CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution

[Deleted member 28227]

i mean, you're absolutley right far from apples to apples. which is why we can't just have the wyoming syste. but i don't think that's a true reason why tweaks can't be made that may adopt some wyoming ideas.

i kinda think you laid out the argument for making such tweaks. like: less habitat/ground to hunt on, 3x the tags, and only 2x the elk.

we don't need (tabor and financial constraints notwithstanding) to have 3x the tag holders for only 2x the elk AND with less area to hunt them on - to me that's arithmetic for "A+B+C = absurd shitshow" which is exactly what a lot of units in september and october look like.

i just hate every solution cpw comes up because they all rely on maintaining status quo. pretty soon colorado will have 3 archery seasons and then a 5th or hell even 6th rifle season after shortening the rest of the rifle seasons even more. it's a clown show out here. all in the name of preserving the amount of tagholders, if not increasing them, to not dick with the budget while hoping we all cheer it on in the name of less crowding. meanwhile nothing really got better in terms of what we want: a better hunting experience.

wyoming sells you the opportunity to harvest an elk; colorado sells you the opportunity to hunt. those are wildly different in my book. and while the latter is not entirely bad and many ways really awesome, i think we've swung too far to that one side of the opportunity spectrum and i'd jsut really like us to dial it back a bit. splitting seasons, adding seasons, shortening seasons, etc, is not the way to move that needle IMO. at least it's not what i want if i'm gonna keep living here.

There are also just cultural differences.

For a long time deer season in CO was just 3 days.

 

[TOGIE]

There are also just cultural differences.

For a long time deer season in CO was just 3 days.

i'd take a 3 day deer season if it was in mid late november with no elk hunters

i think my new bit is gonna be that i hate colorado elk hunters.... take your rifles and wall tents and go suck an egg - it'll satisfy a handful of things for me: my distaste for colorado elk management, my ineptitude at elk hunting, and most importantly my much greater obsession with mule deer

 

[Bowhuntrben]

I haven't read all the responses, but I was thinking about potential changes some more. Another way to help increase draw odds for folks and/or reduce pressure would be to use a similar idea that Idaho uses....only allow people to apply for one of the big species. Can't apply for big species if you apply for deer/elk/antelope and vice-versa. Can't get a point for the species you don't apply for. Maybe this would only really help M/S/G...but at least it would make people decide what is most important to them

 

[TheTone]

I haven't read all the responses, but I was thinking about potential changes some more. Another way to help increase draw odds for folks and/or reduce pressure would be to use a similar idea that Idaho uses....only allow people to apply for one of the big species. Can't apply for big species if you apply for deer/elk/antelope and vice-versa. Can't get a point for the species you don't apply for. Maybe this would only really help M/S/G...but at least it would make people decide what is most important to them

Parts of the Idaho thing I like, parts I hate. I might go my whole life applying for a moose, sheep or goat and never draw and at the same time never even get to put in for a good elk, deer or pronghorn. I’ve drawn a really easy deer tag and cow elk in 28 years of putting in for stuff here. I’m chasing moose now for the foreseeable future and counting on other states to give me a great elk tag

 

[Kiwi]

I read that CO is considering allocating 20% of tags to non residents like me, down from 35%. This might be a stupid question but if this change happens in 2023, how will the 2022 draw odds be effected? Will the odds be better in 2022 or 2023?

 

[colo_junk]

I see nothing wrong with using NR tag fees to pay for salaries other wildlife needs, that's just putting their income to use. But they DO need to take the 'P' back out of out of CPW, like it used to be, that would soften the blow if NR tags were reduced. Parks operates in the red, Wildlife operates $30M in the black.

Check the link below...

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

Revenue of $308 million, expenditures of 266 million. Where has the other $42 mil got to?

 

[jlmatthew]

I say do whatever they want, just keep all the BS west of I-25. Leave the east side of the state and the seasons alone!

 

[Oak]

Some groundbreaking stuff coming out of the allocation and preference point focus group summary.
Includes hits like:

Residents want more limits to NR OTC.
NR do not want more limits to NR OTC.
Residents want a greater proportion of limited licenses.
NR do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Outfitters do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Those with fewer preference points would like to expand the hybrid draw.
Those with more preference points think expanding the hybrid draw is a bad idea.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but c'mon. What did they expect?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Some groundbreaking stuff coming out of the allocation and preference point focus group summary.
Includes hits like:

Residents want more limits to NR OTC.
NR do not want more limits to NR OTC.
Residents want a greater proportion of limited licenses.
NR do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Outfitters do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Those with fewer preference points would like to expand the hybrid draw.
Those with more preference points think expanding the hybrid draw is a bad idea.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but c'mon. What did they expect?

I’m sad I wasn’t picked I had my charts all ready

 

[winmag]

I participated in one of the focus groups on preference points.

There was a max point holder, a guy a few points shy of max, 2 10-ish point holders, and 2 5-ish point holders in the focus group. It felt like there was pretty high consensus on expanding the hybrid draw system, both in number of hunt codes and percent of tags for a given hunt code going to hybrid. Consensus on what to do to “fix” the preference point system dropped off pretty quickly after that.

 

[Oak]

I think expanding the hybrid draw will exacerbate creep in two ways. Obviously fewer tags going to high point applicants, but also lower point applicants applying on a wing and a prayer for the hybrid.

 

[winmag]

I think expanding the hybrid draw will exacerbate creep in two ways. Obviously fewer tags going to high point applicants, but also lower point applicants applying on a wing and a prayer for the hybrid.

View attachment 223587

True, it wouldn’t fix point creep. But it would give Lloyd Christmas a chance!

I suggested thoughtfully burning the sucker down, transitioning to a full random draw; perhaps have a points draw and a random draw, put more tags in the random draw every year over some long timeframe, once you burn your points you are forever in the random-only draw thereafter. Maybe that’s why max point guy didn’t want to chat with me after the meeting was over? Oh well, I’ll live.

 

[noharleyyet]

Some groundbreaking stuff coming out of the allocation and preference point focus group summary.
Includes hits like:

Residents want more limits to NR OTC.
NR do not want more limits to NR OTC.
Residents want a greater proportion of limited licenses.
NR do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Outfitters do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Those with fewer preference points would like to expand the hybrid draw.
Those with more preference points think expanding the hybrid draw is a bad idea.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but c'mon. What did they expect?

Key Takeaways

Most focus groups identified top ideas that were supported by a majority of participants but there was an understanding by participants that each idea had unintended consequences. There was also a recognition that there is no single change that will address all concerns. Rather, participants often proposed a suite of changes that would need to be implemented in tandem. Often, the suggestion to implement multiple changes at one time was to improve the effectiveness of the change. For example, point banking may need to be implemented at the same time as requiring points to be used for the second through fourth choices in the primary draw or in the secondary draw. Or a change might need to be implemented to offset the unintended impact on certain groups, such as creating an outfitter preference system if nonresident allocation decreases.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think expanding the hybrid draw will exacerbate creep in two ways. Obviously fewer tags going to high point applicants, but also lower point applicants applying on a wing and a prayer for the hybrid.

View attachment 223587

Is point creep inherently different from say a NM draw where in 2006 there where 500 applicants for 20 tags and now there are 2000 for 20 tags?

IMHO the current issue is that there are so many applicants that most folks in the top 2 to 3 point groups won’t ever draw. People are clearly willing to wait 30+ years for a tag. The problem is 30 years is likely to not get you an opportunity.

I think 3+ weighted hybrid is in the best interest of everyone. Really the only folks it hurts are those who have been sitting on the sidelines with more points then it takes to draw.

Would you rather play the lottery for 30 years and never win or stand in line to play the lottery for 30 years and never even get your hat in the ring.

 

[jlmatthew]

Key Takeaways

Most focus groups identified top ideas that were supported by a majority of participants but there was an understanding by participants that each idea had unintended consequences. There was also a recognition that there is no single change that will address all concerns. Rather, participants often proposed a suite of changes that would need to be implemented in tandem. Often, the suggestion to implement multiple changes at one time was to improve the effectiveness of the change. For example, point banking may need to be implemented at the same time as requiring points to be used for the second through fourth choices in the primary draw or in the secondary draw. Or a change might need to be implemented to offset the unintended impact on certain groups, such as creating an outfitter preference system if nonresident allocation decreases.

Outfitter’s already have a preference system, it’s called landowner vouchers

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Some groundbreaking stuff coming out of the allocation and preference point focus group summary.
Includes hits like:

Residents want more limits to NR OTC.
NR do not want more limits to NR OTC.
Residents want a greater proportion of limited licenses.
NR do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Outfitters do not want any changes to limited license proportions.
Those with fewer preference points would like to expand the hybrid draw.
Those with more preference points think expanding the hybrid draw is a bad idea.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but c'mon. What did they expect?

What they were really looking to prove is that hunters and humans are selfish. Success!

 

[grasshopper]

How much money and time did we spend figuring out what any hunter could have told them the results would be in two minutes or less?

 

[WYelker]

True, it wouldn’t fix point creep. But it would give Lloyd Christmas a chance!

I suggested thoughtfully burning the sucker down, transitioning to a full random draw; perhaps have a points draw and a random draw, put more tags in the random draw every year over some long timeframe, once you burn your points you are forever in the random-only draw thereafter. Maybe that’s why max point guy didn’t want to chat with me after the meeting was over? Oh well, I’ll live.

I have been arguing to burn the entire thing down for years. My thought it is immediately return to a random draw, anyone with points get a squared point bonus until the points system is purged.

This gives those with points an advantage, and still move towards the random.

 

[BoulderBulls]

I have been arguing to burn the entire thing down for years. My thought it is immediately return to a random draw, anyone with points get a squared point bonus until the points system is purged.

This gives those with points an advantage, and still move towards the random.

While we're burning it down, Get rid of all OTC and change to limited draw hunts. They're In my experience night and day different and more enjoyable than OTC. R:NR allocation to an average of all other western states today, tired of carrying the load for the West. Adjust R prices to makeup for lost NR revenue and add a special draw similar Wyoming for both R and NR folks that want to pay to play... within reason, not sure how to decide the high end of this number to make it fair.

Maybe someone on here has done a tag cost analysis relative to inflation, it has to be massively lagging.

 

[vanish]

Maybe someone on here has done a tag cost analysis relative to inflation, it has to be massively lagging.

Colorado tag prices are tied to CPI.