Colorado: The state of the state

[Oak]

I visited for a while this evening with Bruce McCloskey, the director of the CDOW and thought some would be interested in a couple of items we discussed.

1. The recent proposal to increase the landowner allotment of limited big game tags from 15% to 30%, which was practically shouted down by hunters in the state, will be making a re-appearance sooner than previously reported. A working group of various interests is being assembled this month to come up with recommendations for possible changes to the current system. The goal is to present those recommendations to the Wildlife Commission in September. The DOW will not have an active role in the group and is not taking a position on the issue, however, the feeling I got is that there is some sympathy for ranchers having to support our overpopulation of elk . Keep your eyes open for the list of names appointed to this group and make sure they hear your feelings. Better yet, contact the Wildife commission directly.

2. McCloskey said that he forsees some changes in the Ranching for Wildlife program to address complaints from neighboring landowners and public hunters that draw tags for RFW ranches. A working group is being appointed this week to develop recommendations. Apparently about one third of the commissioners want to scrap the whole program, but there's enough support from the rest that there will most likely just be a few changes. Those changes may include reducing the ranches' opportunity to hunt bulls with rifles during the rut, requiring public hunters to have access the the same areas of the ranches as the paying hunters, and requiring cow harvest by the public to meet some pre-determined level for the ranch to stay in the program. This is another issue that you will have a chance to submit comments to the commissioners about.

3. An ongoing study of whether mule deer fawn survivorship is related to habitat condition is returning some interesting preliminary results. Areas where winter range has received treatments such as added fertilizer is showing ~20% higher survivorship than untreated areas. The next part of the study will look at mechanical treatments such as fire and chaining. One of the researchers is giving a presentation in a couple of weeks, and I hope to get more information. Who would believe that something besides coyotes and lions might be causing a decrease in the deer herds?

Oak

 

[A-con]

Any mention of changing the point system, so it dosn't take 30+ years to draw a top notch unit ?

 

[Ithaca 37]

"Areas where winter range has received treatments such as added fertilizer is showing ~20% higher survivorship than untreated areas."

Better cover makes it easier for fawns to hide. Cattle grazing thins out the cover and a coyote can spot a fawn a mile away.

 

[Oak]

A-con, I didn't ask about the preference point system, but they've talked about it off and on for the last three years or so.

Here's an article from today's paper about some of this stuff...

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~110~2698190,00.html


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Article Published: Tuesday, February 08, 2005

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=articleHorizontalRule>

</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left>DOW taking aim at Montana hunter program

On a recent hunt on a private ranch in northern Montana, Jim Satterfield bagged a magnificent buck with vaulting antlers that scored in the 180s on the Boone and Crockett scale. But that's just the tip of the story. Although he is a regional supervisor with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Satterfield used no official edge in bagging his prize. And it cost nothing to get it.

Satterfield, who once toiled for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, gained entry through Montana's Block Management Program, a public access procedure by which the state's hunters gain access to approximately 8.8 million acres of land on more than 1,250 ranches.

"I do most of my hunting on block land. It's really good hunting and open to everyone," Satterfield enthused.

<!-- cdaFreeFormDetailByName.strSQL = FreeForm_GetTextBySectionIDPaperID @Name = 'ArticleAd', @PaperID = '36', @SectionID = '110', @ArticleID = '2698190', @Filter = 'Article', @LiveFilter = '1', @DateTimeContext = '2/8/2005 4:35:38 PM' --><!-- ArticleAd not found -->Using funds generated through license sales, the Montana wildlife agency pays participating landowners $10 per hunter per day. It also assists with signs, gates, patrol and various support and administrative duties.

"That's far less than they could get leasing out the land, but there's a big difference in the way Montana landowners view public hunting than in Colorado," Satterfield said. "Particularly in the older generation, landowners here still believe in the principle of public hunting."

Considering the degree to which Colorado has drifted toward rampant commercialization of big game, it's problematic whether the Montana model might be transplanted here. But it is being considered.

"Staff looked at it a few years ago and opted not to do it, but we're looking again," DOW director Bruce McCloskey said.

That review will be just one part of a sweeping examination of DOW's entire licensing structure, a process that begins next month with appointments to a broad-based advisory committee.

"We'll look at landowner licensing, everything," McCloskey promised.

How Colorado's big game license pie gets sliced came under heated scrutiny late last year amid an initiative to dramatically increase the share of coveted special draw tags allotted outright to landowners and their outfitter agents.

The resulting public outcry drew sharp attention to the degree of influence commercial interests wield over Colorado big game policy, ascendancy gained by a relentless push against politically timid wildlife managers and with the acquiescence of an apathetic public.

Now, faced with a full-bore backlash, DOW and the Colorado Wildlife Commission appear willing to at least partially correct the imbalance.

Included in this new direction is a complete examination of the Ranching for Wildlife Program (RFW), a cooperative agreement by which large landowners allow a limited amount of public hunting - mostly for cow elk - in exchange for liberal season and license allotments.

RFW has been flooded with recent complaints over various abuses, causing certain wildlife commission members to suggest a chain-saw approach toward reform.

"We're going to look at it top to bottom, inside and out," McCloskey said. "I think Ranching for Wildlife plays an important role. My aim is not to kill it. But we have to tune it up. There are inconsistencies that need to be fixed."

To that end, McCloskey and his lieutenants will meet this week to formulate yet another committee, this one composed of sportsmen, RFW lessees and their neighbors.

Whether all this leads to more opportunity for public hunters to bag a trophy deer on private land remains to be seen. But at least we should be able to tell where the buck stops.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>