CO hunter numbers.

[Scooter90254]

I see them pulling the OTC archery tags and going to a very liberal draw system. Where most would get a tag. They have to do something to curb the NR growth.

Unless it really is a money grab.

 

[chasewild]

Double edge sword there. Residents are totally Ok with NRs high tag costs where NRs produce 70% of license revenue. But that means that if CO reduces NR numbers, they cut their own throat financially. As they say, Be careful what you ask for....

We filed public records requests with WA, UT, WY, and MT -- so far, Colorado currently makes up 50% of the Nonresident opportunity in the country. And, CO's "high tag cost"??? Montana is $1,000 for an elk and CO $660 in CO. I'm fine with "cutting our throat financially" by this calculus any day of the week.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I see them pulling the OTC archery tags and going to a very liberal draw system. Where most would get a tag. They have to do something to curb the NR growth.

Unless it really is a money grab.

If they did away with OTC tags period, and also split the archery season into 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Basically make it so you have to burn points to get any elk tag. Would reduce the point accumulations/point creep.

 

[LongWayAround]

If they did away with OTC tags period, and also split the archery season into 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Basically make it so you have to burn points to get any elk tag. Would reduce the point accumulations/point creep.

Three archery splits? EFF that!

 

[txhunter581]

Cody - Sounds like your CORA request was not very specific, and does not drill into where the true issue is or where it should be resolved. Your numbers suggest 90,000 archery licenses sold, that is wrong.

The best numbers are attached. Limited licenses are 65/35 based on first choice demand for any method of take. That is a no brainer calculation for the most part.

OTC list A for archery is 52/48. No doubt about it.

B tags don't really matter in any allocation discussion, there is little to no NR demand, and they are only used when overpopulation allows for additional take. Not sure why any allocation policy would ever be implemented for B tags given the objective.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18OtQ--h1pIN_WebdPZ_TfHwap_O9TXuc

We filed public records requests with WA, UT, WY, and MT -- so far, Colorado currently makes up 50% of the Nonresident opportunity in the country. And, CO's "high tag cost"??? Montana is $1,000 for an elk and CO $660 in CO. I'm fine with "cutting our throat financially" by this calculus any day of the week.

here are some facts:
1) Colorado lost 30,000 NR elk hunters when they upped the prices substantially last time. They are still actively advertising to try and get some of those back.
2) Colorado sells WAY more NR tags than any other state = way more money in there budget than that they have already spent or planned to spend
3) You May be ok with cutting their financial throat but the CPW is not. Not gonna happen

As I stated, because residents were Ok with the 10x difference in price, CPW is now addicted to our money. And because of our sheer numbers, that is a LOT of money. Also, because what happened last time when they raised our prices a lot, they are content to just go up a small CPI increase yearly.

 

[chasewild]

Cody - Sounds like your CORA request was not very specific, and does not drill into where the true issue is or where it should be resolved. Your numbers suggest 90,000 archery licenses sold, that is wrong.

The best numbers are attached. Limited licenses are 65/35 based on first choice demand for any method of take. That is a no brainer calculation for the most part.

OTC list A for archery is 52/48. No doubt about it.

B tags don't really matter in any allocation discussion, there is little to no NR demand, and they are only used when overpopulation allows for additional take. Not sure why any allocation policy would ever be implemented for B tags given the objective.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18OtQ--h1pIN_WebdPZ_TfHwap_O9TXuc

Steve -- welcome to Rokslide. Glad to see you join.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Sometimes I just want to post numbers from memory and it doesn't work out all the time! Here's some numbers you may be more familiar with from other forums.

Archery Tags	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
052 NRES ARCHERY ANTLERLESS ELK	1,141	764	764	792	544	528	511	460	N/A
055 NRES ARCHERY EITHER SEX ELK	13,112	12,677	12,313	12,895	14,082	15,243	15,721	15,473	N/A
Nonresident Archery Elk Total	14,253	13,441	13,077	13,687	14,626	15,771	16,232	15,933	N/A
051 RES ARCHERY ANTLERLESS ELK	2,258	1,679	1,870	2,305	2,557	2,631	2,704	2,449	N/A
054 RES ARCHERY EITHER SEX ELK	13,727	13,879	14,008	15,177	16,755	17,785	17,262	17,212	N/A
Resident Archery Total	15,985	15,558	15,878	17,482	19,312	20,416	19,966	19,661	N/A
Total	30,238	28,999	28,955	31,169	33,938	36,187	36,198	35,594	N/A
Percent NR	47.1%	46.3%	45.2%	43.9%	43.1%	43.6%	44.8%	44.8%

Really, the point is simple -- Colorado is supporting the OTC hunting game for residents and nonresidents. And we're feeling it, seeing it, and hearing about it in Commission meetings. That's all. No quibbling really, just basic concern for an obvious trend.

State	Total Hunters	Res	NR	Percent NR	Harvests	Elk	Percent Harvest	License R	License NR	Cost Ratio	Data Year	Mandatory Reporting
CO	223,547	151,970	71,577	32.0%	43,292	286,680	15.1%	$54.75	$661.75	8.3%	2018	No
MT	113,976	95,771	18,205	16.0%	30,348	130,000	23.3%	$20.00	$905.00	2.2%	2017	No
OR	100,685	94,336	6,348	6.3%	16,010	133,000	12.0%	$81.50	$738.00	11.0%	2017	Yes
WA	97,636	96,975	661	0.7%	5,559	62,150	8.9%	$50.40	$497.00	10.1%	2018	Yes
ID	81,142	68,327	15,404	19.0%	13,473	107,000	12.6%	$75.25	$656.75	11.5%	2017/2018	Yes
WY	70,608	57,697	12,911	18.3%	25,091	104,800	23.9%	$57.00	$692.00	8.2%	2018	No
UT	45,206	42,102	3,104	6.9%	13,740	68,000	20.2%	$319.00	$865.00	36.9%	2017	Yes
NM	36,704	30,831	5,873	16.0%	14,387	70,000	20.6%	$75.00	$613.00	12.2%	2018	Yes
AZ	25,679	23,111	2,568	10.0%	9780	35,000	27.9%	$185.00	$825.00	22.4%	2016	No
NV	7,963	7,547	416	5.2%	2,384	17,500	13.6%	$195.00	$1,275.00	15.3%	2018	Yes
KY	733	660	73	10.0%	375	13,106	2.9%	$120.00	$690.00	17.4%	2018	No
AK	354	338	16	4.5%	102	1,300	7.8%	$45.00	$760.00	5.9%	2018	Yes
CA	314	313	1	0.3%	243	12,900	1.9%	$523.89	$1,624.40	32.3%	2018	Yes
PA	118	110	8	6.8%	100	1,000	10.0%	$45.90	$351.90	13.0%	2018	Yes

 

[txhunter581]

That will NOT make all bow tags limited

The stated plan does not even call for all bow tags to be limited. They just want the option to make SOME areas with low elk numbers limited.

 

[Rich M]

Hahahaha

And I have some ocean front property in AZ. Interested?

If they did, there would be different tier prices for diff areas, no quota draw, and a dozen other diff ways to squeeze $$ out of folks. In my understanding, license fees rarely pay the bills - that they get $ from other sources to cover the costs.

 

[Grasshopper]

I bet elk alone will generate 50 mill for cpw this year.

Personally I think it is important to recruit and retain resident hunters, they vote. They need an affordable license. Commissioner McDaniel and others have stated on the record they would like to go totally limited for all methods and the discussion is coming.

Will they lose money if they do? Not sure, but they are authorized today to charge $100 anyone for an elk preference point. Get ready, someday...

That said, I dropped probably $1650 for my Wyoming elk tag with point fees. Would I do it again? In a heartbeat, it is priceless.

 

[vanish]

That will NOT make all bow tags limited

The stated plan does not even call for all bow tags to be limited. They just want the option to make SOME areas with low elk numbers limited.

I'm sorry but, the CPW presentations (full limited was one of the 4 alternatives) and results of the commission meetings disagree with you. At this point I think odds are 60/40 we see full limited voted in September.

They can already make specific areas limited. They don't because of the domino effect - the hunters that did not draw in that now limited unit will just move to a different OTC unit, exacerbating the problems in that unit. Hunters in that unit complain. The problem compounds.

Just because full limited comes into play doesn't mean way fewer licenses. For many people the only difference will be the word "Leftover" on your license instead of "OTC".

 

[JWP58]

What you guys need to keep in mind is the big picture; hunting is a dying pastime. Hunter numbers are at an all time low, and in 10-15yrs with the aging boomers there wont be anymore hunters.

Lol

 

[txhunter581]

Vanish, I know they tabled the “limited license” till September but I am under the impression that they were talking about within the final recommendations that were discussed:

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2019/July/Item.16-BGSS.Final.Recs-July.2019.PWC.pdf

Nowhere in this document does it say all bow tags can become limited. If they discussed going back on these recommendations to one of the original “all limited” options it is news to me. Is that the case?

 

[Newtosavage]

They have to do something to curb the NR growth.

Why?

 

[Newtosavage]

What you guys need to keep in mind is the big picture; hunting is a dying pastime. Hunter numbers are at an all time low, and in 10-15yrs with the aging boomers there wont be anymore hunters.

Lol

Laugh now while you can.

 

[chasewild]

For many people the only difference will be the word "Leftover" on your license instead of "OTC".

^^^

 

[vanish]

...Nowhere in this document does it say all bow tags can become limited. If they discussed going back on these recommendations to one of the original “all limited” options it is news to me. Is that the case?

That is in fact the case. Several members of the commission were not comfortable backing the OTC recommendation by CPW, and of course another half the commission is brand new to this, so they're pretty much following the more experienced members.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Why?

Because our herds cannot handle an unlimited amount of pressure

 

[txhunter581]

That is in fact the case. Several members of the commission were not comfortable backing the OTC recommendation by CPW, and of course another half the commission is brand new to this, so they're pretty much following the more experienced members.

Thanks, I did not know that. Just going on what I have read. Didn't have time to watch the meeting.

But I will still bet you a 12 pack of your favorite beverage that they will not vote to make all elk bowhunting limited.

 

[Newtosavage]

Because our herds cannot handle an unlimited amount of pressure

Which is why the herds have been growing as the pressure has been increasing?

 

[vanish]

Which is why the herds have been growing as the pressure has been increasing?

They haven't been growing in all DAUs, particularly SW CO. Is it due to hunter pressure? Who can say, since we don't limit OTC tags to certain regions and therefore don't know how many people hunt where ( during OTC seasons ). The surveys are meh.

Right now 40k hunters could all funnel in to one OTC unit. This is exactly one of the reasons for looking at limited. Limited does not necessarily mean low tag numbers. And if you then limit that one unit, a different ( or several others ) may then encounter the problem.

DAU OTC with caps would be a similar alternative but at that point limited works better as it avoids the "I got screwed because my internet crashed" or whatever aspect.

-----

I'm not advocating going full limited, just presenting the arguments being made.

Personally, I'm kind of ambivalent on the issue, as I am a hunter first and foremost, not an archery only hunter - I will have some sort of elk tag if I want one and thus the guaranteed license is not a concern of mine. I do not see CPW slashing tag numbers if they go full limited due to the MONEY. Rather, having finer control over impacts on individual herds. That's starting to sound like a good thing.