Draw Process Working Group

After watching the March Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting, I write today to express my concern with possible changes to the Limited License Draw Process and Preference Point discussion.

I watched the live stream and I am concerned with several of the options being put forth dealing with preference points, their utilization and options for gaining a preference point. The current system for drawing a limited big game license (deer, elk, pronghorn and bear) is highly predictable and works well for the majority of users. Much discussion has centered around "point creep" or individuals with a high number of preference points. This is a situation that those hunters have arrived at by their own choosing and only involves a small percentage of the applicants. Do not change a system that works well for a large percentage of the users. Not including Ranch for Wildlife (RFW) licenses, only 2% of deer hunt codes, 2.2% of elk hunt codes and 6.3% of pronghorn hunt codes fall within hunt codes which take 10 or more points to draw and are included in the Hybrid Draw currently. I think you would agree these are small percentages. To put it in the "glass is half full" category, an applicant can draw 98% of deer hunt codes, 97.8% of elk hunt codes and 93.7% of pronghorn hunt codes with 10 points or fewer while still being eligible for the hybrid draw if they have a minimum of five preference points and choose to utilize a hybrid hunt code. Many hunt codes for deer, elk and pronghorn are available to individuals with 5 or fewer points under the current system.

Under the current system, an applicant can review the hunting statistics provided by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and clearly know what their chance of drawing a license is. They can prepare for hunting during this draw time period or plan on hunting a certain unit several years in the future. The system is predictable. Many hunters have to plan their vacation a year in advance and they utilize this predictability to plan. Please maintain the predictability of the current system.

Recommendations brought forth by the working group are a cause of concern for myself and many hunters. Utilizing a "split draw" model will result in a loss of predictability and a possibly increase the amount of "preference point creep" as those successful hunters having the amount of preference points needed to draw will be reduced by up to 50% given the fact that 50%of the licenses will be allocated through a random draw.

Looking at a 75% resident, 25% nonresident split for the draw licenses violates the 80% resident, 20% nonresident split for hybrid draw hunt codes this same Commission just approved. This being done with no input from the Commission or the public is bad policy. Please don't approve something at one meeting and change it at the next based on a poor recommendation.

The recommendation for only having the option to gain a preference point by applying for one and forgoing the opportunity to apply for a license in the primary draw is especially disturbing. Historically myself and family members have applied for a limited license and utilized second, third or fourth choices. By doing this, we have been able to hunt limited licenses every other year or every third year depending on the number of preference points required while still drawing a second, third or fourth choice license and being able to hunt that year. By drawing that second, third or fourth choice license, we have contributed to wildlife management financially, when successfully harvesting an animal we contribute to harvest management objectives set by CPW and still are able to plan for hunts in the future. Listening to the Draw Process Working Group's first two meeting, I got the impression that the group members feel there is something bad about hunting every year.

Utilizing preference points for any choice license as recommended will result in an applicant only applying for a first choice hunt code resulting in all remaining licenses going into the secondary draw where youth ages 12-17 receive a priority for all licenses. So if a person thinks they will just draw a license in the secondary draw, their chance is severely limited until all youth applications have been filled. This again highlights the feeling I get from the working group that there is something wrong with building preference points or hunting every year. Financially hunting every year benefits the agency, it assists in meeting herd management plans and harvest objectives and it substantially contributes to hunter retention.

I do not recommend charging for a preference point. Discussion took place during the Draw Working Group that preference points should be assessed a charge, a person even recommending the price should be equal to the cost of the license. Thankfully smarter heads prevailed and that suggestion did not move forward. I would recommend suspending the current charge assessed for moose, rocky mountain bighorn and mountain goats. As described during the March Commission meeting, this has done nothing to limit applications rate for those species and appears only to be a money grab by the agency. Much discussion has taken place by CPW and the Commission around the subject of Hunter Recruitment, Hunter Retention and Hunter Return to the sport. Making it increasingly costly to individual hunters and their families to participate due to increasing financial requirements is counter to the efforts of recruitment and retention. I stray from the current topics dealing with draw process and preference points to mention now recently approved Colorado Senate Bill 24-161 which the Commission "may, by rule, assess a harvest permit surcharge in an amount not to exceed five dollars for each species that may be taken with a small game license. This was brought up at the March Commission meeting. Currently there are 11 small game animals and 16 small game birds and migratory small game birds that can be taken under a small game license. I hope the current or future Commission does not abuse the authority given by recently enacted legislation.

Viewing the March CPW Commission meeting, it is painfully obvious that there is a majority segment of the Commission that have no idea what a preference point is, how you currently gain one or utilize one and what the benefit is to having preference points. I would encourage to inform and educate both the Commission and the Draw Process Working Group of some of the history behind the current system. Why the agency went from a cap of three preference points to a weighted point system for moose, rocky mountain bighorn sheep and mountain goats, why desert bighorn sheep is a random draw and why some hunt codes take 20+ points to draw. There is much history and justification based on financial reasons, fairness reasons, biological and social reasons to the current draw system process and use of preference points and this information should not be disregarded.

I bring these concerns as a lifelong Colorado sportsperson who has hunted in Colorado the past 53 years. I have hunted most big game species, many small game species and furbearers. I contribute financially to the agency in the purchase of countless big game licenses, small game licenses, furbearers licenses and fishing licenses and Habitat stamps.

I would ask the Draw Process Working Group go back and review the bullet points from your first meeting. The first bullet point was "Simplify the draw process to be more readily understood by most hunters" and your first recommendation to the Commission comes from the group with a statement during your first meeting on your chart that "drawback for the recommend split model draw is that it is more complex".

I would ask that the Commission, CPW and Draw Process Working Group indicate that they have at least looked at the Engage CPW webpage and comments received. This could be as simple as an acknowledgement on the site by a member of the above mentioned groups "Hey thanks for the comments". Otherwise we are just talking to ourselves.

As someone who volunteers with CPW, helps get youth and novice hunters introduced to hunting through CPW, and helps expand the outdoors in my personal and professional life, I am amused at the lack of education by the ones making decisions for residents and non-residents. I have listened to numerous commission meetings and have been amazed by the time spent trying to teach the commissioners simple principles of draw process, when the rut is, different western benchmarks that should inform our decisions and more. At the most simple level, how can we have faith in commissioners making decisions for us when a majority of them don't understand the basic principles they are discussing.

Here is an executive summary of what I heard today (3/14), which has concerned me enough to make a comment:

1) CPW staff recommendation goes against what the majority of constituents have expressed: Even though the majority of residents appose restricting OTC licenses for residents, the CPW staff recommending limiting resident and non-resident licenses "shows the commitment CPW has to their recommendation and going against the majority." This was a comment made numerous times during the 3/14 meeting and is very uninformed and groupthink. How can CPW ask for feedback through surveys, focus groups and more, and then totally dismiss that the majority of respondents disagreeing with the recommendation put forth. This is against their duties to uphold interests of the majority and furthermore reduces trust of constituents in future, potentially larger conversations.

2) Draw process: Commissioners should be required to educate themselves on best practices of other states, the differences from us and other western states, trends and why states have adjusted their processes, and more. Simplicity of the draw process continues to be brought up and it's astonishing the lack of understanding the commission has on other western states' draw processes. The proposal to do a % PP and % bonus pt draw is very similar to Wyoming and not that difficult to understand. Instead of spending time educating the commission on how this draw works, we should be having conversations with Wyoming on how it is working and learning from them as a benchmark before making a decision. This recommendation considers new hunters, dedicated applicants with many PPs, and many other stakeholders.

3) Resident to non-resident allocation: As someone who applies consistently in 5-10 states every year, I understand many draw processes and realize the difficulty in drawing a license out of state. I have never drawn a license out of state and that is OK with me because I understand they put residents first. This difficulty in drawing a license outside of Colorado and the % allocation to residents vs non-residents, shows the commitment other states have for their residents and putting them first. Continuously in the 3/14 meeting, non-residents were put as equals in consideration of decisions, when this should not be the approach. Our allocation % of licenses is very liberal compared to other western states. I understand the argument about population differences and such, but the extreme differences in %s does not offset this. For example, NM offers 6% of NR licenses, WY 10%, MT 10%, ND 1% and other western states are similar. It may take me 10-20 years to draw a tag in some other states, while NRs flock to Colorado and buy a license OTC or draw very easily with the current NR allocation %. Our new 25% adjustment to NR is still more than double the nearest western state at 10% and should be lowered further. The difficulty for residents to draw in other states should be considered when making decisions.

4) Financial implications make these decisions complex: Funding for all of the programs that CPW does is very important and I agree. What we need to understand further is how/why other states where able to make cuts to NR and OTC licenses while still prosper and actually grow revenue. CO is one of the cheapest western states to hunt and this should be considered. WY special draw elk is $2k and many other states either charge higher fees for qualifying licenses, money for PPs or other ways to make up for the revenue lost in having lower prices resident tags and higher resident allocation. There are many ways to solve this and the recommendation to not adjust the current approach solely due to monetary reasons is not putting the majority of stakeholders' interests first and is not an adequate approach. An example of this is not making an adjustment to the OTC rifle licenses even though the crowding issues are worse during rifle seasons compared to OTC archery. This is easily seen in the large difference between tag numbers. In addition, it was discussed that if an adjustment was made to OTC archery, hunters would potentially hunt OTC rifle seasons instead and further increase the crowding issue, which is the main concern. This consideration was put to the side due to "not being ready to make adjustment to the rifle season" and the financial implications it would have. The final comment I'd make on this is that the objective of changing OTC structure is due to overcrowding. Reducing OTC license numbers by 10% will have a minimal impact to the overall satisfaction of resident and non-resident hunters.

5) Big game season structure: I would agree with the majority of recommendations put forth towards adjustments to season dates and the considerations discussed. Additional seasons provide flexibility, moving season dates back to the previous BGSS reduces mule deer vulnerability, crowding is a big issue and approaching it by a GMU basis is a valid approach that is agreeable and more. Furthermore, we should learn from LY's winter and the adjustments CPW was able to make to license quotas. For many units, quotas were reduced for 1st and 4th rifle seasons, but there was no control over OTC 2nd and 3rd rifle. With the assumption that climate change could make these winters more frequent, CPW needs the tools to be able to balance quota numbers across all units instead of only some.

6) I strongly disagree with the recommendation to have all A list licenses use PPS whether it was from the primary, secondary, leftover or reissue process.

7) Public comment is low: I heard numerous times today that there is a lack of public comment regarding these topics. We need to move forward with new ways of thinking and participation beyond what has been historically done. Some examples of this are 1) the "I Hunt Colorado" Facebook group that has 65k of the most passionate CO hunters involved and ready to voice his/her opinions. 2) not allowing public comment on the YouTube streams is not adding additional value or clarification that could easily be done 3) the sentiment from people who have provided comments is low due to the feeling of decisions already being made and not considering these inputs - like the majority of survey respondents opposing limiting OTC for residents but still moving forward with it...

Overall, my main takeaways from listening for 8 hours today was the lack of understanding by commissioners, the lack of putting residents first in terms of OTC and many other conversations, the dismissal of the majority and feedback that was asked for being put to the side, and more. We need to be very intentional with our objectives, strategies to satisfy objectives and conversations leading to decisions. I am hopeful for the future of Colorado hunting and recreational opportunities, but the many commissioner meetings I've attended have reduced this optimism.

You guys are screwing over the invested hunters who have loyally funded CPW for years while accruing points.
Taking tags away from high demand units is ridiculous!
Taking points for any tag in first draw is ridiculous.
You are handing more tags to non residents by not holding non residents to no more than 25%. You are telling your invested point holders they can no longer hunt if they want to keep accruing points.

I am completely against requiring points to be used for anything other than 1st choice of primary draw.

I any bonus draw system should not include more than 25% of tags. You are changing the rules on people that in some cases have been trying to draw a limited tag for 25 plus years. To take tags away from their opportunity to draw is unfair.

It is unfair to take limited tags away from residents and give a larger percentage to non residents. If you want to make another change, then change it all to 80/20 % and make it a hard cap on all choices across the board.
Stop looking at choices than punish residents who choose to live here, who support the economy year round, and build this state just to throw these tags to non residents who choose the privilege of coming here. You are punishing residents that in some cases can't afford to go to another stateto hunt. They don't have the time or money.

The topics to be covered during the Draw Process Working Group work sessions include:


Primary Draw/Draw Methods: (per species minus the big 3)
Each applicant is given a random number when they apply. Lowest number gets first choice of tags. Applicants place 3-4 hunt codes on their application. Each hunt code is considered for that hunter before moving to the next. If all hunt codes selected by a hunter are not available, then this hunter fails to draw, and the process is moved onto the next hunter. When a hunter fails to draw, they are awarded a prefernce/bonus/ whatever kind of point you want to call it. The next year that a hunter applies their random number is divided by the (number of bonus/pref/whatever points  +1 )
EX. Hunter fails to draw the first time, they get 1 point. Next season, they apply their random number, which is divided by 2 (1 point +1), giving this person better chances to draw this year. If this same hunter fails to draw this 2nd year, they are awarded another point, totaling 2. The following year, they apply their random number, which is divided by 3 (2 points +1). 
More research would need to be done, but for group applicants, potentially averaging the random numbers. Potentially allowing applicants to return tags for their points on a limited basis, like once every 3 years or something. To help with people having family members (who have no intention of actually hunting) apply just for points so that when they want to increase their odds, they will use those family members points to decrease their number. 
Benefits:
This provides an opportunity for all who apply to have a chance, even if it is a small one, to hunt even the most coveted GMUs and hunts. It is not right that, as a lifelong resident of a state, there are areas that I will never be able to successfully draw because of point creep. All should at least have a CHANCE to experience all that Colorado hunting has to offer. 
When a hunter fails to draw their choice of tags in one year, their chances increase each year they fail to draw. 


Preference Points/Bonus Point/ Whatever you want to call it point:  (per species minus the big 3)
When a hunter fails to draw, they are awarded a point, as described above.
When a hunter successfully draws, they lose all acquired points and go back to 0 the next application.
If a hunter obtains ANY tags for that species they lose all acquired points. This includes OTC (if still around), Left Over, Land Owner, and Primary/Secondary Draw. 
Benefits: 
Helps to eliminate any kind of point creep, as if a person hunts for a species, they lose points. 
Helps eliminate issues where hunters apply just for points, gain 15 points (sometimes while hunting for that species), and then jump in to actual draw process with their 15 points.
Helps provide opportunities for residents and non-residents that just want to hunt every year versus those that want to save a point or 2 to try and hunt a better unit the following year.  
Weighted Draw and Weighted Preference Points:
Just my opinion, this should just be 100% random, no points, / no wieghted points.  After a successful draw you must wait 10 years before applying again.  (These are once in a lifetime hunts, all should have a small chance to get a hunt, and once they get their chance, it should be very uncommon to be able to hunt it again in Colorado so others can)
Reissue Process, Leftover & Secondary Draw:
For an example, Tags available go onto the list Tuesday @ 10AM MST. 
All hunters have 24 hours to put their name in the hat for that tag. 
On Wednesday at 10AM MST a random number is assigned to all applicants, lowest numbers get the tags with the following modifications
Youth hunters (  number divided by 3) 
Resident Hunter ( number divided by 2) 
Non Resident ( no change to number) 
Any left overs may be acquired by anyone at anytime
Benefits: 
Preference given to youth over residents, but still allowing all to be able to get the tag regardless of being able to wait at an office, call in, or refresh a webpage. 

The topics to be covered during the Draw Process Working Group work sessions include:

Primary Draw/Draw Methods: (per species minus the big 3)
Each applicant is given a random number when they apply. Lowest number gets first choice of tags. Applicants place 3-4 hunt codes on their application. Each hunt code is considered for that hunter before moving to the next. If all hunt codes selected by a hunter are not available, then this hunter fails to draw, and the process is moved onto the next hunter. When a hunter fails to draw, they are awarded a prefernce/bonus/ whatever kind of point you want to call it. The next year that a hunter applies their random number is divided by the (number of bonus/pref/whatever points  +1 )
EX. Hunter fails to draw the first time, they get 1 point. Next season, they apply their random number, which is divided by 2 (1 point +1), giving this person better chances to draw this year. If this same hunter fails to draw this 2nd year, they are awarded another point, totaling 2. The following year, they apply their random number, which is divided by 3 (2 points +1). 
More research would need to be done, but for group applicants, potentially averaging the random numbers. Potentially allowing applicants to return tags for their points on a limited basis, like once every 3 years or something. To help with people having family members (who have no intention of actually hunting) apply just for points so that when they want to increase their odds, they will use those family members points to decrease their number. 
Benefits:
This provides an opportunity for all who apply to have a chance, even if it is a small one, to hunt even the most coveted GMUs and hunts. It is not right that, as a lifelong resident of a state, there are areas that I will never be able to successfully draw because of point creep. All should at least have a CHANCE to experience all that Colorado hunting has to offer. 
When a hunter fails to draw their choice of tags in one year, their chances increase each year they fail to draw. 


Preference Points/Bonus Point/ Whatever you want to call it point:  (per species minus the big 3)
When a hunter fails to draw, they are awarded a point, as described above.
When a hunter successfully draws, they lose all acquired points and go back to 0 the next application.
If a hunter obtains ANY tags for that species they lose all acquired points. This includes OTC (if still around), Left Over, Land Owner, and Primary/Secondary Draw. 
Benefits: 
Helps to eliminate any kind of point creep, as if a person hunts for a species, they lose points. 
Helps eliminate issues where hunters apply just for points, gain 15 points (sometimes while hunting for that species), and then jump in to actual draw process with their 15 points.
Helps provide opportunities for residents and non-residents that just want to hunt every year versus those that want to save a point or 2 to try and hunt a better unit the following year.  
Weighted Draw and Weighted Preference Points:
Just my opinion, this should just be 100% random, no points, / no wieghted points.  After a successful draw you must wait 10 years before applying again.  (These are once in a lifetime hunts, all should have a small chance to get a hunt, and once they get their chance, it should be very uncommon to be able to hunt it again in Colorado so others can)
Reissue Process, Leftover & Secondary Draw:
For an example, Tags available go onto the list Tuesday @ 10AM MST. 
All hunters have 24 hours to put their name in the hat for that tag. 
On Wednesday at 10AM MST a random number is assigned to all applicants, lowest numbers get the tags with the following modifications
Youth hunters (  number divided by 3) 
Resident Hunter ( number divided by 2) 
Non Resident ( no change to number) 
Any left overs may be acquired by anyone at anytime
Benefits: 
Preference given to youth over residents, but still allowing all to be able to get the tag regardless of being able to wait at an office, call in, or refresh a webpage. 

The archery changes proposed will have the effect of only giving the best bow tags to those who bow hunt less frequently (or never).

Eliminating resident OTC archery and leaving the 75/25 Resident/Non-resident split only applying to the first choice means a resident probably won’t get a bow tag if it isn’t their first choice. If you look at the draw results you will see it’s nearly there now in the recently converted units.

If a modified draw is to be implemented going forward with a form of a random draw I would like to see the amount of tags issued in the preference draw remain high. 75/25 or 80/20 preference/random would be sufficient. If the draw goes to a 50/50 split it will undoubtedly accelerate point creep in all hunts including those that do not currently experience point creep.

The other issue with type of a draw if it went 50/50 is what to do with hunts that would only have 1 NR tag available? Wyoming for instance will issue that tag to the preference draw and high point holders will still get priority, but states like Utah and Arizona issue that 1 tag in the random draw. With so many high point NR applicants (25-30+) if these permits went to random applicants, those high point applicants would likely never draw those hunts. This would be something the commission will need to address if this went forward.

This group was supposed to address the draw process and preference point creep and in 2 sessions they completely danced around the topics and didn't really make any decisions on anything other than a 50/50 split which is absolutely ridiculous.

This group is an embarrassment as 90% of them didn't even know what the splits were for tags. This is the group that is tasked with coming up with the new plan?

Offering a preference point choice OR Options 1-4 didn't make a lick of sense. Everyone it just going to put in the northwest corner for their choices 1-4 and not draw and gain a point. So, I don't see how this is reducing the amount of point holders. WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE TASKED TO DO!

HEAR ME WORKING GROUP, AS IT APPEAR THAT NONE OF YOU ARE LISTENEING.
YOU NEED TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BURN THIER POINTS FOR ANY A-TAG . THAT IS HOW YOU SOLVE THE ISSUE AT HAND. RIP THE BANDAID OFF.

At least they decided to take points on choices 1-4. But like I said, that is just a stupid idea because everyone will just apply for high point units and STILL build a point.

This session was like watching Helen Keller lead the charge of 15 blind people across a parking lot filled will people racing their drag cars.

I expected more. So should everyone else.

Regarding the recent Preference Point Workshop meeting, I feel the comment about hunter recruitment for the Big 3 is something that the ship has sailed on. While hunters as a % of the population has dropped, the demand for these tags has NEVER been higher. I believe we need to focus on the fact that there is real fear that many of us will outlive our pref points, and we need to reward and incentivize those who have supported hunting for many decades and allow them to use/burn through their points and ACTUALLY hunt 1 or 2 of these species before they hit the dirt. Give MORE weight to higher point holders (perhaps cube points after say 15 points) and give NO chance to draw unless at least you have waited and applied for points for a min of 10 years. You have to wait that long to appreciate this hunt anyway I say. And, do not worry about simplification over what you proposed in this meeting. Montana, Ariz, Utah, Wyo, Oreg are much more complicated (esp Montana!). Thank you all for the hard work.

Regarding the recent Preference Point Workshop meeting, I feel the comment about hunter recruitment for the Big 3 is something that the ship has sailed on. While hunters as a % of the population has dropped, the demand for these tags has NEVER been higher. I believe we need to focus on the fact that there is real fear that many of us will outlive our pref points, and we need to reward and incentivize those who have supported hunting for many decades and allow them to use/burn through their points and ACTUALLY hunt 1 or 2 of these species before they hit the dirt. Give MORE weight to higher point holders (perhaps cube points after say 15 points) and give NO chance to draw unless at least you have waited and applied for points for a min of 10 years. You have to wait that long to appreciate this hunt anyway I say. And, do not worry about simplification over what you proposed in this meeting. Montana, Ariz, Utah, Wyo, Oreg are much more complicated (esp Montana!). Last, average pref points for hunter groups for Deer, Elk and Pronghorn like Ariz and Wyo. This will help burn through point creep much faster and is why these states do this. And, again make the big three once-in-a-lifetime harvests (for Rams, Bulls and Billies). Thank you all for the hard work.

- CPW MUST get rid of the option to "opt out" of purchasing a preference point if unsuccessful in the draw. Since the rule's inception, all high end hunt odds are significantly more watered down. Currently, one can buy the necessary 3 preference points to be in the lottery for drawing a moose, mt. goat and sheep tag and then continue to apply for the hunt with almost no financial investment. This watering down of the draw odds makes it extremely difficult or next to impossible for even the highest point holders to draw. If you look at the statistics in most hunt codes, a person with over 20-max points has minimal advantage over someone with 3 points. PLEASE consider getting rid of this allowance.
- I also believe the hybrid draw option is unfair to those who have built up the points necessary to get close to drawing a coveted high point hunt. It just creates more point creep and jammed up hunter applications.
- There should NOT be any form of random draws for tags that require a certain minimum number of pref. points.
- All Units/seasons must go to limited draw quotas for non residents (possibly residents as well). This will help ease the point discrepancies across the board. Consequently, allow a separate outfitter tag allocation or quota pool.
- Maybe revisiting point banking again as a means of flushing points out of the system. I know it was tried, but there has to be a successful alternative as opposed to the way it was implemented in the past.
- Lastly, no other states treats their resident hunters worse than Colorado... most other rocky mountain states provide significant advantages for their residents to hunt (roll-over licenses, extended seasons, better resident-to-non resident allocations, more opportunities for the hunter to be successful, etc.). Please consider prioritizing how to "take care of your own".

-You MUST get rid of the option to "opt out" of purchasing a preference point if unsuccessful in the draw. Since that rule's inception, all high end hunt odds are significantly more watered down. Currently, one can buy the necessary 3 preference points to be in the lottery for drawing a moose, mt. goat and sheep tag and then continue to apply for the hunt with almost no financial investment. This watering down of the draw odds makes it extremely difficult or next to impossible for even the highest point holders to draw. If you look at the statistics in most hunt codes, a person with over 20-max points has minimal advantage over someone with 3 points. PLEASE consider getting rid of this allowance.
- I also believe the hybrid draw option is unfair to those who have built up the points necessary to get close to drawing a coveted high point hunt. It just creates more point creep and jammed up hunter applications.
- There should NOT be any form of random draws for tags that require a certain minimum number of pref. points.
- All Units/seasons must go to limited draw quotas for non residents (possibly residents as well). This will help ease the point discrepancies across the board. Consequently, allow a separate outfitter tag allocation or quota pool.
- Maybe revisiting point banking again as a means of flushing points out of the system.
- Lastly, no other states treats their resident hunters worse than Colorado... most other rocky mountain states provide significant advantages for their residents to hunt (roll-over licenses, extended seasons, better resident-to-non resident allocations, more opportunities for the hunter to be successful, etc.). Please consider how to "take care of your own" as a priority.

My comment below (and likely many others) has NOT been able to be entered for over a month now, while the functionality for being able to enter comments to the Draw Process Working Group has not been functional.

Given that a major objective of the Draw Process Working Group is to mitigate draw process complexities with a focus on simplification, then one of the focus items should be on simplifying the “spider web” of rules, regulations, preferences, opportunities, options etc, etc, related to Youth Hunting. Reading from top-to-bottom the Youth Hunting page 17 in the (2023) brochure leaves the reader with their “head spinning” trying to figure out how to fit something together, make it all work right and not make a mistake in doing so. Youth certainly deserve and should have preference but it shouldn’t be so hard to figure out. Right now it’s like trying to solve a Rubiks Cube.

Allow hunters that are 70 years old to purchase an elk and deer tag in the GMU of their choice without applying through the draw process. The draw is a lottery with limited success and seniors don’t have many more years to hunt. Wayne Timura

Eliminate PP only hunt codes. I feel too many people spend years buying them waiting for kids to graduate etc. You want a point apply for the tag. If you draw the tag it’s your choice to hunt or not. No turning it in to get your point back without paying for the tag. Raise the preference point fee similar to the big 3 tags.

DSRE testing 5

My comment below (and likely many others) has been able to be entered for over a month now, while the functionality for being able to enter comments to the Draw Process Working Group has not been functional.
Given that a major objective of the Draw Process Working Group is to mitigate draw process complexities with a focus on simplification, then one of the focus items should be on simplifying the “spider web” of rules, regulations, preferences, opportunities, options etc, etc, related to Youth Hunting. Reading from top-to-bottom the Youth Hunting page 17 in the (2023) brochure leaves the reader with their “head spinning” trying to figure out how to fit something together, make it all work right and not make a mistake in doing so. Youth certainly deserve and should have preference but it shouldn’t be so hard to figure out. Right now it’s like trying to solve a Rubiks Cube.

test 3-DSRE

test 2-DSRE