# Colorado Draw - Fred Eichler



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

We talked about non-hunters monopolizing Grizz tags in another thread. Check out Fred's post about Colorado today (I assume he didn't draw):

Wonder why you didn't draw a tag as a resident or nonresident of Colorado this year ? Instead of having applicants pay the cost of the license to apply for tags like they have in the past, which for elk for example is $46 for residents and $661 for nonresidents. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife only charged 3 dollars to apply for any draw tags for any species this year. Not only did tons of people put in that never applied in the past. It also allowed anti hunters to put in for hundreds if not thousands of tags and only pay for the ones they draw to keep hunters from getting those tags. Check Eastmans blog for more details on draw odds. Basically for non-residents your odds of drawing a tag were reduced up to 100% depending on the species you put in for. For residents it's the same. Who is responsible ? As far as I understand Cory Chick is the manager of the licensing dept for CPW and this new system. Let me know what you think and if you don't like the new system call CPW at 303-297-1192 or put your comment on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Facebook page. Colorado Bowhunters Assoc warned them of unintended consequences. Please join CBA so you have a voice. #coloradobowhuntersassociation #sportsmanchannel





Is this the future? Non hunters buying tags? Do they realize the environmental impact?


Edit: Dang that $3 sounds nice for when I want to get a point only


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Is this the future? Non hunters buying tags? Do they realize the environmental impact?


Been going on since they've been selling tags. I've known people doing that since the 1980's.

Actually, it can be a good thing because there are buck/doe ratios that need to be maintained, so if harvest drops because anti-hunters get tags but don't hunt, the DWR just increases the number of tags the next year... all the while pocketing extra money from those who pay for tags they don't use.

-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

DallanC said:


> Been going on since they've been selling tags. I've known people doing that since the 1980's.
> 
> Actually, it can be a good thing because there are buck/doe ratios that need to be maintained, so if harvest drops because anti-hunters get tags but don't hunt, the DWR just increases the number of tags the next year... all the while pocketing extra money from those who pay for tags they don't use.
> 
> -DallanC


Seems like with Social Media and gofund me's it could get bigger (like the $50K raised for Grizzly's)


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

RandomElk16 said:


> Seems like with Social Media and gofund me's it could get bigger (like the $50K raised for Grizzly's)


Actual hunters will always bring more money to the table than non-hunters.
Hell, hunters spend $50k for an elk permit on select units.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Ray said:


> Actual hunters will always bring more money to the table than non-hunters.
> Hell, hunters spend $50k for an elk permit on select units.


Even $250,000+ sometimes...

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The NR on Bowsite have been on the war path for awhile now about the new odds.
If the tags are based on harvest objectives it may be a win in the future with increased tags.
Or many will quit putting in and they start losing money and change the rules again.

My understanding was they changed it because of the cost of returning application fees for unsuccessful applicants credit cards.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What they don't realize about the grizzley's is that there is a quota that is set. So if two non hunters don't shoot one the tag goes to the next hunter in line. At least in Wyoming. 

Now if the non hunters really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the system they would go out and purposely shoot a sow griz, then the hunt would be over for all the hunters.

As for what Colorado did, it is no different than what Utah did a number of years ago. But then perhaps that is why point creep is going up so high.  It is all those non hunters that are putting in for the tags.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Ray said:


> Actual hunters will always bring more money to the table than non-hunters.
> Hell, hunters spend $50k for an elk permit on select units.





DallanC said:


> Even $250,000+ sometimes...
> 
> -DallanC


I wasn't referring to what they do for conservation.. I was referring to the fact they easily raised $50K just to mess up the grizzly hunt (try anyways). A pool to buy tags like that can really shake things up, and it will only grow.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Those grizzly photographers are very naive! I think it’s comical how they seem to have so much belief and desire into doing their part in saving the grizzly against us hunters. But like others have said they just seem to spin there wheels with there efforts! +1 to what critter said, if they really new what they were doing they’d draw a tag and shoot a quick sow to end the hunt.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I see no problem with nonhunters applying. Tag numbers are set based on success rates and population data. So if more nonhunters receive tags, and success rates decrease but populations are at or above objective there is really only one tool for the bios to help manage the population: increase the tag numbers. Alaska publishes great statistics on the number of tags/permits awarded, number of hunters that hunt, harvests, etc. They intentionally factor in about a 30% non participation rate to most tags and increase the total tags offered to account for this. That should normalize out the "fake" applications while increasing revenue. Win-Win in my book.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> Now if the non hunters really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the system they would go out and purposely shoot a sow griz, then the hunt would be over for all the hunters.


Now you're paying attention, Critter!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

RandomElk16 said:


> We talked about non-hunters monopolizing Grizz tags in another thread. Check out Fred's post about Colorado today (I assume he didn't draw):
> 
> Wonder why you didn't draw a tag as a resident or nonresident of Colorado this year ? Instead of having applicants pay the cost of the license to apply for tags like they have in the past, which for elk for example is $46 for residents and $661 for nonresidents. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife only charged 3 dollars to apply for any draw tags for any species this year. Not only did tons of people put in that never applied in the past. It also allowed anti hunters to put in for hundreds if not thousands of tags and only pay for the ones they draw to keep hunters from getting those tags. Check Eastmans blog for more details on draw odds. Basically for non-residents your odds of drawing a tag were reduced up to 100% depending on the species you put in for. For residents it's the same. Who is responsible ? As far as I understand Cory Chick is the manager of the licensing dept for CPW and this new system. Let me know what you think and if you don't like the new system call CPW at 303-297-1192 or put your comment on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Facebook page. Colorado Bowhunters Assoc warned them of unintended consequences. Please join CBA so you have a voice. #coloradobowhuntersassociation #sportsmanchannel
> 
> ...


The issue is how much it costs to refund money. One of the reasons why Colorado went to the system was to save money. I imagine they will raise the cost of PP's, but not requiring the money up front saves money.

Wyoming is also kicking around the idea of not requiring money up front for this very reason. It costs more than what you make on interest to refund the money.

I would not be shocked if New Mexico will follow suit as well and I imagine that they will require a license to apply rather than giving you the option to refund it.

It is crazy how much money it costs to perform big game draws.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Johnnycake already explained why this isn't an issue. Tags are allocated based off objectives. If objectives are not being met, tag numbers increase so that objectives can be met.



What these "sour grapes" hunters need to understand is that these are public tags. That means anyone that meets the criteria necessary (license requirement? hunter safety? etc.) is allowed to enter the draw for a tag. You cannot force the tag holder to kill and fill that tag. I've spent many "hunts" photographing deer and elk vs. shooting them. What does that make me?

Hell -- how many times have we all eaten tag soup? Does this qualify us as "non hunters" who consumed a tag that should have belonged to a "hunter"?


Let those people enter the draw. Require them to have a valid license prior to entering the draw. Capitalize off their money and use it to benefit wildlife.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> Require them to have a valid license prior to entering the draw.


Let them all sit through hunter safety and pay for that as well.

^^This^^


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Two years ago, I applied for sheep in Colorado. That was all I could afford.

Last year, I applied for sheep and deer.

This year, I applied for pretty much everything.

Anti-hunters ruining the odds? I don't think so. We hunters can do that ourselves. -O,- I can't wait until I draw the Colorado deer tag I'm after. It should happen some time between 2038 and 2045.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Only twenty more years!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Sounds like you are trying for my home turf here in Colorado..


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No one good answer. On one hand, you have the viewpoint of conservation money earned with the possibility of more permits offered. On the other, you have some legit hunter being shortsheeted on an opportunity to do what hunters do best, help manage wildlife.

Small price to pay for a passionate anti-hunter to sit through hunter safety class and buy a game hunting license to apply with no refund to save a living teddy bear.

Almost seems fraudulent to put in for a tag and draw with intent to not use it for what the intended purpose is, in essence, they are stealing the ability for the state to manage a resource. And no, this does not mean anyone who goes home tag unfilled because they didn't find the crown they were after.

Nothing is more irritating than to see someone purposfully not allow a hunter an opportunity. I read a post from a chuckle-head on another forum where he and his hunting buddies purposfully put in and draw cow elk permits in MT then have a backyard bbq where they all throw those permits in the fire because they do not agree with the management practice of shooting cows. An asinine behavior to say the least...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Well it looks like most of you are cool with it so no harm no foul. $3 to take opportunity is a great deal!

Not harvesting - and applying and having go fund me's with the only intent being to take opportunity - are to different things but lets lump those together PBH.

I think everyone should have to have hunter safety, a valid hunting license, and a fee of more than $3 lol. I liked the out of state requiring money up front. As was said, people put in for a lot less things. But, Utah's point system and draw odds are wonderful, everyone should follow suit!


----------

