5-Year Big Game Season Structure alternatives

[ZBB]

Yep. Thats the problem, lots of elk, but also 6 million residents looking for tags. Per capita elk MT and WY blow CO away. Those residents lose out on the landowner tags and the high % of tags for NR"s and the OTC elk tags compromise much of the states public land elk hunting. Total bum deal for the residents who get screwed at every turn it seems.

Now you might get 5 days to hunt elk in CO while they get nearly 3 months in MT. Advantage MT.

Rich hunters in CO still have it good, as do NR hunters and landowners, but for the average guy working all year to hopefully draw a tag for a 5 day season it seems like a raw deal to me. Every time someone like a landowner or NR gets a tag, someone else loses a tag, and in so many cases the residents of CO just lose it seems.

There are a lot of good sides to living in Colorado like economy/jobs/entertainment/etc , but the resident elk hunting in MT or WY is much better. I would take a general MT tag over any tag a CO resident can draw with 0-1 preference points if for nothing else the season length and less crowded hunting.

MT resident can have a general with a chance for limited entry every year
WY resident can have a general with chance for limited entry every year
What are your comparable options for hunting elk every year in CO?

Colorado could be comparable though is what I’m saying. Have a general tag otc for residents, limited for non residents. Still keep the limited entry tags. Rather than having archery, ml, 1-4 rifle hunts have an archery season the month of September and a rifle season starting mid October through the first week or so of November. Then the season length would spread the pressure out a bit, it would force people to apply rather than bank points and buying otc tags. I agree the 5 day seasons are ridiculous. It’s just a thought, it sure seems like things could be simplified is all I’m saying.

 

[Zach]

From the 30,000' level, the underlying theme of proposed changes is reduced hunting opportunity. Pay more, get less. Get used to it.

IMHO, 5 day seasons are ridiculous.

I'd say this has been snowballing for a little bit of time. How much more speed does it pick up before we get creamed?

 

[Ben Sellers]

I would tend to agree with the limiting opportunity on the whole, but the addition of the early rifle season would add opportunity. It might also provide an incintive for people with fewer than 10 preference points to burn them on a more desirable hunt, throttling back on the point creep on some of the mid tier draw units. I don’t see it changing the demand for top tier units. I would likely be interested in that season since it’s closer to a rifle rut hunt, but wonder if we’re taxing the resource too heavily.

 

[Oak]

I would tend to agree with the limiting opportunity on the whole, but the addition of the early rifle season would add opportunity. It might also provide an incintive for people with fewer than 10 preference points to burn them on a more desirable hunt, throttling back on the point creep on some of the mid tier draw units. I don’t see it changing the demand for top tier units. I would likely be interested in that season since it’s closer to a rifle rut hunt, but wonder if we’re taxing the resource too heavily.

Yes, the addition of an early rifle elk season would provide more options for burning points. But I can’t couch it as increased opportunity when it comes at the expense of not having a single rifle season longer than five days.

 

[Pelican]

I would tend to agree with the limiting opportunity on the whole, but the addition of the early rifle season would add opportunity. It might also provide an incintive for people with fewer than 10 preference points to burn them on a more desirable hunt, throttling back on the point creep on some of the mid tier draw units. I don’t see it changing the demand for top tier units. I would likely be interested in that season since it’s closer to a rifle rut hunt, but wonder if we’re taxing the resource too heavily.

I don’t see the the prospect of the rifle rut hunts as an increase in opportunity as it will mean less muzzy and 1st and 4th season bull tags eventually. You would be trading fewer high success tags for more lower success tags. Most OTC units have few old age class bulls, why add another hunt when they easiest to kill? The idea of the rifle rut hunt is the most asinine of the proposals in my opinion. Point creep is a problem because we, including me, are consciously choosing to wait for certain units. Nobody is forcing me to do it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

At the end of the day the herd can only handle a 40k harvest and there are 230k hunters so essentially we are just discussing what obstacles we want to put in place to ensure low success rates.

Unfortunately it seems like the only discussion people are willing to have is around changes to dates and season length.

I think you could increase time in the field if we put making muzzy hawken style only, an OTC long bow season, making all rifle hunts open sights, shutting down a ton of ATV roads, etc etc on the table.

Montana shuts down a ton of roads and it seems to help.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too which I get...but only so many elk can be killed and most elk hunters need to go home empty handed.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yep. Thats the problem, lots of elk, but also 6 million residents looking for tags. Per capita elk MT and WY blow CO away. Those residents lose out on the landowner tags and the high % of tags for NR"s and the OTC elk tags compromise much of the states public land elk hunting. Total bum deal for the residents who get screwed at every turn it seems.

Now you might get 5 days to hunt elk in CO while they get nearly 3 months in MT. Advantage MT.

Rich hunters in CO still have it good, as do NR hunters and landowners, but for the average guy working all year to hopefully draw a tag for a 5 day season it seems like a raw deal to me. Every time someone like a landowner or NR gets a tag, someone else loses a tag, and in so many cases the residents of CO just lose it seems.

There are a lot of good sides to living in Colorado like economy/jobs/entertainment/etc , but the resident elk hunting in MT or WY is much better. I would take a general MT tag over any tag a CO resident can draw with 0-1 preference points if for nothing else the season length and less crowded hunting.

MT resident can have a general with a chance for limited entry every year
WY resident can have a general with chance for limited entry every year
What are your comparable options for hunting elk every year in CO?

Having been a resident of MT and CO, I don’t know which is better to be honest.

My experience is N+1, small sample size, so take it with a grain of salt, but CO has more public land than MT and almost twice as many elk. I feel it’s been easier for me to kill elk in 5 day seasons in CO than in the 90+ day season in Montana.

I do miss how much time I got to spend hunting in Montana... but I also like seeing elk every day in CO versus hardly ever seeing elk in MT.

Wyoming is obviously great but look at their hunter numbers in comparison... and they are actively doing things like increasing prices to keep hunter numbers in check.

Landowner tags are a separate convo entirely, the program can be problematic... but I think it’s net a good thing. As long as we are harping on resident opportunity, CO landowners tend to be real residents... ie grew up here, while I bet the % of CO resident hunters who moved here in the last 3 years is staggering. So you could argue it’s preserving resident opportunity. It’s also a program that’s abused... lots of gray area.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Just my opinion, but if opportunity is to be reduced, I would like to see it at the tag quantity level, not season durations, weapon restrictions, timing etc. Look at what we have done with mule deer here. Quantity and quality is excellent and a guy can kill a good buck on public. We have the genetics and habitat to grow big bulls, but no opportunity for them to get old when we kill 90% of raghorns with their first set of branch antlers in most units. It seems like anytime its mentioned that something needs to be done about elk hunting, the last thing CPW wants to do is reduce tag #'s and affect their revenue stream, i.e. 5 rifle seasons instead of 4, 2 archery seasons instead of 1=more tags sold. I understand CPW has operating costs and appreciate what they do. I know this view is unpopular, but tag numbers could go down if tag costs went up. I would pay alot more than $49 as a resident for a quality elk opportunity on public land. Alot more. But everytime CPW tries to bring this up people come unhinged! Your pricing us out! How can you sleep at night, blah blah blah. Nevermind the $40k truck, towing the 10K UTV, with $100 worth of beer in the back. I think the proposed BGSS are a band aid for a much larger issue.

Sorry, I'm in the weeds, I'll shut up now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@ishootdasmallones I think you are spot on, but as you brought up it seems every time CPAW suggests a change people lose there shit. On several threads people have come unglued about losing OTC archery.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Having been a resident of MT and CO, I don’t know which is better to be honest.

My experience is N+1, small sample size, so take it with a grain of salt, but CO has more public land than MT and almost twice as many elk. I feel it’s been easier for me to kill elk in 5 day seasons in CO than in the 90+ day season in Montana.

I do miss how much time I got to spend hunting in Montana... but I also like seeing elk every day in CO versus hardly ever seeing elk in MT.

Wyoming is obviously great but look at their hunter numbers in comparison... and they are actively doing things like increasing prices to keep hunter numbers in check.

Landowner tags are a separate convo entirely, the program can be problematic... but I think it’s net a good thing. As long as we are harping on resident opportunity, CO landowners tend to be real residents... ie grew up here, while I bet the % of CO resident hunters who moved here in the last 3 years is staggering. So you could argue it’s preserving resident opportunity. It’s also a program that’s abused... lots of gray area.

Lets get some numbers straight.

6 million residents, 280k elk = 1 elk for every 21 residents
1 million residents, 160k elk = 1 elk for every 6 residents

Combine that with landowner tags, and OTC elk hunting and it's obvious. Clearly advantage MT and it's not even close.

But if you think a 5 day OTC unit in Colorado as a resident is a better tag than the General MT elk tag so be it. I personally would prefer the MT season structure if I was a resident, but to each their own.

You think taking tags from the resident pool and giving them to landowners to sell to NR hunters in most cases preserves resident opportunity? K

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lets get some numbers straight.

6 million residents, 280k elk = 1 elk for every 21 residents
1 million residents, 160k elk = 1 elk for every 6 residents

Combine that with landowner tags, and OTC elk hunting and it's obvious. Clearly advantage MT and it's not even close.

But if you think a 5 day OTC unit in Colorado as a resident is a better tag than the General MT elk tag so be it. I personally would prefer the MT season structure if I was a resident, but to each their own.

You think taking tags from the resident pool and giving them to landowners to sell to NR hunters in most cases preserves resident opportunity? K

There are a lot of factors at play that are concealed by the numbers. Both CO and MT have OTC tags for residents, and Montana typically has some leftover combos so I think it's fair to say that everyone who wants to hunt in those states every year is hunting in those states... obviously not taking into account people who are priced out or unable to go for various reasons.

There for you are looking at 224,385 CO hunters versus 113,976 hunters in MT... about twice as many hunters, CO has 286,000 elk and mt has 130,000 so again twice as many. So in that respect the states are the same.

In my experience elk in MT are more often found on private than in CO... just the nature of the geography, weird patch work private like the crazies doesn't really exist in CO as much. MT has overall more public land than CO, but much of that is in the eastern portion of the state and doesn't hold elk, so I think it's accurate to say CO has more elk on public land than Montana.

Montana puts road restrictions in place during hunting seasons, there are lots of places you can ride dirt bikes and 4wheelers in July that are closed in September. In CO it is easier to get close to elk on public land during hunting season with a vehicle.

Again not sure how the landowner tag matters as you can just buy an OTC tag... in both states you can buy yourself onto private with enough money... also in a lot of chases you aren't taking a tag from anyone in that the elk are locate on private and purchasing a voucher allows you to hunt elk that otherwise would not be hunted. Nothing different that buying a big game combo in MT and then paying the wilkes bros to hunt on their place... or Mr. Turner. It's just red tape... same net effect.

In general I think CO does a much better job managing it's herd than MT, CO definitely manages it's herd for maximum opportunity for antler size... but they are effective in achieving that goal.

This all being said my point was that CO severely limits your time in the woods compared to MT, but that for a competent hunter it's just as easy to kill a bull in a 5 day season as it is to kill an elk in MT in a 90 day one. Yes I also prefer the MT experience as I like being in the woods killing an elk every year is not that important to me, but if success is measured by an elk in the freezer it's a tossup.

You want CO to have an MT experience, ban in their entirety compound bows and rifles. You could have a 60 day traditional bow season and then a 60 day traditional muzzleloader season, but if you are going to allow people to using ever improving technology and allow them to drive everywhere then you are going to have to cut seasons drastically shorter.

 

[rideold]

Some really good points made here. In the end it is (hopefully) all about the overall health of the herds balanced with providing the most opportunity to hunt. That's what I see as CPW's job. I don't really agree with more and shorter seasons but I don't know what the science says for herd health so I'll leave it to the biologists and other professionals tasked with that job. I've always hunted archery and 3rd rifle. First it was 3rd rifle because it was the longest season so I felt that my odds were better and i didn't feel like I had to squeeze every ounce of daylight out of every day. Less stressful for me hunting a longer season and I've always really enjoyed my time in the field. Archery came next and with the long season I could pick and choose when and how long to go based on work and family as well as hunting opportunity and weather. I bet there are a ton of folks that are happy with the 5 day season for some of the similar reasons. I've talked to some people who like to just get out there and hunt hard for 5 days and be done. They've said they would never hunt a 9 day season because they would never be able to keep going that long. Different perspective. I just hope that the final decisions are made based primarily on herd health.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@rideold 100% herd health is the only important factor

Lots of good arguments for various season structures... they all they cost/benefits

I like the 5 day rifle seasons, I go with buddies during archery season as a packer/bear hunter and then take vacation time for a shorter muzzy/rifle elk hunt, pick a different season for mule deer so I can give my undivided attention to that hunt, and then I typically still have vacation days or weekends open to do something out of state if funds and my wife allow. System has limitations but you can make it work and give yourself a nice long season.

 

[Okbow87]

If it is about herd health, they need to do OTC with caps by DAU. Letting thousands of people buy OTC tags and then having no idea when or where they are hunting doesn't really lend itself to quality herd management. It's almost as ridiculous as Montana allowing everybody and their dog to hunt mule deer in the rut with a rifle on a general tag.

I would like to see a longer break between the rifle seasons, but keep the 9 day hunts. This would also push the 3rd and 4th seasons back just a little bit to help with what most seem to be reporting, a little bit later migrations due to environmental factors. 5 day hunt can't be turned in to a 1 or 2 day hunt pretty quick with a storm system. Crowding would be insane also in the units I hunt if everybody only had 5 days.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If it is about herd health, they need to do OTC with caps by DAU. Letting thousands of people buy OTC tags and then having no idea when or where they are hunting doesn't really lend itself to quality herd management.

Yeah why CO doesn't have mandatory hunt reports just blows my mind.

 

[PrairieHunter]

If it is about herd health, they need to do OTC with caps by DAU. Letting thousands of people buy OTC tags and then having no idea when or where they are hunting doesn't really lend itself to quality herd management.

That was my first thought when I read WLLM's response.

So with OTC elk tags in most of the state somehow Colorado does a fantastic job managing the herd???

And when landowner tags which are typically sold to the highest NR bidder are taken out of the resident draw pool it actually helps the resident hunters???

And a 5 day season has benefits for a resident over a nearly 3 month season in other states.

The entire point of this thread is how the 5 day season sucks for residents but there is always one who just can't be realistic it seems. I know if we had transferable landowner tags in WY it would hurt resident hunting opportunity. And if we made most of the state OTC elk it would have a negative effect on elk hunting. And if we had a 5 day season instead of a longer general season it would suck donkey doo for resident hunters. But somehow none of that is true in CO.

Some people are just homers I guess and can't be realistic. Kinda like everyone thinks where they live is the friendliest state.

LOL

 

[Pelican]

On several threads people have come unglued about losing OTC archery.
[/QUOTE]

I’m in that camp and I’ll tell you why. Opportunity always decreases, and it doesn’t return. When CO went to unit specific deer tags, the availability of OTC elk was a justification for the change as everyone could still hunt every year. Now, every 5 years someone proposes eliminating OTC elk tags. I also don’t know how anyone can objectively claim OTC is bad for the herds when we have 100,000 more elk than any other state, and we have had OTC elk tags forever. I think it works because OTC is limited to the three most unsuccessful season/weapon combos (archery, 2nd and third rifle).
I don’t know who suggested the rifle rut hunt or the 5 day season, but it reeks of outfitters and landowners wanting to sell tags and hunts.
I guess one of the benefits of being over the hill is knowing what has been lost or taken from the public. I’m just trying to maintain what is left, and 5 years from somebody else will take another little piece of the opportunity, and hunters will let them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Pelican I appreciate the historical context, definitely important to think about where we have been when considering where we are headed.

 

[Okbow87]

That was my first thought when I read WLLM's response.

So with OTC elk tags in most of the state somehow Colorado does a fantastic job managing the herd???

And when landowner tags which are typically sold to the highest NR bidder are taken out of the resident draw pool it actually helps the resident hunters???

And a 5 day season has benefits for a resident over a nearly 3 month season in other states.

The entire point of this thread is how the 5 day season sucks for residents but there is always one who just can't be realistic it seems. I know if we had transferable landowner tags in WY it would hurt resident hunting opportunity. And if we made most of the state OTC elk it would have a negative effect on elk hunting. And if we had a 5 day season instead of a longer general season it would suck donkey doo for resident hunters. But somehow none of that is true in CO.

Some people are just homers I guess and can't be realistic. Kinda like everyone thinks where they live is the friendliest state.

LOL

I don't know how unregulated OTC can be considered herd management in any way other than blind luck. I think the thick timber in much of the state really helps them out here.

I don't really mind the landowner tag deal so much. A lot of the private land is winter range habitat that allows these animals to survive the winters in CO. If a few tags helps them to not mow down the sagebrush and helps them tolerate all the animals, I think its a pretty fair deal. It allows them to hunt their own property and areas around their home, or if they choose to not use their tag themselves and sell it I don't really mind that either. I know several residents in the state of CO that purchase landowner tags. It's not just non residents buying them.

 

[Dinkshooter]

At the end of the day the herd can only handle a 40k harvest and there are 230k hunters so essentially we are just discussing what obstacles we want to put in place to ensure low success rates.



Montana shuts down a ton of roads and it seems to help.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too which I get...but only so many elk can be killed and most elk hunters need to go home empty handed.