All I’m reading are Elk Numbers Down, Colorado

[rayporter]

and tag prices will go sky high to make up the difference in $$.

 

[ckleeves]

What would make more sense is to implement mandatory harvest reporting

This has got to be one of the greatest mystery’s in all of CPW’s management strategies. I don’t see how they don’t want to know exactly how many elk are being killed and what seasons, units, etc.

A smart 12 year old could design an app for it.
It’s not a costly thing to do at all in fact it’s probably cheaper then the inaccurate call survey system they use now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[orionthehunter1]

I've been saying it for years they need to go all draw with an 80/20 resident non resident split. With mandatory harvest reporting.

 

[cnelk]

and tag prices will go sky high to make up the difference in $$.

Probably not as much as you think.
Just last year the CPW made $16 million more by implementing the Qualifying License.
Now, if they go all draw, they'll get all the OTC buyers that never had to get a Qualifying License.

 

[Laelkhunter]

Yes, As you probably know, New Mexico does this. And charges a fine if you dont do it before you apply in the draw again.

It used to be that if you didn't complete the harvest report for New Mexico, you could not get a license the following year. I didn't know they will fine you too. I have been faithfully completing mine every year, and printing the confirmation receipts to hold onto.

 

[ckleeves]

If they go all draw, with a AZ or ID priced (160.00 ish non res, 60.00 ish res) qualifying license to even apply for points they would take in some serious cash. Enough to offset a 80/20 split across the board I would think. Slow down point creep at the same time. Resident cost could stand to go up a bit also I’m not opposed to that either. If the tank of gas to get up the mountain cost more then the elk tag it’s time for a increase.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[orionthehunter1]

Colorado is still super cheap for non resident elk tags they could get in line with the other states and be about 1,000 for a bull tag

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

Colorado for a still super cheap for non resident elk tags they could get in line with the other states and be about 1,000 for a bull tag

Wowh now lol be easy

 

[camelcluch]

I’m in favor of less tags. I really like the non resident otc with caps idea. The new draw units down south is laughable. 10% success for archery and that’s what is driving numbers down. They do some strange stuff here.

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

I’m in favor of less tags. I really like the non resident otc with caps idea. The new draw units down south is laughable. 10% success for archery and that’s what is driving numbers down. They do some strange stuff here.

I think the caps idea would be great just like bear tags.

 

[MichaelO]

Why is there so much backlash against mandatory harvest reporting?

How else is a state supposed to scientifically manage the resource?

 

[RCB]

CPW’s published estimated post-hunt population of elk in all of Colorado went up from about 276k in 2015 to 287k in 2018. Up 3 years in a row. Didn’t look prior to that. I’m sure it’s gone down in some regions though. And of course they could be wrong. Will be interesting to see what they say for post hunt 2019.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I would take those numbers with a grain of salt especially if you saw the formula and method on how they get those numbers. Most of it is nothing but a WAG.

 

[MOSO 300]

When states go to 'all draw', I would hope it favors Residents over NR

It’s very apparent from many of your other posts you have a personal issue with non residents. That’s totally ok, your right to do so. One might remember that as a whole we are a minority across the country. Take Colorado in 2019, a simply google search (non scientific) shows 38 mil of federal/state grant and loans that funded 16% of CPW budget. 49 other NR states pay taxes to help manage those lands. Regardless of a persons own views of your animals, my animals, our animals (that has been absolutely beat to death), the fact does remain that if you alienate NR to the degree you want the hunting heritage will decline. That is a slippery slope when it comes to the willingness of NR’s to continue giving financial support. Once that goes politicians will start the privatization of federal lands. Why would I keep paying taxes for something that I rarely if ever get to use. To be clear I hope that day never comes. But you might want to be careful what your asking for, bc you just might get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RCB]

I would take those numbers with a grain of salt especially if you saw the formula and method on how they get those numbers. Most of it is nothing but a WAG.

Sure. But the same could be said for any articles OP has read about elk decline, no? If CPW’s estimates are suspect, seems to me anything could be suspect.

 

[HunterJoeMI]

In today's age of easy info gathering there is no reason a state does not have mandatory reporting. A simple app or survey could be used. Required info in drop down boxes - unit hunted, dates hunted in unit, animals killed, specifics about animal killed, number of animals seen and sex. You can do a survey monkey in 5 minutes that could get all this info and one 16 year old kid and a lap top could spit out the total numbers in minutes. Put a restriction on the next years license and it would enforce compliance.

 

[cnelk]

It’s very apparent from many of your other posts you have a personal issue with non residents. That’s totally ok, your right to do so. One might remember that as a whole we are a minority across the country. Take Colorado in 2019, a simply google search (non scientific) shows 38 mil of federal/state grant and loans that funded 16% of CPW budget. 49 other NR states pay taxes to help manage those lands. Regardless of a persons own views of your animals, my animals, our animals (that has been absolutely beat to death), the fact does remain that if you alienate NR to the degree you want the hunting heritage will decline. That is a slippery slope when it comes to the willingness of NR’s to continue giving financial support. Once that goes politicians will start the privatization of federal lands. Why would I keep paying taxes for something that I rarely if ever get to use. To be clear I hope that day never comes. But you might want to be careful what your asking for, bc you just might get it.

^^^ Does your state favor Residents over NonRes? I bet it does

 

[cnelk]

It’s very apparent from many of your other posts you have a personal issue with non residents. That’s totally ok, your right to do so. One might remember that as a whole we are a minority across the country. Take Colorado in 2019, a simply google search (non scientific) shows 38 mil of federal/state grant and loans that funded 16% of CPW budget. 49 other NR states pay taxes to help manage those lands. Regardless of a persons own views of your animals, my animals, our animals (that has been absolutely beat to death), the fact does remain that if you alienate NR to the degree you want the hunting heritage will decline. That is a slippery slope when it comes to the willingness of NR’s to continue giving financial support. Once that goes politicians will start the privatization of federal lands. Why would I keep paying taxes for something that I rarely if ever get to use. To be clear I hope that day never comes. But you might want to be careful what your asking for, bc you just might get it.

BTW - I hunt elk every year with NonResidents friends.
So your statement is untrue

Do you hunt with NonResidents every year?

 

[LandYacht]

don't need more data? I guess you are right if you are ok with knee jerk management. sounds like they need a lot more data, to know why they are dying. knowing how many hunters kill is important to know.

knowing elk are dying isn't enough data to make any impactful decisions, they need to know why, so they can address that.

without more data, what do you expect them to do? it's like taking your rig to a mechanic, and he just starts throwing parts at it without doing any diagnostics..... are you ok paying for all of those parts, and then not even getting your rig fixed?

Your analogy isn’t applicable.

Keep collecting data if you wish, but limiting the number of hunters is a tangible statistic. It isn’t the only tool, nor should it be the only one applied. A hunter survey is only as accurate as the information supplied by hunters. Even if it is required you still have the potential for junk in resulting in junk coming out.

They’ve got enough data to limit the number of hunters. Now they will be able to determine one of the variables that until now wasn’t possible.

Sadly we are the variable that can be measured.

A more apt analogy would be your car tire losing air. You know where one of those holes that the air is escaping from, so you control that and then measure the level of air in your tire and see what has happened.

You can keep measuring the air escaping from the tire if you want, but soon you won’t have anymore air as you continually try to catch the escaping air.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[orionthehunter1]

How do you figure they don't know how many people are hunting an OTC unit. At best they survey 30% of tag holders so they are guessing on 70% of their hunter data.