archery elk participation since 2002
Colorado
I received some participation reports from CPW staff prior to the CBA boards recent meeting with CPW, I haven't had much time to digest it all yet, but the attached really jumped out at me, thought I would share it. I was told this data is unique archery elk hunters - not licenses sold including addtl cow tags. We have had had almost 20% growth in archery elk participation in the last 5 years, nearly doubled in 14 years.
I have a request in to better understand where the growth is occurring, broken down by OTC or limited, and resident/nonresident. Will try to share more in the CBA magazine.
The other question that hits me is what happened from 2002-03 to have a 30% jump in participation. Any old timers care to guess?
Steve It would be interesting to get the estimated state elk herd populations at 2002, 2009, 2016
My bet it dropped in those years
I'll ask but my guess would be the drop in 2009 was due to the economic meltdown we had in 2008 and the 10% dropout had no extra money to burn on hunting.
I only referenced 2009 as it was the mid-point of the data years.
I seriously doubt the elk population knew about the economic meltdown.
I can almost predict that the over-all elk herd declined from 2002 - 2016 as did the success stats, even with the the increased hunter involvement.
It would make more sense that the success would go up with more hunters in the field wouldnt it?
Ten years ago, the count of elk bowhunters was about 40,000. 19,500 being nonresidents.
When I first hunted elk in Colorado in 1989, I understand there were 14,500 bow hunters and under 200,000 elk.(170,000) The elk population topped out around 2001 with an est. numbers being 320,000. Current LTO (long term objective) is 265,000 which is the current population base on models and counts.
What happened in 2002-2003. How about 9/11/2001, and the economy tanked a bit and then recovered some, allowing hunters to increase participation in the following years.
Well, we do have over the counter unlimited licensing where participation is not tied to herd levels per se, and quota setting like limited licensing units. Deer participation has been stable at ~11,000 for the last 5 years - totally limited licensing.
would be interesting to know what the numbers were in 2000 to see if 2003 was a big increase or just a recovery. another thought, when I moved to colorado in 89 you could only hunt one season, archery or rifle, I stopped bowhunting for that reason, had a couple of young daughters just starting to hunt and archery would have been out of their reach. I don't know what year things changed but I started bowhunting again around 2005 when I realized I was able to get both rifle and bow license as long as one was for a cow. now we mostly bow hunt but with grandkids coming into legal big game hunting age that may change.
point was perhaps the sudden increase was due to the opening up of the rules to the two season hunters
Cnelk, why would you expect success to increase with increased numbers of hunters? - that one is typically an inverse. More hunters = Lower success.
Does anyone really believe CPW's elk herd estimates?
"Cnelk, why would you expect success to increase with increased numbers of hunters?"
That's basic math.
Success rates have a lot of variables, weather as just one. It is interesting the best success rates in the chart had the lowest participation.
The last cba survey showed basically anyone in the woods at the same time degrades our hunt experience. As participation increases, hunt degradation occurs.
The next five year structure is around the corner, if anyone wants a copy of these reports let me know. I'd like to know what jumps out at you.
hunter # doubled success rates halved maybe there is a consistent number of stupid elk that will find a way to get killed no matter what??
during meetings many years ago there was a study used to illustrate (for deer) it was a "blue Mtn something or other" study I wish I would have held on to my copy. Hunter numbers were reduced by 60-70% before post season buck numbers made any dramatic improvement from the basement of 3-5/100 (cause you can never kill them all)
I would guess the inverse would be true, you could put 100K in the woods and most would just bugle to each other and "get 'em next year fer sher"
And no if you watch the count being done you will never believe anything put out by the dow again... but it does what it is supposed to do, sell tags.
"Cnelk, why would you expect success to increase with increased numbers of hunters?" That's basic math.
Basic Math?! Exactly. So what don't you understand? Success rate is the PERCENTAGE of hunters who kill, NOT the total number of elk killed. If ten experienced, hard-working hunters kill ten elk, their success rate is 100%. Add 10 more hunters that mostly stay in camp playing cards and drinking beer and only one manages to kill one elk that wandered into camp and you've doubled the number of "hunters", increased the number of elk killed, but reduced the success rate to 55%.
But more to the real issue; an infestation of people on the planet. Until we are ready to deal with that, expect everything environmental to continue to degrade.
Ziek
Based on your math, and the stats above, 87% hunters are in camp, playing cards drinking beer and the other 13% kill elk?
Dont think so
Cnelk,
Think about it.
Ziek,
Yes, the biggest issue on the planet is and will be human population growth.
Being in my 20's and probably one of the younger guys on bowsite, I can tell you why I got into bowhunting.
1) Rifle hunting was just "too easy". I killed my first elk when I was 12. My first 7-8 years of hunting, I killed every year except one when we got dumped on by multiple feet of snow in two days. It just wasn't fun shooting fish in a barrel. I tried muzzleloader for two years and same results. I got into bow hunting for the challenge. This will be my 5th or 6th year now. Still haven't killed an elk with a bow but I can say I have had encounters where I SHOULD have killed an elk in at least 4 of those years. 2) When I started to look at the stats, the difference between archery and rifle PP's was just crazy. Hunt a quality rifle unit for 4-5pp or hunt it with a bow for 1-2. Sure the odds are way higher to harvest with a rifle but I can go 2-3 times with archery in the same amount of time as 1 rifle tag. It seems like in recent years the pp spread has come closer (probably due to more archery participation) so its not as big of a benefit as it once was.
- I would also attribute the increase in hunter participation to technology and social media. In the early 2000's, bows were just beginning to really see advancements in cam technology, limbs and arrow speeds. I never would have dreamed of hunting with my dad's old Browning Cobra compound bow. The thing was a dinosaur. Now today, with a few hundred $$ and a few screw turns, just about anyone can be up and running with a 300+ fps bow that is insanely quiet and accurate to 40-50 yrds. As for social media, we all know about this "extreme athlete" bowhunter craze that is going around. If it wasn't for social media and all the podcasts and wealth of information that is being shared, even gps chips now, there would be a lot of guys who just didn't know where to start when it comes to bow hunting or hunting in general. I mean look at bowsite. On any given day, there are countless posts about guys looking for information on a particular unit. Sure its great and I have taken FULL advantage off all the digital resources for myself, but the selfish side of me wishes some guys would really watch what they broadcast all over the internet. Such a terrible feeling to see someone ask about the unit you hunt, and then have 2-3 guys just throw out mtn names,trailheads and access points. PM's are a thing for a reason.
Kind of off topic but relating to aerial counts that CPW uses, I saw an article two days ago about the wyoming yellowstone herd and how it grew something like 40% over last years number. I thought it was funny that the biologist in the article attributed the increase to a better aerial survey this year. Basically saying that the aerial survey has a 40% margin of error?? Sounds like a real reliable tactic to me! Zero mention of the influence that wolf management did/ or did not play, just simply that this years survey was better. Whatever that means. Her background was even in wolf/ predator influence on ungulates so I found it odd that there was no mention of predators.
-Just my 2 random cents-
"Based on your math..."
My math? It's JUST math. You're the one who is obviously confused. And actually, in my example 50% of the hunters are in camp. I can't even begin to imagine how you came up with your numbers.
I should also add that if you elect a moron as President, expect things to degrade even faster.
If Im confused, why does Wyoming have approx the same success rates and have fewer hunters? Shouldnt the success rates be higher with fewer hunters based on your numbers?
And WY has even less elk than CO
Little wonder why I stopped hunting Colorado archery elk around 2006. I knew I saw less people in the woods during rifle season.
Ckapp22, some of us started way back in the dark ages - before the internet, cell phones, or hand-held GPS units and hunted with recurves and longbows because they were so much lighter and about as fast as the compounds of the day. Some of us still hunt that way. Makes it even tougher with more people in the woods - many with rifles for seasons that are overlapping what used to be an archery season.
"I should also add that if you elect a moron as President, expect things to degrade even faster."
Please explain...
Or please, don't? ( no offense, NaOk,...) I come here to get away from all that crap. The ever increasing number of hunters in the Colo woods these days is depressing enough.
"The increasing number of new hunters in the Colo woods these days is depressing enough".
Why is that depressing? With a rapid decline in hunters looming, seems like new hunters coming along would be a good thing?
I read the blog and attachments today. The blog is simply asking about elk harvest and hunter numbers. I find the attachments regarding the president being a moron very disrespectful and not addressing this blog. I understand this is a open forum about bowhunting, but the President has nothing to do with license sales, hunter harvest rates and the amount of hunters or recreationalists in the woods. There are so many variables in license sales and hunters harvest it is ridiculous. But this blog is a good starting place to get answers. My opinion.
I started to type a diatribe, but you're partially correct - this isn't a political site. Suffice it to say that respect has to be earned regardless of your title. And everything hunting and fishing hinges on habitat and ecosystems. Trump's record on those is disastrous.
Dang, and I was thinking Ziek was referring to the former holder of that office...
I haven't been hunting much of anything the last few years. Darn surgeries on my back has kept me out of the woods. I can't haul anything out by myself anymore but I can walk into most places given the extra time it takes me.
Roughly 28,000 square miles of public land in Colorado. Archery elk is about a month. I suspect hunters spend 7-10 days in the field. So a third at a time. 2002 8000 hunters gives 3 1/2 sqare miles each. 2017 12,000 hunters gives 2 1/2 sqare miles each. Roughly. Lots of variables not included;-)
In the past ten years, I and a varied group have spent 7-16 days in the Colorado mountains. I cannot say I have noticed any significant change in pressure. Some years are otc. Some are in easy to draw limited areas.
With the ease of obtaining digital information I suspect some places get much more increase of pressure than others. As well, the US population is getting fatter and lazier, so that probably contributes to many areas being increasingly popular with some groups of archers.
I think you got a 0 off. From your link (that may not be all inclusive because it is focused on forested areas) USFS = 11,300,000 acres, BLM = 4,200,000 acres for a total of 15.5M acres = 24,219 square miles.
Over the last 30+ years that I have been hunting in Colorado, the pressure has definitely increased significantly.
Lots of dynamics in play. Fatter, lazier and hunters getting older all contribute to more hunting pressure closer to roads. The Sitka Army tends to be younger and more physically fit, which contributes to more pressure in wilderness and roadless backcountry. That mid-level "buffer zone" is where I seem to find the lowest hunter pressure.
What's interesting is that back in 2005-2007 when elk numbers were at their peak, success rates stayed virtually the same as now, after the reduction. This seems to indicate that the Bell Curve of hunter ability/skill level and dedication holds true whether there are 100 hunters in the woods or 38,000.
If I remember correctly, the overall archery success rate has tracked right around that 13% +/- average for decades despite the technological advances in equipment and information.
I don’t doubt it has increased a lot over 10-20-30 years. The national forest site says 13 mil. Rather than 11. Not all has elk. Other areas do. Private land too. Yattie yattie yatta. Just roughed some numbers to get an idea.
I used to live next to about 7000 acres of hikable and hunt able state park. The gun season was crazy. I only saw probably 1 person during 75-100 days afield during archery. Then someone posted the park in a Pittsburgh book and the hikers exploded. Didn’t affect me much but my wife b and moaned about the traffic more than she actually used the park.
Since I moved, I do miss the park but not the endless complaining.
Not sure how much faith I would put in the CPW's success rate info, Lou. From what I can tell, fancy equipment doesn't necessarily equate to more success for archery elk.
I was looking through my license sales data for 2015. Of the 46,854 archery elk hunters over 33,000 were hunting in OTC units. That is slightly more than 70% hunting in OTC units where licenses are unlimited. I have the NR/res split data for 2015. Anyone care to guess what the split is?
I think Glunt may be right for OTC.
17,785 residents, 15243 nonresidents which equates to 53.8 percent resident, 46.2 nonresident. Your guess was close enough, you win a free day of coyote hunting at the cactus ranch.
I have to hear that hunting is dying and we need new recruitment all the time. Blah blah blah...seems like we are recruiting just fine, A different type of hunter but a hunter I guess. This is what I c in September in Colorado not fewer hunters but MUCH more. Good info.
More bowhunters in CO for sure, thanks to cheap OTC licenses for NRs and lots of 50-65 year old Boomers still hunting who have disposable income. Outfitted hunts for NR Boomers is booming, too. The latest technology makes it easier than ever to hunt the backcountry, which has become a sort of trendy-cool "endurance sport" of its own. Also lots of younger bowhunters who have figured out they can do a DIY OTC hunt for really cheap. Indexed for inflation and average wage index, it's as inexpensive now as it's ever been.
Bowhunting is becoming more popular (when crossbows are added into the stats). But hunter participation overall and younger hunter recruitment nationwide? Not happening.
We've seen increasing numbers of vehicles at the trailhead in recent years. Up until a few years ago we were pretty much it. We heard reports of more camps "up the mountain". Where there used to be one outfitter camp, there were now 2 or 3 other camps. And that's not including the 2-3 new groups heading up the trail "spiking in". For the most part they had a nice but very expensive camping trip. And a disappointing elk hunt. As one might expect, most of the elk simply moved away from the additional pressure. As I said earlier - kinda depressing. 'Sad to hear the same story confirmed again & again.
I truly wonder how the CPW comes up with their "success" rate numbers? They must be vastly inaccurate. I've taken a few elk in the past few years with OTC tags and never got a hunter harvest survey for them so they would have no idea that I filled those tags or where I had success. The only surveys I seem to get are for draw areas. If they just sent a survey for each tag issued they would get much more accurate numbers. Maybe I'll stop by the CPW office and ask about this, unless someone knows? Maybe they don't have the manpower to sort through that many surveys?
They do a cross section and extrapolate. In my unit sometimes they are pretty accurate, sometimes way off, but it's almost 100% public land where the elk are during archery. I wish they would break it down by public land hunters vs. private vs. private-outfitted. One unit I know well with @7% annually is actually probably only 1% or less for public land. On some of the ranches in that unit the archery success is over 80%.
Here is participation stats across all seasons for ELK. If you read the columns from left to right it is archery, ML, 1-4 rifle, late rifle, then "other seasons". I suspect "other" might be PLO, but maybe it also might includes special dispersal/depredation hunts, I'm not sure. If you look at the short term, early season participation exceeds any particular rifle season. That said, archers do retain 30 days to participate.
grasshopper, to take a guess at answering your original question about the increase in hunters 2002 to 2003: wasn't that when CDOW dropped the price of NR cow tags from $350 to $250 in order to cut some herd sizes in half?
(If I am reading the chart properly) interesting to me is that Archery hunter #s were 1.7 X ML hunters in 2002 yet today are 3.8 X. The answers include ML being 100% limited, and as a ML hunter occasionally I find it a bit strange ML tags in 2017 were fewer than even 2002. September Archery fortunate with its OTC tags. Also, all rifle season hunter #s over that 15 period are lower. Hunting choices in manner of take are changing.
Food for thought....I don't know if September archers are "fortunate", guess that is up to the individual to decide. The last time I hunted OTC, I was grateful to go, and it sure beat working but I didn't feel fortunate with the high participation I saw.
I do know archers seek success by finding undisturbed animals to get to very close range. Undisturbed is more likely to occur in low hunter density conditions. On the other hand, firearm hunters might prefer orange on every hill side and animals on the move.
I respect and agree with your perspectives Grasshopper 98% of the time but even firearm hunters don't want other hunters on every hillside. Elk don't either. The facts are those in any hunting manner that harvest more game invariably hunt further in, double factor the places they see game, get away from the crowds, forgo lunch at camp and hunt all day, and overall outcompete the competition. Also elk on the move I always like and worth adjusting to. Sometimes hunting is offensively after an animal spotted, and sometimes defensively in escape or in perceived travel movement routes. Just my take but these years I see elk in more remote zones, nervous, and not moving through any open hillsides. Or could it be elk hunting is simply not as easy when you are 68?
