Contributors to this thread:
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.
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.
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.
Interesting webinar though, Give it a listen.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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;
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
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.
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.
Does anyone know what the Colorado Bowhunters Association’s position is on this issue?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Listening to that meeting is mind numbing. A case of the inmates running the asylum. How do these people get appointed??
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.
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.
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.
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.
The resumes of our current crop of CPW Commissioners tells you all you need to know. Woke-speak.
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.
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.
One of the Commissioners was the attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, if that tells you anything.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
KS is favoring NR over Res for about 20 years.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's what I recall as well. But historical revisionism is a hallmark of internet forums.
Jahvada will never miss an opportunity to bash the CBA. Just like a woman with PMS.... On and on and on....
