Draw Process Working Group Recommendations

[5yearcoueshunter]

The proposals seem reasonable and I think it could result in higher draw odds if the only one MSG at a time rule goes through.

That one didn't pass.

 

[huskyhunter]

Still wish they had passed something that would help prevent so many returned tags. Something along the lines of either getting your money or your points back, but not both(unless it was an emergency like WY allows)

 

[winmag]

Still wish they had passed something that would help prevent so many returned tags. Something along the lines of either getting your money or your points back, but not both(unless it was an emergency like WY allows)

That's the current rule. Money or points unless its a medical emergency.

 

[huskyhunter]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought you got your full refund and your points back if you return a tag currently in CO.

Edit, I just re-read it and you are correct winmag. Has it alwasys been that way? for some reason I thought you got both back.

 

[Oak]

Curious about the 75/25 allocation. DWG recommended the allocation for all four choices and staff recommended it only apply to first choice. You say the decision was for it to apply to first and second choices? Who was it that pushed back against the staff recommendation and how did that discussion go?

It was messy. Hasket and Otero first motioned for all 4 choices, then director said this would potentially loose $4M in revenue. Chairman and Bailey I think had a big problem with that. Then someone said, can't remember who, what about first 2 choices. Lady presenting didn't have financial data for that but said 80% of tags are given out in the first 2 choices so wouldnt help much financially. Hasket redid motion for only 2 choices. Then there was more discussion that lasted forever, chairman wanted to delay and have a draw workshop. Another commissioner called BS saying they need to pass something now since the draw working group has spent years on this, so they voted on the current motion of the 2 choices and passed it. Lol

This is my primary concern about what was passed/not passed Thursday.

The DWG recommended applying the 75/25 R/NR allocation rule across all 4 choices in the primary draw. The CPW leadership was concerned and did not support that recommendation because it would lead to a (worse-case scenario) revenue shortfall of $4.2 million.

As an option for recouping that revenue shortfall if the allocation recommendation was approved, the Commission asked for a financial analysis regarding revenue that could be raised by charging preference point fees for deer, elk, pronghorn, bear, and turkey preference points. Although the preference point fee requires an "opt-in" by the applicant, we should expect a very high opt-in rate based on the current opt-in rate for moose, sheep, and mountain goat points (~95%).

The financial analysis for the preference point fees that the Commission ultimately approved will result in an additional $9+ million in revenue at a 90% opt-in rate, which is a conservative rate estimate. Yet the Commission approved the 75/25 allocation for only the first two choices in the primary draw. Even if the full $4.2 million revenue shortfall is realized across the first and second choice draws in the primary draw, the agency will still receive a nearly $5 million revenue windfall from hunters with the approved point fees.

In short, they approved fee increases of more than double the predicted revenue losses, and did not approve the full 75/25 recommendation that was used to predict that revenue shortfall. The Commissioners could have approved lower preference point fees to more closely mirror the predicted revenue shortfall, AND passed the DWG recommendation of applying allocation rules across all four choices.

 

[BrokenArrow]

In short, they approved fee increases of more than double the predicted revenue losses, and did not approve the full 75/25 recommendation that was used to predict that revenue shortfall. The Commissioners could have approved lower preference point fees to more closely mirror the predicted revenue shortfall, AND passed the DWG recommendation of applying allocation rules across all four choices.

Hey @Oak , I know you have been working and keeping us up to date with this. I did apply for the working group, but being in Durango was kind of glad I didn't get selected. I would have gladly done it, but it would have been tough traveling that much. Thanks for your participation.
- What concerns me is exactly how much of the working groups recommendations were actually adopted?
- Did you happen to hear some working group recommendations that you feel were good options, but never made it to the proposal stage of the process?
- Is there any proposal for "other" recreational users to start paying fees? I know that may be political suicide to propose something of that nature. But I have no skin in the game, considering I'm a lowly citizen with barely a brain to consider anything that would change the course of CPW's revenue, lol.