Colorado Approves New Shed Hunting Regs

[LandYacht]

I understand that, but what’s the argument that makes the antler now a part of anything goes? Because the animal didn’t die?

Another example is pine cones. You have to get a permit if you collect more than a bushel or so of pine cones. Same as a permit to cut trees. Just because the pine cone falls off the tree it doesn’t become a free for all on pine cones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Another example is pine cones. You have to get a permit if you collect more than a bushel or so of pine cones. Same as a permit to cut trees. Just because the pine cone falls off the tree it doesn’t become a free for all on pine cones.

Is the CDOW now issuing permits for pine cones and cutting trees?

 

[LandYacht]

Is the CDOW now issuing permits for pine cones and cutting trees?

Forest service does


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

I understand that, but what’s the argument that makes the antler now a part of anything goes? Because the animal didn’t die?

Another example is pine cones. You have to get a permit if you collect more than a bushel or so of pine cones. Same as a permit to cut trees. Just because the pine cone falls off the tree it doesn’t become a free for all on pine cones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, but the casual pine cone picker upper is not burdened with additional regulations or permits, only the folks who want to gather in excess. The random person who may happen to pick up a shed should not be regulated, IF REGULATIONS ARE A MUST it should be the ravenous commercial shed hunters referenced in this thread.

 

[kestump]

Exactly, but the casual pine cone picker upper is not burdened with additional regulations or permits, only the folks who want to gather in excess. The random person who may happen to pick up a shed should not be regulated, IF REGULATIONS ARE A MUST it should be the ravenous commercial shed hunters referenced in this thread.

This is probably one of the most straightforward, common sense statements in this thread. If they really want to do something about this, they should make it illegal to sell sheds.

 

[Hall256]

So, it is a pretty strange day when you log on to Rokslide and see so many hunters advocating the closure of public lands.

I do not know about the rest of you but the saying "cut off one's nose just to spite your face" is coming to mind!

 

[sndmn11]

So, it is a pretty strange day when you log on to Rokslide and see so many hunters advocating the closure of public lands.

I do not know about the rest of you but the saying "cut off one's nose just to spite your face" is coming to mind!

To clarify my position:
First choice of options: Enforce prior existing laws regarding harassment of wildlife. No season, no permits, no land closures, no regulations against shed collecting.
Second option: Enforce prior existing laws regarding harassment of wildlife. Regulate the "commercial" shed hunters that seem to be the core of the issue at hand.
X option: If collecting sheds is illegal while at the same ANY OTHER person can be present on the exact same piece of dirt, then the only fair thing to do would be to close the entire piece of dirt to ALL "for the good of the animals". (This is a silly option and the two above are far better)

 

[Hall256]

To clarify my position:

X option: If collecting sheds is illegal while at the same ANY OTHER person can be present on the exact same piece of dirt, then the only fair thing to do would be to close the entire piece of dirt to ALL "for the good of the animals". (This is a silly option and the two above are far better)

This seems to be the point where the two camps in this thread are at their disagreement, and I do not understand the one side. There is obviously a direct correlation being drawn between the rise in number of hard core shed hunters (not the casual guy who finds ONE shed while hiking) and game being pressured in their winter ranges. To make the argument to close off all land with the logic/argument that "hey, birdwatchers and hikers and stuff are in the mountains to" completely ignores the reality that their is a rise in shed hunters that are prioritizing money over game management... honestly that logic/argument sounds short sighted. The day I start seeing Youtube Channels pop up that are geared for the "Hard Core" bird watchers that are "Sick for It"; the day I see bird watchers out there with a group of their buddies, using their dogs to hunt up more birds to watch; the day that I see droves of out of state birdwatchers that veer far off the trails just to find as many birds as they can; the day that I see more and more bird watchers prioritize Instagram fame and money over conservation...when that day comes, then yes by all means compare the bird watchers to the shed hunters.

One side is consistently using Strawman arguments/fallacies in their post, or at best slippery slope logic. It seems pretty obvious that this law is not design to criminalize or penalize the guy that happens to find a shed while out hiking. ...it is meant to stem the flow of Shed Hunters (do not know if there is an actual definition, but I think the pictures above of people with piles or truck load of antlers should suffice) that are obviously out in the mountains with the sole intent of finding and gathering sheds. If that is their sole purpose to be in the woods, as they are monetarily incentive to shed hunt, then they will go where ever is needed and do what ever is needed/allowed to get sheds. As one person already mentioned, once money is put in the equation some peoples' ethics go out the window.

Hopefully this law will educate the public that Elk/Deer are being pressured in their winter range, and to back off the area till after May 1st. Hopefully, if more people are aware of it, they will report people pressuring the animals.

The interesting thing about this topic...here is a law that is geared to increase the health of the herd and improve the thing that everyone on this forum constantly professes to loving (hunting), but yet as a group of hunters we still find a way to disagree with each other and find no consensus. Probably says a lot about other issues we face or will face.

Shaun

 

[sndmn11]

Very well written post.

The use of the comparison of bird watcher/hiker/jogger is to illustrate that two people can occupy the same space, but the act of picking up a shed by one makes them a criminal. So in effect, it does criminalize the guy who happens to cross a shed while hiking. This same act is deemed to be legal as soon as one day later.

The issue isn't picking up the shed, it is the pressuring/harassing of wildlife that is associated with "shed hunters" that is already illegal and goes unenforced. I see this regulation as a first step on a slippery slope towards needing a permit towards a lot of things.

 

[GotDraw?]

^^^ Agree^^^

Even a child can do the simple calculation that effectively enforcing existing laws about pressuring wildlife is a near impossible task, given the staffing levels of states/feds vs. the millions of acres of back-country mountainous wilderness that needs to be policed. Some folks count on that and play the odds. Suggesting that animal confrontation issues can be dealt with by enforcing the existing laws is pretty unrealistic.

JL

 

[realunlucky]

Very well written post.

The use of the comparison of bird watcher/hiker/jogger is to illustrate that two people can occupy the same space, but the act of picking up a shed by one makes them a criminal. So in effect, it does criminalize the guy who happens to cross a shed while hiking. This same act is deemed to be legal as soon as one day later.

The issue isn't picking up the shed, it is the pressuring/harassing of wildlife that is associated with "shed hunters" that is already illegal and goes unenforced. I see this regulation as a first step on a slippery slope towards needing a permit towards a lot of things.

Simple fact is the user groups rarely over lap in most wintering ground during the February March April time frame. The department of wildlife only has control over animals and thier parts so it's the only option for a law at this point to address the core of the problem the quickest.

I really hope the antler buyers stepup and challenge this in court. Utah has a closed season until April 15 without a ethics test (what a f++king joke) Wyoming already closed western part of the state until may 1 I believe. Let's use a court ruling to standardize antler "seasons" across the west.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Forest service does

Exactly. So why does the CDOW suddenly think they have jurisdiction over sheds, which are just another resource on the land just like the pine cones?

 

[5MilesBack]

Sorry not buying it. I still think there should be a permit of $1000 since people are profiting from this activity.

That definitely makes more sense than what they're proposing now. However, there are still many issues that would have to be worked out even with that. Is it a $1000 permit to pick up an antler, or just to sell? If it's just to sell, then it would have to be a federal permit, otherwise they'd just go to another state to sell them. On the other hand, it should be a federal permit for collecting sheds on federal land. But what about private property sheds? If the CDOW claims to have jurisdiction over the sheds, then property boundaries don't matter. We can already see that this has absolutely nothing to do with harassing wildlife since they aren't regulating the same on private property, and they know they can't control shed collecting on said private. But can they control that same activity on federal land? That's the question.

Still a lot that needs to be decided, just for jurisdiction issues to start.......and probably will need to be decided by the courts.

 

[LandYacht]

Exactly. So why does the CDOW suddenly think they have jurisdiction over sheds, which are just another resource on the land just like the pine cones?

What are you guys basing the antlers becoming another resource like pine cones on? A pine cone comes from a tree and the tree is managed by the forest service.

Antlers come from animals and the animals are managed by DOW.

Are you using prior case law? Gut feeling?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Antlers come from animals and the animals are managed by DOW.

I do remember reading something years ago that clarified "sheds" as just another resource of the land. And the animals gave up their rights and claim to those antlers as soon as they are shed. I would also have to study why the states were given control over the animals and not other resources, but I believe it had something to do with the fact that animals are not static and will migrate between lands and/or even states. Sheds become static on their own and therefore part of the land they fall on, just like pine cones.

In a way this kind of goes right back to the argument so many have with WY's "NR Wilderness Outfitter or Guide" requirement. States rights versus federal rights. Well, the management and jurisdiction over the animals is given to the states. So the states can then dictate the regulations for hunting said animals regardless of which land they are on. People still have full access to the federal wilderness areas, they just can't hunt the animals by state regulation. So the question remains.......has the jurisdiction over sheds been given to the states as well? I'm sure the Feds might be willing to transfer those and many other responsibilities over to the states if they so desire........even ownership of said land. Oh no.

 

[dotman]

I do remember reading something years ago that clarified "sheds" as just another resource of the land. And the animals gave up their rights and claim to those antlers as soon as they are shed. I would also have to study why the states were given control over the animals and not other resources, but I believe it had something to do with the fact that animals are not static and will migrate between lands and/or even states. Sheds become static on their own and therefore part of the land they fall on, just like pine cones.

That may just have been the opinion of the author, go pickup some bighorn horns and see what happens. To me a shed is no different then a dead head but some laws don’t align with this thought, doesn’t make me wrong or them right, just makes me have to follow what they say.

 

[realunlucky]

Just because you want it to be true so very very much doesn't make it so.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

This seems to be the point where the two camps in this thread are at their disagreement, and I do not understand the one side. There is obviously a direct correlation being drawn between the rise in number of hard core shed hunters (not the casual guy who finds ONE shed while hiking) and game being pressured in their winter ranges. To make the argument to close off all land with the logic/argument that "hey, birdwatchers and hikers and stuff are in the mountains to" completely ignores the reality that their is a rise in shed hunters that are prioritizing money over game management... honestly that logic/argument sounds short sighted. The day I start seeing Youtube Channels pop up that are geared for the "Hard Core" bird watchers that are "Sick for It"; the day I see bird watchers out there with a group of their buddies, using their dogs to hunt up more birds to watch; the day that I see droves of out of state birdwatchers that veer far off the trails just to find as many birds as they can; the day that I see more and more bird watchers prioritize Instagram fame and money over conservation...when that day comes, then yes by all means compare the bird watchers to the shed hunters.

One side is consistently using Strawman arguments/fallacies in their post, or at best slippery slope logic. It seems pretty obvious that this law is not design to criminalize or penalize the guy that happens to find a shed while out hiking. ...it is meant to stem the flow of Shed Hunters (do not know if there is an actual definition, but I think the pictures above of people with piles or truck load of antlers should suffice) that are obviously out in the mountains with the sole intent of finding and gathering sheds. If that is their sole purpose to be in the woods, as they are monetarily incentive to shed hunt, then they will go where ever is needed and do what ever is needed/allowed to get sheds. As one person already mentioned, once money is put in the equation some peoples' ethics go out the window.

Hopefully this law will educate the public that Elk/Deer are being pressured in their winter range, and to back off the area till after May 1st. Hopefully, if more people are aware of it, they will report people pressuring the animals.

The interesting thing about this topic...here is a law that is geared to increase the health of the herd and improve the thing that everyone on this forum constantly professes to loving (hunting), but yet as a group of hunters we still find a way to disagree with each other and find no consensus. Probably says a lot about other issues we face or will face.

Shaun

That may just have been the opinion of the author, go pickup some bighorn horns and see what happens. To me a shed is no different then a dead head but some laws don’t align with this thought, doesn’t make me wrong or them right, just makes me have to follow what they say.

I would really like to see the source about deadheads in CO, I have never come across it.