Colorado application and preference point fees, etc.

[Oak]

The CPW Commission will host a Sportsmen Panel discussion on August 10 at their monthly meeting in Loveland. I have been asked to sit on the panel, so I would like to hear from you on the topics of discussion. Please look at the Implementation of the Future Generations Act: Application and Preference Point Fees and Discounted Bear Combination Licenses memo and pay particular attention to the Appendix 1 suggestions for changes to the current system.

You will be able to listen to the panel discussion on the CPW live stream YouTube channel. I'm not sure if they intend to broadcast the panel discussion on Facebook as they have done with others recently.

 

[BlakeA]

Thanks Oak! Lots of great suggestions. Too many to choose only a couple

"Change the way weighted preference points are calculated and applied" ….Uffda...

This is going to get ugly. I will sit back and enjoy some popcorn during this meeting.

I'm in favor of all of them except this one:

Require cash payments instead of credit card payments

 

[Oak]

Keep in mind that you should also email your comments to the Commission at [email protected]​​

 

[Redman]

As a non-resident hunter who hunts CO almost every year I want to puke when I hear of a price increase. We as non-residents already are paying a lot and provide a lot of money to the economy by just traveling to the state. I don't want to vent here, and I understand that price increases are necessary. If you look at a elk tag non-resident $661 vs resident $46. I would suggest not pricing the non-resident out of the game.
Reinstating the pay before you draw system would make me happy but this doesn't make sense because they saved 3 million going away from it.
As a non-resident I would be fine paying $10 per species $20 is getting up there if you apply for multiple. Maybe do $20 for one then $5 for each additional?
Make the non-resident habitat stamp $20 and keep the resident at $10?
What I don't want to see is more confusion. Point fees, application fees, habitat stamp, and license fees are pretty simple to understand right now.

 

[.270]

Jeez they can't be loosing money on running the draw. At the very least they need to raise the application fee to 7/8 dollars to cover their cost. I would rather pay a 20 dollars application fee then pay a higher preference point cost. AZ is 15 apiece and Utah is ten which cheaper then paying wyo's preference point fee per species.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Personally I would like to see $10 application fee per species for residents $20 for nonresidents and a $30 preference point fee per species for residents, and a $50 preference point fee per species for non-residents.

Also the bear regs need some work, from anecdotal evidence it appears to me that most fall bears are incidental kills and that the majority of hunters aren't targeting them.

"If bear licenses were discounted by 50%,CPW would need to sell about 600 more nonresident and 7,600 resident combination bear licenses to offset the loss." I think this increase is very achievable, bear tags should be cheap enough that people can afford to get one "just in case" which is not currently the case... especially for non-residents.

 

[Zach]

Wish I could make it to the meeting, but not sure with the county fair schedule.

I'll read through and send the commission my thoughts.

 

[HighDesertSage]

HI Oak, Thanks for donating your time.

Regarding application fees, I don't think CPW should be going in the red every year to run the draw. If they need to charge $10/20 for R/NR, all good with it.

I think they should can the pay to play system and implement a pref point fee like our neighbors to the north.

I agree that something does need to be done to harvest more bears in this state, but not at the cost of decreasing revenue from bear licenses. May look at additional/longer seasons? More type B/C tags?

I would love to see the fronting of tag fees reinstated, if CPW can implement a system that doesn't cost so much to run.

I would not be in favor of a base license, but would be in favor of increased tag fees for both residents and Non residents.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Keep in mind that you should also email your comments to the Commission at [email protected]​​

Done

 

[Zach]

Just thinking out loud, but the draw operates in the red, but what happens post draw and license fees start getting collected. Does that not then balance out on the ledger?
Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way.

 

[vanish]

Just thinking out loud, but the draw operates in the red, but what happens post draw and license fees start getting collected. Does that not then balance out on the ledger?

I get where you are coming from, but the old system was the very definition of government waste. I want my money going to CPW, not third party vendors, which is what was happening.

We need to come up with a system that
1.) is not too expensive (recruitment and retention)
2.) requires some skin in the game (keeps out the "its only $3 so why not" sheep applications)
3.) keeps the money in CPWs hands, not vendors. (eliminate waste)
4.) Ideally encourages people to spend, not hoard, PPs

I have a system that I think works in that direction, but I fear it is too complex. Rather than a straight a PP fee and License fee, implement a high PP fee, but when you finally draw, reduce the cost of the license by a percentage for each you have, down to a minimum price. Here's an example with some made up numbers.

NR App fee $20
NR Elk Tag $700
NR Elk PP $100
Minimum Price $200
PP License Price Reduction 50%

Have 0 PP? Elk tag costs $700, Total invested $720
Have 2 PP? Elk tag costs $600, Total invested $840
Have 5 PP? Elk tag costs $450, Total invested $1050
Have 10 PP? Elk tag costs $200, Total invested $1400 ( max reduction )
Have 12 PP? Elk tag costs $200, Total invested $1640 ( max reduction )

Essentially, you're paying for part of the license you eventually draw ahead of time. Its not a trivial fee up front, but its not a blocker either (1 & 2). There's no refunds, so no waste (3). Eventually, you cross that threshold to where it starts getting more expensive to not hunt, hopefully encouraging people to spend those points (4).

 

[Zach]

Vanish, do you honestly think CPW can manage and run the draw? What is the cost to build and maintain that system?

Seems there should be a fixed cost of running the draw through a 3rd party vendor, based on that cost, you set your upfront cost if you want to run in the black.

$3 may be low, but keeping the cost down will only encourage more folks to get involved IMO. As much as folks will bitch about point creep, it should be about getting more hunter numbers vs getting "my" tag.

 

[vanish]

Vanish, do you honestly think CPW can manage and run the draw? What is the cost to build and maintain that system?

Seems there should be a fixed cost of running the draw through a 3rd party vendor, based on that cost, you set your upfront cost if you want to run in the black.

$3 may be low, but keeping the cost down will only encourage more folks to get involved IMO. As much as folks will bitch about point creep, it should be about getting more hunter numbers vs getting "my" tag.

Sorry for the confusion. I was not suggesting CPW in-house the draw, but rather the other vendors involved:

With the old system, credit card vendors make money through processing fees on money that's just going to be sent back (waste).
With the old system, you've also got to pay someone to handle sending all that money back.

This is why pay-up-front+refund is bad. Money is being taken away from hunters and CPW.

Edit: I realize credit card fees are paid with the new system, but its on money you're committed to spending, not "may" be spending.

 

[Pelican]

Here are my thoughts: I think raising the application fee so the draw process is budget neutral is an easy and obvious fix that should be implemented next year. I am opposed to any sort of pay license fee upfront rule as it has been pointed out by others it is a waste of hunter funds. I think the current "pay to play" system is fine, but am not opposed to changing it for those that did not buy a license the prior year. Overall, I think most of the proposals in appendix 1 were conceived to limit hunter participation in the draw, likely for selfish reasons. The commission should consider the effects on hunter recruitment and retention in any decision they make.

 

[grasshopper]

The commission should consider the effects on hunter recruitment and retention in any decision they make.

What is hunter recruitment and retention? I can find no evidence in real data of needing it. 15 years go we had 229,000 elk hunters and we have 226,000 today. What I do find more critical is hunter relevancy. USFWS in 2011 showed 30% of Montana's hunt and fish. Colorado was 15% We lost our ass on a spring bear hunt ballot intiative while they defeated trapping initiative and ran their own ballot process to kill outfitter sets asides in funding block management. When will start to focus on resident hunter relevancy? If there is a wolf ballot in 2020 we are going to lose our asses, because we cater to everyone except resident hunters.

 

[grasshopper]

In reading this post in entirety, with all due respect you guys who are happy with pay later are insane. Your not recruiting hunters, your just adding applicants. Your a hunter when you get a license and hit the field.

We just sold a 500% increase to nonresidents for moose that will never draw in their lifetimes. We sold them a bag of rocks. I thought CPW was into game management, not running power ball. If I want a powerball ticket I can buy one today and give the money to GOCO for CPW.

If you don't draw with pay upfront - your made whole with a refund.

 

[vanish]

Grasshopper, I spent an hour typing up responses to your survey and statement post, but I couldn't figure out how to do it without sounding derisive. Your post above doesn't exactly sway me.

I believe a modest application fee (the proposed new limits) would have prevented this from happening. You don't need to go whole hog requiring the tag fee up front. $3 was ridiculously too cheap, but CPW needed to move forward with the IPAWS system. They expected the funding bill to pass the year before, allowing them to raise the app fee at the same time as IPAWS went live, but it failed, so we had to have a year with the stupidly low fee.

I believe in moving forward. Returning to the days of mailing checks back and forth is a waste for everyone involved.

 

[grasshopper]

Who said mail would be required? They have a cell canter, you can pay by check. I do it all the time. Who said you can't do it on your phone. Who said residents can't pay with a credit card?

The problem is refunds was moose sheep and goat. Saw a slide on Wednesday that said they were losing hundreds of thousands on NR moose applicants. Why wouldn't you just disallow nonresidents from applying if you going to lose hundreds of thousands just for applying. The loss primarily all big 3 nonresidents merchant fees.

This was year one, we can't see these types of increases for another two years before it levels off. It is not over, just beginning.

I have no problem running a clean bill that says you also have to pay a 3% fee for CC usage, but you also have to pay upfront.

I am all for recruiting new hunters - we only have 16,000 turkey hunters, Seems like the place to do it.

 

[Zach]

In reading this post in entirety, with all due respect you guys who are happy with pay later are insane. Your not recruiting hunters, your just adding applicants. Your a hunter when you get a license and hit the field.

We just sold a 500% increase to nonresidents for moose that will never draw in their lifetimes. We sold them a bag of rocks. I thought CPW was into game management, not running power ball. If I want a powerball ticket I can buy one today and give the money to GOCO for CPW.

If you don't draw with pay upfront - your made whole with a refund.


View attachment 85631

Before the current system, those applicants thought they had 0% of affording to hunt. It may be a bag of rocks, but if you pull out the white one you're going to ghost island!

 

[grasshopper]

When you don't draw, guess you ended up with zero chance.

Look where this is headed. Look at what happened in Wyoming. Points went from 7 bucks to where they are now. Go apply for 8 big game species at $10 each, then pay for your points that in a few short years are maxed out at $100 bucks each....hundreds of thousands of people are going be thousands of dollars into it with no tag to show for it. Or, you can put up the money, and get it back when you don't draw and maybe get a tag.

Look at where this is headed. If you think a $10 app fee is going to stop it your crazy. 170,000 new points this year, what next 280,000? What about year 3? App fees aren't helping wildlife - they are paying a vendor.

One of the most prestigious awards the CBA gives out is for the big 8. 8 big game species taken with a bow, what an accomplishment. 107 recipients in 50 years. Many believe there will never be another one given out, given what we have been handed.