seeth07
Well-known member
seems like they simply just had a problem coming up with 4 reasons to not chose choice 5. I mean look at drawback 1....really?
CO BGSS 2024
- Thread starter vanish
- Start date
Agreed, that is phrased disingenuous. It is more like, "It may be more complicated for an R/NR to plan a hunt together."
As far as I can tell, there is nothing preventing them from hunting together assuming their tags are both good in the same unit.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 3,608
Thats ok. Im ok with only hunting Colorado every 3 or 4 years. I have said that many time on this very forum.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 179
Well option 6 gives landowners 20 percent of the tags so 3 or 4 is maybe 6 or 8 unless you shell out 5 to 10 to get a voucher yearly.
marksjeep
Well-known member
A5/R5. R6 will make landowners happy, as noted above.
Westelker
Well-known member
I'm with you on this too, as a lifelong resident, but I'll go the long run....6/6!
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
If I was a resident I would say 5 and 5 but since I’m a nonresidential I’m saying 1 and 1. 
Colorado public land elk hunting is still way better than Montana’s. When it gets as bad as Montanas then I will change my opinion.
Colorado public land elk hunting is still way better than Montana’s. When it gets as bad as Montanas then I will change my opinion.
Bullshot
Well-known member
NR here. I hope to never hunt OTC in CO again, so please make it as hard to as you want. Caps, draws, whatever. I hate what a s-show OTC Colorado elk hunting has become in many formerly placid areas. I’m willing to wait for better hunts.
seeth07
Well-known member
So you want at least option 5 then because it in theory would likely lessen point creep on the low/mid tier units
Bullshot
Well-known member
I guess I am mostly indifferent between 4 & 5. But I think 4 would generate more 1st choice applicants for the “general” tag that would use PP, thus keeping point creep better suppressed in other low-point units for a little bit longer. With 5, limiting to specific units, I feel most of those tags would go second choice, so defeats some of the purpose.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
6/6, + OTC valid on private land. The outfitters are going to fight for far more than that.
seeth07
Well-known member
I never thought about that before and it seems that allowing otc on private land is a pretty decent option for this discussion to help some of those with land and outfitters.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 3,608
For sure this is a great idea.
Outdooraddict
Active member
Maybe I'm shooting from the hip and not thinking this through, but here it goes:
Elk Archery
R6 but modified (and should include muzzle loader, 1st rifle, 4th rifle, and all deer and pronghorn tags!)...
-They should HARD CAP non-residents to 25% in non-trophy units and 20% in trophy units. (I would fight for less NR percent, but that's not on the table)
-IF the hard cap is met and there are leftover tags after resident first choice- the remaining tags will be divided where 50% will be drawn from 2nd choice CO residents (then 3rd and 4th), and 50% will go to the remaining 1st choice NR applicants (then 2nd and so on...)
-CPW re-evaluates the percentage of tags landowners can get (easy math).
OTC Rifle- R5
I think it would help with the quality of the hunt to know how many residents and nonresidents are in a GMU. However, without creating a hard cap protocol, we are giving away too many tags. Colorado residents deserve to hunt in their backyard while accumulating points. For example, the muzzle-loader buck tag in unit 43 had 155 tags that were sold to adults. 99 tags were given to NR while only 37 went to residents. If there was a 25% hard cap, and then divided 50/50 for remaining tags- NR would get appr. 79 tags and the residents would get appr. 76 tags- a total of 40 tags given to second choice CO residents.
But I don't know crap. There are a lot more qualified people out there that have experienced different draw methods, quotas, etc... and whose experience and expertise I respect. Curious to hear from Oak.
Elk Archery
R6 but modified (and should include muzzle loader, 1st rifle, 4th rifle, and all deer and pronghorn tags!)...
-They should HARD CAP non-residents to 25% in non-trophy units and 20% in trophy units. (I would fight for less NR percent, but that's not on the table)
-IF the hard cap is met and there are leftover tags after resident first choice- the remaining tags will be divided where 50% will be drawn from 2nd choice CO residents (then 3rd and 4th), and 50% will go to the remaining 1st choice NR applicants (then 2nd and so on...)
-CPW re-evaluates the percentage of tags landowners can get (easy math).
OTC Rifle- R5
I think it would help with the quality of the hunt to know how many residents and nonresidents are in a GMU. However, without creating a hard cap protocol, we are giving away too many tags. Colorado residents deserve to hunt in their backyard while accumulating points. For example, the muzzle-loader buck tag in unit 43 had 155 tags that were sold to adults. 99 tags were given to NR while only 37 went to residents. If there was a 25% hard cap, and then divided 50/50 for remaining tags- NR would get appr. 79 tags and the residents would get appr. 76 tags- a total of 40 tags given to second choice CO residents.
But I don't know crap. There are a lot more qualified people out there that have experienced different draw methods, quotas, etc... and whose experience and expertise I respect. Curious to hear from Oak.
grasshopper
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 179
OTC on private lands means every piece of ground from 1-25 to the Utah line would be leased to outfitters or private parties. Ask Montana why they have block management access program - wait - I'll just tell you - because outfitters leased all the ground.
With 2-5, everyone gets a license and there is limited incentive to lock up ground.
OTC on private = can't get a license in the public draw, but lets have an unlimited outfitter set aside that encourages no public access instead. Good grief.
Yeah, but Colorado has more accessible and huntable public land than most western states combined.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 3,608
Like the landowners are going to let you hunt without paying a kings ransom anyhow.
That notion itself is laughable.
I’m a NR and this is what I’ve always filled the surveys out for - as much as I love coming to Colorado to hunt I try to see it through a residents point of view.
The problem is that your population has exploded over the last 20 years and A6/R6 might be the only solution that is actually good for the resource long term. If they do it right, it should still favor residents. I also think it’s more complex than just hunter numbers - places I come to camp and fish in the summer, I had to myself 10 years ago. Not so much anymore….
As a NR I’ll still always vote for limited nr/otc r because I don’t feel that a NR should be able to limit a residents opportunities. That’s for you all to decide.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Only half the units in that area are currently OTC for archery now. https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/OTCEitherSexElkArchery.pdf All but a few are OTC for 2nd and 3rd rifle. I’m not advocating for an expansion of OTC on private land in units that are currently part of the draw, if that is what you thought I meant.
Handshake access in CO dried up 25+ years ago. Virtually all the private is already locked up, but not all is leased. There are also hunt clubs, LO who hunt the property themselves, as well as LO’s that don’t hunt and will not allow hunting on their property at all. While RFW has it’s flaws, that is essentially CO’s version of block management. IMO the best investment of opening public access in areas of CO that have limited public land is to copy MT’s access State Land Recreation Permit Fee and do away with public land hunting leases on State Trust Land sections. Heck, some of those sections don’t even have an active lease on them, and public land hunters lack a reasonable means to gain permission to access them.
