Did Colorado Break the Elk Bank This Year?

[bushman13]

I've noticed that door knocking and asking permissions out here is still a thought. We lost that ability in the South generations ago. We approach the farmer money in hand for a lease, never just asking for somewhere to hunt.
The freebies down South come with befriending landowners through college or work, not by knocking.

I've gotten on private in MT for free to kill cow elk. My boss let some guys who gave him a call kill some bulls on his place in WY.

So it is possible and does happen. To be honestly I think most folks in the west find the idea of a hunting lease repugnant.

Growing up and learning to hunt out here I feel like there is a cultural taboo of asking for permission.

 

[rwc101]

befriending landowners

Or meeting them in court for their trespassing charges.

 

[bushman13]

It's true, everywhere has its locals that are going to poach. But I hunted 2 main private locations in Georgia. 100 acres of family land (college buddy), 20 miles from downtown Atlanta. I also had a lease down in Plains Ga since the early 90's. I never ran across people in the 100 acre parcel, ever. The only people I saw on the Plains lease, were my hunters. There is general laziness to poaching down there, why trespass too badly when you can pop one at night off a road, or in the morning off your porch?

Now I hunt CO public, I wave to the guy in every drainage, sometimes we talk.

Or meeting them in court for their trespassing charges.

 

[rwc101]

It's true, everywhere has its locals that are going to poach. But I hunted 2 main private locations in Georgia. 100 acres of family land (college buddy), 20 miles from downtown Atlanta. I also had a lease down in Plains Ga since the early 90's. I never ran across people in the 100 acre parcel, ever. The only people I saw on the Plains lease, were my hunters. There is general laziness to poaching down there, why trespass too badly when you can pop one at night off a road, or in the morning off your porch?

Now I hunt CO public, I wave to the guy in every drainage, sometimes we talk.

You've had better luck than I have. I can't think of a piece of land I hunted in NC or VA that didn't have trespassers or people running dogs across the parcel every Saturday. Maybe it's not as big of an issue in GA.

 

[bushman13]

Don't get me started with deer dog hunters, huge issue down where I grew up near the Ocala National Forrest in Florida. We had a couple hundred acres of Florida scrub bordering the NF, we stopped hunting deer all together and moved shop to GA.

 

[mplane72]

Gotcha, so it's not the harvest rate necessarily, it's just the mass of people in the camp sites. I agree that camp crowding is in fact a huge problem.

Forest Service plans to eliminate north-valley dispersed camping

Dispersed camping at the north end of the Gunnison Valley is no longer sustainable. That’s according to the U.S. Forest Service. Amid increasing visitation to the area and enforcement challenges,

www.gunnisontimes.com

Honestly, I wish there was a good way of getting people on private land to ease the pressure.

It's the mass of people all over the mountain, many of them not knowing what the hell they're doing (LOL kinda) and it's over all negative effect on the experience. Just saying for me I'm beginning to question it's worth. Would be kinda nice to see elk still acting kinda like elk. Hardly even hear night bugles last couple years. This past year we hunted a group of elk right off the road not far from camp for 3 days. It was kind of a hell hole. We were careful with them. Always got out before the wind got bad. Day 3 I had 3 legal bulls inside 40 yards and could not get a shot. That night one bull up there let off a weak bugle and the next morning 3 other groups were up there pounding the piss out of it. That's public land but like I said kind of old.

 

[bushman13]

I overheard a couple locals describing a successful elk hunt, at a diner in Evergreen. They were pumped up that someone scored. The kid asked the dad "where did they shoot it?" The dad answered "They got him in the rump and in the jaw" without a second thought.
I'm with you, I want to see them not fleeing for their lives 24/7.

So I can shoot them

It's the mass of people all over the mountain, many of them not knowing what the hell they're doing (LOL kinda) and it's over all negative effect on the experience. Just saying for me I'm beginning to question it's worth. Would be kinda nice to see elk still acting kinda like elk. Hardly even hear night bugles last couple years. This past year we hunted a group of elk right off the road not far from camp for 3 days. It was kind of a hell hole. We were careful with them. Always got out before the wind got bad. Day 3 I had 3 legal bulls inside 40 yards and could not get a shot. That night one bull up there let off a weak bugle and the next morning 3 other groups were up there pounding the piss out of it. That's public land but like I said kind of old.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Same as Montana - nothing will change until the money stops flowing in.

 

[Pelican]

As far as allocation, I not sure how much it really helps. For the top tier units (10, 2, 201, etc) you could cut all NR tags and you still wouldn't draw, for the mid tier... it might let you draw a year or 2 faster .

I agree that changing the NR allocation is not going to make 201 easy to draw, but lowering the NR allocation from 20 to 10% would increase the number of tags for residents by 12%. Changing the 35% allocation back to 20% would increase resident tags by 23% annually.

As far as OTC and leftover tags go it's just supply and demand, the ratio is what it is because Residents aren't interested in those tags. The flat tops units had something like 800 cow tags on the leftover list the day before 4th season.

The Res vs NR allocation only applies to first choice applications. Anyone would still be able to buy leftovers regardless of residency. All I’m suggesting is that resident have first shot at more tags than currently. The increase to 35% occurred about 5 years ago. Prior to that, it was 20%.

I don’t know why Colorado resident hunters are so willingly to give up. We have 2X the landowner allocation and 2-3.5X the NR allocation than other states. We let anyone on planet earth come here and buy an elk tag. Our reward for being generous is 5-9 day rifle seasons.
May as well go full limited on elk tags so we can eventually give 20% of those tags to the landowners also.

 

[NEWHunter]

Lots of people like to spend a truck load of money to go to disney world and that's a pretty crowded experience, I don't see Disney capping or trying to reduce park attendance.

What crowds . . .

They kind of are trying to thin things out by raising prices. Although crowds haven’t thinned. Maybe Colorado and Disney both need to keep increasing prices to create a higher quality experience. People will pay it. I digress. Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Pelican I totally agree with you, I think CO needs to move to a model that is full limited with most tags in the draw going to residents, but then a lot of opportunity going to non-residents with a OTC with caps/ leftover system.

I do think Colorado residents need to think carefully about how to balance resident opportunity with CPAW funding. Fact of the mater is the population of the state has doubled in my lifetime, and that means there are a lot more residents tag holders to deal with.

What crowds . . .
View attachment 120992
I digress. Carry on.

Unit 53?

 

[rmauch20]

I agree that changing the NR allocation is not going to make 201 easy to draw, but lowering the NR allocation from 20 to 10% would increase the number of tags for residents by 12%. Changing the 35% allocation back to 20% would increase resident tags by 23% annually.


The Res vs NR allocation only applies to first choice applications. Anyone would still be able to buy leftovers regardless of residency. All I’m suggesting is that resident have first shot at more tags than currently. The increase to 35% occurred about 5 years ago. Prior to that, it was 20%.

I don’t know why Colorado resident hunters are so willingly to give up. We have 2X the landowner allocation and 2-3.5X the NR allocation than other states. We let anyone on planet earth come here and buy an elk tag. Our reward for being generous is 5-9 day rifle seasons.
May as well go full limited on elk tags so we can eventually give 20% of those tags to the landowners also.

How much of a financial hit do you think it would be for Colorado?

At the rate Colorado is growing I just think it’s going to be crowded for the time being.

 

[Dinkshooter]

I dislike Oak's ideas immensely!

In the hunting world, there are hardly bigger cry baby's than the "casual" elk hunter who thinks they should shoot 6 point bulls 1/4 mile off the road every year. The post season wailing and whining can be heard for miles and miles.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think you could change the allocation of 6+ pt units to 10% from 20, all other draw from 35% to 20%. Make all tags in the state limited with caps, and have a nominal revenue hit.

Essentially a NR with lots of points would feel screwed, but most NR hunters hunt during the OTC seasons. Those hunters wouldn't see any change as leftover tags from the limited draw wouldn't be allocated so anyone could buy them. So for instance if in 2019 you hunted the flat tops under the current system as a NR you would see zero change under @Pelican 's system. If you hunted say 1st rifle in unit 67, instead of it being a 50/50 chance at 0pts for a NR it would be 1pt.

If we went full limited quotas for most areas would be super high and there would be tons and tons of leftover tags and those are the tags most people would buy think like 60,000 left over rifle tags and 15,000 archery tags... something on that order.

 

[Pelican]

How much of a financial hit do you think it would be for Colorado?

I have no idea.
It will be interesting to see how much of an increase in revenue is generated this year due to the requirement to have a small game license and the increased point and application fees. I know CPW got another $200 from me alone.

 

[Oak]

The increase to 35% occurred about 5 years ago. Prior to that, it was 20%.

I agree with your premises, but the above is not correct.

Prior to 2000, there were no allocation percentages. In 2000 the Commission created the 60/40 resident/non-resident allocation.

In 2005 the Commission create the 80/20 resident/non-resident allocation in units requiring at least 5 resident points to draw and froze the 80/20 units so they would remain the same through the 5-year season structure.

In 2006 the 60/40 allocation was changed to 65/35.

In 2009 the Commission, renewed the 80/20 allocation and updated it to units that took 6 resident points to take into consideration point creep since the initial determination in 2005. The calculation was based on a 3-year average of preference points required for the 2007-2009 seasons.

The determination of which hunt codes are issued at the 80/20 split has remained frozen at the 2007-2009 level in the subequent two BGSS processes in 2014 and 2019. Clearly if they updated the list to reflect current demand many more hunt codes would fall under the 80/20 allocation. I personally think they need to do that, but keep in mind the incredible pressure they face from private interests (outfitters and landowners). In fact, in 2015 the Colorado Outfitters Association proposed going to a 50/50 split across the board, or dropping resident/non-resident allocations all together.

 

[Oak]

In the interest of being fair, I should point out that COA proposed a 3rd alternative in 2015, which was to go to an across the board 60/40 "hard cap," guaranteeing non-residents 40% of licenses.

 

[Oak]

Clearly if they updated the list to reflect current demand many more hunt codes would fall under the 80/20 allocation.

In 2015 CPW calculated how many additional hunt codes would go to 80/20 if they updated the list to reflect 2012-2014 demand. The number of deer hunt codes at 80/20 would have increased from 15 to 35, and elk hunt codes would have increased from 26 to 28. Certainly the number has grown in the last 4 years.

 

[Pelican]

I agree with your premises, but the above is not correct.

Prior to 2000, there were no allocation percentages. In 2000 the Commission created the 60/40 resident/non-resident allocation.

In 2005 the Commission create the 80/20 resident/non-resident allocation in units requiring at least 5 resident points to draw and froze the 80/20 units so they would remain the same through the 5-year season structure.

In 2006 the 60/40 allocation was changed to 65/35.

In 2009 the Commission, renewed the 80/20 allocation and updated it to units that took 6 resident points to take into consideration point creep since the initial determination in 2005. The calculation was based on a 3-year average of preference points required for the 2007-2009 seasons.

The determination of which hunt codes are issued at the 80/20 split has remained frozen at the 2007-2009 level in the subequent two BGSS processes in 2014 and 2019. Clearly if they updated the list to reflect current demand many more hunt codes would fall under the 80/20 allocation. I personally think they need to do that, but keep in mind the incredible pressure they face from private interests (outfitters and landowners). In fact, in 2015 the Colorado Outfitters Association proposed going to a 50/50 split across the board, or dropping resident/non-resident allocations all together.

Thanks for correction. I didn’t mean to mislead anyone. I suffer from CRS occasionally.

 

[Jerky]

I'll buy it, if you show me one Coues or Keys deer with a comparable rack to a Midwestern buck.

I can show you plenty of southern Texas whitetails that do.