2020-24 season structure options

[5MilesBack]

There will a many more than 6300 ish archery tags allocated state wide..

I would hope so, or the 45k+ current archery hunters will cause even worse point creep than now.........for ALL units. I can always go to Idaho and get an OTC tag, but if CO went all draw........they probably wouldn't be too far behind. In the end.......opportunity is waning for every single year hunters like us. There's just too many people these days, for the resources that we have. Just look at the recent story on Mt. Everest. My goodness........it's like Grand Central Station trying to get to the top. Who would have ever thought that would happen. Same thing is happening everywhere. Years ago I could hike into the Maroon Bells and not see another soul. These days, I'll never see them again because of the hundreds of people every single day pouring in there. Same for elk hunting. I'm glad I'm in my waning years of hunting, because it's certainly not going to get less crowded or more enjoyable in the future with all the people out there these days.........even in current draw units.

 

[cnelk]

Ive been thru several 5 Year BGSS's and based on that history, be prepared for not much to change.

Formality at it best

Just saying...

 

[elkstabber]

Ive been thru several 5 Year BGSS's and based on that history, be prepared for not much to change.

Formality at it best

Just saying...

That is an interesting comment. And true. Government moves slowly. Change among government employees happens even slower.

At this point any effort to decrease hunter pressure will cut into the CPW's income. Reducing NR tags would cut the income more drastically than reducing R tags. Change seems unlikely to occur.

 

[gretch6364]

I have hunted NM and a split season (option 3) seems to work for them. It would probably reduce the weekend warriors that just hunt every weekend, however, those are mostly residents.

If they actually enforce the 35% NR rules, which supposedly they do for the first draw, option 2 could help out residents.

I wish they would limit OTC tags to only residents personally, and make the rifle seasons shorter.

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

I see guys say we need all this change for the elk herd. CPW says the elk herd is 287,000 animals. Of 42 herds, 21 are over objective, 5 are below and the rest are at objective. Huh, we are in real trouble. You got better data?

If it goes limited, guys with few preference points will be the real losers. Tens of thousands of guys with lots of points of points will now go after 6525 limited archery licenses. The majority will be PO'd and it will take years to shake out. Will the hunting improve, not if the set the statewide quota at 41,500 Want to spend your 12 points to hunt unit 62 with 3500 other bowhunters?

Personal Opinion, option 3 is the stupidest idea I have ever read. Who in theiright mind wants their season cut in half, and then limited? Get off the dope! No offense intended.


The CBA is working on alternative 5. Hope to publish it tomorrow. I spoke personally to 4 commissioners today, and a 5th yesterday. I am optimistic.

Steve Hilde
CPW liaison, CBA board of directors.

Where can we find the CBA alternative?

 

[idahohikker]

If CO wasn’t OTC, Idaho wouldn’t be much of a fallback option because the tags would sell out immediately after opening. Idaho has caps on total statewide nonresident deer and elk tags and various zones that are minuscule compared to the number of nonresident guys who’d want to be hunting in Idaho. This would likely turn getting an Idaho general tag into the same draw process that Wyoming and Montana currently have for general tags which are OTC for residents.

 

[bz_711]

Do these options still allow a guy to build points by putting in for a point first choice, then hope to grab a tag with a 2nd choice selection?
As long as that is the case, as a NR I don't see a big problem with Option 2...just seeing what I have in the last 10 years archery hunting CO - it's clearly time to control the herds (hunter herds that is) a little...but can CPW stand to lose that revenue of the non-planners that just stroll into CO each fall and buy a tag? Even if they issue nearly the same amount of archery tags (just better spread out by GMU) there will still be a good % of lost revenue just due to the last minute guys who miss the draw. Fine with me, but lost $ for CO.
Ultimately I hope decisions are made for the betterment of elk/deer #'s and keeping a large/huntable populaiton for years to come.

 

[TexasCub]

The fact that Colorado OTC is everyone’s fall back Plan is clearly a problem. It doesn’t matter if the population of Colorado elk is 2 million, if the ever growing number of hunters in the woods just pushes all the elk to locations most can’t get to them ie....the steepest nastiest of terrain or onto private, the hunting will continue to deteriorate. It’s a wonderful warm and fuzzy opinion that people are just thankful to have the opportunity to go elk hunting but it’s not called hiking season, it’s called hunting season. People don’t spend their hard earned money and time off from work just to go hiking, and the management plans are not for the elk to not be harvested. The biggest hurdle will be can Colorado accept the fact that they will either A lose income from the non-res tag sales if they reduce or cap OTC hunts to a realistic # or B they go to draw which actually minimizes non-res hunters ability to get a tag and again losing income from tag sales there. Either way IMO what is currently going on is not sustainable and not offering a lot of hunters the experience they seek, hence the constant complaining about excess hunting pressure.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

If CO wasn’t OTC, Idaho wouldn’t be much of a fallback option because the tags would sell out immediately after opening. Idaho has caps on total statewide nonresident deer and elk tags and various zones that are minuscule compared to the number of nonresident guys who’d want to be hunting in Idaho. This would likely turn getting an Idaho general tag into the same draw process that Wyoming and Montana currently have for general tags which are OTC for residents.

I really wish Colorado would adopt the NR OTC with caps like Idaho. I also wish CO would get rid of 1st rifle season and move Muzzleloader season to those dates.

 

[MAT]

Increase the length and effectiveness of breaks to improve redistribution of wildlife to public lands

If this is the goal then they shot themselves in the foot with no changes to the ML season and allowing cow archery tags. There are 4 (5?) rifle seasons so why not 2 (or 1) archery and a separate ML season? The problem is you get these large groups that hunt during the ML season, some with ML tags if they draw and those that don't get an OTC bow tag. This pushes off whatever elk are left on public lands after the equally crowded early archery season. All the "aggressive" elk hunting videos and book don't help either.

 

[Grasshopper]

Here is our position and take on BGSS.

This is totally based on the results of our member survey.

Really weird to to be told it is a personal agenda. I am here to represent dues paying members, whether I agree with them or not. If you need a copy if our BGSS survey results let me know.

We testified against pay later....there is your point creep!
Without our testimony, you be paying point fees for pronghorn, deer, and elk.

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

Well if the CBA wins out I’ll just need to find an apartment in Co and start sweet talking the Mrs....

In all honesty, it makes sense to favor the residents, seeing as how the wildlife is held in state trust. I just hope there is a way that My selfish want to hunt there annually can be fulfilled if CPW moves away from unlimited OTC.

 

[njdoxie]

What date will CPW make decision known?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ericF]

What date will CPW make decision known?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like they will have final approval at the commission meeting in July based on the end paragraph of the proposal. They are taking comments for 30 days starting May 28'th so that is most of June so I imagine they will come into the July meeting with their recommended alternatives and they will vote on them then.

"These recommendations and alternatives will be discussed with the Commission in June, with proposed final approval of the 2020-2024 BGSS in July. A second online comment form will also be available for 30-days (starting May 28th) to allow the public to share feedback on these alternatives and recommendations. "

 

[Felix40]

I cant see how hunter pressure is as big of an issue as point creep in CO. Every year we see people but we also find areas where there is no pressure at all. If they want to limit numbers thats fine but I dont think its the main issue.

I also cant see how they can leave it so people can hunt AND get a point every single year. I would just like to see it changed to where if you buy any tag besides leftovers you burn your points. Maybe including all the OTC units in the draw is the way to get that done idk.

 

[ColoradoV]

Grasshopper I dont get on here every day or - I am not saying that your personal agenda is driving policy but the CBA has been putting out that they want to keep the otc tags at any and all cost. OR it is their agenda.... CBA has been promoting this agenda by "fake news" that no one will be able to draw, your tag allocation numbers are low, and even have put out a very leading questionnaire as it cant be called a "survey" or it is very leading and would not pass academic standards for a reliable survey. This position the CBA is shoving down out throat is against the will of just about every archery guy that I have talked with.

After looking it all over I believe option #2 is still the best for the hunter and the resource the only thing it is not best for is guys who want to hunt and build a point and from what I see... Also archery hunting wile building a point is all the CBA wants to protect and has prioritized hunting wile gaining a point over ever increasing point creep, resident opportunity, and the resource.

I understand you aging hunters want to hunt and gain a point every year but if you can look past that and at the big picture you will see that going all limited will help resident hunters, the resource, and will not hurt opportunity to hunt if you plan. Now if you are the type to head into walmart, with a chaw, looking for broadheads, as well as arrows, the night before the season, WAIT dont forget the tag - well if might have a effect on you as that is about the only type of hunter who will not figure out how to get a archery elk tag when it goes to all draw.

Vote #2

 

[5MilesBack]

With option 2........The only way to guarantee that every bowhunter gets a tag is if they actually issue as many tags as we have bowhunters. Otherwise someone will be getting the short end of the stick no matter how much planning they do. Isn't this what they are already doing with OTC tags.........everyone who actually wants a tag, gets one? So how does that change anything? It either stays the same (as far as number of tags), or there aren't enough tags to go around and doesn't work quite the way you say it will.

 

[[email protected]]

Five miles you have to use that new math that they are teaching our kids these days then you will see how no mater how many tags they cut everyone still gets a tag as long as they PLAN. It’s sorta like if you visualize it it will happen type stuff.

 

[a_noob_hunter]

Option 1 doesn't reduce hunter pressure.
Option 2 would be just about like CO's mule deer (which are great). This makes the most sense to me.
Option 3 is between 1 and 2. It's a good way to reduce the hunter pressure at the end of the month, but it will be a madhouse early in the month.

The real problem is that there are just too many hunters in relation to the number of elk. And since NRs contribute way more to funding the CPW than the Rs it will be hard for the CPW. Reducing license sales means that the CPW will have to reduce spending, or possibly cut staff.

Option 2 would be great, but very hard for the CPW to implement because it will result in less funding.

One solution could be opening up spring bear season and lion hunting. Ik it's politicaly incorrect but I feel the elk would do better. More elk = more NR (otc hunts) = more money from predator sales and more ungulates.

From what I'm gathering there isn't enough elk for all the hunters that are coming in, it won't be sustainable for too long. Why not just take out some predators. Ik bears are hard on elk calves

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

 

[vanish]

Spring bear is never coming back. The populous voted against it by a wide margin.

Archers aren't killing too many elk. We've got plenty of elk, and the CPW doesn't hardly considers archery season when it comes to population control.

The crowding issue is only a problem in the mind of hunters. They are the ones who started the discussion about too many people in the woods during archery season. However, it is a fact that there are more gun tags during archery than archery tags ( Paul N has the numbers somewhere ), so the discussion being too many archers is disingenuous. Whether you consider this a problem is up to you.