1

F f ll lt f th BGAS l th df d t titl d “S R t fFor full results of the BGAS, please see the pdf document titled “Summary Report of Public Involvement, 2015-2019 Big Game Season Structure” associated with this commission item.

2

Th i f ti ll t d th h th Bi G Attit d S hThe information collected through the Big Game Attitude Survey has many purposes. Several of these are directly applicable to decisions associated with the Big Game Season Structure process, but there are also pieces that will inform decisions in the future. The information collected through the BGAS will serve as baseline data for use in monitoring the effect of management decisions and help us apply an adaptive framework to our decision-making. It will inform future discussions such as allocation of big game licenses and other issues and it will g gallow us to gain a better sense of who our big game hunters in CO are, and how they hunt.

3

A t t l f 6 774 i di id l h h d bi li i C l d iA total of 6,774 individuals who purchased a big game license in Colorado in 2012 were randomly selected to receive a Big Game Attitude Survey (BGAS). The sample was stratified in order to ensure representation of lower participation activities, and included resident and non-resident deer, elk, black bear and mountain lion hunters. Within each strata, individuals were randomly selected. We were unable to meet our goal of sampling 500 non-

id t t i li h t b f th ll b f liresident mountain lion hunters because of the small number of license purchasers who fit this criteria. The goal of this sample scheme was to provide generalizable information about the population of resident and non-resident big game hunters in Colorado.

Sampled individuals were mailed a letter inviting them to complete an onlineSampled individuals were mailed a letter inviting them to complete an online survey on January 16, 2014. Non-respondents were mailed a paper copy of the survey (with an additional option to respond online) on February 20, 2014, followed on March 21, 2014 with a second paper copy of the survey. Survey mailings included a cover letter introducing the project and a postage paid envelope in which to return a completed questionnaire. Remaining non-respondents were mailed a reminder postcard on March 27, 2014 with the espo de ts e e a ed a e de postca d o a c , 0 t t einformation to complete the survey online. Once survey mailings were complete, all remaining non-respondents were mailed a shortened, post-card style questionnaire designed to assess non-respondent bias on April 21, 2014. Total of 6,774

4

3054 t t l3054 total responses

47% resident, 53% nonresident

95% male, 93% white, mean age 52 years

18% used guide or outfitter

17% had ever used a voucher

5

M t d t h t d lk d d iflMost respondents hunted elk and used a rifle.

Value Orientations

Utilitarian = humans should use wildlife for their benefit

Mutualist = humans and animals are equal

Pl li t i th iddlPluralist = in the middle

We use this information to understand people’s motivations for hunting and how they seek hunting opportunity in CO

Not surprisingly many utilitarians but a larger number of pluralists than expectedNot surprisingly many utilitarians, but a larger number of pluralists than expected. This indicates that many hunters are somewhere between mutualist and utilitarian in how they value wildlife and our approaches to talking about wildlife management may be well served by recognizing this variation in motivations and values. Future analysis is planned to look at WVOs by years of hunting to determine if newer recruits are attracted by different factors.

6

H t d i il b f d f h i d t d h t tHunted similar number of days for each species, and reported harvest rates were similar between residents and non-residents

Non-residents hunt less regularly than residents, as is backed up by our license purchase information. They typically hunt every 3-5 years, where residents typically hunt every year.

Non-residents are hunting in groups with few residents, and most groups include at l OTC hleast one OTC hunter

7

A k d d t t k th it f t t l t i t t i t fAsked respondents to rank these items from most to least important in terms of what they wanted in a big game hunting experience in CO

Residents wanted frequent opportunity and to harvest for meat, trophy opportunity was least important

Non-resident pattern nearly opposite – want frequent trophy opportunity, and are not motivated by meat

Non-resident expectations are much higher – and much more difficult to achieve with annual opportunity– than resident expectations

8

R id t f l t it if th t ll h t d i lResidents prefer annual opportunity, even if that means smaller harvested animals, while non-residents prefer to hunt less frequently and have chance to harvest larger animal

Pattern holds for other species

Backed up by license purchase history analysis and reporting w/in survey that NR hunters hunt less regularly than resident hunters (75% of resident respondents h d i 2012 34% f NR d did)hunted in 2012, 34% of NR respondents did)

9

O ll ti f ti ith bi h ti i i COOverall satisfaction with big game hunting experience in CO

High for all species, but lowest for black bear

Low does not mean unsatisfied here. More than 50% of all hunters were satisfied with their experience.

10

If l k ifi ll t d d lk h t d th i ti f ti ithIf we look specifically at deer and elk hunters and their satisfaction with season structure issues, their satisfaction is also high for both the length of season and arrangement of seasons. Indicates that there is not a strong reason to change these aspects of season structure.

11

Q ti k d d t t t ll h ti fi d th ith th i t itQuestion asked respondents to tell us how satisfied they were with their opportunity to draw license or purchase OTC license

Whereas satisfaction was still high for most species, patterns of satisfaction with opportunity to hunt are less clear than for overall satisfaction, especially for pronghorn hunters. Increasing opportunity for this group may increase overall

i f isatisfaction.

12

R d t k d t t th i ti f ti ith th f i tRespondents were asked to report their satisfaction with the way preference points are used to allocate licenses

64% of respondents said they use preference points

Even though many respondents were satisfied with preference points, the majority do not understand how preference points work in CO

13

Wh k d d t t t ll h li ll t d b tWhen we asked respondents to tell us how licenses are allocated between residents and non-residents in high demand units, a majority either chose the wrong method, or were not sure. RED CIRCLE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER – only 42% of people chose the correct answer.

14

Wh k d d t h th th “ l ” f i i li thWhen we asked respondents whether the “rules” for issuing licenses were the same across the state or whether they are different in high demand areas, just over 50% were incorrect or unsure. RED CIRCLE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER.

These two pieces of information indicate that there is significant misunderstanding of how preference points are used in CO and how licenses are allocated. This may i di h h f h di i f i i h f i h d i hindicate that much of the dissatisfaction with preference points has more to do with these misunderstandings than with any problems in the preference point system. We may be better served by making a concerted effort to communicate more directly and in novel ways about how preference points work, than by making changes to the preference point system. If changes are made to the preference point system, we should also institute a thoughtful, responsive communication campaign to attempt to bring everyone on to the same page about the changes,campaign to attempt to bring everyone on to the same page about the changes, consequences and rules. This may go a long way to addressing dissatisfaction about preference points.

15

W k d d t t t ll hi h th d th ld t f t b d iWe asked respondents to tell us which method they would most prefer to be used in CO to distribute big game hunting licenses. We classified respondents into categories based on the number of preference points they currently hold for deer and elk. (Low =0-3 pts, medium = 4-10 pts, high = >10 pts). The number of points an individual holds dictates which method they most prefer to distribute licenses. Medium and low preference point holders was similar, but substantial differences with high point holders.g p

High point holders had much higher preference for banking (LIGHT BLUE), because they would be best served by being able to split the number of points they currently have over several hunts

High point holders also uniformly rejected a random system, but low point holders reported higher support (DARK BLUE)

16

Th i l t i f ti i thi th di d h ThiThere is a lot more information in this survey than was discussed here. This information will be used to inform future discussions and decision-making about big game issues, such as allocation, recruitment efforts and continual evaluation of changes to big game seasons and opportunity

17

P bli i t h b it l t th i f th Bi G S St t (BGSS)Public input has been vital to the review of the Big Game Season Structure (BGSS). CWP underwent an extensive public outreach process during the beginning of 2014. The public input process has been open to all public. Hunters, both resident and non resident, are the most directly impacted by changes to the BGSS. As a result, CPW concentrated outreach efforts for the BGSS review process on big game hunters, especially through the Big Game Attitude Survey, telephone town halls, and focus groups. g p

18

19

20

Th h bl t f th diff i th tThrough our process, we were able to assess some of the differences in the types of hunters who were engaged. For example, for methods of take, we saw a difference in the percentage of rifle hunters between the random sample of big hunters who participated in the survey and those who submitted the public comment form.

21

22

23

T l h t h ll lt i ilTelephone town hall results were very similar.

Residents: 32% Preference Point, 39% Deer/Elk

Nonresidents: 44% Preference Point, 36% Deer/Elk

24

Th i l d d t i th ti i f i l ti t th tThese included comments concerning the timing of seasons in relation to the rut, possible changes to the length of breaks between seasons, increased opportunities, and the crowding and safety issues associated with the overlapping archery and muzzleloader seasons.

With deer hunting, many comments addressed season length and timing, including interest in changing the 4th season and in the differences in the structure of archery season for hunters east and west of I-25. Overall there was a lot of diversity in the comments for elk and deer and the varying interests of the different types of hunters were apparent.

25

E l f f th t f t CPW i d i d tExamples of some of the common types of comments CPW received in regard to preference points.

26

F i f d th di it f i i th t ff d b th thFocus groups reinforced the diversity of opinion that was offered by the other outreach efforts.

The lack of understanding on how the preference point system and the license draw works was also illustrated by the focus groups and BGAS.

27

28

Th f t ti l h t th BGSS h b l d i t 7 t iThe range of potential changes to the BGSS have been placed into 7 categories: deer and elk seasons, pronghorn seasons, moose seasons, black bear seasons, mountain lion seasons, preference and opportunity for youth hunting, and preference points.

29

W h d f h t th t th l ( h / l l d )We heard from some hunters that the season overlap (archery/muzzleloader) was a concern, and they discussed the potential to move the muzzleloader season later. Additionally, we heard a variety of changes to the lengths of seasons, and to breaks between seasons, but no significant or strong preference among hunters for any one change. Crowding was the concern of archers, mostly in SW Colorado. All encouraged CPW to maintain current levels of opportunity, through the number of days of participation each year.y p p y

Overall, we found a generally high level of satisfaction with current season structures for deer and elk among resident and nonresident hunters.

30

A lt f t f h t h b id i th f ll iAs a result of our engagement of hunters, we have been considering the following suite of changes for Commission consideration: Status Quo, minor adjustments to the lengths of breaks between seasons, efforts to reduce overlap among methods of take, and minor adjustments to season dates. Given the high satisfaction of current season structure, we had no significant interest in major changes to the number, length, or timing of deer and elk seasons.

31

P h h t di d th f ll i i lPronghorn hunters discussed the following issues: overlap among seasons, requests for minor changes in the length of seasons and breaks between seasons, and interest in retaining current levels of opportunity and days of hunting participation. In general, pronghorn hunters had a high level of satisfaction with the current season structure.

32

O t h t t i t th t ti l f l ti l iOur response to hunter comments is to pursue the potential for relatively minor changes in pronghorn seasons. We are considering a) status quo season structure, b)minor changes in timing and breaks between seasons, c) efforts to move seasons to reduce overlap for methods of take, and d) minor adjustments to season dates.

A significant change that had considerable interest from hunters will be proposed: i h l l d h f d h l dmoving the muzzleloader pronghorn season forward on the calendar to occur

between the end of archery season, and prior to rifle pronghorn season.

33

W h littl t i il ki t h tWe have very little comment on moose seasons, primarily speaking to hunter satisfaction with the status quo, and interest in maintaining or increasing their opportunity to participate.

34

A lt l id i t t ti fAs a result, we are only considering a status quo option for moose season.

35

W h d i ifi t i t t i i i t iti t h t b h t dWe heard significant interest in increasing opportunities to hunt bear; hunters and staff are interested in reducing restrictions on hunter participation – through removal of the concurrent licensing requirement for bear hunters during the rifle big game seasons.

36

W id i f ti f bWe are considering a few options for bear season:

Maintain the status quo

Additional bear season that spans the October deer and elk seasons

And the removal of the concurrent big game licensing requirements.

37

I t ti l h d t f i di id l th t ld lik t jInterestingly, we heard many comments from individuals that would like to see major departures from the current season structure; these all favored the types of issues that are beyound the authority of the Commisison, including the use of baits, dogs, and spring bear hunting.

38

H t i l i t t d i i d t it t h t t i liHunters in general were interested in increased opportunity to hunt mountain lions, but there was a generally high level of satisfaction with the current season structure.

39

W l i l f ti f li i l di i t i i thWe are exploring a couple of options for lion seasons, including maintaining the status quo, and the addition of a fall-only season to span the big game seasons. The fall season parameters are not yet specificied, but staff is interested in assurances that the additional hunting period be within frameworks that provide for necessary control of harvests and populations.

40

W h d t ti t f i t i i i i th t iti fWe heard a strong sentiment for maintaining or increasing the opportunities for youth to obtain licenses and participate in hunting.

41

W l i t ff l ti t th C i i f id ti t tWe are planning to offer several options to the Commission for consideration: status quo, and improving the youth’s odds of drawing and increasing youth options for participating in hunts.

42

Ch k l iCheck on analysis….

43

P f i t di i i t t t f thi BGSS f th tPreference point discussions are important aspects of this BGSS – one of the most contentious subjects.

Despite a majority of hunters reporting to be satisfied with the current system, there is lots of concern – no particular solution.

44

45

B h ill b fit ti l f h t th ill lBecause any changes will benefit a particular group of hunters, they will also negatively impact others.

46

Of th h di d b ki t th t ll h t t h tOf the changes discussed, banking systems that allow hunters to use whatever portion of their accumulated points are needed to draw hunts seem to have most support.

47

A h ll f th d C i i i t t t id f i di t bl dA challenge for the agency and Commission is to try to provide fair, predictable and simple system(s) to distribute limited licenses.

48

49

Th i d f th BGSS i t b d i S t b d 2014The remainder of the BGSS process is to be wrapped up in Septembedr 2014 –June and July will allow for presentation and finalization of any/all changes, and the associated regulations will be finalized by September.

50