Separating Muzzy and Archery in Colo..

[Felix40]

Only way you’ll get archery only is a reduction in season length, it just isn’t the management tool you like to believe it is or maybe the last week of Aug and first of Sep will be archery only but then archery will extend into rifle/ml season the remainder of Sep.

How is it possible for other states to do month long bow seasons then? Montana is running a 6 week archery season.

I agree with leaving it alone but as long as management objectives aren’t met you’ll see tag increases across the board. Why should rifle/ml be reduced vs archery? Can you guarantee if something had to be fixed that archery hunters will become more successful?

Hunting is about wildlife management, not a hobby.

What objectives are you talking about?

 

[tdhanses]

How is it possible for other states to do month long bow seasons then? Montana is running a 6 week archery season.

What objectives are you talking about?

Deer, elk, bear, mountain lion etc population objectives, when deer are low and bear are high i’d expect a reduction in deer tags and an increase in bear.

Other states sell a tag good for any weapon and sell maybe 20% of the tags CO does, they also have fewer animals. MT is a great example, everyone with a tag can hunt archery and rifle with that tag, so the unsuccessful archer can go back with a rifle. It’s no secret rifle seasons take the majority of wildlife in every state and are the main management tools.

So for example if CO was like MT every rifle hunter could hunt archery as well in CO which I would be for 100%, give me a tag good for all seasons and then create an archery only season but let me also hunt ml and rifle on that tag as I would hunt them all if needed.

 

[Felix40]

Deer, elk, bear, mountain lion etc population objectives, when deer are low and bear are high i’d expect a reduction in deer tags and an increase in bear.

Other states sell a tag good for any weapon and sell maybe 20% of the tags CO does, they also have fewer animals. MT is a great example, everyone with a tag can hunt archery and rifle with that tag, so the unsuccessful archer can go back with a rifle. It’s no secret rifle seasons take the majority of wildlife in every state and are the main management tools.

So for example if CO was like MT every rifle hunter could hunt archery as well in CO which I would be for 100%, give me a tag good for all seasons and then create an archery only season but let me also hunt ml and rifle on that tag.

You said they will need to increase tags if the current season structure is left in place but that’s an impossible thing to predict. 1/3 of the elk DAUs in the state are below objective. The ones that are above objective are all draw units. The deer population is well below objective state wide. I’m just failing to see why you think we need to keep adding more gun tags during bow season to kill more animals. If anything there are some units in the state that could do without any rifle hunting for a couple years.

 

[tdhanses]

You said they will need to increase tags if the current season structure is left in place but that’s an impossible thing to predict. 1/3 of the elk DAUs in the state are below objective. The ones that are above objective are all draw units. The deer population is well below objective state wide. I’m just failing to see why you think we need to keep adding more gun tags during bow season to kill more animals. If anything there are some units in the state that could do without any rifle hunting for a couple years.

No i didn’t say they would have to that was just an example, tags could be increased or decreased based on population objectives, especially for bear.

Bear have a huge impact on fawn survival, if we want to bring deer populations up we increase the incentive and opportunity to hunt bear reducing their numbers and hopefully increasing fawn survival. I wouldn’t think this would be based on overall populations but unit by unit. So in this case there would be an increase in bear rifle tags which happens to have it’s season at the same time as archery.

 

[Felix40]

No i didn’t say they would have to that was just an example, tags could be increased or decreased based on population objectives, especially for bear.

There’s plenty of ways to kill more bears without cutting into archery season.

 

[cnelk]

1/3 of the elk DAUs in the state are below objective. The ones that are above objective are all draw units.

Not true

 

[Ucsdryder]

It’s ironic as we squabble and argue about how to shift seasons, split seasons, reduce seasons….the issue always goes back to too damn many hunters!!!! The answer is and always will be, no more otc tags and 10-20% nonresidents. Look, I just fixed it all. Minus the stupid people that shoot at white spots because you can’t fix stupid.

 

[3forks]

It’s ironic as we squabble and argue about how to shift seasons, split seasons, reduce seasons….the issue always goes back to too damn many hunters!!!! The answer is and always will be, no more otc tags and 10-20% nonresidents. Look, I just fixed it all. Minus the stupid people that shoot at white spots because you can’t fix stupid.

No one wants to address your points, but you’re right.

Eliminating OTC and a reduction of non-resident tags to 10% is an unpopular, but feasible answer to how to correct the most complaints with the current structure and resources.

 

[tdhanses]

There’s plenty of ways to kill more bears without cutting into archery season.

Seems to me you really don’t care about deer and elk populations, just hunting them which is interesting.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Seems to me you really don’t care about deer and elk populations, just hunting them which is interesting.

All I want for Christmas is a spring bear season.

If we had a spring bear we could get rid of the bear season during archery, put it in rifle, and it would solve a good portion of our issues.

 

[veganhunter]

I know it's not on the table with CPW but I'd be fine with archery hunters wearing orange hats but no vest.

An orange hat goes a long way to increase visibility to other hunters but barely impacts my carefully curated camo clothing. (Mostly serious)

 

[tdhanses]

All I want for Christmas is a spring bear season.

If we had a spring bear we could get rid of the bear season during archery, put it in rifle, and it would solve a good portion of our issues.

100% agree

 

[tdhanses]

I know it's not on the table with CPW but I'd be fine with archery hunters wearing orange hats but no vest.

An orange hat goes a long way to increase visibility to other hunters but barely impacts my carefully curated camo clothing. (Mostly serious)

I find it interesting that’s all WY requires for rifle, before we know it CO will require an orange jumpsuit. I don’t see why CO can‘t just have the hat requirement for rifle and nothing for archery hunters, plenty of archery hunters have been shot by fellow archers.

 

[Rich M]

I'm sure this will be a hugely unpopular opinion but I think muzzleloader, rifle, and maybe even archery tags should require a signficantly higher level of certification than just a hunters safety course, including the addition of a proficiency test with your chosen weapon. Splitting seasons or adding orange requirements doesn't address the underlying issue that you have negligently stupid people going out onto public land and shooting at movement.

Do I have any confidence that a state agency in a state like Colorado could come up with a certification and test that meant anything and wasn't just a money making scheme? Absolutely not. But one can dream.

I'm building off your post - not attacking. Sometimes its hard to see in writing.

Pure sarcasm:

We can cut thru the chit! Let's have an ANNUAL class and a fully functional exam in the state of issuance!

You'll need to show up in person on the special day, listen to someone babble on for hours about not being a dumbass and only shooting what you actually identify as a real live animal.

This would be nothing without the practical aspect of it where you have to climb a mountain and walk a 5 mile trail in 3 hours or less - with 25 targets - 10 are valid and 15 are not.

Of course you will need to be proficient with your weapon and a score of 90 out of 100 or better would be necessary to purchase a license.

Anyway - if you shoot one of the 15 invalid targets, no license for you for the next 5 years.

Back to reality - just basically just described Europe. You really want to go there cause 1 idiot shoots someone? MORE PEOPLE WOULD DIE DRIVING TO THE CLASS THAN THE CLASS WOULD SAVE.

 

[veganhunter]

I find it interesting that’s all WY requires for rifle, before we know it CO will require an orange jumpsuit. I don’t see why CO can‘t just have the hat requirement for rifle and nothing for archery hunters, plenty of archery hunts have been shot by fellow archers.

Exactly. But we're the ones dealing with negligent deaths...

 

[CoHiCntry]

Which came first the chicken or the

All I want for Christmas is a spring bear season.

If we had a spring bear we could get rid of the bear season during archery, put it in rifle, and it would solve a good portion of our issues.

Hahahaha!!! Spring bear season… that’s a good one!

 

[3forks]

And, as long as we’re talking about fantasy…

Since CPW believes an isolated incident by a negligent hunter seems to make it necessary to need to do something, if an incident does occur - let’s put additional restrictions on the method of take/season that the person who caused the incident was participating in.

In the case of the archery hunter killed by the ML hunter in Dolores County this year, since a ML guy was negligent - make that group take additional classes or create additional regulations aimed at making ML hunters safer.

If an archery guy mis-identifies a rifle or ML hunter and shoots them, then put additional restrictions on archery.

Seems reasonable that the safer method of take should be left alone unless it starts to be “unsafe“, too.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I don't have a dog in this fight, because I don't bow or muzzleloader hunt. I'm sure they are going to say the orange is for the safety of the hunters and to prevent them from being mistaken for game. If that's true, why is only the hunter required to wear orange. Are the guides and camera crews and people in the woods hiking and recreating not in danger? Why is only the hunter in danger? Makes no sense to me. I'm not saying they should make everyone in the woods during gun season wear orange, I'm saying their reasoning makes no sense.

 

[3forks]

I don't have a dog in this fight, because I don't bow or muzzleloader hunt. I'm sure they are going to say the orange is for the safety of the hunters and to prevent them from being mistaken for game. If that's true, why is only the hunter required to wear orange. Are the guides and camera crews and people in the woods hiking and recreating not in danger? Why is only the hunter in danger? Makes no sense to me.

This is a very good point, and one that is frequently brought up.

 

[TreeStandAthlete]

I'm building off your post - not attacking. Sometimes its hard to see in writing.

Pure sarcasm:

We can cut thru the chit! Let's have an ANNUAL class and a fully functional exam in the state of issuance!

You'll need to show up in person on the special day, listen to someone babble on for hours about not being a dumbass and only shooting what you actually identify as a real live animal.

This would be nothing without the practical aspect of it where you have to climb a mountain and walk a 5 mile trail in 3 hours or less - with 25 targets - 10 are valid and 15 are not.

Of course you will need to be proficient with your weapon and a score of 90 out of 100 or better would be necessary to purchase a license.

Anyway - if you shoot one of the 15 invalid targets, no license for you for the next 5 years.

Back to reality - just basically just described Europe. You really want to go there cause 1 idiot shoots someone? MORE PEOPLE WOULD DIE DRIVING TO THE CLASS THAN THE CLASS WOULD SAVE.

Let start by saying I agree with you and I have no faith in any government agency to not turn this into a massive waste of time and money...but just for the sake of argument:

No reason it would be held at a single location on a single day. Any range could give a proficiency test, no need to charge for it either. I mean in an ideal world every rifle hunter would have the level of proficiency to get X score on an NRL Hunter style match but there's got to be a compromise between that and Bubba boomer that puts 20 rounds through his rifle all year. Would it fix stupid? No, but it would edge out some of the lazy hunters, and stupid and lazy tend to go hand in hand. If you can't put 10 rounds on a 6 inch gong at 200yds then you have no business out shooting at game. Whatever the solution, punishing bow hunters, who as far as I'm aware tend to have these kind of accidents at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower rate than firearm hunters, is not the solution.

Doing away with OTC is a pretty good place to start. Cutting NR tags in the west is a little trickier due to the majority of the public land being federal and while the game belongs to the state we do all pay for that public land, unlike places in the East where what public land there is belongs to the state.