ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM - Colorado Parks and … SUBMITTAL FORM ... was recently a question on whether aRaffle hunter could hunt in ... “valid on a unit-by-unit basis” causes some

ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM Date: 10/14/15

ISSUE: Should Auction and Raffle regulation W-229 be amended to clarify that Auction and Raffle licenses are only valid in those portions of units that are open for hunting a species?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): PWC regulation W-229(B)(4) states that Auction and Raffle (AR) licenses are valid on a unit-by-unit basis from the first open season in a unit. The intent of the regulation is that AR licenses are valid anywhere that is open to hunting that species, but are not valid in areas that are not open to hunting a given species. There was recently a question on whether a Raffle hunter could hunt in a portion of S65 where bighorn sheep hunting is not currently allowed. S65 licenses are only valid on Trinchera Ranch, not unit-wide in S65. The wording of regulation W-229(B)(4), “valid on a unit-by-unit basis” causes some confusion on whether the whole unit (including portions with no open bighorn sheep seasons) is open to AR licensed hunters. In addition to this instance, the Bighorn Sheep Access Program will increase the number of situations where we will have hunting open in only a portion of units so this clarification will become more important in the future.

Staff is in agreement that the use of AR licenses is restricted to those portions of the GMU otherwise open to hunting the species in question and that a clarification is necessary in the regulation.

Therefore staff recommends adding a second sentence to W-229(B)(4) that reads “Licenses are not valid in units, or portions of units, that do not have an open season for that species or have any other restrictions provided herein ”.

WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS OCCURRED?

Internal: Councilor Monahan, Director Broscheid, and the Leadership Team have been consulted on this suggestion regulation change.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. Preferred Alternative- Amend PWC regulation W- 229(B)(4) to state: “ Licenses for each species shall be valid on a unit- by- unit basis from the first open season in a unit for that species after August 1 throughDecember 31, except as provided in regulation #210(D)(5)(a) or #4(a) below. Licenses are not valid inunits, or portions of units, that do not have an open season for that species or have any otherrestrictions provided herein”.

2. Status Quo.

Issue Raised by: Allen Vitt and Mike Trujillo Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Andy Holland and Bob Thompson

CC: APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

JOHN BRODERICK

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? NO ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? YES RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? NO

1


ISSUE: Should the Division add an opportunity in the newly-established Bighorn Sheep

Access Program (BSAP) for the establishment and hunting of new (or expanded) sheep herds?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):

The Commission has recently approved the Bighorn Sheep Access Program (BSAP) focused on cooperative Bighorn Sheep hunting opportunities on private land. The intent of this program is to work

with private landowners whose lands contain valuable bighorn sheep habitat to allow for increased public and private bighorn sheep hunting.

The program, as approved, allows for two different licensing allocation options to enroll properties with bighorn sheep hunting opportunities. The allocations for those options are set forth in the following table from regulation W-211(E)(3):

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP

Private Share of Licenses Public Share of Licenses

% of total allocation to each enrolled

property

% of total allocation to each enrolled

property

Option Ram Ewe Ram Ewe

A 67 0 33 100

B 75 0 25 100

(Option A does not provide a guide to public hunters, while Option B does.)

While this program significantly improves bighorn sheep hunting opportunities in existing herds, it does not provide a clear opportunity for the creation of a new bighorn sheep herd by the trapping and transplant

(and subsequent hunting) of bighorn sheep into suitable private habitats not currently occupied. This issue paper suggests adding a third option (Option C as shown below) to allow for these possibilities in the future.

C 50 0 50 100

Under this option, ranches can apply to CPW to be evaluated and considered for the establishment/augmentation of bighorn sheep on their lands. If CPW staff approves the transplant, CPW and the landowner would share the cost of the trap and transplant of bighorn sheep into the area. That

area could be an entirely new herd, or a geographic expansion of an existing herd. Once those properties are ready to sustain hunting, they would be opened under Option C. After the first 10 rams are harvested (5 public, 5 private), these properties would then shift to Option A or Option B (or withdraw from the

program) at the property owner's discretion. The 1:1 ram ratio for the first 10 rams harvested is intended to recognize CPW's contribution of bighorn sheep to the project while continuing to recognize the value private lands can contribute to hunting opportunities. As with the other options in this program, any

available ewe hunting would be allocated to public hunters.

As is currently the case, publicly-accessible land will continue to be first priority for all bighorn sheep trap

and transplant operations. Nonetheless, this option would give CPW the opportunity to open bighorn sheep hunting on private lands that currently contain bighorn sheep habitat, but do not contain bighorn sheep. This approach would expand public and private hunting opportunity as well as public hunting

access to private land for bighorn sheep hunting.


2

This program has been heavily discussed for a number of months. While this concept has been part of those discussions, this is the beginning of the public process associated with this specific program modification.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):

1. * Preferred Alternative *: Create a new option in the Bighorn Sheep Access Program focusedon expanding bighorn sheep hunting opportunities.

2. Status quo. (No clear path to opening up new bighorn sheep hunting opportunities in suitableprivate habitat.)

Issue Raised by: Dan Prenzlow

Author of the issue paper

(if different than person raising the issue):

Brett Ackerman

CC:

APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

DAN PRENZLOW

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? NO

ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? YES

RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? NO

3


ISSUE: Should bighorn sheep GMU S2 (Gore-Eagles Nest herd) be re-opened to ram hunting? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Bighorn sheep GMU S2 (Gore-Eagles Nest) is located in the Gore Range, north of Vail Pass and Interstate 70. The unit was originally opened to hunting in 1990, when 2 ram licenses were issued. In 1994, the quota was reduced to 1, where it remained until the unit was closed in 2009, following the severe winter of 2007/2008. Success rate averaged 67% from 1990-2008.

Since the unit closed to hunting in 2009, the minimum population (the high count) of the herd wintering at Booth Creek was stagnant for a few years, but has been increasing in the past 3 years, averaging 31 sheep. Lamb production and recruitment have been good in recent years, as seen by the winter lamb numbers of 7-10 lambs (equating to an estimated lamb:ewe ratio of 60:100) during the past 3 winters and a diverse range of male age classes from yearlings to mature rams.

As of winter 2014/2015, there are at least 6 legal rams in the herd, including at least 3 mature (3/4-curl or larger) rams. The previous spring, a full-curl ram is known to have died of natural causes (lion predation). The herd currently has a sufficient ram segment to support 1 ram license per year.

Sheep in S2 tend to congregate on slopes within ½ mile immediately to the north of the town of Vail, particularly as they concentrate on winter range in the later months of the fall. They are highly visible in this location and are of great local interest and watchable wildli fe potential while on these slopes above the town. When the unit was open previously, these slopes were open to hunting and more than one

0

1

2

3

Year

S-02: # of Ram Licenses, Hunters, Harvested,1990-2014

# of Licenses # of Hunters

2007: includes one

4

incident occurred where a sheep was taken in full view of the town (including a school house) during the later fall months, creating a great deal of backlash from the non-hunting public. Concern that the situation could repeat itself has delayed the proposal to reopen the unit beyond what was necessary biologically. To address this concern, the preferred alternative proposes a ½ mile hunting closure north of the I-70 westbound lane from Bighorn Creek to Spraddle Creek from the opening of the season through the end of the auction and raffle hunt period to preclude the possibility of a repeated conflict in the location where S2 sheep are particularly visible.

The S-2 GMU unit boundaries in Chapter W-0 should also be corrected to the following: “Those portions of Eagle and Summit counties bounded on the north by Elk Creek to Piney Ridge, Eagles Nest Wilderness boundary, Elliott Ridge/Arapaho/White River National Forest boundary, the North Fork of Elliott Creek, Hoagland Reservoir and Elliott Creek; on the east by the Blue River; on the south by I-70; and on the west by Colo 131 and the Colorado River from State Bridge to Elk Creek”. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal – Areas 8 and 9 Terrestrial and Field Operations staff External – general public, bighorn sheep hunters, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society (RMBS) Input process – internal staff agree that population has recovered enough to re-open the unit to hunting. RMBS is also supportive of re-opening the unit.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Num

ber o

f she

ep se

en

S-2 high counts of total sheep: 1990-2014

Summer high count Winter/Spring/Fall high count

? suspect

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Num

ber o

f she

ep se

en

S-2 high counts of rams: 1990-2014

High count legal rams High count mature rams

5

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Re-open the huntcode for ram hunting in S2 (SMS02O1R) to provide

sheep hunting opportunity in this herd. However, specify in the huntcode table that “Bighorn sheep hunting will be prohibited 1/2 mile north of the I-70 westbound lane from Bighorn Creek to Spraddle Creek from August 1 to December 31 each year. Additionally update the S-2 GMU boundary in Chapter W-0.

2. No action. Leave S2 closed to hunting. Issue Raised by: Julie Mao (Wildli fe Biologist); Bill Andree (DWM, Vail) Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Revised by Brad Petch following NW Regional Staff Meeting

CC: Kirk Oldham (Wildlife Biologist), Tom Davies (DWM, Breckenridge W), Perry Will (AWM, Area 8), Lyle Sidener (AWM, Area 9), Brad Petch (NW Sr. Wildlife Biologist)


RON VELARDE

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? YES ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? YES RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? NO

6


ISSUE: Should the GMU and DAU boundary between the Snowmass East bighorn sheep herd (GMU S13 in DAU RBS-13) and the Taylor River bighorn sheep herd (GMU S26 in DAU RBS-23) be moved southward to more accurately encompass the core home range area and movement patterns of the majority of bighorn rams in the S13 herd?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The boundary between the Snowmass East bighorn sheep herd (GMU S13 in DAU RBS-13) and the Taylor River bighorn sheep herd (GMU S26 in DAU RBS-23) is currently the Gunnison-Pitkin County line, running along the ridgeline of the Elk Mountains, and the headwaters of the Taylor River. One resident ram license is currently issued in GMU S13, while GMU S26 has been closed to hunting since 2008.

In winter 2012/2013, CPW began a radio collar study of bighorn rams in the Elk Mountains, funded by the Auction & Raffle program, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, and Wild Sheep Foundation. One of the project’s objectives was to “characterize population distributions to better delineate herd boundaries for harvest management… and to provide better information on appropriate game management unit boundaries” (2012 Auction and Raffle Funds proposal for the project “Distribution and Movements of Rams in 3 Bighorn Sheep Populations in the Crystal River Drainage and Elk Mountains (S-13, S-25, and north part of S-26”).

GPS collar data from bighorn rams captured in S13 and the northern portion of S26 demonstrated that the majority (6 out of 7) of these collared rams cross freely between both sides of the current GMU boundary. Most of these rams winter on the S26 side, but spend the remainder of the year traversing both sides of the current boundary. During the sheep hunting season of 2013, the collared rams remained in S13, within 4 km of the GMU boundary. During the 2014 hunting season, however, they moved back and forth between S13 and S26, and a non-collared ram was harvested in S13 near the current unit boundary. None of the collared rams interacted with the main S26 herd, which is at least 11 miles and several major drainages to the south/southeast (in Taylor Canyon and by Taylor Reservoir).

Based upon this movement data, in 2014 Area 8 and Area 16 Biologists and Field Operations staff proposed moving the S13/S26 boundary southward to include the area bounded on the south and west by the East River, Brush Creek, and East Brush Creek into S13. However, the alternative that was ultimately approved did not amend the GMU boundary, but instead changed the valid area for the S13 license to include both S13 and the northern portion of S26, effective starting in the 2015 hunting season.

The 2015 hunting season change is potentially confusing and misleading for several reasons: (a) Game Management Units (GMUs) and Data Analysis Units should reflect the distribution of a

herd as much as possible. The current boundary which runs along the divide of the Elk Mountainsis not biologically realistic for an alpine species. Two years of GPS collar data from the recentstudy demonstrates repeated seasonal movements of rams across the current GMU (and DAU)boundary. The boundary should be modified to reflect the known core distribution of the herd.

(b) Under the current regulation, a ram that is harvested in the northern portion of S26 would betaken using the S13 license but the location and herd association would be assigned to S26. Thiswould cause confusion with harvest data analysis and DAU planning, especially if the TaylorRiver portion of S26 is re-opened to hunting in the future. Harvests taken in the current S26 couldbe associated with one of two huntcodes which represent two distinct herds. This would requirean additional step in data analysis to distinguish which biological herd each harvest came from.S13 and S26 are in two different DAUs, which would complicate DAU/herd management planning(or even make DAU planning impossible) i f the S13 license spans two DAUs.

(c) Hunters may find it confusing to hold a license that is valid in only a portion of an adjacent GMU.It would be clearer to the public to have a license be valid for a whole GMU or multiple whole

7

GMUs, especially given that the CPW’s Colorado Hunting Atlas and commercially available hunting reference maps plot GMU boundaries, not license boundaries.

Therefore, we recommend changing the GMU/DAU boundary, as similarly proposed in 2014, by moving the northern portion of the current GMU S26 (DAU RBS-23) into GMU S13 (DAU RBS-13). This would allow the S13 license holder to hunt the same area that is valid under the current (2015) regulations, but the entire area would be designated as S13. This boundary change would more correctly reflect herd movements, would make GMU and DAU attributes of future harvest and population survey data more biologically appropriate, and would minimize confusion on S13 and S26 license regulations.


Internal – Area and Regional level Field Operations and Terrestrial staff

External – Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society (RMBS)

Both internal staff and RMBS are supportive of the GMU/DAU boundary adjustments based upon the documented movement patterns of GPS-collared bighorn rams. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):

1. * Preferred Alternative *: Adjust the boundary between GMUs S13 and S26 southward toinclude the documented core home range area of the Maroon Bells bighorn rams:

a. The new S13 GMU description would read, “bounded on N and E by the Roaring ForkRiver, USFS Road 123/CR 15A (Richmond Hill Rd.); on S by 761.1D (Taylor River HeadRd.), USFS Trail 400 (Brush Creek Trail), USFS Road 738.2B (East Brush Creek Rd.),USFS/Gunnison CR 738 (Brush Creek Rd.); on W by Colo. 135, Gunnison CR 317(Gothic Rd.), Crystal River-Gunnison River divide, Roaring Fork River-Crystal Riverdivide and Capitol Creek.”

b. The new S26 GMU description would be “bounded on N by USFS/Gunnison CR 738(Brush Creek Rd.), USFS Road 738.2B (East Brush Creek Rd.), USFS Trail 400 (BrushCreek Trail), 761.1D (Taylor River Head Rd); on E by USFS Road 761 (Taylor Pass Rd),North Fork of Taylor River, Taylor River, Willow Creek, Middle Willow Creek andCumberland Pass Rd.; on S by NM Principal meridian/6th Principal Meridian divide,western Fossil Ridge Wilderness boundary, Lost Canyon Rd.; on W by Colo. 135.”

The boundaries for DAUs RBS-13 and RBS-23 would also be changed accordingly. As of 2016, the S13 license would be valid within the new S13 GMU boundaries, and if S26 is re-opened in the future to sheep hunting, the S26 license would be valid within the new S26 GMU boundaries.

2. Status quo; Retain 2015 license area change without GMU boundary change (Note: slight changefrom 2015 regulation to clarify the valid area for S13 license):

Leave GMU boundaries unchanged, but include the northern portion of S26 in the open area for the S13 license (i.e., S13 license would be valid in S13 and that portion of S26 bounded on S by USFS Trail 400 (Brush Creek Trail), East Brush Creek and East River; on W by Crystal River-Gunnison River divide, Roaring Fork River-Crystal River divide). If licenses are issued for S26 in the future, the S26 license would be similarly modified to remove that portion of S26 from the open area for the license.

3. Revert to pre-2015 valid area for S13 (i.e., S13 license would be valid only in S13) and

8

GMU/DAU boundaries would remain unchanged. The northern portion of S26 would not be huntable until S26 is re-opened to sheep hunting.

Issue Raised by: Julie Mao & Kevin Blecha (Terrestrial Biologists) Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Perry Will (AWM Area 8), J Wenum (AWM Area 16), Chris Parmeter (DWM Gunnison NE), Brad Petch (NW Sr. Terrestrial Biologist), Scott Wait (SW Sr. Terrestrial Biologist)


RON VELARDE

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? YES (boundary description length

will increase) ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? YES RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? NO

9


ISSUE: Should ewe hunting be implemented in GMU S-41? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Bighorn sheep GMU S-41 (Peru Creek) is located in Summit County. The unit is bounded on the north by I-70; on the east by the Continental Divide; on the south by Swan River Road (CR 6) and USFS 6; and on the west by Colo 9 and US 6. It is part of the RBS-4 DAU which also includes S-3 and S-4. S-41 was created in 2008 and there has been ram hunter harvest in S-41 since 2010 of one ram/year.

Previous post hunt population objectives for RBS 4 (included only S-3 and S-4) was 200-225 animals. The proposed RBS 4 DAU plan is expected to be finalized by the end of 2015 and includes S-41 within the DAU plan. The preferred post hunt population objective is 200-300 animals. The 2013 population estimate is 270 from the proposed DAU plan and the 2014 population estimate is 250 animals. Additionally, summer surveys are conducted in S-4 (which includes S-41). In 2013, 12 ewes/lambs were counted in S-41. In 2014, 40 unclassified sheep were counted in S-41 and in 2015, 30 ewes/lambs were counted in S-41. In 2012, two GPS collars were deployed on two adult BHS ewes in S-41. While these two ewes did utilize adjacent S-3/S-4, the majority of the time (through December 2014), these ewes occupied S-41.

Minimum number of bighorn sheep observed in summer survey for GMUs S3 and S4 from 1978 to 2013 and for all GMUs in DAU RBS-4 from 2008-2013.

0 30 60 90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

Nu

mbe

r of

Big

hor

n

Total (S3,S4, and S41) Total (S3 and S4)

10

DAU RBS-4 number of rams and ewes removed via harvest and translocations from 1981 to 2013.

Ewes harvest has been part of RBS-4 DAU since the early 1980s. Current RBS-4 ewe licenses for 2015 are at 2. Colorado has 25 bighorn units that have ewe licenses for 2015 including S-3 and S-4. The ewe harvest objective is also an important consideration. Using average herd compositions from the S-4 DAU, three year average (2012-

2014) are 45 lambs: 100 ewes: 40 rams post-hunt, and a population estimate of 233. Table 1 from Colorado Bighorn sheep management plan (George et al. 2009) guides that harvesting 12% of the pre-hunt ewe population would

result in a recommended ewe harvest of 14 which is well above the current ewe licenses of 2. Adding S-41 to the harvest would add a minimum of 1 ewe.

Summer lamb:ewe ratios for GMUs S3 and S4 from 1978-2013 and for all GMUs in DAU RBS-4 from 2008-2013.

Known lambing areas in DAU RBS-4.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Nu

mbe

r R

emov

ed

Rams Ewes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 110 120

1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

Lam

bs:1

00 E

wes

Lamb:Ewe (S3, S4 and S41) Lamb:Ewe (S3 and S4)

11

Estimated Population in

Relationship To Objective

Observed Winter

Lamb:ewe Ratio

Ewe Removal Or Harvest Rate as a Percentage of Total

Population

Comments

< 25% below

NA

No ewe removals

Exceptions allowed for disease

management

< objective, but within 25%

> 40:100

Up to 5% of total post hunt population > 1 year old

Or up to12% of pre hunt ewe population

At Objective

> 40:100

20-39:100

<20:100

5-10% of total post hunt population > 1 year old

<5% of total post hunt population > 1 year old

No ewe removals

Or 12-24% of pre hunt ewe population

Or <12% of pre hunt ewe population

Exceptions allowed for disease management

Over Objective >10% of total post hunt population > 1 year old

> 24% of pre hunt ewe population

From the Colorado bighorn sheep management plan (George et al. 2009) shows recommended ewe removal rates relative to population status.

Seasons may need to be structured so ewe hunters don’t affect quality of the ram hunt. If this issue moves forward, for 2016 the ram season will be from Sept 6th to October 6th and a ewe season from Sept 17th to October 6th. A later

opening day for the ewe season may reduce conflicts with ram hunters as well as increasing the age of orphaned lambs. Lambs orphaned at >15 weeks old did not have lower survival than non-orphaned lambs (Jorgenson et al

1993).

There are certainly many concerns with ewe harvest from managers and publics. Bighorn sheep licenses are often issued cautiously because of their high profile nature and these herds are surveyed infrequently, creating uncertainty.

It is not clear if bighorn sheep in these units are at carrying capacity or if a disease epidemic will occur in the near future. Nor is it certain whether a small number of ewe licenses will make any noticeable difference. However,

establishing conservative ewe harvest may reduce intraspecific competition, increase juvenile survival, lower age at first reproduction, provide hunter opportunity, increase hunter attained herd information, encourage use of new

habitats/dispersal, and possibly reduce the risk and severity of disease outbreaks. However, harvesting a minimum of 3 ewes from this DAU is conservative and still provides hunter opportunity.

WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal – Area 9 personnel and Terrestrial staff

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Open the huntcode for ewe hunting in S41 (SFS41O1R) to provide

ewe sheep hunting in this GMU.

2. No action.

Issue Raised by: Kirk Oldham (Terrestrial Biologist) Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

12

CC: Lyle Sidener (AWM), Brad Petch (Sr. Wildlife Biologist), Janet George (Sr. Wildlife Biologist), Lance Carpenter (Wildlife Biologist), Elissa Knox (DWM)


RON VELARDE


13


ISSUE: Should S63 and S64 be split to allocate ram licenses to the separate GMUs? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Desert bighorn sheep DAU DBS-61 has been growing in population over the last few years as illustrated in Figure 1. The growth in both S-63 (Middle Dolores) and S-64 (Upper Dolores) follows a transplant of 30 bighorn sheep between 2010 and 2011 when they were caught by helicopter in S-64 and transplanted into S-63. S-63 did not double in population with the transplanted bighorns brought into the unit, as some bighorns did succumb to predation and some bighorns moved back to S-64. Through the range expansion project, we were able to use the transplanted sheep to locate resident S-63 bighorns, which have been very difficult to survey as the landscape is very large and surveying is difficult in the desert canyons of the Dolores River. In addition, we documented interchange and annual movements of bighorn sheep between the Upper and Middle Dolores bighorn populations. During survey efforts, when collars were active in the Middle Dolores, we were also able to document very good lamb production. While we have gained a lot of insight into the productivity potential and habitat use of these populations, surveys are still very difficult to conduct across the Dolores River canyon and population estimates are considered conservative for this population. Figure 1. Estimated Desert bighorn sheep populations in GMU’s S-63 and S-64, which make up DAU DBS-61.

Historically, hunting across the DAU has been focused on GMU S-64 as that population has been more stable and also somewhat more accessible to survey and monitor populations. S-63 had been closed to hunting until 2010, following initial transplants into the unit in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Hunting was opened up in GMU S-63 by allowing bighorn harvest in either S-64 or S-63 in 2010. From 2010 to 2012, there were only 2 ram licenses available in the DAU. In 2013 license numbers were bumped to 3 ram licenses, which is continuing into the upcoming 2015 season. The allocation of 3 ram licenses for 2015 represents a conservative harvest rate of 1.9% for the entire DAU. While licenses have allowed for harvest in both GMUs S-63 and S-64, the majority of harvest has taken place in GMU S-64. Based on the DAUs population growth, the focus of harvest in GMU S-64 by hunters, and the desire to get more information about the bighorn population in GMU S-63, we are proposing to create a new huntcode to split licenses and harvest between both GMUs S-63 and S-64 independently. By creating specific huntcodes for both S-63 licenses and S-64 licenses, we can distribute harvest across the entire DAU. Focusing hunters into GMU S-63 will potentially create a more difficult hunt initially as hunters generally rely on previous harvest information to determine where to scout and hunt, yet that information is very limited in S-63. A benefit to focusing a harvest into S-63 will be that we can collect bighorn observation data about the unit from hunters.

14


-Internal publics include the District Wildlife Managers and the Biologists, who have discussed this issue-Some interested desert bighorn sheep hunters have voiced support.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Split the S63 huntcode up to allow separate allocated harvest to GMU

63 and GMU 64 independently, creating an additional huntcode (CMS64O1R).

2. Status quo:

Issue Raised by: Brad Weinmeister, Brad Banulis, Tony Bonacquista Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue): CC: Renzo DelPiccolo, Matt Thorpe, Scott Wait, Andy Holland,

Patt Dorsey APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


15


ISSUE: Should the SMS54O1A unit boundary be expanded to include the SMS54O1R unit? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE):

Since the early 2000’s, bighorn sheep GMU S54 has been managed using two sub-units. One sub-unit is designated an archery only unit, while the other is designated a ri fle unit only. Currently, 1 archery license and 2 rifle licenses are allocated across the GMU. The rationale behind the sub-unit designation is that S54 essentially includes two sub-herds of bighorn sheep; one herd resides primarily in the southern portion of the unit at lower elevations near Blue Mesa Reservoir, while the other sub-herd resides primarily in high elevation alpine habitat within the West Elk Wilderness. The low elevation sub-herd has historically been more vulnerable to hunter harvest based on easier access (i.e. outside of wilderness), and for a number of years a disproportionate level of harvest was occurring out of the low elevation herd. Thus, managers determined that an archery only sub-unit would not only provide a novel hunting opportunity, but also manage hunter harvest from the two sub-herds. Currently, the entire S54 GMU boundary is defined in regulation as:

S54 DILLON MESA (GUNNISON CO.) – bounded on N by CR 12; on E by Colo. 135; on S by U.S. 50, the Gunnison River, Blue Mesa Reservoir and Colo. 92; and on W by Curecanti Creek, Curecanti Pass and Coal Creek.

However, in the hunt code tables, the unit is broken down into sub-units using a Township line to define the unit boundaries:

S54 Archery: Sheep hunting is valid in this unit ONLY within the area bounded on the N by the northern boundary of T50N; on E by Colo. 135; on S by Gunnison River, Blue Mesa Reservoir and Morrow Point Reservoir; on W by Curecanti Creek.

S54 Rifle: Sheep hunting is valid in this unit ONLY within the area bounded on the N by Gunnison CR12 (Kebler Pass Road); on E by Colo. 135; on S by northern boundary of T50N; on W by Curecanti Creek and Coal Creek.

Although poorly quantified, anecdotal observations by local wildli fe managers and members of the public would suggest that the level of interchange between the two sub-herds in S54 has increased during recent years. Unexpectedly large groups of rams have been observed in the West Elk Wilderness during the summer and fall, and ram groups have been observed in transitional habitats between sub-herds. This issue paper is specific to the archery sub-unit. The concern is that rams may be migrating out of the archery subunit into the rifle subunit during the summer, making them unavailable to the archery hunter during the August season. Removing the unit boundary restriction for the archery hunt code may be appropriate beginning in 2016.


Internal Discussions Only.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Remove the unit boundary restriction for the SMS54O1A hunt code.

Leave the rifle unit boundary restriction in place.

The S54 unit boundary will remain:S54 DILLON MESA (GUNNISON CO.) – bounded on N by CR 12; on E by Colo. 135; on S byU.S. 50, the Gunnison River, Blue Mesa Reservoir and Colo. 92; and on W by Curecanti Creek,Curecanti Pass and Coal Creek.

16

Remove archery restriction: S54 Archery: Sheep hunting is valid in this unit ONLY within the area bounded on the N by the northern boundary of T50N; on E by Colo. 135; on S by Gunnison River, Blue Mesa Reservoir and Morrow Point Reservoir; on W by Curecanti Creek. No Change: S54 Rifle: Sheep hunting is valid in this unit ONLY within the area bounded on the N by Gunnison CR12 (Kebler Pass Road); on E by Colo. 135; on S by northern boundary of T50N; on W by Curecanti Creek and Coal Creek.

2. Status quo. No change to unit boundaries.

Issue Raised by: Brandon Diamond, Area 16 Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Kevin Blecha, J Wenum, Scott Wait APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


17


ISSUE: Should bighorn sheep GMU S77 (Gore Canyon herd) be opened to hunting starting in 2016?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Bighorn sheep GMU S77 (Gore Canyon) is located in parts of Summit, Eagle, Routt, and Grand counties. The unit is bounded on the north by Colo 134; on the east by US 40, Colo 9 and the Blue River; on the south by Elliot Creek, Hoagland Reservoir, the North Fork of Elliot Creek, Elliot Ridge/Arapaho/White River National Forest boundary, Eagles Nest Wilderness boundary, Piney Ridge, Elk Creek, and the Colorado River to State Bridge; and on the west by Colo 131. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (BHS) historically occupied the Gore Canyon until the late 1960’s when they were extirpated. There had been BHS sightings in Gore Canyon occasionally until early 2000’s. Colorado Parks and Wildlife began planning a reintroduction of BHS in Gore Canyon in the late 1990’s and finalized a plan in 2004. In January 2009, CPW reintroduced 14 BHS into the Gore Canyon. Lamb production from this initial transplant documented 3 lambs in the summer 2009. Subsequent lamb:ewe ratios have been between 33:100 and 43:100 until January 2014 when a supplemental transplant was conducted into the Gore Canyon consisting of 13 animals. Lamb:ewe ratios for the winter 2014 were 61:100. Winter ram:ewe ratios have ranged between 22:100 (2009) and 67:100 (2014). As of March 2015, an inventory of Gore Canyon BHS found 18 ewes, 11 lambs, and 12 rams. Of the rams from the original transplant, the half curl ram was observed in addition to the original ram lamb transplanted in 2009. The Gore Canyon rams consists of at least 3 ¾ curl and 3 5/8 curl rams.

There have been limited observed BHS mortalities within the Gore Canyon herd. There has been at least one mountain lion predation on one of the original transplanted ewes in 2009. For the first two years of the transplant, 11 of the 14 transplanted BHS survived through March 2011. Mountain lions killed an additional two marked BHS including a collared ewe in 2013 and a marked lamb from the 2013 supplemental transplant. There have not been any sick or diseased animals observed in the Gore Canyon herd and lamb survival appears to be high. Current estimates of the Gore Canyon BHS population are observed at 41 and predicted at approximately 50 animals (winter 2014).

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S-77 Winter Classification

Lamb: Ewes Ram: Ewe

18

The majority of the BHS in S77 are on public land (CPW and BLM). CPW is recommending opening a BHS ram huntcode beginning in the fall of 2016. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal – Area 9 personnel and Terrestrial staff

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Open a huntcode for ram hunting in S77 (SMS77O1R) to provide

sheep hunting opportunity in this herd. Also update the GMU boundaries for S-77 and S-2 in Chapter W-0.

2. No action. Leave S77 closed to hunting. Issue Raised by: Area 9 personnel (DWMs, Wildlife Technician, AWM) and

Kirk Oldham (Terrestrial Biologist) Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Kirk Oldham

CC: Lyle Sidener (AWM), Brad Petch (Sr. Wildlife Biologist) APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

RON VELARDE


01020304050607080

S-77 Population Size

Modeled pop size Observed Population Size

19


ISSUE: Should Private Land Only (PLO) huntcodes for Game Management Units (GMU) 15, 27, 181 and 371 be added for black bears?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): In 2008 Private land only (PLO) seasons were created for hunting black bears in Middle Park (B-16) to provide opportunity for landowners to harvest bears and meet harvest objectives. B-16 consists of GMUs 15, 18, 181, 27, 28, 37, and 371. PLO huntcodes were created for GMU’s 18, 28, and 37 since the bulk of the urban conflicts arose from these GMUs within Middle Park (Summit county and eastern Grand county). These PLO seasons have maintained a total license number of 20 (5 within each huntcode 2008-2012). In 2013, total PLO license numbers were increased to 30 and again increased in 2014 to 40. PLO license numbers in 2015 remain at 40. Harvest and success on these licenses has been low. Between 2010 and 2012 there were no harvested bears on these PLO licenses. However in 2013 there was a single reported harvest and the 2014 harvest rose to 5 total.

GMUs 15, 27, 181, and 371 were left out of these PLO licenses primarily since they did not have an urban interface associated with them. However, CPW has documented bear game damage and conflicts within these GMUs since 2008. Adding these GMUs to the PLO licenses will add flexibility and harvest on private land and may reduce bear game damage within these units. While harvest and total mortality in B-16 remains above objective, damage harvest has increased between 2012 and 2014. Increasing harvest in the PLO seasons within B-16 may require reducing other general season huntcodes to remain within the current harvest objective if success and harvest increases on these PLO licenses.


05

1015202530354045

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

B-16 PLO Licenses/Harvest

PLO Licenses PLO Harvest Total B-16 Harvest Harvest Objective

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Lice

nses

B-16 Harvest

Damage Harvest Total Mortality Harvest Objective Total Objective

20

OCCURRED? Internal – Area 9 and Area 10 personnel and Terrestrial staff – support preferred alternative ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):

1. * Preferred Alternative *: Create the PLO huntcodes BE015P1R and BE015P5R (valid in GMU’s 15 and 27). Add GMU 181 to the BE018P1R and BE018P5R huntcodes. Add GMU 371 to the BE037P1R and BE037P5R huntcodes.

2. Add GMU 181 to the BE018P1R/BE018P5R huntcodes. Add GMU 371 to the BE037P1R/BE037P5R huntcodes. GMU 15 and 27 will not have PLO huntcodes.

3. No action Issue Raised by: Area 9 DWMs, Kirk Oldham (Terrestrial Biologist) Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Kirk Oldham

CC: Lyle Sidener (AWM), Jim Haskins (AWM) Brad Petch (Sr. Wildlife Biologist)


RON VELARDE

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? Yes ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? Yes RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? No

21


ISSUE: Should youth licenses in DAU E-20 only be valid for the GMU in which they were originally purchased for during the youth extended season framework?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The Uncompahgre elk herd (DAU E-20) is managed for a quality hunting experience in game management unit (GMU) 61 and for hunter opportunity in GMU 62. The split management of the DAU creates issues with managing hunter distribution, which further creates issues with elk distribution. The DAU is currently being managed for a population objective of 8,500-9,500. The current population estimate for the DAU is at 9,600, on the upper end of the objective, however, GMU 61 winters approximately 2/3 of the elk herd while 62 has the majority of elk habitat. To meet population objective, antlerless licenses have been available in both GMUs. Adding more antlerless licenses into GMU 62 adds to additional over-the-counter hunter pressure and tends to push the elk into GMU 61 or into the more inaccessible areas of GMU 62 (i.e., private land, canyons, and low elevation winter range). Adding more antlerless hunters into GMU 61 adds additional hunters into the seasons reducing from the quality elk hunting experience that bull hunters who spent 8-22 points (varying by season, method of take, and residency) expect. The new big game season structure now allows youth hunters to hunt any of the antlerless deer or antlerless elk seasons within the entire DAU following the season for which they purchased a license, as long as they did not fill their original license. This allows youth to now acquire licenses in GMU 62 for muzzleloader cow, or any antlerless license during the ri fle seasons, and then hunt in GMU 61 after the season on their original license has ended, until they fill their license. Doing so now creates additional hunting pressure and crowding in GMU 61, reducing the quality elk hunting experience for antlered and antlerless license hunters. To reduce the crowding impacts in GMU 61, staff is proposing that youth licenses only be valid for the GMU within DAU E-20 for which they purchased their original license for the youth extended season opportunity. This means that if a youth purchases a 61 or 62 antlerless license for any season, and they do not fill during the season the license is valid for, they can only hunt the following antlerless ri fle seasons for the original GMU they acquired the license for. Under this alternative, i f a youth hunter wants to hunt GMU 61 for cows, they can do so by applying for a GMU 61 antlerless license, just not using a GMU 62 antlerless license. With the new minimum youth preference allocation for antlerless licenses in GMU 61, youth hunters are able to acquire antlerless licenses for fewer points than adult antlerless license applicants. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? -Internal publics include the District Wildlife Managers and the Biologists, who have discussed this issue. -External publics include GMU 61 hunters and E-20 youth hunters. -No external input has been received.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Limit GMU 61 and 62 youth licenses for the unit that they were

originally purchased for through the extended season framework.

2. Status quo: Youth antlerless licenses purchased in either GMU 61 or 62 can be used in either GMU following the season for which they originally acquired their license, if they did not fill their original tag.

Issue Raised by: Tony Bonacquista, Mark Caddy, Kevin Duckett

22

Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Brad Banulis

CC: Renzo DelPiccolo, Scott Wait, Andy Holland, Pat Dorsey APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


23


ISSUE: Should an early either-sex rifle hunt be added for GMU 61 to provide a quality hunting opportunity outside of the normal season structure?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The Uncompahgre elk herd (DAU E-20) is managed for a quality hunting experience in game management unit (GMU) 61 and for hunter opportunity in GMU 62. The split management of the DAU creates issues with managing hunter distribution, which further creates issues with elk distribution. The DAU is currently being managed for a population objective of 8,500-9,500. The current population estimate for the DAU is at 9,600, on the upper end of the objective, however, GMU 61 winters approximately 2/3 of the elk herd while 62 has the majority of elk habitat. To meet population objective, antlerless licenses have been available in both GMUs. Adding more antlerless licenses into GMU 62 adds to additional over-the-counter hunter pressure and tends to push the elk into GMU 61 or into the more inaccessible areas of GMU 62 (i.e., private land, canyons, and low elevation winter range). Adding more antlerless hunters into GMU 61 adds additional hunters into the seasons reducing the quality elk hunting experience that hunters who spent 8-22 points (varying by season, method of take, and residency) expect. To reduce conflicts between antlered and antlerless hunters, staff is proposing to add an early October either-sex rifle hunt for GMU 61. This will create a very high quality hunt during the rut that will not have any antlerless hunters. In addition, this will be a highly sought after season with the highest point holders potentially selecting this season over the 1st-4th rifle seasons, so there is a potential for a decrease in preference points needed to hunt the 1st-4th rifle seasons. The proposed early October season would run from October 1 – 7 so as not to overlap with the 1st rifle season and provide a break between seasons. License numbers would be reduced from the existing antlered hunt codes to populate the early October huntcode. The first rifle season will still have a small number of antlerless hunters (60 in 2015) as that season provides a high quality antlerless hunting experience that hunters are using at least 2 points to draw. The 2nd and 3rd ri fle seasons will still have high numbers of antlerless licenses to meet population objective, hunter opportunity, and provide pressure to keep elk from moving out of GMU 62 with the OTC pressure. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? -Internal publics include the District Wildlife Managers and the Biologists, who have discussed this issue -External publics include GMU 61 hunters -Some discussion has occurred with out fitters in GMU 61 who are very supportive.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Institute a 7 day either-sex hunt for GMU 61 running October 1-

October 7.

2. Status quo: No early either-sex ri fle elk hunt in GMU 61.

Issue Raised by: Tony Bonacquista, Mark Caddy, Kevin Duckett, Brad Banulis


CC: Renzo DelPiccolo, Scott Wait, Andy Holland, Pat Dorsey APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY

24


25


ISSUE: If an early rifle either-sex elk season is implemented in GMU 61, should an early October rifle bear season sold OTC with caps requiring a like elk license also be implemented with the same season dates?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): GMU 61 has high quality bear habitat and a robust bear population. Increasing the opportunity to harvest bears in the unit is problematic because the unit is also managed as a quality elk hunting area. There is current interest to implement an early October either-sex elk only season in GMU 61 and if it is implemented, it would be a perfect time to provide additional bear hunting opportunity because many hunters that draw GMU 61 elk licenses are also interested in hunting for bear. If an early either-sex elk season is implemented for October 1-7th in GMU 61, staff proposes a new bear hunting season that runs concurrently with the early either-sex elk season that would require the license holder to also have an elk license for the same unit and season. Bear licenses for the new season would be valid on public or private land and sold Over-The-Counter with caps with the like license requirement. Regular ri fle season elk and deer hunters that have purchased a concurrent regular rifle bear license would not be allowed to hunt in the early season. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? GMU 61 elk and bear hunters GMU 61 out fitters and guides Colorado Parks and Wildlife- Area 18 personnel and Terrestrial Staff Input was gathered from all of CPW Area 18 personnel and Terrestrial Staff. No formal public input process has occurred at this time. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: If an early either-sex elk season is implemented in GMU 61, then a concurrent bear season would also be implemented requiring bear license holders to have an elk license for the same early season. Bear licenses for the new season would be valid on public or private land and sold Over-The-Counter with caps with the like license requirement. Regular ri fle season elk and deer hunters that have purchased a concurrent regular ri fle bear license would not be allowed to hunt in the early season.

2. Status Quo- No additional bear season. Issue Raised by: Kevin Duckett, Tony Bonaquista Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Evan Phillips

CC: APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


26


ISSUE: Should huntcodes EE055O1M and EE551O1M be modified to bull only licenses? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The either-sex muzzleloading huntcodes EE055O1M and EE551O1M were implemented to increase cow harvest in order to reduce the elk population. The elk population has been gradually decreasing for 10 years, and is now near a socially acceptable level, pending a new DAU Plan that will establish an official population objective. Additional cow harvest is no longer necessary. Therefore, staff would like to modify these either-sex huntcodes and change them to bull huntcodes, along with maintaining the existing antlerless huntcodes. Approximately the same hunting opportunity will be available in the future by using antlered and antlerless only huntcodes. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? CPW managers Some hunters that desire an either-sex hunt only, but since opportunity will now be split into antlered and antlerless only licenses at approximately the same numbers, overall opportunity will not change significantly.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Modify huntcodes EE055O1M and EE551O1M, to EM055O1M and

EM551O1M for bull only hunting.

2. Status quo.

Issue Raised by: Nick Gallowich, Chris Parmeter Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Scott Wait

CC: Dorsey, Wenum, Wait APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


27


ISSUE: Should hunt codes EE055P1R and EE055P4R be eliminated? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): These hunt codes were implemented in order to increase elk harvest opportunity, to reduce the population, and to focus harvest on private lands where conflicts may occur. The overall elk population has been reduced and is now at a socially acceptable level, making additional harvest no longer necessary. More importantly, these licenses are typically used on small mining claims and other lands where conflicts do not occur, so they have not been effective at reducing conflicts. Conflicts will be addressed in the future using other methods available to staff. The quota for these licenses has been reduced for several years and the demand is far below our current allocation of only 25 licenses per huntcode. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? CPW managers Approximately 7 hunters that apply for these licenses

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Eliminate huntcodes EE055P1R and EE055P4R.

2. Status quo

Issue Raised by: Chris Parmeter, Nick Gallowich Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Scott Wait

CC: Dorsey, Wenum, Wait APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


28


ISSUE: Should the January late antlerless elk season in game manage unit (GMU) 20 (EF020L2R) be eliminated?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Managing the distribution of elk within the St. Vrain elk herd, Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-9 composed of GMU 20, is difficult. Two major elk redistributions in the last 15 years have resulted in more elk using private and local open space lands in the foothills areas of the GMU during the winter. The range expansion has occurred in the absence of an increase in the elk herd (the herd is near objective), but has resulted in an increased number of elk conflicts. In order to decrease elk conflicts during winter, a management goal in the DAU is to increase elk use of USFS land. In 2003, the St. Vrain elk herd was above the population objective and a general January antlerless season (EF020L2R) was implemented throughout GMU 20 to decrease the population size of the herd. However, as the population size has been brought down to the population objective, the number of licenses issued and harvest from the hunt code has declined substantially. Harvest from this hunt code is now negligible considering the herd’s management. Recent radio-collar data indicates that hunting during the late January antlerless season (EF020L2R) can move elk from suitable winter range on public land to private land. During the last two hunting seasons, large subherds were pushed off of multiple wintering areas on public land onto private land in the foothills and Estes Valley. Eliminating the general late season may also help the private-land-only antlerless season redistribute elk from private land to public land. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal meetings between terrestrial and area staff. No formal public input process. External public – Landowners, elk hunters, elk hunting guides. No formal input process.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Eliminate the late antlerless season in January in game manage unit

(GMU) 20 (EF020L2R).

2. Status quo, no change to GMU 20 elk hunt codes.

Issue Raised by: Ben Kraft Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Janet George and Larry Rogstad APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

STEVE YAMASHITA


29


ISSUE: Should a late season cow elk hunt be established in GMU 30 from December 15 through January 15 annually (EF030L1R)?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The elk population within DAU E-10 is currently within acceptable social and biological levels. During the DAU planning process in 2005, a population size objective was selected that reflected general satisfaction with the then-current population size. Due to model updates, the population estimate is now higher than previous estimates, and outside of the DAU population size objective. However, the population generally remains within biological and social tolerance.

Even though the overall elk population in E-10 is currently at an acceptable level, recent land use changes, including oil & gas development, have resulted in disproportionately higher harvest in GMUs 21 and 22. Thus, the herd is decreasing in these GMUs, and is stable to increasing in GMUs 30 and 31. Current licenses and seasons are not adequate to address the issue. A late season hunt was established in 2012 in GMU 31 to address these issues.

Establishing a new hunt (EF030L1R) would allow for increased harvest in GMU 30 on both public and private land, improve hunter opportunity (particularly for youth hunters), while effectively targeting the elk that need to be harvested in E-10.


Ranchers, farmers, and landowners in DAU E-10; local CPW personnel; sportsmen in GMU 30.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Establish a late season cow elk hunt valid in GMU 30 from December

15 through January 15 annually.

2. Status quo-no change

Issue Raised by: Area 7 Terrestrial and Field Operations personnel Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Stephanie Durno, Terrestrial Biologist

CC: Petch, Velarde, Romatzke, Creeden APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

RON VELARDE


30


ISSUE: Should the season dates for EF031L1R be changed to December 15 – January 15 annually?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): EF031L1R was established in 2012 to provide hunter opportunity, and alleviate both game damage and

issues with disproportionate harvest across the GMUs of DAU E-10. The hunt has been successful in

doing so, but has demonstrated that the most effective season dates would be December 15 – January

15 annually. Changing the season dates will focus harvest most effectively and be consistent with season

dates in the newly proposed adjacent late season hunt in GMU 30, EF030L1R. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Ranchers, farmers, and landowners in DAU E-10; local CPW personnel; sportsmen in GMU 31.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Change the season dates for EF031L1R to December 15 – January

15 annually.

2. Status quo-no change

Issue Raised by: Area 7 Terrestrial and Field Operations personnel Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Stephanie Durno, Terrestrial Biologist

CC: Petch, Velarde, Romatzke, Romero APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

RON VELARDE


31


ISSUE: Should comprehensive hunt code modifications occur in elk DAU E-41 in order to reduce antlerless harvest and help mitigate private land conflicts?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Beginning in 2010, wildli fe managers in the Gunnison Basin began aggressively working towards reducing the elk population in DAU E-41 (Game Management Unit 54). Limited archery and muzzleloader licenses, either-sex licenses, List B and List C cow licenses, liberal late seasons, and expanded private land cow hunts were all tools that were used as part of the effort to harvest elk in this DAU. Local managers are confident that elk numbers have been reduced and that certain hunt codes and strategies are no longer necessary for elk management purposes. The following management tools are currently in place in GMU 54:

- Archery: Either-Sex licenses available on a limited basis

- Muzzleloader: Either-Sex licenses available on a limited basis; List B cow licenses available

- 1st Rifle: Either-Sex licenses available on a limited basis; List B cow licenses available - 1st Rifle: Either-Sex PLO licenses available on a limited basis

- 2nd Rifle: Either-Sex “over-the-counter with caps” licenses available; List B cow licenses available

- 3rd Rifle: Either-Sex licenses available on a limited basis; List B cow licenses available; Hunters

may also purchase an OTC bull licenses during this season

- 4th Rifle: Either-Sex licenses available on a limited basis; List B cow licenses available - 4th Rifle: Either-Sex PLO licenses available on a limited basis

- PLO cow season: List B licenses available for private lands only; season runs from August 15-

January 31 unit-wide

- Late cow season: List B licenses available on a limited basis; license is valid on public and private lands on east side of GMU 54.

There is resounding public opinion that the elk herd in E41 has been reduced below social desire(s) and that the current management strategy should be reconsidered. The most significant management issues in this DAU continue to revolve around private land conflicts on the east side of the unit. Like many places in western Colorado, the issues in this unit are based largely on elk distribution rather than sheer numbers and unit -wide elk reductions are not addressing the private land issues on the east side of the DAU. Local wildlife managers will continue to work on conflict mitigation between agricultural operations and elk; however it likely will start taking the form of targeted game damage hunts. For 2016, Area 16 would like to consider various hunt code modifications as described in the preferred alternative section below. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Extensive internal discussion; years of public input and discussion including license setting meetings and sportsman’s roundtable meetings. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):

32

- * Preferred Alternative *:

- Maintain EE054O1A, EE054P1R & EE054P4R hunt codes; otherwise convert all other either-sex licenses to bull and cow only.

- For 2016, maintain cow licenses as List B. Cow licenses in this DAU were historically under-subscribed. Application rates should be evaluated moving forward to determine whether List B designation is still warranted.

- Eliminate the EE054O3R hunt code; bull hunters may purchase an OTC bull license for 3rd season. No EM054O3R hunt code is necessary.

- Eliminate the EF054L1R hunt code

- Maintain the EF054P5R hunt code; however the existing sub-unit boundaries within the GMU will be changed and established as follows:

“Private Land Only in the area bounded on the N by South Castle Creek, CR 730, Carbon Creek and Squaw Gulch; on E by Colo. 135; on S by U.S. 50; on W by Gunnison River, Antelope Creek, CR 818, CR 727 and USFS Trail 438.” Additionally, the season dates for the EF054P5R hunt code will be modified to the start date of Archery season through the last day of the 4th combined season. Changing the season dates will encourage license holders to hunt during established seasons which will provide some modicum of hunting pressure on private lands adjacent to public lands. During recent years, managers have also observed hunting pressure in certain areas actually driving elk towards priority conflict areas. The goal would be for the new unit boundary and season dates to help mitigate those issues. The proposed changes would result in the following hunt codes for 2016:

Huntcode List A or B Comments EE054O1A A No change EM054O1M A EE054O1M deleted EF054O1M B No change EM054O1R A EE054O1R deleted EF054O1R B No change EE054P1R A No change- PLO EM054U2R A No change- Over the Counter

with Caps EF054O2R B No change EM000U3R A EE054O3R deleted- OTC bull

licenses available only during 3rd season

EF054O3R B No change EM054O4R A EE054O4R deleted EF054O4R B No change EE054P4R A No change- PLO EF054P5R B New unit boundary & season

dates Issue Raised by: Brandon Diamond, Gunnison West DWM

33


CC: Kevin Blecha, J Wenum, Scott Wait APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


34


ISSUE: Should the late public land antlerless elk hunt in GMU 64 (EF064L1R) be modified to a private land only season?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The Cimarron elk herd (DAU E-35) is currently estimated at about 6,100 elk. The 2007 DAU plan has a stated objective of 5,000-5,500, however, when the population reached the lower end of the objective there was a concern from external and internal publics that elk numbers were too low, so we have allowed the population to increase slightly. GMU 64 represents about 28% of the land mass of DAU E-35 and represents and even smaller proportion of the elk population. The late season is generally when we get the highest success and largest portion of elk harvest in GMU 64. The winter months are also when GMU 64 landowners experience game damage problems. As management in the DAU has moved away from pushing for a significant reduction in elk numbers, we are now trying to use the late seasons to manage conflict. Therefore, we propose eliminating the GMU 64 December public land antlerless season and creating a Private Land Only (PLO) season in GMU 64 running from December 1 – 31. By making the GMU 64 late season antlerless hunt private land only, landowners can mitigate for damage and the elk will be able to stay on public land without being pressured to leave. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal discussion within Area 18.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Close the GMU 64 December public land cow huntcode (EF064L1R)

and open a GMU 64 December private land only antlerless huntcode (EF064P5R).

2. Status quo. Maintain GMU 64 public land December antlerless season (EF064P5R).

Issue Raised by: Matt Ortega Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Brad Banulis

CC: Renzo DelPiccolo, Patt Dorsey, Scott Wait, Andy Holland APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


35


ISSUE: Should a late season public land antlerless elk season be added in GMU 70 to harvest antlerless elk and shift elk distribution out of low elevation winter ranges?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The 2014 posthunt population estimate for the Disappointment Creek (E-24) elk herd was 19,200. The population objectives identified in the 2006 DAU plan are to manage for a population of between 17,000-19,000 elk. Although the population appears to be at the upper end of the objective range, GMU 70 holds nearly half of the elk for the DAU. GMU 70 provides high quality elk habitat across seasonal ranges, but also has a lot of refuges for elk on private lands across the mid-elevation band of the GMU. A concern in GMU 70 has been the large numbers of elk showing up on low elevation winter ranges, primarily in Dry Creek Basin. These winter ranges should only be used by elk during heavy snow years, however, large herds of elk from 400-800 head have shown up on the sagebrush/pinion-juniper ranges even during mild years like the winter of 2014-15. These ranges are also the primary winter ranges for mule deer within the GMU. Currently, GMU 70 does have a late private land only antlerless season running December 1-31st. This season does help with antlerless harvest, but also may push elk from the higher elevations to the lower elevation public land winter ranges. In addition, the December long season puts additional stress on landowners as they receive numerous inquiries to hunt on their property. Due to poor winter range conditions associated with drought and wild and domestic ungulate grazing, as well as concern for competition with mule deer on winter ranges, we are proposing an early December public land antlerless elk hunt to harvest cows as well as influence elk distribution. The proposed late public land elk season would be a 9 day season starting the first Saturday of December. In addition, the December private land only season would be reduced in time to start December 15 and run through December 31st. License numbers in the private land only season will be reduced and moved into the newly created public land season, if approved. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal discussion within Area 18.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Institute a new public land antlerless late season hunt in GMU 70 that

starts the first Saturday of December and runs for 9 days. Proposed new huntcode: EF070L1R. If EF070L1R is approved, EF070P5R would be reduced in days to run December 15-31.

2. Status quo. Issue Raised by: Mark Caddy, Tony Bonacquista, Brad Banulis Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Renzo DelPiccolo, Patt Dorsey, Scott Wait, Andy Holland, Brad Weinmeister


PATT DORSEY


36


ISSUE: Should hunt code EF421L1R be removed to eliminate confusion and focus harvest on damage-causing elk on private lands?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): There are currently two opportunities to harvest cow elk after the regular hunting seasons in the Plateau Valley portions of GMU 421: EF421L1R and EF421P5R.

EF421L1R has very specific and confusing boundaries that were originally intended to allow for harvest on private land as well as allow for very limited hunting on public lands to prevent and minimize damage on adjacent private lands. Unfortunately, this license has become very popular among people who are not residents of GMU 421 and do not obtain permission prior to purchasing the license. The licenses sell out, yet result in little harvest and mitigation of damage.

The most effective tool to increasing harvest and providing late season hunting opportunity is the already-available EF421P5R license, which effectively targets damage-causing elk and largely ensures that only those with permission to hunt on private land purchase the license.

Therefore, CPW staff is recommending that EF421L1R be eliminated.


OCCURRED? Internal: DWM, AWM, terrestrial biologist in Area 7/GMU 421. External: Hunters, BLM, HPP committees, landowners in GMU 421.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Eliminate huntcode EF421L1R.

2. Status Quo. Maintain EF421L1R huntcode.

Issue Raised by: Terrestrial and Field Operations personnel GMU 421 Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Stephanie Durno, Terrestrial Biologist, Area 7, Grand Junction

CC: Brad Petch, JT Romatzke, Michael Blanck APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

RON VELARDE


37


ISSUE: Should Colorado Parks and Wildlife establish licensing procedures to begin implementation of public elk hunting on US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) refuges located in the San Luis Valley in Game Management Units 80, 82 and 83?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): According to the USFW’s San Luis Valley Refuge Complex Hunt Plan for the Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Baca NWR, and Monte Vista NWR, public access will be granted to a limited number of elk hunters beginning August of 2016. Currently all three refuges are closed to elk hunting and as a result, elk within game management units 80,82 and 83 have sought relief from hunting pressure on these refuges. The goals of the Hunt Plan are to address conflicts with elk that are associated with the refuges and surrounding private lands. Those goals include increasing CPW’s ability to effectively manage local and migratory elk populations, preventing game damage issues on surrounding private lands and USFWS’ concerns regarding habitat degradation caused by concentrations of elk on their lands, especially willow habitats. The Hunt Plan calls for a very low number of permits to be issued early on and permits will only increase on an as needed basis. The potential for demand of these permits is likely to be high due to the quality of animals that exist on these refuges as well as the potential to have a high quality hunt. Therefore, the selection process for those few hunters must maintain a high level of transparency and fairness. Licenses that will be eligible for access to the refuges include the following tags in Units 80, 82, and 83:

• Archery elk either-sex (must have license in hand when applying to access the drawing) • Antlered muzzleloader elk • 1st rifle bull/either-sex elk • 4th rifle bull/either-sex elk • All limited cow licenses (muzzleloader, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rifle seasons)

In order to offer these new hunting opportunities, procedures must be established to select hunters from the pool of successful applicants who have already drawn a limited license for these units and have expressed an interest in hunting on one of these refuges. An email address will be provided for successful license applicants to indicate their interest in refuge access through the regulation brochure. When the new IPAWS licensing system goes live, it will be capable of randomly selecting hunters from a pools of licensees who have expressed an interest in refuge access. It can then issue an access permit to those chosen for access to the refuges within each respective unit. Unfortunately, that system may not be online and able to administer the access selection process for the 2016 hunting seasons. Therefore, for 2016 only, access permits for these three refuges will be issued from the Monte Vista Colorado Parks and Wildlife Office where a random drawing will be held under the direct supervision of the Area Wildli fe Manager. To accommodate left-over license buyers, the application period for these hunts will start the day after left-over license day and will remain open for 5 days. That list will then be used to randomly draw hunters who will receive a permit to access the refuges. Refuge staff will provide information to each successful applicant regarding refuge-specific information. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED?

38

USFWS has conducted several local public meetings regarding their Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) prior to its adoption in 2014. The CCP included plans to allow for elk hunting access on the SLV refuge complex at the completion of their hunt plan. Their hunt plan phase began immediately follow CCP adoption and has been reviewed by CPW staff and is currently in its final stages. Additional public meetings will be held this fall.

1. * Preferred Alternative *: Establish new procedures to select hunters from groups of successful limited license applicants for each unit that contains one of the USFWS National Wildlife Refuges located in the San Luis Valley and while following the currently established limited license structure for each respective GMU (80, 82, and 83). Either-sex archery licenses will also be eligible, but applicants must have a license in hand in order to apply.

2. Status Quo: No provisions for access to refuges implemented.

Issue Raised by: USFWS personnel, Ron Rivale, Brian Bechaver, Luke

Hoffman and Rick Basagoitia Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Scott Wait and Patt Dorsey APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY

REQUIRES NEW SPACE IN THE BROCHURE? YES ISSUE PAPER HAS BEEN EMAILED TO REG REVIEW MGRS GROUP? NO RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT AGENDA? NO

39


ISSUE: Should the fall bull/cow elk season in GMUs 682 and 791 be extended to the end of February?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): The San Luis Valley is home to the largest concentration of center-pivot irrigated crop circles in the world with over 3500 circles. Elk expansion into these circles and their high value crops creates the potential for an extremely expensive game damage situation. To manage the growing elk population and to address potential game damage on high-value agricultural crops, a new elk DAU (E-55) was created on the San Luis Valley floor with an elk population objective of zero, the only such population objective in Colorado. Two new GMUs (682 and 791) were also created within DAU E-55 to facilitate management of the DAU and allow for elk hunting opportunities. In 2005, a private land only summer bull season was created in GMUs 682 and 791, running from May through July annually and was the only antlered elk season available in DAU E-55 at that time. The purpose of this summer bull season was to mitigate game damage issues on the valley floor and provide a management tool for the E-55 elk population from May through July. However, landowners and hunters wanted more elk hunting opportunities in E-55 during the fall seasons that the summer bull season could not provide. Therefore, In 2009, a fall bull/cow season was implemented for GMUs 682 and 791 from August through December annually. This fall season utilized bull and cow elk hunting as a tool for managing the growing elk population within DAU E-55 while also increasing elk hunting opportunities for landowners and hunters. Few changes have been made since the creation of the summer bull and the fall bull/cow seasons, with the exception of changing the licenses from list C to list B (implemented in 2014). Currently, landowners affected by elk damage in GMUs 682 and 791 can hunt elk on private land from May 15th through July 31st (bulls only ) and August 15th through December 31st (bulls and cows) annually. Landowners are issued summer bull vouchers based upon the number of elk using the property and the DWM’s assessment of how many hunters it will take to alleviate the game damage issues. In order for landowners to receive fall bull season vouchers, they must request summer bull season vouchers and convert those vouchers into licenses to demonstrate they are attempting to alleviate elk damage issues. This above-mentioned requirement serves two purposes: 1) It eliminates “hoarding” trophy bulls on private land until the antlers harden during the fall months; and 2) It allows continuous hunting pressure and dispersal of elk throughout the entire growing season to address game damage issues. Due to the amount of private land within DAU E-55, public elk hunting opportunities are limited. Elk have also become conditioned to seek protection from hunting pressure during the summer and fall hunting seasons, especially along the Rio Grande River corridor, where abundant cover and space allow elk to evade hunting pressure. In addition, the resident elk population of the Rio Grande River corridor is bolstered during the fall months from migratory elk leaving the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge and the foothills within GMU 080. Landowners along the Rio Grande River corridor growing late season cover crops (i.e. winter rye), which are vulnerable to elk in January and February, are experiencing severe elk game damage issues after the fall bull/cow season currently ends on December 31st annually. Many landowners have complained that the elk population of the Rio Grande River corridor increases after December and they would have better success in January and February if the fall season was extended. The benefits of having elk in this area for hunting and viewing are greatly out-weighed by the potential game damage liability for the State. The current situation constitutes a significant burden on Area, Game Damage and Habitat Partnership Program resources. This problem will continue to grow if it is not addressed. Extending the fall bull/cow season to the end of February of each year would target those elk involved in agricultural conflicts while maximizing the effectiveness of the existing licenses. Landowners would still be required to participate in the summer bull season in order to receive fall bull/cow season vouchers, as this season would simply be extended through the end of February annually. All elk harvest data from January through February would be collected from landowners and hunters. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

40

OCCURRED? CPW Staff discussion at Area level (Area 17 staff: Rick Basagoitia, Stephanie Ferrero, Jason Surface) Landowners who are in good standing with voucher requirements and who experience damage issues during December-February.


1. * Preferred Alternative: Extend the “fall bull/cow season” damage hunt to the end of February to increase the effectiveness of the existing E-55 fall licenses and to alleviate damage to late-season cover crops.

2. Status Quo: Keep damage season as is (i.e. August 15th – December 31st)

3. Extend the damage hunt season for GMU 791 only (not in 682) to address game damage to late-season cover crops along the Rio Grande River corridor.

Issue Raised by: Luke Hoffman, Jason Surface, Stephanie Ferrero. Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Scott Wait, Rick Basagoitia APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


41


ISSUE: Should a new PLO huntcode be instituted in GMU 80 for Pronghorn? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): Game Management Unit 80 south of Monte Vista in the San Luis Valley is comprised of large t racts of agricultural areas irrigated by center pivot sprinklers. Crops of alfalfa, barley and potatoes dominate the area. For the past several years, pronghorn numbers have been increasing in this area, and have began causing game damage issues on private land. CPW began utilizing doe dispersal licenses on these private lands three years ago to deal with these problems. These licenses have helped to alleviate some of the issues; however, there is currently no apparatus in place to deal with groups of buck antelope that are not impacted by the dispersal hunts and do not typically disperse from the private lands. The preferred alternative in this issue paper would create a private-land-only season for pronghorn bucks in GMU 80. This will provide a tool to help augment the harvest and disperse groups of buck antelope from the private land. Public land hunters will realize the benefit of more and better hunting opportunity as they will have access to antelope that they do not currently have. The number of these licenses can be controlled to keep harvest rates at acceptable levels. License numbers for this huntcode will initially be low. Harvest results and field observations of pronghorn bucks will be used to monitor the success of these hunts. License numbers will be adjusted accordingly over time to maintain sustainable harvest and mitigate agricultural damage. Through adaptive harvest management on private lands, a viable population of pronghorn will be promoted throughout the unit and agricultural damage will be reduced in GMU 80. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? CPW Staff discussion at Area level Agricultural producers who will see a benefit in reduced game damage. Public land hunters have requested opportunity to access some of these bucks. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS):

1. * Preferred Alternative: Institute a new private-land-only hunt code for male pronghorn in GMU

80

2. Status Quo: No PLO buck license in GMU 80

Issue Raised by:

Brian Bechaver, Luke Hoffman, Stephanie Ferrero


CC: Scott Wait, Rick Basagoitia APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

PATT DORSEY


42


ISSUE: Should mandatory chronic wasting disease (CWD) testing for harvested moose be discontinued while maintaining the general mandatory check process for moose to obtain other biological information?

DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): During the early 2000s, when CWD was an emerging disease of cervids in Colorado and elsewhere, mandatory CWD testing was instituted for hunter harvested moose in an effort to determine disease distribution and prevalence rates for the species. To date, during 13 years of mandatory CWD testing (2002-2014), 1,798 hunter harvested moose have yielded four positive animals. All four positive moose were harvested in the Cameron Pass area of eastern Jackson and western Larimer counties in moose Data Analysis Units M1 (GMUs 6, 171) and M2 (GMU 7). The positives were detected in 2005 (1), 2006 (2) and 2009 (1) with no additional positive detections in the 842 moose tested during the last 5 years (2010-2014). The mandatory CWD testing program for moose has achieve its original objectives indicating moose are susceptible to CWD and the disease exists at a low prevalence (<1%) in the statewide moose population. Further testing will likely continue to infrequently detect positive animals, as expected with low CWD prevalence. It is estimated that CWD testing costs between $75-$100 per animal, which includes time, materials, lab, and disposal fees. Moose would be on the higher end of the range due to timing, lower volume, and slightly more expensive test costs. Moose harvest is increasing with 205 submitted in 2014. Using the $100 per moose test estimate, mandatory testing of moose cost Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) approximately $20,000 in 2014 and as Colorado’s moose population and harvest continues to increase, annual costs will also climb. In addition, there is a time impact of mandatory testing to moose hunters beyond the regular mandatory check in preparing the hefty head and cape for tissues sampling. Considering cost of mandatory testing to CPW and hunters, and that the original objectives have been achieved, staff recommends discontinuation of mandatory CWD testing of harvested moose beginning in 2016. However, staff recommends continuation of submission of hunter harvested moose heads with antlers naturally attached for the mandatory check report. During the mandatory check report, animal information such as sex and antler size, and hunt related information including harvest date and location, number of days hunted, animals observed and method of take are recorded. A tooth is also collected to determine age of harvested moose. Moose hunters will continue to have access to voluntary CWD testing for the same fee charged to deer and elk hunters. CWD will continue to be monitored in moose through targeted testing of clinical suspect moose to efficiently monitor disease distribution. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS

OCCURRED? Internal: District Wildlife Managers, Wildlife Health staff and veterinarians, area biologists, customer service representatives, regional staff, big game coordinator and big game data analyst. Internal meetings, conversations and written communication have occurred during the last 12 months. External: Moose hunters, guides and outfitters. No formal input process has occurred.


43

1. **Preferred Alternative** Continue requiring all hunter harvested moose be submitted for a

mandatory check report, but discontinue mandatory CWD testing for moose. 2. Status quo, continue to require the mandatory check report and CWD testing of all harvested

moose. Issue Raised by: Janet George and Tom Kroening Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

CC: Steve Yamashita, Mike Miller, Craig McLaughlin, John Broderick, Andy Holland, Mary Lloyd


STEVE YAMASHITA


44


ISSUE: Should antlered moose hunting be allowed in GMU 43 (DAU M-5)? DISCUSSION (FACTS AND FIGURES, EXPLANATION OF ISSUE): In January 2005, the Colorado Division of Wildlife began a multi-year moose reintroduction project in what is now called DAU M-5, which includes GMUs 41, 42, 43, 411, 421, 52, and 521. The reintroduction has been hugely successful, and the 2014 post-hunt population estimate is 408 moose. The population is also expanding and pioneering into much of the available habitat.

Antlered harvest began in GMUs 41, 42, 411, 421, 52, and 521 in 2009. Antlerless harvest began in the same GMUs in 2013. GMU 43 was not included in previous hunts because moose have moved into this GMU slowly and densities have not been as high as in those areas closer to the original introductions. However, radio-collared moose pioneered into GMU 43 early in the reintroduction, and occupancy surveys in 2013 and 2014 have documented approximately 63% occupancy in fully examined cells in GMU 43. Final results will be available following the 2015 field season, but initial analysis is suggests similar occupancy.

In an effort to manage this population in the most effective manner and to continue to improve moose hunting opportunity in Colorado, we recommend instituting antlered moose harvest in GMU 43 beginning in 2016.

It is anticipated that a small number of licenses will be issued for the first few years, and that hunters will naturally disperse themselves throughout GMU 43 based primarily on ease of access and likelihood of success. Licenses are proposed to be issued for GMU 43 specifically rather than as part of the Grand Mesa-wide hunt code.


Internal: DWMs, Area Terrestrial Biologists, AWMs, Senior Terrestrial Biologists, Regional Managers, in Areas 7 and 8. External: Hunters, recreationists, outfitters, guides, USFS, BLM, HPP committees, watchable wildlife participants, landowners, ranchers, farmers in GMU 43.

ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Open GMU 43 to antlered moose hunting. License(s) would be

allocated specifically to GMU 43 and would not be part of the Grand Mesa-wide hunt code.

2. Maintain the status quo. Do not allow moose hunting in GMU 43.

Issue Raised by: Terrestrial and Field Operations personnel in M-5 Author of the issue paper (if different than person raising the issue):

Stephanie Durno, Terrestrial Biologist, Area 7, Grand Junction; revised by Brad Petch following NW Regional Staff Meeting.

CC: Brad Petch, Perry Will, Julie Mao, John Groves APPROVED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY:

RON VELARDE


45

Documents

ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM - Colorado Parks and … SUBMITTAL FORM ... was recently a question on whether aRaffle hunter could hunt in ... “valid on a unit-by-unit basis” causes some