Worst State Game Management Poll

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-10 AT 09:50AM (MST)[p]Another vote for Oregon. Zero units managed for quality. Zero. Bears and cougars wreaking havoc with coyotes stealing cougar kills so cougars kill more often. Wolves in the NW quadrant. Habitat for elk decimated due to greatly reduced logging.

Some of the units by accident end up with some 350+ elk and those units take 15 years to draw yet Fish and Game decides to let 1000 spike hunters loose just before or during the hunt.

You can buy a modestly-priced deer or elk hunt in Colorado that will be a better experience and usually have 2x the odds can harvest a mature animal.

More bad news if a Non-resident. Oregon gives half the non-resident tags to outfitters so effectively you are competing for 2.5% - 5% of tags for every species. Add in the fee increase and must buy a license...Oregon is a screw job.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-10
>AT 09:50?AM (MST)
>
>Another vote for Oregon. Zero units
>managed for quality. Zero. Bears
>and cougars wreaking havoc with
>coyotes stealing cougar kills so
>cougars kill more often. Wolves
>in the NW quadrant. Habitat
>for elk decimated due to
>greatly reduced logging.
>
>Some of the units by accident
>end up with some 350+
>elk and those units take
>15 years to draw yet
>Fish and Game decides to
>let 1000 spike hunters loose
>just before or during the
>hunt.
>
>You can buy a modestly-priced deer
>or elk hunt in Colorado
>that will be a better
>experience and usually have 2x
>the odds can harvest a
>mature animal.
>
>More bad news if a Non-resident.
>Oregon gives half the non-resident
>tags to outfitters so effectively
>you are competing for 2.5%
>- 5% of tags for
>every species. Add in the
>fee increase and must buy
>a license...Oregon is a screw
>job.


Yep, I agree. I will never apply in Oregon as a NR.
 
Although I don't have much experience with Oregon and I have heard lots of complaints about their management and allocations for non-residents, I think the way the question is worded "considering that states potential", it has to be Idaho. This has already been intensely debated on these forums before but I know that Idaho has the potential to be one of the top states for several different species. Wolves are only a part of the problem, there are many more things that the F&G and conservation groups could do to improve the herds.
 
If anyone wants to read comments from hunters all across the U.S. and really see how bad all states are and not just Oregon; send me a PM. Only on ifish do Oregon hunters think Oregon is so bad. I think we all need to read and talk with people that live in other states to see what they are dealing with. It looks like states all across the U.S. are having the same problems Oregon hunters complain about. It is nothing new.
 
Considering it's human population Cali ain't as bad as others.

The X zones should have a larger population of deer, but they really haven't recovered from the winter kill of '93.
Mountain lions are a huge problem, but that is out of the hands of Fish & Game unfortunately due to proposition 117.

Coyote populations are getting higher due to budget cuts to the state trapping programs, the banning of trapping (by voters not F&G) and low fur prices.

Illegal hunting by the ever expanding Mexican population is definitely a problem.

I've heard guys say that we need a doe hunt, really?
On public ground?

I hunt a lot of private ground in A zone, the hunting is good, really good.
It would be be better with less lions though.

I hunt public ground in B zones, the hunting is difficult, but good.

Bears aren't a problem if you get serious about finding one.

Tule elk and sheep units still put out record animals, but there are extremely few tags.
Considering the herd sizes we are lucky to hunt them at all.

The salmon crisis is unsolved as to why, but I hate commercial fishing and put a bunch of blame there.
Steelhead fishing is still decent.
Bass fishing is great.

You can't have great hunting in every unit on public ground for every resident of California.
Supply will never meet demand.
You can't be lazy and successful in California.

California is everyone's favorite bittch.
It's still pretty good to me.
:)


(My vote in the poll went to Oregon)
HH
 
CA by a long shot.

Harry, I think you live in N. Cal. Southern California has some incredible habitat and is mis managed beyond belief.

Non res opportunities do not exist. Fish and Game is 90% non hunters and talking to them even 6 years ago was a joke, and am sure it has only gotten worse.

They do not even have online applications.

By far the most bass ackwards.

Oregon comes in a distant 2nd.
















***********************************

Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."


"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown
 
The problem with the question is if the state that really is the worst managed received most of the votes then the second worst wouldn't look all that bad even though there may not be that much difference between the top two, which is probably Oregon and Idaho.
 
Great poll. Oregon has to be #1. Considering it wasn't too long ago that Oregon had true Trophy Muley Hunting, had the 2nd largest elk population in all the states, had reasonable predation control, had so many Blacktails that they were almost annoying, had reasonable NR fees for what you got...

Portland is and has always run this state and IT SUCKS. IMO.

HK
 
oregon, I bought a license last year but they can kiss my butt this year with the increase in fees.
flyingbrass
cold dead hands
NRA Life Member
 
I have to agree with Hunterharry about Northern CA. Still easy to get tags, except for the X-zones and if you hunt hard you should get your deer. Still plenty of black bears around, and yea! too many lions.

Fish & Game did a excellant job on the turkey transplants that have taken off like wildfire. Decent pig hunting.

Yes the Antelope, elk tags are hard to draw, but if you get one, you should come home with a trophy if you are willing to hunt hard and not lay around in camp.

With our human population, I am surprised we have the hunting that we do. As for Southern CA. I have never hunted down there and can not speak for that part of the state that is 500 miles away.

RELH
 
I've hunted in all of the states except Arizona. Depending on what criteria you use (On line application doesn't mean much to be although I understand why that is backwards these days) my vote goes to Oregon where I live but Idaho would be right there as well. I used to hunt every year in SE Idaho and although winter kills are very bad there the management needs to change. Also the wolf issue has become ridiculous in most of the state so it is good to see some wolf reductions, although more is needed. No matter what happens with wolves the issue has to stay in the "states" control and kept away from the feds. California seems slightly better to me than the other two. After that every state has a few issues and I would agree overall that mule deer are down with pockets of good numbers. Many issues from season length to predators to elk management and likely it's not a "one size fit all" approach as the factors differ. I hope everyone gets involved in their areas without much "in-fighting". If the hunters don't stand together we will loose even more.
 
I used to hunt Zone D-8 in California until I realized that I was wasting my time. The success rate is like 3% and the majority of those are forked horns (hence the CAforkedhorn). It's all about the money in this state. Every year, 8,000 tags are issued for this zone and it's like Vietnam out there. It could be different on private property, but public property Zone D-8 blows. I hear stories of old timers that say there used to be deer all over the place up there. About 8 years ago (my last year hunting the cesspool) my buddy and I hiked over 12 miles one day and saw 1 doe. That is when I threw in the towel and decided to start hunting in Utah. My first day in Utah (public ground) statewide archery, I saw more deer than in all the years combined hunting Cali. Remember, all funds from money generated by hunting in Cali goes into the general fund. DFG does not have the resources to combat all the poaching and there is pretty much zero conservation projects geared at increasing wildlife populations in zone D-8.





Piper, how's your period?

Zigga, don't forget the knee pads!

Hdude, Lil' Jimmy wants his share!
 
Jazz,
I spent a couple years on the Whitehorse ranch (84-85) in SE Oregon ridin the the mountain. I'd never thought of Oregon as a big mule deer state, but was very impressed with some of the huge book type(both typical & non-typical) bucks I saw while I was there. I haven't paid much attention since then. What's happened to the WH unit and the Steens?

For potential I would say Idaho for both deer & elk!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-10 AT 12:11PM (MST)[p] I too give OR the top spot for wasteful mismangement, with CA almost a tie or second.
It seems to be only about the money and more money does not always equal quality hunting or fishing.
The fees continue to go up and the herds continue to suffer...
Stop Global Whining
 
I don't know much about the WH unit. A few friends have hunted it and they see a good buck here and there. I have been in the Steen's the past 5 years via a friend and other friends who have landowner tags. The cycle has been impacted greatly by lions. Five years ago the deer were really on the "down". Then they got a new gov't trapper and they have hammered them for about 3 years around their ranch and now last year the bucks were way up. They also "burnt" some habitat and that improved it greatly. That is something that needs to be done a lot more. It really helps the food quality and quantity. I would say the two things combined really helped.
 
My vote went for Wyoming, Way to go Utah bringing up a solid 3rd. That speaks volumes..... And I don't think its the DWR's fault.

Tony
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-10 AT 00:00AM (MST)[p]That may be the stupidest poll I have ever seen. I really would have thought Eastman's was above that. Asking laymen a totally subjective question about a scientific field and expecting some kind of credible answer. And then you can't vote for your own state, which is probably the only one anyone would have the right or enough knowledge to complain about.


That said I would have to vote whatever state that listens to the Monster Muleys armchair biologists.
 
While maybe everyone is not a Biologist that doesn't mean they don't see changes or trends or aren't smart enough to understand what would help. My guess would be that most who are on the ground a lot know more than most of the biologists. Sometimes a little common sense is more valuable than a "ists" degree, although when combined together they are very valuable.
 
Just cuz we all look at the sky every day doesn't make us astronomers. I just think it's so easy to "coffeeshop solve" all the worlds problems without really understanding all the factors involved.

I still say dumb poll.
 
I still say "common sense" tells us:

1. The habitat is poor and may need a burn.

2. Predators are out of control

3. Seasons are too frequent and too long and tooooo during the rut.

4. Poachers need to have their fingers severed when caught.

5. Too many elk equals POTENTIAL (not always) problems for mule deer.

6. Food, not cover is the limiting factor.

7. More road closures wll help.

8. Reduce ALL tags if numbers need help.

9. Give more $'s to Enforcement

I don't need any ISTS to tell me these things!
 
Jazz, I agree with you that common sense is best. I even agree with several of your identified problem areas in todays big game herds. However most of those are NOT problems with State Game Departments Management. They are people problems.

1. Habitat and fire. Few biologists would disagree with you. But the general public is who dictates that they don't want their precious trees to burn.

2. Predators. - John Q Public and their opinoon again dictates what is acceptable

3. Seasons - strictly a Hunting Public problem. Biologists can arrive at the number with a million different scenarios but the hunters decide what they want.

4. Poachers - too many lawyers getting people off? Maybe.I dont know

5. Elk - who do you think wants more elk? Elk Hunters or biologists?

6. Food/cover - back to fire management and then throw in land management (don't confuse land mgmt agencies with game mgmt agencies). Human encroachment on winter range is a huge problem which has nothing at all to do with the game agency. Its purely John Q Public

7. More road closures - Off road groups, non hunting groups and many many hunters dont want that. Again John Q Public at the helm.

8. Reduce tag numbers. - Again the Hunting Public may not allow that. As I said you can kill the right number of animals a million different ways but the hunters have their own "ist" ideas.

9. More $ to enforcement - a state like Nevada has a couple handfuls of wardens covering the entire state. Agencies would love more funding for that but many many hunters would scream and say they should be spending the money "managing" rather than on more "fish cops".

My point is that John Q Public hasn't got a clue about how all the issues intertwine and they only want their own agenda promoted. Game management agencies are expected to wave a magic wand and blend all those opinions into one strategy that makes everyone happy and somehow make more animals and thus opportunity appear. Its not that they are bad. Its that they have too many masters, John Q. Public.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

723ADB23-CC69-4B94-8098-C04983BC87A8.jpeg
image.jpeg
20170829_113119.jpg
thumbnail_image0.jpg
037 copy copy.jpg
191B2FAE-CDB4-437B-9DAC-6DE26C83E231.jpeg
New Mexico Mule Deer
IMG_4694.jpg
IMG_20141102_205614.jpg
Screenshot_20231001_143846_Gallery.jpg
IMG_20190918_182855.jpg
2023 Bull 2.jpg
Back
Top Bottom