these are great questions. and i suspect they don't want to answer those questions honestly and we wont like what we hear if they're answered honestly.
meanwhile, our "friends-that-aren't-actually-our-friends-cause-they-hate-us" up north:
CPW seeks public feedback on big game hunting license distribution
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
these are great questions. and i suspect they don't want to answer those questions honestly and we wont like what we hear if they're answered honestly.
meanwhile, our "friends-that-aren't-actually-our-friends-cause-they-hate-us" up north:
that's interesting. are those survey results available somewhere that you're aware of?
what dumbass doesn't want to hunt every year?
sounds like an NR survey in reality.
RyGuy
Well-known member
It is genuinely frustrating that Wyoming is working with 56% of the budget that Colorado is, and our elk hunting pales in comparison to theirs (In hunt/trophy quality).
MtnElk
Well-known member
well for one, how often do you see companies purposely live on less revenue. But... that said. Let's assume the following:
1. It becomes 80/20 across the board (lose $2,347,000)
2. Resident fees go up $50 (gain 4,704,000)
3. OTC Elk tags get cut 10% (lose 2,260,000)
Outcome: CPW is still comes out $97000 ahead
1. It becomes 80/20 across the board (lose $2,347,000)
2. Resident fees go up $50 (gain 4,704,000)
3. OTC Elk tags get cut 25% (lose 5,640,000)
Outcome: CPW is still only out $3.28M (and according to @TOGIE above the department is already running a huge surplus.
Imagine cutting OTC elk tags 25% and going straight 80/20 and only losing 3.28M... thats a huge quality gain and with minimal impact (1.67% of revenue lost). AND if they stopped doing easy refunds, that loss would go down!
and all that is back of the envelope math, with access to all their data, I bet the outcome is actually rosier for CPW. And let's be honest, $100 for an elk tag with less hunters in the wood and more quality is worth it as resident
RyGuy
Well-known member
I agree that no company wants to work with less money, for obvious reasons.
But to your other points:
That’s exactly what I’m alluding to. I would love to see this agency increase the quality of product that it is putting out, even if it means slightly less revenue.
MtnElk
Well-known member
Here's the thing, no business owner would even blink at a 1.67% loss in revenue if they knew their customers were getting a better product. If CPW wants to look at this like a business, then they need to realize product quality matters too.
What's more... let's say CPW says double the D,E,A,B fees across the board for residents. While doing that, they could easily add $25-50 to a NR tag and right there you have cut tags, come to a better R/NR matrix and NOT lost funding. If they made that choice, they could go to 85/15 and still be the state of opportunity
Edit: they could also just do all this without changing prices all that much too - especially since from a department standpoint they are profitable
What's more... let's say CPW says double the D,E,A,B fees across the board for residents. While doing that, they could easily add $25-50 to a NR tag and right there you have cut tags, come to a better R/NR matrix and NOT lost funding. If they made that choice, they could go to 85/15 and still be the state of opportunity
Edit: they could also just do all this without changing prices all that much too - especially since from a department standpoint they are profitable
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
and @TOGIE
but also... population of CO 5.6 MM population of WY 560,000, bit different scale am I right?
It's not in anyway shape or form apples to apples, but NY state department of Environment and Conservation has a 1.8 Billion budget.
Point being it's not just how many elk and how much habitat it's dollars to deal with folks.
RyGuy
Well-known member
That’s a great point. But we’re also talking about reducing the number of hunters in the woods per season. Ideally meaning there’s less strain on the resource and land. Less cost to maintain hopefully
Let's think about the anthropogenic impacts to wildlife that may be a magnitude greater in CO vs. WY.
Road kill mortality
Hiking trails
Mountain bike trails
Ski areas
Winter range development
ATV/offroad traffic
Snowmobiling
Camping
Pollution
Habitat fragmentation
Water demands
Wildfires (90% human-caused)
...
...
Hunters are a small slice of the wildlife impacts pie.
Road kill mortality
Hiking trails
Mountain bike trails
Ski areas
Winter range development
ATV/offroad traffic
Snowmobiling
Camping
Pollution
Habitat fragmentation
Water demands
Wildfires (90% human-caused)
...
...
Hunters are a small slice of the wildlife impacts pie.
Pelican
Well-known member
In FY 17-18 when the Future Generations Act was passed by the legislature, wildlife related revenue was 136 million. The justification for passing the act was that CPW predicted a 30 million dollar deficit by 2025 for the wildlife portion of CPW.
In FY 18-19 wildlife related revenue increased to 157 million. In FY 19-20 it increased to 189 million. In FY 20-21 it increased to 196 million. In four years, wildlife related revenue increased by 44% or 60 million dollars or 2x the predicted deficit by 2025 and yet CPW acts like resident hunters are greedy for wanting an 80:20 allocation or that limiting NR OTC is not financially feasible for the agency.
I think I just lost the last bit of respect that I had for CPW.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
I can't find it anywhere but I thought she said the results were online. Big game attitude survey. 3000 R/300o NR I believe what was said
edit.... here it is https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/C...anter-DNR.pdf#search=big game attitude survey
how bout that. right there on the 7th slide "most hunters would prefer to hunt deer and elk every 2-4 years."
i'm really struggling to believe that, there's gotta be something going on there.
send those chits to the back of the line while i hunt in the intervening years.
oh i see what's going on they're saying "if you want to hunt every year you have to have crowding and dinky animals"
so of course everyone then says not every year.
that is so dumb. residnets should want and be able to hunt every year without cpw saying "well if you want that we'll have to just crowd the woods and hammer all the mature animals into oblivion" there can be way more to that alternative than just that chitty outcome.
ugh. i'm serious guys, we need to hammer the legislators.
so of course everyone then says not every year.
that is so dumb. residnets should want and be able to hunt every year without cpw saying "well if you want that we'll have to just crowd the woods and hammer all the mature animals into oblivion" there can be way more to that alternative than just that chitty outcome.
ugh. i'm serious guys, we need to hammer the legislators.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,611
Who do you think got them out of that financial windfall?
Resident hunters??? Pllllleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaseeee......lololol
Negative Ghost rider. It was mostly NR dollars that brought them out of it. Maybe the CPW actually has a conscience and are afraid to punish the NR hunters because they KNOW who provided/provides the lions share of the funding.
Resident hunters should be SUPER happy that they can hunt elk for an entire season for $50, get the lions share of the tags, and leave it at that. If it wasn't for all of the NR hunters buying/applying constantly in your resident state your hunting licenses would cost you all $300 a year by now.
Another case of biting the hand that feeds you. And yes, IMHO, you are being greedy asking for an 80/20.
If you R's want 80/20, I want a decrease in NR license fees.........since you folks have so much of an increase in revenue that the CPW is having a hard time spending it all.....
Last edited:
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,611
Don't page Buzz. He is too busy scheming in Wyoming...
Prove me wrong.
State your argument on why Residents deserve more tags, after the first 20% go to landowners (Residents), then 17% go to youth, then residents get your cut, and then NR hunters (who are paying the majority of the bill) get the scraps. Then how will you ask the CPW for more R A-tags and Less NR A-tags?
While you are at it, go ahead and break that 68% of licenses and passes out into a new chart showing R/NR dollars so we can truly see where the money is coming from that funds your the MAJOPRITY of the CPW.
Your argument shouldn't be with NR hunters tag allocation. Your argument should be with the LPP tags and how your legislature TORPEDO'D resident hunters by passing into law that 20% of the licenses come right off the top to Landowners......and most of these tags are being sold to the highest bidder.....
LPP and Youth tags are what is eating most of your pie......
NR funding is what holds your ENTIRE system together.
Prove me wrong.
The entitlement from some of you guys that live in a state that is 43% public land while getting a $57.90 elk tag every single year baffles me. lol
Prove me wrong.
State your argument on why Residents deserve more tags, after the first 20% go to landowners (Residents), then 17% go to youth, then residents get your cut, and then NR hunters (who are paying the majority of the bill) get the scraps. Then how will you ask the CPW for more R A-tags and Less NR A-tags?
While you are at it, go ahead and break that 68% of licenses and passes out into a new chart showing R/NR dollars so we can truly see where the money is coming from that funds your the MAJOPRITY of the CPW.
Your argument shouldn't be with NR hunters tag allocation. Your argument should be with the LPP tags and how your legislature TORPEDO'D resident hunters by passing into law that 20% of the licenses come right off the top to Landowners......and most of these tags are being sold to the highest bidder.....
LPP and Youth tags are what is eating most of your pie......
NR funding is what holds your ENTIRE system together.
Prove me wrong.
The entitlement from some of you guys that live in a state that is 43% public land while getting a $57.90 elk tag every single year baffles me. lol
Last edited:
MtnElk
Well-known member
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 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. meanwhile the people that live here are watching the quality of the experience tank further with each year.
The post from Pelican you quoted was referring to the Future Generations Act. Here is the fiscal note from that bill, with projections of fiscal impacts to resident and nonresident hunters.
MtnElk
Well-known member
Look I don't think anyone can look at our system and not see that NR bring in a ton of revenue. But the question is whether thats smart or equitable for those that live here, pay taxes, pay stupid high insurance premiums bc of wildfires, buy state park passes, volunteer locally, etc. I wouldn't blink an eye if they doubled or tripled my elk and deer tags a resident - not because I am swimming in money, but because its crazy to me that my elk tag is only slightly more expensive than a fishing license in most states.
80/20 is the minimum action they are going to have to take. and they likely need to cut overall tags too. that affects everyone. Change hurts, and in my opinion they should piss everyone off one time rather than do it 2-3 times. So I would go straight to 85/15 while changing up the secondary draw as it relates to points, get rid of refunds for all but the most serious of issues, and figure out a way to keep some OTC ability but restrict it to those that don't have a tag already. And I am saying that knowing all of these changes affect me as a resident too.
Colorado is exploding and if we don't look forward to what IS coming, we are going to tank the quantity we have here and the opportunity we all enjoy - and that will eventually start to affect the quality in our quality units.
