URGENT: Attn CA bow hunters

BigPig · Mar 14, 2007

The DFG wants to take away your bowhunting opportunities. Send comments to [email protected]. They will entertain public comment until April 9. Don't let this be the start of the slippery slope. We need to inundate the DFG with opposition.

3. Modifications To The Regulations Pertaining To The Owens Valley Tule Elk Hunt: a. Establish two additional hunt periods In an effort to issue more tags in zones that are currently exceeding herd management levels such as Bishop and Tinemaha, two new hunt periods will be established. Tule elk within each zone typically concentrate in a small part of each zone which in turn concentrates hunters. By keeping the number of hunters to a small level in each period, hunters are more likely to have a safe, quality hunt within each zone. Current hunt periods start in November and end in early December. Two (new) hunt periods will begin in mid September and early October (Appendix 1).

b. Eliminate Owens Valley archery only tule elk hunt Eliminating the Owens Valley region-wide archery only hunt is part of the overall changes in this hunt area (Appendix 1). c.

Add muzzleloader hunts As part of the overall changes within the Owens Valley tule elk hunts the proposed regulations establish a muzzleloader only hunt for the Bishop and Lone Pine tule elk hunts during the first period (Appendix 1). d. Eliminate mandatory orientation Eliminate the mandatory orientation for the Owens Valley tule elk hunts. The 6 information that is presented to the hunters during orientation is the same information that is part of the package that is mailed to the hunter with their tag. The other information is included in the hunting regulation booklet and the DFG webpage. Hunters seeking additional regulatory information during the orientation are currently referred to Fish and Game law enforcement personnel. Orientations require substantial time from Fish and Game employees and the same information can be passed onto the tag holder in a written or electronic format (Appendix 1).

BigPig · Mar 15, 2007

Follow up...

I just got off the phone from a lengthy conversation with the DFG elk biologist. He was kind enough to take the time to speak with me. I do understand it more now and am not so upset. There is a logical resason, believe it or not, for all of this. I'm not saying I agree with it from an admittedly selfish perspective(as a max point holder), but it is very logical.

My take in simple terms.

1. Specific herds within the entire Owens valley need to be reduced. This was not being acheived with the region wide archery tag. No more rut hunts (this is what really burns me) because it's the cows that need to be reduced, not the bulls. It is more effective to manage individual herds with more localized hunt units and with gun hunts that are more successful at reducing numbers. That I understand, I just don't agree with the proposed means to the end.

2. The 7% versus 11%. 11% of all tags statewide go to archery elk, but only 7% of the applicants apply for archery. I don't like it, but it is hard to argue with the fairness of those numbers. For this we have only ourselves to blame. As a whole, us bowhunters need to recruit more new folks to the sport.

3. The hunt (or similar) could come back once the herd numbers are back in check. I hope this is actually true.

4. This is not a done deal. The commission makes the final decision. They are who we need to be contacting. California Fish and Game Commission (916) 653-4899.

The DFG is doing itself a great disservice by posting public notices like they did. Words like "eliminate" are very tough to swallow. That makes it real easy for hunters to get mad and jump to conclusions without the proper info. An explanation, similar to what the biologist gave me, needs to be made public. It shouldn't take a personal phone call. We should be able to get the whole story off such notices. It would probably stop a lot of angry correspondence.

Personally, I'm not happy at all with the proposed methods to reach their objective and eliminating what was effectively the only rut bow hunt, but at least I understand it more now. I get pissed when I think something is being taken from me without a proper explanation. I'm still upset, but do feel a little better.

califhuntn · Mar 15, 2007

You got to be kidding me. I just started to take bow hunting after doing some research here in Cali. I wanted to start applying for archery hunts because the odds are better here. I will definitely write to the DFG and voice my oppinion. Thank you very much for posting this and I will tell as many bowhunters here as I can.

Jeff

Outdoordan · Mar 18, 2007

There is some seriously flawed logic here. I don't see it the same way.

First off, if there isn't enough elk taken add more tags. Maybe not to the archery hunt, but ADD not subtract hunts. Just because there are fewer archers putting in for the tags doesn't mean that it wasn't dismal draw odds at best, it was just worse for rifle. Keep the 8 (yes that's it) tags for the owens either sex archery, followed by a Muzzleloader Hunt, then Rifle Hunt. I mean almost EVERY other state does this successfully, and nobody has a population problem more than Colorado, or Montana and they have successfully added additional cow tags for rifle hunters. Of course California is in the dark ages of management and has to change the successfull recipe of other states. Adding additional rifle or muzzleloader cow tags would increase draw odds, the hunt experience, and achieve management goals.

Lastly, once they SUPPOSEDLY successfully alter the hunt recipe, the hunt will not ever come back. Just as when they put out "experimental" pig tags to do some short term research, now you must pay alot more for pig tags, which don't come in books anymore, they now come singly and cost a lot more.

By the way, yes I did write letters. I have filmed this hunt a couple years in a row, and know the area well.

easymoney · Mar 21, 2007

This is being bantered about on other sites. The question of logical thinking in management of the herds by dropping bow tags and not just increasing more cow tags is one that escapes me.
"Keep the 8 (yes that's it) tags for the owens either sex archery, followed by a Muzzleloader Hunt, then Rifle Hunt. I mean almost EVERY other state does this successfully, and nobody has a population problem more than Colorado, or Montana and they have successfully added additional cow tags for rifle hunters. Of course California is in the dark ages of management and has to change the successfull recipe of other states. Adding additional rifle or muzzleloader cow tags would increase draw odds, the hunt experience, and achieve management goals."
You have hit the nail on the head! If true management was their goal, the DFG would certainly do whatever was needed to adjust the herd numbers(such as increase cow tags regardless of weapon). But, CA is far behind most all western states when it comes to logical management(it is run by bean counters and politicians not biologists or wildlife professionals).
IMHO, It is more about money than management. The wild pig tag fees are a perfect example. Wild Pigs are a non native feral animal and compete with native species for food and habitat, so they started charging a nominal fee for tags to offset "managing the species". Yet, over the years the number of pigs has exploded(see increase), and yet the DFG has raised the fees every year(see increase)as well as lowered the number of tags per book and the money does not go toward habitat enhancement(see improvement) or wild pig reductions(see increased tags at a lower price to encourage more hunters to take more pigs). It is truely about getting more money not game management...
Just my two cents...

Stop Global Whining

Outdoordan · Mar 21, 2007

Exactly! Pigs were managed correctly as non-native animals, so the past logic of the Fish and Game was that they didn't have authority to manage them. Then BAM, there is $ here to be made! Changed everything. The worse part is that the F&G don't utilise any of that money to increase hunter access to pig country, promote wise use of the resource, or buy management areas.

BigPig · Mar 22, 2007

Apparently all of our calls and letters have made an impact! Thank you to all those who politely voiced their opinion. The DFG has reconsidered thier decision to cancel the early either sex archery hunt entirely. There will still be some changes, but we will at least still have an early season archery opportunity. This is a much more logical solution. Thanks to the DFG for listening.