Draw Process Working Group

This is a test comment-DSRE

Yogi_Test comment

This will not be the popular opinion but it is one that will save our future of hunting. Most of us look at the world through the lens thinking there is only so much of one thing and I need to grab it before it goes away. By looking at it through a longer term lens of creating abundance we can assure it will be there for the future generations. We will have to bear the brunt of the work and sacrifice. We need to eliminate the draw system and go to a straight draw. The next generations will not fight for our rights as hunters if they have to wait for a decade to have a great hunt. We are eliminating OTC areas which are restricting them to go to draw areas and potentially not hunt this year. Forcing them to go into the draw and increase the point creep even more. We also need the non resident for the revenue they bring in as their funds support almost all of our hunting as well as many of our small businesses throughout the state. Residents cannot afford to see the tags increase to the same level or higher as non residents. I know we will loose the points we've been accumulating but it is worth it in the long term to save our way of life. Not a popular proposal but its the right thing to do.

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.

I applaud the volunteers who took on the thankless task of serving on DPWG. Those I have communicated with agree: Their recommendations will bother more hunters than they will satisfy. And they realize CPW can blackball any or all of their suggestions. The Board of Commissioners has already declined some version of all of the proposals in this EngageCPW page, and all but the most radical ones under consideration by DPWG. The Board's standard reason for rejection is 'fairness.' Any change to the existing draw process will benefit some at the expense of most others, as does the current system. Fairness cannot and should not be the the hill this opportunity to improve the draw system dies on. Pick any cohort: youth, residents, NRs, OTC hunters, women, disabled, archers. . . To benefit one is to deprive all others. Board, call it what it is and stop using the fairness excuse to kick this can further down the road. The Board can most decisively do this by clearly stating which groups should be prioritized. If youths need draw incentives to join the sport, the Board should say which groups are less important than youths. Ditto for archers, OTC hunters, outfitters, all groups. Don't hold your breath for that clarification from the Board, they would have to resign if their true allegiances were disclosed.

Here is my disclosure: 4 generations of my family have and do hunt Colorado. Resident small and big game hunter, angler since 1964. Never hunted with an outfitter, never paid a trespass fee. Typically hunt 2 big game seasons/year. Have used the draw system to hunt either sex elk 1st season in unit 61, and antlered deer on RFW Hill Ranch, 2 of the crown jewels of the draw system. Accompanied nephew on an RFW youth hunt. Hunted early season, late season and every season in between with archery, muzzleloader, rifle. Hunted big game in at least 30 GMUs west of I-25. Participated in 4 years of hunter and agency discussion about the draw process and season structure as past member of CPW Sportspersons' Roundtable. Stood in line for leftover and reissued licenses, in person and virtually. My biases are, in order:
1. Sustainability and improvement of habitat and herd resources. Without this first, the rest don't matter.

2. Connecting Colorado citizens with outdoor recreation so they will value and vote for wildlife and habitat. Youth recruitment fits here, as does better opportunity for residents in general, which I prioritize higher than nonresident opportunity. See #1 above.

3. North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. More opportunity for hunting, less privatizing and monetization of outdoor sports. Outfitters should not be vectors of government financial stimulus from CPW to landowners. Landowners host much of our big game, however, and should be encouraged to allow hunters access to game on their property. This leaves room for consideration of OTC for private land only, providing it does not prioritize NR over residents.

Deer, elk, bear, pronghorn
Proposals that will not reduce point creep and opportunity loss: Hybrid draw, point banking, and point averaging on group applications. Proposals that will reduce or eliminate point creep: Elimination of points by sunsetting over some number of years and no issuance of new points. Making every draw random removes year-to-year predictability and aspiration, both of which serve #2 and 3 above. Thus, a preference point system for these 4 species should have a maximum # of points allowed to accumulate (5, 7 or 10). Everyone with that maximum point total who applies has an equal chance. Hunters who already have more than the maximum # of points/species have to use them within 3 years, after that they will all be reduced to the new maximum threshold.

Points should be awarded one per year if 1st AND 2nd choice are not drawn in main drawing. Leftover tags should not cost points. Reissues of returned tags should cost the # of points it took to draw that tag. If claiming a reissued tag without having the points it cost in the draw, that tag uses all the points the new user has for that species.

Youth preference matters for recruitment but is abused in the current system.

R/NR = 90/10% for all draw tags, same as everywhere else. After 1stAs a result, resident license fees increase to maintain the same level of enterprise funding for CPW as has been.

OTC unlimited for residents only, we can more readily switch units to reduce pressure during Sept. NRs have capped OTC #s and must commit to a a small region of units (create geographic areas that allow NRs flexibility to hunt multiple units such as Gunnison area, or Meeker area, or Durango area). NR archers must commit to either the 1st 2 weeks or 2nd 2 weeks of Sept. Rs have the whole month and all OTC units.

Test1

Test

Test Comment2

Test comment Granicus

test Comment

Having just moved out of state after being a resident of Colorado for 40 years, Limited licenses should be 90/10 for at least all male licenses and whatever is decided on female licenses is fine with me. Paying $800 to hut a cow elk is ridiculous. I won't be hunting CO anytime soon based on the poor state of the herds.

Either eliminate NR OTC tags or cap NR OTC and have NR's use PP when applying for OTC (similar to Wyoming). This will force hunters to use their points instead of being able to accumulate PP's year after year while still hunting. CO should not be the fall back option for every hunter in the nation who doesn't draw other states.

Given that a major objective of the Draw Process Working Group is 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 should have preference but it shouldn’t be so hard to figure out. Right now it’s like trying to solve a Rubiks Cube.

Given that a major objective of the Draw Process Working Group is 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 (2023) Youth Hunting page 17 in the 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 should have preference but it shouldn’t be so hard to figure out. Right now it’s like trying to solve a Rubiks Cube.

With the theme of trying to simplify the draw process, please look at and consider the "spider-web" of rules, exceptions, extensions, specialties, etc.etc. related to youth hunting. Anyone reading the entire Youth Hunting Page 17 in the (2023) brochure is left with their "head spinning"... Given all the "spider-web" of rules, exceptions, extensions, specialties, etc. and trying to make sense of it all and what to do, how to do it and how to avoid making a mistake with it all. Youth definitely deserve preference but can't we MAKE IT ALL EASY TO FIGURE OUT, UNDERSTAND AND USE without needing a "Dick Tracy Decoder Ring???

I agree with most of the comments here about reducing non-resident participation to match what other states do. My ideal world is to draw better tags in my own state more often for me and my kids and reduce tags. The only way to do this is to reduce non-res tags if one goal is to reduce overall hunter numbers which not affecting residents. At times, I feel that CPW has opportunity hunt OTC seasons with an unlimited number of hunters involved just as a funding mechanism because they know elk success will be in the single digits in those units. Hunting in crowded non-quality unit OTC units is neither successful nor enjoyable for a hunter with family and is the #1 reason I feel that prevents the recruitment of new hunters which we drastically need. I likewise apply in most other states and am used to this system so I suspect non-residents will accept the same in time. Big issue I am sure CPW will have is reduced funding at the CPW level and the local economy level. While I feel for the local economy needs, I think you have to prepare yourself for this budgetary environment/reduced programs and services anyway with the reality of herd reductions in the face of continued adverse winters, habitat loses with the ever-changing human populations and of course at least the initial onset of wolves on the landscape once they get their foothold ALL at the same time. It will take 10-15 years to teach elk how to avoid these predators (like in NW Wyo) and hopefully herds don't permanently crash like they did in northern Idaho and the Bob Marshall in Montana.

I agree with most of the comments here about reducing non-resident participation to match what other states do. My ideal world is to draw better tags in my own state more often and reduce overall tags. The only way to do this is significantly reduce non-res tags. In some ways, I feel that CPW only has hunter-opportunity OTC seasons with an unlimited number of hunters just as a funding mechanism because they know elk success will be in the single digits. Hunting in crowded non-quality unit OTC units is neither successful, enjoyable for a hunter with family and is the #1 reason I feel that prevents the recruitment of new hunters which we drastically need. I likewise apply in most other states and am used to this system so I suspect non-residents will accept the same in time. Big issue I am sure CPW will have is reduced funding at the CPW level and the local economy level. While I feel for the local economy needs, I think you have to prepare yourself for this budgetary environment/reduced programs and services anyway with the reality of herd reductions in the face of continued adverse winters, winter range habitat loses with an increasing population (Eagle Cty, Routt Cty) with the ever-changing human populations and of course at least the initial onset of wolves on the landscape once they get their foothold ALL at the same time. Note it will take 10-15 years to teach elk how to avoid these predators (like eventually occurred in NW Wyo) and hopefully herds don't permanently crash like they did in northern Idaho and the Bob Marshall in Montana.

I agree with most of the comments here about reducing non-resident participation to match what other states do. My ideal world is to draw better tags in my own state more often for me and my kids and reduce tags. The only way to do this is to reduce non-res tags if one goal is to reduce overall hunter numbers which not affecting residents. At times, I feel that CPW has "opportunity hunt OTC seasons" with an unlimited number of hunters involved just as a funding mechanism because they know elk success will be in the single digits. Hunting in crowded "non-quality unit OTC non-draw years pumpkin patch of orange" units is neither successful, enjoyable for a hunter with family and is the #1 reason I feel that prevents the recruitment of new hunters which we drastically need. I likewise apply in most other states and am used to this system so I suspect non-residents will accept the same in time. Big issue I am sure CPW will have is reduced funding at the CPW level and the local economy level. While I feel for the local economy needs, I think you have to prepare yourself for this budgetary environment/reduced programs and services anyway with the reality of herd reductions in the face of continued adverse winters, habitat loses with the ever-changing human populations and of course at least the initial onset of wolves on the landscape once they get their foothold ALL at the same time. It will take 10-15 years to teach elk how to avoid these predators (like in NW Wyo) and hopefully herds don't permanently crash like they did in northern Idaho and the Bob Marshall in Montana. Also, I have lived in Colo over 30 years and hunted almost as long and am available to participate at any commission meeting or working group.

This is a comment for a small group of hunters, but a group that can be considered the most loyal to the point system and supporting CPW and that is the max or near max point holders for sheep, goat and moose. Two items: 1) By adding only one more weighted point per year of unsuccessful application it has become apparent with the ever-increasing popularity of these "big-three" these high point holders may not draw ever in their lifetime. To reward this loyalty while still making it possible for low-point holders to draw and as what most other states do for these species, we should square the points at each 1st choice application. Doing the math, this will increase the odds substantially of draw for these hunters. Also doing a quick statistical review, it is apparent that the mode, or highest range of point holders that draw, is those hunters in the greatest-sized group in that mid point range of say 8 to 14 pref points. The high 20-23 pt hunters almost never draw. This is not fair in many ways to the most loyal applicants with the highest points. 2) Make sheep and goat once in a lifetime draws as is with most other states. I know guys that have drawn 2 and 3 times in their life, while the vast majority have never drawn any of the "big three".

With Regards to tag creep reduction, I propose CPW to consider averaging preference points in a group application. such as what Wyo and Ariz do. While this will bring low-pref pt group members up somewhat, this also brings the highest point group member down. This will help burn through pref point banking/creep and is the #1 reason what these states use this method I am told. It will also prevent pushing the highest point non-group applicants out of the draw for top units and allow somewhat easier draws for those applicants.