What would you give up to save OTC opportunities?

trophyhill

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
2,024
Location
Tijeras NM
First thing I thought of also. Wounding game. How many guys shooting compound bows can't put an arrow in the wheelhouse. Let alone a bunch of guys totally new to stick bows letting arrows fly at game. Can't recover the animal and off they go to try at another. Same can be said with other weapons. What good would your LR fancy rifle be if you couldn't scope it? 300 and in for experienced guys on open sights?

Someone mentioned a while back about having one bull elk opportunity a year for multiple states. I think that would be pretty interesting. Not sure how that would play out, but all the big time YouTube guys would have a fit!

Burn points to hunt would clear up a lot of issues. Total disaster the first 3-4 years I would bet, but it would settle down. Those 20 point units would go down to 7? And 7-10 point units down to 3. I know I, myself, couldn't not elk hunt for 7 years!

For me and my situation if I plan a mule deer hunt I am most likely not going to draw a elk tag as I put all emphasis on harvesting that animal. Only so much vacation and time to hunt, I would concentrate on that one species. Thats why I keep elk hunting and have 14 co mule deer points and have not deer hunting in 14 years. If I burn the deer points I will most likely sit out other species. Only so much scouting and prep you can do for one species let alone two or three. I take vacation and time away to scout also, so I'm successful. So there really isn't much available time for the "normal" guy to do it right in multiple states and multiple species. Especially if I draw a moose, goat, or sheep tag. Everything else goes on the back burner. My opinion of course.

So many different thoughts and opinions to go around. Not sure what the answer is but change will be coming. It's not going to please everyone but I would guess there is a common middle ground.
I've come to the realization that i am a hunter period. Weapon of choice makes no difference. My hunting obsession started with a 7 mag for mule deer. When that got seemingly "too easy" i started hunting deer and elk with a bow in '08. Last year i bought another 7 mag and will use any opportunity i can to hunt. Life is short and getting shorter with each passing year. I got no time to quibble over ones weapon of choice. Its kinda like i feel about the vaccine. You want to get it? Get it. You don’t? Don't. You want to hunt with a stick bow? Go for it. A compound? More power to ya. A primitive or modern muzzy? All good. Or none of the above and you want to hunt with spear or blow dart perhaps? Absolutely do it. Dawgs? Awesome! Or dont hunt at all, thats ok too! But dont try to tell others how they should hunt, or if they should hunt or not cuz i really don't GAF if ya know what i mean. This isn't in any way directed at you MNTC. You just provoked a few thoughts :)
 

sneaky

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
8,678
Location
ID
I agree with lots of the posts on hear. This wasn't meant to be Colorado-specific. I've never hunted Colorado nor do I have plans to in the near future. I agree that managing other issues (predators for sure, points+tag systems maybe as well) is the better solution. But, for those states (like along the west coast) where, politically, the option to effectively manage predators has been removed, can trad-only regulations allow OTC opportunities to remain?

In other words, if OTC units were made trad only for archery, and open breach/open sight muzzleloader only for muzzleloader AND rifle season, would you still pick up an OTC tag or would you instead wait to draw a tag where you could use a modern bow or rifle? Also, how do you think this would impact herd health/age class/bull-to-cow rations in OTC units?

Definitely would still have problems with point creep, people hunting multiple states, points+tag, etc. But, all things remaining the same, could changing OTC units to trad only for all weapon seasons allow OTC hunting to continue for longer than it will under the current trend?
When wolves show up, you can throw all your prognostications out the proverbial window. They are game changers for herd dynamics, behavior, and ratios. Bulls in bachelor groups get hammered by them once the snow gets deep. There goes your bull/cow ratio you were hoping to fix. This is going to happen very soon in Colorado. MT, ID, WY have already been through this, WA and OR are in the early stages of it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

commandoNate

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
243
Location
Colorado
I would gladly pay substantially more for my resident tags in CO to have a limited number of tags issued to NR's in the area where I hunt. Not saying to do away with NR hunters but limit the number of them that can hunt a specific unit, still allow the OTC units to be OTC for residents (like WY is with their general season tag) and charge us accordingly to keep the NR hunters limited to some extent.
 

AaronMColeman

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
880
Location
Wyoming
As others have said, I'd hunt elk with a sharp stick if they had an early sharp stick only season.

The truth about hunting is the truth about so many things now days...too many humans on earth. Demand keeps increasing, but supply stays steady. Demand keeps increasing because humans keep increasing. I'm taking my kid to Disneyland...$165 ticket, $50 parking, I'm sure the pretzels in the park are probably $15+ now. When I was a kid (80s and 90s) we would go for $17 certain seasons. Why does Disneyland pricing matter? It's just another example of demand increasing...the park can only hold as many people as it did in the 70s but more people want to go.

Hunting any species any area can only accommodate so many hunters ethically. As we get more applications for each area eventually OTC will be gone everywhere. So to answer the original question, I would give up whatever it takes to keep opportunity and hunting days maximized since I think we can all see the writing on the wall...especially if the 3R campaigns work :)
 

SuperDUECE22

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
329
I love the responses saying get rid of all the NR tags. Who's going to fund our game & fish departments when we do that? If that happened and resident tags cost $3,000 then there will be 100 new threads started on here bit**ing about the price increase.
 

JLeMieux

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
148
Pretty simple, it almost hurts my brain. How about this…

If you get a Colorado tag, you MUST use your points. The whole points plus a tag is part of the issue. A big part. You’d see some crazy point creep short term but you’d also see a lot of guys skipping a season or 2 to build points.


There are 50 tweaks that would help pressure, but with every tweak comes bitching and moaning from a segment of point holders, and it just doesn’t seem like they want to deal with it.
After reading all of the responses, I keep coming back to this, with respect to CO at least. Ucs, would you apply that to just A tags or B tags as well?
 

svivian

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
894
Location
Colorado
I love the responses saying get rid of all the NR tags. Who's going to fund our game & fish departments when we do that? If that happened and resident tags cost $3,000 then there will be 100 new threads started on here bit**ing about the price increase.
lol this has been discussed many times. Resident costs would only go up to a few hundred dollars.... and that would be only for states with OTC opportunities like Colorado. Other states would see no difference in revenue.
 

SuperDUECE22

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
329
lol this has been discussed many times. Resident costs would only go up to a few hundred dollars.... and that would be only for states with OTC opportunities like Colorado. Other states would see no difference in revenue.
how would other states not see any difference in revenue if they cut all NR tags? Montana department of fish, wildlife & parks have been on record saying that over 70% of their budget comes from NR.
 

tdhanses

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
4,871
lol this has been discussed many times. Resident costs would only go up to a few hundred dollars.... and that would be only for states with OTC opportunities like Colorado. Other states would see no difference in revenue.
Really, I feel someone has derailed you from the truth, CO more so then other states is highly dependent on NR’s, not only NR hunting and fishing licenses. I’d be shocked if the NR were removed that Resident costs wouldn’t raise so high that many residents would probably stop hunting or start poaching. Doubt many would pay what a NR does, some would and others wouldn’t, CPW would go broke quick.
 

tdhanses

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
4,871
how would other states not see any difference in revenue if they cut all NR tags? Montana department of fish, wildlife & parks have been on record saying that over 70% of their budget comes from NR.
Same in WY and CO. The argument is there are so many more resident hunters that only a small increase in fees would make this up, my question is, if so why haven’t they raised resident prices to help alleviate dept pains if true and have residents provide the majority of funding for the state game departments, because they know many residents would raise hell. I mean who wants to pay $300 to hunt elk. The animals are the states burden anyway, our tax dollars just feed them and provide places to procreate and give birth.
 

svivian

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
894
Location
Colorado
For both Montana and Colorado License fees and passes only make up approximately 50% of the total revenue for the department. Of that 50 to 60 percent I do not know the exact numbers non resident versus resident but to say that we would be paying $3k a peice for a tag doesnt add up. Maybe we would be paying the same amount as a non resident does now but people are already paying that to hunt other states with no issues.... to not have near as much competition i would bet residents would pay it. Thats just my opinion here.

Also i will say that I was wrong to say there would be no difference for other states. There probably will be but not as much as non resident hunters think....
1643831874431.png
1643832501992.png
 
Last edited:

SuperDUECE22

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
329
but to say that we would be paying $3k a peice for a tag doesnt add up
I was exaggerating just a touch but any price increase on licenses seam to piss people off. Thanks for the Great info on the images you attached.
 

svivian

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
894
Location
Colorado
I was exaggerating just a touch but any price increase on licenses seam to piss people off. Thanks for the Great info on the images you attached.
You’re definitely not wrong about that but there has to be trade offs. I think there is mis understandings on both sides of things. I wish I could find better break downs of revenue for each state on their websites as it would help answer the question better.
 

roosiebull

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,603
Location
oregon coast
We all know the story--hunter recruitment increasing across the west at the same time as predator populations, causing stress to elk and deer populations resulting in declining herds. In many states, political forces are preventing effective predator management, so states are reducing elk and deer hunting opportunities (whether it's effective or not is another story) to slow the declining populations. As a result, many OTC hunting opportunities are now becoming draw tags, and in many states point creep is making draw tags increasingly more difficult to draw.

All this raises a question--can new approaches to hunting regulations save OTC opportunities while simultaneously improving herd numbers and/or hunt quality? Personally, I think it is possible, but raises a question of what would you give up to save OTC opportunities. Specifically, would you give up your "modern" advantages in order to preserve OTC hunts?

By "modern" advantages I do not mean trail cameras, OnX, etc. I mean, would you hunt with only traditional equipment (stick bow and/or open breach, open sight muzzleloader) if this meant you could hunt elk/deer OTC every year?

I think this would likely have multiple impacts. First, hunter numbers would decrease, as hunting with traditional equipment may be magnitudes more difficult. Second, success would also decrease, as it would be harder to bring elk/deer into your effective range. Third, populations and/or quality would improve because fewer hunters and lower success rates could mean more animals and/or better bull/cow ratios and/or better bull/buck quality. Fourth, it could have a positive effect on how the public views hunting.

I want to hear folks' thoughts on this specific issue--would you hunt with a stick bow and/or muzzleloader if that was what would allow OTC opportunities to remain?

For the record, I shoot a Prime CT5 and am building my first "extended" range rifle. But, I think I would hunt trad if it meant I could hunt elk every year in areas with better hunt quality.
i would be happy to give up all of the "modern advantages" you listed.... i would be stoked if that was the new ruling
 

Sled

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
1,426
Location
Utah
I'd give up all your favorite limited entry units and trophy hunting. Back to meat hunts... but that wouldn't be very popular. Neither would trad hunting only.

Fwiw, success rates on elk are not that great no matter the method of take. If people kept their shots to high probability kill shots at reasonable for caliber ranges you'd have less lost elk to waste.
 

sneaky

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
8,678
Location
ID
For both Montana and Colorado License fees and passes only make up approximately 50% of the total revenue for the department. Of that 50 to 60 percent I do not know the exact numbers non resident versus resident but to say that we would be paying $3k a peice for a tag doesnt add up. Maybe we would be paying the same amount as a non resident does now but people are already paying that to hunt other states with no issues.... to not have near as much competition i would bet residents would pay it. Thats just my opinion here.

Also i will say that I was wrong to say there would be no difference for other states. There probably will be but not as much as non resident hunters think....
View attachment 375640
View attachment 375641
You know what you don't see in that graph? Backpackers paying their fair share

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
232,058
Messages
2,402,875
Members
57,229
Latest member
mamawooton
Top