colorado deer point delima

[boleneblues]

back to the "point" delima...feduptwo touched on a point that i feel is a serious problem just now beginning to bloom, and that is the new fad of long range shooting and the use of technical devises that minimizes skill in the hunt. ie:8 yr old takes monster at 300 yards. maybe we should go back to iron sites, no scopes, and put the odds more in favor of the game we hunt. would more game survive and maybe relieve the need for points??? maybe archery only in gmu's with low numbers of game?? muzy only units?? allow hunters to hunt and manage game with choice of weapon restrictions??

 

[DirtyTough]

The only thing that needs to be done to fix the Colorado points issue is to take away your points if you hunt in Colorado that year. Whether its a LO tag, second choice, first choice doesn't matter. I doubt then it would take more then 5 points for any hunt.

 

[BUCKSPY]

that would work

 

[nripepi]

Not so sure.

The idea sounds great, but I'm not sure that will fix the problem. It would obviously help, but I bet that only 10% of those acquiring points hunt leftovers and 2nd choices. I could we way off on my 10% and would like to know that answer. The 2nd choices use to be easy to draw (I've drawn 2 while acquiring points), but they have been slim pickins since tag numbers have been reduced (the units I used to draw as 2nd choice take 1 point now).

I am all for those using landowner tags to lose their points, no problem there. I don't think those hunting over the counter elk should lose their points. My 2 cents.

 

[brutus]

RE: Not so sure.

boleneblues, why stop at archery and muzzy? If you really want game to survive but still chase them lets hunt with spears and flippers. I know a couple guys that could get it done sometimes with these weapons. If you want people to go hunt animals with low succes rates then lets get after it.

Or maybe we should just surrender all of are rifles to the feds that way nobody will even be tempted to take a 200+ yard shot. But then we will probably have those discusting hunters that try to load 150+ grains of powder and send powerbelts flying at 200-300 yards.

Lets just keep coming up with ways to eliminate certain hunters out of hunting because that is the only way to bring back game animals.

Or wait a second maybe we could make an even cut of tags over all 3 weapons choices so as to keep all forms of hunters still involved. But I guess thats too easy.

 

[Deerlove]

RE: Not so sure.

Cut tags and reduce revenue? Same tag #'s more primitive weapons? Same revenue?

 

[DirtyTough]

RE: Not so sure.

Out of the 14 guys I know that hunted Colorado last year only 3 used their points. All the others were second choice tags.

Probably wouldn't be to hard to add up the number of guys that hunt Colorado with any tag besides first choice and compare the two.

As for elk Colorado is just asking for units to take 30 plus points since you can hunt bulls every year and build points.

 

[ghak99]

RE: Not so sure.

I just purchased my 4th point and have hunted otc archery once in that time. I have yet to purchase a landowner tag while building points, but I look at a few every year thinking I'll find something I can't pass up. Even though I stand to benefit from the system as it is, I wouldn't mind seeing preference points fall to zero with the purchase of a landowner bull/buck tag along with the 1st choice draw. I'd like to see something done to slow down the point creep, even if that means I'm forced to chose between a landowner tag and building points.

It might work out, but consuming preference points with a second choice draw sounds like too big of a change with the way the system is currently set up.

 

[feduptwo]

RE: Not so sure.

I agree that if hunters were forced to surrender points it would go a long way in reducing point creep. I believe point creep and trophy quality are different problems.
A good start to fixing trophy quality would be a reduction in 4th season tags. If the DOW just switched the 4th season tags to primitive weapons it would go a long way in helping quality. Technology does affect quality, but I don't pretend to know where we should draw the line.
Hopefully Colorado will be able to turn it around because its been great to see the bucks that have come out of CO for the last couple of years.

 

[txhunter58]

RE: Not so sure.

I have 3 points for elk and have hunted elk the last 3 years (deer, the year before that). I think the 10% figure is way low.

Definately if you use a landowner tag, you should lose points, but I doubt that would make much of a dent.

Hard to change the rules on guys who have been building points for 20 years. Call it whatever you want: point creep, etc. But the fact remains when you have a tag that thousands of people want and only a handful of tags, there will be 99% disappointed people with any system you put out there.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[jainoon]

RE: Not so sure.

> Hopefully Colorado will be
>able to turn it around
>because its been great to
>see the bucks that have
>come out of CO for
>the last couple of years.
>
>
>


I must be missing something here.If it has been great the last couple of years what kind of turn around are we looking for?

 

[mntman]

RE: Not so sure.

There will forever be point creep as long as their are points and units that hunters consider "quality units".

If you take every single unit in colorado and manage it strictly for 4 points ONLY, absolutely no 5 or 6 points then you will probably not have point creep. If you have 1 or 50 units that offer better hunting for "quality" bulls then there will be people that WILL save their points for that unit.
Even if you make to where if you buy a license of ANY sort, people will hunt elsewhere and save their points to hunt colorados best unit(s). For the point creep to stop every single state that offers elk, deer hunting, they must say if you buy a license of any sort then you lose your points. Then point creep would slow way down but it would still go up if you have a state that is offering a higher quality hunt(s).

Impossible to get rid of the point creep, it is now a fact of our hunting life. We will see people in our lifetime that have been saving their points for 50+ years...


Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"

 

[nripepi]

Mule Deer Tags

Last year there were 85,601 Mule Deer Tags available and 58,497 (68.3%) went to 1st choice applicants who burned their points or didn't accrue any points.

That means there were 31.7% of the tags where hunters could get a tag and still accrue points:

Landowners: 7,326 (8.6%)
2nd Choice Drawn: 9,961 (11.6%)
Leftovers: 9,817 (11.5%)

So the max is 31.7% where hunters are accruing points. Is the actual number between 15-25%? Probably 99% of the 2nd choice drawn are accruing points and let's say 50% of the landowners tags and leftovers are as well, that puts us at 21.7%.

If this is true, the system definitely needs changed because these persons will also be the ones holding out for the primo tags most likely. I am guessing if you lose points when using a landowner tag, it will push the prices up for some of them and probably down for others.

Elk is very different because of the Landowner Tags and more Cow tags....

 

[brutus]

RE: Not so sure.

Peronaly I love colorado's point system as you can plan your hunt and whoever has put in the time and years waiting gets the tags. I dont think you want nevadas system where youve got people with 16 points that cant get one of the highly sought after tags cause nobody is guarrentied anything and there is so many people with 4-8 points applying for that unit that it drowns out those few with 14+ points even after those points are squared. The only way to not have point creep is get rid of points all together and luck wins out. I'd rather let those who have waited the longest get the tags.

 

[DirtyTough]

RE: Not so sure.

Brutus I like Nevadas system but would rather they changed it so all first choices are looked at first.

Colorado doesn't need to change to bonus points, they just need to purge your points if you have a tag. Pretty simple.

 

[DirtyTough]

RE: Mule Deer Tags

Thanks for taking the time and doing the numbers

 

[skipbuck]

RE: Not so sure.

In a perfect world Utah,Wyoming,Montana and Oregon would have better trophy managment and take some point pressure off of Colorado.

 

[brutus]

RE: Not so sure.

Nevada doesnt take your points if you obtain a landowner tag either.

I like that you can still draw a tag 2nd choice and it wont take your points. I'm not a point banker, I draw 1st choice every 2 years but I still go hunt other units that I might not if I had to drop many points on it. I think its a great way to still get people hunting and get the revinue where as the person might just stay home if they had to drop all their points on a lesser quality unit than they wanted. I think that person will still bank points reguardless but giving them a 2nd choice option that wont take their points might still get them in the field.