Grand Mesa elk survey/meeting
Colorado
GUNNISON, Colo. – Colorado Parks and Wildlife will host two virtual public meetings to discuss potential changes to over-the-counter archery licensing for Game Management Units (GMUs) across the Grand Mesa.
A public survey is currently available that focuses on elk hunting and archery season for the Grand Mesa Elk Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-14. This DAU includes GMUs 41, 42, 52, 411, 421 and 521.
The units in E-14 are managed by both the Northwest and Southwest Regions of CPW. Currently, unlimited over-the-counter either sex archery licenses are valid across all six GMUs.
However, CPW is gathering public feedback regarding the possibility of limiting archery licenses based on substantial increases in hunting pressure, reduced archery hunter satisfaction, declining archery hunter harvest success and changing elk distribution between public and private lands.
The public is urged to submit comments through the DAU E-14 Archery Poll. To provide additional information and to answer questions, CPW staff will hold virtual public meetings Sept. 28 and Oct. 10. Both meetings will be conducted via Zoom and will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The meetings will begin with a brief presentation from CPW staff before opening up for questions.
One might believe that the CPW Staff would wait until the next review of the 5 year Big Game Season Structure, when OTC license will be addressed. Why now?
Damn. Gonna make the remaining OTC units even more crowded.
Here’s my option: make out of state licenses draw only.
This is unbelievable. Don't know about Grand Mesa, but I have been hunting Battlement Mesa 42/421 for 30 years. Sure there are more hunters now than when I started. But still a quality hunt with our group harvesting elk every year. Must be something else driving this?
Also, why are they having a public meeting on archery hunts during archery season?
It's like forest roads. Increased use leads to roads being closed. Closed roads increases use on the remaining open roads and so on, and so on, and so on...
The "problem" they are addressing is bowhunter numbers. Obviously reducing the amount of units bowhunters can hunt with an otc tag will lead to more people in the remaining otc units.
Making a unit draw doesn't decrease overall pressure unless a hunter who use to hunt that unit stays home. If he still hunts somewhere it only changes where the pressure is.
Get the rifle hunters out of archery season and the crowding won't be an issue!
That's an obvious common sense solution so its not an option.
At the last commission meeting they acknowledged further limited units make crowding worse, but without saying it publicly their actions show they don't care. They called the remaining otc units "an opportunity hunt" in other words, its about the money.
We have all seen other units go to archery draw. I used to think, too bad for them but this will never effect my area. It would appear that sooner or later, it will effect all areas. Either by slowly moving to the majority of units being draw only and/or remaining OTC units being a zoo. This sounds like a critical time to let them know what we think.
There is a full court press by the CPW to severely restrict archery hunting to the best of their ability in this state. You hear it every quarter in CPW Commissioner meetings in phases such as "archery hunting has grown exponentially" or "archery hunting is out of control" or "archers push the rut later and are the cause of low calf recruitment". All are incorrect opinions and factually incorrect. CPW is making archery hunting in this state more and more difficult for elk. They are doing it incrementally - a few units here, a few units there, bull only units, and so on. This incremental approach is easy to get through because at the time, 'It's just a few units after all - what's the big deal?' Collectively, these changes are dramatically morphing archery hunting in this state. Whatever perceived archery issues the CPW dwells on are simply symptoms of the broken preference point system in this state, yet the Commission fails to address the root of the problem. Archers are taking it on the chin, while the revenue of non-resident licenses clouds the Commission's decision making for wildlife in the state.
It seems that a few of the CPW Regions are jumping the gun. Last year, 300 limited draw archery elk license were omitted from units 12, 23, 14, 33, and the reason was giving, "over crowding complaints", not elk herd management issues as the units are well within their goals. There were no Public Scoping meetings. So now we have this Grand Mesa issue,--- again, jumping the gun, before the next Big Game Season Structure. If by chance, for the next BBSS, the License allocations would go from currently, 65/35, to 80/20, and OTC units would limit nonresidents,--- issues solved, as now we have less hunters, the over crowding issue would be solved, etc. etc.
I'm not so sure that moving the whole state limted for elk is a bad idea.
1. Going limited would then implement at the very minimum a 65/35 resident/NR split. Alot of these otc areas are over 50% NR, so it could turn into a net gain for Resident hunters. If CPW further restricts to a 80/20 quota, it further benefits resident hunters.
Let's see what come out in the details before we judge it in a negative manner.
Look at 80/81 Stix. It was 65 percent nonresident when otc, and after limitations it is still 65 percent nonresident.
Why? 1. Very few want to burn points on a unit worth zero. 2. As a second choice draw there is no allocation based on residency.
Going all limited would have really bad consequences for point creep in my opinion. I don't hunt otc, but don't want 35000 Archers applying in my limited unit. That is exactly what will happen
Archery elk hunters have increased 40% in just the last 10 years. Many states are trying all sorts of things to recruit and retain hunters.
Crowding is due to supply and demand of season days and areas. Instead of a demand solution, how about a supply solution? Add a week+ to archery season and do more to expand access.
Adding a week to the season may have the opposite affect especially if it is on the tail end. You would probably end up with more hunters than supply. Unfortunately, the entire Grand Mesa is getting hammered by archery hunters. I would rather see CPW being proactive than reactive for a change. They have known that they have had a problem with overcrowding on Grand Mesa for several years. I realize my personal opinion probably doesn't count in most circles but, they should have taken the Grand Mesa to limited for this 5 year season structure rather than wait and making the problem worse.
Should make all NR tags draw and cut them back if there are overcrowding issues. But, this state will never do that.
After what I have seen this entire hunting season, I would be for going to 100% drawing. It is out of control in the OTC units up in NW Colorado.
I would also love to see bowhunters actually get a season without the rifle hunters or, at the very least, a couple of weeks. Put the rifle bear tags in the "quiet time" (such total BS)... Unreal numbers of Muzzle Loaders and Rifle Hunters up here in September... 95% not wearing orange.
I had increasing frustration the last several years with my hunts in 521, so we changed things up this year. I did a short hunt early in the season there and saw 9 elk and 12 hunters.
Later, I did a longer hunt with 2 buddies in another unit. We packed my 2 horses 9.8 miles in. We did manage to get away from most hunters, saw 4, but our chosen area was inundated with cattle. We hiked long in every direction, saw very little fresh sign. One of us saw 2 elk after a blind calling session for the whole trip.
I'm shopping around for a 0 point unit we can draw most years, but will it turn out any better? Just seems difficult to get enough encounters to be worth the effort anymore.
I'm with Treeline crazy in NW area.
My 0-1 point unit has as many or more hunters than my usual OTC spots.
One problem with going limited is you must draw it, most likely use points. The other problem with limited units is they issue way to many licenses.
So limited sounds good, until you have no points and opening day it is way to crowded.
Back when 54, 55, 551 went limited you could buy the tag as a leftover for a few years and I was surprised to find more pressure than ever. If I remember right, they issued a few hundred more tags than was estimated to hunt that area before it went "limited"! I suppose if it hadn't changed there would be even more there now.
While I have never elk hunted in E14, I will submit comments.
1. While water over the dam, these issues should have been addressed at the start of the current 5 yr BGSS and not now in the middle of the current BGSS.
2. License allocations, OTC licenses and Preference Points are now being addressed by the CPW Commission and I strongly suggest that any action to reduce archery participation in E14, be postponed until the CPW Commission has a chance to examine these three issues and then make recommendations that may affect license allocations, PPs and OTC licenses, statewide.
3. The majority of Colorado resident hunters are in favor of giving a high priority to resident hunters for license allocations, ie, from the current 65/35%, to 80/20%. Other surrounding states are giving a higher priority to their residents and it is time for Colorado to follow their example. Also, resident hunters should be given high priority in the OTC license, and be allowed to purchase OTC each year where available. If OTC licenses are to be reduced, reduce the numbers of nonresident hunters to purchase OTC licenses. For the first time, the 2021 archery elk season saw more non resident bow hunters, than resident archery elk hunters. 51 vs 49%. We are sure this trend will continue. "Crowding" is being magnified by the influx of 27,000 non resident archery elk hunters.
4. Both of these positive actions can help reduce the overcrowding issue, may help reduce big game early migrations, and improve hunter satisfaction and harvest..
5. We hunters appreciate that you are attempting to do Public Scoping, but whatever these meetings and surveys produce, delay any action until the CPW Commission has had a chance to fully investigate these issues on a statewide basis, when the next 5-year BGSS is reviewed and approved.
Thank you for your work, Paul Navarre, Ft. Collins Colorado
Paul I respectfully disagree with your approach, the Commission dropped limited archery statewide at the last minute during the most recent BGSS going against CPW staff recommendation. They did however allow local managers the ability to address crowding and or low cow/calf ratios going forward by limiting GMU's or DAU's. The process for 521 has been ongoing heavily for the past 3 years and certainly prior to that as well, we have had public meetings, surveyed hunters, collared elk and have seen our archery hunter numbers double in 8 years. To suggest waiting two more years with no guarantees and possibly getting the rug pulled out from under us at the last minute and then be set back 3 years at a minimum while numbers continue to skyrocket is not a reasonable approach. I will agree with you that non-resident hunters at over 50% is driving a lot of the increase, I am for resident preference. It appears that non residents make up approx 56% of archery hunters in E-14, not exact numbers but approx 2800 NR to 2200 R If these units go limited it will automatically go to the current 65/35 Resident to Non-resident allocation and possibly 75/25 or 80/20 if the commission adopts either one. This is a huge improvement for residents and depending on hunter numbers residents will most likely all be able to draw through the primary or the leftover draw.
Paul I respectfully disagree with your approach, the Commission dropped limited archery statewide at the last minute during the most recent BGSS going against CPW staff recommendation. They did however allow local managers the ability to address crowding and or low cow/calf ratios going forward by limiting GMU's or DAU's. The process for 521 has been ongoing heavily for the past 3 years and certainly prior to that as well, we have had public meetings, surveyed hunters, collared elk and have seen our archery hunter numbers double in 8 years. To suggest waiting two more years with no guarantees and possibly getting the rug pulled out from under us at the last minute and then be set back 3 years at a minimum while numbers continue to skyrocket is not a reasonable approach. I will agree with you that non-resident hunters at over 50% is driving a lot of the increase, I am for resident preference. It appears that non residents make up approx 56% of archery hunters in E-14, not exact numbers but approx 2800 NR to 2200 R If these units go limited it will automatically go to the current 65/35 Resident to Non-resident allocation and possibly 75/25 or 80/20 if the commission adopts either one. This is a huge improvement for residents and depending on hunter numbers residents will most likely all be able to draw through the primary or the leftover draw.
"Well, all ideas are good, just that some are better than others" = food for thought.
Depends on where they set the tag numbers in E14. They may set it at 5000 and nothing may change with crowding other than we lose the flexibility of hunting it OTC. 15-20 years from now (not accounting for wolves) demand may get to the point where 65:35 kicks in but currently 2200 residents want to hunt there. Nonresidents would only be capped if they set the tags around 3400.
As stated above, not sure about issues in 521. I do know that Battlement Mesa is not Grand Mesa. The elk herd is doing fine, crowding is not an issue and there are very few roads in these units. They should not be grouping 42/421 in with the 521 proposal.
I am curious if anyone attended the 9/28 meeting that for some reason was held during archery season?
Just a thought. What about 3 separate 10 day seasons for non resident in the over the counter units? I know for a fact that when I was a non resident and living in Wisconsin, we never took over a 10 day hunt. At least you could limit each season and still come close to your numbers you have now. Make it a random draw that doesn't take points. Parks and Wildlife can still hit their revenue goals and it at least will spread out the pressure throughout the month. Just throwing out an idea. Maybe it's been discussed before, maybe I'm missing something. :)
KC9, that would not reduce the crowding issues at all.
Why can't Colorado do like WY and allow residents to hunt most of the state on a general tag and limit all Non-Residents with having them draw for a specific set of units? It is so ridiculous in Colorado that every time a group of units goes draw, the residents get more constrained as well. Really sucks. No resident should have to draw an elk tag and be limited to a specific set of units until every nonresident has to draw every tag! With LIMITS on Non-Residents!
A big part of the overcrowding issue is the number of rifle and muzzleloader hunters in the woods at the same time as archery. We do not have even one day in our current season structure without sharing the woods with gun hunters. Get them out of the archery season!
A WY model makes sense to me. Residents get flexibility and a chance to hunt their own critters. Nonresidents usually make one trip a year to one location so being limited to a unit isn't a huge issue. Less NR tags would be an issue but we are already way beyond most elk states in NR tag availability. We could limit NR numbers and still be the top state for NR opportunity.
I didn't mean just divide up into 3 seasons. It would also be a draw by unit for non residents. If for example 100 out of state hunters per unit, you would divide up into 3 seasons of 33 hunters per season. Then each unit you would look at size of the unit, huntable acres, heard size and it would be much easier to control the over crowding. One unit might be able to handle 40 non resident hunters a season, another 25. Just thoughts
