Word on the street - OTC archery

[grasshopper]

Word on the street supposedly leaked by reliable sources is cpw is going to take a stance to limit archery during the BGSS regulatory process.



Non residents have out numbered residents for some time now in otc. The dominoes have been falling. In units 80 and 81, they limited due to crowding caused by 2000 nonresidents and 1,000 residents, now nonresidents are drawing 73 percent of the limited tags. Unit 77, 25,000 elk, 265 residents drew a limited archery tag while 800 nonresidents drew. The limitations/closures in the SW region sent and estimated 7,000 bowhunters into a smaller already crowded landscape.



There is a better solution, otc for residents, and nonresidents have some sort of cap or limit.



We need signatures at the petition link to save otc for residents. We have 290,000 elk, why a resident can't have an otc archery tag is baffling. Please sign, and send the link to every hunter you know.

OTC for residents petition

 

[rogerthat]

Nutha one bites the dust. Kill it to save it!

 

[grasshopper]

Nutha one bites the dust. Kill it to save it!

What the hell does that mean? I'm not talking CWD POLICY. Get off your apathetic ass, sign it, and share it.

 

[rogerthat]

What the hell does that mean? I'm not talking CWD POLICY. Get off your apathetic ass, sign it, and share it.

I’m not a resident and since you’re fairly rude, (a simple “what are you talking about?” would have been appropriate) I will not share it! So NO!!! Meow you have a great day!!

 

[Bluffgruff]

Why not just go full limited so that the non-resident cap applies (and enforce the cap, even with undersubscribed, leftover, and returned licenses)?

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

What the hell does that mean? I'm not talking CWD POLICY. Get off your apathetic ass, sign it, and share it.

You need to work on your people skills.

 

[elkduds]

Word on the street supposedly leaked by reliable sources is cpw is going to take a stance to limit archery during the BGSS regulatory process.



Non residents have out numbered residents for some time now in otc. The dominoes have been falling. In units 80 and 81, they limited due to crowding caused by 2000 nonresidents and 1,000 residents, now nonresidents are drawing 73 percent of the limited tags. Unit 77, 25,000 elk, 265 residents drew a limited archery tag while 800 nonresidents drew. The limitations/closures in the SW region sent and estimated 7,000 bowhunters into a smaller already crowded landscape.



There is a better solution, otc for residents, and nonresidents have some sort of cap or limit.



We need signatures at the petition link to save otc for residents. We have 290,000 elk, why a resident can't have an otc archery tag is baffling. Please sign, and send the link to every hunter you know.

OTC for residents petition

Like most words on the street, yours is not substantiated by facts. Per discussion and presentations from CPW staff @ yesterday's summer Roundtable, the most likely scenario for archery is OTC continuing for residents and Private Land Only licenses (these are usually split about 50/50 between R and NR). NRs are likely to face draw-only or OTC w caps during archery. The information presented @ the RT meeting was a summary of the latest 2 cycles of online and town hall surveys of hunter preference, including R and NR hunters. IMO CPW has found the survey data compelling enough to seriously consider eliminating some OTC. Archery and rifle OTC are both being considered for restructure or draw only, and the R/NR difference is has a good chance of being reflected in the future of OTC elk hunting in CO

CPW regularly surveys hunter attitudes online and in live meetings. These efforts are well publicized, and still draw relatively low participation. Which is to say, petitions that cover the same topics as CPW's own surveys are unlikely to be given much consideration. A survey from CO Bowhunters Association was presented @ the Roundtable meeting as well, I'll summarize all this when I post my report on the RT meeting in a few days.

 

[grasshopper]

Like most words on the street, yours is not substantiated by facts. Per discussion and presentations from CPW staff @ yesterday's summer Roundtable, the most likely scenario for archery is OTC continuing for residents and Private Land Only licenses (these are usually split about 50/50 between R and NR). NRs are likely to face draw-only or OTC w caps during archery. The information presented @ the RT meeting was a summary of the latest 2 cycles of online and town hall surveys of hunter preference, including R and NR hunters. IMO CPW has found the survey data compelling enough to seriously consider eliminating some OTC. Archery and rifle OTC are both being considered for restructure or draw only, and the R/NR difference is has a good chance of being reflected in the future of OTC elk hunting in CO

CPW regularly surveys hunter attitudes online and in live meetings. These efforts are well publicized, and still draw relatively low participation. Which is to say, petitions that cover the same topics as CPW's own surveys are unlikely to be given much consideration. A survey from CO Bowhunters Association was presented @ the Roundtable meeting as well, I'll summarize all this when I post my report on the RT meeting in a few days.

I'll have to ask you all for grace if I fell short with the cat guy. I do not have a decoder ring for cryptic posts, and everyone's hunting opportunity is at stake. this is serious.

This deal is just getting started, elkduds. We have 3 new commissioners, an existing commissioner has stated publicly she wants all archery limited. Whatever staff supports, doesn't mean it passes the PWC anymore. I personally had a long discussion with the NW regional manager. He had two concerns, the winter kill, and too much pressure. He was just gifted an extra 7,000 bowhunters from the closures in the SW region.

He asked me about private land only OTC tags, here is the thing none of you may be thinking of. Last year, issued almost 16,000 either sex rifle tags. The SW region has adopted some either sex PLO archery tags, mostly all of which are being drawn by nonresidents. PLO tags get removed from the public draw quota, a public draw hunter loses. Why can't a PLO hunter compete in the draw with everyone? PLO tags encourage private land leasing, by private parties and outfitters. It is a license set aside. Instead of implementing a public access program to rival Montanas block management, which was a promise of future generations, we create hunt codes to insure door knocking won't work, and you get told sorry - it is leased, and you are locked out. Wanting more of that is awful short sighted. 50/50 ain't even close to what is going on in the SW for PLO either sex tags. PLO tags should be cow tags used for herd control, not bull tags for outfitters and fat wallets.

If we do not get NR caps during BGSS, they will piece meal more OTC closures, making OTC more unbearable then it is now for archers. Look at what has happened since 2019.

Converting an OTC unit to limited creates more zero point units, of which only 20% of residents are willing to spend points on, and nonresidents will dominate the draw.

You want to sit home without a tag, don't sign the petition. It is in your hands, and your call. What is there to lose by signing?

 

[BradA]

They should go to draw/ limited entry for the whole state!

 

[jdf]

Yeah if anything, limited whole state for residents and non residents.

 

[Slm864]

They should put the elk on the endangered species list. 290,000 isn’t even 1 elk per flat brim on the western slope.

 

[Wallow]

The should put the elk on the endangered species list. 290,000 isn’t even 1 elk per flat brim on the western slope.

That would be the ultimate dream for the antis - can’t hunt endangered species and more to eat for the woofs.

 

[rogerthat]

I'll have to ask you all for grace if I fell short with the cat guy. I do not have a decoder ring for cryptic posts, and everyone's hunting opportunity is at stake. this is serious.

This deal is just getting started, elkduds. We have 3 new commissioners, an existing commissioner has stated publicly she wants all archery limited. Whatever staff supports, doesn't mean it passes the PWC anymore. I personally had a long discussion with the NW regional manager. He had two concerns, the winter kill, and too much pressure. He was just gifted an extra 7,000 bowhunters from the closures in the SW region.

He asked me about private land only OTC tags, here is the thing none of you may be thinking of. Last year, issued almost 16,000 either sex rifle tags. The SW region has adopted some either sex PLO archery tags, mostly all of which are being drawn by nonresidents. PLO tags get removed from the public draw quota, a public draw hunter loses. Why can't a PLO hunter compete in the draw with everyone? PLO tags encourage private land leasing, by private parties and outfitters. It is a license set aside. Instead of implementing a public access program to rival Montanas block management, which was a promise of future generations, we create hunt codes to insure door knocking won't work, and you get told sorry - it is leased, and you are locked out. Wanting more of that is awful short sighted. 50/50 ain't even close to what is going on in the SW for PLO either sex tags. PLO tags should be cow tags used for herd control, not bull tags for outfitters and fat wallets.

If we do not get NR caps during BGSS, they will piece meal more OTC closures, making OTC more unbearable then it is now for archers. Look at what has happened since 2019.

Converting an OTC unit to limited creates more zero point units, of which only 20% of residents are willing to spend points on, and nonresidents will dominate the draw.

You want to sit home without a tag, don't sign the petition. It is in your hands, and your call. What is there to lose by signing?

I’m the cat guy meow? Meow this is a new development for me.

(Don’t blow your cork. Just messing around and keeping this at the top for ya.)

 

[TOGIE]

I gotta agree to some extent at this point on this issue.

residents not wanting to draw zero point tags is their own stupid problem for being point hoarders, i don't care about that. i'm generally for any proposal that makes people think twice about whether they want to go hunting or have points.

however.... going full limited and then seeing LPP kick in on a whole slew of new hunt codes and because of that watching a whole chit ton of limited licenses get siphoned out of the public pool for outfitters, that's bullcrap and on a forum dedicated to public land hunting i think most anyone on here R or NR would agree. it is indeed a system that encourages leasing and loss of access to private lands.

to be sure, OTC still provides those outfitters with unlimited clients. but it does suck to see a conversion to limited and watching those limited licenses become more limited through the Landowner Preference Program.

crowding needs to be figured out, no doubt. and I think i largely agree that residents losing otc across the board is a pretty bad deal for residents.

but, i'll take a full limited 80/20 any day over status quo, which is where i hope we're headed. my real gripe is LPP is bullchit, but i don't think that cat is going back in the bag.

 

[Mallardsx2]

-NO Returned tags
-No OTC tags for anyone.
-Pay Fees up front
-Preference points go to 0 for ANY A-list tag drawn NO MATTER WHEN IT IS DRAWN.

Now that will be something I can get on board with.

The free lunches are over.

Go beat this drum to your politicians.

 

[DouglasR]

No groups of more than 3 people!!!

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I gotta agree to some extent at this point on this issue.

residents not wanting to draw zero point tags is their own stupid problem for being point hoarders, i don't care about that. i'm generally for any proposal that makes people think twice about whether they want to go hunting or have points.

however.... going full limited and then seeing LPP kick in on a whole slew of new hunt codes and because of that watching a whole chit ton of limited licenses get siphoned out of the public pool for outfitters, that's bullcrap and on a forum dedicated to public land hunting i think most anyone on here R or NR would agree. it is indeed a system that encourages leasing and loss of access to private lands.

to be sure, OTC still provides those outfitters with unlimited clients. but it does suck to see a conversion to limited and watching those limited licenses become more limited through the Landowner Preference Program.

I wonder if it evens out? Is there actually a net change?

 

[TOGIE]

I wonder if it evens out? Is there actually a net change?

in tags available for non outfitted hunters?

in theory i would say yes. going from any non outfitted hunter can have a tag in a unit to then saying there are 2,000 tags but only 1600 of them are in the public pool.

honestly putting it that way it feels like the outfitters lose the most.

but, to your point, my suspicion is that statewide, every resident that wants a tag should be able to get one. maybe they need to give up having points though, which would be a win IMO

 

[DouglasR]

No groups of more than 3 people!!!

I would also like to see increased regulation on pack stock.

 

[elkduds]

I gotta agree to some extent at this point on this issue.

residents not wanting to draw zero point tags is their own stupid problem for being point hoarders, i don't care about that. i'm generally for any proposal that makes people think twice about whether they want to go hunting or have points.

however.... going full limited and then seeing LPP kick in on a whole slew of new hunt codes and because of that watching a whole chit ton of limited licenses get siphoned out of the public pool for outfitters, that's bullcrap and on a forum dedicated to public land hunting i think most anyone on here R or NR would agree. it is indeed a system that encourages leasing and loss of access to private lands.

to be sure, OTC still provides those outfitters with unlimited clients. but it does suck to see a conversion to limited and watching those limited licenses become more limited through the Landowner Preference Program.

crowding needs to be figured out, no doubt. and I think i largely agree that residents losing otc across the board is a pretty bad deal for residents.

but, i'll take a full limited 80/20 any day over status quo, which is where i hope we're headed. my real gripe is LPP is bullchit, but i don't think that cat is going back in the bag.

LPP is a huge consideration among the advocates and CPW staff working on revising the draw system. LPP is statutory law, it states 20% of all totally limited draw licenses must go to landowners before any can be issued to the public. That is why there are so many options being considered that try to circumvent LPP, which I agree is bad law. Law, nonetheless. I believe there is a current vacancy on the CPW limited license task force, which has the delightful task of recommending 3-4 revisions to the commission by next year. See the CPW website for details.