program, all of which are in OTC elk units. In these cases the antlered hunts could have been sold anyway [ with a few exceptions ] so there is no real creation of extra tags, except for the public draw tags. These consist of a number equal to the guided hunts, about 85% cow, 15% antlered. This actually represents a pretty significant number of opportunities for residents only to hunt on property they would never get on otherwise. There are other aspects of the program that can be debated, but this opportunity is real and utilized by many Colorado residents. I can't comment on the RFW ranches in restricted units, as I don't know exactly how the number of tags are allocated, but the majority of ranches in the program are in OTC elk units and provide a lot of hunts to Colorado residents. Thanks again for the information and good luck to us all. I'm going to write my email to the commission right now.
Thanks for input. Could really use your help in person at meetings. The outfitters as you know are there in person in force..............
All the best,
John Howard Commissioner Parks & Wildlife
Thank you for taking the time to write and for the forward....................
Patt Dorsey Southwest Region Manager, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Below is the text of my emails:
I just listened to the May 4th and 5th meeting and have significant concerns with respect to your discussions regarding Resident (R) and Non-Resident (NR) hunting license allocations. It sounded like the commission was considering changing the process to a “hard cap” for the NR tag allocations (65/35 or 80/20 splits) versus the current “soft cap”. This change would, in effect, set aside the NR big game tag allocation to the 35% or 20% amount under the current splits.
Currently, the first cut to the total big game tag allocation for a DAU is through the landowner voucher program. This results in a reduction of available tags to resident hunters in the application system by 20% west of I-25 and 25% east of I-25. These tags are typically sold by the landowners. I am unsure of the split on the sale of these tags but would assume an approximate 60 NR/40 R split. The NR tag numbers are possibly higher as these tags are pushed on many websites and thru outfitters to non-resident hunters to purchase and come to Colorado for a guided hunt.
The 65/35 or 80/20 split then addresses the remaining 80% of the tags. Resident applicants are not allocated 65% or 80% of the total tags, we have already been reduced below that by the removal of the Landowner Vouchers. These Vouchers can then be sold 100% to Non-Residents.
The current R/NR split looks first at maximum points and fills out the resident and non-resident tags starting with the max points in both until the non-resident quota is achieved. Once the NR quota is achieved for a hunt code, it works down through the R applicants by points. This process potentially reduces the number of points it takes for a Resident to draw a particular hunt code versus a Non-Resident.
If this was changed to a “hard cap” or set-aside quantity of tags specifically for NR’s, it would potentially be possible for NR’s to draw hunt codes with fewer points than residents.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
Colorado currently is by far the most generous to Non-Residents of any western state in the availability of hunting permits:
State Non-Resident Allocation Non-Resident “set-aside” or minimum Arizona 10% all species No California 1 NR elk, 1NR antelope 10% sheep tags No Colorado 35% less than 6 PP’s 20% more than 6 PP’s No restrictions on OTC, private land only, or leftover tags No Colorado LO vouchers and RFW vouchers Up to 100% No Idaho 10% all species No Montana 10% all species No Nevada 10% all species No New Mexico 10% all species w/Outfitter 6% all species w/o Outfitter Yes, if not drawn go back to R pool Oregon 5% deer and elk 3% antelope 10% sheep and goat No Utah 10% all species Yes, if not drawn by NR, go back to R pool Washington No N/A Wyoming 15% NR elk 20% NR deer, antelope, sheep, moose, goat No
Why would the concept of setting aside NR tags even be a concept for consideration?
The concept of “hard cap” or “set-aside” tags for NR hunters as well as the LO vouchers are obviously being lobbied by landowners and outfitters who have the most to gain. Management of wildlife in this State should not be held hostage to greed associated with groups that stand to gain financially (landowners and outfitters), nor is it ethical for members of those groups to hold positions that allow them to vote themselves additional benefit from resources that belong to all of the people of this state. Listening to the discussion, everything was focused on budget, finance and business with nothing about wildlife conservation or resident sportsmen or hunting heritage. This agenda must be put into perspective.
I realize there is sensitivity with CPW and the Wildlife Commission with respect to the recent failure of HB 17-1321. It is difficult for many resident sportsmen to understand why CPW is in financial difficulty when Colorado currently makes more than any other state on annual hunting license sales. It is doubly hard to swallow with the extreme overcrowding and reduction in quality of the hunt that many of us have seen over time.
Lessening restrictions on Non-Resident hunting license allocations will not help you to get the voting resident sportsmen and sportswomen to support increases to resident hunting license fees.
I would be extremely supportive of significantly lowering NR tag allocations and removal of OTC tag availability to NR’s to be more in line with other western states.
As a resident sportsman, I am in opposition to any increases to NR allocations.
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Most states treat their residents pretty well on the draw systems with the majority of them limiting NR's to 10% maximum (no minimum).
Colorado allows and sells more NR tags than any of other the western states.
Colorado takes in the most revenue in hunter license fees of any state or territory. Far more than the other Western States.
Why is Colorado Parks and Wildlife having financial difficulties?
They spend less on wildlife management for many species than many of the other western states. Pretty lucky to have the animal species and habitat that we do have here.
The majority of the units in Colorado have unlimited OTC bull elk tags available for residents and non-residents.
There are significant hunter crowding issues on public lands in most seasons.
Colorado does not allow hunting and fishing on ~3M acres of State Trust Lands. The other Western States allow access to their STL's for hunting and fishing and require non-consumptive users to purchase a pass to access those properties.
Age structure, animal quality, and overall hunt quality experience is poor when compared to other western states for most species.
CPW needs to address these issues in a way that is beneficial to resident sportspersons before the resident sportspeople support hunting license fee increases.
Issuance of more tags to NR hunters is definitely not the answer.
The current split actually allows nonresident access to a little under or over 50% of the total pool for most limited opportunities and popular species.
We already give up much more opportunity than residents of similar states. Sacrificing so much opportunity in limited units and dealing with the high nonresident use in OTC units are already two ways residents are responsible for Colorado's high license revenue numbers.
Although resident hunters understand that costs increase, gaining support for that will only be harder if more opportunities are taken away.
Economic benefit from wildlife is ok and certainly an important part of our economy. We need to be careful that is doesn't become the most important part. The model that has allowed Colorado, and the US and Canada in general, to be successful has room for economic benefit but the resource and public access to that resource are the foundation.
I have no issue with nonresidents, I hunt other states myself. They pay their way and are important. When I look at what groups benefit from our wildlife and compare it to what those groups contribute to the costs of management, nonresidents are carrying their weight. Other groups benefit without helping foot the bill.
John Howard - DNR
I'm sure they do amongst the thousands that we get every meeting. If public hunters don't show up in person, perhaps by banding groups together under one spokesman representing groups, it will be the outfitters voices who are loudest.
All the best,
John Howard Commissioner Parks & Wildlife
CO Oak's Link
