CBA outfitter allocation
Colorado
I was listening to the CBA’s testimony at the CWC meeting and it was stated the CBA is in favor of holding status quo for residents, draw for NR , but were in favor of providing a mechanism for NR to buy OTC licenses if they were hunting with a guide.
I’ve hunted places where this very same program has been implemented and it’s a horrible idea. As the draws get tougher the outfitter welfare continues to feed the machine.
Was this discussed at a board meeting? A survey sent out?
This is just another welfare program to the outfitters that provides shortcuts for some, yet the others stand in line and wait.
I’m a CBA supporter, but that plan needs to be squashed!
Good catch Cazador. Hopefully someone will explain.
It is true that it was brought up as an idea of ways to keep otc archery tags for residents . As it stands right now, the CPW commissioners and the CPW staff want to get rid of all otc archery tags (starting as early as 2024). So what do you want? Do you want to find a way to keep OTC archery tags for residents by working with everyone and finding a way for DIY and outfitters to put pressure on the CPW or do you want to stay divided and loose them? It’s pretty awesome that people will take the time to watch the meeting but you won’t take the extra few moments to sign up and speak for what you want. I guess it’s a lot easier to watch and then complain on the internet when you don’t get exactly what you want instead of working for it. Out of the 4 people that testified, 3 of them were CBA members and 1 of them was from the outfitter association. I will guarantee you at the next meeting there will be a lot more outfitters pushing for the tag allocation to stay status quo, so we need as many DIY hunters as we can to sign in and speak.
Outfitters already have a set aside, it's called landowner vouchers, and 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons which are unlimited in most of the state.
I am mostly in agreement on what the CBA does as a whole for Colorido bowhunters. Enough so, that I would never consider not being a CBA member, ever. As an FYI i have sent responses to surveys, both to the DOW, as well as the CBA surveys. I have attended meetings both in person, and online, and not once have I seen anything in regards to offering additional outfitter welfare until it was brought up in the last meeting. Why didn’t you poll the members? Simple question? We spent thousands on a flipping lighted nock issue, yet no poll on this subject? Why not keep all NR tags draw, and a percentage of the NR pool goes to outfitters if they need a hand out? As good as that sounds, I’m sticking to principle and wouldn’t even consider that a good idea. There are no shortage of customers willing to pay for outfitter services., let them stand in line like the rest of us.
I’m sorry, the WY wilderness law where a guide is needed for NRs. as well as the NM outfitter pool For NRs is modern day welfare for outfitters. There isn’t one serious bowhunter I know who thinks those regs are just. All the loopholes already set up up for outfitters is already beyond abuse. Sorry guys, this was bad policy. Why don’t we just grow a pair, and stick with what we want and let the cards fall?
Per the vice president of the Outfitter association, he recommend Status Quo at the Commission meeting. I would guess, 65/35 R/NR and status quo on PP system. He did not address banking or PP averaging.
I don't think the cba board supports an outfitter set aside, at all.
If I'm wrong let me know.
I'd rather lose otc, never cut a deal with loss of integrity as a cost.
I don't think the cba board supports an outfitter set aside, at all.
If I'm wrong let me know.
I'd rather lose otc, never cut a deal with loss of integrity as a cost.
So as a outfitter that donates hunts to help the CBA make money to operate where do I fit in on this. Should i support someone who wants to cut my business in half?
That may be a tough call Forest. I will say that I doubt the CBA wants to cut your business in half, even if what they support results in that. If they follow their mission statement, what happens to outfitters, as a result things they do or don't support, shouldn't be a big consideration. The impact on the resource and opportunity should be steering things.
In the 90's I was an outfitter, in an OTC unit, that went limited and the CBA supported it going limited. It was a dramatic change that required some major adapting. Its a long story and I wasn't happy about it but its obvious now that it was inevitable with the trend of limiting bowhunting more and more, right or wrong. I would be prepared for losing OTC regardless of whether it happens this time around or not.
Forest, I guess you need to ask yourself a hard question. Are you donating to truly help the CBA and at the same time promote your business? Or are donations being made as a way to potentially influence decisions that benefit your business?
Forest, I feel your pain. We run an Outfitting business to earn money...yes. But we also donate an incredible amount of time money and hunts to wounded vets, disabled hunters, and others. I don't advertise it, I don't try to influence anyone with it. I seek out folks and make it happen because I believe in the heritage of hunting. Conservative hunters get awfully socialist when it comes to tag allocation. If anyone belives that we can fund and maintain habitat with resident tag fees has lost it. Those "Texans" (they're always Texans in their eyes) play a huge part in funding local economy, tourism, and Pittman Robertson dollars. According to the Communist Resident Allocation Promoters or C.R.A.P. , everyone that is a resident should hunt for free because they pay taxes. But its simple math......NR brings WAY more money to the table, promotes small business, is a boon to local business, and promotes tourism even outside of the hunting seasons.....i.e. they bring their wives and children here in the summer.
Cazador- I was the contact for CBA to Forest for his latest donations to CBA. He donated both a KS hunt and stay in his new cabins with a horse back ride. I will say my dealing with Forest even though the CBA and Forest as an outfitter interest don't always run 100% parallel, is that Forest is doing it to help the CBA. I don't know Forest full involvement with CBA over the years but he has done a lot more than many to help the CBA. I know he has run the jamboree in the past and that is huge undertaking. He has not asked for anything from the CBA to help his outfitting business to my knowledge. Not speaking for him but to insinuate he's doing anything he's done for selfish motivations are not supported by the facts.
Last things I will add is while DIY resident hunters and outfitters may not be on same page on tag allocation. There are a lot of other issues going on in CO that we better be on the same page on or neither us or NR will have half the opportunities we have now. Any group fighting for rights to hunt in this state are not our enemy even if sit across the table on a issue or two.
Forest, I am self employed, have had the government crush my business on a couple of occasions with regulatory changes, so I get the frustration
It would be great to reference some facts though. I think you had previously said you outfit in one OTC area, and then was it in GMU 33?
In OTC elk, there is no allocation limit whatsoever. If you are in 33, first rifle hunt code EM011o1r has a quota of 5,000 bull tags of which 3200 went in the draw, and 1800 were leftover. Huh. Seems like you have no concern whatsoever there. 2nd and 3rd rifle season are totally unlimited bull licenses. Huh. No concern whatsover there. There is also EITHER sex PLO tags. WTF, why PLO bull tags, that is crazy! I haven't looked up the quota for 4th rifle bull, but I can if you need or are having trouble filling those slots, I suspect the quota is large.
I haven't spent the time to look at deer, but with the CWD plan I suspect they are way over issuing tags.
Archery lost a boat load of elk tags in the flat tops, while rifle hunters get 5,000 tags with 1800 left overs? 2nd and 3rd no limitsm but archery gets several hundred tags? WTF?
Your herd objectives are good.
Given your situation, would 75/25 or 80/20 impact you? Sure doesn't appear so.
The bigger fight is loss of OTC, it wont be up for a final vote in May, but it is coming. I have never heard a valid reason why a resident should be denied an OTC archery elk license. Yet, supposedly we have "crowding". If you can solve that, let us know.
I mean no offense or ill will, you can take it as blessed or cursed, your call.
@John, I’m not insinuating anything. I don’t know “ Forest from the trees” but he has always struck me as a solid bowhunter and stand up guy over the years here on Bowsite.
I simply stated he has some questions to ask himself based on what he posted above. I guess the CBA needs to explain why he should continue to support the organization if they decide to push for 100% draw for NR. If the coin falls the other way, and the CBA decides to partner with outfitters, well, as they say money talks.
"If anyone belives that we can fund and maintain habitat with resident tag fees has lost it."
Just what is the role of CPW in funding habitat? 5% of license fees goes to HPP. The last time I looked the program had diminishing demand and was over funded.
National forest land habitat is awful, but CPW and license fees don't go towards that. Private lands have those lush irrigated fields that attract elk, but we are told its not the habitat attractant causing migration, it is the bowhunters pushing them there. We can't hunt there though, it has been leased to outfitters or private groups, and the access program promised through future generations has been nothing but a broken government promise.
We have maybe 9 million a year of habitat stamp money that gets coupled with goco, but those generally buy conservation easements, maybe a handful a year. While I haven't read the language of a CPW easement lately, I don't think it calls out for improvements, just preservation of land that is likely drought stricken(like all colorado) and no development.
If we lost 3000 non residents from shifting to 80/20, that would be the loss of 30,000 in habitat stamp money and maybe $105,000 in HPP money that may not be being used anyway. Considering the 52 million in CPW surplus funds, we should be good.
If you care to offer up the GMU's you outfit in, I'd love to better understand your plight.
As far as the booming rural economies from all those texans, which counties are you in? Lets look up their median incomes. Outfitters in the flat tops are grossing 200k a year, yet the citizens in Rio Blanco are living near poverty.
I am not speaking for the CBA. To my knowledge and all conversations I have been included in I have heard nothing about specific tags going to outfitters. With that said what if the solutions, the CPW came up was OTC stays unlimited for residents, OTC goes to draw for NR's but lets say and 15% of those draw NR's tags were to go to NR's using a outfitter. Would that not be a comprise that would be better than all CO archery elk hunting going draw for both Residents and NRs? Would that be better than the status quo? I not saying it would or would not. I don't think CO Resident would love it, and I don't think outfitters would love it. It certainly could be a lot worse for both sides. If all parties that have a stake in this issue could sit down come up with a solution and present as a unified proposal to CPW we likely would all be better off than were it is likely to end which is all draw for all. The reality is it is perceived NR's bring in a lot of money both in tag sales and also into the local economies. You can not show up to the table and say that does not matter and expect much traction.
Median income costilla county 18,495 Median income montrose county 28,310 Median income delta county 26,444 Median income moffat county 31,392
I'm not buying the trickle down garbage. Care to cite how many billions Texans generate next to skiing? Just where is it going?
Personally, I'd rather sell my soul then cut a deal. I asked the outfitters association for help during BGSS. There was was one thing agreed on, we would like more wildlife and the fastest way to get there was to stop selling PLO cow tags with a 6 month season, and we are way over issuing deer tags. I'll never forget how many of them stood up to testify in support of limiting in the SW, and again on the grand Mesa, while the SW units have bull to cow ratios of 12-15 per 100. Its not about the resource, its about the income.
How do you get up in front a of a commission and testify that we want to retain OTC for DIY residents so badly, we are ok with throwing DIY Nr's under the bus to get it done? Not sure about you, I like sleeping at night.
Grasshopper....I see no mention of the NR tag fees in your argument. How much does that generate???
No plight on my end. Im a landowner who runs hunts on my own place. However, the hunters who come here spend a large amount of money in the county at local businesses, restaurants, coming in the off season etc. I'm one of many so tons of money goes into the economy every year....If I didn't run hunts, my land wouldn't be suited to generate any form of income.....I'd likely sell out to Californians. Those are the same folks pushing out industry that raises median income...
On that note.....many folks living in near poverty conditions is a matter of life choices. I do not believe that median income of a county should drive wildlife management decisions. For the time being the country is a Capitalist Democracy. Crying a river that folks in a county with no jobs and no industry do not generate a high medeian income has nothing to do with it......unless you are left leaning.
Flick Stinger is from New Mexico - at least that’s what his profile says.
A completely different story than Colorado
Let me mention tag fees then, and the budget, we have a 52 million dollar CPW surplus, all because future generations was supported by RESIDENTS who showed up at dozens and dozens of meetings and then the legislature over 3 years, in support of fee increases plus CPI for residents. Along with Future Generations, then director Broscheid promised me and others they would spend millions annually to lease private lands for public hunter access - both resident and non resident access. Never happened. I'd be good if we kept archery OTC, got rid of some crowding, and called it a wash.
Everyone's fees are going up, every year based on CPI. I buy a boat license which in insane with the stupid invasive mussel fee, 3 OHV licenses, a small game license, furbearer, fishing, turkey, 4 landowner elk vouchers, 2, sometimes 4 landowner buck vouchers, then the fees to convert the vouchers to tags. So what. I haven't tallied it lately, but Im sure its close to a NR elk license. Fee increases next year might be double digits with this insane inflation. Maybe their budget surplus next year is 70 million, either way, they can afford a hair cut.
It is your right to sell out to Californians, they would probably shoot fewer animals and there would be more for all of us. If you need a real estate broker, I'm licensed. If the price is right and you have water, I might buy it and you can go live down south to escape this global warming.
No offense or ill will, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why any resident should lose an OTC tag to hunt elk, I have never heard a good answer on that, but outfitters constantly support it. I don't find it friendly at all.
How will you solve "crowding" as an outfitter? Limit just bowhunters and force residents to spend points to hunt a unit with 12 bulls per hundred cows because 2nd and 3rd rifle shot them all?
If you don't think median incomes should drive wildlife decisions, why is it outfitters bring up at every meeting how they are aiding the economy and everyone benefits? I remember one recent meeting one outfitter got up and went on and on in a rant about how a tag reduction was going to cost them 50 grand - never mentioned the plight of the wildlife.
I take no offense, I'm a landowner, I'm a resident, and I'm sticking up for residents.
The list of reasons to live in Colorado is shrinking fast. If I can't buy an elk tag, which may not even get punched, that would be big loss.
CPW does not have a revenue problem. If the concern is budgets, Colorado's being significantly bigger than similar western states with similar land size, species and human population is where to start.
I like how WY does it. OTC for residents and draw for those units for non-residents. Seems fair that if you live and pay taxes in a state you should benefit in some way.
The paying taxes part isn't a big deal to me. I pay way too much but general taxes aren't what pays for wildlife.
As a resident, I see those elk as mine, shared with fellow residents. If my neighbors and I raise prime beef, makes sense to send some to market but no way should that take precident over our families having access to our beef.
Set-aside tags for the outfitting industry are unnecessary. It's tough to justify those kind of programs with any plausible logic. The average hunter does not support these type of hand-outs....they only come to pass via lobbying by industry reps who stand to benefit. Outfitters who can't stand on their own feet and adapt like any other industry, may need to scrutinize their businesses and look to become more self-sufficient. To me it's shameful to beg for freebies. I remember hunters fighting tooth and nail to restrict LO vouchers a few years back, with a small amount of success in the final outcome. Yet now, some would seem willing to rob more public tags, in this case from DIY NR hunters, and cheerfully hand them over to private for-profit businesses.
How many on this post were born in Colorado? Hunting and outfitting has been a way of life for a very long time in Colorado. Every person that has moved here or want to hunt here from out of state wants to change something. Every time we lose rights and opportunities because we think it will make it better we lose a part of that way of life.
The many Colorado Native American Indian tribes at the end of the 1800s felt the same thing about Manifest Destiny, but they really did not comprehend its meaning. Change came and is still going on today, some we like and some we hate.
^^^ Wish there was a "like" button. The change in our world is accelerating in so many directions. Many not so good....
Change? Heck, I remember when we taught just reading writing and rithmatic in schools. Now, there is uncertainty as to which bathroom to use, if girls can make the girls sports team and how to choose your gender.
Came to Colorado in 1984, with no preference point system. I think you could draw 201, 10 & 2 with a couple points for a long time, but I was too green and dumb to know it then.
my wife drew 201 in 1979 with zero points! I drew 2 in the late eighties with 2 points. yes times have changed!
Colorado will end up with the mess that New Mexico has. Pandora's box has been opened.
In 1979 I was 5 years old. Our town would triple in size during hunting season. Orange everywhere. Guys standing on the streets in front of the bar because it was packed. Now you don't even notice a change. In 1979 our town was 2-300 people. Now its 6000. And everybody that has moved here wants to shut the door behind them.
There’s a reason the windshield is bigger than the rear view mirror
Thats stupid! Who wouldn't want to go back to the way it was? In 1979 you could draw unit 201 with 0 points. Now so many people moved here it takes 25+
What’s stupid is living in the past
I killed my first elk in Colorado over 43 years ago - moved to Colorado over 35 years ago.
Did I pass?
FORESTBOWS: "Orange everywhere. Guys standing on the streets in front of the bar because it was packed."
Now that's funny. Did they come here to hunt, or drink?
And: "In 1979 I was 5 years old."
I got here in 1971 and started hunting in 1974. That makes me more of a "native" than you.
Unless you're a Native American, everyone's family moved here from somewhere else. Does it matter when that happened? Should we give preference to someone who's family homesteaded? Where should the cutoff be? This "I'm a native thing" always kind of pissed me off. What it usually means is you couldn't leave mommy and daddy and move off on your own like someone in you family past evidently did. I moved to Colorado as soon as I could make my own decisions, just before my 18th birthday, unaided financially by my parents. By my reckoning, that makes me more deserving than someone who just happened to be born here. ;-)
It does piss off every one who moves here. Im not asking for anything special. Just dont understand why everyone that moves here wants to change it. Its been happening a long time.....before i was born. My family did homestead here. Fist Germans in this area. The thing i find funny is you hypocrites all were out of state hunters. Now you dont want them here. Yall know thats wrong and thats why it pisses you off.
My family moved here when I was a little kid in the 70s. Ironically, for the same reasons I will likely leave.
You have to admit it, I am afraid, there are just too many hunters for the available licenses. Private land hunts will offer opportunity that will only get better as the wolves populate the national forest and drive them down long before hunting season. This is the facts in our northern states.
Finally, someone else gets it. Many of the threads on here are about who gets to hunt when, and how often. But very few seem to understand that "they" can't keep on the way they used to. It's all about supply and demand. No one wants to tackle controlling demand. Even if they did, it's a lost cause before you start. As long as human population increases, demand will continue to grow. Even among our own ranks, there is always an interest in promoting hunting. So which do you want, more hunting opportunities or more hunters? You can't have both, and you also can't keep non hunters from recreating on "your" hunting lands.
At the same time supply decreases. More people means more houses, shopping malls, roads, grocery stores, more infrastructure built where habitat and wildlife once thrived, that is no longer available. Fewer animals to hunt on fewer places to hunt them.
That is the reality, and compromise is the only answer. Someone has to give up something, so someone else can have an opportunity. And the farther into the future this is projected, the more each individual will have to give up for others to have a chance to participate.
Population of Colorado grows 1mil people every 10 years. 4,000 residents hunters a year. In 30 years ill be younger than Paul and there will be 250k resident hunters in Colorado.
A 2016 usfws report on hunter demographics said the average age the US hunter was mid 40's. I would think that would be mid 50's today.
We can talk about supply and demand but it's all just speculation. There may be decreased demand 20 years from now, it also might all be outlawed.
Hunt until you cant.
