So last night when we pulled up to drop off the buck, we saw 16 doe laying out. I couldn’t believe we saw as many, and in the field we saw another 5-6 that had been shot.
So I get home and check the regs.
It was no secret that CPW was wanting to kill mature bucks in NW Colorado to “Fight CWD” that by it self is horrible. But somehow they decided to kill a crap ton of doe as well.
Unit 22 for example has only had around doe tags for 2nd and 3rd season available for several of the past years as the herd is below objective.
This year the 2nd season had 250 doe tags. 3rd season had 250 doe tags.
Units 11, 211, 23. Something jumped to 250/season.
For the meeker area if you add up all the private land only either sex tags, all the regular doe tags there is the potential for over 3000 doe to be killed this year. Granted not all of the PLO tags will be used on doe, even if a 1/3 take a doe we are still talking about over 1000 doe being killed in the meeker area!
Not sure how I did not hear about this? Or how we did not catch it in the spring etc?
Truthfully I think they intentionally snuck it in under the radar allowing everyone else to be pissed on the stated goal of killing mature bucks!
This year
Dude…
In a lot of places, on public land… North of 85% don’t make it past 1 1/2. Maybe you would feel better if you were to take a minute to count your blessings??
I've talked to more than a few and to a tee they all want healthy animals with populations in balance with the habitat. It's the whiners and the politicians who listen to their squeaky-wheel arses that gum up management plans.
Biologists : "We need to issue 800 antlerless permits in Zone 7"
Politician : "Make it 1200, keep my constituents happy."
Deer : "Sh*!"
Hunters (Two years later) : "Sh*!"
partial blame is on the people using the doe tags too
Preferred Alternative 2 – would allow for a 30% reduction in herd numbers from current population estimates. A population objective range of 25,000–35,000 would allow for increased flexibility in management options if desired CWD prevalence rate reductions were not being achieved. In addition, it would allow further population reductions to address density-dependence mortality factors if survival-monitoring data indicated malnutrition rates continued to be a significant factor. Management actions recommended to achieve the population objective and reduce CWD prevalence rates include: increased female and/or either sex hunting licenses, increased harvest in later season or in high CWD prevalence areas, increase private land only license availability, and increase harvest within targeted high-density mule deer winter ranges. The specific areas in which increased harvest on high-density mule deer winter ranges would be determined based on data from D-7 mule deer survival monitoring results. Moderate incremental increases in license recommendations would be utilized to achieve desired objectives.
For many years CWD was known to occur only in a small area of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. However, the distribution of the disease has expanded into a number of other states and Canadian provinces. In February 2002, CWD was discovered in wild deer in southern Wisconsin. In November 2002, Illinois confirmed that a CWD-infected deer had been found near Roscoe in Boone County, near the Wisconsin border. To date, CWD has been confirmed in 17 Illinois counties: Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, DeKalb, Ogle, LaSalle, Stephenson, Jo Daviess, Kane, Grundy, Kendall, Du Page, Lake, Will, Livingston, Kankakee and Carroll. In Illinois, the disease is most common in eastern Winnebago, northwest DeKalb, west and central McHenry, most of Boone County, northeast Kane, central LaSalle, west and central Kendall and Grundy, and in the southeast and southwest corners of Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, respectively. If left unmanaged, CWD prevalence will likely increase and the disease will spread throughout the state. There is currently no treatment or vaccination for the disease. 4. What do we know about CWD as it relates to the Illinois deer herd?
Since the first case of CWD was discovered in Illinois, the Department of Natural Resources started a "targeted surveillance program" for CWD in wild deer which was first proposed by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, a diagnostic and research service which investigates wildlife diseases. In this program, deer that exhibit symptoms that could be caused by CWD are submitted for testing by an approved laboratory. In addition, during the fall firearm deer seasons, Illinois officials systematically sampled hunter-harvested deer from around the state for CWD testing. The Department of Natural Resources also initiated a focused winter sharpshooting program for CWD management. Results of these practices have determined the geographic distribution of CWD currently encompasses 17 Illinois counties, with the core areas being along the county line separating Winnebago and Boone counties, northwest DeKalb County, and in the southeast and southwest corners of Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, respectively. Other “spark” areas of the disease have radiated from the core areas of the disease.
I knew there was talk about increasing mature bucks harvest as the CWD group came to Conclude that mature bucks were the source of CWD infection.
It is crap however that we are looking at killing over 4000 doe in the NW. unit 22 for example has been the most studied unit in NW Colorado for many things including CWD.
CWD according to Chick Anderson who has been in 22 for 20 years has never exceeded 3% in faction rate. This was on hundreds of live test. Unlike other units where the data is on dead deer.
Sickening that anyone in these areas would allow this to continue.
Colorados deer herd in NW Colorado is going to be done for 29 some years. They did this same BS in Ft Collins 7, 8, 9. It took those units 20 years to have decent deer numbers again.
Having worked on the deer studies for over 10 years in 22. The doe were fatter, had more twins and higher body scores for the last 20 years then were ever see in the 70s and 80s.
The CPWs conclusions from the study Anderson did was that Nutrition was not an issue for the deer in the basin.
So again this seems wrong to offer so Many doe tags in units where their own research shows that nutrition was not the issue…
As mentioned before the exact same unit has been showing less than 3% CWD infection rate.
Having worked on the deer studies for over 10 years in 22. The doe were fatter, had more twins and higher body scores for the last 20 years then were ever see in the 70s and 80s.
The CPWs conclusions from the study Anderson did was that Nutrition was not an issue for the deer in the basin.
So again this seems wrong to offer so Many doe tags in units where their own research shows that nutrition was not the issue…
As mentioned before the exact same unit has been showing less than 3% CWD infection rate.
It’s a sad ploy by the cpw to sell more tags! Its a disgrace what is happening in Colorado! Going from the top B&C state in the country to the pits in only a few years time!
It’s a sad ploy by the cpw to sell more tags! Its a disgrace what is happening in Colorado! Going from the top B&C state in the country to the pits in only a few years time!
In NW Colorado there were 7,700 either sex or doe only deer tags.
That is insane and will absolutely destroy the herd.
I am waiting for a response from the researcher I know in 22. He has been booted from The area and when I last asked him about the approach all he did was roll his eyes and say he couldn’t comment.
I have emailed and asked for some data from his study, I will let everyone know what I can find from him.
In NW Colorado there were 7,700 either sex or doe only deer tags.
That is insane and will absolutely destroy the herd.
I am waiting for a response from the researcher I know in 22. He has been booted from The area and when I last asked him about the approach all he did was roll his eyes and say he couldn’t comment.
I have emailed and asked for some data from his study, I will let everyone know what I can find from him.
In NW Colorado there were 7,700 either sex or doe only deer tags.
That is insane and will absolutely destroy the herd.
I am waiting for a response from the researcher I know in 22. He has been booted from The area and when I last asked him about the approach all he did was roll his eyes and say he couldn’t comment.
I have emailed and asked for some data from his study, I will let everyone know what I can find from him.
In 2020 there were 87,000 hunters and harvest was 39,000.
I caught the tale end of the good old days as a kid and took it for granted. I know we have lost plenty of wintering ground in parts of the State but we are far, far below carrying capacity in others.
Years ago I assumed habitat carrying capacity would be what determined population objectives. Who wouldn't want as many deer as we could sustainably have? That's not how those numbers are set.
I guess I'll ask the same question I've asked on another website......"How many CWD sick deer have you seen while recently scouting and hunting in Colo?" I spend just about every day watching deer in a supposed CWD "hotspot". The last time I saw a CWD sick deer was around 10 years ago! CWD may be present in a low % of the total deer population in these hotspot areas but the few truly sick deer that exist get killed quickly by predators!
Colo has been known as the mule deer mecca of the Western US and sadly this could change dramatically for the worse if the 5 year season structure with increase in tags continues!
" "Who wouldn't want as many deer as we could sustainably have?" The two easiest answers I can come up with are insurance companies and anti-hunting groups. "
Just insurance companies (ok some farmers too.) Anti-hunters generally have no clue about population dynamics, carrying capacities etc. nor do they care. They live in a fantasy land where if deer are not hunted they live almost forever, with no disease or hunger, and no other predation, and then die in their sleep. Science? Biology? Oppression!
The insurance companies, on the other hand, know to the penny how much deer 'cost', in claims paid out.
Colorado’s mismanagement of mule deer is one of the saddest stories and greatest failures in modern wildlife management.
It was not that long ago that mule deer were the cash register for Colorado’s Division of Wildlife (previous agency) and the envy of every western state. Hard to believe the decisions made over the last decade or two that seem to be focused on destroying that resource.
The Correct word is "DOES!!"
The cpw is currently allowing for 3000 DOES to be harvested. Not DOE. :)
"I seen three doe and two buck last night"
