Why OTC hunting has ruined CO

[JimP]

Every state out there pounds it to the non resident and there are those that are worse than Colorado. It is a fact of the big game hunting picture.

A few years ago there were some that thought and quite possibly still do that all animals that live on federal land should be considered everyone's animal and they should charge the same for them resident and non resident.

The big problem is that you only have X amount of animals and you have XXX amount of hunters that want to hunt them. It was great back when there was no development up in the hills and hunters chasing the animals didn't have to worry too much about hitting homes but in the last 40 or so years that has all changed, pushing more hunters closer to each other and removing land that used to be hunted from the equation. I even had a hunter a couple of years ago ask when the federal government started to sell National Forest lands, I just told him that where he had been hunting always had been private and that the old owners didn't care if you hunted it, not so with the new owners, hence the NO TRESPASSING signs that were up.

There is no easy equation on OTC vs draw only. Colorado has decided to go with quantity over quality in most of the state. These are the OTC tag areas. A person can hunt elk in these areas every year and perhaps go home with a real nice bull or be able to go home with some meat from a 2-3 year old 4pt where there are point restriction in place. As for deer, they have come back quite a bit from the winter of 91-92 I believe. But they will never go back to straight OTC hunting in any of the units just because of the number of hunters. The first year after that kill off they just allowed you to hunt one unit, they have since opened it up to where you can now hunt a number of adjoining units, but there are still single unit draws out there.

My big problem with all of it is that there are those arm chair biologist out there that think that they know better than the G&F do in every state. If it was open to them they would close everything up or open everything up depending how they feel with no scientific facts.

 

[Slugz]

"So the real issue is that in spite of huge numbers of elk there are somewhat limited opportunities for residents to draw good tags on a regular basis"

That's pretty far from reality for the hard working archery hunter. Just saying I have no problem doing the opposite of the above.
Now I'm sure muzzleloader /rifle is different.

 

[BKC]

Slugz, That is correct, the archers have the most liberal tag allocation. They get to hunt deer and elk OTC before anyone else west of I-25, they get to hunt deer in quality high country areas ( where rifle hunters have to wait years to draw ), They get to hunt the rut OTC for elk ( if you believe the rut happens in September), they get to hunt during muzzleload season ( where muzzleloaders have to draw),they get to hunt Antelope before anyone else, They can hunt deer on the eastern plains for almost 3 months( which includes the rut). They get to do all of this and can do it in camoflage. This should be enough to satisfy most archers but a lot don't want to share their time in the field with rifle and muzzleload hunters. I have nothing against archers and own a bow and have used it on the eastern plains. There is not enough time in the seasons to give archers more time without affecting other seasons.

 

[Slugz]

To clarify HPD used the word " draw" .
I'm talking limited archery tags as I usually don't do any OTC seasons. And yes this is post is about OTC, I was just commenting.
We have an issue with the whole OTC tag system in my opinion. However as a resident. I rarely have to fall back on it.

From what I've seen it's more and more people that don't want to archery hunt or muzzle hunt with open sights. I think that alone frees up alot of limited tags that I have no issue drawing. Just my opinion though. I rifle hunt also and have no issues every year. I get the feeling from the forum that I'm one of the few happy ones in Colorado��

I may be wrong but I don't think there is any OTC deer hunts in Colorado.

In addition, I'm not a horn hunter. I don't need the biggest bull in the woods. I do it for the adventure, experience and fellowship with my hunter friends.



All the best

 

[CoHiCntry]

Slugz, That is correct, the archers have the most liberal tag allocation. They get to hunt deer and elk OTC before anyone else west of I-25, they get to hunt deer in quality high country areas ( where rifle hunters have to wait years to draw ), They get to hunt the rut OTC for elk ( if you believe the rut happens in September), they get to hunt during muzzleload season ( where muzzleloaders have to draw),they get to hunt Antelope before anyone else, They can hunt deer on the eastern plains for almost 3 months( which includes the rut). They get to do all of this and can do it in camoflage. This should be enough to satisfy most archers but a lot don't want to share their time in the field with rifle and muzzleload hunters. I have nothing against archers and own a bow and have used it on the eastern plains. There is not enough time in the seasons to give archers more time without affecting other seasons.

All that and it still isn’t enough for a lot of archery hunters. CBA is complaining about having to give up some either sex tags in units the CPW thinks can’t withstand it. They want rifle hunters to give up more so they don’t have to. The newest complaint they are voicing to the CPW is they want the season structure changed so their is no high country deer season during archery season because there are “deer being shot right out of the laps of archery hunters “. There words not mine. I’m an archery hunter too but I have to say a lot of archery guys are really spoiled and down right selfish. And the CBA are the worst. I know that sounds harsh... hopefully no one gets to bent out of shape about it.

 

[Slugz]

CHC,
I agree with ya 100%. Allot of my fellow hunters do to. CBA needs reinvigorated with some youth, modern thinking and common sense people.

 

[BKC]

Slugz, I went back and read all the posts. I think you mean HPH instead of HPD? or did i miss something. You are correct, there is no deer OTC, I don't think my post ever said that. I too am more than happy with the seasons as they are and don't want them to change much or at all. I think all tags should be by draw. CPW would then know where all the tags are used and where all the pressure is, much like what happened to the muzzleloader season, years ago when they started being unit specific. I know CPW computers can handle it but I also think they like being the non res's 2nd choice ( when things don't work out in other states ) for the financial reasons.

 

[Slugz]

Yeah mistype.
I agree. Seems to me most of us are on the same page.

 

[swampokie]

Are a lot more cows killed with archery than rifles and muzz?

 

[CODAK]

My only comment is... we need more quality draw units. Can't keep up with this free OTC playing. With the population explosion and catered NR hunting. I will never hunt any of the "high tier units" but with so damn few of them not even the residents will hunt the top 6 units in their lifetime.

 

[graybird]

My only comment is... we need more quality draw units. Can't keep up with this free OTC playing. With the population explosion and catered NR hunting. I will never hunt any of the "high tier units" but with so damn few of them not even the residents will hunt the top 6 units in their lifetime.

I think that can be said for just about each and every state regarding big draw units for each and every species. It's a simple supply and demand.

As for me, I'm ok being able to bank points for 2-5 years and hunt a unit that may not have all the fortune and glory. There are still quality elk, antelope and bucks in lesser tiered units throughout the state. In the meantime, I'm drawing a 2nd or 3rd choice unit that still allows me the opportunity to spend time afield. Many times, these tags are doe or cow tags, and actually I'm to the point in my life where those hunts are just as meaningful. Don't think for a minute I don't like to kill a big bull or buck, but also enjoy the "less stressful" herd management hunts.

I understand what you're saying about the free-for-all OTC licenses. Maybe the best option would be a cap. Once the cap is hit, then that's it. In order for something like this to work, it would need to be tried. Once tried for say 5 years, the data would need to analyzed to ensure herd objectives are still being met. Let's face it, turning a OTC unit into a draw unit won't cure the quality overnight, it'll need to be a process.

Finally, one additional thought that needs to be considered regarding the removal of the OTC system is what strain would it then place on the current Limited license system and the current point creep. I'm not sure eliminating the OTC system would "open up" new quality hunting units throughout the state for "everyone" to be able to hunt. In fact, it might exacerbate the problem with point creep. I don't know? But, it is a valid question.

Oh one final thing, I listened to a podcast the about 2 weeks ago and it had the CBA spokesperson for CPW on it. Man, I walked (actually drove) away from the conversation thinking, those CBA guys are whining to the Nth degree! They certainly want the woods to themselves. Sometimes you get lucky with archery equipment, MOST times you don't. That's the nature of the game they are playing and should be willing to play.

 

[JimP]

That is the problem with a draw system based on points. It doesn't matter if they are bonus or preference points, you have to wait and perhaps you will never draw.

I saw the writing on the wall back in 2014 and decided that I didn't want to wait another 5-10 years before I even came close to a top elk unit, so I spent my 17 elk points on a unit 61 muzzle loader hunt. At the time the top unit points were around 22.

The big problem is that you are not going to make everyone happy. Some want to hunt every year and don't care about antler size. Others want a chance to hunt the biggest and baddest animal out there and are willing to wait to do it.

I actually think that CP&W do a pretty good job of giving everyone a little bit of what they want.

 

[graybird]

That is the problem with a draw system based on points. It doesn't matter if they are bonus or preference points, you have to wait and perhaps you will never draw.

I saw the writing on the wall back in 2014 and decided that I didn't want to wait another 5-10 years before I even came close to a top elk unit, so I spent my 17 elk points on a unit 61 muzzle loader hunt. At the time the top unit points were around 22.

The big problem is that you are not going to make everyone happy. Some want to hunt every year and don't care about antler size. Others want a chance to hunt the biggest and baddest animal out there and are willing to wait to do it.

I actually think that CP&W do a pretty good job of giving everyone a little bit of what they want.

Agreed.

I actually like the Nevada and Utah draw systems. Everyone has a chance. Perhaps CPW should look at changing their system to give everyone a shot a big ticket unit. A certain % can still be allocated for the max point holders, then a random draw is opened up for the remaining % not taken by NR hunters, etc. Something similar to the hybrid draw, but perhaps do it statewide?

 

[CODAK]

One thing i do know, because I apply in nearly all western states, is that CO gives out more NR tags (%) than any other I am aware of. I'm not complaining, just thoughts to ponder. Quality takes time sure but quality in many hunters terms isn't just about the animal, it's about the quality of the hunt overall. Just imagine if CO did it like WY and MT with one archery season and/or one rifle season and see what that would do to the point creep

 

[graybird]

One thing i do know, because I apply in nearly all western states, is that CO gives out more NR tags (%) than any other I am aware of. I'm not complaining, just thoughts to ponder. Quality takes time sure but quality in many hunters terms isn't just about the animal, it's about the quality of the hunt overall. Just imagine if CO did it like WY and MT with one archery season and/or one rifle season and see what that would do to the point creep

And that is a fact, upwards of 35% allocated to NR hunters.

I'm not sure you can add WY to your point creep argument, because that state is certainly experiencing it's fair share of point creep problems.

 

[Guy]

Wyoming's point creep has mostly to do with tag quota reductions and not increased demand. These point systems are all still a mess though. -G

 

[Skibum81]

Has anyone ever been able to find year over year data for the total amount of elk licenses sold in the state? I'd be very interested to see that.

Another interesting thing. I saw some data on another site that showed resident vs non in the flattops for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd season. Non residents make up about 50% of hunters in that area. This was also who responded to surveys, so there might be some accuracy issues. But from hunting there it seems accurate. I believe this is because of OTC, and first season always having over 1000 leftover tags for anyone to grab. Is it realistic to believe that overall Colorado is actually selling way more than 35% of overall tags, when you include OTC and leftover tags, to non residents? Does this go beyond their charter of 35% or is it legal?

That being said, I would love to see Colorado move to Caps on OTC or a general tag system like Wyoming. And yes, I know this will agitate out of state hunters. I get it, I play the lottery game and apply in 7 other state other than CO. But with the front range population explosion this is badly needed.

Now the issue this brings up would be the lost revenue in tag reduction and less high priced non resident tags sold. Would residents be willing to pay a little more to cover this lost revenue?

Also the point creep issue is big for a lot of people. Caps or General tag limits certainly would make things worse. I'm not sure of the answer to that, but for draw units does something like the AZ 1-2 make more sense? Or more of the hybrid draws we already have? I personally believe Idaho and New Mexico and done it right with 100% random. But we are too far gone for that and the lawsuits would be incredible if that change ever were to happen.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

The 35% limitation to NRs only applies to limited draw tags. On OTC, there is no limit for the number of tags issued to Residents or NR's.

 

[Skibum81]

The 35% limitation to NRs only applies to limited draw tags. On OTC, there is no limit for the number of tags issued to Residents or NR's.

CC, That was the point I was making. When all is included the number is way over 35% that goes to out of state. I've wasted some time looking at the statistics over the last hour. Sadly the 35% only applies to 1st choice in the Draw if enough residents apply to take 65% as a 1st choice. Some draw units even though they sold out through all choices ended up with 70% NR. A residents 2nd choice is and will be subverted by NR breaching the 35% mark in their 1st choice. Now I am not trying to make enemies of the NR, I frequently am one. But with the extreme population growth in the front range something has to change. Limits in CO need to be more in line with the rest of the west.

All this being said the major thing I want to see is how many OTC tags are sold yearly and how has that grown over the years. Since 2005 the number of people putting in for the draw has more than doubled. What has happened in that same period for OTC tags?

 

[HighPlainsHunter]

One thing i do know, because I apply in nearly all western states, is that CO gives out more NR tags (%) than any other I am aware of.

Not accurate. Buzz has pointed out that some less sought after tags in WY end up with nearly 50% in a NR pocket.

You can't have 6 million residents hunting, and still give out the highest % of NR tags. Something has to give. Unfortunately it's the resident hunter.

Colorado has 280k elk, and 6 m residents or 21 residents per elk.
Wyoming only has 90k elk, but only 500k people. OR 5 residents per elk.
Montana has 160k elk and 1 million people. OR 6.25 residents per elk.

There is simply no way to get past the huge number of resident hunters in Colorado seeking those tags as well as the many NR hunters who come for OTC tags. There are only so many elk to go around and Colorado has simply gotten so popular that the hunting has gone downhill, unless you have 20+ preference points or can afford landowner tags/private.

That's why I think it's so funny when people say that Colorado hunting is so great, it's obvious why not once you look at the numbers. Also why people in Colorado hunt big game in Wyoming and Montana, and people in Montana and Wyoming rarely go to Colorado to hunt big game.

Colorado is so far in vested in NR hunters that there is no cutting back on OTC tags so they will simply sell as many of those tags as possible in spite of how many rigs there is at each trailhead or success rates. The CO resident hunter lost big time with landowner tags, and lost again with OTC elk tags for all. Sorry but it's true.