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

[orionthehunter1]

Nice, not only do they have accounting on par with SFW they are funded by left wing wacko organizations. This thread just keeps getting better

 

[tipsntails7]

The fact that you guys think BHA, TRCP, Trout Unlimited, whoever would do anything but oppose "Big energy" is hilarious. Get your heads out of the sand and figure out what they are actually doing.

Of course those organizations are going to be against handing over federal lands, letting them be pillaged for their gas or mineral reserves. Of course they are going to oppose and lobby against energy and development. That's what your giving them your money for is it not?

I'm sure some people would be shocked to see their donor list, and be aghast at what else those donors have contributed to. Natural Resource Defense Council, Audubon Society the Sierra Foundation are all other orgs that have received money from donors on BHA's donor list.

Maybe you guys should do some homework before you just throw money at an organization if your shocked by that.

Land protection and animal conservation are a very liberal thing in the political field, it shouldn't be shocking that donors that support that would support more radical groups that want to protect those things to.
That article laughingly describes protecting our public lands as a detriment to sportsmen when it's actually the complete opposite.

On the flip side, how many guys cut checks because Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella tell them it's a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[406]

I think the lack of comment by in this thread by certain voices is more telling than anything that has actually been posted.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[orionthehunter1]

I haven't given them any money. It is somewhat counterproductive to be backed by many anti-hunting and anti-gun groups. I am more concerned over the questionable accounting practices and lack of transparency

 

[dotman]

I haven't given them any money. It is somewhat counterproductive to be backed by many anti-hunting and anti-gun groups. I am more concerned over the questionable accounting practices and lack of transparency

Doesn't bother me one bit who gives or gave them money as long as their focus is public land access which has many users outside of hunting/fishing but once they start moving their voice outside of that area and into an opinion of hunting rights then yes I fear who financially is donating.

I'm a life member and do believe that overall that in the grand scheme I agree with them 80% of the time but there is also a reason I belong to many different orgs.

 

[realunlucky]

Counting land owner tags as a portion of non resident quota is some interesting math.
1 those tags are assigned to residents to do with as they please.
2. Residents have equal access to those tags opening thier check book same as a non resident.






Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

Counting land owner tags as a portion of non resident quota is some interesting math.
1 those tags are assigned to residents to do with as they please.
2. Residents have equal access to those tags opening thier check book same as a non resident.






Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I think it would be great if CO did away with LO tags completely, I know a few CO residents that love buying them especially in units they can't draw all that often and have zero issue paying thousands for them, put all of those tags back into the pool and let's all just play the odds.

 

[406]

I always thought highly of BHA. I admittedly didn't dig real deep.

A few months ago BHA came up while taking to a buddy and his exact words were "they're the enemy". It was a strong statement from man I respect.

So I've been open minded to any and all thoughts concerning them ever since.
Then the quiet waters thing, and now this stuff.

I genuinely don't have an opinion here, but I'm trying to form one. I appreciate the hard facts, as opposed to conjecture, that many are bringing to the table.
Thank you, learning and the exchange of knowledge is why I come here.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

406, I'm out of the loop on the quiet waters deal. You got a Cliff Notes version?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

I agree assigning cash value to game is what has ruined game management based on its fundamental model.

I'm afraid that landowner tags are never going anywhere probably the only truly unchangeable element in the whole management plan.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

The fact that you guys think BHA, TRCP, Trout Unlimited, whoever would do anything but oppose "Big energy" is hilarious. Get your heads out of the sand and figure out what they are actually doing.

Of course those organizations are going to be against handing over federal lands, letting them be pillaged for their gas or mineral reserves. Of course they are going to oppose and lobby against energy and development. That's what your giving them your money for is it not?

I'm sure some people would be shocked to see their donor list, and be aghast at what else those donors have contributed to. Natural Resource Defense Council, Audubon Society the Sierra Foundation are all other orgs that have received money from donors on BHA's donor list.

Maybe you guys should do some homework before you just throw money at an organization if your shocked by that.

Land protection and animal conservation are a very liberal thing in the political field, it shouldn't be shocking that donors that support that would support more radical groups that want to protect those things to.
That article laughingly describes protecting our public lands as a detriment to sportsmen when it's actually the complete opposite.

On the flip side, how many guys cut checks because Randy Newberg and Steve Rinella tell them it's a good idea?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You so smart

 

[406]

406, I'm out of the loop on the quiet waters deal. You got a Cliff Notes version?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

There's a thread here that will present both sides better than I can. But basically some people feel it's a slippery slope of a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. This, it turns out, is the basis of my friend determining they are the enemy.

I certainly haven't made up my mind on any of it. I'm just trying to catch up and pay attention to something I wasn't before.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

I agree assigning cash value to game is what has ruined game management based on its fundamental model.

I'm afraid that landowner tags are never going anywhere probably the only truly unchangeable element in the whole management plan.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

pronghorns cost farmers a ton of money. come December/January it's not uncommon to see 100 herded up and mowing down winter wheat to the root.

So you want that farmer to raise enough hell that He gets crop depermation permits and mows then down, or give him a few tags to off set the damage?

There is the old school farmer option also..... seen small herds of elk find their way across a state line and get layed down just like the 120 acre corn circle they just layed over.

Im not saying the LO tag system in states isn't abused but in principle it does exactly what its design to do which is buy tolerance for game animals and push for better stewardship of the land for Game Animals.

 

[realunlucky]

Is this the same guy that pays pennies to run his cattle on federal land?
Yep I get the intent but it's well past off setting his damage. Wherever it's here to stay large land owner and outfitter association have plenty of lobby power

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Is this the same guy that pays pennies to run his cattle on federal land?
Yep I get the intent but it's well past off setting his damage. Wherever it's here to stay large land owner and outfitter association have plenty of lobby power

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

So when did Leasees get LO tags on federal land lease holdings?? Umm Never....

End of the day Federal Land is by majority fridge habitat... guess who owns the non fringe habitat.... private citizens. Gripe, toss stones, mock etc private landowners all you want, but at the end of the day their tolerance is needed for sustainable game populations.

hunters make the LO tag system feasible. They also make it a non break even, break even or surplus endeavor for the landowner.

I can remember when deer where shot on sight in farm country. I also remember not long ago county commissioners signed off on crop Depredation permits by the stack

 

[realunlucky]

I apologise for going off topic and ranting. I was talking about two separate issues sorry they only relate to the gaming system of public resources for personal profit.
As i said before whatever they are here to stay. So again a necessity evil that's here to stay

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

So when did Leasees get LO tags on federal land lease holdings?? Umm Never....

End of the day Federal Land is by majority fridge habitat... guess who owns the non fringe habitat.... private citizens. Gripe, toss stones, mock etc private landowners all you want, but at the end of the day their tolerance is needed for sustainable game populations.

hunters make the LO tag system feasible. They also make it a non break even, break even or surplus endeavor for the landowner.

I can remember when deer where shot on sight in farm country. I also remember not long ago county commissioners signed off on crop Depredation permits by the stack

And you don't think the ranchers that own land on the fringe of public don't have the lease for the public next to it? Many of the ranches that have the leases are big ranches right next to public land and in their minds it is their land.

Also if LO tags are there to offset damage from wildlife on private group why is it that a LO tag is good for an entire unit and not just the private land of the LO?

 

[cuerro viejo]

And you don't think the ranchers that own land on the fringe of public don't have the lease for the public next to it? Many of the ranches that have the leases are big ranches right next to public land and in their minds it is their land.

Also if LO tags are there to offset damage from wildlife on private group why is it that a LO tag is good for an entire unit and not just the private land of the LO?

You are looking at it very narrowly. Animals migrate, those tags cover 365 days of damage. Hunting season isn't 365 days.

A bull elk and a bovine eat with in 5 pounds a day. So to increase my CC by one bovine I need to subtract on bull elk. Or I can look at it like this. One cow raises one yearling. Or $700-1000. If that Bull tag brings $3k. I can run less bovines and more elk for same money. Or when those elk show up in December and are hammering my cattle feed/grass I'm not near as upset.


Some states have better LO systems then others. Unit wide tags in NM open your ranch up to general public.

Again you can hate them all you want. Those animals are going to get culled one way or the other. LO permit system is just a better usage of the 365 day a year crop depredation system that's been in place for decades. The LO permit is a much better usage of wildlife and more enticing for LO to practice better wildlife management also.

 

[tipsntails7]

I haven't given them any money. It is somewhat counterproductive to be backed by many anti-hunting and anti-gun groups. I am more concerned over the questionable accounting practices and lack of transparency

Agreed, but being pro environment, and pro wildlife doesn't have to mean anti-hunting, although unfortunately that seems to be a recurring theme in the political sphere as of late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TXCO]

If you read my unedited OP of this thread, the second half of it is the original statement as you restated. I appreciate your edit in regards to the last paragraph which is what I keyed in on after reading earlier in it about all the other state tag allocations because taken as written it would mean the end of OTC and cutting NR tags to 3-10%. I dont feel like I mislead or misrepresented myself while focusing on the facts (money, fundraising, tags, population and voting) and discussing the different possible paths of the future. Further, my point behind this thread was to start a discussion about the long term effect of reducing access to hunting which it did for better or worse. We all have our own opinion and style which is fair but that doesnt keep us from having a discussion about a sensitive issue which we are all passionate about or we wouldnt be on Rokslide.

I think its fair to say that the hunting opportunities across the west are vastly different today than 20 or 50 years ago for a variety of reasons. My point and initial focus on CO was this statement from COBHA coupled with the wonderful opportunities CO has provided to introduce people to big game hunting out west. It was the most current and first opportunity Ive had to really research and voice my thoughts on the future. I fear that as opportunities dry up, hunting and access and public lands will look vastly different 20 - 50 years from now and not for the better. My opinion is that when questions about access and allocations and such come up, people consider how it may or may not play out for the next generation (such as BuzzH's post previously), especially when so many items happen on a national scale and require us all to band together for the big fights. Of course, all just one man's long winded opinion.

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!




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: