Colorado Draw Changes

[BrokenArrow]

I have been a hunting and whitewater guide for many years.
Whitewater in ‘96
Hunting in ‘05
I don't practice those since 2 years ago, except I guide/ free hand/camp Jack a hunting season or two since it’s hard for my friends to find guides to hire nowadays.

The point being, there was a waitlist system (basically a Preference Point system) to raft the Grand Canyon years ago that anyone could put in and wait times became 25+ years before you would be awarded a permit to privately raft the Grand Canyon. They basically gave you a number, like at the DMV, and you waited until called.
They changed the system to max of 5 points for any applicant. I have now had 3 personal private trips I have led in 3/5’s the time of waiting for my number for ONE trip on the old waitlist system - aka a pure preference point system.
I know GC and CO hunting conditions are not the same.
But if we capped PP at 5 for all new applicants or for applicants who burned their previous accrued PP on a hunt they wanted, then everyone would start at 0 and only be able to accrue a max of 5 PP.
This would:
- act as a preference/hybrid draw.
- give “bonus/preference” to max point holders until they cash out (same as M,S,G now), and grandfather their current point total per species in, but not allow them to accrue any higher points in upcoming draw years.
- even the playing field at 5 points max per application participant if they are starting from scratch (0), or after being awarded a tag if this system were adopted.
- reduce ridiculous and unattainable point creep.
- keep applicant’s engaged, spending money, and hopeful.
- I believe, allow more flexibility to alter the draw regulations and tag allocations compared to the ideas I’ve heard in recent years. B/c it just eventually eliminates the variable of PP in those discussions. (Think of NM or ID)
- *One caveat would be you burn your points when drawn. Only serious reasons for reinstating points.*

I like this idea because it allows point holders to keep what they’ve “earned” and try to cash those in while giving a chance to new applicants.

- remember 98.6% of applicants are between 0-5 points.

Thoughts????
I’m here to bounce ideas, learn, and try to find a solution.

 

[Qubo]

I have been a hunting and whitewater guide for many years.
Whitewater in ‘96
Hunting in ‘05
I don't practice those since 2 years ago, except I guide/ free hand/camp Jack a hunting season or two since it’s hard for my friends to find guides to hire nowadays.

The point being, there was a waitlist system (basically a Preference Point system) to raft the Grand Canyon years ago that anyone could put in and wait times became 25+ years before you would be awarded a permit to privately raft the Grand Canyon. They basically gave you a number, like at the DMV, and you waited until called.
They changed the system to max of 5 points for any applicant. I have now had 3 personal private trips I have led in 3/5’s the time of waiting for my number for ONE trip on the old waitlist system - aka a pure preference point system.
I know GC and CO hunting conditions are not the same.
But if we capped PP at 5 for all new applicants or for applicants who burned their previous accrued PP on a hunt they wanted, then everyone would start at 0 and only be able to accrue a max of 5 PP.
This would:
- act as a preference/hybrid draw.
- give “bonus/preference” to max point holders until they cash out (same as M,S,G now), and grandfather their current point total per species in, but not allow them to accrue any higher points in upcoming draw years.
- even the playing field at 5 points max per application participant if they are starting from scratch (0), or after being awarded a tag if this system were adopted.
- reduce ridiculous and unattainable point creep.
- keep applicant’s engaged, spending money, and hopeful.
- I believe, allow more flexibility to alter the draw regulations and tag allocations compared to the ideas I’ve heard in recent years. B/c it just eventually eliminates the variable of PP in those discussions. (Think of NM or ID)
- *One caveat would be you burn your points when drawn. Only serious reasons for reinstating points.*

I like this idea because it allows point holders to keep what they’ve “earned” and try to cash those in while giving a chance to new applicants.

- remember 98.6% of applicants are between 0-5 points.

Thoughts????
I’m here to bounce ideas, learn, and try to find a solution.
View attachment 315118

I’ve been wondering if this pie chart is a little skewed since the species are combined. A quick jump on Gohunt shoes only 4 bear tags that take over 6 points. Not for sure but I would guess on average antelope tags are less points per unit too.

 

[elkduds]

Then fund a program for mandatory harvest reporting for s$!ts sake

CPW's stance is that their random sampling system is as accurate as mandatory reporting, while being simpler to administer and more hunter-friendly. Timely reporting for use by the next year's applicants is another factor. Following is excerpt from a CPW Roundtable discuaaion in 2023.

Big Game Calendar
Matthew Eckert and Brian Dreher presented on the Big Game Calendar that CPW uses for
setting annual license numbers (Appendix 5).
The annual big game license setting timeline begins in winter when hunting seasons are still
ongoing. The harvest survey is sent out to 80,000 hunters at the end of the season. By March
and April, CPW biologists are receiving and processing data to begin population modeling on
which to base next year’s license quotas. In mid-April, a sneak peek is made publicly available
and in early May, big game draft quotas are presented to the PWC for public input and
finalization. In short, it is a quick timeline, with little room to release quotas earlier in the
year.
CPW would like to give hunters as much notice as possible to plan their hunts. However, due
to the compressed timeline, the current system provides the most notice that biologists and
managers can give. License numbers cannot be drafted until May. Mandatory reporting would
push the timeline later and CPW data analysts must work with the data before sending it to
the biology team. The process is mainly slowed by the timing of late season data.
Currently, 80% of hunters respond to the harvest survey. Moving to a mandatory survey would
not improve CPW’s data — for example, New Mexico receives an 85% response rate, but then
must try to assess non-responses.

 

[Bluffgruff]

You’d still have creep until all the tags were drawn for point holders.

Point creep isn’t a “problem” of the system it’s a feature.

Say day one 100 people apply for 10 tags.

First year 90 folks with 1pt

Next year 80 with 2pts

Sure you can accelerate it but as long as demand outstrips supply it will always be there.

I guess I should have clarified the transition period would be a couple years of continued preference point drawing, without accruing points, then a couple years of bonus point drawing without accruing points , then poof, all points are set to zero and every draw is random. There would be massive flux for those last years of points because of people scrambling to use their 20 points on what were previously 10 point tags, etc, but then no more points to creep in year 5 and ongoing. You'd still wait to draw high demand tags, but technically would have equal odds.

 

[WildWill]

CPW's stance is that their random sampling system is as accurate as mandatory reporting, while being simpler to administer and more hunter-friendly. Timely reporting for use by the next year's applicants is another factor. Following is excerpt from a CPW Roundtable discuaaion in 2023.

Big Game Calendar
Matthew Eckert and Brian Dreher presented on the Big Game Calendar that CPW uses for
setting annual license numbers (Appendix 5).
The annual big game license setting timeline begins in winter when hunting seasons are still
ongoing. The harvest survey is sent out to 80,000 hunters at the end of the season. By March
and April, CPW biologists are receiving and processing data to begin population modeling on
which to base next year’s license quotas. In mid-April, a sneak peek is made publicly available
and in early May, big game draft quotas are presented to the PWC for public input and
finalization. In short, it is a quick timeline, with little room to release quotas earlier in the
year.
CPW would like to give hunters as much notice as possible to plan their hunts. However, due
to the compressed timeline, the current system provides the most notice that biologists and
managers can give. License numbers cannot be drafted until May. Mandatory reporting would
push the timeline later and CPW data analysts must work with the data before sending it to
the biology team. The process is mainly slowed by the timing of late season data.
Currently, 80% of hunters respond to the harvest survey. Moving to a mandatory survey would
not improve CPW’s data — for example, New Mexico receives an 85% response rate, but then
must try to assess non-responses.

85% out of a 100% in NM. In your Colorado example it's 80% of the sample size responding. I don't know how many people hunted CO last year but I bet 80,000 isn't even 50%. CPW can claim their random sampling is as good as mandatory all they want I call BS. NM has really nailed it and proven how easy it is to do mandatory reporting. Sure you'll never get everyone to report but at least you know they won't be applying again before they do.

 

[Qubo]

CPW's stance is that their random sampling system is as accurate as mandatory reporting, while being simpler to administer and more hunter-friendly. Timely reporting for use by the next year's applicants is another factor. Following is excerpt from a CPW Roundtable discuaaion in 2023.

Big Game Calendar
Matthew Eckert and Brian Dreher presented on the Big Game Calendar that CPW uses for
setting annual license numbers (Appendix 5).
The annual big game license setting timeline begins in winter when hunting seasons are still
ongoing. The harvest survey is sent out to 80,000 hunters at the end of the season. By March
and April, CPW biologists are receiving and processing data to begin population modeling on
which to base next year’s license quotas. In mid-April, a sneak peek is made publicly available
and in early May, big game draft quotas are presented to the PWC for public input and
finalization. In short, it is a quick timeline, with little room to release quotas earlier in the
year.
CPW would like to give hunters as much notice as possible to plan their hunts. However, due
to the compressed timeline, the current system provides the most notice that biologists and
managers can give. License numbers cannot be drafted until May. Mandatory reporting would
push the timeline later and CPW data analysts must work with the data before sending it to
the biology team. The process is mainly slowed by the timing of late season data.
Currently, 80% of hunters respond to the harvest survey. Moving to a mandatory survey would
not improve CPW’s data — for example, New Mexico receives an 85% response rate, but then
must try to assess non-responses.

I just wish they would add one simple question to the survey. “Was the animal killed on public or private land?” It would help so much with some of the skewed success rates in some of the units. Why can’t they ask that question?

 

[Nick87]

85% out of a 100% in NM. In your Colorado example it's 80% of the sample size responding. I don't know how many people hunted CO last year but I bet 80,000 isn't even 50%. CPW can claim their random sampling is as good as mandatory all they want I call BS. NM has really nailed it and proven how easy it is to do mandatory reporting. Sure you'll never get everyone to report but at least you know they won't be applying again before they do.

Being fron this side of the country its always surprised me how different reporting is in the midwest compared to the west. Also I like New Mexico's policy too. Not perfect but better than a lot of them.

 

[BrokenArrow]

CPW's stance is that their random sampling system is as accurate as mandatory reporting, while being simpler to administer and more hunter-friendly. Timely reporting for use by the next year's applicants is another factor. Following is excerpt from a CPW Roundtable discuaaion in 2023.

Big Game Calendar
Matthew Eckert and Brian Dreher presented on the Big Game Calendar that CPW uses for
setting annual license numbers (Appendix 5).
The annual big game license setting timeline begins in winter when hunting seasons are still
ongoing. The harvest survey is sent out to 80,000 hunters at the end of the season. By March
and April, CPW biologists are receiving and processing data to begin population modeling on
which to base next year’s license quotas. In mid-April, a sneak peek is made publicly available
and in early May, big game draft quotas are presented to the PWC for public input and
finalization. In short, it is a quick timeline, with little room to release quotas earlier in the
year.
CPW would like to give hunters as much notice as possible to plan their hunts. However, due
to the compressed timeline, the current system provides the most notice that biologists and
managers can give. License numbers cannot be drafted until May. Mandatory reporting would
push the timeline later and CPW data analysts must work with the data before sending it to
the biology team. The process is mainly slowed by the timing of late season data.
Currently, 80% of hunters respond to the harvest survey. Moving to a mandatory survey would
not improve CPW’s data — for example, New Mexico receives an 85% response rate, but then
must try to assess non-responses.

I have heard that argument too. I do understand their stance. I just think concrete evidence is better than conjecture nowadays

 

[Ckleeves]

I would think a phone app would work pretty good for mandatory reporting. Your signed in with your account so the day after your season ends you get a notification, then another a week later etc. Should be able to start compiling data much sooner then March or April with it also.

Super simple, I would much rather click a few boxes and push “finish” then get a phone call usually right when I’m in the middle of something.

It could keep track of your applications, preference points, current licenses, harvest surveys etc and probably be built for less then they pay the call center to ask if you’re somewhat satisfied every year while also going more into depth if need be and taking less time then the phone call does.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I would think a phone app would work pretty good for mandatory reporting. Your signed in with your account so the day after your season ends you get a notification, then another a week later etc. Should be able to start compiling data much sooner then March or April with it also.

Super simple, I would much rather click a few boxes and push “finish” then get a phone call usually right when I’m in the middle of something.

It could keep track of your applications, preference points, current licenses, harvest surveys etc and probably be built for less then they pay the call center to ask if you’re somewhat satisfied every year while also going more into depth if need be and taking less time then the phone call does.

My state has this.

It is simple to use and doesn’t require cell service at the location of the kill. It automatically sync’s up whenever you get service and its time stamped for when you submitted it.

It’s super easy.

If my state can do it on our budget….i would think it would be easy for Colorado…

Said it a million times the Department DOESNT WANT TO KNOW.

That can be the only excuse at this point.

Getting off topic.

Back to topic.

The fix for the situation is to stop letting people turn in tags and then take peoples points when they draw any A list tag and stop letting them build points while hunting. Yes, that includes residents and non-residents. Somehow they managed to all but dance around this entire topic with a bunch of “what ifs”.

 

[huskyhunter]

The fix for the situation is to stop letting people turn in tags and then take peoples points when they draw any A list tag and stop letting them build points while hunting. Yes, that includes residents and non-residents. Somehow they managed to all but dance around this entire topic with a bunch of “what ifs”.

I really do think it is as simple as this. Any A list tag you get(draw or OTC) takes your points.

 

[Ckleeves]

Its rather bizarre that they won’t address the root cause of point creep by doing exactly what you guys are stating. Voucher, 4th choice, re issue, second draw, otc doesn’t matter. A list= Points zeroed. If you have a specific hunt code that’s going undersold and need higher harvest then move it to B list as needed.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I really do think it is as simple as this. Any A list tag you get(draw or OTC) takes your points.

Or, AT A MINIMUM, don't allow people to build a point if they get an OTC tag.

There are intended/unintended consequences with just about every decision. It's not a light decision to change the game right now.
Changes IMHO should be fair to the guy getting in with 0 points AND to the guy who has a lifetime of being dedicated and having 30 points.
Not allowing to build a point while hunting is something that is fair to all.

 

[Ckleeves]

Or, AT A MINIMUM, don't allow people to build a point if they get an OTC tag.

There are intended/unintended consequences with just about every decision. It's not a light decision to change the game right now.
Changes IMHO should be fair to the guy getting in with 0 points AND to the guy who has a lifetime of being dedicated and having 30 points.
Not allowing to build a point while hunting is something that is fair to all.

That would be very fair for the next season structure to see how it plays out while being fair to point holders of all levels.

 

[Addicting]

Or, AT A MINIMUM, don't allow people to build a point if they get an OTC tag.

There are intended/unintended consequences with just about every decision. It's not a light decision to change the game right now.
Changes IMHO should be fair to the guy getting in with 0 points AND to the guy who has a lifetime of being dedicated and having 30 points.
Not allowing to build a point while hunting is something that is fair to all.

Lifetime of hunting OTC, buying a point, and then not using it?

Meh, crap or get off the pot.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Lifetime of hunting OTC, buying a point, and then not using it?

Meh, crap or get off the pot.

I am cool with either option or a combination of both and I don't think that the draws need to be changed at all if they implemented these. It's like they are trying to find a problem to a solution with what they decided though.....

I think that taking peoples points or not letting them build points while getting an OTC tag solves a LOT of problems. Especially with the #1 complains that all residents have which is overcrowding. I think it will cut hunter numbers by 10%-20%. Since we already know that the CPW doesn't need the money (their words, not mine), everyone should be good with that.

 

[Sheltowee]

The fix for the situation is to stop letting people turn in tags

I've seen this sentiment a lot but I can't agree with it. The end result would be people holding onto tags they aren't able to hunt for whatever reason instead of turning them in and allowing another hunter the opportunity. The net result is fewer hunts, not more, simply in the name of making glory tags more accessible for non-residents.

Full disclosure: I'm a CO resident and had to turn in a 4th season muley tag last season. I also generally use my first draw option to buy a preference point, then try to draw something as a second choice or off the leftover list.

 

[huskyhunter]

I really would like to see the group not change the draw at all and stick with the current PP draw, so then you are not screwing anyone over that is in the game with X amount of points.

Another way to really fight the overcrowding issue that they are trying tackle is to make everyone buy their OTC tag at the time of the draw, but that might be a little more drastic

 

[Wild Bill]

Just switch it all from a preference to a bonus system.

Then cube

 

[Mallardsx2]

I've seen this sentiment a lot but I can't agree with it. The end result would be people holding onto tags they aren't able to hunt for whatever reason instead of turning them in and allowing another hunter the opportunity. The net result is fewer hunts, not more, simply in the name of making glory tags more accessible for non-residents.

Full disclosure: I'm a CO resident and had to turn in a 4th season muley tag last season. I also generally use my first draw option to buy a preference point, then try to draw something as a second choice or off the leftover list.

Can't have it both ways man. You want change? You need to make some sacrificial decisions as well. All of us do, R and NR.

I say take the persons money and points who turns in a tag, put the tag on the leftover list and force the second user to burn their points there on that tag as well (take whatever points they have) Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

The guy that constantly turning in tags can't get any more tags and the "other guy" loses his points and gets to go hunting. It's a win win for 99% of people.

This gets that high point holder out of the way so they do not draw those high point tags and turn them in again and again and again and again. Just like what has been happening for years. No offense.

Full disclosure: I didn't draw in the primary and I would have gladly given my points last year for the tag I got in the later draws. I got to keep them, and I am now on the cusp of drawing the tag again. This model does NOT get people back to 0 points to the front of the line where they belong.