Oregonian Article....Elk blamed for over grazing!

[nehalemguy]

What a joke! Another angle to beat ODFW over the head with. Apparently horses and elk are so thick in Murderers Creek they are rubbing the fur off each other.


Wild horses, elk threaten to overcrowd rangelands

by Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...ten_to_ov.html

[oregonmuley]

Yah I read that one - amazing! And to think those darn elk are on the range all year long destroying the streams and habitat

I can see that maybe the horses aren't such a good thing but really too many elk????? That would be a nice problem to have in Oregon.

Why not have a tag and season set up for horses - good eating I'm told

[BrianMaguire]

I think the ranchers may have a valid point with the horses. Horses are an invasive species and can graze far lower than elk or moo cows. The other thing is that they are year round residents. It kind of begs the question that if cougars are having such a bad impact on deer and elk, how come they are not destroying horse populations? Some siberian tigers would be helpful in the short term.

Also what was not stated was how long were all three together, forming the perfect storm and the ranchers loose. Elk should be there, then horses (by law) and then cows. The only way to solve this is to change the law to allow the killing of horses.

It was a stupid tactic to bring up the elk, first off they graze like cows, not like horses, and most importantly they are the only one of the three that are supposed to be there. I have no sympathy with the cost of elk competing with cows - zero. Cows should only graze the "extra" and enough to keep winter range and range healthy in the long term, any more, including the reduction of elk to support grazing is not right.

[smalldog]

Is it me? Or does anyone else think that public land should be used by the public and not private interests?
If you don't own enough land to support your own herd..then why would you expect wild animals to be displaced so your cows can graze on public property?
We all know the revenue produced from cattle grazing on public land is next to nothing.
As far as stream erosion goes..cows are infamous for the way they break down stream banks.
Open Range is a thing of the past.
Want to be a farmer? You have to have your own land to raise your crops on. It should be that way with cows too.
If the horses become too overpopulated. Thin them out and harvest the meat.
OSP and the rest of the states jails could use the free meat.

[dartonvpr]

Unfortunately, grazing on BLM and forestry land is going to be like getting the netters off the river. The ranchers have the money and are better organized. As for the horses, actually they can be controlled by roundups and adoptions. This goes on all over the country. Cougars will feed on the wild horses, so there must not be very many in that area. I have hunted murderers creek unit, with only 64% public land, it is a tough hunt.

[duckhunter]

In the article they mentioned the great great great grandfather by the name of Hyde does anybody have any idea how big the Hyde ranch is? I have driven the post Paulina road a few times while hunting the Murders Creek Unit and they had billboards posting no trespassing for the next two miles. If you have access to this much property graze your cows on it and not public land. With all the extra feed just think the deer and elk would have so much more to eat. These ranchers get the grazing rights for almost nothing at the expense of our wildlife. Phil

[Oregonhunter]

Hmmmmm.....arent elk supposed to be there while cattle and horses are something we introduced? Dont see how they can give elk crap for being where they are supposed to be.

My 2

oh

[dartonvpr]

They use the public graze for the spring and summer, then put thier cattle on private land for the winter. Lets the feed grow on the private land. Pus, they get to charge to let people hunt on thier property.

[logscaler]

The ranchers between Izee, Seneca, Mitchell and John Day used to hold roundups every year and cull the horse herds.

Then the bunny huggers stepped in and stopped them. Yes, by culling them out they either killed them or shipped them out to the slaughter houses while letting the healthy ones either return to the wild or they took them with them for ranch work or the rodeo.

If you run the roads in the Aldrich Mountains, you will see lots of Stallion piles in the roads. Marking their territory like Coyotes, dogs, cats, bears, etc will do.

As for the ranchers running cattle on BLM, USFS or State Forest lands. They pay the going price for those allotments. You have as much option to bid on an allotment as the ranchers. But you need to check into what is required of you and see what expenses you will incur before you do. Imagine what fencing off several thousand acres will run you.

If you like the hunting there now, imagine what will happen if the cattle are taken off the grounds. Ladder fuels will take over and the small fire now will expand faster then ever. Unless your willing to pay for the "gardening effort" it would take to get the same effect by hand.

"Wet" side vs "Dry" side life styles. One either understands, or not.

Enough for now, blood pressure gets up to high.

(My nickels worth.)

[Fur n Feathers]

The horses were controlled in the past by ranchers gathering them for stock. If you hunt that unit you will see that the horses are out of control.

The idea with grazing is to crop off the old decadent grass and make way for new stuff to green up before winter and provide better forage for elk and deer. Deer prefer forbs, not grass, and grazing causes more forbs to grow. Which increases the amount of forage for deer. If you look back to 1939 in murderers creek there was alot of sheep and cattle herds in the area. There was a census done on the deer numbers and it was up in the 20,000 in just a few miles, given this was on winter range, but still alot of deer. Not many elk back then, but lots of mule deer, used to be one of the best winter ranges in the state for mule deer. Now between habitat loss from medusahead, cougar predation, and encroachment from horses, their numbers are alot lower.

If cattle ranching has been around for a hundred years or so then what has changed in the murderers creek area...the number or horses has significantly increased, I would even bet that the number of cattle on the allotments has decresed quite a bit over time.

The two ranchers mentioned..the stouts, dont really have a bunch of money, I think they own about 160 acres in the forest, and 500-600 at their home ranch. They are small timers when it comes to the cattle business and are just trying to make a living. So they dont have much property at all to run cattle year round, last year they could not put out their cows on the forest and had to bring them home, right onto their haying grounds, which they use to grow their feed for the winter to feed their cows, so they end up buying hay at $200 a ton. very expensive for 100head.

The cattle are only there for a few months, the horses year round. The horses do compete with the elk for food, and they are non native. Horses hurt the streams alot more than the cows do, just look at the John Young meadows. The west was discovered and populated because of ranches and cattle, Nearly all USFS, BLM, and state properties have grazing alotments on them that have been that way for more than a century. Ranching and grazing is the heart of eastern oregon.

There are lots of cougars in murderers creek and lots of horses, they counted over 400 horses a few years ago and those were only visible counts, not the ones that you cannot see in the woods. I would not rely on cougars to keep horses in check, they need to be eradicated from the area and let the elk and deer have the area. You cant hunt horses, you cant gather your own, and most of the horses you see there would make a cull of a horse so get rid of them. Hart mountain has been designated a horse free area, so now any more horses that they see they can kill them.

Not sure what ODFW has to do with this article, since horses are managed federally. You will get in more trouble for killing a horse than a elk.

[BlackTail18]

Originally Posted by oregonmuley

Yah I read that one - amazing! And to think those darn elk are on the range all year long destroying the streams and habitat

I can see that maybe the horses aren't such a good thing but really too many elk????? That would be a nice problem to have in Oregon.

Why not have a tag and season set up for horses - good eating I'm told

[smalldog]

Thanks for the explaination.

So what are the feds doing to control the horses?
They dont really adopt out many so why not bring back culling the herds?
Also, are there any private interests that want to round them up to use as meat or break for adoption?

[chukarchaser]

As soon as there is a season on these things I want to get a full shoulder mount stallion in my living room. Great conversation starter don't you think?

CC

[Wetwrk2]

I was thinking about how bad the buffalo must have screwed up everything. Buffalo, its a good thing we wiped them out. See the difference between a buffalo and cattle is..is..is?? Buffalo must have destroyed miles and miles of stream banks, and over grazed everything. I bet elk and deer starved by the millions because buffalo...remember the numbers of those big shaggy's, from horizon to horizon. It must have been a nightmare to be elk and deer during the buffalo age. Good thing we only have a few thousand moo cows and a few thousand horses to worry about these day's.-WW
ps. yes, I know the bison were on the other side of the Divide, I still think there is zero difference between a cow and a shaggy.

[logscaler]

Originally Posted by smalldog

Thanks for the explanation.

So what are the feds doing to control the horses?
They don't really adopt out many so why not bring back culling the herds?
Also, are there any private interests that want to round them up to use as meat or break for adoption?

As far as I have seen and from what I have been told from John Day locals, they release the "culls" back because they are not "pretty" and no one will adopt them.

As for the meat, "ELF" burnt out the processing plant in Redmond a few years back and no one wanted to rebuild it. Where or how far to the next plant is, I don't know.

[nehalemguy]

Originally Posted by Fur n Feathers

Not sure what ODFW has to do with this article, since horses are managed federally. You will get in more trouble for killing a horse than a elk.

The thing that iritates me the most is the Oregonian headline. It is put forth like a statement of fact encompassing both horses and elk. Only after digging deeper into the article do you find out that this is an allegation made only by the Stouts...nothing else.

I agree with the Stouts that horses are largely at the heart of the issue here, but elk? Please!

Also if you read many of the comments posted on Oregonlive.com regarding this article, you will see several people have posted what they believe to be a great solution......more wolves!

If elk can be successfully linked to over grazing in the publics perception, it is another blow to predator management, another gain for the wolf proponents, and another shackle on the hands of ODFW.

E

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by smalldog

Thanks for the explaination.

So what are the feds doing to control the horses?
They dont really adopt out many so why not bring back culling the herds?
Also, are there any private interests that want to round them up to use as meat or break for adoption?

The feds did round up a 100 or so last year, but they reproduce quite fast. Plus anything the government does takes years to do, need lots of research and money. The horses are federally protected by the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Only once the area is determined that the horses are not native and are causing problems can there be anything done. The 1990 Hart Mountain Comprehensive Management Plan calls for total removal of these horses from Hart mountain, and its been 20 years and they are making headway to getting all the horses off.

Lots of people around murderers creek would love to go out and round them up, but the feds go them protected. Some of the good old boys talk about the old days when they were out hunting on horseback and in the afternoon time they would chase the horses all over and back for fun, not that can get you for harassment. Lots of the stock for broncs at the local rodeo's (which were the big deal back then) came from feral mustangs out of the desert and forest.

I was up bowhunting last year and saw a touristy couple in their SUV on a backroad in eastern oregon, just out of a certain little town. I stopped for they were in the middle of the road and looked lost. They said that they were taking pictures of the wild horses and how beautiful they were. The wild horse they were looking at was an old swayback mare that was inside the fenced pasture. It was not at all wild, just someones horse in the field, they were amazed, they looked at me funny when I told them that the horse was a tame pet. Just thought it was funny...cityslickers.

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by logscaler

As far as I have seen and from what I have been told from John Day locals, they release the "culls" back because they are not "pretty" and no one will adopt them.

They did a roundup about 5 or 10 years ago in murderers creek, they got about 150 horses or so, but no one would adopt them since they were culls and ugly, plus I dont think they had much room for them, so they castrated the males and released them back into the woods. Does that make sense? Why not just shoot them. Feds?

The stouts have a huge herd of elk come onto their haying property every night in the summer eating their hay, so I can understand that they dont like the elk, but I would imagine that their lawyer might have more to do with it then they do, both of them are hunters, no different that anyone else on this site, just that thier profession is ranching.

[duckhunter]

I bet they like the money they make from the deer and elk hunters they charge to hunt ther property.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by logscaler

As for the ranchers running cattle on BLM, USFS or State Forest lands. They pay the going price for those allotments. You have as much option to bid on an allotment as the ranchers. But you need to check into what is required of you and see what expenses you will incur before you do. Imagine what fencing off several thousand acres will run you.
(My nickels worth.)

That is plain FALSE. You, I, or anyone else can not bid on allotments. It’s also not the going rate. Your statement is so wrong on so many levels it’s not funny. The state of Oregon charges on average more than $12 an AUM while the BLM and FS charge under $4. If it was a fair bid, say, every 3 years and any one could bid on an allotment, the AUM charge would be easily 3X what it is. The green groups could bid on an allotment and choose not to graze, it’s a fair option to the tax payer IMO, but would not be allowed. The allotment owner is forced to graze, if not you give up the allotment. This is welfare ranching, I know it sounds harsh, but the free market is not allowed to participate. I suggest in the spirit of capitalism and the free market (not government welfare and tax payer burden) that every allotment come up to bid every 3-5 years and anyone willing to bid the AUM's have a fair chance, regardless if they are going to graze, let the greenies put up the cash and the tax payer wins. Please do your homework before boasting things that are simply not true.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Wetwrk2

I was thinking about how bad the buffalo must have screwed up everything. Buffalo, its a good thing we wiped them out. See the difference between a buffalo and cattle is..is..is?? Buffalo must have destroyed miles and miles of stream banks, and over grazed everything. I bet elk and deer starved by the millions because buffalo...remember the numbers of those big shaggy's, from horizon to horizon. It must have been a nightmare to be elk and deer during the buffalo age. Good thing we only have a few thousand moo cows and a few thousand horses to worry about these day's.-WW
ps. yes, I know the bison were on the other side of the Divide, I still think there is zero difference between a cow and a shaggy.

C'mon, do you really take that argument seriously? First off there were few if any Bison in Oregon, at least in the last 5,000 years. Second where there were bison, mainly the Midwest between Wyoming and Missouri the herds migrated literally up and down the entire Midwest. They were not fenced off year round, nor did they stay even seasonally in an area of a few hundred square miles much less the size of an allotment.
I know its a stretch to justify public land grazing but before a premise is put forth I would think that you could have at least thought through it logically enough to make it plausible.

The solution here is to change the federal law, ODFW has nothing they can do other than to decrease the already low MO's for the unit. Until the federal law is changed its a moot point. From what I know of groups like ONDA, ONRC (Oregon Wild), etc, they are not fans of wild horses, in fact they really dislike them, prehaps this is an issue and time when you can actually work with the "greenies" and get things done. I assure you they have more pull now and are more open to working with the "other" side than the "other" side was when they controlled things.

[lake creek charlie]

(((Originally Posted by Wetwrk2
I was thinking about how bad the buffalo must have screwed up everything. Buffalo, its a good thing we wiped them out. See the difference between a buffalo and cattle is..is..is?? Buffalo must have destroyed miles and miles of stream banks, and over grazed everything. I bet elk and deer starved by the millions because buffalo...remember the numbers of those big shaggy's, from horizon to horizon. It must have been a nightmare to be elk and deer during the buffalo age. Good thing we only have a few thousand moo cows and a few thousand horses to worry about these day's.-WW
ps. yes, I know the bison were on the other side of the Divide, I still think there is zero difference between a cow and a shaggy.))) IF THE FENCES WENT AWAY AND WE WERE ALLOWED TO SHOOT COWS UNTIL THE BARREL MELTED,THEN YES THEY ARE THE SAME LOL

[baltz526]

If cattle ranching has been around for a hundred years or so then what has changed in the murderers creek area...

the biggest change is CHEAT GRASS has taken over. cows now eat all the winter range brouse the deer depend on, due to the cheatgrass ecosystem. the cows need to do this because the non-native plants have taken over the west. the murderers creek winter range is the perfect example of this cow destruction of the winter range. last i read the muledeer herd went from an estimated 20,000 plus to less than 2,000. before the cougar issue started. bad winters with very poor winter range condition killed the deer. add hundreds of horses to this mix and the ecosystem is in failure

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That is plain FALSE. You, I, or anyone else can not bid on allotments. It’s also not the going rate. Your statement is so wrong on so many levels it’s not funny. The state of Oregon charges on average more than $12 an AUM while the BLM and FS charge under $4. If it was a fair bid, say, every 3 years and any one could bid on an allotment, the AUM charge would be easily 3X what it is. The green groups could bid on an allotment and choose not to graze, it’s a fair option to the tax payer IMO, but would not be allowed. The allotment owner is forced to graze, if not you give up the allotment. This is welfare ranching, I know it sounds harsh, but the free market is not allowed to participate. I suggest in the spirit of capitalism and the free market (not government welfare and tax payer burden) that every allotment come up to bid every 3-5 years and anyone willing to bid the AUM's have a fair chance, regardless if they are going to graze, let the greenies put up the and the tax payer wins. Please do your homework before boasting things that are simply not true.

So you are suggesting that the ranchers have to outbid the envrionmental groups to make a living? Just so they can get their cows to grow so they can sell them? How else are they going to make ends meet? These people are not rich, they are not the huge cattle barons of the wild west, just small timers, 50, 75, 100 head ranches that run cows to put their kids in college in hopes that they have a better life than raising cattle.

One could say that your job should come open to anyone wanting to interview for it, and if there is someone who is willing to do your job for less pay then they should get it. The cows dont hurt a thing, there was a 14000 acre fire in the area 3 years ago, that did alot of damage, more than what the cattle do.

I personally know the murderers creek unit very well, and I speak strongly on this subject because I have seen what it is like and the role that elk, deer, cattle, and horses play on the forage and the habitat.

[dartonvpr]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That is plain FALSE. You, I, or anyone else can not bid on allotments. It’s also not the going rate. Your statement is so wrong on so many levels it’s not funny. The state of Oregon charges on average more than $12 an AUM while the BLM and FS charge under $4. If it was a fair bid, say, every 3 years and any one could bid on an allotment, the AUM charge would be easily 3X what it is. The green groups could bid on an allotment and choose not to graze, it’s a fair option to the tax payer IMO, but would not be allowed. The allotment owner is forced to graze, if not you give up the allotment. This is welfare ranching, I know it sounds harsh, but the free market is not allowed to participate. I suggest in the spirit of capitalism and the free market (not government welfare and tax payer burden) that every allotment come up to bid every 3-5 years and anyone willing to bid the AUM's have a fair chance, regardless if they are going to graze, let the greenies put up the cash and the tax payer wins. Please do your homework before boasting things that are simply not true.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea. If a "green" group(don't really like that term), or wildlife group were to lease the grazing rights for 5 years, you would certainly be able to see the impact and how the environment and wildlife would react to the change.

[baltz526]

this was tried in the past, the feds changed the rules on public lands grazing to block it

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by duckhunter

I bet they like the money they make from the deer and elk hunters they charge to hunt ther property.

Really? how much do they make? Do they even charge people. I dont think they make very much. I think if you were in their shoes it would be nice to have some people to pay you so that they could shoot some of the elk that are eating their hay every night that they are paying $600 a ton for fertlizer, electrical bill to run irrigation pump, fuel to run swather and baler.

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by baltz526

the biggest change is CHEAT GRASS has taken over. cows now eat all the winter range brouse the deer depend on, due to the cheatgrass ecosystem. the cows need to do this because the non-native plants have taken over the west. the murderers creek winter range is the perfect example of this cow destruction of the winter range. last i read the muledeer herd went from an estimated 20,000 plus to less than 2,000. before the cougar issue started. bad winters with very poor winter range condition killed the deer. add hundreds of horses to this mix and the ecosystem is in failure

The cows are only on the area for 6 weeks at the most, shorter in some areas since the allotments are smaller and the herds are moved around. Yes there is cheatgrass, but the cows will eat that too, even medusahead if it is green. Most of the winterbrowse like bitterbrush does get eaten slightly by the cows but that stimulates it to grow even more. The idea is that the cows will graze over an area and then be moved to the next spot so they are not overgrazing the area. There are bitterbrush plants where the horses stay year round that are about 1 foot high and very dense since the horses just keep the new leaders browsed off, where there are no horses the bitterbrush plants are quite a bushy and provide great thermal cover and winter browse for deer.

[dartonvpr]

"The cows are only on the area for 6 weeks at the most, shorter in some areas since the allotments are smaller and the herds are moved around. Yes there is cheatgrass, but the cows will eat that too, even medusahead if it is green. Most of the winterbrowse like bitterbrush does get eaten slightly by the cows but that stimulates it to grow even more. The idea is that the cows will graze over an area and then be moved to the next spot so they are not overgrazing the area. There are bitterbrush plants where the horses stay year round that are about 1 foot high and very dense since the horses just keep the new leaders browsed off, where there are no horses the bitterbrush plants are quite a bushy and provide great thermal cover and winter browse for deer".

"Really? how much do they make? Do they even charge people. I dont think they make very much. I think if you were in their shoes it would be nice to have some people to pay you so that they could shoot some of the elk that are eating their hay every night that they are paying $600 a ton for fertlizer, electrical bill to run irrigation pump, fuel to run swather and baler".

OK, I can be a bit of a blacksheep and have even disagreed with baltz on a few subjects, but doesn't mean I don't respect his opinion. He has a very valid point on this one, and there is evidence to prove it. So I have to ask, where are you getting this information? Most ranchers will run range cattle for 3-8 months depending on the area and elevations. The biggest problem is the cheatgrass, and the cattle don't eat it unless there is nothing else, and usually they just move on before they have to eat that, but they don't just move on to keep from overgrazing. There is not one place in eastern or central Oregon that allows range cattle, that hasn't seen a severe effect by them. And in all of those areas, the deer and elk population has declined. And I'm not even going to comment on "thermal" cover for deer.
As for how much do the ranchers make from hunters? Most either lease thier land out to guides, or set up guide services themselves. A guided deer or elk hunt will cost you 3-10 thousand dollars. The public deer and elk come down to the private land, because that is where the best feed is, and the rancher is allowed to make a profit from public wildlife. Now, we don't own the wildlife, but niether do the ranchers, yet they profit from it. I can have sympathy for a lot of things, but to think that the poor ranchers with all of thier land are being put out or going broke because they have to use public land to graze thier cattle and that something should be done about those pesky elk wiping out all the feed for thier cattle, is just not an idea I am able to wrap my thoughts around.

[nehalemguy]

All of you are missing the point!

If the public perception can be changed into thinking that elk are a problem, then it defeats our argument that our elk are in trouble!

Forget about the cows. We are about to head to Salem later this month to argue our case for both our deer and elk herds. This articles headline on the front page of the Oregonian gives the impression that we are being over run with elk when the opposite is true. I have e-mailed the Oregonian editors and Richard Cockle regarding this issue. I would like to see others do the same.

E

[baltz526]

it would be nice if the major news organizations had fact checkers and editors proof reading prior to publication or airing "storys"

[logscaler]

Not to hijack this thread or anything but....

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

That is plain FALSE.

From the BLM website.

Do I qualify to graze livestock on public lands?
To graze livestock on public lands you must meet the following qualifications:

• be a citizen of the U.S
• be authorized to conduct business in the state where your livestock will graze
• offer land or water that you own or control as base property
• accept interest in and maintenance of existing range improvements on the allotment
• have a satisfactory performance of grazing livestock on state and federal lands
• be in good standing on the date the transfer application is submitted for the base properties you own and/or control. (Ref: 43 CFR 4110.1)

And


What is base property?
Base property is the land that you own or control. Within grazing districts (Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act {TGA}), the base property must be capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock use. Outside grazing districts (Section 15, TGA), the base property must be contiguous to the public land to be used for livestock grazing. "Grazing preference" is attached to base property (Ref: 43 CFR 4110.2-1).
If the base property is sold or leased, you have 90 days from the date of the sale or lease to file a transfer application with the BLM. This would transfer the grazing preference (AUMs available on public land) to the new owner or lessee of the base property (Ref. 43 CFR 4110.2-3(b)).


Now all you have to do is make the same INVESTMENT as the people who ranch here have done. Buy a chunk of ground over here, stock it and then defend it. Just like any business in the world does. Not just ranchers. The business you work for will do the same as these people are doing when and if threaten.


Sorry for the hijack, please return to your normal viewing preference.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by nehalemguy

All of you are missing the point!

If the public perception can be changed into thinking that elk are a problem, then it defeats our argument that our elk are in trouble!

Forget about the cows. We are about to head to Salem later this month to argue our case for both our deer and elk herds. This articles headline on the front page of the Oregonian gives the impression that we are being over run with elk when the opposite is true. I have e-mailed the Oregonian editors and Richard Cockle regarding this issue. I would like to see others do the same.

E

To your point Eric, the Murderers Creek unit elk herd is probably half of what it was in the late 80's. I would have to do some digging around to find the numbers, but since that was my unit of choice for a Eastside elk tag, I had a keen interest in it. They have cow hunted the heck out of that unit, all on the behest of the ranchers who do not want elk in that unit. The work group from a number of years back recommended even further reductions in the elk herds and a try at increasing deer.

If the elk herd is reduced from the 80's population, the over grazing is a false point, besides recent new burns are opening up a lot of new forage for deer and elk.

The district bio out of Johnday stated that he would have no problem growing elk, but that the locals don't want them. And yes, there are lot's of cougars in that country, I hunted it from the late 60's to the late 80's and it was very apparent they were there, especially at the end.

[GDuck]

Anyone familiar with the South Fork of Deer Creek? I'm dating myself, but what was known as Spur 5 used to have a nice camping area in a meadow near some big leaf trees (brain fart...can't remember the name of them)....about 15 years ago the USFS put up a big log fence to keep campers away from a little bitty seasonal creek......our family camped there for 3 decades...and every year during deer season there were cows everywhere in there. Every time I've been back since the cows are there, and that is a lot longer than 6 or 8 weeks.

Don't get me started on the wild horses in that area below Flagtail either. The damage is plain to see, its horses and cows, it isn't elk and deer. And the horses aren't exactly enamored with humans either, but I'll leave that alone for another day.



G

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

I suggest...that every allotment come up to bid every 3-5 years and...let the greenies put up the cash and the tax payer wins.

It's naive to think that anyone could outbid the [environmental protagonists (since the word "greenie" gets some people upset)] (with either money or political clout) and it's equally naive to think that the [environmental protagonists] would allow anyone on their allotment. History suggests they'd close all the roads they could and turn it into a virtual wilderness where no access is allowed for any use. I don't see how tax payers win in that scenario, and we hunters are guaranteed to be losers.

[BrianMaguire]

You can't see how taxpayers win? Taxpayers win because the revenue from grazing does not equal the cost of administration much less the decrease in the quality of OUR lands- aka reduced hunting, fishing issues due to irrigation, etc. If it was fair (AKA free market), anyone could bid on and do with the allotment as they choose. Its a public subsidy, AKA, welfare in the form of a subsidy. Ranching can't stand on its own the public needs to subsidize it with public assets. The huge problem with it, much like the arguments from the welfare generations that use to exist is the outright belief in entitlement. There is no thankfulness, "its our right" is the mantra, well no its not.

Don't you see the hypocrisy? So called capitalists who complain to high hell about not getting the government handout?

In case you did not notice we are talking about public land, regardless of who the allotment leaser is you can go as you please on the land. The argument that greenies would lock you out is crazy, if that was possible, I guarantee you the ranchers would be doing it right now, if fact they do with in holding public lands.

Originally Posted by Hawk

It's naive to think that anyone could outbid the [environmental protagonists (since the word "greenie" gets some people upset)] (with either money or political clout) and it's equally naive to think that the [environmental protagonists] would allow anyone on their allotment. History suggests they'd close all the roads they could and turn it into a virtual wilderness where no access is allowed for any use. I don't see how tax payers win in that scenario, and we hunters are guaranteed to be losers.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by logscaler

Not Now all you have to do is make the same INVESTMENT as the people who ranch here have done. Buy a chunk of ground over here, stock it and then defend it. Just like any business in the world does. Not just ranchers. The business you work for will do the same as these people are doing when and if threaten.

We already have, every april 15th, our land is the public land. Its not yours or the guy who lives adjacent to it, don't forget that, its not yours its ours(you are included). Do you not think it fair to pay a market price for the AUM's? Why should the public loose money with grazing? Why?

[dartonvpr]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

To your point Eric, the Murderers Creek unit elk herd is probably half of what it was in the late 80's. I would have to do some digging around to find the numbers, but since that was my unit of choice for a Eastside elk tag, I had a keen interest in it. They have cow hunted the heck out of that unit, all on the behest of the ranchers who do not want elk in that unit. The work group from a number of years back recommended even further reductions in the elk herds and a try at increasing deer.

If the elk herd is reduced from the 80's population, the over grazing is a false point, besides recent new burns are opening up a lot of new forage for deer and elk.

The district bio out of Johnday stated that he would have no problem growing elk, but that the locals don't want them. And yes, there are lot's of cougars in that country, I hunted it from the late 60's to the late 80's and it was very apparent they were there, especially at the end.

Maybe we should blame the wolves. Cattle are the problem here, and overgraving is not a false point. Recent burns will not just magically make the elk return. I keep hearing that numbers are down from the 80s, or 70s, or 40s, now there's a news flash. It all adds up to the same thing, "we let it happen". I don't know if anyone noticed, but we are in the 21st century. People believe everything the news media spews at us, and then quote it as fact. Most people have never been to murderers creek and if half the people that say they have were actually there, it would be a very crowded place.
So far I see a lot of finger pointing and a lot of name calling, but I have yet to see a solution. It's always someone elses fault, it's always the other guy that is wrong. The hunting was great in the "old days". Now that would be the time when it was a free for all right? No drawings, no special hunts, no cow tags. Heck sometimes uncle Fred filled 4, 5 tags that year. And the guys camped next to you got just as many. You just bought a tag, sometimes after the season started and just drove out and shot your deer or elk. Anybody else see where this is going?
Funny thing is, I can roam through this site and see some amazing elk and deer harvested last year, or the year before, "My first deer", "Biggest elk I ever shot". All this while you sit here quoting biologist that will tell you anything you want to hear, newspapers that wouldn't care about the truth if it bit them on the backside, or data from surveys and studies that were made for a specific reason for a specific group. I've said it before, "any data can be shown to favor any side".
I have been personally slammed about my ideals and my beliefs, here and in private messages like my opinion meant nothing and the individuals opinion was the only thing that counted. You can bet I'm not going to loose sleep over it. The cattle do not belong on public land, period. The fact that there are those right here that will justify them being there and deny they are a problem show how little we really pay attention to the truth. No one wants to hear variable, no one wants to hear the truth, they just want someone to blame. For those that actually hunt murderers cr, what made you decide to hunt there?
There will be those that will try to spin what I have said to prove "thier" point, to prove they are right. But does that fix the problem. I'll be the first to point out the problems that I see in this unit, let's see if we can focus on them.
1>over grazing by livestock.
2>over hunting.
3>limited access.
4>improper management.
5>media misrepresentation.
Is there anyone here willing to discuss these issues?
Is there anyone here willing to step up and tell the Oregonian they are full of it and make them prove thier stand?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by dartonvpr

So far I see a lot of finger pointing and a lot of name calling, but I have yet to see a solution. ?

I stated one early on in the thread. The ranchers need to team with the green groups and change federal law with regards to wild horses. They have a mutual dislike for them, and so do we hunters. Perfect triad. Solving the horse issue will help many places in Oregon, not just Murders creek, but Steens and Beatty Butte as well.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

The argument that greenies would lock you out is crazy, if that was possible, I guarantee you the ranchers would be doing it right now, if fact they do with in holding public lands.

It's happening right now; there is one guy up the McKay Creek drainage north of Prineville who parks his vehicles in the middle of public access roadway and precludes access to thousands of acres of public land. I approached the county sheriff about how he could legally do that and they said they don't want to fight him. In one case there was a lost and injured hiker up on the public land and the guy would not even move this vehicles when ordered by the county sheriff for purposes of search and rescue.

If law enforcement is impotent to fight one redneck up McKay Creek what makes you think they'll be able to successfully fight the polictical and financial clout of the [environmental protagonists] who are FAR better connected that one hillbilly. Won't happen...and we'll lose access to all that land because they have "purchased" the use rights.

[dartonvpr]

Brian, that would be a start. Maybe if we can agree on one item, it will let us move to the next one.

Hawk, not going to say it didn't happen, but I know several law enforcement officers and that truck would have been towed and the owner cited.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by dartonvpr

I'll be the first to point out the problems that I see in this unit, let's see if we can focus on them.
1>over grazing by livestock.
2>over hunting.
3>limited access.
4>improper management.
5>media misrepresentation.
Is there anyone here willing to discuss these issues?
Is there anyone here willing to step up and tell the Oregonian they are full of it and make them prove thier stand?

I'd say:
1. Tighter management of grazing.
2. I disagree that over-hunting is a problem. I think predation is more of an issue than over-hunting.
3. I've been interviewed by The Oregonian several times over the years for various topics and they don't really care when people tell them they are full of it. Bill Monroe does a great job but his columns don't carry the weight of the editors and the editors are not going to agree with us on anything from grazing rights to gun control (I say use two hands!) anytime soon.

[dartonvpr]

But over hunting has been a problem, from issuing too many cow tags, to poor management. There are several things that point to over hunting. I'm not saying we need to stop hunting to fix it, just modify our regulations. Simple things like, seasons, access.
I have no doubt that the Oregonian doesn't like it when anyone tells them they are full of it. But, isn't that the point. If they are reporting false information, or limiting thier information to a particular point of view, they need to be called out. I guess simply stated, it doesn't matter whether they like it or not.
Predation is not a problem in all areas and although some will disagree, I don't believe it is a major issue in this area. Not saying it doesn't go on, but saying it isn't at the top of the list. I believe we need to focus on the major concerns first.

[SILVERSINK]

Hawk carry a tow chain.

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by dartonvpr

1>over grazing by livestock.
2>over hunting.
3>limited access.
4>improper management.
5>media misrepresentation.

The way I see it is.

1> overgrazing by horses - the cows are not there long enough to impact the area, yes they do impact the area, but not in any way close to what the horses do.
2> over hunting by bowhunters- there needs to be a limit to each unit, I like to bowhunt but its a joke cause you run into too many of them. Choose your weapon -
3> Limited access, thats great in my mind, if you mean that there are no roads, I dont hunt roads, i get off into the backcountry, so the more limited it is then the less people I see and the better the hunt is.
4> This will always bea problem since everyone has a different opinion on how things should be managed, unless you stand in the managers shoes and understand the roles at hand its hard to see the light.

[dartonvpr]

I believe the cattle do have an effect because they are there during the growing seasons, in the fall and winter when they aren't there, nothing is growing. Horses effect certain areas as well, but not all areas that are over grazed have horses. The point has been made that cattle are only there for 6-8 weeks, but I know areas that they are there much longer, would have to look into that more.
I think for the most part we do have to choose our weapon, I believe you can buy either a bow or rifle tag, but not both. I also don't believe that it is just the bowhunters, I think more people have gotten into bowhunting because the season is longer. without offending someone, I can shoot consistantly at a hundred yards with my bow, wouldn't do that hunting, but do know people that will shoot at 60. And the muzzleloaders can shoot out to 250, don't believe that is what the primative hunts were designed for. What the solution is, I haven't come up with one yet, but I do think it is something we need to look at.
What I mean by limited acces is the amount of area we have to hunt. Murderers Cr is about 64% public, at one time it was about 85%, combine that with the fact that there are more people hunting in a smaller area, and I believe that it is affecting how the herds move.
Management is always going to be an issue, but we have to decide what is best for a given area. If we allow politics to control it, we have to remember that we are supposed to control politics. that might not be the most liked idea, but it is the truth. If we allow the biologist to honostly monitor the hunting and the herd, we can get an accurate rate of stability. Didn't say it would be easy.

[dartonvpr]

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html

http://www.nv.blm.gov/range/LegsRegs/index.htm

http://www.progressiveregulation.org.../livestock.cfm

This is some of the information on grazing that I have found. I haven't had time to do more than "graze" over it, but what I didn't see was anything on timelines, (I.E., length of time allowed on any particular allotment) possible changes in regulations providing ranchers more control than other uses. (that can't be good). This information is strictly about the BLM. there is some grazing on forestry land, but have not found that info at this time.
The following documents are listed for information purposes, not to be misinterpreted as my views or beliefs.
http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/whb/...ation_data.pdf

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/co...aft%20Plan.pdf

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by dartonvpr

I have no doubt that the Oregonian doesn't like it when anyone tells them they are full of it. But, isn't that the point. If they are reporting false information, or limiting thier information to a particular point of view, they need to be called out. I guess simply stated, it doesn't matter whether they like it or not.

It's a misconception that The Oregonian is going to report anything "fairly and accurately". They are a private, for-profit media outlet that has a political agenda which their editorial staff pushes/stuffs down peoples throats and, since they are the largest state-wide media outlet, their perspective (no matter how ill-conceived) is propagandized and become fact to folks that don't want to research the facts for themselves because it takes too long or is too much work.

Who came up with that saying which says that if you tell a lie long enough and often enough it becomes the truth?

[Fur n Feathers]

Originally Posted by dartonvpr

I think for the most part we do have to choose our weapon, I believe you can buy either a bow or rifle tag, but not both.

I was referring to choose your weapon as in if you want to hunt rifle then you cannot bowhunt if you dont draw a rifle tag, and if you want to bowhunt then you cannot rifle hunt or put in for rifle tags. Does that make sense? I think alot of people (myself included) apply for rifle tags and if they dont draw that tag they bowhunt. I think this will clear up the woods quite a bit during bowseason.

I dont practice with my bow any farther out than 40 yards. I love to bowhunt and get them in close, thats the fun thing about it, too much error out past 40 yards, wind, angle, branches, sound, buck and bull fever.

[scoutdog5]

I don't have a lot of experience in Murderer's Creek, but have spent a good part of my life on the Ochoco side of the South Fork of the John Day, directly across from the Deer Creek Drainage. The western part of the Murderer's Creek unit and the eastern third of the ochoco unit are very similar habitat types, and I believe the factors affecting elk and deer populations are pretty much identical, with the exception of the horses, which have a much larger presence in Murderers Creek.

Some facts about what has happened on the east end of the Ochoco over the past 40 yearrs. I believe these would be true for the western part of Murderers Creek as well.

1. Grazing practices have improved dramatically over the past 40 years. there are still problems, most related to fish rather than wildlife in my opinion, but it is better.
2. Grazing is allowed on the forest from June 1 to Oct 1. In our area, there are five pastures. One is typically rested each year. Approximately 400 cow/calf pairs are rotated between the others. Average time in one pasture is less than 30 days, although a few don't get moved with the herds.
3. There is no observable damage to bitterbrush stands by cattle deer or elk. There are no deer, and there is sufficient forage sources that are preferred by cattle and elk instead. In the past 20 years, there is no observable shortage of forage on public land during the spring, summer or fall on the east end of the Ochocos, even in extremely dry years.
4. Deer populations began to decrease in the east end of the Ochocos in the early 70's. ODFW continued to issue doe tags for several years, and significantly contributed to the decline. Logging was expanding at a rapid rate, and road building was a major factor in increased buck harvest, since ODFW maintained buck tag numbers far in excess of herd population numbers, and continues to do so today. Between 1970 and 1990, the deer herd suffered steady decreases in population numbers, almost entirely due to over harvest.
5. Elk were extremely rare on the Ochoco side of the South Fork of the John Day River drainages in the 60's, except for Cottonwood creek. numbers started to increase in the 70's, in spite of ODFW efforts to eliminate them with long either sex seasons. ODFW began managing elk populations in the early 80's, and the population exploded over the next 10-12 years. ODFW did what they always do, issued to many tags, and began knocking down the herd in the early 90's.
6. By 1994, when hunting Cougars with dogs was banned, the deer herd on the east end of the Ochocos was viable, but far below the management objective. The elk herd had peaked at around 6,000 animals, and started to get smaller. There had been no doe season for almost 20 years, but not a single three year period where the population rebounded. Buck tags and both bull and antlerless tags remained too high for the populations.
7. Between 1994 and today, there has been a tremendous increase in public use of public land during most of the year. This increase has displaced elk from preferred public habitats during much of the year onto less favorable private land habitat. Tag numbers have been reduced significantly over the past 14 years, from 1,900 rifle bull tags to around 600, and less than 50% of the antlerless tags. In spite of that, the elk herd has stabilized at less than 5,000 animals. Recruitment is basically sufficient to maintain the herd population size, but not increase it.
8. Deer populations have shrunk to the point that there is no longer a viable herd on public land in the South Fork John Day drainage. Hunting this herd is a travesty. Cougar predation, which was not a significant factor in the decreases between 1970 and 1995, was the major factor in the continued reductions in this herd over the past 10 years, along with over harvest of the mature buck component of the herd.
9. Today, Cougars are undoubtedly respsonsible for keeping the deer numbers extremely depressed, but there is little doubt their primary prey is now elk. In my opinion, that is the major factor in the Ochoco elk herd not growing over the past several years, in spite of low hunter harvest of both bulls and cows by historical standards.
10. Until 3 years ago, deer herds on private lands on the Crooked River drainage were doing relatively well when compared to public land populations. Over the past three years, there has been a significant drop in deer numbers using the alfalfa fields on Les Schwab, Twin Buttes, Guitterez, etc. This is the final piece of the destruction of a once great deer herd, in my opinion. Ranchers I have talked to are convinced coyote and cougar predation is the cause of these reductions.

So what does all that mean in relation to public land grazing? In my opinion, neither grazing or habitat is a factor in the decline in mule deer populations, and the lack of growth in the elk herd. Take all the cows off the John Day drainages, spend thousands on habitat projects, and you will not add a single deer or elk to the population. The solutions are complex and difficult, and it is likely to late for the deer herd on the east end of the Ochocos, as it is on the east face of the Steens, and in much of Murderer's Creek. For elk, the only solution is to implement the research that has been done: Close roads on a year round basis in much of the unit, reduce harvest on mature bulls until they are doing the breeding, and control predators. None of that is likely to happen in my lifetime.

Scoutdog

[scoutdog5]

I don't have a lot of experience in Murderer's Creek, but have spent a good part of my life on the Ochoco side of the South Fork of the John Day, directly across from the Deer Creek Drainage. The western part of the Murderer's Creek unit and the eastern third of the ochoco unit are very similar habitat types, and I believe the factors affecting elk and deer populations are pretty much identical, with the exception of the horses, which have a much larger presence in Murderers Creek.

Some facts about what has happened on the east end of the Ochoco over the past 40 yearrs. I believe these would be true for the western part of Murderers Creek as well.

1. Grazing practices have improved dramatically over the past 40 years. there are still problems, most related to fish rather than wildlife in my opinion, but it is better.
2. Grazing is allowed on the forest from June 1 to Oct 1. In our area, there are five pastures. One is typically rested each year. Approximately 400 cow/calf pairs are rotated between the others. Average time in one pasture is less than 30 days, although a few don't get moved with the herds.
3. There is no observable damage to bitterbrush stands by cattle deer or elk. There are no deer, and there is sufficient forage sources that are preferred by cattle and elk instead. In the past 20 years, there is no observable shortage of forage on public land during the spring, summer or fall on the east end of the Ochocos, even in extremely dry years.
4. Deer populations began to decrease in the east end of the Ochocos in the early 70's. ODFW continued to issue doe tags for several years, and significantly contributed to the decline. Logging was expanding at a rapid rate, and road building was a major factor in increased buck harvest, since ODFW maintained buck tag numbers far in excess of herd population numbers, and continues to do so today. Between 1970 and 1990, the deer herd suffered steady decreases in population numbers, almost entirely due to over harvest.
5. Elk were extremely rare on the Ochoco side of the South Fork of the John Day River drainages in the 60's, except for Cottonwood creek. numbers started to increase in the 70's, in spite of ODFW efforts to eliminate them with long either sex seasons. ODFW began managing elk populations in the early 80's, and the population exploded over the next 10-12 years. ODFW did what they always do, issued to many tags, and began knocking down the herd in the early 90's.
6. By 1994, when hunting Cougars with dogs was banned, the deer herd on the east end of the Ochocos was viable, but far below the management objective. The elk herd had peaked at around 6,000 animals, and started to get smaller. There had been no doe season for almost 20 years, but not a single three year period where the population rebounded. Buck tags and both bull and antlerless tags remained too high for the populations.
7. Between 1994 and today, there has been a tremendous increase in public use of public land during most of the year. This increase has displaced elk from preferred public habitats during much of the year onto less favorable private land habitat. Tag numbers have been reduced significantly over the past 14 years, from 1,900 rifle bull tags to around 600, and less than 50% of the antlerless tags. In spite of that, the elk herd has stabilized at less than 5,000 animals. Recruitment is basically sufficient to maintain the herd population size, but not increase it.
8. Deer populations have shrunk to the point that there is no longer a viable herd on public land in the South Fork John Day drainage. Hunting this herd is a travesty. Cougar predation, which was not a significant factor in the decreases between 1970 and 1995, was the major factor in the continued reductions in this herd over the past 10 years, along with over harvest of the mature buck component of the herd.
9. Today, Cougars are undoubtedly respsonsible for keeping the deer numbers extremely depressed, but there is little doubt their primary prey is now elk. In my opinion, that is the major factor in the Ochoco elk herd not growing over the past several years, in spite of low hunter harvest of both bulls and cows by historical standards.
10. Until 3 years ago, deer herds on private lands on the Crooked River drainage were doing relatively well when compared to public land populations. Over the past three years, there has been a significant drop in deer numbers using the alfalfa fields on Les Schwab, Twin Buttes, Guitterez, etc. This is the final piece of the destruction of a once great deer herd, in my opinion. Ranchers I have talked to are convinced coyote and cougar predation is the cause of these reductions.

So what does all that mean in relation to public land grazing? In my opinion, neither grazing or habitat is a factor in the decline in mule deer populations, and the lack of growth in the elk herd. Take all the cows off the John Day drainages, spend thousands on habitat projects, and you will not add a single deer or elk to the population. The solutions are complex and difficult, and it is likely to late for the deer herd on the east end of the Ochocos, as it is on the east face of the Steens, and in much of Murderer's Creek. For elk, the only solution is to implement the research that has been done: Close roads on a year round basis in much of the unit, reduce harvest on mature bulls until they are doing the breeding, and control predators. None of that is likely to happen in my lifetime.

Scoutdog

[BrianMaguire]

Scout - good synopsis, however, there were significant problems with the winter range in the past. It was so bad I enough evidence to get an injunction to shut down grazing in the entire Paulina ranger district. Mike, the District Ranger at the time (ex-range con from Nevada -said it was not as bad as Nevada - if that matters -Darfur was not as bad a Stalins wrath) at the time. Anyway when the grazing plan came up 4 or 5 years ago the end plan called for shutting down grazing on the winter ranges completely, there was zero forage avail in the winter. The deer have to come off the Forest for a good part of the winter into private land. Grazing has been a problem in the area you and I both know. I am not saying other factors are not in play but grazing at least 4 or 5 years ago certainly was. I hope things are getting better. The USFS is of the opinion that the forest can now sustain more elk, and much more than ODFW has in the MO's. Basically the MO's in the Ochoco are political and not biological as of now.

[Rank Amateur]

I reviewed the ODF&W harvest records that I have and I may have over stated the decline in the Murderers Creek unit. Unfortunately I have a big enough gap in my early 80's records to have some doubt that the herd peaked in '85 with a record kill of 357 bulls. I believe that harvest records over time will reflect the population unless there are significant rule changes that effect harvest.

I have a history much like Scoutdog, I started hunting in the Aldrich Mt.'s in '68 and hunted every year there until the controlled hunts started which then resulted in a few missed years. The last year I hunted elk in Murderers Creek was 2000, I hunted the unit 4 times for elk and bagged 3 bulls. What many people don't understand is that there were not a lot of elk in Murderers Ck. in the early days, we seldom saw elk during the deer seasons, but in the early 80's that started to change big time.

Scoutdogs impressions of the deer herd mirrors mine, it was tremendous hunting when I started in '68, herds of deer and tons of bucks, but also huge antlerless harvests. We never saw sign of cougars, that changed in the mid 80's or there abouts. After the dog ban the cougar population really started to peak and the deer hunting up on Aldrich became so poor that we moved on to Desolation. Remember that the cougar depredation studies show a 66/33 split between deer and elk in the cougar diet. Of coarse I'm sure that will change due to availability.

Something that most people don't know is the there was a little game played with the Murderers Creek elk M.O., my friend caught this one and actually got a district bio out of John Day to admit it. When the first M.O. was established (heck I can't remember when) for M.C. the bio was using a method that projected a certain population and so with that population in mind the M.O. was set, then a new bio came into the position years later and also brought along his new computer population model, inputting his numbers he comes up that he actually had more elk than the previous bio's model showed. The trouble was that the new model numbers were over the M.O. It was confirmed that he went to Portland staff to get the M.O. adjusted upward to fit the new model, but was instead was told to reduce the herd to fit the existing M.O. Institutional rigidity??? Add on to this the constant pressure from local ranchers to reduce the populations even further and you have a significant reduction in the M.C. elk herds. The last work group (made up mainly of locals) wanted to reduce the herd down to around 1,300 animals, if I remember right.

If you look at the harvest data, starting in '86 significant cow harvests started, (370) and continues to this day. If the herd is around 1,700 animals , it is a little concerning to see that up to 23% of the cows/calves are harvested each year (on average).

The bottom line is that the M.C. elk herd has been reduced from it's high, so the impact upon the landscape is less than in the past. I would guess a 33% reduction.

If you really want to get excited, look at the decline in the calf recruitment numbers, when I looked at the '97 numbers we were running around 48 per 100 cows, look at last years data, 27, and the previous years are the same on average, that is a very significant drop and most likely cougar related. If they keep the cow hunting up, look for a severe drop in the herd.

[Capin' Dan]

I don't have an issue with grazing cattle that are on the range 3 months of the year. what about the elk and hourse on private ranches and the damage that the wildlife does to their crops. We all complain about the public lands and them usinjg them but what can they do about the deer, antelope, and elk that graze on their private ranches.

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by Capin' Dan

what about the elk and hourse on private ranches and the damage that the wildlife does to their crops. We all complain about the public lands and them usinjg them but what can they do about the deer, antelope, and elk that graze on their private ranches.

I will have absolutely no sympathy for these ranchers and their whining about wildlife damage to their property UNTIL such time as they allow public access onto their property to allow hunters to help manage these populations. I don't care if they want to limit it to Master Hunters or some kind of lottery, but it is hypocritical to gripe about all the damage wildlife does to their private property and imply the public owes them remuneration for that damage when they then turn around and deny the public access to the land and sell the harvest of public game animals to the highest bidder.

[GDuck]

Originally Posted by Hawk

I will have absolutely no sympathy for these ranchers and their whining about wildlife damage to their property UNTIL such time as they allow public access onto their property to allow hunters to help manage these populations. I don't care if they want to limit it to Master Hunters or some kind of lottery, but it is hypocritical to gripe about all the damage wildlife does to their private property and imply the public owes them remuneration for that damage when they then turn around and deny the public access to the land and sell the harvest of public game animals to the highest bidder.

I have run into cowboys in the Deer Creek area in the past prior to rifle deer season who made no bones that they weren't just rounding up or moving cows, they were pushing big game down onto the ranch lands that now make up the Inshallah (sp?) ranch. While I certainly believe in private property rights, there are ranchers right there in Izee (if the shoe fits wear it) that have in the past and continue to try and drag OSP in to throw hunters off public land abutting their property, and these same people barter for tags, charge for hunts, etc etc. I don't know if the "cattle drives" still go on or not, that was prior to several ranches becoming one. They want the whole enchilada. I have no sympathy either. I am not sure where to draw the line. I wouldn't want someone hunting my farm just because I have a deferral. However, if someone gets 6 figures for conservation reserve or something that could be different....just thinking out loud.

G

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by GDuck

However, if someone gets 6 figures for conservation reserve or something that could be different....

I absolutely agree; if is in CRP and they are getting paid for it, then it should be public land and public access and I don't care whose name is on the deed.

[Green Eyes]

Hard to understand the Oregonians position on guns, hunting and fishing etc. with the exeption of Mr. Monroe the paper is far from hitting the northwests love of the fish and wildlife we seek to hunt, catch, or photo. My friend and I were hunting the Steens unit many years ago and a ranch foreman from a large local ranch kicked us off the loop road saying that the grazing rights on that public land were his ranches and hunters were trespassing. We left to avoid confrontation, esp. since all were carrying guns, and contacted state trooper who told us to tell the foreman that he was full of valentines. To call him if any more trouble came up. Now that same ranch has opened its private land to public access and was involved in some of the land swaps for wilderness in the Steens. I think this just shows how each case or person is different and that they can change. The more informed we are the better, and we can write, call or e-mail the paper and let them Know that ifish people are a large market share of this area and accurate reporting is what we want. As far as horses go the Feds are not doing to much to help as this is a problem in many other states besides Oregon, I think I saw an article in National Geographic Magazine recently about the national problem of wild horse overpopulation. I don't see any fast answers but we all can be part of trying to make a bad situation better.

[fish_guy10]

I try to read all of the threads on this site relating to grazing, hunting and fisheries management in the John Day basin and find all of the argument fascinating. It is obvious that the presenters are all very passionate about these matters, albeit many are considerably naive on certain aspects of these very important issues.

I'm a fourth generation Grant Countian, have a degree in Fisheries from Oregon State and over 27 years professional experience in fish and wildlife management. I run cows on private land and own about four sections of land in Murderer's Creek and Northside units. Between work and a lifetime of hunting, fishing, and trapping I've been around more of the John Day basin than most, but not as much as some! I don't state this to brag but merely as background for my next statement which is that, the more that I believe that I know about the natural world, the more I realize how little I truly understand how the world works. Jack Ward Thomas said one time that these resource systems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think!

I would hope that we all can remember that there are other opinions, perceptions, and positions that may be just as valid or justifiable as those others establish. At a minimum, perhaps we could just ask as many questions as the number of positions we take.

We personally leave our summer pasture open to elk and deer hunters but my initial reaction to some of the comments regarding grazing on this site (combined with all the problems we are having recently from bowhunters) is to close all of our deeded ground to all hunters and tell all my neighbors to do the same. However, I know this would be as wrong to do as those who would want to eliminate all public lands grazing because of poor examples of stewardship.

Both hunting and grazing on public lands are privileges, neither of which use is inalienable. If those of you opposed to public lands grazing were successful in removing livestock from national forest and BLM system lands, why would your arguments not also be valid from an anti-public lands hunting point of view? In other words, if you argue that elk were here before cows so the cows should go, elk were also here before hunters, so shouldn't the hunters go? If your position is that livestock grazing reduces the production potential of elk herds, then so do hunters through lethal take. And if your argument is that ranchers should only conduct a private use on private lands, then shouldn't hunters only be limited to conducting their private use on lands that they are able to purchase? I don't believe any of those statements to be necessarily true, but I do believe that once we are on the slippery slope of eliminating public lands uses, it might be awful tough to jump off the sled.

Please don't mistake my point; I am not trying to excuse poor grazing stewardship on public lands just as some of you would not excuse the behavior of your fellow bowhunters that put up tree stands on my private property without permission or the antler collectors that cut my fences to run their ATV's over my hills. But I do believe that the significance and urgency of the topics debated on these pages deserve a much more complex and exploratory dialogue. For those that I agree, I welcome the response and the opportunity to move towards a better situation for all of us. Or better yet, let's organize a group of you to come over in the summer or fall. I know most all the ranchers around here and we could get together face to face and discuss these topics in an open forum. I think we would find that we have more common ground than we think and that we are all very concerned about the resources.

[Rank Amateur]

I agree, very well written and insightful! Everything in balance is far better than only one way.

I view that the grazing issue in M.C. is not as big a deal as in the past, may still need some tweeking, but not a major problem.

Now if we could solve the problem of wildlife conflict on private grounds, M.C. could be a premiere elk unit if that could happen. I know the old timers want more deer and less elk, don't the deer cause just as much problems? Doesn't elk hunting on private ground draw more money?