Forums Forums (
-   Big Game Hunting (
-   -   Nonresident hunters rights (

Blackelk 12-02-2013 04:54 AM

By the numbers.

15% Landowner Tags
15% Youth Tags
All drawn and allocated before the regular draw. So that's 30% of elk tags drawn before the regular draw happens. They have not changed this format as of yet maybe it will be changed.

I'm not real great at percentages but I'll give it an estimate.

Take out the 30% at a rate 65% for residents and 35% for non residents. It works out to something like this.

Residents will get an actual 49% of tag allocated for the draw after taking out that % of the youth and landowner tags.
Non-Residents will get an actual 21% of tags allocated for the draw after taking out that % of the youth and landowner tags.

That's a big difference in tags. It's not my fault it's just how it's done. Don't like it call your Parks and Wildlife Commission and file a complaint on deaf ears. I've set at these commission meetings and voiced ideas and opinions about managing tags and elk populations and trust me they already have the numbers set and their plans in action way before they take in public input. As in all government the mass suffers from the plans of the few. My suggestion is to show up at meetings and be a voice anyway.

flags 12-02-2013 06:42 AM

Your math is flawed. Are you trying to say that none of the youth hunters or landowners are residents? I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of them probably are. Or are you saying you want to deprive those same resident youth and landowners their tags so they can go to a non-residents instead which then gives you a chance to profit from them?

Bottom line, anyone that stands to enjoy a financial benefit from the way tags are allocated isn't someone I'm going to give much leeway to. Just like George Taulman and USO tried in AZ, outfitters are in business to make money and they make that money off the non-residents. That's why they want to see non-residents get more tags. When in doubt, follow the dollar bills.

olsaltydog 12-02-2013 07:47 AM

Think he means some landowners are using their priority status to gain certain tags to make more money off of hunters then utilizing it themselves. Those same land owners are now gaining a financial benefit in the way tags are being allocated.

Dont think their is any perfect system. But if you wanna know I would recommend an 85/15 tag allocation to to state lands and a 50/50 to federal lands. I dont agree with the thought process that just because yuppies from Cali are moving to Colorado means residents should have a higher priority.

Muley Hunter 12-02-2013 08:06 AM

Yuppies from Calif don't hunt.

Bullcamp82834 12-02-2013 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Muley Hunter (Post 4103675)
Yuppies from Calif don't hunt.

They just hike back into the mountains, get lost, and cause large search and rescue operations to be mounted. They should stick to their natural malls .

Muley Hunter 12-02-2013 08:27 AM

I know, but they don't buy tags. Why were they brought up?

txhunter58 12-02-2013 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by flags (Post 4103512)

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.

I definately disagree (as would all nonresidents trying for this tag). As you state, this is an "average" tag, not premium. As it sits with us getting 35%, residents can go almost every year and nonresidents can go ever 4 years. If you raise residents to 80% and us to 20% that would mean residents definately would go every year and nonresidents would probably drop to every 5-6 years. That is the tipping point where it becomes not worth the tag. Which is probably OK with most residents, but again, you have to convince your state to raise your rates to make up the difference.

To restate my case, currently residents can go 2 out of 3 years and nonres have to wait 4 years between tags. Seems like a pretty fair split to me and I would hate to lose the opportunity to go at least every 4 years.

Blackelk 12-03-2013 03:37 AM

Logic would tell you landowner tags are acquired by those that own land in Colorado. And I'm sure that the non-resident apply for youth tags but I would guess are 90% residents. Now landowners can sell their tags to whom ever they chose resident or non-resident. Then whom ever acquires the tag still has to buy the tag at the Parks and Wildlife for regular price. Being that said the point of the topic once again is everyone is not drawing a 65%-35% of the regular drawing. They maybe be drawing 65%-35% of what's left after the youth tags and landowner tags come out of the draw.

65%-35% allocation of tags is okay, going 80%-20% is not very friendly to other hunters from out of state. And back to the outfitter thing I'm positive that most outfitters are not in the mind set USO outfitters was. I could run as many hunters as I could get but.......... We don't do that. Hunting is hunting you can only hunt so many hunters per season to have a decent hunt. Over booking is a for sure way to kill your business and chase off game for the next season. You may see all of us as greedy money grabbing control freaks. Well sorry most of us are not. Like I said I'm hunter first. I like it when we don't book a season and I get to go hunting for myself. George Taulman I think not.

flags 12-03-2013 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Blackelk (Post 4103920)
65%-35% allocation of tags is okay, going 80%-20% is not very friendly to other hunters from out of state.

Ok. I'll split the difference with you: 73%-27%, plus all sheep, goat, moose and premium tags strictly set aside for residents. Not a problem, I'm flexible.

By the way, I'm not saying you're like George Taulman, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I know quite a few outfitters and none of them are like that. But he is a very good example of just how some outfitters feel about the game and the hunt.

His actual petition to the courts tried to use the Commerce Clause because he could sell more hunts for animals with trophy racks and he used that basis to say game animals were therefore commerce since his business revolved around then and that the Federal Government (Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Bush etc...) should be in charge of the game animals. As such, his case is a documented instance of when someone tried this.

Believe it or not, I actually had an outfitter in CO tell me once that he believed there should be no resident tags at all and everything should be required to be handled through booking agents and outfitters since residents don't book through outfitters on their own and he didn't make any money off them! I'll admit that viewpoint is rare, but it does exist for some and any time I hear an outfitter talking about increasing non-resident tags, that conversation comes back to me real fast.

txhunter58 12-04-2013 04:02 AM

Money is the reason they won't do that. The DOW have already done a lot of "belt tightening" and are looking for new sources of revenue (habitat stamp, etc). While you can debate the fairness of nonresidents paying 10X the resident prices for tags, the big difference in tag pricing and the lost revenue if they cut us back more is the reason they won't go to 73/27% for nonpremium tags. As far as moose/goat/sheep, you can have them.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 PM.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.