Grand JunctionGrand Junction — Taking the approach that “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Friday agreed to take a hands-off approach to the current big-game license allocation process. — Taking the approach that “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Friday agreed to take a hands-off approach to the current big-game license allocation process.
Grand Junction — Taking the approach that “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Friday agreed to take a hands-off approach to the current big-game license allocation process.
“In essence, we concluded we’re in a better position to stick with the status quo in terms of how we are allocating the overall big game tags, particularly elk,” said commission chair Bill Kane of Basalt during Friday’s meeting in Glenwood Springs.
Kane also was chair of a commission subcommittee that met Thursday evening in response to hunters and outfitters concerned over possible changes in the license-allocation system.
It was evident from the meeting’s start there was little sentiment in favor of tackling a system change.
“I’m searching for a reason to change the current allocation system,” said commissioner Gaspar Perricone of Denver at Thursday’s meeting. “It’s fine, it’s predictable.”
Parks and Wildlife director Bob Broscheid said the message he took away from attending several Sportsmen’s Roundtables around the state is the allocation system doesn’t need changing.
“What I heard was the system works, why change it?” he said.
Kane agreed, saying even though the system was cumbersome and sometimes difficult to understand, “we’re crazy to mess with the system right now.”
He also said it would be better to make a statement regarding the commission’s stand.
“It would be a disservice to our staff,” he said.
One concern, among several voiced by sportsmen, is the cap on limited licenses available to resident and nonresident hunters.
The current system, which splits some limited licenses on a 65:35 resident:nonresident ratio and others, needing more preference points, on an 80:20 ratio, was begun in 2005.
The subcommittee decided to stick with “the integrity” of that 2005 decision, Perricone told the commission during Friday’s meeting.
Terry Meyers of Grand Junction said hunters contacting him had few complaints about the current allotment of licenses.
“I’ve received quite a bit of input from resident hunters,” said Meyers, president of the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society.
“The general feeling is it’s a fine system, and preference point creep is not a reason to act.”
The subcommittee discussed at length the so-called preference point “creep,” where each year it takes more points to draw the same license, and how it will affect future license allocations.
This led to a discussion on when and how to increase from six the number of minimum preference points setting the 65:35 cap.
This topic, too, was tabled for future consideration.
“Preference point creep is the new dynamic of the dialogue” about license allocation, said Perricone.