8 Farm Services Agency, the Department of Natural Resources
8 Through an extension agent in John Day.
8 from the head of the Jewel Program. I was under the green forest program before this.
8 Not sure if I read about, or maybe from a neighbor, not sure.
8 general knowledge in ranching community, also stopped by fish and game re elk damage.
8 CRP sign up - I had a real wheat problem.
8 Marty St. Louis of the wildlife area at Summer lake
8 I think I read about it in a magazine article, but I couldn't tell you which one.
8 a biologist, the head guy in Prineville, Brian Ferry.
8 Actually, I initia--I called myself. We had done a previous access & habitat program.

4 deer elk antelope and ground squirrels
4 deer, upland game birds and predators, coyotes.
4 coyotes, sage rats, cow elk occassionally
4 antelope, elk and deer, coyotes, ground squirrels, ducks and geese. I don't allow any hunting of quale and chuckers.
4 mule deer, quail, coyotes, bobcat, doves, limited antelope. Oh, we do have waterfowl, a duck hunt.

Outlaw the damn fourwheelers, they run everywhere and they tresspass and cut the fences. Some are hunter and some aren't
They seem to want to get too close to the building and houses.
One time. This one drove out into a new seeding.
The ones that I gave permission to, they were good, but some of the others that just went up there without asking have been rude and left gates open.
Oh, I had a couple of guys out there, I don't know if it was an accident, they were shooting, and blew a couple of sprinklers off, and punched, three, four holes in the main line.
Once in while you'll get some littering, and once in a while you'll get a gate left open, but 99% of them have been real good.
Really, not much, it's fairly well regulated. It's less problem than not being in Access and Habitat.
They have not had permission on occasion, dump dirt in the diesel tank. People go through no trespassing signs
coming and going in areas they were not allowed to go, Leaving gates open
they shot two of our cows with bow and arrows, over 1000 head of cattle on our land. We've had cattle shot with guns. We have asked people to leave and some have shot tires on our vehicle. They chase antelope across alfalfa field, just before we were goin
They left gates open on our back pasture and the animals all got out, and they tore down some electric fencing, which we then had to repair.
Too close to livestock and houses, not safe
Well we have the youth deer hunt, and we allow scouting before deer season, first of October. A few have not observed rules when it is dry and they drive around, causing lots of dust, sometimes two feet deep. they did not follow rules, broke stock water l
Fences are broke, had to call the cops, you name it we've had it. shot a spike
Only the one's who didn't have permission or right to be there. The one's who did ask permission didn't cause any problems
They call you at 6 in the morning and at 10pm at night. And when they come to the ranch and they want to talk, they're retired and have alot of time on their hands, and sometimes it's hard for them to realize that I have to make a living. Now we give th
Leaving gate open that allows livestock to get out.
tears down fences a lot of four wheel drive damage from a lot of them, general disrespect like leaving fences open and four wheeling tearing up turf and the roads

it met by alligning me with youth and getting youth to hunt. getting youth hunters out to hunt. made my name available to them
It's provided resources so that I could improve the habitat.
The fertility factor of the seeds was very good, we've had our second year with it and it reseeded itself very well. Good rains with th estorm
provided funding for the needed work and provided access for the public, and opened foot access into the property. better quality hunt, some handicapped vehicular access. Helped the game, too.
Definately drawn animals. Really helpful, checked up on what I've done a few times. Gave me some extra seed a few times to finish up the project
They furnished me the seeds and I did all the labor, by being able to get the seed right away I didn't have any erosion problems.
Pretty clear cut, we did our program, and they inspected and that was it. This was a lot of repairing, dramatic increase in plant life.
I think they need some better followup with ODFW.
They helped me financially develop a habitat program for wild life, for birds, primarily. The habitat improvement project on my farm.
It's been what I expected, we were under a fish and game program before, now just a little more hassle to get the money. Might save money if they would let fish and game guys get the fertilizer instead of each individual getting it.
Providing habitat for elk. Helped me fence my property that elk have torn apart.
Well, when we first started they had the grain forage program. They don't have that anymore. And we used to be able to get money for fertilizer, and feed, but we just haven't been able to get anything. We still have elk problems.
Oh, dear, I was just completely satisfied that the ODFW put the word out to hunters, and when they called they were all, everybody got permission and we had absolutely no problem.
It did what it was supposed to do, gave feed to wildlife in a hurry. Maybe there wasn't enouh.
Okay. Like I told you, my neighbor fee hunts. He gets a $1,000 a point for a bull elk, and a $1,000 for a cow. They're not worth near much as a bull. And his range is on a mountain ridge around this little valley, and the little valley we farm it. We
There's an opportunity to advertise, to allow more parties to get involved. In June July + August the dept should somehow advertise "hunting opportunities available". ODFW needs to cooridinate with the landowners BEFORE the hunting season to advertise t
I'm not sure, because, I'm not sure how to answer that one.
Oh, I think everything has been satisfactory.
it would meet a lot of my needs if I wouldn't have been taken out of the program because I didn't allow all public access
Well, you know I like having people ask me, and then I can give them permission and they are very nice and respectful of my property. That's one thing I like about it. They have more respect for your property, the ones that have permission.
When you have elk, one generation might stay away, but when you get a new generation, the problem can come back, and so it might be something that you have to tackle on a yearly basis.
At that time I couldn't afford the stuff, they paid for the chemicals and I paid for the airplane. I couldn't do the whole thing myself.
Well, it met it by helping me get going. The access money was help, getting this all off the ground, but I haven't taken the access money yet. I've got it off the ground on my own two feet. I'm using the access money basically as, well, I'm trying to fi
I wasn't aware that there are times when more landowner preference tags could be used and with the project I was in there were more available that weren't part of the project. I want to know who is there and what they're like, so having one or two more p
I guess as far as I can see it seems to be worin' alright. This is the second year into it, so we'll find more out this year.
Oh, okay. The reason we went it was either Access and Habitat, or private lease, and we wanted to keep it open to the public, but we still wanted control. We didn't want to be overrun. It has given us the opporutnity to make some improvements, and have
It was a good thing, brought people together, might not have got the jobs done without it.
I think because we get fertilizer in exchange, I'd like to get a little more fertilizer.
I'm not sure how to answer. They did what they said they'd do, so we were satisfied with that.
My use of the plan was I planted many douglas fir seedling that got damaged by the elk, and the program allowed me to buy fencing to keep the elk out of this area until the trees were big enough
It was my understanding that they would fix stream bank errosion and then allow me to fence areas to keep elk and deer out. Plus fences to be built were done by volunteer labor that was arranged by F&W, but they never did it. They did not fix what they sd
I think the people that do the hunting are going to have to organize themselves and be more repsonsible or they will be out. I think as far as working with F&W it has worked out great, problem is with the hunters who don't take care of stuff while they ar
I talked to them about other fencing projects (to solve problem of elk in alfalfa fields) and they would not do anything because alfalfa was not a high enough value crop, and that is what we make a living on. So that did not sit well with me.
I am pretty pleased with it and the results are there.
The design has posed some problems. We went with a New Zealand type of fence and question was whether to electrify or not. Not working to keep cows out now. Only 80% efficiency to keep cattle out. Plant 500 trees and then cattle come in and pull them out.
In the beginning it was fine, but in recent years we've had to limit the numbers of hunters. We were just inundated, and limiting it to just the County seems more than enough.
Call me again in 12 months, because like I say at this point there's really nothing I can truthfully say on that.
Allowed us to do more habitat enhancement.
Ours was clean cut and we knew what we were doing and what they were doing, things moved right along
Somewhat we were forced into doing it. I might have agreed to do more than I would have liked. we had a very large elk damage program. They were taking all of our second cutting and third cutting. If we would have built the fences then that's all we n
Just getting rolling. Planting some alfalfa. Just preparing the soil. Just don't know yet
It worked for me because they gave me fertilizer and they left it up to me who I got to let in.
We were probably too conservative, we could have done more with the program. But we needed to go about ten times more than what what we asked for.
They allowed us to hunt when they were destroying crop land. They kept people under control
Basically fulfilled everything we were after.
They went and fixed some of the places in the fence so that hunters could come over instead of having to crawl under
They seemed to keep up their end of the bargain, the paperwork is a bit of hassle, but the people were great to work with
I think having been involved in it from the start my concept of what it would be to what it has become is actually better. I was a little skeptical at the beginning. I've seen it grow far and above what I expected.
I think it just did. They stepped up for me, and did what they said they would do. And that's what it takes to have a successful program.
The reduced # of upland game birds. Lots of fires, we got burnt out 5 of last 7 years. Even though we seeded grasses for game bird supply, we are in the middle of large CRP block, and I think with out raising some grain there is not adequate food suply
The program met my expectations. What would be good is to expand it and do it again. It takes the contact with ODF to help and walk you through it. Otherwise it is hard to reach out and do it on your own.
I think it has met all expectations, allowing public places to hunt especially waterfowl.
it has met expectation of producing more habitat for birds, lot more birds for everybody. Small, so not much public access.
I feel like it's that they've done exactly what they said they would, and things went as expected. It pretty much justified what I had been doing all these years anyway. But I really appreciated the grant for the fences to keep the people out of the wetla
mostly what I get is the master hunter program. we don't have to much activity in bull season. the master hunter program some of them are excellent, some of them couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. not safe
I got some fertilizer and I let some people hunt. I got a better crop of hay.
I think ours is pretty much a cow tag project. And I feel that they are hunting the cows, they're getting a few, and that it's working relatively well, the numbers haven't increased a lot, and the animals haven't been harrassed.
Helped with the grass production and even the elk are coming back down. Got rid of some the brush we had up there.
The program that I was on, I gave access for so many years and they gave me fertilizer, and that's the only reason why I did it.
Well, I think it's met the expections, but it's a little early to tell to know if everything we wanted to happen is going to, but at this point it looks like it will.
Well, I guess it allowed us as ranchers to do some habitat work, that we might not have been able to do by ourselves, because of the cooperation with a and h program.
For what they did for us, after that burn, they paid for our grass seed, and that's about what we did. I don't have any qualms
It compensated me for the problems that I was having with the elk, helped me patch fences, and seeding the hay.
we were honered to be the 1st nw oregon a and h project in OR it was great and it's still great the projects are still maintaining all thier values and every 5 years we would like to do more projects the resent direction of the program lacks funding
really i have to be honest with you here another gentelmen handles that aspect as far as I know it's great alows people to hunt and have a good hunting expereance Leangthly paper work
One of the things was that we had real high ideals about how much we were going to do to encourage the habitat up there, but Larry Pichinco and Gary over here with the game commission here in Prinville, after many formal, and informal invitations, they've
It met all my expectations. They did a good job, and they were pretty quick. They did it in a timely manner, and I was real pleased with it.
We had a catastrophic fire here, Keith Cole helped me reseed a bunch of area where it was burned - it looked like the moon. He helped with seed, he furnished it and it was flown on with airplanes, then I added some wheat and we have a great stand there no
I think in my instance, we were dealing with migratory bird problems. Between Larry and I we had 4 trips to Portland to explain our proposals. That was a lot of time.
Well what it has done is open up ground that could be tied up by the game commission, but it is where we don't have to manage. The hunters here are very grateful and polite. They think it is a good way to spend their money.
I think they met all my expectations, they helped with the fencing.
it pretty much met my expectation replanting and extra fencing and better managing of pastures--only problem is we don't have any deer left because of cougars. We need hound dogs back
it's given me the flexibility with my cattle and wildlife. I've had water projects: riparian fencing has worked well. We've put in watering sites. They work well for cattle and wildlife. I think the whole thing has been very worth while. There's a lot of
the program we've done here has been geared to juniper removal and reseeding rangeland--the results have been phenomenal. We have springs we've never had. The whole program has been better than my expectations. It's a program we could've never have achiev
How I got to know about the program is thru Ken Rutherford. He surveyed our Ranch for juniper removal program. It was mainly for bitter brush. And we had good results.
Well, actually, I didn't have many expectations.
They were a year late in saying what they said they'd do. One of the cattle guards was improperly installed. Two other cattle guards did word. ODF&W sub-ed it out to BLM but they didn't inform me of that. BLM supposed to do it so don't ask us, was what I
I'd say we're satisfied with the over all result but sometimes the number of hunters gets overwhelming, or the requests.
We needed to get to rid of some cougars.
increased in forage that's because the fish and wildlife have almost cut that out completely my plan was to try to increase the feed back in the foothills in my property here to shortstop the game from going out into the farm fields. when they quit doing
i guess the most important thing about it is working with larry pachinco i found him to be very knoledable and great assistance in setting up the program and then following up with the work that needed to be done he was an easy guy to work with and had ve
That's a complicated answer. It was controlled a lot my mother nature. Met: provided funds fo r seedding and mechanical labor. No unmet expeactatioin.s

The seed and the cooperation with fish and wildlife, opportunity to rehabitate my property. tear out briar patch. people at fish and wildlife were very helpful. poaching problems that f and w helped with.
Provided me with resources to improve the habitat
The staff who we met with were very knowledgable and likeable, the biologists helped a lot. Bent over backwards to get the project working.
Seemed like it was easy the people I worked with were very cooperative, not held up for funds, work went as scheduled, which was good. this went pretty smoothly.
I feel like I did a very good thing for animals, even though some people thought I was crazy for planting grass where trees are, but it's worked out very well. And this is a small end property, so it was nice to not have to include the access part of the
We were burned out and so they came to me
Allowed me to do somethings I couldn't do otherwise
That we were able to get some of the upland game birds revenue to put on private property, and actually do some underground projects.
It provided a need for hunters, and it provided a need for us.
I like the financial assistance, number one, and I like the ideas that they have helped me with.
I really don't like participating in it, but it's easier than not participating in it.
I think how cooperative people were from local biologist to the coordinator. They made me feel like they wanted to try and help me do something.
I suppose the financial help more than anything.
Well, I think it helped us, our agricultural project, and in the situation we were in helped keep the population of deer and elk under control.
In that time of emergency that the F and W people came to us to expedite the process
I liked it, helped them buy the seed to seed the land after the fire
They pay me to hire some hazers to keep them elk out of my hay patches at night.
I like being able to make available a place for a quality hunting experience.
It took care the problem we was having at the time, very well.
The main thing is going in with permission, so we can communicate and know who's in there. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was wide open.
The fertilizing of the pasture ground and the possibility of reseeding it. Elk are taking advantage of the reseeding. Cows, too. I would get compensated for the fence damage.
Well, I like the fact that they helped out with some fencing, that the elk had torn down, and I like the fact that they helped buy me some feed to do replanting with. That helped. The grass situation. Although it was during a drought time, but it did h
It served the purpose of trying to keep the animals where they should be
Well, liked getting the material 'cause I couldn't afford it. It costs quite a bit. And other people are getting benefit from it.
To be real honest with you, it gave me a chance to kind of see how these projects come together, you know.
I was able to make some needed improvements
The money. [laughs] So far, cause like in the past we've always allowed hunting, and now that we're getting a little money for some projects, we're feeling a little better about leaving our land open.
Well, it's still open to the public. That's one of the things we like about it. It gives everybody a fair shot. It's kind of a first come, first served. You can reserve a couple of days ahead of time. We only allow a certain amount of people allowed
Got to meet interesting people, other ranchers. I think it brought lots of people together. Our property is very open because of the highways
We were able to recover some of the damage we had sustained with the wildlife.
i had good cooperation with brian sweringen, helped me write out my request for the grant.
If they had fixed the creek as they sd they would have, then I would have been satisfied. Also they (F&W) used to supply materials if elk damaged fences, but they do not do that even if elk do tremendous damage to my property. Way too much elk on ag land,
I kinda like the relationship between the hunters and the landowners, for the fact that the ones who talk to you and ask about it, so I can keep track of them. Enjoy their company
getting funds to get a project done that needed to be done, funds helped me. We had had a lot of trouble with elk in haystacks, costing me a lot of money. It was very helpful to me in keeping the elk out of my crops and haystacks.
They help me afford to do something that I could not afford on my own.
Well, we would have never done the project without the grant. The future of that creek is, that we have stopped or stalled errosion on bank, getting tree and grass growth because we don't ave cattle in there. Lending to longevity on creek.
I like the assistance getting our fencing done down in the riparian areas.
It gives me an opportunity to do some projects that benefit both me and the wildlife. So far, in the past, it's only been the wildlife.
It gives the private landowners compensation for what you do. I feed a lot of acres in alfalfa, the deer and the antelope take a lot of feed. The geese, too. We recoop a bit of what we're feeding them. Hunters get to take some out the herd.
It's helping some of the damage that they do on our place by helping on the foliage that they distroy, and some of the fence damage, and tree damages.
what i liked was the volunteer help. There were people to help without anything in return. And the game commission people were helpful. They worked with us and tried to make things work the best they could
I like game, and I like to track them. Just trying to get my property improved. Some public participation.
That they gave me the fertilizer for the pasture, and in trade I let people in. Saved me some money
It helped get the project done, helped to have the grant.
They were willing to help out when i needed help. They tried to do what they could do to help out.
Made a project I had in mind a better project by having the a and h people involved
It took the problem away from me about whether things would be damaged, the property was going to be protected
I was able to get some money that seems to be hard to get a hold of nowadays
The fact that it's very user friendly. Keeping it user friendly
I liked that it made us some good hayfields for a while. We have too many elk, and it made some good habitat for the animals, so now we have an island of green grass in a sea of timber. I thought it was a good idea
Of course I am getting some things out of the project that I wanted and people need a place to hunt. I feel I am getting adequately compensated for this to occur and so I think it is great that this program allows people to hunt on private land. I think i
It was set up to help me as much as to help other people. We used their ingredients to make better feed with improved my crop and sustained wildlife.
Just being able to give access to people who might no have it otherwise
I felt that it was easy to get funds for the project, working with Dept was easy, everythinwent really smooth
I liked the way they handled the funding and the people I worked wiht were very good.
I really enjoy other people getting the benefit of the land we have up there. I had a chance to do fee hunting, just for people who had money, but I much prefer this program so that everyone who will take care of the place can go up there and enjoy it.
I got a lot of help on my refurbishing project, rebuilding of my fences, didn't get much help on the heighth of the fence, and figured out that on my own. mostly a financial thing.
They paid for my fertilizer, and they've kept the numbers in line.
That fish and wildlife has recognized the problems that landowners have out here and is doing something to alleviate it.
The last project- we would not have been able to do without their help.
Just getting various groups together to do a project that would help the land and the wildlife.
For what burnt on us, we lost 1240 acres of ground, and as far as the grass seed that was purchased as part of that, we would have to have stetched it out over 3 years, and we got it in one year through this program. For being able to get the seed at one
a lot of ecological benifits to the wildlife and a huge social benifit ecomonic benifet a huge honor as a land owner to provide a hunting expereance to father and son ect... were they can hunt alone WW 2 vets and disabled included.
helps in projects we try to do Wildlife habitat helps the wildlife and helps hunters Helps hunters image Huntings a great oportunity
I was able to get assistance to do a lot of the things I wanted to do. I was 70 years when I first applied for the program, and we were able to get alot of it done in that first year. And I'm very pleased with how it's worked out, we can really see the
We got seed to grow in there, and I think it was a win-win situation. I liked the fact that there was going to be more forage for both the wild and livestock too, and everthing else like there isn't going to be any erosion up there.
Well, I get help and I also get information, they put out deer traps and they let me know what is moving around up there. I furnish the land and I get help with information and projects.
Working with the staff (ODF), we were trying to solve a problem together.
I actually got a lot of elk, a lot of damage. It helped offset the elk damage
I like dealing with local game dept in Heppner. The public we meet are very respectuful and appreciative. Our property does border a fee hunt, and the public is glad to have us and take very good care of the property.
It created additional habitat for my property and it gave an opportunity for hunters to use the property
I kinda liked getting help from the department, money and input on trying to improve habitat
I thought working with Larry Pachinka was very good. They laid things out. I laid things out. there was a meeting of the minds. There was no pressure. Of course, we'd had a schedule.
Several things: the simplicity & ease at which program is implemented from inception to conception of what should be done to funding and so we can get it accomplished. They're extremely easy to work with. Usually, bureaucratic deals get bogged down.
It provided funding for removing junipers as well as the wildlife benefit and the way it benefitted out livestock.
I like to be one of the people who allow people to hunt on their property rather than keeping everybody off.
that the agency was wiling to assit us in helping to ehance the wildlife forage by compensating us in the area of the grant we needed.
It gives you a chance to do things you wouldnt ordinarily do. Like hunting in places (private property) you usually don't.
when we work together when they were participating the elk heard was increasing for awhile
the main thing i liked is the relationship between myself and the fish and wildlife through larry pachinco
The guidance and expertise of ODFW employees

The scheduling, being on a deadline for the projects lined up for a wetlands habitat program. didn't have enough time, being rancher and construction worker. not cost efficient. sent checks back
the only problem I had was that I felt I didn't qualify for allowing hunters on the property, not big enough for hunting
I can't think of anything. other than these goddamn fourwheelers.
I can't say anything real negative about it, no.
We haven't found anything that we dislike.
Well, in the beginning the agreement included public hunting by permission, and I was swamped by hunters and had to back out of that part of the arrangement. so, I feel the Access and Habitat program has to make some adjustments to accommodate the land o
Life might be simpler if I didn't have any elk. Have to worry about bullets flying around
I just don't like that many people around.
I can't think of anything I didn't like about it.
I don't think there was anything, really.
I've got nothing against it. We get a lot of phone calls, guys from the coast wanting to hunt.
There wasn't anything I didn't like about it. It was a 3-way investment in the property to make some habitat that didn't exist before.
that they won't compensate the landowner because he doesn't allow complete public access. deer elk and antelope are feeding off our range land, but because I'm not allowing complete access I'm not allowed compensation.
Actually, I liked it pretty well. I didn't dislike anything.
When I was approved, I got what I was looking for. And for others, it seems like the approval process seems a bit one-sided, and it seems like some of the people can afford it, and some can't.
Well, it was about the same deal. Like I said it's a bi-level experience. It was good on one plane, but on the plane below it seemed there was a lot of bureaucracy to go through to get even the slightest program funded. But then on the other hand, som
So far I really can't say that I dislike anything yet. I'm just curious if we're going to get bothered more, since it's been adverised in magazines and such, but so far everyone's been nice and such.
Some hunters have very high expectations of being in on a program like this. They expect to be catered to. There are always people who think that you are favoring someone else.
Oh, I don't think there was any dislike; maybe that we had to open it up more to hunters than we ordinarily would, but there wasn't any problem with that.
I have expressed myself, it has worked well for some people, but not for me. The creek still washes out even after what little they did. So many rules, I can't maintain it like I did for 40 years. Can't afford to fix it the way they say, I lose land, silt
I guess maybe some of he people at F&W. In one phone conversation, after several meetings to have project approved, this guy sd that this was nothing more than a farm subsidy and that made me mad and we had words. It is NOT a farm subsidy, and those elk a
not really any problems, just have send in receipts jump through some hoops, go to a few meetings.
Well, I think that the regulation for builing, the fencing regulations are not realistic. When we started it seemed easy and wonderful and we followed instructions to the letter. I don't think that the NEw Zealand fencing is realistic in wokring with catt
The overwhelming number of people who bothered us wanting to hunt on our property, and the the couple of hunters who left our gates open and took down our fencing.
I've had nothing so far to answer that one on.
All the paperwork and the process that's normal in anything
Getting by the A & H board. Ours is farming, and most are range lands so it was a bit of an uphill battle, they need to look more at the farmers. Some of the range projects can't feed as much as the farm projects
Pretty slow about reimbursing for the fertilizer that I bought.
probably nothing. did what it was inteded to do
Paperwork, which hasn't been all that bad. Things are pretty rigid, can't change much once the program starts.
Not much to dislike, a little confining. The seeding project should have been changed, but once we started we couldn't do much about it.
I think maybe, they need to do more development: there are a lot of things that could be done to the benefit of hunters to the property, of upgrading it.
Can't really think of anything. I do dislike when it totally publicized that my land was accessible to hunt; statewide, I can only allow so many at one time.
I think I didn't like that some of the people on the local board were on there for too long. If they had something against what you were doing, they were there to vote against you too many times.
I can't think of anything really. The relationship with Mark Kirsh and Greg Rimbach has been 1000% percent.
No negative problems at all. The only thing I did require is that hunters had to check with me.
Some of the issues were confusing on public hunting. Public hunting needs to be qualified on what is public or not.You can't open the gates to everyone, it would be a mess.
I don't think I have any feelings of dissatisfaction with it.
Allowing these hunters to come in who are not qualified to hunt
Nothing about the program, just hunters who didn't have the right to be ther.
a lot of the public is fine but there are many who think that my property is theirs.
I wish they would pay sooner. It always takes a long time to get paid. It started off that we were told we'd get paid within 2 weeks of getting our stuff in, but it's been running a month, generally.
I think they should have more habitat projects rather than access. I understand their reason, because funding comes from hunting licenses. THey could do more for both the hunters and the wildlife if they stressed habitat more than they do now.
Not much to dislike, my opinion on was not grazing for two seasons, if we would've done it on our own we wouldn't do it for the first season anyway, but we could have pastured a little on the second season.
It kinda perturbed me when they cut off the funding and kept my name in the publication of places to hunt
timber management program and they haven't strayed one bit from that and they feel that the habitat program has
Paperwork and different agencies red tape slow
I felt like there was no, um, supervision. They gave us the money on our plan, and they never checked to see what we did with it. They never came out to see what the results were. And we had very good results, and we are very anxious to have someone com
nothing, it has been really good. Keith Cole and I have a great relationship.
there wasn't alot of dislikes. More support from Portland ODF people who approve the projects would be good.
probably just being tied to a gov't agency
Personally, I don't see that there's much problem.
I didn't see nothing negative aobut the whole thing.
the participation changed when they cut all the participation out
i don't think there was anything to dislike with the dept. of fish and wildlife
It was not humans but timing and getting the seeding done when the environment allowed it to happen under the time lines.

More flexibility in scheduling, some of us don't work on a 6 month basis. Some of us work on a 2 year basis. not flexibile enough for me.
Deer bow season should be in october. Not when it is now. Deer rifle season should start the week of thanksgiving and go for a month. Person should be able to hunt bow or rifle, but only take one animal through the checkout process. My home is located
Lot of areas owned by timber companies and govt land where a seed program would benefit greatly. Lower elk creek areas could use it a lot, cheat grass is taking over, feed sources diminished.
I think it's important that some of the projects be targeted to what they're trying to do. Money spent on things that don't really pertain to the animals or the forest.
I would like to see, more accessibility for disabled people. Boise cascade is involved and sprays the grass and the trees, so what do the animals have to eat? The spray is done at the wrong time, done when the animals are feeding before winter.
The amount of paperwork that you have to fill out. Handled more on a personal level with more of a local control.
Not that familiar with it. i think your money would be better spent in the public interest if you could use a good share of it to acquire hunting rights and land for public hunters. Some just look good on paper.
I'd like to see if there's any biologists nearby that can give us better input as to particular habitat to put in the ground.
I would have nothing to compare to, so I wouldn't know how to answer that.
I'd like to see the landowner compensated in some way for the work that he has to do to maintain the project over the years. The assistance is just a start up program, and there is no allowance for continuting expenses to the landowner.
To get the message out to every hunter that it's a privilige to hunt
The only thing I can think of was the way the approval went. Local meeting then the state meeting. I wanted to get started on the project sooner than i was allowed to. One thing they don't realize is that habitat projects can be really seasonal.
We'd like to have them bring back the Green Forage program.
The road closure thing bugged me, people will just go in anyway and they're usually the one's who tear things up, and the good hunters are shut out.
I haven't visited with any other participants
I'd like to see them talk the game commission into killing bull elk. I can only kill the cows and the calfs, not the bulls. The neighbor sells bulls for too much money for me to be killing them. I don't know, he must have some pull with the Fish and Ga
Increase the funding, maitain or reduce the red tape to get into the program, that's probably about it.
Well, I've been out of it long enough, right now I really don't know. I don't know what new changes they've already done.
Based on our experience, I wouldn't have any comments on that, and I haven't heard anything.
I'd like to be eligible, even if I don't allow complete access.
Well, I would like to see, for them to help me by more seeds for replanting forage.
Well, I think it's workin' with what money they got. I don't know what would speed things up.
Well, being real honest, this is the first time I've ever done this. I don't know what to improve. If I go through it again, then I'll be able to give more of an easy answer to that.
More care for the animals instead of profit for the game commission, they sometimes do some strange things in the name of game for profit, but not in the wellbeing of the game.
I kind of wondering if, I guess they don't patrol, but I wouldn't mind maybe some patroling to see how the hunters are using the land. I guess I really haven't thought about it much.
I would really like to see help with access map, a map that could be handed to a hunter on areas that aren't just a small block, it would be handy. We've tried to do it, but we don't have the equipment, and our drawing isn't too good.
I don't know if you can improve much on it, depends on the situation.
I don't know, I think I'd leave it just like it is. I'd like to see the farmers get a little more fertilizer.
Right off the top of my head, nothing comes to mind, I haven't been involved for so long.
I really don't know, I know you're limited on your spending
I think because of the fact that the state owns the water that does the damage then they should have responsibility to fix the damage to stream bed and bank. Too expensive for landowner to fix, and state won't help even though they own the water that does
I think perhaps if they could get more areas for people to hunt, then the hunters, there are so many more than a few years ago. You have to turn some away, just not enough room. Squirrel hunters, used to be only locals, a few. Now, there are between 30-50
I have not been involved for several years, so I don't know that I could answer that. Maybe, if anything, if they could streamline the process of getting a project approved. Currently 3 meetings/phases that you have to go to to get approved.
It worked for me. Sometimes others are reluctant to participate.
I think the program should allow for more input from landowner, more leeway. We want to help environment and follow regs, but does not let us allow us to appeal certain requirements, and that should not be a dealbreaker. Another portion should be long ter
Maybe limit the access of hunters to the proportion of the size of the property. We can accomodate maybe 2 or 3 hunters a year on the property we have, but we were just overwhelmed.
The process, it's easy to get bogged down in the process, we feel that the state board doesn't have a hands on feel for the projects. more reliance should be put on the regional board.
Look more at projects with larger numbers of game.
Removal of brush and olive trees, clearing the ponds, and putting in some upland game shrubs. Cleaning the cattails and toolies out of the ponds to make access for the ducks
I would like to see hunter education towards landowners be an upfront deal, the public should know that they can't take advantage of private landowners and private land. help them out.
Continue to move towards more user friendly for landowners and hunters alike
Shorter terms for people on local boards, roll the people over.
Well we've, Mark Greg and I, we go over it every year and we added predator hunting this last winter. Now we got a grant from US Fish and W to build a waterfowl pond on the property. We keep adding and changing as years go by to improve it. As we recogniz
Somebody to help coordinate to help it get going for the farmers. A contact person who would come back and propose it to me again. I appreciate their booklet they send to tell me what they are doing.
I would like to see more defined definitions on how to handle public access to the property. recruit more people who are qualified to be there on the land (Probe: do you mean hunters need to be qualified?) Yes, the hunters being qualified to be on our lan
The only main improvement that comes to mind is probably not in there power: to keep damage from being done. I'm sure the Dept is frustrated too with people coming in and destroying fences that they just paid to put in. But with the shortage of public m
Change the master hunter program to where they can weed out the junk. They need to do something about who they allow to hunt.
I haven't kept up on it too much, wouldn't be fair for me to say
Maybe a little quicker, but i know it's just a process that takes time.
Hadn't thought about it. I would want some background on the people I was letting on my property
Well, conversely, I'd like to be paid a little sooner. And that's about it, actually.
Thats about it. They are doing a fine job. More habitat in the program is about all I would change.
I really think there's a tremendous push for access on private lands, so much that i think landowners feel they have to if they want to participate and I don't think that's right
If it went back to the way it was, since then I've got rid of one parcel of land. But I still wouldn't mind having some help with the fences or the fertilizer
go back to grass roots and what the program was origianaly intended to provide 1.habitat for wildlife 2. giving hunters acess 3.compensating landowners for damage
some projects that dont qualify more funding aproval then shot down confusing
Follow-up. I think we owe it to the people we've taken this money from is to have some follow-up to show what's been done with their money.
Well all I know is what I just told you, no place for improvement. There may be more facets, but what I know, it has all been really good.
More funding. I would like to see the ODF folks in Portland do more fieldwork so they understand better what is going on. There is a big difference between Portland and Klamath Falls.
well, on the extreme damage, the ranchers around here see alot of elk damage. They would like some help with the elk damage. But, basically hunting them is a temporaty thing, they run off for the time being, then they come back. Hunting is just a reward f
Oh, I can't come up with anything off hand. People respect the road closure part of our property. Run very well. They could always pay me more (R laughing), but I know they only have so much funding.
Well, you'd always like to see more money in the program to do more projects.
The only thing I can say is that they've implemented a payment change in last 18 months. In the past, Larry Pachinka could issue a check but now they've taken that privilege--I don't know if that's the right terminology--away from him and it's a longer pr
I don't know. Have to think on that one.
I don't know that there needs to be any improvements.
see them get out here and fertilize the grass and the brushy area and get some feed out here
i don't know what else they can do i believe it's a very good program we've had #'s of hunters that hunt on the land think it's going good
Maybe more machinery to use, e.g., seeder and tractor. Any machine that would be shareablle

Kids need some place to hunt, so they can stay out of trouble.
it's been very successful for us, we've had deer and elk come down and feed in the seeded areas, cows, too.
I think it's a good program and a necessary program, in this area we have a problem with elk coming in, and I think it's important to compensate landowners for these types of projects. it's a need that isn't always addressed, people have other priorities
I think you could try and get some adjustment to help people who are handicapped. Really need to help them along.
The one thing I would like to say is that the chairman showed up here with ODFW and looked at some other projects, and I think that's one of the best things is seeing the project administrators looking at the actual projects.
the public would receive more benefits if more of the money went straight to public access hunting.
I think ODFW and the Access Board ought to be purchasing land for public access.
No, other than that my experience has been excellent. I love the people I have been involved with, I appreciate what they did to help me. I have no problem with the program. I have a problem with the public.
I think it's a real needed program. I'm not sure how many of the landowners actually participate it, but those who really want help and need help have been able to get it. We used to get money from the Green Forage program. When they first started out i
Well, I sat in on a lot of meetings, when guys were asking for habitat money to do things, they gotta be pretty careful. A lot of people are just taking them.
I would recommend that a number of places be made showcases of what can be done, with before and after photos. That would be a way to show and increase the opportunities. And that could be done on a volunteer basis, asking the landowner if he wanted to b
No, I think it's a great program, it's a win-win situation for everyone involved.
Well, now this is about the hunting, yeah. I think it's helped land owners harvest these animals when there are too many of them, and I think it helps the hunter have safer and more respect for the hunting situation. I think it's a good thing.
Not really sure that I know much about it.
No, I think it's workin' fairly well in this county and such.
I think they need to be a little more selective in their personnel to sit on that board.
It would be nice to see more private land go into the program, and because it seems so much private land is tied up with lease hunting.
I think they're doing a good job, looks to me like they're making progress
I would probably tell them to see if they can promote it a little bit in the youth program. I haven't had any young kids, 12-13, old enough to hunt with their parents. I don't see them.
I think it's a good program. I think it's been helpful to both the hunters and the landowners.
no, it worked for me. I got a real good deal.
No, so far everyone has been fine to work with.
It works for a lot of people. I think that landowners need to be compensated, and there needs to be recognition how we help the health of the state's wildlife, game and non-game wildlife. I don't know if that's really recognized by a lot of people.
The thing we learned from the two we did is we could go in for about ten times what we did go in for.
I'm very happy with it, and how it's been managed
The main thing that I see is that the people I have dealt with have done exactly what they said they would do. I can see where that might not happen with some individuals who might promise more than they can deliver. That has not been my case. The personn
I think it is a good idea by legislature.
no, just in general it is a very good program.
I don't think so, I think I shot off my mouth enough.
Basically it's a good deal, but it needs some work. Primarily the master hunter program needs a lot of work. That's what i think
People in town are really helpful and good to work with
I think it's a good thing that gives a lot of people the opportunity to hunt, but there's a few people that make it a bad deal for the landowners.
Nope, I thought it was a good deal that adddresses issues out here. One thing I liked was a conference call and I thought it was humorous that some of the people were just submitting stuff they just wanted to do but didn't meet the goals of the program,
I think it's a good program that needs good people on the advisory board
It was a good program, and dealing with craig foster was great, he really helped out, and pushed it through.
huge oportunity still today to make a positive difference for the three values mentioned previously
great program frustrating would like to see it streamlined less hurdles its a wonderfull thing though its all a positive
I was a very good thing, and it was very helpful to us. I think it's more oriented, especially with those 2 guys initially involved in it, toward producing cattle grazing on habitat, instead of getting deer or other game. It seemed all about clearing br
no, not necessarily. I think I had a friend on one of the boards and it seems like the farmers and represented as good as at the start. They represent more hunters and people who don't understand what's going on in the country. I think it's one of the bet
No, I think it's a great program. It should never sunset. I think fish and game should do this with private land owners. We can keep the populations of wildlife in good order. I limit the number of hunters on my land depending on the pop. of the game.
Only in summary: it's a wonderful program. It's hunter supported. I think other states could take example from it. And it works. And the money--they're very careful about it--every dime goes into the land.
I limited the numbers of hunters on my land in Klamath county. We give preference to people who teach their youngsters how to hunt. At present, I'm on the Access & Habitat council for Ore Fish & Game in this district.
You know, actually, I don't know anything aouot the program to be honest. We've kept our lands open to the public but haven't talked to anyone about the program for exam.
Just that we felt the ODFW was good to work with and I appreciated the board's decision on our request. I think there's good people on the commission. And the volunteers are the one's we need to recognize on that board.
what happened to it i would like to see a little more involvment from the dept. fish and wildlife
just that i feel that it's a very worthwhile program and hopefully they can keep the program going have some signs for publicity for the dept. so that people can appreciate where the money is coming from
In the situation I began with it was a huge benefit to the whole ranch. The ranch was completely devastated and run down. I hope they keep it up. There's a lot of other people who could use it.

The landowner said the past 12 months was an anomoly in that there was no hunting use of his property (because the local biologist did not promote it last year as she has done in the past). However, the previous year had more typical use, and we used tha
The R was last involved roughly 15 years ago, and his involvement centered on spraying his property with pesticides.
The landowner was only involved with the project for one year, about 6-7 years ago. Also, his involvement was combined with that of about 6-8 other land owners.
The R only got involved in the program last Spring, so has not gone through a hunting season yet, and therefore felt he could not offer many opinions.
The R's comments pertained to a project that just started in June of 2004, and to date, included only 25 days of hunting season.
felt that the Chairman of the Board was difficult to deal with