2020-2024 Colorado Big Game Season Structure Info

[ckleeves]

If the CPW went to 'All Draw' for archery, I would guess they would set the GMUs tag allotment pretty high - basically making an OTC/GEN tag.

And remember, if this was to happen, it would definitely address Pref Points as you would lose your PPs upon applying for a tag.

Im betting the archery season dates are going to be changed to Sept 1-30, and there wont be a change to the ML season overlap

I think making all elk tags a draw is a good idea. Probably won’t happen but at least archery would be a start. It would also help point creep. I really have no interest in Colorado’s “trophy units” but the amount of points required to draw them is getting ridiculous. If it required a first choice app to get a “general” bull tag it would really cut down on point creep. Either hunt bulls every year or build points. I don’t see why we need to do both all it’s doing is pushing creep through the roof.

Archery tags turning into rifle tags is a horrible idea. As much as I would enjoy it I know it would only increase the crowding more.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ckleeves]

So what affect is archery hunting having on calf recruitment? That time of year there is more feed and elk are in the top physical condition, could it not be effects of the 8x more hunters during the seasons that are later in the year in times that are more crucial to their winter survival? Is poor calf recruitment not possible to be linked to surplus of predators keying in on animals during calving season?

Yes I believe that one day that tags will have to be put to a draw, but I’m asking why do we think that archery needs to take the hit first when rifle hunters outnumber them drastically and spend more time hunting and definitely chase these animals around more. and I don’t buy it that more animals are wounded in archery season than in rifle season. I have seen many elk shot at from long distances multiple times and guys walk the other way or hit multiple elk.

Something needs to be done, but I hate for a small group of hunter take the brunt of the punishment.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really see it as punishment. Archery season is getting way to crowded. The elk don’t act the same as they did 15 years ago and for me Colorado archery elk hunting is losing its appeal pretty rapidly. Curbing the pressure even 20% would go a long ways. If it goes to a draw it affect me as much as anyone, I’m a OTC unit jumper from way back. Usually I’m trying to avoid pressure by doing this. Some years it seems like everyone is in unit xx, the next year its unit xxx that’s getting pounded. Some consistency on unit pressure would be nice, 300 tags for unit xx, 500 for unit xxx etc.

I’m pretty sure the wounding loss during archery is a much higher % then rifle (as much as I hate to say that). Could be wrong but I know pretty much every year for the past 15 I have found someone’s lost animal during archery, whereas rifle Its been a handful over the years. There are plenty of slob rifle hunters who don’t follow up on shots so I’m not saying they don’t lose anything but I think the % of lost animals vs recovered animals is much smaller with rifle hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vanish]

If it required a first choice app to get a “general” bull tag it would really cut down on point creep. Either hunt bulls every year or build points. I don’t see why we need to do both all it’s doing is pushing creep through the roof.

Here is my selfish response.

I like to hunt elk, and I would really like to hunt a "trophy" unit one day.

Why should "trophy" units in my home state be reserved only for those people who are NOT contributing to the system by routinely buying licenses? I feel like as someone who slugs it out in OTC units, I'm going to appreciate that "trophy" tag more than someone who's never even hunted for a bull elk because they've waited 20 years for the tag and couldn't hunt them in the meantime.

Meanwhile, I am buying points in Wyoming because I fully expect a change like this to take place, and my "trophy" hunt will have to be in another state.

Heck, maybe I'm not thinking it through and it would be worth sacrificing an opportunity at a "trophy" unit here at home in order to have limited numbers in current OTC units. The deer hunting is pretty good everywhere and that's totally limited. Of course, it doesn't require a first choice to hunt bucks every year.

 

[ckleeves]

Here is my selfish response.

I like to hunt elk, and I would really like to hunt a "trophy" unit one day.

Why should "trophy" units in my home state be reserved only for those people who are NOT contributing to the system by routinely buying licenses? I feel like as someone who slugs it out in OTC units, I'm going to appreciate that "trophy" tag more than someone who's never even hunted for a bull elk because they've waited 20 years for the tag and couldn't hunt them in the meantime.

Meanwhile, I am buying points in Wyoming because I fully expect a change like this to take place, and my "trophy" hunt will have to be in another state.

Heck, maybe I'm not thinking it through and it would be worth sacrificing an opportunity at a "trophy" unit here at home in order to have limited numbers in current OTC units. The deer hunting is pretty good everywhere and that's totally limited. Of course, it doesn't require a first choice to hunt bucks every year.

I think the easy solution to that is requiring a license to apply, like most other western states. I know the current system has fees associated with applications if you don’t buy a tag the previous year etc. I’m talking an actual 100.00+ license before you can apply for non-res and a 40.00-60.00 license for res. This would further reduce point creep by reducing the “points only” crowd and making them contribute more in the long term.

I think a guy could still hunt bulls every year and build points, it just may not be in their unit of choice or season of choice. Leftovers, second choice tags etc.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I just think we’re at the point where there isn’t enough cake to go around and some sacrifices need to be made. By the time my kids are old enough to apply and have enough points to draw a “trophy” unit, if point creep continues the way it has been it will be a retirement hunt for them.

Maybe I’m completely wrong, but I think a system where a person hunts leftover tags, second choice tags, cows etc and can draw a good quality bull tag every 6-10 years is possible if that’s the direction that person wanted to go.

What good is a trophy unit tag if your to old to enjoy it? As sad as it that’s sort of the direction things are heading. It shouldn’t take 20+ years to hunt a unit with a 330” bull being a good bull for the unit. We have created this monster by having unlimited OTC tags and also being able to collect points at the same time IMO.

I’m the type of person that wouldn’t collect points in Colorado if they went to a draw only elk hunt. I would be perfectly happy hunting a “general” tag every year and seeing less people then now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PantherCity]

2. If you are going to make every unit draw, you can't go and say that the tags roll over to rifle season, because the demand for those tags just go WAY higher, so you will in turn make it much more difficult for an individual to pull an archery tag.

3. Splitting the archery season? so having an average success rate of 12% over a 30 day window isn't low enough we want to limit guys to 14 day time frame? that's a bit ridiculous. It's great having 30 days to be able to hunt with that tag, a huge reason to get into archery hunting you get to hunt that much longer, and have 5 weekend days for guys that can only hunt weekends.


I think the very first thing they need to do is require mandatory reporting for all big game hunters. It truly isn't that difficult to require people to log onto the account that they already had to create to buy the license, fill out 5 multiple choice questions to get a better idea of the hunter success, participation, and for OTC units, where that individual was hunting.

I agree wholeheartedly. Also the idea to split the archery season and give peak rut to the Muzzle loader makes no sense probably 10% of that 12% success rate happens in that week. I don't think to overlap is a big deal.

But I'm just a non-resident from Texas who spends lots of money to hunt Colorado every year, so what do I know.

 

[Btaylor]

Someone above mentioned how "they created this monster". Looks to me like the monster got created bythe first state to implement a point system. Dont know that history and really dont care but they created the monster. The whole points system is a crock of crap. State agencies should set tag limits by season and everyone goes in the same pot, period end of discussion. That is if the state is not going to offer OTC tags. I am referring to federally owned ground here. If a state wants to create a trophy unit and require points, by all means have at that on state owned ground.

While we are on non-sensical regs, no state should have the ability to limit the ablity to hunt on federal ground without the use of a guide based on residency, esp. when every other public use activity lacks the same requirement.

 

[ericF]

I think the easy solution to that is requiring a license to apply, like most other western states. I know the current system has fees associated with applications if you don’t buy a tag the previous year etc. I’m talking an actual 100.00+ license before you can apply for non-res and a 40.00-60.00 license for res. This would further reduce point creep by reducing the “points only” crowd and making them contribute more in the long term.

I think a guy could still hunt bulls every year and build points, it just may not be in their unit of choice or season of choice. Leftovers, second choice tags etc.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too, I just think we’re at the point where there isn’t enough cake to go around and some sacrifices need to be made. By the time my kids are old enough to apply and have enough points to draw a “trophy” unit, if point creep continues the way it has been it will be a retirement hunt for them.

Maybe I’m completely wrong, but I think a system where a person hunts leftover tags, second choice tags, cows etc and can draw a good quality bull tag every 6-10 years is possible if that’s the direction that person wanted to go.

What good is a trophy unit tag if your to old to enjoy it? As sad as it that’s sort of the direction things are heading. It shouldn’t take 20+ years to hunt a unit with a 330” bull being a good bull for the unit. We have created this monster by having unlimited OTC tags and also being able to collect points at the same time IMO.

I’m the type of person that wouldn’t collect points in Colorado if they went to a draw only elk hunt. I would be perfectly happy hunting a “general” tag every year and seeing less people then now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There will most likely be a change to the current preference implementation and fee. From what I've ready, they are handling the preference point issue as a separate item from the Big Game Season Structure and they talk about it a little in the following PDF. The big takeaway from the PDF is that before they could not charge a separate preference point fee, but with the recent legislature changes they can now charge a fee of up to $100. They are no specific changes proposed yet, but they have come up with some alternatives and are planning on investigating things farther for possible changes in the 2020 season.

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2018/Aug/Item_22_FG_Implementation_Memo-PWCMtg-Aug2018.pdf

 

[hunt1up]

I always hunt Wyoming over Colorado because their system is better and you get a better hunt for your dollar. I've not hunted Colorado much but that's my opinion. Whenever we consider going to Colorado to duke it out on an OTC tag we usually decide to stay North.

I'd make every tag a draw tag.

And when the preference point conversation comes up, please LET US AVERAGE OUR POINTS ON GROUP APPS! That would go a long way in knocking down the point totals.

 

[5MilesBack]

Someone above mentioned how "they created this monster". Looks to me like the monster got created bythe first state to implement a point system. Dont know that history and really dont care but they created the monster. The whole points system is a crock of crap.

Back in 1980 when I first started big game hunting, we used our "points" to draw cow tags......because cow tags were all draw, and bull tags were easy to get as OTC. Colorado used to average over 300k deer and elk hunters every year back then. It was the state to go to because of all the OTC tags. Not sure when it really became an issue........I'm guessing in the last 10-15 years, because tags weren't all that hard to get except in the few most desirable units until 10-15 years ago. Tags that were every year or every other year are now 5+ points. There's only one reason for that........increased demand. There's just way more people hunting Colorado now than there was even 10+ years ago. That's the problem. Like I always say "It doesn't matter what the issue is........people are the problem".

 

[cnelk]

Ive played the PP game for many years in Colorado with great success.

I drew a Unit 10 ML elk tag back in 2000, drew my bull moose rifle tag in 2009, and drew 61 archery elk in 2012. And a spattering of pronghorn and deer through out the years.

Back up to 6 Elk PPs again, so we'll see what the next BGSS does.

 

[5MilesBack]

I would be perfectly happy hunting a “general” tag every year and seeing less people then now.

The problem is.......you may not see "less" people, and you may actually see more people depending on how it is set up. If you look at the north Gunnison units, they used to be OTC for archery.......so unlimited in number of people that may hunt there. But when they went to draw, there were tags leftover every year. I take that to mean that there were less people actually hunting those units when they were OTC than the number of tags that CDOW issued when they made it draw.

The other thing is.........I don't see CPW giving up any money in this process. They are money grubbers. So the best case scenario I could see, is the same number of tags issued statewide. Now how those are divided up if it went to 100% draw.........who knows. Some units may see a large increase in hunter numbers through that process, and some could see a drop. But I think all that is a crapshoot until it actually happens and settles out.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

I would have been the last guy that would have proposed a limited draw archery hunt, but my eyes have seen enough evidence that we are loving our elk to death. Running them ragged for all of archery is the reality with the increase in number of archery hunters. After archery it doesn’t get much better as we send in the orange army for 4 or 5 different goes at it too.

I agree. Been doing this long enough to have seen significant changes in the backcountry. I would support a limited draw archery hunt. Wouldn't like it, but would support it.

 

[ckleeves]

The problem is.......you may not see "less" people, and you may actually see more people depending on how it is set up. If you look at the north Gunnison units, they used to be OTC for archery.......so unlimited in number of people that may hunt there. But when they went to draw, there were tags leftover every year. I take that to mean that there were less people actually hunting those units when they were OTC than the number of tags that CDOW issued when they made it draw.

The other thing is.........I don't see CPW giving up any money in this process. They are money grubbers. So the best case scenario I could see, is the same number of tags issued statewide. Now how those are divided up if it went to 100% draw.........who knows. Some units may see a large increase in hunter numbers through that process, and some could see a drop. But I think all that is a crapshoot until it actually happens and settles out.

Oh I agree. I’m wishful thinking here more then anything. I know as well anyone that the CPW isn’t going to give up money they could be making. It will be interesting to see how many archery tags are issued statewide if this draw does go into place. You can look at the numbers of archery tags sold and see the steady increase. I’m curious if they are thinking 2017 numbers or 2003 numbers?

I’m also curious if for instance they cut archery tags by 10k vs the number sold last year. Do those 10k people hunt a rifle season now or are they bowhunting purist that won’t wear orange even if it’s their only chance to hunt elk?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Has anybody suggested leaving the OTC units as OTC, but having the licenses be specific to that unit or a block of units? Similar to OTC with caps for bear now but without the caps. It might curb the pressure some areas see because someone would have to decide where they are hunting instead of bouncing around the state like I know some do.

 

[Bulldawg]

I totally disagree with point averaging, using the lowest points available is the best way to go. If you were to average points you'll get a lot of foils that have points that have no intentions of ever hunting an ever, just accruing points to help out family to get better tags, I know because I would do this if it came up. Mom doesn't hunt but she can buy points and in 10 years I can average my 0 with her 10 and have 5 points going into the draw.

I always hunt Wyoming over Colorado because their system is better and you get a better hunt for your dollar. I've not hunted Colorado much but that's my opinion. Whenever we consider going to Colorado to duke it out on an OTC tag we usually decide to stay North.

I'd make every tag a draw tag.

And when the preference point conversation comes up, please LET US AVERAGE OUR POINTS ON GROUP APPS! That would go a long way in knocking down the point totals.

 

[hunt1up]

I totally disagree with point averaging, using the lowest points available is the best way to go. If you were to average points you'll get a lot of foils that have points that have no intentions of ever hunting an ever, just accruing points to help out family to get better tags, I know because I would do this if it came up. Mom doesn't hunt but she can buy points and in 10 years I can average my 0 with her 10 and have 5 points going into the draw.

You may get a small amount of that, but when it comes time to hunt you’ll have to buy mom’s tag too. At lease for NRs, paying many hundred of dollars for a tag you won’t use seems pretty unlikely. Sure some will do it, most won’t.

My buddy and I had 6 points in WY that we used in 2016. We used those points up and were at zero for 2017. The last two seasons we’ve hunted a general tag because other friends has 2-3 points and we group applied with our 0, averaging enough to grab the general tag. So my buddy and I have been essentially accruing 0 points for the past 3 seasons now. And those other guys with 2-3 also burned points.

It encourages guys to go hunt sooner in my opinion, rather than hold out for years on end, in turn lessening demand for top tier hunts. I know that’s the case for us at least.

 

[cnelk]

Never, have I heard about a NonRes in Wyo complain about Point Averaging.

Its a good system

 

[timekiller13]

As a non-resident who relies on the OTC system in Colorado to guarantee me elk hunting opportunities on a yearly basis, I would be disappointed to the see the OTC tags go away. But, I fully understand the reason to limit them. But, it makes more sense to limit the number of OTC rifle tags than it does to limit the archery tags. Many, many more rifle tags are sold than archery. But, it is wishful thinking that they would limit rifle tags, as that is a cash cow for the department. I would support OTC with caps, or, OTC tags for residents and limited general type tags for non-residents. It is a delicate balance, trying to do what is best for the herd, while making sure there are plenty of hunting opportunities and continuing to increase or at least sustain revenue.

 

[5MilesBack]

I’m also curious if for instance they cut archery tags by 10k vs the number sold last year. Do those 10k people hunt a rifle season now or are they bowhunting purist that won’t wear orange even if it’s their only chance to hunt elk?

If I can't get an archery tag for the unit(s) I want, I'd just head to Idaho for an OTC archery tag that year. I'm not necessarily a bowhunting purist, but I am an elk rut hunting purist now. I won't ever go back to non-rut hunting. I'll still do some meat shoots perhaps, but that's quite different. I would think that if a NR bowhunter got shut out of CO, then they'd just go to Idaho as well for OTC.

 

[ckleeves]

If I can't get an archery tag for the unit(s) I want, I'd just head to Idaho for an OTC archery tag that year. I'm not necessarily a bowhunting purist, but I am an elk rut hunting purist now. I won't ever go back to non-rut hunting. I'll still do some meat shoots perhaps, but that's quite different. I would think that if a NR bowhunter got shut out of CO, then they'd just go to Idaho as well for OTC.

Idaho is capped so it would be interesting to see how fast they would sell out of non-res elk tags if this happens. So not everybody would be elk hunting Idaho. I’m not sure when they sold out of non-res tags but looking at the quotas today everything is sold out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk