Which do you want first?

Good news....After much pressure from the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, news media, and boots on the ground efforts by the general public, I have learned the the CP&W commission will be dropping it's efforts to study possibilities for more non-resident big game tags in Colorado at the expense of resident big game tags. This is a great example of the BHA's charter of "boots on the ground" by members writing emails, contacting media, and alerting other sportsmens groups to mobilize together when needed. Thanks to everyone who made contacts with the commission, media, and the governor to put the pressure on when needed.

Now the Bad news...very bad news, after a recent moose kill near a very heavily used recreation area, that was witnessed by many hikers, and recreationalists...Brainard Lake Recreation Area, there is a citizens petition to ban hunting within 1 mile of the recreation area. This is an over the top, emotional response to one incident of a bowhunter harvesting a moose in a publicly viewed area. The BHA's respones to this was that for a 1st time incident, calling for a closure of the area, is not appropriate. We sent in a wide range of options that include moving the moose season 2 weeks later, (when the area is closed to public access via roadway anyway), moving the road closures of the area 2 weeks earlier.(to align with the start of the moose season, to reduce recreationalist/hunter conflict, and most importantly educating the public through signage in the area that hunters paid for and are responsible for the moose reintroduction though hunting license dollars,and are also responsible for managing the herd through conservation principals. Without hunters, there would be no moose.

Please write an email to the commission respectfully asking them to consider these proposals instead of an outright closure of a public land to hunting.

Email: [email protected]

Also see: www,backcountryhunters.org

Why would BHA get involved in a resident vs. nonresident tag issue? I thought they were a national organization, and I'm not sure how that's in line with their mission anyway.

I kind of like the option to open the season two weeks later when the public access is closed anyway. That would give those wanting to close the area to moose hunting less leverage.

I still like the signage idea, though, as there would still likely be some non - hunting recreationsts hiking around.

In reality, why would that be bad news? Lots of guys talked of this happening right after the idiot did it. What he did really put a bright light on bowhunting and changed the view of bow hunters in a lot of people's eyes. What would it hurt to stop hunting within one mile of the recreational area? The guy screwed up, and ruined things for other hunters just because he wanted to kill an easy animal that was highly photographed and was an attraction to the recreational area. Yes, it was legal, there is no arguing that, but because of his laziness and over ego, he just screwed over al the other hunters. Like the guy that killed the mountain goat on Mt Evans in front of a lot tourists years ago that force F&G to change things up there. In reality, what would be so bad to close hunting around the recreational area? You need to tell guys the truth in what happened and why this is an issue. You can't blame the antis for this one, this one is cause of one of our own....

So it's supposed to be good news that we who are non-residents of Colorado will not have more non-resident tags available????? Doesn't sound like good news to me. And I also agree that BHA involvement seems strange. Guess they don't have my best interest at heart as a non-resident.

Probably would be good for BHA to stick to core issues of protecting wildlife habitat, enlightened, scientific resource management, and maintaining the hunting tradition.

You can bet that the non-resident issue is revenue-driven, though. As a non- resident, I already can't afford to hunt in my home state.

It's not a tag issue thing. It's about people not wanting bow hunters killing moose that are almost tame. If you haven't read about the "incident", Scot George wrote about it on Tradgang. And Scot works or the F&G department, and was one of several sickened by it. Closing the recreational area wouldn't effect the tags issued, just force those that draw the tags for that area have to hunt for their moose, instead of just walking up to the moose on the lake shore and shooting it.

Hunted Colorado twice. The last time, the day before the opener they buzzed the elk herds with planes. We saw nothing after they did that. When I got home I called and asked why that was done and did not get an answer. That was in the 80's.

Never went back so I guess the non resident tag issue is a mute point as far as I am concerned.

The tag issue is a problem because Colorado already has the most liberal non-resident quota in the country at 35%. This is revenue driven at the expense of residents. Not scientific management. The Colorado constitution dictates that wildlife are properly of the residents of the state.

I'm live in Utah - I've hunted mule deer in Colorado twice (rifle), and I'm not sure I'd ever go back there again. Everywhere I went, we kept running into non-resident elk hunters. We'd see some nice bucks we'd want to go after, and inevitably there's a group of elk hunters in our way. Whenever we stopped to talk to other hunters, they're always from out of state and hunting elk; I don't think we ever met any deer hunters, and we never met anyone from Colorado, although I'm sure they're out there. This is around Colbran... funny thing is, the deer never seemed to disturbed by the presence of hunters, but the elk were absolutely terrified of any human and were rarely seen except when running.

Anthony-- there are two separate issues going on here. One is about the ratio of resident to non-resident tags. The other is about shooting practically tame moose, even if it was legal.

I disagree that just because something is legal it is also ethical. That short- sighted thinking could result in far greater restrictions on hunting. All it will take is enough incidents like killing that tame moose at Brainard Lake to get hunting voted out of existence by an outraged majority.

The principle of fair chase was violated, if not the law itself.

I dont see why BHA would be involved in this issue at all.

I will not agree with every stand or recommendation that BHA or other organizations make but Thank God they step up to do something because the anti-hunting movement in this country is well-funded, well-organized and strategically well-planned. You and I as individuals are just little guys in camo with bows and arrows and without significant organization we will lose more and more hunting rights. Organization is strength.

I'm a nonresident elk hunter in Colorado and I pay the steep price for a nonres./either sex archery tag to hunt national forest. My taxes PAY for that national forest just as much as a Colorado resident. It's fair? Not even close. If nonresidents stopped hunting Colorado, how many small businesses would fold? How would Colorado replace the lost revenue?

I have no idea so I am just asking. I read where the Routt National Forest encompasses 1.1 million acres. That's close to 1,800 square miles. Is an are that big really overrun with hunters? Or are there much smaller areas that are just known for good Elk and so they are overrun?

I am not a resident of Colorado, but I gotta tell ya, it's on my bucket list to get out the Medicine Bow/Routt NF and hunt Elk with my Son someday.

I thank everything bha stands for. We should not hide from legal hunting methods and states are being pushed heavily by landowners and guides to issue more non local tags in order to line their pockets. If you lived here you would understand that the initiative was to reduce opportunities to enable a select few to make money. Thank u bha

I am now a non-resident but grew up in CO. I still return occasionally to bowhunt there. Based on what a NR pay to hunt there, residents would have a lot less state and federal resources if you take away the NR license fees. Can't have it both ways like it or not.

Although I support several wildlife conservation organizations, I won't be sending any money to BHA now that I know it is a resident only-centric organization.

Keep in mind that this in no way limits the already abundant non-res opportunities in CO - it was only a decision not to pursue an expansion, at the expense of resident opportunities. The non-res opportunities will continue to be as they have been - which is the say, "many."

Also, while we all pay for management of our federal lands, it is up to the states the manage the wildlife and hunting opportunities on those lands.

This is a Colorado chapter issue. The motives for doing this were not to promote wildlife, but was being done to promote $$$ in the wallets of guides, outfitters, landowners. While it may seem as a slap to non-res, Colorado has the MOST non-res tag allocation of any state at 35%, and 20% to private land owners to sell to guides/ outfitters. The OTC tags are still available to no-res/res alike, but with the high quality areas, some taking over 7-10 years to draw, the non-resident quota was already above neighboring western states. This in no way affects OTC or a good quantity of the other draw areas. Colorado constitution dictates that wildlife belongs to the residents in Colorado. The residents should have a big say on how the wildlife is managed. With most residents wanting to keep current quotas or even lowering them. Wildlife management by profits is not in alignment with the North American Conservation Model.

It is an unusual fact only practiced in the US and Canada (that I know of) that wildlife is managed, though hunting seasons and tags, on both private and Federal lands, by the State within who's boundaries the wildlife lives. Overall, this works very well, though it always leads to controversy - but then what doesn't?

I've hunted CO ten times or so as a non-resident archery elk hunter, usually in general areas or areas that only require about 2 points. My two biggest complaints are the muzzleloader season right in the middle of the archery season, which really screws the hunting up, the the high numbers of hunters. Yes, meatCKR the Routt National Forest is large, and also has an incredible number of hunters in it. You spend more time trying to get away from other hunters, than actually hunting elk! I have serious doubts that I'll return to CO because of these facts. Then there are the ever-present $%#@*( ATV's. Whether the area is open to them or not, they are one of the major plagues to hunting CO, or about anywhere in the west. In my opinion, the best thing ALL states could do is treat ATV's like airplanes are treated in some states, and allow no hunting within 24 hours of having your butt on the seat of one of those things. I've seen guys spend more time loading and unloading their gear from an ATV, to only ride it 200 - 400 yards. Sorry for my rant and getting way off subject.

Slayer, As a resident I agree with you. We have been told many times that they could always close the season for archery while muzzleloaders are out there. That's a cruel alternative.

As for ATV issues, you couldn't be more right. Not that I would do this....:) but always carry a tube of super glue with you for emergency situations like deep cuts and ignitions when ATV's are found where they are definitely not legal to be. It makes them really hard to start when the key hole is filled with glue... If they are legally parked all is well, if you attempt to ruin our forests and hunting rights by being lazy and making your own roads, I believe that there are certain risks you take and therefor consequences.

Remember again that this was an issue of a select few attempting to expand hunting to the rather wealthy, therefore lining their own pockets. BHA is a great group, and the prosperity of overall hunting is their main goal.

There was a recent public input period for the 5 years season structure in Colorado (they do it in 5 year chunks as to not re-visit it every year. Most of the BHA members I polled sent public input in to lessen the amount of folks in the early archery season by moving ML seasons to the end of archery. This fell on deaf ears as not many folks commented on it.

How many of you folks here made a public comment on it? How many of you made a comment on the issues that were presented on this thread? How many folks just read this thread, pounded their chest behind a computer, made a comment here, but didn't take the time to comment to the wildlife commission?

baby, your right, your tax dollars do pay for the national forest, feel free to go camping anytime you want. but the animals in the forest belong to the state of Colorado.

closing the recreation area to the public and then letting hunters access only! that will go over like a fart in church!

The area wont be closed to other users, the access road is closed normally in oct/nov. The hike in access only drops the number of folks using the area considerably which in turn minimizes any conflicts. Our suggestion is to close the road earlier or move the season ufter road closes

Seems logical on both ends....

Stix - You are spot on. Most of us complain but very few do anything about it and that's why the antihunting movement keeps chipping away.

Every time something like this "legal" killing of a moose happens, millions of people see in on the news and in anti-hunting propaganda and another nail is hammered into the hunter's coffin.

As for non-residents, this situation does not hurt you because the percentage of licenses allocated to you remains the same. I've lived in Colorado for about 22 years and have heard more and more complaints from residents about how so much of the prime elk hunting is now controlled on private lands and/or by guides and outfitters. You and I have access to millions of acres of public land to hunt on with over-the-counter licenses. With some serious research, we can find good elk hunting on those lands. Without serious research, we simply bumble around in the woods. A good way to research is to contact forest rangers and game wardens. Don't be shy. They'll talk to you.

For the prime hunting areas, you'll need to build up points over several seasons of applying - just the same way that Colorado residents do.

As for atv's - I can't stand them. I also hate inline muzzleloaders and I don't like mechanical bows. Neither of them should be allowed in primitive weapon seasons but that horse has already left the barn, so I won't waste prescious time on it.

Thanks Crossed Arrows. That's what I like about the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, they get the membership mobilized, boots on the ground style to fight any threat to conservation. Since hunters / anglers are the backbone of conservation, any threat to hunters/anglers can be equated to a threat to wildlife and habitat conservation.

I should be happy that there are fewer non resident tags?

TBB

There aren't fewer non-res tags. As states several times above, this was a vote against an expansion in non-res tags, not a reduction in existing tags. So I guess you can still be happy?

Exactly as Smithhammer said. This applies to draw tags which require high preference points to draw , no non-resident increases to their allocations. Does not effect Over the Counter tags, or draw tags that normally are leftover.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here