Colorado Elk Harvest falls short again......

[Washington Hunter]

650 yards? Wow! For shooting an elk that far I think you might want to consider a 338 Ultra Mag or a 30-378 Weatherby. Even then I think it would be too far. 400 yards is do-able, 450 yards MAYBE, but I'd save the 650 yard shots to shooting at paper, not live animals, especially an animal the size of an elk.

 

[Roadtrip]

Back from a nice winter vacation in the islands and I see the thread has grown and taken on a life of its own. I was on my soap box early on on this topic but I don't agree with the DOW's decisions on rate increases...as I also don't agree with a lot of the other states rates and policies. Especially when it comes to hunting on Federal land that I'm paying to manage. East of the Mississippi we don't treat out of staters like that and doubt we ever would. We have people come from all over to duck hunt, Fish in the Gulf Stream etc...and it is all reasonabley priced. Not having either sex tags is just plain poor managment...and I would suspect that some time in the future Colorado residents will be able to get 5 or more Elk tags a year while out of state hunters pay for their hunting. And don't laugh at my joke about the wolves too hard...they will be there soon enough as the PETA people think thats a more humane way to manage populations. Try as hard as I can,(I shoot an elk each year) I can only eat about one elk so I've got no reason to go for 3 or more. The thing that strikes me strange....winter range keeps disappearing, humans keep encroaching, the Herd numbers keep increasing, less and less young people are hunting and vegans and greenies are proliferating, so a handful of western states keep raising out of state fees. I have a degree in economics and business management and it just doesn't make sense. for instance...Alabama (the black belt) has some amazing whitetail deer to hunt....and they keep their out of state rates cheap, with multiple take and possesion opportunities, and the end result is an effective partnership to manage the populations. Either way....I will always support any efforts to reduce or eliminate these fees for Federal lands or at least an effort to keep the rates proportional between all taxpayers. In the mean time...I'll keep hunting in Idaho, and will probably do something with some private landowners that I know in both Montanna and New Mexico. I can tell you one thing....times aren't that good for many Colorado Outfitters as more than one have offered to sell me their business and the one I hunted with 3 years ago keeps calling and writing and lowering his price, offering all kinds of incentives to get me to start re-booking.

Best of luck to all....and I hope I draw that muzzle loading tag in Utah!

Cheers
Roadtrip

 

[tmsander]

Roadtrip,
While I agree with you that reducing out-of-state tag prices for non-residents in Colorado could increase the amount of hunting here I would like to point out that you do not support the management of wildlife in this state with your federal taxes. You support the management of the federal lands, which you are free to use any time, including hunting season. You just can't hunt the state's (not fed's) wildlife without purchasing the state tags.

 

[Deerslayer]

That's a pretty good post Roadtrip.
But like Todd, I'll have to point out a couple of things. Colorado has been on the low end of the totem pole compared to other western states.....even your own, when it comes to charging non-res to hunt. So I really feel your frustration with Colorado is not well directed.

Also.....As far as your comment on Residents being able to buy 5 tags in the future while non-res pay for it.....a little FYI.....this state offered up to 3 elk a hunter this year......residents and non res alike. And the grand total for non-res who bought 3 elk tags would have been right at $800. I can think of 3 or 4 western states that charge that for one elk. The DOW has done a great job in my opinion, and will hopefully continue to do so.

Good luck on your Utah draw!

 

[schmalts]

I agree with both of you but as far as prices goes, they are lower than other states because of poor quality. How many 350+ bills do you ever hear about coming off the public land there Vs the high price states, not too many. I think colorado with its elk population has a great oppertunity to turn this high number of elk into a quality minded management with fast results along with it. In 3 years there could be some real nice bulls there if they started now. Slay some cows,put a 5 pt min instead of 4 and get some results. Maybe i am wrong and the genetics are not there but i dont believe that, there are some nice bulls on the private ranches. What do you think?

 

[Roadtrip]

Deerslayer and Tom,

Being on the low end of the totem pole still does not mean that the few others on that pole are right either.

"4 other states that are higher".....4 out of 48 certainly do not make a majority nor are they anymore correct.

Also...I'm well aware of the state vs Fed statutes regarding game. However...it is not fairly applied to "Indians" on reservations so it should not be any different to anyone else. If game resides and lives its life on that land...it should be federally regulated.

And...I would be more than Happy to contribute to any fund to manage wildlife on federal lands so that the state and residents would no longer have a complaint.

Cheers
Roadtrip

 

[Deerslayer]

Roadtrip....."4 out of 48"....you can't be serious? 48 states do not offer elk hunting. You can't compare the price of hunting and elk to the price of hunting a deer in the east. To quote an ex-pres...."That just wouldn't be prudent, now would it"....
You have to compare apples to apples. So that means states in the west that offer elk. When you clean house....better start with your own state....

Schmalts,......you can't have it both ways.
Folks want to bitch about the quality of Colorado elk hunting, yet they want cheaper tags and more hunting opportunitys. Colorado could manage like New Mexico and then you could kill 300+ bulls(or bills as you like to call them

).........but you would pay $800 for a tag and draw a hunt once evry few years. That's unacceptable for folks that hunt Colorado......they want to hunt every year and for cheap. We can't have it both ways. So much of the state is to give the average joe what he wants...an over the counter elk tag for cheap whenever he decides to get up and go. And you can still kill those 350+ bulls........just have to draw a limited tag. Do you want the whole state limited like New Mexico or Arizona? I don't. Neither do the 10's of thousands of hunters that migrate here each year after bombing out in the other draws.

 

[Roadtrip]

Deerslayer.....you missed the point...and didn't even address the issue of indians on federal or indian lands either. Just because its the "way it has always been" doesn't mean its right. Its no more right than for us to charge tourists to come to the beach...because we have to clean it up after they leave...or charge them rediculous fees because they are out of state to fish our offshore fishery. Just because New Jersey charges people 30 bucks to drive a truck on the parkway...doesn't make it right.

Anyway....your opinion is yours...and you are welcome to it. Personally....I beleive and always will believe...that Indians, Residents and Non residents should all have the same chances, opportunities and rates to use FEDERAL land for whatever the purpose. Be it fishing, hunting, camping, or just waxing their carrot. Many politicians suffer from recto-cranial inversions...so I won't even touch that one.

Cheers
Roadtrip

 

[Deerslayer]

I won't get into the indian issues.....apparently, our government feels they wronged the indians after stealing most of the country from them, and feel a compensatory measure is justified. Not for me to say, but I won't condem 'em for it either.

But as far as non res, they do have the opportunitys. They are just asked to pay a higher rate for that opportunity...and fairly so when you consider residents pay year round for the resources of a state. For you to come in and reap the bebefits of that for the same price as the guy who supported it all year whether he liked it or not......well that just would not be right.

The notion that all federal lands and everything on them belongs to all Amaericans is not true either. The animals within a state's borders are maintaned and managed by that state, and the residents of that state should get preferance over residents from other states, and that is how it is.
If a guy can't pay non res fees, he should consider hunting his own state or moving to the state he wants to hunt. Everything has a price.....and I think $480 for non-res elk is a damn fair one. But this is the land of opportunity......maybe there is a better deal out there some where. Good luck in your efforts to find it. I see you have your mind made up on this, as do I, so I will respect your opinion and leave it at that.....

....good luck on drawing that Utah hunt, ....they must have been right on the price of that tag for you to have applied....

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-03-2003 11:02: Message edited by: Deerslayer ]</font>

 

[schmalts]

DS i think you read me a little wrong. I am not saying they should limit numbers, just raise the 4 pt rule to 5 pt. Its a small compromise i think, and it wont mean any huge bull but may mean a few elk guys could be a little more hyped about. kind of like QDM, just wait one more year for antler growth. Just making the quality 15% better would mean a lot in my opinion.

 

[Deerslayer]

True Pat, but they already have a lot of managed units...just not the general ones.
A 4 point minimum saves the little guys. I'm not sure a 5 point rule would make a lot of difference....it might. Basically, the 4 point rule is sparing the spikes from slaughter. That saves a lot of marginal raggys too, simply because a guy has to stop and count, and that split second may be the difference in harvesting or not. I think if a guy wants quality managment, he needs to look at the harder to draw limited areas.....not the general unlimited ones.
But I do see your point. I just think there are many opportunitys to trophy hunt....and we need to save space for the guy that just wants to shoot an elk....just my .02

 

[Boman]

Just an FYI.. you can shoot any bull in the restricted units as long as it has 5" brow tines...This is true. I found this out a couple of years ago. So that little rag bull could be harvested if it had 5" brow tines..just so you all know..

 

[schmalts]

yes i knew that. WHATS UP WITH THAT????? does not seem too right. Am i missing the point of this rule????? It seems to completely undermind the 4 pt rule. Or do they figure a spike with a brow tine is some kind of poor genetics???

 

[Washington Hunter]

I think Colorado's non-resident tag prices are fair. Like others have said, if you don't want to pay non-resident prices, then move there. What I think is unfair (and I don't know if Colorado does this or not) is when non-residents get guaranteed tags if going with an outfitter, like Montana (and other states.) Everybody should have to draw, then those that draw can choose to hire an outfitter if they wish. This type of thing creates a system in which only the very wealthy people get to go hunting, and that's not right. I also don't agree that having a 5 point minimum will improve trophy potential. If you do this, you will put more pressure on the bigger bulls, so the number of trophy class bulls will decrease, not increase. In eastern Washington they have a spike only general season, and extremely limited permits for branch antler bulls. This has been very successful in increasing the number of mature bulls, but of course it doesn't help hunters much because you can't shoot them. But if you want bigger bulls, the only way to do it is to decrease the number of hunters. And I don't think that is what Colorado wants to do.

 

[tmsander]

In probably 95% of the cases, a bull with a 5" brow tine will have four points, so it is pretty rare that these two rules would be contradictory.

If I understand Roadtrips points correctly, he would like to see all wildlife in this country managed by the federal government rather than by the individual states. I certainly don't want to move in that direction, with game management or anything else!

I think there would be a number of results of increasing the minimum point count from 4 to 5. The average maturity of bulls would increase, which would have positive impacts on the structure of the population as a whole, as well as genetic health. From what I have read, it is not good to have spikes and raghorns breeding the cows, which I guess happens when all the bulls get shot as soon as they grow four points.

On the other hand, increasing the point restriction will, at least for the short term, reduce the overal success ratio, compounding the problems of overpopulation. Somehow, we have to get hunters to kill more cows. As someone once told me, Colorado doesn't have too many elk, it has too many cow elk. I wonder what results would be seen if, for a year or two, non-resident cow tags were reduced to, say, $40? Of course, the pumkin patch would get awfully crowded too.

 

[Deerslayer]

Todd, do you really think all the bulls get shot as soon as they grow 4 points? I would venture that there are more than a few 4 point plus bulls that have learned to be wary enough of hunting season to escape death.....such as becoming nocturnal, finding hideouts on private land, refuges, parks, the big nastys on open land...etc.

I think the biggest thing the 4 point rule does is give a bull a couple of years to get acclamated to the pressures of being hunted and learn how to survive it.

Raising the point restricyion to 5 would simply make hunters hold out for better bulls, thus eliminating bigger bulls....like Washington hunter said. Yeah, over all success would go down, but success on 5 point or better would go up, thus killing more mature bulls. Instead of whacking the first legal bull, hunters would be forced to holdout for a larger bull or eat the tag.

The purpose of the rule is to allow small bulls to get some "survival instincts" before they are fair game. I like the rule and think it is effective.

 

[Deerslayer]

And Todd, on your cow comment, I think you are dead on. Not too many elk here, just too many cows. All they have to do is keep reducing the price if they are serious about reducing numbers. Drop the cow tag to $50 for non res. and see how many are left

 

[tmsander]

DS - Of course I don't think all the bulls are killed as soon as they grow 4 points. I've seen some monsters, and I'm sure you have. But an awfull lot of them are killed young. I don't think the average of all bulls killed in Colorado is that great, hence our reputation for having inferior elk and elk hunting.

I've read where in some Colorado units there are so few mature bulls left that raghorns and even spikes get to breed. I think bulls have to get older than 3 or 4 years before they develop and start domonstrating the traits that would allow them to maximize their breeding in an unaltered system.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the 4 point restriction is in place to allow bulls to acclimate to hunting. I don't think that was the reason for the rule in the first place and even doubt it is a significant ansillary outcome. If that were a significant fact, cows wouldn't be so easy to kill.

I'm not saying the 4-point restriction is bad or doesn't work. Just saying its not the only strategy available and not the only thing that works. I've wondered if an experiment with temporary and limited spike only units wouldn't eventually produce some interesting results.

 

[Deerslayer]

I'm of the belief that spikes are easier to kill than a 3 or 4 year old. I think giving a yearling bull two or 3 seasons to learn survival instincts would greatly enhance his chances of survival......not to mention the couple years he was allowed to grow being protected...........but hey, I could be wrong. I don't know as much as the guys that do it for a living..that is why I put my trust in their wisdom and system

 

[schmalts]

I love the 4pt rule, just would like to see it bumped to 5 pt. .after one year of "suffering" hunters would kill just as many bulls, but now they would be a little nicer. I also think it would improve the overall hunt because you would see a lot more bulls, even if they were 4pt it adds a little fun. I agree they need to lower the cow tags. I was 10 feet from one last year bowhunting and thought to myself would i want to spend 200$ to do that much work to pack her out, and lose 1 1/2 days of bull hunting? But thats just me, and i try to hike far from roads so its not worth the bother. If it was rifle season and cold, and i was near roads maybe, for 50$ definitly! I just dont have time to eat all the meat and my wife isnt crazy about wild deer family meat. I would give a lot of it away so i would not pay 200$ to do so.