Blog

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2009/ElkPopulations.htm

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/big-game/elk/2009/01/state-sate-elk-hunting-report

Deer?  Texas by far the largest with over 4 million, approximately twice that of any other state.  Colorado:  approximately 700,000 (source).

Texas is home to the most white-tailed deer of any other U.S. state or Canadian province with an estimated population of over four million. Notably high populations of white-tailed deer occur in the Edwards Plateau of Central Texas. Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Indiana also boast high deer densities. (Wiki.)

This is the most tedeous part because it is so difficult, intractable even.  Here are the laws and here are the regulations promulgated by the enemy (in Colorado).  That’s right, the enemy, because they care only about hunters.  It is supposed to be the depatment OF NATURAL RESOURCES.  There are many other resources besides the animals and there are many other constituents besides hunters.

Here in Colorado the Division of Wildlife brags about the fact that they are close to or almost entirely supported by revenue from hunting.  They promote this in their ads.  I have never before seen or heard such a blatant admission of cronyism and corruption.  Why do they not understand that hunters are the extreme minority.  I don’t want them to be supported by hunters.  They are supposed to be a public agency responsible for the entire public.

Here’s the pricing for hunting licenses in the state of Colorado.  I am willing to bet that these fees are not set by surveying all taxpayers and residents.  If that were the case they would be significantly higer.  For instance, why are their drawings or lotteries for licenses?  They should charge more and allocate funds and resources for all constituencies.

Follow the money trail…  The hunters pay and they get what they want.

*          *          *

As in all states, wildlife in Colorado are the property of the state:

All wildlife within this state not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of this state. Right, title, interest, acquisition, transfer, sale, importation, exportation, release, donation, or possession of wildlife shall be permitted only as provided in articles 1 to 6 of this title or in any rule or regulation of the wildlife commission. (Colorado Revised Statutes)

This is more generous than in most states:

33-3-103.5. Game damage prevention materials – definitions.

(1) This section shall be applicable in determining the liability of the state under paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of this section and section 33-3-103 (1) (d) and (1) (e).

(2) (a) (I) Every landowner shall be eligible to receive sufficient and appropriate temporary game damage prevention materials pursuant to this section.

(II) Permanent game damage prevention materials shall be available only to a landowner who does not unreasonably restrict hunting of species likely to cause damage on land under the landowner’s control or restrict the hunting of species likely to cause damage on any other lands by restricting access across lands under the landowner’s control, and:

(A) Who charges not more than five hundred dollars per person, per season, for big game hunting access on or across the landowner’s property; or

(B) Who charges a fee in excess of five hundred dollars per person, per season, for big game hunting access on or across the landowner’s property, if the landowner has requested and been denied game damage prevention materials from the habitat partnership program created in section 33-1-110 (8) and the division determines that excessive game damage is occurring, and may continue to occur in the future.

(III) The division shall not deny a landowner game damage claims or game damage prevention materials on the grounds that the landowner received a voucher pursuant to the wildlife conservation landowner hunting preference program for wildlife habitat improvement under section 33-4-103 (3) (d).

(IV) As used in this section:

(A) “Temporary game damage prevention materials” means materials of an adequate substance that are utilized to protect private property for a period of time agreed upon by the landowner and the division. Such materials may include, but are not limited to, transferable panels or pyrotechnics.

(B) “Permanent game damage prevention materials” means materials of an adequate substance that are erected in such a way to protect private property for the expected normal life of the materials. The normal life of the materials shall be as specified in a written agreement between the landowner and the division.

(b) The division has the responsibility to supply useable, sufficient, and appropriate game damage prevention materials to a requesting landowner, and the landowner shall keep such materials in good repair throughout their normal life, if such materials have not been destroyed or damaged by wildlife.

(3) (a) The division shall respond to a landowner making an inquiry related to game damage within two business days after receiving the inquiry.

(b) (I) Within five business days after receiving a request for game damage prevention materials, the division shall consult with the landowner to discuss the sufficient and appropriate materials to prevent or mitigate the game damage. Temporary game damage prevention materials shall be delivered to the landowner within fifteen business days after the consultation, unless otherwise agreed to by the division and the landowner.

(II) For a landowner eligible to receive permanent game damage prevention materials pursuant to subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section, such materials shall be provided within forty-five days after the date that the landowner makes the initial request for the materials.

(c) The division shall deliver game damage prevention materials to the specific site as directed by the landowner, if such delivery may be made by truck.

(d) When agreed upon by the landowner, the division may construct permanent stackyards or orchard fencing in those areas of high wildlife damage potential within the limitations of appropriation by the general assembly for that purpose.

(e) (I) If the division does not provide game damage prevention materials within the amount of time established by paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), the division shall have the sole responsibility to supply and erect the damage prevention materials, and the state shall be liable for game damages incurred on and after the date by which the division should have provided the game damage prevention materials.

(II) When erecting game damage prevention materials pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (e), the division may use division employees, individuals under contract to the division, or voluntary workers. If the division uses voluntary workers to assist in erecting game damage prevention materials, the division shall keep in force workers’ compensation insurance as necessary to protect the landowner from liability resulting from injuries or death of said voluntary workers while engaged in the erection of such game damage prevention materials. If the division uses contract workers to assist in erecting game damage prevention materials as provided in this section, the division shall require the contractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance as necessary to protect the landowner from liability resulting from injuries or death of said contract workers while engaged in the erection of such game damage prevention materials.

(4) If the game damage prevention materials that the division provides to a landowner fail to prevent game damage due to insufficiency or inappropriateness of such materials, or if the division’s insufficient or inappropriate erection of such materials fail to prevent game damage, the state shall be liable for damages caused by such materials or erection.

Duty to collect and disseminate information:

33-3-105. Wildlife migration areas – division to keep records

It is the duty of the division to maintain records of areas used by wildlife for migration purposes, and the division shall furnish information concerning wildlife migration areas to persons requesting such information.

30-15-302. Board of county commissioners to designate area.

(1) The board of county commissioners of any county in this state may designate, by resolution, areas in the unincorporated territory of such county in which it is unlawful for any person to discharge any firearms, except a duly authorized law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty, but nothing in this subsection (1) shall prevent the discharge of any firearm in shooting galleries or in any private grounds or residence under circumstances when such firearm can be discharged in such a manner as not to endanger persons or property and also in such a manner as to prevent the projectile from any such firearm from traversing any grounds or space outside the limits of such shooting gallery, grounds, or residence.

(2) No area shall be so designated under authority of subsection (1) of this section unless it has an average population density of not less than one hundred persons per square mile in the area designated, and, before making any such designation, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon at which any interested person shall have an opportunity to be heard. The provisions of article 3 of title 33, C.R.S., concerning the state’s liability for damages done to property by wild animals protected by the game laws of the state shall not apply to any area designated by a board of county commissioners under authority of this part 3.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or otherwise affect any person’s constitutional right to bear arms or his right to the defense of his person, his family, or his property  

30-15-411. Conflicts with state statutes.

No county shall adopt an ordinance that is in conflict with any state statute.

Is it too strong a metaphor or too strong a lesson?  If you try and work with people who may seem like they want to save the animals, will you end up being killed by them?  Here are two great links in support of saving aspen:

http://aspensite.org/

http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2009/07/27/aspen-a-vanishing-resource/

They are sponsored by:

http://www.rmef.org/

http://www.muledeer.org/

In my experience and in my opinion, these are not organizations that want to preserve the environment.  They work through a very narrow opening geared specifically toward hunting the animals.  They are trying to preserve something that is arguably in the past, something that is fading away in our society–humankind has found other ways to feed ourselves, recreate ourselves, and preserve our environment.  Put another way, ithunters in America are a niche market–including participants on a very irregular basis they number some 15 million.

And about these organizations, what is their involvement in areas where almost all of us live and work?  These are the places where there are neighborhoods, shopping centers, and if we are fortunate, parks and open space.  These are the places where hunting is not feasible and the overwhelming majority of residents and visitors do not support it.  Thesee organizations, do they seek to protect the environment and the foliage and the ecosystem here?  No, they do not, because their goal, hunting, cannot be acheived there. 

In my mind, they are hypocritical, two-faced, disengenuous, and not compliant with the larger, majority needs of society.  So why would people who truly want to save the aspen side with them?  The only reason I can think of is desperation.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2010/02/john-edwards-exposed-in-the-politician-by-andrew-young.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/01/26/book-report-the-politician-by-andrew-young/tab/article/

http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2009/07/27/aspen-a-vanishing-resource/

So why has aspen been in decline since European settlement and why have most aspen stands not successfully regenerated in 80 or more years? At first it was thought that auxins and apical dominance were the problem. Auxins are chemicals produced in aspen’s uppermost branches that are then translocated to the roots where the auxins suppress suckering. While auxins do suppress aspen root-sprouting, they do not eliminate suckering. Where aspen is protected by game-proof and/or livestock-proof fencing, termed exclosures — please see my earlier Muley Crazy article on range reference areas — aspen successfully regenerates and produces stands in which the stems (trees, saplings, ramets) are multi-aged. Thus, the even-aged stands common in the West today are NOT a biological attribute of aspen. Instead, they are the result of excessive ungulate grazing, where herbivores have repeatedly browsed the aspen suckers, and thereby prevented the growth of aspen saplings and trees.

In most places where I have conducted research, the problem has been too many elk — either no hunting in national parks or not enough hunting on national forests. I spent three summers measuring nearly 400 aspen stands on BLM lands in north-central Nevada and there the problem was improper livestock use. As soon as any new aspen suckers appeared, they were repeatedly browsed by cattle and/or domestic sheep. It was amazing how many aspen saplings you could produce with a simple, three or four strand barbed wire fence. The areas I studied in Nevada had no elk and mule deer numbers were exceedingly low.

Elk can be especially damaging to aspen, because in addition to browsing aspen suckers, elk also like to eat the bark of mature aspen trees. Elk do this by digging the front teeth of their lower jaws into the soft aspen bark and then moving their heads upward, gouging out large sections of bark. Any injury to the bark of aspen exposes that stem to increased attack by a host of pathogens. Needless to say, this hastens stem mortality and clonal decline. Moose will also strip aspen bark, but mule deer do not. Aspen responds to elk bark-stripping, or any other bark damage, by producing black scar tissue. Where elk concentrate, especially during winter, all the normally white-barked aspen are black the lower six feet. Thus, if large numbers of elk always occupied western ranges, as some would have you believe, then late 1800’s photos should show that aspen was as heavily bark-damaged in the past as it is today. Well, I and my colleagues in Canada have searched all the major photographic archives and not one aspen tree in any of the earliest images shows any sign of elk bark damage. NONE!

Charles E. Kay. 2009. Aspen: A Vanishing Resource. Mule Deer Foundation Magazine, No. 25, pp. 32-39.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/18/nation/na-aspen-death18

http://www.aspensite.org/index.html

Let’s start at the beginning.

Part 1

The Kansas article describes how it is happening on a community level.  There is a park–open space, many acres–adjacent or nearby a city or suburb.  The situation with deer begins there and spreads; unlike the way it is often characterized, it isn’t because people took over the deer habitat but mostly it is the other way around.  The park and the people living nearby has created a safe, food-rich environment and the deer population has swelled.  Eventually, the deer become habituated–not afraid of people  and more and more fond of and dependent on the human-enhanced food supply.  Landscaping, watering, and perhaps fertilizing take place in the park and in the surrounding yards and gardens.  Many people like to see the deer (or elk), and this is true especially for visitors from the park who may not be accustom to seeing them.  People living nearby may enjoy them too, or maybe not.

The debate is complex and potentially contentious and, regardless of one’s personal views, is here to stay.  Hunting is not everyone’s favorite activity and, regardless too, it is absent.  Environmentalists, humanitarians, or just plain loud-voiced citizens will cry foul.  Weak, ineffectual, politicized, and cowardly government staffers will do nothing.  Most homeowners will not understand the situation and will make it worse.  The situation is here to stay.  As the local resident stood up and said in the town meeting referenced in the Kansas article, “Let’s not have this same discussion next year.”  More profound words were never said:  They will.

http://www.pitch.com/2009-10-08/news/there-will-be-blood

http://deerimpacts.blogspot.com/

http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2009/07/27/aspen-a-vanishing-resource/

Customer Satisfaction!  That, in various ways, is what I have spent much of my career doing.  It’s a passion.  Much more to come.

They call it Kubrick, and I finally have it more or less the way I want it.  This site has instructions on how to widen it.

 http://wordpress.org/support/topic/359622?replies=1

“How to make your entire Kubrick header homepage clickable.”

Addendum:  I say very good, and hopefully, more on that later.  News has been leaking out of at least a meeting on the investigation.  Major violation?  It would be a disaster for RR and the many, many fans and alumni.  A very nice synopsis of the recruiting class from an unknown source.