BIG GAME SEASON STUCTURE ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 BIG GAME SEASON STUCTURE ALTERNATIVES For Consideration by the Parks and Wildlife Commission May 23, 2014 Prepared by Big Game Season Structure Team: Craig McLaughlin (Chair) John Broderick Brian Kurzel Brett Ackerman Jody Kennedy Mark Leslie Jim Aragon Matt Thorpe Jim Haskins

2 CONTENTS Topic Page Introduction 3 Summary 3 Deer and Elk Season Structure 5 West of I-25 5 East of I-25 7 Moose Season Structure 9 Pronghorn Season Structure 9 Mountain Lion Season Structure 10 Black Bear Season Structure 11 Youth Hunting 12 Preference Points 13 Appendix A 14 2

3 INTRODUCTION This document provides a list of potential changes to the Big Game Season Structure (BGSS) for offered for consideration by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff developed the BGSS alternatives after assessing the satisfaction of hunters and staff with the current BGSS, and gauging their interest in changes to improve the season framework for the coming 5-year period. Public involvement efforts included extensive outreach around key issues identified through an internal scoping process. These issues included examination of deer, elk, moose, pronghorn, mountain lion, and black bear seasons, expansion of youth hunting opportunity, and evaluation of Colorado s preference point system. In drafting the proposed alternatives, staff also considered the feasibility of implementing these changes. These proposals offer opportunities to improve big game seasons in Colorado while also recognizing the generally high level of satisfaction that hunters have with the current BGSS (Summary Report of Public Involvement). All proposed seasons are in accordance with the agency s guidelines for season timing; no seasons are held prior to August 15 and the latest seasons close on January 31, except occasional hunts to address game damage. For all species, season frameworks for private-land-only (PLO) and Ranching For Wildlife (RFW) hunts are proposed to remain as established under the current BGSS, with only slight modification of ending dates under specific bear season alternatives. In this document, alternatives to current BGSS status are presented within the following categories: Deer and Elk Seasons (West of I-25, and East of I-25), Moose Seasons, Pronghorn Seasons, Mountain Lion Seasons, Black Bear Seasons, Youth Hunting (Preference and Participation), and Preference Points. Within each category, the status quo (current) season structure/condition is presented as alternative 1. Alternatives preferred by CPW staff are highlighted as PREFERRED. Definitions: Alternative A combination of season dates and timing, or conditions that guide BGSS. Variation A slight adjustment to an alternative. Status Quo The current combination of season dates and timing (BGSS ). Preferred The alternative preferred by CPW staff. Abbreviations: DAU = data analysis unit, ES = either-sex, GMU = game management unit, OTC = over-the-counter, PLO = private land only, RFW = Ranching for Wildlife. SUMMARY The following proposals include several alternatives that maintain specific aspects of the current Big Game Season Structure and some proposals for significant changes. For deer, elk, and moose seasons staff prefers to retain the status quo season structure. In general, hunters communicated a high degree of satisfaction with current seasons for these species. In addition, there were no changes that carried broad support among hunters. In response to strong hunter interest in holding the pronghorn muzzleloader season prior to the rifle season, staff recommends that pronghorn seasons be changed by moving the 9-day muzzleloader season forward on the calendar, to start on September 21, immediately after the archery season closes. 3

4 This change would allow muzzleloader hunters to pursue pronghorn before the general rifle season, while preserving a break between muzzleloader and rifle seasons during the peak of the pronghorn rut. The hunting public and CPW employees have expressed broad interest in providing additional opportunity for youth to access licenses and to participate in big game hunts. Consequently, staff is recommending an expansion of the current practice of retaining a percentage of limited licenses for doe pronghorn, antlerless and either-sex deer, and antlerless elk in regular rifle and PLO seasons for youth hunters. The youth preference would include all seasons and manners of take (archery and muzzleloader, in addition to rifle) except public Ranching For Wildlife and Air Force Academy seasons. Staff is also recommending an expansion of the ability for youth to participate during hunting seasons by permitting any youth hunter with an unfilled limited antlerless or either-sex deer or elk rifle license to continue to hunt in any open rifle season for that species within the same DAU after the original licensed season has closed. Staff also prefers to continue the practice of letting youth hunters with unfilled limited doe or either-sex pronghorn licenses to hunt designated late pronghorn doe seasons after the original licensed season has closed. Staff has not identified a preferred season structure for mountain lions. Although all our outreach efforts suggest a high level of satisfaction with the current season framework, there is interest among hunters for additional hunting opportunity. The addition of a fall season framework, overlapping the rifle deer and elk seasons, has potential to provide additional hunting opportunity. A fall mountain lion season would exclude pursuit with hounds. CPW staff is interested in discussing this idea with houndsmen and other affected parties to gauge their level of support. We are currently reviewing hunting success rates and regulations from similar fall mountain lion seasons in other states to evaluate the utility of such a fall framework in Colorado. Strong hunter interest in expanding hunting opportunity and reducing the restrictions on participation in bear seasons resulted in a staff recommendation for changing the rifle bear season framework. We prefer a series of three rifle bear seasons: 1) opening September 2 running through September 20, 2) opening September 21 running through the day prior to first rifle elk, and 3) opening with first rifle elk running through November 15. Licensing for the first 2 rifle bear seasons would be limited entry, and the third season would be OTC with a cap. This framework would also include maintaining the status quo archery and muzzleloader bear seasons, which are OTC with caps. The PLO limited bear season and plains rifle bear season dates would remain similar to status quo, with end dates aligning with the ending of the last regular rifle season. Staff has not identified a preferred alternative to the current preference point system for allocating limited licenses among hunters. Hunters expressed concern over the preference point system, particularly over the continuing creep in number of points required to acquire licenses. Many voiced an interest in changing the way in which limited licenses are distributed, but it was clear that there is not one particular change that will address everyone s concerns. Any change to the current system will alter the predictability and odds of drawing licenses and create dissatisfaction among some segments of Colorado s big game hunters. Consequently, the decision to retain, or change, the preference point system has significant policy implications. If the Commission determines that a change is warranted, staff believes that a point banking system would be a reasonable approach to address point creep. This issue is discussed in detail within Appendix A. 4

5 During this BGSS public involvement process we identified a strong need for education and outreach efforts to inform hunters about Colorado s big game seasons, licensing process, and preference point system. I. DEER AND ELK SEASON STRUCTURE The alternatives for Deer and Elk Season changes listed below assume no change to the relative length and timing of high country deer seasons (with a minimal number of licenses), late rifle elk seasons (for population management) or private land only hunts (to address game damage). WEST of I-25 A. Archery - Deer and Elk Season Structure West of 1-25 and GMU 140 ALTERNATIVE 1. Archery season shall open on the last Saturday in August and run for 30 days. This Status Quo alternative retains archery deer and elk season with no loss of days to season. It PREFERRED meets the desires of the many individuals who were satisfied with the current season structure. ALTERNATIVE 2. ALTERNATIVE 3. Archery season shall open on September 2 and run through September 30. This provides a later opening date that is consistent with the opening of bear season, and ensures a consistent archery hunt period with a later end date. As a consequence, on years when Labor Day occurs early in September, hunters will not be able to take advantage of Labor Day weekend during their hunt. Archery season shall open the last Saturday of August and run for 20 days. This alternative avoids an overlap with muzzleloader season, moves muzzleloader season closer to rut while maintaining a week plus of break prior to rifle season (assuming muzzleloader season starts day after archery season closes). This alternative results in a loss of 10 days from the current archery deer/elk season west of I-25 and GMU 140. B. Muzzleloader Deer and Elk Season Structure West of I-25 and GMU 140 ALTERNATIVE 1. Muzzleloader season shall open on the second Saturday of September and run for Status Quo 9 days. This alternative retains muzzleloader season at status quo with no loss of PREFERRED days of opportunity; it meets the desires of the many individuals who were satisfied with the current season structure. ALTERNATIVE 2. Muzzleloader season shall open on the third Saturday of September and run for 9 days. This moves the opening of muzzleloader season to the third weekend of September as requested by a large number of public comments. The timing and length of the archery season (depending on which archery alternative is selected) will work in concert with this alternative to either 1) shorten the break prior to the first rifle season, 2) require shortening the archery season to avoid overlap, or 3) result in an overlap during the last week of archery. 5

6 ALTERNATIVE 3. a. Muzzleloader shall open on the day following the close of archery deer/elk and run for 9 days. This alternative prevents any overlap between seasons. However, it will result in the loss of one weekend of muzzleloader season and may shorten the break before the potential opening of a rifle season. If the archery season Alternative 3 is chosen, making that season September 2 through September 20, this muzzleloader season will preserve the extended break prior to opening of first rifle season and also avoid overlapping with archery season. b. If the chosen archery season closes on September 30, Alternative 3, this muzzleloader season would end on October 9, and may eliminate any break between muzzleloader and first rifle season, depending on the annual calendar. C. Rifle Deer and Elk Season Structure West of I-25 and GMU 140 For deer and elk, past BGSS have offered a variety of rifle seasons. These have included combinations of an elk-only season and combined deer and elk seasons. The last several BGSS have remained fairly consistent, offering a limited elk-only season, two combined deer/elk seasons (some limited elk GMUs, additional GMUs with Over The Counter (OTC) elk licenses, and all deer licenses limited) and a limited fourth combined deer/elk season (with all deer licenses limited). ALTERNATIVE 1. Status Quo PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2. Variation a. Rifle seasons shall consist of the following: 1 st Season 5-day season, followed by a 2-day break separate limited elk, opening on the first Saturday after October 9. 2 nd Season 9-day season, followed by a 5-day break deer and elk combined, opening on a Saturday. 3 rd Season- 9-day season, followed by a 2-day break deer and elk combined, opening on a Saturday. 4 th Season 5-day season, deer and limited elk combined, opening on a Wednesday. This is status quo and meets the desires of the many individuals who were satisfied with the current season structure. Same season structure as Alternative 1 (above) except for the following: 1 st season would be antlered elk only, 5 days 2 nd and 3 rd season would be combined deer and elk, antlered and antlerless, 9 days each 4 th season would be limited antlered deer only, 5 days This change intends to provide a quality bull hunt in the first rifle season, two combined deer-elk seasons, and a fourth antlered deer season. One consequence is placing all antlerless elk licenses within the 2 nd and 3 rd seasons. Mimic Alternative 1 except that the first rifle season would open on the Thursday before the first Saturday. The 1 st rifle season would run for 5 days, providing a 4- day break prior to the second season; the remaining rifle season length and timing would remain status quo. This variation addresses nonresident hunter interest in travel/preparation for opening day; it may not be favored by resident hunters. 6

7 Variation b. Variation c. Variation d. Mimic Alternative 1 except that the 4 th rifle season would be eliminated. Offer three seasons (elk-only first season, 2 nd and 3 rd combined deer and elk), each with a length of at least 7 days (9 days if two weekends were desirable) and offer a minimum 5-day break between seasons. Mimic Alternative 1 except that all seasons would be combined deer and elk. This alternative would allow rifle deer hunting during the first rifle elk season. PLAINS DEER SEASONS East of I-25 excluding GMU 140 Historically season structure for deer east of I-25 (excluding GMU 140) has differed from those seasons west of I-25 and GMU 140. The timing and length of seasons in this region have been adjusted to accommodate the different pattern of land ownership, agricultural practices including the timing of crop harvesting, weather, and the size of deer populations in the eastern plains. Prior to deer licenses being limited statewide, they were limited east of I-25 excluding GMU 140. The limited Season Choice license will be retained in specified units. The Season Choice license allows hunting in any or all of the seasons in the specified plains unit(s) until the license is filled. D. Archery - Plains Deer Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains archery deer season will open on October 1 and run through December 31; Status Quo in addition, archery season will close during those time periods when a plains rifle PREFERRED season is ongoing and in those GMUs where a late rifle season is occurring. This is status quo and meets the desires of the many individuals who were satisfied with the current season structure. ALTERNATIVE 2. Variation a. Variation b. Plains archery season for deer will open on October 1 and run through December 31; however, this season will remain open while overlapping plains rifle and/or overlapping late rifle seasons are occurring. Plains units are largely composed of private property; by allowing archery seasons to remain open on these units during the time that limited plains rifle and late plains rifle seasons are ongoing, this alternative increases the number of days of opportunity while allowing manner of take to be controlled by landowner. Plains archery season for deer shall open on October 1 and run through December 31 on private property; On public lands, the archery deer season will close during those time periods when a plains rifle season is ongoing and in those GMUs where a late rifle season is occurring. Plains archery season for deer shall open on September 15 and run through December 31; this season will remain open while overlapping plains rifle and/or overlapping late rifle seasons are occurring. Under this variation, the archery deer season dates and recommended pronghorn season dates east of I-25 (excluding GMU 140) will overlap, offering opportunity to those wishing to hunt both species at the same time. 7

8 E. Muzzleloader - Plains Deer Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains muzzleloader season for deer will start the second weekend of October and Status Quo run for 9 days. Retaining muzzleloader season as status quo addresses the interest PREFERRED of hunters that want to retain the current season structure. F. Rifle - Plains Deer Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains rifle deer season shall start on the last full weekend of October and run for Status Quo 11 days. Late plains rifle deer season shall start on December 1 and run through PREFERRED December 14. This addresses the interest of hunters that want to retain the current season structure. PLAINS ELK SEASONS East of I-25 excluding GMU 140 Rifle seasons for elk east of I-25 (excluding GMU 140) have varied through the years. Currently, this season structure includes an archery elk season, and a limited muzzleloader elk season in select GMUs (presently 104,133,134,141,142) which mirror the respective seasons west of I-25. An OTC Plains Rifle Elk Season (opening September 1 and running until January 31) has been applied to this region to suppress elk populations and reduce conflicts on agricultural grounds. G. Archery - Plains Elk Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains archery season for elk shall open on the last Saturday of August and run for Status Quo 30 days. PREFERRED H. Muzzleloader - Plains Elk Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains muzzleloader season for elk (currently in GMUs 104, 133, 134, 141, and 142) Status Quo will remain aligned with the general muzzleloader season dates west of I-25 PREFERRED (including GMU 140). This season will open the 2 nd Saturday in October and run for 9 days. I. Rifle - Plains Elk Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Plains rifle elk season - In those GMUs east of I-25 (except for select GMUs, Status Quo presently 104, 133, 134, 140, 141 & 142). Opens September 1 and runs through PREFERRED January 31, either sex. All legal methods of take are permitted. 8

9 II. MOOSE SEASON STRUCTURE A. Moose Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Moose season shall be divided into three manner of take seasons. These include Status Quo Archery, Muzzleloader, and Rifle. PREFERRED a. Archery Archery moose season shall open on the first Saturday of September and run for 16 days. b. Muzzleloader Muzzleloader moose season shall open on the second Saturday of September and run for 9 days. c. Rifle Rifle moose season shall open on October 1 and run for 14 days. ALTERNATIVE 2. Season Choice One license may be allocated for all three moose seasons (archery, muzzleloader, and rifle). Licenses are valid during all seasons, allowing a hunter to hunt in any season until filled. License holders must comply with all applicable season restrictions, including but not limited to, applicable season dates and manner of take restrictions. This flexibility in hunt choice would likely result in less hunting opportunity due to more conservative license allocations to avoid potential hunter crowding. III. PRONGHORN SEASON STRUCTURE Proposed alternatives for pronghorn season structure include a consistent approach to the timing and length of archery and rifle seasons; the timing of muzzleloader season varies between 3 alternatives. Late rifle pronghorn seasons are proposed to remain at the current time frame; they will vary in length to suit local management needs, but will close no later than December 31. A. Archery - Pronghorn Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Archery pronghorn season shall open on August 15 of each year and run for 37 Status Quo days, closing on September 20. Buck only hunting will run from August 15through PREFERRED August 31 and September 1 through September 20 will be an either-sex season in those GMUs not addressed by limited licenses. B. Muzzleloader - Pronghorn Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Muzzleloader pronghorn season shall open on October 21 and run for 9 days. Status Quo ALTERNATIVE 2. Muzzleloader pronghorn season shall open on September 12 and run for 9 days. By moving muzzleloader season prior to rifle season, this change addresses concerns that pronghorn are difficult to approach during late muzzleloader season. This muzzleloader season would overlap the last 9 days of the archery season and retain a break in early October between muzzleloader season and rifle season. Early October is the peak pronghorn breeding period. 9

10 ALTERNATIVE 3. PREFERRED Muzzleloader pronghorn season shall open on September 21 (the day following closure of archery pronghorn season) and run for 9 days. This change addresses concerns that pronghorn are difficult to approach during late muzzleloader season. C. Rifle - Pronghorn Season Structure* ALTERNATIVE 1. Rifle season opens the first Saturday of October and runs for 7 days. This Status Quo alternative avoids conflicts between muzzleloader and archery hunters hunting PREFERRED during the same time period as rifle hunters. The break between muzzleloader and rifle season will vary in length and may occasionally be as short as 1 day. * The opening date of the proposed rifle season will float with the calendar on an annual basis; opening of archery and muzzleloader seasons are fixed dates in all proposed alternatives. V. MOUNTAIN LION SEASON STRUCTURE Staff has not identified a preferred season structure for mountain lions. CPW staff will be addressing lion harvest management on a statewide basis in the coming year. The new harvest management system will provide additional guidance on the selection of DAU s and the implementation schedule. A. Mountain Lion Season Structure ALTERNATIVE 1. Regular mountain lion season opens the day following the closing date of the 4 Status Quo regular rifle deer and elk season (mid-november) and closes on March 31. Licenses are unlimited; harvest is controlled through GMU-specific quotas. The April mountain lion season opens April 1 and closes April 30; this season occurs in select GMUs; licenses are unlimited and span both regular and April seasons; harvest is controlled through GMU-specific quotas. ALTERNATIVE 2. In addition to the regular and April mountain lion seasons, establish a fall season framework. The fall season will overlap the regular rifle deer and elk seasons. Pursuit with hounds will not be legal. Implementation of a season will be restricted to select DAUs as determined by management need, and harvest will be controlled by OTC licenses with caps. This season will allow additional hunting opportunity for mountain lions during the regular rifle deer and elk seasons. This season could target GMUs/DAUs that consistently fail to meet desired harvest levels. 10

11 VI. BLACK BEAR SEASON STRUCTURE A. Black Bear Season Structure* ALTERNATIVE 1. Archery bear season: OTC with cap by DAU/GMU season opening on September 2 Status Quo and closing on the last day of archery deer and elk season; no season participation restrictions; unfilled licenses may not be used during the regular deer and/or elk seasons. Muzzleloader bear season: 9-day season concurrent with muzzleloading deer and elk; all licenses over the counter with cap by DAU/GMU; no participation restriction; unfilled licenses may not be used during the regular deer and/or elk seasons. Regular rifle limited bear season: Fixed date 28-day season, opening September 2 and closing September 30; licenses issued by DAU/GMU; no season participation restrictions; unfilled licenses may not be used during the regular deer and/or elk seasons. PLO limited rifle bear season: Limited season: a) opening September 2 and ending September 30; b) opening September 2 and ending with close of 4 th rifle deer/elk season; or c) opening October 1 and ending with close of 4 th rifle deer/elk season; licenses issued by DAU/GMU; no season participation restrictions; unfilled licenses may not be used during the regular deer and/or elk seasons. Plains rifle bear season: in select plains GMUs, opening September 2 and closing with close of 4 th rifle deer/elk season; unlimited licenses. Concurrent regular rifle bear seasons: Concurrent with the regular rifle deer and elk seasons; OTC with cap by DAU/GMU; season participation restrictions. ALTERNATIVE 2. ALTERNATIVE 3. ALTERNATIVE 4. ALTERNATIVE 5. PREFERRED Remove the season participation requirement during the concurrent regular rifle bear seasons; any hunter with a rifle bear license can participate. Licenses would remain OTC with cap, issued by GMU/DAU. Create an October rifle bear season that opens October 1 and runs through November 15; OTC with cap at DAU/GMU; no season participation requirement. Split the September season into two seasons, each 2 weeks in length, to offer more licenses and opportunity for additional hunters to participate. Create three rifle bear seasons: 1) September 2-20 w/limited license at the DAU level; 2) Sept 21-day prior to first rifle elk w/limited license at the DAU level; 3) opening date of first rifle elk to November 15, with OTC licenses with caps at the DAU level and no requirement for concurrent participation in a big game season. * For ALL ALTERNATIVES: 1) The archery and muzzleloader seasons remain the same as current BGSS. 2) PLO limited bear season and Plains rifle bear season will remain similar to current BGSS, with latest closure date either with close of 4 th rifle deer/elk season, or November 15, depending upon the bear season framework selected from the above list of 5 alternatives. 11

12 IV. YOUTH HUNTING A. Youth Preference ALTERNATIVE 1. Status Quo Up to 15 percent of limited licenses for doe pronghorn, antlerless and either-sex deer, and antlerless elk in regular rifle and private-land-only rifle seasons are available for youth hunters (ages 12-17, meeting hunter education requirements). ALTERNATIVE 2. PREFERRED Variation a. Up to 15 percent of limited licenses for doe pronghorn, antlerless and either-sex deer, and antlerless elk in all seasons and manners of take, except public Ranching for Wildlife and Air Force Academy seasons, are available for youth ages who meet hunter education requirements. This alternative may provide greater assurance that youth have opportunity to draw a license. Create separate tiers of youth preference percentage (i.e. antlerless deer and doe pronghorn at 20 percent, and antlerless elk at 15 percent). The percentages may be changed annually to address management needs. B. Youth Participation Deer and Elk Hunting ALTERNATIVE 1. Youth hunters with unfilled limited antlerless or either-sex elk licenses will be Status Quo permitted to hunt any season open after the close of the 4th regular rifle season within the same DAU after the original licensed season has closed. This alternative retains the current requirement for youth hunters to convert an either-sex license to an antlerless license prior to hunting late season. ALTERNATIVE 2. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 3. Youth hunters with unfilled limited antlerless or either-sex elk and deer rifle licenses will be permitted to hunt any open rifle season for that species within the same DAU after the original licensed season has closed. This alternative retains the current requirement for youth hunters to convert an either-sex license to an antlerless license prior to hunting late season. This provides maximum increased opportunity for youth to participate with minimum regulatory changes. Create a separate youth only season to include the 2 nd regular rifle season through late seasons for antlerless elk or deer in select GMUs/DAUs, with participation through an OTC license with caps. C. Youth Participation Pronghorn Hunting ALTERNATIVE 1. Youth hunters with unfilled limited doe or either-sex pronghorn license will be Status Quo permitted to hunt designated late pronghorn doe seasons after the original PREFERRED licensed season has closed. This alternative retains the current requirement for youth hunters to convert an either-sex license to a doe license prior to hunting late season pronghorn. 12

13 VI. PREFERENCE POINTS Staff considered other alternatives to the current preference point system for distributing limited licenses, including a pure random draw, and a weighted system similar to the process used to distribute moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat licenses. However, these additional approaches were determined to be dramatic departures from the current preference point system that would cause considerable dissatisfaction among segments of our hunting public who have been strong supporters of big game hunting in Colorado. A detailed description of various license distribution systems is contained in Appendix A. A. Preference Point System ALTERNATIVE 1. No change alternative; will require PWC action to: a) update the list of hunts Status Quo participating in the Hybrid Draw, b) reaffirm the hybrid portion of quota (20 percent),and c) reaffirm the required number of preference points held to participate in the hybrid draw (5+ preference points). ALTERNATIVE 2. Implement a point banking system and retain hybrid draw (with Commission action required on a, b, and c, from 1 above) as in current BGSS. a. Banking system will apply to 4 species in BGSS with preference points (deer, elk, pronghorn, and bear) to be responsive to the widespread interest across most public involvement efforts. b. Applicants will be assessed the minimum number of points required to draw a license for the hunt, plus 2-3 additional points. i. The assessment of additional points allows for a variable rate of return on an individual s investment in preference points, as they represent a lower percentage when drawing in high-point units than in low-point units. ii. The assessment of additional points will be implemented to discourage hunters from applying banking in hunts that presently require a low number of points (0-3 points) and thus reduce point creep in these hunts. Note: 96 percent of male and either-sex deer, elk, and pronghorn licenses were drawn with 0 to 3 preference points. iii. With banking, predicting the number of points required to draw will become more difficult if not impossible. iv. Staff recommendation is to apply this alternative, if adopted, for at least this 5-year BGSS cycle (Note: a minimum of 3 years of application is required to provide an indication of hunter behavior under the new system). 13

14 APPENDIX A Other alternatives and suggestions to improve and/or change the current preference point system Background From the qualitative public involvement efforts, and especially the focus groups, we learned that status quo was advocated by primarily those stakeholders that have higher numbers of points and/or who have a specific hunt that they aspire to. At the other end of the spectrum, it was suggested that the system be abandoned entirely or go to a completely random draw. In between was a range of suggested changes that included some combination of various draw processes or preference that would be given to applicants to increase their chance of drawing the desired hunt. Among all of the outreach processes, except the Big Game Attitude Survey, the solution of banking preference points was raised. In the Big Game Attitude Survey 60% of the respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with how preference points are being used. Survey respondents indicated that the fairest way to distribute licenses with a draw was, in order, preference points (33%), and hybrid (18%), weighted (17%), random (15%), not sure (12%) and banking (5%). It should be noted that the Big Game Attitude Survey indicates that there is significant misunderstanding of how preference points are used in Colorado and how licenses are allocated. Therefore, at least some of the dissatisfaction with preference points may result from these misunderstandings than with any problems in the preference point system. If changes are made to the preference point system, a thoughtful, responsive communication campaign would be beneficial to attempt to bring everyone onto the same page about the changes, consequences and rules. Communication may go a long way to addressing dissatisfaction about preference points. Evaluation The elements considered and used to evaluate any proposed change were: The predictability of drawing a hunt The position or preference of an applicant in relation to other applicants seeking the same hunt The applicants ability to access, through the licensing draw, the premium hunts that require many preference points Additionally the simplicity of the system and the ability for customers to understand the system is critical. Any proposed change should minimize unintended consequences for hunters to draw or continue to benefit from the preference point system. Proposed changes need to consider the value of preference points to the customer on the backside of any change. Finally, any of the proposed changes that recommended the transfer, sale or ability to barter preference points were rejected as council from the Attorney General s office indicated such changes would be contrary to the Colorado Revised Statutes. Description of other proposed changes The various types of draw processes to award licenses are described below to provide a common definition for many of these recommend changes and to identify some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with these types of draws and to provide a reference to states that use the different systems. 14

15 Preference Points In a preference point system the applicant with the most points draws the license. CPW currently uses a preference point system for most deer, elk, and pronghorn hunts (all except those hunt codes in the hybrid draw). Advantages: Fairness- The applicants who have waited the longest will be rewarded by drawing the license. Hunters in other systems are often upset when they ve waited 20 years and someone else draws multiple licenses, this does not happen with a straight preference system. Predictability- Preference point systems allow applicants to reliably predict when they will draw and plan their hunt. This advantage cannot be overstated, especially if several hunters want to plan a hunt together and as it relates to outfitter services for these hunters. The system is easy to understand, as those with the most points are first in line for the hunts. Disadvantages: If demand far exceeds supply, new applicants have no chance of drawing the highest demand hunts. The predictability advantage could be viewed as a disadvantage too because it may encourage point hoarding and point creep by allowing applicants to wait until a particular year. Weighted Preference Weighted Preference is used by CPW for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Goat, and Moose. In summary, each application receives a random number, and then the application number is further randomized by inverting it and substituting other random numbers for each original number. The modified applicant number is finally divided by the number of weighted points that applicant has +1. This division reduces the size of the applicants final number based on how many weighted points they have, thereby increasing probability of drawing because the smallest number draws the license. While increasing the odds of drawing, weighted points are no guarantee and cannot overcome an applicant who is lucky and gets a very small initial random number. Advantages: Disadvantages: Odds of drawing increase with every weighted point an application has. Therefore, time without drawing a licensee is rewarded with increase probability of drawing. Functionally this system is similar to the bonus points system. Weighted points are more complicated to understand. There are no guarantees, an applicant still may never draw a license. Totally Random Totally random, no preference system - Every applicant gets one name in the hat. CPW uses this system for desert bighorn sheep. Limited license drawing in Idaho is totally random for all species. 15

16 Advantages: Disadvantages: Bonus Points Simplicity, drawing odds are easy to estimate, and everyone has a chance of drawing every year. Some applicants may draw multiple times before another draws once (this is not a disadvantage to those that drew multiple licenses!). There is no predictability in when you will draw for hunt planning. Each bonus point is another name in the hat. The longer an application has been unsuccessful the more bonus points they have and their odds of drawing are increased. Montana (for bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and moose) and Nevada use a bonus point system. Both states square the number of bonus points to further increase odds of drawing of long-time applicants. Advantages: Easy to understand. Long-time applicants are rewarded with extra chances. Disadvantages: Hybrid Difficult or impossible to calculate an individual applicant s odds of drawing. No guarantees, you may never draw and cannot plan when you may draw. Since everyone s points are squared applicants often have a difficult time determining when they will draw, which at times also creates an unrealistic expectation of drawing. Many states use a hybrid, or combination, of the previously defined systems. A hybrid system attempts to capitalize on the strengths of each kind of system. The fact that many states use a hybrid system of some type demonstrates its utility. In a hybrid a percentage of the license quota goes to one system while another percentage of the quota goes into another system. Applicants are considered in both systems in each application year and lose all their points if they are drawn regardless of which system they drew with. CPW (with several criteria restricting use) uses an 80% preference point/ 20% random hybrid draw for specific high demand deer, elk, and pronghorn hunt codes. Wyoming uses a 75% preference point / 25% random draw for most big game species. Utah uses a 50% max bonus point / 50% bonus point system for limited entry licenses and once-in-a-lifetime licenses. Arizona uses a 20% max bonus point / 80% random draw hybrid system. While the actual percentages vary, the concept of hybrid systems do reward many years of application and at the same time allow for a chance to draw every year. Advantages: Applicants can plan and predict when they will draw based on the maximum point portion of the draw and in the years prior to that they still have a chance of drawing in the random portion of the drawing. Hybrids have advantages of both systems. New applicants and youth have a chance of drawing even the best licenses. A chance of drawing increases interest, excitement, and possibly application rates. 16

17 Disadvantages: Licenses must be pulled from the maximum point pool quota to populate the random pool quota, this lowers supply in the maximum point pool, thereby increasing the years to draw by maximum points. It is more complicated. Increased application rates and increased applicants for actual licenses (as opposed to just getting a preference point) lower draw odds and increases point creep. Preference Point Banking An applicant s points can be split between multiple licenses by allowing them to use only the number of points needed to draw the license (by predefined parameters). Multiple licenses can be drawn with the applicant s points. Advantages: Disadvantages: May reduce point creep on higher point hunt codes by enticing higher point holders to use their points on several licenses instead of saving them for one high demand hunt. Banking is often popular with high point holders because it would allow them an out by having two or more good hunts, rather than continuing to chase a particular high point hunt that has point creep. Banking may increase preference point creep in lower and middle point hunt codes. The vast majority (97%) of Colorado deer, elk, and pronghorn licenses are drawn with 0 to 3 preference point (2013 resident data). These are drawn by the hunters who are regularly going hunting and paying for wildlife management. Stipulating that a minimum number of points be used (lost) per license drawn, such as a minimum of 3 points, would reduce the impact banking would have on the lower point hunt codes if banking was initiated. Without this minimum or extra penalty for banking high point applicants could literally draw quality deer licenses every year for many years, displacing others who are not banking points. This could negatively affect a majority of hunt codes to address a relatively small number of higher-point hunt codes because so many people are sitting out and applying for points only. Consequences of proposed changes The root of most draw or preference point discussions is: 1) how prominent the system makes preference predictability, and/ or access; and 2) which one of these attributes takes priority within the system. A change to predictability, access, or preference always affects the others. For example if the system increases access, then predictability and preference are decreased. If the system increases predictability, then preference and access are decreased, etc. In a perfect system these attributes are in balance much like an equilateral triangle. It is apparent from the interest in this topic that Colorado s current system may not be meeting everyone s desires. Some want more access and some want more predictability. But also many like the system the way it is now. Proposed changes or solutions Random draw, bonus point, and weighted draw solutions, or recommended changes address the issue that some hunters will never have enough points to draw some of the premium hunts. These solutions 17

18 require increasing the ability of an applicant to draw a license (access to the system) which will decrease preference and predictability. These types of solutions are strongly rejected by those with high levels of preference points as they are not rewarded for the years they have participated in the draw with full knowledge that they may need to wait a very long time to draw the license they want. Access solutions decrease the ability for hunters to predict when they will draw a coveted license. This negatively affects the hunter s ability to plan for the hunt and thus also impacts the associated guide services associated with supporting these premium hunts. Implementing a random draw or bonus point change to the preference point system is a major departure from the status quo and would be ill received by many of our stakeholders. Random draws decrease complexity, but bonus and weighted draws are not so simple. These solutions provide no value to holders of preference points after the change is made. Bonus point and weighted draw solutions have the potential to increase point creep because they replace some element of preference with a degree of chance. Hybrid draw, weighted draw and banking solutions were proposed to address the issue where some hunters are in a preference point no man's land ; they believe they have too many points to just burn them on a low point hunt and they do not have enough points to draw a premium license, and thus are going to have to wait a long time. These solutions increase a hunter s ability to draw a premium license but by negatively affect others position in the draw and the predictability of drawing. Again, these types of solutions are not favored by those with high levels of preference points as they are not rewarded for the years they have participated in the draw. These types of solutions also decrease the ability for hunters to predict when they will draw a coveted license and negatively affect the hunter s ability to plan for the hunt. Hybrid and weighted draws increase complexity and from a customer service standpoint are harder to explain and understand. These types of solutions tend to preserve the value of preference point holders after the change as they still have the points but they are utilized in the draw in a different way. Banking is a simple solution that will increase the ability of hunters to use their points to draw a license. Banking of preference points will greatly reduce the predictability of drawing a license and may also significantly change the minimum number of points that it takes to draw a license. This could potentially cause preference point creep across the entire system, which does not address the number one issue raised concerning preference points: point creep and difficulty accessing licenses. Maintaining the current preference point system rewards those with more points and maintains predictability in the system, albeit the length of time to draw a premium hunt may be multiple decades. Keeping the preference point system status quo decreases the ability of hunters with few points from drawing a premium hunt as they are just too far behind the curve; point creep keeps pace with or exceeds the rate at which they can accumulate points. As a consequence, they may never draw one of the coveted hunts. Keeping the present hybrid draw in place ameliorates this by giving hunters a random chance to draw. Preserving the preference point system as status quo also indicates that preference point creep will continue especially for the highly desired hunts. 18