CPW seeks input, allocation of licenses
Colorado
DENVER – Colorado Parks and Wildlife is considering changes to policies and regulations that could potentially impact how big game hunting licenses are distributed in the state. CPW is currently seeking public input from resident and nonresident big game hunters and stakeholders through an online comment form, followed by a survey and public meetings next year. The feedback will help the Parks and Wildlife Commission and the agency determine if the current policies need to be revised.
Public interested in big game hunting can provide feedback now via an online 10-question Big Game Hunting License Distribution Public Comment Form. Your feedback will help identify the highest priority topics for review by CPW over the next year. Feedback must be submitted by Nov. 22, 2021.
The big game license distribution topics being considered are resident and nonresident elk and deer license allocation, preference points, weighted points and over-the-counter (OTC) elk licenses.
To inform the review of license distribution topics, CPW is offering multiple opportunities for the public to get involved. The timeline for this process is now through the fall of 2022. For more information, read the CPW Big Game Hunting License Distribution FAQs or subscribe to our Hunting eNews for the latest hunting information. February and April 2022 – CPW is conducting a survey of hunters to assess their perspectives about the topics listed above and holding focus groups to help inform the development of alternative strategies. The Big Game Attitude Survey will be mailed to randomly selected resident and nonresident hunters who will also have the opportunity to participate online if they prefer. May and June 2022 – CPW is hosting stakeholder workshops and public meetings to provide opportunities to review and discuss possible alternative strategies. September and November 2022 – The Parks and Wildlife Commission will consider proposed policy and regulatory changes with opportunities for further public comment.
For more information on hunting in Colorado, visit the CPW Hunt Big Game website or explore the Learn to Hunt Webinar Series.
Got the email yesterday & took the survey.
Did not get the email. Is the survey up online anywhere?
Is this one of those lip service surveys where they ask for public input and then do whatever they please in the end?
I can't believe they haven't addressed the 80/20, 65/35 split before this. It was supposed to be done years ago.
You can sign up to be part of a focus group. May just be inperson lip service however.
I hesitated to answer in the form they provide. Certainly I am interested in them addressing some issues but I fear their idea of how to address them and mine may be opposite directions. I would rather not be counted as someone who supported addressing the issue when the new path or solution they have in mind for addressing it, and eventually enact, is incorrect.
I filled it out with comments.
Well as they explained in a Sportsmans Roundtable meeting, any changes must be at least "revenue neutral". So do the math....
They are taking a survey to figure out if they should discuss it. Seriously?
I have always found it entertaining how many seem to comment that all units should be limited with no discussion of what the quota should be or how then 20% of the quota could be removed from the draw for landowners if demand is there.
Sounds like another long discussion, that either goes no where, or causes limitations for archery only seasons.
Anyone wonder which commissioner insisted they gather gender and sexual preference info?
Just got done pissing in the wind.......
My experience at the public meetings or even online surveys, when asked to to comment, is that, the ML and rifle elk hunters have a vote/comment as to what might happen to the archery seasons and license allocations as much as bow hunters do. And since the ML and rifle hunters usually out number bow hunters at these meetings/surveys, there recommendations might trump bow hunter input.
I know the CBA is aware of this subject and will examine it closely and then formulate a strategy as they have done in the past.
Paul, true, but in the past it seems rifle and ML hunters tend to be more apathetic than bowhunters. Plus, they don't have as strong a voice as the CBA. Problem is going to be finding some sort of consensus within the CBA on whatever proposals come out of this process..
This topic should be posted over on the Main Forum…. Paul…. Get your copy and paste tool warmed up
I sense the same wasted effort from what I just did as when I vote for a Republican for governor in this state.
Well, another waste of time but, at least filled it out. The CPw bureaucracy never ceases to amaze with their lack of logic. Definitely do not anticipate anything different this time…
They have been giving out too many deer tags out east. War on WT's.
For elk make the ML a stand alone season from the first Friday in Oct to the following next Saturday. 40% of all tags to NR's. Shorten the archery elk OTC to 21 days. Eliminate the 3rd Rifle elk OTC or move it to draw only. Let's go Brandon!
Either that or he stopped in at a Colorado dispensary. None of what he mentioned could be passed.
Never say never. Its exactly what I shared on the CPW questionnaire. I'll also be participating in the live forum.
Tom, as a nonresident from AZ, what it your justification for reducing the archery elk season from 29 days to 21 days.? Do you realize that there are a lot of resident week- end archery elk hunters who only get to hunt week ends and how you want to cut down their opportunities even more to only 6 days for the total season.
Sheesh, If you cant get it done in 21 days. Time constraints of others shouldn't even be an issue for consideration. That's a personal problem not mine or others.
So what is "an issue for consideration"? that you believe is so important?
There is valid point in that the average length of an archery elk hunt is 8-10 days.
Not everyone can take the whole month like Paul…. and me. ;)
Most guys hunt about a week total. Shorter seasons just mean more of those weeks overlap which means crowding and pressure. Bowhunting elk has grown way more than rifle hunting and it would actually make sense to allocate more of the available days in the fall to archery.
Sooner or later, the Quiet Time will have to be looked at to support more seasons.
Don’t say it can’t be done because it’s been done.
Azelkhntr, sounds like you have a personal problem. Why are you concerned about CO hunting seasons, when AZ is such a great place for resident hunters? Oh wait I forgot, you come to CO because you can't draw in AZ...
Well lets look at that Jaquie. CO like every state has made a compact to offer a significant number of tags to NR's at a premium price. I'm not overly concerned about CO's hunting seasons, however I do think there are too many and for too long of a stretch. Its not the seasons per se but the months long impacts on the resources. AZ most certainly is a great place for hunters and we're proud of that and welcome NR's to share in our States awesome beauty and bounty; even you. Limiting the OTC archery to 21 days would allow almost 2 weeks rest for the critters prior to the ML's coming in. A win win right? Then another long quiet time period prior to 1st. rifle then OTC 2nd. rifle. Another win. Ditch the 3d. rifle or have that become a limited draw since the critters will be well off their lofty perches and easier to find. Another win. I come to CO for the oppty and its close to home but I also go to WA for elk from time to time. I'm sitting on 7ppts here at home and the reason I've yet to draw is I keep focusing on a bull hunt in our States premier elk GMU. Soon my son we will draw that one. Or I'll take a CO bull first. Got half an elk in the freezer right now so life is good!
Losing a week+ of season is not a win in my book. 53,000 archery hunters crammed into 3 weeks instead of 4 weeks would be a 25% increase in crowding and pressure on critters during those 21 days. Pressure is already a big issue.
40% to nonresidents? I'm ok with that since currently nonresidents represent more than 40% of elk hunters. I would prefer we were closer to states like AZ with nonresident allocation but I would settle for a little reduction for now.
35% in draw areas for nonresidents doesn't include the portion of the 20% land owner tags that get used by nonresidents and OTC nonresident numbers are higher.
53,000 archery hunters means only 1.97 hunters per sq. mi. and if you factor in the extreme vertical of CO. it probably comes down to about 0.65 per sq. mi. Crammed in? Not hardly. Land owner tags need to be looked at closely. LO's receiving them should have to allow lawful hunters on their property if damages are an issue and they shouldn't be allowed to profit of the peoples wildlife. A nominal trespass fee of say $50 per hunter per season should be adequate IMO.
Nice try azelkhntr. But less than half of Colorado is productive elk habitat, and much of that is private. There are also more rifle hunters in the field than bowhunters during "archery" season.
Number of Colorado elk bow hunters (or elk tags sold) from 2015 to 2020, It is estimated that 49% re non residents.
2015---------------------------------46,848
2016----------------------------------47,721
2017-----------------------------------47,727
2018------------------------------------50,750
2019-----------------------------------51, 485
2020-------------------------------------53,426
It is so odd to hear folks describe longer breaks, and how that is going to be good for the animals. Real laugher there.
I think what is going to happen in the new season structure with longer breaks is herds are going to get the crap shot out of them if they get a break and return to public lands. Longer break, is going mean less elk. Really good for the herds, yea right.
Azelkhntr, where are you coming up with a 2 week break between archery and ML with an archery elk season ending on Sept 22? That puts MLs into October 9-16 (this year), which would push all the rifle seasons back a week. 4th rifle season would be in December.
MLs dont want to give up their mid-September hunt. Bowhunters don't want to give up even more opportunity in the face of growing bowhunter numbers. Public land rifle hunters don't want to be hunting elk in December, when the huge majority of elk are on private land winter range and snow is a major problem. So the only hunter who would support your proposal is you..
Every one of your proposals is based on "should", which is shorthand for "what would work best for me". You "should" convince the AZ G&F to let residents hunt elk every year before you start trying to tell stakeholders in another state how their seasons "should" be structured.
AZ offers one archery bull elk license for every 10 elk in the state. CO sells one either sex archery tag for every five elk. AZ "should" double the number of archery licenses, make them all either sex, and offer 40% to nonresidents.
Not only would this generate significantly more revenue and increase the odds of residents hunting more often, but it would make nonresidents very happy. It would be a win-win-win for everyone. Seems like a no-brainer. Why don't you devote your efforts and brainpower toward making that happen?
Discussing new season dates is a moot point - We are in the middle of the 2020 - 2024 BGSS [Big Game Season Structure] and that wont change.
Focus on license allocations - that have a cost neutral base - and the CPW will probably listen
Cost neutral base? If nearly half of the 53,400 archery licenses are sold to non residents at $690 each and residents pay $57, the income from nonresidents is $17,250,000. while resident archers pay $1,625,000 in elk license fees. (Yes, I know there are some cow and youth tags involved at lower prices).
So the questions might be, 1. How many non residents needs to be eliminated if crowding is to be reduced and can CPW justify a reduction and give up the revenue?
2. would residents wants a large increase in fees to make up the difference? A $200 resident fee would raise 5 million. and would reduce the non resident pool by only 7, 250 hunters. That still leaves (well deserved 28,500 resident) and 17,750 nonresidents for a total of 46,250 bow hunters. This number is still higher that is was over 10 years ago.
3. and if "crowding" is an issue, how many bow hunters need to be reduced per year from the 53,400 archery elk hunter pool to reduce crowding??????????????
"would residents wants a large increase in fees to make up the difference?" Not this resident.
CPW bean counters told us at a Sportsmans Roundtable meeting that any change to license allocations must be "revenue neutral". With the totally skewed system now with OTC and high NR allocations, the only way for any revenue-neutral modifications to be implemented is to drastically raise NR license fees to compensate for any reduction, along with a resident increase.
Money talks and it would appear the NR's can carry the day. 53K archery hunters scattered across the state is hardly a crowd even if limited to the front range west. Most will only hunt the wknds then the NR's for only a week maybe 2. Probably less then 15% will stick out the entire season. In my 3 seasons in CO hunting some good units during OTC archery other hunters afield were rarely if ever encountered. But I try to avoid them anyways so.... Run OTC archery from 9-1/21. ML from 1st. Friday in Oct thru the following Sat. 1st. rifle from say 3rd or 4th Friday in Oct. for 7 days. OTC 2nd. rifle from 1st. Friday in Nov. Move 3rd. rifle to draw only day after Thanksgiving for a 7 day hunt. Problems solved, all are happy and the critters get lots of quiet time in between. Win-win.
^^^ Again. Save your thoughts season changes until the next BGSS survey/input.
Because it ain’t gonna happen before then
The crowding issue is due to CPw putting firearm seasons on top of archery seasons. Total BS. Probably more total gun tags in September (ML and High Power elk, deer, bear, antelope, etc) than archery tags…
Takes some creative logic to devise a plan where everybody loses opportunity, and declare it a "win-win". Sounds like democrats in Congress..
Yea lets talk about revenue neutral and the last fee bill, which raises fee by CPI every year.
1. Wonder what CPI fee increases will be next year with Bidenflation under inflation Joe? 15% a year? 20? more? Get ready, if you buy licenses you are going to take it in the shorts.
2. Sportsman were told during the fee bill discussion there would be no point fee. Huh? Wonder why the commission didn't honor that one? Was that a promise kept? How much bank is that creating that was never disclosed up front?
3. Qualifying licenses. how many millions is that BS creating that was enabled by the fee bill?
4. This whole discussion is happening because Senator Garcia, and the Senator from FTC whose name I am forgetting ran a bill last year to shift more licenses to residents.
5. If the discussion is going to be bootstrapped as "revenue neutral" rather then focusing on the objective of the bill language from last session. This sportsman and anyone else I can drag with me will be meeting with Colorado Senators to bypass CPW and the commission.
6. What about the pay later debacle? How many millions did CPW save on that, improving their bottom line while shafting hunters?
7. Im still waiting for real expansion of public access, all we did was lease out some overgrazed STL for a buck an acre to satisfy the BHA boys. Another promise broken from the fee bill.
8. Application fees, for now the first draw and the second draw. How much bank has that created? Cha-ching.
I know I am forgetting one other giant broken promise from the fee bill, that equated to major bank....anyone?
I have a buddy that fishes a lot, with a boat. I don't remember the numbers but he was bitchin' to me the other day about all the fees being raised on fishermen also. I guess we gotta make up for the lost revenue from Parks and rec. being added to the CDW.
The pootus’ economy is raising prices on all things now.
It is ironic the double edge sword the fee structure has created. For years I argued that pricing Colorado NRs higher and higher was wrong. I was always told “quit whining”, everyone (other states) is doing it. Just shut up and pay. Because we really didn’t have a voice, the fees just kept on rising. Well, in a way, we now have a voice: CPW wants/needs to continue to suckle on that teat.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with residents that they should get a larger share and better quality hunting. And I would be ok with getting to hunt only ever other year if crowding was down and quality was up, but that won’t happen with the present price disparity. And if you raise the elk fee to $1000+; you would gut the CPW because most of us would stay home. Several states I would gladly pay $1000 for an elk tag, but not Colorado. The public land near my cabin in SW CO has virtually no cow tags (takes 3 points!) and 13 bulls per 100 cows. NOT even close to being worth $1000.
So I wish you luck, but something close to status quo will likely happen
It would change with less traffic and hunters would pay it.
NR’s clearly fund the CPW as is now. Discrimination against them in choice of quality units will never pass the test. It would be better if you pressured the Legislature to direct a substantial percentage of your States mj sales to the CPW.
