Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Colorado Big Game Draw Starts Today

Me, too. But I’ll be hunting in 13 and maybe north edge of 12. Elk PP only. I’ll buy an OTC bull or leftover cow tag. I’ll decide about October 30th. Happy Trails

Got hit for plains deer and antelope, first choice for both.

Did not get any tags for colorado.

No deer, no elk, and no antelope tags for Colorado.

4 cow tags that we know of - Daughter #1, 2 SILs and myself. Waiting for results on SILs brother, who is coming home on leave from Navy any day now. Expect to end up with 5 total.
1 deer tag for Daughter #1, the only deer tag applied for (and it was 2nd choice after Preference Point for first).

Deer and Elk Preference Points for all,

So if SIL's little brother gets his elk tag, as expected, 100% success in our applications.

Hope we do as well for WY antelope.

Just out of curiosity, were all the cow tags B list ? I applied for PP last year as first choice and cow tag as second choice and got it for 2nd Rifle. I just applied for elk PP only this year. There are tons of leftover cow tags where I hunt and bull is OTC. I had to buy that danged small game license to apply for deer. There were zero deer tags on the leftover list even though some were drawn as second choice. I chose not to gamble with a second choice deer application this year as my landowner buddy is using the landowner vouchers himself / family. I’ll roll the dice again next year with zero points . Good hunting!

Drew my RFW cow elk tag for Kiowa Creek, and my Either-sex Whitetail tag for the farm, SE CO. This season is going to be a freezer-filler for sure!!

I'm glad you chose Montana and Wyoming as a comparative. Let's punch in the numbers for 2018 from the USFWS to see how they stack up.

Colorado has 104,185 sq miles
Montana and Wyoming combine for 244,954 sq miles

Colorado has 294,319 licensed hunters
M&W combine for 383,716 licensed hunters

Colorado took in $57,056,595 in hunting license revenue
M&W combined for $48,331,587

Now someone explain to me how letting them create new revenue streams, when they have 140,769 fewer sq miles to cover, 89,397 fewer hunters to deal with, and already take in $8,725,000 more than Montana and Wyoming combined, is a good idea? And please, save the "if you dont like it dont hunt here" arguement for my 8yr old nephew. He'd gladly respond with how his dad could beat up your dad. Give me an intelligent response. They've become another government bureaucracy that spends money like drunken sailors! Bowing to new revenue streams just makes us enablers.

And for the record, I drew a buck antelope tag, a buck deer tag, and a bull elk tag. I think CP&W is doing a fine job. I just dont see these new revenue streams converting to better habitat, and better quality and number of animals.

Yup!

Here’s why: BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Seriously... Colorado has a ton of out-of-State Hunters.... people want to hunt here. Simple economics man.... supply and demand.

Colorado has a bunch of seasons: archery, MZ, 4 general seasons, and a late season (in some units).... so a guy can hunt his home state, and also slide in one of the Colorado seasons.

Due the multiple seasons, there’s also less hunter pressure in any given unit at any given time.... because only 15-25% of the total hunters are “hunting” during any particular season.

Colorado also leases hundreds of thousands of acres of “State Trust Lands” for the exclusive use of hunters/fishermen. They pay the state for this access using funds derived only from license sales.

I’ve definitely seen an improvement in quality/quantity of critters over the past 5 years. I have no issues with accessing massive tracts of public land, and we’ve shot a number of nice animals in the STLs.

PS.... if you don’t like it.... I hear Utah is a lovely place to hunt...

Nearly 500 000 acres is the figure for huntable stl's in Colorado. Montana and Wyoming combine for nearly 9 million acres of state trust lands allowing you to hunt all of it so long as you can access it without trespassing.

And my nephew said his dad could beat up your dad!

State Trust lands are a very small fraction of the huntable public and in Colorado so focusing on them is disingenuous, at best. But in reply to this:




Let's talk about two things: First, the concept of "letting them create new revenue streams." Who is "letting them," and who would do you think should stop "them?" The federal government perhaps? Other states perhaps? Who do you believe has the "right" to regulate the price of hunting licenses in Colorado, other than the people of Colorado??

Second, as to why it's a good idea for Colorado to raise license fees for non-residents my answer is, because we have too many non-resident hunters and not enough public land to spread them all out. If higher license fees = fewer hunters I'm all for it.

I wasn’t focusing on them.... I was simply stating that there’s additional access beyond the simple “public land”.

I guess I have a question..... how much should it cost to hunt Colorado?

I'll answer yours when someone answers my original. Why is giving Colorado department of wildlife more money justified when they already make more than any 2 western states combined?

By "letting them" I'm referring to no pushback, hell to a couple of the posters I originally replied to on this thread, out right applauding them!

To your second point, so rather than limit the number of hunters you suggest we make it a rich mans game? I've got a niece that will elk hunt with me for possibly the last time this fall as she recently turned 18 and her license fee will now jump 7x higher than it has been over the past few seasons. Only the wealthy can hunt the kings game is the wrong direction in my opinion.



Did the numbers I presented you surprise you at all? I noticed you made no mention of them.

Sadly the problem with Colorado is that everyone, everywhere that wants to hunt Elk knows that Colorado is the most obvious choice. This state affords opportunity to anyone who wants to buy the tag, there in lies the problem. Unlike many western states that have caps or limit the number of non-res hunters, Colorado is happy to and dependent on that Non-Res money at whatever price to the experience. It blows my mind going through draw Hunt statistics not just for elk but for deer too how much Colorado caters to Non-Res hunters. If you are i the business of making money , which CPWD clearly is, you don’t bump the price and restrict the number of tags sold, you have to figure out a way to convince people that there’s plenty of animals and sell as many tags as possible. I’ve read so many articles that claim that Colorado fudges the numbers on Animal counts, greys the area of success percentages and keeps folks thinking that the $600 + tag is really valuable. My question is where does all that money go......

Statistics and counts from gummint agencies are always suspect, so who knows? I suspect they will continue to raise prices and require qualifying small game licenses and such as long as folks are willing to pay. As long as revenues are increasing, they will continue. One of CPW’s schemes is to create an early bull season and longer breaks between seasons. More hunts = mo money! If it gets too expensive, I’ll hunt single species, not deer and elk, or just go to camp and mind the stove.

Justified to whom?

It’s perfectly justifiable to me.... the money is there, it’s derived from funds dedicated to it.... so they should get it.

Why should they have less dough..... just because other states don’t have as much?

Hunting socialism! That'll work....

Yes, they did.




I'll offer a couple of observations in response. First, as a non-resident you are not entitled to hunt in my state at a cost you believe to be fair. Just the same as I'm not entitled to hunt in your state at a cost I believe to be fair. Would you agree?

Second, in no way did I suggest that we make hunting a rich man's game and I really don't appreciate your insinuation. In a perfect world CP&W would limit the number of tags allotted and charge a nominal fee but that's a pipe dream, not reality. It all comes down to prioritites and if an extra $100 or $200 is going to prevent someone from buyimg a tag then hunting is obviously not a priority for them and that's not really my concern. Plenty of people choose to drive a ten year-old truck and go hunting out of state, others don't. It's a choice, and the world is not "unfair."

And I think it's interesting that you mentioned elk hunting, Montana, and Wyoming. If you look at non-resident elk license fees and how they've changed over the last 10-15 years you'll see that it's not Colorado leading the charge in fee increases. Not too long ago we were at $250 for a bull elk tag, now we're on par with Wyoming and still less than Montana. We just recently caught up.