CBA is asking for your help

[grasshopper]

Are Coloradans doing significantly worse than in the 40s?

A resident elk tag was 2x what it is adjusted for inflation in 47’.

View attachment 318212
Apparently the greatest generation was far more willing to pay for wildlife and less sniveled less about sharing.

Full limited for archery is the right call IMHO wish it was full limited for all tags.

Yea, ya got me there because I have no idea how to respond to that. In 1947, there wasn't a statewide archery season. In 1958, you could probably draw a sheep tag every year. I think Wayne Depperschmidt told me he has drawn 8 sheep tags, he is 85. In 1947 and 1958 we had no nonresidents limits. Tags back then probably cost $1.50 for everyone?

We probably had a 90 day season in 1958? In 1958, how did they define hunter crowding, seeing one other hunter in a month at the trailhead?

Willingness to pay? I paid cpw 1200 dollars last year.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yea, ya got me there because I have no idea how to respond to that. In 1947, there wasn't a statewide archery season. In 1958, you could probably draw a sheep tag every year. I think Wayne Depperschmidt told me he has drawn 8 sheep tags, he is 85. In 1947 and 1958 we had no nonresidents limits. Tags back then probably cost $1.50 for everyone?

Willingness to pay? I paid cpw 1200 dollars last year.

The numbers (minus population and inflation calculations) are from the CDOW brochure from the 50s.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I honestly don’t understand why CO hunting orgs don’t want license costs for residents tied to the CPI just like NR costs.

I definitely think there should be fully limited license for all hunters, but archery numbers have dramatically increased and rifle numbers have decline state wide and in pretty spectacular ratios in units like the west elks. It makes sense to put in place measures to make sure that all users continue to have a quality experience.

 

[grasshopper]

I honestly don’t understand why CO hunting orgs don’t want license costs for residents tied to the CPI just like NR costs.

I definitely think there should be fully limited license for all hunters, but archery numbers have dramatically increased and rifle numbers have decline state wide and in pretty spectacular ratios in units like the west elks. It makes sense to put in place measures to make sure that all users continue to have a quality experience.

Lots of false statements there.

 

[Dsnow9]

Lots of false statements there.

Be careful, he will have stats to back it up. As long as you have info to back your stance let us see it so we can make a call for ourselves.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Are Coloradans doing significantly worse than in the 40s?

A resident elk tag was 2x what it is adjusted for inflation in 47’.

View attachment 318212
Apparently the greatest generation was far more willing to pay for wildlife and less sniveled less about sharing.

Full limited for archery is the right call IMHO wish it was full limited for all tags.

Take me back to the 1940/1950’s population of Co and the average mentality of a person from that decade and you can charge all you want for a tag. When I was a kid Co had a population of 2.8 mil and was a heck of a better place…

 

[grasshopper]

Be careful, he will have stats to back it up. As long as you have info to back your stance let us see it so we can make a call for ourselves.

Residents have been tied to cpi since what 2018 or 19?

I'm short on time today, working to pay bills.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lots of false statements there.

Archery up 144% from 2005 numbers
Rifle down to 73% of 2005 numbers
Muzzy down to 77% of 2005 totals

 

[Deleted member 52098]

View attachment 318234

Archery up 144% from 2005 numbers
Rifle down to 73% of 2005 numbers
Muzzy down to 77% of 2005 totals

 

[grasshopper]

View attachment 318234

Archery up 144% from 2005 numbers
Rifle down to 73% of 2005 numbers
Muzzy down to 77% of 2005 totals

Now tie that to species, sex and populations, and differentiate by otc vs limited licenses please.

Then show applications before and after pay later, then tie in fee increases.

I forget which year the heyday of elk was, maybe 320,000 or so?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lots of false statements there.

Archery up 135% of 05'
Muzzy down to 40% of 05'
Rifle down to 65% of 05'
Total hunters down to 76% of 05'

Lots of comments on this board about how the west elks is a CF during archery season. That rifle pressure is split between 4 seasons, and a lot of the elk are on private during the late seasons. The elk are mostly on public during the archery season, and there is added pressure from non-consumptive users.

The most crowded time in the west elks is definitely Sept. Data shows it, user feedback shows it.

West elk is OTC, and yes populations of elk are down... but yet archery is way up.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Residents have been tied to cpi since what 2018 or 19?

I'm short on time today, working to pay bills.

You're correct, Hunting, Fishing, and Parks for Future Generations Act (SB 18-143) did that, my apologies on the inaccurate statement.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Now tie that to species, sex and populations, and differentiate by otc vs limited licenses please.

Then show applications before and after pay later, then tie in fee increases.

I forget which year the heyday of elk was, maybe 320,000 or so?

These are all red herrings. The whole point is that we actually have less hunters in the woods than we did almost 20 years ago, but that we have seen a steady rise in archery participation.

Like I said I think we should have gone fully limited, but it is true that about 53,000 rifle hunters have left in the last 20 years. Despite having more elk now than we did in 05'.

It therefore seems logical that limited Archery would be a solution to crowding, esp as I said above, not a lot of non-consumptive users (Comparatively) on public land mid-oct to November.

 

[Carnage2011]

Here is my quick take on these proposals.

I believe NR's should be limited drastically on archery elk. Residents shouldn't have any cuts until we see what effect that has. 2nd and 3rd rifle season should be OTC for residents and capped for NR's. If we cap archery elk and not rifle then we probably just change the timing of pressure. Not all, but many of those hunters could easily just change and hunt 2nd rifle if they don't get an archery tag. I've been to CO during 2nd and 3rd rifle...it's a shit show. Putting more people there due to displacement from archery caps seems like a poor idea.

As far as the price increase goes. I have zero problem with price increases as long as they're necessary. We don't need to raise prices just to prove a point. If the department is operating on a huge surplus right now, then it should be fairly simple to run the numbers and see what effect these changes will have. If it's necessary, then raise the price. If the argument against raising resident price is that it's pricing guys out; that's too bad. If you can't afford a $60 license, you probably can't afford the fuel or to process that animal either. Life is full of tough decisions.

 

[rogerthat]

Sorry grasshopper. Wrong forum. We are all millionaires here

 

[Dsnow9]

Here is my quick take on these proposals.

I believe NR's should be limited drastically on archery elk. Residents shouldn't have any cuts until we see what effect that has. 2nd and 3rd rifle season should be OTC for residents and capped for NR's. If we cap archery elk and not rifle then we probably just change the timing of pressure. Not all, but many of those hunters could easily just change and hunt 2nd rifle if they don't get an archery tag. I've been to CO during 2nd and 3rd rifle...it's a shit show. Putting more people there due to displacement from archery caps seems like a poor idea.

As far as the price increase goes. I have zero problem with price increases as long as they're necessary. We don't need to raise prices just to prove a point. If the department is operating on a huge surplus right now, then it should be fairly simple to run the numbers and see what effect these changes will have. If it's necessary, then raise the price. If the argument against raising resident price is that it's pricing guys out; that's too bad. If you can't afford a $60 license, you probably can't afford the fuel or to process that animal either. Life is full of tough decisions.

Good points

 

[grasshopper]

Sorry grasshopper. Wrong forum. We are all millionaires here

Yea me too, my mistake was thinking there might be compassion for others here. Lol.

I guess I've never heard a valid reason why 14,000 or 15,000 resident otc archers should be limited when we have 280000 elk. Does any elk state do that? No state treats it own residents worse.

I'm not really here for a lengthy debate, just sharing a position, asking for help, with limited time to argue on the net. If you feel differently, no sweat.

 

[rogerthat]

Yea me too, my mistake was thinking there might be compassion for others here. Lol.

I guess I've never heard a valid reason why 14,000 or 15,000 resident otc archers should be limited when we have 280000 elk. Does any elk state do that? No state treats it own residents worse.

I'm not really here for a lengthy debate, just sharing a position, asking for help, with limited time to argue on the net. If you feel differently, no sweat.

All good. I’m just being a dork. I agree I think only nr should be limited but I’m a nr so my opinion is of no consequence

 

[elkduds]

Yea me too, my mistake was thinking there might be compassion for others here. Lol.

I guess I've never heard a valid reason why 14,000 or 15,000 resident otc archers should be limited when we have 280000 elk. Does any elk state do that? No state treats it own residents worse.

I'm not really here for a lengthy debate, just sharing a position, asking for help, with limited time to argue on the net. If you feel differently, no sweat.

After I discouraged you from PMing about this issue, you continued, and you continue to be wrong. CBA is a good fit for you.

I killed my 1st deer w a bow in 1985.

 

[WildWill]

Yea me too, my mistake was thinking there might be compassion for others here. Lol.

I guess I've never heard a valid reason why 14,000 or 15,000 resident otc archers should be limited when we have 280000 elk. Does any elk state do that? No state treats it own residents worse.

I'm not really here for a lengthy debate, just sharing a position, asking for help, with limited time to argue on the net. If you feel differently, no sweat.

Nm and AZ