No, I would apply. But being a draw system inevitably there would be years you wouldn’t draw. One of the great things about Colorado is the ease of access to hunting. Wouldn’t want that to go away. It’s worth the congestion to me.
CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Bambistew
Well-known member
I think there are a number of ways to combat point creep.
Stop allowing people to build points and hunt. No points back for returned tags or deduct 1/2 the points
Put a waiting period in after drawing a tag even a year would have a dramatic change.
Only allow hunters to apply for one species or set aside a group of tags for each species and make it either or.
Allocation is low hanging fruit, it won't make the experience better. But the me, me, me squeekers will be yelling loudly
Stop allowing people to build points and hunt. No points back for returned tags or deduct 1/2 the points
Put a waiting period in after drawing a tag even a year would have a dramatic change.
Only allow hunters to apply for one species or set aside a group of tags for each species and make it either or.
Allocation is low hanging fruit, it won't make the experience better. But the me, me, me squeekers will be yelling loudly
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,722
+
- Take ALL points for any draw tag regardless of whether its a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or leftover tag.
- Make OTC Archery and Rifle tags unit specific!
This will clear out the point holders. Force people to use those points or not hunt at all.
HighDesertSage
Well-known member
Thanks Oak. Survey submitted
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think that’s incorrect, you can set the quota however so there would still be leftover tags. You could buy one right up to the season, but pressure would be better distributed and people couldn’t all pile into one unit.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
OTC with caps and limited to regions or unit groups, limit NR draw tag allocations, expand the hybrid draw system across the board for any unit over maybe 5 points so, OR weighted point system for deer/elk/antelope. M/S/G remains the same...
Last edited:
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Disagree with this, it's too punitive. There are great opportunities in undersubscribed units that enable people who pay attention and do their homework to hunt while still saving a few points for a 'premium' unit someday.
i think this would be a good idea too.
if otc doesn't go away it needs to be capped. and perhaps it needs to be set up like wyoming general deer units. unit groupings based on DAU that are OTC areas with a cap on how many tags are good in those areas. and i wouldn't be happy with making that cap jsut what the last three year average number of hunters has been.
it is low hanging fruit, and i will be one of those yelling me.
unit 49 is an example of what bothers me:
2021 Draw:
- not quite guaranteed at 9 PP for R, almost guaranteed at 14 for NR
- 80 tags 1st rifle
- 53% go to residents
- 28% go to NR
- 20% go to Landowner (LPP)
my argument for 80/20 across the board is that if every other state is going to make it harder for me to draw as an NR by going 90/10, or whatever split restrictive split they come up with, my home state should give me as much benefit as a resident as they can. drawing as an NR is going to get increasingly harder everywhere. residents shouldn't also have to start worrying about that more and more as time marches on. but of course i know i can get oodles of tags everywhere here as a resdient and i'm not worried about it, but it's the principle that matters. and in some units i keep my eye on it would help.
Last edited:
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,722
3....2....1.......BUZZ H
rustednuts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2018
- Messages
- 772
I submitted my comments. I think if you go hunting that season you don’t get a point. Any draw, leftover or otc no point that year. This will slow point creep and force people to make a decision on how they want to approach CO. I’m a nonresident but I think Residents deserve a higher percentage of tags.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Your entire argument is allocation of a handful of tags so the high point holders can draw faster and you could draw maybe once in your lifetime? I'm not sure who who needs to hear this but those tags that take 10 pp to draw right now will likely never be drawn by guys with zero or one point today.
Slash the NR tags all you want the system isn't going to get better nor will you draw more tags on a regular basis. I just looked at deer tag allocation. It's 21% of total going to NR. 2/3 of the tags drawn by all are 0 to 1 point. I didn't dig that deep but if I was going to guess, of those higher point draws, reducing the tags to 20% you'd gain a few hundred tags for 70k residents. No magic bullet and creep marches on. But everyone feels better for getting their pound of flesh.
Last edited:
it's the principle that matters. and it's a cocktail of things that would be required to help point creep, not just allocation.
some day in the future wyoming will only give me 5% of their deer tags and i'll still be staring at a deer unit i really like in colorado where 33% of the deer tags are going to NR. no amount of reason in any direction will keep me okay with that. i just simply won't be and that's it.
I'd make preference points 20% of tags to highest point holders and the 80% remaining random.
90/10 R/NR just like everyone else. Just too much demand to have the overly generous OTC elk tags and 65/35. Which after you take the Landowner vouchers out of the quota leaves us really with 52% of the tags.
90/10 R/NR just like everyone else. Just too much demand to have the overly generous OTC elk tags and 65/35. Which after you take the Landowner vouchers out of the quota leaves us really with 52% of the tags.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Might as well abolish any points system then, let's be like New Mexico where many residents and nonresidents alike can only dream of elk hunting...
Pelican
Well-known member
We need to get a pronghorn allocation included in this process. I also suggested a hard cap on the NR allocation for all choices in the draw.
As for doing away with OTC elk, the elephant in the room is the 20% landowner allocation that would then apply. My preference would be a cap on NR OTC tags and leave OTC for residents which would avoid 10,000’s of elk tags being pulled from the public pool.
As for doing away with OTC elk, the elephant in the room is the 20% landowner allocation that would then apply. My preference would be a cap on NR OTC tags and leave OTC for residents which would avoid 10,000’s of elk tags being pulled from the public pool.
one ate E grain
Active member
After filling out the survey a couple of thoughts...
Dog and pony show. CPW will hold lots of listening sessions, take comments, and then do what they want.
The survey asked questions of ethnicity and gender which should have nothing to do with the survey but I suspect will have everything to do with the focus groups. I should have claimed the rarest ethnicity hunting and gender fluidity, if questioned I'd just say "it's what I identify as" and no one can say boo to that.
Dog and pony show. CPW will hold lots of listening sessions, take comments, and then do what they want.
The survey asked questions of ethnicity and gender which should have nothing to do with the survey but I suspect will have everything to do with the focus groups. I should have claimed the rarest ethnicity hunting and gender fluidity, if questioned I'd just say "it's what I identify as" and no one can say boo to that.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
A summary of my survey comments:
-Eliminate elk OTC
-Any “A” tag burns points
-Weighted draw for all species
-Change all bear to OTC with harvest quotas
-Eliminate concurrent rifle/ML and archery seasons.
-90/10
I know this would increase NR demand everywhere, elk especially, but IMO it’s better for the resource overall.
-Eliminate elk OTC
-Any “A” tag burns points
-Weighted draw for all species
-Change all bear to OTC with harvest quotas
-Eliminate concurrent rifle/ML and archery seasons.
-90/10
I know this would increase NR demand everywhere, elk especially, but IMO it’s better for the resource overall.
elkduds
Well-known member
If this results in any increase in the ratio of Res to NR hunters, the cost of Res tags will have to jump to cover the lost revenue from fewer NRs. I'm fine w that, I'd happily pay double the current fee. @ 80/20 statewide w capped OTC elk units, CO would still be the last resort for NRs. I suggested improvements to the leftover draw and the dialing-for-dollars reissue process. Bonus points after 3 to 5 point regular cap for elk, deer, bear should reduce the creep. I suggested eliminating the 1st choice point only draw option. That would keep a lot of new points from ever being awarded.
lifesupport4u
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 391
I agree! What are your thoughts on capping OTC for NR licenses but not residents? Or having some units that are OTC to residents, but not non-residents?
Is there a good way transition people at the top of the points game to a weighted points system after 20+ years of building points?
I hope they are willing to look at NR tag allocation, but I imagine it’s going to be hard to change with the revenue it brings in to CPW and the state.
