This License Distribution Public Involvement – Process Update Proposal is on the Commission agenda for next week.
CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Hopefully folks are following this. This could be a huge issue for non-resident hunters, given CO hosts more non-resident elk hunters than any other state, even more than many elk states combined.
^ if not all states combined.
man colorado is in a bind with this. especially considering the potential ramifications across all western states elk hunting opportunity.
i wanna badly see some changes to how we distribute hunters on the landscape here, and unfortunately the majority of the residents do. that puts a huge bullseye on OTC tags. we'll see where this goes.
man colorado is in a bind with this. especially considering the potential ramifications across all western states elk hunting opportunity.
i wanna badly see some changes to how we distribute hunters on the landscape here, and unfortunately the majority of the residents do. that puts a huge bullseye on OTC tags. we'll see where this goes.
QELKhunter
Well-known member
I imagine we will start to see quite a few changes, not sure in what direction though. The past 5-10 years has steadily seen minor changes to include the secondary draw, certain units going from OTC to draw and the merger of Colorado State Parks and Colorado Division of wildlife into one entity (Colorado Parks and Wildlife).
Stay tuned.....
Stay tuned.....
thusby
Well-known member
This is a wave change with every state picking it up. I don’t want to be a naysayer but pretty silly to think I’m gonna sit down at a desk and go wild trying to change things…
You know where I would file every email from Montana/Wyoming/Colorado, as I changed processes in Wisconsin?….
Words are hard sometimes, oh Lordy.
You know where I would file every email from Montana/Wyoming/Colorado, as I changed processes in Wisconsin?….
Words are hard sometimes, oh Lordy.
Last edited:
Pelican
Well-known member
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
The second paragraph of the document I linked above tells the story of where this is likely heading.
"Completion of financial analyses. After further staff discussion, it was clear that an important step
towards identifying recommended regulatory changes is examining potential financial impacts to CPW
and also to local communities as mentioned by several Commissioners in June. To that end, staff
developed a list of over 15 different allocation scenarios that we are analyzing. We are working
towards having the results of the financial analysis available to share with the Commission at your
August workshop. We expect this data to help us narrow down which alternatives CPW staff feel have
merit for further consideration."
"Completion of financial analyses. After further staff discussion, it was clear that an important step
towards identifying recommended regulatory changes is examining potential financial impacts to CPW
and also to local communities as mentioned by several Commissioners in June. To that end, staff
developed a list of over 15 different allocation scenarios that we are analyzing. We are working
towards having the results of the financial analysis available to share with the Commission at your
August workshop. We expect this data to help us narrow down which alternatives CPW staff feel have
merit for further consideration."
Pelican
Well-known member
If anyone is so inclined, comments need to be submitted by noon on Friday for the comment to be provided to the commission prior to the meeting.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 159
If you look at OTC specifically, second/third rifle are about a 65/35 split. If you look at OTC archery residents are now outnumbered by nonresidents.
Maybe as CPW and the PWC narrow their "focus". They should start with capping NR's in OTC archery elk. Lose 4,000 of them, its a 2.8M haircut from a 196 million dollar wildlife budget. That's a 1.4% haircut. Its pretty doable without any fee increases. I remember when their wildlife budget was 120 million, it wasn't that long ago.
The alternative they like though is the 80/81 alternative where they had 3300 to many archery hunters, cut it to 2,000, sold 1300 of those licenses to nonresidents, forced the rest of them into the remaining NW region shit show, and didn't lose a dime. Problem solved, right?
I had a great discussion with Senator Rob Woodward yesterday, turns out we go to the same church. Should he win reelection in our rapidly changing to liberal Larimer county, he is ready to re-run the bill to limit nonresidents. After listening to the last commission meeting, I do not think they will even remotely fix anything. I'd 100% support a legislative fix, there is no resident hunter advocates left on the commission. Other states are all fixing these issues with legislation, no game commission will vote for a budget cut, government needs to eat.
Maybe as CPW and the PWC narrow their "focus". They should start with capping NR's in OTC archery elk. Lose 4,000 of them, its a 2.8M haircut from a 196 million dollar wildlife budget. That's a 1.4% haircut. Its pretty doable without any fee increases. I remember when their wildlife budget was 120 million, it wasn't that long ago.
The alternative they like though is the 80/81 alternative where they had 3300 to many archery hunters, cut it to 2,000, sold 1300 of those licenses to nonresidents, forced the rest of them into the remaining NW region shit show, and didn't lose a dime. Problem solved, right?
I had a great discussion with Senator Rob Woodward yesterday, turns out we go to the same church. Should he win reelection in our rapidly changing to liberal Larimer county, he is ready to re-run the bill to limit nonresidents. After listening to the last commission meeting, I do not think they will even remotely fix anything. I'd 100% support a legislative fix, there is no resident hunter advocates left on the commission. Other states are all fixing these issues with legislation, no game commission will vote for a budget cut, government needs to eat.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Nothing new under the sun...
1877- State Fish Commissioner Appointed
1899- Creation of Colorado Department Forestry, Game and Fish
1901- Name Changed to Colorado Department of Game and Fish
1937- First State Parks created
1957- Colorado Parks and Recreation Department created
1963- Colorado Department of Game and Fish merges with Colorado Department of Parks to From Colorado Department of Game, Fish, and Parks
1964 Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
1972- Agencies Split forming Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Colorado Division of Wildlife
2011- Colorado Division of Wildlife once again merged with Colorado State Parks to from CPW
State Commission Report on Fish and Game 1899... damn NR from Utah killing all the deer, setting bag limits to 1 buck, and requesting that season dates be changed so that folks aren't killing bucks in the rut.
Wow, no comments from anyone? Per my post above about where this is likely heading, I'll share some comments from the meeting.
Commissioner Blecha: "Allocation is fundamental to the business owners who utilize this process for their livelihoods." She wants "changes that are going to be effective, and for the people using this program, it's going to be helpful to them and to [CPW]." She wants to "make it something effective and positive for everybody involved."
Commissioner Haskett: Suggested that if 80/20 hunt codes are updated, then the determining number of preference points needs to be increased (from 5 to 10, for example). Seems like this could effectively nullify any gains on the R side depending on the number of PP chosen.
Commissioner Adams: Wants CPW to provide financial impacts to outfitters from the proposed decisions. She appreciates the ranchers and outfitters interest in having commissioners tour their ranches and meet with them. She encourages all of the commissioners to connect to folks in their areas. She said it has been really transformative to ground all of the paperwork and analysis into real people. She mentioned that these are real people's lives and real communities' lives.
Jenny Burbey, President, Colorado Outfitters Association: "The reality is that there are a lot of families that rely on a limited resource...the animals on the landscape and the services we provide to aid in harvesting that resource. If we don't put that first and stop the people wrangling on the other side, nobody is going to benefit."
Commissioner Blecha: "Allocation is fundamental to the business owners who utilize this process for their livelihoods." She wants "changes that are going to be effective, and for the people using this program, it's going to be helpful to them and to [CPW]." She wants to "make it something effective and positive for everybody involved."
Commissioner Haskett: Suggested that if 80/20 hunt codes are updated, then the determining number of preference points needs to be increased (from 5 to 10, for example). Seems like this could effectively nullify any gains on the R side depending on the number of PP chosen.
Commissioner Adams: Wants CPW to provide financial impacts to outfitters from the proposed decisions. She appreciates the ranchers and outfitters interest in having commissioners tour their ranches and meet with them. She encourages all of the commissioners to connect to folks in their areas. She said it has been really transformative to ground all of the paperwork and analysis into real people. She mentioned that these are real people's lives and real communities' lives.
Jenny Burbey, President, Colorado Outfitters Association: "The reality is that there are a lot of families that rely on a limited resource...the animals on the landscape and the services we provide to aid in harvesting that resource. If we don't put that first and stop the people wrangling on the other side, nobody is going to benefit."
One other point. There were 6 public comments from:
- Colorado Wildlife Federation: "put the health of the herds first."
- Colorado Bowhunters Assn: "the opinions of our stakeholder group are a bit different than the public at large, based on our own survey."
- Colorado Outfitters Assn: "put the outfitters' livelihoods first."
- Three regular hunters, including @grasshopper: mostly supporting limiting NR in some form. Increasing resident fees from one. Increasing auction licenses from one.
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.
Last edited:
I think you should. No need to wait until the next meeting: https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx
