CBA BGSS Survey results
Colorado
As usual I am short on time today, but I think this link will take you to the CBA BGSS survey results.
Curious to know if folks find anything surprising or not...
We had 60 or so nonmembers participate, and I have mixed feelings about deleting the nonmember responses as I do not wish to provide a disservice to those who pay dues. That said, the views of nonmembers track & align with those of members so I think I'll leave it alone unless I hear objections otherwise.
Steve, good work, as I know it takes a lot of time and effort. As far as non CBA members participating in the CBA members survey. I feel the non member input should not be included as this was a CBA membership survey and not a PUBLIC SURVEY.
My best, Paul
Great job Steve. I do however disagree with Paul from the non-member aspect, and more so since the non-member responses align with member responses. I think including non-member responses shows that this is more than just a CBA issue and it allows you to include opinions broader than just CBA members and shows that even non-members have the same feelings on these topics. Just my .02
"CBA membership survey and not a PUBLIC SURVEY," Well it was offered to non members, and considering CBA is not the only input that will be used in making decisions, I like to see as many opinions as possible. Keep the non CBA survey results included.
It is important to consider what the commission will find most valuable.
Steve, correct. And I think given the recent ideas that the CBA is 'self serving', having non-members input could prove to be valuable.
Steve your probably doing this already but I think presenting the results separately, members vs nonmembers, would be a good way to present the results. It would show a non bias amongst member results IMHO. Enjoyed meeting a couple of the members last Tuesday, sorry I didn't get a chance to chat with you. Next time.
Dirk, I went down that path for a couple hours until I figured out pivot tables, and commas in between the multiple choice answers in the same cell are beyond my skillset and pay grade as a volunteer. If there are excel geeks out there...let me know.
I don't think non-member responses should be grouped in with member responses. However, they should be presented, especially if the results are similar. This demonstrates that the concerns are not just CBA concerns, but broader bowhunter concerns. We have heard complaints in the past that CBA doesn't represent ALL bowhunters. This could help refute that argument.
Quote: "Curious to know if folks find anything surprising or not..."
I would've guessed there'd be more support for making all Elk hunting a draw. I think many people might read the question and assume they could no longer hunt their favorite OTC unit every year. But there's a huge difference between managing a unit for quality versus just making the unit draw while keeping hunter numbers the same. The latter reduces point hoarding while still letting everyone hunt. Other than that, the results seem to be about as expected.
That is interesting. You hear lots of chatter about crowding in the CPW meetings and elsewhere, but when push comes to shove the most important thing to most may be having a license every year. We hunt, that is what we do and want to keep doing.
I think the bigger thing to think about with total limits is what will happen to all the preference points out there. Will guys with masses of points put in for low point units making them difficult to draw for the foreseeable future. For some period of time, all bets would be off on if you could draw.
I'd be for limits, but I am not here to speak for just me until next year.
No surprises. Total limited does mean not getting to hunt at some point or it wont go far towards reducing crowding. If 40,000 people hunt now and 40,0000 people hunt after going limited, we just decrease pressure in one spot and equally increase pressure wherever we put them. As demand keeps growing, if tag numbers don't grow, someone sits out.
Steve
Since PPs werent on the issue paper this go-round, when will they be?
As far as crowding, I just cant believe that the rifle hunters are satisfied with the numbers in the elk woods 2nd & 3rd seasons. Its a EFFING zoo then. Archery season is a moonscape compared to those seasons.
I was not a fan of how Colorado structured the 100% draw for deer system and it could have been a lot better.
Based on the statistics, archery should be OTC for deer or archery hunters allotted far more tags per area based on actual harvest statistics, not % of total hunters. The current system of tag allocation issues far more tags to the method that takes the most animals and is more effective at taking out the mature animals (rifle) for less $$ and time in the field per animal killed by far.
However, the current system has worked to provide lots of opportunities for deer hunting with the ability to hunt deer every year - and get a point if you want.
Elk going 100% draw would be the same as deer with plenty of options every year and I do believe it would pull down that crazy points races we are seeing. I would prefer to see nonresident go draw in advance of resident, but would not be opposed to all draw for elk if that was the only option.
It would be nice to see a focus on a quality hunting experience rather than the overload that we have now. Draw licenses would help manage hunter numbers to decrease overcrowding.
Im not sure how the non members took the survey, but in my opinion we should use those non-member emails like a true contact and send them a membership link if possible.
Great work Steve, a true asset to Colorado bowhunters. Worth the 30 bucks right there. Sad some can’t see that.
Ditto, great work Steve.
Going to all draw will definitely change the dynamics of PPs, just like it did with deer. That first year a lot of people burned points to hunt zero point deer units so they could hunt home turf. I blew 7 and could've drawn with 0 or possibly even second choice.
I can't see CPW doing that for elk because it will necessarily decrease the number of NR licenses sold unless they change the allocation formula. That makes it a negative net revenue move, which they don't seem to want.
"Since PPs werent on the issue paper this go-round, when will they be?" Million dollar question that I can not answer. I did mention points today when I submitted our results, and continue to bring it up.
That's going to be interesting.... the day PP's go away and Colorado goes random draw or they re-start the PP's program. Something will happen someday... But whatever happens will be fun to watch, depending on how many points you have I suppose. I bet it happens sooner than later.
With 18pp for each of the big three you should film me COYOTHUNTER the day that happens as I will be the first human to literally chit puppies!
I think they are more likely to do something with elk/deer/lope etc.. I think they might leave the big three be.. but ya never know
Think they'll reimburse people for their points? Bwahahaha!
Just go to a modified weighted system for all species and be done with it.
Yeah right!! They'll probably find a way to charge you to give them up.. maybe a 'preference point surrender fee', you'll have to pay them to process your points out of the system
Somewhere in a backroom, that idea has no doubt been tossed around!
