5MilesBack
"DADDY"
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.