# Attention out of state bowhunters who hunt Oregon



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

First what state are you from, it sounds like you are not from a western state, and don’t have to deal with the unique problems faced by many of the western states, i.e. over crowding. Most of the Elk producing states have gone to or already have in place a cap on NR for this very reason. Some unites here in Colorado are so sought after that even a resident has to wait 10 years or more just to draw an elk tag. I hear in NM there are residents that can’t even hunt in their own state every year, why you ask, because NR’s are willing to spend big bucks for a chance at the storied huge elk there. Is this fair? Should residents be forced to sit on the sidelines while NR’s are allowed to hunt? I for one support limits, where needed, and support residents getting first crack and any tags available within that state, personally I think NR’s should only be allowed left over tags after all the residents have had a chance to purchase or draw tags from the units they want to hunt, if there are no tags left over after the residents draw then the NR’s will have to hunt another unit.


----------



## HAIL2DSKINS (Mar 19, 2004)

*Nr's*



Free Range said:


> First what state are you from, it sounds like you are not from a western state, and don’t have to deal with the unique problems faced by many of the western states, i.e. over crowding. Most of the Elk producing states have gone to or already have in place a cap on NR for this very reason. Some unites here in Colorado are so sought after that even a resident has to wait 10 years or more just to draw an elk tag. I hear in NM there are residents that can’t even hunt in their own state every year, why you ask, because NR’s are willing to spend big bucks for a chance at the storied huge elk there. Is this fair? Should residents be forced to sit on the sidelines while NR’s are allowed to hunt? I for one support limits, where needed, and support residents getting first crack and any tags available within that state, personally I think NR’s should only be allowed left over tags after all the residents have had a chance to purchase or draw tags from the units they want to hunt, if there are no tags left over after the residents draw then the NR’s will have to hunt another unit.



Ditto, to what Free Range said. And yes, I will continue to purchase Winners Choice Strings.


----------



## sleighp (Mar 15, 2006)

Yes, I am from a Western State. I am from California. I have hunted both Oregon and Colorado as a non-resident for over 20 years. I do apply in your hard to draw units and I have 8 points and still waiting. In my own state, I apply and draw for tags as well.
If it is a draw, then how are nonresidents paying big money to get a tag? An out of state tag is the same price no matter what unit you hunt. And this reveue is supporting your states wildlife and making it much less expensive for you to hunt. In the majority of your state, you can buy over the counter bull tags.
Are you speaking of land owner tags? In that case, the landowner is making a lot on those tags.


----------



## cobowhntr (Jan 1, 2005)

*Balance*

Sounds like he is looking for balance. Just like the rifle hunters.? IF I read correctly. I think I'd rather have a bow hunter & someone directly tied to bowhunting, The Hand That Feeds Him, come up with proposals than some politician in a D.O.W. shirt.

There is obviously a problem or someone would not be trying to find a solution. Maybe you could contact him & pose ?'s as a nonres & see if together an even better solution can be found. AT is a great place to stir conversation as well as controversy. Which one would you rather have?


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

> If it is a draw, then how are nonresidents paying big money to get a tag?


Almost 500$ compared to residents 35 or so, that’s big bucks. And also you have the whole landowner tags thing, that are taken off the top, and which overwhelmingly go to NR’s, and can be used anywhere in that unit, not just on the landowners land. 

Personally I think the only restrictions on NR tags should be in the form of a limited draw, I think forcing NR’s to pay these excessive fees to hunt is way out of line, here and in any state that charges more for NR’s then residents.


----------



## mark j (Jun 18, 2005)

There is a thread on the bowhunters forum where this same individual, sleighp, is spreading the same drivvle. There is a recent post by Mike Slinkard that you may wish to read... it sorta takes away all of the thunder from the original thread starter. It's a pretty good read.

Sleighp, I believe you owe the man an apology.


----------



## stringer (Dec 12, 2002)

I have just become aware of this thread.
I want to post 2 letters that I have sent to all of our dealers in California, and a few in other neighboring states who have been concerned about this issue please read this and UNDERSTAND IT. I think that it sheds a lot of light on the subject and adds some information that has not been addressed here.


( these letters were sent on company letterhead, but it is not attaching to this post for some reason)




Dear Dealers and Customers, 5-18-06


Recently some issues have come to my attention which I feel must be addressed, and the record set straight. Erroneous rumors are very damaging to everyone, and it is clear that these rumors have had negative effects on the sales of Winner’s Choice products especially in California. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the entire truth about what has actually transpired as well as the reasons. 
While I was at the Western Classic tournament in Redding a few weeks ago, I was approached several times about a rumor that is going around concerning my involvement with the Oregon Bowhunters, and particularly a proposal which addresses non-resident bow hunters in Oregon. The circulating report was that I was some how the head of a “coalition” and “was circulating a petition” to keep Californian bowhunters from hunting in Oregon. Further I was told of many customers in California who were refusing to use Winner’s Choice products as a result of this misinformation. 
First let me explain that one of the many hats I wear is that of the SE committeeman for the Oregon Bowhunters. As such, after much input from bowhunters and biologists in our area (Grant, Baker, crook and a few other Eastern Oregon Counties), I did author a proposal that was presented to and passed by the membership of the OBH which would, if accepted by the Oregon Fish and Game commission in June, put a reasonable cap on Non-resident bowhunters in Eastern Oregon per unit. The way this would work is that non-resident archery tags for deer and elk would be sold on a first come first served basis per unit. Our proposal did not specify what the quota should be, but it is likely it would be well over the limit that is already imposed by law on all non-resident limited entry hunts. The idea was not to limit the overall number of non-residents hunting Oregon, but simply to redistribute them more evenly around the state.
While I was in Redding I took a lot of heat from some Californian bowhunters who were told that I was heading some kind of Coalition to ban Californians from Oregon. I was even referred to as the “non-resident anti-Christ” by one person I talked with. Of course this cannot be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the units in my area of the state were very nearly turned to draw only hunts in 2006. Only some quick action and a little luck from the OBH stopped this from happening then. The fact of the matter was that ODFW staff had actually inserted into their proposals to the commission in June 2005, limited entry hunting in almost every Grant and Crook county unit with no public comment, just one week before the June commission meeting. Historically the Commission accepts staff proposals with very little question unless it is disputed at the hearing. Luckily, due to some fast action by the OBH, these proposals were withdrawn verbally by staff at the meeting. If the limited entry hunts would have passed were, it would have meant an absolute cap of no more than 5% on all non-residents in these units (required by Oregon law). This would mean non-residents would have very little chance to draw any tag in those units. We were concerned that if action was not taken to lessen the influx of hunters into these areas, that soon we would likely see limited entry which would hurt residents and non-residents alike. Since overcrowding was cited as the reason for the proposal in the first place, and is mainly caused by the non-resident influx, it seemed reasonable to begin by redistributing these hunters. Again, we do not advocate any over all reduction of non-residents bowhunters in Oregon, just a redistribution in problem areas. 
After I explained this situation, every person I talked to in Redding agreed that this was a better option for them as well. I guess what really bothered me most is that I was personally demonized by some people who apparently did not know the facts. Also some of this mist-information was being propagated by those who could gain finically from making me (and Winner’s Choice) out to be “Anti-Californian”. It is undeniable that As C.E.O. of Winner’s Choice, this rumor has negatively affected my business in a historically strong section of the country. What ever the reason for this, I hope this will help clear the air, and let people know the facts. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at [email protected] or give me a call. 
Sincerely, 
Mike Slinkard C.E.O. Winner’s Choice 
SE committeeman Oregon Bowhunters




Later I had a few more questions and concerns from dealers and others in California, so this is a second letter which further explains the situation. 




Dear concerned California customers, 6-21-06


Recently I have received a lot of questions concerning my personal involvement with the Oregon Bowhunters Inc. as it pertains to a proposal which I authored concerning non-resident bowhunters in Oregon. I have sent out a letter to all California Dealers in May explaining the truth about the situation and the reasons for my involvement. As I stated in this letter, this proposal was done as the South East Committeeman for the OBH, and was a developed jointly with many members of our local Bowhunting community. 

The fact of the matter on this issue is that in June 2005 the OBH became aware of an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff proposal which would have imposed limited entry in the wildlife units here in the Grant county area as well as much of Crook County. I have attached a copy of the page taken from the proposal packet that was sent to our local biologist just 1 week prior to the Commission meeting which had the power to implement these changes. This idea was actually started by another local group called the Grant County Wildlife Advisory Committee who is made up of rifle hunters local land owners (Ken Holliday is one of the Counties major landowners). This group advocated limited entry (called Controlled hunts in their proposal) for even a greater area. 

After receiving the information about the ODFW proposal, the OBH immediately submitted complaints to the department about the proposal, and the fact that it was undertaken with out any formal public input, or even input from the local district biologist. Due to this, the proposal concerning the “John Day Zone” was verbally withdrawn by the department. Bowhunters had won this battle, but it is clear from this attempt that the threat of expanded limited entry Bowhunting in Eastern Oregon is very real.

As an attempt to take a proactive stand to address the problem that had caused this near miss for bowhunters, I was selected to write the proposal not in small part because the area of contention was in my zone as OBH committeeman. This idea was felt to be a much better alternative to limited entry, and was addressing directly the root cause of the overcrowding problem. This proposal was structured similarly to the regulations of other states, and has been proven to work well, and is much less restrictive to non-residents than a lottery draw is. The idea was not to limit overall non-resident numbers, but rather to distribute them more evenly across the state. Any non-resident who was diligent could still buy a tag as long as they did so before the tags were gone in that unit.

The fact in this issue for non-residents is that if limited entry hunts are adopted, there is automatically a cap of no more than 5% of the tags may go to non-residents. This is in place now and was put in place by the Oregon Legislature several years ago. It is clear that changes are imminent in the future of Bowhunting in Eastern Oregon. I believe that when looked at with all the facts, our proposal is a much better deal for non-residents than the limited entry hunts. At least with this idea, a non-resident can hunt in Oregon every year. With Limited entry, only 5% of the tags will go to non-residents. This not only limits non-resident hunters to 1 unit, but also makes drawing a tag extremely difficult. 

As I stated in my previous letter, I believe that much of this controversy is being spread by those people who can gain finically from making me and my company out to somehow be Anti-Californian. I am appalled and saddened that some people will go to such extents to damage a rival company. I sincerely hope that this letter as well as the attachments will help people to realize that Mike Slinkard and Winner’s Choice is not the enemy of non-resident hunters in Oregon. In fact as an executive board member of Oregon Bowhunters, I have a responsibility to do all I can to help preserve the great sport of Bowhunting in Oregon. 

If anyone has any questions or comments for me I can be reached at 541-575-0818. Please ask for me and state it is concerning non-resident Bowhunting issues. I will be happy to listen to all comments and concerns. If I am out, please leave me you name and number and I will return you call.

By the way, our proposal was not adopted by ODFW for the 2007 season at the recent meeting on the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. It still seems clear however that some change is still being considered possibly for the 2008 season. I sincerely hope that for the sake of all those who bow hunt Oregon that it will be a change we can all live with. 


Sincerely,

Mike Slinkard
C.E.O. Winner’s Choice Custom Bowstrings Inc
South East Committeeman, Oregon Bowhunters Inc. 







The proposal did not pass, so it is kind of a mute point now anyway. 

Also, maybe I should be flattered that some people think I personally have the power to change the ODFW. For the record I am only 1 committeeman for the Oregon Bowhunters. That position requires me to report to the OBH on issues that are important to the Bowhunters in my district. I really have no power other than that. I find it very disturbing that people would demonize me and my company for doing a volunteer job that most people do not want. It certainly makes me re-think my position with OBH. I guess maybe the only people who should volunteer for these positions should be those with either nothing to loose, or those who will not try to get anything done. 

In respect to these posts, I would like to thank those who have spoke in defense of me and my company. Maybe for the others, it would be better if Oregon did just go to limited entry. That certainly cures the non-resident issue as well.

Mike Slinkard
South East Committeeman Oregon Bowhunters
C.E.O. Winner's Choice


----------



## sleighp (Mar 15, 2006)

Mr. Slinkard,
I do not oppose a cap on non-resident tags that would be available on a first come first serve basis.
What I do oppose is that non-residents would be restricted to just one unit while residents can still hunt any where they wanted.
We both know that some units are a lot better than others and whose to say that many locals would not be crowded into those few areas.
Idaho also has a first come first serve quota on out of state hunters. Tags may be purchased over the counter until that quota is reached. Bowhunters may hunt any unit that is open to general archery, the same as residents, unless the unit is a draw unit.
I would be in favor of something like that. If there are too many non resident hunters then put a quota on the number of tags available, but let us continue to have the same opportunities as the residents to hunt all general units.


----------



## mark j (Jun 18, 2005)

sleighp said:


> If there are too many non resident hunters then put a quota on the number of tags available, but let us continue to have the same opportunities as the residents to hunt all general units.


You just don't get it, do you? 

You are a _visitor_ in the state of Oregon. 

You are a _guest_ of the state of Oregon.

You are a _non-resident_ in the state of Oregon.

You are being _allowed_ the _priveledge_ of hunting there.

You don't have the same priveledges as a full time resident of the state of Oregon. Not to their elk, their deer, or any other managed resident wildlife. Get over yourself. Just because you hunted there for 20 years does not, will not and should not make you believe, even for a second, that you have as many rights as a full time resident of the state! You are a guest! 

There are laws that Oregon can and probably will use to counter your weak argument of discrimination. I will post a link to that law for you to read up on. It (SB 339) was sponsored by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Bush very recently. It states, in unequivocable terms, that _every State_, including Oregon, has _every right_ to manage their big game herds as they see fit. 

Here's a cut and paste for you to read: 

*Outfitter’s Legal Action against Nevada Wildlife Commission Dismissed
*
_A lawsuit that was brought against the State of Nevada last summer by a New Mexico outfitter that claimed the state's big game tag quota system discriminated against nonresidents has been dismissed.

The lawsuit was based on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which was adopted to give Congress the power to regulate commerce between states and to reduce discrimination of one state against another state’s residents, or their access to goods and services.

However, recent legislation sponsored by U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Bush reaffirmed the authority of states to manage wildlife and recreation.

Jean Taulman, Lawrence Montoya, Filiberto Valerio and United States Outfitters, Inc., sued members of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners and Nevada Department of Wildlife Director Terry Crawforth, claiming that Nevada policy on Big Game Tag Quota Allocation discriminates against nonresidents who “suffer discrimination in access to hunting opportunities in Nevada through the imposition of quotas for each species.”

“It was hunters fighting with hunters,” Crawforth said. “The agency was spending hunter’s money to referee the fight.”

He added that one of his concerns with the issue was that he feared the result would be that the state’s ability to manage wildlife was going to constantly undergo monitoring and oversight by the courts.

“I was concerned that we were spending sportsman’s dollars for referring a fight rather than spending hunter dollars to do good things for wildlife,” he said.

With the fight drawing to an end, Crawforth said it is now important for states like Nevada to look at their systems for allocation of hunting and fishing opportunities to make sure they are reasonable and fair.

“I’m pleased that we got the legislation and the fight is over,” Crawforth said.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife is the state agency responsible for the restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources, and the promotion of boating safety on Nevada’s waters. Wildlife offices are located in Las Vegas, Henderson, Winnemucca, Fallon, Elko, and Reno. For more information, contact the agency web site at www.ndow.org. _

Here's a link to the entire article: http://ndow.org/about/commission/lit/index.shtm

You can follow links on the website to further your knowledge on the subject. If you're so bent on elk hunting in Oregon, pack your bags and move there. Then, and only then, will you have the same rights and priveledges as a current resident. Until then, you are a _guest_!


----------

