ODFW Manages for Quantity not Quality

[Rimrocks]

What is your opinion?

It appears that as compared to many other western states that Oregon is primarily managed for QUANTITY/OPPORTUNITY instead of QUALITY/OPPORTUNITY. There are a couple deer and elk hunts in Oregon managed for quality.....I wish there were many more quality hunts. Think we can get ODFW to increase the Quality Units??????

What is your opinion?

[whtelk]

They don't manage our state for either one.

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by whtelk

They don't manage our state for either one.

+1

[willametteriveroutlaw]

+2 I cannot figure out for the life of me why they manage this state the way they do. States managed for a quality expirience seem to have better hunter participation.

[Radke]

a bit over a decade ago I was discussing with a big game biologist why they couldn't open up a premium elk hunt for the muzzleloader crowd, similar to what they do for archery and center-fire. What he explained over the following 30 minutes was a real eye opener. Basically, they cannot open any new opportunity without taking a similar opportunity away from a different sector of the hunting population. And every hunt has a group that feel they are entitled to that hunt and anyone taking it away is in for a huge uproar. So I asked why they couldn't just tack on a new hunt at the end (or beginning) of the existing hunts. Can't do it at the beginning because that makes the elk already hunter shy by the start of the entitlement hunts. Can't tack it on to the end because the elk already are hunted for 2-3 months non stop prior to winter, and they need an amount of time to recuperate before winter.

I don't think this guy was just blowing smoke, I could tell there was passion in his arguments, and that politically, any change you make in hunt opportunities comes at a very great cost.

I think we sometimes underestimate all the factors ODFW are trying to balance to give us the opportunities we have.

[baltz526]

quantity of tags and little management. recreational tags is the term used. hunt quality has little bearing on tag numbers when recreational tags are the norm

[Hunt'nFish]

Personally I feel that the rank & file at the ODFW are just as frustrated as we are.
The problem is they AREN'T the ones making the decisions.

I don't think we need to beat this horse again. We've gone around and round on what we KNOW has to happen to bring things back in check.

But they can't or won't make the hard choices. REDUCE PREDATION and temporarily reduce tags/harvest.
And until they do, game populations/tag sales/opprotunity are only going down.

Quality? Heck they can't even manage quanity.
Hunt'nFish

[tailchaser]

The simple answer was shown by ODFW when they put hundreds of spike tags in the middle of the few trophy hunts in this state. Not to mention they turn around and cry about the cow/calf ratios and bull/cow ratios in this area. Nothing like thinning the herd of a few hundred spikes to cull the problem. I really like the thought of investing double digit years to get a tag, that I then have to share with a crowd of spike hunters running around everywhere. It really changed my persepctive of where I'm going to hunt and what ODFW is trying to accomplish.

tc

[mtn300]

Originally Posted by whtelk

They don't manage our state for either one.

[Ni!]

Originally Posted by tailchaser

The simple answer was shown by ODFW when they put hundreds of spike tags in the middle of the few trophy hunts in this state. Not to mention they turn around and cry about the cow/calf ratios and bull/cow ratios in this area. Nothing like thinning the herd of a few hundred spikes to cull the problem. I really like the thought of investing double digit years to get a tag, that I then have to share with a crowd of spike hunters running around everywhere. It really changed my persepctive of where I'm going to hunt and what ODFW is trying to accomplish.

tc

Exactly. Those spike hunts make no sense at all.

[chummer]

Until the state and feds quit acting as a welfare system for cattle ranchers, the degraded habitat that game animals have will remain, and the resulting quality of our hunts will also remain.

[Limbhanger]

Quantity over quality = complaints
Quality over quantity = complaints
ODFW decision making= complaints

How do we keep the current hunters interested and continue recruiting new hunters? That is the real question if we want to be hunting in Oregon in 20 years.......Will less opportunity grow more hunters and feed the consuming fire? No.
Quantity of opportunity is what the average guy wants. The ability to draw a tag and spend his 3.5 days of hard earned vacation time in the deer woods once a year. It is the average category that buys the majority of the tags.

[Santiam338]

Originally Posted by Limbhanger

Quantity over quality = complaints
Quality over quantity = complaints
ODFW decision making= complaints

How do we keep the current hunters interested and continue recruiting new hunters? That is the real question if we want to be hunting in Oregon in 20 years.......Will less opportunity grow more hunters and feed the consuming fire? No.
Quantity of opportunity is what the average guy wants. The ability to draw a tag and spend his 3.5 days of hard earned vacation time in the deer woods once a year. It is the average category that buys the majority of the tags.

YIP...

[KingSlew]

What Limbhanger and Santiam said...

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by tailchaser

The simple answer was shown by ODFW when they put hundreds of spike tags in the middle of the few trophy hunts in this state. Not to mention they turn around and cry about the cow/calf ratios and bull/cow ratios in this area. Nothing like thinning the herd of a few hundred spikes to cull the problem. I really like the thought of investing double digit years to get a tag, that I then have to share with a crowd of spike hunters running around everywhere. It really changed my persepctive of where I'm going to hunt and what ODFW is trying to accomplish.

tc

The spike hunters in a trophy hunt is certainly a pain in the petuut and honestly, I would rather see this hunt eliminated. However, I really believe now it's all about creating balance between bull and cow ratios.

Since the overall cow/calf numbers are severely depleted in these units, where every calf is crucial, it's important to keep the bull numbers in check to reduce the harassment to cows during the breeding season. In other words, there are to many bull elk and not enough cow elk. I wouldn't be surprised if the bull to cow ratio is 80/100 (8 bulls for every 10 cows). This is not a good thing, since the bulls constantly harass what limited cows are available during the rut. So the ODFW has no choice but to remove some bulls (spikes) to try and maintain a balance with bull/cow ratios.

A few years ago I went back to the Wenaha during archery season to mostly listen and see some bulls. What shocked me the most was the lack of cows. I saw single cows with a bull, two 6x6's pursuing one cow and two large harem masters screaming and battling for apx. 8 cows with several smaller 6x6 and 5x5 bulls working the perimeter. It was fun to watch, but those cows were squeezed in the middle with nowhere to go. Just to many bulls, not enough cows.

What really needs to happen, is to reduce the amount of predation in these units. The elk recruitment is so limited that if it's not negative now, it's close to it. With only 10 to 15% of the calves surviving the first year, the elk are in real trouble trying to sustain even the current numbers. The elk numbers have dropped by over 50% since 1990, which is when the big decline really started.

My personal opinion is; the ODFW never intentionally created a trophy hunt area, this was all a mistake and happened through mis-management by ODFW and the National Forest service; another large contributing factor was the Oregon voters eliminating hound hunting for cougars and bears. These factors all contributed to the decline in calve numbers, which really is the sole basis for how hunting and elk numbers are today.

OK, think I said enough, and yes, I'm always bummed when it comes to hunting a particular Northeast Oregon unit.

Gregg

[Joe Schmo]

(insert complaint)

[Ni!]

Originally Posted by Hookset

Since the overall cow/calf numbers are severely depleted in these units, where every calf is crucial, it's important to keep the bull numbers in check to reduce the harassment to cows during the breeding season. In other words, there are to many bull elk and not enough cow elk. I wouldn't be surprised if the bull to cow ratio is 80/100 (8 bulls for every 10 cows). This is not a good thing, since the bulls constantly harass what limited cows are available during the rut. So the ODFW has no choice but to remove some bulls (spikes) to try and maintain a balance with bull/cow ratios.

That may be true, but there are better ways of dealing with this problem than by allowing unlimited spike tags for the duration of what has become a de-facto premium elk hunt. They could even do it without losing any tag revenue. I just haven't seen any evidence that they're interested in trying that.

[SILVERSINK]

How is it that there are states were the Temp. gets down to 30 below and they seem to have great trophy hunt and apparently little problem with cow to bull ratios.We might get to 10 below and have all kind of problems due to a bad winter die off.Just dont add up.

[switchback00]

If everyone wants a quality hunt dont shoot spikes or forked horns. Easier said than done, but if you are looking for better quality of animals then this is one thing that we as hunters can change ourselves.

[Mossyhorn]

People wonder how why we can't have good quality and opportunity. Why we can't get more hunters recruited into the system? Well why is it that Colorado can do it? Why can Wyoming do it? What about almost every other western State? I'm going to say habitat.

Has anyone ever picked up a map of Colorado? If you haven't you'll see a expanses of land with NO roads. Put an Oregon map next to it and it's on the other end of the scale. Colorado has harsh winters, much worse than ours and they do fine. They have some of the best hunting and the most elk out of any state. There is so much opportunity that most Non-res hunting is OTC. So what's the difference between our states? If we look for the answers to that question then maybe we can get somewhere.

[whtelk]

Hookset you say that you wouldn't be surprised if....bull to cow ratio is 80/100.......WHAT? ..... NO WAY!... Where are you pulling this from!! Go to the ODFW and look up the bull to cow ratio in any unit and prove this.

[lor]

What is your opinion?

Given a choice, I prefer quantity and opportunity.
For many, quality is a word thrown around, but the definition is subjective and almost unique to the individual using the term.
For some its higher than average success rate, for others its larger more mature animals, and for some, its probably less competition from other hunters and the opportunity to pursue animals which are not pressured.

Since you asked the question, please define what you mean by quality.

[tailchaser]

Quality for me is simple. Seeing less hunter orange and more animals. Simple huh... I've hunted all over the west and you can have it both ways. There are units that are managed for both, but you can not have it both in the same unit or season.

Take 25% of the units in Oregon and strictly manage them for trophy purposes with a decent number of tags. Remove the spike hunts during the trophy hunts and create some fun hunts that dispurse some of the hunting pressure. Example: What they are starting to play with this year in the late season deer archery hunts. Open more low number opportunities around the state in hunts with 50-100 tags and they won't effect the outcome of herd numbers much, but would do wonders for creating a better hunt. One of the reasons for not having these hunts is ODFW mentions there are other hunts going on at the same time. Who the heck cares? I can count multiple rifle cow hunts going on during archery season, one of which I almost got shot from years back so I'm not sure where it hurts anything by having overlapping seasons.

Control the predators in areas that have low recruitment ratios and for gods sake, take the limit off spring bear tags and make them over the counter in the entire state. If you look at the states that have the largest animal populations they also have limitless predator control almost year round. ODFW does have the ability to do these things, they choose not to. Tell me how many times has the coyote hunt been cancelled on Hart Mountain? Why? Pressure from environmentalists groups. But as long as Oregon is liberal and the ODFW works under the scope of a die hard liberal in the gov's office, I don't see anything changing soon. That's why I choose to hunt other states and give them my money for coming to hunt. There are only two hunts I want to draw in Oregon anymore, one is a sheep hunt, and the other is........

tc

[scoutdog5]

some statistics to think about.

In 2007, Colorado had approximately 600,000 deer, buck ratios state wide above 30/100 does, and issued a total of 95,000 deer permits, with 40% being antlerless.

Utah had approximately 300,000 deer, buck ratios below 20/100, and issued 93,000 tags, with 90%+ being buck tags.

In 2006 (2007 not posted yet), Oregon had around 200,000 mule deer, buck ratio below 20/100, and had 75,000 mule deer hunters, 90% + buck tags.

The winter of 2007-2008 resulted in serious winter loss to mule deer in Utah and Colorado. Oregon sufferred extremely low fawn survival, from what I am hearing, although virtually zero winter loss due to starvation. The numbers aren't out yet, but info from several sources is that the mule deer population and fawn recruitment numbers are terrible.

Here is how the three states responded to this winter's losses.

Oregon, with 200,000 deer, and a population that is at 60% of Management objective statewide, will decrease buck tags by 3,000 if the commission goes along with staff recommendations. (Note, I know of at least two cases where the local biologist recommended larger cuts in tag numbers than the staff went along with).

Utah, with 300,000 deer, and a population that is at 70% of management objective statewide, cut buck tags by 1,000.

In Colorado, the Wildlife department, with 600,000 deer and a population that is approaching management objective, recommended cutting approximately 20,000+ buck tags and 15,000+ doe tags. When the recommendation went to the Commission in late April, they decided to cut all antlerless tags, except for a token number in each unit (7 is what I heard). They approved the token number since antlerless hunts were offerred on these units and the deadline for entering the draw had passed.

There are certainly a lot of factors that impact big game populations and hunting opportunity, and conditions are different from state to state, but it seems pretty obvious that the starting point has to be protecting the population base, and being willing to substantially reduce tags, and revenue, when conditions warrant that action. In my view, Colorado and Nevada are the only two states that have a track record of doing that when things are tough.

We live in the wrong state, I guess.

Scoutdog

[scoutdog5]

More stats:

Nevada's game commission is meeting this weekend to set tag numbers. The staff has recommended a reduction in deer tags, from 18,261 to 16,242, a reduction of 11%. Their estimated deer population is 108,000, no clue what their management objective is. The action was taken due to fawn ratios that were under 30/100.

If Oregon reduced their mule deer tags by 11%, the tag reduction would be 8,250. The proposed reduction in Oregon of 3,000 tags out of 75,000 issued is about a 4% reduction.

I believe when Oregon publishes their fawn/doe ratios from this spring, if they do, I believe we will see many units substantially below 30/100, with some in the low teens.

Disaster looms, while we argue over $ 8.00 tag fee increases, and too many non-residents killing all of our animals.

Oh well.

Scoutdog

[Cliff D.]

Hookset, 80/100 bull to cow ratio ? Scoutdog5 the grass is always greener on the other side.

[baltz526]

scoutdog5 is correct. oregon has an income based tag structure, other states have a herd health based tag structure. oregon needs to become a herd health based tag sales state. it is sad when we hunters become so selfish most are unwilling to be part of the solution. PS: cresent ranger district needs 6' and 8' steel t posts and sheet metal for the guzzler program. i bet your district needs the same items

[nehalemguy]

Originally Posted by willametteriveroutlaw

+2 I cannot figure out for the life of me why they manage this state the way they do. States managed for a quality expirience seem to have better hunter participation.

Here is your answer. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

More stats:

Nevada's game commission is meeting this weekend to set tag numbers. The staff has recommended a reduction in deer tags, from 18,261 to 16,242, a reduction of 11%. Their estimated deer population is 108,000, no clue what their management objective is. The action was taken due to fawn ratios that were under 30/100.

If Oregon reduced their mule deer tags by 11%, the tag reduction would be 8,250. The proposed reduction in Oregon of 3,000 tags out of 75,000 issued is about a 4% reduction.

I believe when Oregon publishes their fawn/doe ratios from this spring, if they do, I believe we will see many units substantially below 30/100, with some in the low teens.

Disaster looms, while we argue over $ 8.00 tag fee increases, and too many non-residents killing all of our animals.

Oh well.

Scoutdog

Scoutdog, what was the result of your "one-on-one" meeting that ODFW Director Roy Elicker promised at the Clackamas budget meeting? Thanks

"CL"

[49erjimmy]

Originally Posted by whtelk

They don't manage our state for either one.

Ditto

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by whtelk

Hookset you say that you wouldn't be surprised if....bull to cow ratio is 80/100.......WHAT? ..... NO WAY!... Where are you pulling this from!! Go to the ODFW and look up the bull to cow ratio in any unit and prove this.

Sounds far fetched I know, and I admit it's not an accurate statement. But what I do know, the elk are in serious trouble with very low number of cows in the Wenaha unit. It was actually harder to find a cow then a bull. Despite what the ODFW publishes with bull to cow ratios, I would not be surprised if the actual numbers where 50/50 or close to it. When the ODFW started eliminating some of the rifle cow hunts in eastern Oregon, I believe Wenaha was first on the list and for good reason. Historic elk numbers for this unit were always over 5,000 elk and now, according to the ODFW, there are apx. 2,200 elk with less then 20 calves per 100 cows. These are not sustainable numbers. Wenaha also has one of the highest densities of cougars and bears in the state, another blow to game populations.

To answer the quantity vs quality question. I've never been a trophy hunter, so I'd rather see more animals of all age classes with fewer people. For me, it's all about balance and ODFW set an MO objective to create an ideal balance. Except they also short changed the hunters in their approach when they issued to many cow hunts to bring their MO numbers in line as quickly as possible. Speaking only from memory, I believe some units were at MO numbers within two years.

Now how can this be? Simple....more cow hunts. Let's say your unit has 5000 total elk with only a 5/100 bull to cow ratio where spikes are doing most of the breeding.....remember these numbers? Enter new MO numbers at 10-15/100 bull/cows. Instead of creating antler restrictions or severely reducing elk hunts; create new cow hunts to reduce their numbers. So once those 3000 extra cows were eliminated, the MO numbers are now in line between 10-15 bulls per 100 cows. Does this sound familiar?

Does anyone wonder why Oregon's current elk population is estimated at 150k (that's 75k Roosevelt's and 75k Rocky Mt. elk)? There used to be at least 150K elk in eastern Oregon alone. Do you remember when Oregon was second in elk numbers only to Colorado @ 225K plus? What happened to those lost 75k elk in eastern Oregon? My answer is; cow hunts were first and next is predation. When ODFW issued to many cow hunts this jeopardizes the ability for the elk to recover naturally. This is witnessed by the extremely low cow to calf ratios seen in many eastern Oregon units. But hey, who cares, at least the ODFW made their bull to cow ratios....yes, that was a really great elk management plan.

OK, fire away..........

Gregg

[scoutdog5]

Dang, I just spent 30 minutes adding a reply about the meeting, and it did not go through when i hit submit reply. I have to get back to work, but will do it again on Sunday night.

Scoutdog

[sturgeonboy]

Originally Posted by Hookset

Sounds far fetched I know, and I admit it's not an accurate statement. But what I do know, the elk are in serious trouble with very low number of cows in the Wenaha unit. It was actually harder to find a cow then a bull. Despite what the ODFW publishes with bull to cow ratios, I would not be surprised if the actual numbers where 50/50 or close to it. When the ODFW started eliminating some of the rifle cow hunts in eastern Oregon, I believe Wenaha was first on the list and for good reason. Historic elk numbers for this unit were always over 5,000 elk and now, according to the ODFW, there are apx. 2,200 elk with less then 20 calves per 100 cows. These are not sustainable numbers. Wenaha also has one of the highest densities of cougars and bears in the state, another blow to game populations.

To answer the quantity vs quality question. I've have never been a trophy hunter, so I'd rather see more animals of all age classes with fewer people. For me, it's all about balance and ODFW set an MO objective to create an ideal balance. Except they also short changed the hunters in their approach when they issued to many cow hunts to bring their MO numbers in line as quickly as possible. Speaking only from memory, I believe some units were at MO numbers within two years.

Now how can this be? Simple....more cow hunts. Let's say your unit has 5000 total elk with only a 5/100 bull to cow ratio where spikes are doing most of the breeding.....remember these numbers? Enter new MO numbers at 10-15/100 bull/cows. Instead of creating antler restrictions or severely reducing elk hunts; create new cow hunts to reduce their numbers. So once those 3000 extra cows were eliminated, the MO numbers are now in line between 10-15 bulls per 100 cows. Does this sound familiar?

Does anyone wonder why Oregon's current elk population is estimated at 150k (that's 75k Roosevelt's and 75k Rocky Mt. elk)? There used to be at least 150K elk in eastern Oregon alone. Do you remember when Oregon was second in elk numbers only to Colorado @ 225K plus? What happened to those lost 75k elk in eastern Oregon? My answer is; cow hunts were first and next is predation. When ODFW issued to many cow hunts this jeopardizes the ability for the elk to recover naturally. This is witnessed by the extremely low cow to calf ratios seen in many eastern Oregon units. But hey, who cares, at least the ODFW made their bull to cow ratios....yes, that was a really great elk management plan.

OK, fire away..........

Gregg

[sturgeonboy]

Ok its early I am grumpy please bear with me! Hookset has it right. Those meatballs flat issued to many cow tags. I remember a few years back in the Heppner and Ukiah unit where they would issue 800 and up cow tags per unit. At that time I could have shot a 100 by myself.

In Heppner there are areas that should have elk in them and dont. They used to. I would see them all day and now I see no sign at all. You cannot blame this all on cats and bears. The blame falls entirely on the ODFW!

If this ****** anyone off TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sturgeonboy]

O one more thing........... Yes I could do a better job then those clowns in our state and fed gov.

[whtelk]

I think that we need to do away with all cow hunts (including archery and I am an archer) and spike hunts should be very limited.

[dlovato]

California is pretty much the same way...

My take on it is at least in California, it's not so much the DFG's fault, it's the "voters" - which is primarily non-hunters. They voted to "protect" lions, many counties have veto authority over doe hunts, etc. i.e. the DFG's hands are tied with what they can do. The biggest problem, however is human encroachment in deer areas - especially wintering areas. Every square foot of "road, subdivisions, shopping malls, is one less square foot of habitat.

Then when you take into consideration the fire rules - put them out vs letting them burn (which re-cycle the habitat, allow new growth/browse/food) - which "they" pretty much have to do, or all the homes that are now "in the woods" would burn too...

Lastly, when you look at the logging restrictions - voters don't like clear cuts, and you have all the environmentalist "people" trying to save the "old growth" forests - you end up with the perfect storm - all of it combined is the reason the deer numbers are down. No single thing would have too much of an impact - but all of them together really add up to a huge negative for deer.... (and thus hunters).

Unless there is a huge "human" die off, it will never be the same.

Just my 2¢.

- Darryl

[WapitiBob]

80/100 bull to cow ratio?
You need to put the Bong away.

UT has 80/100 ratios in several units and OR is one heck of a long way from UT numbers.
With a limited supply of animals and a huge demand from hunters this state will always be an opportunity state. Many hunters state that they are willing to hunt every other year to help fix the problem. That's the problem. You don't hunt in UT or NM every other year as a resident. You hunt once in a lifetime.
ODFW will have to go to 100% draw and limit the tags severely to get a quality state.
The hunters of OR will never stand for a once in a lifetime tag.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally Posted by WapitiBob

80/100 bull to cow ratio?
You need to put the Bong away.

UT has 80/100 ratios in several units and OR is one heck of a long way from UT numbers.
With a limited supply of animals and a huge demand from hunters this state will always be an opportunity state. Many hunters state that they are willing to hunt every other year to help fix the problem. That's the problem. You don't hunt in UT or NM every other year as a resident. You hunt once in a lifetime.
ODFW will have to go to 100% draw and limit the tags severely to get a quality state.
The hunters of OR will never stand for a once in a lifetime tag.

Thats not completely true.. In both Utah and NM you can hunt almost every year, you just cant hunt every unit every year like Oregon has done!

[Charlie Storey]

I don't know what good it will do, but here goes my two cents worth. My pet peve is the blacktail season and the ODFW stand to protect trophy bucks. I know there are rut hunting opportunities if you hunt with a bow or muzzle loader, but I don't and don't want to. When I was a kid the blacktail season was only four weeks long and now its five or so, but it still closes before the rut kicks in. I've killed a couple of bucks that were chasing does as early as Oct. 28, but the does really don't want to have anything to do with the bucks that early, and the bucks don't get dumb till around Nov. 13. But back to the problem. ODFW believes breeding will suffer if a few more big bucks killed. Under the present system how many big bucks are getting killed? I saw some interesting kill statistics for the Trask unit a while back. The elk kill for a recent year was about 320 for the unit, and the deer kill, everything included, was around 380. 380 deer in the whole unit! What percent of the population was harvested? Almost nothing! How many monster bucks do you suppose were part of that paltry 380? Dang few! Since when does it take a 5 1/2 year old buck to do all that breeding? Since when is the buck/doe ratio so poor on blacktails they have to protect all those bucks. In my experience the buck/doe ratio for blacktails somewhere between 1/1 and 1/3. I have suggested such things as a limited entry trophy blacktail hunt, or a choice of a long early season or a short late season, but nothing ever changes while big blacktails are becoming compost and cat food. Buck hunting is not a limiting factor for blacktails. Blame reforestation practices, HLS, kitty cats, but not trophy hunting.

[dlovato]

Originally Posted by Charlie Storey

Buck hunting is not a limiting factor for blacktails. Blame reforestation practices, HLS, kitty cats, but not trophy hunting.

That's exactly true - hunters take very little of the overall number of dear that die every year. We just get the "leftovers".

* Habitat loss (probably #1) as far as long term reduction in deer/elk #'s
- Forestry Practices (fire/logging)
- Urban Sprawl
* Preditors
- Mtn Lions can kill up to one deer/wk... Do the math. And that isn't counting opportunistic bears/etc on fawns in the spring
* Occasional Harsh winters
* Disease
* Cars - getting run over/etc
* Old age

The problem is that the fish and game departments have very little control over all of the other items - voters (non-hunters) have way more influence in the long run (approving new subdivisions, eliminating predetor hunts, etc) on what happens to habitat, etc. We're pretty much at their mercy. It's not pretty, but I think it is exactly how it is.

- Darryl

[Mossyhorn]

Originally Posted by Charlie Storey

I don't know what good it will do, but here goes my two cents worth. My pet peve is the blacktail season and the ODFW stand to protect trophy bucks. I know there are rut hunting opportunities if you hunt with a bow or muzzle loader, but I don't and don't want to. When I was a kid the blacktail season was only four weeks long and now its five or so, but it still closes before the rut kicks in. I've killed a couple of bucks that were chasing does as early as Oct. 28, but the does really don't want to have anything to do with the bucks that early, and the bucks don't get dumb till around Nov. 13. But back to the problem. ODFW believes breeding will suffer if a few more big bucks killed. Under the present system how many big bucks are getting killed? I saw some interesting kill statistics for the Trask unit a while back. The elk kill for a recent year was about 320 for the unit, and the deer kill, everything included, was around 380. 380 deer in the whole unit! What percent of the population was harvested? Almost nothing! How many monster bucks do you suppose were part of that paltry 380? Dang few! Since when does it take a 5 1/2 year old buck to do all that breeding? Since when is the buck/doe ratio so poor on blacktails they have to protect all those bucks. In my experience the buck/doe ratio for blacktails somewhere between 1/1 and 1/3. I have suggested such things as a limited entry trophy blacktail hunt, or a choice of a long early season or a short late season, but nothing ever changes while big blacktails are becoming compost and cat food. Buck hunting is not a limiting factor for blacktails. Blame reforestation practices, HLS, kitty cats, but not trophy hunting.

I think your numbers may be a little off, I don't have the numbers right in front of me but I will dig them up if you want. In 2006 I think the number of blacktails harvested for the entire west side was 26-27,000 deer. That's a lot of deer. The wife of a friend of mine hunts the Mckenzie unit every year for rifle deer. She wacks a nice buck every year, she has killed some whoppers. People up there kill some of the biggest blacktails in that country every year with a rifle and they do it in the middle of a circus of people before the rut starts.

[tailchaser]

Ever since I recieved this information at an ODFW meeting I remind people on this site just about every year. This information is from ODFW so don't flame me about it's accurate base:

Hunters in Oregon only kill an estimated 3% of the mortality to blacktails in this state every year. With an average take of 26,000 animals, it can be interpolated that roughly 866,666 blacktails exist in Oregon. The mortality rate was a total of 15% of the population yearly. That leaves 104,000 blacktails die every year from predators, disease, or natural causes. Yet, ODFW has plans to tweak hunting seasons, size limits, and all sorts of things to help a supposed diminishing population. Seems to me, it would be money well spent to worry about the 104,000 prior to the 26k.

With a liberal base like Oregon, ODFW is on the last part of the block pertaining to funding yearly. The people are frustrated, ODFW doesn't have money for research, and the time is coming when a breaking point will show itself. Without research ODFW has little compelling evidence to challenge useless lawsuits by environmental groups to stand up for itself. Unfortunately, I don't have answers and I won't ever support increased fees that don't have legitimate earmarks to help ODFW and not go into the general fund to be flopped away in useless government spending.

If you can't tell already, my frustration with our system is obvious. So I choose to spend my time in other places because of it. I hope someday it will turn around but I'm not holding my breath on it.

tc

[Charlie Storey]

Yeah, I know there are a lot of big bucks taken during the general season down south, but I live in and hunt the Trask Unit exclusively and that means brush, short shots and all that other stuff. I'm a good hunter and get more bigger bucks than anyone in town, but I pass up the small stuff and may go a couple of years without getting one if the weather is too warm or dry (like the last week of the season last year). I've hunted blacktails since 1961 and don't have anything in the record book. I know Washington County has about 1/10th the trophy bucks as Yamhill County, but I know the country close to home and know there are big bucks there, and I'd just like the chance to score a little better and not be shackled by some regulatory agency that bases its decisions on flawed information and philosophy. I just don't trust ODFW to know whats happening out in the woods. I've had biologists admit that and that they depend on us to get a lot of their information. So, they get our informed opinions and then stick to the status quo. I get bummed out during hunting season when I may go a couple of days without seeing anything and think there are no deer any more, but I get jazzed up when I go out in the Winter and see all the tracks, trails and rubs from the survivors of last deer season. I'm excited about next deer season. I've got a buck spotted (I snuck up on him in his bed last January after he had shed his antlers) and he doesn't know I know he is there. He lives in a brushy, north, hillside that I know holds a lot of deer and I had never found a way into before now, and I may never see him again, and he may not be the monster I'm looking for if I do see him, but its exciting anyway. I hope the weather cooperates because I know ODFW won't.

[Rank Amateur]

Here's a few numbers to clear up the Blacktail scenario.

In 2006- 20,510 blacktails were harvested. 1999 it was 29,004. So we have seen a significant drop folks.

The Trask had 887 deer taken in 2006, which is down from 1364 in 1999.

What is more worriesome is the first units to get hit with HLS have really tanked. Saddle Mt. and Scappoose units are way down, the Wilson unit is right on there heels. If you pull up the harvest stats for Blacktails in 2006, look at the % success of harvest, it is lowests in the North and gradually increases as you slide down the coast.

Saddle Mt. 1999-1079 deer. 2006-484

I would really like to see the data that suggests we are only harvesting 3% of the population, this is not a attack tailchaser, I just would like to see the data for how they determined this. I don't believe it. Of coarse the harvest is lopsided towards bucks (finally). With a 15% mortality rate Blacktails should have no problem recruiting enough fawns into the ranks to cover this loss. I would suggest that the loss rate is far higher. It is simple math folks and this doesn't pencil out.

Blacktails have a complex situation on the west coast, some units are sufferring from lack of timber harvest, yet the two units with the most clear cuts per square mile have the worst populations. There is more at work here than we know. What we do know it is not getting better and manipilating the buck harvest will most likely have little effect.

[Joe]

Rank,

Yesterday we hiked about 7 miles (round trip) into roadless country that see's almost zero deer hunting presure. We saw at least 3 different sets of fresh Bear tracks and ONE deer track. I have to think that predators get the blame in this scenerio. Not saying bears are the primary cause as there are a bunch of bobcats in the drainage as well. I would love to see a fawn survival study that showed the effects of Bear predation on blacktails. In the 80's and early 90's (prior to bait and hound ban) deer were thick! Granted the habitat isn't as good as it once was but there should be a few deer around.....

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by Joe

Rank,

Yesterday we hiked about 7 miles (round trip) into roadless country that see's almost zero deer hunting presure. We saw at least 3 different sets of fresh Bear tracks and ONE deer track. I have to think that predators get the blame in this scenerio. Not saying bears are the primary cause as there are a bunch of bobcats in the drainage as well. I would love to see a fawn survival study that showed the effects of Bear predation on blacktails. In the 80's and early 90's (prior to bait and hound ban) deer were thick! Granted the habitat isn't as good as it once was but there should be a few deer around.....

Coyotes take a huge toll on fawns too. I saw quite a few working clear cuts like bird dogs a couple years ago in the Trask unit while bear hunting. I also saw several coyote piles with tiny deer hooves in it.

[Rank Amateur]

Agreed, the predators are probably a major factor, one that has most likely increased since gates, bait and hound bans. HLS is another addititive pressure on the downward spiral.

We don't have the bears up here like the rest of you, but we do have the cats and yotes. Again, I would love to see the research that suggests only a 15% mortality rate. I don't buy it and in fact ODF&W has data that suggests otherwise in the form of tooth data. The drop between age classes far exceeded 15%.

[loper]

Originally Posted by tailchaser

...it can be interpolated that roughly 866,666 blacktails exist in Oregon.

I never flame.

But the above statement appears to not match up with page 5 of the draft version of the Oregon Black-tailed Deer Management Plan dated April 17, 2008. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2008...ement_Plan.pdf

"POPULATION ESTIMATE
Black-tailed deer populations are difficult to estimate so populations are managed based on
trends in buck ratios, damage, and harvest surveys, not number of deer. In 1979, the Department
estimated the statewide black-tailed deer population at 452,000. Population estimates during the
next 10 years, based on computer modeling, varied between 400,000 and 500,000. In 2004, the
black-tailed deer population estimate for Oregon was 320,000."

Granted, the population model sucks; that is why it is being scrapped and replaced with the sex-age-kill model. But over 500,000 more animals?

[Rank Amateur]

That couldn't be right, it would mean we are harvesting over 6% of the population.

Yes, I would tend to believe the lower numbers for the population, but my view is biased by what I see up here. Other parts of the state must be in far better shape. Heck we could do a westside trailcam census and probably see the difference in the different areas. Anybody got a 1,000 cameras??

[Charlie Storey]

I'm glad someone brought up fawn survival. I was talking to a friend of mine last year who worked on a fawn collaring project a while back in S. W. Oregon. They collared 40 some fawns and by the end of the summer 2 were still alive. Many all they found were the collars covered neatly with moss so you could step right on them and not know they were there. Obviously the work of predators. I don't see fawns at any time of year like I did 30 years ago. In a couple of weeks we should all be out there with our fawn calls and rifles giving a little payback.

[jbooth]

You guys think the ODFW is bad, WDFW really needs to get thier stuff together. 70 something elk die in the Mt St Helens area they decide to issue more cow tags for the whole Mt. St. Helens herd, instead of just the the game managment area where all the elk are dying. Bottom line is this winter we set a new record for winter elk kills at an approximated 150 for the mt st helens area. Every time I turn around there are knew permit hunts being opened, and the WDFW is bringing in a lot of $$$$ at $6 a pop for special permit applications.

[Old Soldier]

I think Limbhanger and Santiam got it right way back up toward the top.
Quality is what you make of the hunt. I know I want to hunt every year for deer and elk and if that means spike only then so be it. To say go for quantity that is what gets money for management and youth involved. It also keeps us old guys buying license and tags.

The Quality of the hunt is based on good friends and family in the woods doing what we love.

[switchback00]

I agree too Old Soldier! We need to accept Oregon and its hunting for what it is and really be glad just to be hunting with our loved ones. I see big bucks all the time, here in western oregon and when I go over east. Its a matter of hunting hard and getting lucky(right place, right time)! I can assure you all if you hunt hard and work twice as hard you'll see that oregon has some very nice animals in each unit. I hear you all say that you get tired of shooting spikes and forks, who is making you squeeze the trigger on those young bucks??? Give yourself a chance to shoot a mature deer next this season and quit complaining because they are out there.

[STRUTTIN-1]

Originally Posted by Old Soldier

I think Limbhanger and Santiam got it right way back up toward the top.
Quality is what you make of the hunt. I know I want to hunt every year for deer and elk and if that means spike only then so be it. To say go for quantity that is what gets money for management and youth involved. It also keeps us old guys buying license and tags.

The Quality of the hunt is based on good friends and family in the woods doing what we love.

:

I also hunt for the red meat,not so much for the horns.Do not get me wrong a huge rack would be great and my first choice but cannot eat the horns.I relie on this perfect protein.

[tailchaser]

Once again: Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't put my personal views upon those numbers, they came up at a public meeting when I was questioning the mortality rates back when they wanted to change the archery limits. Take it as you like.

My point is simple, if ODFW would look into solving more predator and disease mortality in this state instead of wasting office time and figuring out how to make our state the "no fun state" in regulations up the kazoo it just might come around. But I don't see that happening soon and I won't beat a dead horse any longer.

tc

[barnyard121]

I would go with quantity over quality.

The reason i say this is 1 out of 10 elk hunters i have seen while i am out hunting have NO CLUE HOW TO HUNT!! most of them don't even care if they shoot an elk they just want to get away and shoot the breeze with there buddies.

I would hate to wate years to get an elk tag my family lives on wild game meat. i would go very hungry

Plus i havent had a problem getting an elk since i started hunting. and this year i got a 6x6.

[Hookset]

Originally Posted by Charlie Storey

I'm glad someone brought up fawn survival. I was talking to a friend of mine last year who worked on a fawn collaring project a while back in S. W. Oregon. They collared 40 some fawns and by the end of the summer 2 were still alive. Many all they found were the collars covered neatly with moss so you could step right on them and not know they were there. Obviously the work of predators. I don't see fawns at any time of year like I did 30 years ago. In a couple of weeks we should all be out there with our fawn calls and rifles giving a little payback.

I completely agree......no fawns = no deer and I certainly see fewer deer then ever before in all my years hunting western Oregon. Typically, I'm always looking for deer but in reality I'm looking for deer sign; tracks, trails, fresh rubs, beds, hair and droppings. So even if I don't see a deer, as long as good sign is available I don't worry, I just hunt harder.

Now after so many frustrating years finding so little deer sign, the ODFW finally admitted blacktails are in trouble and started reducing anterless tags, and it's about time, they are so slow to react to changing conditions and fewer animals.

I would have to guess with the increase in cougar sightings around the mid-valley, as reported in the paper, that predation has played a huge roll with the decline in deer numbers in addition to HLS. Blacktails really need our help and support, I wish they would close off all anterless hunts for at least a few years.

[mtn300]

Man this state is so screwed up. Lets increase elk tag to further depress our elk herds. same with deer cut tags numbers in half and sell spring bear tags otc. I am almost ready quit hunting oregon it is just a joke over here on the eastside. And then now they want us to pay more for license and tags. I don't need buy a license to go camping and hiking.

[KingSlew]

All politics is local. On the coast we've got more elk than ever, in places that you couldn't even find an elk thirty years ago, but no blacktail. As recently as the mid nineties it was no trick to kill a good buck each year, provided you knew how to go about it. Now it's a total crap shoot. I haven't found a buck over here worth shooting since 2000.

I put it down to HLS. Even when we had a big doe kill over here we still had fawn survival.

I have does come through my place every Spring with fawns, but they just don't make it.

Back in the day, there were lots of spots around here where there were actual herds of does and fawns. I've seen blacktail doe/fawn groups of 15 to 20 animals. Even in the Eighties it wasn't uncommon to see bands of 10 or more does and fawns together. I was still seeing does up until 2001. since then it's gotten really bad on the coast.

During Spring Bear season we see lots of elk, but no deer and hardly a track. Anybody that hunts the coast will tell you the same story. I hear people complaining that it's too many doe tags, but I don't think it has a damn thing to do with current management, they're just gone. We may never get them back.

Going back to my Grandpa's time there weren't many blacktail on the coast either. They came on strong after they started logging the Federal land using sustained yield strategy. Ever since the bird got ES status and they shut down the big woods, it's been going downhill. Some say that the timber companies are killing too much browse with their aggressive spray program. I know a few ODFW bios that agree that it is a factor. When you add in Preds and increasing elk herds that compete for the same groceries and then top it off with HLS it looks pretty bleak for the Blacktail.

I feel for you guys, but I just don't see what good it does to whine and point fingers. It is what it is.

You know, I used to hunt both sides, east and west, on one four dollar OTC buck tag and for two more bucks you could get an OTC doe tag to go along with it, but that was before all you folks and your parents moved to Oregon

This state is too small to accomodate everybody's wishes. There's not enough real estate to go around. The critters don't have as much range as they used too. There used to be a bounty on Preds and every old retired coot kept a rifle in his gun rack. We had dogs and baiting and a lot of cougars bit the dust. Over east, instead of shopping malls, freeways, housing and industry filling up the valleys and winter grounds, there was just a bunch of cows and a few cowboys. All that sprawl around Bend, Sisters, Prineville, John Day, etc., used to be Mulie habitat.

Is it just coincidence that the states that "manage" for quality, also happen to be the same states that have the lowest human pops and the most range and habitat?

Persons per square mile, 2000

WY - 5.1
MT - 6.2
NM - 15
ID - 15
------
OR - 35.6

It always boils down to habitat. It's not just hunter numbers or antler restrictions that constitute quality, it's also the need for quality habitat where these critters can do their thing year round unmolested and have enough room to escape hunting pressure.

Maybe some of you guys watched that Mike Eastman show a few nights ago where he does a DIY on heavily hunted public land on an OTC buck tag in CO. Granted he had some great help along, but they spent all but the last two days of the hunt scouting and glassing before they located a monster Mulie buck and then managed to put a sneak on him and close the deal at 11,000 plus ft. afternoon of the last day.

I take my hat off to him and the guys that regularly take those superb animals. They work their butts off to do it, so I don't get too excited when I hear the annual whining from the wannabes in the peanut gallery that sound as if all it takes to put a 350 class bull on the wall is better management from ODFW.

There's a guy by the name of Dan Moore that since 1972 has taken 43 consecutive bull elk with a bow and 16 of them are P&Y and about 35 of them were OTC. That's the beauty of living in Missoula, but Dan had something to do with it. He wanted to kill big bulls, so he made the sacrifices and dedicated himself to it. That's really what it takes.

Good luck everybody and good hunting to you this year.