Should CO Full Limited for Elk ?

[AvidIndoorsman]

This conversation crops up every year, curious to see what people think. My goal is to provide some information to inform the discussion.

 

[AggieHunter]

Personally, I would like to see a more limited tag approach or possibly limited for nonresidents and otc for residents like other states do. I think it would help crowding and pressure, but understand there are a lot of other issues as to why Colorado hasn't switched. I also realize that Colorado is one of the few states where nonresidents can just show up and hunt elk which I believe is good to have.

 

[Buffs35]

I was told there would be no math.

 

[Dinkshooter]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cogreeny]

For non res absolutely.

 

[Fj605]

Nope

 

[jlong17]

As a NR, I’d be ok with that. Make people burn points and commit to units. Seems like that’d be a better way to distribute hunters? Having said that, all I’ve ever known in my 3 short years of elk hunting is jam packed trailheads and people blowing bugle tubes in every drainage... oh and did I mention a lot of hunters?
Some day I’ll hopefully draw a tag in a unit with only a handful of other hunters. I’m just paying my dues in the meantime and grinding it out with everyone else. Being so new to this game, I understand I have a lot of learning and maturing to do... but I can’t help but wish things were different

 

[Buffs35]

If colorado residents could get reciprocity with other western states, I say leave it alone. If not, colorado should start trending towards other western states.

 

[Dsnow9]

I think as @wllm1313 has said before, if you are hunting an A tag you should lose your points. I also think that otc should go away. I think even if quotas were high enough to still provide ample opportunity like it appears the new draw units are, it spreads people out rather than everyone ending up in the same unit. Just provides more control and better data for what is actually going on throughout the state.

 

[D_Walt]

I think full limited is inevitable, Just a matter of when. Likely as soon as the large canines begin putting a hurting on elk #’s. When CO does go full limited it will really shake up NR apps and pref points across the west. Then we’ll have a 300 page discussion on the NAM...

 

[cedahm]

I think as @wllm1313 has said before, if you are hunting an A tag you should lose your points. I also think that otc should go away. I think even if quotas were high enough to still provide ample opportunity like it appears the new draw units are, it spreads people out rather than everyone ending up in the same unit. Just provides more control and better data for what is actually going on throughout the state.

Based on CPWs reluctance to make transformational changes in allocation/limited units versus just making small shifts, I think there’s going to be a ramp-in period no matter what. In a vacuum, I’d prefer a bonus/random split with 80/20 across the board and all NR bull elk licenses limited in some way, but that’s not going to happen in one move.

given that, here’s what I was talking about just last week with a friend that I think is possible under current frameworks:

- I’d be OK with someone just not acquiring a new point if they hold any kind of ‘A’ license through any means (draw or reissue).

- OTC with caps for Res.

- OTC with caps for NR becomes a draw tag similar to the WY General.

- Update 80/20 allocations to units needing >5 R points the last 5 years instead of the current 2005-2009 basis, then have a split fee structure like NM (charge more for those ‘Quality’ units), with additional funds earmarked to projects primarily involving that species.

- R/NR can average points on applications, but R applying with NR still go in as NR app.

- mandatory harvest reporting (can’t participate in next years draw + lose any remaining points for that species as penalty for not reporting)

 

[LuketheDog]

OTC with caps or full limited for NonRes for sure, even with fully limited licenses many of those units will have leftovers.

 

[LuketheDog]

Based on CPWs reluctance to make transformational changes in allocation/limited units versus just making small shifts, I think there’s going to be a ramp-in period no matter what. In a vacuum, I’d prefer a bonus/random split with 80/20 across the board and all NR bull elk licenses limited in some way, but that’s not going to happen in one move.

given that, here’s what I was talking about just last week with a friend that I think is possible under current frameworks:

- I’d be OK with someone just not acquiring a new point if they hold any kind of ‘A’ license through any means (draw or reissue).

- OTC with caps for Res.

- OTC with caps for NR becomes a draw tag similar to the WY General.

- Update 80/20 allocations to units needing >5 R points the last 5 years instead of the current 2005-2009 basis, then have a split fee structure like NM (charge more for those ‘Quality’ units), with additional funds earmarked to projects primarily involving that species.

- R/NR can average points on applications, but R applying with NR still go in as NR app.

- mandatory harvest reporting (can’t participate in next years draw + lose any remaining points for that species as penalty for not reporting)

This is good stuff^

 

[Dsnow9]

Based on CPWs reluctance to make transformational changes in allocation/limited units versus just making small shifts, I think there’s going to be a ramp-in period no matter what. In a vacuum, I’d prefer a bonus/random split with 80/20 across the board and all NR bull elk licenses limited in some way, but that’s not going to happen in one move.

given that, here’s what I was talking about just last week with a friend that I think is possible under current frameworks:

- I’d be OK with someone just not acquiring a new point if they hold any kind of ‘A’ license through any means (draw or reissue).

- OTC with caps for Res.

- OTC with caps for NR becomes a draw tag similar to the WY General.

- Update 80/20 allocations to units needing >5 R points the last 5 years instead of the current 2005-2009 basis, then have a split fee structure like NM (charge more for those ‘Quality’ units), with additional funds earmarked to projects primarily involving that species.

- R/NR can average points on applications, but R applying with NR still go in as NR app.

- mandatory harvest reporting (can’t participate in next years draw + lose any remaining points for that species as penalty for not reporting)

Great points! I think this would be great!

 

[Dinkshooter]

OTC with caps or full limited for NonRes for sure, even with fully limited licenses many of those units will have leftovers.

I could live with that one.

 

[LuketheDog]

I could live with that one.

That's because you're Colorado's Sexiest Elk Hunter, a pragmatic and thoughtful individual.

...just curious, did I miss the CSEH 2021 competition or do you just assume the title every year like a dictator?

 

[nrpate05]

I'd like to see more emphasis on the resident hunter and less on the nonresident. Having lived in Wyoming and now a CO resident, it would be nice to see a system more like theirs. Maybe that could mean more opportunity for residents and nonresidents who draw (i.e. longer seasons, archery and rifle on one license, etc). This is obviously a long long term idea and perhaps unrealistic. In the short term, I think OTC w/ caps is inevitable at least for nonresidents. Maybe only let residents hunt in Wilderness areas......?

 

[Dinkshooter]

...just curious, did I miss the CSEH 2021 competition or do you just assume the title every year like a dictator?

yes, and yes.

 

[ImBillT]

If the elk population is still at or above what the game department thinks is correct, then no I don’t think so.

Expect OTC hunts to be crowded. If you don’t like that, then you already have a boat load of limited entry options in a number of states including CO.

I don’t think you should be able to hunt and still gain points or maintain points.

You should not be able to acquire points without risk of drawing. This creates false demand. Only those attempting to hunt this year should be “rewarded” for failing to draw a tag. A guy trying to go hunting this year should be in line ahead of a guy who has no intent to hunt this year.


I wish they didn’t even do points. They should move limited entry to a random draw like NM and keep OTC as it is.

 

[Oak]

Requiring people to use their points to hunt a buck or bull would kill several birds with one stone.
No exceptions. Not OTC, landowner vouchers, RFW, leftover, PLO, nothing.