Big Game Season Structure

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.

I'm a lifelong resident hunter and I also hunt as a nonresident in other western states. I'm in favor of A6 and R6. If we are going to effectively distribute pressure and improve quality, let's do it for both R and NR hunters. As we deal with population growth, habitat loss, wolf management and many other factors, being able to control license numbers at a GMU level would be helpful. Plus, resident hunters would likely still be able to draw many units with 0 points.

My second choice would be A5 and R5, but if we keep OTC licenses for residents, I'd be in favor of eliminating the ability to purchase an elk license and an elk preference point in the same year.

I am a Colorado native and have hunted big game in this state for 30+ years. And of course, over time things have changed. There is never a perfect solution that will make everyone happy. But I feel the best option would be A5 & R5. Every other western state has gone to similar solutions to limit the overcrowding. I understand this will affect non-residents, but we need to manage for the resources and animals instead of the greed of the dollar! I can't remember the last time I pulled up to a trail head, where the out-of-state plates didn't out number Colorado plates. Not to mention when the reintroduction of wolves (which are already here) happens there will be any additional strain on the wildlife.
I also apply in other western states. And as a non-resident in those states, I have a choice to accept their policies and rules or don't apply at all. Just my thoughts and opinions! But either way Colorado must do something to this already out of control problem!

I'm in favor of fully doing away with all OTC. I'd also like to see a 90% r to 10% nr split. Just like every other Western state. Another solution that could be implemented is any list A tag uses your preference points. Including OTC! That would certainly thin out the crowds and get people to use their points. It would also make the re issue process better.

A5 & R5 are my votes. I am limited as a NR when applying to other states, and I feel the elk herds would great benefit from a large reduction in hunting pressure these would provide

As a non resident hunter of Colorado for 20 years I would support A6 and R6. Very few states put the animal first, as money governs the welfare of the animals. The previous 5-year season dates were ideal these late season dates are not good for the animals. I live in a state with alot of wolves. If the state of Colorado does not manage the animals very soon with some type of hunter crowding and better quality of animals the state will really suffer. The few millions of dollars that Colorado may loose upfront to the limited tags will be minimal,. With quality animals to pursue the license fees will be more acceptable. To make things worse yet, once wolves are established the sales will decrease more. The winter valleys where elk/deer congregate will be very stressful on the animals, as the wolves will constantly stress the animals. The wolves will really have a negative effect on the tag sales.

A5 and R5. Go with that for the next five-year plan. Nonresidents should also be capped at 10% like other states. If it doesn't achieve reduced crowding to the extent needed, then take additional steps moving forward from that five year plan, that would likely have more impact on resident hunters. For the next five year plan the seasons should go back to the previous five-year plan. The pressure the new season structure puts on the deer and elk herds is beyond belief. I live in the same area we hunt in and there is no doubt in my mind that the buck population has been severely affected by the new season structure, with the 4th season over thanksgiving.

Well, all I can say as a nrh if cpw goes to a draw only for nrh elk hunters it would mean the end for me and hundreds of other nrh to hunt in Colorado. Not only would it be a loss of revenue for cpw but also a loss of revenue for all the small towns that really need that revenue.

I would like to add that another element in Colorado that I feel supports my thinking that hunting opportunities should not favor residents over non-residents is the abundance of federally funded land in Colorado. Why should a person who happens to be a resident of Colorado be given preference in obtaining available tags when most likely they (the majority) will be hunting on federally funded land...land that I and everyone else who works and pays federal taxes (and even those that don't) own and have the right to use equally. People should be able to move about the country and enjoy the resources we have without being restricted based on where we live. You could argue that there are state funded lands that non-residents will use and that Coloradans pay for those lands and therefore should have the opportunity first, but in New York where I live, state forests are open to any and all people who wish to use them for hunting. As long as they legally purchase a license and appropriate tags they have the right to use those lands even though they may not ever contribute a penny to funding and supporting those lands.

First of all I don't think you should separate archery from muzzloaders in the “OTC Archery Elk Options.” Both these Hunting types are contributing to extreme hunting pressure in many areas of Colorado. If muzzleload hunters are added to the archery options, then I would support either R5 or R6 because I think they would be the most effective at reducing hunter pressure and providing a quality hunting experience in September.
With regard to OTC rifle for elk, I support R5. The NR hunters I know consider Colorado as their fallback option when they don’t draw in their preferred state(s). As a result, the number of NR hunters in Colorado has increased substantially, and has really reduced the hunting quality and experience in Colorado.

A3 and R3. All of our peer states have limited nonresidents in the last 5 years, so everyone has flooded here. We are not the rest of the country's playground, we live here and we deserve quality hunting opportunities, just like the residents of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc.