May CPW Commission meeting
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
For the large reduction in cow tags, is that statewide or just NW area?
elkduds
Well-known member
Just NW severe weather units. Not cow tag recommendations are down from '22, I think about 15% outside the NW.
MattinCO
Member
Some good commentators on the res/non-res allocation, thanks for your comments.
The 75/25 split and 80/20 for high demand units just passed, but wasn't unanimous (seemed like mostly outfitters on the commission were against it, not surprising).
The 75/25 split and 80/20 for high demand units just passed, but wasn't unanimous (seemed like mostly outfitters on the commission were against it, not surprising).
I was surprised to see so many commissioners vote against it. It was interesting to see that guy claim only half of land vouchers go to non-residents right before an outfitter said majority of their clients are non-residents.
more_cowbell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2023
- Messages
- 912
May have been odd that they had such a lengthy executive session with their attorney re: certain aspects of 114, if this was a done deal. Maybe a few of the members had requested the exec session to be assured one more time by legal counsel that this is all "above board".
So did this happen? I am confused was this part of the unanimously approved or just a comment or recommendation?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 40728
Guest
That 80/20 split just means I need to ditch what points I have even faster. I’ll be further behind now. Should have used them 3 years ago. Oh well.
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
Did they do a hybrid reallocation or did they go 75/25 across the board?
D
Deleted member 40728
Guest
80/20 for high demand and 75/25 for the rest is what was mentioned by @elkduds
Last edited by a moderator:
elkduds
Well-known member
Yes, per my notes.
elkduds
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 40728
Guest
Thank you for posting and summarizing.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 159
There isn't much nonresident demand for female vouchers, that gets it to 50/50
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
Man, if you wanted a certain NW pronghorn buck tag, you can forget it unless you have double the points it took last year. Holy moly tag cuts.
I believe they left off with public comments and will continue further discussion tomorrow.
elkduds
Well-known member
Resuming the topic tomorrow. The trend in today's discussion was that banking would not solve point creep, and that is emerging as the goal the Board wants.
Thank god Commissioner Otero told CPW to shove their unbelievable 75/25 across the board recommendation. Reduction of CO resident share of tags in any way, shape, or form is utterly unacceptable. I don’t understand why Colorado hunters have not been in riot mode over CPWs long and hard push for 75/25. Calling it a compromise as of nonresident benefits and impacts are equal to resident.
The change that passed (80/20 high demand remains and regular demand changes from 65/35 to 75/25 is a step forward. But a baby step. The relevant factor is that CPW did not get away with their much wanted step backwards on the high demand from 80/20 to 75/25.
That still having probably the highest nonresident draw quotas in the west is a victory illuminates how much work remains to be done in Colorado by Colorado hunters. It’s your wildlife and big game. Act like it.
The change that passed (80/20 high demand remains and regular demand changes from 65/35 to 75/25 is a step forward. But a baby step. The relevant factor is that CPW did not get away with their much wanted step backwards on the high demand from 80/20 to 75/25.
That still having probably the highest nonresident draw quotas in the west is a victory illuminates how much work remains to be done in Colorado by Colorado hunters. It’s your wildlife and big game. Act like it.
With all due (public trust doctrine) respect.
You are a CO nonresident. Who cares ?
From one nonresident to another.
