ISSUES SUBMITTAL FORM

Transcription

1 Date: 08/20/13 ISSUE: Should the use of drones (unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely) be prohibited as an aid in the scouting, hunting and taking of wildlife? The issue of using drones as an aid in the scouting, hunting and taking of wildlife has become an emerging issue the last couple of years, especially in the more open country habitats such as Colorado and many western states that are not heavily forested. There are increasing YouTube videos this year showing the use of a drone to scout for mule deer, a man stalking a moose with the aid of a drone, or a drone with night vision and heat-sensing technology being used to detect and kill feral hogs. There is concern that this technology which is getting cheaper and better can be used in the scouting, hunting and taking of Colorado s wildlife, in particular mule deer on open winter range and highly sought after and limited hunting opportunities for the big game species such as Bighorn Sheep, Rocky Mountain Goat and Moose. The use of this technology violates the principles of fair chase and fair opportunity. One might question, what is the difference in the advances of technology such as the using of a trail camera to scout for wildlife which CPW currently allows (some states don t) versus the use of a camera mounted drone to scout for wildlife? With a trail camera the person has to physically get to the location of where the trail camera is to be placed. The camera view is static and limited to the capability of the camera and how it is placed and what type of sensors are used to trip the camera. With a camera mounted drone the person does not have to physically be in the area where the drone is and the range of the drone away from the person is only limited by the technology used which can be several miles. Also the zoom capability technology has advanced where the camera can be zoomed in at greater distances with good clarity. Colorado statute ( , C.R.S.) that covers the use of aircraft and the federal Airborne Hunting Act are inadequate because it never was contemplated back when those laws were enacted the use of this technology of an unmanned aircraft. The intent is to put a regulation in place as a stop-gap measure as ideally this should be addressed in statute. Much the same way that CPW adopted a regulation prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting until it was placed in statute in , C.R.S. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS The issue and concern was first brought to law enforcement at the Colorado State University Short Course for Wildlife Management in the spring of Due to the increase of publicity in the spring of 2013 on the use of drones for applications outside of the military realm there has been several questions and concerns come into CPW as it relates to drones and hunting or drones used as a tool to harass legitimate hunters (Intentional interference with lawful hunting activities is in , C.R.S. and language is sufficient to cover the use of drones as hunter harassment). The use of drones was discussed at the April Reg Review meeting and the consensus was to bring the drone issue forward when Chapter 0 came open for the November Reg Review meeting. The Colorado Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers has also drafted a position statement that they believe this technology (use of drones) represents a widespread opportunity for abuse, and if not regulated poses a significant threat to fair chase hunting and fair distribution of hunting opportunity. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Add a new section C to CPW #W-004 W-004 Aids in Taking Wildlife. C. A PERSON SHALL T USE A DRONE AS AN AID TO LOOK FOR, SCOUT, OR DETECT WILDLIFE AS AN AID IN THE HUNTING OR TAKING OF WILDLIFE. 1. DRONE IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY CONTRIVANCE INVENTED, USED OR DESIGNED THAT IS USED FOR NAVIGATION OF, OR FLIGHT IN THE AIR THAT IS UNMANNED AND GUIDED REMOTELY. DRONES MAY ALSO BE

2 REFERRED TO AS UMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) OR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS (UAVS). 2. W-004 Aids in Taking Wildlife. C. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL T USE A DRONE AS AN AID TO LOOK FOR, SCOUT, OR DETECT WILDLIFE AS AN AID IN THE HUNTING OR TAKING OF WILDLIFE. 1. DRONE IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY CONTRIVANCE INVENTED, USED OR DESIGNED THAT IS USED FOR NAVIGATION OF, OR FLIGHT IN THE AIR THAT IS UNMANNED AND GUIDED REMOTELY. DRONES MAY ALSO BE REFERRED TO AS UMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) OR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS (UAVS). 2. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO T APPLY WHERE HUMAN HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONCERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL WILDLIFE IN CONFLICT WITH HUMANS IS AN ISSUE FOR A PERSON WHO: a. IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE OR AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THIS STATE; AN EMPLOYEE OF A MUNICIPAL OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THIS STATE; OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 3. Status Quo Issue Raised by: Bob Thompson/Brett Ackerman (if different than person raising the Bob Thompson HEATHER DUGAN

3 Date: 08/27/13 ISSUE: Should there be an addition to CPW Regulation #007D1 to require that any captive cervids imported into the state be from a herd that has been under surveillance for CWD for a period of at least 60 months unless CPW and the Department of Agriculture agree otherwise that the associated risk is negligible? Under Colorado Department of Agriculture regulations 8 CCR Part 4.1, all alternative livestock imported into Colorado shall be from a herd that has been under surveillance for Chronic Wasting Disease for a period of at least 60 months unless CPW and the DOA agree otherwise that the associated risk is negligible. Under the Alternative livestock statutes, alternative livestock is defined to be domestic elk and fallow deer. These are members of the Cervidae family. Presently, CPW Regulation #006B6 Transportation of Live Wildlife does require the 60 month CWD surveillance as condition of authorization for movement of live deer or elk into a commercial park. However, this deals primarily with intrastate movement. While existing protocol for importation does follow the CDOA 60 month rule, there is potential that commercial parks could import from a facility with less than 60 month surveillance. As CPW does still license some commercial parks for the possession of captive cervids and movement of additional animals into Colorado to those facilities without adequate surveillance for CWD could have negative impacts on the alternative livestock industry, it would be appropriate for CPW regulations to be similar to DOA to avoid potential disease transmission. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS Commercial Parks licensed for possession of members of the Cervidae family. Alternative livestock producers. CPW personnel ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Create CPW Regulation #007D.1 All captive wild ungulates shall: e. If in the Cervidae family, originate from a herd that has been under surveillance for Chronic Wasting Disease for a period of at least 60 months unless CPW and the Department of Agriculture agree otherwise that the associated risk is negligible. 2. Status Quo Issue Raised by: Mark Caddy and Mike Miller (if different than person raising the Tony Gurzick PATT DORSEY

4 Date: 8/27/13 ISSUE: Should all species in the family Cervidae not already defined as alternative livestock or unregulated wildlife be added to CPW Regulation #008B with exemptions for those commercial parks already in possession of and licensed to have such species? Currently, several Parks and Wildlife Commission regulations prohibit people from possessing live members of the Cervidae family in Colorado with the exception of species defined as alternative livestock and 6 commercial park facilities. It is clear from our existing regulations that the intent of the Parks and Wildlife Commission is to prohibit privately owned cervids. However while this prohibition is found in several regulations, it is possible for a person to transport members of the Cervidae family through Colorado which could jeopardize native wildlife. This issue would add all members of the Cervidae family to the prohibited list with the exception of alternative livestock and "grandfathered" commercial parks. Pertinent regulations are CPW Reg #008A, 008B, 007B, 1102.A.5, and 1103.A. Relevant Colorado Department of Agriculture statute (1). As of renewal for 2012 there are six commercial parks licensed for some species of deer in the family Cervidae. These include Mule Deer, Sika Deer (an Asian cousin to the Red Deer), and Pere David s Deer and elk. Several of these commercial parks are also licensed by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as alternative livestock farms and possess elk and/or fallow deer. Sika deer have been crossbred with native elk, to produce Silk deer. There is also a free roaming hunted population of Sika deer in the Northeast United States, primarily in Maryland. However, the population appears to be expanding and moving south. Pere David s deer has been crossbred with Red Deer producing viable offspring. While the biological reasoning for not allowing members of the family Cervidae into the state is easy to explain in that Colorado wishes to protect and maintain the genetic purity and health of its wild deer and elk herds, the only members whose actual importation is prohibited are Red Deer, White-tailed Deer, and hybrids of any Cervidae with elk. Other members of the family Cervidae could actually be imported into the state, providing all health requirements (CPW Reg #007) are met and the importer had the appropriate license from the state of origin, for the purpose of slaughter. Existing regulations do not specifically state that the appropriate commercial or non-commercial park license must be a license issued by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, thus a licensed facility from another state could bring mule deer or other species into the state provided that there was no plan to release the animals. This mirrors the requirement for harvested animals, in that Colorado does not prevent the importation of a harvested animal into the state provided the hunter has a legal license from the state of origin and the animal was harvested in a legal manner. In 2010, a request was received via the Colorado Department of Agriculture from a Red deer producer in Arizona to transport Red deer into Colorado to a slaughter facility specializing in venison production. The importation was stopped due to the prohibition of Red deer. Had the importation been approved, the Red deer would have been transported through some of Colorado s premier elk habitat. While the potential for an accidental release is indeed slight, it has happened with domestic animals such as bison. It would only take one such vehicle accident to place undesired species into prime habitat. Some members of the Cervidae family have documented food habitats that could threaten native wildlife. Muntjac deer are known to feed on carrion, kill smaller animals, and eat eggs of ground nesting birds. Pere David s deer is native to marshes and wetland areas much like the Moose. The addition of all members of the Cervidae family; except those listed as a domestic animal, those

5 defined as alternative livestock by the Department of Agriculture, and for those facilities already licensed to possess members of the family and currently in possession; to the prohibited species list would help insure genetic purity of native deer and elk, reduce the potential for disease transmission, bring more consistency to the regulations and solidify the Parks and Wildlife Commission s intent to prohibit the importation of all cervids into the state. Alternative 1 Only allows those Commercial Parks licensed for cervids and in actual possession at the time of prohibition to be grandfathered for continued possession. Alternative 2 Allows any Commercial Park licensed for cervids to be grandfathered even if not in possession of animals. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS Commercial Park License holders currently permitted to possess some species of deer No input. CPW field personnel Input from SW, NW, SE, and NE Regions, SW Terrestrial, Terrestrial Research Animal health. General public license holder and hunter Colorado Depart of Agriculture Contact pending depending upon legal counsel review and Reg Review decision. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: All members of the family Cervidae not already designated as alternative livestock by Colorado Department of Agriculture statute or unregulated wildlife (domestic) by rule or regulation of the Commission. Only Commercial parks licensed for species in the family Cervidae prior to 11/14/2013 and currently in possession of authorized species will be allowed to continue possession. 2. All members of the family Cervidae not already designated as alternative livestock by Colorado Department of Agriculture statute or unregulated wildlife (domestic) by rule or regulation of the commission. All Commercial Parks licensed for species in the family Cervidae prior to 11/14/2013 will be allowed to possess those species on their license. 3. Status Quo Issue Raised by: Mark W. Caddy (if different than person raising the T. Gurzick PATT DORSEY

6 Date: 08/05/13 ISSUE: Should placing or depositing minerals or salt for big game be unlawful statewide or in CWD positive counties? The current regulation regarding feeding and attracting wildlife is below: # 021 FEEDING OR ATTRACTING WILDLIFE A. Except as provided in subsections (A)(1-4) of this regulation no person shall place, deposit, distribute or scatter grain, hay, or other foods so as to intentionally constitute a lure, attraction or enticement for big game not lawfully held in captivity. B. In the counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Douglas, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick, Washington and Weld, it shall be unlawful to place or deposit minerals or salt in area as to constitute a lure or attractant for big game. Nothing in this regulation shall restrict the use of salt or mineral blocks in normal agricultural practices. Placing salt or minerals in an area can create artificially high concentrations of big game animals. Baiting big game ungulates such as deer, elk, and moose has been shown to aid in the transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). One of the commonly believed modes of transmission from an infected animal is through saliva and feces. There are numerous counties in Colorado that have CWD positive populations of deer, elk and moose. Moose currently experience a low CWD prevalence. Salt and mineral licks create congregations of various species that normally have minimal physical contact. Moose, elk, and deer have been observed licking the same salt or mineral lick, enhancing disease transmission between species. The current regulation doesn t address most of the CWD positive counties in Colorado. The spread of CWD across Colorado is a significant threat to deer, elk, and moose populations. Prohibiting the use of salt and minerals for wildlife in all of Colorado will help slow the spread of the disease. Baiting of ungulates with salt or minerals also creates significant human safety concerns. Population of deer, elk, or moose, can be dangerous when attracted into an urban/semi urban environment. Deer, elk, and moose can in turn attract predators such as mountain lions and black bears because of their presence. The placing or depositing of minerals or salt can create significant law enforcement challenges. Currently baiting is defined as: "Baiting" means the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of any salt, mineral, grain, or other feed so as to constitute a lure, attraction or enticement for wildlife Baiting big game is prohibited in regulation. #004 AIDS IN TAKING WILDLIFE A. Aids Used in Taking Big Game, Small Game and Furbearers - Except as expressly authorized by these regulations, the use of baits and other aids in taking big game, small game and furbearers is prohibited. There are law enforcement challenges when dealing with hunters who place salt or minerals in areas to attract big game. There is some ambiguity to decide when the salt or mineral is no longer considered a lure, attraction, or enticement. Salt and minerals can remain in the soil for months to years even when they are visibly absent. Hunters that place salt or minerals can create numerous sites that are difficult to monitor and unless the hunter is hunting over the salt or mineral, it is very difficult to enforce. Placing salt and minerals is becoming an increasingly common issue. Hunters in some counties can currently place

7 salt or minerals to watch animals and no legal action can be taken. There are also hunters who hunt travel routes to and from known bait sites. There is a large temptation for people who that put out salt or minerals to hunt over them. There are documented cases where sites are actively managed and watched year round, however hunting over the site is relatively short in duration and is difficult to enforce. The current regulation (004) discusses take of wildlife, however does not mention hunting. Modifying # 004 to incorporate hunting in addition to take would allow for enforcement when someone is hunting but has not taken wildlife. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS CPW staff has discussed internally on the concerns of salt and mineral licks in CWD positive areas. There have also been internal discussions on closing baiting loopholes. Area 9 and Area 6 Staffs. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: #021 It shall be unlawful to place or deposit minerals or salt in area so as to constitute a lure or attractant for wildlife. Nothing in this regulation shall restrict the use of salt or mineral blocks in normal agricultural practices. (Applies statewide). #004 A. Aids Used in Hunting or Taking Big Game, Small Game and Furbearers - Except as expressly authorized by these regulations, the use of baits and other aids in hunting or taking big game, small game and furbearers is prohibited 2. Status Quo Issue Raised by: Scott Murdoch, Bailey Franklin, Area 9 and 6 (if different than person raising the Lyle Sidener, Bill DeVergie, Ron Velarde, Brad Petch, Mike Miller, Lisa Wolfe RON VELARDE

8 Date: 09/17/13 ISSUE: Should the boundaries of GMU 95 and 951 be realigned? This GMU boundary realignment groups together geographically similar big game populations. Deer and Pronghorn density and deer species differ widely across GMU 95. Deer and Pronghorn populations in the West panhandle of GMU 95 are more closely aligned with populations and management objectives of GMU 951 than the Eastern portion of GMU 95. This new boundary will also more closely align with CPW area boundaries. The boundary change should not have a significant change in the number of preference points required to draw a license. GMU boundary realignment will not result in any significant modifications in the DAU objectives for the affected DAU plans. Both GMUs are part of pronghorn DAU PH-1. This proposal would increase the surface area of low-density deer habitat in 951 (DAU D-44) while removing that same footprint from D-5. This proposed change would move 337 sq. miles of GMU 95 (currently 1,080 sq. mi.) into GMU 951 (currently 565 sq. mi.). WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS Area 3 and 4 DWMs, AWMs, Wildlife Biologists and Senior NE Biologist.

9 ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Change GMU 951 boundary language to: Those portions of Weld and Morgan counties bounded on the north by Colo 14; on the east by Weld Co Rd 105 to Weld Co Rd 74/Morgan Co Rd KK, West to Morgan Co Rd 2, South to Colo 144; on the south by I-76, and on the west by Weld Co Rd 49, US 34, and US 85. Change GMU 95 boundary language to: Those portions of Weld, Logan, Morgan and Washington counties bounded on the North by Colo 14; on the East and South by U.S. 6, Logan Co Rd s 6 and 17.7, Washington Co Rd 58, Morgan CR W.5, 28, W, 13.5 and W.5, Colo 144 and Morgan Co Rd Status quo Issue Raised by: B. Muller, T. Florian (if different than person raising the B. Muller, T. Florian KATHI GREEN

10 Date: 08/20/13 ISSUE: Should the S-68 boundaries be changed to include only the Northern Sangres, while incorporating the portion currently along the Arkansas River into S-49? Bighorn sheep historically inhabited the alpine portion of the Northern Sangre De Cristo range; however, the population suffered a die-off and disappeared from the range sometime in the 1980s. In 2010 and 2011, CPW successfully reintroduced 22 bighorn sheep from the Southern Sangres (S-9) into the alpine of the Northern Sangres (S-68). Since the reintroductions, annual helicopter surveys indicate the population is doing well and lamb production has been good. Our current estimate for the Northern Sangres is > 40 sheep. The Northern Sangres are currently included in unit S-68; however, the unit boundaries are somewhat confusing and the unit has two distinct sub-groups of sheep. One is in the Northern Sangres and the second is along the Arkansas River south of Cotopaxi. One complicating factor in managing this sheep herd is interchange of sheep between the Arkansas River portion of S-68 and S-49 to the east. Radio collar data from sheep collared as part of the Over the River sheep mitigation project indicates the Ark River corridor sheep in S-68 are part of the same population inhabiting unit S-49 and the herd regularly crosses back and forth across the current S-68/S-49 boundary of Colo Hwy 69. We suggest that a boundary change would help us in two ways. First, it would allow us to focus harvest on the newly established population in the Northern Sangres. Second, it would simplify the boundary between S-49 and S-68, while making it more biologically relevant. With this change, we would suggest changing the name of the S-68 unit from Cotopaxi to Northern Sangre De Cristos.

11 Current S-68 Boundaries: Cotopaxi (Chaffee, Fremont, Saguache) bounded on N by the South Arkansas River, Arkansas River, Fremont CR 12 bridge, and US 50; on E by Colo 69; on S by the Fremont-Custer and Fremont-Saguache Co lines, USFS 970 (Hayden Pass Rd), and Saguache CR LL 57; and on W by US 285. Current S-49 Boundaries: Grape Creek/Copper Ridge (Custer, Fremont) bounded on N by US 50; on E by Colo 67; on S by Colo 96; and on W by Colo 69. Proposed S-68 Boundaries: Northern Sangre De Cristos (Chaffee, Fremont, Saguache) bounded on N by the South Arkansas River and Arkansas River; on E by Fremont CR 6 and USFS 6 (Hayden Pass Rd); on S by USFS 970 (Hayden Pass Rd), and Saguache CR LL 57; and on W by US 285. Proposed S-49 Boundaries: Grape Creek/Copper Ridge (Custer, Fremont) bounded on N by US 50; on E by Colo 67; on S by Colo 96; and on W by Colo 69, Fremont-Custer and Fremont-Saguache Co lines, USFS 6 (Hayden Pass Rd) and Fremont CR 6. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS Area 13 and Area 11 staff Bighorn sheep hunters ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. *Preferred Alternative*: Change the S-68 and S-49 boundaries and change the name of unit S-68 from Cotopaxi to Northern Sangre De Cristos. Proposed new hunt codes: None Hunt codes which would be eliminated include: None 2. Status Quo: No change Issue Raised by: Jamin Grigg, Allen Vitt, Brian Dreher (if different than person raising the Jamin Grigg Area 13, Area 11, Andy Holland, Brian Dreher, Dan Prenzlow DAN PRENZLOW

12 Date: 7/2/13 ISSUE: Should the boundary between S-36 and S-22 be changed to better reflect local bighorn sheep populations? Due to a disease outbreak that significantly impacted bighorns in S-36, this unit has been closed to bighorn sheep hunting since Since that time, bighorn sheep populations have slowly increased to an estimated current population of approximately bighorn sheep. A helicopter flight in August 2010 showed a total of 67 bighorn within the proposed boundary area of S-36. Included in those numbers of sheep, staff observed 14 rams ranging in size from 1/2 to 7/8 curl. Monitoring efforts have shown that S36 sheep are utilizing portions of S22 and that they are distinct from the core population in S22 since the rams that utilize this area move in to S36 for the rut and breed S36 ewes. S-22, S-36, S-52 and S-53 are all within DAU RBS-22. Based on this information, this issue paper proposes moving the boundary between S-22 and S-36 north to include the Dry Gulch/Farmer s Creek area. This realignment better defines the S36 sub-population of sheep by encompassing the land utilized by the rams associated with S-36. The S-36 bighorn population is recovering and is a huntable population. The discovery that the rams north of the unit boundary are associated with the sheep in S36 only solidifies the fact that this population has reached the point that it can support hunting. Some S-22 hunters have found these S-36 sheep and have taken rams in this area. This is creating a situation where CPW is not meeting its harvest objective in S-22 because hunters are essentially harvesting rams from the S-36 population. Changing the unit boundaries would better reflect local bighorn sheep populations and distribute harvest in a more biologically consistent manner.

13 WHO ARE THE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL PUBLICS IN THIS ISSUE? WHAT INPUT PROCESS HAS Internal This issue has been raised by DWM Brent Woodward. It has been discussed with Area 17 Terrestrial Biologist Stephanie Steinhoff, Area 16 Terrestrial Biologist Brandon Diamond, AWM Rick Basagoitia and SW Senior Terrestrial Biologist Scott Wait. External Local hunters and residents have expressed support of this issue and to the opening of S-36 to hunting. ALTERNATIVES: (POSSIBLE OUTCOMES or POSSIBLE REGULATIONS): 1. * Preferred Alternative *: Move the S-36 unit boundary to the north, which would consolidate this bighorn sheep population within one game management unit. Moving this boundary would enable CPW to open S-36 to bighorn sheep hunting. This is preferred by Area 16 and 17. The proposed wording for WC Regulation #024 is: UNIT S36 Bellows Creek - Those portions of Mineral, Rio Grande and Saguache counties bounded on the north by USFS Trail 787 to Halfmoon Pass; on the east by the Mineral/Saguache county line and an all terrain vehicle trail also known as the La Garita Driveway, USFS Rd 630 and Rio Grande Cty. Rds 15 and 18; and on the south and southwest by US Hwy 160 and the Rio Grande River to the Deep Creek Bridge; on the west by Mineral Cty Rd 806, Colo. Hwy 149, and USFS Road 504. UNIT S22 San Luis Peak - Those portions of Hinsdale, Mineral and Saguache counties bounded on the north by USFS Rd 788, Hinsdale Co Rds 5, 15, and 45, Saguache Co Rds KK-14 and NN-14; on the east by the Continental Divide, USFS Rd 787, and the La Garita Wilderness Boundary; on the south by USFS Trail 787 (La Garita Stock Driveway), USFS Rd 504, and Colo Hwy 149; and on the west by USFS Rd 507, USFS Trails 803, 787, 473 and Colo Hwy Status quo This would continue to keep S-36 as a closed bighorn sheep unit and allow S-22 hunters to harvest rams which the S-36 bighorn sheep population relies on for breeding of resident ewes. Issue Raised by: Brent Woodward, DWM Creede (if different than person raising the Rick Basagoitia, Scott Wait PATT DORSEY