This email and picture was not sent directly to CPW, but made it's way there as it was circulated amongst friends.
I also want to point out that these contacts are bowhunters, and are very pro bowhunting
She also showed me more more forwarded emails and pics of various big game with the writers boasting of shots in the 70-80 yard range.
To make a long story short, the staff I spoke with felt that if archery equipment has evolved to this type of performance, it equates to the same performance as muzzleloading rifles, perhaps even better since "reload" time is quicker. It also points to that archery harvest can be included in the scheme of managing the herds as opposed to a recreational opportunity. After all, muzzleloader's have draw only seasons for deer/elk.
They also point out that even though the success rate may be lower in some units when compared with other methods, the number of big game taken approaches the numbers taken by other methods.
This is the mindset we are up against, and it's hard to have a justifiable arguement in opposition when this type of evidence is shown.
Just letting everyone know the direction this issue is going to take.
There are folks the CPW who are daily lurkers on this very forum.
Left out... Due to the increased number of participants. ie: if 50 hunters and 10% success equals 5 animals taken, than 500 hunters with 10% success equal 50 animals taken.
On the other hand, in line, or bolt action, scoped muzzle loaders with sabots are easily 200 yard guns and with a better than average shooter, they are good well beyond 200 yards.
As an example within the last few years there was a survey of elk hunters on the Bowsite and the question was "what is your average shot distance at an elk?" The survey showed that the average shot was less than 35 yards. Of the 11 elk I have killed, the farthest one was 32 yards and I would expect the VAST majority of hunters do the same.
Shooting any animal at 100 yards or even past 80 yards does not impress me and many times when one does, it is more of a "brag" than anything else.
I doubt that a state wide draw will happen because of the increase in bow technology and the abililty of a few to shoot longer distances. Bow hunters are only killing around 5000 elk per year and that number has not increase much at all over the years. The success rate in 12% and as more and more cow tags will not be available, that percentage should go down.
my best, Paul
It's obvious from conversations that CPW perceives bowhunters as "part of the problem" with early season crowding, success rates, etc. Again this is a perception that they are willing to submit evidence, emails, pictures, etc. It also appears that they are willing to remedy it by either going to all draw west of I-25 or by adjusting season length, and possibly both. One or the other is going to happen. They're set on this regardless of what support or opposition comes from it.
Possible solution, and I am not advocating this, but maybe CBA should team up with CPW instead of being an opposition party. CBA is pretty much alone on this issue. Members of other conservation groups as well as just unaffiliated mainstream hunters are voicing the need to control numbers in the early seasons, not to mention rank and file CPW staff. Bowhunters have the most to lose out of this whole process. From my conversations with CPW staff, shortening season seems to be the least desirable alternative, with statewide draw only elk the most favorable to them. But they will do something, it's guaranteed. If we work with them, I think we could gain a favorable advantage, in other issues we lobby for. Such as maintaining or lengthening seasons, especially for deer west of I-25. I really don't know if going to all draw will cause major hardships for hunters other than maybe shifting hunter participation to other units where CPW has determined through counts, etc. that more elk need to be harvested and leftovers are available. By working with them, helping CPW to obtain it's objectives we can say we're partnering with them instead of being op-positional.
Again not promoting this, just food for thought.
The irresponsible actions of a few, impacts the opportunities of others. You see it in every aspect of our lives... like gun control.
They have all these emails and pictures "in their back pocket" and they are going to pursue this to the end. Alot of decisions are made in politics based on emotions. One option is to swim with the current on this one, instead of against it and limit the damage in other areas.
Again, not advocating, but putting it out there for discussion.
There is absolutely no reason we have to go to that model. CPW could easily create a limited tag that encompasses all current OTC units with 50,000 tags available. Doing that alone puts a theoretical cap on NR participation without getting into allocation (outside the BGSS discussion this year), gives a nod to Residents in that there is a "light at the end of the tunnel" when it comes to crowding and has little impact on CPWs budget. With that many tags, every current resident hunter could draw the tag 4th choice, and probably every NR would get one either in the draw or off the leftover list.
So what's the point? It acknowledges that yes, at some point, there needs to be a cap. NRs may not want to take the risk, and actually apply for the draw ( selling more qualifying licenses ) rather than just pick one up on their way. We'd know just how many people are going to be out there.
Yes, I realize for you "slippery slopers" how this looks, however I don't know if the growth we have with OTC is sustainable.
I don't know where your getting your info, but if Andy Holland is good with it, I find little reason to be concerned about technology or shot distances by a few folks leading to license limitations. I think someone is trying to stir your pot.
If you looked at our survey 75% don't want license limitations. Unless the board directs me otherwise, I intend to represent the members.
The bigger question is about the SW region elk herd. I had a great discussion with the Senior Biologist yesterday. While concepts are being discussed in BGSS, limitation proposals either to bull/cow license use or total limits would come in the form of issue papers after BGSS concludes. CPW has agreed to send us more data so we can examine it, and formulate a course of action based on data and facts. As I see it, we have adequate time for discussion, and the sky isn't falling yet.
The Saguache elk herd plan is under review. They are proposing 90% cuts to the cow harvest. Based on past history, it will then make our take look large and unfair.
In the future, I think we're going to see more 'blocks' of OTC units, very similar to Wyo Deer Regions
Rifle guys are shooting 600-1000 yards with setups you can just buy and go shoot that far.
What a joke. Just becUse a few guys claim to kill things at far distances doesn’t mean the rest of the Bowhunter’s do. I bowhunt because I enjoy getting close
I am of the opinion that all elk in colorado needs to be limited and good place to start is with archery. Good work to the CPW for looking into the change! I believe the CPW is on the right track and I hope that they do move all archery units to draw only as it would be a good change with more positive results than neg.
Another big upside of all limited would be the change would stop point creep in its tracks or even reverse it for archery..
Also lets call a spade a spade here something needs to happen as the current trends IMO are not sustainable. When I look at the trends yea it is time for Archery elk to be all draw.
Now, about long range shooting.... go to the Colorado elk hunters page and see the videos of guys killing elk at 70 yards, 80 yards, and even 110 yards. Lots of guys talk about shooting elk at 60 and 70 yards. Bow hunting has now become a long range sport. With the popularity of elk hunting now and the people wanting to kill elk to show off on social media, long range shooting makes up for bad elk calling. Talks of the sw herd has CPW leaning to hunters having to draw tags. I see it was meaning that we'll be able to hunt elk once every other year or every two years. I also see guys traveling to hunt those units that are still otc. Doesn't matter how many show up to a meeting, what is talked about, the commissioners will decide what is best for the elk herd...lol
That's not true. Very few people can estimate distance with adequate accuracy that far. It has NOTHING to do with THEIR ability. It's all about using more technology than should ever have been allowed.
Wonder how much opportunity there would be if you could only use stickbows, have muzzy rules like Idaho, and for rifle seasons you could only use something on a 308 bolt face with up to a 1x scope?
I don't think the tech "improvements" over the past 35 years have substantially changed success rates simply because most of the improvements are more about getting the bowhunter to trade up more often.
There probably are no stats on success rates in the decade '60 to '70 but if there are they would probably show a considerable difference between then and the last two decades.
I'm not advocating anything in the equipment sphere but just pointing out the difference between bowhunting as it was when Colorado accepted bowhunting seasons and what bowhunting is now.
