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

[orionthehunter1]

New Mexico had a record number of applicants this application period. That's great TXCO, Colorado also gives Non-Residents Mountain goat, Rocky Mountain bighorn, Shiras Moose, and desert sheep tags. Not to mention over the counter elk, bear, and mountain lion tags. Again you whine and complain about Colorado which has a higher R/NR allocation then most states and is one of the few where you can hunt Bull Elk every year on an OTC tag.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Oh I forgot over the counter archery pronghorn tags for a good chuck of the state also for non-residents. So tell me again where Colorado isn't fair to the non-resident. You got your a** handed to you on your bowsite rant and this one isn't going to go much better

 

[TXCO]

My concern and reason for the OP is a proposal further restricting tags by a chapter of public land advocacy group and also trying to raise awareness of several facts (like where DOW funding comes from) and possible long term implications. If CO is in line with other Western states then there are no OTC tags and far fewer opportunities for people to enjoy this great sport of public land hunting and fewer incentives for NRs in other states to support legislature and politicians that protect public land and hunting rights. The overall and long issue isnt limited to CO, it just happened to be CO because of COBHA.

I still don't understand what you are b****ing about when more than half the state is OTC!!

In your theory, taking away 1000 tags away from residents and giving those to nonresidents will increase the amount of voters in other states to help fight for public lands!!!!!!!!

Ok then you take 1000 voters out of the Colorado pool that can advocate for public lands.
You take one 1000 votes out of one state and spread that across 49 other states, do 20 votes per state, that doesn't really do much in the whole scheme of things.

And for all you that say you won't support a group that is going to take away your ability to get a tag, YOU CAN GET A F***ING BULL TAG EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!! And I will venture to say that the biggest bull taken in the state of Colorado comes off an OTC unit very regularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TXCO]

Im not sure I understand how opening a discussion on this constitutes being run over, especially if the majority of the money for DOW and wildlife management comes from federal and NR dollars. I understand no one wants to see their potential tags reduced, you the same as me.

Oh I forgot over the counter archery pronghorn tags for a good chuck of the state also for non-residents. So tell me again where Colorado isn't fair to the non-resident. You got your a** handed to you on your bowsite rant and this one isn't going to go much better

 

[realunlucky]

Well I'm sorry I've given them my money wonder if I can get a refund?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Colorado can do as sees fit for pricing but why would BHA weigh in with an opinion?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

Colorado can do as sees fit for pricing but why would BHA weigh in with an opinion?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

That is a good question, I'm a member but I fully expect their efforts to be towards retaining public access.

 

[realunlucky]

Think I'll email them and ask. The big picture (BHA primary mission) of public land retention is such a massive issue why peddle around with other issues especially if it causes division within the membership.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Backpack hunter I would gladly pay double for my resident licenses if it meant the R/NR split was more in line with other western states

You really dislike NR's after reading your posts. I feel sorry for the Non residents at YOUR trailhead

 

[orionthehunter1]

you couldn't find it, stick with feeders and whitetails. I don't dislike them just trying to prove that Colorado is more than fair to non-residents, but you guys just seem to want to whine and complain about losing opportunity and access to public land, but you have no problem with other western states R/NR allotment which is a lot lower than Colorados

 

[orionthehunter1]

That statement you quoted was also made in jest over people claiming CPW would go under if they changed the non resident allotment

 

[cuerro viejo]

That statement you quoted was also made in jest over people claiming CPW would go under if they changed the non resident allotment

Maybe but it pretty much follows context of your other posts. The juvenile corn and WT shots toward guys on a western focused forum are pretty comical though, it really strengthens your agruement.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Think I'll email them and ask. The big picture (BHA primary mission) of public land retention is such a massive issue why peddle around with other issues especially if it causes division within the membership.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I wondered the same thing back on page three but the more I read into this, my guess is that it's just the local CO chapter weighing in cause it's near and dear... probably not the national BHA's stance as they have bigger fish frying.

 

[530Chukar]

Being from California, I must apply in many western states for any quality hunting. It 's discouraging being allotted only 10% of tags in many states. Unfortunately from my understanding of states being the trustees of wildlife, there is no requirement whatsoever (that I am aware of) that mandates states give nonresidents any piece of the pie. I feel that it's just a matter of time before a state removes all nonresident hunting rights in regards to big game.

 

[realunlucky]

I wondered the same thing back on page three but the more I read into this, my guess is that it's just the local CO chapter weighing in cause it's near and dear... probably not the national BHA's stance as they have bigger fish frying.

Endorsement given by a BHA chapter has transfer to the organization as a whole. If it's not endorsed by the head office they should have issued a statement and some repercussions to those making those statements.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

Endorsement given by a BHA chapter has transfer to the organization as a whole. If it's not endorsed by the head office they should have issued a statement and some repercussions to those making those statements.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Local chapters should follow the national mission and not divert course for a mission that may be suited better for another organization such as the CBA. If local chapters start doing their own thing the overal goals will be diminished and the organization loses overalll. My guess is a few local chapter members feel they have the right to do as they please and what's next, they'll push for NR to have less access rights?

The national chapter needs to snip this in the butt and fast because this is not what BHA is about!

If you want to see a local chapter doing the right thing for this organization just look at the AK caribou fight that Larry B is fighting. This is an access fight for both residents and nonresidents.

 

[orionthehunter1]

This is not the first time the Colorado BHA has gotten involved in tag issues. They were also very vocal in the landowner voucher change a couple of years ago.

 

[dotman]

This is not the first time the Colorado BHA has gotten involved in tag issues. They were also very vocal in the landowner voucher change a couple of years ago.

Makes one wonder if former CBA members are running the CO BHA chapter?

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Endorsement given by a BHA chapter has transfer to the organization as a whole. If it's not endorsed by the head office they should have issued a statement and some repercussions to those making those statements.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Oh I whole heartedly agree... just the fact that land tawney didn't stamp it from Missoula makes me think it may be a chapter over reaching. BHA may have not known, may have known and not cared or knew and cared and CO BHA did it anyway... whatever the case I'm not sure how much clout the Colorado BHA chapter will have with the game and fish professionals. I'm sure between biological and economic reasons this proposal has been thought through from those stand points. At the end of the day though I get it, I'm not from CO but if I was I'd probably want to argue for more resident allocations in the premium units also, just makes sense that the owners of the resource have a better chance at it.

 

[TheCougar]

All the backbiting aside, I do wonder why BHA is in the NR/R allocation discussion. I understand why they are concerned with the state managing the total number of tags based on science and not budgetary reasons. I don't fully grasp why BHA cares if there are 100 tags to sell, whether the spilt is 90/10 or 75/25. If the state is using sound wildlife management, it is up to them to figure out how to monetize those tags in the most effective manner. I have no problem with what CO or any other state does with their tags. I'm happy they have a generous allocation for NR and as a result, they get my money each year. Some states don't. That's capitalism. I selfishly support generous NR allocations, however! Given my rudimentary understanding of BHAs "three buckets" and their charter, this seems like it deviates from their primary mission.