CPW supports totally limiting bow elk
Colorado
No change to rifle, but staff supports totally limiting archery elk - in opposition to overwhelming public input.
Crazy times fellas.
And they like that the 75/25 R/NR only applies to the first choice. You will have to use your first choice to get a bow tag soon.
" Furthermore, under a totally limited scenario, the existing license allocation policy would take effect (currently 75/25 or 80/20 resident/nonresident), providing a first-choice draw advantage to resident applicants if resident demand exists. From a nonresident standpoint, this alternative would maintain a “soft cap” for license allocation, maximizing opportunity for nonresidents if resident demand is below the allocation threshold."
The archery changes proposed will have the effect of only giving the best bow tags to those who bow hunt less frequently (or never).
Eliminating resident OTC archery and leaving the 75/25 Resident/Non-resident split only applying to the first choice means a resident probably won’t get a bow tag if it isn’t their first choice. If you look at the draw results you will see it’s nearly there now in the recently converted units.
And reducing archery licenses by 10% "initially". Which means even more in the future. CPW hates bowhunters. That has been clear for a long time. They acknowledged that this was the least preferred alternative, but screw 'em, we don't care what the testimony, surveys, and public input say.
Interesting how the preferred alternative for rifle would limit NR but leave 2nd and 3rd OTC for residents. But they said doing this for archery would increase crowding over time?
This....is why I stopped going to the Roundtable and other public meetings.
I like it. Now all units can be managed to a 75% Res/25% Non Res Quota, except for high demand units where that ratio is 80/20 (primary draw 1st choice). After all, I saw post after post on this website crying about overcrowding. You asked and cpw complied.
Let the rifle hunters deal with the high NR participation in otc units.
Of course I really dont have a stake in the game because most of my hunting is done on private land only tags.
In theory with the 75% to 80% of tags to residents they can reduce tags and not impact residents. So archery elk will be a premium multi PP hunt for nonresidents but a 0 point hunt for residents.
What's not to like?
The point game is the variable. More than 60% of the tags went to NRs in some of the southern units when they went draw, because second choice doesn't count against the quota. So a first choice NR will draw before a second choice resident, with no cap.
If NR's are drawing on 2nd choice+ or leftovers, then there's no reason for Residents to be complaining about not getting tags or too many NR's if 1st choice is under subscribed... just sayin'
It's great for hunters who don't hunt Colorado bow regularly. They can collect points while hunting rifle or another state and eliminate the competition.
2nd - 4th choice should also be 75:25.
"If NR's are drawing on 2nd choice+ or leftovers, then there's no reason for Residents to be complaining about not getting tags or too many NR's if 1st choice is under subscribed... just sayin'"
More compassion for fellow residents from Stix. Love it. Who cares that residents played by the rules, and have points to think about because they used the rules. If nonresidents get all the tags, it the fault of residents that just aren't as smart at Stix. At least stix will be ok, he has private land to hunt. Good grief.
Look at their basis for supporting this, Stated as a "quality" improvement? But rifle is unlimited OTC and they can shoot the crap out of the bulls? Same BS, different year. A 10% quota reduction won't do jack squat to solve crowding. More elk get pushed by archers without any data.
When archery goes limited, preference point creep and predictability will be a shit show. Get ready to stay home cause they will not be spent on a hunt code worth zero points. Time to take up bowling.
I agree, 2nd - 4th choice should also be 75:25.
I forgot the "private land only tags" that some can hunt while collecting points.
Of course you love the recommended proposal, you can continue to hunt as usual and eliminate the competition for the prime draw tags.
Well, when you shrink the area people can use an OTC tag to about 1/2, I suppose continuing to sell unlimited tags could be a problem.
Personally, I would have liked to see residents retain the OTC option. When its in your back yard, its nice to have the flexibility to not have to plan your area 5 months in advance and to bounce around a few spots through out the season.
As for the part where they mention possibly limiting us further due to herd numbers, thats a ridiculous notion in units that are still OTC rifle seasons. Bowhunters aren't the cause of herd population issues and limiting us won't provide a solution.
It's my understanding the 10% reduction is not for herd management, it's for hunter numbers management.
Remember, everyone on this site was whining about crowding? I guess it got the attention it deserved.
Stix laying some blame and shame...classic.
It's all your fault guys, told you so.
Good grief. The next post will be what the cba did wrong, and is doing wrong.
Stix
The loss of OTC in southern units was tied to low calf survival along with crowding complaints.
I have no idea how bowhunting hurt calf survival months after September. Pregnacy/birth rates were normal.
Not talking about the S/W units, talking about this recent recommendation for the BGSS to change archery otc to all draw with 10% fewer tags. It's my understanding from reading the recommendations this 10% reduction was proposed (with potentially more cuts to follow) to alleviate the crowding (which gained alot of attention from the input that most were complaining about). It has no effect on me, but everyone who went down that path of this "crowding" issue got what they asked for.
My prediction: Reductions in "crowding" are too small to notice. We lose the simplicity and flexibility of OTC with no gain in hunt quality that offsets it. I usually hunt an easy draw unit lately due to covenience. Its more crowded than my old OTC spots and definitely no better elk hunting.
As if the residents were doing the crowding … that’s some funny shit.
Maybe I am missing something here. But shouldn't residents be flat out tickled with this. There is 10% less people in the field which should help crowding. And the residents got more tags overall because of the percentage increase in tag allocation
KS rancher, the same folks on this site will find a reason to whine about anything. In reality, the potential to lose the flexibility to hunt more areas, is offset by the potential to have more resident participation.
OTC is needed by the preference point builders, so they are guaranteed yearly hunts while building points, which on the surface is not a bad thing, but their motivation is somewhat hypocritial:
These same folks who are trying to educate the non hunting public that hunter's dont hunt mountain lions SOLELY for trophy's (a noble and true cause), yet are the driving force behind building premium units where the goal is to take trophy antlers, when conservation management hunts are available elsewhere in the state. It's called preaching conservation, but practicing trophy hunts.
In reality, what is more of an achievement: taking an animal with an impressive set of antlers by doing the hard work of scouting and following it's progress through the year in an area where bulls of this class are rare, OR taking an impressive set of animals where you just have to wait your turn in line where impressive antlers are frequent?
I know this, I will be at the March 14th Commission meeting in Denver to testify for maintaining OTC archery elk licenses for Colorado resident hunters and to limit non resident archery elk hunters, by total draw or a high cap.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife includes nonresident in their surveys. Wait, Colorado Park and Wildlife, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. Not, Colorado/Kansas/Ohio/ Wisconsin/etc Wildlife Commission or CPW. I thought the wildlife in Colorado, was Public Trust for all citizens of Colorado and not in trust for hunters from Ohio, Wisconsin, Kansas, etc. I have hunted as a non resident in Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan and not once did their DNR include me in their surveys. They made their decisions, and placed their hunters as top priority and once these decisions were made, non residents just had to go along or just not hunt in those states, as it should be here in Colorado.
Or, "you" could just buy access to private land.
Well said Paul, I think most of us feel that way. I have hunted many states and Canadian provinces and they all take care of the residents first. Some even allowed the residents the first week of season before the non residents. Thankyou for your commission meeting involvement!
Yes, we have been saving our points to hunt a limited unit where there are more mature bulls and less crowding. And, while waiting hunt bow hunt elsewhere. This will make that much harder.
Paul and bowyer45. Just because you hunt other states doesn't mean that those states "take care of their residents first". That whole mindset of what is considered "taking care of residents first" is going to vary person by person. Ask about any Ks resident and they will tell you the same thing as Co residents when it comes to taking care of residents. I personally don't see a problem with the way Ks or Co treats residents and non residents in their states.
I grew up a state that had the first archery season in the US, and to this day archery hunting there is open to all, with no limit and long 3 month seasons. The opportunity to bow hunt is what is important, not how many you kill, or how enormous they are. It's recreation at its best. Archery was known as the sport of kings, according to Howard Hill, and I agree. The loss of more freedoms is becoming very evident.
Some of us non residents that took the survey chose OTC for residents and all draw tags for NR.
When taking these surveys, I responded that archery season was crowded...but NOT because of too many bow hunters, R or NR, but because there were way too many rifle hunters in "archery" season. Trying to address crowding while totally ignoring the reason for the crowding can only be because they already have a narrative to limit bow hunters and so try to fit the reason for limiting us into their narrative.
Yes Jethro, I see that in the survey. Thanks and the majority of those that took the survey, indicated the same, but the CPW recommendations seem to not recognize that. Too bad. Crowding is a social issue, not a game management issue or a financial issue. but the narrative to justify all limited license includes game and finances.
I would expect that if all rifle elk license would be limited, limiting archer elk licenses might have been more accepted. Might!
When I took the survey, I commented the same as Ziek. The Colorado Archery Season has gotten crowded by the additional high-powered rifle and muzzle loaders that are put in on top of the bowhunters.
I was also in favor of limiting non-resident hunters and keeping resident as OTC. Other states do this and it works. All non-residents should be limited before any resident is limited. There should be hard caps on NR's. Where I hunted in NW CO near Steamboat, based on license plates, residents were outnumbered by about 2:1 and it was very crowded and tough hunting due to the overall hunter numbers. With last year's winter kill, it will be ugly this year.
I am now a NR and will not come back to CO for elk or anything else without drawing a decent tag. I am good with that.
This is far from a foregone conclusion. Best thing that can happen currently is that lots of bowhunters show up at the commission meeting on March 14 that Paul mentioned above, and make a public comment that you're strongly opposed to Archery going all draw for residence. That you support the next five year structure having no over-the-counter for nonresident and over-the-counter tags for residence. A few points they're only doing this to archer season. Colorado is more generous to nonresidence than any other western state. That the taxpayers of Colorado deserve preference to hunt in their homes state.
The final decision rest with the commission, not the staff of CPW. If you can show up on March 14, do so we need to pack the room with bowhunters.
More to come about this soon from the Colorado bowhunter association.
Also, March 9th at the ranch in Loveland Colorado the CBA is having their banquet. During the day we have our expo. There is no charge open to the public CBA member or not. At 11 AM Bryan Dryer and Andy Holland from CPW are doing a seminar. Come hear what they have to say, ask questions. These are good guys that are allies in my opinion. Feel free to ask tough questions, but please be respectful. There are several seminars throughout the day. The last one that I believe will be at 3 PM will be Dan Gates. A lot of info and discussion on 91 the cat ban.
Did anyone invite the Commissioners to the CBA banquet?
I know Lane reaches out to them.
In the end, the CPW will do as they see fit. And if the CBA has any voice in the matter, it will be business as usual. They don't want to make any waves.
WW, Just to be clear, who are you saying "Don't want to make any waves"?
Trying to catch up on all the proposed changes. Does anyone know if this was discussed? Statewide archery either sex draw valid in all the units that used to be OTC either sex before the last change. I might get on board with archery draw if not limited to a unit or only bull or only cow.
If the CPW thinks hunters already know how to count to 4, I'm sure they can think most of us will figure out how to count to 6. Problem solved.
Wait your turn in a different way and everyone still gets to have all the benefits of OTC hunting.
Keep OTC, but make it 6 point only, then introduce a limited draw "any elk" tag. Get the best of both worlds and the CPW would get even more revenue from OTC units with app fees for all the any elk tags applied for by former OTC hunters which in turn would still likely buy the new OTC 6 point only bull tag.
WW, come to the Commission meeting on March 14 and see a CBA tidal wave. You have no idea what you say anymore. Sorry to see that. Paul
Two reasons why they would never consider that proposal. Enforcement difficulties, and the strong possibility of party hunting, which would become very real. As shown with the Sept 2 start dates, they want simplification, not more complexity.
CPTBS, One of the options was a cap on NR OTC tags. While this was not quite a draw, it would be similar to your option, in that it would keep the ability to use the OTC tag across a wide variety of units across the state.
Just saw the commission meeting has been moved to a virtual format due to severe weather threat.
Not trying to ruffle feathers, just jumping ahead to the next 5 years and talking rifle hunt bgss decision here, as I sure hope archery would remain OTC and 4pt or better. But how much more complicated can two more antler points be for OTC rifle hunters in lieu of limited draw? Enforcement wouldn't be much different than the 4 pt rule was to implement, or is now. Nothing needs to change but that, and simply add one hunt code for an "any elk" limited draw tag that's only valid in OTC units so the biologists can get their bulls (and some cows or even spikes again) harvested and have a more legit harvest report. Instead they will be adding new hunt codes for all remaining OTC units? That seems more complicated to me when compared to the freedom that keeping OTC is. There's always the urge to party hunt, but it would be at their own peril, and so they take home one illegally killed raghorn or 5pt that someone in the group had the any elk tag for. Meanwhile the fact is the young bulls the other umpteen guys in the group didn't kill would keep growing for 2-3 short years to sprout that #6 and then wind up in a truck headed home to the midwest or even your own garage.
I seem to think there already is and could be some support for this within the CPW but I might be completely wrong. Just thinking outside the box.
6 point OTC tag? That's a great idea.
6 pt restriction and any wolf that violates that gets the death penalty.
No way that would work. I doubt CPW even knows how many non 4 point bulls are getting shot every season now in units with a 4 point or better or 6 inch brow tine rule they have now. It's probably been close to 20 years since I've even encountered a warden in the field and I bet a lot of guys on here are similar.
Last CPW WCO I saw was about 10 years ago when one who was a fishing buddy stopped by my camp to ask for a report. Since he retired, I haven't seen anyone, and I'm in the woods a LOT. I reported some fishermen who were trespassing on waters I manage, and my area DWM told me they were too busy to respond, so just tell the people (who didn't speak English) to leave...
Only needs to be a 5 inch brow tine bud. Or if you get close enough maybe you can tooth age him before you shoot to see if he's got his milk teeth or not then you'd know he'd at least be a 2.5 year old ;) Man I'm just messing with ya. It's good to have the discussion, otherwise the ideas won't go anywhere. It's actually pretty rare to find a 2.5 year old that is a 3x3 and doesn't have at least a 5 inch brow. (And should be the one culled from the herd anyways) But usually if it don't have one, it likely will make up 4 points and be legal. Then boom! You got your bull! Congratulations! Meat in the freezer and all the other good stuff that an elk hunt brings because you still get to hunt. Don't take that away, but just limit that part, keep OTC but make it have the restriction. To me it's super simple. I get to spend 90+ days in the field every fall. The wardens wouldn't need to do anything more or less. More often they will only pay a visit to the field when they get a report from other hunters of shinanigans going on. They know some folks get away with breaking the rules, like breaking the speed limit. Yeah, with all things considered it may not really matter anyway. The rules are there to keep an honest man honest. The cheaters will still try to cheat the mountain no matter what the rules say. As for the mountain? Well... the mountain's got it's.....
