CO BGSS 2024

[vanish]

We can use this thread for discussion of anything related to BGSS. Just getting us going.

Split from https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/co-cpw-draw-process-working-group.320332/page-8#post-3688995

One of the most controversial items up for discussion is a change to OTC licenses:



I received my BGSS survey today and was happy to see not a single selection of above, but weighting of preferences of each option.

Survey Details
CPW has randomly selected ~6,000 elk hunters to complete this survey regarding possible changes to OTC archery and rifle elk license availability.

You will be asked about:

• Your preferences on potential OTC license limitation alternatives for archery and rifle;
• The factors influencing your preferences;
• How you might change your license purchase based on limitation alternatives; and
• Your hunting behaviors and residency.

Final consideration and adoption of 2025-2029 BGSS changes by the Parks and Wildlife Commission, will occur in the spring/summer of 2024.

 

[Bigjay73]

I like the 3s but I feel that the day they go on sale will be a shit show. If I had a vote, I'd go with 6, feel like otc has become a circus. I'm a Colorado resident fwiw

 

[rideold]

I received the email this morning as well. I was expecting a survey designed to lead the answers in a specific direction because that is what I've seen them do in the past sometimes. I was glad to see it was a preference for each type of survey so I have hopes the results will be statistically significant. The biggest liability I see is that the results will be too varied to help inform a decision. In the end something has to be done and while I don't like to see radical change all at once the band-aid has to be ripped off in this case.

 

[Gellar]

A3 and R3 is where I’d vote. I’m a nonresident.

 

[TOGIE]

Option 2 for archery and rifle is the absolute minimum that needs to happen. option 3 is better.

my worry is CPW will cap them at recent averages of licenses sold in those areas. that's not what we need. we need them capped at a number that is lower than what many areas have been seeing. if they set up capped NR OTC regions with a manageable amount of licenses for each one, I bet we can remain at a place where NRs have little trouble getting tags and we drastically cut down pressure at the same time.

sure, some regions will be better than others and I can foresee future issues were the queues get long and the websites struggle in august when otc licenses go on sale and then we naturally start finding ourselves trending towards options 4 or 5. but such is the way it is.

something needs to be done. option 4 or 5 is not a bad one. it's essentially creating a wyoming style "NR General Tag" you have to apply for. with way some areas see disproportionate pressure I think creating some DAU style OTC capped management areas needs to be done, but I will still push for status quo for residents.

 

[winmag]

Oh come on, live boldly and get on par with the other western states. A5, R5

 

[Mallardsx2]

A6 and R6.

This is what really needs to happen to make everyone happy.

Pull the Band-Aid the whole way off.

 

[vanish]

As a resident, my instinct is:
5 > 6 > 4 > 3 > 2 >1

I feel like many residents will either have their "spot" or will self-regulate the pressure based on other hunters, meaning it is less necessary to control where they go. NRs are more likely to flock to certain areas based on past reports and are less likely to be willing to completely relocate once they arrive, thus the need to limit their units.

 

[seeth07]

As a non-resident but having family as residents and hearing their side as well I feel at least 5 needs to happen for both if not 6.

 

[smw110136]

Non-resident vote is A5 and R5. I don't think eliminating those OTC options for residents is the right thing to do for the hunters who live there.

In my experience hunting OTC Colorado, my run-ins afield with residents versus non-residents is 1 in 5.

 

[MtnElk]

A5 / R5. We cannot grow as a state like we are and not prioritize resident hunters. As I have said many times, happy to pay more for a system that feels like its in our favor

 

[TOGIE]

i just so badly want to live in western state where there is actually significant benefit to living in that western state. and like @MtnElk says, i'm willing to pay more for it if that's what it takes.

I hope many NRs can see that short end of the stick us colorado residents get in comparison to residents of other states and understand how badly we need change.

i do understand we still have it good though, i do.

 

[trb]

5's for sure. But am I correct that we cannot formally submit that feedback unless we were randomly selected for the survey?

 

[vanish]

5's for sure. But am I correct that we cannot formally submit that feedback unless we were randomly selected for the survey?

If I am not selected to participate in the random sample survey, how can I be involved?

We appreciate your continued interest in this process. If you are not selected to participate in the random sample survey, there are still ways to participate in this process and provide us with your input.

• Tell CPW staff what you think. Leave us your thoughts using the Guestbook Tool below.
• Tell the Commission what you think. Email your comments to the Parks and Wildlife Commission ([email protected](External link)) or sign up to attend a Commission meeting and provide your verbal comments(External link). BGSS items will be presented at the March, May, and June 2024 Commission meetings.
• Stay informedthrough our CPW email updates.
  • To receive email updates about this and other relevant topics please complete the CPW Email Updates Form(External link).

 

[grasshopper]

Option 5. I didn't get a random survey, a buddy did and asked my advice.

Personally, I believe if you want to "rip the bandaid off" you will be sitting on the couch without a tag or a cut that needs a bandaid.

 

[TOGIE]

5's for sure. But am I correct that we cannot formally submit that feedback unless we were randomly selected for the survey?

i think so. gotta imagine, though, that this survey will whittle it down to the preferred alternatives and there will be a public comment period before a decision is made.

you'd think?

@Oak ?

knowing CPW they'll just say we can't seem to get firm idea of what people want, kick the can, and do another survey in 5 years

 

[seeth07]

Option 5. I didn't get a random survey, a buddy did and asked my advice.

Personally, I believe if you want to "rip the bandaid off" you will be sitting on the couch without a tag or a cut that needs a bandaid.

First time actually seeing the graphic and I don't understand the drawback of number 4. How can they not hunt together since the R just has to grab his tag OTC to hunt with his NR buddy that drew the OTC tag for that area?

 

[Westelker - W. Colorado]

A6 and R6 are my preferences. I think in the long run, 6 will make more people happy. OTC tags creates too many road hunters.

 

[ElkHunter80]

Colorado Native and Lifelong Resident here - I'd vote A5/R5 - as a resident I don't want to lose my ability to get an OTC tag, but I fear what we really need here is A6/R6 to really correct issues over the long run.

 

[grasshopper]

First time actually seeing the graphic and I don't understand the drawback of number 4. How can they not hunt together since the R just has to grab his tag OTC to hunt with his NR buddy that drew the OTC tag for that area?

View attachment 303908

I agree.
Also not sure how crowding has no controls for nr distribution as there will be a not to exceed nr quota.