More Colorado OTC archery units set to move to draw in 2020...

[jppedersen48]

I doubt they are going to take any points but that’s just a guess. Since I don’t think anyone has seen any tag #’s yet it’s all a guess. But historically most of those units aren’t hard to draw muzzleloader or 1st rifle.

Agree. My father in law called a retired CPW connection of his who still "helps advise" and the guy made it sound like he should be pretty much guaranteed to draw if he puts it down as his second choice on his application. The guy did give him a disclaimer of "at least for the first year". Obviously all speculation at this point until quotas/tag #'s come out.
The CPW connection also told my father in law that 2019 was the worst year they've seen yet from a calf mortality rate but I don't think that information has been released yet either. Either way, not encouraging.

 

[Wallower]

Haven't chimed in in a loooooong time but follow some of the threads. The SW corner not only gets it share of hunters it has also been in bad drought conditions for years and hammered with wildfires(usually good for animals). Combine the two year after year and herds will suffer. That ends my Sherlock Holms observation.

IMHO,
Looking at the regs, and I know I'll be corrected if wrong , it appears that it was just easiest to blanket the units rather than attempt to create a license for bull only archery/muzzle loading. If indeed the cow populations have hit some undesirable low end threshold, then rifle tags should be very limited as they account for the greatest percentage of success despite what unit being discuss. How hard it will be to get those licenses will be a tell all.

With the states population growth and the possible ssip poor decision of the reintroduction of a shoot shovel and silence pest, the days of OTC in general are limited. Frankly, OTC should be resident only and require the purchasing of a fishing/small game/ combo license as well. Raising resident pricing gets way too much negative feedback as people complain of only the rich being able to hunt. Further limiting out of state licensing will not happen as those hunters account for huge portions of CPW operating dollars and if too constricted CO. will end up in court. So what we are facing in the near future is the inevitable every other year hunt and, in the more distant future, maybe longer. I won't even get started on the sports dollars this state flushes.

CPW typically manages, and very poorly in my opinion, people and money. When I see an attempt by CPW to protect a resource, casting money and crowding to the side, I must default to the reasoning that conditions are bad enough they can't overlook it because it will impact their dollars adversely in the long run. This change might be a very unpopular as it could impact the local economies and in many small towns a huge percentage of yearly revenue. Now keep in mind this only holds true if rifle tags are impacted; archers and MLs are more self reliant.

So I'll sit back and follow the thread. Many good opinions here and nice to see so many I used to converse with still active.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

 

[LostArra]

Still amazing to me that CPW would do all the hand wringing over herd numbers but have no plan for mandatory hunter harvest reporting. Many states with deer harvest numbers much larger than Colorado elk have simple phone apps or online check-in that actually gives some data to the decision making especially regarding tag numbers and weapon success rates. A 14 year old techie could probably have the system in place by Friday.

I realize CPW does a post season hunter survey but mandatory check in would give better data to make any adjustments to tag numbers for a specific weapon.
(2018: 216,000 elk licenses sold, 53,000 completed surveys)

I've always heard that surveys are expensive so the e-check in might save some money too.

 

[Zeke6951]

Looking back to my post about these changes are all about the dollars, I see that the CPW has changed the Leftover Draw to a Secondary Draw. In the past the Leftover Draw was limited to those who had participated in the Draw and had been unsuccessful. Now with the new Secondary Draw anyone that will buy a qualifying license can apply in the Secondary Draw. Just another way to get a few more dollars.

 

[Lumpy]

Sure hope we don't vote the wolves...I agree if it's limited archery it should be limited rifle...some of those units are already limited rifle, just otc archery.

 

[Zeke6951]

This afternoon, I was browsing the the CPW elk statistics for 6 of the southwest GMUs. I noticed that GMUs 70, 71, 711, 72, 77, and 78 latest archery success rates (2018) was as high or higher than the 5 year average even with the herds in decline. I guess we archers are getting better at our sport.

 

[txhunter581]

As far as being leftover tags for these hunts, I sure you area right, but only for BULL ONLY tags, not cows. They will be severely limiting those and doubt there will be any leftovers. Prob take at least 1 point to draw a cow tag.

What shocks me is that the reg books just came out and they are still offering E/S tags for muzzy and 1st rifle season in unit 70??? They must think there are more elk there, but that has not been my experience in that unit.

 

[Poser]

As far as being leftover tags for these hunts, I sure you area right, but only for BULL ONLY tags, not cows. They will be severely limiting those and doubt there will be any leftovers. Prob take at least 1 point to draw a cow tag.

What shocks me is that the reg books just came out and they are still offering E/S tags for muzzy and 1st rifle season in unit 70??? They must think there are more elk there, but that has not been my experience in that unit.

My guess is it has more to do with the calf to cow ratio than the actual cow population.

 

[txhunter581]

Here is some answers to an email question I sent to the CPW about this issue:

The decision was made by the P&W Commission last week to create limited, sex-specific (limited bull/limited cow) licenses for archery elk hunting in E-16, E-24, E-30, and E-31. This includes the following GMUs: 444, 44, 45, 47, 70, 71, 72, 73, 711, 74, 741, 75, 751, 77, 771, and 78. This will go into effect this year.

This is because over the last several years the elk population in SW Colorado has been dwindling. Staff is currently working to understand why the population is getting smaller and push back from Colorado constituents have resulted in limited elk licenses for this area until we can understand what is going on.

One of the first questions you might ask is if we are limiting OTC either sex archery licenses for the SW, why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate. Often one male/bull can mate with a harem of cows (20+) to keep the population going. However, OTC antlered bull rifle licenses for this area may happen in the future. You are also probably curious as to how many preference points will it take to draw a license for your unit. Unfortunately, we can not answer this because these will be new hunt codes. No one has ever applied for these hunt codes before, therefore, we do not have historical draw data to review. Therefore, the minimum preference points required to draw these new limited licenses will be determined by the number of applicants and the number of preference points those applicants hold.

 

[DEEF]

This report seems to fit the thread context here. Surprisingly, 20% surveyed want OTC Archery.
According to the survey, Archery and Rifle are the majority preferred methods of take in CO. A collective support for regulating the freight train policy regarding income generation via tag costs should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when considering any tag limit condition. I think advocating more transparency regard managements income objectives and the calculations used to determine tag numbers should be presented to the public.

Some foundational principles which I think all of us should be advocating for is Mandatory Harvest Success Reporting. How will we be able to hold management decision makers accountable if we have an inaccurate data set? How will we be able to provide a strong justification for harvest amounts when our hunting rights are being attacked? We are mostly clueless about where each unit stands in its ability to provide a good quality of hunting. The amount of OTC tags sold is hugely disproportionate to the hunt experience factors effecting harvest, opportunity, and quality of hunt.

If we have accurate data, we can make stronger advocacy for a reasonable balance between "opportunity" and "quality". Perhaps most importantly, accurate data is hugely crucial to support our ability to maintain our hunting rights(and no this is not a good time to make an argument distinction for "hunting privilege"). Accurate data is needed to maintain a strong defense of our hunting heritage.

My reasoning suggests that the current definition of "opportunity" sacrifices a reasonable potential for harvest success for the purpose of CPW income generation. I hear some hunters advocating for conditions which favor their "residency" or ability to obtain a tag in "their state". If you align with a self-centric focus, I suggest you reconsider the larger system context and consider the value of prioritizing abundant herd health and abundant harvest success for any type of tag. A unified hunter voice that advocates the desire for abundance is needed to overcome the malicious and persistent Anit-hunting inputs.

 

[365buckin]

Has anyone heard when these results will become finalized? Or will we just have to see what comes out for quotas June 1-5th?

 

[cnelk]

FYI - For the new units in SW Colorado that just went from OTC to Draw, the Bull tag quota for all units is 6,515

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2020/May/Item.19-W-2-Final.pdf

 

[spike camp]

FYI - For the new units in SW Colorado that just went from OTC to Draw, the Bull tag quota for all units is 6,515

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2020/May/Item.19-W-2-Final.pdf

Any comparison to the amount of otc hunters in those units and the new limited quotas in those same units?

 

[cnelk]

A person could go into the Harvest Reports for those areas and tally up the guesstimate of hunters provided by the CPW

I ain’t gonna

 

[spike camp]

Lol
Fair enough!

 

[Dave_]

I glanced at a few SW units. There should be enough new archery tags for everyone looking at last years numbers. With people losing jobs I would be surprised if there where more hunters this year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[beforethehunt]

Is unit 77 otc still?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cnelk]

Is unit 77 otc still?

Negative ghost rider

 

[MooseKnuckle]

After looking at the numbers for those SW units, they are allocating more tags this year through the draw than was bought last year as OTC. So what is the point of switching them to a draw unit?

 

[cnelk]

After looking at the numbers for those SW units, they are allocating more tags this year through the draw than was bought last year as OTC. So what is the point of switching them to a draw unit?

Over 6515 'Qualifying Licenses'