Issue review for Commission meeting, March 17-18th, 2021
Subject: Issue: Should CPW prohibit hunters from attaching objects to their bows or firearms that make a hunter look like wildlife?
From: Paul Navarre, avid bow hunter and resident of Ft. Collins Colorado and a Colorado resident since May 1992.
Date: March 2th, 2021
Commissioners: After review of this proposed issue, it is recommended that this issue not move forward for additional consideration. If it does move forward, I highly recommend Alternative 4, STATUS QUO.
I personally have been using bow mounted animal attachments (objects) that simulated the species being hunted for over ten years here in Colorado and other states like Nebraska, Kansas, and Arizona, be it turkey, mule deer, whitetail deer, or elk and pronghorn. I hunt mostly on public land but once in a while on private lands. I and fellow bow hunters have NEVER had a “safety issue” when using these attachments: not even a concern for our safety as we were always aware of our surroundings and other hunters in the area, as learned from taking the Bow/Firearm, Hunter Education Program from Colorado.
This submitted issue seems like an issue looking for a problem; there might be a perceived problem but no actual problem. Even according to the issue paper, “there has not been a recorded incident in Colorado where a hunter was shot or injured while using an Affixed Decoy dating back to the year 2000, (twenty- one years ago.) I would believe this statement could be used in other states as well. In addition, I am not aware of any firearm mounted decoys except one turkey tail fan that might be mounted to the barrel of the gun so this “issue” is pointed directly at bow hunters who may mount a “decoy” to their bow.
I recently conducted a poll on a very well known bow hunting website asking the question to Colorado bow hunters, but also to other state bow hunters on this same site, who have used these attachments, i.e. ,”Is this issue/regulation needed? The overwhelming response from over 40 members, actually 100% was NO.
I would request that you not move this issue forward, but if you do for additional review, vote Alternative 4, Status Quo.
My best, Paul Navarre
