Did Colorado Break the Elk Bank This Year?

[DouglasR]

Certainly a different tone here than when you first posted about this hunt.

Sorry... bored at work... trolling... a bit

My original post said nothing about crowding or opportunity.
As a new hunter The ease of obtaining a otc archery tag in Colorado is one of the things that drew me towards elk/mountain hunting thus leading to me finding something that I really enjoy to do. If there was much more red tape to jump through idk if I would’ve done it. Aren’t hunter numbers on the decline? Don’t we need more hunters to help support conservation?
With that being said, idk wtf I’m talking about and I should really keep my mouth shut.

Ps. How’s your post hunt depression going? Have you watched Randy’s Sonoran safari episodes?

 

[DouglasR]

Pss. For the record, Incase the comedic undertones weren’t obvious a lot of my hunt was pure luck...
And I guess it doesn’t support the majority of the other forum members beliefs so it probably needs to be struck from the record.

 

[Pelican]

Also it needs to add more Archery units.

How? Annex Eastern Utah?

Unfortunately none of these fall in line with its "Financial model"...Waaaaaaaaaay too many hands in the cookie jar in Colorado.

I’m not aware of revenue derived from license sales being used to non-wildlife purposes. Am I missing something?

I agree that eliminating the ability to get a bull tag and a point in the same year would help this situation, but I’m not sure if enough hunters would support it.

 

[Mallardsx2]

How? Annex Eastern Utah? THERE ARE A LOT OF AREAS THAT COULD BE TURNED INTO ARCHERY AREAS.



I’m not aware of revenue derived from license sales being used to non-wildlife purposes. Am I missing something? https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf 29 million going to payments to other agencies and grants to others. Dont even get me started. Your DOW is blowing through the money as fast as they can blow through it. 93 million to personal services alone. Very sad. Its even sadder that as a non-resident I am the one raising the issue and not you.

 

[Pucky Freak]

One challenge of using tag price increase to decrease hunting pressure is that the top 15% income of the 14 million hunters in the US, still leaves you with 2 million hunters who are fairly price insensiitive vs the number of available tags. Meaning you risk pricing out a large majority of hunters before you would dry up the pool of hunters vs tags - I am sure this already happens to some extent (NR hunting is not cheap), but accelerating this type of economic stratification is not good for the sport in my opinion.

My understanding is that CP&W has no prerogative to promote the good of the sport, and are required to maintain a financially viable program. Increase OTC elk to $1250 and you can make the same $ by sacrificing 1/3 of your annual hunters. I dispute that this prices anyone out because if you can afford the OTC tag every year you can afford 2 tags every 3 years. Plus this fixes the overcrowding problem and makes for a better over all experience for NR'S alike and the only ones who suffer are outfitters.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

First, I just want to say thanks to everyone who has left a post in this thread. I wanted to hear some opinions while they are fresh in everyone's mind.
The fact that this thread went to five pages in one day speaks a lot to the issue and it's importance. Also meaning that folks are having "Normal" and "Marginal" experiences based on previous years hunting in this state. I don't really hear anyone saying that had an "amazing" time hunting out here though.

I am going to say that I did not hold a tag within 2 hours of my house near Durango. And in fact focused on out of state hunts this year because the quality of hunts i have found to be much better. The question of whether i am will to pay for that quality speaks for itself. I also enjoy this country for all it's opportunity. I see my tag cost as supporting hunting as a tradition, but that
'conservation return" varies state to state based on their management plans.

As for local hunting and the beta I received. I believe the hearsay from the owners and CPW officer very well. If you can imagine a desperate out of state hunter (who may not know how to hunt CO elk) asking for any advice to fill their tag. Basically desperate and wanting to vent because their experience sucked.

I did guide paying clients and took out new hunters this year locally and witnessed the conditions, even though i did not hunt locally. What i can tell you is that lighter pack weights, new mapping technology, and ambitious hunting tactics have combined to get people into honey holes that I have never, ever seen anyone else in. I might have shed a tear or two for one spot i always had alone. It marked a change for me and solitude expectations.
Saying that, I did witness more vehicles and camps than I have ever seen around here. I will say that most were located around the 416 fire area that happened last summer. Glassing felt like i was just a guy keeping tabs on all the orange dots and waiting for the drive to send elk our way.

I did reach out to many of my local friends and it seems like harvest stats were lower and elk sightings in normal spots were lower. Most agreed that harder work was needed to tag out.

Today I reached out to 7 of the outfitters I have worked for in the past and asked them about success. The feedback was very interesting.
1. All agreed that elk numbers are down around here, no matter how you want to slice it. Period.
2. Weather sucked this year. Just wasn't as cooperative, but it wasn't out of the range of what I call "normal" in CO.
3. Most agreed to have seen public non-client hunters in zones they have never had issues with before.
4. Suprisingly all agreed that OTC Needs to go away. Maybe this means less paying hunters for them. But, if quality or elk numbers go down, who in the hell would want to come here anyway in the future. Maybe Non-res are forced to hunt here beacause they are a prisoner of their 14 non-res points. Aging might cull that one day though.
5. Side Note -> all agreed LESS paying hunters than years before.

I also consider the good economy factor with more people and expendable income that gets them here.

I'm gonna keep tabs on his thread and need to think a little bit more about the November 14-15 commission meetings before I really want to make a statement about what should be done. But to back up my stance from before, DAU caps would be the least that needs to be done. DAU's are comprised of multiple units in one group.
I would love to say that CPW could limit each unit individually, but without hunting harvest and accurate calf recruitment data, I believe that would be an exercise in futility.
Base line for me -> We need more data and re-look at TABOR.

Sorry for the long rant, but this very important for CO at this time of new management proposals.
Thanks again to all of you!

Also from the Durango area -- also opted to try a new state this year for elk. I've hunted 74, 741, 75, 751, 78, 53, 44, 444, 35, 52, 53, 82, 32, 10, and 201. All I can say is that the general unit I hunted in a northern state this year was comparable to a "high dollar" Colorado unit. And come to find out, I wasn't even what I would consider the best part of that general unit. OTC Colorado compared to "general" -- its gross negligence to even try. Except for Utah.

Also preparing suggestions on the Alternatives the Commission will be approving based on the SW Issue paper presented to the Commission in Wray. The answer is obvious to me -- Alt 1 or Alt 2.

As for material impact to herd health, I'm not convinced that we need to revoke TABOR to make drastic improvements to elk in the SW. I'm not sure whether mule deer and elk are comparable analogs, but we didn't revoke TABOR to improve mule deer issues.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

Well, if you insist...

On August 31st, approximately 10hrs in to my first day of elk hunting I had multiple bulls bugling in the valley below me on a 85 degree day in a unit that gohunt basically describes as a pos. Ended up accidentally calling in a 5pt and killing him while I was cooking dinner. The only other hunter I saw while afield was packing out a 6pt.
I don’t want to hear any of that BS about luck either.
As far I can tell you can’t throw a dead cat in any direction in Colorado without hitting a elk.

When it comes to limiting non resident opportunities don’t you guys get worried about accelerating the western migration of millennials?

#expert #nobigdeal

 

[sneakem]

I'm for making every tag a draw... They can still keep traditional OTC unit with liberal amounts of tags, make some additional $ off the application fee (which OTC currently collects none) and regulate pressure within certain areas (like OTC with CAPS). An additional thought which I agree with is that if you draw any license you loose your points for that species. It won't solve the point creep issue but it will improve it guaranteed.....

 

[VikingsGuy]

My understanding is that CP&W has no prerogative to promote the good of the sport, and are required to maintain a financially viable program.

If this is the case why not just triple the tag price and sell just as many? That would be the max revenue approach.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also from the Durango area -- also opted to try a new state this year for elk. I've hunted 74, 741, 75, 751, 78, 53, 44, 444, 35, 52, 53, 82, 32, 10, and 201. All I can say is that the general unit I hunted in a northern state this year was comparable to a "high dollar" Colorado unit. And come to find out, I wasn't even what I would consider the best part of that general unit. OTC Colorado compared to "general" -- its gross negligence to even try. Except for Utah.

Also preparing suggestions on the Alternatives the Commission will be approving based on the SW Issue paper presented to the Commission in Wray. The answer is obvious to me -- Alt 1 or Alt 2.

As for material impact to herd health, I'm not convinced that we need to revoke TABOR to make drastic improvements to elk in the SW. I'm not sure whether mule deer and elk are comparable analogs, but we didn't revoke TABOR to improve mule deer issues.

Mule deer tag sales in Colorado don't make near as large an impact as elk license sales do. Success rates are higher so less are sold and tags are cheaper. There are certainly lots of improvements you could make to CO elk that wouldn't effect the CPAW budget dramatically. That said if you attempt to take the state to a Wyoming, UT, AZ, NM, etc management plan the funding model is something that you are going to have to reconcile.

But yes lets continue to let our state be hamstrung by a piece of legislation championed by a man who was convicted of money laundering, attempted bribery, and tax fraud.

Deer (2016)


Elk (2016)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Accelerating this type of economic stratification is not good for the sport in my opinion.

I 100% agree, I don't think you can look at each states wildlife in a vaccum. AZ, NM, UT, and WA have extreme quality models, WY has a resident preference model, MT has declared war on ungulates, and CO has a quantity model.

I think the US elk hunting system benefits from this diversity of approaches, and that Colorado should continue to provide lots of opportunity. If you are a CO resident and don't like it, move or apply elsewhere.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think the US elk hunting system benefits from this diversity of approaches,

I love having the 50 states serving as laboratories of democracy.

 

[FI460]

I 100% agree, I don't think you can look at each states wildlife in a vaccum. AZ, NM, UT, and WA have extreme quality models, WY has a resident preference model, MT has declared war on ungulates, and CO has a quantity model.

I think the US elk hunting system benefits from this diversity of approaches, and that Colorado should continue to provide lots of opportunity. If you are a CO resident and don't like it, move or apply elsewhere.

I hadn't thought of the issue that way and as a CO nonresident I genuinely like it. I tend to consider state models on a case by case basis (and typically from how I would feel as a resident) but perhaps being a nonresident of 49 states I should prefer a diversity of models.

 

[Jerky]

Not really, if you pick a random Midwestern state to compare, Iowa. The gap is 40 points for both record Typical and Non Typical and that is just a single state.

You're moving the goalposts from "a comparable rack" to the world record? Are the record elk from Canada or a northern state?

 

[Pucky Freak]

If this is the case why not just triple the tag price and sell just as many? That would be the max revenue approach.

Could be possible. Sales 101 is increase price as much as you can to the point where you lose so many sales that the high price can't cover them. There is a perfect confluence of the two variables, and my guess is that it is somewhere between the current OTC price and triple the price, at least with the current economy.

RE: what @wllm1313 mentioned about CO being an opportunity state - I completely agree, although I think this could be done better to maximize resident opportunity, rather than opportunity for the NR's at the expense of the residents' quality of experience.

 

[vanish]

An additional thought which I agree with is that if you draw any license you loose your points for that species. It won't solve the point creep issue but it will improve it guaranteed.....

I see this idea tossed around a lot and I very much do not like it.

Under this scenario, only people who rarely hunt have a chance to hunt the "glory" units. Seems bass ackwards to me. The only person I see who benefits is someone who can afford to apply in every state and thus will draw some tag somewhere each year.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

NR, I hunted around the Meeker, CO area and I was successful on a large 6x6 bull (for this area) on day 2 of the 3rd rifle season.

I saw very few other hunters due to the snow and cold and we went in pretty deep all day long. I actually found my bull within 1000 yards of a major roadway up very high. We had to cross a lot of terrain to get back to him.

There were very few gunshots until the 3rd day of the season and it was a "boon" year for that area. More elk (mostly cows) were taken in this area. I discussed the "numbers" with one of the local processors while picking up my finished/packaged meat on my way out of town. They had more elk brought in for processing this year than the two previous years combined.

So, yes there were a lot of hunters days 3-7, but those hunters were also very successful compared to years' past. I saw mostly plates from CO, TX, UT, ID, and CA. Being from TN, we were easy to spot. There were a lot of UHV's but most of them were frozen up and not very usable until day 3-7 (maybe an equalizer)?

 

[sneakem]

I see this idea tossed around a lot and I very much do not like it.

Under this scenario, only people who rarely hunt have a chance to hunt the "glory" units. Seems bass ackwards to me. The only person I see who benefits is someone who can afford to apply in every state and thus will draw some tag somewhere each year.

Plenty of guys scooping up leftovers and returns for no points, some of which once in a lifetime hunts, year after year, plus multiple tags every year.... The door always swings both ways...
Just because someone hunts a lot doesn't entitle one to tags more so than someone that waits and hunts less regularly. Everyone wants their cake and wants to eat it too... I guess....Greed....
I hunt a lot for the record...

 

[Deleted member 39961]

Mule deer tag sales in Colorado don't make near as large an impact as elk license sales do. Success rates are higher so less are sold and tags are cheaper. There are certainly lots of improvements you could make to CO elk that wouldn't effect the CPAW budget dramatically. That said if you attempt to take the state to a Wyoming, UT, AZ, NM, etc management plan the funding model is something that you are going to have to reconcile.

But yes lets continue to let our state be hamstrung by a piece of legislation championed by a man who was convicted of money laundering, attempted bribery, and tax fraud.

Deer (2016)
View attachment 121075

Elk (2016)
View attachment 121077

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The impact of mule deer tags to sales in 2016 irrelevant. My point is from an historical perspective, mule deer provide a useful resource management lens by which to evaluate the current elk situation.

CPW limited all deer to draw only in 1999 if I remember correctly (for reference TABOR passed in 1992). The reason -- analytically identical to the elk situation in SW Colorado -- was low fawn recruitment. Obviously, no amendment to TABOR occurred to address the resource issue. Twenty years later, you won't find a serious mule deer hunter that doesn't think the 1999 draw only decision was not the proximate cause of our current mule deer quality.

As a matter of strategy, the current problem is before the Commission with a discrete set of alternatives to address elk. TABOR may be the structural issue, but TABOR is not dispositive of the actions the Commission may take (and has taken in the past) to address a population problem.

 

[Kmartin68]

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)
View attachment 120958

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.

I honestly don't believe if we got rid of TABOR it would help fund CPW at all. It would be like everything else it would go into some shady general fund where the money would just disappear and without TABOR they would just raise taxes more. At least with TABOR we get a say in how we are taxed if they could put a tax on the ballot that was designated solely for conservation they might have some success, but they just ask for more money for roads and schools.