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

[5MilesBack]

Pretty damn ironic given my business is in OTC units, and I guide more residents than non-residents on draw hunts.

If you're guiding residents or NR's on draw hunts.........how is your business in OTC units? That first part of your statement makes it sound like you only outfit in OTC units.

And we all know that CO has draw sheep, moose, goat, and deer for both residents and NR's......and both OTC and draw for elk and pronghorn tags. So depending on what your guiding for........it could be both draw and OTC in the same unit. That's not so ironic.

 

[Ftguides]

If you're guiding residents or NR's on draw hunts.........how is your business in OTC units? That first part of your statement makes it sound like you only outfit in OTC units.

And we all know that CO has draw sheep, moose, goat, and deer for both residents and NR's......and both OTC and draw for elk and pronghorn tags. So depending on what your guiding for........it could be both draw and OTC in the same unit. That's not so ironic.

Just poorly worded. My point was that the draw splits don't affect my business in any meaningful way. OTC ELK, and my sheep and goat draw hunts I guide mostly residents, some years only residents. If all draw tags went to residents, I'd still have a full schedule. That's what I found ironic about the attack on my views. However, it's a moote point. I do work in an industry that has bias on this matter, that's why I mentioned it before I gave my opinion. There is inherent bias on all sides, R, NR, Outfitters, but that doesn't mean their should be no discussion of views/ideas/analysis.

 

[Hoot]

Overall, the entire outfitting industry in Colorado is reliant on NR tags, and the outfitters lobby for more NR tags every chance they get, so forgive me, but when an outfitter starts spewing BS about colorado being the savior of hunting by providing NR opportunity, I immediately distrust him...

 

[Ftguides]

NR resident opportunity in CO is important to big game hunting. Look at the numbers, look at how members of this forum get into big game hunting, etc... If you want to ignore that because I am an outfitter, if you want to distrust me because that is my view, you are free to do so.

 

[406]

This seems like something the members of that chapter should have worked on outside of BHA.

If BHA chapters start pushing agendas not agreed upon by it's national body they lose momentum, and my support.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Hoot]

Again, the overwhelming majority of big game hunters only hunt their home state, nationwide. Period. Advocating for an increase in NR opportunity as opposed to R opportunity does nothing for hunting except those that are wealthy enough to travel to other states. We should be increasing youth and local opportunity if we want to increase hunter recruitment.

 

[sneaky]

Doesn't matter if you add 10k resident tags to Colorado, or any other state's totals. The interest in hunting by the general public just isn't there. BHA is going to alienate their supporters by taking sides in this debate. A majority may only hunt their home states, but enough of them visit Colorado to make up a significant portion of CPW's budget. How much more of an increase in local opportunity do you really foresee happening? Unlimited OTC opportunities already, hard to raise that number.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Ftguides]

You live in Ft. Collins and you think the solution to solving imminent game management issues in this state is resident hunter recruitment? Look around. At this point politically, I find it hard to believe you think that is a viable solution.

Most hunters in California only hunt California. A game rich state actually. Problem was non-resident opportunity was always horrible there. Bear management comes up, zero political support from the national hunter population. Logical cat management creeps up every once in awhile, no political support from hunters across nation. The result, their hunting is crap and access to hunting is crap.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Sneaky Colorado is not looking to expand OTC opportunities more wanting to re-align the draw tag allocations. Some of them are 60/40 res to non resident. If some of the previous post are true and their accounting and transparency is on par with SFW I think if I was member this would more concerning than what individual state chapters are getting involved in. Lord knows we don't need another SFW

 

[flyinsquirel]

Most hunters in California only hunt California. A game rich state actually. Problem was non-resident opportunity was always horrible there. Bear management comes up, zero political support from the national hunter population. Logical cat management creeps up every once in awhile, no political support from hunters across nation. The result, their hunting is crap and access to hunting is crap.

Facts. ^^^

Don't forget our ban on lead amunition. Coming to your state soon.

 

[dotman]

Sneaky Colorado is not looking to expand OTC opportunities more wanting to re-align the draw tag allocations. Some of them are 60/40 res to non resident. If some of the previous post are true and their accounting and transparency is on par with SFW I think if I was member this would more concerning than what individual state chapters are getting involved in. Lord knows we don't need another SFW

I put in for draws as a NR, NR get more and more tags each year because fewer and fewer residents put in, where I hunt. Not the NR fault and to only look at 6 trophy units is short sighted. CO DOW would be hosed without the NR especially as more and more left leaning people from CA invade CO. Maybe all the pot smokers will take up hunting at some point. As a NR the opportunity for Res in CO is pretty dang good compared to other western states.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Its a lot more than 6 units the allocations are for all species not just elk. Hopefully the pot heads head back west now that California and Nevada legalized it. Winters are warmer out there too.

 

[sneaky]

Good luck with that. They aren't moving to Colorado for pot. They are getting out of that toxic political climate...well, they're bringing that with them. Cost of living is still cheaper for them in Colorado than Cali.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Its a lot more than 6 units the allocations are for all species not just elk. Hopefully the pot heads head back west now that California and Nevada legalized it. Winters are warmer out there too.

Every rifle cow tag, every first and 4th season elk tag, every mule deer tag etc, etc, etc

 

[5MilesBack]

Good luck with that. They aren't moving to Colorado for pot.

I guess it depends who you ask. They did some interviews here recently with some whackjob professor who insisted that most didn't move here for pot, then they interviewed all the dead beats on the street and every single one of them said they moved here for the pot.

 

[CorbLand]

Side note on bha, I was doing some searches and couldn't find what I was looking for out in Google land. Does bha release their financial records? Like how much money they take in, who is giving it, where it's spent, etc?

I found it once. I wrote a paper on a bunch of organizations protecting public lands back in the Fall. I will try to find my sources and will post a link. BHA has been in hot water over some tax filings though, that can be easily found by searching for it.

 

[vanish]

Disclosure: I'm about to go spend a weekend with fellow CO BHA members up at the chapter rendezvous at Sylvan Lake. There will be guys there that have ben on the lookout for public lands since before the average member of this forum was born. I didn't have anything to do with the creation of the statement.

EDIT: Alright, re-reading the last paragraph, I can agree the statement about bringing CO in line with other states went too far. An NR BHA member could complain about that. I agree that perhaps someone made this personal. I'll bring it up to the group this weekend.

If you want to create some conspiracy theory about BHA being fake, I can't help you.

In my opinion, TXCO misleads anyone reading this thread with the basic premise. CO BHA is NOT advocating for reducing NR opportunity!

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

That's the real freakin quote from the statement. Opposes increases. The statements about other states is added to support the ridiculousness of the request to increase NR tags, showing CO already gives NRs higher opportunity than elsewhere.

Essentially, the core of the issue comes from outfitters saying to CPW: "hey, if you give NRs more tags, you can help out your money problems!" Of course, outfitters will make more money, too, since the proportion of NRs that hire outfitters and guides is significantly higher.

Then, you also run into the issue of the hard vs soft cap as mentioned above, where you actually have a BETTER chance at some tags as an NR than an R. That's messed up! Can you really argue that its not?

Lastly, there are certain tags R's are already supposed to have an 80/20 cap, and that's not being followed.

I can appreciate the fact that BHA is watching out for the DIY resident hunter on this matter. What other organization is?

Here's the whole statement, since it was curiously left out of the OP:

Position Statement

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

 

[sneaky]

The whole "upends the North American Model of Wildlife Management" is BS. A thousand tags is a thousand tags, no matter who has them. NR aren't coming in to Colorado and killing off all the game. NR money is still supporting CO game management programs . Whoever wrote that in to that statement has a personal axe to grind and needs to keep that off of an official statement from the state BHA chapter.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

found this little nugget without much searching, along with 990 forms with a lot of expenses listed under "other"

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

BHA isn't the only one taking the money...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk