Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Colorado Big Game Draw Starts Today

No offense intended, I guess I had a hard time interpreting your statement, "If higher license fees = fewer hunters I'm all for it.", any other way. Again, my beef is with generating new revenue streams when they're already taking in more than any 2 western states combined. And for the record it's not simply a couple hundred bucks, it's over $600 more now that shes 18. In a year or two there will be pp fees for all species, gotta maximize that new revenue stream to feed that government bureaucracy! And for the record, my truck is 27yrs old and I hunt out of state!

Or you could just do what I do. Hunt in your own state and save up for the occasional out of state tag if you think the price is too high to go every year. I'd love to hunt elk in Montana but I havent done it yet, mostly because of the price of a NR tag.

But that's not Montana's problem, and it's not rocket science.

PS, when I was 18 I worked all summer and still probably couldn't have swung a western elk hunt even with the lower priced tags then. Never crossed my mind that I should be able to do it every year, that's for certain.

Maybe I haven't asked the right question. If they make as much as any 3 western states, will that be enough? 4?

Yep, that's the wrong question. If Colorado raised the price of a NR elk tag to $900 like Montana, would more NRs hunt in Montana instead?

Well, allow me to present you with a sure-fire method to interpret any statement you might encounter as it was intended. And that is, read the whole thing, and then think about what you just read:

I’m still wondering how much it SHOULD cost, for a NR Buck tag.... or a NR Bull tag?

If you’re saying it’s too much.... then how much should it be?

Again, I'm fine with tag prices as they are. But I see no reason to create new revenue streams when they're already taking in more than any two western states combined. Now answer mine. How much is enough? Do they need to take in more than any three western states combined? 4?

They need to maximize the revenue..... so yes.... they need to “take in as much” as all the rest of the states combined... if the market will support it.

That’s how the North American model of Game Management works. The animals are held in trust for the people of the state.... not the people of the country. Each state should seek to maximize the value of the game animals it manages... and it should cost more for a NR to hunt those animals... as they “belong” to the residents.

Again... if you thinks it’s too much.... you’re free to not pay for the opportunity to hunt them. As long as people are continually willing to pay more.... the State should get more. Once that balance is upset.... then they aren’t maximizing the People of the State’s resources, and a market correction should be made.

If you’re fine with the prices.... WTF are you complaining about?

Colorado Deer + Elk license is $1058 + $10 Habitat Stamp + $81 Small Game to apply for Deer = $1,149. Montana Deer/Elk Combo is $1065 so not much difference in the total for deer and elk hunts. Since Montana limits NR combo license to 17,000 a year, don't think there will be a mad rush to Big Sky.... Happy Trails

You're leaving out an important fact and that is, if you want to hunt elk in Colorado you don't have to buy a deer tag and lots of NRs don't. So for a NR the cost of and elk tag is the cost of an elk tag, not the cost of a combination of elk and deer tags.

In MT, you have to buy both to hunt elk.

Smokepole,
Not being argumentative, but I looked it up and there is still an Elk Combination-general license for $885 that does not include deer in Montana. Also a separate deer license. Both are included in the 17,000 cap.

Colorado is comparable to most other western states on price but way ahead on opportunity! I hope our local game ranger got a new Dodge truck out of the deal this year. LOL

I haven't done any research but I think tags (any State) should be priced at a level high enough so that demand is not hurt by it, generating the most revenue possible. In other words, they should "get all they can get" without hurting demand. That's what I'd do anyway.

Should F&G eBay all the tags? That maximizes revenue. Bunding first access to the unit to the highest bidder will generate even higher bids. How about the approach where applicants blind bid all tags then everyone pays the lowest price that is needed to sell out that tag?

Be aware, the sheep tags will go for around $30,000 each in the blind bid and around $40,000 average in the eBay scenario. Teddy Roosevelt will not be happy, though, as will turn the Big 3 tags into the playground of only what most current big game hunters would view as the wealthy.

Or, keep the current process but drop the resident preference so more tags go to non-residents which pay more for each tag sold?

Do people deserve a sheep tag that are not wealthy? If the goal of F&G is merely to maximize revenues then the answer needs to be you as a hunter earn a Big 3 tag by first accumulating wealth that exceeds all but a few folks that hunt. If F&G wants to offer a chance for a wide variety of hunters of varied socio-economic classes of hunters to participate then needs to keep the tag price as low as possible.

Colorado is experiencing the growth in a voting population majority which is not hunter nor trapper friendly. A revenue-maximization scheme is short-sighted and will hurt recruitment of resident big game hunters which in turn accelerates the pace of imposed restrictions on hunting and will lead to the voter-approved introduction of wolves and grizzly bears.

The first part is true. The rest is doubtful. Raising NR fees does not affect rectruitment of resident hunters, or the price they pay for tags.

LopeSticker, like I said, I haven't researched it, but I definitely did NOT say it should be a bid system. I don't have any problem with raffling a few tags here and there though.

No offense dude but you went way off the reservation in the above assessment.

Colorado’s struggle is not a bad one to have if you are in charge of the coffers, they are caught in between not wanting to reduce opportunity at the expense of losing revenue but they know that they have to do something in the name of wildlife management because right now there is just too much pressure in the field and it’s growing. How they curtail the flood gate to non res has to be balanced so they don’t lose revenue, the question is how do you do that without losing money. That’s where discussion of trying to price people out of the game comes from. If you are used to selling 75,000 non resident licenses at $660 but you only want to allow 50,000 non res to hunt you gotta figure out how to not lose money so you’d have to raise the fee several hundred dollars to keep making the same money. It will be interesting to see what they do in the coming years. 250,000 people hunt elk in Colorado annually to the tune of a overall 17% success rate, it would be nice to see less hunters and bump that success rate some, because 17% ain’t very good if you take into account, private land hunts, guided hunts and outfitted hunts all offer much higher success rates than the public land DIY hunter.

Many of you have said the animals belong to the people while you say we need to pay a healthy ransom to the king to hunt his game? SMH

Nope... you need to pay a healthy ransom to the People of the State... who own the animals you want to buy.

The People of the Country own the land... they do not own the critters.... the People of the State do. You’re free to use YOUR Federal Public Lands, in another State, as you see fit (more or less)... without any exorbitant fees, regardless of where you reside.

If you aren’t a resident of that state.... you SHOULD have to pay market value.... or “ransom” if you will.... for the opportunity to hunt their animals.

If you are a resident of that state... you SHOULD be able to hunt them at a rate that allows for their continued protection... no more. After all.... they’re your friggin animals.

Pricing a percentage of the citizens out of the opportunity to hunt is part of the north American model of wildlife management? I'll have to go back and read it again, maybe they changed it?

No one is being priced out by the cost of a non-resident tag. Theres always the home state, where most do their hunting.