License Distribution/Preference Points Focus Group For Future Seasons

I'm a NR and I can't believe how you residents think you have so much more right to hunt than NRs. Here in NW Pennsylvania, we have tons of Ohio hunters and no one argues they shouldn't be here. My sons and I look forward to our Colorado hunts every other year. If they cut the NR % of tags, that will put an end to our hunts. We are barely drawing now. Also, while I know many of you guys are dyed-in-the-wool trophy hunters, I think the tag numbers are ridiculously low in the trophy units. To me, they are wasting the resource and severely limiting opportunity. 20+ PPs to draw is horrible. They could greatly increase tag numbers and still have high quality bucks.
Some ignorance right there... I most definitely should have more right to hunt my own state than you PA boys. Just as you should have more right to hunt your state when the resource becomes stretched thin and something has to give. Difference being you don't have hardly any resource that I or anyone else from the west that's even close to being worth the drive. I think even Jake and tx will admit that something needs to change. Not necessarily this year, but if the trends continue on nonresident hunters increasing, most definitely it's an underpriced resource. Add in the wolf issue and we are most definitely needing to be talking about a solution. I understand trying to protect your interests but there are a lot more people in this world than just you. Jakeh, I've listened to the bs on Facebook groups also. 250 posts from 50 people don't come close to representing any of my circle of friends.
 
Ok - Received some feedback from CPW. I had inquired about resident/non-resident ratios and license fees/preference point fees. In a nut shell I was told separate focus groups have already discussed some of this or will be discussing these and other issues. I was concerned about any change that is proposed as it will most certainly have revenue impacts. Additionally I was told I was welcome to propose anything and talk about any issue I deem pertinent, but I am advised to demonstrate how it could applied and or justified.

Based on this direction, I am certainly going to mention or propose some of my thoughts.

I want to thank everyone for your ideas, whether I agree with them or not or propose them - they were some great discussions on the topic!

I'm still formulating and working on clarifying my proposals, but I will talking about the following depending on how much time each of us are given.

- Not suppose part of this focus group, but I want to see resident/non-resident ratios in line with other states - 80/20 -

- Remove OTC tags. All buck/bull tags will require points regardless of how acquired. Leftover/Land Owner/Restricted/etc

- Break down some of the licenses that good for several units into smaller units.

- Point Banking - It appears this one of the main topics for the focus group.

- Upfront application fees paid in full. It is my understanding that this discontinued to save CPW money. I don't see why the application fee can't be adjusted to compensate for this.

-Reissued tags to be reissued to back to the group it came from resident turns in the tag it goes back to resident, nonresident goes back to a nonresident.

Since point banking appears to be a main topic of the focus group, it would certainly start consuming preference points for most of the above concepts.

Remember this is a focus group, and they might not like any of our ideas. I am not a politician and stand by my comments earlier - any change made will result in winners and losers.

I will touch base next week after I have digested the meeting.


Respectfully,
Tim Hill
 
Ok - Received some feedback from CPW. I had inquired about resident/non-resident ratios and license fees/preference point fees. In a nut shell I was told separate focus groups have already discussed some of this or will be discussing these and other issues. I was concerned about any change that is proposed as it will most certainly have revenue impacts. Additionally I was told I was welcome to propose anything and talk about any issue I deem pertinent, but I am advised to demonstrate how it could applied and or justified.

Based on this direction, I am certainly going to mention or propose some of my thoughts.

I want to thank everyone for your ideas, whether I agree with them or not or propose them - they were some great discussions on the topic!

I'm still formulating and working on clarifying my proposals, but I will talking about the following depending on how much time each of us are given.

- Not suppose part of this focus group, but I want to see resident/non-resident ratios in line with other states - 80/20 -

- Remove OTC tags. All buck/bull tags will require points regardless of how acquired. Leftover/Land Owner/Restricted/etc

- Break down some of the licenses that good for several units into smaller units.

- Point Banking - It appears this one of the main topics for the focus group.

- Upfront application fees paid in full. It is my understanding that this discontinued to save CPW money. I don't see why the application fee can't be adjusted to compensate for this.

-Reissued tags to be reissued to back to the group it came from resident turns in the tag it goes back to resident, nonresident goes back to a nonresident.

Since point banking appears to be a main topic of the focus group, it would certainly start consuming preference points for most of the above concepts.

Remember this is a focus group, and they might not like any of our ideas. I am not a politician and stand by my comments earlier - any change made will result in winners and losers.

I will touch base next week after I have digested the meeting.


Respectfully,
Tim Hill
Tim,

Let me start off saying thanks for the post and taking the time to keep us informed. I do have some comments/questions on some of the topics you need to clarify proposals on.

Point Banking - It might help make the premium units easier to draw but it will create point creep in the easier to draw units. Going this route is going to really hurt the people that currently hunt a unit every 1-3 years.

Upfront application fees paid upfront - Would that be in addition to the requirement of buying a "qualifying license"?

Re-issued tags - Call me selfish but residents ought to get priority at these no matter who turned them in.

Thanks for listening and good luck at the meeting(s).
 
Tim - thanks again for sharing. I wasn't selected, so appreciate you and others keeping us posted.

Sounds like point banking is a topic for your event. While I don't live the ideA of point banking, I do think there should some consideration to point sharing. Let higher point holders share points with family/friends, but unlike point banking, then the points would be removed from the pools.

Thanks
 
Good luck, they had these years ago, called them something different, maybe “round tables” be forewarned, they have their minds and agendas already made up. These focus groups are nothing more than “we went to the public prior to implementation” BS.

I don’t want to be a Debbie downer as Colorado has been very friendly, but to think public input is really consumed, and implemented is a far fetch. I hope I’m wrong.
 
Ok - Received some feedback from CPW. I had inquired about resident/non-resident ratios and license fees/preference point fees. In a nut shell I was told separate focus groups have already discussed some of this or will be discussing these and other issues. I was concerned about any change that is proposed as it will most certainly have revenue impacts. Additionally I was told I was welcome to propose anything and talk about any issue I deem pertinent, but I am advised to demonstrate how it could applied and or justified.

Based on this direction, I am certainly going to mention or propose some of my thoughts.

I want to thank everyone for your ideas, whether I agree with them or not or propose them - they were some great discussions on the topic!

I'm still formulating and working on clarifying my proposals, but I will talking about the following depending on how much time each of us are given.

- Not suppose part of this focus group, but I want to see resident/non-resident ratios in line with other states - 80/20 -

- Remove OTC tags. All buck/bull tags will require points regardless of how acquired. Leftover/Land Owner/Restricted/etc

- Break down some of the licenses that good for several units into smaller units.

- Point Banking - It appears this one of the main topics for the focus group.

- Upfront application fees paid in full. It is my understanding that this discontinued to save CPW money. I don't see why the application fee can't be adjusted to compensate for this.

-Reissued tags to be reissued to back to the group it came from resident turns in the tag it goes back to resident, nonresident goes back to a nonresident.

Since point banking appears to be a main topic of the focus group, it would certainly start consuming preference points for most of the above concepts.

Remember this is a focus group, and they might not like any of our ideas. I am not a politician and stand by my comments earlier - any change made will result in winners and losers.

I will touch base next week after I have digested the meeting.


Respectfully,
Tim Hill


Thank you! If they did everything in your list, think alot of people would be happy.
 
I think 80/20 is a step in the right direction but to state that this is in line with other western states is inaccurate.

The unguided NR elk allocations are as follows.

Arizona - up to 10%
Idaho - up to 10%
New Mexico - 6%
Oregon - 5%
Montana - up to 10%
Nevada - up to 10%
Utah - 10%
Wyoming - 16%

This brings the average for the west in at close to 9% if you don't include Colorado. Account for the states that are "up to 10%", WY likely going to 5-10% soon and the average goes down to about 8%.

With all of the resident tags that don't get drawn first choice being available to NR, CO is likely over 40%.
 
Last edited:
A problem I see with "use your points" if you obtain any bull/buck tag is residents that want to hunt every year will be restricted to 0-1 point area's while nonresidents still get to hunt their home states every year and cherry pick the premium tags here.

Colorado already issues more NR elk tags that all the other states combined, yet we don't have more elk than all the other states combined. The time has come to end that generosity and fall in line with the norms of other states. I'm limited to a quota in Kansas for deer tags, while Kansan residents but tags OTC. Same with WY, MT, etc...
 
I’ll say it again I think the reissue process is perfect as is and should be left alone. I don’t think you should bring it up as a topic unless you are trying to promote for the state as good idea that they have done well with in this modern era
 
I’ll say it again I think the reissue process is perfect as is and should be left alone. I don’t think you should bring it up as a topic unless you are trying to promote for the state as good idea that they have done well with in this modern era
Already paid a programmer for a script to give you the upper hand?
Theres bigger issues at hand but the reissue needs to be fixed after the cpw opened up unfair advantages last year.
 
Already paid a programmer for a script to give you the upper hand?
Theres bigger issues at hand but the reissue needs to be fixed after the cpw opened up unfair advantages last year.
What unfair advantages???

I'm not a fan of how they did it last year, I much preferred the old way.
 
Hey everyone my wife has a ton of points for elk.

What do you want to pay to use them? We will be accepting bids on what they are worth to you and your group.

In the mean time I am currently building points for myself, my son, my daughter, my mother, my cousin and my neighbor. Between all of those we will be a carrying pile of points we can share… How much are you willing to pay for those points?

Seriously, allowing point sharing creates this issue. It happens in WY and it will happen in Colorado.

The end result is more points after the same number of tags. Since I have the ability to afford points for several others, why not capitalize on the banking?

Hit me up now and we can talk elk points. We can talk my daughters deer points in 2 years she can split with a person with 0 and get a decent hunt.


Or hey outfitters, maybe you have a client really wanting to hunt and you don’t have a tag gauranteed. We could share our points get your high paying client on the hunt in exchange for access?


Yeah point sharing is freaking awesome. Can’t wait to see how it helps!!!

When it passes look me up we can work a deal!
 
Sure, some folks will take advantage of point sharing, just like some folks get reissue tags every year.

But for 99% of the hunters, some people just want to hunt with their grandchildren or friends.

I shared points with a good buddy in WY last year and he killed his biggest buck ever. I never pulled the trigger and we were both thrilled with the outcome.
 
Sure, some folks will take advantage of point sharing, just like some folks get reissue tags every year.

But for 99% of the hunters, some people just want to hunt with their grandchildren or friends.

I shared points with a good buddy in WY last year and he killed his biggest buck ever. I never pulled the trigger and we were both thrilled with the outcome.
But how does point sharing help point creep? I gave a perfect example on how it accelerates the creep.

Also if you think that is is 1% that does this you are pretty naive. There are entire groups doing this. Everyone I know who hunts WY buys points for 2 or 3 people and are rotating those points. Hell as a NR we started building points 5 years out just so we had the points to rotate and split. The end result is more points being bought for virtually the same number of tags.
 
As mentioned in posts above pt sharing is great for family and friends that desire to hunt together. It obviously helps those with lower pts draw units that require more pts than they may have while those with higher pts loose full value of their pts….the pts obviously average themselves out.

Pt averaging or sharing is a much, much improvement over the pt banking system Colo tried out a few years ago. With pt banking hunters only used the required number of pts required to draw a unit.. Hunters could actually use the remaining pts in additional draws. Pt banking is an extremely poor choice....and is horrible for pt creep!

Unfortunately with pt sharing, units that require low to medium range pref pts have potential for pts to leap with pt sharing and there actually is almost no benefit for pt creeping for units that require close to max pts to draw. As examples, there are so few tags issued in units like 2,10, and 201 elk that it still requires max pts to draw even with years of pt sharing.

The way I look at it, pt sharing negatively affects a lot more hunters than no pt averaging since there are so many more hunters that have low to medium pts. The pts it takes to draw those low to medium units likely increases with pt sharing. Over time it will likely take more pref pts to draw mid tier units.
 
As mentioned in posts above pt sharing is great for family and friends that desire to hunt together. It obviously helps those with lower pts draw units that require more pts than they may have while those with higher pts loose full value of their pts….the pts obviously average themselves out.

Pt averaging or sharing is a much, much improvement over the pt banking system Colo tried out a few years ago. With pt banking hunters only used the required number of pts required to draw a unit.. Hunters could actually use the remaining pts in additional draws. Pt banking is an extremely poor choice....and is horrible for pt creep!

Unfortunately with pt sharing, units that require low to medium range pref pts have potential for pts to leap with pt sharing and there actually is almost no benefit for pt creeping for units that require close to max pts to draw. As examples, there are so few tags issued in units like 2,10, and 201 elk that it still requires max pts to draw even with years of pt sharing.

The way I look at it, pt sharing negatively affects a lot more hunters than no pt averaging since there are so many more hunters that have low to medium pts. The pts it takes to draw those low to medium units likely increases with pt sharing. Over time it will likely take more pref pts to draw mid tier units.
Another consequence of getting more people out of the higher points pool is its going to significantly increase points needed in low points units in a few years because now you have that many more guys starting out at 0 who are gonna start putting in for low point units rather then building again.

Just another wrinkle to think about.
 
Units that require low to medium range pref pts have pts leap with pt sharing and there actually is almost no benefit with pt sharing for units that require close to max pts to draw.

There are so few tags issued in units like 2,10, and 201 elk that it still requires max pts to draw even if there are years of pt sharing.

The way I look at it, pt sharing negatively affects a lot more hunters than no pt averaging since there are so many more hunters that have low to medium pts. The pts it takes to draw those low to medium units dramatically leaps with pt sharing.

As mentioned in posts above pt sharing is great for family and friends that desire to hunt together. It obviously helps those with lower pts draw units that require more pts than they may have while those with higher pts loose full value of their pts….the pts obviously average themselves out.
 
1)90-10 split on tags
2)no nonresident cap on leftovers
3)points gone across board in 2028
4)75$ nonresident hunting license, charge whatever going rate is for tags.
Rip the band aid off approach. Points=ponzi. There is no fix as with all western states with exception of California your population and demand will out pace the resource. State owns the animals 90/10 is the standard in the west. Colorado needs to take care of residents first just like the other 49 states do. You need more hunters than you have in state so drop the cap on leftovers make residents commit in the draw. Keep the license fee lower to encourage everyone to buy license and put in for draw. I have been told license sales are contributing factor to your share of Pittman Roberts $$. It’s ok to say not everyone gets a tag every year or in every state. 15 million US hunter’s 99.9% will never be able to hunt sheep, goat,moose. People are buying these points and it creates a false sense of entitlement. I don’t think they were created with poor motives or that anyone thought we would be here now. The data is there now is the time to walk away from this model.
 
As I've stated on numerous Wyoming posts I really believe it is a shame to loose our hunting heritage across the Western US. I certainly hope 90/10 doesn't happen in Wyo for elk, deer, and antelope or Colorado in the coming years. It is really sad to see this happen and why does Colo need to follow suite? I'm a Colo res and really feel for young and new nonres hunters just starting out or that have devoted years to applying for high demand tags for species that aren't available in their own states (elk, mule deer, antelope, moose, sheep, goat). I think it's great to stand up for the dying breed of DIY/OYO nonres hunters!
 
Last edited:
I agree that 90-10 is the way it should be. That would still only be 72% of the quota after the vouchers take 20% off the top.

I’m a little anxious about our commission having any say-so in this since issue considering their backgrounds with the exception of Charles Garcia. CPW is so drunk on money that the proposals they put forward to the commission will probably have us residents losing more tags like when they gave landowners a bigger slice of the tag pie a few years ago
 
Going from otc elk to 90/10 for all limited units isn’t going to happen in Colorado. The cpw would loose to much nonres revenue. Point sharing doesn’t exist in colo….it would be new and up for debate. Some like it and others don’t.

If landowner tags are taken from residents in Colo you can be guaranteed that outfitter/landowner tags could be taken from Wyo res! Wyo res better watch their backs!
 
I keep hearing residents facing increased fees. The NR cost for CO is t even close to what people will pay. Bump it up to 1k and you’ll still sell out.

Sadly, you could bump it up to 2k and the CDOW would still want more. Government and increased taxes (in this case price increase) goes straight to Over spending and waste.


With all the woke anti hunting referendums it’s time these DOWs use some of those 10s of millions towards keeping hunters in the field. If not, why do we need them?
 
I keep hearing residents facing increased fees. The NR cost for CO is t even close to what people will pay. Bump it up to 1k and you’ll still sell out.
LMAO, typical.... yep just keep adding cost to the NR. How bout you promote a resident tag increase as well. Lets raise those resident fees up to $100 for deer and elk. If the NR are willing to pay $1000 wouldn't the residents be willing to pay $100???

Come on man don't you want to do your part??? :rolleyes:
 
LMAO, typical.... yep just keep adding cost to the NR. How bout you promote a resident tag increase as well. Lets raise those resident fees up to $100 for deer and elk. If the NR are willing to pay $1000 wouldn't the residents be willing to pay $100???

Come on man don't you want to do your part??? :rolleyes:


I guess you didn’t get my point. The DOW is like a bear coming to a bear bait barrel loaded with sugar, they are addicted to the cash. Any price hike is like these current infrastructure bills, full of waste! The CDOW annual budget is crazy, and what are we getting for a return for such deep budgets?
 
Residents at $100 and NRs at $1000 are not even in the ballpark to getting you to 90/10. Really not even close to 80/20 (which I concede would be fair)

While you are right that the CPW budget is bloated, none of you are offering ANY way to get that reduced. You are wishing on a star, and it won’t get you there. If there is someone with a plan, let’s hear it. Haven’t heard anything close yet.

IMO, the only way to get it done would be a legislative decree or a statewide referendum like the wolf lovers did.
Otherwise the current budget goes on and on.
 
Already try to make you buy local hay but a special use tax can’t be far away. Have you seen the destruction those things do to trails?

Sarcasm aside, the ONLY “fair” way to reduce demand for something is to raise the price for it (or to restrict access thru other “qualifications “). Start with points - they need to be more expensive.

I suppose you could just continue selling tags whether or not there’s something to hang em on. But the best short term hope is to keep putting the word out it’s a waste of money. ‘Course that causes point creep.

But I have other things on my mind - I’m headed up the mountain today to see what nature left me over the winter.:)
 
We need to start licensing bicycles (yes David, even your ebike?) like atv’s. Colorado would be so flush we could feed the wolves beef.

There’s one way.
I’ve heard a lot of people say Colorado should make pedal bikers buy tags like ohvs and sleds. Seems like a good idea. I ride a pedal bike and would be happy to pay for a sticker. Mostly to not hear about it anymore.

However

Can you imagine all the government employee d bags out on holidays with time and a half trying to bust people for not having stickers on their pedal bikes? Just packing trailheads and setting up stings in the woods like they do for sleds. I ain’t in to that.
 
IMO, the only way to get it done would be a legislative decree or a statewide referendum like the wolf lovers did.
Otherwise the current budget goes on and on.
You nailed it. That is the only way to fix the problem. When enough residents bellyache to their State Reps or start a petition to force CPW into making a change.

I would love it if they made CPW use funds raise by hunting licenses to actually go into programs for hunting and not Dam repairs and fish hatcheries.
 
Residents at $100 and NRs at $1000 are not even in the ballpark to getting you to 90/10. Really not even close to 80/20 (which I concede would be fair)

While you are right that the CPW budget is bloated, none of you are offering ANY way to get that reduced. You are wishing on a star, and it won’t get you there. If there is someone with a plan, let’s hear it. Haven’t heard anything close yet.

IMO, the only way to get it done would be a legislative decree or a statewide referendum like the wolf lovers did.
Otherwise the current budget goes on and on.
You keep beating the dead horse that is the fact that the fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to CPW's budget because you want to avoid the real question which is a fair NR allocation.

20% would still be the highest of all western states and 2.5 times the average. Explain to me why the residents of Colorado deserve so much less than the residents of all other western states.
 
Last edited:
You keep beating the dead horse that is the fact that the fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to CPW's budget because you want to avoid the real question which is what should the NR allocation be. Explain to me why the residents of Colorado deserve so much less than the residents of all other western states.
Because equity and white power, and systematic racism... That seems to be all that matters in Colorado anymore... Hunters lost the opportunity to save hunting in Colorado 20 years ago when the failed to prevent the trapping ban and the bear hunting ban. Then after that they failed to pass a right to hunt and trap law. Then later on the failed to pass a law to prevent ballot box biology.

Sorry to be bitter, but one of the biggest issues in Colorado was everyone only looking out for themselves and no one really ever working against the real enemies... Now we find ourselves against each other even more because we have lost the larger picture...

When I was in high school I remember trying to talk with people about the spring bear hunts and trapping. It was horrible how many people dismissed it because they did not trap or hunt bears.

Colorado hunters better start working together to protect what is left. The big conservation groups need to drop all the special interest bs and start working together just to save hunting... You are one election cycle away from all predator control in Colorado. Bears, Lions, Bobcats and wolves... Yet everyone is worried about points, worried about percent of tags, worried about fees, worried about money on damns, etc. You currently have a sitting Governor and a 1st gentleman who would love nothing more then to shut it all down. They would love nothing more to replace all hunts and consumptive use with back packers, mountain bikers, etc.

The problem in CO is much much bigger than percent resident fee/nr, fees, etc.
 
Because equity and white power, and systematic racism... That seems to be all that matters in Colorado anymore... Hunters lost the opportunity to save hunting in Colorado 20 years ago when the failed to prevent the trapping ban and the bear hunting ban. Then after that they failed to pass a right to hunt and trap law. Then later on the failed to pass a law to prevent ballot box biology.

Sorry to be bitter, but one of the biggest issues in Colorado was everyone only looking out for themselves and no one really ever working against the real enemies... Now we find ourselves against each other even more because we have lost the larger picture...

When I was in high school I remember trying to talk with people about the spring bear hunts and trapping. It was horrible how many people dismissed it because they did not trap or hunt bears.

Colorado hunters better start working together to protect what is left. The big conservation groups need to drop all the special interest bs and start working together just to save hunting... You are one election cycle away from all predator control in Colorado. Bears, Lions, Bobcats and wolves... Yet everyone is worried about points, worried about percent of tags, worried about fees, worried about money on damns, etc. You currently have a sitting Governor and a 1st gentleman who would love nothing more then to shut it all down. They would love nothing more to replace all hunts and consumptive use with back packers, mountain bikers, etc.

The problem in CO is much much bigger than percent resident fee/nr, fees, etc.
So you are saying that because the residents of Colorado have been **** on by out of state influence on all of the issues you listed we should be **** on some more with license allocations? That is backwards logic.

Where was all of this non resident money that you guys love to talk about when these issues came up? It was stuck with CPW whose hands are tied when it comes to ballot initiatives.

Your argument makes me all the more sure that residents should get a fair share of our resource.
 
So you are saying that because the residents of Colorado have been **** on by out of state influence on all of the issues you listed we should be **** on some more with license allocations? That is backwards logic.

Where was all of this non resident money that you guys love to talk about when these issues came up? It was stuck with CPW whose hands are tied when it comes to ballot initiatives.

Your argument makes me all the more sure that residents should get a fair share of our resource.
I never once said that residents should not have higher percent. I said that everyone is always worried about me me me in Colorado that they failed to address the real threats to the state and the conservation groups in part have missed the boat to truly protect hunting in Colorado.

Oh and you are foolish to believe that it is out of state influence. Your Governor and his partner are hardly out of state influence...
 
LMAO, typical.... yep just keep adding cost to the NR. How bout you promote a resident tag increase as well. Lets raise those resident fees up to $100 for deer and elk. If the NR are willing to pay $1000 wouldn't the residents be willing to pay $100???

Come on man don't you want to do your part??? :rolleyes:
I’d pay 200 bucks for an elk/ deer tag as a Res if it meant I could reliably get a tag every year in the unit my cabin is in which is draw, but very far from a trophy unit, more money for more opportunity doesn’t bother me one bit
 
You keep beating the dead horse that is the fact that the fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to CPW's budget because you want to avoid the real question which is a fair NR allocation.

20% would still be the highest of all western states and 2.5 times the average. Explain to me why the residents of Colorado deserve so much less than the residents of all other western states.
How about all the non res folks that want to hunt in Co every year, give up hunting in their home state. Better yet they get to donate a tag to a Co hunter and have us hunt their honey hole on the years they come to Co. I’m tired of them acting like it’s selfish for us Res to want to hunt in the state that we were born in and grew up hunting in. How dare we! I don’t b%tch cause I can’t hunt AZ every year. I realize it is a once in a while thing. I’m not crying about how they don’t cater more to me
 
I never once said that residents should not have higher percent. I said that everyone is always worried about me me me in Colorado that they failed to address the real threats to the state and the conservation groups in part have missed the boat to truly protect hunting in Colorado.

Oh and you are foolish to believe that it is out of state influence. Your Governor and his partner are hardly out of state influence...
There wasn't even a whisper of changing allocations when all of the initiatives you listed passed, so your theory that some how those outcomes were effected by an energy leak to the allocations change is pretty far fetched.

Coloradans have been the opposite of me me me for generations. That's why we have the worst resident allocation of any western state.

The Governor and the party he represents came into power in Colorado along with an influx of out of state people that voted him in. The same people that voted in the aforementioned initiatives. It wasn't us multigenerational residents. Maybe if we hadn't made it so appealing to hunt Colorado without living here we would have incentivized some like minded people to move here and actually help with some of these issues.
 
Last edited:
I’d pay 200 bucks for an elk/ deer tag as a Res if it meant I could reliably get a tag every year in the unit my cabin is in which is draw, but very far from a trophy unit, more money for more opportunity doesn’t bother me one bit
I'm sure you could buy a landowner tag for the unit your cabin is in. Have at it bud, nothing holding you back now as is. It's only money.
 
If I was king for a day in Colorado the only thing I would change is point averaging. I know a lot of high point holders that would put in with there kids or friends and quit chasing the higher point hunts. Anytime a high point holder leaves the pool it is a good thing.
Agree100%
 
You keep beating the dead horse that is the fact that the fox is guarding the hen house when it comes to CPW's budget because you want to avoid the real question which is a fair NR allocation.

20% would still be the highest of all western states and 2.5 times the average. Explain to me why the residents of Colorado deserve so much less than the residents of all other western states.
Who is beating a dead horse? You won’t get 90/10.

Why 20%? Because the tag numbers work. Colorado has more elk by far than any other state. And 20% would reduce NR by about 60%. I think you would notice a big difference if you had 60% less NR. Both in tag availability and crowding in the woods.

Here is an idea: make them obey their own rules: the 80/20 % rule after 6 (?) points. And seems fair to change THOSE tags to 90/10.
 
Last edited:
I say 90-10 knowing full well there will be tags leftover, let residents and nonresidents pick them up until there sold out. Not a big deal every state gives there residents preference. The $$ will be there demand is not going anywhere.
 
Honestly they could raise prices on all licenses. Heck my kids small game, fishing, everything license is a dollar. I'd gladly pay 5 or 10 dollars for it and would still be getting a screaming deal. These nonresidents complaining on here are hilarious. They act like they are getting the short end of the stick. Please name one state that is more generous then Colorado when it comes to non resident tags.
 
I'm sure you could buy a landowner tag for the unit your cabin is in. Have at it bud, nothing holding you back now as is. It's only money.
Right on, so when you non res are paying 2k to hunt otc elk it’s only money right? ;) come on jakey you just have to admit the system is broken for the res of Co.
 
Here's my suggestions:

+Ditch the horrible preference point system...institute something that has a random component
+Allow point averaging/sharing!!!!!!
+Get rid of all OTC elk tags...make all elk tags a draw
+Loose your points if you draw any tag on any choice, except undersubscribed hunts (leftovers)
 
Why stick with points at all? The way population growth in the west is trending and the fact that there are no secret spots left in the west. We all bought into the idea of getting in line for our turn. Turns out there isn’t enough for everyone! Whatever you do to modify the Ponzi schemes will only be a temporary fix. Preference, bonus, 1/2 random , squared. People with money will always cut the line. If you love hunting somewhere so much move there! The fees and costs to play the games isn’t worth it. If we can all get used to saying they are broke and don’t work they have to go we might get somewhere. We have access to services that tell us how wrecked they are you don’t have to be an account to see the futility in some of these states. Colorado has enough deer and elk for the growth they are experiencing but, eventually that’s going to cut into the generous amount of opportunities they have been providing for nonresidents.
 
Right on, so when you non res are paying 2k to hunt otc elk it’s only money right? ;) come on jakey you just have to admit the system is broken for the res of Co.
Won't hurt my feelings one bit, I've never possessed a elk tag in Colorado. And you guys can hunt elk literally every single year. Yep your system is broken you poor baby's.

Jake won't he's been one of the biggest whiners on this thread
You want to see whiners, go back and look at all the posts on the I Hunt Colorado Facebook page when they upped res tag price by $7 per. You wouldn't believe all the crying.

You guys do what you want, I've merely pointed out the hypocrisy of wanting to raise NR tag prices significantly while not addressing the residents in the same way. And I pointed out that Utah is cheaper for you guys on our over the counter elk hunts and we have no cap on nonresidents just like Colorado. The only difference is we don't have near as many elk so we don't have as many tags.

I do find it funny you say I'm the biggest whiner on the post when the whole post has been nothing but residents whineing about how unfair they are treated. ??? give me a break dude.
 
Not whining. I've hunted with fistfulls of tags. Generally 4 a season. What the issue is, is we are experiencing an issue that needs to be looked at. Pressure has increased to the point that cpw is at least recognizing it. They have issued a list of questions. But put limits to it. So do you have a answer for the problem that (1) helps the animals (2) helps the overcrowding. Without being self-serving. Because when these issues come up nonresident hunters in general come across as more worried about their own self and less worried about the herds. I know when Wyoming first started talking about cutting tags I was pretty concerned about my plans. And had a lot of opinions that didn't go any farther than what was best for ole me.
 
Colorado has grown to a place where unlimited OTC elk hunting is no longer tenable. All seasons should be draw only to limit the pressure on all of the units. It is simply supply and demand at this point.

Rich
 
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and say that all of you wanting to do away with the point system don’t have 20+ years or even 10-15 years of points saved up?? ?‍♂️
 
Won't hurt my feelings one bit, I've never possessed a elk tag in Colorado. And you guys can hunt elk literally every single year. Yep your system is broken you poor baby's.


You want to see whiners, go back and look at all the posts on the I Hunt Colorado Facebook page when they upped res tag price by $7 per. You wouldn't believe all the crying.

You guys do what you want, I've merely pointed out the hypocrisy of wanting to raise NR tag prices significantly while not addressing the residents in the same way. And I pointed out that Utah is cheaper for you guys on our over the counter elk hunts and we have no cap on nonresidents just like Colorado. The only difference is we don't have near as many elk so we don't have as many tags.

I do find it funny you say I'm the biggest whiner on the post when the whole post has been nothing but residents whineing about how unfair they are treated. ??? give me a break dude.
Like I said what state is more generous then Colorado when it comes to nonresident percentages of draw tags? Also you have mentioned to leave the system alone do you honestly think OTC hunting is sustainable? What percentage of nonresident tags is suitable to you? Hopefully you don't apply in New Mexico if you think Colorado is going to be "unfair" at 80/20 or 90/10.
 
dont worry once they implement the full on wolf restoration in co there won't be any game left to fight over after all everyone knows the wolves are gonna eat all the elk deer moose and sheep just like they have in idaho montana and wyoming ?
which i find extremely hard to believe because elk herds in all 3 states are expanding even if most don't believe it
 
Colorado needs to be on par with other western states when it comes to R/NR ratios. WY is the only one close and that is likely to change soon to 90/10.
yup i believe wyoming will eventually extend the 90/10 rule for E/D/A
then jms head will really explode
 
It is, unfortunately. I guess it is supply and demand but what I find concerning is seems like we are focusing more on trying to fix the demand side instead of the supply side. It seems the one thing everyone can agree upon is that the quality in many units, areas, states is down.
it doesnt state anywhere in the regs the state HAS to manage biggame for quality
no state is under any obligation to manage herds for quality but some cant seem to get that or they refuse to accept it
 
I have no problem with that and it should be expected. Paying $100 for an elk tag is a substantial increase (by %) and is inline with what other states residents pay
we pay $20 for an elk tag & $10 for a deer tag in montana and everytime the suggestion of raising our tag fees even another $5 residents loose their minds
 
They can go 80/20 across the board and get rid of OTC. Adjust the fees accordingly to both sides and they wouldn't lose any revenue.
they will never go that route non residents make up way to much of their budget
and with wolf reintoduction being law now and cpw haveing to pay for live stock losses caused by wolves NON RESIDENT revenue will be needed even more now then it ever has been
 
The only fair comparison is maybe Idaho. The rest of the states mentioned have better success rates and trophy potential. If you think NRs will pay $1000 for the low odds of success in CO, you are kidding yourself,
you are aware colorado also has the largest deer herd in the lower 48 right ?
and they also put more b/c bucks in the record book every year then every other state combined right? so your low success theory wont hold water
 
MT FWP is taking a reputation hit now on the $100 PP price increase (and grab all the money on year 2 if the NR doesn't apply). Make the money grab too obvious and NRs will notice.
im willing to bet montana still sells out all NR tags they might notice and
they might b****ch but they wil still line up to get that tag to come and kill a 200 class bull or a 140 class mule deer i gaureentee it
 
it doesnt state anywhere in the regs the state HAS to manage biggame for quality
no state is under any obligation to manage herds for quality but some cant seem to get that or they refuse to accept it

Thats fair, and I probably didn't articulate it as well as I should have. With quality I didn't mean just horn size, I meant the overall health of the herd.
 
Thats fair, and I probably didn't articulate it as well as I should have. With quality I didn't mean just horn size, I meant the overall health of the herd.
colorado still has the largest elk and deer herd in the us it also puts more b/c bucks in the books then every other western state combined , so id say its herd health is doing ok even if most dont think so
 
How about all the non res folks that want to hunt in Co every year, give up hunting in their home state. Better yet they get to donate a tag to a Co hunter and have us hunt their honey hole on the years they come to Co. I’m tired of them acting like it’s selfish for us Res to want to hunt in the state that we were born in and grew up hunting in. How dare we! I don’t b%tch cause I can’t hunt AZ every year. I realize it is a once in a while thing. I’m not crying about how they don’t cater more to me
there's nothing stopping you from hunting your own state how is a non resident buying a tag stopping you or any other resident from hunting in your state ?
i read more rwsidents on here bitching then i do non residents ,but i guess blaming non residents is easier then haveing to admit residents are causeing a lot of the issues them selves
it wasnt non residents that voted in wolf reintroduction or your current gov but ill bet
somebody somewhere in colorado will find a way to blame non residents
with out non residents licence fees cpfws would be even more broke then they are right now their budgert is in the red and has been for quite a while
 
you are aware colorado also has the largest deer herd in the lower 48 right ?
and they also put more b/c bucks in the record book every year then every other state combined right? so your low success theory wont hold water
Wasn’t talking about deer. Only elk. If you had read my posts, you would know that I favor limiting all elk tags and an 80/20 split on res/NR

The elk quality is not there, so that NRs would never pay for the price increases needed to keep this “revenue neutral”
 
There wasn't even a whisper of changing allocations when all of the initiatives you listed passed, so your theory that some how those outcomes were effected by an energy leak to the allocations change is pretty far fetched.

Coloradans have been the opposite of me me me for generations. That's why we have the worst resident allocation of any western state.

The Governor and the party he represents came into power in Colorado along with an influx of out of state people that voted him in. The same people that voted in the aforementioned initiatives. It wasn't us multigenerational residents. Maybe if we hadn't made it so appealing to hunt Colorado without living here we would have incentivized some like minded people to move here and actually help with some of these issues.
Not true at all. I remember all the way back in the 90s sitting in meeting talking about license allocations. There were plenty advocating for more resident licenses. Were you a sleep for the land owner transferable tags? Were you asleep when RFW came into play? Were you not paying attention when we pushed split for 80/20 on the top tags?

I never once said that residents should or should not have more tags. I was opposed to RFW as a kid. I was part of the group that pushed hard to look at unit wide and landowner tags. That process screwed all of us as they actually increased to the percent of tags that went into the LO draw.

The point still remains the same, the debate over resident and NR split draws a ton or attention, and a lot of emotions, but trying to get a ballot initiative for right to hunt would get crickets. Trying to get the state to constitutionally protect hunting and the management of CPW gets no where...

Trying to prevent ballot box biology like they did in Utah is a nonstarter.

Hell even getting the hunters and major conservation groups to stand behind the idea of moving the fall bear hunt forward 2 weeks does not get traction.

Instead we see 3 pages and 60 plus comments on point creep and draw system...

Oh and yes you are correct that people have moved into the state, but those people are in fact part of the state now and as such the pressure against hunting from inside the state are far more powerful that outside interest groups.

Hell did anyone here speak up and contact the Governor when he and his man started attacking the BLM over removing the excess feral horses? Just curious?
 
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and say that all of you wanting to do away with the point system don’t have 20+ years or even 10-15 years of points saved up?? ?‍♂️
I have a pile of points in WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ and MT. I would be happy to give them up in each and every state to go to a random draw like NM or ID. Point systems are like socialism. People can be fooled into thinking point systems and socialism are great ideas until they understand the long term effects of each.

If you built up more than 15 points for deer in CO, you either don't like hunting mule deer that much or have had other great tags over the last 15 years (many quality tags in other states and/or leftover/landowner tags in CO)
 
Last edited:
We need to start licensing bicycles (yes David, even your ebike?) like atv’s. Colorado would be so flush we could feed the wolves beef.

There’s one way.
I like this idea. Only $10 for each mountain bike in Colorado would generate a lot of money to support the wolves.
 
The elk quality is not there, so that NRs would never pay for the price increases needed to keep this “revenue neutral”
They will keep paying just because Colorado is OTC for elk and the opportunity is there
not everyone wants a trophy bul or mule deer l most just want to kill an elk/deer to fill the freezer I think they will continue to pay no matter what the price
I've seen it in my home state Montana as well as Wyoming and Idaho
The majority will pick opportunity over quality everytime me included ,I don't need trophy racks..... horns have never impressed me never will I hunt to fill my freezers not decorate the walls of my house/ office
 
Ultimag,

At a certain price, the tags will stop selling. If Colorado OTC elk tags were increased to $2000, there would be a significant number of nonresidents that would choose not to hunt Colorado this year. However, Colorado would likely get more gross $$ from their nonresident elk tags. Increase the price to $10,000 and you would see very few nonresidents hunting OTC in Colorado and I would guess that Colorado would get less gross $$ from nonresidents.

Even at the current price, many nonresidents choose not to buy OTC elk tags. Me and my two friends last year are a perfect example. We had 2nd season deer tags in a unit that was OTC elk. All three of us thought about buying OTC elk tags. While scouting a couple days before the season opened, I saw at least 10 different bulls on public land. None of us were willing to spend $700 to have an elk tag in our pocket. All of us tagged out with nice bucks in the first 3 days and had the time to hunt more but $700 just wasn't worth it to any of us.

We are going to see an economic downturn. When it happens, we will see a very large decrease in nonresident hunting demand at current prices. If prices are increased, we will see an even larger decrease in nonresident demand.
 
I have a pile of points in WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ and MT. I would be happy to give them up in each and every state to go to a random draw like NM or ID. Point systems are like socialism. People can be fooled into thinking point systems and socialism are great ideas until they understand the long term effects of each.

If you built up more than 15 points for deer in CO, you either don't like hunting mule deer that much or have had other great tags over the last 15 years (many quality tags in other states and/or leftover/landowner tags in CO)
I as well have and had a pile of points in all those states as well and including a few more! I love to hunt mule deer and hunt a minimum of 2-3 or more states per year depending on the draws! I’m also to the point of trying to burn all my points in all of them. I can say that I have had better luck drawing tags using different point systems. Even though I hunt Idaho every year and put in for the he lottery draws I have only drawn 1 special permit for buck and that was back in 1992!!!

I actually have built up 23 pts in Colorado but have also hunted it a 1/3 of those years and including the last 3 seasons on a second choice! Hoping to draw out this year though! It can be done I I only hunt public and DIY so it can be done.
Best of luck to you this year!
 
Even at the current price, many nonresidents choose not to buy OTC elk tags. Me and my two friends last year are a perfect example. We had 2nd season deer tags in a unit that was OTC elk. All three of us thought about buying OTC elk tags. While scouting a couple days before the season opened, I saw at least 10 different bulls on public land. None of us were willing to spend $700 to have an elk tag in our pocket. All of us tagged out with nice bucks in the first 3 days and had the time to hunt more but $700 just wasn't worth it to any of us.
I also had the same experience last year in an otc unit for elk and saw several bulls before and during season but chose not to buy a tag but then again I’m a mule deer hunter by heart!
 
Like I said what state is more generous then Colorado when it comes to nonresident percentages of draw tags? Also you have mentioned to leave the system alone do you honestly think OTC hunting is sustainable? What percentage of nonresident tags is suitable to you? Hopefully you don't apply in New Mexico if you think Colorado is going to be "unfair" at 80/20 or 90/10.
I don't ever remember saying leave the system alone, I've said to leave the re-issue tag process alone.
I have always said do what you got to do with your hunts, my only point of contention is the people saying they need to raise the cost to non residents substantially but never bring up raising there own costs, and like TXhunter has said going to 90/10 would be such a revenue loss it's likely never to happen. Maybe 80/20 is the answer but if it's gonna take tag fee increases to get it done the residents are gonna have to take a hit as well, and the average Colorado hunter is not going to like that.

As far as otc tags, it does sound like an issue that needs addressing, overcrowding sucks, I know unit 3 was horrible for it during 3rd season last year on my deer hunt and alot of that was the elk hunters. I've never had an elk tag in Colorado but it's been nice to know the option was available if other hunts didn't pan out.

And New mexico is pretty sh!ty to the non residents the outfitter welfare tags are a joke.

Colorado has been generous, but maybe a little to generous for your own good cause it's going to be really tough getting the people in charge to give up that money especially since it's funding your Parks and rec department. That's where you guys really screwed up was letting them merge with the wildlife side of things.
 
They moved last nights meeting in Montrose out to May....with the US 50 closer between Gunnison and there to attend will be 11 hours....undicided if it's worth it..
 
They will keep paying just because Colorado is OTC for elk and the opportunity is there
not everyone wants a trophy bul or mule deer l most just want to kill an elk/deer to fill the freezer I think they will continue to pay no matter what the price
I've seen it in my home state Montana as well as Wyoming and Idaho
The majority will pick opportunity over quality everytime me included ,I don't need trophy racks..... horns have never impressed me never will I hunt to fill my freezers not decorate the walls of my house/ office

I also am not a trophy hunter. Should have said quality & success rate. With a success rate of < 20% for OTC areas, NR will stop coming if the price rises much higher. Success rates are much higher in Montana. Not many NR would pay $1000 for a 15% shot at getting an elk. Great for res hunters but not for CPW budget.
 
I'm not saying some changes aren't needed but my biggest concern in changing things up is that the decision makers don't look at all the the ramifications that each change will bring. For example, point sharing and point banking may first appear to be great ideas but if implemented what would the affect be on point creep for lower point units? I am hoping CPW is able to provide the focus group with the projected impact on point creep for the various options under serious consideration.

I also hope CPW doesn't give the board of commisioners a wide range of options to discuss and vote on. If you want to see something scary, watch one of the commission meetings and see who we have entrusted with the final say on critical decisions that affect wildlife management and hunting. There are a few on that board that I would bet don't know the difference bewteen a squirrel and a pine marten, maybe even a deer and an elk - I am not kidding. I'm still trying to figure out who the voice of reason is on the current board. When you have an 11 member board and only 3 have to be "sportspersons", one of which has to be an outfitter, a lot can happen. Then toss in the fact they have been appointed by liberal governors and anything can happen.
 
there's nothing stopping you from hunting your own state how is a non resident buying a tag stopping you or any other resident from hunting in your state ?
i read more rwsidents on here bitching then i do non residents ,but i guess blaming non residents is easier then haveing to admit residents are causeing a lot of the issues them selves
it wasnt non residents that voted in wolf reintroduction or your current gov but ill bet
somebody somewhere in colorado will find a way to blame non residents
with out non residents licence fees cpfws would be even more broke then they are right now their budgert is in the red and has been for quite a while
Mag,
The current 65/35 split is most definitely keeping tags out of resident pockets. Also the money for the wolf reintroduction mostly came from groups in CA and NY, it was voted on by people in giant urban hubs and the wording of the bill was super pro wolf, it was all over but the crime. Actually CPW is only in the red because of parks, DOW was the only profitable gov department in the state, a bad accounting error when the two were combined a handful of years ago screwed the division and wildlife management in the state. Yes we get it non res bring money to the state… but at the current rate something will have to give when it comes to unlimited tags and the current splits.
 
Went to the meeting last night and didn't get home until around 1am. 8 hours round trip driving for a 2.5 hour meeting - a little rough.
Wish we could have met for at least 4 hours if not the whole day or even 2 days.

As a whole it was time well spent. Not sure how many of your will be attending any of these focus groups, but they made it clear that I was fortunate to be selected as they had around 10K people that had expressed interest in being part of these focus groups. The group I was part of consisted of 8 attendee's and they said they broke the state up into 4 groups and would have one additional Non-resident group via zoom call. All of the groups with the exception of the non-residents are in person only focus groups.

I probably wasn't the most popular guest as I wish the CPW had been a little more transparent with the whole agenda. They asked us to bring some of our ideas and to be demonstrate how the concepts would work. The phrase of if you were "king for a day" was mentioned a few times.

For the most part some of the ideas that would impact preference points were completely off the table - such as license allocation between residents/nonresidents, which we told separate focus groups would or had been discussing. Application and license fees again were something that we were not to discuss and we told that upfront license fees would not be reinstated and this was off the table for discussion.

We briefly touched on the weighted point concepts, but it sounded as if no changes were going to be made. The group did discuss making the entry into weighted pool higher than 3 years, as we all know of have heard of someone getting their 2nd sheep or goat hunt shortly after they reentered the pool while the rest of applicants sit with 10-20+ years of paying fee application fees without getting one opportunity. Not sure if changes will be made but a 5year or 7year application period was briefly discussed. My read on this was no changes will be made. And the CPW is aware that weighted statistics are rough if only a couple tags are being issued for the unit/species.

Each of us were given time to discuss our top 2 suggestions. Several people shared some of the same ideas so we didn't have a total of 16 separate ideas to discuss.

It was very educational that essentially all of the point creep and frustration is really based on a very limited number of licenses being issued for Areas 1,2, 10, 201, 40, 61 and 76 if memory serves me correctly. And the CPW commented that we need to remember the number of licenses issued for these units in minimal in the statewide picture as a whole. We needed to find a better solution for the whole and not necessarily these few tags.

The group agreed as a whole that no matter what changes will ultimately be made that we want a fair understandable system to issue licenses and would like the opportunity to hunt each year. There was a fairly lengthy discussion about OTC tags and OTC with caps, but again it was mentioned that this is not the focus of this group and belongs in one of the other focus groups.

By the time my turn came to discuss my ideas most of my ideas had been somewhat discussed and I recommended to make all buck/bull tags limited which again conflicts with the OTC models.

I could keep rambling on, but ultimately this groups top 2 ideas were:

Reinstitute Point Banking at least 3-5 years so we can see the better picture of this model. I wasn't aware that last time they tried it, they had many of the applicants returning tags to restore points because of the initial point creep the 1st year. Therefore the model didn't get a chance to play out.

2nd idea was to change the high point units to different model.
50% of the tags go to the max point holder
50% go into random draw for the applicants of this unit/license. The threshold to get into the random draw was still being worked out, but a 10 year period was mentioned.
If this model is used it would replace the Hybrid Model.

Between these two ideas all of the longer term applicants would have 3 choices:
1)Hold the course and hope you live long enough to draw the tag.
2)Use point banking to start shedding some points and enjoy other hunts.
3) Get enough points or keep enough points to stay in the random draw for one of the highly coveted tags.

Again none of this may ever happen, but this was in a nut shell what we came up with. The CPW said there will be another round of public comments available later this year after they have met with all of the focus groups and encouraged us to comment once these compiled recommendations come out.

Happy Hunting!!
 
Went to the meeting last night and didn't get home until around 1am. 8 hours round trip driving for a 2.5 hour meeting - a little rough.
Wish we could have met for at least 4 hours if not the whole day or even 2 days.

As a whole it was time well spent. Not sure how many of your will be attending any of these focus groups, but they made it clear that I was fortunate to be selected as they had around 10K people that had expressed interest in being part of these focus groups. The group I was part of consisted of 8 attendee's and they said they broke the state up into 4 groups and would have one additional Non-resident group via zoom call. All of the groups with the exception of the non-residents are in person only focus groups.

I probably wasn't the most popular guest as I wish the CPW had been a little more transparent with the whole agenda. They asked us to bring some of our ideas and to be demonstrate how the concepts would work. The phrase of if you were "king for a day" was mentioned a few times.

For the most part some of the ideas that would impact preference points were completely off the table - such as license allocation between residents/nonresidents, which we told separate focus groups would or had been discussing. Application and license fees again were something that we were not to discuss and we told that upfront license fees would not be reinstated and this was off the table for discussion.

We briefly touched on the weighted point concepts, but it sounded as if no changes were going to be made. The group did discuss making the entry into weighted pool higher than 3 years, as we all know of have heard of someone getting their 2nd sheep or goat hunt shortly after they reentered the pool while the rest of applicants sit with 10-20+ years of paying fee application fees without getting one opportunity. Not sure if changes will be made but a 5year or 7year application period was briefly discussed. My read on this was no changes will be made. And the CPW is aware that weighted statistics are rough if only a couple tags are being issued for the unit/species.

Each of us were given time to discuss our top 2 suggestions. Several people shared some of the same ideas so we didn't have a total of 16 separate ideas to discuss.

It was very educational that essentially all of the point creep and frustration is really based on a very limited number of licenses being issued for Areas 1,2, 10, 201, 40, 61 and 76 if memory serves me correctly. And the CPW commented that we need to remember the number of licenses issued for these units in minimal in the statewide picture as a whole. We needed to find a better solution for the whole and not necessarily these few tags.

The group agreed as a whole that no matter what changes will ultimately be made that we want a fair understandable system to issue licenses and would like the opportunity to hunt each year. There was a fairly lengthy discussion about OTC tags and OTC with caps, but again it was mentioned that this is not the focus of this group and belongs in one of the other focus groups.

By the time my turn came to discuss my ideas most of my ideas had been somewhat discussed and I recommended to make all buck/bull tags limited which again conflicts with the OTC models.

I could keep rambling on, but ultimately this groups top 2 ideas were:

Reinstitute Point Banking at least 3-5 years so we can see the better picture of this model. I wasn't aware that last time they tried it, they had many of the applicants returning tags to restore points because of the initial point creep the 1st year. Therefore the model didn't get a chance to play out.

2nd idea was to change the high point units to different model.
50% of the tags go to the max point holder
50% go into random draw for the applicants of this unit/license. The threshold to get into the random draw was still being worked out, but a 10 year period was mentioned.
If this model is used it would replace the Hybrid Model.

Between these two ideas all of the longer term applicants would have 3 choices:
1)Hold the course and hope you live long enough to draw the tag.
2)Use point banking to start shedding some points and enjoy other hunts.
3) Get enough points or keep enough points to stay in the random draw for one of the highly coveted tags.

Again none of this may ever happen, but this was in a nut shell what we came up with. The CPW said there will be another round of public comments available later this year after they have met with all of the focus groups and encouraged us to comment once these compiled recommendations come out.

Happy Hunting!!
Thanks for your time and the update!
 
Went to the meeting last night and didn't get home until around 1am. 8 hours round trip driving for a 2.5 hour meeting - a little rough.
Wish we could have met for at least 4 hours if not the whole day or even 2 days.

As a whole it was time well spent. Not sure how many of your will be attending any of these focus groups, but they made it clear that I was fortunate to be selected as they had around 10K people that had expressed interest in being part of these focus groups. The group I was part of consisted of 8 attendee's and they said they broke the state up into 4 groups and would have one additional Non-resident group via zoom call. All of the groups with the exception of the non-residents are in person only focus groups.

I probably wasn't the most popular guest as I wish the CPW had been a little more transparent with the whole agenda. They asked us to bring some of our ideas and to be demonstrate how the concepts would work. The phrase of if you were "king for a day" was mentioned a few times.

For the most part some of the ideas that would impact preference points were completely off the table - such as license allocation between residents/nonresidents, which we told separate focus groups would or had been discussing. Application and license fees again were something that we were not to discuss and we told that upfront license fees would not be reinstated and this was off the table for discussion.

We briefly touched on the weighted point concepts, but it sounded as if no changes were going to be made. The group did discuss making the entry into weighted pool higher than 3 years, as we all know of have heard of someone getting their 2nd sheep or goat hunt shortly after they reentered the pool while the rest of applicants sit with 10-20+ years of paying fee application fees without getting one opportunity. Not sure if changes will be made but a 5year or 7year application period was briefly discussed. My read on this was no changes will be made. And the CPW is aware that weighted statistics are rough if only a couple tags are being issued for the unit/species.

Each of us were given time to discuss our top 2 suggestions. Several people shared some of the same ideas so we didn't have a total of 16 separate ideas to discuss.

It was very educational that essentially all of the point creep and frustration is really based on a very limited number of licenses being issued for Areas 1,2, 10, 201, 40, 61 and 76 if memory serves me correctly. And the CPW commented that we need to remember the number of licenses issued for these units in minimal in the statewide picture as a whole. We needed to find a better solution for the whole and not necessarily these few tags.

The group agreed as a whole that no matter what changes will ultimately be made that we want a fair understandable system to issue licenses and would like the opportunity to hunt each year. There was a fairly lengthy discussion about OTC tags and OTC with caps, but again it was mentioned that this is not the focus of this group and belongs in one of the other focus groups.

By the time my turn came to discuss my ideas most of my ideas had been somewhat discussed and I recommended to make all buck/bull tags limited which again conflicts with the OTC models.

I could keep rambling on, but ultimately this groups top 2 ideas were:

Reinstitute Point Banking at least 3-5 years so we can see the better picture of this model. I wasn't aware that last time they tried it, they had many of the applicants returning tags to restore points because of the initial point creep the 1st year. Therefore the model didn't get a chance to play out.

2nd idea was to change the high point units to different model.
50% of the tags go to the max point holder
50% go into random draw for the applicants of this unit/license. The threshold to get into the random draw was still being worked out, but a 10 year period was mentioned.
If this model is used it would replace the Hybrid Model.

Between these two ideas all of the longer term applicants would have 3 choices:
1)Hold the course and hope you live long enough to draw the tag.
2)Use point banking to start shedding some points and enjoy other hunts.
3) Get enough points or keep enough points to stay in the random draw for one of the highly coveted tags.

Again none of this may ever happen, but this was in a nut shell what we came up with. The CPW said there will be another round of public comments available later this year after they have met with all of the focus groups and encouraged us to comment once these compiled recommendations come out.

Happy Hunting!!
Thanks for your time Thrill! We appreciate the effort you put in
 
Mag,
The current 65/35 split is most definitely keeping tags out of resident pockets. Also the money for the wolf reintroduction mostly came from groups in CA and NY, it was voted on by people in giant urban hubs and the wording of the bill was super pro wolf, it was all over but the crime. Actually CPW is only in the red because of parks, DOW was the only profitable gov department in the state, a bad accounting error when the two were combined a handful of years ago screwed the division and wildlife management in the state. Yes we get it non res bring money to the state… but at the current rate something will have to give when it comes to unlimited tags and the current splits.
i know the bil was super pro wolf i worked wth 8 colorado residents that had a websight called stop the wolf trying to get the vote turned because we knew it was gonna be close ,if we could have gotten just a few more ranchers on the west slope convinced it might have worked
the govonor could have vetoed it but he's pro wolf
my father in law owns a sizable ranch in unit 44 in colorado and he threw a lot of his own money(thousands} to get it stopped just wasnt enough in the end .
i cant see colorado doing away with otc (whic wont affect my wife and i even if it does because my father inlaw gets landowner tags/vouchers ) not unless they can figure out how to make up for the lost revenue just dont see it happening
 
Went to the meeting last night and didn't get home until around 1am. 8 hours round trip driving for a 2.5 hour meeting - a little rough.
Wish we could have met for at least 4 hours if not the whole day or even 2 days.

As a whole it was time well spent. Not sure how many of your will be attending any of these focus groups, but they made it clear that I was fortunate to be selected as they had around 10K people that had expressed interest in being part of these focus groups. The group I was part of consisted of 8 attendee's and they said they broke the state up into 4 groups and would have one additional Non-resident group via zoom call. All of the groups with the exception of the non-residents are in person only focus groups.

I probably wasn't the most popular guest as I wish the CPW had been a little more transparent with the whole agenda. They asked us to bring some of our ideas and to be demonstrate how the concepts would work. The phrase of if you were "king for a day" was mentioned a few times.

For the most part some of the ideas that would impact preference points were completely off the table - such as license allocation between residents/nonresidents, which we told separate focus groups would or had been discussing. Application and license fees again were something that we were not to discuss and we told that upfront license fees would not be reinstated and this was off the table for discussion.

We briefly touched on the weighted point concepts, but it sounded as if no changes were going to be made. The group did discuss making the entry into weighted pool higher than 3 years, as we all know of have heard of someone getting their 2nd sheep or goat hunt shortly after they reentered the pool while the rest of applicants sit with 10-20+ years of paying fee application fees without getting one opportunity. Not sure if changes will be made but a 5year or 7year application period was briefly discussed. My read on this was no changes will be made. And the CPW is aware that weighted statistics are rough if only a couple tags are being issued for the unit/species.

Each of us were given time to discuss our top 2 suggestions. Several people shared some of the same ideas so we didn't have a total of 16 separate ideas to discuss.

It was very educational that essentially all of the point creep and frustration is really based on a very limited number of licenses being issued for Areas 1,2, 10, 201, 40, 61 and 76 if memory serves me correctly. And the CPW commented that we need to remember the number of licenses issued for these units in minimal in the statewide picture as a whole. We needed to find a better solution for the whole and not necessarily these few tags.

The group agreed as a whole that no matter what changes will ultimately be made that we want a fair understandable system to issue licenses and would like the opportunity to hunt each year. There was a fairly lengthy discussion about OTC tags and OTC with caps, but again it was mentioned that this is not the focus of this group and belongs in one of the other focus groups.

By the time my turn came to discuss my ideas most of my ideas had been somewhat discussed and I recommended to make all buck/bull tags limited which again conflicts with the OTC models.

I could keep rambling on, but ultimately this groups top 2 ideas were:

Reinstitute Point Banking at least 3-5 years so we can see the better picture of this model. I wasn't aware that last time they tried it, they had many of the applicants returning tags to restore points because of the initial point creep the 1st year. Therefore the model didn't get a chance to play out.

2nd idea was to change the high point units to different model.
50% of the tags go to the max point holder
50% go into random draw for the applicants of this unit/license. The threshold to get into the random draw was still being worked out, but a 10 year period was mentioned.
If this model is used it would replace the Hybrid Model.

Between these two ideas all of the longer term applicants would have 3 choices:
1)Hold the course and hope you live long enough to draw the tag.
2)Use point banking to start shedding some points and enjoy other hunts.
3) Get enough points or keep enough points to stay in the random draw for one of the highly coveted tags.

Again none of this may ever happen, but this was in a nut shell what we came up with. The CPW said there will be another round of public comments available later this year after they have met with all of the focus groups and encouraged us to comment once these compiled recommendations come out.

Happy Hunting!!
I’m really trying to understand the benefits of point banking. For example, let’s say 4000 residents have between 10 and 15 points for elk. If point banking is re-instated, 2000 of the 4000 decide to start burning points on lower tier units requiring 3 points to draw. All 2000 of them draw and consequently 2000 applicants that normally draw the unit with 3 points do not draw and they gain a point. So the units that used to be drawn with 3 points now require 3 or 4 points and the unit creeps up a bit. We now have the high point holders with less points and the low end point holders with more points. Plus the high point holders can continue to do this 2-3 more years until they purge their points and additional high point holders can jump in every year.

Please help me out, I know I must be missing something? What exactly are the benefits of point banking to the overall preference point system?
 
I’m really trying to understand the benefits of point banking. For example, let’s say 4000 residents have between 10 and 15 points for elk. If point banking is re-instated, 2000 of the 4000 decide to start burning points on lower tier units requiring 3 points to draw. All 2000 of them draw and consequently 2000 applicants that normally draw the unit with 3 points do not draw and they gain a point. So the units that used to be drawn with 3 points now require 3 or 4 points and the unit creeps up a bit. We now have the high point holders with less points and the low end point holders with more points. Plus the high point holders can continue to do this 2-3 more years until they purge their points and additional high point holders can jump in every year.

Please help me out, I know I must be missing something? What exactly are the benefits of point banking to the overall preference point system?
I think you are spot on. That’s not a part of my group so it doesn’t seem like I can sway anything but will definitely make comments later in the year.

I really think this could be an example of unintended consequences people aren’t considering.
 
I’m really trying to understand the benefits of point banking. For example, let’s say 4000 residents have between 10 and 15 points for elk. If point banking is re-instated, 2000 of the 4000 decide to start burning points on lower tier units requiring 3 points to draw. All 2000 of them draw and consequently 2000 applicants that normally draw the unit with 3 points do not draw and they gain a point. So the units that used to be drawn with 3 points now require 3 or 4 points and the unit creeps up a bit. We now have the high point holders with less points and the low end point holders with more points. Plus the high point holders can continue to do this 2-3 more years until they purge their points and additional high point holders can jump in every year.

Please help me out, I know I must be missing something? What exactly are the benefits of point banking to the overall preference point system?
You aren’t missing anything. Point banking, or sharing, or boosting will increase creep.

If my 10 points get two tags instead of one tag, someone else just missed out on a tag and gained a point. That will increase creep.

Obviously everyone is only trying to benefit themselves. Instead of suggesting that if you get a tag you lose your points, the group decides to try to increase creep by reinstating point banking. What a bunch of geniuses. Colorado residents deserve wolves.
 
Thill, you’re a better man than I. That sounds like some kind of corporate break-out session hell. You didn’t mention if you had facilitators walking from table to table keeping you focused. There had to be a flip chart somewhere in the room.

Thank you for the nightmares, and your sacrifice (y)
 
Point creeping cannot stop until the applicants start using the points.

Point banking offers the opportunity to start shedding points. I believe point banking will benefit some and will in the short run facilitate point creep until the model has time to work its self out. The biggest winners will be all of the point holders in no man's land 10-20ish points. I personally have a couple of buddies that are in that group and they now have realized that statistically they would die before pull the coveted tag. Bank pointing would benefit them in the fact that one of them said he would start shedding points by purchasing cow tags to scout other units to replace this abandoned dream. Of course this means the it might take an extra point for cow tags in the unit or units they are looking at.

I surmise all of the applicants in no mans land would not have started collecting points if they knew they would not have a chance to ever go on the hunt. We are moving in a rough direction with CWD/wolves/declining herds/increasing outdoor recreation.

Fair or not we have to start somewhere.

Hopefully one of the other focus groups can address the OTC tags or OTC tags with caps. As long as these options exist the majority of these point holders will continue to hunt every year and gain points(facilitating point creep) as they still hunt every year.

Remember point banking was part of the agenda that the CPW sent to me and the other attendees. Don't completely blame me, but I did select it as an option I would support since several of mu ideas were off the table for discussion.

I am going to start a new topic in a few minutes - Point Banking.
 
i know the bil was super pro wolf i worked wth 8 colorado residents that had a websight called stop the wolf trying to get the vote turned because we knew it was gonna be close ,if we could have gotten just a few more ranchers on the west slope convinced it might have worked
the govonor could have vetoed it but he's pro wolf
my father in law owns a sizable ranch in unit 44 in colorado and he threw a lot of his own money(thousands} to get it stopped just wasnt enough in the end .
i cant see colorado doing away with otc (whic wont affect my wife and i even if it does because my father inlaw gets landowner tags/vouchers ) not unless they can figure out how to make up for the lost revenue just dont see it happening
Mag,

I agree with you, just wishful thinking at this point, with the current state leaders they are just short of openly hostile to hunting and money hungry SOB’s so residents will continue to a big middle finger from them. Spent a little time in 44 hunting turkeys, fishing, and scouting for a buddies elk and deer tags, it’s gorgeous country, you lucky to have family with land up there
 
Point creeping cannot stop until the applicants start using the points.

Point banking offers the opportunity to start shedding points. I believe point banking will benefit some and will in the short run facilitate point creep until the model has time to work its self out. The biggest winners will be all of the point holders in no man's land 10-20ish points. I personally have a couple of buddies that are in that group and they now have realized that statistically they would die before pull the coveted tag. Bank pointing would benefit them in the fact that one of them said he would start shedding points by purchasing cow tags to scout other units to replace this abandoned dream. Of course this means the it might take an extra point for cow tags in the unit or units they are looking at.

I surmise all of the applicants in no mans land would not have started collecting points if they knew they would not have a chance to ever go on the hunt. We are moving in a rough direction with CWD/wolves/declining herds/increasing outdoor recreation.

Fair or not we have to start somewhere.

Hopefully one of the other focus groups can address the OTC tags or OTC tags with caps. As long as these options exist the majority of these point holders will continue to hunt every year and gain points(facilitating point creep) as they still hunt every year.

Remember point banking was part of the agenda that the CPW sent to me and the other attendees. Don't completely blame me, but I did select it as an option I would support since several of mu ideas were off the table for discussion.

I am going to start a new topic in a few minutes - Point Banking.
So.... because people can't look at the writing on the wall and built up a ton of points (while at the same time getting tags every year according to you) we should gift them multiple tags for those points in lesser point units pushing out several people that didn't horde points..... yeah that makes total sense.

The reality is, if you have 10-20 points you got your pick of some really good hunts especially as a resident.

Those points should get you "A" tag not several tags. No need to change the rules now because lot's of people didn't know how to read draw odds reports or just didn't think to look. I see no reason to let people get multiple tags over others just because they can't hunt the unit they initially set out to hunt.

The fact is this will increase point creep for the vast majority of people to benefit the few.
 
I would be more in favor of point averaging. That’s a one and done use of high point people. And allows grandpa to hunt with his grandkids. Surely there can be some abuses, so be sure you don’t allow those tags to be returned unless ALL tags in the group are returned. .
 

Colorado Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Rocky Mountain Ranches

Hunt some of the finest ranches in N.W. Colorado. Superb elk, mule deer, and antelope hunting.

Blue Mountain Outfitters

Unit 10 trophy deer and elk in Northwest Colorado. Guaranteed tags. Call Kent (801) 562-1802

Frazier Outfitting

Great Colorado elk hunting. Hunt the backcountry of unit 76. More than a hunt, it's an adventure!

CJ Outfitters

Hunt Colorado's premier trophy units, 2, 10 and 201 for trophy elk, deer and antelope.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear and cougar hunts in Colorado units 40 and 61.

Ivory & Antler Outfitters

Hunt trophy elk, mule deer, moose, antelope, bear, cougar and turkey on both private land and BLM.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer both DIY and guided hunts on large ranches all over Colorado for archery, muzzleloader and rifle hunts.

Hunters Domain

Colorado landowner tags for mule deer, elk and antelope. Tags for other states also available.

Flat Tops Elk Hunting

For the Do-It-Yourself hunters, an amazing cabin in GMU 12 for your groups elk or deer hunt.

Back
Top Bottom