ColoradoOak
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,920
The CPW Commission will once again take up the license allocation issue at the August 6 meeting in Durango. You may remember that the issue was discussed last year during the 5 Year Season Structure discussion, but was ultimately tabled until this year:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID32/4020.html#.VbaRfrkU92Y
Two weeks ago the Colorado Outfitters Association presented CPW with a proposal for increasing CPW revenue, which included the following options:
1) Equal opportunity between residents and non-residents in the limited draw for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses. Those with the most preference points draw first, regardless of residency. No cap on non-residents.
2) A 50/50 split of limited deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses, with the non-resident draw occurring first.
3) Return to a 60/40 across the board resident/non-resident allocation, with a "hard cap." This means that non-residents would be guaranteed 40% of deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses, and may draw them with fewer preference points, or as a second, third or fourth choice, over residents.
4) Recruit 13 more resident hunters for each lost non-resident hunter if residents get more than their existing guaranteed allocation in the draw.
5) Pass a resident fee increase in the legislature.
The topics sure to be discussed at the Commission meeting in August include:
?hard cap vs. soft cap for resident/non-resident allocations
?resident/non-resident splits for limited licenses (80/20 and 65/35), including whether to leave them at those ratios, as well as how to determine which hunt codes are 80/20
?hybrid draw - leave as is, eliminate it, increase the points required for a hunt code to have licenses available in the draw
In anticipation of this discussion, the CPW staff has prepared this document with background and statistical information on the subjects. There is a lot of good information there, and I would recommend that anyone interested in the subject read it thoroughly. The COA proposal of 2 weeks ago is referenced in this document near the bottom of page 3.
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...sion_BG_Allocation_Info_August_2015_final.pdf
The biggest issue of contention that I expect is how to determine what hunt codes are 80/20 vs. 65/35. Options include:
?leaving them as-is, meaning that 80/20 applies to hunt codes that required 6+ preference points for residents to draw, based on a 3 year average (2007-2009)
?leaving the formula as-is, but recalculate with the most recent data (2013-2015)
?increase the resident preference point requirement for eligibility (to 7+, 8+ or 9+) and recalculate with the 2013-2015 data
I believe the Commission is leaning towards increasing the resident preference point requirement and recalculating, so that there is relatively little increase in the number of hunt codes that move from 65/35 to 80/20. This is based on comments made by the Commission at the September meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have spent far too much of my time looking at the data. If you have an opinion on what he Commission should do regarding the topics above, you should email them ASAP before the meeting at [email protected]
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID32/4020.html#.VbaRfrkU92Y
Two weeks ago the Colorado Outfitters Association presented CPW with a proposal for increasing CPW revenue, which included the following options:
1) Equal opportunity between residents and non-residents in the limited draw for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses. Those with the most preference points draw first, regardless of residency. No cap on non-residents.
2) A 50/50 split of limited deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses, with the non-resident draw occurring first.
3) Return to a 60/40 across the board resident/non-resident allocation, with a "hard cap." This means that non-residents would be guaranteed 40% of deer, elk, pronghorn and bear licenses, and may draw them with fewer preference points, or as a second, third or fourth choice, over residents.
4) Recruit 13 more resident hunters for each lost non-resident hunter if residents get more than their existing guaranteed allocation in the draw.
5) Pass a resident fee increase in the legislature.
The topics sure to be discussed at the Commission meeting in August include:
?hard cap vs. soft cap for resident/non-resident allocations
?resident/non-resident splits for limited licenses (80/20 and 65/35), including whether to leave them at those ratios, as well as how to determine which hunt codes are 80/20
?hybrid draw - leave as is, eliminate it, increase the points required for a hunt code to have licenses available in the draw
In anticipation of this discussion, the CPW staff has prepared this document with background and statistical information on the subjects. There is a lot of good information there, and I would recommend that anyone interested in the subject read it thoroughly. The COA proposal of 2 weeks ago is referenced in this document near the bottom of page 3.
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Co...sion_BG_Allocation_Info_August_2015_final.pdf
The biggest issue of contention that I expect is how to determine what hunt codes are 80/20 vs. 65/35. Options include:
?leaving them as-is, meaning that 80/20 applies to hunt codes that required 6+ preference points for residents to draw, based on a 3 year average (2007-2009)
?leaving the formula as-is, but recalculate with the most recent data (2013-2015)
?increase the resident preference point requirement for eligibility (to 7+, 8+ or 9+) and recalculate with the 2013-2015 data
I believe the Commission is leaning towards increasing the resident preference point requirement and recalculating, so that there is relatively little increase in the number of hunt codes that move from 65/35 to 80/20. This is based on comments made by the Commission at the September meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have spent far too much of my time looking at the data. If you have an opinion on what he Commission should do regarding the topics above, you should email them ASAP before the meeting at [email protected]
