Updated for 2019 – the most accurate draw odds ever
Have a chance to win hunts and gear every month — over $100,000 per year
Access strategy & tips to help you apply & spend more time in the field
Statistics and historical data to find top producing trophy units
Detailed overview of how to apply and hunt in each state
Your quick dashboard for important dates, benefits, and the latest giveaways
Recent gray wolf sightings in Colorado -
posted 1 day ago
Wolves eat meat. Meat comes from animals. Livestock and ungulates are animals. The average wolf needs around 10 pounds of meat a day to survive. Small game species do not provide the caloric intake a wolf requires and thus cannot be considered a dietary staple of the wolf. That can only come from much larger animals...like livestock and ungulates.
To say that wolves do not pose a significant threat to livestock is just not true. In 2016 the Wyoming F&W service spent $152,341 to remove depredating wolves and compensated livestock owners $315,062 for their losses. That's $467,403 that the Wyoming tax payers had to pick up due to wolf conflicts (Wyoming Wolf Recovery 2016 Annual Report). Those livestock are people's livelihoods and unless the kill can be confirmed by F&W as predation by wolves, they are not compensated. So there are a lot more incidences of "missing livestock" that go uncompensated. $467K may not sound like that much, but that is $1.68 per Wyoming taxpayer in 2016. The total revenue received by Wyoming F&W for the sale of licenses and tags has been in decline since the reintroduction of wolves in the 1990's. Is that a coincidence? No! It is a direct correlation between the disinterest of hunters not wanting to hunt areas inundated by wolves and the reduction in tag numbers by F&W as a result of big game herd sizes. To say that wolves pose NO THREAT to elk and deer populations is just not true either. Who is going to pick up the difference in revenue losses for F&W? Certainly not the special interest groups...so ultimately wolves do pose a threat to both livestock and ungulates not just in a physical sense, but also as a financial burden.
Colorado's 2020-2026 new hunting season dates... how will they impact you? -
posted 6 days ago
I am not a fan of the archery season mule deer dates. If you're an archery mule deer hunter, you're getting the shaft on finding a velvet buck. These changes leave a very limited window to make it happen. If you're an archery elk hunter, these dates are pretty typical of most states. It's very unlikely that I will continue putting in for the archery mule deer hunts going forward. I'll probably just burn my points and be done with CO mule deer next year. There are plenty of other states that offer way more advantageous season dates.
Group sues the government over “unambitious” grizzly recovery plan -
posted 1 week ago
I would agree with Dustin. Just because these places are deemed as "suitable habitat" does not mean that we need to reestablish populations there. The population densities and human conflicts in these suitable habitats would inevitably lead to serious problems. California's population is 37 times greater than that of Montana's with only 11% more area. However, I am all for releasing bears in the northern coastal ranges of Marin county, the southern coastal ranges of San Francisco county and definitely the transverse and peninsular ranges in and around southern California. Some of the last grizzlies in CA came from those regions. Those are definitely the most suitable habitats (despite human population densities) and should be looked at as sanctuary regions in this "sanctuary state." Plus the people pushing these agendas come from these areas, so the first releases should be in their backyards :)
Kristen A. Schmitt