Colorado Fake Tag Caps??

[ElDiablito]

Thoughts?

From the Colorado Resident Hunter Association:



Nearly all Western States reserve 90% of big game tags for their residents in their primary big game draw (90/10 tag allocation). Colorado only reserves 75% of its tags for residents (75/25). On top of the worst tag allocation of all Western States, Colorado is also the only state to have Fake Tag Allocation Caps as defined below.

In 2023 the CPW Commission instated a Draw Process Working Group (DPWG) and it was their duty to make recommendations to minimize the complexities in Colorado's limited big game draws. To the resident hunters' delight, the DPWG recently made a unanimous recommendation to eradicate the soft tag allocation caps in Colorado, otherwise known as "Fake Caps". This would mean resident tag allocation caps would apply to all 4 draw choices vs just the 1st choice in the primary big game draw.

However, resident optimism was short-lived. The CPW Staff has shrugged off this DPWG recommendation, choosing instead to recommend to the CPW Commissioners to keep the fake tag caps in place (status quo). In January 2025 the Commission will vote on this issue and time is of the essence.

Every year, the Fake Tag Caps siphon over 6,500 big game tags from residents and resident youth and sell them to non-residents. This back door move bolsters CPW's revenue by over $4.2 million annually (see petition picture-CPW slide from the 11.15.24 CPW meeting). This comes at a deep cost to resident hunters and our youth since CPW is selling resident equity in a resident resource. Since 2015, residents have been drawing 17,000 fewer limited elk tags in Colorado and nonresidents are drawing more limited elk tags. This results from the nonresident surge (50,000) in applications and the Fake Tag Caps. There are no longer any bull or bucks tags left in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices since we do not have Hard Caps like in every other state.

Our petition is for the CPW Commissioners to follow the recommendation of the Draw Process Working Group and ignore the CPW Staff regarding the soft caps. Every other state in our nation operates under a hard tag cap system - why should Colorado be any different? It is time to abandon the profit-centered allocation model pushed by CPW Staff and restore equity for resident hunters, our youth included. We implore CPW Commissioners: to abandon the Soft Caps, restore fairness, and bring back hard caps on big game tag allocation like the rest of our nation. We are also asking that Colorado give its Residents equal equity as other states in tag allocation and work toward a 90/10 resident/nonresident tag allocation split like nearly all other western states. Please sign our petition to give a voice to Colorado's Resident Hunters.

This Petition is by the Colorado Resident Hunter Association (Facebook group). Change.org will ask for a donation but none is needed to sign the petition and no monies go to the Colorado Resident Hunter Assoc. We just ask that you share this with every American who believes in preserving family hunting heritage in Colorado.

714 people signed and won this petition

Removal of Fake Tag Caps (Colorado Big Game Hunting) and 90/10 Resident Allocations

www.change.org

 

[wind gypsy]

Every other state in our nation operates under a hard tag cap system - why should Colorado be any different?

One can mince words and argue definitions but it's not so clear cut.

Viewpoint: Nonresidents secure more than 85,000 hunting licenses

Butte Skyline Sportsman Association writes, Just as hunter frustration with nonresidents had exceeded a breaking point, so had our frustration with the laborious process of securing accurate nonresident hunting license information.

missoulacurrent.com

TakeBackYourElk

mailchi.mp

I'm a non-resident. In CPW surveys in recent years i've filled them out favoring the CO resident getting a bigger slice of the pie because of how far off CO was from most of the other states. I felt that to be only fair. That said, the post is giving me WY vibes in that it'll never be enough. Fair enough for residents to want 90/10 and push for it but dont be surprised if existing empathy for Resident hunters wanes.

 

[svivian]

The potential to lose $4.2MM is only if those non residence who did not draw with their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices don't choose to hunt OTC.

Edited to add 1st choice

 

[svivian]

One can mince words and argue definitions but it's not so clear cut.

Viewpoint: Nonresidents secure more than 85,000 hunting licenses

Butte Skyline Sportsman Association writes, Just as hunter frustration with nonresidents had exceeded a breaking point, so had our frustration with the laborious process of securing accurate nonresident hunting license information.

missoulacurrent.com

TakeBackYourElk

mailchi.mp

I'm a non-resident. In CPW surveys in recent years i've filled them out favoring the CO resident getting a bigger slice of the pie because of how far off CO was from most of the other states. I felt that to be only fair. That said, your post is giving me WY vibes in that it'll never be enough. Fair enough for you to want that and push for it but dont be surprised if existing empathy for Resident hunters wanes.

I believe @ElDiablito simply copied and pasted an article

 

[ElDiablito]

I believe @ElDiablito simply copied and pasted an article

Yes, as I wrote: “From the Colorado Resident Hunter Assiciation.”

 

[Chad E]

The potential to lose $4.2MM is only if those non residence who did not draw with their 2nd, 3rd choices don't choose to hunt OTC.

Do tell how to hunt otc deer and pronghorn in Colorado?

 

[svivian]

Do tell how to hunt otc deer and pronghorn in Colorado?

Yes those 7 pronghorn tags would be tough revenue to lose....

Saracasm aside the majority of the money and tag allotments are coming from elk tag sales. Looking at the chart i figured that was a safe assumption for most. Not to mention there are still deer tags right now available as we speak if you are serious about hunting deer.

 

[ElDiablito]

I'm a non-resident. In CPW surveys in recent years i've filled them out favoring the CO resident getting a bigger slice of the pie because of how far off CO was from most of the other states. I felt that to be only fair. That said, the post is giving me WY vibes in that it'll never be enough. Fair enough for residents to want 90/10 and push for it but dont be surprised if existing empathy for Resident hunters wanes.

Ouch, don’t compare CO to WY!

Thanks for the support. No ones pushing for 90/10 on d/e/a. Just pointing out that the current 75/25 % allocation is more than fair and not even being adhered to by the system.

 

[Jethro]

If they're that important, put them down as your first choice.

 

[sndmn11]

Is this a petition to stop allowing NR to have a limited license when R decide they don't want it?

 

[MuleyFever]

This is the kind of thing that I find interesting and not just for CO but across all states. CO just asked for NR hunters to help with donations and support in stopping the anit-hunting cat initiative but then wants to turn around and further limit non-residents. I get that residents want more tags and that makes sense, just saying watch out for what you wish for. Eventually no one will come to help when they cant hunt your state anyway.

 

[ElDiablito]

I think most would agree that the CO system is FUBAR. And most residents don’t realize they aren’t even getting their 75% of the tags.

All this petition is asking for is for the commission to take the recommendation of the Draw Process Working Group (DPWG) that a hard cap be enforced.

Fairness.

 

[sndmn11]

Is this a petition to stop allowing NR to have a limited license when R decide they don't want it?

I think most would agree that the CO system is FUBAR. And most residents don’t realize they aren’t even getting their 75% of the tags.

All this petition is asking for is for the commission to take the recommendation of the Draw Process Working Group (DPWG) that a hard cap be enforced.

Fairness.

 

[ElDiablito]

Is this a petition to stop allowing NR to have a limited license when R decide they don't want it?

No. Who says residents don’t want the tags?

 

[cnelk]

More on this from last February

Colorado's Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity

Colorado's Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity. The average Western state has a 90/10 big game tag allocation split for resident / nonresident hunters on all limited licenses.

publiclandjurisdiction.com

 

[camelcluch]

Signed

 

[ElDiablito]

More on this from last February

Colorado's Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity

Colorado's Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity. The average Western state has a 90/10 big game tag allocation split for resident / nonresident hunters on all limited licenses.

publiclandjurisdiction.com

Thanks. I was just getting ready to click post on this article.

 

[cnelk]

A gem of a paragraph from the article I posted above

“What about public lands- do nonresidents have equal hunting rights to federal lands?? No, since the states hold legislative jurisdiction over big game on nearly all federal lands within their state boundaries the fact that there are federal public lands in the state holds no bearing on a nonresident’s status for preference on a state resource. “

 

[sndmn11]

No. Who says residents don’t want the tags?

When a resident doesn't apply for it as first choice?

It sounds like this petition is saying that the allocation should be adhered to even to the point of having a hunt code go unpurchased at the most extreme scenario.

From @cnelk 's article:
"The current soft (fake) tag caps in Colorado only apply to the resident 1st Choice Draw. There are 4 Draw Choices in the CO Big Game limited primary draw. If there are not enough residents to claim 75% of all the limited tags in Choice 1 draw, the remaining tags are given to all remaining nonresidents within Choice 1. The resident state-mandated tag allocation caps are not honored (hard cap) throughout the 4 draw choices of the primary draw. This is a breach of public trust for all residents of Colorado."

So, having "hard" caps would mean that if no R want to purchase a hunt code, but 25% of the quota is already purchased by NR, then the hunt code sits unpurchased. Even if there are 1k available, the petition is proposing none be sold to NR.

I don't see any problem at all, as a CO resident, with a NR purchasing a hunt code that gets shunned by R who don't think it is worth their first choice. "We" touted hunting as a tool of conservation and for keeping populations in check. How do "we" do so when R are saying they would rather set up a system where it is possible to shut out a willing segment of hunters who may want to be that tool?

If the hunt codes that fall into the "fake cap" category are so important to R hunters, to the point of being blatantly hypocritical and two faced, then that is what a 1st choice is for.

 

[svivian]

When a resident doesn't apply for it as first choice?

It sounds like this petition is saying that the allocation should be adhered to even to the point of having a hunt code go unpurchased at the most extreme scenario.

From @cnelk 's article:
"The current soft (fake) tag caps in Colorado only apply to the resident 1st Choice Draw. There are 4 Draw Choices in the CO Big Game limited primary draw. If there are not enough residents to claim 75% of all the limited tags in Choice 1 draw, the remaining tags are given to all remaining nonresidents within Choice 1. The resident state-mandated tag allocation caps are not honored (hard cap) throughout the 4 draw choices of the primary draw. This is a breach of public trust for all residents of Colorado."

So, having "hard" caps would mean that if no R want to purchase a hunt code, but 25% of the quota is already purchased by NR, then the hunt code sits unpurchased. Even if there are 1k available, the petition is proposing none be sold to NR.

I don't see any problem at all, as a CO resident, with a NR purchasing a hunt code that gets shunned by R who don't think it is worth their first choice. "We" touted hunting as a tool of conservation and for keeping populations in check. How do "we" do so when R are saying they would rather set up a system where it is possible to shut out a willing segment of hunters who may want to be that tool?

If the hunt codes that fall into the "fake cap" category are so important to R hunters, to the point of being blatantly hypocritical and two faced, then that is what a 1st choice is for.

Is the second draw, leftover and reissue process not an option for nonresidence with this proposal?

Youre making it sound as if those tags would be going into the trash.