Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission Meeting - January 15 - 16, 2020

[Zach]

Worst podcast ever

We need more gavel!!

 

[Dsnow9]

I believe he guided in the vail valley, though maybe he floated around. Yeah 1990 to 2018 I think is what they said 53 has has a similar explosion as have a number of other units.

At this point I've hunted elk in Archery, Muzzy, 1st, 2nd, and 4th... and I think Archery is definitely the most crowded both with hunters and other users.

Yes, guided in vail valley

 

[Zach]

A few notes I took (I listened to most of it - they were having audio problems, so some of it was not available and some was garbled). That was the worst audio I've ever hear in a CPW meeting.
1. CPW staff estimated that a 1% reduction in elk tags available equates to ~$1M reduction in revenues for CPW (that's a lot and shows how dependent the agency currently is on elk hunters). IMO, this doesn't affect Elk/Big Game management, but would come into play for fisheries and damn maintenance.
2. Bighorn sheep tag availability is going up from 309 to 319 (4 rams, 6 ewes). Good to hear my odds went up, if ever so slightly
3. HSUS and some "NJ cat ladies" (as Rinella would call them) spoke out against any increases in mountain lion and bear licenses, calling them "unsustainable" and suggesting that more predators on the landscape would fix all of our problems, including CWD. One lady said she was "speaking for the animals since they can't speak for themselves." Another lady insinuated that hunting lions with dogs causes lions to attack dog owners. A guy tried to sound reasonable and suggested that CPW doesn't know how many bears/lions are out there so they are being negligent if they increase harvest. Brian Dreher (CPW Lead Terrestial Wildlife Biologist (?)) replied to that last commenter with some well-reasoned thoughts. Overall, I was impressed with how the CPW commissioners and staff were polite to everyone and replied to the reasonable questions/comments without emotion (I think I would have had a hard time not getting pissed off). If I am ever at one of these mtgs, I hope I have the courage to stand up and reply to the crazy cat ladies, "What have you, or any organization that you belong to, ever done for wildlife? Maybe instead of standing here making emotional pleas to "stop the killing" you should volunteer with CPW or any of the organizations that are doing real habitat work, like RMEF, BHA, etc and actually make a positive impact." The HSUS ilk tend to think that CPW has a kill first attitude, yet they never talk to the staff. I've had a few conversation with Brian Dreher, he's very well thought out in his conversations, knows his biology(IMO) and is definitely on the side of hunters. With the increase in bear numbers, perhaps its time to petition for Spring Bear to be brought back in limited form in the DAU's that warrant it.
4. As wlllm1313 pointed out above, several GMUs in the SW corner of the State are going to draw-only for archery elk tags. A representative of CO Bowhunters Association spoke up. It sounded like the commission had received quite a few comments from bowhunters complaining that draw-only archery elk was unfair because there are still OTC rifle season (bull only) tags in those GMUs. Personally, I think that's a poor argument since bowhunters get 4 weeks to hunt, including during the rut. If anything, I hope they expand the draw-only areas because the place I have been hunting is on the edge of this new draw-only area and I'm afraid the OTC guys will all end up in my area. I don't hunt that area. I also don't know if I hold in high regard CO Bowhunters Assn, but they seem to have the commissions ear.
5. There were a lot of comments on a proposed ban of coyote and prairie dog hunting/shooting contests. I've been around for a while and never heard of such a contest. Is this a red herring, just to distract from real issues? Or is it intended to be some small victory the anti's can point to? I remember this being an issue in other states, but I've yet to hear about a contest here in CO also. I can see them going after anyone(if someone still does)who pays for pelts.
6. There were 2 license suspension cases being appealed. One guy had been busted trespassing while hunting elk without a license and a year later poaching geese (while trespassing, while drinking and smoking pot, and without a license) and actually showed up in person to appeal! He basically said he didn't know he was trespassing, that he shot the geese elsewhere, and the 5 empty beer cans in his backpack were from earlier, and not while he was poaching and trespassing. He has paid a total of ~$500 in fines and lost his privileges for 4 years.
The 2nd guy killed a buck antelope and a buck mule deer, cut the antlers off (left the meat to waste), drove them to FL to his taxidermist, got busted, paid ~$2,000 in fines, lied at his hearing about having been fined for wildlife violations in NC and FL previously, and paid someone to represent him at this appeal! His appeal was also denied and he got a lifetime suspension of hunting/fishing privileges. A commissioner pointed out that he is a felon, so it's illegal for him to possess a firearm, so his hunting days are over regardless of his appeal. I need to go back and listen to the end.

I could only listen as I was driving my day job desk at the same time, but from your observations I've added a few thoughts to the above in bold.

 

[Ajax2744]

Instead of limited draw I wish they would try going otc with caps for elk just like they have with bears.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Instead of limited draw I wish they would try going otc with caps for elk just like they have with bears.

If we leave how it will effect us personally for a moment. I think eliminating OTC completely is the best course of action.

 

[Mudranger1]

I guess I don't follow your logic. If fewer people will hunt those draw-only areas and your numbered points are true, how will that not lead to more hunters (thus more crowding) in other units that are still OTC?

this is my fear of the situation. I feel like its just going to put that much more pressure on the already over crowded other OTC units. sure some will put in for the draw but there is a reason people like OTC

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I guess I don't follow your logic. If fewer people will hunt those draw-only areas and your numbered points are true, how will that not lead to more hunters (thus more crowding) in other units that are still OTC?

So if we were talking about rifle it would, because a hunter would be forced to pick a new unit entirely and would spend their time there.
An average rifle hunter hunts 4 days an average bow hunter hunts 6 days. I believe rifle hunters do 1 long trip or 2 day hunts usually in the same unit. Archers probably do 3, 2 day hunts likely in different units.
My suspicion is that a lot of the folks hunting the SW live in Denver, come there for one weekend and then hunt a unit closer to home for the rest of the season, these hunters will just stop coming to the sw and spend their entire time in closer units.

Therefore total hunter days in the SW will decrease and hunters days in other units may increase but it will be the same hunters just hunting the home unit more. Folks will also likely disperse between a bunch of different units so it likely wont be that big of an increase in any one unit.

So I don't think you will perceive it to be more crowded in other units, I know that sounds like splitting hairs.

 

[rideold]

Time will tell on what the effects will be. I'm curious to watch it all unfold. I would have liked to just see everything just go draw though. I kind of think it would be nice to have a better mix of A and B list elk tags for consideration. I'm wondering if the slow move to all draw will result in those of us that hunt archery and rifle not being able to do so in a few years.

 

[jlong17]

With the changes this year in Wyoming, the large reduction of tag allocations in Arizona, Idaho selling out earlier and earlier each year, and now reducing the OTC opportunities in Colorado I do wonder what affects these changes will have as a whole. I have a whopping 1 season of archery elk hunting under my belt so if I'm being honest, I have no idea what I am talking about and my opinions don't carry much experience to fall back on. I am just stating what I see from my narrow perspective.

 

[grasshopper]

@COEngineer really appreciate you taking the time to do the highlights

Hilde's comments came off as pretty selfish to me, I was very grateful for the two bow hunters that spoke out and stressed the importance of our herds above everything else and that going limited was simply giving CPW the tools they need to manage them.

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard! Selfish? Who is being selfish? I think it is the whiner who says I can't take 6316 fellow hunters on what might be 10 MILLION acres of public and private land, while rifle hunters are 15,000 plus! The selfish ones are the guys that want fewer people, at someone elses expense.

CPW says we have 287,000 elk statewide. There are 43,000 elk in the 4 DAU's of which ~200 cows get taken by archers at a ~3% success rate, while late rifle cow hunters have as high as a 54% success rate. We have 35,000 statewide OTC bowhunters, and 6316 hunt in the 4 DAU's. CBA surveys say at least 30% of them will move when you lose either sex tags. In E-16, 67% of the bowhunters left when they switched - 1000 OTC bowhunters went into some one elses OTC area.

Personally, I think 3,000 hunters will vacate year one so hunter density just got worse for MOST of the the OTC archers.

I swear, hunters are their own worst enemies, and I am amazed at how folks just won't share and can't self solve their own problems. Yet I, and the CBA are just selfish for representing what an overwhelming majority our members want.

I'll tell you who I feel sorry for, it is the probably 32,000 bowhunters north of I-70 who will see another 3,000 bowhunters headed their way. Their isn't that many OTC archery units left and rather than addressing the real rpoblem of NR's at 48% of all archers and growing at 10X the residents we did nothing to solve the issue, we made it worse.

We didn't solve hunter density, we relocated it at someone elses expense.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard! Selfish? Who is being selfish? I think it is the whiner who says I can't take 6316 fellow hunters on what might be 10 MILLION acres of public and private land, while rifle hunters are 15,000 plus! The selfish ones are the guys that want fewer people, at someone elses expense.

CPW says we have 287,000 elk statewide. There are 43,000 elk in the 4 DAU's of which ~200 cows get taken by archers at a ~3% success rate, while late rifle cow hunters have as high as a 54% success rate. We have 35,000 statewide OTC bowhunters, and 6316 hunt in the 4 DAU's. CBA surveys say at least 30% of them will move when you lose either sex tags. In E-16, 67% of the bowhunters left when they switched - 1000 OTC bowhunters went into some one elses OTC area.

Personally, I think 3,000 hunters will vacate year one so hunter density just got worse for MOST of the the OTC archers.

I swear, hunters are their own worst enemies, and I am amazed at how folks just won't share and can't self solve their own problems. Yet I, and the CBA are just selfish for representing what all our members want.

I'll tell you who I feel sory for, it is the probably 32,000 bowhunters north of I-70 who will see another 3,000 bowhunters headed their way. Their isn't that many units left and rather than addressing the NR's at 48% of all archers and growing at 10X the residents we did nothing to solve the issue, we made it worse.

We didn't solve hunter density, we relocated it at someone elses expense.

Here is the fundamental problem with your argument: We are all hunters.

There is no such thing as bow hunters, rifle hunters, muzzy hunters. There are just hunters. CPW's mandate is to provide opportunity for hunters, there is nothing that says they need to cater to everyone's favorite method of take.

If you think you're getting shortchanged, buy an OTC rifle tag and use your bow. There is no rule on that books that restricts bow hunters from hunting any other season. If those 4th season tags are so great go hunt them with your bow, literally nothing stopping you. Notice we don't have a crossbow season? What about those guys, seems unfair, do we need a designated OTC crossbow season, what about muzzy hunters, they don't have an OTC season... personally I shoot a long bow and I really don't like having to share my hunt with guys with wheels, so why don't we made a 2 week OTC longbow only season?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Protecting the resource is the primary objective. The selfish ones are the guys who care more about their hunt than the resource. I'm sorry you aren't guaranteed the ability to buy your preference point, and still hunt unit 75 every year and instead have to either get your 75 tag in the draw and forgo the point or roll the dice buy a point and then pick up your 75 tag in the draw... or just hunt 75 in another season.

I think your comment bout E-16 is a red herring, CPW moved away from either sex because the elk herd was getting kicked in the teeth, hunters left for the exact same reason. The exodus had nothing to do with the reg, but rather with success rates and therefore herd health.

CPW needs to be given all the tools necessary to manage our herds, I am 100% behind going fully limited for the entire state for all seasons and requiring mandatory hunt reports for every tag issued.

 

[grasshopper]

I forgot one, bowhunters will move according to our survey. Not only did we get limited - we got either sex licensing taken away.

Now, very few with any sort of preference points will apply as a first choice. The licenses may all go to NR's with zero points on first choice apps.

Will hunter density improve? We had 6316 in the SW, and 1400 in E-16. My guess, in May they will set a bull only quota of 80-90% of what we had, and then throw in cow tags.

Will this aid the elk herd? well, our 200 cows in the SW was probably less than the road kill count. In e16, we were going to take 35 cows from 6,000 elk. I'm not a biologist, but I can count and realize our reduction isn't diddly squat.

Lastly, it pisses me off to be called selfish when I am looking out for a majority of my fellow hunters. I will accept apologies, and extend grace though.

 

[grasshopper]

"Protecting the resource is the primary objective."

This is just me, but I totally disagree with that. I care about the wildlife resource, but my primary directive is found in the book of Matthew 22 36-40 You can put yourself on this high wildlife pedestal, I disagree.

If I ever don't look out for my neighbor first, take me out behind the shed and whack me upside the head.

 

[TOGIE]

ruined resource equals nothing to hunt.

is that really looking out for your fellow hunter... err, sorry, bowhunter?

they're my elk, and i want to shoot them NOW - call 877-ELK NOW

 

[grasshopper]

ruined resource equals nothing to hunt.

is that really looking out for your fellow hunter... err, sorry, bowhunter?

they're my elk, and i want to shoot them NOW - call 877-ELK NOW

The resource across the state is 287,000 elk with unlimited tags. It is at objective. In the 4 DAU's in the SW there are 43,000 elk with unlimited rifle bull tags. In E-16, when they want to limit archers it was 4500 elk with a season structure set to kill elk including either sex rifle, and and ample PLO cow tags, and rifle cow tags for public land in a Sept season. Last may, all of a sudden we had 6,000 elk. Archers were limited so a political statement could be made about trails.

Let me know when the resource is inadequate, it is priority 3 for me.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The resource across the state is 287,000 elk with unlimited tags. It is at objective. In the 4 DAU's in the SW there are 43,000 elk with unlimited rifle bull tags. In E-16, when they want to limit archers it was 4500 elk with a season structure set to kill elk including either sex rifle, and and ample PLO cow tags, and rifle cow tags for public land in a Sept season. Last may, all of a sudden we had 6,000 elk. Archers were limited so a political statement could be made about trails.

Let me know when the resource is inadequate, it is priority 3 for me.

So are you for or against, going limited for rifle in those units, how about statewide for all seasons. If we went fully limited all of the problems you enumerated, evaporate.

"The licenses may all go to NR's with zero points on first choice apps."

Nope they will now be subject to the 35% rule instead of being unlimited so there will be less NR hunters. The quota will be based on current numbers under the current numbers there is something like 40-50% NR in the unit, so even though the quota might be reduced there will be more Resident opportunity.

Lastly, it pisses me off to be called selfish when I am looking out for a majority of my fellow hunters. I will accept apologies, and extend grace though.

You know what that is fair. My apologies for calling you selfish.

I believe you take a myopic approach to the topic. I think CBA needs to look beyond archers and think about what's best for elk in the state of Colorado. What's good for the elk will, in the long run, be good for bow hunters.

We certainly seem to have different priorities.

1. Healthy habitats and ecosystems
2. Maintaining wild places for future generations
3. Hunter opportunity

 

[grasshopper]

"Nope they will now be subject to the 35% rule instead of being unlimited so there will be less NR hunters. The quota will be based on current numbers under the current numbers there is something like 40-50% NR in the unit, so even though the quota might be reduced there will be more Resident opportunity. "

65/35 only applies to first choice hunt codes. second choice has NO ALLOCATION policy. Who of the 6316 bowhunters, with even 1 point will apply as a first choice for the newly limited SW units? I have talked to a guy with 4, and a guy with two, neither will apply as a first choice. 95% of hunters use the points system.

If the discussion is to increase wildlife populations, shouldn't we start talking about reducing cow elk tags in late seasons where you kill two with one shot? or the PLO tags with a season from Sept to January?

As far as healthy habitats and ecosystems, sounds like your buying into wolf intro. I don't. We may find predators are having a large impact on ungulates and the reason for decline in the SW. We also can't control drought, and the SW has had drought. We also have nearly 6 million people headed to 7 million. Personally, I am a multiple use guy, love my gas fed RZR so wild places should be for all, not just horsebackers, and 20 somethings with young knees.

Lastly, I never represented my own personal opinions while on the CBA board. I also do not hunt OTC elk, hunter density is high but I could always walk another mile and keep looking. I am off the board now, someone else should step up to represent the majority of member opinions. Influencing state government or anyone else for that matter is really discouraging, rarely successful, and time consuming.

THanks for the discussion, back to work for me.

 

[TOGIE]

With my approach, influencing state government or anyone else for that matter is really discouraging, rarely successful, and time consuming.

fixed that for ya

 

[JohnCushman]

We need more cowbell!!

Fixed it for you...Christopher Walken would be proud

 

[grasshopper]

Better idea - you do it. Show up at the CBA board meeting on Saturday and run for CPW liaison. All fixed.