Mule Deer

[huntingboybill]

Well we all know that the numbers of mule Deer have been declining for many years now. There are lots of reasons for it. Over grazing, drought, Coyotes & Cougars, To many Doe tags, just to throw a few out there!

What would happen if the State of Oregon closed down hunting for them for three years? I know that they would miss the money that they get for selling the tags! But would it help the Mule Deer out?? We could still go to the places that we have come to love over the years of hunting there. And yes we could still hunt there, Just not for Deer. We could hunt for coyotes and Cougars. We could hunt with our camras.

Maybe we could have a rewards point system. So many points for coyotes and so many for Cougars.

I am just kind of thinking out loud here, and I would like to know some of your thoughts???? Tell me if I am off my rocker, Or maybe on to something.

Thanks
Huntingboybill

[Benny]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

What would happen if the State of Oregon closed down hunting for them for three years?

We would just end up hitting twice as more with our cars and trucks.
...and HBB, I think you're supposed to kick off your first time here with a friendly story

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

Well we all know that the numbers of mule Deer have been declining for many years now. There are lots of reasons for it. Over grazing, drought, Coyotes & Cougars, To many Doe tags, just to throw a few out there!

What would happen if the State of Oregon closed down hunting for them for three years? I know that they would miss the money that they get for selling the tags! But would it help the Mule Deer out?? We could still go to the places that we have come to love over the years of hunting there. And yes we could still hunt there, Just not for Deer. We could hunt for coyotes and Cougars. We could hunt with our camras.

Maybe we could have a rewards point system. So many points for coyotes and so many for Cougars.

I am just kind of thinking out loud here, and I would like to know some of your thoughts???? Tell me if I am off my rocker, Or maybe on to something.

Thanks
Huntingboybill

a question that has been brought up before here on ifish hunting. here is my counter proposal: why not just get ODFW to issue the number of tags for each unit, that would build a healthy muledeer herd over time. with pressure put on the fedral/state land managers to protect critical habitat to support the growing herds.

[Bow Kill]

It would put ODFW out of business!

[orehunter]

The antis would like nothing better for hunters to claim hunting is what is casusing mule deer population declines. They will never let a season re-open if it is closed.

Most units are buck only so with a closed hunting season the things that kill does and fawns would continue to do so. I agree with a previous post. Set tags number accordingly and do what you can to reduce doe and fawn mortality.

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

Well we all know that the numbers of mule Deer have been declining for many years now. There are lots of reasons for it. Over grazing, drought, Coyotes & Cougars, To many Doe tags, just to throw a few out there!

What would happen if the State of Oregon closed down hunting for them for three years? I know that they would miss the money that they get for selling the tags! But would it help the Mule Deer out?? We could still go to the places that we have come to love over the years of hunting there. And yes we could still hunt there, Just not for Deer. We could hunt for coyotes and Cougars. We could hunt with our camras.

Maybe we could have a rewards point system. So many points for coyotes and so many for Cougars.

I am just kind of thinking out loud here, and I would like to know some of your thoughts???? Tell me if I am off my rocker, Or maybe on to something.

Thanks
Huntingboybill

This would only offer a short term spike in population. Habitat, predation, poaching and careful tag allotments are how you manage a herd. Nevada and Wyoming are dialed in when it comes to overall management.

[scottishsetter]

Traffic kills more deer every year than hunters. Go with a new invention to keep deer off roads and away from cars. Invent!

[Eagleclaw]

Originally Posted by baltz526

a question that has been brought up before here on ifish hunting. here is my counter proposal: why not just get ODFW to issue the number of tags for each unit, that would build a healthy muledeer herd over time. with pressure put on the fedral/state land managers to protect critical habitat to support the growing herds.

that makes way to much sense... no wonder ODFW hasn't used this approach..

[Steve C99]

The problem with the Mule Deer populations it seems to me is the encroachment of suburbia into prime winter range. That's a land use issue and is sort of a hot button topic.

When deer populations were at their glory in the '60's there was 4-5x more grazing than now.

Whatever the solution is, shutting down the season is not it. It would be seen by the HSUS and the green fools as an admission that hunting is part of the problem. If a shutdown happens, it probably will never open again.

Best bet is to join OHA and the Mule Deer Foundation and do what we can.

[Dan360]

In the areas I hunt, I don't think that coyotes, cougars, hunters or cars cause half the damage that whitetail deer cause. More and more whitetails and fewer and fewer mule deer over the same range. If people could identify their targets better, I'd propose allowing the harvest of any whitetail buck and retaining the 3 point minimum on mule deer.

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

What would happen if the State of Oregon closed down hunting for them for three years? Thanks
Huntingboybill

The cougars would eat better.

Actually, coyotes kill more deer than cougars. Cougars probably kill more adult bucks though. Overgrazing has little to do with Mule deer as deer and cattle don't each much of the same thing. Cattle eat grass, deer eat shrubs.

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by Dan360

In the areas I hunt, I don't think that coyotes, cougars, hunters or cars cause half the damage that whitetail deer cause. More and more whitetails and fewer and fewer mule deer over the same range. If people could identify their targets better, I'd propose allowing the harvest of any whitetail buck and retaining the 3 point minimum on mule deer.

I agree Whitetails are becoming a big problem. They are way more aggressive and will eventually breed the Mule Deer out.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

The cougars would eat better.

Actually, coyotes kill more deer than cougars. Cougars probably kill more adult bucks though. Overgrazing has little to do with Mule deer as deer and cattle don't each much of the same thing. Cattle eat grass, deer eat shrubs.

Huntinfool, I haven't seen any data that would support the premise that coyotes kill more deer than cougars - even during fawning. Can you point me in the direction of a study or something to support it? I do believe that coyotes do damage, just not at the rate of cougars...

On topic

Many factors go into the declining mule deer herd problem - predation, poaching, vehicle mortality, loss of habitat/forage, encroachment into their winter range and migration routes, management practices (doe tags to curb landowner damage complaints), and finally hunter harvest. Consequently, it's going to take a multifaceted approach to rebuilding the numbers. Simply shutting down the hunter's harvest will result in the problems already stated. In fact, implementing any single method recovery plan will certainly fail. It's going to take custom tailored plans for different areas and herds that address the true limiting factors peculiar to those specific interests - with HEAVY EMPHASIS on predation and poaching IMHO.



"CL"

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

I agree Whitetails are becoming a big problem. They are way more aggressive and will eventually breed the Mule Deer out.

It is called survival of the fittest. They seem to avoid predation better, adapt to various habitats better and are prolific. I think it sucks too, but will take Whitetails over nothing.

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

Huntinfool, I haven't seen any data that would support the premise that coyotes kill more deer than cougars - even during fawning. Can you point me in the direction of a study or something to support it? I do believe that coyotes do damage, just not at the rate of cougars...

On topic

Many factors go into the declining mule deer herd problem - predation, poaching, vehicle mortality, loss of habitat/forage, encroachment into their winter range and migration routes, management practices (doe tags to curb landowner damage complaints), and finally hunter harvest. Consequently, it's going to take a multifaceted approach to rebuilding the numbers. Simply shutting down the hunter's harvest will result in the problems already stated. In fact, implementing any single method recovery plan will certainly fail. It's going to take custom tailored plans for different areas and herds that address the true limiting factors peculiar to those specific interests - with HEAVY EMPHASIS on predation and poaching IMHO.



"CL"

Sorry I can't give you a college-book learner answer, only real world been there/done that realism. I've seen coyotes take deer. What happens, is that coyotes, like wolves tend to hunt within a pack. They start out scent trailing a deer, like a hound would do. When they finally jump the deer, one coyote will stay on its trail while the others will circle ahead and either ambush it OR will pick up the trail when the first coyote gets tired. They basically run the deer until its exhausted. Cougars don't ambush deer, they sneak on them and take them unsuspectingly. While does and fawns are social and tend to hang in two's or more, there are more eyeballs to sense danger. Bucks, and especially mature bucks are loners (with the exception of the summer months) and are therefore more prone to sneak attacts.

[Schmitty]

On top of all of the other great points people have made pointing out reasons for mule deer numbers declining, there is still one thing I haven't heard discussed. Junipers! Juniper trees have degraded a lot of prime habitat and choked out native grasses, shrubs and other forage. They also take a lot of water out of the ground that most mule deer habitat desperately needs. Before we started to control wildfires, Junipers where limited specifically to places that didn't burn, such as barren, rocky ground. Now look at much of central and eastern Oregon! Juniper forests are everywhere! You might think that they appear to make great habitat but they don't. Junipers are quite destructive. BLM and some landowners have been aggressively thinning and removing Junipers. The studies done on these sights are surveyed and what they have discovered is that whithin one or two years the amount of forage (tons per acre) often tripples! Native grasses and plants thrive, nutrience in the soil improves from the junipers needles being left after the trees are removed, and in one case I heard that after removing 40 acres of juniper on a hill side, the land owner now has a small spring which he used to fill a pond. This is great habitat restoration! Its something that anyone can do that has junipers on there property! The key is not to remove old growth juniper, as it has survived where it is for a long time (hundreds TO thousands of years) , but the new growth that has encrouched can be cut, left on the ground until the needles fall, and then burned or hauled away. Just something I thought was interesting

[huntinfool]

Has anyone seen, on page three(3) of the 2009 Oregon Big Game Regs the note from Roy Elicker about improving our Mule Deer herds and creating more Mule Deer hunting opportunities?

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by Schmitty

On top of all of the other great points people have made pointing out reasons for mule deer numbers declining, there is still one thing I haven't heard discussed. Junipers! Juniper trees have degraded a lot of prime habitat and choked out native grasses, shrubs and other forage. They also take a lot of water out of the ground that most mule deer habitat desperately needs. Before we started to control wildfires, Junipers where limited specifically to places that didn't burn, such as barren, rocky ground. Now look at much of central and eastern Oregon! Juniper forests are everywhere! You might think that they appear to make great habitat but they don't. Junipers are quite destructive. BLM and some landowners have been aggressively thinning and removing Junipers. The studies done on these sights are surveyed and what they have discovered is that whithin one or two years the amount of forage (tons per acre) often tripples! Native grasses and plants thrive, nutrience in the soil improves from the junipers needles being left after the trees are removed, and in one case I heard that after removing 40 acres of juniper on a hill side, the land owner now has a small spring which he used to fill a pond. This is great habitat restoration! Its something that anyone can do that has junipers on there property! The key is not to remove old growth juniper, as it has survived where it is for a long time (hundreds TO thousands of years) , but the new growth that has encrouched can be cut, left on the ground until the needles fall, and then burned or hauled away. Just something I thought was interesting

So, legally can one cut down Junipers on BLM without having to obtain some sort of permission?

[baltz526]

no, but if you want to cut junipers just ask the blm for a permit

[huntingboybill]

I like all the feed back,It is good.

But not sure if cars & loss of habitat is the problem for the Deer where I hunt? If you can drive over 20 mph you are doing very good! And I have seen very little change in there winter range, I hunt in a place where deer winter.

Junipers: Oh yes they are very thirsty, and they do kill the ground below them while growing!

Coyotes: One morning ( A few years back) I shot a coyote on opening morning, Because I saw that he was carrying some thing in his mouth. It was part of a Deer hide. Normally I would not shot at anything other than a Buck on opening day,Let alone opening morning!

Cattle: I do know that when brush and trees get there new growing shoots, Cows will eat it like candy.

And I do like the three point rule Idea???

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by Steve C99

The problem with the Mule Deer populations it seems to me is the encroachment of suburbia into prime winter range. That's a land use issue and is sort of a hot button topic.

When deer populations were at their glory in the '60's there was 4-5x more grazing than now.

Whatever the solution is, shutting down the season is not it. It would be seen by the HSUS and the green fools as an admission that hunting is part of the problem. If a shutdown happens, it probably will never open again.

Best bet is to join OHA and the Mule Deer Foundation and do what we can.

This is very true. I think ranchers now have a better concern on the over grazing issue than people think. After all, THEIR livelyhood depends on it.

[BlackTail18]

Originally Posted by Benny

We would just end up hitting twice as more with our cars and trucks.
...and HBB, I think you're supposed to kick off your first time here with a friendly story

he has a point.

[Dan360]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

This is very true. I think ranchers now have a better concern on the over grazing issue than people think. After all, THEIR livelyhood depends on it.

In an area that I hunt, free ranging is being allowed on public lands. The cows eat the elk food, the elk eat the deer food, the deer die out. Its getting to the point where I didn't see a single mature deer several months of scouting last year. Kinda sad.

[logscaler]

I will avoid the "overgrazing issue" this time around.

I understand a 10" DBH Juniper sucks down 32 gallons or more a day. Cover the ground with the trees, expand the area with a root system and see what is left over for the native growth.

One thing I would like to see with the areas around population centers is more road control. I see way too many rigs driving the roads just after sunrise and just before sunset. Windows down, gun sticking out, or someone(s) standing/sitting in the back of a pickup just road hunting before work or after work. I have to wonder how many wounded critters get left to die because the "hunter" does not have time to retrieve or attempt to retrieve the wounded animals.

As for browse for the Deer and Elk, I see a lot of mismanaged forage areas. Old Bitterbrush and old Bunch Grass is sharp to your hand so imagine what a Deer or Elk's nose must feel when they try to get a bite to eat. One other thing I see as a problem is housing encroaching into winter habitat forcing the Deer to move to other less healthy forage locations, no thermal cover, easy predator cover, etc.

As for the comment about hitting Deer on the highway's, I see a lot of that all across Oregon. I have hit three in two years and dodged ?????? more. Deer are migratory. Just drive 97 to see how bad it can get in the spring and fall.

[Huntin'Around]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

I like all the feed back,It is good.

But not sure if cars & loss of habitat is the problem for the Deer where I hunt? If you can drive over 20 mph you are doing very good! And I have seen very little change in there winter range, I hunt in a place where deer winter.

Junipers: Oh yes they are very thirsty, and they do kill the ground below them while growing!

Coyotes: One morning ( A few years back) I shot a coyote on opening morning, Because I saw that he was carrying some thing in his mouth. It was part of a Deer hide. Normally I would not shot at anything other than a Buck on opening day,Let alone opening morning!

Cattle: I do know that when brush and trees get there new growing shoots, Cows will eat it like candy.

And I do like the three point rule Idea???

I was taught that if the coyote is there so are the deer. To deserve the deer kill, you kill the coyote even if its opening morning. For me you know that they do enought damage to the deer population, therfore never pass on a coyote.
As well do i think that a 3 point min rule would be good, but where we are we hunting in the Biggs Unit are party of 10 already does this! I think that if the best unit or what used to be The Steins has a 4 point min. that the rest of them could use it as well. Perhaps if that was applied a lot of units could be awesome hunting for years to come!! For us and are kids to come.

[mtn300]

I think cats would top the list, then habitat, human encroachment building lots more homes in certain areas. It is never just one thing when it comes to the decrease in the deer population. Do more burns, log overgrown areas, juniper control is a great idea. In colorado some of the ranches have tree grinders that attaches to a front end loader that mows down tree like a weed eater does grass. Set up guzzlers in dry areas of the state. I think having whitetail rifle season during the rut you be awesome. Lastly shoot about 5000 cougars and put a bounty on coyotes. Oh on a side note, Colorado has great deer hunting but they have a lot more wilderness that allows more deer to survive, if oregon could close a few more roads in some of the more popular units it would help.

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by Huntin'Around

I was taught that if the coyote is there so are the deer. To deserve the deer kill, you kill the coyote even if its opening morning. For me you know that they do enought damage to the deer population, therfore never pass on a coyote.
As well do i think that a 3 point min rule would be good, but where we are we hunting in the Biggs Unit are party of 10 already does this! I think that if the best unit or what used to be The Steins has a 4 point min. that the rest of them could use it as well. Perhaps if that was applied a lot of units could be awesome hunting for years to come!! For us and are kids to come.

My grandpa hunted the Steens during that four point min hunt and said they found quite a few bucks left to rot that were huge three points and forked horns that hunters shot, probably due to buck fever and not getting enough glimpse at the horns.

[scoutdog5]

I think all the thoughts and ideas on this thread illustrate the problem. All are probably valid for certain areas at certain times.

Some history, and facts:

1. Nevada and Wyoming are also suffering from significant decreases in mule deer populations. I think the Nevada number is now 108,000, down from 225,000 in the late 80's. Like Oregon, both states continue to issue large numbers of buck tags in relation to their deer population when compared to Colorado, the only state to actually increase mule deer populations in the past 15 years.

2. Utah has stabilized thier population at about 70% of their management objective. The main tool they have used is habitat improvement projects. Utah raises more money for habitat projects through the auctioning of tags than all other states combined (500 tags offered). If habitat were the major contributor to the decline, one would expect to see Utah leading the way in increasing mule deer populations. That is not the case.

3. In 1998, Colorado was facing the same problems as the rest of the western states. Mule deer population decreasing, between 450,000 and 475,000, 75% of objective, with buck ratios between 15 and 20/100 does, similar to Utah, higher than Oregon. By 2007, Colorado had over 610,000 deer, which was above objective, with a state wide ratio of 35 bucks 100 does. The only thing Colorado did starting in 1999 was go to 100% limited entry statewide for all weapons, and reduce buck tags by to approximately 50% of the number issued in 1998. Even with a population above objective at 600,000 deer, and very high buck ratios, Colorado issued less buck tags in 2007 than Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.

The mule deer decline began in the eastern Oregon in the early 70's. The cause was excessive doe tags being issued, even when the decline was documented. A number of concerned hunters testified before the commission in the mid 70's about the problem, without any impact. Reminds me of what was happening with blacktails a few years ago. At approximately the same time, poisoning of coyotes was stopped on public land. The combination of more coyotes and too many doe tags started the now 35 year trend of lower deer numbers, with no end in sight.

My theory.

What Colorado has demonstrated is that higher buck ratios seem to impact higher fawn survival. This is the only logical conclusion for what happened after they reduced buck tags. This is also consistent with studies done on elk showing calf survival is dramatically improved when breeding is done by mature bulls. I believe this is also true of mule deer, although I am unaware of any research that backs that up. I believe if Oregon were to reduce buck harvest over a five year period on a previously productive unit such as the Ochoco, Heppner, Murderer's Creek, or Starkey, for example, we would see an increasing deer population at the end of that five year period.

On the Ochoco, for example, it is estimated that 120 fawns are born in the spring on the unit. By December, when the first trend count is done, the count is typically around 50 fawns per 100 does. If you accept the estimate of 120 being born, 70 have died, prior to winter commencing. Another 20 die by the second trend count in late March, and the population decreases. To me, the question is, which problem do you address? Winter habitat improvements might help save some of the 20, but what about the 70 that died in the summer/fall?

I believe the great lack of mature bucks ont he Ochoco unit results in does being bred through three estrus cycles, and fawns being born from late May through late July. Research clearly shows that late born fawns are much more likely to be killed by predators, and not survive their first year.

If mule deer hunting were closed in the Ochoco unit were stopped in 2009, it would still take 3-4 years for any improvement to be noticed, since you would have to allow time for the young bucks we currently have to grow up before breeding would improve. At 5 years, however, I believe you would see the mule deer numbers growing, even in the absence of any additional predator control or other measures, except that you would have to limit poaching of the mature bucks for this to work.

The problem, of course, is that Oregon issues 3,500 buck tags for the Ochoco unit, so eliminating that for 5 years costs the department around $450,000.00. How do we replace that? One idea I have thought about is this:

Eliminate the buck hunt on the Ochoco (or some other) unit. Create an Ochoco deer tag that hunters buy, but can't hunt. They put in for the draw under 199 for a point saver, and get an additional point for buying the Ochoco tag at the resident or non-resident price. It seems to me this would be a win-win-win-win. Completely voluntary program for hunters, but those that participate get two points instead of one. ODFW keeps the revenue stream generated by the sale of tags. Most importantly, buck ratios are improved dramatically in the selected unit (s), and that is hopefully followed by population increases.

During the winter of 2008, Colorado suffered a very large mule deer winter kill in large portions of the state. I have seen no statewide statistics, but would guess the population drop exceeded 100,000. They reacted by substantially reducing buck tags in many units, and virtually eliminating doe tags in some units, even though the deadline for applying for tags had passed, and hunter's draw odds were greatly reduced, in some cases. It also cost them a lot of money, given the large numbers of non-residents who normally got those tags. So far this year, Colorado is experiencing a fairly normal winter, without significant loss. If thier deer population rebounds back up to 600,000 in the next 3-4 years, I think it will be clear that buck ratios much higher than those being supproted in most states are a key component of building mule deer populations.

Scoutdog

[Ifisherkid]

Bad idea closing it down for 3 years...BUT We could like close afew units down for hunting for 1 year, Like 2010 close say Trash unit (Or whatever) To hunting for that year so the deer can repopulate then next year it will be open agian and we close down another one Maybe? Yay? Nay?

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

The cougars would eat better.

Actually, coyotes kill more deer than cougars. Cougars probably kill more adult bucks though. Overgrazing has little to do with Mule deer as deer and cattle don't each much of the same thing. Cattle eat grass, deer eat shrubs.

Thats not all true, cattle rip riparian areas to shreds and do eat the willow and other riparian species. The riparian areas in grazed areas are trash. Mule deer rely on willow in the winter and shrubs, no willow = less winter forage.

Scout - Interesting theory, I have thought about that myself. We need to remember that hunting in the middle part o the century was much more limited and even illegal at times. Population increase outpaced the agency in adopting rules.

[baltz526]

pick the beatys butte, steens, east whitehorse units. reduce total tags to 10% of this years, for 5 years. this would only effect about 725 tags per year and a large portion of our states muledeer habitat would be covered

[huntingboybill]

Sounds like there are a lot for good ideas. And after reading them, I do agree that closing the deer hunting season would not be a good one! Because it just might not open up again. The Anti hunting people just might get there way!

Putt a lid on the number of tags the can be had on an area. Not just a number the would generate lots of money for the state, But a number the would not take to big of a toll on the Mule Deer. We do need more Bucks to carry over for the next season. And for breeding.

What is that saying??? Hug a tree, But gurtle a juniper!

Back in the 50s the state used to give out packs of seeds, And the hunters used to scatter them about. And I know that OHA dose a lot of work with water, and plants. I feel as if I have not been doing my part in helping out. So that is why I am here. I feel that I need to start doing , and not just thinking about it!!

Huntingboybill

[Huntin'Around]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

I think all the thoughts and ideas on this thread illustrate the problem. All are probably valid for certain areas at certain times.



Eliminate the buck hunt on the Ochoco (or some other) unit. Create an Ochoco deer tag that hunters buy, but can't hunt. They put in for the draw under 199 for a point saver, and get an additional point for buying the Ochoco tag at the resident or non-resident price. It seems to me this would be a win-win-win-win. Completely voluntary program for hunters, but those that participate get two points instead of one. ODFW keeps the revenue stream generated by the sale of tags. Most importantly, buck ratios are improved dramatically in the selected unit (s), and that is hopefully followed by population increases.


Scoutdog

So everybody, literally everybody would buy this tag that you cant hunt and say for five years? Well then 3500 hunters now have however many points you can collect over the 5 yrs. and what would happen? Im thinking you would be right back to where you started almost. It would be a slaughter house!! 3500 hunters would have a mature deer and all the herd bucks would be gone. Wouldnt it hurt the herd just as bad as the current mule deer laws/draw process?
I believe the easiest and virtually change nothing about the draw process or rules is a 4 point minimum. They would lose no money and hunters can still have the right to hunt every year, with a cougar/ predator plan. Such as bounties until quota's are met. Easy and simple, would not cost them a lot and again virtually changes nothing as far as draw process/laws. If you read the 2009 synopsis is has some literature about extended cougar season. That is the one good thing Oregon has done, it was designed to adress high populated areas and areas that the cougs kill a lot or are a nuisance. This is a good stop in predator management but something else does need to be put in affect!

[ehunter]

4 point miniums have been proven they don't work. Have a totaly open season on cats there is no way we can controll them now. Or allow the people who live in the cat pop centers to have multiple tags until the cat numbers are reduced. Habitat improvment projects need to be a real focus. Reduce tags till we have viable hunting numbers. There is no way we can have it both ways. Even if if means they rotate the units to reduce the amount of tags given out over a 10 year cycle.

Originally Posted by Huntin'Around

So everybody, literally everybody would buy this tag that you cant hunt and say for five years? Well then 3500 hunters now have however many points you can collect over the 5 yrs. and what would happen? Im thinking you would be right back to where you started almost. It would be a slaughter house!! 3500 hunters would have a mature deer and all the herd bucks would be gone. Wouldnt it hurt the herd just as bad as the current mule deer laws/draw process?
I believe the easiest and virtually change nothing about the draw process or rules is a 4 point minimum. They would lose no money and hunters can still have the right to hunt every year, with a cougar/ predator plan. Such as bounties until quota's are met. Easy and simple, would not cost them a lot and again virtually changes nothing as far as draw process/laws. If you read the 2009 synopsis is has some literature about extended cougar season. That is the one good thing Oregon has done, it was designed to adress high populated areas and areas that the cougs kill a lot or are a nuisance. This is a good stop in predator management but something else does need to be put in affect!

[wapiteaser]

Blame it on who or what you want, but wildlife need food, water, and shelter. Loss of habitat is the worst factor for mule deer. Poachers kill more deer than legal hunters. Too many people for too small an area for too little animals. Cutting back and limiting access is the only way to mend it. Then you have the predators that throw in an unpredictable factor. Where and what is right and wrong?

[Huntin'Around]

Originally Posted by ehunter

4 point miniums have been proven they don't work. Have a totaly open season on cats there is no way we can controll them now. Or allow the people who live in the cat pop centers to have multiple tags until the cat numbers are reduced. Habitat improvment projects need to be a real focus. Reduce tags till we have viable hunting numbers. There is no way we can have it both ways. Even if if means they rotate the units to reduce the amount of tags given out over a 10 year cycle.

Well thats great considering i never said anything about an open/uncontrolled season on cats, but ok! And also i want to see all the proof you have that a 4 point min system is no good. Maybe it would not fix everyhting but there is no way a point min. would not help herds grow.
There is one thing that i do agree with though that is habitats/lack there of is the main problem.

[scoutdog5]

Huntin around, I obviously did a very poor job of explaining my idea. Hunters who bought the "Ochoco" tag would not get to hunt deer that year, since they would be ineligible to buy any other deer tag, except maybe a 600 series tag. They woud recieve one point for buying that tag, and could also recieve a point via the pointsaver option in the regular draw. These would be the same points every one else is getting, and could be used for any limited entry deer tag.

At the end of the five years, biologists evaluate the Ochoco trend numbers, and decide how many bucks can be harvested while still maintaining a buck/doe ratio of 35/100. (arbitrary number on my part). Most likely, given the extremely low starting point, this would be somewhere around 300-400 tags. Whether or not the individuals that purchased the "Ochoco tag" and got points used them to try to get tags for this hunt would be up to them. They could also use them to try to get a Hart Mountain Muzzleloader tag, or a Steens Mountain tag (why they would do that escapes me, but they could) or any other deer hunt. From that point forward, tag numbers on the Ochoco would be adjusted upward or downward based on the numbers counted during the trend counts, as is done now, except that the counts would include the number of mature bucks/does.

Wapiteaser, that is the tired, worn out excuse that has been used to avoid tackling the real problems we face for at least 20 years. Let's examine some facts from the Ochoco unit.

1. Based on the buck kill numbers, that exceeded 5,000 through most of the late 50's and 60's on the Ochoco Unit, there had to be close to 40,000 deer in the Ochoco unit during that time period. My personal opinion is that close to 50% of the population occupied the Rager Ranger District which is the eastern 40% of the unit. Without question, the Rager district contributed more than 50% of the buck kill.

2. During that time period, there was no substantial die off during the winter, or any evidence of widespread damage to winter range, or malnourished deer. This was not the case on Murderer's Creek and Silvies, units directly east and south of the Ochoco, where there were significant winter die-offs, and it was common to see malnourished deer.

3. If you compare 1960 to 2008, there are approximately the same number of people living within or on the edges of the Rager Ranger District. Some very small increases on private land next to the forest, lower populations at Rager Ranger Station and along Highway 26 from Mitchell to Dayville. On the south boundary, from the North Fork of the Crooked River to the South Fork of the John Day, there is virtually no change in the human population.

4. Grazing rotations have improved significantly, and cattle grazing numbers have decreased significantly since 1960. Since 1970, tens of thousand of dollars, and thousands of volunteer hours, have been invested in habitat projects within the Rager Ranger District.

5. 2008 was a very heavy snow year on the district, with heavy snows on the ground much later in the spring than normal. The trend counts for fawns were awful. At a meeting in May in Redmond, I asked the biologist for the Ochoco the following questions:

- Did he find a single carcass that he could attribute to starvation that spring? "No"
- Did he observe any winter ranges that appeared to be overgrazed, or suffering from overuse within the unit? "No"
- Was it possible that the deep snows concentrated the small numbers of deer into smaller areas, where predators had easier access, and this led to lower fawn survivial? No way to know, but maybe.

6. In 2007 the buck kill on the Ochoco unit was a little over 900. I guarantee you that there were no where near this number of animals poached on the Unit that year, or any other year in the last 10. The biggest problem with poaching currently is thrill killers, who shoot deer in the winter for kicks, don't take the horns, or anything else, for that matter.

So, in 1960, you have 40,000 deer, habitat that is in poorer shape, higher grazing densities and poor rotation practices, and basically the same human population in the area. 2008, less than 10,000 deer (optimistic, in my view), with better habitat. No matter how you cut it, habitat that could support 40,000 deer in 1960 would certainly support 10,000 deer today, yet the numbers continue to decline. Without question, the reasons for that decline are complex and inter-related, but I don't see any possible way you can make the case that habitat is part of the problem.

Scoutdog

[wapiteaser]

A friend and I were talking today about deer kill and came up with the following numbers. Of all the deer killed in a year, legal hunters probably kill around 20%. Poachers and vehicles account for the other 80% we figured just on a area close to where we live. For every animal you see laying along the road, 4-5 were hit and ran off and died somewhere else. Poachers you say what you want about them, but they are very bad on our deer populations. What numbers do you guys think should be thrown in here?

[huntingboybill]

I still believe that over grazzing is a strong part of it. Where I hunt, and have been going there since 1959 (as a young boy) the cattle have not been rotated from different section of the BLM land. The Junipers have incressed in numbers. But the sagebrush looks like it is dieing off. Not sure why. Maybe it is too much Cow pee? and pies? Dose anyone know what sagebrush recondition is????

I have noticed though that there are a lot more dead Deer and Elk Remains around the area. I hunt near Paulina. And have been told that there is a lot of poaching in that area! I find there bodys, But not there heads? I do know that there are a lot of Coyotes and Cougars and some Bears in that area. It is a wintering range, So I do find Deer and Elk sheds.

I would love to be able to catch the poachers and turn them in. But how dose one watch the area all the time? Trail cams??

I for one would support the Idea of buying a tag and not beable to hunt there!

Huntingboybill

[beaverheart]

The two biggest problems in Eastern Oregon are overgrazing and predator control. Virtually every riparian area that is on public land in Eastern Oregon has been destroyed. When riparian areas are destroyed the land dries out and over a large area drought conditions exist. The only way for the desert areas to recover is to get the cattle out of the riparian areas and let them recover. All riparian areas in Eastern Oregon need to fenced and protected. Cattle owners who have leases on public land should be held to a high standard and if they don't perform they should lose their leases. For more information on the complicated overgrazing problem in Eastern Oregon read the book, "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough" by Denzel and Nancy Ferguson.

The other issue is predator control, specifically cougars. When hound hunting and baiting were outlawed the cougar population was stable at about 2000 cougars in the state. Check out this quote from the ODFW:

"Cougars: Another record year for 2008-09?
Cougar
- Oregon Fish and Wildlife-
Last year marked the highest-ever sport harvest of cougars in Oregon (308), even higher than when hound hunting was still legal in Oregon. No doubt that’s due to the higher populations of cougars in Oregon today and the predator’s successful recovery under ODFW management (from 200 in 1967 to an estimated 5,500 today)."


The estimated total deer population in the state is between 500,000 to 600,000. According to state biologists a cougar eats one deer a week. Let me help you do the math; 5500 x 52 = 286,000. Yep! cougars eat about half our deer herd every year and their numbers are increasing.


When hound hunting and baiting were outlawed very few hunters came to the aid of the houndsmen and we lost our sport. PETA and Defenders of Wildlife were able to isolate us from other hunters and convince the public. Some houndsmen lost their entire life savings in the fight. At the time, deer hunters didn't understand the impact that the law would have on their sport. The only way to restore the necessary controls on predators is to fund a statewide intiative that says the ODFW will make all the decisions on control based on the best bioligical information available at the time. Predator control is one of the most complicated and least studied areas of game management. Humans have a huge impact on animal populations and all animal populations need to be controlled to keep them in balance for all users. The idea that predator populations can go on uncontrolled is absurd.

[Huntin'Around]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Huntin around, I obviously did a very poor job of explaining my idea. Hunters who bought the "Ochoco" tag would not get to hunt deer that year, since they would be ineligible to buy any other deer tag, except maybe a 600 series tag. They woud recieve one point for buying that tag, and could also recieve a point via the pointsaver option in the regular draw. These would be the same points every one else is getting, and could be used for any limited entry deer tag.

At the end of the five years, biologists evaluate the Ochoco trend numbers, and decide how many bucks can be harvested while still maintaining a buck/doe ratio of 35/100. (arbitrary number on my part). Most likely, given the extremely low starting point, this would be somewhere around 300-400 tags. Whether or not the individuals that purchased the "Ochoco tag" and got points used them to try to get tags for this hunt would be up to them. They could also use them to try to get a Hart Mountain Muzzleloader tag, or a Steens Mountain tag (why they would do that escapes me, but they could) or any other deer hunt. From that point forward, tag numbers on the Ochoco would be adjusted upward or downward based on the numbers counted during the trend counts, as is done now, except that the counts would include the number of mature bucks/does.


Scoutdog

Ok that makes a little more sense. I do agree that would be a fair idea, and you might be able to present that to odfw. The one thing is i think that they wouldnt close it down for 5 years thats a long time. Maybe with your idea they impose other law that alllows you to hunt but make it very inacsessable( like big horn sheep) Also 35/100 buck/doe ratio would be awesome, but do you really think that is a realistic number?

[BlacktailBowhunter]

I have made the choice to hunt Utah this year for the general archery season. I want my step son to SEE some deer and have an OPPORTUNITY or two.

They had a fairly bad winter kill, but their management objectives for the area I will hunt are stable at 15/100. There premier tags are for areas with at least 30/100, but I will be happy to be able to glass a few deer up in a day.

I just wanted to point out that the states that Scoutdog is using as models have serious predator management. Oregon has virtually NO predator management. They talk about it, but when you start asking how many ODFW has killed, they start himming and hawing. BTW I think Scoutdog posts some of the most well researched opinions on this site.

I know MD have been on the decline for 50 years and habitat is a major issue, but it appears to me that predators have to be a part of the management strategy if we expect to see any increase in MD numbers.

My money is going to states that manage for hunters and not the HSUS.

As far as Elicker's message in the synopsis, I think that is a touchy feely message and damage control for how bad ODFW has let the deer population decrease.

When Elicker said status quo on the cougar management plan, I lost total faith in ODFW's management of the deer and elk in Oregon.

Per the Cougar Management Plan, ODFW can, at any time, expand the target areas for cougars. With the exception of the Heppner unit, West Beulah, and another unit in S. OR, predator management is not something that ODFW does in this state to improve big game herds. It is the one thing this state lacks compared to all of the others.

This stuff is just my opinion. I have looked and relooked at this issue as well as talked to several other people and I have decided to hunt out of state from now on.

BTBH

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by huntingboybill

I still believe that over grazzing is a strong part of it. Where I hunt, and have been going there since 1959 (as a young boy) the cattle have not been rotated from different section of the BLM land. The Junipers have incressed in numbers. But the sagebrush looks like it is dieing off. Not sure why. Maybe it is too much Cow pee? and pies? Dose anyone know what sagebrush recondition is????

I have noticed though that there are a lot more dead Deer and Elk Remains around the area. I hunt near Paulina. And have been told that there is a lot of poaching in that area! I find there bodys, But not there heads? I do know that there are a lot of Coyotes and Cougars and some Bears in that area. It is a wintering range, So I do find Deer and Elk sheds.

I would love to be able to catch the poachers and turn them in. But how dose one watch the area all the time? Trail cams??

I for one would support the Idea of buying a tag and not beable to hunt there!

Huntingboybill

Sagebrush is almost as bad as Junipers. It IS a non-native species, coming from Asia I believe. Quite a unique plant though. Pretty amazing it can live where it does. Sage brush grows extremely slow, so the best thing that can happen is rangefires. Native grasses replentish much faster without sage.

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

Sagebrush is almost as bad as Junipers. It IS a non-native species, coming from Asia I believe. Quite a unique plant though. Pretty amazing it can live where it does. Sage brush grows extremely slow, so the best thing that can happen is rangefires. Native grasses replentish much faster without sage.

sagebrush is a native plant! i don't have any idea where you heard it is not. google (sagebrush)

[baltz526]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush Big sagebrush gets its name from its stature and its relation to members of the sagebrush group. Artemisia (ar-tay-MIS-ee-a) is from Artemisia, wife of Mausolus, ancient ruler of Ceria (southwest Asia Minor). She was named after Artemis, the Greek virgin goddess of the hunt and wild nature. Tridentata (tri-TAH-ta) means "three toothed," in reference to the three lobes on the tips of most leaves. Also called big sage, common wormwood or basin sagebrush.

Range
Western. Big sagebrush occurs from California north to Canada, east to Nebraska and south to Mexico.

Habitat
Sagebrush prefers drier plains, mesas or rocky areas with deep soils. The plants are found from four thousand to ten thousand feet in elevation. Big sagebrush often grows in habitats such as the cold desert shrub or pinyon-juniper woodlands. This plant can also grow in vast tracts. Sagebrush ecosystems have the largest habitat range in the United States, covering nearly four hundred and seventy thousand square miles across eleven western states.

Description
A perennial shrub that grows from two to seven feet tall. A stout trunk bears many side branches that ascend upwards. The young stems are smooth and silvery, but as the plant matures, these stems turn grayer and the bark starts to grow in long strips. The evergreen leaves are one quarter inch to two inches long, wedge-shaped and with three or five lobes at the tip. Nonlobed leaves may grow in the early winter. Flowering stems grow near the ends of the branches and numerous side branches. Dense clusters of tiny yellow or cream-colored flowers are borne along a main stalk with many side stems. Seeds are tiny and black.

Flowering
Big Sagebrush blooms in late summer. One mature plant may produce up to one million seeds.

Notes
Big sagebrush is Nevada's State Plant, which is nicknamed the Sagebrush State. Big sagebrush is an important winter browse plant for a number of species, including pronghorn, mule deer, domestic livestock, sage grouse and many small mammals. More than seventy percent of the sage grouse's diet consists of sagebrush leaves and buds. The sage grouse use large clearings in the sagebrush habitat to conduct spring mating dances. These areas, known as leks, are the scenes of early morning activity in which males inflate yellow air sacs located in their chest, puff up their feathers and spread their tail feathers before strutting around the lek in the attempt to bond with one or more females.

The leaves contain aromatic volatile oils to prevent herbivores from digesting their leaves. Many animals, however, will feed upon sagebrush when other food resources are scarce. The leaves have a turpentine fragrance, and after a rainstorm, they perfume the air with a sweet, pungent aroma.

With leaves remaining on the plant during the winter, the plant can photosynthesize later in the year and earlier in the spring than many other plants. Sagebrush can take advantage of the long growing season, photosynthesizing even when temperatures are near freezing.

Often, purplish galls occur on the plant. These are caused by the chemical secretions of insects that alter the plant’s growth cells, which then form a protective covering around the insect's larvae.

Prehistoric Use
Big sagebrush was commonly used by many Native Americans. The wood was burned for fuel or used in construction of dwellings. The leaves and the seeds were eaten. The leaves, which contain camphor, were also used medicinally for coughs, colds, headaches, stomach aches, fevers and to relieve pain during child birthing. Poultices of wet leaves were applied to bruises to reduce swelling. Navajo weavers boiled the leaves and flowers to create a yellow-gold color, used to dye wool. Ute Indians wove the shredded bark into wicks for, and they made sacks of woven bark and lined them with the grass.

[BlacktailBowhunter]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

Native grasses replentish much faster without sage.

From what I understand, Cheat Grass has been taking over faster than the more desirable grasses have a chance to take off, which is a contributing factor to lost MD habitat.

At least that is what I was told by one biologist.

BTBH

[huntinfool]

Originally Posted by baltz526

sagebrush is a native plant! i don't have any idea where you heard it is not. google (sagebrush)

Hmm, it appears you're right. I was told several years ago it was brought here by early explorers as an ornamental plant used as bonzai and the seeds drifted across the great basin?

[James in Idaho]

The habitat is going down hill due to juniper/pinion and cheatgrass. Nothing there to help the mule deer. There is an excellent report in the Nevada DOW on this habitat conversion and the impact on mule deer, the author is an old hunting partner of mine. Sage is a critical plant for mule deer, it will quickly sprout with a rain, that "new" growth is a very high quality feed. Cheatgrass shortens the fire cycle from somewhere around 100 years to about 7 (from memory, don't quote me) which prevents native species from regenerating. It was introduced from Asia, I think the only thing that eats it is chukars, it has some value in the spring as a graze. It ripens too quickly to be a long term forage, and burns about like gasoline. It's a huge problem over here.

edit: Nothing will help until your state gets it cat problems under control.

[Huntin'Around]

Hey did everyone quit caring about the Mule Deer in Oregon???? Or did everyone get tired of battling each others ideas? I still think min. point and min. tag system would work. No way are they ever going to shut it down.. And the cougars/Predators??/Not to mention the pack of wolves that will be growing soon and killing!...

[huntingboybill]

I think that every one said what they wanted to say about it! I would hope that more would jump in though.

And I do like your idea about the three point rule. And the number of tags that they would allow.

I am going to get a Cougar tag, And even try to hunt them a bit?? I am reading up on other peoples methods of hunting them!

Huntingboybill

[huntingboybill]

Originally Posted by huntinfool

So, legally can one cut down Junipers on BLM without having to obtain some sort of permission?

I called the BLM in Prineville yesterday about cutting down Juniper trees.
They will be giving out permits in May. But you have to go to a place that they are cutting then down, And it is for mostly fire wood. You just can't go where you want to go!

So Dose any one know what you do to treat sagebrush, to help it grow??

HBB

[baltz526]

right now the BLM is paying contractors to thin juniper, all across the west. once this juniper is on the ground, the blm allows wood cutting on some of it. if you where a group, like oha, rmef, quail unlimited, it is possible to donate group project time to habitat improvement. the BLM will be doing controled burns in these thinned juniper areas for years to revitalize the soil and get rid of the juniper trees being cut now.

[wapiteaser]

I see all kinds of reasons for loss of habitat except the big one? You, the human being. Everyone has to get away from the city to build their dream place. Every time someone goes out a half mile and builds, it takes another square mile of habitat away from the system. We are encroaching on the animals at a faster rate. Oregon is bad because of so many people stuffed into an even smaller area. It is only going to get worse.

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by wapiteaser

I see all kinds of reasons for loss of habitat except the big one? You, the human being. Everyone has to get away from the city to build their dream place. Every time someone goes out a half mile and builds, it takes another square mile of habitat away from the system. We are encroaching on the animals at a faster rate. Oregon is bad because of so many people stuffed into an even smaller area. It is only going to get worse.

go spend time in the beatys butte and whitehorse units, then tell us it is human encroachment is responsable. in the central oregon units human population is the major problem. other units it is winter range is all farm land, others cougars or cheat grass are the issue.

[huntingboybill]

Yup it sure sounds as if the Mule Deer are in for grave danger! The list is long. And it seems there is no quick fix. The laws in place today are putting a bigger strain on the Deer. It appears that ODFW is affraid to make the cut back on the number of tags alotted for each hunting unit, Because of loss of MONEY!! I did read page 3 in the 2009 Oregon big game regulations? And I hope that some thing will change for the benefit of the Mule Deer!! But it might just be smoke and mirrors? But I hope not.

Release the Hounds!!!!

HBB

[BrianMaguire]

There are no restrictions on cutting Juniper, except in WSA's. You can cut them alive or dead. Good luck, there are so many of them a single person can't make a dent. The use of fire to take care of them is a non starter with the cheat grass invasion, fire is a poor option on most ranges.

The problem with cheat grass is that it dries out much sooner than native grasses and comes back from fire sooner. So if you burn an area you can just about guarantee cheat will benefit more than native plants. Its quite a quandry, cattle spread this stuff everywhere, short of some type of specific disease it's here to stay.

Invansive importation should be not allowed with any species, and the fines should be fierce, these non natives are killing us.

[WildernessHunter]

There are so many issues rolled into this debate, no one is going to post exactly the right answer. We all know tag control will have a positive effect on populations, but if the state gives up tags they give up cash. Not something they are going to do when the possibility of government funding may lessen in years to come. Predator control will absolutely help populations, but to what extent can sportsmen control the population without the right tools, tools that were stripped away from us. Invase species of grasses, trees, and shrubbery need to be aggresivly managed, but again funding comes into play. Here is where we as sportmen and women need to step in and volunteer our time to help control invasive fauna with local groups like OHA, RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, and so on. Lobbying for better management would probably do more for our herds than picking weeds every weekend this summer, but that would require we all agree to disagree and band together to make a difference.

[huntingboybill]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

There are no restrictions on cutting Juniper, except in WSA's. You can cut them alive or dead. Good luck, there are so many of them a single person can't make a dent. The use of fire to take care of them is a non starter with the cheat grass invasion, fire is a poor option on most ranges.

The problem with cheat grass is that it dries out much sooner than native grasses and comes back from fire sooner. So if you burn an area you can just about guarantee cheat will benefit more than native plants. Its quite a quandry, cattle spread this stuff everywhere, short of some type of specific disease it's here to stay.

Invansive importation should be not allowed with any species, and the fines should be fierce, these non natives are killing us.

So are you saying that I can go on BLM land and cut as many Junipers as I want to in central oregon?? As long as they are not old trees?
HBB

[baltz526]

once you read your BLM permit, it will say what you can cut.

[traks44]

Pretty sure Wild Horse's need to be part of this conversation......