Owens Valley Archery Tule Elk Hunt to be CANCELED

[SDHNTR]

Good question Roy. That is why I'm saying I don't completely agree with their methodology.

I suppose they just don't want nearly as many bulls killed, only cows. Supposedly the region-wide Owens tag concentrated most of the hunters on one herd, disproportionately reducing the number of mature bulls in that herd as a result.

The fact of the matter is I think there are other ways to reduce the herd, without reducing archery opportunity. Restructure things if you have to, fine, but dont take away the only good opportunity to take a nice bull that is not broken to pieces.

 

[brut]

My dad spoke to the elk bioligist for dfg and he told my dad that we still had cow archery hunts and he didnt see what the problem was

he said to him a elk is a elk there is no way anyone would waste there max points on a cow he didnt seem to see this. If I wanted a cow I d go to utah and buy one over the counter for dang near the same money and not waste my points Letters sent dfg

 

[BOWUNTR]

The bottom line is that they took away the best hunt in the Owens Valley. Might as well be a meat hunt now because you'll be lucky to find a bull with intact antlers in the late season. The archery hunt was the second week in August, four weeks before the new hunt. As far as I know, in 05 they took 3 bulls with seven tags and in 06 they took 2 bulls with five tags. Insignificant if you ask me. I only know of one intact bull taken in the later archery hunts and this bull had an injured leg and probably did not fight in the rut.

To boot, the largest Tule elk ever reported (CBH, P&Y and B&C) taken with a bow (315") was taken this past season on the hunt that was just eliminated. If P&Y adds a Tule elk catagory, which is in the works, it will be the world record!!!! Just some more info to get your goat. Get busy and make some noise. Ed F

 

[DFGELK]

I fully understand your concerns and I am not going to get into a pissing match. I have spoken to many people and did my best to explain the situation. I do not believe a bull is the same as a cow. Obviously bull tags have the highest demand. With that being said, people do apply for cow tags with maximum points in California. In this particular situation the harvest is going to be concentrated on cows, that is the only way to control a population. I encourage everyone with concerns to send their comments in a written format so they will be addessed with the other information that is sent to the Commission, send it to wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov.

Joe

 

[Glass eye]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DFGELK @ Mar 15 2007, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

There are no regulations saying you can not hunt with archery equipment during a general weapons hunt, so that is always an option.[/b]

Bighorn sheep tags are not weapons specific and still there are those lucky tag holders who choose archery or muzzleloader equipment. One JHO'er says that when he draws a tag for the strip he's going to kill a mulie with his bow.

 

[RVRKNG]

Hey, I have always told myself. If I get the Owens Valley Archery either sex tag I would hunt my "Dream Bull" for 90% of the hunt & then settle for a meat cow. Who with max points wants a cow?

(only a hunter who can't shoot a bow)

I am just sick of this @#&*. Oh they will get my $ every year, but by the time I get the tag for a bull I will be to old & weak to pull my bow back.

 

[JoeC]

I am not surprised about this at all. There is a very consistent trend in the decrease of archery tags across the eastern sierra. I inquired last year when they cut 90 A16 tags from the pool while reducing the rifle tags by 5. The response was similar to the Elk response. The number of archery tags (quota) was greater than the percent of archery applicants for the entire unit so the tags were cut. The problem is the only way to get more archery tags is to have more applicants. But, cutting tags and opportunity will cause less people to apply resulting in even fewer tags.

What the model the DFG uses does not account for is hunter opportunity. The current goal is to set quotas based on percentage of applicants and success rates. That all seems fine on paper, but it results in a lot fewer people hunting because you can give more than twice as many archery tags to fill a quota.

My concern is if the current methodology and models continue to dictate archery quotas, the tags will continue to decrease until there are no longer any tags (or interest) left. I just hope I don’t still have max points when the archery elk tags are completely gone.

 

[Modocer]

Why is everyone so excited about having "Max points". Almost everyone has max points. It's not that big of a deal. Now, if only 10% of the hunters had max points I would get excited.

 

[easymoney]

One area I have a problem with is the numbers the DFG uses. They never seem to add up.
I have bow hunted for over 30 years and back when I could get an over the counter archery tag good for all zones, even the coveted X zones, the DFG claimed they need to cut the tag numbers and create "special" AO tags for all X zones to better manage the deer herds. Those deer herds have not improved much in all this time and the DFG gets more money now than ever.
IMHO, it's all about more money...
If they really wanted to manage the elk herds, especially the cow numbers, they would sell more tags not less, especially hair tags. They would contract with the private ranches to get permission or access for hunters to relieve the situation. Other states do this all the time and they seem to manage their wildlife better than this state does.
Not joining a pissing match, just my two cents...

 

[Zbearclaw]

I don't have max points, hell I only have one going into this year since I just moved here, but still with a gazillion folks in front of me I will put in for this tag, the tag that formerly existed.

 

[Rancho Loco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (easymoney @ Mar 19 2007, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

the DFG gets more money now than ever.
IMHO, it's all about more money...

.... They would contract with the private ranches to get permission or access for hunters to relieve the situation.[/b]

Money? So how much more money has DFG gotten by cutting archery tags over the years? How much has their funding from tag sales increased over the years, along with overtall budget?

And what ranches in the Owens Valley are you talking about?

 

[easymoney]

IMHO, The DFG has raised fees on all tags across the board every single year and has split many zones into multiple tags, and for the most part they have increased the numbers of tags overall, yet game management and overall numbers of hunting game is going down.
They have raised fees on wild pigs even though they are a non native feral species, strictly for monetary reasons not removal of the species, as was the original stated reason.
The overall DFG budget has grown and yet the numbers of wardens hasn't and the amount of money from my duck stamps, bird harvest survey stamp, delta enhancement stamp, as well as the rest of the hunting and fishing fees has gone up every single year, yet the mangement of these species always seems to get worse. Habitat enhancement and wildlife management is always lacking adequate funding despite all these increases.
It is all about money and management. As long as beancounters and beauracrats run the DFG instead of biologists or professionals in wildlife management there will be problems.
The majority of the Owens Elk herds move from private ranches onto public land and back again depending on the pressure, water and feed. If DFG really wanted to "control the numbers" of animals successfully, they could sell more tags not less, hold multiple hunts, let ranches mange their own herds by PLM tags, etc... There are many ways to solve this situation.
And this is just my two cents and observations from many years in the field...

 

[BOWUNTR]

Private ranches?? Most of all the elk habitat is owned by the city of Los Angeles (water). Yes, Los Angeles! The main ranches are leased and they allow hunting. They don't like the elk, the city of LA and F&G. The three I talked to all want PLM tags, but because the land is owned by LA, the city government officials are against it.

No pissing match from me, just some info I learned from my experience. An experience that has been taken away from the rest of you. Ed F

 

[easymoney]

bowunter,
That was my understanding of the PLM tags as well. The land is leased for cattle or crops. The elk are not welcome by the ranchers because they compete with livestock for the limited food and they do damage to the infrastructure, like fencing.
In eastern Oregon the same zone I have hunted for years, is divided east and west and the public land is to the west and the private is to the east. The OR F&G have upped the numbers of elk hair tags in the east zone to cut down on overall numbers of animals, yet they cut back on the public land because the population and damage is much less.
Up here on the Central Coast near Paso Robles some of the Tule Elk have left the FHL and Camp Roberts bases where they were introduced and migrated onto adjoining ranches where the good feed is and they are doing the same damage to the barley crop and fences.
It will only be a matter of time when they too will become an unwelcome resident, and ranchers will get depredation tags.
No pissing match for me either... This is all about discussion and every ones opinions are welcome.

 

[BOWUNTR]

Stand by boys and girls. I would have never believed it if I hadn't heard it for myself, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil!! We are making an impact. Don't stop now though, keep sending e-mails and phone calls. Ed F

 

[easymoney]

Please elaborate, bowuntr, what do you know?

 

[Rancho Loco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (easymoney @ Mar 20 2007, 08:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

IMHO, The DFG has raised fees on all tags across the board every single year and has split many zones into multiple tags, and for the most part they have increased the numbers of tags overall, yet game management and overall numbers of hunting game is going down.
They have raised fees on wild pigs even though they are a non native feral species, strictly for monetary reasons not removal of the species, as was the original stated reason.
The overall DFG budget has grown and yet the numbers of wardens hasn't and the amount of money from my duck stamps, bird harvest survey stamp, delta enhancement stamp, as well as the rest of the hunting and fishing fees has gone up every single year, yet the mangement of these species always seems to get worse. Habitat enhancement and wildlife management is always lacking adequate funding despite all these increases.
It is all about money and management. As long as beancounters and beauracrats run the DFG instead of biologists or professionals in wildlife management there will be problems.
The majority of the Owens Elk herds move from private ranches onto public land and back again depending on the pressure, water and feed. If DFG really wanted to "control the numbers" of animals successfully, they could sell more tags not less, hold multiple hunts, let ranches mange their own herds by PLM tags, etc... There are many ways to solve this situation.
And this is just my two cents and observations from many years in the field...[/b]

Do you happen to have any numbers to back up your claims? How much has the budget grown, and how much has the revenue from licenses grown, lets say over the last ten years?

And which private ranches are you talking about?

 

[Hogskin]

I would NOT be in favor of giving PLM tags to ranches. I'm sure the ranches would love PLM tags so they could sell them for big $$. End result is that the regular guy has no chance instead of a lottery chance. My

p.s., I've got max points and I put in for a cow tag (rifle).

 

[easymoney]

rancho, I suspect that you are trying to cause more trouble with me,
but in case you have a legitimate question I will respond, try doing a little reading as the history of the DFG is quite long and interesting:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/dfgbudget/06-07/DFG_BFB_2006_07.pdf
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudge...department.html
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudge...department.html
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/resour...3600_anl06.html
http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/012303budgetcuts.html
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iIHBS...;cd=8&gl=us
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2004-122R.pdf
http://www.jesseshunting.com/site/jimmatthews-1-00-6-00.html
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2005/354ntc.pdf
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/publications/history.html
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sfIqf...;cd=4&gl=us
http://www.californiagameandfish.com/hunting/ca_aa010805a/
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sYJN1...;cd=1&gl=us


My point is and was, that costs are not covered by increases in tag prices or lic prices. The wild pig tag price is a perfect example.

And here are some of the ranches with leases:
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bishop/rang...e-issuance.html
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JIGKd...;cd=1&gl=us
http://www.nps.gov/archive/manz/gmpaffectedenviron.htm

And a lease on BLM land is supposed to allow access to that land by the public for hunting and fishing, but it is not always the case.

I am making no condemnation of any action by the DFG, but always question the motive and the means... I do not wish to see this tag pulled, especially if it is only for management or monetary reasons.

 

[Rancho Loco]

I don't need links - I actually read the DFG's Budget year after year. have you?

I just want some numbers to back up how this is about money, and how DFG has been making so much money off of lic/tag sales, while in reality they can barely keep the lights on.

As for the ranches, there are none - they have leases on BLM land, and as Hog pointed out, I am not going to support these lease holders getting PLM tags to sell for $12,000 a pop.