Back to News

Colorado plans to eliminate predators to save mule deer

Mountain lion prowling through the field
Photo credit: Shutterstock

Are there too many bears and mountain lions in Colorado? Are they the reason behind mule deer decline? Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) wants to find out. As part of a three-year study, CPW will eliminate excess bears and mountain lions through strategic predator control on the Roan Plateau and monitor what happens next.

Not everyone believes that predators are to blame and, instead, point fingers at oil and gas development, which opponents to the predator control project say has also greatly impact mule deer habitat. While that may be possible, it’s beyond what CPW is able to control.  

“We remain well below where we would like to be in terms of overall mule deer numbers,” says CPW Northwest Regional Manager Ron Velarde. “There is no one reason and no silver bullet solution to this problem, but many in the public identified predator management as one factor that could yield positive results, and we agree.”

Continued below.

The study, which will begin in 2017, will be centered on the months before and during fawn birthing: May and June.

“The study will monitor if mule deer fawn survival responds positively to control of lions and bears in a relatively small area on the Roan Plateau,” says CPW researcher Chuck Anderson, who notes that none of the predator carcasses will go to waste. Meat will be given to those in need and the rest will be used by CPW for education.

With Colorado’s mule deer populations continually dropping, the data collected during this study may help researchers pinpoint other areas where predator control could be helpful. Current mule deer numbers show less than 450,000 mule deer within the state – significantly lower than CPW’s population objective of 560,000 statewide, according to the Summit County Citizens Voice.

There will be a public discussion with CPW officials at the Garfield County Fairgrounds, South Hall, on Aug. 16 at 6 p.m. Those interested in letting their voice be heard should attend.


Log in or register to post comments.

sally r. - posted 3 years ago on 09-20-2016 11:05:42 am

The Peance Basin mule deer herd was the largest in the US, at one point. Loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, disruption of traditional migratory routes are of significant impact. This might make them more vulnerable to predators; but to kill predators is not the right answer. Without documenting all the data as to why predators are extremely important to any eco-system regime balance, start looking at mitigating and stopping habitat loss and fragmentation. This kind of development is not only impacting deer, it is impacting many other flora and fauna as well. It is not just about hunting, it is about long term, sustainable habitat - the rightful habitat - of species with minimum impact. Restoration and co-existence is the challenge of the future, and in some places the Genius of Nature working as it has for millenniums is what needs to be looked at first. Remember, if you are committed to real economic and environmental sustainability - two tenants are paramount: 1) the precautionary principle - which means if you don't know the impact of actions long term, be cautious - very cautious, 2) the economy is subservient to the environment, not the other way around, is we want to sustain quality of life - with clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and forests. This is common sense....think about it.

Jake M. - posted 3 years ago on 08-17-2016 09:17:10 pm

As a former Californian I can say that after the ban on hunting mountain lions the population rose very quickly. So much so that an area that should have only had 1-2 lions had 15. Fish & game ran hounds around a smallish lake about 15 miles from my home town. A high school classmate who's family had a small cattle ranch about 5 miles from the lake began losing over a dozen calves a year to lions instead of 2-3. They also lost several dogs. In fact lots of people began losing pets in my neck of the woods (northern California). In 2002 my grandma saw one in her backyard in town. Before I left in 2006 two lions had been removed from city limits & a pack of coyotes had moved into city limits due to lack of prey caused by too many lions. There has also been a drastic increase in attacks on humans. I was also stationed in Yorktown VA for 6 months, right next to all the historic battle fields. There were no predators, no hunting, & lots of people/traffic. There were also an insane amount of deer. So many that driving through the battle fields was hazardous. Also the deer had become much smaller due to over population, bucks weighing between 90-100lbs, doe's 60-70lbs. And yes, they could leave the lions in CO alone & nature would eventually balance itself, say 10-20 years. During which time the lion population would continue to climb while deer population would continue to fall. Eventually the deer population would no longer support the lion population & large numbers of lions would end up starving to death. In the end both species would come back into balance with much lower numbers for both. So is it more humane to let the lions starve to death? If you think so you should try it, next time your elderly pet is failing & needs to be put down, don't take it to the vet, just stop feeding it. It'll save you money too. And maybe try looking at how much funding for conservation & preservation comes directly from the large fee's hunters pay for licensing & tags.

Scott Stewart_966681006790611
Scott S. - posted 3 years ago on 08-17-2016 02:29:00 pm

I used to think these people are educated but no they are not.
predators can't be eliminated from the food chain without negative results,example is the rodent population would explode without the predators that prey on them.

Raymond Hayes_10208181283067416
Raymond H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 06:35:50 pm

Hello folks. I understand why people disagree with hunting and that there can be multiple reasons behind the decline in deer populations. The problem is Mountain Lions have no natural predators and we don't know how many there are in the state or country. There is estimated around 30,000 nation wide. Keep in mind a single Mountain lion can kill 24-36 deer annually...they don't hibernate unlike bears and hunt year round. That is over a 1,000,000 deer taken annually. So I think a Mountain Lion study is a good thing.

Now we have bears and Mountain lions around our house and I don't have an issue with them, I think it's quite cool in fact. So I'm the last person to advocate killing one of these predators. My problem is we have seen a huge decline in mule deer in our area. So if there is in fact too many predators in our area, then something needs done about it. This means culling or thinning the herds. It's not what I want but it's something that may need done.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 02:44:58 pm
Boise, ID

I appreciate your concern for wildlife Michelle and believe that you are real. What is frustrating for the average human hunter, an apex predator indigenous to this planet, is that so much of what is said on forums like this relates to environmentalism rather than conservation. Environmentalists are spectators to the planet and believe humans don't belong in it. They often overlook the tremendous damage their lifestyle choices have on the natural world whether it be wrapping oneself in the often very polluting "green" mantle, or being a vegetarian, etc. Conservationsists recognize that we are part of the environment, and there is no place on the planet that doesn't feel some effect from our actions or inactions. We advocate wise use and ethical management of resources, including animals, with science as our guide. Emotion laden attacks on us without science could lead to our disappearance. If you look at places around the world where there are no hunters yet plenty of people (which will certainly be the case in North America even if hunting is completely eliminated, unless the environmentalists having something truly nefarious in mind) the animal populations don't do nearly as well as where the North American model of conservation is pursued. Sitting back and not interacting with nature is not the panacea that many environmentalists think it is. As hunters and conservationists we are of, by and for this planet and love it and its animals deeply. Targeting us for attacks and elimination will definitely hasten the disappearance of the animals people claim to love. It is a definite puzzle why people who claim to love animals will attack the single biggest source of protection for those animals. It is why I wonder whether some of the commenters actually are the representatives of developers, etc. Get the hunters out of the way and you will rapidly see federal lands transferred to the states, sold, and developed. Goodbye wildlife.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 02:27:11 pm
Oak Creek, Colorado


You are obviously talking about Yellowstone and the wolves with the natural succession that is occurring.

A large part of what you refer to can be attributed to the massive fires that occurred in Yellowstone that have allowed a lot of species to come back that naturally come back after a fire. If the Park Service's policy of total fire suppression for over 100 years had not been followed, the fires would have been much smaller and more beneficial. Logging and timber sales would have also been a possibility to provide revenue and open up the forest to provide areas for natural succession.

There were obviously way too many elk in Yellowstone for many years. They knew where they would not get hunted and spent as much time as possible there rather than migrating in and out. That caused a lot of damage to the landscape.

A much simpler method of population control would have been to allow limited hunting in Yellowstone. It would have brought in revenue to the Parks System, revenue to the surrounding areas, brought the elk population into check, and provided food and recreation value.

The wolves have devastated the elk, moose and deer population in that area and have had a serious economic impact to the surrounding areas due to the loss of hunting revenue and having to pay for losses to livestock. The wolf population exploded and expanded way more than was planned and has decimated wildlife populations in a far greater area than just Yellowstone. These were not even the same type of wolves that were previously in this area. This has been a huge disaster to the wildlife of that region. Luckily, some of the surrounding states are starting to manage the wolves in these areas. Wyoming has been battling to gain control of the wolf situation, but is tied up in lawsuits. Hopefully, Wyoming will prevail and be able to save at least some of their remaining wildlife resources.

Colorado's predator population is very high. Lots of lions, bears, coyotes, and bobcats. The predators in an area will bounce back very rapidly from the neighboring areas. Colorado only allows limited hunting for lions and bears and with the low prices on furs, coyotes and bobcats numbers have risen.

Yes, you can have too many wild predators. They will literally eat every last prey animal that they can get. Then you have no prey animals and the predators starve and die as well. What is left behind is a very empty landscape.

Colorado and other western states still had plenty of predators even when they employed government trappers to keep the predator numbers in check. Some states still have government trappers working year round to keep the predators in check but interestingly, there are still plenty of predators out there. As I mentioned earlier, there are ranches in west Texas that employ people to hunt predators year round. They still kill about the same number of lions every year as they have for almost 50 years.

Michelle M. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 02:20:40 pm

Erik I can assure you I'm no ghost account. I'm in Australia. I shoot. But I also have an understanding of the environment and the importance of apex predators on the health of the ecology.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 02:20:12 pm
Boise, ID


Yellowstone is no more or less an "artificial" environment than the rest of the planet. We stop trapping beavers, they get overpopulated. Your bring an apex predator who doesn't read the New York Times into an artificially constrained environment and they will eventually overpopulate too.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 02:14:58 pm
Boise, ID

Probably because there is only one anti-human commenter with multiple accounts, as so often happens on forums like this even when not related to hunting or wildlife. It's a documented fact. I do expect some hate filled screeds in response to this comment, though. Hate never conserved anything but it seems to be the main arrow in some people's quiver.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 01:57:21 pm
Boise, ID

River courses changed!? Why do so many of the comments by the anti-humans sound like the script from a Disney movie about mythical beings?

Michelle M. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 01:45:26 pm

So let me get this straight. Before we look at the whole picture predators will be getting the entire blame.
Has a study been done into infant mortality? Even a drop in fertility rates.
Even if the choice is made to reduce predator numbers things need to be looked at from the predators side. How long will it take their population to recover when it's found they aren't to blame? To maintain genetic diversity. Is it possible that falling deer numbers are also due to a narrowing of genetic material just as seen in other populations of animal, namely the cheetah and also a population of African lions that live in isolation. Even the impact of pollution on fertility. It has a bizarre impact on the human body so it would hold that it's impact affects others around us.
Nature had a habit of keeping itself in balance before we started making the largest impact on the environment. Land clearing reduces habitat and grazing lands that would support large numbers of prey items and therefore predators. Vehicle usage and fatalities as roads criss cross herd movements. Affects of pollution upon waterways. Even pollution into the air can have a degrading effect upon health of any life form that relies on air to survive.
Let's not forget the changes that were seen after wolves were reintroduced to an area where they had been all but wiped out. Suddenly the deer in the area had a population check. Not just in losses to predation but the wolves kept the herds moving. This allowed grasslands to recover. Erosion slowed down. And forests slowly grew back. River courses changed. Back to the old routes before our influence.
Nature has a tipping scale and we should always be mindful of this in how we treat the land. We need it to survive and it also needs us to survive. Our behaviours can influence the viability of all to survive.

Warren K. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 08:56:25 am

I'm no scientist, but I do talk with them. Scientist recently completed a study on land that I own as well as adjoining land. The deer fawn survival rate is 27%. 88% of these fawns were killed by predators. 33% were killed by bears. 21% by bobcats. Coyotes next and then they could tell they'd been killed by predators, but not which ones. I await their suggestions on predator control.
Man is also a predator and needs to eat. Venison is a healthy, free range meat that I enjoy eating.

A.w. Mason_10157294088370203
A.w. M. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 06:58:44 am

Wow Steve B and Warren...are you both scientists? Don't believe it. Taking out predators has never worked in any previous studies. You need to read more.

A.w. Mason_10157294088370203
A.w. M. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 06:54:08 am

Reading peoples defense of killing predators disgusts me. Man is to blame not predators ffs. Grow up.

Fred Langan_10154403397117020
Fred L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-16-2016 04:41:51 am

Here we go again, man messing with nature, haven't we learned anything from our past mistakes of removing predators and then having to re-introducing them later on when we find that we've messed the whole ecological balance up

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-15-2016 11:45:12 am
Oak Creek, Colorado

Sorry, been out in the woods the last several days - no gun or bow - just hiking and looking at the elk and deer to get ready for the best time of the year!

How is it that anti-hunters are so far removed from the natural world?

You tout being "vegan" as a virtue (even though that lifestyle choice is a significantly higher use of total resources) and scream that we should not kill predators. What do you think predators eat?

Why do you guys insist that we can not enjoy hunting or the taking of a trophy animal?

We are not coming after you with threats, anger, and outrage over whatever it is that you enjoy and telling you that you are horrible for doing it.

Hunting is what has made us human. Trophy hunting and reverence for large antlers and horns has been a part of humanity for over 20,000 years.

Modern hunters have brought back numerous species from the brink of extinction and saved vast tracts of land for habitat - not only the species we hunt but other species that utilize that habitat. We have pushed for public access to that habitat for hunters and non-hunters alike.

Colorado already significantly limits the take of predators. What the CPW are trying to determine is how much this is affecting mule deer. They are not calling for full eradication of all predators across the state.

Those of us that live in this habitat understand the balance between predator and prey and that there do need to be predators out there to maintain the balance. Many of us that spend the majority of our lives out in the woods have noticed significantly more predators out there and are seeing more impacts to the ungulate herds. From the evidence, the predator numbers are out of control in a number of areas and need to be reined in.

Warren K. - posted 3 years ago on 08-15-2016 09:50:00 am

Hunters and fishermen pay for a tremendous amount of conservation. The National Wildlife Refuge system is paid for through sportsmens dollars.

Many hunters have packed wild game meat out on our backs for miles. I assure you, if it was all about the horns, this wouldn't happen. When you see a photo of a hunter with an animal, it is often the result of much time invested and cold conditions dealt with. Are we happy when a tremendous effort produces success? You bet. Look at the earliest cave paintings and you will see antlered animals being hunted. Man has always taken pride and respected the oldest animals in a herd. It just so happens that these also have the largest horns/antlers in most cases.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-15-2016 09:29:41 am
Boise, ID


It sounds like your share goals and philosophies with almost all hunters. Welcome to conservation. We've been waiting for you for a very long time. Now get your other non-hunter friends to help us too.

Fifi LaRue_10210255694218180
Fifi L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-15-2016 09:10:40 am

Erik H, I am only one person and that is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that there are people here making multiple comments as different entities, when in fact it is just the tide of public opinion that has gone out on hunting/killing for "sport". The vast majority of ethical and forward thinking people are AGAINST trophy hunting. If you are ethically hunting to ONLY provide meat for your family then I have no problem with you, but if you are out there doing it because you ENJOY killing animals and posing like a sick maniac with the dead bodies, well, I think you are no better than a serial killer. I do not eat meat of any kind, so that is your choice, but make sure you do it ethically and I would have no problem with it, you wouldn't be the kind of person I am targeting. And as for development, I could not be more against it. I also work to keep and maintain open spaces and habitat. NO, hunters are NOT the only ones paying for conservation. The small amount from fees and tags that your killing money goes to does not constitute conservation. The very word conservation means "to save". Killing is NOT conservation. I pay at least a third of my salary to true conservation causes and I don't have to kill a single being to do it! I am a very active conservationist who works in the field. I volunteer, I donate, I read, I protest, I am on the front lines of this fight to protect our species that are rapidly vanishing due to overhunting and habitat loss. What have YOU done besides buy guns, equiptment and pay your tag fees to kill?

Wendy Jenks_1121213057971493
Wendy J. - posted 3 years ago on 08-15-2016 04:14:04 am

"Strategic predator control": If it moves, kill it.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-14-2016 11:12:39 pm
Boise, ID

I trust the biologists who study these species to do good science - this is an experiment and may prove their hypothesis wrong, or it may prove it correct. Temporarily stopping the sale of hunting licenses for a species would be another experiment they could do, as would changing the ratio of male / female deer tags issued. Since we do not do this type of science for a living, I think it is appropriate to put our emotions aside and let the experiment unfold. There isn't anything permanent about what has been proposed.

Jacqueline Wilson_10210633098572455
Jacqueline W. - posted 3 years ago on 08-14-2016 10:56:22 pm

There is a very simple solution to this problem. Stop selling hunting licenses for Mule deer for a few years and see how their numbers recover. I can bet this policy wasn't devised by conservation biologists. Don't mess with nature. Haven't we learned that by now? Take a look at what they've done in CA in regards to mule deer and cougar populations. Hunting the mule deer's natural predator is not the answer.

Andrew B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-14-2016 10:40:18 am
goHUNT Team

Hello users! Thank you for the lively exchange of opinion. Please keep in mind that goHUNT's terms of service prohibit personal threats and profanity. Comments will be closely moderated and removed if found to be in violation. Thank you again!

Warren K. - posted 3 years ago on 08-14-2016 10:15:45 am

Nothing like providing your family with free range venison. Recommended by heart doctors world wide.

Erik H. - posted 3 years ago on 08-14-2016 06:23:05 am
Boise, ID

Arie, Terri, Allie, the three of you (or more likely the one of you) should remember that hunters didn't come up with this idea. We respect that you value animals and you should respect that we value them even more; all the reasons you do plus as hunters. We also pay for the vast majority of the conservation done to protect these animals. You could at least be civil to us. If hunting goes away, conservation goes away. Are you in fact developers (or a developer)?

Desiree T. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 05:44:45 pm

Shouldn't we stop hunting the Mule deer and leave Mother Nature alone? Why kill off the natural predators and mess with the food chain?

Mark L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 03:02:45 pm
Missoula, Mt

The absolute ignorance on this issue is really unbelievable. I guess in the society we live in today we should expect that uneducated position by now. Whatever you believe in, hunting has been a huge and viral part of life on this planet since the time of man. Why can't the non-hunter population simply disagree with hunting and choose not take part or support it. I don't like the vegan lifestyle, but you don't see me posting nonsense and negatives about that group of people. The non-hunters as a group don't donate much if any money or time to the preservation of wildlife. They just want to spew words from a completely uneducated position. They are simply just consumers, they rarely if ever contribute anything besides words and attacks. But scream like little babies when the attacks are towards them. It is always hunter versus non-hunter. Most of the non-hunters have no idea where there food actually comes from, or worse just ignore it. The only people might have a position to say anything about hunting are really the true vegans of the world and the ones there have never had anything leather and etc. I have yet to find any of these, I hear they do exist.

Hunters are the ONLY ones that give mounds of money each and every year to further the conservation issues. The wildlife in general today are so much better off than most times in our history. It is not because of the non-hunters. It is because of the sportsman and conservation minded hunters that purchase tags, donate to wildlife foundations and etc.

Has any anti-hunter on here actually contributed anything significant to wildlife conservation and habitat? How many actually checks have you written and sent to Fish and Wildlife as a donation. This year alone I have sent in over 3,500 in tag fees and permits.

Fifi LaRue_10210255694218180
Fifi L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 12:42:24 pm

Habitat loss, wasting disease and over hunting are likely the problem, NOT predator excesses. There is truly no such thing as an excess of mountain lions! They are getting more and more rare... we need to protect them, not kill them. Killing one animal to "save' another makes zero sense. A better way of helping the mule deer would be to support their habitat, cut down on pollution and significantly lower the amount of hunting allowed. Colorado appears to be uninterested in protecting their mountain lion population. Shame.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 10:34:13 am

Attacking each other does not solve the problem which may be bigger than the CPW and the Federal Fish and Wildlife services, it would be better to put differences aside, and try to solve the bigger problem. The answer is there it is the politicians who really don't want to deal with it. Even if you keep the predators completely out, the deer will eventually drop in numbers due to the already existing impacts that are occurring now, and getting larger every day. I understand both sides, no one is going to listen if we attack one another. We all have to work together to solve the problem that exists in all states where there is deer hunting, and deer demise.

Ben DeLancey_10100156020595554
Ben D. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 10:26:31 am

I can tell you the results of the the study right now, fawns will have a substantially increased survival rate in areas without predators. Will the surrounding area have enough forage to support the increase in the adult deer population something this study will not show...and that likely is by design.

In South Carolina mountain lions, wolves, and, in most areas, bears have been extirpated from the state. As a result, SC DNR has focussed on coyotes as the number 1 killer of fawns in the state (because something has to be). DNR has the studies to back them up and will be implementing a bounty for tagged coyotes to encourage predator hunting in order to help support the declining deer populaion. This ignores the fact that SC has an over population of deer (having declined from absurd to manageable) that is taking a heavy tull on the environment and it ignores that they don't have enough hunters to control the current deer population as is, much less while actively implementing predator control. To be fair, the coyote bounty system has nothing to do with deer as it will likely have minimal impact on coyote numbers. It is simply to make hunters happy and pay them for what they are already doing.

I go to wildlife conferences and workshops and keep being told by state fish and game officials that their official population estimates aren't accurate and what they really think the numbers are is "..." I've seen biologists have their population estimates for an area extrapolated across an entire state by Fish and Game agencies to justify an increase in tags and the wildlife biologists not say anything due to fears of putting their research permit in jeopardy. I've been told stories from a relative about dove hunting planted fields with local politicians where a fish and game employee came on site to say they weren't planted.

If you think that fish and game agencies are unbiased and rely on the best science available to manage game species you are lying to your selves. They are there to serve hunters and they will always try to craft a story that you want to hear. I have nothing against hunting deer but I absolutely love nature. I understand that many of you are primarily interested in the max yield of deer and obviously that is not my angle. For me, there is more to nature than the opportunity to shoot a deer, every deer that dies a natural death is not a travesty, and a hike without the opportunity to see the track of a mountain lion is inherently cheapened.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 09:09:35 am
Oak Creek, Colorado


It is really sad that you allow your misguided anger and emotions to rule your actions to the point of being so totally irrational and threatening violence toward others that do not share your obviously uneducated and skewed view of reality.

It is not healthy to be so full of anger and hate.

My prior suggestion regarding your need for counselling continues to be justified.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 07:48:01 am
Oak Creek, Colorado

Lion and bear meat is very good eating!

Not so sure I would advocate " Why don't you just go to the pound and use dogs and cats for target practice and donate those carcasses. Or better yet, just feed your pets to the needy." in the US, but it might make sense to try. Does kind of seem to be a waste when there are immigrants here from other places that don't have hang ups about dog or cat and would be very happy to have the meat.

Lawrence Slocki_10155945912743644
Lawrence S. - posted 3 years ago on 08-13-2016 07:18:27 am

So you're going to donate the meat of the predators (such as Wolves and Cougars) to "those in need"? How magnanimous of you! Why don't you just go to the pound and use dogs and cats for target practice and donate those carcasses. Or better yet, just feed your pets to the needy.

Jacob G. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 11:51:33 pm
Delta, Utah

Allie P. so blinded by her grandiose liberal self esteem, she is completely oblivious to her own bigotry and hypocrisy. doesn't eat meat because its better for the earth while commenting on this site from her iPhone made in china! I am glad she spent a few minutes away from her drum circle to inform we simpletons of her outrage and to also enlighten we knuckle dragging troglodytes on how big of douches we are for simply having a different lifestyle form her. Thanks for the laughs Allie, now back to reading hunting illustrated.

Michael S. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 07:30:38 pm

A wild anti- appears!

I am all for the scientific management of predator and prey species but it has to be based on science, not emotion on either side. There are too many reactionary emotionally based arguments on both sides of the predator issue.

The wholesale predator eradication policies of the past are not acceptable and were never based on science and should never be repeated again.

I think eradication was a poor choice of word for the title of this article as it doesn't seem like that is the real goal of the experiment...

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 06:26:57 pm
Oak Creek, Colorado


You really should consult someone about your anger issues.

I have tried to educate and provide the facts.

You should look further into your assertion that "vegan" uses the least resources. In order to get the calories necessary to keep you alive, you have to use far more area and resources to grow the crops. The total energy expended is much higher for you than for someone eating meat and an even greater disparity to someone who hunts for even a portion of their meat. From the cultivation of what once was wildlife habitat (using diesel powered equipment), plowing, planting, use of pesticides and herbicides (yup, believe it or not even "organic" farms use them! Otherwise the bugs and birds would get it all), the harvest of those crops (again with diesel and gasoline powered equipment), the washing and preparation, and hauling to market (again with diesel and gasoline powered equipment), preservation along the way and at the market (utilizing electricity for the refrigeration and most likely chemicals to slow down spoilage).

You use a heck of a lot of energy to get your food, not to mention the much larger quantities and variety that you have to consume to cover what you are missing from not consuming meat protein. Your chosen way of life is not sustainable from an energy balance standpoint and is contrary to thousands of years of evolution and development of humans as predators.

Have you heard me screaming, ranting and raving at you for this assault on wildlife habitat and vast abuse of natural resources? No. Marching with sign around in front of public meetings to discuss how to best provide for vegans? Nope. Pushing for laws to end the senseless taking of vegetable life? Perhaps we, as hunters should start.

Hunters as a general rule do not feel the need to go make a scene. We do not push our values on you with unmitigated rage and emotion with no basis in fact. We do not push for laws against your way of life. Why do you feel the need to push your emotionally fueled beliefs on and against scientifically based management of wildlife?

It is truly sad that people functioning solely on emotion with no knowledge or experience in the matter have any say what-so-ever in any wildlife related decisions.

PS. I just saw a lion walking across a hay field on the edge of town. In broad daylight. Within a quarter mile of houses with children. As a resident of this community with grandchildren playing in their yards, it is something of grave concern.

Allie P. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 04:59:26 pm

Tavis R. Just to clarify in case this is not obvious. Can't believe I have to spell this out:
- vegan diet uses LEAST resources; for meat production obviously feed needs to be produced. Look up the numbers, they are devastating for meat consumption
- look up average US meat consumption per capita. BTW do you eat EXCLUSIVELY wild meat? Or is the intensive agriculture needed to "produce" meat added to your environmental tab... in addition to your little killing hobby that you need pretend you're a part of nature?
- do the math: average US meat consumption per capita in wild meat. How long would it take until every last deer is dead? This works if A FEW people are hunting. You can NOT extrapolate this to the whole population. That you would use this as an argument disqualifies you entirely, immediately.

Apart from being vegan, my personal contribution is mostly in $$$ to excellent organizations PROTECTING wild cats around the world. Mostly from cowards like you, who think a dead animal is a TROPHY to be proud of ("honour the animal" my ass, what a sick and twisted thought); small men that get off on pulling the trigger and taking the life of a beautiful creature from a safe distance. Repulsive.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 02:42:55 pm
Oak Creek, Colorado


I do not believe that I have made any angry or insulting comments to you or any others within this discussion. I am simply responding with the facts.

Yes, I chose to be a part of the natural world. Apparently, you do not. You might surprise yourself with how much you would actually like learning how all of it works together and how you can be a real part of it, rather than just looking at the world through a plate glass window.

I do not berate you for your beliefs or choices in diet. I do not push to stop vegetarianism nor make laws that would make it illegal to eat vegetables.

Myself and all of the other hunters and anglers in the USA have been an incredible force for over 80 years in providing opportunities for public land access and wildlife viewing that would not have been possible otherwise. We have provided the funding for the agencies that have been instrumental in bringing back numerous wildlife species from the brink of extinction to thriving, vibrant populations for the enjoyment of all.

What have you done to promote public access, wildlife habitat and scientific wildlife management?

And, yes, if you are indeed a vegetarian, you too cause the deaths of many, many animals for the cultivation, harvest and delivery of your sustenance directly or indirectly. You additionally cause the loss of many more acres of wildlife habitat to support your existence than someone who hunts for their food. It does not sound like you are willing to take responsibility for the deaths of animals nor the loss of wildlife habitat that you influence in your life.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 02:15:41 pm
Oak Creek, Colorado


Nope, I was not there but can guarantee that predators did not help Indians survive when times got tough. Pretty much the opposite. The big predators are better hunters and definitely would have been making kills when the Indians were starving. Would have fed on the Indians as well. Simply the way things work in nature.

I am quite baffled by the antagonism, anger and outright hatred that you and several others posting here are displaying. Why?

Pretty sure there would be all kinds of issues with a "wall around the state" and no predators allowed in. There would be overpopulation of numerous animal species in very short order followed by massive population crashes due to those animals either eating all the available food and starving or a disease. That is not at all what is being discussed in the article, the CPW's plan, nor by anything that I have discussed.

Unfortunately, no, hunters will not do anything to justify hunting. They tend to be very protective of the types of hunting that they agree with and viciously reject other methodologies. I have seen it over and over again where hunters do not agree and end up fighting amongst themselves and the end result is a loss of opportunity and, many times it is not in the best interest of scientific management of the resources. This is particularly true when anything is mentioned about predator management.

I really find it fascinating that the CPW even concerns themselves with any comments from the public with regard predator management. Their charge is to manage the wildlife in the state of Colorado responsibly, using scientific methods - not to pay attention to the loudest mouths. If there is a reason to eradicate predators from an area - even for study purposes - that is their prerogative, they have the authority and responsibility.

The majority of the public is so far removed from the natural world that they have absolutely no concept of what really happens in nature. Why should they have any say in wildlife management decisions? That is almost akin to asking a mechanic or carpenter to perform heart surgery.

You mention doing the "right thing". What would your solution be? Is it viable in today's world? Does it advance our knowledge with respect to management wildlife? Who gains and who loses?

Allie P. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 01:47:41 pm

Tavis R. - you should really change careers, being so excellent in remote diagnostics. So everyone who disagrees with you and with hunting and the "con" of these "conservation" arguments has anger issues? Can you not understand that an average, happy person gets angry about outrageous positions within a passionate topic? Or is it your argumentative strategy to hurl "discrediting" insults? That's a poor one.

Listen I don't care if a percentage of your gear purchases goes to "conservation" or what organizations you belong to. I'm sure you have got it all perfectly justified for yourself.

Considering yourself a part of the natural world by venturing out to KILL makes you what, a wannabe cave man? There are peaceful ways to be a part of the natural world, where nobody dies. But if that's your step within evolution, so be it.
And no, you are NOT honouring an animal by turning it into a trophy. Seriously how can people tell themselves such - thing without cracking up!? You would HONOUR that animal by observing and admiring it from afar. Taking photos with a long lens. Sit there in peace, without a weapon, be a part of it all, and let everyone go about their business and live their lives.
Not by killing it and taking this soul's only life.

We humans are, since long ago, not part of the natural world any more (habitat encroachment and the whole long list of damage we do), and we don't magically become "one with it" by going to hunt with a bow and arrow. What you do is actually not unlike the LARPs/live action role plays; except that LARP folks are peaceful and funny and you are a killer. Maybe you really fancy yourself "connected" when you kill, I'm really not surprised any more by the delusional stuff people tell themselves to justify their violent actions. I don't see how one can create connection through killing.

One thing I do agree with, if one consumes animal products (I choose not to but I respect the individual choice), it is certainly a thousand times better to eat "wild" (provided one is able to kill quickly and painlessly) than to support the atrocities that happen within industrialized animal agriculture.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 01:09:04 pm

Tavis of course you lived then and you know that predators kept the Indians from food. Bogus argument for today's times. The reality is that even if you built a wall around the state and no predators were allowed in, the deer would still decline due to all the things I have said in my previous comments. Hunters will do anything to justify hunting, I understand. Doesn't mean a strong effort shouldn't occur to do the right thing. I am done with this discussion, I am sure wildlife environmentalist and the public will make an effort to do the right thing.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 12:28:49 pm
Oak Creek, Colorado


Wow, you seem to have some very deep seated anger issues as well. Perhaps you should also consider a therapist as well.

I have and will continue to donate to conservation and public land initiatives (for your enjoyment as well as mine) for over 45 years. My purchases of hunting and fishing equipment include portions that are dedicated directly to these efforts - I am not sure how much this equates to but probably many thousands of dollars over the years. As a group, hunters and fishermen have contributed billions of dollars for this cause. You benefit from our generosity as well.

Yes, even with your anger issues, you are very welcome:)

I am a life member of over 15 excellent organizations that promote conservation and public land access and continue to support them when needed for political fights to preserve and enhance everyone's access to public lands - BLM, USFS, NPS, State, etc.

Serious about protecting Wilderness, public access, wildlife, hunting, fishing, mountain climbing, river rafting, etc, etc, etc - you betcha!

"YOU DO NOT NEED TO GO HUNTING TO PROTECT WILDERNESS" - Correct! I hunt to be a fully immersed part of the natural world - not an outsider disconnected from that incredible experience.

Yes, I am a hunter. I hunt and kill animals to be a part of nature. Primarily with a bow and arrows that I made myself. Yes, and I have even fought a few with my bare hands (although not recommended).

I greatly enjoy the preparation and pursuit as well as the sustenance for me, my family and friends. Occasionally, I get lucky and get a great trophy that I preserve for the memory of the animal and the hunt. Most of the meat that my family consumes has been killed by us, packed out on our backs, cut up at our house and prepared in our kitchen. About as organic as it gets. The pursuit and consumption of the product is about as healthy a lifestyle as I can imagine - to at least be a part of the natural world that surrounds us.

Management of wild predators as well as non-native introduced species is necessary to keep the natural system in balance in order to have adequate resources for the survival of all of those species. Yes, management does sometimes require reducing the numbers in the system. The best management tool is the recruitment of hunters or trappers that are more than happy to help manage the animals and pay for that privilege as well.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 11:26:50 am
Oak Creek, Colorado

Wow Thomas,

You appear to have some anger issues. Maybe you should go see a therapist or something...

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 11:31:44 am
Oak Creek, Colorado

Jeez, I guess I ran him off.

Heck, I didn't even get a chance to go into the asinine policies of mismanagement of wild horses (non-native species) in the western US... Bummer.

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 10:49:56 am
Oak Creek, Colorado


Lots of Native Americans starved to death before any Europeans got here. Pretty sure of that one.

Most Indians died off from the diseases that were brought over here from Europe that they had no immunity for.

Add in a few wars over land and there are not many Indians left. They were killing each other over territory before the Europeans got here for thousands of years as well so I, for one do not believe they should be entitled to everything under the sun as repayment for what is 100% natural and humane in all cultures around the world.

Yes, hunting (killing animals) has been a huge benefit for wildlife under the North American model. Without hunters, there would be little or no wildlife in North America. Hunters pushed for conservation and restoration of wildlife across the continent. As a group, hunters have funded the way to increasing wildlife and wild places for wildlife to thrive through such concepts as the National Parks System, National Wildlife Refuge System, Pittman-Robinson Act, and continuing to push for public access and public lands.

We pay for our way through taxes on the firearms and bows that we use for hunting and those taxes go to preserve and enhance public lands and wildlife.

We pay for the privilege to hunt and fish through license sales and those funds go toward not only the management of the game animals and fish that we pursue but for the preservation and restoration of endangered species and the conservation of lands and waters to perpetuate wild places.

This we have done, not only for our enjoyment, use, feeding our families, maintaining a way of life, etc, etc... but also for the enjoyment of non-hunters/non-fishermen.

You are welcome.

What have you done to enhance and improve habitat for wildlife and public access for the enjoyment of all?

Tavis R. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 10:28:07 am
Oak Creek, Colorado

Some interesting perspectives here. Obviously some with strong opinions regarding management of predators.

Yes, there are multiple impacts to mule deer populations in the western states.

Drought, loss of habitat, changes to habitat, competition with other wildlife and domestic animals, vehicle collisions, disease, hunting, predation, etc. There is no one single cause for the declines that are being noted across the mule deer range, but a combination.

Drought can have a significant impact. Dry years impact fawn survival due to less cover and less/lower quality food for the mothers to produce milk and provide for the young. However, looking at long-term trends, deer populations are declining in most of the west in drought years and not recovering in wet years. Something else is impacting the deer numbers and keeping them suppressed even when the conditions are good for the population to rebound.

Disease - CWD and others is typically an issue when the deer (or elk) numbers are very high. Most of the issues with CWD can be traced back to deer and elk in captivity. There is a minimal amount of CWD in wild populations and even in the worst impacted areas, less than 10% of the deer or elk are actually infected so this is a very minor impact on the overall population. EHD has had a significant impact in the mid-west over the last several years and really hit the whitetails. There has been minimal impact to mule deer in the mountains due to a adequate water sources and no vector (gnats) for transmitting the disease to the mule deer.

Loss of habitat is one of the biggest impacts to wildlife. The western US and Colorado in particular has had a population explosion. This impacts wildlife by development of areas that were prime winter areas with houses as well as prime summer areas with the ski area development. This puts a huge strain on wildlife that does not go away over time. It also impacts water resources that are diverted to the population centers and traffic on all the roads that causes more vehicle mortality. This impact is permanent and continuing to expand.

Mining and oil development are also an impact but to a much smaller extent. Mining and oil development occur over a much smaller percentage of the overall landscape than houses and businesses and are required to reclaim areas that are disturbed by those activities so are more temporary in nature. Seems like people like to have electricity, cars, computers, houses, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.... So I guess we will still have to keep mining for a while. If not, we are going to really have to depend on killing off everything just to survive ourselves... and, there will not be many of "ourselves" left!

Of the components that impact the population, managers can and do reduce tag numbers in areas where deer numbers are down to reduce the impacts from hunters. In some extreme cases, managers do close down entire areas to allow deer numbers to come back - Utah has several prime examples of this that have been huge successes. In several of the areas that Utah closed areas, they also implemented intensive predator control to reduce that aspect of mortality and allow the game populations to increase more rapidly. Thus, we do stop hunting the deer or other game animals when the populations are very low. Modern game management is exceptionally good in North America. If you don't believe it, go to South America sometime where hunting is not allowed and try to find any kind of wildlife.

Predators do play a huge part in game animal mortality. Lions, bears, and coyotes (and wolves) are out there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year killing game animals to survive. They do not stop hunting and killing when the populations are low and can kill and eat themselves into starvation. They end up killing a lot more game animals than human hunters over the course of the year.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, they do not "take only the old, sick and weak". They take what they can get when they can get them. Lions are the most efficient killers and will average killing one deer a week (more if there are coyotes or wolves coming in behind them and cleaning up their kills). Momma lions will wreak havoc in the spring with their cubs killing deer just to teach them how it is done. I have seen as many as 20 dead deer in an area when I picked up the trail of a female with cubs and just followed up. They were not eating their kills - just killing and the coyotes were cleaning up after them. Not many folks in the woods in April (especially in the snow!) when this activity is going on so not many people see this behavior.

After trailing a lot of lions over the years, they seem to focus on the big mature bucks and rams. Probably because the older males tend to stick to themselves in the winter after the rut.

Also contrary to what most would think, there are significant numbers of big cats all across the western US - they are cats, you don't just see them sitting out there in the open like coyotes. Due to their secretive nature, they are extremely difficult to count and even most game managers probably significantly under count how many cats are out there. I know of several big ranches in West Texas that have had continuous intensive predator control (trapping, calling, shooting on sight, areal gunning from helicopters, poisoning, etc.) for over 50 years and still continue kill lots of lions. They just keep coming. It has helped those ranches to maintain good populations of game animals and minimize losses to their livestock.

When deer and other game numbers are low and cat numbers are still high, big cats will start looking to other options - sheep, dogs, cats, endangered species, frogs, birds, cattle, even people. As previously mentioned, they are really good at killing stuff and have no problem taking out a full grown human or even a cow if they are hungry. Even "primitive" cultures like the Native Americans recognized this and also hunted the predators that were competition for the game meat that they needed to keep their families alive.

Predator control is necessary in the modern world we live in - more so than it was even back when we were living exclusively off of what we could gather and kill for food. Modern society has significantly changed the world we live in and fragmented the vast expanses of wilderness. Not managing the predators or "bringing back" the predators that our ancestors extirpated to allow for settlement of those wilderness areas brings significant consequences and destabilization of the existing natural systems with respect to the wildlife, livestock and livelihood of the people that live in these areas.

When you look at all the components that are impacting the game populations in Colorado and other western states, wild predators are the one component that consistent - good times and bad. Control of those predators is necessary in order to bring deer and other game animals back to target population numbers as well as protect people, livestock, and even endangered species. With no control of predators, we would have a very bleak and empty landscape out here in the west in very short order.

Steve L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 10:35:54 am

Terri B. Actually it is in fact true that Native Americans starved because of predators impact and this was way before any Europeans showed up. This is documented in several history books.
It's just a fact. Native Americans respected but hated predators especially the wolf. They would often seek out wolves dens to kill the cubs. Uts completely true. It is only the "modern Native American" that us pro wolf and that is because they have been bought off buy the feds and many so called animal rights groups.
I do not mind working together. We have, finding a balance is key but when you start talking about "nature balances itself" that's just not true. Maybe hundreds of years ago but man has meddled so much that you just can't say leave it be or "preserve" it. You can see the results from the dying forests and wolves wiping out whole populations of deer and moose.
Quote from a IDFG official "the wolves in the Lolo zone have all but wiped out the elk that once numbered close to 19,000. Now the wolves have moved on to killing black bears, mule deer and rabbits" Does that sound like balance to you?
I am all for balance and looking at any issues but you just can not ignore the impacts predators have.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 10:13:45 am

Native americans did not starve due to predator impact, they starved due to the whiteman's impact. There are other places to hunt beside Colorado, but if you don't stop the real reasons killing your deer, there may be no more deer or wildlife. I hope your own personal goals does not get in the way of your rational side. You sound like a very rational person. Predators have families and are just trying to feed themselves and their young. Nature balances itself, when we leave it alone. We all have to put aside our wants and look to preserve for all or there will be none for any. I would like for all of us to work together to solve a problem, not work against one another.

Steve L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 09:35:13 am

Terri B. You don't have to send me your research I believe you. Human encroachment is a huge problem and I do not discount oil, gas and mining issues. It all plays a part but over population of predators is a problem to. And yes predator and man are competing for the same resource as far as deer but I make no apologies for wanting a low predator count so I have a better chance of getting a deer. That's just the way it is and has been for centuries.
Native Americans starved to death many times because predators had such a huge impact especially wolves. It was a cycle as you may know. Predators up followed by game populations down, predator numbers would go back down after they depleted the game population then game numbers would come back up. All while Native Americans where trying to get their share.
I do not think it's asking to much for a balance. Rewilding and Preservationist utopia will not work. Not now.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 09:13:55 am

Killing nature to save nature does not make any sense. There is no accurate way to actually count all of the deer or predators. It is estimated, and calculating how much the predator can kill is also estimated. Not necessarily accurate, however the impacts of humans can be analyzed. Your focus should be on managing and creating habitat for all species of animals. However, like most humans we choose to ignore the obvious, because it is easier to kill the predators. Killing the predator is not a scientific choice, nor should it be. Mule deer are in decline all over the country in areas even where there are no predators. It is the human factor. We either have to change the way we develop our resources or loose them, predators and all prey species such as deer. I don't blame hunters, I blame the way we develop our lands with no regards for the impacts that occur. We have to develop wiser and smarter, get away from destroying the environment especially if we all want to maintain our ways of life. Colorado has done the studies that show what is destroying the mule deer, killing the predators is a copout because no one wants to do the hard work to solve the real problem.

Allie P. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 09:13:01 am

The ignorance of the human species towards the consequences of their own actions is nothing new. It's everywhere, in fact. And it's so damn easy to just answer with blame and killing instead of tackling the real issues. The American default, really.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Fish & Wildlife is the most atrocious, shady institution across the country.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 08:59:08 am

Steve, you are obviously a hunter, just so you know I am not opposed to hunting. However, I have done my research in fact I can send it to you. There have been studies done since the 90's that show that development, housing, fracking, loss of habit, kills on roadways, poaching. disease, loss of best foraging areas, etc have caused the mule deer population to decline. Maybe the focus should be on preserving habitat for the deers which need a large area to forage in. I can go on an on. There is nothing significant about killing the predator, just lessens the competition and an easy scapegoat when it is harder to deal with land development interests. Washington and Oregon are having the same problems as Colorado. Development, fracking, disease, human impacts on foraging areas for the deer. Killing the predators will not solve the problem. Sort of a back end approach, when you can't control the political interests of the developers and oil companies. Sad way to approach a problem. Let me know if you want me to send you all the studies done in Colorado, since the early 90's by your state. May shock you. Not the predator, but the human factor.

Steve L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 08:42:47 am

Terri B. Please do some research on how many hunters actually kill a year per unit. It's not as many as you think. Predators and even vehicles kill way more than hunters.
Taking out predators in a unit and seeing the results is science. Maybe the next step is closing a unit to hunting and seing the results but that has bee done in Oregon and Washington and the results were that hunters did not make any significant difference especially long term.
I don't think you realize how many deer a cougar and beer kills each year especially new born deer.
Cougars alone kill about one deer a week. More when they have cubs. So conservatively let's say 40 deer a year. Maybe not that significant in your eyes but a Hunter kills one a year. Two if he has a special tag and hunter success rate over 40% is considered fantastic.
So if you have 200 or three hundred cats in a unit which is not uncommon in the west. Well you do the math.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 08:03:59 am

There is no science in just selecting predators that is like blaming immigrants for the loss of jobs.?A good scientist would look at all possibilities. Wasting disease hag been an issue in the past and loss of habitat is impacting wildlife all over the country. To have a real study you would need to take the hunter out of the equation as well, also a predator to have a factual study. How many mule deer do you really need for the hunting population?

Steve L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 07:51:01 am

To all who have commented no matter what let's try letting science figure this one out.
I personally do not think that gas, oil and mining has nearly as much impact as some people think only because I have seen plenty of deer and elk hanging around theses types of processes and even fawning near them. Encroachment is definitely a problem in certain areas. Taking out predators in select units will show what happens and there is no shortage of predators. Keeping things in balance and still letting humans use natural resources including harvesting animals to eat needs to be science based. There is no way you can just not let any emotion in when dealing with a subject like this but you have to try to let science win over your emotions even if the science shows that predators are not the main cause.

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 07:38:41 am

It is probably more likely wasting disease fracking or other issues causing the problem. Predators are more likely not the problem. I hope this is looked at with a neutral view and a scientific review with a third party analysis.

Allie P. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 07:40:09 am

"Not everyone believes that predators are to blame and, instead, point fingers at oil and gas development, which opponents to the predator control project say has also greatly impact mule deer habitat. While that may be possible, it’s beyond what CPW is able to control."

It is NO question that human encroachment has an impact on habitats. And it is NOT "beyond what CPW is able to control" - we MUST change energy sources that don't devastate natural environments.

Mule deer are, as hunting "material", an ECONOMIC RESOURCE in the eyes of CO Parks & Wildlife. They see numbers of their precious COMMODITY decline. So the "logical" next step is to KILL predators, so that the human predator ends up with more mule deer to kill. Disgusting and immoral every step of the way.

People like Warren L. are plain disgusting. There is nothing to excuse and nothing scientific about killing predators, in order to get the numbers of a commodity up for profit and more killing.
Warren here, poor uneducated, delusional, immigrant-hating right winger (go check his facebook profile!), gets out the old "bleeding heart" insult, but can't even spell "heart". It's not an insult, Warren - showing empathy with fellow living creatures is noble and morally right. YOU are the scum of the country.

Warren L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-12-2016 06:41:29 am
Shelton, CT.

Believe me Terri B, all possibilities will be looked at. All (wild life) is managed by solid Scientific information gathered by professional people. (Unless some bleeding hart that knows nothing of what they speak takes a
disc ion to court and wins, because of a stupid ass judge.)

Terri Bumgardner_10207053376839784
Terri B. - posted 3 years ago on 08-11-2016 06:00:16 pm

A more valued study would be first to look at all impacts, development, fracking, deer kill along freeways, instead of picking on a competitive specie which doesn't have the ability to participate in the decision. Seems that this study is weighted in favor of hunters and not the predators.

Steve L. - posted 3 years ago on 08-11-2016 09:43:50 am

Aria W. Did you read the whole article or just the Click Bait headline? They are not going to eliminate all predators Niall if Colorado.
If you knew more about hunting you would know that hunters only take a very small percentage of deer compared to predators and vehicles.
That's a fact you can research.
Taking out predators in certain units to see the results will let them understand more about how much real impact predators have on deer than they will be able to set predator objectives from there.

Arie Withrow_1667556826900116
Arie W. - posted 3 years ago on 08-11-2016 09:14:56 am

Disgusting, hunters should just stop hunting them until the population heals. Wiping out two species just for the benefit of humans so they can hunt something else.