Legacy in the Crosshairs: - National Wildlife Federation

ISTOCK.COM
Legacy in the Crosshairs:
Colorado’s ‘Mule-Deer Factory’ on the Decline
The story of Colorado can’t be told without focusing on its
natural beauty, wide array of natural resources – and their
economic benefits and appeal for residents and visitors alike.
Colorado’s world-class wildlife populations have drawn
hunters, anglers, photographers and wildlife watchers from
across the country and globe for more than a century.
But for more than two decades, one of the American West’s
signature species – the mule deer – has been on the decline
in Colorado and throughout the Rocky Mountain region.
Wildlife managers, hunters and other conservationists are
working to understand and reverse this trend.
In Colorado, the plummeting numbers of “muleys” is particu
larly noticeable in an area dubbed the “mule-deer factory.”
The White River herd in western Colorado’s Piceance Basin
has ranked among the country’s largest, estimated at more than
100,000 deer in the early 1980s. The area was said to be home
to the largest migratory mule deer herd in North America.
That might no longer be the case. The herd’s estimated, posthunting-season size in 2013 was 32,000. While there are
likely many causes for the drop in numbers, one looms large:
habitat loss. Oil and gas drilling and new roads and buildings
have fragmented and covered over habitat. Western Colo
rado’s overall estimated deer population of about 300,000 in
2012 was more than 110,000 short of the state’s objective.
More than Colorado’s bragging rights for having the biggest
herds are at stake. Hunting and other wildlife-related recre
ation is worth at least $5 billion to the state’s annual economy.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, with public input, is developing
a plan to boost mule deer numbers across western Colorado.
At the same time, the federal Bureau of Land Management
is considering a plan that could add up to 15,000 new oil and
gas wells in the part of the Piceance Basin where the White
River herd roams. There are now at least 1,000 active wells.
This fact sheet by the National Wildlife Federation and the
Colorado Wildlife Federation examines what is at stake for
the White River herd to raise awareness of the challenges
facing the state’s renowned deer populations and help point
the way to possible responses.
Western Colorado mule deer at
a crossroads: route to recovery
Widespread, unregulated hunting along with habitat loss due to
a surging human population reduced Colorado deer numbers so
dramatically that by the early part of the last century state wildlife
officials feared the herds might go the way of the Plains bison.
Thanks to the efforts of state wildlife managers, hunters
and other conservationists, that didn’t happen. Among the
changes noted by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division
in its recently issued “The Story of Colorado’s Mule Deer”
were better regulation of hunting and the generation of funds
for conservation and research from fees and excise taxes paid
by hunters. By the middle of the 20th century, Colorado’s
deer numbered in excess of 600,000.
More than 50 years later, Colorado’s mule deer are at another
crossroads. No one’s talking about deer going extinct. Colo
rado still has some of the country’s largest mule deer herds
and draws hunters from across the country.
But the population trend the last several years has been
down. CPW says the post-hunt, statewide total in 2012 was
an estimated 408,000 deer – far short of the goal of 525,000
to 575,000. In western Colorado, home to some of the coun
try’s largest mule deer herds, the 2012 post-hunt estimate
was roughly 300,000. CPW’s target population is 410,000 to
450,000 deer for the area.
The declines affect opportunities for hunters and wildlife
watchers. It affects the state economy because wildlife-related
recreation produces at least $5 billion in benefits yearly,
according to a study released this year by Southwick Associ
ates. Wildlife conservation is affected because nearly all the
funds for state wildlife programs come from taxes and fees
paid by hunters and anglers. In response to the dwindling pop
ulation, the state has reduced the number of hunting licenses,
which means less revenue for state wildlife programs.
CPW has launched a statewide initiative to gather public
input into what’s happening with mule deer and determine
what can be done. The agency is developing a “West Slope
Mule Deer Strategy.”
A CASE STUDY: COLORADO’S `MULE-DEER FACTORY’
In the early 1980s, the estimated population of the White River
herd was more than 100,000. The herd’s home, dubbed the
“mule-deer factory,” includes portions of Rio Blanco, Moffat,
Routt and Garfield counties in northwest Colorado. The herd’s
estimated post-hunt population for 2013 was 32,000.
Wildlife biologists believe the population remained stable
between 2012 and 2013, but the current estimated population is less than half of CPW’s goal for the herd – 67,500.
Starting in the early 1980s, a review of the White River herd’s
population estimates, all made after the hunting seasons, show
a continuing decline with minor fluctuations. John Ellen
berger, the state’s former big game manager and a wildlife
consultant, recently reviewed the population estimates and
hunting opportunities.
Severe winters, droughts, and disease can explain some of the
ups and downs. CPW estimated the White River herd’s size at
more than 100,000 in 1982-83, which sunk to slightly above
80,000 for the 1983-84 count.
“That winter, ’83-84, was the hardest winter I’d been through
during my career,” says Ellenberger, a member of the Colo
rado Wildlife Federation. “Researchers from Colorado State
University had radio-collared fawns out here. None of their
fawns survived that winter.”
Does’ survival rate also dropped significantly. It takes a num
ber of years to rebuild herds.
What’s worrisome, Ellenberger says, is that even with favor
able weather, the numbers aren’t recovering.
THE EFFECT ON HUNTING
Fewer deer can translate into fewer opportunities for hunters
and fewer available licenses. Colorado began limiting all deer
licenses in 1999, making a specific number of licenses avail
able for defined areas called game management units. The
number of licenses offered for the White River herd fell as the
population dropped. Ellenberger broke out the buck licenses
for rifle seasons to illustrate the trend because that is the big
gest group of hunters and other types of licenses show similar
patterns. (See graph at right "Antlered Deer Rifle License")
Reduced hunting opportunities have economic consequences.
Southwick Associates’ study found that wildlife-related
recreation in northwest Colorado generates $693 million
in economic benefits annually and supports 6,978 jobs.
ISTOCK.COM
Kent Ingram has been hunting deer for at 40 years and north
west Colorado’s Piceance Basin, home to the White River herd,
used to be a frequent destination. But Ingram, the Colorado
Wildlife Federation board chairman, opted to hunt elsewhere
when drilling and road-building picked up in the Piceance. He
is concerned about the stresses the White River herd faces.
“I don’t want to hunt places where the deer populations are
low,” Ingram added. “I support reducing tags if it helps the
herds. We have to listen to the biologists.”
SPORTSMEN/WOMEN: PAYING THE BILLS
FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
Declines in hunting due to fewer licenses being
offered or fewer hunters in the field can have ripple
effects on overall wildlife programs. Much of the
funding for wildlife management, habitat conserva
tion and access for recreation comes from hunting
and fishing license fees and federal excise taxes on
firearms, ammunition, fishing gear, archery equip
ment and motorboat fuel. Revenue from the taxes,
licenses and other fees paid by hunters and anglers
make up a significant part of state wildlife budgets. In
2011, states received nearly $749 million in hunter/
angler excise taxes – $364 million for conserving and
restoring fisheries and $384 for other wildlife proj
ects. Nearly all the funds for state wildlife programs
in Colorado come from the excise taxes, licenses and
other fees paid by hunters and anglers.
Sources: Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the National Shooting
Sports Foundation and American Sportfishing Association.
THE REASON THERE ARE FEWER DEER
While there might be many influences on deer populations,
one has been an overriding concern for years – habitat, its
quality and quantity. “I think habitat is probably the biggest
issue, but there are other kinds of issues that are interre
lated,” Ellenberger says.
One pressure on mule deer populations is the human population – more people moving into wildlife habitat, recreating in
the hills and forests where deer live, building homes, fences
and roads on or near wildlife habitat, as noted by CPW biolo-
gist Darby Finley in a report this year. Colorado’s human
population increased from 4.3 million in 2000 to 5.18 mil
lion in 2012. More people and development “contribute to a
direct loss of mule deer habitat,” Finley wrote.
Research has shown that two
mule deer herds in western
Wyoming, parts of which have
been heavily drilled the last
decade or so, have shrunk by
at least 30 percent. Research
ers don’t pin all the decline on
energy development, but note
that deer avoid well sites.
The part of the Piceance Basin
STEVE TORBIT
that’s home to the White River
herd has seen increased oil and gas drilling and accompa
nying development, including new roads, pipelines and gas
processing plants. Northwest Colorado’s natural gas drilling
boom of the last decade has leveled off, due in part to low
prices, but the Bureau of Land Management is considering a
proposal that could add up to 15,000 new wells over 20 years.
The BLM’s preliminary proposal erroneously put the White
River herd’s current size at more than 100,000. The BLM
says its final plan, due soon, will contain updated numbers.
The Piceance Basin is also home to some of the world’s larg
est, richest oil shale deposits. Companies continue to look for
ways to commercially mine and process the shale into oil.
“If you want to continue to have deer populations you’re
going to have to protect important habitat,” Ellenberger says.
“You’re going to have to try to limit the amount of motorized
use, human occupation and utilization of those areas. You
can’t ride and go everywhere you want and expect to have
everything hunky-dory.”
For years, CPW has conducted extensive research into a
number of factors affecting deer, including predation, the
condition of forage and weather extremes. Research is under
way in a portion of the White River herd into the effects of oil
and gas operations on deer behavior as well as the impacts of
improvements to vegetation.
CPW has identified the following as possible issues affecting
mule deer populations: habitat conditions; migration barri
ers; predation; drought and other weather extremes; highway
deaths; disease; impacts from recreation; hunting demands;
and competition with elk.
The lore and decline of Colorado’s
‘Mule-Deer Factory‘
M O C. K COTSI
License Numbers
John Ellenberger believes Arch Andrews, the Colorado Division
of Wildlife’s former public affairs manager, was the first to popu
larize the phrase “Colorado’s mule-deer factory” to describe the
namuh s’odaroloC .raey siht troper a ni yelniF ybraD tsig htron dna sraey 04 ta rof reed gnitnuh neeb sah margnI tneK
animals that make up the White River herd in the northwest part
lim 81.5 ot 0002 ni noillim 3.4 morf desaercni noitalupop ,dreh reviR etihW eht ot emoh ,nisaB ecnaeciP s’odaroloC tsew
of the state. The renamed Colorado Parks and Wildlife estimates
a ot etubirtnoc“ tnempoleved dna elpoep eroM .2102 ni noil odaroloC eht ,margnI tuB .noitanitsed tneuqerf a eb ot desu
the population was more than 100,000 in the early 1980s. The lat
.etorw yelniF ”,tatibah reed elum fo ssol tcerid erehwesle tnuh ot detpo ,namriahc draob noitaredeF efildliW
est estimate, based on computer models, monitoring of deer and
owt taht nw
hs sah h32,000.
craeseR eH .ecnaeciP eht ni pu dekcip gnidliub-daor dna gnillird nehw
aerial surveys, puts the post-hunt population
atoroughly
.secaf dreh reviR etihW eht sesserts eht tuoba denrecnoc si
nretsew ni sdreh reed elum
The area was said to be home to the
largest
migratory
mule
deer
evah hcihw fo strap ,gnimoyW era snoitalupop reed eht erehw secalp tnuh ot tnaw t’nod I“
herd in North America, although Chuck
tsal ehAnderson,
t dellird CPW’s
ylivaeh mam
neeb eht spleh ti fi sgat gnicuder troppus I“ .dedda margnI ”,wol
mals research leader, said that wasn’t
scientifically
documented.
yb knurhs evah ,os ro edaced
”.stsigoloib eht ot netsil ot evah eW .sdreh
But no one doubts the herd was among
hcraesethe
R .tnlargest,
ecrep 0if3 tnot
saelthe
ta
largest, in the country.
no enilced eht lla nip t’nod sre
SLLIB EHT GNIYAP :NEMOW/NEMSTROPS
“Back when the population was atet100,000,
on tub ,tn75,000
empoleto
ve80,000,
d ygreneI
don’t think there would have been any .arguments
setis llew dwith
iova any
reedother
taht
NOITAVRESNOC EFILISTOCK.COM
DLIW ROF
states whether that was true. That’s
not
the
case
anymore,”
said
nisaB ecnaeciP eht fo trap ehT
gnieb sesnecil rewef ot eud gnitnuh ni senilceD
T I B ROT E VETformerly
S
Ellenberger,
the state’s big
revgame
iR etihmanager
W eht otand
emonow
h s’taahconsultant.
t
elppir evah nac dlefi eht ni sretnuh rewef ro dereffo
apmocthe
ca dPiceance
na gnillirBasin
d sag produced
dna lio dso
esamany
ercni ndeer
ees that
sah itdrseemed
eh
Foryears,
almost automatic. Ellenberger said the “mule-deer
eht fo hcuM .smargorp efildliw llarevo no stceffe
sag dnmoniker
a senilepgained
ip ,sdatraction
or wen gwhen
nidulthe
cni herd
,tnemstarted
polevedrecovering
gniyn
factory”
from the severe winter of 1983-84. “Arch Andrews,
avresnoc tatibah ,tnemeganam efildliw rof gnidnuf
illirthe
d savoice
g laruof
tanthe
s’oDivision
daroloC of
tseWildlife,
whtroN .ssaid
tnalp‘The
gnisdeer
secofactory
rp
whognwas
is back.’ And that kind of stuck.”
gnitnuh morf semoc noitaercer rof ssecca dna noit
wol obiologist
t trap ni and
eud Colorado
,ffo delevenative
l sah Steve
edacedTorbit
tsal eremembers
ht fo moobgrowing up reading stories in Colorado Outdoors maga
Wildlife
no sexat esicxe laredef dna seef esnecil gnihsfi dna
gnired“the
isnoworld’s
c si tnemlargest
eganaM
dnaL fo deer
uaeruherd
B ehand
t tubmost
,seciproductive
rp
zinea about
migratory
pdeer
iuqeherd.”
yrehcra ,raeg gnihsfi ,noitinumma ,smraerfi
.sraey 02 revo sllew wen 000,51 ot pu dda dluoc taht lasoporp
,
s
e
x
a
t
e
ht modirector
rf eunevof
eRthe.leNational
uf taobrWildlife
otom dnFed
a tnem
“The
former executive
etiherd
hW has
eht been
tup yfamous
lsuoenoatrrleast
e lasonationally
porp yranfor
imidecades,”
lerp s’MLsaid
B eTorbit,
hT
srelgnarea.
a dnaItswas
retnujust
h ysuch
b diafertile
p seefground
rehto dfor
na deer.”
sesnecil
eration’s
MLBRocky
ehT .0Mountain
00,001 noffice.
aht ero“It
m was
ta elong
zis tnrecognized
erruc s’dreas
h arehighly
viR productive
n
I
.
s
t
e
g
d
u
b
e
f
i
l
d
l
i
w
e
t
a
t
s
f
o
t
r
a
p
t
n
a
c
fi
i
n
g
i
s
a
p
u ekam
bmucareer
n detaas
dpauwildlife
niatnoc researcher,
lliw ,noos eTorbit
ud ,nasaid
lp lait
nfiwasn’t
sti syauncommon
s
Early.sinrehis
to see thousands of deer while driving the back
/retnufor
h nthe
i noherd’s
illim 9continuing
47$ ylraendecline,
deviecehe
r sesaid
tats the
,1102
roads
areehmany
reasons
grin
al the
s’dlPiceance
row eht foBasin
emosduring
ot emowinter.
h osla sAlthough
i nisaB ecthere
naeciP
T
d
n
a
g
n
i
v
r
e
s
n
o
c
r
o
f
n
o
i
l
l
i
m
4
6
3
$
–
s
e
x
a
t
e
s
i
c
x
e
r
elgna
impacts
rof koofoldevelopment
ot eunitnoc seand
inapincreasing
moC .stisohuman
ped elapopulation
hs lio tsehcare
ir ,tsundeniable.
e
jorp efildliw rehto rof 483$ dna seirehsfi gnirotser
.lipushed
o otni elthe
ahsmule
eht ssdeer
ecorto
p dthe
na edge
enim of
yllthe
aicrcliff
emmand
oc othat’s
t syawall that’s left for them,” Torbit said.
“We’ve
smargorp efildliw etats rof sdnuf eht lla ylraeN .stce
er’uoy snoitalupop reed evah ot eunitnoc ot tnaw uoy fI“
dna sesnecil ,sexat esicxe eht morf emoc odaroloC ni
.syas regrebnellE ”,tatibah tnatropmi tcetorp ot evah ot gniog
.srelgna dna sretnuh yb diap seef rehto
dezirotom fo tnuoma eht timil ot yrt ot evah ot gniog er’uoY“
gnitoohS lanoitaN eht ,efildliW dna skraP odaroloC :secruoS
uoY .saera esoht fo noitazilitu dna noitapucco namuh ,esu
.noitaicossA gnihsfitropS naciremA dna noitadnuoF stropS
evANTLERED
ah ot tcepxe DEER
dna tnaRIFLE
w uoyHUNTING
erehwyreveLICENSES
og dna edir t’nac
”.yrod-yknuh gnihtyreve
14,000
a 12,000
otni hcraeser evisnetxe detcudnoc sah WPC ,sraey roF
REED REWEF ERA EREHT NOSAER EHT
River Deer Herd
eht ,noitaderp gnidulcni ,reed gnitceffa srotcaf fo rebmuWhite
n
10,000
italupop reed no secneuflni ynam eb thgim ereht elihW
rednu si hcraeseR .semertxe rehtaew dna egarof fo noitidnoSource:
c ,snoCompiled
s
t
i
,
t
atibah – srby
aeyJohn
rof nrEllenberger
ecnoc gnidirfrom
revo nColorado
a neeb sah eno
8,000
lio fo stceffe eht otni dreh reviR etihW eht fo noitrop a ni yaParks
w
and
Wildlife
figures
on
the
number
of
hunting
licenses
t
s
e
g
g
i
b
e
h
t
y
l
b
a
b
o
r
p
s
i
t
a
t
i
b
a
h
k
n
i
h
t
I
“
.
y
t
i
t
n
a
uq dna ytilauq
fo 6,000
stcapmi eht sa llew sa roivaheb reed no snoitarepo sag dna
offered
for
bucks
during
rifle
seasons.
The
2012
total
of
.noitategev ot stnemevorpmi erretni era taht seussi fo sdnik rehto era ereht tub ,eussi
4,000
2,025 licenses is just 17 percent of the.sy11,760
licenses
as regrebnellE ”,detal
gni2,000
tceffa seussi elbissop sa gniwollof eht defiitnedi sah WPoffered
C
in 2005 and reflects the declining deer population.
irrab0 noitargim ;snoitidnoc tatibah :snoitalupop reed elum -alupop namuh eht si snoitalupop reed elum no erusserp enO
yawhgih 2005
;seme2006
rtxe re2007
htaew2008
rehto2009
dna t2010
hguor2011
d ;noi2012
taderp ;sre ni gnitaercer ,tatibah efildliw otni gnivom elpoep erom – noit
;sdnamed gnitnuh ;noitaercer morf stcapmi ;esaesid ;shtaed secnef ,semoh gnidliub ,evil reed erehw stserof dna sllih eht
Years .kle htiw noititepmoc dna -oloib WPC yb deton sa ,tatibah efildliw raen ro no sdaor dna
:draw rof gniog snoitadnemmocer ruO
Steamboat Springs
Home of Colorado’s White River herd
.snoitalupGrand
opJunction
esaercni pleh dna tatibah reed elum evColorado’s
resnoc ot reWhite
htegot River
krow therd
sum sistsiin
goportions
loib dna of
sreRio
ganaBlanco,
m dnal lMoffat,
aredef dnRoutt
a etatSand Gar
•
Glenwood Springs
Denver
ti sa sdreh reed otCOLORADO
stcapmi lufmrah diova ot seigfield
etartcounties.
s tnemelpThe
mi darea
na pohas
levlong
ed dlbeen
uohs known
tnemegas
anaColorado’s
M dnaL fo“mule-deer
uaeruB ehTfactory”
•
lla od dluohs MLB eht ,erehwesle detcerid ro deand
diovhas
a ebsome
t’nacof
sethe
itivicountry’s
tca ro tnem
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
f
I
.
s
d
n
a
l
c
i
l
b
u
p
f
o
s
e
s
u
s
r
e
d
i
s
n
o
c
largest herds but the population has been declining
.tabelow
tibah rithe
eht goal
dna rset
eedbynoColorado
stceffe ehParks
t ezimand
inim
ot nac ti
for years and now is
Wildlife.
noitalupop reed tsetal eht sesu ti taht erusne ot gninnalp gnirud efildliW dna skraP odaroloC htiw tlusnoc dluohs MLB ehT
gnitirw nehw reed no stcapmi evitalumuc laitnetop eht redisnoc ot sdeen tI .tatibah eht tuoba noitamrofni dna setamitse
.sdnal cilbup no stcejorp gniredisnoc dna snalp tnemeganam
•
no stcapmi laitnetop eht sserdda ot sloot rehto dna snalp gnisael retsam fo esu sti dnapxe dna eunitnoc dluohs MLB ehT
.sdnal laredef no dereffo era sesael ygrene erofeb sdreh reed
•
MINERAL
alupoAN
p reeAREA
d dna sRICH
noitidnIN
oc WILDLIFE
tatibah fi stc–
ejoAND
rp htiw
deecorp toRESOURCES
n dna stnemtimmoc noitavresnoc sti llfiluf tsum MLB ehT
.
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
i
m
r
o
g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
m
d
e
s
i
m
orp tother
cudnowild
c ot sliaf ycnega eht fi ro tem t’nera stegrat noit
Northwest Colorado is home to large mule deer herds and
•
life. It’s also the site of significant oil andnnatural
oc ot hgas
craedeposits
ser tcudnas
ocwell
ot gnidnuf dna gnfifats etauqeda sdeen WPC
as some of the world’s largest oil shale formations..nThe
area
oitam
rofnwhere
i rehtothe
dna noitalupop reed tseb eht gnicudorp eunit
White River mule deer herd is found hasabeen
lupoparedrilling
ed eht fohot
yrespot
vocein
r rof seitiroirp tes WPC taht dnemmocer eW
recent years. The previous decade’s rush offoactivity
subsided
as
natural
yalpretni eht enimaxe nac stsigoloib erehw aera eno tsael ta ni noit
gas prices dropped and the national recession
orphit.
yreHowever,
vocer dna the
hcraBureau
eser a ngised dna ,ytilauq tatibah sa hcus ,srotcaf
of Land Management is considering a planmthat
could
add
up
orf noitanidrooc dto
na15,000
noitarepooc deen lliw WPC ezingocer eW .marg
wells in the area. Meanwhile, there is activity
associated
dna ,elband
issotraffic
p erehw
srenwodnal etavirp ,MLB sa hcus ,seicnega rehto
with the existing wells, pipelines, processing plants and roads.
.srednuf yb tnemtimmoc
The current number of wells in the counties
thestWhite
ylevitwhere
ca tsum
sinoitavRiver
resnoc rehto dna sretnuh ,stsaisuhtne efildliW
herd roams and the number of wells each
added
from
2005
to
2012:
elum tsoob ot ygetarts a fo tnempoleved gniogno s’WPC ni etapicitrap
.sesse2005-2012:
corp gninna7,842
lp s’MLB eht ni etapicitrap dna snoitalupop reed
• Garfield County – 10,751 total. Number added
• Moffat County – 620. Number added 2005-2012: 259
• Rio Blanco County – 2,926. Number added 2005-2012: 848
•
•
•
,0063-932-303 ,MLB odaroloC tcatnoC
.lmth.su_tcatnoc/ne/ts/oc/vog.mlb.www//:ptth ro
• Routt County – 44. Number added 2005-2012:
su.oc.e16
tats.wpc ro 2911-792-303 :efildliW dna skraP odaroloC tcatnoC
M O C . KC OTS I
Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Roan Plateau in back with gas well in foreground, JUDITH KOHLER (top)
Drill pads in former mule deer range in Wyoming, CAMERON DAVIDSON (bottom)
:SECRUOSER
.xpsa.yrotSreeDeluM-OC/segaP/nrael/su.oc.etats.wpc//:ptth ,yrotS reeD eluM s’odaroloC ,WPC
POST-HUNT
,setaicossA POPULATION
kciwhtuoS ,odarSIZE
oloC ni noitaerceR roodtWhite
uO fo River
snoitubDeer
irtnoHerd
C cimonocE ehT
Numbers of Deer
120,000
by/sJohn
fdp.tropeRtcapmInocEOC3102-12METI/yaM/4102/noissimSource:
moC/sCompiled
tnemucoD
u.oc.Ellenberger
etats.wpc//based
:ptth
on estimates by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
,no100,000
itaredeF efildliW odaroloC eht dna ,gro.sdnalcilbupruo.www ,sdnaL cilbuP ruO ot og ,noitamrofni erom roF
*The
population
./gro2013
.efildliw
odaroloc.westimate
ww//:ptth of
32,000 is based on a change in the Colo
80,000
rado Parks and Wildlife’s
:STmodeling
CATNOCthat
60,000
factors in recent monitoring of deer in
,noitaredeF efildliW lanoitaN ,relhoK htiduJ
the herd. CPW says it appears the pop40,000
;3615remained
-144-303 stable
,gro.fwfrom
n@jre2012
lhok to
ulation
20,000
andodfluctuations
dur
,noitaredeF e2013
fildliW
aroloC ,llieNin’Onumbers
ennazuS
ing
that
period
is
due
to
the
model
.0040-789-303 ,gro.efildliwodaroloc@defwcing
0
change. However, the overall popu2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
lation trend is down.
.REPAP DEIFITREC-CSF DELCYCER NO YLLACOL DETNIRP
Years
Our recommendations going forward:
•
State and federal land managers and biologists must work together to conserve mule deer habitat and help increase populations.
•
The Bureau of Land Management should develop and implement strategies to avoid harmful impacts to deer herds as it
considers uses of public lands. If development or activities can’t be avoided or directed elsewhere, the BLM should do all
it can to minimize the effects on deer and their habitat.
•
The BLM should consult with Colorado Parks and Wildlife during planning to ensure that it uses the latest deer population
estimates and information about the habitat. It needs to consider the potential cumulative impacts on deer when writing
management plans and considering projects on public lands.
•
The BLM should continue and expand its use of master leasing plans and other tools to address the potential impacts on
deer herds before energy leases are offered on federal lands.
•
The BLM must fulfill its conservation commitments and not proceed with projects if habitat conditions and deer popula
tion targets aren’t met or if the agency fails to conduct promised monitoring or mitigation.
•
CPW needs adequate staffing and funding to conduct research to con
tinue producing the best deer population and other information.
•
We recommend that CPW set priorities for recovery of the deer popula
tion in at least one area where biologists can examine the interplay of
factors, such as habitat quality, and design a research and recovery pro
gram. We recognize CPW will need cooperation and coordination from
other agencies, such as BLM, private landowners where possible, and
commitment by funders.
•
Wildlife enthusiasts, hunters and other conservationists must actively
participate in CPW’s ongoing development of a strategy to boost mule
deer populations and participate in the BLM’s planning processes.
Contact Colorado BLM, 303-239-3600,
or http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/contact_us.html.
Contact Colorado Parks and Wildlife: 303-297-1192 or cpw.state.co.us
ISTOCK.COM
RESOURCES:
CPW, Colorado’s Mule Deer Story, http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/CO-MuleDeerStory.aspx.
The Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation in Colorado, Southwick Associates,
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2014/May/ITEM21-2013COEconImpactReport.pdf
For more information, go to Our Public Lands, www.ourpubliclands.org, and the Colorado Wildlife Federation,
http://www.coloradowildlife.org/.
CONTACTS:
Judith Kohler, National Wildlife Federation,
[email protected], 303-441-5163;
Suzanne O’Neill, Colorado Wildlife Federation,
[email protected], 303-987-0400.
PRINTED LOCALLY ON RECYCLED FSC-CERTIFIED PAPER.

Download Report