Bowsite.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Shoot them damn spikes. Save the cows

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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...

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.

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

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.

The areas in RED are already draw units for archery

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.

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.

Crowding wasn't improved, it was relocated.

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

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.

Local businesses would take a hit though.

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

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.

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.

— 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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"

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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

That is the only plausible conclusion.