Word on the street - OTC archery

[Mallardsx2]

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.

Thats fine, make them use them on their own property. This nonsense of getting a landowner tag for your property and then trapsing about the entire unit looking for a big bull on public is a bunch of BS.

 

[TOGIE]

Thats fine, make them use them on their own property. This nonsense of getting a landowner tag for your property and then trapsing about the entire unit looking for a big bull on public is a bunch of BS.

definitely.

but it's also all BS, every part of it: the transferability, unit wide, bulls and bucks.

and not least, 20% is just a ridiculous number of tags to siphon off the public pool for what is primarily profit.

 

[grasshopper]

Here is a question. I like to read between the lines while listening. If the plan is to retain otc for residents and maybe also nonresidents or as described by elk duds, why do you need plo tags? Why would they throw that out there? You don't need them if the plan is otc. You might offer them if the plan is limited licenses. Think about that.

 

[elkduds]

Thats fine, make them use them on their own property. This nonsense of getting a landowner tag for your property and then trapsing about the entire unit looking for a big bull on public is a bunch of BS.

PLO means private land only. Not valid on public ground. The elephant in the room is enforcement, CPW's reply is "that is our role."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

Seems like this is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

For Private land hunting you're paying for access, doesn't really matter if it's OTC or limited or PLO. That's never coming back as long as people are wiling to pay $$$ for bucks and bulls. MT is OTC for Residents with a NR quota and no private land tags and they have the exact same issue. So it's just kinda a red herring.

As far as adjusting allocations going full limited solves nothing, because NR can get tags in the leftover draw/reissue without the allocation. CPW will issue tags for limited at similar volume to OTC (this is what they have said in the past) then residents will get first pick but there will be a ton of leftovers for 0pt tags and then all the NR will buy them as reissues, and net/net no change.

Now if Colorado went full limited and cut quotas then you might change that.

I actually agree with grasshopper on the problem, but I don't think these proposals do squat.

 

[Mallardsx2]

As far as adjusting allocations going full limited solves nothing, because NR can get tags in the leftover draw/reissue without the allocation. CPW will issue tags for limited at similar volume to OTC (this is what they have said in the past) then residents will get first pick but there will be a ton of leftovers for 0pt tags and then all the NR will buy them as reissues, and net/net no change.

In comes the TAKE ALL POINTS for ANY A-LIST TAG.

 

[D_Walt]

Thats fine, make them use them on their own property. This nonsense of getting a landowner tag for your property and then trapsing about the entire unit looking for a big bull on public is a bunch of BS.

I think there is some legitimacy to the unit wide land owner vouchers in units that have highly migratory herds. In many units the deer and elk are not down on private during the hunting season, but they are down by late November and may be down on Private until May. Doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

 

[brian flatlander]

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

Not signing either

 

[grasshopper]

Seems like this is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

For Private land hunting you're paying for access, doesn't really matter if it's OTC or limited or PLO. That's never coming back as long as people are wiling to pay $$$ for bucks and bulls. MT is OTC for Residents with a NR quota and no private land tags and they have the exact same issue. So it's just kinda a red herring.

As far as adjusting allocations going full limited solves nothing, because NR can get tags in the leftover draw/reissue without the allocation. CPW will issue tags for limited at similar volume to OTC (this is what they have said in the past) then residents will get first pick but there will be a ton of leftovers for 0pt tags and then all the NR will buy them as reissues, and net/net no change.

Now if Colorado went full limited and cut quotas then you might change that.

I actually agree with grasshopper on the problem, but I don't think these proposals do squat.

Don't lose hope man, there is always hope.
What I would propose for archery is resident OTC, and capping non residents. You can get really complicated in how you cap by DAU or GMU, but I will likely propose in any of my testimony to just look at current particpation, pick a number, and revisit it annually in May when quotas are set.

As an example, the NW region cut tags by 30% due to winter kill this year. Use the same number for archery OTC nonresidents. Currently round numbers at 20,000, take it down to 14,000. Simple is easier sometimes.

Then get rid of the 2500 or so list B OTC archery cow tags. What in the hell are we letting one guy kill two elk for when "crowding" is an issue? With list B OTC cow, you are in the field twice as long or it is 2 unique hunters. Both add to "crowding".

No on any PLO tags, not needed.
I don't know what to propose for rifle, you guys figure that out. There are way more rifle OTC GMU's then archery. More complicated.

 

[huskyhunter]

-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.

I think you could still have OTC tags as long as the other three were implemented, especially if all points were zeroed with any A tag. But in general, I am totally on board with your thinking here.

 

[Bullshot]

Not sure if others have mentioned this directly here or elsewhere but I did see this on CO's current BGSS page :

Nomination Process for Total Limitation of Elk Units​

Historically, CPW accepted public nominations for total limitation of elk units on a DAU-by-DAU basis. However, CPW is currently developing the 2025-2029 Big Game Season Structure (BGSS) framework, which is considering a statewide elk limitation of over-the-counter archery and rifle licenses. Therefore, DAU-level nominations will not be considered until after the 2025-2029 BGSS framework is finalized. To learn more about the 2025-2029 BGSS process and ways to be involved, please visit CPW’s Big Game Season Structure Engage CPW webpage.

 

[YellowCreek]

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

I am surprised it’s not fully limited statewide