The Colorado Resident Hunter Association has started up a change.org petition to urge CPW Commissioners to move forward with the Draw Process Working Groups recommendation to end SOFT CAPS and have Colorado tag allocation caps apply to all 4 choices in the Colorado Big Game Draw.   This change would restore a hard cap system for tag allocation like every other state in the country currently has.   Many call Colorado current Soft Cap big game tag allocation system a “Fake Cap”.  It was interesting to watch the CPW Staff come out against removing the Fake Caps at the 11.15.24 CPW Commission meeting.   The CPW staff continues to show their preference for nonresident dollars over treating their residents with equity when compared to any other states in the country.   No state treats its resident hunters worse than Colorado.   As discussed in the articles on this web site.   If you have a friends that is confused about what the fake caps do to resident hunters in Colorado have them read this article https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/cpw-votes-to-choke-out-resident-hunters/ .

Please sign this Colorado Resident Hunter Association Petition in support of Resident Hunters and youth in Colorado.

You can also go to https://www.change.org/COResidentHunterEquity.    

 * The foundation of equity is fairness, while nearly all other Western State have a 90/10 cap for their Residents, Colorado has 75/25, the worst resident big game tag allocation in the country.  This is by Colorado, which collects more hunting revenue than other state in the country.

** On top of the worst resident tag allocation in the country, Colorado is the only state in the country that has Soft Big Game Tag allocation Caps that only apply to the 1st choice of 4 choices in the primary draw.  Many call this the “Fake Tag Cap” –which allows Nonresidents to get about 40% of our Limited Bull elk tags while ignoring Thousands of Residents in their 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices of our primary limited draw. You saw the slide on the cover picture – its steals 6,510 tags from Residents and Resident Youth and sells them to NR. Very few bull and buck unit hunts have left over tags. This has resulted in the following trends from 2015 to 2023 (see below):  (numbers rounded to nearest 100)

1.  Resident Youth are drawing 37% fewer limited elk tags (Down 3300, from 9000 to 5700)
2.  Even though Resident Limited Elk Tag applications have increased since 2015, Residents are drawing over 17,000 fewer limited elk tags (down 23% from 74,000 to 56,700 tags drawn).
3.  Nonresidents are magically drawing 250 more limited elk tags since 2015 (How is this possible) = Fake tag caps!
4.  Nonresidents Elk applications have surged by 45,000 (up 55%) and there are now more nonresident adults applying for limited elk tags than Residents. There are no longer any tags available for Residents in the 2nd 3rd and 4th choices—because of the fake tag caps that allow all remaining tags at the end of the 1st draw to spill over to NR.
Today we am asking the CPW Commission to listen to the Draw Process Working Group that recommended restoring equity to the resident hunter by getting rid of the fake tag caps in Colorado and start to treat Colorado’s Resident Hunters, like every other state in our country treats their Residents.

Residents of Colorado Deserve a Hard Cap because we are a stakeholder in this resident resource and nonresidents are not. Colorado Resources are to be managed for the benefit of its Residents of the state,  per the Colorado Constitution.  On top of all this CPW is looking to remove the 80/20 tags that were just fixed for Residents 2 years ago. Here is the article that explains how Resident received about 200 tags when CPW was forced to start using the current 3 year rolling average vs using 15 year data to sell more tags to Nonresidents https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-resident-hunter-equity/. The Nov 15, 2024 CPW Commission slide shows $16,000 in financial gain for CPW from getting
rid of the 80/20 tags and having all tags at 75/25, how is that possible when Residents will lose over 200 deer and elk tags alone.   

Hunter applications of nonresidents are surging, and resident applications are up by about 2,000 since 2015. This has to be taken into account as CPW will make more money each year with these trends. Why do we not see financial numbers from having 50,000 new nonresidents applying in our big game hunts since 2015?? AT a minimum that is $121*45,000 = about $5.5 million in revenue increase (without them drawing a single tag).  The surge of NR hunters more than pays for getting rid of the fake tag caps and we restore equity to the resident hunters.  

During the March 14, 2024, CPW Commission meeting, (see minute 1:43:00) CPW Director Jeff Davis declared   “Title 33, thats our Colorado Revised Statute where we are to manage wildlife and provide recreational opportunities for the state residents and its visitors, the mission of the Division includes consideration for residents and nonresidents and if were not able to have equality for both groups than we consider equity.  Its within the discretion of the Commission as you know, to decide fairness and preference to one residency group over another which makes your decision on equity a difficult one.”  Was he prepping the CPW Commission on how they can ignore resident equity, the public trust, and the Colorado Constitution so CPW can continue to rake in record nonresident hunting dollars compared to all other states in the country? 

What the CPW Director is twisting around is state law, CRS 33-1-101. (1) It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors.  (2) All wildlife within this state not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of this state.

On May 1, 2023, Jeff Davis was appointed Director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife by Governor Jared Polis (Democrat).  Is there any surprise that a Democrat appointee from Washington state would figure out how to screw over resident hunters and their family hunting heritage for money?   Polis and his party just forced wolves on Western Colorado as well.  Disneyland Democrats are running Colorado and they don’t care about resident hunters when nonresident hunters pay $800 for an elk tag and residents only pay about $70.   There is money in the outdoors and communists like to convert private industry into government business revenue, just look at Cameo Shooting Complex and other shooting ranges that CPW buys up / runs in direct competition with the free market.   If you are a hunter in Colorado and still vote Democrat, you need to get a clue.  No state treats resident hunters worse than Colorado –   Here are a few articles to bring you up to speed as residents prepare to lose Over-The-Counter (OTC)  Elk Hunting in Colorado because of overcrowding caused 100% by non-residents.

1. March 2024, CPW Votes to Choke Out Colorado Resident Hunters as Nonresident Elk Apps Surge by 45,000
2. February 2024, Colorado’s Fake Big Game Tag Allocation Caps, Stealing Resident License Equity
3. September 2023, Colorado Sells More Nonresident Elk Tags than All Seven Western States Combined 
4. August 2023, CPW Report reveals 54% of OTC elk hunters are Nonresidents, Colorado Resident Hunters on Decline from Non-Resident Overcrowding
5. July 2023, Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only
6. Dec 2022, CPW Commission Takes Small Step to Restore Resident Hunter Equity in Big Game Tag Allocation
7. March 2021, No State Treats Resident Big Game Hunters Worse than Colorado- Tag Allocation- Hiding in Plain Sight. The Secret to the Elk and Deer Tags in Colorado.

When you have a CPW Director who is worried about treating nonresidents equally to residents you have a CPW Director who is likely more concerned about Nonresident dollars funding the agency’s coffers/salaries than a state employee serving its residents and resident youth.  This appears to be happening in Colorado as we see the destruction of family hunting heritage in Colorado.  Educated big game hunters know that nearly all western states allocate about 10% of big game licenses to nonresidents, with a hard cap to protect the resident resources for its residents and the resident youth.  When it comes to tag allocation, No state treats its residents worse than Colorado, that is a statistical fact.   Colorado not only has the most liberal deer and elk nonresident allocations in the country at 75/25 (25% to NR) but the allocation is not protected with a hard cap so nonresidents end up with about 34% of all the big game tags in the state.  The numbers are even worse if you consider that half of all private landowner vouchers are sold back to nonresidents.  No state brings in more hunting revenue than Colorado.

CPW Petition Filed to Repeal a CPW Commission Policy that may violate CPW Policy, State Law, and the Colorado Constitution.   

The CPW process for an individual to file a rulemaking petition (change to policy) is defined here on the CPW Website https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Citizen-Petition.aspx .

The recent Rulemaking Policy Petition filed with CPW is here. Link to Actual CPW Petition

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) commission policy that has been petitioned for repeal is titled-Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest (Dated 5.6.2021) Section V (B), Paragraph 2, “An official act that affects a group of industries or businesses does not, in and of itself, constitute an actual conflict of interest even though the Commissioner may work for or otherwise have an interest in one of the industries or businesses impacted by the official act.”   (to be referenced in this document as “Section V (B), Paragraph 2”) appears to be a possible violation of the following:

1. Colorado Constitution Article XXIX (29), (1) Parts A through E.
2. CRS 24-18-108.5 (1) and (2). See CRS 24-18-102 Definitions (1) (2) (4) (7) and (9).
3. CRS 24-18-103. Public Trust- breach of fiduciary duty (1) and (2).  “For the benefit of the people of the state”.
4. Current CPW Commission Policy, Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest (Section #IV and V). See also Section III – Definitions

Per CRS-24-18-102 (9) the CPW Commission is a “State Agency” and thus should be treated as such according to the laws and constitution of the State of Colorado and applicable federal laws/rulings.

Like the recent Chevron Deference Supreme Court ruling, CPW Commission Policy Section V (B), Paragraph 2 appears to be an illegal “state agency” policy that violates CPW Commission policy, Colorado law/s, and the Colorado Constitution (as referenced above).  This policy appears to illegally allow a CPW Commissioner who is a business owner or licensed big game hunting outfitter to vote in instances where they stand to gain personally on a financial/fiduciary basis.   This appears to be a blatant violation of CRS CRS 24-18-108.5 (1) and (2) (defined below).

A breach of fiduciary duty happens when the fiduciary acts in the best interest of themselves or someone else, rather than the beneficiaries.

Additionally, this possibly illegal CPW Commission policy allows a licensed big game outfitter/CPW Commissioner to represent Outfitters Associations who stand to gain financially as well.  When CPW Commissioners vote to sell a resident resource (limited big game hunting tags), to nonresidents, based on financial gain, versus serving the residents of Colorado, it becomes a conflict of interest and promotes the commercialization of a state resource (hunting).  In this case, the CPW Commission is the executor of the trust, and the residents of Colorado are the sole beneficiaries of that trust, nonresidents who receive a resident resource (big game hunting tags) are mere stakeholders in this process, they are not to be served equally by state agencies.

A licensed big game outfitter who is a CPW Commissioner should also be recusing themselves or requested to do so by the other CPW Commissioners per current CPW Commission policy, when and if, the result of the Commission vote, could mean an increase of nonresident big game tag allocations, at the expense of beneficiaries of the trust (residents), tag allocations.

This self-recusal policy should also apply to any Subgroup or Working Group that the Outfitter/ CPW Commissioner is a part of within CPW.  If the CPW-affiliated group votes to make any recommendations for big game tag allocations, that may affect the Commissioner on a personal financial basis to the CPW Commission or the CPW Staff, a recusal from voting should be required.

Final Notes: During the June 12, 2024 CPW Commissioner meeting, see time 4:16:10 on Day 1 – YouTube video.  You will hear the attorney for the CPW Commission declare that CRS 33-9-101 (3) requires an Outfitter to be on the CPW Commission Board.   He is 100% correct and no one has ever challenged that.   However, nowhere in Title 33-9-101 does it say a CPW Commissioners can violate the state laws referenced above or the Colorado Constitution when they vote, especially when they stand to gain financially for that official act (voting).   The CPW Commission Attorney never makes mention of CRS § 24-18-108.5(2) or the appearance of impropriety that is so obvious to every resident of Colorado.   The CPW Commission Attorney does quote the very CPW Policy that I have asked to be stricken as the only justification that allows a CPW Commissioner who is also a licensed Outfitter or business owner to be able to vote for the good of an industry (financial).  The Attorney never says it’s ok for a CPW Commissioner to vote when they stand to gain personally / financially from that official act because it’s an obvious violation of state law and is fully viewed as an appearance of impropriety by the public.  The CPW Commission cannot ignore Colorado Law, the Colorado Constitution, and CPW Policy, by passing policies that disregard all three.

The CPW Commission Attorney also declared that the CPW Commissioners serve the residents and visitors of Colorado, but he forgot to tell the Commission that the CPW Policy Statement reads as follows “Serving on the Commission is a public trust, created by the confidence which the public reposes in the integrity of public officials. Commissioners shall perform their duties for the benefit of the people of the state, act in a fair and impartial manner, and avoid the appearance of impropriety.”

It should also be noted that a random visitor in Colorado is not a stakeholder, when it comes to resident resources, such as big game hunting licenses.  However, a nonresident hunter who spends hundreds of dollars for the right to harvest a resident resource (deer/elk), is a stakeholder.  The CPW Commission serves the beneficiaries of the trust, and in all 50 states, only Residents are beneficiaries of that trust.

All hunters should be alarmed as to the direction of hunting in Colorado.  If it’s all about the money then family hunting heritage is truly under attack by the blue states,  New Mexico is another Democrat-run state that treats its resident hunters terribly.

UPDATE:   8.20.24 CPW Response to Petition–  Must Read-  

FROM:   Hilary Hernandez, Regulations Manger

RE:       July 30, 2024 Citizen Petition

DATE:   August 20, 2024

CPW is in receipt of your citizen petition for rulemaking, which asks the Commission to repeal a portion of its conflicts of interest policy.  Your petition will be forwarded to the Commission as a public comment.  Your petition will not be placed on the Commission agenda as an action item unless the Commission directs otherwise.    

The citizen petition process only applies to formal rules adopted by the Commission, meaning those rules that are codified in the Colorado Code of Regulations.  The Commission’s formal rules are codified at 2 CCR 405 – 406 and are available on CPW’s website.  These rules are commonly referred to as Chapters P-01 – P-08 (Parks Regulations) and W-01 – W-17 (Wildlife Regulations). 

The conflicts of interest policy at issue in your petition is not codified in the Colorado Code of Regulations and is not a formal rule of the Commission.  Citizen petitions for rulemaking are not an available means to repeal Commission policies or resolutions.   

The Commission’s authority to adopt formal rules is codified in Title 33.  See, e.g., § 33-9-102(2), C.R.S. (“In addition to any other specific grant of rule-making authority, the commission may adopt or revise any rules, in accordance with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., that the commission deems necessary or convenient to effect the purposes of, and fulfill its duties under, this title.”). 

The Commission adopts formal rules pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), § 24-4-101 – 204, C.R.S., and in particular, § 24–4–103 (rulemaking).  Any person has the right to file a citizen petition for rulemaking, requesting the Commission adopt, repeal, or amend a formal rule.  § 24-4-103(7).  Commission rule #1606 implements this provision of the APA, as does the Commission’s citizen petition policy, available here.  These procedures only apply to formal rules, not policies or resolutions. 

The Commission adopted its current conflicts of interest policy in 2021.  It did so as required by HB 18-1198, now codified at § 24-3.7-102(1), C.R.S.  This statute allows the Commission to adopt a conflicts policy instead of a formal rule and provides:

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, commencing January 1, 2019, each statutorily created board or commission in state government … shall implement written policies or bylaws and obtain annual training on: … (d) Identifying and managing conflicts of interest. (emphasis added).

The Commission complied with HB 18-1198 by adopting its conflicts of interest policy at its May 2021 Commission meeting.  The agenda is available here. 

Although no law required the Commission to adopt a formal rule codifying its conflicts of interest policy in the Colorado Code of Regulations, it has discretion to do so.  Indeed, one other state agency – the Air Quality Control Commission – has adopted the identical phrase you have concerns with in its formal rules.  See 5 C.C.R. § 1001-1:X (“An official act that affects a group of industries or businesses does not, in and of itself, constitute an actual conflict of interest even though the Commissioner may work for or otherwise have an interest in one of the industries or businesses impacted by the official act.”).

Thank you for your interest in CPW and this issue.

The average Western state has a 90/10 big game tag allocation split for resident / nonresident hunters on all limited licenses.  90% of the elk, deer, and pronghorn licenses go to the residents of the average western state and only 10% are reserved for the visiting nonresidents.  Big game and the meat they provide families is a resource that should be managed for the benefit of the residents of the state and 90/10 is the equity standard all states should aim to achieve.  There are still some states that only offer leftover tags to nonresidents, now that’s preserving the resident public trust (Public Trust Doctrine).  What about public lands- do nonresidents have equal hunting rights to federal lands??  No, since the states hold legislative jurisdiction over big game on nearly all federal lands within their state boundaries the fact that there are federal public lands in the state holds no bearing on a nonresident’s status for preference on a state resource.  This is a great website for learning about jurisdiction on federal lands.   Nonresidents are visitors to a state’s big game draw system and they hold no seat at the table just like they have no voting rights in a state they do not reside in.

Then there is Colorado, Yes, things have slightly improved based on residents shining a light on things in the past three years.  This 2021 article helped procure some positive change and the CPW commission improved tag allocation to 75/25 for limited deer, elk, bear, and pronghorn (see this 2023 article) in Colorado.  However, Colorado still treats its resident hunters with less tag equity than any other western state, it’s a statistical fact. On top of that, the CPW has finally recognized that overcrowding on unlimited over-the-counter (OTC) elk hunts is real and they are considering removing all OTC elk hunts this year with the CPW Commission – sign the petition, over 5,000 signatures.  However, CPW is not sharing the fact that resident OTC elk hunters have declined by 8,000 (20%) since 2014 and nonresident elk hunters are up by 10,000 since 2014.  The numbers show that Residents are not contributing to overcrowding because they are getting out of hunting likely because of the overcrowding procured by nonresident hunters.  See the OTC Table below.

The (16) sixteen voting member CPW Draw Process Working Group is off and running in Colorado, google them on YouTube.  The meetings and discussions are directed by two nonvoting CPW staff.  This group has only (5) five resident hunters and (1) one CPW Commissioner (Otero) who represents the approximately 100,000 Colorado resident hunters who apply in limited license and OTC license hunts each year.

The other (10) ten voting members consist of  (5) five active CPW state employees, (1) one Utah nonresident (outfitter with Hunting Fool Magazine), (3) three Colorado Licensed Outfitters (CPW Commissioner Haskett, Burbey – President of the Colorado Outfitters Association and Znamenacek who is former CPW staffer and active outfitter), and (1) one other Commissioner that is retired CPW (Skiba).  You could say it is 12-6 voting members, likely in favor of more nonresident money/tags.

The approximately 200 Big Game Outfitters in Colorado have 4 “Outfitter” financially motivated representatives lobbying for them within the CPW Draw Process Working Group.  If Residents Hunters had an equitable seat at the table, when compared to outfitters, they would have 2000 Resident Hunters within the working group (.02) for their 100,000 residents.  However residents have only 5 representatives’ and when you read the bios of the 5 residents you will see many have been a part of outdoor organizations that have a long history of partnering with the CPW vs standing up to the CPW tag allocation equity debacle, like the Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers groups have done.  Colorado outfitters depend largely on nonresident dollars for payment so they are not going to restore 30 years of stolen tag equity for Colorado Residents Hunters.

Do you think the nonresident voting member from Utah (also an outfitter) will vote for a 90/10 tag allocation (hard cap) like the one they have in Utah or do you think he will vote for more nonresident tags?  I would place that bet over an NFL bet any day.   Does Colorado allow nonresidents to vote in its elections?  — No, then why does Colorado give nonresident hunters a voting right within the CPW Draw Process Working Group?   No state has ever allowed nonresidents the right to control or make recommendations on how to manage a state resource that the state holds all legislative jurisdiction over.  The fox is in the hen house and once again CPW has breached the public trust by not serving the residents equitably.

If its 12 to 6 voting members in favor of more nonresident money/tags, residents of Colorado will continue to see the historical effort to hold down resident tag equity.   CPW staffers will likely not vote to improve resident tag equity because reducing nonresident hunting will reduce their yearly budget and could lead to lower salaries or staff cuts.  Does CPW really need 1100 employees?

 CPW Commissioner Ethics and Voting Conflicts

Isn’t it a conflict of interest for a CPW Commissioner to benefit financially by voting in favor of more nonresident tags?  A Commissioner/Outfitter Association Member voted against the 75/25 tag allocation improvement last year.  “Voting members of the Commission shall not perform an official act which may have a direct economic benefit on any business, including nonprofits, in which such member has a direct or substantial financial interest.” CRS § 24-18-108.5(2)   —​Conflict of Interest.

“Appearance of impropriety” means an official act that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the Commissioner has engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on the Commissioner’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve the public trust. An appearance of impropriety may exist even though the facts and circumstances of the matter do not constitute an actual conflict of interest as defined by CRS § 24-18-108.5(2).

Colorado’s FAKE Big Game Caps 75/25

The first real test for the Draw Process Working group comes at hour 3, minute 01 of session 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCLlxtPqtB8. The CPW fake tag allocation caps are discussed and no one brings up the fact that resident allocation caps should apply to all 4 draw choices vs just 1st choice in the state’s primary limited tag draw.  It’s brushed over, this fake tag cap is a breach of public trust, no other state does this to its residents.  Check out this 2023 example, during the 1st Rifle Season in Unit 21- 70% of the tags go to nonresidents and over 300 residents and Resident Youth! are ignored in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices of the primary draw.

There are no hard caps in place for the limited deer and limited elk hunts in Colorado like we see in Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, etc.  The current soft (fake) tag caps in Colorado only apply to the resident 1st Choice Draw.  There are 4 Draw Choices in the CO Big Game limited primary draw.  If there are not enough residents to claim 75% of all the limited tags in Choice 1 draw, the remaining tags are given to all remaining nonresidents within Choice 1.  The resident state-mandated tag allocation caps are not honored (hard cap) throughout the 4 draw choices of the primary draw.   This is a breach of public trust for all residents of Colorado.

Linked is a document that shows two limited elk hunts in unit 41  (there are many more) from the 2020 limited elk draw results, it shows nearly 50% of limited elk tags went to nonresident hunters last year in unit 41– Grand Mesa.  Over 500 resident and resident youth hunters were not able to draw the tag for their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th draw choices because all the tags (over the nonresident cap) went to nonresidents in the 1st draw.  This is the result of what is called the “outfitter loophole”.  Another example of this is unit 43 mule deer in Colorado, in 2019, 60% of the muzzleloader-limited deer tags in this Gunnison Basin area went to nonresidents.  There are many examples like this whether deer or elk limited big game units in Colorado, especially with muzzleloader and 1st rifle elk seasons. Here is a link to thirty-four (34) limited deer unit hunts that gave 41% to 71% of deer tags to nonresidents.  In the application column of each page, you see (in some cases) hundreds of resident deer hunters were denied a tag because they put in for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice.  Here is a link to fifty (50) limited elk unit hunts that gave up to 83% of the tags to nonresidents.  Be sure to notice all the hundreds of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice residents and resident youth that never drew because Colorado fake big game tag allocation caps.

Some call it a “soft” big game tag allocation cap, most Coloradans call it a FAKE tag cap, and behind the scenes, it siphons hundreds or thousands of tags to nonresidents.   All at the expense of the unsuccessful first-choice residents and 1st choice resident youth.  If a resident does not successfully draw a limited tag in their first choice, they should not be ignored in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice of the primary draw.  An honest big game cap would protect the residents’ rights to their resource until that allocation was filled.  There is no reason Coloradans should not be ensured of every tag that is due to them based on the Equity, Colorado Constitution, and the Public Trust Doctrine.  Our state representatives and state employees work for the Colorado residents, not nonresident money.  This fake cap loophole must be closed, the idea that resident youth are not able to hunt each year because their tag was siphoned off to a nonresident is offensive.

Disclosure -This data is from various sources (CORA, online and print (some data can be very fragmented to collect)).  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the residents.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is meeting on August 25, 2023, in Steamboats Springs to discuss the possible removal of Over The Counter (OTC) elk tags in Colorado.  Resident OTC elk hunters (rifle + archery) have declined by 8,000 since 2014, but nonresident OTC elk hunters in Colorado are up by 10,000 since 2014.  Many residents OTC hunters have quit hunting in Colorado because the OTC units have been overrun by nonresidents in Colorado.  See this detailed report https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/colorado-sells-more-nonresident-elk-tags-than-all-7-western-states-combined/ .

One concern of many resident hunters in Colorado is that their voices are not being heard during public forums and surveys. No officials at CPW are discussing the declining resident hunter trends since 2014 in both rifle and archery OTC elk hunts.  Since 2014, Non-Residents have continued to flood Colorado’s public lands during OTC elk hunting (rifle and archery) and residents are dropping out because of the overcrowding.    A perfect example of this is what we just saw on the five Grand Mesa units (421, 421, 41, 52, 411) in Colorado in 2022.   Nonresidents OTC archery hunters were up 250% since 2014 and residents were down 20%.  Yet in 2022 CPW took away all archery OTC hunting on the Grand Mesa, when the numbers clearly showed that non-residents are the cause of all the overcrowding.  This was in Eastmans Hunting Journal Blog regarding the story.

Is CPW missing the mark and ignoring the residents that they are supposed to work for?   If you review the CPW’s mission statement you won’t find any reference to serving the residents of Colorado- none.  All elected officials and the governor have a duty to represent their constituents (residents) and ensure they are treated fairly (equity) when compared to other states.  During CPW public forums and surveys the nonresidents have more than one seat at the table because most outfitters are also fighting for the nonresident dollars. Why are nonresidents even at the table, no other western state serves up such a seat to nonresident hunters.  This 2022 CPW tag allocation survey report is a perfect example, by including nonresidents it waters down the wishes of the residents because they are on opposite sides of most issues.  Do you actually think nonresidents would support OTC for residents only?  Colorado holds full legislative jurisdiction over big game tag allocation on all public and private lands in Colorado just like all other states.  Just because there are federal lands in Colorado does not give a nonresident a “right” to hunt in Colorado, they have an equal right to visit the federal public lands but the state and its voting residents have the authority over the tags, just like all other western states, many of which have millions of acres more federal lands and provide only 10% of their tags to nonresidents and cap all general season nonresident tags in general season/otc hunts.  Residents in Colorado have not had a fair seat at the table since the 1990s when CPW past the worst tag allocation split in US history which gave nonresidents 35% of limited big game tags when all other western states average a tag allocation of 10% to nonresidents.

Colorado is selling about 72,000 nonresident elk tags each year, this is more than all western states combined, most western states only sell 5,000 to 17,000 elk tags to non-residents each year.  2021 acres per elk hunter western states public land

54% of OTC archery elk hunters in Colorado are Nonresidents. Residents archery hunters are dropping out because of overcrowding on Colorado’s Public lands

This August 2022 CPW OTC Report confirms the declining trends of resident hunters in all OTC hunts in Colorado since 2013/2014 and it confirms the surging Nonresident trends by nonresidents in all OTC hunts in Colorado.  Its also show that 54% of OTC archery elk hunters in Colorado are nonresident.  Compare this to Utah which in 2022 had 45,000 general season resident elk hunters and 2500 nonresident general season elk hunters or compare it to Wyoming which only sells about 5000 elk tags each year to nonresidents.

 August 2022 Presentation for Over The Counter OTC Distribution Workshop

All residents of Colorado need to sign this OTC petition to save OTC hunting in Colorado for residents and residents need to join the Colorado Resident Hunter Association Facebook group to stay informed.  It’s time for resident hunters to stand up and be heard.

Does Colorado Sell more Nonresident Elk Tags than all other Western States Combined?

Disclosure -The data within this article is from various sources (CPW website, online research, and print.  Some data can be very fragmented to collect.  All info is subject to errors and you should verify all numbers with your own research.  It is desired that CPW someday validate this information to share the trends of Westerns States compared to Colorado to show the equity status for the resident hunters.

Colorado Petition to Save Over-the-Counter OTC Elk Hunting for Residents Only

No State Treats Resident Big Game Hunters Worse than Colorado- Tag Allocation- Hiding in Plain Sight. The Secret to the Elk and Deer Tags in Colorado.