CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
3,549
Location
Iowa
If this results in any increase in the ratio of Res to NR hunters, the cost of Res tags will have to jump to cover the lost revenue from fewer NRs.
Under TABOR, yes, but if that could somehow be appealed there is no real need to fill the revenue shortfall. CP&W has grown into a cancerous bureaucracy that converts millions of dollars of NR elk tag $$ into staff salaries, fish stocking, and a multitude of other projects that have little or nothing to do with conservation.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,622
Location
CO
Under TABOR, yes, but if that could somehow be appealed there is no real need to fill the revenue shortfall. CP&W has grown into a cancerous bureaucracy that converts millions of dollars of NR elk tag $$ into staff salaries, fish stocking, and a multitude of other projects that have little or nothing to do with conservation.

cpw does a lot of great work. but you're not wrong.

i honestly don't care how it's done, but something needs to force them to reckon with the issue that unlimited NR elk licenses are not a sustainable business model, largely from a sustainability of the resource perspective.
 

LuketheDog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,015
Location
Sedalia, Colorado
I agree! What are your thoughts on capping OTC for NR licenses but not residents? Or having some units that are OTC to residents, but not non-residents?

All for it!

Is there a good way transition people at the top of the points game to a weighted points system after 20+ years of building points?

Probably not a 'good' way in the high point-holders' opinion but the weighted point system will probably be the least painful, at some point CPW will just tear off the band-aid though...
 

LuketheDog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,015
Location
Sedalia, Colorado
Under TABOR, yes, but if that could somehow be appealed there is no real need to fill the revenue shortfall. CP&W has grown into a cancerous bureaucracy that converts millions of dollars of NR elk tag $$ into staff salaries, fish stocking, and a multitude of other projects that have little or nothing to do with conservation.

I see nothing wrong with using NR tag fees to pay for salaries other wildlife needs, that's just putting their income to use. But they DO need to take the 'P' back out of out of CPW, like it used to be, that would soften the blow if NR tags were reduced. Parks operates in the red, Wildlife operates $30M in the black.

Check the link below...

 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,622
Location
CO
I see nothing wrong with using NR tag fees to pay for salaries other wildlife needs, that's just putting their income to use. But they DO need to take the 'P' back out of out of CPW, like it used to be, that would soften the blow if NR tags were reduced. Parks operates in the red, Wildlife operates $30M in the black.

Check the link below...


though read the first sentence on the page: "Although CPW became a merged agency in 2011, state statute and federal regulations require that the budgets for parks and wildlife remain separate. Annual revenue and expenditures for each budget are provided in the charts below."

i don't think parks money gets to be used for the wildlife budget and i don't think wildlife (hunting) money gets to be used for the parks budget. I suspect some of this constraint comes from the stipulations around getting PR money based on what you do with hunting license sale dollars.

though this may help with some of the parks side lacking budget:


it all does beg the question: how they make up for the 2 million deficit? i have no idea. maybe some dollars from wildlife can be used over there, but it certainly can't be license dollars i think.
 

LuketheDog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,015
Location
Sedalia, Colorado
though read the first sentence on the page: "Although CPW became a merged agency in 2011, state statute and federal regulations require that the budgets for parks and wildlife remain separate. Annual revenue and expenditures for each budget are provided in the charts below."

it all does beg the question: how they make up for the 2 million deficit? i have no idea. maybe some dollars from wildlife can be used over there, but it certainly can't be license dollars i think.

They say that, but I'd venture a guess there has to be blurring of the lines occurring. They were merged in the name of "Efficiency" and similar expenditures show up on both sides of the books.
 

cedahm

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,022
Location
Colorado
OTC with caps and limited to regions or unit groups, limit NR draw tag allocations, expand the hybrid draw system across the board for any unit over maybe 5 points so, OR weighted point system for deer/elk/antelope. M/S/G remains the same...
This was analogous to some of my comments. I share the fear that a lot of negative noise will be made on MSG weighted points, but I think worst case is they turn it into a ‘true’ bonus point system (which is how it behaves mathematically anyway atm)

- OTC Bull elk licenses move to a model where they are limited draw for NR’s (but still valid in current OTC units) and OTC with caps for Residents (similar to the ‘General’ elk tags in Wyoming)

- 80/20 split across the board

- Eliminate tag refunds/point restorations prior to season. Keep existing medical/bereavement exceptions, but no other tag returns allowed.

- Along with eliminating tag returns/refunds, institute a ‘Point Guard’ program (see: Arizona regulations), $5 charge per species per year and allows 1 use per species - when invoked, tag can be returned, all points restored for that species plus the current years point is accrued. Once used, can’t be used again until points go back to zero.

- Allocate 10-20% of tags in every hunt code to a random draw where points are not considered (note, this also replaces the current ‘Hybrid draw’)


That used up all my character limit - I have emailed these to a couple of commissioners in the recent past also.

Note that the ‘unsaid’ in about every comment/future state plan is that R fees will need to increase in just about every scenario to maintain revenue neutrality (a stated goal or at least guiding principle from the last CPW sessions on this topic). I am fine with that personally but it will be a significant topic of debate.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,622
Location
CO
They say that, but I'd venture a guess there has to be blurring of the lines occurring. They were merged in the name of "Efficiency" and similar expenditures show up on both sides of the books.

no doubt.

there has to be some wiggle room there. i also seem to recall reading that some positions were lost in the merger for the sake of efficiency and budgets, and likely a lot more situations where one person can now do the same thing for two agencies instead of having two people doing one thing for two agencies type of thing.

i'd be curious the exact wording of the revised statutes regarding their budgets. but i'm certain the federal side of it has to do with PR funds.
 

LuketheDog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,015
Location
Sedalia, Colorado
Note that the ‘unsaid’ in about every comment/future state plan is that R fees will need to increase in just about every scenario to maintain revenue neutrality (a stated goal or at least guiding principle from the last CPW sessions on this topic). I am fine with that personally but it will be a significant topic of debate.

I'd happily pony up a little more to shoot elk, deer, and antelope. Even if the prices doubled they'd be quite affordable.
 

LuketheDog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,015
Location
Sedalia, Colorado
no doubt.

there has to be some wiggle room there. i also seem to recall reading that some positions were lost in the merger for the sake of efficiency and budgets, and likely a lot more situations where one person can now do the same thing for two agencies instead of having two people doing one thing for two agencies type of thing.

i'd be curious the exact wording of the revised statutes regarding their budgets. but i'm certain the federal side of it has to do with PR funds.

Think Tabor applies to Parks as well but not to the Wildlife side, but it was 10 years ago all that happened and I could be making it up 🤷‍♂️
 

hunthayden

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
12
The landowner tag allocation needs be changed. Currently unit 201 early rifle elk tags are allocated at 18% to LO. The unit is only about 3.5% private land. The same goes for alot of limited draw elk units where LO are getting a unfair share of tags in comparison to the private/public land.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
11,945
Location
Boston
Paging @wllm1313

My understanding is that TABOR rules do not apply to revenue (e.g. license fee) increases because CPW is an enterprise agency.
Correct.

Though if you dramatically reduced NR tags there would be a revenue shortfall, which you would not be able to make up with revenue from the general fund.

Essentially CPW realizes, that if you wildly over subscribe units harvest rates do not increase because folks just step on each others toes and push critters onto private. Therefore they can issue way more tags per elk then say WY because they know the population won't suffer.

Hunt quality doesn't even seem to be a consideration at this point.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
11,945
Location
Boston
Think Tabor applies to Parks as well but not to the Wildlife side, but it was 10 years ago all that happened and I could be making it up 🤷‍♂️
1635211574120.png

Also it was just wildlife then Parks and Wildlife then split to DOW then brought back... my 2 cents keep it together can reduce costs.
 

cedahm

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,022
Location
Colorado
The landowner tag allocation needs be changed. Currently unit 201 early rifle elk tags are allocated at 18% to LO. The unit is only about 3.5% private land. The same goes for alot of limited draw elk units where LO are getting a unfair share of tags in comparison to the private/public land.
Hopefully the LPP stuff is analyzed in more detail (as in, even a single mention) as the process moves forward. Any conversation about license distribution that ignores a sizable percentage of issued licenses isn’t complete. I wanted to comment similar (and on other specific LO tag issues), but ran out of characters.

Would also like to see the allocation % get shrunk back on RFW to 1:1 or thereabouts (0:0 would also be totally fine with me, but that’s probably a bridge too far). Thats a whole other pile of tags (ntm a dubious system for resource allocation) that don’t show up in the “basic” data.

I need to get another commission email together.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
13,897
Location
Colorado
Hopefully the LPP stuff is analyzed in more detail (as in, even a single mention) as the process moves forward. Any conversation about license distribution that ignores a sizable percentage of issued licenses isn’t complete. I wanted to comment similar (and on other specific LO tag issues), but ran out of characters.

Would also like to see the allocation % get shrunk back on RFW to 1:1 or thereabouts (0:0 would also be totally fine with me, but that’s probably a bridge too far). Thats a whole other pile of tags (ntm a dubious system for resource allocation) that don’t show up in the “basic” data.

I need to get another commission email together.

I love your moxie. Stay gold…
You have a better chance of the commission just telling you you get a sheep license every year rather than they make the changes you propose, though.

Seriously, I like your ideas.
 

cedahm

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,022
Location
Colorado
I love your moxie. Stay gold…
You have a better chance of the commission just telling you you get a sheep license every year rather than they make the changes you propose, though.

Seriously, I like your ideas.
“Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them.”

I’d be happy with either outcome, though. That should have been a choice in the survey.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,622
Location
CO
Residents who don’t want to pay for the pass may opt out. lol OOOOOOK??????

i suspect there are enough people who pay close to zero attention while doing things like registering for their car that this will definitely be a gain. plus there are people like me who have never bought an annual parks pass in their life that will just go ahead and be buying one now. could maybe gain a few hundred thousand additional parks pass buyers.

soon cpw will manage to a get a bill pushed through that adds on an an OTC Bull and Bear C license to your car registration for 50 bucks that you may opt out of if you so wish.
 
Leupold Banner

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
97,619
Messages
1,490,502
Members
30,747
Latest member
mdson
Top