wonder about new regs on Field Dressing

trouttroller · 02-05-2003, 08:59 AM

I was reading the new hunting regs and came across the new stuff about field dressing. We
usually bone the animal out and bring out the head above the jaws. I gather this is no longer
legal? Or is it possible to leave the genitals attached to a piece of meat. Who knows? I think this could get complicated. I sure hate to think I have to pack out all those bones.

WildHawg · 02-07-2003, 05:01 PM

You're assuming we know what you're talking about. Could you provide a little more soecifics?

MasterCaster · 02-07-2003, 06:57 PM

If I understand the new regs correctly you have to have either the genitals or head attached to a quarter of the meat. This makes it kind of hard because I dont like ANY hair touching it after its skinned out. I guess either leave the head on or enclose the genitals in a baggie so most of the hair wont touch the meat. Makes it even harder for antlerless tags. I guess the head will have to stay on for them cause I dont want the udder hanging with the meat.

My question it what about at the lockers? I have been told NO hide left on the animal. NO head and if the genitals are still attached then there is hair there too.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[ 02-07-2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: MasterCaster ]

Gobbaworms · 02-07-2003, 08:58 PM

I interpret the new regs the same as you. And like you hate hair. I've never bothered to try but I wonder if there is a way to skin the gentials and leave them attached 'cause I not leaving the head on.

But heres' another question: what is an "antler restriction" area. Does "visible antler" count or is it "spike only", "3+point", etc...
In an "antler restriction" area, the head (or antlers attached to the skull cap) only needs to accompany the carcass.

But of course you can possess cut and wrapped meat without any of that so I guess just take the wrapping paper with you and finish the job. :grin:

Interesting change.

[ 02-07-2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Gobbaworms ]

Bill Monroe · 02-08-2003, 02:57 AM

I'll do something about this in the paper...you read it correctly. Oregon's now in line with regs in other states, I'm told by the department. Has something to do with transportation across state lines and cwd, too, but I'll get the details. I was told the fish and wildlife commission is going to fine-tune the wording in June, but I dunno how much...

Bait O' Eggs · 02-09-2003, 06:44 AM

Wildhawg - Oregon now requires you to either have the head attached to a front quarter or the sex organ attached to a 1/4 for deer and elk. I dont remember the exact wording but it is in the 2003 regulations.

When in Idaho this last year we had to leave a sex organ attached to the largest piece of meat. Neither my partner or myself have ever tried to do this "anti Bobbit"

method of boning a deer.

My buddie kills his deer first and in the attempt to remove the pelvis bone from the meat he accidentally tears the sex organs off the hind ham he was trying to leave it on. :depressed: He bags the sex organs up and toss them in the meat bag, not legally attached, but there. It is harder than you might first think. We get back to camp and some of the good ole boys camped in the area come over and we discuss our problems trying to leave the sex organ attached and how filthy it is with a hairy peepee (word filter ya know

) and scrotum on a boned out hind ham.

They told us to skin from the bottom up on the peepee and cut the peepee off very short, removing the scrotum and testicles. When I did my deer, this method worked much better. I left about 1/2 to 1 inch of a fleshed peepee attached to the hind ham. There was no doubt it was a peepee and since does dont have one the proof of the animals sex was met.

I believe one of the reasons the regulation came into existance is to eliminate people from going way into the back country and shooting a nice buck, bringing the horns and head out, then shooting a better eating, much easier packing doe along the road, leaving the doe head in the brush taking the body, and having a body and a head making for a whole deer when they meet a gammie.

Bill is right, Oregon wanted to be in line with the other states regulations.

sliverpicker · 02-09-2003, 07:41 AM

I wonder if this will be enforced during a hair hunt or archery season where either sex is legal?

sliverpicker

trouttroller · 02-10-2003, 01:00 PM

If I read it right, I don't have it in front of me right now. On female animals you must have the uterus. I would not have a clue what one
looked like. Guess I'll have to do my homework
if I get that coveted Heppner hair tag this year.
Bill, thanks for looking into it and thanks everyone for your responses. Alan.

Bait O' Eggs · 02-10-2003, 01:37 PM

That is pretty funny Trouttroller - I was along on a youth cow hunt in December and did a little post mortum inspection on the gut pile trying to determine if the cow was pregnant. I couldnt find a baby

and didnt know what a uterus looked like from the inside

I cut several pieces open and never did find anything resembling a calf, plenty of green partially digested food in some of the places I looked

I concluded one of the 3,
- the elk was not pregnant
- the elk had a sex change and never had a uterus
- I had no idea what a uterus looks like

brshooter · 02-10-2003, 06:46 PM

BOE,
You probably didn't know what a elk uterus looks like. Keep watching Fear Factor and I bet they will be eating them in one of the upcoming episodes. They are bound to give you a good look at one of them. :grin:

MasterCaster · 02-10-2003, 07:26 PM

Once you see what a uterus looks like on the inside it will be easy to identify in the future. On our cow hunts in November the "calf" looks like a real little pink slug and thats about it. Doesnt look anything like a calf at all that early. Im not sure how developed it would be in Dec.

I know all this new reg means for me is the head will stay on most all of the animals. We have been able to take all anmals out whole to this date with a winch or just good ole hand pulling power and rope but if the time came when I had to quarter I will just use the baggie trick I guess. I dont think this reg is that big of a deal but I can see how it would be a little of a problem for you guys that kill a big bull 10 miles from a road.

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

Gun Rod Bow · 02-10-2003, 08:55 PM

I'd sure like to see clarification on this because:

I can handle leaving proof on hindquarters.

I can think of absolutley no way to pack an elk on horseback (Muleback) with a head attached to two front quarters.

A branch bull there is just absolutley no way.

I could handle proof on the hinds, split the fronts, bone the back and cut the head as we usually do, but head attached to fronts, just wont balance on a pack animal.

This'll be interesting.

GRB

trouttroller · 02-11-2003, 08:23 AM

Well I checked last night and it is the Vulva
that may be kept attached not the uterus.
I hope they aren't eating that on Fear Factor. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Gus Orviston · 02-11-2003, 11:11 PM

BOE is not a Vet, but he plays one on the mountain. You were probably cutting up road kill.

...what did you use to calibrate the 1/2-1" peepee

I would love to watch that ....mmmm on second thought maybe not :whazzup:

gus

CAGEY · 02-20-2003, 03:28 PM

You do not need to leave the pee wee on a bull or a buck. You can skin the scrotum and leave the gonads attached. Most elk hunters eat them any way so if you leave them as an ienditifier then you will have to eat tuna fish instead. :tongue: It is quite easy to skin them and leave them attached to one hindquarter. Or you can leave that nasty smelling pee wee which is not my choice.

On the doe's or the cow's you can leave the mammary glands (**** ) and they are also very easy to skin and leave attached. You do not need to leave the vulva, if you leave the mammary glands (utter).

The problem i see is getting in a hurry and whacking off (cutting) the important parts befor you remember that they have to left on. :blush:

In either case you can comletely skin the gonads and the mammary glands and will not have a problem with hair.

corkycaptain · 02-20-2003, 11:17 PM

I think Oregons attempt to get in line with other states regs is a good move, but I wish they'd have put a little more thought into it before they put it into print.....it seems like a very gray area at this juncture....imagine how many different interpretations each gamie will have!