OREGON'S MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLANsoda.sou.edu/awdata/040726f1.pdfa scarcity of deer on his...

OREGON' SMULE DEER

MANAGEMENT PLANFebruary 2003

.4

'A'

.fti

Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeOREGON PO. Box 59_h / 2501 SW FirstAvenue

Portland, Oregon 972011 503-872-5310

Fish Wildfife Lindsay Ball, Director

reOREGON' S

MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLANFebruary 2003

Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeP.O. Box 59

2501 S.W. First AvenuePortland, Oregon 97201

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......... 2........................................2BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ................................................... 3

Population Fluctuations ......... 3........................................3Regulation History ................................................. 4Hunting Pressure and Harvest .................................................. 6Mule Deer Biology .................................................. 8

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ......... 8.........................................8MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS ................................................... 9

Population Monitoring .................................................. 9Controlled Buck Hunting ................................................. 10Antlerless Hunting ................................................. 10Population Models.................................................................................................. 11Management Objectives .................................................. 11Point Regulation ................................................. 14Habitat Programs ................................................. 14Travel Management................................................................................................ 15Vegetation Management ................................................. 16Parasites and Disease .................................................. 16Supplemental Feeding .................................................. 17Predation and Predator Management ................................................. 18Technology............................................................................................................. 19

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OREGON'S MULE DEER RESOURCE ......................... 19Economic Impact of Mule Deer Hunting in Oregon .................................... 19Economic Value of Mule Deer Hunting .................................................. 20

2002 MULE DEER PLAN REVIEW PROCESS ............................................. 21ISSUES AND STRATEGIES ................................................. 23LITERATURE CITED ................................................. 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Management objectives by Wildlife Management Unit .................... ............. 12Table 2. Average hunter expenditures.......................................................... 20Table 3. Public meeting schedule................................................................ 22

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 ... .Mule deer distribution in Oregon ......................................... 3Fig. 2 .. Population estimates for mule deer in Oregon, 1979-2001 .......................... 4Fig. 3 .... Mule deer hunters, 1960-2000.7Fig. 4 .. Mule deer harvest, 1960-2000 ........................................ 7

INTRODUCTION

Oregon's Mule Deer Management Plan represents an update of the 1990 Mule Deer Planand includes issues and concerns publicly identified in 2002 that will direct futuremanagement of mule deer. The following plan reflects the input obtained from a 22-member Mule Deer Committee, comprised of representatives from 14 constituent groupsand eight agency biologists, as well as public input. Public input was provided to theMule Deer Committee during 12 public meetings and through written comments receivedin response to news releases. In addition, notification regarding the plan update wasadded to the reverse side of the controlled hunt results card. All controlled huntapplicants received a card.

Prior to initiating the update of the Mule Deer Management Plan, nine priority issuesidentified in the 1990 Mule Deer Plan were assessed to determine if the stated objectiveswere met or not, what problems were solved, and if the strategies were ineffective or notimplemented. A written review of those issues is titled, "Discussion of Issues Identifiedin the 1990 Mule Deer Plan" and is included in the Appendix of this plan.

The following plan presents a brief historical overview, describes mule deer habitatrequirements, and discusses several management concepts that are used in mule deermanagement. Updated economic values associated with big-game hunting also arepresented. Issues/concerns identified during the update also are included, with suggestedstrategies to address the stated issues/concerns.

1

OREGON' SMULE DEER MANAGEMNT PLAN

GOAL

Manage mule deer populations to attain the optimum balanceamong recreational uses, habitat availability, primary land uses and

other wildlife species.

OBJECTIVES OFMULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. Optimize recruitment of mule deer populations andmaintain buck ratios at approved levels.

2. Maintain, enhance and restore mule deer habitat.

3. Enhance all recreational uses of the resource.

2

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

r-

Population Fluctuations

Mule deer (Odocoilius hemionus) are native to Oregon and typically are found east of thecrest of the Cascade Mountain Range (Figure 1). Peter Skene Ogden's journal mentionsa scarcity of deer on his expedition through Eastern Oregon in 1826 and 1827.

Figure 1. Mule deer distribution in Oregon.

I M Mule Deer Distibuti* l

John Fremont reported few deer or other big-game species in Southeastern Oregon duringthe 1840s. However, by the late 1850s, gold miners traveling from California to theBoise Basin found deer abundant in Eastern Oregon. Vernon Bailey (1936) estimatedOregon's mule deer population to be 39,000 to 75,000 animals from 1926 to 1933. Muledeer populations increased through the 1930s and 1940s, peaking during mid-1950s, mid-1960s and in the mid-1970s. The estimated spring population in 1990 was 256,000animals (Figure 2), 19 percent below the established statewide management objective of317,400 as listed in the Mule Deer Plan (1990). The estimated 2001 population was283,000 and continues to remain below established management objectives.

3

Fluctuations in mule deer populations can be attributed to several factors that directly orindirectly effect habitat. Drought conditions reduce forage and cover values, whilesevere winter weather conditions can result in large losses of deer. Both factors cancause poor deer condition and result in lower deer survival. In contrast, years of adequatemoisture and mild winters will normally result in increased deer populations.

Overgrazing by livestock during the late 1 800s and early 1 900s resulted in rangelandsthat were dominated by shrubs and forb species and were more favorable for deer andpopulations increased. Similar patterns were noted in most western states (Workman andLow, 1976). Increased fire suppression activities allowed the encroachment of woodyvegetation resulting in old decadent shrub plants that have less nutritional value for deerand the loss of desirable shrub and forage species.

Figure 2. Population estimates for mule deer in Oregon, 1979-2001.

350,000

300,000

E200,000

UJ 250,000-C |+-4- Population Estimate0: 150,000

0. 100,0000

50,000 '

Year

Many mule deer ranges will no longer support historic deer population levels due toreduction of habitat caused by human development and changes in land use. Moderatepopulation increases may be attained in some units with careful management. However,a return to the high deer population levels present in the 1 950s, 60s and 70s probably willnot occur due to changes to habitat and public acceptance.

Regulation History

Initially, deer hunting regulations in Oregon were set by the state Legislature. The firstdeer season was established in 1901 with a July 15 - Oct. 31 season, five-deer, either-sexbag limit. Bag limits and season lengths typically decreased through time until a buck-

4

only law went into effect in 1923 in response to public concern over reduced deerp.gpulations. The 1923 season had a bag limit of two bucks and ran for about 40 days.

In 1913, the state Legislature created several deer refuges closing the areas to hunting inan attempt to increase deer populations. However, by the early 1930s most refuges wereoverpopulated with deer, forage supplies were depleted, and many deer starved during thewinters. The most notable area was Murderer's Creek Basin in Grant County, where3,000 to 5,000 deer died during the 1937-38 winter.

To reduce deer numbers in Murderer's Creek Basin, the 1937 Legislature authorized aprocedure for issuing special deer tags. During 1938, 1,250 tags were authorized for a 22-day season in the Murderer's Creek watershed; however, only 270 tags were sold. TheLegislature then declared an unlimited, open season for 1939 in Grant County and part ofHarney County, with a two-deer, either-sex bag limit. Almost 11,000 animals wereharvested during the season and a considerable amount of public concern was expressed.

In 1941, the state Legislature granted regulatory authority to the Game Commission andportions of several refuges were opened to hunting. A deer tag, separate from the huntinglicense, became effective in 1948 and provided a measurement of harvest through reportcard returns. By 1952, buck season opened on the Saturday nearest Oct. 1 and ran forthree weeks. During the last three to five days of the season, the bag limit changed to anydeer for those hunters with unused deer tags.

All refuges were abandoned by the Legislature in 1955 and spikes became legal inEastern Oregon in 1956. Due to increasing hunting numbers and pressure, the hunter'schoice season was replaced by antlerless permit hunts on a unit basis during the late1950s. Unit hunts were used for population reduction and damage control, with permitsbeing limited and valid for an antlerless deer only. Special seasons were still authorizedfor specific damage/problem areas.

Buck ratios failed to recover sufficiently after the severe winter of 1968-69 and promptedthe Department to initiate ways to reduce mule deer hunting pressure. Separate tags formule deer and black-tailed deer were adopted in 1976, and hunters could legally huntonly one deer subspecies annually under this system. Season lengths for mule deer werealso adjusted, with five, seven, nine and twelve days allowed, depending on deerpopulations. Antler point regulations were employed in a few units in an attempt toimprove buck ratios and increase the numbers of older bucks. During 1982, the OregonFish and Wildlife Commission adopted minimum post-season buck ratios and populationmanagement objectives (MO) for each Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) in EasternOregon.

Severe weather conditions during the winters of 1983-84 and 1984-85 were responsiblefor high fawn mortality and up to 50 percent adult deer mortality in some northeasternand southeastern units. Some of these units were closed to all deer hunting in 1984 and

5

1985, and hunter numbers were controlled in other units in response to the severe winterl9sses. Closed units were reopened in 1986 to controlled buck hunting only.

In response to declining deer populations and increasing hunting pressure, the first MuleDeer Plan was written and adopted in 1990 to guide mule deer management in Oregon.The plan listed minimum post-season, buck-to-doe ratios, established winter-populationlevels, listed minimum recruitment levels for each WMU, and identified several issues ofconcern pertaining to future management of mule deer populations.

In response to high hunter densities and low post-season, buck-to-doe ratios, a totallimited entry hunting for mule deer was initiated in 1991 in Eastern Oregon. Unit-wideantlerless hunting and various special hunts were maintained to assist with controllingdeer populations and to address damage problems on private lands.

Archery hunting regulations evolved along with the various rifle season changesimplemented through the years. For many years, archery hunters were restricted tohunting specific units or portions of units. In 1972, archers were required to purchase aspecific archery tag in addition to the regular hunting license. Separate deer tags forarchery and rifle hunters were implemented in 1979 requiring hunters to choose theirpreferred weapon.

The entire state was opened to general archery hunting in 1979. Currently, the deerarchery season opens on the last Saturday in August and continues for 30 days, with aone-buck bag limit. Either-sex archery hunting has been allowed in those WMUs thathave unit-wide antlerless permits authorized for rifle hunters. During the 1990 season,8,444 archery hunters hunted mule deer and by the 2001 season, more than 18,000archery tags were sold.

In recent years, separate muzzleloader seasons also have been implemented inmanagement units throughout Oregon. Approximately 3,285 tags were offered forspecific muzzleloader deer hunts during 2001.

Hunting Pressure and Harvest

In 1928, 57,000 hunting licenses were sold. In 1939, an increased interest in huntingresulted in 88,000 licenses being sold. Deer harvest was generally low during the 1930s,with a reported harvest of 6,506 mule deer in 1934. The end of World War II brought asubstantial increase in hunting pressure as 167,000 licenses were sold in 1946.

Hunter numbers peaked during the late 1960s through the mid-1970s. For the 15-yearperiod, 1955 through 1969, an average of 147,000 mule deer hunters was afield annually,see Figure 3. (Harvest surveys were not completed during 1984.) Since the initiation oflimited-entry buck hunting, rifle hunter numbers have averaged 86,500 annually, an 11.7percent reduction from earlier levels.

6

Figure 3. Mule deer hunter numbers in Oregon, 1960-2000.

200,000 -

180,000 -

160,000 - #I"S,140,000 -0 <&120,000- - A I *

100,000 W _an onn -n

I

--*-Total Hunters

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 ......................................... . .. ...

Year

Mule deer harvest during these years averaged 83,000 deer, with a 56 percent huntersuccess rate. Antlerless animals made up approximately 32 percent of the annual harvest.The peak year was 1961, when 98,000 mule deer were harvested in Oregon. Deer harvestinformation is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Mule deer harvest in Oregon, 1960-2000

80,000

70,000

60,000

2 50,000

I 40,000

a 30,000

20,000

10,000

0

- Buck Harvest|-- Anterless Harvest

, US de i Y ear t 9

Year

7

Mule Deer Biology

Females (does) usually breed for the first time as yearlings (18 months) and adult doesnormally produce twin fawns. Breeding peaks during November and the majority offawns are born late May through mid June, with fawns typically weighing about 7 I/2pounds at birth. High numbers of fawns are produced annually. Fawn survival tobreeding age ultimately determines the growth or decline of mule deer populations.

Does typically live longer than bucks, living up to 15 years. Bucks seldom live more thannine years. Their higher mortality rate is attributed to higher hunter harvest rates andhigher natural mortality due to reduced body condition caused by breeding activities inNovember and December.

Nutritional intake is a critical component of deer biology. Deer are small ruminants andare unable to process large volumes of low value feed, as do elk and cattle. Deer requirehigh quality feed and overall body condition affects many aspects of deer biology andsurvival. When deer begin the winter with adequate body reserves, reproductive ratesimprove and winter survival is good. The converse is true if deer enter the winter withinsufficient body reserves. During severe winters, deer populations can experience drasticreductions in numbers regardless of body condition.

Genetics, nutrition and age determine antler growth. To attain antlers that meet 'trophy'proportions, a buck must have the genetic predisposition to grow large antlers, have highquality nutritious forage with adequate mineral content, and survive to an age of six ormore years. Antler growth typically begins in late April and is normally complete by lateAugust. Antlers function in the breeding season as an attractant to females. Larger, olderbucks normally complete most of the breeding; however, younger, smaller antlered buckscan and do breed does. Upon completion of the breeding activities, a change in hormoneproduction initiates the annual shedding of antlers, which generally begins duringJanuary.

High hunter harvest of bucks can cause reproductive problems in deer populations. Post-seasonratios of 5-7 bucks per 100 does are generally recognized as a biological minimum level. The1990 Mule Deer Plan lists 12 bucks per 100 does as a minimum post-season level for EasternOregon.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

Habitat is defined as "the resources and conditions present in an area that produceoccupancy, including survival and reproduction, by a given organism" (Hall et al. 1997).The most important deer habitats in Eastern Oregon are summer habitat, including areasneeded for reproductive activities and winter habitat.

8

Preferred summer habitat provides adequate forage to replace body reserves lost duringWinter and to maintain normal body functions. Summer habitat also includes areasspecifically used for reproductive purposes. These areas must have an adequate amountof succulent vegetation, offering highly nutritional forage. In addition, areas used forreproduction should provide isolation from other deer, security from predators andminimal competition from other ungulates. Summer habitat areas are common throughoutEastern Oregon, and can be found in areas varying from lowland agricultural lands tohigh elevation mountain areas.

Winter habitat is found predominately in lower elevation areas of Eastern Oregon. Theseareas usually have minimal amounts of snow cover and provide a combination ofgeographic location, topography, and vegetation that provides structural protection andforage. Due to the low nutritive values of available forage during the winter, deer areforced to rely on their body reserves acquired during the summer for winter survival.

Big-game winter ranges have been delineated during implementation of county planningand federal land-management planning efforts. Identified big-game winter rangestypically are used by both deer and elk. Due to the combined use by these species, thewinter range designations can have limitations if used to determine specific deer winterrange areas.

MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS

Population Monitoring

Monitoring mule deer populations in Oregon is largely dependent on annual herdcomposition and trend counts and information obtained from annual hunter harvestsurveys. Additional information regarding habitat condition, nutrition, and weather isused, if available, as it pertains to population monitoring.

Following hunting seasons, usually in November and December, fall herd compositioncounts are conducted. These counts are conducted by vehicle, horseback, aircraft or onfoot. Deer are counted and classified to determine sex and to determine if they are adultsor fawns. The information is used to calculate bucks per 100 does and fawns per 100 doesin each WMU. Post-season buck ratios indicate numbers and age classes of bucksavailable for breeding. They also are compared with established MOs for each WMU todetermine if post-season buck ratio objectives are being met. Information regarding fallfawn ratios is used to determine numbers of fawns present in populations before winter.

During March and April, spring herd composition and total deer counts are conducted byvehicle, horseback, aircraft or on foot. Deer are counted and classified as adults or fawnsand a spring ratio of fawns per 100 adults is calculated. The observed spring fawn ratioand fall herd composition information are used to estimate over-winter survival and fawnrecruitment. The number of mule deer observed in the current year is used to compare

9

previous years information to determine population trends. Annual survey effort issubstantial with more than 75,000 mule deer classified in 2000-01.

Harvest surveys are conducted by telephone after completion of the hunting seasons todetermine average days-hunted, success rates and total harvest. Historic telephone huntersurveys were less accurate, due to the unknown number of hunters who hunted aparticular unit. As a result harvest figures were reported to be accurate at a 60 percentlevel. Since initiation of limited-entry hunting, harvest surveys information wereconducted to obtain a 90 percent confidence interval with a 10 percent error. However,budget limitations experienced during 2001 resulted in a reduced harvest survey effortand resulted in an 80 percent confidence interval with a 20 percent error (results of the2001 hunter survey are not available).

A total of 78,764 controlled hunt mule deer tags were sold for the 2000 hunting seasons.To meet the 90 percent confidence and 10 percent error statistical objectives, 27,544hunters were contacted and interviewed during the harvest survey.

Controlled Buck Hunting

Controlled buck hunting was initiated in 1991 in response to low post-season, buck-to-doe ratios in many WMUs. After the 1990 buck seasons, only 16 of the 47 WMUs inEastern Oregon were at or above the minimum post-season buck-to-doe ratios. Of those16 units, 12 units already had limited-entry hunting due to deer recruitment problems thatstarted during the winter of 1983-84.

Hunter numbers were substantially reduced during the 1991 controlled buck season andpost-season buck ratios began to improve immediately. Total hunter numbers werereduced from 104,745 in 1990 to 90,661 in 1991, a decrease of approximately 14 percent.Following the 1991 hunting seasons, 37 of 47 WMUs were at or slightly below their MOsfor bucks. Limited-entry buck hunting has been maintained in all 47 Eastern OregonWM`Us and after completion of the 2001 seasons, 33 of the 47 WMUs were at or abovetheir recommended post-season, buck-to-doe ratios.

Antlerless Hunting

In healthy mule deer herds, antlerless harvest can affect the size and growth of mule deerpopulations. Buck-only seasons do not remove enough animals to solve either concern.Placing all hunting pressure on bucks can result in buck ratios falling below identifiedMO levels.

A deer surplus exists when annual spring census indicates that a deer herd is approachingor is above the population MO for the WMU. To effectively reduce populations,significant numbers of antlerless deer must be removed through controlled hunt tags.

10

Antlerless harvest can keep a deer population in balance with its habitat and has theadditional benefit of removing some of the older, less productive does.Damage hunts are designed to harvest antlerless deer causing damage to agriculturalcrops. These hunts are limited to specific areas and generally do not have a major effecton the overall deer population within a WMU.

Population Models

Since the adoption of the 1990 Mule Deer Plan, additional techniques have beendeveloped to assist biologists in constructing mathematical-based models of deerpopulations. POP2, a computer program, uses herd ratios, ages and productivity rates,combined with harvest rates, natural mortality and weather severity to determine futuredeer population levels. Flying grid patterns in representative habitat types within a WMUand recording all deer observed determine sightability indexes. The data obtained areexpanded based on the total amount of each habitat type within the WMU and a finalpopulation estimate is determined. Other methods include varied mathematical processesand formulas that incorporate many or all of the above-mentioned information to estimatedeer populations. The processes described above and other similar techniques are usedthroughout the western states to assist biologists in determining deer population levels.

Management Objectives

Mule deer management objectives were established during a public review process thatoccurred prior to the adoption of the Mule Deer Plan in 1990. The winter populationlevels were initially determined in 1982 using a mathematical ratio, based on harvestestimates that were obtained from the statewide annual hunter survey. During a statewidepublic review of the 1990 Mule Deer Plan, the 1982 estimates were adjusted to reflectwinter population objective levels for each WMU. A minimum post-season, buck-to-doeratio of 12 was determined for all WMUs. In addition, in an effort to address publicrequests for 'diverse hunting opportunities' varied minimum post-season buck ratios wereset in a total of 50 sub-units. Post-season ratios were set at 12 bucks for 18 units, 15bucks for 24 units and 25 bucks for eight units. Minimum recruitment levels of springfawn-to-adult ratios were also determined for each WMU or sub-unit.

With initiation of controlled rifle deer hunting in Eastern Oregon, mule deer harvestestimates became more accurate and indicated that earlier deer population estimates insome WMUs were inaccurate. However, before changes are made to the existingmanagement objectives as listed in the 1990 plan and shown below, the managementobjectives for each WMU will be reviewed in a public forum. It is anticipated the publicreview of the management objective information will be initiated in 2003.

11

Table 1. Management Objectives by Wildlife Management Unit

Wildlife Mgmt Unit (#) 1990Pop. MO

Bucks!1 00 doesPost season

Fawns/100 adults

UnitSq Miles

Minam - 60 5,000 25 35 580Imnaha -61 5,300 1 5 35 428Catherine Cr. -53 4,300 15 40 643Keating -63 4,600 1 5 35 633Pine Creek -62 2,500 1 5 35 366Lookout Mtn. -64 3,200 1 5 35 583

Wallowa Zone 24,900 3,233

Snake River - 59 6,400 25 35 449Chesnimnus - 58 3,600 12 35 657Sled Springs - 57 5,000 12 35 891Wenaha -56 1,500 1 2 35 444Walla Walla - 55 1,900 1 5 40 302Mt. Emily -54 5,000 1 5 40 764

Wenaha-Snake Zone 23,400 3,507

Starkey -52 3,000 1 5 40 755Ukiah -49 6,700 1 5 40 898Sumpter - 5 7,000 1 5 35 1,514Desolation -SO 2,500 1 5 40 712Heppner -48 13,500 1 2 50 1,469Fossil -45 14,000 12 50 1,357Columbia Basin - 44 1,000 1 2 35 2,860

Umatilla-Whitman Zone 47,700 9,565

Northside -47 15,500 1 5 40 1,090Murderers Creek -46 9,000 1 5 40 1,150Beulah -65 13,700 12 35 2,723Malheur -66 13,700 12 25 2,954Silvies -72 11,800 12 35 1,821Ochoco, - 37 20,500 1 2 35 1,604Grizzly -38 8,500 1 2 35 1,671Maury -36 5,200 12 35 1,141

12

Wildlife Mgmt Unit (#) 1990Pop. MO

Bucks/100 doesPost season

Fawns/100 adults

UnitSq Miles

Ochoco-Malheur Zone 97,900 14,154

Biggs - 43West BEast BMaupin - 40White River - 41Hood - 42

5,3003,3002,0003,0009,000400

12 35 2,015

-

122525

353535

533929379

Columbia Zone 17,700 3,856

Metolius - 39 6,200 25 35 674Paulina - 35Upper Deschutes - 34Fort Rock - 77Silver Lake - 76Sprague - 33Klamath Falls - 32Keno - 31

.

16,5002,20011,20010,3002,2006,2003,20014,8005,500

151215121212

1515152515

4035353535353535353535

2,2061,3831,809

974775

1,2451,0392,202

960Interstate - 75Warner- 74N. WarnerS. Warner

Central-South Zone 78,300 13,267

Wagontire - 73 1,400 15 35 2,912Beattys Butte-70 2,300 15 25 2,507

Juniper- 71 2,300 15 25 2,955Steens - 69 11,000 25 35 1,916

5,500 15 35 4,882

Whitehorse - 68E. Whitehorse 15 35Trout Creek Mtns. 25 35Owyhee - 67 5,000 15 35 3,027

Southeast Zone

TOTALS/AVERAGES

27,500 18,199

317,400 65,781

13

Point Regulations

Point regulations are often suggested as a way to increase the number of older bucks in adeer population. In theory, point regulations are designed to increase the number of olderbucks in the population by limiting harvest to only larger bucks, allowing younger bucksto mature. However, past experience in Oregon has shown that three-point or four-pointregulations do not produce additional older bucks in an area unless hunter numbers areseverely limited.

Steens Mountain WMU was managed under a four-point regulation, with no limitation onhunter numbers for 12 years (1975-86) and provides an excellent source of information toaddress this issue. During the course of the four-point or better regulation, there was ahigh illegal buck harvest and a decline of approximately 30 percent of the number offour-points available for harvest. The long-term effect of the four-point regulationimposed on Steens Mountain WMU was that legal buck harvest declined by nearly 50percent by the end of the 12 years the point restriction was in effect. Currently, thoseWMUs that have identified post-season buck ratios of 25 are units being managed for'trophy' opportunities in Oregon.

In general, point regulations result in illegal kill of sub-legal bucks, hunter expectationsof a quality experience are not realized, and both the total number of legal bucksavailable and the total harvest decrease.

Habitat Programs

Oregon biologists are responsible for managing mule deer herds at healthy andsustainable levels. ODFW is not a land-management agency and therefore has little directcontrol over most mule deer habitat. However, biologists routinely discuss habitatmanagement issues/practices with private landowners and public land managers. Whenpossible, and if funding exists, habitat projects are initiated to improve deer habitat.Funding for these projects come from a combination of hunter license and tag fees and/ormoneys derived from federal excise taxes on sporting goods. The primary habitatprograms used in Oregon are listed below.

Green Forage Program: The Green Forage (GF) program was created in 1983 to assistlandowners who are experiencing damage caused by wildlife. The objective of the GFprogram is to alleviate or prevent big-game damage on private lands while benefitingwildlife by improving forage quality and quantity on public or private lands.

DEAR Program: The Deer Enhancement and Restoration (DEAR) program wasinitiated in 1983 to provide funding to improve mule deer ranges for the enhancement ofdeer populations. DEAR projects are typically designed to improve or enhance anycomponent of deer habitat on private or public lands.

14

Habitat Improvement Program: The Habitat Improvement program (HIP) is used toenhance wildlife habitat for a wide range of wildlife species and is more general than the6F or DEAR programs. It is funded by Pittman-Robertson dollars, a federal excise tax onsporting firearms and ammunition. The Department uses the moneys to acquire andmaintain ODFW wildlife areas and to improve wildlife habitat on public and privatelands. Many of the projects are cooperatively funded by contributions from huntingorganizations.

Access and Habitat Program: The Access and Habitat (A&H) program was sponsoredby several landowner and hunter associations and was created during the 1993 session ofthe Oregon Legislature. The A&H program was designed to improve wildlife habitat andprovide sportsmen with access to private and public lands for hunting. Annual fundingfor the program is derived from a $2 surcharge on hunting licenses and from moneyscollected from the auction and raffle of 10 deer and 10 elk tags. While the program isfunded with license dollars, it is not directly controlled by ODFW. Regional councils anda state board comprised of landowners and sportspeople review project proposals andmake recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for funding. During the1997 legislative session, the A&H program was reauthorized and is currently in effectthrough 2003.

Travel Management

In response to declining buck ratios and increasing road densities in many parts ofEastern Oregon, ODFW developed cooperative road closure areas with public and privateland managers. The cooperative closures attempted to limit motorized-vehicle access andprovide areas where deer were less vulnerable to harassment. The program was initiatedin 1967 and was well supported by hunters. By 1990, approximately 1,450,000 acreswere under a motorized vehicle management program. However, it was difficult tocorrelate any increase of buck ratios to the closures, as most areas were relatively small.In addition, due to program popularity, hunter density was often higher in the vehicleclosure areas and often a higher percentage of bucks were harvested. However, theprogram did provide areas that hunters could use without having to contend with vehicleinterference and did provide protection against vehicular-caused damage on many roads.

During the mid- 1 990s, federal agencies began to develop their own Access and TravelManagement (ATM) programs. Big-game winter range areas were identified during theATM process and seasonal vehicle restrictions were implemented to ensure optimum useby big-game species. During the development of the federal ATM programs, all publicrecreation user needs were addressed and subsequently many of the historic closure areaswere changed; however, the total acreage involved in road closure programs remains near1,500,000 acres.

15

Vegetation Managementr-

Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing systems can be designed to improve deer habitatby providing an array of forage conditions. ODFW uses livestock grazing on some oftheir Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) to improve habitat for mule deer and otherwildlife species. Wildlife habitat objectives are achieved by manipulating the type oflivestock, season of use and the amount of use to produce a desired forage type orcondition. Annual changes in environmental conditions also must be considered.

Fire Management: Prescribed fire is recognized as a tool used to improve severalcomponents of deer habitat. Fire often rejuvenates old browse plants, making them morepalatable and productive. However, fire management requires a good understanding ofhow various plant species respond to a burn treatment and what fire intervals wereresponsible for developing the existing ecosystem. Reoccurring fire, whether prescribedor wild, or fire suppression can lead to the elimination of desired browse and forbspecies, changing the overall plant composition and the range may take several years tore-establish the preferred browse and forage conditions.

Prescribed fire is needed in many forested areas of Eastern Oregon; however, landmanagers are concerned about fire control due to fuel loads that have accumulated withpast fire suppression. Land managers will continue to use prescribed fires as a landmanagement practice, but increases and improvement of habitat quality and quantity maytake several years.

Wildfires in sagebrush habitats often burn vast acres, burn extremely hot and can result inthe loss of critical winter range habitat. In many areas, it may take 30 to 50 years beforethe areas have recovered to a level to support significant numbers of deer.

Noxious weeds: Weeds are generally described as non-native plants that are invasive andtypically displace native plants. Noxious weeds are plants that are potential threats to theecological, social or economic status of any given area. Many areas in Eastern Oregonhave been identified with noxious weed problems and many Eastern Oregon countieshave county-funded weed control programs. Control of noxious weeds on identified deerwinter range and summer range areas is beneficial when the weed control programmaintains the native forage species.

Parasites and Disease

In Oregon, several parasites are known to occur in mule deer and are common throughoutthe west. Ticks and deer keds are the most common external parasites found on deer.Both parasites feed by sucking blood from their hosts and can become a problem if anindividual deer is in a weakened condition.

16

Diseases are of greater concern because they are difficult to diagnose and have potentialfar a greater negative impact to deer populations. Mule deer populations that arerelatively stable and that are found in good habitat rarely are in danger of diseaseepizootics. However, the danger of disease transmittal is more serious when deer herdsare concentrated. Adenovirus hemorrhagic disease (AHD) and Epizootic hemorrhagicdisease (EHD) have been confirmed in limited areas of Central and Southeast Oregon. Atpresent, there is no evidence or recorded outbreaks of brucellosis, tuberculosis (TB) orchronic wasting disease (CWD) in wild deer herds of Oregon.

Because mule deer share rangeland with other wild and domestic animals and often occuradjacent to big game farm facilities, the potential exists for transmission of certaindiseases and parasites. Diseases in deer are best managed by maintaining healthy habitats,managing appropriate animal densities, and recognizing diagnostic symptoms of variousdiseases.

Supplemental Feeding

Weather, especially severe winters, can negatively impact deer populations and oftenleads to public requests or demands to initiate supplemental feeding. In Oregon, managedsupplemental winter-feeding programs are limited to a few situations where deer and elkare purposely fed annually to prevent damage to nearby agricultural lands. Artificialfeeding programs can easily divert the public's attention away from the real problem:maintenance and enhancement of habitat needed for year-round support of mule deer.

Natural strategies for winter survival, such as migration, animal distribution, dispersal,and foraging behaviors developed by deer for survival is preferred to artificial feeding.However, because of severely reduced deer winter ranges in many areas, the Departmentrecognizes that human intervention to control damage or increase survival may, at times,be necessary.

Emergency feeding programs were initially implemented in Oregon in 1948 and havelong been identified as costly and ineffective programs. After the severe winter of 1992-93, when a substantial amount of public moneys and ODFW personnel time were spenton emergency feeding, ODFW developed a draft emergency-feeding plan. While the planwas not adopted as agency policy, the draft plan is still used throughout Eastern Oregonto determine when winter-feeding is needed.

The draft plan states that winter-feeding programs for deer will be conducted in onlyextraordinary situations when natural forage and traditional winter ranges are unavailableand severe weather will have a decimating impact on deer populations. Emergency winterfeeding will be implemented under the following conditions: 1) to prevent damage toprivate property where other methods are deemed ineffective, 2) to supplement winterrange in a Department-managed program on a state-owned or managed wildlifemanagement area, and 3) where emergency feeding will increase winter survival and not

17

cause significant problems with disease, damage or habitat. Emergency feeding isgenerally limited to areas where there is a substantial public demand for such feeding,and where the public makes resources available for such a program through volunteerefforts and donation of money and materials.

Predation and Predator Management

The effect of predation on mule deer is often difficult to determine due to numerousfactors that can affect mule deer herds. Studies in some areas of the western United Stateshave concluded that predators have a major effect on mule deer populations, while otherstudies have found predators have little effect. Differences in deer and predator densities,species of predators, weather, disease, human harvest, and whether the prey population isat habitat carrying capacity influence study results.

The most significant predators of mule deer in Oregon are coyotes and cougars. Coyotesfeed primarily on small animals, carrion and vegetation but will also prey on deer,especially fawns. Cougars rely on deer and elk as their primary prey, feeding on bothadults and young throughout the year. Coyote populations in Oregon increasedsignificantly after use of the poison compound 1080 was banned on federal lands in 1972.Cougars have increased from an estimated population of 200 in 1961 to more than 4,000in 2001. In general, population numbers of both predators have increased during the pastfew decades. Large numbers of predators may function to negatively affect populationincreases in deer herds and the effects are most noticeable after those winters when deerpopulations experience high mortality rates.

Presently, Oregon's wildlife managers have limited influence on cougar and coyotepopulations. Hunter harvest is having minimal effect on controlling overall numbers ofeither predator. Other management techniques, such as regulated trapping and damagecontrol programs target specific areas and/or animals. Widespread predator controlprograms have not been used since the early 1990s primarily due to a lack of publicsupport.

Before initiating a predator control program to increase deer numbers, several factorsmust be considered. Most importantly, predation must be identified as a major factorlimiting deer herds and the deer population must be below habitat carrying capacity.Other factors to consider are whether: 1) reliable methods exist for the removal of theidentified predator, 2) an assessment of the total number of predators to be removedwithin an identified project area needs to be completed, 3) the cost of the proposedproject will be justified with a realistic increase in deer numbers and subsequent hunterharvest, and 4) the proposed project will be publicly accepted. While predator control isnot always the appropriate management tool, in the right situation it may be an option formanaging predator species and mule deer populations.

18

T o

Technology

Technological advancement in outdoor equipment has increased hunter efficiency and ischanging the way many people hunt. Improvements to weapons, ammunition, and opticshave increased the distance at which game can be taken. All terrain vehicles, mechanizedcarts, and portable winches permit hunters to hunt larger tracts of land and make gameretrieval easier. Global positioning units, two-way radios, and cellular phones allowhunters to travel farther into unknown areas and maintain communication with othermembers of their hunting party. Improvements in waterproof clothing and insulatedclothing allow hunters to withstand the elements longer. Development and availability ofnight-vision optics and infrared cameras have created an advantage for some hunters. Bybeing able to monitor animals' nighttime activities and locations, hunters may increasetheir chances for success during legal hunting times.

There has always been interest to provide additional hunting opportunities for 'primitiveweapon' hunters, primarily for archery and muzzleloaders. However, archery andmuzzleloader equipment of today is far more technologically advanced than that of 10years ago and new improvements are continually being added. Rules to limit theireffectiveness recently have been adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Technological improvements in hunting equipment will continue and the Oregon Fishand Wildlife Commission will be constantly challenged to determine how newtechnologies may impact future hunting opportunities and may be required to developrules that limit the effectiveness of the hunter or equipment.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OREGON'S MULE DEER RESOURCE

Economic Impact of Mule Deer Hunting in Oregon

Estimates of the economic impact of hunting on statewide personal income have beendeveloped using expenditure data and economic 'input-output' models. Totalexpenditures for all types of hunting by Oregonians were estimated at about $625 millionin 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a). This estimate includes expenditures onspecial equipment such as vehicles used primarily for hunting. These estimatedexpenditures for all hunting produced roughly $315 million in statewide personal income(Southwick Associates, 1998).

The amount that a hunter spends in order to take part in a hunting trip has an impact onstate or regional economies as well as the local economy. For example, the expendituresrelated to big-game hunting in Eastern Oregon also generate income outside EasternOregon. A portion of hunting trip expenditures are made near hunters' homes and enroute

19

to the hunting destination; and income also is generated because of 'leakages,' orpurchases, of the local area economy from the larger state and regional economies.

Among the data collected in a study on hunting in the Starkey Experimental Forest(during 1989-91) were deer and elk hunter trip expenditures. These expenditures did notinclude spending on hunting equipment and special equipment. The associated impact onpersonal income from the expenditures has been estimated for the state level and forEastern Oregon. The estimates for deer hunting are shown in the following table:

Table 2. Starkey Experimental Forest Deer Hunter Average Hunter Day Expendituresand Associated Impacts on Total Personal Income

Hunt Period Usable Average Total State Level Average EasternResponses Trip Personal Eastern Oregon

Expenditures Income Oregon Personal(per hunter Impact (per Expenditures Income

day) hunter day) (per hunter Impact (perday) hunter day)

DEERHUNTS1989 68 $ 46.29 $ 35.05 $ 21.25 $ 9.03October 1990 20 $ 48.09 $ 34.12 $ 20.95 $ 8.25October 1991 19 $57.18 $ 42.98 $ 36.82 $ 17.48WEIGHTEDAVERAGE 107 total $ 48.56 $ 36.28 $ 23.96 $ 10.38WEIGHTEDAVERAGE(2001 $) $58.76 $43.90 $28.99 $12.56

No comparable estimates of expenditures and personal income impacts have been madefor Western Oregon elk and deer hunting.

Economic Value of Mule Deer Hunting

The first in-depth study of the net economic value of big-game hunting in Oregon wasbased on a 1968 survey (Brown, 1973). In this study Brown, Nawas and Stevensestimated the net economic value for big game hunting in Northeastern Oregon, usingwhat is called the 'travel cost' model approach. The average net economic value in 1968was an estimated $9.20 per hunter day.

Analysis of Oregon data collected during the 1985 national survey (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, 1988) provided another estimate of the net economic value of deerhunting. Using what is known as the contingent value method, Hay (1988) estimated anaverage net economic value per day of deer hunting of $30 for Oregon.

20

Using Oregon data collected during the 1991 national survey (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 1993), Waddington, et. al. (1994) estimated updated values for deer hunting inOregon. The estimated mean net economic value per year for Oregon deer hunting was$433. This translates to a value per day of deer hunting of about $59. This is substantiallyhigher than the estimates Hay made with the 1985 data.

Based on the studies cited above, a net economic value of $30 to $60 per hunter day formule deer hunting in Oregon, the roughly 495,850 days of mule deer hunting in Oregon(2001) probably yielded between $14.9 million and $29.8 million in net economicbenefits. This estimate represents the aggregate user value of mule deer hunting to thosewho hunted in Oregon, over and above their actual expenditures (costs) for thisrecreation.

2002 MULE DEER PLAN REVIEW PROCESS

An internal committee was selected during November 2001 and was comprised of sevenODFW personnel and one OSP representative. At the first committee meeting in mid-December, a process was discussed and identified that was to be used to guide the reviewof the 1990 Mule Deer Plan. The process developed included an updating of thebiological and management information and completing an assessment of the publiclyidentified management issues listed in the 1990 plan. After completion of the aboveactivities, a list of current mule deer management issues was developed.

The internal committee members completed the information update and the assessment ofthe 1990 issues during the period of December through April. In March, Portland staffsent 33 letters to individual and constituent groups, inviting them to participate in theMule Deer Plan review. The list of individuals and constituents that received letters ofinvitation is shown on Pages 2, 3 and 4 of the Appendix. In response to the invitation, 14people volunteered to serve on the Mule Deer Committee. A list of all 22 Mule DeerCommittee members and their affiliation is shown on Page 4 of the Appendix.

Mule Deer Committee members began meeting in mid-April to review the updateinformation in the plan and to review the discussion of the 1990 issues and strategies. Thewritten assessment of the identified issues from the 1990 Mule Deer Plan is included inthe Appendix, beginning on Page 46. During the last committee meeting in May, thecommittee developed a series of management issues that highlighted concerns of thecommittee and this initial list was used during the public review process.

The statewide public review process began with a series of news releases and a printednotification on the reverse side of controlled hunt report cards sent to 180,000 hunterapplicants. Twelve public meetings were scheduled to provide an opportunity forinterested publics to attend throughout the state. At each meeting, the public participantswere presented a short review of the existing plan and past management activities prior toreceiving comments from those in attendance. Depending on the location, meeting

21

participants were offered an opportunity to comment on mule deer, black-tailed deer, and5jk management issues. The location and other pertinent information regarding the publicmeetings are listed below.

Table 3. Public Meeting Schedule for Review of:2002 Elk Plan, Mule Deer Plan, Black-tailed Deer Strategies

City Date Time Meeting Location

BurnsElk Mule Deer

TillamookElk, Mule Deer, BT

MedfordElk Mule Deer, BT

RedmondElk, Mule Deer, BT

La GrandeElk, Mule Deer

RoseburgElk Mule Deer, BT

North BendElk, Mule Deer, BT

NewportElk, Mule Deer, BT

PendletonElk Mule Deer

Klamath FallsElk, Mule Deer, BT

CorvallisElk, Mule Deer, BT

PortlandElk, Mule Deer, BT

August 5

August 6

August 6

August 7

August 8

August 8

August 13

August 14

August 15

August 20

August 21

August 22

7-9 p.m.

3-7 p.m.Open house

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

7-9 p.m.

Senior Citizen Center17 South Alder

Dept. of Human ResourcesWilson River Building4670 Third St.

Jackson County CourthouseAuditorium, Oakdale St. between 8th andMain St.

Redmond High School, LargeAuditorium675 SW Rimrock Dr.

ODOT Office, Large Conference Room3012 Island Ave.

SW Regional office4192 N Umpqua Hwy

North Bend Community Center2222 Broadway

Hatfield Marine Science CenterAuditorium2030 SE Marine Science Drive

Pendleton Convention Center1601 Westgate

OSU Extension Office3328 Vandenberg Rd.

ODFW Corvallis Office7118 NE Vandenberg Ave.(Adair Village)

ODFW- Commission Room2501 SW 1 Street

22

Public attendance at most of the meetings was low, with attendance varying from a highoqf 57 at Redmond to a low of 5 at Tillamook. All public comments and input received atthe meetings were recorded and compiled locally before being sent to the Informationand Education Division for final tallying. Additional written comments and input werereceived via the Internet or mail. At the completion of the public review and commentprocess, a total of 310 comments were received, 243 from the public meetings and 67written.

During mid-September the Mule Deer Committee reviewed all of the public commentsand input that was received. The committee then categorized and prioritized allinformation received. The public input is shown in the Appendix, Pages 6 through 41.

Public comments regarding archery season and the landowner preference program areincluded in the Appendix, however issues and strategies were not developed due toscheduled reviews of both subjects. Public review processes will be designed to addressarchery and Landowner Preference Program issues identified during the Mule Deer Planreview. These processes will be implemented during 2003. In addition, managementobjective numbers for each WMU will be reviewed at the local level and added to thisplan as adopted by the ODFW Commission.

The following Issues and Strategies were developed using the public input that wasreceived.

MULE DEER ISSUES DEVELOPED DURING THE 2002 PUBLIC REVIEWPROCESS

Issue 1. Accurate biological and harvest information is needed to determine mule deerpopulation levels, allowing for optimal management of populations enabling biologists toprovide equitable use by all user groups.

Objectives:1) Improve accuracy of population estimates.2) Update current population management objectives for all WMUs.3) Provide an equitable harvest opportunity for all user groups.4) Maximize hunter opportunity without increasing overall season lengths.

Proposed Strategies:

1) Improve harvest information by requiring hunters to report success via mandatoryreport card or via an Internet response.

2) Develop studies to determine adult mortality, yearly recruitment and migration inidentified WMUs.

3) Conduct a public review of the existing population levels for each WMU and developnew MO population estimates that reflect the existing habitat available in each WMU.

23

4) Review post-season buck ratio levels and determine if the three-tier, post-season buck# ratio is needed for management purposes.5) Biologists should determine the annual archery bag-limit and remove the current

requirement of allowing archery antlerless harvest in those units having unit-wideantlerless rifle harvest. (This will be referred to the archery review committee.)

6) Eliminate the opportunity for hunters to have multiple deer tags, allowing themaximum number of hunters to participate in deer seasons.

7) Regulate technological improvements that increase hunter efficiency and ultimatelyreduce the number of hunters who can participate in harvest seasons.

8) Investigate the possibility of overlapping seasons of suitable hunter groups (archeryand muzzleloader) and consolidating big-game seasons (deer and elk, or deer andantelope).

Issue 2. There are increasing public concerns regarding the effects of predation and theextent of other nonharvest losses to mule deer populations.

Objectives:1) Determine the extent and overall effect of predation on deer populations.2) Determine the type and amount of other nonhunter losses that occur.


1) Develop methods that provide estimates of predation losses for each WMIU.2) To the extent allowed by the federal and Oregon Endangered Species Acts, manage

predators to maintain a balance with mule deer populations.3) Coordinate efforts with state and county road managers to determine the extent of

losses that occur on highways and roads.4) Annually determine the amount of deer killed in addition to controlled hunt harvest.

Issue 3. Mule deer habitat should be maintained and enhanced in all WMUs to keep deerpopulations at or near identified management objective levels.

Objectives:1) Identify habitat conflicts and determine solutions.2) Protect winter range and other critical habitat areas in all WMUs.3) Coordinate habitat improvement efforts between public and private managers.


1) Compile research information or develop studies to determine if competition with elkis an important factor limiting deer populations.

2) Identify limiting habitat factors in each WMU.3) Protect and improve existing winter range areas and explore the potentials for the

purchase of winter ranges and critical habitat areas by various public agencies.

24

4) Maintain current habitat enhancement/improvement programs.5). Field staff should continue to encourage cooperative seeding efforts on private and

public lands, utilizing the best-suited seeds/plants.6) Habitat improvement projects should provide benefits to multiple species of wildlife.

Issue 4. Law enforcement efforts and effectiveness in Oregon should be increased toprovide adequate protection and to deter future violations.

Objectives:1) Develop minimum fines and penalties for all wildlife violations.2) Improve funding for increased enforcement activities.


1) Initiate a process that will encourage all Justice and District Courts in Oregon toadopt minimum fines/penalties for all wildlife violations.

2) Increase license fees or develop an 'enforcement stamp' that could be purchased bysports people with intent to increase revenues directed to enforcement activities.

3) Use Oregon State Police traffic officers to assist with wildlife enforcement during biggame seasons.

Issue 5. There is a heightened public awareness and concern regarding the potential forthe introduction and spread of wildlife diseases in Oregon.

Objectives:1) Prevent the introduction and spread of wildlife diseases.2) Monitor big-game species to detect any disease.3) Limit the expansion of cervid ranching in Oregon.


1) Encourage Oregon Department of Agriculture to continue their testing/requirementsfor any wildlife being transported into Oregon.

2) Implement a field sampling effort to monitor for disease occurrence in wildpopulations.

3) Publicize information regarding diseases and information regarding the safe handlingand use of meat by hunters.

4) Do not permit any additional cervid licenses in Oregon.

Issue 6. The increasing and indiscriminate use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and similarrecreational vehicles during all periods of the year are of concern to the majority ofhunters and land managers.

25

Objectives:1) Increase enforcement of ATV rules on all public lands and roadways.2) Manage ATV use during hunting seasons.3) Encourage federal land managers to develop ATV rules that restrict use on winter

range areas and other critical habitat areas.


1) Make enforcement of ATV rules during hunting seasons a priority with OSP and seekOregon State Parks fund costs from ATV licensing funds.

2) Regulate ATV use during hunting seasons and investigate the possibility of limiteduse of ATVs for game retrieval during specific periods of the day.

3) Work with public and private land managers to restrict the use of ATVs on identifiedwinter range areas.

4) Expand the existing travel management areas to include archery seasons. (This willbe referred to the archery review committee).

Issue 7. Harassment and overall disturbances need to be minimized, providing mule deeran opportunity to use available habitat more readily and reduce stress caused by continualhunting seasons.

Objectives:1) Reduce the total number of days of hunting for all big game species.2) Recognize the effects of deer season opening on elk breeding activities.3) Control collection of shed antlers.


1) Investigate ways to reduce the total number of days of hunting to minimize overallharassment and disturbances; i.e., combining portions of deer with other big-gameseasons.

2) Delay the opening of the buck season by one week to allow additional time withouthunting disturbances, reduce disturbances to elk during rut and to provide optimalhunting conditions for deer hunters.

3) Develop rules to control the collection of shed antlers on winter range areas andrequire a fee permit, which could fund administration/enforcement.

Issue 8. Improve public access to public and private lands in Oregon.

Objectives:1) Support consolidation of public lands.2) Provide access to public lands through the use of easements when possible.3) Improve access to private lands.

26

r.Proposed Strategies:

1) ODFW should encourage support of efforts by federal land managers to consolidatepublic lands, gaining additional areas for public access.

2) The Access and Habitat Board should prioritize funding for projects that provideaccess to private lands and for projects that provide access through private lands topublic lands.

3) Incentive payments to private landowners for public access to their property need tobe competitive with payments offered by private interests.

27

r.

LITERATURE CITED

Bailey, Vernon. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. N. American Fauna, No.5, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C., 416 pp.

Boyle, Kevin J., Brian Roach and David G. Waddington. 1998. 1996 Net EconomicValues for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer, Elk and Moose Hunting andWildlife Watching. Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting andWildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 96-2. Division of Federal Aid. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Brown, William G., Farid H. Nawas and Joe B. Steven. 1973. The Oregon Big GameResource: An Economic Evaluation. Special Report 379. Agricultural ExperimentStation. Oregon State University.

Hall, L.S., P. R. Krausman and M.L Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea forstandard terminology. Wildlf. Soc. Bull. 25:173-182.

Hay, Michael J. 1988. Net Economic Recreation Values for Deer, Elk and WaterfowlHunting and Bass Fishing, 1985. Analysis of the 1985 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Report 85-1. Division of Federal Aid.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Annual Big Game Statistics, 1979-2001.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon's Cougar Management Plan, 1993-1998, 31 pp.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Mule Deer Management Plan, 49 pp.

Southwick Associates. 1998. The Economic Importance of Hunting. Study Report for theInternational Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies through the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service under Cooperative Grant Agreement No. 14-48-98210-97-G047.Arlington, Virginia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting andWildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting andWildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

28

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting ande Wildlife-Association Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Waddington, David G., Kevin J. Boyle and Joseph Cooper. 1994. 1991 Net EconomicValues for Bass and Trout Fishing, Deer Hunting and Wildlife Watching. Addendumto 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.Report 91-1. Division of Federal Aid. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

29

APPENDIX

Table of Contents page

List of individuals and constituents invited to participate in the plan review ......... 2Mule deer committee members................................................................. 4Public comments................................................................................... 5Written assessment of 1990 issues............................................................. 44

LIST OF PEOPLE AND GROUPS RECEIVING INVITATIONS

First Last Job Company Address City State Zip CodeName Name Title

Todd Bastian Oregon Rocky Mountain 768 Mule Deer Street NW Salem OR 97304Regional Elk FoundationDirector

Ken Hand President Oregon Hunters 4716 Driftwood Drive Klamath Falls OR 97603Association

Rod Harder Executive Oregon 1498 Marion Street NE, Salem OR 97301Director Sportsmen's Suite A

Defense FundDawn Olson Division Izaak Walton 15056 Quall Road NE Silverton OR 97381

President LeagueDennis Oliphant President Oregon Guides and 531 SW 13h Street Bend OR 97702

PackersAssociation

Ron Knapp Mule Deer 706 F & F Grade Rd Sedro-Woolley WA 98284Foundation

Lon Stenberg Oregon 64737 Jan Drive Bend OR 97708Muzzleloaders

Rich Thompson President Traditional Archers 20080 SW Jaquith Road Newberg OR 97132of Oregon _

Dave Eshbaugh Director Audubon Society 5151 NW Cornell Road Portland OR 97210of Portland

Sharon Harmon Executive Oregon Humane PO Box 11364 Portland OR 97211Director Society

David Kennedy President Oregon Chapter, 2828 SW Corbett Avenue Portland OR 97201The WildlifeSociety

Regna Merritt Executive Oregon Natural 5825 N Greeley Portland OR 97217Director Resources Council

Sara Vickerman Northwest Defenders of 1637 Laurel St. Lake Oswego OR 97034Regional WildlifeDirector

Tom Hulett Oregon State 3620 Gateway St. Springfield OR 97477Police

Randy Scorby Oregon State P.O. Box 986 Baker City OR 97814Police

Bruce Came Oregon StatePolice

Steve Ross Oregon State 4500 Rogue Valley Central Point OR 97502Police Highway, Ste. A

Glen Stonebrink President Oregon 3415 Commercial St SE, Salem OR 97302Cattlemen's Ste EAssociation

Richard Kosesan Sheep Growers' 1270 Chemeketa St NE Salem OR 97301_______ _____________ [__________ A ssociation

2

First Last Job Company Address City State Zip CodeName Name Title

Cliff Adams Natural Confederated 9615 Grand Ronde Road Grand Ronde OR 97347Resource Tribes of GrandManager Ronde

Frank Simmons F&W Confederated P.O. Box 549 Siletz OR 97380Coordinator Tribes of Siletz

Isiah Ursprung Confederated 1245 Fulton Avenue Coos Bay OR 97420Tribes of Coos,Lower Umpquaand SiuslawIndians

Richard Tekube Coquille Indian 3050 Tremont, P.O. Box North Bend OR 97459Tribe 783

Carl Scheeler Confederated P.O. Box 638 Pendleton OR 97801Tribes of theUmatilla IndianReservation

Terry Luther Confederated P.O. Box C Warm Springs OR 97761Tribes of theWarm SpringsReservation

Jess Weenick Burns Paiute HC-71 100 Pa' Si' Go' Burns OR 97720Tribe Street

Rick Ward Klamath Tribes P.O. Box 436 Chiloguin OR 97624Roy Woo Oregon 2600 State St Salem OR 97310

Department ofForestry

Harv Forsgren Regional U.S. Forest Service 333 SW Ist Ave. Portland OR 97208Forester

George Buckner OSO Wildlife Bureau of Land P.O. Box 2965 Portland OR 97208Biologist Management

Pete Test Oregon Farm 3415 Commercial St SE, Salem OR 97302Bureau Ste. 117

Tim Wigley President Oregon Forest 1201 Court Street NE Salem OR 97301Industries Council Suite 300

John Poppino Small Woodlot 5005 SE Ina Ave. Milwaukie OR 97267Owner'sAssociation

3

MULE DEER COMMITTEE

Agency Members

Bob Krein, ODFW-Heppner, NRS 3Ron Garner, ODFW-Hines, NRS 3Pat Matthews, ODFW-Enterprise, NRS 2Meg Eden, ODFW-Prineville, NRS 2Mary Jo Hedrick, ODFW-Summer Lake, NRS 2Mark Vargas, ODFW-Central Point, NRS 3Herman Biederbeck, ODFW-Tillamook, NRS 3Lt. Randy Scorby, OSP-Baker City

External Members

Bob BastianRocky Mountain Elk FoundationKlamath Falls

Don SchallerOregon Hunters AssociationPortland

Ryan BranstetterConfederated Tribes - UmatillaPendleton

Les HelgesonTraditional ArchersBeaver

Jon WeckOregon Small Woodlands Assoc.Eugene

Ty StubblefieldOregon Bow HuntersRoseburg

Ken HollidayOregon Farm BureauJohn Day

Jim WorkmanOregon Guides and Packers AssociationJoseph

Rick WardKlamath TribeChiloquin

Terry LutherConfederated Tribes - Warm SpringsWarm Springs

Jan HanfBureau of Land ManagementPrineville

Denny HaenerLandownerThe Dalles

Martin AndreLandownerArock

Rich ThurmanUS Forest ServiceDuflr

4

Public Comments

Public Access !Develop reward system for private landowners that allow PTortlandpublic access.

Wrte lAccess IIncrease the amount A&H provides for access payments *Powellland encourage A&H to direct more funding to projects that Butte'provide hunter access.

Public ~Access Reduced access to private lands concentrates hunters on Portlandpublic lands. Create a website that lists private landownersallowing public access.

.Public 'Access Updated land ownership maps needed. IRedmond

Public ~Access 'Support consolidating public and private lands and JRedmiondimproving access. Make public aware of planned landacquisitions and how it effects access.

Public ~Access 1,If area is signed "hunting by permission only," require a 'La Grandeiway to contact the landowner (phone number, name and!address) be on the sign.

Public Access Landowners who do not allow hunting should not be able La GrandeIto make damage claims.

5

Public Access Improve access for hunters, increase funding for !Redmondpurchasing access.

iublic Archery Concerns with harassment by archery hunters. .Csorvallis

i_._� i_ _ en__

Public Archeryi

Public` , Archery

Hunters need to choose their weapon for all deer and elk Pendleton'hunting

The influx of rifle hunters to archery hunting when I Pendletoncontrolled rifle hunting started in early 90's, so archershave already taken "their" hit in opportunity by having,more crowded hunting conditions and less opportunity ascompared to earlier.

'Choose your weapon, preventing or limiting unsuccessful I Pendletonrifle hunters from switching over to archery at the lastminute to gain a hunting opportunity.

Public Archery

Public Archery Implement archery proficiency program. KlamathjFalls

Public Archery Hunters should "choose your weapon." Hines

__.____

'Public Archery Limit the amount of out-of-state archery hunters in eastern I RoseburgOregon i

5iI

A_. .___ _ . _ A_ __ _ An_\

6

Public lArchery Archery hunting should not take the brunt of increases in Portlandrestrictive hunting regulations.

Written Archery fMake hunters "choose your weapon" by purchasing Baker City!archery tags by the deadline for applying for rifle tags.

Public Archery Choose your weapon before application deadline. Bow or Kiamath'Rifle. SFalls

Public Archery Bowhunters should have to pass a proficiency test. 'N. Bend

Public Archery Eastside bowhunting should be a controlled hunt draw for N. Bendindividual hunt units (no tag quotas) (similar to rifle.season)

Public Archery Move archery season back at least three weeks; noI g antlerless kill for the first three weeks of archery season.

NS

Written Archery Make hunters choose their weapons. Rifle hunters who iBenddon't draw their tags buy archery tags and try to hunt withbows. They're not skilled bow hunters and risk woundingand losing animals. Proficiency testing might ensurehumane kills.

Public Archery 'Many archers appear to be "opportunists" who were unable La Grandeto obtain a rifle tag and are not proficient with archeryequipment.

7

Tublic !Archery Require the purchase of archery tags prior to the controlled Medfordhunt deadline. This could possibly eliminate the need forcontrolled archery tags.

Public Archery Want regulation which forces hunters to chose between Redmondarchery and rifle (eliminate unsuccessful rifle hunterswhich then go to archery).

Written Archery To keep hunting opportunities for all groups, keep 'NSlbowhunting first season the same. Second season make it a,'hunt only in areas where agriculture or forestry damage isoccurring. This can be a draw hunt or just a general season i!within these guidelines.

Public Archery Archery season needs to be a controlled hunt and archers Bumsshould have to pass a proficiency test.

Public 'Archery Choose your weapon (archery or rifle) before the!controlled hunt drawing.

Bums

Public >g Cervidranching

:Do not allow any new game farm animals to be brought La Grandeinto Oregon.

Public Cervid !Do away with elk ranches. We need to stop any chances of Redmondranching chronic wasting disease coming into Oregon. Let's keep

what we have.

Public 'Cervid !Do your job and ban elk and mule-deer farms. This will XRedmondranching !eliminate chronic wasting disease and any other disease. If

we don't ban this we will have a big problem in years toi 'come.

~_ _ _ A_ n_ .^-_ .- _t.. ___ ..

8

- " 'M -1, m nPublic Cervid IThe risks of game ranches and health management are too Redmond

ranching serious and jeopardize the general population of huntersand ranchers throughout the region.

Public Cervid Game ranching should be completely banned. Redmond¢ ranching

Public f Cervidranching

Cervid ranching is so subject to an imminent plague that,we must abolish this practice before it's too late.

Redmond

Public Cervid Eliminate all game ranching all together before any more i]ranching disease carrying animals escape, spreading illness to our

Iwild animals.

Redmond

'Written Q Cervidi ranching

iI

}

'Game farning should not be allowed in Oregon. They will ZNSdestroy some of our natural resources, such as elk, deer

,and antelope with diseases like chronic wasting diseaseand TB.

Public__. _ ___ .

' Cervid'ranching

INo game farming. NS

Public }i Cervid iODFW should ban cervid ranching in Oregon. We don't Redmondranching need to risk our game and hunting rights by allowing out

of area game in and contaminating our herds.

9

i tPublic tCervid

ranchingCervid ranching should be abolished all together before Redmond

1chronic wasting disease is spread statewide. i

Public

,Public

Cervid Need to eliminate cervid ranches - the potential for disease Redmcranching is too great.

)nd

'Cervidranching

-1 _ _ I _ __ _ _ - - - -

Recommend a permanent and total ban on cervid ranchingI in Oregon.

SRedmond

Public Cervid Banning all cervid ranching: it needs to be extinguished. Redmond'ranching All these diseases they carry scare me to death that the

wild animals will catch this and then what happens to myhunting?

Public r Cervid Get rid of elk farming, period.a ranching

} I

lRedmond

Public 'Disease Need info on safe consumption of deer and elk meat. Corvallis

Public SDisease Concern over adenovirus disease impacts. N. Bend

Public Disease Chronic wasting disease collection techniques are needed. PortlandRoad-killed deer could be used as possible sample sources.!Coordinate with ODOT to get samples. Acquire federalfunding for CWD testing program.

10

PubicieTublic

kii

!Disease iConcern with diseases & ability to research 1 CorvallisiI

Written Disease.- -_ _. I'If disease is the reason for population decline, and we can

treat it, then do so. If it's not treatable, let nature take itsIcourse.

_

!Bend

N. Bend--- _ _.-4 __ _s .. . _ , _ _ _ _. _ ............ - - -..-... _ ___

........ ---.---...

Public AEnforcemer

ic IPublic ~Enforcemen

It Mandatory penalties for wildlife violations.

Pt Toachers a concern, stiffer fines and penalties needed.Judges vary in their support/application.

Redmond

Public iEnforcement I Concern over illegal bowhunting (night hunting). 'N. Bend

Public iEnforcement i Increase OSP enforcement. E-Portland

Public 'Enforcement iNeed more efforts, tougher laws on poachers. Redmond

Public IEnforcement Penalties should beat enough to be a deterrent to Hinescommitting crimes.

I- - - _ J_ _ _ __._

11

W"Public Enforcement INeed to monitor issue of hunting with the aid of a

motorized paraglider."Bumns

. S �_ A. An;. . _ ......... _ -_ ............ _. ..

Public 'EnforcementI

4

i

}Public- Enoc 1e3

Law enforcement has been degraded during last 10 years 'NS!in much of eastern Oregon; situation worsened by ODFWnot training and directing its employees to participate in;enforcement during peak times. Many judges are weak onpenalties leading violators to believe there are no seriousconsequences when caught.}Increase tag price by one dollar, and dedicate this increase tPendleton!to OSP enforcement. I

Public IEnforcement Nothing is being done with the rules in place now, so why urshave them.

Public Enforcement Enforcement needs to be increased during big-game Tillamookseasons.

Written Enforcement Don't support placing microchips in shed antlers on private 9 Powelllands to deter trespass horn hunters. These are theft and 'ButteItrespassing issues and ODFW should not be involved

Written Enforcement !Support seizing vehicles of anyone who violates road John Dayclosures with civil forfeiture as part of the penalty. ATVdealers have suggested that current laws are unenforceable.

Public Enforcement All regulations are a waste of time without adequate law Burnsenforcement.

. _ _ _ ANAL.__|_ ____. .. _ . ___ . _

_ ___ _ _ _. An_ _

12

Pbici ,Enforc ent I in, Vublic !Enforcement

iI

'Increase fines and penalties for game violations. lPendleton

SPublic Enforcement Increase penalties for wildlife crimes: fines are too low to Hinesbe a deterrent. People who violate LOP rules should beremoved from the program for a few years.

Written Enforcement ODFW needs to be more vocal with the Legislature in the John Dayarea of law enforcement conducted by OSP; violators don'tfear reprisal. Need more law enforcement and personnel to

I enforce the law.

'Public Enforcement BPoachers may be more common than thought, regulations oCorvallis!are turning legal hunters into poachers

Public lEnforcement 'Enforcement on McDernitt Indian Reservation - concern Roseburgabout deer population due to lack of enforcement. A lot ofgout-of-state hunters don't all have tags.

Public Enforcement Increase OSP officers and expand Cadet program.Consider deputizing ODFW personnel. Find ways forODFW to be more effective in deterring wildlife offenses,I possibly by ODFW issuing written warnings.

Pendleton

Public Enforcement TPlans do not address problems of illegal harvests, Klamathenforcement and citations, nor is there a plan of action to Fallsimplement better control and enforcement.

Public IEnforcement Tougher penalties for wildlife violations. 'N. Bend

I

_

13

Public Enforcement Increase law enforcement. KlamathiFalls

Public !Fee hunting Fifty percent of access fees should be paid to ODFW. ILa Grande

Public Fee hunting When landowner claims damage, the hunter should not La Grandehave to pay a fee to the landowner to hunt.

Public !Fee hunting IConcern with landowners being able to charge a "Trespass N. Bend}fee" to hunt game.

Public Habitat Remove cattle at least two weeks before seasons start on !Roseburgpublic lands. (specifically the White Horse Unit)

Public Habitat What is the reason for decreased body size of deer? KlamathFalls

Public XHabitat Competition between deer and elk for forage? Impacts to Klamathmule deer? Falls

Public Habitat Improve stream cover conditions. Redmond

14

4= � Ak2h 3, , 5' t " la, , .1 �,. 2 12�;,$ w WwwMaWw" M

Public 'Habitat Poor condition of forage JKlamathFalls

Public Habitat Future timber sales/management are reducing cover and Kiamathforage i.e. removing brush and understory. Falls

Public Habitat 'Lack of timber harvest is causing a decline in deer habitat 'Klamathespecially on public land. 1 Falls

Public SHabitat OWe need better wildlife management coordination with Roseburgother land management agencies.

Public Habitat !Eliminate sagebrush to improve grass growth. Redmond

Public Habitat -BLM appears to be managing land for livestock and not 'N. Bendideer (particularly in SE WMU's).

Public Habitat jNeed more road closures to protect habitat. La Grande

Public Habitat Is there definite competition between elk and deer for Klamathforage, and is it being addressed? Falls

._ . .__ A_

15

Public 'Habitat Get off the dime and do something for critical winter IBurnsrange. A) Predator control B) Significant habitatimprovement

Public Habitat Habitat improvements are not maintained especially waterdevelopments; ODFW water developments are being usedas ambush points during archery season. Regulations areneeded to prescribe fair distances for hunters.

1NSIIii

Public Habitat 'Field staff needs to work with landowners on landowner Corvallisroad management

-Public 'Habitat Collaborate or partner with other groups to purchase or Portlandsupport purchase of winter range and other limitinghabitats.

Public Habitat Cover-to-forage ratios continue to be set out of balance NSwith more crested wheat seeding by BLM followingwNildfire.

Public Habitat Work with federal and state land managers to promote Portlandhabitat management techniques that benefit wildlife.

Public ~Habitat 'Increase gated roads to provide more roadless areas with !NSan emphasis on winter feed, breeding and fawning areas.Increase habitat protection.

Publc -~Haita 'Manage juniper to improve habitat IlRedmond

16

W � �4 .

,Public :Habitat IMaintain habitat improvement programs. Guzzlers,specifically mentioned.

IRedmond

Public 'tiiIIiiI

Public IIii

Habitat IIncrease efforts to improve winter range condition, in Hinescoordination and cooperation with all land managementagencies.

Habitat Mtn. Mahogany "hedging" and die out - elk competition - IHineschange management obj ectives, in coordination andcooperation with all land management agencies.

Written 'Habitat Just wait and nature will take care of areas that have beenlogged.

W' rilt't en Hbtt Winter range needs to be protected, period.

Coos Bay

Bend

Wr-itten H-abitat- No longer support multiple uses of USFS and BLM lands~ 'John Day;because of damage by cattle; support drastically reducedgrazing permits in order to protect fish and wildlife habitat.

Written

'Public

Harassment Support restricting horn hunting on deer winter ranges. ~~Powell'Butte

I~Harassment Harassment - Assessing harassment's effect onIrecruitment may not be a good way to spend limitedODFW dollars.

IPortland

I

i --- ,

17

.13�-I, I & OWWWOPublic Harassment tDon't spend ODFW dollars to mark or tag shed antlers. Portland

Public Harassment Proposed timing of the general season rifle hunt plus EStayton

i delaying it seem appropriate. There's less fire danger, alsoIcooler weather for better care of meat. It would separate'the hunt further from elk rut and from the earlier archeryseason, providing longer period of 'no hunter disturbance,'A thereby reducing stress on the game population.

Public g Harassment Combine deer and elk seasons to reduce overall length of Portland'harassment. Other states use this technique.

* i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pulic' IHarsm n i Stop all sale's ofs shed- antlers.---- __-___ ___ PortlandI

§ g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public < Harassmenti

I ODFW should require permit to hunt horns, and have a Silver Lakeseason; require it for shed antlers. Would then be able to

Itrace hunters and reduce trespass problems. Season shouldbe after deer and elk have left the winter ranges to reduceharassment to wintering wildlife and reduce resourcedamage. 3

Consideration should be given to having one short to Hermistonmedium-long tag mule deer and eastern elk rifle seasonrunning concurrently. To reduce stress so that animals!enter winter in better health, eliminate all late season mulei deer and elk hunts.

Written Harassment

Public Harassment No shed antler hunting until after April 1. Portland

Public Harassment Opening buck season one week later has great value: StaytonI ODFW data indicate the last week of Sept., first week ofOct., is the peak of the elk rut. Why bother them? Higherreproduction percentages could occur. The delay could iprovide better hunting conditions - less fire danger andcooler weather for improved care of meat.

18

LTublic IHarassment IStop chukar season by Dec. 15 in the Lookout Mt. Unit so Durkeethat elk can leave the Durkee area to winter on the SnakeRiver. This would allow wintering deer to utilize theforage that the elk are now eating.

Written Hunter Some animal rights' groups are buying hunting tags but not Eugene,management using them in order to block out hunters. How about a cut-

off date to pick up tags: if not claimed, resell these tags for1 or 2 days after hunting session opens.

'Public Hunter !Reduce tag numbers and access. Shut down unit if M.O. Redmondmanagement not met. (Ochoco/Grizzly/M~aury)

Public Hunter ncrease hunting opportunity for Harney County residents. ~Burnsmanagement

Written Hunter Phone surveys do not provide accurate data because many 'Bendmanagement 'hunters do not respond, or give false information for fear

of fewer hunting privileges or higher prices for tags.

Written H unter Extend time between black powder/archery and regular Eu genemanagement ',hunting.

Public MHunter 1Reduce hunting and hunter pressure by increasing tag fees. ~Portlandmanagement

Public Hunter 'Allocate 80to 90percent of the mule deer tags inHarney IBurnsmanagement iCounty to Harney County residents.

19

1-- -'M *` - �" �',w2t91 - "MA il� � II,!VNISN"'IM-1-1-01- N-"-Rf111A g_ I Wltr�-, M - I - I OR Pl- "M1

Public Huntermanagement

Increase youth hunts and success. 'Redmond

Written Hunter E Start a program to give one tag for every two hunters, or Bendmanagement itwo for every three hunters; make out-of-state hunters hunt

with an Oregonian. Sell fewer out-of-state tags andincrease the price.

Public Hunter Redundant phone interviews (multiple calls about same Corvallismanagement hunt)

Public Hunter F eeling that all deer hunting in the state should bemanagement controlled, not just for mule deer.

N. Bend

Public Hunter ;Manage a few units for trophy opportunity. 'Redmondmanagement

Public Hunter!management

Limit out-of-state hunters on all seasons, not just Medfordcontrolled hunts. Limits on a "per unit" basis. Limit toi apply to rifle and archery hunters. See what Idaho hasdone on this issue.

i

Public Hunter Maintain/increase youth hunting opportunities. Redmondmanagement

Public Hunter Designate a disabled hunter hunt. Guaranteed tag,management designated area, willing to pay higher fee.

Redmond

II I

11--------,-----''--------,�-.---------

20

p i-- GIWritten }Hunter

managementIIf you apply for eastern Oregon tags, you shouldn't beallowed to hunt the western side.

Eugene

Public lHunter 'Need an opportunity for western Oregon hunters, hunting SHinesmanagement in eastern Oregon, to trade an unused eastern Oregon tag

for a western tag.

Ii


Split season for mule deer Corvallis

PHunter EPutting out too many tags causes over-hunting the Redmondmanagement population. There are not that many deer in the woods.

Written Hunter Requiring hunter education for all hunters seems like too Powellmanagement Icostly a proposition. gButte

.E E.~.

Public Hunter To increase harvest data accuracy, initiate harvest report !Pendletonmanagement card system (mandatory) , next years tag is dependent

1 upon completion of card from previous year (i.e. no tag forone year, Alaska does this).

Public Hunter Does mule deer rifle hunting affect mule deer rut?management

Pendleton

Public Hunter !Notification method on seasons and tag numbers iCorvallismanagement

21

1* 1. * ,

Public Hunter Implement mandatory tag return to obtain better harvestmanagement 1data w/ incentive i.e. raffles.

i I

lKlamathFalls


inplement a disincentive to those who don't turn in tag. KlamathI Falls

Public Hunter Provide for muzzleloader opportunity during certain Medfordmanagement 'damage hunts.

Public ,Hunter Tif deer population is so low you can only allow 25 tags, Burnsmanagement then the season should be closed.

Written Hunter X Older hunters should not have to go through the draw. Onemanagement or two years' wait to gamer points may be more than the

Eolder hunter has. Perhaps give the older hunter more pointsbecause of his/her age.

Eugene

Public i Huntermanagement

_

'Rifle hunters should have to pass a proficiency test. iBurns


Limit non-resident hunters to 5 percent in general season !Burnshunts.

Written Hunter IHunter numbers are dropping because of a system that 'Newportmanagement erodes expectations of a chance to hunt or harvest a buck.

With the loss of veteran hunters, younger hunters arewithout a natural introduction to hunting. Suggest:providing for harvest of 40-50,000 bucks each year andsetting this up in each unit One key to this is improved

22

0 E t = -- J[IU-

Public Hunter iMake some hunts "premium" tags. (Steens, Trout Creek, 1 Roseburgmanagement IJuniper) Increase the price of the tags to increase the

chances of those who really want the hunt.

i i*i Z

Public Hunter Premium tags for NE Oregonmanagement

Roseburg

Public 'Hunter Disability tag should be just for what the specific hunt is. 'Roseburgmanagement

Public SHunter Allow Pioneer License holders to pick their unit for Roseburgmanagement deer/elk tags. Or give them an additional preference point.

Written Hunter Extend or move hunting seasons back into fall.management

'EugeneIii

Public Hunter Support 3 pt or better regulation. Redmondmanagement

Public lHunter Implement a 3 pt. or better bag limit KlamathZmanagement 'Falls

Public Hunter Support mandatory check-in to report harvest for all deer Silver Lakemanagement hunters and use of hunter report cards. If hunter fails to

ireport, then he/she doesn't hunt the following year.

23

ocatii Written ' Hunter

managementi

lAs a landowner, the only hunters who will be allowed on jMilton-I my property for deer season this year are youth. I've lFreewaterallowed hunting by permission only for years and have hadit with hunters who do not observe the rule. Hunter safetyeducation isn't needed - hunter etiquette is.

Public Hunter 'Harvest information is critical to get. Suggested using 'Redmondmanagement Ipostcards, internet etc. Follow example of other states

(New Mexico, Idaho, Montana). Make reportingmandatory to get a tag for the following year.

Written Hunter Limit the number of nonresident tags sold to 3-5 percent of Baker Citymanagement the TOTAL number of tags sold, both over the counter and

limited entry.

Written Hunter Telephone hunter surveys after the season can provide the NewportImanagement 'data needed; don't punish hunters by refusing them

licenses if they failed to respond the previous year.

Written HuntermanagementI

Public , Hunteri management

Preserve opportunity to hold two mule-deer tags. State Pendletonshould modify tag numbers and continue to work withlandowners through the A&H program to improve bothaccess and habitat, which in turn should yield a positiveapproach to building herd numbers.

'Further reduce rifle buck tags to increase escapement(Ochoco, Grizzly, Maury units)

Redmond


ODFW should require a varmint permit in addition to a,hunting license to hunt ground squirrels, yellow-bellymarmots and coyotes for example. Fees should cover

}program costs.I

, Silver Lake

Public }HunterI tf management

Master hunter program should be required for all rifle and 'La Grande}bow hunters.

i II

24

Written Hunter District biologist to determine if one-deer archery bag limit Klamathmanagement 'is consistent with antlerless rifle season objectives (i.e., are Falls

we trying to reduce populations to MO, and will archery!effort target appropriate herd). Could add check-off box to'hunt sheet where biologist requests an archery one-deerbag limit (or not).

Written Hunter ilf antlerless rifle tags for the unit total 150 or more an Klamathmanagement 'archery one-deer bag limit can be automatically triggered. SFalls

If rifle tags are less than 150, the district biologist hasdiscretion to offer an archery one-deer bag limit or not(depending on unit objectives and herds affected).

Written Hunter Don't tie antlerless archery opportunity to rifle opportunity Klamathmanagement iat all. District biologist would determine opportunities Falls

independently. Appropriate because in many units archeryharvest takes place on summering deer while rifle harvest'takes place on wintering deer and objectives for affectedherds may be quite different.

Public !Hunter 'Mandatory reporting system for harvest success. Penalty Portlandmanagement would be No Tag for the next year. Make the reporting

easy for the public (electronically, website, etc.).

Written Hunter Keep general rifle season the same as it is now except: !NSmanagement !when general rifle season closes for elk in the Cascade

lunits, then close hunting for the week in all units. Thiswould give the animals a chance to rest. The second part of

ithis plan would be when rifle season opens again it wouldbe a new second season for rifle (old timey) hunt.

Written Hunter When general rifle season reopens make it a new second NSmanagement season for rifle (old timey) hunt as follows: when a person

buys a W. Oregon deer tag they would have to buy a first; or second season tag; equal hunting time would be for both;seasons; restrict firearms to those made before the turn of*the 20th century. (See respondent's e-mail for details.)

Public Hunter }Non-resident landowners should be able to pay resident Silver Lakemanagement fees.

I

Written I Huntermanagement

Don't need an enforced hunter education class. Newport

25

Public Hunter Restrict out of area hunters, show preference for "locals". Redmondmanagement

Public Hunter Enact regulation antler be longer than the ears. Redmondmanagement

Public Hunter !Simplify synopsis (regulations). La Grandemanagemen ,

Public I Hunter ',There should be more incentives to encourage people to La Grandemanagement !become master hunters.

Public tHunter An improved WMU statistic booklet could be marketed INSmanagement land pay for itself since many hunters are willing to pay for;

I data.

Public Hunter Educate hunters to respect private lands; this could !La Grandemanagement increase hunter access.

Public < Hunter | Develop late season during or after rut. Maury unit Redmondmanagement suggested and to try it for 4 years.

Written LOP i Need to have some method to put a limit on the number of 'KlamathLOP tags that can be issued on special low tag number Fallshunts. One option would be a maximum percentage;another option would be the number of LOP tags would beno greater than the public tags. LOP tags for certain NEIelk hunts are already limited.

26

I�j , I -

0 iPublic LOP

Publi Lii I

,Public S LOP

]Should have the ability to limit landowner preference tags Burnsfor management purposes, i.e., Trout Creek Mountains has i

!equal numbers of public and LOP tags.

LOP program should be tied to damage and be tied to ILa Grandemore public access. Concerned that fee hunting isincreasing, public access is decreasing due to LOP tagavailability.

Public sLOP LOP tags are not currently equitable in relation to acreage Pendletonsize, the acreage/allowable LOP tags scale is not equitable(i.e. 2 to 3 tags is an increase of 1, 040 acres, whereas 9 to10 tags is an increase of 64,000 acres)

Written LOP .To solve LOP program abuses: increase min. acreage to Hines640 acres for 2 tags and incrementally thereafter; makepenalties stiffer for violators; provide more personnel forenforcement; re-think present program and how -

i landowners are compensated. Maybe another programwould better accommodate the general public.

Public LOP - LOP is the most abused regulation. Even if the land doesn't Hineshave any wildlife, the owner of 160 acres is entitled to 2tags and can hunt any place in the unit plus sell the tags for big money. These abuses need to be corrected.

Public LOP Don't want to fill out tag distribution forms every year; Silver Lake:only need to reregister if there is a change.

Public (LOP LOP tags should be good unit-wide for mule deer I Silver Lakecontrolled season and elk first and second controlledseasons only.

27

I -M, rant, n

I,Public IOPzItI

I

Don't mess with LOP unless you are going to revise the Burns~~whole thing.I

Public LP-LOP tags should be tiered to the number of animals on the !Burns!landowner's property.

Written 'LOP ,Landowners with less than 40 acres should be allowed to John Day!get LOP deer tags if the need can be documented;currently they don't draw deer tags yet have severe damage

prblems.

Public ~LOP Should be a ceiling for LOP tags for very limited special !Klamathhunts i.e. muzzleloader buck hunt in the Klamath Falls :FallslUnit.

Public LOP LOP abuse/misuse continues to rob general hunting public ~NSof opportunity; eastern Oregon realtors use LOP as sellingipoint for smaller acreages of little agricultural value. LOPlimits management ability in some units because LOP tagsoutnumber controlled hunt tags. ODFW top staff seemindifferent to the abuse issue.

Written LOP - - Exercise caution if reimbursing landowners with !Bend!tickets/passes; there's too much room for abuse.

Public Non-harvest Improve strategies to address migration along highway Klamath

losses corridors i.e. using overpasses and underpasses. al

Public Non-harvest 'Coordinate mortality (road kill) and census counts between: La Grandelosses Iall land management agencies -group effort to collect

census information.

28

'Public X Population 1Manage white-tailed deer separately; develop a white-Itailed deer plan.

ILa Grande

I

Public

Public

Population Management objectives should be set locally instead of by RedmondIa central agency far removed from local concerns.

i41

.Population Manage more units for trophy opportunities - higher buck Kiamathratios. Falls

Public Population Management decisions should be made at the local level; 'Redmondlocal biologists know more than those at the state level. Itwould give local hunters more access to the decision-making process.

Public Population Change post-season buck ratios to 20 bucks/I 00 does in all Burnsunits.

Public Population 'Need to identify Management Objectives for end of the Burnsi winter fawn/doe and calf/cow ratios.

Public Population Reduce doe tags to increase population numbers PendletonPuli Pouato 10ett

Public i Population

IiiiIII

Keep numbers locally done, not state-counted. Make sure Redmond!that we have local people count local animals instead ofIthe state counting everything.

I..... A ....

29

Public Population Adjus Mo corigt haia (lwe Mos CrvalTublicI

1, Population 'Adjust Mos according to habitat (lower Mos)iIi Corvallis

Public IPopuilation Trade sheep for large bucks with other states. Kaath-Falls

Public !Population Stop doe hunts (2 comments received) iarnath'Falls

Public 'Population :Bring in "large bucks'" from other states to improve Klamathgenetics. Falls

Public 'Population 'Stop harvest of spike bucks, rifle and archery, leave more Klamath!mature bucks. Falls

Public ePopulation Stop doe hunts (2 comments received) iKlarnathIPalls

Pulc Population Management objectives for each region must be set by Redmondlocal people, informed of their local needs, not by peopleunfamiliar with regional needs.

Written Population 'To increase elk hunting opportunities, have a 10O-day mule'deer season, 10O-day elk season, 1 0-day white-tail seasonI and no hunting by any method during rut of elk.

,'Milton-Freewater

30

ipe�ji�Written Population

I

~Public PODUlation

Local people should have more input on how game unitsR are managed instead of all done out of Portland or someI head office.

'NS

!Allow deer numbers to rise to the levels of the 1980s. DurkeeThere are not enough deer at this time.

Written Population Should stop doe and cow hunting for a couple of years 'Coos Bay(except in needed damage areas) and allow predator

*hunting of wolves/cats. More does, more bucks; morecows, more bulls.

Public Population 'Decrease number of tags issued in the Ochoco unit. With !NSdeer numbers decreasing, there are too many huntersduring rifle season. It would be OK to draw a tag every 2-3

'years if it allowed less hunter competition.

*; __ __. t SS_ _ _.

B Public Population INeed a study/strategy/plan for Awd hite--tail deer IGrandeIRonde

i

Public Population iLet local jurisdiction manage animal objective levels gRedmondrather than someone from out of the area looking at reportsthat are not very accurate.

Public tPopulationi

Three-tier minimum buck-doe ratio is well-respected."Keep the system and optimize recruitment and maintainIratios; don't sacrifice 25/100 trophy units.

NS

i

Public Population Refine population models by requiring hunter report cards; INSquestion whether use of more than one universal method is

* n productive or counterproductive.

31

M W �, waNO" W044honPublic Population ISet management objectives locally. Local people know Redmond

better what is going on.

A.._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ...._.... . -._ .. _ .- d.....

, Public Population ' Support 7,400 mule deer plan; do not want any doe hunts XHuntington

in the Lookout Mt. Unit until the deer population is higher. 6Also support raising elk numbers a little in the unit. Asbowhunters for 20 years in this unit, have noticed deerpopulation seems to be way down.

_- -J _ ._ _. .- _

IPublic 1 Populationi

I

Public I Pop~ulfati~o-n-I

Differentiate between public and private lands, developcounts which separate one from the other.

Redmond

/Redmondi Question accuracy of current population estimates.: Ochoco, Grizzly, and Maury specifically mentioned.

Public Population IQuestion why mule deer are declining. Redmond

Public Population I Increase buck ratios and size (i.e. antler points) of bucks, Redmondspecifically mentioned Ochoco, Maury, and Grizzly units.

Public Population Management objectives should be set locally. Local people Redmondknow our needs better than does Salem.

Public_

Population. _

Let local people set management objectives in their own!areas; not all of the state is in need of the same things.

I

_

Redmond_ .

32

IPublic � Population P Improve deer counting methods, fund use of helicopters. 'Redmond

; Writtenii

Public

Population Stop killing spikes, which are the most robust of the fawns, Newporthave the best chance of enduring the winter, providingbetter bucks the next fall and may be an important part ofproviding diversity in the overall mix.

Population Slowly increase buck ratios in units below management 'Burnsobjective.

Public Population IEliminate the doe hunts in Fort Rock and Silver Lake - Roseburgshooting too many deer that could be coming from otherunits

Public Population Increase management objective for fawns/l00 adults in the 'Hines:Malheur River, Beatty's Butte and Juniper units to 35, likeadjacent units.

Written PopulationI

Does ODFW even realize they have white-tail deer? One Milton-reason for fewer mule deer is because there are more iFreewaterWwhite-tail deer than mule deer in much of NE Oregon.,Whv not make twno seasons: mule deer and white-tail.

Public Population Concerned about fawn deer and calf elk that are lost NSbecause mothers are killed before they are able to care forthemselves.

Public Population Take advantage of controlling those things we can. Can't Burnsmanagement control the weather or fires. Can control tag numbers,

Iharvest and predators.

33

�..-, NA______ �u�1uJ�

zPublic Predation Predator management needs to be implemented to increase IBumsbuck to doe ratios and deer population numbers.

Public !Predation Cougars kill a lot of our deer. Redmond

~Public Predation 'Make a plan for controlling predator numbers (other than Redmondhunters). Count the number of predators and come up witha plan to control them.

Public Predation There should be equal or greater emphasis on controlling 'Redmondpredators instead of allowing them to grow in numbers andtake more game thereby leaving fewer for hunters to take.

Pb Ic rdto

'Public 1,Predation

,Improvements need to be made with the predator program. !Redmond'A lot of these predators need to be removed; more controliis needed.

The reasoning for limiting hunting tags will surely proveithe need for predator control.

IEffect of cougars on populations

~Redmond

Corvallis'Public

Public

Predation

IPredation 'ODFW should continue to not support the establishment of Burnsi wolves in Oregon.I

34

U OR

Public Predation Concerns with impact cougars have on deer populations. RedmondControl their numbers. Recommend they be treated like Icoyotes

Public Predation Recommend dogs be allowed to hunt cougars. lRedmond

Public Predation Need to gain control of overpopulated predators before Redmondthere isn't anything to hunt.

Public Predation Need to get better control of cougar and bear before Redmondnothing is left to hunt.

Public Predation Support studies to figure out impacts. Redmond

Public Predation Wolves major predation concern - don't allow in Oregon. Redmond

Public Predation Need to get more control over bear and cougar. Redmond

Public Predation Predator control needs to be looked at closer. Humans are Redmondeconsidered predators and are managed well, i.e., drawsystem, road closures, etc, but there are not aggressiveplans to eliminate cats, bears, coyotes, etc.

35

Public Predation 'The natural predator population is too high, i.e., cougar Redmondland bear. They are taking too many animals.

Public 'Predation Allow cougar and bear hunting to continue after deer/elk Klamathtag is filled. Or allow cougar hunting in all areas during the Fallscougar season.

Public Predation In trophy management units, assess if cougars are limiting Klamathbuck ratios due to higher mortality on bucks. Falls

Public Predation Increase predator control. INS

Written Predation ODFW is determined to control the amount of hunters and INSclasses hunters as predators. They should make ai concentrated effort to control natural predators likecoyotes, bears, cougar and possibly wolves.

Public Predation Reduce cougar predation on deer. 'Hines

Public }Predation iMajor concern over ODFW's control of cougar Klamathpopulations; numerous comments received. (None Fallsspecified in report.)

Written Predation 'Be sensible about cougars. The no-dog rule is resulting in EugeneI cats not fearing humans. Encounters are too frequent andincreasingly dangerous.

36

,,, WMIIIOI�Ml " "g, -, 4" �M"�

mm""ON"'i ,Public Predation Reduction of predators (i.e. cougars and coyotes) statewide Portland

I as needed. i

Public Predation Reduction of predators (cougars) as needed but don't Portlandtarget coyotes.

...............- -------.Written Predation Elk, mule deer and black-tailed deer are being eaten by too NS

many cougars, bears and coyotes. Predators should behunted with hounds and/or bait. The public needs to beinformed about the predator problem.

Written Predation 'When predator control was highest (195 5-69), hunters Newportharvested higher numbers of bucks and does. ODFW

!should set management objectives to hold cougar, coyoteand bear numbers in check and adopt policies, programand efforts in each unit to contain predator numbers as

ineeded.Public e redation

i

}i

ODFW continues to avoid the predator issue re fawn NS| survival. Will management of predators be initiated ifh newest study affirms findings of past research? i

Written Predation Predators are becoming more of a problem in Oregon. In ",Bendcentral Oregon deer populations are declining and cougarpopulations are increasing. Measure 5 has allowed thepublic and the Legislature rather than ODFW to managep predators.

Predation 'Coordinate between mule deer and elk plan on how cougar La Grandeand bear are managed.

Public

Public Predation Predator control needs to be increased. Medford

i Iii i

Ii

II

i

37

i Written Predation 'Determine predation effect on mule deer populations and !Powellifawn recruitment to reduce illegal harvest and other losses IButte, of mule deer.

Public Predation Eliminate cougar quotas in NE, SE, and Central Oregon. Portland

Public Predation IEducation process for the public regarding bear and cougar Pendletonpredation problems and concerns. What would it look like1 if hunters did not remove harvestable surplus. Does the'public know this, or are they aware of it.

Public Predation Unlimited spring bear opportunity to control bear Pendletonpredation and population numbers.

Public Predation More liberal opportunities for harvesting/recreating for Pendletonbear and cougar, thus helping in controlling the predationIon deer and elk.

Public Predation The introduction of wolves into Oregon would be additive Pendletonto the problems of predation we are currentlyexperiencing. Introduction is not advisable.

Written Predation Identify the effects of predation on mule deer populations iPowelland develop a predator management policy. Manage 'Buttepopulations of all big game species and predators toachieve a balance.

Public Predation To use valid/unused deer or elk tag on cougar or bear. 'Pendleton

38

Public Predation

Written Social

ODFW needs to improve its predator control program -predator numbers should be reduced; we need moreipredator control.

Redmond

Oregon needs sound management and it's not happening. iBendODFW should manage wildlife and not let its hands betied by the Legislature or try to accommodate all sides.Make the rules and the public will abide by them.

Public Social Use biology - not politics Corvallis

Public Social -Continued hiring practices at ODFW put social programs NSbefore resource needs, severely hindering implementationof needed management and habitat development; hiringinexperienced managers leads to lost opportunities for

'habitat improvements and failure to achieve program_ goals. ____

Public I Sociali

Will there be field staff and money to implement new deer "NSI and elk management plans? i

A.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public 'Social ;Need more Public Working Group members who are Klamath'solely interested in the health, restoration and preservation Falls'of habitat.

Public Social 'Draft plans are strongly biased and weighted toward Klamathgovernment and government agencies, such as Forest 'Falls'Service, ODFW, BLM, state patrol, tribal reps,landowners, hunters and archers.

Public Social Concerned with the lack of representation by groups or 1 Klamathindividuals solely concerned with habitat and wildlife (i.e. FallsONRC, Audubon, TNC, etc) on the working group.

39

IcaIQ

;W ritten I Social ' ODFW did not provide sufficient advance public notice ofI meeting to allow time to comment.

Joseph

Written Social Consider recognizing economic advantage from hunting Newportby transferring revenues from richer metro districts todepressed rural areas.

Public Social Concerned that there was no representation by individual 1 Klamath'hunters on the working group, only sport groups. Falls

Public Social gNumerous comments received regarding tribal harvest KlamathFalls

Public Social Make non-hunting public aware of contributions made by Pendletonhunters and anglers to wildlife management.

Public Social Make sure that qualified biologists are the managers (don't 'Hines!let greed and hysteria rule).

Public Social ODFW needs to do a betterjob of developing budget Portlandneeds for necessary programs and educating hunters and!customers about budget needs.

Written Travel iATV users shouldn't be blamed for causing problems. 'DamascusMany older hunters need ATVs to help retrieve game.Some rules might be helpful, such as specific hours ATVscan be used, i.e., from 10:30 to 1:00 and after legal sunset,to limit hunter conflict and game harassment.

40

ublic Travel Should continue ATV use on public lands with better La Grandecoordination between ATV clubs and planning agenciesand ODFW.

Written Travel Further ATV restrictions would be detrimental to hunting. Oregon CityiATVs are today's horses: many hunters use them to travelito and from hunting areas and for game retrieval. Shouldutilize established ATV and loaded weapons guidelinesinstead.

Public Travel gNeed more enforcement and regulation of offroad vehicles KlamathXharassing, abusing and displacing wildlife. Falls

Written Travel Oppose more travel management areas. Older hunters rely Newporton ATVs to navigate terrain and transport game out. Stiffervehicle use laws are not needed; increased enforcement ofI existing laws is needed.

Written I Travel ` ATV use is getting out of hand. Rules to control ATV use jBendon trails, roadless areas and areas of road travel closuremust be adopted and enforced.

Public Travel ATV & Motorcycle harassment / Enforcement issues Corvallis

Public Travel Get tougher on technology: don't expand use of ATVs !NSbefore, during or after seasons because of their negativeeffects.

Public Travel Restrict ATV usage with guidelines for retrieving game NSduring certain hours (i.e., 2-6 p.m.) and prohibit road

!hunting and trail usage.

41

9 19Written Travel

fiWritten S Travel

Written Travel

Leave roads open during hunting season. Assess bigger gBendi fines for littering or damage. Require special permits for1ATV use; limit how many can be issued each season inIeach area.

.

IDon't close forests to ATVs or Off-Highway Motorcycles. JosephConsider issues of timing, i.e., calving, hunting, fireseasons, for travel management. Many ATV clubs

!voluntarily restrict rides during these times. A (Green Dot)trail system is a manageable tool for eliminating cross-country travel if needed and in resolving game issues.,Approve of extending travel management areas to include 'Powellthe archery season. IButte

"Disabled hunters should be allowed to use ATVs for a NSspecial season hunt for mule deer in one unit they canapply for.

Written Travel

.- - - . - * ~- *.*~ - - P .*~-o a. -. -_ A___ _____~ __ _ _-___

Public Travel 'Work with federal land management agencies to deal with PortlandATV access problems.

Public Travel Restrict use of ATV's during hunting seasons and on Portlandwinter ranges.

Written 1 Travel :Allow aged and disabled hunters use of four-wheelers on Eugenehunting roads.

I . _. _ S SPublic I:

i

i

I

ravel Don't write ATV regulations for overland travel. Concern !Burnsthat this would restrict ranching interests and permit* administration.

42

~±t~4< atN Public Travel More cooperative travel management areas beginning with Roseburg

the start of Archery Season

Written 'Travel ODFW should urge land management agencies to restrict PowellATV use to existing roads and trails unless otherwise Buttedesignated.

Written Travel Approve of restricting motor vehicle and/or ATV use in Powellmule deer winter ranges. Butte

Written Trvel gDon't further restrict ATV use. Hunters, especially Greshamdisabled or senior hunters, rely on ATVs to access areas oand retrieve game. We don't need additional laws andrules; existing laws/rules are enough. The Tread Lightlyprogram is a successful tool for teaching hunters aboutconscientious ATV use.

43

DISCUSSION OF ISSUESIDENTIFIED

IN THE1990

MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Oregon Department of Fish and WildlifeP.O. Box 59

2501 S.W. First AvenuePortland, Oregon 97201

44

S.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issue 1. Degradation and loss of mule deer habitat ........................................................ 46Issue 2. Hunter densities causing overcrowding in some areas .......................................................... 49Issue 3. Post-season buck ratios are below management objectives in some units .. ............. 51Issue 4. Access to land-locked public and private land .............................................................. 52Issue 5. Insufficient knowledge to manage mule deer intensively ..................................................... 53Issue 6 Yearling recruitment below desired levels .............................................................. 54Issue 7 Control of nonresident hunter numbers .............................................................. 55Issue 8 Illegal harvest of mule deer .............................................................. 55Issue 9 Mule deer loss due to road kills .............................................................. 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of mule deer Wildlife Management Units with buck ratios and/orpopulation levels below management objectives .............................................................. 51

45

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE 1990 MULEDEER PLAN

Strategies:

A. Inventory mule deer habitat and identify problems and opportunities for enhancementon a Management Unit (MU) basis. This process will be based on already availableinformation and will not involve a major new field inventory effort. The goal of this processwill be to identify habitat problems and opportunities by MU, and identify sites for habitatprotection and enhancement activities.

Result: Standardized habitat inventories have not been developed for Wildlife Management Units(WMUs); however, wildlife biologists generally are knowledgeable of habitat conditionsthroughout their area of responsibility. When opportunities arise to improve habitat deficiencies,biologists use the appropriate program funding to complete habitat enhancement activities.Information and recommendations are provided to federal land managers to assist them in thedevelopment of their land management plans or activities, with the goal of improving habitatcondition.

A 12-member task force, comprised of ODFW biologists initiated a process during 1991 toaddress this strategy. The goal of the task force was to inventory mule deer habitat, identifyhabitat deficiencies and then design projects to address this strategy. Recognizing limitations ofmanpower and funding they proposed to develop pilot projects in the Keating, Ochoco and SteensMountain WMUs. However, due to personnel changes, other work priorities and a lack ofadequate funding, the pilot projects were not completed. The success of Strategy A is contingentupon having funding available when the opportunity for habitat improvement/enhancementprojects arise.

B. Habitat enhancement programs will be developed on a Management Unit basis, asneeded. These programs will be focused on critical needs, as identified by the inventoryprocess.

Result: Most habitat enhancement project activities in any MU are initiated through the WildlifeDistrict office. Each Wildlife District biologist manages multiple units and has the responsibilityfor habitat development in those units. The projects focus on critical habitat needs oropportunities for mule deer and generally benefit numerous wildlife species.

Federal land managers notify ODFW of pending land management activities and biologistsprovide input that is used to direct management decisions that ultimately maintain, enhance orimprove wildlife habitat. Habitat maintenance and/or development opportunities on private landare dependent on the willingness of a landowner to develop a project. Since 1991, a total of 683habitat projects have been completed, treating a total of 58,379 acres in Eastern Oregon. Thesuccessful implementation of this strategy also is dependent on adequate funding.

46

C. In conjunction with the federal planning process, ODFW will embark on an escalatedhabitat monitoring effort. This new responsibility will be carried out in cooperation withfederal land management agencies. Through this process, ODFW will obtain information onhabitat trend and will be able to pursue a more aggressive habitat protection andenhancement programs.

Result: ODFW personnel have been able to work with federal agencies and private landownersto develop and complete habitat projects. Habitat monitoring requires a large commitment ofpersonnel and funding and has not been a high priority of ODFW personnel. Federal landmanagers have the ability to track large, landscaped-based habitat changes to meet therequirements of designated land management allocations. ODFW relies on their database and anyefforts by ODFW to monitor habitat on these lands would most likely be a repetition of activities.

When the Dear Enhancement and Restoration (DEAR) and Green Forage (GF) programs wereinitiated, habitat biologists were hired to assist with the implementation, development andmonitoring of projects. However, the habitat biologist positions have steadily reduced due tobudget reductions and monitoring efforts were extremely limited.

The goal of Strategy C was not addressed by ODFW but the information is available from thefederal agencies. Escalated habitat monitoring on private lands is not practical or feasible. Annualmonitoring is done on most Wildlife Management Areas in Oregon. The strategy as stated is notrealistic and should be eliminated.

D. Based on the desires of the public, ODFW will take a more aggressive stance inprotecting mule deer habitat, especially on public lands.

Result: Biologists provide recommendations/comments to public land managers and mostcritical deer habitat is protected through various federal plans. The plans are developed withpublic input and identification of critical habitat areas/types by ODFW biologists. Strategy Ddoes not realistically address the current situation as ODFW biologists currently recognize theimportance of protecting mule deer habitat on public lands.

E. ODFW will evaluate current habitat protection and enhancement programs. Theseprograms will be modified and improved, if necessary. Effective programs will becontinued.

Result: ODFW currently uses the DEAR, GF and Access and Habitat (A&H) programs toinitiate and/or fund habitat protection and enhancement activities (A&H also is used to fundhunter access to private lands). All three programs were created by the Oregon Legislature;funding for the programs varies from legislatively created budgets for DEAR and GF to licensesurcharges for A&H. The DEAR and GF programs were started during the 1983-85 biennium andcontinue to be used for habitat enhancement, and to address big-game damage. The A&Hprogram was initiated in 1996 and has been re-authorized through 2003. The programs areevaluated for effectiveness and continue to be popular with landowners and public land managers.Recent funding problems may affect the future of these programs.

F. ODFW will improve cooperative management efforts with private landowners and publicagencies on key mule deer range.

47

Result: Using the identified habitat improvement programs available, DEAR, GF and A&H,many cooperative projects have been initiated throughout Eastern Oregon to improve deerhabitat. Since 1991, Northeast Region personnel have completed 109 projects on 13,414 acres,Sbutheast Region personnel have completed 316 projects on 24,934 acres and Central Regionpersonnel have completed 258 projects on 20,031 acres. ODFW biologists have been activelyinvolved with the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and have worked cooperativelywith federal personnel and private landowners to enhance habitat on several thousand acres ofCRP land.

Damage assistance and the landowner preference tags have working relationships with privateland managers. Overall, the objectives of Strategy F were met.

G. ODFW will work with land management agencies to speed up the federal land exchangeprogram for key mule deer habitat, especially winter range, where this option becomesavailable.

Result: ODFW has no ability to speed up any federal land exchange or purchase processes.However, ODFW has supported several land exchanges/purchases that protect or enhance muledeer habitat, especially winter range. Recent land exchanges/purchases include:

1. Pine Creek Ranch, approximately 35,000 acres purchased by Warm Spring Tribe andis currently managed to enhance all wildlife and fisheries habitat values.

2. Clearwater Land Exchange, a complex land exchange process that involvedapproximately 45,000 acres of land adjacent to the North Fork John Day River beingplaced under BLM management.

3. The addition of 850 acres of land to Ladd Marsh Wildlife Management Area (WMA)and 80 acres to Wenaha WMA have provided protection for additional winter rangeareas.

4. BLM purchase and exchange of lands in 1996 within the Deschutes River canyonsouth of Maupin. The areas were identified as Criterion and 10 Mile, consisting ofapproximately 15,000 acres and both areas provide yearlong mule deer habitat.

5. ODFW supported the 16,000 acre Nez Perce land purchase in Joseph Creek drainageas the area is identified big-game winter range.

6. The recent acquisition of 27,000 acres of lands by the Nature Conservancy on ZumaltPrairie secures big game habitat and ODFW assisted with the completion of theproject.

7. Approximately 900 acres of BLM land was recently acquired near the Rimrock Innarea, facilitated through trading of isolated BLM parcels.

ODFW should and typically does support those federal land exchanges that enhance or protectmule deer habitat.

H. ODFW will acquire key mule deer habitat (especially winter range) where other optionsfail and as funds are available.

Result: ODFW has an adopted land acquisition policy and the policy indicates that ODFW willonly acquire land or interests in lands, including easements and leases if the purchases areconsistent with the Department's strategic plan and mission. Three types of lands have beenidentified for acquisition: 1) significant or unique habitats, 2) sites or access to sites that providewildlife-related recreational opportunities, and 3) administrative needs. Due to agency policy andbudget restrictions, this strategy has not been addressed.

48

Strategies:

A. Establish controlled buck hunting in all Eastern Oregon units. Hunter numbers will becontrolled on an MU basis to meet buck-ratio MOs.

Result: In 1991 all units in Eastern Oregon were placed under controlled buck hunting.Controlled hunting requires hunters to apply for and draw from a limited number of tags in eachunit. While controlled hunting has displaced some hunters from units of their choice, it also hasallowed improvements in post-season buck ratios and reduced the number of hunter trespassproblems and hunter complaints of overcrowding. Archery buck hunting has not been controlledand similar complaints regarding overcrowding have been recorded.

B. Provide a diversity of hunting opportunities in the form of different hunter densities,weapon types, and post-season buck ratios and wilderness hunts.

All units will have a minimum post-season buck ratio MO of 12 bucks per 100 does. Each WMUwill be managed for one of three different management strategies. Management Strategy 1 willprovide a maximum amount of hunter recreation and all units will have a minimum buck ratioMO of 12 bucks per 100 does post-season. Management Strategy 2 will provide a better chanceof bagging a buck under somewhat less crowded conditions and these units will have a minimumpost-season buck ratio of 15 bucks per 100 does. Management Strategy 3 will provide hunters anopportunity to pursue more mature bucks under generally uncrowded hunting conditions andthese units will have a minimum post-season buck ratio of 25 bucks per 100 does.

Result: Eighteen units are managed under Strategy 1, and 17 of the 18 units were at or above MObased on the 1999-2001, three-year average. Twenty-three units are managed under Strategy 2requirements, and 19 of those units were at or above MO based on the 1999-2001, three-yearaverage. Eight units are managed under Strategy 3 requirements; however, only two of the eightunits with this strategy were at MO based on the 1999-2001 three-year average.

Muzzleloader hunts in Eastern Oregon have increased from one deer hunt offered in 1991 to 13deer hunts offered in the 2002 big game synopsis. Currently there are six controlled deer-bowhunts in addition to the general archery season and 11 juvenile deer hunts offered in EasternOregon.

A youth 'First Time' program was initiated for hunters ages 12-17. This program guaranteesresident youth a buck and/or antlerless tag if they have not previously drawn a tag from theseparticular hunt series.

C. Develop a point system so that people who were unsuccessful in drawing a mule deer tagwill have a better chance of drawing a tag the following year.

Result: A preference point system was implemented in 1991, allowing unsuccessful mule deertag applicants a better chance of drawing in subsequent years.

49

Annually, 75 percent of the tags available for each controlled hunt are allocated to applicants withthe highest number of preference points. The remaining 25 percent of the tags are drawnrandomly from a pool of all applicants.

D. Develop incentives to open private land to public hunting, where possible.

Result: In an effort to provide incentives to open private land to public hunting, the Access andHabitat program was established by Oregon Legislature. This program has maintained andimproved public access to private lands throughout Eastern Oregon by assisting landowners witha variety of habitat improvement projects. The Heppner RHA is currently partially funded byA&H funding and allows public access to 83,400 acres of private lands. The annual A&Hpublication, February 2001, reports that nearly 3 million acres of land in Oregon have beenopened to public access. However, private fee hunting interests are offering more economicbenefits and each year several additional lands are closed to public access.

E. Examine possible incentives to attract people to black-tailed deer hunting rather thanmule deer hunting.

Result: The department has not initiated specific management schemes in an attempt to attractpeople to black-tailed hunting. However, maintaining a 40-day general season buck hunt, andproviding specific black-tailed deer muzzleloader and youth hunts do help to attract hunters toWestern Oregon. However, due to recent declines in black-tailed deer populations, the long,general season may no longer be offered.

F. Develop a system to make leftover mule deer tags available to hunters.

Result: In order to make leftover mule deer tags available to hunters a second chance draw wasestablished. In response to public complaints regarding the second chance draw, leftover tagswere offered on a first-come, first-serve basis beginning in 2001.

G. Restrict hunting of deer from vehicles through increasing the number and size of travelmanagement areas.

Result: Since 1990, the number of cooperative travel management areas has increased in somemanagement units, while other units have dropped certain travel areas. Many of the original travelmanagement areas are no longer operated under a cooperative agreement between ODFW andUSFS or BLM. However, many of the areas are currently managed through the federal AccessTravel Management program.

In 1990, ODFW cooperated in 42 travel management areas, encompassing 2,263 square miles. In2002, ODFW was involved with 44 travel management areas encompassing 2,398 square miles.ODFW continues to promote and establish travel management areas, but lack of funding limitsmanagement and enforcement activities by department personnel. The implementation ofcontrolled buck hunting has helped address this strategy.

H. Monitor archery hunter numbers and harvest on a MU basis and impose restrictions onarchery hunting if problems develop.

Result: Information obtained during the annual telephone survey is statistically valid on astatewide basis; however, the estimated hunter numbers and harvest for the individual WMUs ishighly variable and is not statistically valid. During 1989, 8,504 archers hunted mule deer and in

50

2000, 18,311 archers hunted mule deer, indicating a 200+ percent increase. Archery buck huntersuccess has decreased slightly since 1989, from 22 percent to 18 percent in 2000, whilecomplaints by archery hunters regarding overcrowding continue to increase in most WMUs. Norestrictions have been placed on archery seasons; however, some equipment restrictions havebeen imposed.

Strategies:

A. Set a minimum post-season buck ratio of 12 bucks per 100 does for all units in EasternOregon.

Result: A minimum post season ratio of 12 bucks per 100 does was established for all WMUs inEastern Oregon.

B. Develop a three-tiered buck ratio MO range for Eastern Oregon MUs.

Result: The three-tiered buck ratio MO strategy was implemented as recommended. Of the 47WMUs (with 49 sub-units), 18 are managed for a minimum buck ratio of 12; 23 are managed fora minimum buck ratio of 15; and eight are managed for a minimum buck ratio of 25.

C. Establish a policy of tag allocations to hunters on a WMU or sub-unit basis to optimizerecreational opportunity while meeting buck MOs.

Result: Controlled hunting for firearm seasons in all Eastern Oregon WMUs were adopted duringthe 1991 season. Final tag numbers are approved by Commission action, based onrecommendations by ODFW staff. Annual inventories are used to develop the recommendations.

D. The program to reach buck ratios MOs may be phased in over a three-year period,depending on herd recruitment and hunter demands.

Result: Controlled hunting for all firearm seasons in mule deer WMIs was implementedthroughout Eastern Oregon by 1991. In 1990, 20 WMUs were below the biological minimumbuck ratio of 12. Gradual improvements in post-season buck ratios were observed in mostWMUs.

The following table illustrates the progress made toward achieving MOs over time.

Table 1. Numbers of mule deer WMUs (out of 47) with buck ratios below minimum buckescapement and WMU MOs.

No. WMUs Below No. WMUs BelowYear Biological Minimum MO WMU MO1990 20 231991 18 271992 10 151993 12 211994 14 25

51

1995 7 161996 9 191997 9 191998 3 121999 0 72000 4 132001 6 14

Strate2ies:

A. ODFW will work with federal agencies to identify the extent and location of areas whereaccess to public land is being illegally restricted.

Result: Reports of illegal restriction of public access to public lands are quickly addressed bynotification of the appropriate land agency. Contrary to popular belief, there have been fewinstances where legal public access has been prevented. Factors contributing to thismisconception are various sportsman maps that show roads that are not legally open to public useand changes in land ownership that results in the legal closing of private roads that were believedto be public roads.

B. Survey private landowners to determine what kinds of incentives would encourage themto open their lands to public hunting.

Result: To date, no such survey has been completed. However, recognizing the increased trend inlease-type hunting, it appears that monetary compensation is the preferred incentive to mostlandowners.

C. ODFW will work to link federal incentive programs, such as CRP, to recreationalopportunity.

Result: The Farm Service Agency attempted to procure long-term easements duringConservation Reserve Program (CRP) Signup No. 10 and received strong resistance from thelandowners. Recognizing that the purpose of the CRP is to reduce erosion and provide otherenvironmental benefits, the requirement of providing public access could potentially keeplandowners from enrolling in the program. If landowners are unwilling to enroll in the programs,the effectiveness of the overall program would be restricted. While the idea has merit, it wouldrequire a change in federal law to make public access mandatory. However, one of the recognizedand advertised uses of CRP land at this time is fee-hunting.

D. Examine and develop ways to maintain CRP land in wildlife habitat, after the programends in 1994.

Result: The CRP and related federal land-incentive programs did not end in 1994 and the federalgovernment is announcing CRP Signup No. 25. CRP was initiated in the mid-1980s and duringthe first 15 signups, crop production and erosion control benefits were the primary driving factorin the program. CRP has evolved to a program that is designed to improve environmental factorsthat directly benefit wildlife and fish species. To qualify for CRP, the producer (landowner) hasto address several environmental issues during the application process. Each environmental issue

52

has a matrix of solutions and based on the solution selected by the landowner, an EnvironmentalBenefit Index (EBI) number is calculated. Using the sum of all the EBI values for a given pieceof land, all applicants are numerically ranked by county. CRP contracts are awarded to thoselandowners who have the highest EBI ranking and accordingly provide the best fish and wildlifehabitat. ODFW biologists were requested to provide recommendations to Farm Service Agencyand Natural Resource Conservation Service personnel during the development of seeding mixesand habitat enhancement activities that were incorporated into the EBI process. It appears theCRP will continue to be funded as long as environmental benefits can be attained.

Strategies:

A. ODFW will survey a statistically valid sample on a unit or hunt area basis. Harvest datawill be collected with a level of precision of 10 percent error and a 95 percent confidenceinterval.

Result: Implementation of controlled buck hunting provided a base for obtaining statisticallyvalid harvest estimates for each WMU. By knowing the exact number of hunters within eachcontrolled hunt area, harvest estimates were 90 percent accurate, with less than a 10 percentmargin of error. However, due to decreased funding, a decision to reduce the number of calls tohunters resulted in a survey that has an 80 percent confidence interval with a 20 percent chance oferror. General seasons, such as archery seasons, do not meet this level of precision on a WMUbasis.

B. Investigate and develop better census techniques for mule deer.

Result: To improve census techniques, it is generally accepted that additional data is needed. Inmost portions of Oregon, aerial surveys are the only way practical to obtain additional herd data.With the increase in aerial surveys, there would need to be a corresponding increase in flightbudgets. Recent trends have suggested that budgets will continue to be reduced. The majority ofherd composition data is checked for statistical significance and the goal is to reach 80 percentconfidence interval and 20 percent margin of error. In comparison with past composition data,current counts are felt to be more accurate.

Several Districts have investigated sightability techniques to estimate deer populations withinWMUs; however, due to practicality and/or funding problems the technique has only beenimplemented in four units. In general, better census techniques require additional funding and dueto current budgets, it is unlikely that improved census techniques will be developed and/orutilized. Several western states have opted to conduct herd surveys on two to three year intervals.

C. Determine deer movement patterns more accurately. ODFW will delineate herdboundaries at a level where no more than 20 percent of the deer within the boundary moveinto or out of the area.

Result: There has been no progress made toward meeting this strategy. Several deer movementstudies have been completed in several WMUs in Eastern Oregon, but none of the studiesaddressed this strategy. Studies to delineate herd boundaries were initiated in the White River,Hood, Pine Creek and Lookout Mountain WMUs. Several other studies have been proposed toaddress deer movements but were not implemented due to lack of funding.

53

D. Valid models for each mule deer herd in Oregon will be developed.

Result: POP2 or POP2 spreadsheet mule deer models have been developed for 3 5 of 47 WMUsafi'd two sub-units, Trout Creek Mountains and East Biggs. In addition, sightability models havebeen developed for four units. The usefulness of a model for making management decisionsvaries with the quality or input. Combined mortality rates and recruitment rates are needed toaccurately portray a population. It is important to recognize that POP2 models calculate deerpopulations based on winter/spring populations and this attribute can create problems in WMUswhere large numbers of deer migrate into or out of the unit. Consistency in application and use ofthe POP2 model could be improved throughout Eastern Oregon.

Strategies:

A. ODFW will continue to monitor deer mortality attributed to disease, and take measuresto reduce the effects of disease where possible.

Result: ODFW routinely collects blood samples from all mule deer captured for various researchproject or relocation efforts and the samples are screened for potential diseases. Blood and tissuesamples are routinely collected from sick/dying deer and are sent to various laboratories fordisease monitoring. The collected samples provide important baseline information regarding theoverall health of various deer herds, especially when the samples are collected over a several yearperiod. Tests for specific diseases can and will be implemented if it is determined to be necessaryin an area.

The recent development and adoption of the Cervid Holding Rules was completed to help protectnative ungulates within Oregon. In general, the most effective way to eliminate diseases in wildpopulations of deer and elk is to maintain suitable habitat and to reduce unnatural concentrationsof wildlife, such as feeding.

B. Review current predator control programs to evaluate their effectiveness.

Result: Staff have reviewed numerous predator management programs. Results from thesestudies were effected by differences in deer and predator densities, and whether or not predationwas a major factor limiting deer numbers. Other important variables in these studies were habitat,weather severity and the number of predators removed. These findings highlight the importanceof developing management actions, which address the major limiting factors affecting a deerherd. Predator control programs can be successfully implemented in situations were predator-to-prey ratios are high, predation is significant and predators are vulnerable to available controlmethods.

Methods of predator control that are currently available are expensive. Predator control for thepurpose of increasing deer populations for increased hunter success may be socially unacceptableat this time. A study is currently being initiated by the ODFW in Northeast Oregon to determinethe effects of cougar predation and nutrition on mule deer and elk recruitment. Results from thisstudy will aid in the development of future management strategies for cougar and mule deerpopulations.

C. ODFW will implement predator control based on past research, evaluation of currentprograms, available funding, effectiveness and social acceptability.

54

Result: Past research, conducted in Grant and Harney counties indicate that aerial gunning ofcoyotes from helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft is the most effective method of control. Various

'66ntrol methods can be used in specific situations where predation is identified as a limitingfactor on a deer population. Any control program should increase herd recruitment, be cost-effective and adequate funding needs to be available.

Currently ODFW contributes $100,000 annually to the United States Department of Agriculture -Wildlife Services to assist with the control of animals that are causing agricultural damage. Whilecompleting their activities, Wildlife Services agents undoubtedly remove predators thatpotentially could affect adjacent deer herds.

Straterv:

A. Recommend legislative action statutorily limit nonresident hunter numbers.Result: The issue received legislative action and resulted in ORS 497.112(8): "The number oftags issued by drawing under subsection lb (nonresident elk tag) and 1 e(nonresident deer tag) of this section shall be decided by the commission, but for each class of tagso issued, the number shall not be more than five percent of all tags of that class issued forhunting in a particular area, except one nonresident tag may be issued for each hunt when thenumber of authorized tags is fewer than 35."

The ruling is administered under OAR 635-060-0030(2): "The number of controlled deer andcontrolled elk tags issued to nonresident applicants shall not exceed five percent of the tagsauthorized for each hunt." The above rulings apply only to hunts that are 'controlled' and do notapply to general rifle or general archery seasons.

Strateay:

A. Determine the impacts of illegal kill on deer herds and work to develop newstrategies to help prevent poaching.

Result: Enforcement data obtained from Oregon State Police (OSP) indicate that themost common illegal kills during authorized seasons are:

1. Taking Another Persons Deer (Loaning/Borrowing a Deer Tag)2. Taking Deer without a Valid Tag (No Tag/Wrong Unit)3. Taking Deer in Violation of Criminal Trespass4. Exceeding the Bag Limit5. Taking Deer with Aid of Artificial Light6. Taking Deer Prohibited Weapon (Rifle during Archery Season)

The Wildlife Enforcement Decoy (WED) program was established in 1991 to assist in detectingand apprehending violators attempting to illegally harvest Oregon's wildlife resources. Thepurpose of the WED program is to deter offenses, improve compliance, and to intercept theoffender before the wildlife is killed. Deer decoys are deployed primarily in those areas wheredocumented problems exist, are used both during authorized seasons and closed seasons, andduring all hours of the day and night.

55

Annually, meetings of agency personnel and private citizens are conducted to implement theCoordinated Enforcement Program (CEP). The CEP process prioritizes resource issues identifiedly private citizens and any specific concerns identified will generate an action plan.

Action plans are developed to address identified enforcement problems and direct addedenforcement effort to solve the illegal activity. Action plans develop a specific goal, time periodand area, operational plan, and type of data to be collected. Goals of the various plans can rangefrom general protection of wintering mule deer, to a specific project such as improving abuck/doe ratio. Some of the identified action plans targeting the illegal harvest of mule deerinclude:

1. Mule Deer Buck Protection - Coombs Canyon, George Canyon, Mudd SpringsRoad and Nolin Areas in the Columbia Basin Unit.

2. Illegal Take of Buck Mule Deer - China Hat/North Paulina Unit3. Trophy Mule Deer Buck Protection - Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge4.- Illegal Take of Mule Deer Closed Season - Metolius Unit5. Mule Deer Protection - Juniper Flat6. Sensitive Hunt Boundary - Hood Unit7. Silver Lake Deer Winter Range Road Closure8. Protection of Wintering Mule Deer in South Lake County9. Rogue and Keno Units Deer Protection Action Plan

10. Mule Deer Protection - Interstate, Sprague and Southern Fort Rock Units

Successful implementation of the above programs requires adequate staffing for OSP; however,due to budget reductions, several field enforcement positions have not been filled.

Based on information and data from annual compliance reports and action plans/evaluations, theillegal take of mule deer is continuing to have a negative impact on ODFW mule deermanagement objectives. From 1996 through 2000, there were 667 documented illegal mule deerkills (data on illegal mule deer kills were not documented prior to 1996). Based on current figuresfor damages under ORS 496.705, illegal harvest of mule deer represents a cost of $266,800 to thestate of Oregon. It is important to note that this figure does not represent all illegal kills, as therewere likely several times that number that were never reported or discovered.

Strategies:

A. Determine the level of mortality associated with deer vehicle collisions.

Result: During the 1990s, several ODFW wildlife biologists attempted to determine the extent ofdeer/vehicle collisions by combining their observations with information from OregonDepartment of Transportation (ODOT) personnel. Information regarding deer/vehicle collisionsin various ODOT districts was collected and expanded by ODFW to estimate annual deer/vehiclelosses. In the central Oregon ODOT district there were more than 1,000 deer/vehicle collisions.The following ODOT districts reported the following losses: Enterprise, 300; Lakeview, 360; andGrant, 800.

B. Monitor the number of road kills annually on a MU basis.

56

Result: The number of annual road kills was recorded only in those districts listed above and noestimate can be provided for other WMUs in Eastern Oregon.

C:: Look for ways to decrease or prevent deer/vehicle accidents.

Result: A Highway Corridor/Wildlife Incident team was formed in 1994 by ODFW biologistsand Oregon State Police (OSP). The team worked to develop highway improvement strategies forwildlife crossings on major transportation routes in Central Oregon. Improvement strategiesincluded installing overpasses/underpasses, deer-proof fencing in high migration areas, modifyingcorridor vegetation, improving highway shoulders, installing reflectors and signs, reducingvehicle speed limits and developing median gaps. The identified strategies were incorporated intoODOT's corridor planning process. During 1996, a report was compiled by ODFW for ODOT,"The Impacts of Highways on Wildlife: A Select Review of Mitigation Options" in an effort toprovide ODOT with a higher awareness of the problem. Unfortunately many of these methodswere too costly to construct; however, ODOT personnel indicated an improved awareness of theimportance and magnitude of deer/vehicle collisions. ODFW biologists continue to providerecommendations to ODOT on new projects by participating on ODOT's project managementteams.

Additional efforts to decrease or prevent deer/vehicle collisions along Highway 97 have includeda Swareflex reflector study in the Deschutes District (ODOT), and Klamath District (ODOT)posted signs at rest stops and truck stops along Highway 97 in an attempt to alert drivers todeer/vehicle collisions. However, neither effort resulted in reduced deer/vehicle collisions.

57

OREGON'S MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLANsoda.sou.edu/awdata/040726f1.pdfa scarcity of deer on his...

Documents

Transcript of OREGON'S MULE DEER MANAGEMENT PLANsoda.sou.edu/awdata/040726f1.pdfa scarcity of deer on his...