Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Fish & Wildlife Commissions

Each year trying to get an answer out of F&W here is a lesson in patience.

I've lived in other states and it is the same BS. It isn't about wildlife conservation.. it is about tax revenue and job secruity for the hiearchy.

Regulations have to get so complicated even the people selling tags can't answer them...

My state has this controlled hunt BS and all of these draw lottery applications. Controlled hunts mean 2/3s of the states geography, doesn't allow the locals to hunt in their own communities.. but opens them up for all the city folks with the big money to come and be able to hunt there...

Plus running all this draw BS and accumulating "preference points" drags in more money for the commission...

Even my son for a youth hunt.. I finally get someone who knows the regs well enough to answer my questions, and I get this..

"Well he needs to apply for this controlled hunt, by this date..
IF he is "unsuccessful", then he needs to apply for this 'controlled' hunt by that date.. and IF he is "unsuccessful" in that drawing he can apply for this hunt here...

and IF all of that doesn't work, he can always RE APPLY next year.. and he will have accumulated PREFERENCE points from this year, which should help his chances maybe next year.."

WTMF???????

We are talking KIDS here! It almost like these asses want to train kids to their pompous corrupt bureaucratic system more than promotioning hunting tradition to kids...

of course with each of these applications, there are applications fees they rack up...

This is BS.. all it does is create job security for these people when they keep making the regs so complicated, half their employees can't explain them..

Kids shouldn't have to pay for a license until they are over 18..
They can issue one, but a kid shouldn't be charged for it...

and while I am on my soap box, any one over the age of 65 should not have to pay for a hunting license, tag or fishing license if he is a reside of that state.. and if he is from out of state, he should only have to pay the in state license fee..

any active duty military shouldn't have to pay for a tag in ANY state...

any veteran, with an honorable discharge should not have to pay for a license and tag in the state he lives in...and only pay in state fees when he hunts out of state...

any person serving in that states NG shouldn't have to pay for a hunting or fishing license , nor tag either...

F& W or DNR or whatever they call it in your state.. most of these organizations have become such overpriced and budget bloated burearucracies, who are more interested in revenue than they are 'managing' state wildlife if that is what you call it..

I am taking my son out hunting for deer this year.. but I am so disgusted over Oregon's Fish and Wildlife I am going to set this season out...

I'm tired of dealing with the corrupted bureaucracy of all the Democratic party BS that runs this state...

NO wonder there are so many people who poach deer around here.. it is not the fees so much as it is dealing with the bureaucracy that they avoid...

I can see your reasons for being disgusted with how things are done but being on the opposite end of generations here, I'm 25,my angle is different.

With the immense increase of hunting pressure and almost fad-status of the recreation, hunting simply can not be conducted and supervised like it was as you were growing up. Hunting has become a well known and well practiced arithmetic of how-to, just like this forum, of people sharing knowledge of to do better.

With that you have people getting excited and enjoying the prosperity of it and wanting more. But on the downside, the next question is "Can" an ecosystem handle it? And season after season has shown the answer is NO, from my perspective. Too much pressure has always equaled the destruction of hunting quality and longevity of an area and that's why they need to be protected. A good example is why back-country areas with primitive access do so well, minus wolf introduction(That's a whole different story). There is little to no pressure in most of those areas and in return you get an excellent game resource.

Even at my age I've been lucky enough, in a non-financial way, to have been able to access and experience a lot of hunts in WA, ID, OR, CO, and NM to say that from what I have seen the only way to protect what we have currently, is to limit the number animals being harvested out of certain areas in western states, each year. So there is a steady and progressive build of quality for everyone to be able to have the "chance" to experience.

Remember, from hunter education, hunting is NOT a "right" it's a "Privilege."

So, after saying my piece. I can see your concerns and it never feels good when things are ripped out from under your feet that you've enjoyed for so many years but the hard truth is things are changing.

I believe that in my life time most hunting will be turned to lottery systems for Big Game in the West and it will in turn provide a better and more consistent experience when the chance is given for it.

I feel that there is a lot of entitlement that is accepted towards hunting that should have never been there in the first place. In my opinion, the days of getting "your deer" or getting "meat for the freezer" is so far gone in western states that some will react just like the post above stated.

I replaced my short stint of "entitlement" for "enjoyment" and I've had the best hunts I could have ever dreamed of in my life so far and I'm not even half the age of most.

You just never know when it's going to be your last.

Remember, from hunter education, hunting is NOT a "right" it's a "Privilege."

here in lies a very important point of philosophy between todays younger generation and what is now taught to youth by our government... comparing that to the generations that I was raised in...

I am 30 years older. What was taught to us in our generation and before that, is that we did have certain rights.. you had rights that given to you for being a citizen.. you had responsibilities that went with those rights.. regarding hunting, it did not guarantee you success.. but you had a right to go hunting..

when you turned 16 you were allowed to get a social security card... now it was manadatory at birth...

I did not grow up as a resident of Oregon.. I grew up as a military dependent with a home state of Virginia..

you were allowed to hunt without a license, not needing one until you turned 18...

you did not need a hunting license if you were taking deer on your own property...with few exceptions..

People living in a local area were always given preference to hunt in an area first, before outsiders if it was limited in access...

Seniors, military personnel, and youths were always given a priority over adult males from ages 18 to 65...and that was not just limited to hunting licenses...

Not until later did I hear this big brother, governmental crap that something wasn't a right, it was a privilege...

Suddenly I didn't have a "right" to drive on the highways that my and everyone else's tax dollars paid for, thru income tax to the fuel taxes we paid when we bought fuel.. suddenly it was a privilege 'granted' to me by the state...

we tax payers pay for all of this and the government is supposed to serve the public.. now it is the government telling us that we are supposed to serve them, and all our rights aren't really rights, they are now "privileges' that they grant us..

and now it doesn't matter if you are a local.. the entire community in which you live for hunting purposes belongs to the capitol, the big city and their crowds.. and they deem who hunts there... and they use it as an opportunity to put money in their pockets.. screw the locals...

what has shifted is a government across the country, with attitudes of who serves who... that has done a 180 degree shift from my generation to the younger gentleman's generation above..

He, I, my son.. have fewer and fewer 'rights' and more and more state 'granted privileges'.. which they want more and more money to 'Grant'...

yet on the other hand, to be 'politically correct' and 'worldly' Juan and Jose can sneak across the border tomorrow and do essentially any thing they want... and the state is all concerned about Juan and Jose's 'rights'... without using the words, the state can look the other way and allow them poaching with no licenses or paid fees like it is their God given right

so the natives have granted fee paid 'privileges'... illegal immigrants have 'rights'... and they are trying to indoctrinate the youth of today to believe that is the correct way to run society, and they should feel "privileged" to be subservient to those who run the state from their ivory tower offices in the state capitol...

I call BS!

VERY WELL SAID.

You forgot the part about there being FEWER hunters today than when you were a kid, too.

But Bulletbutt, that's what the new breed of hunters wants. Fewer hunters in the field is their goal. Hence why they're pushing for more and more "trophy" areas. They'd rather hunt once every five to ten years, and not see another hunter, than hunt every year with competition I guess. This "quality" crap is killing hunting, in many ways. And I'm a self-professed "horn hunter" when it comes to deer so have nothing against chasing mature bucks. But that's by MY choice, not somebody else's. I'd rather have the opportunity to hunt any/all deer every year than have to forgo some years under the guise of "quality" hunting.

Hmmm get off the darn road and away from atv accessable areas and you dont see many if any people. Thats in the part of oregon thats still an over the counter tag.

I hunt to hunt and for the hunt. Filling a tag is just a bonus.

-You forgot the part about there being FEWER hunters today than when you were a kid, too.-

This isn't a fact but I would think there is considerably less "local" hunting ground also because of expansion and development. Look at Beaverton, OR for example with waterfowl and deer.

I also think that my generation is also more focused on hunting in quite a few different areas. So applying to multiple places every year ups your chances for getting out in the field.

I will agree with the "trophy areas" comment. Eastern Washington and Montana is are great examples. Who hasn't seen a 30" two point in a 3-4 point requirement area?!? I've seen 6 in one season.

I think the hunting community is a mirror of the economy. A lot of can and cannots and a shrinking middle class. You either can afford to drive a few hours to go to a few hunting spots or you can't. Even rifles are the same. They are either $399 or $1,100 and only a small handfull in between.

I think this a good discussion. No bashing, but good counter points.

Attaboy Seafire let'em have it.

Concerning the problem with eastern Oregon residents not being able to hunt around where they live because the tags go into drawings and therefore to people from the population centers, I think eastern Oregon hunters should have first choice at local tags, and western Oregon should be allowed to buy tags for the Portland area before anyone from eastern Oregon would get a tag there. YMMV if you live in a population center.
As an example I present you with my brother-in-law in Enterprise, Oregon: He hardly ever gets to hunt where he lives. He long ago gave up living in the Portland area and moved to eastern Oregon to get away from the crowds, only to have the people in the population centers proportionally override his chance of getting drawn for a tag, leaving him to sit at home and twiddle his thumbs while these outsiders are hunting the deer and elk he has lived near and watched all year. It isn't right. He long ago made a commitment to live in that country, and now he's got less of a chance of hunting there than the chance of that opportunity going to an outsider.
In a sense it's comparable to the fishing here in SW Washington. The regulations are so complicated, and so subject to change, that you need a computer and email updates from the F&G to know when and where to fish.
The saddest part of it is, in both the examples above, the resources are under such intense control, sometimes by the wrong types of managers, that we're fighting amongst ourselves for a chance to participate.. We'll do this until the resource is something we can only look at in a book or a museum. When the animals/salmon are gone or controlled in such a micro-managed way that there's no room for growth, we'll quit fighting for them. We won't be hunters or fishermen.

Bulletbutt, I know what your brother-in-law is going thru as I too live in Enterprise. Although I don't hunt deer locally, I do hunt deer in Central Oregon as I have done since the early 70's. I was born and raised there and my grandfather started hunting there in the 40's. I do go back to hunt every chance I get when getting drawn for the tag. 90% of the people I talk to are either from the coast or the valley, very rarely do I talk to any locals. It's the same here as all you have to do is look at the plates on the hunting vehicles. Out of state plates. I've been here long enough to recognize the locals, and during hunting seasons you don't see many locals out hunting.

Take it for what it's worth, but it's money and politics that's managing our wildlife.

The biggest masses make the biggest messes.

Another question. I just looked at my deer tag and it says something to the sorts of "remember to complete my mandatory hunter survey within 15days of the end of the season."

Has that always been there or is it something new for the year.Just how do we complete this mandatory survey and what happens if we dont?

You & the others posting about the complexity of Oregon hunting have made some very good points. I really don't know about the type of hunter you reference that is a so called "new breed" that wants fewer hunters in the field. I do a lot of volunteer work for SCI & NRA & work membership booths at outdoor shows & gun shows. I literally meet thousands of hunters each year & have never met a hunter that wanted less licensed hunters. I am a NRA Hunting Instructor & also conduct seminars for both SCI & NRA. Both organizations do everything possible to promote youth hunting, introduce women to hunting, & in general try to increase the number of licensed hunters. Typically, there are 5-10% fewer licensed hunters each year. Women hunters is the only segment of our community that is growing. My SCI chapter has had a women's only shoot this year, youth hunts, & plans to schedule women's only hunts. The reduction in the number of licensed hunters will have serious repurcations for our community.

I have to chime in on this one. I grew up hunting the Ochoco's (Spanish Peak) where we would see 20 to 30 deer a day. Now, they issue over 3,000 tags a season for the Ochoco's. My Dad drew last year for the Ochoco's and all he saw was a doe, hundreds of hunters and lots of cougar tracks. It's all about money now. Fish and game uses our money to "manage" the wildlife. Its sad. They designate what was once an awesome area full of abundant wildlife, the area to generate enough revenue to feed the greed and devastate the deer population. It makes me sick. I guess you can always buy a general tag and go hunt where there are generally no deer.

Oh, and whoever said that there are less hunters today then a generation ago,....go hunt the Ochocos. You cant go fifteen min. without seeing blaze orange.

tbear- I agree that collectively we don't like to see hunter numbers declining. However, the increased leasing of private land, and the exclusivity that comes with it, tells me otherwise. Isn't the attraction of leasing, whether for commercial or individual interests, the ability of the lessees to exclude other hunters, thereby having tighter control of harvest and less competition in the field? I also see hunters being drawn, like moths to a flame, to tightly controlled, limited draw license allocation systems, due to the lure of shooting a big head when a tag is finally drawn. Sure, we all like to shoot big bucks/bulls, but at what cost to hunter opportunity and retention? Maybe it's just me, but it seems more hunters are seeking these types of exclusivity every year. So while the hunting community as a whole does not want to see fewer hunters in the field, IMO there is an increasing faction of hunters who want to see fewer hunters in THEIR fields.

OK, I'll take a step back and listen instead of replying with opinion. If I don't know something that I should I'll admit it and listen.

Explain how it's supposed to be?

Anybody...

All you & Big Cat Hunter have to do is an Internet check to verify the alarming decline in licensed hunters numbers. In a given area sure, you can have an overabundance number of hunters. I will say again I have never known a hunter that indicated with his/her actions or voiced a desire to have fewer hunters. The fact that F & G Dept.'s can basically do as they please without any possibility of law suites(Reid Act) is a major factor. Individual hunters can join outdoor groups like SCI, NWTF, Mule Deer, Etc. & attempt to lobby their F & G Dept.'s for change. There is strength in numbers. And, yes I am involved with this effort in the Wash. D.C. area with SCI as a member & not a lobbyist. It can make a difference. Good hunting.

There's a decline in hunters in Louisiana, too. Here's some reasons, IMHO:

(1) There's huge plots of Kisatchie National Forest spread over most of the state. But you'd have to hire a lawyer to be 100% certain that where, how, and what you were hunting was legal.

(2) Believe it or not, the deer license and tag procedure is so complicated the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries has a video explaining it. It's too complicated for words alone! This year's license is playing-card-size pages which fold out. Hold the top page and raise the license and it's nearly two feet long. It makes for a big lump in your wallet.

Frankly, it all seems designed by rich men to keep poor men out of "their" woods.

tbear- to clarify, I'm of the more-the-merrier mindset and fully understand the trends in hunter numbers as well as what affects those trends, at least in MT. I was merely pointing out what I've seen taking place on the ground and comments hunters seem to be making more often. It wasn't meant to reflect my beliefs.

Magnum- this is a good place to start, if you haven't already read it- Article. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears we're gravitating away from the North American model towards the European model, replete with regulations, restrictions of opportunity, and exclusivity. None of which encourage hunter recruitment, retention, or the continuation of the type of hunting unique to this continent.