HUGE topic at PWC - Allocation
Colorado
Nov 17th the commission is voting on matters related to resident nonresident license allocation.
What do you think of option 3, doing it by GMU rather than hunt code? Would archers benefit by getting a higher allocation due to massive rifle participation?
Get your comments in fast.
Thanks, Steve. Looks like point banking is out. Hopefully the PWC will take a good look at the NR allocations for every other western state. But then when the massive revenue implications are considered, probably not going to change much.
I'll would take option #1.
No on option #2
Option 3 sounds good but need something solid as to what constitutes "high demand units" and seems like some tags would be set at 80/20 that fall in the unit but aren't really high demand. Ok with me, but overall sounds complicated to explain and justify. The regs are already way to burdensome in my view.
Yea, option 3 is really vaguely described. If they use gmu's rather then hunt codes, what constitutes 80/20? You could have archery deer at zero points, and late rifle buck at 15? How would you reconcile across method of take, demand, and other factors?
Ya I agree that number 3 seems a bit confusing but does state GMU’s “OR” hunt codes. If they went the hunt code route things might get real confusing.
Option 1 seems like a no-brainer but then again anything that reduces revenue is always a tough sell even though everyone knows that using more recent data is the right thing to do.
Could be interesting. I think any option other than point banking or status quo should put more tags in our resident archery pool.
They haven't updated the 80/20 split for 11 years?
1- Implement Pref Point averaging on group applications, with the restriction that all applicants must have a minimum of 3 PPs to apply.
correct, frozen forever, a bad disney movie. The unit 61 early rifle tag that takes like 18 or 20 resident points is allocated at 65/35 becuase the hunt code was introduced after they froze the 80/20 units based on old data.
Interesting that they included the NR percentage for other western states. Some of the new Commissioners might raise an eyebrow if they weren't aware of how much higher ours is for deer and elk.
Doubt it.
As soon as they see that NRs are the money bags, they may just flip it to 80NR/20R.
Or, to make it “fair”, raise resident fees to match NR fees...
Gonna see some crazy $#it start happening as CPw gears up for wolves. Using hunting revenue to protect and nurture wolves that will significantly impact the big game resources. Which will, in turn, impact the revenue stream.
Never seen a government agency yet that was in favor of reducing their size.
Seems like a simple, understandable option isn't included. When any hunt code hits the 3 year, 6 point threshold it could get switched to 80/20. Updated every year. There are revenue impacts but clearly the intent of why codes switch to 80/20 would be better followed.
Sorry to be a little off topic guys... this will be my first post on this site but have been lurking for years. I'm all in for an 80/20 split and HARD CAPPED for non residents... hell, I'd make it 90/10 if I could. But the need for NR money is necessary. With the political views of our current residents, why don't we vote for a bill that takes sales tax/real estate tax/ appropriations that helps fund CPW and recreation (besides the state lottery), which decreases the need of NR money? This gives the CPW and Colorado residents more authority and ability to keep our tags and keep residents costs low.
I vote NO to option #2! This is ridiculous.
I love that they included the “but it might impact revenue due to decreased NR.” That chart says it all.
I’ll say it again, raise the resident license fees to offset the nonresidents and put the entire state to 80/20, minus the otc of course. It wouldn’t take that much if residents are already 65-80% of the tags in draw units. You’d only be making up the difference of 15% to get the 65 to 80 to match the higher point units. Let the otc continue to be your cash cow.
Residents are 65% or 80% of the public draw tags. Just to clarify the actual split is different because 20%-25% of tags are taken for LO before that split and those are heavily utilized by NR.
Doesn't change the revenue change we are talking about but important to point out that either a 35% or 20% NR cap actually results in more than that percentage of total tags being utilized by NR in units that have LO tags.
Here were my comments, encourage others to email or zoom in. Thankfully, status quo is not listed as an option.
Honorable Commissioners,
I have reviewed the W-2 allocation topic for the November meeting, and would like to lodge my public input for your consideration. I would like to orally testify, but I currently have a schedule conflict.
I have been a Colorado resident big game hunter for the last 36 years. I am a former board member of the CBA, a former sportsmen volunteer who served on the sportsman’s roundtable, and I am currently serving as a sportspersons rep on the CPW public access working group. I am strong advocate for increasing resident license allocation. Residents just had a fee increases through the future generations act, and were very supportive of higher fees to ensure CPW’s financial stability. I believe residents would pay even more for increased preference, but the last legislative fee bill took years to pass even with herculean support from all stakeholders. Recently, the PWC compounded the challenges of the license draw by adopting a pay later process which caused application numbers to explode and point creep to dramatically increase.
In reading the options outlined by CPW staff, the true question is how many years should a resident hunter wait before a higher level of allocation preference kicks in? In other states, there is no wait to get far better resident preference, and our system is by far the worst in the west for resident allocation preference.
• I support adopting option 1 which would move more high demand units to the 80/20 allocation category using current preference point data. A longer than 6 year wait is unacceptable while residents in other states get better allocation with NO waiting whatsoever. • I do NOT SUPPORT option 2. Waiting up to 8 years for additional resident preference is unacceptable ,uncompetitive and unreasonable given residency preferences found across the west. • I currently do NOT support option 3 as written, there is just not enough information or definition. Using hunt codes is very different then a GMU wide designation considering game migration over seasons, varying demand for method of take and other factors. The public would be challenged to understand the logic in any formula or policy with this option as written. If you do not go to a final vote at the November meeting, this option could be flushed out and refined, but right now the concept is to open ended and vague.
As you contemplate, consider the mindset of all resident hunters. The true resident allocation through the public draw is currently at 52% in most of the state because the landowner draw removes 20% of the quota off the top. While landowner vouchers can be purchased regardless of residency, if the private lands are exclusively leased to an outfitter, it eliminates voucher availability to most residents based on cost. To a resident hunter, we don’t see our allocation as 80/20, or 65/35, we see it as 52% and a slap in the face.
In closing, I would ask you to support option 1. If it takes 6 years or more to draw a license, it simply should be an 80/20 allocation. Additionally, I would ask that statewide we eliminate 65/35 and adopt 75/25 in any limited quota hunt code. I would ask any cap consideration stay as it is today to retain resident predictability in additional draw choices on initial public draw applications.
Thanks for considering my input, and your service to Colorado!
I also prefer option 1, out of the 3 offered. Is there any support for a modest fee increase for only high demand licenses, both Resident and Nonresident? That might make it more acceptable to the Commission. Also, eliminating point buying would help with point creep. To get a point you should have to actually apply for a hunt. That would also give a better idea of which units actually have the highest demand by method of take.
I rather see them leave the draw units as is and cap non-resident on the number of tags issued for OTC. OTC is out of control with non-residents. I know that is a cash cow for them.
"why don't we vote for a bill that takes sales tax/real estate tax/ appropriations that helps fund CPW and recreation" They wouldn't "take" sales/real estate tax/appropriations, they would "raise" sales and real estate taxes.
Instead of a cap on NR OTC, they should have to draw their OTC license at the same time as all other draws. If they really want to hunt Colorado, that wouldn't effect them, but it would stop Colorado from being their last choice hunt.
Furthermore make an otc either sex elk tag 1 point.
It should concern all of us that any change to hunting opportunity has to be "revenue neutral". That is an admission that the CPW and Wildlife Commission is more interested in maximizing their coffers than they are in the health of our wildlife herds, or the quality of our hunting experience.
It makes no sense to me how poorly residents of Colorado are treated by their own government (I'm not a resident of Colorado). Actually, it makes no sense to me that Coloradans allow their government to treat them so poorly. You guys wait literally a decade (or decades in some cases) to hunt some units in part because some of the permits are allocated to NRs (or to LOs who in turn are allowed to sell these prized permits to NRs). That makes no sense at all to me. If a unit is that special it should be reserved only for residents.
If I was a resident of Colorado, I would insist that any unit that took more than 1 or 2 preference points to draw as a resident should not be open to NR hunting at all, period. And if the CPW can't deal with that financially then their bloated budget needs to go on a serious diet. Other states are able to manage their game departments primarily on Resident funding.
Easier said than done aspen ghost, this is commie-rado where the government is there to protect and control the people, not the other way around
The issue of the Landowner tags taken from the Res % allotment really needs to be driven home and how much it screws us
Aspen Ghost, the CBA is pretty much the strongest voice for hunters in CO. Grasshopper spent hundreds of hours in front of the CPW and PWC presenting logical, workable alternatives for license allocations and season structure recommendations, and in the end they always did whatever they wanted to do - often illogically screwing resident bowhunters with the end result.
Insisting we get the right split on licenses doesn't work. Resident hunters aren't powerful enough to operate the political levers that need to be pulled to force decisions like that. We are in a position where status quo or only losing a little on an issue is as close to a "win" as we get.
Keep in mind the commission has limited authority to raise fees beyond price index annually, application, point fees or something I am not aware of. Only the passage of legislation could raise license fees. Slim to no chance of that happening any time soon.
Peco- right now, as far as I know, CPW operates "mostly" from licenses and passes. Yes, they also get money from grants, lotto, and other places. You used to see "Hug a Hunter/Fisherman" commercials on tv- which demonstrated how important those people (who bought licenses) are to the Colorado outdoors. SO- only hunters, fisherman, and park users are providing funds for CPW. I think the people of Colorado would vote to raise sales tax/real estate tax/ appropriations to improve managing Colorado's environment... and they should. It's time the bird watchers, bicyclists, rafters, climbers, and soon-to-be wolf watchers pitch in. I don't know... maybe I need to move to Wyoming?
Glunt- who exactly "owns" the wildlife in Colorado?
Outdooraddict, keep in mind the backlash from the bikers and birdwatchers when this happened. Wishful thinking...
https://coloradosun.com/2020/06/25/hunting-fishing-licenses-colorado-state-wildlife-areas/
Put more tax on weed, let the stoner hippies and tourists pay for it. One of the benefits of living here are low property taxes. Everyone wants just a few more dollars, the schools, fire department, Sheriff's department, etc. All of this should not be the burden of the property owner who is just trying to live and survive here. Just say no to feeding the pigs with higher taxes.
starbux- I understand, but its the buying a "hunting" and "fishing" license that had a negative tone for some people. Instead of making them buy those tags, we are taxing people to manage "Recreation". And I'm going put this out there and say that the majority of Coloradoans would approve (sex panther- 60% of the time, works every time) it. Then, all Colorado residents would have free passes to state parks, they are covered. This could lower the costs of tags, registrations, camping fees, etc... But, maybe my economics are off. I believe there are more that 4 million adults in CO. If each person paid an additional $5.50 each month (one starbucks coffee per month), the state would generate $264 million- the total revenue of all CPW funding! Hell, for $66 dollars a year we "COULD" get tags, passes, registrations for FREE. If CO received $3.46 per month, it would cover the entire Wildlife Revenue. And- for the sake of making the allocation whatever we want (80/20, 90/10), without worrying about how many NR are hunting, $2.35/mo would cover all hunting and fishing licenses. I would go for a mix of those and change distributions of money within the CPW. The way I see it, if I were taxed $66/year and paid $20 for every tag I purchased.. I would still pay LESS than what I have been. (1 elk- $55.43, 1 deer- $40.24, 1 bear- $39.75). BUT, there are people WAY smarter than me who know a lot more about this stuff. So, what do I know?
In the end, I think you're right... wishful thinking.
Sorry again gentlemen... I'm with Grasshopper, Option 1 and everything else he said. Well written, thank you.
Outdooraddict - What is a sex panther? The problem with raising everyone's tax for a few bucks a month for something important to you is next thing you know you have done that for a lot of things and equals a lot of taxes. I would prefer to pay more for what I like to do in this case hunting tags and not be taxed for thing of no importance to me.
Hey John, it's a joke from the movie Anchorman basically saying I'm really not sure Coloradoans would approve of the tax. You may, or may not think it's funny (one inappropriate word). I understand your opinion about the taxes. Like I said, there are people WAY smarter than me on this topic, but I still see hunting and fishing residents saving money in the long run. There are other states who already use a portion of taxes to fund their DNR (I would have to ask them what they think). I guess I'm just tired of getting the shaft due to financial reasons. I want to hunt bucks every year, I want better odds for high demand tags, etc... but it will never happen because of money.
Outdooraddict, do you really think they are going to collect all that money and give you free shit? LOL that's a good one. They will keep it and squander it. You will pay higher taxes, and still pay to enter parks, camp, park at the boat ramp, etc.
PECO- You're right, they would never give it to you for free. Here's to hoping people at the top have some sort of integrity and would balance the cost of tags according to its financial stability...
Trust the legislature to do the right thing? All that ballot stuff they put before voters earlier this month? Family leave with a 24% increase to employment taxes? No yes vote thought about the cost, just how cool it would be to have that. The legislature gets no blame, voters passed it - not them, we get big government and higher taxes. I just wonder if any of those voters will look at the first January paycheck and ask what the hell happened?
Any legislative action is the sausage grinder effect. It goes in one end looking pretty good, once it comes out it looks completely different, and may want to make you puke. I'd be leery of any bill, no matter how well intentioned at the start, greedy amendments take over fast.
Does anyone have any news on this meeting?
Shows a virtual meeting tomorrow
While there was no status quo on the proposal, that is what they did. See the link, discussion is at about the 30 minute mark. They kicked the can down the road, and supposedly will gather more input and will consider changes for the 2022 Season.
What a dissapointment.
Not surprised but definitely disappointing.
While option 1 would have lost the agency an estimated 45,000 in revenue, the commission did decide to increase 2021 license fees for almost all licenses with CPI indexes to the tune of an estimated 3 million dollars more in income, paid by hunters/anglers, during a pandemic with widespread economic hardships. If I recall Chairman Mcdaniel was the only no vote. All this while the legislature is calling a special session to come up with economic relief packages for Colorado? What is going on?
Additionally disappointing.
Raising license fees is the "economic relief package" for the CPW. They're going to need that to launch the wolf process unless the legislature kicks them some supplemental funding. My money is on that not happening because CPW has the ability to increase revenue by doing exactly this.
Are you serious!! I shouldn’t be surprised, but as I said earlier any option would be a step in the right direction so of course they went with the worst option for residents. Real bummer once again.
They should take a good hard look at the way Idaho listens to their residents and actually acts on their behalf.
One foot in colorado......the other firmly planted in Nebraska!! Longer seasons, more things to chase, less B.S.!!
Based on the current makeup of the Commission and the short time to digest this "complex" issue, it does not surprise me at all that they postponed their decision and put it off until a later meeting.
I can't believe they are not adjusting the 80/20 split in some units. Screwing residents for the money I guess.
Exactly right Orion
But to be more accurate, residents screwed themselves. By supporting such disparate fees between res and non res prices.
If there wasn’t a 10x difference in price, you would have already had tighter restrictions. Res always say “pay to play” to NRs. That door swings both ways. Haven’t seen many government agencies vote to cut their own throat financially. That is what you are asking them to do.
Txhunter, the rest of the United States would say your logic makes no sense.
These donkeys have no fear of being removed from their positions. That’s why they’re voting to screw their residents.
What other western states don't have somewhere around a 10X difference? Or greater?
And what other states allow for as many nonresident tags?
I don’t know of one state that has the same license fee for residents and non res.
Clue me in if there is any
Not sure if you're interested in an EX-CO Resident's opinion.....but as a non-res now, here are a couple of thoughts: - You're entirely right in that they cause this whole problem themselves, by ripping off the non-res for those crazy priced licenses. The price difference between res and non-res is ridiculous. - While I empathize with your thoughts about residents getting better opportunities because they are residents....have you ever looked at the % of the land that is hunted that is FEDERAL land? Its a very big number. For a non-res, it really feels awful to pay these huge $ to hunt animals on land we "own" and we fund for management. Worse yet to know that we really can't even hunt a lot of the units because the points required are huge and point creep is making it an impossible chase. - I think some of you have also made a great point about changing things so that CO is not the last-choice place to go where you always know you can get a tag OTC. SW Colorado is a great example to show what happens when you have unlimited OTC tags. No elk to hunt anymore, and very crowded even in wilderness areas.
Thanks for listening.
The federal land argument is moot. The game belong to the state, you are welcome to visit the federal land you “own” any time. A private landowner killing an elk on their own land without a license is still an offense to the state, and I’d argue they’ve more right than the public land “owners.” Colorado is not ripping off any non resident, our elk tags are easier to get and cost less than most other states.
The notion that Colorado is ripping off nonresidents is asinine.
LOL the people of Colorado are ripping off nonresidents? Maybe the tags should be the same, like lift tickets at ski resorts? You guys are idiots. Please tell us which states are close in their resident/nonresident prices? We are waiting. I'll tell you though what a rip off is, a nonresident Kansas deer tag is almost as expensive as a nonresident ELK tag in Colorado. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Umm. If the prices were a rip off then people would just choose to not participate. If people are buying, and in many cases waiting years in line in order to buy, then the prices are not a rip off. One could easily argue that for many units the price is too low. A private business would never sell these high pref point permits so cheap. They would go for at least 10 grand a piece on an open market. Some for a lot more than that. If CPW had any brains (and was allowed to) they would just set aside 5% of permits for NRs and auction them off. Residents wouldn't have all those NRs around and CPW would generate more income than the current system. Please don't tell CPW. I'm enjoying the cheap NR permit prices.
Do nonresidents really think they should pay the same as residents?
The high price of NR tags is to limit participation while producing significant revenue. The tags are not likely priced to maximize revenue or the price would be higher. We all know how supply and demand curves work. My pet peeve is the argument that others do... so it must ok... reminds me of politicians and grade schoolers. Eventually the states will figure out that they are missing the boat. If every elk hunting state added $100 to their resident elk tag prices they would see that participation would not decrease significantly and revenue would increase significantly. When the progressive politicians need new folks to squeeze they will have no problem squeezing the locals as well. Face it, except for Wyoming the majority of Elk states will be governed by nonhunting urban liberals/progressives in the near future AND for the foreseeable future (Co, OR, MT, AZ, NM) Sad but true imho.
Actually, maybe somebody should mention that to colorados governor to start the ball rolling. Help pay for your f wolves.
So brunse you think you should pay the same price as residents? Can you name one state that does this?
No. And No. I’m not sure how many could answer yes to those rhetorical questions. So I’ll offer up a couple for you.
So orion, 1. do you think important wildlife management decisions should be decided by out of state lobbying campaigns to colorado voters? It appears just over half of Colorado's voters believe so.
2. If you don’t draw a limited elk tag would you pay $650 for your OTC Colorado elk tag next year? I would...I will.
Colorado is not Wyoming. Colorado NEEDS a LOT of out of state hunters and their money. Currently there appears to be plenty of people willing to pay to play from all over the US. But that could change.
The selfish attitude for an instate hunter is saying good riddance to the out of staters. It’s reasonable for the short term. I don’t believe it’s a good play for the long haul.
I enjoy the NF and especially the wilderness areas. I access those places because outfitters maintain the trails. (The forest service barely touches them) I suspect the vast majority of those outfitters are local. Many have been around for generations. They keep those trails open to service clients. Primarily Out of state clients. Without the work of those outfitters, the increase in beetle kill downfall would make many an area inaccessible.
My hunting partners and I don’t play the point game so we have been considering our options.... as have a lot of others.
" I access those places because outfitters maintain the trails. (The forest service barely touches them)"
The first part of that is mostly true, the second part depends on the location.
Back when we use to horse pack into the Eagles Nest Wilderness, WE maintained the trails we used, with permission. We would clear miles of trail with hand tools before the season. One year, we had to report a local outfitter that was using chain saws in the wilderness, and refused to stop when we asked him to.
If I could afford the time I would spend some summer time clearing trails in the NF. I’m pretty sure I’m familiar enough with a couple outfitters that they would provide the horsepower... maybe when my little one gets big enough....
I’m certainly not being critical of the Forest service. I have no idea of their budget... and finding summer crews of college students willing and able to saw logs and manage livestock is probably tough.
I have found a couple trails that I expect a group of locals opened up... but they are hard to come by!! Problem seems to me is that elk don’t often die where we want them too so I’m glad the outfits keep a few drop camps open and maintain the trails to them. Actually, the forest service marked them with signs and now they are on map software... ugh.
Is there a lot of beetle kill in the eagle nest?
There are volunteer backcountry horse clubs who open and maintain many trails in summer.
Trails 2000 and the vallecito sportsman's club do a majority of the trail work down here
With 6 million people plus maybe 2 or million tourists on the ground any given day pounding trails, I don't think outfitters are the ones "clearing trails". We have all kinds of folks forging trails, and burning down whole dame forests so no trails are required anyway.
True and none of them buy a habitat stamp either.
Discussing with some acquaintances their disappointment at all the hunters they encountered at a popular trail they were hiking in Sept.. Basically their take was the trailhead parking and a lot of the good camping spots were taken. Without saying it, they were obviously uncomfortable being around a bunch of hunters as well.
I said "Imagine if you had to buy a $55.00 hiking pass every year"
"Seems silly but we would do it if we had to."
"Now imagine it's only good for a 30 day period"
"That would be ridiculous"
"Now imagine you have to apply for it in April and you may not get to go hiking at all due to supply and demand. For some really desirable trails you may never get the license and if you do, you can't start applying again for 5 years"
"Ok, ok, I see where you are going with this"
"Did I mention you would also have to take a 2 day course and get a certificate from the State before you can even apply for a hiking license?"
"Point taken, that would stink"
"Did I mention that the summer sausage you've been snacking on all evening is bear meat?" :^)
Point made and in a non-confrontational way, nicely done.
I guess I'm a little late to the game but thought I would put this right here...I'm wondering what those non-residents are seeing that I am missing from the information below vs. Colorado Pricing structure. Please explain??? Disclaimer - Elk Tags only WY Resident - $57 WY Non-Resident - $692 MT Resident - General $20 MT Non-Resident Combination $884 UT Resident - $50 UT Non-Resident - $593
