Should CO Full Limited for Elk ?

[Zach]

Whatever you push for, keep it west of I-25.....

 

[Mallardsx2]

I think the idea that holding any tag precludes you from having a chance at a great tag is completely backwards. The only people who would ever hunt the glory tag are either 1.) Those who don't really care about hunting and thus don't care if they have to wait 30 years and 2.) Those who can afford to find ways to get tags from other sources in the meantime (notably, hunting other states).

So yes, your solution would reduce crowding, but it rewards the wrong people.

The hunters most likely to appreciate a "glory" tag are those that have slogged it out in OTC units. Not those that would be willing to not hunt elk for 20 years and then expect to come out to find a trophy bull behind every bush.

I would much rather see a system where only those who are willing to hold an elk tag have a chance at the glory tag. Put me in for the "elk draw" where if I draw, I will have some sort of elk tag, and then only those people who have an elk tag are selected from for the highly limited tags.

I am looking at it from the aspect of getting the point creep under control and from the simple fact that states are pulling the rug out of people after 20 years of "slugging it out on OTC" units.

Colorado has to do something to get the creep under control. Or its almost a complete waste of time for anyone to even apply for points....

Right now states can change the rules as they please. If states want to keep changing the rules on people whenever they want then they should at least be moving people through the spoints system as quickly as possible and not leading them along letting them build points only to change the game after 15 years....

I hear guys from Colorado all the time on here crying about overcrowding in OTC units. This provides a solution. But since it effects them as a resident, they dont seem to be in favor of it.........

 

[Huntin_GI]

SB21-150 was the first attempt at moving toward a system that showed more "favor" to resident sportsmen. I was entertained less than a few hours at committee. CPW cried "less money" and the conversation ended.

At state based organization is going to have to lobby on behalf of resident sportsmen. As it stands, I am unaware of organization that is equipped, funded, and or capable of taking on that initiative. Please let me know if you are aware of an org but that's what will be required to move the needle in the right direction.

 

[BuzzH]

So from the info @Oak just gave me + past work.

View attachment 178962

Holy crap as the state been leaning heavily on NR.
View attachment 178963
View attachment 178970View attachment 178969


So everyone likes to compare to WY, WY is at 18% NR allocation currently, all, including tags sold as leftovers.
View attachment 178964

NR got 15% of permits in the draw.

In 58' R tag was $10 and a NR was $50
Today R tag is $56.88 and a NR tag is $688.26.


That differential has exploded.

So CO is giving out waaaaay more tags to NR and making them pay way more for them proportionally.


Oh... and archery is a bit more popular, though shockingly folks did much better with stick bows.

View attachment 178966

View attachment 178968

Can you clarify the WY conclusions you came up with on allocation?

Are you comparing license allocations that NR receive to total license sales?

NR's get 16% of LQ full price elk tags in the initial draw, plus a balance of 7250 from general. Plus they get another 20% of cow/calf tags in the initial draw, plus can get full price or reduced priced cow/calf in the leftover draw.

So, I'm assuming the only way you can come up with WY NR's receiving 15% of the elk tags is if you're using general tags sold to Residents?

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Can you clarify the WY conclusions you came up with on allocation?

Are you comparing license allocations that NR receive to total license sales?

NR's get 16% of LQ full price elk tags in the initial draw, plus a balance of 7250 from general. Plus they get another 20% of cow/calf tags in the initial draw, plus can get full price or reduced priced cow/calf in the leftover draw.

So, I'm assuming the only way you can come up with WY NR's receiving 15% of the elk tags is if you're using general tags sold to Residents?

Sorry that was not clear in my post.

In the 1950s CO had a 15% allocation of permits, and then all in NR ended up getting around 18% of tags total.

Similarly when I dug through the WY data and added the all of this:

"NR's get 16% of LQ full price elk tags in the initial draw, plus a balance of 7250 from general. Plus they get another 20% of cow/calf tags in the initial draw, plus can get full price or reduced priced cow/calf in the leftover draw."

together I got that WY gives about 18% of tags to NR. Feel free to double check my math I was trying to be as accurate as possible so if it's not correct let me know.

The entire point being, in the 1950s CO had a similar allocation to WY and the cost difference between R and NR license was much smaller.

In CO the allocation of NR tags and the cost of those tags as ballooned wildly. CO, provable with data, has become heavily reliant on NR sales.

This is unfair to NR because they pay 2X more proportionately than they once did and it's unfair to residents because they get a much lower proportion of the tags.

 

[BuzzH]

I am looking at it from the aspect of getting the point creep under control and from the simple fact that states are pulling the rug out of people after 20 years of "slugging it out on OTC" units.

Colorado has to do something to get the creep under control. Or its almost a complete waste of time for anyone to even apply for points....

Right now states can change the rules as they please. If states want to keep changing the rules on people whenever they want then they should at least be moving people through the spoints system as quickly as possible and not leading them along letting them build points only to change the game after 15 years....

I hear guys from Colorado all the time on here crying about overcrowding in OTC units. This provides a solution. But since it effects them as a resident, they dont seem to be in favor of it.........

Colorado doesn't have to do anything to get point creep under control, no requirement and people just keep buying points.

There are solutions to point creep, the easiest one is to never start a point system in the first place. But, the same group of crybabies that are whining now about point creep are either the same group of people that started the point systems, or most certainly of the same stripe.

Its also interesting that you contradict yourself in the same post. On the one hand you don't like it that a States "keep changing the rules", while at the same time, you're asking to do exactly that to "get the creep under control".

So which is it?

Seems to me you don't want them to change when its to your benefit, but when its not, well, then its OK to change the system.

Without taking into consideration your contradiction, I still think the Residents of the State should do what benefits the Resident hunters. NR's should just be thankful for whatever tags they get.

 

[BuzzH]

Sorry that was not clear in my post.

In the 1950s CO had a 15% allocation of permits, and then all in NR ended up getting around 18% of tags total.

Similarly when I dug through the WY data and added the all of this:

"NR's get 16% of LQ full price elk tags in the initial draw, plus a balance of 7250 from general. Plus they get another 20% of cow/calf tags in the initial draw, plus can get full price or reduced priced cow/calf in the leftover draw."

together I got that WY gives about 18% of tags to NR. Feel free to double check my math I was trying to be as accurate as possible so if it's not correct let me know.

The entire point being, in the 1950s CO had a similar allocation to WY and the cost difference between R and NR license was much smaller.

In CO the allocation of NR tags and the cost of those tags as ballooned wildly. CO, provable with data, has become heavily reliant on NR sales.

This is unfair to NR because they pay 2X more proportionately than they once did and it's unfair to residents because they get a much lower proportion of the tags.

The bolded part...sounds about right if you lump in Resident general tags. If you just consider LQ full price, cow/calf and leftovers then the percentage would be closer to 22% according to the last data I crunched IIRC.

I agree with the main point...

 

[Mallardsx2]

There are solutions to point creep, the easiest one is to never start a point system in the first place.


Seems to me you don't want them to change when its to your benefit, but when its not, well, then its OK to change the system.

I actually agree with your first point.

To your second point, its inevitable that Colorado will change the rules one day. Whether or not I like it or not its happening all across the west. I just hope that when they make changes, they addresses point creep for both Residents and Non-residents. Even if that means maybe I only get to hunt there every other year or accepting that I cant build points because I hunt OTC units. Who knows what will come about. If it looks like I am cheerleading for something in my favor, lets be honest, they will NEVER make it so that anything is in my favor as a NR. No state does and never will going forward..

Maybe I shouldn't say anything other than to leave it at status quo. After all, I would hate for more NR's to look away from Colorado and look towards Wyoming to kill your precious LQ Elk....

 

[Dinkshooter]

2020 Elk Harvest, Hunters for All Manners of Take

Bulls -21,923
Cows -5,687
Calves- 1,404
Total- 39,014
Total Hunters -212,667
Percent Success 18%

As usual, a lot of people just took their weapons for a hike.

 

[Jon Smith]

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)

Couple of questions with this. Im not sure I understand your OTC with caps for NR becomes a draw tag.... There are no OTC with caps.... am i just misinterpreting what you mean?

for your "quality units" how are those going to be defined? What makes a "quality unit" and how often are those redefined again using what criteria?

 

[cedahm]

Couple of questions with this. Im not sure I understand your OTC with caps for NR becomes a draw tag.... There are no OTC with caps.... am i just misinterpreting what you mean?

Correct - there aren’t currently such things in CO.

I was pontificating that I would like to see CO go to an OTC with tag caps model. OTC purchase for residents up to the R cap, but for NR it would be a draw tag Available in the draw only.

Similar to the GEN tag in Wyoming - good in a wide range of units, but not limited to 1 of them.

for your "quality units" how are those going to be defined? What makes a "quality unit" and how often are those redefined again using what criteria?

right now, a selection of tags are 80/20 allocation and a small fraction (I think 1 tag per hunt code) is allocated to a hybrid draw where everyone over 5 points is in a lottery style draw - but it’s based on hunt codes that required >5 points to draw as a resident over the 2005-2009 timeframe.

im saying (and have emailed this commentary to one of the commissioners), we should update the >5 resident point requirements annually (in 2020 this would have added a lot more hunt codes to the current number and was considered by CPW for a change. @wllm1313 did the math on this in another thread)

then, any tag in that range is a ‘Quality’ tag and the price is higher. NM does this currently for both Residents and NR’s. ($60/$90 for Rs and $548/$773 for NR fees)

just my personal thoughts on incremental changes, not actual policies

 

[one ate E grain]

Sure, all draw by all means. Impossible to achieve however.

I don't think CPW is incentivised to much consider the resident hunter. Most of their funding is from non residents, what little pro hunting pressure is from outfitters and private landowners to sell the right to hunt their land, the commissioners are fairly well taken over by folks not too keen on hunting. NR spend a lot more on hotels, rentals, guides, tags, etc.

I'd think CPW likes things just the way they are with smaller fiefdoms now being secured to cover "education" "non consumptive users" and maybe a "wolf czar" or something.

Overall second and third season success rates are like what 15%? PLO usually around half or better? Wonder what the break down is for NR guided. Pretty much sucks for resident over the counter types, and great if you have permission for private land or maybe a guide to hold your hand and do everything short of pulling the trigger. I seem to get one every year and sometimes two but it aint a great way to give every resident a fair shake at filling a tag.

 

[Trap]

A lot of interesting ideas. I have yet to see one viable solution in any state to point creep. With wolves you will have to start seeing caps on tags and some otc units will go draw guaranteed. It is just a matter of time the amount of units that get capped or go draw will depend on Colorados approach to wolf management. The wolves will force changes in tag allocation there just won’t be the surplus elk for hunting harvest in some areas. If it’s similar to Idaho some units without any wolves may have a boom in population but many will decline and the surplus elk won’t be there to justify unlimited otc tags

 

[88man]

maybe add a few more LQ Maybe some only 2nd season and some only 3rd or 4th

 

[Buffs35]

Sure, all draw by all means. Impossible to achieve however.

I don't think CPW is incentivised to much consider the resident hunter. Most of their funding is from non residents, what little pro hunting pressure is from outfitters and private landowners to sell the right to hunt their land, the commissioners are fairly well taken over by folks not too keen on hunting. NR spend a lot more on hotels, rentals, guides, tags, etc.

I'd think CPW likes things just the way they are with smaller fiefdoms now being secured to cover "education" "non consumptive users" and maybe a "wolf czar" or something.

Overall second and third season success rates are like what 15%? PLO usually around half or better? Wonder what the break down is for NR guided. Pretty much sucks for resident over the counter types, and great if you have permission for private land or maybe a guide to hold your hand and do everything short of pulling the trigger. I seem to get one every year and sometimes two but it aint a great way to give every resident a fair shake at filling a tag.

Agreed, DOW, or whatever bullsh*t they rebranded themselves as, would rather limit tags for residents than cut off the non-resident gravy train.

 

[kwa_bena]

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.

I agree with this but OTC if there is believe that a unit is over populated

 

[ImBillT]

I agree with this but OTC if there is believe that a unit is over populated

I was suggesting that OTC hunts remain OTC, and limited entry goes to random.

Obviously CPW should follow some sort of criteria for moving certain hunt codes to or from OTC based on shifts in population and other factors.

 

[kwa_bena]

This though just came to me. I'm no expert and I'm new to this world of hunting overall on top of being someone that does not even live in the state but here's how I'm feeling since stepping away from the computer

• Do away with the season structure and make them all any legal weapon with a draw plus OTC for any left overs
• Leave some areas archery only and a draw only and limited OTC to deal with over population.
• Have the 20-something point units random odds with a 4-5 year sit out period to keep the trophy potential
• Have a list of land owners where hunters can ask for permission from or are willing to open up there land for access which may do away with landowner tag

There might be a thing or two that I have not covered but that's just a short list. Then again, I don't really know anything about game management and this is the solution that I think may work based on what I've read in this thread so far.

 

[SilverDollars]

Howdy. This is just my "two cents worth(TCW)". I'm a N.R. who hunts Colorado every year and love the place!

I believe(my TCW), based on studies showing the breeding patterns are greatly interrupted resulting in weakened calves which can't survive their first winter, all archery tags should be drawn. An over abundance of archery hunters in some GMUs, push the cow breeding back a month with adverse elks for the late born calves. They(CPW) can set that draw limit to each GMU and to whatever they deem appropriate in a given area.

Now as far as Rifle seasons and OTC, here is my TCW. They(CPW) should develop a "Limited Number(Max) of OTC rifle tags per GMU" and per rifle season. As it stands, Colorado could sell 100 million OTC tags to any given unit. My point here is they are totally unlimited in number. I suggest a maximum number(posted and updated daily) of OTC tags available and could be rewarded based on the GMU, and in a given rifle season. CPW should determine the max OTC tags available per unit, per rifle season, for management purposes. This controls the maximum number of hunters in a given season, in a given GMU, and also could send potential hunters into hunting in a different GMU than initially considered so a better management plan could be realized.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Buffs35]

Any consideration to make OTC in Colorado like the general tags in Wyoming or Montana with caps? Residents can still purchase OTC, but NR have to apply. I realize Colorado won't do that because they love NR fees more than they love weed taxes.