Colorado big game license allocation

[HighDesertSage]

Oak, PM Sent.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Oak: Emails have been sent to The Sentinel, Herald, Gazette, and Post.

Dinkshooter: Agreed. All in, I am probably around $1500 on my resident hunts.

Draftstud: Not everyone in CO smokes pot. 90% of people I deal with here are hardworking, good people that probably have no idea what's going on, and probably won't until it takes them three years to draw a deer tag that they used to be able to get every year. Not because they don't care, just to busy and the information is not readily available. Also, the few select people that I know do smoke pot are still hardworking good people.

ishootdasmallones.....satire. Been hunting Colorado since 78, I do know and follow what happens even if I don't live in a state I hunt. Most folks I know that smoke pot.....well I don't. I think it's stupid to use also. John

 

[Zach]

Bambi, the Commissioners are appointed by the Governor. Despite all of the tough talk, I don't anticipate a change of guard in November.

This proposal is being brought forth by the outfitters as a fairness to non-residents issue mostly, not a budget issue. But the outfitters are smart enough to spin it as good for the budget of the CPW and the rural economies of the state. The real problem is the landowner and outfitter interests on the Commission, and the fact that the Commission is also watered down a bit since the merger with Parks. I brought this up back when the merger was happening. I'll see if I can find a thread.

I think if you take a look at the Commission makeup, you can see how issues like this quickly gain traction. The current members of the Commission are:

Kane, Chairman: Represents Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Has a background in planning and design for mountain resort communities and works for Aspen Skiing Company.

Castilian, Secretary: Represents Parks and Outdoor Recreation. He is an attorney, a former director of the State Board of Land Commissioners, former Legislative Director for Colorado Counties, Inc., and currently works as the Manager of Government and Community Relations for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.

Bray: Represents Agriculture. He is owner and operator of Bray Ranches and is a member of the Colorado Cattlemens' Association, the Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Woolgrowers, the Colorado Outfitters Association.

Horne: Represents Sportspersons and Outfitters. She is the owner and manager of J Bar H Outfitters LLC in Meeker, a family-owned big game and fishing outfitting business which she started in 1998. She is a member of the Colorado Outfitter's Association, Colorado Bowhunter's Association, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International and Big Game Forever.

Perricone: Represents Sportspersons. He is currently the Co-Director of the Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to representing a complete sportsmen's agenda. He is the Conservation Chair of Denver Chapter of Trout Unlimited and is a member of Colorado Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Bowhunters Association, Rocky Mt. Elk Foundation and the NRA.

Pizel: Represents Public at-large. He is the owner/agent of Broken Arrow Land Co. and the manager of the Rio Oxbow Ranch near Creede. He has won awards for his grazing practices on the ranch, was the founder and a former board member of the 1st National Bank of Creede, former board member of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District and Mineral County Planning and Zoning.

Pribyl: Represents Public at-large. He has worked in public policy management and corporate advocacy at the state and federal level for more than 35 years at U S West Communications, MCI Communications and Level 3 Communications. He has also served in major positions for two U. S. Senators and a Governor. He is an avid skier, hiker and as time allows, angler and camper.

Vigil: Represents Agriculture. He is a former Las Animas County Commissioner who runs his family's farm on the Purgatoire River in Trinidad.

Wingfield: Represents Agriculture. Runs an active cow-calf and dryland farming operation in Yuma County, along the eastern border of Colorado. He has been a Yuma County Commissioner since 1997 and on the Board of the Yuma County Cattlemen’s Association for the past 28 years.

Zimmerman: Represents Non-profits. She is the vice president of operations for Innovative Energy in Breckenridge and a former ski instructor and wildland firefighter. She spent eight years in land conservation and was previously the executive director of both the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project in Denver and the Rincon Institute in Tucson.

Zipp: Represents Sportspersons. He is the owner and manager of The Drift Fly Shop in Pueblo, CO and maintains memberships in Trout Unlimited, the Pueblo Nature and Raptor Center and the Sierra Club.

Great breakdown on the commission, thank you for all the work you do and info you pass on Terry!

 

[Oak]

Buchanan ran another article yesterday:

 

[Oak]

Of course the date of the meeting is wrong in that article, as well as the dates of Bray's previous term on the Commission....

 

[Zach]

I think C. Jurney has a solution, over at MM.

 

[Oak]

Yeah, I saw Jurney's post last night and it infuriated me again. But that is the message the Commission will be hearing on Thursday.

 

[Zach]

Sadly, it's guys like him and the cattlemen who can make a midweek meeting in the middle of the state, with little notice.

 

[sneakem]

I forwarded the story to the local Steamboat Paper... but have yet to see anything written, apparently they don't care...

 

[Oak]

I posted this on another forum, but I will copy here as well.

Let's do the math. Under the 2014 allocations and outfitter-proposed 60/40 split, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 56
Non-residents - 29

80/20 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 68
Non-residents - 17

Outfitter proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 51
Non-residents - 34

Under the 2015 allocations, with an additional 5% going to landowners as was approved last year, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 52
Non-residents - 28

80/20 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 64
Non-residents - 16

Outfitter proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 48
Non-residents - 32

So the net effect in 2015 to hunters if the outfitters get their way would look like this:

Current 65/35 units, resident tags go from 56 to 48.
Current 65/35 units, non-resident tags go from 29 to 32.

Current 80/20 units, resident tags go from 68 to 48.
Current 80/20 units, non-resident tags go from 17 to 32.

 

[Oak]

Here is the article that Willoughby ran in the Denver Post today:

Willoughby: Attempt to give out more nonresident licenses hurts most sportsmen

By Scott Willoughby
The Denver Post
Posted: 09/10/2014 12:01:00 AM MDT

An uprising is afoot among Colorado's rank-and-file sportsmen. The degree of revolt depends largely on discussion slated for 5 p.m. Thursday at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission's monthly meeting in Glenwood Springs. The general public is encouraged to attend.

At issue is the recent attempt by CPW commissioner Robert Bray to increase the proportion of big game license allocations for nonresident hunters in limited draw units at the expense of Colorado residents. A big game license subcommittee studying the proposal at commissioner Bray's behest is scheduled to make a preliminary presentation at the Glenwood Springs Ramada Inn on Thursday afternoon.

It's not the first time the two-time commissioner and big game hunting outfitter from southwestern Colorado has attempted to carve out a larger slice of the increasingly valuable license pie for large landowners and outfitters such as himself, nor is it likely to be the last. It is, after all, Bray's position as an "agricultural" representative of the commission to advocate on behalf of ranchers such as himself in an effort to maintain the considerable political clout that community has managed to achieve among wildlife affairs.

And it is clearly in his best interest as well to see a greater portion of limited license allocations awarded to out-of-state hunters who are more likely to hire the services of an outfitter such as himself or other members of the Colorado Outfitters Association. But it is certainly not in the best interest of the Colorado sportsmen who serve as the backbone of wildlife management and conservation statewide.

While there's no argument that nonresidents deserve a fair opportunity to hunt game in Colorado, there is a pretty compelling one recognizing that our state already offers the best opportunity for nonresidents to hunt big game in the nation. Nonresidents are allocated 35 percent of the limited license draw for big game tags in most units, and Colorado offers unlimited over-the-counter elk licenses to both resident and nonresident hunters in 92 game units statewide.

In addition, a full 15 percent of the licenses in every totally limited hunting unit is already set aside for landowners through the Landowner Preference Program that allows for lucrative transfers to non-resident hunters seeking a trophy from Colorado. That percentage increases next year by 5-10 percent, depending upon location.

Simply put, any nonresident can hunt elk, and usually deer, in Colorado every year already. With no change, there is no squabble. But changing the current allocations of resident to nonresident tags benefits few to the detriment of many.

The reasoning that an increase in nonresident license allocation translates to increased revenue for Colorado Parks and Wildlife dismisses the intrinsic value of resident sportsmen and their attendant contributions to wildlife management and conservation statewide. Reducing opportunity for high-quality hunts among residents is also likely to have a cascade effect on hunter recruitment and retention objectives, undermining the tradition of Colorado sportsmen and jeopardizing future generations critical to the success of state wildlife programs.

Big game hunting is big business in Colorado. But selling out to the highest bidder is not always the best business strategy, especially when it comes to the long-term interests of your most loyal stakeholders.

Scott Willoughby: swilloughby @denverpost.com or twitter.com/ swilloughby

 

[Elkmagnet]

If I was a co resident and they passed this crap I would find it very hard to sit without a hemorrhoid pillow for a while.

 

[1_pointer]

I posted this on another forum, but I will copy here as well.

Let's do the math. Under the 2014 allocations and outfitter-proposed 60/40 split, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 56
Non-residents - 29

80/20 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 68
Non-residents - 17

Outfitter proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 15
Residents - 51
Non-residents - 34

Under the 2015 allocations, with an additional 5% going to landowners as was approved last year, a hunt code with 100 tags would look like this:

65/35 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 52
Non-residents - 28

80/20 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 64
Non-residents - 16

Outfitter proposed 60/40 split
Landowners - 20
Residents - 48
Non-residents - 32

So the net effect in 2015 to hunters if the outfitters get their way would look like this:

Current 65/35 units, resident tags go from 56 to 48.
Current 65/35 units, non-resident tags go from 29 to 32.

Current 80/20 units, resident tags go from 68 to 48.
Current 80/20 units, non-resident tags go from 17 to 32.

Beings I am not and likely will never be a CO resident, those proposed numbers look good to me!

 

[Oak]

If I was a co resident and they passed this crap I would find it very hard to sit without a hemorrhoid pillow for a while.

I don't think many residents are in support of it, but I'll bet less than 10 of them show up to the meeting tomorrow. Hopefully I'm wrong, but history suggests I will be right.

 

[noharleyyet]

I don't think many residents are in support of it, but I'll bet less than 10 of them show up to the meeting tomorrow. Hopefully I'm wrong, but history suggests I will be right.

You could always spike the clamor with a rumor that home tickys might double...

 

[Oak]

You could always spike the clamor with a rumor that home tickys might double...

No kidding. That, or OTC tags will only be available to NR in the future. R by draw only.

 

[1_pointer]

No kidding. That, or OTC tags will only be available to NR in the future. R by draw only.

Now we are getting somewhere with that idea!

 

[Oak]

If they don't get their way this time, maybe the outfitters will push for guaranteed tags like NM next time. That might get the unguided NR stirred up.

 

[1_pointer]

If they don't get their way this time, maybe the outfitters will push for guaranteed tags like NM next time. That might get the unguided NR stirred up.

That's not a good idea! If that's the case, I might have to start dipping into miller's kids college funds to be able to hunt CO.

Regardless, as you well know, about the only thing NRs can do is play the hand they're dealt.

 

[Oak]

The outfitters claim that the difficulties their industry is having is due to lack of access to licenses for non-residents. The more likely truth is that it is due to hunting forums, social media, magazines, etc, that make it easier for people to get information and builds their confidence that they can do it on their own. Given that situation, the only way they can guarantee business for themselves is by getting an allocation of guaranteed licenses for outfitted hunters, like NM. I'm guessing they will figure that out soon enough....