5-Year Big Game Season Structure alternatives

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

This is very complicated question, I'm actually trying to see if I can get the full license and budget data so I can pull everything into spotfire and give some hard numbers, but no it's not gross misspending.

First I think you need to compare Colorado more to Washington when you talk about fish and game, primarily because the state these states have an almost order of magnitude difference in population than WY, ID, and MT and also because they have large metro areas.

CPAW is responsible parks, I'm not sure how you define superior, but certainly chatfield or cherry creek get more users in a day that any single park in MT or WY gets in a month... more than most of them get in a year. This heavy volume requires more enforcement and more maintenance, just extrapolate that throughout the entire budget.

Another important point to consider and one I'm not capable of quantifying is overall state budgets, CO funds CPAW differently than other states and there are programs and directives under the prevue of CPAW that WY fish and game doesn't have to deal with. For instance CPAW has to lease CO State lands from the State land board for them to be open to the public. This isn't cheap and isn't something MT or WY has to deal with. The point being unless you go through the full budget of each state, compare what each game and fish agency is responsible for and how that agency is funded it's impossible to figure out why CO relies more on non-residents.

If you take a look at the report and table in my earlier post on this thread you will see CPAW has done extensive research on other revenue streams that are utilized by neighbor states, and the potential issues that would arise by trying to implement them.

 

[Ben Sellers]

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.

Good deal. Colorado is definitely more generous to nonresidents than most other states, particularly with the otc hunts. Sounds like you understand my point that the impacts of large scale reductions in nonresident tags would affect more than the CPW budget. I think that gets lost sometimes in the conversation.

My hunt last year (my first western hunt) was life changing. Without the ability to just go buy an otc tag, I would have been too intimidated to try. I am grateful to the CPW and Colorado residents for the current system.

 

[Oak]

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.

No, there are no landowner set-asides in OTC units. For example, muzzleloader licenses are 100% limited, however there are no ML landowner vouchers for units that are OTC rifle.

What would automatically apply is the 65/35 R/NR allocation for limited archery licenses.

 

[Pelican]

No, there are no landowner set-asides in OTC units. For example, muzzleloader licenses are 100% limited, however there are no ML landowner vouchers for units that are OTC rifle.

What would automatically apply is the 65/35 R/NR allocation for limited archery licenses.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Oak. I didn’t realize there were no landowner muzzy tags in OTC rifle units.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

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.

Unlike most residents I am alright with tag price increases when it occasionally comes down to that. I understand that it takes money to run an operation such as the CPW does. I say unlike most residents because a lot of the people I work/associate with always threaten that they are going to get priced out of hunting when an elk tag increases $8 in price. If 8 bucks is a deal breaker maybe they can not buy that elk tag this year and spend it on another couple cases of beer and there will be one less person to come stumbling across in the woods.
I guess my whole hitch here is this whole debate seems to be focused on overcrowding in the hunting woods, and honestly it’s not just the hunting woods it’s overcrowding all year long but that’s a whole other discussion.
I think we should look at the resident to non resident tag allocation again. In most of the units the general public hunts the allocation is 65/35 in favor of residents. Of that 65% landowners are allocated their allotment. How many of the landowner tags go to residents like this misleading allocation assumes? Like I said earlier I used to guide for an outfitter in the Craig area and with the landowner I worked for 100% of those tags went to non residents. So I known my numbers aren’t spot on but in my eyes the tag allocation is more like 50/50. In New Mexico between guided and non residents they share 84/16 and I couldn’t tell you the land owner numbers. Arizona is less than that for non residents.

This is very complicated question, I'm actually trying to see if I can get the full license and budget data so I can pull everything into spotfire and give some hard numbers, but no it's not gross misspending.

First I think you need to compare Colorado more to Washington when you talk about fish and game, primarily because the state these states have an almost order of magnitude difference in population than WY, ID, and MT and also because they have large metro areas.

CPAW is responsible parks, I'm not sure how you define superior, but certainly chatfield or cherry creek get more users in a day that any single park in MT or WY gets in a month... more than most of them get in a year. This heavy volume requires more enforcement and more maintenance, just extrapolate that throughout the entire budget.

Another important point to consider and one I'm not capable of quantifying is overall state budgets, CO funds CPAW differently than other states and there are programs and directives under the prevue of CPAW that WY fish and game doesn't have to deal with. For instance CPAW has to lease CO State lands from the State land board for them to be open to the public. This isn't cheap and isn't something MT or WY has to deal with. The point being unless you go through the full budget of each state, compare what each game and fish agency is responsible for and how that agency is funded it's impossible to figure out why CO relies more on non-residents.

If you take a look at the report and table in my earlier post on this thread you will see CPAW has done extensive research on other revenue streams that are utilized by neighbor states, and the potential issues that would arise by trying to implement them.

I also respect a lot of what the CPW does for a great example I went for a hike in Waterton Canyon today with the wife and kids. To my surprise at the start of the “trail” there is a shed that the CPW has set up and in front of it they had a table set up with the hides of different predators and skulls of deer and bighorn sheep all critters you may find in the canyon. Along with that there was an interpreter, I’m assuming a CPW employee, striking up conversation and educating people passing by mostly kids on those critters. This type of service being offered by the CPW is amazing in my eyes, especially for the people walking on that trail which may be the only bit of wildlife and “wilderness” they see all year this is priceless.
On the other side of the coin when you hear about such examples as free WiFi available provided by the CPW at certain state parks (which I mentioned earlier) that I would call gross misspending. I don’t think I need to explain the insane irony of that situation.
I am trying to educate myself more with all aspects around this subject and the wildlife I enjoy so much so I can have facts to base an opinion on so I just want to say I value hearing others on this, thanks.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Coloradoshedhead I’m with you, right now I would pay $200 or more for an elk tag, but I also understand that this amount would price a ton of people out of the market. When my wife and I first got out of college we were making 45k combined and even $30 was a lot for a tag and I definitely felt the cost... and we didn’t have kids or other responsibilities to worry about.

The crowding is really a separate issue as the state could just cut tags across the board. I’m interested to hear what @Oak and @Pelican can add, about what hunting pressure pre 2005 felt like as CO actually gives out significantly less tags now than it did back then.

Colorado does give out a ton more tags NR tags. Devil being in the details, the state gives out NR v R breakdown for limited draw tags which are subject to the allocation. They do not give out the R v NR numbers for OTC tags which are unlimited. It’s possible that 80% of these tags are going to non-residents we don’t get to see that data. Wonder why... not sure how CO residents would feel if they found out that 50% or something like that tags were going to NR. When you use a voucher you still have to buy a license, and a NR gets a NR license. The state has the data for the exact number of NR elk tags sold...

Landowner tags are an interesting piece of the puzzle, my only experience with them is with small landowner around my in-laws. Everyone around there only has 200-400 acres and they keep the vouchers for themselves + family/ friends. I’m sure it’s a whole different ball of wax when you start talking about the mega ranches.

 

[Pelican]

On the other side of the coin when you hear about such examples as free WiFi available provided by the CPW at certain state parks (which I mentioned earlier) that I would call gross misspending. I don’t think I need to explain the insane irony of that situation.

Supposedly the parks fund themselves and fishing and hunting funds are only used for fishing and hunting related management. I can’t confirm this though. I drive by one of the parks here in the Grand Valley quite often. This park has a lake that is heavily stocked with rainbows and is often filled with people fishing. There are probably hundreds of kids each year that catch there first fish there. CPW probably looses money on it as stocked fish are expensive, but the true value is unquantifiable. I guess if you need WiFi to get kids fishing, then so be it.

@Coloradoshedhead
The crowding is really a separate issue as the state could just cut tags across the board. I’m interested to hear what @Oak and @Pelican can add, about what hunting pressure pre 2005 felt like as CO actually gives out significantly less tags now than it did back then.

I don’t feel like the pressure is as bad as many make it out to be, but I have stopped hunting some areas due to the number of people. I’m also on the less populated side of the state. I was surprised by the table you posted though. I would have never guessed the increase in archery hunters was that large or that rifle hunters had actually decreased. Resident hunters complaining about NRs has occurred as long as I can remember and it probably alway will. We have to blame someone when we don’t get an elk.

@Coloradoshedhead Colorado does give out a ton more tags NR tags. Devil being in the details, the state gives out NR v R breakdown for limited draw tags which are subject to the allocation. They do not give out the R v NR numbers for OTC tags which are unlimited. It’s possible that 80% of these tags are going to non-residents we don’t get to see that data. Wonder why... not sure how CO residents would feel if they found out that 50% or something like that tags were going to NR. When you use a voucher you still have to buy a license, and a NR gets a NR license. The state has the data for the exact number of NR elk tags sold...

I can’t remember where, but this spring I heard that ~45% of OTC archery tags go to NRs. I can’t vouch for the validity of that stat. You are right though. It seems suspicious that the NR vs. res. numbers are nowhere to be found online. Would be really easy to post that info as they do it for draw tags the same week the results are posted.

 

[cur dog]

Nailed it!

I dont know why Colorado resident hunters think the way they do, but they do. Please charge me more and shorten my season!

Legal Weed?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I can’t remember where, but this spring I heard that ~45% of OTC archery tags go to NRs. I can’t vouch for the validity of that stat. You are right though. It seems suspicious that the NR vs. res. numbers are nowhere to be found online. Would be really easy to post that info as they do it for draw tags the same week the results are posted.

I made a CORA request for this info, apparently it's going to cost me $60... will post when I get it.

 

[COEngineer]

It looks like there was a huge change in management in 2005

Hunter number Trends

View attachment 107740

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

wllm1313, I think that drop was the Great Recession of 2008, perhaps combined with some management practices, but mostly the recession.

 

[COEngineer]

Also I hope you are grateful and understand how fortunate you are that the CPW has afforded you the opportunity as well.

shedhead, I'm not sure what you meant by this, but I feel like it is a little opposite of the reality. I, as a CO resident, am grateful and understand how fortunate I am that the non-residents pay an extraordinary fee (compared to mine) to hunt mostly on federal land. Federal land that their federal tax dollars pay to manage just as much as my federal tax dollars do.

Maybe you are one of the few CO residents that would rather pay a higher license fee than allow more NRs to buy tags? I might fall into that category, especially if/when archery tags become totally limited.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

wllm1313, I think that drop was the Great Recession of 2008, perhaps combined with some management practices, but mostly the recession.

I don’t think it was the recession, simply because there was a huge drop and then numbers stayed lower than that historic high while app for sheep/goat/moose are at all time highs.

 

[COEngineer]

I don’t think it was the recession, simply because there was a huge drop and then numbers stayed lower than that historic high while app for sheep/goat/moose are at all time highs.

"Following record revenue earnings in 2006 and 2007, the DOW faced steep declines in revenue as a result of the 2008 recession" from here: 2017 CPW FAQs Wildlife Budget

 

[Deleted member 28227]

"Following record revenue earnings in 2006 and 2007, the DOW faced steep declines in revenue as a result of the 2008 recession" from here: 2017 CPW FAQs Wildlife Budget

So two things Archery increased even with the recession, we lost more hunters between 05 and 07 as 07 and 09?

total was 236,518 in 06'
total was 227,262 in 07'
total was 223,439 in 08'
total was 208,529 in 09'
...






Also since 05' CPAW has cut 60,000 tags from the draw

2005


2007


2009


2019

 

[COEngineer]

Good points, but I think you would have to break it down by Res vs non-Res. My guess would be that more of the reduction in hunter numbers after the recession were non-Res because it costs them a lot more to hunt in CO (license, gas, lodging, etc). And I think we have to keep draw numbers separate from actual hunter numbers. Lots of non-Res (as I understand it) just buy OTC bull tags, which account for a significant chunk of the CPW budget.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good points, but I think you would have to break it down by Res vs non-Res. My guess would be that more of the reduction in hunter numbers after the recession were non-Res because it costs them a lot more to hunt in CO (license, gas, lodging, etc).

Exactly... which is why I filed a CORA request, because the state doesn't make OTC numbers public.

And I think we have to keep draw numbers separate from actual hunter numbers.

Actual hunter numbers, you mean you have to use license sales? If you bought a license that is revenue. The first set of numbers I posted are "hunter numbers" which I presume are derived from license sales. The second set are the limited draw quotas, I posted these to show that CPAW reduced available limited licenses from 2005 to 2019. CPAW was selling less licenses and they were also giving out less limited licenses.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

shedhead, I'm not sure what you meant by this, but I feel like it is a little opposite of the reality. I, as a CO resident, am grateful and understand how fortunate I am that the non-residents pay an extraordinary fee (compared to mine) to hunt mostly on federal land. Federal land that their federal tax dollars pay to manage just as much as my federal tax dollars do.

Maybe you are one of the few CO residents that would rather pay a higher license fee than allow more NRs to buy tags? I might fall into that category, especially if/when archery tags become totally limited.

Don't look too deep into what I said because I meant exactly what I said I hope all who draw tags are grateful for the opportunity and understand how fortunate they are. Look at other countries that don't have our public lands and tag availability and ease of access to the outdoors. I think your looking for me to be picking a fight and I'm just trying to help people recognize how fortunate they truly are, calm down guy.
As far as the federal taxes and access to federal ground go that is not being questioned especially beings how the state controls the wildlife and tags for said wildlife which doesn't fall under the umbrella of the federal government.
Also yes I am one of the "few" residents that would pay more for a tag as a if it meant my drawing odds for tags got better, which they would as there would be a larger pool of tags. As I said earlier I am not against non-resident hunters and understand they help support certain economies around the state, but having them come in a buying groceries and such doesn't completely support said economies but it does help.
Nobody likes the overcrowding that is very apparent if you have spent any time in the woods during most hunts in Colorado(except maybe the LE tags that are few and far between). Something needs adjusted and my suggestion was just that a suggestion that I don't believe the state wants to look at because of the loss of revenue and the extreme amount of resident belly aching that would ensue if they had to increase tag fees for an elk tag to $100 or so. Another thing to be grateful for as residents to Colorado are the tag fees, look at other states and their tag costs $50 is half or better than some other state's residents have to shell out.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Something needs adjusted and my suggestion was just that a suggestion that I don't believe the state wants to look at because of the loss of revenue and the extreme amount of resident belly aching that would ensue if they had to increase tag fees for an elk tag to $100 or so. Another thing to be grateful for as residents to Colorado are the tag fees, look at other states and their tag costs $50 is half or better than some other state's residents have to shell out.

CO has unequivocally the worst allocation for residents of any state for elk; 31% of all elk tags go to Nonresidents and 40% of OTC tags. I agree $50 is a steal, it's not MT at $20... but it's on the lower end.

 

[Oak]

Two more days to take the survey and potentially maintain the paltry rifle hunting opportunity we currently have.
You can take the survey here.

 

[Khunter]

bump. take the survey!