Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Report from 8/27/22 CPW Sportspersons' Roundtable biannual meeting at Cameo Shooting Complex near Palisade, CO.

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
I'll post this in sections over the next few days. The shiny object commanding all the attention in the meeting was the Data Summary of the Focus Group and hunter surveys concerning Resident/Nonresident big game license allocations, the future of preference points, potential for the return of point banking, and consideration of party point averaging. The memo summarizing potential impacts of the proposed changes should be posted for public review should be posted today on the CPW website/Commission/Sept Meeting. I don't see them, plan to keep watching. In the interim, these powerpoints of the Commission's recent training on license allocation issues are worth a look: https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMeeting2022-8.aspx

The survey process and results took up most of the meeting. I have answers and opinions from one of the surveyors, NW Deputy Regional Manager Garret Watson, that I'll post when the Memo shows up.

There was of course a wolf update from program manager Reld DeWalt. The process of gathering advisory input from stakeholder groups and from the technical group of experts from other western wolf reintroduction states is complete. In that process, wolf advocacy groups presented plan revisions, large and small. Those were considered with equal weight to all other public comments. An initial reintroduction Plan will be presented to the Commission during their 12/22/22 meeting.

There will be a live meeting in each region to present the Plan, and a virtual meeting as well, during Jan/Feb 2023. The earliest a release of wolves could occur would be late 2023.Much later if the typical flurry of lawsuits happens. DeWalt anticipates hard releases of 15 or so wolves/year for the first 3 years. Hard release is from the transport cage to wild release with no pen time. He noted wolves rapidly disperse up to 75 miles from release sites, meaning that they will be throughout the mountainous areas of the state east and west of the continental divide despite the law's language limiting wolves to the west slope Native tribes are opposed to wolf reintroduction, which will alter release areas. The Plan is being drafted to manage for impacts, not for total wolf numbers. CPW paid USFWS $1 million to request 10-J designation for wolf management. This designation allows CPW to include harrassment and lethal control methods of managing wolves that would otherwise be illegal for this endangered species. While that plan could eventually include hunting of wolves in CO, the current plan does not propose hunting.

DeWalt noted sportsmen have been barely present at wolf planning meetings, greatly outnumbered by wolf advocates, 10-1. There is no plan for outfitter compensation though wolves will certainly relocate elk herds from their historic ranges. Experts from WY and MT have warned CPW to get ahead of the herd relocation impacts, though the means to do so were not detailed.

Stay tuned, I'll discuss the license preference survey when the Memo is posted . I'll also review the recruitment and appointment of some new RT members, and the diversity emphasis that influences that recruitment.

Finally, some scuttlebutt about suspended CPW Director Prenslow. He was not mentioned formally, in his place was acting Director Heather Dugan. CPW staff I asked have heard "nothing" about the investigation into allegations against the Director stemming from the 4/22 Outdoors Partnership conference. There he made the comment recognizing the black staffer who had mainly organized the conference, using language that she was in the back of the bus because she was at the back of the room. He immediately and profusely apologized. The Governor suspended him and the staffer, who lashed out on Twitter, and an investigation of the episode has them both suspended. The CPW staff who have expressed an opinion to me like and respect Director Prenzlow, and do not understand why they are not informed of developments with their Director.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
Last edited:

MtnElk

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
590
Location
Conifer
I continue to find it incredibly frustrating that their memos / presentations / conversations are written / presented in such a way that makes it seem like making ANY changes to this system would cause losses to CPW - when its clear that such thinking is narrow and entirely short term. None of their language suggests thinking about the impacts to CO, CPW or hunters in the long term.

And as @elkduds states, all seems incredibly skewed toward NRs. I don't believe blaming NR for everything is healthy or accurate - but at a certain point the R/NR matrix, the number of hunters out there and the resource need to be discussed and there are going to be pain points.

Continuing to hide behind overall economic benefit to CO will lead us down a dark path.

edit: also conveniently missing was language in the memo about resident willingness for raised prices.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
15,010
Location
Colorado
From the License distribution problems and alternatives memo, there were 33,390 limited deer and elk licenses drawn by NR in 2021. There were 19,250 OTC archery elk licenses purchased by NR. From the commission workshop last week we know that there were 25,456 OTC rifle elk licenses for 2nd and 3rd season last year.

The Colorado Outfitter's Association webpage lists 102 outfitter members. The numbers above indicate that NR drew or purchased 78,096 deer and elk licenses last year, or 765 NR licenses per outfitter. This doesn't include leftover and reissue. I think the argument that reducing NR licenses by a few thousand will put outfitters out of business is a red herring.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
15,010
Location
Colorado
The financial numbers provided by @TOGIE and @Pelican in the allocation thread indicate that CPW had a $52 million surplus in wildlife revenue in FY 20-21. What the Commission is saying is that they would prefer to find something else to spend that money on rather than investing $3-4 million of it into resident hunters and better wildlife management.
 

Mallardsx2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
1,587
If you folks think this is fun discussion, just wait until the forced re-introduction of wolves causes your big game numbers to fall to half of what they currently are.

Things will get really juicy then.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
From the meeting discussion: 300 wolves each eating 18 elk/year equals 5400 elk/year, a relative drop in the bucket for CO's herd. 300 is the high # Mr. DeWalt projects for total wolf population in CO. The bigger impact is expected to be where elk move in response to wolves.
 

MtnElk

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
590
Location
Conifer
From the License distribution problems and alternatives memo, there were 33,390 limited deer and elk licenses drawn by NR in 2021. There were 19,250 OTC archery elk licenses purchased by NR. From the commission workshop last week we know that there were 25,456 OTC rifle elk licenses for 2nd and 3rd season last year.

The Colorado Outfitter's Association webpage lists 102 outfitter members. The numbers above indicate that NR drew or purchased 78,096 deer and elk licenses last year, or 765 NR licenses per outfitter. This doesn't include leftover and reissue. I think the argument that reducing NR licenses by a few thousand will put outfitters out of business is a red herring.
The financial numbers provided by @TOGIE and @Pelican in the allocation thread indicate that CPW had a $52 million surplus in wildlife revenue in FY 20-21. What the Commission is saying is that they would prefer to find something else to spend that money on rather than investing $3-4 million of it into resident hunters and better wildlife management.
It's all a red herring. As I said in our other thread, my biggest issue is that they are analyzing figures in a vacuum. If they went to various NR caps or straight 80/20, near minimal cost raises for Residents would have to occur. Reducing OTC tags isn't affected by the NR/R matrix BUT if they made those minimal cost raises like $40-$50 for residents, then it would eat into that OTC stuff as well. They need to start showing the cumulative effect of everything being proposed, because of course the numbers look terrible individually.

But just like anything in politics or government, the minute you start looking at anything that involves reduced income, everyone starts screaming "the economy, the economy" without thinking about the long term affects on the economic DRIVERS, aka the elk. Plus as @wllm said in the other thread, most outfitters are booked out. Cutting tags or installing caps isn't going to even register for them.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,339
Location
CO
most outfitters are booked out. Cutting tags or installing caps isn't going to even register for them.

however, i do have connections at a particular ranch that guides in an otc unit. a handful of my friends guide there.

i get practically begged to go guide nearly every fall because they need more guides because they're trying to squeeze as many hunters into all the spots as possible, more each year.

the quality in the outfitting is going down dramatically, but they keep trying to cram more in.

and by guiding what they're basically asking me to do is to lead a guy to one of their many predetermined meadows and hillsides to sit down and wait and cut up his elk if he gets one :rolleyes:
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
It's all a red herring. As I said in our other thread, my biggest issue is that they are analyzing figures in a vacuum. If they went to various NR caps or straight 80/20, near minimal cost raises for Residents would have to occur. Reducing OTC tags isn't affected by the NR/R matrix BUT if they made those minimal cost raises like $40-$50 for residents, then it would eat into that OTC stuff as well. They need to start showing the cumulative effect of everything being proposed, because of course the numbers look terrible individually.

But just like anything in politics or government, the minute you start looking at anything that involves reduced income, everyone starts screaming "the economy, the economy" without thinking about the long term affects on the economic DRIVERS, aka the elk. Plus as @wllm said in the other thread, most outfitters are booked out. Cutting tags or installing caps isn't going to even register for them.
Of the 4 new Roundtable delegates, 2 are outfitters. 3 are female. An agenda item for the meeting was Discussion of equity, diversity and inclusion within the Roundtable and its charter. @ least 2 of the new females were actively recruited for vacancies by CPW. Very little ethnic diversity, slightly more age and gender diversity among RT delegates. Mostly mature caucasian gentlemen like yours truly. A former RT delegate made a point in discussion by suggesting recruitment among college students, said he personally did that in the early years of RT.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
It's all a red herring. As I said in our other thread, my biggest issue is that they are analyzing figures in a vacuum. If they went to various NR caps or straight 80/20, near minimal cost raises for Residents would have to occur. Reducing OTC tags isn't affected by the NR/R matrix BUT if they made those minimal cost raises like $40-$50 for residents, then it would eat into that OTC stuff as well. They need to start showing the cumulative effect of everything being proposed, because of course the numbers look terrible individually.

But just like anything in politics or government, the minute you start looking at anything that involves reduced income, everyone starts screaming "the economy, the economy" without thinking about the long term affects on the economic DRIVERS, aka the elk. Plus as @wllm said in the other thread, most outfitters are booked out. Cutting tags or installing caps isn't going to even register for them.
From the meeting discussion: Resident license fees are set by state legislature. No matter if every resident on this forum is willing to double resident fees, that does not guarantee it will pass the legislature, regardless of CPW recommendation. To be clear, I continue to advocate for increased resident license fees as a way to add resident influence to CPW's fiscally myopic perspective.
 

MtnElk

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
590
Location
Conifer
From the meeting discussion: Resident license fees are set by state legislature. No matter if every resident on this forum is willing to double resident fees, that does not guarantee it will pass the legislature, regardless of CPW recommendation. To be clear, I continue to advocate for increased resident license fees as a way to add resident influence to CPW's fiscally myopic perspective.
Oh totally understand it needs to go to general assembly at the state level, but if we as residents make it known we are good to go on fee increases, makes it less of a grenade for those that vote in favor. Just wish they would articulate it more in their conversations.

Appreciate what you are doing!
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
From the meeting discussion: 300 wolves each eating 18 elk/year equals 5400 elk/year, a relative drop in the bucket for CO's herd. 300 is the high # Mr. DeWalt projects for total wolf population in CO. The bigger impact is expected to be where elk move in response to wolves.
My understanding is that the average elk kill per wolf is 18-22 or possibly more since elk are their preferred prey and is stated to be 90% of their diet especially in the winter. Its interesting the bottom number of risk is always used for impacts instead of worse case scenario. If 18 elk per year per wolf is used, hard for me to accept an elk is killed ONLY every 20 days per wolf when their diet is stated to be 90% elk. Cold snowy winters will demand higher calorie intake = easier kill on elk = higher impact on elk. So what if the number was 50 elk per year per wolf instead? Is 15,000 elk per year instead if 5,400 a big deal in the total elk population? I think it can be when concentrated in certain areas that have other mitigating factors on the elk herd.

Every wolf population growth estimate has been egregiously wrong. So why should we believe 300 total wolves as a Cap on population? Is there a population control included in the plan whether by hunting or other means?
 

grasshopper

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
62
From the meeting discussion: Resident license fees are set by state legislature. No matter if every resident on this forum is willing to double resident fees, that does not guarantee it will pass the legislature, regardless of CPW recommendation. To be clear, I continue to advocate for increased resident license fees as a way to add resident influence to CPW's fiscally myopic perspective.
Why in the hell would anyone advocate for higher resident fees? Future generations was supposed to deliver a big game access program, which would distribute hunters, and lead to less crowding. 7 million acres in block management, but we lease out the overgrazed state trust lands for 75 cents an acre and call it a win.
In 2014 CPW license fee income was less then 70 million, now it is 133 million. PR/DJ dollars have gone way up too.

Put a bill in the legislature to raise my fees, I'll drive to Denver to testify against it. Broken promises don't deserve a raise. We are likely to get a CPI fee increase in the double digits next year from China Joes inflation.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,683
Location
CO Springs.
Why in the hell would anyone advocate for higher resident fees? Future generations was supposed to deliver a big game access program, which would distribute hunters, and lead to less crowding. 7 million acres in block management, but we lease out the overgrazed state trust lands for 75 cents an acre and call it a win.
In 2014 CPW license fee income was less then 70 million, now it is 133 million. PR/DJ dollars have gone way up too.

Put a bill in the legislature to raise my fees, I'll drive to Denver to testify against it. Broken promises don't deserve a raise. We are likely to get a CPI fee increase in the double digits next year from China Joes inflation.
Read the other posts, your opinion is far in the minority here. We see that higher resident fees could increase resident allocation of big game licenses to 80/20, while still funding CPW which will never approve a cut in their income from licenses. Your opinion works against increasing the percentage of licenses going to residents.

And Joe didn't cause the inflation, he and the Fed are working to end it.
 

grasshopper

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
62
Like I said before, Rob Woodward is ready to run a bill AGAIN to set resident allocations in state law. While the PWC may want to keep their revenue going up, checks and balances do exist. I'll get behind legislation, when the PWC fails again to do the right thing AGAIN. It is time.
If you think the fed and Ukraine Joe are solving things, guess again. Go talk to a community banker and get their take on loaning money right now for business loans. The worst is yet to come.
 
Leupold Banner

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
104,730
Messages
1,732,823
Members
32,744
Latest member
knjax15
Top