Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Looks to me like the legislature has not had any problems finding ways around TABOR:
View attachment 127536
I went to the elk management plan meeting in Durango Thursday night. Parks and wildlife employees stressed that the change to limited archery was meant to give greater control of cow harvest and was not anticipated to create zones that would take many/any preference points. Also talked about calf mortality being multi-factorial. Loss of wintering range, drought, predators, trails/roads/recreationalists, all contributing.
Crowd concerns seemed mostly about bear/lion harvest and some grumbling about the resident/nonresident tag split.
Also, the head CPW guy's mustache: win.
It will now just be part of the annual license quota-setting process in May.Appreciate the recap. They mentioned at the La Junta meeting that tag allocation was not part of the season setting process, did they mention if that would be discussed at some point?
Actually the local DWMs and area biologists are responsible for setting the quota/allocations, which are then approved by the commission. Mustache man = Area Manager Matt Thorpe, supervisor of the local DWMs.If I recall, they said that decision was for the 5 year season structure process? They didn't seem super interested in discussing it, which seems fair to me as these employees have no control over that allocation.
Ah, sorry, I meant setting the non-resident/resident tag split rather than the actual tag numbers for each hunt code. Thanks for the clarification.It will now just be part of the annual license quota-setting process in May.
Actually the local DWMs and area biologists are responsible for setting the quota/allocations, which are then approved by the commission. Mustache man = Area Manager Matt Thorpe, supervisor of the local DWMs.
I think this will end up being mostly to somewhat true. But I also think a significant amount OTC archery displacement will occur for a couple of reasons:No the point is there are no displaced OTC hunters. You can put PP for your first choice, archery 75, or what have you as second choice, draw a tag and get a point. Exactly as you could last year. This specifically was an argument used by CBA as why OTC hunters will stop hunting those units. Overall elk apps were up this year by ~10,000 I imagine a fair number of these were folks who hunt OTC tossing in an app and hunting the same unit just like they always have.
I'm sure the draw did spook some hunters into not applying as they weren't sure how the draw would go down... proofs in the pudding and knowing they will get a tag as a second choice they will jump back in.
I think this will end up being mostly to somewhat true. But I also think a significant amount OTC archery displacement will occur for a couple of reasons:
-OTC allows you to make a decision about where you’ll be hunting in Sept, whereas if you want to archery hunt SW CO you need to decide by March, or in some cases June, with the draw application. Late decision-makers who once hunted this region might now move their hunt to an OTC CO archery unit elsewhere.
-You have to pay an extra $80 to draw vs. OTC
-A lot of eastern hunters have little to no interest in understanding draw systems, and do not enjoy navigating them.
Most or all parties would be better off repealing TABOR, and eliminating OTC archery elk for 2021. But because of the funding handcuffs, we’ll likely see a gradual conversion of OTC archery units over several years until they’re all gone.
EDIT: I doubt all the new 2020 10k CO elk draw applicants are converted OTC hunters. Some is just growth of new hunters, as has been seen in increases of applicants of all or nearly all western states across species.
wllm - whatever.
Fact, when E-16 went to OTC bull only, participation dropped from 1485 to around 400. 1,000 guys who used to hunt OTC in E-16 hunted OTC somewhere else.
By the leftover list, thousands of OTC bowhunters in the SW will be hunting OTC in some elses OTC spot. When they limit GMU 14, another 1,000 will be displaced. Next will be Grand county 18 & 28. Likely a thousand or two more going to someone elses spot that is already way overcrowded. 30,000 hunters get more crowding while a few get less. It is stupid.
You can put yourself on the tall pedestal of "good for the herd", I am sticking with love my hunting neighbor. If it was about the herd, shut down the dam OTC rifle tags, and cut 6 month PLO quotas! Totally supportive of more quailty units, but everyone gets cut - not just bowhunters.
None of this impacts me personally, I have a limited archery bull tag, a limited PLO cow B tag, a limited PLO cow C tag, a PLO buck tag and a desert sheep tag. I won't hunt OTC, but I will stand up for my buddies that want that, you should try it sometime.
All that said, no offense or ill will intended. Go hunt while you can.
From p.1 of the CO 2020 regs: “Applicants must have a qualifying license to apply for the secondary draw.”left over tags don’t require the application fee or qualifying license.
From p.1 of the CO 2020 regs: “Applicants must have a qualifying license to apply for the secondary draw.”
From p.1 of the CO 2020 regs: “Applicants must have a qualifying license to apply for the secondary draw.”
"Well I just like it the way it is" is not a good reason to stop improving our system.
For many, the system is working great, all they want is to go hunting. Who are we to tell them it should change?
“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.”
― Bill Bullard