Big Game Season Structure

I am a Colorado resident for over 30 years and have hunted every year.
There have been many changes over the years and number of hunters is the worst I have ever seen it.
The last 5 year season structure having the seasons a week later has been very destructive to the mature Bucks and Bulls. Bucks have been more vulnerable in multiple seasons rather than just the 4th season when everyone wanted to draw that tag when they were rutting.
With the mature bulls the later we hunt them with heavy snow and colder temps there much more vulnerable. That being said I would go back a week with all seasons.
As far as all the OTC tags go, residents should for sure have a priority in the state they live in. This is the way it is in every state except Colorado! Non resident tags in many units in Colorado for deer are easier to get than a resident tag. Minimum 80% resident and 20% non resident tag allocations and non residents should have to draw for all tags. Everyone that wants to hunt out west puts in for multiple states to hunt and when they do not draw ,Colorado is always there backup state. We need to stop that a the flood of non resident hunters in this state. Thanks

What difficult choices. What does the Commission hope to do? What has the most need?

Been hunting Archery for 5 years as a Resident and the same amount of time for Rifle. I am quite clear on one thing: Options A1 (Status quo) is not sustainable and will continue to prioritize non resident hunters over resident hunters. A2 (statewide cap) doesn't provide enough flexibility to address the core issue. I've hunted several units OTC and there's been crowding in all of them. We've become the Elk Hunting destination state for way too many hunters and the problem is not going to get better as more time passes and additional hunters enter the pool.

There's a reason that literally no other state has such relaxed OTC rules. That said, I am a fan of options A3 - A6 and would be in favor of any of them. Flexibility to cap at the GMU level still provides flexibility in how aggressively we limit. Bottom line for me is the north star should be which solution improves resident hunting experience WHILE ALSO prioritizing doing the right thing for herd management?

It's not lost on me that these options will impact revenue for CPW. So I wonder, what does that potential loss in revenue actually translate to in terms of real impacts? What options exist for bridging the gap elsewhere? In any case, the revenue impact should not matter in the face of doing what's right for a healthy Elk herd that provides quality hunting opportunity for Residents first and non residents second.

I am a long time resident of Colorado an I support A5 and R5 and would be glad to pay more for a resident license to close the loss of revenue gap. I no longer hunt OTC units for any season because of the pressure and crowding from non-resident hunters.

As a non-resident who applies for a muzzleloader either sex elk and a buck mule deer tag and ensures that I draw the tag every three years by buying preference points in the off years, I feel that the opportunity for residents vs. non-residents should be equal. Taxes paid by residents of Colorado aren't what truly supports the CPW, it's preference point and license sales. Residents don't contribute any more than I do to the cause of managing the wildlife resources of Colorado. Living in the northeast, I have no more opportunity or privelege than any out of state hunter who comes in and buys a non-resident license and tags. We should all equally share the resources and together enjoy the opportunity to hunt and harvest game and fish across this great nation regardless of where we call home.

As a resident CO hunter for many years and seeing the increased pressure and point creep I have a few thoughts broken down by category.

Nonresidents
- No OTC or leftover tags for NR
- Align NR tag allocation for all species with other Western states (capped at ~15%), I believe that CO is > 30% with OTC tags, secondary draw, etc. Wyoming just lowered their NR tag allocation to 10% and had a hefty price increase to their NR elk, antelope, and deer tags.

I would be in favor of A5 and R5. We are the only Western State that gives almost 50% of our tags to nonresidents in some units. I also feel surveys for residents and non residents should be mandatory to get a better handle on hunting pressure. The over crowding is real in many of the Western Units. I don’t even waste my time anymore hunting OTC units as a resident due to too many people (most non residents). I understand the revenue obstacles this would create but the wildlife needs to be managed for herd health and safety concerns not money. I would also be in favor of doubling resident license costs in order to help with lost revenues of limiting non residents. We are dealing with a resource that is NOT infinite and it should be managed as such.

Capping or eliminating Non-Resident OTC is needed to work towards restoring the quality of big game hunting experience on OTC. Status quo is the worst option. Every other state in the west has moved to limit non-resident numbers in some way and most of them have maintained options for residents to be able to hunt every year if they choose. This has shifted even more NR pressure onto Colorado and decreased the quality of the average OTC hunt. Caps and limits on non-resident participation can be adjusted to restore and then maintain average quality of hunting experience for all. Please prioritize residents and increase hunt experience quality for all.

As a resident...
limit them all -A6, R6.

Move to dau or gmu specific r/nr allocations.

Add a Wyoming style random draw allocation so you always have a chance.

Add a "draw or lose them" point cap.

Give preference to residents, or first pass at leftovers.

Resident OTC archery tags are one of the few ways mentor hunters can be involved with new hunters over the age of 18. Planning vacation time for actual hunting, along with weekend scouting, and regular archery practice, requires a considerable time commitment from every archery hunter.

The uncertainty of not knowing whether you may draw a tag until almost half way through the year will discourage resident hunters of all ages. Many of our lowest income hunters are also the same employees with the lowest work tenure. Often these employees have little control in selecting their earned vacation days. Most senior employees get first choice under most employment circumstances. The longer archery season, with an OTC option for residents, affords these new and experienced archery hunters the best opportunity to plan their limited vacation time around deer and elk hunting seasons. Success rates are low but the actual enjoyment of participating in this fall tradition is truly priceless. Archery resident OTC licenses should remain available to help retain experienced hunters while offering the lowest barrier possible for new, Colorado resident hunters to begin their love of Colorado's outdoors.

Its really simple; make the best decisions to improve over-crowding and long term wildlife management and sustainability without looking at tags as a cash machine and the right balance will fall out.

In this last 5 year structure Dates .The mature buck population has taken a huge Hit due to the late season hunting dates. The rut has been in full swing starting during the second season and all thru the third and into the forth season . I have watched this in disbelief ! if your plan was to kill most if the mature bucks that has been DONE! as for the nonresident tags issue in believe the nonresidents should hold upto 25% of the tags in some units and less in the premium units. they should not be able to buy over the counter ! only residents . If the cow would look at how the other states around have been running the tag allocation Wyoming ,Arizona,Utah Etc. the states herd management would be in better shape!

Appreciate all the work on updating the big game season structure. Thanks for processing all the diverse input.

My thoughts:

* keep OTC for residents, as a resident it would feel like eternity to only be able to hunt every 2 to 4 years. I love a nice trophy but I'm a meat hunter & experience hunter first and foremost.

* Archery - option A4 or A5 (NR must draw). These control NR hunter numbers and IMPORTANTLY don't turn capped NR OTC license buying into an on-line race to buy a tag. Look into the challenges that Utah and Idaho have with limited OTC tags available on-line - truly not an equitable solution to distributing tags as it comes to to being quick on a computer or having the time off to login the minute tags go on sale.

* Rifle - options R4 or R5 (NR must draw). For the same reasons noted above for archery.

I have struggled back and forth with all these options.

My thoughts are for A4 & R3

As I hunter of Colorado of the last 25 years, I would like to see A3 and R3 be implemented. As a resident, who pays taxes in this state, I think OTC should still be an option for residents. A cap on non residents would still allow local economies to be stimulated during the seasons.

Version A2. I think Colorado should follow the example of other western states. Over the counter tags available to residents only, Nonresidents can apply for limited general tags.

No OTC tags period. At the very least, cap all currently OTC units.

Separate firearms and rifle seasons; this is a serious safety concern and it's only a matter of time until someone (else) gets killed. Shorten or remove muzzleloader season from September as well. See most other western states for season structures that separate archery and firearms.

What is the reasoning behind doing away with OTC hunts? These hunts will still get extremely large quotas. The crowding will not be removed. I believe OTC hunts are crucial to continued hunter recruitment. Adding a quota to an OTC hunt simply makes it a draw hunt as has been seen in Idaho. The herds in the OTC units and hunts have shown the ability to handle the hunting pressure. These are opportunity units and not trophy units, they are designed to get hunters in the field. We have to consider if we cap OTC hunts, we will be the ones losing opportunities. The capping of OTC tags will not increase hunter success rates or remove hunter crowding in opportunity units. There are many draw hunts (many at 0 pts and leftover) available that allow people to hunt “uncrowded” if that is their goal. If the herd management plan is meeting its herd objective, why begin to limit hunter opportunities? I have hunted many OTC units and been able to get away from crowding. In fact, the most crowded unit I have hunted in Colorado was a draw unit.

First- Completely do away with OTC archery and rifle tags for residents and non-residents and go to a draw.

Second- Start taking peoples points for any A-list tag. That will solve 75% of the crowding problems. It might reduce NR participation and make the CPW take a hit financially, but they (CPW) have plenty of money and reducing NR participation will pacify the resident's nasty demeanor.

Third- The CPW and Colorado residents need to stop biting the hand that feeds them. It is NR $ that has built the CPW into the machine it is today. The CPW is 43 million in the black. Seriously?! I think it's time we consider REDUCING the cost of NR licenses especially since we are reducing the amount of tags that are even available to them.

Fourth- STOP LETTING PEOPLE (R or NR'S) TURN IN TAGS. THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND AND IS PUSHING POINT CREEP THROUGH THE ROOF. YOU GET THE TAG YOU HUNT IT OR DONT, BUT ITS YOURS AND CANNOT BE TURNED IN. THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED!!!

Alternatives A6 and R6 make sense to be able to control hunter pressure and manage the big game species in Colorado.

It would be good to see a limit on nonresidents to a maximum of 25% of the available tags in the primary draw. Perhaps allow residents first shot at returned/reissued tags as well.

It would definitely help archery seasons to remove early rifle deer, elk and antelope seasons from the archery seasons. The rifle hunters impact the game movement and make it much more difficult for archery hunting, not to mention the safety issues.

Moose season should have a period for archery only, then archery and muzzle loader, then any weapon. The current start of moose season with muzzleloaders on top of archery hunters is a safety issue and causes issues with muzzle loaders killing moose at longer ranges when archery hunters are working hard to get in close. Two weeks of archery only, followed by two weeks of archery and muzzle loader, followed by two months of any weapon.