Sacrificing weapon quality for buck/herd quality and opportunity

[robby denning]

Did he ever work for CPW? Seems like Colorado cares about dollars over everything
Edit: woofs then dollars…

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming as a biologist.

Not saying there's never a money grab at some level, but gave the example that at the biologist level, he'd never been pressured.

And @long hunter , point taken but there's a lot of retired bios out there who would be whistleblowing if this was rampant IMO

 

[bigsky2]

I'm against any reduction in hunting opportunities unless it's preceded by increased opportunities and incentives to limit predator numbers. Almost every time we lose an opportunity, it's gone for good. Why is our only reaction always to reduce hunter harvest? How about requiring non residents to buy a predator tag, and put a bounty on Coyotes, bears, wolves, and cats? Make the bounty pool come from a fee attached to hunting licenses. Do those kind of things, and I'm more willing to give up my opportunity for the sake of the herd. Not interested in giving up just so the predators have enough to eat.

Restricting technology is not reducing opportunity IMO. Opportunity is the ability to go hunting.

 

[S.Clancy]

Restricting technology is not reducing opportunity IMO. Opportunity is the ability to go hunting.

Exactly. In my eyes the tag is the opportunity, regardless the weapon.

All of these arguments and detractors from weapon restrictions (really everything) comes down to people being ok with limiting the weapon they don't use. Bow guys say "limit rifles". Rifle guys say "limit bows".

How about we look beyond the bias of our preferred method of take, and put technological limits on all methods of take.

 

[CorbLand]

Did he ever work for CPW? Seems like Colorado cares about dollars over everything
Edit: woofs then dollars…

CPW didnt want to put wolves in Colorado. Your Governor and voters wanted to. CPW was forced to do so.



Topics like this will always be difficult due to inherent issues with people.
1. Peoples definition of "quality" and "quantity" differ. I hunted hard the 2015/2016 time frame here. There were a lot more bucks and a lot bigger of bucks available. Yet I worked with a dude that grew up in the mule deer hay days and he complained about the "quality" during the 2015/2016 time frame.
2. People push what they want based on what is available. If a unit is consistently putting out 150-160 bucks with the occasional 180-190, then that 180-190 is a big deer. Change that to the unit is consistently putting out 180-190 and 210-220 becomes the big. Basically, as we push to get better "quality" it will never be achieved due to people moving the goal posts. Once you have achieved the 210-220, most will never see a 180-190 as being a big deer.
3. People are inherently selfish. Many of the "solutions" proposed by people will be skewed to fit what is best for them. Some will be skewed more than others but there will always be that skew. Examples. Most that have the financial means to hunt multiple states are generally willing to wait longer to get tags and hunt "better" bucks. Those that dont have the financial means to hunt multiple states are generally more opportunity type individuals and are willing to hunt "lesser" bucks. Those that have kids are more for youth opportunity than those that don't.

My theory with what is happening is that the systems that many states set up are not working like intended. Take Utah. LE tags were the one chance to hunt big deer and if you applied long enough, you would get that chance. GS was the opportunity to hunt deer every year and there was some big ones that were killed. Now you have a large group of people that are about to be taking a very long nap and they still havent had their chance to hunt their one big deer. The push is to find a way to grow big deer somewhere that they can hunt their one big deer. (Controversial? Maybe. I am not interested in arguing about this) These systems were also set up when the populations in the West were minimal compared to what they are now. They cannot handle the rapid influx of people.

I am smack dab in the middle of a unit that has gone the way of limiting weapons in the name of more opportunity. Do I think it will work? I dont know. I know it will grow bigger bucks but I don't know that it will have the intended effect of producing more opportunity due to the reasons posted above. Time will tell and I am hopeful.

Most of the West has tried the cut tags method for nearly 40 years and we are only one more tag cut away from it working. I applaud any state that is willing to put themselves on the line and try something new. What we have been doing is not working.

All I know is that the number one threat to hunting is ballot box biology. The second biggest threat is not putting tags in peoples pocket and allowing them to hunt. One could argue that the second is truly the first because without the second, the first will be more commonly used and harder to defeat.

Edit. Fixed a spelling error and changed a sentence to be more clear.

 

[Hnthrdr]

CPW didnt want to put wolves in Colorado. Your Governor and voters wanted to. CPW was forced to do so.



Topics like this will always be difficult due to inherent issues with people.
1. Peoples definition of "quality" and "quantity" differ. I hunted hard the 2015/2016 time frame here. There were a lot more bucks and a lot bigger of bucks available. Yet I worked with a dude that grew up in the mule deer hay days and he complained about the "quality" during that time frame.
2. People push what they want based on what is available. If a unit is consistently putting out 150-160 bucks with the occasional 180-190, then that 180-190 is a big deer. Change that to the unit is consistently putting out 180-190 and 210-220 becomes the big. Basically, as we push to get better "quality" it will never be achieved due to people moving the goal posts. Once you have achieved the 210-220, most will never see a 180-190 as being a big deer.
3. People are inherently selfish. Many of the "solutions" proposed by people will be skewed to fit what is best for them. Some will be skewed more than others but there will always be that skew. Examples. Most that have the financial means to hunt multiple states are generally willing to wait longer to get tags and hunt "better" bucks. Those that dont have the financial means to hunt multiple states are generally more opportunity type individuals and are willing to hunt "lesser" bucks. Those that have kids are more for youth opportunity than those that don't.

My theory with what is happening is that the systems that many states set up are not working like intended. Take Utah. LE tags were the one chance to hunt big deer and if you applied long enough, you would get that chance. GS was the opportunity to hunt deer every year and there was some big ones that were killed. Now you have a large group of people that are about to be taking a very long nap and they still havent had their chance to hunt their one big deer. The push is to find a way to grow big deer somewhere that they can hunt their one big deer. (Controversial? Maybe. I am not interesting in arguing about this) These systems were also set up when the populations in the West were minimal compared to what they are now. They cannot handle the rapid influx of people.

I am smack dab in the middle of a unit that has gone the way of limiting weapons in the name of more opportunity. Do I think it will work? I dont know. I know it will grow bigger bucks but I don't know that it will have the intended effect of producing more opportunity due to the reasons posted above. Time will tell and I am hopeful.

Most of the West has tried the cut tags method for nearly 40 years and we are only one more tag cut away from it working. I applaud any state that is willing to put themselves on the line and try something new. What we have been doing is not working.

All I know is that the number one threat to hunting is ballot box biology. The second biggest threat is not putting tags in peoples pocket and allowing them to hunt. One could argue that the second is truly the first because without the second, the first will be more commonly used and harder to defeat.

Well put. I know several CPW lay people they are not the issue, the issue is the commission and appointed positions: common thread of voters and gov…

Agree with what you said.
I wish Co would jump in on limited tech but boosting tags it’s a great way to get involvement and not cut opportunity and potentially bring back some “quality” for those who are truly willing to grind

 

[CorbLand]

Well put. I know several CPW lay people they are not the issue, the issue is the commission and appointed positions: common thread of voters and gov…

Agree with what you said.
I wish Co would jump in on limited tech but boosting tags it’s a great way to get involvement and not cut opportunity and potentially bring back some “quality” for those who are truly willing to grind

If I was Colorado, I would give it a couple years and see if it works in other states. Let them jump on the grenade first but that is just me.

 

[PathFinder]

This is the first proposal in a very long time with the potential to balance the effects of technology and growing demand without reducing opportunity. For mule deer in particular, the opportunity to hunt mature bucks is infinitely more valuable than the opportunity to do so with the most effective weapon technology.
We don't yet know what across the board weapon technology restrictions will do to/for deer herds. There is harvest data for MZ seasons, but those generally occur at more opportune times of year to hunt. The Wasatch is somewhat of an example. It gets extreme pressure and hunter numbers but still has a good deer herd. The data coming out of these test units in 3-5 years will be very interesting.
The one exception I'd suggest would be that, similar to CO's early high country rifle hunts, some rifle tags are available at much lower numbers. That will bait a bunch of people into putting in and waiting for those instead of hunting the restricted seasons

For my part, especially for mule deer, I'd very happily give up hunting them with a scoped rifle in trade for better draw odds and more mature bucks.

 

[BTH]

I would happily pick up a more traditional weapon if it meant better quality and quantity deer/elk. Keep the opportunity to be in the woods but reduce the ability for people to shoot crazy far distances I’m all about. I killed an elk at 770 yards and won’t do that again, it just felt like cheating to me. Wind, noise, camo, movement… almost none of that mattered. Make a guy get close and fool their senses, now that’s what’s it’s all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

If I was Colorado, I would give it a couple years and see if it works in other states. Let them jump on the grenade first but that is just me.

We are already actively trying to reduce game numbers with awesome apex predators being forced down our throats… so we may need some of this in the future to avoid beaucoup tag cuts that are likely on the horizon to feed the welfare pups

 

[Hnthrdr]

This is the first proposal in a very long time with the potential to balance the effects of technology and growing demand without reducing opportunity. For mule deer in particular, the opportunity to hunt mature bucks is infinitely more valuable than the opportunity to do so with the most effective weapon technology.
We don't yet know what across the board weapon technology restrictions will do to/for deer herds. There is harvest data for MZ seasons, but those generally occur at more opportune times of year to hunt. The Wasatch is somewhat of an example. It gets extreme pressure and hunter numbers but still has a good deer herd. The data coming out of these test units in 3-5 years will be very interesting.
The one exception I'd suggest would be that, similar to CO's early high country rifle hunts, some rifle tags are available at much lower numbers. That will bait a bunch of people into putting in and waiting for those instead of hunting the restricted seasons

For my part, especially for mule deer, I'd very happily give up hunting them with a scoped rifle in trade for better draw odds and more mature bucks.

It will instantly spike the value of my iron sight blr’s that collect dust in the safe…

 

[robby denning]

....
The one exception I'd suggest would be that, similar to CO's early high country rifle hunts, some rifle tags are available at much lower numbers. That will bait a bunch of people into putting in and waiting for those instead of hunting the restricted seasons

For my part, especially for mule deer, I'd very happily give up hunting them with a scoped rifle in trade for better draw odds and more mature bucks.

good post and wanted to add that the second hand conversation that came out of the Idaho citizens committee was that...THERE WAS talk of adding a controlled rifle hunt to take advantage of the increased buck numbers this regulation to muzz could create but then a few spoke up and everyone realized they just went against the entire of idea of "quit taking away OTC and giving it to the LQ to have another <10% odds draw hunt" and they dropped it.

 

[Bugger]

I’d happily vote for or support any reasonable restriction that allows for more opportunities at a healthier population. Its easier/quicker to add more rifle tags if populations reach carrying capacity than it is to attempt recovering populations that tanked because of pressure and weather by lowering tag numbers.

 

[BTH]

I’d happily vote for or support any reasonable restriction that allows for more opportunities at a healthier population. Its easier/quicker to add more rifle tags if populations reach carrying capacity than it is to attempt recovering populations that tanked because of pressure and weather by lowering tag numbers.

I 10000% agree. lol