Archer Elk to go All Limited Draw?
Colorado
Just heard from a local wildlife officer that Archery Elk will soon go all limited draw statewide, due to overcrowding causing conflicts and hunter numbers that are exceeding and in some cases doubling the rifle hunters in OTC units. Anyone else hear this and what is CBA's position and response?
First I've heard of it. Considering that their are 163,000 rifle hunters and 47,000 archery hunters, seeing the crowding numbers would be interesting. Archery season is 30 days and the 4 main rifle seasons total about the same. There are some extra rifle seasons. What units are huntable OTC are pretty similar for both. I don't know if the percentage of OTC tags are similar.
My personal experience is that OTC archery is more crowded than I would prefer but OTC rifle is really, really busy. Although I would like less crowding during archery, I'm not willing to go without a tag to improve it. We have options available to get away from the crowds if we choose without giving up the flexibility and benefit of being able to grab a tag each year. It would seem OTC rifle would be way higher on the list if looking to limit a group to improve crowding issues. Then there is the revenue loss. There are 3 ways to reduce crowding. Longer seasons (thats out), more huntable acres or less hunters. Not sure we can add acres faster than development and population increases remove them. That leaves the "less hunters" option. People often say they want less pressure until that means they sit at home while their buddy texts them pics from elk camp. Any solution that doesn't result in less hunters doesn't really improve crowding, it just rearranges it. For me, the "problem" of crowding during archery is better than losing the ability to hunt OTC each year and choose from multiple units.
I just spoke with the CBA CPW Liaison and he has hear nothing of this and at this point it is nothing but a rumor. The CBA does have a good relationship with the CPW staff, and if this was a recommendation being handed down, they would be one of the first to hear about it.
Glunt said it well and his hunter numbers are correct.
What is the CBA's position and response and what are they going to do? Position and response to a rumor/hearsay? None at this time. my best, Paul
Last year we saw more archery hunters at the trail head than in almost all prior 20+ years combined. 7 NR's, & 1 recent transfer to Colo. Most of them at least saw some elk & were somewhat satisfied with that. I gave up rifle hunting about 30 years ago - too many hunters, and too many SA clips being emptied in rapid succession. Just flat out scary. Bow hunting has been a lot more satisfying even if the actual harvest is down. If it ever comes to the point where no one in the group got a tag, we might just sit home. More than likely some one would draw, and we would do as always - go, & call for each other, & hopefully help pack something out for the lucky tag holder. It's always been an enjoyable group effort. I wouldn't care if it was just one or the other of my boys holding the tag and I believe they'd feel the same way. Odds are SOMEONE in the group would draw a tag, if & when this might ever happen. Until then it's business as usual.
So I attended the Statewide meeting of the Sportsmens Roundtable on Saturday. Two things I will mention:
1. Financial Sustainability is the top priority right now at the CPW. They have a democrat sponsor in the house and their bill is being drafted. They are still searching for a republican sponsor to sign on. That said, I highly doubt any action will be taken that will reduce revenue for the foreseeable future, unless there is a serious biological reason. Highly unlikely ANY OTC elk will go limited IMHO, and I don't think crowding or hunter dissatisfaction is a biological reason.
2. The agenda did include discussion of separating Muzzleloader and archery. The last I heard the issue was put to bed until the next 5 year season structure, but CPW staff may have internal discussions prior to that. I stated I support a 30 day archery season, and if the discussions occur the CBA and the CSMLA should be contacted. I also recommended they add those reps to the round table itself.
There was discussion of how the effective range of muzzleoaders have increased, and of the tragic criminal act that resulted in the death of a young bowhunter on Grand Mesa recently. That party was found guilty and is in jail so I don't know if "accident" is proper language to describe it.
Steve, I believe the discussion of separating the ML and archery season is an off shoot of the Citizens Petition recommending that. This petition was generated by the grandfather of the young bow hunter who was shot and killed last year by a ML elk hunter, and the petition was introduced at the Commission meeting a few months back. The CPW staff and the Commission recommended that this "recommendation to separate" would be better served during the 5 year big game season structure. My guess, it will not go anywhere as this "separation" issue has come up before with no action and no change. The CBA is on record apposed to any separation and to leave the seasons, status quo. We have been down this road before and it has been discussed here on Bowsite many times.
You should have Tom or someone call Bob Broscheid. First, they should ask about the issue, second they should ask for an appointed seat on the statewide round table. That is my recommendation after participating in the discussion. We have a ton of organizations appointed to this group, why the CBA and CSMLA aren't on it baffles me. I asked they be appointed.
Steve, keep in mind that CPW didn't just choose to appoint a representative from those sportsman's groups to the Roundtable. Those members either took the time to submit an application for a statewide delegate seat, or ran for one of the elected caucus seats. That probably explains why CBA is not represented.
"What is the CBA's position and response and what are they going to do? Position and response to a rumor/hearsay? None at this time. my best, Paul "
Sir, you are absolutely correct, and I stand corrected. It would have been more appropriate if I asked "If this turns out to be true, How would the CBA respond to it?"
I can not speak for the CBA but,I can only guess that the CBA is on the record, for status quo as in the past. The CPW would have to show strong evidence for the change and then make the change across all manners of take. Paul, Past CBA DOW Liaison
