CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution

[elkduds]

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.

Oak is not as public on this forum about his advocacy as, say, the chairman of WY BHA chapter. He is a staunch advocate for wildlife and hunting in CO, especially sheep. To my knowledge Oak is not the official spokesman for any group, as is @BuzzH , so when he speaks it is not a whole group talking. That lack of constituency matters in a political morass as complex and with as diverse a set of stakeholders as CO. The more pugnacious people I have encountered in my experience w CPW get discounted and excluded from the process, because there are so many active constituencies vying for influence. CO is far more politicized in its wildlife management than I understand WY to be, which should surprise nobody.

Oak makes a difference for wildlife in CO in an ongoing way, his posts here are the barest tip of the iceberg of his activity. I don't know him, my sense is that making tsunamis is not how he rolls. I'm sure he doesn't need me to come to his defense, he'll continue working for sheep and all wildlife. I admire and respect Oak and all HT members who show up in person, work to make a difference, get the big picture, and participate here on behalf of causes larger than themselves. When it comes to CO wildlife issues, don't shoot dis the messengers.

When I participate in the CO Sportspersons' Roundtable meeting next weekend, I will represent the views and opinions I heard during the Southeast RT Caucus meeting. @jlmatthew 's criticism and frustration posted above are well-founded. That is exactly what hunters are up against w CPW as an unvocal minority among wildlife stakeholders in CO. I will be as pugnacious as the forum permits. I will network w CPW staff, attempt to form strategic coalitions w other stakeholders, and try to budge the leviathan that is the ship of CPW toward more regard for the interests of resident sportspeople. I expect results on a par w @jlmatthew 's experience above. If Oak, I and the others here who are active advocates w CPW had more constituent leverage, we would have more influence. Step on up, plenty of room on this bus.

I wish we had more Oaks on HT and in CO. To those who are advocates under the social media radar, many thanks and much encouragement. WY is lucky to have Buzz, regardless of any perceived pugnacity.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Oak is not as public on this forum about his advocacy as, say, the chairman of WY BHA chapter. He is a staunch advocate for wildlife and hunting in CO, especially sheep. To my knowledge Oak is not the official spokesman for any group, as is @BuzzH , so when he speaks it is not a whole group talking. That lack of constituency matters in a political morass as complex and with as diverse a set of stakeholders as CO. The more pugnacious people I have encountered in my experience w CPW get discounted and excluded from the process, because there are so many active constituencies vying for influence. CO is far more politicized in its wildlife management than I understand WY to be, which should surprise nobody.

Oak makes a difference for wildlife in CO in an ongoing way, his posts here are the barest tip of the iceberg of his activity. I don't know him, my sense is that making tsunamis is not how he rolls. I'm sure he doesn't need me to come to his defense, he'll continue working for sheep and all wildlife. I admire and respect Oak and all HT members who show up in person, work to make a difference, get the big picture, and participate here on behalf of causes larger than themselves. When it comes to CO wildlife issues, don't shoot dis the messengers.

When I participate in the CO Sportspersons' Roundtable meeting next weekend, I will represent the views and opinions I heard during the Southeast RT Caucus meeting. @jlmatthew 's criticism and frustration posted above are well-founded. That is exactly what hunters are up against w CPW as an unvocal minority among wildlife stakeholders in CO. I will be as pugnacious as the forum permits. I will network w CPW staff, attempt to form strategic coalitions w other stakeholders, and try to budge the leviathan that is the ship of CPW toward more regard for the interests of resident sportspeople. I expect results on a par w @jlmatthew 's experience above. If Oak, I and the others here who are active advocates w CPW had more constituent leverage, we would have more influence. Step on up, plenty of room on this bus.

I wish we had more Oaks on HT and in CO. To those who are advocates under the social media radar, many thanks and much encouragement. WY is lucky to have Buzz, regardless of any perceived pugnacity.

We are lucky to a number of great advocates on here, all I was saying is sometimes the WY pages go 30 pages not because more people care but because often the threads get a little personal, Oak IMHO is very professional in his posts here... mostly

 

[Oak]

To my knowledge Oak is not the official spokesman for any group...

Actually, I almost got my official spokesman's a$$ fired, which is one reason I'm "not as public on this forum."
And unfortunately, that's what the bully wanted and got.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

@Oak I don't want to steal your thunder, so if you want me to take down because you have a recap coming, let me know. That said the following are the notes I took on the topics of Preference Points and Financial Analysis

Preference Points presented by Garrett Watson of Grand Junction office
1. Average point creep is one point per year in quality units
2. In 2021, of the 246,591 apps for elk, 83,310 were just for PP (34%). A commissioner immediately spoke up and wanted to know of that 34%, how many later hunted on an OTC, secondary, or leftover tag. No response provided; said they would look into it.
3. Social media was blamed for the point creep issues
4. Stats were provided that said 99% of all limited tags for Elk, Pronghorn and Deer took less than 5 pts for R (95% for <5 pts for NR)
5. At 3 PP, Residents are 50/50 when applying for PP or an actual hunt code
6. at 1 PP, NR are 61% likely to apply for a PP
7. According to the presentation, units 1,2,10,201,40,61 & 76 have point creep and those units are causing everyone to complain about the system overall. According to the presentation, point creep is not really that big of an issue in Colorado

Point banking was then discussed (allowing a person to use minimum required points plus 1 additional point for a hunt and keep the rest of their points). it was requested that if we try this again, we do it for 5 years instead of just one. It was acknowledged this could actually increase point creep as higher point holders could start snagging low point units they would have ignored (duh)

Also they are considering group averaging for preference points. Biggest concern there is the commoditization of points where people could "buy in" hunting partners.

Biggest takeaway from this section: @wllm needs to run a graphing presentation for CPW.

Financial Analysis

Analysis was done using the following parameters:
1. Adjust NR caps
2. Update 80/20 hunt codes
3. Limiting OTC Archery Elk

There was no analysis using all three compounded.

1. Adjusting NR Caps
Used the following comparative analysis using 2021 figures
a. Status Quo (no change)
b. Cap at 35%, 25% and 20% for deer and elk
c. Apply NR cap to bear and pronghorn (using same %s above)

Deer and Elk (as caps decrease, NR tags shift to residents)
Cap at 35% increases revenue by $71,000
Cap at 25% decreased revenue by $1,403,000; but allows for 92,190 Residents to hunt. This would mean increasing prices for Residents by $16 (rounded) to meet that gap
Cap at 20% decreased revenue by $2,347,000; but allows for 94,080 residents to hunt. This would mean increasing prices for Residents by $25 (rounded) to meet that gap

Deer, Elk, Pronghorn, Bear (as caps decrease, NR tags shift to residents)
Cap at 35% increases revenue by $66,000
Cap at 25% decreased revenue by $1,425,000; but allows for 111,120 Residents to hunt. This would mean increasing prices for Residents by $13 (rounded) to meet that gap
Cap at 20% decreased revenue by $2,311,000; but allows for 113,070 residents to hunt. This would mean increasing prices for Residents by $21 (rounded) to meet that gap

Immediately a commissioner said "But what about the local economy effect.." and mentioned outfitters first

2. Adjusting 80/20 Hunt Codes
Used the following comparative analysis using 2021 figures
a. Status Quo
b. Adjusting remaining non 80/20 to 8/20, using 6pp threshold
c. Same as B, but with 8pp threshold
d. Same as B, but with 10pp threshold

Status Quo has 36 codes & 1059 licenses
Update @6pp has 110 codes and 3224 licenses
Update @8pp has 85 codes and 2309 licenses
Update @10pp has 64 codes and 1330

Financial impact is negligible. The greatest figure was an $86,000 loss. In the grand scheme of the budget, this is not material.

3. Limiting OTC Archery Elk
Used the following comparative analysis using 2021 figures
a. status quo
b. 10% or 25% reduction overall (to both NR and R)
c. NR cap of 35%, 25%, 20%

Because of the caps instituted in B, the NR caps does not shift the R / NR matrix, so this results in some pretty substantial revenue loss with no additional resident hunter to pick up the tab. $2.26M loss at 10% reduction, $5.64M loss at 25% reduction.


Summary and Follow Up Questions

1. State of CO stance: point creep is minor & blown out of proportion outside of a small subset of units and hunters
2. One commissioner (missed his name) actually acknowledged on record that he had no idea how these draws worked
3. Another doubling down on point creep being blown out of proportion
4. Doubling down on the local economy impacts again (as it residents don't spend money here the rest of the year) and again, mentioned outfitters first in his list of people affected.

 

[TOGIE]

yep, time to e-mail legislators.

 

[GrantK]

Thanks for the recap! I was dreading spending a day of my life watching that at least I can spare myself some brain damage and skip around...that's some creative math on point creep for sure, I guess units that are not creeping a whole point per year don't count, nor does the fact that probably 80% of people holding more than 3 points are applying for one of the "affected" units...

sign me up to pay an extra $25 to get to 80/20, not that I think nonresidents are ruining the hunting here but I'd like to see CO be in line with other states in that regard.

Keeping the 80/20 hunt codes up to date seems like a no-brainer, which means they probably won't do it, doesn't the fact that there are approx. 3x as many licenses that are 6+ points as there were when they started this disprove the assumption that point creep isn't happening?

I'm assuming that limiting OTC archery elk is essentially off the table due to the financial impact, I wonder what point of overselling these tags we have to get to for the system to change, I know the elk around here to the point where I could fill an archery tag without much trouble but boy, is it not as fun as it used to be trying to dodge 300 Cameron Hanes wannabees in every basin...

 

[TOGIE]

Preference Points presented by Garrett Watson of Grand Junction office
1. Average point creep is one point per year in quality units
2. In 2021, of the 246,591 apps for elk, 83,310 were just for PP (34%). A commissioner immediately spoke up and wanted to know of that 34%, how many later hunted on an OTC, secondary, or leftover tag. No response provided; said they would look into it.
3. Social media was blamed for the point creep issues
4. Stats were provided that said 99% of all limited tags for Elk, Pronghorn and Deer took less than 5 pts for R (95% for <5 pts for NR)
5. At 3 PP, Residents are 50/50 when applying for PP or an actual hunt code
6. at 1 PP, NR are 61% likely to apply for a PP
7. According to the presentation, units 1,2,10,201,40,61 & 76 have point creep and those units are causing everyone to complain about the system overall. According to the presentation, point creep is not really that big of an issue in Colorado

i'm more concerned about the fact that many units, primarily deer units, are going from like 50% 2nd choice to 80% odds on first choice over the span of like 2 years. that's point creep too if you ask me. soon they'll be 1 point units, and then 2 point units.

in the near future residents will not be able to hunt mule deer every year. in the mean time, a wyoming resident can shoot like 30 elk, 12 deer, and 20 pronghorn a year and they have still made more progress in limiting NR participation and tilting allocation in R favor than we will ever will.

again, time to start hammering our legislators. i don't exactly like the idea or would usually want the general assembly doing cpw's job, but i see no way around this issue.

the commissioners are gonna keep whining about budgets with their thumbs up their asses and heads in the sand. don't get me started on the outfitters...

 

[BoulderBulls]

Residents driving thru small towns to hunting camp (Accord to CPW)

 

[Oak]

2. Adjusting 80/20 Hunt Codes
Used the following comparative analysis using 2021 figures
a. Status Quo
b. Adjusting remaining non 80/20 to 8/20, using 6pp threshold
c. Same as B, but with 8pp threshold
d. Same as B, but with 10pp threshold

Status Quo has 36 codes & 1059 licenses
Update @6pp has 110 codes and 3224 licenses
Update @8pp has 85 codes and 2309 licenses
Update @10pp has 64 codes and 1330

How do you explain the change in the number of potential hunt codes noted above if point creep is negligible?

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Residents driving thru small towns to hunting camp (Accord to CPW)View attachment 235751

What bothers me most is its the same story with the ski resorts... they cater to the fly in pass holders more than locals because they CLEARLY are looking at Economic dollars spent PER visit. So of course fly in skiers and non resident hunters are going to be higher. But can you honestly tell me that my CO based spending and associated tax revenue is lower than a NR hunter visiting one time? not even close. And thats just on hunting spending, I am not even counting my daily life.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

How do you explain the change in the number of potential hunt codes noted above if point creep is negligible?

Bingo. I hate crapping on public employees trying to do their job, but there was so much about this presentation and the figures that made no sense and were highly transparent. It was frustrating to watch at times. And a huge fail to not look at the compounding effects of several of these scenarios.


my favorite was the mentioning that it would be hard to raise hunting prices for residents*. Thankfully a commissioner spoke up and put them in their place, saying that in their surveys, resident hunters have been overwhelmingly in support of higher R costs to offset changes in the NR / R matrix.

 

[Oak]

4. Doubling down on the local economy impacts again (as it residents don't spend money here the rest of the year) and again, mentioned outfitters first in his list of people affected.

Here are some questions I'll bet the commissioners asked of the outfitters.

1. What percentage of NR hunters choose to hire an outfitter when hunting in CO?
2. How many NR hunters do you book per year?
3. How many of them rely upon drawing a limited license?
4. How many of them rely upon purchasing an OTC license?
5. Do you ever have unbooked hunt slots?
6. Do you ever have to turn hunters away because all of your hunt slots are full?

The list of outfitter members on the Colorado Outfitters Assn website includes 102 businesses. How many hunters can each of those businesses guide each year? How many NR hunters hunt in CO each year?

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Here are some questions I'll bet the commissioners asked of the outfitters.

1. What percentage of NR hunters choose to hire an outfitter when hunting in CO?
2. How many NR hunters do you book per year?
3. How many of them rely upon drawing a limited license?
4. How many of them rely upon purchasing an OTC license?
5. Do you ever have unbooked hunt slots?
6. Do you ever have to turn hunters away because all of your hunt slots are full?

The list of outfitter members on the Colorado Outfitters Assn website includes 102 businesses. How many hunters can each of those businesses guide each year? How many NR hunters hunt in CO each year?

What's frustrating about this is that they are looking at multiple decisions in a vacuum and clearly have an economic focus. Down that road leads to a dwindling resource, habitat destruction, etc. A great non hunting example is Fruita, CO. That place is nothing like it used to be now that they have leveraged their existence on it being MTB, MTB, MTB!

There is very little overlap of discussion about the systemic changes that could be made that would be a benefit for the state's RESOURCE, hunters, and economy. I'll be honest that I want to hunt ever year, and as a resident that's entirely plausible - even under a changing system - but the system has to make sense for the various stakeholders.

It was frustrating to hear no mention of the idea of preference points being used for secondary draw, reviewing the no questions asked refund policy, or ways to change CO's image as the "backup state". All of which definitely lead to point creep, overcrowding and eventually compounded effects on the resource and habitat. I mean just look at all the threads recently of "oh f^&*, our hunt didnt work out, where in Colorado should I go?" lol

slow day at work, so I'll stop ranting. But from the perceptive of someone who analyzes strategy and financial impacts for a living... this is not being handled effectively or with the proper stakeholders at the table

 

[TOGIE]

What's frustrating about this is that they are looking at multiple decisions in a vacuum and clearly have an economic focus. Down that road leads to a dwindling resource, habitat destruction, etc. A great non hunting example is Fruita, CO. That place is nothing like it used to be now that they have leveraged their existence on it being MTB, MTB, MTB!

There is very little overlap of discussion about the systemic changes that could be made that would be a benefit for the state's RESOURCE, hunters, and economy. I'll be honest that I want to hunt ever year, and as a resident that's entirely plausible - even under a changing system - but the system has to make sense for the various stakeholders.

It was frustrating to hear no mention of the idea of preference points being used for secondary draw, reviewing the no questions asked refund policy, or ways to change CO's image as the "backup state". All of which definitely lead to point creep, overcrowding and eventually compounded effects on the resource and habitat. I mean just look at all the threads recently of "oh f^&*, our hunt didnt work out, where in Colorado should I go?" lol

slow day at work, so I'll stop ranting. But from the perceptive of someone who analyzes strategy and financial impacts for a living... this is not being handled effectively or with the proper stakeholders at the table

and to your point, i think someone that the commission listens to needs to step up and help the commission realize that this decision will be made for them if they can't get a head of it. whoever or whatever group that is.

the resource will at some point dictate that unlimited otc goes away and that fewer people can hunt a dwindling mule deer population.

but nah, that budget tho. oh that budget.

it's understandable that Buzz has become so crotchety dealing with this nonsense for so many years. i'm surprised that Oak hasn't gone clinically insane by now.

 

[huskyhunter]

Maybe I am looking at this to simple, but what do you think would happen to the point creep if you get an A tag one of the following happens
1) Not allowed to buy Preference points
2) If you have any points, they are zeroed out.(No matter if tag is issued in regular draw, secondary draw, or leftover)

I still think OTC is possible, but then it makes a person chose if they would rather build up points for a better unit, or go hunting every year.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Here are some questions I'll bet the commissioners asked of the outfitters.

1. What percentage of NR hunters choose to hire an outfitter when hunting in CO?
2. How many NR hunters do you book per year?
3. How many of them rely upon drawing a limited license?
4. How many of them rely upon purchasing an OTC license?
5. Do you ever have unbooked hunt slots?
6. Do you ever have to turn hunters away because all of your hunt slots are full?

The list of outfitter members on the Colorado Outfitters Assn website includes 102 businesses. How many hunters can each of those businesses guide each year? How many NR hunters hunt in CO each year?

I've called half a dozen outfitters in CO over the years... llama packers, horse packers, drop camps.

"I'm booking hunts 2 years out"

"I'm full for the foreseeable future"

"I have so many fully guided clients, drop camps aren't worth my time"

Be pretty enlightening if a CPW commissioner did an undercover boss and called up some noted outfitters and tried to schedule a hunt.

Reminds me of a meateater podcast when they were in WY and the guide more or less said that it's not about getting enough hunters, it's just that they want the same folks to hunt year after year because it makes their lives easier.

Sorry but "clients become friends and we just want to hunt with our buddies" is not a valid reason for keeping the status quo tag allocations.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Maybe I am looking at this to simple, but what do you think would happen to the point creep if you get an A tag one of the following happens
1) Not allowed to buy Preference points
2) If you have any points, they are zeroed out.(No matter if tag is issued in regular draw, secondary draw, or leftover)

I still think OTC is possible, but then it makes a person chose if they would rather build up points for a better unit, or go hunting every year.

Been saying this for years. And it would make a HUGE difference in things. But it would likely have an impact to the CPW revenue. Which IMHO is ALL they look at for their end game.

ADD forcing people to buy their OTC tag by June 30th.
ADD making people front the application fees up front. (JUST LIKE WYOMING DOES)
ADD NO REFUNDS (JUST LIKE WYOMING DOES)

 

[huskyhunter]

Been saying this for years. And it would make a HUGE difference in things. But it would likely have an impact to the CPW revenue. Which IMHO is ALL they look at for their end game.

ADD forcing people to buy their OTC tag by June 30th. - Can you explain this one more. I can't think of a huge advantage of this, and it would allow people to wait to get returned/leftover tags if they don't have to buy their OTC by June 30th.
ADD making people front the application fees up front. (JUST LIKE WYOMING DOES) - Agreed
ADD NO REFUNDS (JUST LIKE WYOMING DOES) - I would allow refunding for the money, but not the points(they are gone once you draw the tag initially)

 

[Mudranger1]

i'm more concerned about the fact that many units, primarily deer units, are going from like 50% 2nd choice to 80% odds on first choice over the span of like 2 years. that's point creep too if you ask me. soon they'll be 1 point units, and then 2 point units.

in the near future residents will not be able to hunt mule deer every year.

according CPW and their survey, hunters prefer to hunt every 2-4 years not every year. I guess I didn't ask what were the available options to that question on the survey

 

[RyGuy]

I have a few questions, and maybe I’m missing something that you all can shed some light on.
So Colorado has the largest elk herd in the west right? And they’re by far the most liberal with tag allocation to non-residents. So In theory they should be making much more money than any other state via license sales.
How do other states function on a lesser budget? Are other state game agencies even more understaffed than CPW? Are the amenities provided by CPW that much better than other western states because of their (in theory) larger budget?
I guess what I’m getting at is this: if CPW truly has a much larger budget than other western states, why can they not take some notes from their neighbors and learn to function with less money from non resident license sales? Shifting to 80/20 and limiting OTC would vastly increase hunt quality.