Colo Limited Elk Nominations!

J

jims

Long Time Member
Messages
3,760
Holy smokes, it can't be true? The CDOW is actually considering adding a few additional limited elk units available in the next 5 year plan! Sick of seeing orange behind every bush and hunting raghorn bulls in general Colo units? Now is your chance to nominate units that may be worthy of becoming limited quota.

It sure would be nice to see older age class bulls and be able to enjoy a quality experience with fewer hunters in the field in Colorado and now is your chance to voice your opinion! If there are more limited elk units available it makes sense that it will make current limited units a little easier to draw since the same number of applicants will be applying for more units and tags?

If you really think about it, it certainly would be nice to hunt a limited deer unit with not so many general elk hunters rampaging up and down the roads! You may want to consider that and other factors when making your nomination!

Get on the ball and voice your opinions!
 
Jim, yes it would be awesome, but we did this same thing just a few short years ago. All of the county commissioners, outfitters, ranchers and business owners cried so much about the possibility of being weaned from the CDOW t-i-t that nothing happened. What do you think will be different this time around?

We should all comment again, but don't expect much to happen.
 
From my experience in Colorado,they should make all units limited entry.Way to many hunters everywhere . In the unit I hunted last year , there were at least 25 camps within 2 mile of my camp.
 
If you know me very well I am not the kind of guy that gives up trying! If enough people complain about what is currently going on I have a feeling change will happen! If you think about it there is a limit supply of elk to hunt and there has to be a limit to how many hunters can be in the field at one time!

Sooner or later there will need to be changes made and the more guys that bring this to the CDOW's attention the quicker it will happen! I have been shocked at some of the changes that have occured the past 15 years in Colo when hunters have banded together and made solid recommendations! Look what happened to Colo's muledeer once they converted from general tags to all limited tags! It is still fairly easy to draw decent Colo deer tags every year even with all limited tags!

It is just as important for Colo nonresidents to make recommendations as Colo residents. Nonresidents bring a load of $ to Colorado (tags, gas, hotels, food, gear, etc). If there are enought nonres that complain (lots of hunters, few elk, and dink bulls) and bring it to the CDOW attention that they will no longer return and hunt Colo's general OTC elk units it ought raise some eyebrows!
 
Surely there are downsides to having more limited units. So far the comments here are positive. Just playing the devil's advocate here - but wouldn't increasing the number of limited units equate to even more crowds in the remaining unlimited units? What other possible drawbacks do you guys see?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-04-08 AT 01:51PM (MST)[p]Here is a quicker link:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/LimitedElkUnitNominations/

I could see nonresidents being squeezed out more since we only get 35% of the tags.

However, I have filled out and mailed a nomination for the unit I have property in (E24) Because I would rather be able to hunt every other year to every 3rd year and have less crowds and see more/bigger elk.

If it got beyond that (every 3rd year), then I would not be for the change. Of course, who knows how many people would apply in the future, so I am definately taking a risk.

It could definately mean more crowds on the adjoing areas that don't have draw only status.

To me, the best thing would be to go to draw only on 100% of the units, then designate some as trophy, and some as limited access. Then you totally solve the problem of overcrowding and, like deer, you could virtually gurantee that you would get picked in a decent unit at least every other year.

In other words, if 100% are limited, make 25 % as trophy, 25% as middle of the road: increased odds for a mature bull, and 50% as just fewer people in the woods.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
How about some residents putting out some ideas of good nominations? I can nominate, but certainly they would not have much behind them. Pretty hard for a guy like me to make good nominations when they know very little about your state? Give me some with potential, good genes, easy access, lots of public and so forth?

thanks jims.
 
There are several negatives I can think of. Obviously tags will be a draw rather than OTC. If you look at the Colo deer draw stats all units are a draw and there are left over tags in many units where guys can hunt each year.

Probably the biggest down-side is the financial impact having fewer hunters will have on small-town economy. It may not affect larger cities (Grand Jct, Denver, Colo Springs, Durango, etc) as much as small towns like Meeker, Craig, Fairplay, etc). I have a feeling it really won't affect the ecomomy in towns like Vail, Aspen, Steamboat as much since they bring in so much $ from the ski industry?

Obviously if not all units are converted to limited draw and there are fewer OTC units available hunting pressure in the remaining OTC will continue to escillate. I hate to say it, but some day all elk units will likely have to go to limited to relieve all the hunting pressure?

One thing you may notice when looking at the current limited elk units in Colo is that most of these units are in the extreme west/Utah border and east edge of the Rockies. Almost the entire middle section of Western Colorado from Wyo to NMex is currently OTC.
 
I hope I'm not boring anyone but I thought I would add more ideas to this post. How many of you monster muley guys have drawn a quality Colo deer tag and after 5 to 10 years of waiting found out there were groves of orange-clad unlimited elk hunters roaming the hills and running up and down the roads on ATV's spooking game? Well, this is currently pretty common in Colo since some of the better deer units (Gunnison Basin, Eagle, 21, etc) are open to OTC elk tags!

I think it would be great if the CDOW was consistent in managing quality high demand units for BOTH deer AND elk! If you are like me, there is a lot more to a trip than harvesting an animal and it sure would be nice to have a quality experience in a unit that has both limited deer and elk hunter numbers!

I would also think it would be a lot easier for game wardens to patrol and keep an eye on quality units? As it currently stands a guy could buy an OTC elk tag, poach a deer in a limited deer unit, haul the deer outside the unit and say he shot it in a different deer unit that he has a deer tag for? Even though he may not have a deer tag for a unit he is "elk hunting" he could legally carry a weapon in the limited deer unit since he has a general elk tag. If the unit was limited for both deer plus elk it would desolve some of the poaching that may be taking place! I have a feeling this happens more times than anyone knows!

I have a few more ideas so hopefully you're not bored!
 
Jims,

Bored? Heck no. More limited units is a great idea. I nominated unit 62. Limiting pressure on bulls in that unit would produce some sweet bulls. Having three draw only units side by side , 61&62, and 40 , would really produce some quality. Many bulls wander across the line from 61 and get whacked before they reach full potential.

While we're at it let's add 21 and 30 to the list and call it a quality corridor stretching from 2 to 61.

Beanman
 
Jim, you don't have to convince me. You have mentioned some excellent points that many have probably not considered. Keep them coming.

Beanman, those are some good nominations. Areas that are selected will need to be primarily public land and have an elk population that stays in the unit and on public land year around (for the most part). Another up side to those units is that they are close to Grand Junction and Montrose, areas where businesses do not rely as heavily on the annual influx of hunters to make or break them.
 
Beanman- I think unit 62 was nominated last go around and there was an uproar so loud that DOW dropped that area from consideration
 
The small towns in the northwest wouldnt suffer from a cut back in tags, the Oil & Gas boom has already taken care of their cash registers!

As for the DOW limiting more Elk units, I have my doubts. They have a proven track record of going against the wishes of sportsmen.

Too bad we cant do an exchange with Wyoming and have their wildlife dept run ours for a few years
 
ColoOak, I like your idea of 61/62 both being limited! I have a feeling the border of those 2 units is a nightmare for the game wardens to watch! The oil/gas boom is definitely helping the towns like Craig/Meeker/Rifle etc and now would be incredible timing to get this passed through the CDOW!
 
One idea that may possibly get this effort started would be to have a cap on over the counter tags. It seems a little crazy having unlimited elk tags while trying to manage elk harvest and hunter numbers? Colo currently has a cap system for some of the early bear hunts. I still think it would be great if Colo increased the number of limited elk units and offered more quality hunts!
 
Piper is right. A while back when the DOW mentioned making 62 limited, the locals put a stop to it. And you can't blame them. With the amount of out-of-state dollars coming in to these OTC units, it makes sense that they would like it to stay that way. I'm all for it. But unless there is going to be big support from both sportsmen AND the communities affected, the DOW won't make a move.

I like some of your ideas txhunter and jims. I agree that if all units were limited, with only some being managed for trophies it would really improve all around hunting without putting too much of a dent in opportunity. For example: even with deer tags being all limited, I have a spot that I can go every year and have a decent deer hunt on a leftover tag. Meanwhile, I can build up my PPs and cash them in every few years for an even better hunt.

That being said, I think overcrowding is as much a problem of lazy hunters as anything else. Even in limited units, it can feel extremely crowded when everyone is hunting within a mile or two of their vehicle, ATV and/or camp. Just this year I was hunting a limited unit (with lots of leftover tags) and had packed in several miles to set up a spike camp. My buddy and I saw plenty of animals. As we were hiking back to the trailhead with packs full of meat, we saw other hunters for the first time in three days. We were surprised to see that the parking lot was full of trucks, because we hadn't seen anyone where we were. We spoke to a few people and none of them had seen anything. The mile or two out from the trailhead was crawling with orange hats.

My point is, in any given unit - limited or unlimited - there is a LOT of land that does not get hunted because people are unwilling or unable to hunt it. From my experience, even in an unlimited unit, it is usually possible to solve the crowding issue if you are willing to walk far enough.
 
I'd take the credit Jim, but it was Beanman's idea.

Sparky, I agree that sometimes overcrowding is a symptom of lazy hunters, but the flip side is that many units have too much motorized access. Hunters don't have to get more than 1/2 mile from the road, because there is another road a mile away. Reducing motorized access at least during the hunting seasons would create less crowded opportunities for those willing to work for it. It also would help to keep animals on public land and reduce the mass exodus to private property which is often seen on opening morning in many units.

What do you think about making hunters apply in the regular draw for unlimited elk licenses like they do in the unlimited sheep units in Montana? This may reduce the number of hunters who decide to come to CO after striking out in the other state draws. Make those people front the money and buy the tag. Change the reg that allows a tag return/refund to include only tags which are drawn first choice. If they decide not to come, they can return the tag, but they won't be accruing a preference point for that year.
 
Jim-I agree, lets get a bunch more of units limited. But, it seems to me, the way the call for nominations is being structured, that there will be so many nominations by Feb. that nearly all of the unlimited units will be nominated. Or am I missing something?

Then, once the first cut is made by the DOW, serious feedback will be solicited, well after Feb. I presume that will involve only a few units (hopefully more but won't get my hopes up).

Or am I missing something?

What I am trying to figure out is whether it's worth my time nominating now, when you'd think that after several months the non-nominated units will be few and far between. Thus, not worth wasting any time on it until after Feb.

?

Doug
 
I agree that OTC unlimited elk tags need to be done away with. I would like to see more units where a guy could have a quality experience with the opportunity to hunt more older age-class bulls. Afterall, in addition to seeing more and bigger animals when we draw a good tag, we like to see less hunters. On the other hand, we should be more liberal than states like Utah, where it seems impossible to draw a tag in most areas. I'd like CO to be somewhere in the middle. I rely on these easily aquired tags to fill the freezer and to get some hunting in every year, but maintaining the unlimited status is unrealistic.
 
The only problem of making broad assumptions is one will never know what are the type of hunters in a specific area. So as the OTC hunters go, how many actually get out of their truck? How many drink too much in the evening and do not get up to hunt or just stay in their trailer or tent?

So you could have 25 camps (two hunters per camp) but only 30 have people who will get out of their trucks. Of those only 10 will go beyond a mile off the road hunting.

But some areas that statistic might jump to 30 people getting a mile off the road. Does anyone have those statistics? The individuals on this thread have indicated that the OTC money is the deciding factor. The old phrase, ?money talks bs walks? is very true in making any dicision.

Possibly, the only way to make more units draw only is to find locations with minimal impact of finances from the OTC hunter then work with Game and Fish and RMEF to make the area conducive to big bulls.
 
I've been trying to figure out reasons where change will benefit both hunters and the CDOW. A couple include:

1) Units that are currently quality, high demand units for deer but are currently OTC elk. Less hunting pressure for both deer and elk hunters while increasing the quality of elk within these units. This would decrease the possibility of deer "poaching" that may be currently taking place by OTC elk hunters.

2) Current limited elk units that are adjacent to OTC elk units. It is often difficult for the CDOW to monitor borders and makes sense to convert to both limited or OTC to prevent conflicts.

3) Increase the license fees in quality, high demand units! New Mexico currently charges higher fees for high demand hunts. Wyoming charges more for special vs regular price big game tags. Increasing tag fees for high demand hunts would take up a chunk of $ lossed by fewer hunters paying lower tag fees. It would be possible to do this for deer, elk, and antelope in Colorado and would offset fewer tags! I don't know about you, but as a Colo resident I would be willing to fork out a lot higher license fee for a quality experience and animal! Hunters that prefer OTC or less demand units have the option of paying lower price.
 
Jim,

I think one problem that may arise from trying to limit elk licenses in units that are already managed for trophy deer is that the local business interests will strongly oppose the additional hit to their fall revenue. I'm not saying it's a bad idea...I actually like it.

Although I apply for them myself, I'm not a big fan of differential tag fees like NM, WY and UT currently use. I think it's a slippery slope you start down when you begin to start offering the best hunting opportunities for the public's wildlife to those with the most money. I'd rather see an increase for resident fees across the board (except for youth tags). I think that resident fees in NV and AZ are the most reasonable (~ $120 for an elk tag). The rest of us are riding the gravy train.
 
I and several of my friends have been fighting for
more limited elk units for years. Some history of the
situation. In 1982 unit 61 and 1983 went limited. The
CWC suggested that up to 30% of the units could go
draw. Nothing changed until 1997 when units 66-67
in Gunnison went draw with a 50% reduction in tags.
Other than that nothing has changed. In 2001 Bruce
Watkins the biologist with the support of DOW recommended
62 go limited to solve many of the problems with 61.
At the CWC meeting in GJ it was voted down. DOW than
proposed that the nominating process be done by the
sportsmen. In 2004 nominations were made for units
80-81, 54-55-551, 74-75-771-77-78, 43?. The 54-55-551
units had strong support from CWC member Brad Phelps
but still all units wre turned down by the CWC. Now
the DOW is seeking again nominations with the same
process as before. I feel the results will be the same.
Currently 16% of the state is limited. Of that 16%
6% are managed as high quality, 2, 201 etc. 10%
are managed as reduced crowding, 66-67. 84% of the
elk are in OTC. The bottom line is DOW and the CWC
have no incentive to increase limited units because
IT WILL reduce revenue. This is truely sad that the
ultimate price is paid for by our bulls that are killed
as 2 year olds(4pts). In OTC units 80-85% are harvested
as 2 year olds and 95-98% as 3 year olds. The CWC will
meet in Montrose this Thursday and I am going to give
my usual message that will fall on the usual deaf ears.
Roy in Montrose
 
Thanks for the update Rocketman! Ask anyone around Gunnison that hunts public land where they would prefer to hunt elk? Do you think they would pick an OTC elk unit or one of the limited units to the south? I have a feeling most of them are drooling at the border of the limited units....waiting in line for a limited tag and hunting OTC the dry years?

If my memory is correct there was a lot of whining going on when the CDOW made all deer units limited. I sure don't hear anyone complaining to return it to how it used to be....not even the small community people that were against it!

Colo resident bull elk tags currently sell for $46 and deer tags $31! I don't think doubling that amount is going to brake anyone's bank...especially if the higher price meant less crowded hunting conditions and higher age class bulls! If you think about it a tank of gas costs way more than a hunting license these days!

Doubling the resident tag to $92 for a quality hunt with 1/2 the hunters would definitely be worth the additional price to me! Something to think about anyways?
 
rocketman, I agree with what you are saying. What everyone must remember is that the rules of this nomination process make two very important statements:

1: "Nominations must include...documentation that the interest groups listed below, at a minimum, have been formally notified of the nomination and have been provided with a copy of the nomination form.

? Local government officials including the Boards of County Commissioners and City/Town Councils associated with the DAU
? Colorado Wool Growers and the Colorado Cattleman?s Association
? Local Chambers of Commerce
? Hunter organizations
? Colorado Outfitters Association
? Local Habitat Partnership Program committees"

2: "To move forward, nominations must meet the requirements specified in the Nomination Instructions section herein, stated management objectives should be reasonably achievable, and, in the Commission?s judgment, demonstrated support for the nomination should outweigh opposition.

When you look at the makeup of the CWC, you see that sportsmen are at a distinct disadvantage in this process from the outset. The commission includes 9 voting members from 6 stakeholder groups: sportsmen and outfitters (what a dichotomy)(2), livestock producers(1), agriculture and produce growers(1), wildlife organizations(1), boards of county commissioners(1), and the public at large(3).

The best case scenario for sportsmen is that they could have up to 6 of the 9 members supporting their interests: 2 sportsmen, 1 wildlife org, and 3 public at large. Livestock, agriculture, outfitter and local government proponents will almost always come down on the opposite side of sportsmen in this issue (a notable exception in the past was Brad Phelps). Too often however, members selected to hold a position that should support the sportsmen are tied to groups that work counter to the best interests of sportsmen. Examples in the current commission:

Dorthea Farris, representing Wildlife Orgs, also happens to be a county commissioner.

Richard Ray, representing Sportsmen, is a rancher and life member of the Colorado Outfitter Assn., and has worked to increase landowner tags.

The currently seated commission actually favors sportsmen much more than in the recent past. Just a couple of years ago, 7 of the 9 voting members had direct ties to the livestock and ag. industry.

My point is (for those that care), is that the rules require notification of, and support from, groups that will likely oppose this process. And the commission judging the merits of the nominations include 5 members who represent those opposition groups.

If we hope for any nominations to suceed, we need to make sure that all the nomination rules are followed explicitly and that we gather a LARGE amount of support from sportsmen.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-08 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]It is pretty wild that over half of the major interest groups making wildlife decisions for sportsman aren't even wildlife related! The last time I checked Colorado sportsman were the ones financing most of the wildlife in Colorado?

It seems like the CDOW needs to step up to the plate and make decisions that will benefit Colorado sportsman rather than other special interest groups! Were these interest groups used when it was decided to go all limited for deer? Colorado deer is an example of a success story that can happen when the CDOW listens to sportsman rather than other interest groups!

Thanks for the post...it sure is an eye-opener to me and all other sportsman in Colorado!
 
I agree with all of the above comments. Some CWC members
are pro wildlife Ray, Bray, Coors. Some are actually hostile
toward wildlife. In the nominating process(been there, done that) the city councils, county comm, chambers of comm, etc
are almost always opposed to more draw units. The deer went
draw in 1999 when; there was a steady decline in deer numbers,
buck doe ratios and hunter particapation, especially
out of staters. The DOW had no real choice but to go draw.
We all know the bottom line on all this is money.
Roy in Montrose
 
If you want to see big $ talk look at what some of the elk tags are selling for at the conventions in Utah! Utah has it set up so some if not all of that $ goes back to wildlife! If Colo produced bigger bulls in less crowded conditions I can guarantee hunters would be more willing to spend more on outfitters, tags, etc. Although I would hate for Colo to go to the extreme of so few limited tags that 1 tag in a lifetime is about it, it would be nice if more than ~15% of the current units are limited. As it currently stands ~85% of Colo units are OTC!
 
The only problem that I have in making unit 62 a draw unit is that we lease private land in that unit and if you make it a draw unit not only will the landowner have to try and find a different group each year it would also be very hard to plan if you could afford to lease it without knowing how many in the group will get a tag. When this unit went draw for deer and you weren't drawn you could at least hunt elk. I like all of the rest of you would like to see bigger bulls but not at the expense of not getting to hunt in Co. on the private land that I have hunted with 5 other friends for the last 10 years. If they want to make it limited for public land and OTC for the private land I would be all for it.
 
Logslinger,
Just because 62 went to a limited unit doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to draw an elk tag every year! It only means that there will be a quota of tags for that unit. There are many Colorado limited deer units that can be drawn every year and often have left over tags!

There are other possibilities that would make it possible for you to draw 62 tags as well. It is very possible the landowner can get landowner tags every year for your group. Another option is if the CDOW opens up private land only tags in 62. If you look at the draw stats for many of the private land only limited deer units it takes a fraction of the pts to draw and these units often have left over tags!

If the landowner manages his property well he shouldn't have a problem getting high dollar for his landowner tags. In fact, if 62 is switched over to limited and the quality of bulls increases I can guarantee he will have a waiting list for guys waiting to hunt his property at a premium price!

Logslinger has a great thing going with a landowner lease in 62 and I can't imagine how incredible the private ranch would become if 62 turned into a limited unit!

I just took a look at the MM website draw stats for 62 and it looks like you would have a 53 to 100% chance of drawing an archery, muzzy, or first 3 PLO rifle season deer tag. All of those deer tags had 100% draw w/1 pt. I have a feeling if you have hunted 62 many years you have seen a change in the number of mature bucks since it has become limited and you can still draw a tag just about every year? I have a feeling it is still crowded with elk hunters but there are fewer deer hunters now than when it was unlimited for both deer plus elk?
 
I only read the first comment so I don't know what's been said. But here's my two cents. I am a non resident. I love to hunt in Colorado, but it's not my right. I consider it a privilege. Resident hunters should get preferential consideration, period. If the majority of the resident hunters want it limited, then go for it.

I (especially my wife) would not be saddened, in the least, if there were more limited units in Colorado providing that they don't turn it into a lifetime commitment just to get drawn or the investment of yearly out of state hunting license purchases just to get a point for 10 years. I would be happy going once every 2-3 years knowing that I have a good opportunity to get an elk and not have to worry about stumpling over people on every ridge with a next to nothing chance at getting an elk as it currently is in open archery units.....I tried the bivy hunt thing...there are people with horse out there....it's about as hard to get away from people as it is to get an elk.

But, you residents need to make sure that get the opportunity to purchase antlerless elk tags at a reduced price in addition to your any elk tag so you can shoot those cows to hold the population down and pass on those little guys or you'll still be in the same situation with the quality of bulls.
 
The last post brings up another consideration that may be possible. Wyoming currently has both "general" and "limited" tags for muledeer. Wyoming is sub-divided into regions and all general deer units within a region have a fairly high quota of nonresident general tags. Wyoming residents can hunt all general units within Wyoming with OTC tags while nonres have the choice of applying for a general region tags with a quota. Obviously limited units within each region are limited for both res and nonres.

The benefit of having a system similar to Wyoming's general deer region tags is that biologist can manage separate herds and hunting pressure. It is currently impossible for CDOW biologists to manage hunting pressure and harvest in Colorado with the current OTC system!

It is pretty obvious that someday Colorado will have to somehow limit elk hunters because there are only so many elk and units can only handle so much pressure.

What do you nonresidents think of a system similar to deer in Wyoming?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-13-08 AT 10:16AM (MST)[p]I wanted to make one other comment. As far as concerns that retailers have, Colorado doesn't make much money off me or the people I elk hunt with. Once.....maybe twice have I personally spent more than $75 dollars outside of my fuel and my elk tag once I get in Colorado. I get my supplies in my hometown and I haul them there.....don't know what other non residents do. In fact, Colorado made more money off me on one scouting trip than it has in 6 elk hunts, again, outside of fuel and tag.
 
Wannabe, I'm the same way as you. I bet I order/buy 3/4 of my hunting supplies from Cabelas or off Ebay! I sometimes may stop in at McDonald's for a hamburger and gas stations but other than that I don't spend a penny on my hunting trips.

I have worked in the Craig, Steamboat, Meeker, and Gunnison areas the past few summers and it has been nearly impossible to find a hotel unless I reserved one well in advance. I have a feeling that hunters spend a fragment of what the oil/gas, pipeline, summer tourist industry is spending in a year in those towns? The oil boom is having a significant impact on those communities.
 
Maybe our group is different but we spend quite a bit of money in the state on our trip. About a third of the money we spend is actually spent in the unit we hunt. From gas to snacks along the way to lunch, supper and a motel on the way. Then the next day we stop at the Red Barn in Montrose and about half of the tables are from out of state groups just like ours, then to Wal Mart for groceries where we stand in line behind groups of out of state hunters doing the same thing we are. Then comes the trip home where we do it all in reverse. Looking at the draw odds now for unit 40 it takes a nonresident 4 years to get drawn and unit 61 about 12 years for a nonresident to draw an archery permit. What makes people think that they would draw a elk tag every other year if unit 62 were made a limited draw unit? Money should never be the factor that the state uses to manage the elk herd but I think that you guys are not taking into consideration the magnitude of the lost revenue for the state. I know our group would not have started going to CO 10 years ago if we thought it would take us 4-12 years before we drew a tag.
 
Honestly, if I had a choice between Limited units vs. closing a few roads during hunting season in OTC units. I would choose to have a few roads closed. I can think of a few in Unit 68 that would turn a place from a descent hunting spot into a good place to hunt and it still wouldn't kill a person to get into it. It would certainly keep people from being able to park their vehicle within 1/4 mile of water.

You have not limited people from hunting, just limited vehicle or ATV access and hopefully increased the quality of the hunt and the quality of the animals. It would only be for the hunting season and the only people to use it would be the CDOW and forestry officials.
 
My guess is that road closures would not work as well becaues the forest service/BLM are way under-gunned as far enforcement is concerned. they can't enforce road closures as it is. With the amount of roads in areas like 62, you would have put up a heck of a lot of gates. I agree, however, less roads is good for hunting.....Limiting an area doesn't mean it will automatically spike in the amount of points it takes. It's all about the quotas. Part of the reason that the DOW has made more units limited is so that they can gain information about hunters and how many are applying for particular areas. It helps them manage the herd.....While 61 only offers about 100 tags per season, they could offer, say, 400-500 for 62. There'd be more opportunity to hunt, but it would not be as crowded as it currently is. Offering an infinite amount of tags for a finite amount of elk is just not realistic......The hurdle to cross of course is that to nominate areas we have to win over people who don't care to have the units limited.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Wide Buck 5-18-23.mp4
IMG_7742 copy copy.jpg
Dandy Bull
52899813-5F10-47BE-9B15-E6892790A1E0.jpeg
3EBCB050-6762-4D5C-9E74-D144AFF5D355.jpeg
big buck 2.jpg
IMG_20220919_132340263_HDR.jpg
C0D94E78-E196-4122-98F7-8EDA369A8477.jpeg
ABAD01A7-21E6-4C56-87D7-4D9F0E4297DD.jpeg
IMG_5861.jpeg
20220415_104333.jpg
P1040297.JPG
Back
Top Bottom