CPW 2026 Draw Stats are out

[Esetter77]

IMO, it ends after 1st choice.
I don't see how you can argue someone wanted it if they didn't put in for 1st choice....

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
But to me it's simple: I put in for my first choice with my points in unit X and hope I draw it, but may not (and didn't) because of point creep. Rather than do nothing and not hunt I can try for the next best thing which is a unit I MAY draw as a 2nd choice. Your logic may dictate nothing matters after 1st choice, but the rest of aren't confined to your logic. The only reason I care at all about my 2nd choice is because increased hunting pressure (point creep) forced me to.

So I'm pointing out that a big part of the reason I didn't draw my second choice is because a very significant portion (the majority) of those tags went to non-residents, a fact many people do not realize is even possible because we are often told "up to 25% of tags go to nonresidents"

Frankly I could care less if you think my logic is sound or I have an argument or not.
My annoyance here is not with non-residents it's with CO Parks and Wildlife for trying to placate residents by telling only "up to 25%" of tags go to non-residents while fine-printing a very large percentage of tags away to non-residents.

 

[wildwilderness]

As a CO resident I'm pretty annoyed with the fact that more tags got allocated to non residents than residents in the unit my 18yo son and I put in for and didn't draw. I think most folks, myself included until recently, don't realize that the 75/25 tag allocation only applies to 1st choice draw. If tags make it to the 2nd round, that 25% cap is apparently thrown out the window and in this case MORE 2nd choice tags were allocated to non-residents than residents and more tags overall (1555 of 3000) for this unit were allocated to non-residents than residents and it's not because residents weren't trying to get them. If you applied for this unit 2nd choice as a non-resident you had a better chance of drawing than if you put in as 2nd choice as a resident. Thanks a ton CPW.

View attachment 1074965

The 2nd choice odds were actually the same Res vs NR. It’s just that more NR applied so more drew out of shear numbers. But that’s how an equal random chance works if you understand statistics

 

[Esetter77]

Shouldn’t someone’s first choice get drawn first , over someone’s second choice?

Well that is the real crux of the issue. Certainly resident 1st choice over resident 2nd choice and NR 1st over NR 2nd. But I would argue once the 25% NR cap is met those 1st choice non residents should NOT automatically get preference over residents. Some of these units are getting so out of wack that well over 50% of the tags are going to non residents and generally speaking I don't think residents realize this nor would they approve of it if they realized it was even possible. And the CPW has a financial incentive to just keep their mouth shut and let residents think they are getting 75% of the tags while taking in the extra NR money.

 

[S.Clancy]

Well that is the real crux of the issue. Certainly resident 1st choice over resident 2nd choice and NR 1st over NR 2nd. But I would argue once the 25% NR cap is met those 1st choice non residents should NOT automatically get preference over residents. Some of these units are getting so out of wack that well over 50% of the tags are going to non residents and generally speaking I don't think residents realize this nor would they approve of it if they realized it was even possible. And the CPW has a financial incentive to just keep their mouth shut and let residents think they are getting 75% of the tags while taking in the extra NR money.

I'm guessing that CPW's position on this is basically "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."

 

[Esetter77]

The 2nd choice odds were actually the same Res vs NR. It’s just that more NR applied so more drew out of shear numbers. But that’s how an equal random chance works if you understand statistics

Yes, I did not word that very well. All the 2nd choice applications initially had the same chances of drawing since it was a random draw. However how it actually worked out is 37% of NR actually got drawn vs only 32% of residents so the numbers ended up in the NR favor even beyond their higher entry numbers, but yes that 5% discrepancy was just due to random luck.

 

[Serrano]

Shouldn’t someone’s first choice get drawn first , over someone’s second choice?

Thats risk of trying to gain a preference point and get the tag ….

Talk to me about AZ and NM.
It doesn't work that way there.

 

[southLA]

Full point of creep on my 1st choice. Luckily get my second choice.

 

[Serrano]

Most (ALL?) other states have HARD caps for NR. Some as low as 6%.

Next you will be saying NR with more points should have priority.

 

[Serrano]

Full point of creep on my 1st choice. Luckily get my second choice.

I saw 2.5 point creep on a tag.

 

[Jethro]

a fact many people do not realize is even possible because we are often told "up to 25% of tags go to nonresidents"

We get it. This exact argument has been had here over and over and over. You’ll have to live with it 1 more draw.

 

[Jethro]

Hmmm seeing plenty of units not going 75/25, and yes there are plenty of residents applying. Wonder if they are taking the landowner tags off the top of resident tags?

LO comes off total quota before res/nr split.

For sure, I’m talking about units that have plenty of R applying with a 1st choice and it’s showing 63-65% of tags going to R, and NR getting 30+ %

Was there enough res 1st choices to fill 75% of the quota?

 

[Esetter77]

We get it. This exact argument has been had here over and over and over. You’ll have to live with it 1 more draw.

Sorry, I'm obviously somewhat new here.
I did try to search this topic briefly but search terms for it aren't obvious.

I'm not surprised non-residents have no sympathy for my argument but I guess I'm glad to know others, residents presumably, have seen the same, had the same frustration, and made the same argument in the past. I spend a lot of time hunting as a non-resident so I understand the frustration on both sides, but CO has become virtually unbearable.

 

[Serrano]

Sorry, I'm obviously somewhat new here.
I did try to search this topic briefly but search terms for it aren't obvious.

I'm not surprised non-residents have no sympathy for my argument but I guess I'm glad to know others, residents presumably, have seen the same, had the same frustration, and made the same argument in the past. I spend a lot of time hunting as a non-resident so I understand the frustration on both sides, but CO has become virtually unbearable.

Almost all the archery units (10+) that have been converted since 2016 are the same. 60-75 percent are sold to NR.

But they are basically allotted the same number of tags as hunted when OTC.

It has forced many resident OTC bow elk hunters into the remaining OTC units.

The 2028 75/25 limit on 2nd choice is long overdue. Big win for resident archers.

 

[sodaksooner]

Sorry, I'm obviously somewhat new here.
I did try to search this topic briefly but search terms for it aren't obvious.

I'm not surprised non-residents have no sympathy for my argument but I guess I'm glad to know others, residents presumably, have seen the same, had the same frustration, and made the same argument in the past. I spend a lot of time hunting as a non-resident so I understand the frustration on both sides, but CO has become virtually unbearable.

I get it and see your point. I rarely put in for a 2nd choice so really don't have a dog in the fight per se. I see both sides. Just one more year as mentioned before it changes.

 

[Jethro]

Sorry, I'm obviously somewhat new here.
I did try to search this topic briefly but search terms for it aren't obvious.

I'm not surprised non-residents have no sympathy for my argument but I guess I'm glad to know others, residents presumably, have seen the same, had the same frustration, and made the same argument in the past. I spend a lot of time hunting as a non-resident so I understand the frustration on both sides, but CO has become virtually unbearable.

For the record, I’m a NR and I agree with you. 75/25 thru 2 rounds long over due. But if a state has a rule that benefits me, I’m using it. Ex) CO surrender period to get money and points back. I think that’s dumb, but have taken advantage of it 2x.

 

[wildwilderness]

I haven’t looked much into the 2028 changes in regards to total Non-Resident cap- is that going to be a hard cap on Non-Resident tags? As in 2nd choice as well? And even for leftover tags? For all species? And all tags even Class A, B, C?

 

[Esetter77]

I get it and see your point. I rarely put in for a 2nd choice so really don't have a dog in the fight per se. I see both sides. Just one more year as mentioned before it changes.

Hey man I appreciate it.

One thing about the changes in '28 is they really aren't addressing what I see as the real crux of the problem, they are an improvement, but the real "issue" that is slanting the numbers is there is no cap on the NR percentage in the 1st choice and this isn't changing in 2028.

For the unit I posted about this year 65% of the tags went to Non-residents. I ran the numbers using the 2028 allocation scheme and this would have only dropped the figure 58%.

I don't know what the "fair" number is but IMHO there should be a backstop even for 1st choice non-resident tags, which is how most other states do it. Maybe 25% is the soft cap for 1st choice and 35-40% is a hard cap just as a middle ground? To my knowledge that would still be far more generous than any other western state. For the unit I posted a little over 50% went to NR in the 1st choice round.


I believe majority percentages of draw tags going to NRs is a relatively recent phenomenon. Despite it apparently being discussed here a fair bit in the past, I KNOW a significant portion of resident hunters aren't aware. But as tags become harder and harder to draw I suspect more and more residents will become aware.

 

[Esetter77]

For the record, I’m a NR and I agree with you. 75/25 thru 2 rounds long over due. But if a state has a rule that benefits me, I’m using it. Ex) CO surrender period to get money and points back. I think that’s dumb, but have taken advantage of it 2x.

Much appreciated and I don't blame you one bit for taking advantage of the system available.

I blame CPW for pissing on my back (allocating 65%+ of draw tags to NRs) while telling me it's raining ("well only up to 25% of tags go to NRs unless there is not enough resident demand")

 

[Hnthrdr]

Almost all the archery units (10+) that have been converted since 2016 are the same. 60-75 percent are sold to NR.

But they are basically allotted the same number of tags as hunted when OTC.

It has forced many resident OTC bow elk hunters into the remaining OTC units.

The 2028 75/25 limit on 2nd choice is long overdue. Big win for resident archers.

Going to have to ask for 85/15 across the board here before too long

 

[Esetter77]

I haven’t looked much into the 2028 changes in regards to total Non-Resident cap- is that going to be a hard cap on Non-Resident tags? As in 2nd choice as well? And even for leftover tags? For all species? And all tags even Class A, B, C?

The below is not gospel, just what I was told today by a CPW rep. In reading what I could find online it was vague exactly how "resident demand" was defined.
"Allocation rules apply to the first and second choices in the PrimaryDraw. If there is insufficient resident demand after going through thefirst and second choices, any excess quota may go to nonresidents(soft cap)."

In speaking with a CPW guy earlier today according to him there will be no NR hard cap on any choice. The only change is if any tags make it to 2nd choice 75% of that number will be allocated to Residents for random draw and 25% to NR for random draw.

But up to 100% of tags could go to NR (theoretically) as first choice before any become available to anyone in 2nd choice.