onX Maps
Received this from CPW today
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Paul@thefort 28-Nov-23
Aspen Ghost 28-Nov-23
Glunt@work 28-Nov-23
yooper89 28-Nov-23
cnelk 28-Nov-23
Aspen Ghost 28-Nov-23
Jaquomo 29-Nov-23
goelk 29-Nov-23
Glunt@work 29-Nov-23
Grasshopper 29-Nov-23
grasshopper 29-Nov-23
grasshopper 29-Nov-23
Orion 29-Nov-23
grasshopper 29-Nov-23
LungBuster 30-Nov-23
Jaquomo 30-Nov-23
LungBuster 30-Nov-23
LUNG$HOT 30-Nov-23
PushCoArcher 30-Nov-23
cnelk 30-Nov-23
Aspen Ghost 30-Nov-23
Glunt@work 30-Nov-23
LUNG$HOT 30-Nov-23
cnelk 30-Nov-23
Aspen Ghost 30-Nov-23
PO Cedar 01-Dec-23
Keepitreal 01-Dec-23
Quinn @work 02-Dec-23
Glunt@work 02-Dec-23
Aspen Ghost 02-Dec-23
Keepitreal 03-Dec-23
Ziek 03-Dec-23
cnelk 03-Dec-23
Glunt@work 03-Dec-23
PECO2 03-Dec-23
Buglmin 03-Dec-23
Glunt@work 03-Dec-23
Buglmin 03-Dec-23
KsRancher 03-Dec-23
KsRancher 03-Dec-23
Keepitreal 03-Dec-23
Keepitreal 03-Dec-23
Jaquomo 04-Dec-23
Glunt@work 04-Dec-23
Serrano 04-Dec-23
Buglmin 04-Dec-23
KsRancher 04-Dec-23
Aspen Ghost 04-Dec-23
KsRancher 04-Dec-23
Glunt@work 04-Dec-23
Grasshopper 04-Dec-23
Aspen Ghost 04-Dec-23
grasshopper 04-Dec-23
Bow Bullet 04-Dec-23
grasshopper 04-Dec-23
Glunt@work 04-Dec-23
Keepitreal 05-Dec-23
Keepitreal 05-Dec-23
Jaquomo 05-Dec-23
KsRancher 05-Dec-23
Bow Bullet 05-Dec-23
Jaquomo 05-Dec-23
From: Paul@thefort
28-Nov-23
Attention All Colorado Big Game Hunters!

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.

From: Aspen Ghost
28-Nov-23

Aspen Ghost's Link
Heres a link to the alternatives being discussed

From: Glunt@work
28-Nov-23
Most of the alternatives are limiting nonresidents one way or another. Sounds good but the key is whether they are willing to set those limits at a level that results in less pressure. A unit being limited doesn't automatically mean it's less crowded. I hunt a limited unit that has as much or more pressure than my OTC spots.

From: yooper89
28-Nov-23
Somehow eliminating ALL OTC will be the choice they go with, if they don’t just keep status quo.

From: cnelk
28-Nov-23
Status quo has always been the CPWs fallback

Status quo shouldn’t even be an option

From: Aspen Ghost
28-Nov-23
Have they published anywhere their estimates of the number of residents and number of nonresidents that hunt each OTC unit? Without that data it is just a guess what the impact of each alternative is. I have a suspicion that in some OTC units you could eliminate every NR and it would still be crowded.

From: Jaquomo
29-Nov-23
I've seen data on some OTC units. In my old multi-unit area I grew up hunting (when I could still find a place to camp..) the estimate is 65% NRs. On the public land, my unofficial observation puts that closer to 75%, just going by license plates.

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.

From: goelk
29-Nov-23
Which COLORADO BOWHUNTERS ASSO. prefer OTC Archery Elk Alternatives choice?

From: Glunt@work
29-Nov-23
With the info available, A5 and R5 would be my preference. An idea of how big of a reduction from current levels (if any) would be helpful.

From: Grasshopper
29-Nov-23
When the CBA BGSS team met with CPW leadership months ago, we stated we support a cap of 12,000 nonresidents for archery, I think last year it was ~19,000 NR's. We said, the easiest way to do it, is a statewide cap but if you care to get more complicated by GMU or DAU, we'd be fine with that too.

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

From: grasshopper
29-Nov-23

grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo

From: grasshopper
29-Nov-23

grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo
grasshopper's embedded Photo

From: Orion
29-Nov-23
I thought it was going 75/25 for draw next year leaving high demand tags at 80/20. Wasn't that already voted on and being implemented next year??

From: grasshopper
29-Nov-23
That was voted in yes, for limited units.

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.

From: LungBuster
30-Nov-23
Can someone share the details on this topic they mention - length of big game hunting seasons

From: Jaquomo
30-Nov-23
Each of the four rifle seasons is a different length, which they fiddle with from time to time. You pick one season to hunt, and that is your hunt.

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.

From: LungBuster
30-Nov-23
Jaquomo - I'm particularly interested if the archery dates go back to the last Saturday in August like the good old days. I thought I'd heard the CPW had no reason not to return to the old dates. I was hoping to see something in writing on the recommendation.

From: LUNG$HOT
30-Nov-23
Looks like I’ve been “chosen” to participate in the survey. Anyone else here?

From: PushCoArcher
30-Nov-23
Yes I'm one of the lucky NR to be "chosen".

From: cnelk
30-Nov-23
Serious question here:

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

From: Aspen Ghost
30-Nov-23
Brad it's because I am not going to drive 800 miles to hunt expensive deer when I can hunt cheap deer at home. I suspect many others are of the same opinion.

From: Glunt@work
30-Nov-23
I can't say I know why deer point creep isn't as bad. A few guesses are that deer hunting here is nothing like it was in the past.

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.

From: LUNG$HOT
30-Nov-23
Yep, lots of factors into Brads question. Deer hunting is available in most every state. Elk not so much. Also, deer is all draw so points reset for the masses way more often than people applying for an elk point AND getting an OTC tag. We need to do away with that if the future generations have any chance of drawing decent tags at any point. It needs to stop for residents as well IMO.

From: cnelk
30-Nov-23
“ 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…. ;)

From: Aspen Ghost
30-Nov-23
On the other hand NRs that just get an OTC tag now and don't enter the draw will now have to join the PP game. Could actually increase point creep when they figure out that putting their old OTC unit in as a 2nd choice gets them the tag and a PP.

From: PO Cedar
01-Dec-23
I was chosen from the NR pool and voted for #6..

From: Keepitreal
01-Dec-23
Too bad they didn't have an option to limit OTC NRs to a 6 point only bull tag and make them pass an aptitude test to be able to get a tag.

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.

From: Quinn @work
02-Dec-23
The 4 point rule is good enough. They just need to limit the amount of tags which they won't do.

From: Glunt@work
02-Dec-23
Antler restrictions for archery aren't helping anything enough to offset the restriction. We don't kill enough bulls to be the problem or the solution and certainly wouldn't kill enough spikes without a restriction to matter.

From: Aspen Ghost
02-Dec-23
A 6 point bull only reg for NRs but not residents in OTC units basically just says no NRs in OTC units. You'd have to be an fool or have arranged access to good private land to buy a tag like that with no chance for a cow and extremely limited chance for a bull. Now if it was for Residents too and either-sex then they would have to go to draw because they would become premium units and demand would soar.

From: Keepitreal
03-Dec-23
Well I didn't mean to start a new rabbit trail but let's take it a little further. The suggestion might need to be massaged on but you have to admit it would solve some issues. Oh and archery is already either sex OTC so those NR fools could opt for a cow if given the opportunity, after all they now have to pay the same for a cow tag. But then when they come back to hunt that OTC unit 2 or 3 years later they'd get run over by 4 or 5 year old bulls and trying to shoot the big one before he gets all busted up from fighting. Sounds fun huh?

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

From: Ziek
03-Dec-23
I've argued for a 6 point restriction for years. It would only be a restriction for a couple of years since virtually every bull will grow a 6 point rack if he lives that long. Granted that doesn't mean every 6 point killed will be a monster, but more will likely evade hunters longer than they do now.

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.

From: cnelk
03-Dec-23
Ive been a proponent of having select units to be a 'Spike/cow or 6 pt' restriction.

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

From: Glunt@work
03-Dec-23
I'm fine with someone having to stay home to improve things, just not me.

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.

From: PECO2
03-Dec-23
^^^^ What Glunt said. Colorado residents should not have to sit any season out for elk.

From: Buglmin
03-Dec-23
Well here's the problem. in 77/78, 80/81, its taking residents 1 to 2 points to draw archery elk, but most non residents are drawing with 0 points. when you have over 80% of the draw tags going to residents, that becomes a problem.

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.

From: Glunt@work
03-Dec-23
Limiting residents from hunting different OTC units doesnt reduce pressure. If a guy hunts unit "X" one weekend and moves to unit "Y" the next weekend, that's still 2 weekends of pressure. Moving to unit "Y" adds some pressure but removes the same amount in unit "X" that he left.

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.

From: Buglmin
03-Dec-23
Yes, it's limiting the number of resident hunters, but when residents only draw 176 archery elk tags out of 1100, thats just not right for the local resident hunters. By cpw capping the resident hunters to 300 licenses, dropping the non resident quota down to 500 in the draw units here in sw Colorado, its reducing the hunter numbers, just like cpw wants to do.

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.

From: KsRancher
03-Dec-23
Buglmin. That is absolutely false about residents taking 1 or 2 pts to draw those tags and NR drawing with 0. Every resident that put one of those units as a first choice drew the tag and some that put it down as a second choice.

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.

From: KsRancher
03-Dec-23
Yes, I agree that a resident should be able to hunt every year. And they can. Wouldn't even bother me if they do away with NR OTC.

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.

From: Keepitreal
03-Dec-23
Well at least I know a couple guys on here see the light.

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

(sounds of crickets)

Maybe I should try a different platform.

From: Keepitreal
03-Dec-23
280,000 elk divided into 94 true western Colorado elk units equals on average 2978 elk per unit.

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.

From: Jaquomo
04-Dec-23
There is a huge difference in many GMUs between elk numbers and "huntable" elk numbers. In the DAU where I live, there are thousands of elk that live year round in huge herds on big ranches that allow little, or no hunting. Yet those elk are included in the published numbers. They might as well not even exist, from a public hunting opportunity perspective.

From: Glunt@work
04-Dec-23
The numbers aren't accurate but they are whats used to dictate our opportunities. We need to use them to our advantage when we can.

From: Serrano
04-Dec-23
I wasn't one of the 6000 who got a survey, but when I got the post hunt survey they asked some very loaded extra questions about the unit I hunt. Would you be willing to hunt here less often? The hunting will be better, bla, bla, bla. Absolutely not.

From: Buglmin
04-Dec-23
Ksrancher, of the 1100 draw tags in units 77/78, only 176 residents drew tags. And those that did drew with 1 or more points. I've discussed this a lot with Steve, aka grasshopper. And the stats for the first gun season is just as bad, with residents draw roughly 20% of the tags.

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.

From: KsRancher
04-Dec-23

KsRancher's embedded Photo
KsRancher's embedded Photo
176 drew it as a first choice. And 145 of those had ZERO pts. 89 drew it as a second choice for a total of 265 residents getting a tag

From: Aspen Ghost
04-Dec-23
Every single resident and nonresident with zero points drew that unit if it was their 1st choice. 37% of residents and 24% of nonresidents who selected it as a 2nd choice also drew it.

From: KsRancher
04-Dec-23
Grasshopper and I have had a couple of exchanges on here about those particular units. And he agreed that the only reason residents weren't getting their 65% was because not enough residents were putting it down as first choice. I am assuming that they don't think it's "worth" using their pionts so they are hoping to draw it as a 2nd,3rd or 4th choice and gain a pt in the process.

From: Glunt@work
04-Dec-23
This isnt uncommon. The amount of resident use/demand in an OTC unit drops when it goes limited if there are still other similar OTC opportunities.

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.

From: Grasshopper
04-Dec-23
There is a dilemma for all hunters when an OTC unit it taken to limited licensing. The newly limited unit becomes worth zero pints in the draw. Yes, residents could draw tags if they are willing to spend their accumulated points. But if you have several points, why would anyone regardless of residency ever burn them on a tag worth zero points?

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.

From: Aspen Ghost
04-Dec-23
"What the data shows in all of the SW is nonresidents are more willing to spend points as a first choice. "

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.

From: grasshopper
04-Dec-23
Actually the data I have compares otc participation with applications after going limited. I have that data, cpw gave it to me prior to the last bgss fiasco.

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.

From: Bow Bullet
04-Dec-23
I'm not in favor of eliminating OTC for residents but with the threat of going all draw and this conundrum in the SW units I have a question. I've lived in CO since 2010 and don't know the history. Was there a time when deer was a mix of OTC and draw? If so, how did they handle the transition to all draw?

From: grasshopper
04-Dec-23
Deer was a mix, I forget what year it went limited statewide. The decline of deer populations has been going on since the 60's.

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.

From: Glunt@work
04-Dec-23
Mule deer are likely never going back to the haydays. Elk replaced muleys for popularity. If elk populations dip, there isn't another species to fill in. May have to change the approach to whitetail management.

From: Keepitreal
05-Dec-23

Keepitreal's embedded Photo
Keepitreal's embedded Photo

From: Keepitreal
05-Dec-23
That wasn't meant to ruffle anyone's feathers. It came off the interwebs to me and is from a guy who's never killed a whitetail buck before. And quite honestly I never have either. Though I'd love to try that type of hunting someday and I have much respect for the whitetail guys who put in a ton of time to get a big one. And I'm not talking about shooting one from under a feeder.

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.

From: Jaquomo
05-Dec-23
Bow Bullet, when deer went to all draw, it wasn't transitioned but "boom", happened in one season. I had a great place to hunt muleys and whitetails, so I burned 8 points on what turned out to be a zero point unit rather than risk trying for a second choice.

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.

From: KsRancher
05-Dec-23
Grasshopper. I know you said your not looking to argue. I am not either. But I am curious since you mentioned that is a resident dilemma for the newer SW units. What are your suggestions to fix this issue. I personally don't see it as a problem.

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

From: Bow Bullet
05-Dec-23
Thanks Lou. How long do you think it took for the deer system to settle out and do you think settling out of an all draw elk system would be comparable?

From: Jaquomo
05-Dec-23
I can only speak to my bloc of units, but since it's almost all private and access is tough, it only took that first year to settle into basically zero points again. What did change was when landowner vouchers were increased, and the regular pool was reduced. Now it takes one more point to draw a landowner (outfitter) voucher for December rifle and buck pronghorn than in the regular draw.

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

  • Sitka Gear