State Trust lands are a very small fraction of the huntable public and in Colorado so focusing on them is disingenuous, at best. But in reply to this:
Now someone explain to me how letting them create new revenue streams, when they have 140,769 fewer sq miles to cover, 89,397 fewer hunters to deal with, and already take in $8,725,000 more than Montana and Wyoming combined, is a good idea?
Let's talk about two things: First, the concept of "letting them create new revenue streams." Who is "letting them," and who would do you think should stop "them?" The federal government perhaps? Other states perhaps? Who do you believe has the "right" to regulate the price of hunting licenses in Colorado, other than the people of Colorado??
Second, as to why it's a good idea for Colorado to raise license fees for non-residents my answer is, because we have too many non-resident hunters and not enough public land to spread them all out. If higher license fees = fewer hunters I'm all for it.
