BGSS video every bowhunter needs to hear
Colorado
This video is public record so I am sharing it. The intent is not incite riots, but you guys need to hear what is being discussed about your archery season. The BGSS discussion starts about -3:25 or so into the audio.
I was really disappointed by the results presented by CPW, and the testimony of outfitter Dale Combs. CPW says we have 282,000 elk, which is at or above objective, not sure what the problem is they are trying to solve.
I heard that as well but there was little evidence produced and at least that was asked rather than just throwing us under the bus. Kind of surprising there was any defense at all on our behalf. An outfitter claimed they saw one cow being bred in November, that could have been a young cow just getting into estrus, same thing happens with whitetails being bred in December.
I would have to agree that having a high density of hunters will push elk into non accessible areas such as private lands. This goes for any method.
Why is the CBA scared to bring up the Resident/Nonresident allocations? Yes you mentioned that your membership survey had a majority of wanting OTC for residents, but it seems like the issue was tap danced around. I believe only residents should be allowed to purchase OTC tags and then set the nonresident quota at 35% of the resident license sales
I'd have to go back and listen...I think I specifically mentioned 52/48 in OTC and that is where we need to examine limits. I need to talk to the board, but my personal opinion on next steps:.
1. I will be talking to CPW staff as they develop options. 2. We obviously need to meet with the outfitters and CCA.
Why would people who make money off of hunts want less time to bring clients in to hunt?
"Why is the CBA scared to bring up the Resident/Nonresident allocations?"
At a CPW meeting I attended, they told us the commission took resident/non-resident quotas off the table for the BGSS. When I asked how we could elevate it to be considered, they said all they could do was report that the issue came up, even though most in attendance saw that as the major problem with crowding. Like others have said, they really don't give a damn about what our concerns are.
They (CPW) got us to support the fee increase, now they are showing their thanks for our support. With friends like this we need no ememies.
Instant Karma's gonna get them.
It’s still amazes me how many pushed that stupid fee increase bill with absolutely no strings attached.
I just hope the increased cost helps my draw odds a little bit more now
Listen to the first portion of the audio, applications dropped by a pretty decent amount. No breakdown on for what species yet, or residency.
One other thing.... I also want to point out if you listen to the audio at about the 1:12 minute mark you can get an update about the formation of a public access working group. I commented about this on behalf of the CBA and our members, we have been pushing for this for years. I have high hopes CBA will be involved in this once it is formalized, Colorado lacks big game access similar to Wyoming and Montana, we need to make progress. Stay tuned for more details, and if you appreciate what the CBA is doing on your behalf, join at www.coloradobowhunting.org
Steve, you did a good job of deflecting the bowhunting increase into a positive recruitment position, especially given the CPW concern about recruitment. If anything, they should be looking at increasing bowhunting opportunity to attract more bowhunters. Some of the proposals (two 2 week seasons with totally limited licenses for the second week) would do just the opposite.
Also interesting that nobody wants to touch the subject of cattle grazing and gathering on pushing elk off public and down onto private. I've witnessed it on a large scale in early September, where big summer herds are pushed down and out by cowboys gathering.
"Why is the CBA scared to bring up the Resident/Nonresident allocations?"
I listened and Steve did bring it up as one of the strongest supported alternatives by CBA members; potentially unlimited resident, capped NR OTC elk licenses. One of the commissioners immediately shot it down saying he didn't want to get into what would be fair.
What drives me batty is that if they're considering making the licenses limited, by default we're talking NR Allocation, as those are capped at 35%.
The public access working group was a bright spot in an otherwise depressing meeting.
Echoing Jaqs comment. Hunter recruitment is a huge issue. I can't see the logic in penalizing bowhunters because we are one of the few segments increasing. We also take less resource but pay the same.
The logical path would seem to be increasing bowhunting seasons and opportunities to accommodate the demand and retain or improve the quality experience that is creating that demand.
"We also take less resource but pay the same."
Be careful Glunt. That depends how you define resource. Remember, we are not paying for KILLING an elk. We are paying for the opportunity to HUNT elk. And our $$/day/hunter charged for that opportunity is much less. However, we can argue that we don't have as big an impact on wildlife as rifle hunters. But, that also is a double-edged sword, if a large part of hunting is for management purposes.
But I agree, it would seem obvious to allocate that opportunity to the fastest growing segment of hunters.
Another thing that we brought up was bear hunting. If they want to kill more bears, instead of increasing rifle hunters during September, why don't they sell OTC bear tags to archery hunter, or that at least can be used in any unit they have another big game tag for. What happened to that proposal?
It seemed evident to me at the CPW meeting that they crafted the agenda, narrative, and questions in a way that could easily be interpreted to support their pre-conceived conclusions.
Any agency that is run by man has an agenda. And it is becoming quite apparent what the agenda is.
I'm disappointed in the outfitters association. They sure have a lot of pull for a stakeholder that doesn't fund the CPW. I'm not anti-outfitter. I used to be one.
Here is an email I received from a person who participated in the west slope BGSS "focus" group. I am struggling with just exactly what the problem is they are trying to solve. I am going to protect the name of the sender, I wish him no harm. Again, we have 280,000 elk, the system seems to be working.
"At a recent focus group meeting, the early season for our 5 Year Big Game Season Structure was scrutinized and discussed by western slope outdoorsmen and facilitated by CPW staff.
It was a highly productive meeting whose goal was to identify issues with the current early season hunts (specifically looking at archery and muzzle loader seasons for deer and elk). Upon identifying issues, the next step was discussing ideas for possible solutions. The group acknowledged the importance of maintaining hunting opportunities for resident and nonresident hunters alike AND, most importantly, benefitting the welfare of our wildlife resources.
The group discussed several alternatives. Two of these gained broad support:
The first alternative called for across the board limited archery elk licenses in all units. Muzzle season stays the same. Deer season stays the same. Hunt dates would be set to Sept. 1-30. The second alternative receiving strong support called for splitting the elk archery season into 2 separate hunts. There werevariations of this proposal, which included: 1) making a first archery elk season that is over-the-counter for bulls only and a second archery elk season that is limited and either-sex; 2) Making a first OTC archery elk season and a second archery elk season that is OTC but with caps on the number of licenses sold; 3) A third idea that was discussed was creating afirst archery season for deer and elk with a second season just for elk. For all these proposals, muzzle stays the same. Hunt dates would be set to Sept. 1-30. The archery elk hunter would have to choose which hunt they wanted to participate in.Current limited units would stay the same while the changes would be implemented to OTC units only.
Participants also supported the creation of a new early archery season for youth hunting with a mentor. This season could take place before the start of regular archery.
Based on feedback from CPW, similar alternatives were discussed and strongly favored in other focus groups. The Big Game Season Survey results also indicated very strong feedback from archery hunters wanting to put limits on their own season to improve the quality of the hunt and maintain/improve overall herd health. I believe it speaks volumes when hunters are requesting to put limits on themselves and their own hunting opportunity. In this case, that would be archery hunters.
It is our hope that the CPW Commissioners will take note of the very obvious feedback that changes need to be made with the early season hunts and that the citizens have provided well thought out and logical alternatives in conjunction with CPW oversight. Colorado is a world-class destination for deer and elk hunters. However, in order to maintain the quality we have, the time has come to make changes in how we manage our early season hunts."
They had 3034 respondents to their survey, of which 2523 were residents and 50% of respondents were archery hunters.
- 80% were concerned with crowding during the early seasons. - 28% desired to maintain the status quo regarding early season lengths and dates.
I don't agree with changing what so many of you have worked so hard for. I sat on the phone the night that they called, filled out the online survey and hope many of you did as well. Sounds like they're gonna give more weight to their own surveys and questionnaires on this subject.
No need to re-invent the wheel. The season dates have worked for years. If there is a perception of overcrowding, just go limited statewide and stop wasting time and brain power and most of all money. They're getting too elaborate with all these options. Keep it Simple Stu*id (KISS)
Going totally limited would also have another efftect, it limits non-residents to 35% in the former otc units. Think about it.
I don't see totally limited unless they set the numbers where they currently are due to revenue. It would surprise me if they actually reduce license sales.
Splitting the season to keep total sales the same and allow more growth is what I would expect.
I don't support that but that's how they dealt with rifle demand and how we have 4 rifle seasons and a bunch of extra ones here and there.
Going totally limited will cause widespread upheaval with the preference point system, and everyone will PO'd. Think about that. Want to spend your 15 point no man land bank account for a unit 62 with a new quota of 6000 other bowhunters?
Again, a comment I heard in the CBA BGSS meeting...what the hec is the problem we are trying to solve? and who is complaining? We never got a good answer to that.
That said, south of highway 50 has a recruitment problem. Do we fix that locally, or put a statewide change in place to fix a regional issue?
With the fee increases, buying an extra license just to apply, application fees, etc, they can absorb a loss of license sales without jeopardizing overall funding.
But you're right, it's all about $$$, and that's what's guiding their greed.
Why doesn’t the CBA go direct and just come out and say they want OTC for residents only. Put the commission on the spot. If Hunters in this state could organize maybe we could have it as good as WY & MT. Don’t tap dance around the issue if that’s what the membership wants. Maybe membership would grow if people thought the organization was actually doing something proactive, but all I heard from the audio is “we’re scared of you Mr Bray”
That’s the main reason I dropped my CBA membership, just felt like they were a rubber stamp for whatever the CPW wanted at the time.
Putting the CPW on the spot for that issue would immediately lead to this question: "How do you propose we make up the massive revenue shortfall?"
And your answer would be?
In a long engagement, you pick your battles....
I did say that when describing our survey, not sure what your listening to but listen again
I did hear you say that, but then the awkward dance started between you and Bray. He makes a lot of money off selling hunts and should have to recuse himself when tag allocations are voted on. Same with Haskett. Colorado takes in more money by a large margin compared to our neighboring states. Look what Montana does with half of Colorado’s budget. But for whatever reason Colorado can’t get it’s hunting community organized. When Wyoming wanted to give it’s deer herds a boost, they cut the nonresident quota instead of screwing residents. Look at what other states are doing, and you’ll see we’re getting the short end of the stick here. Now with these new commissioners, might be the best time to get something done due to their lack of being in the good old boy club that we’ve had to deal with in the past. Heck the wolf groups can get a ballot measure, why can’t we get a 90/10 ballot measure and do away with the voucher mess bs.
Deleted after further consideration.
^^^ Boom....
Thanks for all you do Steve
Sorry, I'm cracking I guess. Going to need that 30 day season for mental rehab. Walleye fishing with cnelk for Jason and I may help too.
Hang in there Steve, we (most of us) really appreciate what you do...
Anybody else wonder what the GOCO people mean when they say, "We want to be seen less as a funding source, and be more hands on as a partner."
jlmathew, Instead of quitting, why don't you bring your great ideas and superior leadership skills to the CBA. There are lots of openings coming up on the board at the end of the year. Actually, there are unfilled positions right now, so you can get started immediately. What do you say?
Over the years he CBA has been described as a thorn in the side of the CPW, and commission. Their jobs would be so much easier without us "interfering". I suspect that thorn is getting less prickly as our membership and volunteers continue to decline. But hey, I've been told by younger bowhunters that they have the internet, and Facebook is a better way to influence our hunting opportunities. By the time that proves to not be very effective, it will be too late.
Thanks Steve, and the rest of the board for stepping up.
Jlmathew, I look forward to seeing and hearing your proposals presented to the CWC soon!
A 90/10 scenerio would almost certainly bring massive opposition by economic/ag interests in big game hunting. Colorado used to be 60/40 then (outside of OTC) in 2006 went 65/35 with the new 80/20 units. Having been one representing sportsmen on that 2005 Big Game License Allocation Working Group I found any further priority to Colorado residents was extremely contentious and would be very difficult to achieve. Times may have changed, and Colorado resident populations have steadily increased, yet unless anyone has at least a monetary fix to offsetting a reduced NR hunter limited license hunting opportunity, (again outside of present OTC availability), then come forward as idea #1. One possibility though for Colorado residents hunting priority though would be unfreezing the 80/20 GMU increases, along with obviously moving upward the required levels of PP for such 80/20 GMUs. The freezing of 80/20 GMU additions was an early read as to the strength of NR hunter value to economic stakeholder interests in big game hunting, prior Wildlife Commissions, and CP&W funding.
Thank you Steve for all you do! I know that you must spend countless hours preparing for these meetings and such. With that said, I think that we as hunters, cannot only rely on one organization or one person to lobby for us. As great as a job as Steve and the CBA does, we all need to do more. We all know and talk about hunting rights in Colorado diminishing, especially bowhunting rights. But what are we doing about it? And I am guilty of this too and speaking for myself and maybe others, my reasoning is simply I don't know where to begin. I've written emails to the CPW commissioners with no real success other than some limited correspondence. I feel like we need to organize better and flood the capital and CPW with letters and petitions, etc.. For instance, we create one letter that has everything WE WANT. Send it out and everyone prints and signs and mails in.. Just an idea, but again, it may be a dumb idea.. I don't know where to begin or what to do that will be effective. I am not savvy on navigating a political landscape. I just know we need to do something. I know I would feel much better about hunting rights being lost or limited knowing that I did everything I could do to stop it and lost than standing by and hoping it stays status quo.
We don't need to go all limited, or have quotas, at least not yet. Just require everyone to buy their OTC tags at the time of the draw. If you don't get the limited license you want, you have to purchase an OTC tag, or if you're not applying for a limited area, you still have to purchase your OTC tag by the April app deadline. I think most residents do that by default - I surely do. Let's see if these NR hunters really want to hunt Colorado, or just hunt here as a last resort.
Great idea, I'm going to use it tomorrow. Bowsite is a gold mine for creative thought Ideas
I like the way you think Ziek!
Thanks for being a great advocate Steve!
That IS a great idea, Ziek.
Ziek, that will work. But I think the draw is a better way to predict license sales. I understand the residents frustration but at this put the state is so hooked on all that NR money it would be hard to vote themselves out of funding. Or the residents fees would have to drastically be raised. If I was a resident. Given the option of a quality hunting experience with higher fees. I would take the higher fees.
Sure is sad that a resource that belongs to the state is controlled by the few making money off it (outfitters, ranchers, CPW) and not those that the resource should benefit.
CDOW is banking on people not drawing in other states. Setting up a system that reduces revenue as stated by Ziek won’t fly.
Now if they were to follow Ziek’s protocol at “Standard Price” and then if you wait after that time and want to come, well that’s what we call the “Special Price” and that my friends will cost you a cool 1k to hunt in Colorful Colorado.
With all that extra money we can even get some rainbow colored “MCGA” hats designed. Flat brimmed of course, Governor approved.
I first want to say thanks to the CBA for all they do to advocate for bowhunting opportunities and certainly join with them as a member to move forward in a way that is acceptable to the whole group. As a resident hunter, who wants to build P.P.s, I share everybody else’s frustration when I pull up to my OTC unit only to find vehicles parked all over the place with out of state plates affixed to them knowing that my money cant compete with theirs in the minds of all the powers that be (CPW, Commissions, Outfitters Association). As stated by so many, we have an over crowding issue and it is slowly shifting our State to be driven by out of state dollars which in my opinion, our state Government loves. In the end, I would gladly pay even considerably more money if that’s what it takes to offset having less NR hunters. The other issue I have heard said about the upward trend in archers to firearm hunters is that archers are not harvesting enough animals coupled with the issue of running the game onto un-accessible lands thus hurting the wildlife population management. Maybe (just thinking out loud) we incentivize firearm hunting by making those tags cheaper for Out-of-State hunters and more expensive for out-of State archery tags. Just my $.02. Thanks again CBA.
Not my initial idea but discussed with another fellow hunter is (like some other states) requiring changing Colorado's 'qualifying licenses' requirement to a base hunting license, (with the same pricing as for qualifying licenses resident and non-resident) then having separate species tags (elk, deer, pronghorns, moose, sheep, goats, bears). Every one (including OTC elk hunters and leftover draw folks) interested in hunting big game would then be required to buy a base hunting license (like some other states require). Regardless of choice of draw or not, folks would only once buy a base hunting license, possibly exempting small game and migratory birds. The individual big game species tags would come separate and priced accordingly. This format could also possibly, at least from a income standpoint, reduce monetary reduction pressure off of BGSS changes. Perhaps more importantly all hunters would regardless of entering the public draw or not, going OTC or buying leftover licenses, would more fairly have to pay in for managing wildlife.
How many less nonresident hunters do we need to have a "quality" hunt? OK, those nonresidents are gone, so how much more will it cost the residents who are paying up for the "quality" hunt?
PECO, you make some good points. I’m not sure what the answers are. One things for sure if you don’t ever do anything, it’s never going to get better.
CPW is not going to do anything that will retard their cash flow, we all know that. I'm just saying, someone better do some math before they volunteer to "happily pay more" for a quality hunt.
How about they don't tie in the parks budget with hunting? If they merged them, why can't they unmerge them? That is the root of all this bs. They won't do it obviously.
IMO they will break up archery into at least 2 seasons, two weeks long each, they won't lose a dollar of NR money that way because they come for 10 days or less anyway. They get to say they did something and get to keep all of their revenue. In the end, we all get screwed.
Asking to keep raising the cost is selfish. There are many people who struggle to afford the new costs. I about fell over when I bought fishing licenses the other day for my wife and me. Add in some kids and it becomes cost limiting for many families. That isn't good for long term sustainability. They will justify the separate archery seasons as a response to the increased interest in archery as well as the increased effectiveness of the weapons(I know the statistics don't back that up from a success rate).
P&Y400 and the opposite of that, and potentially even more damaging, is the "we have to do something!" I give as a recent example the whole sale slaughter of deer herds out of fear of CWD. The only affect it had was it made the deer huntin tougher for a decade. There are game departments back east still doin it because "we have to do something!" Hopefully they take their time and find the correct and reasonable solution to this dilemma. We shall see.
Good points taken fellas. I wish there was a good compromise that would work for all the players in Colorado big game hunting. Maybe they will come up with something close.
What if we split the archery season only for nonresidents? Pro's, cons?
Split non resident seasons wouldn't help much. Most nr are only here for a week. Crowding wouldn't be changed much if they were forced to choose first or second half.
CPW doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem! CPW is by far the richest game management department in the country. Somehow resident elk hunters(rifle and bow) need to band together in order to coerce them into giving our satisfaction at least a little consideration. State parks users need to pay to keep the parks open, and fishermen need to pay for their own program. If we could get those two user groups out of the hunting program's pocket there wouldn't be such a need for all those NR dollars and CPW would be free to do the right thing for elk and resident hunters.
Parks budget and wildlife/fish revenue streams and budgets are totally separate, except for combined administrative costs which are presumably cost efficient. One has nothing to do with the other. Or else theres a massive conspiracy to launder revenue, falsify documents and financial reporting, present false testimony to legislature, with hundreds of people involved (including all past and present Commissioners), and none of whom have leaked the details of the multi-billion dollar scheme to anyone. It would be one of the greatest and most successful fraud conspiracies in modern history.
You sure read a lot into what I said Jaq. I'm not claiming there is any wrongdoing, criminality or conspiracy.
The way I understand it, administration of parks was absorbed by the newly formed CPW when the merger occurred (parks was insolvent, wildlife was not). Did combining admin costs cost the wildlife side more than the parks side? I honestly don't know, but suspect that it did. For example, I do know of a State Park (that was losing money)that was recently converted into a state wildlife area, I guess the crappers at this new State Wildlife Area(with most of the same services as the former State Park) just clean themselves??? I don't think this was illegal, but I do think it is an added expense to the wildlife side and cost savings for parks.
Check the numbers... How can Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Montana and Idaho all do at least as well as Colorado at managing their state's wildlife with a fraction of the money Colorado brings in? I still Say it's gotta be the spending.
As a NR I think it’s a good idea to have a NR draw for all current OTC hunts. The odds would still be good. But the residents would probably have to pay more to Make up for the fewer NRs coming in. Because we all know they will not cut their funding.
Every year I am surprised how fast a once rural state is becoming more like California. I don’t live, work, or vote in Colorado but enjoy the beautiful national forests every year.
More dope. More hikers. More summer homes.... and more difficulties attracting outdoors-men/women. Colorado sportsman, as well as their organizations, have a hard road in front of them. Good luck.
