CO Archery Hunter Numbers 2007-2020

[Deleted member 28227]

Just fyi the cap drops to 20% for higher demand hunts (hunts where it takes residents >5 points to draw), at least that's my recollection.

Cap drops for specific that have been designated has taking more points to draw, it doesn’t float, meaning there are units and codes that take more than 5 points to draw that still use the 35% quota.

 

[nrpate05]

At a recent CPW meeting they did a case study of the Steamboat area for OTC tags.

70% of archery hunters are NR

That’s f-ed

I can’t think of any state or hunt that has that kinda allocation.

I think all NR should be able to look at that number and feel some empathy for residents.

The statutory ratio for draw units is 35%, which is waaaay more than UT/MT/WY/ID.

Co needs to cap OTC NR. Take the number of OTC resident tags, apply the 35% cap to that and stop selling tags once you reach that number.

Dang. I know CO is extremely accommodating to NR's but didn't think it was that crazy. There has to be a breaking point sometime right? I agree that CO definitely needs to cap NR's for OTC and reduce the allocation for draw units. It is wild how many people are out in the woods.

The wildlife is held in trust for the resident, right? I'm not sure the trustee is doing right by the beneficiary anymore. Been listening to some HuntTalk radio lately. I wonder if there will be an uprising from resident CO hunters in the near future...

 

[old roper 42]

There is no limited on archery OTC elk tags. You can buy either sex and cow tag. Same as rifle OTC.

They do limit NR on draw tags.

 

[cedahm]

Just fyi the cap drops to 20% for higher demand hunts (hunts where it takes residents >5 points to draw), at least that's my recollection.

Currently - individual hunt codes are moved to 80/20 based on Hunt Codes that required >=6 Resident points at minimum over the 3 draws from 2007-2009.

Changing/Refreshing that came up last year. CPW punted the discussion to this year. I don't have the meeting video bookmarked, but iirc, it was because they realized that the issue was complex and needed more investigation in a larger context. I have personally gotten several surveys, emails, etc about this topic from CPW.

Dang. I know CO is extremely accommodating to NR's but didn't think it was that crazy. There has to be a breaking point sometime right? I agree that CO definitely needs to cap NR's for OTC and reduce the allocation for draw units. It is wild how many people are out in the woods.

The wildlife is held in trust for the resident, right? I'm not sure the trustee is doing right by the beneficiary anymore. Been listening to some HuntTalk radio lately. I wonder if there will be an uprising from resident CO hunters in the near future...

And dont forget that 20% come off the top for the LO tags before the allocation is applied. So in practice, it's more like 60/40 for the 'normal' limited hunt codes (and probably less since LO vouchers often end up as NR tags). OTC trends around 50/50 (although there isn't great data on that) and, to @wllm1313's point - in some areas where they've done focused studies it's even more tilted to NR's.

But allocation aside - there are still hundreds of years of NR applicants and dozens of R 'years' to cycle through for the "top" tags.

We've broken the pure preference + OTC system. I hope I get invited to the CPW Focus group sessions I applied for.

 

[RobertD]

We've broken the pure preference + OTC system. I hope I get invited to the CPW Focus group sessions I applied for.

OTC caps aside, what do you think is the best move for the broken pure preference system? Convert to bonus points?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Currently - individual hunt codes are moved to 80/20 based on Hunt Codes that required >=6 Resident points at minimum over the 3 draws from 2007-2009.

Changing/Refreshing that came up last year. CPW punted the discussion to this year. I don't have the meeting video bookmarked, but iirc, it was because they realized that the issue was complex and needed more investigation in a larger context. I have personally gotten several surveys, emails, etc about this topic from CPW.

View attachment 213477


And dont forget that 20% come off the top for the LO tags before the allocation is applied. So in practice, it's more like 60/40 for the 'normal' limited hunt codes (and probably less since LO vouchers often end up as NR tags). OTC trends around 50/50 (although there isn't great data on that) and, to @wllm1313's point - in some areas where they've done focused studies it's even more tilted to NR's.

But allocation aside - there are still hundreds of years of NR applicants and dozens of R 'years' to cycle through for the "top" tags.

We've broken the pure preference + OTC system. I hope I get invited to the CPW Focus group sessions I applied for.

Yeah I did a CORA request in 2018 for all elk licenses.

CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data

As many of you know Colorado is reviewing it's 5 Year Big Game Season Structure. The CPAW commissioners have decided to not discuss allocation as part of this process, but I know it is an important discussion for many Colorado resident and nonresident elk hunters. Under current Colorado rules in...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[cedahm]

OTC caps aside, what do you think is the best move for the broken pure preference system? Convert to bonus points?

Me personally?

Broadly:

- Current OTC units go to WY model (OTC for residents, draw for NR's)
- 80/20 across the board for draw tags
- If Bonus points are part of it - More OIL/Waiting periods for individual hunt codes
- Eliminate tag/point refunds outside of medical emergencies that already qualify


For all limited draws (incl the above for NR's), my own personal rank would be:

1 - Full Random (not going to happen in one step)
2 - Hybrid Preference/Random (e.g. Wyoming/Arizona)
3 - Pure Bonus points (no squaring/cubing)

I've mentioned this before on here - but while I think we could design a slick, complex system and apply it differently across multiple 'groups' of hunt codes/tags (e.g. we already have a unique bonus point mechanism in place today with the MSG system, but it couldn't be directly applied to Elk/Deer/Antelope) - the general public is already confused by the pure preference system we have today (spend a few minutes on any CO hunting Facebook page when draw results come out and you'll see numerous examples. Hell - just talk to a random hunter at the bar about the current system. The vast majority of hunters I've talked to personally or seen on social media discussing the current system don't know how it works. Your average Hunttalk-er is the top 1% of the class in this regard).

Adoption and Change Management of any tweaks to the draw process is a huge concern and if a lot of consumers already are flummoxed by "person with the most points gets the tag" there are going to be huge outreach/education/adoption issues for anything more complicated, so unless you want a complete PR disaster, it needs to be phased in very deliberately and a lot of time, effort, money will need to be spent on education for any new process.

 

[COEngineer]

OTC caps aside, what do you think is the best move for the broken pure preference system? Convert to bonus points?

There several threads on that topic already. You don't have to start another one in the middle of this one. You can...but that doesn't mean you should.

 

[RobertD]

Me personally?

Broadly:

- Current OTC units go to WY model (OTC for residents, draw for NR's)
- 80/20 across the board for draw tags
- If Bonus points are part of it - More OIL/Waiting periods for individual hunt codes
- Eliminate tag/point refunds outside of medical emergencies that already qualify


For all limited draws (incl the above for NR's), my own personal rank would be:

1 - Full Random (not going to happen in one step)
2 - Hybrid Preference/Random (e.g. Wyoming/Arizona)
3 - Pure Bonus points (no squaring/cubing)

I've mentioned this before on here - but while I think we could design a slick, complex system and apply it differently across multiple 'groups' of hunt codes/tags (e.g. we already have a unique bonus point mechanism in place today with the MSG system, but it couldn't be directly applied to Elk/Deer/Antelope) - the general public is already confused by the pure preference system we have today (spend a few minutes on any CO hunting Facebook page when draw results come out and you'll see numerous examples. Hell - just talk to a random hunter at the bar about the current system. The vast majority of hunters I've talked to personally or seen on social media discussing the current system don't know how it works. Your average Hunttalk-er is the top 1% of the class in this regard).

Adoption and Change Management of any tweaks to the draw process is a huge concern and if a lot of consumers already are flummoxed by "person with the most points gets the tag" there are going to be huge outreach/education/adoption issues for anything more complicated, so unless you want a complete PR disaster, it needs to be phased in very deliberately and a lot of time, effort, money will need to be spent on education for any new process.

Thank you for the thorough reply. I was curious since I know you know Colorado well but wasn't sure I'd seen or heard your ideas on the topic

 

[Oak]

Yeah I did a CORA request in 2018 for all elk licenses.

CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data

As many of you know Colorado is reviewing it's 5 Year Big Game Season Structure. The CPAW commissioners have decided to not discuss allocation as part of this process, but I know it is an important discussion for many Colorado resident and nonresident elk hunters. Under current Colorado rules in...

www.hunttalk.com

I didn't read that whole thread again to see if it was discussed, but curious in the discrepancy between numbers in your table vs. numbers in the CPW statistics. Example: your table lists about 35,600 total archery licenses for 2017, plus maybe 1500 youth. But the 2017 estimated harvest stats say 47,700 archery hunters.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2017StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I didn't read that whole thread again to see if it was discussed, but curious in the discrepancy between numbers in your table vs. numbers in the CPW statistics. Example: your table lists about 35,600 total archery licenses for 2017, plus maybe 1500 youth. But the 2017 estimated harvest stats say 47,700 archery hunters.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2017StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

I would have to look back into the data but part of the issue is the codes/ there are a ton of them. Also I wasn’t very impressed with the data I think there are some big holes. (Not like anything was missing but just not a ton of clarity in how they aggregate everything for the the hunt recap data. I’m also not entirely sure if the hunt recaps are actually based on the Aspira license data.

I would be interested in doing another request and seeing if they have ironed things out… and/ or chatting with someone in CPW in the know.

 

[Buffs35]

At a recent CPW meeting they did a case study of the Steamboat area for OTC tags.

70% of archery hunters are NR

That’s f-ed

I can’t think of any state or hunt that has that kinda allocation.

I think all NR should be able to look at that number and feel some empathy for residents.

The statutory ratio for draw units is 35%, which is waaaay more than UT/MT/WY/ID.

Co needs to cap OTC NR. Take the number of OTC resident tags, apply the 35% cap to that and stop selling tags once you reach that number.

Just one problem

 

[marksjeep]

I think it's apples and oranges. The cora data above have a license code associated with them (051 Res Archery Antlerless Elk), and appear to be derived from license sales. The hunter numbers in the harvest stats are not derived from license data, I don't think they can be. There is no way to know what unit every OTC hunter/license hunted in. So, the hunter numbers in the harvest stats are derived from the online/phone survey data at the gmu level and aggregated up to the DAU/state level.

And even the hunter numbers within the harvest stats don't always match up. DAU E-47 is comprised of one GMU (1). The harvest stats estimate the number of hunters in the first table as 82 and the "total hunters, all manners of take" as 84 on the very next page. There were 118 tags available for unit 1 across all seasons, sex, method of take based on the draw recap.

I also don't know if the cora tables include LPP tags? Are they rolled into the same license code, or do they get their own line item? The harvest stats state that they do include LPP tags in the methods section.

It's also Friday and I've looked at too many numbers and squiggly lines all week. So, I might just be off my rocker.

 

[RyanSoNorCal]

honestly, we probably have rogan to blame almos entirely.

View attachment 213418

Guilty…I’m sorry but is that a bad thing? I’m hooked. New hunters pour a ton of money into the industry. I understand that there’s more pressure out there but overall my opinion is that it’s a positive thing.

 

[LopeHunter]

Convert into draw units. Achieves a couple of things. Confines tag holders to specific geo for the season thus everyone can't end up in one spot which results in a very poor experience for the hunter with only 7 days on average in the field with the current OTC archery tag. So, spreads hunters out. Can adjust quota year over year if a geo area can support higher harvest or needs to target lower harvest.

A side issue may be the impact on point creep as some annual archery hunters may very well be building points for a draw hunt. One of Colorado's challenges with point creep is I can hunt for 10 years straight for elk in CO as a NR and end up with 10 points built up. Buy a landowner tag from a landowner? Keep my points. Buy an auction tag? Keep my points. 2nd choice tag? Keep my points. Secondary draw tag or tag turned in to be re-issued to me? Keep my points. Heck, I can draw a tag in the main draw then weeks later turn the tag in and keep my previous point total then go hunt elk OTC with my bow.

 

[RobertD]

Guilty…I’m sorry but is that a bad thing? I’m hooked. New hunters pour a ton of money into the industry. I understand that there’s more pressure out there but overall my opinion is that it’s a positive thing.

Not a bad thing. But a complex situation that everyone has mixed feelings over

 

[Nick87]

Full Random (not going to happen in one step)
2 - Hybrid Preference/Random (e.g. Wyoming/Arizona)
3 - Pure Bonus points (no squaring/cubing)

Maybe hybrid bonus/ random

F the pref points.

 

[TOGIE]

Guilty…I’m sorry but is that a bad thing? I’m hooked. New hunters pour a ton of money into the industry. I understand that there’s more pressure out there but overall my opinion is that it’s a positive thing.

i was blaming rogan, not you

there's a limit on how much pressure is sustainable.

 

[buffybr]

Funny, I left CO and headed east for those exact reasons....

Me too! I was a 4th generation Colorado native and moved north for those exact reasons...

I wonder how many archery elk tags Colorado sold in 1973 when I killed a bull with a sharp stick almost within walking distance of my home in Steamboat.

 

[rogerthat]

Me too! I was a 4th generation Colorado native and moved north for those exact reasons...

I wonder how many archery elk tags Colorado sold in 1973 when I killed a bull with a sharp stick almost within walking distance of my home in Steamboat.

It’s funny how everyone’s reference points and perspective are different. I’m a lifelong Montanan and have only hunted Colorado recently 3 times for mule deer in 3rd season. However, each of the 3 years I shot big mule deer bucks and saw multiple browntine bulls on public land that I’m pretty sure I could have harvested also. Way better than any luck I have ever had in Montana. But I get what your saying since the quality of the hunting in Montana and amount of people that have moved here since I was kid is pretty depressing enough that I think about moving also.