Colorado BHA Position on res/nonres tags - missing the big picture

OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
Again its a 2 part issue, what does BHA gain by restricting access to NRs (it seems very offbase from the mission) but more importantly what do we as a hunting community gain by further restricting access to able and willing hunters? I pray that FWS does not manage the wildlife of the country but its pretty reasonable thought over time. Just look at wolves and grizzlies or polar bear importation and how thats all played out. The more we restrict access to the vast majority of people, the harder it will be to win the big fight on the national/federal level.

As far as paying the state taxes and having the rights to the animals, I dont fully agree because personal state income taxes can be deducted from federal income taxes reducing the overall federal pot. So someone in Florida can be paying more for the BLM and National Forrest. Also, Wyoming doesnt have personal income taxes.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
2,398
Maybe this is an example. Around 2006 the Natural Gas Industry descended on us like an army in a full on modern day gold rush. Much of our State Land and Game Lands got carved up pretty good by this new industry. Now if I came on here with a "need help with fight" thread how many NR's would be joining groups trying to fight it or writing to politicians? Prob. none because they have no skin in the game.

In this case the hunters really didn't care because despite having millions of acres of public land, 90% of the hunters are on private land and most that did hunt the public welcome the easy access of all the new roads and pipelines.

The only ones to really take a fight were other use groups.

On a flip side our state generates revenue from logging and mineral leases and is motivated to keep these lands.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,527
Location
Colorado Springs
more importantly what do we as a hunting community gain by further restricting access to able and willing hunters?

They aren't "restricting access"......they're just recommending "reallocating" the existing tags. "Able and willing hunters" will still use those tags. You're just complaining about it being a resident using the tag instead of a NR.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
They aren't "restricting access"......they're just recommending "reallocating" the existing tags. "Able and willing hunters" will still use those tags.

How is increasing the tag pool for fewer people not restricting access?
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
Maybe this is an example. Around 2006 the Natural Gas Industry descended on us like an army in a full on modern day gold rush. Much of our State Land and Game Lands got carved up pretty good by this new industry. Now if I came on here with a "need help with fight" thread how many NR's would be joining groups trying to fight it or writing to politicians? Prob. none because they have no skin in the game.

In this case the hunters really didn't care because despite having millions of acres of public land, 90% of the hunters are on private land and most that did hunt the public welcome the easy access of all the new roads and pipelines.

The only ones to really take a fight were other use groups.

On a flip side our state generates revenue from logging and mineral leases and is motivated to keep these lands.

I think your confused, 90%+ of hunters in the west are on public not private.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
They would be "restricting access" for NR's to the state's available tags, but the number of tags and number of hunters doesn't change.

Exactly, and how does that further advance hunting and enjoyment of our resources? It is restricting or reallocating access away from the largest group of potential hunters for the immediate benefit of a few who in close proximity or within lines drawn on a map. We should be trying to find ways to get more people involved in order to protect our heritage.
 

bigdesert10

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
293
Location
Idaho
I dont see how increasing Resident tag allocation 5, 10, 15% increases the number of engaged resident hunters in western states. A resident is going to have an opportunity to hunt each year for something. But leaving NRs alone or increasing tags would increase revenue and national interest. If no one has an opportunity to hunt or use public outside their state, why are they going to care or vote for national elected officials who do?

I completely understand your point of view (although there will still be OTC options available to NR hunters), but I think you're overestimating the voting power of non-resident public lands hunters living outside of public lands states. They just don't constitute a significant voting group in their respective states. Conversely, resident public-lands hunters do have the potential to sway elections in their states, and I think it's disingenuous to say that an increase in available tags will not increase hunter participation / engagement. Involvement of hunters from all states is important, but not lets not overlook the fact that land-transfer efforts have generally originated in public lands states. Keep in mind that resident hunting opportunities are dismal in Utah, and interestingly, that is where many of these efforts have originated. Efforts and engagement from all hunters in all states is important, but if those who live the closest to public lands don't care, passionately, about them, it won't matter how much you care.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
It's kind of funny though........Colorado has UNLIMITED OTC tags for non-residents. A million NR's could show up and hunt every year if they wanted. It's hard to increase those NR hunting opportunities........they're already unlimited.

I think the OTC elk tags in CO have done more to advance hunting and public land advocacy throughout the US than almost anything else out there. They have provided a simple, fair priced and straightforward opportunity to people who may never have tried hunting off their family farm or deer lease. We as hunters can win over the majority in the middle with free range public hunting and adventure. These types of opportunities are what engage new hunters to the sport and demonstrate to the undecided voters that there can be benefits to hunting. If a voter doesnt know a hunter in order to hear or see (or taste) their experiences, they are much more likely to vote against hunting due to the advertising and attacks by the media. CO between OTC tags and the hug a hunter/fisher campaign are least trying to help provide a good conversation with the nonhunter or undecided voter.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
2,814
Location
Littleton, CO
First of all, any response that says they are "restricting access" pretty much got ignored as anyone can hunt 75%+ of the state, including most of the parts with abundant public land, any season except first rifle or muzzleloader. It's nice that they manage certain areas of the state for quality. I draw a muzzleloader tag every year with no points and hunt with several non-res that do the same. Even as a 3rd generation Coloradan there are certain areas of the state or certain species that it is unlikely that I'll be able to hunt due to point creep, so I have to say that I'm with BHA on this one. Also, I think the OP has misconstrued the BHA statement as saying they are taking away opportunity from non-res when their statement clearly says they want to maintain the current opportunities the residents have.

Based on the reasons above, the Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers opposes any changes to big game license allocations that would result in lower resident hunter license allocations.

Also, there are several people in this thread that need reminding that wildlife is a property of the state and therefore owned by the resident's of said state and not federal public property like we are used to seeing BHA fight for. As such it may seem contradictory to their normal mission/approach, but in fact they are fighting for the right of access for the ones that own the property/resource.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
Ignoring my displeasure with COBHA getting involved with this issue and continuing the R/NR discussion: if in round numbers there are 1,000 tags and NRs get cut from 20% to 10%, they lose 50% of the available NR tags (200 to 100). In CO for example on deer, NR tags are 11.4x more expensive than R and on the 100 tags in question in the hypothetical scenario, that is a loss of $35,500 to DOW.

5mile is right its close to 70/30 on deer and elk, so if NRs were capped at 15%, that means ~6500 NR deer hunters and ~10,500 NR elk hunters would be displaced based on the 2016 numbers or a net loss of $8.55 million in tag revenue (looking at first choice applicants and successful draw only, ignoring choices 2-4). Now the big question is, how many people give up trying to hunt the west at all because the available tags get halved or are too hard to come by? Are there a net 17,000 resident hunters ready to take their place or pay $96 for a deer tag (3x increase) to keep revenue neutral? Is it worth it for a resident to draw a tag every 3 years not every 4 or marginally increase the ability to get sheep/goat/moose tag? If these NR hunters keep getting displaced, there will likely be a time when new participants dry up and new generations cant go which brings unfortunate scenarios into play and again loses on the national front.

If NR tags are cut to zero in every state in the West, it still wont guarantee a prime elk, deer or sheep tag for every R and the lost revenue having to be made up through R tags or other avenues (hiking, biking permits?) because at some point on the national scale, voters will refuse to pay for the public lands if they cant use them since there are state parks closer for hiking and camping.
 

Stwrt9

WKR
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
565
Location
PA
They would be "restricting access" for NR's to the state's available tags, but the number of tags and number of hunters doesn't change.

interesting that you say this and i get your point as a resident. but you have to be willing to pay more for your resident tags if this is your stance because this will vastly have an impact on the amount of money that comes into CFW from non-residents paying $644 to your measly $49 good luck making up that difference without us non-residents. All i'm saying is beware what you wish for as this could have devastating effects long term if you restrict non-resident tags.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
Also, I think the OP has misconstrued the BHA statement as saying they are taking away opportunity from non-res when their statement clearly says they want to maintain the current opportunities the residents have.



Also, there are several people in this thread that need reminding that wildlife is a property of the state and therefore owned by the resident's of said state and not federal public property like we are used to seeing BHA fight for. As such it may seem contradictory to their normal mission/approach, but in fact they are fighting for the right of access for the ones that own the property/resource.

A) We also request that the Commission conduct a formal survey of other western state license allocations and consider bringing Colorado’s tag allocation into line with the averages for these states. - This is directly asking to bring CO allocations for NRs down.

B) Game is managed by the state until its not. Look at Wyoming and having to get their wolf plan approved by the Feds while Idaho and Montana can hunt them. Or not being able to delist Grizzlies. Or not being able to import legal polar bears. Or Federal ducks stamps.
 

elkduds

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
956
Location
CO Springs
I'm recalling something about a boycott of CO hunting. We still have the same laws that triggered it! You should still be boycotting! In fact, NR #s have increased every year since the "boycott" was trumpeted by Tea Partiers. I was disappointed, hoped it would help point creep.

Seriously, I support BHA's position in advocating for maintaining the portion of Limited Licenses that go to residents. We have not voted to give our CPW a much-needed raise. The main entity pressuring for more NR tags is the Outfitters' Assoc and their gorillas on the CPW Board of Directors. Nonresident tags are a state subsidy to outfitters (same story in other states), and to landowners who illegally sell landowner tags to NRs. To me, BHA is advocating for us DIYers by pushing against increases in Limited NR tags, which would be directly subtracted from available Limited resident tags.
 
Last edited:
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
In regards to the question about access or redistribution, I think about it in terms of net hunters and net dollars not net tags or animals harvested. Does a resident getting a tag every year in his or her favorite unit versus every other year, or three instead of four-five years, or a sheep tag in 18 not 23 years really advance hunting and provide that many opportunities if it removes another hunter out of the equation? Does one person getting 5 tags in 5 years do more for hunting than 2 hunters getting those same 5 tags, even if the first hunter got to hunt for 4/5 years? That NR tag taken away from the pool, means someone doesnt go hunting that year, or takes 2 years not 1 or 20 years instead of 10 to draw. in my view, thats fewer net active hunters in our country which could have short term and long term effects.
 

FlyGuy

WKR
Joined
Aug 13, 2016
Messages
2,087
Location
The Woodlands, TX
I've actually been thinking about this for a while now, but I'm a complete newb at all of this, so i hope im not about to say something super controversial....

I grew up and hunted in LA, then moved to TX about 10 years ago. I'd never once set foot on public land before my 1st OTC ELK Hunt in CO last year. I actually had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA that so much public land even existed in CO or for that matter in any other western state. And it's not just me. 90% of the hunters here that I've talked to are completely unaware that this even exists.

Since that hunt, I bet I've dropped $5K on fancy new hunting gear (dont tell my wife) that I would never have even considered buying for hunting in TX. I've taught myself about the drawing and the tags. I've joined BHA, RMEF, & WILD sheep foundation. I've educated dozens of people about BHA and about the threats to our public lands. I never would have done any of that without being exposed to an OTC hunt in CO, and I sincerely appreciate that opportunity.

What I don't understand though is why the NR allocations for all species are so low in any state? Seems like if you were setting allocations in the 1950's, then maybe 10% was fine. I can't imagine that there would have been much more demand by NR back then anyway, so it probably didn't matter. But, obviously the world is much different today. So, why wouldn't the NR allocation be set much higher, say at 30%, in all states? On a one to one basis, I sure that a NR generates significantly more rev$ than a local. This would seem to me like a good thing? States love their tourism revenue. And, though there would be 20% lower odds as a resident to draw a tag every year, you would also have 20% greater odds of drawing a tag in another western state (if all were at 30%). Just seems like it would be a lot more fun, it would generate more revenue for each state, and it would increase the awareness and support for habitat and wildlife conservation to a much more National stage. Am I looking at this all wrong? Who would lose in that scenario?





Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

elkyinzer

WKR
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
1,257
Location
Pennslyvania
Is that a serious question?

Actually it's not ideal for hunt quality. I'd prefer the entire state be draw only. But that's why they're running the show.......they manage the state for both "quality" and "opportunity". I've reached that stage in my hunting life where I prefer to hunt mature animals over just being out there and shooting whatever I come upon. But everyone is different, and they should be glad that they even have a choice to come here and hunt.

I certainly don't complain about not being able to hunt AZ every year as a NR......or NM.......or any other state. That's their state, and they can run it the way they want to.

I absolutely hate crowds, and during hunting season more than one is a crowd IMO. It's like driving.......do you prefer bumper to bumper traffic, or wide open highways? If I know there's going to be traffic on the road.........I stay home. Same for hunting....except I just continue to leave old hunting grounds and search for others that aren't as crowded. Those opportunities are dwindling......and at an exponential rate just over the last 10 years.

There are many that think that everyone should have the same income, the same benefits, and the same hunting opportunities. They don't believe in exclusionary practices. I'm not one of those, I'm a conservative.


Not really, playing Devil's advocate. But I see I struck a nerve among the CO residents. But it is a fair question that merits consideration. What makes LE areas any different, why do they merit an artificial restriction on tag supply?

I like how any time questions about resource allocation are breached people think it becomes a liberal vs conservative issue, but what's ironic is that your answer is actually the polar opposite of conservative. The truly principled conservative approach would be a free market, true supply and demand, nationwide. Draw systems are an artificial restriction on the free market, by reducing the supply of tags they increase demand for trophy hunters by making those areas more desirable. Last I checked conservative principles don't support market restrictions. Absolute baloney that it effects game management as another poster responded. Population objectives are attained by controlling the number of females killed,not by increasing the chance at a 400 inch bull because only 10 people get to hunt the unit per year.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
906
What I don't understand though is why the NR allocations for all species are so low in any state? Seems like if you were setting allocations in the 1950's, then maybe 10% was fine. I can't imagine that there would have been much more demand by NR back then anyway, so it probably didn't matter. But, obviously the world is much different today. So, why wouldn't the NR allocation be set much higher, say at 30%, in all states? On a one to one basis, I sure that a NR generates significantly more rev$ than a local. This would seem to me like a good thing? States love their tourism revenue. And, though there would be 20% lower odds as a resident to draw a tag every year, you would also have 20% greater odds of drawing a tag in another western state (if all were at 30%). Just seems like it would be a lot more fun, it would generate more revenue for each state, and it would increase the awareness and support for habitat and wildlife conservation to a much more National stage. Am I looking at this all wrong? Who would lose in that scenario?

cool story,

the answer to this question is simple ownership, nothing more, nothing less. the reason why NM is a bastard to draw for me is because the residents own the elk on those mountains npt me, I'm just a guest so each state is likely going to take care of their residents first and foremost. Colorado has been very generous to it's non-res, other states not as much... I love CO, and I love some of the other states that are much harder on non-res.... both for different reasons though.

What I don't totally understand is why BHA is weighing in on this one.. I can fully understand the resident vs non-resident discsussion here but this particular matter seems out of the BHA's mission/values. To me this is 100% a state decision and probably only needs input from biological and economical professionals, not BHA.... unless I'm missing something....
 
Top