CPW screwing Residents yet again….

[ColoradoV]

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2023/March/Item.15-MEMO_License_Distribution_Mar_PWC_FINAL_03032023-Katie_Lanter-DNR.pdf

75-25% across the board w no point banking or sharing will be the line.

I am not an upper point holder but this sure puts the screws to the residents that are..

If they are going to make it 75-25 it needs to for be first draw, second draw, leftovers, youth, and returned tags..

 

[wildwilderness]

Isn’t 75/25 is an improvement over the 65/35 it’s been?

I do think they should allow point sharing with rounding down, would help get through some points

 

[Bearded Bowhunter]

Only 100 less high demand tags to residents total across all units involved and 3000 more in all other units to residents. Seems pretty resident and non-res friendly to me (also seems that way to the 80+% of residents and 70+% of non-res that said they favored a 75/25 split).

 

[dirtytough]

Isn’t 75/25 is an improvement over the 65/35 it’s been?

I do think they should allow point sharing with rounding down, would help get through some points

High demand tags were 80/20. Low demand 65/35.

Point sharing will increase creep. Please get that type of non sense out of here.

 

[ColoradoV]

So beard you must only be talking elk w the 100 tags… You do know there are other animals here in Co …

 

[cnelk]

I'm surprised the OP isnt blaming the CBA on this one too

 

[cnelk]

Remember also - the Landowner quota comes out of the Resident allotment so the % is actually less than 75%

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

If folks were this outraged at what the various levels of government continuously does to us, instead of just Game & Fish, the USA would likely be in much better shape.

But I guess we all have different priorities. Can do away with cops, teach garbage to kids, open our borders, etc but do not impede a person's perceived right to get a tag.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Cliffs notes?

I don’t see the issue.

Point banking….dumb
Sharing…not a fan
75/25 across the board…prefer 80/20 but close enough.

 

[accountantsanonymous]

I'm surprised the OP isnt blaming the CBA on this one too

Never understood a lot of the hate for the CBA. I get they pissed of some deer folks, and there is probably some history that out dates me, but it seems a lot has changed. I dropped in a board meeting a few months ago and was impressed.

 

[ColoradoV]

Haha elk you angry much man .

Since you brought it up yea if they cba had pushed 80-20 for residents instead of the insane loosing battle they keep on pushing to keep otc units we would be in a better spot from where I sit.

I don’t think they have much else to do w this tho. As you stated it should be 75% min of all tags, returned tags, well as leftovers as well as lo vouchers. Make 75% of the lo vouchers for resident 25% non resident and we would be getting somewhere.

But then again maybe we should all be like the cba put all the eggs in the “keep otc forever” basket …..

 

[coloyooper]

I’m just a dumb hose dragger. Can someone explain to me how averaging points in a party app would increase point creep? Seems like maybe short term it might but it would pull a lot of guys out of the point game too.

High demand tags were 80/20. Low demand 65/35.

Point sharing will increase creep. Please get that type of non sense out of here.

 

[cnelk]

Point Banking and Point Averaging are two different situations

 

[coloyooper]

Point Banking and Point Averaging are two different situations

Exactly

 

[sndmn11]

Does anyone remember the anger from NR when the "change" in November occured moving some "high demand" hunt codes into the upper resident allocation group?

All those NR folks should be elated now since the allocation ratio of those was moved back in their favor for those high demand hunt codes. Thank a resident next time for their rational thoughts.

 

[realunlucky]

I’m just a dumb hose dragger. Can someone explain to me how averaging points in a party app would increase point creep? Seems like maybe short term it might but it would pull a lot of guys out of the point game too.

I see it as issuing two tags with one set of points so not sure how that doesn't increase point creep.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[prm]

I see it as issuing two tags with one set of points so not sure how that doesn't increase point creep.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Both issued tags would lose points. (unless something has changed that I'm not aware of)

 

[Ucsdryder]

I see it as issuing two tags with one set of points so not sure how that doesn't increase point creep.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Short term it would put a ton of pressure on the low to mid point units. Long term is could help.

All this is assuming people don’t start getting points for family members. Why wouldn’t I have my Colorado friends and relatives put in and then pay for their tag every couple years. You could realistically have 2-4 points every year.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I’m just a dumb hose dragger. Can someone explain to me how averaging points in a party app would increase point creep? Seems like maybe short term it might but it would pull a lot of guys out of the point game too.

Among other reasons, point averaging would create incentive to buy points for non-hunting family/friends, which would increase the total number of points in the system. Not everyone could afford to do that, but some hunters would willingly pay a few hundred bucks extra each year buying points for non-hunters to help themselves get tags in future years. How much that would actually affect point creep is anyone's guess, but such shenanigans do occur in states that allow point averaging.

 

[Rich M]

CO seems to respect the NR hunters more than some other states.