craigdailypress.com

Hunting is big business in Colorado.

The Division of Wildlife released a report recently showing that hunting and fishing contributed $1.5 billion to Colorado's economy in 2002 and supported more than 20,000 jobs across the state.

Although urban Front Range communities generated a large portion of transportation and equipment sales in 2002, the overall affect of hunting and fishing comprised a much larger portion of the economy in many rural communities, according to the study.

But Moffat County businesses know that.

Many local merchants depend on the hunting season to carry them through the slow winter months or make their revenue goals for the year.

We sympathize with Colorado residents who are tired of watching out-of-state hunters get a big slice of the pie. The Montrose-based Colorado Resident Hunters Equality Task Force (a citizens group), has compiled figures showing that Colorado has the highest percentage of nonresident hunters in the lower 48 states. The group wants to increase the state's ratio of bull and buck tags in limited draw areas to an 80-20 split in favor of residents instead of the current 60-40 split.

The group argues that the 60-40 split is really more like 51-49, because landowner preference tags -- which account for 15 percent of all limited-draw licenses -- are taken off the top. That leaves resident hunters with 60 percent of the remaining 85 percent, according to the task force. Many landowner preference tags are sold to out-of-state hunters for big money.

The growing commercialization of big-game hunting in Colorado is creating resentment and animosity among local hunters who think they aren't getting a fair shake. They system is in need of a major overhaul, and the DOW has agreed to take a look at the license allocation process.

We think that's a fine idea, and we hope that the discussions yield a sensible compromise. The DOW is being pulled in two different directions. They're trying to manage the state's game and ensure that herds don't get out of control and wreak havoc with the land.

At the same time, they're one of the few state agencies in a position to make money, and the Wildlife Commission is an appointed board, subject to political pressures from those who stand to benefit from keeping the state open to more nonresident hunters.

The bottom line is that fewer out-of-state hunters would mean fewer dollars circulating in Moffat County's economy. It's the hunters from Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania who have a significant effect when they come here to hunt. Front Rangers, often described as "weekend warriors," load up on supplies and equipment in their hometowns before making a trek over the divide. Out-of-state hunters often fly in and spend money on motels, meals and supplies when they arrive here.

Another false assumption is that increasing the number of resident hunters would automatically mean that private landowners would let them hunt on their land. But why would a private landowner feel compelled to do so unless a resident hunter was willing to pay the same amount of money that a nonresident would pay?

Whatever the DOW decides to do, we hope that the state's game officials make habitat management the cornerstone of any changes. The land can only support so many animals, and that has to be the chief concern, ahead of politics and money.

But Moffat County residents should ask themselves what's more important: a better chance to hunt in a trophy unit or keeping the local economy sound?