Bowsite.com

2025 - 2029 Big Game Season Structure (BGSS) Updates

This fall, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff began developing alternatives for the 2025-2029 BGSS and will present these alternatives to the Parks and Wildlife Commission at its March 2024 Commission meeting. At this meeting, staff will request guidance from the Commission on which recommendations to bring back for additional consideration in May 2024. Final recommendations will be approved by the Commission in June 2024.

Before settling on season structure recommendations, CPW staff are sending out a random sample survey to archery and rifle elk hunters to understand their preferences on limitation alternatives for over-the-counter (OTC) rifle and archery elk licenses. CPW staff developed these alternatives after carefully evaluating the internal and external input received during the public outreach process in the spring/summer of 2023.

The results from this survey will be presented to the Commission at its March 2024 meeting. Check out our Big Game Season Structure Engage CPW webpage to read through the OTC alternatives being considered, the BGSS process overall, and ways to continue to be involved.

Draw Process Working Group Updates

At the May 2023 Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting, the Commission requested Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff to form a Draw Process Working Group to analyze the agency’s current hunting draw rules and processes in order to identify ways to reduce complexities and find new solutions/alternatives to fix some of the preference point and other draw-related issues.

CPW received over 175 applications from the public for the Working Group, and had a very competitive and impressive candidate pool. CPW selected eight public members for the Draw Process Working Group. These members of the public represent a broad range of interests in hunting management and big game conservation, and are a diverse and inclusive group of hunters and outfitters from various backgrounds, perspectives, and geographic regions in Colorado.

We kicked off our Draw Process Working Group meetings a few weeks ago to discuss the shared vision for the process and select the workshop topics to be addressed by the group. Work sessions and Commission workshops will be spread out throughout the calendar year 2024, with one meeting taking place almost every month. We will alternate months with a work session one month, followed by the Commission workshop on that topic the following month. All Draw Process Working Group meetings will be livestreamed on the CPW YouTube Channel.

If you are interested in sharing your thoughts on the process, leave a comment using our guestbook tool on the main Draw Process Working Group page. Draw Process Working Group members will be able to review and consider these comments throughout the process.

Status quo shouldn’t even be an option

But that was 10 years ago, when I finally said "enough". Not sure how CPW would have any idea of the ratio, since I only saw a warden about once every few years and hadn't had my license checked for decades.

A buddy sent me a link to the random survey they are doing of 6,000 hunters. I like option 5. I don't really think what they say are disadvantages are true. Residents and NR's can still hunt together, and it can still reduce crowding with a not to exceed NR hunt code, whether by GMY or DAU.

Also recognize this is all about a framework. Quotas are set annually in May. None of these concepts would take effect until 2025, and any quotas would be set in May 2025. They could set the quota at current participation, or higher. It all depends...

Ill post some pics in a moment

If residents are otc unlimited, is it a limited unit?

Unit 80/81 is limited, nonresidents drew 73 percent of the tags, while residents who applied as a second choice did not draw.

Option 6 gives a 20 percent quota to landowners if rifle goes limited.

Archery is 29 days in September, down from 30, but some in CPW would like to shorten that. Some bowhunters who don't like muzzleloaders in the middle of "our" season seem willing to accept a reduction of 9 days in order to get three weeks of uninterrupted "archery-only" hunting (except for rifle bear, early rifle deer, grouse, etc... that all go on in September).

Archery deer hunters want the season to open earlier in August, while bucks are still in velvet, and before high country rifle deer season starts.

No matter what they do, a bunch of hunters will be unhappy.

Deer has been total draw for many years. Why hasn’t there been major point creep with that?

For NR, without OTC it means other western states are in play since its basically a draw about everywhere and costs are similar.

Another reason may be that when you have to spend points to get most or any tag, the vault at the Preference Point Bank gets emptied more often.

That’s a pretty neat concept…. ;)

I would have voted that way. It was stated already that its not likely the overcrowding issue will be resolved with all limited units. They'll still sell lots and lots of tags.

Hunters could still hunt when they wanted and the state can enjoy the same otc revenue and maybe even bigger bulls will result letting the little ones go creating more "trophy" units (oops! I forgot that word is taboo now) and PPoint issues could disappear.

But I was told by cpw hunters are too stupid to know what a 6 point bull looks like before pulling the trigger. I beg to differ.

Here's another suggestion. Keep an OTC license available in the form of 6pt bull only across all methods, seasons and residency, then start a draw for a new "any elk" tag in those OTC units. Would you shoot a spike then if you had to draw the tag? Well, at least you could.

No matter how it all goes down the hunting public will have to suffer for a few years either by not getting to hunt every year or or not getting to shoot at one for a few years. I'm just saying most folks would much rather have the option to be in the woods and get to experience a hunt rather than stay at home because I didn't draw and be disgusted over other hunters. Or have to apply for all 4 choices to try and draw. Which some of you already say is the problem, they won't cut back on tag allotments any more than what they assume are being sold already OTC anyway. Without a mandatory harvest report there will be a couple years of overcrowding still before they figure out a balance.

BTW what ever happened to the days of seeing a fellow hunter in the woods and greeting them with a smile and some conversation rather than getting all pissed off and in doing so ruining your own hunt. Oh yeah, I'll answer that for you; Social Media and YouTube empowered all NRs to think they can come out west to Colorado and bugle down every drainage on opening day and shoot a bull on public land. Ok I'll drop the mic now...haha

I've also been told by CPW reps that too many hunters will shoot first and count later. But that can be mitigated. If someone shoots a smaller bull, and they report it, the penalty could be they can't hunt for a bull for the number of years the one they killed had less than 6 points, more of a 'soft' 6 point rule. If they don't report it, and get caught, they can never hunt in CO again. In other words, make it easy to fess up and really costly not to. It would also allow someone to kill one of those big 5 points if they wanted.

You pick one or the other on your application. I hunted with a buddy in Montana many years ago that had this in place

Selfish? Yes but I only get to be a resident of one state. I want to be able to hunt every year. We have 280,000 elk. Resident bowhunters kill less than the margin of error when estimating populations.

Talking a lot with a man from the CPW that Steve put me in touch with, we found that over 90% of the resident hunters were thrown out after the first round of drawing. You weren't ran back through for your 2nd or 3rd choice. One and done!! This happened in 2022 also. The issue is, doesn't matter what unit, cpw is going to continue to give the non resident hunter over 80% of the draw tags. I feel that a resident should be able to hunt his home units every year. It's that simple. By making resident hunters hunt their own units, your otc tag is good for only the unit you choose, it'll reduce pressure by the resident hunters that travel to hunt several units a year. Plus, they could put a cap on the number of otc resident hunters allowed in each unit. Another issue I pointed out, especially to the cpw officers is, we have guys coming into the store with their buddy, who drew a limited archery tag, and buy a otc tag and tell us they're gonna drive over 2 hours to hunt the closest otc unit... no they're not!! so now, you have non resident hunters hunting a draw unit with an otc tag. The licenses venders in a unit that has a draw for elk should not be allowed to issue otc elk tags for units over 120 miles away. Very easy thing to control from the cpw side.

Guys hunting limited on an OTC is just poaching. They will likely figure out a way to continue. Limiting resident hunters to one OTC unit and capping resident OTC tags is basically the same as just going all limited.

When you draw a limited unit, you're only allowed to hunt that unit.it's how cpw tries to control hunter pressure. By making the otc resident licenses valid for only x number of units, it's still allowing cpw to control hunter numbers. Cpw is screwing the resident hunters here in sw Colorado. And they act like everything is perfect the way they have it now. Soon, it might take resident hunters 3 to 5 years to draw tags to hunt their own state.

The 176 number is the number that put it down as first choice. And they all drew. 89 drew it as a second choice. For a total of 265 going to residents. Residents could have got up to 715 tags. All they had to do was put down as first choice.

But if your going to make an argument for resident hunters. Get your numbers straight and you will have a better argument. Not that CPW cares about your numbers :) But at least have them right.

Let's start a chant...6 point restriction...6 point restriction...6 point restriction......

(sounds of crickets)

Maybe I should try a different platform.

I sure didn't see that many in the near 90 days I spent afield this fall did you?

I got news for ya. The CPW is/are really just elk farmers. They rely on computer data models and make their decisions with all things considered from elk biology to license sales. Tho the latter seems to have taken center stage in recent years.

I wouldn't want their job. I like the one I have. I only wish we would see more elk. And I even hunt an area in an OTC unit that doesn't see the pressure like others do. I can't imagine what it's like out there. I've only heard the stories. I know for sure though, the elk numbers aren't even close to the estimates. But if the estimates are that far off then they'd have to cut way back on tags. In other words the state has been cutting a fat hog from OTC sales for years and the poor NRs that read into the estimated populations continue to buy OTC with a success rate hovering less than 10 percent. I think the cpw knows this and are trying to wipe tears, make money and manage game all at the same time.

It could be waaay better if they'd try some new things, but either way it's going to hurt a little before it gets better. I believe it will. Keep hunting guys, and if they take it all away then we will hunt mice, why? Because we are hunters.

This conversation, and several others has been carried on with Cory Chick from the dnr. I contacted Steve this summer with the draw results, and was told he or the guys from the cba wasn't aware of the situation here in SW colorado. He's the one that put me in touch with cory. I don't know where you got the number 265 residents drew archery elk. Didn't happen. The numbers I received and discussed with Cory are the numbers I posted.

When you increase the "price" (points and restricted freedom to move), demand drops. Nonresidents are in a different situation. Most are making one trip a season and plan on spending that week in one unit. Being confined to that unit isn't a big drawback.

What the data shows in all of the SW is nonresidents are more willing to spend points as a first choice. Why wouldn't they if you are hedging your bet in several states? My guess is residents, to some degree only have one pool of points in one state, their home state of Colorado, so they covet the points moreso then a nonresident. I used to apply in every elk state when younger, the goal was to get one limited tag somewhere, and OTC Colorado was the fallback.

The proposal for BGSS is to create a bunch more zero point hunt codes by limiting a bunch of OTC units. It will put residents at a draw disadvantage, just like they are in every SW unit now. The policy from a high level is 75/25, the implementation is flawed. Residents didn't ask for a disadvantage, they were playing by the rules they were handed. Another idea coming is limit all OTC, but keep OTC only on private lands. That will be a giant outfitter license set aside sold mostly to nonresidents, and if a private piece of ground isn't leased to outfitters now, it will be soon.

CPW said the dilemma about NR's dominating the draw in zero point units should be looked at by the draw working group. I sent it to them in email. Their next meeting is in January. I listened to the first meeting on youtube, it was hard for me to determine if they knew what the problem they need to solve is, the discussion was all over the board. Lets hope they gain some momentum and focus, a couple guys in that group get it. John Legnard, and Terry Myers get the issues, gathering consensus for solutions is always a challenge.

Looking at EM077O1A doesn't show that at all. It shows 82.39% of the residents who applied as a 1st choice had 0 points vs 82.86% of nonresidents. That's pretty much an identical willingness to spend points. For both groups, just over 17% of 1st choice applicants are willing to spend points. Your premise that NRs are more willing to spend points is wrong. What you are seeing is simply that more nonresidents are interested in hunting the low quality SW units than residents and so apply in greater numbers. If every resident who applied for unit 77 got a tag they still would have less than half the tags issued (510 of 1100). And that makes sense because most of Colorado's population is not in the SW so they hunt closer to home.

Further data shows resident otc participation shrinking, while nr's still show strong growth in otc, and domination of the draw in 6 daus that went limited. We added like 6,000 limited archery licenses, most going to nrs.

Look at 80/81. First year of the draw it was 63 or 67 percent nonresident, now it was 73 percent.

I'm not really looking to argue the point, I think it is likely nonresidents will get ample tags somehow. I just find it concerning when resident participation declines, and guys get discouraged to the point they give up. Otc used to be awesome.

Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not optimistic about anything in Colorado, been here since 1984.

When CWD first came on the scene, they way over reacted and shot the crap out of herds. In high prevalence areas, the shot every deer they could find.

Imo deer doesn't really have a creep problem but participation quotas are way smaller then elk. Archery elk is like 12,000 limited tags and maybe 37000 otc Archery tags. Archery deer is maybe 12000 total tags.

Elk has 6 rifle seasons in some places, deer has 4.

The deer cwd plan drives deer management and quotas, elk get it too but no one talks about that cash cow issue.

Elk might have 10 times the hunt codes deer has.

The point of posting that picture is that's exactly the mentality of most of the NR crowd, especially the younger generations. And that's another reason why elk hunting has become so popular. Especially archery. It's also the image aspect of elk hunting that has been commercialized to the hilt and it won't go away, even if they raise NR tags to a grand they'll still gladly pay it. Going limited in one form or another is the simplest way to do it without ruffling feathers too much. But I still think a 6 point restriction in some form would help with all the issues and eventually (likely within 10 years) all units could be OTC and there may even be no need for a draw system at all. An elk is an elk weather it's in unit 61 or 161. The difference would be is it can't get shot until it's 4 years old on average. We need to quit shooting 2 year old bulls OTC, especially for NRs. Thing is they make a boat load of money on application fees. So raise the license fee 7, 14 or 21 dollars depending on the average number of applications vs. tag allotments? That's crazy talk, I know.

I really like cnelk's example though that lets us decide if we want to hunt for a cow or spike, or hunt for a 6 point before we even apply, or flat out keep them OTC tags. Then what about overcrowding? It will go away probably faster than going limited because within 2 years all OTC units will have more mature bulls and begin to compete with draw units. Then some draw units could actually go back to OTC. And what about the big 5 pints? That's where the "any elk" draw tag could come into play?

We need to use the actual biology of an elk, the main attraction, to determine true diversity equity and inclusion. Going all limited will be just as painful.

When elk goes all draw (and it will, eventually, in some form) this same scenario will happen again, points will be burned on low point units, and the whole PP-draw system will be screwed up for a few years until it all settles out.

The residents have pretty much made it clear that they are not interested hunting that unit at the cost of using points. So therefore more tags go to NR.

Here are some options I see.

1. Use 1st thru 4th choice for residents to help them fill up their 65% (which they still wouldn't have done)

2. Lower the total number of tags down to a level that the current number of residents equal 65%

3. Just cap NR at the 35% and let the rest of the tags go the secondary draw and/or leftover list

Like I said, I really dont see this thing as an issue. These are just a few options I came up with for a sort of compromise to the people that think it's a problem. Not that my ideas mean squat to anyone. Be here they are anyway

I suspect units with lots of public land had some jumping around as people burned points that first few years.