Colorado Parts and Wildlife (CPW) recently established a new 75/25 resident/non-resident license allocation for deer, elk, bear, and pronghorn for the 2024 season when applying for hunt codes which require less than six preference points to draw. They maintained the status quo for the "highly desirable" codes (80/20 split) which require more than six preference points, but recalculated the historical average for all the hunt codes and bumped up some of the codes into the "highly desirable" category. This is a long-winded way of saying fewer non-resident hunters will be in the woods with us residents in the fall and winter.
I have read a number of articles with varying viewpoints on this topic, but generally find Colorado residents shouting "hurray!" and non-residents shouting "Boooo!" Well, I think the implications of this are more nuanced than a lot of the opinions floating around in forums discussing this "new" system.
The fact is: CPW has waffled many times over the last several decades on resident/non-resident license allocations. I have found no less than four times in the last 15 years that CPW has initiated a vote on this issue and suggested allocations range from as low as 50/50 to as high as 90/10. So, this isn't the first time they have changed the license allocation, nor do I think it will be the last.
As a resident, I am more inclined to want a higher percentage of the licenses to go to residents, mostly because we pay the majority of the taxes to maintain the land, the herds, and we are the ones who occupy and use the hunting lands for more than just one week out of the year. Sue me...maybe I am biased, but the argument is legitimate.
I also recognize certain businesses, such as outfitters, will start to hurt because fewer out-of-staters will be seeking their services. Not to mention the revenue hit CPW will take from a lower number of hunters paying higher nonresident license fees to hunt big game in our beautiful state. Just based on the high-level math I have done, CPW will lose several million dollars a year by making this change ($2.4M based on the link above). That money goes towards warden salaries, data collection and analysis (See Herd Management Plans), land management and maintenance, and a plethora of other beneficial uses.
My goal has always been to support smart initiatives which effectively maintain the land and the herd so they remain beautiful and healthy for generations to come. Will CPW try to offset this revenue loss with a new tax imposed on Colorado residents? Or maybe through higher resident license fees? Something else I am not forward thinking enough to predict? Who knows, but it is something I am personally willing to pay.
You can read many more perspectives on this issue in the various forums and social media groups, so I am going to end my rant here. But I do want to offer some advice to non-residents still looking to capitalize on those available licenses.
Advice to Non-Residents
To be blunt, I think you non-resident folks have not done the greatest job applying for good units where you have a high probability of drawing a license AND harvesting an animal. Phew, there....I said it. But to be fair, I see a lot of pretty horrible application submissions reflected in the draw and harvest data for residents too....like millions of them. Like I said in my first post to this blog: The Colorado draw system is complicated, confusing, and in my opinion not executed as well as it could be. This is the whole reason this site exists. That and to give me a good excuse to test new equipment and get out into the woods as much as possible (There you go, wife. I said it. Are you happy now?)
So, I decided to help you out :). One important thing to understand about the residency license allocation is that it is hunt code based. This means the allocation is specific to hunt codes, and not based on the total split in all applications submitted to CPW for big game licenses. I am a firm believer that there are plenty of great hunt codes available with high harvest probabilities which have historically had fewer than 25 percent of licenses go to non-residents. Look, if you want to keep your blinders on and go after units your Uncle Bob recommended because he "swears have the biggest bulls in the state," then go for it. I'll see you in 23 years when you draw that tag.
I have a saying: Good data doesn't lie. CPW does us a huge service by publishing the draw and harvest statistics every year. It allows us to make moves to achieve data efficiency. In other words, we look at the data to identify units and seasons which we have a high likelihood to draw with as few preference points as possible while maximizing our probability to harvest an animal. This is exactly what our HOPE tool helps you do: identify opportunities other hunters missed. Again, there is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground recon to get familiar with the unit. But there are big game species in EVERY unit in Colorado. And you will find them if you get out there and put in your due diligence.
Let's do a little exercise, shall we? The average non-resident hunter applying to Colorado has two preference points, with the overwhelming majority holding on to a big fat zero (See graphic below...PS I hope the four folks who applied with 28 years of preference points filled their tags. Imagine that feeling if they went home empty handed). They likely won't be hunting on private land unless they decide to hire an outfitter who has a lease somewhere, and they can't go after Ranching for Wildlife seasons, which historically have the highest harvest success percentages for all species, because they aren't residents. So, let's plug in adult, non-resident, no private land access, two preference points, and narrow our search down to units which have a reasonable amount of public land as a percentage of the total land area within the unit.
For elk, there are a ton of options if you are a meat hunter: Perfectly happy getting out in the woods hunting cow elk (EF). For either sex (EE) or bulls only (EM), there are fewer options but still a ton of good ones with significantly higher probability of harvest (according to the data). Since most of you non-residents only seem to be willing to pay those higher license fees to go after bulls or bucks, I'll limit the results I show to those classifiers (EE/EM or DE/DM).
If you fit the "hunter status" I described above, I would apply for one of the following codes as my first choice on my application. I gave you four because I'm generous and just finished a really good dram of whiskey (Calumet 16, which I got cheap at Costco because it's awesome).
Hunt Code | Historical Draw Probability | Historical Harvest Probability | Non-Resident Percentage of Total Tags Awarded | Public Land % Within GMU |
EM051O4R | 100 % | 33 % | 14% | 55 % |
EM029O4R | 84 % | 36 % | 10% | 46 % |
EE071O4R | 100 % | 32 % | 18% | 85 % |
EE005O4R | 99 % | 30 % | 0 % | 60 % |
Deer hunters in the same category (non-resident, two PP's, etc.) should apply for these hunt codes:
Hunt Code | Historical Draw Probability | Historical Harvest Probability | Non-Resident Percentage of Total tags Awarded | Public Land % Within GMU |
DM016E1R | 99.4 % | 52 % | 6 % | 50% |
DM020O4R | 100 % | 51 % | 20 % | 56% |
DM171E1R | 94.8 % | 53 % | 6 % | 70% |
DM019O3R | 100 % | 44 % | 16% | 70% |
Notice that these hunt codes have historically (taken from the last 7 years of draw and harvest data) had fewer than 25 percent of the licenses awarded to non-residents. This means non-residents who apply to these sleeper codes for 2024 would still meet the new, reduced license allocation quota CPW has imposed and simultaneously put themselves in a really good unit and season to harvest big game.
I also want you to take a look at the historical harvest percentages. You are looking at about twice the historical average harvest success across the state (~14-16%) for both species. Those are great odds. And these are units and seasons which are very huntable: high public land access, you get to go after your coveted bucks and bulls, and you likely won't be battling with a bunch of other non-residents when you apply (unless they start reading my posts, too). The HOPE tool is doing exactly what we designed it to do: find you new opportunities. I just hope you're willing to do a little extra research so you aren't going in blind.
By the way, I'm not sure I mentioned our HOPE tools is free to use. We are making some tweaks to it now to get it up and running, another reason I felt compelled to write this post and help you out-of-staters, but it should be available soon. This is also a service no other hunt planning website offers, especially not free of charge. So I encourage you to use it when it becomes available and make moves to get to that data efficiency I mentioned earlier. I reiterate: Good data doesn't lie. I hope you all listen to it and reflect its value in your 2024 Colorado Big Game applications.
Cheers and Many Blessings.
Craig.