CPW wants your rant.

[Zach]

If CPW wants rants they just need to allow commenting on their YouTube.... LOL

 

[elkduds]

yeah i wonder actually.

does it have to do with like, already identified preferred alternatives per the survey/focus group process? like the 3 most probable middle ground solutions that realistically were able to be put on the table?

i'm trying to remember from that november meeting what alternatives they said they would continue to investigate...

Oak posted this thread starter back in November. Since then the Commission approved the 80/20 change based on last 3 year average for units requiring 6 or more pps.

 

[TOGIE]

Oak posted this thread starter back in November. Since then the Commission approved the 80/20 change based on last 3 year average for units requiring 6 or more pps.

yes, but beyond that. total changes to allocation across the board have been a conversation for some time as you well know. i wanna say after that the section chief more or less asked the commission for permission to keep studying and receiving feedback on allocation alternatives across the board and i feel like there was a list there of the ones they would keep looking at. kinda wondering if that list more or less mirrors the one in the survey/if they whittled that list down to some preferred alternatives we are now seeing in the survey.

or something like that.

 

[elkduds]

yes, but beyond that. total changes to allocation across the board have been a conversation for some time as you well know. i wanna say after that the section chief more or less asked the commission for permission to keep studying and receiving feedback on allocation alternatives across the board and i feel like there was a list there of the ones they would keep looking at. kinda wondering if that list more or less mirrors the one in the survey/if they whittled that list down to some preferred alternatives we are now seeing in the survey.

or something like that.

 

[RELIANT]

i want to hear more people's opinions on preference point banking. i.e. only use what's required to draw the tag.

have 12 points tag costs 6 so you lost 6 instead of 12.

i'm currently opposed. but would like to hear further thoughts on it. has anyone done any analysis of potential implications?

how would that even work mathematically? very algorithmically, how would it even work?

I don't think just allowing banking PP would solve the problem and might actually increase point creep unless it is paired with some other measures. Here was one I was thinking about that perhaps you guys could poke holes in before I post it to CPW

What if they switched to make all Either Sex Permits burn at least one preference point (including OTC permits) and then also cap both resident and non-resident OTC permits at a certain level (probably also make them only valid for a group of units vice all state-wide-OTC units - so more like some of the rifle the bear tags). So if you want to hunt a bull or buck you aren't gaining preference point that year, but you also aren't burning all your points if you've invested into the system for a long time. The Top tier units will still take a bunch of points..but if you allow banking (and averaging group apps), perhaps some of the max point holders will burn some of those points. Less desirable first choice units will go for a few points, second choice either sex / male permits will remove the PP that you would have gained (no creep), and if you choose to buy a capped OTC permit after the draw you also burn the point you got for that year. It would also mean that folks who wanted to go OTC really couldnt just wait until the last minute they would have had to apply for the draw or be invested in the system with a PP (CPW keeps that revenue stream). This system would have a little bit for everyone...except for the guys that decide on a whim they want to go hunting and head down to walmart or the CPW office the day before season and decide to go hunting...but honestly these guys are usually the OHV / road hunters that add a lot to the crowding issue.

 

[chuckchili]

Apparently they didn’t like my rant. I think I kept it pretty PC but my comment was taken down in 7 minutes. They are definitely screening the responses so the Commission sees what they want to see.

Here it is:

Please just do what Wyoming does. OTC for residents and a draw for non residents. Wyoming has arguably the best system in place for both residents and non residents and the Elk population has steadily increased while hunter satisfaction remains high. It’s sad to see what portion of the pie us residents need to fight for while the other western states have their residents backs. It’s time for the Commission to build back a little trust with its own resident hunting base. Example: 80/20 was a recommended option going into the November meeting. Now only a few months later, the most favorable option for residents in this survey is 75/25. What’s it gonna be next time?

I just signed into the website and saw that your comment was at the top, posted 7 hours ago.

 

[Fishnride]

I just signed into the website and saw that your comment was at the top, posted 7 hours ago.

Ok good. That’s reassuring.

 

[elkduds]

Survey deadline is Feb 20, 2023


Struggling w #4 on the survey.

Please rank the following alternatives for big game license allocation between residents and nonresidents in Colorado. A description of each alternative appears below.*

1. 
   
   Status Quo
2. 
   
   90/10 High Demand Allocation (retain 65/35 split for all other hunt codes)
3. 
   
   75/25 Across-the-Board Allocation

STATUS QUO: i.e. 65% residents and 35% nonresidents for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear hunt codes requiring 5 preference points or less based on a rolling 3-year average (approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission for 2023); 80% residents and 20% nonresidents for high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt codes...........................90/10 HIGH DEMAND ALLOCATION: Change the high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt code split to 90% residents and 10% nonresidents for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn; retain 65% resident and 35% nonresident split for all other hunt codes. This change would increase opportunity for residents for high-demand hunt codes (~400 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), which addresses a leading frustration for resident hunters. CPW would lose >$2.3 Million in revenue......................................75/25 ACROSS-THE-BOARD ALLOCATION: One single allocation split of 75% residents and 25% nonresident for all deer, elk, bear and pronghorn hunt codes This change would greatly increase resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 5 or fewer points (~3,000 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), but slightly decrease resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 6 or more preference points (~50 licenses shift from residents to nonresidents). CPW would lose >$1.4 Million in revenue.

Surprised I sort of agreed w point banking. What changed my mind is that it will cost 2-3 extra points beyond what the tag took to draw. If I have 12 pp, draw a 7 pp tag, I will only have 2-3 points left in the bank for next year. IMO the 2-3 point charge to use point banking will reduce point creep a little. Remember that every year I use point banking I don't accrue a point that year, so there goes another point out of the pool..

On the survey question #4 above, #3 I chose 1st, then #2, then status quo. My thinking is this will benefit resident hunters greatly in drawing up to 5 point units (3000 tags switch to R from NR). @ 6 points and above, only 50 R tags shift to NR. Thinking residents will benefit more from 2950 middlin' tags gained from NRs annually (choice #3), than 400 high point tags from NRs annually w choice #2. Choice 3 still gives almost the same R opportunity for tags over 5 pps.

Good job posting in the comments section! Several mentions about capping NR and archery OTC tags, some critiques of OHV enforcement, several calls to eliminate no-fault license refunds.

Curious where the 80/20 option went?

 

[Wallow]

For the survey - is the sign your normal CPW log in information you use to apply for licenses or this a whole different thing where you need a to create a new sign in for?

 

[Alabama]

Surprised I sort of agreed w point banking. What changed my mind is that it will cost 2-3 extra points beyond what the tag took to draw. If I have 12 pp, draw a 7 pp tag, I will only have 2-3 points left in the bank for next year. IMO the 2-3 point charge to use point banking will reduce point creep a little. Remember that every year I use point banking I don't accrue a point that year, so there goes another point out of the pool..

But if you apply with 12 pp for a tag that takes 7 pp now you will have 0 points. How will retaining some of your points reduce creep? You will still be 2-3 years ahead of anyone that starts applying this year. This is a way to placate the guys who chased the glory units but were bad at math. They now know they will never catch them so they will get to hunt the mid-tier tags a couple of times while others get to hunt them none.

I'm sure a lot of people will vote in favor of it, but it's from a point of self-interest, not actual belief that it will reduce point creep.

 

[Alabama]

For the survey - is the sign your normal CPW log in information you use to apply for licenses or this a whole different thing where you need a to create a new sign in for?

You have to create a new sign in.

 

[elkduds]

But if you apply with 12 pp for a tag that takes 7 pp now you will have 0 points. How will retaining some of your points reduce creep? You will still be 2-3 years ahead of anyone that starts applying this year. This is a way to placate the guys who chased the glory units but were bad at math. They now know they will never catch them so they will get to hunt the mid-tier tags a couple of times while others get to hunt them none.

I'm sure a lot of people will vote in favor of it, but it's from a point of self-interest, not actual belief that it will reduce point creep.

The only way point banking will reduce point creep is if many people pay several more points than the actual value of tags.