CO CPW Draw Process Working Group

[Mudranger1]

I'm curious how/why the idea of limiting what I can apply for (M,S,G) in a given year even came up as a proposal? Next up pick a deer elk or antelope tag points creep is getting too high

 

[RunNGunSC]

Utah and Idaho have already used the one tag/application approach to reduce demand while keeping everyone involved.

 

[sneakem]

Want to draw faster? Don't apply for the fairytale high trophy potential rifle units with a quota of 1 ram tag. Apply for archery. Apply for lower success units. Apply for lower trophy potential units. I know a couple people that have drawn multiple rocky tags in Colorado and they have something in common; they're archery hunters.

Some of us have done just that for decades and are still looking for a first tag....

That being said I definitely would want to be able to apply for all sheep, goat, moose, realistically you could apply for all of them and not draw one in a lifetime.

 

[Mountain Man]

I'm curious how/why the idea of limiting what I can apply for (M,S,G) in a given year even came up as a proposal? Next up pick a deer elk or antelope tag points creep is getting too high

Idaho’s approach was brought up and it got latched on to. If that person had never mentioned Idaho, the proposal likely wouldn’t have developed.

 

[Bluffgruff]

The recommendation to go OIL if you shoot a ram or goat specifically excludes auction and raffle tags, so there is still a carrot for folks that only GAF if they have a chance to shoot another one.

I agree 100 percent that all those species should be OIL. I know of people that have drawn 3 rocky tags and a desert in their lifetime in Colorado while others die without even experiencing one. I think if your successful you’re out.

Advocacy requires interest. I'm saying you keep more people interested in doing the work, if you don't eliminate them from the beneficiary pool. Auction and raffle tags aren't available to enough people to matter in that equation. There are ~300 new ex-sheep hunters every year, there's a regulatory 5 year and effective 8 year wait for anyone who had killed a ram, and getting/keeping more of those people interested in helping the resource is more valuable than the almost 0% improvement of draw odds. There isn't a problem being fixed by making it OIL, and there will be unintended consequences.

 

[GrantK]

Recommendations were advanced on split votes to:

• Add RM bighorn ram and all mountain goat harvest to OIL moving forward (not retroactive) to existing OIL for desert sheep and bull moose. (10-3 vote)
• Allow applicants to apply for a hunt code for only one species among RM bighorn, desert bighorn, moose, and mountain goat. Applicants could purchase points for all species they don't apply for (excluding desert bighorn). (8-5 vote)

Both good recommendations IMO, for all the hate above, I'm taking a wild guess of the give or take 300 sheep tags a year 4-5 of them probably go to people who already have a CO bighorn, putting an additional 4-5 tags to new hunters a year is a lot more people out of the pool over time... and for the record, for the people saying "just apply for easier hunts" I have two off of max points, and I've spent most of those years applying for hunts with great draw odds and low success, sometimes luck just doesn't fall your way... I'll likely draw sooner than most and be out of the pool, but that's just incentive to really go all in when I do draw.

Allowing only one app for MSG per year should have a pretty positive effect on odds, probably not as huge as ID because you wouldn't have to choose between MSG and deer/elk/antelope, but still a start, I'd guess goat odds might get really good with this proposal as everyone would be chasing sheep and moose tags?

 

[Bluffgruff]

Nothing personal to anyone, but these arguments are still ego-centric and not resource-centric. What if allowing people to draw twice or 5 times is actually better for the resource, and will put more sheep on the mountain?

If I felt like this were just dividing the pie differently, I wouldn't care, but in all those years of applying, how many people who have never drawn were also raising money or volunteering their time to promote more sheep? What about the people who had already hunted sheep? Maybe there should be a resource promotion community service requirement to applying for any of these MSG tags? That would REALLY improve drawing odds.

 

[GrantK]

Nothing personal to anyone, but these arguments are still ego-centric and not resource-centric. What if allowing people to draw twice or 5 times is actually better for the resource, and will put more sheep on the mountain?

If I felt like this were just dividing the pie differently, I wouldn't care, but in all those years of applying, how many people who have never drawn were also raising money or volunteering their time to promote more sheep? What about the people who had already hunted sheep? Maybe there should be a resource promotion community service requirement to applying for any of these MSG tags? That would REALLY improve drawing odds.

I don't necessarily buy the "people have to have a chance to hunt sheep to care about them" narrative, there could hardly be a worse ROI on anything you put your time to, you either care about sheep on the landscape because sheep are cool, or you couldn't care less, and your 1% chance of ever drawing a sheep tag probably doesn't change that in a meaningful way, I feel like the couple hundred people who draw a sheep tag each year are the ones who after the experience are the biggest sheep advocates, and it doesn't have to do with getting another chance? seems like the more individuals you can get into the mountains chasing sheep the more advocates you create, while the more people who get bitter by watching someone else draw their 3rd sheep tag don't want anything to do with sheep? I could be wrong about the majority of people though, I think it's really hard to guess how this would actually play out.

The community service requirement would be a great idea, plenty of ultra runs with horrible lottery odds have a mandatory trailwork requirement to either get into the lottery or improve your odds... I see zero chance of that actually happening but the idea has been wildly successful elsewhere.

 

[seeth07]

I feel like the couple hundred people who draw a sheep tag each year are the ones who after the experience are the biggest sheep advocates

This. It applies to way more than just sheep. Had I never fished the Great Lakes, I probably wouldn't be a supporter of the salmon and trout that live there. Had I never hooked into a sturgeon on the Menomonee River, I probably wouldn't be a supporter of that species the way I am. Had I never been given the opportunity to chase elk, I probably wouldn't be the lifetime RMEF member I am.

It may seem selfish in a way but providing the opportunity to experience something is the best way to create advocates.

 

[BradA]

It’s time for all MGS to go to OIL and should be retroactive as well!

 

[Bluffgruff]

I don't necessarily buy the "people have to have a chance to hunt sheep to care about them" narrative, there could hardly be a worse ROI on anything you put your time to, you either care about sheep on the landscape because sheep are cool, or you couldn't care less, and your 1% chance of ever drawing a sheep tag probably doesn't change that in a meaningful way, I feel like the couple hundred people who draw a sheep tag each year are the ones who after the experience are the biggest sheep advocates, and it doesn't have to do with getting another chance? seems like the more individuals you can get into the mountains chasing sheep the more advocates you create, while the more people who get bitter by watching someone else draw their 3rd sheep tag don't want anything to do with sheep? I could be wrong about the majority of people though, I think it's really hard to guess how this would actually play out.

The community service requirement would be a great idea, plenty of ultra runs with horrible lottery odds have a mandatory trailwork requirement to either get into the lottery or improve your odds... I see zero chance of that actually happening but the idea has been wildly successful elsewhere.

The argument is that repeat or dedicated sheep hunters do more than people who only hunt once or those who apply casually "because it would be cool to have that on the wall." Your personal situation may differ. @MtnElk and @Dsnow9 are the exceptions that come to mind, but I think you are giving the average applicant a lot more credit than they have earned. I'm in the "never drawn" camp for Colorado ram tags. OIL will have unintended consequences.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

It’s time for all MGS to go to OIL and should be retroactive as well!

You have a better chance of drawing a sheep tag in every western state in the same year than you do of it being retroactive lol

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I’ve thought a bit about whether to throw some thoughts out there, but this is a healthy discussion and so, let’s get after it.

If the purpose of this process is to improve draw odds and experience, then going OIL makes no sense. It statistically doesn’t improve the odds enough… it simply makes people feel warm and cozy. THAT said, I get why people want to see OIL for MSG harvest and cannot fault them for that viewpoint. But the entire purpose of this process is to look at the draw and what can be done to make it better - given the nearly 0 movement OIL would have, it fails the basic premise it was suggested to improve.

As far as advocacy goes… I personally hate it, but it’s true that some of our biggest sheep advocates are those individuals who have repeatedly drawn / bought tags. I wish our system was one of generous time and financial donations without needing to have drawn a tag, but it simply isn’t normally the case (read: I didn’t say never). And in the case of sheep, we need those advocates who put up stupid money as it does go to states to do conservation based work, which should ultimately lead to more sheep on the mountain… if only in the form of giving those sheep the best chance to safely and healthily reproduce (please vote No on the mountain lion hunting ban if you live here)

But I also think the above statement is partially our own fault as hunters. A lot of the sheep organizations could do a lot better at promoting their non hunting impacts - as they are not small. But let’s be honest that most of these 501c3 come off very “hunting… in the name of conservation” when they could be pulling in big dollars from those in the hunting adjacent community - as well as hunters - for some of the big conservation issues that face us today. I am NOT badmouthing this method of fundraising, but we could be doing better. Especially when you consider that the number of additional sheep on the mountain is not a 1:1 as it relates to tag increases. So why not embrace that narrative, gather more funding, fund more science and buyouts… and in the end, get the trickle down of more sheep tags as a bonus by product.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

 

[Bigjay73]

Nothing personal to anyone, but these arguments are still ego-centric and not resource-centric. What if allowing people to draw twice or 5 times is actually better for the resource, and will put more sheep on the mountain?

If I felt like this were just dividing the pie differently, I wouldn't care, but in all those years of applying, how many people who have never drawn were also raising money or volunteering their time to promote more sheep? What about the people who had already hunted sheep? Maybe there should be a resource promotion community service requirement to applying for any of these MSG tags? That would REALLY improve drawing odds.

Both sides of the argument are ego-centric and self serving. The vaaaaast majority of people applying for MSG tags aren't advocating for anything, let's not pretend that anyone is modeling themselves as the second coming of Aldo Leopold

 

[Bluffgruff]

Both sides of the argument are ego-centric and self serving. The vaaaaast majority of people applying for MSG tags aren't advocating for anything, let's not pretend that anyone is modeling themselves as the second coming of Aldo Leopold

So if it's all self serving, and making it OIL has an insignificant impact on draw odds, them what's best for the resource? Warm fuzzies are not science.

 

[winmag]

I imagine this is all a moot point, unfortunately. The Working Group voted to make the recommendation to the commission to change rocky mountain bighorn and mountain goat to OIL. I'm sure Polis's animal rights appointees to the commission will be giddy with excitement to pass a regulation that says that certain people can never ever kill another sheep or goat in Colorado.

I'll be there to oppose OIL when it's discussed at a commission meeting.

 

[winmag]

Warm fuzzies are not science

Exactly. Warm and fuzzies are not science. And statistics don't care about feelings.

 

[5yearcoueshunter]

Exactly. Warm and fuzzies are not science. And statistics don't care about feelings.

A lot of hunting regulations have nothing to do with science, it's about custom satisfaction/social and revenue to fund the department and protect the wildlife. Are we really saying making MSG OIL is contradicting the science? Really? A hunt that most DIY hunters will never get to draw. Yes making it OIL won't really help the draw odds, but as a hunting community that wants to self regulate, I would think most guys that have gotten to experience a rare hunt like these would want to see other hunters experience them as well, not potentially take a tag from them to hunt again. I'm a NM guy that has drawn my OIL Oryx and Valle Vidal Elk, so maybe I'm just use to OIL as an accepted thing.

 

[Bluffgruff]

A lot of hunting regulations have nothing to do with science, it's about custom satisfaction/social and revenue to fund the department and protect the wildlife. Are we really saying making MSG OIL is contradicting the science? Really? A hunt that most DIY hunters will never get to draw. Yes making it OIL won't really help the draw odds, but as a hunting community that wants to self regulate, I would think most guys that have gotten to experience a rare hunt like these would want to see other hunters experience them as well, not potentially take a tag from them to hunt again. I'm a NM guy that has drawn my OIL Oryx and Valle Vidal Elk, so maybe I'm just use to OIL as an accepted thing.

Don't conflate a once in a lifetime access situation for elk and oryx with a ban on your ability to hunt oryx or elk forever in your entire state.

I'm going to say it again, just because it seems "fair" to have OIL doesn't mean it's the best way to do things. No one has any evidence that draw odds improve, and I haven't seen any stats on if it improves "customer satisfaction" either. Let the people who have drawn self regulate if they so choose.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I am a former ram tag holder. Got sick on day 3 and benched by my doc for the rest of the season. Could not turn in the tag and get points restored. Long story. So what do I do?
I do not agree with MSG OIL for residents, even if it included a kill or “non-harvest” component.
I do participate in advocacy and had some input helping with purchases of domestic sheep leases. I will participate even if it changes to OIL for resident. But, If warm and fuzzy is what you want, make it NR MSG OIL. Increase tag costs. Increase PP costs. See who really wants to hunt MSG.