Mathews Inc.
CPW Jan meeting
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
PushCoArcher 17-Jan-23
Cazador 17-Jan-23
Jaquomo 17-Jan-23
Cazador 17-Jan-23
KSflatlander 18-Jan-23
Castle Oak 18-Jan-23
cnelk 18-Jan-23
cnelk 18-Jan-23
sticksender 18-Jan-23
[email protected] 18-Jan-23
cnelk 18-Jan-23
KSBOW 18-Jan-23
Cazador 18-Jan-23
Fins&Feathers 18-Jan-23
[email protected] 18-Jan-23
Deercy 18-Jan-23
Orion 18-Jan-23
[email protected] 18-Jan-23
Grasshopper 18-Jan-23
Grasshopper 18-Jan-23
LUNG$HOT 18-Jan-23
Jaquomo 18-Jan-23
LUNG$HOT 18-Jan-23
Jaquomo 18-Jan-23
[email protected] 18-Jan-23
Jaquomo 18-Jan-23
[email protected] 18-Jan-23
Orion 19-Jan-23
canepole 19-Jan-23
Jaquomo 19-Jan-23
[email protected] 19-Jan-23
Z Barebow 19-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
Z Barebow 20-Jan-23
Matte 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
[email protected] 20-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
[email protected] 20-Jan-23
Z Barebow 20-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
KB 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
Z Barebow 20-Jan-23
Buglmin 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
Jaquomo 20-Jan-23
Orion 20-Jan-23
PushCoArcher 20-Jan-23
SBC 20-Jan-23
[email protected] 20-Jan-23
keepemsharp 20-Jan-23
[email protected] 20-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 20-Jan-23
PushCoArcher 20-Jan-23
[email protected] 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Orion 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Orion 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Orion 21-Jan-23
[email protected] 21-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 21-Jan-23
Orion 21-Jan-23
JohnMC 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Orion 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
Jaquomo 21-Jan-23
JohnMC 21-Jan-23
Jaquomo 21-Jan-23
PushCoArcher 21-Jan-23
SBC 21-Jan-23
JohnMC 21-Jan-23
Jahvada 22-Jan-23
[email protected] 22-Jan-23
Jaquomo 22-Jan-23
cnelk 22-Jan-23
SBC 22-Jan-23
From: PushCoArcher
17-Jan-23

PushCoArcher's Link
Anyone else watch the meeting? Wasn't able to pay as much attention as I wanted to while working. Sounds like the Grand Mesa units will be limited archery tags now. CPW seems like they're going to seriously look at limiting many if not most OTC archery tags. Hopefully they'll do the same to rifle. What are your thoughts? I'll try and post the link.

From: Cazador
17-Jan-23
Thoughts, they need to get on with it, or stop it. They’re simply pushing more and more people into one corner by doing this.

From: Jaquomo
17-Jan-23
Why not try a couple seasons of either LE for all NRs, or OTC with caps for NRs, which would need to be done by DAU like WY is considering. The data shows that NRs are storming the OTC units and largely creating the "crowding" they (CPW) profess to be concerned about.

I agree with Cazador - either make it all draw for bow AND rifle, or shut up. This piecemeal approach is creating a mess in the remaining OTC units, especially with NR tags getting tougher to draw in all the other elk states.

From: Cazador
17-Jan-23
Interesting webinar though, Give it a listen.

18-Jan-23
Are there any NR’s on Bowsite opposed to moving elk tags to the same system they use for Mule deer in Colorado? Every survey I’ve ever done after hunting in Co. I told them I would be willing to hunt less often for a more enjoyable experience. They need to get on with it. I’m willing to bet that kill rates would actually increase with the quality of the hunt. Satisfying both the biologists and hunters. And make NRs take more Cow tags.

From: KSflatlander
18-Jan-23
I answered the survey the same way. Hunt less often for a better experience. If we don’t draw then I don’t go. The OTC stuff is just too crowded for me. Nothing worse than hiking hours in the dark only to have others in your back pocket.

From: Castle Oak
18-Jan-23
As a NR that travels from the east coast to hunt I’m very much in favor of quality over quantity. I was a public lands manager for much of my career. Nearly every survey we conducted had the same results-quality over quantity. The piecemeal approach is a terrible strategy. Rip the bandaid off.

From: cnelk
18-Jan-23
I bet when All Draw for elk happens it will have liberal tag quotas.

But the real impact will be on PPs - which is also needed

From: cnelk
18-Jan-23
Also - to save yourself some time, go to the 2:00:00 time and listen/watch for 30 mins - there are public commenters later in the video if you wish to listen/watch

They also discuss making DAU E16 [Grand Mesa] to go all draw

From: sticksender
18-Jan-23
It's easy to forget that they're NOT changing those archery elk hunts to draw for the purpose of quality bull management. If that was the case, they'd issue fewer licenses in the draw. And the 2nd/3rd rifle elk hunts would not remain OTC. Instead, for the hunts they switched over in the past few years, the archery license quota was set very high, such that most of the hunts can be drawn as second choice or with zero points as first choice. And some are still available in the leftover draw.

18-Jan-23
It seems the CPW and the Commission is do their best to circumvent the intent of the Big Game 5-Year Season Structure and not waiting for that review and then implementation in 2025. Starting a few years back, the CPW Regions now have the ability to make changes, per year, based on "biological and social issues",, like "crowding" and "herd management". We saw that in SW Colorado, now in the Mesa, and in units 12, 23, 24, 33, where they recently reduced the archery licenses, per the issue of "crowding" by 300 archery elk licenses. Death by a 1000 cuts!

Two the the Commissioners at yesterday's meeting publicly announced that they are for limited draw archery elk licenses for the year 2024, and this is a year before the total review and recommendations for the next 2025 BGSS. One Commissioner, she represents Outfitters/Sportsmen and the other Commissioner, represents, Outdoor Recreation, Parks Utilization, & Nonconsumptive Wildlife;

From: cnelk
18-Jan-23
Wouldnt it be a great idea if a commissioner would to have at least 1 PP for each species before being eligible for an appointment? lol

From: KSBOW
18-Jan-23
Agreed I wish Colorado would take same stance as Wyoming. Wish they would figure it out so I can get on schedule with Colorado, and Wyoming for my plans. Fingers crossed this happens sooner than later.

From: Cazador
18-Jan-23
Wyoming is a Goat F, Colorado is right there with them as of late.

I’d rather they hold off with making these units limited as it clearly hasn’t been thought out, and it just puts more people in a smaller jar as stated earlier. As per some of the graphs shown during the event, this is clearly a NR crowding issue and the state needs to figure that out vs make it 100% limited.

Personally I thought the goat sheep segment was more interesting.

18-Jan-23
Does anyone know what the Colorado Bowhunters Association’s position is on this issue?

18-Jan-23
Mike, from what I understand the CBA is, based on membership surveys,:

1. Not in favor of eliminating OTC archery elk license for residents, but to limit the number of nonresident that can purchase them thus helping in reducing the "crowding issue".

2. Not in favor of making all archery elk license going to a Limited draw and supports changing the License allocation, resident/nonresident, from the current 65/35 to at least 80/20. CPW staff currently is recommending 75/25.

3. Approves the change of high demand elk units, allocation of 80/20, and the change in up to date, three years average of resident PPs which determines those units, which will add more elk units to the resident side.

If someone that is on the CBA BOD can clarify my statements, please do so. Paul

From: Deercy
18-Jan-23
I like it that it is finally getting talked about. Sure, I think that 2nd and 3rd rifle needs to be talked about, but there is a lot of positive coming out. Updates for that high demand resident/ nonresident allocation, talk of doing away with otc, all are things that I view as positive developments.

From: Orion
18-Jan-23
The day 2 meetings got interesting. CPW finally admitted to screwing up the moose, goat, and sheep draw by waving the up front fee. Looks like they are seriously considering a change to the weighted point style of draw. Two other big things I heard were no elk hunting for fourth season, deer only. They also strongly suggested mandatory harvest surveys and if they are not done you cannot apply the following year similar to what New Mexico does.

18-Jan-23
Acting Director Dugan and CPW Commissioners,

I watched the recent January 17-18 Commission meeting with interest, especially the issue of addressing Colorado's OTC and limited draw archery elk licenses. I witnessed on January 17, two Commissioners stating they were already in favor of making all archery elk licenses, go to limited draw licenses starting in the elk season year 2024 and yes, one year prior to the 5 year 2025-29 BGSS process.

I read on the CPW website, "What is the purpose of the BGSS process?" "Colorado Parks and Wildlife uses the five-year BGSS as a framework for annual big game hunting regulations."

Established in the 5-year big game framework:

1.what types of hunting opportunities will be available

2. when opportunities will be available

3. where opportunities will be available

4. how the opportunities will be divided amongst methods of take

It seems evident that by publicly announcing at this time, and in favor that the archery elk license become all limited draw for the 2024 elk season, and to recommend that CPW staff bring forth data and recommendations at this time, that this action is surely circumventing the intent of the BGSS by not waiting for the total CPW staff and public review for the 2025 BGSS process which is actually under way during the 2024 time frame.

I, and others I have spoken with, would highly recommend that all CPW Commissioners respect the current establised, BGSS process and wait until the staff and public input review process is completed for the next 2025-29 BGSS, and not push this issue of archery elk licenses to all draw licenses, prematurely to 2024.

Thank you for your work. Paul Navarre, Fort Collins Colorado, avid bow hunter and fisher for the past 30 years in Colorado.

From: Grasshopper
18-Jan-23

Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Grasshopper's embedded Photo
I'm lazy so I'm just going to cut and paste from my Facebook post.

In a world of supposed equity, diversity and inclusion, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Parks and Wildlife commission continued their nonstop assault, discrimination and disdain for otc Archery elk hunters today by limiting licenses only for Archery elk hunters on the grand mesa. Then commissioner Haskett our supposed sportperson rep moved to have CPW bring forth a proposal to limit ALL archery elk hunting areas across the whole state BEFORE BGSS. According to cpw staff, We have 309,000 elk in Colorado, 20 of our 42 herds are above objective. In E16, where archers were limited to bull only tags in 2017 and told our presence, and recreational trail users were causing calf mortality from to much pressure, the elk HERD has gone from 4600 elk to a projected 8600, nearly doubling in 5 years. The trail usage has likely grown, archers are bull only, but they quit selling rifle cow tags. Could that maybe be a science based clue? In units 80/81 which went limited due to "crowding" from nonresidents, after limitations nonresidents still drew 65 percent of the limited tags because limitations cause a preference point dilemma that the PWC is clueless about. NONE of our commissioners appear to understand the basics of hunter application behavior. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the grand mesa is an absolute zoo. Why wouldn't it be when they limit Otc Archers in steamboat, the flat tops, gunnison, eagle and Pitkin counties, 80/81 and the whole SW region while rifle hunters remain unlimited. Look at the maps, rifle get OTC all over, archery doesn't. How is that inclusion, equity, and diversity> A person could be apathetic if you don't hunt otc units, but here's the deal, when there is no OTC left, it might be hundreds of thousands of points put into play coming for your unit, and then those pulling tags regularly get to stay home. All because CPW and the PWC won't simply limit nonresident hunters in OTC areas. If you get the chance, I'd recommend listening to the YouTube recording of this meeting. What a dissapointment it was to hear a CPW regional manager tell half the truth to the commission about 65/35 after limitations, especially when unit 80/81 went limited and 65 percent of the tags were drawn by nonresidents. I'm reaching out to my legislators now, if you can recommend any legislators ready to advocate for hunters, send me a message. We seem to have no advocates in CPW or the PWC.

From: Grasshopper
18-Jan-23
By the way, I really don't support limiting 2nd & 3rd rifle to everyone because then landowner tags kick in and residents get either 49% or 64% of the tags based on 65/35 or 80/20.

If NR caps happened, and it was still resident OTC - landowner tags would not be applicable.

That said, I get landowner tags but the public draw hunter needs a fair deal.

From: LUNG$HOT
18-Jan-23
Listening to that meeting is mind numbing. A case of the inmates running the asylum. How do these people get appointed??

From: Jaquomo
18-Jan-23
Lung$hot, they get appointed by the governor's husband, who is a hard core anti-hunting animal rights fanatic. Frankly, I'm surprised they aren't talking about banning bowhunting altogether, as much as bowhunters are blamed for everything wrong with elk hunting in this state.

From: LUNG$HOT
18-Jan-23
Yeah, it’s definitely concerning hearing the comments on Bowhunters and how we’re basically the enemy. Like Paul said “death by a thousand cuts”. The most common sense thing to do in our situation is to keep OTC for residents and cap and or make the NR a draw completely. I’m all for making OTC hunters (even the residents) choose a region as well. And, if you hunt at all in a season you do not get a preference point. You gotta choose. Hunt or point. These simple things will help with overcrowding, pushing elk to private so early and will slow the plague of point creep. The same needs to happen for rifle seasons as well. “But, but, but…the revenue!” Really what it comes down to.

From: Jaquomo
18-Jan-23
When the CPW Budget Weasel told us at a Roundtable meeting that any changes to license allocations, etc. had to be "revenue neutral", anyone who can do middle school math could see that the resident/nonresident allocations weren't going to change in favor of residents, given the upside down licensing situation that generated the revenue.

18-Jan-23
In the 90's I attended a conference for wildlife agencies in Missouri as part of my job. Many state agencies and a bunch of USFW folk were there. It was my first realization things were going to be changing in a big way.

Growing up, my impression from the local CPW (then it was DOW) staff I had met was that most were hunters or at least hunter friendly. Only a fraction of the folks at that conference were hunters (mostly older than me) and I met some that were obviously anti-hunting although they didn't come right out and say it. Many of them by now are high up in agencies and the generation following them surely has worse numbers.

From: Jaquomo
18-Jan-23

Jaquomo's Link
The resumes of our current crop of CPW Commissioners tells you all you need to know. Woke-speak.

18-Jan-23
I submitted my resume:

I'm committed to sustainable diversity with the goal of equity and justice. I also believe in diverse sustainability as a path to justice through equity. In closing, I believe my passion for equitable, diversity driven justice that's sustainable, makes me the right choice.

Oh and climate stuff too.

From: Orion
19-Jan-23
Watching the wolf meeting today we are so f'n screwed. The public comment speakers were so ridiculous, but the worst part is, is that is now a majority of our population

From: canepole
19-Jan-23
Jaquomo, after reviewing those dozen bios I'm surprised Colorado still allows hunting. It appears there's only one member (Marie Haskettwho) who acknowledges anything to do hunting. The others appear to enjoy other outdoor activities. Thank goodness for all the revenue that's generated by sportsmen.

From: Jaquomo
19-Jan-23
One of the Commissioners was the attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, if that tells you anything.

19-Jan-23
Canepole, the Commissioner you mentioned represents Sportspersons and Outfitters. She is the one that announced at the Commission meeting, "I totally support all limited draw archer elk licenses". Not a statement that the vast majority of resident Colorado archery elk hunters or the CBA, wants to hear or support.

From: Z Barebow
19-Jan-23
Glunt- Maybe can add the line from the movie "Stripes" when the recruiter asked if either Bill Murray or Harold Ramis are homosexual. "No,,,, but we are willing to learn."

Although it is water under the bridge, the commission composition is a result of the merger of CPW and Parks many years ago. Merge a thriving dept with a significant revenue stream (CPW) with a dept funded by consumptive users who generated insufficient revenue.

I know this is off topic and a rant, but prove me wrong.

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
Z, the composition is a result of Jared Polis being elected governor and delegating the job of vetting CWC candidates to his husband/wife who is a super-woke hardcore animal rights activist.

From: Z Barebow
20-Jan-23
Lou

Do you think the blending of a wildfire centric department with parks department provided fertile ground for the type of commission appointments noted? I may be naive, but I would like to think a department solely focused on wildlife commissioners who could tell the difference between a bighorn sheep and a mtn goat. I would take that wager with this motley crew. It is obvious CO political “leadership “has its thumb on the scale with group. ( look at Washington state for another example of politics overriding wildlife management)

From: Matte
20-Jan-23
They need to hire a math genius for the preference point issue. Oh wait no they dont, if you hunt Elk anywhere in Colorado make it cost you a preference point or 2,3,4. Get the pps back down to a reasonable level in the next ten years.

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
Am I the only one on the forum that supports limited licensing statewide for all speicies and all method of take? It's an automatics 65/35 R/NR quota minimum. In underdrawn units it doesn't matter. The extra appilcation fees, especially from NR's help offset {not completely satisfy} any monetary shortfalls.

I've learned not to take ANYTHING too serious. You will end up unhappy,... posting on bowsite..... with all the other unhappy folks.

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
Z, good points. The danger with this husband/wife who recommends appointments is that it would be just as likely to overload a true "wildlife" commission with animal rights activists and anti-hunting nonhunters because 96% of state residents don't hunt, but call themselves "wildlife watchers" in the polls and surveys.

He appointed his vegan buddy to the State Veterinary Board, a lesbian vegan animal rights activist who called ranchers "stupid and lazy" after her appointment. Then after being forced to resign, she was charged with animal cruelty for starving a bunch of birds to death in her basement. These are the kinds of people this guy appoints.

SBC, I agree on statewide LE for elk, IF the quotas are 80/20, with all the outfitter tags coming out of the 20% (since almost all go to NRs anyway). That "65/35" is not always 65% for residents.

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
It's my understanding that it's 65/35 for units that are fully subscribed (or have a full amount of applications on primary draw), regardless of pp's, after that it's an draw amongst all applicants. But at that point it doesn't matter. It's considered under subscribed anyway.

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
In my deer unit, which takes a minimum of one point for residents to get in the draw, residents (adult + youth) were awarded 68 out of 115 available licenses. That's 59%, and that is totally screwed.

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
SBC what other western state only gives 65% or less of its tags to residents?

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
Does that include the landowner tags? That may be where the other Res tags are awarded.

20-Jan-23
You have 100 tags

20 get taken for land owners/outfitters

That leaves 80. 65% of 80 is 52

No way will I support residents being limited statewide with the current allocation ratios.

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
My numbers are after outfitter tags are removed, because that has to be factored in to the "resident" opportunity allocation. The going rate for those is $6K just for the voucher. I know/know of most of the outfitters in the unit, and almost all are being sold by them to nonresidents. Outfitter welfare at the expense of regular hunters.

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
In that same scenario, the NR's are only getting 28 tags.

So you have an allocation of 52 res and 28 NR.

Add the LO tags, which is 20 total. I don't see a desparity.

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
I've never seen a resident like SBC advocating to screw residents so bad on tag allocations, this is definately a new one

20-Jan-23
The CPW has extend the dates for comments on the ,Big Game License Distribution Public Process?, To Feb, 20, 2023.

"Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is considering changes to policies and regulations that direct the distribution of big game hunting licenses in Colorado. To help inform this process, CPW is looking for input from hunters and affected communities. View the Big Game Hunting License Distribution Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

Please visit EngageCPW.org to complete a comment form to share your thoughts on CPW's big game license distribution processes. IMPORTANT: the comment form will be open through February 20, 2023. Results from this comment form will be shared with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to inform their decision-making process on license distribution."

From: Z Barebow
20-Jan-23
Lou

Regarding the possibility of appointing nothing but birdwatchers as DOW commissioners, you are likely correct. As similar happened in Washington state. They have a commissioner who wasn’t aware there were spring hunting seasons for certain critters. CO was possibly on the road to hell already, but combining those 2 departments likely paved that road.

From: Grey Ghost
20-Jan-23
I'd support statewide limited draw for elk at 80/20, with outfitters tags coming out the 20, as well. Unlimited OTC has been an abject failure for years.

Matt

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
You are not going to get any further restrictions on NR's. That's a forgone conclusion. No need to even discuss it. Otherwise you'll just end up being another angry contributor on bowsite.

OTC is a failure considering CO's exploding population and NR's being the majority of hunters is popular units.

Why not limit all tags to at least have a favorable ratio of tags available to R's?

I don't see where that is 'screwing' R's as there will never be further NR restrictions adopted.

You can talk about 80-20, 90-10, 75-25, OTC res/Draw NR all you want. It's wasted breath. It's not gonna happen. Accept it and move on. It's comparable to complaining about the cost of eggs. It serves no point. Otherwise you'll just end up as another angry contributor on bowsite. Not a good place to be.

This is why CBA no longer enjoys the clout it once had with CPW and the commissioners. Refusal to evolve with changing environment. Stuck in the past. I see other orgs having success, working better in harmony with CPW, and thus gaining alot more respect from both cpw and commission.

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
Why not limit nonresident OTC participation, via an OTC with caps draw for NRs for every DAU?

You talk about being "stuck in the past". Meanwhile, every other western state is making it more favorable for residents. That is the future of western big game hunting every place besides this craphole.

From: KB
20-Jan-23
And Kansas, Lou. ;)

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
80/20 split resident/non resident and raise the price accordingly on both sides. This is the future. Like I asked you earlier SBC what other western state limits their residents to 65% of the tags?

From: Z Barebow
20-Jan-23
Lou

Regarding the possibility of appointing nothing but birdwatchers as DOW commissioners, you are likely correct. As similar happened in Washington state. They have a commissioner who wasn’t aware there were spring hunting seasons for certain critters. CO was possibly on the road to hell already, but combining those 2 departments likely paved that road.

From: Buglmin
20-Jan-23
We can talk 80/20 split all we want, but look at the split in 80/81, and 77/78, where the split was almost reversed, giving non residents to 80, and the residents 20. For elk, it was 6:1 ratio, mule deer, 4:1 ratio. Talking to the CPW officers, we were told that drawing a tag here in sw Colorado does not look good for the residents for the next few years. In June, the woman that called herself "spokesperson for the hunters" said Colorado residents were happy to draw a tag every 3 to 4 years. After talking to several people, I know the lady claiming to be the spokesperson for the hunters. She does stuff for the CPW and was taking surveys while at shows at the Cabelas in Denver.

I agree that the price of tags should be raised, and that we need to go back to paying the full price of tags at the time of the applications. This will reduce people applying for mulitple tags and ony having to front the $7.00 application fee. The thing of making bowhunting down here a draw, but aloowing the CPW to increase non resident license for nonresidents, look at the first season draw for 77/78, where they added more non resident tags. CPW needs to limit the 2nd and 3rd gun seasons as our breeding bulls are getting slaughtered because of early season snows pushing these elk down in huge numbers. But this is not being talked about by the CPW.

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
The high demand units are 80/20 and more are being added this year. The big three are also. To say 80/20 is not achievable is simply not true.

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
Again, from what I see and hear both on this forum and from some contacts with CPW, bowhunters are thought as nothing more than another consumptive users group. A bunch of angry old white guys that bring nothing to the table other than a list of demands.

There's another group that thought of more favorably, that is mostly youthful, big picture conservation, contributes to work parties to help cleanup and restoration of critical habitat, and in general augments cpw's mission. Their positions get more attention because of this. This same org gets alot of negative comments on this forum, but their membership has grown to largest conservation group in CO

Bowhunters need to reinvent themselves from their one dimensional approach to an org willing to participate in the conservation mission in order to have an effective seat at the table.

From: Grey Ghost
20-Jan-23
" ...their membership has grown to largest conservation group in CO "

What group is that, and why are you reluctant to name them?

Matt

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
So BHA wants to screw resident tag allotment. That makes sense, thanks for the clarification

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
Again to my other post, how is that screwing residents?

"You are not going to get any further restrictions on NR's. That's a forgone conclusion. No need to even discuss it. Otherwise you'll just end up being another angry contributor on bowsite. OTC is a failure considering CO's exploding population and NR's being the majority of hunters is popular units.

Why not limit all tags to at least have a favorable ratio of tags available to R's?

I don't see where that is 'screwing' R's as there will never be further NR restrictions adopted.

You can talk about statewide 80-20, 90-10, 75-25, OTC res/Draw NR all you want. It's wasted breath. It's not gonna happen. Accept it and move on. It's comparable to complaining about the cost of eggs. It serves no point. Otherwise you'll just end up as another angry contributor on bowsite. Not a good place to be.

This is why CBA no longer enjoys the clout it once had with CPW and the commissioners. Refusal to evolve with changing environment. Stuck in the past. I see other orgs having success, working better in harmony with CPW, and thus gaining alot more respect from both cpw and commission."

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
You want a 65/35 split according your post what other western state offers that?

From: Jaquomo
20-Jan-23
"Refusal to evolve with changing environment. Stuck in the past"

Again, what are you missing? Do you not understand that the future is to be more favorable to residents? Name one other state that is moving toward favoring nonresidents vs. Residents?

What is the Biden Hikers and Anglers position on resident vs. nonresident allocations in CO?

From: Orion
20-Jan-23
Well Lou according to SBC its 65/35 and a public land owner t-shirt

From: PushCoArcher
20-Jan-23
The CBA is very invested in maintaining the status quo even though it seems apparent that most are unhappy with it. Or at the very least it's nonsense to say most hunter's even "bowhunters" are against going limited. This thread proves that there's not any one general consensus on this. Also sense when has the CBA supported capping NR OTC? Was it just adopted as a more favorable outcome to getting rid of OTC once the CBA saw the writing on the wall? It's really not a bad idea depending on the cap. My opinion as well as comment left for cpw was to just do what Wyoming does OTC for residents limited for NR. Also if you hunt OTC or limited R or NR you lose your points no more of this point hoarding while hunting elk every year. With hunters more divided then ever and that group of wack jobs running the show the future of hunting in Colorado is bleak indeed.

From: SBC
20-Jan-23
No, I'm just accepting what the unchangeable facts are and working from there. It the political environment in CO now.

You folks can refuse to accept it and be angry.

20-Jan-23
I'm for status quo. Plenty of better ways to run things but they don't choose from that list. Every "cure" we get is worse than the ailment.

I'm not angry. Disappointed, yes but Colorado is likely lost on many fronts more than just wildlife management.

That's the reality and I act accordingly. I loved this State growing up.

From: keepemsharp
20-Jan-23
KS is favoring NR over Res for about 20 years.

20-Jan-23
You state "The CBA is very invested in maintaining the status quo even though it seems apparent that most are unhappy with it. "

Show me the prof of your statement! Paul, life member and past, CBA board member and DOW Liaison.

From: Grey Ghost
20-Jan-23
Glunt, I feel the same way. As a 60 YO native, I feel Colorado has given me more hunting, fishing, and general outdoor experiences than almost any other state could have. Sadly, I'm resigned to the fact that those days are over. I didn't elk hunt last year for the first time in 40 years because the thought of battling the crowds on OTC just wasn't appealing to me. I used to take it as a challenge to go farther and hunt harder than the rest of the crowds. Now it's just an annoyance. I'd rather be on my boat slinging my fly rod down in Florida.

Matt

From: PushCoArcher
20-Jan-23
You state: Not a statement that the vast majority of resident Colorado archery elk hunters or the CBA, wants to hear or support.

The cba I'll give you but the majority of resident Colorado archery elk hunters. Show me the proof of your statement! Mine is a opinion like yours. Also let me clarify when I say "majority" I'm talking people who hunt Colorado archery, rifle, resident, and non resident not just the minority archery hunter's.

21-Jan-23
Can't trap, can't hunt bears in the spring or with hounds or with bait, can't have 16 rounds in my AR, took me 3 trips to get an old hunting rig that got driven 1000 miles a year to pass emissions to get plates, can't hunt OTC deer as a resident, can't go to a coyote contest, can't give a duck gun to my buddy for his birthday without going through a dealer and background checks, I'm paying for wolves to be intentionally introduced, the team hotel at my kid's hockey tournament was so overwhelmed by the smell from the dispensery across the street parents were relocating, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Go ahead and take resident OTC elk as well, just add it to the list.

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
I can see the whole situation, that obviously you folks can not. It doesn't matter to the folks in the commission OR the folks in charge at CPW what othe states are doing. You are concerned about something that will never change in the forseeable future.

Fall back and regroup. That battle is lost and cant be won.

From: Orion
21-Jan-23
So what exactly are you advocating for and how many meetings have you been to?

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
About a dozen meeting over many years. I advocate strongly for ALL big game tags for ALL methods of take to go draw. This would give more favorable allocations to R's in drawn out units. It would also give biologists the ability to meter hunting pressure for whatever the area of concern is ie: hunting pressure,crowding, game management. It then puts the whole idea of tag allotment and budget income in their hands.

From: Orion
21-Jan-23
I believe most of us are advocating for all methods to go for a draw. What percentage allocations are you advocating for, you seem to dodge that question.

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
No dodging. As I said, The current ratio cannot and will not be changed. 65/35 overall, 80 /20 high draw points, is here for the foreseeable future and works in R's favor if all units go draw. Work within that. If a more favorable staff or commission is ever available (which I don't see) for your cause , then campaign to tighten the R/NR allocations if necessary. I personally am ok with the current r/nr scheme.

In the interim, use the time to redo the image of CBA from a one dimensional org of angry, grey haired white guys, with a list of demands to a group that actually teams up and augments CPW and CWC mission (Like that other org I mentioned who is actually successful). Then maybe bowhunters can regain respect with the decision makers that they once had.

It used to be CBA was one of the only orgs that showed up to meetings and events, so our positions were acted upon. Now there are more and more stakeholders participating. Think this: How can we set our organization apart and stand out from the others.

From: Orion
21-Jan-23
Your forgetting that its not really 65/35 when the landowner vouchers are taken from the resident percentage. I want to know why you don't think residents shouldn't get more than 60% of the tags? I love how you bash the CBA as angry white people, yet your part of the hipster BHA which in no way is in favor of hunters and 75% or more of its members don't kill anything. At least the pint nights are cool though. By the way I'm not a member of CBA so that argument your using against me isn't valid.

21-Jan-23
Ok Steve, you are invited to come to the next CBA BOD meeting on Feb. 3rd, Denver Big Horn Rd. and offer them your suggestions and insight. You do not have to be a members but be my invited guest. What say you?

Paul

From: Grey Ghost
21-Jan-23
"Think this: How can we set our organization apart and stand out from the others."

Why should any pro-hunting org strive to "stand out from the others"? Shouldn't they all have the same mission? What exactly has the BHA done to improve the hunting quality for Colorado residents? Please be specific.

Matt

From: Orion
21-Jan-23
I didn't see one BHA rep at any of the bobcat trapping meetings or lion meetings. What exactly is there position on predator hunting?

From: JohnMC
21-Jan-23
Come on Steve you said "CBA from a one dimensional org of angry, grey haired white guys" I am one of those guys and my hair is only salt and pepper. ;) I am 46 and probably above the average in age when it comes to the make up of board. As far as angry, some of best men and WOMEN I have had the pleasure to get to meet are on our board. The 3 people on the board that do the most interacting with the CPW and wildlife commission are in their 30's. Please do me (and yourself a favor) come to a board meeting see what we are doing. Lot and lots of time and effort is spent for no other reason than carrying about the future of bowhunting in CO are put out each and every month (a lot of time each and every day) by the directors of the CBA board. We are having a board meeting March 11th before our banquet that we hope is attended by many of our members and those that would consider joining if they agree with what we work hard to accomplish. Lastly we want bowhunters that bowhunt in CO getting involved. If you think you can help make us a better organization reach out to your Regional Director. They are always looking for regional area reps that want to step up. Those can be found on the website and that includes non-residents.

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
GG/Paul, No need for me to come to a meeting to explain. Here's some examples:

This group respond to what the CPW is wanting to evolve into ie:

CPW is concerned with recruitment and retention, so this org adverstises seminars at local establishments with video's and speakers on the benefits of hunting and the NAM, door prizes, drawings, etc. You know,... fun stuff. Also recruitment at local college's etc, and organizing archery shoots etc.

CPW wants to get more women and inner city youths involved. This org puts on women in the woods seminars and women/inner city youth hunts and seminars in conjuction with cpw for these groups.

CPW advertises the need to reclaim SWA's/STL's habitat. This group sponsor's work parties to help with this.

Bowhunters ... they show up with a list of demands and take publish membership survey's about how unhappy they are.

Dont get stuck a the 1970's time warp. Times are a changin' and right now ypu're getting left behind.

From: Orion
21-Jan-23
How much access has BHA opened up for hunters in Colorado?

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
Just to be clear, I am not advocating this other group.

But what I am doing is using some examples of action they do and relationships they make to remain relevent in the current issues.

From what I see bowhunters are becoming increasingly irrelevent. You can see that by decisions being made.

Right now I know of 4 former commissioners and many former (and some current) CPW staff members who have joined their ranks.

Not trying to discredit bowhunters org., but suggesting modernizing their approach to gain relevency.

From: Grey Ghost
21-Jan-23
Steve, like I thought, pint nights and other "fun stuff" for a majority membership who don't hunt.

"This group respond to what the CPW is wanting to evolve into? "

Are you kidding me? The CPW has been evolving away from the best interest of hunters for decades. Their focus isn't on improving the quality of hunting in Colorado. It's on generating revenue from the non-hunting masses who have invaded our state. Let's at least be honest about that.

Matt

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
Yep things are changing, you have to decide whether you want to remain influential in the current scheme or not. Times change. It's a different culture. Do you want to be a positive agent for change and be their friend or someone who butts heads and watches your season get shortened because you're not their friend.

From: Jaquomo
21-Jan-23

From: JohnMC
21-Jan-23
Steve your first two points are recruitment and youth. Are you aware that in 2022 CO Legislators passed a bill that will now allow Hunter Ed to be taught in school through out CO. The CBA more so than any org is responsible for that. Tell me something else accomplished in the last several years that can reach youth and recruitment more than that. Also one of our big pushes moving forwards is using our resources, people, and time to do outreach that introduce youth and women to shooting bows. We also put on several events through the years we want people at. Where families show up, camp, shoot bows, visit with others like mind people. For example jamboree, King Canyon just to name a couple.

One thing you are spot on about the CBA needing to better at habitat improvement protects. That is very much on radar. If you have a protect(s) you think we can do again please reach out. Better yet spearhead it and ask us to be involved.

I think you would be surprised at the relationships members of the board has with members or the Wildlife Commission and CPW. If you had a chance to visit with some and ask their options of their contact inside the CBA it would be very different than us showing up with a list of demands I suspect.

The board, 15-20 of us can't do it all. We need volunteers that come with great ideas, that are willing to spearhead some of these protects. I promise you if you or anyone comes with a good idea that is on point and are willing to help get them of the ground we will help with resources.

Understand we all have full time jobs, families, and life out side the CBA. We want to be better. We want ideas and help from our members. Instead of calling us a bunch of angry, grey haired white guys, get involved, it is rewarding and you can make a difference.

From: Jaquomo
21-Jan-23

Jaquomo's Link
Here's the link to comment. Looks like almost all the comments are directed toward fixing the drastic imbalance in resident vs. Nr license allocations.

From: PushCoArcher
21-Jan-23
When I read through it seemed many dare I say the majority of comments are for either going limited or capping NR. Cpw is definitely screwing residents on allocation and they are not happy.

From: SBC
21-Jan-23
I am going to retract my comments on the angry old white guys and so on. I have been contacted by several members of the board to enlighten me on how bowhunters are moving forward. My comments were based on my observations by some of the old time members who regularly vent on bowsite. But it appears there's alot going on behind the scenes with a new board with fresh ideas. The postings on bowsite are not a good representative of what is actually being accomplished.

Good for you CBA and Good luck CBA in your endeavors.

From: JohnMC
21-Jan-23
Thanks for 180 Steve.

From: Jahvada
22-Jan-23
I am one who chooses all draw for archery no matter what the rifle tags do..

All draw for archery w a 80-20% split on all tags (2nd -4th choice and returns) Lo tags come out of nr allocation is fair to both and would be good for the cba to get behind. I doubt they will get behind a proposal like that and I do not doubt the cba will not keep the eye on allocation (screwing residents) and instead waste time on the loosing battle keeping otc… I actually see the cba siding w nr and screwing over most residents in the allocation process.

Anyone who hunts mule deer remembers how the cba choose to screw over mule deer hunters in the last 5 year.. We lost over 20 of the best hunting days because the “elk only” cba choose the perfect dates for archery. If you hunt deer good luck get bent….

Honestly the latest the cba actions show they could care less about anyone that is not hunting ELK on otc..

I guess is deer hunters are still a bit jaded and rightfully untrusting of the CBA since they choose to screw us out of the best days of deer hunting.

My bet is they will do the same again.

22-Jan-23
I recall the CBA lobbied to keep deer season as-is and only have elk move to set dates. The CWC chose to keep deer and elk tied together with the later start and reduce season by a day.

From: Jaquomo
22-Jan-23
That's what I recall as well. But historical revisionism is a hallmark of internet forums.

From: cnelk
22-Jan-23
Jahvada will never miss an opportunity to bash the CBA. Just like a woman with PMS.... On and on and on....

From: SBC
22-Jan-23
I was at that meeting as a member of the public. The cpw recommendation was the option that started deer archery a week or so earlier than elk, with elk starting 9/2. Both seasons would end 9/30. CBA lobbied for this also option also.

Somehow one commissioner from the ag community was able to instruct cpw to change it so both seasons started on 9/2. He also instructed cpw to move rifle seasons later with extended breaks in between. How one person yielded so much power over cpw game managers is unfathomable. CPW spent alot of time, money, public comment, and research to come up with their recommendations. Someone with no wildlife mgnt background changed it in 20 mins with no resistance from cpw. As if he was some kind of resident expert on wildlife management.

Where the spine is needed is with cpw staff.

Steve Corsone

  • Sitka Gear