The effect of limited licenses on units that were once OTC

[PhillyB]

Hi Everyone-

I have been researching new areas for OTC archery elk in Colorado. Some of the units I am looking at were once OTC and are now limited licenses units. An example is 74, 75, and 77. A similar change happened this year in 80-81. At least that is how I understand it.

Much of the internet talk about these units is 7-10 years old and describes high pressure, low bull: cow ratios, and dwindling elk numbers. However, this info seems dated.

Has the move to limited licenses helped these units recover and liimited the number of hunters in the units? Has it improved the elk populations? Or, is the archery pressure just as high and are the concerns noted a decade ago still relevant?

 

[Laramie]

As soon as they start getting good, they will require a bunch of points.

It takes a few years to change the population and it won't be drastic because they are still giving out plenty of permits. Essentially the hunts are still very challenging but there is a bit less pressure.

 

[Dave_]

They give out as many limited licenses as there were OTC hunters in many cases. There are also still OTC 2nd and 3rd rifle. I wouldnt expect too much to visibly change. I'm not sure what the population objectives are for each unit, that may vary.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[LostArra]

^^^ agree. The "limited" tag numbers in some units could approach "unlimited". Always remember the GF depts are also in the fund raising business.

 

[PhillyB]

So it is fair to assume that the number of fellow hunters hasn't changed much or won't change much?

 

[Laramie]

So it is fair to assume that the number of fellow hunters hasn't changed much or won't change much?

Correct, they are just setting a cap on them per say to keep it from getting more ridiculous than it already is.

 

[rayporter]

over the years i have seen fluctuations in hunter numbers. a recent spike might be followed by a drop on numbers. this coming year could be one of those years with the high cost of gas etc.

 

[md126]

Making any unit draw for archery but leaving it OTC for rifle is all smoke and mirrors by the CPW in my opinion.

There may be a few less people during archery but I wouldn’t expect a drastic change in the hunting quality

 

[Smada962]

Much of the internet talk about these units is 7-10 years

I think this is due to more people finally catching on as to what can happen when you mention specific units online. I know in most hunting and fishing groups I follow it seems like more and more people are being extra careful to not give up specific info and blowing up spots.

 

[Dave_]

So it is fair to assume that the number of fellow hunters hasn't changed much or won't change much?

At least the hunting pressure won't increase over time like the surrounding units that are still OTC archery. As long as you apply in the 1st draw period you should get a tag (for now) They still ranout of leftover tags fast last year.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_]

Making any unit draw for archery but leaving it OTC for rifle is all smoke and mirrors by the CPW in my opinion.

There may be a few less people during archery but I wouldn’t expect a drastic change in the hunting quality

Agreed. At least they made most bull only and limited cow tags. But you would still think you should limit rifle tags also if you want to increase population ana cap hunting pressure

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[Indian Summer]

That’s going to take some time. Mother Nature doesn’t move as fast as point creep.

 

[justinspicher]

It was a pointless decision unless you account for extra cash CPW gets for the application cost. Down here in SW Colorado there are still thousands of folks coming out in archery because everyone can draw that tag and still a ton of folks during 2d and 3d rifle who didn’t draw in another state. Colorado is, and always will be a backup plan. CPW is good with that as long as the money keeps rolling in, regardless of what the herds population looks like.

 

[ckleeves]

JMO, but I’m not sure going limited was really to reduce pressure and harvest as much as it was to get a better idea of pressure and harvest if that makes sense.

In the past CPW didn’t really have a clue as to how many people were really hunting these units during archery, now they can hopefully (still need mandatory reporting) take the pulse of the archery pressure in these units a little better.

Haven’t really sorted thru the CPW population data recently to see what they are showing but from a on the ground perspective I can’t think of any of the 70’s units that are doing better now then they were 7-10 years ago. Been pretty much a slow downward trend on numbers from what I have seen especially 70-71.

 

[lak2004]

The pressure in those units comes from both hunters and the general recreation pressure from hikers, MTN bikers, etc. And no, the herd has not recovered due to those factors and likely will not until non consumptive users realize their impact and give a hoot.

 

[Still Hunter]

Making any unit draw for archery but leaving it OTC for rifle is all smoke and mirrors by the CPW in my opinion.

There may be a few less people during archery but I wouldn’t expect a drastic change in the hunting quality

This is entirely correct. The success ratio for Archery is already so low but leaving the same unit open for OTC rifle is pretty absurd. It is correct to say they are basically setting a cap on the quantity of Bowhunters.

 

[justinspicher]

Either way, you have a draw that everyone who puts in gets, what was the point?

 

[Still Hunter]

I really don't understand how people are not getting this, it is basic elk biology. The archery season takes place during the rut, which seems to be negatively effecting the recruitment of calves. The amount of take is far less important than the amount of pressure the elk are sustaining from the thousands of archery hunters some of these units are seeing. With the rut being pushed later into September and early October the calves are being born later, making them more susceptible to predation and starvation during the winter leading to higher rates of mortality. Not to mention that the OTC either sex elk tag allows for take of cows. The OTC rifle seasons only allow the take of bulls and are set well outside of the rut, hence have really no effect on recruitment of calves or retention of cows, aside from accidental take. Only so many bulls are going to breed, the rest are just walking around eating forage and can be removed from the herd without having a negative population wide effect.

Don't make an assumption based upon a single comment on the knowledge one may or may not have on "Elk Biology". There are multiple challenges facing elk management as the western states due to changes to habitat, climate changes, new predatory issues (wolves), land acquisition, land development, impact on historical migration routes and just plain overall human disturbance. I will stand corrected , it is not all smoke and mirrors, it is an attempt to reduce the impact on elk with the sheer volume of archery elk hunters. It seems to me however, that they should also make the same units draw only for rifle until such time that they can determine the real issues with the elk populations.

Depending upon which elk study you read, one study is of the belief that the cumulative human disturbance certainly seems to be one of the largest influences that is detrimental to the elk population. As I walked miles of Wilderness Trails" last year I had to move off the trail multiple times due to "Trail Bikers" flying by tearing up on the "Wilderness Trails" they are not even supposed to be on. I also run into far more hikers (with dogs) , joggers, trail bicyclist, and Trail Bikers than I ever do archery hunters. You stated " which seems to be negatively effecting the recruitment of calves". As you well know the DOW is trying to determine what the problems are. There are multiple factors that are potentially affecting the calving and calf survival rates. One study discussed the sheer volume of hikers and shed hunters traversing through the back country "calving grounds' and bumping pregnant cows. Scaring them causing them to run all over the place and thereby "potentially" cause miscarriages and affecting the birth of healthy calves. The majority of calves drop from May 5th to June 18th assuming the bulk of cows were bred between Sept 1st through October 15th. Gestation period is about 246 days. I have have personally seen the absolute summer time "Gold Rush" to the mountains that has incrementally increased since 2008. All the side by sides and all the trail bikers, hikers etc. have completely infiltrated the back country. Just in time for new elk calves. I have no qualms on reducing the numbers of Archery Hunters and making the OTC's Limited draw. I was glad to see it happen. However, to help the overall Elk population in these areas identified to be" below management goals" it would "seem" make the entire GMU Limited Draw for rifle as well. Let the herds grow. However until more research can be performed on the true causes of the decline in calves, I applaud the DOW for making an attempt to reduce the impact of archery hunters. The DOW can do that, by limiting licenses. However, how do they stop the rest of human disturbance that far exceeds that of archery hunters. We all, as elk hunters, have lots of challenges facing us in the future.

 

[tdhanses]

Either way, you have a draw that everyone who puts in gets, what was the point?

Truthfully I agree with ckleeves, the point was to take away either sex tags reducing cows killed and get an idea of the overall numbers of hunters.

Bulls do not matter much in the grand scheme of herd growth, just hunter opinion since most want a decent bull. These units will never be trophy units and are not managed for that, these are meat units.

 

[tdhanses]

Don't make an assumption based upon a single comment on the knowledge one may or may not have on "Elk Biology". There are multiple challenges facing elk management as the western states due to changes to habitat, climate changes, new predatory issues (wolves), land acquisition, land development, impact on historical migration routes and just plain overall human disturbance. I will stand corrected , it is not all smoke and mirrors, it is an attempt to reduce the impact on elk with the sheer volume of archery elk hunters. It seems to me however, that they should also make the same units draw only for rifle until such time that they can determine the real issues with the elk populations.

Depending upon which elk study you read, one study is of the belief that the cumulative human disturbance certainly seems to be one of the largest influences that is detrimental to the elk population. As I walked miles of Wilderness Trails" last year I had to move off the trail multiple times due to "Trail Bikers" flying by tearing up on the "Wilderness Trails" they are not even supposed to be on. I also run into far more hikers (with dogs) , joggers, trail bicyclist, and Trail Bikers than I ever do archery hunters. You stated " which seems to be negatively effecting the recruitment of calves". As you well know the DOW is trying to determine what the problems are. There are multiple factors that are potentially affecting the calving and calf survival rates. One study discussed the sheer volume of hikers and shed hunters traversing through the back country "calving grounds' and bumping pregnant cows. Scaring them causing them to run all over the place and thereby "potentially" cause miscarriages and affecting the birth of healthy calves. The majority of calves drop from May 5th to June 18th assuming the bulk of cows were bred between Sept 1st through October 15th. Gestation period is about 246 days. I have have personally seen the absolute summer time "Gold Rush" to the mountains that has incrementally increased since 2008. All the side by sides and all the trail bikers, hikers etc. have completely infiltrated the back country. Just in time for new elk calves. I have no qualms on reducing the numbers of Archery Hunters and making the OTC's Limited draw. I was glad to see it happen. However, to help the overall Elk population in these areas identified to be" below management goals" it would "seem" make the entire GMU Limited Draw for rifle as well. Let the herds grow. However until more research can be performed on the true causes of the decline in calves, I applaud the DOW for making an attempt to reduce the impact of archery hunters. The DOW can do that, by limiting licenses. However, how do they stop the rest of human disturbance that far exceeds that of archery hunters. We all, as elk hunters, have lots of challenges facing us in the future.

Only reason to make the entire unit limited would be to have more and more bulls making it to an older age, it wouldn’t expand or grow the herd substantially like it does to reduce cow kills.

Truthfully all cow tags should be eliminated in under-prescribed units. There are many factors that can be looked at, predators, winters, etc etc but if you keep killing the mothers there will be fewer babies to try to survive their first year.