BGSS results

grasshopper

Active member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
157
I need some help.

So for all you guys and gals headed to BGSS meetings and upcoming sportsmen's roundtables, I pulled the attached together. I've asked for 10 minutes to present at the NE region public roundtable in July, so far my request has been denied. I'm appealing. I thought the roundtable was exactly the forum for this discussion, maybe not. Please take it to yours. I've shared the same info on FB.


BGSS to some extent is about looking at what was done in the past and figuring out, (1) Did it accomplish what it was intended to do and (2) Do people like it. Last BGSS one of the biggest changes was the whole SW region was limited to just archers. Prior to BGSS archers lost OTC licenses in E-16, and that herd has rebounded very well according to CPW estimates after they eliminated cow tags . Archers also lost OTC in 80/81 which the herd is above objective. It is now drawn out at 73% nonresident. Recently archers lost OTC on the Grand Mesa while the herd is at objective of 15,500 elk. On the Grand Mesa going to draw took a supposed 2,000 resident bowhunter participation down to 800, a 60% decline. There are leftovers.

There was reasons for the limitations, some of them valid some of them bogus, IMO. Also, I understand the draw process well. Quotas are meant to be sold, allocations only apply to first choice. Leftovers go to anyone, but here is my take:
1. Most Residents have preference points and most are unwilling to spend them on a unit they have hunted as OTC. In unit 521, only 85(4.2%) of 2,000 residents turned into first choice applicants. In 41, 272(13.6%) of the 2,000 residents applied as a first choice hunt code. In unit 80/81 we had ~1,000 resident hunters turned into 327 first choice applicants. This hunt code sold out on 2nd choice with nonresidents receiving almost twice as many licenses as residents. 589 2nd choice residents applied as a second choice, only 133 drew.
In the SW EM077o1A hunt code nonresidents drew 73% of the licenses across 1st and 2nd choice, while 245 residents who applied did not draw.

So what is my point? On the table for this BGSS is limitations for more if not all units. What the learning should be in looking at the data is that OTC hunters have points. Points are are primary factor in application decision making. Residents are being disproportionately put at a disadvantage when OTC is taken to limited. An OTC unit converted to limited is worth zero points to most residents. If more units head to limited, perhaps the formula needs change to place more value on resident applicants.


I get complaints of crowding are ongoing. Everyone wants a healthy herd and a great hunt, including a sense of solitude. That said, Grand Mesa just saw a 60% decline in resident hunters while the elk herd is at objective. Why? Because people complained? Is there better options like capping nonresidents or a new allocation formula? Even looking at all hunters on the Mesa, supposedly we had close to 5,000 but only 1900 drew, and only 1025 applied ass 1st choice? They are killing resident participation.

Dan Prenzlow said when deer went totally limited we lost 80,000 hunters, and they never came back. Remember 2 directors back when CPW actually talked about recruitment, retention, etc? Now we talk about mutualism? What happened? Residents are being pushed out needlessly, maybe that is the plan.

If you are voting for total limitations, ask yourself why? Did moving from 3,000 to 2,000 in units 80/81 create solitude? Will there be any improvement in herd dynamics when the management plan says maximum opportunity, but the license scheme changes? The SW has been limited to archers for 3 or so years now, some of those DAU's still have 12-16 bulls per 100 cows, that's a shame.

Be careful what you vote for, you might get it, and it wasn't what you thought it would be.

If you have any feedback, iron sharpens iron, that's what I'm looking for. You might not agree, I'm ok with that.
 

Attachments

  • limited license nightmare for bowhunters.pdf
    4.5 MB · Views: 20
Steve, I haven't read this yet, but the attached file is much easier to read with the correct orientation.
 

Attachments

  • limited license nightmare for bowhunters.pdf
    4.5 MB · Views: 20
How do we know that residents are being “pushed out” as you contend? Couldn’t they just be changing their application behavior? Since they would have to burn points to hunt archery on the Grand Mesa, for example, couldn’t they be hunting different units or hunting there in the OTC rifle seasons instead? Perhaps nonresident applicants are learning that building points is a fool’s errand in a landscape of shrinking nonresident allocations. So, the NRs are going where they can hunt. The resident, meanwhile, just saw his/her allocation increase from 65% to 75% and now thinks, “Geez… maybe I’ll save a few points and just hunt here during the 2nd rifle instead.”

I’m sure changes like this have unintended consequences, but a changing resident/nonresident mix during a hunt doesn’t mean that resident participation is being crushed. They aren’t prohibited from applying. It just doesn’t represent an attractive option to the resident applicant, apparently. But maybe I’m not seeing your point.
 
Last edited:
How do we know that residents are being “pushed out” as you contend? Couldn’t they just be changing their application behavior? Since they would have to burn points to hunt archery on the Grand Mesa, for example, couldn’t they be hunting different units or hunting there in the OTC rifle seasons instead? Perhaps nonresident applicants are learning that building points is a fool’s errand in a landscape of shrinking nonresident allocations. So, the NRs are going where they can hunt. The resident, meanwhile, just saw his/her allocation increase from 65% to 75% and now thinks, “Geez… maybe I’ll save a few points and just hunt here during the 2nd rifle instead.”
My guess is where they most likely went was another archery OTC unit. Personally, Ive never known a bowhunter to jump into 2nd rifle. Expect 3,000 displaced bowhunters from Grand Mesa to head over into NW Colorado this year. This could have been easily avoided if CPW would consider anything beyond the option they like.

Which brings up my second point, thanks for leading me there. Limit all units, 700,000 points in play for anything but a zero point unit. Point creep, rather then capping NR's.
 

Attachments

  • 2022 elk draw point stats.jpg
    2022 elk draw point stats.jpg
    346.3 KB · Views: 8
capping or eliminiting NR otc across archery and rifle should be what every resident is asking for and what the commission should be doing. i don't disagree.

but, residents aren't really losing opportunity, they can still hunt every year everywhere they could before. i just wouldn't use that argument because it's a little disingenuous IMO.

although, i do like trending in the direction of forcing people to either hunt or get points, not do both; that's the other side of the point creep coin that needs to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Residents don't want the tags, but would take them if they didn't loose their points, is that what I'm reading here? Or are you suggesting a cap on NR and the remaining tags go into the pool for residents paw through as leftovers that they didn't want in the first place? I think a cap is a good idea. How many hunt codes did you find this to be a big issue? Just curious. Seems like residents would rather eat the scraps off the floor than give them away?

Maybe I just don't follow what you're getting at. How do you convince a resident to apply for a tag they don't really want?

Sure a pickle they're getting themselves into with the point system.
 
Maybe I just don't follow what you're getting at. How do you convince a resident to apply for a tag they don't really want?

the issue primarily being that they were over the counter units and now they're not. so the residents that used hunt OTC there don't and go elsewhere because they just want to hunt OTC while they save points. on one hand they could just as easily get the same tags that are now limited as second choice tags and retain points, but then they have to hunt those several units.

so there's functionally little harm done to the resident other than they're losing some OTC units.

grasshoppers main argument is that residents should get to retain their full OTC options and the limitations should be on NRs when the actual numbers do in fact show that the crowding problems during OTC archery are in fact most dominated by NRs with OTC tags. i agree with him there.

i don't really agree that there is actually any loss in opportunity here for the resident hunter. but, residents should really be prioritized, and they're not. instead of cutting NR OTC they cut both.
 
Going totally limited (rifle included) would also allow landowner preference in those units. A friend pointed this out last week at the GJ meeting and no one seemed to have considered that aspect.
 
There are over 800 leftover archery tags for 41, 42, and 421 on Grand Mesa right now.
Yes there is, and of the 2,000 residents who used to hunt in E14, only 17% of them applied as a first choice hunt code. Which is the behavior I am noticing from residents. Nonresidents seem to apply at 50% rate so they dominate the draw from a first choice hunt code perspective, and 2nd, 3rd and fourth. Very few of the units in the SW have leftovers.

The question on the table for BGSS is should we create more zero point units, where nonresidents dominate the draw.
The grand mesa was limited to archery elk hunters for "crowding reasons" while residents have declined 20% since 2014. The bear quota on the GM is 2400 licenses, all List B. The ML quota is 815 and the cow tags are list B. GM has one of the largest ATV and mountain bike trail complexes in the state, well used, well maintained! Not sure "crowding" is fixed or ever will be.
 

Attachments

  • zero point units.jpg
    zero point units.jpg
    414.6 KB · Views: 4
Yes there is, and of the 2,000 residents who used to hunt in E14, only 17% of them applied as a first choice hunt code. Which is the behavior I am noticing from residents. Nonresidents seem to apply at 50% rate so they dominate the draw from a first choice hunt code perspective, and 2nd, 3rd and fourth. Very few of the units in the SW have leftovers.

The question on the table for BGSS is should we create more zero point units, where nonresidents dominate the draw.
The grand mesa was limited to archery elk hunters for "crowding reasons" while residents have declined 20% since 2014. The bear quota on the GM is 2400 licenses, all List B. The ML quota is 815 and the cow tags are list B. GM has one of the largest ATV and mountain bike trail complexes in the state, well used, well maintained! Not sure "crowding" is fixed or ever will be.
ATV trail system yes. Mountain bike trail system? Not really.
 
ATV trail system yes. Mountain bike trail system? Not

ATV trail system yes. Mountain bike trail system? Not really.
Really? 25 years ago I had to haul a mountain biker off this ATV trail in 521. It runs from McClure pass to Erickson springs campground at the bottom of the road up Kebler Pass. Granolas who ride between Pitkin county and Crested Butte. The biker did an endo, and broke his collar bone, every bump I hit he sure felt the pain. Scratched the crap out that bike bunjeed to the back.

If you don't think you have a mountain bike trail system now, just wait until front range bikers find out. I haven't hunted here in years, but I wouldn't be surprised if tour companies are hauling them in now from crested, aspen, glenwood, and more.

Interestingly, unit 521 was spelled out as the problem child and the need to limit archers. You have wilderness above, an ATV trail below, below that an irrigation ditch that supplies water to lush private ag fields below. Pretty sure one of those private parcels is the Koch ranch.
Was it archers pushing elk? 2400, let me repeat that, 2400 bear hunters? Mountain bikers? Atv'ers? or do the elk just like lush irrigated ag fields? I don't care what you do, elk will be on that private ground.

Archery elk hunters are being replaced. September is now primarily a bear season, and rec season. What do we do? We need to get bear harvest, but you ever watch a commission meeting where the set bear quota's?
 

Attachments

  • 521 ATV trail.jpg
    521 ATV trail.jpg
    282.6 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Erickson Springs is not on the Grand Mesa. There are three dedicated mountain bike trails on Grand Mesa. There are very many 50” trails on Grand Mesa, none of those are new. Sometimes mountain bikers ride them but they aren’t really very good trails for MTB because Grand Mesa is very rocky.
 
Last edited:
Erickson Springs is not on the Grand Mesa. There are three dedicated mountain bike trails on Grand Mesa. There are very many 50” trails on Grand Mesa, none of those are new. Sometimes mountain bikers ride them but they aren’t really very good trails for MTB because Grand Mesa is very rocky.
521 is in elk DAU 14, it is managed the same as the mesa. It may not be on the mesa, its the same herd of 15,500 elk according to CPW. The bear code BE041o1R still works in 521.

Look, Boulder and Jeffco open space are saturated with mountain bikers, they are headed that way. I used to hunt up Leon creek years ago. Been on many of those trails. I need to come back, the trails are awesome.

I don't know if regs state no mtn bikes on 50" trails. The erickson springs trail was used by mtn bikers years go, and it is 50". I don't care how rocky they are, people will use them if they can. These fat tire ebikes will go up anything if you have the balls to do it.
 
Front Range bikers are not flocking here for a reason, outside of The Palisade Plunge (which I helped build) the trails here just aren’t very good.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,427
Messages
2,020,886
Members
36,169
Latest member
B&CTom
Back
Top