Colorado License Fees

MFH · October 8, 2000, 09:57 PM

Getting ready to leave for CO elk hunting and started thinking whether or not I can justify going every year with the new price increases.
Is anyone else really "ticked off" about the increase in license fees for next year. Or the limit on non-resident hunters. I think that the whole thing is a bunch of BS. While I will grant that the price increase may just get CO fees in line with other states, I have a problem with the motivation behind it.
Last year I received an in depth survey from persons working with or for the DOW. The overall feeling that I got while taking it was that the purpose of it was to determine how to reduce hunting.. Several choices were given as to preferred management strategies and hunting. You were to decide which you preferred or not and respond as to whether or not you would hunt given these rules. When I contacted the individuals responsible for the survey, I was told that essentially the intent was to thin out hunter density/ lower numbers. Part of the reason was due to the large number of complaints from in-state residents who wanted preference in the lottery, regardless of preference points. Statistically, non-residents only hunt once every three years and thus have preference points to draw in the "best" areas. While I understand this,(I dont get a deer tag in my county each year) it comes down to being politics disguised as management. With the CO elk herd on the increase and reports of low harvest, a decrease in tags doesnt make sense. The price increase will likely keep the overall dollars the same. They probably didn't consider the dollars that non-residents spend in the state...I hope the merchants raise H___ with the DOW for the loss in revenue which will come as a result.

labgrade · October 9, 2000, 05:09 PM

Ah .... guess I'll go ahead & stick my nose in it ...

@ $250, CO's still one way cheap place for non-residents to hunt elk AND has one of, if not the largest, quantity of elk. Too, the scenery alone is worth the trip if you never see elk.

Raising the fees to cut down on hunters isn't, in my way of thinking, the right way to do it. If the herds are in trouble, then the seasons/#s of hunters need be reduced.

I am of the opinion that residents should have first preference at any drawings merely because we live here. After the residents get their fill, the rest can chime in.

Not to be snotty in the least (and really, in my most reasonable voice), the quality of the hunt has gone downhill in many aspects - and, honestly, it has much to do with the "junk hunters" who live in CO. I'd much rather have "quality hunters" from out of state (like assumedly you are) than some local-jokers ....

The latest rescheduling of season dates is to thin the hunters out - we'll see this year. Doubtful it'll make much difference.

& you are correct in the "low harvest rates" lately .... I've heard many reports of "no elk" & that even from those who actually get out of their trucks.

Erik · October 9, 2000, 05:58 PM

Part of the reason for the increase is that neighboring states have been reluctant to work in partnership with Colorado, who they saw as undercutting their programs. Or so I heard somewhere on the TV...

I'll second Labgrade's statement that it is worth it even without tagging an elk. We have some beautiful country here.

Jeff Howard · October 10, 2000, 04:35 PM

As an 11 year resident of Colorado I have watched as hordes of people have moved to the state, each one wanting to close the door behind themselvs and preserve the magic. Well folks it don't work that way. As more people come to Col. the overcrouding, urban sprawl, and subsquent destruction of wildlife habitat, grows ever worse. First to be effected have been the mule deer. Elk will be too. Politically the balance of power has shifted to the anti-growth side. This has resulted in limiting hunting for out of state hunters, despite the complaints of the business interests many of whom depend on out of state hunters for a good deal of their income. It will probably get worse before it gets better, especally if an anti-growth State Constitutional Ammendment is passed.The days of Colorado being a cheep open state to go hunt elk are gone and probably won't come back. If the DOW is successful in managing the elk, future hunts should be of a higher quality, but more expensive and not open to all commers, but still offering more hunting opportunities for elk than any other state.

------------------

October 8, 2000, 09:57 PM	#1
MFH Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Posts: 122	Getting ready to leave for CO elk hunting and started thinking whether or not I can justify going every year with the new price increases. Is anyone else really "ticked off" about the increase in license fees for next year. Or the limit on non-resident hunters. I think that the whole thing is a bunch of BS. While I will grant that the price increase may just get CO fees in line with other states, I have a problem with the motivation behind it. Last year I received an in depth survey from persons working with or for the DOW. The overall feeling that I got while taking it was that the purpose of it was to determine how to reduce hunting.. Several choices were given as to preferred management strategies and hunting. You were to decide which you preferred or not and respond as to whether or not you would hunt given these rules. When I contacted the individuals responsible for the survey, I was told that essentially the intent was to thin out hunter density/ lower numbers. Part of the reason was due to the large number of complaints from in-state residents who wanted preference in the lottery, regardless of preference points. Statistically, non-residents only hunt once every three years and thus have preference points to draw in the "best" areas. While I understand this,(I dont get a deer tag in my county each year) it comes down to being politics disguised as management. With the CO elk herd on the increase and reports of low harvest, a decrease in tags doesnt make sense. The price increase will likely keep the overall dollars the same. They probably didn't consider the dollars that non-residents spend in the state...I hope the merchants raise H___ with the DOW for the loss in revenue which will come as a result.

October 9, 2000, 05:09 PM	#2
labgrade Member In Memoriam Join Date: November 29, 1999 Location: west of a small town, CO Posts: 4,346	Ah .... guess I'll go ahead & stick my nose in it ... @ $250, CO's still one way cheap place for non-residents to hunt elk AND has one of, if not the largest, quantity of elk. Too, the scenery alone is worth the trip if you never see elk. Raising the fees to cut down on hunters isn't, in my way of thinking, the right way to do it. If the herds are in trouble, then the seasons/#s of hunters need be reduced. I am of the opinion that residents should have first preference at any drawings merely because we live here. After the residents get their fill, the rest can chime in. Not to be snotty in the least (and really, in my most reasonable voice), the quality of the hunt has gone downhill in many aspects - and, honestly, it has much to do with the "junk hunters" who live in CO. I'd much rather have "quality hunters" from out of state (like assumedly you are) than some local-jokers .... The latest rescheduling of season dates is to thin the hunters out - we'll see this year. Doubtful it'll make much difference. & you are correct in the "low harvest rates" lately .... I've heard many reports of "no elk" & that even from those who actually get out of their trucks.

October 9, 2000, 05:58 PM	#3
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	Part of the reason for the increase is that neighboring states have been reluctant to work in partnership with Colorado, who they saw as undercutting their programs. Or so I heard somewhere on the TV... I'll second Labgrade's statement that it is worth it even without tagging an elk. We have some beautiful country here.

October 10, 2000, 04:35 PM	#4
Jeff Howard Junior Member Join Date: March 28, 2000 Posts: 6	As an 11 year resident of Colorado I have watched as hordes of people have moved to the state, each one wanting to close the door behind themselvs and preserve the magic. Well folks it don't work that way. As more people come to Col. the overcrouding, urban sprawl, and subsquent destruction of wildlife habitat, grows ever worse. First to be effected have been the mule deer. Elk will be too. Politically the balance of power has shifted to the anti-growth side. This has resulted in limiting hunting for out of state hunters, despite the complaints of the business interests many of whom depend on out of state hunters for a good deal of their income. It will probably get worse before it gets better, especally if an anti-growth State Constitutional Ammendment is passed.The days of Colorado being a cheep open state to go hunt elk are gone and probably won't come back. If the DOW is successful in managing the elk, future hunts should be of a higher quality, but more expensive and not open to all commers, but still offering more hunting opportunities for elk than any other state. ------------------