# new draw



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Since spike hunts are lame and a waste of a resorce IMHO.

What would happen if you make the spike hunt a draw throw in all the LE archery tags into this draw so you come up with around 19,000 state wide tags, then let you pick if you want to use your bow or your rifle. If you use your rifle you can only kill a spike if you draw. If you choose to hunt with a bow you can kill anybull.

A spike is just a big bull that hasn’t grown up anyway. The herd bulls rarely get killed by bow hunters anyways. So what is the big deal?

If we killed less bulls with this hunt “which you would” you could issue more big bull tags for the rifle hunt.

Win win

Good or bad idea?


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm all for it!


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Count me in, better than what is going on now.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

YEAH!


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

this is a little one sided for the archers. Muzzle loader, and rifle hunters won't stand by and let it happen.

never mind i re read your post

carry on


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

I like the idea....it's much like Idaho's A and B tags. Like the Idaho tags, you would have to choose an area that the tag is for otherwise you could end up with an excess of people in one unit. I would give up all my Elk points to get an idea like this to pass.


----------



## GSLHonker (Sep 8, 2007)

I really like this idea. So whats next? How do we go about getting it put through?


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I dig it! 
But it seems its not about what hunters want. Especially archers in this state.
but I do like it. I'm game


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I dig it!
> But it seems its not about what hunters want. Especially archers in this state.
> but I do like it. I'm game


To be fair, it shouldn't be about the hunters, but about the hunted. Sadly Utah worries too much about what hunters want instead of what makes sense from biologically. I like some of what Scott has brought up, but I see it having a snowballs chance in Hades of getting implemented.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

If I'm reading this right... it would be a statewide draw, no LE, choose your weapon. If you draw, you can choose rifle/spike, or archery/any bull including spikes. So... either way, you could still spike hunt and still do it in limited entry areas. How is that different than what we have now, other than it eliminates some of the wait time to take any bull on a limited entry area?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

deadmanwalking said:


> I mean good hell who in their right mind would like to shoot a ****? This is only an "Archery proposal" and it screws rifle and ML hunters big time. Why even shoot ****?


Read my post again and again! It never screws the rifle guy or the muzzle guy. In fact it will help them, and is better than the state wide spike proposal. Archery is far less successful than the 80% of the spikes that get killed every year on a spike unit!

I don't like the spike hunt! I want to do away with it! I think spikes are for pussys!
The dwr, wildlife board and think we need to kill bulls. To me it doesn't matter if you kill a bull when it is a spike or a 6 point. A bull is a bull!!! The way the screwed up system is right now they are going to kill from each end. Well you can't kill spikes and expect to have future 6 points. You can't kill 80% of the spikes every year and expect to grow any bulls for the any weapon hunt. In fact what this dumb arse on the wildlife board has created is a state wide Wasatch unit where it will take you 5 lifetimes to draw a 280-300 bull tag because he is killing future bulls and will have to limit the any weapon big bull tags in the future, but hey you can always hunt spikes every year.

My proposal says lump all the archery LE tags and over the counter spike tags into one pool make it a draw. You can kill a spike with a rifle or you can choose a bow and kill any bull. My bet is you would have more people say screw the any weapon once lifetime hunt and pick up bow. If they didn't want to pick up a bow they could still apply for a spike tag and go kill a spike but they will have to choose what and how they are going to spend their point

any weapon = same rifle rut hunt don't want to piss them off
muzzle loader = same muzzle loader hunt don't want to piss them off either

NEW draw = spend your point for a spike or spend your points for a chance with a bow. but there will be 19,000 hunters hunting like they do now.

There is no difference in a spike bull and a big bull 
A dead bull is a dead bull.

I don't know how else to spell it out other than Utah needs to wake the freek up. Utah has twice the elk Arizona has and Arizona gives out more tags and still kills 400+ bulls. The only difference is Arizona is more archery friendly.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Deadmanwalking

If I came off to harsh it isn’t because I have anything against you. I am just sick and tired of the wildlife board trying to screw this state up. They don’t listen to the public and they are against archery. If I could hunt every year with a rifle and kill the quality of bucks I kill every year I would do it. I would love to see everyone in this state do it.

If they promised me they would never touch the Wasatchfornt I could care less what they do with the rest of this state.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

deadmanwalking, I take it as sw's proposal would KEEP the current LE rifle/muzzle loader tags. He is talking about spike tags and LE archery tags ONLY. 8)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

sorry I should have read my own rant before I posted it.

Pro is correct


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

pro did you get the news what that clown on the wildlife board is going to propose in the up coming deer comity?

I mean take to the rac’s and pass with out any regard to the public’s opinion!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> pro did you get the news what that clown on the wildlife board is going to propose in the up coming deer comity?


I did, not surprised in the least. :evil:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Do tell.... if you don't mind.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm not really for or against your proposal. I don't think rationing scarce resources through time and luck is a good way to deal with these resources, whatever the specifics.

I think the following link sums up the direction I think we need to go. I know, why do I keep high-jacking :lol: threads with this free market crap? I think to try to improve hunting in a real and lasting sense has to include the free market and the acceptance that the laws of economics apply just as much to deer and elk as they do to rifles and bows or your just denying reality and you will always have more conflict and more scarcity without free market than you will under your mostly fascist/socialists system of wildlife distribution. Perfection is not an option in any system and yes the free market will not be perfect but it will be better. And I think you should live on the edge and try it once in your life, you might like it.

He has a ten part series in the economics for the citizen. This is the link to the first one. Just read this one, PLEASE! If nothing else after the second one you'll know what a normative question is. Read them all and your wildest dreams will come true...

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/misc/econcitizen/citizen1.html

free market 
Function: noun 
Date: 1897
: an economic market operating by free competition


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Our government has been doing everything they can to ingrain the masses into scarcity mindsets. Our entire culture today is based on such destructive thinking. Look at how you are approached when shopping for a laptop/car/house. People who are in the abundance mindset thrive while those in the scarcity mindset look for excuses. 

I am not sure what this has to do with spike/LE elk tags on public land though. A limited public resource on limited public land isn't exactly fertile ground for 'free market' principles. As long as we have most of our wildlife on public land, socialist principles will be applied. After all, public land is as socialist as you can get.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Our government has been doing everything they can to ingrain the masses into scarcity mindsets


I think your wrong. People for the most part deny that we live in a world of scarcity. You see it in thinking that says we can all have a house, even people who can't afford it. We can all have a college education, when most people don't have the wit or wisdom to pass an entrance exam. That is deny scarcity and the corollary, that supply and demand are real.

Also, if you lived in a world of abundance you wouldn't have to work for a living. In fact the whole idea of a "market" would disappear. After all I go to the market to get things that aren't plentiful.

I think I see your angle with the positive and negative vibes and all. But the reality is we live in a world of scarcity.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

"Finally, violence is a way to resolve the question of who has the use rights to the coastline -- let people get weapons and physically fight it out.
At this juncture, some might piously say, "Violence is no way to resolve conflict!" The heck it isn't." 

Now I get what you are getn at. I like your thinking! We need to use violence to get what we want. :twisted: :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I think we are mostly in agreement. What I am saying is when people retrain their thinking and stop viewing things as being scare they are able get better deals and give better deals. I walked away from an $80,000/year job last fall because I see abundance waiting for me outside of working for an employer. Buying things only when needed instead of when they go "on sale" is a rare thing in today's world. Businesses capitalize on the scarcity mindset with in-store credit and 30 day/holiday sales. Most wealthy people get wealthy by seeing abundance instead of scarcity.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

I know it's an uphill battle. But, what about a system that incorporates a little more market. Say for instance you take the Fish Lake area and you have a system that if someone wants to by pass luck and time to draw a LE elk hunt and pays what would be a "fair market" price of $5000 to get a limited entry elk tag. The guy is in his 60s and doesn't want or can't wait 10-15 years to go on an enjoyable elk hunt and he has the money to go but can't afford a $50,000 governors tag. He enjoys the first hunt so much and has plenty of money so he buys another tag. Except, since it's his second he pays $10,000. Something like this. I don't think having that option would be destructive to wildlife. If more people bid up the price the first hunt might go up to $7500 or $10,000. I think allowing a few more options would go a long way to improve things a little. That's not so terrible, is it? 

Some will say, that's what CWMU are for. And they are probably correct. Except, if CWMU had to start "competing" with market driven hunts on public land. I think(a little) it might actually drive the overall market price of elk/deer hunting down and improve habitat. If I own the Boobe Hole CWMU and guys who normally buy from me and they say, look I can get a tag for $5000+- from Fish Lake and your charging me $10000 and I have 10 times the area to hunt on Fish Lake. They would have to consider lower the price or giving better service and it might start something good.

And what if each year you don't draw you earn $500 towards your hunt. That is if a LE rifle elk hunt is worth $5000 but you don't have the money you can earn it buy putting off your hunt for ten years and pay say $300. But we acknowledge that having to wait is a cost and a lost opportunity. Essentially you put a price on how many years you have to wait. Someone might not care if they have to wait 10 years if the price is $300 or someone may not want to wait 10 years and be willing to pay with money only and pay $5000 or someone wants to pay with 5 years and $2500. And have rifle hunters pay a premium and muzzy less and archery the least.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

Sorry for getting off track and not staying with your proposal. 

Back to your proposal. What if we tweak yours to include cheaper tags for spike hunters and cheaper still for archery spike tags. And cheaper tags for all archery relative to rifle and muzzy. That way you give some incentive for people to use a bow instead of rifle. If you hunt a LE elk with a rifle, since it's the most popular and successful hunt you should expect to pay more.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Won’t work with the cheaper tags
Haven’t you heard that the dwr is starving for money? I say make it the same price for spike hunters and increase the tag for “my proposed archery new draw”

I believe archers would pay more to hunt bulls every other year and should have to pay more. 
The division wins with increased revenue.
The rifle hunters win with less competition on their tags for their anyweapon hunt
The archers win with a chance at a big bull
The spike hunters stay the same they get to kill a spike woopie!

And most of all everybody wins! Everybody has to use points to hunt! It would be like giving a laxative to the bonus point butt plug.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Swbuckmaster wrote:


> And most of all everybody wins! Everybody has to use points to hunt! It would be like giving a laxative to the bonus point butt plug.


This is long over due in my opinion.


----------

