'Ike' @ HM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,825
- Reaction score
- 1
You'll get a canned reponse from DF&G when you E-mail them, may be better to call 'em....
- Thread starter RVRKNG
- Start date
You know. I'm not an Archer, but I do enjoy the stories that bowhunters put up here. This whole thing is crap. Just another example of the DFG coming up with another mindless change.
I feel bad for the max points guys and will also write to the DFG about what morons they can be.
I feel bad for the max points guys and will also write to the DFG about what morons they can be.
BOHNTR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,371
- Reaction score
- 273
Contact (by phone) the commission directly and express your displeasure.
California Fish and Game Commission at (916) 653-4899. If you want to attend the next meeting, here's where to go and the agenda:
Special Meeting Resources Building
March 28, 2007 (Wed.) 1416 Ninth Street, Room 13201
1:30 p.m. (Teleconference Call) Sacramento
AGENDA2
ALL MEETINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
NOTE: The teleconference call will originate and will be audible to the public from the
Commission office, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento. Interested members of
the public are encouraged to attend at this location.
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
2. REQUEST OF THE CULTURED ABALONE, INC., TO RENEW KELP BED
LEASE NO. L-208 FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR TERM.
3. NEW BUSINESS.
1 These facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact California Relay Service at 1 (800) 735-2929 (TT) or 1 (800) 735-2922 (Voice) and ask them to contact the California Fish and Game Commission at (916) 653-4899.
2 The public is encouraged to comment on any item on the agenda. In order for the Commission to adequately consider public comments, the public is requested to submit written comments no later than eight days prior to the meeting. Written comments received fewer than eight days preceding the meeting will be submitted to the Commission at the meeting; however, Commission staff is unable to deliver material received one day before and on the day of the meeting to theCommissioners when the meeting is not in Sacramento. Please send your comments to be received no later than two daysbefore the meeting.
If you decide to speak at the Commission meeting, please begin by giving your name and affiliation (if any) and the number of people represented by your organization. Then tell the Commission your concerns in five minutes or less. Time allotted foreach agenda item depends upon the number of speakers for each item and the length of the agenda. The Commission is interested in your views; don't worry about how to say them. If several people have spoken, try not to be repetitious. If there are several with the same concerns, please try to appoint a spokesperson. The Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons you are for or against a proposal because the Commission's decision needs to be based on specific reasons.
If you would like to present handouts/written material to the Commission at the meeting, please provide eight (8) copies.
California Fish and Game Commission at (916) 653-4899. If you want to attend the next meeting, here's where to go and the agenda:
Special Meeting Resources Building
March 28, 2007 (Wed.) 1416 Ninth Street, Room 13201
1:30 p.m. (Teleconference Call) Sacramento
AGENDA2
ALL MEETINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
NOTE: The teleconference call will originate and will be audible to the public from the
Commission office, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento. Interested members of
the public are encouraged to attend at this location.
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
2. REQUEST OF THE CULTURED ABALONE, INC., TO RENEW KELP BED
LEASE NO. L-208 FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR TERM.
3. NEW BUSINESS.
1 These facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. To request reasonable accommodations for a disability, please contact California Relay Service at 1 (800) 735-2929 (TT) or 1 (800) 735-2922 (Voice) and ask them to contact the California Fish and Game Commission at (916) 653-4899.
2 The public is encouraged to comment on any item on the agenda. In order for the Commission to adequately consider public comments, the public is requested to submit written comments no later than eight days prior to the meeting. Written comments received fewer than eight days preceding the meeting will be submitted to the Commission at the meeting; however, Commission staff is unable to deliver material received one day before and on the day of the meeting to theCommissioners when the meeting is not in Sacramento. Please send your comments to be received no later than two daysbefore the meeting.
If you decide to speak at the Commission meeting, please begin by giving your name and affiliation (if any) and the number of people represented by your organization. Then tell the Commission your concerns in five minutes or less. Time allotted foreach agenda item depends upon the number of speakers for each item and the length of the agenda. The Commission is interested in your views; don't worry about how to say them. If several people have spoken, try not to be repetitious. If there are several with the same concerns, please try to appoint a spokesperson. The Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons you are for or against a proposal because the Commission's decision needs to be based on specific reasons.
If you would like to present handouts/written material to the Commission at the meeting, please provide eight (8) copies.
I also just read that yes they are proposing cancelling the broad archery Owens Valley elk hunt, but that they are breaking it down into other hunts and that actual total ## of archery tags will be increased. Might this be a good thing? Anyone know anything? I don't want to jump the gun, and want to make sure I understand it all before I call and start cracking heads.
Here is what I read on another site. I don't see this in the press release.
"The archery elk hunt was not canceled. Zones was restructured and new archery hunts added with more tags available. "
Here is what I read on another site. I don't see this in the press release.
"The archery elk hunt was not canceled. Zones was restructured and new archery hunts added with more tags available. "
BOHNTR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,371
- Reaction score
- 273
If true, the only problem I see with zone specific archery units is some of the "zones" are terrible. Low elk densities will create a very low hunter success rate. As a result, more people will put in for the "better" zones which decrease draw odds since the tag allotment is now less for specific zones. I don't know why the department feels the need to "fix" something that is obvisouly NOT broken.....
I definitely agree Roy. I also liked the current structure because the Owens hunt opened with the rut. If this is true, will the new hunts have the same season dates? And again, if so, that will only crowd the majority of applicants into only a few hunts since guys will only want those good zones and hunts with rut dates. Draw odds will shoot way up. The rest of the hunts will be lousy and actual take will be low. Probably even lower than current. Sounds counter-productive to me.
Seems to me if they truly want to control population numbers, add a couple late season cow gun hunts. That simple. Why make this more complicated that it needs to be.
I placed a call to Mr. Hobbs asking for clarification and an explanation. If he calls me back, I'll post what I find out.
Seems to me if they truly want to control population numbers, add a couple late season cow gun hunts. That simple. Why make this more complicated that it needs to be.
I placed a call to Mr. Hobbs asking for clarification and an explanation. If he calls me back, I'll post what I find out.
BOWUNTR
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 13
All I see is two zone specific archery only hunts (Independence and E/W Tinemaha) in September. The rut is early August. Most of the bulls will be broken up by then. The Tinemaha is the largest herd and the Independence is the smallest. No win. Both are definately a lesser hunt than the previous archery only hunt. Ask anyone that has hunted the late seasons. They will tell you that it is tough if not impossible to find a bull with all its points. Ed F
DFGELK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 28
From many of the people I have been talking to there is a lot of wrong or slightly wrong information about exactly what is going on, so here is my attempt to clarify. Overall archery tags this year will be slightly decreased from last year (30 to 25). This decrease will be in the Owens Valley (increase in archery tags for northeastern ca). Owens Valley is the only herd in the state that has a maximum herd size set in fish and game code. They are very close to that maximum size, but the elk are not distributed evenly across the zones within Owens Valley. DFG needs to increase the antlerless harvest within certain zones. The Region has proposed to add two new hunt periods which will begin prior to the old hunt periods. The region wide either-sex archery tags did not allow DFG to harvest animals within the zones that need the most reduction and also did not allow for a sex specific harvest. The Tinemaha and West Tinemaha zones were archery only zones in the past, the Region has proposed some minor modification boundaries within these zones which will safely allow rifle hunters to hunt. The muzzle loader tags proposed are for Bishop and Lone Pine during Period 1 for a total of 7 tags (6 antlerless 1 bull).
In a nutshell an increased harvest in a short period of time is needed within certain zones in the Owens Valley, the best way to do this is through antlerless hunting. There are still 6 antlerless and one bull tag for archery-only in the Tinemaha and West Tinemaha zones, and an Independence archery-only bull tag.
Archery-only elk tags currently are over 11% of the elk tags issued within California but account for just over 7% of the applicants for elk tags (not including the point only applicants). There are no regulations saying you can not hunt with archery equipment during a general weapons hunt, so that is always an option. I understand your concern and in the future I see no reason why we can not increase the archery tags but it needs to be in perspective with all the hunters of California.
Joe
The Department is not the authorizing agency, we make recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission who set the regualtions. I would address them with your concerns so they can take that into account, they have changed tag quotas in the past for archery tags.
In a nutshell an increased harvest in a short period of time is needed within certain zones in the Owens Valley, the best way to do this is through antlerless hunting. There are still 6 antlerless and one bull tag for archery-only in the Tinemaha and West Tinemaha zones, and an Independence archery-only bull tag.
Archery-only elk tags currently are over 11% of the elk tags issued within California but account for just over 7% of the applicants for elk tags (not including the point only applicants). There are no regulations saying you can not hunt with archery equipment during a general weapons hunt, so that is always an option. I understand your concern and in the future I see no reason why we can not increase the archery tags but it needs to be in perspective with all the hunters of California.
Joe
The Department is not the authorizing agency, we make recommendations to the Fish and Game Commission who set the regualtions. I would address them with your concerns so they can take that into account, they have changed tag quotas in the past for archery tags.
I just got off the phone with a lengthy conversation with Mr. Hobbs. he was kind enough to take the time to speak with me. I do see that he is now on here so I'll give him the opportunity to state the DFG's position before I relay my take on the info. I do understand it more now and am not so upset. There is a logical resason, believe it or not, for all of this. I'm not saying I agree with it from an admittedly selfish perspective(as a max point holder), but it is very logical.
The above notice gives very little info and it is easy for us to get upset from just reading it. All that sticks out at you is the word "elimination." There is certainly more to it.
The above notice gives very little info and it is easy for us to get upset from just reading it. All that sticks out at you is the word "elimination." There is certainly more to it.
There you have it. Joe beat me to it.
My take in simple terms.
1. Specific herds within the entire Owens valley need to be reduced. This was not being acheived with the region wide archery tag. No more rut hunts (this is what really burns me) because it's the cows that need to be reduced, not the bulls. It is more effective to manage individual herds with more localized hunt units and with gun hunts that are more successful at reducing numbers. That I understand, I just don't agree with the proposed means to the end.
2. The 7% versus 11%. 11% of all tags statewide go to archery elk, but only 7% of the applicants apply for archery. I don't like it, but it is hard to argue with the fairness of those numbers. For this we have only ourselves to blame. As a whole, us bowhunters need to recruit more new folks to the sport.
3. The hunt (or similar) could come back once the herd numbers are back in check. I hope this is actually true.
4. This is not a done deal. The commission makes the final decision. They are who we need to be contacting.
The DFG is doing itself a great disservice by posting public notices like they did. Words like "eliminate" are very tough to swallow. That makes it real easy for hunters to get mad and jump to conclusions without the proper info. The info that DFGELK gave me and posted here needs to be made public. It shouldn't take a personal phone call. We should be able to get the whole story off such notices. It would probably stop a lot of angry correspondence.
Personally, I'm not happy at all with the proposed methods to reach their objective and eliminating what was effectively the only rut bow hunt, but at least I understand it more now. I get pissed when I think something is being taken from me without a proper explanation. I'm still upset, but do feel a little better now.
Thanks DFGELK for your time.
My take in simple terms.
1. Specific herds within the entire Owens valley need to be reduced. This was not being acheived with the region wide archery tag. No more rut hunts (this is what really burns me) because it's the cows that need to be reduced, not the bulls. It is more effective to manage individual herds with more localized hunt units and with gun hunts that are more successful at reducing numbers. That I understand, I just don't agree with the proposed means to the end.
2. The 7% versus 11%. 11% of all tags statewide go to archery elk, but only 7% of the applicants apply for archery. I don't like it, but it is hard to argue with the fairness of those numbers. For this we have only ourselves to blame. As a whole, us bowhunters need to recruit more new folks to the sport.
3. The hunt (or similar) could come back once the herd numbers are back in check. I hope this is actually true.
4. This is not a done deal. The commission makes the final decision. They are who we need to be contacting.
The DFG is doing itself a great disservice by posting public notices like they did. Words like "eliminate" are very tough to swallow. That makes it real easy for hunters to get mad and jump to conclusions without the proper info. The info that DFGELK gave me and posted here needs to be made public. It shouldn't take a personal phone call. We should be able to get the whole story off such notices. It would probably stop a lot of angry correspondence.
Personally, I'm not happy at all with the proposed methods to reach their objective and eliminating what was effectively the only rut bow hunt, but at least I understand it more now. I get pissed when I think something is being taken from me without a proper explanation. I'm still upset, but do feel a little better now.
Thanks DFGELK for your time.
BOHNTR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,371
- Reaction score
- 273
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Can't you accomplish this after the current archery only hunt has concluded? Seems a muzzleloader hunt would fill this area nicely.
I guess I'm not completely understanding your logic on why you would eliminate a successful archery hunt that is extremely popular and move it to a less suitable time of year. If you're concerned about herd size, making additional opportunities directly after the archery-only hunt would seem logical?? Maybe I'm missing something....but I think the bowhunters of this state are getting the shaft.
Can't you accomplish this after the current archery only hunt has concluded? Seems a muzzleloader hunt would fill this area nicely.
I guess I'm not completely understanding your logic on why you would eliminate a successful archery hunt that is extremely popular and move it to a less suitable time of year. If you're concerned about herd size, making additional opportunities directly after the archery-only hunt would seem logical?? Maybe I'm missing something....but I think the bowhunters of this state are getting the shaft.
brut
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 881
- Reaction score
- 2
There are still 6 antlerless and one bull tag for archery-only in the Tinemaha and West Tinemaha zones, and an Independence archery-only bull tag.
So now instead of 6 bull tags and 6 cow tags for the tinemaha we know have 6 antlerless and 1 bull
So now instead of 6 bull tags and 6 cow tags for the tinemaha we know have 6 antlerless and 1 bull
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BOHNTR @ Mar 15 2007, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Can't you accomplish this after the current archery only hunt has concluded? Seems a muzzleloader hunt would fill this area nicely.
I guess I'm not completely understanding your logic on why you would eliminate a successful archery hunt that is extremely popular and move it to a less suitable time of year. If you're concerned about herd size, making additional opportunities directly after the archery-only hunt would seem logical?? Maybe I'm missing something....but I think the bowhunters of this state are getting the shaft.
[/b][/quote]
Been that way for awhile now.......
Can't you accomplish this after the current archery only hunt has concluded? Seems a muzzleloader hunt would fill this area nicely.
I guess I'm not completely understanding your logic on why you would eliminate a successful archery hunt that is extremely popular and move it to a less suitable time of year. If you're concerned about herd size, making additional opportunities directly after the archery-only hunt would seem logical?? Maybe I'm missing something....but I think the bowhunters of this state are getting the shaft.
[/b][/quote]
Been that way for awhile now.......
So from the admission of DFG 34 out of 280 tags to bowhunters is too much? Is that what we are being told Mr. Hobbs?
I will go out on a limb and say that this issue can be deep fried in a flaky buttery batter, sugar coated, spun sideways and run thru maple syrup and will still taste like Rosie O'Donnell looks.
Well Ed I am very glad for you that you were able to get yours in, I have only one point and doubt I would ever draw it anyways, and now I can say I know someone that drew and was successful on that great tag Kalistan used to have for tulies, congrats bro.
I will go out on a limb and say that this issue can be deep fried in a flaky buttery batter, sugar coated, spun sideways and run thru maple syrup and will still taste like Rosie O'Donnell looks.
Well Ed I am very glad for you that you were able to get yours in, I have only one point and doubt I would ever draw it anyways, and now I can say I know someone that drew and was successful on that great tag Kalistan used to have for tulies, congrats bro.
