License Distribution/Preference Points Focus Group For Future Seasons

Thill

Member
Messages
54
Hello Goodpeople,
I have been selected to be part of the focus group for the upcoming changes to CO license distribution with the focus on preference points later this month.

I wanted to hear from some of internet hunting buddies on there thoughts on what changes we might recommend to start addressing the every growing point creep and such for both residents and non-residents.

I have my personal thoughts that I will be fine tuning in the coming days as the meeting is later this month.

I am not looking to start an internet fight and feel free to contact me privately if you don't wish to publish your thoughts on the internet.

I do have many dogs in this discussion as I am a victim overcrowding on limited draw areas has destroyed my 40+ year pack trip. I am caught and still being bent over in AZ as a former resident and have bailed on couple of other states. I understand the costs of staying in the point game/bonus game, but cringe when the states change the rules and only give point holders a year or two to get out or change strategies. I have picked several quality leftover tags that would have taken many years or decade or so grab.

Let me know what you feel is important and what recommendations you might have and how we can spend or change or use up more preference points to attempt to provide hunting opportunities.

There are many issues that have brought us up to this point. Lets see what we can do to make it better.

Your thoughts.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
Sounds like you have a lot of experience. I don’t want to be the typical xenophobic Coloradan, but I think we need to take a good look at Non Res tag allocation. I would like to see some sort of added benefit that would be on par with many of the other western states. I also think re-issue tags should have an in-state preference. Outside of that ( which I know is a pipe dream) I’m not sure what we could do to slow point creep. The cheap application/ pay later seemed to have really accelerated point creep to unsustainable levels
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
394
Can you please bring back fronting the tag/license cost.

Specifically for Non Residents have them only able to apply for 1 of the big 3 (sheep, goat, moose), still buy points for the other 2 but only being in the draw for 1. This should minimize an impact to revenue but would improve draw odds for top point holders. The odds got super jacked up when they got rid of fronting the tag costs.
 

jdp010

Member
Messages
83
Colorado has been far too good to me and other NRs with their ~35% NR cap for many hunts and OTC opportunities. Glad to see that CO residents might be able to get some tags back.

Whatever NR cap you do have should absolutely be enforced beyond the draw and all the way through their electronic leftover/reissue process. A resident almost certainly returned those tags, a resident should have preference in obtaining it as a leftover to maintain your R/NR allocations. And probably need to have reissue tags use points to get some points off the books.

I don't know how Colorado will ever dig out at this point - especially with the change ~3 years ago where no one has to front tag money.
 

elkocd

Active Member
Messages
274
Thill

Can you post some of the realistic options that are on the table? I'm sure there have to be some that have already been discussed? Or, was the focus group created to just throw everything at the wall for now to see what sticks? We all have pipe dream ideas, but it seems like there really are very few that even have a chance to make formal discussions. If there are already some realistic ideas, I would love to hear them.
 

jdp010

Member
Messages
83
CPW charges me $161.28 annually to accumulate NR points for all species. $65.50 for my NR youths.

On the other end of that spectrum, MT FWP charges ~$700 annually to acquire points only for 7 species (includes Bison, and assumes taking the 80% refund on the big game combo tag each year).

That ~$550 differential was somewhat offset when CPW required fronting of all tag costs, but now CPW is just too cheap of a date for NRs.
 
Last edited:

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
Biggest hurdle to change and overcrowding: make all elk tags draw only.

Get that done and it is the first step for getting limits on NR

As I have stated May times. I would support limiting NRs as long as they do t do it with price. It’s unfair for residents to limit our numbers and still expect us to pay 70% of license revenue.
 

Thill

Member
Messages
54
Thill

Can you post some of the realistic options that are on the table? I'm sure there have to be some that have already been discussed? Or, was the focus group created to just throw everything at the wall for now to see what sticks? We all have pipe dream ideas, but it seems like there really are very few that even have a chance to make formal discussions. If there are already some realistic ideas, I would love to hear them.
I haven't seen what is on the table yet, and they said more details to follow soon. As soon as it is released I will post more details.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
Biggest hurdle to change and overcrowding: make all elk tags draw only.

Get that done and it is the first step for getting limits on NR

As I have stated May times. I would support limiting NRs as long as they do t do it with price. It’s unfair for residents to limit our numbers and still expect us to pay 70% of license revenue.
Tx, NR don’t have to shoulder the price of living in Co, which has skyrocketed lately, so it is more than reasonable to have to pay extra to hunt here. Just like I understand when I hunt in MT or Az I have to pay more than a resident who lives there, also places that limit non-res tags
 

oldmossback

Moderator
Messages
884
So the topic is how to stops points creep ? There isn't a way to stop it. It should be expected. It all boils down to " how bad do you want it"? If you want to wait a quarter of you life for that one special tag then so be it. My son has been applying for a certain tag since he was 12. He is now 26 and will finally draw it this year. That was his choice. He has never killed a bull , mainly because he has been holding out for this one unit. Sure you can hone your skills on lesser units in the mean time with leftover or OTC tags and that is great. But as far as stopping points creep, there is no easy, affective, common scents way to do it. Nor why would you want to? It's like everything in life.. the bigger , the better, the more expensive are harder to obtain.

I personally feel that over crowding is a bigger issue than points creep!
 

Togwotee

Long Time Member
Messages
5,722
I'm not exactly sure why point creep needs to be addressed at all. what is wrong with the person who's waited the longest getting the tag ? changing it now is essentially just cutting in line . period.

I know we have a world now where everyone is a winner and patience and hard work are less important than perceived entitlement. but does that have to even apply here ?

There is more demand than there is supply, end of story. so I'd say it safe to say you can't increase supply so that only leaves 2 options, decrease demand or screw over those who've been paying their dues the longest. of those options requiring the money up front and charging a hell of a lot more seems to me the most fair. that would reduce demand, still not fair? that's life. well it used to be.
 

PRCnut

Active Member
Messages
188
Several ways of getting rid of points faster Imo
1. Points should be used all across the board wether it’s a second choice tag or a return tag!

2. Points averaged like stated earlier for groups.

3. Offer up 10% of the tags in all draws/units like the hybrid draw so everyone has a chance.

4. Go back to fronting all the money up front.

5. Do something similar to what Oregon does and draw 75% of the tags from people with max points and the remainder 25% drawn from everyone with or without points and those that didn’t draw in the first 75%. Everyone would have some sort of chance.

No real solution but some options to ponder??

As to the overcrowding they could run elk season during its own season and vice versa with deer ect. Too many people in the field with everyone hunting during the same timeframe.
 

Iowan

Active Member
Messages
446
Increase the price of the tags significantly - demand is clearly outsizing supply. The common Joe myth is BS - I have seen the rigs and equipment people are pulling up in on these hunts. If you cannot afford it don't go hunting. If you want the best seats at a sporting event you pay the price. The priority should be more funds for more public lands and better management of the ones we have now. One way to lower point creep is to increase public lands, access, and put more animals on the landscape - it is a long term play.

It would be appreciated if they phase any changes in slowly to give those of us with nearly two decades of applying a chance to get out under the 'old' rules. I am at or nearing the peek of my points accumulation and will be burning them over the next ten years. Once burned I am out and will take whatever random draw tags I get and opportunity 'hunts'. There are states where you would be a fool to start applying in now - Wyoming moose, all OIL and LE hunts in Utah, and Nevada, etc. Wyoming and Colorado are still decent values with reasonable chance of eventually getting a solid tag.

Those of you relatively new to the points game think about this - when I started applying the elk tag I originally wanted to draw in CO took six points 15 years ago and now takes 16 points to draw. Now factor in if they reduce the number of non-resident tags and the ever increasing number of applicants and you can multiply the current points required 3X if you are starting at 0. I may be off a little but I bet not much - if the tag you want takes 10 points today you will need 30 points to draw it if the above happens. Then toss in bad winters, droughts, loss of habitat, increased poaching due to higher populations, more vehicle collisions (more traffic), etc.

I feel like I started just at the end of the 'good ole days' but just in time to build enough points in a reasonable amount of time. Most of my hunts out west have been random draw tags but the odds on those are plummeting too.

Thankful to live somewhere with almost unlimited hunting opportunity and some good ground to do it on.
 

Thill

Member
Messages
54
This is the text of the email I received.



Greetings from Colorado Parks and Wildlife!

You have been selected to participate in one of our in-person License Distribution focus groups taking place in April. Your focus group will discuss the topic of preference points. The purpose of these focus groups is to hear from resident and nonresident big game hunters about challenges and potential solutions they see with CPW’s license distribution approach and to help inform future big game season structure processes. This is one part of a multi-step process and your feedback is critical to improving the system.

The focus group will be held at CPW's Hunter Education Building in Grand Junction from 6-8:30pm on April 26th. More details will follow soon!

Please respond to this email to confirm you can attend the focus group you have been selected for.

Thanks,

CPW Policy and Planning
 

ORIONTHEHUNTER

Very Active Member
Messages
1,013
Get rid of OTC make it an 80/20 resident/nonresident split across the board and adjust prices accordingly both res and non res. They also need to address the free for all they opened on sheep, goat, moose when they waived up front money. Maybe those three could go to a different model like say ram unit x has five tags maybe three go to max point holders and the other two are done how they are now where everyone with three points has a chance. I would also like to see point banking brought back for more then one season.
 

Thill

Member
Messages
54
Keep the comments coming! I'm all ears! As a whole most of the comments I have read are along the lines of what most of you are was thinking. Orion - your Moose/Goat/Sheep idea sounds interesting. I am struggling with thoughts/solutions that don't punish longterm point holders including non-residents, while rewarding new applicants.

Unless there is new data out, the last I read was the weighted point system was basically a lottery if only a couple of tags were issued for the unit or hunt and the max weighted applicants rarely benefited.

There are a lot of applicants in no mans land with 10-20 points that I surmise point banking would be attractive since with the current system, they would never draw one of the highly coveted tags. I personally know one with 20points and he said he would gladly start cashing in his points on couple of 6-10 points units if he didn't have to give them all up at once.

Good stuff - There will be winners and losers in any changes made.
 

Marklaroif

Member
Messages
13
I think the hybrid tags for the high demand elk units should only be available for people with 20 points not 5. Same with other hybrid tags if the hunt code takes 17 points the minimum to be entered into the hybrid draw should be 15 points etc.
 

jims

Long Time Member
Messages
3,033
Pay license fees up front would be #1 choice. Require landowners or anyone that purchases landowner tags to use pref pts would also help.

Obviously hunters that hunt otc elk don’t burn pts. If all elk units were limited hunters would burn rather than build pref pts.
 

84hunterRN

Member
Messages
25
1. Quit using the 2007-2009 draw results to determine which tags are 20% or 35% nonresident. Update the list to determine the split on a rolling 3 year period starting with the current year and going back 3 years.

2. Place a hard cap on nonresident tags that includes all 4 choices in the draw. Currently, the cap only applies to first choice licenses.

3. Place a tag allocation cap on antelope, bear, and turkey licenses. Currently there is no cap.

4. Go to a 90/10 split like other western states.
 

Katoom

Active Member
Messages
343
1)At least cap points at 30 with random draw selection at top pointholder level (30). Gives young people hope for the future, gives some middle-aged people a chance now and changes the strategy for those approaching the cap. Bottom line, need to incentivize people to use their points or else suffer diminishing returns after reaching the cap.

2)Point banking (allow multiple lesser draws using only the points needed min for that draw). Again, still rewards high point holders, but encourages their exit sooner, thus providing hope for newer hunters.

3)NR Waiting period of 1 year (by species) after drawing ANY tag (OTC unaffected). Easy way to cut draw demand a whopping % without seriously discouraging long term interest. Perhaps allow points only application in that off year to maintain revenue stream.

4)Do not USE but also do not ACCRUE a point in a year where you draw a 2nd or 3rd choice licence. OTC would be unaffected. This will be a mind-bender as far as how it would affect application strategy though, but would provide HUGE opportunity for those who don't want to play the point game, and would help reduce gratuitous point hoarding in the future while making Colorado do-able for many future generations.

5) All OTC subject to reasonable caps, if not already in place. Herd and habitat management, crowding, and safety must remain forefront in the plan.

There's million ideas, w/same goals. Reward dedication, provide hope, encourage use of points. And avoid any scheme that will mathematically be reduced to the absurd with a bunch of 100 year old hunters vying for the only tags available - no disrespect to our elders intended.

By the way, I have 22 elk, 24 antelope, 3 deer and 3 moose heading into this draw.
 
Last edited:

Southpawshooter

Active Member
Messages
149
1. Quit using the 2007-2009 draw results to determine which tags are 20% or 35% nonresident. Update the list to determine the split on a rolling 3 year period starting with the current year and going back 3 years.

2. Place a hard cap on nonresident tags that includes all 4 choices in the draw. Currently, the cap only applies to first choice licenses.

3. Place a tag allocation cap on antelope, bear, and turkey licenses. Currently there is no cap.

4. Go to a 90/10 split like other western states.
WY isn't 90/10 for DEA. Just FYI
 
Last edited:

Downrange

Active Member
Messages
473
Nevada has the best draw system in the western United States. Adopt theirs and go for it. Square everybody’s points, give them 5 choices for units and if they draw they lose their pts for any of their 5 choices. Everybody has a chance to draw. But the more pts you have the better the odds. Draw by application so all your choices are looked at befor the next applicant in line. A guy with 10 pts squared gets 100 chances at a low number, while the guy with 5 pts gets 25 chances for a low number. I think every state should go this route. There you have it my opinion
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
394
4)Do not USE but also do not ACCRUE a point in a year where you draw a 2nd or 3rd choice licence. OTC would be unaffected. This will be a mind-bender as far as how it would affect application strategy though, but would provide HUGE opportunity for those who don't want to play the point game, and would help reduce gratuitous point hoarding in the future while making Colorado do-able for many future generations.

I think this is a pretty good idea. The bottom line is you pretty much have to choose do they want to accrue points or want to hunt. Not sure how you address it with LO tags though.
 

jims

Long Time Member
Messages
3,033
I like the idea of not losing pts....but also not accruing a point if a 2nd choice tag is drawn. I bet there would be fewer OTC elk hunters if hunters didn't accrue pts in years they hunt OTC. It would be a way around going to all limited units for elk while still somewhat limiting a few OTC hunters.

I've never been in favor of pt banking. It only makes it tougher to draw easier draw units since hunters can likely draw a couple tags with the same number of pts. Lower pt units will point leap!
 

Tomichi

Active Member
Messages
607
I do not belive We can biologically contine with Over the counter elk...too many people and they all drive at night! Our game has year around disturbance at every elevation.hikers mtbikes dog walkers and the all spring summer fall ohv use....END Otc elk. Any list A tag uses points. The up front $ No way that's coming back..CO ST GOV is a disaster...to cut a refund check in this State it "once" cost 11.50 to write the refund!!! I know it shouldn't but it does.. BS but a fact..Gov waste!
 

JBunn

Member
Messages
49
ELIMINATE unlimited OTC tags. (All tags are capped and draw only)

80/20 for all deer, elk and antelope

All moose, sheep and goat tags go to a lottery. (Only draw against applicants of the same hunt code. $50 application fee for all species)
 

droptine47

Member
Messages
72
More hybrid/random tags, but have a minimum point threshold that must be met to be placed in that bucket. Once that threshold was met, all draws would be random. Maybe that number is 25/30 now, with the thought that it would be lowered to 20 in the future to try and give the higher point holders an opportunity to draw before the changes. Different units would have different point thresholds depending on tag numbers and trophy quality.
 

COPLAINSHNTR

Member
Messages
63
“I like the idea of not losing pts....but also not accruing a point if a 2nd choice tag is drawn”

Hmm. That is a great compromise.
I don't think so. I draw a second choice PLO B list cow tag every year. This allows me to put meat in the freezer and gain a point. Also I am done with the chasing of big point areas, its just not worth it to me. I drew a 61 first rifle bull tag in 2020 and it was absolutely NOT worth the points it took. If the second choice is an A list license maybe, but as far as a B list nobody should have to burn points on a second choice B list license.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
1)At least cap points at 30 with random draw selection at top pointholder level (30). Gives young people hope for the future, gives some middle-aged people a chance now and changes the strategy for those approaching the cap. Bottom line, need to incentivize people to use their points or else suffer diminishing returns after reaching the cap.

2)Point banking (allow multiple lesser draws using only the points needed min for that draw). Again, still rewards high point holders, but encourages their exit sooner, thus providing hope for newer hunters.

3)NR Waiting period of 1 year (by species) after drawing ANY tag (OTC unaffected). Easy way to cut draw demand a whopping % without seriously discouraging long term interest. Perhaps allow points only application in that off year to maintain revenue stream.

4)Do not USE but also do not ACCRUE a point in a year where you draw a 2nd or 3rd choice licence. OTC would be unaffected. This will be a mind-bender as far as how it would affect application strategy though, but would provide HUGE opportunity for those who don't want to play the point game, and would help reduce gratuitous point hoarding in the future while making Colorado do-able for many future generations.

5) All OTC subject to reasonable caps, if not already in place. Herd and habitat management, crowding, and safety must remain forefront in the plan.

There's million ideas, w/same goals. Reward dedication, provide hope, encourage use of points. And avoid any scheme that will mathematically be reduced to the absurd with a bunch of 100 year old hunters vying for the only tags available - no disrespect to our elders intended.

By the way, I have 22 elk, 24 antelope, 3 deer and 3 moose heading into this draw.
Number 4 would be a huge shake up. I actually kind of like that idea. I have been doing that for years. Grabbing a point and a tag, but I admit it would definitely change how I applied.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
I don't think so. I draw a second choice PLO B list cow tag every year. This allows me to put meat in the freezer and gain a point. Also I am done with the chasing of big point areas, its just not worth it to me. I drew a 61 first rifle bull tag in 2020 and it was absolutely NOT worth the points it took. If the second choice is an A list license maybe, but as far as a B list nobody should have to burn points on a second choice B list license.
I don’t see a problem with exempting B tags from that formula

But there may be a way around that too. Are there leftovers where you can pick up that same tag after the drawing?
 

COPLAINSHNTR

Member
Messages
63
I don’t see a problem with exempting B tags from that formula

But there may be a way around that too. Are there leftovers where you can pick up that same tag after the drawing?
That all depends on the year and the quota. Sometimes we can draw second choice but there are years that we cant.
 

Phantom Hunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,816
End OTC tags for elk, make anyone who draws a tag lose points including landowner tags. The point banking idea has merit. My grandkids will never get to draw a bull tag in a limited unit under current rules. My son will never draw a high demand unit. Guess what happens when us old farts are gone and the grandkids have not caught the hunting bug???
 

smokepolejohnson

Active Member
Messages
941
I made a separate post about this in the Colorado forum but thought I’d add it here as well regarding point boosting…….

I just finished up my buying my yearly round of Colorado points and the question I have is-
Is there any chance of CPW ever averaging a groups point application or point boosting???

I’ve been buying points as a NR since Jake “the Snake” Plummer was under center for the Donkeys and Hickenlooper was knee deep in the Denver micro brew pub scene before becoming mayor or Gov. And the reason I ask is instead of drawing a chitty tag with all my points I’d rather point boost my 12 year old so we can both have a lesser chitty deer tag in a lower point unit. Is this something the residents or the general masses is against or is there a reason why it’s not allowed as In with other states, seems like a good way for the CPW to have people to devalue their pts if the decide to help someone else.
 

WesternSky

Active Member
Messages
469
1. Quit using the 2007-2009 draw results to determine which tags are 20% or 35% nonresident. Update the list to determine the split on a rolling 3 year period starting with the current year and going back 3 years.

2. Place a hard cap on nonresident tags that includes all 4 choices in the draw. Currently, the cap only applies to first choice licenses.

3. Place a tag allocation cap on antelope, bear, and turkey licenses. Currently there is no cap.

4. Go to a 90/10 split like other western states.
I am in the license allocation focus group and what you have listed (except #2) is what I will be pushing hard.

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.

It sucks for NR but its what it should be. I apply in 5 other states and drawing tag can be rough but I accept that the lions share goes to their res. Colorado needs to be the same.
 

WesternSky

Active Member
Messages
469
I don't think we will be talking about it my group but point banking has came up in previous posts on this thread.

It sounds like good idea but I think it will have unintended consequences and I'm opposed to it. It will have a negative affect on the "mid" tier units. Something that used to take 4-5 points will have high point holders applying for it multiple times and driving up the required points. All the people that almost had enough points will continue to accumulate points and drive the req points even higher when they draw.
I don't think unreasonable, given the scenarios I described, for 2-5 point units to experience creep into the 4-10 range.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,233
All you guys advocating the 90/10 split should also include in your proposal a very substantial increase in resident license fees. And no increase in nonresident fee's.

You guys want your pie, you can pay for it too.

I remember seeing all the whining and crying when they raised the resident fee's $7 a couple years ago, I can only imagine what kind of crying there would be if they raised tag fee's enough to make up the difference in lost revenue from a 90/10 split.
 

WesternSky

Active Member
Messages
469
All you guys advocating the 90/10 split should also include in your proposal a very substantial increase in resident license fees. And no increase in nonresident fee's.

You guys want your pie, you can pay for it too.

I remember seeing all the whining and crying when they raised the resident fee's $7 a couple years ago, I can only imagine what kind of crying there would be if they raised tag fee's enough to make up the difference in lost revenue from a 90/10 split.
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. I’m fairly certain the CPW has operated at a surplus recently and they can live within their budgets and absorb some of the NR loss.
 

Colo22Hunt

Active Member
Messages
110
All you guys advocating the 90/10 split should also include in your proposal a very substantial increase in resident license fees. And no increase in nonresident fee's.

You guys want your pie, you can pay for it too.

I remember seeing all the whining and crying when they raised the resident fee's $7 a couple years ago, I can only imagine what kind of crying there would be if they raised tag fee's enough to make up the difference in lost revenue from a 90/10 split.
Hell I’ll gladly pay a resident increase if the allocation goes 90/10. License fees are probably the least amount of $ spent on a hunt now days with all the latest equipment, optics, long range rifles, ect . I bet there’s a lot more Utah guys applying/hunting Colorado Mule deer than Colorado guys applying/hunting Utah Mule Deer.
 

cmbbulldog

Very Active Member
Messages
2,517
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. I’m fairly certain the CPW has operated at a surplus recently and they can live within their budgets and absorb some of the NR loss.
Same, happy to pay more for better opportunities. Everyone I know would gladly do the same.

Don't like point banking, but do like the idea of averaging points for group hunting.

I wasn't selected for the focus groups apparently... hope the folks represent the residents well here.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
All you guys advocating the 90/10 split should also include in your proposal a very substantial increase in resident license fees. And no increase in nonresident fee's.

You guys want your pie, you can pay for it too.

I remember seeing all the whining and crying when they raised the resident fee's $7 a couple years ago, I can only imagine what kind of crying there would be if they raised tag fee's enough to make up the difference in lost revenue from a 90/10 split.
They go to 90/10 I will gladly pay double or even triple the fees for the current in state price, and I bet a lot of other guys would agree. I bet if they doubled the out of state price fellas would still line up to buy otc tags.
 

SanJuanSlayer

Active Member
Messages
309
All you guys advocating the 90/10 split should also include in your proposal a very substantial increase in resident license fees. And no increase in nonresident fee's.

You guys want your pie, you can pay for it too.

I remember seeing all the whining and crying when they raised the resident fee's $7 a couple years ago, I can only imagine what kind of crying there would be if they raised tag fee's enough to make up the difference in lost revenue from a 90/10 split.
I'm all for paying more for my tags if we get a 90/10 split but there is no reason not to raise NR prices to be on par with other states.
 

LIK2HNT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,580
Getting to be another screw the NR conversation. Is resident odds and opportunities that more worst than they were 3 years ago? If so, is it the NR fault? Do you all feel you have to follow the way other state treat NR?
Keep dividing hunters and soon we will all loose.
 

ORIONTHEHUNTER

Very Active Member
Messages
1,013
Getting to be another screw the NR conversation. Is resident odds and opportunities that more worst than they were 3 years ago? If so, is it the NR fault? Do you all feel you have to follow the way other state treat NR?
Keep dividing hunters and soon we will all loose.
How is 80'/20 or 90/10 screwing non residents? Do you think OTC is sustainable?
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
No other state has the elk numbers that CO does. You don’t have to go 90/10 to get what you want. Plus you won’t get 90/10 because residents have made NR money too big/important. You might find a way to get them to accept 80/20 if you can figure a way that they don’t lose big time on total license fee revenue.

Thems the facts.
 

ORIONTHEHUNTER

Very Active Member
Messages
1,013
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.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,233
Lol you guys would gladly pay extra, no doubt about that. But I follow a couple Colorado hunting pages on Facebook. The average guy is not willing to do what you guys are. They raised tags 7$ for elk and deer (if memory serves me right) a year or two ago and didn't raise the non residents tag price. You wouldn't believe all the whining going on in those groups it was quite childish.

The thing most didn't realize is while they didn't raise the cost of a deer or elk tag for NR they did double the cost of the mandatory small game license.

I'm in Utah, a NR general and LE deer tag is $398 + $72 small game license, and a $10 app fee. Totals out to $480.
Colorado is 420.23 + 86.50 for small game tag, +9.17 app fee. Totals out to $515.90
So both are comparable for deer tags.

For elk general season it's Utah $593 and Colorado over the counter is $700.98

Starting to separate pretty good there. And Utah does not have a nonresidents cap on general elk tags that I am aware of. They sell them until they are sold out to whoever buys them.
 

WesternSky

Active Member
Messages
469
Getting to be another screw the NR conversation. Is resident odds and opportunities that more worst than they were 3 years ago? If so, is it the NR fault? Do you all feel you have to follow the way other state treat NR?
Keep dividing hunters and soon we will all loose.
It’s not about screwing the NRs, it’s about CO responsibility to remember wildlife is owned by the residents and they need to allocate accordingly. As Newburg says, I’m a NR in 49 other states so I understand that it’s going to be hard to get a tag in those states. I just want what other residents enjoy in their states.

To your points,
yes it harder to get tags in the last 3 years
no it’s not the NR fault
yes
nothing about this is to divide hunters.
 

cmbbulldog

Very Active Member
Messages
2,517
Lol you guys would gladly pay extra, no doubt about that. But I follow a couple Colorado hunting pages on Facebook. The average guy is not willing to do what you guys are. They raised tags 7$ for elk and deer (if memory serves me right) a year or two ago and didn't raise the non residents tag price. You wouldn't believe all the whining going on in those groups it was quite childish.

The thing most didn't realize is while they didn't raise the cost of a deer or elk tag for NR they did double the cost of the mandatory small game license.

I'm in Utah, a NR general and LE deer tag is $398 + $72 small game license, and a $10 app fee. Totals out to $480.
Colorado is 420.23 + 86.50 for small game tag, +9.17 app fee. Totals out to $515.90
So both are comparable for deer tags.

For elk general season it's Utah $593 and Colorado over the counter is $700.98

Starting to separate pretty good there. And Utah does not have a nonresidents cap on general elk tags that I am aware of. They sell them until they are sold out to whoever buys them.

Co is cheap. They should raise the cost for both residents and NR's alike and give more tags to residents.

I just spent over 1300 trying to get a montana elk tag. Other states I apply in or more expensive as well.

Utah is 90/10 and the odds of drawing a decent tag there is almost impossible. CO gives NR's a tremendous amount of tags on some really good hunts.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,233
Co is cheap. They should raise the cost for both residents and NR's alike and give more tags to residents.

I just spent over 1300 trying to get a montana elk tag. Other states I apply in or more expensive as well.

Utah is 90/10 and the odds of drawing a decent tag there is almost impossible. CO gives NR's a tremendous amount of tags on some really good hunts.
Utah is cheaper for NR then Colorado.

Like I said, the average Colorado hunter will throw a fit if you raise tag prices, $7 put a lot of them over the top. Obviously your average Monster Muley member is not going to have an issue with it. But the masses??? good luck selling a tag increase to them.

I'm not going to speak to other states, but Utah is cheaper then Colorado for both deer and elk tags. 🤷‍♂️ that's a fact.

My whole point is that a lot of you are saying go to a 90/10 split like the other states. That is your states prerogative, you guys do what you got to do. But if you do it, it will be a MASSIVE revenue cut, and that will require much higher resident tag prices to make up the difference. The average hunter in Colorado will not be for that. Someone said "they have been running on a surplus they can absorb some of the cost" to which I say good luck getting a government agency to see it that way.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,233
As to the original post, as a non Resident I say
1: leave the tag split like it is.
2: quit messing with the re-issue tag process its fine like it is now, or better yet go back to 100% random list drops Tuesday-Friday.
3: add a hybrid draw to all the tags for both R and NR, 25% are random draw to all point holders. 100% to max points just sucks in my opinion.
 

JakeH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,233
Colorado is cheaper than Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. A Colorado draw elk tag is cheaper than Utah LE tag.
Like I said do what you got to do.

Ok, You are going to pay a little more in Utah for the one time in your lifetime that you actually draw a LE tag. Its still cheaper for the hunts you can do every year that there is no 90/10 split for.

But Just because the rest of the states like to gouge the crap out of everyone doesn't mean your state has too. Lots of negativity towards NR in all states.

I hope Utah continues to be the cheaper option for the NR hunter, I'm not going to look at what the other states are doing and advocate we do the same just because that's what the other states are doing. Seems childish to me.
 

COLOelkman

Active Member
Messages
976
The one system that I think needs adjustment is the Moose, sheep, goat tag allocation. Totally changing any current system would make many people mad. I think tweeking this system might be not too bad by Square your weighted points. ie. 3 pts + 10 weighted points would equal 3+100 = 103 as the number they divide your random number by. So the higher point holders progressively have better odds each year. I'd suggest waiving or reducing the $50 fee at least to residents as it kind rubs me the wrong way to add this big a fee for a specific tag long after many have built points over the years. A little more complicated is to reduce fees based on the higher points you have. (ie. 0-5 weighted pts. $50, 6-10 pts $40, etc. ) This adjustment gives progressively better odds each year for people that have lots of points, many of which will likely die before they draw a tag. Really! Toprut.com wrote an article comparing various systems that was very well presented I thought.
Many of the other issues and ideas to change things always seem to have both good and bad points as once a point system is in place, there's no turning back without screwing some group and quite often it seems that it'd be a large group that would be impacted. Will hafta think a little more on any other ideas that might be considered not too controversial.
 

ORIONTHEHUNTER

Very Active Member
Messages
1,013
As to the original post, as a non Resident I say
1: leave the tag split like it is.
2: quit messing with the re-issue tag process its fine like it is now, or better yet go back to 100% random list drops Tuesday-Friday.
3: add a hybrid draw to all the tags for both R and NR, 25% are random draw to all point holders. 100% to max points just sucks in my opinion.
of course you do what other state has a 65/35 split or better for nonresidents?
 

Thill

Member
Messages
54
My little brain is spinning, but this is exactly what I wanted to see and hear about from the real stakeholders! I am glad I have a couple of weeks to process all of this before the meeting.
 

LIK2HNT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,580
My little brain is spinning, but this is exactly what I wanted to see and hear about from the real stakeholders! I am glad I have a couple of weeks to process all of this before the meeting.
I know NR do not have a leg to stand on in these situations. But it would be nice if the states would look at this as how it effects everyone. Those planning and putting in for over 20 years supporting wildlife R or NR have put in a lot. Some have done this yet never actually hunted the state waiting for retirement, children to graduate school, etc to plan a hunt.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
Colorado is cheaper than Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. A Colorado draw elk tag is cheaper than Utah LE tag.
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, and the CPW knows it. I would pay double CO price for AZ or Utah.

And I love the “everyone is jumping off a cliff so we should too” price mentality. Colorado has by far the most elk of any state. They should be leading, not following. They have enough elk to go around without screwing the NRs.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
Tx if you don’t think it’s worth it then it would be a prime example of the market regulating itself. I am still betting the woods will be full of Okies and Texans in October and November
 

COLOelkman

Active Member
Messages
976
Thanks for doing this Thill as I'd volunteered as you but wasn't selected it's great that you are soliciting input in advance of the meeting kickoff!
A couple general thoughts:
I think overcrowding has been and continues to be the #1 concern of hunters from all I've talked to which directly can impact the quality of hunt people experience. From previous experience with CPW meetings, I've heard it directly stated they are willing to listen to new ideas "as long as it doesn't effect the budget" which creates a significant obstacle to address some of the problems. Some very general thoughts I've had to reduce overcrowding are:
1. Limit or change OTC tags allocations/policies. CO is the default state for many people to hunt when they can't draw a limited tag in other States.
2. Change that List A PLUS List B allowance. I love to get an A and B tag however it is a source of additional hunters and I've no idea how many hunter get both tags as that stat doesn't seem to be available. Backing off a little would help so even allowing a B tag every other year would be a step to reduce the overcrowding.
3. I really don't see a good way to reduce point creep overall. As others have said, it's supply and demand and every State the has points, has point creep. Point banking (taking minimum amount of points for lesser "quality" units helps the creep for the high point tags but would make lower point units harder to draw and it seems to me it merely pushes point creep down to these lower units. People in no-mans land like this but for those just starting to build points to draw units that might take 4-8 pts, could be significantly impacted. So I personally don't think point creep will ever go away as it rewards those who've paid their dues based on the current rules.
4. Predators - kind of a big issue here and not sure if the meetings will be open to address anything. My one suggestion relates to bear. Bear populations have been steadily increasing and I think there should be even more efforts to reduce the numbers. Relaxing some of the stringent check in requirements, like checkin to CPW within 5 working days of harvest which for me deters me from bear hunting as I'm typically elk or deer hunting and don't want to loose several precious days to hunt those because I have to drive somewhere and loose at least 2 days. I think the price for me is also a deterrent and think reducing it (to perhaps $20) might make more hunters say, why not. I've run in to a lot of NR hunters that buy the bear tag because they've cut the price "significantly" to $100 and to many, this caused them to get one. As stated, I'm not a bear hunter but would like to do my part in predator control/reduction but there's still too many deterrents for me. Allowing a bear tag to be filled during multiple seasons might help with that too as I believe other states have that policy.
I'll stop rambling now!
 

fallguy

Active Member
Messages
634
I agree with many of the comments above about CPW needing to start being fairer to it’s residents. I’m for a 85/15 or 90/10 split on draw tags but would like to see what changes CPW would have to implement to make up for the revenue shortfall.

I think resident preference should also be extended to the Re-issued license program. Below are some thoughts on that.

Re-issue / Leftover Process Ideas


Residents get preference on Re-issues via the weekly Leftover Process. Unclaimed Re-issued tags that make it through the weekly distribution process would be available to Residents and Non-residents via the Leftover List.

Online only - no more having sales terminals being used for Re-issues via the Leftover Process. Unless we get away from the Wednesday 11:00 am drag race.

A compromise to the previous Tuesday-Friday totally random posting and the current method of posting the Re-issues on Tuesday and then having the Wednesday 11:00 am internet speed drag race could be to post on Tuesday and then have tags randomly issued throughout Wednesday from 9:00am – 4:00PM.

Also, to prevent any potential “insider information” improprieties, no CPW employees or immediate family are eligible for Re-issues via the Leftover Process.

Secondary Draw Ideas

Licenses turned in during the Surrender Period (by June 6) do not go in the Secondary Draw but are held for the Re-issue List in August.

Licenses turned in after the Surrender Period and before the Secondary Draw do not go in the Secondary Draw but are held for the Re-issue List in August.

The procedure in place for 2022 is to dump all the returned licenses received during the Surrender Period and the ones received between the Surrender Period and the Secondary Draw into the Secondary Draw which is 100% youth preference. I am not anti-youth by any means but I think this is going a bit too far. I’m sure some will disagree. I believe the following current youth perks are sufficient: reduced fee licenses, antlerless license preference in the draw, preference in the Secondary Draw (without adding in returned licenses) and continue to allow them to convert their unfilled antlerless deer and elk and either-sex elk tags to antlerless licenses to be used in any remaining open season.
 

schmalie79

Active Member
Messages
166
Ask your group to find the stats of how many reissue tags are purchased by NR’s and how much money gets generated for the state in your discussion. Changing preference for reissue is a non starter.
 

jdp010

Member
Messages
83
I would use my NR Colorado points immediately and regularly if I could group point average with my kids.

Colorado should absolutely get R/NR allocation enforced on electronic reissues/leftovers. Allocation would destroy the bot problem as it is NR demand/money that funds bots. Only let an NR in at all if the tag sits > X hours/days. Wouldn't even need the expensive QUEUE-IT software if residency allocation is enforced on electronic reissue. Residents don't use bots for the lower quality tags that end up on the electronic list. But NRs definitely will (and did).

Odd to see residents of strict 90/10 states preach to Colorado that they can't follow the trend. Colorado deserves more than that small handful of trophy units. Where a 320 bull unit is now a trophy unit in CO.

Unfortunately, CPW long ago sold out to the "Raghorns for NRs" model. Even if the affluent CO hunters volunteer to offset revenue with increased fees, CPW won't want to do too much of that because of how it impacts the low-income resident hunters.

I sure hope Colorado residents get some good concessions here - great timing coming right after the success for WY residents on 90/10 for Big 5.

Coloradans should even get 95/5 on MSG if they want it as a huge thank you for the sacrifices they have made for NRs on deer/elk. WY got away with an allocation move on similar species after increasing point fees to $150 just a few years prior. CO MSG points are only $9 and a different structure, so maybe even 97/3 on MSG is reasonable. I would still throw $9 in NR money at that despite it being 95/5 or 97/3.

Much of Colorado is going to have to remain the raghorn state. But hopefully CPW can find a way to get a few more higher quality hunts/experiences retained for RES and not bust the budget.
 

brooktrout

Member
Messages
15
OTC tags need to go away, give regional or area managers the ability to set tag numbers, does not necessarily mean reductions. Tag reductions need to happen in overcrowded units.
Overflow from other states after the draw and from draw units in Colorado are a big crowding issue and this would eliminate that.
This alone would help the preference point issue, would not solve it completely but would be a great start!
It is a management tool that has outlived its usefulness.Archery seasons are way out of control with crowding. Archery has increased over 80% in 20 years and 50 % in 5 years that is not sustainable.
 

jdp010

Member
Messages
83
What's the percentage breakdown r/nr for Colorado sheep, moose, and mountain goat?
Few NRs ever knew that CO MSG was 90/10 because CO has so many different allocation percentages and draw structures. That is why CPW can sneak 95-5 or 97-3 by NRs and still get $9 (x3) from each of us NRs annually. CO MSG is already a shiet show raffle anyway that no one counted on like we did in WY.

WY GFD took the reputation hit because they recently moved forward with huge PP price increases when they should have seen 90/10 (on Big 5) momentum building in their residents/legislature.

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.

But CWP can do a subtle 95-5 or 97-3 on MSG to help out their RES and I think it won't get the negative publicity. Strict allocation on leftovers/reissues also seems inherently fair to many NRs even if they do notice. And most didn't even know that CO was running wide open on that process.

SD has 10 sheep tags now and they retain 100/0. 100/0 on elk too. Don't hear complaints if you stay under radar and don't conduct obvious money grabs.
 

Southpawshooter

Active Member
Messages
149
Few NRs ever knew that CO MSG was 90/10 because CO has so many different allocation percentages and draw structures. That is why CPW can sneak 95-5 or 97-3 by NRs and still get $9 (x3) from each of us NRs annually. CO MSG is already a shiet show raffle anyway that no one counted on like we did in WY.

WY GFD took the reputation hit because they recently moved forward with huge PP price increases when they should have seen 90/10 (on Big 5) momentum building in their residents/legislature.

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.

But CWP can do a subtle 95-5 or 97-3 on MSG to help out their RES and I think it won't get the negative publicity. Strict allocation on leftovers/reissues also seems inherently fair to many NRs even if they do notice. And most didn't even know that CO was running wide open on that process.

SD has 10 sheep tags now and they retain 100/0. 100/0 on elk too. Don't hear complaints if you stay under radar and don't conduct obvious money grabs.
It was a rhetorical question. You want to use WY's recent move that brings them inline with Colorado as leverage to do the same on different species. Makes no sense. Seems like you want to do underhanded things to NR.

I'm not totally against reissued tags being allocated back to the specific group that returned them. For example, if a resident tag gets turned back in, only residents are eligible. If a NR turns a tag back, only NR are eligible for that tag. My guess, there's a lot more NR returning tags than residents. I'd prefer it stay like it is right now though and change it back to random times.
 
Last edited:

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
Tx if you don’t think it’s worth it then it would be a prime example of the market regulating itself. I am still betting the woods will be full of Okies and Texans in October and November
We will have to agree to disagree. Your vote is decidedly cast into “give me better hunting and make NRs pay for it”. Will never agree with that mentality, no matter where I am considered a “resident”

I can personally afford any price increase, but numerous friends have already dropped out due to cost. That said, would I pay $1000 for a 5-9 day season for an elk? Nope! And more hunters than you know will be in that same boat. The CPW knows this because they lost 30,000 elk NR hunters overnight that last time they raised prices substantially. You have created this by making our license revenue such a big part of the CPW budget.

That said, I will retire in 2023 and will switch to bowhunting from my cabin in SW Colorado. Hunting for a month will be worth whatever the price goes to. So I don’t care all that much for myself. But it is quickly becoming a rich man’s sport. And that is sad.
 

elkocd

Active Member
Messages
274
I know some have reasons to not like point averaging, but I know I would have already burned mine if I could average them with my son. Pretty sure there a lot of NRs in the 10-20 point range that would burn them now or already would have if they could average withfamily members or friends. I do think it would flush out a lot of us that are stuck in the no mans land of points.
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
394
But it is quickly becoming a rich man’s sport. And that is sad.

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.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
We will have to agree to disagree. Your vote is decidedly cast into “give me better hunting and make NRs pay for it”. Will never agree with that mentality, no matter where I am considered a “resident”

I can personally afford any price increase, but numerous friends have already dropped out due to cost. That said, would I pay $1000 for a 5-9 day season for an elk? Nope! And more hunters than you know will be in that same boat. The CPW knows this because they lost 30,000 elk NR hunters overnight that last time they raised prices substantially. You have created this by making our license revenue such a big part of the CPW budget.

That said, I will retire in 2023 and will switch to bowhunting from my cabin in SW Colorado. Hunting for a month will be worth whatever the price goes to. So I don’t care all that much for myself. But it is quickly becoming a rich man’s sport. And that is sad.
I will agree with it being sad that it is becoming a rich man’s sport. You might be used to pay to play though already from being a Texan, I went to school there and found out pretty quick that there is next to no public land in that state and it sucked unless you owned a ranch. I am not asking NR’s to pay for everything and get none of the tags but last year there were more OTC archery NR’s than Res. All the trailheads I frequented were packed with Southern state license plates. That was just for archery which has seen huge increases in the last few years. I shot my bull in Southern Co and that unit is now a draw unit from too much traffic. There has to be a balance between Rewarding residents who bear the bulk of the cost of living in the state and those who come to play for a couple weeks a year, and it should be greater than 65/35 and unlimited OTC tags. I would have to check last years numbers but I’m sure we recovered more than the 30k hunters that left over the price increase years ago
 

LIK2HNT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,580
I will agree with it being sad that it is becoming a rich man’s sport. You might be used to pay to play though already from being a Texan, I went to school there and found out pretty quick that there is next to no public land in that state and it sucked unless you owned a ranch. I am not asking NR’s to pay for everything and get none of the tags but last year there were more OTC archery NR’s than Res. All the trailheads I frequented were packed with Southern state license plates. That was just for archery which has seen huge increases in the last few years. I shot my bull in Southern Co and that unit is now a draw unit from too much traffic. There has to be a balance between Rewarding residents who bear the bulk of the cost of living in the state and those who come to play for a couple weeks a year, and it should be greater than 65/35 and unlimited OTC tags. I would have to check last years numbers but I’m sure we recovered more than the 30k hunters that left over the price increase years ago
“Rewarding residents who bear the bulk of the cost of living in the state and those who come to play for a couple weeks a year,”

Can you tell me how this effects wildlife? You said it yourself. NR are there for a week is so. Resident get to use it 365 days a year. Now where is the bargain.
If 80 percent of the tags are residents are the 20 percent of NR out hunting them? NR better hunters? Or do a lot of residents want to drive around after work and on weekends and be able to shoot game from their truck?
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
“Rewarding residents who bear the bulk of the cost of living in the state and those who come to play for a couple weeks a year,”

Can you tell me how this effects wildlife? You said it yourself. NR are there for a week is so. Resident get to use it 365 days a year. Now where is the bargain.
If 80 percent of the tags are residents are the 20 percent of NR out hunting them? NR better hunters? Or do a lot of residents want to drive around after work and on weekends and be able to shoot game from their truck?
Has nothing to do with being a better hunter or not it has to do with driving point creep for residents in lower point units. With NR taking more tags that means less Res get to play meaning now they have to wait 2/3 years to hunt units that they may live in, how frustrating would it be to not be able to hunt your own property from point creep? I have a friend whose property went from being an Otc tag to now 2/3 points in the matter of 12 years… that sucks and the 35% tags going to NR is partially driving that
 
Last edited:

PRCnut

Active Member
Messages
188
It seems to me that the increasing resident population is what is driving up your odds since the tag percentages hasn’t changed much or at all in Colorado since The last 24 years that I’ve been applying? IMO

Unless it’s a unit that is marked with a + after it. Also the diminishing deer populations and tags available doesn’t help!
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
It seems to me that the increasing resident population is what is driving up your odds since the tag percentages hasn’t changed much or at all in Colorado since The last 24 years that I’ve been applying? IMO

Unless it’s a unit that is marked with a + after it. Also the diminishing deer populations and tags available doesn’t help!
Prc there is truth to what you are saying with population increase driving up some, which is another reason to allocate more tags to Res. The unit in question is around 3/1 NR to R applications after being mentioned in some western hunting magazines
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
I will agree with it being sad that it is becoming a rich man’s sport. You might be used to pay to play though already from being a Texan, I went to school there and found out pretty quick that there is next to no public land in that state and it sucked unless you owned a ranch. I am not asking NR’s to pay for everything and get none of the tags but last year there were more OTC archery NR’s than Res. All the trailheads I frequented were packed with Southern state license plates. That was just for archery which has seen huge increases in the last few years. I shot my bull in Southern Co and that unit is now a draw unit from too much traffic. There has to be a balance between Rewarding residents who bear the bulk of the cost of living in the state and those who come to play for a couple weeks a year, and it should be greater than 65/35 and unlimited OTC tags. I would have to check last years numbers but I’m sure we recovered more than the 30k hunters that left over the price increase years ago
I can agree with almost everything you say here. Yes, the 30,000 has come back over the years. But CPW was advertising heavily for quite a few years and it took many years. If there is a sudden big increase, that will happen again

Also, I have no problem with 80/20. You absolutely need to get way more than you are getting.

If you will read my first post, that is what I said. LIMIT all elk tags and lower NR numbers. Where we diverge in thought is if that happens and NR prices go up substantially and residents don’t, that is not good bull
 

FrontRange

Active Member
Messages
316
Not sure the CPAW will consider any recommendations regarding reducing point creep that reduces revenue. That said, I think the requirement to use PPs in some manner when purchasing RFW tags, doing away with OTC, and not allowing the purchase of PPs as an application option would help. I believe PPs were meant to be compensation for not not drawing your 1st hunt code option to give you a better chance of drawing that hunt the following season, not to just build points. But they saw the potential for making $$. I also like the idea point banking, yes this would increase points needed in mid tier hunts for a few years but in the long term this would reduce PP accumulation. Just my two cents worth.
 

HntHrdr

Active Member
Messages
293
I can agree with almost everything you say here. Yes, the 30,000 has come back over the years. But CPW was advertising heavily for quite a few years and it took many years. If there is a sudden big increase, that will happen again

Also, I have no problem with 80/20. You absolutely need to get way more than you are getting.

If you will read my first post, that is what I said. LIMIT all elk tags and lower NR numbers. Where we diverge in thought is if that happens and NR prices go up substantially and residents don’t, that is not good bull
I can agree if they raise NR prices they should raise Res, leave youth tags cheap but I am not foolish enough to want to cut tags and not increase prices at home. Greedy ass parks will want the cash from somewhere… Probably unpopular opinion, but not my first or last unpopular opinion I’m sure.
 

COHunter

Active Member
Messages
654
I would hope they would limit NR and keep Residents OTC for Elk. As soon as the rifle seasons go limited it opens the GMU's to the voucher program. I agree with txhunter58, about costs. Limit NR's by caps not fee's.
But something needs to be done concerning the crowds. I'm a resident and question if the tag is worth the price I pay, because of crowding. If I was a NR I'd be pissed at paying the NR price and then having to deal with the crowds. At least in the Craig area where I was going.
 

ORIONTHEHUNTER

Very Active Member
Messages
1,013
I suggested earlier that going 80/20 across the board and getting rid of OTC with price adjustments on both sides makes the most sense. It's probably the easiest way to get rid of OTC. Regardless they need to adjust a lot of the 65/35 units they have ignored for a lot of years. This is even a direct violation of their policy.
 

Thill

Member
Messages
54
Thanks for doing this Thill as I'd volunteered as you but wasn't selected it's great that you are soliciting input in advance of the meeting kickoff!
A couple general thoughts:
I think overcrowding has been and continues to be the #1 concern of hunters from all I've talked to which directly can impact the quality of hunt people experience. From previous experience with CPW meetings, I've heard it directly stated they are willing to listen to new ideas "as long as it doesn't effect the budget" which creates a significant obstacle to address some of the problems. Some very general thoughts I've had to reduce overcrowding are:
1. Limit or change OTC tags allocations/policies. CO is the default state for many people to hunt when they can't draw a limited tag in other States.
2. Change that List A PLUS List B allowance. I love to get an A and B tag however it is a source of additional hunters and I've no idea how many hunter get both tags as that stat doesn't seem to be available. Backing off a little would help so even allowing a B tag every other year would be a step to reduce the overcrowding.
3. I really don't see a good way to reduce point creep overall. As others have said, it's supply and demand and every State the has points, has point creep. Point banking (taking minimum amount of points for lesser "quality" units helps the creep for the high point tags but would make lower point units harder to draw and it seems to me it merely pushes point creep down to these lower units. People in no-mans land like this but for those just starting to build points to draw units that might take 4-8 pts, could be significantly impacted. So I personally don't think point creep will ever go away as it rewards those who've paid their dues based on the current rules.
4. Predators - kind of a big issue here and not sure if the meetings will be open to address anything. My one suggestion relates to bear. Bear populations have been steadily increasing and I think there should be even more efforts to reduce the numbers. Relaxing some of the stringent check in requirements, like checkin to CPW within 5 working days of harvest which for me deters me from bear hunting as I'm typically elk or deer hunting and don't want to loose several precious days to hunt those because I have to drive somewhere and loose at least 2 days. I think the price for me is also a deterrent and think reducing it (to perhaps $20) might make more hunters say, why not. I've run in to a lot of NR hunters that buy the bear tag because they've cut the price "significantly" to $100 and to many, this caused them to get one. As stated, I'm not a bear hunter but would like to do my part in predator control/reduction but there's still too many deterrents for me. Allowing a bear tag to be filled during multiple seasons might help with that too as I believe other states have that policy.
I'll stop rambling now!
I told myself would try and not comment too much until I get the full agenda from CPW.
Your comment about the A&B tags, I can tell you from personal experience, I usually hunt 1st Rifle Elk and until few years ago always had a B-tag in my pack with a cow tag. And most of the residents that I know that hunt 1st season with Bull tag usually also will have cow tag. The non-residents I know or that are part of my group will not get both tags because of the costs. Several of the groups of buddies that I know hunt 2nd/3rd season OTC will also carry both tags if they can get them. The reason I mention this is because it actually indirectly limits the number of hunters since some of us are carrying 2 tags per hunter. This adds to the complexity of overcrowding in most units were and when the 2 tags are available regardless if you are hunting with just cow tags.
Just my 2 cents for this and yes I do believe the lower price bear tags probably is good new source of revenue and should result in additional harvest.
 

txhunter58

Long Time Member
Messages
7,740
I would hope they would limit NR and keep Residents OTC for Elk. As soon as the rifle seasons go limited it opens the GMU's to the voucher program. I agree with txhunter58, about costs. Limit NR's by caps not fee's.
But something needs to be done concerning the crowds. I'm a resident and question if the tag is worth the price I pay, because of crowding. If I was a NR I'd be pissed at paying the NR price and then having to deal with the crowds. At least in the Craig area where I was going.
I can understand the argument for keeping residents OTC. That said, the overcrowding situation would be served better if all are limited and allow liberal resident numbers

Any time there are OTC tags, there will be certain areas that get “hot” and people hear about it by word of mouth, internet, ect. and next year, more hunters there. Then you have overcrowding in that area.

Bottom line is if NRs are limited to 20% you won’t have any trouble drawing a tag in what has been OTC units.
 

Katoom

Active Member
Messages
343
I am a NR and can’t twist my mind into enough of a pretzel to find much of a flaw with 80:20 and eliminate OTC. That should provide plenty of additional resident opportunity while not kicking NR in the nuts too hard. Fees would go up for everyone, but residents may have to absorb a 1 time larger than normal % hike to make up the initial difference. Just like ppl say NR will still line up no matter the cost, I really doubt many residents would actually throw in the towel over $50 to 100 bucks.
 

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.

Full Time Hunts

Specializing in matching sportsmen with reputable outfitters that fit their hunting and fishing needs.

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.

Top Bottom