Big Game Season Structure

A/R5 looks to be the best and easiest. However, I think that with some work A/R3 would work very well. There would have to be some work to make sure the tag numbers are with in reason to allow a healthy herd and opportunities. Again, this takes work and trust in the commission which is extremely low at this point. It can be done and if we really do care about the wildlife, it should be worth the work.

The R5 looks to be the best option for Colorado. The hunting has been over crowded for a long time in the areas that hold most of the elk. I have hunted Colorado both as a nonresident and as resident. I have drawn some limited license for elk in unit 61 and unit 10 for deer. Those hunting experiences will be with me for a lifetime. With all the hunters in the field It and so much pressure it take a lot from the hunting adventure. do the right thing and limit the hunting pressure ! you can't please all the people all the time .
Mark Dunham 1961

A5/R5, Colorado must cut nonresident OTC tags by 10,000 to have public land hunting pressure similar to other western states. 100% of resident hunters should be surveyed, its our resource. Nonresidents don't get to vote in state elections why are they surveyed on hunting matters? Even though the other western states have an elk population that is 2.5 times that of Colorado (742,000 elk vs 280,000 elk), the 7 western states collectively sell 5,100 fewer elk licenses to nonresidents than Colorado sells to nonresidents. It's time to restore equity to resident hunters in Colorado.
https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-sells-more-nonresident-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/

Lifelong CO resident hunter, I support A5/R5. Limiting NR tags by DAU allows resource managers the flexibility to allocate tags for herds on a more discrete scale than a statewide hunt code would (A4/R4).

As others have mentioned numerous times before, Colorado is every NR's backup plan when they fail to draw tags each year in states less generous to NR hunters. This is completely unacceptable in my opinion, Colorado is by far the worst state to be a resident hunter in when you look at R/NR tag allocations.

A little anecdote: The OTC unit I've hunted each year for the last 12 years had 18 (yes, 18!) trucks parked at it's trailhead last year for opening archery. 15 were NR, 3 were resident.

Colorado's natural resources are being loved to death and CPW needs to take some serious action to protect the wildlife and the tradition countless Colorado families have enjoyed for generations. Limiting NR tags is a great step in the right direction.

A5/R5
As a resident, local trail heads are slammed with non-res hunters from everywhere. Our backyard becomes their last minute mountain adventure. Not only does it put too much pressure on the wildlife, it creates a certain amount of stress to the hunters and other recreational users. CO shouldn’t be the last resort for everyone that lives east of here.

I have participated in the public comment processes and in-person meetings regarding this issue over the past year but wanted to state my opinions here as well.

I am a Colorado resident who hunts elk every year during muzzleloader and/or rifle season. I hunt for food, tradition, physical challenge, solitude, & the wilderness experience that only big game hunting can provide. Unfortunately the quality and possibility of pursuing each of these experiences has been significantly compromised in recent years due to multiple factors. Additional hunting/recreation/development pressures on our lands & herds, overcrowding by hunters, general resource damage to roadless areas/roads/trails/camping areas/etc..., and irresponsible/unethical behavior by inexperienced hunters in the field have become far too common in recent years. I have repeatedly experienced these issues first hand and in my opinion, the huge influx of non-resident hunters is the primary cause of these issues.

As many others have already mentioned, Colorado has become the back-up plan for hunters from across the country who cannot secure tags in other states with more restrictive draws and resident/non-resident tag allocations. The advent of outdoor & hunting websites, apps, software, blogs, podcasts, etc... only increase this pressure by continually advertising Colorado as the best/easiest place to get a tag through the unlimited OTC system and by highlighting every possible place to access local hunting areas. These factors coupled with the larger non-resident tag allocations in Colorado compared with other western states draws in even more people and increases pressures further. The final piece of this puzzle is when certain GMUs are removed from the OTC tags, it concentrates all the pressure into smaller and smaller areas only exacerbating the previously stated impacts on local lands and residents.

I typically hunt in the GMUs where I live (54/55) during rifle season using OTC tags. This is my most desired method of getting in the field to secure food and experience hunting in my local area each year, so preserving that ability is my main focus throughout this process. I do enjoy hunting other areas of the state and try to do this whenever possible (often for muzzleloader season). Often the best way to do this is by securing a B tag in a low demand unit through the draw, as the units around me no longer have any B tag options available. That said, taking extra time away from work, traveling long distances, and incurring the high costs of hunting away from home are not things I or other residents can often afford. Losing access to OTC tags would make this the only process available to hunt each year and may male it impossible to participate in many years. For this reason, I believe the accessibility of OTC tags for residents is important as it allows them to hunt in their home state and local GMUs, which should be a right of local citizens who work hard and make many sacrifices to live in rural areas of Colorado where living costs continue to rise and quality of life continue to decline. Local citizens (myself included) participate in stewardship events, clean-up operations, local land/forest planning & management, and many other processes that non-residents do not contribute to. It's for this reason that I believe local residents should be prioritized through their annual access to OTC tags and draw tag allocations.

All of this said, I do understand and recognize the benefits that allowing unlimited OTC tags to non-residents provides. The economic benefits to CPW and local economies are real and not to be ignored, but the massive influx of these non-residents during hunting season also come with other impacts and trade-offs as well. For all of these reasons I am advocating for the following alternatives proposed by CPW for updating the big game season structures.:

A3. Cap nonresident OTC licenses with a cap for each management area; status quo for residents (graphic(External link))
R3. Cap nonresident OTC licenses with a cap for each management area; status quo for residents (graphic(External link))


Assuming the OTC caps are placed at a conservative level and based on good science and continual monitoring of herd health and local impacts, I believe these options would be best. I think they would preserve the ability/right of local residents to hunt where they live each year, maintain non-resident hunters' ability to experience big game hunting on public lands in Colorado while reducing negative impacts, continue much of the economic benefit to local economies and CPW of non-resident tag purchases, and allow GMU specific management of our herds and the lands they rely on. Personally, I'd be fine with paying a bit more for my tag each year if meant a better experience, better success rates, and less impacts.

I hope that you will consider these comments and appreciate the opportunity to provide them. Thank you.

I also strongly support A5 & R5 which is archery elk alternative 5 in your survey. This would reasonably limit NR licenses by GMU or herd, and retain OTC elk licensing for residents. Alternatives 4, 3, and 2 in your survey which retains OTC elk licensing for residents and reasonably caps NR participation are less attractive.
I strongly oppose 6/R6. This is a terrible alternative for public draw hunters. If everything goes to limited licensing up to 20% of the elk license quota is removed from the public draw and public draw hunters (both residents and nonresidents) can't draw any of those tags. That includes youth licenses. Limited licensing creates an unlevel playing field in license acquisition for hunters while all the other alternatives do not.
Certain parties seem to insist and push for totally limited licenses with claims archers cause elk movement onto private lands. Elk move for many reasons, such as the Grand Valley fires, drought, and a general lack of food. Many of the elk where I've hunted near Vail have left because the oakbrush has taken over certain areas, and the meadows are just not producing the food they once did. The private/public land issues need to be addressed in a different forum and manner.

Thank you for listening.

Colorado should put a cap on Non Resident OTC.
Or raise the price to $1500 for non resident hunters to help eliminate some of the congestion and offset loss.
Or draw only for NON RESIDENTS with their own separate pool of tags.

Reissue tags should be available only to RESIDENTS first than next day for everyone.

OTC ARCHERY ELK AND RIFLE available for RESIDENTS ONLY.
Draw only units for Residents should be a separate pool of tags.

A1/R1: Being a resident at one point but now a non-resident, Colorado was always my first choice for archery and rifle elk. I give CPW a lot of money for the non-resident tags that I purchase. The last few years are starting to sway my bias for Colorado (wolves by Denver and Boulder county vote, non-res restrictions, etc.). Im sure no one here cares, but ill go else ware in the future. Most of these politics revolve around money and I am surprised Colorado is turning down an extra ~$650/tag so locals can have the National Parks to themselves. Colorado is becoming the new California and its a shame, it used to be a wonderful place and a great gateway to the west. I am in favor for the status quo because I havent seen an issue while in the field (there is a ton of freaking land to go around!).

I am a NR. These are my observations. Missing in the "Financial Information" section is the percentage of the revenue that's affected by the reduction of NR licenses.
* Looking at available information, 22-23 Colorado Wildlife Revenue was $209m. Of that 66% was from Licenses, Passes, Fees, and Permits.
66% of $209m = $137940m of funds collected
**Colorado sold 72,000 NR licenses for 21-22 season
NR tags $761 + $10 application fee + $11.50 Habitat Stamp = $782.50 equates to $56,340m into the revenue pot
***25350 NR drew limited draw tags. To apply you must buy a qualifying license- small game $93.78 equates $2.378m into the revenue pot
A total of 149508 NR applied for limited draws. Subtract out successful applicants (25350) leaves 124158 that didn't draw but had to buy the qualifying license. Small game $93.78 + $10 application fee + $11.50 Habitat stamp equates $14,313m into the revenue pot. $56340+$2.378+$14,313 = $73,031m from NR or 53% of the revenue comes from NR. Not sure CPW can afford to cut NR quotas. Seems they will need it for upcoming wolf issues
*CPW-about us-funding
**Public and Jurisdiction.com: Colorado sells more NR Elk tags
***CPW-things to do-2023 Elk hunting stats- Post draw report
Thanks
DC

I strongly support A5 & R5 which is archery elk alternative 5 in your survey which would reasonably limit NR licenses by GMU or herd, and retain OTC elk licensing for residents. I can somewhat support alternatives 4, 3, and 2 in your survey which retains OTC elk licensing for residents and reasonably caps NR participation.

A6/R6 is an awful alternative for public draw hunters and I strongly oppose it. If everything goes to limited licensing up to 20% of the elk license quota is removed from the public draw and public draw hunters (both residents and nonresidents) can't draw any of those tags. That includes youth licenses - gone! Limited licensing creates an unlevel playing field in license acquisition for hunters while all the other alternatives do not.

Certain parties seem to insist and push for totally limited licenses with claims archers cause elk movement onto private lands. Elk also move due to droughts to greener pastures and better habitat, and we sure do get droughts. I live in Unit 20 which includes RMNP. In the drought of 2002 we had hundreds of elk move from RMNP to Loveland, it had nothing to do with hunters. Elk move for many reasons including drought, and irrigated lands.

Thanks for listening!

I believe there are two main factors that need to be addressed:
1. Overcrowding has decreased overall hunt quality
2. GMU/DAU specific management is essential for long term Herd Health.
With those two primary goals in mind, the only alternatives that address both objectives are options 3, 5, and 6.

I believe that the best option is A/R5.
As a Colorado native, I naturally want to preserve the opportunity of residents to go hunting every year, but I acknowledge that the health of our ungulate populations and the revenue of our management agencies are also important factors as well. This option would put us in line with the other western states that are known for great elk hunting and treating their residents well: Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. I feel that this is the best option for maximizing hunter opportunity while managing overcrowding and allowing for effective game management. While I do not want to see hunting become a “rich man’s sport”, I would support a price increase for all resident tags to help recover some of the lost revenue from non-resident sales.

A/R3 is an improvement over our current system, but I fear that it will create a situation akin to the disaster that is Idaho’s “nonresident OTC draw”. Anyone who has attempted to purchase one of their OTC tags on December 1st can tell you what a disaster that system is and the fact that they still call it “OTC” is a blatant lie. I believe that another issue with this option is that it fails address the current issue of “point creep” that has gotten worse year after year.

A/R6 would address all of the above issues sufficiently, however I feel that it would be a “slap in the face” to residents who have already been frustrated by our states game management practices for several years. For people like myself, hunting is more than a sport. It is a way of life, my greatest passion, and the way that I feed my family.
In short, it is the main reason that I live in Colorado.

I hope that the commission will take all of these concerns into consideration and think very carefully before they make their decision. Doing nothing is not an option, but this decision will have a profound impact on the future of hunting in our great state.

As a Native Colorado resident I’m in favor of A6 and R6. Also residents only for 1st day of leftovers each week.

Djones93, while I appreciate your thoughts on this, I believe maybe we should sit back and use our brain a little bit. So I just want to make sure I get this right… you believe that because we are all Americans and we all pay for public land across the US that we all should be entitled to resident privileges in every state? Hmm… the system isn’t set up that way and Colorado shouldn’t be an exception to the rule. The people who actually live in that state should always have the priority. That’s just how the system works…

Colorado already has many Limited Entry tags between different GMU's & seasons. I do not understand why non residents are being singled out on these proposals-they pay over 10X what residents to for the same hunting experience. In addition to this, most public land takes place on federal forest land that is paid for by Americans across the country, not just Colorado residents. Why are non-residents being singled out? If herd population is the issue at hand, we need to seriously reconsider the introduction of wolves before changing hunting regulations. I support R1.

A5 & R5 make the most sense to me.

As a Colorado resident and avid hunter, my ability to purchase over-the-counter elk tags is very important to me. For this reason, I prefer alternatives A5 and R5.

My support of this option assumes that the limit for non-residents is a fairly conservative number. Some of the units that have recently gone from otc to draw consistently have leftover or second choice tags remaining. That is a clear indication of a lack of pressure reduction and does not resolve the issue.

I believe the statewide code option would only be a stepping stone to unit or DAU regional restrictions. To that end, I believe that DAU level restrictions are the most appropriate.

The quota/otc capped alternatives should not be considered. Other states with similar systems show the inadequacy of such processes when demand is high. Idaho, Arizona deer, even Colorado's leftover/reissue process are examples of the hassle that ensues.

Status quo is a non-option.

It would be a travesty for residents to live in a state where we are unable to purchase a general elk or deer tag otc. Please preserve the privilege of residents to purchase elk tags otc.

I believe we should rock the A6/R6. I would also say the A5/R5 combo would work well. The fact of the matter is that the days of having a quality OTC elk hunt are coming to an end. We can point the finger all we want ( cough cough… influencers/podcasters.) but, the bottom line is something needs to change. Let’s take care of the residents like literally all the other western states do.

A5/R5 with a realistic cap on the number of out of state licenses, i.e. do not make the cap 100,000 liscense available for out of state hunters in the current otc units.

A5 and R5 need to reduce the number of hunters, success is higher in limited draw units for a reason.