Having received an earful from angry sportsmen over the past two weeks, the Colorado Division of Wildlife on Thursday will pass this message of discontent along to the Wildlife Commission at its workshop in Alamosa.
This merely is the most predictable in a series of episodes that includes yet another meeting of the Big Game License Allocation Working Group on Aug. 27 in Buena Vista. This add-on conclave will shed light on the legitimacy of proceedings that thus far have only raised the ire of the public hunter.
In another development in a progression that seems to evolve daily, it has been revealed the DOW will formulate a recommendation of its own, perhaps to be delivered to the commission at its September gathering in Lamar, the next full-fledged meeting of the policy body. The Thursday assembly doesn’t provide for open public commentary.
The memorandum the commission – or at least those members who don’t have cow pies covering their ears – will hear Thursday is that the overwhelming majority of public hunters don’t want more of their precious deer, elk and pronghorn draw licenses doled out to commercial interests.
The same directive will echo to the Working Group at what likely will be its final gathering. Listen up. The rank and file who purchase the great majority of licenses are mad as heck and won’t take it any more.
Matter of fact, they’re upset landowners, many of whom don’t harbor any animals on their property, are able to skim the current 15 percent of prime tags off the top. If there’s any change in the status quo, public hunters are gunning for a rollback.
This puts the public at odds with the recommendation of the Working Group appointed by the DOW to address a landowner proposal for more commercial tags. Oddly weighted in favor of interests who view wildlife as commerce, the 15-member panel a month ago issued a report suggesting a boost in the percentage of landowner preference tags, particularly in areas where prized licenses are hardest to draw.
Judging by comments emanating from eight recent public meetings, most hunters don’t have a problem with landowners getting tags to hunt on their property. But they’re incensed at the notion these licenses can be sold for many thousands of dollars and used on public lands.
Don’t expect the commission to take final action on this ticklish matter anytime soon, at least not until the DOW has its say and the Working Group has a chance to make amendments, if any, to its earlier position. The commission may accept or reject all or part of these recommendations.
Truth, the commission has no authority to make any changes in landowner preference, a matter of legislative prerogative. But it may direct the DOW staff to prepare a package that might be introduced for debate in the 2006 session of the Colorado Legislature.
It has been roundly predicted landowners and outfitters who continue to push for a bigger slice of these most desirable tags will find a sponsor for their legislative package should the current proceedings not meet their approval. One also hears rumblings that sportsmen might seek rollback legislation.
Meanwhile, the commission does have authority to change policy on certain other matters regarding big game licensing, such as ratio of resident and nonresident tags and reform of the hunter preference point system.
This process now awaits the release of additional economic data to pinpoint the impact any shift in the current 60-40 split might have on the DOW’s economic bottom line. A preponderance of the agency’s budget revolves around income from big game licenses.
Nonresident tags typically yield 10 times as much revenue.
There has been talk the commission might separate these issues over which they have final command from the more volatile, and uncertain, matter of landowner preference.
Don’t expect rulings on any of this until the September meeting in Lamar. But there’ll be plenty of verbal fireworks in the meantime.
Listen to Charlie Meyers at 9 a.m. each Saturday on “The Fan Outdoors,” KKFN 950 AM. He can be reached at 303-820-1609 or cmeyers@denverpost.com.
