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

[WV Mountaineer]

Complaining because a state advocates hunting opportunity to its residents, over non residents, makes no sense. You live where you live. There are perks to it. There are cons to it. But, you benefit from
It in one way or the other. Asking to have the perks of someone else's choice at their expense isn't right concerning resident status.




I get what you are saying. We all own or are federally gaurantee access to these lands. We all pay for them. But, states manage wildlife resources on and off these lands. So, concerning that, we answer to them. And, expecting to be put infront of resident rights, as a nonresident, is not correct.




The BHA should have stayed out of this one though. There needs to be no special interest involved here. It's a no brainer.



God Bless men

 

[5MilesBack]

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.

You would probably be surprised at how many of the LO vouchers are issued to NR landowners. Most of the largest ranches in the state aren't owned by residents, and neither are many of the smaller ones.

 

[Stwrt9]

You would probably be surprised at how many of the LO vouchers are issued to NR landowners. Most of the largest ranches in the state aren't owned by residents, and neither are many of the smaller ones.

thats a head scratcher?? So someone who owns the ranch and pays the taxes is entitled to less that someone like you who owns a house and pays the same taxes? aren't you both technically residents and entitled to the same game that CO has to offer? So what if they don't live there full time. they still own the land and pay taxes therefore like it or not they should be entitled to a "Land Owner" tag as that is exactly what they are or am i missing something?

 

[realunlucky]

Your right i hadn't thought of that fact. I do know all land owners are limited to 20% and have thier own draw for tags. Depending on location the value of tags is pretty damn substantial. LO tags can't be brokered which limits the process some.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

You still just can't assume and simply just add those tags to non resident quota to help spin your position.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

thats a head scratcher?? So someone who owns the ranch and pays the taxes is entitled to less that someone like you who owns a house and pays the same taxes? aren't you both technically residents and entitled to the same game that CO has to offer? So what if they don't live there full time. they still own the land and pay taxes therefore like it or not they should be entitled to a "Land Owner" tag as that is exactly what they are or am i missing something?

Resident and land owner tags aren't the same. Land owner tags are transfersble as such can be resold.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Stwrt9]

Resident and land owner tags aren't the same. Land owner tags are transfersble as such can be resold.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I understand that, i was referring to the statement about LO vouchers being issued to NR who own the ranches. As is residents who own such ranches have more entitlement than "NR" Ranch owners within CO. My statement was simply that they own the land and pay taxes all the same.

 

[5MilesBack]

thats a head scratcher?? So someone who owns the ranch and pays the taxes is entitled to less that someone like you who owns a house and pays the same taxes? aren't you both technically residents and entitled to the same game that CO has to offer? So what if they don't live there full time. they still own the land and pay taxes therefore like it or not they should be entitled to a "Land Owner" tag as that is exactly what they are or am i missing something?

I didn't say I didn't agree with it. I was just pointing out that many of these "landowners" are in fact NR's. And the LO Vouchers aren't priced differently for residents and NR's because they are just a "voucher" that entitles the possessor to "purchase" a CDOW issued tag which is the same price as regular tags.....be it resident or NR. So if a NR landowner wants to hunt his own ranch with one of the vouchers he got from the CDOW, he takes it down and pays $644 for that either sex or bull tag just like any other NR.

 

[realunlucky]

Maybe BHA can lobby for Colorado resident landowners next.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Stwrt9]

I didn't say I didn't agree with it. I was just pointing out that many of these "landowners" are in fact NR's. And the LO Vouchers aren't priced differently for residents and NR's because they are just a "voucher" that entitles the possessor to "purchase" a CDOW issued tag which is the same price as regular tags.....be it resident or NR. So if a NR landowner wants to hunt his own ranch with one of the vouchers he got from the CDOW, he takes it down and pays $644 for that either sex or bull tag just like any other NR.

i see what your saying. Is there a qualifying amount of acreage for a land owner to be issued a voucher? And how many vouchers can these land owners claim to distribute as they see fit?

 

[5MilesBack]

Maybe BHA can lobby for Colorado resident landowners next.

It's kind of funny.......landowners lobbied for more tags and ended up with 20% instead of the old 15%. However........those 15% used to be all "unit wide" tags that they could sell for a sizeable amount. Most of these landowners don't want people on their land and would illegally transfer the vouchers with no intent to allow them on their property........even though "signed, written permission" is directly on every voucher. Many landowners were removed from the program because of this.

The funny thing is........when they lobbied and got 20%, the CDOW divided these vouchers up into 10% unit wide, and 10% private land only. Well, they can't get as much money for the private land vouchers because most guys don't want those. And in many cases those vouchers went unclaimed. Guess what? Those unclaimed vouchers now go back into the pool for the general public.

 

[5MilesBack]

i see what your saying. Is there a qualifying amount of acreage for a land owner to be issued a voucher? And how many vouchers can these land owners claim to distribute as they see fit?

You need at least 160 contiguous acres. There's a limit, and with only 20% of the tags available for vouchers, there aren't that many. And the landowners are on the exact same kind of setup as the regular draw, they all apply and if they don't draw their first choice, they get a point. So in some units they may need several points and wait several years to get even one voucher.

That's why vouchers for the NW part of the state 2, 201, 10.......go for $15k+.

 

[realunlucky]

Maybe BHA can lobby for Colorado resident landowners next.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

This was a tongue in cheek comment

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

This was a tongue in cheek comment

You think? LOL.

 

[Grundy53]

Every time I'm close to becoming a bha member again, I read stuff like this...

Same here

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[vanish]

Wanted to let you folks know that I brought this up at the CO BHA Chapter rendezvous this weekend, as I said I would.

The general consensus was pretty much; "Yeah, we ****'d that one up."

 

[realunlucky]

Wanted to let you folks know that I brought this up at the CO BHA Chapter rendezvous this weekend, as I said I would.

The general consensus was pretty much; "Yeah, we ****'d that one up."

Vanish thanks for following up. If they feel that way maybe they should make a clarification statement on thier non resident tag position.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Jason Snyder]

Wanted to let you folks know that I brought this up at the CO BHA Chapter rendezvous this weekend, as I said I would.

The general consensus was pretty much; "Yeah, we ****'d that one up."

As in they should not have written a letter from the state chapter?

I don't disagree with their stance one bit. It's amazing how this one went way off into the weeds. In my mind, the central focus should be is the issue within the focus of BHAs mission statement?

Is anyone complaining about the Alaska chapter of BHA fighting against the closure of a caribou area outside of subsistence hunting? I have seen folks complain because BHA didn't speak out on wolf issues. If anything, it goes to show how organizations really need to figure out what exactly they want their mission statement to be, and then work within it.

Still a BHA member.

 

[vanish]

As in they should not have written a letter from the state chapter?

No. Nobody seemed to have a problem with making a statement on an issue slightly outside the scope of the national organization. The CO chapter making statements relevant to CO issues. The view was pretty much "No other organization is representing resident DIY hunters (since the tag re-allocation is being pushed by outfitters), so we're going to speak up."

( Edit: Which, as a member of the CO Chapter, I am thankful for. )

Rather the "we ****'d up" part was how the statement was worded; the parts of the position recommending the state bring NR tags in line with other states was unintentionally too far, but its very difficult to backtrack it. I'm not sure what they're going to do on the issue moving forward, but they've sure learned a thing or two.

 

[Murdy]

To the original point, I am and will continue to be a BHA member. I also buy preference points in Colorado. I hate to see the money I donate to BHA being used to lobby to restrict my hunting opportunities in a state I'm buying points in. This is an issue BHA should have stayed out of.