2020-2024 season structure proposed options

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,815
3,011
I like the alternate 2 because that will make the point holders either burn their points or stay at the house.

This would really help with the point creep situation in my opinion.
 

MOHunter

Member
Jul 14, 2011
144
0
Joplin, MO
I don?t want to sacrifice the OTC option. My hope is that the season going until the end of Sep will spread out the archery hunters a little more and make it easier to avoid the MZ crowd. Overall I?m just not a fan of points. Going to more limited hunts is not good for the long term IMO.
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,815
3,011
If your not a fan of points then turning everything to limited quota is the answer because with that the points will dwindle down to nothing. The days of banking points and point creep should be a thing of the past. It will certainly make guys who are holding those 25 points and buying an OTC tag every year either crap or get off the pot. I am sure there are a lot of guys who dont like the idea.
 

JimP

Administrator
Mar 28, 2016
7,095
8,376
70
Gypsum, Co
There really isn't much change, the season is still the same length but starts a week later and ends a week later.

I like getting rid of the OTC option for bull elk. There are a lot of hunters who will archery hunt while building points, I was once one of them. But doing away with the OTC option will tick off a lot of hunters, especially non residents.

I just wish that they would of done something with the muzzle loader season. They could of kept the archery season the same and then stuck the muzzle loader season at the end of September but now we will still have conflicts between archery and muzzle loaders.
 

mallardsx2

Veteran member
Jul 8, 2015
3,815
3,011
There really isn't much change, the season is still the same length but starts a week later and ends a week later.

I like getting rid of the OTC option for bull elk. There are a lot of hunters who will archery hunt while building points, I was once one of them. But doing away with the OTC option will tick off a lot of hunters, especially non residents.

I just wish that they would of done something with the muzzle loader season. They could of kept the archery season the same and then stuck the muzzle loader season at the end of September but now we will still have conflicts between archery and muzzle loaders.

I too was surprised to see that nothing was was mentioned about the muzzleloader change for the most part.

I am a non-resident and I think turning the entire state into Limited Quote is a terrific idea. I dont hunt there every year anyhow. I wish there was 0 OTC tags for any season. They need to get a handle on the point creep and this is a great way to do it. Keep in mind i'm not the guy with 25 points sitting in my pocket with a yearly obsession to hunt Elk.

Problem is- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and how much will they loose yearly by not allowing OTC tags for nonresidents to buy at 675$ a pop.
 

graybird

Active Member
Feb 22, 2011
388
119
Colorado
I guess my initial gut feeling, which I can change at any time, is I don't mind the OTC archery seasons. Simple reason, it keeps people from hunting the units I target. I specifically don't hunt them, but should I have a bad year and not draw a tag, I would certainly like that have this as an option to get into the field.

I understand that folks are using the OTC option to help build points while still getting into the field. I'll ok with that because the units they are commonly complaining about point creep are not the units I'm hunting. If someone wants to waste half of their adult life trying to hunt a specific unit, so be it ... I'm going hunting.

Regarding the change in the rifle seasons, I like the thought of pushing the 4th rifle seasons back to get more into the deer rut, but it comes at a sacrifice to 3rd season dates, which my hunting party usually hunts, which I don't like. A catch 22, IMO.

Disappointing they don't want to open up the spring bear hunt. I'd rather see that then screw around with the fall season.

Interesting thought on having the moose seasons be open all manners of take. Should I ever draw a moose tag, it sure would allow a lot of flexibility. Also means that a lot more moose will probably hit the ground, which is why CPW might be considering this move.

I guess in the end, I'm kinda ok with the way things are at the moment. As the season structures are currently set, it allows a lot of flexibility for an individual to choose how he/she wants to play the game.
 

Skibum81

Member
Sep 18, 2015
50
18
Denver, CO
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I like the idea of option 2 or 3 for archery. I probably lean to all archery as a limited tag. I imagine leftover tags and picking off of the return list will be easy to do still with this option. I'm also a little disappointed they left muzzy with the overlap in archery. I was hoping for something like Archery for the last week in August through 3rd week in September, then a 1 week muzzy.

As far as rifle season, I like the idea of an early season bull only hunt with shorter seasons. It will give more hunts for people to spend points on and in combination with limited archery of some sort maybe slow creep a little, maybe. I know people will complain about the shorter season. But the sad reality is we have a massively growing population in Colorado and more people applying. If you've ever examined the numbers they are mind blowing over the last 10 years. So spreading out shorter seasons is just a way of managing a finite resource. I know we all want to hunt more, so just need to apply in other states too.
 
Last edited:

BKC

Very Active Member
Feb 15, 2012
827
157
The high plains of Colorado
Was glad to see MZ went unchanged although, I wish they would have done something with archery at the same time. I see all the high country bucks were left the same and again the conflict with archers is still there. I hope to draw a moose tag someday, maybe this is the year and like how you can hunt in any season with different methods of take until your license is filled. I agree with ski bum, there are way too many people in this state, and you are not going to please everyone.
 

graybird

Active Member
Feb 22, 2011
388
119
Colorado
I've hunted mzl tags both elk and deer over the past several years. I must be lucky and haven't been subjected to the issues between archery and mzl hunters. In addition, I've hunted the Sept. bear season almost every year in different units with similar results.

When this discussion about separating archery and mzl seasons, this push was primarily from the archery folks. I viewed it more along the lines that the archery guys wanted to keep the elk rut to themselves in September and not share it with the mzl folks. Guess I'm still in that camp. The archery season is much longer than the mzl seasons and IMO they still have a great chance to fill their tags if they get out there and get after it. I'm more of a mule deer guy and those high country bucks are not a cake walk even with a mzl. For me, the deer are getting drug along in this debate simply because of the elk rut.
 

taskswap

Very Active Member
Jul 9, 2018
523
379
Colorado
I for one would welcome the longer spacing between seasons proposed. Some zones like 38 (above Nederland) are tricky to hunt because pressure drives the animals onto private land. You see that anywhere, but in 38 it's such a hatch-work of closely spaced public and private plots that by the late seasons it's almost a joke. Maybe more time for the animals to settle down would be a good thing.
 

graybird

Active Member
Feb 22, 2011
388
119
Colorado
Going back and reading the proposed changes this afternoon. .... I'm certainly against the "staff recommendation" on bears.

The "Staff Recommendation" would basically eliminate the September rifle bear hunts all together and bear hunts would coincide with archery, mzl and rifle seasons.
 

gypsumreaper

Active Member
Mar 13, 2014
308
0
Going back and reading the proposed changes this afternoon. .... I'm certainly against the "staff recommendation" on bears.

The "Staff Recommendation" would basically eliminate the September rifle bear hunts all together and bear hunts would coincide with archery, mzl and rifle seasons.
So your bear tag would be valid for all seasons vs just September.... therefore you?d still have September bear just during archery, which is the exact same time....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

graybird

Active Member
Feb 22, 2011
388
119
Colorado
So your bear tag would be valid for all seasons vs just September.... therefore you?d still have September bear just during archery, which is the exact same time....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But, I might be required to have a "qualifying" overlapping elk or deer tag to purchase an OTC bear tag in the units I hunt, and it would require me to use archery gear during Sept. vs a rifle. Not a fan.

edited to add:
I read the new proposal differently ..
Season participation rules would apply (meaning the bear license must overlap at least one unit with the deer or elk license, one season date, and by the same method of take (archery, muzzleloader, or rifle)) as the deer or elk license.

I would need to have a tag in my pocket to purchase an OTC bear license and it would only be good for a single method of take, or I would need to hunt units were there is still a limited draw structure.
 
Last edited:

hunttrap

Active Member
Jan 22, 2016
219
85
Eastern Nebraska
A spring bear season would have been great, if they are serious about managing bears in high populated bear areas a spring season would help a lot with this. Would be a great way to spend a spring.
 

JimP

Administrator
Mar 28, 2016
7,095
8,376
70
Gypsum, Co
You will never see a spring bear hunt back in Colorado.

The voters voted on a referendum to stop the spring bear hunt and from what I understand the voters would have to vote to remove it.
 

graybird

Active Member
Feb 22, 2011
388
119
Colorado
You will never see a spring bear hunt back in Colorado.

The voters voted on a referendum to stop the spring bear hunt and from what I understand the voters would have to vote to remove it.
Agreed ... It'll need to be placed on a ballot in the future.