COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,565
Great Video On Human Caused Disturbance Studies of Elk
- Thread starter COEngineer
- Start date
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
This whole elk recruitment bit has left me perplexed recently. On the one side we have hunters complaining and even the CPW claiming elk populations are declining and limiting archery seasons in OTC areas. Then on the other hand, the total population estimates straight from their website do not show a shrinking elk population anymore since 2011. Now, maybe that increasing pop is only in areas such as the Spanish land grants where us mere peasants may not go, but their elk pop number in total does not show this alarming decline.
2005 | 258,370.00 |
2006 | 271,840.00 |
2007 | 291,960.00 |
2008 | 283,210.00 |
2009 | 286,510.00 |
2010 | 283,430.00 |
2011 | 264,170.00 |
2012 | 266,300.00 |
2013 | 264,025.00 |
2014 | 279,490.00 |
2015 | 275,880.00 |
2016 | 277,750.00 |
2017 | 281,700.00 |
2018 | 286,680.00 |
2019 | 292,760.00 |
Last edited:
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
My personal opinion, (and you know what that's worth) is we had a period in there where most elk died of Chronic Lead Poisoning.
Kind of like all those 1996-2004 "wolves" around Gardiner, MT driving through in pickup trucks with cow elk in the back that they were taking home to put in their freezers.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
55 manager...
Where you used to be able to shoot elk in May because they were getting into crops. The population objective for the DAU is zero.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
More referring to their clearly very scientific method of "estimating" each year.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So 12 DAU have declined in population.
Two DAU don't have management plans (E-21 and E-51). Doubt they want any elk in E-51.
Three are still over the population objective for the DAU (E-1, E-3, E-55).
Five are at the population objective for the DAU (E-9, E-12, E-16, E-26, and E-39).
Two are below the population objective for the DAU (E-31 and E-31).
Two DAU don't have management plans (E-21 and E-51). Doubt they want any elk in E-51.
Three are still over the population objective for the DAU (E-1, E-3, E-55).
Five are at the population objective for the DAU (E-9, E-12, E-16, E-26, and E-39).
Two are below the population objective for the DAU (E-31 and E-31).
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@Oak and @Dinkshooter
This might be a better way to look at the numbers % change from 2005 to 2019. Some herds are bigger than others so that can skew the meaning.
This might be a better way to look at the numbers % change from 2005 to 2019. Some herds are bigger than others so that can skew the meaning.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
13 have Declined. Do you have a link to the population objectives? I can add that into the table and then map it.
To be clear, recruitment is definitely an issue in some DAU, and the impacts of recreation are a huge problem. In some regards, I feel like we are managing some of these populations into a death spiral. Fragmentation and declining quality of habitat, impacts of recreation, vehicle collisions, etc, cause population declines. CPW writes a new herd management plan with a lower population objective (aka, what we currently have) because they claim the habitat will not support the elk. They begin managing for this lower population (hunting licenses), etc.
When a land-use decision comes up and there are concerns about the impacts on wildlife, the proponents can pull out the management plan and say, "Hey, you are at objective in this herd. What's the problem?" Plan gets approved, habitat quality/quantity suffers, populations decline. Rinse, repeat.
When a land-use decision comes up and there are concerns about the impacts on wildlife, the proponents can pull out the management plan and say, "Hey, you are at objective in this herd. What's the problem?" Plan gets approved, habitat quality/quantity suffers, populations decline. Rinse, repeat.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Absolutely. Similar to MT albeit not to the same degree.
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
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Who picks the color shades for these maps? Cripes.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Listen guy, I'm a database manager not a cartographer. What colors do you prefer, black like your soul
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
more distinct, I'm not judging the millennial colors themselves.
There was a topic during the CPW commission meeting yesterday about the process over the last year to develop a document titled Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind. I had a pit in my stomach listening to the presentation, primarily because of the number of times the word "collaboration" was used. 
The draft is not quite ready for public consumption yet, but I understand that it should be available for public comment sometime in the next week. You can watch the presentation here. I spoke with a friend who was involved in the project and he said there are some good things in it, but some issues as well. The issues include a lack of landscape-level consideration, a lack of teeth to incentivize the use of this guidance, and it's a long document. But it's only guidance.
The next item on the agenda following this presentation was the annual consideration and approval of non-motorized trail grant funding. That presentation begins here. This year the committee recommended about $3.5 million in projects for approval. About 52% of that is for maintenance and the balance is for planning and construction. I can't think of any trails projects that would be considered a positive for wildlife. Correct me if I'm forgetting something. So this annual process of funding new trails is a net reduction for wildlife, and all we can do is work to make that reduction as least impactful as possible.
Before the Commission ultimately approved the project, Commissioner Tuchton asked some questions about one particular proposal that had been denied last year due to impacts to bighorn sheep. I think it's worthwhile to listen to his questions and the explanation in order to better understand the process of minimizing that net reduction I mentioned above. It was a pretty discouraging exchange. You can listen to Commissioner Tuchton's questions and the reply from NE Regional Manager Mark Leslie here. Note specifically his comments about it being "incumbent upon us to compromise when we can," that "in many instances, if we don't fund it we don't have a seat at the table," and the fact that even if they do require things like seasonal closures and dog restrictions, there is no budget for enforcement.
While I was listening to this meeting yesterday, the preview for the video in the OP came across my news feed. It was a startling dichotomy.
Edit: *Tutchton
The draft is not quite ready for public consumption yet, but I understand that it should be available for public comment sometime in the next week. You can watch the presentation here. I spoke with a friend who was involved in the project and he said there are some good things in it, but some issues as well. The issues include a lack of landscape-level consideration, a lack of teeth to incentivize the use of this guidance, and it's a long document. But it's only guidance.The next item on the agenda following this presentation was the annual consideration and approval of non-motorized trail grant funding. That presentation begins here. This year the committee recommended about $3.5 million in projects for approval. About 52% of that is for maintenance and the balance is for planning and construction. I can't think of any trails projects that would be considered a positive for wildlife. Correct me if I'm forgetting something. So this annual process of funding new trails is a net reduction for wildlife, and all we can do is work to make that reduction as least impactful as possible.
Before the Commission ultimately approved the project, Commissioner Tuchton asked some questions about one particular proposal that had been denied last year due to impacts to bighorn sheep. I think it's worthwhile to listen to his questions and the explanation in order to better understand the process of minimizing that net reduction I mentioned above. It was a pretty discouraging exchange. You can listen to Commissioner Tuchton's questions and the reply from NE Regional Manager Mark Leslie here. Note specifically his comments about it being "incumbent upon us to compromise when we can," that "in many instances, if we don't fund it we don't have a seat at the table," and the fact that even if they do require things like seasonal closures and dog restrictions, there is no budget for enforcement.
While I was listening to this meeting yesterday, the preview for the video in the OP came across my news feed. It was a startling dichotomy.
Edit: *Tutchton
Last edited:
