The REAL CBA BGSS Survey
Colorado
Thanks for the Beta testing and feedback guys, here is a link to the LIVE version of the CBA BGSS survey. Sorry for making you take it twice.
https://goo.gl/forms/t6fTTMgyCDiqVJA23
Done. Sorry Steve I only took it once but as always, you're still my hero. Thanks for all your hard work!
Done NR CBA member from Nebr.
For all of you NR's out there who bowhunt Colorado, even if its not every year, and you are not a CBA member, its time to get going, join now. It will only take you 5 minutes to sign up online, and the cost is peanuts. Then take the survey.
Joined CBA and took the survey. Thanks for all the work you put into this Steve.
In general I believe in supporting state bow hunting organizations, however I am not sure I want to financially support one where 67% of the members want to limit my ability to hunt in Colorado.
Brian do you want a quality hunt, or hunt with an unlimited amount of other hunters? There was an add once in a ski magazine. One resort boasted their lifts had an uphill capacity of 10,000 people per hour. The response was from a smaller resort, Do you really want to ski with 10,000 other people? Come to our resort, small crowds and small lift lines. (10,000 is a guess I really don't remember the actual number, but you get the point)
The beauty of the current structure is that I can choose between the two. Cash my 3-5 points and hunt a unit like 66 or 67. In between I dodge people in an otc. I am not getting any younger so I like the option of being able to hunt every year while I can. I also like the option of not having to make a decision by April 7 some years on whether i am hunting archery or rifle season. If archery goes to all draw I would expect rifle to follow. Non residents will experience a drastic decline in oppurtunity. If CPW decided to split the limited number of tags 50/50 or 52/48 (to match current participation) instead of 65/35 then I might see your point a little better.
Cba is about 90% resident. What appears likely is bull only licenses. Why would any nonresident come to Colorado for bull only when for about the same price you get a 6 week archery season, a deer tag small game combo, 8 million acres of block management, and could hunt in a month long rifle season in Montana?
As a resident, I hunt here because it is close and cheap. If I didn't live here, I would only hunt elk here if it was my last option.
Instead of paying 53 for an either/or Colorado elk licence, Ijust laid down 1300 for Wyoming app, why? Because it is worth it. Think about that.
Aluminum Rain,
As a resident of Colorado living in a very popular area for non resident OTC elk hunters, I would love to see nonresident restrictions so I could have better quality hunting close to home.
At a split of 65/35, Colorado is far more friendly to non residents than any other state.
I’m probably hunting elk in Wyoming as well.
My problem with the current system is this: If non-residents want to hunt in Colorado, I'm good with that, BUT they should have to make that decision ahead of time. Colorado should NOT be their last resort hunt; an opportunity only if all their other choices don't pan out. Non-resident OTC is not appropriate any more given our overcrowding problems, and possible solutions that start by restricting residents.
With a 52/48 split in license sales it would appear that resident crowding is also a factor.
In limited units the actual split may be closer to the same as OTC, at least for male or either sex tags. The 65/35 is how the tags are split after the land owner tags are removed. I don't know the figures, but my guess is a lot of the LO tags get used by nonresidents.
Of the 44,000 bow hunting elk license sold, the following is true.
37,000 are OTC
7,000 are limited draw
1. Resident licenses 55 %
2. Non residents 45%
Crowding is the # 1 issue today. All limited licenses will not happen in my opinion. Other states limit Non residents to less than 10% of the licenses. In Colorado, there is no limit on the number of non residents who can an OTC license. Some support the idea.
License, OTC with caps might be possibility as well as Status QUO
Will non residents be limited all together? Will non resident be limited with non resident OTC with caps. Hard to tell.
What hasn't been said is that the Wildlife Commission has taken Resident/Non-resident relative participation off the table in the BGSS, essentially removing what many see as the most palatable first step to addressing overcrowding.
Aluminum Rain--As Grasshopper mentioned above, the CBA's NR's membership is only 10% of its total number of members. With the number of tags sold that Paul posted above, it should be at a much higher percentage. Any state bowhunting organization will tell you that only a small percentage join their state organization. As a NR that hunts Colorado, I agree, I too am not getting any younger and don't want to lose my opportunity with OTC units. I was trying to give a little push to the many NR's out there to join the CBA to increase our voice as NR's and show our concerns too through the survey. I have been a CBA member for quite awhile and "No" I haven't always agreed with everything that is going on or what has been done, but as long as I hunt Colorado, I will still support them as my voice in Colorado.
I am speaking my own opinion here.
Everyone has their own number one issue, for me it is the loss of either sex licenses. If your in the field and see a hundred elk, 75 are likely to be cows. In that scenario, you lost 75% of the opportunity. If your a caller, you can sure call in both bulls and cows. WHEN we get the coming bull only tags, in my opinion it will make hunter crowding worse. Create two problems with one "solution". Great.
Elk hunter crowding was my number one issue a few years back, so I just quit OTC elk hunting. Now the crowds are excessive deer hunters, but mostly recreationalists.
One thing I can comfortably predict, it is not going to get better until I move, draw out of state tags, pay $$ for private land hunts or quit. None of those options are appealing.
Paul,
Are your stats taking the landowner tags into account? If not, I would say that it may be closer to a 50/50 split when the dust settles.
Crowding issues in archery season are due to a rise in bowhunters but also additional rifle and muzzle loaders on top of archery. You would think that the wildlife commission and CPw would be catering more to archery as it is a growing segment of hunting and gives them more money per animal harvested than rifle.
Paul,
I am reaching out to Andy, not sure where either of you get your data. In january, they gave us the attached info - 47,721 archery hunters in 2016. In 2015, their final sales report showed OTC archery sales at roughly 33,000. That means roughly 15,000 limited licenses. In that same 2015 sales report, 52% were resident, 48% NR. I did not add in all the wierd tags, like youth hunts.
Aluminum Rain,
Keep your $25-$30 instead of spending it on the ONLY organization that fights to protect bowhunters season's in CO for both Resident and Nonresidents alike. It's amazing how many Aluminum Rain's there are out there that can't spend the cost of a case of beer to help protect what we all enjoy but then you'll see them flocking to CO after they don't draw their elk tags in WY, AZ, NM and NV. I hope one day CO doesn't cave to the NR $ and leaves guys like Aluminum rain sitting at home instead of elk hunting every year.
I should have said in my last post, that the first step to relieving overcrowding should be getting non-archery hunting out of archery season. For many reasons, that is not likely to happen in any significant way. Addressing non-residents is the best option. Even not limiting the number of NR, but just not allowing them OTC would be huge. If they want to hunt Colorado, they should declare that during the draw process by buying a tag then, not just using Colorado as a backup plan.
Ziek--Just so you know, I have never used Colorado as my back up plan. It has always been my first choice. I agree, there are a lot of NR's that do. Being self employed, there are some years that I'm not sure whether or not I can make it out until maybe a month before the season and its great being able to purchase one when I get out there. If the time ever does come to when I'm required to purchase a NR tag in one of the lesser units through the draw with zero to one points, I will then have to plan ahead better. I have never purchased PP's (I know, my Bad!!) because the area/unit my son and I always hunt has always been OTC. With the really good units requiring ever increasing numbers of PP's, I'm pretty much SOL. Anyways, just letting you know where I'm coming from and not trying to be a smart A#$$ or anything so please don't take this as such.
Quinn you may want to know more about someone before you open your mouth and insert your foot. My initial question was about why I should support cba when they appear to making an effort to limit non res ability to hunt in CO. Same theory being why I wouldn't support a specific political party that doesn't support what I believe in. I have held a CO license in 12 of the last 18 years and an Idaho tag once. I hold a couple points only in WY. CO is not my state of last resort, it is my first resort always. I send money to RMEF, P&Y, WBH and others each year. I would like to see solutions to overcrowding that treat Non Res equally. Non res equality is one of the reasons I don't care to hunt in/support most of those other states. I don't mind paying the exorbitant non res fees but I really take issue with limiting a hunters ability to participate. Especially when much of that opportunity occurs on federal lands that we all pay to support. BK had a much more compelling reason above to join cba than a selfish rant like yours. You could have quit after your 1st sentence and been much more convincing. Instead you again make me wonder if cba is led primarily by people like you or primarily helpful folks like Grasshopper and Paul.
BK
It wouldn't have to be for a draw area only. If you apply for a draw, there could be a default for any non-limited area. There could also be a separate option for any non-limited area. A friend of mine came up with another idea that could be used in conjunction with the above. For NR, split the season into 2 15 day seasons, or 3 10 day. Make them for any non-limited areas. Since most NR don't come out for an entire month anyway, that might spread out the pressure. That would also be a way for CPW to manage for other factors as well, by limiting access for each season, if necessary before impacting resident hunters. They could also do OTC with caps for NR, but I wouldn't wish that cluster * on anyone.
Another idea would be 'block GMU's' that would be comprised of 4 to 5 individual units. That would be one way for the CPW to truly manage the number of hunters in any given area. That would give more realistic data on hunting pressure related to herd numbers etc.
Ziek--- The more I think about your friends idea of splitting it up into 2 different NR seasons of 2 for 15, or 3 for 10, for non limited areas, the more sense it makes. We usually seem to make it out for only 7 to 8 days anyway. A guy would still have the tag purchasing options for heading out in his desired time, either early, mid or late. Plus, I would then have to tell my wife that the season structure is now either 10 or 15 days long and would have to stay out for the duration. LOL
BK, problem is that the CPW wouldn't do it just for NRs, they would likely follow the NM example and make it into two separate seasons for everyone, residents and NRs. Used to be a rifle elk season, rifle deer, and a combo season. Now we have 6 rifle deer seasons to choose from (pick only one) and a spit-pot full of different rifle elk seasons that run from August 15th until January.
"would like to see solutions to overcrowding that treat Non Res equally."
Give an example, that is fair to the guys who live here.
"would like to see solutions to overcrowding that treat Non Res equally."
I live here. I don't want the quality of my hunts to suffer because an unlimited amount of people who don't live here want to be treated equal. Colorado is also the least expensive western state for an unlimited number of nonresidents to come and hunt elk, every year. Maybe a good solution would be to triple the cost of your tag.
It's a perspective thing. If nonresident participation meant residents didn't get a whitetail license in Midwestern states, residents of those states become just as defensive of their opportunities.
In the West, we have watched access to quality tags shrink due to supply/demand changes. It's a result of higher resident and nonresident participation, changing herd populations, land access, and increasing the commercialization of access and tags.
