CO tag distribution

[HighDesertSage]

So after not drawing a tag this season that should have been a gimme, I was running some numbers and from what I can tell NR got approximately 30% of the tags and LO got about another 15%. Leaving only 55% of tags for residents. Is this correct, or am I missing something here? Also, I believe that there is some new legislation where LO are now going to get 20% of the available tags. Does this mean the resident pool will now drop to 50% of the tag allocation? That has to be some of the worst rates for residents in the west....

Here is the draw report for 2014:
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Deer/2014DeerDrawSummary.pdf

 

[putm2sleep]

I stated 4 years ago that cdow was pulling a fast one. Some smart guy said I was full of crap. He sent me a PM and retracted. My neighbor is with fish and game. I also called the local office and discussed with an agent what was/is happening, and will continue to.
-----------
I was later sent a report of draw distribution for my unit. Doctored up nicely to show their numbers and distribution and how they wanted me to see how fair it is!
#BS
It was like Obama telling me his healthcare plan is wonderful .............And I believe Oak brought this to the table last year. We sent letters. Nothing can stop the train baby. LO will soon have 75%, that way they can manage the 25% real easy with drones, smaller and smaller tracts and parcels, land give-aways oh I mean swaps, and the O&G industry eating it up.
2020 prediction of the state of our hunting here in Colorado anyone?

 

[Zach]

Have you guys sent letters/email about the proposed point system changes?

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...gGameSeasonStructureAlternatives2015-2019.pdf

 

[Jorgy]

Non-Res in units for deer and elk with residents needing 6 or more points - "up to" 20% of tags go to Non-Res

Non-Res in units for deer and elk with residents needing 0-5 points - "up to" 35% of tags go to Non-Res

Landowners can be "up to" 15% of the tags

So yes, if you are a non 160 acre resident hunter you could be in a pool for "down to" 50% of the available tags.

I wish the DOW would completely fill out the stats to show what the Non-Res quota is so I wouldn't have to go through the pain in the butt math and page flipping.

 

[Phaseolus]

Next year Landowners will get 20%

 

[justdada]

Remember to reduce the number another 20% for the hybrid draw in high demand units... = 45% of tags to those residents trying for "top-end" units

 

[HighDesertSage]

I'm new here to the state, so excuse my ignorance and rudeness, but how did the people of the great state of Colorado let this happen? Non-LO residents are still the majority correct? How do you fix this?

 

[Zach]

I'm new here to the state, so excuse my ignorance and rudeness, but how did the people of the great state of Colorado let this happen? Non-LO residents are still the majority correct? How do you fix this?

That would require changing the structure of the commission that decides the fate of us lowly resident public land hunters.

I'm sure Oak has a more in depth response.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'm sure Oak can say it much more technically, but to paraphrase..."$$$$$$$$$"

 

[Oak]

I'm new here to the state, so excuse my ignorance and rudeness, but how did the people of the great state of Colorado let this happen? Non-LO residents are still the majority correct? How do you fix this?

Some day when I have more time I will sit down and synthesize the series of events that took place over the course of 20 years to get us to where we are at today. But the short answer is that the ranching/agriculture interests in the state wield far more influence than hunters, because hunters are apathetic and disengaged from the process. And as much as some don't like to admit it, CPW is your friend, and they are currently the only ones looking out for your interests. When you run them down and choose not to defend them/work with them, they don't stand a chance against the ag interests, and you lose. Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face?"

 

[WapitiBob]

"Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face?" "

Hunters don't understand that phrase.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Some day when I have more time I will sit down and synthesize the series of events that took place over the course of 20 years to get us to where we are at today. But the short answer is that the ranching/agriculture interests in the state wield far more influence than hunters, because hunters are apathetic and disengaged from the process. And as much as some don't like to admit it, CPW is your friend, and they are currently the only ones looking out for your interests. When you run them down and choose not to defend them/work with them, they don't stand a chance against the ag interests, and you lose. Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face?"

That's too bad to hear. I love hunting this state. That's why I moved here. It seams that a rifle mule deer hunt is going to be an every other year thing though. Unless I buy a LO voucher....

 

[noharleyyet]

The profit of selling a commodity at an exponentially higher ratio based on residency creates the temptation to increase the commodity...no?

 

[Oak]

The profit of selling a commodity at an exponentially higher ratio based on residency creates the temptation to increase the commodity...no?

 

[Dinkshooter]

NHY,

He didn't bite, freshen up the bait

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[Zach]

Some day when I have more time I will sit down and synthesize the series of events that took place over the course of 20 years to get us to where we are at today. But the short answer is that the ranching/agriculture interests in the state wield far more influence than hunters, because hunters are apathetic and disengaged from the process. And as much as some don't like to admit it, CPW is your friend, and they are currently the only ones looking out for your interests. When you run them down and choose not to defend them/work with them, they don't stand a chance against the ag interests, and you lose. Have you ever heard the phrase, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face?"

Yup, just go to a meeting and see who shows up.

I had a nice exchange with Brophy on the LO Vouchers. The poor plight of how he can't even hunt his own land made his voting decision for him.

I'm not as current and knowledgeable as some on the inner workings, but I try to listen to some who are.

 

[Outdooraddict]

I don't think very many in-state hunters like the percentages. Before I rant- thank you oak for keeping a lot of us up to date in order to send in letters, or call representatives on our hunting privileges/rights.

Personally, I would like to set all mule deer tags to 80/20... Remember the days when deer tags were OTC?

The regs say, "up to" a percent. This is not true. Let's say there are 100 tags for unit X. If only 40 in-state hunters apply first choice, and 60 non-res hunters apply first choice (regardless of LO licenses) - that's how they will disperse those tags. I would like to see them honor the percentages- giving residents the opportunty to draw a second choice tag (only second choice, then open it to the remaining percentage of non-resident hunters)

No disrespect to non-residents. I am 7th generation colorado, this is the only state I have ever hunted. I would expect no different being a non-resident in another state.

The landowner tags- just plain suck, especially in the western half. Eastern plains- a little more understandable due to land ownership, but I still don't agree.

 

[Oak]

Personally, I would like to set all mule deer tags to 80/20... Remember the days when deer tags were OTC?

Me too.

The regs say, "up to" a percent. This is not true. Let's say there are 100 tags for unit X. If only 40 in-state hunters apply first choice, and 60 non-res hunters apply first choice (regardless of LO licenses) - that's how they will disperse those tags. I would like to see them honor the percentages- giving residents the opportunty to draw a second choice tag (only second choice, then open it to the remaining percentage of non-resident hunters)

I could get behind that idea. Have you proposed it?

The landowner tags- just plain suck, especially in the western half. Eastern plains- a little more understandable due to land ownership, but I still don't agree.

Yes, the landowner welfare is the problem. And the biggest problem with it is that it is exclusive of preference points.

 

[Zach]

Yes, the landowner welfare is the problem. And the biggest problem with it is that it is exclusive of preference points.

Do you mean to say that if the LO transfers(sells,gives,whatever)the tag, the receiving party would have a forfeiture of some/all points? or would it be better to restrict that tag to the property of the LO or PP?

I kinda like that idea. I could just hear the bellyaching from the LO/Ag crowd.