Did Colorado Break the Elk Bank This Year?

[Sweetmeat]

I love hunting in Colorado, and I agree that the heard health should be the number 1 priority of the CPW. I'm afraid that pricing out the average joe nonresident hunter may have unintended consequences on the hunting experience.

Do you think that implementing the "qualifying license" fee helped raise more money for the CPW? For all intents and purposes, that basically raised the NR tag cost by $80 this year.

 

[mplane72]

Help me out with your correlation. The long seasons in the south make for poor hunting and that's why they are branching out?
If so, that is not the case. They branch out for different species and also the chance at a Midwest bruiser whitetail.
The multiple month seasons themselves, are awesome.

With all due respect this is off topic of the thread but maybe not completely. I'm sure there a plenty of CO resident elk hunters that hunt elk out of state in a number of places that are known to provide an elk hunting experience with less hunter pressure then they have in their home state that has more elk then all others.

I am not totally versed on Southern state regs but I have seen enough to know they often involve a long gun seasons and many allow multiple bucks. You're just not going to have many big bucks, if that's what you want, with that kind of pressure. All the Midwest whitetail destination states have much less pressure in hunter numbers,short gun seasons and usually one buck per hunter with a gun. The ag and environment helps but that's not why there are more big bucks in the Midwest then down South, especially in the age of the deer manager. It's pressure, bag limits and hunter success rates. Gun's improve hunter success rates. IMO Iowa does it the best simply by keeping gun seasons out of the rut.

We are hard here in Iowa on NR's. A NR landowner even has to draw their tag like anyone else, which I support. At the same time their resident neighbor gets their normal resident statewide tags for gun and bow for 33 bucks each and a landowner tag for 2 bucks. I'm philisophically apposed to land owner tags. I'll freely admit any time someone in the state legislature even hints at expanding NR opportunity I'm one of the many people screaming bloody murder to shut them down.

If CO were to take steps that limited me in opportunity similar to Iowa but I knew unless I was a very poor hunter I was going to have the same kind of odds and experience in CO as a NR that a NR whitetail hunter has here I probably wouldn't complain and I'd probably be willing to pay more. I wouldn't be looking for a "trophy" either.

 

[bushman13]

So my cursory guess is the age classes are roughly the same between Midwestern states and Southern states. Apply the Bergman rule of mammals getting bigger the further north you go, and there is your answer on big Midwestern bucks.
People like to credit the Coues deer as being the smallest whitetail, always forgetting the tiny Key deer.

With all due respect this is off topic of the thread but maybe not completely. I'm sure there a plenty of CO resident elk hunters that hunt elk out of state in a number of places that are known to provide an elk hunting experience with less hunter pressure then they have in their home state that has more elk then all others.

I am not totally versed on Southern state regs but I have seen enough to know they often involve a long gun seasons and many allow multiple bucks. You're just not going to have many big bucks, if that's what you want, with that kind of pressure. All the Midwest whitetail destination states have much less pressure in hunter numbers,short gun seasons and usually one buck per hunter with a gun. The ag and environment helps but that's not why there are more big bucks in the Midwest then down South, especially in the age of the deer manager. It's pressure, bag limits and hunter success rates. Gun's improve hunter success rates. IMO Iowa does it the best simply by keeping gun seasons out of the rut.

We are hard here in Iowa on NR's. A NR landowner even has to draw their tag like anyone else, which I support. At the same time their resident neighbor gets their normal resident statewide tags for gun and bow for 33 bucks each and a landowner tag for 2 bucks. I'm philisophically apposed to land owner tags. I'll freely admit any time someone in the state legislature even hints at expanding NR opportunity I'm one of the many people screaming bloody murder to shut them down.

If CO were to take steps that limited me in opportunity similar to Iowa but I knew unless I was a very poor hunter I was going to have the same kind of odds and experience in CO as a NR that a NR whitetail hunter has here I probably wouldn't complain and I'd probably be willing to pay more. I wouldn't be looking for a "trophy" either.

 

[noharleyyet]

I think we can all agree that the first goal should be herd health. A related and secondary goal would be funding the agency responsible for this goal. I'm not sure providing non-residents an affordable hunting opportunity is something any state worries about.

If people think there are too many non-resident hunters in CO I'm not sure why you would reduce the number simply by kicking them out rather than pricing them out?

People hold Wyoming as the gold standard with it's long seasons, if you assume that the way to achieve this in CO is to reduce the number of hunters in CO to the same proportion of hunters/elk as WY and then allocate tags R/NR the same way, you are looking at cutting 31,712 NR tags. This will cost the state of Colorado 20 million dollars. My argument is that if the whole point is to fund our agency, so that the agency may have the necessary resources to manage our wildlife, then it logically follows that instead of taking that budget shortfall you would promote voluntary hunter attrition by increasing the price of NR tags.

I prefer the status quo.

(My math on the tags v. budget loss)
View attachment 120958

I think in these conversations it's important for people to understand how the departments are funded and in general what drives the variations from state to state. Texas derives only 17% of it's DNR budget from license sales while Colorado gets 54% from these sales. CPAW and issues a number of white papers and a full report on alternative funding sources, essentially trying to mirror Texas, MT, WY, etc and came to the conclusion that TABOR prevents them from any of them.

Yes, I realize King's deer is a simplistic characterization but I'm gonna stick with it....

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@noharleyyet

I was trying... although not adeptly, obviously, that you can have either the kings deer or the peoples deer. If you want the peoples deer your gonna have to share.

 

[GrantK]

I've hunted SW CO for about 20 years now, I actually saw a little less pressure this year in first rifle than usual, probably because the hunting was pretty slow... It never ceases to amaze me how quickly most people give up if they don't see anything opening day...FWIW I hunted Archery for about 15 of those years, that's now too crowded for my taste so I archery hunt out of state (also FWIW since it is only one guy's observation, CO archery hunting is way, way worse than anywhere else I have been)
now I hunt one of the rifle seasons in CO, I've been 5 for 5 on that, It's rifle hunting, it's just not that hard... that said it has taken more looking the last couple years to be consistently successful, the weather has had elk in unusual places the last couple years, I could see people having trouble if they are stuck on one spot, throwing out all proven spots and exploring has been what it takes to get it done...

I could easily get on board with the idea that the elk herd is way down over here, from someone who spends a lot of time in the woods that appears to be happening, but I also realize that my sample is far too small to really make that call, unfortunately it seems like the CPW doesn't have hard numbers on the situation either... maybe they should cut back a bit until they get data on what is happening? that seems pretty unlikely, unfortunately, for whatever reason caution isn't in their vocabulary...

I really don't care about the NR thing, just like residents they fall into two groups, the ones who get after it all day every day and are pretty successful, and the ones who road hunt for two days and leave, neither of those are really affecting my hunt at all if I'm doing it right...

I would like to see all licenses go draw, in my experience even the easy to draw units have far more mature bulls, and generally a better experience, just having to apply weeds out everyone who currently just buys a tag because they can the day before season...
the downside of that would be that I could not hunt 6-8 different units in the course of one season, I'd happily take it for the better hunting I've seen in draw units.

what I wouldn't want is for just archery, or just rifle to go limited, first rifle is the worst for crowding in a lot of units, if you only offer a couple "better" options those get all of the pressure, whereas if you have to apply for any tag it spreads out the pressure better it seems...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@mplane72 I'm not sure I totally track... but I think something to keep in mind especially for whitetail hunters is the fact that elk are just plain hard to hunt. I know back east there are state that allow you to kill 13 deer a season and people fill all of their tags.

If you look at the aggregate elk success rates for every western state, so cows and bulls, the highest rate is like 40%. If you take out cows this rate drops in half.

I don't think anything you do is going to material change those success rates.

These are 30k view rates, simply number of elk killed divided by number of hunters, so it's not necessarily indicative of what your experience would be like hunting that state. Could be 2000 people killing 5 bulls on public land while 500 people kill 1000 cows on private land so 40% success.

 

[mplane72]

So my cursory guess is the age classes are roughly the same between Midwestern states and Southern states. Apply the Bergman rule of mammals getting bigger the further north you go, and there is your answer on big Midwestern bucks.
People like to credit the Coues deer as being the smallest whitetail, always forgetting the tiny Key deer.

Last time I go off topic. Bergamn's rule applies to body size not antlers. I don't talk to many guys that come here looking for big bodies. I've seen plenty of big racked southern deer. I would bet money the average age of bucks from non midwestern hunting states be it in the south or PA, MI or New England is younger. Bucks get big because they're allowed to get get to at least 3.5. That started with luck in the regs and has been accelerated by QDMA and horn porn.

 

[bushman13]

I'll buy it, if you show me one Coues or Keys deer with a comparable rack to a Midwestern buck.

Last time I go off topic. Bergamn's rule applies to body size not antlers. I don't talk to many guys that come here looking for big bodies. I've seen plenty of big racked southern deer. I would bet money the average age of bucks from non midwestern hunting states be it in the south or PA, MI or New England is younger. Bucks get big because they're allowed to get get to at least 3.5. That started with luck in the regs and has been accelerated by QDMA and horn porn.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@mplane72 and @bushman13 was thinking about this the other day, what role do you think QDMA had in reducing hunting opportunity?

Phrased another way, do you think QDMA lead to reduced access on private land, and therefore part of the shrinking number of hunters back east is a direct effect of QDMA or are they unrelated?

 

[bushman13]

I lived through the inception of QDMA in Georgia. It definitely did not reduce opportunity in Georgia, but the cup was spilling over anyway. Simply stated, everyone hunts private and will continue to do so. The cost and availability are extremely feasible for the average hunter.
What it did do was switch the age of the buck hanging on the rack, from 1.5 years to 2.5 years +. Again this scenario is relevant to a state where there are too many deer, allowing these types of discretions. If you are in a shortage, I'm sure arguments could be made the other direction.
As far as hunter numbers being down, people aging out and culture shifts would be to blame.

@mplane72 and @bushman13 was thinking about this the other day, what role do you think QDMA had in reducing hunting opportunity?

Phrased another way, do you think QDMA lead to reduced access on private land, and therefore part of the shrinking number of hunters back east is a direct effect of QDMA or are they unrelated?

 

[sdkhunter]

I'm not really for or against any changes becasue I can seen positives & negatives with going both directions. BUT - I don't think it will turn into a have your cake and eat it too scenario. If they get rid of OTC, what is that going to do to other states and opportunies for NR's? It's anybodies guess but my feeling is that other realitivly easy to draw states/options are going to get tougher to get? Hard to say - maybe people will just go less, like every other year, but if they DON'T - it's going to impact other things. Sometimes a person has to be careful what you wish for.

 

[mplane72]

@mplane72 I'm not sure I totally track... but I think something to keep in mind especially for whitetail hunters is the fact that elk are just plain hard to hunt. I know back east there are state that allow you to kill 13 deer a season and people fill all of their tags.

If you look at the aggregate elk success rates for every western state, so cows and bulls, the highest rate is like 40%. If you take out cows this rate drops in half.

I don't anything you do is going to material change those success rates.

These are 30k view rates, simply number of elk killed divided by number of hunters, so it's not necessarily indicative of what your experience would be like hunting that state. Could be 2000 people killing 5 bulls on public land while 500 people kill 1000 cows on private land so 40% success.

View attachment 120961

I well understand the difference and agree elk by their very nature are harder to hunt. On public land that is. One thing I can't make clear enough I'm not looking for a reduction in people to make it easier for me to kill an elk. Every year I'm out there when I talk to other camps much more often then not we are doing better as far as either kills, opportunities, encounters or at least sighting.

Usually, I don't mind the added issue of competing with other hunters to find the elk but what I've seen the last few years it's getting a little old. I highly doubt that enough people are going to stop coming because of the over crowding for the issue to work it's self out.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I well understand the difference and agree elk by their very nature are harder to hunt. On public land that is. One thing I can't make clear enough I'm not looking for a reduction in people to make it easier for me to kill an elk. Every year I'm out there when I talk to other camps much more often then not we are doing better as far as either kills, opportunities, encounters or at least sighting.

Usually, I don't mind the added issue of competing with other hunters to find the elk but what I've seen the last few years it's getting a little old. I highly doubt that enough people are going to stop coming because of the over crowding for the issue to work it's self out.

Gotcha, so it's not the harvest rate necessarily, it's just the mass of people in the camp sites. I agree that camp crowding is in fact a huge problem.

Forest Service plans to eliminate north-valley dispersed camping

Dispersed camping at the north end of the Gunnison Valley is no longer sustainable. That’s according to the U.S. Forest Service. Amid increasing visitation to the area and enforcement challenges,

www.gunnisontimes.com

Honestly, I wish there was a good way of getting people on private land to ease the pressure.

 

[Irrelevant]

@mplane72 I'm not sure I totally track... but I think something to keep in mind especially for whitetail hunters is the fact that elk are just plain hard to hunt. I know back east there are state that allow you to kill 13 deer a season and people fill all of their tags.

If you look at the aggregate elk success rates for every western state, so cows and bulls, the highest rate is like 40%. If you take out cows this rate drops in half.

I don't anything you do is going to material change those success rates.

These are 30k view rates, simply number of elk killed divided by number of hunters, so it's not necessarily indicative of what your experience would be like hunting that state. Could be 2000 people killing 5 bulls on public land while 500 people kill 1000 cows on private land so 40% success.

View attachment 120961

Oh jeez. I knew we were bad... but 6%!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Oh jeez. I knew we were bad... but 6%!

So WA is one of the state that didn't have published stats online, so I had to do a FOIA request for their numbers.

All of that is a preamble to say, I'm sure I'm sure...

You had 97,636 elk hunters in 2017, 661 of which were non-residents.

Apparently we all know something you folks don't about your elk hunting.

 

[mplane72]

@mplane72 and @bushman13 was thinking about this the other day, what role do you think QDMA had in reducing hunting opportunity?

Phrased another way, do you think QDMA lead to reduced access on private land, and therefore part of the shrinking number of hunters back east is a direct effect of QDMA or are they unrelated?

With out a doubt the QDMA mentality has reduced access here. You used to be able to get permission to deer hunt but were often told to leave the pheasants alone. I know of some instances where guys get permission on private for doe only in the late season but that is rare. Getting on private by knocking on doors is not impossible but it's very hard.

It's a well documented fact that lack of access is the number one reason for the decline in hunter numbers.

I already mentioned our restrictions on NRLO. That didn't actually happen because of resident hunters, though we helped. Farmers were concerned about how willing non residents were to pay for our relatively cheap ground and how much they were pricing farmers out.

 

[bushman13]

I would love a private lease for elk, but as long as you can charge 10k for a single animal, it will never happen. I paid 4k yearly for 600 acres back in Plains Ga. I kept 4 guys on the lease, meaning no cost to me.
Land owners in the West could make that with a couple of cow hunts and the hunters are gone after one day.
Now if we ever got to the point of too many elk, I think the culture could shift.

Gotcha, so it's not the harvest rate necessarily, it's just the mass of people in the camp sites. I agree that camp crowding is in fact a huge problem.

Forest Service plans to eliminate north-valley dispersed camping

Dispersed camping at the north end of the Gunnison Valley is no longer sustainable. That’s according to the U.S. Forest Service. Amid increasing visitation to the area and enforcement challenges,

www.gunnisontimes.com

Honestly, I wish there was a good way of getting people on private land to ease the pressure.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would love a private lease for elk, but as long as you can charge 10k for a single animal, it will never happen. I paid 4k yearly for 600 acres back in Plains Ga. I kept 4 guys on the lease, meaning no cost to me.
Land owners in the West could make that with a couple of cow hunts and the hunters are gone after one day.
Now if we ever got to the point of too many elk, I think the culture could shift.

I've gotten on private in MT for free to kill cow elk. My boss let some guys who gave him a call kill some bulls on his place in WY.

So it is possible and does happen. To be honestly I think most folks in the west find the idea of a hunting lease repugnant.

Growing up and learning to hunt out here I feel like there is a cultural taboo of asking for permission.

 

[rwc101]

I gained hunting opportunities because of QDMA. A guy with 3,500 acres couldn't cull enough does by himself.