Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game New Colorado Application requirement

I guess it comes down to the question, "Do you want to hunt in Colorado?" I live here and so I'll pay the fee. Were I from somewhere else probably not since I couldn't afford the out of state fees, and have to be content to hunt my home state. If you really want to you'll find a way!

We "wife and I" don't live in Colorado but we still want more seasons in the west.

So it will cost us $160 more this year......that's just $13.33 a month.

I loved CO. Just can't handle the liberal politics going on there. Sure hate that for all the great residents that are there too! A shame it is.

Fees will be what they have to be. Always have been and always will be. Other states like our beloved AK, require a license to apply also. It is what it is.

We have the ability to choose where to spend the money, and like gas costs that all complain about, things will be relative at some point or another.

Life is certainly not easy or a joy ride.

I’m sure this is whining too, but the vast majority of public hunting lands is on National Forests, i.e. support by the nation’s tax payers not just CO residents. I know the locals will say the herd in a state ‘property', but it still bothers me the discrepancy in price to hunt on the federal lands. I guess this is the reason the bikers/hikers get away without paying since they aren’t chasing critters.

I just did some checking on our Ohio DNR site. Non residents are required to buy a annual hunting license ($146.12) and then can purchase a deer permit for ($41.60). A resident also has to buy an annual hunting license first ($19) and then can purchase a deer tag ($24).

I think what non-residents are bothered principally, is the the discrepancy in costs being so much higher for non-residents that is appears we are being saddled with the costs to support the herd. With leasing in the East, and higher and higher prices out West, it really is becoming a rich man's sport. Sad but truth, I really doubt we have 1-2 generations of normal hunting left (if not completely outlawed) it will mirror EU.

Sorry if this has been covered already a lot has been said.

Is this true if one is only buying a point and not participating in the draw, or is buying a point considered participation in the draw and therefore making the small game license a necessary purchase?

I'm afraid you are correct. Two of three daughters hunt and the other likes to come along but not actually hunt. (She does enjoy shooting, though.) Sonin-laws all hunt, too. We'll be raising our grandkids to shoot and, hopefully to hunt, but I suspect the golden era for hunting is fast approaching the end for many.

[Writtten as I was cooking antelope sausage for breakfast.]

It saddens me to see another tax added. I spent a portion of my working life in state government in programs that needed to be selfsupporting. It's a pretty difficult process. We found it easier to raise fees on those who didn't have a voting block in our jurisdiction. Hard problems that had easy answers were solved long ago. Equity in taxation, or fee setting, is an unsolved hard problem. When I moved to Virginia, I had a fit that I had to pay property tax in addition to registration and licensing on my car and my boat and trailer and my kayak that totaled over a grand. But it was where my wife's job went, so here I am. And yes i am whining. Every state finds a way to pay its bills.
For years, i had dreamed of hunting antelope and mule deer. As western states added fees that's fallen away. I gave it up on it several years ago. Partly because I live in a different financial world than the folks who can do these things, and partly from the unwelcoming comments directed at nonresidents.
I'm guessing the free market will sort this out. Here in virginia, the DGIF is concerned with declining hunter numbers to achieve whitetail management goals and at the same time, leasing costs are rising. No easy answer there. If my lease goes up again next year, I guess I'll be watching from the sidelines on that, too.
A piece of advice I got a long time ago, 'Suck It up cupcake, this too will pass.'
Blkfly

For the record, I introduced my kids ,grandaughter, nieces and nephews to the outdoors. A few shoot, one fishes, most of them love the outdoors but not one of them is interested in hunting.

Colorado isn't doing anything other states hadn't done years ago. And if they can get additional P-R funds by requiring people to buy a license (like other states do) rather than pay an "application" fee they'd be foolish not to.

I totally agree with you Smokepole & that’s exactly what I was trying to state in the portion of my reply that omitted from your “quote”. They have to jump on the band wagon & not doing so is certainly foolish. Alternatively, the feds could change the way that funds are distributed from P-R, so that no single state (or all of them after every state jumps on the band wagon) can work the system at our expense.

So, you'd like the feds to re-work their program because you don't like what the fee is called. Got it.

Ha! Good grief.

So what do we do after all of the states follow this model and there’s no longer an advantage? Start requiring folks to buy TWO hunting licenses before they can apply so they can maintain their edge?

It wouldn't take much to modify the language which they should absolutely do to stop states like CO from completely trying to manipulate the system to their benefit. The dollars should go where they're truly deserved, not to who scams the system best.

News flash!!! Other states are already doing it and have been for years.



See above, Colorado is only following suit.

Which is exactly why I typed STATES.

Why would you single out a state that just implemented what other states did years ago? Where was your indignation then?

And why is selling licenses "manipulating the system?" How familiar are with the the formula P-R uses to disburse funds, and the reasons the formula is structured as it is?

I didn't single out a state. This thread is specifically about CO. Any state that does it is in the wrong. Making it a prerequisite to purchase a license that the purchaser may have no interest in using in an effort to increase license sales is absolutely manipulating the system. The PR act uses total licensed hunters in its calculation and now you are licensing people that may never set foot in the state during the calendar year. There's a reason they did it the way they did and didn't just up the application fee or preference point fee.

And for the record I have no problem if they want to up the cost. Just call it what it is.

That's right. Because other states are already doing it and if Colorado didn't, they'd be losing out to states that do.

Well that makes it right then.

No, it makes it fair and square.