Stupid ? about Colorado elk draw - which units to start building preference points?

[ericF]

I didn't scroll through and read the CPW notes. But what is the difference compared to what they already do?

You apply for the draw, don't draw, and if you checked the box you can apply for the leftover draw. Which is all the tags that were not applied for in the first draw.

A couple changes.
1. Bear and Antelope licenses weren't included in the previous leftover draw, but will be included in the secondary draw
2. This secondary draw will include a number of semi premium tags. Last year in the leftover list, there were quite a few tags that showed up on leftover day. This would be because A. people didn't properly pay for the tag for whatever reason, or B. people returned the tag. These tags would never show up on the current leftover draw.
3. CPW wants to get rid of the majority of the leftover tags through the secondary draw so that they aren't crushed when the leftover list becomes available.
4. CPW says there is limited hunter participation on the current leftover draw.

I would expect to see the secondary draw become more popular with the quality and number of tags that will show up and it is earlier in the summer so people have more time to plan. I think item #2 above will be the big draw with the fallout of tags that weren't properly purchased, or the tags that are reversed before the secondary drawing happens.

 

[Newtosavage]

I see it differently. It's the government of Colorado's job to take care of it's wildlife and it's citizens. It's not a perfect world or perfect system but they are obligated to cater to the resident.

Can't disagree with that. If I'm fortunate enough to be a co resident someday, I'll be grateful! I trust they (cpw) have done the math and think that they can both appease the demands of residents who want fewer non-residents, AND still expect those residents to generate as much revenue. I wish them luck.

 

[dirtytough]

A couple changes.
1. Bear and Antelope licenses weren't included in the previous leftover draw, but will be included in the secondary draw
2. This secondary draw will include a number of semi premium tags. Last year in the leftover list, there were quite a few tags that showed up on leftover day. This would be because A. people didn't properly pay for the tag for whatever reason, or B. people returned the tag. These tags would never show up on the current leftover draw.
3. CPW wants to get rid of the majority of the leftover tags through the secondary draw so that they aren't crushed when the leftover list becomes available.
4. CPW says there is limited hunter participation on the current leftover draw.

I would expect to see the secondary draw become more popular with the quality and number of tags that will show up and it is earlier in the summer so people have more time to plan. I think item #2 above will be the big draw with the fallout of tags that weren't properly purchased, or the tags that are reversed before the secondary drawing happens.

Thanks for the explanation. I imagine this draw won't happen quite as soon as the leftover draw then if they are going to add tags that weren't paid for or that were returned.

Any idea if it will have the same res/non res split? Or maybe they will do it like the leftover list. If a non res 201 bull tag is turned in they gave 5 non res crack at it. Also would this second draw be random or require points to be used?

Another interesting change to acquiring a Colorado tag.

 

[sndmn11]

Like I said before, residents of most western states NEED non residents if they are to enjoy all the things they are accustomed to. They may not like it, but the alternative is pretty dire in these days of state budgets. And we don't even mind if you enjoy all those benefits for the 50 weeks a year we aren't around.

I see your point here, but also remember that we only NEED the folks BUYING licenses. I didn't have time to check the statistics, and will update if I do, there is segment of applicants who previously were just paying the application fee and not converting into license sales. So I think that creating a 100% conversion rate will likely turn a significant amount of increased revenue even if you drop participants. Someone mentioned previously the mission of CPW, and that seems to fall perfectly in line with that.

 

[Newtosavage]

I see your point here, but also remember that we only NEED the folks BUYING licenses. I didn't have time to check the statistics, and will update if I do, there is segment of applicants who previously were just paying the application fee and not converting into license sales. So I think that creating a 100% conversion rate will likely turn a significant amount of increased revenue even if you drop participants. Someone mentioned previously the mission of CPW, and that seems to fall perfectly in line with that.

Good point. That makes sense.

And that's why I suggested they charge $100 to apply, then deduct it from the cost of a tag if drawn. If not drawn, they can issue the preference point or issue a refund with no preference point. Pretty simple really. Not sure why they had to go the useless license route. That's just some administrator being lazy IMO.

 

[sndmn11]

The toddler and the puppy fell asleep on the floor, so I did a quick check only of elk from 2018 https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2018ElkDrawRecap.pdf

Page one and two of the above link show 117,484 adult non-res applicants. $19 2018 app fee yielded $2,232,196 in guaranteed money. I believe post #19 in this thread established $100ish as the total cost to apply for non-residents. That would make that guaranteed money number turn into $11,748,400.

24,947 adult non residents successfully drew and presumably purchased a license. I can't remember what a bull cost and what a cow cost, and don't feel like looking up that breakdown for non-res adults via the draw, but let's assume a $550 average. That assumption gets us to $13,720,850. Grouped in with 2018 application fees, the sum is $15,953,046.

So CPW only has to sell $4.5M of non-res adult elk licenses, or about 1/3rd the amount of last year, to come out ahead. Another way of looking at it is that before any license are sold to this group, they are 525% ahead. When it is referenced that CPW receives funding mainly from itself, I don't see any negative in that increase in revenue.

 

[Fatcamp]

So what did they earn from PP sales for deer elk and antelope? That should be in there.

 

[Newtosavage]

So CPW only has to sell $4.5M of non-res adult elk licenses, or about 1/3rd the amount of last year, to come out ahead.

If I understand your post correctly, that's assuming the same number of NR applicants, which surely will not be the case this year. CPW is taking a gamble with this change and I guess they will get to see if it pays off.

 

[Fatcamp]

I wonder about the economic impact overall in having fewer hunters visit the state. Tag fees may stay level with increases, but fewer hunters equal fewer dollars spent overall. This is a huge consideration here in South Dakota any time non-resident fee increases are considered.

I guess I don't know the impact of hunters in Colorado. SD they are very important, but we don't have skiing or legal dope.

 

[5MilesBack]

4. CPW says there is limited hunter participation on the current leftover draw.

It can't be that limited. In all my years of applying during the secondary draw I have drawn exactly ZERO tags. So the demand has to be somewhat high if I've gotten shut out every time.

 

[Newtosavage]

I wonder about the economic impact overall in having fewer hunters visit the state. Tag fees may stay level with increases, but fewer hunters equal fewer dollars spent overall. This is a huge consideration here in South Dakota any time non-resident fee increases are considered.

I guess I don't know the impact of hunters in Colorado. SD they are very important, but we don't have skiing or legal dope.

LOL

Good point though. NR's spend a lot more than on just tags when they come. I probably spend $250 on gas and food, in addition to the $600+ tag. And I DIY and camp. Others who stay in hotels or cabins or lodges will spend a LOT more than that. Easily double what their NR tags might cost. Add in an outfitter and/or pack animals, and that figure gets into the thousands real quick.

A NR hunter who stays in a lodge on private land or who hires an outfitter/guide can easily spend $4000 on a single hunting trip. It might take CPW, the state and local economies 20 years to get that same revenue from a resident hunter. I'm sure CPW is well aware of that fact, and is always being pulled in two directions - wanting to listen to residents about overcrowding, but at the same time trying to make ends meet. Not sure if any state has figured out how to have their cake and eat it too.

Luckily for the residents, the NR hunters are only there for a few weeks or months each year. The rest of the year, all those CPW programs benefit them every day. If putting up with a swarm of NR's for a portion of the year means having public access, parking areas, leased lands, law enforcement, fish stocking, wildlife health, camping areas, etc. for the rest of the year then that sounds like a price I'd be willing to pay.

 

[ericF]

Thanks for the explanation. I imagine this draw won't happen quite as soon as the leftover draw then if they are going to add tags that weren't paid for or that were returned.

Any idea if it will have the same res/non res split? Or maybe they will do it like the leftover list. If a non res 201 bull tag is turned in they gave 5 non res crack at it. Also would this second draw be random or require points to be used?

Another interesting change to acquiring a Colorado tag.

I have no real knowledge other than reading all of the commission meeting notes each month because I find it somewhat interesting, but here is another PDF with specific information on the current leftover draw and the future secondary draw. Responding to 5milesback first, here is the data straight from CPW on the current number of people in the leftover draw and the success rate.

"...resulted in a total of less than 4,200 applications per year. On average, 95% of the applications were successful in these draws leaving over 30,000 available Deer and Elk licenses to go to Leftover Day. "

Expanding farther on the numbers, CPW says adding Bear and Pronghorn will increase the number of leftover licenses from roughly 30,000 to 40,000. Then the kicker and I was surprised by this is that there were 10,000 licenses that weren't paid for or returned that would be included which brings the secondary draw up to 50,000 licenses. They go on to say that the >5 point licenses will still be reissued to the next 5 people in line, but if they don't take them then they would go into the leftover list. The real value here is the multiple <5 point tags that slip back into the list.

"Allowing a Leftover “Secondary” Draw to include Bear and Pronghorn licenses would have added in 2018, 222 hunt codes or 12,506 licenses. In 2018, there would have been over 40,000 licenses not drawn through the Primary Draw that would still be available through the Secondary Draw. In addition to these 40,000 licenses, there were approximately 10,000 licenses either returned or not paid for that could be eligible to be used in a Secondary Draw."

As to the split for resident and non-resident, they don't specifically say anything on that. They do however state that there will be no preference points used for the secondary draw which means it will be completely random. Youths will have preference in the draw, but no landowner preference is used and group applications won't be allowed.


CPW Issues submittal form for Secondary Drawing

 

[sndmn11]

If I understand your post correctly, that's assuming the same number of NR applicants, which surely will not be the case this year. CPW is taking a gamble with this change and I guess they will get to see if it pays off.

Correct I did make that assumption. When you are talking about in increase of 525% to apply, that means that if you have 5 people who applied last year, they can afford to lose 4 of them and they still come out ahead. 5x19= $95 (last year), or 1x100= $100 (this year). I don't think that 80% of folks will drop out. I would genuinely be surprised if this change had no statistically significant deviation from prior years if you threw then all on a graph, so I think that assumption I made is a fair representation of an unknown future event.

If your counter point is that license sales will suffer, let's just remember how many people are beside themselves for not drawing "their" tag year after year, otherwise the process was just vaccinated against point creep....

 

[Newtosavage]

Correct I did make that assumption. When you are talking about in increase of 525% to apply, that means that if you have 5 people who applied last year, they can afford to lose 4 of them and they still come out ahead. 5x19= $95 (last year), or 1x100= $100 (this year). I don't think that 80% of folks will drop out. I would genuinely be surprised if this change had no statistically significant deviation from prior years if you threw then all on a graph, so I think that assumption I made is a fair representation of an unknown future event.

If your counter point is that license sales will suffer, let's just remember how many people are beside themselves for not drawing "their" tag year after year, otherwise the process was just vaccinated against point creep....

Not looking to make counter points. You're probably right in your assessment, which is probably how CPW sees it. I just want an answer to the "why the small game license and not the fishing license?" question, which I'd gladly buy to qualify, even in addition to an elk tag, because I may find myself up there in the summer for a camping/fishing/scouting trip with my son. I was pretty surprised when I learned the fishing license was included with the elk tag. That was nice, but not necessary IMO. I would have rather had the option to tack on another tag at a reduced rate. Oh how many times I wish we had the option for a combo deer/elk tag, where you put it on the first animal you took. There have been several years I would have gladly burned my elk tag on a mule deer on the last day of the hunt. I've seen states that offered things like that. If you pay $600 for an elk tag and choose to burn it in place of a $300 deer tag, why would CPW care? I guess if they can get you to buy both tags though... LOL

I will say that they are already operating at my margin for recreational spending. Once I retire, I just can't see how I'll be able to keep paying those increasing costs for NR big game tags. It's playing a major part in my decision on where to retire actually. Just the license and tag fees alone will be nearly enough to offset the state taxes we'd have to start paying.

 

[wind gypsy]

$600-1200 for a big game tag is financially significant enough have a major impact on where you retire? That seems a bit drastic.

 

[Fatcamp]

$600-1200 for a big game tag is financially significant enough have a major impact on where you retire? That seems a bit drastic.

I don't think it's drastic at all if retiring on an average income. Hunting matters enough that moving to a state where it is good makes sense. It's not everything of course, but it matters.

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't think it's drastic at all if retiring on an average income. Hunting matters enough that moving to a state where it is good makes sense. It's not everything of course, but it matters.

Yup.

And it's a lot more than just the cost of a tag. The travel costs and equipment costs for coming in as a NR are as much or more than the tag. I see it as "free" tags in a way. IOW, rather than spend $1500-2000/year on 7-9 days of hunting one species (roughly $200/day), I would probably spend $300 hunting two or three species for a month or two (getting to hunt for dollars/day). So yea, that's significant to me.

Of course, it's probably like reloading. I don't save any money but I get to shoot a whole lot more for the same money.

 

[5MilesBack]

Responding to 5milesback first, here is the data straight from CPW on the current number of people in the leftover draw and the success rate.

"...resulted in a total of less than 4,200 applications per year. On average, 95% of the applications were successful in these draws leaving over 30,000 available Deer and Elk licenses to go to Leftover Day. "

Actually 4200 applications is a lot when many of those leftovers are only a couple tags in specific units. Normally, 90% of that leftover list is pretty useless IMO. That's why they're leftovers.

And speaking of the economics..........I did my thesis on "The Economics of Elk Hunting in Colorado" back in the 80's.

 

[dirtytough]

I don’t know if it is just CO’s location proximity to populations with different mindsets but it baffles me how much NRs complain about perceived injustices there. It has the least benefit for Rs compared to NRs of any of the 6 western states I apply to.

Agreed. IMO there are a few things Colorado could do to make things better. But overall I think they are the most friendly state to non res hunters when it comes to stuff we like to complain about. Price and tag allocations.

Also for the guys comparing how much more Colorado is going to make, last year was an anomaly with zero PP fees. Before it was $40 per species for a PP or you could use the previous license loop hole. As everyone knows apps skyrocketed last year. I would imagine it would be more accurate to look at the apps from say 2015-2017 to get a better idea on total applicants for deer, elk, and pronghorn.

 

[cnelk]

wind gypsy said:
"I don’t know if it is just CO’s location proximity to populations with different mindsets but it baffles me how much NRs complain about perceived injustices there. It has the least benefit for Rs compared to NRs of any of the 6 western states I apply to."


Many should write this ^^^^^^^^down and read it over and over again