What the new Cow draw did in 25/26 CO where I hunt

[SFC B]

Here is something interesting. Last year 25/26 was OTC w/caps for cows (2000 I believe). This year with cows going to a draw guess how many? Wait for it ......25 for 2-4th seasons. How does that happen? No wonder I didn't pull a cow tag with my 2nd choice :hump:

 

[jlmatthew]

Dang you weren't kidding! I had to look because I knew that use to be a gimme tag

You got any access to private? They bumped the PLO tags up from 300 to 400

 

[SFC B]

Nope....all the private around there is outfittered up (at leastby where we have been hunting) Looks like my be having to extend my hunting area to other GMUs, RFW possibilities etc. At least I got a doe tag The fuzzy math is just blowing my mind right now.

 

[Zach]

Dang you weren't kidding! I had to look because I knew that use to be a gimme tag

You got any access to private? They bumped the PLO tags up from 300 to 400

Funny, isn't the legislature doing more tags to help the LO and to give the "hunter" more access to private land....

 

[SFC B]

Funny, isn't the legislature doing more tags to help the LO and to give the "hunter" more access to private land....

Funny how that works. Well I guess if I want to drop some $$ they wll "let" me have one of the cows I will "get" watch saunter on down the valley onto their ranches. Man, the numbers are just crazy.....

 

[SFC B]

Just sent an email to CPW asking for an explanation....wonder if they will reply?

 

[jlmatthew]

Just go to Burns and knock on Old Man Luarks door for permission, hear he's real friendly

 

[SFC B]

Maybe if I bring a twelve pack he (they) will drive me around too!

 

[JohnCushman]

Hell, I'll drive you around for a 12 pack..might not see any elk, though

 

[Oak]

Changes like this (hunt code additions, subtractions, etc) are always made at the November WC meetings. They always post the "issue papers" prior to that meeting that outline and explain the changes they are proposing. The issue papers from 2012 are in the link below. Go to page 51 of the pdf to see their explanation for elimitating the OTC with caps in those units.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ommission/2012/Nov/ITEM14and15-Ch2-Issues.pdf

 

[SFC B]

Changes like this (hunt code additions, subtractions, etc) are always made at the November WC meetings. They always post the "issue papers" prior to that meeting that outline and explain the changes they are proposing. The issue papers from 2012 are in the link below. Go to page 51 of the pdf to see their explanation for elimitating the OTC with caps in those units.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCol...ommission/2012/Nov/ITEM14and15-Ch2-Issues.pdf

Oak, thanks for the link and info about the papers. I understood the basic reasoning, I was just shocked at the huge hack coupled with the increase of PLO tags. If damage is no longer an issue why would they increase PLO tags?

 

[SFC B]

Correction- I don't know why I had 2000 in my head ...it was 500. My fault. Still a 95% reduction though

 

[Zach]

Are there still a lot of Utards hunting these units?

 

[SFC B]

Are there still a lot of Utards hunting these units?

Last year in our area there were about 6-8 camps covering 4 drainages. I think two of them were non-res and the rest had history in the area. It was my first year but the camp I was with has been going there in one form or another at least the last 2 years.

 

[SFC B]

Well surprise...surprise....CPW wrote back!! While I don't get their circular logic (I will discuss), I sincerely apprecate the fact that an actual human wrote back.
Here is the short version of the reply. Populations have been shaped over the past several years and have gotten to a point where hunting pressure on PUBLIC land was no longer needed/appropriate to maintain the population. I have no issue with this at all. I think all of our main concern is a healthy, thriving elk population. Here is the problem....
In the same message they say that the increase in PLO tags was in response to "damage" to meadows on the PL and that these tags were also needed to provide these pooooor landowners with extra $$(selling tags and hunts) to compensate these guys for any possible damage as well as control the population??? Sooooooo.....we are not going to let public land hunters have the additional chance at a cow but instead continue to fatten the kitty for the ranchers. Also of note is the fact that a large portion of livestock from the ranches in the GMU spend a big portion of the year on public land already.
I just don't understand how they can talk out of both sides of their mouth like that and not think something is wrong. "We don't need to control the population of cows anymore, we are only going to throw a token 25 tags to the public, BUUUUUTTT we will then say we DO need to control MORE cows once they reach the sacred private land and provide the PL guys with 33% more tags instead of preventing any possible damage by allowing public land hunters to take the same amount of cows before they even get to PL"
Wow, I knew they were in bed together but you think they could of had a better line of reasoning ready.

 

[1_pointer]

Couple of things:
1. now you know why many more didn't support your idea of spreading the RFW type of management in the 'subsidy should lead to access' thread.
2. The populations objectives, or in this case acceptance of a population level, between private and public lands could be different. I don't know if CPW manages at that scale, but I have experienced that being the case in Utah with pronghorns.
3. state wildlife management, even with RFW, and public lands grazing are managed seperately by seperate entities
4. Private vs. public land and wildlife management is a convoluted and complicated mess...

 

[jlmatthew]

You guys make the CPW too complex! Before the CPW does anything they crunch the numbers to ensure whatever they do is at a minimum "Revenue Neutral ". Next they'll see if they can make more money from it. No nonresident restrictions on PLO tags (or vouchers). And lastly and just as important as the money, they'll ask if this will make the landowners happier?

So there, in a nutshell is the CPW wildlife management decision making process

Too easy! :hump:

 

[SFC B]

Couple of things:
1. now you know why many more didn't support your idea of spreading the RFW type of management in the 'subsidy should lead to access' thread.
2. The populations objectives, or in this case acceptance of a population level, between private and public lands could be different. I don't know if CPW manages at that scale, but I have experienced that being the case in Utah with pronghorns.
3. state wildlife management, even with RFW, and public lands grazing are managed seperately by seperate entities
4. Private vs. public land and wildlife management is a convoluted and complicated mess...

"1"

Given this means even less public land opportunity and more $$$ for ranchers I don't understand why more wouldn't support the other comcept unless they are landowners. Please explain in a little more detail if you can (I am being serious, not smartass, as I know it is hard to tell through typing )
The population levels in the GMU can't be different as it is the SAME elk. The herd moves from the high country (public) down onto the private land as the weather worsens. The livestock on public land observation was just in response to the possible damage to grazing land when the livestock spend a large portion of time not even on that land. It truly seems like the CPW is using two sets of reasoning to address the same issue. Man, you are right about it being convoluted and a mess

 

[1_pointer]

IMO it's well spelled out in the other thread as to the whys, hows, and pitfalls as well as my opinion on the matter.

I agree that the populations in the GMU are not different, but what those populations levels are managed (ie Objectives) for can be varied depending on ownership.

 

[sbhooper]

This kind of nonsense is why I am done with Colorado. It gets more ridiculous all the time and more public opportunities disappear each year.