Archery Under Attack in CO
Colorado
With the recent stuff for the Vail/Eagle/Aspen issues. the new BGSS survey seems totally skewed to make archery draw only. I get this little nugget.
I saw rifle hunters today online pushing for all limited archery season tags. Draw only statewide because archery hunters are screwing up the rifle hunters. Their push is making it all limited because they are seeing less elk on rifle and the only thing they can figure is all the archery hunters are running the elk out.
As archery hunters we really need to come together and make a solid and unified voice. If not we will end up hunting archery elk like we do deer. Every couple of years...
Where did you see that? We do seem to always have a target on our backs, moreso lately.
I had a post on Facebook from a Hunter in Grand Junction Area phishing it. Also seen in Monster Muleys guys pushing it, and then while at my local sporting goods store I over heard another person pushing it.
No surprise that rifle hunters are pushing for something they think will make their seasons better.
Thanks Rob, I rarely go to MM, seems they'd sell their grandmother over there if they could make a buck.
"...they are seeing less elk on rifle and the only thing they can figure is all the archery hunters are running the elk out."
You can't fix stupid. The Vail area is my stomping ground...or at least it was before the elk disappeared. I killed my first elk there in 1974. I haven't hunted that area in a few years, but I have been there.
It is true that it is too crowded, even during archery season. But it's NOTHING compared to rifle seasons. On October 21, we went for a ride around Red and White Mountain, north of Vail. At the time, I didn't know that was the opening weekend of second rifle. That is a roaded area west of the Eagles Nest Wilderness. There was literally a hunting camp in every meadow, nook and cranny, adjacent to the four-wheel-drive roads. I never imagined how out of control rifle hunting has become there, since we rarely go out during rifle seasons. And there are FOUR rifle seasons. Are they really questioning why the elk are gone? Really?
Excessive rifle hunting is the problem, and THAT, not archery, needs to be the fix.
Nothing new.
Rifle hunters should figure out that the biggest issue with not seeing elk is not the bowhunters, but the CPW's overissue of OTC tags for all hunters.
Hell, with the several weeks between archery and rifle where the elk are totally unmolested, they can go wherever they want. Elk numbers are dropping across the state and are probably even lower than CPW is willing to admit. They have to keep milking that cash cow for all it is worth! Reporting significantly lower elk numbers would reduce the numbers of NR's and that would really hurt CPW's bottom line.
I agree with Treeline as to the elk being not pestered between archery and rifle that they freely move all over the place. And with the change in the rut during that time, the rifle hunters can't point to the archery guys as the problem. I've witnessed it. The difference between archery season and rifle season is almost unbelievable as to hunter pressure. Don't even have to go out in the bush to realize it. Can see the difference right in town, for crying in the beer!
I agree with the low elk numbers across the state. I also agree to otc caps on non resident hunters. Most don't want to acknowledge the hunting pressures caused by high non resident hunters. That's why we need to limit pressure on elk and incense our elk herds. But like Treeline stated, CPW is in this for the money. Gotta fix them parks so more people will show up and use em.
The two biggest ticket items that CPw was worried about were maintenance of dams and fish hatcheries.
Dams should be more than paid for by water rights leases or sales that should be a net positive for any dams that are owned by CPw.
Fish hatcheries should be self sustaining, particularly since CPw's marketing media reported that fishing brought in so much more money than hunting.
Resident hunters will definitely start to see the impacts of the fee increases starting this year...
For quite a few years I've been buying licenses and permits I hardly even use. Thats going to stop now that I see some of them doubling in cost. They are going to kill the goose to get the egg.
Around here rifle hunters don't see elk because they are driving too fast on their OHVs.
Over the years overcrowding seems to be a growing problem. When I was younger it didn’t seem like the same problem we face today. Tags were over the counter for deer and elk then. As with most problems there are contributing factors that add up over time to get us were we are at today. I’m not really sure the numbers of hunters are that much more then they were in the 80s and 90s.
I would like to see the land owner tag program be completely revamped to stop the abuse of our state resources for private gain. The way land owner vouchers have become so valuable I contend that private land owners don’t give permissions for the average hunters to access the private lands like we used to. This puts more and more of us together on the public lands when we used to be more spread out.
How about working to gain access to land locked BLM and NF. Again another state resource being used by private land owners for personal gain.
Hunters against hunters is not a good way to improve our overall opportunities weather it be rifle or bow.
Bowkill, the numbers of bowhunters in CO are way up since the 80's and 90's. Especially nonresidents. It isn't just vouchers that affect permission, it's the bidding war between outfitters for leases because more hunters are willing to pay $$$.
I can't blame ranchers for leasing or charging trespass fees, but the game damage program allows them to double-dip in many cases. They charge for hunting or don't allow it at all, graze on NF at way lower than market pricing, then demand game damage payments from the same hunters they won't allow in (or through).
I'm guessing many would be surprised at the game damage claims. Crops, sheep, nurseries, etc. Its about 1,000,000 a year.
The main problem that I see with the L.O program is the vouchers are able to be used GMU wide, this creates the bidding wars. This broken system makes the state resource valuable and not the private resources so much. I have zero problems with private landowners charging fees big or small to access their lands but the basis should be based on the quality of their private land and not how many vouchers they ended up with in the L.O draw. I also think if the L.O program was revamped outfitters who have teamed with private landowners to have first dibs on the vouchers would balance out, by again putting the focus on the private resource and not the states resource. If the private land is really good and worth it then let the free market work based on the private resource right?
To fix the problem my first thought would be changing the vouchers to be valid only on the private land owned. Vouchers should never be allowed to be sold, only transferred. Trespass fees, guiding and outfitting services are private matters and should be conducted privately between the parties. This would quickly solve the issue of bidding wars for vouchers used on public lands. A second thought is landowners and household family members could apply and be issued tags that would be only valid for their private land (non transferable) this would be fair and valuable to a sporting family who owns significant land and keeps the focus on their private resource and not the state’s animals. The remainder of the issued tags are either OTC or limited draw based on the CPW management decisions.
I’m sure select outfitters, hunters and private land owners would reject these ideas because they’ve been capitalizing but it’s very obvious the current system has led to a bidding war for a state resource and not the private resources. The CPW management for our herds must not make or animals lucrative for a select few, let the fair market and their private resources drive that.
Jaquomo, has the total numbers of hunters “all means” increased or just more folks now bow hunting instead of rifle? I know for myself, bowhunting started as a way to escape the overcrowded general rifle seasons.
If the state quit paying damages then the free market would fix itself over time, if landowners truly had wildlife problems they wouldn’t turn away hunters so easily. It’s also the CPWs responsibility to ensure over populations are not an issue and they would need to work with the L.Os not just throw damage fees at it and walk away.
it is amazing that a sheep rancher never has a coyote kill sheep is always a bear or lion ?? So the CPW will pay
LO tags in bidding wars? need to read up on the current system. there aren't bidding wars for tags, they are only transferable by the land owner, they only hold face value, they allow access to the tag holder for a fee. the program has flaws but you can't blame the land owners for the problems, they didn't create the program. I know land owners in SE Colorado that can't draw a tag to hunt deer on 20K acres they own, they can't get landowner tags cause its limited and very competitive. Guys come and knock on their door asking permission to hunt animals that they feed shelter and water, and they themselves cant hunt them? Not everyone is capitalizing off of land owner Vouchers and double dipping from game damage. Colorado outfitters are responsible for getting a limited amount of unit wide tags on LO vouchers, makes sense as some of the ranches that are outfitted have land locked BLM that they can hunt. the State needs to open more state held land to the public period.
Limiting Archery season has improved the hunting in my back yard. I'm glad the 3 OTC units in the Gunnison Baison went to Limited archery.
re: IVL "I know land owners in SE Colorado that can't draw a tag to hunt deer on 20K acres they own, they can't get landowner tags cause its limited and very competitive. Guys come and knock on their door asking permission to hunt animals that they feed shelter and water, and they themselves cant hunt them? Not everyone is capitalizing off of land owner Vouchers and double dipping from game damage."
This is exactly what is happening where I "used" to hunt. The landowner where I have hunted for 10 years is fed up. Trespassers, poachers, and relentless knocking on the door during hunting season. He should be able to hunt his own land at the very least every year, imo.
Units 44,45,47,444 going Limited for archry Elk
I think that was what was meant by "With the recent stuff for the Vail/Eagle/Aspen issues."
I just didn't add it up
“This is exactly what is happening where I "used" to hunt. The landowner where I have hunted for 10 years is fed up. Trespassers, poachers, and relentless knocking on the door during hunting season. He should be able to hunt his own land at the very least every year, imo.“
If the L.O tags were only valid for the private land issued this wouldn’t be a problem.
There are LO tags good for only family members and on that land. They are called "restricted" tags. Depending upon the unit, it still may require a couple points to draw, so the landowner may not be able to hunt every year at first.
However, if he has 20K acres he is eligible for 19 apps/tags. By laddering his apps and preference points, within a year or two he will be able to draw deer (or whatever) licenses every year. Many landowners don't seem to understand how this works, but it is set up precisely so large landowners can draw every year. Thats how outfitters get tags each year even when it takes 3-4 points.
In some cases, rifle buck antelope in some units for instance, it's easier to draw in the general than in the LO pool because there is more demand by outfitters for the tags for their NRs, and access for the general public can be very difficult to acquire.
Jaquomo, I'm very familiar with the process for LO tags. the Unit im speaking of has a low tag Quota for both the LO draw and The public draw. Not enough tags to go around for everybody. He is not eligible for 19 tags cause there aren't that many allocated by CPW. he's lucky to get 3 vouchers in 10 years. It takes minimum 15 points for the public draw. the land owner competition is very high, all the ranches in the unit are outfitted, and where he falls in line is last so it takes 10 years to get tags. My point is that most people speak out that land owners have it so good and get so much, and that's just not the case are there a few that are fat and happy you bet! but its a small few that get the most and the rest get what they can. CPW is not in the wildlife management business they are in the people management business. They manage people way more than the animals in this state. They are trying to manage for more opportunity for more people to buy licenses. The rifle hunters whine just a little and they get a few bones thrown their way. The archery guys whine a little and they get a few bones thrown their way. People management!!! cause in the end the wildlife will be managed that's easy, but managing people is harder. Getting the "Right to hunt " on the Colorado constitution is something all sportsmen and women should be fighting for first!!
IVL, understood, but he can submit 19 applications. Each rejected application gets a PP. At some point he will have enough LO PPs to be near the top of the list every year for at least one tag. If he's been applying for 10 years and only drew three tags, that means he has 16 applications with at least 10 preference points going into next year. If he draws one he will then have 15 applications with 11 points the following year.
What will a "Right To Hunt" amendment actually do? Seriously?
I wouldn’t worry too much about it, once we start paying our new fee’s the CPW is gonna fix everything!
Just ask the folks that took the time to lobby for it at the capital
