All I’m reading are Elk Numbers Down, Colorado

[backcountryshaffer]

Now I’m reading about Vail and Aspen area herd numbers are way low.

I hold the understanding that much of this is directly related to general outdoor recreation encroaching on critical brooding habitat. It's starting to happen in the Yampa Valley also. Hunting plays a small role, as we tend to be the conservationists. The mountain bikers are really a strong force in those locations.

 

[OkieElk]

I hunt SW Colorado so I watch this closely...To answer the OPs question, and I think some people have hit on it a little already is that specifically SW Colorado elk populations have been steadily declining. According to several in depth articles I have read cite state biologists say fawn mortality is around 50%. So half the elk fawn, close to equal distribution of bull and cows, crop are dying each year.

If I remember correctly this is because the pressure hunters are putting on the elk herd in SW Co, in the fall elk are supposed to fatten up so they can maintain health during migration/winter time. Apparently, not as many cows are entering winter in good shape due to high pressure from an unregulated number of hunters, que unlimited and OTC tag holders(myself included at times). This means cows give birth in poor health and the calf suffers from this and 50% die due to multiple factors stemming from this.

If these assertions are true I totally understand the idea to limit tags. However there are other factors that Bioligist cite as stressors such as recreational tourist, jeepers, hikers, backpackers etc that are also using the SW Colorado mountains at a high rate in early fall.

This is my understanding if the subject, hope it helps and someone close to CPW can add some color if needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

It’s all terrifying to me, hopefully it doesn’t get too Grim.

 

[Okhotnik]

Numbers will be alot less if the Wolfie's get their way too.....

Thats a lie. As K Buzzh. Wolves increase ungulate numbers!

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

Thats a lie. As K Buzzh. Wolves increase ungulate numbers!

I enjoyed your debate with Buzzh

 

[Lowndes]

Why would you keep paying taxes for something that you may never get to use? Oh,I don't know, because the government says you will? Stop paying taxes and see how long they ignore you. Do you complain the same way to your insurance agent? Why pay for something you may never get to use, right? Colorado is heading down a slippery slope with wildlife management and land use, hunters are a very small part of that equation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

My guess is his point is that if you take away peoples ability to use their public lands in the manner they want to use them (hunting, skiing, mountain biking, hiking, etc.) then they will no longer care to support their tax dollars going to support those public lands. Federal lands don’t exist without support from residents of your state and non residents alike. You might not feel that this is a real risk but it is something I am very concerned about for future generations. We need as much support for public lands as possible. Alienating non residents isn’t the answer.

 

[sneaky]

My guess is his point is that if you take away peoples ability to use their public lands in the manner they want to use them (hunting, skiing, mountain biking, hiking, etc.) then they will know longer care to support their tax dollars going to support those public lands. Federal lands don’t exist without support from residents of your state and non residents alike. You might not feel that this is a real risk but it is something I am very concerned about for future generations. We need as much support for public lands as possible. Alienating non residents isn’t the answer.

It doesn't matter if you care to support it with your tax dollars, your tax dollars will still support it as we don't get to tell the government what to spend our tax dollars on. I don't think it's alienating NR, but to compare western tags to hunting back east is the wrong tact. There are millions of whitetails back east, Mississippi has 1.75 million or so alone. Colorado has the biggest elk herd and it's under 300k. It's apples to oranges. Elk and mule deer are finite resources with much lower population numbers. Something has to give and states should prioritize residents over nonresidents in any decision, be it hunting, hiking, wilderness permits etc etc.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Lowndes]

It doesn't matter if you care to support it with your tax dollars, your tax dollars will still support it as we don't get to tell the government what to spend our tax dollars on. I don't think it's alienating NR, but to compare western tags to hunting back east is the wrong tact. There are millions of whitetails back east, Mississippi has 1.75 million or so alone. Colorado has the biggest elk herd and it's under 300k. It's apples to oranges. Elk and mule deer are finite resources with much lower population numbers. Something has to give and states should prioritize residents over nonresidents in any decision, be it hunting, hiking, wilderness permits etc etc.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

If the people that we elect want to get rid of public lands then our tax dollars no longer support those lands. So yes we do get to tell the government how to spend our tax dollars. That’s why it is important to learn the viewpoints of the people we are electing. These public lands can be sold off and the west could end up with a private land dominated system like the East.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I find it funny that all these nonresidents cry when Colorado talks about limiting their numbers. They do realize that all the western states do this don't they? With Idaho still being somewhat OTC and some crap Utah elk hunts limiting hunter numbers is the norm. You cannot have an unlimited number of people chasing a limited resource and expect it to stick around. It would also be great if they quit comparing their whitetail hunting to western big game its not an even comparison.

 

[Lowndes]

I find it funny that all these nonresidents cry when Colorado talks about limiting their numbers. They do realize that all the western states do this don't they? With Idaho still being somewhat OTC and some crap Utah elk hunts limiting hunter numbers is the norm. You cannot have an unlimited number of people chasing a limited resource and expect it to stick around. It would also be great if they quit comparing their whitetail hunting to western big game its not an even comparison.

I’m a nonresident and don’t mind being limited at all. I think residents should be limited as well. If a population is declining something should be done to correct that. My only point in posting the above is that we need all the support we can for public lands as there is no guarantee they exist for the next generation. Alienating massive swaths of the country and telling them no you can’t use these lands isn’t conducive to that goal in my opinion. Maybe people don’t care or don’t think it’s a real threat. That’s fine too - it’s just not my opinion.

 

[sneaky]

I find it funny that all these nonresidents cry when Colorado talks about limiting their numbers. They do realize that all the western states do this don't they? With Idaho still being somewhat OTC and some crap Utah elk hunts limiting hunter numbers is the norm. You cannot have an unlimited number of people chasing a limited resource and expect it to stick around. It would also be great if they quit comparing their whitetail hunting to western big game its not an even comparison.

Idaho has a 12,815 tag cap for NR. Unlike Colorado. Colorado likes money. Gotta support the leaf peepers because their parking fees aren't keeping any budgets balanced like they think it does.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[orionthehunter1]

Colorado parks and wildlife has the option of making all the leaf peepers buy a habitat stamp, problem is they are too lazy to enforce it. Lowndes I agree residents should be limited as well. I've said it a hundred times Colorado needs to go all draw with a 80/20 resident non resident split. Adjust the tag prices accordingly on both sides and implement some mandatory harvest reporting.

 

[MOSO 300]

Why would you keep paying taxes for something that you may never get to use? Oh,I don't know, because the government says you will? Stop paying taxes and see how long they ignore you. Do you complain the same way to your insurance agent? Why pay for something you may never get to use, right? Colorado is heading down a slippery slope with wildlife management and land use, hunters are a very small part of that equation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I am my insurance agent so no not really. You are not following the point. Insurance is in place to help you avoid financial hardship when the unfortunate happens. I don’t think the two have the same premise. If you don’t think there is already pressure to sell off public lands and political pressure from anti hunting groups then you have your head in the sand. If you alienate NR hunters your support to push back on that dwindles. Obviously CPW has things that need attention and corrected, and they have been on that slippery slope for a while. It’s not just one issue but a domino effect of several. Some of them seem like very common sense fixes like required reporting, pred control etc. so why don’t they address them? I bet most can figure that out. Sound science says you need to control the predators. So why would they not manage it and want to introduce more? Pressure from the non hunting community maybe?

My response was at the continued jabs at the NR. And they FACT that we as hunters need to be united not divided. If the above isn’t reason enough I’ll give you a different angle. The forestry service had a budget of nearly 6 billion dollars in 2019. What’s to stop people from saying ok if I can’t use it then I’m damn sure not gunna pay for it. Let the residents of the state fund it since they want to be the only ones who get to use it. You don’t think people won’t start pushing that agenda into the political environment...? I for one don’t want to take that chance.
Personally I raise my kids to enjoy the outdoors and hope they have the chance to raise their kids the same way.
The land is public, yours and mine along with everyone else on this forum. I’ve hunted many years now in Colorado where they graze cattle on federal land. The cattle are owned privately. The ranchers pay to graze them. I don’t mind after years of going I rather enjoy visiting with them year after year, plus they have always been good about intel. The mindset that wildlife is owned by the people of the state is fine. But you aren’t raising your wildlife on just your land, or state land, but federal land just like the ranchers. Yet the ranchers pay and you don’t. Why is that? Should the state be paying the fed? The rancher is running a business on public land and so is the state, the rancher pays but the state does not, in fact the state gets money from the fed. At what point do people get fed up with it? Remember the western hunting states aren’t as populated as much of the rest of the country. The funding is decided by people who want and need votes, it’s self preservation for them. Again I hope that day never comes. But we will need to stay on the same team if we are to keep it at bay.
Are there some NR’s who need rubbed in the dirt for the way they behave your damn right, but I’ve seen some residents who need the same treatment. Maybe we shouldn’t pigeon hole people by their residence and more by their actions. A shithead is a shithead regardless of what’s on their license plate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I am my insurance agent so no not really. You are not following the point. Insurance is in place to help you avoid financial hardship when the unfortunate happens. I don’t think the two have the same premise. If you don’t think there is already pressure to sell off public lands and political pressure from anti hunting groups then you have your head in the sand. If you alienate NR hunters your support to push back on that dwindles. Obviously CPW has things that need attention and corrected, and they have been on that slippery slope for a while. It’s not just one issue but a domino effect of several. Some of them seem like very common sense fixes like required reporting, pred control etc. so why don’t they address them? I bet most can figure that out. Sound science says you need to control the predators. So why would they not manage it and want to introduce more? Pressure from the non hunting community maybe?

My response was at the continued jabs at the NR. And they FACT that we as hunters need to be united not divided. If the above isn’t reason enough I’ll give you a different angle. The forestry service had a budget of nearly 6 billion dollars in 2019. What’s to stop people from saying ok if I can’t use it then I’m damn sure not gunna pay for it. Let the residents of the state fund it since they want to be the only ones who get to use it. You don’t think people won’t start pushing that agenda into the political environment...? I for one don’t want to take that chance.
Personally I raise my kids to enjoy the outdoors and hope they have the chance to raise their kids the same way.
The land is public, yours and mine along with everyone else on this forum. I’ve hunted many years now in Colorado where they graze cattle on federal land. The cattle are owned privately. The ranchers pay to graze them. I don’t mind after years of going I rather enjoy visiting with them year after year, plus they have always been good about intel. The mindset that wildlife is owned by the people of the state is fine. But you aren’t raising your wildlife on just your land, or state land, but federal land just like the ranchers. Yet the ranchers pay and you don’t. Why is that? Should the state be paying the fed? The rancher is running a business on public land and so is the state, the rancher pays but the state does not, in fact the state gets money from the fed. At what point do people get fed up with it? Remember the western hunting states aren’t as populated as much of the rest of the country. The funding is decided by people who want and need votes, it’s self preservation for them. Again I hope that day never comes. But we will need to stay on the same team if we are to keep it at bay.
Are there some NR’s who need rubbed in the dirt for the way they behave your damn right, but I’ve seen some residents who need the same treatment. Maybe we shouldn’t pigeon hole people by their residence and more by their actions. A shithead is a shithead regardless of what’s on their license plate!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ahhh, so you're an insurance agent, that explains a lot. You make a living off of selling people something they'll most likely never use, then penalizing them if they have to. Also, you didn't mention anywhere in your initial post anything about selling off public lands or garnering support for those. You tied that in after being responded to. I can't read your mind and yet you think we're all supposed to just know that's what you were getting at. If the Feds want to sell off the land they'll find a way, and the friction between all the outdoor groups means there won't be a concerted effort to stop it. We just get annoyed when NR try to tell us how to manage our states. Take care of your state, we'll take care of ours. Big deal that ranchers pay pennies to graze public land. Mining and oil companies pay as well. You should be thankful that you can hunt other states, instead of thinking they should do it your way. The same arguments come up every time license prices change or tag numbers get changed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Colorado parks and wildlife has the option of making all the leaf peepers buy a habitat stamp, problem is they are too lazy to enforce it. Lowndes I agree residents should be limited as well. I've said it a hundred times Colorado needs to go all draw with a 80/20 resident non resident split. Adjust the tag prices accordingly on both sides and implement some mandatory harvest reporting.

The worst thing that happened was when they combined Wildlife with the Parks department. It didn't work the first time they tried it, but they didn't learn.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[cnelk]

Colorado parks and wildlife has the option of making all the leaf peepers buy a habitat stamp, problem is they are too lazy to enforce it.

I asked the CPW about this ^^^

The CPW cant mandate everyone to purchase a Habitat stamp to use National Forests. [They tried that and found out its a No-No] They can only do that for State owned land.

The CPW can only implement the Habitat Stamp to hunt/fish for the opportunity to take a State owned resource from Federal owned land.

 

[Newtosavage]

I read these "sky is falling" threads and wonder, how many do you need? Not sure about anyone else, but one at a time is enough for me.

Anyone here have a real, accurate idea of how many elk there were in CO historically? Are we sure there aren't many times more today? I wonder if this entire argument/debate/discussion is being made on a false premise.

 

[Newtosavage]

Why is there so much backlash against mandatory harvest reporting?

How else is a state supposed to scientifically manage the resource?

And now that you can do it from your cell phone, it shouldn't be a problem for many people at all.

 

[Bailer]

If they don’t limit the otc rifle, these new draw units will still just be chasing the same little Colorado raghorns. I have a hard time wrapping my head around their not limiting all seasons.

 

[spike camp]

If they don’t limit the otc rifle, these new draw units will still just be chasing the same little Colorado raghorns. I have a hard time wrapping my head around their not limiting all seasons.

It’s all about the cows.