Grasshopper's Link
I have heard quite a few folks say we need to change for the benefit of the elk resource. CBA definitely cares about the resource. That said, if you read page 184 of the limited license recommendations it states we have 287,000 elk statewide, 5000 over objective. Out of 42 elk herds, 5 are below objective, 21 are above, and the rest are at objective. Current management seems to be working. I have heard archers are moving elk so rifle hunters can't find them, yet the last harvest stats provided to me by CPW show a first rifle success rate of between 23-30%. Hmmm. I have also heard we need to be limited due to crowding in OTC units. While Archery participation is growing at nominal rates and we had roughly 34,000 archery elk hunters in 2018 over 30 days, 2nd rifle had 53,000 in a much shorter season. One year 2nd rifle had 67,000 hunters. Think archery is crowded? Are we blessed or cursed?
The link is the summary report of BGSS public input. While I always encourage all CBA members to write the commission, I also recommend you take the time to think about what your saying, and what your asking for. CPW recommendations to the commission will come out in June. I have had a number of people tell me archery season should be shortened or split in two. If you feel crowded now, try 34,000 OTC hunters in a shorter season! Ouch.
Commissioners and CPW staff,
Last Wednesday I testified on behalf of the Colorado Bowhunters Association regarding the Big Game Season Structure public input phase update. In my testimony I promised to send along a copy of our recent BGSS member survey which had 474 responses. I am attaching both our survey questions, and the responses for your review. We used Google Forms as our survey tool, be aware you may have to cross-reference both documents as their formatting truncated the text of response description field in some instances. I am also enclosing the raw survey results in a spreadsheet as provided by Google Forms.
As you continue to examine BGSS alternatives, we think commissioners have 3 primary considerations.
1. Your highest priority is any biological concerns for our wildlife. We understand the elk population is slightly above statewide population objectives, which indicates current season structure is performing as desired. We do understand the elk herds south of Hwy 50 are currently challenged with cow/calf ratios below desired objectives, and multiple CPW studies are underway and ongoing. We support the research CPW performs for all species, and look forward to the results. Proposed options for the SW region do not involve season changes, but focus on reducing cow harvest. 2. A secondary commission concern is the well-being of the agency including capabilities, financial implications of proposed changes, and public sentiment. 3. Another consideration of BGSS is understanding big game hunter specific desires to improve satisfaction, and ensure continued participation to aid in future game management.
In examining survey data, you have 3 primary sources to reconcile. The first source is the annual game management harvest surveys. I believe annual harvest surveys touch at least 75,000 hunters per year which is by far your highest volume survey. We were advised the majority report that they are continually satisfied year after year. Your second source of survey data is CPW BGSS survey outreach process. In the CPW BGSS surveys, questions specific to archery season changes were answered by all hunting and fishing groups, not just archery hunters. The survey questions were not particularly specific in nature and left much to interpretation on how responses would invoke change. The online CPW BGSS input survey used Survey Monkey as a tool, and if you had multiple IP addresses a respondent could vote more than once. I read online about a party who disclosed he voted 5 times using phones, laptops, and tablets. He encouraged others to do so, and that may skew survey results.
If you review our attached CBA survey questions, we provided respondents with factual preamble information to educate bowhunters on the issues and provoke thought. Our questions were extremely specific, with extremely specific response choices. Respondents could also return to the survey after completion, and modify their answers for about 30 days after additional consideration. We validated all responses through our member database, and confirmed respondents voted one time only. Our survey results reflect an all bowhunter response, specific to what bowhunters desire in bowhunting seasons. We did have some non CBA members participate, and they largely expressed the same responses. There was only one question on our survey regarding SW elk that we need to reconcile as this process moves forward.
I’d like to be very clear on our current board supported positions for the 2020-24 archery season structure, explain why we favor them, and ask you to vote in favor of our early season recommendations.
1. By an overwhelming majority, we support the strategic implementation of an early west of I-25 deer season. This alternative would strategically shift some participation from our elk season, and improve hunter satisfaction for all bowhunters in all seasons. We expect it will also yield benefits for those bowhunters frustrated by the preference point system. We feel this change is adequate and sufficient to address any perceived concerns of crowding in the archery elk season. Our participation in archery deer seasons west of I-25 is a relatively low volume number of hunters compared to archery elk. While this new deer structure would provide a strategic opportunity to grow archery deer participation, we recognize the current CWD plan will likely recommend license increases for 3rd or 4th rifle seasons, and we support current staff science to reduce CWD disease prevalence. 2. We do not support limiting resident archery elk licensing in existing OTC areas. We need to recruit resident hunters of all ages, they will vote in support of retaining hunting as a CPW management tool. We do not support splitting the elk season into two separate seasons where a hunter has to choose only one season. This action would cut hunting opportunity in half for a group a hunters that just lobbied as your partner for sustainability increases. We also do not support shortening the archery elk season, there is no social or biological benefit in doing so. We also are on record in support of coexisting with muzzleloader season during the second week of September. It has proven to be safe, and available calendar based alternatives are limited. 3. We support Commissioner Bray’s proposal of a September 1-30th archery elk season by an unheard of 85% survey majority.
We continue to discuss and consult with CPW on specific archery options for the SW elk herd. As the discussions conclude, we will keep you informed.
I also mentioned in my testimony that we desire to meet with the outfitters association, and will report results back to the PWC. Planning is underway to do so.
In closing, we are very concerned about some of the BGSS options currently being discussed for archery seasons. We are currently recruiting hunters at acceptable rates of 2-4% annually, which fulfills goals defined as a CPW priority. To take action to cut opportunity would be counterproductive. We feel our recommended changes to the archery seasons are wise and strategic in nature, and align with stated CPW goals for 2020-24 and beyond. Please let me know if you have any questions, we look forward to continued discussions.
Thanks for your public service, listening to our strategic recommendations, and your supporting vote.
Steve Hilde CPW Liaison, CBA board of directors 970-222-2492
I'm shocked they actually included this in the report. Gives me a little faith. It doesn't mean anything is going to happen with it but at least they acknowledged it.
"Creating multiple archery seasons "
This had the highest support in how to address crowding and blows my mind. Who is voting for this? Do they have blinders on and think this means CPW would create new seasons outside of the current 30 day season (for elk)? CPW doesn't clearly mention the best idea for this, an August archery deer season, with the closest being "Make a first archery season for deer and elk with a second season just for elk. "
Perhaps I'm just biased because archery elk is the one west of continental divide big game hunt I can do without requiring PTO, and splitting up our current season would ruin that, but I don't see what splitting the archery season in half accomplishes as far as crowding. If you cut the season down, it just means those of us that spread out our time in the woods will be there for a whole block instead. That might actually increase crowding.
I'm going to copy and paste this portion of Steve's correspondence. I think it goes directly to the point.
'***By an overwhelming majority, we support the strategic implementation of an early west of I-25 deer season. This alternative would strategically shift some participation from our elk season, and improve hunter satisfaction for all bowhunters in all seasons. We expect it will also yield benefits for those bowhunters frustrated by the preference point system. We feel this change is adequate and sufficient to address any perceived concerns of crowding in the archery elk season. Our participation in archery deer seasons west of I-25 is a relatively low volume number of hunters compared to archery elk. While this new deer structure would provide a strategic opportunity to grow archery deer participation, we recognize the current CWD plan will likely recommend license increases for 3rd or 4th rifle seasons, and we support current staff science to reduce CWD disease prevalence. 2. We do not support limiting resident archery elk licensing in existing OTC areas. We need to recruit resident hunters of all ages, they will vote in support of retaining hunting as a CPW management tool. We do not support splitting the elk season into two separate seasons where a hunter has to choose only one season. This action would cut hunting opportunity in half for a group a hunters that just lobbied as your partner for sustainability increases. We also do not support shortening the archery elk season, there is no social or biological benefit in doing so. We also are on record in support of coexisting with muzzleloader season during the second week of September. It has proven to be safe, and available calendar based alternatives are limited. 3. We support Commissioner Bray’s proposal of a September 1-30th archery elk season by an unheard of 85% survey majority.***"
