Bowsite.com

2017 vs 2018 app counts

Thanks LC for posting this.

Nothing like good news on a Monday morning. Seeing it in print is even worse.

Need to add another column showing the % change per species.

Send me your spreadsheet, I have a CPW sportsmans round table call at noon and the topic is on the agenda. I can't say for sure if the director will be on the line, but lets hope so. [email protected]

How would you guys like to see this addressed by CPW and the commission?

Personally, I'd like to see an outside diverse stakeholder group of sportsman provide recommendations to commission for action. I can't imagine any sportsperson being remotely satisfied with the increase.

Grasshopper, A couple of things.. 1) with 690995 total applications, that equals $2,072,985 in pure revenue from application fees alone.. what is the CPW plan with that revenue, how are they going to allocate those dollars to help wildlife and hunters? NOT fisheries, etc those dollars should come from fishing licenses 2) What is the plan in coming years with this system? Our system in Colorado is broken and is obviously very pro non-resident and 100% revenue driven..

How much are they going to raise the application fees and when?

They have been authorized to increase all application fees to $10 each that would have resulted in $6.9M instead of the paltry $2M from this last year.

Are they planning to start charging for preference points and when?

The way I understood the bill, it allows them to charge up to $100 per species for points.

Since the lion’s share of all this “free money” is now pouring into CPW’s bank account thanks to hunters...

Any discussions about improving hunter access, reducing crowding, improving game animal numbers, reducing predators, etc? Or are we just gonna get a big ‘ol hug?

Since CBA was so instrumental in helping CPW increase their revenue so substantially off the backs of hunters...

Any chance we can get a gun-free archery season without the rifle bear, buck, or early rifle elk hunters piled on top of us?

Any chance we can get an archery season for bears without having to compete with rifle hunters at the same time?

Any chance they have figured out that the water they are storing in their reservoirs that they claimed to be such a huge expense to their budget is actually worth something and lease or sale of that water will probably pay for any repairs needed plus a bunch of extra revenue?

Makes no sense for any hunter to ask the CPW and commission to address the "problem" of more people wanting to hunt. The demand is simply a fact of life. I suppose we could ask them to only allow certain anointed persons the right to a permit. How do you propose we select the anointed ones?

Aspen Ghost,

What “problem”? According to CPW, hunter numbers are declining rapidly and soon there will not be enough hunters buying tags to keep them afloat!

The vast majority of other states with draw systems place much more stringent restrictions on Non-Residents than Colorado. Typically 10% maximum. I would propose reciprocal tag allocation procedures and all NR’s be limited for elk.

Colorado’s liberal tag allocation and unlimited elk tags are, unfortunately, the reason we have so much hunter crowding and poor overall hunt quality. It definitely contributes well toward Colorado’s continuing status as the highest revenue generator for hunting license sales in the US though!

Aspen, you are correct.. There is demand.. But where was the demand prior to this new system? If the argument is that folks couldn't afford to have the CPW "hold" their funds for 60 days, than the fact is they cannot afford the tag anyway.. So, its not the demand that anyone is saying is the problem... Its this wacky new 'system' that is the problem. For instance, in a unit I applied for, non-residents had higher odds than residents with the same amount of points.. that to me is ridiculous.. But I guess with the revenue factor in play, that makes total sense to the CPW..

Steve, I'll get it off to you right away.

The app count is for "general apps" and does not include LPP apps.

They’re going to have to do something to address point creep now....

I’d like to see them switch over to either no points, or straight bonus points where 1 point equals a name in the hat. Make sheep goat and moose once in a lifetime tags regardless of harvest....

Make it so you have to choose only one OIL species to apply for...

Silver lining: Odds of drawing a Spring Turkey went up.

The fix... Now this will probably really upset many folks.. but I think #1 no more OTC for non-residents.. Leave OTC for residents and make draw only for non-residents.. #2 Institute a use them or loose them system for points.. so for instance what if CPW announced that in 2019 that whatever you put in for, if you draw, great, if you don't your points are gone.. BUT only for Elk, Deer, Pronghorn, Bear. So, in 2020, everyone starts at 0 points and all units be random draw that year and point system would start over .. this would fix point creep and I guarantee would increase applications for a few years anyway.. Only downside is to the guys that are sitting on a ton of points and I'm sure there would be some uproar. but I don't think the CPW cares about uproar.

CPW says hunter numbers are declining? Of course they are..try being a new hunter, going to some overcrowded OTC unit and not harvesting anything because all the elk are pushed onto private property and all the hunters are right on top of each other. You only do that 2-3 years before you just say screw it and stop hunting. The only way to recruit hunters is if they are successful in the field. Im not talking about dedicated hunters like us on bowsite who truly understand hunting and know what it takes. We understand tat being unsuccessful is just a part of hunting. Hunting is just in our blood. Take a young, new hunter out and not have any encounters, add some freezing weather and numerous miles of seemingly pointless hiking, and you can almost guarantee they wont be signing up to go hunting ever again. But now harvest an animal or come darn close, and you can bet they will be back for more.

I dont think you will ever see the day that OTC is 100% resident, but I think the day that OTC has a tag limit or cap is well past due. Simply take OTC and group them into smaller 4,5,6 unit groups. Make the caps on the high side so that the opportunity is there, but limit the number so that hunt quality is a high consideration.

I blame the Born and Raised videos on youtube.

;)

As I look at the increase in applications I see the most increase in non-residents applying for preference points. Granted, there are small increases in most units but the majority of the increase is in non-resident applications. How does this increase impact residents, considering there is a cap on non-residents?

CPW just increased demand dramatically, generated more revenue and saved money on running the draw. It was planned and thought out. Getting them to see it as a problem may be an uphill battle.

It's not a problem to them, things are looking up in their eyes. Now let's jack that app fee to the max $10/res $20/non-res then get to workin on raisin that limit! ????We're in the money, ??????we're in the money!????

Something to ponder:

I recently talked w the CPW about all the increase in applicants for several species. The mentioned an interesting tidbit, and that was many people that applied - that were charged the $30-$40 for PPs actually declined that charge on their CC.

So even tho the data showed a HUGE increase in PP applicants, not all got the PPs.

Doesn't surprise me. I read a lot of guys squealin about how to get that fee back.

Expect the application increase discussion to hit the commission agenda in August or September. Here is Mike's chart with desert sheep added, and percentage increases. Thanks Mike from the roundtable!

I did ask if they had any idea of how many applicants failed to tender payment, and subsequently lost all their points and surrendered their license. Hard data was not yet tabulated, but they suspected it was very low.

It would be good to show 2016 as well to show what a “normal” increase was. Two points make a line.

Or further back to illustrate normal variance to compare to this year’s exponential jump.

Your welcome, Steve. I'm happy to see it put to good use.

Cnelk.. Interesting thing about that fee for the PP is it is stated right there in the regs plain as day that if you didn't have a license last year or don't currently have a annual fishing license, you would be charged for the PP... I guess some folks overlooked that.. The CPW is going to make their $$$ money one way or another..

I would hope that the NR perspective is represented in these future meetings. NR's were slammed even harder by these increases. For example Moose apps increased by nearly 700%. A staggering increase, of a magnitude never before seen anywhere in the west. But you can't blame the thousands of new people for applying. At only 3 bucks per species, they basically HAVE to. Never thought I'd say this, but reluctantly, I want the 100.00 per species point fee (NR only), with no loopholes. Without something like that, most of those who've been faithfully applying for decades under the old system, will never hunt any of the big-3 in their lifetimes.

You want me to pay and not get refunded $700 to apply for all seven species when before this season applying for all seven species was $21? I'm one of those guys sitting on a pile of points for four species and I disagree.

Stick, are you a resident or nonresident. If resident, the big increase in NR apps doesn't affect you at all does it? Since we are limited to 10% of the licenses, doesn't really affect residents because we are capped at 10% regardless of how many apply.

But if you are a NR, then you are saying you can afford to pay the big increase, but you want people who can't to be priced out of the market. Not sure I agree with that either.

The cap for moose, sheep and goat is set at 10% with set aside licenses for non residents. It doesn’t apply to the private land sheep licenses.

For deer and elk, the cap is 35% maximum for hunt codes taking 5 or less resident points and 20% maximum for those taking 6 or more resident points. The points required were calculated based on the three-year average for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 draws. There are no limitations for private land only or Ranching for Wildlife tags.

There are no restrictions for bear, antelope or mountain lion. Guess no residents are darn lucky that the 20% line doesn’t get recalculated to account for point creep or calculated off the nonresident points required! There are quite a few units that could be added to the 20% list since that statute was written.

Colorado is still the most generous western state in issuance of non resident tags and OTC tags.

Lease or sale of water, I believe we already do that, to other states. Setting everyone back to zero for preference points will get rid of point creep, for a few years, then we are right back to where we are now.

Sorry, I was just referring to the sheep, goat, moose at 10% but realize that Dirk mentioned all 7. I missed that and I should have been more clear. But even at the 20 and 35% levels, those are hard CAPS, and don't change the number of tags residents get on a first choice draw. Is is somewhat scary at the decreased odds us NRs may be looking at though

They are not going to raise the elk and deer point amounts to $100 pp fee anytime soon, or they would have a revolt. They are going to do it like the automatic increases to the tag fees that are already in place, a little bit at a time so they can boil us frogs alive.

Of course all you have to do to avoid the preference points fees is buy a big game license every year, until they remove that loophole. So currently even if PP fees were at $100 each, I would still be paying nothing. I do agree that people who just collect points should be charged more. Otherwise they contribute nothing to the mix. I buy the tag, gas, groceries, meals out, etc EVERY year, so people like me should continue to get a break.

If I understand your statement correctly about agreeing with charging a fee for those who "just collect points," I offer this for your consideration: (1) - why should we pay extra for the point system and point creep that the CPW created which requires accumulating points in order to successfully draw and hunt many of the Game Management Units. (2) You stated, "Otherwise they contribute nothing to the mix." Well, ALL of us purchase Over-The-Counter licenses every year and purchase gas, groceries, meals out, etc...EVERY year, just as you do. (3) Additionally, we purchase other hunting and fishing tags, every year, and purchase gas, groceries, meals out...almost every day of every year. (4) If the CPW charges "only" 3 dollars for a license application or PP, I would bet that they charge enough so that they don't lose money. It takes no more, or less, to process a PP than it does a license. (5) We, including me, don't get a break either. In the years of purchasing licenses, coupled with many years of accumulating points, and the affiliated expenses of hunting and fishing...I argue that we all have "contributed to the mix." (Lest I forget, we have also purchased our weapons, arrows, bullets, camo clothing, equipment, etc...in CO...adding to the gas, groceries and so forth. Therefore, don't play smoke and mirrors, or nickel and dime us for the "game" we have to play with the point system by jacking with everything imaginable to raise revenues. It's simpler to just increase the license fees without having to generate more revenue streams...and they wouldn't have to justify and explain all the different categories of revenue.

"I do agree that people who just collect points should be charged more" You mean nonresidents. I gain points but still hunt every year, so I contribute. I live here, so I contribute.

And buy fishing licenses, state parks permits, boat permits, ATV permits, extra rod stamps, conservation license plates, along with the income taxes, grocery taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, restaurant taxes, etc with portions going to various state government agencies including CPW that adds up to a big cut out of my income every year just for the privilege of living here. At the end of the day, the cost of our licenses as residents are pretty high when the rest is added up.

Non-residents are treated very well in Colorado.

I put in for many states every year and none are as generous as my home state with nonresident tags. I knew what I was getting into when I started the game and realized that other states could change the rules to make it more difficult or expensive on a whim. Sucks when they do, though. Just gotta keep playing the games in hopes of drawing a few good tags in a lifetime.

"people who JUST collect points"

Blade and Peco. No, you did not understand me correctly. Under the current system, you will NOT be charged for points (and should not). Anyone like you who buys a big game license DOES contribute to the mix. Not talking about you.

I am talking about the guys who have 21 points, but have never set foot in Colorado to hunt.

Wonder how many point collectors there actually are!?

Within a few years at this application rate more and more draw units will slip into the 20% NR cap. That's a dark cloud for NRs, a silver lining for res and falling revenue for PAW.

Not sure if the above stats include those that just applied for a point. Does anyone know?

The 20% cap is locked based on the dates set in the statute. CPW is happy with that as it allows them to collect more NR money.

I'd say if you receive a 2nd-4th choice license in the draw, or leftover draw, you don't gain a point. That would help a bit.

How does that help point creep?

When you draw a 2nd-4th choice, you not only don't lose your points, but you gain another one. Many people draw a second choice every year and still gain a point. Stopping this would help some.

I would also be in favor of using up your points when you draw a secondary tag if for a buck or bull or an either sex tag. But not for a antlerless only tag. That would also help a lot

I would turn that on the other side. Remove the PP only application and folks can still get a point if they don't draw their first choice but it would cut down on the PP only accumulation and I think even things out over time as those with huge point piles use them up. I'm not a statistics person so I don't know for sure if that helps point creep but it seems like it should do something.

Except for bear I never use the PP only application. I just put in for what I would love to have even though I have no where near the points to draw. For example I always put in for unit 2 elk. I always put in for the deer unit I hunt know it is going to take at least 2 points and probably 3.

Bottom line is when you have more demand than supply you will always have some that are doing without.

+1 John. in the distant past, there was no PP app and you just put in for one of the areas that required way more points than you had and get a point. That is what people would do if you eliminate the PP app. And in the process make point creep worse in those areas. And now that CPW sees the PP as a cash cow, there is no way there are eliminating it!

Referencing Grasshoppers chart/spreadsheet, has anyone looked to see where the greatest increase is as far as which GMU's had the biggest jump in applications? Removing the Moose/Sheep/Goat numbers of course. So deer had a 14.38% increase in overall applications, but x-gmu had y percent of those additional applications. I'm no spreadsheet guru, so that would take me some time. Might try if no one has worked those numbers out(like I have tons of free time...)

I don't think those stats include pp apps. They are from the summary page. Neither the summary page or individual unit pages list them. Pp is it's own hunt code containing no unit reference.

So, you're saying that for Goat for instance, there were 21,316 more applications for a tag. Add x amount for the PP only applications(since we don't have stats on that number).

Now what I'm looking at is for example, GEG01O1A , in 2017 had 128 applicants and in 2018 had 210 applicants. For that GMU it's a 64% increase, with it being a .38% increase in the total applications.

This will be a time consuming process to calculate all the GMU's for a given species.

If your looking at the summary page, the applicant pool should include PP apps. What it shows is all first choice hunt code apps, and the PP code is a first choice hunt code app. I could be wrong, but that is the way I read it.

Landowners are listed in a separate category, so I assume they are not included in the numbers, but certainly allocated tags for elk, deer, and pronghorn.

I would bet you are correct. I think a LOT of people wanted to jump on the ship before it sailed, but didn't have a hunt to put in for so they applied for a preference point only

I think the LPP unrestricted are included and the LPP restricted are not.

Register here to reply to this topic