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

[5MilesBack]

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.

The basic gist is that some people want everything handed to them, and they want exactly what everyone else has.......equality for all regardless what they've done to deserve that. THAT is certainly not a conservative value or viewpoint.

The funny thing is, Colorado doesn't have to issue ANY NR tags. So another way to look at it is.......even 1% of the tags issued to NR's would be a real privilege for NR's. Look at it that way instead of "gee, if they cut our tags from 30%............"

It's just like our Healthcare legislation........people have been given a great privilege and now somehow think that it is a RIGHT to have healthcare insurance. It's the same for the NR tags. They've gotten 30% in the past, so now feel it's their right to those tags and not a % less.

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.

I've paid $2k for a landowner voucher just to hunt the unit I wanted to hunt, plus the $49 tag fee. So yes I am willing to pay more for better opportunity, and I would be willing to pay that every year to hunt where I wanted to hunt, but I don't think that's the right direction for the state and nation as a whole for hunting.......although that's the direction we've been going.

 

[TXCO]

The basic gist is that some people want everything handed to them, and they want exactly what everyone else has.......equality for all regardless what they've done to deserve that. THAT is certainly not a conservative value or viewpoint.

The funny thing is, Colorado doesn't have to issue ANY NR tags. So another way to look at it is.......even 1% of the tags issued to NR's would be a real privilege for NR's. Look at it that way instead of "gee, if they cut our tags from 30%............"

It's just like our Healthcare legislation........people have been given a great privilege and now somehow think that it is a RIGHT to have healthcare insurance. It's the same for the NR tags. They've gotten 30% in the past, so now feel it's their right to those tags and not a % less.



I've paid $2k for a landowner voucher just to hunt the unit I wanted to hunt, plus the $49 tag fee. So yes I am willing to pay more for better opportunity, and I would be willing to pay that every year to hunt where I wanted to hunt, but I don't think that's the right direction for the state and nation as a whole for hunting.......although that's the direction we've been going.

This sounds more like you want everything handed to you and everyone to thank you for the leftover scraps. The truth is that none of us created the animals or the public land we have today. Why should state lines get in the way of that? How can someone say please help pay and steward my public lands but dont come hunt the game that call it home? How is hunting supposed to be passed on to generations if we cant share it? Conservation and public lands should go far beyond tag allocations and telling nonresidents to be happy with table scraps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[30338]

As a guy in my late 20s with a family, I moved to Colorado for the hunting and lifestyle. I left the rest of my family in the midwest and see them only so often. We have had great experiences here and my family I think is very happy with that decision. So if you don't live here, pay taxes here, and vote here, I personally don't think you have much say here. I am a very strong believer in states rights and think we should manage the wildlife and license prices to benefit the residents of Colorado to the greatest extent possible. So not sure how giving non residents a certain number of tags through the draw process is "table scraps", but if you don't like it, don't apply here.

 

[cnelk]

TXCO has posted his BHA opinion across various sites today.

Like someone told him over on Bowsite:

"....I don't try to come change your laws in Texas, why do you guys seem so intent on trying to change ours!..... If you want resident deals then move here become a resident and deal with all the crap we have to deal with, if not then don't, and you can stay home and hunt whitetail's and hogs on a lease you have to pay a crapload for because Texas sold off almost all its public lands!"

 

[5MilesBack]

This sounds more like you want everything handed to you and everyone to thank you for the leftover scraps.

Actually just the opposite. I don't want anything handed to me........I'm willing to work for whatever I want. Colorado could shut down hunting altogether, and I will adapt and move forward. If I wanted everything handed to me, I'd be advocating that every state give me tags as a NR.......even though I've done absolutely nothing to deserve them.

It appears that you have a problem with state rights. I'd suggest studying up on them, or petition to get an amendment absolving them.

And........if I had a dog that started complaining about getting "table scraps", I'd cut him off so fast his head would spin, and he'd get absolutely nothing!

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Can I as a non resident defund my federal dollars supporting states that disenfranchise my right to hunt public land within the boundaries of that state?

I can't right???

Because I'm fairly certain most folks claim states rights only when it is congruent to a particular issue.

There aren't many federal tax dollar donation states, you an cherry pick a dataset to support your hypothesis but its dismal anyway you cut it

 

[TXCO]

I think its fair to say that none of us were around when most of the country was sold off, especially outside the West and that we are all trying to keep whats left in tact. My concern is about the larger issue of sustainable access and hunters rights through generations. Making it more difficult to introduce people to hunting is not a long term solution. When I lived in CO, I welcomed every opportunity to take someone (resident or nonresident) hunting, because many people like the adventure, even if there isnt any in their backyard. I grew up backpacking with scouts and my dad pulling my out of school to elk hunt as soon as I had my hunters ed. Today as a nonresident, I still work to take people hunting out West because it inspires and encourages them the same way it does to the members of this site. If a nonresident has no access to public land in their state or someone else's, how will they hunt or vote in favor of anything to help wildlife? Or how will those in Texas leave a deer blind if there are no other options? We all have various reasons for living where we do, and if we are all paying for federal land and natural resources, why should people be excluded if non residents are lucky to be getting any tags in the first place? It would seem that leads over time to either land being turned over to the states which it seems we've all been fighting against, overpopulation in these states or the complete loss of access and hunting rights via national elections. And in regards to paying for it, on 1st choice deer and elk tags in 2016, Non residents paid CO alone $18.5MM in tag fees on 30% of the tags while residents paid $3.8 MM.

TXCO has posted his BHA opinion across various sites today.

Like someone told him over on Bowsite:

"....I don't try to come change your laws in Texas, why do you guys seem so intent on trying to change ours!..... If you want resident deals then move here become a resident and deal with all the crap we have to deal with, if not then don't, and you can stay home and hunt whitetail's and hogs on a lease you have to pay a crapload for because Texas sold off almost all its public lands!"

 

[cnelk]

And in 2016, Coloradoans paid 100% state taxes and NonRes paid 0%

 

[bigdesert10]

I think its fair to say that none of us were around when most of the country was sold off, especially outside the West and that we are all trying to keep whats left in tact. My concern is about the larger issue of sustainable access and hunters rights through generations. Making it more difficult to introduce people to hunting is not a long term solution. When I lived in CO, I welcomed every opportunity to take someone (resident or nonresident) hunting, because many people like the adventure, even if there isnt any in their backyard. I grew up backpacking with scouts and my dad pulling my out of school to elk hunt as soon as I had my hunters ed. Today as a nonresident, I still work to take people hunting out West because it inspires and encourages them the same way it does to the members of this site. If a nonresident has no access to public land in their state or someone else's, how will they hunt or vote in favor of anything to help wildlife? Or how will those in Texas leave a deer blind if there are no other options? We all have various reasons for living where we do, and if we are all paying for federal land and natural resources, why should people be excluded if non residents are lucky to be getting any tags in the first place? It would seem that leads over time to either land being turned over to the states which it seems we've all been fighting against, overpopulation in these states or the complete loss of access and hunting rights via national elections. And in regards to paying for it, on 1st choice deer and elk tags in 2016, Non residents paid CO alone $18.5MM in tag fees on 30% of the tags while residents paid $3.8 MM.

I guess I just can't relate to you, bud. I live where I live because I've made hunting public lands my priority and I've sacrificed a lot of earning potential because of it. I spend a few hundred dollars a year (every year) on licenses, tags, stamps and applications. I attend meetings and cleanup / habitat improvement projects when they come up.

To the guy that mentioned withholding public land funds - you don't have to have a tag to use public land. You just can't hunt the game that belongs to the state without one.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[TXCO]

And in 2016, Coloradoans paid 100% state taxes and NonRes paid 0%

And I paid federal taxes which pay for federal lands same as you. Also, only 4% or $9 MM of the 2017 CO DOW budget comes from state income taxes and severance taxes. http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf after Colorado voted to remove Parks and wildlife from the state general fund in 2010.

 

[TXCO]

The main theme Im trying to relay is that the big fight to preserve hunting for many generations is on the national scale and generating interest for people in other states matters. Its only going to get harder to have access for the every day person in Idaho, let alone Ohio. The total population for Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming in 2013 was 34.5 MM people or 10.9% of the US population. Assuming everyone in those states votes to keep hunting and federal lands public, it will still lose in a landslide. We are lucky and privileged to be in one of the four countries in the world that has great access to hunting for the public (others being Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The federal deficit is only growing and public lands are at stake. How do you convince the other 89% of the population to continue to pay for public lands and allow hunting? Again some great examples on the national scale are wolves in wyoming versus Idaho and Montana or even the trapping vote in CO where Denver and Boulder carried the vote to outlaw it.

One of the things Ive been really curious about is why dont antihunting groups take the money and buy tags? PETA's revenues were $67 MM and they could encourage their members in western states to flood the license system, buy tags for less than $50 and then throw them away? Save an animals life and put money towards parks and wildlife undercutting the hunters arguments about where license fees go.

I went through all this today to try and discuss key points that I see coming over the rest of my lifetime and generations to come. I am passionate about hunting and public lands and I hope we can all work together to protect it on a large scale.

 

[Trial153]

I still can't fathom that anyone can complain about Colorado Residents, who are members of BHA or any other organization for that matter can't have an option on allocating tags in their own state.
To spam multiple sites with this takes more balls than brains.

 

[cuerro viejo]

And in 2016, Coloradoans paid 100% state taxes and NonRes paid 0%

Actually that's complete BS. Pretty stupid also

You don't have to be a resident to pay income or property takes in CO.

 

[TXCO]

I still can't fathom that anyone can complain about Colorado Residents, who are members of BHA or any other organization for that matter can't have an option on allocating tags in their own state.
To spam multiple sites with this takes more balls than brains.

I stated that I found it on bowsite in original post and wanted to share it here. These are the only 2 places. And my point is what is the long term and national impact of allocating over 89% of the general population away from hunting? Its not a state by state issue but a nationwide issue, especially concerning who owns and controls access to public lands (federal vs state). And I think its great for us to have this conversation on multiple platforms and reach new people because I think we can all learn and be better off in the long run.

 

[cnelk]

Want to be heard?
You can get involved here - Colorado Parks & Wildlife -
Sportsmen's Roundtable and Caucuses

Make sure you fill out an application to fill any open seats when they become available

 

[TXCO]

Sounds great, I look forward to when the next meetings are announced since these have all passed.

 

[Davebuech]

I'm just glad to be a member of BHA. It appears we need all the help we can get.

 

[MattB]

People need to mentally separate the animals from the land. While the land may be federally owned, the animals that live on it are managed by the state for the benefit of its residents. If you want improved access to those animals, become a resident.

 

[Stwrt9]

People need to mentally separate the animals from the land. While the land may be federally owned, the animals that live on it are managed by the state for the benefit of its residents. If you want improved access to those animals, become a resident.

I
So basically from your standpoint there's zero reason for anyone who's a non-resident hunter to support an organization such as BHA(which btw has "hunters" in the name for land access and rights). I get your reasoning regarding state owned animals but if you want people outside of your state to also fight for your rights as hunters and access to federal public land isn't it in your best interest to profit from non-resident hunters such as myself. If you don't need our money fine but don't expect us to fight along side you to keep OUR public lands public for hunting. And yes I am a BHA member.

 

[dirtytough]

BHA is stupid to have a position on this. It has nothing to do with their mission statement. It's about res-non res allocation. Not about keeping public lands public. No way am I going to support an org that makes it harder for me to get a tag to go hunting.