Resident/Non-resident license allocation

[Oak]

The CPW Commission will once again take up the license allocation issue at the August 6 meeting in Durango. You may remember that the issue was discussed last year during the 5 Year Season Structure discussion, but was ultimately tabled until this year:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=260329

You may also remember the post I made 2 weeks ago about the Colorado Outfitters Association proposals for "financial sustainability:"

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=264199

The topics sure to be discussed include:

• hard cap vs. soft cap for resident/non-resident allocations
• resident/non-resident splits for limited licenses (80/20 and 65/35), including whether to leave them at those ratios, as well as how to determine which hunt codes are 80/20
• hybrid draw - leave as is, eliminate it, increase the points required for a hunt code to have licenses available in the draw

In anticipation of this discussion, the CPW staff has prepared this document with background and statistical information on the subjects. There is a lot of good information there, and I would recommend that anyone interested in the subject read it thoroughly.

The biggest issue of contention that I expect is how to determine what hunt codes are 80/20 vs. 65/35. Options include:

• leaving them as-is, meaning that 80/20 applies to hunt codes that required 6+ preference points for residents to draw, based on a 3 year average (2007-2009)
• leaving the formula as-is, but recalculate with the most recent data (2013-2015)
• increase the resident preference point requirement for eligibility (to 7+, 8+ or 9+) and recalculate with the 2013-2015 data

I believe the Commission is leaning towards increasing the resident preference point requirement and recalculating, so that there is relatively little increase in the number of hunt codes that move from 65/35 to 80/20. This is based on comments made by the Commission at the September meeting.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have spent far too much of my time looking at the data. If you have an opinion on what he Commission should do regarding the topics above, you should email them ASAP before the meeting at [email protected]​

 

[Matt Foley]

Thanks for the info, Oak. I have just sent an email.

 

[Oak]

Thanks for the overwhelming response! The outfitters don't stand a chance.

 

[Jorgy]

Oak,

I read the report when you first posted it, and had to go back once I had some free time as there was alot of info to absorb, maybe my brain is just to small?

Anyway, could you please read what I think and let me know if my thinking is correct, or why I'm wrong before I send off a email


hard cap vs. soft cap for resident/non-resident allocations
I like the soft cap. This can give non-resident more tags if the resident hunters don't put in for them for the draw. Seems only fair to me

resident/non-resident splits for limited licenses (80/20 and 65/35), including whether to leave them at those ratios, as well as how to determine which hunt codes are 80/20
Holy buckets, this is a big one. I don't see them ever getting more resident friendly (10% or 15%), without a major resident uprising. I do think that 80/20 is on the high end of being "fair" for everyone and think that is a good split for all tags, not just high pref point tags

hybrid draw - leave as is, eliminate it, increase the points required for a hunt code to have licenses available in the draw
we are talking about a very small number of tags here. I like the idea of guys blowing their first choice on a hope and prayer, so I want to keep it, and hell, some guys win the lotto. Looking at the "hybrid draw results summary" most of the hybrid winners had a crap load of points anyway.

he biggest issue of contention that I expect is how to determine what hunt codes are 80/20 vs. 65/35.
in this case I like the increase the resident preference point requirement for eligibility (to 7+, 8+ or 9+) and recalculate with the 2013-2015 data that you believe the commision is leaning towards. Anything that gets the 65/35 draw splits to a higher pref point total is good for me as I am not a pref point chaser anymore.

 

[LopeHunter]

The more units and seasons that become part of the 80/20 rather than 65/35 will slow point creep for residents and accelerated for non-residents. There will be a secondary impact which is non-residents bailing on the higher point units and this cascading effect will flow down to where there may not be any 0 or 1 point tags left as a first choice for non-residents.

 

[Oak]

Anyway, could you please read what I think and let me know if my thinking is correct, or why I'm wrong before I send off a email

I don't want to tell you that your thinking is correct or not. You can make your own choices. I will give you my opinions on the topics, but I might not be "right."

Hard cap vs. soft cap

I would personally only support a hard cap if the non-resident allocation was reduced substantially. A hard cap would occasionally allow NR to draw with fewer points over residents with more points. I could maybe get behind the idea if we were to go to an across the board 80/20 (or less) split for NR.

80/20 vs. 65/35 (or???)

I would prefer to see us go to an across the board split vs. the differential allocation based on difficulty of drawing. The current differential system creates opportunity to revisit the allocation split too frequently. CPW does not want to adjust 80/20 and 65/35 units annually because it takes away some of the predictability from year to year for applicants. Thus, we will be stuck having to bring this issue back up every 5 years or so. An across the board 80/20 split would still be more generous than nearly any other western state, plus all NR could come and hunt elk every year with OTC licenses.

Hybrid draw

I would prefer to scrap it personally, although the only way it would benefit me is to leave it in place. I will never have enough points to compete for those premium units otherwise. The reason I don't like it is that it only negatively affects residents in the highest point pools, and it neither helps or hinders NR. Here's how: 20% of the licenses are set aside for the hybrid draw before the regular draw occurs. Because the NR preference point pool is larger at the highest point pools, the NR will always draw their full quota of 20% in the regular draw. Therefore they will not draw any licenses in the hybrid (except for pronghorn, which does not have a R/NR allocation). The 20% of licenses for the hybrid draw will be reallocated from those residents with the most points to residents with fewer points. Sounds like an Obama scheme.

Those are my thoughts. I do believe that it is high time for residents to begin asking for more. We stand silently until each time the landowners and outfitters come asking for more, and then we go on the defensive. We are forced to "compromise," which ends up being 100% loss to sportsmen and gain for the landowners. If we were to go on the offensive, at least it would be easier for the Commission to decide to stick with the status quo.

 

[Jwill]

Surprised you all haven't pushed for longer seasons for residents only. Maybe access to all the OTC seasons/units on one license or something like that?

 

[Outdooraddict]

Hey Oak, wouldn't an 80-20 split with hard caps leave even more licenses that aren't drawn (leftover)? Isn't that what the CPW don't want to have happen? Personally, I have always wanted them to have a hard cap (this is me being selfish in my area) because it would allow me to draw licenses as a second choice while keeping my points. For example: in an area where it is a 65-35 draw, only 50% of those tags are applied by residents as a fist choice. So, CPW allocated the rest of the tags to the 1st choice nonresidents who applied first choice (soft cap). Under a hard cap, it would open up the remaining 15% of the tags to 2nd choice resident applicants (right?).

I'm in complete support of residents paying more for a tag.

I support an 80/20 split of license allocations, but recommend a soft cap- this move would still allow additional licenses to be available for nonresidents when residents do not show the demand for those tags. That way they still have a more than fair chance at drawing tags. (deep down, I would prefer a hard cap)

Will you be in Durango?

 

[Oak]

I'm not sure if there would be more leftover licenses or not. I guess it depends on whether they allowed NR (or R) to obtain licenses beyond the hard cap after the 4 choices are considered. I know that CPW did an analysis of the financial implications of a hard cap at the current allocations, and I think it was about $1 million in additional revenue due to more licenses going to NR.

Your interpretation of how a hard cap would work is correct, but it would work both ways. In some units there would be NR drawing with fewer points than R. Do you have an example of a unit where NR are drawing more than 35% 1st choice?

I will be in Durango.

Hey Oak, wouldn't an 80-20 split with hard caps leave even more licenses that aren't drawn (leftover)? Isn't that what the CPW don't want to have happen? Personally, I have always wanted them to have a hard cap (this is me being selfish in my area) because it would allow me to draw licenses as a second choice while keeping my points. For example: in an area where it is a 65-35 draw, only 50% of those tags are applied by residents as a fist choice. So, CPW allocated the rest of the tags to the 1st choice nonresidents who applied first choice (soft cap). Under a hard cap, it would open up the remaining 15% of the tags to 2nd choice resident applicants (right?).

I'm in complete support of residents paying more for a tag.

I support an 80/20 split of license allocations, but recommend a soft cap- this move would still allow additional licenses to be available for nonresidents when residents do not show the demand for those tags. That way they still have a more than fair chance at drawing tags. (deep down, I would prefer a hard cap)

Will you be in Durango?

 

[LopeHunter]

I am not great at reading tables, etc, but if you look at Deer drawing recap for 2014, the second hunt listed is DE003P2R. No idea what that hunt is but if look at the tag allocation and then look at Choice 1 tags awarded, seems NR exceed 35%.http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Deer/2014DeerDrawSummary.pdf

 

[Oak]

I am not great at reading tables, etc, but if you look at Deer drawing recap for 2014, the second hunt listed is DE003P2R. No idea what that hunt is but if look at the tag allocation and then look at Choice 1 tags awarded, seems NR exceed 35%.http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Deer/2014DeerDrawSummary.pdf

You're right, I forgot about PLO licenses. That will likely be the case for a majority of antlered or either sex PLO licenses, because you have to have access to private land to hunt ($$). PLO licenses are another set-aside for the landowners in the state. Residents simply don't apply for them in great numbers. Take a look at the leftover list and note how many are PLO hunt codes.

NR may also get more than their 35% in units that are largely private, such as in the eastern half of the state. I'm not familiar with those hunt codes.

I would be surprised if there were many antlered or either sex unitwide hunt codes in the western half where non-residents are getting more than 35%

 

[Jorgy]

I am not great at reading tables, etc, but if you look at Deer drawing recap for 2014, the second hunt listed is DE003P2R. No idea what that hunt is but if look at the tag allocation and then look at Choice 1 tags awarded, seems NR exceed 35%.http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Deer/2014DeerDrawSummary.pdf

there are no caps on private land only tags

opps.............obviously typing while Oak was hitting "post"

 

[Oak]

there are no caps on private land only tags

opps.............obviously typing while Oak was hitting "post"

Actually I forgot that there are simply no caps on PLO. They are mostly off my radar. I don't hunt private land, except occasionally for pronghorn (which also has no NR cap).

 

[Mudranger1]

Surprised you all haven't pushed for longer seasons for residents only. Maybe access to all the OTC seasons/units on one license or something like that?

I brought this up at the meeting earlier this week Suggesting the idea of being able to buy an otc rifle tag if my otc archery tag was not filled. At first I got side ways looks then I was like you are trying to get more money so here is my idea. I get to hunt longer and you get needed revenue. Then I was met with the OTC units couldn't handle the added pressure...hmmmmm

 

[Outdooraddict]

Here you go bud...

 

[Outdooraddict]

Looks like every single first choice NR applicant got their tag, before 2nd choice residents drew. A hard cap would open up more tags for 2nd choice residents while retaining their preference points. Which might screw up the whole preference point system in another way... Don't know why anyone would burn 10 points here, or even 1???

 

[Jorgy]

So I don't have to scroll through 3000 pages, what hunt code is that?

 

[Outdooraddict]

Close to Rifle man! Well, kind of close...

 

[Outdooraddict]

Check your PM.

 

[Oak]

Here you go bud...

(gone hunting)
Thanks, I will take a closer look at this when I get back.