CPW 2026 Draw Stats are out

Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t get a preference point in Arizona if you draw your second choice…
No preference points in NM so not exactly apples to apples.
How about WY. Residents get three choices plus OTC.

Whatever is left is available to NR in the leftover draw. But it's mostly less desirable cow tags, 5 point or less tags and some bow tags.
 
How about WY. Residents get three choices plus OTC.

Whatever is left is available to NR in the leftover draw. But it's mostly less desirable cow tags, 5 point or less tags and some bow tags.
Residents don't have points in wyoming.

Colorado letting people get a tag without using points is the true problem the system is getting overwhelmed.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk
 
Residents don't have points in wyoming.

Colorado letting people get a tag without using points is the true problem the system is getting overwhelmed.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk
+1

How is a good idea that you can get a tag in the primary draw and not only not use points but gain a point as well….

AND can draw your first choice, something comes up, return it and get your points reinstated….

AND have multiple other opportunities at purchasing LE tags and not use points…

3-4 ways to hunt LE tags every year, not use points and continue gaining points, wonder why creep is a problem?
 
Same ole, same ole,
Some hunters who don't hunt here until they can swoop in and get the choice tag they want don't like others getting points.
 
How about WY. Residents get three choices plus OTC.

Whatever is left is available to NR in the leftover draw. But it's mostly less desirable cow tags, 5 point or less tags and some bow tags.
Arizona looks at your first two choices, but if you draw you lose your points.

Wyoming residents don’t have points. Do you want Colorado residents to go fully random, no points?

Two separate issues really.
If you draw you draw a primary choice (be 1st choice or first 2-3) you should lose points and not gain one.

Second is the resident /non-resident split. As a NR, we just have to play by whatever your state decides and as long as it’s clear and spelled out I’m ok.

If I was a resident I’d want to have my cake and eat it too. Wyoming seems to have that down. Apply for LE tags in random and if you don’t draw, go buy a tag the rest of us save and fight over for $50 at Walmart…
 
Arizona looks at your first two choices, but if you draw you lose your points.

Wyoming residents don’t have points. Do you want Colorado residents to go fully random, no points?

Two separate issues really.
If you draw you draw a primary choice (be 1st choice or first 2-3) you should lose points and not gain one.

Second is the resident /non-resident split. As a NR, we just have to play by whatever your state decides and as long as it’s clear and spelled out I’m ok.

If I was a resident I’d want to have my cake and eat it too. Wyoming seems to have that down. Apply for LE tags in random and if you don’t draw, go buy a tag the rest of us save and fight over for $50 at Walmart…
Wyoming takes care of their R residents the best it seems, but so should every state really
 
Here's how I see it...If you were running a business would you rather sell 1 unit of goods for $845 or $70?
 
Here's how I see it...If you were running a business would you rather sell 1 unit of goods for $845 or $70?
Sure, but these animals should not be treated as pure money makers otherwise why not just double or triple the cost of tags along that line of thought? Heck don’t have to sell many tags if a NR tag costs 3000 bucks
 
Second Change: Allocation rules apply to the first and second choices in the Primary Draw. If there is insufficient resident demand after going through the first and second choices, any excess quota may go to nonresidents (soft cap).

Notice the wording: "after going through the first and second choices"

Thanks for posting that. That language is better than what I found in the online CPW documents (also posted by Jethro above). While I wish it was written even more definitively, I think that language forces them to consider 2nd choice resident demand prior to them determining their NR 1st choice allocation.

That's in an approved Final Changes document?
 
Co gives out more tags than all other western states combined (elk) and it’s becoming evident that it seems unsustainable and yet Co R’s are always the bad guys when ever suggesting that maybe we scale back a touch…
Well, then reduce the total number of tags. Then residents will still get the same amount of tags they are currently getting and NR much less. The department giving out a shit load of tags in some units is guaranteeing NR get alot % wise.
 
Well, then reduce the total number of tags. Then residents will still get the same amount of tags they are currently getting and NR much less. The department giving out a shit load of tags in some units is guaranteeing NR get alot % wise.
I agree, tough when the commission is being ran by actual nincompoops but that’s a whole other issue
 
Sure, but these animals should not be treated as pure money makers otherwise why not just double or triple the cost of tags along that line of thought? Heck don’t have to sell many tags if a NR tag costs 3000 bucks

Hnthrdr, I didn’t take bz’s post as an “ought” claim. Could be wrong, but just took it as reality. You make a good point though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hnthrdr, I didn’t take bz’s post as an “ought” claim. Could be wrong, but just took it as reality. You make a good point though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean yes they could price us all out of hunting if they wanted R and NR alike…
 
Here's how I see it...If you were running a business would you rather sell 1 unit of goods for $845 or $70?
Managing wildlife as a public trust resource is definetly not the same as running a for-profit business but your point is still valid. I think this is why a lot of western game commissions struggle. The want to appease the residents because that is their job and who they are supposed to represent but they also want to maximize Non Resident dollars (without ever saying that part out loud).

I know plenty of CO residents would not agree with me, but personally I would welcome a pretty steep price increase for resident big game tags IF it meant significantly reduced hunting pressure and better draw odds.

I think what is more likely though is moderate resident price increases AND higher hunting pressure and worse draw odds.
 
CO is still more generous with NR tags than any other western state so I guess it is all just relative.

NO, its not more generous than Alaska which has NO cap to Non-Resident tags. An in case you forgot geography Alaska is more western than Colorado 😉

Don't compare OTC to limited.

Harvest rates are likely skewed by NR going guided.

Even for the Alaska limited draw tags there are essentially no limits to Non-Residents on most hunts. There are a few hunts with a quota for guided non-residents but those quotas are very liberal (outfitter welfare bias). And if you are a NR with a family member to hunt with pretty much get resident draw odds.
 
NO, its not more generous than Alaska which has NO cap to Non-Resident tags. An in case you forgot geography Alaska is more western than Colorado 😉



Even for the Alaska limited draw tags there are essentially no limits to Non-Residents on most hunts. There are a few hunts with a quota for guided non-residents but those quotas are very liberal (outfitter welfare bias). And if you are a NR with a family member to hunt with pretty much get resident draw odds.
Are any tags that don't require a guide unlimited?
 
Back
Top