2022 Oregon Archery Elk Proposal

[roosiebull]

Slick, I’m with you. I would pick opportunity, but I certainly don’t want to hunt the last bull in the unit. If there is a biological reason to limit hunters, I’m all for limiting hunters...

 

[bhowren]

It’s so hard to reply to everything I’d like to on my phone. I’m just going to re-read and edit as I go to try and get everything in.

Bhowren- I’m not sure how you can say hunter aren’t reducing bull elk numbers? Let’s use Desolation as an example.(2019 data- straight from ODFWs site and GoHunt’s)
Bull:cow - 6:100

I don't hunt this unit, so I can't speculate. I can tell you I trust my own eyes more than I trust any ODFW numbers by someone that probably spends less time in the unit I hunt than I do! In fact I trust their numbers about like I trust the Covid numbers the CDC throws out. Unless they tranquilize all of the Elk in a unit, this is not scientific, and just a small sample size. In other words, they are just throwing numbers out there!

Archery hunters 1562 @ 11% success rate 171 bulls killed
Spike hunters 536 @ 3% success rate
16 bulls killed
Rifle Any 1103 @ 14% success rate
154 bulls killed.
Based on 2019 rough population data for Desolation there was 1,100 elk.
At 6:100 bulls and 16:100 calf that’s roughly
~900 cows, ~144 calves ~54 bulls.
Obviously there are more than 54 bulls as there were 341 killed the season before, but as you can make out in a long term data set the trend is moving downhill.

I will wager you that all of these numbers pale in comparison to the number of elk killed by predators. I will also tell you Cow numbers, calf numbers, etc... all make a difference in how many Bulls you will find in the future as well.

Those bios have the ability to manage the rifle hunters, but cannot manage the number of tags for archery hunters under current structure. As you’ve stated archery success has remained largely the same, but the # of hunters continues to increase. So do you continue to “punish” the rifle hunters because the archery success claims 11% (in this instance it’s higher in other units) more harvest?

I don't think you should be punishing anyone! They want us fighting each other. I won't buy into it! You are telling me the Archery numbers are going up, but they still pale in comparison to the number or Rifle hunters on controlled tags. Yes, I have looked at the numbers. Don't have them with me. I will try to find them from when I wrote to the ODFW last year when this whole idea started. Thus, I see no reason to change an opportunity arbitrarily. I will also tell you that the reason for increased archery numbers is not due to an increase in hunting numbers. They are due to rifle hunters getting shafted by point creep partially. While many won't hunt at all, the avid hunters are buying archery tags. I still don't see overcrowding where I hunt. Of course that is because I am not afraid to work and get away from the people!

This isn’t about overall elk numbers. This is about bull numbers Vs bulls removed. Predators select for different sexes and age classes through out the year. Hunters on these tags are ONLY selecting for bulls.

I disagree wholeheartedly! As stated above, predators killing cows and calves affects bull numbers. You have to have cows to get future bulls, and some of the calves are future bulls. The calves are also easier prey for predators. I am for high Elk populations and don't at all mind high cow ratios, since they carry the calves.

The reason all of the units in the Blues and Wallowas went to draw was stated very clearly in their public release. If you only make Starkey controlled, that pressure will be put into other areas next door ie: desolation, sumpter, ukiah. Etc. The reason the cascades are general and the rest of eastern OR is because it’s doesn’t support the same number of animals and therefore becomes self limiting. The reason the NE tags have high pressure is because of the number of elk. Low density elk areas are unlikely to experience that same kind of pressure. But yes, it will go somewhere.

I can tell you I hunt in Northeastern Oregon and do not believe this to be the case. I hunt in the Snake River Unit and don't have to get very far from the roads to be away from crowds. I am also in Elk "Every" day. I was within 100 yards of Bulls every day but 2 (out of 11) this last year, and felt like it was an odd/bad year. Been going there for over 10 years. I feel this is just another talking point to fit their narrative! Not buying it, but just one man's opinion.

The “No Mans Land” hunters in your scenario are still playing the points game, so that is not added revenue (unless I misunderstood your wording) as someone else stated, the number of “no point” resident hunter’s (new) $8 app fee will likely not offset the number of (current structure) General Archery NR licenses funds. That’s a bit confusing but hopefully you pick it up- I’ll certainly clarify if it needs it.

We will agree to disagree on this one! I know many who will put in as stated yesterday. No need to re-state. I believe virtually everyone who hunts the East side will put in, but those who are chasing will put in for a second choice.

You should probably do yourself a favor and kill 2-3 bears a year if you are seeing that many and invite friends along to boot. Help the local herds yourself, and maybe you do. I won’t get behind the free bear tags but could get behind a cougar permit just coming with a hunting license purchase. I could see the benefit in that.

I buy tags but can't actively hunt Spring Bear (Coaching High School Baseball - Volunteer), so I don't buy a Spring tag. I have killed a cougar, but hard without dogs. That said, I know plenty that don't hunt them due to just another expense. They would however, if they didn't have to pay for a tag. Thus my suggestion. After all, I believe it to be the real problem. Especially here in Western Oregon where ambush predators have a field day, thanks to no thinning in our National Forest lands. I think this is also the reason for Elk/Deer moving to private lands, and not hunting pressure. People log and thin on private land, so habitat is better!

If hunting numbers are going down across the nation how do you explain a 37% increase in Spring Bear applications in OR. That’s continually spouted but I just haven’t seen clear data that outlines that statement. If you have a source, I’m all ears. And again, this proposal is because of the increase in Archery hunters..

I can tell you, it is spouted on almost every hunting show I watch. Other than that, Spring Bear as an example of increased hunting seems like it might be cherry picking. I don't see Bear Hunting being a measuring stick for hunter numbers. Although I do agree that it has become more popular lately. My thought is due to the increase in people doing Long Range Rifle Hunting??? I don't see it as one of the main hunt animals though!

But thank you for the polite and respectful dialogue. I appreciate the discussion.

Dirstscoots - What about ODFW’s data collection process don’t you believe? They do it the same as SD, WY, MT, AZ, etc. and the “science” on point restrictions has been unanimous no matter what the state/providence. It’s not just an Oregon thing.

Rosie - i agree. I would take opportunity over quality any day. But the central blues are taking a beating by archery hunters, and Starkey (for example) at 6:100 bull:cow ratio needs to be limited in order for a healthy bull:cow ratio to re-establish.

If anyone is interested at a similar issue- look at elk unit 313 in MT, they had a severely low bull:cow ratio and had to implement controlled tags to manage hunters who are selecting ONLY for bulls. I will say it’s not entirely apples to apples but pretty close.

I need to spend more time looking into other states. I have hunted Colorado once, and Montana once. Both were rifle hunts. I will be looking at over the counter hunts in other states though, if this plan goes through. It isn't about the money for me. It is about a reasonable opportunity for me. I just don't see it in Western Oregon where I grew up hunting. I grew up hunting in the Southwest Cascades as I said before. Not many Elk there and mostly a waste of a tag and time. I want to have opportunity in the years I have left. The Coast may be alright, but I haven't enjoyed hunting that terrain as much, so I don't know???

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, Thanks for the respectful responses. Enjoying the debate and putting thought into the topic with other avid Hunters/Outdoorsmen!

 

[BRTreedogs]

Well odfw has changed there tune some in the digging I've done.
When they put the information out last year before the swap to deer draw they said they were considering the changes due to an online forum they had created and they had over 80% complaints of over crowding and elk on private.

They didn't list any biological reasons last year.

 

[slick]

The pressure issues were brought up on the online forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jparker]

I find irony in this statement. To me it seems they are trying to protect the game (lack of healthy bull:cow ratios) and increase hunt quality (reduce pressure and increase # of bulls available)

Also, I doubt it creates any new revenue because (as was stated above) most people already put in for the draw. Ie: your whole points argument. You’re already playing the draw, it’s not going to cost you more monetarily.

2. Not going to turn this about wolves but which is it? Alaska or Canada? The wolves introduced from Canada were much closer to the lower 48 than Alaska.

3. I agree predators can have an effect on game populations, but we can also have an effect on predator populations. 3 bear tags and 2 cougar tags for all- and is the most affordable hunt in OR.
Edit: if you draw a spring bear tag

4. The number of rifle hunters far outweighs the number of archery hunters. Therefore, the supply and demand of these hunts will always make it harder to draw a rifle tag.

5. They just changed the west Cascade bull season to later in the year.

First off, this will without a doubt increase revenue for ODFW, even if only by a small fraction. This is because if the east side goes to a draw, now every hunter must put in for a preference point, which before was not a part of the general season. Therefore, every person wanting to hunt one of the proposed new draw units will be forced to pay the $8 application fee that was not there in the past.

#2, wolves without a doubt have a negative effect on herd health.

#3, in the state of oregon, the largest harvester of game animals is cougar. thats a 100% guarantee. ODFW did a cougar study back around 2014 in Mt. Emily unit where they collared 25 cougar, and followed them for a combines 7000+ days (roughly 305 days each cougar). in that study of just 25 cougar, they found 1200 kill sites, of which 1100 were deer and elk. Thats just in Mt. Emily unit, and just 25 cougar, in under a 1 year period. (https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/research/docs/Cougar_Kill_Rates_Clark_et_al_2014.pdf)

#4 in 2019 there was over 67,000 rifle elk hunters that harvested 11,728 elk. if you take that and compare it to the overall state game management objective numbers for elk (70,200 total elk) thats roughly equivalent to harvesting 16% of the overall state elk herd in 2019 by rifle hunters.

Using the same data for archery hunters, in 2019 oregon had roughly 29,000 archery hunters that harvested 3,571 elk. That equates to 5% of the state game herd taken by archers.

ODFW has never given any factual statistics to justify their own proposals. Instead they continue to use "social science" to justify what they are doing. And this is because the 2000 hunter questionnaire that went out was extremely bias in favor of rifle hunters. This may not have been deliberate, but when you have over 175,000 rifle hunters in the state of oregon and less than 60,000 archery hunters there is no way to truly have a "random" unbiased sample of the hunting population.

Rifle hunters complain about lack of animals because the vast majority of rifle hunters dont want to hike more than a mile from a road, which also leads to overcrowding.

Archery hunters don't want to lose their opportunities.


In my opinion, if ODFW truly wants to make changes, then they need to be state wide. if a draw is truly inevitable, then make everything a draw, state wide, and completely eliminate the preference point system. OFDW is supposed to manage our game herds and opportunity for future generations (The mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.) but they have truly failed in all aspects of their mission statement.

i currently have 16 preference points for elk, and as it stands with the current status of ODFW management status my children will probably never have an opportunity to hunt a big 3 unit.

 

[slick]

First off, this will without a doubt increase revenue for ODFW, even if only by a small fraction. This is because if the east side goes to a draw, now every hunter must put in for a preference point, which before was not a part of the general season. Therefore, every person wanting to hunt one of the proposed new draw units will be forced to pay the $8 application fee that was not there in the past.

#2, wolves without a doubt have a negative effect on herd health.

#3, in the state of oregon, the largest harvester of game animals is cougar. thats a 100% guarantee. ODFW did a cougar study back around 2014 in Mt. Emily unit where they collared 25 cougar, and followed them for a combines 7000+ days (roughly 305 days each cougar). in that study of just 25 cougar, they found 1200 kill sites, of which 1100 were deer and elk. Thats just in Mt. Emily unit, and just 25 cougar, in under a 1 year period. (https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/research/docs/Cougar_Kill_Rates_Clark_et_al_2014.pdf)

#4 in 2019 there was over 67,000 rifle elk hunters that harvested 11,728 elk. if you take that and compare it to the overall state game management objective numbers for elk (70,200 total elk) thats roughly equivalent to harvesting 16% of the overall state elk herd in 2019 by rifle hunters.

Using the same data for archery hunters, in 2019 oregon had roughly 29,000 archery hunters that harvested 3,571 elk. That equates to 5% of the state game herd taken by archers.

ODFW has never given any factual statistics to justify their own proposals. Instead they continue to use "social science" to justify what they are doing. And this is because the 2000 hunter questionnaire that went out was extremely bias in favor of rifle hunters. This may not have been deliberate, but when you have over 175,000 rifle hunters in the state of oregon and less than 60,000 archery hunters there is no way to truly have a "random" unbiased sample of the hunting population.

Rifle hunters complain about lack of animals because the vast majority of rifle hunters dont want to hike more than a mile from a road, which also leads to overcrowding.

Archery hunters don't want to lose their opportunities.


In my opinion, if ODFW truly wants to make changes, then they need to be state wide. if a draw is truly inevitable, then make everything a draw, state wide, and completely eliminate the preference point system. OFDW is supposed to manage our game herds and opportunity for future generations (The mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.) but they have truly failed in all aspects of their mission statement.

i currently have 16 preference points for elk, and as it stands with the current status of ODFW management status my children will probably never have an opportunity to hunt a big 3 unit.

The archery hunters only taking 5% of the statewide elk is a misrepresentation of the harvest statistics amongst the Blue Mtns that are up for change.

And if you change the 3 units that are most impacted, all that pressure spills over into the other Blue Mtn units.

While that is true about the Big Game survey, the archery hunters that did comment- commented about pressure issues. Rifle hunters wouldn’t have a clue what pressure is like during archery season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jparker]

The archery hunters only taking 5% of the statewide elk is a misrepresentation of the harvest statistics amongst the Blue Mtns that are up for change.

And if you change the 3 units that are most impacted, all that pressure spills over into the other Blue Mtn units.

While that is true about the Big Game survey, the archery hunters that did comment- commented about pressure issues. Rifle hunters wouldn’t have a clue what pressure is like during archery season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the Northeast zone, a total of 384 elk (271 bulls) were harvested by archery hunters in 2019 which is an 18% success rate. there were 2,081 archery hunters in the Northeast zone.

for the Northeast zone, a total of 5,322 elk (2,805 bulls) were harvested by rifle hunters in 2019, which is a 24% success rate. there were 21,741 rifle hunters in the Northeast zone.

the Northeast Zone, according to the ODFW harvest statics encompasses:
beulah
cathrine creek
chesnimnus
columbia basin
desolation
fossil
heppner
imnaha
keating
minam
mt. emily
murderer's creek
northside
pine creek
sled springs
snake river
starkey
sumpter
ukiah
walla walla
weneha

please tell me how archery hunters taking 5% of oregons herd is a misrepresentation of the harvest statistics.

here's a quick glance at the effects of archery vs rifle using the data available from ODFW.

according to ODFW there is roughly 51,575 elk in those units (on the low end).
384/51575=.007
.007*100= .7% of the herd population taken by archery hunters.

5322/51575=.103
.103*100 = 10.32% of the herd population taken by rifle hunters.

 

[wapitibob]

An $8 app fee doesn't replace a non resident Elk license and tag at $760 that goes away because all the new controlled hunts will have a 5% cap.

Oregon doesn't have 175,000 rifle hunters nor 60,000 bow hunters. Those are combined Deer and Elk tag numbers.

Show me where ODFW guaranteed you or your kids a big 3 tag...

 

[jparker]

An $8 app fee doesn't replace a non resident Elk license and tag at $760 that goes away because all the new controlled hunts will have a 5% cap.

Oregon doesn't have 175,000 rifle hunters nor 60,000 bow hunters. Those are combined Deer and Elk tag numbers.

that is correct, if you separate rifle elk and deer, in 2019, there was 67,310 rifle elk, and 98,723 rifle deer hunters, some of those are the same people, but going by ODFW statistics, they don't differentiate between only rifle deer, or only rifle elk.

Also, there was 29,394 archery elk hunters and 29,558 archery deer hunters, and again, ODFW does not differentiate between the two in their statistics.

no matter how you look at it, rifle hunters outnumber archery numbers by over 2:1.

 

[jparker]

An $8 app fee doesn't replace a non resident Elk license and tag at $760 that goes away because all the new controlled hunts will have a 5% cap.

Oregon doesn't have 175,000 rifle hunters nor 60,000 bow hunters. Those are combined Deer and Elk tag numbers.

Show me where ODFW guaranteed you or your kids a big 3 tag...

also, in regards to the 5% NR cap and NR tag fees, you are correct, the $8 fee does not replace that, but also ODFW did not propose to cap the NR tags on the OTC units, only on the draw units, which is already the case for all draw units in the state, both archery and rifle alike.

and in response to your comment about my kids being guaranteed a big 3 tag, I never said they should be guaranteed anything. i was merely stating that with current management practices, and point creep, my children will never have the chance to draw the tag. yes, everybody gets put in the 25% pool, however the odds are increasingly against everybody in that pool.

There are many states that have far superior draw systems, and as i said in a previous post, i'm more accepting of eliminating the point system all together.

 

[wapitibob]

They're converting unlimited OTC units to controlled hunts with a 5% nr cap, 550 nr license/tag lost was their estimate with their 1st proposal. I'd guess about half that with this new one.

Points aren't going anywhere; every state but two has them and none are looking at getting rid of them.

 

[elkocd]

I love listening to all the OR hunters blame the elk hunting on predators while I'm out hunting elk with grizzly bears all around, listening to and seeing wolves all over and still it's the best elk hunting you can imagine. 100X what OR is! OR elk have a lot of problems, and predators definitely don't help, but if you're hanging your hat on that as the biggest problem, then you guys need to broaden your horizons a bit

 

[ScottP]

This proposal has the ability to eliminate the crowding issues provided they limit the number of tags (nr will be cut to 5%.) It addresses the rifle draw inequity in all of the primary eastern Elk units. And, It maintains unlimited OTC archery hunting for those residents that don't draw an archery or rifle controlled hunt. It's the best option I've seen so far.

Well said.

OR is not unique in it's struggle to address OTC issues, crowding, R/NR allocations, tag portability, etc.

 

[slvrslngr]

This is an interesting discussion. One issue that people don’t like to talk about is poaching. With the huge population increase over the last 20 years, poaching had increased as well. Who knows what effect it has on elk and deer numbers? I don’t, but I bet it’s way more than most people think. I’m planning on burning my elk points next year (13) and getting out of Oregon elk hunting, for better or worse.

 

[slick]

Anyway this shakes out someone’s unhappy.

To the points about numbers of harvest above. It’s still unfair to look at it as a NE total, it needs to be evaluated at the unit level and then consider the potential for displaced pressure onto surrounding units. Currently 7 of those units are already under an archery controlled hunt framework. So pressure and tag numbers are currently manageable in 7 of the total proposed NE 22-23 units

The units most affected by archery hunters under the current general framework are Heppner and Starkey.

2019 General archery data:
Starkey: 1604 hunters 204 bulls
Heppner: 1556 hunters 219 bulls

2019 rifle data (any elk):
Starkey: 461 hunters 118 bulls (on any bull)
Heppner: 687 hunters 134 bulls
Add(mostly private)267 tags and 48 bulls

Heppner archery hunters are killing 17% more “any bulls” than the controlled rifle hunts. To match the number of bulls killed during the LE rifle hunt ODFW would need to offer 1294 tags at current success rates. As the number of archery killed bulls increase, rifle tags would have to decrease under current framework because that’s the only thing ODFW would have management authority over.

Starkey- 72% more bulls killed via Gen archery than rifle.

If you make those 2 controlled and displace hunters into the units East or south of the above mentioned -you’ll end up with the same complaints from archers about over crowding and pressure, thus the reasoning for the current proposal.

Edit to add: I’m primarily an archery hunter, and don’t like that this will limit me, but I can understand the necessity for it.

 

[Dirtscoots]

I don’t see how it won’t affect the over crowding issues that already are here on the west side.

 

[slick]

I don’t see how it won’t affect the over crowding issues that already are here on the west side.

Overcrowding for Rosies? Where? Saddle Mtn and Trask?

NW & SW combined have a total of 9,691 hunters as of last year.

NE alone had 11,745

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirtscoots]

It’s really easy to look at onx and say there is a lot of area on west side how can it be over crowded. You just mentioned capping two overpopulated units. So will out of those two units say they cap the tags at 1000 each. Will that bring another 1000 hunters to the coast? That can add up pretty quickly especially given the non res with no points will have very little chance in a drawing it seems that would push more to the general hunt.

 

[slick]

I’m familiar with the coast.

I don’t think ODFW has released tag numbers yet and I think the public meetings are in June and finalized tag numbers in September.

No one will know how pressure settles unless it’s adopted and given 3 years.

There are always going to be pockets of pressure and pockets of nil. But right now, given it’s an “opportunity state” the opportunity areas will shift, maybe in due course ODFW will feel the need to decrease over-crowding on the coast?

I’d also wager most NR that are putting in for the Blues arent going to hunt General coast. I could be wrong but I just don’t see it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

I can tell you alot of us that live in Central Oregon are planning on piling into the cascades when this happens.
Wait until Black tail season this year. You may want to buy some bullet proof vests its gonna be a war zone.
The pressure will just keep moving to the next best general area until the entire state is draw.

I know very very few like maybe 2 people that weren't already buying points.
And I also know very few people that won't keep putting in for the same old hard to draw spot.