CPW officially recommends fully limiting NR Archery- OTC Resident

Huntin_GI

WKR
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Location
N. Colorado
I posted this on CNELK's BGSS changes thread but thought this specific proposal deserved its thread considering the scope of its impacts.


In March 2024, CPW recommended to the Commission that both NR and R's archery elk move into a fully limited draw. This position was the least popular over multiple surveys, workgroups, testimony, etc. yet CPW felt it the "best" alternative. This is after multiple years of study and discussion.

Yesterday, they officially announced a reversal, and the new recommendations to the Commission was "to limit OTC archery licenses for nonresidents only, and to maintain OTC archery licenses for residents."

This is huge for the Colorado resident archery hunters.

I firmly believe this reversal came from pressure applied through the Colorado Resident Hunters Association page on FB. That page has been instrumental in getting resident sportsmen involved and vocal with the commission, CPW leadership, and the state legislature. Specifically, Brandon Siegfried put so much time and effort into keeping CPW honest that it could be a full-time job.

On regular occasions, CPW would present misleading data to the Commission as to advance positions that would result in either a status quo, or total limitation, both of which helped protect CPW's revenue stream. Brandon would address those misrepresentations, while addressing the Commission and ensure the correct data would be pushed out to both the commission and then shared that updated information through the page.

That revenue stream was the primary concern of CPW proposals at every turn. Brandon would present data while highlighting public trust doctrine, conflicts of interest on the commission, and how that revenue stream wasn't CPW's primary mandate. He was key in helping organize messaging so public comments contained a consistent theme touching each of the aforementioned topics.

CPW's original recommendation was the least popular as identified by the surveys, workgroups, and public outreach over the last 3 years. It was even highlighted in every presentation to the commission that the CPW PREFERRED RECOMMENDATION had the least amount of support at every turn.

While this reversal of position and new preferred alternative aren't set in stone, this is a step in the right direction. The commission is still in the process of codifying these proposals which will require a vote in the coming weeks. If you are a resident sportsmen in Colorado, I highly recommend you reaching out to the commission and voice your position as that could be what is required to get this across the finish line.
Snip 1.jpgSnip 2.jpg
Snip 3.jpg
 
I'll probably get hate for this, but I think having "unlimted" tags was always a bad idea. Should put a limit on rifle tags too. Sure it puts a tag in a newbs pocket if they want it, but as a non resident, I'd rather have to draw and know I'm only in contention with 300 other dingos instead 1000 other dingos. In theory, it "should" improve odds and quality of animals
 
I'll probably get hate for this, but I think having "unlimted" tags was always a bad idea. Should put a limit on rifle tags too. Sure it puts a tag in a newbs pocket if they want it, but as a non resident, I'd rather have to draw and know I'm only in contention with 300 other dingos instead 1000 other dingos. In theory, it "should" improve odds and quality of animals

Exactly. Limit all methods. Manage for a quality herd, not $$$ in the coffers over in Denver.
 
I'll probably get hate for this, but I think having "unlimted" tags was always a bad idea. Should put a limit on rifle tags too. Sure it puts a tag in a newbs pocket if they want it, but as a non resident, I'd rather have to draw and know I'm only in contention with 300 other dingos instead 1000 other dingos. In theory, it "should" improve odds and quality of animals
I read through the proposal and didn't notice it...BUT what is the LIMIT going to be? Montana is limited but Residents still B!tch about it. So the economics of it/loss to the CPW budget will probably effect the "limit".

Does any know what the proposed limit is?

FYI, I've never hunted CO and have no plans to...this is just more of an interest of the happenings and staying informed deal.
 
I read through the proposal and didn't notice it...BUT what is the LIMIT going to be? Montana is limited but Residents still B!tch about it. So the economics of it/loss to the CPW budget will probably effect the "limit".

Does any know what the proposed limit is?

FYI, I've never hunted CO and have no plans to...this is just more of an interest of the happenings and staying informed deal.
Many years ago I hunted an OTC unit in Colorado. I heard it went to a draw unit but the number of tags was so high that nothing really changed.
 
In the past, the switch from OTC units to draw units has mostly resulted in more tag availability than previous licenses sold for those same units. What I've learned from attending various CPW meetings is that there is a not-so-insignificant contingency of NR hunters who just refuse to participate in the draw process even if it is 100% draw and CPW was hesitant to disenfranchise that group of hunters entirely by offering them OTC opportunities. Given that there are many units in CO that will remain 100% draw, one just has to apply, folks are going to have to get with the times.... or take to various Facebook groups and rage about how Colorado took their hunting rights away.
 
NR OTC Rifle will be status quo it seems. The Motion, as I understand it, was to adopt all the commissions recommendations around season dates and OTC NR Rifle. The recommendation was "Status Quo".
 
In the past, the switch from OTC units to draw units has mostly resulted in more tag availability than previous licenses sold for those same units. What I've learned from attending various CPW meetings is that there is a not-so-insignificant contingency of NR hunters who just refuse to participate in the draw process even if it is 100% draw and CPW was hesitant to disenfranchise that group of hunters entirely by offering them OTC opportunities. Given that there are many units in CO that will remain 100% draw, one just has to apply, folks are going to have to get with the times.... or take to various Facebook groups and rage about how Colorado took their hunting rights away.
I’m pumped to see those people go. The zero skin in the game BRO disciples who headed west to conquer THEIR public land by ripping bugles every hundred yards to kill a couple grouse and post it all to the gram bois. Good riddance. (No apologies for the run on)
 
Regardless if they have large quotas of available tags to where it still feels crowded, I feel like this is a win from a management standpoint. This should allow them to better track the amount of hunter pressure in each unit. While having options is awesome, I think this will spread pressure around more evenly for large quota units. I know I personally would jump around from unit to unit based on pressure and where the elk are. Having to commit to a unit will definitely change things.

This may be unpopular, but I was not opposed to removing OTC for Resident and Non residents.
 
What are your opinions: Is this going to make OTC 2nd and 3rd rifle even more overcrowded? Or will they hunt in different states?
Its a good question. Colorado is still the most NR friendly Western state for an elk tag. How married are archery hunters to hunting with a bow that they will participate in a draw and be limited to one unit vs. taking up a later season just for the sake of OTC?
 
Back
Top