License Distribution/Preference Points Focus Group For Future Seasons

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. .
It does the same thing as banking. Instead of my 15 deer points paying for 1 tag. Those 15 deer points pay for 2/3/4/5 tags. Which increases creep. Same with my elk points and my dads.

Point banking will benefit me personally and I will take advantage of it. I guess I don't understand though. If this is a focus group to reduce point creep why would the group recommend doing the exact opposite? Reminds me of politicians. Bunch of real smart people in this focus group. Good job.
 
It does the same thing as banking. Instead of my 15 deer points paying for 1 tag. Those 15 deer points pay for 2/3/4/5 tags. Which increases creep. Same with my elk points and my dads.

Point banking will benefit me personally and I will take advantage of it. I guess I don't understand though. If this is a focus group to reduce point creep why would the group recommend doing the exact opposite? Reminds me of politicians. Bunch of real smart people in this focus group. Good job.
Your statement proves they are not the same thing. In point averaging, you have to use your entire 15 points for one tag which means you add to point creep for only 1 year. With point banking, you add to creep for 3,4, 5 years.

Not only that, but 1,2 or 3 more people on his ticket go to 0 that year as well. Just seems that averaging helps creep in the long run more than banking
 
Last edited:
Your statement proves they are not the same thing. In point averaging, you have to use your entire 15 points for one tag which means you add to point creep for only 1 year. With point banking, you add to creep for 3,4, 5 years.

Not only that, but 1,2 or 3 more people on his ticket go to 0 that year as well. Just seems that averaging helps creep in the long run more than banking
Whether one adds more creep than the other, if it adds creep it is doing the exact opposite of what the focus group was tasked with.

If my points allow me to draw 3 tags that others would normally draw, whether that is all in 1 year or in 3 years it's the exact same thing. It bumped 3 other guys, who in turn will gain more points.

At the end of the day if my 15 points can buy 1 total tag, or 2/3/4/5 tags, which way helps creep? It's a super basic answer.
 
Point banking is a super bad idea! I can't believe they are even considering it! Point banking plus not "up-fronting" license fees were the 2 worse point leaping scenarios CPW ever came up with!

1) No point banking!
2) Pay license fees upfront
3) If Colo doesn't want to go to all limited for elk....require pref pts to be burned to hunt OTC bull elk. If you draw a bull elk tag in Colo you burn your points (even in OTC units). I know it's extreme but if I can guarantee quite a few hunters won't hunt OTC elk if they are required to burn pts! This alone will ease hunting pressure in OTC units.
 
Last edited:
Two things from me.

Add point averaging so friends, family, or new entry kids can hunt together even though they do not have the same amount of points. Wyoming would be the model for this.

Change to 50/50 with 50% of the tags allocated to the high point tag holder and 50% in a random draw. Utah would be the model for this. It is nice to have some hope to draw a tag each year while you get closer to the guarantee draw. Point creep still happens in the hard to draw units but at least you have a chance each year as you are going along for the ride.

No point system is perfect but it seems that Nevada is the closest and Colorado’s straight preference point system is the furthest away for perfect. I hate preference points.

Just my thoughts.
I love preference points. They are the epitome of fair and make drawing pretty predictable, allowing hunters to plan. Many workplaces require vacations to be scheduled by the beginning of the year.
 
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.
Talk about the resource being stretched thin. We have about 700,000 resident deer hunters in a much smaller area and very long seasons. I agree not many western hunters would make the drive to hunt deer in this situation.
 
PA estimates their deer population at over a million deer. That's more than every big game animal population combined in Colorado! We just don't have the numbers to continue the free for all
 
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.
Douche legs is worried about the government busting him for not having a sticker on his tricycle! ?
 
First time I heard the argument that bikers and hikers need to pay their fair share I was all for it.

Until I heard the counter point that right now the only reason that we have any voice at all in places like Co is because of the dollars hunting and fishing bring in. If our wacko leadership could replace that money with hikers, bikers, and backpackers, we would have a good chance at losing any voice and getting more and more taken away. Especially in place like Co.
 
So, we continue to foot the bill to NOT get what we want? Solid :ROFLMAO:
Well in Co… unfortunately that seems like our current option. Unless by some miracle we vote in folks that are friendlier to outdoorsmen, unfortunately all the “new” Coloradans by and large have a certain way about them that reeks of California politics
 
Hey, I’m not saying that’s not the way things are. As it seems I get dumber every day, nothing (everything?) surprises me anymore.
 
Hymm... Seems like The only real solution for point creep, eliminate the points all together and return to the only true fair system... A random draw.

All current point holders have squared bonus point system going forward. They have to apply every year or lose the points. No new points accumulated. Let this run until the points are purged and everyone else is back to random odds.
 
Points are a source of funding. Therefore it is a bad idea to eliminate them.

Either keep the system the same and let those that are bad at math continue to chase the carrot or go to a squared bonus point system similar to Nevada's, but keep selling those points. How else are we going to fund the needed allocation changes?
 
Points are a source of funding. Therefore it is a bad idea to eliminate them.

Either keep the system the same and let those that are bad at math continue to chase the carrot or go to a squared bonus point system similar to Nevada's, but keep selling those points. How else are we going to fund the needed allocation changes?
Haha. So I guess by your logic we should allow people to just purchase several points each species a year? Sorry but if you are only worried about revenue then you have already lost the battle.

You can make up that revenue several ways... Just increase the tag cost, make the qualifying license to apply higher, add in more processing fees etc. Sorry but revenue should be the very bottom of the bucket.

Oh and your comments about guys being bad at math, sorry to say but if you see a future where anyone in Colorado who wants to hunt big game will need several years just to hunt. It is coming soon...
 
I don’t see any reason to do away with points for any tag that takes less than 2-3 (4-5?) points

With a truly random system, Some unlucky resident might not draw a tag that has a 90% draw rate for multiple years.

I don’t see points as a big cash cow. Buying the qualifying license is the big money maker
 
I don’t see any reason to do away with points for any tag that takes less than 2-3 (4-5?) points

With a truly random system, Some unlucky resident might not draw a tag that has a 90% draw rate for multiple years.

I don’t see points as a big cash cow. Buying the qualifying license is the big money maker
Because just a few years ago those rages taking 2-3 weee left overs. The tags taking 5-6 a few years should were took 1-2. This will only get worse and as Colorado grows population, it will accelerate.

It is coming and some day even the worst deer tags in the state will take a couple years to draw
 
Because just a few years ago those rages taking 2-3 weee left overs. The tags taking 5-6 a few years should were took 1-2. This will only get worse and as Colorado grows population, it will accelerate.

It is coming and some day even the worst deer tags in the state will take a couple years to draw
There should‘nt be any bad deer tags in this state.

A bad tag just means the unit is oversold, plain and simple.
 
There should‘nt be any bad deer tags in this state.

A bad tag just means the unit is oversold, plain and simple.
Haha... Utopia vs reality... Sorry but no matter what every state and every system are going to have good and bad tags. But the fact remains, units that were once left overs are now taking 1 point to draw. Units that were once 1-2 points are now 4-5.

While management plays a role, it is simply a matter of supply and demand. Oh and since this was all about point creep and fixing it, what do you think happens to point creep if CPW goes in and decreases allocations on the bottom units? Wait more point creep....
 
Not if you adjust demand through pricing, like everything else in the functioning capitalist world.

Where is the outcry against government interference in free markets? :censored:
 
Not if you adjust demand through pricing, like everything else in the functioning capitalist world.

Where is the outcry against government interference in free markets? :censored:
Haha. That sounds line a great idea. We should do it, oh wait that sounds a lot like the kings deer issue…
 
Yeah has to be a balance between being affordable, but it is a finite resource. With current population increase out west and increased increase interest western hunting. As unpopular as it sounds and as I’ve said before. Maybe you don’t get to hunt out of state every year. Maybe for out of staters it a once every few years thing. You want to hunt co every year, move out here and pay Co prices for everything and get tags every year. Same thing with wyo or Utah or any state you want to hunt every year.
 
Yeah has to be a balance between being affordable, but it is a finite resource. With current population increase out west and increased increase interest western hunting. As unpopular as it sounds and as I’ve said before. Maybe you don’t get to hunt out of state every year. Maybe for out of staters it a once every few years thing. You want to hunt co every year, move out here and pay Co prices for everything and get tags every year. Same thing with wyo or Utah or any state you want to hunt every year.
National Forest belongs to everybody. We are paying taxes on all National Forest land. Everybody should be able to hunt it under the rules established.
 
Not sure how I missed this thread earlier. It sure has plenty of responses! I read the first page and most of the second.

First of all, thank you for posting on here and accepting feedback. Second, if the meeting has already been held, you might want a moderator to close the thread.
And third, lots of comments about various ways to increase license costs, NR's vs. R, etc. But the main thing is to keep the health of the deer/elk/antelope/etc herd stable or increasing.

Full disclosure, I'm a TN resident with points in WY, AZ, CO, IA, SD, NE and TN.

These comments have been suggested, but I'll reiterate them.

1) I suggest using the points averaging systems used in other states. I can take my 14 points and average them with my 0 point friend and we can hunt together on a 7 point tag. Yea, it might be a waste of 7 points, but I'm sure not gonna waste my 14 points on a zero point tag!

2) I suggest a system similar to Arizona where half the tags go to the high point holders, and half go in the regular draw. The high point holders have better odds in the second round, but it is possible to draw a OIL tag with zero points. I think I saw Montana had a similar system, but I'm not familiar with it. But, if the goal is to eliminate high points, that doesn't meet that need. Only makes it worse cause the tags are going to low point holders, and the high just got higher.

Thanks again.

Oh, one more, throw it out there that Joe2Kool should get his first choice tag every year! You never know. It just might stick! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :cool: :cool:
 
National Forest belongs to everybody. We are paying taxes on all National Forest land. Everybody should be able to hunt it under the rules established.
Big I agree with you, but when we stretch the resource to the breaking point we have to step forward and limit ourselves, maybe it becomes you only get one elk tag a year, regardless of state, same with with all other western species? But remember there was a time only about a 100 years ago where market hunting had all but destroyed our elk and deer. If it wasn’t for outdoorsmen stepping up and limiting ourselves we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. I’m sure at the time lots of guys thought it was BS to establish seasons and tags for something they used to be able to just go shoot but thank goodness for the forethought of those individuals who preserved the game that we now get to pursue today.
 
Haha. That sounds line a great idea. We should do it, oh wait that sounds a lot like the kings deer issue…
Raising the price is the ONLY effective and “fair” way to reduce demand for the product.

In the meantime we will continue to argue about what’s fair, not what works. Maybe we should just allocate licenses based on the kaleidoscope of aggrieved parties. I’m sure we’ll be first to offer sexual and racial preference quotas.

The kings deer. As expensive as hunting is getting, people should be glad they’re forced to buy processed food. It’s getting like the lottery - a tax on the stupid.

Hunting with a “bad tag” is like camping to me. I’d rather go fishing. But it’s all in how you define bad I guess. :)
 
How is raising prices “fair?”

We could raise prices high enough where only the super rich could afford hunting, would that be fair to you? You truly would have the kings deer then, as far as poaching goes anyways.
 
How is raising prices “fair?”

We could raise prices high enough where only the super rich could afford hunting, would that be fair to you? You truly would have the kings deer then, as far as poaching goes anyways.
It screws everyone equally while fixing the problem immediately.

Otherwise we will continue to argue over constituency groups.

Hunting stopped being an economical way for folks of modest means to put food on the table a long time ago.

To me it’s “unfair” to sell poor people deer tags where they have little or no chance of putting food on the table, but we we are way off tangent here.

I just offered the one certain way to fix point creep. The other ways are wishful thinking.
 
Poor people are some of the best hunters in the world. I know poor people who rely on a deer and or elk, birds and fish to augment their way of living with that food on the table. Price these people out of hunting and they are still going to put game animals on the table.

I believe the individual can decide if he wants to purchase a tag in an area where he has “little or no chance of putting food on the table.” I like those areas myself, I will take a hard deer hunt over no deer hunt any day of the year. I only need “one” deer.
 
I really don't know too much about the resident licenses in Colorado, but aren't there anterless licenses for people that want to hunt for meat?

Wouldn't it make sense to raise licenses prices on NR, SGM and on areas that take more than 5 points? If a guy is buying points every year he isn't hunting for meat.
 
Bigfoot, I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t fix point creep.

I could probably go along with the status quo for the rest of my life, but telling ourselves it’ll stop getting worse isn’t working.
 
We worry that hunting is on the decline and at the same time we have those advocating to raise hunting prices. Interesting.
 
Bigfoot, I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t fix point creep.

I could probably go along with the status quo for the rest of my life, but telling ourselves it’ll stop getting worse isn’t working.
I hear ya. I just don’t like pricing people out of something they’ve done for generations.
 
Raising the price is the ONLY effective and “fair” way to reduce demand for the product.

In the meantime we will continue to argue about what’s fair, not what works. Maybe we should just allocate licenses based on the kaleidoscope of aggrieved parties. I’m sure we’ll be first to offer sexual and racial preference quotas.

The kings deer. As expensive as hunting is getting, people should be glad they’re forced to buy processed food. It’s getting like the lottery - a tax on the stupid.

Hunting with a “bad tag” is like camping to me. I’d rather go fishing. But it’s all in how you define bad I guess. :)
HAHA. How is simply raising the prices fair??? Seriously that seems like the opposite of fair. Again a random draw where everyone has the same odds to draw as everyone else every year is the fair system.

If you raise the prices enough it turns into exactly the kings deer, which is the exact opposite of fair
 
HAHA. How is simply raising the prices fair??? Seriously that seems like the opposite of fair. Again a random draw where everyone has the same odds to draw as everyone else every year is the fair system.

If you raise the prices enough it turns into exactly the kings deer, which is the exact opposite of fair
It’s fair because it costs everyone equally.

The reasons why some people are better able to pay is another matter.

However, I do know some people who aren’t better able to pay because they arguably spent too much time goofing around in the woods. Ironic, no?;)
 
Last edited:
how about now?
attachment
 

Attachments

  • Item.19-PWC.Memo-License.Distribution.Focus.Groups-6.22-Final-Jonathan_Boydston-DNR.pdf
    158.8 KB · Views: 142
I read it that they are simply reporting the ideas brought up by the groups. There were no recommendation per se made in the article.

I am glad they also considered point averaging. I thought they might just be looking at banking. There are easy fixes to people that would sell their points with averaging: don’t let them turn their tags back in and points restored unless the whole group does. If they actually hunt, and lose their points, who cares if they made some money on their points.
 
Ya I wonder if that last sentence is factual… seems like nothing else in the document refers to it yet it’s a “key takeaway”? Sure seems like it might be the perspective of the author
 
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.
I applied to participate in that but was not selected. Good thing because I thought it would be via web conference and I live in Indiana. I won’t waste my time giving my opinion on this topic because we all know how this is going to end………with NR point cheapening. As soon as I got the email I decided to burn my 25 elk points before they get toasted for me. Next will come deer. It’s clearly time to cash in and run.
 
Assuming your group is still meeting, I have one other suggestion for a change. I didn't realize it but the current 35% NR allocation only applies to 1st choice applicants. A friend applied in a unit that I've hunted a lot and he's joined me a few times and we've always been able to draw the tag 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th choice. This year he applied as a 2nd choice and did not draw. I looked and saw that because 1st choice apps did not cover all the tags so 2nd choice allocation (I'm assuming) is a random draw? End result is NR's got 44% of the tags. So the 35% allocation is kind of misleading and something I think should be changed to make 35% not dependent on 1st choice only and the only time they should allocate more than 35% would be when not enough residents apply to equal the 65% allocation. That policy definitely allows CPW to sell more NR tags and get more $ for sure.
 
The focus group is over, and the ball is in the CPW's court to make any changes. They should have a formal draft coming out soon.
 
I watched the meeting, and I really don't expect anything to be done. They are clueless and will do whatever CPW feeds them.

Only fix to this issue would have to come from the legislature if any fix happens at all.
 
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.
Just found there is a way to start a petition for CPW, call me a bull headed idiot but I’m about to start throwing petitions their way, I itch enough about it here. Going to start with something reasonable like 80/20 res/NR across the board for all draw units and see how much of an uphill battle it is…. Then again I’m bullheaded.
 
Do away with OTC bull tags all together or make it resident only. Sheep, Moose, Goat need to go back to 275.00 up front to apply…. The last 5 years or so have absolutely screwed those of us who’ve had skin in the game for over a decade now
These are great ideas, after doing some digging there is a way to petition rules and regs in Co. I encourage all of us to start sending them in. If we can flood the commission with similar petitions maybe we can start to move the needle in our direction
 
I'm sure jims will be chiming in for the NR Colorado hunters any minute now. What about all the small towns that depend on NR hunters to make a living. Waiting.....
 
Yep, all in favor of having ALL diy/oyo hunters in mind regardless of where they live. Just because Wyo is considering limiting nonres to 90/10 doesn’t mean Colo has to. I’m certain that small town communities in Western Colo will be up in arms if nonres tags are severely cut.

Just because Colo switches over to all limited for elk doesn’t mean tag quotas are cut. Quotas could remain fairly close to where they currently are. The nice thing about all limited is that everyone that draws a first choice tag uses rather than builds pref pts. A lot more elk hunters will be required to burn points if they want to draw a 1st choice limited elk tag.
 
I'm sure jims will be chiming in for the NR Colorado hunters any minute now. What about all the small towns that depend on NR hunters to make a living. Waiting.....
We are kidding ourselves if we believe that this state is relying on NR hunting dollars to do anything but fuel the parks ever expanding thirst for dollars. Homes on the west slope are flying off the shelves for 500k not as bad as the metro area but still the amount of people who have moved to rural Co for remote work or because of the pandemic really in the last 15 or so years has made it to where we need to get parity with tag allocation with the rest of the western states. Sure when Co was hovering around 3 million we could handle far more out of state numbers, we are hovering around 6 million residents and need to reserve more tags for instate hunters, sorry, not sorry. If you want to chime any about how it shouldn’t change, let me hear how you would be cool if you couldn’t hunt your backyard every year in whatever state your from… I’ll wait
 
Do away with OTC bull tags all together or make it resident only. Sheep, Moose, Goat need to go back to 275.00 up front to apply…. The last 5 years or so have absolutely screwed those of us who’ve had skin in the game for over a decade now
HAHA. But what about those of us it has helped? The no up front has allowed families large families to apply for kids etc. that never could have afforded the up front cost... Just saying, that no up front fee allowed us to expand opportunity which is a good thing...
 
We are kidding ourselves if we believe that this state is relying on NR hunting dollars to do anything but fuel the parks ever expanding thirst for dollars. Homes on the west slope are flying off the shelves for 500k not as bad as the metro area but still the amount of people who have moved to rural Co for remote work or because of the pandemic really in the last 15 or so years has made it to where we need to get parity with tag allocation with the rest of the western states. Sure when Co was hovering around 3 million we could handle far more out of state numbers, we are hovering around 6 million residents and need to reserve more tags for instate hunters, sorry, not sorry. If you want to chime any about how it shouldn’t change, let me hear how you would be cool if you couldn’t hunt your backyard every year in whatever state your from… I’ll wait

It's called sarcasm might want to look it up. I think all western states should go 90/10 to include Wyoming and Colorado. What do you think?
 
If I were a resident I would strongly petition for 2 things:

1) limit all elk tags
2) 80/20 res/ NR.

Fight a battle you have a shot at winning. Then down the road ask for more. Those two things would improve things for Residents immediately.
 
Ditch the ridiculous pref point system. Has to be the worst draw system that anyone could think up!! Add some sort of random component to it! I say this as NR with 20+ points for different species.
 
HAHA. But what about those of us it has helped? The no up front has allowed families large families to apply for kids etc. that never could have afforded the up front cost... Just saying, that no up front fee allowed us to expand opportunity which is a good thing...
Wouldn’t say the opportunity expanded or is any better when you have a massive influx of applications for a limited amount of tags. Many of us who’ve been applying long before the application fee/50 dollar point was instated weren’t made of money. We just made it a financial priority.
 
If you read MM long enough, you'll notice a few common themes of several posts, not just on this thread:

1) Resident hunters of any state want fewer NR tags in their state.
2) NRs are the cause of dwindling deer/elk populations, in every state. :D
3) NRs want better chances to draw.
 
If you read MM long enough, you'll notice a few common themes of several posts, not just on this thread:

1) Resident hunters of any state want fewer NR tags in their state.
2) NRs are the cause of dwindling deer/elk populations, in every state. :D
3) NRs want better chances to draw.
1&3 are spot on, I’m not sure that NR are the cause in Co, I’d say it’s the later season dates and overly generous doe tags for deer, for elk its the unlimited OTC, but that is both Res and NR
 
I say petition strongly for sound game, hunter, and habitat management. Forget about who’s getting how many tags!

I really believe cutting back on doe/buck tags and getting rid of the rut rifle season dates will do more for deer in Colo than anything.

The same total number of deer tags will be issued regardless of whether the system remains status quo or converts to 80/20 or 90/10. Converting tag quotas between res and nonres totally ignores the long term impacts issuing too many doe tags and slaughtering mature bucks on the winter ranges will have in years to come in Colo! Using CWD as an excuse to issue more tags is a horrific mistake!

If Colo goes to all draw for elk the cpw will finally have the ability to manage hunting pressure and elk populations. Right now neither can be done.
 
As Colorado residents, I think they should get the majority of tags. 90/10 seems fair and I don't fault Colorado residents one bit.
Thanks for the honesty, I’m tired of NR crying about how it’s unfair, yet would lose their minds if they couldn’t hunt whitetails in Ohio every year. I have family with a decent sized ranch in AZ and I don’t cry that I don’t get to hunt deer or elk down there every year, the folks that live in AZ all the time should get to enjoy that benefit if I draw one day I’ll be happy but I don’t rely on other states for that
 
Everyone needs to understand this is from the Colorado Bowhunters Association and not CPW.
I'm not sure whom all will receive the survey, but it is start to keep pushing on CPW to make changes.
 
I was googling something completely unrelated and found this 19 year old MM thread about the same topic. Didn't read it, but thought I'd dredge it up in case anyone else was interested.

 
What about makimg two choices valid on your application where they look at both before going to the next in-line? Both use points. Seems like that would help those residents just trying to draw a low-point tag.

I also like point averaging, but the 14 - 0 average for 7 points only takes out 1 person with points. Maybe they need to be within 5 or 10 points....

I don't mind a Utah or Arizona system where a portion of the tags are random or bonus and the other preference.

No more OTC makes so much sense, other than the lost revenue. I know some cows are not getting bred on their first cycle because or the otc hunting pressure.
 
“What about makimg two choices valid on your application where they look at both before going to the next in-line? Both use points”

I have not heard that as an option but I kind of like the idea.
 
Same issues - same problems nearly 20 years later. I'm wondering if my time spent on the focus group was waste of my time and energy.
Exactly why point systems are not good for hunters. The longer a point system is in place, the more problems the point systems create. Just like socialism, you have to look at the long term consequences to realize point systems are a bad idea.
 
Exactly why point systems are not good for hunters. The longer a point system is in place, the more problems the point systems create. Just like socialism, you have to look at the long term consequences to realize point systems are a bad idea.
Interesting thought. Are you thinking 100% random draw? Just curious.

Counting my home state, I have points in 7 different states, each with a different draw process, and some with multiple species in each state. WOW! Didn't realize I was that invested in various draws!
 
Interesting thought. Are you thinking 100% random draw? Just curious.

Counting my home state, I have points in 7 different states, each with a different draw process, and some with multiple species in each state. WOW! Didn't realize I was that invested in various draws!
Yes, I would be willing to give up all my points in Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and Montana to have a random draw like Idaho or New Mexico.
 
Yup me too. Unfortunately it’s not just in case. It’s inevitable. They can so they do. Ethics is something gone by the wayside.
 
If I am reading this correctly then the only staff recommended change would be changing the Resident/NR ratio to 75/25 or 80/20. At least this is a step in the right direction and I now know that my time on the preference point focus group issues was as someone posted would most likely be a waste of time.
 
the meeting is available on you tube and this presentation/discussion took place on Sept 8 around, just prior to the 6 hr mark
Most of the comments were from outfitters not wanting any change in the allocation
It's hard to attend these meeting especially in September and one commissioner made a comment about the high numbers of email on this subject so comments are being presented but the resident public land hunter needs more input. The outfitter contingent is having an affect on the commission!
 
The 80/20 does nothing about crowding/quality improvement. They want to study stopping OTC for another 5 years.

Reason: Pure and simple: money.

Keep fighting for limiting all elk tags.
 
Yes. But would help much more if all elk were limited. 1 step at a time, but I will be 80 before any real change happens.
 
I am betting on 75/25. Hope you get that much. They are laying out the lost revenue to justify not changing. But it’s really not that much money. Less than I thought it would be.
 

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