News from this week's CPW Sportspeople's Round Table meetings.

[elkduds]

As an appointed rep to the Roundtable I am determined to share news from the group with online constituents. FYI, the Roundtable is a gathering of interested anglers, hunters, trappers that advise CPW. The group meets formally 2x/year, and informally as warranted. As an advisory group, most topics are discussed @ more length than can be included here. Below is a summary of news and topics from the summer virtual meeting:

First words out of every CPW regional rep's mouth: "@ least 150% increase in users on public lands this year, due to pandemic." The agency is not budgeted or staffed for that level of use, staff is doing best they can.

The western slope mtn lion plan will be finalized this fall, likely @ the Wildlife Commission's Sept. meeting. It happens Sept 2,3 and you can participate online via the CPW website.

Due to drought, many public shooting ranges are closed. The huge range @ Cameo/Palisade remains open, and is gaining national and international attention National competitions are held there annually, with an international match scheduled for next year.

Senate Bill 181 is law. It changes the focus of the oil/gas advisory committee more toward conservation, and requires more consideration of impacts on habitat and wildlife. CPW has staff dedicated to collaborating w oil/gas industries, reported better results than just pushing for new rules.

This year there was a 40% increase in applications for big game licenses over last year. Largest increase was among 25-45 year old.

Hunter's Ed is transitioning to 100% online.

Discussion of concern that some counties may close or require 14 day quarantine for hunters, as NM has. Leadership is not anticipating that problem in CO. CO is expected to see large increase in hunters who would have chosen NM.

Discussion of ways to educate and manage this huge influx of new hunters. Options include partnerships w conservation groups, outdoor industries. CPW has much info for newer hunters posted on CPW website.

CPW continues to be the 2nd largest of grant funders in CO, behind lottery/GOCO. Those grants typically emphasize strategic partnerships w groups and landowners @ the local level.

CPW is actively considering alternatives to requiring users of State Wildlife Areas to hold a hunting or fishing license. Federal rules prohibiting what were formerly called Habitat Stamps have eased.

CPW's priorities for funding are expanding public access, preserving migration corridors, preserving/improving habitat. Over $44 million in funding, and 30,000 acres of additional access reported so far.

Research continues on very low elk calf survival in the southwest region. this summer 57 calves were collared for this research.

A very large wildfire is burning in Glenwood Canyon, and a massive fire is north of Grand Junction. Both will significantly impact big game hunting access this fall.

Consideration of legalizing spearfishing in CO is dropped for the time being.

Trappers advocated for required reporting of # of furbearers harvested by each individual. That reporting is now mandatory, including all species except coyotes.

 

[Zach]

I'm guessing there won't be meetings anytime soon.

 

[elkduds]

Just virtual ones, like the rulemaking Commission meeting note above in Sept. You can attend those online, details are here:

Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a citizen board, appointed by the Governor, which sets regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs.

cpw.state.co.us

The Commission will soon be discussing whether to keep or change the ratio of Res/NR big game licenses. These Commission meetings are where bigger decisions are made.

 

[elkduds]

Not much discussion of wolves for this reason: CPW and its employees are legally prohibited from discussing any ballot measure, as are all agencies of state gov't. CPW made clear its opposition to forced wolf reintro before it was petitioned onto the ballot. The Commission opposed the notion in writing on@ least 2 occasions. In fact, that opposition is why woofers went the petition route, they were not getting anywhere w CPW on their burning desire to see wolves forcibly returned to CO.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Really appreciate the recap!

Was there any discussion of tag NR v R allocation changes. I know CBA and other groups were pushing hard for that last year during the 5 year review.

 

[TOGIE]

if the anticipated amount of hunters they're talking about turns out to be reality, this could be a really bad year to be doing any OTC hunting. could it be a really bad year for the wildlife too with such an influx? does the NR/R quota discussion touch on OTC in any way?

 

[elkduds]

Really appreciate the recap!

Was there any discussion of tag NR v R allocation changes. I know CBA and other groups were pushing hard for that last year during the 5 year review.

Yes, more a mention than discussion. It is likely to be a hot topic @ this meeting. Remember that NR elk hunters pay the lion's (pun intended) share of CPW budget:
The western slope mtn lion plan will be finalized this fall, likely @ the Wildlife Commission's Sept. meeting. It happens Sept 2,3 and you can participate online via the CPW website.

if the anticipated amount of hunters they're talking about turns out to be reality, this could be a really bad year to be doing any OTC hunting. could it be a really bad year for the wildlife too with such an influx? does the NR/R quota discussion touch on OTC in any way?

CPW tracks the ratio of OTC Res/NR. But not on a unit-by-unit basis. The southern part of the state is likely to see a big increase in OTC pressure this fall, w NM basically being closed to big game hunters except through outfitters. IMO the risk of overharvest only comes into play if snow puts the herds where the hunters are during 2nd and 3rd seasons, which are the only OTC seasons. Probably going to be more dangerous to be a hunter than an ungulate during the OTC hunts this fall

 

[Glockster]

“This year there was a 40% increase in applications for big game licenses over last year. Largest increase was among 25-45 year old.“

Yep, we definitely need more hunter recruitment.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

if the anticipated amount of hunters they're talking about turns out to be reality, this could be a really bad year to be doing any OTC hunting. could it be a really bad year for the wildlife too with such an influx? does the NR/R quota discussion touch on OTC in any way?

My comment was specifically about CPW not enforcing the caps correctly on some units, eg 61, should be 80/20 split because it requires way more than 6pts but it’s been 35%.

I personally think the 65/35 and 80/20 rule should be left as is... I don’t see any issue with OTC being 50/50 in practice if they are that popular with NR hunters.

 

[chuckchili]

elkduds, you mentioned 100% online hunter’s ed... any idea when that might start? I have a couple of youngsters needing it.

 

[Mudranger1]

Thanks for the update.
I'm not sure if its actually hunter recruitment or hunters expanding their horizons

 

[Oak]

My comment was specifically about CPW not enforcing the caps correctly on some units, eg 61, should be 80/20 split because it requires way more than 6pts but it’s been 35%.
View attachment 150593
I personally think the 65/35 and 80/20 rule should be left as is... I don’t see any issue with OTC being 50/50 in practice if they are that popular with NR hunters.

The short answer is because CPW is using data from 2009-2011 to calculate the 80-20 split, which is prior to that hunt code existing. I don't have time to write about it, but this should be a huge issue for resident hunters. If you can't find time to write the commission about this, then I'm not sure what would spur you. I'm going to copy a post below from the "I Hunt Colorado" Facebook page from a gentleman named Seth Keys. He does a good job explaining the situation.

Attention Colorado Residents! Your voices need to be heard!

I’ve recently brought some questions/concerns about the current non resident big game license allocations to the attention of the CPW Commission.
The Non Resident License Allocation in the 2020 Big Game Brochure reads:

Nonresident allocations are determined by the average number of preference points a Colorado resident needed to draw a specific license during a 3-year period that ended with the 2009 drawing. (Units with low numbers of available licenses may not have any remaining for non- residents after resident licenses are drawn.)

1. For elk and deer hunt codes that required six or more points for a Colorado resident to draw, up to 20 percent may go to nonresidents. These hunts are designated in unit tables by a + under the SEX column.
2. For hunt codes that required fewer than six points for a Colorado resident to draw an elk or deer license, up to 35 percent may go to nonresidents.
3. Nonresident allocations may increase if licenses remain after all Colo- rado resident first choices have been drawn for that hunt code.
4. License allocations do not apply to private-land-only and Ranching for Wildlife licenses.
5. In a group of applications made up of both residents and nonresidents, all nonresidents in the group will count against the nonresident al- location.

As a resident of Colorado, I find this extremely crazy to think that with the amount of resources and technology the CPW has that they are still using data from over a DECADE ago to determine Non resident license allocations. So much has changed since 2009, for example the total number of Non Residents that applied in the big game draw in 2009 was 79,764. In 2020 the total number of Non Residents that applied was 108,607! That increase in NR applicants alone should be more than enough information to update to allocation. But I plan to give you plenty more reasons that an update to this allocation is long overdue.

There have been numerous new elk and deer tags that have been added to the quotas since the 2009 allocation was put into effect. Many of them being high demand quality tags taking 6 or more points from the time they became available to apply for. They all are currently stuck in the 35% non resident pool.

Examples include Hunt Codes:

E-E-061-E1-R
E-M-076-E1-R
D-M-066-O4-R
D-M-067-O4-R

Point Creep obviously has become more of an issue in Colorado in the last decade with the amount of applicants increasing. Therefore some tags that were in existence before 2009, and didn’t take 6 or more preference points to draw are now taking 6 or more points. Which is enough points to be in the 20% non resident pool. They also are currently locked in the 35% pool.

Examples Include Hunt Codes:

E-E-076-O1-A
E-M-049-O1-M
D-M-044-O3-R
D-M-010-O3-R

These are just a few of the hunt codes that are under the incorrect allocation, because of CPW using 11 years out-of-date data.

By using the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Big Game draw recaps, In just a couple hours, I have been able to locate ALL of the deer and elk hunt codes that are currently giving too many tags to non residents. The total tag numbers that are being issued incorrectly are currently 55 elk tags under 13 different hunt codes. As well as 24 deer tags under 24 different hunt codes. That is a grand total of 79 deer and elk tags under 37 different hunt codes that are not being issued where they should be!

Below I will list ALL the hunt codes that are currently locked in the wrong non resident allocation pool. (Based off of data from 2018, 2019, 2020)

D-M-002-O1-A
D-M-005-O4-R
D-M-006-O4-R
D-M-010-O2-R
D-M-010-O3-R
D-M-022-O4-R
D-M-035-O4-R
D-M-048-E1-R
D-M-044-O3-R
D-M-053-O4-R
D-M-054-O4-R
D-M-055-O4-R
D-M-063-O4-R
D-M-065-E1-R
D-M-66-03-R
D-M-066-O4-R
D-M-067-O4-R
D-M-068-O4-R
D-M-079-O4-R
D-M-201-O1-A
D-M-201-O1-M
D-M-201-O4-R
D-M-512-S1-R
D-M-551-O4-R
E-E-040-O1-A
E-E-040-O1-M
E-E-040-O2-R
E-E-040-O3-R
E-E-040-O4-R
E-E-061-E1-R
E-E-076-O1-A
E-E-851-O1-A
E-M-049-O1-M
E-M-049-O1-R
E-M-076-E1-R
E-M-076-O1-R
E-M-851-O4-R

It is very important that the commission hears from as many of us as possible right now. The more emails we can get sent out to them requesting that they update the non resident license allocation, the better chance we have at getting resident tags back in resident’s hands! Ive listed the email addresses of all the commission members below....
Thanks!

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Comments
James Williamson

 

[elkduds]

elkduds, you mentioned 100% online hunter’s ed... any idea when that might start? I have a couple of youngsters needing it.

Sorry, nothing beyond what I posted. Suggest you email or phone them via the CPW webpage.

 

[Oak]

In 2015 the subject of updating the 80/20 split units came up with the Commission. They ultimately punted on the issue then, but I want to share with you the recommendations from the Colorado Outfitters Association on the subject. Keep in mind that this was when CPW was still trying to solve their financial sustainability issue and these recommendations were couched as a way to increase revenue. Just because that issue has been solved, I wouldn't expect COA to sit this round out. Their goal is to get more limited licenses into the hands of guided non-residents. The COA proposed 3 alternatives back then:

As we see it, possible partial solutions to CPW's financial issues include:

1) Equal Opportunity. No caps on resident or non-resident hunters for deer, elk, pronghorn, or bear
licenses. Those with most preference points draw first. For many decades CDOW was a financially
successful, self-sustaining enterprise while offering equal licensing opportunity to residents and nonresidents
alike.

2) 50/50 split, with 50% of deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses going to nonresidents with nonresidents
being drawn first. Based on 2014 CPW draw data using a 50150 split tag allocation for
elk and deer licenses only, CPW potentially could have realized an additional $19,965,054 of
revenue for 2014 alone. (See STATISTICS on pages 2-5)

3) Going back to hard caps. Based on 2014 CPW draw data using a 60140 hard cap allocation for elk
and deer licenses only, CPW potentially could have realized an additional $7,428,236 in 2014.
(See STATISTICS on page 5)

I would warn you that there are some serious flaws in assumptions and math errors in their spreadsheets, so I would avoid diving into those (I'm looking at you, @wllm1313).

Here is the COA document.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Oak Going to do a deep dive into that, but my initial reaction is... after this summer are CO residents really going to encourage more out of state opportunity.

Further, CO already provides better NR elk allocation than any other comparable state (AK doesn't count... it's a handful of tags).

Colorado already provides more than 50% of all US NR elk tags... that needs to be sweetened?

 

[Oak]

after this summer are CO residents really going to encourage more out of state opportunity.

I agree with this, but CO residents don't make the decisions. The wildlife commission makes the decisions, and the history of CO resident engagement on important issues at the commission meetings is dismal.

 

[Oak]

Here are some more CPW documents from the 2015 discussion on this topic. They will give you a sense of the direction the agency was considering back then. It seemed like one of the more popular alternatives was to update the 80/20 list using a PP cutoff higher than the current 6 points.

 

[Zach]

Just gotta ask, is Dan Gates still on the Roundtable?

 

[Oak]

Current Roundtable Delegates

 

[colo_junk]

I agree with this, but CO residents don't make the decisions. The wildlife commission makes the decisions, and the history of CO resident engagement on important issues at the commission meetings is dismal.

Working full time doesn't let itself well to the way the commission seems to structure their meetings. Working from home allowed me to catch a good portion of their online commissioners meeting here in July but that was the first time I've been able to follow along. @Oak is there a specific commissioner you would suggested reaching out to with tag allocation concerns?