Did the numbers I presented you surprise you at all? I noticed you made no mention of them.
Yes, they did.
To your second point, so rather than limit the number of hunters you suggest we make it a rich mans game? I've got a niece that will elk hunt with me for possibly the last time this fall as she recently turned 18 and her license fee will now jump 7x higher than it has been over the past few seasons. Only the wealthy can hunt the kings game is the wrong direction in my opinion.
.
I'll offer a couple of observations in response. First, as a non-resident you are not entitled to hunt in my state at a cost you believe to be fair. Just the same as I'm not entitled to hunt in your state at a cost I believe to be fair. Would you agree?
Second, in no way did I suggest that we make hunting a rich man's game and I really don't appreciate your insinuation. In a perfect world CP&W would limit the number of tags allotted and charge a nominal fee but that's a pipe dream, not reality. It all comes down to prioritites and if an extra $100 or $200 is going to prevent someone from buyimg a tag then hunting is obviously not a priority for them and that's not really my concern. Plenty of people choose to drive a ten year-old truck and go hunting out of state, others don't. It's a choice, and the world is not "unfair."
And I think it's interesting that you mentioned elk hunting, Montana, and Wyoming. If you look at non-resident elk license fees and how they've changed over the last 10-15 years you'll see that it's not Colorado leading the charge in fee increases. Not too long ago we were at $250 for a bull elk tag, now we're on par with Wyoming and still less than Montana. We just recently caught up.
