According to the other thread, most are not in favor of 'Point Banking', some want group point averaging, and others do not.
So... what's the 'fix'?
Some ideas:
1- Make all elk hunting a draw [like deer]
2 - There are many GMUs that are undersubscribed for cow elk. Use these for 'meat hunts' and issue generous cow/spike tags. Along with those tags, have a limited amount of 'branch antlered' bull tags available.
3 - Create more 'Quiet Time' seasons, or have limited cow hunts during this time.
What ideas do you have?
Make all elk tags a completely random draw and you will have to pick your unit like deer.
I vote bonus points and everything a draw.
The problem in any solution is how does DOW implement without negatively impacting the "Golden ticket" that is the NR hunter. NR's are the "crack" that has provided the annual cash flow. But now the draw system is starting to show the rotten teeth and scabs that show up when you dance with the devil.
Slowly transition highest PP units. For instance after 5 years, 25% of tags go random. After 10, 50%. Two decades from now would be a fair draw. At this point I guess it seems fair to compromise and make it a slow transition.
No OTC tags or under subscribed tags while building points for that species, Res or NRs. That one boggles my mind anywhere in the country it occurs. Having cake and eating it too. Seems most hunters would be fine with shifting away from the OTC model and the crowding problems it creates to a large degree. Balance out some of the mid-tier units, aim for slightly lower hunter density in current overcrowded OTC. Your "new" LE units could be random, while again over two decades transition the current LE units from PP's to random. Potentially use some "capped OTC" in that transition to insure you aren't just moving the circus to different units. That creates a confusing parallel system for awhile, but it gives current PP guys a chance to cash out so we don't have to witness too many whiny man-tears. Again, it seems to me given there are a decent amount of 0-1 point units this wouldn't be a paradigm shift, but again, pay me for a few hundred hours to crunch the stats and I could tell you beyond speculation.
I definitely understand the frustration of the perceived nonresident imbalance but residents absolutely have to realize to balance that out they are going to have to pay significantly more. Finally I love that CO elk generally prioritizes opportunity over trophies. Don't take this as a suggestion for more trophy hunting, that is absurd. No way in today's hunting/society interface can any state agency afford to slash opportunity in the name of more trophies. Just to reduce some of the anecdotal crowding burden and NR vs. Res balance.
I guess these are some ways you could do that. Just throwing spaghetti against the wall here. If CPW wants me to crunch the numbers and come up with actual proposals I'll gladly do so for a reasonable hourly rate.
The market would only be open for a couple weeks and then the PP draw would continue for a couple more years as everyone uses/sells their points.
Make elk 100% draw for non residents - all units/all hunts.
Have OTC General unit groups for residents.
Increase the % of units that require drawing for elk for NR or R to 50%.
Focus on improving quality.
Average group application point totals.
Reinstatement of points and refunds are a good thing that CO does but most other states do not allow it. Set up a system similar to AZ where you have to pay up front for an insurance policy to get your points or money back and/or only reinstate points to the pre-draw level if all the group turns in their tags.
For sheep, goat and moose:
Make all 3 once in a lifetime if you kill one or have killed one of these species.
Set up the draw to give preference to the max point holders. Currently there are more moose tags being drawn by people with 3+0 to 3+4 points than by those with max points because of the larger numbers of people applying in those lower point levels. Set up at least 50% of the tags for the max point holders that apply per hunt code and have 50% be random between the remaining point holders.
Revise the crazy math that is used for the drawing for these species to something very simple and understandable. 1 randomly selected choice for each point that you have would make more sense. Squaring the points for number of choices would put even more weight to the higher point holders as well.
Deer used to be the "cash cow" for Colorado with mostly unlimited OTC tags. Since going 100% draw for deer, the cash flow has slowed down for deer and greatly increased for elk. Deer numbers in Colorado have declined significantly - even after implementing 100% draw and tag numbers have been reduced as well. Unfortunately, CPW has done little to focus on deer numbers nor quality because they are not the cash cow anymore and the populations are struggling in many areas. We are just lucky to have the genetics in this state that we do for mule deer potential and lucky that there always seem to be big bucks that make it thru the gauntlet every year to get old.
Antelope populations are very low as well. More antelope would provide more opportunity for more tags and point totals required to draw would drop with more opportunity.
Not allowing point averaging is one thing Colorado does right.
If we cut NRs back by 1/3 and raised NR total license costs by 1/3 to get more in line with WY and NM, residents would be much more amenable to change.
Then if we limited NRs to hunting elk only once every three years by making all NR elk tags require two $75 "bonus points", we could go a long way toward reducing crowding and generate an extra $150 per NR.
I have nothing against NRs. I'm a NR in 49 states. But I would like to see CO treat NRs the same way the other states treat CO residents. In my lifelong OTC elk unit (which I've been run out of due to overcrowding) almost all the camps now are NR camps. Big camps. Residents, even locals have moved on. All the outfitters on the big ranches are guiding NRs to the elk that the public land NRs are pushing in there. That unit might just as well be declared NR-only.
The NR's have taken over this part of the state many years ago.
If you want to get into elk on public land here, you really have to work at it. Now that everyone is packing a GPS with property boundaries and not as scared of getting back into the backcountry, it is even tougher to get away from them. When I get serious about elk hunting, I have to drive several hours to another part of the state with enough elevation to choke out most of the flatlanders and still have to hike hard into the deep-nasty to get away from the crowds.
Nowiser, how about removing the option of getting your points back in CO on a group application? Or, why not require all members of the group to turn in their tags and not get a refund if they want to keep their points at the pre-draw level?
In a perfect world, with a random draw, this would no longer be an issue.
With the price increases coming from CPW on residents and the overcrowding that CPW encourages, it is worth it to give up on getting an OTC elk tag in CO and focus my elk hunting in other states where it is not as difficult to get into elk and there is actually a chance to get a decent bull...
With that said I’m definitely in favor of going to no otc tags for elk. I think Lou has a great idea of the two $75.00 bonus points for a NR to hunt the state. Or something of the like... hell, look at how Wyo treats their resident hunters. Definitely a favor there and I don’t have a problem with it!
I guess if it was an every three year hunt I would probably pull out of the elk and deer but stay with sheep, goat and moose. Hunt ID or MT every year.
Does it really need to change or does something just need to change for trophy units?
The CPW appreciates your revenue. We resident hunters see the incredible ways the CPW spends millions on everything except increasing hunting access and improving the quality of hunting. Believe it or not, they don't even have a budget to count moose, so moose license allocations are total seat-of-the-pants WAGs. But they seem to have plenty of money for studies of non- game species which produce zero revenue.
One of the first cuts when they discovered the mysteriously "missing millions" was the Big Game Access Program, which our own "grasshopper" spearheaded. It leased private walk-in hunting access similar to the Montana program. It was a tiny $ allocation in the bloated budget, yet they cut that right off the top while still spending millions on bonytailed chubs and squawfish.
We all buy Habitat Stamps but see very little new hunting access. Seems to go mostly to fishing access which hunters pay for. So you won't hear many resident hunters expressing sorrow for the financial mismanagement by the CPW. And it will continue as long as the cash register keeps ringing up unlimited NR elk tags.
Of course this would be implemented upon legislative approval and so anyone after the implementation would not be eligible to harvest again.
It would be great to think about not only 'your' PPs, but also the future hunter's opportunities when suggesting changes
There's no "fix" that isn't going to upset someone. Change the point system and it'll upset the long-term point holders. Do nothing and it screws the younger generation who have zero chance at the better units.
But there is a few things that CPW could do:
1. Make all elk on a draw. There'd still be leftover tags after the draw - CO has a lot of elk. This year will be the 6th year I've hunted Wyoming in a row. I did NOT draw every one of those tags. If CO went all draw, you'd still be able to hunt... it just might not be in the place or gender you prefer.
2. They could change the system to a BP system, but that really is pulling the rug out from under the folks that have been putting in for 20 years...
If a bonus point was implemented, it would sure make sense to revise the crazy math that CO uses. Just a straight up chance in the hat for each point.
I do wonder what would happen if all units were LE, would the OTC units be better or just like deer where really you can draw many units with 0pts.
I do think pressure is high in CO but it can also be an advantage. Big bulls will not be as common then if there were fewer hunters but wildlife conservation is not about antlers.
I do think there are fewer elk in CO then the state advertises and something should be done about this more so then worrying about prf pts. Maybe a 5pt min on bulls and very limited cow hunts.
If there was a draw for all units and NR numbers were limited I do wonder what this would do to the funding and what further reductions would be made to continue funding non-game studies etc.
Interesting topic for sure.
Similar to what MT does, limit the NR and allow a tag to be drawn that is good for all seasons. This would give the tag holders more opportunity for time in the woods hunting with a possible increase in success.
Grasshopper, you'll have to excuse my ignorance/inexperience on this subject. I was not aware of that. Just throwing some different ideas out there. I can definitely understand CBA fighting that. I'm not a big fan of losing opportunity myself.
The few states with higher resident prices have much higher quality and much fewer tags sold.
With the price increase currently planned, we will move up one spot in that ranking.
We deal with more nonresidents and total hunters per acre than any other state for our OTC elk units every year.
Our Colorado Parks and Wildlife department wants to increase the numbers of tags sold, they appear to be overstating the elk population when compared to other states and is not interested in improving crowding issues nor hunt quality.
Our resident elk tags should be reduced in price or free.
I believe would be a real wake up for all involved to actually see the true success rates.
That in turn would affect Pref Point usage.
I will say that bowhunting should be looked at as a great user group. We pay the same as rifle hunters, we take less, we are less obvious to nonhunters, and our tags create more recreation days.
For a wildlife manager looking to get the most from a limited surplus of elk, looks like bowhunters are a great tool.
LOL. Good luck with that one!
Simple but difficult to swallow solution would be to use all preference points if you draw a tag as a first, second, third, or 4th choice.
And even better would be to make all elk draw.
I could live with both I think, but it might make the 0-1 tags more difficult to draw/ predict, as least for awhile.
2nd choice. Convert preference to bonus points and then follow my first choice recommendation.
3rd choice. Phase out all points over 5 years then go to total random draw.
As a NR. I like bonus points because you can more accurately plan hunts. Random draw, you never know. Face it some guys just have terrible luck. I have been playing the lottery for 35 years and have not won yet.
Cut the cow tags to improve elk population. The way I understand it, there are calf recruitment issues in many areas, more calfs on the ground has to help. If you have to, issue a very small amount of cow tags to Residents, and issue no cow tags to NRs.
The bigger problem is elk not accessible to public land hunters. In some areas they migrate rapidly to private ranches at the beginning of archery season. Exploding numbers of archers also push the public land elk beyond the reach of most rifle hunters, the average age of whom is now over 50.
Both these issues are a big concern of the CPW managers, and they're trying all sorts of bandaids to try to fix it while still selling as many tags as possible.
When you look at harvest stats for an area, there's a reason why they don't break it down by public vs private/guided. Listing a 3-5% success rate for public land elk hunters might discourage NRs from paying big bucks to chase the dream of a big bull.
I agree with the idea that all NR elk should go to a draw in some fashion. Part of the reason that people are building so many points is that they can keep elk hunting every single year in any number of units while still building points.
My best offer for a fix would be to require say 0.5 preference points to acquire the OTC tag and allow everyone to purchase preference point(s) each year they don't DRAW a tag, with a maximum of 1 per year. This way those that want to hunt OTC each year can; they will just have to purchase 0.5 pref. point when buying their tag. Those that want to chase the highest demand units still can the same way they always have. Those in between will generally have to make a decision: Do they want to hunt every year while still building points? They would only be able to bank 0.5 points per year.
It isn't a true fix, but I think it would make some people choose to only bank points (reducing crowding), or just go the OTC route. In all likelihood the OTC route won't necessarily increase crowding because all those people were likely hunting OTC already anyway as they built points.
That's ridiculous....coming from someone as midwest as it gets.
It’s just such a bad bet. $600 plus dollar tag for a low chance and a crowded hunt. And Ive had success there. I’m 3 for 4 OTC. Can’t kill a bull on a primo hunt, but usually stumble into one in CO. ;)
Last year there were many more people than usual where we hunt. There was a resident camp at the trailhead with over 30 people in the camp. I can’t remember exact count, but there were 12-15 campers in this one group. Large fenced areas with horses. Best I can tell they rode an 8 mile circling bugling all the way. Not all of them were Bowhunting. Some were “scouting” for rifle season.
I’m to the point I’d just as soon skip a season than hunt OTC Colorado again.
I think I have 1 point for elk in CO, which I acquired before I understood Colorado’s system. I see no reason to ever participate in their system again. Except for possibly mulie
In 2017, there were 4 Hybrid Archery tags issued, 10 ML Hybrid tags, and 12 Rifle Hybrid tags. Total = 26 tags
I did not calculate RFW tags
Some want to hunt elk every year, some want to hunt bigger bulls, some want less crowding, CPW wants more revenue, some want lower prices, some want their private access to be worth more, some want easier and less expensive access, some want the freedom of hunting different parts of the state throughout the season, some want the great tag they saved 20 years for, some want a chance at that great tag but they just entered the system, etc, etc, etc.
One thing for sure, the CPW isn't going to do anything that isn't revenue-positive, and any limitation on NRs (and residents) will affect that unless they increase license prices upward again and try to hit that willingness-to-pay threshold where revenue is maintained while reducing hunter numbers. Right now the strategy for OTC hunting seems to be testing the "willingness-to-suffer" threshold, with respect to crowding and difficulty in finding elk for the average hunter. This may take care of itself in the next 15 years as more and more hunters drop out. The CPW bean counter mentioned this at the last Roundtable I attended.
More Hybrid tags may scrape a handful out of the point pool, but won't make a dent, really.
To increase quality (more elk, bigger elk, less crowding) you either have to increase available habitat - not an option, or decrease the number of hunters in the field. If you are not willing to give up some of YOUR opportunity, there is NO solution possible.
The income from all those non resident otc tags is like crack for a bureaucrat. No way they give that up without a fight.
Lou, they told me they base demand for OTC tags on the difference between#s of OTC tags sold verse number of point holders. Said far more people just buy OTC and don't collect pps. Don't shoot the messenger
Yes, people are going to flock to the remaining OTC units, but how many would be willing to start earning/burning points to continue to hunt their current OTC honeyhole?This would continue the option to hunt every year, though with plenty of company, while potentially taking many low point holders out of the pool.
The pressure on the new LE units would drop and hopefully create a more enjoyable hunt. There are LE units now that can be drawn with 0-1 point so I would imagine some of the new LE units would settle into that range as well.
This could potentially take some of the heat off the 3+ point units because it seems many feel these are just average hunts without the OTC pressure.
Or would the potential OTC disaster that could ensue outweigh any benefit of this change? And is this just a temporary bandaid?
Like Lou, I would support all draw for elk, but only if point banking was implemented at the same time. At least until all existing points reached some sort of equilibrium.
Another method that would likely help both 'quality' issues (overcrowding, and bull size), would be a "voluntary" opt out system. By voluntary I mean that the hunter decides by what he shoots or doesn't shoot whether he gets to hunt in subsequent years. If you don't kill a bull, you get to hunt the following year. If you kill a 6pt, you have to take a year off. A smaller bull, more years off. In any case you would be able to put in for cow tags. Of course, this would require a management plan that includes verifying who killed what.
I remember the discussions about increasing the draw units as a solution. The WCOs and DWMs in an area recommend which ones to convert to draw, and from my discussions with the ones I know, it's a huge political albatross because locals complain about crowding but don't want to give up that every year OTC opportunity. When my current units went to all-draw there were leftover tags every year. So not a problem collecting points. Now it's about 80% for residents with zero points, and creeping rapidly. Just four years ago a few second choicers drew. If more units went to draw it would even-out the creep and demand and help level out the problem.
Sounds like I have smart guys ready to talk through ideas......When do all you guys want to meet at the FCAA clubhouse to draft up preliminary proposals for the CBA board to look at? How about the week of April 9th Which week night works for you guys?
I'll reserve the clubhouse if guys want to devote some time to proposal development.
For instance, why was Point Banking only implemented for one year? It was discussed again in 2009 but tabled... why?
Also, why is the idea of creating more Draw units not being pursued?
I remember back in the 90s when the CPW implemented the 4 pt elk rule. From being able to shoot spikes to branch antlered bulls. Actually it started out as a 3 pt rule but it was changed to 4 a year or so later.
It took a few years but this change was for the better. As more opportunities for branch antlered bulls were had.
I’m not sure if the CPW is interested in going ‘all draw’ for elk. Prob add more draw units before that happens
Hopefully when Paul gets back he can dig though his archives and come up with past proposals.
Grasshopper's Link
http://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/SeasonStructure.aspx
Grasshopper's Link
and other stuff on google
cnelk's Link
Thanks for the links, very helpful
To start, anyone interested in Summary of Public Involvement in 2014, please see the link.
Once there, scroll down to pages 9-13. Then, read where 2 focus groups were in favor of eliminating / reducing the Hybrid Draw.
My first thought is what has changed since 2014, and yesterday when OTCwill was told the CPW is favoring INCREASING Hybrid Draw tags?
Also note that Point Banking was supported by most of the focus groups... but not implemented
My idea is to let the professional game managers, who have access to a hundred times more information than we do, make the call.
Generally Kyle, the Colorado Bowhunters Association support CPW on biological discussions, but season structure discussions are often philosophical, and our mission statement clearly identifies and guides us to action. The wildlife commission always has options, staff preferences and we may or may not agree. Advocacy is the primary reason why our members join, we need to inform them, survey them and act on what they want. You can join today Kyle at www.coloradobowhunting.org
Thanks, Steve, for doing what you do. I'm in for another think-tank.
I've been waiting years for this to happen with elk! Hunters would then have to burn pref pts rather than accumulating them. I'm aware that this isn't popular with those that like to hunt OTC every year and small Western Colo towns would complain about the loss of revenue with possibly fewer hunters. If tag numbers were similar to current levels I doubt it would impact revenues. The CPW would finally be able to manage elk hunter and elk numbers/quality (similar to deer) if converted to all draw.
I'm totally against point banking. Hunters would be able to draw multiple tags over several years rather than burning all their pref pts once they draw 1 tag. Units that currently take few to mediocre pts to draw would likely point leap with point banking. That's not a good option if you like to hunt Colo big game on a fairly regular basis! There are so few tags offered in the premium units that point banking would do little to help draw odds in tough draw units. Currently muledeer tags are relatively easy to draw in all but only a handful of units....this would change with point banking! There would be more units that take more years to draw! I see no advantage to changing to point banking.
I actually like Nevada's bonus point system. Everyone has a chance to draw tags in any given year and those that have more points have a chunk better chance to draw. Currently there are more applicants that start applying for difficult tags to draw (like moose) than tags issued so there is hardly any advantage to having even max moose pts! It's tough to please everyone...and I'd be excited just to switch to all draw for elk.
With CO going more liberal like CA I wouldn't trust them any more with PETA running CA's show. All policy is driven by politics CBA is a good thing
