Summit Treestands
Bow attached decoys, part 3
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Paul@thefort 18-Mar-21
Jaquomo 18-Mar-21
2xLung 18-Mar-21
JDM 18-Mar-21
Sandbrew 18-Mar-21
Jaquomo 18-Mar-21
Paul@thefort 18-Mar-21
2xLung 18-Mar-21
Paul@thefort 18-Mar-21
Glunt@work 18-Mar-21
Grasshopper 19-Mar-21
Glunt@work 19-Mar-21
Stix 19-Mar-21
kadbow 19-Mar-21
Jaquomo 19-Mar-21
WYOelker 19-Mar-21
Paul@thefort 19-Mar-21
Grasshopper 19-Mar-21
Jaquomo 19-Mar-21
Paul@thefort 19-Mar-21
Jaquomo 20-Mar-21
From: Paul@thefort
18-Mar-21
I am personally so disappointed that this issue has even come up to the CPW Commission and just discussed at today's meeting. Commissioner McDaniel, has brought this issue forward, and expressed his opinion that there is a safely issue with the use of these decoys, and then the issue moved forward and became, as a "Fair Chase Issue".

And then Commissioner McDaniel, later stated that he did not believe it was a safety issue when on a bow, but only if a turkey fan was attached to a shotgun and not attached to the bow. What is surprising is that, and maybe not so surprising, is that other than Commissioner Mc Daniel, no other Commissioner is a bow hunter and knows anything about bow hunting and only have a slight understanding of what is fair chase. Commissioners were commenting on a decoy they had no idea of what it is and how it was used. So this issue is being sent back to staff for adjustments, ie, no distinction between the use of these decoys of public or private land, decoys not to be attached to firearms. So now the issue of Fair Chase, and bow mounted attachments have taken the forefront on this issue. This issue has been moved to phase two, and will be discusses at the next Commission meeting. Public input is allowed.

From: Jaquomo
18-Mar-21
It was interesting how McDaniel pivoted from safety to fair chase, saying it allows the hunter to be concealed and draw/shoot without being seen, while he admits to hunting out of a treestand which, by his standards, also violates "fair chase". Kudos to Commissioner Adams for pointing out the hypocrisy.

From: 2xLung
18-Mar-21
It was obvious to me that the public comment provided was procedural only and that the Commission - specifically the Chairman - has in their mind that there is a safety issue (there isn't) and affixed decoys provide an unfair advantage (it doesn't). It is also disappointing that the Chairman stated multiple times that his knowledge on these types of decoys comes from the YouTube videos he has watched. I think the manufacturer and the CBA rep did a good job in presenting facts - despite that great effort, they were not heard. I hope CBA stays on this and I'd like to see P&Y take a formal position on the use of decoys relative to fair chase - I couldn't find a reference on the P&Y site today regarding the use of decoys. Maybe I missed it.

From: JDM
18-Mar-21
I'm not aware of any national/international records keeping organization, that promotes fair chase, not allowing a decoy to be used in the taking of animals. Maybe this should also be pointed out to the commission. They seem to look to these organizations when establishing other rules (baiting and other issues), why not now as well.

From: Sandbrew
18-Mar-21
What about anyone hunting antelope or anything else geese, turkeys, deer elk..... out of a blind?

From: Jaquomo
18-Mar-21
Someone brought that up. This Commissioner seems fixated on the "fair chase" aspect and thinks it makes it too easy for bowhunters. He claims to be a bowhunter.

From: Paul@thefort
18-Mar-21
OH yea, and now the use of a tree stand, as a fair chase issue will be explored. It goes on and on! So here we go, Colorado might be the first to ban bow attached decoys and then ban the use of tree stands and the ban, on, and on , and on.....................What the hell is going on?

From: 2xLung
18-Mar-21
The issue discussion this morning was just plain odd. First, the Chair spent time explaining the background of how the issue originated in the "interest of full disclosure." Specifically, the Chairman stated he requested this issue be discussed after doing his own "investigation" which he quickly reworded to stating his own "research." Calling it an "investigation" implies he already views these types of decoys as illegal or that some violation is being committed.

Some other statements I found curious during discussion: Chair McDaniels: (these decoys) "dramatically increase your odds.." Based on what data? A couple of YouTube videos he watched?

Chair McDaniels: "If we're going to move this forward..." Chair McDaniels: "If we're going to move this forward..." Implies the commission already talked about moving this forward prior to the meeting.

C. Tutchton: "This feels a bit like an arms race..." Really? An arms race? Are the elk also coming up with new technology to defeat hunters?

C. Blecha: "If we do move this forward..." Again, implication that moving this issue forward has already been discussed by the Commission.

C. Adams: "I'm still struggling around the tree stand. When I was doing my hunter safety course....I just find it curious that we are spending our time on this, the decoy, and not on the treestand." Based on her extensive hunter experience gained through a hunter safety course, she is questioning the legality and ethics of using a tree stand. And now that will be brought forward to discuss in my opinion.

Ms. Heiner: "If we want to make changes to the 2021 season..." Implies that there has already been discussion about how to get these decoys banned from hunting for this upcoming season. She was already talking about how the CPW is short on time to get into the regs for this year. She was quickly corrected by the Chair that this is only step 1 of 2.

The whole discussion felt scripted to me and an attempt to portray open dialogue and a chance to allow public comment when in reality public comment is being completely ignored and the Commission has already decided. Frustrating to say the least and I don't even use one of these decoys!

From: Paul@thefort
18-Mar-21
The reason Commissioner Adams was "struggling" was from the public disclosure of Chair Mc Daniels at this very meeting, that he had actually fallen out of a tree stand, not only once but twice.

To me, this issue became a circus with Commission members that had no idea of that they were talking about or had knowledge of the subject at hand.

Another concern expressed was, how the weight of these decoys effect the accuracy of the shooter, how will the wind on the decoy effect the accuracy? Valid questions but there was no one there to answer or explain so those questions, speculations went unanswered. I got the impressing that many of the Commissioners had no idea how and when the decoys were and can be used. I had the feeling that, many on the Commission thought the decoy was always attached to the decoy.

The Fair Chase issue still has me baffled.

From: Glunt@work
18-Mar-21
I wish I could say that this is surprising.

From: Grasshopper
19-Mar-21
Got to listen in after the it was over. That discussion was ridiculous!

So if I am following it, using a bow mounted is unethical because the animal can't see you draw your bow? By that measure, we should now make all manufactured blinds illegal. They just can't see you draw.

Next we should now make it illegal to sit at water hole, because it gives the hunter an unfair advantage knowing animals might need a drink. Right?

If you don't know what you are talking about, best to leave it alone.

From: Glunt@work
19-Mar-21
Filling a tag while hunting basically is centered around a moment when you have the advantage. Goose decoys, bird dogs, cow calling, water holes, fence crossings, hunting during the rut, using cover to stalk, rabbit call for coyotes, rattling, etc, etc..

Depending on how you describe it, most any occasionally successful method, tactic, or gear can be spun as "unfair". It's a slippery slope. Is there some issue with abnormal success rates of turkey or any game harvest due to a bow-mounted decoys? Of course not. How many bowhunters in CO have even taken a critter with a bow-mounted decoy? 5,000? 1,000? 100? 20?

From: Stix
19-Mar-21
Sounds like CBA should do an archery demonstration to educate the commission on bowhunting equipment and tactics. I remember that Conrad D. did one in the early 2000's and it went a long way to establish relationships and inform the commission on the truth. Just sayin.....

From: kadbow
19-Mar-21
Pathetic!

From: Jaquomo
19-Mar-21
Stix, this Commissioner who brought the issue up is a bowhunter. He admitted he has fallen out of a treestand twice. Even though he can fool the animal's sight and smell the way he hunts, he somehow thinks that's still "fair chase", but someone on the ground using velcro is cheating.

Commissioner Adams, who I gathered is not a hunter from her comments, seems to have the best grasp of the irony in that.

Commissioner McDaniel, who initiated the issue, seems like one of those guys who thinks "my way of hunting is good, but yours is not". He should get on the Bowsite. :-)

From: WYOelker
19-Mar-21
Oh man... I am just damn happy I was not present or watching. I would have been removed for my comments. It is unreal that they single handedly have decided this is an issue without any public push. this is literally an agenda only for the commission and ultimately not based in any fact at all. Just opinion, which is fraught with ignorance...

From: Paul@thefort
19-Mar-21
Is there a "conflict of interest" here; One that initiates the issue, can comment and then be part of the final vote?

From: Grasshopper
19-Mar-21
Any commissioner can put whatever they deem appropriate on the agenda. You are extended that privilege when you are appointed.

Marvin replied to my email, I intend to call him.

Garcia replied, he has no safety or ethic concerns over Bow mounted decoys.

From: Jaquomo
19-Mar-21
Marvin also replied to my email. I pointed out the irony of him hunting out of a treestand (and admittedly falling out twice) where the archer can draw and shoot and be above the animal's nose, yet considering banning another tool with no documented injuries and where the hunter must be on the ground, for safety and fair chase reasons. Hopefully he is rethinking his concerns.

From: Paul@thefort
19-Mar-21
Lou, what was his reply? PM me if needed. Paul

From: Jaquomo
20-Mar-21
Just a thank you for my thoughtful email and comments.

  • Sitka Gear