Wolves anyone???

[jmg]

I found this while surfing...

http://www.bakercityherald.com/news/...?story_no=5654

[ehunter]

Maybe they should open the wolfe season then he find it credible when he saw some dead wolves in person

Originally Posted by jmg

I found this while surfing...

http://www.bakercityherald.com/news/...?story_no=5654

[elkaholic]

No thank you, I'm trying to quit!!!!!!

Can you say - "breeding pairs" - in the spring??

Lock in the current numbers of hunting opportunities and game counts and watch the next 10-20 years. The outcome is predictable.

ELK

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by elkaholic

No thank you, I'm trying to quit!!!!!!

Can you say - "breeding pairs" - in the spring??

Lock in the current numbers of hunting opportunities and game counts and watch the next 10-20 years. The outcome is predictable.

ELK

ODFW's MO's which are dictated by rancher complaints has and will continue to have an order of magnitude greater effect than wolves will in our life times. This will give a good scapegoat like coyotes, cougars and poachers already do. Its not to say that these factors don't have an effect, even a measureable one, but private landowner complaints account for tens of thousands of less animals on public land. A 5000 head elk MO in the Ochoco is ****** sad.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

BM, I poached this directly from another site, This what happened in a perfect world scenario, imagine what will happen in oregon. I personally hope those wolves running around find the same fate as the rest of the known wolves in oregon so far. I just hope they remember there shovels this time.


Here is an article I found online, posted on the www.yellowstonepark.com site.
It summarizes a study completed in 2005.

--Wolves are altering the abundance, distribution, group sizes, movements and vigilance of elk. There are some indications that these interactions may be causing new growth in willows as elk are kept on the move by wolves and don't stay to browse in any one area very long.

--Elk are the primary prey for wolves, comprising 92 percent of kills during the winter.

--In the early stages of wolf recovery (1995-2000) predation effects were not detected because the elk count was similar to 1980-1994.

--Counts of elk decreased significantly from 16,791 in winter 1995 to 8,335 in winter 2004 as the number of wolves on the northern range increased from 21 to 106. Factors contributing to this decrease include bear and wolf predation, increased human harvests, winter-kill (1997), and drought's impact.

--Wolves have not reduced mule deer or bison populations. Mule deer remain within 1 percent of a 17-year average of 2,014 deer, while the bison population grew 15 percent. There are no reliable estimates of moose populations following wolf restoration. Moose represent less than 4 percent of wolf diets in winter and only 26 instances of wolf predation on moose were recorded in Yellowstone during 1995-2003.

--Kill rates by wolves in winter are 22 ungulates per wolf per year – higher than the 12 ungulates per wolf rate predicted in the ESA.

--Since 2000, wolves have caused 45 percent of known deaths and 75 percent of predation deaths (not including human harvests) of radio-collared female elk on the northern range. By comparison, human harvest and winter-kill accounted for 30 percent and 8 percent respectively of the known deaths.

--The average annual harvest of 1,372 elk during the Gardiner late elk hunts from 1995 to 2004 was higher than the long-term average of 1,014 elk during 1976-1994. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has reduced antlerless permits by 51 percent from 2,882 to 1,400 during 2000-2004 and recently proposed 100 permits for 2006 – a 96 percent decrease from the 2,660 permits issued in 1995. That is the end of the article.

[lor]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

ODFW's MO's which are dictated by rancher complaints has and will continue to have an order of magnitude greater effect than wolves will in our life times. This will give a good scapegoat like coyotes, cougars and poachers already do. Its not to say that these factors don't have an effect, even a measureable one, but private landowner complaints account for tens of thousands of less animals on public land. A 5000 head elk MO in the Ochoco is ****** sad.

BM is right on this one.
In the ODFW meetings which I attended. Alot of the eastern Oregon units have very low MO based on local rancher's desire to see less animals.
It will probably be marketed as making an area more trophy caliber, but the result is less opportunity for rank and file folk on public land.

[Ras]

I would assume (going out on a skinny limb here) there are a number of ranchers that prefer higher game MO's, to enhance THEIR ummmm......."huntable" Fall herd$$$$? Sorry, that's not really in-line with the topic to begin with; just the other side of the .

Regardless, their wants are the same: more animals on their land; fewer / no predators.

Ras

[Hunt'nFish]

The way I see it, they (the ODFW) had better start upping the MO's for all NE Oregon units NOW, before the wolves gain a foothold. Otherwise they will not be able to keep herd levels at MO's after the fact. (We hunters will pay the price.)

If crop damage and payout $'s are truely the primary reason why MO's are set at the levels they are, then the wolf will only further fuel that conflict. As wolf populations increase the elk will seek more open country to protect themselves from the wolves. What does this mean?? Increased elk concentration on private farms and ranches. And so the complaints & payout $$ will increase.

Do I not recall reading in the YS Wolf Studies that the elk have sought out more open ground as a means of refuge?

Like I've said before, no good will come of wolves in Oregon.
This is a lose, lose situation.
Their is only one solution, and we all know what it is.
Hunt'nFish

PS: You all talk like they are reducing MO's.....someone show me the herd count populations in NEO for the last 50yrs. It's my understanding the herd #'s are UP overall.
Am I mistaken? Show me the data.

[scottishsetter]

I talked to a 80Yr old-timer cutting wood(8th cord) that said a Rancher around John Day hit an all time high price for an elk off private land at $5000 from a Calif. out of state-r. Several years ago I added up all the LOP/Private land tags and it came to 6 MILLION-plus. At $1000 per elk.

Do the math at $4000/elk. Cash crop!!!Pry those tags from their hands!

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally Posted by scottishsetter

I talked to a 80Yr old-timer cutting wood(8th cord) that said a Rancher around John Day hit an all time high price for an elk off private land at $5000 from a Calif. out of state-r. Several years ago I added up all the LOP/Private land tags and it came to 6 MILLION-plus. At $1000 per elk.

Do the math at $4000/elk. Cash crop!!!Pry those tags from their hands!

Why? How does it affect you?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by scottishsetter

I talked to a 80Yr old-timer cutting wood(8th cord) that said a Rancher around John Day hit an all time high price for an elk off private land at $5000 from a Calif. out of state-r. Several years ago I added up all the LOP/Private land tags and it came to 6 MILLION-plus. At $1000 per elk.

Do the math at $4000/elk. Cash crop!!!Pry those tags from their hands!

Its the winter damage that is the problem not damage during the hunt times of the year when the elk are up higher. The guys complaining don't have elk during sept-nov.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

The way I see it, they (the ODFW) had better start upping the MO's for all NE Oregon units NOW, before the wolves gain a foothold. Otherwise they will not be able to keep herd levels at MO's after the fact. (We hunters will pay the price.)
.

I've been saying that for a few years now. ODFW moves like a ship, we will hit the reef before they will react.

[scottishsetter]

Brian I disagree; When cattle grazing allotments feed in compitition with elk(Sept.-Nov) eliminating marginal "keeping" feed off of private land; elk then move into private ground. I.E. Fox Valley;Long Creek; John Day Valley; Ritter lowlands. There was something like 700 tags on those areas for Nov. 700X $2000 a bunch of money. Is it taxed? Who exactly checks that payment?
Managing the 'time' on public ground could keep elk off private land for winter damage.

But the Oregon Game Commission is THE problem. They are the good ole boys friends.
They alot LOP tags. They give 'em out to everyone to stay popular.
Who made LOP tags a RIGHT of Land Ownership?
Make it a tax right off on state taxes. Snowball was state property.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally Posted by scottishsetter

Brian I disagree; When cattle grazing allotments feed in compitition with elk(Sept.-Nov) eliminating marginal "keeping" feed off of private land; elk then move into private ground. I.E. Fox Valley;Long Creek; John Day Valley; Ritter lowlands. There was something like 700 tags on those areas for Nov. 700X $2000 a bunch of money. Is it taxed? Who exactly checks that payment?
Managing the 'time' on public ground could keep elk off private land for winter damage.

But the Oregon Game Commission is THE problem. They are the good ole boys friends.
They alot LOP tags. They give 'em out to everyone to stay popular.
Who made LOP tags a RIGHT of Land Ownership?
Make it a tax right off on state taxes. Snowball was state property.

those aren't 2000 dollar tags, you can buy most LOP cow tags in this state for less than 400.00 and it provides a place to hunt. If you attach a value to an animal then there is a much better chance land owners will protect them. Last I checked if the ground is leased then they should have to pay taxes on the income, but it may be like selling fire wood on the side where no one claims the income.

[scottishsetter]

Well I agree Willamette.. the prices are pure speculation, but there is a lot of room for $$$$ to be made. Mo's are affectted by the LOP's given out and the ODFW has NO say in habitat. Period. No ability to stop grazing during a drought year in Sept.... The browse for deer is degraded, the grass graze feed for elk in winter is all but eliminated and the Feds. control that Large piece of Oregon; not ODFW. Then Game Commishers. give out huge LOPS because they show winter private property grazing damage.sic

[Gun Rod Bow]

From the article...

"But other people welcome wolves, saying the predators will help restore the natural balance to the food chain"

And to gain a natural ballance, we are all moving to where again???

What a Polyanna attitude.

From WRO's post...

--Elk are the primary prey for wolves, comprising 92 percent of kills during the winter.

--Counts of elk decreased significantly from 16,791 in winter 1995 to 8,335 in winter 2004 as the number of wolves on the northern range increased from 21 to 106. Factors contributing to this decrease include bear and wolf predation, increased human harvests, winter-kill (1997), and drought's impact.

50% reduction in elk with 0 Sport Hunting

Sounds Great

[MarlinMark]

Great. Let's just hope that the locals stay vigilant.

Mark

[Zeke]

"But other people welcome wolves, saying the predators will help restore the natural balance to the food chain"

And the natural balance in their eyes does NOT included any hunting by humans.

[fair hooker]

I agree with Brian Mcquire that the elk management objectives or MO's dictate elk abundance more than predators. These MO's are set mainly to minimize real or perceived damage to private property from elk.

I recall reading the goal for wolves in Oregon is four breeding pairs in both eastern and western Oregon for a total of eight (this might be wrong). Even if the abundance is much higher than the eight breeding pairs, predation from these animals will have a small effect on overall elk abundance compared to the cow elk harvest to meet MO's.

An upside to wolves (from my perspective as a hunter) is the clout for habitat they bring from being a listed species under the federal ESA. Since elk are a critical prey item, elk habitat will be protected as a part of wolf recovery. The big danger to elk (and public elk hunting) is loss of habitat, not wolves.

A substanital part of the opposition to wolves in Oregon is due to the land use implications of a wide ranging ESA listed species. Providing habitat for wolves means constraints on use of Federal and potentially private land, but also means better habitat for elk.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally Posted by fair hooker

I agree with Brian Mcquire that the elk management objectives or MO's dictate elk abundance more than predators. These MO's are set mainly to minimize real or perceived damage to private property from elk.

I recall reading the goal for wolves in Oregon is four breeding pairs in both eastern and western Oregon for a total of eight (this might be wrong). Even if the abundance is much higher than the eight breeding pairs, predation from these animals will have a small effect on overall elk abundance compared to the cow elk harvest to meet MO's.

An upside to wolves (from my perspective as a hunter) is the clout for habitat they bring from being a listed species under the federal ESA. Since elk are a critical prey item, elk habitat will be protected as a part of wolf recovery. The big danger to elk (and public elk hunting) is loss of habitat, not wolves.

A substanital part of the opposition to wolves in Oregon is due to the land use implications of a wide ranging ESA listed species. Providing habitat for wolves means constraints on use of Federal and potentially private land, but also means better habitat for elk.

Welcome to dream world.. Idaho has 10 times the number of wolves agreed upon and no avenue to control their numbers.. Do you really even think for a second that ODFW will control there numbers after there are 8 pairs.. Don't kid yourself. Our only hope is that the locals extirminate them onsite. Oregon will end up with 800 wolves and no elk and still nothing will happen.

[fergy61]

Sss

[Mr. BrownTrout]

Lets also factor in the damage done to the big game animals from poaching, being killed by cars/trucks. I don't believe the wolves are as bad as the anti-wolf people make them out to be.

[scoutdog5]

The latest count done on the Northern Yellowstone herd, last winter, showed 6,700 animals. Studies done by Montana on the northern herd show an average age of harvested cows/bulls in 2005 of 9 years of age. Calf counts on this herd have consistently been under 20 for several years. Maintenance level for an elk herd is 30/35 per 100 cows.

In my opinion, the Northern Yellowstone herd is in trouble, and will continue to get smaller. Predation by wolves, and to a lesser extent bears, now exceeds the recruitment level of this herd by a substantial margin. Add in the extremely high average age of this herd, and there is little hope for recovery.

It is interesting to note that for 5 years after wolves were re-introduced into Yellowstone, the Northern herd maintained a population level of around 17,000. Starting in 2,000, the reduction in the size of this herd has been severe. It appears that there is a gap of several years after wolves inhabit an area before the impact of their predation on elk can be accurately assessed.

I believe that elk herds in parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana will follow this trend line. Wolves have been established long enough in those areas that their true impact will start to show up in the next few years.

The problem for us in Oregon is that our elk herds in the Blue Mountains, which is likely where wolves will establish themselves, are already in terrible shape. I will post unit statistics shortly.

Scoutdog

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

Hunt'nFish

PS: You all talk like they are reducing MO's.....someone show me the herd count populations in NEO for the last 50yrs. It's my understanding the herd #'s are UP overall.
Am I mistaken? Show me the data.

Well, I don't have stats for the last 50 years but here is a little snap shot from 70-74 versus 2004-1999. The latest stats are junk, since they aren't doing full surveys anymore. I find that to be very conveint when things are starting to tank. Population estimates are exactly that, I think harvest stats over time tell the true picture.

Snake River then (70-74) 334 bulls and 154 cows per year average harvest. Now(03-99) 156 bulls and 12 cows per year average.

Starkey- then 730 bulls and 245 cows per year average harvest. Now (04-99) 540 bulls and 697 cows per year harvest. Note that the cow harvest has been reduced greatly in the last few years. Imagine that!!

Walla Walla- then 233 bulls and 155 cows per year average harvest. Now 63 bulls and 16 cows per year average.

Wehaha- then 598 bulls and 248 cows per year average harvest. Now 115 bulls and 23 cows per year harvested.

These stats represent all harvests to my knowledge.

Mike, it appears to me that the elk herd in N.E. has declined severely since the 70's. Then again some units have had increases in elk numbers, but that doesn't excuse this decline we are seeing.

[Beamerfish]

Here's a recent news release on what happens when wolves and people are in close proximity. No judgment here on my part. This is just what people are buying into with this deal.

Denby Lloyd, Commissioner

Division of Wildlife Conservation
Anchorage Area Office
333 Raspberry Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
(907) 267-2811
Alaska Department of Fish and Game

NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Rick Sinnott, Anchorage Area Wildlife Biologist

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
PHONE: (907) 242-0424 E-MAIL: rick.sinnott@alaska.gov

Wolf Pack Kills Two Dogs, Attacks Others in Anchorage

Anchorage –Not to be outdone by Fairbanks’ wolves, a pack of wolves in the state’s largest metropolitan area has attacked several dogs, killing two.

Kirsten Kidd and Terry Crane were walking their three dogs near Eklutna a little after noon on November 28. A large black wolf stepped onto the trail about 50 yards ahead of them. Kidd’s pointer mix, Shelby, took off in pursuit, followed closely by the other dogs, a Saint Bernard and a golden retriever. The black wolf and dogs ducked into the tall grass and trees bordering Eklutna River Flats. Kidd and Crane called their dogs, and they soon reappeared, racing back across the trail with not one, but an estimated eight to ten wolves close behind.

Within seconds one of the dogs “screamed,” according to Kidd. She knew it was Shelby. But Kidd and Crane were afraid to venture into the tall, dead grass with so many wolves present. The other two dogs ran back to them after Shelby was attacked. Kidd and Crane retreated down the road, dogs in tow, calling for Shelby. Crane returned to the scene a few hours later in his truck and called for Shelby, with no response.

Both Kidd and Crane visited the attack site two days later with Rick Sinnott, a wildlife biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. They found Shelby’s collar, badly chewed, in a trampled, bloodstained area about 100 yards from the trail. The only other remains were several small splinters of bone.

A second attack, presumably by the same wolves, occurred after dark on Tuesday, December 4. Korah Heagy was walking her border collie on a lighted loop of the Beach Lake trail system. A gray wolf appeared on the trail ahead and her dog rushed it. The two animals fought briefly, but the dog came when called. A second wolf joined the first. Heagy headed home, with the wolves trailing the pair for several minutes. The border collie was not injured in the scrap.

A third attack occurred about 7:30 p.m. on December 5, a very dark evening. Lisa Hubert was walking her Nova Scotia duck-tolling retriever on Artillery Road, a gravel road on Fort Richardson, a short distance west of the Eagle River gate. Her dog, about 10 yards behind her on the road, barked once, then yelped. Hubert saw only a streak of a wolf—it might have been black—crossing the road. Hubert and her husband, Kim, returned a few hours later and again the next morning. They found their dog’s head and collar about 50 yards off the road.

The three attacks were all within the territorial bounds of a single wolf pack.

Anchorage is unique in that the municipality has at least four wolf packs that range within the city limits. Two of the packs spend a lot of time on Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base. The Elmendorf pack appears to be the one that is attacking dogs. The pack ranges from the Elmendorf runway to Palmer Hay Flats and beyond.

Elmendorf wildlife agents report the pack approached at least two hunters in September, after the hunters used cow calls to attract a bull moose. However, the pack only recently started attacking dogs. Based on infrared trail cameras and multiple sightings near roads, military wildlife agents believe there are one black and as many as five gray wolves in the pack.

In the latest incident, about 3:15 p.m. last Saturday, Janet Read was walking two dogs, her lab-retriever mix and a friend’s golden retriever on a gravel road northwest of the Elmendorf flight line. Read was on the return loop when the dogs alerted her to a black wolf on the road, about 50 yards behind her. She stopped and yelled at the wolf. It walked into the woods. Read kept the dogs near her as she walked 15 minutes to her vehicle. The black wolf was joined by two grays and they continued to follow her, despite frequent stops and yelling, all the way to the main road.

Wolves kill other canids, including wolves and dogs. Dogs are not always eaten, but can be an important food item in some areas. Dogs are reputedly the most frequent domestic prey of wolves in Croatia, killed and eaten more often than sheep, and wolves appear to limit the number of stray dogs in Russia, according to reports cited in Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani.

After a series of attacks on dogs in the mid-1990s a trapper took several members of the Elmendorf wolf pack on Palmer Hay Flats. The attacks on dogs abated, presumably because the instigator was dead or the remaining pack members learned to avoid human scent. Trapping is likely to resolve the current spate of dog attacks by this pack.

In the meantime, Sinnott is encouraging Elmendorf wildlife agents to use capsaicin balls shot from air rifles or rubber buckshot on the Elmendorf pack to re-instill a normal level of fear towards humans and their pets. Residents are encouraged to keep their dogs on leashes.

A wolf pack near Fairbanks has killed at least three dogs in the past six weeks. Unlike the Anchorage attacks, the dogs were attacked near houses. Another recent wolf attack on dogs, in the village of Marshall, included at least some rabid wolves. Rabies has never been detected in wolves in southcentral Alaska. The string of attacks in Anchorage has clearly been predatory. “It is unlikely that the wolves are targeting dogs,” says Sinnott. “The attacks appear to have been chance encounters. But these wolves are not wasting much time deliberating.”

Wolves in the Anchorage area also occasionally attack dogs near houses, although none have been reported this year. In most cases these are dogs from homes abutting Chugach State Park or Fort Richardson whose owners let them roam unaccompanied in nearby woods.

Wolf attacks on dogs in Alaska seem to increase in winters with little or no snow. Wildlife biologists speculate that moose may be more difficult to kill than in a more typical December, when the snow pack is several feet deep. Difficult hunting conditions may prompt some wolves to overcome their ingrained fear of humans and attack dogs in yards and on trails near communities.

-30-

[Hunt'nFish]

Thanks Rank,
I knew someone would step upto the plate and challenge my statement. It was a trick statement ya know.
Everyone knows that the herds are declining over there as a result of spring bear predation on the calves.
I just wanted someone to dig up the data to prove it.

I tell ya guys if we expect to hunt in the future we have to get involved and take action.
I don't know if Brian's statement about Rancher/Farmer complaints driving MO's is correct or not, but the one think I do know is total herd #'s are DOWN, and will continue to go down to unrecoverable levels if we don't get off our kesters and quit letting others dictate MO's and predator control.

I'm not saying we all have to take off work and go sit in meetings, Although that would certainly help. But there are other ways of carrying the message and doing our part to control predators. Make darn sure you buy your bear and cougar tag every season as soon as they are available. Whack as many bears, cougars, and "coyotes" you see. Wink, wink.

The ODFW bio's can not do anything until laws are changed. So fight for wolf delisting, push for cougar & bear harvest reformation. Point out the economic flaws of the current cougar managent plan.
Help put science back in game manament. ODFW, needs our help.
Hunt'nFish

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

The ODFW bio's can not do any thing until laws are changed. So fight for wolf delisting, push for cougar & bear harvest reformation. Point out the economic flaws of the current cougar managent plan.
Help put science back in game manament. ODFW, needs our help.
Hunt'nFish

I would add that to fight effectively, hunters MUST start participating in the public input process. That area IS where we're being whipped on a regular basis. It does mean taking time off work to attend meetings. It also means writing letters, sending emails and making phone calls when the public is asked for their input - and sometimes even when we're not! Believe me, the people on the other side of the issues have plenty of time to attend the meetings and make their voices heard in every way imaginable. Hunters simply have to GET MAD and speak up, loud, long and regularly. Joining a credible conservation organization like OHA is a good strategy but they can only do so much. It's going to take a grass roots effort on the part of hunters to turn the overwhelming tide of lunacy prevalent in our society.



"CL"

[scoutdog5]

Rank:

Those are great stats, and certainly illustrate the problem we already have.

Do you have any stats from the 70's for the Ochoco Unit? Either deer or elk? I am trying to build a historic database, particularly for mule deer.

Thanks

Scoutdog

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Rank:

Those are great stats, and certainly illustrate the problem we already have.

Do you have any stats from the 70's for the Ochoco Unit? Either deer or elk? I am trying to build a historic database, particularly for mule deer.

Thanks

Scoutdog

Yes sir, I should have it all, what exactly do you want? Hunter numbers, harvest (buck-doe), heck they even have antler point break outs in the early years.

[mtn300]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

I would add that to fight effectively, hunters MUST start participating in the public input process. That area IS where we're being whipped on a regular basis. It does mean taking time off work to attend meetings. It also means writing letters, sending emails and making phone calls when the public is asked for their input - and sometimes even when we're not! Believe me, the people on the other side of the issues have plenty of time to attend the meetings and make their voices heard in every way imaginable. Hunters simply have to GET MAD and speak up, loud, long and regularly. Joining a credible conservation organization like OHA is a good strategy but they can only do so much. It's going to take a grass roots effort on the part of hunters to turn the overwhelming tide of lunacy prevalent in our society.



"CL"

lunacy gets results

[Rank Amateur]

I will have to put a little input into the meeting thing. When ODF&W does a M.O. adjustment, they first convene public committees to give options to management. Of course this is a highly guide process. The trouble with the committees is that they do NOT represent the true stake holders. Case in point is the Murderers Creek unit, I inquired about the process and got a list of names of the make up of the committee. Just about every person was from the local area, yet the true stake holders are not just local landowners. In fact I can asure you that a majority of the hunters in this unit are westsiders, so why were they not invited to sit on the committee????? It's all politics my friends, the local landowners can cause political grief down at Salem and we don't, that is just the facts.

I was told by the district bio out of John Day that he could grow elk like crazy in Murderers Creek, but the committee wanted to reduce elk numbers (they have done a great job of that) to old days and try to get the deer numbers back up.

Oh, then throw in a miscalculation by ODF&W on the population numbers and a ridgid M.O. and the herd was reduced even further.

[scoutdog5]

Rank, I am looking for the following for the Ochoco unit for deer. Elk numbers were so small back then that I don't believe they were even doing herd trend counts.

Population trend count
fawns/100 does
bucks/100 does
No. of hunters and buck harvest
Antlerless harvest.

Thanks for the help.

Scoutdog

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

I don't know if Brian's statement about Rancher/Farmer complaints driving MO's is correct or not, but the one think I do know is total herd #'s are DOWN, and will continue to go down to unrecoverable levels if we don't get off our kesters and quit letting others dictate MO's and predator control.

This statement is from my personal experience with the MO meetings on the Ochoco. For that unit it is correct, however I can't say for other units.

What we REALLLY need is one of our own on the ODFW comission!

[Hunt'nFish]

I gotcha Brian.
Too bad we couldn't buy back all that High Praire area and make that all Wilderness clear to Dayville.
Man, imagine the big horns that would support. It'd be like something straight out of a Larry Zabell painting.
Hunt'nFish

[ghost grizzly]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

What we REALLLY need is one of our own on the ODFW comission!

Why don't you consider running?

You have pretty good credentials with the F&S award and serving on BOD's of several diverse groups.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

I gotcha Brian.
Too bad we couldn't buy back all that High Praire area and make that all Wilderness clear to Dayville.
Man, imagine the big horns that would support. It'd be like something straight out of a Larry Zabell painting.
Hunt'nFish

That would be awesome!!! People would pull 400+ bulls out of that.

[Hunt'nFish]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That would be awesome!!! People would pull 400+ bulls out of that.

Yes they would. And those ranches that butt up against it would benefit as well.
But something tells me the Les Schwab family wouldn't sell or trade.
Hunt'nFish

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by ghost grizzly

Why don't you consider running?

You have pretty good credentials with the F&S award and serving on BOD's of several diverse groups.

It far more difficlut. Its a political position and fishing rules. The money that PGE and the fishing industry throw around dwarfs our little sport and we all know Politics is run by money.

[ehunter]

Could the OWFD add a position or is that controlled by the state? Are they limited by seats by a state law? It seems that we as a group are not fairly represented?

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

It far more difficlut. Its a political position and fishing rules. The money that PGE and the fishing industry throw around dwarfs our little sport and we all know Politics is run by money.

[Rank Amateur]

When hunters stand as a group and demand a position or with hold our license fees we will be heard................................... oh, was I dreaming again????

Commissioners are all about politics, lets see, big timber, cattle, commercial fisheries. Hmm.....I wonder if they will let a hunter on the cattlemens associations board.............. brain **** again, they are all hunters and get their LOP tags each year. I better just go back to sleep.

[Rank Amateur]

Scoutdog, I have harvest info only, give me a few days to put it together for you, darn work.

[fish_guy10]

I ran across this site while searching for other info and I hope you don’t mind an east-sider jumping in on the conversation.

I sat on the M.O. committee for John Day district as a “conservation” representative. The characterization that it was driven by guides or landowners is incorrect. If I recall correctly, there was only one guide on the committee, while, in contrast, there were three OHA/hunter representatives. It’s true that there were a few landowners on the committee, but almost without exception, they are commonly known in the area as progressive thinkers relative to conservation issues.

In my 25 year career as a professional fish and wildlife biologist, I can’t remember a committee with such diversity of opinion that was this successful dealing with complex biological issues. We met regularly over a period of months evaluating biological data, cross examining Department staff, critiquing proposals, and developing compromise solutions to the task in front of us.

Yes, it is true that we recommended an overall decrease in elk for Murderer’s Creek unit. Historically, Murderer’s Crk and Northside were managed exclusively for mule deer with a 29-day either-sex elk season south of the Middle Fork. When Portland staff pressured Ralph Denney (the long ago DB) to institute a controlled rifle elk season he predicted two things: 1) it would mean the end of mule deer populations in Grant County; and 2) it would overpopularize Grant County to out-of-town hunters. Murderer’s Creek alone historically wintered upwards of 65,000 deer. The final count in 2007 is likely to be less than 7,000. We are not saying elk are the only culprit in the decline of mule deer, but an important factor to be considered in the problem.

Our recommendation was to reduce the overall elk herd size in M.C., while increasing the bull:cow ratio (the current ratio is at the biological minimum) while maintaining 25% older age class animals in the herd. In part this was to ensure genetic integrity, emphasize quality rather than quantity opportunities (contrast Murderer’s Creek with what we recommended in Northside or Beulah), reduce rut-herd sizes, and redistribute elk from private lands. These biological recommendations were accompanied by a full suite of habitat recommendations as well.

Folks need to understand that we are having severe issues with elk production and behavior. Elk are leaving summer range for winter range, most of which is on private land, much earlier in the year than we have ever seen and staying much longer, in larger herds than we have ever seen. They are creating serious conflicts not only with landowners, but also with deer for which they compete for space, and in some cases, forage. In addition, they are unavailable to sportsmen hunting on public land.

Our Murderer’s Creek deer M.O. recommendations included increasing overall numbers, increasing buck:doe ratios (there is some thought that the current M.O.’s are unlikely to sustain the population over time at the current population levels), establish a M.O. for a percent of mature age class animals represented in the population, as well as a full suite of habitat recommendations.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, the Portland ODFW staff misrepresented the committee’s recommendations to the Commission, who rejected every one of our recommendations for every single unit and species we evaluated. They did so in favor of maximizing opportunity, which was not supposed to be a driver in this process.

To characterize the committee as biased or politically motivated is unfair and undeserved. A number of us continue to challenge the Department’s decision in this matter. If anyone is interested in reading any of the committee’s reports, please send me an e-mail.

And in the interest of disclosure, of course I also have my biases. I am fourth-generation from Grant County, have a degree in resources, am a landowner, traditional archer, fly fisherman, and have a particular soft spot for big mule deer and bighorn sheep.

[Rank Amateur]

Thanks for replying, I would be the one casting the stones. Can you answer me the one main concern that I had. Since westside sportsmen make up the majority of the resource users, shouldn't they have they been included on the committee? I got the list of names and affiliations on the committee, I do not currently have it, what make up of the members could be said connected to the cattle industry? % Seems like I remember a bio for the conservation district, might that be you?

Can you explain the theory that elk suppress deer numbers. I had a Federal bio say the same thing up on Aldrich, said that was why the deer were all by the roads. I still think it is the cats myself. I will agree, it used to be all deer and now it is mainly elk, but I can't understand the exclusion theory. Other units don't seem to have this situation. I would have a hard time believing this factor would reduce the population to 10% of historic levels.

Are the elk still a problem? The herd has been severely reduced. Tag numbers are way down. Is the archery season possibly why the elk move sooner?

Seems to me we are ending up with a empty bag on both deer and elk.

[scoutdog5]

Fish-guy 10:

I would love to have access to those reports. My email is:

mjmorris50@comcast.net

Three comments:

1. To my knowledge, there is not a study anywhere that supports the idea that elk are responsible for declines in mule deer populations. This is further disproved by the fact that Colorado, a state slightly smaller than Oregon, has the largest deer and elk populations in the country. It would seem to me if there were any truth to this, it would be a huge problem in Colorado, particularly given the extremely limited winter range that elk and deer share in all of western Colorado.

2. The solution to keeping elk on public land for more of the year is simple, close most of the roads to motorized travel for the entire year, and they will stay. Get open road densities below 1/mile from the current 3+/mile, and you will see the elk stay on the forest. It is interesting to note that in the east end of the Ochoco Unit, there are typically more elk on the forest during the deer and elk rifle seasons than during the spring and summer. The reason? The Rager green dot road closure.

3. It is unrealistic to expect ODF&W to cut tags significantly under the current management system. Tag fees are currently set by the legislature, with no consideration for inflation, needed research projects, etc. There is no chance that additional resources will come from the State or the Feds, and non-game mandates (endangered species, wolf plans, etc), take more money every year. If they cut tags, the only option is to lay off staff, stop winter trend counts, etc. It is a lose-lose situation. Nothing will change until income to the dept is disconnected from the number of tags offered/sold. One way to do that:

Assume Mule Deer tags raised 1.5 million dollars in 2007. For 2008, add a 6% inflation factor, raising the budget to approximately 1.6 million. Now set that aside, and set tag numbers based on best available biological info. Recommendation is 20,000 tags. Divide 1.6 million by 40,000, and each tag costs $ 40.00.

Note: This is a mathematical example, and not a recommendation on how many tags should be issued.

One final thought: Colorado is currently the only state that is at it's statewide objective for Mule deer, with more than 625,000. Oregon has somewhere around 200,000. What is interesting is that Colorado issues fewer mule deer tags than Oregon does.

Scoutdog

[fish_guy10]

I didn’t take offense. You have to have pretty thick skin to be a bio in Grant County. You guys were just having such a great discussion; I thought I would pitch in.

I can’t answer your concern regarding not being represented adequately on the committee, since I wasn’t responsible for soliciting its members, Darren Bruning was, and I thought he did a great job choosing folks. If I recall, there was some discussion regarding OHA having the ability to represent sportsmen throughout the state, but I don’t want to put words in their mouth. Logistics make it difficult to include everyone in our planning processes, just like it is nearly impossible for us over here to consistently represent ourselves in front of the Commission and legislature in Salem.

I’m a veteran of dozens and dozens of consensus groups, planning committees, boards, commissions, etc. and I understand how people feel overlooked when not directly represented. I don’t believe that was the case with this committee, given the attention provided to opportunity and the adamant stance taken on opportunity by some of the committee members. Other than not specifically having a person on the committee from western Oregon, what outcome from the committee didn’t reflect what someone from the west side might have advocated?

Don’t be overly concerned regarding cattle industry participation in these groups. They are important stakeholders in this process and control much of the significant habitat in this basin. Yes they can frequently be a pain, and I have the scars to prove it, but they are one of our most accommodating industry groups. With regards to the number on the committee connected to ag, since we all eat, we are all connected! There were at least two rancher (full time, make their living off of cows) representatives and at least one other that has a few cows. They did not dominate the committee in any way and, in fact, they were primary motivators in getting the committee to address habitat factors. Cattleman are our most critical advocates for redistributing elk from private land to public land!!!!!!!

Similarly, you could also ask the questions: how many people on the committee were traditional archers? How many were out-of-state hunters? Etc. etc., we shouldn’t let the names on the letterhead hang us up from evaluating the outcomes. I’m not sure the data supports your contention that the majority of resource users are from the west side, but I’ll have to check. Regardless, I do understand your concern regarding direct representation; are you volunteering for the next committee J.

I didn’t say that elk suppress deer numbers, only that they are a factor. Some of what we know comes from “observational biology” and some from application of the scientific method. Observation biology, which is what we all practice through hunting, scouting, being in the field, used to be a vitally important part of science (think about the early evolution of conservation), but has diminished in relative “acceptance” for a number of reasons. Some of the research at Starkey http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/starkey/index.shtml is demonstrating that elk and deer compete for space, moving deer into higher, less suitable elevations.

Deer are very habitually oriented towards traditional fall transition ranges (remember, fall transition range is more important than winter range if the winter range is generally intact) and seem to be very reluctant to move very far from a home range. We frequently see large herds of elk moving onto these transition ranges (dispersing in tremendous numbers from summer range right at the start of archery season) and severely limiting the forage for the deer herds that typically arrive a month or so later. Remember, a lot of what we are talking about are sublethal effects, so its not like we walk around and see a lot of carcasses. It’s manifested more in reproductive and parturition rates, birth weights and timing, etc., items that are very hard to measure let alone determine how they figure into the overall equation.

However, we recognize that elk/deer competition is only one factor in mule deer production. That is why we recommended a full suite of habitat recommendations as well. Unfortunately, they were all rejected, but they incorporated such things as additional road closures, thinning, shrub enhancement, noxious weed control, controlled burning and others. We also considered many social opportunities, such as limited entry archery, expansion of a private lands access program, development of strictly quality hunt opportunities and others.

I agree, cats and other predators, are another critical factor. But pinning production of any biological species on one single factor is like saying that the human heart is the only thing that keeps you alive. I believe that the production data demonstrates that mule deer productivity was on a decline prior to the exponential growth in cat populations.

If I had to pick one thing for folks to focus on right now, it would be for a forum like this to begin an process (due to your potential lobbying power with the Department) to urge the ODFW to create a mule deer initiative statewide with workgroups in each district focused on adapting the state’s mule deer management plan (which is worthless on a local basis) to the site specific conditions in each district.

[fish_guy10]

I took up the “are elk still a problem” question separately, because there is a group forming up right now that will be dealing specifically with elk damage problems and those of you that hunt this area will want to pay close attention.

In general, yes they are still a problem and getting progressively worse. Traditionally, elk would come off the public lands around November/December, stay through the critical winter period, and then follow the receding snowline back up the mountains. Now they come down at least by the start of archery season, but mostly when higher elevation grasses start curing. In July/Aug our upland grasses are running about 4% protein, while the irrigated alfalfa/hay might be running 12-14% or as high as 20% in some species. There are other reasons that contribute to them coming down, but food/security appear to be the primary.

For an elk to survive, he eats about 3 pounds of food for each 100 pounds of body weight. Just on a small place (2,500 acres) that means 150 elk x 12 lbs/day x 150 days = 270,000 pounds of forage. On 40-acres of 2 ton to the acre alfalfa that might be 15% of a crop. This is overly simplistic (elk numbers fluctuate, they aren’t always on my place, they are eating other things), and I might be able to survive this unless…hay prices go up significantly (which they have) and preclude me from buying other feed, the cash rental prices for substitute forage go up (which they have because of the hobby ranchers buying up these places) and if ranchers get kicked off the federal lands and are forced to maximize utilization on the private land (which they are).

Most people can’t comprehend the extent of damage and frustration until they too spend 30 days fixing fence every spring that the elk knock down, or spend significant amounts of time and capital converting worthless medusa-head infested rangeland into productive forage only to see an elk herd camp out for 10 days on the new seeding an wipe it out.

There does appear to be some effective solutions, many of which you guys have already pointed out; better sportsmen access to private lands, better habitat conditions on public lands, reducing hunter numbers in certain areas or in specific seasons, and (at least some of us believe) increasing the bull:cow ratio. I’m afraid, however, that until everyone acknowledges that this is a complex problem deserving of a multi-faceted solution, that little progress will be made beyond the status quo.

[ghost grizzly]

Originally Posted by fish_guy10

I took up the “are elk still a problem” question separately, because there is a group forming up right now that will be dealing specifically with elk damage problems and those of you that hunt this area will want to pay close attention.

In general, yes they are still a problem and getting progressively worse. Traditionally, elk would come off the public lands around November/December, stay through the critical winter period, and then follow the receding snowline back up the mountains. Now they come down at least by the start of archery season, but mostly when higher elevation grasses start curing. In July/Aug our upland grasses are running about 4% protein, while the irrigated alfalfa/hay might be running 12-14% or as high as 20% in some species. There are other reasons that contribute to them coming down, but food/security appear to be the primary.

For an elk to survive, he eats about 3 pounds of food for each 100 pounds of body weight. Just on a small place (2,500 acres) that means 150 elk x 12 lbs/day x 150 days = 270,000 pounds of forage. On 40-acres of 2 ton to the acre alfalfa that might be 15% of a crop. This is overly simplistic (elk numbers fluctuate, they aren’t always on my place, they are eating other things), and I might be able to survive this unless…hay prices go up significantly (which they have) and preclude me from buying other feed, the cash rental prices for substitute forage go up (which they have because of the hobby ranchers buying up these places) and if ranchers get kicked off the federal lands and are forced to maximize utilization on the private land (which they are).

Most people can’t comprehend the extent of damage and frustration until they too spend 30 days fixing fence every spring that the elk knock down, or spend significant amounts of time and capital converting worthless medusa-head infested rangeland into productive forage only to see an elk herd camp out for 10 days on the new seeding an wipe it out.

There does appear to be some effective solutions, many of which you guys have already pointed out; better sportsmen access to private lands, better habitat conditions on public lands, reducing hunter numbers in certain areas or in specific seasons, and (at least some of us believe) increasing the bull:cow ratio. I’m afraid, however, that until everyone acknowledges that this is a complex problem deserving of a multi-faceted solution, that little progress will be made beyond the status quo.

Holy Cow!!!! (no pun intended)

a breathe of fresh aire

[Rank Amateur]

Thanks again for replying. This is great to have the other side of the coin. I served on one of the westside elk management plan committees and I saw first hand how the make up of the committee will directly influence the out come of the proposal. The only way to guard against the suspicion of a stacked deck is to insure that there is representation from the major user groups. I'm not saying that this committee was a stacked deck, but it is easy to infer that many of the members can be linked to the cattle industry in one way or another. While many of the members may not be ranchers, they easily can be linked to the industry. It's just a fact of life in E. Or.

Regardless of the make up of the committee, it is still the proposals that matter. The second reply to my questions is what troubles me. We have almost reduced the elk population by a 1/3 from the highs in the '80's, and still we have an elk problem. My opportunity has been reduced greatly and I resent that. Where is the middle ground? Is there going to be a middle ground?

What is up with the increase of the bull to cow ratio's? This would seem counter productive to the goal of reducing the elk population, unless you would achieve the goal by shooting off cows. We are wise to this tactic, it doesn't work in the long run. Many of us are suspicious when we hear reduced hunter opportunity and then increased bull to cow ratio's. We assume that most of the private ranch land is leased for hunting. Which then makes this proposal self serving. I'm being frank with you, maybe blunt, but that is many of our perspectives.

How much does a deer eat per day? Would the E. Or community support a 30,000 mule deer population? Has the change in crops (grass hay to alfalfa) been part of the cause of the problem?

[fish_guy10]

Again, I did not state that elk are responsible for declines in mule deer populations, only that they were a factor. There were other reasons why the committee recommended reductions in the elk population. For example, there are two ways to increase bull:cow ratios. One is to increase the number of bulls, the other is to decrease the number of cows. In order to try to maintain (actually increase in the short term) opportunity while raising the bull:cow ratio and still reduce overall elk numbers, we decided to recommend an increase the number of cow tags. Primary motivators in increasing the bull:cow ratio were maintaining genetic integrity, improving breeding fitness, and assisting with rut-herd dispersion to increase harvest opportunity on public lands. Competition with mule deer was only one factor in our consideration in developing these recommendations.

Truthfully, you guys should be screaming bloody murder over our bull:cow ratios. In any other state (at least with a quality hunt, which I consider M.C. unit to be), they would be closing seasons down if they had our post-season numbers. Survival in our herds at these low ratios may be a testimony to fitness in the herd; but I am convinced that we are at significant risk from some genetic expression factors that are, at least, important to me as a sportsman.

I can’t respond to your statement of “fact” from Colorado as I do not have much experience in that state. I would ask you to consider that Colorado enjoys some things that Oregon does not-- vast, secure productivity “centers” (e.g., wilderness, rugged areas) and some habitat features that we do not (large shrub galleries across a significant proportion of the landscape). Possibly, these contribute to the productive nature of Colorado’s habitats.

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion regarding roads, except that the solution is simple and that it is the only solution. For example, we have just as serious elk distribution issues on private lands adjoining wilderness and roadless areas as we do next to the general forest. That would seem to indicate that it is other issues (possibly forage again, or maybe hunter pressure) that are also important in influencing elk behavior. In addition, without increasing bull:cow ratios and addressing archery hunter densities, how would road closures address the reality of rut-herd sizes? When I started bow hunting in 1984, by the second week of the season most herds were broken up into small herds of 10 to 15 animals with one herd bull and cows/immature bulls and a few satellites. Now the herds are 80 to 250 animals that do not disperse and all the bulls will be in the herd the entire season. This may lead to better post-rut body condition in bulls, but significantly decreases hunter opportunity. In addition, road closure solutions are rarely simple and are usually implemented at great political price. I will say, however, that landowners are one of our greatest assets to advocating road closures as they see the direct benefits to animal retention on public lands as well as alleviating trespass problems.

The realism of cutting back tags (your point three) is (at least with deer), a pay me now or pay me later confrontation. Our committee recommended cutbacks in 2005, so that they would not have to be so dramatic in 2008. We ran population projections that predicted that if the Commission did not follow our recommendations that we would be less than 7,000 animals within a few years and guess what folks, that’s exactly where we are at now. I, and others, personally believe that we are approaching a near biological collapse of mule deer in Murderer’s Cr unit and possible may already be below long-term replacement levels (although I will say this is a point of dispute).

I have a particular soft spot for mule deer. My personal commitment is that on our own place, we have not allowed any buck (other than one management buck) to be killed in over six years. Ours was a property that historically produced as high as 15 bucks per year. Combined with our predator control efforts and habitat restoration, we have made as large or larger a commitment as anyone else---and we are still not seeing the recruitment that should accompany these efforts. Sportsmen should be outraged regarding these conditions and should demand action from their public servants, instead we seem to be blithely accommodating each ratcheting down of population size. Lets find the common ground between us and immediately advocate those actions to the department and refuse to tolerate dismissal and rejection.

I cannot agree that the legislature sets tags as I have been involved in too many efforts to the contrary. However, I do agree that it is almost without regard, driven by economics. Not only with general tag setting, but also auction tags and LOP tag distribution. Remember the days when ODFW was in Portland, when the Commission was intentionally divorced from the politics in Salem, when the ODFW budget did not rely at ALL on the general fund, when the Department was composed of nearly all biologists from rural/hunting/fishing backgrounds, when ODFW staff were field biologists rather than computer jockeys, when ODFW was the exclusive domain of sportsmen, and when ODFW was the most outspoken advocate for sportsmen and the populations upon which we depend? I would argue that you guys should almost take this up as a separate issue because you are some of the only folks that can effectively advocate a “recentering” of ODFW’s political position.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

[CW59]

I think it needs to be give and take between elk lovers and deer lovers, I understand both sides but it seems some people are mad because their elk herds are getting smaller and there is less of you who want deer herds to rise back to normal levels....
I guess you need a really open mind because everyone is going to be bias for what they believe in. I love to be able to hunt every year for elk and deer but there will come a time that I will have to wait every couple years to draw, and I would be willing to do that sooner then later, cause if we do it later it will be a longer wait then every couple of years, we need to be proactive now.
I live in Klamath Falls and I don't hunt here because the deer and elk are not abundent here, and supposedly in the past this was a darn good place for mule deer and I know there alot of reasons why they are not here now but that is irrelivent.
If anyone knows of commities and or some places I could go to do my part please let me know...

CW

[OR_Bo_Huntr]

At least 4 hahahahaha

Dang (tree)(huggers) are ruining this state and the courts are believing almost everything they come up with!
We need to put a stop to this horrible liberal influence we have or hunting season closed CASE OVER

[scottishsetter]

FISH GUY you anger me; You posted your spiel; language; take ;deal making; figureing; etc... I counted 7 exclamation points after the statement: "Cattlemen are our most critical advocates for redistributing elk from private land to public land."
Does "critical advocate" INCLUDE
stopping
THEIR GRAZING ON WINTER ELK HABITAT?
Elk degrade the deer habital(as shown in Starkey)
Has Starkey EVER?????????? ran a 1000 head(cow and two calves) into Starkey for May thru Nov?????????? And seen how they would afect the deer browse?
The deer browse I saw degraded In one season came from cattle MILLING around salt blocks(7) in a small area KILLING every huckleberry bush in the area; during a drought year. Cows on the elk habitat eating the winter potential grazing for elk and trampling deer browse is only contolled by the







FEDERAL RANGE MANAGERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!

[scottishsetter]

One more thing Mr. Fish Guy_10 I as a hunter in one area for 20 years personally and as a (EDITfifth generation Oregonian(you brought up heritage)am sick and tired of having my elk hunt area scrounged out by horse riders and multiple dogs the day before the season.
CHASING the elk ONTO PRIVATE LAND!!!!!!!

Get the cattle off public land at the FIRST OF SEPTEMBER anything else is negligence on our Fish and Game Biologists' part. NO MORE.
NO WOLVE PAIRS IN OREGON the "experiment" in Yellowstone Park was for a few wolf pairs.
Now we have to "accept" 6-10 pairs"???????In Oregon? (7 ? marks)!!!!!!!

[scoutdog5]

For the most part, this has been a great discussion, with lot's of good points. Let's all try to keep it that way.

Several comments:

1. Given my advanced age and the late hour when I usually comment, I was probably not clear. My point was that the legislature controls fees that are charged for hunting, NOT the setting of tags numbers. I don't think any serious sportsman who has studied the issue would disagree that we are issuing way too many Mule Deer and Rocky Mtn elk tags in this state given the reproductive history and population trend counts in most units. My point was that until we separate operating revenue from the number of tags issued, nothing will change. The obvious solution is a floating tag fee that goes up when tags numbers are lowered, and down when tag numbers increase. Take the incentive for issuing lots of tags away from the ODFW staff, and I think we will see some significant changes.

2. One lesson that should be learned from Colorado is that elk and deer need to be protected from excessive human interaction during the spring and summer, as well as the winter. Colorado is fortunate that the natural topography, and lack of merchantable timber in a lot of areas, has created an ideal environment for maximizing herd productivity. The fact that we do not have that advantage in Oregon means we need to more actively manage access in key areas during key times of the year.

3. In my view, our objective should be to maximize the reproductive capacity of our deer and elk herds. Starkey studies have layed out the blueprint for accomplishing that on elk, yet not a single state is following those recommendations. The key for elk is mature bulls doing the breeding, with mature bulls defined as 4.5 years old and older. In order to manage for mature bulls, you would have to count them. Only Colorado does that, but then is perfectly happy with 1-2 mature bulls per 100 cows in most units. Oregon counts bulls/100 cows, with no breakdown by age. A managerment objective of 10/100 cows might be acceptable if 75% of them are mature bulls. More likely, you need a bull ratio in the 20+/100 range to ensure that mature bulls do the majority of the breeding. Unfortunately, the same research has not been done on Mule Deer, as far as I know, but my opinion is that the same principle's apply.

4. The problem of elk migrating to alfalfa fields on private land is easily solved, if we are willing to spend the money. High fences around Alfalfa fields are 100% effective in relocating elk from the area where deployed. The more difficult problem is ranchers who are using their Alfalfa fields to attract elk during the hunting season, whether for their own hunting, or to support a fee based hunting operation. In the area I spend my time, the ranchers who are doing that are NOT complaining about elk usage on their property.

5. I absolutely agree that closing roads is a difficult, politically tough endeavor. It is also clear that road closures provide tremendous benefits to big game herds. Our problem is that ODF&W, and to some extent OHA, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, etc. are missing in action when it comes to pushing for road closures that benefit big game. It is a sad commentary that the organizations who are actively pushing for this are conservation groups such as the Sierra Club, and not sportsmens groups, with the obvious exception of Backcountry Hunters of America.

6. Bottom line, we are going to have to decide if we really want to have quality big game hunting in Oregon, and then be willing to spend the time and money to make the changes necessary for that to happen. There are a lot of things beyond our ability to influence that will continue to reduce big game populations and habitat. Anything less than a full blown effort to institute changes we can influence will result in a continued deterioration of our hunting opportunities and experiences.

Scoutdog

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

6. Bottom line, we are going to have to decide if we really want to have quality big game hunting in Oregon, and then be willing to spend the time and money to make the changes necessary for that to happen. There are a lot of things beyond our ability to influence that will continue to reduce big game populations and habitat. Anything less than a full blown effort to institute changes we can influence will result in a continued deterioration of our hunting opportunities and experiences.

Scoutdog

I'm in! Very good info right there.

I'm tired of Oregon being known as "the place" to go kill a spike mule deer. I'm not talking an occasional one I'm talking 70 - 80% of the harvest on opening weekend are spikes and little forks. Why? Because that is what the majority wants i guess????

[Rank Amateur]

Fish_guy10 could you elaborate on how reducing cows to get the bull/cow ratio more in line helps genetic integrity? If I read you right the committee proposed an increase in cow tags, while maintaining bull harvest strategy?? Wouldn't you just end up with fewer bulls because less cows equal less bulls in the long run? If you did not implement a more restrictive bull harvest strategy, the bull harvest would just mirror past harvest rates.

I think we can see some common ground, habitat, road closures in sensitive areas. I see some conflicts though when we talk about road closures to help ranchers from trespass, if the ranchers are having that much of an issue with the elk, you would think they would recruit some hunters to help keep them off their ranch. Of coarse this doesn't work with the fee hunt ranches, but then you say they are not complaining.

How come everybody discounts the 3.5 age class bulls, the Starkey Project showed that they were just as effective of a breeder as the 5.5 year old bulls? Actually in the first study they out performed the 4.5 year old bulls. A whole age class has major implications when it comes to managing elk herds and hunter harvests. Just for information, the 3pt units are producing post season bull ratio's of around 20 bulls per 100 cows, with 5 bulls per 100 cows being 3.5 years or older during the breeding season.

[fish_guy10]

Originally Posted by CW59

I guess you need a really open mind because everyone is going to be bias for what they believe in. CW

Point well taken.

[fish_guy10]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

For the most part, this has been a great discussion, with lot's of good points. Let's all try to keep it that way. Scoutdog

Excellent summaries in your six points. I was pretty sure that I knew what you were driving at with your connection between the legislature and a revenue-driven tag setting process; I just wasn't positive.

Your point regarding excessive tag issuance: Assuming your contention is correct, and I trust you that it is, what causes "true" sportsmen to vehemently oppose reductions in tag numbers when it is done to address production issues? Part of this question is rhetorical, but I would like to hear some other sides.

Your point regarding floating tag fees: I've never thought of this; its a very innovative concept. Have you ever run this by Salem staff?

Your point regarding animal security: Yes, yes, yes. You're preaching to the choir man. Now tell me how to get a handle on shed antler collecting and the resultant impact on winter wildlife distribution and I'll patent it and we'll both retire.

Your point 3: The disconnect between science and policy is interesting, isn't it? In part, that's why we need more of the "average sportsman" understanding us "egghead scientists" and our black magic.

Your point regarding bull:cow ratios: I believe there is some similar research on mule deer reproductive success, I'll look. I agree with your summation and would add that not only is it important to have mature animals in your herd, its pretty difficult over here for a bull to live 4-5 years given our road densities, hunting pressure, etc., but you're right, without the data...

The higher bull:cow ratio, combined with a standard for % older age class animals in the population and some other factors, should provide for a much higher quality hunt, at least according to how I personally define a quality hunt. The rub is often with those that don't necessarily care whether they have a chance at a 330 to 350 bull or not, they just want to go hunt.

Your point 4. I would add that it is not just elk on alfalfa, some of the problems are on general rangeland. BTW, is there a place here that I could post some pictures? It might demonstrate some of what we are discussing. Also, someone else posted some thoughts about historic shrub densities and mentioned having some photos showing some examples. I'd love to see those as his thoughts paralleled some of the data we have that demonstrates a near annihilation of shrubs in the 1950's (to a rodent infestation no less).

I don't like the high fence solution, but I am willing to consider it in the right places. Most of the folks that I know of that use "food plots" (even if they take a harvest) for attraction aren't complaining about damage either, which supports your observation as well. This issue gets me to picking my rear when I have to work on it in the field like no other...what do we do with the landowners that don't mind the elk, but only if they show up in elk season and leave right after? How do we address the situations where we have legitimate damage concerns, but the landowner does not want general public access (and please keep in mind that not every hunter is as ethical as the people reading this list; we do have real issues of cows being shot, gates left open, 4x4 tracks across cultivated fields, etc.)? How do we address the concerns where the damage is not occurring during regular hunting seasons? These are just some of the introduced complexities.

I'll be honest with you guys, there is a contingent in E. Or that would like to hire wildlife cropping agents to privately address the elk damage issue. Regardless of the legality of this play, I don't like it and would like some legitimate suggestions from all of you that I can take to the group for their consideration.

Your point 5. Yes, yes, yes, oh yes. RMEF is in the process of "reinventing" itself again. I think very highly of the organization, but I have always been critical of their approach to habitat (while realizing the validity of their rationale). ODFW has the ability, and I have requested them to do so to no avail, to establish habitat objectives and standards for the management of federal land. Without debating the finer points of NEPA law, their doing so would give them incredible standing with the USFS and BLM. But why haven't they done so? Why are there so little site-specific (re: meaningful) actions in Oregon's big game management plans?

Your point 6. So when do you want to start your campaign for commissioner? You have my vote!

[BrianMaguire]

What I find interesting is that the discussion gets deflected away from public land grazing. We reduce the MO's of elk but don't touch the AUM's on allotments. Hmmmm, maybe this is why hunters may get worked up over the "plan".


Elk and moo cows effectively do the same thing to habitat. Too many elk or too many cows will have the same net effect but its only the elk we reduce via the lower MO's.

Observational biology leads me to see that the effect of elk or cows grazing grass (deer don't eat grass for the most part) probably can affect fawn survival. Personally I have noticed a nice increase in deer numbers inside the Steen's Wilderness area since they stopped grazing 6 years ago. Antelope rebounded in Hart Mountain after grazing ended The grasses are higher than I have ever seen in my life in the Steen's and I found it difficult to hunt in because there was so much cover. I wonder if predators have the same problem?

BTW - if you live near an airport do you complain about the noise? If you live near wildlife do you complain about the damage?

[scoutdog5]

Rank, my recollection is that the average conception date moved earlier as the age of the bulls increased, with the earliest date occuring with the 5.5 year old bulls, but I could certainly be wrong, given my advanced age and mental condition. I did a quick search for the book of reports I have, but could not find it. Will find it tomorrow, and post study results directly from the report. One additional point, I don't think it is possible to count bulls during trend counts based completely on age. You can basically recognize three age groups, spikes, raghorns, and the rest, so effectively you would measure your mature bull ratio by those 2.5 years and older during the winter, which would make them 3.5 years during breeding season.

fish-guy10, in my opinion shed hunting is an absolute disaster for big game herds, but I have no answer. I think all of us need to realize that animals are under tremendous stress in the late winter-spring, and into the birthing season. We need to leave them alone: no shed hunting, no photography, no atv riding, etc. It is too bad our herds are in such terrible shape that this is a big problem, but that is the world we find ourselves in.

I also agree that the problem with elk on private land is much more involved than the use of alfalfa fields. I believe, however, that elk use of private range land has much more to do with elk being pushed off forest service land due to human contact and motorized traffic, and not because there is higher quality feed on the private grazing land, particularly in the fall. In my opinion, a combination of fencing alfalfa fields and year round road closures on adjacent public land would keep the majority of elk on public land. Could be wrong.

Your comment about hunters objecting to drastic tag reductions is interesting. I can't think of a single case in Eastern Oregon in the last 10 years where the commission recoommended or instituted a drastic tag reduction, which I would define as 40% or greater. Like you, I have attended many big game meetings, and been very disappointed in the comments and opinions offered by the hunters in attendance. It is a sad commentary on us as a group that we are absolutely committed to the hunting, and all aspects related to it, from guns to gear to stories to TV shows, etc, yet spend so little time educating ourselves about the dynamics of big game populations, and the challenges we face in providing quality and opportunity to the hunting community. Obviously, none of that applies to all of you here on I-fish, which is why I enjoy the site so much.

I am working on a proposal to the game commission regarding fees/tags etc, implementing the sliding fee rationale. Sounds simple til you start working on the details. I am shooting for completion April 1, and will submit it to the commission shortly thereafter. Having said that, I am not optimistic, given the lack of response to other great ideas I have sent them. Could not even get a response to an offer to volunteer to build more effective big game information stat sheets they use to help set seasons and tag numbers.

Brian, I absolutely agree with you regarding grazing on public land. In my view, the completely unexpected rebound in antelope fawn ratios on Hart Mountain is a direct result of the decision to stop grazing on Hart Mtn, although it took 10 years for the results to really become obvious. I am particularly frustrated by Federal Rules that do not allow for a grazing allotment to be purchased and then retired. How great would it be if ODF&W charged an extra 10.00 a year for a hunting license, and then used those funds to purchase grazing leases, right of ways to public land, etc. I actually believe this will change over the next 50 years, just not sure I will still be around to see it.

Sorry this is so long guys, got carried away as usual.

Scoutdog