Update: We continue to have great discussion about this topic and as such we wanted to provide more data/learning information. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife gave a presentation to the Eagle County Board of commissioners on 11.1.2023. You can view that presentation here: Tuesday afternoon 10.31.2023 meeting
The presentation starts around the 40 minute mark. There is some great explanation about management plans as well as management targets and other data.
Here is some context on HTC's decision to push back on closing part or all of what is currently open of Haymaker in the winter:
We are basing our decision on data provided by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). We would urge people to get up to speed on this data so you have context:
Read up on the recommendations from the consulting group that the Town hired. This is from the open house on the 18th - https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a6943b26-1d5d-32f8-9a98-3b5c105d4306
Be sure that you know the actual numbers for our Elk herd that are collected and posted by the CPW. These numbers are what the CPW uses to manage the herd and determine the number of hunting licenses, when to cull predators, and how to mitigate other herd disturbance such as human recreation and land development.
Our management area is E16 (GMU 44, 444, 45, 57) - You can read the entire management plan by going here: https://cpw.state.co.us/.../pages/herdmanagementplans.aspx
To summarize from that document:
Have a look at the last herd estimates that come from the 2022 post hunt survey that the CPW conducted. Here is the summary:
You can see these numbers here: https://cpw.state.co.us/.../2022ElkPopulationEstimates.pdf
You can see historic estimates here: https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/Statistics-Elk.aspx
Based on the numbers that the CPW manages to, we talked with our local CPW enforcement officer, and he confirmed our assumption that the CPW would likely raise the number of cow tags issued next year to bring the herd back down to management target limits. Great news for hunters and something we should all be aware of.
Lastly, we want to also address something we’ve heard referenced at public meetings: the calf/cow ratio. As you can see in the E16 management plan, the calf/cow ratio has been going down year over year since 1969 - 2011 (there is not more public information than that as far as we can find). The CPW also does not post these estimates and we've been told they do not manage to this number, so we've had a hard time really finding meaningful data, but from the management plan you can read:
"The post-hunt calf:cow ratio, expressed as calves per 100 cows, is used as an index of herd productivity. This index grossly reflects the combined summer natality and summer-to-early winter survival rate of calves relative to cows. E-16 DAU plan (2013) 20 In E-16, the post-hunt calf:cow ratio has been in a general decline for almost the past 2 decades (Figure 9). In the 1970s and 1980s, the calf ratio was relatively stable, averaging 57 (excluding an outlier observation in 1975) in the 1970s; 56 calves:100 cows in the 1980s; and 54 in the 1990s. However, the observed calf ratio began declining in the late 1990s, and by the 2000s, the average was 40. The current 3-year average (2009-2011) is 35."
The document does not specify what a healthy ratio should be or what, if any target the CPW has, but we asked our CPW officer, and he said 65 is where it should be. We also started looking at current draft management plans that mentioned a healthy number for other areas should be 35 - 45 and our current data says 35. We were told by the CPW officer that he can't comment on draft plans, so we'll leave them out of this discussion. We can't give more meaningful data or insight than that, but we can say the herd has grown year over year for the last 4 seasons that we looked at which you can see from post hunt estimates (2019: 6180, 2020: 6970, 2021: 7597, 2022: 8511) so it would seem that the herd is reasonably productive. We just want to make sure we provide any context we have on this data point as you may have heard it referenced in public meetings. We are not a biologist and we don’t know what a healthy target should be here unless we’re given that data from the CPW, but it's just more data we should all consider.
The next point of contention here is the Haymeadow development.
You can see the site plan here: https://haymeadow.com/site-plan/
As you probably know phase one is already being built and directly adjacent to the first loop of the trail. There is also a paved walking path that will remain open even though the soft surface trail would be closed (you can read more about that in the ERO plan above). This will be exactly how we keep the paved trails open in Eagle Ranch during the winter, but close the bike trails. Think about the snow removal machines that run in Eagle Ranch on those paved paths and the people that use them for recreation. It will be the same in Haymeadow. Next, you can see phase two of the development will be directly adjacent to the second loop of the trail.
It feels very hypocritical to close public land to recreation but allow a large development to run and operate in the same disturbance area.
HTC, VVMTA, and other user groups in Eagle have made many decisions to close trails, not build new trails in sensitive area, and work with land managers to mitigate our impact. You can read about that in the many public trail plans and environmental assessments we've been involved in.
We decided to share this because the HTC board had a lot of questions about this issue during the open house on the 18th and we want everyone to know we are trying to find a reasonable balance between recreation and wildlife protection. Please remember the majority of our trails are closed to protect wintering wildlife, we did not oppose closing loops 3 & 4 of Haymaker and we help support and run eduction campaigns to improve compliance with closures.
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to email at info@hardscrabbletrailscoalition.com
