Northwest Colorado Deer Herd Management Plans open to public comment

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,298
Location
CO
so i'm surmising that we have a problem in colorado that is related to but altogether different from the montana one.

we have mule declines that are occuring predominantly due to factors outside of hunting. some substantial ones due to natural factors such as drought, nutrient availability and density, and harsh winters. others that might fall out of the realm of "natural" like loss of migration corridors due to development and loss of winter range and severe winter range.

these declines are not helped by areas where cpw wants to thin out mature bucks based on the fact that mature bucks show a higher prevalance of CWD. but other than that, hunting them is not necessarily the issue.

but then where we start see some relation to montana is that cpw still feels an obligation to provide ample opportunity, when maybe less opportunity should be part of our solution for attempting to reverse this spiral. while that good and ample opportunity might not necessarily be contributing to declines, it sure isn't part of the solution to stopping the declines.

is that good place to kind of summarize our situation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oak

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,298
Location
CO
so i learned reading these that CPW has specific criteria for issuing antlerless licenses as well as buck licenses during the rut (montana, take note):

Criteria for antlerless and 4th season buck seasons:
  1. Each DAU that offers limited antlerless (doe) deer licenses must be within the population objective range.
  2. Each DAU that offers a limited 4th season buck deer hunt must average more than 25 bucks:100 does over the previous three years, and be within the long-term sex ratio objective range.
Would it make sense to add some criteria to this list? like, i dunno, instead of just lowering the population objective in a new HMP because the herd is declining maybe eliminate doe harvest in conjunction? just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

why can a DAU lose doe harvest if the the DAU falls out of it's population objective range, yet when a new HMP is written and herd has been out of it's previous objective range for some time they just reset the objective range and accordingly lower all the tag allocations proportionately? why was doe harvest not eliminated before resetting the objective range?

or, maybe more appropriately and accurately, why would the criteria allow doe harvest to resume under a new reset population objective, when the old population objective precluded it?

might need to do some studying.

i'm starting to come up with some comments for myself to submit i think.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oak

WYelker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
291
Well here is a pasted copy of my comment.

I am simply amazed at how the data in the area seems so contradictory. I worked on several of the studies with Chuck Anderson and the main take always that Chuck shared for the last 20 or so years is that in 22 the habitat is not a limiting factor. I recall several public presentation in which he showed that decent body scores, high birth weights of fawns, the high pregnancy rates and the high birth rates all proved that the range was not a limiting factor in the area. His data showed that with some habitat work, we can greatly improve habitat and that Oil/Gas development is not a major impact on the herds in the long run. In many cases the development actually helped to create edge habitat and over time increased forage quality etc.

It is a shame what they did. We can’t manage to our old goal, but we have had 35,000 deer, so let’s put the new goal to 30,000 deer and kill off the excess 5,000 deer.

Sorry but the whole thing sucks. I wish that Chucks Predator research was released. It could greatly change the conversation. While I have only seen bits of the data, there is something there that would flip this entire conversation….

At any rate my long comment. I tried hard not to be an a*hole but it is nearly impossible given the current BS…

I write this comment with absolute discus and disdain for the current deer management practices present in NW Colorado. I honestly can not relay how sickening it has been to watch the slaughter of our once great deer herds in the NW. Watching the last 2 falls and seeing piles of healthy doe and fawn deer at the processing plants is simply beyond comprehension. It is wrong on so many many levels. Between that and the disastrous CWD mitigation process the deer hunting has been all but destroyed in the NW corner for a decade if not more...

Sorry but I can not fathom how poorly the herds in the NW have been managed. For decades I worked with CPW and supported the work being done. Served on several groups and worked with managers on a wide variety of issues. Now I no longer see CPW as an ally in management but a foe.

Having volunteered with Chuck Anderson on his many studies in the NW I find it interesting that his data, his reporting appears to be contrary to what is currently being reported in the HMP. I recall public meetings in which his data was shared to prove that habitat (at least in the Basin) was not a limiting factor to the herds. He had significant data that showed that the deer were healthy and on all but the harshest of winters they wintered well. His data showed that the OIl and gas development in 22 was not a major concern for the health and longevity of the herd. He presented slides that showed the area could likely support larger herds. Between the long term body condition scores, the pregnancy rates, the number of doe birthing fawns(including the really high rate of twins) and the number of viable fawns hitting the ground in the spring with good body weights, his presentations and data suggest that the habitat in the area was not a limiting factor. Yes the winter of 07/08 was an exception, but the conditions that winter were different than any winter I have personally observed since 1984. Between the data he had shared and published and the hands-on experience I had with his project (including the collaring, capture, preg checking, etc.) I simply do not but that the range can not sustain the herds and that we need to cull.

The last HMP was simply wrong(I am not sure how I missed it but I can honestly say I had no idea that the numbers/herd objectives were being so drastically cut). I do not understand at all how we can kill thousands of female deer in the NW and call it management, especially after myself and hundreds of other sportsmen fought so hard just a few years ago to end doe hunting in all areas where the populations are under objective. So instead of working and managing wildlife, growing our herds, CPW simply moves the goal line. Moves it so much that the currently struggling population is somehow instantly a surplus and we slaughter doe and fawns by the thousands over the last 2 years.

I strongly encourage the following actions to save the deer herds and restore quality to the hunting in the NW...

1. End all doe and fawn hunting immediately.

2. Set a good population goal that actually maintains what we used to have, while I understand the old objectives, prior to the last HMP update, were unattainable(at least by the management strategies in use) split the difference between the new low goals and the old. Raise the herd objective in each area by splitting the difference between the old objective and the new low number objective that have been used as an excuse to slaughter the doe and fawns. This includes all HMP areas.

3. Greatly reduce the war on mature bucks. It is sickening that CPW has taken this position. What is the point of hunting if you can not hunt a mature deer? Simply put you have no idea how to manage CWD and as a result everything you try is experimental at best. Seriously this year for the first time ever I watched spike and forked horn bucks do the majority of breeding.

4. Make the 3rd and 4th season hunts extremely limited and restore quality to hunting.

5. Support and push for expanded bear hunting. Simply put the CPW can no longer ignore and play stupid on bear manamgment. It is horrible how poorly CPW has handled this situation. Then to think that you demote and remove the one guy in the NW who understands the issues and speaks up?

Lastly, figure out who has it wrong? Was Chuck Anderson lying when he sat in meetings in Rifle, Meeker etc. and reviewed his data or is the HMP justifications wrong? I know in my gut who I trust and it is the researcher who appeared to be there for science and for the deer...

I know that this comment is likely to hit hard and it should. As I consider the current management in the NW to be some of the worst practices I have observed in CO. I would put the current management in the NW on a lower level than Montana management, which is sad as we used to laugh at MT and how they managed the herds.

This has done one thing for certain, it has taken away my desire to hunt Colorado entirely. I have seen several of my good friends in shock dismay at the current status in NW Colorado and several of them are done hunting deer in CO. It is sickening to think that NR are cashing in 20 points to hunt 4th season deer in 22 and the odds of them seeing a buck over 180 are virtually 0. That seeing any mature buck in 22 is now a miracle...

Do the right thing and restore quality to the hunts in the NW.

SIncerely,

Robert Winn
 

WYelker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
291
so i'm surmising that we have a problem in colorado that is related to but altogether different from the montana one.

we have mule declines that are occuring predominantly due to factors outside of hunting. some substantial ones due to natural factors such as drought, nutrient availability and density, and harsh winters. others that might fall out of the realm of "natural" like loss of migration corridors due to development and loss of winter range and severe winter range.

these declines are not helped by areas where cpw wants to thin out mature bucks based on the fact that mature bucks show a higher prevalance of CWD. but other than that, hunting them is not necessarily the issue.

but then where we start see some relation to montana is that cpw still feels an obligation to provide ample opportunity, when maybe less opportunity should be part of our solution for attempting to reverse this spiral. while that good and ample opportunity might not necessarily be contributing to declines, it sure isn't part of the solution to stopping the declines.

is that good place to kind of summarize our situation?
I greatly question the narrative…. See my other response. I am not convinced that the range is the limiting factor.
 

theat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
828
Location
NW Montana
Well here is a pasted copy of my comment.

I am simply amazed at how the data in the area seems so contradictory. I worked on several of the studies with Chuck Anderson and the main take always that Chuck shared for the last 20 or so years is that in 22 the habitat is not a limiting factor. I recall several public presentation in which he showed that decent body scores, high birth weights of fawns, the high pregnancy rates and the high birth rates all proved that the range was not a limiting factor in the area. His data showed that with some habitat work, we can greatly improve habitat and that Oil/Gas development is not a major impact on the herds in the long run. In many cases the development actually helped to create edge habitat and over time increased forage quality etc.

It is a shame what they did. We can’t manage to our old goal, but we have had 35,000 deer, so let’s put the new goal to 30,000 deer and kill off the excess 5,000 deer.

Sorry but the whole thing sucks. I wish that Chucks Predator research was released. It could greatly change the conversation. While I have only seen bits of the data, there is something there that would flip this entire conversation….

At any rate my long comment. I tried hard not to be an a*hole but it is nearly impossible given the current BS…

I write this comment with absolute discus and disdain for the current deer management practices present in NW Colorado. I honestly can not relay how sickening it has been to watch the slaughter of our once great deer herds in the NW. Watching the last 2 falls and seeing piles of healthy doe and fawn deer at the processing plants is simply beyond comprehension. It is wrong on so many many levels. Between that and the disastrous CWD mitigation process the deer hunting has been all but destroyed in the NW corner for a decade if not more...

Sorry but I can not fathom how poorly the herds in the NW have been managed. For decades I worked with CPW and supported the work being done. Served on several groups and worked with managers on a wide variety of issues. Now I no longer see CPW as an ally in management but a foe.

Having volunteered with Chuck Anderson on his many studies in the NW I find it interesting that his data, his reporting appears to be contrary to what is currently being reported in the HMP. I recall public meetings in which his data was shared to prove that habitat (at least in the Basin) was not a limiting factor to the herds. He had significant data that showed that the deer were healthy and on all but the harshest of winters they wintered well. His data showed that the OIl and gas development in 22 was not a major concern for the health and longevity of the herd. He presented slides that showed the area could likely support larger herds. Between the long term body condition scores, the pregnancy rates, the number of doe birthing fawns(including the really high rate of twins) and the number of viable fawns hitting the ground in the spring with good body weights, his presentations and data suggest that the habitat in the area was not a limiting factor. Yes the winter of 07/08 was an exception, but the conditions that winter were different than any winter I have personally observed since 1984. Between the data he had shared and published and the hands-on experience I had with his project (including the collaring, capture, preg checking, etc.) I simply do not but that the range can not sustain the herds and that we need to cull.

The last HMP was simply wrong(I am not sure how I missed it but I can honestly say I had no idea that the numbers/herd objectives were being so drastically cut). I do not understand at all how we can kill thousands of female deer in the NW and call it management, especially after myself and hundreds of other sportsmen fought so hard just a few years ago to end doe hunting in all areas where the populations are under objective. So instead of working and managing wildlife, growing our herds, CPW simply moves the goal line. Moves it so much that the currently struggling population is somehow instantly a surplus and we slaughter doe and fawns by the thousands over the last 2 years.

I strongly encourage the following actions to save the deer herds and restore quality to the hunting in the NW...

1. End all doe and fawn hunting immediately.

2. Set a good population goal that actually maintains what we used to have, while I understand the old objectives, prior to the last HMP update, were unattainable(at least by the management strategies in use) split the difference between the new low goals and the old. Raise the herd objective in each area by splitting the difference between the old objective and the new low number objective that have been used as an excuse to slaughter the doe and fawns. This includes all HMP areas.

3. Greatly reduce the war on mature bucks. It is sickening that CPW has taken this position. What is the point of hunting if you can not hunt a mature deer? Simply put you have no idea how to manage CWD and as a result everything you try is experimental at best. Seriously this year for the first time ever I watched spike and forked horn bucks do the majority of breeding.

4. Make the 3rd and 4th season hunts extremely limited and restore quality to hunting.

5. Support and push for expanded bear hunting. Simply put the CPW can no longer ignore and play stupid on bear manamgment. It is horrible how poorly CPW has handled this situation. Then to think that you demote and remove the one guy in the NW who understands the issues and speaks up?

Lastly, figure out who has it wrong? Was Chuck Anderson lying when he sat in meetings in Rifle, Meeker etc. and reviewed his data or is the HMP justifications wrong? I know in my gut who I trust and it is the researcher who appeared to be there for science and for the deer...

I know that this comment is likely to hit hard and it should. As I consider the current management in the NW to be some of the worst practices I have observed in CO. I would put the current management in the NW on a lower level than Montana management, which is sad as we used to laugh at MT and how they managed the herds.

This has done one thing for certain, it has taken away my desire to hunt Colorado entirely. I have seen several of my good friends in shock dismay at the current status in NW Colorado and several of them are done hunting deer in CO. It is sickening to think that NR are cashing in 20 points to hunt 4th season deer in 22 and the odds of them seeing a buck over 180 are virtually 0. That seeing any mature buck in 22 is now a miracle...

Do the right thing and restore quality to the hunts in the NW.

SIncerely,

Robert Winn

I also had the privilege of being a small part of the mule deer project Chuck Anderson has been doing out of Meeker. I was there for the December 2015, 2016 and 2017 captures but mostly worked on Darbys projects and just filled in on Chucks when they where falling behind. I was pretty impressed with the long term commitment to good scientific research.

Definitely made it tough on us capture crews tying to catch the same deer year after year and some of the deer twice a year. It was interesting to see how different deer adapted their escape strategies over time to avoid being caught by the helicopter. Some does eventually came to the conclusion that running and hiding was pointless and would just stand there and let us net and hobble them. Others got even more feisty and angry each time.

I don't hunt or pay much attention to what is going on with wildlife management in Colorado, but it is sad to hear that the information gained by these expensive and challenging studies is being ignored by the decision makers.

If you are interested, here is a video I put together of catching deer out of Meeker, Craig and Rangley during December of 2016. Most of it was not part of Chucks study, but a few fawns near the end were slung in to his crew.

 
Last edited:

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,298
Location
CO
I don't hunt or pay much attention to what is going on with wildlife management in Colorado, but it is sad to hear that the information gained by these expensive and challenging studies is being ignored by the decision makers.

i would be interested in knowing what exactly was gleaned from these studies and understand how much the information is being ignored, if it is. are their links to the studies anywhere?

my comments to CPW on these HMPs was not exactly glowing. I still give CPW more benefit of the doubt on their management than wyelker does and i'd still argue it's laughable to even compare NW colorado deer management to montana. but i'm not happy with some of the HMPs and some particular thresholds for management decisions, most particularly doe harvest.

i want CPW to provide better evidence before just declaring that carrying capacity is shit now so this population is the best we got and can have. doe harvest thresholds should be more than "the population is within objective range," especially when you're always adjusting the objective range down because the herd is declining; a herd that's been on a steady decline should have minimal to no doe harvest, regardless of whatever population objective is set IMO. 3rd season needs to be shifted earlier again or they need to cut quotas. all these things.

i want the HMPs to talk more about how to try to recover and increase mule deer in declining herds, rather than just adjusting the population objective downward and resuming doe harvest.
 
Last edited:

theat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
828
Location
NW Montana
i would be interested in knowing what exactly was gleaned from these studies and understand how much the information is being ignored, if it is. are their links to the studies anywhere?

my comments to CPW on these HMPs was not exactly glowing. I still give CPW more benefit of the doubt on their management than wyelker does and i'd still argue it's laughable to even compare NW colorado deer management to montana. but i'm not happy with some of the HMPs and some particular thresholds for management decisions, most particularly doe harvest.

i want CPW to provide better evidence before just declaring that carrying capacity is shit now so this population is the best we got and can have. doe harvest thresholds should be more than "the population is within objective range," especially when you're always adjusting the objective range down because the herd is declining. 3rd season needs to be shifted earlier again or they need to cut quotas. all these things.

i want the HMPs to talk more about how to try to recover and increase mule deer in declining herds, rather than just adjusting the population objective downward and resuming doe harvest.

No idea what all was gleaned from the studies as I was just a grunt working for a contractor and haven't stayed in touch with the biologist down there. I would assume that you could get some info from either CPW or by contacting Chuck or another biologist in the area.

Definitely agree that Montana is a s*%t show compared to what little I know about Colorados deer management and Im not sure why you would think I'm comparing MT to CO.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
3,298
Location
CO
Definitely agree that Montana is a s*%t show compared to what little I know about Colorados deer management and Im not sure why you would think I'm comparing MT to CO.
`
not you. wyelker suggests such. see above post.
 

Mallardsx2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
1,576
Wolves will change all of these theory’s and hard work.

But until that happens, end the doe hunting 100%.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
15,004
Location
Colorado
Well here is a pasted copy of my comment.

I am simply amazed at how the data in the area seems so contradictory. I worked on several of the studies with Chuck Anderson and the main take always that Chuck shared for the last 20 or so years is that in 22 the habitat is not a limiting factor. I recall several public presentation in which he showed that decent body scores, high birth weights of fawns, the high pregnancy rates and the high birth rates all proved that the range was not a limiting factor in the area. His data showed that with some habitat work, we can greatly improve habitat and that Oil/Gas development is not a major impact on the herds in the long run. In many cases the development actually helped to create edge habitat and over time increased forage quality etc.

It is a shame what they did. We can’t manage to our old goal, but we have had 35,000 deer, so let’s put the new goal to 30,000 deer and kill off the excess 5,000 deer.

Sorry but the whole thing sucks. I wish that Chucks Predator research was released. It could greatly change the conversation. While I have only seen bits of the data, there is something there that would flip this entire conversation….

At any rate my long comment. I tried hard not to be an a*hole but it is nearly impossible given the current BS…

I write this comment with absolute discus and disdain for the current deer management practices present in NW Colorado. I honestly can not relay how sickening it has been to watch the slaughter of our once great deer herds in the NW. Watching the last 2 falls and seeing piles of healthy doe and fawn deer at the processing plants is simply beyond comprehension. It is wrong on so many many levels. Between that and the disastrous CWD mitigation process the deer hunting has been all but destroyed in the NW corner for a decade if not more...

Sorry but I can not fathom how poorly the herds in the NW have been managed. For decades I worked with CPW and supported the work being done. Served on several groups and worked with managers on a wide variety of issues. Now I no longer see CPW as an ally in management but a foe.

Having volunteered with Chuck Anderson on his many studies in the NW I find it interesting that his data, his reporting appears to be contrary to what is currently being reported in the HMP. I recall public meetings in which his data was shared to prove that habitat (at least in the Basin) was not a limiting factor to the herds. He had significant data that showed that the deer were healthy and on all but the harshest of winters they wintered well. His data showed that the OIl and gas development in 22 was not a major concern for the health and longevity of the herd. He presented slides that showed the area could likely support larger herds. Between the long term body condition scores, the pregnancy rates, the number of doe birthing fawns(including the really high rate of twins) and the number of viable fawns hitting the ground in the spring with good body weights, his presentations and data suggest that the habitat in the area was not a limiting factor. Yes the winter of 07/08 was an exception, but the conditions that winter were different than any winter I have personally observed since 1984. Between the data he had shared and published and the hands-on experience I had with his project (including the collaring, capture, preg checking, etc.) I simply do not but that the range can not sustain the herds and that we need to cull.

The last HMP was simply wrong(I am not sure how I missed it but I can honestly say I had no idea that the numbers/herd objectives were being so drastically cut). I do not understand at all how we can kill thousands of female deer in the NW and call it management, especially after myself and hundreds of other sportsmen fought so hard just a few years ago to end doe hunting in all areas where the populations are under objective. So instead of working and managing wildlife, growing our herds, CPW simply moves the goal line. Moves it so much that the currently struggling population is somehow instantly a surplus and we slaughter doe and fawns by the thousands over the last 2 years.

I strongly encourage the following actions to save the deer herds and restore quality to the hunting in the NW...

1. End all doe and fawn hunting immediately.

2. Set a good population goal that actually maintains what we used to have, while I understand the old objectives, prior to the last HMP update, were unattainable(at least by the management strategies in use) split the difference between the new low goals and the old. Raise the herd objective in each area by splitting the difference between the old objective and the new low number objective that have been used as an excuse to slaughter the doe and fawns. This includes all HMP areas.

3. Greatly reduce the war on mature bucks. It is sickening that CPW has taken this position. What is the point of hunting if you can not hunt a mature deer? Simply put you have no idea how to manage CWD and as a result everything you try is experimental at best. Seriously this year for the first time ever I watched spike and forked horn bucks do the majority of breeding.

4. Make the 3rd and 4th season hunts extremely limited and restore quality to hunting.

5. Support and push for expanded bear hunting. Simply put the CPW can no longer ignore and play stupid on bear manamgment. It is horrible how poorly CPW has handled this situation. Then to think that you demote and remove the one guy in the NW who understands the issues and speaks up?

Lastly, figure out who has it wrong? Was Chuck Anderson lying when he sat in meetings in Rifle, Meeker etc. and reviewed his data or is the HMP justifications wrong? I know in my gut who I trust and it is the researcher who appeared to be there for science and for the deer...

I know that this comment is likely to hit hard and it should. As I consider the current management in the NW to be some of the worst practices I have observed in CO. I would put the current management in the NW on a lower level than Montana management, which is sad as we used to laugh at MT and how they managed the herds.

This has done one thing for certain, it has taken away my desire to hunt Colorado entirely. I have seen several of my good friends in shock dismay at the current status in NW Colorado and several of them are done hunting deer in CO. It is sickening to think that NR are cashing in 20 points to hunt 4th season deer in 22 and the odds of them seeing a buck over 180 are virtually 0. That seeing any mature buck in 22 is now a miracle...

Do the right thing and restore quality to the hunts in the NW.

SIncerely,

Robert Winn
You know Chuck Anderson is still the Mammals Research Section Leader, right? And his published work is linked on his bio page? Your comments would be more substantive if you removed the personal attacks and cited specific examples in the draft plans where the proposed management strategies conflict with the published research. If I was the CPW biologist that received the pile of garbage you just posted, I'd file it in the receptacle sitting on the floor next to the desk.
 

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
3,653
Location
CO Springs.
His data showed that with some habitat work, we can greatly improve habitat and that Oil/Gas development is not a major impact on the herds in the long run. In many cases the development actually helped to create edge habitat and over time increased forage quality etc.
The 1st 3 studies I googled discredit your claim that drilling is neutral to beneficial to deer herds.

A new study out of the University of Wyoming shows that mule deer miss out on some of their best eating because of energy development.


 

WYelker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
291
I also had the privilege of being a small part of the mule deer project Chuck Anderson has been doing out of Meeker. I was there for the December 2015, 2016 and 2017 captures but mostly worked on Darbys projects and just filled in on Chucks when they where falling behind. I was pretty impressed with the long term commitment to good scientific research.

Definitely made it tough on us capture crews tying to catch the same deer year after year and some of the deer twice a year. It was interesting to see how different deer adapted their escape strategies over time to avoid being caught by the helicopter. Some does eventually came to the conclusion that running and hiding was pointless and would just stand there and let us net and hobble them. Others got even more feisty and angry each time.

I don't hunt or pay much attention to what is going on with wildlife management in Colorado, but it is sad to hear that the information gained by these expensive and challenging studies is being ignored by the decision makers.

If you are interested, here is a video I put together of catching deer out of Meeker, Craig and Rangley during December of 2016. Most of it was not part of Chucks study, but a few fawns near the end were slung in to his crew.

Recognized a lot of areas in those videos. I do have a question, with Darby were you preg checking and body scoring the animals like they did with Chuck? Or was it just simply collaring and releasing?
 

WYelker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
291
You know Chuck Anderson is still the Mammals Research Section Leader, right? And his published work is linked on his bio page? Your comments would be more substantive if you removed the personal attacks and cited specific examples in the draft plans where the proposed management strategies conflict with the published research. If I was the CPW biologist that received the pile of garbage you just posted, I'd file it in the receptacle sitting on the floor next to the desk.
Haha. Heaven forbid someone have some emotion in their response. Sorry I did not have the time to dig into the data and the research from Chuck. At some point it gets to where you give up trying to be d cent and trying to work with them. That point for me was reached when they completely ignored the public’s comments on the CWD buck plan and went right ahead killing every buck they can find.

I am sorry but 20 plus year of working with the CPW, I have virtually no confidence left in the biologist or the organization. There are a few guys left that get it and really want to do the hard work. But they are slowly being ran out.
 

WYelker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
291
The 1st 3 studies I googled discredit your claim that drilling is neutral to beneficial to deer herds.

A new study out of the University of Wyoming shows that mule deer miss out on some of their best eating because of energy development.



I was citing studies from the areas in question. The studies showed that energy develop in the short run had some negative impacts that with some modification could be mitigated. Over the long run in the basin the energy development actually improved feed, increased edge habitat and according to the studies done by chick. Range condition and feed were not the issue.

Surely you can under stand how different developments in different habitats and in different states might have some different results.
 

old270hunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
222
Location
Bat Sh!+ Crazy, California
I can say with a few decades of experience, that NW Colorado deer herds are in decent shape. I can also say Elk have gone down, Turkey is way up to the point all can have 1, and antelope have expanded their range. And ya’ll should be practicing catch n release on the trout n whitefish. In the White river basin. Just saying. The rest of you without boots on ground knowledge should bow out. I had an acquaintance named Claud that worked this area for CDW, now it’s the LGBTQ CPW, I bet Claud would agree with my assessment.
 
Last edited:
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Forum statistics

Threads
104,646
Messages
1,729,911
Members
32,712
Latest member
Kubotaman1
Top