BigGameHoundsmen.com

In this third group, it is the DOW Biologists findings that the lion population is increasing and/or exceeding the carrying capacity and needs to be reduced or maintainted. The DOW has no relocation program and if a guy wants to kill a female he should hunt in these units. Is there a better way to control these populations without killing females?

jed wrote:Brady, also agree with what you shared. However, in my opinion, it’s a crying shame when guys don’t even have the spine to stand up to their buddies with the “willing to kill whatever we tree” mentality. For the sake of lion hunting – put a foot down – if a guy genuinely preaches against the harvest of females, then he should practice that in all actions, especially in front of his buddies! I’m of the opinion that if my dogs tree it, I have final say in what happens at the tree.

And Brady, I can’t resist asking – what the heck are you doing out hunting without your dogs?

Jed, I do practise what I preach. This day was on a ranch these guys had lined up andit was their friends. Trust me, guys know my take but this day I was truly the tag along on the hunt....nothing involved was mine. secondly, at the time I have 2 5 month old pups, thats why I was hunting without my dogs

If my dogs tree it, I decide what happens at the tree too...good point

In this third group where the number of lions is relatively high, there are several reasons the GMU is placed in this catagory. It could be that the lion population is high and wouldn't hurt to be reduced (I know, hard to believe, but could be true). Another reason like the areas around me, the lion population is doing well and they are getting into a lot of trouble because of all the people that have moved up here. They all bring thier dogs and a lot of them become urban farmers with all thier goats, llamas and other livestock. Around here, the lions live right in the developed areas. (see my post last week of the lion that walked up my driveway). So in this case, the DOW may want to reduce the population. I know of one female that was taken out of one of these units because she was killing dogs and goats a month or so ago.
Jed, I will look into finding out about this info. I believe it is available because of the form you have to fill out to get your hide sealed. That form has all the info on it one would need.

Here's some statistics that will show you where we stand right now on the harvest in each unit. It's updated every week or so.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/Mou ... tatistics/

Let me ask for some opinions on another angle of the regulations here in CO. Our DOW has divided our lion quota areas into 3 different classifications; as stated in my opening post. The first group the DOW asks for “continue voluntarily refraining from the take of female lions”. The second the DOW “emphasizes the need for hunters to reduce the take of female lions”. The third group, the DOW “does not make any special requests of hunters regarding the take of female lions”. What are your thoughts on female harvest in this third group of units? With all we’ve talked about thus far – is it acceptable to cast our ethics aside and go ahead and harvest females in these units? Personally, I’m against it!

FullCryHounds, thank you for posting this link I have been looking for it. I went down to the DOW office this morning to talk with some of the biologist I know. I had a good discussion on this topic. It got me thinking about a few things... I will comment on this later. We have to have confidence the CDOW has a fair handle on the population dynamics for lions in our state. If they say it is healthy and ok to take females then I believe that is a choice for the individual hunter regardless of my values. But if they ask us not to take females in certain units then all lion hunters have an obligation not to take females and work with educating their friends, clients, property owners and whoever else we are involved with and may be able to influence. This will be good for the cats and for our reputations as hound hunters.

Brady, never worry about speaking out about whats on your mind. The group of guys you hunt with will respect you for it and you may be surprised at how much their values are in line with yours.

B-N-Trees wrote:Brady, never worry about speaking out about whats on your mind. The group of guys you hunt with will respect you for it and you may be surprised at how much their values are in line with yours.

I know you are...

i live in unit 78.it closed b4 i ever got to take a day off of work to even go once.just saw in deans post the quota was 4 ,and 4 females were taken and 1 male.i hate these people!!

If you truely want to change things. You will need to pull together and go as a group to the DOW. This will be best done by group like a coonhound club.Have a speaker represent the goup and present a female sub Quoata on all units. This is not going to go over very good with any houndsman because it will shut down units very quickly. But is will show the DOW that we are serious about preserving our sport and before long the units will not shut down as quick because true houndsmen will want to run their dogs. And the outfiters and out of staters will be run out if they continue their practice of killing females.
I don't think this will happen. It is just like the bear hunting in Colorado, a couple of houndsmen showed up to protest the sport and we didn't have the numbers or support to override their decision.
Colorado is one of the worst states I have seen as for Houndsmen uniting. jmo

'Colorado is one of the worst states I have seen as for Houndsmen uniting. jmo ' AMEN!I CAME FROM A STATE WITH A STRONG HOUNDSMAN ASSOC. AND WROTE A LETTER TO THE DOW ABOUT THE POOR DECISION OF LETTING BEAR SEASON WITH HOUNDS CLOSE AND THE PROBLEMS IT CAUSES. I FORWARDED IT TO A FELLA ON HERE AT HIS REQUEST AND ASKED HIM IF COLORADO HAD AN ASSOCIATION I COULD JOIN. HE SAID YES AND HE WOULD GET ME THE INFO BUT WAS TOO BUSY TO TALK TO ME.THIS WAS LAST YEAR,NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HIM,BUT HE TYPES ON HERE ALMOST EVERYDAY AND IS ON THIS THREAD NOW!

Good point Mr.pacojack. Issues like this are why we organize these interest groups to represent us and our causes. I would start by looking into the Colorado Houndsmen Association.

Not me. It is up to you. I do agree with liontracker, Colorado houndsmen are about to loose everything. I beleive Colorado Houndsmen will sit back just like they did with the bear hunting and think that someone else is going to protect their hunting, they will watch it all slip away.
When the DOW is asking you to police yourselfs on killing females, the next step will be that they will take it away from you and then tell you they had to because you didn't do it yourself.

This whole change to the lion season structure came about due to one group called Sinapu. It is basically one vocal woman, (from Boulder). She came to every commision meeting hammering about how too many females, and lions, where being killed. She threatened to get a ballot initiative to stop lion hunting if something wasn't done. She wanted to see less then 40% female harvest. The DOW pulled a fast one on her but it got her to shut up. What they did was come up with the ID test we all had to take. That did help since we are now below the 40% female take. The DOW looked at each GMU over a five year period and averaged out how many lions where being taken in each. They lower any of the GMUs quotas if that quota wasn't being filled. For exampe, if a GMU's quota was 10 lions and only four lions where typically being taken, they lowered that quota to 4. They went back to this Sinapu group and said OK, we've lowered the quota of lions by 30% (or whatever the actual number was). The group was happy and we haven't heard from them since. What the DOW did, really didn't lower the number of lions being harvested but only got rid of tags that weren't being used anyway.
I've been working with my local Game Manager and last year wrote letters to him and the game commission. He backed my proposal and we got the quota for three units around here raised from 4 to 7. So changes can be done, and the commision will listen to us. You have to have your facts right, draft up a letter with your (our) proposal and get it in the hands of the right people. I'm sure if we got a large group of us to sign it, they would at least take it into consideration. Personally, I would have no problem with setting a female quota of 40% of the tags available for each unit.

I have another request. Could you guys put your name on your posts or your profile. I only know all of you guys by your handle and have no idea who you really are.

NM quotas came about for the same way Dean stated. One group of anti's making noise. Plus it was suggested when Logan and Sweenor did the study here.

Might be better for you guys to be proactive and ask for a female quota and help with the numbers. Not sure if thats a good idea or not but i think you will have stricter female quotas .Its coming either way.

FYI most all of the study's say that killing 30-35% of your females over a 3 year period will decrease your population, so I dont think getting quotas at 40% will be realistic

oswald wrote:'Colorado is one of the worst states I have seen as for Houndsmen uniting. jmo ' AMEN!I CAME FROM A STATE WITH A STRONG HOUNDSMAN ASSOC. AND WROTE A LETTER TO THE DOW ABOUT THE POOR DECISION OF LETTING BEAR SEASON WITH HOUNDS CLOSE AND THE PROBLEMS IT CAUSES. I FORWARDED IT TO A FELLA ON HERE AT HIS REQUEST AND ASKED HIM IF COLORADO HAD AN ASSOCIATION I COULD JOIN. HE SAID YES AND HE WOULD GET ME THE INFO BUT WAS TOO BUSY TO TALK TO ME.THIS WAS LAST YEAR,NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HIM,BUT HE TYPES ON HERE ALMOST EVERYDAY AND IS ON THIS THREAD NOW!

I did my part and forwarded your info to the board members.
Ever since Brian Lyons resigned from the board, the association fell apart.
Take it up with them.

Can we form some type of committe to attend DOW meetings and have inteligent conversation?. I know when I lived in Utah guys were organized to attend the meetings...I know I'd be happy to participate any way possible...