All I’m reading are Elk Numbers Down, Colorado

[Kurtisb1994]

Well that's disconcerting

 

[String&stick]

It doesn't matter if you care to support it with your tax dollars, your tax dollars will still support it as we don't get to tell the government what to spend our tax dollars on. I don't think it's alienating NR, but to compare western tags to hunting back east is the wrong tact. There are millions of whitetails back east, Mississippi has 1.75 million or so alone. Colorado has the biggest elk herd and it's under 300k. It's apples to oranges. Elk and mule deer are finite resources with much lower population numbers. Something has to give and states should prioritize residents over nonresidents in any decision, be it hunting, hiking, wilderness permits etc etc.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You could limit wilderness access to non residents for hunting, or fishing, but not hiking. And you cannot discriminate against nonresidents in regard to their access to federal lands, because they are not your states lands. Your state has the same ownership as the rest of the country, therefore you cannot grant residents a preferential status for hiking, or biking, or anything unless it is on state land.

The rest of you points. . . Yea Colorado should go 85-15 or 90-10 on tags, and they should also work to produce quality not quantity.

I live in an "opportunity" state and it's infuriating to talk to the game and parks about small tweaks that could really help quality because they just don't care!

 

[cnelk]

I pulled this from another site - its a CPW statement


"Thank you for contacting Colorado Parks and Wildlife. I see you are inquiring about the SW units and OTC.

The decision was made by the P&W Commission last week to create limited, sex-specific (limited bull/limited cow) licenses for archery elk hunting in E-16, E-24, E-30, and E-31. This includes the following GMUs: 444, 44, 45, 47, 70, 71, 72, 73, 711, 74, 741, 75, 751, 77, 771, and 78. This will go into effect this year.

This is because over the last several years the elk population in SW Colorado has been dwindling. Staff is currently working to understand why the population is getting smaller and push back from Colorado constituents have resulted in limited elk licenses for this area until we can understand what is going on.

One of the first questions you might ask is if we are limiting OTC either sex archery licenses for the SW, why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate. Often one male/bull can mate with a harem of cows (20+) to keep the population going. However, OTC antlered bull rifle licenses for this area may happen in the future. You are also probably curious as to how many preference points will it take to draw a license for your unit. Unfortunately, we can not answer this because these will be new hunt codes. No one has ever applied for these hunt codes before, therefore, we do not have historical draw data to review. Therefore, the minimum preference points required to draw these new limited licenses will be determined by the number of applicants and the number of preference points those applicants hold."

 

[MallardSX2]

I pulled this from another site - its a CPW statement

One of the first questions you might ask is if we are limiting OTC either sex archery licenses for the SW, why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate. Often one male/bull can mate with a harem of cows (20+) to keep the population....

This sound like the same response the state of Georgia gave me in regards to the declining turkey population. And they are not allowed to shoot hens here and there is no fall season. The reality is that people and predators are killing off so many gobblers that the hens are having a hard time being bred. You can have all the cows in the world but if you dont have bulls to support the breeding then they will go unbred. Hunters are in denial but they will see the facts when the study concludes in another year. TO boost the population of any game species we must take a good hard look at the ultimate predator, which is hunters.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

However, OTC antlered bull rifle licenses for this area may happen in the future.

I'm assuming this is a typo and was meant to say "Limited antlered bull rifle licenses for this area may happen in the future." ?

If the Elk numbers don't recover very quickly, or if there is a big increase in OTC rifle hunters for these areas as a result of the new limited archery seasons then I could see all Elk seasons going limited within a few years. How many archery hunters would switch to OTC rifle (in order to not travel farther or learn a new area) versus changing units and hunting archery elsewhere?

 

[Lowndes]

I really wish we could move to a system that separated hunting dollars as being such a major factor in wildlife management. I'm an outsider but there seems to be a lot of poor decisions made just because these agencies are favoring the dollar over what is best for the animals. But you try to get the non-hunting community to throw in for the management of these animals that they so dearly love and they throw a fit...

 

[cnelk]

Occam's razor

"the problem-solving principle that states that "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."

 

[MOSO 300]

Ahhh, so you're an insurance agent, that explains a lot. You make a living off of selling people something they'll most likely never use, then penalizing them if they have to. Also, you didn't mention anywhere in your initial post anything about selling off public lands or garnering support for those. You tied that in after being responded to. I can't read your mind and yet you think we're all supposed to just know that's what you were getting at. If the Feds want to sell off the land they'll find a way, and the friction between all the outdoor groups means there won't be a concerted effort to stop it. We just get annoyed when NR try to tell us how to manage our states. Take care of your state, we'll take care of ours. Big deal that ranchers pay pennies to graze public land. Mining and oil companies pay as well. You should be thankful that you can hunt other states, instead of thinking they should do it your way. The same arguments come up every time license prices change or tag numbers get changed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Actually my first comment was about we as hunters are a minority across the US and that we collectively need to be united not divided. We shouldn’t alienate each other based on state bc it weakens our ability to push back. Your understanding of insurance is astounding but I do appreciate you pigeon holing me and proving my point for me! Best of luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MOSO 300]

I really wish we could move to a system that separated hunting dollars as being such a major factor in wildlife management. I'm an outsider but there seems to be a lot of poor decisions made just because these agencies are favoring the dollar over what is best for the animals. But you try to get the non-hunting community to throw in for the management of these animals that they so dearly love and they throw a fit...

Don’t quote me on this but didn’t idaho try and vote in a 1/8 sales tax that replicated the one from Missouri and it was narrowly defeated?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chindits]

The Colorado governor has already proposed a change to CPW funding. I am sure if it changes from enterprise funding to capital funding, hunter opinions will be much less significant and we will have much more to complain about.

Well at least hunters aren’t stocking like the fishing crowd but for the cost of a fishing license they sure get their money’s worth.

 

[sndmn11]

I pulled this from another site - its a CPW statement

One of the first questions you might ask is if we are limiting OTC either sex archery licenses for the SW, why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate. Often one male/bull can mate with a harem of cows (20+) to keep the population going.

I had one of the commissioners come by to pick up an order and drop off a repair, and I asked about the SW Colorado elk change. This commissioner told me basically the same as above, and also mentioned the pressure archers put on the elk was big factor and not harvest numbers or success rates for archery. I asked if OTC bull rifle tags also put pressure on the elk even though success rates might be similar and the answer was yes but that the expectation was for prior seasons to have run the majority elk off of public land so the effect wouldn't be too much. This commissioner told me that the model they are following is how 12, 23, 24, and 33 are.

 

[Ihunt4food]

I am of course a non resident of my favorite hunting place, Colorado.
I am all in that residents should have preference over non resident when
It comes to the wild resources of Colorado. However I am a hunter
And plan on returning every opportunity I have. I am bothered though
By the fact that I have hunted Colorado numerous years and you always
Hear contact the local CDOW office about local game information.
I can say I have contacted the local office in Northern Colorado
No less than 5 times in the last 8 years and left a message for someone
Anyone to contact me about questions I had. To this date I
Have yet to be contacted by anyone in that agency.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Don't feel bad they rarely call back residents either

 

[lyingflatlander]

It’s been a couple years since I hunted Colorado but I’m one of those Nonresident idiot high preference holders chasing a dream. I’ve previously hunted otc on multiple occasions and can understand both viewpoints. I respect cnelk’s viewpoints as a resident hunter and major contributor to this forum. What I haven’t read is anything on the 2011 merger of CDOW that always ran with a surplus in the millions, with Colorado State Parks which always ran a deficit in the millions. Maybe it’s a mute point but I think it’s valid to add to this thread. My friends we’re taking it in the chops from the bureaucracy of yesteryear. Colorado’s political stewpot is boiling over and all of us hunters are the ones paying the difference. Hence everyone’s anger of overcrowding of our public lands with CPW’s open door policy to hedge the State Parks running deficit. Now the Denver idiots want to add wolves to the landscape? Who do you think is going to ultimately pay for those programs? I see prices going up and demand falling down in the next few years. God forbid they exponentially jack the rates on a park sticker.

 

[camelcluch]

I don’t have the numbers exactly but I believe there about 500,000 elk around 2000. There are 300,000 now. So, the fact of how many elk historically is not a great argument.
I do find it interesting that Colorado pulls this much ownership from the rest of the country. I also hunt out of state. I have hunted or still hunt in California, Kansas, Arizona, Nebraska, Nevada, Idaho, and Wisconsin. Kansas will get $600 of mine for a DEER tag. I pay that happily and believe that I should pay more and have opportunity after residents. Iowa is no joke to draw as a non resident. For me it’s more about the miss management of the hunting not the non residents.