CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution

[Mallardsx2]

you need to first prove to me why NRs "deserve" it how they want it.

seems the surveyed sentiment is that R's are willing to raise prices to deal with loss of NR dollars. as that sentiment grows stronger your so called "you need us" argument grows weaker. and we don't need you anyway, because cpw will raise NR prices anyway as well if they have to to make up for loss of NR.

it's like buzz always said about wyoming, NR's have had it maybe too good for too long, while the people that live here are watching the quality of the experience tank further with each year.

I already stated to you why we deserve it. Several times now. Its all in the financials.

NR Hunters provide MASSIVE funding to your state. Therefore we should be rewarded for that.

If your willing to take it on the chin and limit NR tags by raising your Resident prices to 2X 3X or whatever it takes then get with the CPW and put your money where your mouth is and do it. I encourage you to do that. But you shouldn't just sit there and say you deserve more tags. That's a bit ridiculous.

Until you open up your billfolds and shell out the cash the CPW is going to continue to give NR tags because that's where the money is coming from. Obviously.

BTW the sad part is that this is coming from a guy who who would love to see caps and waiting periods placed on OTC licenses. Even if it is only for NR hunters. Both ideas that would help you dramatically from a pressure standpoint.

If I was you I would point your fight towards legislature to change the % going to LPP if I was you (if that's even worth pursuing).

All good conversation and I hope the hunting gets better for you in some capacity or another but I feel that you guys have it pretty dang good as it is for the money you spend for a license.

 

[MtnElk]

I already stated to you why we deserve it. Several times now. Its all in the financials.

NR Hunters provide MASSIVE funding to your state. Therefore we should be rewarded for that.

If your willing to take it on the chin and limit NR tags by raising your Resident prices to 2X 3X or whatever it takes then get with the CPW and put your money where your mouth is and do it. I encourage you to do that. But you shouldn't just sit there and say you deserve more tags. That's a bit ridiculous.

Until you open up your billfolds and shell out the cash the CPW is going to continue to give NR tags because that's where the money is coming from. Obviously.

BTW the sad part is that this is coming from a guy who who would love to see caps and waiting periods placed on OTC licenses. Even if it is only for NR hunters. Both ideas that would help you dramatically from a pressure standpoint.

If I was you I would point your fight towards legislature to change the % going to LPP if I was you (if that's even worth pursuing).

All good conversation and I hope the hunting gets better for you in some capacity or another but I feel that you guys have it pretty dang good as it is for the money you spend for a license.

I won't speak for everyone, but pretty sure we are ready to do that. But as was noted in my summary and in the call, changing the prices is something that goes through an additional layer of voting and approval. I think it might go to the general assembly, but don't quote me on that. But as a commissioner pointed out "in my talks with resident hunters, there has been no complaints about raising resident tag prices" (paraphrasing)

I am in full agreement that resident hunters need to get together, get on the same page and do more than just complain. There needs to be stepping up.

 

[TOGIE]

All good conversation and I hope the hunting gets better for you in some capacity or another but I feel that you guys have it pretty dang good as it is for the money you spend for a license.

we do have it good, no doubt.

but, none of this is really about who deserves what and why or how good we have it compared to someone else. someone will always have it better than someone somewhere no matter what. i mean, we can flip this on its head and say the entitlement from NRs is far more baffling than the so called entitlement of Rs.

we all want better quality and a system that isn't spiraling out of control and like mtelk said that's going to require some pain from everyone. but the people that live here shouldn't have to watch their ability to hunt deer every year slowly evaporate. they shouldn't be seeing elk units filled up with something north of 70% NR hunters.

residents should be prioritized. every where a resident lives they should get the cream of the crop for hunting, going out of state you deal with what you get. i accept that for wyoming and everywhere else i like to hunt and want to hunt someday and am not a resisdent, but i don't accept that with where i live, and neither should you.

 

[Mallardsx2]

IMHO NR hunters SHOULD have a sense of "entitlement" because we have the MOST skin in the game when it comes to CPW funding. We are paying 12X more for an elk license and we should have a sense of "entitlement". Honestly, I am surprised more NR aren't rallying for MORE tags since we have the MOST skin in the game as ANYONE. (Although I am not in that wagon of individuals. I prefer to attack this entire issue differently changing the draw process and preference point usage. I actually believe that the current NR allocation is fair.)

If you want to have that sense of "entitlement", then offer to pay more for your license in exchange for making up the Delta in revenue.

What most people are asking is for the CPW to increase the NR fee's to cover the delta and hand you over more tags for your $57.90 that you pay yearly.
And to be honest, I don't even think the commissioners are that sinister. Although they have certainly jacked up the prices on NR's since I started hunting Colorado 20 years ago.

 

[Oak]

What most people are asking is for the CPW to increase the NR fee's to cover the delta and hand you over more tags for your $57.90 that you pay yearly.

Has anyone done that in this thread?

 

[Mallardsx2]

Has anyone done that in this thread?

Point of order: No they have not. And I'm not calling anyone out on this thread for that but it has been mentioned across many forums.

 

[TOGIE]

i mean, here's the kicker, cpw literally can't give NR's more tags because they already can have as many as the printers will print. Rs too.

that needs to change. it just does.

 

[Mallardsx2]

i mean, here's the kicker, cpw literally can't give NR's more tags because they already can have as many as the printers will print. Rs too.

that needs to change. it just does.

For the record, I don't agree with the current situation of unlimited OTC for Archery or Rifle.

I would LOVE to see caps on both of these licenses and a firm deadline of purchase date of June 30th.

 

[TOGIE]

For the record, I don't agree with the current situation of unlimited OTC for Archery or Rifle.

I would LOVE to see caps on both of these licenses and a firm deadline of purchase date of June 30th.

i think we're more in agreement overall.

i don't think this has to be a stick it to the NR type of thing.

lot's tweaks to the system would make it better for everyone. tweaks that don't really stick it to anyone, they mostly curb abuses to the system that contribute to point creep. and limiting otc will start going a long ways to improving quality.

 

[jlmatthew]

I would love to see Colorado have a reciprocity with all the states that limit us when we apply for tags. Could you imagine all the bellyaching from AZ, CA, UT etc...

 

[Mallardsx2]

i think we're more in agreement overall.

i don't think this has to be a stick it to the NR type of thing.

lot's tweaks to the system would make it better for everyone. tweaks that don't really stick it to anyone, they mostly curb abuses to the system that contribute to point creep. and limiting otc will start going a long ways to improving quality.

Honestly, I couldn't agree more.

There are a LOT of small things that can be changed to make things better for EVERYONE in the overall picture of things for sure.

 

[Oak]

For the record, I don't agree with the current situation of unlimited OTC for Archery or Rifle.

I would LOVE to see caps on both of these licenses and a firm deadline of purchase date of June 30th.

I think they should be required to be drawn in the primary draw, even if as a 4th choice, and no refunds. We don't need to be the fallback for everyone who wasn't successful in the other state draws. They might not even need to be capped with those restrictions.

 

[Oak]

I think they should be required to be drawn in the primary draw, even if as a 4th choice, and no refunds. We don't need to be the fallback for everyone who wasn't successful in the other state draws. They might not even need to be capped with those restrictions.

Added benefit for the fiscally concerned commission: It would require a qualifying license if issued in the primary draw.

 

[TOGIE]

I think they should be required to be drawn in the primary draw, even if as a 4th choice, and no refunds. We don't need to be the fallback for everyone who wasn't successful in the other state draws. They might not even need to be capped with those restrictions.

i like that. i like it a lot.

+ qualifying license

+ no refunds for points or money on any tag we might have just solved the otc issue, taken a nibble at point creep problems, and kept the budget stable without (effectively) raising a single price.

we need to change points to a purchase system and you can't purchase if you hold an A license.

i still want blanket 80/20

 

[Mallardsx2]

I think they should be required to be drawn in the primary draw, even if as a 4th choice, and no refunds. We don't need to be the fallback for everyone who wasn't successful in the other state draws. They might not even need to be capped with those restrictions.

As a nonresident I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Mallardsx2]

i like that. i like it a lot.

+ qualifying license

+ no refunds for points or money on any tag we might have just solved the otc issue, taken a nibble at point creep problems, and kept the budget stable without (effectively) raising a single price.

we need to change points to a purchase system and you can't purchase if you hold an A license.

i still want blanket 80/20

As a non-resident I couldn’t agree more.

Although I’m not sold on your 8020 lol

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I would love to see Colorado have a reciprocity with all the states that limit us when we apply for tags. Could you imagine all the bellyaching from AZ, CA, UT etc...

And California, you get 1 tag to share.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

i still want blanket 80/20

Just to clarify your point that means doing away with OTC hunting completely correct? Obviously it's pretty much impossible to really have an allocation with OTC.

One the I do wonder is what it might look like if you just kept the 65/35 allocation but when fully limited for everything.

1. You have to apply in the draw so CO is no longer the hunt of last resort
2. It enforces the 65/35 quota, which currently doesn't' apply to OTC... CPW said in their own report steamboat is 70% NR in the OTC archery season. So just going limited would be a pretty big change.

Allocations seem to only go one way, so I'm a bit leery of going too hard in that direction. I think making any hunt code with 5 or more points in the previous season 80/20, and all other hunt codes in the state 65/35 would be a good start.

You would also need to limit the tags a bit and not set quotas based on current hunter numbers.... I think this is obvious or NR are just going to blow up the allocation on the leftover list.

I kinda wonder if part of this you just eliminate the leftovers, maybe keep the secondary draw, but basically after august if there are excess tags they just don't get sold.

 

[TOGIE]

Just to clarify your point that means doing away with OTC hunting completely correct? Obviously it's pretty much impossible to really have an allocation with OTC.

One the I do wonder is what it might look like if you just kept the 65/35 allocation but when fully limited for everything.

1. You have to apply in the draw so CO is no longer the hunt of last resort
2. It enforces the 65/35 quota, which currently doesn't' apply to OTC... CPW said in their own report steamboat is 70% NR in the OTC archery season. So just going limited would be a pretty big change.

Allocations seem to only go one way, so I'm a bit leery of going too hard in that direction. I think making any hunt code with 5 or more points in the previous season 80/20, and all other hunt codes in the state 65/35 would be a good start.

You would also need to limit the tags a bit and not set quotas based on current hunter numbers.... I think this is obvious or NR are just going to blow up the allocation on the leftover list.

I kinda wonder if part of this you just eliminate the leftovers, maybe keep the secondary draw, but basically after august if there are excess tags they just don't get sold.

no when i say that i really think/mean 80/20 should be any non otc tag: doe, buck, cow, bull. otc should be dealt with independently in the form of caps or Oak's idea above that i'm really starting to like.

we should truly enjoy that ability to have OTC tags, it's a pretty amazing thing that we can do that, we just need to be more careful with it at this point in time.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

no when i say that i really think/mean 80/20 should be any non otc tag: doe, buck, cow, bull. otc should be dealt with independently in the form of caps or Oak's idea above that i'm really starting to like.

we should truly enjoy that ability to have OTC tags, it's a pretty amazing thing that we can do that, we just need to be more careful with it at this point in time.

I disagree on this point, I don't see the efficacy or benefit of OTC tags. I apply for everything else in the early spring I'm not sure why we need to pander to folks who don't get there chit together till 2 days before the season.