Muley Changes to NW Colorado

tailchasers

Long Time Member
Messages
5,262
LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-18 AT 05:29PM (MST)[p]From what I have been able to gather CPW will be looking at making some changes to several units in NW Colorado trying to stem CWD. They spoke about reducing buck to doe ratios by moving tags from 2nd season to 3rd and 4th season because as CPW staff stated they believe rutting bucks are a presumed leading cause for the spread of CWD. Units they spoke of included; 11, 211, 12, 13, 131, 22, 23, 231, 24.

Other suggestions and concerns were brought up about their proposal from predator management, lack of statistical data, and habitat. As I interpreted it, CPW already has their minds set on moving forward with this action and I wouldn't be surprised to see something imposed in 2019.

I don't like it one bit...

90060img20180626194122971hdr.jpg


"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I still don't see how having fewer bucks will slow the spread of CWD. Fewer bucks mean each remaining Buck will have contact with more does. I think it will have the exact opposite effect. If he contracts CWD from the first doe he breeds that season will he not spread it to the rest of the does he breeds?


#livelikezac
 
Perfectly logical really, to save the deer we will kill the deer...

Now would there be any related spinoff effects that aren't worth mentioning by printing lots of buck tags???

Hmmmmmm.... no I'm convinced they are only wanting what is best for the herd... count me in with total conviction as cpw is beyond reproach and pure of heart.
 
Does this mean that x % of the deer they test in these units have CWD? If so, that seems really high.

If older bucks are more likely than younger bucks to have CWD, then I could see some merit in their plan. The problem is people may shoot younger bucks with the extra tags!
 
Deer are more likely to acquire CWD as they get older since it is incurable, progressive, and always fatal. Older deer, especially bucks have higher rates of CWD. Denser populations spread CWD more rapidly. Once those prevalence rates hit about 20%, the whole herd starts to decline, so yeah, killing more older bucks that might have CWD in its early stages before they can transmit it will help lower CWD rates. Does that actually suit all of our needs? That is debatable if they can't establish transmission of this particular TSE from cervids to humans or prove permanent herd damage/loss, but it is possible that these infections take decades to develop. We've only known about CWD since the 1960s, and links between CWD and CJD or some form therof may not have been established yet. If the CPW is supposed to do the best it can with what it knows, then this is certainly a reasonable option. If you don't like their solution, I say why don't you offer another solution that doesn't equate to sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem, or worse yet, offering a solution that only suits your personal short term goals.
 
These prions have been known to live on the ground at least 16 years, they don't know just how long they can live on the ground. If you ran a herd of deer into the pens at CSU, where the study was done back in the 60s buy a bunch of future Dow biologist and Wardens that started this whole mess, in two weeks the whole herd would be infected. I don't know that there is a solution to this problem.


#livelikezac
 
They went into unit 19 years ago and killed a pile of em because this was going to fix it. 19 to this day still has one of the highest rates of CWD in the state. Like I said, I don't know what the solution is but I would have thought they already figured out killing a bunch of deer isn't the answer.


#livelikezac
 
I
>don't know that there is
>a solution to this problem.
>
>
>
>#livelikezac


Don't be defeatist about it. Just because it hasn't YET been figured out doesn't mean it can't/won't.

There may not be any eradication solution currently available, but speculation on why supposed increased harvest in unit 19 didn't eradicate the disease without a reference to when this was done or a study regarding it is pretty useless.
 
In the link I posted dated 2001 they referenced the fact that they were in the process of killing 1500 deer north of Fort Collins. The rate of infection never wavered. It isn't a defeatist attitude I'm a realist.


#livelikezac
 
We've had the same issues in WY for 40 years. The CSU guys teamed up with UW to study CWD at the Sybille Research Center SW of Wheatland, between Wheatland and Laramie. That's the epicenter of CWD in WY. The areas east of I-25 were heavily tested last fall. The infection rate of tested deer was 30%; crazy. Not saying 30% of the deer have CWD, but 30% of the deer tested (mostly older bucks) had CWD.

But as far as I know, no knee-jerk reactions are planned in WY. Just understand that there won't be as many older age class bucks and also understand the overall population may be lower.

I did read another study that thought the deer were developing resistance to CWD, just through genetic progress. Uncertain, but it does provide hope.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-18 AT 12:33PM (MST)[p]
>First off, "north and east of
>Ft Collins" is not 19,
>it's 2 other units,




"North and east" is different than "northeast. The link you posted tells you parts of the study area are 80 miles northwest of Ft. Collins.



but
>most importantly, rates have declined
>in DAU 4 (which does
>include unit 19)
after increased
>harvest.
>

DAU 4 is 5 units, parts of which are 80 miles from CSU.
If you separate 19 from the DAU, you will see that 19 and 20 have the highest rates of infection in the state, the number hasn't decreased since they first began studying this area. These two units are in close proximity to CSU which is where this disease originated.


>http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hu...r_ChronicWastingDiseaseinColorado_Jan2018.pdf


#livelikezac
 
>I did read another study that
>thought the deer were developing
>resistance to CWD, just through
>genetic progress. Uncertain, but
>it does provide hope.

I think this is the only hope / solution. A resistant breed being developed over time through natural selection.


#livelikezac
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-18 AT 01:59PM (MST)[p]
I find it interesting 19 and 20 or any of DAU 4 aren't in the mandatory testing area. I assume because they already know how bad it is. None of the units mentioned in the OP are on the list either. Wouldn't you want a Baseline before you start this experiment?
They tested them last year, but I would think you would want a better sample size.

7514620180709134609.jpg




#livelikezac
 
>I find it interesting 19 and
>20 or any of DAU
>4 aren't in the mandatory
>testing area. I assume because
>they already know how bad
>it is. None of the
>units mentioned in the OP
>are on the list either.
>Wouldn't you want a Baseline
>before you start this experiment?
>
>They tested them last year, but
>I would think you would
>want a better sample size.
>

>#livelikezac

If you review the data they are basing the choice to cut buck numbers in NW Colorado off 1 yr of mandatory testing data while throwing in some assumptions and making some statistical extrapolations. Then when asked why they don't do additional testing they state the lack of resources to analyze samples. Yet samples can be saved for analysis at a later date.

A well respected county commissioner stated the affects increased predator control has had on their deer herds with animal numbers increasing while many other near by units are experiencing a flat line trend on population where active predator control is not implemented. Give me some tangible data for your reasoning and I'll agree with ya but CPW cannot produce the data to substantiate the descision.

Seems to me the state game managers have this thought in their head and are doing it come heII or high water!

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
>
>>First off, "north and east of
>>Ft Collins" is not 19,
>>it's 2 other units,
>
The original article you posted says, "The state is in the process of killing more than 1,500 wild deer north and east of Fort Collins," so there's that.

>
>"North and east" is different than
>"northeast. The link you posted
>tells you parts of the
>study area are 80 miles
>northwest of Ft. Collins.
>DAU 4 is 5 units, parts
>of which are 80 miles
>from CSU.
>If you separate 19 from the
>DAU, you will see that
>19 and 20 have the
>highest rates of infection in
>the state, the number hasn't
>decreased since they first began
>studying this area. These two
>units are in close proximity
>to CSU which is where
>this disease originated.
>

Where is the info for testing these units? Just curious because I haven't found info on all the units.

Also, in regards to testing these units, my theory is they get low numbers of samples from these units, and they want more, especially from units where CWD hasn't been found. I did read that money for testing is limited, so they can't test every deer every year, so they sample different areas each year.
 
>
>>
>>>First off, "north and east of
>>>Ft Collins" is not 19,
>>>it's 2 other units,
>>
>The original article you posted says,
>"The state is in the
>process of killing more than
>1,500 wild deer north and
>east of Fort Collins," so
>there's that.
>
>>
>>"North and east" is different than
>>"northeast. The link you posted
>>tells you parts of the
>>study area are 80 miles
>>northwest of Ft. Collins.
>>DAU 4 is 5 units, parts
>>of which are 80 miles
>>from CSU.
>>If you separate 19 from the
>>DAU, you will see that
>>19 and 20 have the
>>highest rates of infection in
>>the state, the number hasn't
>>decreased since they first began
>>studying this area. These two
>>units are in close proximity
>>to CSU which is where
>>this disease originated.
>>
>
>Where is the info for testing
>these units? Just curious because
>I haven't found info on
>all the units.
>
>Also, in regards to testing these
>units, my theory is they
>get low numbers of samples
>from these units, and they
>want more, especially from units
>where CWD hasn't been found.
>I did read that money
>for testing is limited, so
>they can't test every deer
>every year, so they sample
>different areas each year.

I hit em up on Facebook today asking for 2017 results and conclusions, haven't heard back yet. They're usually pretty good about getting back. When I hear from them tomorrow I'll post up what I hear. I know their money is tight but I would think before you reach the conclusion that wiping out 20-50% of the herd is the answer. you'd want good data.


#livelikezac
 
I am also against this approach. Like mentioned too many factors to consider.

Maybe just maybe the oldest strongest and most mature bucks are the ones with genetic makeup that can actually remain healthy despite carrying the disease. Maybe we see higher rates simply because they are genetically stronger deer that do not succumb to the disease as easily as others.

Sorry but it is a ##### how and seeing what they did in 19 and 191 and how they basically destroyed that herd, NW Colorado is going to get screwed over hard. Our deer herds are doomed...

I would also point out, that of all the units in the area, 22 likely has the highest buck to die ratios and during the rut likely has the highest number of mature deer and unit 21 while not nearly as many deer, has a lot of older class bucks, but more those areas do not have the CWD prevalence. It is something else causing the issue...

The CPW should be looking at what makes those areas different than the rest of NW Colorado
 
>Maybe just maybe the oldest strongest
>and most mature bucks are
>the ones with genetic makeup
>that can actually remain healthy
>despite carrying the disease. Maybe
>we see higher rates simply
>because they are genetically stronger
>deer that do not succumb
>to the disease as easily
>as others.

That isn't how it works. It it progressive, and as far as the entire body of evidence on CWD shows, always fatal, for all deer who get it. Think about rabies for humans (with one or two untreated survivors ever recorded). The word "carrier" in biology means an individual who doesn't succumb to the disease, but spreads it anyway. Think about a baby-boomer with hep C who spreads it to 20 other people via sexual contact.


>I would also point out, that
>of all the units in
>the area, 22 likely has
>the highest buck to die
>ratios and during the rut
>likely has the highest number
>of mature deer and unit
>21 while not nearly as
>many deer, has a lot
>of older class bucks, but
>more those areas do not
>have the CWD prevalence. It
>is something else causing the
>issue...

There are units with lots of cases next to units with fewer cases, and then over the years, those units that HAD fewer cases get a lot more. More surveillance would help, and although somewhat distressing for your hunt you have planned for this or next fall, at least trying something like increasing harvest is better than waiting for the train to hit you.
 
Does anyone have any firm evidence that bucks have a higher concentration of CWD than does? I haven't seen any statistics on any of the graphs from the CPW or elsewhere so am not sure they can conclude this from the small sample sizes they have used? Even if this is true, isn't CWD in such low concentration that it really doesn't matter? From what I understand, a chunk of animals that have CWD appear totally healthy and are merely carriers of the disease? I really think the CPW is blowing this whole thing out of proportion!!!!!


I would expect coyotes and mtn lions to kill sick and weak CWD animals? CWD is in such low concentration in the herds with the highest concentration of CWD it makes sense that predators and winterkill would likely kill the few that exist? Wouldn't killing additional bucks by hunters when the concentration of sick CWD animals is so low be somewhat contradictory? I really see no sense in offering more late season buck tags?

It may be wise to let mother nature's predators and winterkill take care of the super low number of CWD animals that exist...and only a small fraction of CWD animals are even affected by the disease? Maybe I'm missing something and there is more CWD out there than I realize?
 
Jims I think you are right as well. They don't know because CPW has not collected enough data to know. IMO it's a knee jerk reaction from CPW after one year of mandatory sampling.

I am starting to believe CPW has another agenda being built here that they are just not disclosing to us yet.


"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
SO how do we get out of the ground since it stay active for 16 years, Can forest fires kill it????

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
A bunch of you are not reading anything to educate yourselves before forming an opinion. The infection rate was 16% in the herd unit in the white river national forest in question. I posted several links above, but if you don't care to read then your opinion is poisonous and unfounded.
 
The issue is it's a one year sample. Not enough data has been collected to justify reducing the herd by 20-50%.


#livelikezac
 
>The issue is it's a one
>year sample. Not enough data
>has been collected to justify
>reducing the herd by 20-50%.
>
>
>
>#livelikezac


1000 samples is a pretty good number scientifically speaking. Would you change your mind if it were 16% this fall? Your priorities aren't necessarily best for the deer. Deer do better when they are below carrying capacity anyway, and they obviously recover because That herd has fluctuated from 30k to almost 70k and back down to 40k and on and on in the last 2 decades. Perhaps that era of more deer was damaging.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-18 AT 09:56PM (MST)[p]Tell me how long it will take to run our deer herd at 50% carrying capacity to eliminate CWD if the prions have been know to live without a host for at least 16yrs, could be 50yrs as far as they know? If that question doesn't throw the magnitude of the problem into perspective nothing will. I think the only hope is letting natural selection produce a cwd resistent deer herd. Maybe fire kills it, and we know deer are drawn to burn areas. But if one infected deer goes in to the burned off area that deer infects others and the cycle starts again. You said that white river herd had huge population fluctuations. That in itself should prove to you killing off half the herd gains nothing as the infection rate of the deer sampled was still 16%. Natural selection has a way of correcting things.


#livelikezac
 
Climate change is the culprit.

How does the winter kill of 08-09 and then again a few years later work into the herd fluctuatations?

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
I'm still trying to make sense of increasing harvest in high CWD areas. If we use your 16% as an example. What if there are currently 10,000 deer in those units. 16% of 10,000 deer is 1,600 deer infected....if indeed 16% are infected. 10,000 - 1,600 CWD deer = 8,400 deer without CWD. Of the 1,600 deer that have CWD....how many of the 1,600 are super healthy and don't have any outward sign of having CWD? I would expect the actual number of deer fatally infected with CWD in any give year to be miniscule? Does the CPW have any estimate or idea approximately what % of CWD infected deer die in any given year?

Do you think the % of CWD deer will remain the same, lower, or higher if more tags are issued? It sounds like the CPW is banking on the fact that the % of CWD will drop if tag numbers are dramatically increased? It seems like a giant gamble to me since the number of prions will remain the same in the soil and likely not disappear for years and years. What if 16% of the deer still have CWD even after dramatically reducing deer numbers?

I expect the deer that are currently shot and test positive to CWD are pretty darn healthy. The actual % of extremely sick deer in any given year are EXTREMELY low? It makes sense to me to let predators and winterkill control the SUPER low % of actually sick CWD deer that exist in the units. Doesn't it make sense that healthy deer will continue to thrive/survive and unhealthy deer have a higher chance of not making it through the extreme winters in NW Colo? It sure makes sense to me to allow nature take it's course when actually sick CWD deer are so low!
 
Looks like they nearly tripled the number of 4th season buck tags in one of the units I hunt. Time to find a new unit I guess.


#livelikezac
 
CPW seeks ways to control Chronic Wasting Disease
July 16, 2018 Reed Kelley - Rio Blanco Herald Times


Mule deer, elk and moose are affected by Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Colorado Parks and Wildlife is concerned that the prevalence of the disease is on the rise. Fifty-six percent of deer herds, 33 percent of elk herds and 33 percent of moose herds have CWD present.

RBC | Maintaining wildlife health is a fundamental component of sound wildlife management and is a high priority in Colorado. That's the framework of a series of Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) public information meetings about chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Meeker and Craig on Jun 26 and July 2. CPW is dedicated to delivering a coordinated and systematic approach for monitoring, investigating, reporting and?where feasible?controlling CWD.

The CPW Commission has established a CWD advisory group to begin developing a Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan. Their goal is to have a draft plan in place by November with approval consideration by the Commission in December.

As of January 2018, 31 of 55 deer herds in the state (56 percent), 14 of 43 elk herds (33 percent), and two of the nine moose herds (22 percent) have CWD present. This prion (deformed protein)-caused, neurologic disease is also known to exist in 27 other states and provinces, South Korea, and most recently Norway.

Former Meeker-based area wildlife manager for CPW, Dan Prenzlow, who attended the Craig meeting, told the Herald Times, ?When I was the area manager back in 2002 and we discovered the surprise presence of chronic wasting disease at the Motherwell Ranch east of Hamilton?the first such discovery on the western slope?we opted to take the one in a hundred chance of eradicating it. That didn't work ,as we discovered the disease was more widespread than just a few animals.

?The scenario is much different now. We know the disease is here, we have it, and now we need to manage its presence the best way we can. We must reduce its prevalence and protect the herds that aren't yet infected.? Prenzlow is now the southeast regional manager for CPW.

It's the prevalence of CWD within the infected herds, especially mule deer, that has renewed CPW concern. The rate of infection appears to be rising. Trends have been difficult to track in the last 10 years because too few hunters voluntarily submit samples for testing. This has admittedly been at least partially attributable to decreased emphasis on testing by CPW.

In 2017, CPW resumed mandatory harvest sample submissions in select herd areas. Sample numbers in the targeted herd units increased 10-fold, yielding better data to inform herd management planning. A growing body of data suggests that unchecked CWD epidemics impair the long-term performance of affected populations. The percentage of deer samples testing positive for CWD have stayed at about two percent in game management unit 22 of the White River mule deer herd, but have jumped from 11 to almost 27 percent in most of the other White River herd GMUs.

According to CPW, on average, animals become infected at younger ages as epidemics increase. If infection rates become too high, CWD can affect a herd?s ability to sustain itself. Observed patterns in Colorado suggest cause for both hope and concern. Prevalence in the Red Feather/Poudre Canyon deer herd above Fort Collins has declined in the decade since CPW applied focused culling and increased harvest in the early 2000s. Relatively aggressive buck and doe harvest may be helping suppress prevalence in the Middle Park deer herd. In contrast, prevalence in the White River deer herd, where there has been no active change in management, appears to have markedly risen since 2002.

The options now before the advisory group, using licensed public hunters, include: reducing herd population density, reducing the male/female ratio, changing herd age structure, maximizing removal of animals on the smallest (targeted ?hot spots?) scale possible, removing factors that lead to herd congregations, minimizing point sources of prions and incorporating prevalence threshold limits into herd management plans.

Feedback from many of the assembled attendees at the Craig meeting was ?to keep scratching their heads and come up with options that don't amount to just killing more deer.? Concern was expressed about reduced deer numbers and the impact that would have on hunting season participation and local economies.

The next advisory group meeting will be held in Rifle, July 25, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., at the Rifle Library. The public is urged to attend, especially to share any insights on how to deal with CWD.



"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
Thanks for your input guys your on the right track.
There is a ton of information and a lot that has been compiled, if you would like any of it please let me know and i can email it to you. CPW also has some on their website.
I am adamantly opposed to killing uninfected mature bucks to try and reduce the spread of cwd.
Keep in mind that the animals tested have a 16% cwd rate in D7- that is not to be confused with an entire population at the same percentage rate. There is absolutely no way to estimate the prevalence rate for the entire population, to do so is a total WAG.
There is reason to suspect with study data that a good majority of bucks that have cwd are being harvested or killed by the multiple different mortality factors. This equated to 173 positive deer out of 1050 that were tested, that means that 877 deer were negative. Smaller sample sizes showed a bias with a higher cwd testing rate. Studies also show that cwd positive deer are more susceptible to hunter harvest and highway mortality, therefore removing them from the population annually.
It is unknown what the total cwd percentage rate is for the entire harvest in 2017 as is the annual infectivity rate is unknown, just as how many prions it takes to infect a deer is unknown. It is also unknown how many prions are shed into the environment daily to annually.
Carcasses of dead cwd infected deer are a hotspot and have the largest potential for environmental spread through multiple factors, vectors, scavengers, etc..
Reduced mature bucks and overall buck numbers would rationalize out that the frequency nature of breeding bucks to does and the fact that some does still have cwd, would force cwd on to younger and leftover deer.
Cwd is a frequency dependent disease more than a density dependent disease.
When we finished the Mule Deer Strategy in 2014, it was a 2.5 year meeting and compilation of observational evidence with multiple sportsmen and stakeholders. The sharp decline in the D7 herd - the largest deer herd in the world - is what triggered the strategy and at the time cwd was low on the radar and prevalence rate and cwd tested percentage varied with sample sizes.
Here are the D7 population numbers by year:
2004 - 93,670
2005 - 105,860
2006 - 95,980
2007 - 71,380
2008 - 56,340
2009 - 61,450
2010 - 50,140
2011 - 43,680
2012 - 42,750
2013 - 31,980
2014 - 37,530
2015 - 34,930
2016 - 30,550
2017 - 35,000

CJ Outfitters
 
There's a helluva lot more unknowns than knowns when it comes to CWD. This is why I can't understand their knee jerk reaction. With all the unknowns they have know idea if this is a solution or just another dart in the board. I'd argue it's not a solution as they tried this, with no positive effect, in D-4. I hope you check into this thread and share what you can from time to time cj.


#livelikezac
 
The CPW is blowing this totally out of proportion! Take a look at neighboring states of Wyo and Utah. Deer numbers have plummeted in regions G, H and SW Wyo...and Utah isn't any better. It would be interesting to see if the drop in deer numbers in neighboring Wyo and Utah is similar to NW Colo....and if there is any CWD in those areas?

My guess is that the significant drop in deer numbers in G & H, SW Wyo is due to a combination of poor winter/range conditions, poor fawn recruitment, predators, and severe winterkill years.

More proof that the drop in deer numbers is largely due to winterkill and poor range conditions rather than CWD is....take a look at antelope numbers in NW Colo? How many antelope exist today compared to 15 years ago? You can likely see a drop in antelope herd numbers during the same frame of time as deer in NW Colo? I don't think there is any mention of antelope contracting CWD?

The CWD deal in NW Colo is a bunch of hogwash!
 
Did you guys find this on the CPW website? Today is the last day for comment.

From October 1 - 31, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is asking for interested individuals to review and comment on the chronic wasting disease (CWD) adaptive management plan created by the CWD Advisory Group. Your comments will be carefully considered before management actions are voted on by the CPW Commission in January.

Please provide feedback using this public comment form.



http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hu...ColoradoChronicWastingDiseaseResponsePlan.pdf
 
Here is the link for the comments page:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfvXlN7YCAe8on86HFc8Efr9Evtoj2BJOZataLG4nujvHt6nQ/viewform





>Did you guys find this on
>the CPW website? Today is
>the last day for comment.
>
>
>From October 1 - 31, Colorado
>Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is
>asking for interested individuals to
>review and comment on the
>chronic wasting disease (CWD) adaptive
>management plan created by the
>CWD Advisory Group. Your comments
>will be carefully considered before
>management actions are voted on
>by the CPW Commission in
>January.
>
>Please provide feedback using this public
>comment form.
>
>
>
>http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hu...ColoradoChronicWastingDiseaseResponsePlan.pdf
 

Colorado Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Rocky Mountain Ranches

Hunt some of the finest ranches in N.W. Colorado. Superb elk, mule deer, and antelope hunting.

Blue Mountain Outfitters

Unit 10 trophy deer and elk in Northwest Colorado. Guaranteed tags. Call Kent (801) 562-1802

Frazier Outfitting

Great Colorado elk hunting. Hunt the backcountry of unit 76. More than a hunt, it's an adventure!

CJ Outfitters

Hunt Colorado's premier trophy units, 2, 10 and 201 for trophy elk, deer and antelope.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear and cougar hunts in Colorado units 40 and 61.

Ivory & Antler Outfitters

Hunt trophy elk, mule deer, moose, antelope, bear, cougar and turkey on both private land and BLM.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer both DIY and guided hunts on large ranches all over Colorado for archery, muzzleloader and rifle hunts.

Hunters Domain

Colorado landowner tags for mule deer, elk and antelope. Tags for other states also available.

Flat Tops Elk Hunting

For the Do-It-Yourself hunters, an amazing cabin in GMU 12 for your groups elk or deer hunt.

Back
Top Bottom