CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data

[Deleted member 28227]

This data is from Andy Holland, CPW Big Game Manager. It compares OTC archery to OTC rifle. It is not from a CORA request, I asked, he got the data and gave it to me.

If you look at limited licenses, we already have an allocation policy of 65/35, and 80/20.View attachment 108838

What really need to be done, is have reports tied to unique CID numbers. If not, your double counting B list cow data as hunters.

This is the same as the sales data I have, it's just adding in Plains OTC, Youth OTC, OTC with cap, OTC either sex with cap, rifle planes OTC unit 128, etc etc. and then breaking it down by season. Great double check though, the raw data came with 199 different types of licenses 42 codes for elk tags so it was pretty tricky bucketing everything, I dropped everything from the OTC tables that had sub 400 or so licenses but then used the total licenses in the all elk table.

 

[Carlin59]

If not, your double counting B list cow data as hunters.

I would disagree with this as an absolute statement. I will likely only hold a B list cow tag this year, and have done that several years in the past when other out of state hunts interfere. Several of my other R and NR friends also regularly only get a B list cow tag. I would agree that often times, a B list cow tag represents a second tag for someone already holding an A tag, but certainly not all the time. My guess is probably ~25% of B tag holders don't also have an A tag (although they may have a second B tag, which would skew the calculations as well).

 

[icebreaker12]

No they do not. They issue 7250 full priced LQ and gen tags combined. This does not include the reduced price cow/calf tags,type 6 tags. Those are issued at 16% in the first draw. Then any remaining red price and full price LQ tags are issued in the leftover drawing open to both res and nr hunters. This is how they get to around 13,000 total NR elk tags in a year.

You are right. I was thinking after lunch I guess.

 

[Oak]

What really need to be done, is have reports tied to unique CID numbers. If not, your double counting B list cow data as hunters.

There's no reason why these data are not available right now, and your first post indicates you already have it. I agree that if you're looking at the issue of crowding double counting is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're looking at the issue of R/NR allocation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There's no reason why these data are not available right now, and your first post indicates you already have it. I agree that if you're looking at the issue of crowding double counting is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're looking at the issue of R/NR allocation.

Although "apparently" CPAW doesn't have it. Per my CORA they don't even "have" 2018 data broken out by archery v. rifle for OTC tags.

I will gladly ingest new numbers into my workbook, if someone can send them to me. This is just what the state was willing to divulge.

 

[rideold]

There's no reason why these data are not available right now, and your first post indicates you already have it. I agree that if you're looking at the issue of crowding double counting is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're looking at the issue of R/NR allocation.

If one really wants to get to brass tacks then it needs to be CID tied to Tag tied to Season since crowding is a season by season issue not a year by year issue. If I hold two tags for Elk then I could be hunting the same season or I could be hunting two different seasons depending on which list they are. Deer hunters would need to be thrown in as well so one could quantify potential people in the field in any given season (i.e. those hunters that hold a deer and an elk tag in the same season).

 

[rideold]

CID might be considered PII so they may not release it to that detail. CPW could (and probably should) do the analysis and release the summary data that way though.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If one really wants to get to brass tacks then it needs to be CID tied to Tag tied to Season since crowding is a season by season issue not a year by year issue. If I hold two tags for Elk then I could be hunting the same season or I could be hunting two different seasons depending on which list they are. Deer hunters would need to be thrown in as well so one could quantify potential people in the field in any given season (i.e. those hunters that hold a deer and an elk tag in the same season).

And then you try to compare that to MT, with super long seasons or WY with the same... or WA, UT, and OR that have OTC but only for spikes/cows/etc. etc.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

CID might be considered PII so they may not release it to that detail. CPW could (and probably should) do the analysis and release the summary data that way though.

I'll do it for free

 

[grasshopper]

I would disagree with this as an absolute statement. I will likely only hold a B list cow tag this year, and have done that several years in the past when other out of state hunts interfere. Several of my other R and NR friends also regularly only get a B list cow tag. I would agree that often times, a B list cow tag represents a second tag for someone already holding an A tag, but certainly not all the time. My guess is probably ~25% of B tag holders don't also have an A tag (although they may have a second B tag, which would skew the calculations as well).

Until I see a report from CPW that shows a breakdown of B list cow tag usage by CID, I will continue to assume they are largely 2nd tags, in the pocket of the same unique hunter. If they aren't, we are degrading the hunt of the A list holder, so someone can double up on seasons.

That said, I think I am on the same page as the OP. NR allocations should be adjusted downward. Archery should have an NR cap. I honestly don't know why we need B list cows tags anymore, it is not 2002 anymore, we are under threat of wolves, we should be growing elk and deer herds, not killing two or making things more crowded cause we sell thousands and thousands of secondary cow tags.

If you want to have an allocation discussion, it should focus on tags that actually have demand in the market. Your just skewing the data.

 

[grasshopper]

There's no reason why these data are not available right now, and your first post indicates you already have it. I agree that if you're looking at the issue of crowding double counting is a problem. It doesn't matter if you're looking at the issue of R/NR allocation.

I don't have any report on B list tag usage. I have requested it. Hard to get.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Until I see a report from CPW that shows a breakdown of B list cow tag usage by CID, I will continue to assume they are largely 2nd tags, in the pocket of the same unique hunter. If they aren't, we are degrading the hunt of the A list holder, so someone can double up on seasons.

That said, I think I am on the same page as the OP. NR allocations should be adjusted downward. Archery should have an NR cap. I honestly don't know why we need B list cows tags anymore, it is not 2002 anymore, we are under threat of wolves, we should be growing elk and deer herds, not killing two or making things more crowded cause we sell thousands and thousands of secondary cow tags.

If you want to have an allocation discussion, it should focus on tags that actually have demand in the market. Your just skewing the data.

Having just dug through the harvest stats of literally every state... if you though out cow tags... well lets just say things get really bleak as far as NR hunting opportunity in every state but Colorado. Everyone is juicing their NR hunt numbers with cow tags/spike/undesirable tags.

For B tags you would have to vlookup the CID versus the tag then write an if statement to drop the tags where there was a match... but yeah not sure if they will give you the CID to run the query.

 

[grasshopper]

One last thought before I go back to work...allocation is really implemented at a hunt code level. That is a low level. Your looking at things from a really high level, all rolled up to the top. I am not sure it helps to do that. I'd look at it from the lowest segment possible, sliced and diced because that is where it gets implemented.

 

[Carlin59]

Until I see a report from CPW that shows a breakdown of B list cow tag usage by CID, I will continue to assume they are largely 2nd tags, in the pocket of the same unique hunter. If they aren't, we are degrading the hunt of the A list holder, so someone can double up on seasons.

That said, I think I am on the same page as the OP. NR allocations should be adjusted downward. Archery should have an NR cap. I honestly don't know why we need B list cows tags anymore, it is not 2002 anymore, we are under threat of wolves, we should be growing elk and deer herds, not killing two or making things more crowded cause we sell thousands and thousands of secondary cow tags.

If you want to have an allocation discussion, it should focus on tags that actually have demand in the market. Your just skewing the data.

I'm also assuming B list tags are largely second tags (hence my WAG of 75% also having an A list tag, 25% only having B list tag(s)), so we are on the same page there.

Regarding demand in the market, the first season B list tag I drew this year was drawn out at the 1st choice level for both R and NR, so hard to denigrate that hunt as low demand. I doubt many of the NR who picked that tag as their first choice in the draw are then going to sit around to wait for second season to hunt the OTC A list bull tag; my guess would be that first season tag represents their only CO hunt for the year for a lot of NR.

Are you saying anyone not hunting an A list tag at any given time is degrading the hunts of those with an A tag in their pocket? So grouse and bear hunters should clear out of the way in September to make way for archery and muzzy A tag elk hunters? What about if I have a 3rd season deer tag that took 10 points and you have an OTC bull tag for the same area, is your 0 point elk A tag degrading my 10 point deer A tag? I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm also assuming B list tags are largely second tags (hence my WAG of 75% also having an A list tag, 25% only having B list tag(s)), so we are on the same page there.

Regarding demand in the market, the first season B list tag I drew this year was drawn out at the 1st choice level for both R and NR, so hard to denigrate that hunt as low demand.

I would agree for that they are mostly second, concurrent, tags in states like WY or MT... and I think your WAG is probably correct for NR but I think for Resident a B tag is often used as a way of extending your season. This is totally anecdotal, but I've never actually talked to someone who has had an elk A and B tag for the same season.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

One last thought before I go back to work...allocation is really implemented at a hunt code level. That is a low level. Your looking at things from a really high level, all rolled up to the top. I am not sure it helps to do that. I'd look at it from the lowest segment possible, sliced and diced because that is where it gets implemented.

Totally agree in implementation. But, many of the commissioners seemed a little green to the idea of allocation, and I think many of our members only hunt a couple of states and don't really understand the issue either.

Therefore by taking a 30k foot view and rolling up all elk hunting opportunities in all the states in the exact same way, apples to apples to apples, I think it's easier to demonstrate the issue, and show why CO residents are frustrated.

"Commissioners, look CO has a 32% gross allocation, the next closest state is 19%."

 

[Carlin59]

I've ran into quite a few NR during 2nd or 3rd season who have a "pocket full of tags" for their annual big trip out West (A & B Elk, A deer, sometimes B deer too but not as frequently any more). Also see it in archery quite a bit for Elk. But then i run into plenty of R with an A in one season and a B in another season, or NR who just want a B tag as it is easier to draw and higher odds of success for $165 less. So really hard to peg the true value of the B list tags in the crowding and or R/NR allocation equation, or how to integrate the data from other species without the breakdown by CID. Wllm1313, I applaud your effort for getting this data this far, I'll be curious to see if they provide any more granular detail to you.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I've ran into quite a few NR during 2nd or 3rd season who have a "pocket full of tags" for their annual big trip out West (A & B Elk, A deer, sometimes B deer too but not as frequently any more). Also see it in archery quite a bit for Elk. But then i run into plenty of R with an A in one season and a B in another season, or NR who just want a B tag as it is easier to draw and higher odds of success for $165 less. So really hard to peg the true value of the B list tags in the crowding and or R/NR allocation equation, or how to integrate the data from other species without the breakdown by CID. Wllm1313, I applaud your effort for getting this data this far, I'll be curious to see if they provide any more granular detail to you.

Thanks, would love to get UT, OR, and WA data if anyone has it, and @grasshopper if you can get your hands on the excel data I will gladly break everything up by season, sex, etc.

 

[LopeHunter]

I'm also assuming B list tags are largely second tags (hence my WAG of 75% also having an A list tag, 25% only having B list tag(s)), so we are on the same page there.

Regarding demand in the market, the first season B list tag I drew this year was drawn out at the 1st choice level for both R and NR, so hard to denigrate that hunt as low demand. I doubt many of the NR who picked that tag as their first choice in the draw are then going to sit around to wait for second season to hunt the OTC A list bull tag; my guess would be that first season tag represents their only CO hunt for the year for a lot of NR.

Are you saying anyone not hunting an A list tag at any given time is degrading the hunts of those with an A tag in their pocket? So grouse and bear hunters should clear out of the way in September to make way for archery and muzzy A tag elk hunters? What about if I have a 3rd season deer tag that took 10 points and you have an OTC bull tag for the same area, is your 0 point elk A tag degrading my 10 point deer A tag? I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning.

My hunch is the mention of non-elk hunters was a nod to part of the value of the hunt experience for a tag holder is the density of active hunters in a unit during your hunt.

 

[Pelican]

Thanks Wllm1313 for putting this all together. I agree that the 30,000 foot view is appropriate for this exercise. I don’t see the number of hunters with or without list B tags as important in this instance. Crowding is subjective and based on the perception of individuals. There is no calculation of hunters per square mile, so the exact number don’t really matter. What matters is how people feel and how much they complain. That is how we got to this point, not because we crossed some arbitrary threshold of hunters per square mile.
The take-home message for me is that Colorado is by far the most generous state with NR elk tags. We all knew this before, but didn’t have actual numbers. Thanks for going through the trouble for our benefit Wllm1313. Limiting NR tags seems to be the logical next step if the commission is serious about solving the crowding issue. As for the loss of revenue, it will be interesting to hear how much increase in revenue results from the fee increases in 2019. They got about $200 more from me alone this year. Another potential source would be implementing a point fee for deer, elk and pronghorn. In 2019, there was over 450,000 apps for those species combined.