CBA is asking for your help

[grasshopper]

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.

OMG! I pm'd you to have a personal one on one conversation about your grievances, giving you my phone number. I have crossed the internet line, forgive me. An unforgivable offense, no doubt. Sheesh. Crazy times, crazy attitudes.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

Your mistake was thinking that we would only care about a small group of archery hunters who want to have their cake and eat it too.

The fact that some archery hunters want to build preference points and hunt archery season every year shouldn’t be the only factor in creating regs.

 

[grasshopper]

Your mistake was thinking that we would only care about a small group of archery hunters who want to have their cake and eat it too.

The fact that some archery hunters want to build preference points and hunt archery season every year shouldn’t be the only factor in creating regs.

Good grief, you think this is about points?

Why, with 280,000 elk, should 14-15,000 residents bow hunters be limited, when ~60,000 OTC rifle hunters both resident and nonresident, are not, and can get a point and hunt every year? That is the CPW recomendation.

 

[Oak]

Noon tomorrow (March 8) is the deadline to sign up if you would like to comment virtually on BGSS or any other agenda topics at the Commission meeting next week.

I've read a lot of comments on this thread and the BGSS thread about what people wish staff would have recommended. It's all still on the table. Comment.

 

[grasshopper]

Maybe this has been posted here before, saw it on rokslide. Honest, objective discussion, history, court cases, pricing, etc. Every Colorado wildlife commissioner should watch this.

 

[Nick87]

Maybe this has been posted here before, saw it on rokslide. Honest, objective discussion, history, court cases, pricing, etc. Every Colorado wildlife commissioner should watch this.

We have a thread on it. It was awesome.

 

[Buffs35]

Good grief, you think this is about points?

Why, with 280,000 elk, should 14-15,000 residents bow hunters be limited, when ~60,000 OTC rifle hunters both resident and nonresident, are not, and can get a point and hunt every year? That is the CPW recomendation.

Maybe it has nothing to do with the OTC rifle hunter numbers, or elk, or hunting at all, the appointed powers-that-be are likely more concerned about inconveniencing non-hunters that use the woods when the weather is nice than giving a hoot about archery hunters.

 

[Buffs35]

We have a thread on it. It was awesome.

I was just going to post this:

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Noon tomorrow (March 8) is the deadline to sign up if you would like to comment virtually on BGSS or any other agenda topics at the Commission meeting next week.

I've read a lot of comments on this thread and the BGSS thread about what people wish staff would have recommended. It's all still on the table. Comment.

sent many comments in, especially on the whole primary draw lose your points instead of what we asked for... any A tag wipes the slate clean. Bummer that these calls fall when I have meetings

Thanks for your work @Oak

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good grief, you think this is about points?

Why, with 280,000 elk, should 14-15,000 residents bow hunters be limited, when ~60,000 OTC rifle hunters both resident and nonresident, are not, and can get a point and hunt every year? That is the CPW recomendation.

The should both be limited, which I have state here and is the comment I submitted.

 

[Pelican]

The fact that some archery hunters want to build preference points and hunt archery season every year shouldn’t be the only factor in creating regs.

Are you really so clueless that you believe this only occurs with archery?

 

[Dsnow9]

Are you really so clueless that you believe this only occurs with archery?

The should both be limited, which I have state here and is the comment I submitted.

Read the post before yours @Pelican I included it for you.

 

[Pelican]

The should both be limited, which I have state here and is the comment I submitted.

Why? So you can just buy one of the 40,000 transferable landowner tag that will be created instead of waiting in line with the proles?

 

[Pelican]

Read the post before yours @Pelican I included it for you.

Going limited for elk doesn’t eliminate the possibility of getting a point and a list A tag in the same year. Most years I do this with deer. Two separate issues.

 

[Dsnow9]

Going limited for elk doesn’t eliminate the possibility of getting a point and a list A tag in the same year. Most years I do this with deer. Two separate issues.

It think many of us, including @AvidIndoorsman have all advocated for you to lose your points if you get any A tag. Only logical way to try and catch up with point creep. It’s going to be a little painful in the beginning but will benefit everyone in the long run in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It think many of us, including @AvidIndoorsman have all advocated for you to lose your points if you get any A tag. Only logical way to try and catch up with point creep. It’s going to be a little painful in the beginning but will benefit everyone in the long run in my opinion.

Plus allow CPW to better control crowding and R/NR allocation.

The 70% of archery tags in steamboat going the NR is unhinged.

@Pelican you raise a good point about landowner tags I hadn’t considered. That being said, I’m not sure it’s a net negative for crowding, point creep, etc. The restricted tags certainly don’t, the unit wide… assuming the quotas are pretty high I’m not sure it makes a ton of difference and if it’s a tag being transferred it’s possibly taking a hunter from public to private and reducing pressure. I not a fan of landowner tags being transferable beyond family.

 

[Pelican]

It think many of us, including @AvidIndoorsman have all advocated for you to lose your points if you get any A tag. Only logical way to try and catch up with point creep. It’s going to be a little painful in the beginning but will benefit everyone in the long run in my opinion.

I’m not opposed to this change but I don’t think it will really have much effect on point creep. Particularly on the NR side, the system is so overloaded with applicants that only a drastic change is going to do anything to reduce point creep. Point systems cause point creep.

Plus allow CPW to better control crowding and R/NR allocation.

The 70% of archery tags in steamboat going the NR is unhinged.

@Pelican you raise a good point about landowner tags I hadn’t considered. That being said, I’m not sure it’s a net negative for crowding, point creep, etc. The restricted tags certainly don’t, the unit wide… assuming the quotas are pretty high I’m not sure it makes a ton of difference and if it’s a tag being transferred it’s possibly taking a hunter from public to private and reducing pressure. I not a fan of landowner tags being transferable beyond family.

Capping NR tags or going limited for NR only would also give CPW all the control they need while still allowing residents hunt where and how they choose. There is absolutely no biological justification for eliminating resident OTC archery tags. Archery hunters made up 25% of elk hunters and killed 19% of bull harvest and only 8% of cows.

A second issue with the proposal to eliminate resident otc archery or otc rifle also is that we really cannot afford to loose any more resident hunters. We are 0 for 3 on ballot initiatives with a 4th pending. Eliminating or keeping otc is not going to make a difference this November but there will be a 5th initiative at some point in the future and we need people that can vote in this state and push back against questionable commissioner appointments.