Grasshopper's Link
It would be great if guys wrote the commission about this, they will take final action next week. If your ok with residents losing licenses in units like 10, 2, and 210 - then do nothing. If you'd like to have more residents licenses, that take fewer points to draw, NOW is the time to write the commission at: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
The data is at the link, Below is my written testimony:
Commissioners and CPW staff,
I am writing today to submit public input on the agenda topic of big game license distribution and allocation between residents and nonresidents for your Nov. meeting.
I am asking you to support and vote for CPW’s alternative C. This staff recommendation would supply residents with only ~200 additional deer and elk licenses. Predraw CPW quotas for limited deer and elk licenses for 2022 were over 221,000 licenses, so supporting Alternative C is shifting basically less then one tenth of one percent of the total limited licenses to residents. That is a tiny number, use it for perspective.
I would also ask you to adopt an 80/20 distribution policy FOR ANY AND ALL LIMITED LICENSE HUNT CODES as soon as possible.
Why shift licenses to residents?
• Colorado’s current policies are uncompetitive for residents compared to ANY western state. Current policy is truly an insult to residents. It has been an insult for decades. • Median incomes for Colorado residents are near poverty levels in many counties, even while we are told nonresident hunter “trickle down” is an economic benefit. People use that term, but when will it show up in median earned income so people can pay their rent or mortgages? • CPW finances have never been better, ever. Wildlife income was reported as 196 million while expenses were 144 million. This was made possible by resident support for the future generations act. • Risk of future legislation. If you get this wrong, legislation is the only remaining remedy for residents. • This issue has nothing to do with science based wildlife management
The issue simplified – who deserves your mercy today? The choice before you today is all about who “deserves” preference to the hunting licenses made available based on residency. Restated, who needs your help, who should you take mercy on and offer a helping hand up in preference?
Residents If you google the true median income for a Colorado resident in about any rural county in Colorado, you will find it is near poverty levels. At the last meeting a commissioner described the benefits of “trickle down” from nonresidents, but just where does that show up when the resident median income is ~18,945 dollars? When Senate President Garcia co-sponsored their bill last year, it was for Pueblo county residents who have a median income reported at $26,741 dollars a year. Costilla county has a median income of $18, 945, Rio Blanco county is $32,094. I don’t know how you survive on that, but a high degree of preference to a big game license might help to feed a family. Can you afford Netflix as your sole entertainment budget item on 19k a year with current fuel prices, inflation, child care, health care, vehicle expenses, insurance and rent? I doubt it. Do these residents “deserve” your mercy? They surely can’t afford to hunt in another state if they don’t draw at home.
Nonresidents A nonresident coming to Colorado on a outfitted big game hunt is likely to spend 10-15k in fees, transportation and more. They can hunt in any state for that price, and odds are high that they are applying in many states. If they don’t draw Colorado, they will hunt at home or elsewhere. While a nonresident receives less preference in allocation, they do have better odds of drawing because they double dip, and hedge bets. They apply in their own home state, and a multitude of other states. Again, who deserves the license and your mercy? A nonresident spending 50% or more of the total median income of the Colorado resident? Or, the resident that needs to hunt his own state to survive, and can’t afford to go to another state?
CPW As you look at CPW, revenue from license sales in 2014 was about 70 million per the attachment, a short 8 years later it is 133 million, with 196 million total wildlife income, yet you only spent $144 million. Fact, CPW has never had more income. With the passage of the future generations act, all sportsmen were promised CPW would implement a hunter access program similar to Montana which leases 7 million acres a year for hunter access on primarily private lands. That promise has never been fulfilled. We pay more, aren’t getting what was promised, and might see double digit CPI inflationary increases next year.
Outfitters At your last meeting, we heard 16 outfitters in Rio Blanco county earned 3.2M in gross revenue or on average 200k a year for working part time in what might be a 3 month hunting season and maybe some fishing trips in the summer. Public land outfitters appear to be grossing 200k a year income, while people in their own communities can’t draw an elk or deer license and are living near poverty levels. Based on recent testimony, outfitter’s are clearly putting their own income before the needs of the community. In this year’s first draw, 27,359 nonresidents drew limited elk licenses, 16,508 nonresidents drew limited deer licenses, and we probably sell another 60,000 OTC licenses to nonresidents. If we have 100 licensed outfitters in Colorado, they have a pool of ~100,000 nonresident potential clients but can likely support only 10 percent of that. If you’re an outfitter in Colorado and can’t find clients, you are in the wrong business. Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Wyoming have far fewer nonresidents, and their outfitters are thriving. Do Colorado’s outfitters making 200k a year need anyone’s mercy?
In closing, thanks for your service on the PWC, and consideration of the facts and numbers. As you examine the facts, I truly hope they convict your heart and open your eyes to who needs your help. Once that happens, there is no other option but to show your mercy to Colorado residents by supporting Alternative C and moving to 80/20 everywhere. I am open to email swaps or phone conversations if any of you care to follow up.
Thanks!
BTW - here are the email addresses without the quotations - you should be able to copy and paste them into your email
It is time to recognize the Colorado resident big game hunter as a top priority and allow them more limited licenses by changing the 80/20 draw, i.e., updating the three- year average to more current years. And as equally important, if the current 6- year average of preference points needs to be updated, ONLY, increase the average to 8 PPs, and not any higher. Any higher than 8 pp would only give a very small percentage of license to resident hunters. Resident big game hunters deserve more.
I would also recommend and support, to change the current 65%/35% draw, to 80% resident and 20% nonresident draw on all big game species.
Many surrounding states that allow big game hunting, have in the past and are currently making changes to allow residents to purchase more licenses than non- residents. If there is a crowding issue during the big game seasons, then restrict nonresident hunters, not only with Limited Draw licenses but also OTC licenses.
I have attended many DOW/CPW Commission meeting in the past and recognize the challenges the Commission and the CPW staff faces, and I appreciate the work you do for Colorado's wildlife, Colorado's sportspersons and citizens.
Paul Navarre, Ft. Collins Colorado, Resident hunter for 30 years, membership in Colorado Bowhunter Association, Colorado Traditional Archery Society, Ducks Unlimited, Rock Mt. Elk Foundation and currently one of two, CPW NE Region Sportsperson Cuscus Delegates.
Will all due respect:
CPW is recommending 6 points and updated years which would be ~200 limited licenses for all methods of take. Why would you be OK with 8?
With 221,000 limited licenses for deer and elk, 200 license shift is 1/10th of 1 percent of the licenses. Isn't that the definition of "very small percentage"?
I am not sure why you would not support the staff recommendation.
Hasket proposed 10 points where we lose elk licenses to nonresidents.
Why, after a legislative directive, countless hours and dollars spent on surveys, meetings, focus groups and more - why would status quo be acceptable? They probably just spent 500k-1million to get to where we are now; should we give them 200 licenses more out of 221,000?
Everyone is sure entitled to their own opinion and approach, not sure I follow the logic of not supporting staff in this case.
As long as NRs are willing to pay $6K for a rifle voucher and shoot a three year old buck, I guess the system is working. But the overall deer herd, especially older age classes and the buck-doe ratio, has deteriorated hugely in the past 15 years.
Our wonderful CPW is so worried about our mule deer herds all of a sudden that they cut mule deer tags. But the majority of the cuts were on the resident tag pool. The big famous Diamond T ranch told us Saturday that they big 180" and 190" bucks they're used to seeing are almost non existent now. Most of the hunters are now killing 150" bucks.
I am not against giving residents more licenses. Totally in favor. I based my reaction on the fact that the 3-year average has been increase to recommended, 10 or more PP ( less units and license available to residents) and I suggested no more that 8 if there was a change from 6, if the Commission went against the Staff's recommendation and wanted more average years, like 8 to 10. In addition, one of the Commissioners, ie, Outfitter and Sportsman rep, was recommending 10 PP. While this might be staff's recommendations, in the long run seems inadequate for sure. Am I missing something here???????????? I still do not see gaining only 200 license as big win. Again, am I missing something here?
Alternative C: Update the 3year average used to determine high demand hunt codes that are allocated 80% to residents and 20% to nonresidents to a rolling 3-year average (updated annually with a one year lag) for all limited licenses for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn that required 6 or more resident preference points to draw • (Continue using the current soft cap Adds ~1,200 deer and elk licenses to the 80/20 allocation for high demand hunt codes) • • Shifts ~200 deer and elk licenses from nonresidents to residents, Decreases CPW revenue ~$86,000 annually
We've been told by the cpw in Durango that cpw wants to reduce the mule deer herds because of cwd found here last fall. So they decreased the number of mule deer tags issueded to residents and issued more non resident tags and increased vouchers in certain areas. We have outfitters come into the store on a regular basis, we have then in the store trying to sell vouchers every day since the first gun season. I'm well aware of what's going on. And when the cpw officers come into the store, and you get them to start talking, it's not easy listening to what they say.
As for the 80/20 split that I keep reading about, that's not the way cpw is playing it. Residents here are not getting 80% of the tags. Even the first gun season, it was over a 5:1 ratio, non residents getting more elk tags then residents.
The landowner draw is still on paper apps- they get drawn first. If a hunt code has no landowner demand-all the unused tags go in the public draw.
Some units landowners can pull vouchers annually, some they can't. I'm in the lpp program with 350 or so acres. Demand in my unit usually means I can get 4 list a buck tags good on public land because the deer quota is real high. That is one tag for the app, and 3 leftovers. I can usually pull one bull tag, and 3 leftover cow tags if I want them.
Look at unit 69/84 though, way to many landowners in the draw, landowner point creep is bad. It is easier to get a tag in the public draw unless you have a lot of acres meaning more apps.
Look at the draw stats, landowner data is there.
Is it fair, maybe not, but as long as it's legal I'm using it. None of my vouchers get sold. Last stats I saw voucher usage was close to 50/50. Cow tags vouchers likely have little nr demand
The CPW officers are in the store all the time, the district CPW office manager in Durango is a great friend, ans comes into the store often. Add to it that cpw officers are in the store the Thursday and Friday before the season openers to talk to hunters and answer questions, we get told a lot about our wonderful CPW.
That number I believe is somewhat misleading as pronghorn and bear are in the 200 and those never had any split if I follow.
Another point made by a few commissioners, ie, that Colorado is Colorado and should not be compared with other states and how they manage their wildlife and allocate licenses even if other states are currently, or past or future doing more restrictions.
Read this and read it again. This does not bode well for Colorado residents.
This 80/20 high demand unit issue, was easy in comparison to that is coming.
Now their position has waffled to 75/25? When does staff take a position and change their mind? I'm missing Prenzlow already.
Since we don't vote on Commissioners, they are really not accountable to anyone. Remember, all new Commissioners are recommended for appointment by an anti-hunting, vegan animal rights activist.
Now throw in point banking like Haskett wants where 100's of thousand of points can bid on units that don't take many points. It will really suck to be a hunter with a small number of points, no matter what the split is.
I am so lucky I am in the landowner pool, the value of my land just doubled.
They are, it will now be a 3 year rolling average, that could add or subtract to 80/20 every year.
Making nonresident tags a draw makes sense to me. Nonresidents usually are coming for a single trip to one general area planned well in advance. The flexibility of grabbing last minute tag and being able to bounce around the state over a month is generally more important to residents. And, as a selfish resident, I want an either sex elk tag every year as long as the resource permits.
BUT ! That doesn’t make me a resident.
The glory days of tags for all are over
As a NR I believe that all NRs should have to draw. Make more cow only archery tags available in that draw to NRs.
And raise the non refundable application fees to help offset the revenue loss.
Keep many of the current OTC units for residents only.
I would still come out to hunt a cow. And pay more to do it. The reality is, the price of everything is going up.
Hunting out of state is more of a discretionary spend. Hunting in your state shouldn’t have to be.
Only one problem though. How would cpw come up with the magic number to alot those % to NR?
OTC was a reasonable concept til about the 90's. Once population of Colorado exploded, it's a reasonable concept no more. People and crowding control is also a part of game management.
Now with funding rolling in from parks passes attached to vehicle registrations starting 2023, I believe your gonna see cpw more receptive to license reductions, and possibly otc going away. There is a legal problem with Wildlife $$$ being diverted to parks, but there's no legal issue with parks $$$ being diverted to wildlife, and that's how the non-consumptive users will get and even bigger voice on the commission.
5 years ago, bowhunters lost OTC ELK in eagle and Pitkin counties. The elk herd was down to 4600 from years of over issuing rifle cow tags, but we were told it was from bowhunters and recreationalists and trails pushing elk so much that calf mortality was happening at an alarming rate. 5 years later, the herd is now projected to be 8600 elk, almost over objective. Why? The same trails are in place. More people then every in the backcountry? Huh. Wonder why? Could it possibly be they quit issuing rifle cow tags?
When will that story hit the press? Never because it doesn't bode well for the agenda.
I'm all about "the resource", but my eyes are open and whenever someone says that you need to question the agenda.
Many OTC units have 60-65% NR hunters. I would change that to "once the internet exploded and people figured out how cheap it is to hunt CO OTC, and other states tightened the screws on NR hunting, Colorado saw an opportunity to fatten up the coffers at the expense of resident hunters".
Sometimes you gotta pick your battles wisely. Especially now that CPW expects parks passes through sales with vehicle registrations to be their largest funding source.
How is Colorado Parks and Wildlife Funded? Although CPW became a merged agency in 2011, state statute and federal regulations require that the budgets for parks and wildlife remain separate. Annual revenue and expenditures for each budget are provided in the charts below. "
Additional detail regarding CPW’s sources and uses of funds can be found in the Sources & Use of Funds fact sheet.
Hunters and anglers primarily fund fish and wildlife conservation programs, while park visitors support the management of recreational? lands. This funding is accomplished through purchases of park passes, hunting and fishing licenses, and habitat stamps.
Paul adds this: Currently Parks receive 124 million, and Wildlife receives 196 million of which nearly 70% comes from license fees.
Revenue from the new " Keep Colorado Wild" is estimated to generate up to 34 million (if every one does not op out which is an option) of which the first 30 million goes to Parks for maintenances and new parks, 3 million goes to search and rescue and fire fighting. If any is left over, 1 million or less might go to wildlife.
So any revenue generated by the new Keep Colorado Wild fee, seems unlikely to help wildlife much. It is unknow how much money will be generated, only estimates, and will it be "part of its largest funding source'? From what I understand, Parks and Wildlife funding can not be exchanged.
There are 5.35 million registered vehicles in Colorado as of 5/2022. Conservatively if half are eligible and obtain the parks pass, then 2.7million X $29 = $78.3 million
"Spill over." " to wildlife species of concern." Will be interesting to see if that actually happens and to what extent. my best, Paul
But go ahead and believe what you read.
So Rian, there is a LOT in information out there, all one has to do is look it up. my best, Paul
Financial Challenges CPW is faced with several recent financial challenges. General Fund support for State Parks from the Colorado Legislature was completely eliminated in 2011; in the early 1990’s General Fund support of State Parks exceeded 30 percent of the agency operating budget. For Wildlife programs, the Division must ensure the long-term viability of the main Wildlife Cash Fund, which is supported by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. The health of this fund is related to a long-term decline in the number of people hunting across the United States. Hunting revenues comprise a majority of wildlife revenues. Potential reductions in hunting license sales have the potential to significantly affect all of the Division’s wildlife programs. CPW operational costs for wildlife already exceed revenue, and financial projections estimate that this deficit will continue without substantial steps. Park operational costs are projected to exceed projected revenues within three years. To address this, CPW leadership, working with DNR and the Commission, are developing financial plans that will restore agency financial sustainability. Failure to rectify this financial structural imbalance will jeopardize CPW’s ability to meet long-term operational and capital investment needs, for both parks and wildlife operations.
Justin Rutter is the assistant director for Financial Services and oversees the accounting, budgeting, procurement, and grant processes for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. He joined the agency as the Deputy Chief Financial Officer in January 2016. He was selected to lead the financial services group as Chief Financial Officer in June 2016.
