CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data

[grasshopper]

I would doubt archers with A tags buy B tags for rifle seasons. We have 30 days. Would a primarily A tag rifle Hunter get an archery B tag to extend his short season...sure.

Not me, I'd just do plains archery deer.

 

[Carlin59]

My hunch is the mention of non-elk hunters was a nod to part of the value of the hunt experience for a tag holder is the density of active hunters in a unit during your hunt.

I agree that hunter density is a part of everyone's personal hunt-value equation, regardless of what type of tag one has. The grouse hunter might feel his hunt is being degraded by a flood of archery/MZ/early rifle hunters, and vice versa. I just don't agree with trying to prioritize one type of tag holder (A/B/different species) over another. I'm fine with changing tag allocations to reduce crowding (real or perceived), but not explicitly prioritizing one tag type or species over another.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree that hunter density is a part of everyone's personal hunt-value equation, regardless of what type of tag one has. The grouse hunter might feel his hunt is being degraded by a flood of archery/MZ/early rifle hunters, and vice versa. I just don't agree with trying to prioritize one type of tag holder (A/B/different species) over another. I'm fine with changing tag allocations to reduce crowding (real or perceived), but not explicitly prioritizing one tag type or species over another.

How about cutting permits to the yuppies in conundrum degrading everyone's sheep and deer hunts

 

[Carlin59]

How about cutting permits to the yuppies in conundrum degrading everyone's sheep and deer hunts

In that case, if you can't beat them, join them! Probably some decent "scenery" at the springs come dusk to glass instead. Ironically, I spotted my first wild mountain goat while sitting in those springs. It (likely "he" as was solo) was a good 1/2 mile off though, so a few less pesky permitted campers might have presented a closer view.

 

[Pelican]

I would doubt archers with A tags buy B tags for rifle seasons.

This is what I do every year. If I fill the A tag, the rifle B tag doesn’t get used. Most of the archers I know do the same thing every year also. I only know a couple people who buy both the archery OTC list A and B tags.

 

[jlmatthew]

Just out of curiosity I compared Colorado against MT & WY (combined)

Colorado claims 286,680 Elk
MT & WY (Combined) 234,800 Elk

Colorado Resident Hunters 151,970 Nonresidents 71,577
MT & WY Resident Hunters 153,468 Nonresidents 31,116

We have 40,461 more Nonresidents hunters than MT & WY have combined! And according to the numbers, more than all the other Elk states combined it appears!

MT & WY are able to provide so much more opportunity to they're residents both in season length, tag availability and animal quality compared to Colorado. And at a cheaper price! Now we are paying more and about to lose opportunity as far as season length goes if they whack off days from the season.

CPW ran a $18 million surplus the year before these new fee's, now with the new fee's how much will they take in? Am I the only one scratching his head saying WTF? Pay more-Lose more?

 

[Pelican]

Am I the only one scratching his head saying WTF? Pay more-Lose more?

No, you’re not the only one. The trend definitely is less opportunity for residents though. It was only a few years ago when the commission increased the landowner and NR allocation. Now it seems likely the commission will shorten 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons to test a theory that it will help get elk to move off of private land. Maybe it will work, maybe not, but we will never get those days back.

 

[BrokenArrow]

This is what I do every year. If I fill the A tag, the rifle B tag doesn’t get used. Most of the archers I know do the same thing every year also. I only know a couple people who buy both the archery OTC list A and B tags.

Same. Every year for the last 10.
I return the B tag if successful during A season to the leftover list so someone else can get a shot

WLLM, you’re the man....thanks for more info than we had before. 30k or ground, this is forward progress

 

[Bambistew]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for cranking through that. The archery spilt is surprising, I wouldn't have guessed so many NR would hunt archery compared to residents.

I still want to know why its so expensive to manage elk in OTC units in CO. The amount of money spent seems incredible to me.

 

[Pelican]

I still want to know why its so expensive to manage elk in OTC units in CO. The amount of money spent seems incredible to me.

NR elk tags are the funding sources for a lot more than just elk management in CO. Fish stocking, access programs, etc are all benefit from NR elk tag sales in Colorado.

 

[jlmatthew]

I still want to know why its so expensive to manage elk in OTC units in CO. The amount of money spent seems incredible to me.

I think the amount not spent on elk management would seem even more incredible. They use to make available a PDF document every FTE dollar spent. Big game in general got around 3% of the budget.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for cranking through that. The archery split is surprising, I wouldn't have guessed so many NR would hunt archery compared to residents.

I still want to know why its so expensive to manage elk in OTC units in CO. The amount of money spent seems incredible to me.

I worked for a state agency for a while, my parents were teachers, and just growing up in CO I know a number of people who work for the state/public entities. I can tell you that license allocation and CPAW finance are completely intertwined and that without repealing or revising TABOR (Tax Payer Bill Of Rights) there really isn't a whole lot CPAW can do.

The 30K view on it is that CPAW is run as a Business Enterprise to avoid the budgetary strangle holds of TABOR the agency needs to derive virtually all it's budget from license sales, if they attempt to use other means of revenue (state general fund, license plate registration, excise taxes, etc) they could be in violation of rules for a Business Enterprise under TABOR... this makes the agency subject to TABOR rules, meaning their is a cap on their budget (positions and programs would be cut), and they can't run a surplus from year to year. The surplus doesn't seem like a big deal, but remember that funding changes year to year based on license sales and that like 50% of the departments sales occur in one month when they do the draw. The surplus is used to fund the first part of the year until the draw occurs etc.

TLDR: TABOR is a nightmare for Colorado

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Just out of curiosity I compared Colorado against MT & WY (combined)

Colorado claims 286,680 Elk
MT & WY (Combined) 234,800 Elk

Colorado Resident Hunters 151,970 Nonresidents 71,577
MT & WY Resident Hunters 153,468 Nonresidents 31,116

We have 40,461 more Nonresidents hunters than MT & WY have combined! And according to the numbers, more than all the other Elk states combined it appears!

MT & WY are able to provide so much more opportunity to they're residents both in season length, tag availability and animal quality compared to Colorado. And at a cheaper price! Now we are paying more and about to lose opportunity as far as season length goes if they whack off days from the season.

CPW ran a $18 million surplus the year before these new fee's, now with the new fee's how much will they take in? Am I the only one scratching his head saying WTF? Pay more-Lose more?

To grasshoppers point about talking focusing on bulls: CO issued 37,746 OTC bull/either sex tags in 2018 to Nonresidents Wyoming issued 4,493.

 

[grasshopper]

TABOR might be a nightmare for some, last thing i want uncontrolled government. While we could use some spending on roads and other things, I like it when the folks at the capital can't spend money they don't have.

You guys did get me thinking, we live in an "either or" state. Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding. Anyone opposed to a reg that would disallow that?

 

[TOGIE]

TABOR might be a nightmare for some, last thing i want uncontrolled government. While we could use some spending on roads and other things, I like it when the folks at the capital can't spend money they don't have.

You guys did get me thinking, we live in an "either or" state. Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding. Anyone opposed to a reg that would disallow that?

Meaning, if you hunt archery you can't hunt rifle, and vice versa?

I wouldn't suspect that's the main cause of crowding. I can't imagine that most of our out of state hunters are coming all the way back after getting skunked in archery.

But as I resident I certainly do run out for at least a day for multiple seasons with B and A tags. But I tend to stick with late cow tags for B. It's empty out there on late cow tags....

Perhaps as residents we're our own worst enemy?

You can get multiple tags in Wyoming similar to A and B with Bulls and Cows though. I would think the crowding problem is 90% the amount of tags rather than the ability to hunt two tags.

 

[Oak]

You guys did get me thinking, we live in an "either or" state. Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding. Anyone opposed to a reg that would disallow that?

Several people above your post stated they do exactly that, and you're asking if they would be opposed to eliminating the option. Another option would be make bull/either sex licenses utilize preference points, regardless of how they are obtained (limited draw, OTC, voucher, etc). That would eliminate the loophole of people building points and then hunting OTC.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

TABOR might be a nightmare for some, last thing i want uncontrolled government. While we could use some spending on roads and other things, I like it when the folks at the capital can't spend money they don't have.

You guys did get me thinking, we live in an "either or" state. Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding. Anyone opposed to a reg that would disallow that?

"I like it when the folks at the capital can't spend money they don't have." - How about when the state taxes weed, but then has to give back the money because of TABOR and can't improve transportation or schools with those funds. The Colorado economy is booming yet we are at the very bottom for education spending. I'm a fiscal conservative but that law is asinine.

"Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding." - So you want longer seasons, but then don't want people to hunt more? Essentially the way the current season is structure you have hunt a bull tag for a while and then if you don't get an elk you hunt a cow tag. The state essentially is selling you 2 tags to kill one elk. I'm sure there are people that fill both, but I imagine a good portion are like me and fill one or the other.

Honestly the cow tag isn't a hill I'd die on, they seem more like a management tool and I would guess have less of an effect, also the lions share of them are private land only, which negates pressure.

Lets look at a unit and really drill down.
I'm going to use 53 because it pops up a ton on the forum.

This unit feels crowded during archery, it's OTC and there are no B tags available during archery season.

2005 - 406 hunters, 46 elk killed
2018 - 841 hunters, 138 elk killed

 

[rideold]

You guys did get me thinking, we live in an "either or" state. Hunting with an A tag in archery and then using a B tag in rifle seems like a loophole to "either or", and could be a cause of crowding. Anyone opposed to a reg that would disallow that?

I don't see it as a loophole. Anyone who wants to use the A, B, C list system can and it is just part of the whole tag allocation conundrum If the A and then B way of hunting twice goes away CPW still will need to sell those tags. It's a catch 22 really. More opportunity means more people means lower cost tags.....less opportunity means less people and more expensive tags. In the end the current state of funding from tags is what CPW is going to want to preserve.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Several people above your post stated they do exactly that, and you're asking if they would be opposed to eliminating the option. Another option would be make bull/either sex licenses utilize preference points, regardless of how they are obtained (limited draw, OTC, voucher, etc). That would eliminate the loophole of people building points and then hunting OTC.

Also look at the drop in 581 and 580 (limited draw tags) and the growth in OTC tags 055, 054 and then res and NR rifle.



Essentially more and more Limited tags are going to OTC and thus driving point creep as more people are applying for less tags. Yes there are more OTC opportunities but this doesn't help crowding or the people who got into the points game when there were almost 10k more limited tags.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Interesting WA, OR, and UT the states other than CO with general OTC tags all require a FOIA, or whatever their state calls it, request to get the allocation information. Funny that states seem reluctant to share this information with their residents.