ODF&W Establishing Archery Technology Advisory Committee

ODF&W is currently in the process of putting together an advisory committee of archery representatives to reviewing archery hunting technology, particularly (but not exclusively) the use of electronic devices on bows and arrows. The committee, to be known as the Archery Technology Advisory Committee, will consider some of the equipment types that are currently prohibited for use in Oregon for hunting in archery-only seasons. The advisory committee may propose that ODF&W change its regulations to allow some of the new equipment while hunting in Oregon. Some of the technology to be discussed is listed below: " Lighted nocks " Lighted sights " Red/Green dot sights " Rangefinders " Cameras " Expandable broadheads " Scopes " Crossbows Oregon Bow Hunters (OBH), Oregon Hunters Association (OHA) and Traditional Archers of Oregon (TAO) will be represented on the advisory committee. OBH will be represented by Wayne Endicott, OBH's VP for Bowhunting, and Craig Starr, OBH's President. If you have interests or concerns regarding equipment that is currently prohibited for hunting in Oregon, please contact Wayne or Craig with your comments.

Craig Starr, President Oregon Bow Hunters

 

ODF&W Proposes Controlled Late Archery Antlerless Elk Hunts to Replace General Late Season in Western Oregon

In the big game public meetings in May and at the June 4th Commission meeting, ODF&W staff rolled out a proposal to establish late-season controlled hunts for antlerless elk in the Alsea, Stott Mountain, Santiam, McKenzie and Indigo units beginning in 2011. The proposal is for these controlled hunts to replace the general late archery antlerless elk season that has been in place in these same units for years.

ODF&W's rationale for establishing the controlled hunts is that elk populations in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units are significantly below management objectives (MO) "despite years of reducing controlled rifle (cow elk) tags." The proposal includes controlling archery tags in the three (3) Cascade units because of vague concerns about lack of hunter success in the general rifle and muzzleloader hunts in those units, and because there is a concern that archers who don't draw tags in the Alsea or Stott Mountain hunts would simply shift to hunting the Cascade units.

ODF&W's conclusion in proposing the change to controlled archery hunts is: "To gain better control of the antlerless harvest a reduction in the harvest by bow hunters is necessary." Simply put, ODF&W's conclusion is BALONEY!!!!!!!!

First, during the last six (6) hunting seasons (2004 through 2009), rifle hunters harvested 1,695 cow elk in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units combined while bowhunters harvested 455 cow elk. Rifle hunters harvested 3.7 cow elk in the units for every cow elk taken by a bow hunter. Second, rifle cow harvests through the 2004-2009 seasons averaged nearly 45 percent while the success rate for bowhunters over the same period averaged less than 3 percent.

ODF&W makes a great deal of the fact that they have gradually been reducing rifle cow elk tags in recent years while the number of bowhunters hunting in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units has increased substantially. However, they fail to note that rifle success rate has maintained while the success rate for archers has generally trended down as the bowhunter numbers have increased. During the 2004 - 2008 seasons, there was no statistical increase in the actual archery cow elk harvest in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units even though bowhunter numbers increased by almost 42 percent. ODF&W's proposal appears to be based entirely on the single exception of the 2009 data, which appears to be a statistical anomaly that defies the trend of harvest success rates. As a bowhunter, it is interesting that ODF&W chose to submit their proposal following the first year when the data would finally show some modest improvement for bowhunters rather than all of the previous years when the harvest trends clearly favored rifle hunters.

ODF&W has proposed to reduce rifle cow tags in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units to 377 tags for 2010. This will be a 47 percent reduction from the 711 rifle cow tags in 2004 and a 17 percent reduction from the 453 tags in 2009. On the other hand, ODF&W proposes to limit late-season archery antlerless elk tags in the same units in 2011 to 750 tags. This would be a 64 percent reduction from the 2,068 bowhunters using the units in 2004 and a 78 percent reduction from the 3,436 bowhunters in 2009. In other words, even though rifle hunters have harvested far more cow elk in the units than bowhunters, ODF&W proposes to impact bowhunters' opportunities to a much greater extent in one (1) action than rifle hunters have been cumulatively impacted over the past six (6) seasons.

Using the tag numbers proposed so far by ODF&W and the historic success rates for rifle hunters and bowhunters, ODF&W's proposal is likely to increase the relative harvest of cow elk in the Alsea and Stott Mountain units from 3.7:1 to 8.0:1 - more than doubling the historic advantage which already greatly favored rifle hunters. How can ODF&W see this as being fair to bowhunters?

I have focused on the Alsea and Stott Mountain units because the concern over elk populations being below MO in those units seems to be driving the entire proposal. However, many of the same arguments applicable to those units can also be made with respect to the three (3) Cascade units that are part of the proposal even though the proposed impacts on bowhunters would be less severe in those units. ODF&W's proposal would reduce the number of bowhunters in the Cascade units by about 320 hunters per year from existing effort levels even though rifle hunters also harvest many more cow elk in those units than do bowhunters.

I don't have any problem with ODF&W limiting the harvest of antlerless elk when the elk population is below MO and needs help. However, I strenuously object to them doing it in the manner of the ODF&W proposal which is clearly and substantially biased against bowhunters and in favor of rifle hunters. I want to see a proposal from ODF&W that maintains the historic balance between rifle and archery harvests. If you agree, I encourage you to write or E-mail the Fish and Wildlife Commission on this matter prior to their October 1st meeting in Bend when they will consider the ODF&W proposal for adoption.

Craig Starr, President Oregon Bow Hunters

 

ODF&W Proposes Antlerless Elk Controlled Hunts

ODF&W’s staff biologists are proposing changing the rules regarding the late antlerless archery elk hunt in a portion of the Coast Range and the Cascades.  The Alsea, Stott Mountain , Santiam, McKenzie and northern Indigo units that have been open for the late general season would become controlled hunts under the proposal being made by ODF&W.

The initial information from ODF&W indicates the following likely tag numbers:  Alsea (500), Stott Mountain (250), Santiam (800), McKenzie (800) and Indigo (600).  Hunters applying for and drawing tags for the proposed controlled hunts would also be able to hunt elk during the early general archery elk season, but those not drawing a tag would be excluded from hunting the late season.

The following information is based on reviewing two of the last five years of ODF&W’s big game hunting statistics:

Rifle hunters outnumbered bowhunters about 14,000 to about 9,500 in the five (5) units that the proposal would impact.  In other words, only about 1.5 times as many rifle hunters were hunting the units as bowhunters.

	Rifle hunters harvested 3.8 times as many antlerless elk as did bowhunters.
	Rifle hunters harvested about 2.7 times as many bull elk as did bowhunters.
	Rifle hunters harvested about 3 times as many total elk as did bowhunters.

	The overall success rate for the five units was over twice as high for rifle hunters (9%) as for bowhunters (4%).
	The success rate for bowhunters in the late antlerless elk season varied from 0 to 4% depending on the unit over the two (2) years reviewed.  The success rate for rifle hunters in their controlled antlerless elk hunts varied from 14 to 47% over the same period.

Without any indication that rifle tags will be reduced, the proposal seems to be another case where bowhunters are being singled out by ODF&W to address a problem that is to a larger extent being caused by rifle hunters’ harvests (along with increased predation and other factors, of course).  Although not as severe, this proposal is more of the type of misdirection that was involved last year with the MDI units where rifle hunters take 10 to 12 times as many deer as bowhunters, but bowhunters were singled out for regulation.

ODFW staff will present and accept public comment on the proposal at the series of statewide meetings that began May 3rd. Comments can also be emailed to ODFW.Comments@state.or.us or mailed to ODFW, Information and Education, 3406 Cherry Ave NE , Salem , OR 97303 .  E-mail or written comments should be submitted as soon as possible so they can be considered by the Wildlife Commission at their meeting on June 4, 2010.

Craig Starr, President

Oregon Bowhunters to Oppose Scheduled Early Start of Youth Elk Hunts

Several individual Oregon bow hunters plan on asking the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to immediately enact an emergency closure of a portion of the new youth antlerless elk tag hunts at their June 4th meeting in Salem. These hunts are currently scheduled to run from August 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. The request will be for the Commission to delay the start of the youth elk hunts by about one (1) month. While several of the people involved in the effort to delay the start of the youth elk hunts are OBH members and/or officers, the effort is not an official OBH action for the simple reason that it was not proposed for a vote at the recent OBH Convention in Lincoln City. While we suspect that OBH's membership would heavily support the effort to delay the start of the youth elk hunts, it cannot be an OBH effort under the OBH Constitution and By-Laws without authorization by the membership. There are numerous problems with the new youth elk hunts, and it is our opinion that they were enacted without a thorough evaluation of the need for the hunts and/or the expected consequences of the hunts. However, our request to close the August portion of the open season for 2010 is based on one simple fact: 

HUNTING COWS WITH NURSING CALVES IN AUGUST IS INHUMANE AND UNETHICAL

In early August, a substantial percentage of calves will be immature and completely dependent on nursing by their mothers if they are to survive to become adults. In our view, hunting antlerless elk under those conditions is inhumane and unethical. The apparent willingness of ODF&W staff and the Commission to promote this type of hunt without any biological justification of the need for the hunt is very disturbing. Do the Commission and ODF&W staff really think it is a good idea to have a youth hunter kill a cow in early August, and have the surviving calf stand and bawl for it's mother while the dead cow is processed? Do they really think this will instill in that young hunter a love for the hunt, and all the things that go along with it? Do they really think that having to find and process a large animal in 90 degree heat in rough, unforgiving country will be seen by a young hunter as a fun, meaningful experience? Do they really think that these young hunters and their parent will be prepared to deal with the difficult job of butchering and hauling out an elk under the conditions you can expect to find in August - heat, bees, dirt, etc? And what are they going to say should, God forbid, some animal rights activist be in a position to film the taking of a cow that has a young calf, and place video out for public consumption showing an obviously distraught calf elk bawling while the hunters celebrate the kill? A logical question to ask at this point would be why we are not asking the Commission to end all of the current antlerless hunts that occur in August. In all honesty, we think they should do that for the same reason we think the early start of the new hunts is a bad idea. For most of the other early hunts, however, there are specific management objectives and issues that are the reason behind creating these hunts, such as agricultural damage on private property that can only be dealt with at certain times of the year. That is absolutely not the case with the new hunts. In fact, the youth hunts, which will probably occur primarily on public land, will likely have some additional impact in pushing elk onto private land during the late summer-fall time period, and could very well contribute to an increase in agricultural damage in some areas. In conclusion, we will urge the Commission to close the August portion of these new youth elk hunts for the 2010 season. We will further urge the Commission to use the months ahead to consider a different youth introduction to hunting for 2011. 

Craig Starr
President OBH

 

2/9/10 Wolf Management Plan Up for Review

Oregon's Wolf Management Plan was adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2005. Now, at their meeting on March 12, 2010 in Salem, the Commission is scheduled to hear a review of the Plan by staff. While major changes to the Plan are unlikely to occur at the meeting, more minor Plan updates are likely.

The original Oregon Wolf Management Plan was pretty well developed in anticipation that wolves would, at some point in time, move into Oregon, most likely from Idaho. Now, wolves obviously have moved into Oregon! Within the past year, for example, two (2) wolves attacked livestock in northeast Oregon and were eventually destroyed after attempts to deter their predation on livestock failed. Also, a "pack" of wolves, including young animals, were observed and videoed in the Imnaha Valley area. Wolves have reportedly also been sighted in other areas of Oregon, including the Cascade Range, although at least some of these sightings are unconfirmed.

If you have interest in or concerns about wolves and their distribution in Oregon, you may want to consider attending the Commission's March 12th meeting to learn more.

Craig Star

 

1/31/2010 Mandatory Reporting Legislation Being Developed

ODF&W has started work to develop a legislative proposal to (finally) make "mandatory" reporting on big game tags really mandatory. The proposal would be submitted to the 2011 Oregon Legislature for consideration and, hopefully, enactment. OBH supports mandatory reporting as being important for ODF&W to generate meaningful information for making effective game management decisions and will back ODF&W's legislative concept if it is aptly crafted to get the needed information.

As most of you know, "mandatory" reporting has been "on the books" since the 2007 seasons. However, early in the process, ODF&W experienced problems getting the reporting system functional so the 2007 season's reporting was essentially lost for all practical purposes. Even once the system became functional, the reporting for the 2008 season was extremely low - only about 17% of hunters reported!! Also, the reporting that was done for 2008 showed that successful hunters were far more likely to report than non-successful hunters so the information that was reported could not be correlated with the random telephone survey data of earlier years.

For 2010, ODF&W has established three (3) special tags as an incentive for hunters to complete their 2009 "mandatory" reporting and it seems to be working to some extent! As of January 15th, 28% of hunters had completed reporting. Unfortunately, the deadline for reporting on the majority of 2009 tags expired on January 31st so even though there is an improvement in reporting frequency the final numbers will, in all likelihood, fall far short of the desired level. ODF&W estimates that a minimum reporting return of something on the order of 70-80% is likely to be necessary for the reporting results to be reasonably correlated with the random phone survey results.

On January 28th, ODF&W Wildlife Division staff met with representatives of OHA, FNAWS and OBH to discuss alternative legislative concepts for making reporting truly mandatory. The concepts that were discussed would prohibit someone who failed to report from purchasing a tag the following year (or, maybe, longer) unless the person pays a reinstatement penalty. Most of the discussion centered on the appropriate amount of a penalty and how it should be applied (at application vs. at tag purchase and per tag basis vs. a yearly basis). There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach that was considered. Based on the discussions at the meeting, ODF&W plans to draft a range of proposals and send it back out to the user groups for review and comment before finalizing their legislative proposal.

Stay tuned to the OBH web site for updates as ODF&W moves their legislative mandatory reporting concept forward. Also, this issue will likely be a topic of discussion with ODF&W at the OBH Convention in late February.

Craig Starr

 

1/21/10 Wildlife Commission to Consider Mandatory Hunter Orange Requirement

At their December meeting, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission directed the ODF&W staff to conduct research the for the purpose of allowing the Commission to consider making the wearing of blaze or “hunter” orange clothing mandatory when hunting in Oregon. This matter came up as a result of the fatality of a 15 year old boy who was apparently mistaken for a game animal and shot to death this past hunting season.

The process for this research and consideration is:

	Immediate – ODF&W staff is currently reviewing what other states are doing with regard to requiring use of hunter orange clothing while hunting. A substantial majority of other states apparently have some kind of mandatory hunter orange requirement although the requirements vary considerably state by state.
	May 2010 – ODF&W staff will review the issue with hunters at District big game meetings in their areas.
	June 2010 – ODF&W staff will report their findings and input from the District big game meetings back to the Commission, including a list of possible options that the Commission  can consider if they wish to pursue making hunter orange mandatory for hunting Oregon.
	September-October 2010 – if the Commission decides to pursue an option making hunter orange mandatory at their June meeting,  the final rule will be presented to the Commission by ODF&W staff. If the process reaches this point, the proposed rule to require hunter orange will likely be adopted.

We should all hope that the Commission is wise enough to exempt bow hunters, turkey hunters, waterfowl hunters and predator hunters if they decide to pursue any mandatory hunter orange requirements, but I wouldn’t count on it unless Oregon ’s hunters make their views known!  If you wish to express your views on this matter, you can contact the Commission and/or ODF&W (odfw.commission@state.or.us) now or at any time in the process. Contacting them now and/or participating in the District big game meetings and making your views known will allow your views to be communicated to the Commission at their June meeting when the ODF&W staff reports back to them.

 Craig Starr

 

10/13/09 Wildlife Commission Approves Controlled-Entry Archery Deer Units for 2010

At their October 2^nd meeting, the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission approved a proposal from the ODF&W staff to create four (4) controlled-entry archery deer units in eastern Oregon beginning next year, 2010. The four (4) units are the Maury, Steens Mountain , and North and South Warner units. Bow hunters will now have to apply for and draw a controlled-entry archery deer tag if we wish to hunt in one of the units.

One good thing is that the ODF&W staff withdrew its proposal to restrict individuals drawing the controlled-entry tags from hunting anywhere else in the state. Now, those hunters who draw one of the controlled-entry tags will receive one tag which will be valid for both the controlled-entry unit drawn and the general archery season. Unfortunately, the proposal adopted by the Commission will prohibit bow hunters who do not draw a controlled-entry deer tag from hunting archery elk in any of the four (4) units in spite of testimony against it by Wayne Endicott and Craig Starr of OBH.  

Craig Starr

 

10/13/09 Mandatory Reporting Updated

At their October 2^nd meeting, the Wildlife Commission heard a report from ODF&W staff on the mandatory reporting system. Reporting has been required since 2008 for big game and turkey tags, but the number of hunters reporting has been low (averaging only 17%).  

Beginning in 2010, as an incentive to encourage hunters to report, hunters who complete mandatory reporting will be entered into a drawing to win one of three tags – deer, elk or antelope – and the hunter gets to choose the species.  ODF&W doesn’t have authority to give tags away so the lucky hunters who win a tag will still have to purchase the tag, but the tag will entitle the hunter to hunt during a long season almost anywhere in the state, similar to tags auctioned and raffled each year.  

The reporting schedule was also changed to established definite deadlines for reporting, as follows:

	January 31, 2010 – deadline for reporting all hunts ending by December 31, 2009.
	April 15, 2010 – deadline for reporting all hunts ending Jan. 1 thru March 31, 2010.
	June 30, 2010 – deadline for reporting 2010 spring bear and spring turkey hunts.

The ODF&W staff is considering future penalties if the reporting remains low. Penalties being considered include not being allowed to obtain a tag for a hunt that wasn’t reported on the previous year or payment of a penalty fee for not reporting. Penalties would not take effect until 2011 at the earliest so the need for penalties may still be avoided if hunters report as required.

Craig Starr

 

9/14/09 ODF&W PROPOSES ARCHERY CONTROLLED HUNTS IN 2010

Did you know that ODF&W is proposing to make three (3) eastern Oregon game management units controlled entry for archery deer hunting beginning in 2010?  I was blissfully unaware of the details of any such proposals until just a couple of weeks ago although I’d been hearing vague rumors for months.  ODF&W is apparently making the proposals as part of their opening “Mule Deer Initiative” (MDI) effort to improve mule deer numbers in areas on the east side of the state.  

If ODF&W’s proposals are adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission at their October 2^nd meeting, bow hunters will have to apply for and be drawn in order to obtain tags to hunt deer in the Maury, Steens Mountain and Warner Units in 2010 and beyond. The Warner Unit would be split into North and South Warner areas for the tag drawing as is now the case for rifle hunters.  The current estimate for available tags would be:  Maury  100 tags, Steens Mountain  125 tags, North Warner  50 tags and South Warner  85 tags.  In all likelihood, the proposed tag numbers are high enough that only those applying for the Maury and North Warner Units might not be able to draw a tag without a preference point.

Unfortunately, that’s only part of the story!!  Any bow hunter drawing one of the new controlled entry tags would not be allowed to hunt deer anywhere else in Oregon.  And, the only bow hunters who would be allowed to hunt elk in a selected unit would be those who have a controlled entry deer tag for the unit. 

The latter restriction is apparently not based on any elk management concerns related to archery hunting in the units, but seems to be based solely on making enforcement of the deer tag requirements (and resulting harvest) easier for OSP.  While I understand and appreciate that OSP’s game enforcement program is severely understaffed, I don’t think the ease of enforcement counters the loss of hunting opportunity for Oregon ’s bowhunters inherent in the proposal to tie elk hunting to the controlled-entry deer tags.

In fairness to ODF&W, it is important to note that there are major reductions in rifle deer tags in the Maury and North Warner Units for 2009.  Rifle tags in each of those units have been reduced by at least 50 percent from 2008 tag levels.  With that as background, it doesn’t seem too offensive for archers to have to share in the MDI effort to reduce overall hunting pressure in order to increase mule deer numbers in those units.

Rifle tags have not been likewise reduced in the Steens Mountain Unit where rifle hunters already harvest over 12 deer for every deer taken by a bow hunter.  ODF&W argues that the number of tags they are proposing for the Steens Mountain Unit is greater than the number of bow hunters hunting the unit in recent seasons (that is true) and that making the unit controlled entry won’t reduce archery hunting in the unit.  I believe that ODF&W’s conclusion in that regard is wrong!  While some bow hunters may be willing to make the Steens Mountain Unit their only archery deer hunting opportunity in 2010, I think that most archers who currently hunt in the unit will hunt elsewhere rather than be limited to hunting exclusively in the unit.  Since there is no proposed reduction in tags for rifle hunters (with their overwhelming harvest advantage), there seems to be no legitimate game management rationale for making the Steens Mountain Unit controlled entry for archery deer hunting.

I’m sure that many of you know that ODF&W has recently been under considerable pressure from rifle hunters, including some legislators, who feel that bow hunters have an unfair advantage in our lengthy and nearly state-wide general archery season.  I will willingly support any MDI (or other game management) initiatives when they are based on a sound game management foundation and when any necessary tag reductions are shared appropriately by all hunters.  However, I absolutely oppose proposals that seem to be based only on some political objective, like relieving the political pressure on ODF&W, or that make bow hunters a scapegoat with new restrictions while hunters using other weapons continue to be allowed to hunt and harvest at current levels.

I have already contacted ODF&W with my personal opposition to making the Steens Mountain Unit controlled entry for archery deer hunting and to the proposal prohibiting elk hunting in the controlled entry units without a controlled entry deer tag. ODF&W staff has told me that any written comments received before the October 2^nd Commission meeting will be included in the information to be considered by the Commission.  Whether you support or oppose ODF&W’s proposals, I would urge you to let ODF&W know how you feel about the proposals so the Commission can get a sense for how Oregon bow hunters think the proposals will impact us.

Craig Starr

 

02/11/09  Legislative Alert
We have just been informed that OSP Fish and Wildlife Division is being asked to take a $950,000 General Fund cut this biennium with permanent cuts to be made next biennium. If implemented this will have both immediate and long term impacts.

In the short term (beginning March 1) it will result in the immediate layoff of 28 game officers and 6 sergeants as well as the airplane program.  

In the long term (beginning July 1) it will result in an actual loss of 13 game officers and 3 sergeants.  

The two attached documents lay out the specific details of these cuts.  

There is going to be a Ways and Means Budget Hearing on these proposals at 4:30 pm this Thursday (2/12) afternoon in Hearing Room F.  

Obviously cuts to the fish and wildlife enforcement program have an impact on hunting and fishing resources. These officers are the front line contacts for many of the public who are utilizing public and private lands. In tough economic times an enforcement presence can actually become more critical.  

We hope that hunters can find the time to rally at the capital and provide testimony on Thursday afternoon. Hunters from around the state have repeatedly stated we need more fish and wildlife enforcement officers not less.  

Don't forget that if you can't make the hearing you also have the opportunity to contact your Senate or House member to express your feelings on these proposed actions. The two internet addresses below will get you to the respective contact information for both the senate and the house.  

http://www.leg.state.or.us/senate/

http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/

Ron Anglin
Wildlife Division Administrator
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
503 947-6312

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Update 2/18/09

The Co-Chairs on Ways and Means have released their recommended budget this afternoon. OSP took some significant hits in some areas, but was able to maintain most of the core services they offer.

In regards to the F&W budget, the Division was left whole and we will not be looking at any cuts this biennium. If you recall one of the budget cut exercises the Division was asked to put together was a
cut of $950,000 from the Divisions General Fund which was to take effect March 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008 which eliminated 6 Sergeants and 28 Troopers. The bottom line is the mentioned cut is not going to occur.

The Ways and Means Committee will soon start to focus their efforts on how they will balance the 2009-2011 budget. The Division's exercise regarding the 2009-2011 budget was a reduction of 2.3 million dollars from the Division's General Fund Budget which equates to 4 Sergeants and 13 Troopers.

 

Gold Beach Fish & Wildlife Division Troopers Seeking Public's Help in Illegal Killing of Elk

03/14/2008

Senior Trooper Don Frerichs
Fish & Wildlife Division - Roseburg
Office: (541) 440-3334 ext. 4540

A private party who wishes to remain anonymous is offering a reward to help Oregon State Police solve an investigation into the poaching and waste of two bull elk earlier this week in the Glendale area south of Roseburg. This recent elk poaching case occurred in the same general area of an unsolved October 2007 poaching of a 7 point elk.

According to Oregon State Police Senior Trooper Don Frerichs, during the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 11, 2008, an unknown suspect(s) shot and left to waste two bull elk in an open field near A&M Trucking off Azalea-Glen Road.

A reward is offered by a private party of up to $2,000 for information that leads to an arrest and conviction of the suspect(s) responsible in this case.

Anyone with information is asked to call Senior Trooper Frerichs.

 

03/05/2008

Senior Trooper Brad Van Prooyen
Fish & Wildlife Division - Gold Beach
Office: (541) 247-6641

Oregon State Police Fish & Wildlife troopers are asking for the public's help to solve the killing and waste of a 7x7 bull elk in late February north of Gold Beach.

According to Senior Trooper Brad Van Prooyen, on February 22, 2008 at about 5:30 p.m. a 7x7 bull elk was shot and left to waste during a closed season on Edison Creek Road about five miles north of Gold Beach. Oregon State Police (OSP) Fish & Wildlife Division troopers from the Gold Beach office responded to the area. Following an extensive investigation, troopers determined that two white male adults were observed chasing the elk just after several rifle shots were heard by a witness. An unknown make or model white van was seen in the area.

Anyone with information regarding this case is asked to contact Senior Trooper Dan Stinnett or Senior Trooper Brad Van Prooyen.