I have hunted in all the northern New England states, NY and some of the Mid West and Canada as well as 8 times in South Central Colorado. Almost all the states have trespass laws which are similar to yours which makes my state kind of nice. Then again our hunting isn't that good that is why I go elsewhere in addition to hunting at home. I'll be back in your beautiful state second rifle next year Muley. I am counting the days.

Me too.........

Black elk is right on the money. The outfitters you blame are the advocate for NR hunters. When Montana voters increased NR tags in Montana in 2010, it was the outfitters that vehemently opposed the increase and we spent a lot of money trying to keep NR tags down in cost and fighting I-161. Outfitters are not the enemy of NR hunters.

The only reason outfitters oppose rate hikes for non-residents is because only non-residents reliably book with outfitters, Face it, very few resident elk hunters will use your services. You and the other outfitters have a major financial stake in the non-residents buying tags as cheaply as possible and that is why you petition the keep the rates low. If you were honest you would admit that instead of saying you "support non-resident's rights". Monetary gain is your only incentive.

Of course it's the goal of Outfitters to get non-residents into the state. It is a business. I'm a hunter first outfitter second. I will tell you this.

If we don't get the parks and wildlife on "our" page of elk numbers we will all being drawing for a tag. "I do not wish to have to wait 2 to 3 years to hunt elk in OTC area's we have now". I've already spent as a resident waiting 2 to 3 years for a mule deer tag in the area I live in. These national forest's are public land not owned by the state. The state allocates the wildlife tags. Having the tags for draw split down the middle 50-50 would be more than fair. Right now it's 65-35 in favor of the residents. But what they didn't tell you about that 35% of all the tags supposedly drawn for non-residents is that youth tags and land owner tags come out of the draw first then non-residents get their shot at it. This are the things that most people going into the draw do not know.

I don't care about trophy's, I do care about being able to get the "chance" to hunt every year as we all should resident and non-resident alike. Tell the DOW to stop killing off all them cow elk and we won't have to worry about it for a long time. Not just a huntable population of elk but a decent population for a decent hunt. Because right now it sucks.

The elk herd is right where it's suppose to be now. The land can only support so many elk.

Don't blame the DOW for too many hunters applying for the tags.

Do you realize that your own figures above just defeated your own argument? If the youth and landowner tags are taken out of the resident percentage, which is of course correct, then reducing the resident tags another 15% to a 50-50 split will mean even fewer tags for residents, not more and therefore, longer odds for residents to draw.

What I would like to see is a cap of 20% for non-residents for the average tag and 80% for residents, youth and landowners. I'd also like to see all moose, sheep and goat tags be reserved for residents only, and the really premium areas like 1,2,10,211 etc... also reserved for residents. Some things should be set aside for those that pay the taxes year round.

I don't know Flags, don't know what you pay, but suspect many nonresidents probably pay more Colorado taxes than you do. Personally I pay around $2500 in Colorado property tax and have a friend that pays over $5000.

Currently, for the tag I covet, muzzleloading elk, residents have a 60+ percentage of drawing with 0 points in most units. Nonresidents generally take 3 points (4 years) to draw one in the OTC units. That seems more than fair to me.

FYI, your friend is closer to what I pay than you are, but both those amounts are low. Plus, I often go 2 or 3 years without setting foot in the state but I still pay those taxes every single month of those years.

The premium areas I mentioned all take at least 18+ points for residents. Tags like that should be reserved for residents of the state. Anyone drawing one of these units will have that tag only once in their life.

Your 3-4 preference points isn't a premium area. As you have noted, that would be about average for many areas and I think non-residents should get 20% of those tags. The population of CO is exploding due to the transplants from the Land of the Looney on the Pacific Coast. As the resident population goes up, the number of resident hunters also goes up. And residents should get preferential standing for tags.

As always, you're welcome to disagree if you wish.

Flags the youth and landowner tags are taken out of the whole pool before the draw thus lowering both the non-resident and resident % of the number of tags variable for the draw. It is not a true 65%-35%. Pretty greedy to want a solid 80% of all the tags in Colorado. Colorado as itself would see the impact of that in lodging, food and retail sales over the hunting seasons. The Parks and Wildlife would never survive that cut in non resident sales, they spend too much money as it is.

Muley you can believe that if you choose to. This state can support the numbers they had going into the years 2000 to 2004 right before they started slaughtering them with cow tags. The Parks and Wildlife "computer based population scales" are way way way off. The only reason we started this idea that less elk is better for the state as a whole was farmers and ranchers bitching about elk eating their pasture. Then the ranchers get a whole bunch of land owner tags and start managing for elk hunt where now they make more money than the average public land outfitter for a elk hunt. I'm I bias or jaded not at all. If the ranchers truly wanted elk off their land for depredation hunts they would just slaughter them as they did in New Mexico years ago. Not sell hunts and manage their own elk to benefit their pocket books. So how do they rectify their elk numbers by issuing more elk tags in the units that have national forest. By their way of figuring the less elk in the mountains the less elk that will make it to private ground and cause issues. Been there seen it and lived it for at least 10 years now. If I was an animal activist I'd have a huge case against them for their protocol over the last decade. Lets just say if you believe their random survey data on elk numbers I got a portrait of Lincoln I'd sale you for a $100.00.