COLO pref pts latest news

[rocketman]

DOW personal(12) from across the state will
be meeting this Monday Jan 31 in Denver to
propose further changes to pref pts. Their
recomendations will be presented to the Comm
in Denver in March and finalized at May Comm
meeting in Aspen.This mainly applies to elk
because deer pts are less of a issue.Will
apply to deer as well.With the ever escalating
points for elk something must be done or some
units will take 40 points in 20-25 years.The
pref pts were started 20 years ago.Some draw
units are going up 1 pt per year and if you are
a few points behind the curve you may never
draw. No positive change is going to be without
sacrifice.My suggestion is if you hunt a bull
you DO NOT acquire a pref pt.OUCH! Yes it hurts
but that WILL reduce the escalating pref pts
situation. What are your ideas? Roy in Montrose

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-05 AT 06:56PM (MST)[p]I think they could have special drawing rules for any "premium unit". What is the defination for such a unit you ask? I would say define it as any unit that takes for than 5 years to draw on standard preference point draws.

For these premium units, allocate the top 50% of the tags for the top preference point applicants (just like the present drawing system), and the rest in weighted lottery. In this drawing, eveyone would have at least one chance to get drawn. However, each year you get another bean in the pot. First timers would get one chance. 4th time applicants would have 4 beans in the pot, 10th time applicants would have 10 beans in the pot.......etc.

50% is purely arbitrary. You could do 75% to preference point holders, and 25% to weighted lottery as another example.

I don't see any reason to change the standard preference point drawing for tags that can be drawn with only a few years of waiting. Makes planning a hunt easier.

Some have suggested just doing away with the preference point only choice in the draw, but I don't see how that helps. If they take away the preferece point option, people would simply apply for a drawing that they know they won't get picked in to obtain a preference point. That is what was done before they had this option.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[ElmerFudd]

Preference point only in the draw is the same as picking one of the tougher units to draw. Can not see what that would fix. No points if you hunt bulls would hurt residents more than nonresidents, the nonresidents could just as easily hunt another state. I guess some sort of tag split from the top pool would be the best comprimise.

 

[WARBIRDUM]

What do you think of the top point holders getting 50% of the available tags for each given unit. So if the total tags say for elk is 60 permits 30 of those tags would be for the highest point holders that put in for that hunt. After that it will give a chance for everyone to draw the remaining 30 tags. The more points you have will increase your odds each year. This way you will not have to wait 40 years to draw a tag.If you draw a tag you would have to wait 7 years before you could put in again. This would help the odds of drawing at least once in a lifetime. Some might not like this but it would increase odds.If you have not drawn a tag in 10 years you should be awarded an extra point. This would also help the guys and gals that have been putting in the longest that deserve a tag.
Lets hear the goods and bads about this idea.

 

[rocketman]

None of these above proposals address the issue
of ever increasing numbers of people in the draw.
I beleive we must address that issue most of all.
Roy in Montrose

 

[jims]

If you look at Utah's bonus pt system they split the number of limited draw tags. About 1/2 go in the pool w/most bonus pts and the other in with everyone. Unfortunately for nonres there are a lot of units that only hand out 1 tag and this is in the pool w/everyone rather than the pool for guys w/ the highest bonus points. It kind of bugs me w/Utahs system that guys that haven't applied for years are more times than not the ones that draw tags. On the other-hand guys in the regular pool with more bonus pts have their names put in the hat more times than guys with few bonus pts (similar to Colo's current sheep and mtn goat system once you have 3 pref pts).

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages and the way the system is now in CO seems to work for all but the high demand hunts. Some of these units go up by 1 pref pt a year so young hunters or guys just starting out may never draw one of these tags.

I really think the system as it stands works fine for all but high demand draws. It is really nice to be able to plan which year you'll likely draw and the guys that wait the longest are the guys that draw tags. In units with high demand (3+ pref pts or more) it may be worth doing something similar to what Colo is doing with sheep and mtn goats so everyone that has waited a few years to draw has a chance..and they guys that haven't waited still have to wait a couple years before they have a chance.

 

[COHunter]

We could make Bull Tags limited Statewide and designate more quality area's which would help spread the points around different area's. Sorta like we did with our Deer

But that would interfere with Money making, so that'll never happen.

That or we could do away with the Pref.Point hunt code and make people buy a tag. Didn't draw the area you wanted, here's your OTC Bull Tag. Make it nonrefundable like Wyoming.

 

[WARBIRDUM]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-05 AT 05:05PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-05 AT 05:04?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-05 AT 05:03?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-05 AT 04:42?PM (MST)

I have 7 points for elk 2005. I needed 7 points to draw archery elk 2004 but only had 6. This year I will need 8 points to draw.
How many people have the same trouble and just cant seem to catch up so you can draw. I would hate to wait 40 years before I draw archery elk just think what it takes to draw rifle elk on premium units. Changes will have to be made or the division will start losing money on people even trying to draw tags knowing they would not be able to draw in a lifetime. The points just keep going up year after year but the odds dont improve much.Something needs to be changed or it will be a lost cause to even put in for the better units. Colorado is a great place to hunt. But get in line if you want anything that you would consider qaulity hunting.It will take a lifetime to draw a permit waiting to build points. YEAR ATFER YEAR THE POINTS IT TAKES TO DRAW KEEP GOING UP BUT THE ODDS DONT SEEM TO GET ANY BETTER. And the unit I put in for is not that great for trophy bulls. I would hate to need 15 points or more for archery like some of the better units. Maybe they need to change the age you can start applying at 2 years old and in diapers because you will be in diapers again at 90 years old before you can draw the tag that is if you live that long.

 

[txhunter58]

I don't ever plan on getting enough points on elk to go on a true premium unit. I do however love to go on a statewide muzzy hunt every chance I get. And it looks like I am going to be taking up bowhunting to fill in the in between years. Your original proposal (rocketman) would certainly not be my first choice. I have never accumulated over 1 elk points, so I don't think I am not the problem you are talking about. Maybe your suggestion could apply to anyone with more than 3 points? For non premium units, I think the present system works fine. I understand what you are talking about though. Or how about an escalating fee to buy a bonus point if you still hunt a bull in that year starting in year 3 starting with $25 and increasing $25 each year. If you don't hunt a bull that year, the bonus point just cost the normal $3.

There are certainly other ways to do this, but I can't think of any that are very palatable.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Anaconda]

Some people won't like this, but I think they should charge $50 for a point. It would really thin out the people who arn't seirous. Right now everybody puts in for a point because they get most of their money back, or a second choice tag. People (lots of them) who don't know the difference between a 280" bull and a 380" bull put in for points just because they want to draw an "easy" hunt someday, or because somebody told them too. People put in for points for their wife, cousin, friend ect ect... because it's cheap and easy.
The points are worth $50 each to me if I have a chance of hunting a trophy unit some day, right now I have 6, but, as mentioned above, I need 8 or 10, and it goes up a point each year - I may never draw that great unit.

 

[WARBIRDUM]

ANACONDA, I would also pay 50.00 for a point if it would increase my odds on drawing. Arizona and Nevada both charge non-residents over 100.00 each year to get in the point game. I have close to 1000.00 in each state just in points and still have not drawn a tag.I guess it would help a small amount in Colorado but I still think alot of people would still put in.If they raised it to 150.00 for non-residents for a point that would eliminate some people putting in and it would also make the Colorado division of wildlife some extra cash for habitat projects where needed. I am not rich by any means but this is maybe what it is going to take to increase odds of ever drawing a decent tag.Plus benefit the wildlife with the extra money the division could make. What else could improve odds of drawing lets hear some suggestions or ideas.

 

[rocketman]

I would support a extra fee when getting a pref
point for res and non res alike.This has been
talked about but some resistance mostly
from res hunters.There is a strong feeling
that any extra fee is a tax.Colo population is
going to grow by 2.5 million people over the
next 28 years(todays Den Post).Something must
be done NOW or if we wait thousands more will
be sitting on 8,10,12 points and DOW will have
to deal with it then. You can bet there will
be many unhappy pt holders left with ?????
Every time a hunter applies for a point and
not a license the DOW loses about $14. It
costs DOW $17 to process and refund the money.
Beleive me this figure is accurate.
Roy in Montrose

 

[txhunter58]

I have always thought that the application process was too cheap. I think most people would support a reasonable app fee such as $20. Maybe keep fees down in other places.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[ElmerFudd]

The problem with charging a lot for points is that sooner or later the system will change. You could have thousands of dollars invested, then the system could change and make all that money for not. I really feel that a true preference system is doomed to be changed for all tough draws, because it is not fair to newcomers. Really, just changing it to bonus points or a deal like the CO sheep draw would be fairest, but those near the top pool will squak. Oh well, at $3 a year, nobody has $50 into it yet.

 

[Wes]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-05 AT 09:44AM (MST)[p]Its simple. Do away with the preference point system altogether! The point system is nothing more then a feel good program for hunters who think it helps their odds and a revenue system for some states. It still doesn't work. I have guys comming up to me at shows all the time bragging about having 10 or 15 points for elk, I point out to them that they've spent $1000 to $1500 or more and still haven't hunted elk yet while others have drawn with no points. Some of you say charge a fee for points so it will lower the number of applicants thus improving your odds. What about the hunter that can't afford the extra fee? I believe everyone, rich or poor and everyone in between, should go into the same pool with the same chance as it used to be. Then it's just luck of the draw, because that's the way it is even with all the bonus points systems. In Nevada I drew 7 out of 8 years before there was a point system, since then I'm 9 out of 18. The last two hunts cost me about about $500 more per hunt then the first seven and I get to hunt less. For those that say we should charge higher fees to improve their odds sooner or later the fees will be higher then you can afford then you'll be squeezed out to improve someone eles's odds, but that shouldn't bother you because it's all about improving the odds. Right? My feeiling is any tag is a good tag.
Good luck in the draws
Wes

 

[rocketman]

In Colo you only lose $3 if you do not draw
and nothing if you ask for an OTC tag.In my
opinion the number of applicants would increase
if no pre pt system because many people would
apply who normally wouldnt because it often
takes many years to draw a prem tag,
Roy in Montrose

 

[Cowkiller]

There is nothing wrong with the Colorado Preference Point System.
If you take some of the tags out of the preference point draw and put them in a random draw you will have made it take even more years to draw a tag. Unless you happen to be very, very lucky. If it takes 20 years to draw now. After hybridizing the system it may take 40 years to draw for one person while another may draw on the first try. That's not fair.

Charging a big fee just for applying is also wrong. It may reduce the applicant numbers but the majority that apply will never get any benefit out of the costly application fees. It is wrong to charge people for nothing in return.

In Colorado you can wait forever to draw an elk tag. You can also wait just a year or two for a pretty good elk tag. You can just buy a tag over the counter and also have a pretty good elk hunt. It's your choice and that's how it should remain. Any changes that might benefit one person will injure another. The one thing that would help and be fair is to manage all of Colorado for quality elk.

 

[30inchbucks]

I think the bonus or preference point system definately needs some tweaking or elimination all together. For one, there is just not enough premium tags and it takes too many years or a lifetime to draw. The only way to tweak in my opinion is to create more limited entry units to meet demand. The way it is now in my opinion discourages alot of hunters from even putting in and this equals lost revenue for the state. I think about the only solution is to eliminate it and put everyone back on a level playing field. Maybe do it slowly by giving everyone with more than 5 points a chance at more tags for a few years but then totally doing away with it. I feel the waiting period thing is ok but 5 years is a little extreme maybe 2 years should be more like it. What about the poor sucker that is 70 years old and draws a limited entry archery tag after several years of putting in and then doesn't take an animal. Should he have to wait 5 years to put back in? He'll probably never draw again in his lifetime. The bonus point systems really suck and they need to just do away with it all together. This putting in for one species thing here in Utah sure hasn't helped at all. Elk is still turning into a once in a lifetime hunt. I waited 18 years to draw a deer tag and now I'm currently in a waiting game for elk. By the time I finally drew the deer tag the units were in poor shape and now it looks like with all the changes the same thing is going to happen to me on elk! It seems to me that there are only 2 solutions. Eliminate the point system all together or create enough limited entry units and tags to meet the demand. Of course presently if you have enough money you can by pass the whole system and just get a tag every year. The poor suckers will never get any justice. Everyone and I repeat everyone should have an equal chance at these tags. There shouldn't be special treatment for anyone. Isn't that discrimination? Just some thoughts. Enough said.

 

[rocketman]

The most effective solution is of course to create
more draw units to lower or stablize the pref pt
system. We tried that last year and were shot down
in every proposed unit ex Units 54 55 551 80 81
75 77 771 78 by business interests (money) and
currently all is on hold. Money won and many sportsmen
lost. Roy in Montrose

 

[Buckslayer1]

I have 11pp for elk and 10 for mulies I'am trying to get picked for limited unit for the MZ.season. The unit I want seems I'am 1pp behind every year for elk. My 2 buddies went into the unit I want last fall for they got picked with archery. They seen over 50 bulls and both bagged nice ones.Hopefully 06 will be my year if they don't do away with pp. PS> This is my first post to MonsterMulies.

 

[jims]

I think it is a horrible idea to do away with pref pts. The system as it is works very well other than the few units like 2, 10, and 201 elk or 10, 21 deer, etc that have horrible odds and may take a lifetime to draw.

It only takes 1 to 3 pref pts to draw most limited elk or deer units in Colorado outside the few tough draw units. I think it is great that guys that continue to apply 1 to 3 years are guaranteed these tags. With no pref pt system some guys would still be able to draw the year after they already hunt rather than having to start over. Without pref pts it is hard to say when a guy will draw tags and my preference is to look at the draw odds and be able to plan a particular year I will draw these tags.

As the pref pt system currently stands pref pts are only used on your first choice unit. If pts were used on 2nd or 3rd choice units a lot of guys would likely use their pref pts more often.

I also think there ought to be more limited elk units to disperse applicants and allow higher hunt quality.

 

[rocketman]

None of the proposals are going to end the
pref pt system. I talked to DOW today and they
had a meeting last week and decided to
form a committee of sportsmen,land owners
outfitters etc and take what DOW decided
last week and try to from some recommendations.
This WILL be taken to various towns for the
public to offer their imput. So please attend
and particapate.Roy in Montrose

 

[walltenthunter]

I, Kent Ingram, am one of the hunters serving on the Colorado License Allocation Committee (representing Sportsmen). We have met about 3 times now since April 05. Preference pts are one of issues we are looking at.
(1) The system does work, and has worked for 25 years or so.
(2) High demand units have different issues than most of the
state where many can draw on 0-1 pts.
My elk unit I can draw elk only 1st season with 0 pts. basically every year if I choose. This unit has for me produced a number of bulls, and untold bucks over 4 decades.

One suggestion has surfaced that Colorado set a cap of 10 pts. for all units that would reach that level of required pts., then go to a weighting system beyond (like is already the case for sheep, goats, and moose that has a cap of 3 pts. and a weight factor beyond per year not drawn). This could end some hunters being discouraged by a trend of more pts. required each year. This would though present an element of uncertainty, yet that is what a draw is all about in most cases anyway.

Another option is eliminating easy returns of licenses. Colorado to a fault is cooperative with hunters yet many hunters draw tags then frivolously return them for a restoration of pref. pts.

Another option been talked about in our LAG is if you buy a voucher you lose your pts. Essentially one might not able to play both games.

Another issues is about 45,000 hunters each year in Colorado (roughly 40,000 non residents and 5,000 residents) getting a preference pt and never buying a hunting license that year. The theory is a preference pt. has value, and if one does not fund wildlife management by buying a license of some sort (the $3.00 or so for search and rescue does not count), then there ought be some form of charge to the hunter awarded the pt. that doesn't hunt that year in CO. The fee could be as high as $40 or less. It is simply an idea, yet those of us 366,000 hunters in Colorado that do buy a deer or elk license would see little injustice to imputing a reasonable fee for a pref. pt. awarded. IN between the years you choose not to hunt Colorado we still have to properly managage our wildlife resources, so the fee to me is 100% justified. Given that I think the fee should be reasonably low. What that is is another matter.

Ironically non-residents across the board have more pts. than residents, yet the imbalance does not as the number play out hurt residents that much as the system is today. Residents in 04 outdrew non residents 66% to 34% on limited deer and elk licenses. That might be a minor shock to residents whom believe non residents are outcompeting residents. It also points out that a perfect 60/40 may not ever happen, yet so goes certainty in a draw process. Also, the maximum non residents are allowed in the first draw is 40%. I have had my elk unit 1st season end up 51% res and 49% non resident, so non residents do at times do very well. The factor there was a resident draw undersubscribed with 2nd choice non resident hunters having more pts. (remember I'm the guy who normally has 0 pts.). That year I hunted the 1st combined season and even then took a 3.5 yr. old emerging 6 pt. bull.

Factors which can tilt the balance of whom draws are largely in the # of preference pts. one has after the 1st draw. If you're confused that simply means your learning.


Preference pts. in Colorado are a success story, yet some tweaking might make sense. Hunters though need stability in a preference pt. system and no one is advocating over hauling the system. As for me, I can and have hunted every year over 4 decades, so pt requirements have not massively hurt me. I just wish I could draw my ol deer unit every year (horns a plenty).

Stay tuned, and I will post updates. I don't have my info with me tonight. We meet again in Leadville this time on June 17 and 18. All the LAG) is is a public forum for discussion on license allocation. I think you all would be very proud of what we have stood for, and how we support all hunters (res and non res) having maximum hunting opportunity for tags, plus a fairness throughout. We need your opinions hunters. Let Colorado DOW and the Wildlife Commission know how you feel.

 

[DonV]

thanks for the info, I like the system, I have applied for dozens of tags in many states for 6 years now, have not drawn any tags anywhere yet, not even easy NM bow tag for elk.

However, i am sure to hunt my unit of choice in CO next year or maybe the year after, at least I know I am FINALLY draing a tag!

I do like the cap out at 10, I also like WY sheep where 25% of the tags go to everyone, so even the new guy has a shot.

my 2 cents

 

[pinenut]

Don't mess with the most predictable and fair draw system in the West! Put in for a different unit if you dont think you will ever draw those hunts, the guys that do draw have been putting in for more years than you. I am not worried about anything major changing out COLO's way, that would be a shame and i dont think the people running the show are that irresponsible.

 

[chambero]

I think it gets too complicated if you have a different system for "premium" units. I think something similar to the Colorado's sheep system might work for elk and deer, but with a higher max point cap. Such a system wouldn't interfere with most rifle hunts, the statewide muzzleloader hunts, etc. However, it would give more people a chance at the few really premium hunts and maybe prevent some of the ridiculous stockpiling going on.

 

[txhunter58]

Thanks for the update. Very informative. I would not have a problem with any of the suggestions including paying for a point if you don't hunt. But then I hunt every year too!

However, you made this statement:

"The factor there was a resident draw undersubscribed with 2nd choice non resident hunters having more pts"

I did not think that preference points had anything to do with 2nd choice tags. I thought all people were on equal footing at that point???

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[sjhgraysage]

I have thought for some time that the $3.00 application fee was pretty low so an increase there would seem justified. However I have always considered hunting a family recreation, like going with dad or your brothers, cousins, whole family, etc. So I think that keeping it "family affordable" should be considered. Also nobody has ever stated in writing before I read this, how much it costs the state to do the drawing and keep track of the points, and everything else associated with these annual drawings. I can now understand that it should at least break even.
I would like to see the point system stay fairly close to what it is today, even though I realize that my sons likely will never be able to draw a tag to hunt bull elk in #201 for instance. I was hopeful that the state would adopt more areas for quality bull limited entry hunting, but that looks like it won't happen anytime soon now. More quality units would certainly help spread the applicants with lots of points around more IMO.
I love this site just for what I'm able to learn from things like this. Thanks.
Scott

 

[Buckslayer1]

Our group has 12 elk pp. and 11 deer pp. each for Colorado. hopefully will be hunting in 06 if we think we have enough points to get drawn for the mz. for the unit we want. Thats if they don't mess with the pp.

 

[walltenthunter]

Based on what came out of the last LAG meeting for Colorado, and what our Colorado Wildlife Federation is recommending too, I do not think Colorado will be drastically altering the Preference Point system. This is just my conjecture, yet no one I talk to, or the various stakeholder interests involved in the LAG Committee, have advocated for major changes. The changes are more about a better fairness, and not discouraging hunters with a pref. pt. creep. The changes are in the mold of being small corrections of course. Changes could include:

(1) Not awarding pts. for errors in applications (consistent with license tag policy)

(2) Some merit for capping pts. at 10 for any hunt code which required pts. hit 10, then with a 'weighting' beyond. This restores some chance back into high demand units.

(3) Either not allowing any 'banking' or if deemed absolutely essential to help address pt. creep then only once, then not back to back years. Personally I do not support banking pts. where one could use but a portion of pts. as needed for a given hunt code, then retaining the rest. The system did not ever contemplate that. I though could live with the one time bank (Ouch!) if I had to.

(4) Tightening up returns on licenses to get pts. back, to only consider such in the event of serious health issues.

(5) Buy a voucher, lose your pts., requiring folks play only one game. If you see privatization in vouchers, which I do, then this is a good change.

(6) Some form of charge for a preference pt, charged ONLY if the hunter were not to have purchased some form of hunting license the previous year in Colorado. The 'Pay to Play' concept. Also conveys the message to help Colorado fund wildlife management every year, whether you choose to hunt the state or not. Hunting used to be hunting every year. Somewhere along the way it changed. We do, however, advocate the fee be affordable, and the high water mark will likely be $40 for the pt. without any license. One gas tank for most 4x4s.

I thing and hope you all could live with these changes. I and my hunting buddies can. Regardless, none of these ideas are anywhere close to being implemented yet because the public input period is just now beginning, and will continue through August. If you have an opinion, write the Wildlife Commission. My parting thoughts: If you are stockpiling pts. or not, hunt each year if you can. That way you will learn about Colorado's big game hunting, and in the meanwhile help fund wildlife management. Just so you know, hunters and other conservationists this past legislative session bit the bullet to raise Colorado resident hunting licenses costs because we saw the wisdom in funding wildlife management adequately. As George Strait said, there is a difference between living and living good, and you could say the same for wildlife management. To some degree you get what you pay (or reinvest back in) for. I see Colorado continuing to manage for maximizing hunter opportunity and quality. Even if you get skunked, and I do too, the hurt is alot less than paying your income taxes.

Kent Ingram

 

[NoBark]

If you took some of the really high demand units like 10 and
201 and split the unit in half and put half again as many hunters in the two units (vs the one) that would increase the number of high pt holders you go through each year.

However that doesn't address the number of apps.

One other possibility would be to lose points if ANY of your
unit choices are drawn. Do away with the getting a point and pulling a bull tag.


Hopefully lots of sportsman will give their imput before any decision comes down.

 

[gl7mm]

As a non-resident hunter I want to express my gratitude to kent and the others that are involved in these processes that benefit all hunters. It is very apparant that most if not all of those volunteers put the best interests of our sport ahead of their own personal interests. Colorado has some wonderful hunting opportunities and it is due to thoughtful volunteers such as these. Again thank you from Minnesota. GL7MM

 

[Triple_BB]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-02-05 AT 02:02PM (MST)[p]I think capping the area's at 8 or 10 pts and using weighted bonus points is a good idea. I'd also implement some New Mexico thinking which they really need to do here in Wyoming. That is to make some of these trophy area's once in a life time permits. Everyone should have a chance to draw a tag and if you start eliminating guys who've drawn, the odds will increase over time. Lastly, Colorado could take a page out of Wyoming's book and allow some small percentage of the total quota to be randomly drawn. That way everyone still has some remote chance of pulling a tag.

 

[walltenthunter]

Regardless how you feel about the Colorado Preference Pt. system, please let the Colorado Wildlife Commission know your perspectives. Right now there is more support behind 'banking' pts. for use tiwce rather than a cap at say 10 pts then weighting. Personally I think caps and weighting make sense, and banking does not. Either way, make your perspectives known. You might also look at the posts under Hunting (vs. deer and elk) in this forum for the latest on the Colorado Public Hearings on Big Game License Allocation. Alot is at stake, and I have been advocating all hunters (residents and non-residents) consider their interests the same. Some decrease of NR hunting opportunity may happen, and it should be very moderate. More important is whether landowner preference be allowed to increase, since every tag to Landowners is a tag never available to any other hunters be they residents or non-residents, lest it come via paying hefty sums of money to do so. PRIVATIZATION. You already likely know my and my organization's take, that being Landowner Preference remain at 15% lest landowners agree to make wholesale changes to the program to limit their tags to private lands, open up access, etc.

 

[madmike]

One question I have about this situation is if the number of hunters in this country is going down every year, where are all these people appling coming from? This year I am 0-8 in draws and for that matter haven't drawn a tag in 5 years, 2001 I purchased an outfitter sponsored tag in Montana. But nearly every state out west the demand is higher than supply.