Big Game Season Structure

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!

A5 & R5 are what we need for now. It will solve a lot of the problem and bring the joy back to hunting. A hunter can possibly find some peace and solitude in the woods and enjoy the hunt! Eventually, A6 & R6 are the only answer to overcrowding and point creep, but for now A5 & R5 will sure help!

A5 is best. A3 next. Not A6. A2 or A4 are better than nothing (A1). Apply 90/10 and 75/25 quotas to 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices, secondary, leftover and reissue tags.

I am totally in favor of Options A5 and R5, A4 and R4 as a second choice. I regularly hunt a couple of neighboring states as a non resident and they have already adopted similar options. Non resident tags have been significantly limited and are no longer OTC. Colorado should do the same to provide their residents with an enjoyable hunting experience.

54% of Archery OTC elk hunters are Non-Residents this is shared in the Brandon Diamond CPW report in this article. https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-resident-hunters-are-on-the-decline/ . No state treats its resident hunters in this fashion and the overcrowding by nonresidents is why resident OTC hunters have declined by 8,000 since 2014. Think about it, Colorado's population has doubled from 3 to 6 million since 1990 and we have 8,000 fewer OTC elk hunters, and since 2014 nonresidents are up by 10,000 in OTC. Probably the biggest failure in the history of big game management. Be sure to read the Public Trust Doctrine as well, the wild game in Colorado is a resource for its residents first. Want to restore resident public trust? CPW needs to restore the resident hunter equity in tag allocation. Limited tags = 10% for nonresidents (western states avg) and remove all OTC for nonresidents in 2024. Drop non-resident elk tags by 10k minimum to reduce overcrowding. CPW must start to manage the wild game as a resident resource, per the Colorado Constitution. All the other western states do this for their residents.

Any combo is fine BUT not A6 and R6. I can say there is a strong possibly I will just not hunt elk if my preferred Archery OTC unit becomes a draw and impossible to draw as a second choice. I already drive 3 hrs to get there and not interested in potentially driving 4+ hours to where the next closest 2nd choice drawable unit might be. I am currently stuck with high number of Preference Points until probably 2025 or 2026. I will just not get an elk tag. This will be the case for thousands of other hunters stuck in PP limbo.

A6 and R6… A6 would be a minimum $2.7 million loss. R6 is $4.1 million. $6.8 million... If CPW sold 200,000 elk licenses, the shortfall would require an average cost increase of $34 each. Just putting the math in perspective.

If 50% cuts were made it would create shortfalls of $11.8 million for A6 and $14.6 million for R6. That would require an average tag price increase of $132.

Don't get me wrong, the hunting would be excellent all over if the numbers were 50% reduced BUT the herds would quickly exceed their carrying capacity and objectives and so licenses would need to be increased. At the end of the day, X number of animals need to be taken to maintain population objectives. Reducing the number of tags works against that. Sorry but that isn't going to be a long term fix. Probably result in additional cow elk licenses being issues down the road and once again... crowding.

Lots of well thought out feedback below and some less than thought out. As well as lots of people who want to have their cake and eat it too by passing the buck to others such as Non-residents. Most people don't realize budgetary shortfalls that will occur by reducing the number of tags AND the shortfall that is likely to occur with a change of 65/35 resident/non-resident split to 75/25 split in 2024. CPW can't just raise tag prices either and it has to be approved by the Colorado Senate. I would support a 50-100% permit fee increase for tags sold in High demand units if CPW ever wanted to pursue it in the future. The cost is not a deterrent to anyone applying to these units and no one who waited 5-30 years is going to not apply due to the price change. Maybe 100% resident fee and 50% non resident fee in these areas.

Other thoughts…
Colorado could do a 2 tiered pricing system like Wyoming to increase revenue and even for residents. Paying $100 or $200 for a tag wouldn’t bother me. $200 is only 2 tanks of gas in my truck. I bet most people spend more on groceries to go hunting for a week. The cost of the tag for most people (residents) is the cheapest part of the equation when it comes to hunting.

Also, lets do a Super Lottery in Colorado. Giving out a few Elk, Deer and Pronghorn tags will have zero affect on our populations and those hunting. Maybe 5 of each and do it like Nebraska where the tag is good for 2 years so a person can plan ahead. Not a big fan how Wyoming does their super lottery but to each their own.

Lastly… in the end I think CPW is going to split the Colorado archery season. CPW doesn’t want to reduce the number of tags for revenue reasons AND they can’t easily raise prices. BUT if they split the Archery into 2 seasons, success rates for individual hunters will probably drop, so a slight increase in tags could be issued in limited units and it would work to reduce crowding. I personally would not prefer it but I can understand if they did it. Fewer people would be nice but I would get to hunt much less. Currently I get about 9-13 days during elk season. That would reduce it to 6-8.

PS- CPW… if you do Split the archery, please don’t do it in high demand areas as the pressure there is already minimized. Maybe just OTC season split?

Side note, as others have said… move black power out of Archery season. Modern BP rifles are not very primitive anymore and reduce the season length. Plenty of people shoot these well beyond 100 yards now.

Longtime 40yr Resident archery and rifle hunter, I support A6 and R6 and support resident hunters by making 2nd choice on big game applications fall under the 75/25 Resident non resident allocation and would support this going to 80/20. This would go a long way in allowing residents the ability to draw every year. I strongly support management by DAU or GMU. I also support separating Black Powder fron the early season as technological advancements have evolved to where this is no longer a primitive weapon. Short of separating this season I support fewer licenses and or shortening the season to 7 days. Archery and Rifle seasons were both shortened in the recent previous BGSS and BP has the highest success rate of all methods.

1) A3 and R3 (like Idaho). The cap should be at least 50% lower than past years' number of OTC elk tags sold to nonresidents.

2) Raise the cost for both resident and nonresident elk tags; to cover the revenue shortfall. Nonresident hunters should pay $1,500 for an elk tag.

3) Create a quota for Outfitters to receive guaranteed OTC elk tags that they can provide to nonresidents who first sign a contract to hunt with the outfitter (similar to Montana, Idaho and New Mexico).

Win-win for everyone.

Since the other western states are all at 90/10 resident/nonresident; Colorado is the only game in town. Like someone else mentioned, Colorado has moved some units from OTC to draw for archery and the likely result is even more crowding in the remaining OTC units.

We have far, far too many Youtubers who are coming to Colorado to hunt OTC elk in an attempt to develop content. They are not all bad (and certainly some are resident hunters too) but there are plenty of them who are pushing the limits all to develop Youtube content and make money. Taking 500 yard to 1000 yard shots or 80 yard archery shots has become all to common. Just search "Colorado OTC Elk" and start watching. The sad part is that many of them don't even realize they are unethical.

Limiting OTC nonresident tags and raising prices will certainly help reduce the number of these unethical hunters.

GoHunt made a video in one the archery spots I hunt. GoHunt was professional and ethical. Their video was made in an OTC unit. After a few hundred thousand people watched the video, an army of mostly nonresident hunters showed up in that unit the following year. Since OTC tags are unlimited and cheap, hunters from as far as Illinois were in that drainage the following year trying to replicate the GoHunt team. Might have been more hunters than elk in the drainage and all the hunters were bugling nonstop.

The only way to cut down on this OTC archery insanity is limit nonresident OTC tags.

I also am one of many supporting A5/R5. Over crowding is definitely an issue in Colorado. There are a few that will argue the fact of its Federal land but some states also make N/R hunters have a guide to be able to hunt. Also the States that limits N/R hunting have better quality hunting instead of a free for all. This has been needing to happen for a few years now and most of us residents are happy we are being given the opportunity to voice our concerns for Colorado's conservation of our wildlife. Now with wolves being introduced to the equation and how devastating they were in Idaho and Montana's Elk population we really need to make sure we manage preserve Colorado's wildlife for the future.

I support A5/R5 with a 90/10% (res/non-res) a adjustment to pricing of tags is ok,
I hunt both Archery and Rifle seasons. I’m native to the state. The over-crowding is despicable, i am nervous to start teaching a new generation how to hunt ethically in a Dog eat Dog rat race on the hill side.

As an outfitter who caters primarily to nonresidents I am in support of A5/R5. I also like the idea of 90/10 split which may surprise some folks. Like others have said nonresidents hunters are out in almost the same number as us residents, which really makes things feel crowded. I think a 90/10 split will address this. However I feel like a NR with a signed contract with an outfitter should be in a separate pool of tags similar to New Mexico. Maybe even an OTC pool. Or perhaps outfitters could be allocated tags similar to LPP tags that they can sign over to NR clients. This will help those of us who run outfitting businesses. I’m also in support of raising both resident and nonresident fees. Utah went through something similar by significantly raising nonresident license fees just a couple years ago.