Big Game Review

TeamINITIAL DRAFT 2022 ARCHERY ELK PROPOSAL

MARCH 16, 2021

Synopsis of Past Management Process

1979 Statewide Archery Season

Moved archery from a few select units

Created current season framework in 1983

1994 Elk Plan

Established structure that led to changes in rifle seasons

Framework for all changes to rifle seasons

2003 Archery Review Committee

Issues discussed

Equity

Overcrowding

Biologists concerns with biological/management issues

2014 Archery Review Public Advisory Committee

Review criteria for either sex hunts

Portability (controlled tag valid in general season)

Previous Archery Proposal

From hunter opinion survey, 2020

Benefits

Consistent approach to deer and elk archery season

Eliminates potential for additional change in the future

Issues

Lack of any general season opportunity in eastern Oregon

More restrictive than rifle

May not be necessary in all units

Summary of Concerns Expressed

to ODFW in 2020

Change not needed biologically

Opportunity to hunt every year

Ability to hunt while building preference points

Desire to engage new hunters in archery

Impacts from fire closures

Goals of Regulation Team Archery

Proposal

Allow for district biologists to adjust tags across all user groups in

order to meet elk plan objectives

Provide ability to address hunter crowding in units with high hunter

densities and hunter complaints

Provide vehicle for biologists to address elk disturbance in areas with

documented elk movement in response to start of elk season

Allow for equitable utilization of biological resource

Create consistent regulations that are easy to understand and explain to public

Address preference point creep in eastern Oregon

Team Approach to Revisiting

Proposal

Looked at various concepts proposed for archery changes in the

past

Choose your weapon

Zones

Controlled Hunts

No Change

Weighed different concepts against the goals of the project

Assessed each concept against comments received in 2020

Elk Management Objectives

Elk planning process

First elk Management Objectives (MO) set in 1981

First elk plan adopted in 1992

Plan revised 2003

MO’s last reviewed in 2016

Public work groups, Commission approved

Factors considered to set MO’s

Prevent serious depletion of indigenous wildlife

Provide optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits

Maintain populations at levels compatible with primary uses of the land

Not set on carrying capacity

Must weigh social tolerance

Elk Management Objectives

Population MO’s

Number of wintering animals in each wildlife management

unit

Managed through antlerless harvest

Measured by multiple methods

o Trend

o Aerial surveys

o Models

Damage harvest is conducted regardless of population MO

status

Elk Management Objectives

Bull ratio MO

Proportion of bulls within population

Measured as observed bulls per 100 cows post-hunting season

o Plan dictates goal: 10, 15 or 20

o The higher the bull MO the less hunting opportunity in a unit

Measured by spring composition surveys

Link to current elk plan-http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/ElkPlanfi

nal.pdf

Link to current management objectives-https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/Rocky%20Mountain%20Elk%20Management%20Objectives%20-%202016.pdf

Data to Identify Units for Proposal

Bull Ratio Management Objective (MO) Issues

Units lower than 75% of MO, Missed MO 3 of 5 years

Archery Harvest >35%

Compare branch bull harvest of general archers to rifle seasons with bag limit of “one elk” or “one bull”

Limits ability to address concerns through rifle cuts

Rifle Harvest Concern

Greater than 20% decrease in controlled rifle tags over last 25 years

Units Noted with MO Issues

Units Below Bull MO

UPPER DESCHUTES

PAULINA

OCHOCO

METOLIUS

DESOLATION

STARKEY

SNAKE RIVER

MINAM

IMNAHA

PINE CREEK

KEATING

WARNER

Units with >35% of Branch Bull Harvest in Archery Season

BEULAH

CATHERINE CREEK

DESOLATION

FORT ROCK

GRIZZLY

HEPPNER

IMNAHA

INTERSTATE

KEATING

KLAMATH FALLS

MALHEUR RIVER

MURDERERS CREEK

NORTHSIDE

PINE CREEK

SILVIES

STARKEY

SUMPTER

UKIAH

Units with Decrease in Rifle Harvest

PAULINA

BEULAH

STARKEY

FORT ROCK

GRIZZLY

MAURY

OCHOCO

DESOLATION

NORTHSIDE

SILVIES

MURDERERS CREEK

SUMPTER

FOSSIL

Rationale for 35% Harvest Allocation

Any harvest system where over 1/3 of the harvest is in a general season creates difficulty for managers in meeting MO

Hunter survey data in 2020 showed that 34% of all hunters in Oregon would be interested in hunting with archery equipment

Recognition that while 21% of all hunters report preferring to hunt with a bow, younger hunters (18-34 years old) have a higher affinity for archery, 28%

Long Term Decline in Opportunity

With shift to controlled hunts, and

reduction in antlerless hunts overall rifle opportunity has decreased 57%

since 1995

In same time period, archery

participation has increase 60%

In many units rifle harvest cuts by

biologists have led to archery

harvest increases, offsetting population response to the rifle tag

cuts

Units Team Proposed for Control

Name Bull MO

5 year ave.

% of MO

# of years

in last 5

missed

Bull MO

Ave # of

general

archers

# Branch

bull rifle

tags

% Branch

bull

harvest by

archers

DESOLATION* 10 68% 4 1495 873 49%

STARKEY* 10 70% 5 1645 443 61%

SNAKE RIVER 15 53% 5 281 253 23%

MINAM 20 68% 5 274 647 26%

IMNAHA* 15 64% 5 589 288 36%

PINE CREEK* 15 59% 5 502 279 44%

KEATING* 10 64% 4 311 208 48%

*Denotes unit with general spike-only any weapon tag

Population data is 2015-2019, Harvest data is from 2016-2019, excluding 2018 due to data integrity issue

Additional Units Proposed for Control

Based on ODFW District Input

Name

5 year ave.

% of Bull

MO

# of years

in last 5

missed

Bull MO

Ave # of

general

archers

# Branch

bull rifle

tags

% Branch

bull harvest

by archers

HEPPNER* 96% 2 1668 937 48%

MURDERERS

CREEK 133% 1 1020 1129 37%

SILVIES 99% 2 937 979 34%

CATHERINE CR* 150% 3 596 250 49%

NORTHSIDE 104% 2 1015 1233 37%

UKIAH* 125% 1 1502 431 57%

*Denotes unit with general spike-only any weapon tag

Population data is 2015-2019, Harvest data is from 2016-2019, excluding 2018 due to data integrity issue

Concepts Analyzed by ODFW

Regulation Review Team

Choose Your Weapon

Pros-

Provides advantage for hunters that are exclusively archers

Any controlled hunt is essentially choose your weapon

Cons-

Does not address harvest management for districts

Does not ensure reduction in disturbance/displacement of elk

Does not create consistent regulations

Does not provide maximum and equitable opportunity

General Zones (General season grouping of two

or more units)

Pros-

Provides over the counter opportunity for archers

Would refine hunter density data

Provides flexibility in case of fire event

Cons-

Does not address unit specific harvest management

Does not reduce disturbance/displacement of elk

Does not create consistent regulations

Does not allow for equitable utilization of resource

Concepts Analyzed by ODFW

Regulation Review Team

Controlled Zones

Pros-

Allows flexibility in case of fire restrictions

Would refine hunter density data

Improves ability to manage unit harvest

Cons-

Reduces archery opportunity for entire zone when any unit within

the zone needs harvest reduction to meet MO’s

Does not ensure reduction in disturbance/displacement of elk

Does not create consistent regulations

Concepts Analyzed by ODFW

Regulation Review Team

Controlled Units

Pros-

Allows for equitable allocation and harvest management

Allows for districts to manage crowding/displacement in units with need

Consistent with current regulations

Consistent population management between all users

Assists with point creep

Cons-

Some units may not be drawn annually by a hunter

Less dynamic in addressing fire events

Fewer general season units to hunt annually while building points

Concepts Analyzed by ODFW

Regulation Review Team

Current General Archery Season

Pros-

Understood by hunters

Maximum opportunity for archers

Cons-

Does not address harvest management for districts

Does not ensure reduction in disturbance/displacement of elk

Maintains current hunter densities in crowded units

Does not create consistent regulations

Does not allow for equitable utilization of resource

Concepts Analyzed by ODFW

Regulation Review Team

Initial Draft

Proposal

Each tag- West General, East

General and Unit Controlled would

be a stand alone, non-transportable

opportunity

2020 General Season Archery Hunter

Controlled Hunt Choices

Archery Hunt Rifle Hunt Point Saver Did Not Apply

17%

14%

4%

Most archers do not

participate in controlled

hunt draw

Rifle hunters do not

comprise a large

amount of annual

general season archers

65%

4100 archers

(12.9%) had 7 or more points

No unit-wide hunt

for archery or rifle is

projected to need

more than 7 points,

except Walla

Walla, Wenaha

and Mt Emily

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27

2020 General Season Archer Point Totals

Number of 2020 General Season Archers

-

Controlled Hunt Tag Allocation

Framework for 2022

In units currently over population MO and meeting bull MO targets

Tag numbers similar to 5 year participation average

One elk bag limit for all or part of tag allocation

In units currently meeting population and bull MO targets

Tag numbers similar to 5 year participation average

One bull bag limit

In units below bull MO

Reduce harvest to achieve MO. Work to allocate harvest based on

35% archery branch bull harvest

Potential Effects of Non-Resident

Quota

Oregon has a 5% non-resident cap on all controlled hunts

There is no cap for general seasons

* 5% cap represents total non-resident tags if all tags were controlled or limited

** Total reduction assumes all non-residents applied for a controlled or limited hunt

Year General Season Archers Total Non-Resident 5% Cap*Total hunter Reduction**

2019 29,755 2122 1488 634

2020 31,940 2268 1597 671

License Type- Non-Resident 2020 Total Non-Residents

Annual Hunting License 14500

Elk - 200 Series Controlled Hunt Application 7293

Elk - Controlled Hunt (200 Series) Tag 1536

Elk - Eastern Oregon Rocky Mountain Second Season Tag 193

Elk - General Season Antlerless Damage Tag 272

Elk - General Season Archery Tag 2268

Elk - Premium Controlled Hunt Tag 2

Elk - West Cascade Tag 101

Fire Effects to Archery Season

Current policy addresses options provided to hunters

based on extent of opportunity lost

Hunters may choose to hunt general season rather than

controlled hunt prior to start of season

Department navigated multiple options during 2020

hunting seasons

Development of Final Proposal for

Commission Review

Ability to adjust harvest to meet elk management objectives

Provide equitable opportunity for all hunters

Have a regulation that is easy to explain to new and existing

hunters

Take all public and sport group input into development of

final proposal

Multiple alternate proposals or modifications to current

proposals have been received so far from sports groups and

the public

Factors Considered During Final

Proposal Development

Ability to Address Bull MO Concerns

Still Provide General Season Opportunity in both East and West

Greater Control over Harvest by District Biologists

Hunter Crowding/Density

Elk Displacement/ Disturbance

Equitability of Harvest Between all Users

Potentially Affect Point Creep

Initial Draft Proposal

Additional Questions?

Jeremy.L.Thompson@state.or.us

Comments?

ODFW.Wildlifeinfo@state.or.us

UnitFive Year Archery Hunter

AverageHeppner 1686

Ukiah 1490

Murderer Creek 1029

Northside 1055

Desolation 1570

N. Sumpter 531*

Catherine Creek 602

Starkey 1654

Minam 289

Imnaha 590

Snake River 267

Keating 324

Pine Creek 511

W Beulah 597*

N. Malheur River 688*

Silvies 932

Units Below Management Objective * Total Unit Hunters