CPW Commission is proposing ALL DRAW for elk

[Nickofthewoods]

history... for whatever that is worth.... they (CPW) usually have super high tag allocations for the units they convert from OTC to a point unit, and then after a couple years of data on how many people want to hunt it / points spent on it / they adjust the tag allocations

If CPW isn't generous with archery tag allocations, it will make OTC Rifle absolutely insane with pressure due to that being the only way to hunt elk in Colorado without losing your points (if archery tags run out).

Even if those archery tag allocations are high, I think there are enough people that procrastinate or are too lazy to fill out spring applications and will just show up last minute for OTC rifle and we'll see an increase during rifle seasons that route as well. Leaving Rifle OTC seems highly problematic and I hope it gets addressed by the Commission. I encourage everyone concerned by this to contact CPW and let them know.

 

[cnelk]

There are plenty of units that aren't worth 3pp. Most of the OTC units aren't even worth 1 pp.

That may be true but it also helps with the PPs issue

 

[SoloWilderness]

Let me rephrase, just make it min 2-3 pt apply to draw. If every one wants less pressure, make it where you can only hunt every two-three years per species unless you can find Left over tags. Make all Left over tag NR price to help alleviate the funding losses of eliminating OTC.

Why not? Almost every unit CO has changed to draw in the last 5 years has left over tags every year. This way you can atleast get some of the lost NR revenue back from both residents and NR

All the pressure in my OTC units comes from NR. Its 10-1 at the trail heads. Reducing NR pressure is step 1. Reducing R opportunity is a non-starter for most people who live here... ie residents who hunt primarily cows for meat, as opposed to NR hunting trophies. I'd rather deal with heavy pressure than reduced opportunity for R. Us fit CO folk can hike most NR into the ground anyway, so the pressure is only in the front country... backcountry I barely see anyone that isn't a local, or got dropped off by an outfitter.

 

[SoloWilderness]

That may be true but it also helps with the PPs issue

True, so a 3pp minimum for NR seems reasonable.

 

[wind gypsy]

3 pt minimum is silly. Limit tag #'s in accordance with desired levels of pressure and let it draw out based on demand. I'm fine with any tag burning your point balance. Making a unit nobody wants to hunt require 3 points doesn't help anything with point creep if nobody wastes 3 points on it.

 

[SoloWilderness]

3 pt minimum is silly. Limit tag #'s in accordance with desired levels of pressure and let it draw out based on demand. I'm fine with any tag burning your point balance. Making a unit nobody wants to hunt require 3 points doesn't help anything with point creep if nobody wastes 3 points on it.

The trick is, whenever anyone comes onto Rokslide looking for a handout on where to hunt, they get directed to the 3 pp units no one else wants. Didn't see any elk? Must not have looked hard enough....

 

[3forks]

I encourage everyone concerned by this to contact CPW and let them know.

I agree with you, but lots of us have already, and continually, reached out to CPW about issues. The result is CPW proposing a solution that does very little to affect the main issues and actually creates larger ones downstream.

We shouldn’t be surprised that CPW comes up with these strategies that are misguided overcorrections to the feedback that they receive.

CPW doesn’t really even know what hunter success rates are, and their numbers on the herd populations themselves are suspect at best. Also, CPW has publicly stated that they don’t care what other states are doing and that they know what’s best for Colorado and will act accordingly. I don’t think it’s wrong to interpret that as CPW being both arrogant and obstinate. And, I think you can also draw the conclusion that CPW is finally taking action and proposing a solution that’s not based on what’s in the best interest of residents or the State’s big game herds, but as much because they are unwilling to give up a significant revenue stream. Essentially, they’re re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[ganngus]

There are plenty of units that aren't worth 3pp. Most of the OTC units aren't even worth 1 pp.

I would assert there are many OTC units that aren't worth 1PP because they are OTC units. Depending on how many tags are issued, there are many OTC units that I would gladly burn points on if they went to draw only.

 

[Dwight2180]

I don't hunt OTC units, so it has no bearing on me at all. But, a lot of you guys haven't mentioned a very important factor with NR tags...money.

	Res	Non-Res
Bull Elk License	$57.90	700.98
App Fee	$7.13	9.17
Habitat Stamp	$ 10.59	10.59
Cheapest Qualifying License (needed for draw units)	$31.41	86.50
	$96.44	$807.24

$711 more for every Non-res bull elk license into CPW's coffers. Even if a NR is unsuccessful, they're paying $106 just for a preference point. CO residents may not like it, but CPW's budget relies heavily on non-res apps and license sales.

Facts!

 

[sneaky]

I somewhat agree, but I think in this hypothetical plan I'd like to see OTC tags be limited to DAUs rather than statewide. I'd also like to see those take a preference point.

Essentially your options would be as a resident:
1) draw first choice loss all points
2) draw second choice or below, or anything in the secondary draw, lose no points
3) Purchase OTC license in specific DAU lose a point
4) Play the leftover/reissue game and lose no points

I also think it would be cool if those OTC tags incorporated archery season and fourth rifle season.

I think if you draw anything you should lose points. Point creep is where it is today because of people not losing points and just putting in for unattainable tags as first choice then the tag they know they'll get as second. Start cycling through points and eliminate that. Make people choose wisely or lose their points.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

I think if you draw anything you should lose points. Point creep is where it is today because of people not losing points and just putting in for unattainable tags as first choice then the tag they know they'll get as second. Start cycling through points and eliminate that. Make people choose wisely or lose their points.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You aren't going to draw anything in second through third choices that a person will want to use points on. I can't see someone wanting to use their points on a list B doe or cow tag. For wildlife management purposes, I think those types of tags need some encouragement to be sought, and if a person can get those without using points still it would fall in line with that thought.

 

[cuerro viejo]

There are plenty of units that aren't worth 3pp. Most of the OTC units aren't even worth 1 pp.

Doesn’t matter, pressure isn’t exactly what makes those units low success rates. Most the OTC units are just difficult terrain and/or very migratory areas. If every OTC goes to draw there will still be Left Over tags, unless you just drop tag numbers significantly. But that won’t happen either. Look at the archery units that went to draw.

My 2-3 pts comments was really in jest. That would be a real solution to crowding, but would effect Res and we just can’t have that, just like all Left Over tags should be at NR pricing to some what counter the NR monetary loss, when NR opportunity is cut. … but that would effect residents also so can’t have that either.

The state’s management is by ballot. Once you get rid of NR monetary voice, parks side of CPWD will take precedence. It’s already started.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You aren't going to draw anything in second through third choices that a person will want to use points on. I can't see someone wanting to use their points on a list B doe or cow tag. For wildlife management purposes, I think those types of tags need some encouragement to be sought, and if a person can get those without using points still it would fall in line with that thought.

But that’s whole point, residents want less NR influence and in the field interaction/observation . So make lessor units even more unappealing…

In the end if everyone had to burn points for any tag, it’s going to hurt Res. More than NR. Most NR might get to hunt a decent unit 3 times in a lifetime. They already hunt the lessor units every year, cool now I can’t ever draw a true LE tag. O’well most would been 80 anyways by time they drew it.

 

[cmahoney]

Great


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

But that’s whole point, residents want less NR influence and in the field interaction/observation . So make lessor units even more unappealing…

I disagree. If someone wants to take on a hunt that for all sorts of reasons is undesirable, they shouldn't be further discouraged by contemplating using a point to do so. The caveat to that should be market demand however, and if a tag can be had as a second or third choice, it should automatically be considered a B and vice versa.


This should be an A



This should be a B

 

[Ynothunt41]

I disagree. If someone wants to take on a hunt that for all sorts of reasons is undesirable, they shouldn't be further discouraged by contemplating using a point to do so. The caveat to that should be market demand however, and if a tag can be had as a second or third choice, it should automatically be considered a B and vice versa.


This should be an A
View attachment 503276


This should be a B
View attachment 503281

That makes sense.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I disagree. If someone wants to take on a hunt that for all sorts of reasons is undesirable, they shouldn't be further discouraged by contemplating using a point to do so. The caveat to that should be market demand however, and if a tag can be had as a second or third choice, it should automatically be considered a B and vice versa.


This should be an A
View attachment 503276


This should be a B
View attachment 503281

Oh I’d hunt my left over tag unit every year and never complain, . Most the real competition normally isn’t NR. It’s local Res that are on their LE unit rotation.

PP value is already 1:7+ for Res:NR for most units.

 

[gbflyer]

That’s a lot of money they won’t be getting along with an increase in whining from the stockmen. Hope they do it though.

 

[sndmn11]

Oh I’d hunt my left over tag unit every year and never complain, . Most the real competition normally isn’t NR. It’s local Res that are on their LE unit rotation.

PP value is already 1:7+ for Res:NR for most units.

To your point, you put in some amount of time/money/secrecy/thought/etc into figuring out a hunt code that others don't seem to want, and have a positive attitude about that. Would you have done so if it took all of your points each season?

 

[Lil-Rokslider]

I think these are baby steps for the CPW as you can't derail the OTC money train all at once. I'm assuming in 10-year all elk seasons in CO will be a draw. I would gladly go less often, pay more and have less crowding and better quality. Something else that also resonated in the meeting was the non hunting over crowding. This may not be news to most of you but I know some trails in unit 20 (Estes Park) were limited to the number of users/parking by purchasing online daily passes to limit the crowd.

That was mostly for the park and Estes Park Valley, where this isn't hunting allowed anyways.