リーズナブルに遊びたいという方には心斎橋のデリヘルがお勧め

MONTELORES COMMITTEE
HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
2010 ~ 2014
Approved, Colorado Wildlife Commission, July 10, 2010
This plan is valid for 10 years from the approval date.
Habitat Partnership Program
MONTELORES HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2010-2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Montelores HPP committee continues to provide an essential function, assisting
residents of the area in dealing with wildlife conflicts. It is important to the people of
Montezuma and Dolores Counties to have a thriving agricultural industry and healthy
sustainable wildlife populations. It is the mission of the Montelores HPP Committee to
provide viable, flexible strategies to support healthy wildlife populations while
minimizing conflicts caused by big game on private land.
Approximately 70% of the private land in Montezuma County is in agriculture. McPhee
Reservoir and other area reservoirs allow irrigation of cropland, fruit and dairy quality
hay. In Dolores County, most area farms are still family owned and operated and average
700 acres in size on high-altitude dry land. Major crops are spring and winter wheat, dry
beans, oats, alfalfa and grass hay. Recently, a seed oil pressing plant created a market for
sunflowers and safflowers. Livestock production and public land grazing are important in
both counties.
Hunting, fishing and wildlife related recreation account for a considerable portion of the
tourism economy and provide approximately 230 jobs between Montezuma and Dolores
counties. During 2002, Colorado had about 10.1 million hunting and fishing activity
days. The economic impacts of hunting and fishing in the local economy have an
associated “multiplier” effect as revenues generated from hunting and fishing provide an
economic impact beyond original expenditures. Hunting and fishing revenues also are
often outside the regular “tourist” season and provide economic stability.
Rural residential and gas development have and may continue to impact wildlife habitat,
its quality and use. These impacts may concentrate or redistribute elk and mule deer on
the highest quality private and public lands, increasing the potential for conflict with and
between users. Opportunities exist for large scale habitat work on public lands and
require coordination and prioritization with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management. Habitat enhancement opportunities also exist on private lands however
large scale projects are difficult due to smaller land parcel size.
Montezuma and Dolores Counties experience extreme weather events, including droughts
and heavy snowfall. This weather often congregates large numbers of elk and deer
causing problems for landowners. The committee has assisted in various game damage
efforts to reduce these problems, including fencing, fertilizer, distribution management
hunts, management studies, repellants, etc.
The current status of the Gunnison Sage Grouse warrants giving special consideration to
public and private land projects.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MONTELORES HPP COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICERS
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
PAGE 4
PAGE 4
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
PAGE 6
PUBLIC INPUT
RESOURCE AGENCY INPUT
PAGE 6
PAGE 6
MONTELORES AREA MAP & DESCRIPTION
PAGE 7
BIG GAME POPULATION SUMMARIES
PAGE 8
MONTELORES HABITAT & MAPS
LAND OWNERSHIP & MAP: LAND STATUS
GENERAL HABITAT TYPES &
MAP: VEGETATION TYPES
HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATION
MAP: ELK SEVERE WINTER RANGE
MAP: ELK WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
MAP: MULE DEER SEVERE WINTER RANGE
MAP: MULE DEER WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
MAP: GUNNISON SAGE GROUSE ACTIVITY AREAS
CONFLICT ASSESSMENT
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
PAGE 17
MAP: CONFLICT AREAS
MAP: CONFLICT AREAS WITHIN SHRUB HABITATS
PAGE 18
PAGE 19
SCOPE – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
COMMITTEE PROCESSES
PROJECT TYPES AND PRIORITIES
DISTRIBUTION &
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
MONTELORES HPP BUDGET GUIDELINES
PAGE 20
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
3
PAGE 24
PAGE 29
MONTELORES HABITAT PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Representing livestock producers:
Eldon SIMMONS – Mancos Livestock Association;
Wayne GOODALL – Southwest Colorado Livestock Association;
Brad WHITE – Farm representative
Representing Sportsmen:
John SHEEK – At large
Representing resource agencies:
Tom KELLY – United States Forest Service;
Kathleen NICKELL- Bureau of Land Management;
Representing Colorado Division of Wildlife:
Patt DORSEY – AWM
Committee liaisons:
Chris KLOSTER – CDOW;
VACANT - Natural Resource Conservation Service
Administrative Assistant:
Dalton MONTGOMERY
ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE
The Montelores Habitat Partnership Program Committee is made up of seven voting
members and two liaison members. Three (3) members represent the livestock industry,
agriculture and landowners. One (1) member represents sportsmen. Two (2) members
represent federal resource management agencies. One (1) member represents the Division
of Wildlife.
Nominations for landowner representation are sought from various agriculture and
livestock organizations including: Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and their local
affiliates, Mancos Livestock Association and the Farm Bureau.
Nominations for the sportsmen’s representative are sought from interested public and
various big game oriented organizations including local chapters of the Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation and Colorado
Bowhunters’ Association.
Nominations for federal land management agencies are sought from the respective
agency. A resource management agency’s representative term is determined by their
respective agency.
4
COMMITTEE SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
•
Encourage an atmosphere of partnership between private landowners, wildlife
managers, habitat managers, and users of wildlife resources.
•
Improve habitat conditions to ensure healthy and sustainable rangelands in a
manner that is sufficient to maintain big game herds at population objectives, does
not negatively impact Gunnison Sage Grouse populations and lessens grazing
pressure by big game on private agricultural lands.
•
Improve elk distribution and harvest to minimize conflicts with local agriculture
producers and to provide a quality hunting experiences.
•
Minimize damage caused by big game on private agricultural lands thereby
reducing landowner conflicts.
•
Through formal and information and education efforts, increase the general public’s
general awareness of the HPP program and of specific habitat treatments and other
methods available to provide big game habitat while reducing big game conflicts on
private lands.
5
INTRODUCTION
Colorado’s continued human population growth has dramatically expanded the ruralurban interface and placed increasing pressure on native wildlife species and their natural
habitat. Correspondingly, as more wildlife habitat is converted to human dominated
landscapes, conflicts between people and between wildlife and people increase. Some
people that support increased wildlife numbers for a variety of reasons are not actively
engaged in agricultural production and do not support hunting, setting up conflict
between agricultural landowners and new rural residents, hunters and non-hunters.
Habitat and land use changes continue to reduce the amount of winter range available for
wildlife. Although elk populations are at or near objective, big game animals confined to
or concentrated on private land parcels may create perceptions that population numbers
have greatly increased. Animal concentrations, primarily elk, can and do cause conflicts
on public and private lands.
To deal with these conflicts, the Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife
created the Habitat Partnership Program (HPP) in 1991. The HPP emphasis on habitat
improvement is supported by broad and flexible parameters Therefore the HPP
Committee has a great deal of discretion concerning project choices and freedom to form
creative partnerships, explore new ideas and leverage funds for maximum benefit.
Montelores Habitat Partnership Program was formed in December of 1997. The
original Committee was comprised of: landowner representatives Wayne Eppich, Sidney
Snyder and Jim Suckla; sportsmen’s representative Jeff Schrage; USFS/BLM
representative Mark Tucker; CDOW representative Mike Zgainer; Montezuma County
liaison Carla Harper; and NRCS liaison Robert Fuller.
PUBLIC INPUT
Work began on a five-year big game distribution management plan in 1998. The
Committee sent out approximately 1100 questionnaires to area landowners and held four
public meetings in Cortez, Dolores, Dove Creek, and Mancos during July/August of
1998. The plan was completed and submitted to the State Wildlife Commission in
October 1998 for approval.
In accordance with State HPP guidelines the Committee updated its five-year HMP in
January 2004. The Committee sent landowner questionnaires to nearly 1,200 landowners
with parcels of 80 acres or larger. 198 landowners, nearly 17%, completed and returned
their questionnaires. The Committee did not hold public meetings due to poor attendance
during the 1998 series of public meetings.
In accordance with State HPP guidelines the Committee is updating the HMP to reflect
current habitat concerns, potential changes in conflicts and management strategies for
2010-2014. Public input was sought through discussions with stakeholders and project
evaluations.
RESOURCE AGENCY INPUT was provided throughout the planning process by
the Committee’s agency representatives and liaisons. They provided agency guidance,
data, plan input and critique.
6
MAP: MONTELORES HPP COMMITTEE BOUNDARY
MONTELORES HPP AREA DESCRIPTION
SIZE OF AREA: The Montelores group is contained geographically within CDOW
Game Management Units 71, 711, 72 and 73. It is bounded on the west by the ColoradoUtah state line; on the south by the Colorado-New Mexico state line; on the east by the
Montezuma-La Plata county line extended north to the Dolores-San Juan county line; on
the north by the Dolores-San Miguel county line; diverging from the county line along
Disappointment Creek to the confluence with the Dolores River, then northwest along the
Dolores River to the confluence with Summit Canyon Creek and southwesterly along
Summit Canyon to the Utah line. The area contains portions of the San Juan River
drainage basin and the upper Dolores River drainage basin in Dolores County and a
portion of San Miguel County. The area contains approximately 2,047,250 acres.
ELEVATIONS range from over 14,000 feet in the La Plata Mountains, along the
northeast boundary, near the town of Rico; down to around 5,000 feet in the southwestern
corner of the area near the Four Corners.
7
BIG GAME POPULATION SUMMARIES
DEER
CDOW records, browse lines still evident on winter range shrubs and trees and the
memories of long term residents indicate that deer population numbers were much higher
in the 1950s and 1960s than they are today. Historically, over 60,000 deer were located in
the Montelores HPP area. Liberal hunting seasons and bag limits in the 1960's reduced the
population, and several hard winters during the 1970's may have kept the population from
recovering to historic levels.
Current population estimates are considerably lower than the long term population
objectives in the Mesa Verde DAU (GMUs 72 and 73) and in the Groundhog DAU (GMUs
70, 71 and 711). Fawn-doe ratios and other population parameters seem to indicate that this
population is near carrying capacity. Both DAU plans when revised should reflect lower
and more realistic population objectives. CDOW staff believes conversion and quality of
mountain shrub habitats is key factor for the decline in these mule deer populations.
A majority of the public, particularly sportsmen, would like to see an increase in the current
deer population. The deer population is holding steady and a hunter’s chances of seeing a
mature buck are rated from fair to good.
ELK
Historical records indicate that in the 1970s elk numbers increased along with the statewide
trend. Recently, increases in antlerless harvest combined with extended late hunts on
private land have helped to reduce this population until sportsmen and landowners have
commented that the population was getting “too low.”
The long term population objective in the Disappointment DAU is 17,000 – 19,000 elk.
Current population estimates are slightly over objective (20,500 elk).
GMUs 71 and 711 have had more aggressive cow harvest than GMU 70. Consequently,
GMUs 71 and 711 have a declining population trend relative to GMU 70’s increasing
population trend. In 2009, CDOW recommended reducing regular season cow license
numbers in GMUs 71, 711, 73, keeping the same number in GMU 72 and increasing
regular 2nd season cow and either sex private land license numbers in GMU 70.
CDOW also added GMU 72 to the September damage season (in 711) and raised license
numbers from 25 to 300. The September damage season was to address specific problems
caused by resident elk on growing crops.
Mesa Verde Deer (D-29)
Current
Population
Estimate
6,300
Long Term
Population
Objective 1
11,000
Groundhog Deer (D-24)
Disappointment Elk (E-24)
22,300
17,000-19,000
34,000
20,500
DAU
1
CDOW staff believes the long term population objectives in the Mesa Verde and Groundhog deer DAUs
(DAU 29 & 24) are unrealistically high.
8
LAND OWNERSHIP:
MAP: LAND STATUS
9
GENERAL HABITAT TYPES:
From the highest elevations to the lowest
in descending order are alpine tundra, spruce-fir conifer, mixed aspen-conifer, ponderosa
pine-Gambel oak, piñon-juniper, sagebrush-grassland and Northern desert shrub.
MAP: VEGETATION TYPES
10
HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATION:
Over the last 100 years people have converted nearly 200,000 acres of native vegetation
and wildlife habitat to irrigated and non-irrigated cropland. Most of this conversion
occurred in the sagebrush-grassland habitat type.
In addition, the urban-rural interface is expanding into the rural area at an accelerated
rate. Land subdivision and its associated infrastructure of roads and utilities have
significantly impacted the habitat type, quality and use as well as the migratory patterns
of big game. Land subdivision is occurring at the fastest rate in the sagebrush-grassland
and piñon-juniper habitat types which provide critical winter ranges for deer and elk.
Recent shale gas discoveries in the Paradox Basin in southwest Colorado may encourage
additional development of this resource. Gas development and construction of its
infrastructure similarly are likely to impact wildlife.
Below-average precipitation and droughty years, like those during 2000-2002 severely
impacted forage and browse production. These climatic conditions appear to be a trend
that may continue and/or recur for an indefinite period and can have long term impacts on
forage conditions. Drought events create increased competition between livestock and big
game for native forage resources and conflicts on agricultural lands
USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has converted approximately 42,000
acres of annual cropland to grassland and grass/forb/shrub mix. Potential exists for some
CRP lands to be further enhanced for wildlife. Similarly, the potential exists for some
CRP lands to be converted back into cropland or rural residential subdivisions as
contracts expire.
CRP lands are critical for wildlife within the Montelores HPP Committee boundary.
Gunnison’s Sage Grouse, mule deer, elk and many other species use the lands currently
enrolled in CRP. This indicates a need for the Committee and the CDOW to form strong
partnerships with the Farm Services Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). Programs like the Colorado Wildlife Habitat Protection Program (CPP),
the Sage Grouse Initiative and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) would
leverage HPP funds to accomplish more for wildlife.
11
MAP: ELK SEVERE WINTER RANGE
12
MAP: ELK WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
13
MAP: MULE DEER SEVERE WINTER RANGE
14
MAP: MULE DEER WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
15
MAP: GUNNISON SAGE GROUSE ACTIVITY AREAS
16
CONFLICT ASSESSMENT:
The Montelores HPP planning area encompasses over 2 million acres and includes big
game data analysis units (DAUs) E-24, D-24 and D-29. Current elk population estimates
are slightly above population objective. Deer populations are currently under objective.
CDOW staff believes that the current deer population objectives are unrealistically high
given the current and foreseeable habitat conditions. Fawn-doe ratios and other
population parameters seem to indicate that this population is near carrying capacity.
DAU plan revisions will reflect lower and more realistic population objectives.
Both species are close to or below objective, yet serious conflicts with big game occur on
private lands. So, while overall numbers of big game animals are not excessive, their
distribution during various times of year can result in private land conflicts.
The CONFLICT AREAS MAP (page 18) illustrates social conflict areas defined by
committee members, landowner and agency input. Specific areas on this map include
those with conflicts caused by wintering mule deer and elk on stacked hay, pasture or hay
fields and fences. Large numbers of wintering animals, particularly elk, leave visible
corridors on the landscape. As illustrated in the elk activity maps a high percentage of the
winter use areas for this species are private lands along the Dolores River canyon rim.
Winter range along the Dolores River canyon rim within the Montelores planning area is
generally characterized as mountain shrub habitats interspersed with irrigated and dryland
agriculture. Most of the agricultural fields are in alfalfa hay production.
The conflict areas map also includes the crop lands west of the Dolores River canyon rim
and north of Dove Creek. These crop lands consist of small fields interspersed with
mountain shrub. While some damage has always occurred on these small fields, deer and
elk have found the oil crops, e.g., sunflower, especially palatable. Game damage in the
area has gone from minimal to over $250,000 paid in one year, with some fields 100%
lost to big game damage. The CDOW is also working on addressing conflicts through
game damage and with the NRCS, FSA, San Juan BioEnergy and CSU Extension.
The CONFLICT AREAS WITHIN MOUNTAIN SHRUB MAP (page 19) illustrates
areas that the Montelores HPP committee has identified for project level planning to
redistribute big game use. CDOW staff believes conversion and quality of mountain
shrub habitats is key factor for the decline in the D-24 and D-29 mule deer populations.
Much of mountain shrub lands in the planning area are in a late seral condition, due to a
lack of disturbance (specifically fire). High utilization rates by native and domestic
animals, continuing conversion of native rangeland to cropland and increasing conversion
of winter range to residential development have reduced the ability of this landscape to
meet the needs of multiple, competing resources.
The mountain shrub habitat type occurs on both private and public lands and is composed
primarily of serviceberry, antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, squaw apple and
black sagebrush. This habitat type is limited within the Montelores planning area to
elevations between 6,500 and 8,500 feet. These mountain shrub habitats in proximity to
agriculture production areas form an “ecotone” or transitional community of plants and
animals. The proximity of highly palatable forage to security areas constitutes a high
degree of winter use by big game animals.
17
In 2010, the Montelores committee identified "conflict areas" within the planning unit.
These areas were delineated based on resource competition between various interests. In
other words, this map illustrates social conflict areas as identified by committee
members, public and agency input. The goal of this exercise is to refine project level
implementation based on resource conflicts.
MAP: CONFLICT AREAS
18
In 2010, the Montelores HPP committee and DOW personnel used vegetation coverages
developed from remote imagery to assess conflict areas within mountain shrub habitat.
These conflict areas are essentially mountain shrub communities with extremely high
levels of utilization by big game animals. The goal of this effort is to refine project level
implementation based on habitat condition.
MAP: CONFLICT AREAS WITHIN MOUNTAIN SHRUB
19
SCOPE – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1: Encourage an atmosphere of partnership between private landowners,
wildlife managers, habitat managers and users of wildlife resources.
OBJECTIVES:
A. Ensure appropriate local involvement in identifying management problems
and recommending solutions to these problems;
B. Ensure that private land habitat issues are considered in management plans
for big game populations;
C. Develop working partnerships with organizations and groups that deal with
big game habitat and conflict issues.
GOAL 2: Improve habitat conditions to ensure healthy and sustainable rangelands in a
manner that is sufficient to maintain big game herds at population objectives, does not
negatively impact Gunnison Sage Grouse populations and lessens grazing pressure by
big game on private agricultural lands.
OBJECTIVES:
A. Conduct habitat management projects that will attract and hold big game in
identified “low conflict potential” areas;
B. Implement grazing management strategies that will sustain cattle grazing
and big game use;
C. Focus on long-term protection of critical big game habitats.
D. Evaluate all projects for potential impacts to GuSG. If, in the opinion of
the CDOW, a project could potentially impact GUSG, require compliance
with habitat enhancement guidelines specified in the Gunnison SageGrouse Range-wide Conservation Plan.
E. Design projects such that they have no negative effect and/or have a
beneficial effect on GuSG while accomplishing the purpose of the project.
Projects that could negatively impact GUSG (in the opinion of the
CDOW) will not be considered for approval by the Montelores HPP
Committee.
GOAL 3: Improve elk distribution and harvest to minimize conflicts with local
agriculture producers and to provide a quality hunting experiences.
OBJECTIVES:
A. Cooperate with CDOW, land management agencies and conservation
organization to better understand seasonal migration patterns, habitat use,
etc. of elk and mule deer using collaring studies in GMUs 71, 711, 72 and
73;
B. Develop management strategies using best scientific information available
and collaring study data. In cooperation with District Wildlife Managers
(DWMs) prioritize funding for projects that will favorably affect elk
movement and holding patterns, particularly during fall and winter to meet
objectives.
C. Develop management strategies using best scientific information available
and to address, in cooperation with DWMs, growing season conflicts caused
by resident (non-migratory) and migratory elk and mule deer on croplands.
20
GOAL 4: Minimize damage caused by big game on private agricultural lands thereby
reducing landowner conflicts.
OBJECTIVES:
A. Encourage public and agency input into the Montelores Habitat
Management Plan update through appropriate outreach efforts.
B. Update the HMP to provide guidance and a roadmap for the Committee;
C. Prioritize and distribute HPP funds to effectively implement the practices
available to HPP Committees designed to minimize conflicts between big
game and private landowners.
GOAL 5: Strengthen the Montelores HPP Committee’s information and education
program to increase the general public’s awareness of the HPP program and specific
awareness of habitat treatments and other methods available to provide big game
habitat while reducing big game conflicts on private lands.
OBJECTIVES:
A. Increase awareness of HPP activities by general public;
B. Increased landowner participation in HPP, especially by landowners with
legitimate big game conflict issues
C. Work with landowners who desire to develop and maintain big game habitat
on their property and do not have wildlife conflicts
D. Support land users who have the interest to develop skills needed to
evaluate and monitor the condition and trend of their range resources in
relation to livestock and big game use;
E. Support youth education through 4H, Scouting and other youth
organizations.
21
COMMITTEE PROCESSES FOR PROJECT APPROVAL:
1. All project proposals must be submitted on a “Project Proposal” form or similar
approved format; clearly stating applicant name, project location, scope and need
for the project, description of the conflict, discussion of how the project will affect
big-game distribution, discussion of the potential impacts to existing Gunnison
Sage Grouse populations and contributions of applicant, other stakeholder(s), and
HPP.
2. The Committee will announce decisions within one month after the completed
project proposal has been submitted and reviewed except in instances where further
information or action is needed from the applicant. Applicants are encouraged to
present proposals in person at scheduled Committee meetings.
3. Monitoring and evaluation of projects will be completed in the following manner:
a. Meetings and communication with all of the affected interests, particularly
the landowner, will occur.
b. A letter will be sent to project participants with a questionnaire asking for a
critique of results, and/or,
c. A representative of the Committee may make a site visit.
d. Larger scale habitat projects will include a formal monitoring technique
appropriate for the area and treatment technique.
4. The Committee will use the following criteria to set priorities:
a. Is the landowner willing to participate financially or in-kind to complete
the project?
b. Does the proposed project address a recurring conflict that involves a herd
unit or significant number of animals?
c. Does the project negatively impact or positively affect Gunnison Sage
Grouse?
d. How well will the proposed project meet the landowner or agency
objective(s) while benefiting wildlife?
e. Will the proposed project enhance habitat conditions on security areas
and/or distribute conflicting animals to security areas?
f. Does the project have educational value because it is innovative or new to
the area?
g. Does the project have other public benefits beyond direct landowner and
wildlife benefits?
h. Is the proposed project technically sound and within the scope of HPP?
i. Does the landowner applicant allow low-fee or no-fee public hunting such
as “private land only” licenses, big game distribution hunts, or general
access hunting?
j. Is there a partnership opportunity to leverage other stakeholder funds or
in-kind support?
22
PROJECT TYPES AND PRIORITIES:
In order to accomplish the goals and objectives on page 4, the Committee will utilize the
following types of projects.
PROJECT TYPES:
Habitat Manipulation – to include, but not limited to:
Prescribed burning
Water developments
Weed control
Fertilization
Seeding
Mechanical (chaining, hydro-axing, etc.)
Fencing Projects – to include, but not limited to:
Fence vouchers distributed to landowners for materials
Construction of new fences (usually > ¼ mile in length)
Landowner reimbursement for fencing materials purchased
Prototype or experimental fence designs for livestock and wildlife issues
Wildlife crossings or retrofitting of fences to make more wildlife friendly
Game Damage Projects – to include, but not limited to:
Stackyard Repairs – materials and/or labor
New stackyards – materials and/or labor
Distribution hunts
Hunt coordinators for distribution hunts, youth hunts, etc
Forage purchases
Baiting
Small game damage claims (last resort)
Information/Education Projects – to include, but not limited to:
Seminars
Workshops
Brochures
Electronic media (websites, etc)
Research/Monitoring Projects – to include, but not limited to:
Habitat
Population
Inventory
Movement
Conservation Easements (transaction costs only)
Archaeological Clearances (and other NEPA required clearances)
23
PROJECT LOCATIONS: HPP projects may be undertaken on public lands,
private lands or a combination of both as needed wherever the local committee believes
the project has the best chance to effectively reduce, minimize or eliminate the big
game/livestock conflict.
DISTRIBUTION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES:
Management strategies identified here include various actions which may resolve conflicts
between big game and private fence and forage. These strategies are defined in broad terms
to allow for flexibility in project selection and design. The goal of each strategy is to focus
efforts on long term solutions rather than isolated problems. Projects may be implemented
on private, trust or public lands. When private lands are involved the following guidelines
will be used:
A private landowner may want to designate and manage a portion of his or her lands as a
“non-conflict area.” A “non-conflict area” is defined as an area where a person will not be
financially damaged by the presence of wildlife on their property.
When the proposed project is for improving wildlife habitat and has big game animals
present on the private property during the regular big game hunting seasons, the landowner
must allow a reasonable amount of hunting access for these animals, e.g., access to a select
group of hunters identified by the landowner for one of the three rifle seasons.
A. FENCE CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, AND REPAIR
1. Construction
a) The Committee will cost share the construction of new fence or
modification of existing fence sections where frequent big game damage
occurs. The Committee will not consider large, completely fenced areas.
Fencing will be designed to: 1) reduce game damage and ensuing fence
claims; 2) serve as a tool for grazing strategies to improve habitat; and
3) improve distribution of big game.
b) Fence types include, but are not limited to, the following: lay down
fence, high tensile wire fence, top rail fence, electric fence and
stackyard material
c) The Committee will encourage cost share arrangements for installation
of new fence sections. A 50/50 cost share split is most desirable. Cost
sharing can be for material and/or labor. The Committee will take part
in determining the most cost effective labor.
d) Maintenance of the fence will be the responsibility of the
landowner/land manager. All new fence areas must meet Division of
Wildlife fence construction recommendations and Committee
requirements where applicable. The Committee recommends a high
visibility top-wire or top-rail on all fence designs in high conflict areas
and can provide those materials to the applicant.
24
2. Fence Repair
a) The Committee will encourage repair and modification of existing fence
sections which result in long term solutions and mitigation where
frequent damage occurs.
b) Fence damage repair will be covered by a simple affidavit.
Reimbursement for this type of loss will be done with replacement
materials. Landowners will be allowed a maximum of 3 claims per
calendar year for a maximum of $600 in materials. Each claim cannot
exceed $200. The affidavit will be redeemable at local supply stores.
B. HABITAT IMPROVEMENT
1. The purpose of habitat improvement is to attract animals away from conflict
areas or improve forage conditions to reduce competition between big game
and livestock. The committee will also consider any project designed to
increase forage abundance, availability or palatability for livestock and/or
big game in order to reduce conflicts. Projects may occur on public, trust or
private lands.
2. Habitat improvement projects which draw big game away from conflict
areas will be given highest priority. As a general guideline, projects should
affect a minimum of 200 acres. Projects having a cost share component will
receive funding priority. Habitat improvement projects include but are not
limited to the following project types:
a) Fertilization: improve the quantity and quality of forage available to
attract big game to non-conflict areas.
b) Water Development: redistribute big game numbers, hold big game in a
non-conflict area longer, assist in distributing livestock and big game on
rangelands.
c) Livestock Grazing Management Strategies: improve range land
conditions, e.g., change grazing patterns, season of use, stocking rate
d) Seeding: improve forage quality and quantity to attract elk and deer to
non-conflict areas.
e) Prescribed and Controlled Burns: improve forage quality and quantity.
f) Mechanical and Chemical Treatments: increase forage.
g) Treatment of Forested Lands: improve big game habitat.
h) Vehicle Travel Management/Controlled Access: better manage existing
"protected or special areas" for big game and keep big game in nonconflict areas.
25
C. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT HUNTS
1. The Committee will utilize Distribution Management Hunts primarily to
move animals away from conflict areas and increase harvest of specific
animals causing damage on private lands. This may maintain big game
populations in non-conflict areas of private and public lands by shifting
hunting pressure.
2. The number of Distribution Management Hunt (DMH) licenses will be
limited as prescribed by Wildlife Commission regulations.
3. The Committee will recommend to the Division representative the number
of licenses needed to solve the conflict, the length of time the DMH should
be in effect and the location(s) needed to be included in the DMH area. The
AWM has final approval authority for DMH’s.
4. Distribution hunts will be limited to areas where big game redistribution
will solve conflicts on private land. DMH’s are restricted to private land
only or as provided by Wildlife Commission regulations.
5. Distribution hunts will not be available to any landowner during any of the
regular combined rifle seasons.
6. Distribution hunts will not be available to landowners when any
representative of the landowner, ranch operation, or guide/outfitter plans to
charge a fee for such hunts. The Committee further reserves the right to
deny future permits to landowners who take permits and do not use or
distribute them.
7. Once distribution hunt licenses are issued to a landowner, additional
licenses will not be issued to that landowner until all of the licenses
originally issued are filled or hunting by the license holder has ceased.
8. Distribution hunts will be authorized annually from August 15 through
February 28 or as prescribed by Wildlife Commission Regulation and will
be subject to those regulations.
9. Only antlerless deer and elk will be allowed to be taken during distribution
hunts.
26
D. EDUCATION AND RECREATION
1.
The Committee encourages and will consider cost sharing with any
cooperating agency, entity or landowner to produce educational or
recreation information that will help implement this plan.
2.
The Committee will work with public land agencies to mitigate recreation
conflicts with big game.
3.
Education on seasonal closures and activities that benefit hunting
opportunities will be emphasized. Normal agency law enforcement
approaches are also supported by this Committee.
4.
Emphasis will be placed upon supporting federal, state and local programs
designed to educate the public, e.g., 4-H, school programs, landowner
seminars and workshops, public informational meetings, etc.
E. ACCESS
1. The Committee will use education and communication in efforts to maintain
or improve access to big game hunting areas where conflicts exist.
2. The Committee may recommend developing access to site specific conflict
areas to improve harvest and disperse problem animals. Future access needs
will be identified and prioritized for possible acquisition by the appropriate
agency.
3. The Committee may recommend to public land managers that certain access
points or travel routes, if they directly relate to big game conflicts or
distribution problems, may need to be closed.
F. FORAGE
1. The Committee will seek to provide forage, cover and/or security for big
game prior to any damage occurring. Forage purchase may occur on or off
site where conflict is occurring. These efforts are intended to mitigate forage
loss, not replace the damage claim system.
2. The Committee will not pay claims and damages for growing crops or crops
under cultivation. These problems are addressed through the game damage
program operated by the CDOW.
3. Forage purchases will be considered on a case by case basis and will be
entered into by the Committee when other management strategies are
deemed ineffective or when forage purchases in connection with other
strategies is necessary to resolve a conflict.
27
4. Payments for forage values are computed on an Animal Unit Month (AUM)
basis. The forage value rate is based on: 2.5 elk months equal 1 AUM; 9.9
deer months equal 1 AUM. The fair market value of an AUM is based upon
the average price of 1 AUM within the HPP area. This price is set annually
on January 1 for a calendar year using the previous year's average market
price. The Committee may also consider a dollars-per-acre forage lease rate.
G. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR GUNNISON SAGE GROUSE POPULATIONS
The current status of the Gunnison Sage Grouse warrants giving special
consideration to existing populations of Gunnison Sage Grouse or within
identified Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat. The purpose of this section is to insure
that any proposed Montelores HPP projects that fall within the areas identified as
Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat or where populations of Gunnison Sage Grouse are
known to exist (see maps) will be evaluated by CDOW to determine if the
propose project will in any way negatively impact Gunnison Sage Grouse.
For proposed Montelores HPP projects that fall within these identified areas, the
following procedure will be used to evaluate the project with regards to Gunnison
Sage Grouse (GUSG):
1. CDOW will evaluate all projects for potential impacts to GuSG. If, in the
opinion of the CDOW, a project could potentially impact GuSG, the
Committee will require compliance with habitat enhancement guidelines
specified in the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Range-wide Conservation Plan.
2. CDOW will determine if a project can be designed to have no negative
effect and/or can produce a beneficial effect, on GuSG while
accomplishing the purpose of the project.
3. Projects that could negatively impact GUSG in the opinion of the CDOW
will not be considered for approval by the Montelores HPP Committee.
28
BUDGET GUIDELINES:
The base-operating budget for the State HPP program is based on 5% of total annual
revenues for big game license sales in the HPP areas. The Statewide HPP Council
allocates funding to the individual HPP committees. The Montelores HPP budget was
developed to best meet the goals and objectives outlined earlier in the plan, while
maintaining the flexibility to deal with emergencies and take advantage of opportunities.
The statewide HPP financial system allows local HPP committees to carry specific
project dollars over from year to year if the project is ongoing or the funds have been
committed. This allows us to better address long-term management and larger, more
complicated projects as well as giving us the flexibility to more efficiently prioritize our
projects.
Additional funds are also available through the Statewide HPP Council and the HPP
Coordinator for special projects or unforeseen opportunities outside of the capacity of the
local committees. These dollars supplement our existing budget and allow us to take on
special projects from time to time.
COMMITTEE HPP BUDGET:
The Montelores HPP Committee has developed a budget allocation in line with our
vision, which allows for short-term strategies to deal with immediate fence and forage
conflicts caused by big game, but concentrates on adaptive, long-term management
strategies leading to the establishment of healthy and sustainable rangelands. Our budget
for the five-year period has been broken down as follows:
BASE BUDGET ALLOCATION:
Habitat Manipulation
Fencing
Game Damage
Information & Education
Administration
Conservation Easements/NEPA Related Activities
Research/Monitoring
TOTAL ALLOCATION
55%
10%
10%
5%
5%
10%
5%
100%
It is important to acknowledge that the budget allocation is based on past projects, future
projects that are likely to be proposed as well as committee emphasis in funding certain
project types. While these are desired and/or likely allocations, the committee retains the
ability to shift funds as needed between categories as projects and opportunities arise or
as situations dictate.
29

Download Report