Grand Mesa (Unit 42 and others) going draw only

[MikaelMc]

Didn’t see a thread on this one.

Anyone else getting smacked in the mouth by this change? Rather than limit the endless quantity of OTC non residents they are doing away with 42 and attached units as OTC all together. Which will just cause a massive influx of NR hunters in the remaining OTC units, causing them to go draw only in the not to distant future. We are headed for the death of OTC hunting in Colorado. This state is continuing to stick it to resident hunters! Really frustrating as a life long resident hunter.

 

[Oak]

Here's a thread. There are some folks who feel the way you do.

CPW seeks public feedback on potential changes to over-the-counter archery licenses in DAU E-14

CPW seeks public feedback on potential changes to over-the-counter archery licenses in DAU E-14 Grand Junction, Colo. - The Grand Mesa elk herd is managed by both the Northwest and Southwest Regions. Currently, unlimited over-the-counter (OTC) either sex elk archery licenses are valid across...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[MikaelMc]

Thanks Oak. I’ll carry over to there, theyve apparently approved it and it’s effective immediately.

 

[Phaseolus]

When this five year structure is over we may see the end of OTC archery hunts as we know it.

 

[HighDesertSage]

causing them to go draw only in the not to distant future. We are headed for the death of OTC hunting in Colorado.

I believe that to be the end result regardless of how this current issue plays out.

 

[nrpate05]

It'll be interesting to see what the tag allocations are like and how that compares to how many OTC guys were hunting those units.

 

[TOGIE]

yeah!

CPW stickin it to those residents who are crowding themselves out!

blame the NR! blame CPW and its disgust towards residents!

...says everyone in CBA

 

[huskyhunter]

I don't think CO would need to go draw only if they would make it that your points would zero out(or couldn't buy a point) if you bought any OTC A tag. I also think this would help out with point creep.

 

[seeth07]

Didn’t see a thread on this one.

Anyone else getting smacked in the mouth by this change? Rather than limit the endless quantity of OTC non residents they are doing away with 42 and attached units as OTC all together. Which will just cause a massive influx of NR hunters in the remaining OTC units, causing them to go draw only in the not to distant future. We are headed for the death of OTC hunting in Colorado. This state is continuing to stick it to resident hunters! Really frustrating as a life long resident hunter.

Do you have a source of where this is effective immediately?

 

[Oak]

Do you have a source of where this is effective immediately?

It’s in the brochure.

 

[seeth07]

It’s in the brochure.

View attachment 265546

and I'm now an idiot for not thinking to check the most likely spot to find that information...

 

[grasshopper]

yeah!

CPW stickin it to those residents who are crowding themselves out!

blame the NR! blame CPW and its disgust towards residents!

...says everyone in CBA

Did you consider the facts before making that stupid statement?

Since 2014, residents down 20%, nonresidents up 250% in gm units.

Since the sw went limited adding thousands of limited archery tags, the number of otc archery hunters is still about 35,000. Nonresidents now exceed residents. All on a seriously smaller landscape.

If cba members are blaming anyone, it appears based in fact.

If anyone is whining, it is folks who whine about others afield do the same exact thing they are doing, and the whiny rifle hunters who can't find an elk and want to blame someone.

 

[TOGIE]

Did you consider the facts before making that stupid statement?

Since 2014, residents down 20%, nonresidents up 250% in gm units.

Since the sw went limited adding thousands of limited archery tags, the number of otc archery hunters is still about 35,000. Nonresidents now exceed residents. All on a seriously smaller landscape.

If cba members are blaming anyone, it appears based in fact.

If anyone is whining, it is folks who whine about others afield do the same exact thing they are doing, and the whiny rifle hunters who can't find an elk and want to blame someone.

sounds like they didn't "add" any tags if hunter numbers stayed the same.

percentages are a fun game. what are the raw numbers?

there are too many archery hunters on the landscape. i couldn't care less how CPW does it allocation wise, but unlimited OTC has likely got to go away.

rifle too.

you guys are too easy to rile up.

 

[TOGIE]

i couldn't care less how CPW does it allocation wise, but unlimited OTC has likely got to go away.

i take that back, i do care how they do it.

full limited 80/20 would be my preference. grass, we have more in common than you might think. i would love for there to remain at the least a resident otc option.

but the modern day archery craze combined with our large resident population means we have to put some sidebars on allowing every aspiring cam hanes wannabe resident to buy an otc archery tag and flock to the same handful of units.

for the sake of the resource, it's long past out of control.

 

[Mudranger1]

my real complaint with the fix a little at time concept is they are still selling 35k OTC archery licenses but instead of say 66% of the state being able to absorb that 35k its now down to say 33% of the state with 35k people. I honestly believe you would be better off getting a draw tag now but who knows

 

[grasshopper]

i take that back, i do care how they do it.

full limited 80/20 would be my preference. grass, we have more in common than you might think. i would love for there to remain at the least a resident otc option.

but the modern day archery craze combined with our large resident population means we have to put some sidebars on allowing every aspiring cam hanes wannabe resident to buy an otc archery tag and flock to the same handful of units.

for the sake of the resource, it's long past out of control.

I really don't have alot of time to regurgitate facts here, but its out there. I put most of it on FB or bowsite. Try the CBA stance thread on bowsite. CBA facebook page, or the Colorado resident hunters FB page. At least there, no one is hiding behind a handle with no name.

"For the sake of the resource". That one just blows my mind. no one stands up for their own hunting peers, and puts for the "sake of the resource" out there as the reason - then never cites the facts. The resource is 309,000 elk. When you have a herd management plan that states it manages for maximum opportunity, it will never be "for the sake of the resource" something like 18-20 of our herds are over objective.
If the resource you want to save is the bull resource, eliminate 2nd and 3rd OTC rifle. Some of those DAU's in the SW are down to 12-15 bulls per hundred cows. Bowhunters aren't killing them.

Steamboat DAU as of last May was 18,000 elk, projected to be 24,000 when calves hit the ground. E-16 went from 4600 elk to now 8600 in 4 or 5 years because they quit selling cow tags, with all those dam trails "ruining" the herd.

Totally limited licenses means landowner tags. Total limitations mean 52% of the quota goes to residents after LPP kicks in at 65/35. Leave OTC for residents only, and LPP never kicks in.
Start supporting your dam resident hunting peers. I am enrolled in Landowner preference, I get 4 elk tags and 4 buck tags a year. I'll be fine, but you guys wanting to limit your hunting peers are nuts. Solve the real problem, too many NR's.

 

[TOGIE]

I really don't have alot of time to regurgitate facts here, but its out there. I put most of it on FB or bowsite. Try the CBA stance thread on bowsite. CBA facebook page, or the Colorado resident hunters FB page. At least there, no one is hiding behind a handle with no name.

"For the sake of the resource". That one just blows my mind. no one stands up for their own hunting peers, and puts for the "sake of the resource" out there as the reason - then never cites the facts. The resource is 309,000 elk. When you have a herd management plan that states it manages for maximum opportunity, it will never be "for the sake of the resource" something like 18-20 of our herds are over objective.
If the resource you want to save is the bull resource, eliminate 2nd and 3rd OTC rifle. Some of those DAU's in the SW are down to 12-15 bulls per hundred cows. Bowhunters aren't killing them.

Steamboat DAU as of last May was 18,000 elk, projected to be 24,000 when calves hit the ground. E-16 went from 4600 elk to now 8600 in 4 or 5 years because they quit selling cow tags, with all those dam trails "ruining" the herd.

Totally limited licenses means landowner tags. Total limitations mean 52% of the quota goes to residents after LPP kicks in at 65/35. Leave OTC for residents only, and LPP never kicks in.
Start supporting your dam resident hunting peers. I am enrolled in Landowner preference, I get 4 elk tags and 4 buck tags a year. I'll be fine, but you guys wanting to limit your hunting peers are nuts. Solve the real problem, too many NR's.

yeah, i'll go get my "facts" from the CBA facebook page lol

that's rich.

fwiw i'd happily do away with rifle otc.

 

[MikaelMc]

yeah!

CPW stickin it to those residents who are crowding themselves out!

blame the NR! blame CPW and its disgust towards residents!

...says everyone in CBA

You must be new to the state or haven’t been hunting long enough here to know what it was like here before it turned into what it is now. Colorado has always welcomed out of state hunters, and I have no issue with that. My complaint is in the states inability to manage the change in regards to the influx of NR hunters, that has occurred in the the last 20 years. In state and out of state hunters can attest to the rise in popularity of coming to Colorado to hunt elk. And the harvest statistics clearly support that the rise in popularity has no statistical connection to success rates, or herd numbers relative to other states. It strictly has to do with available opportunity. The idea of hunting elk out west is something many guys dream about, and rightfully so. And so if you start looking at where that opportunity is most readily available the answer is OTC NR tag in Colorado. And if that number is in no way limited then you get everyone that can put together the time and money flooding those OTC units. Now as a lifelong resident that has hunted those same units for over 30 years I take issue with the bureaucrats in the state that have little to no interest in hunting, looking at hunting and fishing dollars and the revenue generated from those out of state tags and treating it like a kid at an unsupervised cookie jar. They continue to allocate hunting/fishing generated revenue to non hunting/fishing related projects under the guise of outdoor activity. The state has an obligation to manage game herds, and the unlimited giving of NR tags is ridiculous and rooted strictly in revenue generated rather than fundamental game/herd management practices. And the removal of OTC tags while not addressing the root issue is just one more example of that malpractice. There is no like model in any other state. I would be willing to accept removal of OTC units for sound reasons, but this is just a ruse and their adjustment to the 80/20 methodology further illustrates that. Revenue wins, which is going to further make hunting an activity for those that can afford it. I believe that is a death nail to it as a family tradition that is carried on through future generations.

 

[grasshopper]

yeah, i'll go get my "facts" from the CBA facebook page lol

that's rich.

fwiw i'd happily do away with rifle otc.

Got an issue with that? I post the same facts from the CPW site on the CBA page. Its the same data.

Take a look in the mirror bud, you said, "its about the resource", but know nothing about participation rates or the resource. That's embarrassing and sad.
Its like you just got out of a Biden hunters and anglers pint night seminar. Next you'll say "habitat, habitat, habitat".

 

[TOGIE]

Got an issue with that? I post the same facts from the CPW site on the CBA page. Its the same data.

Take a look in the mirror bud, you said, "its about the resource", but know nothing about participation rates or the resource. That's embarrassing and sad.

i'm referring to your claims on NR v R hunter numbers and OTC licensing sales data. let's see it statewide, unit by unit, not just grand mesa.

let's see the cora request. i'm genuinely interested. i just don't want to spend the money on it cause god knows how long it will take them to pull together .csv of 15-20 years of licensing data.

i know there are units of which a majority of hunters are NR. that's not okay. i'm not okay with that.

I don't agree that when you look at hunter numbers as a whole, the majority of hunters are NRs. there are shit ton of people in this state and a shit ton who like to hunt. and archery has gotten damn more popular in the last decade.

i maintain that crowding is by and large resident hunter problem with some unit specific exceptions. but of course the data may not support that, so let's see the data. you wanna go halfsies on a what i assume will be a 50 dollar cora request let's do it.

we're still not in total disagreement. if otc is going away the NR's should lose it first. but i betcha the crowding overall would not get much better.

some day bowhunters are going to have to own up the fact that they are affecting the resource though.