Monday, March 1, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
sweating
Last Sunday when I went looking for shed's I was sweating in places I didn't know I had. Acording to my new map software I gained 700 feet in elevation in about 25 minutes.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Princess of the forest
Me and chloe went and looked for sheds today, got skunked again but had fun together.(Click on pictures if you want them bigger)
She was brave out in the open, but when the trees closed in she stayed close and was worried about cougars lol
Over a mile behind a locked gate and blocked in by fallen trees that have been that way for years we found this.
So tired of this
I'm going back in a couple days to sift through and try and find a piece of mail with a name or address on it.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Map software
I am really exited, I have been wanting this for a long time. Naomi found a really good deal on ebay for the Oregon one and ordered it for me for V-day. Cant wait to get it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Not good
This photo was taken last week in eastern Oregon. Get a clue ODFW!!!!!
1 deer a week x52x5 cats = 260
Spear hunt
For the record I think high fence hunts are SUPER LAME!! But since this is my favorite football player I thought I would post.
http://www.coldsteel.com/jared-allen.html
http://www.coldsteel.com/jared-allen.html
A few bucks
A few bucks from over the years, have 4 more that I can think of but two were drug off by stupid dogs and a couple to mount yet. Nothing big but great memories with all.
Some of my views on Blacktail management.
The state of Oregon should stop using its dwindling number of Blacktail deer for a paycheck. In years past the Blacktail deer numbers were exploding in Southwest Oregon, but for the past fourteen years the numbers have been declining at an alarming rate. In 1979 there were an estimated 452,000 Blacktail deer in western Oregon; numbers are now down around 250,000. These deer are faced with disease, loss of habitat, and an explosion in the predator population just to name a few of their challenges. It seems as though every time the declining deer numbers are shown to ODFW (Oregon department of fish and wildlife) the blame is given to these things and say that there is nothing they can do about it. Instead of complaining they need to change their management tactics, and stop selling an unlimited number of deer tags every year. There are many different things ODFW could do to bring the deer numbers up, but it would lower the amount of money they brought in for a couple years, because of a decrease in the number of tags to sell.
The first thing that needs to be done is the buck to doe ratio needs to be in check. There absolutely cannot be a healthy deer herd with Oregon’s current ratio. “A minimum healthy buck to doe ratio is 50:100, but 75:100 is ideal”. It is also stated that Southwest Oregon currently sits at 12:100, which is less than a quarter of their 50:100 objective. A good start to reaching this goal is to stop letting hunters shoot any buck that they see; if ODFW would only let hunters take a buck with no less than three-points on each side the numbers would start to rebound quickly, about 75% of the bucks killed are young, immature deer with two or less points per side. There are many people who would not like this rule at all if it were to be enacted. Hunters might say “I’m just a meat hunter, you can’t eat the horns”. While I understand how they feel, it’s not about the horns; it’s about wildlife management and preservation. If these people really care about and respect the animals that they hunt, they will listen to reason, and give a little for the health of the deer population. If things continue the way that they are, there will be no hunting at all in a few years because the blacktail deer will be almost completely wiped out.
Another problem that a low buck to doe ratio poses is that there are not enough bucks to breed with all of the does. An average buck will breed 2-5 does a year. If a doe is not bred, she will go back into estrous twenty-eight days later; she will continue to go in and out of estrous two or three times if not bred. The problem this poses is; the fawns are born over a three month period instead of a three week period like they are supposed to. Spreading the birthing season out like this provides predators with a nice steady supply of easy meals; whereas, when the process takes three weeks, the predators can only get so many before they are big enough to have a chance at escaping. A combination of the predator problem and being born too late in the season to survive winter has dropped fawn survival rates to dismal all time lows.
In-breeding is also a negative side effect of low buck to doe ratios. In the past ten years, Blacktail deer have been battling chronic hair loss; which is a side effect of Asian lice. When deer are infected with the lice, they rub themselves bare in spots and can ultimately die from exposure. However, it is possible for the deer to survive this. In-breeding has caused the deer to become genetically weaker and more prone to die from “chronic hair loss”. Not only are the deer becoming weaker, they are much smaller than in years past. Fifteen years ago the average adult male Blacktail deer weighed 175 pounds on average; today the average is around 115 pounds.
It also would be a good idea for Oregon to stop selling an unlimited number of tags to hunters. This might cause some frustration for hunters on years that they do not get a tag, but once the buck to doe ratio is in check and deer numbers are back up, they could go back to the old system. If hunters would stand back and take a look at the big picture, they would be able to see that using a proven scientific management system will benefit everyone involved. There are many other states that have tried these management tactics in the past and now in those states hunters can get as many as five deer tags a year instead of just one like here in Oregon.
Take Missouri for example, in 1925 their states deer population was all but gone with only 400 deer left in the state. The first thing they had to do was shut all hunting down for five years to let the population recover somewhat. After five years they started allowing limited hunting opportunities with antler point restrictions. Something else they do is allowing doe hunting to keep the buck to doe ratio in check. Through the last sixty plus years of good quality management, their deer population has exploded to over 800,000. This is just one example, there are many states that focus on buck to doe ratio, and have excellent deer numbers to prove that it works.
Something that ODFW could look forward to once deer numbers are in check is an increase in revenue. Blacktail deer are only found on the west coast and are highly sought after by hunters from all over the world. If Oregon has a high buck to doe ratio and a healthy herd, the hunting opportunities will be much better and will draw hunters from all over the world. The cost of a deer tag and license for an Oregon resident is forty-two dollars; the cost for a non-resident is three hundred forty-one dollars. With many non-resident hunters coming to Oregon for the great hunting opportunities, the money would add up fast. The state would also be able to make more money off residents because they would be selling doe tags every year to keep the buck to doe ratio in check, each hunter would buy three or four tags instead of just one.
Starting a program like this in Oregon would not benefit only hunters. It would help the state with added revenue. It would create enjoyment for people who enjoy just observing and photographing animals. It would also help maintain a healthy population of predators. If Oregon’s deer numbers get much lower the bear, cougar, and coyote that depend on them to survive will starve to death. If these predators die hunters will stop spending the money on tags and the state will lose even more money. If ODFW would be willing to take a cut in revenue for a few years and manage deer with simple science it would pay off. It would be great to see the words “Blacktail deer population on the rise” on the cover of “Oregon Hunter”.
The first thing that needs to be done is the buck to doe ratio needs to be in check. There absolutely cannot be a healthy deer herd with Oregon’s current ratio. “A minimum healthy buck to doe ratio is 50:100, but 75:100 is ideal”. It is also stated that Southwest Oregon currently sits at 12:100, which is less than a quarter of their 50:100 objective. A good start to reaching this goal is to stop letting hunters shoot any buck that they see; if ODFW would only let hunters take a buck with no less than three-points on each side the numbers would start to rebound quickly, about 75% of the bucks killed are young, immature deer with two or less points per side. There are many people who would not like this rule at all if it were to be enacted. Hunters might say “I’m just a meat hunter, you can’t eat the horns”. While I understand how they feel, it’s not about the horns; it’s about wildlife management and preservation. If these people really care about and respect the animals that they hunt, they will listen to reason, and give a little for the health of the deer population. If things continue the way that they are, there will be no hunting at all in a few years because the blacktail deer will be almost completely wiped out.
Another problem that a low buck to doe ratio poses is that there are not enough bucks to breed with all of the does. An average buck will breed 2-5 does a year. If a doe is not bred, she will go back into estrous twenty-eight days later; she will continue to go in and out of estrous two or three times if not bred. The problem this poses is; the fawns are born over a three month period instead of a three week period like they are supposed to. Spreading the birthing season out like this provides predators with a nice steady supply of easy meals; whereas, when the process takes three weeks, the predators can only get so many before they are big enough to have a chance at escaping. A combination of the predator problem and being born too late in the season to survive winter has dropped fawn survival rates to dismal all time lows.
In-breeding is also a negative side effect of low buck to doe ratios. In the past ten years, Blacktail deer have been battling chronic hair loss; which is a side effect of Asian lice. When deer are infected with the lice, they rub themselves bare in spots and can ultimately die from exposure. However, it is possible for the deer to survive this. In-breeding has caused the deer to become genetically weaker and more prone to die from “chronic hair loss”. Not only are the deer becoming weaker, they are much smaller than in years past. Fifteen years ago the average adult male Blacktail deer weighed 175 pounds on average; today the average is around 115 pounds.
It also would be a good idea for Oregon to stop selling an unlimited number of tags to hunters. This might cause some frustration for hunters on years that they do not get a tag, but once the buck to doe ratio is in check and deer numbers are back up, they could go back to the old system. If hunters would stand back and take a look at the big picture, they would be able to see that using a proven scientific management system will benefit everyone involved. There are many other states that have tried these management tactics in the past and now in those states hunters can get as many as five deer tags a year instead of just one like here in Oregon.
Take Missouri for example, in 1925 their states deer population was all but gone with only 400 deer left in the state. The first thing they had to do was shut all hunting down for five years to let the population recover somewhat. After five years they started allowing limited hunting opportunities with antler point restrictions. Something else they do is allowing doe hunting to keep the buck to doe ratio in check. Through the last sixty plus years of good quality management, their deer population has exploded to over 800,000. This is just one example, there are many states that focus on buck to doe ratio, and have excellent deer numbers to prove that it works.
Something that ODFW could look forward to once deer numbers are in check is an increase in revenue. Blacktail deer are only found on the west coast and are highly sought after by hunters from all over the world. If Oregon has a high buck to doe ratio and a healthy herd, the hunting opportunities will be much better and will draw hunters from all over the world. The cost of a deer tag and license for an Oregon resident is forty-two dollars; the cost for a non-resident is three hundred forty-one dollars. With many non-resident hunters coming to Oregon for the great hunting opportunities, the money would add up fast. The state would also be able to make more money off residents because they would be selling doe tags every year to keep the buck to doe ratio in check, each hunter would buy three or four tags instead of just one.
Starting a program like this in Oregon would not benefit only hunters. It would help the state with added revenue. It would create enjoyment for people who enjoy just observing and photographing animals. It would also help maintain a healthy population of predators. If Oregon’s deer numbers get much lower the bear, cougar, and coyote that depend on them to survive will starve to death. If these predators die hunters will stop spending the money on tags and the state will lose even more money. If ODFW would be willing to take a cut in revenue for a few years and manage deer with simple science it would pay off. It would be great to see the words “Blacktail deer population on the rise” on the cover of “Oregon Hunter”.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Day at the range
I had so much fun today. I'm going to post links for the pictures because they look good full size.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0056.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0055.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0047.jpg
My 100 yard 3 shot group
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0058.jpg
Shiloh 100 yard 3 shot group. This was the first time he shot this dun and he shot awesome!
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0059.jpg
Tom shooting his 6mm ppc, this gun is amazing!!
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0050.jpg
5 shot group out of the PPC.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0060.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0056.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0055.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0047.jpg
My 100 yard 3 shot group
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0058.jpg
Shiloh 100 yard 3 shot group. This was the first time he shot this dun and he shot awesome!
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0059.jpg
Tom shooting his 6mm ppc, this gun is amazing!!
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0050.jpg
5 shot group out of the PPC.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/shedhorn82/shooting/IMG_0060.jpg
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Hunter Orange 3
I understand that I am on a rant, sucks for you guys lol. No one to talk with about it.
I went through the hunting accidents in Oregon '98-'09 and came up with 68 incidences. 48 were two party events, 14 were fatal. Looking over the reports and making a judgement call, it looks like 3 deaths where no H.O. was worn most likely would have been prevented if H.O. was required. 7 fatal events where no H.O. was worn is debatable if H.O. would have helped. 1 fatal H.O was worn. 3 fatals involved no H.O. but would not have helped.Using an average hunter rate of 210,000 per year (I think this is low) the rate for accidents was .000032 which is significantly lower than the national average and .0000066 for deaths which is slightly higher than the national average of .000005.What is interesting is that 19% of the 48 two party hunting incidents the hunters were wearing hunter orange and were still shot, many times when they were visible to the shooter.
If the stats are telling us anything, it is that bird hunters need to wear flak jackets and helmets! Many bird hunters getting hit, even though they are wearing H.O. I suppose this goes with that territory, one shell produces a lot of opportunity to hit a non-target.It will be interesting to hear the arguments at the commision meeting(Wish I had the time and money to make it there). I guess the question that needs to be asked of the commisioners is, would they support the legislature mandating speed govenors on every vehicle driven in the state of Oregon and the speed is set at 45 mph and every occupant must wear helmets? Why not? It is the same logic they are applying to hunting, that we must understand.I am a little concerned that these so called brush shooters are going to catch a glimpes of H.O., just enough to draw their attention and then shoot at the first movement they see. Really sad reading the reports and the number of people that just shoot at movement. H.O. might make that scenario worse.
There is a big game rifle hunt going on 365 days a year statewide. Also known as "cougar season." There are numerous other rifle hunts taking place for most of the fall, starting in August and going through the end of the year and beyond. Even if they mandate this only for big game rifle hunts, it will be a complete mess.
Ok, i'm done for now.
I went through the hunting accidents in Oregon '98-'09 and came up with 68 incidences. 48 were two party events, 14 were fatal. Looking over the reports and making a judgement call, it looks like 3 deaths where no H.O. was worn most likely would have been prevented if H.O. was required. 7 fatal events where no H.O. was worn is debatable if H.O. would have helped. 1 fatal H.O was worn. 3 fatals involved no H.O. but would not have helped.Using an average hunter rate of 210,000 per year (I think this is low) the rate for accidents was .000032 which is significantly lower than the national average and .0000066 for deaths which is slightly higher than the national average of .000005.What is interesting is that 19% of the 48 two party hunting incidents the hunters were wearing hunter orange and were still shot, many times when they were visible to the shooter.
If the stats are telling us anything, it is that bird hunters need to wear flak jackets and helmets! Many bird hunters getting hit, even though they are wearing H.O. I suppose this goes with that territory, one shell produces a lot of opportunity to hit a non-target.It will be interesting to hear the arguments at the commision meeting(Wish I had the time and money to make it there). I guess the question that needs to be asked of the commisioners is, would they support the legislature mandating speed govenors on every vehicle driven in the state of Oregon and the speed is set at 45 mph and every occupant must wear helmets? Why not? It is the same logic they are applying to hunting, that we must understand.I am a little concerned that these so called brush shooters are going to catch a glimpes of H.O., just enough to draw their attention and then shoot at the first movement they see. Really sad reading the reports and the number of people that just shoot at movement. H.O. might make that scenario worse.
There is a big game rifle hunt going on 365 days a year statewide. Also known as "cougar season." There are numerous other rifle hunts taking place for most of the fall, starting in August and going through the end of the year and beyond. Even if they mandate this only for big game rifle hunts, it will be a complete mess.
Ok, i'm done for now.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
More on hunter orange.
Did a little research and found a few stats (hard to find for Oregon).Nationally in 2002 the accident rate for hunters ran 52 per million. Fatalities ran 5 per million.Nationally in 2002 the stats for automobiles ran 22,000 accidents per million, 10,000 per million injuries and 150 deaths per million.As far as sports hunting ranked 29th for injuries, cheer leading was 9th.
Friday, January 29, 2010
chuck and grace bartlett
http://chuckandgracebartlett.com/index.html
They are really great at what they do, most are Oregon and a Washington.
They are really great at what they do, most are Oregon and a Washington.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
MANDATORY HUNTER ORANGE
The state of Oregon is working on this. I am very against this, it would be for rifle hunters durring rifle season. There are 33 other states that require a certain number of square inchs of hunter orange. This is brought on by the death of a 13 year old boy this last hunting season, he was mistaken for an elk and shot by his uncle. Although this is very sad mandating hunter orange is not the answer. If people would just follow the basic safety rules this could be avoided, like target identification, know your target and what is beyond.
And why would it just be required for rifle hunters? What about bow hunters since bear and cougar season are the same time as bow season and you can hunt them with a rifle? Hikers, Berry pickers, fishermen, basically anyone out of the city limits durring season. I can honestly say that I whear it myself most of the time and it does make me feel safer, but making it the law is stupid, and it singles out people that it shouldn't. The state of Washington requires 40% hunter orange, last year a lady was killed by a a 14 yo kid that should not have been hunting without an adult. She was wearing all black, she was bent over tying her shoe and thought she was a bear. She was not required to wear orange because she was not hunting. If the boy would have identified his target this would not have happened.
So why only hunters?
An average of 1.7 hunters a year are killed a year in Oregon, ODFW say's that if mandating hunter orange will save one life it is worth it, I think that requiring every person to complete a hunter safety class it would be a much better way to make the woods safer.
If they do mandate hunter orange, it needs to be for all people that are out doors out of city limits durring rifle season, private and public land.
I'll accept hunter orange requirements if they also require all upland bird hunters, their dogs, all county, state, and federal employees in the field during hunting seasons, and all non-hunters in the field during hunting seasons to wear it as well!I, as an unethical, uneducated, unsafe rifle hunter (those whom are being singled out) am just as likely to shoot anything(anyone) that moves...not just another hunter packing a rifle.I'll let land owners slide as they have every right to hunt naked on their own land as far as I'm concerned. But if they don't have that right...then I guess all land owners outside their homes, in and around where someone might be hunting should be required to wear it as well.1992-2006 stats show that a good number of the fatal and non-fatal accidents happen with a shotgun (which is close range), and/or happen when the other hunter is "out of sight". Not mistaken for game, but "out of sight". We are talking about 6.4 non-fatal accidents, and 1.7 fatal accidents per year (in Oregon). Throw out 1992, and even much less. Surprisingly, there have been many accidents where the victims were wearing orange or they don't know if they were. If you look at nationwide stats, it's even more surprising.And why shouldn't archers have to wear it? I am an avid archer, obviously, and I know that deer and elk don't see the color spectrum...we can't be hypocrits.You have the choice to wear it now....so wear it if you want! Do you really NEED me to wear it to make YOU a safer hunter? If you can't answer that question, then education is the answer.
If you want to save lives, how about lowering the speed limit on the highway to 45 mph. If it saves one life, (it would save hundreds, actually) it's worth it, right?
And why would it just be required for rifle hunters? What about bow hunters since bear and cougar season are the same time as bow season and you can hunt them with a rifle? Hikers, Berry pickers, fishermen, basically anyone out of the city limits durring season. I can honestly say that I whear it myself most of the time and it does make me feel safer, but making it the law is stupid, and it singles out people that it shouldn't. The state of Washington requires 40% hunter orange, last year a lady was killed by a a 14 yo kid that should not have been hunting without an adult. She was wearing all black, she was bent over tying her shoe and thought she was a bear. She was not required to wear orange because she was not hunting. If the boy would have identified his target this would not have happened.
So why only hunters?
An average of 1.7 hunters a year are killed a year in Oregon, ODFW say's that if mandating hunter orange will save one life it is worth it, I think that requiring every person to complete a hunter safety class it would be a much better way to make the woods safer.
If they do mandate hunter orange, it needs to be for all people that are out doors out of city limits durring rifle season, private and public land.
I'll accept hunter orange requirements if they also require all upland bird hunters, their dogs, all county, state, and federal employees in the field during hunting seasons, and all non-hunters in the field during hunting seasons to wear it as well!I, as an unethical, uneducated, unsafe rifle hunter (those whom are being singled out) am just as likely to shoot anything(anyone) that moves...not just another hunter packing a rifle.I'll let land owners slide as they have every right to hunt naked on their own land as far as I'm concerned. But if they don't have that right...then I guess all land owners outside their homes, in and around where someone might be hunting should be required to wear it as well.1992-2006 stats show that a good number of the fatal and non-fatal accidents happen with a shotgun (which is close range), and/or happen when the other hunter is "out of sight". Not mistaken for game, but "out of sight". We are talking about 6.4 non-fatal accidents, and 1.7 fatal accidents per year (in Oregon). Throw out 1992, and even much less. Surprisingly, there have been many accidents where the victims were wearing orange or they don't know if they were. If you look at nationwide stats, it's even more surprising.And why shouldn't archers have to wear it? I am an avid archer, obviously, and I know that deer and elk don't see the color spectrum...we can't be hypocrits.You have the choice to wear it now....so wear it if you want! Do you really NEED me to wear it to make YOU a safer hunter? If you can't answer that question, then education is the answer.
If you want to save lives, how about lowering the speed limit on the highway to 45 mph. If it saves one life, (it would save hundreds, actually) it's worth it, right?
New binoculars
I Ordered some since my old ones got stolen out of my truck. I am very exited, they are far from top of the line(money is tight) but better than any I have ever owned. A guy from the company called me today and told me they were back ordered three weeks and he was very sorry and would refund my order if I wished. Well as bad as I want them I told him no problem I was in no hury and would leave my order placed, he thanked me and said they are sending me a nice flashlight for free, SWEET!!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Western Nomad
This is my new blog, it will track my outdoor and hunting interests and adventures through out the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
