NORTHEASTERN ELK (ROSEBURG PLM PROGRAM)

[killintime]

If you are planning on hunting the Pondosa area if you are lucky enough to draw a Northeastern Elk tag, you might want to think again. Thanks to Fish and Game, Roseburg Timber Company has closed down 28,000 acres of prime elk habitat near Pondosa. Fish and Game required Roseburg to close the 28,000 acres down to hunting in order for Roseburg to enroll in the Private Land Mangegment Program (PLM). This program allows Roseburg to receive 2 Bull and 2 Cow tags for this area. Roseburg can sale the the tags but one of the bull tags was auctioned off for $17,000 dollars at a RMEF Banquet. Looks like Devils Garden and the Warners may be getting a little more hunting pressure this year.

 

[nickman]

So, what you are saying is that, DFG gave Roseburg Lumber 2 bull tags, under the PLM program and then took one away for an RMEF banquet?"........doubtful.

That ain't how the system works.

"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"

 

[killintime]

Roseburg received 2 bull tags and 2 cow tags and gave one of the bull tags to RMEF for auction. That tag was auctioned for $17,000 at the Siskiyou RMEF Chapter Banquet. Fish and Game did not require Roseburg to donate a tag. However, they did require Roseburg to close down their land to hunting to receive the tags!

 

[sageadvice]

Killintime, Thanks for the report! If drawn, i wasn't planning to hunt the Pondosa area BUT, as you say, that's going to nput that much more pressure on the other known Elk producing areas.

Roseburg owns a lot, a ton of country in this whole north State area. I hope their Policy doesn't change about allowing people to hunt the rest of their holdings. Seems the PLM plan, in their eyes, had to have other benefits other than just getting the two tags. If keeping people "off" is their ultimate goal, that's one way to do it and others maybe to come...

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[tuleelk]

Let me see if I can make a few things clear. Roseburg decided they wanted to join the PLM program. That is 100% their choice as long as they meet the requirements. Any property enrolled in the PLM program is no longer considered part of the zone if they are harvesting animals. So if you have a PLM harvesting deer you are no longer part of that deer zone, same with elk. All harvest on those properties is regulated under the guidelines of the PLM with DFG's harvest numbers (tag #'s, seasons, etc). I would have preferred they not enter the program but that was their decision. Please let me know if anyone has any more questions and I will do my best to answer them.

Thanks

Joe
916 445-9992

 

[killintime]

Tuleelk,

My initial post was to let people know what was going on in the Northeastern Elk Unit more than to bash F&G or Roseburg. However, the fact is that when Roseburg entered the PLM program,F&G required them to close the enrolled 28,000 acres down to public hunting. It is my opinion that if F&G has a program that encourages closure of public hunting opportunities, that everyone should be made aware. Maybe it's time for F&G to change the requirements for landowners to enter the PLM program by not requiring the closure of public hunting. I called F&G regarding this closure last year and spoke to a woman by the name of Carrol or Karen. She told me that she was in charge of the program and to say the least, she was rude. She sounded like your run of the mill politician and did not want to hear any of my input.

This year alone, I have paid over $300.00 to the state of California in application and licence fees. I'm sure that almost everyone else that reads this has too. I think we all have the right to voice our opinions about flaws in F&G programs. I hope that if any employees with F&G reads this thread, that they would agree that PLM program should not close off public hunting opportunities regardless of who owns the land!

Killintime!

 

[sageadvice]

KT, Nice Post, well said!!

Seems one of the requirements of a property to be considered for inclusion to the PLM program, should be if or not, the inclusion would significantly effect the public hunting opportunities in said unit or zone.

In this case, From my understanding, the Pondosa area is, has been a favorite of many who happen to draw the tag and was recommended here on a thread last year as the place to be to get a good bull.

I'm in favor of the PLM program, have friends who are occasionally able to buy some tags. I'll continue to be a fan as long as i don't see where the programs can and will, diminish the ability for "the rest of us Joe Q public guys", to draw tags and hunt.

Joey




"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[Buckhunter1]

Can you still hunt other species such as deer, bear or bandtails on those 28,000 acres? HOPEFUULY! BH1

 

[tuleelk]

I can fully understand everyones concern. We do not require that they be fully closed to public hunting. Under the PLM rules they are no longer in that zone, they are their own zone now. They could allow public access other than for those species which are included in their PLM management plan. They are a private business and can close their property or change their access rules at any time. Currently there are no provisions in the PLM program which prohibits a landowner from stopping access it has allowed in the past to enter the PLM program.
I know no Karen or anyone with a name similar to that who works with the PLM program. Victoria is in charge of it out of Sacramento and there is a women for Region one, Jennifer, that runs the program in that Region. If anyone of those names rings a bell please let me know.
I will bring the access thought at the next PLM meeting but I am not sure what rules can be implemented that limit private property owners from setting rules on their property for access. It has been brought up before and I will bring it up again. Again let me state, I understand the frustration and concern over these types of things.

Thanks

Joe

 

[sageadvice]

Thanks Joe! You probably see like i do how things are going all over for our Western Big game hunting, those with the cash are seemingly most benefiting yet, unless i'm wrong, it was, has been the money raised from the masses that have funded and supported the wildlife, law enforcement, and the different programs.

I just happen to be one who saw his Grandfather, let every single person who knocked on our door, go hunting on our property near Mt Diablo. I also now live and hunt a area with vast private timber holdings and would hate to think of what would happen to hunting around here if the Owners for some reason decided to go PLM and close off access.

Were tags for the N. Eastern Elk zone reduced this year?

Thanks again Joe!!

Joey





"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[killintime]

Tuleelk,

F&G did in fact require the closure of elk hunting on the 28,000 acres of Roseburg land to enroll in the PLM program, did it not? That is my point, I hope that other private timber companies do not enroll in the PLM program and shut down their lands to public hunting. F&G should reward private landowners for doing their part in improving habitat. However, giving them landowner tags and requiring them to close down public hunting opportunities is just not right. Why didn't F&G give Roseburg landowner tags for allowing public hunting access instead of requiring them to close it off to receive them? Just doesn't sit well with me. What is the season dates for those PLM tags? Why should the PLM tags have a better opportunity than any other tag in that unit? Roseburg does own the land but not the animals, correct? I think the PLM program needs to be reevaluated and should reward access for public hunting access, not discourge it! Right?

 

[tuleelk]

Seems I may have created more confusion than clarity. There are two different types of tags other than general draw tags. There are landowner tags and there are PLM tags. Landowner tags work this way, for any particular hunt (single hunt code) 20% of the alloted tags are available to landowners. It works like this for any hunt with 5 tags there is another tag available to landowners. So a hunt that has 10 tags also has 2 tags available to landowners. If there are more landowners applying than tags then a lottery is held. With landowner tags the property is still part of that zone. If the landowner enrolls in the PLM program you are no longer a part of that zone for any species harvested under the PLM program. Every landowner in the PLM program can only harvest animals with PLM tags and not general tags. That is a requirement of the program, same thing when Roseburg enrolled. Since that hunt zone has more landowners applying for landowner tags there is a draw for the tags. Some years Roseburg received tags some years they did not.
Part of the PLM program is habitat enhancement, which is identified in their management plan. That is not required under the landowner tag system. The season is longer under the PLM program and the number if tags is set as allocated by the Regional biologist. I understand the frustration with how the system works. Can it be improved, absolutely. Am I trying to improve it, yes I am. But right now there are rules and regulations which the Department has to go by and can not discriminate with landowners. Be it timber company or not all landowners have the same rights. Do not be surprised if more timber companies want into the PLM program, they are looking for ways to make money just like everyone else. I can honestly say I am completely unhappy with it but I am limited in what actions or responses I implement according to Fish and Game Code and Title 14.
No tag quota in the NE was reduced last year or this year. I encourage anyone who has concerns to give me a call or contact the timber company directly. Feedback does help.

Joe 916 445-9992

I also figured out which Karen you spoke to. I had to think higher than those directly in charge of the PLM program.

 

[marburg]

>Tuleelk,
>
>My initial post was to let
>people know what was going
>on in the Northeastern Elk
>Unit more than to bash
>F&G or Roseburg. However, the
>fact is that when Roseburg
>entered the PLM program,F&G required
>them to close the enrolled
>28,000 acres down to public
>hunting. It is my opinion
>that if F&G has a
>program that encourages closure of
>public hunting opportunities, that everyone
>should be made aware. Maybe
>it's time for F&G to
>change the requirements for landowners
>to enter the PLM program
>by not requiring the closure
>of public hunting. I called
>F&G regarding this closure last
>year and spoke to a
>woman by the name of
>Carrol or Karen. She told
>me that she was in
>charge of the program and
>to say the least, she
>was rude. She sounded like
>your run of the mill
>politician and did not want
>to hear any of my
>input.
>
> This year alone, I have
>paid over $300.00 to the
>state of California in application
>and licence fees. I'm sure
>that almost everyone else that
>reads this has too. I
>think we all have the
>right to voice our opinions
>about flaws in F&G programs.
>I hope that if any
>employees with F&G reads this
>thread, that they would agree
>that PLM program should not
>close off public hunting opportunities
>regardless of who owns the
>land!
>
> Killintime!


The ultimate goal of fish and game in California is to end all hunting for the average joe, they will do it slowly, one little step at a time. Eventually it will only be rich people hunting like in Europe.

 

[huntaddict]

It would only be worth it for timber companies to enroll in the PLM
program if they have elk, sheep, or antelope on their property , most don't. I'd hate to see ALL timber land closed to the public, some timber companies don't allow recreation on their land as it is, most people don't know. It is private land, they can do what they want. I've found most people don't like the gov. telling them what to do but they don't mind them telling someone else what to do if it benefits them.......

 

[tawstaxidermy]

one thing that might put a little ease to this ,is if they opperated like utha on there plm program. give them there landowner tags but also give the public a chance to draw one of there tags. If they get three give one to the public draw. more oppertunity for us in drawling a tag plus it spreads out the apps. Giving plm ranchs there own unit is a bunch of crock. They dont own the game . yes habitate improvment is good but now they can even get more of the states game on there ranch to hunt for themselfs with long prime dates to hunt them . unfair yes, I myself know of three ranches you will never get a tag for because , deals where made to so the richer familys can have a place to hunt every november, The whole month of november. I thought it was to improve habitate and game , but this doesnt help the game if you basically bait them in with good food and water and kill them in the rut. poor practice, big cash. I give up.