Biggame Help

Discussion in 'Colorado Flyway Forum' started by SkyCarp, Jan 23, 2003.

  1. greenhead slayer

    greenhead slayer Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    131
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Location:
    colorado
    i would like to see out of state tags raised because colorado is a hot bed for out of state hunters because of the low prices. they just recently doubled the elk tags out of state fee, and it is still cheaper than any other state with high elk numbers. make it cheap for cows because of the abundance we have now - fine, but for a resident to have to wait 5-6 years to bull hunt in a trophy area is too long.

    i have five antelope points, and i probably still won't draw a buck tag in 3/301 next year........

    the problem is, it's a catch 22 - the more the DOW raises out of state tags, the easier they will make it for out of state hunters to draw because of the increased revenue they will receive from out of state hunters tag fees.........

    just my humble opinion...... don't bash me...
     
  2. Alamosa

    Alamosa Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,599
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Location:
    Southern Colorado
    I can add a little bit of info on recent NR license fees.

    Two years ago the DOW raised the cost of out-of-State tags to $450. The reasoning was to bring Colorado NR tag costs in line with other States. Non-resident hunter participation dropped off dramatically that year. Many hunters chose to try hunting elk closer to home given the equal cost and Sept 11 events caused many not to go at all. Those who did hunt found that very few hunters did not necessarily mean great hunting. Very few shots were heard that year and when it was done overall harvest was low and individual success rate was low.

    Last year the DOW reduced fees back to around $250 and offered additional tags in many cases. The goal was to reduce the elk population by 60,000. Hunter participation was good and overall success was average. The population was reduced by 50,000.

    This year the DOW is once again faced with needing a fairly aggressive strategy. Charlie Meyers had a great article in the Post several weeks back that articulates the situation much better than I can. I'll try to post it if I can find it. I've been studying the big game database CD recently and I've noticed that many of these statistics fluctuate wildly from year to year. It has to be a nightmare for biologists to make recommendations and predictions. Weather has a big effect but other factors influence it as well.

    I have worried during this budget cutting season that the State will raid the DOW's funds and resources. I hope that the DOW has a good lobbyist working to protect our interests.
     
  3. SkyCarp

    SkyCarp Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    507
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Location:
    Colorado
    Alamosa,
    The DOW money is pretty safe since the State made them an enterprise agency. They dont get any taxpayer money. The DOW is also excempt from TABOR rules since the only money it gets is the money that it self-generates with the exception of GOCO money from the lottery.
     
  4. Alamosa

    Alamosa Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,599
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Location:
    Southern Colorado
  5. FamilyAffair

    FamilyAffair Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    Here is an article that was in the POST this morning that should be taken right to the DOW!

    http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E1147835%7E,00.html

    The Federal Government is trying to give the local ranchers even more rights to the BLM land than they aleady have. Such as Partial ownership in tagible assets on BLM Lands (Fences, Stock Tanks, etc). Making it harder for their leases to get revoked.

    They are jsut about giving the publics land to the ranchers!

    Ugh!
    FA
     
  6. SkyCarp

    SkyCarp Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    507
    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Location:
    Colorado
    Well King George needs to reward his supporters. I cant believe I voted for him. :confused:
     
  7. EMan

    EMan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Location:
    Soon to be California 2.0
    Would you like to have ALGORE in office? :eek:

    Then you would just be worried about even owning a gun -vs- hunting public land that has been used for grazing for the last 100 years. Look at a map of public land that is grazed or even can be grazed, and I think you'd have a different opinion.

    The battle right now should be between us (hunters) and the farmers and ranchers against the Tree Huggin A-Holes that want to close all public land to anybody that's not on a mountain bike.
     
  8. EMan

    EMan Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    371
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Location:
    Soon to be California 2.0
    Oh yea,

    I forgot to mention the NR thing. Do you guys know what industry brings in the second most revenue $$$ to our state, second only to skiing?

    Hunting.

    Non-Resident hunters(our friends, not ememies) coming to our great state and spending gobbs of cash with our DOW and small mountain towns. It has always been that way and it worked great until every TD&H decided to move here.
     
  9. FamilyAffair

    FamilyAffair Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO
    Eman - I dont have a problem with the rancher grazing their livestock on BLM and State Trust lands - and most of the BLM and State trust land where I hunt is open to grazing. What I do have a problem with is the ranchers being allowed to keep John and Jane Q public off the BLM/STL land while they bring in high playing 'clients' and hunt on our land.

    So from my vantage point (With BLM/STL lands) I am already locked out of my public land - with or without a mountain bike!

    Let the ranchers retain the right to purchase grazing leases for their livestock on public lands - but also require them to allow free/unrestricted access to the property.

    You want to see how political this whole mess is - try and bid for a usage lease on some state trust land in a highly productive big game area! You will not win - and you may even be persuaded to retract your bid!

    Yeah - the fight is between us and the Tree Huggers - thats where the ranchers need to help us out a little - otherwise they will not have access to the grazing land either!

    FA
     
  10. Alamosa

    Alamosa Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,599
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Location:
    Southern Colorado
    This is a great thread with some very good topics contained in it.

    On the leasing/hunting access thing, my understanding is that these grazing leases typically include the right to control hunting access during the time of the lease. I seem to recall reading some language in there that said that leasee's had some obligation to provide hunting access unless there was some special circumstances or good reason not to. Maybe someone else here can clarify that. I guess my question for FA is - Does it seem to be a common problem in the areas you hunt? and - Are they big pieces of land? It sounds like earning revenue for hunting access may be an outright violation of the lease.

    My own experience has been that often BLM borders on National Forest and I have sometimes found it a problem to pass through the BLM to access the NF - especially with a vehicle. Usually I have been able to get permission to hunt, but often locating the leasee has been a problem.
     

Share This Page