5-Year Big Game Season Structure alternatives

[cedahm]

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.

PrairieHunter, I have seen you post at length about how MT and WY resident hunts are so much better than CO on a couple of forums. We get it, you like those season structures and don’t like ours. I’m happy you are proud of the resident hunting opportunity you have, not sure why you continually frame it as an us versus them, “mine is better than yours“ comparison (maybe not your intent, but that’s how it reads). Doesn’t have much at all to do with the options CO has put on the table.

Framing it another way - Comparing WY resident structures to CO is apples to dragonfruit given the disproportionate resident hunters (not just population). I believe many wouldn’t take many more days afield than they already do if they made the season a month long, ntm the crowd on weekends of a month long season would be unmanageable, IMO. We are also likely never going to get away from some kind of point system.

So - assuming we are never going to see a 30-day rifle season, and the point system isn’t going away, what other season structure point(s) would you suggest we comment to our commission about based on your experience? I would agree that the NR% could be lowered and/or the amount of NR OTC tags could be capped (which would necessitate another resident price increase to support, which as we saw last year, is a shitshow all it’s own).

 

[PrairieHunter]

PrairieHunter, I have seen you post at length about how MT and WY resident hunts are so much better than CO on a couple of forums. We get it, you like those season structures and don’t like ours. I’m happy you are proud of the resident hunting opportunity you have, not sure why you continually frame it as an us versus them, “mine is better than yours“ comparison (maybe not your intent, but that’s how it reads). Doesn’t have much at all to do with the options CO has put on the table.

Framing it another way - Comparing WY resident structures to CO is apples to dragonfruit given the disproportionate resident hunters (not just population). I believe many wouldn’t take many more days afield than they already do if they made the season a month long, ntm the crowd on weekends of a month long season would be unmanageable, IMO. We are also likely never going to get away from some kind of point system.

So - assuming we are never going to see a 30-day rifle season, and the point system isn’t going away, what other season structure point(s) would you suggest we comment to our commission about based on your experience? I would agree that the NR% could be lowered and/or the amount of NR OTC tags could be capped (which would necessitate another resident price increase to support, which as we saw last year, is a shitshow all it’s own).

I just share my opinion on the matter when the discussion goes that way. Truth hurts sometimes and in spite of may great sides to Colorado the resident hunting opportunities are simply not comparable for the reasons I have mentioned. But I do get a kick of of people who make ridiculous claims like the landowner tag systems helped resident hunting opportunities or that a 5 day season is better for residents than a nearly 3 month season. Easy to see that some people are just homers, kinda like the ones who think the Broncos are going to win the SB every year.

I don't see a fix for the Colorado system. It's broken badly and the resident hunters have lost tags at every opportunity in the name of NR $. And to be transparent I would say the exact same thing if WY raised the % or NR tags, made elk hunting OTC in much of the state, took landowner tags from the resident pool, etc.. so this has nothing to do with Colorado. The same would be true in any state so try not to talk things so personally. But I understand how people are when it comes to being realistic about where they live. I am not that way. Wyoming can be a absolute hell hole with the weather and economy, which is why nobody wants to live here and Colorado has a line of UHaul trucks coming to the state every day. We lack about everything in the state, but our hunting and recreational opportunity blows Colorado away. Which is why so many CO hunters and other recreational folks come up here every weekend. I watch the endless line of campers, 4 wheelers, snow machines, boats etc drive by on 287 every weekend. People from Wyoming don't go to Colorado to hunt and recreate, we go down to shop, eat, go to pro sports, etc.. which CO has a much better opportunity for.

Anytime tags get taken from the resident pool they lose opportunity. I'ts quite simple. 5-7 day seasons suck for residents but are great for NR's who just come for a few days. The whole system in CO is setup for the NR, like business made for profit instead of quality. Colorado is like like the Wal Mart super center for NR hunters as it requires no planning/draw for OTC or purchasing landowner tags. Go right in and buy your opportunity from $500 to $5,000.

Did you watch the OTC Colorado episodes from the show? It did not look appealing at all.

So all things like travel being equal at the end of the day if you had to choose from a OTC Colorado tag good for a week vs a Montana general tag good for 3 months which would you choose this fall as a resident?

For me I would not bother the short drive to CO for an OTC elk hunt even if the tag was free, but if given a MT general tag I would probably take at least a week off to go hunt.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@PrairieHunter if you loath CO so much why jump in on the conversation. I’m not glorifying the state, like I’ve said I’ve been a resident hunter in a number of states including CO and MT. I just being honest that the population of the world is increasing, and Colorado is growing particularly fast. We are pretty close to the maximum allowed carrying capacity of elk in CO, if anything the population will decrease as humans further build homes and destroy habitat. The population of the US will double within my lifetime and I believe hunting opportunities will likely get worse not better. This current proposal is a pick your poison situation.

If you want a more detailed discussion of the game issue in Montana pm @BuzzH, I have never said I favor the 5 day season, simply that with more than ~150k residents that want to hunt elk every year you have to create a structure to limit the harvest by decreasing opportunity.

I have never hunted WY for elk so I’m not sure what your experience there is like, personally I have found it about as easy to kill a bull in CO in a 5 day season as MT in a 90 day season. I’ve never not seen a elk in a day of elk hunting in CO but on numerous occasions hunted in MT for several days without seeing an elk.

This will be my 7th season elk hunting so my experience is limited ( 3 in MT as a resident and 3 in CO as a resident).

Back to the main discussion I put down that I was not in favor of the early rifle season, but did like the longer breaks in the rifle seasons... it does make the seasons shorter, but hopefully unpressed days in between will get elk back on public land. As for archery I went will the split seasons, as I think some OTC opportunities are important.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

Adding an early season rut bull rifle hunt and pushing back 3rd and 4th rifle seasons will play hell on age class for both deer and elk. Making it easier to kill mature vulnerable animals is not what I think the public wanted when they said they wanted less crowding and less pressure. Colorado already has a low age class of bulls due to the otc hunts, this will make it worse. Along with that if you push your rifle buck hunts further into the rut we are gonna have Montana-like deer age class here pretty quick and everybody will be delighted to have a chance at a 130” 4-point.
This is a poor decision by the CPW. Also they didn’t even mess with the muzzleloader timing and the earlier archery deer hunt is a for sure thing if any changes are made. Somebody on the inside pulling strings for those two? When I looked at the results of the polling they did earlier this year wasn’t one of the bigger complaints the fact that muzzleloader and archery run the same time? That wasn’t even addressed in this charade of a structure proposal.

 

[Pelican]

Also they didn’t even mess with the muzzleloader timing and the earlier archery deer hunt is a for sure thing if any changes are made. Somebody on the inside pulling strings for those two? When I looked at the results of the polling they did earlier this year wasn’t one of the bigger complaints the fact that muzzleloader and archery run the same time? That wasn’t even addressed in this charade of a structure proposal.

When do you propose muzzy season should occur? The issue of archery/muzzy overlap comes up every 5 years. I don’t think there is a viable option to remedy the issue. Muzzy season either overlaps another season or it occurs during the only break the elk get (early Oct) from the start of archery through 4th rifle.

 

[Coloradoshedhead]

When do you propose muzzy season should occur? The issue of archery/muzzy overlap comes up every 5 years. I don’t think there is a viable option to remedy the issue. Muzzy season either overlaps another season or it occurs during the only break the elk get (early Oct) from the start of archery through 4th rifle.

I believe it would be selfish to move the season being how I am primarily an archery hunter and I think in debates like these people have a tenancy to think/debate very selfishly.
So here are my thoughts: Keep Muzzy season where it is (most seem to like it there) and split the archery season around it. I do think having primitive rifles running around the woods while archery hunters aren't wearing orange is not very safe.
I'm not sure that making one of the split seasons otc and one limited is the best decision as one of the greatest aspects of archery hunting in CO is being able to build points and hunt every year. I guess I don't feel the extreme pressure most do maybe because I actively make a point to seek out the under the radar areas that hold elk with little pressure. Along with that I believe you can find a correlation between the people complaining about overcrowding and lack of time spent looking for these areas. I archery hunt an area where on one side of the drainage I am chasing elk within ear shot and sight of a county road that wheelers drive up and down all day. On the other side of the drainage it is something like a 3 mile kick you in the butt grueling steep hike to get to the elk and you can still see the county road.
The proposed changes to make it easier to kill rutting bucks and bulls with a rifle will do much more damage to the availability of quality hunting than a little "overcrowding" in the woods does. Along with the possibility of wolves being introduced I am fearful of the future of quality hunting in Colorado in the near future we should all stop thinking so selfishly and focus more on the quality of the resource as a whole. I may be applying for more out of state tags in my near future?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

When do you propose muzzy season should occur?

Get rid of first rifle and replace it with muzzy.

 

[Pelican]

Get rid of first rifle and replace it with muzzy.

While feasible, I don’t see the rifle hunters or muzzy hunters supporting this option. The splitting of archery suggested by Coloradoshedhead is an interesting option, but this would either require archery to start earlier than archers seem to support based on the current proposed alternatives and/or intrude into the current break between archery and 1st rifle. Irionically, the archery alternatives aim to move archery elk dates back to the dates we had prior to the current season structure. It took approx. 25 years, but here we are again, right where we started. One group that supported the change initially, is leading the charge today to get the dates moved back. I’ll keep the terms I would use to describe this turn of events to myself.
I haven’t decided which of the archery alternative I support just yet. I’m not convinced the archery alternatives will accomplish their intent. We currently have elk units in the Flat Tops, Bears Ears and Gunnison Basin that are limited and also easy to draw. If archery hunters want less crowded units so badly, why are these areas so easy to draw? I guess because like COshedhead, I like the ability to get a point and hunt, just like everyone else that buys an OTC tag. In theory, moving to limited licenses could result in more hunters in the units or areas I hunt. I don’t feel very crowded now, but when someone can’t draw a popular unit like 62, they will get what is left over, which may mean they are now crowding me and the other folks that avoid the popular areas. Same issue, different area.
With the rifle alternatives, the status quo seems to me to be the only option that won’t put rifle hunters in the woods when bucks and bulls, particularly older buck or bulls, are most vulnerable due to rut hunts. Higher success rates on older age classes will obviously necessitate reduction in permits to keep buck ratios within the desired range and also result in the dreaded point creep.
It seems that the devil is in the details with the alternatives, and we are lacking in details right now. I hope that hunters and the commission don’t get distracted by the bright shiny object in front of them and instead really think about the negatives with each alternative. Ah hell, maybe I’ll just quit caring so we can go around in a circle again in 20 years like a bunch of morons.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

With the rifle alternatives, the status quo seems to me to be the only option that won’t put rifle hunters in the woods when bucks and bulls, particularly older buck or bulls, are most vulnerable due to rut hunts. Higher success rates on older age classes will obviously necessitate reduction in permits to keep buck ratios within the desired range and also result in the dreaded point creep.

Which is why I've always wondered about Muzzy and first rifle seasons... don't get me wrong I've hunted muzzy twice and this will be my second year putting in for 1st rifle and while I enjoy getting to chase elk in the rut with a gun I always have this nagging feeling that it's bad for the resource.

 

[elkduds]

Why MLs in the middle of archery? September seasons in CO used to be termed "primitive weapons season," when muzzleloaders were flintlocks or caplocks, used FFG to launch patched round balls or maxiballs maybe 100 yds. And the compound bows...

That is the rationale behind boresize projectiles, open sights, loose powder and other limitations on MLs in CO during Sept.

 

[jlmatthew]

I just share my opinion on the matter when the discussion goes that way. Truth hurts sometimes and in spite of may great sides to Colorado the resident hunting opportunities are simply not comparable for the reasons I have mentioned. But I do get a kick of of people who make ridiculous claims like the landowner tag systems helped resident hunting opportunities or that a 5 day season is better for residents than a nearly 3 month season. Easy to see that some people are just homers, kinda like the ones who think the Broncos are going to win the SB every year.

I don't see a fix for the Colorado system. It's broken badly and the resident hunters have lost tags at every opportunity in the name of NR $. And to be transparent I would say the exact same thing if WY raised the % or NR tags, made elk hunting OTC in much of the state, took landowner tags from the resident pool, etc.. so this has nothing to do with Colorado. The same would be true in any state so try not to talk things so personally. But I understand how people are when it comes to being realistic about where they live. I am not that way. Wyoming can be a absolute hell hole with the weather and economy, which is why nobody wants to live here and Colorado has a line of UHaul trucks coming to the state every day. We lack about everything in the state, but our hunting and recreational opportunity blows Colorado away. Which is why so many CO hunters and other recreational folks come up here every weekend. I watch the endless line of campers, 4 wheelers, snow machines, boats etc drive by on 287 every weekend. People from Wyoming don't go to Colorado to hunt and recreate, we go down to shop, eat, go to pro sports, etc.. which CO has a much better opportunity for.

Anytime tags get taken from the resident pool they lose opportunity. I'ts quite simple. 5-7 day seasons suck for residents but are great for NR's who just come for a few days. The whole system in CO is setup for the NR, like business made for profit instead of quality. Colorado is like like the Wal Mart super center for NR hunters as it requires no planning/draw for OTC or purchasing landowner tags. Go right in and buy your opportunity from $500 to $5,000.

Did you watch the OTC Colorado episodes from the show? It did not look appealing at all.

So all things like travel being equal at the end of the day if you had to choose from a OTC Colorado tag good for a week vs a Montana general tag good for 3 months which would you choose this fall as a resident?

For me I would not bother the short drive to CO for an OTC elk hunt even if the tag was free, but if given a MT general tag I would probably take at least a week off to go hunt.

Nailed it!

I dont know why Colorado resident hunters think the way they do, but they do. Please charge me more and shorten my season!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Nailed it!

I dont know why Colorado resident hunters think the way they do, but they do. Please charge me more and shorten my season!

What’s the alternative?

 

[JLS]

What were the catalysts for these alternatives?

Kind of what I was wondering as well.

Are elk numbers dropping?

Is access to elk decreasing?

Are hunter numbers increasing?

Are there legitimate crowding issues? Public safety issues?

 

[375H&H]

Which is why I've always wondered about Muzzy and first rifle seasons... don't get me wrong I've hunted muzzy twice and this will be my second year putting in for 1st rifle and while I enjoy getting to chase elk in the rut with a gun I always have this nagging feeling that it's bad for the resource.

Why would chasing elk during the rut with a gun be bad for the resource? As long as it’s legal and under state regulations, shouldn’t they be the ones determining if it’s bad for the resource? Late rifle hunts for elk can be bad for the resource if they don’t kill enough elk and they get above carrying capacity. I view it as a hell of an opportunity!!

Also I don’t think the elk care whether they get shot with a bow or rifle during the rut...actually I bet they prefer a rifle.

 

[JLS]

Why would chasing elk during the rut with a gun be bad for the resource? As long as it’s legal and under state regulations, shouldn’t they be the ones determining if it’s bad for the resource? Late rifle hunts for elk can be bad for the resource if they don’t kill enough elk and they get above carrying capacity. I view it as a hell of an opportunity!!

Also I don’t think the elk care whether they get shot with a bow or rifle during the rut...actually I bet they prefer a rifle.

The bulls are much more susceptible to harvest during the rut. That's why you typically only see these seasons in hard to access areas, i.e. designated wilderness, unless it's by a special permit hunt.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why would chasing elk during the rut with a gun be bad for the resource? As long as it’s legal and under state regulations, shouldn’t they be the ones determining if it’s bad for the resource?

Nothing wrong with it... I guess to elaborate: I have often wondered if by moving muzzy to the position of first rifle if you would decrease success rates so more hunters could be in the field and stymie some amount of the point creep.

During these discussions we are just messing around with the equations.

Hunters + Time in Field + method of take + prerut/rut/postrut = Number of elk killed

Number of elk that can be harvested = (non-impactful harvest rate) * elk population


Various approaches to these equations are the main reason Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, etc seasons structures look so different.


This is a bit hyperbolic but...

Utah wants to be able to use the best methods of take, during the rut, with great age class = therefore few tags are given out

Wyoming wants a long season, with good age class =fewer tags, more expensive tags restrictive about where you can hunt as a NR

Colorado wants lots of opportunity, high elk number rather than natural age class = lots of tags/ short seasons


The state in these surveys is asking for our preferences for the variables, they will adjust the others to make sure the same amount of elk are harvested. For instance we go to an early rifle elk season, then the number of tags in each unit will likely decrease in order to offset the efficacy of getting to hunt during that time. This in turn will mean that some seasons and units will be more difficult to draw.

 

[375H&H]

The bulls are much more susceptible to harvest during the rut. That's why you typically only see these seasons in hard to access areas, i.e. designated wilderness, unless it's by a special permit hunt.

Of course.

But as long as it’s regulated by access or special permit it doesn’t mean that a rifle elk hunt during the rut is bad for the resource, which it sounds like his hunt is. Anecdotally a good number of elk get hit with archery and are not recovered which probably isn’t good for the resource.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Of course.

But as long as it’s regulated by access or special permit it doesn’t mean that a rifle elk hunt during the rut is bad for the resource, which it sounds like his hunt is. Anecdotally a good number of elk get hit with archery and are not recovered which probably isn’t good for the resource.

I think using the terms bad or good, makes it seem like a value judgement on method of take... which this isn't. It's more, if x then y.

 

[JLS]

Anecdotally a good number of elk get hit with archery and are not recovered which probably isn’t good for the resource.

Very valid point.

 

[jlmatthew]

What’s the alternative?

See Wyoming, they seem to do it right.

Why would anyone pick or maybe even continue the sport if they keep taking away oppotunity? Even though we have a larger population as a State, what are resident hunter popultion numbers?