Big Game Season Structure

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.

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