Colorado Mule Deer Decline?

[LuketheDog]

As a non-resident planning on cashing in 13 years worth of preference points, it definitely doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling reading that article. I know lots of people think he's just one hunter that had a bad year but I haven't heard anything good coming from Colorado. Obviously there are still some big bucks like Oak's but the vast majority of reports I have heard were pretty grim. I just wish I knew for sure if it was just a bad year or if numbers were truly down. Its kind of a tough spot to be in, I'd hold off on applying but with the changes to the season structure and the rumors of management changing in response to CWD I just don't know if its going to get better.

Well now, if your a NON-resident, then the article is spot on! The herd is in decline, the big bucks are gone, everything you hear is true...

 

[Cogreeny]

Lions, bears and coyotes in that order are an enormous problem here. In the 70’s when fur was worth good money and predators shot on sight the mule deer hunting was unbelievable back in the day.

 

[bushman13]

IMO, I would look to lead poisoning and not environmental conditions. I see herds of muleys everyday and then I barley even see a crickett when I hike public lands.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Are you also arguing that the later seasons won't lead to a deer massacre since the deer are already lower anyway?

I'm arguing that the number of tags given out has not been decided, that our biologist will take the new season structure (later dates) into account and will issue quotas to keep harvest rates, buck/doe rations, and age structures intact.

 

[8andcounting]

They just need to do like Montana and issue tens of thousands of mule doe tags this will help . Make sure each hunter can get up to 7 , things will improve

 

[Dsnow9]

I have also hunted a unit that sees massive amounts of people and insane hunter densities, wardens and rangers said that everyone they talked to did not see any living creatures. In that same morning I saw 4 bucks (2 different occasions where a buck was within a hundred yards of a hunter and never saw it), a dozen elk, and 30+ hunters in a 5 square mile area. My cow elk was the only shot from sun up to sun down and the ranger almost fell out of her chair when I said I harvested an elk. Just because 30 people said there weren’t any animals out there does not mean they are correct.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Since we all clearly have some time on our hands. Listen to the actual meeting.

La Junta Day 2, Big game workshop (Starts at min 20.) They walk all the commissioners through how everything works

Colorado Season structure discussion, La Junta, Day 1 starts at 6:53 outline of various alternatives and discussion of why those were put forth, Commissioners comments start around 8:00.

@beginnerhunter
Day 2, 3:30min.

Essentially every DAU (Data Analysis unit) in the state has a population objective plan for each herd/species.
These plays are created by biologist/ staff in that region and approved by the commission. These plans set goals for the herds and last 10 years.
Each year for each DAU CPW goes through the process below. As the Big Game Season Structure changes harvest goals and therefore quotas are changed to met the population objectives laid out in the management plan for each DAU.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

The commissioners got input from the public that they didn't like the structure of the season, the commission adopted a new structure. They handed this structure to each region director and said, here is the season structure adjust your quotas accordingly. If the season structure improves harvest rates less tags will be issued, the reverse is also true. If the commission decided to say get rid of rifle season and go archery only then they would issue a lot more tags.

 

[Oak]

I don't have the time or inclination to convince anyone of anything. Just going to post some numbers for perspective. A couple of thoughts, though:

Have you ever heard the saying, "perception is reality?"
Wouldn't you think that the participation rate would increase once they started reissuing returned licenses? Doesn't appear so.

 

[Bigjay73]

I'm not at all being difficult, but I'm missing the point of that post. I need pictures in crayon sometimes, bear with me

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm not at all being difficult, but I'm missing the point of that post. I need pictures in crayon sometimes, bear with me

I think what Oak is pointing out is that in 2019 they had 99,696 license but there were only 92,483 hunters. Given that CO reissues returned licenses it's it surprising that the number of hunters isn't closer to 99,696?

That's how I read it anyway.

 

[Bigjay73]

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for holding my hand lol

 

[beginnerhunter]

I'm arguing that the number of tags given out has not been decided, that our biologist will take the new season structure (later dates) into account and will issue quotas to keep harvest rates, buck/doe rations, and age structures intact.

Exactly, I understand game managers in general try to accomplish those ideals while taking public opinion and economics into account (or focusing primarily on them). Just seems Brady's concern is that later rifle dates have higher success rates and that, over time, tag numbers will eventually be decreased to maintain populations, leading to less opportunity. Not making a value judgement, just wondering if you think that will happen. Sorry, I didnt mean to imply CO was going to let their MD herds be destroyed, just wondering if they wouldn't be able to sustain significant tag #s and keep the population intact.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Exactly, I understand game managers in general try to accomplish those ideals while taking public opinion and economics into account (or focusing primarily on them). Just seems Brady's concern is that later rifle dates have higher success rates and that, over time, tag numbers will eventually be decreased to maintain populations, leading to less opportunity. Not making a value judgement, just wondering if you think that will happen. Sorry, I didnt mean to imply CO was going to let their MD herds be destroyed, just wondering if they wouldn't be able to sustain significant tag #s and keep the population intact.

Less opportunity.... what exactly does that mean? Does that mean you have less opportunity to go on a hunt, or less opportunity to kill a buck? Those two will always have an inverse relationship.
Will Colorado have to sell less tags... kinda seems to me that CPW has proven that a viable way to lower success rates is to throw a pile of hunters in the field at once. They will step on each others toes and allow all the animals to escape. Joking... or am I

Here are the stats for 2 different units in CO 3 and 43. 3 is up by Craig and mostly sagebrush, 43 is near Aspen- High Alpine-Timber- Sage Flats.

Note 43 has a early season hunt.

Typical thinking is that deer start the season up high in August- Sept, they are visible in the high alpine therefore big bucks are vulnerable to hunters. During 2nd season the deer move into the timber and are hard to find and kill, during 3rd season they start to emerge onto the flats and stage for the rut, and by 4th season the rut is starting and big bucks are again vulnerable. This thinking matches up with 43 draw points almost exactly.

Now we don't have mandatory harvest reporting with size reporting so it's impossible to know if these are "meat bucks" or "trophy bucks", but I find it interesting that managers in 3 give out 30% more tags in 3rd season than in second season. I also find it interesting that in 43 more hunters have a higher success rate in 2nd season than they do in 3rd season or 4th season.

My point is there is conventional wisdom, then there is the data we have available. I'm not sure the data supports conventional wisdom. I'm not saying it doesn't, and it's definitely incomplete.... but I don't feel like I have enough information to draw the conclusion that moving the seasons back a week will mean less deer tags (in aggregate) are issued. These season dates get compared to MT a lot, but there are a ton of other differences between CO and MT seasons besides the dates and I don't think it's a fair to say CO will become Mt.

 

[Oak]

The differences between the two units you just used as an example are that unit 3/301 is more winter range, so many deer move out of 4, 14, 214, etc., during the rifle seasons. Look at 2nd and 3rd seasons in those neighboring units and you'll find many more licenses issued in 2nd season than in 3rd. In unit 43 on the other hand, the deer can move from summer to winter range and stay in the same unit.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The differences between the two units you just used as an example are that unit 3/301 is more winter range, so many deer move out of 4, 14, 214, etc., during the rifle seasons. Look at 2nd and 3rd seasons in those neighboring units and you'll find many more licenses issued in 2nd season than in 3rd. In unit 43 on the other hand, the deer can move from summer to winter range and stay in the same unit.

That kinda goes to the point though that units won't be effected uniformly by the dates, correct?

 

[Oak]

That kinda goes to the point though that units won't be effected uniformly by the dates, correct?

Oh, sure. Sorry I missed the point.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Less opportunity.... what exactly does that mean? Does that mean you have less opportunity to go on a hunt, or less opportunity to kill a buck? Those two will always have an inverse relationship.
Will Colorado have to sell less tags... kinda seems to me that CPW has proven that a viable way to lower success rates is to throw a pile of hunters in the field at once. They will step on each others toes and allow all the animals to escape. Joking... or am I

Here are the stats for 2 different units in CO 3 and 43. 3 is up by Craig and mostly sagebrush, 43 is near Aspen- High Alpine-Timber- Sage Flats.

Note 43 has a early season hunt.

Typical thinking is that deer start the season up high in August- Sept, they are visible in the high alpine therefore big bucks are vulnerable to hunters. During 2nd season the deer move into the timber and are hard to find and kill, during 3rd season they start to emerge onto the flats and stage for the rut, and by 4th season the rut is starting and big bucks are again vulnerable. This thinking matches up with 43 draw points almost exactly.

Now we don't have mandatory harvest reporting with size reporting so it's impossible to know if these are "meat bucks" or "trophy bucks", but I find it interesting that managers in 3 give out 30% more tags in 3rd season than in second season. I also find it interesting that in 43 more hunters have a higher success rate in 2nd season than they do in 3rd season or 4th season.

My point is there is conventional wisdom, then there is the data we have available. I'm not sure the data supports conventional wisdom. I'm not saying it doesn't, and it's definitely incomplete.... but I don't feel like I have enough information to draw the conclusion that moving the seasons back a week will mean less deer tags (in aggregate) are issued. These season dates get compared to MT a lot, but there are a ton of other differences between CO and MT seasons besides the dates and I don't think it's a fair to say CO will become Mt.


View attachment 134063


View attachment 134069

Yeah, by opportunity I meant chance to go on a hunt for a buck, so buck tags available for purchase. Like, in the sense that if CO converted all their rifle seasons into archery/muzzy hunts, in theory, they could probably sell more tags since the harvest rate would likely be lower. So more opportunities to have a chance to harvest a buck, even if success rates are low. Maybe my terminology is incorrect.

But as an aside, I wonder if there is research on how hunter interference would lower harvest rate. Like, would 300 hunters in a given area only harvest a total of 100 elk while 200 hunters might harvest 125? Is this how the CO OTC model works?

Either way you've refuted the article clearly enough and I'm comfortable now. I just don't have much else to do right now but get way into the weeds on fairly esoteric stuff. I appreciate the conversation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yeah, by opportunity I meant chance to go on a hunt for a buck, so buck tags available for purchase. Like, in the sense that if CO converted all their rifle seasons into archery/muzzy hunts, in theory, they could probably sell more tags since the harvest rate would likely be lower. So more opportunities to have a chance to harvest a buck, even if success rates are low. Maybe my terminology is incorrect.

But as an aside, I wonder if there is research on how hunter interference would lower harvest rate. Like, would 300 hunters in a given area only harvest a total of 100 elk while 200 hunters might harvest 125? Is this how the CO OTC model works?

Either way you've refuted the article clearly enough and I'm comfortable now. I just don't have much else to do right now but get way into the weeds on fairly esoteric stuff. I appreciate the conversation.

I think the numbers per my first post seem to indicate that throwing more hunters into a season does not necessarily increase harvest, it seems to just lower success rates. I think there is at least the potential that CPW might keep 4th season numbers consistent, cut 3rd season tags dramatically and put those tags into 2nd season.

So possibly: current 500,200, 20 -> new 680,20,20

 

[AggieHunter]

This may be a little off topic from season and harvest records but even with the concern for the deer population and trophy potential I still believe that a hunter can find a respectable deer in most units if they hunt hard. Where I live it is around a 1-3 preference point hunt for the second and third season and I know a guy who has taken multiple 160-180" deer from it.

 

[vanish]

How exactly does he know this? Quotas won't even be brought to the commission until May. Yeah, if they don't reduce 3rd / 4th season deer tags, there will be trouble. Statements like that put the whole article into question for me.

Well, I can eat crow now. I just checked the tag allocations for 2020 compared to 2019, and no adjustments were made due to the change in season dates.

Get your trophy CO buck tags soon!