May CPW Commission meeting

[GrantK]

Rapid Response Teams?

lol what are we missing?!

just imagine a guided meditation session starting with "I would like you to now stop looking at me and close your eyes. Now touch a cold carcass"

 

[TOGIE]

 

[Mallardsx2]

SOOOOO basically, A rancher is guilty of poaching a wolf unless they have a cell phone video to prove their innocence?

Did I hear that right?

 

[Oak]

Sorry, I had to take a phone call right after our spiritual leader wrapped up their testimony and missed everything since.

 

[Deleted member 40728]

SOOOOO basically, A rancher is guilty of poaching a wolf unless they have a cell phone video to prove their innocence?

Did I hear that right?

Sounds like a perfect job for the Bowmars. They can be hired along with every other hunting influencer to shoot a woof. They never miss an opportunity to video something.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Wolf Plan passed unanimously/uncontested. 5/23/2023 at 2:39 EST.

UNREAL.

 

[Addicting]

Wolf Plan passed unanimously/uncontested. 5/23/2023 at 2:39 EST.

UNREAL.

And what makes me wonder is why have any testament on it if it was already preprinted before the meeting and passed. It was a done deal before the meeting even started.

 

[Mallardsx2]

And what makes me wonder is why have any testament on it if it was already preprinted before the meeting and passed. It was a done deal before the meeting even started.

Yup.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

It was definitely decided earlier... they had Governor Polis teed up

 

[Deleted member 52098]

If the CO Republican party were smart, they would start working on an abortion neutral candidate who was not an election denier... now

 

[Oak]

C'mon guys. This was step 2 of 2 in the final approval process after over 2 years of meetings, comments, testimony, etc. It wasn't like it just wasn't going to happen at the last minute. There was no expectation that even the most vocal opponents of wolf reintroduction on the committee was going to propose changes at this meeting. That's how you get to the final plan.

 

[Addicting]

C'mon guys. This was step 2 of 2 in the final approval process after over 2 years of meetings, comments, testimony, etc. It wasn't like it just wasn't going to happen at the last minute. There was no expectation that even the most vocal opponents of wolf reintroduction on the committee was going to propose changes at this meeting. That's how you get to the final plan.

Then why bother holding comment? Seems rather petty to have folks travel to talk when only a procedural vote is required.

 

[Oak]

Then why bother holding comment? Seems rather petty to have folks travel to talk when only a procedural vote is required.

Because those are the Commission meeting rules. It allows people to get their position on record. Anyone who has ever participated in a Commission process of any kind knows that the final step is procedural.

 

[Oak]

Anyone who has ever participated in a Commission process of any kind knows that the final step is procedural.

This comment was not directed at anyone in this thread, and I apologize if it was taken that way. It was directed towards the people who showed up to comment today, who also showed up to comment in step 1 of 2 in April, and have been commenting throughout the planning process. When you get to step 2 of 2, there is still opportunity to comment, but it's highly unlikely that anything will be changed at that point.

 

[elkduds]

This comment was not directed at anyone in this thread, and I apologize if it was taken that way. It was directed towards the people who showed up to comment today, who also showed up to comment in step 1 of 2 in April, and have been commenting throughout the planning process. When you get to step 2 of 2, there is still opportunity to comment, but it's highly unlikely that anything will be changed at that point.

No blood, no foul. @Oak , without your links, commentary and frequent posts most of us would not understand even a little about how the Commission works. I'm grateful. And the lunchbreak video muzak is better than most.

 

[nrpate05]

This comment was not directed at anyone in this thread, and I apologize if it was taken that way. It was directed towards the people who showed up to comment today, who also showed up to comment in step 1 of 2 in April, and have been commenting throughout the planning process. When you get to step 2 of 2, there is still opportunity to comment, but it's highly unlikely that anything will be changed at that point.

I'm not totally familiar with how the commission works, but in NEPA cases you lose the right to protest later on if you don't comment on the proposal. Perhaps there is something like that here, but I'm not sure.

 

[elkduds]

CPW recommending about 90% reduction in female draw licenses for the northwest corner, down to about 10 licenses per unit hunt code split among landowner, youth, R and NR public land licenses. By far the most drastic cuts ever proposed by CPW. Middle Park cow tags much reduced due to low calf survival. Average elk survival for Uncompahgre, Gunnison basin and South Park areas. I'll edit this as meeting continues. Statewide 30bucks/100does. NW region, recommendations for deer licenses 33% lower than last year. Either sex elk licenses reduced again. Statewide cow tags down 25% statewide. Drought on plains means reduction of pronghorn tags on eastern plains. Moose licenses increasing 10% statewide.

More intensive monitoring of all species, best counting science ever in 5 monitoring areas: Uncompahgre, White River, Middle Park, South Park, Gunnison Basin. Tag reductions recommended in these areas adjacent to these severe winter monitoring areas.

Mortality not done. Rumor of 50 game carcasses along the highway between Rangely and Meeker today.

Suggestions:

Go to 0 female tags, NW area. Reply: Brochure already offered applications for these tags.

Reduce the season length for OTC seasons in NW corner in E2 and E6 to 5 days.

Multiple public suggestions to eliminate cow hunting in the northwest.

Multiple suggestions for mandatory 100% harvest reporting in the NW.

Public commenters almost all outfitters, in favor of male license reduction and shortening OTC seasons.

Commissioner agreed w outfitter that trend is for elk to move onto winter range early while food is available in the high country.

CPW defended random harvest surveys over mandatory surveys by citing published studies and low response rates in mandatory reporting states, as well as cost and logistics of mandatory.

No opposition to proposed reduction. Motion by Haskett to reduce archery and ML either sex draw quotas by 25% in NW units. CPW staff supports those reductions. Unanimously approved.

Haskett's motion to reduce OTC rifle elk 2nd and 3rd seasons to 5 days in NW severe winter GMUs for 2023. CPW noted potential for confusion and enforcement challenges, "normally we give one year advance notice before implementing such changes to season dates. How do we notify NR hunters in advance? Point of sale publicity, email blast to all OTC purchasers. CPW noted 4 pt restriction protects younger bull population in OTC units. Large reduction of cow tags this year is planned to prevent similar big reductions in future years. Unanimously approved.

Bear: higher harvest, road kill and problem bear termination last year. Low food production 2022 in NW and SE regions. 9 DAUs are over bear population. 8 DAUs are at objective. CPW believes $100 NR cost, ease of OTC purchase has "saturated" sales to big game hunters. 35% of bear licenses were to NRs last year. Bear recommended quotas by CPW approved, very few reductions from last year.

R/NR allocation proposal: 75/25 across the Board (CPW's recommendation) or 80/20 for high demand units, up to 65/35 for lower demand units. Landowner vouchers got to R/NR 50/50. CPW said residents lose 5% or high demand tags, gain much higher % of lower demand tags. Logistically it is technologically possible to make those allocations. 2 commissioners asked why backtrack from 80/20 to 75/25 the same year it was decided. CPW said 75/25 is a fairer compromise.
Public comments:
Outfitters: This is a social, not a biological proposal. Our NR outfitted clients bring $ to poor communities, Rs do not. Opposed.
Criticism of CPW survey: biased as constructed, gave misleading results. Most states are 90/10. Eliminating hybrid licenses gives 5% more to NRs. R elk hunter #s are declining while NRs are up 25%, due to difficulty drawing quality tags. Outfitters on Board do not represent resident hunters.
CBA supports 80/20 for high demand. 75/25 for others including OTC. Legislators are trying to make this decision based on input from their resident constituents.
Com. Otero supports 80/20 for high demand tags, 75/25 for others, noted residents contribute through state taxes. Resident ratio increase long overdue. Motion for 80/20 for high demand tags, 75/25 for the rest. Passed, barely.

Point banking: CPW opposed. Not fair to lower point hunters, keeps points in the system. Point banking only benefits 1-2% of highest point hunters. Active customers is more accurate data than total customers. 96% of hunters would not use point banking. Point banking and random draw rated in CPW survey as least fair options. So the benefit to possibly 2% of highest point applicant would be negative to 98% with lower point total. "Point creep means points to draw never goes down in highest units. Banking would raise points needed for highest units, which accelerated point inflation in those highest point units. Dissatisfaction from hunters in the 2006 one year trial of point banking. Commission got 2 proposals out of CPW, banking with 2 point penalty, and same proposal with limit of one banking draw per species. Haslett, the commissioner who advocates for point banking believes middle point holders will use point banking, not high point holders. She believes the surcharge of 2 points will take total points out of the universe of total points/total demand, reducing total # of preference points in the pool. Another commissioner suggested surveying hunters to see if they prefer gradually ending preference point system, since it will only expand in the future. Some commissioners noted this is ineffective plan for reducing point creep, what is customer service to 2% of point holders is disservice to all the others. Some noted if the goal is to solve point creep, do that in some way that will work, like a combination of preference and random hybrid draw. CPW asked to revisit goal of preference creep after BGSS process, with guidance about commissioner priorities for preference point solutions. One asked what if we just stopped issuing preference points, would that ever solve point creep? Note, bad signal, missing 50% of discussion. Acknowledgement that revamping point system will require a long term systematic process of public comment and review, no quick fix, "people are going to die without using their points." CPW noted this would have profound impacts on their funding and structure, needs to be a deliberate process.

Lost signal so I'm done here.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

all those cow tags are being taken from the NR pot and not the R, right?

 

[Zach]

If the CO Republican party were smart, they would start working on an abortion neutral candidate who was not an election denier... now

You mean a Libertarian....

 

[Zach]

I'm glad they finally cut mic's off after the time has expired.