OTC coming to an end in COLORADO???

[orionthehunter1]

they should move the cow hunt dates in the trophy units. Plus I have never heard of anyone shooting a spike in 2,10,201,76, or 61

 

[Jqualls]

Residents might pay more for less crowding but most that I know think it is more important to get the chance to hunt every year. They would rather work a little harder for a 4point bull every year then have a better opportunity for "quality" bull ever 3-5 years.

I was just talking to my brother who is pretty much a non hunter but grew up around it. He just figured the success rate was 50% or better because most people he talks hunting with have regular success and those who are not succesful you usually know why. Most the locals I know consider any legal 4pt. a quality trophy bull. Hopefully the state doesn't pander to a bunch of NR that want a ranch quality bull from their pickup on public land because they suck at hunting or don't want to put in the work.

I don't remember a time since the early 1990's that it wasn't a sh$t show in the elk woods during rifle season.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

I have never heard of anyone shooting a spike in 2,10,201,76, or 61

I met a guy last year that had. I shared camp with him during deer season. Older gentleman, had shot a very nice bull in unit 10 years and years ago. Drew the 10 tag again recently and was so worried about shooting a smaller bull that he made the decision to shoot the first legal bull he saw. It happened to be a spike so he shot it. Can't say I understood that logic but to each their own.

 

[cnelk]

Plus I have never heard of anyone shooting a spike in 2,10,201,76, or 61

How about the rest of the 'Spike legal' units? 1,20,29, 39, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 69, 84, 391, 461, 481, 500, 501, 561, 591, 692, 791
or units east of I25

 

[5MilesBack]

Hopefully the state doesn't pander to a bunch of NR that want a ranch quality bull from their pickup on public land because they suck at hunting or don't want to put in the work.

Those guys don't bother me because they really aren't much of an issue. Like this year, there were a bunch of ML hunters camped near my base camp but I never saw them actually hunting or even away from camp much. It was no surprise that they said they didn't see or hear an elk all week.

 

[tdhanses]

I don’t get why so many are anti ML during archery, in the 7 or 8 years I’ve hunted CO it has been during the ML season and I’ve never really ran into one other then when packing out to a TH. This year was the first time I saw a bear rifle hunter.

To me it seems that some worry over a non issue.

It would be interesting if they changed it to you either apply or buy an OTC tag and no buying points. If you apply and don’t draw you get a point but can’t buy an otc tag. I wonder if this would increase otc unit numbers.

 

[jmez]

I don’t get why so many are anti ML during archery, in the 7 or 8 years I’ve hunted CO it has been during the ML season and I’ve never really ran into one other then when packing out to a TH. This year was the first time I saw a bear rifle hunter.

To me it seems that some worry over a non issue.

It would be interesting if they changed it to you either apply or buy an OTC tag and no buying points. If you apply and don’t draw you get a point but can’t buy an otc tag. I wonder if this would increase otc unit numbers.

I can promise that would increase OTC numbers. Everyone I know would rather go hunt than sit at home and build points.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

I don’t get why so many are anti ML during archery

Actually, I'm anti-everybody during archery season, including recreationalists.

I wouldn't say they are a non-issue, but I can't blame them because I'd be moving in on a couple screaming bulls too. Since 2010 I've had five ML hunters shoot bulls I was working, not counting my daughter's which was intentional. And I had no idea they were even in the area when it happened. That doesn't make me anti-ML, but it does give me pause sometimes during ML season. I've kind of scaled back my aggressive calling that week, just because of what I've experienced. But I'll be calling for my best friend next season, and he'll have a ML in his hands.

 

[Jqualls]

Those guys don't bother me because they really aren't much of an issue. Like this year, there were a bunch of ML hunters camped near my base camp but I never saw them actually hunting or even away from camp much. It was no surprise that they said they didn't see or hear an elk all week.

I guess that was kind of my point. I hope the state doesnt pander to this group. They complain they had a poor hunting experience and didn't see any elk or a quality bull. They then want a draw system because they saw too many other hunters while they were riding their UTV's along the roads. Meanwhile those that put in the time and effort regularly have success and know exactly why these people did not see anything.

While lots of residents would pay more I think hunting should be accessible to everyone and don't want it to be a pay to play type system. Those that rely on the meat the most for their family are hurt the most by raising prices just so some NR might have a chance at a bigger bull.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Really, guys complaining about the tag price are ridiculous we pay 46 dollars making it a hundred is not a big deal. I love when guys driving 50,000 dollar trucks with 10,000 dollar razors on a trailer behind it whine about a tag increase

 

[sndmn11]

How about the rest of the 'Spike legal' units? 1,20,29, 39, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 69, 84, 391, 461, 481, 500, 501, 561, 591, 692, 791
or units east of I25

I hunt some of those units with my recurve and we are happy to take a spike.

 

[Btaylor]

Dont live out there but I have never understood why the Feds have allowed the states out west to make such a clusterfrick out of the hunting regs and tags. I wouldnt mind if they made all fed ground a random draw for every state with units caps set by local biologist. Eliminate the points game all together and also eliminate the BS regs like WY rule for wilderness areas for Non-Res hunters. Incorporate an annual use fee for EVERYONE, want to walk your dog on the mountain trail and watch the birds, buy a pass. Locally, the use fee on Fed ground is $20 bucks for the annual pass to hunt, fish, launch a boat and something else but doesnt include hikers or bikers. Revenue from annual pass' stays with that area.

 

[realunlucky]

Guide rule in Wyoming was challenged at the supreme court you have zero chance of getting states to give up control of wildlife to feds. Now that's a cluster no one would be happy to see

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Btaylor]

Guide rule in Wyoming was challenged at the supreme court you have zero chance of getting states to give up control of wildlife to feds. Now that's a cluster no one would be happy to see

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I didnt say give up complete control. I am suggesting the feds allow the state biologist to set tag limits for each unit. And they absolutely can take control if they choose too. From the outside looking in it appears the biggest problem with western states is how many greedy local hands are in the till and too many state legislators making fish and game wildlife decisions rather than biologist and F&G management.

 

[realunlucky]

I didnt say give up complete control. I am suggesting the feds allow the state biologist to set tag limits for each unit. And they absolutely can take control if they choose too. From the outside looking in it appears the biggest problem with western states is how many greedy local hands are in the till and too many state legislators making fish and game wildlife decisions rather than biologist and F&G management.

It's a state right. Separation of powers is a constitutional foundation.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

States have the right to manage wildlife and thats not going to change. That would be a complete cluster**** and a half to let the Feds take over wildlife management. The ESA is a mess, could you imagine all wildlife being ran the same way? You couldn't give the States the right to manage it and let the Fed dictate how. That would be a shit show.

The problem is finding the balance between opportunity and quality and that will always be the fight.

 

[Btaylor]

So how exactly do you suppose it has come to be that the harvest guidelines on a national wildlife refuge here do not meet the zone or state guidelines? Specifically, on the federal ground any buck is legal, the state has a 3 point per side rule that is standard except for a few zones that require 15" inside spread or 18" main beams. Maybe there is some gray area distinction between national forest and national refuge? But if you want to ML or Gun hunt on this particular area, you apply for the random draw through the USF&WS not the state. Draw works just fine too, some years you get a permit and some you dont. There is no reason that I am aware of that the USFW and State agencies can't work together.

 

[orionthehunter1]

The feds can't even manage the land out here correctly you think they could handle wildlife?

 

[CorbLand]

So how exactly do you suppose it has come to be that the harvest guidelines on a national wildlife refuge here do not meet the zone or state guidelines? Specifically, on the federal ground any buck is legal, the state has a 3 point per side rule that is standard except for a few zones that require 15" inside spread or 18" main beams. Maybe there is some gray area distinction between national forest and national refuge? But if you want to ML or Gun hunt on this particular area, you apply for the random draw through the USF&WS not the state. Draw works just fine too, some years you get a permit and some you dont. There is no reason that I am aware of that the USFW and State agencies can't work together.

I am not sure how it works in Arkansas but the only way that they could do that would be that the State is making that rule, not the Feds. There are major differences between how refuges and forest service land is ran but I dont understand how wildlife is managed on them.

 

[Btaylor]

I am not sure how it works in Arkansas but the only way that they could do that would be that the State is making that rule, not the Feds. There are major differences between how refuges and forest service land is ran but I dont understand how wildlife is managed on them.

I dont know all the particulars either but it has been my understanding that the state did not make that rule and in fact lobbied against it. It seems to me there should be a better way to manage things than it currently is done. Further I am adamantly opposed to any state's legislators having authority of wildlife management decisions. Those decisions should never been made by politicians or potential decisions be used for political gain. In my mind that is a fight that should be viewed on the same level as protecting public land.