2020-24 season structure options

[Okbow87]

I like option 1 for the archery hunts. It at least gives them a little control over what is being harvested with OTC tags.

I still don't understand why they don't just do OTC with caps and sex specific tags by DAU. That way they can actually control how many tags are used in an area and be able to use them to manage the herds appropriately. Make them go on sale after the draw results come out so guys can still have a fall back plan after they don't pull a LE tag.

For the rifle hunts I prefer the status quo without some further explanation on the early rifle elk hunt. Is that for LE units only, OTC 2nd and 3rd units that are LE already for 1st and 4th, or every single elk unit in the state west of I-25???

I also don't really care for the 5 day seasons for deer. That is going to cause some serious crowding in the units, and a decent storm system could easily turn that 5 day season into a 1 or 2 day season. Not a fan of that option.

 

[gretch6364]

The only thing that is going to fix Colorado is better support of its residents, less NR OTC and less rifle tags.

What stinks is, Colorado has the biggest herds and the most elk habitat, but the least chance for good hunting on trophy elk. As someone else said, it is a dumping ground. Triple the price of resident tags and make CO as hard to draw as a NR as all the other western states with good elk populations (not counting Nevada and Arizona).

If you live in Ohio, that was your choice. Hunt deer and whatever else is there.

 

[elkocd]

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

Just because they make all the units a draw does not mean there would be less tags. It could/should just mean they will be able to control the number of hunters in each unit rather than allowing the OTC hunters to all pack in where they please. Even tho I'm not a fan of preference points I do think OR should also go to something like this since they already have a problem with them like CO. Guys could still hunt ever year, they would just have to choose where beforehand. Many units could be drawn with zero points and many could be drawn as 2nd or 3rd choice. Leftovers would be sold first come just like an OTC tag. They would just be limited by unit.

 

[sndmn11]

I still don't understand why they don't just do OTC with caps and sex specific tags by DAU. That way they can actually control how many tags are used in an area and be able to use them to manage the herds appropriately. Make them go on sale after the draw results come out so guys can still have a fall back plan after they don't pull a LE tag.

I am right there with you, it seems obvious to me. I have also never really understood why there are two OTC rifle seasons.

I like option 3 for rifle, I think only third season should be OTC and the longer of the four, and option 2 for archery provided the archery tags available fall in line with the typical numbers of estimated hunters for each DAU.

I don't know what the intention is for having two Bear September seasons.

I like letting Moose license holders hunt multiple seasons.

I like the longer seasons for Pronghorn.

 

[cnelk]

I still don't understand why they don't just do OTC with caps and sex specific tags by DAU. That way they can actually control how many tags are used in an area and be able to use them to manage the herds appropriately. Make them go on sale after the draw results come out so guys can still have a fall back plan after they don't pull a LE tag.

Remember - starting next year, leftover licenses will be issued thru a DRAW or RE-Issue. No more 'going on sale'

 

[cnelk]

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

At least the so-called 'Quiet Time' is now fair game.
Thats a step in the right direction

Plus, just think of all the high PP holders that will swallow that up!

 

[chasewild]

At least the so-called 'Quiet Time' is now fair game.
Thats a step in the right direction

Plus, just think of all the high PP holders that will swallow that up!

What! No! As if it weren't hard enough to find early season bulls before #teamPhelps shows up in force.

 

[5MilesBack]

I've seen more trophy caliber bulls while hunting in the last 10 years than the previous 30 years combined........from both draw units and OTC. It's a great time to be hunting elk in CO.

 

[elkduds]

It appears alternatives 1 & 2 could yield B list archery cow tags. I would take advantage of that option, and use my A tag during another season.

 

[5MilesBack]

It appears alternatives 1 & 2 could yield B list archery cow tags. I would take advantage of that option, and use my A tag during another season.

I wouldn't trade hunting bulls during archery for anything. I'd use the B cow tag for a late season cow shoot.

 

[elkduds]

I wouldn't trade hunting bulls during archery for anything. I'd use the B cow tag for a late season cow shoot.

Good, more B tags for me! Not writing to convince 5Miles or anyone to do what I prefer, which is calling bulls during archery season, w a cow tag in my pocket. I'd rather have up-close photos and videos of drooling bulls, w a yearling cow in the freezer. So I won't be competing for the A list antlered archery tags, however I will be living the dream if they offer B list archery draw cow tags.

 

[njdoxie]

Got no skin in the archery/muzzleloader game. Most important to me is keeping 2nd rifle OTC and 9 days in length, so I would favor Alternative 1 which is status quo, or secondarily Alternative 3 which keeps 2nd rifle at 9 days while 1st, 3rd, and 4th seasons would be 5 days. Yes I hate the crowding, but if I have to pay that price to hunt elk every year then so be it, I want a guarantee to rifle hunt elk every year, preferably for more than 5 days.

Before people start crying when a decision is made, they should understand that there is no one right answer, it’s utterly impossible to please everyone. Whatever the decision is, some will characterize it as stupid, ignorant, money grab, bad for res, bad for nonres, bad for elk, etc..King Solomon himself couldn’t decide this without withering criticism, just the way life is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

 

[ColoradoV]

Thanks for your time Steve.

With that said I do not agree with you assessment of points and I see what you wrote as a scare tactic is being used by CBA in order to keep otc tags at any and all cost for personal reasons. Again otc archery tags need to go the way of the dodo and if you cant get a tag if elk archery goes draw (after the first draw, second draw, and leftovers, wait I forgot the returned licenses) the fault lies with you not the allocation or draw.

What you stated as the "CBA rep" above is that it will take years to shake out the preference points and IMO the truth is opposite will happen as yes going to draw only is the only way to slow down point creep as literally thousands of guys hunting and getting a point is helping lol. Going all draw and limiting nr hunters to tops 35% of licenses is the only way to slow point creep and worked just fine w deer not sure why the CBA cant see this. Pry short sited personal agendas getting in the way.

Many many hunters are saying that it is too crowded in the woods CBA again ignores this and is making its own option #5 after the fact? Not the best strategy for making headway with the CPW and I doubt will get traction. Steve if you have been around the CPW long you know that they have already made their decision and these options are just fell good for us to talk about...

Also one last question will your 5th option do anything at all for the resident hunter? We all know that the CPW HATES RESIDENT HUNTERS - why? Our percentage of non res to res hunter is so out of wack in colorado it is laughable. CBA has been totally silent on giving the resident hunter the percentage of licenses that was written into law to be allocated - so will your 5th option go limited for NR as to get more in line with other western states. Still leave the residents otc but make the nr put in for a license - that would help a lot but somewhere the CBA will not go... So due to this thinking again option #2

Or when I look at it all again yea option #2 is by far the best for all hunters and the only close to "fair" option for resident hunters.

Thanks again for your time.

 

[khunter]

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

no, you cant currently hunt month of Sept. always being able to hunt last week in Sept would be awesome I think. Cant fathom much in way of tag limitations in the all drW scenario. ut maybe they would get unit 62 and a few others a little less over crowded in an all limited situation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MOHunter]

Thanks for your time Steve.

With that said I do not agree with you assessment of points and I see what you wrote as a scare tactic is being used by CBA in order to keep otc tags at any and all cost for personal reasons. Again otc archery tags need to go the way of the dodo and if you cant get a tag if elk archery goes draw (after the first draw, second draw, and leftovers, wait I forgot the returned licenses) the fault lies with you not the allocation or draw.

What you stated as the "CBA rep" above is that it will take years to shake out the preference points and IMO the truth is opposite will happen as yes going to draw only is the only way to slow down point creep as literally thousands of guys hunting and getting a point is helping lol. Going all draw and limiting nr hunters to tops 35% of licenses is the only way to slow point creep and worked just fine w deer not sure why the CBA cant see this. Pry short sited personal agendas getting in the way.

Many many hunters are saying that it is too crowded in the woods CBA again ignores this and is making its own option #5 after the fact? Not the best strategy for making headway with the CPW and I doubt will get traction. Steve if you have been around the CPW long you know that they have already made their decision and these options are just fell good for us to talk about...

Also one last question will your 5th option do anything at all for the resident hunter? We all know that the CPW HATES RESIDENT HUNTERS - why? Our percentage of non res to res hunter is so out of wack in colorado it is laughable. CBA has been totally silent on giving the resident hunter the percentage of licenses that was written into law to be allocated - so will your 5th option go limited for NR as to get more in line with other western states. Still leave the residents otc but make the nr put in for a license - that would help a lot but somewhere the CBA will not go... So due to this thinking again option #2

Or when I look at it all again yea option #2 is by far the best for all hunters and the only close to "fair" option for resident hunters.

Thanks again for your time.

I agree with Steve on the point creep. Making everything limited will just push higher point holders to traditionally easier to draw units, in the short run. In the long run, it will become an increasing point situation for even the “easy” tags. Look at the WY general elk tag. They take a couple points now. The MT pseudo-OTC general tag now requires application in the draw. It’s much more difficult to get a tag as a backup plan.

Going all limited will her hunter recruitment in the long run, especially if it’s a point situation rather than random draw.

 

[5MilesBack]

Again otc archery tags need to go the way of the dodo and if you cant get a tag if elk archery goes draw (after the first draw, second draw, and leftovers, wait I forgot the returned licenses) the fault lies with you not the allocation or draw.

So you're saying that even if we have 45k bowhunters right now, going all draw will ensure that every one of those will still get a tag through whatever process, or it's the individual's fault? That would imply that there would actually still be 45k tags allocated. How would that change anything?

And you tell Steve that it's a personal agenda. Of course it is........for every single hunter out there. Personal to what works best for them. There are only a few units throughout the state that I would ever use points on. So for me, going all draw doesn't change that. I'd still be putting in for the unit I want, and pretty sure most the guys I know would still do the same..........especially those with a whole lot of points. That's not going to change. Sure, you see someone dump 16+ points on a 2 point unit almost every year, but those are few and far between compared to the number of guys with a lot of points. If anything, going all draw would continue to raise the point creep in the top-tier, mid-tier, and just under mid-tier units. A few of the guys chasing the top-tiers will give up and then put in for the mid-tiers (increasing point creep in those units), and then a few of the guys chasing mid-tier units will give up and then put in for those units just below mid-tier.........and so on. But the majority will continue to chase the unit they want.

 

[MallardSX2]

Bottom line is that the days of building points and hunting OTC tags will hopefully be over. People will be forced to use their points or not hunt. Either way, its great for someone who only hunts out there every 3-5 years. It will drastically reduce the preference point holders and take care of those high point holders real quick if they want to continue hunting Colorado.

If they choose not to draw and burn their points, it will certainly make the area I have hunted in the past better because 50% of the people hunting there use the area as a fall back plan in case they dont draw.

Its really a win win for everyone except for the guys who 100% have to hunt every year OTC as a fallback plan.

If you are hunting OTC every year in the same unit then really this whole discussion doesn't even apply to you unless the LE tags get slighted in that unit/area.

For someone who wants to hunt and has hunted every season for 25 years while building points, they will have to shit or get off the pot. Even if those max point holders take the majority of the tags the first year, then so be it. Even if it takes 2 years to clear them out of the Cue I'm cool with that. But you will start seeing better areas more obtainable in the near future if they force people to burn their points for tags.

Guys who only plan to hunt Colorado every 3-5 years will be in the drivers seat for sure in the future.

Bring option #2 and force people to burn their points if they plan on hunting Colorado please.

On another note: Anyone who puts in for 25 + years for preference points for Elk to bow-hunt the tag in my opinion is out of their mind.

 

[ColoradoV]

5 mile I know it is personal agenda for the outfitters, ranchers, other special interest groups, myself - and the cba. I just do not agree w his assessment on allocation of tags or point creep in the long term. I have not looked at the numbers but I believe they give over 1000+ archery tags just on some of the flat tops units right now add in the changes in the gunny basin and has to be about 2000 tags.. There will a many more than 6300 ish archery tags allocated state wide.. Or guys like you and me will still be archery hunting every year if we choose to.

Making a option #5 is interesting maybe they can do better but at this point and after the options are put out again I believe the cpw already has its path..

Also I guess I feel in this process that the resident hunter should at least get some consideration and I have seen very little. Not even the updating of 65-35 units to 80-20 units as promised. Funny but in this process it seems that many personal agendas far outweigh others.....

 

[timekiller13]

As non-resident who has hunted OTC Colorado a couple times, I do really like the option of OTC tags, knowing that I have a guaranteed chance to hunt elk every year. That being said. I am a supporter of option 2. I totally understand the benefits of limiting the number of hunters. It's not just the number of elk that are killed, but the increased number of people in the field changes movement patterns and increases stress on animals. Since option 2 is suggesting using DAUs instead of GMUs for hunt codes, I think that may help with point creep. I could be wrong and may have to eat crow in 4-5 years if this option passes.