50% Decline in Eagle County Colorado's Elk Population Since 2007

[5MilesBack]

For this to happen though CPW has to first admit the bear problem.

Just like every other aspect of the state, the CPW has been infiltrated with liberal outsiders. The way it is now run (especially being tied to the Parks) has nothing to do with the way the CDOW used to manage things. The liberal Wildlife Commission dictates how things operate. So they are never going to admit that there is an over population of bears.

 

[Gorp2007]

The latest MeatEater podcast talked quite a bit about the growing number of bears and mountain lions in the area over the past decade. It's also interesting to hear that Colorado is currently taking more bears today than they did back when they had a spring and fall hunt, but the current quotas aren't affecting the bear population in any significant way.

Edit to Add: Any time you see an increase in predators you'll see a corresponding decrease in prey populations, but what I'd like to see (and what I alluded to above) is a more thorough investigation into what different groups believe to be a healthy balance between the two. Some parties seem to be of the mind that there should be near-zero predators and maximized prey populations, while others (the New Jersey and Boulder cat ladies of the world) seem to fall in love with "charismatic megafauna" and want to see an increase in predator populations at any cost. I'd be interested in seeing what researchers believe to be a healthy and sustainable equilibrium and how that compares to the populations today.

 

[veganhunter]

Just like every other aspect of the state, the CPW has been infiltrated with liberal outsiders.

As I finished reading the first page of comments on this issue I thought to myself how some really interesting points had been brought up and surprisingly, not one person had complained about politics. Then, true to form, you came through for me.

 

[mproberts]

Lots of guys have random encounters with bears while hunting, but for a lot of guys (non-res especially) putting out the money for a bear tag hoping for a chance encounter isn’t something they are interested in. I can’t blame them one bit either. 351.00 is a lot of money for a low % chance at a bear. For this to happen though CPW has to first admit the bear problem.

This reminds me of another thread "Why don't western guys hunt eastern states".. Yeah considering most of Colorado's non-resident hunters come from east of the Mississippi it's pretty hard to justify interest in black bear hunting when all the top black bear states are from those states and resident tags in those states are next to nothing. Most of the eastern states also have seen huge bear population growth over the last few decades (some states up 400% over just a few decades ago), which has led to pretty bad mange problems in areas.

I have seen bear hunters in Colorado but they were all residents and were all semi-serious about it (I'm just going to hike in half a mile and sit on this rock and hope one walks by). Sounds like CPW doesn't think bear populations are growing, but they also admit they are sort of clueless based on my read of the article. Study of Colorado bears upending beliefs about encounters with humans

 

[sndmn11]

This reminds me of another thread "Why don't western guys hunt eastern states".. Yeah considering most of Colorado's non-resident hunters come from east of the Mississippi it's pretty hard to justify interest in black bear hunting when all the top black bear states are from those states and resident tags in those states are next to nothing. Most of the eastern states also have seen huge bear population growth over the last few decades (some states up 400% over just a few decades ago), which has led to pretty bad mange problems in areas.

I have seen bear hunters in Colorado but they were all residents and were all semi-serious about it (I'm just going to hike in half a mile and sit on this rock and hope one walks by). Sounds like CPW doesn't think bear populations are growing, but they also admit they are sort of clueless based on my read of the article. Study of Colorado bears upending beliefs about encounters with humans

I wish I could remember what I was reading on a long drive back from one of our sport shows, but it was a magazine showing bear entries into B&C per state and per year, and Colorado seemed to fair pretty darned well.

I would love to hunt bears seriously, I did so last year with and OTC archery tag and hoped to find one with my recurve, but I have a lot to learn and caught hell from the wife for attempting it. This year I put in for the same area September rifle, and did not draw. I think a big part of why people do not ask about bears is because it is an after thought species, and I think most importantly, if someone tells you where they see bears, they are likely telling you where they are hunting elk. I have sent a few messages to guys on here, and the replies are all more cryptic than some information about elk and deer and usually end in, "shoot an elk and then sit there"....

This year I have no tag until 3rd rifle, and will be doing all I can to stumble my way thorough figuring out some bear hunting here in CO.

 

[Summitmike]

We have been seeing quite a decline here in summit county as well east of this area in the last 10 years.

 

[Summitmike]

Every year we seem to have to go further back to find the elk

 

[ckleeves]

This reminds me of another thread "Why don't western guys hunt eastern states".. Yeah considering most of Colorado's non-resident hunters come from east of the Mississippi it's pretty hard to justify interest in black bear hunting when all the top black bear states are from those states and resident tags in those states are next to nothing. Most of the eastern states also have seen huge bear population growth over the last few decades (some states up 400% over just a few decades ago), which has led to pretty bad mange problems in areas.

I have seen bear hunters in Colorado but they were all residents and were all semi-serious about it (I'm just going to hike in half a mile and sit on this rock and hope one walks by). Sounds like CPW doesn't think bear populations are growing, but they also admit they are sort of clueless based on my read of the article. Study of Colorado bears upending beliefs about encounters with humans

I don’t think anyone really has a clue of bear numbers. I certainly don’t.I just know that from trail cams, tracks, sightings etc that numbers are up, especially in what I would consider fringe habitat for bears. The places I have found bear tracks or seen bears recently are really bizarre. I know lack of food sources can cause them to travel but many sightings have been on years with good available feed.

I have nothing against bears, I think they are neat animals and I enjoy seeing them. I just don’t need to see 5 of them in a day. A google search of “black bear predation on elk calves” will turn up some interesting information. Some is from older studies but I would think the numbers would still hold true.

The over harvest of cows seems to be something the CPW is aware of just looking at some of the tag numbers this year.

 

[spike camp]

Bears, wolves, CWD, hikers, politics....Hickenlooper???
How about, over hunted.

 

[PWCGray]

(PDF) Predator-prey relationships between rocky mountain elk and black bears in northern New Mexico

In the realm of wildlife management studies, this is about as good as it gets. Decent sample size, good consideration of other variables.... pretty solid causality. There isn't a single human impact study, that I have read, that holds to the same rigor.

 

[Topo_trekker]

How about just humans. The best hunting areas have lots of predators for a reason, lots of game and very little human interaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PWCGray]

Bears, wolves, CWD, hikers, politics....Hickenlooper???
How about, over hunted.

Yes, agreed. Cow harvest has been borderline insane over the past decade. However, the question now is how to turn it around. You are going to see cow tag quotas go to ZERO in short order. The question is, what are the additional steps? No cow harvest will not work by itself when calf ratios are sub-30/100.

 

[jspradley]

"Some parties seem to be of the mind that there should be near-zero predators and maximized prey populations, while others (the New Jersey and Boulder cat ladies of the world) seem to fall in love with "charismatic megafauna" and want to see an increase in predator populations at any cost. "

Bingo... and until BOTH of those groups pull their heads out of their asses and science up (or management decisions are taken out of the hands of the dumb masses and left up to biologists as they should be) we are likely to continue having these problems with no real progress in finding solutions.

 

[Southforkguy]

Same thing with our deer herd in northern Wisconsin, absolute over harvest of antlerless deer combined with a boom in wolf pack numbers and several harsh winters. Finally seeing deer along the roads at dawn and dusk again, for years they were absent.

 

[johnhenry]

The evolution of this thread is interesting. Starting with a discussion of the possible effects of increase human activity in the areas outside of towns in Colorado to a discussion on hunting bears. How come we got away from the negative effects of human activity and started to blame bears for everything? Sure there are too many bears and most likely they are reducing calf numbers but isn't that another discussion? How come humans have such hard time owning up to the destruction of the environment and all the misery they cause other life forms and ourselves? Whether or not there are any good peer reiview studies on the effects of increase recreational activity on deer and elk populations out there it would be hard to argue that we are not having a negative effect. For all who do not live in Colorado I want to tell you that the increase in humans in the backcountry and the near country has been astronomical in the last 10 years especially around the resort towns - ie Eagle County. I agree that the CPW is not willing to stand up and speak the truth about predators but at least its starting to speak the truth about the recreational tourism industry and that is no political picnic either. So they deserve some credit.

 

[5MilesBack]

As I finished reading the first page of comments on this issue I thought to myself how some really interesting points had been brought up and surprisingly, not one person had complained about politics. Then, true to form, you came through for me.

I just stated the obvious, but sometimes the obvious isn't quite as obvious to some.......so it needs to be mentioned. I'm not a big fan of the word "politics" though. I believe there is the best, most logical solution to a problem.......and choosing anything other than that........is politics. So yes.......politics runs rampant in Colorado these days. Knowing what makes the most logical sense and still making the wrong decisions. That's why I can't stand "politics".

 

[Danimal]

Probably all factors at play. Always a tough discussion to have.

 

[Dos Perros]

Isn't CPW currently engaged in a study on taking predators in the spring and it's impact on fawn survival? Somewhere north of I-70, near Rifle? Could have sworn I saw something like that but can't find it searching now. Anyway, the results of that study would be interesting to hear. Perhaps, WHEN you hunt/take predators is important too, not just how many.

 

[Foldem]

Andree continued, noting that the aerial count numbers, combined with harvest data and winter condition information, is used to run a computer model that provides a population estimate. In 2002, an estimated 10,600 elk resided in the valley. By 2016, the number had dropped to an estimated 6,554 elk.

Straight from the 2013 update on the E-16 herd management plan:

Significant issues
Outdoor recreation and other human disturbance, habitat loss and fragmentation due to land
development, continued lack of large-scale habitat improvement projects have been the major issues for
this elk herd. Increased predator populations could also be affecting the elk population.
The human population in this area has grown rapidly since the 1970s, as many people are drawn
to the area by the ski areas, wildlife, open space, public lands, scenery and lifestyle. As a result, recreation
and habitat conversion have become the major impacts on wildlife. Land development has led to the
direct loss of habitat quantity and quality in the form of conversion of habitat into houses, other buildings,
and infrastructure; and fragmentation of habitat due to roads, trails, and structures. Outdoor recreation
has become a year-round presence on the landscape, particularly on public lands, and is the largest
indirect impact to the area’s wildlife populations. There is increasing demand for more recreational trails
to be established, as well as frequent use and expansion of unofficial trails, all of which fragment and
diminish the quality of remaining wildlife habitat, and create disturbances to wildlife on a year-round
basis. Human disturbances during critical periods for wildlife can reduce calf recruitment and increase
stress on wintering wildlife. There is now human disturbance during the summer in areas previously used
by wildlife for seclusion. More roads and vehicle traffic, along with increased driving speeds, have
resulted in more roadkill of elk, deer, bears, and other wildlife. Dogs, both on- and off-leash, also present
another stressor on wildlife and a potential source of mortality.
Existing, undeveloped habitat has been degraded not only by human recreational impacts, but
also due to long-term fire suppression and lack of habitat management which has led to older-aged, less
productive forage. Areas close to developments are now unlikely to be allowed to burn due to potential
damage to property. The cumulative effect is that both quantity and quality of habitat has declined for elk
in E-16. Development continues to occur on elk winter range; not at the rate that was observed in the
1980s through the early 2000s but the impact is still present and could escalate depending on the
economy. Without large scale habitat improvements, and probably even with improvements there are
certain portions of this DAU that may need to focus on the continued reduction of the elk population to
try and balance the amount of habitat that is available with the number of elk this habitat can support.
Bear, mountain lion, and coyote populations are believed to have increased over the past several
decades, and their predation on calves (as well as adult elk mortality by lions) could potentially limit the
elk population. Whether predation has a population-level effect on the elk herd depends on how close the
elk population is to carrying capacity, i.e., whether predation is additive or comp

 

[Foldem]

Check out the attached graph, when you're over objective and increase antlerless licenses the population is reduced. Combine that with the issues earlier in the report and I'm not sure why it's a big surprise? Also, a 50% reduction from the 2006 levels puts the herd right at objective according to this graph.