Non-res. Bowhunters in CO
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Ursman 22-Jan-23
BOHUNTER09 22-Jan-23
[email protected] 22-Jan-23
Orion 22-Jan-23
midwest 22-Jan-23
pav 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
SoDakSooner 23-Jan-23
Adam B 23-Jan-23
Buglmin 23-Jan-23
cnelk 23-Jan-23
Sivart 23-Jan-23
PECO2 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
Sivart 23-Jan-23
[email protected] 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
stealthycat 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
longspeak74 23-Jan-23
MichaelArnette 23-Jan-23
pav 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
cnelk 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
Jaquomo 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
cnelk 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
SBC 23-Jan-23
PushCoArcher 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
SBC 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
SBC 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
PushCoArcher 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
Cazador 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
Orion 23-Jan-23
Cazador 23-Jan-23
GDx 23-Jan-23
PECO2 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
cnelk 23-Jan-23
Sean D. 23-Jan-23
[email protected] 23-Jan-23
Medicinemann 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
cnelk 23-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 23-Jan-23
AZ8 23-Jan-23
LUNG$HOT 24-Jan-23
[email protected] 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 24-Jan-23
Lost Arra 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
SBC 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
PECO2 24-Jan-23
SBC 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
[email protected] 24-Jan-23
Bowbender 24-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
OTC_Bowhunter 24-Jan-23
Hackbow 24-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 24-Jan-23
Horn Hustler 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
Horn Hustler 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
SBC 24-Jan-23
[email protected] 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
Horn Hustler 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
SBC 24-Jan-23
PECO2 24-Jan-23
cnelk 24-Jan-23
Horn Hustler 24-Jan-23
Grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Orion 24-Jan-23
LUNG$HOT 24-Jan-23
wyobullshooter 24-Jan-23
LUNG$HOT 24-Jan-23
Rocky D 24-Jan-23
PECO2 24-Jan-23
Groundhunter 24-Jan-23
PECO2 24-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 24-Jan-23
Firsty 24-Jan-23
grasshopper 24-Jan-23
SBC 24-Jan-23
grasshopper 24-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 24-Jan-23
Franzen 25-Jan-23
Rocky D 25-Jan-23
Firsty 25-Jan-23
Horn Hustler 25-Jan-23
TreeWalker 25-Jan-23
From: Ursman
22-Jan-23
The Colorado Wildlife Commission is considering eliminating OTC bowhunting licenses for non-res and residents also. Contact the Colorado Bowhunters page for further info. No mention of restricting gun licenses. Get ready to write some letters!

From: BOHUNTER09
22-Jan-23
That liberal driven commission is also considering ending seasons for lynx, bobcat, and mountain lion.

22-Jan-23
Carl, not that I know from the CPW Commission. THat issue did not get out of Colorado's Legislative committee. Not that it will not come up in the future as a Ballot Initiative.

From: Orion
22-Jan-23
Why do nonresidents think they should have unlimited opportunities at a limited resource?

From: midwest
22-Jan-23
For NR, a step in the right direction but should most definitely apply to rifle seasons as well.

From: pav
23-Jan-23
Orion - "Why do nonresidents think they should have unlimited opportunities at a limited resource?"

You should add "some" as the third word of your sentence rather than lumping all nonresidents together. I'm surprised OTC tags for nonresidents have lasted this long...and have zero issues removing OTC totally or putting a cap on them like every other western state. I am surprised to hear they are contemplating removing OTC archery tags for Colorado residents.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
IMO, unlimited OTC is an antiquated big game wildlife management practice that should have been eliminated years ago, regardless of weapon. Back in the day when Colorado had a fraction of its current population and hunting pressure, OTC may have been sustainable. Those days are long gone.

Matt

23-Jan-23
Perhaps keep cow archery tag prices reasonable and easier to draw than a Bull tag also. To get the herds more balanced. And improving the rut.

From: SoDakSooner
23-Jan-23
As a non resident, I am ok with this. Should make it apply to rifle too.

From: Adam B
23-Jan-23
I agree needs to be for rifle too.

From: Buglmin
23-Jan-23
So, you gotta understand that CPW uses the rifle tags as their management control tool. CPW has a set number of elk they need harvested every year, and gun hunters kill the elk CPW needs harvested. Sometimes the numbers exceed their expected harvest, sometimes the numbers are below their expectations. By limiting the gun hunters, they'd need high draw tags to meet their numbers. Bowhunters don't usually meet the numbers CPW needs. So, seeing a limited draw for the gun seasons ain't gonna happen too soon. Talk to the CPW officers and the district managers and you'd understand the unlimited rifle tag issue.

From: cnelk
23-Jan-23
The CPW should tap that Qualifying License 'bankroll' for the unlimited rifle seasons

From: Sivart
23-Jan-23
I have a hard time taking any commision serious that even allowed wolf reintroduciton on the ballot in the first place. Once I cash in my points I'm done w/ CO completely.

From: PECO2
23-Jan-23
So if bow hunters don't meet the numbers, why would you limit them? Oh yeah, because we push all the elk to private land and the rifle hunters then don't meet their numbers.

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
Sivart you must not know how things work in Colorado the commission has zero power to remove or allow wildlife issues on the ballot.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
Orion is correct. In fact, IIRC, didn't the commission publicly state their opposition to the wolf dumping initiative?

Matt

From: Sivart
23-Jan-23
So, what does the commission do then? In Neb, they ultimately decide our wildlife regs and any changes made.

23-Jan-23
The ballot issue was done to force the CWC/CPW to introduce wolves. Once voted on by citizens, it trumps their authority.

Also how we lost trapping and spring bear.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
I'm pretty sure Nebraska is also a ballot initiative state, and their wildlife management can be subject to the whims of their voting majority, just like Colorado. Someone correct me, If I'm wrong.

Matt

From: stealthycat
23-Jan-23
run all the non-residents out

see who will fund the Colorado DNR coffers then

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
The same ones that fund Montana, Nevada, Arizona, etc. that all have lower nonresident percentages then Colorado

From: longspeak74
23-Jan-23
As one of those NR hunters, I would have zero problem with both archery and rifle going to draw. The archery unit I hunt went to draw a few years ago.

23-Jan-23
My experience hunting Colorado archery for elk is that limited entry for nonresidents is very much needed...not just for crowding concerns but for the health of the elk herd. I have no purchased a elk tag the last couple years because I don feel it's good biology.

What I don't understand is how they will keep seeking OTC rule tags. It's absolutely ridiculous and the bow organizations should be pushing for equal limited entry for all rifle tags.

From: pav
23-Jan-23
I've never been a big game rifle hunter. Does Colorado actually sell OTC rifle tags to nonresidents? For some reason, I assumed the NR rifle tags were all draw?

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
"Does Colorado actually sell OTC rifle tags to nonresidents?"

Yes.

From: cnelk
23-Jan-23
If OTC is here to stay, at least make it so you have to purchase your OTC license by the application deadline - nonrefundable.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
I did a little math on a 80/20 resident/NR allocation for elk tags. I based it on 150K total resident elk hunters (all seasons, all weapons), which is pretty close to what we had in 2021. To achieve 80/20, we'd have to cut NR tags from 75K (total for 2021) to 30K. If resident tags were raised to $200, and nonresident tags to $1000, it would be roughly a revenue neutral solution.

How many of you Colorado residents would pay $200 for an elk tag, if it meant 45K less NR elk hunters in the woods every fall? I would.

Matt

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
I would for sure even 200 is a bargain to hunt elk.

From: Jaquomo
23-Jan-23
Me too. $4 a week in the cookie jar for those who claim they will be "priced out". I just paid over $1200 to apply for the WY random general draw, and will be happy to pay that for a better quality hunt than the mess we have here in CO in September.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
Correction, to achieve 80/20 based on 150K total resident elk hunters, we'd have to reduce NR tags to 37.5K, not 30K. At $200/$1000 resident/NR prices, the CPW would actually increase total tag revenues. I'd still be fine with it.

Matt

From: cnelk
23-Jan-23
I would. I buy 2 elk licenses every year the way it is. What’s another hundo?

23-Jan-23
$1000 is in line with other states licensing cost. But not inline with their potential quality of trophy . So it will be a tough sell for a few years until NRs see the new colorado draw units quality go up to justify being charged what NM and Wy charge for a higher quality General hunt.

It’s a tough tightrope to walk. But it needs to be done sooner rather than later.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
Gotta rip the bandaid off, eventually. The only way to improve quality is to decrease the number of hunters, like WY and NV. I don't know a single Colorado elk hunter who wouldn't gladly pay a lot more for a tag if it meant less crowding and a better hunt. Cutting the number of NR hunters in half would go a long ways towards achieving that.

Matt

From: SBC
23-Jan-23
$200 for a resident hunting tag? That's absurd and completely rediculous.

Especially since the Gallagher amendment was repealed and property taxes will rise 40 to 60% for 2024

From: PushCoArcher
23-Jan-23
Well said Matt and I like the tag price increase idea as well. As a NR I would gladly pay a few hundred more for less crowding and higher quality. I do agree with Altitude Sickness it might be a tough sell for a few years but that may be for the best.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
"$200 for a resident hunting tag? That's absurd and completely rediculous."

Yeah, I'm not surprised a Biden Hiker and Angler member would oppose a proposal that so far every hard core resident elk hunter, here, has claimed they'd support. The fact that property taxes are raising should be even more reason to favor resident hunters with better quality hunting, even if they have to pay a little more for it. We're not talking about dipping into your kids college funds here. If you can't afford a $200 elk tag, maybe you should adjust your priorities.

Matt

From: SBC
23-Jan-23

SBC's embedded Photo
SBC's embedded Photo
This is statewide not just DougCo.

Look for it in your next prop tax bill

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
I'm sure SBC spends close to that at Starbucks every month

From: SBC
23-Jan-23
"If you can't afford a $200 elk tag, maybe you should adjust your priorities."

That's a liberal elitest attitude, Matt Pelosi

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
SBC, you're sure quick with the degrading insults for a guy who hasn't offered up a single solution to improve the quality of hunting for Colorado residents.

From: PushCoArcher
23-Jan-23
"If you can't afford a $200 elk tag, maybe you should adjust your priorities."

It's the truth!

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
I guarantee those 150,000 tags Matt calculated would sell out no problem every year at $200 Resident/$1000 non resident

From: Cazador
23-Jan-23
Who cares what we spend our income on. Any way you put it, $200 for a resident elk tag is total BS. I hope nobody gets behind that proposal if it were ever presented to the public.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
"Any way you put it, $200 for a resident elk tag is total BS."

Why? State your case. And propose a better solution to improve the quality of elk hunting for Colorado residents.

Matt

From: Orion
23-Jan-23
It's funny watching guys with 60,000+ trucks, then atvs or side by sides, with another few thousand in optics and a bow and camo whine about a $200 tag. Priorities.

From: Cazador
23-Jan-23
Orion, what does government waste have to do with priorities? You could give the DOW $1000 a tag and they’d still piss it away. Sorry, I’m a hard no on any increase with a track record like the DOW has and it has little to do with affordability.

From: GDx
23-Jan-23
at $1000 or more per year for a NR tag, a guy might risk going every year and not buying a tag. not being checked in 20 years, that's at least a $20,000 savings.

From: PECO2
23-Jan-23
"How many of you Colorado residents would pay $200 for an elk tag" Be careful what you ask for. You may not be priced out at $200, but you will be priced out with your willingness to pay up.

"If you can't afford a $200 elk tag, maybe you should adjust your priorities." Get ready to adjust your priorities when they don't stop at $200. with your willingness to pay up.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
If we all agree that any changes to improve the quality of hunting for Colorado's residents has to include a reduction in NR tags, and will have to be revenue neutral to get approved and implemented (which it will be), then a resident tag price increase is necessary. Otherwise, we can watch our hunting continue to decline, while bitching about government waste. I can't relate to the mindset that would oppose reducing NR elk hunters by 50% for less than $3 a week.

Matt

From: cnelk
23-Jan-23
The thing is, the CPW is funded by many other revenue streams other than from just hunting licenses.

From: Sean D.
23-Jan-23
I'm a nonresident who has hunted CO for the last 20 years and I'm all for making it a draw. Way too many people out there now!

23-Jan-23
Higher taxes rarely fix a failed government operation.

From: Medicinemann
23-Jan-23
I live in the extreme western edge of NY state, about 5 minutes from the Pa border. A sportsman license is about $100 for a NYS resident....and all that we get to hunt is small game, wild turkey, whitetail deer, and black bear. I would submit that any reasonably passionate Colorado bowhunter would gladly pay $200 for the chance to hunt turkey, Whitetail deer, Mule deer, Black bear, Elk, Bighorn Sheep, Desert Bighorn sheep, Shiras Moose, Mountain Lion, Pronghorn Antelope, and Mountain Goat. Granted, you'd have to draw a tag in any given year.....but for ten different species, you could probably average one species tag a year....even if some of the species are OIL.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
Thank you, Jake.

Matt

From: cnelk
23-Jan-23
I pay $400 to hunt deer in Wyoming.

Buck up Buttercups.

From: Grey Ghost
23-Jan-23
Interesting how many longtime CO residents have abandoned their home state to hunt as NRs in Wyoming. Maybe SBC can explain that.

Matt

From: AZ8
23-Jan-23
$148 for a resident elk tag here in Arizona.

From: LUNG$HOT
24-Jan-23
I’d have no problem paying $175/$200 as a resident to increase quality of elk hunts in our state. The overcrowding is absurd. But I will say, if they take OTC away from Bowhunters they better do the same for rifle hunts. The CBA needs to step up to the plate on that one.

24-Jan-23
I'm prepared to pay more if the increase in the quality of the experience justifies it.

I have zero faith in the current CWC's ability or desire to accomplish that.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me dozens of times over the last few decades, shame on me.

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
This post amazes me because management created the problem by whoring out its resources to NRs and hunters identified a problem and now CPW is looking at offsetting the cost with the very hunters that identified the problem!

If hunters are the primary funders of the resource why do they not have a bigger voice at the table.

I worked around the government for 45 years and terms like “budget neutrality” are used to sound official but it’s a self imposed conundrum that is used as a forcing function to achieve the same result in a different way normally at the expense of the user.

Colorado got caught being greedy by the very people that they were supposed to be supporting and now they want hunters offset the difference.

I am a NR and have never hunted Colorado because I considered its OTC archery elk hunt a fiasco that I didn’t participate in so I chose to hunt five other western states.

Obviously, Colorado has been offering some quality hunts in so called resident draw unit and moose, bear, mountain goats, and sheep but at the cost of the mule deer and elk herds because they are the cash cows!

CPW has been using a strategy of maximizing utilization of its resources for maximum gain that no western state can maintain and they got caught but they want to keep there big budget so they throw out “budget neutrality” to accomplish their objective.

Just one NRs thoughts!

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
This is how the state of Colorado has been making bank on all those nonresidents in addition to resident hunters.

“ Hunters have always been the primary supporters of wildlife conservation in Mississippi, but someone who purchases a license to hunt in Mississippi is valuable as a financial supporter of wildlife conservation for two additional reasons. First, the revenue from license sales goes exclusively to administering MDWFP's wildlife and fisheries programs. Second, the number of individual hunting license holders increases our state's share of the total P-R apportionment. Mississippi's apportionment is directly related to the number of hunters we have. Thus, if the number of license holders in Mississippi declines, other states may receive our share of funding.”

From: Grey Ghost
24-Jan-23

Grey Ghost's Link
Rocky, just to be clear, the CPW is not proposing a tag price increase. That's just my idea for a realistic solution to correct the crowding problem. When these discussions come up, we often hear comments like StealthyCat's above..."run all the non-residents out see who will fund the Colorado DNR coffers then". I was just pointing out that we *could* reduce the NR hunters by 50% and still be revenue neutral with a relatively minor tag price increase.

BTW, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife uses license sales, state park fees, registration fees and federal grants to fund their operations. They are fairly transparent about where the money comes from and how it's spent. See link. I'm not involved in paying their bills, so I can't comment on how budget conscious they are. Overall, I'd say they do a decent job for the huge amount of resources they manage compared to other states.

Matt

From: Lost Arra
24-Jan-23
I wonder if elk tag quotas will be adjusted where and when CPW releases those 4 legged non-resident elk hunters who have a 12 month season and no bag limit.

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
Matt, I understand but they have established the parameters with their “budget neutral” policy that is pushing your thought process in that direction!

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
Matt, I understand but they have established the parameters with their “budget neutral” policy that is pushing your thought process in that direction!

From: SBC
24-Jan-23
It's already been stated that any tag redistribution has to be revenue neutral.

If the reintduction of wolves causes a decimation of elk herds and elk tags are substantially reduced (as everyone is predicting), then $200 res/$1000 nr wont be enough to make up for it.

Matt (and everyone else's who supports a price increase to solve this), your positions are conflicting.

I'm starting to think making archery season (not rifle) fully draw might be a good solution. Look at this thread: Archers seem to be the biggest group complaining about NR's. Sept is loaded with other users in the mountains addind to crowding, archery is recreational not considered a management tool. Archers need to stop being so whinny

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
Matt, I understand but they have established the parameters with their “budget neutral” policy that is pushing your thought process in that direction!

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
The first step needs to be eliminating the OTC hunts. After that they can reassess especially if they can manage the units better then this unchecked free for all we have going on now

From: PECO2
24-Jan-23
SBC, I agree. So like I said, it won't stop at $200 and $1,000.

From: SBC
24-Jan-23
The first step is to make sure proper wolf management is approved or all these other arguments will be irrelevent. If proper wolf mgmt is not approved than there will definitely be alot less hunter crowding witg half or less tags available.

Get your priorities straight

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
OTC is not sustainable even without wolves.

24-Jan-23
Resident OTC Archery is sustainable. The 2500 or so elk resident bowhunters take isn't even enough to be more than the margin of error when they estimate the elk populations.

From: Bowbender
24-Jan-23
"The first step is to make sure proper wolf management is approved or all these other arguments will be irrelevent."

You mean proper wolf managment like was decided in the 1996(?) GYA wolf reintro? INk wasn't even dry when the wolfies started lawsuits. I typically don't have a fatalist attitude, but this is a done, stick a fork in it, deal. Wolf's will be reintro'd with zero control.

From: Grey Ghost
24-Jan-23

Grey Ghost's Link
I just read the BHA's official Colorado Wolf Statement. They give lip service about not endorsing ballot box wildlife management, but not once do they state any opposition to the forced wolf dumping. In fact, their recommended actions have a distinct pro-wolf tone to them. And this is the organization that SBC claims has hunter's best interest in mind? What a joke.

Then SBC comes on a bowhunting forum and claims we're all a bunch of angry, whiney, old white guys, while advocating limiting bow hunters but not rifle hunters. It's clear he's just a shill for an environmental group that masquerades as advocates for hunters and anglers.

Matt

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
I'm sure we will see SBC and BHA in Gunnison on Wednesday

24-Jan-23
The first step should be mandatory reporting after your hunt. Regardless of success or not. Right now they have no idea how many people hunt OTC and in what units. Then and only then, they could make a decision based on facts and not statistics.

From: Hackbow
24-Jan-23
This is an understandably impactful issue to both residents and NR's. Unlike *most* other types hunting, elk hunting (especially for bow hunters) already requires a much larger commitment of time and resources. Elk are the most common, truly wild game most of us flatlanders will ever pursue given where we live. They get us in the mountains and provide us with the chance to do something totally different than what most of our states have to offer.

Over the years I've been coming to CO, I've hunted LE all but twice. The OTC experience of today is not worth my investment of time or money. I would much rather see my hunting frequency opportunities be reduced if the overall experience were to improve significantly. I'll gladly pony up more for that scenario. If I knew my opportunities to bow hunt elk would be every 3-4 years instead of getting to go every year, I would happily put more time and effort into those better experiences.

I also think that residents would be well-served to pay significantly more than they are used to for an improved situation. Most folks that live in the West have enjoyed an incredibly inexpensive hunting experience when species availability is figured into the equation. Times have changed. Every state I hunt has increased prices to keep up with inflation. Of course the increases aren't always linear, but each state has it's regulatory protocols and changing policy isn't usually quick or simple.

I've made several friends (some right here on this thread) by being a NR elk hunter in CO and asking for guidance. I really appreciate what this site has facilitated and those of you willing to trust some of us marauding intruders.

From: Grey Ghost
24-Jan-23
Here are a few stats that the CBA posted about a year ago.

1. In 2021 there were more NR OTC archery hunters (54%) than resident OTC archery hunters (46%).

2. Since 2014 resident OTC hunter numbers are down 13%, while NR OTC hunter numbers are up 24%

3. Colorado sells 2.4 times more elk tags than any other western state.

4. Colorado sells 4 times more elk tags than Wyoming and Utah

5. In 2021, there was 1 elk hunter for every 305 acres of hunt-able public land in Colorado. Compare that to Wyoming's 1113 acres per elk hunter and New Mexico's 2099 acres per elk hunter.

That last statistic really hit home for me. While I agree that wolf management is a critical topic, I still believe that over-crowding and NR tag allocations are the most important issues that the commission and CPW need to address.

Matt

From: Horn Hustler
24-Jan-23
give NR'sand R's same price on tags on Federal lands CO. Draws and OTC rifle and Bow. Bump price up say $500 and $500. Can adjust numbers of tags based on harvest and herd data. Give Resident landowners reduced priced tags with option for increased tags if they sell 40% to NR disabled Vets. Bh

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
Yeah that sounds feasible SMH

From: Horn Hustler
24-Jan-23
If it's about the cash let er buck.

Bh

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
The first step to me is the overarching management strategy of either qualitative versus quantitative or somewhere in between!

Basing recommendations on a micro issue without alignment with the macro is nothing more than a band-aide on a sucking chest wound!

If acted upon in this manner it will prove futile at some point in time.

Governments develop strategies and that’s how they direct their resources. Colorado has stated whatever they do needs to be “budget neutral” and that identifies what is going to control their actions.

“ give NR'sand R's same price on tags on Federal lands CO. Draws and OTC rifle and Bow. ”

Why would Colorado residents choose to be treated equally with nonresidents?

From: SBC
24-Jan-23
I said I was not advocating for 'that group'. I said their methods are much more effective a strategy for relevency to cpw, although after speaking to some CBA board members, they are definitely transforming cba into a group that is/can be relevent. I never mentioned or advocated for the group in this thread you speak of by name.

Let's be factual.

One thing that should be stated is cba's older methods worked well in the past, give them credit for that. It's just that in the current age, a different approach is needed. cba is adjusting to that per the folks who contacted me. Kudo's to them.

24-Jan-23
I biggest impact of a government agency raising taxes or fees with the stated intent of improving the service they are tasked with, is....

higher taxes or fees.

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
I find it pretty comical when folks go spouting off about improving "hunt quality" What the hell is that? Mature bulls? Low hunter density? A chance to go? For everyone, its different.

Then there are those who jump to "well, if we just limit the unit, quality will improve". Hunter density(hunter numbers), and bull abundance are defined in herd management plans, not unit limitations. If they take an OTC unit limited, they then look at the herd management plan to set the quota of limited licenses - AND GUESS WHAT - when it goes limited the quota is going to be huge, and VERY LITTLE CHANGED, except now you must spend points!

The folks jumping on the "we need to limit all units", just don't get it.

We have 309,000 elk, 20 of our 42 herds are over objective. The steamboat units are projected to jump from 18,000 elk this year to 24,000 next year. When we lost bowhunting in Eagle and Pitkin counties in 2017, we were told they had 4600 elk, and it will never recover. Now they have 8600 elk.

I find the "limit it all" so my hunt gets better attitude - absolutely selfish. We have a balance today of limited hunts, and opportunity hunts. Been that way forever, hope it stays that way, for residents.

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
So limiting Eagle and Pitkin counties improved the herd numbers? Hmmmm

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
No, they absolutely quit selling cow tags - ZERO, NADA, NONE. They were over selling either sex rifle tags and cow tags good in archery season in unit 45 forever, but of course the decline was due to bowhunters, and trail users. The decline was because they shot the crap out of the herd.

At the last commission meeting, they reinstated cow tags in E16 so get ready to slaughter them again....I brought that up in my testimony.

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
Also, one other comment - why should any resident pay more when CPW banked in savings 52 million last year.

We get a CPI increase every year. They are in the black beyond their wildest dreams, why should any resident pay more?

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
Yeah so they limited hunters and the herd improved. I agree we shouldn't have to pay more and yes CPW is in the black but they have to fund that always in the red Parks. I don't think parks was ever in the black in their existence until magically begin being profitable after they merged.

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
Parks just got a windfall with with the $29 tied to your vehicle registration fee. They are going to have more money then they know what to do with, at the expense of folks who don't know they must opt out. Its a scam, they will prey on the elderly who have no clue what opt out means or how to do it.

Rifle hunters were never limited in Vail/Eagle counties, and the limited archery quota was high, they were just bull only.

The Eagle/Vail narrative has always been "well, the trail usage, and early season archers is pushing elk causing calf summer mortality". Biggest disinformation hunting story ever, used to limit the SW for bowhunters (declining calf ratios must be trails and bowhunters), used to shut down trails....and still used today, anywhere they can.

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
Yeah i'm not sure how that parks pass fee tied to your registration ever got through. I love how their answer is well if you call and opt out we will take it off.

From: Horn Hustler
24-Jan-23
Federal land why should any citizen pay more than any other to hunt federal lands. Bh

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
Because the state manages the wildlife on said federal lands

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
What state does that actually happen in Horn Hustler?

From: SBC
24-Jan-23
One things for sure is that there are many different ideas on how to handle this issue. Some are bad, like the one increasing tag cost for residents. Let CBA develope a position and if acceptable get behind them. Otherwise were gonna end up getting something nobody likes. Especially of there's no unified voice for bowhuntsrs. CBA is that voice.

From: PECO2
24-Jan-23
"give NR'sand R's same price on tags on Federal lands CO. Draws and OTC rifle and Bow. Bump price up say $500 and $500. Can adjust numbers of tags based on harvest and herd data. Give Resident landowners reduced priced tags with option for increased tags if they sell 40% to NR disabled Vets."

Wow, where the hell are you from? Wouldn't it be better for all states to quadrouple their nonresident tag prices and then residents can hunt for free? It's as crazy as your idea.

From: cnelk
24-Jan-23
I dunno. If some limitations aren’t set, then I guess there isn’t an overcrowding issue.

Which is it?

From: Horn Hustler
24-Jan-23
Maybe let CO take on all the Fed Lands in CO. See if that makes anyone happy. I would think if they keep reducing NR tags there will be a court action for NR tags on Fed Lands. Bh

From: Grasshopper
24-Jan-23
There sure could be an overcrowding issue, the only thing I can be certain of is there is absolutely a whining and complaining issue.

Maybe it's just the new generation taking hold, no one wants to work, and everyone feels they should be the only person in the woods with a tag and all bulls should be 350 plus.

Crazy times now, and the foreseeable future.

From: Orion
24-Jan-23
Horn hustler have you ever hunted a western state?

From: LUNG$HOT
24-Jan-23
BH. You’re living in some alternate universe. Come back to earth and get real. The animals that live on said Federal land have nothing to do with NR access to the land. You need to do some research on the Supreme Court and prior rulings about each STATE’s right to manage the wildlife in their borders. It’s not a federal issue at all. Never will be.

“I would think if they keep reducing NR tags there will be a court action for NR tags on Fed Lands. Bh“

24-Jan-23
^^^^That. Horn Hustler, you can go on all the federal lands you want, as long as the feds allow you to do so. However, the animals are entrusted to the citizens of each state, NOT the federal government. Each state decides where and when you can hunt, and that’s true whether you’re a resident or nonresident. Unbelievable how some people think, and in some cases, how they don’t.

From: LUNG$HOT
24-Jan-23
“Federal land why should any citizen pay more than any other to hunt federal lands. Bh”

You’re not hunting “Federal Land”. You’re hunting a specific ANIMAL ON Federal Lands. You can visit, hike, bird watch, streak nude or whatever floats your boat for the same price as everyone else on Federal Land in any state you want but the STATE according to the SCOTUS has the right and responsibility to manage game species inside its borders as they see fit. The land and the animals are separate entities. Make sense?

From: Rocky D
24-Jan-23
“ I said their methods are much more effective a strategy for relevency to cpw”

SBC, I am just wondering how hunters are not relevant to CPW if they are the primary funders of wildlife and management tool in maintaining the herd.

From: PECO2
24-Jan-23
Colorado is the only state that has unlimited nonresident tags. Why should that be? Why don't you lawsuit Idaho for limiting nonresident tags? As long as you are lawsuiting, lawsuit Idaho for not charging residents and nonresidents the same price for a tag.

From: Groundhunter
24-Jan-23
Peco that is for elk. Lots of states are unlimited for deer

From: PECO2
24-Jan-23
Yeah, and we are talking about elk. The guy from Idaho wants to file a lawsuit because Colorado is talking about limiting elk tags, and he wants everyone, residents and nonresidents to pay the same price for a tag, because most hunt on national land.

From: Grey Ghost
24-Jan-23
Guys, Horn Hustler, is the perennial troll, Shawn Magyar, who has been banned from Bowsite dozens of times, only to return under another fake registration. He's from Tennessee, not Idaho. He's easily recognizable from his illiterate and often indecipherable posts. I'd like to say if you ignore him, he'll go away, but sadly that''s not the case. He's like the Bowsite herpes...the gift that keeps on giving with no cure.

Matt

From: Firsty
24-Jan-23
Eliminating Colorado OTC is gay

From: grasshopper
24-Jan-23
And SBC is obviously Stix. Why the name change? Did you get booted from too many never trump posts?

From: SBC
24-Jan-23
No Grasshopper, actually the leatherwall lets you change your registration. There was another user on their with the handle styx, so I changed it in deferrence to him.

From: grasshopper
24-Jan-23
Right.

From: Grey Ghost
24-Jan-23
Cast pearls before spine. I haven’t heard that one for years. LOL!

Matt

From: Franzen
25-Jan-23
CO is about the last remaining real opportunity state for the NR. It's possible I may not wind up elk hunting anymore, but I'd hate to see that go away for those that wanted that opportunity like I did. Changing it up such that an NR can only get an OTC tag every other year, or even 1 out of 3, would be a great option to keep the opportunity alive and reduce the hunting pressure. Also, another good alternative would be to make OTC reduce your point total by one (make it 2 if you want to reduce the point pool further). If you have 10 points you go down to 9, but if you have 0 it doesn't matter (stay at 0). I realize this concept is about more than elk, but that is CO's largest draw opportunity.

From: Rocky D
25-Jan-23
“ CO is about the last remaining real opportunity state for the NR.”

I think that states primary responsibility is to its residents. Non resident residents tags should not determine the quality of the animals or the quality of the hunt!

Colorado has several good examples of how states deal with this problem and could be very creative in how they address this problem.

The thought that you can have unlimited tags on limited resources boggles is nothing short of absurd.

NRs needs objective should be to achieve some type of parity with neighboring states.

If you want to hunt a state that bad then move there!

From: Firsty
25-Jan-23
Sounds to me like alot of people just suck at hunting OTC units! Plenty of elk out there ,just get off your ATV and find them

From: Horn Hustler
25-Jan-23
ATV who hunts where you can take ATVs? Bh

From: TreeWalker
25-Jan-23
Also, if you want to reduce point creep and non-resident participation (boo, NR are scum...well, except where i am a NR, but boo in my state) then you lose points if accept any tag for that species whether OTC, limited choice 1, leftover tag, returned tag, landowner tag, raffle tag, etc. You hunt, you go to 0 points for that species. Is an easy game now where can build up a point and hunt that species every year if OTC or have a fat wallet.

26-Jan-23

  • Sitka Gear