67 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Powderhorn, Colorado
Joined: 04/07/2003
Posts: 167
non-residents no more?

It is not official yet, but the recent comments to the D.O.W. about the new 5 year plan for the hunting seasons do not want non resident hunters and wants to severely limit them as far as allocating licenses to the non-resident hunter for the next five years in Colorado. http://wildlife.state.co.us/ is the website to check out and then click to Hunting and the 5 yr. plan. Any comments??

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
non-residents no more?

I supported the status quo across the board.

I tossed my two cents to the wind back here on the draft policy.

I don't see why the DOW (and the majority that left input) feel the need to move to an 80/20 split. The bottom line is that residents alone will not get the job done on elk and fewer NR's will leave more elk in the field year after year.

There is no reason for this NR reduction other than the yammering of the small but vocal anti-NR crowd. Its about politics, not game management.

The DOW has already taken steps to reduce NR participation in recent years:

-> Doubling the bull tag cost in 2001.
-> Locking out NR's from RFW draw tags in 2003.

Offline
Location: Powderhorn, Colorado
Joined: 04/07/2003
Posts: 167
non-residents no more?

I agree with you. It does not make sense to me how they can make decisions like this on the NR.

Offline
Location: centennial, co
Joined: 03/24/2003
Posts: 59
non-residents no more?

Not to mention the simple and obvious fact that NR tags are CONSIDERABLY more expensive than resident tags. I see no reason/benefit to limit the numbers of NR hunters.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
non-residents no more?

Well, let me say that I think resident hunters should have first dibs on hunting opportunities.

As an example, the opportunities to hunt moose here in Colorado are extremely limited, simply because the herd is very small. As such, every year, all available tags are sold out and there are more people who WANT to hunt moose than CAN hunt them. In this circumstance, I think it is only right and proper that residents get almost all of the tags. The opportunities should be going to them, not to non-residents.

Having said that, the situation is completely different as regards elk. It has been several years since hunters have taken the target number. Herds are large and getting larger. The DOW needs MORE elk taken than hunters are taking. In this circumstance it only makes sense to open up the hunting to almost as many people as possible.

Like bitmasher said, though, there are still a lot of Colorado residents who are essentially anti-non-resident. They really don't care about managing the herd. In a perfect world the DOW would only consider objective, scientific data and manage the herd appropriately. There isn't a wildlife department anywhere in this country, however, that isn't affected by politics and this is all about politics.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
non-residents no more?

I have just a couple things to add, the first is that where NR tag are available and the state says the will issue say 27 NR tag for an area I expect to see 27 camps not 50 or 60.
I am sorry I just believe that some places should be left for resident only
The second is
The issuing of NR tags to help control a herd population is all well and good as long as the management doesn’t turn to trophy hunt program dictated by the NR hunter populations or NR revenues.
I as a resident could care less if a buck is BC class; I would just as soon eat a doe or a forky
For to many resident and non residents the quality of the hunt is based on the size, not the experience

Offline
Location: NE Minnesota
Joined: 01/14/2004
Posts: 144
non-residents no more?

What always seems to get lost in this debate, and a disagree with you captcee a bit, is that the big reason you hear about people wanting a bigger animal is BECAUSE they have to pay an arm and a leg to get the opportunity. I guarantee you there are a lot of guys like me who would love to go to many of the western states "just for the experience" and personally I still do. But when someone has to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars-JUST FOR THE TAG-it becomes a vey expensive "vacation" if you don't get a larger animal. Personally, I think, and some states may be doing part of this, that the states should lower the NR tag costs in some parts of the state and charge the higher rates in the "trophy" sections of the state. That DOESN'T preclude the other sections from having nice sized animals since you still control the number and type of tags available. I think this would make more people happy and accomplish the states goals. Just a thought...

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
non-residents no more?

"...the big reason you hear about people wanting a bigger animal is BECAUSE they have to pay an arm and a leg to get the opportunity."

You're absolutely right. I think the approach that Colorado has taken recently, where the fee for an NR cow elk license is half the cost of a bull license, is a good way to go. The plain fact is, if you want NRs to NOT be strictly trophy hunters then you have to offer them enough licenses at a low enough cost that they'll be willing to view the hunt almost the same way residents do.

Offline
Location: Powderhorn, Colorado
Joined: 04/07/2003
Posts: 167
non-residents no more?

Stillhunter
I agree with you 100%. This method would work I beleive and would benefit all hunters, NR and R's.

Offline
Location: Utah
Joined: 10/12/2003
Posts: 25
non-residents no more?

75% of Wyoming's Game and Fish revenue comes from NRs money. I would bet NRs pay a sizable chunk of Colorado's bills also.

Lower the opportunities for NRs and you can bet you will see an increase in your own permits.

The number of hunters is dropping in my state (and probably yours) so I welcome all NRs to help share the costs and keep my permits reasonable.

There are NRs drawing our hard to get moose tags here also, but the fact that they will spend a small fortune to do so means I can afford to take my kids hunting.

Happy Huntin

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
non-residents no more?

.The number of hunters is dropping in my state (and probably yours) so I welcome all NRs to help share the costs and keep my permits reasonable.
============================================
I find this interesting because Idaho fish and game tries to pull the wool by saying the same thing when in reality it is not true.
Hunter numbers are up in fact way up compared to past years, however the hunter% to population is down do to large population growth in the cities.
So is hunter population really down? No
Are NR hunter populations down? No

Has the quality of our hunts changed? Yes.
I can remember hunting back in the 60, 70 when they say hunter populations were at there highest
You were lucky if you seen 10 people in a week. Now days you see that many in an hour
Many disrespectful louts that should stay in town

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
RESIDENTS OF GALENABazz004/15/2013 08:06 am
non resident black bear hunting in bcconceit13309/21/2007 04:06 am
Nova Scotia Moose?groovy mike605/24/2011 11:05 am
Michigan Elk and Bear ApplicationsWhelland005/17/2008 10:53 am
If you hunted elk in Colorado...thesis surveyCedarLodge412/25/2008 10:23 am