Who is being picked on by ODF&W - rifle hunters or bowhunters? It's a matter of perspective!

I recently got myself involved in an extended E-mail "conversation" with a rifle hunter whom I've never met and probably never will. I ran across a letter that the hunter sent to ODF&W back in 2008 in which he claimed that ODF&W is heavily biased in favor of bowhunters. The letter pointed to lengthy seasons and wide areas that bowhunters can hunt while rifle hunters can only hunt eastern Oregon through the controlled hunt process. The letter presented such a one-sided anti-bowhunting viewpoint that I decided to challenge the rifle hunter's perspective. I sent him an E-mail and initiated our "conversation".

My first point was to let the rifle hunter know that many, if not most, of the bowhunters I hear from believe that ODF&W is in the pocket of rifle hunters. That is, we believe that pressure from rifle hunters, like the one whose letter I responded to, is behind the seemingly continual efforts by ODF&W to chip away at the hunting opportunities available to bowhunters. In most cases, we believe this is being done without any basis in wildlife science. Rather, it is being done as a simple matter of political expediency only because rifle hunters substantially outnumber bowhunters in this state.

My second point was to compare the effective range of our hunting arms. Fifty (50) yards would be a very long shot at game for me. In fact, I don't think I've ever taken that long of a shot at game and I've turned some down within that range because I wasn't comfortable with the shot. I know there are many bowhunters who are much my superior when it comes to accurately shooting a bow and arrow. However, even the most accomplished bow hunter's longest ethical shot would fall far short of the effective range of even a modestly accomplished rifle hunter. When I hunted with a rifle, I was extremely confident of making a humane killing shot at 250 to 300 yards in many circumstances and, again, many rifle hunters could place shots accurately at ranges far beyond my comfort level. I told my unknown rifle hunter that I would be open to considering his arguments about season length and hunting area limitations as soon as rifle hunters agreed to limit their shots with their .30-06 or 7MM Mag to 50 yards!

Our E-mail "conversation" went back and forth on these and other points. In the end, I'm quite sure that I didn't convince the rifle hunter that bowhunters don't have an unfair advantage with longer seasons and wider hunter areas. Likewise, he didn't convince me that the reverse is true!

Was the effort to communicate with this unknown rifle hunter worth the effort? I believe it was and I think we bowhunters need to do more of it! There is no doubt in my mind that ODF&W staff often hear from rifle hunters with views similar to those expressed in the letter to which I responded. I believe that most rifle hunters who write such letters have never experienced or even really thought about the challenges that bowhunters face by virtue of our choice of hunting equipment. I look at responding to such letters (or even just responding to similar comments made during a real conversation) as an opportunity to educate a fellow hunter. I consider that to be not only worth some effort, but I think it may be critical to our long-term ability to keep our hunting opportunities as bowhunters that we make the effort. We can't afford to let rifle hunters do all of the talking!

At the conclusion of our E-mail "conversation", I think both the unknown rifle hunter and I had each gained some appreciation for the perspective of the other party. I think it's important that we respect the limits and recognize the frustrations faced by rifle hunters in Oregon's controlled hunt process just as we would like them to recognize and respect the challenges we have accepted by virtue of our choice of hunting equipment. In the end, the unknown rifle hunter and I agreed on one very basic, but important thing - we would both like to see better hunting in Oregon than we have at this time! In that simple agreement, while we certainly still have differences, I think we came to realize that we have more in common than either of us generally realizes!

Craig Starr, President

PRESIDENTS Message  - March/April

Most of you know, of course, that ODF&W "kicked off" its Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) implementation efforts recently. While I'm still disturbed by ODF&W's choice to make selected units controlled-entry for archery deer hunting as one of their first MDI implementation steps, what's done is done (for now) and I don't want that to be the focus of this column. Instead, I want to ask all of you to look ahead to the future and consider what we need to do, as bowhunters, to do our part to aid in mule deer recovery efforts. I've been doing that and I don't see a very pretty picture!

I believe that limiting predation must be one crucial cornerstone of any effective mule deer recovery effort. If you read this column in the last issue of this magazine, you know that I think OBH needs to work actively to overturn the measure that voters passed in 1994 eliminating the use of dogs by sportsmen and sportswomen for hunting cougar and bear. Unless that measure is overturned, I fear that there is no way that Oregon's mule deer populations can recover.

So, if we can reverse the ill-informed action that Oregon's voters took in 1994 and start effectively controlling predation by cougar (and bear) once again, what else is needed to help mule deer recover?

First, I believe that mule deer are currently being over-harvested in many units. Although it won't go over easy with Oregon's hunters (or with ODF&W for that matter since they depend on our license and tag fees for their budget), I believe that additional limits on the harvest of mule deer will be necessary. I certainly hope that mule deer hunting doesn't need to be suspended completely state-wide for some significant number of years as I've heard a few hunters suggest, but I don't believe that the current tag and harvest levels in many units can be sustained if mule deer numbers are to recover.

Second, I believe that hunting of antlerless deer should be eliminated entirely at least until mule deer populations have recovered substantially from current levels. To their credit, ODF&W has substantially reduced antlerless deer tags in recent years, but times are hard enough for mule deer now that even those relatively few tags still being offered need to be eliminated. To go along with this concept, I think we need to consider compensation for ranchers and farmers for crop damage or use of non-lethal means of preventing crop damage caused by mule deer rather than using antlerless harvests to address such damage.

Third, I believe that we need to be open to supporting some very specific and targeted pilot programs to see if certain actions and/or limitations can help with mule deer recovery efforts. Although I'm a hunter and not a wildlife expert, I think we need to try such concepts as:

" Special bag limits designed to increase the ratio of mature bucks in the mule deer population. " Creating units or areas within units where hunting is occasionally suspended or rotated with other units or areas to give big game animals some measure of relief from the annual hunting pressure. " Creating road closures (or expanding their duration in areas where they already exist) in order to establish areas where game animals are less pressured even though hunting is still allowed.

My list of possible actions is obviously incomplete, but the bottom line of all of this is that I believe that Oregon's hunters will need to make sacrifices if we want the mule deer population to recover. If you have other suggestions for concepts that might aid in mule deer recovery, I'd like to hear them. I don't think this can be a case of simply maintaining the status quo unless we are willing to see the mule deer population continue its decline.

When the time for sacrifice comes (and I believe it will come one way or another before much more time passes), I simply want to be sure that Oregon's bowhunters are treated fairly in the allotment of hunting and harvest opportunities. I don't want a repeat of the situation that happened with the Steens Mountain unit this year where rifle hunters harvest 12 deer for every one taken by a bowhunter (based on 2007 ODF&W data), but only bowhunters will be restricted in our hunting opportunities. So long as rifle hunters, muzzleloader hunters and bowhunters share equitably in hunting and harvest opportunities, we bowhunters need to be willing to do our part for mule deer recovery!

Craig Starr

ANY OPINION ON CONTROLLED-ENTRY ARCHERY DEER HUNTING?

 DON’T LIKE THE COUGAR AND BEAR PREDATION PROBLEM IN OREGON ?

HOW YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!

On October 2, 2009, I attended a meeting of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and testified on ODF&W’s proposal to establish four (4) new controlled-entry deer hunts (Maury, Steens Mountain, and North and South Warner hunts) in units that have until now been open during the general archery season.  Wayne Endicott, OBH’s VP for Bowhunting, also attended the meeting and testified on the proposal.  Fortunately, the ODF&W staff withdrew its preliminary recommendation which would have limited anyone drawing a controlled-entry tag to hunting deer only in the unit where they drew the tag.  Now, hunters who draw one of the controlled-entry deer tags will receive a tag that is valid both for the unit drawn and for any area open during a general archery deer season.  The bad news is that we now won’t be able to hunt elk in any of the new controlled-entry units unless we first draw a deer tag (this is the reverse of the system already in place in the Ochoco, Sled Springs and Chesnimnus units) in the unit in which we intend to hunt elk.  Although Wayne and I focused our strongest opposition against this part of the ODF&W proposal, the Commission adopted the proposal virtually without comment.

Aside from Wayne and me, there was little, if any, bowhunter testimony at the Commission meeting regarding ODF&W’s controlled-entry proposal.  I was even more disappointed that only two (2) OBH-affiliated archery clubs and only one (1) individual bowhunter sent written comments to ODF&W about the proposal.  I understand that not everybody can afford to attend a Commission meeting whether due to the demands of work, the time required at the meeting or the cost of travel to Salem . However, sending a letter or E-mail to ODF&W on an issue as important as this one takes only a few minutes and has a very nominal cost.  If you care about maintaining our hunting opportunities, it is important for each of us to try to make a difference any way we can when proposals like the controlled-entry archery deer hunts are being considered by ODF&W and the Commission!

On another front where bowhunters need to be more active than we have been, I hung around the Commission meeting after the controlled-entry issue was over to listen to a presentation by ODF&W staff on their “administrative” cougar removal efforts and I’m glad I did.  ODF&W reported on their efforts in three (3) areas of the state from 2007 through the first part of 2009.  During that period, ODF&W killed a total of 101 cougars from a portion of Jackson County , and the Heppner and the Beulah units.  The report concluded that ODF&W’s effort had improved elk calf recruitment in the Heppner unit and tentatively appears to have reduced livestock predation in the Beulah unit, but had not noticeably reduced cougar conflicts with humans and their pets in the Jackson County area.  ODF&W staff indicated their intent to continue their effort in the Beulah unit for another year and to initiate 3-year “administrative” cougar removal activities in four (4) new areas – the Ukiah and Wenaha units for improving elk calf recruitment, and the Steens Mountain and Warner units as part of their Mule Deer Initiative (MDI) effort.

When the ODF&W staff wrapped up their presentation, the show really started!  A representative of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) got up and basically ripped the Commission up one side and down the other because ODF&W has been killing cougars in an effort to reduce predation impacts.  He lambasted them for “failing” to keep the faith with the initiative measure approved by Oregon voters in 1994.  Finally, he raised the threat of further initiative action (a total ban on cougar hunting??) since the 1994 measure wasn’t being observed by ODF&W.

Listening to the rant by the HSUS representative got me thinking.  HSUS, PETA and the wide variety of other anti-hunting organizations make no bones about using the political and legislative process to support their causes.  A simple appeal from such organizations on an “animal rights” or anti-hunting issue can result in many thousands of letters or E-mails being sent from their members to legislators and other politicians.  On the other hand, hunters and pro-hunting organizations (with the exception of the NRA, if you consider their pro-gun stance to be pro-hunting) are noticeably low-key in the political and legislative arena, and that might even be overstating our case.  We too often seem to think that our pro-hunting view is the only “right” one and that it will somehow prevail without us having to make any effort to protect our sport and our opportunities to pursue it.  As a result, we too often don’t step up to make a difference when the opportunity still exists (like, at the recent Commission meeting) and then we’re only left to grouse about the results after it’s too late to have an impact on the decision.

I think it’s time for that to change!!  Since the initiative measure to ban use of dogs for hunting cougars and bears was approved by the voters in 1994, the cougar and bear populations in Oregon have increased dramatically.  Almost everywhere hunters gather, complaints are voiced about the severe impacts of cougar predation in greatly reducing the populations of deer, elk and other game animals.  And, bears have a major predation impact over a two or three week period during and just following the elk calving season.  If you want predation on our game animals to be reduced, it is important to work to once again give ODF&W the option of managing the cougar and bear populations through the use of dogs by sportsmen and sportswomen.  That requires working through our elected state legislators – Senators and Representatives – to try to change the law and lift the ban!

In order to address the predation problem before it gets worse (and, hopefully, before someone in Oregon dies from a cougar attack), I urge you to write to your state legislators and ask them to support legislation to improve cougar and bear management by re-opening use of dogs for sport hunting under regulation by ODF&W.  Some general forms of a letter that can be sent to your state legislators are on the OBH web site at www.oregonbowhunter.com   Although you can simply clean up one of the form letters, address it and send it to your legislator(s), I encourage you to use the form letter more as a guide for developing your own letters.  Your own words and personal observations will make a personal letter far more effective with your legislator(s) than any “form letter” can ever be.

If you don’t know how to contact your state legislators, their mailing addresses and phone numbers are generally available near the front of your local telephone directory under the “Government Listings” heading.  Or, you can Google “Oregon Legislature” to reach the Legislature’s web page on the internet and locate your state legislators (both Representative and Senator) by looking for the listings appropriate for your legislative districts.  If you use the internet, you will be able to send your comments to your state legislators by E-mail as their contact information on the web site will have links to their E-mail addresses.

However you go about contacting your state legislators on the matter of cougar and bear control, the important thing is to follow the advice from Nike’s old advertisement – just do it!!  Legislators and other politicians regularly hear from the anti-hunting groups.  We need to make sure that they also hear the detrimental impacts that the increasing cougar and bear populations are having on deer, elk and other game animals!  If we don’t make our views known to our legislators (or to the Wildlife Commission), who is going to speak for us?  HSUS or PETA?!?  I don’t think so!