Shed Hunting: Where’s the beef and what’s the best way to manage it?

[realunlucky]

I'll have to look for the quote from Colorado fwp when they implemented thier shed season.

If wildlife is pressed once a day or every other day, we would not have as much concern,” said de Vergie. “But these animals are constantly pressured now, often running from perceived threats dozens of times per day. People may not see it happen right away but severely stressed animals and their offspring will starve to death when their fat stores are depleted.”

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[ReaptheHeat]

I'll have to look for the quote from Colorado fwp when they implemented thier shed season.

If wildlife is pressed once a day or every other day, we would not have as much concern,” said de Vergie. “But these animals are constantly pressured now, often running from perceived threats dozens of times per day. People may not see it happen right away but severely stressed animals and their offspring will starve to death when their fat stores are depleted.”

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Yep, lets make a shed season to "protect" wildlife in the winter range (starting in 2018). But in the same vein, introduce wolves?

The shed laws in Colorado have no logic behind them. If I can traverse the winter range then that means winter is over and there is plentiful vegetation for the animals to eat. If I can't, then there is either 3 ft+ of snow on the ground or its runoff and a complete mud fest. Where you would find sheds here its near impossible to traverse until early April.

May 1st is way too arbitrary to cover "west of I-25". Most of the western slope has been snow free for a few weeks, while Kremmling is finally coming out of winter in the lower areas.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Yep, lets make a shed season to "protect" wildlife in the winter range (starting in 2018). But in the same vein, introduce wolves?

The shed laws in Colorado have no logic behind them. If I can traverse the winter range then that means winter is over and there is plentiful vegetation for the animals to eat. If I can't, then there is either 3 ft+ of snow on the ground or its runoff and a complete mud fest. Where you would find sheds here its near impossible to traverse until early April.

May 1st is way too arbitrary to cover "west of I-25". Most of the western slope has been snow free for a few weeks, while Kremmling is finally coming out of winter in the lower areas.

Except for the fact that the public voter introduced wolves, CPW was NOT for it.

Some of these arguments.

 

[realunlucky]

Yep, lets make a shed season to "protect" wildlife in the winter range (starting in 2018). But in the same vein, introduce wolves?

The shed laws in Colorado have no logic behind them. If I can traverse the winter range then that means winter is over and there is plentiful vegetation for the animals to eat. If I can't, then there is either 3 ft+ of snow on the ground or its runoff and a complete mud fest. Where you would find sheds here its near impossible to traverse until early April.

May 1st is way too arbitrary to cover "west of I-25". Most of the western slope has been snow free for a few weeks, while Kremmling is finally coming out of winter in the lower areas.

It isn't just Colorado biologists that are pointing out that the repeated encounters in crucial wintering habitat are affecting the survival rates of deer and elk.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[JStol5]

I don’t think sheds should be commercialized, unless there’s a cost to entry. I was at a farmer’s market today where they were selling elk antler pieces, and I asked if they paid any sort of fees, etc. to collect and sell them. They didn’t know. This strikes me as wrong

 

[Huntin Fool]

I can’t believe how many people think you should have to pay the government in order to sell something

 

[*zap*]

govt permission slip=

 

[aaronoto]

Set a season, close wintering ranges, and no commercial sales without a commercial permit.

 

[aaronoto]

I can’t believe how many people think you should have to pay the government in order to sell something

So you're cool with commercial sales of a public resource that you need no license to find and pay nothing in order to sell? What if we apply the same logic to mushrooms, salmon, shellfish, crab, wood forest products?? Everyone should be able to sell those carte blanche?

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Except for the fact that the public voter introduced wolves, CPW was NOT for it.

Some of these arguments.

I may have alluded (on accident) that CPW supported or introduced Proposition 114. I want to make that clear that is not what I meant.

 

[Next Ridge]

Have a season and a quota. Sale of sheds is illegal.

 

[CorbLand]

I may have alluded (on accident) that CPW supported or introduced Proposition 114. I want to make that clear that is not what I meant.

Then what was the point of even bringing it up?

 

[Marble]

I would like no entry into some specific critical areas, during a limited time frame. There’s already wildlife areas in Wyoming that do this. Doesn’t have to be the whole winter range. With GPS collar data should be pretty easy to map out where to focus. Totally understand that would rub a lot of guys the wrong way but I’d still like to see it in some places.

I'm with you. It also has to do with calving areas too. I read a study last spring that showed mortality rates in calf elk in relation to how many times they were disturbed by people. It was surprising to see how many calves would get abandoned by just a few interactions.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Boarmaster]

My initial thoughts are you cant sell the meat so why should you sell the antlers. Turning wildlife and especially game animals into a commercial interest has its dangers. While I am not generally in favor of gov.com anything but these are lands set aside for the public to enjoy not for profit. But then there are many contradictions to that. Timber leases , cattle leases and other commercial activities on public ground. Boy what a twisted mess.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Permit to sell. That removes the "held in public trust" issue. Personally, I would like to see that implemented, along with season dates (where necessary). In my opinion, the antler gathering craze is getting way out of hand.

 

[5MilesBack]

I can’t believe how many people think you should have to pay the government in order to sell something

People deserve what they ask for. They'll figure it out eventually, when it's already too late.

 

[sacklunch]

I can’t believe how many people think you should have to pay the government in order to sell something

Yet you pay the government every year to hunt....

 

[5MilesBack]

Yet you pay the government every year to hunt....

"To hunt"........not "to sell".

The state doesn't own shed antlers anymore than they own the elk droppings.......except on state-owned lands. The state is trying to regulate an activity on federal lands based solely on attempting to claim ownership of said antlers after the animals have dropped them. They know they can't regulate activities on federal lands unless they have a claim to the ownership of whatever is on those federal lands. That's why these new regs exclude "control" over private land activities. They can't "control" recreation activities such as hiking and camping on private or federal lands, but they can control (or attempt to control) the "taking" of "their assets" on federal land. So claiming ownership of a said resource was key to this move.

But wait. If the state owns this resource (i.e. sheds), then they should also be able to control the activity of harassing herds and collecting sheds even on private land. The state already controls and regulates the hunting of the state-owned animals on private lands, so if they take "claim" to the ownership of sheds as "wildlife" as well, then just like hunting, they should be able to control the activities of shed hunting on private land too. But they won't do that. Why? Well, in short.....I don't believe they have a legal claim to the "sheds" on private or federal land.

The way the CO reg is written, they've defined "collecting" as even "looking for", whether you actually pick one up or not. So even if you're out hiking on federal land before May 1, you're at risk of violation of this "state" reg. It would be tough to prove without sheds in your possession, but by the letter of the reg you would at least be a suspect to them. I hike a lot before May 1, but even before this new reg I've only picked up one muley and one elk shed in my lifetime.

 

[406RoadToad]

Shed hunting restrictions seldom work as enforcement for it is simply too hard.

Fish and game agencies just need to account for the added wildlife loss in their quota system. As long as populations can sustainably withstand the harvest (death by pressure) I see nothing wrong with shed hunting. It simply may mean less tags come hunting season.

Acting like shed hunting has no effect on animals is foolish.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

"To hunt"........not "to sell".

The state doesn't own shed antlers anymore than they own the elk droppings.......except on state-owned lands. The state is trying to regulate an activity on federal lands based solely on attempting to claim ownership of said antlers after the animals have dropped them.

States, other than Alaska and Texas, have sole jurisdiction of wildlife management within their boundries, regardless of land ownership (federal, state, municipal or private).

In terms of legal language defining the sale, barter or trade of/in wildlife parts, there's reams of legal and criminal case history setting precedent for states to regulate all animal parts, including antlers, skulls, horns, hides, teeth and claws.

Finally, states have legislative authority through independent constitutions, to establish statute and regulation pertaining to the management of wildlife within their boundaries, including the management of wildlife on federal, state, municipal and private lands, including the take of animal parts that could and does apply to antlers, horns, skulls, hides, teeth and claws.