https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/24/southwest-colorado-elk-herds-dying/

Interesting article. Interesting that a die-hard bow-hunter complains about muzzleloading hunters disturbing elk during the rut. I'd bet the number of bowhunter days in the field during the rut dwarfs the number of muzzleloader days. Hell, either-sex archery tags are unlimited, over-the-counter.

Yep, if they are worried about hunting in the rut,they need to hunt about a week later.I have run into more and more of those types Smoke.

I would not put a lot of faith in the CPW finding the cause.It took them 10+years and multiple studies to come up with the same conclusion as us hunters concerning deer numbers. They were simply killing too many deer in hunting season.

Down in the Gunnison country CPW decided they had too many elk,so thru Either Sex ,OTC w/cap tags,they cut the herd in half.Now they figure they killed too many so all cow tags are now "B" tags.Funny thing though if the cow jumps a fence onto private land, it becomes an "A" tag,
Elk herd management at it's finest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's all about the $$$$.

I was about to post that article.

I've been having this "discussion" with CPW people I know and among us hunters in my neck of the woods for 20 years.

Couple things; Technology has made it easier for people to get into elk country, and to stay longer. Beginning with the advent of common 4wd's in the early 70's, to GoreTex, ATV's, to GPS, spots that for decades I rarely, and in a couple places never, saw elk hunters have now been "discovered".

As a high school kid in the early 70's I remember the blackpowder groups showing up at CPW meetings--dressed in buckskins--advocating more blackpowder permits. Their argument was this more about a "lifestyle" than it was with the very limited success with flintlocks and cap & ball muzzleloaders. Then came inline action muzzleloaders, and the technology took off, and the buckskin clad "lifstyle" hunters disappeared, and it was a whole new mindset. Even more so with advent of compound bows that brought lots of rifle hunters into archery, and doubled and tripled the effective range of bows (and yes I have been archery hunting since 1971 and have on occasion blackpowder hunted). If I were God, I would prohibit scopes on centerfire rifles for the 1st and 2nd rifle seasons. Regardless, the number of hunters out there in September has increased exponentially. And so has the number of "lifestyle immigrants" who are mtn biking to mushroom picking (for gawds sake). I have been saying we are at a tipping point with the sheer numbers of people in the Rockies and still enjoy our wildlands.

The article suggests September activities are to blame. The pregnancy rates are good, but are the cows being bred in the second or third estrus cycle? That's what the CPW is trying to find out. Studies in other states have demonstrated calves born after July 1 sustain about a 90% mortality rate. They are easier pickings for predators, and more importantly they do not have the weight to survive winter.

Although it would be tough on our ungulates, every day I continue to send lamentations heavenward, praying for a repeat of the 1970's series of winters. It would change the minds of a LOT of these lifestyle yuppies--including yuppie hunters--about the "great weather and mild winters" we have in the Southern Rockies........

I could go on, but I've got some handloading to do for my son's and my pronghorn hunt in a couple weeks........

Boy ain't that the truth. I was involved in that fiasco. Needless to say, what the biologists in the field say, does NOT translate into what is decided in Denver and within the Wildlife Commission.

I have been also saying that what we saw happen with mule deer could well happen with elk. In the 1960's the state had 1.1 million deer. Today we have 450,000 deer. That 1.1 million represented an over population and the CPW went to great lengths starting in the late 60's to reduce deer numbers. I was hunting in the early 70's and here is an example for the Uncompahgre Valley and Gunnison Basin deer seasons. I know many won't believe this but I have my and my dad's deer licenses from the early 70 's to prove it:

--Draw an early Sept rifle hunt if one was lucky enough.

--Buy a OTC archery license.

--Buy a regular rifle buck tag for almost any unit in the Uncompahgre Valley or the Gunnison Basin, and the CPW would offer to sell a doe tag,and if you did buy one, throw in another buck tag--for free.

--Draw a December buck tag if you were lucky enough (it wasn't actually that hard).

That's six deer licenses if you you worked your cards right.

35 years later nobody--not just Colorado--can figure out what has happened with mule deer. Other states have had extensive studies and none of them have identified a smoking gun(s).

I think it is still habitat related. Excessive numbers of deer and excessive numbers of elk have hurt winter and transition habitat. I also think elk have out-competed deer for browse and graze. And there is livestock grazing. Lots of elk means lots of competition with cattle (and some sheep).

And then there are predators whose numbers have probably increased over the past 30 years.

If it's habitat related,how come I have so many deer around my place in a rural residential area. Habitat sure isn't decreasing around here. In Colorado Springs, over populated deer are becoming a big nuisance. CPW is trying to figure up how to cull them.

If CPW would go back to sound wildlife management instead of trying to raise all the money they can suck out of hunters, you would see a big turn around in elk and deer populations.

Take a drive up the Ohio Creek road north of Gunnison starting about 1st rifle season and you will see a third the population of the eastern side of West Elk Wilderness, about 800 head, on the Castleton and Rock House ranches and this is happening all over Colorado.They need to find some way of getting those elk back on public lands during hunting season.

The predator is CPW. IMHO, CPW is issuing too many tags in Sept and the bulls are not breeding because of too much hunting pressure. Stop all hunting during peak rut so that more cows are bred then instead of later. . Stop all OTC archery tags. Limit archery tags to the same quota as ML tags.

It is hard for me to believe that all the September hunting is not affecting the rut. I live in Unit 18, known for high elk numbers, low hunter success, and lots and lots of hunters coming from the Front Range. I’ve only lived here for 11 years, but that is long enough to see dramatic changes, for example lots more archery hunters, all bugling their hearts out. When I moved here we frequently heard elk bugling around home. No more. The elk are still here but mostly silent. Every little drainage will have 5 or 10 cars at the pull out. We frequently see bulls maintaining harems late into November. My part of the unit has few hiking trails, and these are lightly used except during hunting seasons. There are many many bowhunters that backpack in and camp. Makes me wonder if we might have the same thing as they are seeing around Durango in a few more years.

Elk herds all over Colorado are dropping each year. The unit I grew up hunting in (and my family hunted for over a century) was determined to be over populated and from 2002-2007 6500 elk were killed thru culling and unlimited licenses. Now over ten years later the elk herd still hasn’t recovered. The unit we switched to six years ago is starting to get less and less elk. For example the unit probably doesn’t have more than 1000 elk but in 2016, 8500 hunters hunted the area from archery to fourth rifles. Makes me wonder what the CPW is thinking, oh wait there thinking about money.

Then the local ranchers start complaining about to many elk in their fields which is caused from so many hunters pushing the herds. There’s no easy answer. Less tags would be a great start. I’d be fine with only drawing a tag every other year if it resulted in a better hunt. I’ll stop there because I could keep going for hours.

Hunters Round Table meeting in Colorado Springs this Wednesday(28th) . 6 Pm, CPW office 0on Sinton Rd

SS,
You answered your own questions. All those well taken care of, well watered lawns and plants, and ag land make great deer and elk food! These days, it's some of the best habitat in the state.....

Declines of the total population in the SW is not the same as access to deer and elk. The change of ownership from working ranches to these "gentleman's ranches" have changed the whole access equation. What used to be a phone call to a rancher neighbor or friend (come kill ALL the SOB's, they;re eating all my grass!!!!) is now no longer available to the average guy.
Now that deer and elk have become a "economic value" and both the working ranches and gentleman's ranches are either leased up, or in some cases only hunted (underhunted) by the wealthy "gentleman's" friends from Silicon Valley or Wall St, is another matter and one maybe even more vexing. In some ways that economic value is working against the average hunter.

Could someone please copy and paste the text of the article? I am not going to send any money to the current management of the Denver Post for anything. Thanks in advance!

Alpine hit a nail on the head. With the current popularity of elk hunting folks with big money will pay out for a guaranteed kill. A ranch which used to cater to Ranching for Wildlife recently started an outfitting business. They charge big money for areas that could of been hunted five years ago for minimal PP. Thats their right in the end though.

Maybe CPW should get some of that elusive MJ money so they don’t need the out of state hunting license money.

A little info.

The article mentioned by the early 1900's there were a guesstimated 500-1000 elk left in the state. That number has been used for 40 years, who knows how accurate it is.

By 1960 there were 50,000 elk in the state.

By 1980 there were 120,000 elk in the state.

By 1986 there were 165,000 elk in the state. AT that point, according to press releases the CPW determined that was the max carrying capacity in the state for elk. But the elk herd kept growing, and so did the stated "carrying capacity" for elk in Colorado (funny how that works.....)

By the late 90's the estimate was 300,000 elk and the CPW was desperately trying to reduce what was/is a gross over-population of elk.

First, there is almost two generations of elk hunters out there who have never known anything BUT an overpopulation of elk in Colorado. They think that the current 275,000 elk is normal. It s not normal, and is probably still an overpopulation. The article subtly suggests that hunting --and the hunting economy--is driving management of popular big game species. It is indeed. It has for the past 50 years.
And the suggestion is that quite possibly the CPW is attempting to sustain the unsustainable. That might be true. It might not be true.
But I have never got a straight answer when I ask "How did the elk population carrying capacity go from 165,000 in 1986 to 275,00 currently? Now, "carrying capacity" can be a rather nebulous number. No government agency has the resources to count every blade of grass, or every leader on every browse plant, or every forb, in the state. But going from 165,00 to 275,000 carrying capacity is quite a leap.

Hang on for moment. I've been resisting paying the bastids myself, but I might be able to circumvent the SOB's at least once.

DURANGO — The future of elk in Southwest Colorado is in jeopardy.

Over the past few years, herds in the region have been slowly dying off, and wildlife officials are concerned about the iconic ungulate’s ability to survive in healthy numbers in the long term.

The issue involves a mystery: About half of the elk calves born in Southwest Colorado die within six months. Of the survivors, another 15 percent perish before they turn a year old.

And researchers don’t know why, The Durango Herald reports.

The problem encompasses wildlife mismanagement: After record high elk populations in the 1990s, the Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) ordered a mass hunt to cut back the animal’s numbers.

These same elk herds are now struggling to recover.

And, there are pressures from an avid user group: hunters, who in vast numbers travel to Colorado’s rich public lands. On top of killing elk, they can disrupt breeding habits and future offspring.

The challenge of understanding the forces behind this population decline comes at a time when Colorado will restructure the way it carries out big-game hunting seasons, which, among conservationists and hunters alike, presents an opportunity to help elk recover.

“I’ve been hunting in this area since 1993,” said Thomas Downing, an archery hunter and manager of Gardenswartz. “What I’ve witnessed, firsthand, is our elk herd is not in healthy shape.”

By the early 1900s, Western settlers had wiped out nearly all of the elk in North America, bringing an estimated population of 10 million down to just 40,000 animals throughout the United States and parts of Canada.

The U.S. Forest Service in 1910 estimated just 500 to 1,000 elk roamed the entire state of Colorado.

To revive the population, the state banned elk hunting until the early 1930s, and elk from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, were transplanted into 14 areas around the state, including the Hermosa Creek valley, north of Durango.

Those restoration efforts were highly successful. Colorado now boasts the largest elk population – about 280,000 animals – in North America.

In Southwest Colorado, elk herds enjoyed a prolonged period of prosperity in the 1990s, a time many hunters remember fondly.

“It was wonderful,” said David Petersen, a lifelong hunter, acclaimed naturalist and writer on hunting ethics. “And it just got better and better. Lots of elk. Lots of bulls. Elk bugling everywhere, all the time.”

But the high was short-lived.

Elk are hungry grazers, eating between 15 to 21 pounds of food a day.

In the summer, the ungulates prefer to stay in the high county, feeding on grasses, forbs and shrubs.

But in the winter, small bands tend to coalesce into large herds to spend the cold months feeding at lower elevations, in areas now occupied by farms and ranches.

Consequently, it’s not uncommon that elk cause a fair amount of damage to fields and crops and compete with livestock.

Toward the late 1990s, with elk abundant on the landscape, ranchers and farmers pressured the Division of Wildlife to reduce their numbers. And the agency responded, aggressively, by allowing more hunters to hunt.

Specifically, the Division of Wildlife issued a virtual free pass for killing cows. But killing too many females also began to kill the animal’s potential to reproduce.

At the height of the uncontrolled culling, a total of 3,500 hunting tags were issued in 1996 for the cow harvest in two herds around Durango.

This period, by contrast, is a time remembered not so fondly.

“During some private-land cow hunts, I saw elk falling dead by the dozens a day,” Petersen said. “It was an ugly slaughter. They hit the elk cows especially hard for several years.”

In the San Juan herd, which ranges from the Animas River east to Wolf Creek Pass, about 23,000 elk were cut down to about 17,300. In the Hermosa herd, a population of about 6,500 was reduced to 4,100.

Scott Wait, a senior terrestrial biologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, said that while these numbers don’t drastically stand out, they are significant in the complex art of big game management. And, in retrospect, many people felt the reduction effort was too aggressive.

“Maybe we were too successful, or maybe the public tolerance has changed,” Wait said. “Regardless, we did decrease elk to the point of dissatisfaction.”

The population reduction alleviated conflicts with ranchers and farmers. The problem is, the effort went too far. Now, elk herds are below their desired population levels and a new host of issues threaten their recovery.

“In the last six to eight years, we’ve tried to go back into the population growth phase,” Wait said. “But we are struggling getting the population of elk to grow again.”

Every winter, Colorado Parks and Wildlife monitors elk populations from the air by helicopter.

To determine how herds are doing, the most helpful numbers for wildlife officials are the ratios of cows to calves. If the ratio is high, populations are stable, and likely to grow. If the ratio is low, it’s a sign herds are starting to struggle.

About 15 years ago, there were anywhere from 50 to 60 calves for every 100 cows, considered a strong balance. In recent years, however, that number has fallen to about 20 calves per every 100 cows.

No one’s quite sure why these numbers have fallen, Wait said, though it does not appear to be an issue with pregnancy. About 90 percent of pregnant cows give birth to healthy calves.

To further muddle the situation, the calves are not surviving the first year of life. Again, no one’s quite sure why. Disease and attacks by predators have been ruled out as potential culprits, Wait said.

While elk populations appear stable in the northern parts of the state, these issues have surfaced in some elk herds to the south.

A research project in its second year, based in the Montrose and Trinidad areas which are seeing similar issues, seeks to gain information by putting radio collars on elk calves and following them through early life.

“We are seeing significant mortality in those first six months,” Wait said. “This new technology allows us to study those months, which are the mystery, and determine a cause of death.”

For local hunters, the answer to the elk’s decline isn’t going to be found in studies or through computer analytics. One needs only to look to the backcountry for answers.

Every fall, hunters from all over the country come to Southwest Colorado to scour the San Juan Mountains for big game. But this annual ritual for hunters happens to coincide with one of the most important times of the year for elk: the rut.

The rut is when elk congregate in large numbers, and in grand fashion, male elk, called bulls, spar for the right to breed with the cows. This is when bugling, the loud call of the bull elk to attract cows, can be heard throughout the forest.

Petersen, an elk expert who has been hunting in the mountains outside Durango since 1981, said this display and its timing are delicate.

After the rut starts in mid-August, elk typically breed the last week of September or first week of October. This allows calves to be born in late May and early June, giving the newborns enough time to bulk up before having to survive the next winter.

If this process is disrupted in anyway, it could mean late birth for calves and a lower chance of surviving the winter, Petersen said.

“That’s why it’s so important that the rut happens on time,” he said.

But Petersen believes the amount of hunters in the forest in September is pressuring the elk and disrupting the rut. As a result, he’s seen breeding happen as late as November, creating hardships and risk for late-born calves the next spring.

According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife stats, nearly 13,000 hunters trekked into the San Juan Mountains to hunt the Hermosa and San Juan units last year.

“There’s an extreme, excessive hunting pressure in September,” Petersen said. “There are just too many hunters at this most delicate time of year for elk.”

Dan Parkinson, a local hunter and advocate with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said with fewer elk and more hunters, the hunting experience has greatly diminished in the San Juan Mountains.

In the old days, he said, a hunter could work hard enough and get far enough back into steep and deep country to find undisturbed elk.

“But now you get back in there, find out that there are other hunters in the area with the advent of mapping capability,” Parkinson said. “There are no secret spots out there anymore.”

A combination of forces – hunting pressures, drought, habitat loss – could be stressing the elk. However, Petersen and others believe the hunt is at least one factor wildlife managers have tangible control over.

The big question for hunters will be whether they’re willing to sacrifice some opportunities for the betterment of the herd.

Every five years, Colorado Parks and Wildlife restructures the way it manages hunting seasons in the state, such as how many hunting tags it will issue for a specific region and when the various forms of hunting (archery, rifle) begin and end.

Local hunters said this should be a time of intense self-reflection for the hunting community, and a time hunters should consider bold changes to the way the hunt is currently structured.

Downing, who manages a store that sells hunting equipment, suggested limiting the number of hunting tags issued during rifle season. And, he suggested a cap on tags for archery season, which currently is unlimited.

He said the restructuring needs to take into account all the other hunting seasons like deer, turkey, grouse, black bear, etc., which bring even more hunters into the backcountry at the same time as elk hunters.

“We need just something so we don’t have that many people in the field at one time,” he said.

Petersen agreed. He said Colorado Parks and Wildlife needs to radically reduce the number of cow tags for several years, perhaps suspending the hunt on females until the population recovers. And, he added that muzzle-loading rifle season should not happen in the middle of the rut.

“Biologically, morally this is wrong,” he said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife did cut cow tags for rifle season by 75 percent, Wait said, but it hasn’t shown any positive effect in rebounding populations.

“If we eliminated rifle cow-elk harvest, it would probably start to increase the population a little bit faster,” Wait said. “But I question the fairness of that.”

Instead, can hunters and the public come together and agree to strike a balance between allowing the tradition of hunting while preserving the hunted? Downing thinks so.

“I think hunters will ultimately come together for the good of the herd,” he said. “At heart, we’re a bunch of conservationists, and hunters here locally know this.”

Local hunters fear that politics have infiltrated what should be an agency that promotes and preserves wildlife.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s regulations and policies are set by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, an 11-person committee appointed by the governor that draws people from varying interests.

But many, like Petersen and Parkinson, say the commission is too heavy with people representing agriculture and industry interests, which more often than not, butt heads with wildlife interests.

And also more often than not, wildlife comes out on the losing end.

“CPW has always been cowed and bullied by ranchers and farmers who detest wildlife,” Petersen said. “For any real progress, we need to pull the wildlife commission out of the political arena. And that may need to be done through legislation.”

Of the 11-person commission, three people represent agriculture and two people represent industry interests. Two people sit on the board for the interests of the outfitting industry and one represents sportsmen.

Don Brown, Colorado’s commissioner of agriculture, also sits on the board, though he is not voting member.

There are no wildlife biologists, ecologists or experts on the board tasked with managing wildlife in the state.

Michelle Zimmerman, who represents recreational interests on the commission, agreed that sportsmen and agriculture interests have a dominant voice because, historically, those groups have always been the most involved.

Zimmerman said that as Colorado’s demographics and priorities change, so should the wildlife commission.

“I think the commission should evolve to best reflect the demographics of the state while remaining committed to the sportsmen and women and ag interests that have supported the mission of the agency for decades,” she said.

The way Colorado Parks and Wildlife is funded has also been called into question. One of the agency’s main source of funding is through the hunting tags it sells. Parkinson said that reliance makes the agency less willing to reduce those numbers.

“There needs to be discussion how to find a sustainable way to fund wildlife conservation in the state of Colorado,” he said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s total revenue in fiscal year 2016-2017 was $241.9 million. Of that amount, $6.5 million came from 158,000 in-state residents buying hunting tags. A total of 70,400 out-of-state tags generated $40.3 million.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife will start its rescheduling of hunting seasons this winter, which will involve public comment. The new schedule would take effect in 2020.

It’s a glimmer of hope at the right time, though not a magic bullet. While restructuring the hunting season may help relieve stress on elk, the cause could very well be issues with climate change, such as drought, unforeseen disease or habitat loss.

Or a combination of all these factors, Wait said.

Gardenswartz’s Downing said another consequence of the declining herds is that business at the downtown Durango shop has been down.

“We’re starting to see a decline in hunters coming to our town because the word has spread our elk herd is struggling down here,” he said.

Downing, now 49, has hunted in Southwest Colorado since he was 7 years old. In 35 years of hunting, he has never killed a female elk.

“I don’t feel right about it,” he said. “If she doesn’t get killed, and lives to 20 years, she’s giving birth to 20 calves.”

He’s also ready to make the biggest self-sacrifice: giving up those serene autumn days in pursuit of prey.

“I can’t imagine a year in my life not elk hunting,” he said. “But with the current condition of our elk herd, I would not be upset if I wasn’t able to hunt for a year or two, so long as the long-term results of that sacrifice bring the elk herd back.”

___

Information from: Durango Herald, http://www.durangoherald.com

The absolute best argument hunters will ever have--and have had since day one of wildlife management in the USA--is that fact that we pay for motr wildlife management and the bulk of habitat improvement.

The author--like most Americans--doesn't know the history of wildlife management and underestimates the amount of money and energy coming from a dedicated constituency.

“ Disease and attacks by predators have been ruled out as potential culprits, Wait said”

Be interested in how they ruled that out. What does that leave, starvation?

It is getting harder and harder for me to justify a $660 tag for a five day hunt. I’m definitely seeing fewer elk the last few years, but that could be any number of things.

Thanks for the posts, Casey.

I saw some errors reading this.

" After the rut starts in mid-August, elk typically breed the last week of September or first week of October."

Although elk are vocal to some extent, bulls usually do not start gathering cows this early. It is known as pre rut. Disrupting the actual breeding rut is what affects the breeding.

"And, he added that muzzle-loading rifle season should not happen in the middle of the rut.“Biologically, morally this is wrong,” he said.

BS,In areas where there is unlimited archery tags,most areas permit only 100 bull tags for ML season. Why isn't
that morally wrong? Peterson,hunting since 81 is far from an expert just because he is so vocal.Hell, I have been hunting elk since 61 and probably killed more elk than he has,and I'm certainly no expert, but I bet I could teach him a thing or two.Opinions don't count for crap.

It wasn't only the 3500 cow tags down south but for several years CPW sold 2000 cow tags/year as OTC in the Flat Tops units of northern Colorado

One thing is for certain, the entire elk herd management strategy for the last ten years + and the elk herd decline falls 100% on the CPW because of the letting too many elk being killed. Two factors. Their love of more money and being in bed with the Agricultural community .This past legislation that granted them a very large increase in revenue and the ability to increase it with out legislative approval will see salaries grow, fancier trucks ,less CPW in the field, increases minimal with respect to sound management.Yet the average hunter will see less hunting opportunity available in return for his more expensive tags .

The only way this is going to stop is all hunters come together and put and end to some of this BS. They did this in NM about 40 years ago and were successful. Anyway you spin it CPW has screwed up. Hunters need to start attending the meetings, both CPW commission and Round Table meetings.Currently if you see 50 attendees, it's a crowd.

You're welcome!

SS,

Most cows in the southern Rockies are pregnant by Oct 1st. Not all of them by any stretch. The peak of the rut is that last 10 days of Sept and probably first few days of Oct. There is always cows that don't get bred in their first estrus.

I agree that blackpowder is not as disruptive as the hordes of archers, but blackpowder does have a bigger impact per hunter because it's a firearm and can be used at greater distances than archery.

Revenue to CPW is only a part of the money equation. It's the money on main street, outfitters and ranchers who make a fair bit of their annual income from hunt leases. They are the ones who are bending the ear of the Commission, legislators, and the Governor. And in turn those three often figuratively park their butt on the desk of the CPW director and put the pressure on. Wildlife is not managed for sound biology it is managed for people.

When N.M. dramatically restricted elk hunting in the 60's to address declining pregnancy rates (there weern't enough bulls beyond the age of 1 year), NM let the herd and bull ratio grow, by the mid 70's NM had fantastic elk hunting. But the ranchers in Northern NM figured out how lucrative elk hunting was, they began to pressure the legislature and state wildlife dept for more licenses. The number of bulls bulls beyond the age of 4 declined and today there is not the quality of big bulls in NM as there was from mid 70's to late 80's. I guided on three different ranches around Chama during that time and from the mid-80's to the mid-90's the decline in 4+ year old bulls was pretty significant.

I agree that hunters are going to have to speak up again, but there is a difference between over hunting and the disturbance factor that is being suggested in the article. Over the past 5-6 years CPW has significantly reduced the number of cow tags as the elk herds in the DAU\'s reached their population objective. It's just that the herds in the SW continued to decline even when cow tags were reduced.

There is also the combining of the two agencies that is "diluting" the biology and management of wildlife--too much is being directed elsewhere. That dumbazz Lickenpooper anyway......

Miss management is what is generally under question in the article, although some quotes are pointing fingers at other hunting groups. There probably is some correlation to the new interest in archery hunting and disrupting the rut, but has yet to be proven. If you look at the annual budget of CPW it is pretty small for a statewide agency. Of the 240 million about 50 million comes from combined instate and out of state tags. They have a lot of employees and running cost to cover with that money. The only thing for certain is if we don't start managing the herds better then the out of state folks will stop paying big money to come to Colorado and take there rifles/bows/smokesticks for hikes. I rarely see CPW officers in the field, maybe three times in my 20 some years of hunting. More money should be given to the agency but granted only for solid research with no political motive (wishful thinking). As it stands there are still elk to be had and will be for a long time, but if we don't start managing the elk, forest and public lands better we will lose more than money can buy back.

If we simply got rid of the OTC and unlimited tag process we might have better hunting experiences, and more animals might be taken because they wouldn't be pushed onto private ranches and rural subdivisions. That's a start but not the full answer. The main thing is archers, muzzle-loaders and rifle hunters need to stick together, as we all want the same goal. I don't feel the declining herds are a hunting issue, rather it's an administrative issue with CPW.

FIRST Colorado is not in the game management business, it is in the license business. There used to be 1 season, now there are 4 rifle, ML, and archery. Add in the forementioned 4WD vehicles everyone has, and they are not old flat fenders, ATVs; and where I go (Flattops) sheep run all over all summer, didn't used to. And when we are leaving the next wave is already coming in to :"scout".

You used to be able to get onto private land now it is cost prhibitive, and the same rdanchers who cuss elk charge big money, and then also turn in damage claims.

If you cut the number of hunters in an area to 5 or 10 percent of wht is there now, sucess would probably be the same, the experience would be better. (Let me have my license every year though).

There are few if any buckskinners left, the bowhunters have way better equipment. I do wonder how many inlines also are using the sabot bullets, despite laws.

Most of us can't bugle worth crap, actually, so we are just irritating the bulls.

I feel sorry for you out of staters paying what you do.

Alpinecrick. As I remember the litigation against the NM DOW was aimed at the practice of the ranchers with outfitters being permitted to have elk season all fall long while the regular hunter had two weeks. (Chama Land and Cattle Company was one of them). This is about what CPW is doing with RFW program except making ranches give a few tags to the open public. Few is being generous to say the least. All under the idea that those ranches are practicing good conservation techniques for the wildlife .Don't even get me started on the vouchers given to ranchers under the pretense of crop damage etc,and the the rancher sells those vouchers for a tidy sum.

Kennyd in the preceding post has it figured out

Alpinecrick.

Most cows in the southern Rockies are pregnant by Oct 1st. Not all of them by any stretch. The peak of the rut is that last 10 days of Sept and probably first few days of Oct. There is always cows that don't get bred in their first estrus.

I am aware of that which is why I said that early pre rut is not when the breeding is done.

I agree that blackpowder is not as disruptive as the hordes of archers, but black powder does have a bigger impact per hunter because it's a firearm and can be used at greater distances than archery


Yes,the individual success may be higher, but the sheer numbers of archery tags given out far out weigh that.In addition,CPW, by design, makes the ML season in pre rut not in prime breeding times,where as part of archery season is.

As I remember the litigation against the NM DOW was aimed at the practice of the giving the big ranchers with outfitters the ability to have elk season all fall long while the regular hunter had two weeks back then. (Chama Land and Cattle Company w as one of them). This is about what CPW is doing with RFW program except making ranches give a few tags to the open public. Few is being generous to say the least.All under the idea that those ranches are practicing good conservation techniques for the wildlife .Don't even get me started on the vouchers given to ranchers under the pretense of crop damage etc,and the the rancher sells those vouchers for a tidy sum.

Kennyd has it figured out

A lot of unanswered questions in that write-up

How many cows have calves?

Calf rate survival?

Range condition ?

Those would be high on my list of top questions . that would give a clue to the base problem . Then figure out how to change the basic problem .

I think AZ is about 5-10 years ahead of CO, but not in a good way.

things that make it worse in AZ

• fewer deer and elk to start with
• less moisture/precip
• flat ground (makes the ATVs harder to get away from)
• no (very little) high country for elk to hide in
• some big game season open each weekend from mid-august to mid-january
• population growing faster and larger (than CO)

things that are the same

• G&F totally funded by tags
• outfitters and ranchers have a lot of pull with commission
• commission/dept not concerned with habitat

I don't know about CO, but it feels like we don't make enough tags to get young people interested in hunting.

tags are hard enough to come by that we get "party" hunting. One tag, 3-6 helpers, friends, scouts, walkie-talkie men.

makes for a lot of people in the woods.

Sycamore

I sure as hell don’t have any answers to this dilemma and I’m new to living in Colorado but I will say that what I experienced hunting Elk this past Sept was mind boggling. I spent a good bit of time scouting and camping in the unit I hunted well before season opened and never saw a single sole in there. What I encountered with the hordes of bow hunters when I arrived two days before muzzle loader season absolutely devastated me. Even being 4.5 mile in by backpack I was surrounded by other backpack hunters, horseback hunters and the guys that leave at 0300 to hike in there. What’s worse is some of these hunters had been in there for 8+ days when I arrived and hadn’t seen a single thing. I hiked high (10,800) I hiked low (8000) I never even saw an elk or even fresh sign. This was an area that I saw elk , heard elk and smelled elk the month before season. I had to quit attempting to call elk because all I called in were hunters. I found myself in a situation that seemed could not yield positive results and I was beyond frustrated. So 3 days in of complete horse chittt I relocated to another unit that my tag was good in and when I arrived it was even worse. I counted 16 camps, not hunters, camps . Some of these camps had 4-5 guys in them and not a single one had elk meat in it. Each day hiking out I would encounter no less than 6 hunters on the trails, I called in a bunch more hunters so I quit calling. It was not even about finding elk it was about trying to find a place there wasn’t any other hunters. I’ll add that so many of the bow hunters I met were from Texas,Oklahoma,Indiana pretty much non-res hunters. It was so pathetic that at one point all these bow hunters were just off a private ranch fence line that had all kinds of elk in it battling with each other in an attempt to draw a bull off the private so they could shoot it. It was retarded, there were guys that could bugle ok, guys who sounded like chit and guys cow calling all at the same time. I was like seriously....... Long story short I was disgusted with my elk hunt and have just had to tell myself that maybe it was just that unit, I don’t know because I returned from that hunt so disgusted that I felt like I’d not even hunt here in Colorado next year.

Like I said when I started this thread, I don’t have any answers but there damn sure seems to be a problem here!

Yep, too many non-resident tags, plain and simple. Driven by the almighty $$, Your "hunt" sounded like the place I tried for a late season cow. All I can tell you is, keep on looking for a good spot with fewer hunters, there are some to be had.

I quit hunting Colorado a number of years ago due to lots of what is discussed here. Add to that, their politics and short seasons and my money was not justified anymore.

I think that along with all the hunting issues, they are not looking nearly closely enough at bear depredation on the small calves. With their protectionist approach to the black bears, the numbers have risen and they love little calves. It is like they don't want to address that.

Probably the main cause, is that the elk are spending too much time in the marijuana dispensaries.

Well, they are fairly liberal with bear tags, so I'm not sure bears are to blame.

The success rate on killing bears seems to be sort of low. Maybe they need to teach some classes or something. Or they could allow baiting and hound hunting them if they wanted to get serious about fixing the problem.

How can the agriculturalists and ranchers possibly be upset about elk grazing on their property? I have yet to see a private rancher EVER try to scare off the herds of elk that seek refuge on their property during hunting seasons. If the ranchers were even slightly concerned, they'd push the herds back onto public and towards hunters to help lessen the herd that devastates their crop. This year alone, during a period of three partial days we saw over 100 elk on private land bordering public, many of which were big bulls. Most less than a half-mile from public and easily visible from a major road.

I've been hunting elk in CO since '96 and I think the animals have become significantly more weary of hunting seasons. And worse, the hunter population seems to have skyrocketed. Second season is now a $hit show of makeshift tent cities and ATV traffic. Even archery season has lost it's solemn charm. I don't have the answer but I do think, we as hunters are our own worst enemy. We want more game, bigger animals, less people, more natural animal actions, more comfortable camps, and cheaper tags. It's not a doable combination. I don't envy the DOW as I'm sure, like most .gov agencies, politics plays a bigger part than facts for the managing directors. Limiting ATVs might be one step, it would keep hunters more local to their camp and limit joy riders and road hunters. I also think spot checks of animals on private land would help. If ranchers aren't actively trying to move game off their property, they should be restricted somehow in applying for preference/crop damage tags.

True, but that would require a ballot initiative since both were outlawed through a ballot initiative.

This Sept according to a bow hunter I talked with he said the hands that work Wolf Springs Ranch were actually running the fence line in side by sides to scare the elk deeper into the private land not out of it.

[quote=AlaskaCub


This Sept according to a bow hunter I talked with he said the hands that work Wolf Springs Ranch were actually running the fence line in side by sides to scare the elk deeper into the private land not out of it.[/quote]

I think the last time I hunted that was in early 200'0's. I know we took a big bull in 2002. The Wolf Spring ranch hands were doing the same thing then.

Yes, but without the use of bait and hounds, I doubt that really very many are killed and there are lots of complaints around urban areas, since they banned those types of hunting. I wonder if they even do much population study on the bears?

I must be blessed then, as I have a 6 week season, and see Elk here on the ranch most every week. So, no shortage of animals, long sesson, and easy hunting. Makes for plenty of meat every year.

"On the ranch" being the operative words

Actually, CPW has increased September bear tags by quite a bit the last few years.

There is some evidence to suggest black bear predation may be effecting muley populations. The CPW currently have two large predator-deer studies going right now.

Grizzlies routinely prey on elk calves, that's been well demonstrated in Yellowstone, but nothing has yet suggested black bears do to any significant extent.

Smioke,

My info is a few years old, but the quotas on nonresidents means there are less nonresident hunters in Colorado than there was 20 years ago before quotas began.

The biggest problem is the resident population of Colorado has practically doubled in the last 20 years..........Lots of lifestyle immigrants, and many of them hunt.

Good point. Without bait and hounds, the success rate is probably not as high, but there is a LOT more bear tags out there in the Sept hunt then there was during spring hunting with bait and hounds prior to the ballot initiative.

Having said that, my son and I killed bears last year, and when I checked mine into the Montrose office with a few days remaining in the season, they had already checked in almost twice the number of bears than they ever have at that office for the September hunt. That may have been an anomaly though because of weather. Didn't hear anything abut this year yet. But there more tags in recent years. .

We also have to think about the fact that elk are NOT declining in the other 75-80% of the state. Is the CPW doing a great job everywhere else?

That's what the article was talking about. Pregnancy rates appear to be normal. Winter survival is not. That can indicate poor habitat. Or calves being born too late in the year. Or predators killing calves when they're still neonates.

David Peterson was quoted numerous times in the article, bashing CP&W for mismanaging his elk herd and putting too much pressure on his elk in September. What the article fails to mention is he was a big proponent of amendment 10 back in 1992 banning spring bear hunting, baiting and hounds because it was unethical in his eyes. He's gonna have a real dumb look on his face when he realizes all those extra bears he helped create are eatin his elk calves!

Well they screwed up the elk herd in Unit 5 4(Gunnison) and in units 24/ 25 FlatTops when they issued all those cow OTC tags. 2000 a year for 3-5 years.They refused to admit that there was a big winter kill in 2007/2009 until two years later even though hunters were telling them there was. Me included.

I still say,reduce hunting pressure in Sept so more cows get bred earlier rather in the 2n /3rd estrus cycle so the calves are bigger and stronger come late fall. What do I know though.I don't have degree from some university in the east that has no elk population

"In one study in Idaho, black bears took about 60 to 70 percent of the elk calves in the first couple of weeks," Toman said. "So it's really important from that standpoint to get all of the calves on the ground in synchronicity, and get it over with quickly. The bears can only eat so much."

"The second-lowest calf birth weight was in 2002, when the study started, which coincided with a cold, dry March. March is the last trimester of a cow elk's pregnancy. In 2003, the birth weight was very strong and the spring was warm and wet. Another drop in the birth weight was in 2006 following a winter that had persistent snow crust that limited the animals' access to forage."

The above quotes were from an article in The Billings Gazette " Study reaffirms bears biggest predator threat to young elk calves

BRETT FRENCH Gazette Outdoor Writer Nov 1, 2006"

Add in predation from lions, coyotes, eagles, etc., and being a baby ungulate in the wild is a pretty tough life.

On the issue of habitat related, elk have crossed in the new mexico for the winter, and never came back to Colorado.

The Jicarilla apaches develop every spring, in every canyon, and plant alfalfa for the elk. They have been very successful in keeping colorados elk there.

Yes. Prey species "flood the market" when a population gives birth together in a short period of time. Predators become satiated, and the remaining neonates survive to start following their mothers.

So, it's important that a large proportion of the population is bred in the same short period of time. The argument is that if there is not enough mature bulls in the population, that breeding can be more spread out, and a larger number of females will not be bred until second estrus. Consequently birth will be spread out. This is what they thought was happening in NM in the 60's, and why NM ultimately reduced licenses dramatically. When NM tried to reduce licenses by 10-20%, the success rates for hunters went up a lot, and they killed as many elk with less hunters as they were before. To get a significant decrease in harvest, there needs to be a BIG decrease in licenses. That would be really tough to do in most western states today. The political fallout would probably be too much.

In Colorado, there has been some small studies on black bears and what they are eating at that time, and very little elk parts were found in black bear poop. A lot of fawn parts were found though......

In large part, CPW got tired of the flak when elk crossing the hwy were being hit by cars on Hwys 50 and 135 during the winter. In the late 90's and early 2000's a couple kids in the vehicles were hurt, and the Gunnison/Crested Butte folks wanted CPW to "do something". So they started feeding elk to keep them from crossing the hwys at night headed onto the ag land. Of course, this type of feeding violates CPW's "policy" of not feeding unless there is a real risk of the adult, breeding population starving to death. After a few years of feeding CPW if decided the existing habitat couldn't support elk without feeding there were too many. Makes sense to me.
Although the CPW did underestimate the winter kill in the late 2000's, but that seemed to be mostly deer. Importantly, those winters were not all that bad by previous harsh winters standards, and points to other factors as contributing to the winter kills those years.


I don't disagree that there might be a disturbance factor going on in Sept in the SW. But again, the human population of Colorado practically doubled in a short time. There is a LOT of other activities taking place also during that time of the year.

If that was in the late 90's early 2000's then why did CPW start that Either sex w/ 500cap in about 2010 and then bull w /500cap in 2015 & 2016 and now they are trying to build the herd back up? Previous to that I read the elk herd was about 6000-6500.They took it down to less than 3500,now want it back to 4000+.

AND how do they answer as to now public land cows are all "A" tags,but when they jump the fence they become "B" tags in Unit 54?

The winter kill in the Flat Tops was more than just deer.I attended all DOW meetings in COS in the ensuing years and two years later they admitted it

Were the studies done recently with this new high population of bears? They are opportunistic feeders.