Advertisement

CPW Commission: End Crow, rail, and sora hunting

Oak

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
16,062
Location
Colorado
As @Foldem mentioned here, this week the CPW Commission will be considering a final vote (Step 2 of 2) to end Virginia Rail, Sora, and American Crow hunting seasons in Colorado. This slipped under the radar of everyone I know. This document from the January meeting includes a CPW staff memo on the topic beginning on page 4, with a final recommendation to leave the seasons intact.

The "Basis and Purpose" listed for ending the proposed seasons says (emphasis added):

At the direction of the commission, the sora and Virginia rail season will be closed. Also at the direction of the commission, the crow season will be closed except when authorized pursuant to § 33-6-107(9) C.R.S. These closures are based on social concerns raised by members of the commission including, but not limited to, hunting ethics, low participation in harvest and concerns about the consumption of these species.
Click to expand...

Not very scientific. I would encourage those of you who are concerned about the CPW Commission going species by species making hunting ethics judgments to email the Commissioners and express your concern. The deadline has passed for getting comments in via the group email address, so you will need to send comments to their direct email addresses.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
 
Thank you for pointing this out. This is the start of something very bad.
 
I think what frustrates me most on this is that for two years (20 and 21) we were asked pretty heavily here in CO to "trust the science and the experts" on COVID, but now we are using "social concerns" instead of science to make management decisions.

(This isn't a commentary on the validity of COVID, rather that narratives are so quick to change to meet an objective)
 
Oak said:
As @Foldem mentioned here, this week the CPW Commission will be considering a final vote (Step 2 of 2) to end Virginia Rail, Sora, and American Crow hunting seasons in Colorado. This slipped under the radar of everyone I know. This document from the January meeting includes a CPW staff memo on the topic beginning on page 4, with a final recommendation to leave the seasons intact.

The "Basis and Purpose" listed for ending the proposed seasons says (emphasis added):



Not very scientific. I would encourage those of you who are concerned about the CPW Commission going species by species making hunting ethics judgments to email the Commissioners and express your concern. The deadline has passed for getting comments in via the group email address, so you will need to send comments to their direct email addresses.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Click to expand...
My email to the Commission:

Commissioners, I am writing to express the opposition by myself and my constituents in your southeast region to this proposal and more importantly, to the trend of the Commission to erode hunting/harvesting, a few species at a time.

Please review the North American model of hunting conservation. It was brilliant at its inception and remains so despite our rapidly changing times. It was developed during an era of species eradication by market hunters, and to end the bison-based subsistence of plains tribes. The model is uniquely American, and has resulted in species restorations in Colorado including moose, bighorn, elk, ferrets, bears, eagles, and other species of birds and fish. The Model emphasizes hunting as the primary tool, excepting wild predation, of population control. One great benefit of this emphasis is that it encourages and engages people to actively participate in wildlife and environmental conservation as hunters. Your CPW biologists are well-versed in the Model, and their recommendation against this proposal reflects their professional and scientific endorsement of it.

Thank you for your consideration.

My name
CPW Roundtable Southeast Region Delegate
 
Colorado needs all the help it can get. I am sad to say but it is likely already a done deal and there is no hope. But at least we should try.

Oak, is there any legal recourse that could occur if both the biologist and the public comment support status quo and the commission passes the ban anyways? It seems like there should be!
 
e-mail sent.

is it too passive aggressive of me that every time i send an e-mail to our commission anymore I can include a link to a government document explaining the north american model with a little note saying "for any commissioners that might be unfamiliar with the NAM"?

ugh
 
This is a rare glimpse where we see commissioners with anti-hunting sentiments ACTUALLY TELL US that they intend to erode hunting rights bit by bit around the margins where they feel like they can get away with it.
 
WYelker said:
Oak, is there any legal recourse that could occur if both the biologist and the public comment support status quo and the commission passes the ban anyways? It seems like there should be!
Click to expand...
I don't know what that would look like.

33-1-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. It is further declared to be the policy of this state that there shall be provided a comprehensive program designed to offer the greatest possible variety of wildlife-related recreational opportunity to the people of this state and its visitors and that, to carry out such program and policy, there shall be a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife-related opportunities.

33-1-104. General duties of commission.
(1) The commission is responsible for all wildlife management, for licensing requirements, and for the promulgation of rules, regulations, and orders concerning wildlife programs.
(2) The commission shall establish objectives within the state policy, as set forth in section 33-1-101, which will enable the division to develop, manage, and maintain sound programs of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other wildlife-related outdoor recreational activities. Such objectives shall employ a multiple-use concept of management.
 
winmag said:
Oak said:
I don't know what that would look like.

33-1-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) It is the policy of the state of Colorado that the wildlife and their environment are to be protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of this state and its visitors. It is further declared to be the policy of this state that there shall be provided a comprehensive program designed to offer the greatest possible variety of wildlife-related recreational opportunity to the people of this state and its visitors and that, to carry out such program and policy, there shall be a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife-related opportunities.

33-1-104. General duties of commission.
(1) The commission is responsible for all wildlife management, for licensing requirements, and for the promulgation of rules, regulations, and orders concerning wildlife programs.
(2) The commission shall establish objectives within the state policy, as set forth in section 33-1-101, which will enable the division to develop, manage, and maintain sound programs of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other wildlife-related outdoor recreational activities. Such objectives shall employ a multiple-use concept of management.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It seems like there are 2 areas within that writing that this move would absolutely violate…

The idea about the greatest wildlife related recreational opportunities and the section about a multiple use concept of management. Seems like this move if pushed forward against the recommendation of the CPW Staff would be a violation of both areas? Just a thought?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,567
Messages
2,025,348
Members
36,234
Latest member
catballou

Share this page

Back
Top