HuntStand Hunting App
More Archery Elk Units to Become Limited
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
sticksender 02-Jan-20
MtnHunter 02-Jan-20
OTC_Bowhunter 02-Jan-20
MtnHunter 02-Jan-20
Jahvada 02-Jan-20
PECO 02-Jan-20
linehunter 02-Jan-20
sticksender 02-Jan-20
Grasshopper 02-Jan-20
RickH 02-Jan-20
Grasshopper 02-Jan-20
RickH 02-Jan-20
cnelk 02-Jan-20
RickH 02-Jan-20
RickH 02-Jan-20
RickH 02-Jan-20
Glunt@work 02-Jan-20
RT 02-Jan-20
cnelk 02-Jan-20
MtnHunter 02-Jan-20
cnelk 02-Jan-20
MtnHunter 02-Jan-20
cnelk 03-Jan-20
Jahvada 03-Jan-20
cnelk 03-Jan-20
PO Cedar 03-Jan-20
PECO 03-Jan-20
Treeline 03-Jan-20
Ucsdryder 03-Jan-20
RT 03-Jan-20
sticksender 03-Jan-20
linehunter 03-Jan-20
OTC_Bowhunter 03-Jan-20
Hoot 03-Jan-20
Grasshopper 03-Jan-20
cnelk 03-Jan-20
Hoot 03-Jan-20
Grasshopper 03-Jan-20
Jahvada 05-Jan-20
Grasshopper 05-Jan-20
Surfbow 05-Jan-20
Quinn @work 06-Jan-20
Quinn @work 06-Jan-20
MtnHunter 06-Jan-20
Inshart 06-Jan-20
sticksender 06-Jan-20
cnelk 06-Jan-20
Grasshopper 06-Jan-20
Grasshopper 06-Jan-20
>>>---WW----> 07-Jan-20
Grasshopper 07-Jan-20
Chasewild 08-Jan-20
PECO 08-Jan-20
Glunt@work 08-Jan-20
Orion 08-Jan-20
Chasewild 08-Jan-20
RT 08-Jan-20
cnelk 08-Jan-20
Grasshopper 08-Jan-20
Glunt@work 08-Jan-20
yooper89 09-Jan-20
Glunt@work 09-Jan-20
cnelk 09-Jan-20
yooper89 09-Jan-20
cnelk 09-Jan-20
Jahvada 11-Jan-20
Grasshopper 12-Jan-20
Glunt@work 12-Jan-20
Grasshopper 12-Jan-20
Glunt@work 12-Jan-20
Jaquomo 12-Jan-20
Treeline 14-Jan-20
Jaquomo 14-Jan-20
MtnHunter 15-Jan-20
Chasewild 15-Jan-20
MtnHunter 15-Jan-20
Grasshopper 15-Jan-20
Grasshopper 15-Jan-20
Grasshopper 15-Jan-20
linehunter 16-Jan-20
Buglmin 16-Jan-20
cnelk 16-Jan-20
coelker 16-Jan-20
Grasshopper 16-Jan-20
Glunt@work 16-Jan-20
Grasshopper 16-Jan-20
CK 16-Jan-20
Winded 17-Jan-20
altitude sick 18-Jan-20
Colobow 18-Jan-20
PECO 18-Jan-20
Colobow 18-Jan-20
RT 18-Jan-20
Grey Ghost 19-Jan-20
Jaquomo 19-Jan-20
Matte 20-Jan-20
txhunter58 21-Jan-20
Orion 21-Jan-20
cnelk 21-Jan-20
RT 21-Jan-20
Grasshopper 21-Jan-20
txhunter58 22-Jan-20
RT 22-Jan-20
txhunter58 22-Jan-20
Fins&Feathers 22-Jan-20
RT 22-Jan-20
cnelk 22-Jan-20
RT 22-Jan-20
Firsty 26-Jan-20
Vanish 27-Jan-20
txhunter58 05-Feb-20
Grasshopper 05-Feb-20
txhunter58 06-Feb-20
txhunter58 06-Feb-20
Glunt@work 06-Feb-20
Aspen Ghost 06-Feb-20
Treeline 06-Feb-20
Glunt@work 06-Feb-20
PECO 07-Feb-20
Treeline 07-Feb-20
Cootswatter 07-Feb-20
Jahvada 08-Feb-20
Grasshopper 08-Feb-20
cnelk 08-Feb-20
cnelk 08-Feb-20
cnelk 08-Feb-20
cnelk 08-Feb-20
cnelk 08-Feb-20
yooper89 09-Feb-20
MtnHunter 09-Feb-20
Hank_S 09-Feb-20
Jaquomo 09-Feb-20
Hoot 09-Feb-20
Glunt@work 09-Feb-20
Grasshopper 09-Feb-20
Jaquomo 09-Feb-20
Hoot 09-Feb-20
Grasshopper 09-Feb-20
Aspen Ghost 09-Feb-20
OTC_Bowhunter 10-Feb-20
From: sticksender
02-Jan-20
This letter went out to CBA members today by email. Hadn't seen much if any discussion of this here in the Colorado forum, so just wanted to post the info for those who may not be aware.

======================

I am writing today to update all our members on the upcoming January 15-16 Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWC) meeting. It appears based on November commission discussion, BIG regulation changes to archery elk are possible. This is your chance to get involved to shape future bowhunter opportunity. We are asking you to review the CBA position, and send YOUR comments to the PWC.

In November the PWC was presented an issue paper to totally limit archery elk licensing in units 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 711, 741, 751, & 771. If you read the issue paper it also states the changes will apply to E-16, units 44, 45, 47, & 444. The CPW big game brochure shows archers are already limited in 4 flat top GMU’s, and 3 GMU’s around Steamboat, while rifle IS NOT LIMITED. Alternative 1 & 2 would result in limiting licenses for 23 GMU’s for ONLY archery hunters, while rifle hunting remains unlimited in the same 23 GMU’s.

At the conclusion of the November commission discussion, sportsperson representative commissioner Charles Garcia directed CPW staff to prepare language to pass Alternative 1 outlined in the issue paper for final vote in January. Alternative 1 would totally limit all archery elk licensing in these units to bull only limited licenses, and cow only limited licenses. Not only would we would lose unlimited OTC licensing, but it would remove either sex harvest capability for archery hunters. Commissioner Garcia also continually mentions limiting the Grand county units for archers, we suspect that will be next and this is not over. If you value OTC hunting, now is the time to speak up.

Our past member surveys have suggested 76% of our members do not support limiting archery elk licensing, while 24% do. Our past two surveys can be found here, and here. CPW’s own BGSS surveys suggest bowhunters place a higher priority on guaranteed OTC licensing compared to fewer hunters field.

While the elk herds in the SW are suffering from low calf/cow ratios, Issue paper alternative 3 will serve to improve and aid the elk herd while being fair to all hunters.

Our objective is (1) to keep you informed, and (2) ask you to comment directly to the Parks and Wildlife commission. Please take a look at our written input to the commission here. We would ask our members to email YOUR PERSONAL INPUT directly to the commissioners and CPW at their addresses below:

michelle.zimmerman@state.co.us
marvin.mcdaniel@state.co.us
jim.vigil@state.co.us
betsy.blecha@state.co.us
carrie.hauser@state.co.us
charles.garcia@state.co.us
Eden.Vardy@state.co.us
Luke.Schafer@state.co.us
marie.haskett@state.co.us
robert.bray@state.co.us
Taishya.Adams@state.co.us
dnr_cpwcommission@state.co.us

If you are short on time, it is adequate and quick to send a simple email indicating in the subject field your support for Alternative 3 unlimited bull only licensing WITH NO UNIQUE HUNT CODES (CBA position) or your support for other options. If you wish to engage in a dialogue with commissioners, consider drafting a detailed email. We also encourage our members to show up at the January PWC meeting to testify in person.

Please contact me if you need any additional details about this issue or the meeting.

Thanks for your support, and hope you have a New Year with an abundance of blessings!

Steve Hilde
Acting CPW Liaison, CBA Board of Directors
970-222-2492

PS the next CBA board meeting is 6pm January 10th at 6060 Broadway in Denver, we do have critical positions to fill on the board. Please consider attending, and volunteering.

=====================

From: MtnHunter
02-Jan-20
When is this vote happening? And this for the 2020 - 2024 season structure?

02-Jan-20
The numbers just don't make sense. Hardly any cows are being killed by archers. Just think of the pressure this will put on the other OTC areas.

From: MtnHunter
02-Jan-20
What doesn't make sense to me is they are leaving 2nd and 3rd rifle OTC alone

From: Jahvada
02-Jan-20
Moving more units from otc to limited has needed to happen for some time. Making the above units draw only is a very good idea and if approved there will still be plenty of opportunity to go around. Guys who are against moving more units to draw at this point are fighting a unwinnable battle.. Much like the guys who did not want deer to go to draw only and in the opinion of most deer hunters - moving deer to all draw was one of if not the best decision the CPW made in the past 40 years...

It seems more prudent at this point for the CBA put all its efforts into a reasonable 80% - 20% Resident/non resident split of all elk tag allocation in these units as well as all other archery draw units in Colorado. 80/20 split could happen but it seems the only thing the CBA cares about is keeping otc units and flat out at this point that position is alienating a lot of archery hunters.

From: PECO
02-Jan-20
Jahvada. So you think it is a great idea to make archery limited and leave rifle OTC? Huh?

From: linehunter
02-Jan-20
What is the split now if these areas go to draw only?

From: sticksender
02-Jan-20
65/35 split, but the NR ceiling may not be much of a factor, if a lot of those are drawn as 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice, or as leftovers.

From: Grasshopper
02-Jan-20

Grasshopper's Link
I've been a bit busy to get to bowsite, sorry. Here is the link to our written testimony in draft form. I need to confirm a few numbers before I submit.

If your a member, and did not get the email, let me know.

It is likely it will go limited based on the Nov discussions and the makeup of the commission unless a bunch of bowhunters email the commissioners.

If you read our position it is all explained.

Just wait Jahvada, they will take it limited, send thousands elsewhere to make it worse for everyone else, give bowhunters a bunch of bull tags, and then throw in some cow tags to boot so hunter density won't improve. No one will apply as a first choice, they have points.

Thanks for the laugh on the 80/20 suggestion....good one.

From: RickH
02-Jan-20
I'm with Jahvada on this one. It works just fine in other states.

From: Grasshopper
02-Jan-20
What works? Unlimited rifle?

From: RickH
02-Jan-20
No, not unlimited rifle, I agree that should be limited too.

From: cnelk
02-Jan-20
In what other states does it work?

Wyoming? Residents can buy their Gen tag over the counter.

From: RickH
02-Jan-20
Arizona and New Mexico are the two I'm most familiar with

From: RickH
02-Jan-20

From: RickH
02-Jan-20

From: Glunt@work
02-Jan-20
So, my crystal ball tells me the following is a likely road map of Colorado archery elk hunting:

More units go limited for some real and some perceived issues, which increases pressure in the remaining OTC units. The increased pressure in remaining OTC areas amplifies the issues that were used as rallying calls to cause units to go limited, so more units go limited...and so on...and so on...

Archery ends up all limited so residents basically get a fixed 65% of tags. If they limit tags to any number that actually addresses the issues people complained about, someone stays home in Sept.. If they don't limit tags to a lower number, then we lose a ton of flexibility and freedom of area choice without solving or gaining anything.

Eventually rifle goes limited as well. Fair is fair right? Whoops, when all tags are limited our 65% is smaller because in totally limited units for all methods, 20% comes off the top for land owners before the public allocations start. Grim.

This whole crappy idea they are considering is a big enough change that it should be part of the 5 year season structure process which means we would have a few years to hash things out, get the word out, gather public input and let everyone make their case better.

OTC bowhunting elk isn't the cause of the resource issues they are attempting to address and limiting bowhunters won't provide a solution. Its a giant setback in opportunity without a plus side that comes close to making it worthwhile.

From: RT
02-Jan-20
More limited choices would be great.

From: cnelk
02-Jan-20
^^^ you forgot the loss in funding or a big hike in license fees

From: MtnHunter
02-Jan-20
I don't really understand how limiting Archery tags is going to fix any of the issues at hand.

From: cnelk
02-Jan-20
^^^ Most people don’t either. But it sure sounds cool doesn’t it?

From: MtnHunter
02-Jan-20
And then wolves will be here.. then they'll have a big F-ing problem with elk numbers decreasing.. some geniuses we have running the CPW

From: cnelk
03-Jan-20
For ya'll that want limited elk hunting, be sure to apply in one of these 'limited units' this year.

From: Jahvada
03-Jan-20
For the sky is falling folks I just have to mention again that deer going to all draw was the best thing to happen to big game hunting in the past 40 years no one disputes that... Elk will be the same. Honestly I dont care what they do w rifle if they (rifle hunters) wan overcrowding so be it just not the right path for archery! I dont see the two intertwined like some of you do I guess. Grass the laugh I got was reading the position the cba has taken as that was enough.. I know you will loose this one so might go after something you can win or gain ground and what is not laughing matter is to see the cba is laughing at its resident hunters allocation numbers! Might be funny to you and the CBA but that is not laughable for me..... Good luck with your position.

From: cnelk
03-Jan-20
If the CPW is really wanting to manage these new 'limited units', why not remove the antler restrictions like other limited units?

Shoot them damn spikes. Save the cows

From: PO Cedar
03-Jan-20
My take on this is that rifle seasons are not in direct conflict with recreational non-hunters like archery season ; when the forests are loaded with outdoor hikers, campers,.... and the Parks segment of the combined entity is winning out on thinning out the hunting segment during this time of the year...

From: PECO
03-Jan-20
When all archery is limited, and the season is split, and no more either sex tags, and rifle season is still willy nilly come one come all, maybe some of you will then understand.

From: Treeline
03-Jan-20
More crap from CPw.

Hell, with the new bull s#!++ season dates, we do not have even one day of archery only. We have to share the season with rifle hunters and muzzle loader hunters every day of the archery season.

How many rifle bear, elk, deer, antelope, sheep, goat, and moose hunters are in the woods in September? How many muzzle loader hunters? Versus how many bowhunters?

Hell, there are more gun hunters in September than bowhunters!!!

Obviously CPw hates bowhunters.

From: Ucsdryder
03-Jan-20
Everything draw, especially rifle. Limit number of tags sold, raise prices for both residents and non-residents to offset the loss of revenue from less tags being sold with the removal of otc. Boom, done. Move on. And eff the wolves. See ya’ll tonight!

From: RT
03-Jan-20
76 should improve greatly with the adjacent units going limited. That may be worth applying for again.

From: sticksender
03-Jan-20
Greatly appreciate the CBA leadership's work on this. If feedback is wanted, here it is. On the 2-page CBA position statement, the word "fair" or "fairness" is used 13 times. I understand the sentiment completely, but IMO the position statement might be better received by the commissioners, many of whom are not bowhunters, if there is a broader scope to the logic than purely "fairness to bowhunters". A couple other points are made on the statement, but that seems to be the overwhelming emphasis. I agree fairness is important, but if its the ONLY argument against option 1, it kinda sounds a little bit like whining. Just a suggestion ;-)

From: linehunter
03-Jan-20
I can’t wait to see how many tags they issue for these units.

My guess is the CPW will issue just as many tags as there were hunters in these units. The crowds will be as bad as ever and a lot of people won’t get to build preference points.

03-Jan-20
The people that don't pay attention to changes and expect to hunt OTC will be in for a rude awakening. They will head to the closest OTC area and carry on.

From: Hoot
03-Jan-20
I agree Jahvada, totally limited elk (including rifle, IMO) would be the best thing for elk hunting in CO, like it was for deer.

The new season dates are going to kill the quality deer hunting in a few years I predict.

Hopefully, the elk hunting will improve to compensate...

CBA, continues to fight losing battles, takes entitlement from weak positions, alienates bow hunters with differing opinions, wonders why they can’t get support from younger bow hunters...

From: Grasshopper
03-Jan-20
"CBA, continues to fight losing battles, takes entitlement from weak positions, alienates bow hunters with differing opinions, wonders why they can’t get support from younger bow hunters..."

Not sure I can bite my tongue on this one, but I'll try. not on the board anymore, I have better shit to do. What we are doing is representing our members. 76% don't want limitations based on member surveys. No one on the board hunts OTC for elk, but 85% of bowhunters do.

Highly likely we will lose, but we are still going to represent our members. That is the job, but it is hard to take the bullshit critics who spend no time talking to commissioners, and CPW staff, knowing in all reality my valuable time is wasted because their mind is made up before you open your mouth.

We had commissioner Mcdaniel at our last meeting. He wants to limit the the whole state, problem is he needs 5 more votes.

If your one of the 24% minority that wants limitations, I totally get it. We represent the majority, and the minority. I've said exactly the facts before the commission, and the position letter that I wrote states both. I gave up OTC elk a long time ago.

We are totally supportive of 80/20, but who on the commission is going to even put the discussion on the agenda? None of them will.

If your alienated, offended, and have hurt feelings, put on your big boy panties hoot. I listen to shit that just makes me want to puke from CPW and the commission, and then the ungrateful bastards like you & Jahvada that won't spend $35 to join an organization of hunters and would rather follow a cause and get likes on facebook. Go join the boys at BHA, they throw beer parties, represent causes, don't take any positions before the commission or represent their in state members. Might be your crowd?

After the commission meeting, I am done with it.

From: cnelk
03-Jan-20
@ Steve - Excellent.

From: Hoot
03-Jan-20
First of all Steve, as always you take things too personally. 76% of your members want their OTC elk because they are entitled baby boomers, what’s best for the herd be damned.

I understand fully why you had to take the position you took, I understand fully the past year + would have been hard to do all the work you did with a commission that didn’t give a shit.

I’m not on Facebook, I’d give my money to cba before BHA any day of the week, I’m not offended like you appear to be, and the CBA doesn’t hurt my feelings, but it’s obvious your feelings get hurt.

For all the crap you boomers like to talk about millennials and their entitlement attitude, you guys sure seem to have a lot of it yourselves, your own draft talks about fairness 13 times as mentioned above, not to mention you somehow feel you’re entitled to everyone’s gratitude (ungrateful bastards comment).

Here’s a thought...

Let’s push for sound biological management of our wildlife via the North American model, and if that means biologists need to limit hunting in certain areas, then let’s “put on our big boy panties” and let’s fight a battle we might actually win...

From: Grasshopper
03-Jan-20
I am not offended. Forgive me, just tired, worn out, and short. Started this morning when I was handed a list of to do's I don't want to do. I still let you buy me a beer tonight at Hooters, and shake your hand.

We have 287,000 elk, it is at objective. What is not sound about that?

This whole idea that limitations will improve hunter density, bull maturity, and animal abundance is a guess. Elk is the cash cow at 50 million a year. Think about that, and quota setting.

This whole idea about sound biology is great, but true pure biology never survives the politics.

We aren't a selfish org, and have done nothing that is NOT supportive of sound management.

We talked about bull only licensing for TWO YEARS in BGSS meetings, at the last commission meeting, commissioners introduced and passed language for BGSS that the public NEVER SAW, AND NEVER COMMENTED ON. In doing so, you, and every other hunter in Colorado was denied due process. I saw it, because when I walked in the room they pulled me aside and showed me the language. The CBA is still respected, and we do move the needle slightly. But is that sound management in the political process?

On E-16, the head of terrestrial told me they had no biology objections, archers were only going to take 35 cows. Then politics took over.

Alternative 3 will reduce cow harvest, it is CPW's idea, the public talked about it for TWO YEARS. CPW surveys say the majority want that. Alternative 3 is sound, and unselfish.

I am headed to scheels, need to buy a pigeon thrower, then to hooters. See you all there.

From: Jahvada
05-Jan-20
Man speak up about the CBA and you are a ungrateful bastard.. Straight up with a recruitment speech like that I wonder why my 35 bucks stays in my pocket haha lol??

The reason my 35$ is not paid - is because the CBA has not represented what I believe and this year it is a fact that the CBA threw deer hunters under the bus in favor of the "membership" or the CBA position on seasons got a FULL WEEK - YEP A FULL WEEK taken away from archery deer season but hey thats ok its what the boomer membership wanted!!! So you ungrateful bastards take it, be happy, and shut the hell up!! Yea with a attitude like that it no a wonder the CBA has been marginalized with many bowhunters as well as the CPW that is real talk grass.... After the mule deer debacle this they will never see another cent from me and guess what this ungrateful bastard will speak up about this for years no matter how many names you throw this way bud. Here I guess I too could call you names - for your position of OTC elk hunting of all things but not what I do I will leave that to the "classy" CBA board members. At this point I just wish folks could to realize that reasonable people can disagree but it is very obvious the CBA does not see things that way....

Grass yea pry best for you to step back or not the best place for you to be as I did not attack you personally in any way but you did attack this "ungrateful bastard" and in a nut shell that is what the CBA is about these days... I also believe the attitude you display is fully how the CBA it is driven and then the CBA wonders why folks dont volunteer or pay the CBA after a display like this - is again in your words as laughable as the position that you cant get a commissioner to support at reasonable res/nonres split.....

From: Grasshopper
05-Jan-20

Grasshopper's Link
Yea, that was bad on my part I lost my composure when I shouldn't have. Sorry, my apologies. I just get tired of the blame when we don't get to vote on the rules, we seem to get all of it.

You still have a 29 day deer season west of I-25. We actually had staff support for the early deer 5 week season, up until Dan was named the new director. He killed that one.

Someone is always in the minority, in this case it is 24% on limitations. Thankfully, most guys get that.

You should start talking to this group. Good Luck with it.

From: Surfbow
05-Jan-20
Jahvada, you're out in the weeds man...Will you be starting alternative to CBA that does more and better represents bowhunters then?

From: Quinn @work
06-Jan-20
Steve thank you for all you do for us BOWHUNTERS in Colorado. $35 is a mere drop in the bucket for what the CBA and specifically your time that that you have spent trying to support the Majority of BOWHUNTERS in CO desire. No organizations will be 100% on board with every decision. The CBA has always been upfront and above board with supporting the majority's desires.

Personally I have no issue with Colorado making all archery units limited and draw only, ONLY IF they make it that way for all rifle seasons first. I think this is the exact issue you are trying to promote on your thread. Do BOWHUNTERS really have a problem with this?

If the current elk population in these units are low and this is really the issue for limiting archery hunters why in the hell are they not limiting rifle hunters who have a much longer season and a much higher harvest of the resource they are trying to protect?

Jahvada please send me your organization's mission statement and application for membership. You seem to have all the answers while finding fault in everything the one's that are actually doing something to protect our seasons are doing now. Pretty easy to cast stones from your keyboard.

From: Quinn @work
06-Jan-20
BTW I sent my email to the people on sticksenders post. Limited archery units only after rifle are made limited.

And thanks again Grasshopper! Your hard work never went unnoticed.

From: MtnHunter
06-Jan-20
Firstly, thank you Steve and CBA for all you do to represent bowhunters. Secondly, the issue at hand. I am trying my best to understand the 'why' behind only limiting Archery tags? I get the populations of elk in these areas are down and not getting better. But will making Archery draw only fix that? Would making rifle and archery fix that? Would making all units across the state fix that? I am not sure... but I guess I don't quite understand why the CPW has a hard on for bowhunters?? I wish we could get that answer...

From: Inshart
06-Jan-20
I also want to personally thank you Steve. It's easy to see how you must spend many (MANY) hours doing what you do. It was because of you (outlining what the CBA stands and fights for) that I sent in my $35.

I remember reading a post a while ago where someone asked "when is enough, enough".

I think I've finally reached my "Colorado enough".

We, hunting partners and I, have bow hunted Colorado since 1993. Like others, I can understand wanting to begin limiting more of the areas to a draw system for better management practices. However, I just can't wrap my thought process of why not also include the rifle hunters???

Serious questions: Is it due to the political pressure from the rifle hunting guides? IF SO .... Is there that much of a disparity between the number of rifle guides compared to archery guides and the political pressure of the respected services?

Don't rifle hunters take more elk than archers?

$50 million revenue -- are they not concerned about the $$ loss?

Is there someplace where they explain their reasoning as to their decisions?

From: sticksender
06-Jan-20
They started it with the Gunnison units a few years back. If I recall the logic for limiting bow hunts but not rifle hunts down there was based on "stakeholder input" and public meetings that resulted in changes to the management plan for the DAU. A popular sentiment is that bowhunters push elk onto private in September making them inaccessible to public hunters in later seasons. Another sentiment (actually promoted by many bowhunters themselves) is that the OTC units are too crowded in bow season.

For detail on management of the units listed in the new proposals, you could look at the corresponding DAU management plans for elk. Although if you check for instance DAU E24 - (70, 71, 711, 72, 73)....or DAU E31 - (5, 751, 77, 771, 78 ), neither plan has been re-done since 2006.

https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/HerdManagementPlans.aspx

From: cnelk
06-Jan-20
"A popular sentiment is that bowhunters push elk onto private in September making them inaccessible to public hunters in later seasons."

^^^ And thats why the Early PLO season was created, to push the elk back into the NF

From: Grasshopper
06-Jan-20
In the SW, if we were pushing them onto private refuges the elk population would be better off.

Personal opinion, no scientific data, I think they are getting munched by lions and bears. Pregnancy is happening, birthing happens, calves don't make it to winter counts.

From: Grasshopper
06-Jan-20
Also, those herd management plans are way over due to be updated. E24 does not even have one on the web. Updates should have happened years ago. Ten years is supposed to be the guideline.

07-Jan-20
Grasshopper: I call BS to your comment about personal opinion/no scientific data.

Many years ago the then DOW did a survey on radio colored elk in the White River herd. The results of that survey were, there were only two significate times that there seemed to be any appreciable large elk movement during the fall. The first noticeable movement was when sheep were herded from summer range in the hi country and the second was when the first rifle season started.

You might check to see if that data still exist.

From: Grasshopper
07-Jan-20
I'm not talking about data on movement, I'm talking about decline due to predation

From: Chasewild
08-Jan-20
This is a tough thread to read. Seems like quite a few threads these days have the same tone, regardless of the position.

I'm not a sky is falling type of guy. The elk in the SW will be fine, but there was clearly a need for a change according to the biologists down here. I don't make up the numbers, I just read them, and work with them. The biologists recommendations were some type of limited archery season (cow harvest was only part of the rationale -- pressure during breeding also came up). The BGSS was the mechanism to reach a course-correction.

I also do not feel entitled to the status quo and find that sentiment symptomatic of some bigger issues in our ranks these days. As Jahvada mentioned above, when mule deer went draw, Colorado reached a new paradigm of quality (barring the mid-60's late season days). Is it a guarantee that elk will respond in lock step? Maybe not, but the BGSS has enough elasticity to react as necessary.

Finally, I find the claims about millenials, BHA, and other generalizations exhausting (and exhausted). I spend 30-50 nights a year in a bivy hunting/scouting, I work 60-70 hours a week as a public land attorney, I grew up in a ranching family, I work with BHA on projects across the San Juans (for hunters....), and in literally every forum on this site (except for technical "which bow" threads) guys and gals like me are roasted for being "fad hunters" that "don't kill anything" and "don't support bowhunters." I, for one, do not appreciate gross misrepresentations, especially by members of a bowhunter group, or the board. My $35 is better spent on gas to the next Commission meeting.

From: PECO
08-Jan-20
"As Jahvada mentioned above, when mule deer went draw, Colorado reached a new paradigm of quality..."

I wasn't here, or paying attention when that happened. So, did they do that in steps, like bow hunters first, then rifles to follow? No one has answered the question, how is limiting bow hunters while leaving rifle seasons wide open going to fix the "problem."

From: Glunt@work
08-Jan-20
Archery deer hunting going 100% draw isn't why deer hunting stabilized in CO units that were previously otc. Rifle deer hunting where there are some actual tools to change herd size and quality is where some effective changes can happen.

From: Orion
08-Jan-20
Linehunter how can they do that when they have no idea how many people are hunting it OTC. I agree that all seasons should be limited not just archery.

From: Chasewild
08-Jan-20
Glunt, Orion, I agree.

From: RT
08-Jan-20
Might take a couple years but they will get a handle on the bowhunter traffic in the units going limited.

From: cnelk
08-Jan-20
Big difference making deer all draw when there are 185 GMUs with deer in them and elk in only part of them.

From: Grasshopper
08-Jan-20

Grasshopper's Link
"but there was clearly a need for a change according to the biologists down here." The lead biologist for the state told me in E-16 archers would take 35 cows from 6,000 elk and the proposal to limit was not coming from them. It was a political decision. Ask yourself, who is making the call

"pressure during breeding also came up" Why then is this not happening in the NW, lots of archers! Why not grand county, lots of archers. I have had guys say archers re the causing a delay in the rut, biologists say it is total BS, not science! I believe CPW says the elk are getting pregnant just fine, on time.

Take a look at rifle cow success rates at the link, 2-3% of archery, up to 50% for rifle. PLO has early and late, but of course.... it must be bowhunters fault..

From: Glunt@work
08-Jan-20
I can't imagine anyone involved actually believes that limiting bowhunters will fix any elk issues down there.

Rifle cow tags have been reduced quite a bit from the really high numbers they were handing out when elk peaked. Having your cow tags cut (even from what was an artificial high) but seeing that bowhunters can still buy either sex licenses made some folks unhappy. The fact that bowhunters aren't taking many cows with those either sex tags doesn't seem to matter.

From: yooper89
09-Jan-20
I received this reply today. Copying and pasting it without even fully reading, so enjoy.

Wildlife managers have been working to address concerns about declining elk herds in Southwest Colorado for the last ten years. The management tool that CPW has the greatest control over is antlerless license numbers, which have been reduced in these herds from 43%-77% for rifle and muzzleloaders in an effort to increase herd sizes. Despite these significant cuts, and the lost hunting opportunity, the herds have not rebounded. Managers continue to hear from the public that current elk populations are too low and need to be increased. During that same time, archery hunting has become more popular and participation has increased by 20-36% in these herds. Although many archers are targeting bulls, cow harvest during archery season is significant, accounting for 20-29% of all cows taken within these units. Managers need the ability to regulate cow harvest during the archery season.

Another aspect of this discussion involves hunter perceptions about crowding. While perceptions about crowding are highly subjective and vary by each individual, local staff (wildlife officers checking hunters in the field, customer service staff, biologists) feel that they have been hearing increasing numbers of complaints about crowding during the archery season. As part of the statewide Big Game Season Structure planning efforts, a meeting was held in Durango last February that included a standardized survey on different issues. Of the 46 people that participated in the survey, 71% identified archery as their preferred method of take; 66% of hunters were Very or Moderately concerned with crowding during archery season; and 43% favored limiting all archery licenses to address hunter crowding. While not an exhaustive survey of all hunters from these units, those that attended came from the local communities in Southwest Colorado and generally hunt elk within the units being considered for change.

This is a complex problem that is influenced by a variety of factors. In addition to reducing antlerless license numbers, which has a more direct impact on herd numbers, wildlife managers are also working with federal land managers to improve wildlife habitat, advocating for land use decisions on public lands that protect sensitive habitat, and working with local governments and private landowners to encourage development that is least impactful to wildlife. CPW has also begun a research study to help us understand what factors are causing our elk herds in Southwest Colorado to struggle. The proposed change to archery season is one of many ways that CPW is working to improve our elk herds. Although archery season restrictions are not a silver bullet, it is an action that should help by preserving more cow elk and by reducing some of the disturbance to elk herds during the breeding season.

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.

From: Glunt@work
09-Jan-20
Yep. Some bowhunters said they want more elk and less hunters in the woods at the same time. Pretty much every elk hunter I know says that but greatly disagree on how to do that or what's worth giving up to achieve that.

Bowhunters are definitely split on how they view OTC tags so the biological factors take the front seat for me when balancing the effectiveness of a change against the loss of opportunity.

I believe limiting bowhunters won't have a noticeable or significant enough impact on calf reruitment issues or herd numbers to offset the loss of opportunity.

From: cnelk
09-Jan-20
46 people surveyed??? Holy Cow... I had a conversation with more people than that.... TODAY.

From: yooper89
09-Jan-20
Brad what was interesting is Cory called me after this email and stated almost all archers and sportsmen they spoke to in the SW were very much for this decision.

He also told me they were very, very close to limiting the state entirely for archery but a last minute decision tabled it for now. I had about a 15 minute conversation with him this afternoon.

From: cnelk
09-Jan-20
Bring on the Limited statewide. Ill do my best to create Point Creep in certain 'sleeper' units that are currently enjoyed with 1-2 PPs

From: Jahvada
11-Jan-20
Grass no need to apologize or I took your ungrateful bastard comment as a compliment man. No worries I just see things different than you and the CBA and I know how you feel about guys like me who speak up... Just a true rebel I guess..

But I have to call total BS on your statement that the CBA feels deer hunters lost nothing with the change to sept 2 start date. Or your as well as the CBA's ignorance on mule deer hunting is showing.. I know you/the CBA does not care enough to act for us deer hunters - but the real of it is that after muzzy and rifle hunts start it is pretty much over for archery deer hunters above timberline. Some years archers will only have 4 days to hunt deer before 300 mag shells are getting hucked 600-1000 yds across basins at the same deer we are stalking. Not safe from where I literally sit in wait if you look at it that way. This is real and will have a very negative effect on every bowhunter who likes to hunt above timberline...

So your stated position that archery deer hunters still have a full season to hunt you are very misguided in you interpretation of what hunting deer above timberline is about.

Just one question from this "ungrateful bastard rebel" is that do you think the CBA would act if 300 mag shells were getting chucked at bulls and not bucks 4 days after the opener of archery elk??

Oh wait this thread is not about deer but it never will be about deer with the CBA only otc elk matter - so I will just have to beat this drum on my own...

From: Grasshopper
12-Jan-20
Dude, commissioner Bray wanted Sept elk season, cpw wanted deer and elk to run concurrently. Listen to the audio from the telluride commission meeting, everyone and their brothers testified against an earlier start to deer. Outfitters, Brad Phelps, cwf, everyone. I did not see you at the podium, where were you?

All the solutions, lemme know when you start actually showing up.

From: Glunt@work
12-Jan-20
Some may not know or remember but the CBA didn't support deer starting Sept 2nd. Deer starting a week before elk was the position.

From: Grasshopper
12-Jan-20
We actually started out proposing deer start same day as pronghorn based on discussion with big game manager at cpw. When the concept actually showed up in writing as a cpw option for one week before elk with cpw support, we did not feel arguing for more was wise.

From: Glunt@work
12-Jan-20

Glunt@work's embedded Photo
Glunt@work's embedded Photo
Aug 15th would have been great. A week before elk would have been fine.

From: Jaquomo
12-Jan-20
There was no chance in hell that the Commission would give mountain bowhunters six weeks to run wild in the woods, even if every single CBA member demonstrated outside 6060 Broadway. Perception has become reality. In the current anti-bowhunting climate, we're damned lucky to have four weeks in the mountains, followed by nearly 2.5 months on the plains. Velvet muley bowhunters make up such a small niche as to be insignificant in the grand scheme. CPW will still sell all the archery deer tags anyway, so the early start concept was only to please a tiny segment of the overall state hunting population.

From: Treeline
14-Jan-20
Hell Lou, the mountain bow deer hunters got totally screwed.

Killing a mule deer buck with a bow is tough.

When the rifle hunters hit the high country or they rub off the velvet, those bucks bail into the trees and are damn near impossible to hunt. The later start effectively shortens the season.

I’d have been fine with deer and elk from August 15 to September 15. Especially if it could be ARCHERY ONLY for those dates!!! Kill more elk before the 15th of September than after.

Really sucks that with the current dates, there are NO archery only days west of I25.

We now get the pleasure of sharing the woods with HIGH POWER RIFLE hunters every single day of the season formerly known as archery.

CPw has greatly increased rifle bear tags as well.

Bump into quite a few guys in full camo armed with a bow and a rifle in NW CO every year. They seem to do very well at killing elk...

From: Jaquomo
14-Jan-20
Tavis, totally agree. But the reality is that elk rule, and archery velvet deer hunters make up a small number of the overall archery population. When one is pitted against the other as we were in this case, elk hunters will win.

From: MtnHunter
15-Jan-20
Anyone know how this was voted on today?

From: Chasewild
15-Jan-20
Unanimous commissioner approval for limited archery sex specific hunt codes for DAU E24, 30, 31.

From: MtnHunter
15-Jan-20
And E16

From: Grasshopper
15-Jan-20
I am short on time tonight so I will be brief.

The Parks and Wildlife Commission voted today to totally limit archery elk hunting in GMU's 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 711, 741, 751, & 771. The issue paper states the changes will also apply to E-16 which is GMU's 44, 45, 444, & 47. We now have 23 limited archery GMU's where rifle bull tags are unlimited in 2nd & 3rd rifle.

This fall, all archery elk licenses will be by draw only for bull only archery take, and cow only archery take in these GMU's.

If you intend to hunt in these units and have preference points, you are going to have to decide if you want to burn them on these units as a first choice hunt code, or try to pick up a bull only tag or cow only tag as a second choice. Our past survey results are attached. I am not sure how many hunters will be displaced, certainly some according to our surveys. If guys do move, not sure where they will go or how they will be received.

On the cow tags, I do not know if they will be list A or list B.

Quotas for these newly limited GMU's will not be set until May.

Wish I had better news, but the commission seems to side with CPW 99.9% of time. Exceptions to that do exist, and include preference point fees and qualifying licenses.

Besides the CBA, everyone else testified to limit archery elk including CCA, CWF, Kent Ingram, SCI, and Brad Phelps. The outfitters actually testified for OTC w/caps.

Thanks for sending in your emails. This was my last act as a CBA CPW rep, appreciate everyone's assistance, help, and kindness over the last few years.

From: Grasshopper
15-Jan-20

Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Grasshopper's embedded Photo

From: Grasshopper
15-Jan-20

Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Grasshopper's embedded Photo

From: linehunter
16-Jan-20
"Quotas for these newly limited GMU's will not be set until May"

Meaning they have no clue how many licenses to issue and they need to see how many people apply for them in those units.

From: Buglmin
16-Jan-20
Ok, here it is. The CPW had thir minds made up in November that the units down here would be a draw. It was ready decided, but try had to open stuff up to the public. The units here, especially 77/78, get pounded hard by non resident bowhunters, so much so that they actually move elk out in numbers, onto the private ranches and the fair pfeild subdivisions. Don't believe me? Then you have no idea the pressure these bowhunters put on the elk. I've been after CBA to talk with the local wildlife officers, to sit down with them and discuss things, to understand things and to see what needs to be done to fix things. Most of the locals down here wanted a draw system, and most of the old time bowhunters don't bowhunters now because they got tired of dealing with the high non resident hunters. They'd rather rifle hung, see less hunters, and actually hear more bulls bugling then they do in September. The majority of outfitters agreed to a limited draw. All you gotta do is spend time talking to get a sense of what most hunters down here wanted.

We've been told we will see a high decrease of non resident bowhunters down here, more then we think. Was also told for now we'd see a decrease of resident bowhunters drawing tags as well. But you see, in 77/78, we don't have many resident bowhunters. More Colorado residents cone done to 77/78 then what many think. We have guys from up around Denver, Grand Junction, and the San Louis Valley that come down to hunt to get away, then complain that the non resident hunters are worse. Haha, last year, even the non resident bowhunters were complaining about the high numbers of non resident bowhunters.

Argue all you want, it's a done deal, something we've needed for years.

From: cnelk
16-Jan-20

cnelk's embedded Photo
cnelk's embedded Photo
Here is a map of the new LIMITED DRAW archery elk - in YELLOW

The areas in RED are already draw units for archery

From: coelker
16-Jan-20
Buglmin. You have a major flaw in your argument. Sorry but what you wrote is absurd... All the elk move to private because of archery but then you state many of the old timer archery hunters actually hunt rifle because they have better access to elk and hear more bugling? HAHA. So are we to believe that the elk magically come back onto the forest once rifle season starts?

No matter what it was a horrible move for anyone who likes freedom of choice and opportunity. Just wait until a few years from now the ELK hunting is not any better, and the ground you used to hunt every year now takes 3 years to hunt with the exact same quality. That is what happens, they sold you and all the others a Roman Horse and you bought it... In 5 years the only thing that will have changed is more of the state will be limited and the quality of archery hunting will remain the same.

From: Grasshopper
16-Jan-20
None of it really matters, we now need to live with what we were handed.

I'm not sure NR's will go down. If residents all have points, and do not apply as first choice, all the tags could go to NR's. I suspect very few will apply as a first choice, but NR's with zero points may. Second choice apps have no allocation formula.

If it was an issue of elk moving to private (less harvest on refuge) we would have more elk. Elk on private would be a good thing for the herd, unless they issue way too many late cow tags where you kill two elk for the price of one. In 2018 in all rifle cow hunts the success rate was an unbelievable 54%. I think it was unit 78. That means late cow hunts were probably way higher, 70-80% success?.

Lastly, I did talk to Doug Purcell local DWM. He wanted to make two short archery seasons. That is how you end up with 6 short rifle seasons, it is the insane CPW SOP.

There is only one thing I am certain of...it is to early to tell if this will help the elk, or if hunters across the STATE will be more satisfied. You do not know what the quota will be. Your DWM my tell you one thing, but 3 layers of management above him have the final say.

From: Glunt@work
16-Jan-20
For every bowhunter who doesnt hunt these units now, it adds a bowhunter to some other unit unless total bowhunting numbers fall.

Crowding wasn't improved, it was relocated.

From: Grasshopper
16-Jan-20
thumbs up on that.

From: CK
16-Jan-20
Hunting pressure is worse for first season rifle than second or third. They issue a ton of tags and everyone hunts harder because they think it's some sort of special season.

The same will be true for these archery draw tags. It's a lose-lose.

From: Winded
17-Jan-20
Thank you for the update Grasshopper. It was inevitable, the archery season has been growing in numbers over the past 5 years or so. Hopefully, this move will improve the herd.

18-Jan-20
I wish the state would limit how many people can drive in certain parts of the country. My driving experience is poor.

Trying to improve bow hunters experience and manage the herd are difficult balls to juggle.

Unless they start to limit how many babies people can have. Or how many hunters each household can have. It’s not going to get any better.

I think the State knows exactly what they are doing.

They know that this will cause more people to complain about too many bow hunters in their unit. So guess what.

Impetus to go all draw in every unit.

As a NR I think they should do 80/20, or similar ratios like NM and AZ. Or even 90/10

This is one big butt. BUT they would never vote for that large of a revenue cut. NM and AZ have had to live within that budget and never got hooked on the revenue.

Maybe If they went back to the original intent of a primitive season. Similar to Pennsylvania “flintlock” for muzzle loader.

And a real primitive bow season. Give the primitive hunters better dates. And spread the numbers out.

I hunt with a Mathews Vertix and some recurves, longbows. So not a gadget hater. Just spitballing ideas.

From: Colobow
18-Jan-20
Over the years, we've seen many of the units that we hunted go draw. It seemed we'd hunt a new unlimited area for a year or two, get it "figured out", and then BAM, it would go draw only for one reason or another. We've been spending much of our season hunting in 77 for decades now. It is only surprising to me that it's taken so long for it to go draw. We've sometimes gone to other OTC units for a new experience, or as a backup plan for what seems to currently be the "inevitable". This latest round of flips is just a continuation of what we've seen for decades. I fully expect to see a gradual decline of OTC units and eventually all draw. We'll adapt. Bow hunting has always been as much for the camaraderie & time outdoors, and if we have to go "rotation", to assure that at least SOMEONE in the group gets a draw every year, then that's what we'll do. Most years, 80% of our tags have gone unfilled, so it will just be "money saved" if not all of us buy a tag. I suspect an all draw will just end up with a ( probably large) batch of units that allot virtually unlimited tags, sidestepping the revenue impact issue. I'm thankful for the past 3 decades. It was good while it lasted. I'm still optimistic about continuing to be part of the hunt until I can no longer walk the hills.

From: PECO
18-Jan-20
Is archery season more crowded than rifle seasons? Doesn't at all seem that way to me.

From: Colobow
18-Jan-20
I've only hunted regular rifle once in the past 30 years or so. I took my son up to the Flat Tops about 10 years ago during 3rd rifle with a cow only tag. It was an "interesting" experience - nothing like any of our archery hunts. More like rabbit hunting if you ask me. There was a camp around almost every corner. Easily more than 10 times as crowded as any of our dozens of archery hunts. The group tagged 4 cows in 2 days and we got the heck out of there. It left a bad taste in my mouth & I don't mean the elk.

From: RT
18-Jan-20
90/10 would not be a loss in revenue for cpw. Increase prices and people will still buy them all.

Local businesses would take a hit though.

From: Grey Ghost
19-Jan-20
The only way the resident/non-resident ratio will ever change is if the incredibly cheap majority of CO hunters are willing to pay more for a tag than they do for a night at the local bar.

Face it gentlemen, CO will never have the quality of hunting it did in our youth, because our population has quadrupled in that time. Reality and biology, not emotion, should dictate proper wildlife management. The reality is, limited draws for both archery and rifle, across the board, is what's needed to adequately manage the quality and opportunity of hunting for future generations in CO. Unlimited OTC for big game is an archaic, careless, and woefully irresponsible way to manage our wildlife resources.

If you have a table full of starving kids, with a limited amount of food, you ration the portion to each kid, so they all can eat. I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept for the CPW and hunters alike.

Matt

From: Jaquomo
19-Jan-20
Will be interesring to see what happens in the next 10-15 years as overall nationwide hunter numbers drop by 20% or more. CPW bean counters are already trying to plan for a major license revenue hit in CO, but enough NRs may still be willing to come here that it won't affect our state as much as some others in the East and Midwest.

From: Matte
20-Jan-20
While not as long as some I have been hunting Colorado since 1996 as a non resident from SW Kansas. It should all be draw for non residents no matter what season or weapon. Locals should also be awarded extra preference points for their home Unit each year. Example if you live in Denver you get an extra point for that unit if you live in Cuchara you get an extra point for that region and so on.

From: txhunter58
21-Jan-20
"90/10 would not be a loss in revenue for cpw. Increase prices and people will still buy them all"

LOL. Keep dreaming! Your state lost 30,000 NRs with the current pricing, which is why they are advertising on different hunting shows to "come back to Colorado" I think some of those have come back but not all. And you are at the point where we supply so much of the revenue that they can't cut our numbers significantly unless you quadruple the RES prices.

+1 Grey ghost.

From: Orion
21-Jan-20
Wrong with an 80/20 split and a price increase they would still be more profitable then most Western States. The non residents never left look at the license sales.

From: cnelk
21-Jan-20
The CPW raked in $16 million more last year just by implementing the 'Qualifying License' requirement to get a PP or apply for a unit. More draw units = more $$$

From: RT
21-Jan-20
Record high bottom line last year.

From: Grasshopper
21-Jan-20

Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Grasshopper's embedded Photo
I don't think more limitations will create much more qualifying license dollars. 95% of hunters are getting points or a limited license every year already.

From: txhunter58
22-Jan-20
I was wrong. It wasn't a loss of 30,000 NR elk hunters, it was 37,000.

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/colorado-wildlife-officials-woo-nations-elk-hunters/

I am sure many have returned after all these years, but pretty sure not all, and CPW learned it lesson from that: Raise the price a bunch and lose a lot of hunters. But raise it a little each year, and they will stay.. To go to 80/20 or even more strict, they would have to at least double the price. They aren't going to do that.

From: RT
22-Jan-20
They thought it was easy like in the videos.

From: txhunter58
22-Jan-20
From Dec 2018:

— 228,390: Tags sold for elk, by far the most hunted mammal in Colorado.

— 88,710: Elk, deer and pronghorn tags sold to non-residents.

So not sure of actual NR elk hunters, but something less than 88,710

22-Jan-20
I think the economy is (and has been) too good to have much of an affect on how non-resident hunters are viewing the cost of a license.

I’ve only lived in Colorado and Montana, so I’m not that well versed in how other states conduct their draws. I always wondered if requiring an applicant to front the cost of the license they intend to hunt, but not issuing a refund if the applicant isn’t successful would be a way to address point creep. Essentially, a hybrid of how the draw used to work and works today, in that applicant’s license fee is pre-paid and would allow the applicant to apply or buy a preference point. If the applicant wants their license fee back, they would need to forfeit their preference points to receive a full refund.

From: RT
22-Jan-20
Fix point creep = make an OTC tag 1pp

From: cnelk
22-Jan-20
Fix Point Creep = Make 2nd Choice use PPs

From: RT
22-Jan-20
That too

From: Firsty
26-Jan-20
Fix point creep=not possible! There is way more demand than supply!!!

From: Vanish
27-Jan-20
Making second choice use your preference points just means people will use third choice. It would have zero real effect.

I don't like the idea of OTC units / any non-first choice units requiring preference points because then limited units become either: 1.) only for those people that have other ways of obtaining licenses while they wait; hunting other states, buying landowner vouchers, etc. 2.) only for those who almost never hunt and have no idea what they're doing, but hey they saved 30 preference points. Hey guys, first post, what's best elk unit?

I'd rather see people buying an elk license, and then being in the draw only after they've committed their money. If you don't draw limited, your license is good for one of the ( remaining ) OTC seasons. This ensures people who actually want to hunt are in the draw. This only works if we continue to have OTC options, though.

From: txhunter58
05-Feb-20
Hey, does the limited license for bowhunting in SW Colorado start this coming fall or fall of 2021? I just completed the online survey and it says that "a plan" for this area will be developed this summer. Here is the link to the survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdo3kQ96EalD3aNrtzaoK_nk0tmjoBG0WD7ytsWe8S5N0eOGw/viewform

From: Grasshopper
05-Feb-20
Yes, totally limited this fall.

Isn't it interesting now that the regs changed they are asking the public about preferences?

From: txhunter58
06-Feb-20
Thanks Grasshopper. Here is a more complete answer that I received from the CPW:

Thank you for contacting Colorado Parks and Wildlife. I see you are inquiring about the SW units and OTC.

The decision was made by the P&W Commission last week to create limited, sex-specific (limited bull/limited cow) licenses for archery elk hunting in E-16, E-24, E-30, and E-31. This includes the following GMUs: 444, 44, 45, 47, 70, 71, 72, 73, 711, 74, 741, 75, 751, 77, 771, and 78. This will go into effect this year.

This is because over the last several years the elk population in SW Colorado has been dwindling. Staff is currently working to understand why the population is getting smaller and push back from Colorado constituents have resulted in limited elk licenses for this area until we can understand what is going on.

One of the first questions you might ask is if we are limiting OTC either sex archery licenses for the SW, why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate. Often one male/bull can mate with a harem of cows (20+) to keep the population going. However, OTC antlered bull rifle licenses for this area may happen in the future. You are also probably curious as to how many preference points will it take to draw a license for your unit. Unfortunately, we can not answer this because these will be new hunt codes. No one has ever applied for these hunt codes before, therefore, we do not have historical draw data to review. Therefore, the minimum preference points required to draw these new limited licenses will be determined by the number of applicants and the number of preference points those applicants hold.

From: txhunter58
06-Feb-20
And reading between the lines, that means less bulls in these units while they build the herd. Bull/cow ratios will be in the toilet but they can still sell unlimited licenses. They still make as much money, but success rates go down for us and hunting bulls for ALL seasons will be poor for the next few years...…………

I guess you could say this is the best of both worlds...………….for CPW

From: Glunt@work
06-Feb-20
"...why do we still offer an OTC antlered elk rifle license for the second or third season in this area? Answer: We are mostly concerned about the female population in this area as you need females to populate."

So...keeping archery OTC and making it bull only in these units until numbers rebound would have addressed this and been a way better solution.

From: Aspen Ghost
06-Feb-20
So overcrowding wasn't part of the equation. Sounds like they will just issue as many bull licenses as needed to cover applications. And they will get the extra qualifying license fee. CPw will be rolling in the money. Maybe with all that extra money they can do some high tech research and figure out that the calf recruitment problem is caused by too many bears.

From: Treeline
06-Feb-20
Laughing all the way to the bank....

From: Glunt@work
06-Feb-20
"Maybe with all that extra money they can do some high tech research and figure out that the calf recruitment problem is caused by too many bears."

Sometimes it seems like decision makers all ditched school the day Occam's Razor was discussed.

From: PECO
07-Feb-20
"Occam's Razor" x2

From: Treeline
07-Feb-20
X 3

From: Cootswatter
07-Feb-20
I quit the CBA back when they stuck their noses into my Unit 88 Antelope Hunt. Never will join. Bunch of bureaucrats.

From: Jahvada
08-Feb-20

Jahvada's Link
Interesting article attached..

https://the-journal.com/articles/167414-local-elk-herds-decline-colorado-parks-and-wildlife-seeks-solution?utm_campaign=dailyheadlines&utm_content=local-elk-herds-decline-colorado-parks-and-wildlife-seeks-solution&utm_medium=email&utm_source=daily-headlines-email&utm_source=Full+List&utm_campaign=03b7204e36-newsletter-2020-02-07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9d724e6613-03b7204e36-28569635

90 hunters is a pretty good turn out for Dolores = more than the CPW was getting many places around the front range and NW.. Again I have to wonder why the CBA is working so hard against what is best for the elk and against what local hunters believe is best??

Oh yea that is right the only thing the cba cares about is keeping all OTC elk units so "their" units dont get more hunters no matter the effect on the resource or what the folks actually hunting the areas believe. Becoming very clear the CBA does not care about anything else and it is very clear that the cba is alienating a large part of the bow hunting community. From who I talk with - due to this very short sited position the CBA is loosing its relevancy with a large portion of hunters as well as the commission as a whole.

Just another observation from this "ungrateful rebel bastard"..

Flame away "OTC CBA"

From: Grasshopper
08-Feb-20

Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Grasshopper's embedded Photo
Well, if those 90 guys in Dolores were CBA members maybe the poll results would be different. But I guess they are just more rifle hunters wanting to limit archers.

I don't think I said ungrateful rebel bastard? I thought I said ungrateful selfish bastard?

From: cnelk
08-Feb-20
Jahvada will probably be mad at the CBA if Initiative 107 passes

From: cnelk
08-Feb-20
Jahvada is probably mad at the CBA because of the wolf pack in NW Colorado

From: cnelk
08-Feb-20
Jahvada probably blames the CBA on the recent snow storm

From: cnelk
08-Feb-20
Jahvada probably blames the CBA for Wyoming pushing back the NR elk draw results

From: cnelk
08-Feb-20
Jahvada probably blames the CBA for Hillary losing

From: yooper89
09-Feb-20
Cnelk on a roll

From: MtnHunter
09-Feb-20
I blame CBA for Hillary losing Or do I blame CBA for trump winning? Now I'm confused

From: Hank_S
09-Feb-20
Yooper89...exactly!

From: Jaquomo
09-Feb-20
I don't understand how a total volunteer organization can be a "bunch of bureaucrats".

Bureaucracy: "overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense." I would say the CBA is the opposite of a bureaucracy.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

From: Hoot
09-Feb-20
“Ungrateful selfish bastard” haha that’s rich.

We are going to fight tooth and nail against biology in order to preserve our OTC tags, even go so far as to frame the sw elk herd issues as a statewide crowding issue, we are going to play politics and word our surveys to lead our membership towards answering in favor of keeping our tags at all cost.

But you guys are selfish entitled millennials...

From: Glunt@work
09-Feb-20
I get that we all want more elk and less hunters in our seasons. I am a fan of OTC for residents (which is selfish). I like the idea of being able to have family elk camps with my kids as they grow up without going through the draw. I would be more willing to accept the inevitable day we are 100% in all seasons if residents had a higher percentage. In units that are 100% limited for all methods, residents get 52% of total tags once landowner tags are removed and it gets to the public draw. Thats pretty low.

I will be pleasantly surprised if limiting bowhunters but keeping rifle OTC in these units yields any noticeable or significant solution to the herd population/calf recruitment issue. For now, my best guess is that the few hundred cows we were taking out of the 40,000 SW elk herd weren't enough to be a solution to any herd issue. No idea if pressure will be less since we don't know how many tags will be issued or how bowhunters respond. It would have to be a significant reduction to make noticeable difference in pressure.

From: Grasshopper
09-Feb-20
Please show me what biology is surviving politics in this matter?

The elk herd is down 8 percent from what was described as over populated. Rifle cow success rates are as high as 54%, archery at 2.4 to 4.5.

When you can discern, let me know. We preserve game damage licensing, yet limit archers? Is that biology?

From: Jaquomo
09-Feb-20
I have a biology background and still struggling to understand how "biology" relates to limiting archers who have a very low impact on the overall harvest rate, while offering unlimited rifle licenses?

Has "biology" become a new code word for "revenue"?

From: Hoot
09-Feb-20
I’ve said multiple times I am only in favor of limited licenses if they are limited across all user groups, that’s my selfish opinion. I was 15 or so when deer went entirely limited, I was still able to get tags...

I don’t have a biology background, but I believe those that do, and are hired to do the job, should be the ones with the most clout making the decisions...

What did the biologist recommend vs what the commission adopted?

From: Grasshopper
09-Feb-20
The biologist well over a year ago told me several options would achieve the desired outcome including an unlimited license scenario where for half the season archers could take either sex, and half the license was bull only.

Biological options go through regional and statewide internal reg review (politics).

The biologists told me going bull only in eagle and pitkin counties was not even their idea, it was totally political.

What gets said in a public meeting and quoted in newspapers is generally the outcome of internal political discussion.

From: Aspen Ghost
09-Feb-20
"Has "biology" become a new code word for "revenue"? "

That is the only plausible conclusion.

10-Feb-20

OTC_Bowhunter's Link
Could this be part of their problem? "A member of the stockman’s group, said he expects ranchers in the area will have to keep shooting elk through spring." Just a though.

  • Sitka Gear