Bowsite.com

E-16 issue paper - need opinions

Ok CBA members. The issue paper at the link is up for final action in January. CPW's preferred option is to make either sex OTC archery tags into OTC bull only tags for these GMU's in E-16. This DAU is primarily Eagle county, back bowls of vail, fryin pan wilderness, bounded by hwy 82 from Glenwood heading toward Basalt, etc. I need member opinions on this, See the link for the issue paper. In the next post, I will share a link to a spreadsheet with supporting data.

Either sex tags for archery elk have been in existence since as long as I can remember, probably since the beginning of archery season inception. These tags are OTC, it would be really confusing to the public to have your license be valid for either sex on one side of the road, and bull only on the wrong side.

This DAU currently sells E/S private land only rifle tags. What is that all about? It also has historically sold PLO cow tags for a season from August to January. If I read the HPP meeting minutes, and the 2018 Habitat Plan, game damage is described as a limited issue.

Beyond that, B list archery cow tags are available. My understanding is B list cow tags were created for additional opportunity when elk were above objective. Not sure why they are still valid in these GMU's.

I'd like to use a lifeline on this one and get input from CBA members as to how the board should weigh in with CPW and the commission on this one. I am struggling with why other options like elimination of all PLO, and rifle E/S isn't the first step, but was told there is no willingness to change the staff preferred option at this time.

I am also struggling with why this issue, which is very similar to the proposal in BGSS to convert either sex licensing to bull only in the SW region is not also one that should be addressed in the scope of BGSS.

In the short term, I need member feedback on how you would like to see the board weigh in on this.

What data are we still in need of? What questions would you ask? What would you counterpropose to the commission? Would you prefer unlimited OTC bull only tags in a DAU with the growing army 1429 unlimited archers, or retain either sex licensing with fewer hunters byt taking the DAU totally limited for archery? If this change occurs, and the change in the SW DAU occurs, would you bail on these GMU's and hunt other already crowded OTC units? With more, and more GMU's going limited over the years, would you prefer to just limit all the units and do away with OTC licensing to hopefully improve animal abundance and hunt quality?

Time is short with the holidays, I need to work on this the next couple days, and get on the phone with the board, trusted advisors, CPW, and commissioners. Would love to do some podcasts if any of you can get me on the air.

Longer term - this is going to be my last year on the CBA board for awhile, I would like to find my replacement and work together as partners if anyone wants to work as a team this year let me know. It would be great to pass off the relationships before I step away. Any interest? Of course, any transition plan would require board approval.

Here is a link to the CPW data in Excel provided to me.

Seems like the first step would be to eliminate the out-of-the-ordinary tags that result in cow harvest. Either sex rifle (change to antlered only as they suggest), PLO Aug-Jan cow tags (biggest hit), early unit 45 cow and list B archery cow tags should be stopped before changing the "normal" seasons. Those steps, without further reducing limited cow tags in the normal rifle and muzzleloader seasons would be a 48% reduction in cow harvest.

Their data shows that cow harvest was under cow harvest objectives every year since 2004 except for 2017? I know they have been reducing some cow tags but this is confusing. Why on earth have cow harvest objectives been so high with the herd declining?

I'm not opposed to bowhunters doing our fair share when the resource requires a change. I would rather not give up our traditional opportunities until the newer opportunities that are taking cows, that were added due to the population peak or as landowner benefits, are removed.

The DAU plan for E-16 can be found at the link, states 7100 elk in 2013, cow /calf ratios trending down for a long time. I believe there is a trigger point they look to when action plans are put in place, don't quote me - might be 40

Here is the habitat management plan, approved in 2018. It states elk population is 5070 average from 2010-2017.

And the HPP meeting minutes for the Lower Colorado commitee can be found here:

What's the proposal for muzzle loader in these units? And as previously mentioned, is the early season cow rifle tag going to be eliminated?

Steve,

This recommendation absolutely needs to be stopped! It sets very bad precedent for archery elk hunting and will lead to significant restrictions into the future for archery hunting in Colorado.

CPW has mismanaged the hell out of this elk herd for quite some time. They have declared war on the cow elk for a number of years with early rifle and early PLO cow seasons as well as hitting them through the regular (1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th). All of the Cow tags in these units are B List tags so hunters can have two tags when hunting these areas. It is no wonder the elk herd has been reduced! What is a wonder is that there are any elk left.

Based on their statistics (not extremely reliable but we will go with their numbers), the total rifle take in this DAU including muzzle loader rifle is 87%. The rifle and muzzle loader hunters have been hunting right over the top of archery season for many years.

1. Start by removing units in DAU 16 from the B cow tag list.

2. The largest number of cow elk killed are during the August to January P5R tags - 32%. Obviously the greatest impact is this season! There are typically leftover tags for this season. Reduce the number of tags available for this season and reduce the season length. As this is a private land tag, it remains on the B list, but the numbers can be significantly reduced and limit the number of cows killed.

3. The second largest percentage of cow elk are killed in the combined 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons at 20%. Reduce cow tag numbers for these seasons. If it is not a B tag, there will be less potential for guys to have two elk tags in their pocket and potentially shoot extra elk that are "lost".

4. Eliminate E/S elk tags for 1st and 4th rifle. Those tags result in 11% of the cows killed and should be eliminated due to low cow elk numbers.

5. Issue no cow elk tags for 1st Rifle. Their stats indicate 11% of the total number of cows are killed in on 1st season cow elk tags.

6. The early rifle hunt that starts during archery on public land should be eliminated due to low cow elk retention. Although the CPW numbers indicate only 3% of the cows are killed in this season it is very disruptive to the elk and archery season. This season should be running at or very close to 100% success in those units as the elk are pretty easy to find and extremely easy to kill with a gun during the rut.

7. Eliminate the number of cow elk muzzle loader tags. Although they are a small percentage, they are still larger than the archery cow tags and if they are worried about the herd reduction, they should cut cow tags across the board.

8. Eliminate the additional OTC Archery cow tag availability for these units. Although these tags only result in 2% of the total cows killed, if the elk herd needs to come back then this will also help.

This leaves us at the E/S archery tags at 11% of the total cows killed in this DAU. Why is this an issue when the other issues above have significantly greater impact?

If E/S archery is an issue, then go to 100% draw across the board by unit and season for NRs and start controlling those numbers. That is a far greater issue than the number of cows taken by archery hunters in this DAU.

I really can not believe how idiotic the "Preferred Alternative" is in this instance! It really shows how dumb CPW can be.

Hell, all our state sportsman's organizations lobbied to increase resident licenses and fees to the state agency that already made more than any other state on hunting license sales and what are the resident hunters getting in return? Shafted. No increased opportunity nor reduction in NR OTC licenses and idiotic recommendations for reducing archery opportunities in units that have been getting raped.

Treeline x 2.. I 100% agree with that plan

I, too am with Treeline on this one.

"It really shows how dumb CPW can be."

More likely it shows their hostility toward bow hunters.

Take Treeline's post and run with it.

On a bit of a side note, I used to hunt quite a bit in 45.

I have seen many instances where guys were hunting with a bow in their hand and a rifle on their shoulder during archery season.

Actually had a couple of guys come in behind me on me when I was working in on a bull and start calling. There were not any cows visible and the bull was bugling and walking along the side of a clearing and pond. They spooked the bull out and I turned around and went to see what they were doing. One had a rifle and the other had a bow. No orange. The guy actually had a bullet in the gun and was fixing to shoot the bull! Hell, they had also snuck over a mile into private land! Claimed that they were trailing a wounded cow that they had shot the evening before.

That $#it needs to STOP!

The CPW "fairness doctrine" has crept into scientific game management.

I would like to see in writing and staff presented to the Commission, the justification of why there is no reduction in PLO cow tags.

As someone who hunts these units almost exclusively during Archery season (and CBA member), this concerns me greatly. I agree with Treeline that there are other ways to reduce cow harvest before impeding on archery opportunities and complicating OTC tag options. I also used to hunt the private land tag back when they were in great supply and you could get one as a leftover very late into the season. I believe they have already cut down the number of tags on the PLO P5R tags in the last 3-4 years, but still this seems to make up the majority of the cow harvest. It seems obvious to me that they need to further limit the PLO tags or make them an A list tag which would limit purchases for some hunters. If further reducing PLO tags is not an option (are there mandatory quotas for PLO tags?) then I think option 2 (changing 1st and 4th) is the favored option of most Archery hunters.

I'm sure the loss of winter range in these units also has a negative impact on the amount of elk. The amount of trophy homes going in the last 10 years on traditional winter range is incredible. The elk have no where to go to survive the winter with minimal disturbance.

So, since bow hunting does not fit CPW’s “fairness doctrine” bull crap and there has been a lot of new development in the eagle valley - let’s start painting archery hunting out of the equation across Colorado by setting president to go to bull only archery tags for our measly 30 day season (that we have to share with rifle cow elk, rifle early buck, rifle bear, muzzle loader deer, elk and bear hunters), limiting all the archery tags R and NR, all while continuing to kill elk with rifles from August to January?

Can someone say WTF!??

I agree with Tavis as well. Especially the idea of a NR draw for all elk hunting. I'd actually support all OTC going to draw for residents as well. We need a plan to eliminate the PP surplus. All draw for elk would limit overcrowding as well as get people to dump their points or at least not add more PP to the pool. 2 birds one stone

WTF!??, There you go Travis I said it for you. I too agree with Travis on this issue.

I wonder if the hope is if they sell A list bull only tags and B list cow tags. More archery hunters would buy a second B list cow tag. There for increase the sell of tags to generate more revenue to put towards their shortfall on things not hunting related???

JohnMC, seems kind of cynical.. ha, however, I think you hit the nail on the head. I am sure someone at the DWP has already run the simulation model of how much addition $ this will bring in over the next 5 years.

Steve, I agree with Tavis.

Register here to reply to this topic