CPW Commission updating 80/20 allocation
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
it's ridiculous. the staff even puts it in plain language for the commission and all to see, right after they recommend against using 10 pps, on the top of the 3rd page:
"Using a threshold of 10 preference points (Alternative E) essentially maintains the status quo."
i.e. "this change changes nothing"
great work everyone.
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
Me after reading meeting minutes / watching a recap of a CPW meeting. it is infuriating.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's actually CPW recommending to the Commission (AGAIN) that they leave the preference point threshold at 6 points. Good to see.
"The Division recommends that the Commission move ahead with updating the 3-year average as proposed, but instead of using 10 or more preference points as the threshold for high-demand hunt codes that are allocated 80% to residents and 20% to nonresidents, the Division recommends continuation of the current 6 preference point threshold. This recommendation was Alternative C in the Division’s memo....Using a threshold of 10 preference points (Alternative E) essentially maintains the status quo."
They go on in the next paragraph to explicitly explain that what the commission is proposing to do does almost nothing. I think it's smart that they are making the point that if 1200 licenses move from 65/35 to 80/20 it means only 180 more licenses to residents.
It's really worth reading the first 3 pages of yesterday's memo to the commission closely (after the cover sheet). This is the first time I can recall CPW staff actually putting out a memo opposing a proposed commission decision. These things are usually resolved prior to the point where CPW must post information on the Commission page.
Comments prior to the meeting that support CPW staff recommendations in the memo would be helpful.
Comments prior to the meeting that support CPW staff recommendations in the memo would be helpful.
i'm really hoping with a pretty well detailed argument from staff against going to 10 pps and a hopefully pretty big pile of comments they received saying the same might have the commission reconsidering.
heck if i know though. the staff and resident hunters are clearly not outfitters tho, so hard to imagine they're hearing any of it.
right? lol
but real talk, does the commission even come close to realizing that a non insignificant proportion of these so called boot strappin outfitters making a "good honest living" are multi millionaires that bought ranches for their own fun and don't even permanently live in colorado?
has anyone pointed this out to them?
Best to stick to basic data.
We give an elk license to everyone who wants one. No limits.
Landowners get 20% of limited licenses off the top, which often go to outfitted hunters.
Last year, Colorado sold over 750 nonresident licenses per outfitter listed on the COA directory.
How can anyone say with a straight face that reducing limited draw non-resident licenses by a couple thousand is going to put hard-working outfitters out of business? I said it somewhere earlier...the commission hasn't asked outfitters the appropriate questions.
We give an elk license to everyone who wants one. No limits.
Landowners get 20% of limited licenses off the top, which often go to outfitted hunters.
Last year, Colorado sold over 750 nonresident licenses per outfitter listed on the COA directory.
How can anyone say with a straight face that reducing limited draw non-resident licenses by a couple thousand is going to put hard-working outfitters out of business? I said it somewhere earlier...the commission hasn't asked outfitters the appropriate questions.
elkduds
Well-known member
I sent this email to the Commission @ [email protected]
It was greatly edited from the snark of my 1st draft, thanks to invaluable input from @Oak. Much appreciated.
M******, Sportspersons' Roundtable (RT) Southeast Region Representative,
writing to summarize the views of the large majority of my constituents to the Commission.
There is a significant error in the survey design reported in your study of this issue. Surveying a nearly equal number of resident and NR subjects that apply for limited big game licenses misrepresents the reality that resident applications are 2-3 times the number of NR applications, among bear, deer and elk applicants.
In 2021, NR applications were only 31% of total elk apps; 23% of deer apps, and 18% of bear apps. NR applications do not begin to approach the 50% sample size of NRs in your survey, for any species. These survey results significantly overrepresent the opinions of NRs, and similartly dilute the opinions of residents.
Still, your survey accurately recorded the preferences of resident hunters for higher percentage of draw licenses allocated to residents. Most western states are at least 90/10 in favor of resident applications.
My constituents suggest the Commission, by supporting an alternative that is not widely supported by resident hunters, gives the impression of disregarding residents' measured opinions. Especially so after inviting residents to provide those opinions and publishing them in the survey.
CPW staff continues to recommend a 6 point threshold and 80/20 ratio, rather than the 10 point threshold the Commission has suggested.
Given that the wildlife portion of CPW had a $52 million surplus in FY20-21, the projected revenue loss resulting from the CPW staff recommendations for 6pt/80-20 is quite sustainable.
Respectfully,
Delegate M*******
It was greatly edited from the snark of my 1st draft, thanks to invaluable input from @Oak. Much appreciated.
M******, Sportspersons' Roundtable (RT) Southeast Region Representative,
writing to summarize the views of the large majority of my constituents to the Commission.
There is a significant error in the survey design reported in your study of this issue. Surveying a nearly equal number of resident and NR subjects that apply for limited big game licenses misrepresents the reality that resident applications are 2-3 times the number of NR applications, among bear, deer and elk applicants.
In 2021, NR applications were only 31% of total elk apps; 23% of deer apps, and 18% of bear apps. NR applications do not begin to approach the 50% sample size of NRs in your survey, for any species. These survey results significantly overrepresent the opinions of NRs, and similartly dilute the opinions of residents.
Still, your survey accurately recorded the preferences of resident hunters for higher percentage of draw licenses allocated to residents. Most western states are at least 90/10 in favor of resident applications.
My constituents suggest the Commission, by supporting an alternative that is not widely supported by resident hunters, gives the impression of disregarding residents' measured opinions. Especially so after inviting residents to provide those opinions and publishing them in the survey.
CPW staff continues to recommend a 6 point threshold and 80/20 ratio, rather than the 10 point threshold the Commission has suggested.
Given that the wildlife portion of CPW had a $52 million surplus in FY20-21, the projected revenue loss resulting from the CPW staff recommendations for 6pt/80-20 is quite sustainable.
Respectfully,
Delegate M*******
Buffs35
Well-known member
They don't need to ask outfitters since they already have one on the commission.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 159
I'm signed up to zoom in my testimony. Last day to sign up is tomorrow.
Email on the way tomorow, was waiting for election results. Thanks to redistricting, looks like any legislation may need a new sponsor. At least 4 more years of this, year 5 my kids graduate, and I can move.
Email on the way tomorow, was waiting for election results. Thanks to redistricting, looks like any legislation may need a new sponsor. At least 4 more years of this, year 5 my kids graduate, and I can move.
Last edited:
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 159
Commissioners and CPW staff,
I am writing today to submit public input on the agenda topic of big game license distribution and allocation between residents and nonresidents for your Nov. meeting. I am writing on my own behalf but I have been a sportsperson rep for decades in CPW working groups, and conservation organizations. I am also a landowner enrolled into the landowner preference program.
I am asking you to support and vote for CPW’s alternative C. This staff recommendation would supply residents with only ~200 additional deer and elk licenses. Predraw CPW quotas for limited deer and elk licenses for 2022 were over 221,000 licenses, so supporting Alternative C is shifting basically less then one tenth of one percent of the total limited licenses to residents. That is a tiny number, use it for perspective.
I would also ask you to adopt an 80/20 distribution policy FOR ANY AND ALL LIMITED LICENSE HUNT CODES as soon as possible.
Why shift licenses to residents?
The issue simplified – who deserves your mercy today?
The choice before you today is all about who “deserves” preference to the hunting licenses made available based on residency. Restated, who needs your help, who should you take mercy on and offer a helping hand up in preference?
Residents
If you google the true median income for a Colorado resident in about any rural county in Colorado, you will find it is near poverty levels. At the last meeting a commissioner described the benefits of “trickle down” from nonresidents, but just where does that show up when the resident median income is ~18,945 dollars? When Senate President Garcia co-sponsored their bill last year, it was for Pueblo county residents who have a median income reported at $26,741 dollars a year. Costilla county has a median income of $18, 945, Rio Blanco county is $32,094. I don’t know how you survive on that, but a high degree of preference to a big game license might help to feed a family. Can you afford Netflix as your sole entertainment budget item on 19k a year with current fuel prices, inflation, child care, health care, vehicle expenses, insurance and rent? I doubt it. Do these residents “deserve” your mercy? They surely can’t afford to hunt in another state if they don’t draw at home.
Nonresidents
A nonresident coming to Colorado on a outfitted big game hunt is likely to spend 10-15k in fees, transportation and more. They can hunt in any state for that price, and odds are high that they are applying in many states. If they don’t draw Colorado, they will hunt at home or elsewhere. While a nonresident receives less preference in allocation, they do have better odds of drawing because they double dip, and hedge bets. They apply in their own home state, and a multitude of other states. Again, who deserves the license and your mercy? A nonresident spending 50% or more of the total median income of the Colorado resident? Or, the resident that needs to hunt his own state to survive, and can’t afford to go to another state?
CPW
As you look at CPW, revenue from license sales in 2014 was about 70 million per the attachment, a short 8 years later it is 133 million, with 196 million total wildlife income, yet you only spent $144 million. Fact, CPW has never had more income. With the passage of the future generations act, all sportsmen were promised CPW would implement a hunter access program similar to Montana which leases 7 million acres a year for hunter access on primarily private lands. That promise has never been fulfilled. We pay more, aren’t getting what was promised, and might see double digit CPI inflationary increases next year.
Outfitters
At your last meeting, we heard 16 outfitters in Rio Blanco county earned 3.2M in gross revenue or on average 200k a year for working part time in what might be a 3 month hunting season and maybe some fishing trips in the summer. Public land outfitters appear to be grossing 200k a year income, while people in their own communities can’t draw an elk or deer license and are living near poverty levels. Based on recent testimony, outfitter’s are clearly putting their own income before the needs of the community. In this year’s first draw, 27,359 nonresidents drew limited elk licenses, 16,508 nonresidents drew limited deer licenses, and we probably sell another 60,000 OTC licenses to nonresidents. If we have 100 licensed outfitters in Colorado, they have a pool of ~100,000 nonresident potential clients but can likely support only 10 percent of that. If you’re an outfitter in Colorado and can’t find clients, you are in the wrong business. Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Wyoming have far fewer nonresidents, and their outfitters are thriving. Do Colorado’s outfitters making 200k a year need anyone’s mercy?
In closing, thanks for your service on the PWC, and consideration of the facts and numbers. As you examine the facts, I truly hope they convict your heart and open your eyes to who needs your help. Once that happens, there is no other option but to show your mercy to Colorado residents by supporting Alternative C and moving to 80/20 everywhere. I am open to email swaps or phone conversations if any of you care to follow up.
Thanks!
I am writing today to submit public input on the agenda topic of big game license distribution and allocation between residents and nonresidents for your Nov. meeting. I am writing on my own behalf but I have been a sportsperson rep for decades in CPW working groups, and conservation organizations. I am also a landowner enrolled into the landowner preference program.
I am asking you to support and vote for CPW’s alternative C. This staff recommendation would supply residents with only ~200 additional deer and elk licenses. Predraw CPW quotas for limited deer and elk licenses for 2022 were over 221,000 licenses, so supporting Alternative C is shifting basically less then one tenth of one percent of the total limited licenses to residents. That is a tiny number, use it for perspective.
I would also ask you to adopt an 80/20 distribution policy FOR ANY AND ALL LIMITED LICENSE HUNT CODES as soon as possible.
Why shift licenses to residents?
- Colorado’s current policies are uncompetitive for residents compared to ANY western state. Current policy is truly an insult to residents. It has been an insult for decades.
- Median incomes for Colorado residents are near poverty levels in many counties, even while we are told nonresident hunter “trickle down” is an economic benefit. People use that term, but when will it show up in median earned income so people can pay their rent or mortgages?
- CPW finances have never been better, ever. Wildlife income was reported as 196 million while expenses were 144 million. This was made possible by resident support for the future generations act.
- Risk of future legislation. If you get this wrong, legislation is the only remaining remedy for residents.
- This issue has nothing to do with science based wildlife management
The issue simplified – who deserves your mercy today?
The choice before you today is all about who “deserves” preference to the hunting licenses made available based on residency. Restated, who needs your help, who should you take mercy on and offer a helping hand up in preference?
Residents
If you google the true median income for a Colorado resident in about any rural county in Colorado, you will find it is near poverty levels. At the last meeting a commissioner described the benefits of “trickle down” from nonresidents, but just where does that show up when the resident median income is ~18,945 dollars? When Senate President Garcia co-sponsored their bill last year, it was for Pueblo county residents who have a median income reported at $26,741 dollars a year. Costilla county has a median income of $18, 945, Rio Blanco county is $32,094. I don’t know how you survive on that, but a high degree of preference to a big game license might help to feed a family. Can you afford Netflix as your sole entertainment budget item on 19k a year with current fuel prices, inflation, child care, health care, vehicle expenses, insurance and rent? I doubt it. Do these residents “deserve” your mercy? They surely can’t afford to hunt in another state if they don’t draw at home.
Nonresidents
A nonresident coming to Colorado on a outfitted big game hunt is likely to spend 10-15k in fees, transportation and more. They can hunt in any state for that price, and odds are high that they are applying in many states. If they don’t draw Colorado, they will hunt at home or elsewhere. While a nonresident receives less preference in allocation, they do have better odds of drawing because they double dip, and hedge bets. They apply in their own home state, and a multitude of other states. Again, who deserves the license and your mercy? A nonresident spending 50% or more of the total median income of the Colorado resident? Or, the resident that needs to hunt his own state to survive, and can’t afford to go to another state?
CPW
As you look at CPW, revenue from license sales in 2014 was about 70 million per the attachment, a short 8 years later it is 133 million, with 196 million total wildlife income, yet you only spent $144 million. Fact, CPW has never had more income. With the passage of the future generations act, all sportsmen were promised CPW would implement a hunter access program similar to Montana which leases 7 million acres a year for hunter access on primarily private lands. That promise has never been fulfilled. We pay more, aren’t getting what was promised, and might see double digit CPI inflationary increases next year.
Outfitters
At your last meeting, we heard 16 outfitters in Rio Blanco county earned 3.2M in gross revenue or on average 200k a year for working part time in what might be a 3 month hunting season and maybe some fishing trips in the summer. Public land outfitters appear to be grossing 200k a year income, while people in their own communities can’t draw an elk or deer license and are living near poverty levels. Based on recent testimony, outfitter’s are clearly putting their own income before the needs of the community. In this year’s first draw, 27,359 nonresidents drew limited elk licenses, 16,508 nonresidents drew limited deer licenses, and we probably sell another 60,000 OTC licenses to nonresidents. If we have 100 licensed outfitters in Colorado, they have a pool of ~100,000 nonresident potential clients but can likely support only 10 percent of that. If you’re an outfitter in Colorado and can’t find clients, you are in the wrong business. Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Wyoming have far fewer nonresidents, and their outfitters are thriving. Do Colorado’s outfitters making 200k a year need anyone’s mercy?
In closing, thanks for your service on the PWC, and consideration of the facts and numbers. As you examine the facts, I truly hope they convict your heart and open your eyes to who needs your help. Once that happens, there is no other option but to show your mercy to Colorado residents by supporting Alternative C and moving to 80/20 everywhere. I am open to email swaps or phone conversations if any of you care to follow up.
Thanks!
Well, tomorrow is the big day. I really hate to see this issue plated as the last topic before the lunch break. The only worse agenda spot is the last item of the day.
Here you go. Live stream link in the right sidebar.
November Commission Meeting
Here you go. Live stream link in the right sidebar.
November Commission Meeting
