5-Year Big Game Season Structure alternatives

[vanish]

Well, this was an interesting exchange, re going full limited archery elk.

Bray: "Alternative 2 would have a bigger fiscal impact, and we don't have those numbers ... I do agree that alternative 2 is more drastic and it would address the crowding a little more, it just would have a larger fiscal impact, it just would because they're limited."

Hasket: "My one concern about that is are we managing the wildlife or looking at the money? I think we're managing the wildlife and looking at the dollars last."

 

[Pelican]

Well, this was an interesting exchange, re going full limited archery elk.

Bray: "Alternative 2 would have a bigger fiscal impact, and we don't have those numbers ... I do agree that alternative 2 is more drastic and it would address the crowding a little more, it just would have a larger fiscal impact, it just would because they're limited."

Hasket: "My one concern about that is are we managing the wildlife or looking at the money? I think we're managing the wildlife and looking at the dollars last."

Does anyone know the formula that would be used to determine the number limited licenses under alt. 2? I may have missed it or maybe nobody has though about that part yet?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Does anyone know the formula that would be used to determine the number limited licenses under alt. 2? I may have missed it or maybe nobody has though about that part yet?

I haven’t seen any specific formula mentioned I’m assuming it would be DAU based and would use metrics to assure harvest doesn’t exceed a certain threshold.

Net effect, which is more the point, I bet units 53,54, ,44 etc become 1pt draw while units 18, 82, 371, etc are second choice.
Basically assume a little bit better odds for any particular unit than the current muzzy/ first rifle

 

[vanish]

At one of the focus groups I asked why we couldn't start with a limited license that covered all the current OTC units. I was looked at funny, but then it was acknowledged that they probably would start with unit groups and not single units. Danielle Isenhart told me they would estimate the number of current hunters in each unit, add the total up for the group and start there.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

At one of the focus groups I asked why we couldn't start with a limited license that covered all the current OTC units. I was looked at funny, but then it was acknowledged that they probably would start with unit groups and not single units. Danielle Isenhart told me they would estimate the number of current hunters in each unit, add the total up for the group and start there.

Agree this is probably the start, but you have to consider part of the issue and complaint is over crowding... to that end there are some archery units that have pretty much the same number of hunters 2005–> 2019 then there are units like 53 that went from 400 hunters to over 850. If you are going to achieve the goal, 371 will have the number of limited tags issued for the number of hunters issued last year while 53 should have say 650.

Again, to deal with crowding not over harvest, resource damage yada yada yada

 

[Pelican]

At one of the focus groups I asked why we couldn't start with a limited license that covered all the current OTC units. I was looked at funny, but then it was acknowledged that they probably would start with unit groups and not single units. Danielle Isenhart told me they would estimate the number of current hunters in each unit, add the total up for the group and start there.

Thanks Vanish. So, they would essentially cap permits at current levels by DAU initially and adjust permit numbers in the future based yet to be determined criteria. It seems to me this type of info. would be vital for the public to be able assess the alternatives and for the commission to make an informed decision. As someone who doesn’t want limited archery to expand, this is music to my ears as it appears to be a token effort to limit archery permits.

 

[vanish]

It seems to me this type of info. would be vital for the public to be able assess the alternatives and for the commission to make an informed decision.

Why is this so obvious to us? CPW seemed to feel like saying "just let us know whether you want full limited or not, and let CPW figure out the details" would be enough, but the details make a HUGE difference here. How many units will each license cover? How many licenses? Same NR Allocation? Either Sex?

So many people are against going full limited because they think that we're suddenly going to drop to "quality license" levels in every unit. I can see advantages to both OTC and limited, but if they put the limited at 45k licenses, I think things will work out just fine. Sure, maybe in 10 years if the archery trends continue we'll see residents unable to draw every year. If that were to happen, I think it would be worth having less people in the field.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Seems like given the explosion of growth Colorado has experienced the allocation conversation definitely needs to be had. I completely understand why the commissioners didn't want to even touch it this time around, but it needs to happen. As WY keeps getting brought up as the gold standard, I think there could be discussion around a capped general license for NR... maybe cut NR OTC tags in 1/2, so that a non-resident can draw CO every other year.

Lost revenue would be 10M-ish.

This is an interesting study that was done on alternative funding mechanisms for CPAW
https://docs.merid.org/SITECORE_DOCS/Colorado Parks and Wildlife Future Funding Study Dec2018.pdf

 

[rideold]

Seems to me that the desire to not touch the allocation discussion nor have much of an answer on the fiscal impacts of full limited instead of OTC sure points to managing for dollars and not herd health. Maybe that's just me though.

 

[Oak]

Seems to me that the desire to not touch the allocation discussion nor have much of an answer on the fiscal impacts of full limited instead of OTC sure points to managing for dollars and not herd health. Maybe that's just me though.

It has more to do with outfitter and landowner relationships.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Seems to me that the desire to not touch the allocation discussion nor have much of an answer on the fiscal impacts of full limited instead of OTC sure points to managing for dollars and not herd health. Maybe that's just me though.

Full limited v. OTC seems more like a crowding issue rather than herd health, although I'm sure there is an age class/bull to cow ratio to consider. CPAW has lots of stake holders so they do have their hands tied to some extent.

 

[ZBB]

Full limited v. OTC seems more like a crowding issue rather than herd health, although I'm sure there is an age class/bull to cow ratio to consider. CPAW has lots of stake holders so they do have their hands tied to some extent.

I agree, either way someone isn’t going to like it. I do not envy their jobs right now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Today's meeting

listening CPAW have to explain the draw system to the commissioners is hilarious... grab your popcorn and strap in.

 

[cedahm]

Comps between 2017 and 2019 app numbers in the 6th column (a better comparison than Year-On-Year given the anomaly last year when it was $3/species and no pay up front). Basically all as predicted -

Elk/Deer numbers stay the same (since these are the primary species and 70% of ALL applications - people were in for them anyway)
Bear/Pronghorn go way up since it's only an additional $7/9 once you paid for your qualifying license so 'why not'
Desert Sheep goes way up (similar to Bear and Antelope, $7/$9, no point system)

I was moderately surprised that Rocky Sheep/Moose/Goat are still so far above 2017. I suppose some of the folks that jumped in 2018 decided to continue until they at least have 3 points OR didn't notice/understand the new system this year (taking the pulse of a Colorado Hunting page - the latter seems to be much more common than the highly informed folks on this Forum would expect)- I'd expect them to trend down in 2020 again.



They need some QA on their Data presentation though - I didn't get a screenshot of the slide before this, but the numbers were different...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Here is a bit deeper dive on the CO hunter trends over the last 12 year (as far as the public data goes back)

Trends that jumped out at me:

In 2005 archers made up 14% of total hunters, now they make up 23%

It looks like there was a huge change in management in 05', licenses down across the board. if we take 10' as the baseline then there has been a negligible (~.2%) change in riffle and muzzleloader numbers, while over the same period a 125% increase in archers leading to a 5% increase in total hunters.

Success rates are down across the board.

Archery tackle has dramatically improved since 05' but success rates have still declined.




Hunter number Trends









https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/Statistics-Elk.aspx

 

[Pelican]

It has more to do with outfitter and landowner relationships.

Oak, can you expand on this statement. I’m not following what you are saying.

If archery went 100% limited, won’t the current allocation scheme (20% landowner then 65/35) automatically apply.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

Seems like given the explosion of growth Colorado has experienced the allocation conversation definitely needs to be had. I completely understand why the commissioners didn't want to even touch it this time around, but it needs to happen. As WY keeps getting brought up as the gold standard, I think there could be discussion around a capped general license for NR... maybe cut NR OTC tags in 1/2, so that a non-resident can draw CO every other year.

Lost revenue would be 10M-ish.

This is an interesting study that was done on alternative funding mechanisms for CPAW
https://docs.merid.org/SITECORE_DOCS/Colorado Parks and Wildlife Future Funding Study Dec2018.pdf

View attachment 107718

I wonder what the repercussions would be if a scenario like that would play out, what would the CPW have to cut out of their budget? Beings how we license buying hunters residents and non residents alike foot most of the bill for their budget would it be small ridiculous reductions such as getting rid of the WiFi available to the public at some state parks? Or would they have to implement drastic measures such as a hefty costing shed antler picking up license to try and accommodate?
Along the same lines is there a reason, other than the revenue that non residents bring in, why Colorado caters to the non residents so preferentially while every other western state favors residents so obviously?
If it is just the revenue I don’t get it other than gross misspending why they have to it’s not like our outdoor programs, parks or access is superior to any other state.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I wonder what the repercussions would be if a scenario like that would play out, what would the CPW have to cut out of their budget? Beings how we license buying hunters residents and non residents alike foot most of the bill for their budget would it be small ridiculous reductions such as getting rid of the WiFi available to the public at some state parks? Or would they have to implement drastic measures such as a hefty costing shed antler picking up license to try and accommodate?
Along the same lines is there a reason, other than the revenue that non residents bring in, why Colorado caters to the non residents so preferentially while every other western state favors residents so obviously?
If it is just the revenue I don’t get it other than gross misspending why they have to it’s not like our outdoor programs, parks or access is superior to any other state.

So I hunted Colorado as a NR last year and will again this year. Outside of tags, we went into town and had good meals a couple of times, bought supplies, and spent a small fortune on gifts for the wife and kids. The impact of non-resident hunters is well beyond the price of a tag. This is also distributed in towns that probably need an influx of business between the summer rush and ski season.

 

[Pelican]

I wonder what the repercussions would be if a scenario like that would play out, what would the CPW have to cut out of their budget? Beings how we license buying hunters residents and non residents alike foot most of the bill for their budget would it be small ridiculous reductions such as getting rid of the WiFi available to the public at some state parks? Or would they have to implement drastic measures such as a hefty costing shed antler picking up license to try and accommodate?
Along the same lines is there a reason, other than the revenue that non residents bring in, why Colorado caters to the non residents so preferentially while every other western state favors residents so obviously?
If it is just the revenue I don’t get it other than gross misspending why they have to it’s not like our outdoor programs, parks or access is superior to any other state.

I think CPW typically makes up for budget shortfalls largely by not filling positions when someone leaves the agency or they decrease services such as closing boat ramps because they don’t have money to pay a AIS inspector, less fish stocking, less money for access programs. When the commission raised resident fees last year some of the justification was that CPW had a lot of positions they couldn’t afford to fill. As far as catering to nonresidents, they certainly contribute to our game agency but also support lots of outfitters, motels, restaurants, etc. Drive through Craig or Kremmling during 2nd rifle and it’s easy to see that nonresidents support a lot of small businesses in small towns. If you looked at the license plates at the cabelas in grand junction on the day before 2nd rifle, you would think you were in California because that’s where most of the trucks are from. Good or bad, that’s how it is in Colorado. I’m sure nonresident pronghorn permits contribute a disproportionate amount of Wyoming game and fish’s budget. I would guess the same occurs in MT and ID with elk and deer tags. If we want fewer NRs in CO, we are going to have to accept less of something.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

So I hunted Colorado as a NR last year and will again this year. Outside of tags, we went into town and had good meals a couple of times, bought supplies, and spent a small fortune on gifts for the wife and kids. The impact of non-resident hunters is well beyond the price of a tag. This is also distributed in towns that probably need an influx of business between the summer rush and ski season.

I promise you this is a fact that every self aware resident considers. I grew up in the small town of Craig where the influx of hunters and revenue from those hunters is a big driver of the economy. My earlier questions/comments are not of the bashing kind towards non residents. One of my first jobs was guiding non resident elk, deer and antelope hunters.
With that being said I am questioning the decision making by the CPW purely from an inquisitive standpoint not non resident hating.
Ben Sellers I hope you had a great and successful time on your hunts and I hope you have the opportunity to come back and enjoy it again. Also I hope you are grateful and understand how fortunate you are that the CPW has afforded you the opportunity as well.