Ok. You got an elk that lives part time on national forest, part time on state land, and part time on private land. This happens in every western state. I don't think that anyone here would advocate letting the feds control the hunting on federal land, the state on state land and private landowners when on private land. Obviously this is not a workable situation. Or do landowners in the east get to do what they want with the game on their land?

Ad to that the FACT that, BY CURRENT LAW, the people of that state own the animals that reside within it's borders. Now you may not like that law, but it is the law of the land. That gives the state the sole right/responsibiltity to hand out hunting licenses and decide who gets them.

Also, be careful what you wish for. Think about it. If USO is successful in opening up western states to nonresidents in their drawings, the state can very easily figure out another way to limit nonresidents. Can you say $2500 for an elk tag??? The courts have already said a differntial pricing structure is ok, so they can play that card. That would cut the NR numbers down again while putting more money in their coffers. I would certainly be sorry to see that because I wouldn't be able to hunt elk again.

As it is, nonresidents supply 70% of license revenue collected in Colorado and it is going up every year. I would rather they keep us at a reasonable fee and limit our numbers than have unlimited tags and keep pricing more and more hunters out of the market.