My Mule Deer Plan For OR

kickerbuck · Mar 11, 2012

Ok, We all know how bad the Deer hunting is in Oregon. So here is what I think ODFW should do for starters.

1) The first thing they should do is change the bag limit from visible antler to fork or better, for both Rifle and Bow. This would allow the spikes that hang out by the roads with their moms, one year of safety. Some of them might get a little smarter by the time the next hunting season rolled around. Road hunters kill a ton of spikes each year, NOT GOOD! MORE SPIKES = MORE BUCKS!

2) Like Nevada has done, have a first and second season in some units. The 1st season should be the same as always the 1st week of Oct but the season should only be 5 days. This is plenty of time to hunt, and the meat hunters could still have a great chance to get a deer. The 2nd should be later in Oct for the guys that would rather horn hunt a little. Same deal - only a 5 day season. 10 days total - this would give the deer a one or two day break from the way it is now, and might make for a better hunt for us?

If you are on this forum then I'm sure you love Mule Deer like me. They deserve the best Management and respect we can give them! ODFW could do some little changes like this and hunters could still have a good hunt.

IMO

tchoate3 · Mar 12, 2012

I argree that ODFW needs to do something. I like your ideas, I would love to see some changes. They wouldn't have to change every unit but there are some that really need changes. I really like the forked anlter or better, spikes souldn't be harvested IMO. Blacktail have been forked or better forever, why not mule deer? Why anyone would want to shoot a spike is beyond me, is there really enough meat on a spike to justify killing it? I don't think so.

bonepicker · Mar 12, 2012

I think the mule deer problem in Oregon has very little to do with hunter harvest. Alot of other factors come into play. If you look at the chart on page 29 of the 2012 big game regulations, you'll see that hunters account for only 11 percent of the deer harvest in Oregon (nearly all bucks). Poaching (13%) and cougars (14%) account for 27% of the deer killed (probably at least half does) Vehicles are another 10%. The largest portion (46%) is the unknown but it is likely you can put the other statistics into that unknown percentage (11% of the 46% is hunters losing an animal maybe, 13% poachers but the deer is never found, 14% cougars but the deer is too far eaten to make a certain assessment, 10% hit by cars but get far away from the road before dying or die weeks later, etc.)
So realistically, hunters are a very small percentage of the deaths and they are almost exclusively bucks which will not effect population growth unless nearly all are killed (which is not the case) The real impact killers are poachers, cougars and cars, which all kill indiscriminately. and when you start losing large numbers of does, the population really suffers. I think ODFW's efforts should really focus on those 3. Cars you can't do much about, maybe improve signage or create some corridor hunts (within 1 mile of highway X between town A and town B) along roads to haze the deer near highways. But realistically, that won't do alot. Poachers, we can all be watchful and turn in people that we know of that have poached, ODFW could allocate more time or money to investigations, publicity (Poaching is harming our mule deer herds, don't do it, etc) and enforcement, success here would also b limited but we could see improvements. Cougars are really where we could see the biggest improvement. If we can knock down the cougar population, we can see dramatic improvement in the health of out herds. We can all get tags and shoot any cougar we see (Coyotes too), and ODFW could set aside even more funds for predator control. All of this takes money though, are we willing to see more come out of our pockets? Should it just be hunters and sportsmen that bear the weight of management? It's a tricky issue, hopefully the brilliant minds at ODFW are able to come up with some solutions but in the meantime, I'm shooting cougars, 'yotes and turning in poachers. If we all do it we could see it make a difference. My 2 cents (well maybe more like 2 bits)

tchoate3 · Mar 12, 2012

I agree that ther are many other factors Bonepicker. I don't believe that poachers shoot more deer than legal harvest however. I am not convinced the study reflects what really happens. How many collared deer was the study based on? Here are some numbers I gathered from ODFW on hunter harvest in 2010 for these 5 units. Total "reported" harvest of bucks is 1566 (I wonder how many of the 1566 bucks were spikes??) and doe harvest the number is 59, thats a 41% average success rate for those 5 units. I doubt there were over 1600 deer poached in these five units in 2010. I do know poaching happens, and that the state is way to easy on the poachers. We all know predators are a problem as well, up the fines for poaching and use that $ for predator control and the fight against poaching.

kickerbuck · Mar 12, 2012

bonepicker, you make some good points and i don't dispute more could be done on every leval. But you know and I know just changing the bag limit from spike to fork or better would do the herd some good. Every nice buck from 150-200 inches was a little spike at one point.
Hunting camps are full of spikes, and I have seen it first hand. Two yrs ago i saw a spike hanging in a Steens Mt camp are you kidding me?
ODFW could try it for 3 yrs and see what the data looked like after that. As far as harvest % I think it is different in every unit, but I would think it is higher than 11%.

kickerbuck · Mar 13, 2012

sorry... that should have said more could be done on every "level"

NickW · Mar 13, 2012

I would disagree that every 150 to 200" buck was once a spike.
In fact I would suggest that the majority of 1 1/2 year old bucks are at least forkies!

kickerbuck · Mar 13, 2012

You're right some do put on a fork with their first set of horns. I guess what I should of said to be 100 % correct was every 150 to 200 inch buck was a toe-head at one point. There is that better?

bonepicker · Mar 13, 2012

Nick, I would agree! I don't think that the progression is always spike, forkie, 3-point, etc. Many just skip the spike stage and start out as forkies.
As far as a point limit goes, I remember a time when I was in Jr. High that I shot the first buck that I saw (little tiny thing). The last day of the season, I saw a great buck that would have been an easy shot but I had no tag, that buck lived on. If I had not been able to take the small buck, I would have likely got the big buck. For the health of the herd, it was better that the big buck went on to breed his does that fall, the little buck would not have done any breeding for at least a year and it would have been several years before he really had an impact on the breeding scene.
Another time, my brother shot a yearling and when we skinned it, it had very little fat. It didn't seem diseased or anything, it just clearly hadn't put on enough weight to survive the winter. If he had allowed that buck to walk, it would have likely died.
In both of those cases (and probably plenty of others), shooting the smaller bucks was better for the herd.

I think if the problem with our herds is really too much legal buck harvest (which I still doubt) then the solution is to reduce overall tag numbers. That may be needed in some units (like Malheur River and Beulah, 3700 tags between the two, having hunted both, that seems a little high to me) But really most units can handle the current level of legal buck harvest. I think that the predators (you can include poachers in that category) are the most destructive because of the high number of does that are taken. If we can decrease predation on does and increase the doe numbers, the buck numbers will increase and the herds will bounce back.
Not really an easy solution however you look at it. There are many factors at play.

tchoate3 · Mar 13, 2012

Good point on the point limit topic bonepicker. I wish more hunters were like you and stopped hunting after they shoot a dink, unfortunatly the majority of hunters are not. It is more common that spikes and forks are killed by hunters who put someone elses tags on them, then they keep hunting for a bigger buck. We all know it happens and in my opinion, that is a form of poaching.
Changing it to fork or better won't fix it, but what would it really hurt?
I really don't think one thing will fix the problem, it is very complex. I know ODFW is trying, it just doesn't seem like they are making ajustments fast enough.

kickerbuck · Mar 13, 2012

bonepicker, again good points! But had you shot that mature buck instead of the little dink it might of been bad for the herd that year but what if the dink lived? In a few years he would have been the mature buck. A buck is mature at 4-5 yrs old IMO.

I was talking to a guy two yrs ago that I only knew through playing basketball with him. I knew he hunted and asked him how his season went? He told me they tagged out, I asked what unit, how many hunters, & any nice bucks? He told me they killed 8 bucks in the Ochoco unit 5 spikes 3 forked horns. He said they all shot the first buck they saw.

So all I am saying is would it really hurt to give the spikes a pardon? I am all for hunters having a good hunt with family and friends as long as it is done legally.

tchoate3: I could not agree with you more about the filling of tags! It makes me sick, Seems like you and I are on the same page on alot of things!

robinsg61le · Mar 13, 2012

?good article in this month?s Eastman?s on the mule deer decline. It is argued that the decline can be attributed to a multitude of factors. Accordingly, it is mathematically improbable for reduced tag numbers not to at least HELP mule deer numbers, but I agree, it probably wouldn't help that much.

Loss of habitat through urban sprawl is another significant part of the problem. I have lived all over the Western United States, and have not seen a county that has not had massive housing expanses grow through prime mule deer habitat in my lifetime (less than 40 years). Mule deer do not successfully reproduce in and near civilization as whitetails do. That is why whitetails are so prevalent in the East where wide-open spaces are far fewer.

Bottom line, the experts are starting to say some of the same things? the mule deer decline is not due to any ONE factor, but actually quite a number of factors. We need to work on addressing all of these factors if we want to see improved mule deer numbers.

BlueMountainAdventures · Mar 14, 2012

The number of points on a deers antler has nothing to do with his age. A spike buck is BAD genes and need to be eliminated for quality breeding. A 1.5 year old buck with good genetics should be a forkie, and a 2.5 year old buck should be a small 4pt. spikes and 3 point bucks are just a product of poor genetics.
I agree though, its not hunter harvest thats the deers problems, its the fact that its OVER harvested by OTHER predators. PREDATOR control and habitat improvement is where its at, IMHO.

And until the deer numbers get back to management levels, cutting tags for a few years would speed up the process. But we all know...THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN....ODFW will lose too much revenue. ODFW is NOT about managing the wildlife as much as it is managing its budget. We need new blood, new directors in ODFW....ones that actually care about the wildlife first n foremost.

koyote · Mar 14, 2012

Yea Harney county has had MASSIVE expansion and our deer are some of the hardest hit in the state. That one is funny, our habitat is still great here and has never changed due to sprawl and our deer heards are horrible! To many predators, Coyotes mainly I think, some cats but when coyotes don't have rabbits their gonna eat our fawns and 4-5 years of that and pretty quick no more deer. I do not think the juniper encroachment is helping either. I really don't know what happened to our rabbit population either, there are almost none, even in the areas that had thousands. Mabye they are being managed by the ODFW.

440sixpack · Mar 14, 2012

Here is the thing in my opinion, as hunters our role is to harvest the excess for the good of the herd. that's what we're told when we take our hunters ed class anyway.

So , who wants to say there's an excess of mule deer anywhere in Oregon? OK then game over , no tags this year.

I'll be the first to agree legal hunting is not the problem, but no excess means no hunting, no hunting means no money for ODFW and no money means if they want money they're going to have to get off their butts and manage the deer if they want to keep their jobs.

Keep paying ODFW to do the same thing and you're going to get the same thing. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where that's going to take us.

Stay thirsty my friends

bonepicker · Mar 14, 2012

I'd support a one year moratorium on deer. Sell a preference point that year for the price of a tag, use any of the money that comes in to knock down the cougar population.

kickerbuck · Mar 15, 2012

So, Blue Mtn, I talked to an Oregon Big game Biologist today and Ryan Hatch. I asked them if a spike buck is the result of just bad genetics, and is it possible for them to turn into a nice 4 pt or better? They both said the same thing, just because a little buck is a spike his first year means nothing. In fact Ryan said it could go on to become a 24 pt or a 280 buck, we simply don't know.

Here's the deal: when a little buck only puts on a spike it could be because he was dropped late, it was a drought year, the mom had a low milk supply due to the late fawn drop, and the main thing was NUTRITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ryan told me something I'm sure 99% of hunters don't know (including myself) and that is: the doe carries the dominant gene as far as genetics are concerned. So to just say all spikes should be shot because of bad genetics is POOR management. The fact is there is no study or fact to prove what that little buck will turn into!

LIKE I SAID MORE SPIKES=MORE BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BlueMountainAdventures · Mar 15, 2012

Somewhat true. Breeding times have a lot to do with it. Like elk tho, juvenile males breeding usually produce late bloomers. In a perfect world 2.5 year old bulls can be nice lil 6x6 bulls, same with deer... Should be lil 4x4.

But last I checked.....Oregon game management is FAR from a perfect world, they are more into managing $$$$ than wildlife. If they really cared like they get paid to, they would be cutting a lot of tags n hunts to help with low deer numbers.

IMHO...... It's a combination of many things as to why Oregon deer hunting are rapidly declining. I would sacrifice not hunting certain units for a few years....

So, Blue Mtn, I talked to
>an Oregon Big game Biologist
>today and Ryan Hatch. I
>asked them if a spike
>buck is the result of
>just bad genetics, and is
>it possible for them to
>turn into a nice 4
>pt or better? They
>both said the same thing,
>just because a little buck
>is a spike his first
>year means nothing. In fact
>Ryan said it could go
>on to become a 24
>pt or a 280 buck,
>we simply don't know.
>
>Here's the deal: when a little
>buck only puts on a
>spike it could be because
>he was dropped late, it
>was a drought year, the
>mom had a low milk
>supply due to the late
>fawn drop, and the main
>thing was NUTRITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Ryan told me something I'm sure
>99% of hunters don't know
>(including myself) and that is:
>the doe carries the dominant
>gene as far as genetics
>are concerned. So to just
>say all spikes should be
>shot because of bad genetics
>is POOR management. The fact
>is there is no study
>or fact to prove what
>that little buck will turn
>into!
>
>LIKE I SAID MORE SPIKES=MORE BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

tchoate3 · Mar 16, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12 AT 06:51AM (MST)[p]Cutting tags wouls help, Metoilus unit is a good example. They cut rifle tags way back a few years ago, now there are alot more deer in that unit. There is also mutiple seasons: general bow, controlled rifle, two muzzy hunts and two late archery Hunts. They should manage more units like Metolius

koyote · Mar 16, 2012

I also agree with cutting tags as this would help the age class of our bucks we do have but hunting pressure is not our main problem. Cutting tags would help but we are out of all deer not just bucks.

skipbuck · Mar 16, 2012

Guys,

Let's say that predation is the major cause of the decline, and we will include poaching in this category. The next biggest factor has to be hunting pressure! I know it is hard to admit that us hunters are part of the problem, but we are. Every deer that survives five hunting seasons has a chance to get over 170.

Colorado and Nevada has the formula to produce better age stuctured deer herds, the only downside to good managment is, not everone can go kill a truckload of baby deer every year.

It's not a mystery, less tags, more deer.

Wanted · Mar 18, 2012

I would like to see Oregon do a complete restructure of Mule Deer seasons. I would like all units to have controlled seasons. And pick your weapon, archery/muzzleloader/rifle. I'd do this to all units that currently supports over 100 rifle tags. So if a unit has 100 tags, 25% go to archery, 25% to muzzloader and 50% to rifle. I would eliminate all doe tags and only issue antlerless tags on damage areas only (there is no need to kill antlerless animals with the populations as low as they are). I would totally support a statewide minimum bag of fork or better. Bring back hound hunting. Stop urban sprawl onto critical winter ground. Use the property tax $$ of those that have built on winter range to provide feed for wintering deer/elk, help build tunnels and fences to divert migrating deer/elk away from highways and provide a $20 dollar bounty on coyotes. I'd lower the amount of people of a hunting party to 10 (or preferrably 6). Put a $1 surcharge on mule deer tags to fund a few check stations and make it mandatory check in.

Disclosure: I am not one who like more rules/laws but if we don't start putting somethings in place we won't have to worry about what we coulda shoulda woulda done.

kickerbuck · Mar 19, 2012

Wanted- I think you should submit that to ODFW asap! I'm with you on all that.

Extrapale · Mar 21, 2012

I disagree. I think the only reason for the Metolius herd semi-recovery was the 100,000+ acre fire.

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-12
>AT 06:51?AM (MST)
>
>Cutting tags wouls help, Metoilus unit
>is a good example. They
>cut rifle tags way back
>a few years ago, now
>there are alot more deer
>in that unit. There is
>also mutiple seasons: general bow,
>controlled rifle, two muzzy hunts
>and two late archery Hunts.
>They should manage more units
>like Metolius

tchoate3 · Mar 21, 2012

>I disagree. I think the only
>reason for the Metolius herd
>semi-recovery was the 100,000+ acre
>fire.

The fire did help,that I agre with. But cutting the tags is why there are more deer. If there were still 1200+ rifle tags the deer would get slaughtered, especially now that alot of it has burned. They don't have enough cover in the burn to escape 1200 hunters.