Parks and Wildlife Commission License Distribution Workshop

[Winchester]

^^ Exactly.
That results in only 423 tags for residents out of 1000 originally available as I described above (from the video's "water pitcher" example).

 

[Bonecollector]

I watched the entire video, twice.
Here's their example for DE007O1A:
This is an Either Sex Archery Deer unit with 1,000 tags. 20% (200 tags) go to landowners right of the top (a statutory requirement, no residency requirement), then another 15% (150 tags) is taken off the top for youths (this pertains to Doe Pronghorn, Antlerless Elk, and Antlerless & Either Sex Deer). Then using the 65% / 35% distribution applicable to most units we’re left with 423 tags for Residents and 227 for Nonresidents. Because this example was Either Sex Deer the youth set-aside applies. If it were a different hunt without the youth set-aside the final numbers would have been 520 tags for Residents and 280 for Nonresidents. It’s the relatively low final number of Resident tags that have hunters living in Colorado concerned.

So 423 tags out of 1,000 for residents.

you also need to add that 20% off the top for resident landowners to the 423. 623 resident tags plus the youth allocation they may receive (didn’t see a resident vs non) I’ll bet that number pushes 700 on a conservative youth estimate. Correct me if I’m wrong I miss interpreting the data

 

[mallardsx2]

^^ Exactly

 

[Winchester]

^^ Hey Bones, I get what you’re saying but I wouldn’t count the 20% off the top that landowners get as “resident tags” because those tags are no longer available for resident to draw.
Sure you could find a landowner and buy one for big $$$ but that’s much different than being able to draw it.

 

[mallardsx2]

I believe the percentage is automatically awarded for allocation by statute and an they are then drawn by application.

Fact remains, those should be counted as resident tags in my eyes. As should the resident youth tags. You got a big chunk of your resident tags being gobbled up before you adult residents even get a chance at them.

From what I looked at, generally speaking, the split is 65/35 in low point units where LPP tags are not available. When LPP tags are thrown into that mix, adult resident tags suffer badly on a percentage basis. And I have no clue how LPP tags or allocation is determined.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the cup of water video was an elementary, average situation, at best. Lol

 

[Bonecollector]

^^ Hey Bones, I get what you’re saying but I wouldn’t count the 20% off the top that landowners get as “resident tags” because those tags are no longer available for resident to draw.
Sure you could find a landowner and buy one for big $$$ but that’s much different than being able to draw it.

What qualifies a Colorado resident to get a resident landowner tag? I honestly don’t know as I haven’t looked into it.
Years ago here in Ohio, a landowner could get an additional tag as long as you owned 50 acres or more. They also used to have a law that if you own 50+ acres you can hunt on Sundays but it was abolished and open to everyone after about 10 yrs

 

[Winchester]

^^ Qualification begins by owning 160 Acres … then you can request a landowner tag. I don’t know all the other ways but I know there are also “depredation tags” CPW can issue to landowners based on crop damage, etc. Once the landowners get ‘em they can use them themselves or sell them to anyone, including nonresidents … so they aren’t strictly “resident” tags.

 

[Bonecollector]

^^ Qualification begins by owning 160 Acres … then you can request a landowner tag. I don’t know all the other ways but I know there are also “depredation tags” CPW can issue to landowners based on crop damage, etc. Once the landowners get ‘em they can use them themselves or sell them to anyone, including nonresidents … so they aren’t strictly “resident” tags.

Gotcha. Depending on how they use them, residents lay more claim to them than non-residents out of the get-go. But I understand your frustration. They cannot be totally discounted out of the resident quota as a whole due to the nature and how they are acquired.
However you cannot consider that 20% nonresident tags either.

But yeah it kinda stinks.

 

[Winchester]

Point of order Bones.
I’m not saying what I think … I’m just presenting the CPW example & numbers from their video
( you can watch it). That example is CPWs.

 

[JimP]

From what I have experienced most landowner tags go to non residents. I know a number of landowners who obtain these tags and they usually sell them to non residents that have hired outfitters who have money and don't want to play the point game.
I've even asked about buying one from them and they just laugh and tell me that I can't afford one of their tags

 

[Winchester]

Yeah, I’ve talked to a few landowners who just sell all their tags to an outfitter. Then the outfitter uses them for guided hunts … usually for nonresidents.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I don't remember when the legislature passed the 20%, but my guess is not too many people were paying attention to it then . I am sure the outfitters and big landowners were backing it bigtime. After skimming off tags for family and friends, the rest go to the highest bidders. It would be interesting to see the data on how many go to Non Residents. My guess is most of them.

I don't have a problem with 15% going to junior hunters. It would also be interesting to see how many of them are actually used by juniors.

 

[Bonecollector]

From what I have experienced most landowner tags go to non residents. I know a number of landowners who obtain these tags and they usually sell them to non residents that have hired outfitters who have money and don't want to play the point game.
I've even asked about buying one from them and they just laugh and tell me that I can't afford one of their tags

I totally get it.
But in the same breath you cannot consider these part of the non-resident tag pool either. You simply have to deduct them from the total just like a governor tag. I’m not saying that you are, I’m just trying to better understand the situation. I agree it’s crappy for both resident and nonresident alike. Takes money to play the game

 

[JimP]

With how they are distributed you can't consider them in the resident pool either.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I totally get it.
But in the same breath you cannot consider these part of the non-resident tag pool either. You simply have to deduct them from the total just like a governor tag. I’m not saying that you are, I’m just trying to better understand the situation. I agree it’s crappy for both resident and nonresident alike. Takes money to play the game

To my knowledge there is no way to know who gets the landowner tags and how many they get. I guess you could contact the CPW wildlife manager in each unit and ask them. If they provide the information, you could contact the landowner and ask if you could buy a tag. The CPW biologists and wildlife managers agree and set the number of animals (tags) the want to harvest in each unit. The 20% is then skimmed off and the jr tags set aside. These tags are basically unavailable for the majority of residents to apply for, but count against the harvest target.

Ther bottom line for me is that the CPW has harvest goals and issues tags to accomplish this. If you look at the number of tags in the resident pool and do the math it gets you the percentage available for the draw,

 

[Winchester]

^^ I would say you are all correct. You can’t consider the landowner tags as resident or nonresident because they can use them however they want. I imagine that’s why in the CPW example they take them off the top and leave them is a separate category. The result is either 423 or 520 tags (depending on whether or not the GMU has Youth tags) remaining for residents to apply for in the draw. That’s the lowest percentage of resident tags of any Western state.