CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution

[grasshopper]

I think you should. No need to wait until the next meeting: https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx

Thanks for posting the recap, it's sure accurate. I know some for a number of reasons oppose legislation, but in all honesty I think it's time to get on board for a legislative remedy. When know onlistens or cares, it's the only recourse left.

 

[marksjeep]

Thanks for the updates oak. Sounds like they will drag this out and bleed it dead. I could get behind the wilderness proposal though.

 

[Mudranger1]

Colorado Springs meeting next week

CPW Sportsperson’s Caucus to discuss Future Generations funding, wildlife updates COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – A variety of topics of interest to hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts are on the agenda when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Southeast Region Sportsperson’s Caucus reconvenes in a public meeting scheduled Wednesday, July 27. Acting Southeast Region Manager Mitch Martin will welcome sportspersons at 6 p.m. at the Southeast Region offices and online, streaming live via the CPW Facebook page. Attendees will get updates on CPW’s work to reintroduce wolves, to recover lesser prairie chickens and survey elusive and rare Black Rails, and the status of Recovering America’s Wildlife Act from Deputy Regional Manager April Estep. Aquatics issues including the recent spawning of Greenback cutthroat trout on Bear Creek as well as the recently launched search for the Yellowfin cutthroat trout in the Upper Arkansas River basin will be discussed by Paul Foutz, senior aquatic biologist. Julie Stiver, senior terrestrial biologist, will highlight the collaborative work between CPW and Colorado Department of Transportation to prioritize wildlife and human safety on our highways and she will also talk about habitat work in the region. Another featured topic will be allocation of big game hunting licenses as well as an update on recent fire damage to State Wildlife Areas in the region. “We’ll also give everyone an update on the Future Generations Act of 2018,” Martin said of the agenda for his first caucus meeting as acting regional manager. “I want to talk about how the funding has benefited sportspersons in the years since the act was passed.” Besides Martin, the caucus will be co-hosted by Larry McCormack and Ron Goodrich, who represent the CPW Southeast Region caucus as delegates to the statewide Sportsperson’s Roundtable. “Besides our scheduled topics, our Sportsperson’s Caucus is a great opportunity for hunters, anglers, trappers and outdoor enthusiasts to engage with CPW staff and our caucus representatives,” Martin said. He noted that McCormack and Goodrich will carry all positions taken by the Southeast Region caucus to the Statewide Roundtable when important policy decisions and issues are debated. “We are carrying on the tradition of giving Colorado residents an active voice in how CPW manages wildlife,” Martin said. The in-person and virtual caucus is scheduled 6-8 p.m., Wednesday, July 27, 2022. It will be streamed live, online, via CPW’s statewide Facebook page: www.facebook.com/CoParksWildlife. The caucus agenda is posted on the CPW website. BOX What: CPW Southeast Region Sportsperson’s Caucus When: 6 p.m., Wednesday, July 27, 2022 Where: CPW Southeast Region offices, 4255 Sinton Road, Colorado Springs, 80907 and streaming online on CPW’s Facebook page. Info: Call 719-227-5200 for additional information or visit: https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Roundtable.aspx

​ Share​ ​ Tweet​ ​ Share​ ​ Forward​ CPW is an enterprise agency, relying primarily on license sales, state parks fees and registration fees to support its operations, including: 42 state parks and more than 350 wildlife areas covering approximately 900,000 acres, management of fishing and hunting, wildlife watching, camping, motorized and non-motorized trails, boating and outdoor education. CPW's work contributes approximately $6 billion in total economic impact annually throughout Colorado. Copyright © 2022 Colorado Parks and Wildlife, All rights reserved.

 

[elkduds]

I think that some of the commissioners have forgotten why we are here in the first place. It's because resident hunters demanded change and the commission did nothing. Three years later the resident hunters demanded change and the commission did nothing. A year later a state legislator ran a bill to put R/NR allocation into statute. CPW defeated that bill in part by promising to actually get something done about allocation on their own.

Thanks as always, Oak for being the finger on the pulse of CPW and the Commission. I fully agree with your criticism of their latest inaction.

As a current member of the Sportspersons' Roundtable, I respectfully disagree with Manager Martin's characterization of the roles of Caucus representatives and his description of the Roundtable above, posted by @Mudranger1 . There is no debate about policy decisions or anything else at Statewide Roundtable meetings. Discussions of the Roundtable are purely advisory, the Roundtable does not seek or offer consensus. It has no vote on policy decisions and does not generate any recommendations in its own name. The Commission and CPW have no formal obligation to include any input from members of the Roundtable. There is no such thing as a 'Sportspersons' Roundtable Decision, Recommendation or Opinion.'

Rather, the Roundtable gathers input and feedback from constituent sportspeople in four regions of the state through the Caucus meeting process and otherwise. Input gathered through the filter of the Roundtable process has more influence with CPW and the Commission than an individual call or email in one regard; CPW considers it a consensus of multiple users, it is combined with similar opinions by other users. In no way does that guarantee any Roundtable influence with the agency or the Commission. When the Roundtable group took the License Allocation survey before it was offered to the public last year, the results were similar to those reported by CPW for all respondents to the survey. The same survey results which made zero difference to the Commissioners in today's meeting.
.
The Caucus process @Mudranger1 included above is well worth attending and participating in, and Caucus delegates Goodrich and McCormack will summarize feedback from the Southeast Caucus meeting at the August Roundtable meeting in Grand junction along with Caucus input from the other 3 regions of the state. Sadly, at this August meeting there will be no actual debate, no official Roundtable criticism of any proposal or Commission decision, no formal Roundtable recommendations made.

My current frustration comes from the lack of results thus far in the latest season survey process, which itself dilutes the 5 year big game season structure cycle the Commission is required to conduct. As Oak disclosed above, the Commission is minimizing their own survey process. In my opinion and based on Commissioners' statements reported above, the Commission is using Chamber of Commerce and Outfitter pressure and their own 'revenue impact model' to disregard the input of all those who chose to participate in the survey CPW touted. If you don't know what an Antler Dance is, this is one. Since the Commission is deaf to its own telephone, I join Oak in encouraging every hunter who cares to contact each Commissioner. I'll be sending them this posting. I hope you will edit, and join me. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx

 

[jlmatthew]

After you guys write to the commission, how about sending something to your state reps as well.

Here's a link to find/write your state reps

Find My Legislator | Colorado General Assembly

leg.colorado.gov

 

[GrantK]

The allocation discussion starts at 2:38...

If there was much useful discussion I somehow missed it, as far as I can tell it seems like the intention is to study this to death and avoid changing anything, the default answer to anything was: "we just need more studies"

 

[Deleted member 40728]

The allocation discussion starts at 2:38...

If there was much useful discussion I somehow missed it, as far as I can tell it seems like the intention is to study this to death and avoid changing anything, the default answer to anything was: "we just need more studies"

Well they have upwards of 20 staff working on the distribution and allocation issue. No way with that many people you could ever have enough studies done.
I’m not sure how 20 of them can come up with a better solution, they should probably add 20 more.

 

[jlmatthew]

SE Caucus was a waste of time. Only one person was allowed to say anything during the allocation discussion before the time allotted was up for that discussion. CPW thinks we only want to hunt every 2-4 years apparently. I talked to Danielle Isenhart after meeting and she basically said the standard CPW answer of "CPW & Outfitters revenue's takes precedence over resident hunter wants".

 

[TOGIE]

i hate that it has to be this way, but i like where this conversation is headed.

i'm gonna e-mail every commissioner with why i think they failed in this discussion. but my main and more clear point is that i'm going to start e-mailing legislators asking them to start thinking about intervening again because the commission is failing.

if enough people start contacting their legislators and enough legislators start listening, we might get the commission to perk up a little.

call it a threat, if you will

 

[Mudranger1]

SE Caucus was a waste of time. Only one person was allowed to say anything during the allocation discussion before the time allotted was up for that discussion. CPW thinks we only want to hunt every 2-4 years apparently. I talked to Danielle Isenhart after meeting and she basically said the standard CPW answer of "CPW & Outfitters revenue's takes precedence over resident hunter wants".

Why do you blatantly lie on the interwebs like this....it was "hunters" that said they wanted this. 1 of the top 4 responses CPW recieved on the big game attitude survey...cpw is just giving the hunters what they ask for

 

[Oak]

There is a virtual Commission workshop next Tuesday on this topic, presumably to educate the commissioners on the big game system as much as possible before they start making decisions. You can read the agenda here. The public will be able to watch on the live YouTube feed, but no public participation.

 

[Buffs35]

There is a virtual Commission workshop next Tuesday on this topic, presumably to educate the commissioners on the big game system as much as possible before they start making decisions. You can read the agenda here. The public will be able to watch on the live YouTube feed, but no public participation.

You'd think having a basic understanding of license allocation would be a prerequisite to be a commissioner.

 

[rwc101]

Haven't spent much time on this since giving my initial comments to CPW way back when. The disparity between engagement between Colorado and Wyoming is crazy.

A "Wyoming commissioner breathes" thread would get more comments. I feel bad for Colorado residents.

 

[BoulderBulls]

Of the discussion topics they set aside by far the most time for "financial analysis". We all knew it, that's all they care about, and this just goes to show it.

screen shot for those too lazy to click the link

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Haven't spent much time on this since giving my initial comments to CPW way back when. The disparity between engagement between Colorado and Wyoming is crazy.

A "Wyoming commissioner breathes" thread would get more comments. I feel bad for Colorado residents.

My 2 cents, as far as this forum is concerned… ahem, the distinguished gentleman from CO who started this thread and others about CO issues is a bit less shall we say…pugnacious, than the distinguished gentleman from WY who often brings up the sportsman’s issues in your great state.

 

[rwc101]

My 2 cents, as far as this forum is concerned… ahem, the distinguished gentleman from CO who started this thread and others about CO issues is a bit less shall we say…pugnacious, than the distinguished gentleman from WY who often brings up the sportsman’s issues in your great state.

Astute observation.

That aside, I think Colorado shot itself in the foot over OTC tags for NR. Fundamentally, I think far fewer NRs respect Colorado and its residents compared to WY. It's the piggy bank asking to be robbed.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Of the discussion topics they set aside by far the most time for "financial analysis". We all knew it, that's all they care about, and this just goes to show it.

screen shot for those too lazy to click the link

What's sad about that is that if they actually contacted sound financial minds, they'd find a way fix some problems without financially crippling the system. Hell there's a few folks on here that would be than capable of running that kind of scenario modeling. I mean, I enjoy a $50 elk tag... but I'd def be game to pay way more than that. The agenda alone leads me to believe decisions are being made in a silo

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What's sad about that is that if they actually contacted sound financial minds, they'd find a way fix some problems without financially crippling the system. Hell there's a few folks on here that would be than capable of running that kind of scenario modeling. I mean, I enjoy a $50 elk tag... but I'd def be game to pay way more than that. The agenda alone leads me to believe decisions are being made in a silo

Kinda going along with that I think you can make systematic changes that get you to the same end point rather than, ham fisted approaches.

So for instance if the issues is too many NR, which it absolutely is in archery in the steamboat units, then a possible solution could be going full limited with no caps but no leftovers. Meaning as many folks who want can apply but they have to decide to hunt their in the spring and can’t make it a last ditch thing after all other apps don’t pan out. The net effect likely would be the same, but it’s a bit less of an antagonist approach.

Personally I hate the whole leftover/otc/reissue process I think it sportsman who hunt CO would be better served if we made folks make CO their first choice hunting spot not their last.

Hell make the drawing in Jan for everyone results at the current time and no refunds.

Having your cake and eating it too has downsides.

 

[TOGIE]

this whole process is going to just come circling around to the usual BS

"we outfitters are the backbone of society and any decision you make has to be centered 100% around our very humble and hugely massively extremely important livelihood"

and nothing will change.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Kinda going along with that I think you can make systematic changes that get you to the same end point rather than, ham fisted approaches.

So for instance if the issues is too many NR, which it absolutely is in archery in the steamboat units, then a possible solution could be going full limited with no caps but no leftovers. Meaning as many folks who want can apply but they have to decide to hunt their in the spring and can’t make it a last ditch thing after all other apps don’t pan out. The net effect likely would be the same, but it’s a bit less of an antagonist approach.

Personally I hate the whole leftover/otc/reissue process I think it sportsman who hunt CO would be better served if we made folks make CO their first choice hunting spot not their last.

Hell make the drawing in Jan for everyone results at the current time and no refunds.

Having your cake and eating it too has downsides.

I couldn't agree more with this. Especially 1) make CO a priority, not a backup 2) no refunds except for the big things (death, etc) and 3) find a way to balance the financial scales to accommodate a healthier R/NR matrix