Fed Up with the CPW!!!

So I along with several others have spent the last several years working with the CPW.During that time All we have heard about is the dire situation for Mule Deer numbers in the state and how they need more money. While I personally like many of the employees, they are morons.

In the Northwest section of the state from I-70 north they are reporting higher than normal winter kills. In the northern most units, from the White River North, the regional director said that this winter wiped out an entire generation of deer. Citing that final numbers will be 30% or more higher than "normal" winter kills.

So through all of this they have created a Mule Deer Strategy, spent countless hours in meetings etc. Had many hunters and outfitters sit around and discus the issue and all in all acted as if they were going to make some significant efforts to really improve the herds and mule deer hunting in the state.

Today I had a chance to look at many of the numbers proposed for deer and also some elk. Of course in nearly every single hunt code in the NW we have increased tag numbers for the up coming season. As an example I will use Unit 22...

Here are the changes:

Archery Stayed the same.... Muzzy Stayed the same... Doe tag Stayed the same...

Rifle deer 2nd Season increased from 275 to 300 9% increase
Rifle deer 3rd Season increased from 250 to 275 10% increase
Rifle Deer 4th Season increased from 10 to 15 50% increase

Increase of 55 tags which is just over 10% total increase.

Other Units see similar increases....

Unit 11 and 211 total increase of 130 tags for rifle seasons

Unit 3/301 a total increase of 105 tags for rifle seasons

Units 4 80 tag increase....

Virtually all units are seeing the same 50% jump in 4th season tags when the bucks are the most vulnerable especially given the late start dates this fall.

As a brief history lesson. In 2008 and 2009 they did the same crap in these units. The hunting those next 2 years were horrible. After 2 years of everyone complaining and horrible buck age class they finally cut some tags back, but we are no where near recovered.

Most of the units listed in my rant here are considered more that 10% below the population objective they have set.

What sense does it make to increase tag allocations if we are considered significantly below the herd populations?

Yep, I agree.

some good people within the agency but overall the CPW has a lot of issues.

It's all about the $$$$'s...

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

Makes zero sense to offer doe tags for a unit if it is below objective! Really sad the way they run the system. Then tag increase too, when they acknowledge a higher than average winter mortality combined with doe tags. Really wish there was a way to do a over haul of the senior personnel in CPW.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"

anything to get more tag money...

Instead of bashing them on a forum, why not call Ron Velarde up and ask him why the increase? Ron has never ever failed to answer an email or phone call from me within 24 hours.

The buck:doe ratio is too high in the NW, regardless of the total population. Saving a couple hundred bucks is not going to affect the population appreciably. In fact there is some recent research that suggests inflated buck:doe ratios can lead to reduce to fawn survival. Doe licenses in nearly every unit are bottomed out at 10 per hunt code.

Again, call Ron up and ask him. This business of starting up a bashing session on the forum without ever discussing the issue with the person in charge is getting old.

>Instead of bashing them on a
>forum, why not call Ron
>Velarde up and ask him
>why the increase? Ron
>has never ever failed to
>answer an email or phone
>call from me within 24
>hours.
>
> The buck:doe ratio is too
>high in the NW, regardless
>of the total population. Saving
>a couple hundred bucks is
>not going to affect the
>population appreciably. In
>fact there is some recent
>research that suggests inflated buck:doe
>ratios can lead to reduce
>to fawn survival. Doe licenses
>in nearly every unit are
>bottomed out at 10 per
>hunt code.
>
> Again, call Ron up and
>ask him. This business
>of starting up a bashing
>session on the forum without
>ever discussing the issue with
>the person in charge is
>getting old.

I have to agree.

>Instead of bashing them on a
>forum, why not call Ron
>Velarde up and ask him
>why the increase? Ron
>has never ever failed to
>answer an email or phone
>call from me within 24
>hours.
>
> The buck:doe ratio is too
>high in the NW, regardless
>of the total population. Saving
>a couple hundred bucks is
>not going to affect the
>population appreciably. In
>fact there is some recent
>research that suggests inflated buck:doe
>ratios can lead to reduce
>to fawn survival. Doe licenses
>in nearly every unit are
>bottomed out at 10 per
>hunt code.
>
> Again, call Ron up and
>ask him. This business
>of starting up a bashing
>session on the forum without
>ever discussing the issue with
>the person in charge is
>getting old.

I talked with him just a couple days ago. He told me they had lost an entire generation of deer. That there is almost 0 fawn recruitment. Yet lets shoot some more bucks. As far as buck to doe ratios every study I have seen shows that as long as we have lower than 60 bucks per 100 does we are fine. It is only after 60 to 100 do we see negative impacts on the herd. Overall the CPW buck to doe ratio goals hover in the mid 40 to 100 doe, sorry but in units like 3, 301, 11, 211, etc. There is no way we are anywhere near a 50 per 100 ratio.

As for the 10 deer tags. That is BS as well. It took us nearly 2 years of below objective herd numbers to get them to drop the doe tags. When asked why not shut it all down, why are we still giving out 10 doe tags per hunt code? They said that was the min. needed. Which was a lie because there have been and still are many hunt codes with less than 10. So despite the fact that the deer are struggling, we still offer 10 doe tags per hunt code. Throughout the NW that adds up.

How does it make sense at all? Just this Spring the CPW wrote about how the animals in the NW section are facing the harshest winter conditions in 30 years. They came out and said that winter die offs will be bad in the NW. Yet lets increase tags by 10%. Do you really think that the deer herds grew by 10% this last year? Do you really think that the buck to doe ratios climbed so high we need to worry about over all herd health? If so I have some land in Arizona for you buy...

Please show me a study that says that up to 60:100 is fine for bucks:does. I haven't seen those and would like to read them.

"Overall the CPW buck to doe ratio goals hover in the mid 40 to 100 doe"

That's just not true. I don't think there is a herd in the state with an objective over 40:100. Most are lower. The average buck:doe ratio objective for all herds in the NW region is 26.8 to 29.4 bucks per 100 does. Post hunt 2015 for the NW region was calculated at 41.5:100, and the three year average is 37.8:100. The 2015 numbers are not out yet, but post hunt 2014 average for the herd which includes 3 and 301 was 61:100. The herd including 11 and 211 was 34:100.

The 2015 post hunt population estimate for the herd including 3 and 301 was 46,730. The objective for that herd is 37,800. So after the hunt last fall, it was still 23% over objective.

Saving bucks that are alive now is going to do nothing to alleviate the loss of a generation of deer. They are over objective now, so hunters may as well hunt them. The population will be reevaluated next winter and they can adjust licenses accordingly.

What did Ron say when you questioned him on the minimum of 10 licenses per hunt code? Do you know that there were less than 8,000 does and fawns killed by hunters in the entire state (whitetails and mule deer) in 2015? That was from over 36,000 antlerless and either sex licenses, from a statewide population of about 470,000 deer.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just saying that you need to look at the whole picture, and if you don't like the proposals, go talk to the people responsible. I'm guessing that if you read your posts on this thread verbatim to Ron, you would have a nice long discussion about the situation. You have to ask the questions, though.

LAST EDITED ON May-04-16 AT 10:30AM (MST)[p]Sorry, there was a mistype in my post. It should have read ratios aim for mid 30s-40 (the 30s got deleted). You are correct that the majority of the DAUs look for a ratio of 30-40. I will look for the studies that show higher ratios are not detrimental until the 60 thresh hold. I believe the studies I read were CPW studies from around the 2005 period. Also saw a university study from 1999 that cited a threshhold of around 60:100 but it has been a few years since I looked into it much. Do you have any recent studies showing the ideal ratio? It is hard wading through all the white tail crap to find good solid mule deer information. Ultimately we could greatly discus the importance and validity of the ratio all together....

As far as the total doe tags. When we are still over 10% below objective there should be no doe tags at all. Also to include either sex tags into the total numbers is a bit skewed. Simply because the vast majority of either sex tags are bought to be used on males and the female is only shot as a last resort. Only exception might be archery elk. But honestly if you have a decent either sex tag are you going to shoot a doe? If you have a unit 2 either sex tag for elk are you going to shoot a cow?

Yep since the overall deer population decreased but the bucks seemed to do better they are going to kill more bucks. There are fewer deer than last year but because the bucks did not die off as bad as the doe we must kill more bucks...

It seems like a silly and totally illogical manner. We have a decreased herd size from the winter, our numbers are lower than last year overall, but we are going to kill more bucks. Not because it has anything to do with herd health, but because our DAU plan allows us to, so we are going to do it.

Never mind that just in the last few years we finally have a few decent bucks around and that not every buck in the units killed were piss cutters.

I talked with Ron Velarde a couple of times on the phone and once at a local "Town Hall meeting" in Grand Junction. I think there is a reason that he rose to a high political position and it has nothing to do with Wildlife Biology.

Sorry, but that's the way I heard it from him.

BeanMan, R U suggesting he is "slippery?" Meaning evasive, prone to answering questions w the official line, more of a politician than biologist?

Ya,
So what's your real #####? More hunters on your personnel killing ground? I bet you applied for Unit Deer, didn't you!!!!@4/&*(!!
Brooks264

>Ya,
>So what's your real #####?
>More hunters on your personnel
>killing ground? I bet
>you applied for Unit Deer,
>didn't you!!!!@4/&*(!!
>Brooks264


I've posted drunk before too.

DW after 3 glasses of cab, I just posted something to Cornhusker and thought I sent it to his pm. NOT. Now I know how Dude feels after a couple shots of Crown Royal. LOL

>DW after 3 glasses of cab,
>I just posted something to
>Cornhusker and thought I sent
>it to his pm. NOT.
>Now I know how Dude
>feels after a couple shots
>of Crown Royal. LOL


Lol! I saw it!