Northwest Colorado Deer Herd Management Plans open to public comment

[Oak]

Grand Junction, Colo. – Colorado Parks and Wildlife seeks input on draft Herd Management Plans (HMPs) for 16 deer herds in northwest Colorado. The draft plans are now open to public review and comment through Dec. 20.

In 2023, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff will present a Regional HMPs document for approval to the Parks and Wildlife Commission to address several HMPs that need to be updated. This is a new approach to create a Regional roll-up of all HMPs for a single big game species in the region, updating or establishing new population and sex ratio objectives. The Regional plans also describe the individual HMPs for each herd, significant management issues for herds within each Region, and public input used to develop proposed objectives. Previously, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff have presented one Herd Management Plan at a time for approval to the Parks and Wildlife Commission.

CPW is proposing new management objectives for nine of the 16 deer herds in the Region. Recommended updates are being proposed for the D-1 Little Snake, D-2 Bear’s Ears, D3 - North Park, D-6 Rangely, D12 - Grand Mesa North, D13 - Maroon Bells, D18 - Glade Park, D41 - Logan Mountain, D43 - Sweetwater Creek deer HMPs.

“When you look at the draft plan, you will see proposed population objectives are lower than historic objectives,” said NW Senior Wildlife Biologist Brad Banulis. "These recommendations are based on several factors, including habitat conditions with persistent drought conditions leading to increased competition for forage, disturbance on important seasonal habitats, and public input. In some of these areas, we're seeing an increased presence of chronic wasting disease (CWD). To help manage that, some sex ratio objectives have changed to provide more hunting opportunities."

CPW is proposing extensions of recently approved management objectives for the D-7 White River, D-8 State Bridge, D-9 Middle Park, D-11 Bookcliffs, D-14 Brush Creek, D-42 Rifle Creek, and D-53 Basalt herds that have all been approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission over the last three years. Extensions are recommended when CPW staff believe a continuation of the previous objectives, course of management actions and strategies are sufficient for a given herd.

“Public input plays an important role in our decision making process,” said NW Region Manager Travis Black. “Colorado Parks and Wildlife relies on the feedback we hear from the public to help give guidance on policy and plans to conserve and manage our resources.”

The draft deer plans are open to public comment through Dec. 20. Please submit public comments to Brad Banulis at [email protected].

Comments also will be accepted by mail addressed to:
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Attn: Brad Banulis
711 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505

The purpose of a HMP plan is to integrate the plans and intentions of Colorado Parks and Wildlife with the concerns and ideas of land management agencies and interested public to determine how a big game herd in a Data Analysis Unit (DAU) should be managed.

In preparing a HMP plan, agency personnel attempt to balance the biological capabilities of the herd and its habitat with the public's demand for wildlife recreational opportunities.

HMPs are used to establish management objectives for each herd in terms of a desired population size range and sex ratio. Each plan also describes additional strategies and techniques that will be used to achieve the desired herd objectives. The goal for the 10-year term of these plans is to manage to the most appropriate population level within the objective range based on climatic patterns, habitat conditions, forage availability and public desires. The management alternatives selected in these plans will help drive annual license setting decisions.

To view all Herd Management Plans for CPW’s Northwest Region, visit our website.

 

[Dsnow9]

View attachment 251879

Grand Junction, Colo. – Colorado Parks and Wildlife seeks input on draft Herd Management Plans (HMPs) for 16 deer herds in northwest Colorado. The draft plans are now open to public review and comment through Dec. 20.

In 2023, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff will present a Regional HMPs document for approval to the Parks and Wildlife Commission to address several HMPs that need to be updated. This is a new approach to create a Regional roll-up of all HMPs for a single big game species in the region, updating or establishing new population and sex ratio objectives. The Regional plans also describe the individual HMPs for each herd, significant management issues for herds within each Region, and public input used to develop proposed objectives. Previously, Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff have presented one Herd Management Plan at a time for approval to the Parks and Wildlife Commission.

CPW is proposing new management objectives for nine of the 16 deer herds in the Region. Recommended updates are being proposed for the D-1 Little Snake, D-2 Bear’s Ears, D3 - North Park, D-6 Rangely, D12 - Grand Mesa North, D13 - Maroon Bells, D18 - Glade Park, D41 - Logan Mountain, D43 - Sweetwater Creek deer HMPs.

“When you look at the draft plan, you will see proposed population objectives are lower than historic objectives,” said NW Senior Wildlife Biologist Brad Banulis. "These recommendations are based on several factors, including habitat conditions with persistent drought conditions leading to increased competition for forage, disturbance on important seasonal habitats, and public input. In some of these areas, we're seeing an increased presence of chronic wasting disease (CWD). To help manage that, some sex ratio objectives have changed to provide more hunting opportunities."

CPW is proposing extensions of recently approved management objectives for the D-7 White River, D-8 State Bridge, D-9 Middle Park, D-11 Bookcliffs, D-14 Brush Creek, D-42 Rifle Creek, and D-53 Basalt herds that have all been approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission over the last three years. Extensions are recommended when CPW staff believe a continuation of the previous objectives, course of management actions and strategies are sufficient for a given herd.

“Public input plays an important role in our decision making process,” said NW Region Manager Travis Black. “Colorado Parks and Wildlife relies on the feedback we hear from the public to help give guidance on policy and plans to conserve and manage our resources.”

The draft deer plans are open to public comment through Dec. 20. Please submit public comments to Brad Banulis at [email protected].

Comments also will be accepted by mail addressed to:
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Attn: Brad Banulis
711 Independent Avenue
Grand Junction, CO 81505

The purpose of a HMP plan is to integrate the plans and intentions of Colorado Parks and Wildlife with the concerns and ideas of land management agencies and interested public to determine how a big game herd in a Data Analysis Unit (DAU) should be managed.

In preparing a HMP plan, agency personnel attempt to balance the biological capabilities of the herd and its habitat with the public's demand for wildlife recreational opportunities.

HMPs are used to establish management objectives for each herd in terms of a desired population size range and sex ratio. Each plan also describes additional strategies and techniques that will be used to achieve the desired herd objectives. The goal for the 10-year term of these plans is to manage to the most appropriate population level within the objective range based on climatic patterns, habitat conditions, forage availability and public desires. The management alternatives selected in these plans will help drive annual license setting decisions.

To view all Herd Management Plans for CPW’s Northwest Region, visit our website.

Thanks oak!

 

[Sagebrush1]

Thank you sir!

 

[Dinkshooter]

Sigh

 

[elkduds]

Thanks for this and the southwest elk herd draft post, Oak.

 

[Oak]

"Based on chronic wasting disease prevalence, habitat conditions with persistent drought conditions, public input, competition for forage, disturbance on important seasonal habitats, and changes to population models, most proposed population objectives are going to be lower than historic objectives. Additionally, some sex ratio objectives have increased in range breadth and lowered values to provide hunting opportunity and to manage CWD prevalence, which is highest in older age class bucks."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

"Based on chronic wasting disease prevalence, habitat conditions with persistent drought conditions, public input, competition for forage, disturbance on important seasonal habitats, and changes to population models, most proposed population objectives are going to be lower than historic objectives. Additionally, some sex ratio objectives have increased in range breadth and lowered values to provide hunting opportunity and to manage CWD prevalence, which is highest in older age class bucks."

Or in non-PC terms.

Folks we are gonna put the smack down on bucks for the foreseeable future.

 

[TOGIE]

it's a lot of information to try and give meaningful coherent public comment on. i wouldn't know where to start without taking a day of pto and studying each plan.

@Oak please advise.

i imagine it'll be pretty hard to convince anyone at cpw or the commission to change course here on these main items of "lowering objectives" and "increasing opportunity" in the name of CWD and faltering habitat.

 

[375H&H]

Or in non-PC terms.

Folks we are gonna put the smack down on bucks for the foreseeable future.

No kidding.

If CWD isn’t having the local population impacts like our “experts” are concerned may happen in about 60 years, best to have hunters get that done now and for certain. No speculation needed on more deer tags equaling less deer.

 

[PablitoPescador]

Thanks for the heads up on this

 

[Oak]

This new group of plans will update 9 DAU and extend the 7 DAU plans that were updated in the last 3 years. Here are some high level highlights of what they are proposing.

The current population estimate for the 9 DAU for which they are updating the plans is 84,309.

The current population objectives combined for those 9 DAU are 106,200-119,400.

The proposed new population objectives combined for those 9 DAU are 71,200-101,400.

The 7 DAU plans that were updated in the last three years:

Population estimate when the plans were updated: 85,047

Old population objectives: 121,500-130,200

Approved population objectives: 62,200-88,700

So in 4 years time the population objective in the NW region has dropped from 227,700-249,600 to 133,200-190,100.

I know that's a lot of numbers to digest, but think of how much less hunting opportunity that means for the future.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This new group of plans will update 9 DAU and extend the 7 DAU plans that were updated in the last 3 years. Here are some high level highlights of what they are proposing.

The current population estimate for the 9 DAU for which they are updating the plans is 84,309.

The current population objectives combined for those 9 DAU are 106,200-119,400.

The proposed new population objectives combined for those 9 DAU are 71,200-101,400.

The 7 DAU plans that were updated in the last three years:

Population estimate when the plans were updated: 85,047

Old population objectives: 121,500-130,200

Approved population objectives: 62,200-88,700

So in 4 years time the population objective in the NW region has dropped from 227,700-249,600 to 133,200-190,100.

I know that's a lot of numbers to digest, but think of how much less hunting opportunity that means for the future.

So herds were under objective and therefore they approved objectives lower than current populations?

The herd is in decline... so lets "decline it" more?

 

[Irrelevant]

So herds were under objective and therefore they approved objectives lower than current populations?

The herd is in decline... so lets "decline it" more?

I thought WY was supposed to be a buffer between CO and MT.

 

[375H&H]

I thought WY was supposed to be a buffer between CO and MT.

Wyoming is better but not all rosy. Most areas are struggling to come back after the bad winter of 16-17 and game and fish did essentially nothing to help the deer. Not having a rut hunt means squat if private land does are obliterated or tags are not reduced accordingly.

 

[Oak]

So herds were under objective and therefore they approved objectives lower than current populations?

The herd is in decline... so lets "decline it" more?

If you read most of the plans that have been approved in the last few years, they typically go something like this:

"We used to manage for this many deer, but the population has dropped to that many deer since the last plan was written. This is because of reasons A, B, C, D, and E. This DAU can no longer support our old objective. It will support what we have right now, so that's our new objective."

There are a few exceptions, but not very many. At the rate of the current spiral, there's not going to be a heck of a lot of deer hunting 20 years from now.

 

[TOGIE]

@Oak

let's take D-7 as an example. pretty meteoric drops over the decades. estimate of over a 100,000 deer in the early 80's and now per the HMP "in the last decade, the herd has not exceeded 40,000 animals."

meanwhile D-9 has been generally been holding up pretty well. it's rebounded from some of the bad winters and been generally resilient and steady in comparison if you're looking at it since the licensing change in the late 90's. though, tag numbers have dropped after falling in the upper range of the population objective in the last couple of years. but, overall it's been a healthy and productive herd. maybe a standout really, but i haven't read all of the plans.

so, back to D-7, when i read these words from the biologist regarding D-7: "Biological carrying capacity is not static. In reality, carrying capacities fluctuate annually and trend over time. The declines observed within the D-7 mule deer herd are evidence the carrying capacity is, and has been, on a downward trend. Sustaining historic or desired population levels can be difficult or impossible due to habitat constraints."

i want to believe they're not blowing smoke and do have the evidence to suggest this is true.

but how do we rectify that with population objectives being set low and we see ourselves ending up on this "spiral." does that mean we should instead set the objective higher? or is it actually true that carrying capacity is now appropriate where they set the new (and lower) objective.

i belive you've typed the words before that maybe focus should instead be on reversing the downward trend. i agree, i don't see that talked about. it's a lot of: population has dropped because of all these problems so now the objective drops too. end of story.

i'm really trying to rectify all of this in my mind. i bet we could dial back hunting (or do we really need to? again, shifted seasons notwithstanding): i'm not sure we need to hammer bucks for CWDs sake, why not pull back the doe harvest substantially... surely those things would help stop the spiral. of course there needs to be huge focus on maintaining migration corridors, improving habitat, preventing the destruction of winter range, etc.

or to what degree are the biologists correct in that carrying capacity is really changing here. nutrient densities due to drought, severe winters, habitat fragmentation, yada yada yada. and how much can we really do about that declining carrying capacity in the near term? is it biologically sound to set a higher objective because that's what we want? and work towards it? or set the objective because they properly belive this is the sustainable number with the caveat that we gotta work ultra hard on stopping the downward trend?

chit ton to really unpack in all of this. especially when you consider mule deer in general are declining across the west.

 

[Sagebrush1]

@Oak

let's take D-7 as an example. pretty meteoric drops over the decades. estimate of over a 100,000 deer in the early 80's and now per the HMP "in the last decade, the herd has not exceeded 40,000 animals."

meanwhile D-9 has been generally been holding up pretty well. it's rebounded from some of the bad winters and been generally resilient and steady in comparison if you're looking at it since the licensing change in the late 90's. though, tag numbers have dropped after falling in the upper range of the population objective in the last couple of years. but overall, it's been a healthy and productive herd. maybe a standout really, but i haven't read all of the plans.

so, back to D-7, when i read these words from the biologist regarding D-7: "Biological carrying capacity is not static. In reality, carrying capacities fluctuate annually and trend over time. The declines observed within the D-7 mule deer herd are evidence the carrying capacity is, and has been, on a downward trend. Sustaining historic or desired population levels can be difficult or impossible due to habitat constraints."

i want to believe they're not blowing smoke and do have the evidence to suggest this is true.

but how do we rectify that with population objectives being set low and we see ourselves ending up on this "spiral." does that mean we should instead set the objective higher? or is it actually true that carrying capacity is now appropriate where they set the new (and lower) objective.

i belive you've typed the words before that maybe focus should instead be on reversing the downward trend. i agree, i don't see that talked about. it's a lot of: population has dropped because of all these problems so now the objective drops too. end of story.

i'm really trying to rectify all of this in my mind. i bet we could dial back hunting (or do we really need to? again, shifted seasons notwithstanding): i'm not sure we need to hammer bucks for CWDs sake, why not pull back the doe harvest substantially... surely those things would help stop the spiral.

or to what degree are the biologists correct in that carrying capacity is really changing here. nutrient densities due to drought, severe winters, habitat fragmentation, yada yada yada. and how much can we really do about that changing carrying capacity in the near term?

chit ton to really unpack in all of this. especially when you consider mule deer in general are declining across the west.

Yah that’s where my head is too. Same questions.

 

[marksjeep]

So... about that 4th season buck hunt staff is recommending for some units around here...

 

[COEngineer]

Wildfire suppression, drought (dare I say climate change), CWD, increased energy extraction/production, millions more people building homes, roads, 2nd homes, and recreating on the same finite amount of ground. There just can't be as many deer as there were a few decades ago. And it's not getting better in the near future. Or the long term, if we don't start serious efforts now.

 

[Oak]

@Oak

let's take D-7 as an example. pretty meteoric drops over the decades. estimate of over a 100,000 deer in the early 80's and now per the HMP "in the last decade, the herd has not exceeded 40,000 animals."

meanwhile D-9 has been generally been holding up pretty well. it's rebounded from some of the bad winters and been generally resilient and steady in comparison if you're looking at it since the licensing change in the late 90's. though, tag numbers have dropped after falling in the upper range of the population objective in the last couple of years. but, overall it's been a healthy and productive herd. maybe a standout really, but i haven't read all of the plans.

so, back to D-7, when i read these words from the biologist regarding D-7: "Biological carrying capacity is not static. In reality, carrying capacities fluctuate annually and trend over time. The declines observed within the D-7 mule deer herd are evidence the carrying capacity is, and has been, on a downward trend. Sustaining historic or desired population levels can be difficult or impossible due to habitat constraints."

i want to believe they're not blowing smoke and do have the evidence to suggest this is true.

but how do we rectify that with population objectives being set low and we see ourselves ending up on this "spiral." does that mean we should instead set the objective higher? or is it actually true that carrying capacity is now appropriate where they set the new (and lower) objective.

i belive you've typed the words before that maybe focus should instead be on reversing the downward trend. i agree, i don't see that talked about. it's a lot of: population has dropped because of all these problems so now the objective drops too. end of story.

i'm really trying to rectify all of this in my mind. i bet we could dial back hunting (or do we really need to? again, shifted seasons notwithstanding): i'm not sure we need to hammer bucks for CWDs sake, why not pull back the doe harvest substantially... surely those things would help stop the spiral. of course there needs to be huge focus on maintaining migration corridors, improving habitat, preventing the destruction of winter range, etc.

or to what degree are the biologists correct in that carrying capacity is really changing here. nutrient densities due to drought, severe winters, habitat fragmentation, yada yada yada. and how much can we really do about that declining carrying capacity in the near term? is it biologically sound to set a higher objective because that's what we want? and work towards it? or set the objective because they properly belive this is the sustainable number with the caveat that we gotta work ultra hard on stopping the downward trend?

chit ton to really unpack in all of this. especially when you consider mule deer in general are declining across the west.

That's a lot of questions and I'm short on time.

High level, I think the newer herd management plans do a good job of identifying the issues that challenge each herd. Read that D-7 plan and they discuss them. I would like to see more effort put towards doing what we can to protect the critical habitat that is left and restoring what is degraded. That means doing what is necessary to protect remaining winter range and migration corridors, improve degraded habitat, etc.

I think a model that might work well is to form local working groups at the DAU level, as @Nameless Range brought up in this thread. These groups would include CPW, sportsmen, federal land managers, ranchers/landowners, public lands grazers, motorized and non-motorized recreation reps, county and local municipalities reps, etc. I think that getting everyone in the same room, digging in at the local level, developing common goals and strategies could really be successful in the long term. I think it would take a facilitator dedicated to the issue and the outcomes to keep the process on track. You wouldn't want to rely on an an agency to lead, and there are reasons why it's better for them to be participants rather than leading the group.
There's $0.02, worth probably less.