Big Game Season Structure

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.

I am a CO resident and hunt in a group that includes close non-resident friends. We have hunted in unit 6 multiple times and have become discusted with the number of hunters in the unit from the unlimited OTC tags sold. There is excessive pressure on the Elk herd and of all the years we've hunted in unit 6, only a single Elk has been harvested. I strongly support eliminating all OTC tags statewide for resident and non-resident hunters and use the existing draw lottery system to award all tags.

If there's consideration for a first come first serve to get a limited number of OTC tags, I'd suggest a very limited number of OTC tags to prevent the excessive number of hunters in the woods and an application / draw system vs. first come first serve on a date and time when the tags become available.

Note that my group have reverted to muzzleloader hunting to get away from some of the volume of rifle hunters in unit 6, but were dissappointed when we figured out there were unlimited OTC tags for archery hunters in the same unit which created the same issue we experienced during the rifle season.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jeff.

I support A6/R6 as well as a removal of the 75/25 Resident/Nonresident allocations, or a 200% increase in resident tag fees. As a non resident hunting on federal lands, it is exceptionally unfair for me to be paying TWELVE TIMES what a resident pays for a chance at one of four tags. Non residents are not the cash cow for your department, especially when many of us are attempting to hunt on lands funded by our federal tax dollars. If you choose to keep charging non residents so much more, then there should be no allocation differential between resident and non resident, or if the current 75/25 allocation is kept then residents should be paying 75% of what a nonresident pays!

I support A5/R5.
Additional comments:
90/10 (R/NR) allocation. All other western states have significantly lower NR allocations. Most of them with lower resident populations to begin with. Colorado should not be everyones "last resort."
Hunt surveys sent to everyone who received a tag.
Move muzzleloader season to what is currently first rifle for both deer and elk.
I will gladly pay more for my resident tags to offset the loss of revenue.

"non-resident archery hunters are up 250% (1200 to 3000) since 2014 and that resident hunters are actually down 20% (2400 to 2000) since 2014."

https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Overcrowding-by-Non-resident-Hunters-Cancels-Colorado-OTC-Elk-Hunts-Eastmans-Official-Blog-_-Mule-Deer-Antelope-Elk-Hunting-and-Bowhunting-Magazine-_-Eastmans-Hunting-Journals.pdf

Colorado Parks and Wildlife,
Thank you for recognizing the need for change in the current license allocation system and attempting to improve the quality of big game hunts in Colorado.
I will do my best to provide a fact based and logical opinion unlike some other respondents make claims that are simply not factual.

Colorado sells more nonresident elk tags than all seven western states combined. 54% of OTC elk hunters are non-residents. (Source: https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-sells-more-nonresident-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/). The other seven western states average selling 14% of the elk tags to non-resident hunters while Colorado sells 36% of its elk tags to non-residents.

Wyoming: Wyoming doesn’t even have OTC licenses for non-residents. The preference point creep for Wyoming’s non-resident general tag has increased to 4, so any non-resident hoping to hunt in Wyoming has to wait at least five years and pay four years of preference point fees to hunt on a general elk tag. They have a 90/10 (resident to non-resident) license split for bighorn sheep, moose, bison and man goat. With elk, non-residents can obtain a maximum of 16% of the licenses. (Source: https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/huntin-fool-biggest-changes-to-hunting-out-west))

Utah: Nonresidents are issued a maximum of 10% of the total tags for a given hunt code. (Source: https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunting-application-details-utah)

New Mexico: A maximum of 6% of the total number of tag available for a given hunt are allocated to non-residents. (Source: https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunting-application-details-new-mexico#:~:text=A%20maximum%20of%2010%25%20of,hunt%20are%20allocated%20to%20nonresidents.)

Nevada: In Nevada approximately 15% of the total tags for a hunt code are issued to non-residents. (Source: https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunting-application-details-nevada)

Montana: Elk and deer non-resident applicants are allocated up to 10% of the permit quota. (Source: https://www.huntinfool.com/states/montana#:~:text=Elk%20and%20deer%20non%2Dresident,is%20only%20one%20hunt%20choice.)

Oregon: Oregon caps non-resident allocation to 5% (source: https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/hunting-application-details-oregon#:~:text=The%20cost%20for%20residents%20is,codes%20can%20be%20found%20here.).

I support A5 and R5. Annually limiting licenses per DAU (Data Analysis Unit) allows for herd conservation and flexibility by adapting license numbers to herd changes due to weather impacts (like those seen in the winter kill last year in the northwest CO units) and predator impacts (like those we will eventually see with the wolf population increase).

Regarding other respondents' statements that aren't true and/or have no logical basis, please consider your words. For example, jyelton stated “Very few CO residents hunt OTC rifles seasons.” Then he provided a link from CPW showing in 2021 that 32.584 Colorado residents hunted OTC rifle elk and 25,159 non-residents hunted OTC rifle elk. 56% does not equal “very few”.
Also, many non-residents have responded saying license allocation should be equal between residents and non-residents. To those I have a simple question: Why don’t ANY other states provide what you are saying should be the case? Oregon caps non-resident allocation to 5%.
Similarly, some non-residents have said CPW can’t survive with a decrease in funding. To those, I have another simple question: If your statements were true, why are other states’ wildlife agencies able to operate without unlimited non-resident OTC licenses?

A5 / R5 as long as the NR tags are kept at a 25% hard cap of the average of the last 3 years of tags sold to residents. This change will mean nothing if CPW sells 1000 tags per unit.
A3 & A4 would be good as well as long as there is a hard cap on the tags sold.
Everyone that wants to see A6 / R6 as long as there is a 90/10 R/NR split, that split will never happen anytime soon.

After reviewing the information, I would suggest A6/R6 along with a couple other items.
1. All licenses go 90/10 (R/NR) - while a lot of the state is federal land, the animals contained within the state boundary belong to the residents of Colorado. Residents should take priority.
2. All resident choices are fulfilled within the draw to the 90% level (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice, etc.) before NR tags are drawn. If the # of resident applicants doesn't reach 90%, the remaining tags can be allocated to NR.
3. Hunt surveys are sent to all tag holders. Failure to respond suspends your hunting privileges the following year.
4. Any returned tag surrenders your preference points. Tag cost to be refunded, but not points.
5. Failure to apply for the hunt in any given year, zeros out your preference points for that species.
6. Resident tag cost to increase $50-$100 and non-resident tags to increase $200-$400 to make up for lost revenue from OTC elimination.
7. Archery season to only include archery, remove any rifle overlap and move muzzle loader season to after archery season.
8. All tags must be paid for at time of application, unsuccessful applicants will be refunded, minus application fees.

A6/R1 are my recommendations.
I reserve the right to change my opinion without warning!

It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid. Overcrowding continues to convert OTC Archery units to Limited Draw, pushing hunters into the remaining OTC units. The OTC Archery experience has become intolerable. It’s not a management tool anymore, just a revenue generator.

As a lifelong Colorado hunter, I pursue big game species with any weapon, any season. That said, I think we need to face the facts.

This is a “Quality vs Opportunity” argument. Resident hunters of CO expect a Quality experience at $63 per tag, while Non-Resident hunters (for the most part) are happy to purchase the Opportunity to “hunt elk in CO” at $761.

A6 Recommendation and Why
~~~ “They’re not making any more land…”~~~
o Colorado’s human population continues to increase at a phenomenal rate, while huntable acres and elk populations do not. Walk up to any Colorado resident and ask them “Where you from?”
o The simple fact that archery hunting is difficult used to limit the number of participants, but that’s no longer the case.
o Online resources allow anyone to Google-up “how to hunt elk” and find their way into honey-holes that should take years to discover. I’ve personally witnessed this on several occasions.

~~~ Nothing gets cheaper ~~~
o Most of us understand that Wildlife Management is funded by Sports-folks’ dollars.
o Personally, I would pay much more for an archery tag if it meant fewer trucks at the trailhead; NonResident or otherwise.
o Increasing Resident Archery license fees to $90 would cover the $1.5 million reduction in revenue lost from a 10% reduction in NonResident licenses (These are just “bar-napkin” calculations from the link provided below).

~~~ It's Inevitable.~~~
o Elk hunting in CO will eventually be Totally Limited. At some point, the shrinking number of Colorado elk herds that can tolerate an OTC Archery hunt will be zero.
R1 Recommendations and Why
• Very few CO Residents hunt these seasons, unless they’re hosting NR friends.
• These seasons generate revenue first, manage herd densities second.
• Most participants are simply looking to escape the trappings of home, cruise around in a UTV and…. enbibe.
• Might as well keep the revenue stream intact.

This link displays OTC license numbers in CO vs other Western States:
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2023/August/Item.23ppt-Siegfried.pdf

***I was unable to dig these figures up on my own, so I’m trusting their mathematical accuracy. HOWEVER, grammatical errors and snarky tones below the numerical tables make me question their validity.

I am a native of Colorado and have been big game hunting for almost 60-years.
fortunately I am able to spend between 30 and 40+ days each year hunting elk. I hunt with a bow as well as a rifle. I would STRONGLY support the change to A5 and R5 and encourage the Commission to implement these policies ASAP!!! First of all, I don't hate NR hunters. I've met many, many good guys from out of state who are great people. BUT---something MUST be done to get the hunter population under control and we have to get serious about this. I recently moved up to the Steamboat area and have hunted this area for the past 3-season. The crowding is UNBELIEVABLE. On opening day of the Archery season in 2022 I went to Sheriff Reservoir only to find that there were 38 trucks at the trailhead...all the hunters going to the same spot. The next day I saw 22 trucks at a different trailhead. We hunted near Gore Pass later in the season and out of about 50 trucks, I WAS THE ONLY ONE with a Colorado license plate. Opening day of Archery season this year I went to a place that I thought might be less crowded and we arrived about an hour before sunrise. At first light we hit the timber and by 7:30 we had run into THREE separate NR hunters hanging from tree slings. When I got back to my truck that evening I was surprised to discover FOUR camps within 200-yards of where I had parked....all were NR hunters. This is just a small sampling of what I encounter every year. It is IMPOSSIBLE to find an area where the hunters don't outnumber the elk!! As I read the proposals for the next 5-years, I thought of how my hunting experience would change if the NR hunters were limited. The more I though about it, the bigger my smile got. Our hunting resources are WAY over stressed. I would STRONGLY support A5 and R5 as a starting point. It may well be that MORE will need to be done, including limiting Resident licenses more. I believe there are several other options that might help, but I will not outline them here. This is going to be painful for some hunters!!! BUT hunting is already painful because of the overcrowding. I hope the Commission has the backbone to make some hard choices...I'm cautiously hopeful. I hope the Commission will put the quality of the hunting experience and the health of the wildlife populations ahead of revenue...on this point I am hopeful, but not optimistic!! Big Game populations have gone DOWN dramatically over the past 20-years!! This is a FACT!! and the DOW has done nothing to address it. When the numbers drop, they simply drop their "published target number" and then tell us what a good job they're doing. I know this is an uncomfortable accusation, but anyone who wants to go back and look at the herd counts issued by the DOW and their comments, will see these accusations are accurate. I hope the Commission will GET SERIOUS ABOUT THIS!!!!

I support A6/R6 first, though A5/R5 would also be a great improvement over the status quo.

As a NR hunter for over a decade, I have seen how the resources in Colorado are being "loved to death" by over utilization. The hunt experience and animal quality in units that are limited draw for both elk and deer is significantly better than for units where elk tags are unlimited. This applies to both archery and rifle seasons.

In the mid-1990's the decision was made to convert all OTC deer tags to limited drawings due to population decline. They took a revenue hit, but they saved the resource. That was the right decision, and now deer herds and individual deer are healthier and more abundant. CPW needs to make the same call for elk

Additionally, two other changes are needed to the system:
1) Any A-tag in the primary or secondary draw should require ALL of a hunter's preference points. Point creep would be greatly reduced if not completely solved if applicants no longer had the option to "bank" a point on a hail mary unit and still get to hunt every year. If you hunt, you should burn the points.
2) Mandatory harvest reporting should be required for all license holders prior to purchasing a license the following year. I cannot believe CPW throws away this easy opportunity for vital data collection from hunters. Most states do this through a phone app now.

Generally I like hunting in Colorado and I think CPW does a decent job of balancing all the different peoples and interest groups that use the habitat... but the point system and license allocation needs to catch up with the state's booming population and the continued increase in hunting pressures.

A5/R5 are the option for Colorado. With the increasing population in CO, our resources can't handle the level of pressure and damage, in addition to the soon-to-be competition from Wolves. OTC Archery has become a combat sport, with what seems like more hunters than elk in the woods. Quality has been reduced dramatically in recent years without question, the worst being 2023 with increased numbers of people crowding in a reduced number of OTC units. This same thing has occurred in OTC rifle units which I refused to hunt in for many years because the hunt quality was so drastically reduced. In addition, CO residents live, work, and support their local wildlife resources throughout the State. Being pushed out by non-resident hunters is not fair to these local communities committed to conservation of these resources. Overall, hunting pressure needs to be limited and it's apparent and obvious that non-resident numbers need to be reduced.