Colorado Senate Bill 21-150

lostinOregon

lostinOregon

Very Active Member
Messages
2,187
Looks like Colorado is getting in on the NR action. This bill limits NR tags to 33 percent excluding leftovers. It now is 80/20 if it takes more than 6 points for a resident to draw and 65/35 if it doesn't. Looks like a net loss of 2 percent of NR tags. I'm sure this is just the start like other states.

Rich
 
A bill can be amended or gut and stuffed to anything during the process. This could just be a placeholder for anything. I'm told it was introduced by the Senate President, which is a bit worrisome.

Rich
 
just got information that it is up for a hearing in Senate AG on Thursday and an amendment is coming. 75/25 on all tags (OTC and Limited). Hang on to your hats boys, here it comes.

Rich
 
Bummer, all us non residents can do is hope our good friends the outfitters come through. I can really see the need for a reduction in OTC tags but selfishly hope the draw tag quotas stay the same. I don't blame the residents for trying to change it though.

Mark
 
cmbbulldog said:
So they are actually increasing NR tags on the better units?
Click to expand...
The bill states no more than 1/3 (which sounds like is now 1/4), so I think it would be up to the G&F to decide if they go 75/25 on everything or keep the 80/20 split on those tags taking a lot of points. Perhaps there is already 80/20 in the legislation somewhere where G&F would honor that.
 
Would this apply for nr moose, mtn goat and sheep? If I remember correct it’s 90/10 split already for this species.
 
Its vague as it is now written with no specific species outlined. I think it is directed at elk/deer/antelope. Once the amendment drops it will be clearer. If it has an economic impact if it passes out of committee it would go to ways and means for financial impact. It would then have to go back to the Senate floor for passage and then over to the House floor for passage. The wild card is the Senate President is the sponsor. He can hold any other bill from being heard in the Senate hostage to get his bill through the House if he wants. I have heard rumblings for several years of totally limited elk licenses, and a reduction of the percentages with less non resident tags, so this doesn't surprise me.

If it passes this year, usually once signed by the Governor, which would be in July, it would be too late for this year.

If it does go to 75/25 cap they could do it two ways. They could do it like Idaho did and sell only so many OTC tags, or put all elk into the limited category and draw just like 1st and 4th seasons. I think that makes the most sense. If they do that, then there will be landowner vouchers for 2nd/3rd seasons where there are none now, because for there to be elk landowner vouchers, the season has to be totally limited.
 
lostinOregon said:
Its vague as it is now written with no specific species outlined. I think it is directed at elk/deer/antelope. Once the amendment drops it will be clearer. If it has an economic impact if it passes out of committee it would go to ways and means for financial impact. It would then have to go back to the Senate floor for passage and then over to the House floor for passage. The wild card is the Senate President is the sponsor. He can hold any other bill from being heard in the Senate hostage to get his bill through the House if he wants. I have heard rumblings for several years of totally limited elk licenses, and a reduction of the percentages with less non resident tags, so this doesn't surprise me.

If it passes this year, usually once signed by the Governor, which would be in July, it would be too late for this year.

If it does go to 75/25 cap they could do it two ways. They could do it like Idaho did and sell only so many OTC tags, or put all elk into the limited category and draw just like 1st and 4th seasons. I think that makes the most sense. If they do that, then there will be landowner vouchers for 2nd/3rd seasons where there are none now, because for there to be elk landowner vouchers, the season has to be totally limited.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the info and insight you are providing on this!!
 
Ranchers and and outfitters are having a fit. In turn lighting up our lawmakers phone lines. The heat is on as this bill is being termed as yet another attack on our ag community. Which under present circumstances I completely agree!!
 
Residents have been in favor of having NR licenses at over 10X residents cost. Because Colorado sells so many NR tags, that means that NRs fund a huge portion of the CPW budget. That is a major difference from any other state (percentage of revenue) due to shear numbers NR tags. So a significant reduction in NR numbers would gut the CPW budget. Therefore, if you get what you want, be ready for SUBSTANTIAL increases in resident tag costs. Also, if that limit extends to OTC elk licenses, that means that NR tags would now be draw only, like Montana.
 
The fiscal report on the bill said it would have a net deficit somewhere of $300,000 to $1.4M if 2020 figures were used and all things stayed the same. Yet there were no amendments brought forward to offset that. Which it wouldn't take a big increase in NR tag fees to offset that. If ranchers and outfitters were lighting up the airwaves, this has more to do with the possible lost income of those ranches losing tags to sell. That is going to be the most challenging dynamic if Colorado really pushes to lower NR license quotas.
 
Don't get me wrong I still believe in 90/10 or something more beneficial for resident hunters. But I tell you the ranching community has and continues to be beat up by Colorado liberals and I ain't gonna play that game today. Perhaps in better times but not now. You can thank our liberal governor and his PETA Puffing friends for that mindset.
 
tailchasers said:
Don't get me wrong I still believe in 90/10 or something more beneficial for resident hunters. But I tell you the ranching community has and continues to be beat up by Colorado liberals and I ain't gonna play that game today. Perhaps in better times but not now. You can thank our liberal governor and his PETA Puffing friends for that mindset.
Click to expand...


That whole meat out, followed by prop 16 is unbelievable. I hope you guys are able to educate enough of the general public as to what this bill truly is and the consequences of it passing are, so that it doesn't go the route of the wolf bill. I'm doin what I can in my circle but it's gonna take $$ and a solid campaign to put a stop to it.
 
rocky2track said:
The fiscal report on the bill said it would have a net deficit somewhere of $300,000 to $1.4M if 2020 figures were used and all things stayed the same. Yet there were no amendments brought forward to offset that. Which it wouldn't take a big increase in NR tag fees to offset that. If ranchers and outfitters were lighting up the airwaves, this has more to do with the possible lost income of those ranches losing tags to sell. That is going to be the most challenging dynamic if Colorado really pushes to lower NR license quotas.
Click to expand...
When has something every come in at the low end where government is concerned?? That means toward the high end ( $1.4 million shortfall). Even that sounds low to me. Not sure if they included doing away with OTC elk tags for NRs in that estimate.
 
Last year CPW took in $59mill on hunting license sales alone. I think they'll be fine.
Screenshot_20210326-123310_Drive.jpg
 
txhunter58 said:
Yes and $46.5 million of that was NRs. Only $12.5 was residents. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
I would think the point was if you reduced the non-resident tags by that large of a percentage then the revenue lost would be much greater then 400K - $1.4 million.
 
That’s my point. I think he was somehow trying to make the opposite argument since he is a resident. Which I don’t understand....
 
Working with those numbers in order to eliminate 20% of non res we'd have to raise res fees $19, 10% $9.50, on every tag, license, stamp. Residents purchase 471,588 tags, stamps and licenses. Non residents only 111,400. I don't think this bill would eliminate 10% of nonres. As it's written Colorado would still be the most generous western state to non residents. But I'm sure we'll be labeled "greedy". CPW is the only greedy one in this scheme. $59 miiilllllion!
 
10% loss would be $4.6 million. 20% of course would be $9.2 mil. You would then divide that into how many resident hunting licenses are sold and we don’t have that info in that chart. Seems like it is 144,000? That is $32 per resident. 20% would be $64 per res.
 
Hunters, please forget about the cash because this has-not-one-thing to do about money. It is all about political ideologies. You better bet your azz this ain't done and will return just in a different fashion. Its about limiting & reducing hunter opportunity to transition away from the shooting sports and take away from Ag. No tin foil hat on here. That's where we are heading under the present government administration in Colorado. These people are activist with a strong far left mentality. Now either Colorado wakes up voting in better people or we can continue to watch our ways of life get legislated out. If you vote blue in Colorado you are helping push their cause. And it is a party-line push!!
- PAUSE
- Wolves
- Meat Out
- Prop 16
- State Trust Lands being opened then leased up by CPW
- Stock Show
- Stock Watering
etc.
You are being a witness to animal rights doing there best to institute their agenda...
I
 
tailchasers said:
Hunters, please forget about the cash because this has-not-one-thing to do about money. It is all about political ideologies. You better bet your azz this ain't done and will return just in a different fashion. Its about limiting & reducing hunter opportunity to transition away from the shooting sports and take away from Ag. No tin foil hat on here. That's where we are heading under the present government administration in Colorado. These people are activist with a strong far left mentality. Now either Colorado wakes up voting in better people or we can continue to watch our ways of life get legislated out. If you vote blue in Colorado you are helping push their cause. And it is a party-line push!!
- PAUSE
- Wolves
- Meat Out
- Prop 16
- State Trust Lands being opened then leased up by CPW
- Stock Show
- Stock Watering
etc.
You are being a witness to animal rights doing there best to institute their agenda...
I
Click to expand...
Well stated.
Anti hunters using hunters to reduce hunting!!
It's not new, been used in other states.
Pit residents and nonresidents, reduce numbers, reduce fish and wildlife $$, reduce $$ to any industry that supports hunting.
Many western states are doing it. Turning them into Anti hunter states.
Resident hunters don't appear smart enough to see it for what it is.
 
txhunter58 said:
10% loss would be $4.6 million. 20% of course would be $9.2 mil. You would then divide that into how many resident hunting licenses are sold and we don’t have that info in that chart. Seems like it is 144,000? That is $32 per resident. 20% would be $64 per res.
Click to expand...


It's the second column 471,558 resident tags, stamps, and licenses.
 
The bill is officially dead. There is a fiscal attached which describes some scenarios of loss of revenue. I'm told that the bill brought out a lot of folks and comments and they have punted the issue to the Commission. So I'm guessing it will show up there sooner or later.

Rich
 
Wasn't but a year or two ago that they were spending money to advertise, encouraging NR to come hunt CO. Now they are wanting to restrict NR hunters ?
Maybe they are getting prepared for the coming wolf destruction on the world's largest elk herds.
 
DW said:
It's the second column 471,558 resident tags, stamps, and licenses.
Click to expand...

471,558 encompasses everything. So that number is much more than how many residents actually bought a big game license. If I hunt deer this year, I will have bought a small game license, a habitat stamp, and a deer license (3 things for one tag). The figure I gave I think is more accurate as far as how many residents bought a license to hunt. So I think my numbers would be more accurate in answering: “How much more would each resident have to pay”. But sounds like it is a mute point at this time anyway
 
txhunter58 said:
471,558 encompasses everything. So that number is much more than how many residents actually bought a big game license. If I hunt deer this year, I will have bought a small game license, a habitat stamp, and a deer license (3 things for one tag). The figure I gave I think is more accurate as far as how many residents bought a license to hunt. So I think my numbers would be more accurate in answering: “How much more would each resident have to pay”. But sounds like it is a mute point at this time anyway
Click to expand...


Purty much what I said thru the
whole thread. All we can use is the data they gave us. We need to buy the habit stamp and qualifying license as well.. and a fishin license,, second rod stamp,, furbearers stamp,, turkey tag etc etc etc...
 
I didn't even notice this until Grosventrehunter mentioned it. I don't see why Colo has to follow suite with other states and cut nonres tags. As I've harped on in my Wyo posts nonres offer a boost to small town economies. Cutting a few nonres tags and offering them to res really doesn't gain much for residents but often creates more point creep for nonres.

If the CPW want to do something constructive they will gut and cut the current landowner tag program and offer those tags to Colo res and nonres in the public draw!
 
Easy Jims, don't go talking crazy like that. Fortunately for the NR hunter the DOW has financial problems since they merged with parks. I see that they could make some adjustments, but I wouldn't expect the 90/10 like other states. The Colorado ranchers have been hit pretty hard in this session with all the crazy bills. They have their hackles up and are fighting as a group. The Governor's meat out backfired on him and some of the ranching bills are downright crazy talk.

Rich
 
As lostinoregon says the ranchers have been hit hard. As a matter of fact I would consider it lambasted. I would be the first one in line to promote 90/10 but not under the present political structure. I am sick and fn' tired of the ag attacks and animal rights attacks in this once great state. Ag hangs in there by a small thread and I mean small. Get off the backs of Ag, rid this state the Polis mentality, and I'll talk a different story but until then I will stand firm in place of the present tag allocations and support our Ag.

Always great to get other states involvement but please understand the situation before jumping on the tag reallocation bandwagon.

If anyone would like to learn more about what's happening it would be my pleasure to share my knowledge. Send me a message and we can visit.

Al
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

310308087_434762722057356_5171272626512153076_n.jpg
Taker Bull for You or No????
DSCN0048.JPG
C81CB109-A5C2-4C19-8A84-3D8696445977.jpeg
Big Buck with Mass
2022 buck.jpg
IMG_8828 copy.jpg
20141026_104436.jpg
4FA8972B-8BA1-4822-B002-FD0147523DB5.jpeg
IMG_5339.jpeg
7x7July31Pic3.jpg
Deer 1 trip.jpg

Colorado Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Rocky Mountain Ranches

Hunt some of the finest ranches in N.W. Colorado. Superb elk, mule deer, and antelope hunting.

Frazier Outfitting

Great Colorado elk hunting. Hunt the backcountry of unit 76. More than a hunt, it's an adventure!

CJ Outfitters

Hunt Colorado's premier trophy units, 2, 10 and 201 for trophy elk, deer and antelope.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear and cougar hunts in Colorado units 40 and 61.

Ivory & Antler Outfitters

Hunt trophy elk, mule deer, moose, antelope, bear, cougar and turkey on both private land and BLM.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer both DIY and guided hunts on large ranches all over Colorado for archery, muzzleloader and rifle hunts.

Hunters Domain

Colorado landowner tags for mule deer, elk and antelope. Tags for other states also available.

Back
Top Bottom