SB21-150 Reserve Big Game Hunting Licenses For Residents

[Oak]

Introduced: SB21-150 Reserve Big Game Hunting Licenses For Residents

I don't know the origin of this, but it's poorly written and ill-conceived. On the right track, though.

 

[oswald2581]

Currently Nonresidents are limited to up to 35% of the total number of tags per hunt code for deer and elk, unless that hunt code has taken six or more preference points to draw. So 1/3 will drop that from 35% down to 33.33%. Not sure there is really any benefit there.

If a hunt code has taken more than six preference points to draw, then the non resident allocation will be limited to 20% of the total number of tags. Does this bill increase that from 20% up to 33.33%? It only states Big Game and is not species specific.

For other species, Nonresidents are limited to 10% of the total number of sheep, moose and goat tags and there is no nonresident limit on antelope.

All in all, as vague and poorly written as this is, it seems as though it would help non-residents take a bigger chunk of the pie.

 

[Oak]

My first reaction when reading this bill was that it is preemptively trying to keep NR from being cut more drastically.

 

[oswald2581]

My first reaction when reading this bill was that it is preemptively trying to keep NR from being cut more drastically.

Agreed, that was my first thought reading the bill and understanding current allocations, it would allocate more to NR.

 

[Oak]

The fact that this bill dropped with the large majority of the sportsmen’s community in Colorado not knowing about it suggests an impure conception.

 

[rwc101]

Waiting for Colorado to divert some flak.

 

[oswald2581]

The fact that this bill dropped with the large majority of the sportsmen’s community in Colorado not knowing about it suggests an impure conception.

Others states may have more complicated draws considering Random, Preference Points and Special Draws, but most are very transparent on their tag allocations and what % goes into what.

I feel Colorado with all of the OTC and straight PP system, they don't not really spell it out very well and not as easy to find. I would agree with you and I imagine most residents don't even know the allocations.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Others states may have more complicated draws considering Random, Preference Points and Special Draws, but most are very transparent on their tag allocations and what % goes into what.

I feel Colorado with all of the OTC and straight PP system, they don't not really spell it out very well and not as easy to find. I would agree with you and I imagine most residents don't even know the allocations.

CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data

As many of you know Colorado is reviewing it's 5 Year Big Game Season Structure. The CPAW commissioners have decided to not discuss allocation as part of this process, but I know it is an important discussion for many Colorado resident and nonresident elk hunters. Under current Colorado rules in...

www.hunttalk.com

It’s really hard to get the true allocation, I filed a CORA request a while back and put these together. It’s not perfect but I think it’s pretty darn close.

 

[Oak]

This is a pretty good document on current allocation in Colorado, which was presented to the Commission in November: CO Resident/Non-resident Allocation
It also compares CO to the other western states.

As most know, R/NR deer and elk license allocation for limited licenses in CO is either 80/20 or 65/35, determined by which hunt codes took 6 or more resident points to draw using a 3-year average from 2007-2009.

Based on that criteria, in 2020 12 of 965 deer hunt codes had the 80/20 quota, or 265 of 74,484 limited quota deer licenses (0.35%).

In 2020, 24 of 1,018 elk hunt codes had the 80/20 quota, or 602 of 110,537 limited quota elk licenses (0.54%).

If CPW used the same criteria but used data from 2018-2020, the updated list would look like this:

Deer: 41 of 965 deer hunt codes, or 736 of 74,484 limited quota licenses (0.99%).
Elk: 37 of 1,018 elk hunt codes, or 1,467 of 110,537 limited quota licenses (1.33%).
The fiscal impact of updating to 2018-2020 data is about $45,000 if none of those displaced NR purchase leftover or OTC licenses.

I can't believe it is such a heavy lift to get CPW to consider this modest update to allocation, much less something that approaches what other western states offer.

 

[Oak]

I would also point out that CPW's reluctance to address allocation is the reason we got a poorly conceived bill like this. CPW currently has the authority to set allocation. The legislature will step in if CPW doesn't use its authority.

 

[oswald2581]

I would also point out that CPW's reluctance to address allocation is the reason we got a poorly conceived bill like this. CPW currently has the authority to set allocation. The legislature will step in if CPW doesn't use its authority.

In todays ballot box legislative world, we could likely see legislature step in even if CPW does use its authority.

 

[Oak]

I just saw some proposed amendments to this bill that would do the following:

1. Change the proposed R/NR allocation from the originally proposed 33% to "not more than one-quarter of the total elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses awarded in the first limited license draw."
2. Issues all licenses for a successful group application from the resident license allocation if at least two-thirds of the applicants in the group are residents.
3. For all elk, deer, and pronghorn licenses issued without a limited draw (think OTC elk or archery pronghorn), "the Division shall not sell more than one-quarter of the type of elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses to nonresidents than the average number of the type of elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses that were issued over the last three years." This essentially creates an OTC with caps on NR.
4. "When a group applies for a draw, the Division shall use the average number of preference points for the group as the preference points for the group in the limited draw. The average number of preference points for a group may be rounded to the nearest whole point."

These are huge proposed amendments that might be considered during the next committee hearing, so keep your eyes open. Lots of implications for both R and NR.

 

[TOGIE]

I just saw some proposed amendments to this bill that would do the following:

1. Change the proposed R/NR allocation from the originally proposed 33% to "not more than one-quarter of the total elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses awarded in the first limited license draw."
2. Issues all licenses for a successful group application from the resident license allocation if at least two-thirds of the applicants in the group are residents.
3. For all elk, deer, and pronghorn licenses issued without a limited draw (think OTC elk or archery pronghorn), "the Division shall not sell more than one-quarter of the type of elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses to nonresidents than the average number of the type of elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses that were issued over the last three years." This essentially creates an OTC with caps on NR.
4. "When a group applies for a draw, the Division shall use the average number of preference points for the group as the preference points for the group in the limited draw. The average number of preference points for a group may be rounded to the nearest whole point."

These are huge proposed amendments that might be considered during the next committee hearing, so keep your eyes open. Lots of implications for both R and NR.

i was gonna say, those aren't just any ol amendments

i feel like amendments generally tone down the intensity of bills, not ramp them up

at first glance i don't mind them. but i don't like averaging points.

also my gut tells me this bill doesn't have a great chance

 

[Oak]

also my gut tells me this bill doesn't have a great chance

This may just be a shot across CPW's bow, so to speak.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is a pretty good document on current allocation in Colorado, which was presented to the Commission in November: CO Resident/Non-resident Allocation
It also compares CO to the other western states.

As most know, R/NR deer and elk license allocation for limited licenses in CO is either 80/20 or 65/35, determined by which hunt codes took 6 or more resident points to draw using a 3-year average from 2007-2009.

Based on that criteria, in 2020 12 of 965 deer hunt codes had the 80/20 quota, or 265 of 74,484 limited quota deer licenses (0.35%).

In 2020, 24 of 1,018 elk hunt codes had the 80/20 quota, or 602 of 110,537 limited quota elk licenses (0.54%).

If CPW used the same criteria but used data from 2018-2020, the updated list would look like this:

Deer: 41 of 965 deer hunt codes, or 736 of 74,484 limited quota licenses (0.99%).
Elk: 37 of 1,018 elk hunt codes, or 1,467 of 110,537 limited quota licenses (1.33%).
The fiscal impact of updating to 2018-2020 data is about $45,000 if none of those displaced NR purchase leftover or OTC licenses.

I can't believe it is such a heavy lift to get CPW to consider this modest update to allocation, much less something that approaches what other western states offer.

That's for this break down, it's definitely kind of ridiculous that the allocation is based on a float, ie which ever units were 6 or more points the year or group of years before would then automatically be subject to the quota.

I kinda, kinda, understood the arguments against, but I don't think they really acknowledge the issues with point creep.

Personally, I think a 3 year rolling average or just changing it all to 80/20 would be a way better way to deal with this issue.

 

[TOGIE]

since i always preach it, i'd be remiss in my approach to these conversations if i didn't bring up the fact that if we truly care about crowding, herd health, and hunt quality we can't just focus on NR otc caps.

we need R otc caps too

 

[marksjeep]

The way that the amendment is written would do away with the "soft cap", correct?

 

[Oak]

The way that the amendment is written would do away with the "soft cap", correct?

My interpretation of the way it is written is that NR could not draw more than 25% in the regular draw even if a hunt code is undersubscribed by residents. What I'm not certain about is the intended meaning of the phrase "first limited license draw." My interpretation is that it includes all four choices of the first draw, because it goes on to say "This subsection does not apply to elk, deer, or pronghorn licenses left over after the first limited license draw."

 

[Buffs35]

Gotta leave some for the wolves, I suppose.

 

[marksjeep]

Thanks for keeping this up to date.