CPW seeks public comment on herd management plans near Grand Junction and Rifle
- Thread starter marksjeep
- Start date
Please say it.
marksjeep
Well-known member
This is pretty fugly (D11).
Significant issues facing this deer herd include declining fawn:doe ratios, population stagnation, recreation, energy development, disease, and degraded habitats due to feral horses, long-term drought, over-utilization, and wildfire. The deer population in D-11 has been stagnant at historically low levels for nearly two decades. Fawn:doe ratios are declining and buck:doe ratios are high. The habitat encompassed by the DAU is fragmented and degraded throughout much of the herd’s important ranges. Predation may also be affecting fawn survival. Hemorrhagic and chronic wasting diseases have been documented in D-11 and may negatively influence the population size and survival.
Significant issues facing this deer herd include declining fawn:doe ratios, population stagnation, recreation, energy development, disease, and degraded habitats due to feral horses, long-term drought, over-utilization, and wildfire. The deer population in D-11 has been stagnant at historically low levels for nearly two decades. Fawn:doe ratios are declining and buck:doe ratios are high. The habitat encompassed by the DAU is fragmented and degraded throughout much of the herd’s important ranges. Predation may also be affecting fawn survival. Hemorrhagic and chronic wasting diseases have been documented in D-11 and may negatively influence the population size and survival.
This new trend of lowering the buck:doe ratio as a means of “combating CWD” annoys the hell out of me. Surely there has to be another way. Like, oh I dunno, increase doe tags would be one option. There are more ancient does walking around than 5+ year old bucks. Obviously you’d have to balance it with overall population level, but surely there are other options than destroying the quality of these hunts.
How about we just kill all the mature bucks out of the unit? Then draw odds will increase because people like me will have no interest in hunting there. Win-win!
How about we just kill all the mature bucks out of the unit? Then draw odds will increase because people like me will have no interest in hunting there. Win-win!
Last edited:
elkduds
Well-known member
I haven't been in that country regularly for 15 years. Back then the habitat issues were oil/gas development @ a frantic pace, normal aridity which often was called drought, and lack of winter range due to human development. The mesa/valley topography w private land along roads on valley floors greatly limited access and concentrated hunting pressure on dispersed accessible public lands. No surprise in any of that. The alarming info from CPW now is that habitat degradation, persistent drought and disease mean this former deer factory, long the best in the state, is in serious decline. Sounds like CPW is acknowledging they can't maintain deer habitat and herds and thus are surrendering to lower normal herd sizes. The fact of increasing elk herds nods to CWD as a heavy factor in deer decline. I consider predator #s to be an aspect of habitat and a variable correlated to deer herd vitality, so decreasing deer herds would show a higher loss to predation.
marksjeep
Well-known member
The entire D11 report is fugly.
-Past management/objectives were based on poorly performing models
-Habitat sucks... Feral horses, energy development, drought, fragmentation
Then there's this:
In D-11 specifically, probable factors for population decline include long-term habitat degradation, habitat loss and fragmentation associated with energy development, and management strategies that favor high buck: doe ratios.
But the preferred alternative maintains high buck:doe ratios "slight decrease".
-Past management/objectives were based on poorly performing models
-Habitat sucks... Feral horses, energy development, drought, fragmentation
Then there's this:
In D-11 specifically, probable factors for population decline include long-term habitat degradation, habitat loss and fragmentation associated with energy development, and management strategies that favor high buck: doe ratios.
But the preferred alternative maintains high buck:doe ratios "slight decrease".
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,340
I guess my question would be how long do you need a lower population when dealing with CWD? If it's short term, it makes way more sense to kill a lot of bucks. If you are looking at a 10 year time span then yes I agree issue more doe tags.
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 705
Is there a herd to manage anymore?
Here is the problem. From page 31 of the proposed Book Cliffs deer plan, moderate decrease in buck:doe ratio: “The increase in buck licenses will significantly reduce the number of high quality individuals harvested.” Then in the adjacent table it notes this moderate decrease in buck:doe ratio option “may decrease” disease prevalence. So let’s for sure destroy the quality of these deer units, and maybe decrease CWD. How is this even an option?
Submitted my feedback via email.
Submitted my feedback via email.
Buffs35
Well-known member
They had the same management style in Morgan county and out in Sterling. Decimated the herd and didn't stop cwd, herd still hasn't come back. And now whitetails are encroaching on mule deer territory. Just brilliant.
An this is what I've always asked myself, what is the problem with people having an issue with harvesting does? Is there a taboo with it stemming back when deer were almost extinct?
Similar threads
