For colorado Hunter

D

dutch

Guest
http://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/newsfd/auto/feed/sports/2003/09/07/1062916078.18429.9335.0979.html


09.07.03 Commission seeks revamp of point system

If anyone fully understands how the state's convoluted preference point system actually works, they better speak up now.

Action by the Colorado Wildlife Commission, spurred on with the wholehearted encouragement of commission chair Rick Enstrom, the entire preference point system will be reviewed, dissected and likely put back together in a completely different form sometime in early 2005.

That date is when the commission expects to have completed its review of the 2005-2009 five-year season structure cycle.

Along with big-game hunting dates, bag limits, managing deer and elk populations and a slew of other hunting-related topics, preference points and how they are doled out and who gets what are sure to be among the topics of most heated discussion.

What bothers Enstrom, and quite obviously many other hunters, is how nonresident hunters have managed to take advantage of the point system, much to the detriment of resident hunters.

"We need to look at everything involved with preference points," Enstrom said during the commission's meeting last moth in Glenwood Springs. "Are preference points still viable?"

Enstrom, of the Grand Junction candy-making family and now a resident of Lakewood, claimed the current preference point system, which rewards unsuccessful efforts to obtain coveted big-game licenses, has evolved to where nonresidents are able to "cherry-pick" the best licenses.

Nonresidents have learned to wait until they accrue enough preference points and virtually are assured a license for one of the state's top trophy unit.

"They can apply for years for a Colorado license, piling up the points while still hunting in their home state," Enstrom said. "When they have enough points, they come here and hunt in the best units."

The problem is that resident hunters can't play that waiting game without losing out on some hunting opportunities.

A survey done for the 2000-2004 five-year policy showed a majority of resident hunters would rather hunter every year than wait two or three or more years to garner enough preference points to get the hunt of their dreams.

The end result is a seeming disproportionate number of nonresidents hunting in the trophy units.

"I think it's turned our citizens into second-class citizens," Enstrom said.

The trouble lies in the so-called "creep element," said Mike King, regulations coordinator for the Division of Wildlife.

He said the number of people with 12 or more preference points tripled in the past year. Nonresidents equal residents on this list, he said.

What that means is that it now takes at least 15 points to draw a bull tag for unit 201 in northwest Colorado. That number is sure to go up as more would-be hunters collect more points.

State big-game coordinator John Ellenberger said he's been waiting 15 years to accrue enough points to return to unit 201 in Colorado's northwest corner.

"In 1987 it took me seven preference points to draw; I now have 15 and I'm still trying to go back," said Ellenberger, who skipped last year's hunt season because of other obligations.

The Division's hunter recap page shows 731 residents and 380 nonresidents applied for the 17 licenses available in 201 for last year's early elk-only season. Forty-two residents and 20 nonresidents had at least 14 points.

That means the hunters who didn't draw with 14 points, like Ellenberger, will have 15 points this year with which to gamble.

"In that 15 years, it takes twice the number of points to draw as it did before," Ellenberger said. "We're seeing that in a lot of our better game management units.

"In some units, there are enough people with enough points applying for limited licenses that you if you started this year you'll never catch up."

It can be discouraging, said Bill DeVergie, the Division's Area Wildlife Manager in Montrose.

"Some people get tired of waiting and bail out for another unit if they have enough points," he said.

Enstrom also wants the division to look into giving extra preference points to landowners with the best big-game habitat. The thinking is that these landowners, on whom the division relies for most of the state's winter habitat, also have access to most of the state's elk and could use some help harvesting the animals.

"We have to find an equitable way to allow hunters use their preference points," Enstrom said.

Some states, including Wyoming, have systems that account for those who have been shut out in earlier attempts to draw tags.

One proposal, to charge more for a license in one of the trophy units, fell quickly.

"That would eliminate a lot of citizens from the process," Enstrom said.
 
Personally I don't thin too much is wrong with the current system. I'm not sure what exactly the percentage allowed for out of state hunters is, I think 60/40 with 60% of all licenses going to in state hunters. The only change that I would care for is a higher percent of resindents getting the tags.

Giving large private landowners any kind of extra male licenses would be a really bad move.

Beanman
 
We only get 60% in the first choice drawing. If we try to build up points we're thrown in with everybody else for 2nd choice drawings.
 
Resident hunters can do the same thing on building up points every year just like non-res applicants can. I don't see what he is trying to imply?? I know many guys who are residents that just apply for the P-point and get an over the counter tag whether it be bow or rifle. No one draws statewide mzzldr elk/bull with a second choince so all res/non-res. are in the same boat for statewide mzzldr elk/bull.

I think the big issue that he is trying to side step is non-res. with less points drawing the same units as res. with more points. Like 13 for #10 res. but 9 for non-res. or 12-13 for 201 res. but only 10 for non-res.

What folks need to realize is that with the 60/40 split and the fee increases a few years back, alot of max.-highest point non-res. bailed into other units so that they still had some point power of choice because everyone thought it would go thru the roof for non-res. but it will/has had a downward cycle for about 3-4 years and then it will go back up high again MAYBE. 2005,if they raise fees dramatically again and cut to a 70/30 or 80/20 split then alot more will bail out of Colo. and they will have to dramatically raise res. fees to cover the tremendous lose of CDW revenue with less non-res. tags/hunters.

Non-res. in the 8-10 elk point pool can draw just about any unit/season/weapon for another year or two and then it should climb.

My Mrs. will go into the 2004 Colo. draw with 8 points on elk, she is all about mzzldr elk hunting, she will draw her tag as a non-res. in a unit that will take 11-13 res. points to draw.

Anyone, res. or non-res. with 7 or more points on deer is just going to waste them because yearly you have guys posting with 9 or more points with no unit or Ranching for Wildlife property worth wasting that many points on.

Every year we see posted photo's here on M&M of guys with 0-2 points on deer with monster muleys!! Look at last years 'thumbs up' contest photo winners......What 'Founder ' had like 2-3 points?? 'DeerKing' had what 1 point and 'cowboye' had 2 points and look at those huge bucks.

Lastley, alot of guys that got 'fee shock' a couple years ago have now moved onto N. Mex., Wyo., Idaho or Utah and are getting a chance at something other than raghorns and crowds. I see alot of Colorado license plates in many of those states when I'm hunting one of them so you guys are more and more becoming non-res. hunters too like alot of us, your always welcome in my camp.
 
I agree with PleaseDear, my father in law lives in Colo. and has been putting in for a trophy hunt for the last 7-9 years. They just keep raising the preference points on him which is why he hasn't drawn yet. But he still hunts regular rifle seasons so I guess I am not seeing the big problem as well.
I also agree that Colorado does not have near as many 'big' bulls as New Mexico and Arizona, lots more raghorns (just from what I have seen hunting here anyways). I also agree that since the fee increase, I have noticed a lot fewer out of state hunters in this area (SW COLO.) as well.
 
A unit like 201 is the exception and I mostly agree with Please Dear. I know there are a lot of CO hunters applying for limited entry elk hunts in UT and in some cases they are getting drawn before Utahn's that have been applying for twenty years. I believe the CO system is the most fair in all the western states. If you want it bad enough you'll get it eventually. My friend drew a muzzle loader bull tag in UT (resident) last year after 25 years. With CO system he would have drawn it in 12-15 years if that. I've also heard that UT is thinking of raising the non-resident, limited entry fee for bulls to $1,000. Maybe it's not such a bad idea for CO to do it too. I'm afraid all the states will follow suit anyway. I also think the CO DOW should raise the fees for resident deer and elk tags to at least somewhere in the $50-$100 range for elk. Especially for units that take 3 points or more. I will be voicing my opinion to the wildlife commission when the time comes, as a non-resident. My 2 cents, Steve
 
I'm becoming more and more of a Consumer that hunts instead of a hunter that just applies for tags.

I have started taking my quarterly issues of Boone and Crocket and Pope and Young and spread-sheeting my elk-states that I apply in. I have a 325 minimum score on my spreadsheets, since 2000 there are 7 bulls listed that make the Awards minimum for B&C (360 pts) harvested from Colo. whether it be bow or rifle. Longhunter (mzzldr records) doesn't do the quarterly anymore.

If you look at my spreadsheets, it is overwhelming that Nv., Ut., Az., N.Mex., Mont. & Wyo. are way out in front of Colo.
So if you take the amount of tags issued and the amount of hunters in each state and add that to the stats, crowd control really plays a factor in bigger bull harvested states.

So as a consumer that hunts, I gotta apply/spend my money where I can have a chance at an above average bull vs raghorn for about the same fees across the west.
 
Graybeard, why raise in state fees? $33 or whatever is enough considering the quality of hunting, I could see for maybe some trophy areas but for the general public forest which most takes 4 POINTS OR MORE, that is tough to find a legal bull at most times. I know your just stating your opinion which I am too, so I am not trying to argue, don't hear me wrong.
Of course I live in state so I think out of state tags should go up like they did, especially for Indiana residents (inside joke).:):)

I'm not sure what other states charge for residents, I know New Mexico and Arizona you can hardly get drawn there so we are pretty fortunate in Colorado. I'm sure that is also why the hunting is not as good as well, more people hunt here.
 
I know everyone has their own opinion, but I will always believe that Residents should have an advantage over Nonresidents. If Colorado would go to a quality Elk management program I bet we would lead the way with big Bulls by a long shot, but when you sell over the counter tags what else can you expect besides raghorns.
Whenever you hunt Out-of-State (myself included), its a bonus hunt IMO. I'm willing to bet most hunters still hunt the State they reside in. I know a few people that have quit hunting because of crowds. Its not fun when your always trying to get away from other hunters.
I'm not against Nonresident hunters, but I am against crowded hunting conditions. And I'm really opposed to jacking up the cost of tags for Nonresidents because I feel that its really unfair to the average Joe. A limit on Nonresidents would be the fairest way to ease crowding.
I hope they do make some changes and I too have forwarded my opinion to the DOW Commission in support of changes.
 
Dutch, I think calf, cow, or bull elk have more value to them than $33. The biggest reason CO keeps the highest caps on non-residents is because of the funds we bring to the state. Not only is an elk worth $50-$100 dollars but think of the money the DOW would have to spend on habitat improvement and other needed changes. Think what it'll cost them to advertise the benefits of hunting to the public which they have in their strategic plans for 2005-2009 along with all the other proposed spending. What they really should do is keep the cow elk tags the same price and raise the bull tags to $50. Then another bump for limited tags that take 3 points or more. The reason they have limited entry tags are for "trophy" hunters or hunters that want more "quality" hunts. Isn't that worth more to you. It surely is to me. The only downfall to raising resident prices is the recruitment for young or new hunters may be lower. That is a big deal, I know. But come on, I spend $33 just going to the movies for a night out or to dinner. 90% of the non-resident elk hunters love the chance at a raghorn bull and gladly cough up the cash. The DOW has a huge challenge ahead of them when it comes to managing the over populated elk herds in CO. The only chance they have of getting a handle on it is by killing more cows. WAY more cows. How are they going to accomplish that feat? They tried doing during the regular seasons and it was a mess. Most of the elk in the state winter on private land so that's out of the question unless the landowners can be persuaded to let a bunch of hunters run their land in Nov. or Dec.. That will cost someone some cash. How much are you willing to pay to hunt cow elk on private land? When I guided on Deseret Land they charged $150 per hunter for a "guide" to drive them around to find elk. At that time they sold approx. 400 cow elk tags and approx. 75 bull tags with only a handful of the bulls being mature. With this type of management they basically had a bull/cow ratio of 1/1 or 1/1.5. I'm not saying that CO should manage to that extreme but just think about the quality of bulls you'd have to hunt if they were managed in this way. I could go on and on but just look at some of the deer units now that they have been limited for 4 years. Bigger bucks are being harvested every year.

CO hunter, the average Joe doesn't hunt out of state. Usually non-residents are diehard, dedicated hunters that spend many hours stewing over where to apply and they scout and I'm sure you're the same. I'd love to know just how many Utahn's apply out of state compared to the number that don't. I'll bet it's less than 10%. Most people don't care to spend the time or money involved in going out of state to hunt. I agree with you that residents should take precedence over non-residents. I'm sure if I lived there I'd feel even stronger about it. But CO does a great job of handling all the hunters with so many seasons. If Utah did a better job of managing their bucks I wouldn't bother applying for CO. I kind of agree with Brian about having a national preference point system. Everyone would get to hunt the species they really want to (except sheep) and the prices could be kept fairly low. What do you think??? Steve
 
Graybeard, you bring up some good points, You definitely hit the nail on the head about the overpopulation and elk wintering on private land. That is a HUGE problem here in Durango area. All the elk just hang out on private land and no one lets you go in there to hunt because they are against it or whatever.

The deer herd I feel has improved over the last 5 years so at least they have been acomplishing something!!
 
Dutch, I love the Durango area and would like to move there or Montrose but wy wife needs to be close to her family. For now I have to live in this big city and cuss about traffic every day. Can't wait to get to CO and hunt the "Big One". Only five more weeks, Steve
 
if I was you graybeard, I'd move to Ridgeway! Just no where to work but man is it beautiful there. Montrose is a nice little town as well. I know how you feel about the big city, I had to move to Albuquerque for about 4 years and couldn't wait to get the hell out of there and Albuquerque is not that big of a city, only 600,000 but I couldn't stand it.
 
Been out in the woods, so I may be a little late on this BUT:

I think they need to change something, maybe make it so if you do not hunt in CO with in 3 yrs you loose all pts. so instead of only apply for points one would have to make a hunt in colorado.

now about 201, i have hunted muzz cows for 10yrs there. just got back last night actually. I talked to 5 guys this weekend, 3 out of state 2 in state. took all of them but one 13 pts. the 5th took him 14 because he waited one more yr by choice. I have never herd of any one getting a bull tag there with less than 12 pts and that was 4 yrs ago. so for those who think non-res have any bennies thats not what i have experianced.

oh and the hunting was not too good there this yr. 2 guys archers camped right in the middle of the prime elk area on Diamond, screwed everything up for all of us.

Though I did bring home 210 pounds to the processor!!
 
builtcj5, that's a great idea about having to hunt every three years, but they'd have to hunt a second choice every third year or maybe i didn't understand what you meant? How could they hunt their first choice if it takes more than 3 points? Steve
 
yeah either a 2nd choice tag, or buy an left over/ over the counter tag. its the way i live in Colo and can get my pt to hunt 201 every other yr and then hunt on a state wide muzz tag the other yrs.
 
My thoughts:

Nonresident fees: Almost 20 times that of residents and nonresident tags bring in around 70% of all license revenue. I think they are high enough.

I will never agree that raising prices is the way to weed out hunters. I know personally several average Joe's that save all year or for 2 years to be able to go on a Colorado hunt, so my take is limit our numbers, but don't keep raising prices.

I would be for making all nonresident tags by drawing only, including elk, but continue the 60/40% split for general tags. For trophy units (defination???: takes greater than 5 points to get drawn?) Why not change to an 80/20% distribution.

Pleasedeer: You say that nonresidents with 8 points would get drawn before a resident with 10 points??? I can assure you that under the present system, that DOES NOT HAPPEN. In fact it now takes more points to be drawn as a nonresident in a trophy area than it does for a resident to be drawn. Maybe the confusion is the 60% resident/ 40% nonresident quotas. The 40% nonresident is a CAP on nonresidents. It DOES NOT guarantee 40% of the tags to nonresidents. Let's say you have 200 residents that apply for 100 tags. Let's say that 100 have 8 preference points and 100 have 9 preference points. You also have 200 nonresidents that all have 9 points.

Out of 100 tags available:

The first 60 tags drawn will be residents with 9 points. The other 40 tags will be split between residents with 9 points and nonresidents with 9 points. Therefore you will have greater than 60% of the tags going to residents. The only way you could have greater than 40% of the tags going to nonresidents would be in a leftover draw for an underscribed unit/hunt.

If you check the drawing statistics for any unit, you will never find a nonresident drawing a tag before a resident with more points. Can't happen under the current system.

I certainly hope they don't go to a "bonus Point" system. I think their actual preference point system is the most fair way to do things. Yes, give residents added tags, but don't scrap the whole system.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I live in Colorado and they definitely do not need to raise the non res fees anymore. I know how much it is for you poor out of state guys to get out here, time you take off work, gas, groceries, it adds up.

I can also atest that the drawing here I feel is very fair. I've drawn for buck tag last 2 years and have spoken to non residents who did not get drawn, same area, same season.

So that tells me non res are not getting picked over in state hunters. I think the main goal is we all want more and bigger bulls/bucks. Right?

So what do we need to do to produce that? Go to all draw? I hope they don't do that as I hear New Mexico/Arizona are hard enough to draw in. But look at the bulls they produce. Maybe a few more draw only areas with fewer tags given, any other ideas?
 
I agree with most of the last 2 posts. Though they do "weight" res aps. The way it has been explained to me, when res apply they basically get an extra point added on when going against a nores with the same pts.

But there is a certain % of tags set aside for nonres so there is a point when the res get over ruled.

At this point in time i doubt we have to worry about the state going to 100% draw. there are several units right now that anyone can get two tags for -or- they can hunt a draw unit and then buy an additional tag for these units. The elk herd in Colo is to a hight of being unhealthy and even with all the additional tags it still hardly puts a dent in the populations.

like i said above i think the best way to keep the non-res from cherry picking the best units and only hunting in CO once every 12 yrs is to require a tag be purchased every 3 yrs otherwise that hunters account will be voided. This should go for BOTH Non-res and Res alike.

There are thousands of tags left over every yr and hundreds of tags that are additional and all the unlimited state wide tags. yes these units see more people, But there are more elk there too. maybe not 7x7's but there are elk one could be proud of. you know cows eat better any way.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-03 AT 05:20PM (MST)[p]BUILT:

Unless I have been lied to AND the printed information the DOW puts out is wrong, there are "0" (Zero) tags set aside/guaranteed for nonresidents. There should NEVER be an instance where nonresidents get drawn before a resident with more points.


Here is another example:

100 tags available. Only 60 residents put in and they have from 0-10 points. They will all be awarded a tag even if all of the nonresidents have 10 points.

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am 99-44/100% sure I am not.

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned that the DOW is ALREADY raising prices to nonresidents every year. It appears that they will contiue to raise our fees annually.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
This is a good discussion we have going but I have not heard any good solutions yet. Txhunter58, I believe you're correct that 60% of the permits are guaranteed to residents and 0% is guaranteed to non-residents. I also believe if you were to average out the percentage of permits that actually go to non-residents, it would be around 25%. I'm only talking about limited units that always take at least one point to draw. And yes, the non-resident tag fees are being raised by 3% every year with the current system. Also, I didn't mean to give the impression that I don't have to save and put money aside to hunt out of state, because I do. And when I said "average joe" I wasn't talking about income, I was talking about passion for hunting. My greatest fear is that if they lowered the quota from 60/40 to 80/20 there could be less than 10% of the permits going to non-residents. I'd gladly try to save more money for a tag with the same odds I have now than drop my odds of drawing by 50%. I'm sure when the non-resident buck tags went from $150-$270 there was a subtantial drop in out of state deer hunters. I don't know the percentage but I'd guess 10-20%. With the buck numbers coming back I'd bet alot of those hunters are now back in the ring. Builtcj5, I still don't understand how forcing the guys that are applying as first choice limited, to hunt every third year will lessen the number of applicants. Did that make sense? In other words, how will making the non-residents hunt their second choice affect the draw odds?? I think one reason raising the price of the tags may be bad is because, what's to stop them from going through the roof? Unfortunately, that's the only thing I'd consider as a solution to reduce the number of non-resident applicants. Also, I don't think it has worked in WY. I too, truly hope that they don't go to the bonus point system. That would be horrible. I'd love to hear some other ideas and I hope I haven't offended anyone. Steve
 
Do you know what a DOW officer told me that I think there is a lot of truth in? He said that it is not so much the nonresidents that are making the woods so crowded, but all the people moving into the state and becoming residents. His beef was all of them coming from the "Left" coast every time the earth shakes over there, but that is another story.

Bottom line is there is not a good system to divide the tags in units such at 201 for elk (17 TAGS!). Even if only residents are allowed to apply, anyone starting now better start putting in at age 14 and he/she might draw by 40!

My solutions in a nutshell:

1) Keep low demand tags at the present 60/40 split.
2) Make all elk tags by drawing only for nonresidents.
3) Lower nonresident tags in trophy units to the 20-30% range,
BUT, as a trade off, RESERVE 10% for only nonresidents. I don't think 1 out of 10 tags is too much to ask for.
4) Keep the preference point system as is for all low demand tags. It is the most fair system out there and helps both residents and nonresidents plan!
5) For trophy units, keep the present preference point system for 70-80% of the tags (otherwise you screw the people who have been saving points all the years) and use a bonus point system for the remainder. In other words, for those 20-30% of the tags everyone would have a shot at getting drawn.
6) And last, but not least, since I am an EVIL, BIASED nonresident: quit raising our prices every year. We pay more than our fair share already.

On second thought, I think I will just move to Colorado!

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
txhunter-
i wasn't 100% on the non-res alotment for tags. thats a grey area in the books and that was the way i guess it was supposed to be done but anyway--
i hunt 201 atleats everyother yr for cow muzz. one of the biggest reasons i can see why it is so hard to draw tags there is the limited size of the area to hunt. It is already an extremly tiny unit compared to most in the state. Then if you go there, look at a map, or photos, there is less than 1/2 of the unit that is suitable elk habbitat. you put more than the dozen or so tags out there you will be seeing hunters every where you turn and very few elk. the herd is only like 1200 animals ( don't quote me there, rough memory) but YES there are record book bulls there and good ole Jim Zumbo and his likes keep writing articles every yr on Colorado hunting and how they will only hunt 201. This will forever make it tough to draw a tag here.

Back to the non-res thing.

Colorado for the longest time was almost 50% cheaper than any other state for non-res to come and hunt. not till the last couple yrs have they hiked up the prices. and last i checked, on memory i think CO's nonres elk tags are right in there with the rest of the western states prices. remembering that colo is a much easier state to obtain a tag in also.

I may be biased but i think us res should have it cheaper and easier to hunt our backyards. and the DOW has herd alot about this recently, part of the reason for price increase and the possible new pt system.

If you go back to the original post on this topic, the reason for the review of the pt system is to help prevent non-res from only applying for the preferance pt code. there are hundreds of people who send in there money get a point and then a refund for the tag cost minus the three dollar ap fee. then they get tags in their state and continue to hunt for 12-14 yrs. Once they are garenteed the "trophy tag" they apply and only pay and hunt colo once in 15 or so yrs. Now for a resident in Colo this is a little unfar. for us to hunt alot of areas we too have to aquire pts then we hunt the second choice for the yrs in between.

now what i have been saying is to require a person hunt every 3 yrs. this prevents them from setting back in where ever and racking up pts and never hunting the state. this would knock the number of nonres aps way down if they did this. or it will force them to put some money into the system over the yrs till they get the "trophy tag." by them doing this it raises the pts so high it makes it impractical for a res to wait 13yrs to hunt say 201 once. if the DOW changed things around I think the required pts for these units would drop acordingly.

for those who don't know, it basically requires as many pts as the number of yrs the pt system has been in effect to draw a bull tag in 201. so for one to get these tags they would have been raking up just pts since it begain and has never hunted a 1st choice hunt. not too many res have done this. I couldn't muzzy hunt if i have done this.
 
Built:

Wouldn't it be simpler to just put a more restrictive limit on nonresidents for those trophy tags (say 20%)? That way, no matter how many points nonresidents have, they can only get up to 20% of the tags. Also, if you make nonresidents hunt every 3 years instead of every 12-14, aren't you INCREASING the out of state hunters hunting in your state (they would hunt 4 times in 12 years instead of just once)? With my plan you incresase trophy tags to residents and decrease the number of out of state hunters (both stated goals of the Colorado residents and the DOW).

The article mentioned that 731 RESIDENT hunters applied for those 17 tags. As I mentioned above, if they did not even allow nonresidents to put in, it would take 43 years before all those people got drawn. Therefore, the only way to make everyone happy, excluding the nonresident issue, is to make some percentage of the tags available in a "lottery" that everyone has a chance for.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
txhuntr58, I agree with your one sollution to keep the preference point system on units like 201 up to 70-80% of the tags and the rest can go to whoever and keeping it 60/40 on everything less than 5 points. I believe what is going to happen is they will change the point system to be more like their drawing for sheep tags. If I remember right, you can get 3 points and then you go into a somewhat "wild" lottery similar to the bonus point system. Can anyone comfirm that? I'll bet that's what they do. Here in UT once you get your 10 bonus points (10 years) you are maxed out and half the tags will go to the folks that are maxed out with points. The other half will be divided and given to some of the lucky few who have 7 points or 3 points or sometimes no points. Even guys here with 10 max points and ten more years don't draw. Unfortunately, this system works better than the old one. Also to make odds better you can only apply for one "once in a lifetime hunt" at a time (rocky mtn. bighorn, desert bighorn, moose, mountain goat, and buffalo). The same year you can only apply for one limited entry buck or bull permit. Sad, but it seems to work better than before. I wouldn't be surprised if they go to something like this in CO and decrease the non-resident tags to 10%. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing them make you either apply for deer or elk but not both on limited entry. That may cut down on the applicants. I think their biggest challenge right now is not figuring out a better point system but figuring out how they are going to lower their overpopulated elk herd and at the same time limit the bull licences to produce bigger bulls. The best solution there in my opinion is to harvest the "supernumeraries", the cows. They should lower the bull harvest by 60-70% and harvest the cows like crazy. How oh how will they ever do that????? Also Builtcj5, residents don't have to hunt every year if they don't want to. They can just only apply for a first choice tag or refund. I'd love to hear everyones solutions for bringing down the elk herd but raising the age class on the bulls. Steve
 
i am aware that no one has to hunt, they can only apply for pts.

You propesed an idea of lowering herd numbers and keeping big bulls. OK

From the DOW side and wildlife bio side, trophy bulls don't create a healthy breeding stock. The bulls that breed the best are the young ones 2-3 yr olds. These bulls are young enough and wild enough to go crazy in the rut and hit very cow they see. The older bulls don't do this as well. So from the Bio side of it, it is better to have a bunch of you bulls and fewer "trophy class" bulls in the herd. Thus, the pt restriction on Bulls in alot of units.

Again from the Bio side of it, the easiest way to lower herd size is to limit the breeding. there are thousands and thousands of cows out here in CO. if everyone of them has just one calve the herd doubles. BUT you get some that have twins so now there are even more elk. The limiting factor here for breeding is bulls. This is why the over populated units have unlimited over the counter bull tags. figure there is something like 1 bull for every 10 cows?? not sure the exact numbers but just as an example. you harvest that bull, thats roughly 10 cows that do not have calves this spring. Or are lesslikly to have calves. Hope this makes sense.

So to ansewer the question on how to limit the elk population that is how they are attempting to go about. Plus all the additional cow tags out there.

The down fall here though is the success rate of the hunt. Just becouse they give out a thousand tags does not by any means mean a thousand elk will be harvested.

I agree the herd size is way out of balance. I also think this is what is killing the Deer herd in Colo also. And i also think the DOW likes to be able to brag the huge herd size compared to the rest of the west.
 
>>This is why the over populated units have unlimited over the counter bull tags. figure there is something like 1 bull for every 10 cows?? not sure the exact numbers but just as an example. you harvest that bull, thats roughly 10 cows that do not have calves this spring. Or are lesslikly to have calves. Hope this makes sense.<<

Nope, it doesn't make any sense because it's not how the reproduction dynamics of elk herds work.(g)

Any individual cows are not wed to a specific bull. Kill one bull and another will readily -- and happily -- take its place as long as those cows come into estrus. One bull can breed one or 100 cows. Fews breeding-age cows ever go unbred, though not all will become pregnant or bear calves.

Also, it is normally the older, more dominant bulls that have the largest harems of cows. -TONY
 
As stated above, it is my understanding that the point system is not pro non-res. I do find it interesting that everyone is throwing around res vs non-res and who has more right to the use of the land. It is public land. The National Forest is paid for by National funds not State funds. My tax dollars pay as much as yours, but I have to pay a premium to hunt their because I do not live there. Where is the logic in that? If everyone had to pay the same for a license, whether they are lower or higher than current non-res fees, the coffers would be in better shape finacially by a large margin. So why should a resident be given priority and visa versa when hunting on land that we all pay for? If the State pays for the employees and maintenance without Federal assistance then I stand corrected.

I'm not picking on Colorado, the concept should be the same across the board when hunting on National Forest Land.

The Private land sector is just that Private Land. If they want to charge a premium it is their right as a land owner.

I apply for a license every year to get a PP then get a license over the counter to hunt. It is going to take me at least another 3 to 4 years to get into a quality area. However, to require me to buy a tag every so many years to hunt on National Public land to meet a State requirement is just wrong.

I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm just voicing an opinion.

I hope everyone has a great hunt this year. Hunt safe and hunt hard. Darran
 
Well this topic is really taking off isn't it. IMO I think that a 80/20 split of the tags would be fair and maybe even have the 20% as a set aside for Nonresident hunters and have us compete seperatly for tags.
As for the crowding, in Northwest Colorado it is definatly not the Resident hunters. I hunted in GMU 22 & 11 a few years back and I only saw a couple of Colorado plate's. Last year a buddy of mine hunted in GMU 4 and said the same thing. I Grouse hunt in these area's and would love to Deer hunt them too, but I wont make the mistake of putting in for one of those tags again. They should just put them on the Texas & Calif tag applications.
Another thing that would be nice IMO is to make hunters pick one GMU and hunt that one only (drawing included).
As for our overpopulated Elk, I agree we have a lot of Elk, but I dont see the DOW doing anything about it. If its so overpopulated, why dont they give us a 5 month Cow season ? Or give out multiple cow tags for the price of one ?
I think the DOW just uses the Elk as a selling point to get hunters to come.
 
On the breeding thing again-- yes your partial right. there are satilite bulls right there and a bull can breed 100's of cows. and yes the biggest bulls sometimes have the most cows.

Like i said this is the biologist views. a big old bull isn't the best for breeding. the 2 and 3 yr old bulls breed better and have better survival in calves.

again it easier to limit bulls becouse they are less in number and you can slow down the number of cows breed by limiting the bulls in the area.

I have seen huge 6x6's and 7x7's during the hight of the rut. These bulls have 0 cows with them ...none. they were off in the darkest and thickest timber way away from the bugling and herding bulls. these big ole boys were deathly silent and moved slow and careful. They new how to survive another yr.

The federal gov turned over the managment of wild game to the state. The exception is migratory game birds, the feds along with states regulate hunting of these. So yes the NF is public property managed by the feds. But the game on this property is managed by the state. In the case of COLO the only funding the DOW gets is that generated by itself. It is completely self sufficent of funds and takes no money from the state. This money is generated from lisence fees and i would guess tickets. So you high priced tag gives you the right to legally hunt colo's game on yes NF property.

We hunt 201 alot and all I ever see is Utah plates. The only COLO plates we see are those on our trucks.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-19-03 AT 02:12PM (MST)[p]builtcj5,

Not sure what biologists you're citing but the views, at least as you put them forth here, are not mainstream ones.

>>On the breeding thing again-- yes your partial right. there are satilite bulls right there and a bull can breed 100's of cows.<<

>>again it easier to limit bulls becouse they are less in number and you can slow down the number of cows breed by limiting the bulls in the area.<<

The two quotes of yours above are contradictory from the get go. If bulls can breed hundreds of cows, then limiting the bulls' numbers will do absolutely nothing to retard the recruitment rate of elk calves. The ONLY way to do so is to kill off cows -- biology 101 when it comes to ungulates such as elk and deer.

>>...the 2 and 3 yr old bulls breed better and have better survival in calves.<<

The age of the breeding bull has nothing to do with the survival of elk calves. If a bull is healty enough to breed, it produces an embryio that turns into a calf elk. The survival is dependent on a) the health of the cow, including the nourishment she gets before calving so her milk has plentry of protein, vitamins, etc. to jump-start the calf right after birth b) the condition of the habitat to maintain a calf through the fall and winter c) the number of predators in a particular area that prey on elk.

That said, Colorado obviously doesn't have a calf-survival problem since elk are over-running the available habitat. (g)

Most dominant breeding bulls are 5-10 years old. And if you think about it a bit, you readily understand why Nature did things the way she did. Otherwise, she would have made the breeding responsibilities fall to the younger males in any game population. But instead, it's generally the biggest and stronger ones that get to do the pleasurable chores. Those aren't 2-3 yr. olds. -TONY
 
The cause of the drought they say has had some effect on elk calving. With the oncoming of a drought cows have a harder time going into heat to calve. Then if they do get pregnant, the calves are having a harder time surviving due to lack of nutrients, etc.

Tony your also right, natural selection, only the biggest and strongest survive. The weak, dumb, stupid, injured whateveer will die off. (Too bad we didn't have that rule for people).
Supposedly overpopulation of cows has been a problem in Colorado, (according to the DOW). My feeelings on this is many elk stay on private land (All year even). I've seen it where I live. I have friends who own around 1,000 acres towards the NM border (farmers). 20 years ago you might of seen 1 or 2 elk down there, now you see anywhere from 30-50 head each season and they are growing. Why? Becuase only about 15 people hunt down there on their ranch due to private land and reservation. These elk are not getting culled down. They grow faster than 15-20 hunters can fill tags on 1 per year.

Back to the subject, like I said earlier, My father in law has been putting in for a trophy unit over last 7-9 yrs. I believe he has 9 preference points. Well when he first started you only needed 6, then we had 4 they raised it to 7, then we had 6 they raised to 9, now they have raised it again. What is the point of this if they keep raising the freaking points!!! By the time he draws he'll be too damn old to go. Set it and leave it is how I feel. Now once you have enough points you still have to get drawn to hunt in that area.

The below was from the article,

"Enstrom also wants the division to look into giving extra preference points to landowners with the best big-game habitat. The thinking is that these landowners, on whom the division relies for most of the state's winter habitat, also have access to most of the state's elk and could use some help harvesting the animals"

this sounds all great but many of these people coming in and buying some of these ranches are just rich anti hunters. Why do they think the landowners going to let hunters come in and slaughter the pretty little elk out in their field.
 
Builtcj5, I believe your theory on elk biology to be way out there!!! I would ask you one question, why do you think cervids grow antlers??? Not just antlers but in mature cervids, extravagant antlers! Do you think it has anything to do with breeding season? I know that's two questions and sorry for the sarcasm but I've never heard anything remotely close to what you're saying. I've spoken with at least 5 different big game biologists in CO alone and read numerous books about ungulate biology and management and everything I know about big game management for overpopulation is curtailed by harvesting breeding age females. The primary reason cervids grow antlers is for show during the breeding season. The secondary reason is for fighting. If mature bulls or bucks are prevelent in a certain population, they will be doing the vast majority of the breeding.

COHunter, I think it's a great idea to have a 4-5 month long season for cow elk, but, where will the cows be hunted in the winter? With the majority of them wintering on private land, how can we get them? I totally agree that the DOW should also give multiple antlerless tags (at a fair price) to anyone wanting them up to the set limit. To keep from overcrowding in the mountains they could give them to people only as extra permits to go along with their bull tag. It would be much easier to fill several antlerless tags while hunting during the regular season because of the big groups they're in and at the forest elevations they're at. I really like this idea, how do we get the DOW to go for it. I know the biologists are screaming for more cow tags. But, I think you may be right about the state wanting the "great" elk herd for bragging rights. How do we change it???
 
A combination of cheap cow tags, helicopters, and machine guns will work wonders. Another benefit, you may be able to get rid of a few of those Colorado tree huggers in the process.

The truth of the matter is that big game hunting in the west is in short supply and as long as people like you and I like to see a nice trophy on the wall it will always be tough to draw the best tags. I haven't been able to think of a great solution to the problem but I have to say I like the way Colorado is doing things. I wish Utah would adopt some of Colorado's big game management practices and I might have a chance at a nice animal from my own state. If you think it is tough to draw as a resident in Colorado visit the Utah DWR page and look at our drawing odds. I think I have a better chance of being bitten by a shark in South Dakota than drawing a premium elk tag like(Pavahnt, Southwest Desert, or Monroe Mountain). May you shoot straight on your hunts this year.
 
i am not aruging that the biggest bulls have the most cows and breed the most. i realize that, but it does not mean they are the best suited.

if the weeding of bulls does not help the population thing, then why are there unlimited bull tags in most units and limited cow tags?

if i am so far off then so is Colo State Univ and everything I have ever been tought.

--sorry i don't want that to sound rude or offensive just how it comes out--

The DOW doesn't set the number of pts required to obtain a tag. It is based on number of tags avail, vs the number of apps recieved. Then the lowest number of pts it takes to get into a high enough ranking to obtain the tag.

ex: If there is 20 tags and 200 apps. the tags will go out to the 20 highest pt holders. the DOW does not set a min pt, the Comp program awards them based on the pts.

great debate going here!
 
>>if the weeding of bulls does not help the population thing, then why are there unlimited bull tags in most units and limited cow tags?<<

Because as we have explained, bulls are EXPENDABLE. Only a FEW are needed to reproduce. Cow tag numbers are adjusted on a basis of need to cut reproduction, but if the ones they authorize are not all being used (sold!), increasing the number will do nothing to increase the kill.

Below are several excerps from various articles I wrote over the last few years. Take note that the number of antlerless permits were NOT the limiting factor in the low harvests. Pay particular attention to the number of UNSOLD cow licenses! -TONY

***
Folks at the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) had already predicted a low elk harvest for the 2001 seasons because unseasonably mild weather and low hunter participation due to the economic recession. Now it's official.
Hunters harvested 42,630 elk last year, compared with 2000?s record harvest of 60,120.
The nearly 200,000 elk hunters took 19,188 bulls and 23,432 antlerless elk for a 21 percent success rate, down 3 percent from 2000. Other than in 2000, 2001?s success rate was the highest since 1996, when the rate was 24 percent. But that's somewhat misleading because there were 40,000 fewer elk hunters in 2001.
Additionally, fewer hunters visited Colorado in 2001 because of uncertainty and travel problems stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the economic recession and a hike in nonresident elk fees. While the CDOW issued approximately 109,000 antlerless licenses for 2001 - the most ever to help control the state?s burgeoning herd - 40 percent fewer nonresidents bought big-game licenses, and 6,000 antlerless elk licenses weren't even sold.
Because the elk harvest was low last year in virtually every area of the state, Colorado?s herd is ?substantially over-objective,? said John Ellenberger, the Division of Wildlife?s big-game coordinator. ?We estimate the post-hunt population is around 250,000, and our objective is about 188,000. We didn't make any progress in controlling the elk population, in fact we probably lost ground. We'll issue as many, probably more, licenses this year than we did last year.?
Hunters will be allowed to purchase up to two elk licenses over much of the Western Slope as long as one is an antlerless license, meaning a hunter could take a bull and a cow elk or two cows.
Last year?s low harvest should be encouraging to sportspeople who plan to hunt in Colorado this season.
?Every year that we have a low harvest like we had in 2001, usually it's a good hunting season the following year if we get good weather - it's all predicated on that,? Ellenberger said. ?Because there wasn?t the harvest that we would have liked, hunters are likely to see more bulls than they did last year, and 3-year-old bulls that are a little bit bigger this year.? Usually bulls are taken in greater numbers than cows, but 2001 was an exception.
The 32,634 deer killed was also down from the 37,908 harvest in 2000. In 2001, 74,553 deer hunters killed 25,248 bucks and 6,386 antlerless deer for a 42 percent success rate, down 3 percent from last year but still one of the highest since 1982.
Unlike elk, Colorado?s deer population is below wildlife management objectives. ?We had lower participation across the board in deer hunting last year, but our success rate stayed almost the same,? Ellenberger said. ?Our objective, post-hunt 2000, was 629,000, and we had 548,000 Ellenberger said. ?This year we'll probably be a little higher than that.?
Ellenberger added that the state?s deer herd appears to be recovering after a period of decline in the late 1990s. The Division found many factors that contributed to the decline, such as habitat change and loss due to development, disease and competition with elk and livestock for food. Deer are also more vulnerable to severe winter conditions than elk because of their smaller bodies.
?There doesn't seem to be one smoking gun,? Ellenberger said of the deer herd?s decline. ?1999 was the first year we went to totally limited licenses for all deer hunting statewide, and we cut deer hunting dramatically at that time to 105,000 licenses from 142,000. We?ve continued to reduce licenses a little bit in subsequent years, and even though the herd is below objective, it seems to be responding, and in some areas seems to be doing well.?
The results were better for other game. The moose harvest hit 102, the most ever because the Division more than doubled the past number of licenses to 131, for an 84 percent success rate.
The 10,523 pronghorn antelope hunters took 6,417, down from 7,564 in 2000, for a 61 percent success rate, the lowest since 1985.




***
Poor Hunt Success
Although Colorado?s early 2001 elk and deer season began on a promising note, the final harvest tally for the four rifle seasons came up far short of expectations.
While the deer kill was only slightly below that of the 2000 seasons, the elk harvest of about 40,000 was well below the 60,120 taken in 2000.
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) big-game coordinator John Ellenberger attributed the low harvest to poor hunting weather and the lack of pressure. ?Initial success was almost as good as last year, but during the second through fourth seasons, everything went downhill. We didn't get the weather ? it was too warm and dry. With no snow to assist in tracking or to cover vegetation and force movement, elk in particular proved very difficult to find. And the events that took place in New York City put a damper on the hunting scene. People were more concerned with what was going on with the country and the economy,? he said.
The low elk harvest will have benefits for hunters this year, however. The CDOW increased the number of antlerless elk licenses and made them ?additional,? meaning hunters can kill two animals in 2002 -- a bull and an antlerless elk. Plus, to lure nonresidents back to Colorado, the Division lowered the cost of a nonresident antlerless license from $450 to $250 ? the fee in effect


****
Colorado elk hunters killed 60,120 elk during the 2000 seasons. The harvest was the largest since wildlife agencies started keeping such statistics, besting the previous record from 1996 of 54,078.
In 1999, 239,109 hunters killed 39,682 elk, about two-thirds the number of elk 246,778 hunters killed in 2000. The success rate also climbed from 17 percent in 1999 to 24 percent last fall, There has not been a higher success rate for elk in 10 years.
CDOW big-game manager John Ellenberger would like the trend to continue. ?We need to keep high hunting pressure on antlerless animals to get down to our management objectives. We are far enough above our objectives in some areas that it will likely take a number of years to get there.?
Despite large annual harvests of elk, the state?s elk herd has risen well above the population goals in many areas. Wildlife managers use hunting as their primary tool to maintain the health of the elk herds and the quality of their habitat.
Hunters killed antlered and antlerless elk in almost equal numbers last year, 28,611 and 28,674 respectively. The latter was a record for the number of antlerless elk killed in one year. Usually bulls are killed in far greater numbers than cows.
Ellenberger cited the Meeker and Craig areas as particularly good for bull elk. ?Hunter success was 40 percent on bulls in the fourth rifle season. That's unheard of, but favorable weather conditions there contributed to the high success rates. There was enough snow to push elk down from the high country, but not so much snow that hunters couldn't get around.
Deer hunters also did well last year with a harvest of 37,908 compared to 29,639 in 1999.


****

Colorado now has an elk population of more than 300,000, the largest of any state or Canadian province. Although many additional antlerless elk licenses have been available for the last few seasons, the herd still remains well above CDOW?s objective. As a result, Ellenberger said there will be a large number of antlerless elk licenses available for the upcoming big game seasons, as well.
The commission added two days to the second rifle season after receiving many requests from hunters. This season, which went from seven to nine days, will give hunters the opportunity to hunt over two weekends rather than just one.

The dates for the 2003 deer and elk seasons are:

Archery ? Aug. 30-Sept. 28
Muzzleloading ? Sept. 13-Sept. 21
1st rifle season (elk only)-Oct. 11-Oct.15
2nd rifle season-Oct. 18-Oct. 26
3rd rifle season-Nov. 1-Nov. 7
4th rifle season-Nov. 8-Nov. 12

Hunters will also be able to obtain more than one deer, elk and pronghorn antelope license again this year providing at least one of the licenses is for a private land only hunt. Leftover limited antlerless elk licenses will also be available as second licenses.
For more information, check the CDOW?s Web site at www.wildlife.state.co.us.
 
Thank you OutdoorWriter, What rags have you written articles for??? If I remember right, the 2002 elk seasons' harvest even beat the 2000 season. Is that correct? And still, they expected the elk population to raise even closer to 350,000. I had no idea their objective statewide was only 188,000. I doubt they will ever get that much control of the herd without doing something radical. I would buy a cow elk tag if they'd lower the non-resident fee to where the resident fees are. I never hunt CO without seeing more elk than deer. I'll pay a steep price for buck or bull but not doe or cow when I can get them here if I want, for cheap. Steve
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-03 AT 02:19PM (MST)[p]Graybeard,

Yup. 2002 was a record year for both the total harvest and the number of antlerless permits issued. With almost 220,000 licenses sold, the kill was 61,174, beating out 2000 by about 1,000 elk and 2001 by about 20,000. Overall success in 2002 was 27 percent. CDOW issued 136,000 antlerless or either sex licenses.

For this year, there are 146,000 antlerless or either sex olk licenses available.

I write more than 1/2 dozen feature articles for Rocky Mountain Game & Fish magazine annually and do the IN THE FIELD column in it monthly. The latter is sort of a news feature that covers all 8 states in the RM region. So I'm in constant contact with the game depts./biologists, etc. But I also do freelance articles for other publications. Here's a brief bio below. -TONY

****
Tony Mandile has wandered the waters and woods for more than 40 years in pursuit of game and fish. During that time, he has traveled around North America to fish or hunt in 39 states, 10 Canadian provinces, Africa and Mexico.

Mandile has been a full-time outdoor writer/photographer for 19 years and his 29-year active membership in the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA) included three years on the board of directors. He also served as a contributing editor for ARIZONA HUNTER & ANGLER magazine for 10 years, and spent nearly 7 years as the Arizona Editor for OUTDOOR LIFE magazine.

His articles and photos have appeared in OUTDOOR LIFE, FIELD & STREAM, PETERSEN'S HUNTING, PETERSEN'S FISHING, DEER HUNTING, ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAME & FISH, CALIFORNIA G&F, WASHINGTON-OREGON G & F, ARIZONA HIGHWAYS, NORTH AMERICAN HUNTER, PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN SPORTSMAN, WESTERN OUTDOORS, BOWHUNTING WORLD, SOUTHWEST SPORTSMAN, SAFARI, ARIZONA WILDLIFE VIEWS and a few dozen other outdoor, conservation and travel publications. He recently collaborated with noted big-game guide Duwane Adams on the 224-pg. book, HOW TO HUNT COUES DEER, which was released in August 2003.

Additional writing and photo credits include books, posters, product packaging, print ads and even the photo on a Visa credit card. More than 100 magazine covers have carried his byline. His photos have also won numerous awards in the annual photo contest sponsored by the OWAA, and Nikon selected several to appear in the company's prestigious Outdoor Photographers Showcase. When he finds the time, Mandile occasionally does photo seminars.
 
It's nice to have somebody who is so much more informed than us ignramuses who try to look smart! lol
Thanks for the info Tony, I found it pretty interesting, looks like according to the stats 2003 should be pretty good hunting for Colorado due to the low success rates last 2 years.
 
Dutch,

Yup, those who predict such things at least say there are plenty of elk to kill in Colorado. The one mitigating factor will be the weather, of course. And my son, who lives in Denver, hopes he's one of those that get to see a few decent bulls and bucks, too. (g)

I have more than a professional interest in what happens in Colorado because I owned a resort at Vallecito Lake during the mid-1970s and guided elk and deer hunters in the Weminuche Wilderness. That's some of the most spectacular country in America and seeing many miles of it from the back of a horse and on foot will always be a lasting memory of my life. Although much of the forest around the lake burned down, fortunately most the Weminuche escaped the fire's wrath. -TONY
 
Cool, what resort did you own, only one I'm familiar with is Witts' End but I don't spend a whole lot of time up there, specially since the fire. Plus I would of been a whole 6-8 years old back then so even then I wouuldn't remember!
But yes, much of the forest did escape that fire. Oh well, in a few more years that will be a great forest with all the new growth coming in.
 
At the time I owned it, it was called Silver Spruce; it's now Eagle's Nest and located on the left side of the main road just after you pass the turnoff to go to Witt's End. It wasn't a large place -- only three fairly big, 2-story cabins with 3 bedrooms in each. The guy I sold it to still owns it, and I stay there on my visits each spring when I go up to chase northern pike. Despite being gone from there for nearly 30 years, I still have quite a few friends there. Lots have died, too.

By the way, Witt's End is now owned by some huge conglomerate with rates beyond the reach of the normal person. (g) -TONY
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom