Did Colorado Break the Elk Bank This Year?

[LousyResident]

- I have heard from a lot of local hunting/gun shop owners in SW CO that many local folks failed to tag out his year. And that non-res had horrible success B/c of major overcrowding in all units.

- I also talked to a local CPW officer that swears they sold ~3X more OTC archery than any other year historically. Rifle down ~20%. This is congruent with the last few years tags sales, but accelerated splits. Scary for us locals and bad for our herds, from the pressure perspective.
I think the good old days are over, unless we do something.

I don't have any experience in CO (yet!). But I think it's been proven on here a few times that hunters will straight up lie through their teeth about finding any success at all, let alone in a general state/unit/species/etc. LOL.

 

[mplane72]

This subject always tears me in different directions. I appreciate the easy over the counter tag Colorado offers. While I have not yet personally filled a tag in 5 OTC trips I've come close and always felt like I was in the game. Tried a new unit this year and I could not believe what I saw there. By the numbers our group has done better then average. To be in the game does take a lot of work, long days and a lot of ground covered.

I will say that I do think the crowding is a negative on the "experience" and that the price of the tag is almost not worth it in an OTC unit. We have seriously discussed alternating tag buyers year to year but you know what would happen if you were the guy without the tag. I really can't see how OTC as it is today can continue. I would gladly see my opportunity cut back if it meant I was going to have a better experience when I got to go say every 2 or three years.

Honestly I don't know the answer. If I were a CO resident I would be pissed.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Give the people what they want!
If archery numbers are up 200% and rifle numbers are declining the answer is simple.
Lengthen archery season and start cutting back on the one percenter rifle hunts.

I think the archery guys just complain a lot more... damn millennial's








Maybe it's time to break up archery into 4, 1 week seasons.... lol everyone just wants the most for themselves

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Honestly I don't know the answer. If I were a CO resident I would be pissed.

I moved from MT back to CO a couple years ago... there are things I miss about MT, but honestly I'm very content with Colorado's hunting seasons.

I'm pissed we don't have spring bear.

 

[bushman13]

Let's face it, for the OTC tags or less desirable tags, there is a guy in every drainage and a Texas truck on every road. Unless you are
wllm1313 and have gained a local mastery of backcountry hiking. These are 2 different activities, but under the current games, one is a prerequisite for the other.

OTC with caps everywhere, down with the point game, 1 month seasons for bow and rifle!!! Who has the pitchforks? I am ready

 

[Oak]

what would i change? remove OHV status on more trails during hunting season

Completely agree with this, but once upon a time we had a CDOW Director oppose an attempt to do just that.

Battle lines form over travel plan for White River National Forest
Proposed cut in use of ATVs stirs debate

By DENNIS WEBB/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

Monday, May 25, 2009
Bob Elderkin is getting older, and his bad hip, back and knees remind him of it every time he goes hunting.

For that reason, you might expect the Silt-area resident to be upset about a proposal to reduce all-terrain-vehicle use in the White River National Forest.

Instead, Elderkin bristles over all the ATVs he sees during hunting season.

“I think the American is getting so damned soft anymore, if he can’t drive himself and then shoot it, he really doesn’t want it. And that’s not what hunting is all about,” Elderkin said.

But Elderkin said he realizes he’s among a minority who think today’s hunters spend too much time driving and not enough on foot.

If Elderkin is in the minority of hunters, then the Colorado Division of Wildlife is speaking out on behalf of the majority and as a critic of a travel management plan proposed by White River National Forest. The plan would cut miles available for ATV travel by 46 percent, which the DOW considers overly restrictive.

The DOW bases its argument on the reality of many hunters’ preference to use vehicles to get closer to game, a reflection of the increasing average age of hunters.

Game management wrinkle comes into play

In a letter to the U.S. Forest Service earlier this year, DOW Director Thomas Remington said the average age of hunters is 56 and that the average has been increasing by a year every year.

Remington wrote that a balance needs to be reached where hunters can reasonably get within a short walking distance of a hunting area, and particularly downed game. He also said the philosophy of moving hunters away from ATVs and toward hiking and using horses is admirable but unrealistic, given hunting demographics and game-management goals.
He acknowledged the issue puts the DOW in a difficult position.

“The CDOW faces a quandary in that the reduction of motorized routes and routes in general helps wildlife and improves wildlife habitat, but in order to meet harvest objectives, the CDOW needs to be able to disperse this aging user group to the animals. ATVs seem to be the travel method of choice by a large portion of this group. ATVs, whether we like them as a travel method or not, are here to stay,” Remington wrote.

For the Forest Service, with its multiple-use mandate, the balancing act requires considering the desires of hunters who want a nonmotorized experience. In addition, it must take into account other impacts of motorized travel, such as noxious weed invasion, and erosion that can harm watersheds.

A chief factor the Forest Service has to bear in mind is safety, based on one requirement of a 2005 travel management rule the agency enacted to try to better get a handle on increasing motorized use nationwide. On the White River National Forest, the Forest Service decided that some roads open to passenger cars were unsafe for unlicensed vehicles such as ATVs, due to considerations such as driving speeds, traffic levels and blind curves.

In good measure because of that safety factor, the agency’s preferred draft plan for the White River National Forest would result in 993 miles of travel routes being available to ATVs, versus 1,833 now.

The Forest Service is considering comments from the DOW and others as it prepares a final travel management plan, which may be released later this year.

White River National Forest planner Wendy Haskins said the Forest Service considers the DOW to be a partner agency.

“We try to help them as much as we can but have our own mission,” she said. “We take their comments very seriously, and we look to do what we can to help.”

Haskins said there may be places where the Forest Service can put up signs and narrow roads to reduce speeds and make them safe for ATVs as well as passenger cars.

But the Forest Service must try to address the desires of other forest users as well.

“There are just all kinds of customers out there and limited amount of land and opportunities. We’re just trying to do what we can,” Haskins said.

Numbers game

The White River National Forest runs roughly from Parachute to Dillon and includes more than 2 million acres. The DOW worries that further travel restrictions will make it harder to manage game populations that already are above management objectives across the forest. That can lead to resource damage, such as overgrazing of vegetation.

“You get the kind of situation where you get a Rocky Mountain National Park, where you’ve got too many animals,” DOW spokesman Randy Hampton said.

The DOW recognizes the value in closing off certain areas to motorized use, he said, but it worries about restricting ATV access to large swaths of hunting territory.

Remington wrote that almost half of the White River National Forest already is off-limits to ATV use because it is designated wilderness.

The agency also thinks the Forest Service needs to consider the economic consequences that access restrictions could have for communities that benefit from hunting.

As for the suggestion that reduced ATV use would improve hunter satisfaction, Remington wrote, “Use of ATVs is always an issue, but generally when ATVs are being used illegally and not while on designated roads.”

In that regard, Hampton said the DOW was concerned enough about off-highway-vehicle and ATV misuse that the Colorado Legislature passed a law last year letting it enforce federal travel rules.

Dennis Davis, owner of ATV dealer Mountain Powersports near Glenwood Springs, said using the vehicles responsibly is key.

“We’re very adamant about staying on trails, not driving up to the game,” he said. “I believe as long as they’re used responsibly and as long as the hunters follow the regulations as they’re set out there, they should not be further restricted.”

He said he has watched the base age of his hunting customers and shares the DOW’s concern about what access restrictions could mean for hunting and game management.

“When you’re 65 years and you shoot a thousand-pound elk, you’re not going to be able to carry it for 10 miles,” he said.

Elderkin is a board member of the Colorado Mule Deer Association, which he said hasn’t taken a position on the ATV issue. He said the DOW is probably right about how ATV restrictions could contribute to game overpopulation.

“But that still doesn’t change anything,” he said. “The whole world’s just getting to where (people) won’t want to work at anything anymore.”
He said ATV users can harm hunting efforts by driving game into more remote areas.

“They turn them on in the morning, and they don’t turn them off until they get back to camp that night,” Elderkin said.

 

[mplane72]

I moved from MT back to CO a couple years ago... there are things I miss about MT, but honestly I'm very content with Colorado's hunting seasons.

I'm pissed we don't have spring bear.

That's very gracious of you.

I should add to my earlier statement that I also would be advocating higher resident fees.

 

[Ben Sellers]

Our Colorado Hunt this year was a tough hunt because of weather. I’m not sure CPW could have done anything to change our circumstances since we needed snow. We did not hear a shot or talk to anyone who had a shot opportunity. The consensus seemed to be that it was definitely a down year. We hunted 4th season so crowding wasn’t and issue. Of course our area could have been a pumpkin patch a few days before we arrived.

I would hate to see a real loss of hunting opportunity by large scale limiting of tags in CO. That said, modest changes to keep some areas from being over hunted in the otc seasons would be beneficial.

 

[Carnage2011]

I can't speak to archery season, but if a hunter can't find a decent elk in colorado during 3rd or 4th season then I don't know what they are doing. When I'm down there deer hunting the elk are literally in my way. From what I've seen most hunters in Colorado spend way too much time hiking and not enough time glassing. I'm typically on a good vantage point before daylight and see elk all the time.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That's very gracious of you.

I should add to my earlier statement that I also would be advocating higher resident fees.

Wildlife is managed by the state for its residents, while I personally think we as residents should pay more, I think it’s perfectly fine for CO to generate as much revenue as possible from NR.
Not sure I would vote for it, but I can understand the argument that the best way to deal with crowding would be to price NR tag so as to lose enough NR hunters to lessen pressure. So make an elk tag 2k or something like that.

 

[noharleyyet]

So make an elk tag 2k or something like that.

By all means, a sprint to the King's deer....

 

[mplane72]

Wildlife is managed by the state for its residents, while I personally think we as residents should pay more, I think it’s perfectly fine for CO to generate as much revenue as possible from NR.
Not sure I would vote for it, but I can understand the argument that the best way to deal with crowding would be to price NR tag so as to lose enough NR hunters to lessen pressure. So make an elk tag 2k or something like that.

Money is the root of the issue as usual.

Totally agree with your first statement.

Something along the lines of your first statement will probably come to pass someday. It's not good for hunting in general but it's how it's going to go.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Otc has got to go. All of it. This last year was ridiculous. We packed out three bags of trash in the west elks wilderness. All from horse camps. The strain on the resource is too much. Never saw a legal bull in rifle range. Two seasons we were out. 6 to 10 miles hiked a day. Bs.

Go Limited entry, raise the tag fees. Give the elk a chance to live past his first set of branched antlers. Focus on a healthy sustainable herd. Not your revenue, CPW.

 

[Sweetmeat]

This was my 3rd year hunting archery elk in Colorado. 2 years in OTC units and one year in an easy to draw unit. I haven't noticed changes in pressure from year to year.(we had the most trouble with pressure in the easy to draw unit rather than the OTC ones) The first year out, I underestimated the amount of hunters, but this last year we made our plan based on where we seen or didn't see hunters and were successful this year.

Being a nonresident I'm grateful that I'm able to draw a tag in Colorado every year, and I hope that it stays that way. But on the other hand I understand why Colorado residents what all of the non residents out of their state. Last weekend was firearm deer season in Illinois and there was a comparable ratio to Colorado's elk season of resident to non resident license plates. This might be an unpopular opinion, but the hunting pressure I've seen in Colorado archery elk hunting is far-far less than firearm weekend on public land in Illinois.

Illinois tried the approach to price out the average nonresident hunter with its deer tags, and what ended up happening is that the financial level of nonresident hunters increased. Now the price of hunting leases have skyrocketed and even though our deer tags cost us $25, securing a hunting lease is financially out of reach for the average hunter.

 

[bushman13]

Why do the Midwest states , brimming with deer, hold on to those week long seasons? Why don't the hunters rebel and demand multiple month rifle seasons like in the South?

This was my 3rd year hunting archery elk in Colorado. 2 years in OTC units and one year in an easy to draw unit. I haven't noticed changes in pressure from year to year.(we had the most trouble with pressure in the easy to draw unit rather than the OTC ones) The first year out, I underestimated the amount of hunters, but this last year we made our plan based on where we seen or didn't see hunters and were successful this year.

Being a nonresident I'm grateful that I'm able to draw a tag in Colorado every year, and I hope that it stays that way. But on the other hand I understand why Colorado residents what all of the non residents out of their state. Last weekend was firearm deer season in Illinois and there was a comparable ratio to Colorado's elk season of resident to non resident license plates. This might be an unpopular opinion, but the hunting pressure I've seen in Colorado archery elk hunting is far-far less than firearm weekend on public land in Illinois.

Illinois tried the approach to price out the average nonresident hunter with its deer tags, and what ended up happening is that the financial level of nonresident hunters increased. Now the price of hunting leases have skyrocketed and even though our deer tags cost us $25, securing a hunting lease is financially out of reach for the average hunter.

 

[mplane72]

Why do the Midwest states , brimming with deer, hold on to those week long seasons? Why don't the hunters rebel and demand multiple month rifle seasons like in the South?

Off topic but I would fight that tooth and nail. Maybe those month long seasons are why Southern hunters, and others to be fair, are willing to pay more then a CO NR elk tag to come to Iowa after a whitetail and only be able to do it every 3 to 4 years.

 

[bushman13]

Help me out with your correlation. The long seasons in the south make for poor hunting and that's why they are branching out?
If so, that is not the case. They branch out for different species and also the chance at a Midwest bruiser whitetail.
The multiple month seasons themselves, are awesome.

Off topic but I would fight that tooth and nail. Maybe those month long seasons are why Southern hunters, and others to be fair, are willing to pay more then a CO NR elk tag to come to Iowa after a whitetail and only be able to do it every 3 to 4 years.

 

[HighDesertSage]

This was my 3rd year hunting archery elk in Colorado. 2 years in OTC units and one year in an easy to draw unit. I haven't noticed changes in pressure from year to year.(we had the most trouble with pressure in the easy to draw unit rather than the OTC ones) The first year out, I underestimated the amount of hunters, but this last year we made our plan based on where we seen or didn't see hunters and were successful this year.

Being a nonresident I'm grateful that I'm able to draw a tag in Colorado every year, and I hope that it stays that way. But on the other hand I understand why Colorado residents what all of the non residents out of their state. Last weekend was firearm deer season in Illinois and there was a comparable ratio to Colorado's elk season of resident to non resident license plates. This might be an unpopular opinion, but the hunting pressure I've seen in Colorado archery elk hunting is far-far less than firearm weekend on public land in Illinois.

Illinois tried the approach to price out the average nonresident hunter with its deer tags, and what ended up happening is that the financial level of nonresident hunters increased. Now the price of hunting leases have skyrocketed and even though our deer tags cost us $25, securing a hunting lease is financially out of reach for the average hunter.

Let me be clear, we don’t want the non residents out. Sorry if postings come across that way. We want people to come here and have great time from other states, enjoy the landscape and game, also help our economy that is dependent on big game seasons. What I want is a sustainable solution to quality elk hunting on public land. The current system in place does not offer that, at least in my experience here.

I’m usually highly supportive of cpw, but I believe they had an opportunity to do something about it this last big game season restructure, but once again proved the revenue was more important.

I think non residents should be able to come here and hunt bull elk, but not as often as a resident can. I also don’t think a nr tag should be 2k, but it should be over 1k, especially for a quality opportunity. Also residents should be coughing up way more than 50 bucks for an elk tag.

 

[beginnerhunter]

This isn't a value judgement, just giving an account of my experience. CO has the right to do what they feel is best until they wise up and develop more revenue streams for conservation.

My first elk hunting experience this year was southern CO 1st rifle which is limited. I went with an experienced elk hunter from Wyoming (he's also hunted Idaho). We didn't see a ton of other hunters but we didnt see many elk either. He said it was the hardest he'd hunted to see that few elk. That said we saw two legal bulls just no shot.

In the future I think I'm going to try to find units with limited archery seasons or hunt later seasons hoping weather will push elk into higher concentrations.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So make an elk tag 2k or something like that.

By all means, a sprint to the King's deer....

I think we can all agree that the first goal should be herd health. A related and secondary goal would be funding the agency responsible for this goal. I'm not sure providing non-residents an affordable hunting opportunity is something any state worries about.

If people think there are too many non-resident hunters in CO I'm not sure why you would reduce the number simply by kicking them out rather than pricing them out?

People hold Wyoming as the gold standard with it's long seasons, if you assume that the way to achieve this in CO is to reduce the number of hunters in CO to the same proportion of hunters/elk as WY and then allocate tags R/NR the same way, you are looking at cutting 31,712 NR tags. This will cost the state of Colorado 20 million dollars. My argument is that if the whole point is to fund our agency, so that the agency may have the necessary resources to manage our wildlife, then it logically follows that instead of taking that budget shortfall you would promote voluntary hunter attrition by increasing the price of NR tags.

I prefer the status quo.

(My math on the tags v. budget loss)


I think in these conversations it's important for people to understand how the departments are funded and in general what drives the variations from state to state. Texas derives only 17% of it's DNR budget from license sales while Colorado gets 54% from these sales. CPAW and issues a number of white papers and a full report on alternative funding sources, essentially trying to mirror Texas, MT, WY, etc and came to the conclusion that TABOR prevents them from any of them.