Colorado Senate Bill 21-150

[wyo2track]

Saw this on another site. Looks like Colorado is going to consider revisions to nonresident license quotas. Guess we'll see how this gets amended or approved through the process.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-150

 

[sawsington]

I mean, I see where they are coming from, and I would love to get first dibs. But ya'll out of staters pay for a ton of what we get to enjoy year round. I talked to a couple hunters from WV last year and it shocked me how much they paid for one tag, while I get away with $50-60.

 

[GunsAreFun]

This is just getting ridiculous...

These states don’t even own the vast vast majority of land where these hunts happen and where the animals live. It is private property or owned by the federal government (i.e. US citizens). It is non-residents that pay federal taxes that allow these areas to continue to exists and private land owners that pay their own taxes and should have some say.

 

[tjihrig]

CO awards no more than 20% of tags to nonresidents in unit requiring over 6 preference points and not more than 35% in units requiring less. The only time a unit has more than 35% is if all resident first choices have been awarded in that unit. So the only thing that I can see this having an affect on is those rare occasions that a unit falls in points. Which sometimes happens after a big fire. The Bill would then strictly limit those units to 33% percent rather than 35% and not allow that percentage to be exceeded if all resident first choice apps were filled. At least this is the way I read it. So the bill doesn’t seem to really affect anything. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wytx]

Yes but the animals are ours, held in trust for the residents of the states.
I bet your taxes do not pay for as much as you think on federal lands also.

States should be managing wildlife for the benefit of their residents not some guys form back East or down South.
Sorry I am a supporter of NR hunting but states should be thinking of their residents first. Come on out and go hiking or camping, just draw that tag first for hunting.

 

[tjihrig]

Yes but the animals are ours, held in trust for the residents of the states.
I bet your taxes do not pay for as much as you think on federal lands also.

States should be managing wildlife for the benefit of their residents not some guys form back East or down South.
Sorry I am a supporter of NR hunting but states should be thinking of their residents first. Come on out and go hiking or camping, just draw that tag first for hunting.

Yes, buuuuuuut, you can’t have the “animals are ours” discussion in my opinion without discussing doing away with our preference point system. Which I am in favor of. Because those animals are not held in trust for the residents of the state necessarily, they are only held in trust in some units for those that have been in the point game for a quarter century.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wytx]

I have 16 NR PP in Colorado and if they make changes, good for their residents.
I could have burned my PP years ago but have been adding to the total every once in a while. If they go away that is my problem.
PP are not a guarantee of a license as far as I know in any state, just a way to get better odds for a chance at a license.

No one forced anyone to buy PP so if you did , that is on you. NR have a sense of entitlement that baffles me, hunting a state as a NR is a privilege not a right. Be happy you get any licenses.

 

[cnelk]

CO awards no more than 20% of tags to nonresidents in unit requiring over 6 preference points and not more than 35% in units requiring less. The only time a unit has more than 35% is if all resident first choices have been awarded in that unit. So the only thing that I can see this having an affect on is those rare occasions that a unit falls in points. Which sometimes happens after a big fire. The Bill would then strictly limit those units to 33% percent rather than 35% and not allow that percentage to be exceeded if all resident first choice apps were filled. At least this is the way I read it. So the bill doesn’t seem to really affect anything. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize those ^^^^ % numbers are based on a 3 year period ending in 2009.

WAAAAYYYYY past time to address it. Even if its a little in the right direction

 

[orionthehunter1]

They should just go to an 80/20 res nonres split across the board and raise prices res and nonres accordingly. Yes cnelk they need to address lots of units that haven't updated in the last three year cycle.

 

[AG8]

I think it’s interesting, when it’s an elk or a moose, people are on here saying it’s fed land it’s fed animals, should be fed tags. When it’s a wolf or a griz, people are on here saying states problem, state needs to manage, feds stay out. So which is it? We can’t have it both ways (that’s the other side’s thing...)

 

[bsnedeker]

Yes but the animals are ours, held in trust for the residents of the states.
I bet your taxes do not pay for as much as you think on federal lands also.

States should be managing wildlife for the benefit of their residents not some guys form back East or down South.
Sorry I am a supporter of NR hunting but states should be thinking of their residents first. Come on out and go hiking or camping, just draw that tag first for hunting.

Yep, I agree with this 100%. What I think a lot of NR hunters don't understand is that there are MANY people who supplement their food supply with hunting and it's an important source of food. Wages in the majority of western states don't remotely approach wages in other parts of the country.

I'm fortunate enough to hunt as a hobby and don't NEED to hunt but there are many that do. I think it's safe to say that there aren't any NR hunters paying 1000 bucks for an elk tag because they need the meat to feed their family.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Why do all the whambulances come out when Colorado tries to make any changes in residents favor. Many states are at ZERO to 10% max. Colorado whores out tags. God forbid they update the policies just a little! Like @cnelk said, they haven’t updated some of these units in 12 years!!

Just go 80/20 across the board for any unit that isn’t OTC and be done with it. You still get your money from otc non residents who come to Colorado to take their bows for a walk.

 

[tjihrig]

You do realize those ^^^^ % numbers are based on a 3 year period ending in 2009.

WAAAAYYYYY past time to address it. Even if its a little in the right direction

No wasn’t aware of that. Believe me I’m with you in frustration with the invasion that happens every September. We loose access to public lands and access to opportunity every year that passes. Colorado is being squeezed into smaller spaces with more people. I’m sure a lot of this is a reaction to Montana and Wyoming shifting their rules and prices as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tjihrig]

Why do all the whambulances come out when Colorado tries to make any changes in residents favor. Many states are at ZERO to 10% max. Colorado whores out tags. God forbid they update the policies just a little! Like @cnelk said, they haven’t updated some of these units in 12 years!!

Just go 80/20 across the board for any unit that isn’t OTC and be done with it. You still get your money from otc non residents who come to Colorado to take their bows for a walk.

I’d go 75/25 if NRs were required to watch an educational video about wind and elk bedding areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cnelk]

I’d go 75/25 if NRs were required to watch an educational video about wind and elk bedding areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HaHa! perfect! ^^^ Now thats funny!

 

[GunsAreFun]

Yes but the animals are ours, held in trust for the residents of the states.
I bet your taxes do not pay for as much as you think on federal lands also.

States should be managing wildlife for the benefit of their residents not some guys form back East or down South.
Sorry I am a supporter of NR hunting but states should be thinking of their residents first. Come on out and go hiking or camping, just draw that tag first for hunting.

36% of Colorado is owned by the federal government. 65% of the forested area of the state (which is basically 80% of everything west of the front range) is owned by the fed. I don’t buy the “animals are ours” argument for state residents. They are “ours” (US Citizens).

These federal lands were created for all of us. It’s not like they make up a small percentage of area. It’s the majority of hunting land.

 

[cnelk]

Ya still aint gonna hunt that 'Owned by everyone - Fed Land' without a State issued hunting license

 

[Donjuan]

In all these threads there is a consistent state's rights versus federal ownership of land argument. Are some of you in favor of hunting elk (for example) on federal land to now be handled and regulated by the feds, regardless of what state the elk lives in?

 

[wannakillabigbull]

If there's one state that I think could justify a decrease in tag allotment to non-residents it's Colorado, at least for limited entry units. Most states give a much smaller percentage of tags to non-residents than Colorado, so I don't blame them for trying to level up with other western states. I am 100% in favor of a relatively large increase in resident prices to at least partially account for the loss in revenue from non-residents.

 

[AG8]

Federally controlled tags. An interesting thought. But a dangerous precedent. Imagine regulations/restrictions at the whim of Congress and changing administrations. Hunting would rise and fall in 4 year cycles. Even worse: Remember the national monuments fiasco? Who is to say executive action by a potential anti-hunting admin couldn’t wipe out tags in one stroke? Snap, Continental Divide National Monument from Kalispell to Santa Fe. ‘No hunting. We give out the tags, so we say so’. There goes Public Land hunting for 4+ years. I’m not saying thats likely. Highly unlikely in fact. But still possible under that extreme scenario.