Colorado - Proposed L/E Unit 14 Archery

vanish

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
2,073
Location
Colorado

The domino effect continues. I have mixed feelings on this. I predicted it as the held the meetings last year. As hunters move out of the new units going draw, the crowding issues will increase in the remaining OTC units, causing more units to go draw. I think OTC archery in Colorado is on its death bed.
 
Wonder if they would ever consider going draw for NR and OTC for you residents, much like Wyoming does in general areas ?
I think the hunting will improve with LQ tags but I see where you all want to keep some OTC, at least for residents.
 
Wonder if they would ever consider going draw for NR and OTC for you residents, much like Wyoming does in general areas ?
I think the hunting will improve with LQ tags but I see where you all want to keep some OTC, at least for residents.
Possibly, I know a huge chunk of their revenue comes from NR OTC licenses. I don't think they'll want to go that route. However as Vanish said above I don't think they're going to have alot of choice. CO continues to grow and become more crowded. Less of the resource and more people wanting access to it.

Personally, I love what we have done with mule deer in this state. I'd like to see that same balance of quality and quanitity in our elk herds as well. We have the resource, just no management.
 
The commission has traditionally shown zero interest in having different structures for residents versus non-residents.
 
CPW has been directing people to this unit for years. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone familiar with this area.
 
They need to just rip the limited license Band-Aid off and go statewide limited on everything. It would be much simpler than this piecemeal a little bit every year process. How much griping was there thirty years after going statewide limited on deer?
Oak beat me to it - I was writing : “But at this point, rip the bandaid, flip all of it limited and raise fees.”

Because they are going to need to raise fees...

I don’t buy into a lot of the doom and gloom about an ‘attack on bow hunting’ (I get the sheer volume of people in the woods is much higher in August and September) - but it is strange that they are only limiting archery recently and not 2nd/3rd rifle.

It’s also notable that nearby units have been OTC archery for ~20 years and it’s had positive impact.
 
Can anyone explain to me why Az, which is larger than Co, can operate on a annual revenue that's pretty much half of what Colorado CPW receives? Now granted reservations take up a good chunk of Az, and CPW takes care of, and receives revenue from state parks, but i would think the annual state park pass revenue has to be tremendous. Im seriously asking. I have no bias, and think CPW does a decent job, just don't see how they couldn't operate with less NR tag revenue. Is there fat to trim?
 
While they are at it.... move all elk licenses to a 90/10 split like most of the west. At least for the better units.
 
I would say make it all limited, double resident license fees, charge more for state parks and put the onus on non-consumptive users to foot their part of the management bill.
Not a "problem solved" proposal, but relying on in-state wealth from stakeholders is a better strategy long term, especially with the number if people moving to Colorado every year and getting out to shred the gnar somewhere, ski slopes, mtn bike trails, or hoofing it all over calving/fawning areas.
 
Can anyone explain to me why Az, which is larger than Co, can operate on a annual revenue that's pretty much half of what Colorado CPW receives?
The resource itself is a big (probably the biggest) differentiator - we Harvest as many elk annually in CO (42K or so) as the total number running around in AZ at any given time (~45K) - that’s a lot more critters (and hunters) to deal with
 
Can anyone explain to me why Az, which is larger than Co, can operate on a annual revenue that's pretty much half of what Colorado CPW receives? Now granted reservations take up a good chunk of Az, and CPW takes care of, and receives revenue from state parks, but i would think the annual state park pass revenue has to be tremendous. Im seriously asking. I have no bias, and think CPW does a decent job, just don't see how they couldn't operate with less NR tag revenue. Is there fat to trim?
Along with scale which @cedahm mentioned CPW also has to lease state land in order for it to be open for hunting. That is a big line item.
 
Can anyone explain to me why Az, which is larger than Co, can operate on a annual revenue that's pretty much half of what Colorado CPW receives? Now granted reservations take up a good chunk of Az, and CPW takes care of, and receives revenue from state parks, but i would think the annual state park pass revenue has to be tremendous. Im seriously asking. I have no bias, and think CPW does a decent job, just don't see how they couldn't operate with less NR tag revenue. Is there fat to trim?
They have a much larger man bun line item.
 
Wonder if they would ever consider going draw for NR and OTC for you residents, much like Wyoming does in general areas ?
I think the hunting will improve with LQ tags but I see where you all want to keep some OTC, at least for residents.

First item on the agenda at every Wildlife Commission meeting "How do we take away and/or limit Resident opportunity and make them pay more"
 
Back
Top