Lining the special interest in Colorado…..again

[Stix]

#4814

There is a bill in the Colorado legislature that as currently written could have a negative effect on public land bear hunting. This bill essentially refines the opening and closing dates as follows:

It refines the hunting opening/closing dates to 8/1 to 10/31. They are currently 9/1 to 12/31. These dates mean that hunting seasons can occur within these dates. These dates were imposed after a initiative to end spring bear hunting was passed in the 90’s.

So as you can see, it actually decreases the amount of time allowed to hunt,but the winter was never a good hunt time due to hibernation, and spring hunting is not permitted by the previous “end spring bear hunting ballot initiative”, so no loss there.

But, the way this bill is currently written, does allow for a week earlier archery start, as well a very limited rifle season in August in “targeted areas” (mostly private land), but it eliminates hunting after 10/31, ending bear hunting on public and private land during the 3rd and 4th rifle season. Most of these “target areas” are private land areas of high bear/human conflict. Therefore the only folks who would benefit from this are private land owners(who can sell the tags for a premium), and outfitters who have access to the private land “targeted areas”.

It appears (in my opinion) to be written to gain $$$ for the CP&W, private land owners, and outfitters who want to capitalize on Colorado’s bear resource. While removing the 3rd and 4th rifle season public land hunts.

Average “Joe” public land hunters loose again!

This bill needs to be amended to encompass until the completion of 4th rifle season so their is no loss of hunting opportunity to public land hunters. There also needs to be a study done to find out what the effects of deer/elk movements will be with the potential for more folks out hunting in August.

UPDATE: I just got word that this bill has been pulled in order for get input from all appropriate stakeholders.

[DK]

#34162

Thanks for the heads up.

DK

[Stix]

#37177

There are alot of other issues associated with an August bear season that need to be considered also….what are the effects on deer/elk movements, what about hunter/recreationalist conflicts ie. Harvesting bear in front of summer hikers ( we don’t need any more hunting closures like Brainard Lake…tag allocations. This bill came on too fast without proper consideration given to Colorado’s diverse and challenging outdoor community. I’m also concerned when conservation Is done legislatively instead of biologically ie legislation and ballot initiatives.

[David Petersen]

#39313

This bill was not put forth by CPW, who in fact were not even consulted. It was put forward by sheep ranching interests in the state legislature, who try every few years and so far fail. Their concern is to kill more bears in hopes it will reduce sheep predation on public lands. That is, killing public wildlife to financially benefit private welfare ranchers on public lands. It’s a worst-case example of wildlife management via politics rather than science, spits in the face of the Land Ethic and the N.A. Model. CO BHA is hard against it. What those in the know tell me is that bears are so vulnerable in August that so many would be killed the first couple of years that all subsequent bear seasons, which run concurrent with archery and rifle big game seasons, would have to be severely curtailed to compensate. Thus, bottom line, hunting opportunity would be greatly reduced rather than expanded. Everything about this bill is a lie. In CO at least, agricultural politics is among the greatest enemies of scientific wildlife management, thus of democratic hunting. Thanks for exposing it here, Stix.

[Stix]

#40461

Yes David, many problems with this bill as written. The lack of participation from the key Colorado sportsmen’s groups,the way it was brought forth without biological professional input, and the “carte blanche” wording would have been disastrous to public land hunters. I’m all for more hunting opportunity, when it’s done the right way within scientific boudaries, fair chase ethics, and with the resource in mind. This bill would have allowed the killing of a tremendous amount of bears, paticularly on private land, with the tags going to the highest bidder, at the expense of “average joe” hunters because of reduced opportunities in the archery and rifle public land seasons. The only potential positive is to move elk/deer off of private land in August if it were a very limited August season, but again the biologists would have to chime in to see what they believe what the effects would be on elk/deer movements. This bill accomplished non of that.

[Author]

Posts