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

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
There was a thread on another forum about statement made by Colorado BHA advocating changes to the res/nonres tag allocation to be more inline with other Western States. While I am former resident of CO and an applicant across several western states (and thus deemed biased by some), I think the long term national opinion of hunting and public land access should be considered as part of these debates. Below is my response that i would like to share with others:
I have been a resident of CO in the past but am currently a nonresident. I dont understand how BHA can do everything they can to fight for lands to remain federally managed and then say that nonresidents should have less access to the public lands for hunting. The same resident of Colorado or New Mexico or etc rolls their eyes when they hear about Alaska residents complaining about possibly losing their OTC $40 sheep tag. Many people have given up ever hunting Oregon and know their odds are slim for New Mexico and other places. My position is that nonresident access should increase across all western states not be reduced inline to the minimalists. Yes, it could help the locals who want a tag but what does it do for the long term of hunting access, voting trends and generating and growing hunting participation. Yes it increases competition for tags but it also increases access to hunters across the country who's votes count where it matters most, in the national elections. Nothing guarantees every resident of the state, country, even world the opportunity to hunt for a bighorn, moose goat, etc. There just arent enough to go around. Additionally, it will increase revenue to local bodies who have to manage the wildlife because ultimately wildlife can be managed by the feds ie migratory birds, wolf, grizzly, polar bear. If you think about it, its not that farfetched to consider FWS actually controlling all tags on federal land some day. I really struggle with the only argument for increasing resident tag allocations is because arbitrary lines were drawn by a government to dictate who can shoot migratory/moving/free range animals based upon where someone lives. Why does someone in Denver get better access to the Western Slope than a Utah resident 50 miles away? The same can be said for every state. What problems do CO residents encounter with the voting – that the majority of voters are on the front range. Look at what happened to trapping in CO and now apply it to the national stage. What is better in the long run – having less nonresident tags for locals to enjoy or having people nationwide speaking positively about hunting, adventure and public lands. Telling all their friends in New England or the Midwest or wherever the great things about their elk hunt or pronghorn or sheep. If we keep pushing out nonresidents, people will stop hunting nationwide and no one will vote on the national scale in favor of hunting or proper management of public lands. At the end of the day, none of us were around to create and preserve the wild lands of the country and make them public. The more we try to keep people from using them, the more likely they will end up private and not huntable. The next step is for a state legislator to say well if the residents want all the tags and access, then we as a state should own and manage the land (same as wildlife) and weve seen how this story plays out. Everything could end up being on landowner voucher or no access. In a perfect world, we all should have equal access to land and hunting opportunities. That is what will ensure access to hunting for many generations.


The statement as I saw on bowsite:
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers-Colorado Chapter

Big Game License Resident/Non-Resident Allocations

Recent discussions during Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission meetings on changing allocation methods for resident and non-resident (NR) big game license allocations—which have the potential to increase license allocations to non-resident hunters from the general pool—has alarmed resident/public land hunters along with sportsmen conservation groups in Colorado. The Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) opposes any efforts to increase non-resident license allocations, and (hence) decreases resident allocations, for the reasons below:

? All decisions on license allocations should, first and foremost, be premised on scientific wildlife management data and principles, with conservation of the resource given the highest priority. The recent license allocation discussion(s) occurred after the failure of a funding bill for Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in the state legislature, with (apparently) some outfitters and agricultural interests offering/proposing that more non-resident licenses equates to more income for the CPW. The discussion appears to be driven solely by the potential financial benefits of the more lucrative nonresident licenses, while science-based wildlife management does not seem to be a consideration.

? Colorado currently allocates more licenses to non-resident hunters than any other western state. In the western part of the state, the current draw format stipulates that 20% of the licenses in limited units be allocated to landowners as landowner vouchers. Many of these vouchers are sold with hunting packages to non-resident hunters for significant profits, of which none goes to funding our state’s wildlife department. In addition, with the remaining 80% of available licenses, the allocations are generally 65%/35%, or in a very few game management units 80%/20%, resident/non-resident ratios. Consequently, 55% of the licenses have the potential to be allocated to non-resident hunters in certain units (20% landowner preference plus 35% non-resident allocation). An increase to the non-resident allocation has the potential for non-residents to receive upwards of 60% (or more) of the allotted licenses. This is an egregious and unacceptable scenario. Given the already overly generous non-resident license allocations, we don’t consider an increase beyond the current license split to be a preferential outcome. Other western state license splits are detailed below:

Arizona - 10% maximum NR licenses &10% maximum for total sheep licenses; Idaho - 10% maximum NR licenses; New Mexico - 10% maximum NR licenses with an outfitter, 6% without an outfitter; Montana - 10% maximum NR licenses for draw licenses; Wyoming - 15% maximum NR elk licenses, 20% maximum NR deer, antelope, sheep, moose and goat licenses; California - 1 NR elk license, 1 NR Antelope license, 10% maximum NR sheep licenses; Oregon - 5% maximum NR deer and elk licenses, 3% NR antelope licenses, 10% NR sheep and goat licenses; Utah - 10% maximum NR licenses; Nevada - 10% maximum NR licenses.

? Additional non-resident license allocation would further upend the North American Model of Wildlife Management in Colorado. America’s greatest hunters-conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt, was the forefather of the North American Model of Wildlife Management (NAM). The North American Model, in turn, updates and expands Aldo Leopold’s foundational Land Ethic as laid out in his 1949 classic, A Sand County Almanac. In a nutshell, this concept guarantees that wild game belongs to the people, held in trust by the states. Wildlife in the United States is considered a public good to be conserved for everyone and accessible to everyone, not a commodity that can be bought and owned by the highest bidder.

However, these discussions seem to indicate that some outfitters and agricultural interests are influencing the wildlife commission to move even further away from NAM, toward maximizing profits for these two groups/entities without concern for science-based wildlife management. This agenda has no place within the tenants of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In fact, profiteering from wildlife is in direct conflict with NAM. It represents a throw-back of hunting toward a “pay to play” activity and is a characteristic of the aristocratic society where the nobles and “well to do” are the only ones who have access to hunting-angling and other outdoor recreation opportunities. Our American heritage is rooted in the tradition that all Americans have the opportunity to hunt and fish for food and recreation. However, these discussions geared toward increasing non-resident license allocations are, in a nutshell, moving Colorado toward ever more layers of privatization of big game hunting opportunity. While we generally support the mission of outfitters and agriculture, setting up a system with a “grab all you can get” agenda is a characteristic rooted in myopic greed, with little or no concern for the resource.

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. 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. Methods should also continue to be developed/emphasized that increase and promote Colorado residents’ participation in hunting, angling and other outdoor recreation.

Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

The sportsmen's voice for our wild public land, waters and wildlife
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,525
Location
Colorado Springs
I dont understand how BHA can do everything they can to fight for lands to remain federally managed and then say that nonresidents should have less access to the public lands for hunting.

It has absolutely nothing to do with access to Federal lands. Hunting is about the game animals on the land (which are owned and managed by the state), not the land itself.......regardless of whether the animals are on Fed, State, or private land. Two totally different issues.

But back to their stance.......I've always wondered why all the other western states allow very few NR tags compared to Colorado. So CO has more tags for NR's as a percentage over the other states, yet seems to always be in more dire straights when it comes to money. That's backwards, and explains a lot about the CDOW.
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
It has absolutely nothing to do with access to Federal lands. Hunting is about the game animals on the land (which are owned and managed by the state), not the land itself.......regardless of whether the animals are on Fed, State, or private land. Two totally different issues.

But back to their stance.......I've always wondered why all the other western states allow very few NR tags compared to Colorado. So CO has more tags for NR's as a percentage over the other states, yet seems to always be in more dire straights when it comes to money. That's backwards, and explains a lot about the CDOW.

Yeah but CDOW is only in dire straights because of the merger, other states Fish and Game are in dire straights on their own.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
2,398
I'll say that if I get priced out of the game I will care less about animal conservation and land transfer.
There's states and units with such low draw odds and expensive tags that they're not even a blib on my radar.
There's more than enough hunters in this country to put an end to the transfer debate, but few of those have any interest in what happening outside their own state, because that is all they hunt and care about.
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
I'll say that if I get priced out of the game I will care less about animal conservation and land transfer.
There's states and units with such low draw odds and expensive tags that they're not even a blib on my radar.
There's more than enough hunters in this country to put an end to the transfer debate, but few of those have any interest in what happening outside their own state, because that is all they hunt and care about.

Really?? You don't enjoy public lands for any other recreation? Kind of funny to have camping in your name then.
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
I have two issues - the first is a BHA chapter taking a stance on tag allocation at the state level after trying to keep land out of state hands. I support BHA and the work done on public land, but the its a hunting and fishing organization and the truth is that we should not be trying to limit access to other hunters. We can all go camp on state land and in parks. Im sure there are many members of BHA who hunt as NRs whether its a CO resident in WY or a Kentucky Resident in CO/MT.

The second is by limiting access to hunting to a few people, it hurts the big fight which is on the national stage. What benefit to wildlife and and state funding does increasing the Resident tag allocation provide, both on a local and national scale? Its the same number of tags just at a lower price and to a smaller group. How can hunting survive on a national scale when most of the country cant go hunting even if they want to? We cant complain about access to Oregon, New Mexico and even NR restrictions in Alaska and then try to follow suit in other states.
 

elkyinzer

WKR
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
1,257
Location
Pennslyvania
I am fine with greedy resident allocations as long as they are willing to pay more, which is almost never the case. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Under the North American Model, the states own the resources and they should be maximizing the revenue accordingly.
 

bigdesert10

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
293
Location
Idaho
I agree whole-heartedly with BHA on this topic. It is simply more important for states with public land to have strong populations of hunters and reducing opportunities for those residents is counterproductive to adding and keeping engaged hunters in those states. Face it, legislators in Texas and Minnesota are not getting elected based on their stance on public lands. In western states with lots of public land, though, it is a big issue that will most certainly impact elections. So while the support of non-residents is important, it is vastly more important to have passionate, engaged residents in the states where public lands bills are likely to originate.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
2,398
Really?? You don't enjoy public lands for any other recreation? Kind of funny to have camping in your name then.

Public land in general is never going away as a whole, but it's more those lands that are mostly used by hunters. I've been fortunate enough to hike in around 16 states and those places are popular enough with other forms of outdoor recreation that they're not likely going anywhere.
I could also be totally wrong?
 
OP
TXCO

TXCO

WKR
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
854
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?
 

ChrisC

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
173
I have two issues - the first is a BHA chapter taking a stance on tag allocation at the state level after trying to keep land out of state hands. I support BHA and the work done on public land, but the its a hunting and fishing organization and the truth is that we should not be trying to limit access to other hunters. We can all go camp on state land and in parks. Im sure there are many members of BHA who hunt as NRs whether its a CO resident in WY or a Kentucky Resident in CO/MT.

As 5MilesBack said earlier, you are comparing two separate issues. Tag allocation at a state level is different than land control by the state. BHA is not contradicting themselves, as the states
control wildlife. As far as I know, BHA has made no attempt to remove wildlife control from the states.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
2,398
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?

This is more what I was trying to say.
We have people in my own state that want to make doe tags so expensive that others won't buy them and In turn leave more deer for themselves. We need as many votes around the country as possible to have an interest.
 

n816kc

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
138
Location
Winter Haven, FL
out of state, but not out of mind

well, I may be. being a Florida resident, I've always hunted leased and private land in the southeast. I've hunted Colorado once and plan to go back one day. I'd also like to spend some time hunting other western states. I do appreciate having public land access even if I don't usually take advantage of it. this is a timely topic since this will be my first year bowhunting public land in Florida and dealing with the quota permit draw process.

back to the west - I am a member of BHA and have shared the group's views of public land access and management with my legislators. It is important to me since I do plan to hunt the west in a few years when I have the time and money to do so. I would hate to see the opportunity slip away having done nothing to help. This effort, minimal though it is, is a selfish pursuit. I want to be able to hunt elk, antelope and mule deer one day. While I agree with the BHA's position on land management and public access, it is primarily my issue only due to the desire and reasonable hope of anticipated hunts. hunts that may never happen. like TXCO and camp1601, I am not sure how much of my time and money will be spent on public land issues if the odds and tag cost make it unlikely that I'll ever take those trips to western states to hunt. I'll still be dealing with leases in the southeast regardless.

while I understand the issues, and have no desire to hear about western hunters sitting on the porch without a tag while non-residents roam all over the mountains, I also recognize there has to be comfortable median where everyone has a reasonable chance, and expectation of being able to hunt western states. without non-residents working in concert with the BHA, I fear there is little chance of maintaining public land access as new now know it. I don't know if the western state resident hunters have the numbers and political clout to go it alone. price/odds out all the non-residents and we may find out the hard way that they don't.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,525
Location
Colorado Springs
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.
 

elkyinzer

WKR
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
1,257
Location
Pennslyvania
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.

Why not just make the entire state OTC if that system is so ideal? Why have limited allocation areas at all?
 

dotman

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
8,201
Public land in general is never going away as a whole, but it's more those lands that are mostly used by hunters. I've been fortunate enough to hike in around 16 states and those places are popular enough with other forms of outdoor recreation that they're not likely going anywhere.
I could also be totally wrong?

I don't agree but you will not notice the true use numbers until we all have to use the same few pieces of it and your constantly rubbing elbows.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
15,525
Location
Colorado Springs
Why not just make the entire state OTC if that system is so ideal? Why have limited allocation areas at all?

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.
 
Last edited:

sveltri

WKR
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Messages
822
Location
SALIDA
Why not just make the entire state OTC if that system is so ideal? Why have limited allocation areas at all?

Because that would be poor management of the resource. Out of state hunters still have nearly the same opportunity to hunt these better areas as we do. Should the residents of a state not have a slight advantage to attaining those tags in their state?
 
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.

And there are unlimited resident tags too. Plus 80% of all the others and restricted units.
 
Top