Draw Process Working Group

CPW CANNOT continue to keep hunters “blindfolded” going into the early April primary drawing deadline by not having available any knowledge/information for how many licenses will be available for the hunt code(s) they will be submitting for….. I do understand and appreciate the value that comes from the Wildlife Biologists Spring Surveys and data that must be gathered before they can propose license numbers, which then becomes available in conjunction with the May Commission Meeting approval of the proposed license numbers. If I may suggest, possibly there could be a comprehensive in-depth look/study of the ENTIRE “food-chain” (including dates for the primary drawing deadline, commission meeting license quotas approval process/date, etc, etc, etc.) that leads up to license quotas being proposed and approved. Looking for any and all possible ways that “a little here and a little there” could be improved upon that could provide for having license quotas being approved and set AT LEAST ONE WEEK before the primary drawing deadline. That one week could be all that is needed to allow hunters the option of submitting into the primary drawing with very much needed knowledge to make an informed decision about which hunt code(s) to use. OR, or, if having already submitted into the primary drawing, the option for being able to CHANGE any hunt codes they had already submitted to select some other hunt code(s) that would make better sense based on now seeing and considering how many licenses will be available for the hunt codes. Obviously, the (rightfully) enormous reductions in 2023 licenses in the Severe Winter Zone makes this subject a matter of utmost and common-sense need to purse with the utmost of importance and without any further delay. Hunters NEED AND DESERVE KNOWLEDGE that comes from having license quotas information available prior to the primary drawing deadline (even if only a week prior to the primary drawing deadline). The current Severe Winter Zone situation isn’t the first time a severe winter “zone” has significantly affected license quotas (being 75 years old, I could name some severe winter cases from the past). AND, it won’t be the last time CPW and hunters encounter another “severe winter zone” OR something else that significantly affects license quotas. Isn’t it about time to take the “blindfold” off hunters going into the primary drawing????

Steps to improve the Draw process and allocation of tags in Colorado.

1) We should be 90/10 resident/nonresident like all the other western states.

2) Put a hard cap on nonresident OTC tag sales and require them to pick a GMU. Leave OTC in place for resident hunters and give resident hunters the freedom to hunt any OTC unit (i.e. status quo for residents).

3) Create an outfitter quota pool like Idaho and Montana to protect our outfitters and rural communities.

4) Raise the price of an elk or deer tag for a nonresident to at least $1,500.

5) All reissue tags should be available to RESIDENTS FIRST for a 24 hour period.

To put things in perspective on just getting an elk tag in nearby states:

Montana. I can buy general tags about every two years. All nonresidents must draw a general tag in Montana and the number of tags is capped. If I want to guarantee myself a tag every year I can hire an outfitter since they have guaranteed tags. Crowding not nearly as bad as Colorado, far better hunting.

Wyoming. I can draw a general tag in Wyoming about every four years and I can increase my draw odds by paying about $1,268 for the tag vs the standard $692. Crowding not nearly as bad as Colorado, far better hunting.

Idaho. I can potentially buy a general tag every year but these tags sell out within minutes on December 1st so getting a tag won’t always happen. As an alternative, I can sign up with an outfitter and get a tag.

New Mexico. Unlikely I will ever get a tag in this state because the odds are so low for nonresidents in any of the quality units. Nonresidents however have decent odds for quite a few quality units.

I have to wait my turn like everyone else to go hunt in the surrounding states but when I get a general tag in WY, ID, MT, I have a much better hunt than in Colorado.

In Colorado units 43 and unit 78 more than 50% of the limited muzzleloader tags are drawn by nonresident hunters. How is that possible? How truly unfair to residents? No other state treats their resident hunters as poorly as Colorado! I have hunted Utah’s south slope unit for muzzleloader deer. Only 10% of the tags are allocated to nonresidents and I felt fortunate to draw the tag when I did. Why is Colorado so generous to nonresident hunters? Anyone who says nonresident hunters pay the bills is correct, they do. But we can certainly raise the prices they pay and cut the quantity of tags sold to make up for the revenue loss. Just look at the Dec 1st tag sale in Idaho. Demand far exceeded supply.

I just wish Colorado would do something for the resident hunters to improve the hunting in our state. I am not the only resident hunter leaving Colorado and spending thousands of dollars to hunt other states. The primary reason I hunt other states is because our general units, archery in particular, are being over-run by nonresidents.

I would be fine with CPW raising resident tag costs too. I am more than willing to pay an increased tag cost if the result is fewer nonresident hunters. Limiting nonresident hunters will result in a better hunt for resident and nonresident hunters alike.

2 Thoughts:
1. Reissue tags should maintain their resident/nonresident quota status. A returned resident tag should be reissued to a resident. Same for nonresident tags.
2. Desert bighorn tags should have more “buy-in” when applying. Similar to the preference point fee. The cheap application fees have skyrocketed the number of applications. A higher application fee would reduce the “apply the whole family for a sheep tag” mentality.

Make the 80/20, 75/25 NR rule apply to second, third and fourth choices on applications. Also, apply it to secondary draw, leftover and reissue licenses.

Tags in the new archery draw units (formerly OTC) are mostly going to non-residents.

Please keep OTC licenses available to residents of Colorado and require non residents to apply online.

A REASONABLE WAY TO EASILY MITIGATE PREFERENCE POINT CREEP WITHOUT ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
=====================================================
BACKGROUND:
During the March 15th 2023 CPW Commission meeting, after the CPW Staff briefed the Commission on their position not to pursue any of the Preference Point Creep proposals and instead should be “status quo”. The CPW Commission Chairwoman Hauser and Commissioners Adams and Hasket responded with comments: We should hear from staff “what is possible” not what isn’t possible. We need to see what the alternatives might be that are possible. What we have now isn’t working. Need to hear what the alternate recommendations are for preference points to have the commission consider. If not Banking then we need alternatives to the State Quo.

In response to this and not having to “kick the can down the road any further”, if you will PLEASE take a few minutes to review the following idea, I KNOW YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL a quick, simple, easy, inexpensive and beneficial idea that would help to mitigate the continuing significant preference point creep problem for Elk, Deer and Pronghorn. AND, can certainly be implemented, as was also an objective the commission asked for, in time for upcoming hunting seasons.

It could be very advantageous for the Draw Process Working Group, CPW Commission and Staff to give serious consideration to the following preference point creep mitigation idea I am about to mention. This idea was mentioned during the April 2022 South East Region Preference Point Focus group meeting I was a member of. But, has not been seen in any of the Preference Point background papers or briefings CPW Staff has so far provided/briefed to the Commission. This idea was also mentioned in an Email I sent to Commission members via the Contact the Commission Email address on May 28, 2022. This idea was also mentioned by other public commenters during Commission meetings when preference point briefings were given. For example, this idea was also mentioned by a reputable public commenter during the July 21st 2022 Commission meeting. Commissioner Tutchton also briefly mentioned this idea during the recent January 18th 2023 Commission meeting. PLEASE let me provide some additional very helpful background about this idea for hopefully more serious consideration by the Draw Process Working Group, Commission and CPW Staff.

The idea here is based on doing the same thing for Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference points which CPW implemented starting with the 2019 Big Game drawings for Moose, Sheep and Goat. That is, rather than a preference point costing the hunter essentially nothing and only a very small cost related to submitting an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn drawing application, the hunter would be charged an additional fee when a preference point is awarded for an Elk, Deer or Pronghorn preference point, like what is already being done for a Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point. Since 2019, hunters applying in the primary drawing for a Moose, Sheep and Goat license pay an additional $50 fee when selecting to be awarded a preference point and not having drawn a license on their first choice. Or, the hunter applies for a Moose, Sheep or Goat license using a specific preference point hunt code as their first choice that results in automatically getting a preference point and pays the $50 preference point fee. With a $50 preference point fee for a Moose, Sheep and Goat, this makes hunters “think twice” about whether they would really like to receive a preference point or not. As you might guess, the benefit of this idea is that when hunters decide to NOT receive a preference point (because of a preference point fee) there is the benefit of reducing preference point creep…. I might mention in my case, when the preference point fee started in 2019 for Moose, Sheep and Goat, within the five Elk hunters I hunt with I was the only one who decided to continue submitting a Moose license drawing application and also selecting on the drawing application to receive a Moose preference point if unsuccessful in drawing a first choice license. Every year since then I have been unsuccessful in drawing a Moose license and I’ve been paying $50 each year for a Moose preference point. Like the others I Elk hunt with, I’m certain many other hunters also decided to no longer pursue a Moose, Sheep or Goat preference point, which was then helpful in reducing Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point creep.

I might also mention, with hunters applying in the drawing for a license in the environment of increasing Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point creep and thus not drawing, it puts an increasing number of hunters into a position where they then hunt one of the OTC license purchase seasons. As such, the concerns being expressed about OTC license seasons then becomes one of having increasing numbers of preference point creep chasing hunters having to hunt an OTC season. This is resulting in increasing concerns being expressed about OTC licenses and seasons which are experiencing lowest success rates, overcrowding etc.

CPW Staff and the Commission often looks at what other states are doing when considering a change. There are other states which have a preference point fee. For example, Wyoming charges $52 for an Elk preference point. There are also OTHER BENEFITS related to this idea that I should make mention of next.

Ideas, other than this one, were mentioned in the May 20th 2022 and July 7th 2022 CPW Staff papers and subsequent preference point briefing provided to the Commission during the June and July 2022 Commission meetings (This idea NOT being one which those papers or briefings mentioned). In those papers and briefings, for the other ideas presented to the Commission was the following:
- Ideas had unintended consequences (which complicates or has negative effects elsewhere for hunters).
- A suite of changes may need to be implemented in tandem (i.e. No one idea may have the overall remedy needed).
- A change might need to be implemented to offset the unintended impact on certain groups of hunters.
- There is no single change that will address all concerns.
- Importance of predictability and fairness when considering using or gaining preference points.
The Commission also expressed great concern for the implementation cost, length of time that could be needed to implement an idea, and/or revenue loss that ideas presented would encounter.

For this idea about a fee for an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point there are many advantages that other ideas do not have:
- As already mentioned, the CPW systems already have in place a fee based preference point for Moose, Sheep and Goat. This could be simply, quickly, easily and inexpensively expanded upon to include an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point fee. For an Elk Deer and Pronghorn preference point fee, there is nothing “new” needing to be invented here and integrated “from scratch” into the systems and thus a quick, simple, easy, and inexpensive means to start mitigating preference point creep.
- CPW would see a REVENUE GAIN and not a revenue loss from this idea (Thus, implementing this idea “would pay for itself”)…. BUT, most importantly would be the primary objective benefit of reducing preference point creep for Elk Deer and Pronghorn.
- This idea would also help offset the revenue loss, as Staff briefed the commission on, from moving to a smaller ratio license allocation to nonresident hunters.

I might also mention the following:
- As is already in place, a preference point for Moose, Sheep and Goat costs a non-resident hunter much more than what it costs a resident for a Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point. As you know, there continues to be a great deal of growing concern in several areas related to non-resident hunters. Alas, just like what is already in place for a non-resident Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point, an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point should cost a non-resident a great deal more than what a preference point costs a resident. The already mentioned obvious benefits will be reduced preference point creep and greater increased revenue from non-resident hunters. In this case, there is one other important benefit. During an earlier sportsman’s caucus meeting, staff briefed that a majority of non-resident hunters who apply as a first choice for a preference point do NOT provide any other drawing choices that they could then draw a license from. Thus, they are just looking to (currently inexpensively) accumulate preference points, which adds to the preference point creep problem, and do not hunt here in Colorado that year/season. Whereas, a majority of resident hunters who apply for a preference point as the first choice also apply for a 2nd, or 3rd, etc. choice that they then draw a license from and do actually hunt using that 2nd, etc. choice license (Which coincidentally is what I do and likely so many others looking to increase a number of preference points but also able to hunt on a 2nd, etc. choice drawn license). The point here is that if the non-resident hunter preference point fee is much larger, than what a resident hunter preference point fee would be, for an Elk, Deer or Pronghorn preference point, fewer non-residents will apply in the drawing for a preference point and thus less point creep.
- I might also speak to what is mentioned in the earlier Commission preference point briefing papers as the following: A suite of changes may need to be implemented in tandem. One idea previously proposed is what is called Preference Point “Banking” that was in place only for the 2007 season. I used Preference Point Banking in 2007 and I believe that Banking is a good idea, BUT further details and differences/improvements from what was in place for the 2007 season needs to be worked-out. But, something like the idea of a preference point fee being proposed here for Elk, Deer and Pronghorn could also be very useful for many of the benefits already noted and also provide a needed quick, simple, easy, and inexpensive additional preference point creep “tandem” improvement that staff mentioned may be needed. The combination something like “Banking” and a preference point fee will certainly be needed to have an overall effective reduction/mitigation in Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point creep, along with having the added benefit of increased revenue from an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point fee.
- I also believe there needs to be a “tiered” scale for what a preference point fee (cost) would be. Obviously, a Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point is thought of as a much more “valuable” preference point than what one would think of as a Pronghorn preference point. A preference point fee should NOT be the same for all species but be a “tiered” scale with a preference point fee for each specie being different. Especially a difference between what the fee is for a Moose, Sheep and Goat preference point and what might be a fee for an Elk, Deer and Pronghorn preference point.

IN CLOSING:
As a side note, from meetings in recent years where preference points and point creep has been one of many topics of discussion, there is always plenty of preference point creep stories from meeting members. Just briefly in closing, and from my experience. In 2010 I drew a Bull Elk license after many years of trying to catch up with the preference point creep to where it finally took me 16 points to draw the license. My oldest son was just a few points behind me so we figured it wouldn’t be too long before he would also draw. Every year since then, with the ongoing and increasing point creep, he will still be points below what is needed to draw and those who drew in 2023 needed 24 points to draw. And, given the reality of preference point creep it will certainly take more than 24 points to draw this next year. Personally, at my age and if preference point creep continues as it has been, I will be “long dead and gone” before ever drawing another license there. Then even more importantly, consider someone younger aged who might be looking to draw on a hunt code that might currently be needing 10, 15, 20 or more points and just starting to accumulate preference points and what that outlook might be for that younger individual and knowing that those numbers will just continue to escalate with preference point creep. Preference point creep is also quite a “limiting factor” to younger hunters who may be looking at the preference point creep problem and the continually increasing years it might take them to draw a license.

THANKS so very kindly for your time to consider and hopefully look further into what I believe is a quick, simple, easy, inexpensive and beneficial idea that would help to mitigate the continuing significant preference point creep problem for Elk, Deer and Pronghorn by implementing a preference point fee similar to what is already in place for Moose, Sheep and Goat.

Too many rifle hunters in OTC & easy draw units. Cap rifle hunters and help increase elk numbers

jbruno41

Actually, a buck tag does "entitle" you to shoot whatever sized buck you want.

You don't get to decide what someone shoots. lol

For the record, I don't shoot baby deer in Colorado, I just wanted to point out what should be obvious to reply to your RIDICULOUS statement that was clearly geared towards non-residents.

The NR hatred on this page baffles me. We (NR's) pay the majority of the CPW bill. lol

As a resident, I love to hunt elk every year. I have been thinking about if there were special resident permit that work like the moose and goat tags. Archery/muzzle and sequential rifle season during the appropriate season.Hunt until you get one. Obviously there couldn't be a ton of these tags, but would be super fun for someone like me who has never tried archery- because I still have the other seasons as back up.

Non resident need to have a cap. Why do you all keep taking units out of otc every year and otc units keep growing for rifle?

Many states treat its residents better than Colorado. South Dakota gives residents hunters a week to hunt before out of state, Nebraska gives residents first chance at tags.

Why are deer tags still draw??? We have so many deer here.

Non residents need a cap on OTC tags.

As a hunter who was a resident for 8 years that just moved away, residents need to be made a higher priority. Colorado is the most generous state to non residents. Every other state caps the licenses at 10% except Colorado and Wyoming. Limit the non residents to 10% of limited entry hunts, and cap the otc tags allotted to non residents. Hunting experiences will go up drastically when hunters in the field are reduced.

The draw system does not need to be simplified for simplicity's sake. The complexity that exists was, in some cases, put there for a reason. For example, the hybrid draw, in some people's view may be more "complex". But it should be expanded because it is a very sensible way to distribute tags. It allows preference points to introduce more predictability into the low point draws. But strict preference point systems "fail" for the extremely high demand/low supply hunt codes due to infinite point creep. Hybrid draws allow some random component for these high demand hunt codes, which gives everyone at least a chance at someday hunting Colorado's best units. The only problem with the current hybrid draw is that too many of the tags are going into the preference point pass. More of those tags need to go into the bonus point pool. Expand the hybrid draw. Simplicity is not always better.

I moved from Arkansas to Colorado 7 years ago. I return to Arkansas to duck hunt for 4 weeks every year. Colorado is known for it's big game hunting and Arkansas is known for it's waterfowl hunting. Immediately following my move to Colorado...Arkansas implemented an aggressive cap on the number of days that non-residents could hunt due to insane pressure and competition. I think the limitation makes sense, respects my resident friends, and I still go back to hunt because the quality of the hunt has been preserved. Why can't we do the same for our coveted hunting access??

I've taken many non residents hunting on OTC units and them + myself all agree that there is a crazy amount of pressure and we would all be willing to draw and hunt every couple of years with a quality experience rather than hunting every year with sub par experience. In fact, we've all switched to building points in other states with the goal of only hunting Colorado every 3-4 years. The other states are harder to draw but higher quality experience and we are fine with that trade off. As a resident of Colorado, people are mindblown that I can find a better experience out of state...until they come out for a hunt and experience it for themselves. This is coming from a person who has a 50% success rate for archery elk and 80% success rate for rifle deer in Colorado. Success is not the problem...it's the experience. One of my best mule deer harvests was in a unit with so many hunters it felt like a mad max movie, and even though I was successful, I vowed I'll never hunt that unit again. I live in a unit that takes 23 years to draw, elk and deer right out my back door, yet I will likely only get to hunt it twice in my hunting lifetime...that's an absolute shame and doesn't feel right.

Remove all OTC tags
Match other western states in non resident tag allocation %

The Colorado Resident Hunter Association group on Facebook has a change.org petition to save OTC elk licenses for residents only, we are at 4300 signatures. No State Treats it Resident Hunters Worse than Colorado, the fact that nonresidents are in this working group is just another example of CPW breaching Public Trust. Resident OTC elk hunters are down by 8000 since 2014, while nonresidents are up pet 10,000 since 2014. Please sign the petition and share it. https://www.change.org/OTC-for-Residents-only

I feel like the allocation of tags based on residency should apply to at least the second choice of applications. The current system works very well to those that understand how it works. That being said, not many know how it works. Resident hunters should have more opportunity to hunt than non residents do. Using the historical draw odds, it is easy to achieve two elk tags and gain a point in the same year. This does not even use the secondary draw or reissue list. Those only make it easier to have hunting opportunities in a year. If you apply for a premium unit as a first choice, continue to apply for it until you draw in the hybrid or draw outright. This allows you the opportunity at a premium hunt when you get 5 or more points. Until then, apply for low point areas that you will be unlikely to draw. That way, you may get a pleasant surprise. You're second, third, and fourth choices should be tags that usually draw late in the choices or go leftover. Usually these are list b cow tags. Now you should reliably have a cow tag every year amd maybe even get that premium bull tag. If you only have the cow tag, purchase an over the counter bull tag. This will provide the applicant with the best odds of gaining a point, hunting two elk tags in a year, and still having the opportunity to get a high demand quality hunt. If the draw preference moved to the second, this would allow resident hunters the opportunity to hunt more often and with better tags. Unfortunately, I don't think the department does an adequate job of notifying their customers on the methods of the draw process. Going to a random draw or a variation of such will not allow hunters to reliably predict the odds of drawing a tag of any species. Doing a random draw will put us in the same problems of the "big three", hunters who never or rarely get a tag and being passed over to the applicant early in their tag application career.

Your current system is NOT working!! 1st of all, *youth* should NOT draw EVERY year, sure, its nice to get them involved but what about us old timers that has only drawn once in the last 7 years.? And then, the open areas are Overcrowded because of the lack of people drawing a tag in a certain GMU. You can't shut off the Xtra money coming in because of greed. we like to hunt also, Its ridiculas! If there is 150 tags in an area, then surely your computer experts can figure out how to limit OTC tags for that same area???? with limited *open* areas, there is MORE hunters than available game in that unit, but its too late, you already have our license money, you care less.. one of the guys i work with has drawn a tag EVERY year for the last 5 years because his *youth* kid gets to draw EVERY year.. NOW, whats fair about that???? They drew last year, put them on the bottom of this years draw, I'm 72 yrs old and have drawn one time in the last 7 years.. 4 pp's the 1st go round and i currently have 2 pp's, Real Fair system!!! get your college grads to figure this out!!! Disgusted!!

The PP system needs to be fixed. If a unit takes 7 points and I have 12, simply deduct the 7 points and leave me with my 5 left over. This will help us with point creep in the nicer units.

Every other big game state gives much more preference to in state hunters. We desperately need to start doing this. Every hunter in the country comes to Colorado when they can't pull a tag in NM, Montana, etc, etc.

We should change all units to PP units since the few OTC units left are getting tackled with too many hunters now. Leave plenty of units at 1 or 0 points so that everyone can still hunt every year.

Thank you!

OTC licenses for non-residents should be eliminated; with possible exceptions for private land. This is nothing new and has been standard for every single western state except Colorado. Hunting in Colorado is excessively overcrowded and the game is being dispersed to private land. The percentage of non-resident tags needs to be dropped to 15% or below. It is becoming more and more frustrating to not draw a tag and yet see every license plate in the union at every trail head. The wildlife are under the trust of the residents of the State and therefore should be prioritized that way. With nearly every GMU experiencing significant population decreases, this is a must.