Archery participation error
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Guys, I had a light bulb go off while reviewing the License quota list for May. It may have a big impact on all the BGSS crazy ideas we are hearing. I want folks to be aware of this if they are letter writing the commission, and lodging public comment on the coming May alternatives for BGSS.
In Jan 2018 the CBA board met with the CPW leadership team. They provided us with breakdown reports at the time. We received the ELK report at the link, and I specifically asked staff if the participation data for archery elk was hunter headcount or licenses sold. There can be a big difference. The response was if the report says HUNTERS, it is HUNTERS not license sales. This report says HUNTERS. I believed that data, and have used it since receiving it - in magazine articles, here on bowsite, facebook, commission discussions, roundtable talks and more.
This chart shows ~24,000 with growth up to nearly 48000. 100% growth in participation.
A primary focus of BGSS has been on archery, specifically - what do we do about all this growth? What about the crowding? Crazy ideas and big changes are being talked about. Who knows what will show up on paper!
As I believed the data, and the 48000 number, I made assumptions. I knew based on a CPW product sales report that I manually broke down myself that our OTC A list ELK sales in 2015 were about 34,000. That is a headcount number. I then assumed we must have 48000 minus 34,000 as our limited licenses which would be 15,000. I also was able to determine the NR/res split was 48/52.
I have asked for more data on occasion, and as we have progressed through BGSS. Data is hard to get, reports have to paid for since OIT is run from a centralized office for the whole state. There are legacy systems, and new systems. There is also bandwith problems with limited resources. The week before Easter I was given a breakdown of OTC participation which was very helpful. I'll post it up next.
This report validates my manual labor in 2015, and confirms data given to me by Cory Chick head of the licensing section. I believe it shows the true HUNTER headcount in archery. OTC areas have unlimited and licenses. We have grown in 18 years from 24,000 to 35,000. Not even close to 100% growth as in the first data set we recieved. We have grown 11,000 measly hunters, not 24,000.
If I put 24,000 in my 401k in 2000, and had 35,000 in 2018 - I would fire my investment advisor. It is like 3% a year. It works out to be like 791 hunters a year. over 30 days, that is 24 people a day per year. All that on 26 million acres of public land. We do have list B cow tags, but that usually a second tag, not a headcount and it is like 3,000 total licenses.
Also this report has to have at least one error. No way we had 55,000 in 2010.
I'll finish up later with limited licenses. Bottom line - growth in bowhunters is not a valid reason to limit OTC licensing.
Here is the limited archery elk quota data that shows both 2018, and 2019. Limited licenses see nominal fluctuation over the years, although the number can change with herd population dynamics, and when OTC units move to limited. Our true archery head count participation number is likely 41500 ish, not 50,000. Our true growth across limited and OTC since 2000 is is ~36% ish, not 100%.
I have escalated back to CPW to get a final accurate report, but I am concerned about what data commisioners are getting. Robert Bray described our growth as exponential.
Wow, great catch!
Thanks for the work that you do on our behalf!!!
Be interesting to see their response.
I hope your research turns out to be accurate. SHOULD have an impact. Hope it does
I think 2010 numbers are skewed in a big way.
No way could there be such a spike in one year [100%??] , especially when the numbers for & aft go back to normal
Will most likely cause CPW to reduce archery tags no matter what...
Awesome catch Steve! Have you brought his up to any CPW board members yet? This is something that needs to be highlighted, as it could change a lot of ideas/minds that are based on erroneous data
Steve, thanks. I will be at the BOD meeting tonight. I may present the history, as I know it, of Early Season OTC units changed to Limited draw units and the reasons why. The subject "too many bow hunters in the Early Season, or bow hunters are killing too many elk, or, bow hunters are prematurely moving elk, or, there is a crowding issue, or bow hunters have it made with a 30 days season, etc., etc, is not new and has been going on for the past 20 plus years.
As you have stated, it will be interesting to see what actual BGSS recommendations come forward but it seems, what MIGHT be on the table is:
1. All Limited Draw elk licenses.
2. OTC with CAPs
3. Split the Seasons
4. Status Quo
At this point, I see no logical reasons for # 1,2,3. Thanks for your hard work. Paul
Great job seeing this and thanks for your work.
Based on Paul’s analysis of rifle and muzzle loader hunters that are in the field on top of archery hunters in September at over 42,000 last year, this is very interesting for sure!
Why are there more rifle hunters than bowhunters in “archery season”?
The overcrowding issues are not as much due to too many bowhunters but rather too many rifle hunters on top of the bowhunters.
Just thoughts, The only time for bear rifle is sept? Rifle early season deer? Archery sheep hunts in August, some elk are up that high too. Regular archery season needs to be a month just to get close to animals. Then muzzle loader in archery too. Archery is not even close to as crowded as 2nd season rifle. Plus CPW needs more money to pay for the mountain bike trails and dams and the wolves.
Just thoughts, The only time for bear rifle is sept? Rifle early season deer? Archery sheep hunts in August, some elk are up that high too. Regular archery season needs to be a month just to get close to animals. Then muzzle loader in archery too. Archery is not even close to as crowded as 2nd season rifle. Plus CPW needs more money to pay for the mountain bike trails and dams and the wolves.