Proposal for Big Game Management - Part 4 - Archery

[scoutdog5]

Bowhunting

First some stats:

1998 Mule Deer
Archery 17,655 hunters 2,993 bucks harvested 16.9% success
Rifle 66,600 hunters 28,140 bucks harvested 42.2% success
Archery hunters were 21% of the hunters and had 9.6% of the buck harvest

1998 Rocky Mountain Elk
Archery 14,503 hunters 1,002 bulls harvested 06.9% success
Rifle 64,916 hunters 6,450 bulls harvested 09.9% success
Archery hunters were 18% of the hunters and had 13.4% of the harvest

2006 Mule Deer
Archery 17,646 hunters 3,408 bucks harvested 19.3% success
Rifle 53,384 hunters 19,059 bucks harvested 35.6% success
Archery hunters were 25% of the hunters, and had 15% of the harvest

2006 Rocky Mountain Elk
Archery 14,879 hunters 1,424 bulls harvested 9.6% success
Rifle 34,660 hunters 4,952 bulls harvested 14.2% success
Archery hunters were 30% of the hunters, and had 22% of the harvest

Note: Statistics are not an exact comparison. Rifle hunter totals include hunters who had antlerless tags and could not harvest bulls. Archery hunters could all harvest bulls, some could harvest either a bull or an antlerless elk.

First, what this proposal will NOT do:

1. Make any changes to the current season structure or season dates for any weapon
2. Make any changes to the bag limit rules currently in place
3. Make any changes to the current preference point draw system, except that non-residents and resident youths would have separate draws

What it will do:

1. Move all antlered mule deer and rocky mountain antlered archery hunts into the draw system.
2. Set tag numbers at 100% of the total number of antlered resident rifle permits authorized for each unit.
3. Split the authorized tags into three draws, 80% to adult residents, 10% to non-residents, 10% to resident youths.
4. Apply the same rules for determining tag fees as are recommended for rifle hunts.

Example: Ochoco Antlered Bull tags

1st season resident rifle tags: 250
1st season non-resident rifle tags: 25
1st season youth resident rifle tags: 25
1st season outfitter rifle tags: 8
2nd season resident rifle tags: 250
2nd season non-resident rifle tags: 25
2nd season youth resident rifle tags: 25
2nd season outfitter rifle tags: 8
Archery resident tags: 400
Archery non-resident tags: 50
Archery resident youth tags: 50

In units where rifle antlerless tags are allowed, the bow tag would be any elk. In units where rifle antlerless tags are not allowed, the tag would be one elk with horns longer than it’s ears.

Discussion:

This proposal is designed to allow ODF&W to lower or increase tag numbers without impacting the revenue stream the department receives from tag sales. It is impossible to predict whether there will be more or less tags available in the future, although the sad state of our big game herds would seem to indicate opportunity would be reduced, at least in the short term. What this proposal does do is potentially increase the percentage of hunters who are bowhunters, to a maximum that would approach parity. One point I have failed to mention previously is that left-over tags would NOT be available to other user groups. For example, leftover tags in the Ochoco Youth Resident bow draw would not be available to any other group, either bow or rifle. They would be available as a second choice tag, or even over the counter to resident youth.

This proposal would limit but not eliminate what I consider to be an unfair advantage that many hunters are taking advantage of. Hunters apply for a difficult to draw rifle tag, collect a point, then go bow hunting in an open unit that is a difficult draw for rifle hunters, Murderer’s Creek elk, Steens Mtn deer, etc. This makes the rifle draw much harder, and forces rifle only hunters to be able to hunt less often, while some bow hunters get the best of both worlds. I believe the quality units, such as Murderer’s Creek elk archery, will eventually require a 1st choice selection to draw, and limit this advantage to some extent. Obviously, archers could still put in for rifle tag, and then select an undersubscribed archery hunt and go hunting. It might also help to slightly unplug the terrible odds that exist for archers on the top draw hunts, Wenaha, Walla, Walla, etc.

Currently, rules require that archers who want to hunt deer in a limited entry elk draw unit must possess the elk tag to hunt deer. The proposal will recommend that this rule be eliminated. The purpose of the rule was to eliminate illegal hunting of elk by archers with deer permits. In essence, it was an acknowledgement that there was not adequate enforcement available to solve this problem. Given the substantially higher revenues this proposal will result in, enforcement funding should see a substantial increase.

This proposal will recommend the end of all spike only elk hunts. Currently, all of these hunts occur on units with calf/cow ratios substantially below management objective, on elk herds that are substantially below management objective. There is no biological data I am aware of that would support targeting young elk being recruited into the herd under these circumstances. In my opinion, the only purpose these tags served was to increase income to the Dept. Under this proposal, that is unnecessary. This will also solve the completely unfair situation occurring on the top level archery bull hunts in Walla Walla, Wenaha, etc. If you wait 10-20 years for a tag, you ought to be able to expect a quality hunting experience, without an unlimited number of spike only hunters interfering with the hunt. Of course, archery deer hunters will still be there, so it is not a perfect solution.

I imagine there will be a lot of reaction to bowhunting parts of the proposal. Keep it civil please. At this point, none of this is carved in stone, although I am very serious about limiting the archer’s impact on the rifle draws.

Next step is to put all of this into one fairly short, coherent proposal.

Scoutdog

[ehunter]

What is you plan for the west side. If you were to go stricly to a draw system for archery that would put increased pressure on the west side? I also think that there needs to be a draw on the west side at the very least elimate all doe hunts until they come up with a plan for deer on the west side. I am talking both archery and rifle doe hunts.

[gottafish]

Originally Posted by ehunter

What is you plan for the west side. If you were to go stricly to a draw system for archery that would put increased pressure on the west side? I also think that there needs to be a draw on the west side at the very least elimate all doe hunts until they come up with a plan for deer on the west side. I am talking both archery and rifle doe hunts.

I couldn't agree more. All general tags need to go away period..... It would just cause more stresses on coastal herds causing more over crowding on lands open to hunting which in my opinion only cause further land closers on the coast range. ITS ALREADY A CRAP SHOOT TO SEE WHICH TIMBER CO. WILL BE OPEN AND FOR HOW LONG. I think to only option is choose your weapon. You need to rifle hunt or bow hunt and make that choice before the draw. We simple have to address the people who just buy a bow tag cause they didn't draw a rifle tag. with the advances in archery equipment this has become a very real problem. there should not be more bow hunters than rifle hunters in eastern Oregon forests and yet there are.

[scoutdog5]

gottafish, I agree 100%. I elected not to include the westside in my proposal due to my complete lack of knowledge of that whole program, hunt, etc. I am concerned that if this were to be implemented on the eastside only, there would be potentially negative impacts on the westside populations and hunting experience.

What do you think? Do we need to go for the whole thing first time out of the box? One concern I is that there appears to be much larger day use component to westside hunting, versus hunting trips on the eastside. Does going to a draw for every tag, even if tag numbers are large enough to allow everyone to draw, create problems for the more casual hunter?

There are certainly a number of archers who plan a big trip to Eastern Oregon, but still hunt on the westside. This would put that to an end. Is that a good thing?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Scoutdog

[ondagreen]

I beleive the big over crowding part here in the northwest is the amount of out of state hunters buying over the counter bull elk tags because they are guaranteed a hunt. Simply creating a draw for archery elk statewide and limiting 10% of those tags to out of state hunters would most likely solve the problem. We need to learn from the states that already have these measures in place and are making them work. We don't need to re-invent the wheel. Unlike elk, deer are not in the rut during archery season and it is a lot harder to kill quality bucks during this time than it is to harvest a trophy bull. The reality is if someone draws a heppner archery elk tag and buys an over the counter deer tag, they will most likely hunt deer in the same unit. A state wide elk draw will help spread out deer hunters also. Especially with the price of fuel, hunting different units for different species would get costly.

[whtelk]

We need to go for a draw for every unit east and west Rifle and bow. We need to do away with any general season elk tag that is OTC. Limit non residents to 3 %
Or do we really need any more confusion? I think leave our system alone!!

[hunteraholic]

I could agree more with the draw for every unit, while chosing a weapon. I bow hunt and play the numbers game with the point system. Put in for weneha and hunt every year, And i dont think that is right. Ive got 9 points for elk and it could take up to ten more years to draw, and i know im not the only one doing this. I would rather hunt every year then going for a highly disiable hunt. By going to a draw in evey unit/ weapon it would change the numbers to draw signifigantly. If the rifle hunter doesnt draw he just goes and buys an over the counter tag and bow hunts every year in the same unit. I thought that was why they went to a draw for rifle to elimante the pressure and the number of bucks taken. Know the people i talk to say the pressure is even worse for a longer period of time.

If we chose a unit this would also give the fish and game control of pressure to each unit,and with the mandatory report coming into effect they will have a much better idea what is happening in each unit. Most likely there will be an unlimited number of tags for the west side eccept the ones on draw. If you take out the bowhunters that hunt east for a week then every weekend on the west side. That would be a huge pressure drop right there. Then you got he east bowhunters coming over west for the late bow hunt.

just my but agree something needs to change.

[scottishsetter]

Scoutdog I thank you for your homework and I didn't mean to derail your hard work.
My point was: Hunters need to consider the total tags for one unit; that has to include the bow hunting #s.
Example: Using 2006 report from ODFW #s and the 2008 proposed #s.
Northside Bow Tags(2006)1084
Northside rifle tags 920

THIS is the "deal"; Private tag hunts=1000(assuming 100 LOP tags)
I can only assume these tags can reap up to $5000 each with tresspass fees.

So for Northside unit 1084 Bow 1000 Private 920 rifle

The rub comes from Bow hunters traveling every road looking and bugling for Elk Bulls in the rut(Hey nature of that hunt-bugling) and then rifle deer chasing the game then Cowboys the day before the first season rifle hunt driving strays with two dogs right thru the NOW Road Closure Area.(Actualy the BIG "drive" is during the rifle deer hunt---Driving the elk...mostly... out with the cows onto private land and the 1000 tags For Sale there.

So the only real Objection I have with Bow hunters in the Northside Unit is they should have the Road Closure Enforced also.
Scoutdog; Your proposal is a good one for freeing up money to put towards that enforcement.
I have no opinion one way or the other on the archery tags in E. Oregon being draw only for all units. 'Cept it would eliminate the double dip rifle then bowhunters but??? Sorry Joe, I wasn't your enemy and never meant to make any. Good Luck

[baltz526]

bow hunting pressure would be spread out, with tags in units hardly anyone bow hunts. i do not think there are hundreds of bow hunters in the beatys butte unit or wagontire, but there are deer and elk are in the wagon tire unit, interstate unit with very low bow hunting numbers. not many bow hunters in the white horse unit. i'll guess bow hunters will be drawing 3rd and 4th choices and gaining points every year

[ehunter]

I think they should have all the green dot roads sytems in place for archery that they do for rifle season. The I would add green dot road systems to every unit and leave it in place for hunting season. If there are wood cutters maybe they could have a permit system that allows them special travel routes.

[lor]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

First, what this proposal will NOT do:

1. Make any changes to the current season structure or season dates for any weapon
2. Make any changes to the bag limit rules currently in place
3. Make any changes to the current preference point draw system, except that non-residents and resident youths would have separate draws

What it will do:

1. Move all antlered mule deer and rocky mountain antlered archery hunts into the draw system.
2. Set tag numbers at 100% of the total number of antlered resident rifle permits authorized for each unit.
3. Split the authorized tags into three draws, 80% to adult residents, 10% to non-residents, 10% to resident youths.
4. Apply the same rules for determining tag fees as are recommended for rifle hunts.

I will keep this civil.
From what I can see, everyone who responded has just rolled over and agreed this would be a good thing. Some of the folks are known archery hunters, and others are just people who wanting to see archers in the same bucket as everyone else. I guess true to form I will be the descenting voice.
If we use the Ochoo, Sled Springs,Chesnimnus Elk draw as a model.
To currently hunt deer in the Ochoo's, you must have an Ochoo Unit elk used or unused tag, otherwise you cannot hunt deer in that entire unit because the seasons overlap 100%. So in your proposal, since you are not talking about changing season structure, unless a person draws both deer and elk, they probably cannot hunt any eastside unit. Statisically what is the probability a person will draw both tags for the same unit. If its not possible, in one cunning plan, you have essentially locked a majority of archery hunters out of the woods if the draw is similar to the ones I mentioned.


Looking at tag numbers, lets take my unit, Murder's Creek, by your proposal of equal archery tags to rifle tags. In 2007, based on your proposal during archery season Oregon would only issue 847 Elk tags 1199 buck deer tags total since that the number of rifle tags issued.

If we look at the 2007 data, 1143 archery elk hunters took 185 elk, and 916 archery deer hunters took 132 deer. Eventhough by your proposal, the number of tags on the surface wouldn't appear to affect many people, you are unnessarily introducing a draw into a system that appears to be working fine. I guess on top of my sports pac purchase, the state could also use the extra 4.50 for me to apply for a tag that by your proposal I will probably already get.

If the success rate for archery hunting was close to that of rifle, then I would see this, but its clearly not. I really see this as change for change sake. But if people feel this will make things better, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Joe]

My preferred plan would be to designate weapon at the time of draw and then open all of the state to general bow seasons with the exception of the three premier trophy units. I'm fairly certain this would have kept bowhunter numbers low enough as to still be a non issue. I wish it would have been done years ago! The Oregon Bowhunters have tried but the state wouldn't consider it. Loss of revenue most likely being the reason why??

As for the details of this plan I tend to think that archery tag numbers should be higher than rifle tag numbers if success is substantially lower. One benefit of primitive weapon hunts is that the take is generally much lower. This is one reason I am baffled at why some rifle hunters want to reduce bow seasons. There is no contract that we bowhunters sign that says if season structure becomes unattractive we can't rifle hunt. I guess I would say it's in all hunters best interest to keep primitive weapons in as many hunters hands as possible.

I'm all for green dot road closures! Bring them on and the more the better. They are the only real tool available to improve hunting quality except to pull all cattle of public land and I'm afraid that isn't gonna happen.

The biggest concern I do have with this plan is that it would destroy archery elk hunting on the coast. I think that at least for elk it would need to be statewide.

[Rank Amateur]

Flesh this out for me a little more Scoutdog5, in the Murderers Creek unit, there were 568 cow tags out of the 1491 tag total for rifle/muzzle loader in '06. If I'm getting you right, those would be subtracted from the total and that would be the bow match?? Which is 923 tags. This would make the bow draw a non-guaranteed draw for bow hunters. Also is there any plan of of splitting out the bull/cow harvest in the either sex hunts?

I agree with your statement about bow hunters making it harder for the rifle hunters to draw, I have been waiting for somebody to say again the we need to pick our weapon, well then we should split the draw, bow only can apply for bow and rifle for rifle.

I would think we would have to flesh out the pressure that may be placed on the westside, but then again it may not be that bad if the east side is all draw, because there would be no coming home and hunting. Bow would be pick your side of the state.

Interesting concepts.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I agree with your statement about bow hunters making it harder for the rifle hunters to draw,

This is only true because we don't have to designate weapon. The people that are competing with you guys for rifle tags are rifle hunters. Why else would they apply for rifle tags? The fact that they use bow season as a fall back is unfortunate from the perspective of most serious bowhunters. Designating weapon prior to draw is way overdue in my opinion! Can anybody think of a reason this would NOT be a good idea?

Now, for 2006 there were 364 elk killed in Murderers Creek by rifles compared to 185 with bows....a difference of 179. To me this means that the number of bow tags should be right at double the number of rifle tags. It would create the most revenue from tag sales and split the harvest down the middle. The longer bow season would hopefully spread the pressure out enough to still provide a reasonably quality hunt. Have you considered the fact that bow hunters kill less animals Scoutdog? Granted we need roads closed in any scenerio.

I will have to look at the Mule Deer stuff later.....

[Hookset]

This proposal would limit but not eliminate what I consider to be an unfair advantage that many hunters are taking advantage of. Hunters apply for a difficult to draw rifle tag, collect a point, then go bow hunting in an open unit that is a difficult draw for rifle hunters, Murderer’s Creek elk, Steens Mtn deer, etc. This makes the rifle draw much harder, and forces rifle only hunters to be able to hunt less often, while some bow hunters get the best of both worlds.

This is why hunters need to choose their weapon before applying for tags. Most bowhunters (from what I've read and heard) would like to see this loophole closed. This wouldn't change the rifle hunters chances, but this would eliminate the cross over by rifle hunters into archery seasons.

1. Move all antlered mule deer and rocky mountain antlered archery hunts into the draw system.

Why?? With the bowhunters low success rate, what does this solve? I don't want this and I'd bet the majority of Bowhunters don't want this either.

How about this; rifle hunters work with the ODFW on their hunting seasons and Bowhunters will do likewise. The last thing Bowhunters need is rifle hunters trying to change and restrict seasons they do not participate in.

I'm sure this is going to get flack from those people saying they hunt with both weapons. Except true Bowhunters do not cross over and only pursue big game with archery tackle. These people are fanatics that love archery and bowhunting.

If you want to really make a difference, have people choose their weapon of choice when they purchase their yearly hunting license.

[baltz526]

i think something is missing from these responses. days in the field, bow hunters get 4 full weeks, rifle hunters get 5 days, 7 days 9 days 12 days on a tag. less tags for bow hunters still equal more days in the field. if bow hunter demand more tags, split the bow season. personally i think 3 weeks is plenty for bow hunters, then open up a 1 week muzzle loader season

[Joe]

Originally Posted by baltz526

i think something is missing from these responses. days in the field, bow hunters get 4 full weeks, rifle hunters get 5 days, 7 days 9 days 12 days on a tag. less tags for bow hunters still equal more days in the field. if bow hunter demand more tags, split the bow season. personally i think 3 weeks is plenty for bow hunters, then open up a 1 week muzzle loader season

Rifle hunters in the unit I live in get a 4 day or a 7 day season and they kill 3 times as many bulls as bow hunters do in a month. It's a matter of impact! I think one 2 week season that was limited entry and reduced harvest to be equal to that of bow season would be a better way to go. Would that alleviate the problem of season envy we are currently faced with? A whole lot of rifle hunters would not be hunting but if equality is the goal that is gonna be the cost is it not?

[baltz526]

still missing a point i think. rebuilding herds. if hunters spend less time pressuring big game animals during critical times (the rut) the big game animals will be heathier and more productive. this is why we rifle hunters do not get tags during the deer rut. or when the animals are on winter range. you bow hunters know the pressure you put on the elk during the rut. it is not tag envy, it is that bow hunters are treated special.

[scoutdog5]

Great discussion once again guys. Lot's of good ideas, and lot's of things to think about. A couple of corrections, then some thoughts:

1. Lor, I covered the issue of needing the elk tag to hunt deer in paragraph 3 of the discussion. In my view, the current policy is a copout for a lack of enforcement that penalizes the 90%+ of hunters that follow the rules. Is there any logic to issuing 3,500 rifle tags for the Ochoco unit, and maximizing archery tags at 800? Of course not.

2. If you look at the elk stats above, success rates are not that much different, and are getting closer. It is no longer true that archers harvest does not impact the herd dynamics of elk.

3. Rank, under the proposal, all antlered tag numbers are set based upon the no. of resident rifle tags approved. Antlerless tags were deliberately left outside the proposal, with the present policy continued. if the department issues rifle antlerless tags, the bow tag for that unit becomes an any elk tag. After reviewing the herd population and calf/cow ratios for eastern oregon, there is really no justification for the numbers of antlerless tags that are still being issued. Again, I believe it is a money issue. Anyway, whatever the number of rifle bull tags are approved, all other antlered tags are a percentage of that number.

4. Currently, bow hunters make up around 30% of the total hunter numbers, with virtually no restrictions on their ability to hunt. There has been a very small increase in the actual number of bowhunters over the past 8 years, but thier percentage has gone up due to the drop in rifle hunters. This proposal provides tags numbers to archers basically equal to those for rifle hunters. In my opinion, there is zero chance that all of those tags would be issued at any time during my lifetime. However, individual units would undoubtedly be oversubscribed starting the first year. Oregon already provides more bow hunting opportunity than any other western state I am familiar with. To be honest, I went with the equal tag idea strictly to cut down on the sniping if this proposal ever gets taken seriously. In reality, I expect total bow hunter numbers to run between 30-40% of rifle hunter numbers. The end result is it will still be much easier to bow hunting every year than rifle hunting, just won't have as many options as currently.

5. I have been trying to get the Rager Green Dot Road Closure extended for years. I get the same story from the Forest Service and ODF& W every time. No money to implement or patrol it.

It is easy to get off track from what the primary purpose of this proposal is. After spending a lot of time studying how other states finance their big game programs, and watching ODF&W continue to cutback on basic management practices that are critical to managing big game populations, it is obvious to me that nothing will change until we solve the financial problems the department is facing. I purposely stayed away from the controversial issues that have doomed other proposals in the past, choose your weapon, shorter bow seasons, moving seasons around, with the hope that the focus will be on the money issues we have, and how we solve them.

I see this as a three stage process. First, fix the money, Second, start rebuilding the populations, third, develop a hunter management program that provides maximum opportunity for all the various user groups without damaging herd dynamics.

I am currently building the money comparisons for elk and mule deer between all the western states, except California. I am guessing I will post that info on Tues-Wed. Based on what I have finished, I think it will illustrate the problem.

Scoutdog

[Rank Amateur]

I certainly have to applaud your effort Scoutdog5, this has been very thought out process.

In regards to my above example of Murderer's Creek elk, then the numbers I came up with would be correct? Or would you try to strip the percentage of bulls out of the either sex hunts. I totally agree with your statement on the cow tags on the eastside, of coarse that is going to fly in the face of the managment M.O.'s in units such as Murderer's Creek unit.

I know many bow hunters think that the harvest numbers should be equal between user groups, but this is probably not reality. I sat in some of the meetings when ODF&W was talking about expanding bow opportunity and it was clearly stated that the harvests would never be equal, in fact that was the driving force behind the expanded opportunity, take more hunters from the rifle ranks but have a lesser harvest.

[SILVERSINK]

If bow hunters in general want equality then the rules should be the same with out any exceptions. If a unit such as Starkey issues 2 cow tags,then there should be 2 cow bow tags.The game comm. issues 2 tags in order to keep the option open to have a cow hunt at a latter date. I don't know if they are doing this to any other units. Also take all hunts out of the rutting season. and move all hunt to a latter date so the bow hunters still have first choice on the animals that are not spooked by big #s hunters running the woods. Stop all riffle target shooting during archery season. just my point of view, by the way I hunt both bow and rifle.

[Prawnasorus]

I may have missed it, but right now we have an unlimited number of tags going out over the counter to out of state bowhunters. few states are that liberal any more. Some units (eastern) are over run with out of state hunters during archery season.
Is the proposal to have them draw similar to rifle hunts, %'s quota etc?.

[Joe]

So what your saying Scoutdog is that is the numbers of bow hunters are reduced which is what your proposal would in fact do then bow tags would be more expensive than rifle tags?

Baltz, The cows are getting bred.......

[TheRogue]

I think you're missing one small piece of your equation.

Hunting license sales and NEW hunter numbers are declining, have been for a long time. By your proposals of increased fees and reducing opportunity from historically a pretty open system, you're going to speed this up dramatically, at least at the beginning. Is this a good thing? mmmmm....I'd say no.

Also; at what level would all these changes have to be enacted? In the legislature, working with ODFW? Call me a pessimist, but I don't believe that is realistic in our current political climate, with the current party holding power now and in the foresee-able future.

I'd agree with "choose your weapon", I don't like it but we need it. Granted it won't change harvest numbers much, few hunters who buy a bow tag on Aug 29th because they didn't draw a rifle tag are going to have that good of a harvest percentage. Again, this is going to lower the number of license sales, and decrease your revenue stream.

Baltz brings up a good point about hunters in the field disturbing wildlife. I guess I don't really agree with him on the problems of having bowhunters in the field 4+ weeks. Many bow elk hunters don't get excited until the last 2 weeks anyway. To me it's more pressuring by having the late seaons after general rifle seasons....muzzle loader tags, cow tags, late-late cow tags, etc. Used to be we hunted second elk season with spike tags and drawing cow tags. Yes, makes for party hunting (boy, that's a scary term, I'm sure I'll get scalped for that), but people were in the field all at once. Now you have eastside units that run the late cow season AFTER second rifle, and in certain instances a late-late season after that. Let's move these cow tags back into second (or first) bull season, and only utilize other hunt times in winter for very specific damage control.

Road closure systems are good......too many Suzuki Samurai hunting rigs out there already

Keep up the proposals. This is how things get changed in government; roll out great big ideas and plans; and a few tiny pieces of those get utilized!!

TR

[Mossyhorn]

I don't see the point of having 10% of tags going to youth archery? That's a lot of tags and I'm sure there would be a bunch of leftovers. Take some units that have 1500 rifle elk tags, do you really think there needs to be 150 youth archery tags? Put all the tags together and keep non-residents at the 5% cap.

I think non-residents should be capped on OTC tags for archery. There are too many in some places. Cap the tags for NR's and make them draw for them. This would go a long way in curbing hunter numbers in NE Oregon.

[earlybird007]

The numbers dont lie. There are far more rifle hunters than bow hunters. I do believe that it is time to pick your weapon.......this will help with the controlled rifle hunt draws....

To the people that think that bow hunters should not be hunting elk in the rut.....what happens during the west side rifle hunts for deer?.....same thing, hunting the rut.
There is a big difference when comparing rifle shooting at 5-600 yards and bow shooting at 50 yards, as you can tell I am strictly a bow hunter and always will be.

I would like to see the tag fees increase. 19$ for a deer tag is way to low with the money ODFW has to work with.

And the road closures strictly need to be enforced during all seasons. I would not mind seeing a predator control fee and a road closure enforcement fee on all hunting licenses.

Quit picking on the bowhunters guys, you mention all the upgrades in equipment and the ability to shoot longer ranges. What about the 1000 yard rifle guys?....we all just want to hunt every year

[baltz526]

my opinion on travel management is YES do it. with easy to get special use permits for non hunters. bow deer and elk tags appear very stable 18,000 deer 14,000 elk. i wish we had the current nonresident percentage of these tags. i think nonresident should be regulated by the draw no matter what else happens, with 10% of all the tags. we residents NEED this money. if just this one thing comes about, we are a large step towards stabil funding

[Oregonhunter]

Originally Posted by baltz526

i think something is missing from these responses. days in the field, bow hunters get 4 full weeks, rifle hunters get 5 days, 7 days 9 days 12 days on a tag. less tags for bow hunters still equal more days in the field. if bow hunter demand more tags, split the bow season. personally i think 3 weeks is plenty for bow hunters, then open up a 1 week muzzle loader season

I look at it this way I have to be within 40 yards to even hope to get a shot at any animal....it takes time to do this even with the longer seasons most archery guys will never get a shot. Lets face it with a firearm you really arent all that concerned about shot agle (as much anyway) and anything thats within 300 yards is a dead animal if you have the time to get a shot. I can tell you this even with three weeks to hunt deer in the late season and seeing at least 1-3 bucks every day spent in the field I still did not punch my tag. I spent two solid weeks out there every day. With a rifle in my hand there may have been two bucks I would not have been able to shoot that entire time. You have to remember everything has to go perfect with archery to get a shot, and perfect takes time.

I gave up rifle hunting to get to hunt better seasons no doubt but was also looking for more of a challenge. My kill ratio was much higher with a gun. Lets face it the archery guys who are filling their tags are many times the guys spending huge amounts of time in the woods. Anyone can look through a scoped rifle and hit an animal within a few practice sessions but can you say the same thing about archery tackle? It takes alot more effort and time to be a archery hunter who gets to punch their tags.

I would have to re-think archery hunting if they do start to shorten the seasons. My two anyways.

oh

[baltz526]

if i was physically able to bow hunt, i would be a bow hunter. i would be in the field everyday of the season, and i expect i would be passing up bucks inside 40yds, just as i do as a rifle hunter. of course i hunt with a rifle exactly like some bow hunters hunt. hard in the brush all day. as all bow hunters know, a large percentage of bow tag holders do not actually hunt AS a bow hunter. to recreate the tag process, giving the odfw the money for enforcement patrols will greatly improve the hunt, true bow hunters can have. from my point of view, true bow hunters should love more enforcement patrols. a few years ago in the ochoco bow hunt 70% of animals check by the 1 state trooper where killed illegally 70% insane

[TheRogue]

Originally Posted by baltz526

a few years ago in the ochoco bow hunt 70% of animals check by the 1 state trooper where killed illegally 70% insane

Wow, could you post the source for this? 70% of the animals being illegal?

[baltz526]

call the osp officer, or search the bend bulletin. i don't mind if you do your own fact checking

[Ildor]

Risking a thread hijack here but 70% without the details doesn't amount to much. So he checked 7 animals and 5 were illegal. The trooper was working swing shift and was doing the checking after dark. The 5 animals came from 3 different groups of hunters. 2 were out and out poached by one group, the other was found to be shot too close to dark, the other two the tags were improperly punched or attached to the animal resulting in "illegal kills". The trooper checked 50 other groups and found 2 more legal kills. All hypothetical of course but the point is the figure 70% is extremely misleading without the details.

[TheRogue]

Originally Posted by Ildor

Risking a thread hijack here but 70% without the details doesn't amount to much. So he checked 7 animals and 5 were illegal. The trooper was working swing shift and was doing the checking after dark. The 5 animals came from 3 different groups of hunters. 2 were out and out poached by one group, the other was found to be shot too close to dark, the other two the tags were improperly punched or attached to the animal resulting in "illegal kills". The trooper checked 50 other groups and found 2 more legal kills. All hypothetical of course but the point is the figure 70% is extremely misleading without the details.

Thank you.

[baltz526]

thanks, but that is all to common of a senario durring all hunting seasons. check seven elk kills and 5 had legal issues. why? because normally these camp never get checked. WHY? because odfw osp dosn't have the budget for enforcement patrols

[ehunter]

Ok lets slow this train down I bow hunt for elk and rifle hunt for deer. I for one find it hard to believe that bow hunters are any worse as a group in regards to breaking the law. Nope I don't buy that for a mili second. I also agree that bow hunting offers a longer season for a reason. It will be interesting to see the results of the long awaited reporting system and the numbers of elk taken ect. I still know that there is a big difference in harvest rates of bow vs elk. Even with the new breed of 5o yards plus shooters.

If they did go to a draw unit they could more easily fluctate the cow seasons for both bow and rifle. If they need to reduce cow hunts take them out. I think that there is general concensus among rifle hunters that even getting a archery cow is a slam dunk I don't think so. But if it met that I had to apply for unit for bulls only and less hunters I would be applying for that unit in a heart beat.

I am for more green dot road systems this has been over due for a long time. I don't even have a problem with applying for a unit for elk to bow hunt.

Personaly I would not have a problem with a pick your weapon.

PS this has been a great discussion.

[uhmw]

QUOTE form original post: This makes the rifle draw much harder and forces rifle hunters to hunt less often while bow hunters get the best of both worlds.

I can't understand this pro rifle self entitlement stament. It seems to me the gun hunters blast more than their fair share of game according to your stats. Why do rifle hunters always want to infringe on bow hunting rights??? Most Bow hunters choose the weapon because it makes for a more challenging hunt and lowers the chances of becoming mistaken game and could care less about using a gun. Please mind your own seasons.

[baltz526]

i'm not a politition so i do not mind being the person to get slammed, these issues need to be brought up. to buy enforcement for all seasons, each season needs to pay it's way. bow hunters need to pay for it's own enforcement, biologists, surveys etc. to try to say bow hunters are a more legal bunch than rifle huntes is silly, rifle hunters are equally as bad. parity in need for enforcement. change in the tag process is the only way we as hunters will ever get to watch our herds grow and have better hunts. pay for biologist, field surveys, enforcment and in a few years when you go hunting and see 25% to 50% more game the pain of changing the system will be forgotten

[hawg boss]

I think draw only for most units is a bad idea. I usualy hunt several hunting units each season, untill I can find some decent bucks. Often the bucks that I saw the previous season don't survive the rifle season, so I move on to other areas that I have found bucks in previously. Last year I would have hated to be stuck in the unit that I found bucks in the previous year.

Also many bow hunters only go over for a couple days and then hunt the west side the rest of the season.

If rifle hunters all had to get 30 yards (50 for some) or less from their target, you would get to hunt more because it would greatly reduce the harvest, which would result in more animals and more oportunity.

[Crayfin]

I guess I am still wondering why no one asked the question as to how many BULLS were killed by Bowhunters in your scenario above? That's what most people are concerned with isnt it? Now, I will be the first to admit that I am only interested in killing a bull and will go home without an elk if I dont but.......alot of archers dont think that way and whack the first legal elk they see.

Kinda like the "illegal" statistics earlier--there is more to be disclosed here.

Someone said it earlier but it bears mentioning again---primarily it is rifle hunters that are accounting for the cross overs. I would also vote for the declaring of your weapon prior to season scenario. I love to hunt deer with a rifle too but since I am already out there elk hunting I just get an archery tag. Alot of it is available time to be out there. I end up going out of state to rifle hunt deer. Archery season is a month long.......I hunt for 10 days and I would bet that MOST archers are looking at the same time frame or less--sure, it is a long season but who can hunt everyday? Would be interesting if someone could find that inforamtion somewhere. i know I have been asked by ODFW before about how many days afield I was.

I am all for the road closure BTW too

[whtelk]

I don't know if any one has noticed this or if its just me. The elk on the east side have been in rut during the first rifle season. Lets do away with the first season or move it back 2 weeks and get away from the rut, and do away with any weapon that is accurate beyond 60 yards,,,,that should stir the pot.

[Joe]

As for the Mule Deer side of this I am strongly opposed to such a change. 15% of the harvest is fairly insignificant and until that changes there is no biological reason for such a plan. Why reduce hunter opportunity here????? This is not about raising revenue it is about reducing bow seasons. The truth is it would backfire on the rifle hunters who think bow seasons need to be limited. All that would happen is more people would rifle hunt making it all that much more difficult to draw that tag. As I said above....there is no contract signed that precludes a person who has been buying a bow tag and harvesting less often from rifle hunting. It is in everybody's best interest to not screw with this. If anything the deer units that are draw for bow should be eliminated. There is no justification for that. I know there are outlaws that hunt with all weapons but enforcement is the only answer there.

On final question for Scoutdog. Is this a personal proposal or are you hoping it will be backed by the OHA?

[baltz526]

it would not reduce bow hunter numbers, just spread them out. (except nonresidents) i think

[NeverGuess]

Good discussion. Me personally:

Road Closures/Green Dot: YES, birm or gate the numerous spurs

Pick Your Weapon: YES, while I like stacking up points, I would give it up

Archery Draw all East: NO, just do it in units that are proved too crowded

Pick your side of the state: No. That is what makes archery so great, it can provide a lot of days in the field with minimal impact.

Charge more for tags: YES! The tags are pretty insignificant portion of the cost. With all that we spend on gear, gas and all the other stuff we "need" at camp, we could easily give more $$$ for tags.

NEW IDEA: Could we pass a law that would allow OSP/ODFW to "patrol" the road closures with trail cams kind of like photo-radar? It would be an inexpensive way to get a lot of eyes out there, 24/7. That would scare the dickens out of roadhunters on closed roads.

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

I know many bow hunters think that the harvest numbers should be equal between user groups, but this is probably not reality.

After bowhunting for over 30 years, I doubt this even remotely true. Bowhunters accept their lower chance of success as part of the overall challenge. With the inherent difficulty with archery gear and the limited range, archery success would never equal rifle success rates and I would find it hard to believe any Bowhunter would think otherwise.

Bowhunters have reduced success rates and harvest fewer animals then rifle hunters even with a longer bow season. The impact by Bowhunters is still minimal when compared to rifle hunters, it's not even close.

I've also read where rifle hunters blame Bowhunters for their limited success and reduced animal sightings. I have news for you, Bowhunters have noticed the same trends and have equal difficulty finding and locating animals to hunt. Miles and miles of former prime habitat is vacant and void of game. Our elk herds and deer herds have been in a constant downward spiral for many years and this trend doesn't look to be changing anytime soon. Don't blame the Bowhunters, we didn't create this mess.

If memory serves me, Oregon's estimated elk population has dropped from 150,000 animals to 100,000 and still declining further, perhaps we would be better off finding the reasons behind this trend then worrying about a perceived advantage that Bowhunters are not enjoying.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by baltz526

it would not reduce bow hunter numbers, just spread them out. (except nonresidents) i think

In theory that is how it sounds, but.......if you look at it from the perspective of the bow hunter you would see that without the freedom to hunt both sides of the state and the late blacktail season it would reduce bow hunter numbers. Killing a buck deer with a bow is very difficult regardless of how easy they make it look on TV. There has to be some lure besides the odds of success to keep people wanting to bowhunt. It takes a LOT of days in the field and if they are not available......

If the harvest gets to a point where it is a more significant impact on overall populations I would support such a proposal. I personally would not support any reduction in hunting opportunity based on a 15% overall impact.

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by baltz526

thanks, but that is all to common of a senario durring all hunting seasons. check seven elk kills and 5 had legal issues. why? because normally these camp never get checked. WHY? because odfw osp dosn't have the budget for enforcement patrols

That's a pretty far fetched claim without any facts.

[Washington Hunter]

My guess would be that bow hunters have more of an effect on elk than mule deer, since archery season is open the entire time elk are in the rut. Whether they are killing many elk or not, the herds are still being pushed around and forced to change their natural patterns of feeding, breeding, and sleeping (not necessarily in that order )

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by Hookset

That's a pretty far fetched claim without any facts.

the numbers are from the artical in the bend bulletin, quoting a osp officer. call him

[Hookset]

You would be surprised, but I doubt the impact on elk is really that significant as some people think. Elk actually calm down in a really short time period once spooked during archery season. And a significant portion of the breeding takes place at night when it's cooler out. Elk will also sleep most of the day away during August and September and even with a longer season, elk are generally active for only a few hours in the morning and evening which reduce a Bowhunters chances.

If you've never Bowhunted, you can't really understand how much time is required to be successful and how difficult bowhunting really is......it's really not that easy.

[baltz526]

the hardest sell of a new system will be any general tag being changed to a drawing tag. what would a bow hunting drawing look like with the bow hunter being able to pick 3 units as a first choice like a super unit. for example (whitehorse, steens, juniper). (beatys butte north warner, south warner). (interstate, klamath, keno). (silver lake, wagontire, sprague). (fort rock, upper deschutes, paulina). (maury, silvies, ochoco) what real issues against a change like this are there.

[scoutdog5]

Responses:

ehunter: I have decided not to address the westside. I am just not competent to put something together. I agree that this proposal would potentially impact the westside, particularly elk, I would think.

ondagteen and whtelk: i agree, and I believe Oregon will eventually be limited entry draw statewide for both deer and elk. Crashing herd numbers are going to force it, if nothing else does. The primary goal of this proposal is to replace the current system of financing big game programs, and for the eastside is does implement a draw system for all hunts.

hunteraholic: Absolutely, at some point, ODF& W has to start responding to herd dynamics on a unit by unit basis, tags go up in some, down in others, etc. You can only do this when everything is issued through the draw.

Scottishsetter: I am not following the number of LOP tags being 1,000. Don't know the Northside, but way to high for the units I do know. I agree on road closures, and have been surprised by the universal support for them on Ifish. I am going to add a dedicated road closure fee to the fee part of this proposal. (yell all you want, if we want it, we are going to have to pay for it).

Baltz: Exactly, there would certainly be a decrease in bowhunters in the two or three most popular units. Might actually take one point to draw. In my experience, those units need less bowhunters. That would be offset by excess tags being available in most other units.

Lor: This proposal does away with the requirement that you have an elk tag to get the deer tag for a limited entry unit. You could draw for the same unit for deer and elk, or for different units for deer and elk. I would be surprised if there would be any deer unit you could not draw, but the top two or three elk units would probably take a point, like the Ochoco does now. What is the basis for your claim that the current system is working fine? ODF&W has no control over hunter numbers in any area, no money to enforce the rules during bow seasons. Based on my observations in the Ochoco unit prior to the implementation of limited entry, there were a host of problems, trespassing, littering, habitat damage by 4 wheelers, etc.

Joe: If you look at the numbers above, you will see that Archery hunters between 1998 and 2006 remained about the same, while elk rifle hunters decreased by 30,000. This reduction was caused by a substantial lowering of tag numbers, particularly antlerless, and, to a lesser extent, bowhunters participating in the rifle draws. Since bowhunting was available to all of these misplaced hunters, I think it is fair to say that the conversion of rifle hunters to bowhunters is about over. I can see nothing that would indicate resident bowhunter numbers will increase in any significant way in the future. In fact, if non-resident bowhunters make up more than 10% of the hunters in open tag units, as some of you have said, they would probably go down.

Rank: You always make me think about things, which is hard on my old brain. Had not thought about the any elk rifle tag problem. Since theoretically they could all shoot bulls, I would think the number of any elk tags would also be the number of bull tags, and obviously it would be an any elk bow tag.

Joe: Boy is that the truth. I have never understood why the Bowhunter groups have not been raising bloody hell about the infusion of large numbers of "misplaced rifle hunters" mucking up your season. I have been in most central oregon units during the last 10 days of the bow season, and I don't see how a serious bow hunter could have a quality experience.

Hookset: I don't think you can make the claim of low success rates any longer. Look at the stats above, almost 10% success on Bulls for archers, less than 15% for rifle hunters. I would not be surprised to find the success rate on mature bulls would be higher for bowhunters. Now, don't get testy, I am not saying that should change, I am just saying that bowhunter harvest is now a factor in the health of our elk herds.

Baltz, I am not going there. No changes to season dates or structures. I would like to maintain the illusion that this proposal might actually get considered by the powers that be for a little longer.

Silversink: In the early 70's, the mule deer population was around 500,000. In 2006, ODF&W did some kind of computer projection and came up with 235,000, the same as they had for 2005. My personal opinion is that the true number is around 200,000, In the early 90's, the eastside elk population was between 80,000-90,000. In 2006, somewhere around 60,000-65,000. Most elk units, and a good number of deer units, have calf/cow and fawn/doe ratios significantly below maintenance levels. In my opinion, we should not be issuing any antlerless permits in eastern Oregon, except for specific damage problems.

Prawnasorus: Yes, 10% tags to non-residents for all hunts

Joe: I don't see anyway this proposal reduces the number of bowhunters, unless the number of rifle tags issued drops below 18,000. I would maintain if rifle tags drop below that level, bowhunters should be willing to share the pain.

The Rogue: You could be right, but it is going to happen either way. By statute, ODF&W is supposed to maintain big game herds at the maximum level that is sustainable on the habitat. They have not managed to that standard for many years. Unfortunately for them, the herds are shrinking to the point where they have had to cut tag numbers, by 30,000 in 8 years for rifle elk hunters. This trend will continue, and likely accelerate, if nothing changes. This proposal is designed to give the department the resources to at least make an attempt to turn this around, and actually increase populations, as has happened in Colorado.

Mossyhorn: If we are serious about bringing new hunters into our heritage, we have to give them access to quality hunts. The perfect hunt for youth hunters would be antelope, go before school starts, see lot's of animals, etc. Under our current system, most youth hunters will never draw an antelope tag during their teen years. Same with the better deer and elk hunts.

Ehunter: My experience with bowhunters over the last ten years is that they tended to be younger, drink more, drive more, litter more, etc. than the Ochoco rifle elk hunters. This was before Ochoco went draw for bow, so hopefully is better now. I don't think there would be much difference in poaching, hunting without tags, etc, between the two groups. More of a respect for the land and resource issue, in my experience.'

uhmw: I think you miss the point. Bowhunters who build points to participate in a rifle hunt don't impact harvest, they impact opportunity for rifle only hunters. Before the Ochoco went to a draw for archery, there were 2,000 plus hunters during the archery season. It went to a draw with 800 tags, and 1,000 put in? Where did they go? In my opinion, they were putting in for other hunts, Ochoco rifle, Wenaha, Murderer's Creek, etc., then going bowhunting in the Ochoco. If 25% of the 15,000 elk bowhunters are putting in for rifle hunts as a first choice, that is a significant impact on rifle hunter's opportunity, but has no impact on harvest, since the number of tags is the same regardless of who applies. If this proposal were implemented, I actually think there would be a reduction of 2,000 - 3,000 elk bowhunters who are really rifle hunters at heart, and would not opt out of the rifle draws. I would think you serious bow hunters would see that as a good thing.

Hawg Boss: Do you wear a white suit? Sorry, that was Boss Hog i guess. The question all of us have to answer is this: Are we willing to make the sacrifices necessary to turn around the decades long slide in our big game herds, and the resulting loss of opportunity, mostly given to the rifle hunters to this point. We have had to make these decisions a couple of times in the past, when we went to split east and west side tags, when we went limited entry across the board on the east side. At those times, many if not most hunters stepped up and pushed for the changes that needed to be made, even when it impacted their own hunting preferences. I am less certain that we will respond that way this time.

Scoutdog

[scoutdog5]

Man, I am going to start putting "Archery" all my post headings. i missed some of you, so here are more responses:

Crayfin: The stats are for bulls, no antlerless harvest data was included. Under this proposal, you could certainly hunt deer with a bow, and elk with a rifle, or vice-versa.

Whtelk: I don't know why this keeps coming up. No changes to dates or season lengths are a part of this proposal.

Joe: If you look at the deer situation biologically, with mule deer currently at 60% of management objective, and 40% historical averages, there is no justification for having any hunting seasons. Colorado was exactly in our situation in the late 90's. Deer herd at 475,000 animals and going down, management objective was 630,000, buck/doe ratio around 10/100 in many units, and below 20/100 in all units. In 1999, they cut tag numbers in half. Raised the fees to cover part of the lost income, got a one time appropriation from the legislature. In 2006, they have 610,000 deer, and a buck/doe ratio around 40/100. They are the only Mule Deer state with an increasing deer herd that is approaching management objective. Hunting affects herd dynamics.

NeverGuess: I agree with what you say for the most part. Limited entry for bowhunters in this proposal does not limit bowhunting opportunity. It does provide ODF&W with a necessary mamagement tool to better control harvest on an individual unit basis, and stableizes funding for big game programs.

Hoodset, bowhunter success rates are no longer minimal, and have been gaining on rifle bull success rates for the past 10 years. You are exactly right about the trends, there are less animals out there, in virtually every eastside unit, and most will continue to go down, based on recruitment of calves/fawns into the herds.

Hookset: You have touched a hot button with me. Your statement used to be true, no longer, at least in Central Oregon. We are loving our animals to death, constant interaction with humans, motorized vehicles, target shooting, shed hunting, etc. I was on a volunteer work project on Juniper Hills nature conservancy property two years ago. Property was closed to all entry by the public. We saw two different herds of elk that were as stressed and spooky as any elk I have seen during hunting seasons. Since this is a major winter range for elk, my guess was shed hunters were sneaking on the property, but don't know that was actually true. We are having the same effect on our herds that wolves are having on Yellowstone herds: nervous elk that avoid prime feeding areas, move to avoid human contact, etc. Nobody knows what affect this has on birth rates, calf weights, etc, but it is certainly possible that this is one piece of the puzzle in determining why our elk herds are crashing.

Baltz: Brian Ferry actually proposed that when the Ochoco went limited entry. Wanted the tag to be valid in Ochoco, Maury and Grizzly. Bowhunters, is that a good idea?

scoutdog

[lor]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

What is the basis for your claim that the current system is working fine? ODF&W has no control over hunter numbers in any area, no money to enforce the rules during bow seasons. Based on my observations in the Ochoco unit prior to the implementation of limited entry, there were a host of problems, trespassing, littering, habitat damage by 4 wheelers, etc.

I would say based on my personal experience of archery hunting in Oregon for 10 years, given a choice, most bow hunters would say leave things just as they are. I believe if you did a poll of bowhunters statewide, the majority would say no change, especially given the choices you have outlined. Concerning your archery proposal, have you run any of this by OBH????

Lets look at the options.
In the don't touch category, as a bow hunter, I have flexibility.
I can hunt east, I can hunt west, I can hunt multiple units in the same day depending on animal presence, weather, fire danger, etc.

Under your proposal, I might still draw my same unit, it will cost an extra 4.50/tag to apply on top of the sports pac I buy now. I will most likely be limited to a single unit. There goes being able to hunt westside after work.There goes my ability to hop around units because I may have come into town to wash clothes, or get gasand decide to hunt on the otherside of the highway with friends of mine who camp in a different unit. God forbid a fire danger should keep me out of the particular national forest I drew a tag in, my whole season could literally go up in smoke. Because of when our season occurs, this is a yearly prospect we face.

It may not be a detailed study you say you've done, but it is what I seen and know based on the area I hunt. I've never been to the Ochoco's, so I can't speak to that. However I don't particular care to the see the Ochoco model adopted for all of Oregon either, this shouldn't be a one size fits all thing.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by lor

I would say based on my personal experience of archery hunting in Oregon for 10 years, given a choice, most bow hunters would say leave things just as they are. I believe if you did a poll of bowhunters statewide, the majority would say no change, especially given the choices you have outlined. Concerning your archery proposal, have you run any of this by OBH????

Lets look at the options.
In the don't touch category, as a bow hunter, I have flexibility.
I can hunt east, I can hunt west, I can hunt multiple units in the same day depending on animal presence, weather, fire danger, etc.

Under your proposal, I might still draw my same unit, it will cost an extra 4.50/tag to apply on top of the sports pac I buy now. I will most likely be limited to a single unit. There goes being able to hunt westside after work.There goes my ability to hop around units because I may have come into town to wash clothes, or get gasand decide to hunt on the otherside of the highway with friends of mine who camp in a different unit. God forbid a fire danger should keep me out of the particular national forest I drew a tag in, my whole season could literally go up in smoke. Because of when our season occurs, this is a yearly prospect we face.

It may not be a detailed study you say you've done, but it is what I seen and know based on the area I hunt. I've never been to the Ochoco's, so I can't speak to that. However I don't particular care to the see the Ochoco model adopted for all of Oregon either, this shouldn't be a one size fits all thing.

The same argument rifle hunters stated a number of years back. We can continual to ignore that there is a problem, but the restrictions will still be coming. The difference will be, there will be nothing to work with to rebuild.

Don't expect rifle hunters to take any more cuts, we have done our more than fair share. My pet hunt, Murderers Creek rifle has gone from more than 800 tags, to a little more than 300, while bow hunter numbers have done just the opposite.

The good times have come to an end guys, time to feel the pain.

[Ildor]

Originally Posted by baltz526

the numbers are from the artical in the bend bulletin, quoting a osp officer. call him

Maybe I wasn't clear in my post. The numbers 7 and 5 are hypothetical numbers to show that the 70% figure thrown out there by the aforementioned trooper is a hollow one at best without specifics. It was an illustration only.

[baltz526]

call the OSP officer, get a current assesment from him. or any game officer for that matter. sorry about bringing up, changing dates. just my opinion.

[ehunter]

Baltz if I am not right bowhunter pay the same as rifle hunters for our tags and unless I am mistaken and have been over paying for 30 years. If your implying because bow season is longer we should have to pay more? I think that is silly. I would not have a problem with a paying a little more for a tag and have that money ear marked for enforcement the same price as rifle hunters. Only if it is totaly earmarked for enfocement and doesn't go into the general fund.

In case some of you have forgot funds that were coming from our tags used to go to the OFWD direct but now goes into the general fund thanks to Uncle Ted and there is no trust in my mind with a tag increase that it won't go towards some ones special pet project and not OFWD.


"bow hunters need to pay for it's own enforcement, biologists, surveys etc. to try to say bow hunters are a more legal bunch than rifle huntes is silly, rifle hunters are equally as bad. parity in need for enforcement. change in the tag process is the only way we as hunters will ever get to watch our herds grow and have better hunts. pay for biologist, field surveys, enforcment and in a few years when you go hunting and see 25% to 50% more game the pain of changing the system will be forgotten"

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Joe: If you look at the deer situation biologically, with mule deer currently at 60% of management objective, and 40% historical averages, there is no justification for having any hunting seasons.

I disagree here scoutdog. Deer desperately need hunters to buy tags to fund proper management. The benefit of archery seasons is that more tags can be sold with less of an impact. If there is a problem with Mule Deer management in Oregon it is the over sale of rifle tags that leads to the 85% part of the harvest. Far too many of the bucks being killed are yearlings to create what I would consider quality mule deer hunting and I'm really not a trophy hunter for the most part.

Once again substantial added restriction to archery seasons WOULD reduce archer numbers and that is a fact. I swing back and forth between rifle and bow for deer and it wouldn't take much less opportunity to keep me on the rifle side with deer. As for archer numbers staying steady for 8 years you need to look at the WESTSIDE numbers to see that is not the case. We are overrun with disgruntled rifle hunters packing bows here on the coast. We are feeling the pain Mr. Rank Amatuer speaks of.
Scoutdog, Once again is this your personal proposal or do you represent OHA? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post.

[Mossyhorn]

I don't think your model for tag numbers is really fair for archers. If I'm correct, tag numbers now are issued based upon how many animals can be harvested while maintaining herd numbers, right? So if archers have such a lower impact on herd numbers why limit them to the same tag numbers as rifle hunters.

For one example, if you give only 400 tags for archers for the ochoco's, last year you had 1200 people put in, it will take 3 points to draw, more than the 1 point you stated. The whole purpose of your proposal is to raise more funds for ODFW to manage wildlife. All Eastern units can handle more than 400 archery hunters. You'd move more hunters through the system quicker, and sell more tags making more money.

Another question, under your proposal, if you draw an eastside archery elk tag, can you still hunt the west side too? What about late archery season? If I draw a muley tag, can archers hunt that to with an unfilled tag? Or is that a draw also?

[baltz526]

Baltz if I am not right bowhunter pay the same as rifle hunters for our tags and unless I am mistaken and have been over paying for 30 years. If your implying because bow season is longer we should have to pay more? I think that is silly. I would not have a problem with a paying a little more for a tag and have that money ear marked for enforcement the same price as rifle hunters. Only if it is totaly earmarked for enfocement and doesn't go into the general fund.

i knew that thought was clear as mud when i posted it. sorry. my intent was to bring sharing the burden of this enforcment, management ect. to parity between all hunters through the re-creation of the tag process. to imply bow hunts don't pay now was not my intent. just my standard muddy thinking