Big Game Season Structure

A6/R6

and

PLEASE TAKE PEOPLES PREFRENCE POINTS FOR ANY A-LIST TAG NO MATTER WHEN IT IS DRAWN! CPW NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THE POINT CREEP AND GET PEOPLE USING THEIR POINTS TO GET THEM THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

My vote is for A3 and R1. It is my understanding that most of the non-resident over crowding, as recorded by the cpw, is during archery season. In talking with game wardens in my area rifle crowding has diminished and it seems that there is immense value both for funding for the CPW but to provide folks an opportunity to hunt consistently to provide OTC rifle tags. The ripple effect of having some OTC tags available should not be underestimated with many rural towns being kept afloat by non-resident hunters. There have been many anecdotal stories of ranchers staying in place because of non-resident hunters rather than selling to out of state billionaires and/or developers.

A5,R5 is the way to go. Too many hunters using Colorado as a last resort and no way to manage the hunters. This creates overcrowding and unpredictable conditions year to year. This gives cpw a means to manage these problems.

Resident hunter and did not get a survey. A3 and R3 are my choices.

I strongly agree with the idea of a 90/10 limited draw structure for every big game season and every method of take. OTC units have become absurdly overcrowded and the practice of unlimited OTC areas should be discontinued. Thank you.

A5 & R5!!!!!!!!!

As a lifetime resident I have seen ups and downs in the quality of hunting Colorado. BUT nothing like the last several years!! the over crowding on public lands is overwhelming to the point its not worth the fight. If and when there is a legitimate chance at an elk it's been a true fight over who shot it. The 90/10 split should be implemented and get rid of all OTC tags. As for the private property owners they will still have their clientele. I f any kind of preference is given private owners then they should not be allowed to hunt on public property.

As a nonresident hunter, I too have felt overcrowded, and I prefer limited, draw-only hunts now, even if it means only hunting every 3 years. Colorado is different than other western states because those states don't have the big game populations or access to public land to support more non-resident hunters. I have hunted in those other states, and the experience in Colorado is much better. If managed correctly, Colorado can provide the great hunting experience that residents and non-residents want. Unfortunately, it's time to end OTC hunts. Big game populations have declined because of drought, overgrazing, and disease, not over-hunting. Limiting only non-residents won't resolve those issues. I do agree that residents should have preference when it comes to hunting, and I agree that a 75/25 split would be a fair balance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment!

As a resident Elk hunter on public land in CO it is a test in patience and frustration.
I
Think A/R 5 is the route to go. There should be some type of resident benefit through RFW and other means to get a cow elk for meat in the freezer without all the competition. I saw 500 elk this fall but could not attempt a shot on a single one. Pressure and private land are two things elk understand immensely.

A5 is the answer for archery make the nonresidents draw and same with rifle R5 make them have to draw and if they forget to put in they can’t just come hunt here when they don’t draw other states we get all the hunters that don’t draw their other states it’s getting old! In my spot I maybe see a couple Colorado track a year other then that it’s all out of state people that buy their tags last minute because other plans didn’t work! Time to be about the residents for once!

I support option 5 for archery and rifle seasons, Limit all nonresident licenses - limited licenses available through the draws only with hunt codes by management area; keep OTC for residents, ie status quo for residents.

As residents and stewards of the lands in Colorado I believe it would only be fair to residents to also have a 90/10, resident/nonresident, allocation for all limited tags like all the other western states.
Thank you.

~Titus

Over the last several years the number of units under the otc archery approach has declined. My understanding is that this is to better manage the herds. I expect this trend to continue and I support best approaches / tools for CPW to manage this precious resource. With that said, any otc approach is strategically at odds with best herd management and hunter crowding. Clearly the stewardship needs to focus on benefiting residents, however that goes beyond license counts and needs to capture all benefits including the funding of management, economic contributions to businesses/communities, etc. The new 75/25 split will probably help in balancing resident access while minimizing the need for raising resident license fees. I view all licenses distributed via a draw structure will best serve cpw management, the residents of Colorado, and provide the best approach to hunter crowding. Thanks for the opportunity to comment! Best of success to you!!

OTC Archery Elk Alternative:

Option A4. Limit all nonresident licenses and add a nonresident statewide hunt code that is available through the draws; status quo for residents:
OTC Rifle Elk Alternative:
Option R4. Limit all nonresident licenses and add a nonresident statewide hunt code that is available through the draws; status quo for residents:

If you are going to limit OTC, then you should increase Landowner allocations. Landowners pay taxes on the land and still is not guarantee to draw tags, often have to rely on OTC options in current scenario.

I think the vast majority of people agree that something needs to change because of overcrowding. The only options that should be OFF the table are A/R 1 and A/R 6. Option 1 is status quo which is being ruled out by most people. 6 greatly disenfranchises the resident bc we aren’t guaranteed to hunt every year which is why I live here. Non resident tags and revenue are substantial but they aren’t as substantial as the taxes residents pay day in and day out to live in this state. That has to mean something and in order to manage the elk population for the benefit of the residents (which is how every other western state manages it), we should be able to hunt every year. The ONLY option that guarantees that is OTC for residents. The best choice is A/R 5 because it gives the state the most management of where to allocate tags every year for NRs. It solves overcrowding which is issue #1 for almost every hunter I’ve talked to, both resident and non resident. CPW should be going to the state legislature to change the cost of tags and petitioning to update that as every resident I’ve spoken to would be more than willing to pay more for their guarantee to hunt each year. If a change isn’t made that favors residents, you’ll continue to see decreasing residents interested in hunting and the states animal population will truly be loved to death and there will be nothing left for anyone

Dan.Cassidy Colorado much like other western states is getting loved to death. Colorado had 90 million visitors last year generating $27.7 billion in tourism. The general sentiment from most western slope towns in Colorado is that we can’t handle any more visitors. OTC tags being made available to non-residents only adds fuel to the fire. Affordable housing in Colorado is impossible to find these days so most of these businesses are short staffed anyways. Outfitters love non-residents but that’s another topic all together. Hope that helps.

So as I'm reading the comments, I haven't seen any mention of the total economic impact from reducing NR licenses. It took a long time to get to this mess of overcrowding. I am a NR and have seen and part am of the problem. Reducing available NR licenses to 10% or 20% total would have a huge negative impact on the local economy. Many small businesses have depended on non residents' spending for their livelihood. So it's not just a matter of how many licenses being sold, it's the economic benefit coming from non resident hunters. For instance, using information from "PubliclandandJurisdiction.com" Colorado sold 72,000 NR licenses. A cap of 10% 7,200 that's a decrease of 64,800. Take my own personal spending on a hunt (average $2,000 per trip) is $129,600,000.00 in lost revenue per year. A cap of 20% would equate to $115,200m lost revenue. Either one is a heavy burden on local economies. Don't get me wrong, I feel the pain of overcrowding just like everyone else. I would caution cutting NR licenses too quick to avoid economic disasters. Its not just a CPW thing, it's all of us. I would suggest a graduated reduction in licenses for the 25-29 period. Keeping in mind the economic pitfalls and the quotas needed to maintain healthy herds. Like I said, it took a long time to get here.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion
DC

1) We should be 90/10 resident/nonresident like all the other western states. Our current Res/Nonres quota is completely unfair to Residents.

2) I would be perfectly fine to see every unit go to a draw for all seasons. I have a hard time giving up the OTC option, but in recent years the hunting quality has been so poor, that I would just assume draw every few years and have a higher quality experience than pick up an otc tag every year and have a poor experience.

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, and go back to completely random reissue throughout the week.

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. I have actually gotten lucky and drawn a fairly good tag in New Mexico, even with the low non resident quota, being an all lottery draw system keeps the draw odds reasonable. This was one of the best elk hunting experiences I have ever encountered, it rivaled my NW corner Colorado elk tag from a few years back.

Arizona. I buy points and apply every year. It is unlikely that I will ever catch a top tier unit given non resident quotas and draw odds. But it is realistic that I could draw a mid tier unit every 10-12 years which quality wise an Arizona mid tier unit rivals or beats anything the state of Colorado has to offer.

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 La sals unit for archery deer, and A good quality New Mexico Elk unit, each of which (Only 10% & 6% respectively) of the tags are allocated to nonresidents and I felt fortunate to draw those tags 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, are being over-run by nonresidents. The few hunting experiences I've had in other states as a non resident far exceed the quality of experience I have as a resident in Colorado.

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.

Resident archery hunter here
A6/R6 or A5/R5 are the two to consider, it should all be about the resource and I prefer A6/R6 as residents get the allocation advantage and should not be able to hunt and also bank preference points every year.
There are way more resident archery hunters in my area compared to the past. The resource cannot sustain population incraeses indefinitely.
Move or shorten muzzle loader.
Eliminate bull license from 4th season in units with below objective bull to cow ratio.
When commissioner Maryanne added 4th season low bull to cow ratios were supposed to not allow bull licenses.

A4, R4 are best - but the existing selection is still not the solution/s.

I don't understand why Colorado hunting has become more popular for NR and less for R hunters since the success rates are so low (13-15% annually). Why come here, and spend the time and money in the $thousands, for a 13% chance? Rs spend less on tags, and transportation - considerably. I have never hunted other states as a NR.

I have lived here since 2012, hunted since 2017 and spent my 6 points this year on prime areas for deer/elk/bear. Never saw a bear or elk. I did get a young 4-point buck - after 7 years of hunting every species I could get a tag for or build points to increase my odds. It has been frustrating, and I live here - my wife was born here.

I can tell you many stories of the NRs I have met. With their time/money spent, I met many who are not following the rules (be in the right hunting GMU, stop driving your snowmobile/OHV where the signs say, 'not to', and don't shoot your species near the highway/road). In my 7 years, I have met 1 Wildlife officer who checked me. Maybe we need more Wildlife Officers!? I am discouraged to see the NRs' lack of respect for Colorado's hunting rules and regs. What are the enforcement violations and enforcement data?

My wife and I spend summers in the mountains, scouting, cooking out, traveling, hiking. I see more elk, moose, and mule deer then, and I see more hunters during the season than anything else. During this past season hunting for elk, I saw none in my public land GMU, yet, across the highway on private land sat 700+, in the open on a field. Smart elk! I took a picture and waved as they sat 400 meters from the road. Is what we are to do now - hunt private land - with permission - or just waste time, money, and points? Notice I have not mentioned lost revenue - I still pay each year, to scout, camp, hike, etc in the off-season.

I understand that NRs pay the bulk of the revenues (correct me here) because of the tag fees and other item fees associated with hunting here. But now what am I to do with 'zero' points that saved for 7 years for the big elk hunt (I know - not 30+ points) that I have no elk? And, only 1 of those years have I come to a place where the elk where within view and I could stalk (unsuccessfully). Is that what you are telling me - hunt for 7 years in the 0-3 point units and maybe you will see some elk?

Overall, I am disappointed and do not see a successful future in elk hunting unless I get 'lucky' or there are overall fewer tags issued and fewer NR tags as well. Meaning,

Other questions:
-does the demand for elk licenses exceed the sustainable levels?
-does the knowledge that CO has a 300k elk population drive the NR 'gotta go to Colorado' for elk idea?
-what additional data could be obtained at the online registration and tag application that could be gained and useful for the R vs NR state we are in?
-the economic impact of reducing the licenses should be examined from the perspective of - are we overextended and if we lower the NR rates, although we are reducing the revenue, will we be in a better balance of R hunting and more sustainable elk hunting?
-maybe reduce the number of NR and increase the R hunter rates (minimally)?
-maybe reduce the NR tags numbers but offer a few NR (or more than 1) Governor's tag for any GMU/manner of take as an offset. R would also be available.
-how about getting money from some other activity? For example, private land fishing where no licenses are required. Start charging all anglers in Colorado - they must pay! Look at all the additional fees that hunting requires! Thinking outside the GMU box.
-maybe an opportunity for elk/deer license, similar to the elk/bear concurrent license?

I wish all a Happy Holiday and New Year in 2025 with great elk hunting!