Tragic News: Poachers are Destroying Oregon's Deer Population

Status
Not open for further replies.
A friend of mine mentioned that in some states (I think he mentioned some southeastern state) they offer discounted or free hunting licenses to low income people. Anyone know if this is true or what states this is in? Just curious. Seems like a good alternative or supplement to food stamps. I'd jump on the chance if I were in that position. I don't see any drawbacks to such a system set up in any state.
Click to expand...

Nor do I, as long as the animal population will support such a thing. Some states do, in fact, have so few deeer that such a thing would not be acceptable. My home state of Arizona is a classic example. Human density is getting high, and the deer numbers are suffering from drought.

In a case like that, it's simply not possible for such a thing to happen unless sport hunting were entirely eliminated.

Again, there are other ways to fill the needs of society without making animal populations, or even their existence suffer in such places.

The world has changed, and human popolations have grown significantly since the days when folks could hunt for their meat in many places. If subsistance hunting is the goal for someone, I'd suggest moving somewhere like Alaska, where tags for big game are given in abundance to residents, and fishing for salmon and such is part of preparing for winter survival.

Daryl
 
I don't see any drawbacks to such a system set up in any state
Click to expand...

May look good on paper but people will find a way to take advantage of that kind of system just as they have found to do the welfare system.
 
I'm in a hurry and didn't read many of the post but I thought I'd make a couple quick comments. Forgive me if they are a repeat:

The fact that they are does tells me that it's a sign of the economy and people are fillin freezers. While illegal, there's a big difference between that and shooting horns and leaving the meat in the field.

#2) Sounds like an excuse for bad managemnet. Many states are banning/dicouraging hounds, protecting wolves and mountain lions, banning baiting, banning/dicouraging trapping etc. etc. and then they wonder why lion vs people encounters are on the rise and why game animal populations are going down. Sounds to me like you could replace the word "poacher" with "lions, wolves and bears" and it would be more accurate. Good reason to support any type of hunting even if you question it's ethics and it's not your cup-o-tea.

LK
 
"Cowboy_mo read the link and it will make more sense.

Davlandrum, I read the article and now it makes even less sense. The govt officials are basing their claims on 500 deer out of a population of 216,000. Those radio collared deer represent 0.23% of the total herd in the state. I didn't take a lot of statistics classes in college but I don't find that to be a statistically sound sampling. The officials also point out that the cougar population in Oregon has more than doubled in the last 20 years. "Wildlife managers say the deer are under intense pressure from predators, including an estimated 5,700 cougars roaming Oregon's forests and high deserts, up from 2,600 two decades ago."

Now, cougars have to hunt to live 365 days a year and I suspect they are having a much greater impact than this article indicates.

What is the wildlife bureau doing about this problem? Obviously if your deer herd is shrinking, you have a problem. What I got mostly out of this article is that the government agency is saying, we have a problem but we can't do anything about it.

If I were an Oregonian hunter, I would be asking my elected officials what is happening to all the excise tax dollars on the sale of firearms and ammunition that are supposed to be going for wildlife conservation.

I would also suggest to the conservation department that they check with other states to see how they catch poachers. I know Missouri has placed camera equipped deer decoys in areas with poaching problems and our justice system has made it very expensive for those who are caught. Miraculously, when the word gets out that poaching is an expensive proposition, the amount of poaching goes down.
 
Now, cougars have to hunt to live 365 days a year and I suspect they are having a much greater impact than this article indicates.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. They will often make a kill of a single deer or elk and feed on it for many days, often up to two weeks, the females with cubs will procure prey every few days. Bigger kills may be cached for later consumption and protection from other predators/scavengers. They will supplement the big kills with smaller kills down to mice and bugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar
http://www.totalwildlifecontrol.com/mountain-lion-removal-control.html
http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.shooting-hunting-cougar.html
http://www.chintiminiwildlife.org/Education/WildNatHist/Cougar.htm
 
@Cowboy - yeah, I pointed out that it was not a statistically significant sample size earlier in the thread. I think it surprised them that there was as much poaching as hunting in the kills. As I also pointed out, for it to have real validity, there would have to be similar studies done in other parts of Oregon, as poaching is centered around population centers.

Poachers caught face fines and confiscation of everything involved, truck, guns, etc.

One thing not even mentioned in the article is how the loss of habitat to suburbs factors into the declining herds.
 
Exurban residential development on the east slope of the Rockies has done some reduction in the winter habitat for elk. Folks first move in and there are lots of elk. The numbers decline. The common reaction is, "Oh, those darned hunters!"

However, some of the biggest mule deer bucks in Brewster County can be found at night on the golf course of the Alpine Country Club. My mother's yard in Alpine was loaded with "deer pills".

The wildlife biologists here in Texas figure a cougar will take a deer every eight or so days, if possible (not always possible, here in the desert). That's the best part of 45 or so deer per year per adult cougar. In the early 1980s, a trapping program in the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park (about 100,000 acres in that part) caught and put radio collars on 22 cougars. In that mountain habitat, figure a deer to sixty or so acres, give or take.
 
And that type of thinking is what led to my robbing a convenience store analogy
Click to expand...

The analogy is no good unless you compare it to a trophy poacher and not a meat gatherer. The trophy poacher abuses society and the eco-system so is a felonious criminal and deserves punishment for not having respect.

Probably the smallest percentage of poachers are meat gatherers. He is hungry or has a family hungry...he is taking what belongs to him as a right to eat and very probably has a lot of respect for his planet and fellow man while doing so, having learned it while learning to hunt. How could I, or any of us tell this man that he has no right to feed his family? I was not here when the deer were loosed for us, nor put in charge of them. Neither were you.

Don't you remember the song from Elementary school? (that they wont sing anymore!)....This land is my land, This land is your land. from Calafornia, to the New York Islands...:)
Better? :-)
 
Regulation the way it is now for regular hunting, but I also think you should be able to apply for special permits to hunt out of necessity. People apply for food stamps and well fare every day why not apply for a permit that allows you to do some work for your meal.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be.....buying a hunting license? Most in state licenses aren't all that expensive.

I just can't imagine that things are that bad for people that they need to go poach a deer for food. I saw someone say that there are pages of jobs in their local paper every week. The problem is people are lazy and why pay for what you can get for free. When you don't have a job and need money there is no job that is not good enough for you.
 
I just have to make one rebuttal, and I know it doesn't fit all unemployed people. I had a business at one point in the 80's that had 145 employees. I found myself busted in the dirt monetarily through an embezzlement that cost me my business. I went to a color separation house as a camera person which I was highly proficient at, it paid $55 an hour with all the overtime you wanted. I was dressed too nice and couldn't talk them into the job. I was down to trying to get a job as a clerk in a convenience store and they wouldn't hire me because they didn't want to have to replace me short term.

I absolutely disagree with that statement that if you want to work there is work, not necessarily.

I can't say we had to eat deer, but it was very nice to have a constant supply on our property and in the freezer. We'd make gigantic pots of carnitas to freeze that are great for tacos, burritos, enchiladas, and whatnot. Two or three deer a year saves a lot of money on beef.

And before anyone says anything we lived in a little valley that had such an over abundance of deer that our resident ones were stunted in size. There were way too many deer for the food supply and they aren't in good shape because of it. They decimate flowers and gardens if they aren't deer fenced.

Oregon may be a different story, but what has muley herd populations down in northern California is an overabundance of mountain lions because they have been protected and are way too numerous for their range areas.
 
@woodguru - it is definitely harder to get a job when you are "over-qualified", but I am a little surprised at the convenience store issue. There are certain industries (and I would assume that is one) that are used to a constant turn-over of entry or mid-level employees. Maybe we are lucky, but we have industries here that if you can pass a whiz-quiz, show up for your assigned shift, and work your tail off - you got a paycheck.

Buying an over the counter license and tags, I could take one deer per year and one elk per year. I think I could pretty easily do enough work locally to earn 1/2 a beef
 
The caption should read TRAGIC NEWS: United States Government destroying Oregon's deer population.

I can assure you, they do far more damage than hunters and poachers ever could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top