TXCO
WKR
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2012
- Messages
- 866
There was a thread on another forum about statement made by Colorado BHA advocating changes to the res/nonres tag allocation to be more inline with other Western States. While I am former resident of CO and an applicant across several western states (and thus deemed biased by some), I think the long term national opinion of hunting and public land access should be considered as part of these debates. Below is my response that i would like to share with others:
I have been a resident of CO in the past but am currently a nonresident. I dont understand how BHA can do everything they can to fight for lands to remain federally managed and then say that nonresidents should have less access to the public lands for hunting. The same resident of Colorado or New Mexico or etc rolls their eyes when they hear about Alaska residents complaining about possibly losing their OTC $40 sheep tag. Many people have given up ever hunting Oregon and know their odds are slim for New Mexico and other places. My position is that nonresident access should increase across all western states not be reduced inline to the minimalists. Yes, it could help the locals who want a tag but what does it do for the long term of hunting access, voting trends and generating and growing hunting participation. Yes it increases competition for tags but it also increases access to hunters across the country who's votes count where it matters most, in the national elections. Nothing guarantees every resident of the state, country, even world the opportunity to hunt for a bighorn, moose goat, etc. There just arent enough to go around. Additionally, it will increase revenue to local bodies who have to manage the wildlife because ultimately wildlife can be managed by the feds ie migratory birds, wolf, grizzly, polar bear. If you think about it, its not that farfetched to consider FWS actually controlling all tags on federal land some day. I really struggle with the only argument for increasing resident tag allocations is because arbitrary lines were drawn by a government to dictate who can shoot migratory/moving/free range animals based upon where someone lives. Why does someone in Denver get better access to the Western Slope than a Utah resident 50 miles away? The same can be said for every state. What problems do CO residents encounter with the voting – that the majority of voters are on the front range. Look at what happened to trapping in CO and now apply it to the national stage. What is better in the long run – having less nonresident tags for locals to enjoy or having people nationwide speaking positively about hunting, adventure and public lands. Telling all their friends in New England or the Midwest or wherever the great things about their elk hunt or pronghorn or sheep. If we keep pushing out nonresidents, people will stop hunting nationwide and no one will vote on the national scale in favor of hunting or proper management of public lands. At the end of the day, none of us were around to create and preserve the wild lands of the country and make them public. The more we try to keep people from using them, the more likely they will end up private and not huntable. The next step is for a state legislator to say well if the residents want all the tags and access, then we as a state should own and manage the land (same as wildlife) and weve seen how this story plays out. Everything could end up being on landowner voucher or no access. In a perfect world, we all should have equal access to land and hunting opportunities. That is what will ensure access to hunting for many generations.
The statement as I saw on bowsite:
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
I have been a resident of CO in the past but am currently a nonresident. I dont understand how BHA can do everything they can to fight for lands to remain federally managed and then say that nonresidents should have less access to the public lands for hunting. The same resident of Colorado or New Mexico or etc rolls their eyes when they hear about Alaska residents complaining about possibly losing their OTC $40 sheep tag. Many people have given up ever hunting Oregon and know their odds are slim for New Mexico and other places. My position is that nonresident access should increase across all western states not be reduced inline to the minimalists. Yes, it could help the locals who want a tag but what does it do for the long term of hunting access, voting trends and generating and growing hunting participation. Yes it increases competition for tags but it also increases access to hunters across the country who's votes count where it matters most, in the national elections. Nothing guarantees every resident of the state, country, even world the opportunity to hunt for a bighorn, moose goat, etc. There just arent enough to go around. Additionally, it will increase revenue to local bodies who have to manage the wildlife because ultimately wildlife can be managed by the feds ie migratory birds, wolf, grizzly, polar bear. If you think about it, its not that farfetched to consider FWS actually controlling all tags on federal land some day. I really struggle with the only argument for increasing resident tag allocations is because arbitrary lines were drawn by a government to dictate who can shoot migratory/moving/free range animals based upon where someone lives. Why does someone in Denver get better access to the Western Slope than a Utah resident 50 miles away? The same can be said for every state. What problems do CO residents encounter with the voting – that the majority of voters are on the front range. Look at what happened to trapping in CO and now apply it to the national stage. What is better in the long run – having less nonresident tags for locals to enjoy or having people nationwide speaking positively about hunting, adventure and public lands. Telling all their friends in New England or the Midwest or wherever the great things about their elk hunt or pronghorn or sheep. If we keep pushing out nonresidents, people will stop hunting nationwide and no one will vote on the national scale in favor of hunting or proper management of public lands. At the end of the day, none of us were around to create and preserve the wild lands of the country and make them public. The more we try to keep people from using them, the more likely they will end up private and not huntable. The next step is for a state legislator to say well if the residents want all the tags and access, then we as a state should own and manage the land (same as wildlife) and weve seen how this story plays out. Everything could end up being on landowner voucher or no access. In a perfect world, we all should have equal access to land and hunting opportunities. That is what will ensure access to hunting for many generations.
The statement as I saw on bowsite:
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