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

[rideold]

I'm confused why you cant trust unit based data if you can trust a wider based ? Data. I think that's what you are saying. And PLO are all based on a single unit whether they are unit wide or actual private land tags

Because of the margin of error. When you aggregate data into larger geographic areas the error is spread across more data and has less influence. When you start looking at smaller and smaller geographic areas the error increases.

 

[Mudranger1]

Because of the margin of error. When you aggregate data into larger geographic areas the error is spread across more data and has less influence. When you start looking at smaller and smaller geographic areas the error increases.

naw if you claiming people are not being honest then you have claim it is broad spectrum you cant have it both ways

 

[Mudranger1]

Maybe, but I can't hold my gun shouldered as long as a compound shooter can hold it. I also hunt old school and never call. I love to sneak in. So, not only do I have to shoulder the gun but I have to sneak in too. I can't move if the elk, bear, or deer are looking at me. A bow is no different. I have some buddies who hunt the same way. We all seem to enjoy it. I find it pretty rewarding.

you do what you love to do. I'm perfectly ok with that. but you asked why I thought it is easier.

 

[grasshopper]

I have little time to debate an issue that is over, I am knee deep in year end quickbooks with better things to do. I merely came on to defend being called selfish.

I will say I am always shocked at how guys complain that the archery season is to long, rather than complain the rifle season is to short. We have let money and greed drive our season structure for decades. Montana has a 6 week archery season, and then you get a month of rifle. Wyoming has a month long archery, and then a month of rifle. The same tags can turn into cow tags in many states. We wonder why guys only hunt 4 days, because our seasons suck. With the new season structure, our elk and deer may be slaughtered.

Like I said earlier, if I ever do not stick up for hunters FIRST, let me know. Never once did we say rifle should be limited. Never once did we not propose a reduction in the ridiculously low archery cow harvest.

54 % success rate for ALL rifle seasons last year in 78. 2-4.5% for archery cow take. It is ridiculous.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

you do what you love to do. I'm perfectly ok with that. but you asked why I thought it is easier.

I know but I thought i'd explain why I don't think it is.(for me) It's all good and we're free to do as we please. It's one of the perks of hunting.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

naw if you claiming people are not being honest then you have claim it is broad spectrum you cant have it both ways

@rideold is correct, he’s referring to the sampling method not whether people are being honest. It’s based on random sampling so a small unit with few tags for a season may not have enough or any surveys to be accurate.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

you do what you love to do. I'm perfectly ok with that. but you asked why I thought it is easier.

I go way back with a longbow. Here I am about 65 years ago.

 

[Mudranger1]

@rideold is correct, he’s referring to the sampling method not whether people are being honest. It’s based on random sampling so a small unit with few tags for a season may not have enough or any surveys to be accurate.

I see. and I'm not disagreeing that we need mandatory tags but then under your theory the unit statistics ae useless especially given the glory units that have the fewest tags correct? I mean at what point do the statistics become believable? 100 tags 1000 tags 10000 tags? if the unit stats are so unbelievable then all the go hunt data in the world is useless well maybe not how long it takes to draw lol

 

[Mudranger1]

I go way back with a longbow. Here I am about 65 years ago.

just because you are old and feeble doesn't mean all of us are HA! don't worry I tell my Dad the same thing awesome picture

 

[rideold]

I see. and I'm not disagreeing that we need mandatory tags but then under your theory the unit statistics ae useless especially given the glory units that have the fewest tags correct? I mean at what point do the statistics become believable? 100 tags 1000 tags 10000 tags? if the unit stats are so unbelievable then all the go hunt data in the world is useless well maybe not how long it takes to draw lol

The data becomes usable/believable when the sampling method and margin of error are clearly published. I've not seen that yet so yes, there is a large grain of salt one should use when "trusting" the statistics. It isn't uncommon for very official sounding numbers to have pretty crummy error margins. It's all about publishing the best data you have. If it were mine to decide much of what we have available wouldn't be published or collected at all.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I see. and I'm not disagreeing that we need mandatory tags but then under your theory the unit statistics ae useless especially given the glory units that have the fewest tags correct? I mean at what point do the statistics become believable? 100 tags 1000 tags 10000 tags? if the unit stats are so unbelievable then all the go hunt data in the world is useless well maybe not how long it takes to draw lol

It's not a theory, that's just how statistics and random sampling works.

Not all unit statistics are useless the level of accuracy is a product of sample size, so if you look at a unit and it had 10 tags and is showing 0% success that likely means they didn't talk to anyone. If a unit has 300 hunters and shows 12% success, that's probably pretty close. On a DAU level or state level it's extremely accurate. So when you are looking at the stats just look at how many possible respondents there were and take anything with under 50 tags with a grain of salt, generally speaking. Survey's are done on the DAU level and the Standard Error (SE) is per DAU, so the standard error might be +/- 50 but there might only be 30 tags in a specific unit and season.

Elk - Statistics

Elk hunting statistics

cpw.state.co.us

The data becomes usable/believable when the sampling method and margin of error are clearly published. I've not seen that yet so yes,

Pg. 3-4

 

[Deleted member 28227]

54 % success rate for ALL rifle seasons last year in 78. 2-4.5% for archery cow take. It is ridiculous.

54% success rate for cow's, including private land only tags.

You also need to look at past years... 21% in 2017



Also archery was either sex unlimited so there was no control of how many cows could be taken. Unlike all of the other cow opportunity in the DAU which is draw only with set quotas.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I will say I am always shocked at how guys complain that the archery season is to long, rather than complain the rifle season is to short. We have let money and greed drive our season structure for decades. Montana has a 6 week archery season, and then you get a month of rifle. Wyoming has a month long archery, and then a month of rifle. The same tags can turn into cow tags in many states. We wonder why guys only hunt 4 days, because our seasons suck. With the new season structure, our elk and deer may be slaughtered.

Like I said earlier, if I ever do not stick up for hunters FIRST, let me know. Never once did we say rifle should be limited. Never once did we not propose a reduction in the ridiculously low archery cow harvest.

I understand that you approach these issues from a single user group advocacy perspective, but I think this kind of thinking, pitting one user group against the regulatory, agency is archaic.

Elk are a renewable resources, the herd is the well, we should be talking about how to protect the well and instead you are talking about whose bucket gets the most water.

Hunters need to support the agency when they promulgate regulations that are in the best interest of the herd and critical of them when they shirk this duty.

I agree we have let money and greed drive our season structure. Colorado residents are greedy, they voted for TABOR because they don't want to pay for their own infrastructure. CPA is hamstrung by this bill and is forced to get the majority of it's funding through license sales only 5% comes from the general fund, therefore our model is based on revenue rather than opportunity.

Instead of battling with CPW for what you consider your "share of the pie" how about recognizing their constraints and helping them figure out solutions within the framework that that have to work under.

Colorado could have MT or WY style seasons, it would cost the department around $20 million or 10% of it's annual budget.
This is assuming that the only variable between the states management systems is tags per elk on the ground.

Here's the math, take the WY ratio of elk versus hunters and reduce the CO number proportionately, use the WY rate of NR v R tags. Wyoming is far more restrictive with their NR tags as we know. You also probably would need to kick NR out of wilderness areas, to maintain quality hunts.


You do this and you’re removing 31,000 nonresidents from the elk hunting game. Good luck draw NR tags in other states.

Colorado did a study of alternative funding mechanism. You want a WY system, you need to pay for it... what option do you prefer?
https://docs.merid.org/SITECORE_DOCS/Colorado Parks and Wildlife Future Funding Study Dec2018.pdf

 

[rideold]

Pg. 3-4

I did see that methodology (https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2018StatewideElkHarvest.pdf) but it doesn't seem to paint the full picture. I don't understand how the data is collected at the DAU level but then somehow gets to the unit level. Have you ever seen a DAU level sampling stat? It would be more useful if we knew the percent response by DAU rather than statewide. I'm not complaining or expecting anyone to have "The Answer". I'm just trying to get my rather non-statistical brain around their methodology.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I did see that methodology (https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2018StatewideElkHarvest.pdf) but it doesn't seem to paint the full picture. I don't understand how the data is collected at the DAU level but then somehow gets to the unit level. Have you ever seen a DAU level sampling stat? It would be more useful if we knew the percent response by DAU rather than statewide. I'm not complaining or expecting anyone to have "The Answer". I'm just trying to get my rather non-statistical brain around their methodology.

I have the same question honestly, when I get calls I’m only asked about units so my assumption is that the collect the data on a unit basis then aggregate it on a DAU basis. But then they only care if the data is representative of the DAU not the unit. So say there are three units in a DAU, they want 50 respondent for that DAU, they get 48 people in 1 of the three DAU units, 2 in another and none in the third. That’s fine using there methodology.

 

[Pelican]

The decision to make the three SW elk DAUs limited for archery had a lot more to do with addressing complaints over crowding than it did with resource concerns. Despite the recent increase in otc archery hunters in those DAUs, archery cow harvest ranged from 20-30% of total antlerless harvest. In 2018, CPW issued 1885 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless licenses for DAU 24 despite being under objective. DAU 30 has been under objective for over a decade. It was >600 elk under objective in 2010 when CPW issued a combined 1560 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless license. If you supported this change thinking you were saving the elk herds, go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want, but OTC archery is not the reason those DAUs are under objective.

With this change to limited archery in the SW, there are now ~100,000 elk residing in units that are OTC for rifle, but limited for archery, which may explain why some archers are pissed about this decision.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

The decision to make the three SW elk DAUs limited for archery had a lot more to do with addressing complaints over crowding than it did with resource concerns. Despite the recent increase in otc archery hunters in those DAUs, archery cow harvest ranged from 20-30% of total antlerless harvest. In 2018, CPW issued 1885 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless licenses for DAU 24 despite being under objective. DAU 30 has been under objective for over a decade. It was >600 elk under objective in 2010 when CPW issued a combined 1560 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless license. If you supported this change thinking you were saving the elk herds, go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want, but OTC archery is not the reason those DAUs are under objective.

With this change to limited archery in the SW, there are now ~100,000 elk residing in units that are OTC for rifle, but limited for archery, which may explain why some archers are pissed about this decision.

It's naive to think that OTC hunting is the -- singular -- reason that these DAUs are under objective.

It's equally naive to think that OTC hunting is not a significant contributing factor.

I take all causes seriously.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The decision to make the three SW elk DAUs limited for archery had a lot more to do with addressing complaints over crowding than it did with resource concerns. Despite the recent increase in otc archery hunters in those DAUs, archery cow harvest ranged from 20-30% of total antlerless harvest. In 2018, CPW issued 1885 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless licenses for DAU 24 despite being under objective. DAU 30 has been under objective for over a decade. It was >600 elk under objective in 2010 when CPW issued a combined 1560 rifle/muzzleloader antlerless license. If you supported this change thinking you were saving the elk herds, go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want, but OTC archery is not the reason those DAUs are under objective.

With this change to limited archery in the SW, there are now ~100,000 elk residing in units that are OTC for rifle, but limited for archery, which may explain why some archers are pissed about this decision.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think that this is a step in the right direction as I think the whole state should be limited.

 

[elkduds]

One elephant in this room is # of wounded, unrecovered archery elk. CO does not specify estimated loss rates for archery, the %s below are for all manners of take. Archery rate is higher than rifle rate in every study I googled, up to 50% in OK deer w trad archery tackle. So if the rate of unrecovered archery elk is lowball-estimated for bulls, cows, calves @ 30% of reported harvest, the impact of archery harvest and loss is significantly larger than publishes statistics show. Granted, that is not specific to the SW or any units, meaning a sizeable chunk of elk mortality from hunters gets guesstimated. CBA is likely the most effective lobbying group of hunters addressing CPW, has been for decades. Because CBA is more organized, their lobbying influence is disproportionate to their %age of hunter #s in CO.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...VuZGx5LmNvbXxob21lfGd4OjQ0MDY0NzAyOTc2NzE5ODA

From the link:
Wait said Colorado’s biologists use three figures as “starting points” in assessing the percentage of a herd wounded by hunters but not found each year: 25% for cow elk, 15% for bull elk and elk calves, and 10% for deer and pronghorns. He said those figures come from decades of documented statewide surveys, observations, and radio-collar studies, lumping the wounding averages for all methods of take.

 

[COEngineer]

One elephant in this room is # of wounded, unrecovered archery elk. CO does not specify estimated loss rates for archery, the %s below are for all manners of take. Archery rate is higher than rifle rate in every study I googled, up to 50% in OK deer w trad archery tackle. So if the rate of unrecovered archery elk is lowball-estimated for bulls, cows, calves @ 30% of reported harvest, the impact of archery harvest and loss is significantly larger than publishes statistics show. Granted, that is not specific to the SW or any units, meaning a sizeable chunk of elk mortality from hunters gets guesstimated. CBA is likely the most effective lobbying group of hunters addressing CPW, has been for decades. Because CBA is more organized, their lobbying influence is disproportionate to their %age of hunter #s in CO.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...VuZGx5LmNvbXxob21lfGd4OjQ0MDY0NzAyOTc2NzE5ODA

From the link:
Wait said Colorado’s biologists use three figures as “starting points” in assessing the percentage of a herd wounded by hunters but not found each year: 25% for cow elk, 15% for bull elk and elk calves, and 10% for deer and pronghorns. He said those figures come from decades of documented statewide surveys, observations, and radio-collar studies, lumping the wounding averages for all methods of take.

This is valid point. However, if I'm reading this correctly, all the numbers you cited are for "wounded" animals. A wounded animal often does not succumb to those wounds. We just need to make sure we're talking apples or oranges (wounded or fatally wounded).