CO CPW Draw Process Working Group

[Wallow]

Two easy to make changes that shouldn't require a year of discussion:

Secondary Draw - eliminate NR youth getting preference over Colorado residents. There were some hunt codes where NR youth got tags over Res youth and NR youth get 100% preference over Colorado Res adults. How that ever passed is beyond me.

Make bots illegal. If you use a bot or have someone apply for you using a bot, you will be fined, lose hunting privileges and lose all of your points for all species.

 

[RunNGunSC]

I said this earlier but tweaking the hybrid draw is an easy change with a big impact. The process should ensure a slight random chance at glory tags is provided for non-residents. Simply assign the random tags before the preference tags or reserve room in the NR quota for a random tag. This will give hope at tags that would be otherwise unreachable and further spread out applications for other quality but not top tier tags.

 

[seeth07]

Make bots illegal. If you use a bot or have someone apply for you using a bot, you will be fined, lose hunting privileges and lose all of your points for all species.

Great in theory but it's not possible to prove the use of one unless CPW gets access to the computer used

 

[Wallow]

Great in theory but it's not possible to prove the use of one unless CPW gets access to the computer used

I don't know how that works. I will say that right now people are apt to use a bot simply because there is no stated policy from CPW on using bots for re-issued licenses. Having a policy with stated consequences, whether practically enforceable or not (at this point in time), would be a good first step.

 

[seeth07]

I don't know how that works. I will say that right now people are apt to use a bot simply because there is no stated policy from CPW on using bots for re-issued licenses. Having a policy with stated consequences, whether practically enforceable or not (at this point in time), would be a good first step.

In the world we live in with ai now, it's pretty much unavoidable unless you set up a system where automation doesn't create an advantage. FOr example, Idaho on December 1st places all people on the site into a random queue. CPW could easily do that as a good start to level the playing field

 

[Wallow]

Randy and I believe others have commented on Nevada's system for re-issues. I tried to find that procedure but struck out. Anyone have a link to it?

 

[cedahm]

stop letting people turn in their tags.

It solves a ton of problems.

This...keep the bereavement/medical exemptions that already exist. Outside of that, no returns. Allow tag donations to vetted charitable organizations (e.g. WY and AZ).

This would solve a bunch of issues as noted, and also frees up/moves a bunch of money by reducing the administrative/IT cost burden of the reissue process and the cost of administering returns. Might need to expand the 'contact the next X people in line for a tag' part of the equation, but could also use some of those freed-up dollars to automate portions of that process.

1. Any tag (any choice), by any means, burns your points (Nevada already does this.) I'm talking leftover, reissue, landowner tag, raffle, auction, OTC elk tags; whatever tag you get, you better want it enough to burn your points.

3. Make the OTC elk tags a draw for NRs with some acceptable cap. It would burn a lot more NR points and would lessen pressure in OTC hunts, making them higher quality experience for residents and non-residents.

Agree for the most part with both of these, except I'd advocate that an OTC (R-only) tag (if implemented) shouldn't burn R points. Otherwise you are effectively just creating another (albeit large) limited unit for R's (the OTC units) and might as well go all-limited since that is how that system would behave if OTC were included.

I'd like to see the math/analysis modeled out if a model was developed that included the concept of "don't award a new point but keep your accumulated points", also.

E.g. if I don't get a tag in the draw but purchase a LO voucher that I convert to a tag, I don't gain a point for that calendar year.

I'm not sure where i'm at mentally with true leftover tags. These are tags that CPW wants to issue, and demand is extremely low.

 

[Browning55]

My recommendation is to just simplify the primary draw.

Just allow 2 choices. Choice 1 uses points choice 2 status quo like before however going forward the newly 75/25(80/20 hd) quotas apply to both choices as a soft cap. Currently the allocations are only a soft cap on choice one.

Conduct the resident draw first. Any leftover tags not filling the 75 resident quota then spill over to the non resident draw. This creates predictability for everyone, non res gets 25% at minimum but could get more if demand isn’t met in other units. Thus, residents get the opportunity to draw at the full quota but cpw also retains the ability to generate income and sell their quotas by allocating the excess resident tags over in the non resident pool.

This is best of both worlds in my opinion and would satisfy most resident demand . Furthermore, the current draw allows non residents to scoop up way more than 25% as a result of using 0 points as first choice and residents using second. There are many units where total resident demand is less than 75% of quota but because cap only applies to choice 1 non residents gobble them up. For example in unit 70 the total quark of ace very bull tags is 405tags, total resident demand through all 4 choices was 235 tags or 58%. In reality residents only drew at 32% if memory serves bc the extra 26% came choices 2-4.

with that said, residents can’t have it both ways either. If the demand isn’t there in primary draw, I say will concede had our fair shake and had our chance to draw but demand wasn’t there. Cpw has to sell tags to retain enterprise status. The governor , his husband and their cohorts would love nothing more than to blow the agency up and remake it free of its current statues to support hunting and fishing and that revenue stream from licenses.

Cpw will be eliminating otc archery at a minimum. I honestly believe that is the best for the herd and management as this has been communicated by multiple DWMs and I am one to follow their recommendations as to what’s best for future of the herds.

 

[grasshopper]

Cpw will be eliminating otc archery at a minimum. I honestly believe that is the best for the herd and management as this has been communicated by multiple DWMs and I am one to follow their recommendations as to what’s best for future of the herds.

Yea, limit archery and the single digit success rates, while selling a crap load of late season PLO cow tags with a 50 percent success rate tags and a cow and a calf get killed. Thats good for the herd?

In 2018 CPW claimed archery needed to be limited in E-16 and the herd decline was from recreational intrusion on trails into the backcountry the elk herd went from an over objective 10,000 elk to 4600 in 2018. They eliminated cow tags in 2018, and now the herd has nearly doubled.
Archery has been limited in the SW for 3 seasons now. I believe it is unit 77/78 is still reported as 12 bulls per 100 cows. That is just working so good ain't it! Same with the rest of the SW units in decline, limited archery now, herds still in the tank, still selling either sex PLO rifle licenses in unit 70. Still selling OTC list B cow tags in all the NW units with winter kill. Just limit archery?

Go get that next booster bud, Fauci says it'll work. Its the science of the day.

 

[winmag]

At least we can all agree on one thing. Eliminate youth preference in the secondary draw.

 

[huntergirl_19]

i may have missed this, i've been gone for a min, but does anyone know anyone who got picked? I didn't, and I know several people who applied who didn't get picked either

 

[Ckleeves]

One thing I can’t get behind is going all draw for archery and leaving rifle OTC. It’s simply kicking the can of pressure down the road.

I have seen this first hand in the 70’s units that have been eliminated from the archery OTC units. Half the people you talk to up there during 2nd or 3rd rifle have the same story, “we archery hunted up here for years but now that it’s draw we started rifle hunting”

I’m sure most won’t agree with this but if CPW can’t figure out a way to make up for lost revenue then they aren’t looking hard enough. WY charges 52.00 for an elk preference point and nobody bats an eye. There is a cool 6 million+ right there @52.00 a point just last year in point only apps for elk.

 

[Wallow]

One thing I can’t get behind is going all draw for archery and leaving rifle OTC. It’s simply kicking the can of pressure down the road.

I have seen this first hand in the 70’s units that have been eliminated from the archery OTC units. Half the people you talk to up there during 2nd or 3rd rifle have the same story, “we archery hunted up here for years but now that it’s draw we started rifle hunting”

I’m sure most won’t agree with this but if CPW can’t figure out a way to make up for lost revenue then they aren’t looking hard enough. WY charges 52.00 for an elk preference point and nobody bats an eye. There is a cool 6 million+ right there @52.00 a point just last year in point only apps for elk.

But WY doesn't make you buy a qualifying license to apply for preference points like CO - $34 for Residents and $94 for Non-residents is a lot of revenue.

 

[Ckleeves]

But WY doesn't make you buy a qualifying license to apply for preference points like CO - $34 for Residents and $94 for Non-residents is a lot of revenue.

You are correct and it is, but do you think people would quite applying if elk points were 52.00? MSG points are 50.00 and 100.00 and people line up to purchase them.

 

[QELKhunter]

Here is the email that was just sent out to all Colorado hunters with a CPW account.

"Attention All Colorado Big Game Hunters!



2025 - 2029 Big Game Season Structure (BGSS) Updates



This fall, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff began developing alternatives for the 2025-2029 BGSS and will present these alternatives to the Parks and Wildlife Commission at its March 2024 Commission meeting. At this meeting, staff will request guidance from the Commission on which recommendations to bring back for additional consideration in May 2024. Final recommendations will be approved by the Commission in June 2024.



Before settling on season structure recommendations, CPW staff are sending out a random sample survey to archery and rifle elk hunters to understand their preferences on limitation alternatives for over-the-counter (OTC) rifle and archery elk licenses. CPW staff developed these alternatives after carefully evaluating the internal and external input received during the public outreach process in the spring/summer of 2023.



The results from this survey will be presented to the Commission at its March 2024 meeting. Check out our Big Game Season Structure Engage CPW webpage to read through the OTC alternatives being considered, the BGSS process overall, and ways to continue to be involved.



Draw Process Working Group Updates



At the May 2023 Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting, the Commission requested Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff to form a Draw Process Working Group to analyze the agency’s current hunting draw rules and processes in order to identify ways to reduce complexities and find new solutions/alternatives to fix some of the preference point and other draw-related issues.



CPW received over 175 applications from the public for the Working Group, and had a very competitive and impressive candidate pool. CPW selected eight public members for the Draw Process Working Group. These members of the public represent a broad range of interests in hunting management and big game conservation, and are a diverse and inclusive group of hunters and outfitters from various backgrounds, perspectives, and geographic regions in Colorado.



We kicked off our Draw Process Working Group meetings a few weeks ago to discuss the shared vision for the process and select the workshop topics to be addressed by the group. Work sessions and Commission workshops will be spread out throughout the calendar year 2024, with one meeting taking place almost every month. We will alternate months with a work session one month, followed by the Commission workshop on that topic the following month. All Draw Process Working Group meetings will be livestreamed on the CPW YouTube Channel.

If you are interested in sharing your thoughts on the process, leave a comment using our guestbook tool on the main Draw Process Working Group page. Draw Process Working Group members will be able to review and consider these comments throughout the process. "

 

[TOGIE]

 

[Oak]

Maybe we could start a new BGSS process thread.

 

[West Sloper]

A5 and R5 appear to be the most equitable for residents when compared to other western states for nonresident elk tag allocation. This article says Colorado sells more nonresident elk tags/licenses than all other western states combined, even though those states have 500,000 more elk than Colorado, wow.
https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/...-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/

 

[Dsnow9]

A5 and R5 appear to be the most equitable for residents when compared to other western states for nonresident elk tag allocation. This article says Colorado sells more nonresident elk tags/licenses than all other western states combined, even though those states have 500,000 more elk than Colorado, wow.
https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/...-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/

It’s also a week long season at best compared to months long seasons.

 

[Hyhunter]

Interesting data to see in a sheet. I'm curious how does New Mexico give that many nonresident tags? I thought they guarantee 84% to residents.
If it's 34% I've been messing up their draw by not drawing for many many years.