CPW wants your rant.

[elkduds]

Yes, you have to register. Worth it just to read the comments.

Big Game License Distribution

Please see below for the current status on license distribution topics and updates. In response to the Commission’s request during the March Commission meeting, staff brought back final regulations for approval implementing staff’s recommendation of a 75/25 (Resident

engagecpw.org

 

[GrantK]

those comments are amazing! it looks like in the last 24 hours a little of the HT influence has made it in but wow, some of the old comments are solid gold...

 

[Oak]

Note that there is also a "survey" tab that is available until February 20.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Thanks for posting.

 

[TOGIE]

i want to hear more people's opinions on preference point banking. i.e. only use what's required to draw the tag.

have 12 points tag costs 6 so you lost 6 instead of 12.

i'm currently opposed. but would like to hear further thoughts on it. has anyone done any analysis of potential implications?

how would that even work mathematically? very algorithmically, how would it even work?

 

[Oak]

i want to hear more people's opinions on preference point banking. i.e. only use what's required to draw the tag.

have 12 points tag costs 6 so you lost 6 instead of 12.

i'm currently opposed. but would like to hear further thoughts on it. has anyone done any analysis of potential implications?

how would that even work mathematically? very algorithmically, how would it even work?

I'm strongly opposed, but I know I'm in the minority.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I'm strongly opposed, but I know I'm in the minority.

Strongly opposed as well.

Was pleasantly surprised with the directness of their last survey question and ranking preferences for options moving forward. Was happy to see that

 

[TOGIE]

I'm strongly opposed, but I know I'm in the minority.

i'm strongly opposed. on it's face, anything that keeps points in the system while hunting is bad IMO.

but i'm curious, and if it's even predictable, would it on a net basis remove points from the total system? my gut says it might. my gut says it might also cause some creep in the lower tier units where i retain the most interest in hunting frequently.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

i'm strongly opposed. on it's face, anything that keeps points in the system while hunting is bad IMO.

but i'm curious, and if it's even predictable, would it on a net basis remove points from the total system? my gut says it might. my gut says it might also cause some creep in the lower tier units where i retain the most interest in hunting frequently.

Your last sentence is where my greatest cause of concern comes from. For people that burn their points to hunt every year or hunt on zero point units, that could be a big change.

But I also wonder how things would change if point banking was implemented but with a 90/10 split... would point banking then only really screw over NR and leave residents pretty safe given the cushion in available tags

 

[Oak]

i'm strongly opposed. on it's face, anything that keeps points in the system while hunting is bad IMO.

but i'm curious, and if it's even predictable, would it on a net basis remove points from the total system? my gut says it might. my gut says it might also cause some creep in the lower tier units where i retain the most interest in hunting frequently.

I'm trying to remember how it worked in 2006. I believe that an applicant did not know how many points a hunt code would take when they applied, because it was determined by the point totals of the applicants. I think it was determined by the number points had by the last applicant to draw, plus 1. So if the highest point applicant had 12 points, but the applicant that drew the last license had 8, then it cost 8-9 points for everyone (9 if they had 9 or more).

 

[TOGIE]

I'm trying to remember how it worked in 2006. I believe that an applicant did not know how many points a hunt code would take when they applied, because it was determined by the point totals of the applicants. I think it was determined by the number points had by the last applicant to draw, plus 1. So if the highest point applicant had 12 points, but the applicant that drew the last license had 8, then it cost 8-9 points for everyone (9 if they had 9 or more).

and here i thought everybody was complaining about lack of predictability in the draw these days....

 

[Oak]

and here i thought everybody was complaining about lack of predictability in the draw these days....

View attachment 261146

I'm pretty foggy on the details, but I think that's close. And IIRC, one complaint after the first year is that some people lost more points than they were expecting to lose.

 

[Oak]

I just went back and read some old threads on another site, and I'm pretty certain I'm correct about how it worked in 2006.

The 2006 regs didn't explain the process (yes, I still have the 2006 regs ).

 

[Mallardsx2]

I am 100% opposed to point banking. That will make things so bad for everyone but the highest point holders. Talk about point creep.

 

[elkduds]

Survey deadline is Feb 20, 2023


Struggling w #4 on the survey.

Please rank the following alternatives for big game license allocation between residents and nonresidents in Colorado. A description of each alternative appears below.*

1. 
   
   Status Quo
2. 
   
   90/10 High Demand Allocation (retain 65/35 split for all other hunt codes)
3. 
   
   75/25 Across-the-Board Allocation

STATUS QUO: i.e. 65% residents and 35% nonresidents for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear hunt codes requiring 5 preference points or less based on a rolling 3-year average (approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission for 2023); 80% residents and 20% nonresidents for high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt codes...........................90/10 HIGH DEMAND ALLOCATION: Change the high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt code split to 90% residents and 10% nonresidents for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn; retain 65% resident and 35% nonresident split for all other hunt codes. This change would increase opportunity for residents for high-demand hunt codes (~400 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), which addresses a leading frustration for resident hunters. CPW would lose >$2.3 Million in revenue......................................75/25 ACROSS-THE-BOARD ALLOCATION: One single allocation split of 75% residents and 25% nonresident for all deer, elk, bear and pronghorn hunt codes This change would greatly increase resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 5 or fewer points (~3,000 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), but slightly decrease resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 6 or more preference points (~50 licenses shift from residents to nonresidents). CPW would lose >$1.4 Million in revenue.

 

[rogerthat]

Yeah anything that adds more points to a system is bad at this point. Need to be looking at proposals that take points out of a system such as requiring points for leftovers

 

[TOGIE]

Survey deadline is Feb 20, 2023


Struggling w #4 on the survey.

Please rank the following alternatives for big game license allocation between residents and nonresidents in Colorado. A description of each alternative appears below.*

1. 
   
   Status Quo
2. 
   
   90/10 High Demand Allocation (retain 65/35 split for all other hunt codes)
3. 
   
   75/25 Across-the-Board Allocation

STATUS QUO: i.e. 65% residents and 35% nonresidents for deer, elk, pronghorn and bear hunt codes requiring 5 preference points or less based on a rolling 3-year average (approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission for 2023); 80% residents and 20% nonresidents for high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt codes...........................90/10 HIGH DEMAND ALLOCATION: Change the high demand (requiring 6 or more preference points based on a rolling 3-year average) hunt code split to 90% residents and 10% nonresidents for deer, elk, bear and pronghorn; retain 65% resident and 35% nonresident split for all other hunt codes. This change would increase opportunity for residents for high-demand hunt codes (~400 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), which addresses a leading frustration for resident hunters. CPW would lose >$2.3 Million in revenue......................................75/25 ACROSS-THE-BOARD ALLOCATION: One single allocation split of 75% residents and 25% nonresident for all deer, elk, bear and pronghorn hunt codes This change would greatly increase resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 5 or fewer points (~3,000 licenses shift from nonresidents to residents), but slightly decrease resident opportunity for hunt codes that require 6 or more preference points (~50 licenses shift from residents to nonresidents). CPW would lose >$1.4 Million in revenue.

i decided that for me

#1 preference: 75/25
#2 preference: 90/10 high demand and retain 65/35 for everything else
#3 preference: status quo

couldn't care less about my chances to hunt most of the "quality" units. especially because 90/10 on those doesn't even help.

i want better chances to hunt every year for as long as possible. to me that means 75/25 is what i want.

 

[elkduds]

i decided that for me

#1 preference: 75/25
#2 preference: 90/10 high demand and retain 65/35 for everything else
#3 preference: status quo

couldn't care less about my chances to hunt most of the "quality" units. especially because 90/10 on those doesn't even help.

i want better chances to hunt every year for as long as possible. to me that means 75/25 is what i want.

Where is the 80-20 option, or the 90-10 everywhere option? Not fond of endorsing half-a-loaf options. @TOGIE, your logic is sound.

 

[TOGIE]

Where is the 80-20 option, or the 90-10 everywhere option? Not fond of endorsing half-a-loaf options. @TOGIE, your logic is sound.

yeah i wonder actually.

does it have to do with like, already identified preferred alternatives per the survey/focus group process? like the 3 most probable middle ground solutions that realistically were able to be put on the table?

i'm trying to remember from that november meeting what alternatives they said they would continue to investigate...

 

[Deleted member 52098]

i decided that for me

#1 preference: 75/25
#2 preference: 90/10 high demand and retain 65/35 for everything else
#3 preference: status quo

couldn't care less about my chances to hunt most of the "quality" units. especially because 90/10 on those doesn't even help.

i want better chances to hunt every year for as long as possible. to me that means 75/25 is what i want.

Same page. Wish 80/20 was on there though ha