SW elk archery season update
Colorado
I always get good advice on bowsite, looking for more.
I had a good call with the SW Senior Biologist at CPW today about the SW elk herd. I still need to meet with the board, seek input, make motions and vote on options to try to get something adopted. That is how we operate. I think the bottom line on the topic is we as archers need to come up with a proposal to reduce our cow harvest on those elk herds to bring them back up to a point where the herd is not declining due to low calf recruitment. If we don't pick an option, one will be picked for us. At this time, It really doesn't matter how we got here...we are where we are, and it is what it it is.
The one option we discussed today that I like - would be to retain either sex OTC archery elk licenses in GMU's where they are valid today and unlimited in availability. What would be different would be for the first say, two weeks of the season you can hunt either sex, and for the last two weeks it is bull only.
If this gets adopted, our cow harvest will likely go down, we get to retain some chance of either sex harvest on one license, and the season remains 30 days
If we go totally limited, the guys who prefer OTC get sent packing into other areas and that may further degrade someone elses hunt. Additionally, if it goes limited the preference point system comes into play and someone loses and someone wins.
If we go to licenses that are for one sex only, and the cow tags go limited - you lose opportunity.
If we do nothing, the options will be given to us. We could go totally limited, we could get bull only licenses, we could get a split season, or something worse.
Thoughts? Advice?
My thoughts...........
1. If the elk herd is hurting that bad, lay off the cows period. Once we get back to objective, go back to either sex. Killing cows is killing the herd.
2. If you leave it as either sex, I'd go just the opposite. I would not allow cows to be killed the first 2 weeks of the season, and open it the last two weeks. There are some pretty young calves in August, and the more time they get with the herd, the better their survival rates will be.
Thanks!
We discussed a cow harvest moratorium, while it is an option - it takes some level of control away from the game managers including dispersal management. We tossed around ideas, there was lots of thoughts, this idea was his. Our discussion was around how we can enable them to do their job, and what the leadership team may agree about.
Some of the issue is characterized as take between rifle vs archers. This could solve that.
Just thoughts right now...
Are they reducing rifle licenses in those units? If not, then why is the herd's future being placed only on the backs of the archers? If they are restricting rifle tags, can we look at both archery and rifle harvest stats, and come up with a plan for proportionally reducing archery harvest in line with the rifle harvest?
Why not suggest that instead of going limited, archery tags be dispersed via OTC with caps. That way every single serious hunter will still get to hunt every year...no one loses opportunity except the guy who isn't very serious about getting a tag in the first place.
Rifle tags have been cut way back. No one in our survey wants Otc with caps
Steve, that is one of the best suggestions I've heard yet. It can't be CPW's idea.
If i had to choose, i don't like either option, it would be either sex the second half of the season and bull only the first half.
What does the data actually say about how many cow elk are harvested by archery, muzzie and rifle hunters in these units? My gut feel is that limiting archery cow hunting is a feel-good reaction and would have virtually no affect on elk populations. But maybe that's not true. What we need is data.
And why are cow elk only putting out half the calves in the SW vs other areas? Are these birth numbers or survival numbers? The weather isn't worse in SW Colorado. The hunting seasons are the same time as elsewhere in Colorado. How do you explain the poor recruitment in Unit 61? That unit has very limited elk hunting. Perhaps there are 4 legged predators in the SW that need their numbers reduced. Again, data is needed.
Throwing out "solutions" without knowing the cause of the problem is generally futile.
We have lots of data, in E-16 our annual take was 35 cows from our a herd of 4500. Our harvest rate on cows was 2%. We lost before the commission and now have ZERO take of cows in GMU 44, 45, 47 & 444. Data didn't really matter, that is futile buddy. Just calling it like I see it.
Also, elk studies are underway all over the state, might be 4 or 5 years before answers come.
Steve. I like your idea. Anyway that can be introduced for E-16 starting in 2020? I know 2019 is already set.
So what is the calf:100 cow objective the CPW wants?
40-45:100 because its in the middle?
Cazador’s suggestions seem reasonable.
When the data comes in from the studies, if it’s not politically skewed, the recruitment issue will be directly and significantly impacted by predators. There are way too many bears down there.
Pretty sure the old timers that firmly believed in predator management weren’t stupid.
I asked that question...the answer is as many as possible. I agree. There are points where things become unsustainable. The lower it is, the lower hunting opportunity is, that is for sure.
It seems silly, but we need to bypass some common sense stuff to help save what opportunity we can. Of course archery cow harvest is neither the cause or a solution to the calf recruitment problem. Everyone who is informed knows that, including the managers. What they also know is that even though that is the case, if they severely limit rifle cow opportunity and don't limit archers it creates people issues. I wish it were different but it isn't and won't be any time soon. I have watched archery season be changed for many years in ways that aren't making any meaningful impact biologically but were deemed appropriate due to people issues.
Cutting rifle cow tags and letting archers still have full either sex opportunity won't fly. We will be taking a hit of some sort. Its not "fair" but as Steve stated, he laid all that out in the E-16 issue and it didn't matter.
So, since we are where we are, the 1/2 season either sex idea is better than losing all cow opportunity. My first instinct would be either sex the second half.
For those who want to scream "Limiting bowhunting won't do a damn thing that makes a measureable difference for the herd!", you are correct but they aren't really limiting us to fix the elk problem, its to avoid a people problem. Bowhunters killed 1600 cows statewide last year out of a herd of 280,000 elk. Whatever we lose will be unfair when balanced against the little impact it might have on calf recruitment. Thats frustrating but the reality we have.
Whatever we lose, they should make it easy for every elk and deer hunter to have a bear tag (or 2) in their pocket.
1600 cows killed by bowhunters?
How the hell do they know that?
"No one in our survey wants Otc with caps"
And yet it is the only solution to the perceived crowding problem that doesn't result in bowhunters continuing to lose bowhunting opportunity.
Check my response on the other thread. A wide margin in the cba survey support Otc unlimited for residents, and a reasonable cap on nr's. 5% support as your proposing.
2X Glunt...I agree that archers face a people perception problem and would support an archery bull only season in the affected GMUs. In fact, all seasons (archery, ML and rifle) should be bull only.
Too bad that archery is not considered an effective management tool.
Obviously the rifle hunters kill far too many elk and unlimited rifle elk hunting has decimated the herds. Particularly in those two areas.
Maybe go to archery only in Eagle County and down in those SW units and see how fast the elk population and quality increases...
Even with unlimited archery only and extended seasons it would probably only take a few years before the trophy quality rivaled anywhere in the country!
We aren't considered an effective management tool until it comes time to include us in reducing opportunity. Then it seems we are decimating the herds.
I think the best solution presented here is the two week either-sex/bull only split...but I also think that limiting archery harvest will have no appreciable impact on anything, and that limiting rifle season cow harvest is the only real answer.
Above I wrote that the moratorium was better than losing all cow opportunity. I edited that. I meant to say the 1/2 season either sex was better. I don't like the moratorium. I fear if we lost either sex for 5-10 years we may not get it back even if the herd grows.
If you don't have the bulls to breed the cows, you have issues. Everyone talks bull/cow ratio, and no one in your responses has talked of low bull numbers. The numbers CPW has posted, where did they get these numbers? And if you say game counts, I want to know when, where, and who did these counts. The DOW officers here in 77/78 know of no wildlife counts done in 2018/2019. Where did CPW get these numbers?
Limiting the harvest of cows is going to do nothing but put more pressure on the low bull numbers. And with the popularity of bowhunters elk increasing every year, you're going to continue to see more and more non resident bowhunters every year, putting more pressure on the bulls. It's time that we start limiting otc permits, especially here in the sw part of the state.
I think we need to stop voicing the "Archery is not an effective management tool" line.. We all know its true and we all know the CPW and other G&F depts. nationwide believe that.. HOWEVER, it will not take long before the anti groups and Rifle ONLY groups are leveraging that.. Meaning someday somebody might have the bright idea to say ''Hey since archery isn't an effective wildlife management tool.. Why do we even have it as a season?'' "We should get rid of archery season since it isn't effective and replace it with a more effective method such as another rifle season"... Guys, you may think this is a far fetched idea.. but think about it, in the political landscape Colorado is in, it wouldn't take much for that message to get legs and run in the hands of the right anti-hunting legislator.. just sayin... Additionally, we all need to re-think our message to put ourselves in a better light with CPW and general public. Maybe we should think about starting a large campaign that ''Bow hunting is the best source of organic 'field to table' protein'', Bow hunting is fair chase and less intrusive on animals in their natural habit vs. firing off rounds during rifle hunting seasons.. I know I know a lot of you guys think this message is a dumb liberal narrative, but sometimes when you want to win an argument or carry favor, you MUST consider your audience and you must tailor your message to be well received by that audience. What if we as bow hunters campaigned that message and could show that we are proactively increasing hunter numbers and specifically younger hunters (Millennials and Gen Z) through introduction to bow hunting and have real data and results to back that up... The CPW might just be more inclined to side with Bow hunters more often... Just a thought
So you want to crap on other methods of take to show yours is superior?
No.. I want us to not slit our own throats with the dumb "Archery hunting is not an effective method of wildlife management so leave us and our seasons alone" message... And the fact is, until we all as hunters (archery, rifle, ML, slingshot, whatever) come together and stand united, we are forced to look out of the sustainability of bow hunting for the long term.
I'm all for promoting all the ways bowhunting is great.
Here's one that I would think managers trying to create opportunities from a limited resource would like:
Each elk harvested during archery results in around 60 recreation days. Rifle is about 20 and muzzleloader is about 30.
True but I don't think dogging the other methods is a constructive way to do that
Actually saying 'Archery hunting is a great revenue producer' would probably have better results.
Orion.. I don't believe I said anything about other methods being bad. All I said was we need to re-think the message/strategy about bow hunting.
We are great revenue producers. If you have one elk available for harvest, you can sell 5 rifle tags or 9-10 archery tags.
What if the underlying reason for picking on the archers in Colorado is that the archery season is the non-hunting outdoors lovers favorite time to be afield and the bowhunters swarming into the backcountry and elsewhere has created a complaint...
Why has no one talked of the sw elk herd? What did the biologist say? Everyone seems to be putting in ideas but not discussing the reason of this post, the sw elk herds.
I'm interested in what the biologist said, what they options are, and what the long term plans are, not short term.
How much impact does the native Americans' liberal hunting practices affect the wildlife population on public lands?
Wait till the groups trying to reintroduce the gray wolf in Colorado, the wolves will get to kill cows and calves all year long without a tag. Think of the impact that will have on elk my fellow archers.
PO,
the Utes were given hunting rights across SW Colorado recently and are able to hunt a lot of that country. Not sure how much of an impact that is on the elk down there but they do get to hunt sheep, moose and goats outside the state rules.
I am very interested in what the biologists have to say as well, Anthony. It sounds like calf recruitment is the biggest issue and although that would indicate issues in the summer range, there may be winter range issues that come into play as well.
When was the last coordinated and comprehensive count performed?
What do the counts indicate?
Has there been any study performed to look at the impacts of predators (bears, lions, etc) on elk calves?
Has summertime recreation (hikers, rock climbers, bikers, jeepers, ATVs, etc.) increased in prime elk nursery areas? Can these “non-consumption” uses be restricted during critical calf rearing times?
Has there been increased pressure on cows and calves in the late season on the winter range that is influencing lower survival rates of calves to make it to their first birthday?
Have migration corridors been changed or is there more traffic on highway crossings that make migration more difficult? Have elk/vehicle collisions increased on the migration routes?
Any changes to agricultural practices in the winter range that may be causing elk to be pushed to lower quality feeding areas?
What strategies can be implemented to improve this situation?
There are certainly many components that are impacting elk calf recruitment. The solution will require multiple components to be effective.
Colorado raises more money from hunting than any other state. Surely CPW is studying this situation and putting some of our hunter dollars to good use to develop a plan to turn this around. It is certainly in their best interest as well. Lower elk numbers directly impact their revenue.
My understanding is that calf birth rate is actually ok in the SW. They are losing a disproportionate amount after that. My armchair biology guess is that changes to bowhunting won't be the fix.
After all of the above what jumps out to me is that calf mortality is most likely directly linked to increased predation by bears and lions on elk calves.
The question is what will CPW do to help the situation?
If we had spring bear hunting, pretty sure we would see this situation reverse.
Tree line all you state is true. I have noticed this, once a unit (s) status changes from OTC to Limited, or Either Sex license to Bull only, the changed status does not seem to EVER go back to the original status. I will be of interest that if the Cow/calf issue improves over the years, will there again be an either sex archery license in these units of the SW.
After seeing what they did in the Flattops (12, 23, 24, &34) and north Routt (4, 5, 441) with what was originally to be a short term study on the impacts of archery on early season elk movement that turned into permanent limited archery (although rifle hunts are still OTC, unlimited), I am sure that will be the case Paul.
The way that "short term study" was presented was that these units would only be limited for archery for 3 to 5 years and the CBA supported it with those stipulations.
Those units will never be OTC again for archery. Guess we got screwed on that one...
Looking at the regs, I am still not sure if I need a special tag to hunt 45 (or 44, 444, 47) or not. Is my general archery either sex tag good in those units for a bull only or do I need a special license that is only good for that group of units?
Why can CPW not just issue a General Archery Elk License?
In the units that are meeting or above population objectives, that General Archery License will be good for either sex. List those units in the regulations.
If there are units that are below population objective and cow elk need to have some relief, state in the regulations that those units are "bull only" for that same General Archery License. I would hope that they would also reduce rifle cow tags in those units as rifle hunters kill many times more cow elk than archery hunters across the board.
This does not have to be friggin complicated!
Treeline - I wondered the same thing about why it needed to be a completely separate license instead of just having bull only in those units. There were two reasons given to me: 1.) Fear that people wouldn't know the new restriction without it being an obvious different license. 2.) Fear of hunters claiming they shot the cow in a unit without that restriction.
I don't see how its much different than any other license where that can happen, though, and I agree with your strategy on how to make it simpler.
OK guys, list the reasons why not to split the archery elk season to, 2 fifteen day seasons. ie, a early 15 days and a last 15 day season.
Too easy for them to eliminate one in the future and then we're down to one fifteen day season for archers - AND they move rifle hunters into the other 15 day season (cause you know they will).
1. No one wants it. In past years, 67000 rifle hunters hunted 2nd combined in what? A 5 day season? What the math on that?over 12000 a day? 40000 archers over 30 days is what 1333 a day. Crowding? Not compared to second combined... 3. Fee increase support = lose half your season? Um, I'm calling my legislator on that one.
Cause split seasons are idiotic.
I would be more in favor of a one month archery only season followed by a 2 month any weapon season without all this split season BS.
Make all nonresidents draw a tag. If there are crowding issues, cut the number of NRs first.
Oh, wait, that sounds like Wyoming and Montana!
Split seasons won't help with crowding much. Most people only hunt
Split seasons won't help with archery crowding much. The average days afield for archery elk hunters is less than 8. Maybe on weekends it would help a bit. Not worth the giving up the flexibility if a 30 day season to me. Opening day bumping into a couple guys beats sitting at home waiting for my tag to start for the second archery season (which would start on opening muzzleloader with the current dates.
1. Week end hunter would be screwed. They would only get 5 day Early 15 day and 4 days the Late 15. if the season was all of September. or even Status Quo. 5 day and 5 days. Yes , terrible with trying to being flexibility year to year. Take the guy who can only hunt the 2 and 3 week of Sept. Now he can only schedule a 7 days trip, one from the Early or Late season.
2. True, would not help the "crowding" if their really is a crowding issue.
"Take the guy who can only hunt the 2 and 3 week of Sept"
Is this a real thing?
I wonder what the split season (regardless of which two weeks are E/S) will do to hunter numbers/ concentration?
May not affect resident hunters much since they can hunt all month. But it is liable to screw with NR numbers. Will more nonresidents migrate to the 2 weeks with the E/S option? That would probably be my choice as a NR. Or maybe split a week of hunting between Bull only/ E/S by coming in the middle of the month?
It could really make a difference in how hunter numbers are spread out.
My concern with a split season is that unless you allocate a set number of hunters into each season, then it would have to be OTC with caps or all draw. It would reduce the number of bowhunters in the field but not the recreational non hunters. It would not matter to NRs cause they would pick a season and hunt their 5 or 7 or 14 days and be happy. Personally, I don't hunt real hard any more but like to spend time in the field throughout the 30 day season. I guess I could spend the other two weeks hunting grouse.
I'm sure that's a minority view That CPW would not consider important.
Don’t split the season and don’t shorten the archery season. Cut down on tags if you want but don’t shorten the season.
For those that have participated in any CPW Big Game surveys, one question they ask is how many days did you hunt.
How many said 30 days?
I bet 90% said 7-10 days.
There is the foundation for shorter seasons. Why? Because you said you didnt need it.
CPW would probably consider that a useful insight but it ignores the fact that many who hunt 7 to 10 days probably spread it over the entire season with the NRs being the exception.
It might be useful to split the season for NRs and still allow OTC tags.
there is no evidence of how non residents currently choose their days and how that is spread over the 30 days period.
This idea of a split season was just thrown out there as a possible solution to "crowding". How would it ever do that? I am still looking for a very accurate counting of how many actual bowhunters there are in the Early Season. There is no doubt that the participants in the Early Season has grown but what is the actual numbers of hunters and will this increase continue. If I remember correctly, 10 years ago, there was around 42,000 archery elk hunters of which 19,500 were non resident.
No doubt, the DOW, now the CPW has done a wonderful job of attracting resident and non resident bow hunters to hunt elk in Colorado over the past 20 years. They boasted of 320,000 elk in the early 2000s, they ran out of state ads encouraging hunters to come and then offered reasonable priced OTC license and in some game management units one could receive an either sex tag plus an extra cow elk license or just a cow tag and a reduced price.
and in the years of 320,000 elk, with the number of bow hunters, the same 30 days season and the same amount of quite time , the elk herd continued to breed and grow.
The bottom line is that nothing they do with the archery season will affect calve production by cows. So any reductions we get now will become permanent and in 3 to 5 years they will be wanting further reductions to archery seasons that will also not have any affect.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Another flaw in my idea is that if elk is split for non res then deer probably needs to be split too. I thought to allow res to continue to have a full 30 day OTC elk season. But once we start down the split season road it's probably just a matter of time.......
Great discussion guys!
My Thoughts;
I don't think split seasons do anything if tags are unlimited.
Make archery elk NR OTC with caps, leave resident OTC, set NR cap at 50% to 60% of the number of NR OTC archery permits sold last year. Make permits available at time of draw under "if unsuccessful send me" . If any are left make them available at retailers and on line. With all the preference point money they are making as of this year the revenue should be as good or better than previous years.
Advantages: reduce crowding, increase quality and take care of the folks that live here.
Disadvantages: NR don't get to hunt every year(probably every other year),can't think of anything else.
All that is probably a pipe dream but I think it would work better than what we have now.
If revenue is too low resident and NR tag fees could be adjusted to get to a sustainable revenue stream. Not sure what sustainable is, CPW wants revenue growth in order to do more, I think maintaining what they do now and taking care of their best customers (archery elk hunters) along with their other customers is a better goal.
Current practices leave a lot to be desired IMO,
" With all the preference point money they are making as of this year the revenue should be as good or better than previous years."
I seriously doubt that. NR Elk licenses are $661. That means it will take about 8 apps (at the new $80 license fee) to equal 1 NR elk tag in money brought in. I would bet you a substantial amount that would mean loss of total revenue. And they made these changes to bring in significant MORE money, not just to maintain current levels. That won't fly.
Double edge sword for the residents who feel like you do: You like (and think it is fair) that we pay over 10x the cost of your license, but then you want to reduce our numbers and that means significantly reduced revenues for the CPW. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And they would be shooting themselves in the foot even more if they tried to jump prices significantly instead of the standard yearly (almost) raise.
Hello. My name is David. I am an Elkoholic!
Right now that means to hunt elk every year I have to hunt Colorado due to the availability of tags and the distance from home. But I will retire in a couple of years, which will open up other a few other states. So be forewarned CO: An aging population of NRs may look elsewhere. While that will make some residents rejoice,, it also means the CPW will have to raise money elsewhere. If you are ok with doubling or tripling resident tag pricing then you are still ok
David, we have been down this road before. It's a remake of an old movie. License fees go up and res and non res say they are done with Colorado. Never happens!
Wish I could hunt Texas whitetail as cheap as you can hunt Colorado elk.
David, we have been down this road before. It's a remake of an old movie. License fees go up and res and non res say they are done with Colorado. Never happens!
Wish I could hunt Texas whitetail as cheap as you can hunt Colorado elk.
Hell. 3 days of Texas hog hunting costs more than a NR Colorado elk tag.
Please leave the seasons alone. Please.
Spookinelk, Let's alter your idea just a bit. Make residents OTC with caps set at 60% of non residents and then allow them to purchase a tag at non res price once the resident cap is hit. At a 52/48 split residents are slightly more of an overcrowding issue than non residents especially when considering most non res hunt a week or 10 days and go home and residents can hunt all season. This alleviates crowding, maintains revenue since more folks will pay $661/license, and allows residents to have a chance at a cheap tag or not be left out completely if they are willing to pay.
" Hell. 3 days of Texas hog hunting costs more than a NR Colorado elk tag"
That may be true, but that price is for basically 100+% success, not 10-15% :-)
BTW, hit me up sometime to come hunt hogs on my place for free! But no guarantees. Low fences with holes in them mean lots of hogs one week and none the next week!
Aluminum rain, I could see putting a cap on residents if reducing NR doesn't do enough to improve crowding, but only after a reduction in NR proves unsuccessful. I'm not advocating turning CO into NM, just setting reasonable limits.
"That may be true, but that price is for basically 100+% success, not 10-15% :-)"
Yeah.... but it's a dad-gum pig....( grin)
Yeah.... but it's a dad-gum pig....( grin)
True, but for those that enjoy it, it has as much value as hunting anything else. And they are smart and have a nose as good as any elk.
That said, I shoot them and leave them lay and we shoot them out of helicopters to try and reduce their numbers, but still they persist. All we need to do is figure a way to get elk to reproduce like pigs and POOF, no more point creep!
Txhunter58
Keep track of those hogs next January. When you havent seen them for a week, let us know and we'll be down the next week :)
weekend only hunt cut short
To be honest I think the biggest thing that contributed to this situation is too liberal of policy of tag numbers to keep the CPW income up. Just 2 years ago they were very liberal with either sex tags. Last year they went from 800 E/S tags in ‘17 to 80 cow tags in ‘18 in my area. They kept talking about getting the herd down in size and they overshot the mark. They went from leftover cow tags to taking 2 points to draw one last year!! It is human nature to want to blame something else but themselves but after the severe winter a few years ago they should have lowered numbers then. .
I think reducing cow numbers will def help them rebound in a few years. So I don’t think the sky is falling. Prob make the bull/ cow ratio worse though
I would like to see the changes from ‘17 to ‘18 because they were pretty drastic. And another 15% reduction this year
