Petition to keep OTC elk tags for residents only

No way Jose! No one stopping those resident hunters from going hunting.
Anyway, if Colorado’s past behavior is any predictor of the future they will remove otc tags but then set the caps so high that it really won’t matter.
 
I don't understand why NR are arguing that Residents should not have OTC. Once they all go to draw units it will be 75% R 25% NR. If it goes to Resident OTC all of the draw tags will go to NR.
 
For those that will not click the link here’s some of the rationale

The Colorado Resident Hunter Association(Facebook group) is writing this petition because the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is currently considering the removal of Over-The-Counter (OTC) archery elk hunting in Colorado due to overcrowding. It is time to restore equity (compared to other western states) for resident hunters by preserving OTC archery elk tags and OTC rifle elk tags for resident hunters only--- starting in 2024.

We have witnessed alarming trends in OTC hunting that have significantly impacted resident hunters. CPW does not share these trends, they were obtained by CORA requests. From 2014 to 2021 there has been a staggering decline of 20% (4,169) in OTC archery resident hunters while non-resident participation skyrocketed by over 28% (4,266). As a result, there are nearly 3,000 more non-resident archery OTC hunters than residents (see attached spreadsheet). The numbers for rifle OTC trends are similar, residents are down 10% and nonresidents are up 21%. The overcrowding issue faced during OTC seasons is not caused by resident hunters but is the result of consistent growth of non-resident participation.
 
Have at it. I would hope you know that it most likely will come with a price hike. I am all for residents getting the best there state has to offer. But the bills have to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.

I would definitely pay more to reduce pressure and less people in the field.
 
They have to limit someone, that's for sure. Just wonder why they can't do 80/20 and limit all the units. Residents should get just as many tags if it is close to 50/50 now on OTC.
 
treedagain said:
Have at it. I would hope you know that it most likely will come with a price hike. I am all for residents getting the best there state has to offer. But the bills have to be paid and that money has to come from somewhere.

I would definitely pay more to reduce pressure and less people in the field.
Click to expand...

As a resident, I currently pay $55-60 for an elk tag. I would be more than willing to double or triple that to limit nonres OTC invasion.
 
TKMulePacker said:
As a resident, I currently pay $55-60 for an elk tag. I would be more than willing to double or triple that to limit nonres OTC invasion.
Click to expand...

The only way to increase opportunity is to increase population.

The questions comes down to how much are people willing to pay. The money should realistically pay for habitat ect. Colorado has backed themselves into a corner when it comes to Revenue generated by offering Nr tags. Residents only make up 29% of the total revenue generated by tag and license sales.

doubling or tripling the cost of an elk tag will not make up the deficit that you cause by limiting NR sales.

Res Tags license Ect 2021 481,000
Res Tags license Ect 2022 522,000
Res Tag license Ect 2023 565,000

Non Res License Tag ect 2021 120,000
Non Res License Tag ect 2022 225,000
Non Res License Tag ect 2023 234,00

Res Gain in total tags and license sold 17% ( 83,000 units )
Non Res gain in total tags and license sold 94% ( 113,000 units )

Res Revenue growth from 21-23 3,890,000
No Res Revenue growth from 21-23 10,000,000

At the end of the day residents will need to increase their overall spend by a significant amount in order to cut that deficit.

I live in a state that has no advantage to being a resident in the big game world for the most part. This issue is going to become trickier and trickier as populations grow, non residents become residents, animal populations go down, and private land ownership goes up. Residents are going to have to be ok with their cost of hunting raising by 30-60% a year.
 
Skykarp said:
The only way to increase opportunity is to increase population.

The questions comes down to how much are people willing to pay. The money should realistically pay for habitat ect. Colorado has backed themselves into a corner when it comes to Revenue generated by offering Nr tags. Residents only make up 29% of the total revenue generated by tag and license sales.

doubling or tripling the cost of an elk tag will not make up the deficit that you cause by limiting NR sales.

Res Tags license Ect 2021 481,000
Res Tags license Ect 2022 522,000
Res Tag license Ect 2023 565,000

Non Res License Tag ect 2021 120,000
Non Res License Tag ect 2022 225,000
Non Res License Tag ect 2023 234,00

Res Gain in total tags and license sold 17% ( 83,000 units )
Non Res gain in total tags and license sold 94% ( 113,000 units )

Res Revenue growth from 21-23 3,890,000
No Res Revenue growth from 21-23 10,000,000

At the end of the day residents will need to increase their overall spend by a significant amount in order to cut that deficit.

I live in a state that has no advantage to being a resident in the big game world for the most part. This issue is going to become trickier and trickier as populations grow, non residents become residents, animal populations go down, and private land ownership goes up. Residents are going to have to be ok with their cost of hunting raising by 30-60% a year.
Click to expand...
Colorado CPW has a large surplus of funds that are not spent every year. NR are not being eliminated just reduced. The only ones that might have a Budget issue are the Outfitters that rely on NR who don't draw in CO or any other state and make Colorado there back up plan.
 
I would venture to say that this would have a huge impact on outfitters, DIY trespass fee payers. and private land Hunters.
As I think that most of that revenue probably comes from nonres Hunters.
If tags get very limited for nonres Hunters Im thinking the RFW and landowner tags will get way more spendy.
Anyhoo who knows.
As a nonres it will probably make a challenge for me.
I suppose I understand the reasoning though.
 
ColoradoBoy, that wont stop applicants. i have a friend that applies for several credit cards each year with no fees and interest for 90 days. Uses the cards to charge about $30,000 worth of tag and application fees. When he receives refunds he pays credit cards off and still got a lot of points. No cost to him just a little hassle.
 
buckhunter64 said:
ColoradoBoy, that wont stop applicants. i have a friend that applies for several credit cards each year with no fees and interest for 90 days. Uses the cards to charge about $30,000 worth of tag and application fees. When he receives refunds he pays credit cards off and still got a lot of points. No cost to him just a little hassle.
Click to expand...
False. When the application fee for Sheep, Moose and Goat was decreased to 50 dollars we saw an astronomical increase in applications.
 
Is this a biology or sociology petition? According to diablo's post, there is a total of 97 more archery hunters in the field compared to 2014. He never stated an exact number for rifle hunters. It probably isn't stated because overall there are less rifle hunters than in 2014. It doesn't fit the narrative???

Just for the record: I'm all for it. If I want to shoot a rag horn, I will do it in my own state.
 
These arguments are getting old. I support residents over non residents always, but I feel everyone is constantly ignoring the health of the herds in these discussions. I’d assume there are still plenty of elk in most areas of Colorado otc, but these resident vs non resident arguments always come down to the residents being ok with destroying animal herds as long as the RESIDENTS get to do the destroying.
 
buckhunter64 said:
ColoradoBoy, that wont stop applicants. i have a friend that applies for several credit cards each year with no fees and interest for 90 days. Uses the cards to charge about $30,000 worth of tag and application fees. When he receives refunds he pays credit cards off and still got a lot of points. No cost to him just a little hassle.
Click to expand...
Sorry but it would for sure decrease the application numbers if you have to front the money.

Also your friend is BS you. The states that take Cc refund the card so you don’t get Cc points.
 
RRCowboyStar said:
Colorado CPW has a large surplus of funds that are not spent every year. NR are not being eliminated just reduced. The only ones that might have a Budget issue are the Outfitters that rely on NR who don't draw in CO or any other state and make Colorado there back up plan.
Click to expand...
past results do not guarantee future performance

I think it hurts everyone in the long run depending on how its done. Should Res have more tags? Absolutely! My point is they just need to pick up the financial burden or CO needs to increase the tag costs across the board to make up the difference.

In 2020 there were 74,000 elk licenses sold to NR.

10% tag cut is 7,400 tags which equals 5,600,000 revenue
15% tag cut is 11,100 which equals 8,447,000 revenue

Res receive 7,400 Tags Which equals 466,200 revenue
Res receive 11,000 tags which equal 699,300 revenue

Revenue loss per year at 10% is roughly 5,100,000 a year. How long do you think that "surplus" lasts when you lose that in a year.

Opportunity is only going to get harder as human populations grow and the available places to hunt them goes down. you increase opportunity by increasing population that's it. You can change the #s of who gets the tags doesn't address the long term issue.

My question to everyone is what is it worth to YOU to hunt elk whether you are a res or a non res. Its it 300? 500? 750?
 
Skykarp said:
past results do not guarantee future performance

I think it hurts everyone in the long run depending on how its done. Should Res have more tags? Absolutely! My point is they just need to pick up the financial burden or CO needs to increase the tag costs across the board to make up the difference.

In 2020 there were 74,000 elk licenses sold to NR.

10% tag cut is 7,400 tags which equals 5,600,000 revenue
15% tag cut is 11,100 which equals 8,447,000 revenue

Res receive 7,400 Tags Which equals 466,200 revenue
Res receive 11,000 tags which equal 699,300 revenue

Revenue loss per year at 10% is roughly 5,100,000 a year. How long do you think that "surplus" lasts when you lose that in a year.

Opportunity is only going to get harder as human populations grow and the available places to hunt them goes down. you increase opportunity by increasing population that's it. You can change the #s of who gets the tags doesn't address the long term issue.

My question to everyone is what is it worth to YOU to hunt elk whether you are a res or a non res. Its it 300? 500? 750?
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree, It seems to work for ALL of the other Western States, and most are 90% R and 10% NR. It seems the only argument from NR is that Colorado will go broke without them. I am willing to take that chance.
Reducing the NR OTC Tags does not increase R Tags, thus fewer tags so that should reduce harvest, thus increasing the herd population. That does address the long term issue.
 
All other Western states did not build a system that generates that amount of money that they rely on either. Its not a going broke without the NR money. Its a where do you make the difference up to improve habitat, recruitment programs , winter range protection, and more opportunity through different programs.

Western states 2023 Non Res revenue
Colorado 59,000,00
New mexico 13,0000
Nevada 4,000,000
Arizona 6,800,000
Idaho 27,000,000
Montana 27,000,000
Wyoming 23,000,000
Utah 7,750,000

Will limiting tags help the heard yes . average success rate on OTC from 17-19 was 14.9% so if you clip NR tags assuming the NR is a able hunter to save 1,065 elk a year. I don't think you can only look at the tags still. Do there need to be a cap on OTC tags per zone or per class? Probably but I don't have a stake in that game.

I would rather see what can be done to improve habitat to save elk from harsh winters. Pretty sure one storm does more damage than that 10% NR OTC tag cut.
 
Skykarp said:
All other Western states did not build a system that generates that amount of money that they rely on either. Its not a going broke without the NR money. Its a where do you make the difference up to improve habitat, recruitment programs , winter range protection, and more opportunity through different programs.

Western states 2023 Non Res revenue
Colorado 59,000,00
New mexico 13,0000
Nevada 4,000,000
Arizona 6,800,000
Idaho 27,000,000
Montana 27,000,000
Wyoming 23,000,000
Utah 7,750,000

Will limiting tags help the heard yes . average success rate on OTC from 17-19 was 14.9% so if you clip NR tags assuming the NR is a able hunter to save 1,065 elk a year. I don't think you can only look at the tags still. Do there need to be a cap on OTC tags per zone or per class? Probably but I don't have a stake in that game.

I would rather see what can be done to improve habitat to save elk from harsh winters. Pretty sure one storm does more damage than that 10% NR OTC tag cut.
Click to expand...
So what is your point? Do you want Residents to have OTC tags or are you ok with the OTC units becoming all draw?
 
RRCowboyStar said:
So what is your point? Do you want Residents to have OTC tags or are you ok with the OTC units becoming all draw?
Click to expand...
Absolutely I want you to have them. Animals are not managed on a federal level and the Residents of each states should have the advantage over someone that does not live there. I live in a state that you get to either pay 20K or wait 25-50 years to draw and elk tag at $565 as a Res .

I am fine with OTC tags going to a draw system, I am fine with NR cuts, I am fine with more Res opportunity. The part I am not ok with is if it is a detriment to the resource because someone's emotions say something isn't fair. If the state of Colorado can effectively manage the elk , deer , proghorn, ect ect ect herd and lose 5,000,000 a year on elk licenses do it.
 
The entire ecosystem of Colorado will collapse without those precious NR $’s.

:ROFLMAO:

It’ll be pretty easy to keep getting that $59 million AND increase resident opportunity. We could start by doubling NR license fees. It’s worth it just to get another lecture on how supply and demand doesn’t work on NR hunters.

We’ve been the fat chica at last call for too damn long.
 
Last edited:
ORIONTHEHUNTER said:
Yeah you can't have unlimited pressure on a limited resource and expect to last forever
Click to expand...
Colorado has an estimated elk population of 300,000. Montana appears to be 2nd with 150,000. The resource is not limited.

According to the terribly written petition, there was just under 36,000 OTC archery hunters in 2021. Archery success rates appear to be 10.1% for archery elk hunters in Colorado. That's 3,636 elk taken by OTC archery hunters. Leaving 296,364 elk after the OTC archery season, minus LQ success.

The author of the petition states the CPW is trying to limit archery hunters but muddies the petition with rifle statistics. I like how he used the word equity though. Seems very 2023.
 
Last edited:
Those stats are a wild ass guess considering there is no mandatory harvest reporting. I would also take their unscientific herd counts with a grain of salt. How many hunters and how many elk are actually getting taken during all the over the counter rifle hunts? Your also not accounting for road kill, predation, or any other loss of elk in your post.
 
RRCowboyStar said:
Colorado CPW has a large surplus of funds that are not spent every year. NR are not being eliminated just reduced. The only ones that might have a Budget issue are the Outfitters that rely on NR who don't draw in CO or any other state and make Colorado there back up plan.
Click to expand...
That was without wolfs and with OTC. The surplus can dry up quick. The biggest problem in CO is the people that are getting voted into office. The NR paying the bills is not your enemy.
 
If you think OTC unit elk populations are healthy, you haven’t been here very long. Elk hunting is pretty dismal here in OTC land, especially for NR’s.
 
diablo said:
For those that will not click the link here’s some of the rationale

The Colorado Resident Hunter Association(Facebook group) is writing this petition because the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is currently considering the removal of Over-The-Counter (OTC) archery elk hunting in Colorado due to overcrowding. It is time to restore equity (compared to other western states) for resident hunters by preserving OTC archery elk tags and OTC rifle elk tags for resident hunters only--- starting in 2024.

We have witnessed alarming trends in OTC hunting that have significantly impacted resident hunters. CPW does not share these trends, they were obtained by CORA requests. From 2014 to 2021 there has been a staggering decline of 20% (4,169) in OTC archery resident hunters while non-resident participation skyrocketed by over 28% (4,266). As a result, there are nearly 3,000 more non-resident archery OTC hunters than residents (see attached spreadsheet). The numbers for rifle OTC trends are similar, residents are down 10% and nonresidents are up 21%. The overcrowding issue faced during OTC seasons is not caused by resident hunters but is the result of consistent growth of non-resident participation.
Click to expand...
you said equity:love::ROFLMAO::cool::)o_O(n):devilish: couldn't find the rainbow emoji
 
Knock yourself out, who cares? like I'm going to drive 1000 miles east to shoot a dink bull I could shoot in my back yard? I'll apply for limited tags but you can keep your clustershag hunts.
 
ORIONTHEHUNTER said:
So if its unlimited your saying that species never go extinct? Why are mule deer numers continuing to dwindle? You don't think that could happen to elk?
Click to expand...

Well mule deer numbers are partially going down due to elk numbers. Elk out graze and forage mule deer . If you want another wrinkle , white tail population continuing to grow will make the eastern mule deer population fall at a faster rate.
 
In yet another irony, the eastern plains produces some of the better quality mule deer.

Oh, and can anyone explain to me why the “best” units are the ones with very limited license numbers?

CPW puts out bogus population numbers, and people draw the conclusion that OTC is the same opportunity as all the other units across the state.

Well, you been catfished.
 
Southpawshooter said:
300,000 animals that reproduce every year. They rarely sustain winter kill. Have very limited predation. So, yeah, I would say they aren't on the brink of extinction, Einstein.
Click to expand...
If you think our predators aren’t bad you are out of touch, the black bear population has exploded, same with the lion population and we are adding wolves to the mix? Any surplus will be gone in a decade or so. We are just getting ahead of the curve
 
HntHrdr said:
If you think our predators aren’t bad you are out of touch, the black bear population has exploded, same with the lion population and we are adding wolves to the mix? Any surplus will be gone in a decade or so. We are just getting ahead of the curve
Click to expand...
Numerous black bear and mtn lion videos killing elk on youtube..lol.

With your logic, residents should be LQ.

ORIONTHEHUNTER said:
So if its unlimited your saying that species never go extinct? Why are mule deer numers continuing to dwindle? You don't think that could happen to elk?
Click to expand...
The only way elk become extinct is to hunt them year around with unlimited licenses, fact. Current predators, or even future wolves, along with roadkill and winter kill will not make them go extinct. Colorado's current elk population produce enough calves every year to continue to grow with the current hunter numbers.

This is a sociology issue. CPW is worried about hunter overcrowding.

Mule deer numbers are dwindling due to numerous reasons. They are susceptible to winter kill, they are browsers, too many elk, CWD, predators, shrinking habitat, and poor management.

We have veered off track. Again, I don't care if residents are unlimited OTC and NR are limited. No sweat off my back.
 
Last edited:
1500 signatures? Pathetic.

Residents first, always, but this petition isn’t going to amount to anything.
 
Southpawshooter said:
Numerous black bear and mtn lion videos killing elk on youtube..lol.

With your logic, residents should be LQ.


The only way elk become extinct is to hunt them year around with unlimited licenses, fact. Current predators, or even future wolves, along with roadkill and winter kill will not make them go extinct. Colorado's current elk population produce enough calves every year to continue to grow with the current hunter numbers.

This is a sociology issue. CPW is worried about hunter overcrowding.

Mule deer numbers are dwindling due to numerous reasons. They are susceptible to winter kill, they are browsers, too many elk, CWD, predators, shrinking habitat, and poor management.

We have veered off track. Again, I don't care if residents are unlimited OTC and NR are limited. No sweat off my back.
Click to expand...
No it will go LQ with residents eventually, because of that. Predators vacuuming up fawns and calves are where the biggest hurt happens. And no I don’t think having YouTube videos of a certain topic means that it happens a lot or not…
 
brushcreek said:
Nonresidents pay 10X, are you willing to got that high?
Click to expand...
Haha yes, screw it let’s go even higher. 15x

This argument is such a non starter. You don’t realize that we could cut NR tags in half and double their cost and make just as much money. Heck we could do more than that and double resident tags and be all gravy.
 
The CPW commission has new, anti-hunter appointees and CO residents think now is the time to argue for resident allocation?

Jess Beaulieu is a former fellow at Center for Biologic Diversity and will likely soon be on your commission.​


If I was a resident, I'd be collecting money from NRs to fight 2 of these 3 new appointees. Hire a lobbyist. But you won't get NRs to donate if you're spitting in their faces about 90/10...

I don't have any interest in helping you when you just devalued my twenty years of CO points. Good luck.
 
brushcreek said:
Nonresidents pay 10X, are you willing to got that high?
Click to expand...

I live in Colorado, we're always willing to go that high ?. In all seriousness though, yes I would pay 10x. Its hunting, Im paying whatever the fee is, and if it means the mountains are less crowded by a large mulitiple, absolutely.

The unfortunate reality is, that as human populations increase, the only way to fix this problem is to start pricing people out.
 
Last edited:
The_Coloradoboy said:
Would not bother me one bit to see Colorado go to complete draw only for elk. However I don’t see CPW ever wanting to get rid of the cash cow that it is, no matter the state of the elk herds.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but going complete draw would mean 20% of the tags going into the Landowner Preference Program which would suck.
 
All they care about is revenue. Have you Res. presented a plan such as Res 85% NR 15% and as Res we're willing to pay $500.00 per tag?

If the 85-15 split is being presented with no change in Res tag prices to offset the revenue then it's not a surprise you're aren't getting a whole lot of traction. Show Me The Money is what they live by.
 
It just passed from 65%R - 35%NR to 75% R - 25% NR a few months ago. Still 80% - 20% on high demand units. NO cost increase for Res.
Still along way from 90% 10% as all other western states. I guess they all are going broke without NR.
 
RRCowboyStar said:
It just passed from 65%R - 35%NR to 75% R - 25% NR a few months ago. Still 80% - 20% on high demand units. NO cost increase for Res.
Still along way from 90% 10% as all other western states. I guess they all are going broke without NR.
Click to expand...
using the going broke narrative is getting tiring from both sides. It has nothing to do with going broke. It has everything to do with being less effective .

If residents don’t mind footing that bill than do it. The few on hear say they’re willing to pay but will the populous pay an extra 400-500 a tag?

You think Arizona or Nevada wouldn’t love another 5 million? They spend a million plus dollars hauling water a year.

Residents should get more tags but the state has turned it into a profit center. The personal emotion of I deserve a tag because I’m a resident isn’t profitable. Until you change that equation I don’t see them cutting their cash cow off.
 
50/50 for OTC tags is rediculous. I'm not even a resident, but I live in a liberal state Unfortunately and see the damage these politicians can do. This has forced many sportsman to head out of their Democratic state and is unfair to ruin another states resource. Unfortunately Colorado has grown to become a blue state and eventually will ruin all the resources from within (I hope I'm wrong). Residents should be able to reap the benefits while they can. If you want the hunting benefits of another state, move to that state and remember why your moving there when it comes time to vote!! If you don't, none of us will have nothing to pass down to our kids.
 
Skykarp said:
using the going broke narrative is getting tiring from both sides. It has nothing to do with going broke. It has everything to do with being less effective .

If residents don’t mind footing that bill than do it. The few on hear say they’re willing to pay but will the populous pay an extra 400-500 a tag?

You think Arizona or Nevada wouldn’t love another 5 million? They spend a million plus dollars hauling water a year.

Residents should get more tags but the state has turned it into a profit center. The personal emotion of I deserve a tag because I’m a resident isn’t profitable. Until you change that equation I don’t see them cutting their cash cow off.
Click to expand...
So do you want OTC or not? I am not sure what point you are trying to make? Of course all government agencies want more money. But right now (Tabor Law) they are returning their surplus back to the tax payers. I think CPW had a 20 million surplus last year.
 
What language do you want me to say you and everyone else can have OTC.

Again past results do not predict future performance. So if 5 million disappears over night what happens to the budget in a 1-3 year span.

If the dept can cut non res and maintain the surplus then get to getting. If nothing else the quality of hunt will Be better.

If 1500 people are signing a petition you have a better chance of getting the pot leaf as the state flower than getting the cash cow slaughtered.
 
Ok, since we’re veering off into NR land lets get to the point. And this is a generalization based on what pretty much everyone says.

Sure, the NR’s bring in a ton of cash. But who cares when all we spend it on is a buncha horsechit like woofs and DEI training?

The reality is that residents don’t feel like the money is being well spent. And worse, they feel like the generous accommodations ($) provided NR’s are ultimately detracting from their hunting opportunities and experiences.

Them’s the facts.
 
Talk about crowding. Covid and social media created the worst outdoor crowding ever. Seems to be way more recreational people than hunters in a lot of places.
 
If all you whiney ass bitches in this thread got together and actually went through the proper channels you could get it changed…after the night of butt raping each other first.

Let’s get online and cry!!
 
LIK2HNT said:
Talk about crowding. Covid and social media created the worst outdoor crowding ever. Seems to be way more recreational people than hunters in a lot of places.
Click to expand...
Meh. Since hunters are such a small part of the recreational user groups what do you expect?

There’s solitude for those who seek it. Just gotta work harder.
 
The_Coloradoboy said:
I just wish we could go back to having to put up the full tag price at the time of application and thin down the pool on sheep, moose, and goats…
Click to expand...
This was brought up at the Focus Group I was on last year. They said it was not on the table as they didn't want the upfront cost of tags be a limitation for people/families to continue to hunt or that might be interested in starting to hunt.
One example they mentioned was a family member that might have 3 or 4 children whom the parent did not have the upfront money to pay in full for child to apply for tags. Part of it I agree with. But if you think about it, most of the time applicant should have a pretty good idea if they are going to draw the tag.

I did tell them and ask the question - what is the difference if the applicant and his children pretty much knew they were going to draw, as they would then need to pay for all of the fees in the next 60 days when they drew the tags. I said your logic doesn't apply. They repeated they did not want the cost of the application to be a barrier to prevent someone from hunting and the focus group was to move on to other issues.

ColoradoBoy- I assume you understand the weighted point process on Sheep/Goat/Moose. If they only are issuing a couple of tags, the weighted points have little to no affect on you drawing the tags. I doubt in our life times under the current weighted point system there will never be enough Sheep/Goat tags issued for a specific to unit to have any affect. Moose might be trending on some results for the units that are issuing 15+ tags, but I haven't dug to deep into the statistics to confirm this, but it looks like some of the top weighted point holders are now seeing some reward for continuing to buy the $50 points in these units.

I tell my buddies and their kids if you have the money- go ahead and buy the points. If not just make sure you are in the weighted pool and hope you get lucky like most of the point holders that drew tags that did not have anywhere near the top of the point totals.
 
A government agency is never going to admit they're not spending the money wisely. They're never just going to take a 5 to 10 million revenue cut just for the hell of it. Those are facts.

If in your presentation, you don't include a way to maintain their revenue then you're just wasting everyone's time. That's also a fact.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

PXL_20211026_214446916~2.jpg
916A4CF2-0F45-45FE-8115-BE2B42615AFC.jpeg
IMG_0143[2863].jpg
47AA0EDF-E3F1-4192-BB69-8AFB4BC7CF0C.jpeg
1D21D41D-1D43-4013-9B4C-864BAE5F8CAD.jpeg
C869C4D2-129B-4C64-AAE7-69C9DDAB5F17.jpeg
ECF506DE-2ABD-4368-91E9-FBDD9AB6BF4B.png
Utah Muzzleloader Muley
BA7F02CA-53CC-4EF0-9D89-E295A5F47528.jpeg
FullSizeRender.jpeg
IMG_20231010_182625865_HDR.jpg
1658451630723.jpeg

Colorado Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Rocky Mountain Ranches

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

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