Different ideas for Colorado elk hunting

[5MilesBack]

Isn't everyone getting emailed harvest surveys? In the last 10 years or so, I've gotten emails for every tag I've had in that time.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Isn't everyone getting emailed harvest surveys? In the last 10 years or so, I've gotten emails for every tag I've had in that time.

I believe they do, I also believe a lot of guys don’t fill them out… or they bend the truth when they do

 

[sndmn11]

They could just have you scan your carcass tag. It's either attached, or detached and filled out.

 

[CMF]

I believe they do, I also believe a lot of guys don’t fill them out… or they bend the truth when they do

If some percent are bending the truth, then isn't happening across the board?
Example: Unit A guys said he killed in unit B, unit B guy said he killed in unit A, the results end up similar. Or 20 percent of all people who killed lie and don't report a kill, 20% harvest drops to 16%, 10% drops to 8%.
The data would still be a relevant comparison to other units in CO, although maybe not to other states.
I think the vast majority are honest since there's not much to be gained by false reporting. I've got no reason to lie on a harvest report, but I don't think I've gotten an email the two years we've hunted CO. I wouldn't mind mandatory harvest as long as it can be online and without bringing the animal somewhere. I like NM setup for E-tag and harvest report.
If you think most people are BSing then do you think harvest percentages are realistically higher?

 

[5MilesBack]

I believe they do, I also believe a lot of guys don’t fill them out… or they bend the truth when they do

And then complain that the state doesn't have mandatory reporting.

 

[Hnthrdr]

If some percent are bending the truth, then isn't happening across the board?
Example: Unit A guys said he killed in unit B, unit B guy said he killed in unit A, the results end up similar. Or 20 percent of all people who killed lie and don't report a kill, 20% harvest drops to 16%, 10% drops to 8%.
The data would still be a relevant comparison to other units in CO, although maybe not to other states.
I think the vast majority are honest since there's not much to be gained by false reporting. I've got no reason to lie on a harvest report, but I don't think I've gotten an email the two years we've hunted CO. I wouldn't mind mandatory harvest as long as it can be online and without bringing the animal somewhere. I like NM setup for E-tag and harvest report.
If you think most people are BSing then do you think harvest percentages are realistically higher?

I do think they are probably higher than reported. I know it sounds silly but on OTC archery tags the fastest way to blow your unit out of the water is having it have a high harvest percentage…. Lots of magazines/apps spoon feed that info to folks. When lots of other units are saying 7/8% and some unit is reporting 12/15% where do you think people will flock?

 

[Hnthrdr]

And then complain that the state doesn't have mandatory reporting.

Not complaining as much as warning that those numbers are not always reflected as gospel. Okay, I was complaining some, but I do think it would help the biologists and help with long term herd health if we had it? Yes I do. I do think draw units probably get more honest reporting but OTC reports I wouldn’t absolutely believe or solely base hunting plans on it

 

[Buffalo0922]

Would it help if they divided archery into 2 or 3 seasons? ie first half vs second half of September, or (3) 10 days season?

Seems like it may allow more opportunities

 

[Jethro]

Isn't everyone getting emailed harvest surveys? In the last 10 years or so, I've gotten emails for every tag I've had in that time.

I have hunted CO elk 6 times since 2010 and I think I received maybe 1 survey. It was one of the early years, so my memory may be wrong. Most recently I hunted CO in 18 and 21 but no survey those years.

 

[CMF]

Would it help if they divided archery into 2 or 3 seasons? ie first half vs second half of September, or (3) 10 days season?

Seems like it may allow more opportunities

It would certainly cut down the people you see in a given season. I think limiting the tags would be a better option than that, especially for residents. Shorter seasons aren't a big deal for NR that travel for only a week out, but that would suck for residents who would rather hit it on the weekends or have to miss hunting days for work, etc.
I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. I think even when they eventually go all draw, you'll see several 0 point units and leftover tags.

 

[Hnthrdr]

It would certainly cut down the people you see in a given season. I think limiting the tags would be a better option than that, especially for residents. Shorter seasons aren't a big deal for NR that travel for only a week out, but that would suck for residents who would rather hit it on the weekends or have to miss hunting days for work, etc.
I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. I think even when they eventually go all draw, you'll see several 0 point units and leftover tags.

I agree, it may limit other hunters you see, but I think pressure in the woods would increase 10x, you would have all the 2nd or 3rd archery guys “scouting” right up until they hunt, plus I think 1 long season spreads pressure or activity out while if you just had 10 days most guys will go hard for the whole 10

 

[Greenbelt]

This Colorado conversation has been beaten to death. You do understand that your state makes too much money off of otc right? So nothings ever gonna be done about that. So either you're talking just to talk or you all don't understand it. Plus don't worry your wolf population will soon eat all of your elk. So no one will have much to worry about elk at all.

 

[hunting307]

Point creep isn’t quite that bad^^^
But it won’t get better.

Last year 15 PPs was 43% for a Resident

Could make it all a lottery for draw areas and get rid of points and all the OTC spots are "General" where the residents can hunt.

 

[cnelk]

Could make it all a lottery for draw areas and get rid of points and all the OTC spots are "General" where the residents can hunt.

Hmmmm - kinda sounds strangely like Wyoming’s platform

 

[hunting307]

Hmmmm - kinda sounds strangely like Wyoming’s platform

Haha, it works for us! Alaska is a lottery too and when I lived there it seemed to work. But, the point creep needs addressed in CO.

 

[ckleeves]

This Colorado conversation has been beaten to death. You do understand that your state makes too much money off of otc right? So nothings ever gonna be done about that. So either you're talking just to talk or you all don't understand it. Plus don't worry your wolf population will soon eat all of your elk. So no one will have much to worry about elk at all.

Talking just to talk. I think everyone is well aware that CPW doesn’t browse the forums for future policy.

Idaho residents sold the “wolfs got all the elk” story so well that it was kinda a hidden gem for years. I’m hoping we can do the same thing here and hopefully pressure goes down significantly.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

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.

100% agree.
I also wouldn't mind if there was a max-point threshold of maybe 5-ish before it turns into a bonus point style system. For example: any unit that would completely draw out above 5 points would put everyone with 5 or more points into a lottery and each point you have above 5 is one extra name in the hat, so 5 pref points = 1chance , 6 pp= 2chances, etc. That way it still gives the high point holders the advantage but gives younger people with some dedication a chance to actually draw a premium tag before their knees give out. Then if you give up on the trophy unit chase you can still take your points and guarantee a tag in a lower point unit.

 

[glennsgunstuff]

I think it is safe to say that CPW does indeed control how many points it takes to draw a specific unit based on how many tags they offer. As a NR, I would be ok with that as being more than fair and quite generous to us NR's.

 

[pokethebear]

The answer to overcrowding is OTC for residents only. Residents are down by 8000 in OTC since 2014. Nonresidents are up by 10000. The resource is the residents and nonresidents should be capped just like all the other western states. Money is not an excuse to sell out the residents and Colorados future generations of hunters. This shows the trends. https://www.change.org/p/preserve-otc-archery-elk-hunting-for-colorado-residents-only