Big Game Season Structure

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.

A6 and R6. Point creep and crowding is out of control. Possible A5 and R5 with the stipulation that you can’t gain a point and have a A list tag in the same year.

The quality of hunt/vs points required has become a joke. Either you get a A list tag or you get a point. Not both!

CPW needs to prioritize the long term health of the species first and foremost. Secondly, Colorado residents are the ONLY group that has any legal entitlement to Colorado big game tags.

I would like to see CPW move forward with options A5 and R5. The quality of hunting in Colorado has decreased dramatically and this is mainly due to the overcrowding caused by non-resident hunters. Colorado can no longer be the dumping ground for out of state hunters who didn’t draw tags in other western states. It is time Colorado restores resident hunter equity in tag allocation compared to other western states.

I also support a 90/10 split for limited licenses. It’s not fair that Colorado sells more non resident tags than all western states combined.

A5 or A6 and R5 or R6. Just to help with point creep as well. If a hunter is holding an "A" tag they should have zero points going into the next year.

Resident hunter-

I would love to see options A5/R5 or even 6. There are several factors that have led us to this point of needing to get rid of OTC elk hunts. The population of residents has greatly increased the last few years. As more units have been turned into draw units, the remaining OTC units have gotten an enormous amount of pressure. Colorado needs to follow suit with other Western states and start prioritizing the residents for hunts. Anyone who hunts or has hunted OTC tags knows how crazy they are and what a poor experience most of them have become. This combined with the coming wolf predation, CPW needs to be looking at a longer term picture and not be reactive. Tag allocations need to shifted in line to be closer to other Western states. Stop making it about numbers, make it about the animals and having a quality experience.

A6 and A2. R6

I support a full elimination of OTC if supported by biological data and advice from cpw staff. One thing I will ask cpw to consider is the way the primary draw is conducted. My suggestion to make the 75/25% soft cap apply through the entire primary draw and then only allow 2 choices. This will simplify the whole system and add clarity. preference points used for choice 1 but allow second choice as a back up to be selected with no points as it currently is. Conduct the resident draw first with both choices and then move onto the non resident draw with any un allocated tags from resident pool moved to non resident.

By going to full draw and extending the soft cap to the entire primary draw, residents will get a fair shake at the 75% quota. If resident demand fails to meet the 75% than non residents in primary draw will get the opportunity. This will create better predictability for all in the draw and non residents know going in worst case allocation is 25% but could be higher. This also allows CPW to sell the excess tags. I believe this is the best compromise and does not fully cut out the non resident.

Besides the HD units, most SD units see resident demand below the quota but residents do no get those tags because they have selected them as second through 4th choice. Looking at unit 70 hunt code EM070O1A, is a great case study as to what happens when an OTC archery unit goes to a draw. In 2023 there was a total quota of 415 tags that were still under the 65/35 rule. Most residents and non residents based on the way CPW advertises the quotas, believed there would be up to 265 tags (adjusted for youth as well) for residents and 142 for non residents. Resident demand through the first two choices was 213 tags or 51%. However if we look at post draw results residents were only awarded 103(25%) of the tags while non residents were awarded 304 (73%) of the tags.

I believe applying the soft cap to the entire primary draw and simplifying it to 2 choices is the best path forward. This keep the draw fair, allows otc units to be folded in without displacing non residents and also provides a clear and equitable way for non residents to plan on gathering tags and also have better quotas if residents do not meet the demand for their quota.

Point creep is a real burden on the system for the HD units but there are many low point units that residents can draw with 1-3 points. Residents should not be displaced from saving up for those units because they try and draw a tag second choice. Residents will be displaced from tags in their home state as many non residents use CO as their backup plan knowing they can draw most units with 0 points because the system favors first choice. This will also reduce resident distain as the quotas wont be so convoluted. it will be a true 75/25.

My final thought is we have a duty to not disturb the financial models that support CPW. the loss of non resident revenue is a major issue. While the 75/25 soft cap on the entire draw will but a financial burden on the agency, it wont be a seismic shift like a hard cap or 90/10 would be. I believe this is a fair proposition and a realistic one. As a resident hunter, if we do not claim the tags in the primary draw, i believe we have had more than a fair opportunity to acquire a tag. The agency can not have tags going un sold bc residents want better chance at secondary draw or leftovers.

I am a resident rifle hunter and I hunt as much as my work schedule and family will allow, which means there are years I don’t get to go. I like the idea of hunting another state but the reality is I probably never will. I am first and foremost a meat hunter, our family doesn’t eat store bought meat unless we don’t have wild game in the house. Thankfully the last few years we have been blessed with harvesting elk and moose.

If I look back on my hunting experience I used to hunt a limited GMU for deer and elk and would draw a tag every year, but I haven’t drawn a limited tag in that unit since 2016. If I look at the last two years of hunting in OTC units, I haven’t seen the hunting pressure I read about, I have seen hunters along trails or at trailheads on occasion. But by no means do I feel overcrowded while hunting. For me it’s the hikers and bikers that contribute to the feeling of overcrowding and there’s no limit on those activities. In general if we need to reduce the number of hunters in the field I would obviously reduce nonresident hunters and leave OTC tags for resident hunters. Before making a final decision I would like to see the actual number of licenses sold to nonresident vs resident.

Lastly in my opinion with the advent of companies like GOHUNT, onX, and all the YouTubers that are the main component that drives hunters to Colorado. Especially in limited units that look good when you research online.

I prefer the A5/R5 options. There needs to be a reduction in the NR participation which needs to be equal to other western states. Colorado constitution states the wildlife of Colorado is owned by the residents. Therefore this limited resource should be allotted in most cases to the residents of Colorado. From previous estimated hunter participation in these OTC units, the R/NR quotas should be set using the current 75%/25% quotas.

CPW has a budget surplus that can certainly offset the projected loss of revenue. You don't have to spend everything you take in. Future generations act was a windfall for cpw. Use the increase in revenue to prioritize resident hunting opportunities.

A6 & R6, then increase the price of tags for both R & NR to make up the loss. I'd gladly pay more for a tag if it meant a meaningful reduction in crowding on Public Land. As for Private Land, the loss of OTC tags would help push the public's animals back on to public lands. There are to many NR Private Land hunters that pay to play on Private (tresspass fee and Outfitting) only to get skunked or tag out on barely legal animals that should have been left to mature for a few more years. It leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and does nothing for the goals of Conservation.

As a resident hunter, I believe we should limit the non-resident hunting but with no otc. This will mimic the other states and help limit over hunting. Also draw quotas should be more in favor of residents at 90-10 just like surrounding states. Also big question why does Colorado manage elk more than deer? This state isn’t a big bull state like Nevada or Arizona or Utah. If Colorado started managing deer herds and limiting back in the number of deer tags this will be the most prized state to hunt deer. I said this before and I’ll keep saying it Colorado managed the deer correctly and we will have better gene pool than the Henry’s or the Panaguant in utah. It’s time the state starts managing the animals correctly especially the deer, cause the deer herd numbers are dangerously low and if something isn’t done now it will be to late 5 years from now

OTC and readily available draw tag offerings give the opportunity for non-residents to travel to Colorado for the experience of hunting pronghorn, elk and mule deer that don't exist in their home states. Many will only get to do it once in their lifetime, others are fortunate enough to be able to do it every year or every few years. Their travel brings revenue to the state and it's business owners via lodging, groceries, meals in restaurants, and gasoline sales as well as gear and supplies purchases and outfitter fees. It's easy as a resident to expect to get the lion's share of the hunting opportunities and to be allocated the tags before non-residents have a chance, but that's not good for the small local economies and it's ultimately not good for the state economy. On top of that, CPW can't generate the revenue they need to manage the state's wildlife resources on resident's license sales alone, unless residents are willing to pay double, triple or more than they already do for preference points, licenses and tags. It can't be all about what the residents hunters think they want because in the end their own bottom line will suffer, programs that support wildlife management will suffer and ultimately resident hunting experiences will suffer. Colorado needs non-resident hunters. Based on this I would choose A6 and R6.