Colorado Deer 54 or 68

[prhunter]

I have decided to burn some CO deer points in 2019. I have 3 points and wanted to get some input from the CO members or others who have hunted either unit 54 or 68/681 during the second season.

If you have information you could/would share, please feel free to PM me. Thanks!

 

[prhunter]

Anyone ???

 

[Bocephus]

I had a few buddies hunt 3rd season in 68 last fall and they went 4/4 nothing real big but all respectable nice bucks. 150-170. They were able to have a fun hunt.

 

[Roundball]

68-681,682-deer

Bochephus: Did they see any bigger ones? Did they scout prior to season? How many days did they hunt? Thanks,Roundball

 

[Bocephus]

They did see some other better bucks, but weren't able to get on them. They hunted the entire 3rd season hunt. Lots of bucks like the ones they killed, just needed one or two more years. Wish they could hunt it again.

 

[CODAK]

Don't over think it. Pick a unit and scout, there are 150-170 and bigger in every unit in CO

 

[hoshour]

Success-wise they're pretty similar. 54 is about 40% wilderness and is the more rugged hunt and probably has the higher top end.

 

[ColoradoV]

This winter is not easy and again will be in my estimation very hard on the deer the elk will fair much better. One of your choices did not get hammered as hard in the winter of 2017 then again this year. The other did. That alone should make the choice easy.

I love it when folks say things like "higher top end".. I was in both units last year and not even sure what that means.. Sounds like folks read too many magazines and believe what is in them lol....

As was said dont think to much pick one but 2 of 3 not hard but extreme winters would be my deciding factor. Take it for what it is worth but real boots on the ground data from that certain basin that will not be named or guys who actually live there/know are seeing about 30%+ less bucks than they were before the big winter kill of 17 and now and over 65% decline in 200"+ bucks. Unfortunately after this winter this trend will continue for a few years.

 

[prhunter]

Thank you all for the replies. I'll be putting in soon.

 

[hoshour]

This winter is not easy and again will be in my estimation very hard on the deer the elk will fair much better. One of your choices did not get hammered as hard in the winter of 2017 then again this year. The other did. That alone should make the choice easy.

I love it when folks say things like "higher top end".. I was in both units last year and not even sure what that means.. Sounds like folks read too many magazines and believe what is in them lol....

As was said dont think to much pick one but 2 of 3 not hard but extreme winters would be my deciding factor. Take it for what it is worth but real boots on the ground data from that certain basin that will not be named or guys who actually live there/know are seeing about 30%+ less bucks than they were before the big winter kill of 17 and now and over 65% decline in 200"+ bucks. Unfortunately after this winter this trend will continue for a few years.

30% fewer bucks would be great considering there are 50% fewer tags.

Whenever I hear people talk about 200" bucks I shake my head. Most guys have never even seen a true 200" buck unless you're talking a whole lot of trash, let alone seen 65% fewer 200" bucks, as if people saw 100 200" bucks 2 years ago and this year they've only seen 35.

Lots of bucks don't get entered into Boone & Crockett, but in the last 10 years the number of 200" typicals entered from the entire state of Colorado is 8. Of those, 1 came from Gunnison or Saguache Counties, 2 if you round up. In 10 years.

On nontypicals, Colorado puts in 5/year for the whole state. During those 10 years, the number of 200" nontyicals entered from the Gunnison Basin is 1 - total. Of course, since 215 is the minimum score for nontypicals, more were probably shot that were between 200 and 215. Let's say that for that 1 entry, there were 19 more that were 200-215. That's still 2 deer a year. Let's then say that there are as many people that don't enter their deer as do. Now, we're up to 4 deer a year for the entire Basin plus the parts of Saguache outside the Basin.

And there are enough 200" bucks running around for people to say what percentage their numbers are down the last two years? Fish stories.

 

[CODAK]

More bucks get shot and not entered than you think hoshour...

 

[Slugz]

Lots of winter range data gets taken also just by glassing and combined with the helo flyover data. I'd challenge anyone to walk in the same tracks as ColV for one season. The guy sees it every year, takes pics of them all year, videos them all year. From his front porch no less. He's legit.

I was not paid to say that.

For all the newbies reading. Stats and data are only starting points to put boots on the ground. Eastmans MRS, Go Hunt etc etc etc all compile the data in great formats to help with solid first decisions. But they are solid first decisions......and nothing more until you see the GMU for yourself.

That was not meant to be a rant.

 

[hoshour]

Lots of winter range data gets taken also just by glassing and combined with the helo flyover data. I'd challenge anyone to walk in the same tracks as ColV for one season. The guy sees it every year, takes pics of them all year, videos them all year. From his front porch no less. He's legit.

I was not paid to say that.

For all the newbies reading. Stats and data are only starting points to put boots on the ground. Eastmans MRS, Go Hunt etc etc etc all compile the data in great formats to help with solid first decisions. But they are solid first decisions......and nothing more until you see the GMU for yourself.

That was not meant to be a rant.

Well, I can get on a rant once in a while. I think very highly of ColoradoV, just saying that I hear so many guys talking about 200" bucks and the vast majority over-estimate the size. There are just not many out there. Gunnison for sure lost a lot of deer a couple winters ago and he has a good point, 68 is a very good area that did not get hit as hard, but I've been forwarded a couple pics of 54 deer lately and they were awesome. Either area is good.

 

[Slugz]

Oh I agree with ya on the over estimation stuff. Lots of untrained no experienced eyes out there. I think though the data collection and selling business has just created a nice little niche market for the NR that has to scout and make decisions from far away. I get it we are in America, it's legal and it's a business so I got no issues with that.

States though with no mandatory checks.........I think people do not realize just how far off some of the data is. No disrespect intended Hos.

 

[JimP]

I have never heard of a hunter giving a accurate correct question on the hunt surveys.

I know that years ago even when we went through checkpoints in Utah the folks that I was with always told them that the deer were shot in a different area than the one that we were hunting.

 

[ColoradoV]

Did not mean to come off wrong. Or dont take it personal hos i did not mean it that way - I was just making a joke about the general state of things before the colorado draw. What is on forums, written, sold, and the lot. "Higher top end potential" - kinda got me before coffee or just thinking - so I guess the new world record nt (to me quite ugly) area has the highest "top end" potential? I dont know.. Maybe.

Moral of my post was that everyone but locals (including the cpw) missed how bad the winter was in 08, in 2016 the winterkill happened but the reaction was better, and this year many folks overlooked it due to more casual build up of snowpack. I dont pay attention to the "book" to much but your numbers show that the entire geographic region is down. Or some areas have had worse winters than others.

Yep the way cpw gathers data is almost criminal at times or I agree that every single post hunt survey is filled out 100% accurate just as accurate as every buck is entered... Things will stay this way as with accurate info has a downside to cpw that or well lots of folks are comfortable with the way it is.

100% agree that 200" bucks are a anomaly in this day and age something to be given the highest level respect. As is life any information offered can be believed or not simple as that. Looking over a couple of past posts yea the inches quotes are getting old from me I will stick with vernacular such as big or very big bucks.

Thx slugs - Feel very fortunate to live where/do what I do as far as judging deer fair to say I am around deer more days than not. I have set up my life to scout 20 ish days all over for deer the hope to hunt one I enjoy the process and look forward to it again.

Just for future reference lol - here is a shed that my 7 year old just found.. On private land as this is CO but she does have a broken leg. Have not thrown the old "tape" on it - not sure if it would go "book" but I would say it is - at least in my world - nudging right up against if not over that very big buck level....

 

[Prerylyon]

I have never heard of a hunter giving a accurate correct question on the hunt surveys.

I know that years ago even when we went through checkpoints in Utah the folks that I was with always told them that the deer were shot in a different area than the one that we were hunting.

[emoji23]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

 

[hoshour]

I have to laugh when I look at the MT harvest results, there are always units with more kills than tags. You hope the lies are somewhere close to leveling out with large numbers and I think they probably are. I report the actual unit and I think most guys do.

 

[Tim McCoy]

I have never heard of a hunter giving a accurate correct question on the hunt surveys.

I know that years ago even when we went through checkpoints in Utah the folks that I was with always told them that the deer were shot in a different area than the one that we were hunting.

I’ve given many accurate hunt reports and phone interviews to a multitude of states over the years. So now you know of one accurate hunt reporter, lol.

 

[RICMIC]

Minnesota used to require that all deer be registered in person at a check station. This was a real PIA. They fixed it, and now you just call in with your tag number and you are given a number to put on your carcass tag. The state now has all the harvest info, and it's pretty hard to cheat on it. A similar system would give CO all the true stats that it needs.