David Petersen in 1/20 Denver post
Colorado
Just read a letter to the DP in today's (1/20) paper. He takes a swipe at the CBA. Sorry, no link. I take the paper and was unable to find it online. Maybe a more technically adept member can post a link?
He's no friend to hunting having played a role in initiative 10 in 1992 to end spring bear hunting. He's also the founder of the Colorado chapter of BHA.
What a ridiculously obtuse letter. He complains about too many hunters in the woods in September, then attempts to vilify the CBA for this? What sacrifices for the long term good" is he referencing? I just lost what little respect I had for him. He needs to stay focused on locking older hunters out of public lands (he has his little honeyhole up the hill behind his cabin) and leave hunting season issues to those who truly understand the big picture. From the letter, it appears he may be developing early-stage dementia. You BHA guys can keep him.
Don't think it's been posted for the general public yet. They're usually a couple days behind. But the CBA definitely needs to respond to this because he implies that we are a self-serving special interest with no regard for the wildlife or resources.
Sounds like Peterson, your description is different than mine, I would say full blown onset.
For some reason the "image tools" function isn't working so I can't rotate it.
David Petersen represents the epitome of "self-serving special interests". Yet he complains about the ONLY bowhunting advocacy organization in CO trying to preserve and expand bowhunting opportunity? What a hypocrite.
I don't understand his rationale. Without the CBA, there wouldn't be the opportunities that bowhunters in Colorado now enjoy. It wasn't the CBA who proposed all the encroachment by all the various other seasons and methods of take into the September archery seasons.
Without being able to read the article. I would assume he's attempting to put the focus on bowhunters so that the focus is taken away from rifle hunters. And make bowhunting the sacrificial lamb of hunting. What he doesn't realize is, even if bowhunting is eliminated, it won't stop there. All hunters, archery and rifle alike, have to stand together. What a jackweed.
I'm glad that he didn't write his affiation with BHA in the letter.
I'm sure that most BHA members are concerned about the amount of folks out during the early seasons, but mainly because of the incursions into the archery seasons. The CBA has taken the point in trying to keep the integrity of this early archery seasons, and it's alot of other what he calls "special interests" who pushed for these incursions.
I don't agree with his assessment at all.
The David Peterson statement for those unable to read it off the pic:
"If we who hunt in Colorado( residents and visitors alike) don't speak up, then self-serving groups like Colorado Bowhunters Association will continue to have their way at the expense of the wildlife resource and the vast majority of hunters.(And by the way, I am a bowhunter.)"
Can't recall cba ever getting our way, just shows how confused he truly is.
I lost any respect for his positions years ago. Unfortunately as a published author of many bowhunting related pieces he gets tapped as someone representing bowhunting. His views don't align with mine or the majority of bowhunters I know. His opinion of us being unsophisticated and only focusing on opportunity at the expense of the resource is ridiculous.
I'm guessing his focus on CBA selfish focus might be based on our position regarding cow harvest in the southwest area? Steve's statistical analysis of the bowhunter impact on cow harvest makes it perfectly clear that we are not the problem.
I'm sure he is reading here and I believe he owes it to us to clearly explain himself.
As a group we choose opportunity over biology??! Does he get the fact that we fund the CP&W so that "biology" will always be paramount?
There is evidence to suggest that large chunk of the blame for the decline in elk populations can placed on winter/spring recreation. ie. Snowmobiling, cross country skiing, ultramarathon training, etc. Specifically in areas where elk winter and calve. But what really gets my goat is nobody wants to fix it because places like Eagle county are so reliant on revenue from tourism and recreation that they would rather ignore it. I guess that then presents the question, whose really looking out for their own interests???
Wildlife watchers, if you believe the flawed study that CPw used in advertising and is now being used by CLAW and other anti groups to leverage wolf introductions and reductions in human hunting - particularly predators.
I posted the letter on the main forums. Everyone needs to see this, especially BHA folks.
Hos opinion is not that of BHA, but with his association, he should be more careful of his choice of words.
From BHA website: "BHA (including all of our state chapters) supports important wildlife management tools like hunting, fishing and trapping unequivocally where legally established."
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_s_position_on_the_use_of_airbows_for_hunting
In fairness, BHA should be more careful as well. David has had controversial views on hunting for many years before he founded the CO chapter, before he was featured in BHA advertisments, before he was Vice-Chair of Conservation and before he received the BHA Chairmen's Award in 2013.
I agree with BHA on some issues and likely share a lot of common interests and views with many members.
Dave thinks, as a traditional bowhunter, he deserves time alone in the woods without crowds or pressure from other hunters. He's wrote letters to the CPW along with signed petitions asking for a seperate traditional only archery season in the peak of the rut. In my opinion, he's done nothing for the Colorado hunters. His view in all otc tags be turned to draw tags. He wants to cut the hunters in the woods in half. He's got a huge following in and around Durango and is a constant visitor to the CPW office in Durango. He has voiced his opinion multiple times to the CPW guys.
Well, I'm a traditional Archer and don't see any possibility of his dream coming true. Most of us would probably like to have fewer hunters around us but his approach is a wedge and distraction from more important issues.
I shoot traditional too, and despite some disagreements with CBA on some issues, the job they do representing all hunting is invaluable. Years ago, the Colorado Traditional Archers Society voted not to get involved position wise with hunting, but rather lrt CBA take the lead on that because they are so effective. So his views are not the mindset or positions of traditional archers or BHA.
Card carrying member of CBA (absolutely not a toe the line member), resident of the southern Eagle county herd since 1974.
With a totally different view of this entire cow harvest debacle. IMO, CBA should have said "fine, for the 10 cows a year we harvest we are totally on board with you restricting the harvest in total and you should also remove all harvest in total for the good of the herd, the population of elk and the future of elk hunting.
But CBA didn't, they bawled like babies and still got chit out of the deal. Has there been a difference in rifle tag numbers because of this? No! Fail on CBA and all hunters and conservationist.
Peterson has always been a uppity bow hunter, not sure why you expect different from him. But CBA was and is absolutely wrong on their view point of the current elk # problem in southern Eagle county and southern Colorado.
BTW, I couldnt give a chit if you shoot tradi or compound.
Starting in 2017 the rifle cow tags for DAU 16 (GMUs 44, 45 ,47, 444) 1st rifle were (hunt code EF044o1R) reduced from 200 to 10 if memory serves me correctly. I believe the CPW also reduced tags dramatically for 2nd, 3rd & 4th seasons as well. I know this because I used to use that season as my second choice B tag. And after 2016, I started looking at draw results and saw this. So to piggyback off of dinkshooter, archery season wasn't singled out, the CPW has been reducing cow tags there for a few years. It was only a matter of time before archery E/S tags were looked at.
Say it isn't so COHOYTHUNTER! CPW has singled out bowhunters!
Sometimes........................ when you are a member of a group that doesn't actually represent your views, opinions or actual happenings.................................sometimes it happens..........
Joe, we didn't have time to do a member survey before the meeting, but we do have time to get all cow tags for all methods of take set to zero. That request is forthcoming, quotas are set in April or May. Hopefully you took the survey.
The southwest...I believe they still want to issue cow tags, and are proposing archery bull and cow tags.
If you care to talk about your backyard, glad to share what I have learned that you may not know. Cpw says you have 4600 elk, that is 20% below the low objective. You may have different opinions on herd size, and the objective. My number is in the magazine.
Additionally, I am done after this year, would love to find my replacement and transition it over before I'm gone. How about it?
I feel archery was singled out. I don't know what share of the cow opportunity is fair to allocate to bowhunters but I'm sure that 0% is a little low. There will still be several rifle seasons taking cows including the cow-only Aug-Jan season. Unless they are creating a new antlerless limited hunt code for archery season, hunting cows in bow season was eliminated completely.
"Unless they are creating a new antlerless limited hunt code for archery season, hunting cows in bow season was eliminated completely."
Good, if it is for good of the herd, longevity of the species and hunting!
They did also vote to remove the early season rifle cow tags in GMU 45 this year. Point is the are removing both rifle and archery opportunities for female elk. In order to put a limit on number of cow tags for archery, they would have had to covert those units to draw only, it was probably just easier to make them bull only units. Not saying its fair..
Also the total rifle cow tags for 2019 as proposed is 40. plo will be set to zero. Early cow in gmu 45 is gone from what I was told per consent agenda.
When I weigh the lost opportunity and the precedent of eliminating all bowhunting cow opportunity vs the impact of the 35 cows bowhunters were taking across 4 units, I see it as bad for bowhunting. Their herd estimate in 2017 is 4578-4989. Our 35 cows won't even dent the 400+ difference in their upper and lower estimate.
If you care about the resource you have to back yourself up from "fair" and worry about the big picture.
CBA, did not in this instance and Peterson is right in calling them out on it. BTW, I couldn't care less if Peterson gets to sit in his cabin and hunt his little wallow/water hole behind his house, FACT. Much like I couldn't care less if Jaquomo spent the majority of his elk hunting years on prime private( although OTC) land, FACT.
If you want to message me your number Joe, I'd appreciate the chance to talk.
Grasshopper, can you clarify something for me? My understanding was the big concern from CBA was the Commission proposing, and subsequently voting, to make the archery tags in DAU-16 bull only. Did they also remove those 4 GMUs from the OTC Antlerless Elk license? I haven't gone back to try and find the information from the meeting agenda but I don't recall that being one of the proposals. Or did I just miss it?
I believe all of our e-16 recommendations were adopted including removal of the 4 gmu's use of any b list cows tags including archery season. B list archery participation was estimated in 2017 as 237 archers estimated to take what I was told about 5 cow elk.
What was not adopted in our recommendations was to wait on bull only for what will be 6 months, to complete bgss. Our testimony was supportive of take reduction, but how that gets done should be based on public input that no one had and was clearly insufficient. Bgss is about major changes, this was a major change. All we asked on this is that they follow their own rules.
Also I was told removal of b list cow tags was done on the consent agenda, not the e-16 issue paper.
Dinkshooter, you are correct about one thing: When my little public land BLM spot I'd hunted since a teenager became private through a land trade, and the new owner allowed a dozen or so current hunters to continue to hunt it, I accepted the offer. You damn well would too, as would everyone else on this forum. I am not ashamed of that.
It was not "prime", there weren't big bulls, it was a small place with interference from other hunters and a rifle outfitter who hates bowhunters and did his best to screw up the hunting for us. It was more about the sense of place, of being able to camp and hunt on the mountain where we grew up bowhunting. There are way bigger bulls on the public land I hunt now, and less interference from others.
I'm not sure why you have a personal problem with my past. You've brought it up in random posts on here before. We've never met. Why don't you PM me your phone number and lets chat about your issues.
Your welcome!
And again, for those who still may have questions, here is a link to our written testimony on E-16, which I had at length one on one phone calls with about 8 commissioners. All of it was adopted, except waiting for BGSS on bull only.
Would they have eliminated PLO cow tags and B-list tags if we didn't bring it up? You be the judge, I don't know.
Our survey so far shows some level of support for eliminating all cow take for all methods of take, we didn't have that data before this meeting, and CPW did no public input other than talking to the roundtable in Eagle which is inadequate.
Joe, I'd still like to talk to any dues paying member, appreciate your membership.
Good job, Steve. Many thanks for your hard work on this!!
Excellent letter Steve. It definitely conveys the message that CBA is concerned about the elk populations in E-16 and CBAs support for reducing archery additional cow licenses as well as cow licenses for other methods of take and seasons.
Not sure how that portrays CBA as selfish or self serving.
There is and should be a concern among bowhunters in Colorado about the precident of making archery elk bull only and, based on the statistics for cow harvest by archery, it does not make much sense. The statistics indicate that bowhunters taking a statistically insignificant number of cows in comparison to the rifle hunters. Future restrictions to bull only archery are likely with this decision.
"Would they have eliminated PLO cow tags and B-list tags if we didn't bring it up? You be the judge, I don't know."
Am I reading that as they did eliminate the PLO rifle cow tags?
Glunt: Yes they did remove all PLO rifle cow tags. see pg #155
Removed early rifle cow tags. see pg # 117.
Changed first and fourth rifle ES to bull only. pg # 129.
Looks to me like they kept 10 antlerless tags available for both first rifle and muzzleloader though? At the meeting one of the CPW guys said something about needing to keep a minimum of 10 tags to keep a hunt code open, but not sure why they choose to continue those cow hunts and eliminate all others.
The proposed PLO quota per CPW testimony is to set it at zero. Technically, that happens in April or May, and we need to confirm that.
Thanks. I don't like how easily we were reduced to zero cow opportunity outside of the BGSS, but removing the PLO season softens the blow a bit.
The PLO cow tags are less of an issue in that they are designed to get the elk off private land and onto public lands.
Although, it would stand to reason that PLO cow tags would coincide with the regular seasons rather than go from August 15 to January 31...
PLO bull or either sex tags made no sense in these units. Nor did a September rifle cow elk season on top of archery and muzzle loader.
Prime example of issuance of excessive numbers of tags over a long period and the elk population’s response.
I appreciate David Petersen's opinion on the situation today and back in 1992 and while I believe there are some great folks in CBA I have witnessed some "self-serving" there. The CPW survey question on muzzleloader/archery overlap concerns me - I hope it doesn't turn into a "vote" since it seems like there are a lot of guys that haven't thought it through very well and in consideration of both the wildlife and the hunter. Looking forward to seeing how they structure the next 5 years - it may be telling.
It's going to be a vote. The question(s) are what will they be voting on.
Dave, do you know why the subject of splitting the ML and archery seasons during the Early Season, has come up again?
Dave, I'm curious about what you mean by "in consideration of both the wildlife and the hunter". Sounds like you've thought it through.
At least the CBA is at the table.
Its been said that 'If you're not at the table, you're on the menu'
Joe -- I appreciate your thoughts above on this one and very much agree with you.
I've read CBA's final position statement and listened intently to hours of testimony and, at this point, CBA appears to be missing the position of a large contingent of bowhunters in Colorado. I disagree with their OTC position for two reasons: (1) condition of the resource; (2) quality of hunting experience.
CBA's rationale for "Archery Either Sex Licensing" (which appears to be support for the status quo) is that bowhunting is "hard" and has never been used as management tool. No one would disagree with those historic statements but CPW biologists and OTC hunters across the state know damn well that the increase in popularity of bowhunting is having unintended impacts on elk breeding, movement, calf recruitment, etc. Eagle County and the San Juan Basin come to mind. The condition of the resource should drive the structure of the season and CBA never once mentions this in its official position. Since when did we turn into the "more, more, more" crowd? The NA Model was not based on "what about me" it was based on "what about the resource."
As a matter of hunting experience in Colorado, I again disagree with CBA. As much as I enjoy seeing the flash of a spotting scope on every ridge and trail heads packed with trucks and hearing timber basins echoing with primos calls, I'm entirely over the entitled "give everyone a license" position. " Sure, out of state allocations are two or three times what most other states are, and those need to change as well, but I'll happily forego my privilege to hunt elk every year if it improves the quality of the hunt the following year. I find uncompromising entitlement revolting when white paper statements by CPW biologists are waving red flags in DAUs across the state.
The organization that is advocating for a science based solution gets my nod. And so does Petersen.
Cody, you state, :CPW biologist and OTC hunters across the state know damn well that the increase in popularity of bow hunting is having unintended inpacts on elk breeding, movement, and calf recuritment, etc."
Please show your reference material that supports your statements concerning all of the impacts you state, as above.
my best, Paul
Paul and Lou - my guess on why they are talking about Archery/Muzzleloader overlap is all the noise on this topic. Not sure if the noise has always been there, or if it ramped up with the 2015 accident in Grand Junction area. It was also brought up at CPW roundtables as well and last year's CBA rep "winging it" at a CPW Meeting probably didn't help. I think there are some that think this is still open business or unresolved. IMO it is a non-issue. The concerns/priorities I have on this 'dead horse' topic are: (1) I really do not want to start the archery season any earlier than it is now. (2) I would prefer NOT to give up any season time but ~30 days is sufficient too (3) I firmly believe in a 'rest period' between archery and rifle seasons (and between rifle seasons for that matter) that seem to be timed well with the rut in most years. There is science behind it and I really dont care what other states might do in this regard.
#3 is the "wildlife" part of this I mentioned in my previous post. The "hunter" part is the parochial view that too many hunters have - the "us against them" attitude where "they" might be rifle hunters or muzzy hunters. You can't just disregard what they may want, or not-want either. Knowing they can probably "live with" the current season structure, the "rest period" needs, and that you can't fabricate time I think the overlap is not something that's broken and needing to be fixed. I just wish the noise would think this through!
Im with Paul, show us your materials!
I've had a very eye opening discussion with a CPW biologist. He is an avid bowhunter. He presented some factual evidence on:
1) technology improvements in archery equipment has improved accuracy over longer distances.
2) Impact on early season elk movements by White River study by all recreationists during the early season.
3) Independent study on big game movements effects by both OHV's and now mountain bikers going off trail.
CPW needs additional help managing the resource due to all the influences.
I'm not saying I agree with the assessment, but they have seemed to have done tbeir due dilligence on the issue.
I do fully agree with Chasewild's statements : "The NA Model was not based on "what about me" it was based on "what about the resource."
And
"The organization that is advocating for a science based solution gets my nod"
My only beef is Dave P singling out and mentioning CBA as a bad guy in his article. They are doing exactly what their mission statement states.
First of all, yes the reason the archery/ml over lap came up is because of the accident where a ML rifle hunter, (his words " took a sound shot") and kill a young bowhunter. If it had not been for that, the issue would not have come up of separating the bow hunters for ML rifle hunters. The CPW "suggested" that the CBA survey its membership so the CBA could show them if there was any support. The majority voted no support to separate. Dead issue!
Bow Hunters causing calf elk recrutement numbers to decline. This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. In 2000, the CPW boasted of 320,000 ( an all time high) and during that time, elk bow hunter numbers increased 100% from 20,000 in 1988 to 39,000 in 2002. According to your "sources" during that period, the elk numbers and calf recrutement should have lessened but they still grew. It was not until the DOW/CPW started massive cow reduction, ie increased cow elk licenses, that the herd was reduced to long term objective of 265,000 elk. The latest figures from the CPW lead Big Game Coordinator, is the Colorado's elk population is now 280,000.
Bow hunters causing elk to migrate early to private land. Maybe in some area but you also have a huge increase in activity from hikers, bikers, atv, bird hunters, ML hunters or just that lead cow elk who wanted to eat fresh pasture grass, that surely help any early migration and if there is an early migration, what percentage of the elk in that area, actually early migrate. The White River study showed less than 15-20% of the elk migrated for various reasons and it surely does not happen state wide.
If you examine this season's dates, you will see the archer elk season starts on the last Saturday in Aug. ( five saturdays) The very next day is Sept 1. So this season will almost mirror a Sept season. Actually one of the Wildlife Commissioners support the all Sept archery elk season.
'NOISE! ' I am very thankful that the Colorado Bow Hunter Assoc, does make noise. If we did not representing bowhunters, when who would.
my best, Paul Past CBA/DOW liaison for 6 years.
Thanks, Dave. We're on the same page.
Was David Petersens campaigning hard against the spring bear hunt based on a science based solution? SMFH
I agree with Stix above that Petersen is not exactly "tactful" in his approach to solving problems. Ad hominem attacks are not productive.
Although I appreciate Paul's passionate response, I am disappointed that his first response to a counter-position (one which is not necessarily directly opposed) is to label it "dumb." But I'm not exactly surprised either.
I'm not predisposed to changing the status quo simply because a few may be screaming that the sky is falling. I'm not a doomsayer and I, by profession, am not afforded the luxury of trumpeting anecdotal evidence as cold hard fact. Federal litigation is not so simple.
I employ the same analysis when thinking about the season structure in Colorado. Good data rules all and I will not say that a few reports should be used to patch a one-size-fits all blanket across the state. However, I will also say that when patches are missing, or to continue the metaphor, if reports say something needs to change, the agency must deal with those gaps.
I'll summarize one gap here. The San Juan basin is an areas where the unlimited free-for-all could change to improve elk numbers and the quality of our hunting experience. In DAU30 cow harvest has decreased by rifle and muzzy by 46% while the same by archery has increased 135% between 2007 and 2016. In DAU31, cow harvest decreased by muzzy and rifle by 46% and increased by 71% by archery. Cow licenses sold to muzzy and rifle decreased by 53% in DAU30 and by 64% in DAU31. Either sex archery increased by 63% in DAU30 and 30% in DAU31. Despite the decline in muzzy and rifle licenses and cow harvest, CPW biologists continued to find a decline in calf recruitment that began in 2006 (ish) and has continued downward from 41/100 calves to cows to 29/100 cows to calves in 2015 in DAU31. At the same time, CPW biologists noticed excellent to exceptional fawn recruitment in deer -- nearing and exceeding 60 fawns to 100 does.
According to the agency's own experts, there is no doubt that archery hunting is having a noticeable impact on the herd.
Now, this does not include any mention of habitat fragmentation, what New Mexico is doing to manage the same herd, increased pressure by recreationalists, fires, etc. But, personally, I'm willing to cut my cake if it means the possibility -- not the certainty -- of more cake in the future.
Can someone post which other organization has given thousands of dollars to the DOW now CPW over the last 20 years to be used specifically in the preservation of our states wildlife resources? The CBA has! I guess that is the definition of self serving...
I dislike my previous sentence : "But, personally, I'm willing to cut my cake if it means the possibility -- not the certainty -- of more cake in the future."
A more accurate statement is that I'm willing to forego my privilege to hunt every year if it will improve the herd and the quality of the hunt in years to come.
I think there are a lot of factors at play here. I don't believe reducing licenses for archery is necessarily 'The Fix', but a band aid. I personally think the whole Colorado system needs to be revamped and rethought. From the preference point system, number of OTC units and the crazy 35% non-resident license allocation. There are issues the CPW has with those, and unfortunately those issues they are all revenue based. When the CPW created this OTC unlimited license system (archery and some rifle seasons 'bull only'), they created a system where anyone on the planet who wanted to hunt in Colorado could. The result is what we see in September, an overload of guys in the woods. The issue is, the CPW has become so dependent on the revenue stream and even more depended since DOW became CPW. But the question I have is what did they think was going to happen when you give out licenses to anyone who wants one? Colorado used to boast that we have the highest elk population the nation and it was used as a marketing tool to get non-residents here. The irony with getting all those out of state hunters here, is we are seeing herd declines and that marketing tool may not be usable in the future as herd numbers decline. The preference point system needs a revamp; I look at this from a 'new generation hunter' perspective, there are young guys and gals getting in the hunting world now, who could potentially never draw a decent tag, thus having a good experience (seeing elk, hearing bugles, etc), the downside to that is if the experience sucks and they just feel like they are just hiking in the woods with their bow in hand, they may be less likely to continue. There are many guys out there sitting on 20+ points holding out for that 'ultimate unit' that may never get to hunt it because of point creep and getting older. The tag allocation to non-residents is a concern, but the CPW likes this because I creates more revenue. If they really want to restrict tags in all or some OTC units, start with limiting non-residents, make all non-residents have to draw for all licenses. and make OTC units OTC w/caps for residents and limited draw for non-residents. I am all for protecting our resource for future generations, but there is something to be said for putting residents first over non-residents. Bottom line is, I believe the DOW/CPW has mismanaged the Colorado system for years and now they are reacting to issues the past created. However, small little changes here and there are not going to fix the bigger problems. I personally think the answers need to come from the science and what the biologist think is the right thing to do. Decisions need to be made as if money was not a factor. In any business, whenever you put profits above anything else, the quality will ultimately suffer. I this example, the herd numbers are suffering and so is hunt quality (which again is ironic, b/c that is what the CPW is 'selling'). I don't know that anyone has the exact pin point reason for why herd numbers are declining, but I am willing to bet that having so many people(hunters and recreationalists) in the woods at the same time and when the elk are getting ready to calve is a factor.
"According to the agency's own experts, there is no doubt that archery hunting is having a noticeable impact on the herd."
I may have missed it, but I'd like to know exactly how we are having a "noticeable impact" on the herd? Avoid all the off topic stuff, and spell it out in black and white. How is archery affecting these herds?
Chase wild, do you have the actual numbers of cows killed by method/season? % increase doesn’t tell the whole tale.
I still would have to think that the bear population down there is having a huge impact. The Southern Ute reservation and New Mexico management are also impacting those elk. Got any stats on how many cows are getting killed there?
There are many issues with current hunting seasons and CPW mismanagement that need to be addressed. Just have to try and work through them one at a time.
saying that archery has had or is having a detrimental impact on elk herds is anlages to thinking if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels the perceived climate change / global warming crisis would be averted... all while China, India,etc continued BAU.
Cba has an escalated data request to better understand the numbers in the SW region. Just like e-16, we wish to examine historical license quotas for all seasons including plo, harvest rates, and game damage before making a statement or taking a position. This would also include examination of go forward license quota's which will aid in the objective of population increases.
If archery cow harvest went from 10 to 20 animals, that is a 100 percent increase on a number that may be inconsequential in the big picture.
Low cow calf ratios are acceptable in areas where the objective is to reduce herd size like the baca.
Personally, percentage comparisons aren't useful without ALL the data. Hopefully our data request will be fulfilled soon, but staff is also finalizing counts and setting quotas amongst other things.
While I am not a biologist, I would believe a combination of factors have contributed to current state. For as long as I can remember, I have heard claims the SW has been in a severe ongoing drought. I don't hunt there.
Also if you look at e16, the proposed solution is to virtually turn off ALL cow harvest. In the southwest, I believe they still intend to take quite a few cows. Those are very different approaches to similar circumstances.
Okay, post fixed. Basically, if bowhunting is growing and rifle is stagnant or shrinking. Maybe part of "fixing" things would be embracing bowhunting and extending archery seasons to accommodate demand and decrease crowding. Many states are scrambling to find ways to grow participation. Maybe bowhunting is the solution to some problems instead of a thorn in manager's sides.
I liked it glunt, no delete needed
Dang, Glunt is too fast on the delete! Put it back! Might have been a good one!
Glad that CBA is requesting the numbers to clarify the statistics! As Steve notes, there is no way to make any real decisions based on the % success change from one year to the next. Thank you very much!
Steve, thank you yet again for all the great work you have been doing for all the hunters in Colorado. Pretty sure most have no idea how hard you have worked on their behalf.
