CO bowhunting changes on the way

[tdhanses]

So with the new change these Archery draw tags in all these units will now be bull only?

Also, for the rifle cow draw only tags can’t they easily just reduce the allocations to zero so no tags are available but not remove them so they are easier to bring back later without having to vote on it?

 

[Elktaco]

Why would they do away with antler restrictions cnelk?

 

[3forks]

Why would they do away with antler restrictions cnelk?

I don’t want to speak for Cnelk, but if you make spikes legal, you’ll have less cows taken (in theory).

 

[cnelk]

Why would they do away with antler restrictions cnelk?

Why not? If the CPW et al want to have more Limited units, make them like the other 29 Limited units west of I25 that dont have antler restrictions.
It wouldnt be anything new.

 

[5MilesBack]

I'd actually rather see them go to all draw for elk......archery and all the rifle seasons state wide......rather than cluster this thing out there like it's supposed to help anything.

It's pretty easy to see now that the CBA has very little impact on the game commission. I wonder what other lobbies were involved with this change???? Obviously someone was pushing for it to be written this way. Otherwise going to draw for archery and rifle made a lot more sense.

 

[sndmn11]

Why would they do away with antler restrictions cnelk?

If you are after a higher age class of animals, allowing some of the younger ones to be cleared out instead of the middle aged ones gives the middle aged ones a chance to be old ones. Chicken or egg, but all of the high point units have no restrictions for antler points.

 

[gsimmons2]

Colorado has long been the state that was open to non-residents. Don't like it? Maybe you should not be residing in a state where one of the main economic drivers is tourism.

Colorado took the path of providing opportunity over quality years ago. I don't see at all where they are bending over backwards. Not asking them to. I think changes needed to be made, not sure if limited archery is the best. Probably a game check would have helped from a management perspective. I'm curious why they didn't make these changes in Sept. when they were doing the 5 year structure?

For anyone upset about non-resident Invaders, I hope you remember how much money that pumps into your game depart every year. Wildlife offices are funded by tag sales. National Forest is funded from the federal government. So with non-resident tags costing more than 10x that of a resident and the public ground being federally owned, what ownership does a resident have in it? Definitely some. But unless it's state owned land this is land that belongs to all of us. And the animals are managed by the states, but look at how much of Colorado's tag money is coming from out of state rather than the residents.

The same ones complaining now will be the same complaining when this terrible plan shows it's true colors. NR are what makes Colorado a thriving state economically (along w/ recent legalization of marijuana), but here we have residents complaining because they can't kill an elk in their back yard. Mainly because they aren't willing to put in the work.

 

[COLOelkman]

"Exactly........223 cow tags is not going to make a big impact over that large of an area. They need to restrict ALL tags to make an impact. And 44, 45, 47, and 444 didn't even have any cow tags or either sex tags for archery last year, and they're still changing those to all draw for bulls while leaving 2nd and 3rd rifle as unlimited OTC. "
I agree 5Miles . To clarify, these new limited tags will also have limited cow tags like before, so they've merely eliminated the Either Sex tag so they can more accurately control the number of cow tags. I also agree that limiting bow cow tags is not really doing much relative to the overall problem of retaining more cows since most are taken during rifle. A guy from CBA said his opinion was that this was to please rifle hunters so they now can't say that bow hunters have a better deal in that they can shoot either sex. Unfortunately the rifle hunters can take their OTC bull tag and go to many other units but now the bowhunters don't have that option. So they really don't recognize/acknowledge that this new rule will be a significant negative to some bow hunters. I think it mostly hurts CO bowhunters as we can hunt for 4 weeks so having flexibility to go to other OTC units was very beneficial. NR hunters may typically stay put in 1 unit and hunt their whole stay in that unit since I'd guess most do not come out for the full season. I realize this is a generalization and always some exceptions but as a hunter that often hunts 2-4 different units, it will sure impact how I can now hunt. I'm fearful the worst part will be that many hunter that hunted these units will now be hunting elsewhere so they are not stuck in a subpar unit and other units will now be far more crowded. If this happens, out only option is to really voice our opposition after next year, as a large group to this change.

 

[tdhanses]

"Exactly........223 cow tags is not going to make a big impact over that large of an area. They need to restrict ALL tags to make an impact. And 44, 45, 47, and 444 didn't even have any cow tags or either sex tags for archery last year, and they're still changing those to all draw for bulls while leaving 2nd and 3rd rifle as unlimited OTC. "
I agree 5Miles . To clarify, these new limited tags will also have limited cow tags like before, so they've merely eliminated the Either Sex tag so they can more accurately control the number of cow tags. I also agree that limiting bow cow tags is not really doing much relative to the overall problem of retaining more cows since most are taken during rifle. A guy from CBA said his opinion was that this was to please rifle hunters so they now can't say that bow hunters have a better deal in that they can shoot either sex. Unfortunately the rifle hunters can take their OTC bull tag and go to many other units but now the bowhunters don't have that option. So they really don't recognize/acknowledge that this new rule will be a significant negative to some bow hunters. I think it mostly hurts CO bowhunters as we can hunt for 4 weeks so having flexibility to go to other OTC units was very beneficial. NR hunters may typically stay put in 1 unit and hunt their whole stay in that unit since I'd guess most do not come out for the full season. I realize this is a generalization and always some exceptions but as a hunter that often hunts 2-4 different units, it will sure impact how I can now hunt. I'm fearful the worst part will be that many hunter that hunted these units will now be hunting elsewhere so they are not stuck in a subpar unit and other units will now be far more crowded. If this happens, out only option is to really voice our opposition after next year, as a large group to this change.

I know a few NR’s that hunt the entire archery season, they hunt or should I say camp for 2 weeks then go hunt a private ranch the last 2 weeks in a different unit, they’ve been doing this for 20+ years, this change really doesn’t effect them as they never seriously hunted the public and the private is still in an otc unit.

 

[COLOelkman]

So with the new change these Archery draw tags in all these units will now be bull only?

Also, for the rifle cow draw only tags can’t they easily just reduce the allocations to zero so no tags are available but not remove them so they are easier to bring back later without having to vote on it?

There will be either bull only or cow only in these new limited entry units.

They can now reduce allocation for all hunt types archery, muzzleloader and rifle. Before they could only control rifle and muzzy which they have cut back significantly. So to me, changing the archery will have minimal impact on overall cow harvest and will simply result in overcrowding on other units assuming many people may seek out other OTC units, imo.

 

[COLOelkman]

I know a few NR’s that hunt the entire archery season, they hunt or should I say camp for 2 weeks then go hunt a private ranch the last 2 weeks in a different unit, they’ve been doing this for 20+ years, this change really doesn’t effect them as they never seriously hunted the public and the private is still in an otc unit.

As stated this was a generalization as most of the NR's where I hunt typically hunt for 7-10 days but there are some that stay longer.

 

[tdhanses]

There will be either bull only or cow only in these new limited entry units.

They can now reduce allocation for all hunt types archery, muzzleloader and rifle. Before they could only control rifle and muzzy which they have cut back significantly. So to me, changing the archery will have minimal impact on overall cow harvest and will simply result in overcrowding on other units assuming many people may seek out other OTC units, imo.

Why is this bad? Doesn’t it give them more of an ability to control tag allocations now, without having to vote on it? So they can reduce them to 0 for a few years and start to increase them as the populations grow? Also make one wonder if this isn’t the slow progression for all tags no matter the weapon type or unit, kind of a look into the future.

 

[tdhanses]

As stated this was a generalization as most of the NR's where I hunt typically hunt for 7-10 days but there are some that stay longer.

Oh I know I’m just jealous of you residents and the NR that get to

 

[GrumpyHiker]

Colorado has long been the state that was open to non-residents. Don't like it? Maybe you should not be residing in a state where one of the main economic drivers is tourism.

Colorado took the path of providing opportunity over quality years ago. I don't see at all where they are bending over backwards. Not asking them to. I think changes needed to be made, not sure if limited archery is the best. Probably a game check would have helped from a management perspective. I'm curious why they didn't make these changes in Sept. when they were doing the 5 year structure?

For anyone upset about non-resident Invaders, I hope you remember how much money that pumps into your game depart every year. Wildlife offices are funded by tag sales. National Forest is funded from the federal government. So with non-resident tags costing more than 10x that of a resident and the public ground being federally owned, what ownership does a resident have in it? Definitely some. But unless it's state owned land this is land that belongs to all of us. And the animals are managed by the states, but look at how much of Colorado's tag money is coming from out of state rather than the residents.

I'm not against NR hunters but I am against unlimited, mostly unfettered NRs (and even R to some degree), especially when CPW has no clue as to how many animals are being taken. CPW could probably use some budget cuts anyway, they're squandering it if they can't even implement a mandatory harvest report. Its asinine to allow unlimited tags, no reporting, and call that management..."if you can't measure it, you can't manage it".

I will say NR have an overly-inflated view of their worth to the state. Sure you pay a lot more and it is acknowledged...thanks! If most every other state can get along without unlimited NR tags, I'm sure CO can find a way too. I can assure you the state isn't gonna dry up and die if a couple thousand less out-of-state hunters don't come through. Skiing, fishing, tourism, MJ, bring more to the local economies than hunters that seclude themselves in the wilderness for a week with a cooler full of food from home. Maybe if you all dropped your wives off in-town? Also, as residents, we'd like to say "your welcome" for our taxes maintaining all the roads, bridges, etc that allow NR's access into the public lands...these arguments can get really petty.

 

[tdhanses]

I'm not against NR hunters but I am against unlimited, mostly unfettered NRs (and even R to some degree), especially when CPW has no clue as to how many animals are being taken. CPW could probably use some budget cuts anyway, they're squandering it if they can't even implement a mandatory harvest report. Its asinine to allow unlimited tags, no reporting, and call that management..."if you can't measure it, you can't manage it".

I will say NR have an overly-inflated view of their worth to the state. Sure you pay a lot more and it is acknowledged...thanks! If most every other state can get along without unlimited NR tags, I'm sure CO can find a way too. I can assure you the state isn't gonna dry up and die if a couple thousand less out-of-state hunters don't come through. Skiing, fishing, tourism, MJ, bring more to the local economies than hunters that seclude themselves in the wilderness for a week with a cooler full of food from home. Maybe if you all dropped your wives off in-town? Also, as residents, we'd like to say "your welcome" for our taxes maintaining all the roads, bridges, etc that allow NR's access into the public lands...these arguments can get really petty.

I will say this, it shocks me how low taxes are in CO, I laugh at what my parents complain about for paying taxes, you residents have it good that’s for sure. Heck my tax bill on raw mountain land there is dirt cheap.

I do agree that the unlimited model is unsustainable and both R and NR’s will have to adapt. R will have to possibly become NR’s if they want to hunt elk every year at some point. CO I’m sure will increase tag costs for the NR but they better improve what they have to offer to get it. Currently CO is the Walmart of hunting, lol and CPW is to blame for that.

 

[cnelk]

^^^ go ahead and make some improvements on that raw land see what taxes are really like

 

[tdhanses]

^^^ go ahead and make some improvements on that raw land see what taxes are really like

I have as my parents built on theirs about 10 years ago, why I laugh when they complain, yes it’ll increase 10 fold from the raw but CO property taxes are low compared to what I pay in KS for a developed property of equal value.

Sales taxes are also super low. CO residents are lucky, yeah housing is expensive but with the reduced taxes it really isn’t that bad for cost of living there.

 

[Billy Goat]

I'm not against NR hunters but I am against unlimited, mostly unfettered NRs (and even R to some degree), especially when CPW has no clue as to how many animals are being taken. CPW could probably use some budget cuts anyway, they're squandering it if they can't even implement a mandatory harvest report. Its asinine to allow unlimited tags, no reporting, and call that management..."if you can't measure it, you can't manage it".

I will say NR have an overly-inflated view of their worth to the state. Sure you pay a lot more and it is acknowledged...thanks! If most every other state can get along without unlimited NR tags, I'm sure CO can find a way too. I can assure you the state isn't gonna dry up and die if a couple thousand less out-of-state hunters don't come through. Skiing, fishing, tourism, MJ, bring more to the local economies than hunters that seclude themselves in the wilderness for a week with a cooler full of food from home. Maybe if you all dropped your wives off in-town? Also, as residents, we'd like to say "your welcome" for our taxes maintaining all the roads, bridges, etc that allow NR's access into the public lands...these arguments can get really petty.

Hey I have dropped my better half off in town.


I definitely agree with you on the bigger picture of how can you manage without reporting. I know what the average success rate is for non-resident unguided. I know a group that blows that out of the water. I'd say it's not that they are that great but that the numbers are off.

 

[GrumpyHiker]

CO is the Walmart of hunting, lol and CPW is to blame for that.

Amen!

 

[brsnow]

The same ones complaining now will be the same complaining when this terrible plan shows it's true colors. NR are what makes Colorado a thriving state economically (along w/ recent legalization of marijuana), but here we have residents complaining because they can't kill an elk in their back yard. Mainly because they aren't willing to put in the work.

Colorado has one of the most robust economies in the country excluding pot and hunting. The state would do fine without either in reality.