CO just posted '16 harvest data

[elkduds]

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2016StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

 

[njdoxie]

Some interesting info there, it's not gonna change where I hunt, but I enjoy looking at the info for the unit I hunt.

 

[5MilesBack]

Some interesting info there

No doubt. From all the people I've talked to since the end of the seasons you'd think not a single elk was shot in 2016. Sure looks like a lot of elk got taken home. I'm a little disappointed to see that. I was expecting the state's entire herd to have carried over from last year.

 

[ahlgringo]

No doubt. From all the people I've talked to since the end of the seasons you'd think not a single elk was shot in 2016. Sure looks like a lot of elk got taken home. I'm a little disappointed to see that. I was expecting the state's entire herd to have carried over from last year.

Super interesting info, I totally agree- from speaking with most- you would have thought the numbers would be way down. At least the half a dozen units or so that I hunt, numbers where down a few % points from usual, but nothing extraordinary.

Question for you guys- how much stock do you put in the validity of accurate reporting data? I would say I think about 75% of hunters accurately report. But I know for a fact there are guys out there that report unsuccessful regardless of actual harvest or not in OTC units.

 

[cnelk]

Question for you guys- how much stock do you put in the validity of accurate reporting data?

Not too much.
Until the CPW does mandatory reporting, its just a SWAG

[Scientific Wild A$$ Guess]

 

[Ftguides]

Outside of the mandatory check-in species in CO, the harvest stats are of comical accuracy. It's really a huge bummer because they use these stats for game management.

Every year I open the stats hoping for improvements, but I honestly can't even get through the report. I know for a fact, lots of unit-level stats on the elk are inaccurate by 5-10 fold, on the up and down side.

Unfortunately, this data is close to having zero value.

 

[durangobrad]

Outside of the mandatory check-in species in CO, the harvest stats are of comical accuracy. It's really a huge bummer because they use these stats for game management.

Every year I open the stats hoping for improvements, but I honestly can't even get through the report. I know for a fact, lots of unit-level stats on the elk are inaccurate by 5-10 fold, on the up and down side.

Unfortunately, this data is close to having zero value.

Im guessing you mean 5-10% and not 5-10 fold.

 

[Ftguides]

no I mean 5-10 fold. They say 5%, it was actually 50%, They say its 30%, it was actually 3%.

Not exactly mathematically "5-10 fold", but you get the jest.

 

[Ftguides]

The problem is sample size. They run something like 15-25% actual data collection from hunters. This wouldn't be an issue if we knew for certain that population sample was not a biased sample (for some reason leaned towards successful hunters or not successful hunters). Unfortunately, there is a ton of bias in that sample. Certain hunters respond to the survey, others group types do not. When you start talking a sample of 40 hunters out of 200, your statistics can get grossly inaccurate with a biased sample.

I know the inaccuracy exists because in a couple units, I personally have a larger (or very close to) number sample of the hunter population than the CPW has. I'm a dork and always compare my numbers to their numbers. My sample is slightly biased by definition (certain areas within units, certain types of hunters, etc...) but the difference is absolutely insane. Sometimes my sample does 5x the harvest they do, other times it is the inverse. If it was always one direction, we could conclude their sample is less biased than mine and therefore more accurate. That isn't the case. What this really means statistically is that there is so much volatility in the results based on how you sample hunters, that you need larger sample sizes to have accurate data.

With dirty data, most cost-constrained research does rely on anecdotal observations to confirm an unbiased sample. CPW doesn't do this as far as I know. Research backed by money increases sample rate if they think there is potential for sample bias.

Think about it as a hunter, if you drew a conclusion based on 20% of your hunting experience in an area you could be exceptionally inaccurate about that areas potential.

Not having the data in front of me to prove this possibility, I would say CO is grossly overestimating their harvest rates on average due to sample bias, particularly in OTC units.

 

[5MilesBack]

I'm a numbers guy, and I don't give their numbers much credence. I haven't heard of many people at all that filled elk tags last year through any of the seasons. All the people I've talked to don't know many at all that took an elk home last year. My buddy works with about a dozen guys that archery hunt, and he keeps reminding me that I'm the only guy he's heard of that got a bull last year. When I went to the DOW office here to pick up a leftover late season doe antelope tag, the guy told me they got cleaned out of over 100 tags in two days because "no one got anything else this year and needed meat". I have a buddy that hunts the same unit I do a lot. He's the kind of guy that knows of every camp in an area, and visits those camps throughout the season and he said he didn't talk to one guy that was successful during archery and ML in that unit.

The evidence would dictate contrary to what these reports show, at least for elk. But it doesn't matter........one elk, 100 elk, or 1000 elk in my areas......I'm still hunting them, and nothing is a guarantee.

 

[Ftguides]

I'm a numbers guy, and I don't give their numbers much credence. I haven't heard of many people at all that filled elk tags last year through any of the seasons. All the people I've talked to don't know many at all that took an elk home last year. My buddy works with about a dozen guys that archery hunt, and he keeps reminding me that I'm the only guy he's heard of that got a bull last year. When I went to the DOW office here to pick up a leftover late season doe antelope tag, the guy told me they got cleaned out of over 100 tags in two days because "no one got anything else this year and needed meat". I have a buddy that hunts the same unit I do a lot. He's the kind of guy that knows of every camp in an area, and visits those camps throughout the season and he said he didn't talk to one guy that was successful during archery and ML in that unit.

The evidence would dictate contrary to what these reports show, at least for elk. But it doesn't matter........one elk, 100 elk, or 1000 elk in my areas......I'm still hunting them, and nothing is a guarantee.

I agree. Even if people want to ignore my stats explanation above, the claim of a 26% success rate statewide during 1st rifle is a total farce.

 

[toddb]

Pure garbage. Until you go into mandatory call in registration, how accurate can it be? They phone call us months after season is over and I know they receive inaccurate info back.

 

[westrnwild]

this is just more propaganda to sell to out of staters.. Colorado is defiantly operating on the credo of a sucker is born every minute. Sad that they waste our money and producing a report that is of no accuracy or value. Even sadder that they don't want to know exactly whats going on. In the unit i was bowhunting last year i only heard of one bull being shot and it was on private, didnt hear a single shot during Muzzleloader season either. Not to say others didnt get lucky during archery season but not numbers the state is claiming. I only know of a few guys all season that scored...and everyone is saying the same story.. worst season ever....yet reading CO little spreadsheet, everyone had a great season. Either way CO isnt the only state that puts forward this kinda garbage to help sell tags.

 

[Jethro]

Does anyone know what % of license holders they send an after the season survey to? Its been a few years since I hunted CO and I don't remember if I got one. The last 2 years WY has sent me one. Which I always fill out and return.

I know of 8 bulls that got killed in 1st rifle and knew that 5Milesback got one. So at least 9 confirmed killed for sure.

 

[elkduds]

If harvest was much lower than reported and there is mild winterkill, we can expect license #s to go up for '17 in all units that are @ or above target population. Correct?

 

[ahlgringo]

I'm a numbers guy, and I don't give their numbers much credence. I haven't heard of many people at all that filled elk tags last year through any of the seasons. All the people I've talked to don't know many at all that took an elk home last year. My buddy works with about a dozen guys that archery hunt, and he keeps reminding me that I'm the only guy he's heard of that got a bull last year. When I went to the DOW office here to pick up a leftover late season doe antelope tag, the guy told me they got cleaned out of over 100 tags in two days because "no one got anything else this year and needed meat". I have a buddy that hunts the same unit I do a lot. He's the kind of guy that knows of every camp in an area, and visits those camps throughout the season and he said he didn't talk to one guy that was successful during archery and ML in that unit.

The evidence would dictate contrary to what these reports show, at least for elk. But it doesn't matter........one elk, 100 elk, or 1000 elk in my areas......I'm still hunting them, and nothing is a guarantee.

This is the exact same things I heard throughout the entire season. Funny thing was I had my best season ever, was in elk almost every day- and harvested my biggest bull to date.

 

[Ftguides]

This is the exact same things I heard throughout the entire season. Funny thing was I had my best season ever, was in elk almost every day- and harvested my biggest bull to date.

There are still great hunts to be had and lots of good experiences, but hunters should be raising holy hell about this stuff. Game is being managed off these stats.

If you talk to guys that live this on the observation level, outfitter meetings, local hunter groups, and even cpw enforcement everybody is saying the same thing.... CO is sucking the life out of an awesome natural resources, elk.

"Target population" numbers for deer and elk are the equivalent to having a dunk contest on a 7.5ft basketball hoop. Problem is we are still having a hard time touching the rim.

 

[blake_mhoona]

do any of yall ever worry about any of the CWD units? just an observation, this says lower numbers of people in those units compared to non CWD units

 

[timekiller13]

Harvest data must always be taken with a (large) grain of salt. Take my state of NC for deer harvest for example. We have different bag limits in different areas of the state. In my part of the state, you can harvest 2 antlered bucks, in the eastern part of the state, you can harvest 4 antlered bucks. To check in a deer, all you have to do is call the 1-800 number or go online and register the kill. It's very easy to simply lie about where you killed a deer at. I know tons of people who kill 3+ antlered bucks every year in 2 buck areas and simply register them as antlerless or register them in a 4 buck county. If you dig a little and talk to wildlife biologist, they will acknowledge inaccuracies in harvest reporting. One biologist in my area said that they estimated 25-30% of deer either go unreported or are illegally tagged and they do make some attempts to figure that into their data when structuring seasons and bag limits.

My only experience with Colorado was last year. The unit I hunted was down in harvest from previous years data. Not surprising to me. I talked to quite a few hunters at trail heads and in town and none were successful. I have no basis for comparison, but I felt there was plenty of game in the area that I hunted. I saw a decent number of elk and found plenty of sign, just couldn't close the deal. But, there are many factors that go into a decreased harvest. Is the game population actually down? Was hunter participation down? Was it an unusual weather year (exceptionally hot/dry/heavy snowfall)? All of these things have to be considered. I'm not going to let the numbers sway my decision one of another for this coming season. I'll be back in the same area as last fall and see if I can put one on the ground.

But I do agree in the fact that it is the job of the wildlife management personnel to make sure that they put together the most accurate data as possible and that they are continually shaping and modifying their data collection, seasons and bag limits and tag allotments appropriately. If things don't change accordingly, there will eventually be backlash from hunters. We are experiencing it here in NC right now. Enough hunters have complained over the last 4-5 years and license sales have decreased enough that the WRC is finally going to make some major changes to the seasons and bag limits.

 

[elkyinzer]

To me the relevance of the data is in the aggregate.

Assuming (I haven't researched this) that the total numbers can be relied upon, there are nearly 15% more archery hunters in Colorado than when I last went in 2013. All those additional guys have to hunt somewhere in the OTC areas. I thought it was crowded back then....