Sitka Gear
Last chance - license allocation comment
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Grasshopper 10-Nov-22
cnelk 11-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 12-Nov-22
fishnride 12-Nov-22
Devon 13-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 14-Nov-22
Jaquomo 14-Nov-22
Whocares 14-Nov-22
KHunter 14-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 14-Nov-22
Orion 14-Nov-22
Grasshopper 14-Nov-22
Orion 14-Nov-22
Grasshopper 14-Nov-22
Orion 14-Nov-22
Buglmin 15-Nov-22
Jaquomo 15-Nov-22
Buglmin 15-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 16-Nov-22
brooktrout 16-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 16-Nov-22
Buglmin 16-Nov-22
Orion 16-Nov-22
brooktrout 16-Nov-22
Orion 16-Nov-22
grasshopper 16-Nov-22
Buglmin 17-Nov-22
brooktrout 17-Nov-22
fishnride 17-Nov-22
grasshopper 17-Nov-22
fishnride 17-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 17-Nov-22
cnelk 18-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 18-Nov-22
Grasshopper 18-Nov-22
Glunt@work 18-Nov-22
cnelk 18-Nov-22
Ucsdryder 19-Nov-22
Jaquomo 19-Nov-22
Stix 19-Nov-22
Grasshopper 19-Nov-22
Orion 19-Nov-22
cnelk 19-Nov-22
Grasshopper 19-Nov-22
Stix 19-Nov-22
Glunt@work 20-Nov-22
Stix 20-Nov-22
grasshopper 20-Nov-22
Orion 20-Nov-22
Jaquomo 20-Nov-22
Stix 20-Nov-22
grasshopper 20-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 20-Nov-22
Stix 20-Nov-22
Glunt@work 20-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 21-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 21-Nov-22
Orion 21-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 21-Nov-22
cnelk 21-Nov-22
Orion 22-Nov-22
Orion 22-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 24-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 24-Nov-22
Orion 24-Nov-22
Orion 24-Nov-22
Paul@thefort 24-Nov-22
CK 27-Nov-22
Orion 27-Nov-22
Orion 27-Nov-22
From: Grasshopper
10-Nov-22

Grasshopper's Link
The wildlife commission this month is considering moving more hunt codes from 65/35 to 80/20. Currently, hunt codes must have a take 6 points to draw based on the set years of 2007-09 to be an 80/20 hunt code. The outfitter commissioner in her comments last month, suggested they change to current years, but change the requirement such that any hunt code that requires 10 points to draw would then be 80/20. If that passes, residents would actually lose licenses to nonresidents!

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!

From: cnelk
11-Nov-22
Done. Thanks Steve

BTW - here are the email addresses without the quotations - you should be able to copy and paste them into your email

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

From: Paul@thefort
12-Nov-22
Steve why is Staff recommending alternative C where residents get, as you stated, get only 200 more limited licenses, and not A or B where residents would get a lot more limited licenses? I saw this report somewhere but can not find it now. Is staff taking the low, conservative approach and hoping to convince the Commission this is the way to go.? Better than loosing tags to nonresidents as one Commissioner wants.

From: fishnride
12-Nov-22
Message sent

From: Devon
13-Nov-22
Paul this is don vaughn. What is your phone number. I’ll send you the picture of the deer I shot

From: Paul@thefort
14-Nov-22
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, November 14, 2022

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.

From: Jaquomo
14-Nov-22
Every time I send one of these emails I get the feeling I would have the same impact by tying a note to a Helium party balloon and sending it off in the breeze...

From: Whocares
14-Nov-22
So you're the guy! Found quite a few of your party balloons in the high country over the years. Some with messages not meant for CPW or the Commission!

From: KHunter
14-Nov-22
Appreciate Paul's more succinct and on topic approach to comments. Emulating.

From: Paul@thefort
14-Nov-22
Come on guys, start blowing up those balloons and send your message to the Commission. I have heard over and over, we need more input from Colorado hunters.

From: Orion
14-Nov-22
That's classic the last meeting we had about calf recruitment and our herd health down here the meeting was standing room only. When everyone was questioning CPW's herd counts, why they don't require mandatory harvest reports, etc. etc. They quit letting the public talk.

From: Grasshopper
14-Nov-22
"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"

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.

From: Orion
14-Nov-22
CPW is not recommending 6 points that is what it is supposed to be and they have drug their feet and are years overdue. Not sure why Paul is against more resident opportunity?

From: Grasshopper
14-Nov-22
No, if you read the link in my original post, page 2 describes CPW saying update the years (no longer 2007-09), and retain the break of 6 of 6 points to move a hunt code from 65/35 to 80/20. CPW calls it Alternative C.

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.

From: Orion
14-Nov-22
CPW and the wildlife board don't give two chits about residents its very apparent if you watch or listen to the meetings. They have even blatantly stated on record that they haven't adjusted the 65/35 to 80/20 split because they don't want the lost revenue by giving more tags to residents.

From: Buglmin
15-Nov-22
As a resident in sw Colorado, we already saw CPW's plans for resident hunters. With CPW issuing more non resident tags then resident tags, yes, 6:1 ratio for archery elk and 4:1 ratio for mule deer, 6&4 being non residents, and cpw officers telling us that the next few years don't look good for Colorado residents. One cpw officer told us that it looks like cpw wants us to draw tags every 3 to 4 years, to hunt our units that we live in!! We are seeing the future of how cpw cares about resident hunters. And if you think writing letters is going to help, good luck with that. CPW already has their minds made up, and taking care of resident hunters isn't what cpw cares about. As for outfitters, we saw a huge amount of mule deer vouchers given by cpw this year. One outfitter had over 60 of them from 3 ranchs, 1 guy had 4 of them, and he only owns 150 acres!! Realtors are getting big numbers of vouchers for the small ranches they have listed. And yet cpw tells us they are concerned over our mule deer herds down here!!! And yessir, the draw ratio for resident/non resident was almost 50/50. With the non residents receiving slightly more mule deer tags the residents.

From: Jaquomo
15-Nov-22
CPW loves those vouchers because most are sold to NR$. My area WCO here on the plains has been lobbying to cut back on rifle buck tags, but keeps getting pushed back.

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.

From: Buglmin
15-Nov-22
Lou, You have no idea how bad the bucks have been shot out down here. With the southern utes owning over 90 % of the wintering range, and they start hunting mule deer after Thanksgiving, our big bucks don't stand a chance.

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.

From: Paul@thefort
16-Nov-22
From the CPW notice. "During an extensive public engagement process reviewing big game license distribution, hunters identified two primary concerns: resident opportunity and crowding. To help address resident opportunity, the three-year preference point average used to determine the high demand hunt codes that fall into the 80/20 allocation split has been modified to a rolling three year average updated annually with a one year lag. Adjusting the three-year average ensures the draw is using the most current data and incorporates all existing hunt codes. In addition, the preference point threshold used to determine high demand hunt codes based on the three-year average has been increased to 10 or more points to account for the increasing number of points needed to draw a high demand hunt code. "

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?

From: brooktrout
16-Nov-22
the landowner preference program is a product of the Ag committee in the state legislature and the limit is 20% of tags with 1/2 being private land only. A ranch with 150 acres doesn't even qualify for a tag, min acreage is 160 and that is for 1 tag, if somebody has four with minimum acreage they got them as leftovers after the main draw and would be less desirable tags

From: Paul@thefort
16-Nov-22
Corrected me if I am wrong, So it seems that this Staff recommendation is only for the 2023-24 season and can/may be changed for the next 5 year BGSS period:. I would expect most Colorado hunters want more than only +200 deer and elk licenses shift from nonresident to resident, and would push for the 80/20 allocation for all big game species.

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

From: Buglmin
16-Nov-22
brooktrout, It's cute that you think the cpw follows the rules and guidelines. If that were the case, non residents wouldn't be getting over 75% of the tags for elk and mule deer. Numbers don't lie. If the cpw thinks that issuing vouchers will held reduce the number of deer that will winter there and stop the conflicts between landowner and wildlife, they will do whatever it takes to make the landowner happy and save them from paying wildlife damages.

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.

From: Orion
16-Nov-22
They are almost ten years overdue on adjusting the units from 65/35 to 80/20. This is costing residents way more then 200 licenses. They seem to have a hard time following their own policies. I'm also curious why the landowner vouchers come out of the resident allocations instead of the non resident. I'd bet over 90% of those vouchers are sold to nonresidents

From: brooktrout
16-Nov-22
just the facts man! its cute that your stating hearsay and speculation do you have any facts? or is it just a conspiracy theory?

From: Orion
16-Nov-22
Look it up they are way past due on adjusting the units. It's public record they have also stated it at many meetings. The landowner vouchers come from the resident pool go ahead and look it up. Not sure what your not contemplating? Or are you one of those delusional sportsman that think CPW has the resident hunters best interest in mind?

From: grasshopper
16-Nov-22
Landowner tags are there own pool off the top of any hunt code quota. Both residents and nonresidents lose in the public draw due to lpp.

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

From: Buglmin
17-Nov-22
Hearsay? AS one of Colorado's top license sellers in Colorado, we are told things by cpw officers all the time. And as far as numbers for tag allotments, they're on the CPW page. And when as outfitter walks into the store to sell 20 mule der vouchers from two small ranches, ans a landowner gives you a muzzlelaoder voucher from his 150 acres cause he's got 4 of them in his hand, its not hearsay.

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.

From: brooktrout
17-Nov-22
its easy to find something to bitch about, harder to prove it! 150 acres does not even qualify for a voucher, takes 160 to qualify for one I am thinking you got nothing but you can prove me wrong by trotting out the guy who got 4 for 150 acres ill wait

From: fishnride
17-Nov-22
To get back on topic…. Did anyone catch the meeting today and what happened with this agenda item? I logged in a little too late for this topic.

From: grasshopper
17-Nov-22
They passed 80/20 if a hunt code takes 6 points, I believe averaged for 3 years. Residents will get 200 more tags out of the 220,000 limited elk and deer tags.

That number I believe is somewhat misleading as pronghorn and bear are in the 200 and those never had any split if I follow.

From: fishnride
17-Nov-22
Thanks Steve. That’s good news. I know that’s what a lot of us pushed for based on the options and was also the division recommendation. I guess it’s a good sign that they didn’t follow the money for once and switch to 10 points.

From: Paul@thefort
17-Nov-22
Steve, thanks for testifying. What I found interesting when the subject of non residents use of National Forest, ie, public lands came up, two commissioners seem to be in total favor or uncertain, that since non residents pay federal taxes they should be able to use federal lands for what every they want and not be restricted. As we know, No one is restricting non residents from using public lands for camping, sight seeing, hiking, fishing, but the state of Colorado can restrict the number of non residents per license allocations, restricting their hunting opportunities as the have been doing for years. Resident hunters just want more restriction, ie, 80/20 for all big game species.

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.

From: cnelk
18-Nov-22
"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.

From: Paul@thefort
18-Nov-22
It will be interesting how the Commission handles the issues of, OTC license and the over all, Limited Draw, currently 65/35.

This 80/20 high demand unit issue, was easy in comparison to that is coming.

From: Grasshopper
18-Nov-22
What I found interesting was a couple months ago staff recommendation was 80/20 for all limited licenses. I'm certain it was because residents have that now in high point units, so suggesting a move to anything less is a loss...right?

Now their position has waffled to 75/25? When does staff take a position and change their mind? I'm missing Prenzlow already.

From: Glunt@work
18-Nov-22
Well, with wolves, more units going limited and demand, we may see a whole bunch of hunt codes hit that 6 point mark.

From: cnelk
18-Nov-22
^^^^ maybe so, but the data they are using is 13 years old. Are we going to have to wait another 13 years for the current data?

From: Ucsdryder
19-Nov-22
Any mention about 80/20 across the board to bring Colorado inline with all other western states? Better than nothing I guess…

From: Jaquomo
19-Nov-22
The sense I got from some Commissioners' statements is that they don't care what other states do, and I dont recall any of them ever saying anything about taking care of our resident hunters. If anything, they seem to be leaning more toward fairness and equity for our nonresident neighbors who want to hunt our public lands. And keep outfitters in business. And provide that amazing revenue stream.

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.

From: Stix
19-Nov-22
Wanna see meaningful resident/nr quota's? Make all elk tags draw.

From: Grasshopper
19-Nov-22
Wanna see crazy point creep in all units that take less then 6 points to draw today, making them huntable evry 5 years or so? Make all elk tags draw.

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.

From: Orion
19-Nov-22
Why aren't they addressing the issue that they are using old data for the 80/20 split on 6 point units?

From: cnelk
19-Nov-22
Stix should ‘stick’ to political threads

From: Grasshopper
19-Nov-22
"Why aren't they addressing the issue that they are using old data for the 80/20 split on 6 point units?"

They are, it will now be a 3 year rolling average, that could add or subtract to 80/20 every year.

From: Stix
19-Nov-22
The #1 concern as a conservationist is what's best for resource management. Mold that in to the license allocation policy. Going limited helps with herd number management plus the extra draw fees collected from R and NR apps will help offset the loss of NR tags sold when mandating the 65%res /35%non res of tags allocation statewide.

From: Glunt@work
20-Nov-22
Bowhunters aren't the problem or solution to herd management. If (when) we go 100% limited, whatever harvest quota they set for current OTC units will get 20% skimmed off for the LO pool.

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.

20-Nov-22
I saw this on the general forum. And came over. Never a CO resident myself, but I was previously one of those dreaded out of state land owners. I’ve owned 5 different pieces in Colorado. Sold the last one when land skyrocketed. I love the state.

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.

From: Stix
20-Nov-22
That sounds like a reasonable approach. NR draw on all tags. Keep otc for Res only. 35% or or 20% determined by historical unit demand.

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.

From: grasshopper
20-Nov-22
Ah yes, Stix preaching about the resource, which currently is 309,000 elk. We had otc forever- with about 309,000 elk give or take 10 percent.

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.

From: Orion
20-Nov-22
Grasshopper too bad that was always the policy how many 3 year averages did they miss?

From: Jaquomo
20-Nov-22
"Once population of Colorado exploded, it's a reasonable concept no more. People and crowding control is also a part of game management."

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".

From: Stix
20-Nov-22

Stix's embedded Photo
Stix's embedded Photo
It's a hot button issue. Now that BHA has become the dominant conservation org in the state with over 10K members, perhaps getting more data on the effects of the options presented makes the most sense. But status quo wasn't a good one.

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.

From: grasshopper
20-Nov-22
So Bha doesn't think cpw staff represented the wildlife impacts well enough in a process that took a year and a half?

From: Paul@thefort
20-Nov-22
"especially now that CPW expects parks passes through sales with vehicle registrations to be their largest fund 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.

From: Stix
20-Nov-22
It's my understanding the only funding covered by statute is federal funding from USFWS cannot be diverted to any other purpose than wildlife. Whereas state funding for parks can be diverted to any natural resource department.

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

From: Glunt@work
20-Nov-22
$196 million is what we are up to? I can see why comparing us to surrounding states with similar species, similar size or similar population wouldn't be popular.

From: Paul@thefort
21-Nov-22
From the CPW website, State Parks & Recreation- The goal is to generate at least $36 million annually. The first $32.5 million will go toward state park maintenance and development, the next $2.5 million will go towards search and rescue teams and $1 million to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Any revenue beyond that will go to wildlife projects and outdoor educational programs.

From: Paul@thefort
21-Nov-22
This CPW funding info from CPW front office and someone who knows. Ie, He states "Parks cash cannot be used for wildlife work, just as the other way around. Keep Colorado Wild) KCW is an exception to that if sufficient revenues are generated to "spill over" into other buckets (e.g., search and rescue, the Avalanche Information Center, wildlife species of concern).

"Spill over." " to wildlife species of concern." Will be interesting to see if that actually happens and to what extent. my best, Paul

From: Orion
21-Nov-22
You cant tell me they haven't used wildlife funds for the parks side. The parks side was severely in the red until they merged the two.

From: Paul@thefort
21-Nov-22
Here it is in black and white: Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division of Wildlife merged to create Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in 2011. Despite the merging of the two agencies, CPW continues to maintain two separate budgets – one for parks and one for wildlife. This is necessary to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to receive appropriations from federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear, an important component of the state wildlife budget.

From: cnelk
21-Nov-22
Here it is in the real black and white. After working in a State Govt job for 25 years, there’s so much the public doesnt know it’s crazy.

But go ahead and believe what you read.

From: Orion
22-Nov-22
So Paul how did the parks side magically get out of the red so fast after the merger?

From: Orion
22-Nov-22
Does anyone wanna answer how the parks got out of the red so fast after merging with wildlife? I mean how does parks who operated in the red since it's inception magically start making a profit after it merged with wildlife who was always operating in the black if they aren't supplementing with any wildlife funding?

From: Paul@thefort
24-Nov-22
PARKS CASH FUND REVENUE AND FUND BALANCE Like the Wildlife Cash Fund, fee revenue is the primary contributor to the Parks Cash Fund. The largest sources of fee revenue are campsite fees, regular annual passes, and day passes to state parks. The primary driver behind a recent increase in revenue is an increase in sales volume and visitation. STATE PARKS VISITATION AND SALES VOLUME FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 CHANGE (%) Visitation 14,746,030 17,066,484 19,298,911 30.9% Regular annual pass 96,654 126,057 145,737 50.8% Daily pass 923,617 1,130,258 1,176,551 27.4% Camping 419,785 415,669 550,817 31.2% License, pass, permit revenue $29,809,312 $37,348,614 $45,988,184 54.3% This increase in revenue was supplemented by a $17.5 million General Fund transfer to the Parks Fund via H.B. 21-1326 (General Fund Support DNR Programs). In addition to that bill, the General Assembly also passed S.B. 21-249 (Keep CO Wild) to increase revenue to the Parks Fund. The fiscal note for that bill assumed that revenue would increase by between $17.6 and 37.6 million. The end result is a fund balance that should sufficiently cover increased appropriations for FY 2022-23 (see graph on next page

From: Paul@thefort
24-Nov-22
Fund balance (w/ lower Keep CO Wild revenue estimate) $55.0 Includes $17.5 million General Fund infusion H.B. 21-1326 $2.5 $37.8 $72.6 $47.8 $44.8 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22* $46.2 FY 22-23* FY 23-24* *Estimated The balance of the Wildlife Cash Fund can support increased spending authority requested by the Department. The same holds true for the Parks Cash Fund, especially if the Keep Colorado Wild Pass (S.B. 21-249) is implemented as intended and revenue is remotely in line with the bill’s fiscal note. In staff’s view, CPW’s requests fall within authorities and intent provided by statute and recent legislation, such as S.B. 18-143. 17 16-Nov-2021 NAT1-brf

So Rian, there is a LOT in information out there, all one has to do is look it up. my best, Paul

From: Orion
24-Nov-22
Paul that's neat current data, but parks and wildlife merged in 2011. Shortly thereafter parks was out of the red which it had been in for decades. Long before any of the grants you posted were in effect.

From: Orion
24-Nov-22
Paul, this is straight from CPW, the general fund was eliminated from Parks in 2011 with the merger which took away 30 percent of their operating budget, but yet they still functioned and were in the black by 2013. Yeah I'm sure wildlife wasn't funding any of that. SMH

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.

From: Paul@thefort
24-Nov-22
Give Mr. Ritter a call and let him explain it.

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.

From: CK
27-Nov-22
If there is no budget bleed over from wildlife to parks then just what was merged?

From: Orion
27-Nov-22
CK I guess we are led to believe that the only thing merged was a name change

From: Orion
27-Nov-22
Paul, how does Mr. Ritter know what happened in 2011 if he wasn't even there?

  • Sitka Gear