FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2016
THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS — 7
Outdoor Recreation
The boom in the cougar population Hunt results
due by Jan. 31
egon Depart-
ment of Fish
and Wildlife
(ODFW)
information.
The only
areas in the
last decade
where the
ZMQ has
either been
reportedly
reached or
exceeded
have been:
THE OUTDOOR COLUMN
the Coast/
North
Cascade
By Todd Arriola
zone, at 120
In stark contrast to the
in 2011, 120
Gray Wolf/Greater Sage-
in 2012, and, 130 in 2013
Grouse/Virtually Take
(with a ZMQ of 120 then);
Your Pick debates, pouring and, the Columbia Basin
through details related
zone, at 42 in 2005 (with a
to cougars and cougar
ZMQ of 19 then).
management in Oregon
All of the zones—Coast/
has led me to this singular
North Cascade, South-
opinion, if I were forced to west Cascade, Southeast
only express the one: there Cascade, Columbia Basin,
are thousands of cougars
Blue Mountains, and,
in Oregon, and miracu-
Southeast Oregon—remain
lously reaching the total
open, as of January 15th,
Zone Mortality Quotas
but, it is possible, though,
(ZMQ) this year, which is
unlikely, that any of the
encouraged—challenged,
zones could have reached
rather—by the State,
their ZMQ. It always pays
wouldn’t harm the popula-
to check with ODFW first.
tion one bit.
The fact that a hunter is
That may very well be
allowed two cougar tags
a broad generalization,
per year (no spotted kit-
however, to me, one of the
tens, or, females with spot-
most noticeable indications ted kittens), with the sea-
of that, as far as cougars
son running year long (or
are concerned, is the total
until ZMQs have been met,
ZMQ of 970 this year,
whichever occurs first),
representing an increase of should be an encouraging
roughly 25% above 2015’s component in the quest
total quota of 777.
to find, and, harvest this
This year’s total ZMQ
clever mammal. However,
was the first change in that
there are a couple of issues
number since 2006 (the
affecting the potential for
first year of the Cougar
a successful hunt to begin
Management Plan), when
with.
it was increased from 580
Since cougars are classi-
to 777, according to Or-
fied as big game mammals
in Oregon, and, not preda-
tors, as far as hunting regu-
lations are concerned, they
can only be hunted from ½
hour before sunrise, to ½
hour after sunset.
Personally, this may not
currently prove to be much
of an issue for me, since
it should be noted that
cougars have extraordi-
nary vision, and, are both
nocturnal and crepuscular
hunters (active during the
twilight hours of dawn
and dusk). In other words,
I may not be so quick to
volunteer to hunt them at
night anyway.
Another issue involves
the method one chooses
in order to hunt cougars.
Currently, the regulations
handbook has a simple
statement, courtesy of
Measure 18, the Oregon
Ban on Baited Bear Hunt-
ing and Cougar Hunting
with Dogs Act, passed by
Oregonian voters in 1994:
“No person shall use dogs
for taking or pursuit of
cougar.”
The most obvious prob-
lem with that is, dogs are
the most effective method
for hunting cougars and,
“Most cougar are taken
when hunters are pursuing
other species,” according
to ODFW. There are bills
in the works, which may
allow individual Counties
to decide whether dogs
are allowed, and one can
become an “agent” for
ODFW, using dogs for
cougar hunting (ODFW
does, while the public
inexplicably cannot), but,
most people are stuck with
the no-dog rule for now.
The State isn’t slated
to run out of cougars any
time soon, since it’s esti-
mated that there are around
6,000, of them, with
4,000 of those estimated
to be adults, according to
ODFW.
Research conducted by
ODFW has noted effects
on prey, a cougar’s favorite
being deer and elk, includ-
ing fawns and calves.
Among other points, in
northeast Oregon, ODFW
discovered that, on aver-
age, an adult cougar kills
one deer or elk per week;
high levels of hunter
harvest can reduce local
cougar populations; and,
benefits of target areas can
last for years.
Removing a total of
291 cougars (this doesn’t
include ones taken by
hunters or on damage com-
plaints) from the target ar-
eas including the Heppner,
Steens Mountain, Ukiah,
Warner, and, Wenaha Wild-
life Management Units
(WMU) has resulted in
the most dramatic results
in the Heppner and Ukiah
units: elk calf survival has
doubled; the Ukiah elk
population has grown by
500 since 2010; and, the
Heppner elk population
has grown by 2,200 since
2007, according to ODFW.
What cougar hunting
may look like in the future,
I can’t say, but in my
humble opinion, having
effective methods, even
controversial ones (isn’t
everything controversial in
Oregon?) at one’s disposal,
in order to hunt predators
with an increased chance
of success, makes more
sense than removing those
tools. Period…
sioners for adoption into
the County’s Natural Re-
sources Plan (NRP), with a
motion from Justus, and a
second from Fleming.
The Board will vote
whether to adopt the sec-
tion as part of the NRP
as recommended by the
NRAC, at a future, regular
Commission session, the
first of which will be held
on Wednesday, February
3, 2016, at 9 a.m., in the
Commission Chambers.
Defrees began a discus-
sion about a 2015 Baker
County Wildfire Analysis.
“The purpose of this docu-
ment is to brief the Baker
County Natural Resource
Advisory Committee
(BCNRAC) members on
the issues regarding the
catastrophic wildfires that
burned in Baker County
in 2015. This document
is produced by the For-
estry subcommittee of
BCNRAC to assist mem-
bers reviewing the Wildfire
section of the Natural
Resource Plan,” according
to the document.
This document, not
meant to be a part of
the NRP, Defrees said,
includes details about
background information,
a section about lessons
learned, problems, and
challenges, conclusions,
and, short- and long-term
recommendations.
Among the lessons
learned, problems, and,
challenges: excessive fuel
loads; slow decisions,
or, no decision, or, bad
decision making in federal
agency leadership; federal
agencies lack skill at coor-
dinating with other agen-
cies; wrong incentives/cen-
tral planning process/big
business; lack of logging
crews and federal infra-
structure; environmental
bureaucracy; equipment
underutilized; and, the
philosophy that fires are
“good and natural.”
A lengthy discussion
followed this topic, regard-
ing timeframes for federal
(BLM or USFS) approval
of mining Plans of Opera-
tion (POO).
The discussion was
related to whether the fol-
lowing paragraph, in the
Mining section of the NRP,
should be amended or left
as-is:
“It is the policy of Baker
County that approval of
locatable minerals Plans of
Operation by federal land
management agencies must
take place within one year
from submittal of a com-
plete plan. Baker County
must be kept informed if
this timeframe cannot be
met and the County must
be provided the reasons for
the delay.”
The mining section has
been a subject of con-
siderable debate, chiefly
between Anderson and
Alexander with Anderson
pushing for a quicker,
more streamlined approval
process as he commented
about the overreaching
authority of the agencies,
and, the need to mine,
and, provide employ-
ment, while Alexander has
spoken about the laws and
regulations that have to
be followed, the length of
time necessary for approv-
als, and, the difficulties
having a POO approved.
Alexander included the
following in a document,
meant to be a guide about
the timeframes for approv-
als:
Alexander said, “I sug-
gest that putting the agen-
cies on notice that they
have one year to complete
the environmental analysis,
and having them report
back to the County if they
have not completed their
work, is the best we can
hope for under current
laws and regulations. I
suggest the mining section
of the NRAC Plan (NRP)
not be revised.”
A motion was made by
Long to keep the Mining
section as-is, and Braswell
seconded that motion.
The motion passed with a
majority vote.
McQuisten, and (Ken)
Alexander provided com-
ments during the final Pub-
lic Participation segment
of the meeting.
Among other points,
McQuisten stated he
hadn’t attended an NRAC
meeting before, he agrees
with Anderson’s opinions,
he said he plans to con-
tinue learning more about
Federal agencies’ roles and
authorities, and, he thinks
Apache County, Arizona
has provided a good model
regarding mining issues,
and the County’s role.
Alexander said he’s
been attempting to form
solutions to the Federal
government’s tendency
to ignore its own regula-
tions and timeframes with
POO approvals, etc., while
avoiding litigation with
those agencies.
Havey said he’d gather
more details related the is-
sue, with the ultimate goal
of holding the agencies
accountable for their own
regulations and time-
frames.
Bruland informed the
group that the next NRAC
meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, February 23,
2016, at 3 p.m., in the
Commission Chambers.
The agenda will
tentatively include guest
speaker Matt Kerns, and,
a discussion regarding
the Wildfire section of the
NRP.
NRAC
CONTINUED FROM
PAGE 3
Harvey provided those
present with an update
regarding the overall coor-
dination process between
the County and State and
Federal agencies. He said
that meetings with the
Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) are going
well, as well as the Oregon
Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW), the
Oregon Department of
Forestry (ODF), and the
United States Forest Ser-
vice (USFS).
He said that BLM and
ODFW are addressing feed
site issues in the Auburn
area together, and ODFW
and ODF are working well
together on logging proj-
ects, including the Pilcher
Creek area.
Harvey said that the East
Face project meetings and
planning are going well,
with the La Grande District
USFS.
Copies of the five-page
Water and Water Rights
proposed section were
handed out to the Commit-
tee for review and further
editing, followed by an ini-
tial discussion about some
technical and language
changes, by Jan Kerns,
who was instrumental in
drafting the section.
Language changes and
other details were fur-
ther discussed among the
group, and Bruland asked
for a motion to approve the
Water and Water Rights
section.
The section was ap-
proved by the NRAC for
recommendation to the
County Board of Commis-
SALEM, Ore.—Any hunter who purchased 2015 big
game or turkey tags needs to report their hunt results by
the deadline, which is Jan. 31, 2016 for most tags.
Hunters are required to report on each deer, elk,
cougar, bear, pronghorn and turkey tag purchased—even
if they were not successful or did not hunt. Sports Pac
license holders need to report on each big game or turkey
tag issued.
Hunters have two ways to report:
Online via reportmyhunt.com or www.odfw.com. Hunt-
ers without Internet access who wish to report online
can visit an ODFW office with a computer available for
Hunter Reporting (ODFW field or regional offices in
Adair Village/Corvallis, Bend, Clackamas, La Grande,
Portland-Sauvie Island, Roseburg, Salem Headquarters,
Springfield, Tillamook.)
By telephone: Call 1-866-947-6339 to talk to a cus-
tomer service representative. Hours: 6 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Pacific Time, seven days a week.
Reporting deadlines are:
Jan. 31, 2016 for all 2015 hunts that end by Dec. 31,
2015
April 15, 2016 for all 2015 hunts that end between Jan.
1- March 31, 2016
Hunters need the following pieces of information to
report, which takes just a couple of minutes:
Hunter/Angler ID number (located on ODFW licenses,
tags and applications; this is a permanent number that
stays the same from year-to-year)
The two digit Wildlife Management Unit (WMU)
number of the Unit you hunted in most and the Unit you
harvested an animal in if successful (see pages 78-79
of 2015 Big Game Regulations or Hunting Unit Maps
webpage).
The total number of days hunted (including mentoring
youth), the number of days hunted in the WMU hunted
most, and the number of days hunted in the WMU you
harvested an animal in if successful.
$25 penalty for not reporting deer and elk tags
Hunters who fail to report 2015 deer or elk tags on
time will be penalized $25 when they purchase a 2017
hunting license. This penalty is assessed once, regardless
of the number of unreported tags.
As of Jan. 6, 2016, about 50% of elk tags, 48% of
buck deer tags and 60% of antlerless deer tags had been
reported.
“The information hunters provide is used when setting
controlled hunt tag numbers and hunting seasons,” said
ODFW Gvame Program Manager Tom Thornton. “We re-
ally appreciate hunters taking a few minutes of their time
to complete the report.”
ODFW used to get this data through phone surveys but
these became more difficult and expensive as hunters
moved or screened their calls. The mandatory reporting
program was put in place in 2007 so these calls could be
phased out.
A penalty of $25 was added three years ago because
even after several years promoting the program and pro-
viding incentives to report, only about 40 percent of tags
were being reported on time. This rate was too low to for
ODFW to even use the data.
After the penalty was implemented for 2012 tags, rates
jumped to 80 percent or more. This has allowed ODFW
to phase out its big game survey calls; the agency no
longer makes these calls.
Chance to win special big game tag
Hunters who report on time are entered into a draw-
ing to win a special big game tag. ODFW selects three
names each year and the winners can choose a deer, elk or
pronghorn tag. Hunters who win may hunt in an expand-
ed hunt area and during an extended season, similar to
auction and raffle tags that hunters can pay thousands for.
Burns man
cited for
having skulls
Submitted Photo.
A Burns man illegally possessed “game parts.”
On January 21, 2016, at approximately 12:15 p.m. an
OSP Fish and Wildlife trooper received an anonymous
game complaint originating in the Burns area regard-
ing a person to be in possession of multiple trophy mule
deer. OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers contacted, Jaden
Simpson, age 19, from Burns, and learned that he was in
possession of four (4) trophy buck skulls.
OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers seized the four trophy
buck skulls. SIMPSON was criminally cited for four (4)
counts of Illegal Possession of Game Parts-Mule Deer
Skulls and other wildlife charges will be forwarded to the
Harney County District Attorney's Office for consider-
ation.
OSP Fish and Wildlife troopers were assisted by OSP
Patrol Division troopers with the investigation.