CO CPW Draw Process Working Group

[BrokenArrow]

@Oak
- Would the working group be able to suggest an online public survey pertaining to all/any of the proposed agenda items; just so the public could actually voice their wants? Other than attending commission meetings?
- maybe limit the survey to folks with a CID, ?
- How realistic is it that the working group suggests list A tags burns all points?
- Last Question - How realistic is it that season dates for deer/elk return to the last structure, previous to this current one?

Gracias.

 

[Hnthrdr]

No, it's not better. It's actually a bit ridiculous.

Try living here full time, it’s not ridiculous, just fair. We need to get some solid benies for all the whacky BS this state does and all the taxes and fees we pay to keep the roads somewhat paved for all the NR to drive on

 

[Hnthrdr]

@Oak
- Would the working group be able to suggest an online public survey pertaining to all/any of the proposed agenda items; just so the public could actually voice their wants? Other than attending commission meetings?
- maybe limit the survey to folks with a CID, ?
- How realistic is it that the working group suggests list A tags burns all points?
- Last Question - How realistic is it that season dates for deer/elk return to the last structure, previous to this current one?

Gracias.

Why? So they can totally ignore the results like the last survey? Haha

 

[5yearcoueshunter]

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.

Point well taken, I can still hunt elk and Oryx in the state. However Bighorn Ram is OIL in NM and I know I would feel the same way if I ever get that tag. I do understand the difficulty if a situation arises where you can't go or don't harvest for some reason. That's why the OIL till harvest makes sense to me.

Not saying my opinion is the right one, if the majority of residents hunters in Colorado don't want OIL then I agree don't do it. It's purely a social issue though, I'm not buying into the advocate position. I'll never get to hunt the Valle Vidal again, but I'm no less an advocate for keeping it special now just because I can't hunt it again.

 

[BuzzH]

I fell under WY's new once in a lifetime regulation for sheep retroactively and drew me second WY bull moose tag the year the new law took effect. So, I'm done with bull moose and bighorn rams in Wyoming.

I have zero issue with that and did testify in favor of the change to OIL and making it retroactive to anyone on the 5 year waiting period.

IMO, if a state goes the OIL route, there should be provisions to allow someone with a legitimate reason to return a tag (medical reason, death in the family, etc.).

Up to the Residents of CO to decide. I'm also in favor of keeping the resident portion of tags available to residents only even in leftover or secondary draws.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Why? So they can totally ignore the results like the last survey? Haha

Agreed. But at least they’ll be a public record instead of just conjecture flying all over the place.

 

[MtnElk]

Still PLENTY of time to speak up, email and show up. @winmag lets coordinate on that in person meeting, I’ll come too

 

[WildWill]

I can see both sides of the OIL argument. With such a limited resource it seems to make a lot of sense. But when I step back and think about it I'm not a fan for the simple reason I think it would end in less hunter's advocating for MSG and less revenue towards that end. I agree with @MtnElk we do need to recruit more non hunter's as advocates but I would always like to see hunter's leading the way. It would be nice if hunter's engaged in the same amount of advocacy regardless of if they have a chance at a tag (or multiple) or not. You here people say "well those hunter's can still donate" blah blah blah I live in reality they could but many won't. Is the man who would stop donating any more selfish then those who want it OIL to help THEIR odds?

 

[BuzzH]

I can see both sides of the OIL argument. With such a limited resource it seems to make a lot of sense. But when I step back and think about it I'm not a fan for the simple reason I think it would end in less hunter's advocating for MSG and less revenue towards that end. I agree with @MtnElk we do need to recruit more non hunter's as advocates but I would always like to see hunter's leading the way. It would be nice if hunter's engaged in the same amount of advocacy regardless of if they have a chance at a tag (or multiple) or not. You here people say "well those hunter's can still donate" blah blah blah I live in reality they could but many won't. Is the man who would stop donating any more selfish then those who want it OIL to help THEIR odds?

How many of the people that draw moose, sheep, or goat spend a single dime more than their application fee? I'm guessing very few.

I think the people that advocate for all wildlife are going to continue to do so whether or not they can apply and fall under OIL rules. IMO/E you either advocate or you don't, a vast, vast, vast majority don't. Also, my opinion if you stop advocating because you can't apply anymore, you weren't an advocate to start with, just a taker.

 

[Bigjay73]

Last sentence is golden

 

[Oak]

@Oak
- Would the working group be able to suggest an online public survey pertaining to all/any of the proposed agenda items; just so the public could actually voice their wants? Other than attending commission meetings?
- maybe limit the survey to folks with a CID, ?
- How realistic is it that the working group suggests list A tags burns all points?
- Last Question - How realistic is it that season dates for deer/elk return to the last structure, previous to this current one?

Gracias.

• I don't think there will be an online survey component. There will be plenty of opportunities to weigh in with the Commission, however.
• All A list licenses burning points was discussed at length. You have to watch the video, I just don't have time to rehash everything that has been discussed.
• This working group has no input on BGSS, which is where deer/elk season dates are being discussed. I haven't had time to watch the April 5 Commission meeting where this was discussed at length.

 

[Browning55]

Applying the resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is a bunch of NONSENSE. I can't believe that is even being discussed.

If residents truly want a tag, they can EASILY get a tag in choices 1-4 where they already have preference.

The only reason to allow a resident/non-resident allocation through the secondary draw is so the residents can continue to build points and still get tags.

THIS IDEA SOLVES NOTHING and would continue to introduce point creep into the future draws.

this is false

only thing that applies allocation to is choice 1.

there are over 114 hunt codes and roughly all of the recent archery hunt codes that went from otc to draw where resident demand in choices 1-4 was below the allocation soft cap but because those residents selected the tag in choice 2-4 they were not awarded it. that is the point of applying the soft cap through the primary draw and I am the one who spoke to commissioner Otero about it prior to him bringing it up in the Working group. I for one support all draw archery but do so saying that residents should have an opportunity do draw those tags in primary draw with the soft cap applied to all choices. I feel its a happy medium where residents get the fair shot but any unallocated tags after the residents draw in primary could go to non residents. IE non residents always have 25% allocation in worst case scenario but could also still have more if resident demand is not there. i have included some slides below of the hunt codes that encompass all of the recent archery draw units, you will see because of the first choice loop hole all of these units have non resident tag allocation of 55% or more.

 

[grasshopper]

this is false

only thing that applies allocation to is choice 1.

there are over 114 hunt codes and roughly all of the recent archery hunt codes that went from otc to draw where resident demand in choices 1-4 was below the allocation soft cap but because those residents selected the tag in choice 2-4 they were not awarded it. that is the point of applying the soft cap through the primary draw and I am the one who spoke to commissioner Otero about it prior to him bringing it up in the Working group. I for one support all draw archery but do so saying that residents should have an opportunity do draw those tags in primary draw with the soft cap applied to all choices. I feel its a happy medium where residents get the fair shot but any unallocated tags after the residents draw in primary could go to non residents. IE non residents always have 25% allocation in worst case scenario but could also still have more if resident demand is not there. i have included some slides below of the hunt codes that encompass all of the recent archery draw units, you will see because of the first choice loop hole all of these units have non resident tag allocation of 55% or more.

You missed a few hunt codes.

 

[winmag]

Lets put some numbers on the page to contrast with feelings and emotions. Quoting from the Draw Working Group Members memo to the CPW commission dated 4/19/2024.

"252 individuals have drawn two or more rocky mountain bighorn sheep ram licenses" [emphasis added]

"Additionally, an analysis completed back in 2021 on the potential implications of once-in-a lifetime harvest for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep rams (Appendix A) was also shared with the group in advance of the meeting. The findings of that analysis were that changing to once-in a-lifetime ram harvest resulted in no meaningful increase (hundredths of 1 percent) in the chance of drawing a license." [emphasis added]

"Despite the fact that transitioning to an once-in-a-lifetime harvest does not improve drawing odds, a majority of the DWG did support changing policy to a once-in-a-lifetime-harvest for bull moose, bighorn sheep rams, and all mountain goats just out of the perception of fairness..."

It's funny how many people complain that they know someone that has drawn multiple bighorn licenses but there have only been 252 people to ever do this.

The potential detriment to future bighorn conservation dollars is not worth the perception of fairness with no meaningful increase in the chance of drawing a license.

 

[Mudranger1]

Lets put some numbers on the page to contrast with feelings and emotions. Quoting from the Draw Working Group Members memo to the CPW commission dated 4/19/2024.

"252 individuals have drawn two or more rocky mountain bighorn sheep ram licenses" [emphasis added]

"Additionally, an analysis completed back in 2021 on the potential implications of once-in-a lifetime harvest for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep rams (Appendix A) was also shared with the group in advance of the meeting. The findings of that analysis were that changing to once-in a-lifetime ram harvest resulted in no meaningful increase (hundredths of 1 percent) in the chance of drawing a license." [emphasis added]

"Despite the fact that transitioning to an once-in-a-lifetime harvest does not improve drawing odds, a majority of the DWG did support changing policy to a once-in-a-lifetime-harvest for bull moose, bighorn sheep rams, and all mountain goats just out of the perception of fairness..."

It's funny how many people complain that they know someone that has drawn multiple bighorn licenses but there have only been 252 people to ever do this.

The potential detriment to future bighorn conservation dollars is not worth the perception of fairness with no meaningful increase in the chance of drawing a license.

Archery shop owner in Colorado Springs has drawn 3 ram tags 2 of them filled

 

[Hnthrdr]

Archery shop owner in Colorado Springs has drawn 3 ram tags 2 of them filled

I know 3 guys who have drawn 2x, 1 is super lucky, other one chooses to hunt tough to hunt easy to draw units

 

[Coveyleader]

---

In the 80s guys were drawing ram tags at will. Archery, but it wasn’t hard.

 

[Khunter]

Lets put some numbers on the page to contrast with feelings and emotions. Quoting from the Draw Working Group Members memo to the CPW commission dated 4/19/2024.

"252 individuals have drawn two or more rocky mountain bighorn sheep ram licenses" [emphasis added]

"Additionally, an analysis completed back in 2021 on the potential implications of once-in-a lifetime harvest for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep rams (Appendix A) was also shared with the group in advance of the meeting. The findings of that analysis were that changing to once-in a-lifetime ram harvest resulted in no meaningful increase (hundredths of 1 percent) in the chance of drawing a license." [emphasis added]

"Despite the fact that transitioning to an once-in-a-lifetime harvest does not improve drawing odds, a majority of the DWG did support changing policy to a once-in-a-lifetime-harvest for bull moose, bighorn sheep rams, and all mountain goats just out of the perception of fairness..."

It's funny how many people complain that they know someone that has drawn multiple bighorn licenses but there have only been 252 people to ever do this.

The potential detriment to future bighorn conservation dollars is not worth the perception of fairness with no meaningful increase in the chance of drawing a license.

i have drawn three ram licenses.

 

[Foldem]

Lets put some numbers on the page to contrast with feelings and emotions. Quoting from the Draw Working Group Members memo to the CPW commission dated 4/19/2024.

"252 individuals have drawn two or more rocky mountain bighorn sheep ram licenses" [emphasis added]

"Additionally, an analysis completed back in 2021 on the potential implications of once-in-a lifetime harvest for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep rams (Appendix A) was also shared with the group in advance of the meeting. The findings of that analysis were that changing to once-in a-lifetime ram harvest resulted in no meaningful increase (hundredths of 1 percent) in the chance of drawing a license." [emphasis added]

"Despite the fact that transitioning to an once-in-a-lifetime harvest does not improve drawing odds, a majority of the DWG did support changing policy to a once-in-a-lifetime-harvest for bull moose, bighorn sheep rams, and all mountain goats just out of the perception of fairness..."

It's funny how many people complain that they know someone that has drawn multiple bighorn licenses but there have only been 252 people to ever do this.

The potential detriment to future bighorn conservation dollars is not worth the perception of fairness with no meaningful increase in the chance of drawing a license.

Agree, this is dumb that we are considering this for no real benefit to the "Draw Process" the group is tasked with.

 

[Foldem]

We are taking 130+/- ram hunters out of the drawing pool every year if we are OIL, yet apps are increasing by THOUSANDS every year. Makes zero sense.

"Changing to once-in-a-lifetime ram harvest results in no meaningful increase(hundredths of 1 percent) in the chance of drawing a license. This is because of the high, and increasing, applicant numbers in the draw. In other words, the continuous removal of the number of sheep hunters who harvest a ram from the pool of applicants applying for a ram license has a negligible effect on the chance of drawing a license. This is because the number of rams harvested annually (~130 for residents) is significantly less than the annual increases in resident applicant numbers for a ram license (3,822 applicants at 0+0 preference points in 2020, 6.8% annual increase thereafter). Essentially, the high and increasing applicant numbers swamp out the draw and nullify any increased draw percentage afforded by once-in-a-lifetime ram harvest."