Big Game Season Structure

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.

Colorado resident who hunts archery and rifle seasons. I would prefer our state to focus on the quality of hunts for residents like the rest of the western states. My preferred alternatives would be A5 and R5. With an increase in non-resident fees to account for loss of revenue. CO is already the cheapest, easiest to get elk hunt in the US. Quit giving up our citizenship privileges to those that don't live here.

No question that there is a huge problem in this state with overcrowding especially in OTC units and an equally alarming issue with point creep. There is virtually zero chance for a new hunter (even a resident) to ever reach some of the more desirable units in the state. Preference point systems just don’t work without offering at least a small percentage of the tags in a random lottery to keep people engaged.

With that being said I support A5 and R5. As for residents, we HAVE TO STOP letting people collect a preference point AND also have an OTC tag. We should get one or the other.

Colorado resident hunter here. With family and friends sprinkled throughout the Rocky Mountain west. I strongly support A5 and R5. Colorado’s population has doubled since I was born. With that we have a large influx of resident hunters who need to be taken care of first! When I hunt out of state it’s once every 4-10 years. And honestly those hunts are far superior to Co these days since it isn’t a free for all! Let’s make Co hunting the 1. In the west again but it should be great for residents before it is great for the rest of the country!

I am a Colorado resident hunter and favor R5 and A5. There is no other western state that offers OTC elk licenses. My only chance to hunt out of Colorado is to build points and hunt infrequently. However, anyone in the world can come to Colorado and purchase a OTC elk license. And this is very obvious when I go hunting. Often, the NR cars outnumber the R cars 4 to 1 (and probably some of the CO plates are rental cars for NR hunters). It is crazy and unfair to residents. The percentage of NR hunters should only be 10-15% like in other western states. I am willing to pay more for tags if money is the deciding point. And I see no reason NR shouldn't pay more.

I am a Colorado hunter and resident of 23 years. My vote would be for A5 and R5. The number of tags overall needs to be reduced to let the Elk and Deer resources recover. I realize that the NR tags generate a lot of revenue, but the quality of hunting in Colorado has declined significantly due to over crowding and over hunting. I would prefer to pay more as a resident for a better quality of hunt. I think Wyoming has a good model with the General tag where residents get it with no caps, however they have one tenth of the human population of Colorado. The bottom line is that somehow the overall number of tags needs to be significantly reduced. Thanks.

I'm a multi-gen Colorado native and have been hunting here my entire life. I've hunted most of the Western states. Some many times. I continue to travel out of state to hunt every year, and will continue to do so until I can no longer obtain tags. I have zero hard feelings towards non-residents and blame them for nothing more than trying to experience what it is I too love so dearly.

However, I am in support of options A5 and R5. The only reason I'm in support of reducing NR tags so significantly is because every other Western state already has. The resident hunting experience in Colorado is no longer a quality one. There are no other states for NR's to go and get a guaranteed elk tag anymore but ours. This really is a problem for residents. Colorado is everyone's backup if they don't draw a tag elsewhere. It's unfortunate we have to follow suit, as the rest of the West has led us to a point we must align ourselves similarly with their NR policies, or suffer as hunters without a true in-state hunting experience of our own.

As a resident I would agree with either A4 or A5, and R4 or R5.

Allow residents to maintain a true OTC opportunity and restrict non residents to an OTC with caps that are unit specific. For non resident tag numbers, decrease slightly, but spread evenly throughout the hunting areas. This allows residents the opportunity to hunt frequently, to reduce hunter crowding, continue non resident OTC that still provides tag opportunity, and maintains funding through tag prices. To reduce crowding more but still achieve current funding, reduce non resident tags by 15 percent, but increase tag fees by the same percentage. This reduces crowding further and still allows for adequate funding.

Ultimately, I am most concerned about what is best for our wildlife. I do think that OTC licenses should be available for residents, so long as it is not a detriment to the animals. Limiting licenses for out of state hunters sounds like the best option for all seasons. Thank you for all that y'all do for our wildlife and our state.

A5 & R5. As a lifelong resident I’ve seen the quality of hunting decrease dramatically in the last 40 years with more pressure & more crowding every year. I would suggest that Colorado set a non-resident quota at 15-20% like neighboring states. I understand that Colorado is an opportunity state for many but in order to protect herds for the long-term we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.