Different ideas for Colorado elk hunting

sundance1

FNG
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Messages
52
I know there has been threads about what changes could be in store for Colorado concerning tag allocation, NR tags and pricing. As a resident who went from an OTC archery unit to a draw unit, and after 37 years of guaranteed hunting every September, that is a hard pill to swallow. We battled the CPW over the rifle seasons that stayed OTC that they weren't gaining anything, but theres too much revenue involved. The CPW / Wildlife commission does take input, but sometimes it's from the loudest squeaking wheel. After doing my elk and deer applications I emailed them with my ideas, and ya, I know it's probably a waste of time, but here's the gist of what i said:

They need more quality elk hunting units, at least 2-4, with the idea to eventually address point creep caused by too many hunters putting in for the amount of licenses they release for the quality units.

Why not create levels within all the elk units where you had a main base level that required 1 to 3 points that had 70 percent of the states units in it. Then have a mid level units that requires 4 to 8 points and 20 percent of the states units are in it. The last level would be the premier level and would require 9 points plus to draw and would have 10 percent of the units in it. The pricing for both in and out of state hunters would start with the base pricing for the first unit and increase with each unit. The first unit would cap at 30 percent out of state, the second at 20, the third at 10.

The numbers are just a starting point. It gives hunters who just want to hunt the chance to do so, It would give hunters who don't want to wait a decade to hunt better bulls also a chance every 4 years at some good hunting. The hunters who want to have a chance at a big bull wouldh't have to wait 20 plus years to do so. Hopefully it would spread out hunter numbers some and would increase the quality of the animals overall because eventually bordering units would benefit from bigger elk saturation into all the units.

Colorado has always had a big X on it when it comes to elk hunting. The increase of hunters and the decrease of elk in some units is just a forboding of things to come. The Cpw is getting pressure from all sides about what the future of hunting in Colorado will look like. They have had a propensity in the past to make small changes that never fix the issue but just prolong it. The OTC units that went to draw is a example. We'd been in conversation with them for 3 years before they implemented the draw that they were losing their herds. I live to archery hunt elk and i would like for that to continue, and for there to be some good hunting and healthy elk herds for all archery elk hunters to be assured of, for many years to come.
 

ckleeves

WKR
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,570
Location
Montrose,Colorado
How would CPW set how many points are required for a hunt? It’s simple supply and demand, if nobody with more than 1 point applied for unit 201 then some guys are gonna draw it with one point.

How about just go all draw like deer and let the chips fall where they may. If a unit starts turning out big bulls it’s probably gonna take more points to draw. If it sucks you can second choice it and still draw.

The CO deer draw has been working fine for what, 24 years now? If you wanna hunt put in for easy to draw units. If you want to build points and wait for (maybe) higher quality then you can do that also.
 
OP
S

sundance1

FNG
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Messages
52
How would CPW set how many points are required for a hunt? It’s simple supply and demand, if nobody with more than 1 point applied for unit 201 then some guys are gonna draw it with one point.

How about just go all draw like deer and let the chips fall where they may. If a unit starts turning out big bulls it’s probably gonna take more points to draw. If it sucks you can second choice it and still draw.

The CO deer draw has been working fine for what, 24 years now? If you wanna hunt put in for easy to draw units. If you want to build points and wait for (maybe) higher quality then you can do that also.
Unit 2, 201,10,61,76 etc would take 9 plus points. Unit 61, 9 years ago took 12 points for archery, now its 17. Guys who draw a quality unit that are around 50, they are done for the rest of their lives, as its set up now. Nobody, and i mean every state , has a plan that goes out more than 5 years. The change i've seen in the last 5 years alone is more than the 10 previous.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
2,555
Location
Missouri
In a preference point system there's no need for the state to create tiers of tag quality and set minimum point totals. Those tiers and minimums will develop organically based on applicants' perceptions of tag quality. There's no need for CPW to set a 9 pt minimum for a unit 201 archery tag; the applicants have already "set" the minimum at 25 pts for residents, 29 pts for non-residents (as of 2022 draw stats).

Are you suggesting a switch to random draws with a minimum point requirement to qualify for each tier? Although I prefer the (relative) predictability of a strict preference point system, I can understand the appeal of introducing some randomness to the premier tag draws. It wouldn't actually improve anyone's odds in the aggregate, but it would give the teens-to-low-20's point holders some hope of drawing a top tier tag before they're too old to enjoy the hunt. Personally I'm a hunt-as-often-as-possible guy and have never held more than 2 elk pts, so how the premier tags are distributed doesn't affect me.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
2,705
I can only imagine the crazy gamut of ideas they get when they have open input periods...

Rifle has stayed OTC because rifle hunters don't bitch about crowding like archery hunters.

And... The rut doesn't get "pushed back" by hunting. That's not how biology works.


If they were into my crazy ideas... I would love to see a very limited number of season choice tags per unit. My second would be OTC with a quota per DAU (resident only, draw for non-resident possibly random). Third, mandatory harvest reporting.
 

5MilesBack

"DADDY"
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
16,168
Location
Colorado Springs
CPW can't set the hierarchy and tiers, supply and demand sets the hierarchy for units based solely on how many apply for each unit at each point level. And we already see that with all the draw units they currently have. The best answer is to implement all draw with much more limited tags across the board for ALL seasons. But that's contrary to CPW's money grabbing directive.

It's just not possible to have really high quality units AND have unlimited OTC hunting in those said units (archery and rifle). If they opened up 201 to OTC for all seasons for just one year, that unit would be one of the worst elk units in the state for some years after. Conversely, if they closed hunting completely in some OTC units for a few years, those units would have some pretty decent hunting for at least a year or two after that. As with everything else, people are the problem.
 
OP
S

sundance1

FNG
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Messages
52
Point creep isn’t quite that bad^^^
But it won’t get better.

Last year 15 PPs was 43% for a Resident
Well, my son and I are prime examples.for 61 .I drew in 13 with 14 points, took 12 to auto draw. My son has 15 and ya, he's got a little less than 50 % chance. I drew rifle in 98 with 3, so play that out 10 years from now, with an increase in hunters. In 2013 on my archery tag, we were in bulls every day., couldn't even take a noon nap from the noise. In 2018, I drew the hybrid muzzle and we had to hunt hard. The drop off in bulls, especially the 320 and up bulls was beyond drastic. Archery especially has been so commercialized and the in thing to do by the you tube crowd. Everything may be kinda sorta ok now, but nobody thinks about 10 years from now. Just like the CPW limiting OTC archery tags. They were 5 years too late and did not do enough. I"ve had my days of archery hunting at 67, and a lot of guys say that they're happy with their hunts., and I still am,but the onslaught of people is increasing every year. If everyone could go back pre 2000 and archery hunt elk, they'd be screaming for change. I used to wear out diaphrams right and left, now I lose more than I use.
 

Ddubs20

FNG
Joined
Jan 17, 2023
Messages
85
Location
GJ Colorado
It's good to see someone proposing solutions, rather than just pointing out the problem.
I think they should let you put in for tags and "wager" how many points you want to try to draw with. That way people who have built up 20+ points could hunt (2) 10 point tags and still get something for their investment over the years. I think this would help get some of the high point holders out of the system and hopefully point creep would slowly go down.
Just a thought.
 

ckleeves

WKR
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,570
Location
Montrose,Colorado
The simplest solution is get rid of OTC completely. Any antlered bull tag takes your points no matter if you draw it, pick it up reissue, voucher etc.

Point creep is a product of the system, when you can elk hunt every single year and still build points it’s just going to happen. Couple that with CO not really having many high point hunt codes and you have a bunch of guys all building points (and still hunting) and gunning for the same 7 units.
 

Ddubs20

FNG
Joined
Jan 17, 2023
Messages
85
Location
GJ Colorado
I agree about there not being enough high point units. Also the fact that there's no man's land between 3-9, and 11-20 points.
 

Huntin_GI

WKR
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
379
Location
N. Colorado
I can only imagine the crazy gamut of ideas they get when they have open input periods...

Rifle has stayed OTC because rifle hunters don't bitch about crowding like archery hunters.

And... The rut doesn't get "pushed back" by hunting. That's not how biology works.


If they were into my crazy ideas... I would love to see a very limited number of season choice tags per unit. My second would be OTC with a quota per DAU (resident only, draw for non-resident possibly random). Third, mandatory harvest reporting.
The lack of mandatory reporting is mind-boggling. I refuse to give them accurate information anytime they call me.

I've tried to stay positive in regard to my opinions of CPW but that possibility has come to an end. The commission is a joke. The new CPW director is a political hire from Washington state. Danielle Eisenhart, the director of the drawing process balks at the idea of any "new" workload introduced by changes to the draw so she simply ALWAYS recommends status-quo. Matt Eckhart, the lead state terrestrial biologist acts like he's afraid of any change and also ALWAYS recommends status-quo.

After a year and a half of surveys and round tables, CPW recommended no changes to the draw structure with the exception of updating the years used to determine which units fell into the 35% v 20% non-resident pools.

Once we got that single change updated, CPW finally comes back and makes a recommendation for changes. A single NR allocation percentage of 30% because "it's confusing" leading to more than 1100 fewer tags in the hands of residents.
 

ckleeves

WKR
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,570
Location
Montrose,Colorado
I think the point system would work fine IF there wasn’t the OTC option and all the ways to get a tag without losing points. Not many guys (especially residents) are going to sit on the sidelines for 20 years to draw a tag in a “top tier” unit. Maybe 6-10 years but I sure don’t know anybody who would sit out for very long.

If guys want to sit on the sidelines for a decade that’s fine too,I would actually prefer that. less of them in the woods for the rest of us. By all means please try for the top tier units as long as you aren’t also hunting with a bull tag in your pocket every year.

All the guys clamoring for a straight lottery need to look at the amount of applicants in CO and take a hard look at what odds would really be. That system would also have to go draw for EVERYTHING, if you took the current draw hunts and made them lottery and still had the otc option odds would be about like a Desert sheep tag for the top end units.
 

Hnthrdr

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
3,559
Location
The West
The lack of mandatory reporting is mind-boggling. I refuse to give them accurate information anytime they call me.

I've tried to stay positive in regard to my opinions of CPW but that possibility has come to an end. The commission is a joke. The new CPW director is a political hire from Washington state. Danielle Eisenhart, the director of the drawing process balks at the idea of any "new" workload introduced by changes to the draw so she simply ALWAYS recommends status-quo. Matt Eckhart, the lead state terrestrial biologist acts like he's afraid of any change and also ALWAYS recommends status-quo.

After a year and a half of surveys and round tables, CPW recommended no changes to the draw structure with the exception of updating the years used to determine which units fell into the 35% v 20% non-resident pools.

Once we got that single change updated, CPW finally comes back and makes a recommendation for changes. A single NR allocation percentage of 30% because "it's confusing" leading to more than 1100 fewer tags in the hands of residents.
Guys come on here touting toprut stats in Co, which I don’t think they realize is completely BS. If people are smart they definitely don’t report accurate information either they totally fudge it or maybe units in a DAU get swapped. Anyhow it blows my mind that Co issues the tags they do and they have no mandatory reporting?! I get they do herd counts in the winter and have somewhat of an idea on what the herds look like post hunting season, but if we had real no BS data, then they could make better decisions.
 

Jethro

WKR
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
1,389
Location
Pennsylvania
Guys come on here touting toprut stats in Co, which I don’t think they realize is completely BS. If people are smart they definitely don’t report accurate information either they totally fudge it or maybe units in a DAU get swapped. Anyhow it blows my mind that Co issues the tags they do and they have no mandatory reporting?! I get they do herd counts in the winter and have somewhat of an idea on what the herds look like post hunting season, but if we had real no BS data, then they could make better decisions.
What good would mandatory reporting do, if you think people lie on their reports?

I also think that reporting should be mandatory, but I think overwhelming majority report honestly. I’ve never lied on a harvest report.
 

Hnthrdr

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
3,559
Location
The West
What good would mandatory reporting do, if you think people lie on their reports?

I also think that reporting should be mandatory, but I think overwhelming majority report honestly. I’ve never lied on a harvest report.
Never been in the Midwest but a buddy was telling me about a check process. It could be as simple as taking a picture and getting a validation email to take to a butcher or a taxidermist, or to legally possess game meat. Just a way for there to be a 100% factual record of what is happening in those units, yes some guys would still lie but this would be like 90% better than it is now

I applaud you but I think lots of guys may tell white lies or forget what unit they were in when they killed their animal
 

Jethro

WKR
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
1,389
Location
Pennsylvania
I hunted NJ mid 90's -early 2000's and had to take the deer to check station and get a metal tag put on it. For some reason I think had to do that couple trips we made to WI in 90's. I have no idea what either of those states do now.

I'm in PA, so all our bears have to be taken to a check station. For deer we are supposed to self report within 10 days of kill, but no penalty if you don't. Not the same here though. No shortage of tags. Nobody studying harvest % and then swarming the unit with high kill numbers.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
2,555
Location
Missouri
Never been in the Midwest but a buddy was telling me about a check process. It could be as simple as taking a picture and getting a validation email to take to a butcher or a taxidermist, or to legally possess game meat. Just a way for there to be a 100% factual record of what is happening in those units, yes some guys would still lie but this would be like 90% better than it is now

I applaud you but I think lots of guys may tell white lies or forget what unit they were in when they killed their animal
Missouri requires all deer and turkey to be remotely checked in via telephone or Internet app (used to be in person at designated check stations). Meat processors are supposed to refuse any animal that doesn't have a valid check-in confirmation number written on the tag. Missouri handles 300,000 deer and 30,000 turkeys this way every year. There's no reason (other than laziness) that Colorado couldn't do something similar to get better harvest data.
 
Top