2020-24 season structure options

[ColoradoV]

Are at the link.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Policy-Planning/CPW-BGSS-Staff-Recommendations-June-2019.pdf

I am a big supporter of option #2 - a needed change for Colorado

 

[cnelk]

Im curious about #2 [I like it] but why make it a 29 day season instead of a 30 day season as it is now?

 

[bowtech3dhunter]

Option 2? Why? No OTC tag? My only concern with that is point creep. As a Colorado resident I will be very pissed if I can’t hunt elk every year because of point creep. At least now no matter what, I can buy an OTC tag and hunt for the month of September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich M]

Thanks for the link. I don't have much skin in the game - interesting read.

The idea of making the archery tags limited and having them be primary tags would change the game a bit.

As would having 2 - two-week seasons would also spread out the hunters and provide more opportunity for more folks.

Gotta manage the crowds and I guess, keep the elk on public land.

 

[cnelk]

Option 2? Why? No OTC tag?

Do you know what a DAU is? If you have to apply for a DAU, that means you have a very large area to hunt.
Similar to Wyoming 'Regions' for deer. And tag quotas would reflect the herd management objectives.

But - If I were to guess, Option 1 would be the one that is implemented.

 

[5MilesBack]

If I remember correctly, the CBA's member survey showed something like 60-70% preference for option one. That was my preference as well.

 

[MOHunter]

I like option 1. I don’t like points. Creep is an issue in the WY general areas as well. I’m just afraid in the long run it will limit opportunity, and I don’t want to sacrifice the OTC option.

If they did insist on making it limited I would prefer a random draw like NM for traditionally OTC areas.

 

[RickH]

I'm also a supporter of option 2

 

[chasewild]

Option 2? Why? No OTC tag? My only concern with that is point creep. As a Colorado resident I will be very pissed if I can’t hunt elk every year because of point creep. At least now no matter what, I can buy an OTC tag and hunt for the month of September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strong supporter of Option 2 for both ecological and hunt quality reasons. Colorado can't continue to be the dumping ground and the backup plan while our herds and residents pay the price.

SW Colorado especially. Claves at 29 per 100 cows, and guys running between units all month are both equally ridiculous.

 

[chasewild]

Are at the link.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Policy-Planning/CPW-BGSS-Staff-Recommendations-June-2019.pdf

I am a big supporter of option #2 - a needed change for Colorado

x 100

 

[Ucsdryder]

I like them in this order.

Option: 2
Option: 1
Option: 4








Option: 3

 

[Mason326]

Don't have skin in the archery game. As a wildlife biologist and typically scouting during archery, I can see some benefits they are imagining with option 3 and I like them. Putting my hunter hat on, I think I'd prefer Option 1 or status quo.

Status quo for rifle or alternative 2... I love late and early seasons. Bring on the snow baby! Keeps the ATVs and weenies at home and me in the field.

Keep pumping out the bear tags. I'm all about it. Don't care which option, as long as it forwards reducing densities in areas of conflict. Wish we could bring back spring bear (HA!).

 

[wannakillabigbull]

For archery seasons I would prefer option 1 to option 2, personally. If we want to go limited I'd prefer it to go a bit more along the lines of how WY, MT and ID do it. Not sure if that will be a popular opinion but residents of those elk states have a pretty sweet deal.

 

[chasewild]

Also, vehemently opposed to an early rifle season for elk. Jesus.

 

[elkstabber]

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.

 

[cnelk]

It should be noted that the CBA is analyzing and clarifying with the CPW now about these items.

The CBA is asking folks to wait to vote until they release their analysis

 

[[email protected]]

Seems to me most recommendations limit archery then when you look at the rifle seasons they have options that will show to be ugly for the animals ( the early bull season & later late season). Seems like what Colorado is becoming known for take from the archery hunter and give to the rifle hunter, also I see the part where they limit bear tags to only people that hold deer or elk tags for the trophy units as a failing point for our deer and elk herds in those units. I figure my outlook may catch some Flack so just for the record I am primarily a gun hunter.

 

[ChrisAU]

Also, vehemently opposed to an early rifle season for elk. Jesus.

This. None of those rifle options help herd numbers.

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

In a perfect world, I would be a Co resident and they’d have an option up there much like Idaho with caps that skew towards residents. But, since I’m not a resident, I hope Option 1 will win out. I’m not really pumped about being limited to just a bull when I make my 2020 trip, but it’s better than not going.

 

[MallardSX2]

Bring on option 2! It will actually LOWER the point creep on those big units. No more banking points from year to year if you want to hunt elk yearly.

I LOVE THIS IDEA.

It will cost the state a lot of money on OTC tags though which im sure will upset them.

I hope they do it just like they do the deer tags.