CO: CPW discussion document for R/NR allocations

[cedahm]

Found this on another site : https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2020/November/Item.12-Final-W-2-Allocation-Nov-2020.pdf

This will be on the agenda at the 11/17 CPW meeting.

Cliff's:

Option 1: Update the R/NR allocation to 80/20 based on 2020 points required (currently includes hunt codes that required >=6 points based on a 3-year average in 2007, 2008, 2009). Would increase number of affected tags from 867 -> 2203

Option 2: Update the Point threshold from 6 -> 8 (and also use 2018-2020 data). Would increase number of affected tags from 867 -> 1377

Option 3: Update the allocations to 80/20 at GMU level. (this one is complicated, and probably not a real option)

Last Section = 'Point Banking' = CPW is not recommending point banking.

I did find this section under Point Banking interesting:

In the Big Game Attitude Survey conducted for the 2015-2019 Big Game Season Structure, survey respondents indicated that the fairest way to distribute licenses with a draw was, in order, preference points (33%), hybrid (18%), weighted (17%), random (15%), not sure (12%) and banking (5%). Given the low interest in banking and the potential complexity, CPW does not recommend that banking be considered for the 2021 big game draw.

Banking was messy the one time they tried it, but things have changed a lot since then and as with season structure, I appreciate they are using customer-survey data (see: "breaks between seasons" as #1 public comment for the new Big Game Season Structure), but I don't believe they framed the question correctly.

Send your comments to this email address: [email protected]

 

[TOGIE]

point banking....

can someone explain that to me? not that it matters, it's obviously off the table. I just don't even know what it is

 

[cedahm]

point banking....

can someone explain that to me? not that it matters, it's obviously off the table. I just don't even know what it is

In 2006 (I may be off by a year), there was a one-year trial whereby if you succeeded in drawing a first-choice limited license for Elk, Deer, Antelope, Bear, you only 'used' the minimum amount of points it took to draw the tag and retained the remainder of your points.

E.g. If you went into the draw with 10 points and drew a tag that took, at a minimum, 3 points, you would get the tag and keep 7 points.

Folks in the middle point ground and near-max loved it (for good reason). Everyone else hated it (for good reason). On paper it's not bad, but with the spread of points so wide, it served to push point creep into lower units and didn't materially change top units.

 

[TOGIE]

In 2006 (I may be off by a year), there was a one-year trial whereby if you succeeded in drawing a first-choice limited license for Elk, Deer, Antelope, Bear, you only 'used' the minimum amount of points it took to draw the tag and retained the remainder of your points.

E.g. If you went into the draw with 10 points and drew a tag that took, at a minimum, 3 points, you would get the tag and keep 7 points.

Folks in the middle point ground and near-max loved it (for good reason). Everyone else hated it (for good reason). On paper it's not bad, but with the spread of points so wide, it served to push point creep into lower units and didn't materially change top units.

thank you. shoulda waited until i had a moment to read read that document, it's right in there

i think i'll start drafting an e-mail to the commission

it's such a hard issue for the commission, they have an actual revenue addiction problem and a refusal to ruffle feathers:

"Any proposed change should minimize unintended consequences for hunters to draw or continue to benefit from the preference point system. Proposed changes need to consider the “value” of preference points to the customer on the backside of any change."

^between that mindset and the revenue problem there will never be any effective change made that does anything

i know some of my opinions will be a minority among the average resident hunter. but i will be putting a list of comments to the commission along these lines:

• I feel very little benefit in being a resident of this state compared to non residents as far as the draw is concerned other than price
• while it's understandable, every decision being met with, "but this reduces revenue" can't be the reason every time to not make changes that increase the quality of being a resident hunter and simultaneously could be good for herd health. we can't just continue to sit in the same spot and make fractional changes that don't do anything meaningful.
• I would pay a relatively substantial increase in resident prices if it meant i started feeling an actual benefit as a resident as far as the draw and hunt quality are concerned.
• my personal preference would be an 80/20 split across the board and an NR otc cap

 

[TOGIE]

but i will be giving the commission my vote for option 1 i think

 

[denverteacher]

thank you. shoulda waited until i had a moment to read read that document, it's right in there

i think i'll start drafting an e-mail to the commission

it's such a hard issue for the commission, they have an actual revenue addiction problem and a refusal to ruffle feathers:

"Any proposed change should minimize unintended consequences for hunters to draw or continue to benefit from the preference point system. Proposed changes need to consider the “value” of preference points to the customer on the backside of any change."

^between that mindset and the revenue problem there will never be any effective change made that does anything

i know some of my opinions will be a minority among the average resident hunter. but i will be putting a list of comments to the commission along these lines:

• I feel very little benefit in being a resident of this state compared to non residents as far as the draw is concerned other than price
• while it's understandable, every decision being met with, "but this reduces revenue" can't be the reason every time to not make changes that increase the quality of being a resident hunter and simultaneously could be good for herd health. we can't just continue to sit in the same spot and make fractional changes that don't do anything meaningful.
• I would pay a relatively substantial increase in resident prices if it meant i started feeling an actual benefit as a resident as far as the draw and hunt quality are concerned.
• my personal preference would be an 80/20 split across the board and an NR otc cap

I second the idea of paying a higher fee to feel some benefit of being a resident. I also love the idea of a NR cap on OTC licenses.

 

[marksjeep]

Glad this is on the radar. At a minimum, updating the years used would be prudent. Using data from 10+ years ago to determine allocations does not reflect the policy intent or current reality.

Thanks for posting this up.

Will get an email together.

 

[cedahm]

but i will be giving the commission my vote for option 1 i think

That's what I am writing in my email comments. Which is taking longer than I expected

I also went off on a tangent about 'predictability' being used as one of the main criteria. That is purely an individual customer decision-making tool that has nothing to do with the resource or the draw system as a whole. Unless they have solid market intelligence that shows tremendous influence of 'predictability', this is just an appeasement term. We already let anyone from anywhere buy elk tags up to the last day of the season.

[*]while it's understandable, every decision being met with, "but this reduces revenue" can't be the reason every time to not make changes that increase the quality of being a resident hunter and simultaneously could be good for herd health. we can't just continue to sit in the same spot and make fractional changes that don't do anything meaningful

Revenue and Cost impact are factors in any enterprise's decision. I don't begrudge them accounting for that. I would begrudge a decision that demonstrably was made primarily because of an amount that is an allowable rounding error to the enterprise budget (and all the numbers they cited were).

And revenue losses could be partially offset really quick if we stopped allowing tag returns for full refunds. I hope they talk about that in their discussions with other Western/Mountain states.

I am happy to see them asking staff to study/speak with other states, though. That is the first time I recall that being officially stated.

 

[WapitiBob]

Point banking is the single best way to completely derail an established draw system and easily the worst idea ever conceived.

 

[Dieseldog]

I think they have to do away with unlimited otc elk tags. Co gets way too many people. Everyone uses it as a last resort.

 

[vanish]

They do a great job of mixing multiple questions when they do their surveys. It boggles my mind at times considering they are supposed to have professional survey question design help.

Considering the Banking topic:

1.) There's no context setting around it. Opinions will be biased by the hunter's current level of preference points. When hunters with high PP read about random as a possibility, are going to pick PP as they're afraid somehow their PP will become worthless, even if they think random is better overall.

2.) Hybrid has so many possible definitions, with impacts resulting from "near irrelevant" to "game changing"

3.) Banking is a subset of preference points and should have been its own question entirely.

 

[vanish]

Glad this is on the radar. At a minimum, updating the years used would be prudent. Using data from 10+ years ago to determine allocations does not reflect the policy intent or current reality.

If they're going to base it on the number of preference points, it should be automatically updated every year. Its not like there is a lot of work involved.

 

[Oak]

Commission discussion starting now.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting Day 1

www.youtube.com

 

[Oak]

The commission voted to work through the process with more public input over the next year, with a goal of making a decision next November.

 

[TOGIE]

I was happy with mcdaniels comment regarding kicking the can down the road "i don't think that's possible, this is more of a barrel, not sure you could kick that two inches"

but do agree that more comment and stakeholder input is necessary

though the former commissioner's (forgot his name) public input that messing with this without careful consideration will have rippling effects throughout the whole web and could unintentionally mess all sorts of things up did not resonate with me, at all

 

[Deleted member 28227]

though the former commissioner's (forgot his name) public input that messing with this without careful consideration will have rippling effects throughout the whole web and could unintentionally mess all sorts of things up did not resonate with me, at all

Honestly I think this is kinda where I'm at... CO voters have shown time and again we don't want to fund wildlife in other manners; more taxes, fees, backpack tax etc. All of those have been shot down. Yet at the same time we want to provide more opportunity for residents by reducing opportunity for NR.

I'm not sure what you do if I'm being honest.

 

[TOGIE]

Honestly I think this is kinda where I'm at... CO voters have shown time and again we don't want to fund wildlife in other manners; more taxes, fees, backpack tax etc. All of those have been shot down. Yet at the same time we want to provide more opportunity for residents by reducing opportunity for NR.

I'm not sure what you do if I'm being honest.

that's a good point

i kinda felt that guy was basically saying "i don't want change!"; "we can't risk crowding OTC any further!"; "we'll destroy the economy in the gunnison basin!"

I eyeroll at that

but yes, everything points towards further loss of revenue down the road and the average colorado resident has zero appetite for funding wildlife

but status quo is never the answer to the problem, and i too would be at a loss of coming up with an answer that's feasible. an answer that might solve a number of the problems, yes, but not one that would get approved by the commission or voters

 

[Deleted member 28227]

that's a good point

i kinda felt that guy was basically saying "i don't want change!"; "we can't risk crowding OTC any further!"; "we'll destroy the economy in the gunnison basin!"

I eyeroll at that

but yes, everything points towards further loss of revenue down the road and the average colorado resident has zero appetite for funding wildlife

but status quo is never the answer to the problem, and i too would be at a loss of coming up with an answer that's feasible. an answer that might solve a number of the problems, yes, but not one that would get approved by the commission or voters

Totally agree, I do think the "solve a number of problems" is in fact the best way to go. I do feel like the funding can be worked out after CPW decides what direction it wants to go... also the more and more I consider what it will be like to be a MA resident applying to CO as NR the more I just shake my head.

I mean I will have like 12 weeks of hunting and 2 buck tags in MA versus 5 days of elk hunting and 7 days of deer hunting for CO residents. If I only get to come back every couple of years I think that's totally fair. I'm planning on dividing my time between MT,WY, CO,NM, and ID for elk hunting anyway so really the whole idea of a 90/10 quota really doesn't move the needle in my planning.

CPW needs to do what's best for 1. Herds and 2. Residents ... if that means using NR fees to pay for the system thats great, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with allocating more tags to residents and trying to improve the quality of hunts for residents.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also IMHO breaks in between seasons do jack for moving deer off of private.

This year the deer got pushed down from the grand mesa by all the campers fleeing COVID in Denver. I shot a buck that was running around on the ranch in August.

Once deer come down they don't leave, unless they are hunted.

 

[TOGIE]

Also IMHO breaks in between seasons do jack for moving deer off of private.

This year the deer got pushed down from the grand mesa by all the campers fleeing COVID in Denver. I shot a buck that was running around on the ranch in August.

Once deer come down they don't leave, unless they are hunted.

big time. animals move when pressured and stop moving when they find a place with no pressure. if that place has food and water they definitely aren't going anywhere

where i shot my buck the guy we talked to that's been going there for a few decades was at a loss at how few bucks he'd seen compared to nearly every year since he started going there

we were wondering ourselves why the bucks were so hard to find with a 3rd season that's ruttier than ever. we were the talk of the parking lot when we showed up with a loaded pack, even with teeny little antlers

statistical anomaly i'm sure. big time fire unit. lots of weird unprecedented variables. but i kept thinking about it