Last week the wildlife commission past a new proclamation law. All of the quaility draw units with more than 5 preference points will now go primarily to the resident hunters of Colorado. They went to an 80 - 20 split. The entire state went to a 65-35 split. The commission said that the non-residents can still come hunt the second and third over the counter seasons. If all the non-residents would wake up and voice their rights. It might help.

They took away the draw ranching for wildlife years ago and now they did this to 201,10,1,66,67,61,62,76 just to name a few. The commission stated that the large public land bulls should be harvested by more residents since they live in the state. If non-residents boycotted Colorado for one year, it would break the division. What is everybodys thoughts. I would be upset if I had been putting in for 14 to 16 years and they jerked the rug out from under me.

My thought is that residents should have a better chance of being able to hunt than nonresidents, but nonresidents should have a chance to hunt as well, although not as good a chance as residents.

Johnnie I hate to disagree with you but I must. I'm a long time Colorado resident and think that we residents deserve a better than 50/50 shot at the premium tags so I am 100% behind the new ruling. Yeah some rich outta state a-hole outfitter will probably challenge it in court and cost our state a bundle but I'm glad we as a state had the balls to do it.
Besides Colorado is the easiest state for a non - resident to hunt elk in, where else are out of staters going to go and buy an over the counter Bull Elk tag? Yeah we are generous enough as it is...

Snellstrom has it right. Yes, I could move to California or the east coast and make a heck of a lot more than I do here. However, I like the area, am content with what I make, and enjoy the hunting made available through the DOW almost year round. If I travel to another state, I have to pay the out-of-state fees there. Basically, move to Colorado and get residents' rights. If not, enjoy your home state.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Besides Colorado is the easiest state for a non - resident to hunt elk in, where else are out of staters going to go and buy an over the counter Bull Elk tag? Yeah we are generous enough as it is...

Uh.....Idaho.

Hmmm,

Here we go again.

Non resident hunters don't have rights. They have privlidges. Kansas used to not allow any non-resident big game hunters.

If it wasn't such a money issue I am sure more states would do the same.

The state makes money on non-resident tags and the outfitters make money on selling hunts.

I was really happy to see Congress re-affirming states rights controling wildlife. US public land or not all wildlife belongs to the state.

Being a non-resident I belive 80-20 to be a little out of reason but my guess is that they went overboard in an effort to give them room to compromise at something like 70-30 once all the lawyers get their money out of the fight that is sure to come.

So is it the 20% non resident tags , that pay for 80% of the game management ? Or does the 80% resident tag fees come close to off setting cost of management ? I'm not picking fights , I just want to know how this decision affects finances to the state as well as private indusrtry ?

In the grand scheme of things it is doubtful that this decision will affect the economics of Colorado hunting. Colorado has been a revenue based management state for many years and that won't change soon. It is as good as fact that they (the state) already spent a lot of money crunching the numbers doing the math and know that whether non-residents buy an over the counter Elk tag or draw an Elk tag in a highly coveted drawing that they will still come and buy their share of the licenses. I not only apply in my home state of Colorado but also in Wyoming, Arizona, and Utah and I would like to be treated better in those states but I don't expect it. I feel that no matter what state you live in you should have an advantage when it comes to tags or opportunities available over the non-residents. Who wouldn't.

And no slight on Idaho intended my point is you can't just go to the next state and expect to buy a tag, Idaho is one of the few.
You must also look at the shear numbers more elk are harvested in Colorado in one year by non- residents than the entire harvest for the state of Idaho in a given year, check the numbers, Colorado is very generous to non-res hunters without a doubt.

I just moved to Ft Carson, CO last week so I am new to the regs here. But I call Idaho home. I have long felt that the resident of any state should have the best chances for any controlled hunt. The residents are the ones who live there, pay the taxes, and are the financial base of the state. A non-resident may come on and drop a few thousand dollars to the local economy, but that is miniscule in comparison to the amount a resident puts into that same economy each year. The residents are the ones who do all the work, voting, and living in the state. For a non resident who does none of those things to think he should be entitled to the same rights as a resident is assinine. I greatly appreciate the rights that I have as an Idaho resident. I am glad that I have a greater chance for a succesful controlled hunt drawing than a non resident. And I dont begrudge the fact that if I choose to hunt in another state I have to pay my money and take my chances. It wouldnt be right for me to expect to have the same privelages as a resident.

I agree that residents should have an advantage in getting licenses in their home state...they're the ones who live there and pay taxes there. Not everyone feels this way and they are entitled to their opinions. Y'all can have New Mexico for all I care. I'd rather take my chances elsewhere than spend my hunting $$ here (dove & quail hunting excepted!)

Certainly, I agree that a resident should have a greater opportunity to hunt or do whatever than a non-resident but the rub comes when the "greater" becomes confiscatory. Sure that is a moving target but one cannot say that the non-resident does not pay for some portion of Smokey the Bear, etc. I suggest (without having all the facts) that 80-20 has in all probability crossed the line. Perhaps Colorado developers would like to have only a 20% access to non-residents in Aspen, etc?

One other issue that I never see addressed in these discussions is the federal lands issue. We all (US citizens) pay taxes that support some of the wildlife management that takes place on federal lands (National Forests, BLM, etc). It stands to reason that this ought to be taken into at least some consideration.

Of course, given that I can still go to Colorado and hunt with an over-the-counter bull tag (wish I could get an over-the-counter cow tag in the areas that my cousins hunt), I don't see this reg taking quite the heat that the AZ ones did.

Note: I'm not saying that the New Colorado regs are unfair, etc. Just trying to point out another factor for discussion.

Troy

Colorado is a great state for nonresidents to hunt in, and I agree that residents should have more of the tags. Colorado issues more tags to nonresidents than any other state in the west. In return, nonresidents have funded 75% of the states wildlife management. Residents will see their fees increase eventually.

I do not mean to cause a stir. I live in Colorado and love the state. I just think that public land bulls on BLM and National Forest should be split closer down the middle. The residents still get to put in for Ranching for Wildlife tags on Private Property that non-residents do not get to hunt with out buying a high dollar outfitted hunt. I make the meetings and I am telling you our tax dollars in Colorado have nothing to do with the wildlife. If the non-residents pulled out of the state for one year it would break the division. Just the few tags that will change this year will cost the state an estimated 2.5 million dollars of economy revenue. That is only 151 tags that will change due to the new law.

"If all the non-residents would wake up and voice their rights. It might help. "

What rights you have are covered in the US Constitution and that says little about F&G management as I recall. Hunting is a privilege, not a right...you want superior access, move to Colorado.

Colorado will lose more then some license revenue. Think of all the money spent on fuel, groceries, outfitters, and motels that residents will not buy since they live there.

Attention Andy Cooper! I second that! Our state has possibly the worst game management and quote system for its residents in the whole west. We live here and we get hosed!! I apply in 5 states just so I might have a slight possibility to get to hunt. Then every year, when I crap out, I just goto Texas and kill. They love me there and they like my money. Hail Texas!!!!!!..........wapiti7

What state does NOT discriminate against non-resident hunters?

States rights has always been an interesting topic. People and states often want the autonomy from the feds and other states when it is to their benefit. Yet, when you have a disaster like New Orleans, it is everyones problem to pay for. Even when it is their choice to live in a sink hole.

If a hunt transpires on Federal Public land why should an "out of state" hunter pay more for what he owns equally? That is totally unfair and unjust. My tax dollars have paid for hunters to kill/harvest (what ever term you prefer) in states I will never hunt in. I am fine with that, but I hate the thought of not being treated fairly by those in other states. Greed shows it's ugly face in two ways on this topic! One is money and who gets it, the other is game and who hunts it. Look in the mirror those who want to protect their "fair" share and see whose it really is.

One of the problems has been the sheer number of hunters out at any one time. The CO-DOW has been trying to coordinate hunting within many areas for a good number of years. Non-residents seem to make up a large number of hunter during certain seasons and in certain areas. Limiting the number of licenses has been a good tactic in the past.

As far as increased $ for resident licenses in Colorado...it's approved for 2006.

M1 tanker: welcome to Colorado! You'll find your hunting rights here are equal to a resident even if you keep your home state residency.

Howdy folks-
being a non resident of Colorado I have to put in my 2-cents
our first time putting in for the draw we both got bull tags on PUBLIC LAND
the first bull I glassed opening day of first gun was a 6x7 to far away to shoot
had 2 4x4's run by where I was sitting
so out of the group hunting 6/8 tags filled

there are good to trophy bulls on public land
to tell you the truth it pleased me just to see them

I guess your thoughts on this issue will depend on whether you are a non-resident or resident. This change will prevent me from ever hunting the unit I was trying to draw as a non-res. I currently have 14 PP and have been trying to draw area 2 or 10. So I guess I think it sucks big time. The other measure they passed is that we will most likely have to pay to apply for a point. Not just the app fee but as much as $40.00. They had over 35,000 non resi apply last year. They figure they can raise another 850,000 this way. Sorry but my $40.00 won't be in the mix. I will most likely use my points for a lesser area and in the future plan to hunt UT and AZ. I am sure I won't be missed but I will miss CO.

quote:

Federal Public land

And just why should the Feds own land?

You would think they would "grandfather clause" those who already have points??

I guess not...

IV

I feel that if infact it will be a 20/80 split on tags . The 20% non-resident will come at a premium price . Once again a person on a moderate income may not be able to hunt due to price . Irreguardless of what state you reside , please dont empower the government to only allow a certain tax bracket to hunt . I have nothing against people better off than others . I just want people that desire to hunt the chance . Wealth should'nt be a prerequisite . Just what I foresee . But I've been wrong before .

Tracker quit being so pessimistic, if only half of the non res guys feel as you do they will drop out of the draw system leaving you a clear shot at one of the tags in that 20 percentile. Besides if you go to Arizona and expect a point, expect to buy the $100+ hunting license non refundable to get a point. I know I do it every year.

Maybe all of the non-residents should go elsewhere and let the state recoup all of their lost funds via raising the resident prices, that should go over well..

In most cases when the State is short it does not go to its citizens but in fact goes to all of our favorite UNCLE to cover its shorts! Then all non-residents will supplement the DOW and thus its citizens. This will never be known by us poor voters. Just the American Way!

Go to Missouri they have 100% over the counter deer tags at one of the cheapest non-res price you will find not to mention $7. Doe tags as many as you want!!!!

I remember a topic on this forum a couple of weeks ago about Wyoming screwing the nonresidents. The best way to not get screwed is to move to the offending state I did. It is the best thing I ever did!!

Ted, I may well take you up on that advice. Thank you sir.

Everyone,
No offence meant, but QUICTHER-BITCHIN. After a recent lawsuit, each state has the right to decide for themselves how many non-res permits will be availible. Now stop and think about that for a minute,,,,,,,,,, hmmmmmm ,,,,,,,,, that means that they could have said none!!! You can talk boycott all you like, it'll make no difference. If you decide not to not to go, somebody else will. Just be grateful that we will be allowed to go. Save the boycott for something important,,,like fuel cost.

All year long 2005 Colorado DOW held meeting and got imput from resident,outfitters, landowner and non resident groups as to the changes to resident and non-resident hunting. What I found interesting was the rejection from residents and non about giving more voucher tags to the ranchers. Anybody can pull up those notes and see how things got voted on.
Fishing provides more money to the state of Colorado than hunting does. I was talking to my nephew this week and he was telling me about the point system in Calif for the X zones,elk and sheep.
I think the only reason so many talk about Colorado for the non resident is that for so many years when other western states had draws for deer and elk the non resident could always hunt Co. Now things are changing and I bet on the next 5yr plan will see a draw for elk, no over the counter tags.

quote:

Originally posted by k-22hornet:
What state does NOT discriminate against non-resident hunters?

ALASKA!!!



MM

I used to get pissed off a the way ALASKA
managed its Non Res hunters. So I became a RESIDENT
of ALASKA!! Has not bothered me at all lately!

quote:

Originally posted by MuskegMan:

quote:

Originally posted by k-22hornet:
What state does NOT discriminate against non-resident hunters?

ALASKA!!!



MM

So you are saying the resident & non residents pay the same for licences?


In AZ I can't get draw as a resident for elk, but I am fine with the 90%/10% system they have on the draw.

i just wish they would go to a system of payment in full at the time of draw application instead of a $5 fee only. That would keep the applications down and the odds up for me.

quote:

i just wish they would go to a system of payment in full at the time of draw application instead of a $5 fee only. That would keep the applications down and the odds up for me.

I would very much like to see NM do the same thing. Part of me even wants to think the (crooked) Game and Fish will do something productive with the three months of interest they gather off my hunt fee.

Nothing in the price of a hunting license prevents someone from using FEDERAL LAND. You can come use the land all you want anytime of the year including during hunting season. The game however belongs to the STATE!!!!!!!!! Always has,always will. Been fought over in court several times and the state has always ended up being declared the winner.

Bottom line is that every state caters more to it's resident citizens that it does to residents of other states. If I want to hunt in any state other than my home state, I will pay more. Doesn't matter where it is. This is something I understand, why don't you?

The western states can't help it if there are no elk, moose, sheep, goats etc... in some states. Not our fault some states only have whitetails. But, if you insist on living in a state like that, you thereby agree to having to play the non-resident tag game in the western states if you want t hunt. And some of these tags are hard to get even for residents. It took me 22 years to finally draw a Colorado Mtn Goat tag. That 22 years of payng taxes and spending every dime I made in that state. Pretty expensive tag when you get down to it.

Hell, it would cost me over $500 for a deer tag in Iowa and in my opinion, there has never been a whitetail born that is worth that much. I get around that by not hunting Iowa. If you don't want to pay the asking price for tags out west, or don't want to try for whatever the quota is, then stay home. I seriously doubt you will be missed.

Mac