Parks and Wildlife Commission License Distribution Workshop

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,519
2,643
I think he is referring to the fact that you folks are not paying lease fees (for the most part hunting public land) to hunt.

But, I'm just the errand boy here. lol
 

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
7,854
3,697
81
Dolores, Colorado
I lived in Texas for a couple of years and there is almost no public land for hunting except for SW Texas around Big Bend. Hunters have always payed to hunt, that whey we see so many Texans here in Colorado. They also high fence their land and import lots of exotics, especially African game. When compared to most western states, Texas seems like a foreign country when it comes to hunting.
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,519
2,643
If you guys want to wing a couple across the bow of the next Texas trucks you see be my guest.
They caused me a little heartburn the last time I was in Colorado.


Just hold your fire if you see the GA plates. ;):);):)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Cowboy

JimP

Administrator
Mar 28, 2016
6,697
7,811
69
Gypsum, Co
I pay money to lease private land to hunt in my home state. It would be nice to have a chance to hunt for free - even once every two or three years. I know you guys that have grown accustomed to hunting for free every year are upset when those opportunities begin to get harder to come by. But when there are more people and less wildlife habitat, free hunting will be only a distant memory before long. If NR hunters are shut out, the revenue they provide will dry up. And then resident hunters' costs will increase. As the number of resident hunters grow, they won't be able to get a tag every year either - even if they cut out NRs all together.

I'm not throwing stones at anyone. Just talking reality.

Who is hunting for free? In you home state less than 2% is public. So if you want to hunt your pretty much are going to have to either own property, lease it, or pay a trespass fee to hunt it.

Colorado on the other hand 36% of the land in Colorado is public land with most of that land west of I-25. You have a tag for the animal and season you can hunt any of that 36% unless that tag is unit specific.

Both states require you to purchase a hunting license and a tag for your animal unless you are hunting inside of a high fence operation where the property owner also owns the "livestock" that you plan on hunting.

But back to the subject at hand, we are talking about what percentage of tags should the residents be allowed and what percentage should the non residents get? Years ago on another forum a member was pushing for a "US" tag. He figured that since most of the animals were being hunted on public land that everyone should have a equal chance at hunting those animals regardless of residency. His biggest problem with that logic is that the Federal Government puts the management of the wild animals in the hands of the stage agencies that were formed to protect those animals and for those agencies to set the rules, and regulations pertaining to the hunting seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Cowboy

Granby guy

Active Member
Nov 5, 2012
328
254
Grand Lake, Colorado
“The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportspersons, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife-related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.”

This virtual meeting was so hard to listen to (I did listen to the whole thing last night) and some of the questions asked (or the lack there of) were ridiculously stupid for people that are in charge of setting rules. Some of the commissioners were calling in by phone and you could hardly hear them and it was pretty obvious that they weren't putting much effort into actually participating in the call.

In the private sector, most of these people would be FIRED….so they should be glad they have cushy govt jobs where they can be so incompetent/lackadaisical about the topics at hand…After all, they are the commissioners so the should be held to a higher standard.

From what I can see/hear these commissioners are scatterbrained and grossly under-qualified to maintain voting positions and very few of them deserve the publics respect to cast a vote on these topics.

At the end of the day, I get it, residents want more LIMITED ENTRY tags and less NR pressure. I would too if I lived there…but the CPW has the NR $ on their fangs. And they like the taste of it…

My thoughts about change:

-Colorado needs to go back to having people pay for their tags up front like it used to be and offer NO REFUNDS (similar to Wyoming)

-Colorado needs to force people to burn their points for ANY A-list tag no matter when it is drawn and make people sacrifice 1 point for an OTC tag.

-Colorado needs to make people buy their OTC Tags within 2 weeks following the primary draw. Stop making Colorado the August fallback plan state for all of the late in the year holdouts.

20 minutes of talk about point creep and that idiot wanted to push point banking….lord have mercy….

IMO, when the commissioners saw these charts it pretty much assured the status quo, especially for for OTC archery.
So I wouldn't look for change here. Although, I like the idea of reducing the OTC archery and setting a cap at a 25% reduction to 2021 license sales. That would reduce a lot of pressure. Are residents willing to increase their license fees to cover the 5.6 million $ delta? They should be prepared to since they are the ones crying the loudest.

View attachment 41115View attachment 41116View attachment 41117
Always interesting to see how a NR wants to dictate tag allocation to residents. I have news for you residents would be willing to pay more for tags if we were assured we received 90% of the quota.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Cowboy

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,519
2,643
Always interesting to see how a NR wants to dictate tag allocation to residents. I have news for you residents would be willing to pay more for tags if we were assured we received 90% of the quota.
There are so many other ways to solve the constant squabble about who, what for, and when people are drawing tags.
Nobody really wants to talk about that though. The only think you hear from most people is "Residents want more tags!".....I get it.

Its also always interesting, for me, to see how many residents want more tags but have no real plan of action on how to cover the delta (loss) in revenue for the CPW. So if you want to raise your rates to cover the difference, then be my guest. Most people just yap about raising the NR tag fees to cover it. Your not doing that, so I say, go for it. Seriously, I encourage it.

IMHO until you R's are paying more, NR's should receive the same amount of tags, not less. Just do me a favor, and don't be like all of the other states and continuing to price out non-residents just so you can have more tags at the same cheap price. You have all been living the good life, riding on the coattails of the NR pocketbooks, for too long. If you see it any other way that that, then that's your prerogative.

I wish you the best of luck in your quest for more tags. I hope it works out for you folks.
 

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
7,854
3,697
81
Dolores, Colorado
There are so many other ways to solve the constant squabble about who, what for, and when people are drawing tags.
Nobody really wants to talk about that though. The only think you hear from most people is "Residents want more tags!".....I get it.

Its also always interesting, for me, to see how many residents want more tags but have no real plan of action on how to cover the delta (loss) in revenue for the CPW. So if you want to raise your rates to cover the difference, then be my guest. Most people just yap about raising the NR tag fees to cover it. Your not doing that, so I say, go for it. Seriously, I encourage it.

IMHO until you R's are paying more, NR's should receive the same amount of tags, not less. Just do me a favor, and don't be like all of the other states and continuing to price out non-residents just so you can have more tags at the same cheap price. You have all been living the good life, riding on the coattails of the NR pocketbooks, for too long. If you see it any other way that that, then that's your prerogative.

I wish you the best of luck in your quest for more tags. I hope it works out for you folks.
Go back to my original post (#2) and look at the example I quote from the CPW statistics.....in some units, residents only get 50% of the tags to draw from. That my friend is totally unacceptable.
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,519
2,643
To be fair, (and trust me, its not that I don't believe you) I don't know what specific unit you are referring to that has such crappy percentages for Resident Adult Hunters.

Would you mind posting the hunt code for the unit (or an example) where Resident Adult Hunters are receiving 50% of the tags that you are referring to so I can take a look to see how the licenses are distributed? Tag by Tag. And see where they are actually going.

In the areas where resident adult hunters are getting near 50% of the tags, it appears that the state has given a PILE of LPP licenses out right off the top. So that could be the units that you are referring to. Also a couple of Youth Resident Licenses out.
 

Winchester

Veteran member
Mar 27, 2014
2,315
1,646
Woodland Park, Colorado
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Cowboy

Winchester

Veteran member
Mar 27, 2014
2,315
1,646
Woodland Park, Colorado

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
7,854
3,697
81
Dolores, Colorado
To be fair, (and trust me, its not that I don't believe you) I don't know what specific unit you are referring to that has such crappy percentages for Resident Adult Hunters.

Would you mind posting the hunt code for the unit (or an example) where Resident Adult Hunters are receiving 50% of the tags that you are referring to so I can take a look to see how the licenses are distributed? Tag by Tag. And see where they are actually going.

In the areas where resident adult hunters are getting near 50% of the tags, it appears that the state has given a PILE of LPP licenses out right off the top. So that could be the units that you are referring to. Also a couple of Youth Resident Licenses out.
Look at the recording of the meeting in the original post. It was used there. They use a pitcher of water and fill glasses for the example. Out state legislature passed a law that says 20 % of the tags go to landowners right off the top. The there is another set aside of 15% for jr hunters. That leaves 65% to be split for the general drawing.