CPW 2026 Draw Stats are out

[LongWayAround]

Are any tags that don't require a guide unlimited?

Yes. Moose, caribou, deer, black bear, wolf...

 

[Esetter77]

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

Alaska is still a state?? I thought we land-swapped that for Greenland with Russia or Denmark or someone.

But seriously if Alaska residents are getting pushed out of hunting opportunities, facing crowded hunting conditions while non-residents are getting a significant percentage or majority of the tags I feel for you and I also don't think that is right.

On one hand I would think the distance/cost to get to AK would keep your NR numbers somewhat in check, on the other I can see how the outfitter/guide "lobby" could really push to maximize NR tags at the expense of residents. Not to completely derail this CO thread but if I had my way I'd make any guiding on public land illegal and ban outfitters directly participating/voting on any game commissions. In many ways modern outfitters are akin to market and hide hunters of the past: They have a personal financial incentive to maximize their "take" of wildlife. I'm not saying guides are bad people, or they want to push species to extinction, but their profession puts them in an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to the management and conservation of a public resource.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Alaska is still a state?? I thought we land-swapped that for Greenland with Russia or Denmark or someone.

But seriously if Alaska residents are getting pushed out of hunting opportunities, facing crowded hunting conditions while non-residents are getting a significant percentage or majority of the tags I feel for you and I also don't think that is right.

On one hand I would think the distance/cost to get to AK would keep your NR numbers somewhat in check, on the other I can see how the outfitter/guide "lobby" could really push to maximize NR tags at the expense of residents. Not to completely derail this CO thread but if I had my way I'd make any guiding on public land illegal and ban outfitters directly participating/voting on any game commissions. In many ways modern outfitters are akin to market and hide hunters of the past: They have a personal financial incentive to maximize their "take" of wildlife. I'm not saying guides are bad people, or they want to push species to extinction, but their profession puts them in an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to the management and conservation of a public resource.

Absolutely! If Ak could be driven too easily/ cheaply it would be a nightmare situation for the R, plus a lot of good hunting areas there require, boat/ plane to get to… hence pretty restrictive in getting there and too the good hunting grounds, I’m sure they complain plenty about mainlanders heading up from WA but still a drop in the bucket. heck there is a thread on here where POW guys are pissed that Ketchikan guys are ruining their deer hunting and got them restricted on harvest #’s hahaha it’s not all rainbows up north, I would absolutely vouch for them to give more R preference if they needed it.

Completely agree on outfitters, I hunt around several and man it can be frustrating when you are dealing with those guys who think they own the woods cause they are permitted for that chunk of NF… they should go away just like the influencers and the hunting world would be a far better place for it

 

[bz_711]

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

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.

We're all in agreement...I was just stating a fact. Seeing who is running CO right now we're lucky it's not much worse. CO needs governmental change in a bad way!

 

[Hnthrdr]

We're all in agreement...I was just stating a fact. Seeing who is running CO right now we're lucky it's not much worse. CO needs governmental change in a bad way!

A big amen to that man!!! But goodness it’s like the biggest losers in your highschool all got together and decided to be R candidates for governor. The D’s are running god awful folks as expected, but it’s like R’s try to lose on purpose in this state

 

[fulldraw1972]

Dang after the thread I had on here about how to use my elk points it thought I had a plan.
Well that unit jumped almost 3 points this year. Guess it’s on to plan B.

The deer unit I was going to burn my points in jumped a point as well. Looking at the pool for the same amount of points I have and the one below that will be the same now kicks me out for next year. Guess I am off to plan B on that one as well.

 

[KsRancher]

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")

Where has Colorado allocated 65% of draw tags to NR?

 

[il_cop]

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.

I might be in the minority of other residents, but I think it's important that it stays a reasonably low price that's accessible for most hunters regardless of income. If that comes with pressure, I think it's a fair trade. You can always get away from the pressure but you can't hunt every year or teach your kids to hunt if you can't afford it.

Scary proposition to me, on a variety of fronts, if it becomes a pay to play game.

 

[Esetter77]

Where has Colorado allocated 65% of draw tags to NR?

It was in the data I first posted, but here it is again with NR total tags drawn along with the percentages circled. There were 3,000 tags issued in total.



There were 643 resident adults and 62 resident youth who applied for this tag and didn't get it.... while 65% of the tags went to non-residents. Yes it is true the 643/62 did not put it as their first choice but that doesn't mean they didn't "want it" I guarantee you they did want this tag if they didn't draw their 1st choice, which many did not due to point creep.

 

[RyanT26]

It was in the data I first posted, but here it is again with NR total tags drawn along with the percentages circled. There were 3,000 tags issued in total.

View attachment 1076322

There were 643 resident adults and 62 resident youth who applied for this tag and didn't get it.... while 65% of the tags went to non-residents. Yes it is true the 643/62 did not put it as their first choice but that doesn't mean they didn't "want it" I guarantee you they did want this tag if they didn't draw their 1st choice, which many did not due to point creep.

You seem to be hung up on this. If you or anyone of the other residents wanted to hunt this unit, you easily could’ve by putting it as your first choice. And would be hunting there this fall.
It’ll be the same next year.
And in 2028, residents will be complaining that NR’s picked up the tag they really wanted….as their 3rd choice.

 

[Svivian]

Wasting alot time and energy arguing about stuff thats changing in 2028.

 

[Esetter77]

Here is another one where 63% went to NR while a bunch of residents, including youth, didn't draw.

 

[KsRancher]

It was in the data I first posted, but here it is again with NR total tags drawn along with the percentages circled. There were 3,000 tags issued in total.

View attachment 1076322

There were 643 resident adults and 62 resident youth who applied for this tag and didn't get it.... while 65% of the tags went to non-residents. Yes it is true the 643/62 did not put it as their first choice but that doesn't mean they didn't "want it" I guarantee you they did want this tag if they didn't draw their 1st choice, which many did not due to point creep.

That's how many tags NR got. Not thier allotment. Your resident allotment is 75% if you guys want them (1st choice). CPW is literally trying to give residents 75%. All they have to do is put down 1st choice.

This is like your boss trying to give you a raise and you turning it down because you have to pay the taxes on it.

 

[Svivian]

Here is another one where 63% went to NR while a bunch of residents, including youth, didn't draw.

View attachment 1076323

Brother 290 of those 304 residents applied as a second choice. Only 5 non residents drew theirs on second choice, meaning all the tags your referencing were non residents putting in as their 1st choice.

Thats alot of non residents who chose not to get a preference point so they could draw the tag.

 

[Esetter77]

Wasting alot time and energy arguing about stuff thats changing in 2028.

Probably very true about wasting time! But I'm not arguing. I got called out on my numbers and provided data. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't calling me out, he just couldn't believe it was true.

 

[KsRancher]

Probably very true about wasting time! But I'm not arguing. I got called out on my numbers and provided data. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't calling me out, he just couldn't believe it was true.

I have seen those draw outs have those percentages for a lot of years. I find it interesting that you haven't noticed before now. There are several units that this is the case in. Its not a new thing.

If you were talking about me calling you out on your numbers. Yes, you said a "65% NR allotment". Its actually a 75% resident allotment if you want them.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Here is another one where 63% went to NR while a bunch of residents, including youth, didn't draw.

View attachment 1076323

And again, 100% of 1st choice resident applicants got what they wanted.

Granted, the language in the big game brochure doesn't make it clear what the 75/25 resident/non-resident allocation actually means and how it actually plays out. In practice (per the current rules), it means that at least 75% of tags awarded via 1st choice will go to residents (not that 75% of the total tag quota is guaranteed to go to residents). In the cases you've pointed out, 100% of 1st choice resident applicants were satisfied; the fact that non-residents received more than 25% of the tag quota was due to insufficient 1st choice resident demand.

Draw results for the first tag you posted about have been pretty similar since 2024...roughly 35/65 overall distribution to R/NR with 2nd choice odds around 40%. 2026 results for that tag should not have been a major surprise.

 

[Svivian]

Probably very true about wasting time! But I'm not arguing. I got called out on my numbers and provided data. I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't calling me out, he just couldn't believe it was true.

The problem is your not comparing apples to apples. Your showing resident 2nd choice vs non resident 1st choice.

 

[KsRancher]

Here is one from 2023.

 

[Esetter77]

That's how many tags NR got. Not thier allotment. Your resident allotment is 75% if you guys want them (1st choice). CPW is literally trying to give residents 75%. All they have to do is put down 1st choice.

This is like your boss trying to give you a raise and you turning it down because you have to pay the taxes on it.

I'm not going to play semantics. I didn't say it was the allotment it was what they allocated, which could mean what they set aside OR in my use of the word what they distributed.

This is going to be my last post on this thread. The argument of "if you wanted this tag you should have just put in for it first choice" is just intellectually lazy. The reason people care about their 2nd choice is because they didn't draw their first choice. Many folks are accumulating points whether they want to or not because of point creep. If your 1st choice takes roughly 10 points but keeps alluding you because of point creep you would be a fool to put in for this tag as 1st choice because you would be throwing away a decade plus of points. Why do you suppose not drawing the 1st choice tag and point creep could happen? Could Non-Residents taking a full 25%+ of THOSE tags possibly play a roll??

I'm not the only one who sees an issue here and that's the reason it (hopefully) is getting resolved in '28.

I started this thread with frustration not with non-residents but with the CPW but honestly the only thing this thread has done is given me resolve as a resident to do as much as I possibly can to limit non-resident tags in the future.