2020 Big Game Regulation proposals - www.ifish.net

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Hunting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2019, 01:28 PM   #1
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

that will be voted on by the ODFW Commission next Friday in Gold Beach can be found here.

The relevant portions of the Big Game Regulation Review are rolled into the staff 2020 proposals.

__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-05-2019, 02:59 PM   #2
Stonefly1
Tuna!
 
Stonefly1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,239
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

As always...... Thank you!
Stonefly1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2019, 04:58 PM   #3
winterkill
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,346
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Not all hunters who drew Premium Hunt tags in
2018 purchased the tag; two deer tags and four elk tags were not sold (Table 14).
Can they put those on sale? Wouldn't mind picking up a leftover premium elk tag.

No increase in the mountain lion quota, unfortunately.
winterkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-05-2019, 06:26 PM   #4
Mossyhorn
Ifish Nate
 
Mossyhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Woodland, Washington
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterkill View Post
Can they put those on sale? Wouldn't mind picking up a leftover premium elk tag.

No increase in the mountain lion quota, unfortunately.
They should have alternates for those tags and a tag sale deadline of say August 1st. After that, the tag goes to the alternate.
Mossyhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2019, 07:59 PM   #5
Joe Schmo
Ifish Nate
 
Joe Schmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossyhorn View Post
They should have alternates for those tags and a tag sale deadline of say August 1st. After that, the tag goes to the alternate.
Seriously!!!
__________________
The Devil made me do it the first time. The second time I done it on my own.
Joe Schmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 07:36 AM   #6
blackdog
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,170
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossyhorn View Post
They should have alternates for those tags and a tag sale deadline of say August 1st. After that, the tag goes to the alternate.

loper - is it too late to ask the Commission to adopt this policy? This makes perfect sense (which means ODFW would probably be against it! )
blackdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 08:47 AM   #7
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly1 View Post
As always...... Thank you!

No problem
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 08:51 AM   #8
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackdog View Post
loper - is it too late to ask the Commission to adopt this policy? This makes perfect sense (which means ODFW would probably be against it! )

It isn't too late to ask for anything
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 10:20 AM   #9
blackdog
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Portland
Posts: 4,170
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
It isn't too late to ask for anything
Email sent to the Commission. We'll see if I get any response.
blackdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 10:41 PM   #10
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Hart Mt. refuge sheep is gone, who would have thought. Reading the preface for the sheep hunts one would think all is fine.

Definitely against the spike buck proposal for western Or., populations are not doing good (they might think otherwise, but the harvest results don't lie) and this will do nothing to help in that regard and may very well be harmful. Do they not look at the graduate students thesis papers? There have been two that have purposed that buck over harvest may be a threat to the populations. One for mule deer on the eastside of the Cascades and one on the westside of the Cascades. Continuing to do the same or even worse will not harvest our way to success.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2019, 11:32 AM   #11
GDuck
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,413
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
It isn't too late to ask for anything
Controlled hunting for archery same as rifle for mule deer. At least for these masses of non-residents that flood in here.

g
GDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 05:14 AM   #12
wak'm&stak'm
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Jacksonville Ore.
Posts: 5,758
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

[QUOTE

Definitely against the spike buck proposal for western Or., populations are not doing good (they might think otherwise, but the harvest results don't lie) and this will do nothing to help in that regard and may very well be harmful. .[/QUOTE]

Making spikes legal is ridiculous, and especially for the reason given...” to bring it inline with other regions.”

So let’s shoot a bunch of 55 pound spikes, so blacktail harvest it more inline... Now I am angry again.
wak'm&stak'm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 06:34 AM   #13
PHSJason
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 238
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
It isn't too late to ask for anything
Loper,

I have sent in my spring bear high-altitude extended season proposal twice and called and spoke with Michelle, but still don’t see that it has made the agenda or been discussed. Do you know of any way, other than in person, to get this ball rolling?
PHSJason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 09:10 AM   #14
96ssportsp
Steelhead
 
96ssportsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hermiston, Or
Posts: 326
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHSJason View Post
Loper,

I have sent in my spring bear high-altitude extended season proposal twice and called and spoke with Michelle, but still don’t see that it has made the agenda or been discussed. Do you know of any way, other than in person, to get this ball rolling?
My conversation with the local bio was “ they are afraid to propose any spring bear seasons, that may cause the antis to push for cutting or eliminating any/all spring bear hunts”.
Upper management shut him down before he even finished his proposal, submitted by a friend of mine.
Sad day.......science/management takes a back seat to politics!!! Scott.
__________________
"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ & the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom."

Last edited by 96ssportsp; 09-08-2019 at 09:12 AM.
96ssportsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 10:19 AM   #15
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDuck View Post
At least for these masses of non-residents that flood in here.
9% equals flood?
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 10:29 AM   #16
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHSJason View Post
Loper,

I have sent in my spring bear high-altitude extended season proposal twice and called and spoke with Michelle, but still don’t see that it has made the agenda or been discussed. Do you know of any way, other than in person, to get this ball rolling?
Possibilities:

1. Partner with a conservation organization (or multiples) so that the horsepower behind the proposal is greater. Bring to the table any science that supports the proposal.
2. Phone/personal conversations with specific commissioners; make sure they have a good understanding of why the proposal makes sense; it is quite likely that for some its the first time they have even ever discussed spring bear hunting in their entire life. Educate your audience.
3. Be persistent; change occurs over time; lighted nocks are an excellent example of that.

Active listening is key.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 10:31 AM   #17
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by 96ssportsp View Post
My conversation with the local bio was “ they are afraid to propose any spring bear seasons, that may cause the antis to push for cutting or eliminating any/all spring bear ������ hunts”.
Upper management shut him down before he even finished his proposal, submitted by a friend of mine. ������������
Sad day.......science/management takes a back seat to politics!!! Scott. ������
Hence the reason I stated below "partner with a conservation organization"
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 12:21 PM   #18
Dave Smith
Sturgeon
 
Dave Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dirka-Dirka-stan
Posts: 4,654
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

The end of Hart Mountain sheep hunting is sad to me. I'm thankful I got a nice ram there and a killer full body mount plus he was SOOO good to eat, but I wish more people could experience that at Hart. They don't allow any predator hunting; not even coyotes. It's been going downhill fast ever since (shocker, right?). God forbid they would control the predators- make sure its the humans, who buy all the tags and do all the volunteer work, go without the hunting experience so the predators can dine on bighorn sheep. In time, some genius will figure out that it was the predators this whole time, and not the hunters, but it will be too late for most of the people reading this if and when they ever start seeking a BALANCED predator population and reinstate hunting a thriving sheep population. The only unit with no predator control, but PLEASE: keep telling yourself the problem is the hunters lol DS
__________________
Hunt the X and you'll have a great day, avoid the X and you'll have a great SEASON

2010 appointee Oregon GOOSE TASK FORCE
Dave Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 12:57 PM   #19
sroemmich
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Rogue Valley
Posts: 110
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith View Post
The end of Hart Mountain sheep hunting is sad to me. I'm thankful I got a nice ram there and a killer full body mount plus he was SOOO good to eat, but I wish more people could experience that at Hart. They don't allow any predator hunting; not even coyotes. It's been going downhill fast ever since (shocker, right?). God forbid they would control the predators- make sure its the humans, who buy all the tags and do all the volunteer work, go without the hunting experience so the predators can dine on bighorn sheep. In time, some genius will figure out that it was the predators this whole time, and not the hunters, but it will be too late for most of the people reading this if and when they ever start seeking a BALANCED predator population and reinstate hunting a thriving sheep population. The only unit with no predator control, but PLEASE: keep telling yourself the problem is the hunters lol DS
Craig Foster of ODFW did the study from 2004-2006, the result of which "we suggest that controlling cougars on bighorn sheep ranges would likely benefit bighorn sheep populations on Hart Mountain". Yet here we are, no sheep left from what was once the healthiest herds in the nation...
sroemmich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 08:52 AM   #20
Dave Smith
Sturgeon
 
Dave Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dirka-Dirka-stan
Posts: 4,654
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by sroemmich View Post
craig foster of odfw did the study from 2004-2006, the result of which "we suggest that controlling cougars on bighorn sheep ranges would likely benefit bighorn sheep populations on hart mountain". Yet here we are, no sheep left from what was once the healthiest herds in the nation...
yup
__________________
Hunt the X and you'll have a great day, avoid the X and you'll have a great SEASON

2010 appointee Oregon GOOSE TASK FORCE
Dave Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 09:10 AM   #21
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,317
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

It's just pathetic about the Hart sheep hunt. Who's running this .... show???

I'm afraid that killing spikes on the west side will be the end of Blacktail hunting as we know it. ESPECIALLY on public land. Public land Blacktails are already in a world of hurt (you don't have to be a bio to see this).

Again, I know the people in the trenches are doing their best but what passes for "leadership" of the ODFW is lacking...I'm being VERY nice.

I've been a supporter of the ODFW for decades, but there HAVE to be wholesale changes before Oregon becomes a petting zoo. A crowded place where you can paddle your plastic boat or hike with a couple hundred other people.

BTW - I'm not sure this isn't the goal of the current ODFW.

Sad.............................
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 12:44 PM   #22
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreckless View Post
It's just pathetic about the Hart sheep hunt. Who's running this .... show???

I'm afraid that killing spikes on the west side will be the end of Blacktail hunting as we know it. ESPECIALLY on public land. Public land Blacktails are already in a world of hurt (you don't have to be a bio to see this).

Again, I know the people in the trenches are doing their best but what passes for "leadership" of the ODFW is lacking...I'm being VERY nice.

I've been a supporter of the ODFW for decades, but there HAVE to be wholesale changes before Oregon becomes a petting zoo. A crowded place where you can paddle your plastic boat or hike with a couple hundred other people.

BTW - I'm not sure this isn't the goal of the current ODFW.

Sad.............................
The one model they have refused to try is a very restrictive buck harvest for a number of years. They have had two recent Master Thesis papers written by OSU wildlife students that used ODF&W's own radio collar deer survival data as the core of their analysis and both commented that buck harvest appeared excessive and may be contributing to herd decline. Looking at the Maury unit for one, they never have achieved a high buck population. Trout Creeks is about the only unit with a high buck ratio, but the deer population is so low in that area that it skews any success that may be going on.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 04:20 PM   #23
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreckless View Post
It's just pathetic about the Hart sheep hunt. Who's running this .... show???
In the case of Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, that would be Danielle Fujii-Doe, Refuge Manager.

In fairness to her, she just became the refuge manager this past February, so the historical position of non-hunting of predators on the refuge was inherited.

Each federal refuge has a public process it would go through to develop hunting regulations for new hunting opportunities; this particular issue is a federal one.

It is entirely possible that she would be open to the idea of predator hunting on the refuge as she actually worked to protect native species from predators in the past.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 07:04 PM   #24
willametteriveroutlaw
King Salmon
 
willametteriveroutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 8,620
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
In the case of Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, that would be Danielle Fujii-Doe, Refuge Manager.

In fairness to her, she just became the refuge manager this past February, so the historical position of non-hunting of predators on the refuge was inherited.

Each federal refuge has a public process it would go through to develop hunting regulations for new hunting opportunities; this particular issue is a federal one.

It is entirely possible that she would be open to the idea of predator hunting on the refuge as she actually worked to protect native species from predators in the past.
First time I drove across Hart, I killed 9 coyotes between the rim and the headquarters before I realized where I was at.. (more than 10 years ago) I kept wondering why they were so gentle and dumb.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
__________________
The worst part is, now I have to agree with WRO. Which causes me much pain and grief.

-Flatfish
willametteriveroutlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 07:34 PM   #25
bbell
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 142
Default

Thats awesome 👏 Glad you didn’t get caught😀
bbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2019, 08:46 PM   #26
GDuck
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,413
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
9% equals flood?
9% of what? Murderers Creek for example is overrun with out of State archery hunters. Go see for yourself. Its ludicrous. Toss in the rest of the crowd from in State and you get what you have. Its all about revenue not the animals and that's a big piece of the problem.



g
GDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 05:28 AM   #27
Timber hunter
Ifish Nate
 
Timber hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bend, Or
Posts: 2,964
Default

Craig Foster of ODFW did the study from 2004-2006, the result of which "we suggest that controlling cougars on bighorn sheep ranges would likely benefit bighorn sheep populations on Hart Mountain". Yet here we are, no sheep left from what was once the healthiest herds in the nation...[/QUOTE]

Two years to figure that out, impressive! And then once they do, they do nothing. Even more impressive!
Timber hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 05:51 AM   #28
Hun10-freak
Chromer
 
Hun10-freak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SO. Oregon
Posts: 774
Default

Allowing spike buck harvest on the West is a huge mistake, IMHO
Hun10-freak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 07:39 AM   #29
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDuck View Post
9% of what? Murderers Creek for example is overrun with out of State archery hunters. Go see for yourself. Its ludicrous. Toss in the rest of the crowd from in State and you get what you have. Its all about revenue not the animals and that's a big piece of the problem.



g
So it is a unit-specific issue from your perspective?

Surveys have shown that 9% of the OTC tags in the SE region are purchased by non-residents.

The quickest way to solve that issue is to make it a controlled draw hunt.

Then the cap applies.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 08:35 AM   #30
mark53656
Coho
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 64
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

This quote from the Staff Proposal is a killer .

"Harvesting spikes allows some larger antlered bucks to escape because some hunters who harvest a spike would have harvested a buck with more antler points later in the season."

Hunters that pursue larger mature bucks do not shoot spikes and hunters that would shoot a spike don't put in the effort to get more than 50' off the road. Not many respectable mature blacktail bucks stand on the side of the road and wait to get shot. There will be the exception, but really? They are suggesting this will save the life of enough mature bucks to justify the regulation. In the mean time you will kill a large portion of the yearling bucks that will never get a chance to mature!!!!!!! Where is the reasoning in this?

Doesn't give me confidence in the individuals making the rules.

Last edited by mark53656; 09-11-2019 at 02:08 PM.
mark53656 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 08:38 AM   #31
Dave Smith
Sturgeon
 
Dave Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dirka-Dirka-stan
Posts: 4,654
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
The one model they have refused to try is a very restrictive buck harvest for a number of years. They have had two recent Master Thesis papers written by OSU wildlife students that used ODF&W's own radio collar deer survival data as the core of their analysis and both commented that buck harvest appeared excessive and may be contributing to herd decline.
That would be the ONE thing that would make sense and actually work, so of course it won't be tried, plus they need that tag money to pay for all their predator-worshiping missions. ODFW needs to do what that guy on Seinfield did to turn his life around (George Castanza): whatever you're "instincts" and "gut" tells you to do.....do the EXACT OPPOSITE. I agree with Wreckless; it's not the biologists and field workers, it's the LEADERSHIP. DS
__________________
Hunt the X and you'll have a great day, avoid the X and you'll have a great SEASON

2010 appointee Oregon GOOSE TASK FORCE
Dave Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 10:04 PM   #32
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith View Post
That would be the ONE thing that would make sense and actually work, so of course it won't be tried, plus they need that tag money to pay for all their predator-worshiping missions. ODFW needs to do what that guy on Seinfield did to turn his life around (George Castanza): whatever you're "instincts" and "gut" tells you to do.....do the EXACT OPPOSITE. I agree with Wreckless; it's not the biologists and field workers, it's the LEADERSHIP. DS
They (management) have been cast from the same mold for a long time. Scoutdog gave them the means to try this in some units (cut way back or stop buck harvest while having the revenue to replace the lost tag monies and they threw it away-Premium tag idea).

My bet is that they will go with the spike buck bag limit and I predict in three years buck harvest will be sliding even further into the abyss.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 05:00 AM   #33
Timber hunter
Ifish Nate
 
Timber hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bend, Or
Posts: 2,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
The one model they have refused to try is a very restrictive buck harvest for a number of years. They have had two recent Master Thesis papers written by OSU wildlife students that used ODF&W's own radio collar deer survival data as the core of their analysis and both commented that buck harvest appeared excessive and may be contributing to herd decline.
That would be the ONE thing that would make sense and actually work, so of course it won't be tried, plus they need that tag money to pay for all their predator-worshiping missions. ODFW needs to do what that guy on Seinfield did to turn his life around (George Castanza): whatever you're "instincts" and "gut" tells you to do.....do the EXACT OPPOSITE. I agree with Wreckless; it's not the biologists and field workers, it's the LEADERSHIP. DS
I suggested 3 point or better in a few units several years ago at one of the meetings. They said that would put to much pressure on the older bucks. They really don’t care that all the small dumb bucks get shot. They don’t even care that most of the small bucks get tagged with other people’s tags. I hear it every year “we got three spikes and a couple forks, we still have a few more tags in camp too” It’s been happening for ever and it will continue till thy are all gone, which won’t be long. I’ve been hearing more and more “ we only got one spike and a fork, There’s no deer here anymore” no ...t jack azz.
Timber hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 07:31 AM   #34
JacobOutdoors
Tuna!
 
JacobOutdoors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,191
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Some of these suggestions sound great on paper, what some of you are forgetting is that not every person hunting agrees with the ideas presented.

We hosted a 2020 regulations proposal meeting in Albany, I had numerous conversations afterwards with people of conflicting viewpoints. Some thought the entire state should be a draw for archery, some were opposed to that. Some people felt that giving certain areas to traditional archery hunters was ridiculous, some were in favor. There were some who liked the spike proposal and some who made it known they were very opposed to the idea.

If we as hunters cannot agree on certain regulations or be willing to sacrifice opportunity in the name of herd recovery and management what makes you think ODFW is going to develop a regulation for it that will satisfy everyone?

With so much division amongst hunters I imagine it would be very difficult to come out with a proposal where 60% of hunters yell “no!” even if it was for the good of our wildlife numbers. (Archery draw is one that comes to mind)

I read a lot of inaccurate information that gets spread around when it comes to these topics. The funny thing is the people I usually see spreading misinformation I never see them at ODFW meetings, resource commission meetings, conservation group meetings, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JacobOutdoors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 07:55 AM   #35
GDuck
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,413
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Apparently it is a unit specific issue from ODFWs perspective as well. Units 36 37 54 55 56 part of 68 Hart Mtn and the Trout Creeks are controlled bow hunting. So to your point of "9%" of something, WHERE do you think they are hunting given these other controlled hunts? Murderer's Creek for starters. They they flock in here from CA because they can't hunt their own State and Murderers Creek is one place they descend on like flies. How do you tell from an OTC Point of Sale place where the hunter hunts if its a general tag? License/tag bought on line? Hunter reporting? When you see it for yourself and the locals and OSP refer to it as one big zoo to stay away from you might admit you have an issue. Far as I'm concerned make it ALL controlled hunting and call it a day. But there's that pesky $$$ again.

“There’s definitely fewer rifle tags available. Hunters still have the opportunity in a lot of Eastern Oregon to archery hunt mule deer without restriction. That’s partly why there are more bow hunters now. If you want to hunt Eastern Oregon, you’ve got to pick up a bow.” Straight from ODFW bio quoted in the Bend Bulletin.

g




Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
So it is a unit-specific issue from your perspective?

Surveys have shown that 9% of the OTC tags in the SE region are purchased by non-residents.

The quickest way to solve that issue is to make it a controlled draw hunt.

Then the cap applies.
GDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 08:03 AM   #36
Stick'em
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 12,829
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobOutdoors View Post
The funny thing is the people I usually see spreading misinformation I never see them at ODFW meetings, resource commission meetings, conservation group meetings, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I counted five (including me) at the 2020 regulation meeting in Clackamas.
__________________
Mo Feeesh!
Stick'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:04 AM   #37
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobOutdoors View Post
Some of these suggestions sound great on paper, what some of you are forgetting is that not every person hunting agrees with the ideas presented.
So what you are suggesting is, as long as a few people oppose any solution we simply will not move forward? This is called Wildlife Science, we should let the science drive the process, us hunters are along for the ride, only harvesting the surplus animals. Once we are not harvesting surplus animals we are no longer following the North American model for wildlife management. At that point in time ODF&W looses all credibility.

The spike bag limit proposal is not backed up by science, we have two recent Master Thesis papers that point out buck exploitation rates may be too high currently and adding another age class to the mix will not be helpful.

You can go to all the meetings if you want, but you will find out like a lot of the rest of us, ODF&W is a world unto itself. We did get their attention though when we testified at the legislature, the politicians do control the purse strings. Ask Scoutdog his thoughts on the process, attending tons of meetings, meeting with high level staff.............I have been through that process too, I warned him and he found out just as I did.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:11 AM   #38
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Does anybody see the irony of how consistency in rules is now overriding good science?

Good science would dictate that a proposal such as this spike bag limit be tested (it could be argued it has over east-too poor results), which in that case you have a test area and a control area and time period to watch the results.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:30 AM   #39
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick'em View Post
I counted five (including me) at the 2020 regulation meeting in Clackamas.
Unfortunately that seems to be the norm for that particular meeting site.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:33 AM   #40
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
Good science would dictate that a proposal such as this spike bag limit be tested...
Interestingly enough one group already proposed that exact concept.

And will be testifying about it in Gold Beach tomorrow.
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 09:46 AM   #41
loper
King Salmon
 
loper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by GDuck View Post
Apparently it is a unit specific issue from ODFWs perspective as well. Units 36 37 54 55 56 part of 68 Hart Mtn and the Trout Creeks are controlled bow hunting. So to your point of "9%" of something, WHERE do you think they are hunting given these other controlled hunts? Murderer's Creek for starters. They they flock in here from CA because they can't hunt their own State and Murderers Creek is one place they descend on like flies. How do you tell from an OTC Point of Sale place where the hunter hunts if its a general tag? License/tag bought on line? Hunter reporting? When you see it for yourself and the locals and OSP refer to it as one big zoo to stay away from you might admit you have an issue. Far as I'm concerned make it ALL controlled hunting and call it a day. But there's that pesky $$$ again.

“There’s definitely fewer rifle tags available. Hunters still have the opportunity in a lot of Eastern Oregon to archery hunt mule deer without restriction. That’s partly why there are more bow hunters now. If you want to hunt Eastern Oregon, you’ve got to pick up a bow.” Straight from ODFW bio quoted in the Bend Bulletin.

g
That is all really good information.

And thank you for providing it.

Would you advocate for a proposal to make archery mule deer hunting in Murderer's Creek a controlled draw opportunity instead of OTC?
__________________
OHA Capitol Chapter (Life Member)
RMEF Life Member, OR-FNAWS Life Member, Pheasants Forever, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, NW Predator Hunters Association, OBH, Oregon Shed Hunters, BHA
loper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 10:00 AM   #42
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
Unfortunately that seems to be the norm for that particular meeting site.
We darn near filled the room a number of years ago at the Seaside meeting, we pretty much took over the meeting telling them what we wanted passed on to the commissioners. We took hand votes on proposals, told the scribe to write it down. Interestingly, the reports at the commission meeting from our meeting were quite muted as to the size of the group and atmosphere of our discussions.

Next year they went to the new format, spread out format of a meet and greet with the bio. At least they aren't wasting OSP's time sending officers to the meeting anymore
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 10:15 AM   #43
JacobOutdoors
Tuna!
 
JacobOutdoors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,191
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
So what you are suggesting is, as long as a few people oppose any solution we simply will not move forward? This is called Wildlife Science, we should let the science drive the process, us hunters are along for the ride, only harvesting the surplus animals. Once we are not harvesting surplus animals we are no longer following the North American model for wildlife management. At that point in time ODF&W looses all credibility.



The spike bag limit proposal is not backed up by science, we have two recent Master Thesis papers that point out buck exploitation rates may be too high currently and adding another age class to the mix will not be helpful.



You can go to all the meetings if you want, but you will find out like a lot of the rest of us, ODF&W is a world unto itself. We did get their attention though when we testified at the legislature, the politicians do control the purse strings. Ask Scoutdog his thoughts on the process, attending tons of meetings, meeting with high level staff.............I have been through that process too, I warned him and he found out just as I did.


Did I say that because a few people are against something that we wouldn’t try it? No, I didn’t. I offered another perspective. Complaining about ODFW on Ifish(and amongst most hunters) is an echo chamber, this thread is evidence of that. Most in this thread oppose the new spike limit proposal, but they aren’t the only group. My point was that with some of the solutions - as good of an idea as they might be - there are some who disagree. Unless we have an infallible argument to support our idea then we are simply trying to sway votes (or the commission) for why our idea is “better”. To be clear, I’m not arguing in favor of the spike bag limit. This point is more applicable to archery draw or other systems that would remove certain opportunities from hunters. Even if these loss of opportunities would benefit our herds there are few willing to give them up for that sake.

What makes you think after attending so many meetings I will “find out like the rest of you”? I’ve been attending meetings for quite some time, it only motivates me more to try and initiate change. It doesn’t make me want to give up and stop attending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JacobOutdoors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 10:17 AM   #44
JacobOutdoors
Tuna!
 
JacobOutdoors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,191
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick'em View Post
I counted five (including me) at the 2020 regulation meeting in Clackamas.


That’s typical. Our Albany turnout was decent (around 15-20 I think?) but there was a group within that group that seemed to only interested in talking about predators, not the proposals for 2020.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JacobOutdoors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 11:25 AM   #45
Amahnee
King Salmon
 
Amahnee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Up in there...
Posts: 8,546
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rank Amateur View Post
The one model they have refused to try is a very restrictive buck harvest for a number of years. They have had two recent Master Thesis papers written by OSU wildlife students that used ODF&W's own radio collar deer survival data as the core of their analysis and both commented that buck harvest appeared excessive and may be contributing to herd decline. Looking at the Maury unit for one, they never have achieved a high buck population. Trout Creeks is about the only unit with a high buck ratio, but the deer population is so low in that area that it skews any success that may be going on.
The bio's told me last year that the Maury had 23 bucks per 100 does when I hunted it. I spent 9 days there and around 40 boot miles and saw two spikes and a fork. Maybe 60 does on the NF.

It's been on the mule deer initiative for 11 years now. Pathetic.

Up until I got to Ranks post, nobody made mention of the additional 4000 elk damage tags over east that will make ranchers hundreds of thousands in personal income and continue to spiral down elk populations.

Oh, and aren't wolves great or what?! 😗
Amahnee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 11:34 AM   #46
sprigkiller09
Ifish Nate
 
sprigkiller09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,295
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobOutdoors View Post
That’s typical. Our Albany turnout was decent (around 15-20 I think?) but there was a group within that group that seemed to only interested in talking about predators, not the proposals for 2020.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was at the meeting and do not remember alot of mention of predators or several other things you stated. One thing that did shock me was the average age (60-65+) of those present and makes me wonder about the voice for hunters in the future.



There was slight mention of predators as one of the primary reasons against the western Oregon spike buck proposal. Which is valid considering cougar population growth and many of the studies being done on cougars in Oregon that correlate.



In your previous post you talked about ideas. Ideas could end up depleting or doing irreparable harm to a population for future generations which would also impact ODFW. to prevent that, ideas should be backed by case studies, data/research, lessons learned, observations and collaboration with hunters, conservation hunting groups, and those the regulations could impact. Conservative approaches to game management are more well received which is likely why ODFW is getting alot of backlash on the Western Oregon Spike proposal and elk damage proposal. Population dynamics show recruitment and age ranges are necessary for healthy balanced population growth. The spike proposal goes against that especially considering the lack of blacktail population growth in many regions.



ODFWs mission is to protect and enhance wildlife in Oregon for present and future generations and many of the proposals for this year could significantly impact that and may take years or decades to recover.
sprigkiller09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 12:18 PM   #47
BeaBeaver
Coho
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 95
Default

The fact is that wildlife management is a pretty complex undertaking. Some on here bemoan political decision making while advocating for management by Ifish's cadre of armchair biologists (not sure how that differs from politicized decision making?). Or perhaps find a master's thesis that (maybe) supports their point of view and advocate for using that as management guidance as opposed to trusting any of the Phds with decades of experience that are currently running ODFWs research efforts across the state. Or, slam ODFW for not running with plans advocated by iFish legends that would have both grown populations of game and produced record-class bucks around every bush, while at the same time single-handedly solving ODFW's budget problems forever! What's not to like about that? Ever wonder why it found zero support outside of the aforementioned Ifish cadre of armchair biologists? Why couldn't a single sporting group be found to advocate for it? Maybe because it would have limited hunting to the wealthy few (a direct violation if the North American model) and the financial projections just didn't pencil out. Lastly, while I'm at it, we all realize that wildlife management in today's age is expensive don't we? The fact is hunters and anglers overwhelmingly foot the bill for conservation through license sales and federal excise taxes. That's the conservation funding model in North America. Can we all further agree that ODFW would be derelict in their duties if they didn't factor in revenue implications of all of their management decisions? Doing so isn't government greed, it's responsible stewardship.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't get involved and make our voices heard - fact is that public input is critical and absolutely impacts decisions. But remember, as a previous poster mentioned, our motivations for hunting can be quite varied and what's important to me may not be important or right to you or anybody else. I'm also not saying that ODFW gets it right all the time either, they don't (especially when they don't do what I want!). I do believe that the agency is full of people who care about the resource, though, and work incredibly hard to get it right for our fish and wildlife resources. Yes, even those in leadership positions. I think that deserves our gratitude and respect.

We should always be encouraged to advocate in a respectful manner in hopes that we can help them arrive at sound management decisions that align with our individual interests, but also trust their motivations and manage our disappointment when they don't.

Last edited by BeaBeaver; 09-12-2019 at 12:31 PM. Reason: Grammar correction
BeaBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 12:50 PM   #48
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,317
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobOutdoors View Post
Some of these suggestions sound great on paper, what some of you are forgetting is that not every person hunting agrees with the ideas presented.

We hosted a 2020 regulations proposal meeting in Albany, I had numerous conversations afterwards with people of conflicting viewpoints. Some thought the entire state should be a draw for archery, some were opposed to that. Some people felt that giving certain areas to traditional archery hunters was ridiculous, some were in favor. There were some who liked the spike proposal and some who made it known they were very opposed to the idea.

If we as hunters cannot agree on certain regulations or be willing to sacrifice opportunity in the name of herd recovery and management what makes you think ODFW is going to develop a regulation for it that will satisfy everyone?

With so much division amongst hunters I imagine it would be very difficult to come out with a proposal where 60% of hunters yell “no!” even if it was for the good of our wildlife numbers. (Archery draw is one that comes to mind)

I read a lot of inaccurate information that gets spread around when it comes to these topics. The funny thing is the people I usually see spreading misinformation I never see them at ODFW meetings, resource commission meetings, conservation group meetings, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It shouldn't matter if we "agree", 'like" or are "opposed to" an idea.
The ODFW should be managing units to produce the maximum number of <insert game animal here> available to the hunter, the people paying the bills. Killing young bucks prevents them from getting older. Saying that the "buck ratio" is at the management objective when there are 14 deer in the ENTIRE UNIT and 5 of them are bucks (exaggeration......I hope) is NOT what they should be doing. I understand that some people will be upset, so be it. I am one. Wouldn't it be best if they upset people while working to INCREASE the number of animals? Upset people that see that the hunting is getting better will come back. Upset people that quit because there aren't any critters left to hunt are GONE/ DONE. No more $$$$

Do they not understand that the young bucks grow up to be mature bucks if they are allowed to live???

I never thought I'd say this, but I will probably be done with deer & elk unless I draw a good tag, once they allow/encourage a huge number of young deer to die.

BTW - I have NO hope, NONE, that the ODFW "leadership" will do ANYTHING to help the critters we like to hunt before it's too late.....Except maybe coyotes, cougars & the like.
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher

Last edited by Wreckless; 09-12-2019 at 12:53 PM. Reason: typo
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 03:07 PM   #49
Timber hunter
Ifish Nate
 
Timber hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Bend, Or
Posts: 2,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaBeaver View Post
The fact is that wildlife management is a pretty complex undertaking. Some on here bemoan political decision making while advocating for management by Ifish's cadre of armchair biologists (not sure how that differs from politicized decision making?). Or perhaps find a master's thesis that (maybe) supports their point of view and advocate for using that as management guidance as opposed to trusting any of the Phds with decades of experience that are currently running ODFWs research efforts across the state. Or, slam ODFW for not running with plans advocated by iFish legends that would have both grown populations of game and produced record-class bucks around every bush, while at the same time single-handedly solving ODFW's budget problems forever! What's not to like about that? Ever wonder why it found zero support outside of the aforementioned Ifish cadre of armchair biologists? Why couldn't a single sporting group be found to advocate for it? Maybe because it would have limited hunting to the wealthy few (a direct violation if the North American model) and the financial projections just didn't pencil out. Lastly, while I'm at it, we all realize that wildlife management in today's age is expensive don't we? The fact is hunters and anglers overwhelmingly foot the bill for conservation through license sales and federal excise taxes. That's the conservation funding model in North America. Can we all further agree that ODFW would be derelict in their duties if they didn't factor in revenue implications of all of their management decisions? Doing so isn't government greed, it's responsible stewardship.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't get involved and make our voices heard - fact is that public input is critical and absolutely impacts decisions. But remember, as a previous poster mentioned, our motivations for hunting can be quite varied and what's important to me may not be important or right to you or anybody else. I'm also not saying that ODFW gets it right all the time either, they don't (especially when they don't do what I want!). I do believe that the agency is full of people who care about the resource, though, and work incredibly hard to get it right for our fish and wildlife resources. Yes, even those in leadership positions. I think that deserves our gratitude and respect.

We should always be encouraged to advocate in a respectful manner in hopes that we can help them arrive at sound management decisions that align with our individual interests, but also trust their motivations and manage our disappointment when they don't.
I’ve seen what’s happened for the last forty years first hand. Some of the biologists I’ve talked to haven’t lived here more than two years. There’s no way they know more about what’s going on where I’ve hunted for 35 years better than me. It’s not one thing that created where we are but the only thing that is consistent is keeping the general public and the majority of hunters happy and interested. That’s priority, not increasing game populations. Therefore slowly they loose hunter interest and the non hunting public is perfectly fine with that. I myself am closer every year to loosing interest. I started buying points in other states years ago, so when I do quit Oregon I can go elsewhere. I spend way more money out of state than here in Oregon just to be in a good position when it’s all over. Which isn’t far away when I look back to what it was like 20-25 years ago. If that trend of the last 20 years continues, which I see no reason it won’t, it will be Over before I’m 60.
Timber hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 04:42 PM   #50
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaBeaver View Post
The fact is that wildlife management is a pretty complex undertaking. Some on here bemoan political decision making while advocating for management by Ifish's cadre of armchair biologists (not sure how that differs from politicized decision making?). Or perhaps find a master's thesis that (maybe) supports their point of view and advocate for using that as management guidance as opposed to trusting any of the Phds with decades of experience that are currently running ODFWs research efforts across the state. Or, slam ODFW for not running with plans advocated by iFish legends that would have both grown populations of game and produced record-class bucks around every bush, while at the same time single-handedly solving ODFW's budget problems forever! What's not to like about that? Ever wonder why it found zero support outside of the aforementioned Ifish cadre of armchair biologists? Why couldn't a single sporting group be found to advocate for it? Maybe because it would have limited hunting to the wealthy few (a direct violation if the North American model) and the financial projections just didn't pencil out. Lastly, while I'm at it, we all realize that wildlife management in today's age is expensive don't we? The fact is hunters and anglers overwhelmingly foot the bill for conservation through license sales and federal excise taxes. That's the conservation funding model in North America. Can we all further agree that ODFW would be derelict in their duties if they didn't factor in revenue implications of all of their management decisions? Doing so isn't government greed, it's responsible stewardship.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't get involved and make our voices heard - fact is that public input is critical and absolutely impacts decisions. But remember, as a previous poster mentioned, our motivations for hunting can be quite varied and what's important to me may not be important or right to you or anybody else. I'm also not saying that ODFW gets it right all the time either, they don't (especially when they don't do what I want!). I do believe that the agency is full of people who care about the resource, though, and work incredibly hard to get it right for our fish and wildlife resources. Yes, even those in leadership positions. I think that deserves our gratitude and respect.

We should always be encouraged to advocate in a respectful manner in hopes that we can help them arrive at sound management decisions that align with our individual interests, but also trust their motivations and manage our disappointment when they don't.
The research Phd. assisted both Master Thesis students. This same research Phd. gave a presentation to the commissioners and in regards to Blacktailed deer survival data in one study area he commented that with the current rates of mortality the herd may not sustain itself.

This is not a political argument, it not even a fiscal argument, if the deer herds in our state are not turned around, there will be nothing to argue about! ODF&W's argument that they can't afford to conduct tests that severely restrict harvest is already a mute point, they have lost many times that value already.

Yeah, some of us are arm chair biologist and some were pooping in their diapers when we first got involved in this fight. Some will never know any better when it comes to what this state once had or will understand what this state could have.

I got told by a ODF&W rep on facebook the other day that claimed there are more game animals in Oregon today than at any time since Lewis and Clark first visited Oregon. That my friend is a scary disconnect from reality.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2019, 07:34 PM   #51
GDuck
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,413
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Yessir. Most certainly.

g


Quote:
Originally Posted by loper View Post
That is all really good information.

And thank you for providing it.

Would you advocate for a proposal to make archery mule deer hunting in Murderer's Creek a controlled draw opportunity instead of OTC?
GDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 04:07 PM   #52
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Surprise...........just as I said, they passed it all. I would have eaten them for lunch if I was sitting on the commission.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 05:18 PM   #53
Dave Smith
Sturgeon
 
Dave Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dirka-Dirka-stan
Posts: 4,654
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

I was called by the president of the Oregon Outdoor Council and asked if I would consider being on the ODFW commission. At first I thought: "no way" (I'm too shy), but he asked me to think about it. He had talked with Governor Brown, and she said she would consider adding a hunter to the commission, at the request of the OOC. After thinking about it, I decided I would do it. SOMETHING needs to be done. The OOC introduced me by email to Governor Brown's assistant as a prerequisite to the application and screening process. I offered my services, stated my willingness, and assured all entities I can be very democratic and open-minded, only to never have a single email reply, despite several efforts. There ya go. DS
__________________
Hunt the X and you'll have a great day, avoid the X and you'll have a great SEASON

2010 appointee Oregon GOOSE TASK FORCE
Dave Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 05:34 PM   #54
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

It's a stacked deck Dave. The door was wide open to some very pointed questions today. Endicotte did a good job, opened their eyes with the "mule deer are a disaster". Staff is getting away with, well our buck ratio's are meeting M.O., well is that M.O. adequate? What is the age structure of that buck ratio? What has Starkey shown us? Are you applying that to any of our units, even one? What the hell is your plan to turn the situation around?

Blacktails are not far behind the Mule deer, they are a disaster too, nobody seems to understand that?

They got away with murder on the 55 bucks per 100 Does recent research, two questions would have had egg on their faces, but nobody on the commission is well enough informed to know what to ask.

Wall was trying, but she has a ways to go before she has enough awareness to understand what is going on.

Nobody picked up on the OHA gal rep and her comments about following the Blacktailed deer plan and that the spike proposal is a departure from that.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 06:34 PM   #55
sprigkiller09
Ifish Nate
 
sprigkiller09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,295
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

Today was literally something that will impact OR its game populations, hunters, for years to come. Staff sold their proposals well with lingo that was not factual or accurate and the commission bought it. Very disappointing for future conservation, game management and future generations of hunters.
sprigkiller09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 07:03 PM   #56
Reel fortunate
Tuna!
 
Reel fortunate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: silverton
Posts: 1,520
Default

I have been archery hunting since 1982 across our state. Never have I seen populations this low for mule deer. I have hunted several days this year already and have seen 1 buck while hunting and less than a hand full of does. The roads with willows that are usually chewed up have not been touched. If somthing doesn't happen quick we will not have another animal to hunt. It is pathetic in my opinion.
It was the least amount of hunters I have seen in my lifetime over labor day weekend. Hunters were Down probably close to 30% or more in the area we hunted. A sign that things need to change.
__________________
Randy

23x84 HT, Raider Coastal
Reel fortunate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 07:10 PM   #57
Wreckless
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hillsboro OR
Posts: 11,317
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

There won`t be much big game to "manage" soon. I'm not sure that the final plan of the higher ups isn't to turn Oregon into a city park. Fisherman and especially hunters seem to be a treated as a nuisance.

<whine over>
__________________
Owner/Operator: "I Can't Believe it's a Guide Service".....I miss you Dale!

"Today's the day"......Mel Fisher
Wreckless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 08:54 PM   #58
Dave Smith
Sturgeon
 
Dave Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dirka-Dirka-stan
Posts: 4,654
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

The leadership at the top is party of an ideology that tends to think if something runs out, more can be "borrowed", or more taxes can fix anything. You can just run up a huge tab and kick the can down the road. While that may be true of some things, wildlife populations and funding an agency that depends partly on hunters purchasing tags and licenses is way out of their league. DS
__________________
Hunt the X and you'll have a great day, avoid the X and you'll have a great SEASON

2010 appointee Oregon GOOSE TASK FORCE
Dave Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 09:05 PM   #59
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 14,780
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

The only thing that will stop this nonsense is OHA declaring war on the department. Finally take the gloves off, but they don't appear to be up to the task. They would gain a member or two if they did.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2019, 06:39 AM   #60
baltz526
King Salmon
 
baltz526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: lapine oregon
Posts: 22,831
Default Re: 2020 Big Game Regulation proposals

The only motive I see in the 2020 plan just passed. Tag sales. Which of course is not a Sustainable management goal. All the changes in Cow Elk tag allotment, is a way to obscure who gets the tags and how these tags are designed to eradicate the Elk herds. The only good management improvement I can see in recent history. Is the awareness that the mass killing of wildlife by Motor Vehicles is a huge problem. ODFW has stepped up to the plate on this issue. I would even say they got a dribbler hit and made 1st base on the issue. Now if we could convince "hunters" to not harass animals at Guzzlers, Build more guzzlers, develop water sources away from high traffic roads, Post big signs stating Tree/ground blind hunting within 500' of a guzzler or developed water source is punishable by a $250 fine.
__________________
I have been wrong once before. Just once mind you. It was for several years, Ok A decade or more. But just the once.
baltz526 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:10 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.65577 seconds with 74 queries