CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
I probably should have used something other than a blue thumb. Disappointed that there is no serious consideration of doing something about OTC.
I am surprised that the staff recommendation to go 80/20 or 75/25 across the board on limited licenses. The former would be acceptable, but the latter is terrible. It essentially gives NR a greater percentage of the premium licenses in exchange for R getting a greater percentage of the easier to draw licenses.
I can't get excited about any of the preference point proposals. They need to use a hammer but they're using velvet gloves.
I am surprised that the staff recommendation to go 80/20 or 75/25 across the board on limited licenses. The former would be acceptable, but the latter is terrible. It essentially gives NR a greater percentage of the premium licenses in exchange for R getting a greater percentage of the easier to draw licenses.
I can't get excited about any of the preference point proposals. They need to use a hammer but they're using velvet gloves.
More on preference points: they recommend the status quo. Even their other alternatives don't address the root PP issue, and that it's too easy to have your cake and eat it too. Also, throwing cow and doe licenses into the calculation that results in the statement "95% (nonresident) to 99% (resident) of the 2021 limited licenses for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear required 5 or fewer preference points" is quite disingenuous.
Pelican
Well-known member
I mostly agree. The benefit I see to pushing off the OTC discussion is that it gives us time to try and get a cap on both NR archery and NR rifle OTC with the caveat that all NR OTC tags need to be applied for in the draw. I think most outfitted clients would have already sent a deposit by the draw deadline.
Pelican
Well-known member
80:20 would go a long way to address point creep for residents
. Proposing to require the use of PP for all list A deer and list A pronghorn licenses would fix a lot of the point creep problem and still allow CPW to sell most of the crap that are generally elk licenses.
Pelican
Well-known member
@Oak Do you know if the commission has the authority to raise application fees or add a PP fee for deer, elk, pronghorn? If so, they could increase revenue beyond CPI without having to go through the general assembly. I thought the commission added the $50-$100 PP fee for MSG but am not sure.
Pelican
Well-known member
Great. So the commission could raise application fees for all by $3 per species and cover the predicted $2.2 million loss in revenue to CPW if going to 80:20 without any need for the general assembly.
