Shooting small bucks.......

[tailchaser]

I'm a little late on posting this but I have a few things to add food for thought to deer hunters out there.

I thought a while on how to phrase this so I don't insult everyone but it seems that a lot of people are asking why the larger bucks aren't around and this is the reason. There are too many people shooting small bucks. I hear it more and more every year. I don't blame them for it, it's legal to do but there is a lot of concern for the downfall of the larger bucks and this is contributed to shooting smaller ones too much. I sure wish they would instill at least a fork or three point rule over east and we would start seeing a larger population of mature animals. I don't blame them for shooting a small one when that's all they're seeing because older bucks are harder to find these days but it's a trend we complain about but are the cause on the other end.

With a small amout of mature bucks hanging around the does are seeded by immature animals thus giving a lesser chance at healthy offspring and continuing quality genes. So the next time you have that little guy in your scope maybe you'll think twice about the quality of your future hunting vs. having to fill your tag. If it was adopted more people would go without in the first few years until those young bucks matured, but after that it would be well worth it.


tc

[ 10-09-2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: tailchaser ]

[Bubzilla]

Actually Tailchaser, a spike is an inferior deer with regards to mule deer. That is to say, a genetically strong mule deer buck will fork with his first set of antlers. That's why the previous forked horn or better rules were abandoned. It didn't make much sense to preserve the bucks in the herd that had already exhibited signs of inferiority.

You are correct in the larger picture, however. Oregon's constant search for "harvest opportunity" is what's wrong with the mule deer herds in this state. Virtually every unit is managed to the point of minimum escapement. That is simply not conducive to quality hunting of any kind--consumptive or trophy.

It's really simple actually: so long as current mule deer herds are hunted so aggressively, i.e., with thousands of rifle tags per unit, unrestricted archery hunting, and additional antlerless and muzzleloader hunts, there is little hope for either true trophy quality hunting or a return to the times of bountiful consumptive hunting. It's not simply that too many small bucks are being harvested; it's that too many deer are being harvested. And, unfortunately, so long as ODFW is going to pander to the least common denominator of Oregon's hunters, there's not much hope for improvement.

Shoot the big bucks and the inferior bucks will do the breeding, resulting in inferior offspring.

I'm oposed to "Trophy Hunting" and usualy shoot the first legal buck I see. In Alaska we tried shooting spikes or three points. We left the forks and bigger deer alone, unless we saw a real nice buck. We also had the luxury of a 5 month season with 4 or 6 deer per year.

[nitrobass]

It would be great to have a few units that were 3 point or better, like some are with elk. That would give the horn chasers a place to play and actually see bigger bucks.

Deer really get hunted hard in Oregon, especially during rifle seasons. Private land is by far your best shot at big horns.

[id. painter]

I was raised to shoot the first legal buck.
We were hunting for food as much as fun. Later we stopped shooting forkhorns just because we knew we could get a 4 pt if you let them go.
I ended up killing several very large bucks . Actually more than any of my friends who are "trophy hunters" or so claim to be . I have killed more big bucks than any of them just because i get one each year . A buck is a buck .
I do believe that there are areas that get so much pressure with little cover that the deer have a tough time growing up. id. p.

[biederboat]

Merely stating a fact....Pennsylvania is seeing HUGE results from prohibiting shooting of small bucks. Read all about it in Outdoor Life, it was published a few months back.

Antler size has more to do with water and mineral availability than genetics.

Biederboat

Antler size has more to do with water and mineral availability than genetics

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Wrong!
They all work here. Feed and minerals do have a lot to do with mass. Genetics have more to do with comformation and point numbers.

[ 10-09-2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

Hunting trophies in Oregon sucks!!!! You either have a buddy with a bunch of land that only lets you hunt it, (hence you have a chance at a trophy) or you get to bang heads with too many people in too small of an area like most of us get to.

I have chose to fly into the Idaho back country to chase trophy class bucks. The unit is 3 point or better and I could have killed a couple 4 pointers a day last year while in there. This year we are going to try and hold out for a bigger buck, but after hunting Oregon for so long and habits being hard to break, we had a hard time overcoming the mentallity that you better shoot the first buck you see or you might not get one. Neither of us shot the first day last year, which was quite an accomplishement :blush: when we let a 24 inch wide 4 point walk at daylight the first day I was even shocked. :blush: Of course the next day in the exact same spot we couldnt wait any more and my buddy ended his hunt right their on the same buck we let walk.

I think all buck hunts should be at least 3 point if not 4 point or better. But that is my opinion, I am not a meat hunter. I could buy an entire beef cut and wrapped for the money I invest to deer hunt every year. So if I was into it for the meat like others say they are, why not just go buy some quality beef.

Meat last a season, horns are forever

[BrokeItOff]

Bait O Eggs

You are right to some degree, but growing up I very rarely ate beef. Meat was deer and elk. To that end we shot does and cows,and during buck/bull season took the first legal animal. It did not cost that much because we lived in the area.

To be fair though, my father goes to Idaho to hunt for large bucks.

[nwsteelheader]

At the end of the day it is important to remember that people hunt for lots of different reasons.

I have passed up 3 pt mule deer, spike elk at 10 yards and small blacktail bucks... but i have also shot cow elk, small blacktails and small mule deer. It depends where i'm hunting, who I'm with and what I'm trying to accomplish.

I shot a small blacktail in the santiam unit 4 years ago. I had my step-father with me and it was exciting for him to see us get a deer so I shot it. Normally I would have passed on that deer.

I travel to Idaho to hunt each year and generally pass on lots of small mule deer during week. Many times I come home with no deer at all, but I am looking for something different in Idaho than when I am hunting at home. 2 years ago I had a spike elk at 10 yards staring at me. I passed because a large 6 point was following the herd and back behind by 100 yards or so. I never got a shot at the big bull, but i don't regret passing up the shot on the spike.

Long story short, it is too difficult to generalize about what hunters want and how to achieve that. This is why the ODFW manages most of the hunts to provide opportunity, and a few hunts to provide trophy opportunity (trout cr. deer, walla walla bull, Hart Mt antelope, steens deer, etc...)

Idaho tends to have better opportunity for trophy animals, not necessarily because of how they manage the animals, but because of the hunting pressure. Idaho has about 1/2 the human population of oregon and 80% of the land is PUBLIC LAND (Whooo Hooo!), much of it remote and hard to get to. That leads to better escapement and bigger/more animals.

Shawn

[RichH]

I realize that most of this dialogue is regarding mule deer but on the wet side of the hills there are a lot more big bucks than anybody had previosly imagined. From the studies I have read most big blacktails are primarily nocturnal and avoid hunters with relative ease due to being like whitetails in their desire to hold tight to cover.

[Bubzilla]

I know exactly what you mean by the Oregon hunting "mentality" thing Bait O' Eggs. My first trip to Wyoming many years ago, I shot the first buck I saw--a basket five point white tail. While I was dressing him out, two bucks twice the size as the one I harvested ran out of the creek draw I was hunting. I should have waited, but I'd learned in Oregon that if you waited you went without. In years since, I've overcome that, but it's hard.

I think something should be said about this purported "trophy" vs. "meat" thing. I can honestly say that I am neither and both. I hunt for the opportunity to harvest a mature male specimen. And, I want what I harvest to eat. The two are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately though, it is hard to find good hunting when you have too many people from any one of the two sides.

Too many "trophy" hunters and the regulations or probabilities of drawing a tag are usually difficult to deal with. Too many "meat" hunters--particularly those who are willing to harvest antlerless animals even when it's obvious the herd can't take it--and the hunting itself suffers. If I had to say Oregon had too many of one group, however, it would be "meat" hunters--or at least that's what many of them call themselves these days.

I'm talking about the guys that are all too happy to help ODFW satisfy some landowners by killing off 1000 cows in the Ochocos in a single season. Or, they're the fellows who yell "yippee" when they see the flier announcing that a doe may be harvested in certain eastern units during bow season. Or, they're the guys that want that "any elk" tag so that they're sure to get a shot.

Now, don't get me wrong, antlerless hunts are a proven management tool. They are often necessary to maintain the health of herds. But in Oregon they are out of control. And it's the guys who say stuff like "you can't eat the horns" and get all excited about shooting a flop-eared cow or doe that are helping to keep Oregon's hunting in the shape it's in currently.

I'm sure that last set of comments will make some mad. But guess what? I don't care! Those of us who want Oregon's hunting future to be bright--which it currently isn't--need to speak up about things that are an obvious problem. And our fellow hunters need to stop helping ODFW screw us out of future hunting by being willing to act as accomplices in bio politics.

There isn't a single unit in Oregon that is anywhere near its carrying capacity as far as habitat goes. So overpopulation is not a problem. There may be some units with poor buck-to-doe or cow-to-bull ratios, but how about imporving buck and bull escapement as opposed to culling off the does and cows? The biggest problem is hunters who want the tags. Without a demand--and its a big demand--there would be no product.

Most aren't going to remember or know this, but it was December doe hunts in the 60s that ruined Oregon's mule deer hunting. Now, we're trying to do the same thing with cow hunts to our elk.

Sit and do the math yourself. Any time a cow or doe is harvested, not just that animal is killed but all the young that animal would have given birth to is gone as well.

[Get Bit]

I think there is another factor here you may be forgetting. I don't know if I'm the average hunter in Oregon but I usually get only 3-4 days of hunting in during the 9-10 day Eastern Oregon season. Even if I hunted on the Westside, I would only get weekends to hunt. With that said, any legal buck I shoot I consider a trophy. I would bet that alot of those that have a 3 point or better mentality probably get quite a few days to hunt. If I was able to put in a couple of weeks to hunt I'm sure my opinion would differ as well. I just hope some day I will be able to put in the time necessary to shoot a 25-30" Mule deer.

Get Bit

[Joe]

How much of a factor is overgrazing by cattle? I just got back from a week on the East side and it seeems like everywhere I went the grass was eaten down to the roots.

How many Deer and Elk could "Our" National Forest produce if we were not subsidizzing the cattle ranchers.

I can't even count the number of springs I saw mashed into the ground by cattle.

I guess that is why it would be cheaper to by beef than it is to kill your own???

Cows and deer don't eat a lot of the same things.
The cows do need to be fenced out of the seeps, springs and creeks.

[Grits]

I think your logic is a little off. When they manage the pay to hunt areas they typically make sure they shoot at least a percentage of the smaller bucks. You want the big bucks doing the breeding so if you harvest the smaller bucks that will leave the mature bucks to do the breeding. If you see a forked horn it may only have the potential to be a small three or four point buck but if you seen a mature 5 or 6 point buck then you know its genes have the potential to be a bigger buck. I actually think that in order for there to be more bigger bucks they would need to have forked horn or less hunts but I am no biologist, so maybe someone with some more knowledge could chime in on the science behind growing big deer.

[id. painter]

In Idaho that is how it is managed, Gritz.
They try to let the big bucks grow and breed.
There are many units where the rule states that you must shoot no more that a 2pt. These same units are units most sought after for a big buck tag (usally a draw) by hunters.
I have read and herd conflicting theory on this subject. But I think te most rescent research suggests that genetics and habitat are the biggest two factors . If you take a good area and let some big boys bread you get the best return.
There are several areas that I have spent considerable time hunting . The area in South Idaho around Preston grows big bucks, fast ..The area north of Macky doesnt grow big buck very often. But they both need good genes to even have a chance. Kill the little rag heads and let the big boys breed.This Is a growing train of thought in the Biological community. id. painter

[steelhead22]

I'd say both opinions on this are right in there respective ways. I believe both could potentially produce bigger bucks. As for myself, I could care less what's on top of a deer's head. I just don't see the point in it, as your not eating the antlers. Or are you [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] ? I hunt for meat, and that's it. If I see a legal animal, I'm taking it, basically because I just don't care how "big" it is, I care how good it tastes. What do you GAIN by hunting for a "trophy"? The only thing you'll have over a smaller buck is a head and antlers of a dead deer to put on the wall, and I just don't see the benefits in that. Just my .02

[id. painter]

I was litterly raised on deer and elk.Trophy didnt matter at all.
One of my biggest pet peves is the late rut hunt for deer . I have killed and eaten deer from Sept. thru Dec..There is a gient difference. It blows me away how guys can go out for the rut hunt and eat what they kill.
I have eaten (tried to eat) bucks in the rut. Yuk. I personally feel it is a complete waist of good meat and animals to let them be hunted late in the rut. I will never shoot a buck after Novermber 10 again. Shoot them early in Oct. and they a absolutly delicious.id. painter

[tailchaser]

What I'm getting at is I'm hearing more and more complaints about hunters not seeing the bucks they used to. If you want more decent bucks around you can't shoot every spike or fork that comes in front of you. I have been told by ODFW that they changed the law to a visible antler so more people would have the opportunity to bring home meat. What it did is slam the spike population. Adding one year of maturity at least gives the animal a chance to grow larger later in life. You have to admit, spikes are one of the dumbest deer you probably will come across while hunting. Therefore, they get shot more.

Yes, this is my personal opinion but I don't want to hear anymore that people are complaining about not seeing quality animals when they don't pass up tiney bucks. I disagree with the fact if they changed it to hunting mature bucks that there wouldn't be any around come breeding season. How many 4 pts do you see on the side of the road in comparison to forks? A couple at best. That's because they've learned to be smarter and more elusive. Thus, not as many will be killed. They are going to chop tag numbers here in the near future, so would you rather have the option to hunt with less deer taken or cut the tags and be able to kill spikes and forks?? Either way they look at how many animals will be taken in a unit, not the size as it sits right now.

tc
tc

[ 10-09-2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: tailchaser ]

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Bubzilla:
There isn't a single unit in Oregon that is anywhere near its carrying capacity as far as habitat goes. So overpopulation is not a problem.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Biologically, you may be right. But there is a "socially acceptable carrying capacity" that ODFW has to deal with. When farmers & ranchers complain to their legislators that there are too many deer & elk eating thier crops, damaging their fences, etc. ODFW is forced to limit the numbers and hunting is the only real tool to do that. In some areas, like most of the Willamette valley floor, the socially-acceptable carrying capacity for elk is zero. Sure, the valley is prime elk habitat...or could be if not for all the people, farms, cars, highways, etc.

Hunters want as many deer & elk as possible...but non-hunters outnumber hunters about 19 to 1 in Oregon...and have other interests & priorities. And, in a democracy, majority rules...at least in theory.

[Bubzilla]

GutShotApe,

You're exactly right--on all counts. And, there are places, like the Willamette Valley, where keeping elk and deer populations at "socially acceptable" levels is simply a reality. But we were not talking about the Willamette Valley; we're talking about Eastern Oregon.

Again, you're correct, non-hunters do outnumber hunters. But non-hunters are buying doe and cow tags, as it's hunters that are all to willing to do the dirty work. We, as hunters, can change that culture.

Just as there are social limitations on big game populations, there should be a social limit on antlerless harvests. Not one held by non-hunters, but one imposed by hunters on each other. That is to say, there should be a healthy stigma regarding antlerless harvest. It should be viewed as what it is: a lesser form of sportsmanship. You should look down on healthy, grown adults who primarily want to harvest antlerless animals. They should be embarrassed for others to know what they've done. That simple. If they were, there wouldn't be as many so willing to do it.

Antlerless hunts should be reserved for limited applications, such as youth hunts, special tags for the disabled, and VERY small allotments designed to deal with a specific landowner complaint. Currently, none of those limiations exist. In fact, antlerless harvest, on a large scale, is a foregone conclusion each season, and there are morons who actually complain when the number of antlerless tags are reduced.

Right now, much more so than landowner complaints or "social carrying capacity," demand is driving antlerless hunts. Too many people equate shooting a cow or doe out of the car with "hunting." These people buy tags and licenses, and have no concept whatsoever of real hunting, and therefore are pretty easy consumers to please. Fish and Game loves 'em! They are the reason the synopsis is filled with doe and cow hunts--or my personal favorite, "any elk" hunts.

We could stop that. First by never getting one of those tags ourselves, or, in the case of an "any elk" tag, only harvesting bulls. Second by treating those who do primarily target antlerless animals as social pariahs within the hunting community. Will that stop the problem completely? No, but it might slow it down enough to make a difference.

[ 10-10-2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[BrokeItOff]

Bubzilla I completely disagree... Antlerless hunts are an acceptable management tool and to stigmatize hunters for hunting antlerless animals seems unreasonalbe. 25 years ago deer hunting was pretty good and there were large special hunts going on.

My personal opinion is that there is a very large predator issue in eastern Oregon. Coyotes, bears and cougars are having a real impact on numbers.

My two cents worth....

[Lured In]

I come back from 4 days in Chicago for this? :tongue:

I can't believe you folks made it through 22 posts and not one single comment on QDM (quality deer management.) While this is a hotly debated subject nationally, QDM is evolving as a potentially viable process for evalutating and managing deer herds and hunting seasons.

I am not an expert on this but will try to explain what QDM does..

It focuses on balancing deer herd age and sex composition while establishing long-term herd population goals.

Here are a few key points on QDM...
1. Balancing buck to doe ratios in age class. You could have a good size population of "trophy" bucks, but have too many does for them to breed. The result...inferior bucks are given the chance to breed the excess does. The solution is antlerless hunts.

2. The flip side is when you don't have enough mature bucks to pass along solid genetics. The result again is inferior or younger bucks get to breed. The solution here is to implement point restrictions in an attempt to even out the age classes of the bucks.

3. Total herd population. This is probably the hardest part as it is far more subjective. Lets say the current 'unit herd' population for a given area is 5,000 deer. The biologist have to decide if this number is within the capacity for the land and socially acceptable levels for any human interaction. (just look at all the deer/vehicle colisions in the southeastern US).

Once the population goal has been established, they, must decide what the ideal buck to doe ratio is based on the current population compostion. Do they have enough does or too many. Do they have enough mature bucks or too many young ones?

In some cases it may be all of the above. Utilizing only one management tool would result in an imbalance. Some units may need to implement both a point system and a large antlerless hunt in order to balance the system. Others may need to allow harvest of does, young bucks and mature bucks in order to reduce the total population. Also, in some cases, a spike only/fork or less hunt would be of use is ensuring the mature bucks would be able to pass on their genes to a limited number of does.

Of course habitat is always a consideration. My question is to you who complain, would you be willing to see your favorite area close to buck hunts for 2-3 years and only be able to shoot does in an effort to balance the system?

The end result of QDM is a deer herd with a sustainable population (total number), with a balanced buck:doe ratio and a balance of age classes in the bucks. From a huntng standpoint you end up seeing more mature deer and controlling the number of does.

Personally I would love to see Oregon implement QDM on a more wide spread basis taking into consideration all of the management tools available. The downside is that you would likely see less buck hunting opportunity for at least 2-3 years. After that though....look out, it would be awesome! :grin:

[GutshotApe]

Lured In - You may be on to something!

Bubzilla - An old wildlife biologist once told me "If your deer herd can't stand a reasonable doe harvest, you probably shouldn't be harvesting any bucks, either". I have followed ODFW's deer/elk management process & thinking closely enough and for long enough to dispute your contention that "demand is driving antlerless hunts". I think good, sound science is what drives ODFW's management, first & foremost.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
I said "first & foremost"...not that other considerations aren't involved. Nearly all of ODFW's "discretionary" funds come from license & tag sales...but I still say that isn't what drives doe/cow tag numbers. If selling tags was Job #1 then why would ODFW have the controlled hunts? Why not just sell as many tags as people want? Its a sure thing there would be many, many more tags sold than now.

The Willamette unit is an elk de-emphasis zone, I think they call it...and deer numbers are kept low by allowing either sex hunting, the 800 series 2nd tag, and allowing doe tag holders from adjacent units to hunt there, too. Eastern Oregon units are under social constraints too. Most of the ranches are located in winter range...and the ranchers over there squawk loudly when the deer/elk arrive after the snow piles up in the summer range.

I'll say it again...ODFW does not sell antlerless tags primarily as a means to generate extra money. You may disagree with the biological & social assessments used in setting doe/cow seasons...but there is sound science and political reallity behind it...IMO...and I was more than a casual observer of this for quite a few years.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Many people either can't or REFUSE to recognize the social ramifications. I hate the fact that there aren't as many deer on the East side as "the old days". But, the simple fact is that it has happened all across the West, in every state, even the vaunted populations of Idaho and Wyoming. As populations increase, we encroach more and more on habitat, and generally, most of that is winter range, which is the most vital component for a large healthy herd.

So, what do we do? Do we quite allowing those 10,000 acre ranches to subdivide into 40 acre "dude farms"? Do we chase off the big money investors that are paying 10's of thousands of $$ per acre for land that really is only worth maybe $1,000 per acre? Throw some answers in here please.

Support the RMEF, and a few other organizations, which are actively buying up strategic parcels to allow winter grazing and migrations to continue in many areas. That's a start.

As for biologists being influenced by the almighty $$$ to keep the doe tag numbers up? I know several bios, and, honestly, that's insulting.

TR

[tailchaser]

As far as the question about ODFW and doe/cow tags are concerned I've talked to the people directly responsible for these hunts at ODFW. What they're trying to accomplish is that every Oregonian has an opportunity to hunt elk or deer every year. This is why there are so many cow/antlerless tags allotted. Not a good idea as far as I'm concerned. This also allows sales from every person who may hunt to buy a tag, thus increasing revenue.

I personally don't agree with too many cow/doe hunts especially in areas that are having hard times with calf survival. They're going about it the wrong way. They need to get rid of the tag restrictions on bear and cougars in the entire state. No one will argue those populations of predators are skyrocketing. Then cut off antlerless hunts for a few years and it would end the downward spiral of numbers. I wish people would think that one buck can breed with lots of does, however nothing can be done with limited amounts of does around. Not to mention that these hunts occur after most ruts and you kill two animals, not just one for the following year. Pretty much sucks, but for now it's the way it works. In the end, something has to change. You'd think that someone who has degree's and "supposed" knowledge in this field that works for them might step up to the plate and do something. It's definitely not rocket science.

tc

[Bait O' Eggs]

The Rougue
Do you really believe the biologist are making the final decesion on how many tags are sold, or is it his managers manager above him.

I along with many people dont know how the process works and I would like to know and understand the process between the "unbiased" biologist recommendation and the final decesion on how many tags are sold. :whazzup:

I am sure there are a lot of good biologist who may not feel the pressure of, the need for "discretionary" funding as GSA put it. But I am sure there are those that know if they get the "discretionary" funding, they may have projects to work on keeping them employed.

I am probably wrong but I would guess the local biologist who is employed in a district reports to his boss, who in turns reports to a panel at the ODFW, who sit around a table and make decesions on how many tags are sold. How far off am I??? How often is the number of tags the same as the biologist recommendation? I would guess the biologist throws a number of recommended tags out, the panel factors in things like number of famers complaints, complaints from insurance companies from cars getting damaged to hitting deer, complaints from hunters not getting tags, etc..... and coming up with a number that is arbitrary but yet justifiable under some standard.

I also believe everybody is biased to some extent skewing the numbers a little in what ever direction they believe in. ie) if you have a bilogist who belongs to and strongly supports the sierra club, and doesnt hunt, and doesnt believe in hunting, their numbers would not match a biologist who works in the same district and hates the sierra club, and hunts. Just my opinion on human nature.

[Bubzilla]

Well said Tailchaser! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] And, exactly right!

[Get Bit]

:smile: Can't we all respond to each other in a civil tone and volume ?

Get Bit

[ 10-10-2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Get Bit ]

[WaterDog]

Originally posted by Bait O' Eggs:

I think all buck hunts should be at least 3 point if not 4 point or better. But that is my opinion, I am not a meat hunter. I could buy an entire beef cut and wrapped for the money I invest to deer hunt every year. So if I was into it for the meat like others say they are, why not just go buy some quality beef.

Meat last a season, horns are forever

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">What really gets me is how in the world can a guy go TUNA! fishing and want to run 43 handlines off a boat that is 7 feet wide (no rods and reels), yet will only shoot deer or elk with large antlers (deer and elk have antlers not horns. ) :whazzup:

:tongue:

[Bait O' Eggs]

I think I just took a glancing blow off the port side
Getbit - who is yelling?? :whazzup:

I am off to chase some of these bucks with big "horns" see you all next week on the net.

[edsr]

WaterDog - I'll have you know that boat is 8' wide!!!

edsr

[Get Bit]

BOE,

Sorry..My bad. :blush: I 've got something going on either with my server or hard drive because some posts are coming up huge and bold and others are not. My apologies. Carry on gentlemen.

Get Bit

[WaterDog]

Thanks edsr, I stand corrected. :grin:

Too bad TUNA! don't have antlers. There would be more for the rest of us. :tongue:

[Lured In]

BOE...good question on wanting to know what happens between the time the biologist makes their recommendation and the time the OFWC decides on allocating the tags. Anybody know? (if its anything like waterfowl, the recommendations are considered and then conservatively reduced.)

Here is the link to ODFW's Mule Deer Management Plan dated Feb 2003.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/...rPlanFinal.PDF

And the link to the 2000 Harvest Summaries...

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/...ontents_01.htm

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by tailchaser:
What they're trying to accomplish is that every Oregonian has an opportunity to hunt elk or deer every year. This is why there are so many cow/antlerless tags allotted. Not a good idea as far as I'm concerned.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Not sure I believe that...It is true that providing annual hunting opportunity is part of the reason general season deer & elk rifle tags are unlimited ...but I never heard anyone in a position of authority justify antlerless tag numbers for that reason.

I wish people would think that one buck can breed with lots of does, however nothing can be done with limited amounts of does around.....It's definitely not rocket science.
tc

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Apparently it IS rocket science for many...

If the habitat has declined...as much of it has in western Oregon due to logging curtailments...many does do not breed or don't breed every year...and often those that do will produce only one fawn. If the does are thinned out in a habitat-deficient area the surviving does will have twin fawns...and the fawns experience better survival to adult age classes if not crowded. I once read a study of blacktail deer in SW Washington (Ryderwood area) that estimated 30% of the does were barren (i.e. taking up space). So it does no good to have a lot of does if the habitat quality is declining...might as well harvest some and thin the herd...eliminate the 30% non-contributing does...make 'em all fertile with twins.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Gutshotape said

I think good, sound science is what drives ODFW's management, first & foremost.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That is probably one of the first things you said I disagree with. :depressed:

I think doe tags are driven by the money generated by selling tags :depressed: When money gets involved in the process, management decesions are not done in the best interest of the animal.

When the buck to doe ratio is off, there are 2 solutions,

First - allow more bucks to escape to get the ratio up.

Second - Kill off a bunch of does to get the ratio correct. :depressed:

The second solution will never be acceptable to me. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] To allow more escape, seasons should be shortened, possibly moved to a different time of the year, or the less popular method of limiting access to tags. A 2 or 3 day season with a lot of hunters getting access to hunt those few days would be better to me, than not getting to hunt at all.

One of the things with the preference point system limiting hunters to areas that works to the advantage of the animal is several hunts take 3 or 4 reference points to draw a certain tag. So most hunters only go hunt the piece of ground they are interested in every 3 or 4 years. This limits the knowledge the "avarage" hunter has of the area and animal movements at that time.

Assuming you are 20 years old and you can "effectively" hunt till your mid 60's +/-. That would give you about 45 years left to hunt. I am making the assumtion most people after retirement dont have the health and physical stamina to compete hunting wise with the younger generation if get out there at all . You dont run into to many hunters in their 70's to far from the vehicle, but there are the exceptions. If you can only draw a tag you are interested in every 4 years, you will get to hunt the hunt you are interested in only about 11 times for the 20 year old, in his/her lifetime. If you are 30 years old, 8 times, and if you are 40 years old like myself, 6 or maybe 7 times. Assuming the hunt you are interested in, is an elk hunt in a certain part of the state, and a couple of those seasons either weather, or increased predation seriously impacts your desired hunt a few times on your draw year, coupled with the percentage of success in those units, the odds of killing a bull/buck in the unit you want is not all that high.

Can you tell I am feeling old today [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[Bubzilla]

"I think good sound science is what drives ODFW's management first & foremost." That's funny. If the truth weren't so sad, it would be hilarious.

If you take the time to discuss current antlerless policy with a biologist, you'll hear them use the term "harvest opportunity." They are creating a chance to hunt. Period. And some among us are dumb enough to take it. They're selling tags. That simple. Now, some might argue that science supports the idea that the herd can handle the additional pressure, but that's really different than saying that an antlerless hunt would benefit the herd, isn't it?

As far as the assertion that if the herd can't take a "reasonable" doe harvest, you shouldn't be harvesting bucks either, I'd say I agree. In many units in Eastern Oregon, we probably shouldn't be hunting at all. That's the reality. You have units where herds represent very small percentages of their numbers from just a couple decades ago. So concering, in fact, ODFW is conducting a study to determine what's happend--over the last forty years in particular.

Anyone who lives in, or spends any appreciable time in, Eastern Oregon--and that means more than driving over from the Portland Metro area for two weekends a year--will tell you the same thing: Oregon's mule deer herd is in serious trouble. The root causes of the crisis may be disputable, but what's not disputable is that there is a major problem.

[GutshotApe]

I said "first & foremost"...not that other considerations aren't involved. Nearly all of ODFW's "discretionary" funds come from license & tag sales...but I still say that isn't what drives doe/cow tag numbers. If selling tags was Job #1 then why would ODFW have the controlled hunts? Why not just sell as many tags as people want? Its a sure thing there would be many, many more tags sold than now.

The Willamette unit is an elk de-emphasis zone, I think they call it...and deer numbers are kept low by allowing either sex hunting, the 800 series 2nd tag, and allowing doe tag holders from adjacent units to hunt there, too. Eastern Oregon units are under social constraints too. Most of the ranches are located in winter range...and the ranchers over there squawk loudly when the deer/elk arrive after the snow piles up in the summer range.

I'll say it again...ODFW does not sell antlerless tags primarily as a means to generate extra money. You may disagree with the biological & social assessments used in setting doe/cow seasons...but there is sound science and political reallity behind it...IMO...and I was more than a casual observer of this for quite a few years.

[ 10-10-2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Tempered Steel]

Just as there are social limitations on big game populations, there should be a social limit on antlerless harvests. Not one held by non-hunters, but one imposed by hunters on each other. That is to say, there should be a healthy stigma regarding antlerless harvest. It should be viewed as what it is: a lesser form of sportsmanship. You should look down on healthy, grown adults who primarily want to harvest antlerless animals. They should be embarrassed for others to know what they've done. That simple. If they were, there wouldn't be as many so willing to do it.

Antlerless hunts should be reserved for limited applications, such as youth hunts, special tags for the disabled, and VERY small allotments designed to deal with a specific landowner complaint. Currently, none of those limiations exist. In fact, antlerless harvest, on a large scale, is a foregone conclusion each season, and there are morons who actually complain when the number of antlerless tags are reduced.

Right now, much more so than landowner complaints or "social carrying capacity," demand is driving antlerless hunts. Too many people equate shooting a cow or doe out of the car with "hunting." These people buy tags and licenses, and have no concept whatsoever of real hunting, and therefore are pretty easy consumers to please. Fish and Game loves 'em! They are the reason the synopsis is filled with doe and cow hunts--or my personal favorite, "any elk" hunts.

We could stop that. First by never getting one of those tags ourselves, or, in the case of an "any elk" tag, only harvesting bulls. Second by treating those who do primarily target antlerless animals as social pariahs within the hunting community. Will that stop the problem completely? No, but it might slow it down enough to make a difference.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So, you want to mock people because they chose to legally hunt antlerless elk and deer? Great idea, just what we need, more armchair wildlife managers.

A lot of people choose to hunt antlerless and small bulls/bucks simply because they taste better and are easier to find when they don't have a two month season.

Maybe what would really be better for the herds, is to keep more west siders on the west side of the mountain range. If everyone had to hunt within 100 miles of their residence, that would sure help the deer and elk populations (at least around here). Of course this is not an option, but its better than ridiculing people that choose to hunt legally.

Cougars and bears are a bigger problem than people IMO. Younger and less experienced animals are much easier prey than animals that have been around a while.

There are still good numbers of mature bucks out there if you are willing to get a little further than a couple hundred yards off the road. They're smart, and don't move much during the daylight, but if you are persistent, they are there.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Tempered Steel:
A lot of people choose to hunt antlerless and small bulls/bucks simply because they taste better.......

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">When Lewis & Clark came west 200 years ago they subsisted on what they could catch or kill...and sometimes the went without. But if they had a choice, as they did along Montana's upper Missouri River where elk were plentiful, their hunters always shot cows & calves and passed up the big bulls. The journals kept by expedition members mention the "rank" bull elk and how inferior they were to a nice plump cow elk.

[Bubzilla]

Tempered Steel,

I'm not talking about mocking anyone--I'm talking about viewing them with utter scorn and contempt. Just like someone who would stoop to snagging salmon. At least with snaggers, most know what they're doing is wrong and keep to themselves about it. Most of the guys that shoot cows and does on a regular basis are under the misconception that they're actually hunters; that they've done something to be proud of. Other hunters can change that fantasy real fast.

Now, that might sound extreme, and maybe it is, but something has got to be done to change the culture that is currently promoting current management policies--particularly as they apply to elk. I should say also, though, that I made no remarks regarding shooting small bucks or bulls. If someone wants to harvest a young male, that's fine. My problem is with constant over-harvest of does and cows.

As far as finding bucks a couple hundred yards from roads, let me just say this: that might hold water with someone who'd spent their whole life with concrete under their feet, but not with me. I know better. Fact is, I passed up a better buck Saturday morning than most people are going to see in their lives. And, no I wasn't anywhere near a road or a quad. The reality is, however, he was pretty average for what the area has produced in the past. And unlike previous hunts, he was the only one. Much more concerning, though, is the lack of deer overall, and a serious decline in elk. You're right about the declines being caused by predators, it's just it's been mostly caused by the two-legged variety.

[ 10-12-2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

Bub,
If the buck to doe ratio is bad the bucks will not be able to keep up and you end up with less deer. It's better to harvest the surplus does to keep the ratio right.

[tailchaser]

GSA, if you want to use my quotes, just incase I can't remember what was said then you better do your homework on why they allot the tags. My conversation of that quote came directly from one of the ODFW's council members on hunting regulations and yours truely. If you don't believe it, then you're basically calling me a liar. Call and do some investigating for yourself before you do that.

tc

[Lured In]

Originally posted by Bubzilla:

My problem is with constant over-harvest of does and cows.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Bubzilla...while I can more than appreciate your passion for maintaining and/or improving our deer and elk herds, the statement above appears completely baseless. Do you have any statistics indicating this is actually the case? Or is it just your opinion?

Sound biological data is the only reliable basis for such arguments. In specific reference to eastern OR mule deer, according to ODFW, the mule deer herds are still recovering, but are only slightly below management objectives. Additionally they have been on a reasonable increase over the last several years. (post 1996 winter kill).

I respect your right to your opinion; however, I could not more strongly disagree with both your "reason" for not harvesting cows/does and your conclusion about those who do participate in "any or antlerless" hunts. I am not trying to come across argumentative, just trying to encourage functional and civil conversation.

[Bubzilla]

Lured In,

My statements are based on anecdotal and empirical evidence. The fact of the matter is that mule deer herd counts in Eastern Oregon, e.g., Silvies, Ochoco, Klamath, Interstate, Steens, Trout Creeks, etc., are NOT up. In fact, they are down sufficiently enough to result in 20% tag reductions this season in Silvies, and a similar reduction in many of the other units as compared to just last year--let alone as compared to historic numbers. I don't know where you're getting your information regarding herds increasing since 1996, but it is not consistent with what ODFW itself is publishing. Nor is that statement consistent with ODFWs decision to research and study the causes of the major population declines that have ocurred over the past forty years. Which, conincidentally, is about when the massive December doe hunts so popular in the mid-1960s occurred.

The incontrovertible fact of the matter is that antlerless hunting in Oregon today has much more to do with providing a hunting opportunity than it does with sound management. That's a fact. Not an opinion. Even a cursory review of Oregon's synopsis should have everyone wondering what's going on. The most highly coveted elk tags are "any elk" tags in units that also have "spike only" and AT LEAST one additional "antlerless" hunts per season. Units where current calf production has fallen so far below where it should be that major predator control proposals have been made. Units where current herd numbers are well below where they were even a decade ago. These are places where "science," "sound biological principles," and "accepted management practices" weigh in favor of harvesting several hundred cows a season, huh? Or, are these places where demand for hunting opportunities, coupled with special interest opposition to herd growth, have resulted in annual slaughters that ultimately will cost us all a future of elk hunting?

One thing is for sure: there aren't very many "antlerless" mule deer hunts these days. Why? ODFW has got them down to "management levels." We ought to get them to manage Al Qaeda!

[tailchaser]

What's interesting is I grew up hunting the Silvies unit and I've seen such a decline in the last 6-7 years that I don't even put in for the tag because the chances of seeing a good buck are diminishing every year. The first year we went there, we killed 7 bucks out of one canyon and saw many more, then next year only 4, then my dad and I went there two years ago and didn't even see a doe. I did end up killing a decent buck but only after a lot of miles on the boots and no where near that canyon. We only saw a handfull of animals hanging and I can remember it was odd not to fill your tag. Times have definitely changed.

tc

[The Overfishin Condition]

I just participated in an anterless hunt in the Marble unit in Washington. My personal decision is to not shoot does, or calf elk, but I don't pass judgement on those that do. I can tell you this- by no stretch of the imagination should snagging a fish and shooting an anterless elk or deer be put in the same sentence. I hunted with two experienced hunters for seven days- both of them have shot many animals, primarily bucks and bulls- but we finished with no meat hanging. This is an area heavily populated by elk, and one where there are ten cow tags issued per year via special hunt applications. We went in with high hopes- as we would an area we knew to be heavily populated by bucks. However, we saw lots of fresh sign, and very few elk. In the one day where we where into elk, we looked at branched antlered bulls from within 40 yards- they would have been far easier to harvest than cows. I can tell you that at least in this area- the decline in deer and elk herds is much more related to activists creating a decline in clear cuts than any other cause. Hunting is never a sure thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but tread lightly when you go judging others and associating them with lowlifes like snaggers. I propose that someone who is willing to degrade others for their actions- be it a business, or generalizing another group- should post their full real name- no need to hide behind a moniker if you're going to pass a serious, unprovoked, and unsupported judgement against such a large group like that. Judge and be judged, TOC.

[ 10-13-2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: The Overfishin Condition ]

[Bubzilla]

That's why you posted your "full, real name," right "TOC"? My e-mail is open. I'm not hiding. And, I stand behind my opinion.

[ 10-13-2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[Rauly]

Lets not attack each other as the AUP states, or I will have to close the thread.

Please clean up your posts so I will not have to. Thanks.

Rauly

[TAILOUT]

In my opinion, where you are starting to see a lack in big bucks has to with the abundance of predators in the area. If you think about it, what deer tend to be by themselves ie. in a situation where a cougar or bear can take advantage, where there isnt 20 eyes and 10 noses instead just 1 nose and 2 eyes? In most of my experiences large bucks tend to be alone or in very small groups (not always) thus they are starting to be the new food group for an ever increasing amount of predators so if your worried about buck size start buying a cougar or bear tag and do your part in curbing the population of these animals. We had access to private land in Maupin for about 7 years the first 3 we only killed forks and spikes with few large bucks (we were the only 10 people who hunted it). The last 4 were more large bucks with few small bucks, almost always filling all the tags when we started hunting there and when we quit. This area is only about 10 square miles and we never had to go to different spots if we didnt want. I went back this year for the first time in the early archery hunt and the biggest buck we saw was a small 3 point, but we saw several large bucks that were predator killed all the smaller bucks were in large groups of does and fawns I think cougars and bears are getting bigger and wiser and feeding on unwary large bucks that tend to live a more lonley life witch is more dangerous. My .02

[The Overfishin Condition]

I'm done- this is beyond reason.

[ 10-13-2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: The Overfishin Condition ]

[GutshotApe]

tc - I didn't mean to imply you were lying...what I meant was I don't believe whoever told you that knew what they were talking about...or they misspoke. It is not ODFW policy...or a goal of ODFW...to provide annual hunting opportunity by making lots of antlerless tags available. General season tags, yes...doe/cow tags, no. Antlerless tags are used when there is a need to reduce overall herd size and/or balance the sex ratio. I was in a position to know...not guess...about that for 6 yrs and I don't think anything has changed since my direct involvement ended 2 yrs ago. GSA

[tailchaser]

What is meant by the phrase is everyone has the "opportunity to hunt". This means allotting enough tags in the state, doe/cow, antlered hunts, so that everyone has the chance to go (or just buy a tag). By doing this they are influencing the antlerless tags due to the low amounts of buck/bull survival rates in the recent years. By having more antlerless tags available they're hoping to take some stress off of the antlered tags for both species. So in the nutshell they're pushing one, hoping the other comes back to form. To me it's a double sided sword, and by doing this it might just slam the hunting over a short period of time. But we'll see. From the decisions already made I'm not taking any stock in thier abilities to manage it, but only time will tell.

tc

[Lured In]

Bubzilla...

According to ODFW in the above linked 2003 Mule Deer Management Plan...

"John Fremont reported few deer or other big-game species in Southeastern Oregon during
the 1840s. However, by the late 1850s, gold miners traveling from California to the
Boise Basin found deer abundant in Eastern Oregon. Vernon Bailey (1936) estimated
Oregon’s mule deer population to be 39,000 to 75,000 animals from 1926 to 1933. Mule
deer populations increased through the 1930s and 1940s, peaking during mid-1950s, mid-
1960s and in the mid-1970s. The estimated spring population in 1990 was 256,000
animals (Figure 2), 19 percent below the established statewide management objective of
317,400 as listed in the Mule Deer Plan (1990). The estimated 2001 population was
283,000 and continues to remain below established management objectives." (page 3)

So between 1990 and 2001, the total eastern OR population grew by roughly 27,000 animals or 10%. This also does not take into consideration that the population plummeted to nearly 220,000 in 1994 as a result of winterkill. (see graph on page 4 of the above document). So between 1994 and 2001, the poplation went ~220,000 to 283,000 or a 28% increase. That's a pretty impressive turn around if you ask me.

"Many mule deer ranges will no longer support historic deer population levels due to
reduction of habitat caused by human development and changes in land use. Moderate
population increases may be attained in some units with careful management. However,
a return to the high deer population levels present in the 1950s, 60s and 70s probably will
not occur due to changes to habitat and public acceptance." (page 4)

While I would not consider this good news, it is obvious to me that ODFW is focusing on doing the best they can with what they have to work with. (habitat and herd wise).

Additionally, your comments regarding specific units I could easily believe they are down. Given that, they should be managed to improve that herd. But that does not mean that just becuase those units are down, that the rest of eastern OR is having the same problem.

We need to make sure we focus on both long term historical trends (population is down over 1950, and short term trends as in the population is increasing over the last 10 years.) I would not argue that mule deer populations are necessarily doing well, but they are improving and for that we should be encouraged.

Antlerless Hunting...

"In healthy mule deer herds, antlerless harvest can affect the size and growth of mule deer
populations. Buck-only seasons do not remove enough animals to solve either concern.
Placing all hunting pressure on bucks can result in buck ratios falling below identified
MO levels.

A deer surplus exists when annual spring census indicates that a deer herd is approaching
or is above the population MO for the WMU. To effectively reduce populations,
significant numbers of antlerless deer must be removed through controlled hunt tags.

Antlerless harvest can keep a deer population in balance with its habitat and has the
additional benefit of removing some of the older, less productive does.
Damage hunts are designed to harvest antlerless deer causing damage to agricultural
crops. These hunts are limited to specific areas and generally do not have a major effect
on the overall deer population within a WMU." (Pages 10-11)

Point Regulations..,
"Point Regulations
Point regulations are often suggested as a way to increase the number of older bucks in a
deer population. In theory, point regulations are designed to increase the number of older
bucks in the population by limiting harvest to only larger bucks, allowing younger bucks
to mature. However, past experience in Oregon has shown that three-point or four-point
regulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunter numbers are
severely limited.
Steens Mountain WMU was managed under a four-point regulation, with no limitation on
hunter numbers for 12 years (1975-86) and provides an excellent source of information to
address this issue. During the course of the four-point or better regulation, there was a
high illegal buck harvest and a decline of approximately 30 percent of the number of
four-points available for harvest. The long-term effect of the four-point regulation
imposed on Steens Mountain WMU was that legal buck harvest declined by nearly 50
percent by the end of the 12 years the point restriction was in effect. Currently, those
WMUs that have identified post-season buck ratios of 25 are units being managed for
‘trophy’ opportunities in Oregon.
In general, point regulations result in illegal kill of sub-legal bucks, hunter expectations
of a quality experience are not realized, and both the total number of legal bucks
available and the total harvest decrease." (page 14)

I found this to be counter-intuitive, but not necessarily suprising. As is often the case, ethical hunters make the assumnption that everyone else is also an ethical hunter as well. IMHO this is an issue that was not well publicized and should be revisited.

Again, I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just going off of what ODFW is telling us.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Would a high illegal harvest not be a result of poor enforcement :whazzup: You cant blame the plan the ODFW came up as a failure, if OSP didnt or couldnt enforce it.

No matter what the plan is, if harvesting is not done per the plan, it is hard to evaluate the result of the plan.

If a plan was adopted to reduce the doe population by issuing only doe tags, and people illegally harvested only bucks, and when the doe population didnt go down, how do you call the ODFW plan a failure, it would be an enforcement issue, ..... unless every outlaw was caught and prosecuted.

[Lured In]

Originally posted by Bubzilla:
Lured In,

I won't be resonding to any further posts--becaue frankly, this is a waste of time.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hmmm...have it your way. And I thought we were finally getting somewhere. Like perhaps the reality in the field is somewhat different than the reality in ODFW's mind?

People believe what they want to believe (me included). Maybe its just best to agree to disagree. Thank you for the insightful and spirited debate.
:smile:

[tailchaser]

L.I. I think you're on the right track about questioning the numbers we recieve from ODFW on how herds are doing. Lets not forget that we always want to hear that the herds are doing better. If it wasn't then who's to blame? So naturally what is printed relates to that persons job, because the public would want to see heads roll if they thought something was mismanaged. Another problem is when they do counts in areas they may see a group of animals in one spot and hardly any in others. However, count numbers are based on multipling what they saw and with equations spreading that over entire units and coming up with a number that is far from precise. I have gone on a few of these number counts and I'll explain how scewed it is. We had grids we would cover in the morning and afternoon. We would mark how many bucks and does we observed and also spotlighting at night during late november when they were active. One fenceline was the boundary for a grid and we saw two does and a spike on the other side of it. There was nothing but rock and ugly terrain that nothing but snakes could live in on that grid, but since three animals were spotted they multiplied it by the acreage and came out to 100 deer with 7 bucks in there. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] Can you see where this could lead?? I didn't use to believe ranchers and locals much about game populations, but the older I get, the more I see the picture.


One classic case is the doe hunt in Silver Lake. My first year in college I had a roommate that convinced me to put in for the tag because it was an absolute slaughter. ODFW was allotting 2500 tags at the time. I drew it and shortly after recieved multiple letters from the local communities there asking to please not shoot the does because locals are seeing so few of them anymore. I still went on the hunt but had that in the back of my mind. What I saw was horrible. Road hunters paradise and so much shooting was going on it sounded like WWIII. I opted not to fill my tag with the few animals I saw feeling down on the hunt and no need to do it. Not a single person in the local town was friendly about this hunt going on and once I gave my tag as a donation to the store (with many others proped up on the wall) it was a sign that showed we opted not to fill our tags. I even recieved a thank you letter from the town showing my support against a very very bad hunt. In the end I trusted the people that lived there every day more than I trusted the ODFW and thier knowledge of this hunt. Since then the numbers of the hunt have been cut drastically. But how much damage has been accomplished with 10+ years of harvesting 2500 does?? Go over there and make a hunt. It won't take long to figure it out. For what once was a great unit is desolate for deer populations. However, there are still 2,000 buck tags going out to it? I can't make sense of it. But it's a view of what can happen to your unit you love to hunt if there are "too many deer in it". The more educated I have gotten in life it leads me to believe that there is too much science going on with ODFW and not enough common sense. Ok, I'm tired of venting.

tc

[Lured In]

TC...I agree.

Aside from the apparent failure in the methods for counting deer or elk, we also have to keep in mind we do the best with what we have. Assuming the counts are conducted and calculated the same each year, they would provide a "relative" (as compared to the previous year(s)) benchmark. So if a unit had a 7:100 buck to doe ratio one year and a 12:100 the next and 20:100 the following, you could assume buck numbers were climbing. While that may not necessarily be the case, it would tend to lean in that direction.(Escpecially if the total number of deer counted increased as well).

The flip side is in the very nature of arial counts. Deer in the trees or well hidden in the sage cannot be counted. So how do you accurately account for those you do not see? I honestly don't know of another method.

Speaking of Silver Lake, I just hunted that unit for antelope in early September (Around Thompson Res and Sycan Marsh). I noticed the large amount of both buck tags (rifle) and the general season bow tags for the unit. Our final count was around 12 mulie does for the week. All of which we bumped into while still hunting the timber. We did not see any fawns. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] A guy in our campground took a fork early in our hunt, but did not see any other deer hanging. Some of the folks we talked to had seen bucks, but none close enough for a bow. The really funny thing is we saw more deer than antelope. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]