# Statewide Archery



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I attended the UBA Board meeting last night. We discussed at length the new deer management plan that will be implemented in November. I have been hearing rumors and tidbits on what was/is being pushed. I also received e-mails from 2 of the Wildlife Board members on the issue of statewide archery hunting for deer. It appears the statewide archery hunt is under attack, and unless archers pull a rabbit out of a hat, we are in serious jeapordy of losing statewide for the entire 28 days.

So, I would love some feedback from hunters, archers/rifle/muzzy alike. I do NOT want this turning into a war among weapon choices, I would like to see some positive suggestions on this topic. 

One thing that has been discussed: Take 5000 rifle/muzzy tags from the Northern Region (they will be reduced one way or another), and give them to archers to be dispersed in all five Regions. This would only happen if archers agreed to have to pick a Region for the first 9 days and then be able to hunt statewide for the remaining 19 days.

Another: Archers take a 'stand' and fight to keep statewide archery, but not get 5000 additional archery tags. Note that the odds of retaining this with Wildlife Board, SFW, Forest Service, and many others adamant about ending it are slim at best.

So, do we take a 'stand' and go down in a blaze of glory, or do we give a little and gain a little? UBA hasn't made a decision on this yet, and we are asking for input. Thanks for your polite comments and suggestions in advance.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I have been worried about this too...in fact, I have noticed at the past couple of southern region RAC meetings that the RAC members have voiced their concern that it is unfair for so many notherners to come to "our" region.

I think the best angle of attacking this threat is simply by looking at the numbers the DWR has on deer harvest. Look at the meeting minutes from the southern RACs and look at how Anis answered questions about the statewide archery hunt...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Problem is; many in the southern Region are adamant about the 'over-crowding' issue, and they have at least 3 Wildlife Board members on their side. The RAC boards aren't in favor of it either. To be honest, I can't see a scenario where statewide archery for all 28 days can be kept. So, do we fight it and lose, or do we 'compromise' the first 9 days and get 5000 more archery tags, or is there some magic spell out there?


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

PRO I want to know what is being done with the dedicated hunters. We all know most of them have the southern unit for there tags. Are they going to be splitting them up better. I just don't see anything changing if you still have all of the dedicated hunters still crowding the south and they better not reduce the regular archery tags in the south to accommodate for them. I still can't believe anyone thinks this will help with the issues. I believe they are going to see central and northern sell out as fast as the southern hunt because there is such a large population of people up here. 

I do think it is great that the archers can get some more tags but I still have yet to see a shred of evidence that this whole over crowding issue isn't just a farce. 

Also for all who care on Oct. 14th at Jake's archery at 6:30 there will be another meeting for all to attend about this subject so keep your calendar clear.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

My vote is to take a stand and take the loss if that is what it comes down too. But I mainly hunt the northern so I would not want to loose any tags. I also like the freedom to be able to hunt elk in the central and deer in the northern.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Its funny you talk about the "our" region thing W2U. When my brother and I were turkey hunting we received a tip on were some birds were. Well we found one of the owners and introduced our selves and told her we heard they had a problem with the turkeys so we wanted to help. Man was our tip wrong. She got quite defensive about how they love the turkeys and we were the ones ruining the area. Man I felt like I went back in time a 100 years to the old west. Needless to say it didn't leave a good taste in our mouth and we went on our way. Now no one get me wrong I hate having people move in on you as I grew up in Herriman and it is nothing like it was 10 years ago, but show some decency people. I have plenty of people that hunt my "secret hole" on the front and it does suck but that is public land people. If you want some peace on the hills go buy yourself a ranch. Remember the guys from the south can make there way up here as easily as we go down there. I see plenty of
good bucks taken up north.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> My vote is to take a stand and take the loss if that is what it comes down too. But I mainly hunt the northern so I would not want to loose any tags. I also like the freedom to be able to hunt elk in the central and deer in the northern.


If you had to choose a Region for the first 9 days you could still hunt them in the northern and hunt elk in the central. The 5000 tags would be taken from the northern RIFLE/MUZZY pool, not from the archery pool. Archers would be gaining 5000 new archery tags. That is a 24% increase in tag numbers, when has that ever happened for archers?


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

I also would like to know what the plans are for the Dedicated Hunter Program.

5,000 tags taken from Northern region??? How many do they give out now? That would probably mean that you would have to draw a Northern tag instead of buying one over the counter right???


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

More important to me would be keeping the 28 day hunt...I only hunt the southern region anyway.

But, I do think it is dumb that it has become an issue...


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> The 5000 tags would be taken from the northern RIFLE/MUZZY pool, not from the archery pool. Archers would be gaining 5000 new archery tags. That is a 24% increase in tag numbers, when has that ever happened for archers?


I missread what you wrote. I understand now and like that idea better. How do you think rifle and muzzy northern hunters will like this?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't see any good reasons why they should get rid of statewide archery hunt, NONE! Politics at its best is all this is. :evil:


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

The issue of taking rifle/muzzy tags from the northern area should NOT be connected to "giving" them to archery. This will only further polarize different hunting factions. If 5000 tags need to be eliminated from the northern area, that's one issue. Giving those "said" tags to archery to appease for limiting hunting in some way speaks of managing hunters and not wildlife. If more tags are to be given to archery to increase hunting opportunity but still maintain animal management, give more archery tags but don't tie it into the "lost" rifle/muzzy tags in the northern area. This proposal really screams of bean counters watching the spreadsheets and profit margins rather than biologists making decisions.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

OK, look ,I went to the last Mule Deer Committee Meeting for the sole purpose of hearing exactly what this is all about. BOU and UBA were sent back to the groups the previous week
to get feedback from the members. BOU is 100% against this and has rounded up enough support to make sure that the person or group that makes this proposal is on an island by themselves.

Packout can correct me if I am making any false statements but once it became apparent that the Mule Deer Committee would not get consensus on this deal ( because of BOU and UBA ) we started hearing how " Naive " how " inexperienced " we were and that we " are not hunting in 1960 any more "

I'm sitting on an e mail right now from a pretty well connected individual that he wanted me to forward along to the Committee but because he is out of town I have not done it yet.

If the group that is going to propose this thinks it is going to be a cakewalk they have another think coming. With the support behind the continuation of this hunt if it goes away the RAC process will prove itself to be nothing more than a rubber stamp sham.

You want to see NAIVE wait till November


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO what do you mean " UBA hasn't decided " are you kidding me???

DOC 100% correct Bowhunters aren't entitled to those tags


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Doc said:


> The issue of taking rifle/muzzy tags from the northern area should NOT be connected to "giving" them to archery. This will only further polarize different hunting factions. If 5000 tags need to be eliminated from the northern area, that's one issue. Giving those "said" tags to archery to appease for limiting hunting in some way speaks of managing hunters and not wildlife. If more tags are to be given to archery to increase hunting opportunity but still maintain animal management, give more archery tags but don't tie it into the "lost" rifle/muzzy tags in the northern area. This proposal really screams of bean counters watching the spreadsheets and profit margins rather than biologists making decisions.


There has been a push to reduce the rifle/muzzy tags in the northern for several years, then with the harsh winter we just had the push has been ratcheted up even more, and that is pressure from sportsmen AND biologists alike.

Reducing rifle/muzzy tags in the northern is needed per the DWR, increasing the number of archery tags is warranted and has no/little impact of overall deer health and buck:doe ratios. So, if the shift can happen at the same time, why not? Truth is, restricting archers to a region for 9 days is 100% political and has NOTHING to do with biology. Having said that, we all know that politics has a major impact on management practices in ALL states not just Utah.

Gordy, while I appreciate your passion to fight the fight, I am wondering on the wisdom of it. I would like to set up a get together with UBA and BOU to come up with a game plan. I can get 3 UBA members if you can round up the same from BOU. Then lets sit down and have a pow wow. Shoot me a PM/email or call me to set it up.

Change is inevitable, question is; are archers going to be united as to have a say in what those changes will be?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I would love to sit down but the stance of BOU will be to fight this out in the RACs
If you can get with this let me know where and when.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I am confused. Why would't both of your groups want to work toghther and fight as one for the good of all?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO what do you mean " UBA hasn't decided " are you kidding me???
> 
> DOC *100% correct Bowhunters aren't entitled to those tags*


Are you saying BOU is against an increase in archery tags?

So, are you saying BOU will/won't meet with us?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents. 

#1- The issue of the 5,000 Northern tags. My opinion is that if the region can not support the current number of tags then cut some tags or some length of season, but do not redistribute those tags to regions which are already below or barely meeting their own objectives. Putting those 5,000 tags into archery was a carrot, one which will put more pressure on already struggling herd elsewhere. My idea was to designate some of the Northern Region tags as private land only to redistribute the hunting pressure off of public lands and well that idea didn't get far with some in the group.

#2- Statewide archery. The fight now isn't just between Southern archers and all other archers or rifle hunters and archers. The FIGHT is now with the land management agencies; ie the Forest Service and BLM in the Southern and Southeastern regions. These land management agencies saw an extreme increase in user density this year, so much so that they are trying to find ways to limit usage. They are attributing most of this problem to bow hunters, be it right or wrong. Remember, there are 2 or more Public Lands Reps on every RAC and they stick together throughout the state and they WILL be voting against the current statewide tags, in my opinion. Add them to those who dislike the statewide hunt and you are looking at a battle which can not be won.

The solution is complex. Opening the elk hunt on the same day certainly exacerbated the problem and maybe should be changed back to the original season. If you must choose a region, then many Southern folk won't be able to hunt their back yard for the first 9 days. ATV use is a major problem for the FS and BLM, curtailing some would go a long way to getting past the perceived (or real) problems. There is no easy way around this. It is a fact that a higher percentage of archers hunt the Southern as do a higher percentage of dedicated hunters and don't forget the Youth hunter also. Those are statistics that will work against maintaining the statewide hunt. In this case with the public, perception is reality.

So there you have it. I don't like redistributing tags from one region to another.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mike, what region(s) would be hurt by an additional 1500 to 2000 archery tags? At 14.6% that equates to 219-292 bucks harvested on units that are at/over ratio objectives. I see no ill effects of INCREASED opportunity for archers, and positive effects from a decrease in rifle tags in the northern region.

I agree, with the additional pressure from the forest service, statewide archery deer is doomed, at least for the first 9 days. So, do we fight it and get squashed, or do we make the changes as painless as possible?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I am always for more opportunity where it is a responsible option. Like Mike has said what is being proposed is not responsible and will do nothing to solve anything. 

I would love to be able to work together on this but I will not be party to losing opportunity without a BIOLOGICAL or PUBLIC SAFETY reason behind the loss. Right now there is neither involved in any of this.

Mike is right again about the deer and elk hunts starting concurrently especially with the recreationists and the last outing of the summer for many.

I agree hunters found elk and camped on top of them in a few area's, but to have the only solution to this problem be throw the baby out with the bathwater doesn't make any sense to me. 

There are other ways to handle this without losing this opportunity.

Again we need to sit down and talk like you suggested. Just know that giving up this 
opportunity for nothing is not an option as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

My feedback on this would be that the statewide archery hunt has little to nothing to do with sustaining a heathly productive deer herd and as such should remain state wide.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Bart,
If a herd is barely at objective and 1,500 tags are put into the area with a 20% success rate then you are killing an additional 300 bucks. Add in a wound rate of 10-20% (all weapons wound, but we are looking at an additional 1,500 tags) and you have approx 500 bucks killed. So the Central Region, which is at the low end of the objective, could possibly fall below the objective just by issuing an addition 1,500 archery tags. My point is if one region is suffering then don't put that pressure on another region that has a similar buck to doe ratio.

You also need to know that the final talk about the 5,000 tags was that they could all go to archery or be split among all weapon types. That would even impact the herd more. 

As for the statewide issue, I can't really say. It would go along way to extend the olive branch, but that doesn't seem possible with the desires expressed at the last Committee meeting. Best of luck reconciling that issue.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I am an archery hunter. I hate the idea of loosing the statewide hunt. I am also a dedicated hunter. To solve/help the perception problem I say make the dedicated hunters draw there region just like everyone else. That will weed out the people who just use the system to bypass the draw. Leave the rest of the program the same.

As far as statewide archery, I want to fight to keep what we have but not at the expense of loosing everything. I would be willing to accept a region restriction for the first nine days *if that helps*. But, I would rather change the archery elk opening back to what it was like packout mentioned.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So I am confused by the 9 days of picking a region and 19 days of hunting statewide? What difference does the 9 days make? If it came down to losing statewide altogether for the full 28 days versus losing 9 days and still getting 19 days of statewide, I would rather have 19 days than none for statewide. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> So I am confused by the 9 days of picking a region and 19 days of hunting statewide? What difference does the 9 days make? If it came down to losing statewide altogether for the full 28 days versus losing 9 days and still getting 19 days of statewide, I would rather have 19 days than none for statewide. :?


The theory is that the pressure is greatest the first two weekends, due to the archers in the field for the opening weekends, recreational users getting in the last few weekends of good weather.

Packout, I believe the DWR can adjust the tag allotments for the 5000 'new' archery tags to the regions where the impact can be absorbed.

I agree the recreational users are a major part of the problem, as are the dedicated hunters, but they are NOT on the radar and under attack. So, it is futile to go that direction. I hope BOU/Gordy will reconsider their position and be willing to meet with us and see what 'solutions' we can come up with rather than simply digging the heels in the dirt. Bow hunters united and willing to work with other groups/weapons bodes well for the short term and long term. To refuse to work with others will only add to the desire to go after our 'perks'. I am NOT afraid of a good fight when warranted, I am just not sure this is the Bunker hill for me.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I hope BOU/Gordy will reconsider their position and be willing to meet with us and see what 'solutions' we can come up with rather than simply digging the heels in the dirt. Bow hunters united and willing to work with other groups/weapons bodes well for the short term and long term. To refuse to work with others will only add to the desire to go after our 'perks'


I think I asked this early. How can the 2 big bow hunting groups in Utah stand so divided on a issuse as big as the state wide hunt? That does not give me me warm fuzzy about who is fight the fight for archers.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I think that is what Pro is asking, input from archers to help decide what is wanted by the archers.

If it has to be one or the other, I would choose the choose your region for the first 9 days. That being said I would like the regions to stay the size they are for this purpose and not go to the smaller regions like is being suggested for mule deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bowgy, the deer committee did NOT recommend going to micro-units, so if the archers become restricted for the first 9 days it would be under the current five regions in play today.

I don't want to lose statewide archery, but we have to deal with reality. Right now I can't come up with a scenario where we can keep it. I would rather go to this than lose some of the season at the front end. This is NOT about PRO, as I haven't had an archery deer tag since 2001. This is about archers and hunters in general and what makes sense and is 'reasonable' for ALL. We need to look at it that way and leave are personal wishes out of the equation. We need to look at the sum of the whole.

I am extended an offer to have BOTH archery groups meet and see if an agreement can be obtained. The last thing archers need is archers feuding with archers. We already are the red headed step son, fighting amongst ourselves won't help ANY of us. I like a good fight, but I like to believe I can win when getting in the melee.


----------



## Bullcrazy (Dec 28, 2007)

At the southern RAC last year they talked about having the dedicated hunters pick two of the three seasons to hunt. That could eliminate some of the problem.

Has there been any talk of keeping archery statewide but have two 14 day split seasons. That to me would spread out pressure but keep the option open to hunt different regions.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Fellas look. the way the RACs work is that a proposal has to come from somewhere. An individual or group has to stand and lay out a specific plan as in pick a region for 9 days and so on. You can't really just wing it and say statewide archery is an overcrowed mule deer herd killer it needs to end and have much validity given to your statement.

My point is that if the statewide hunt is going to end then it will be a fight, I have no intention of giving it away. OK so we go to the RACs and lose what do you think the alternative is going to be?? Do you honestly think that rifle hunters and muzz hunters are going to give up some of their tag allottments without saying a word?? Do you think the DWR can just say screw 5000 tags and stay revenue neutral?? Giving these tags to bowhunters is not a fair shake to the other hunters that live in Utah. 

If we give this up instead of EDUCATING, LOBBYING, AND REACHING OUT we are probably not going to end up with anything worse than what is being proposed now. The tags are going to come out of the northern region. No if's and's or but's it is a done deal and in my humble opinion it should probably be more. the DWR has to try and stay close to revenue neutral
so these tags will be sold and pressure will move to another part of the state and go to work in these area's. Are the other parts of the state in good enough shape herd wise to support another 1250 tags coming in?? Especially high success rate tags??

Go back to the staggered openers for deer and elk, look at alternatives for creative opening days for the bowhunt. there are ways to appease those with the tears in their eyes without doing away with this hunt.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Since I'm the "naive and inexperienced" guy who originally refused to accept this ultimatum, I suppose I should explain myself. The quoted words were leveled at me by the Northern RAC/SFW rep when I told him that this is a piss poor way to manage wildlife.

If removing 5,000 tags from the Northern Region allotment is good for deer, (I believe it is), then it should be done. Period. Using those tags as a bargaining chip shows a cynical disregard for the welfare of wildlife. If indeed a majority of the Wildlife Board shares such a disregard for biological necessity in favor of social politics, I want the Governor to see it displayed as a matter of public record. However, I have to have more faith in those gentlemen than that.

The only purpose for reallocating those tags is to balance revenue. This makes sense. It isn't about DWR greed as I'm sure some might believe; it's a simple necessity of funding. But before we as bowhunters get too excited about these additional tags and before the DWR gets feeling secure in their bottom line, we need to consider whether there is even a demand for 5,000 additional archery tags, particularly given the reasonable assumption that faced with a regional draw, there will be archers who will give bowhunting up in favor of the rifle or muzzleloader. While it's true that archery tags sold out, we don't know how many potential bowhunters we left out of this year's hunt. I really doubt there was 5,000 of them...not even close to that many. And the fact is, statewide archery is an important incentive to bowhunters, originally established for the very purpose of attracting more hunters to the bow and arrow. Anis Aoude says we don't need the statewide bowhunt anymore because it achieved its purpose. Anis is a good man, but what he doesn't understand is that keeping hunters interested in bowhunting is another matter.

As for the statewide hunt, overcrowding this past year was a fact on the Manti and Fish Lake units. [Note: USFS admits they cannot attribute the overcrowding to bowhunters and the user group that received the most citations for abuse of the land this year was LE hunters preparing for their upcoming hunts.] It's also true that there are territorial hunters in the Southern who believe a regional draw will solve this problem. But to my brothers in the hunt I ask, living in the most popular region in the state, how will you feel about it when you don't draw? And the real stinker is that when we add the additional tags from the Northern Region, you likely won't see any noticeable difference in crowding if you do draw.

With statewide archery, hunters can and do redistribute ourselves. When the USFS reported this year's overcrowding, I told them it wouldn't reoccur the second weekend. It didn't. First, the recreational folks who were enjoying the last weekend before school started (the real reason for overcrowding) went home and second, bowhunters got out of any areas that we may have overcrowded, for obvious reasons. Imposing regional boundaries on bowhunters limits our ability to do this.

I composed an entire list of reasons why statewide archery should be preserved. I gave a copy of that list to UBA's representative. I hope UBA, like BOU, will examine and revise that list to a point of mutual agreement so that we can offer it for endorsement to other organizations, individual bowhunters, pro shops and any other parties who see the wisdom of statewide archery. Presented with that document and faced with NO EVIDENCE that a regional hunt would serve any good purpose for wildlife, for the land or for hunters, I trust the Wildlife Board will make an intelligent decision. I also predict that regardless of that issue, they will reduce the Northern tag allotment as sound management dictates they should and if really necessary redistribute those tags. If they're smart, they'll redistribute those tags where they would have the least impact, spread between the LE units where we need to take more bucks, antlerless tags where appropriate for population control and special hunts on the GSL marshes and elsewhere.

One last point - I may be naive, but not so naive as to believe that if archers buy into this sham, that's the end of it. With the legislative release of the general rifle season, ALL season dates for ALL big game species are now up for review. Two members of the Wildlife Board have assured me that there are definitely changes coming. Think about that, gentlemen. I guarantee you, there's another boot yet to fall.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I wish I was as in the know and had the personal information that some of you had. 

Finnegan you make a strong arguement. I am glad we have people like you on our side to help us (archery hunters).


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

truemule said:


> Finnegan you make a strong arguement. I am glad we have people like you on our side to help us (archery hunters).


_*ME TOO*_


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

First things first, I love bow hunting...it has almost, almost edged muzzleloading out as my favorite. Regardless, I normally don't utilize the statewide useage of my archery tag, but I like to know that it's available. Last year my brother drew an archery antelope tag and instead of having to give up our deer bow hunt to help him out (which we all would have done in a heartbeat) our family hunted down south. My grandfather owns property in the central region which borders the southern region and it's nice to know that if we shoot a buck with the bow we don't have to worry if he goes into the southern region to expire. 

For convenience sake I don't want to lose the opportunity of hunting statewide archery. In my opinion I feel like archers are sometimes treated like the ugly step-child, granted the season is much longer and does include more than one weekend (totally sucks for the blackpowder folks who actually work during the week) but in actuality they are just a way to make some cash and not have an extreme impact on the herds. 

I say FIGHT! I say Compromise! I say we try for whatever is in the best interest of the hunters as well as the animals.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

For me the change isn't all that bad, but the problem I have "is this the first step in a number of changes coming our way (archers)"? If we are going to continue to get the shaft year in and year out just because we accepted this change, then I say "FIGHT IT"!! But if this is as far as changes go, them I can live with it as long as all the rifle and muzzy guys quite whining that we archers get all the perks. Give up statewide for the first 9 days isn;t all that bad, but I would rather fight it just because all biological evidence supports our arguement.


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Isn't the DWR suposed to represent the majority of hunters.. Ya go to meetings voice your opinions. do they hear ya?? Let's hope so.. Or do they have the DON PEAYS OF THE STATE in their ear.. If we as archers. don't stand up and fight this one.. then whats going to be next??.. As for the northern units, have you ever tryed to get permissin to hunt some of the posted property?? 28 days of state wide archery needs to stay in place!! After all. 22 percent harvest.. half the hunters don't hunt after the after opening day.. I've been archery hunting for 44 years.. I say leave it alone! ARCHERS STAND UP AND FIGHT !!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

What do you think of this idea? Maybe have 8,000 Statewide archery tags and 8,000 pick your region tags? Or would this not help the problem? Dedicated hunters would have to hunt the region they chose for ML and Rifle.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> For me the change isn't all that bad, but the problem I have "is this the first step in a number of changes coming our way (archers)"?


It's only fair to admit there are some bowhunters who feel that the proposal isn't really a big deal. But there's a lot of ramifications to consider.

For instance, if you're one of the many bowhunters who hunts both deer and elk, this proposal would by necessity force you into a _de facto_ choice of your elk hunting region unless you're willing to forfeit time spent hunting one species or another or somehow able to be in two places at once. Not every place that holds deer also hunts elk, and vice versa.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Well I'm going to wade in to this. I know that I'm going to get gut shot, but I believe that I have earned the right to voice my displeasure with some of you. Just so you know up front I have hunted (old F**t) for many years and have had the pleasure to hunt with all the different weapons. I guess after reading some of your feeling I must be unique. I say that because each year I have to make a major decision as to what I will hunt with. I loose many hours of sleep trying to balance family and friends as well as what I would like to do. With that said, for those that think they are the step-child. Get over it. That place is occupied long ago by the rifle hunters on the southeast unit who get to only hunt 5 days and only after everybody else and the dog gets there shot. Couple that with major snow storms for three of the five days leaving at best two good days to hunt. It has been that way for the last two or three years. Believe me when I say I don't want to see the archers loose any time. Because as a hunter that time lost, will never come back. I'm OK with the DWR cutting tags were it is needed, even if it is on the unit I hunt. Because that will be for the good. But I 'm not OK with pushing those tags to other units, that are already at the bottom, regardless for the reason. Even if you don't harvest an animal, you affect me. That just puts one more body in the field, before I get my chance, to screw up my already short two day hunt. You already have the cream. You better fight to keep it. If the DWR wants to make up the short fall on the LE's, OK.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

The problem with limiting the Archery hunters to certain areas is, Southern hunters will not draw the tags either. Then they wont be able to hunt close to their homes every year even if they do have to choose to archey hunt. It will be available in the draw to EVERYBODY! So some of the concerned southern hunters wont get to hunt their deer. We are all citizens of UTAH. All of our tag revinue goes to the UTAH DWR. Rifle, and Muzzy are very reasonable but archery hunters do not have that much effect. Other than anoying the locals. 


Come to think of it mabey only Locals should be able to hunt in the county they live in. Heck lets just say you have to fish in the county you live in. J/K :evil: 

Give me a break! 


Pro PM me and tell me what I need to do to try to get this idea stopped.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think Archery hunters are going to have to COMPROMISE sooner or later because those people who are against the statewide archery aren't going away.

How will they regulate the 9 day hunt? I willing to bet that many arent going to stick to a certain region for 9 days?

Also how many archers hunt different regions all during one hunting season?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I echo the thoughts of Finn, just because the tags are allocated elsewhere certainly does not guarantee a sell out of tags in archery again especially as the archery hunt is made less appealing as the hunt would no longer be statewide, which I believe could create less sales than this year possibly. Me personally I only hunt one region, so it would not be a big difference as DH participant. I echo what many others have also mentioned, these fellars boohooing about "their" region being inundated by outsiders sounds ridiculous, if it were so bad with a statewide hunt, it seems logical that they would relocate, but they appear to prefer risking not being able to hunt at all??? Just sounds ludicrous, I have never hunted that region, but to have a couple of these folks making the decisions for the whole state seems inappropriate to me.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Given the choice between a 9 day region and a 17? day statewide archery hunt vs losing either a statewide entirely and/or reducing the length of the archery hunt, I'd opt for the former. BUT, is this just the beginning? I fear that it is.

On other threads I've tried to convey the challenges of bowhunting which make a statewide and a lengthy season advantage a way of balancing out the differences. Removing either the statewide or the 28 day length will tip the balance to the challenge side so much that we'll either lose bowhunters to the rifle season or out of hunting altogether. It's simple. If you make it more difficult to bowhunt then you'll lose bowhunters now and in the future!

And does anyone else see the irony of federal agencies (NFS & BLM) using state agencies (DWR) to regulate the use of federal lands? Suppose we apply this thinking to other recreational users? Let the state DMV license all ATV'ers and boaters and limit the users to regions. And, hikers, bikers, photographers, etc. Then we can really control the use!! Why just target hunters, who are in a minority of users?

Yea, I know!! It's for the benefit of the herds. And you don't think all those other users affect /disturb the herds???

OK, it's for the benefit of the hunters! And you don't think all those other users affect/disturb the hunters???

OK, then it's for the environment/habitat! And you don't think all those other users affect/disturb the environment/habitat???

This whole thing reeks of POWER and POLITICS and neither ever seems enough to those seeking them. We ain't heard the last of this.


----------



## LETTER-RIP (Sep 14, 2007)

I always hunted Northern when I had to choose. I don't think I will be effected by it to much. The problems at hand will not be resolved either. If Deer herds are struggling. Cut tags! You have no business selling tags if herds are struggling. The state of Utah will not give up that money though!!! I also belive that the Archery tags went so fast this year, so people in the South could hunt mountains close to home. Most of them are probably not into bow hunting and are buying them so they can hunt there mountains period!!! This was an eye opener for a lot of us. Archery first to sell out????
As far as the overcrowding. Move Archery Elk to Sep. The whole month of Sep. Quit screwing us on the rut. Move the Muzzy hunt back to November. This will get decrease pressure from those hunters for the last 2 weeks of August. Most will skip labor day weekend and plan vacations towards the end of the month. Giving recreational users some time in the mountains. As if they are the only people that should be using them at that time any ways. 
I don't think the first 9 days will be hunted that much and you will see an increase towards the holiday weekend because of it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> *wileywapati wrote:*
> Go back to the staggered openers for deer and elk, look at alternatives for creative opening days for the bowhunt. there are ways to appease those with the tears in their eyes without doing away with this hunt.


So Gordy, what do you propose to do with the LE archery tag holders on spike only units? Or, are you not concerned about them and their 'plight'?

The invite is still out there for BOU, UBA is willing to send three reps to meet with three BOU members to see what we can come up with. All I need is a yes or a no, publicly or privately will do fine. Yes, I WILL be one of the three from UBA, as will Jerry.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Let me throw out a thought. I am only throwing this out there because after thinking about it over the weekend, I believe changes are going to happen. What if we took 2500 archery tags and made them archery/muzzleloader combo hunts, regional, three point or better. Leave the remaining archery tags as they currently are (state wide, season length, etc). The DWR can increase the tag price of the combo to cover removing Northern permits. This type of hunt would entice individuals who hunt specific areas, multi-pointed deer, and would like to have more time in the field. By going to three point or better you control more of what is happening on the muzzleloader portion of the hunt, but make it managable for the DWR. The DWR could also move the combo tags (regional part) around to control pressure on the Forest and BLM lands. This option also works within the season dates of the respective hunts (i.e. archery during achery and muzzleloader during muzzleloader). Again manageable for the DWR. This would also provide minimal impact to the deer herd. Please don't get hung up on the 2500 number (pulled it out of the air) or the three point or better (could make it 4-point or better). Somebody smarter than I could make the numbers work.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I am concerned with the plight of the other 15,575 other hunters that are being 
affected by the concurrent opening dates for deer and elk. Right now you've got 
problems with hunters "camping" on herds of elk and leaving the deer alone during opening weekend. The BLM and Forest Service had some issues that can be fixed by going back to how it was. What does it matter anyways. Are you going to tell me that deer hunters were not in the hills on these units?? Or LE rifle hunters doing some "scouting and sighting in"?
This change created more trouble than it was worth.

Brotha I will hook up any where any time except Saturday's from here on out. I feel pretty confident in saying that there will be no compromise on taking the deal that is currently on the table. Discussion of negotiating away statewide archery will be wasted breath on all of our parts.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO I am concerned with the plight of the other 15,575 other hunters that are being
> affected by the concurrent opening dates for deer and elk. Right now you've got
> problems with hunters "camping" on herds of elk and leaving the deer alone during opening weekend. The BLM and Forest Service had some issues that can be fixed by going back to how it was. What does it matter anyways. Are you going to tell me that deer hunters were not in the hills on these units?? Or LE rifle hunters doing some "scouting and sighting in"?
> This change created more trouble than it was worth.
> ...


1)You mention the "other 15,575 archers" as if they ALL are wanting to go back to the staggered openers, which is NOT true, not even close. If it were, you would see fewer archers out on the opener. The Forest Service said they had 'issues' the first TWO weekends, not just the opener, so moving the elk opener back five days would make it WORSE on the second weekend. Truth is, this is a ploy being pushed by the anti-statewide crowd and little more. I have talked in person with some of those pushing this, and NONE of them said moving the elk back five days would 'appease' them. And, tell those who had a LE tag on the spike only units it didn't make a difference those last five days! I have talked with several, and ALL said they were glad for the change.

2)Shoot me a PM/email, and let's have a pow wow. We may just be able to 'solve' all the worlds problems. :mrgreen:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Why dont they take the 5000 exrta tags and spilt them up in the LE unites for deer and elk and leave the state wide hunt alone?  When are elk heards could use a little more tags to kill some of these bigger bulls or even give the 5000 tags for a 5 point or smaller bull in some of these spike unites? Then every one will be happy again.I like the state wide hunt because I hunt three differnt regans in one day some times. But im not going to bitch if I have to hunt one area for 9 days and get to hunt every where else for the other 19 days. I think the DH hunter should have to draw for the area that they want to hunt. Like said befor some are using it to by pass the draw and that not right.


----------



## hikein (Sep 19, 2007)

If change is inevitable then a longer season, choose your region option would be my preference.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

I do not have time nor the energy to read all the previous threads, So, Sorry if I repost someone else's thoughts! 

I happen to not care much about the statewide because I do not hunt the south much anymore. I did for a number of years though. What I do know is this, The southern unit does not own the right to cry about overcrowding. If you feel slighted southern boy's and girl's, come up to the NE unit and try getting a spot on the Strawberry drainage to yourself, try hunting the wasatch front. 2 years ago the DWR did a study that PROVED the bowhunters had NO negative impact on either the harvest or the "quality" of the hunt. 

It is funny how the Forest service wants to manage hunter numbers instead of actually doing their job. That would be to enforce laws in regards to off road vehicle use and abuse. Heaven forbid they enforce laws and get out of their pretty green trucks. How bout they just call it what it is, an out right offensive move to eliminate statewide archery. 2 years ago, "it wasn't fair", this year, it is a land use issue. What is their excuse for next year? Wildlife should never be managed for what is "fair". It should be managed for what is best for wildlife. IF bowhunters are impacting deer numbers then I vote to do away with the statewide if it will make a difference. If they are not impacting deer numbers, we need to stand up and fight and not take the dangling carrot. 

Bowhunters have taken the shaft for a long time in this state and giving up one of the benefits should not be taken lightly. Nor should it be handed over at all IMO.

Let me know when you guy's meet. I would love to meet with you if I can!

Chad


----------



## Stbmldcgrvs (May 5, 2008)

Pro started this thread talking about a UBA meeting where this plan was presented. Pro- would you like to tell everyone who gave the presentation? Who was it that was trying to tell you that you would lose everything unless you went with their plan. This group was trying to dangle a carrot of extra bow-tags in front of UBA for support of this proposed plan. I know the answers but it would be better if the individual was named by you and who he represents.

Many on this site would be interested to know that this particular group sent a liason to the Southern RAC last year and proposed that the archery season be shortened. Who is this group? To find out one must merely go to the minutes of the Southern November RAC of last year and look it up. It can be found on the divisions website.

BOU sat on the mule deer committee as represented by Mike. He did a wonderful job of looking out after bowhunting opportunity even when this same individual tried to strong arm him into giving in to the wishes of this organization. When he would not bow he was insulted and then this organizations attention went to another group whom they felt they could badger into line. The committee held firm and someone did not get their way.

Now it is my understanding that this group has attempted again to search for a puppet organization to do their bidding since the Mule Deer Committee would not. BOU has not been bothered by this group since our stand has been firm and our resolve set. Compromise into something that we already know is a shakey deal and can be undone in the stroke of a pen or behind a closed door somewhere? What is that? I'll tell you. No good will come of it. We hope that others will demonstrate backbone and firm resolve. You want to give a little then tell them we already have. We don't hunt elk in the rut. You want us to give some more. we already have. we give not only 5% of all of our tags to special interest groups out of the tag pool we also give another 300-400 tags to a convention which by the way supports this mysterious entity. You want us to give some more, we have our hunts in the heat of august and on some units after a rifle cow tag has taken progress. Should we give some more-- we already do -- many of our hunts are managed to produce high dollar tags at the expense of hunting opportunity for not only bowhunters but all sportsmen in the state and in many cases we do not make biologically sound wildlife management decisions in order to accomplish this goal. Shall we give more? We choose to limit ourselves to shorter ranges and lower success ratios. I think we have already given a bunch. For heck sakes when do you think a good time would be to dig in? We have been in retreat long enough.

Shaun Graves


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Stbmldcgrvs said:


> Pro started this thread talking about a UBA meeting where this plan was presented. Pro- would you like to tell everyone who gave the presentation? Who was it that was trying to tell you that you would lose everything unless you went with their plan. This group was trying to dangle a carrot of extra bow-tags in front of UBA for support of this proposed plan. I know the answers but it would be better if the individual was named by you and who he represents.
> 
> Shaun Graves


I would be glad to "tell" who presented it to us. But first, you may want to pull your ego back in check. I will gladly meet with you guys anytime anywhere, but I will be damned if I will take you calling me out and painting an unfavorable picture of me and the rest of the UBA board quietly!

His name is Roy Hampton, he is the Vice President of the Utah Bowmen Association who was on the deer committee that Mike was on. We invited a representative of SFW to come and explain their proposal and why they were proposing it. If that is somehow 'shady' as you imply, we have a different definition of 'shady'. I would rather have those trying to make changes that affect archers come and explain it too me face to face rather than make snide remarks behind their back or on the internet. The man you call into question is a good friend of mine, and someone I hold a good deal of respect for. I dare say he has done MORE for wildlife than you can ever hope to accomplish. So, before you climb up into your highchair, but your bib on and GROW UP! I met with you guys once, and the ONLY person who constantly tried to make things personal was YOU. Nice for the president of an org to be so confrontational with someone who has been asking to meet with you guys to WORK TOGETHER. :?


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Pro,

When and where is the mtg.? PM me if you want. If we are not hunting for my wife's elk, I would like to attend. 

Wasn't it SFW that presented this? That is who has done it in the past. They are pretty anti archery. I love how every year they say they are not going after statewide and then here we go again. As far as Bowhunting goes, SFW can not be trusted. 

As a member of both BOU and UBA my voice will be the same. I want to make a stand for our opportunity. I would love to discuss it though and see why others think differently. Have a great night.

Chad


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I am with Chad on this one. Although bowhunting opportunities are generally better than any other choice of weapon, there is a reason for that. You could give a lot more bowhunting opportunities in this state and greatly enhance the overall opportunity in the state, but muzz and rifle guys feel that the only way to make it better for them would be to make it worse for us and that is not true at all. Give a ton more opportunity to hunt with a bow and most "hunters" will take that opportunity, leaving more trophy animals in the field for bangers. Bottom line, Archery equals more 'hunting' oportunity and less 'harvest' negative effect on the herds. People that really want to increase the overall Utah big game picture should be looking for ways to increase archery hunters, thus expanding archery opportunity rather than diminish it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EPEK said:


> People that really want to increase the overall Utah big game picture should be looking for ways to increase archery hunters, thus expanding archery opportunity rather than diminish it.


I agree, so when the opportunity is there to increase archery deer tags by *5000*, should we be so quick as to dismiss it?


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Pro,

I am on my way out the door, But wanted to ask you this before I left. With the loss of the statewide opportunity, will we actually gain 5000 bowhunters or will we loose bowhunters. My opinion is that we will gain 5000 tags, but will loose bowhunters because a percentage of bowhunters do so because they can hunt anywhere. Not just the S, NE, C, N, etc. 

What I am getting at, is in the long run this hurts bowhunting IMO. We will loose some of our bowhunters if the statewide goes away. I do not think we will gain 5000 bowhunters by taking away 1 of the biggest perks to the hunt. This could and IMO will make it even harder for the Southern boys to get there tags. I am interested in your thoughts on this. If you want to save them for the upcoming mtg that is cool too.

I do not think we should quickly dismiss anything, but we should carefully discuss and evaluate both options and see what is best for the mule deer and bowhunting. Those are the 2 things we are set as groups to protect.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well stated Chad, and good luck. I hope the wife smokes a bigger bull than the one you took last year!


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks Pro,

I hope so too! Until next time...... See ya!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

A buddy and I was talking about this over the weekend... The buddy a guy that really don't say Chit even with a mouth full of it but did pipe this out.... They, (whoever that may be) will keep Farkin with it till there is no Farkin to be done! 

This is a drastic problem for me if this was to take effect.... Don't give a rats arse about the sothern unit, but living in and area where the North East and South East connect and hunting at different times both.... Well The "keep Farkin with it till there is no Farkin to be done!" statement is going to be reality!

I do like the comment that it may add 5000 tags, but can you really understand how many it will take away? I know that it would discurage me and the ones I hunt with.... And the thing is we don't hunt the Southern Unit!


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

How many people actually hunt a bunch of different units? Everyone i talk to hunts one unit ant then the extended unit. I say if you reduce the northern tags by 5,000 thats a lot of pressure for the other units to hold. Why not reduce the 5,000 tags but only put back 2,500 tags back in the remaining units. I don't want to see the other units get slottered! If you put the pressure on the other units it's going to be a never ending cycle.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> How many people actually hunt a bunch of different units? Everyone i talk to hunts one unit ant then the extended unit. I say if you reduce the northern tags by 5,000 thats a lot of pressure for the other units to hold. Why not reduce the 5,000 tags but only put back 2,500 tags back in the remaining units. I don't want to see the other units get slottered! If you put the pressure on the other units it's going to be a never ending cycle.


More than you would think, I hunt up too three different units depending on the year, plus the extended.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The 5000 tags we are talking about are rifle/muzzy tags right now. We are thing about adding 5000 tags to the archery pool that would be distributed amongst ALL five regions for archery. That comes out to around 1000 new archery tags per region for the first 9 days. 

In truth, I know there are hunters like TAK out there, I grew up in a town where the southern/southeastern/central regions all meet, but this is NOT about TAK/PRO, this is about ALL archers. As EPEK stated, we should be looking for ways to grow archery, both as a hobby and as a management tool. I seriously doubt there would be hunters give up archery to hunt with a rifle/muzzy because they have to pick a region for the first 9 days while still being able to hunt statewide for 19 days. Last I checked, the rifle/muzzy hunters are limited to a region for their WHOLE season. Archery tags sold out BEFORE northern rifle/muzzy tags did, that tells me there is more of a demand for archery tags than northern rifle/muzzy tags, so why not move the tag allotments to reflect that? It also will help the deer in the northern region as fewer bucks will be harvested each year, with little impact on the other regions. The data says that archers are NOT a limiting factor in deer health, both on the whole and on the buck:doe ratios. In fact, the data shows there is no biological reason for a cap on archery tags at all. It is politics that dictate a cap on archery tags, so when the opportunity is there to INCREASE opportunity, why would we quickly turn it down?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> EPEK said:
> 
> 
> > People that really want to increase the overall Utah big game picture should be looking for ways to increase archery hunters, thus expanding archery opportunity rather than diminish it.
> ...


I can't really say where I stand on this issue, but I will say this: part of the appeal to the archery hunt is its length and the ability of archers to hunt in whatever unit they choose. For many those things alone are enough to push them into archery. But, for others, an archery tag is purchased simply because a rifle tag wasn't gained in the draw. So, I believe that even if some archers choose not to apply for an archery tag because of the shortened hunt or because they are limited to only one unit, the 5000 tags will be sold.

The problem, though, as I see it is that archers are still losing. I don't see any good reason why archers should have to choose a region/unit or lose some of those 28 days.

OF course, though, if there were a way to reduce the pressure on the southern unit and to keep my tag, I am all for it!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I believe that even if some archers choose not to apply for an archery tag because of the shortened hunt or because they are limited to only one unit, the 5000 tags will be sold.
> 
> The problem, though, as I see it is that archers are still losing. I don't see any good reason why archers should have to choose a region/unit or lose some of those 28 days.


I also believe all/most of the 5000 tags would be sold.

There has been NO talk about shortening the archery season that I am aware of. Bottom line is, the powers that be (SI groups/DWR/FS/whiny hunters) are adamant about limiting archers for the first 9 days, so do we fight a three headed monster, or do we find ways to calm it down and make it a friend?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I really think that almost anything we do that increases hunting opportunity is good. And, because I am one archer who chooses not to hunt multiple regions, I tend to lean to your side of things, Pro. However, I am a bit fearful of one thing happening down the road: if the DWR goes to a unit-by-unit management plan (which seems likely), I would be afraid that archers--if they lost the statewide hunt--would be forced to choose a unit...and, I do hunt multiple units as do many archery hunters (if not most).


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe this has been addressed so bare with me, but why do we even have a cap on archery tags? IMO there should be unlimited tags for the deer like the elk. I understand to need to micromanage units but I have a hard time understanding the impact archery hunters have on this. This should only pertain to the ML and Rifle hunters.

Am I taking the discussion two steps back?


----------



## Riverlution (Sep 23, 2008)

Wheww. This is a little overwhelming. Help me understand. The only reason to pick an area for the first nine days of the hunt is to allow some individuals to ride around on four wheelers. Because the archers who hopefully are not on the trail, but, to and fro their hunting area in the early morning and evening are overcrowding some public access areas. I don't understand how picking an area for the first nine days eliminates any of that. You are still going to have a reasonable amount of tags per region and thus people there to hunt during those nine days. I don't believe that on day 10 all of the sudden thousands of hunters are going to run to one unit to hunt. Here is my thought on it. If archers do not impact the herd that much, then pull the 9 days from the begining of the hunt (satisfying the over crowding)and give them back to us statewide in the middle of the rut, say November 15th. Make deer archery tags unlimited and watch the tag sales go up. Am I missing something here?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Riverlution said:


> ... Here is my thought on it. If archers do not impact the herd that much, then pull the 9 days from the begining of the hunt (satisfying the over crowding)and give them back to us statewide in the middle of the rut, say November 15th. Make deer archery tags unlimited and watch the tag sales go up. Am I missing something here?


Oh ya...I like that!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ME TOO! Riverlution for president!


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Bow only zone on the wasatch hasn't hurt it, infact it has grown deer.

My simpletons view of it:
*Take the *5,000 or more *tags off of the north 'til the herd is back in check.
*Do a deal with the rifle season in the north like in the south (shorter season) ' till the hard is back in check.
*Increase the season length and tags available with smoke poles (limit equipment)
*keep state wide archery.
*Increase bowseason lenght up north (mini extended)
*take the cap off of bowhunting tags - put money back into state coffers...
*Have the state suck it up and do the Bow-ed like it should be done...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Maybe this has been addressed so bare with me, but why do we even have a cap on archery tags? IMO there should be unlimited tags for the deer like the elk. I understand to need to micromanage units but I have a hard time understanding the impact archery hunters have on this. This should only pertain to the ML and Rifle hunters.
> 
> Am I taking the discussion two steps back?


The reason archery tags are capped is the same reason rifle tags are capped...to limit the number of bucks killed. Basically, if the archery tag numbers were not capped, the number of rifle tags would be severely reduced...


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverlution....I like your idea with a slight twist.

In the past I have hunted several regions but I would be willing to give that up for this idea.

Pick your region, keep the season length and number of archery tags the same and in *exchange* archers get to hunt the rut in the region they picked for 9 days.....same applies for dedicated hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I really think that almost anything we do that increases hunting opportunity is good. And, because I am one archer who chooses not to hunt multiple regions, I tend to lean to your side of things, Pro. However, I am a bit fearful of one thing happening down the road: if the DWR goes to a unit-by-unit management plan (which seems likely), I would be afraid that archers--if they lost the statewide hunt--would be forced to choose a unit...and, I do hunt multiple units as do many archery hunters (if not most).


The micro unit management plan was shot down and is not on the table for the new deer plan that will be put forth this fall. So, the micro unit fear is unwarranted for at least 4 more years.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverlution said:


> Wheww. This is a little overwhelming. Help me understand. The only reason to pick an area for the first nine days of the hunt is to allow some individuals to ride around on four wheelers. Because the archers who hopefully are not on the trail, but, to and fro their hunting area in the early morning and evening are overcrowding some public access areas. I don't understand how picking an area for the first nine days eliminates any of that. You are still going to have a reasonable amount of tags per region and thus people there to hunt during those nine days. I don't believe that on day 10 all of the sudden thousands of hunters are going to run to one unit to hunt. Here is my thought on it. If archers do not impact the herd that much, then pull the 9 days from the begining of the hunt (satisfying the over crowding)and give them back to us statewide in the middle of the rut, say November 15th. Make deer archery tags unlimited and watch the tag sales go up. Am I missing something here?


While this sounds like a good idea, lets look at it for a second. We have groups/individuals saying archers have too many 'perks' as of right now, so if we go ask for more what do you think the odds of getting it would be? Also, by hunting the rut archery success rates would likely go up, making it a harder sale to increase tags for archers.

The muzzy hunt as as high, higher in some areas as rifle, so giving them more days is unlikely and unwarranted.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The reason archery tags are capped is the same reason rifle tags are capped...to limit the number of bucks killed. Basically, if the archery tag numbers were not capped, the number of rifle tags would be severely reduced...


I realize that, I guess my question goes a little deeper cutting into the tag alloments for rifle hunters and giving unlimited tags to archery hunters.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

The issue I have with a RUT hunt on the Cache (AT THIS TIME) is that we need to take the pressure off of the deer during the rut to get earlier fawns and hopefully increase the service rate of the does. This in turn would in theory give us bigger fawns in the fall. 

Mulepacker likened it to growing beef - Breed'em early, grow-em big.

Longterm a RUT hunt would be WAY fun!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> The issue I have with a RUT hunt on the Cache (AT THIS TIME) is that we need to take the pressure off of the deer during the rut to get earlier fawns and hopefully increase the service rate of the does. This in turn would in theory give us bigger fawns in the fall.


"Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.

Some people have expressed concern that heavy, buck-only harvest degrades the gene pool of a population, but there is no evidence to support loss of genetic diversity as a result of younger males breeding does. Buck-only seasons can effect changes in age structure, sex ratios, and timing of breeding, but these do not significantly affect the population as a whole. Under normal conditions, fawns are born at a time when habitat conditions are optimal. There is concern that if breeding is significantly delayed, fawns may be born late, and have a more difficult time surviving during winter."

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The micro unit management plan was shot down and is not on the table for the new deer plan that will be put forth this fall. So, the micro unit fear is unwarranted for at least 4 more years.


That's interesting...based on the feedback from RACs last year, I thought this would be on the table for sure. This is probably not the thread, but what were/is the reason(s)?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > The micro unit management plan was shot down and is not on the table for the new deer plan that will be put forth this fall. So, the micro unit fear is unwarranted for at least 4 more years.
> ...


No one could agree on why/how to implement it, so it was shelved. At least that is my take on it.

I believe firstarrow's comments about hurting fawn recruitment by hunting the rut is based on the fear that hunting bucks while they are supposed to be breeding does would impact the number of does bred during the first estrus cycle, thus lowering the fawn recruitment, not that too many bucks would be harvested.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ok, I enjoy archery hunting very much. I have killed plenty of animals with my bow, so with that said: Archery hunters do have an impact on the herds. They have a 20%+- success rate on general deer hunts and are close to general season season rifle elk hunts' successes. Archery does have an impact. I point this out simply to help you boys when it comes RAC time. Get up there and state the archers have little to no impact on herds and you will loose every time. 

Put 5,000 additional tags into archery and it will make the perceived crowding issue more noticeable and it will negatively impact the other herds which must now take the additional pressure. If the archery tags truly have no impact, then put all 5,000 back into the Northern Region as archery tags. The North needs help, but that shouldn't come at the expense of the other herds. 

Now carry on......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mike, what region(s) would be hurt by an additional 1500 to 2000 archery tags? At 14.6% that equates to 219-292 bucks harvested on units that are at/over ratio objectives. I see no ill effects of INCREASED opportunity for archers, and positive effects from a decrease in rifle tags in the northern region.
The numbers provided by the DWR shows archers enjoyed a 14.6% success rate in 2007. So, with 5000 tags that equates to 730 additional bucks harvested STATEWIDE, or 146 bucks per region. The number of bucks 'saved' in the northern is around 1500 bucks in that region alone. That is DOUBLE the number of bucks killed and all in one region. Are you saying that 146 more bucks killed in the Central Region will have much of an impact on the buck:doe ratio and health of the herd? I don't!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro why dont they just put those 5000 in to the LE hunts ? Where they would get more money and hunters would be happyer.I think taking the 5000 way from the northen would help out the deer heards up there and I dont think the deer heards any where else would be able handle the exrta 5000 tags. But i could be worng on that part. Im a bow hunter and I injoy every thing about it.There been some good points on here. We have big bulls dieing off every year because of old age why not try to take some of them out with hunters.


----------



## Riverlution (Sep 23, 2008)

Pro, I love the idea or thought that the archery guys get to many perks. You sound as if you are in agreement with this thought. I am of the opinion that the archery tags sold out before the northern muzzy/rifle tags sold out not because there are more archers but because that was the only way for some of these guys to get a tag to the south. The lack of southern tags created more archers not the , season dates, success rate, or joy for archery hunting. 

The 5000 tags that we would get would never sell if you had to pick a region. I don't know the number of tags available right now, but say the number is 15,000 archery tags. How many archers are really going to the southern unit? 25% 33% 50%. How would you divide the tags up regionally to start with? Five regions equally split. Are you going to maintain the same percentages that the rifle tags have? Why and what is the point? The success rate is so low all 15,000 archers could go down there for the 9 days and would we really impact the herd that much. My guess is that in archery the more is not the merrier. If I am a rifle/muzzy guy i say make them unlimited and send them all to my unit. The deer will never come out during hunting hours because of the pressure and if they do they will be running for their life. I know you don't do it but try and hit a deer on the run with a bow. 

Archery hunters in utah have been screwed, are still getting screwed, and will continue to get screwed if we do not fight or come up with a better compromise than "okay we will take an additional 5000 tags" Quite honestly I don't want another 5000 archers in the state of Utah. I am fine with the group we have now. I want better archery hunt dates for all species on all hunts LE and General. Why anyone would sign up for a limited entry archery elk hunt in the state of Utah is beyond me. Sure your going to draw a tag sooner because no one wants the darn things but the success rate isn't even 36%. Muzzy 72% and Rifle 89% (2006 stats). I am not going to fork over 500 bucks for a 36%. You and I both know that the success goes up if they give the archery guy the rut. But they don't because nobody cares about us. If we don't care for ourselves who will. I don't want to comprise 9 days of hunting for 5000 guys I don't know. I will compromise for better season dates as a whole. 

If we really are the rich guys of hunting in Utah then great because I believe the rich get richer. Take away 9 days then give me 9 better days to hunt. Reality says we are the poor guys on the street and this is another example of us getting kicked in the butt. I am fine with compromising a win / win for both sides. 5000 additional tags is not a win for Archery in Utah. 

If you truly want to increase archery in Utah get better season dates thus creating better success rates and guys who want to archery hunt will show up. Don't try and sell me the idea that 5000 more archery tags makes Utah an archer friendly state, and now my buddy who has been killing deer and elk with his rifle and muzzyloader will have some kind of desire to come archery hunting because there are magically 5000 more tags. 

I don't like the system now but can live with it. I don't want it to get any worse.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Pro why dont they just put those 5000 in to the LE hunts ? Where they would get more money and hunters would be happyer.I think taking the 5000 way from the northen would help out the deer heards up there and I dont think the deer heards any where else would be able handle the exrta 5000 tags. But i could be worng on that part. Im a bow hunter and I injoy every thing about it.There been some good points on here. We have big bulls dieing off every year because of old age why not try to take some of them out with hunters.


Uuuuh, because after one year of 5000 LE tags on existing units, they would cease to exist.

In order to give out 5k LE tags for deer and maintain any type of quality to justify calling them "LE", I speculate 3/4 of the state would have to be LE.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> but this is NOT about TAK/PRO, this is about ALL archers.


I know it is not about you or I, but I do look at what I want, is what the majority wants. The majority wants to keep things as they are and they are happy and I don't hear about many bow hunters asking for much more. But it seems as we are always on the fence weather we are going to lose something that we have all grown to love and some except.

It was said some posts back that we are not managing the herd but rather the hunters. Believe it or not I had read some talkings some time ago just about this. Can I remember what it was all about? No, but it boiled down to $$$$ and another but... What is not $$$$ Driven!

PRO I have pieced through this tread in spare minutes and I can not help but see that from the first post you was asking for a strong standing in this matter to almost you have thrown in the towel. Now I also understand that you may have some more inside information about this matter, and we are all getting worked up over something that we have no control over.... But I also don't think that we should just settle for a few crumbs when we do deserve a full cookie or two.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverlution said:


> Pro, I love the idea or thought that the archery guys get to many perks. You sound as if you are in agreement with this thought. I am of the opinion that the archery tags sold out before the northern muzzy/rifle tags sold out not because there are more archers but because that was the only way for some of these guys to get a tag to the south. The lack of southern tags created more archers not the , season dates, success rate, or joy for archery hunting.


If you think I agree with archers having it too good, you are either not paying attention or clueless! :roll:



> The 5000 tags that we would get would never sell if you had to pick a region. I don't know the number of tags available right now, but say the number is 15,000 archery tags. How many archers are really going to the southern unit? 25% 33% 50%. How would you divide the tags up regionally to start with? Five regions equally split. Are you going to maintain the same percentages that the rifle tags have? Why and what is the point? The success rate is so low all 15,000 archers could go down there for the 9 days and would we really impact the herd that much. My guess is that in archery the more is not the merrier. If I am a rifle/muzzy guy i say make them unlimited and send them all to my unit. The deer will never come out during hunting hours because of the pressure and if they do they will be running for their life. I know you don't do it but try and hit a deer on the run with a bow.


If they don't sell out, that means the demand for them isn't there, so less bucks would be killed. But, I am willing to bet we would come dang close to selling out all 5000 tags.



> Archery hunters in utah have been screwed, are still getting screwed, and will continue to get screwed if we do not fight or come up with a better compromise than "okay we will take an additional 5000 tags" Quite honestly I don't want another 5000 archers in the state of Utah. I am fine with the group we have now. I want better archery hunt dates for all species on all hunts LE and General. Why anyone would sign up for a limited entry archery elk hunt in the state of Utah is beyond me. Sure your going to draw a tag sooner because no one wants the darn things but the success rate isn't even 36%. Muzzy 72% and Rifle 89% (2006 stats). I am not going to fork over 500 bucks for a 36%. You and I both know that the success goes up if they give the archery guy the rut. But they don't because nobody cares about us. If we don't care for ourselves who will. I don't want to comprise 9 days of hunting for 5000 guys I don't know. I will compromise for better season dates as a whole.


Seriously, what would archers be 'losing'? The ability to hunt all five regions for 9 days, yet still be able to hunt for *28 days *, 19 of which is statewide, as well as the extended areas that are 90+ days long. The fact you openly admit to not wanting any more archers is very telling. It tells me you are NOT about opportunity, and are about yourself. I drew a LE elk tag this year, and I would apply for the same tag next year of I could. Do I think the dates should be changed? You bet, question is how to get it done. Just because archers want it doesn't mean we will get it. There are more rifle guys than archers, that is the bottom line. You come up with a proposal that will get it done and I will listen, but to say you are against MORE OPPORTUNITY isn't going to cut it!



> 5000 additional tags is not a win for Archery in Utah.


I beg to differ. One of the goals of UBA is to GROW the sport, bith in quality and quantity. I am a firm supporter of this goal.



> If you truly want to increase archery in Utah get better season dates thus creating better success rates and guys who want to archery hunt will show up. Don't try and sell me the idea that 5000 more archery tags makes Utah an archer friendly state, and now my buddy who has been killing deer and elk with his rifle and muzzyloader will have some kind of desire to come archery hunting because there are magically 5000 more tags.


I am always looking/working on ways to improve season dates, but it is easy to complain about it, it is harder to DO something about it. Talk is cheap, action is expensive. I will always fight for better dates, longer seasons, more opportunity, but I will also be realistic about it.



> I don't like the system now but can live with it. I don't want it to get any worse.


The point you seem to be missing is the system is 'under attack'. I don't want, nor do I believe it is needed, to restrict archers for the first 9 days, but that is a hell of a lot better than being limited to a region for ALL 28 days, at least in my book it is!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> PRO I have pieced through this tread in spare minutes and I can not help but see that from the first post you was asking for a strong standing in this matter to almost you have thrown in the towel. Now I also understand that you may have some more inside information about this matter, and we are all getting worked up over something that we have no control over.... But I also don't think that we should just settle for a few crumbs when we do deserve a full cookie or two.....


Not true, I haven't made up my mind on this one way or the other. What I am strongly supporting is looking at ALL sides, and to look at the big picture, not just the view out the kitchen window. What do we "deserve", and do we "deserve" anything in reality? I would rather have a seven course over a few cookies myself, but when the cupboard is bare, does it do any good to wish for the big feast? When you are surrounding by the enemy, do you make demands? I know it worked in Braveheart, but that was Hollywood, and Gibson was gutted in the end.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Pro why dont they just put those 5000 in to the LE hunts ? Where they would get more money and hunters would be happyer.I think taking the 5000 way from the northen would help out the deer heards up there and I dont think the deer heards any where else would be able handle the exrta 5000 tags. But i could be worng on that part. Im a bow hunter and I injoy every thing about it.There been some good points on here. We have big bulls dieing off every year because of old age why not try to take some of them out with hunters.
> ...


Thanks tree. But im not just saying put the 5k on deer only spilt them up between the elk and deer LE.I can't see that hurting the heard that bad. So if you can put some lite on that for me please.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I would LOVE to see LE archery elk tags doubled/tripled, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon across the board. That is one of the MANY reasons I like I400, it would increase the number of tags on 3-5 LE units. That is much more likely to happen than what you are proposing.

UBA will be having a meeting where we are asking for the public to attend and give input on October 14th at Jakes Archery in Utah County. This will go along way to help UBA decide what course of action we are going to take on the different proposals.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > dkhntrdstn said:
> ...


The deer and elk LE are two separate systems.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > PRO I have pieced through this tread in spare minutes and I can not help but see that from the first post you was asking for a strong standing in this matter to almost you have thrown in the towel. Now I also understand that you may have some more inside information about this matter, and we are all getting worked up over something that we have no control over.... But I also don't think that we should just settle for a few crumbs when we do deserve a full cookie or two.....
> ...


I to want the whole 7 course meal but lets be real. The breed and butter is the rifle tags... Heck I am a rifle hunter/bow hunter. Next year I might be a muzzy. I enjoy the hunt and the bow hunt is more to my liking because of the flexability of where I can hunt, and how long.

PRO, I am glad that you did not take my post as a stab to you, all I am saying is that some of the posts you make, to me make me feel as if you have become tired of the fight. It is a good fight and well worth the troubles that you have had to get all of us what we do have. I just ask, since you seem to have a voice through a club is to keep fighting to improve, but not give in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I love a good fight as much as ever, but when I get in a dust up I want to be able to win and not get tapped. I am just not sure this is where I want to make my Custer stand.


----------



## Riverlution (Sep 23, 2008)

> If you think I agree with archers having it too good, you are either not paying attention or clueless!


Then why are you settling for a solution that only benefits future archers (and that is even debatable) and not the ones here now. Is the request for different dates so outragous that it won't fly. I don't undersand how increased success amongst archers is such a bad thing. More rifle hunters + a higher success rate = more dead deer. Are archers ever going to have the same success rate as rifle hunters even during the rut. NO. Are there ever going to be as many archers as there are rifle hunters? NO. Are the archers ever going to have the pull the rifle hunters have with the state? NO. I have given you three NO's is one more from the state asking for different dates going to hurt that bad really. You have one solution I have offered one more. I am sure that the group can come up with some others. Your position is valiant take something or get nothing. Some of these guys suggest putting the tags somewhere else as if that is going to slay the beast. Ya like the state is going to say keep things the same because now we have nothing to offer the archers, because we gave those 5000 tags to LE. I just want us to offer some other suggestion.



> If they don't sell out, that means the demand for them isn't there, so less bucks would be killed. But, I am willing to bet we would come dang close to selling out all 5000 tags.


Sure you might come close. And sure some of those guys might become lifetime archery hunters. And the Archers would get something instead of nothing. But you never answered how are you going to divide them? Wether that stops the overcrowding or not? And where will the tags go when the northern deer herd returns? Are they going to say thanks for your loyal support archers but Zoink back to the north with the tags? Are they going to keep the tags the same and just throw 5000 new ones back to the North.



> Seriously, what would archers be 'losing'? The ability to hunt all five regions for 9 days, yet still be able to hunt for *28 days *, 19 of which is statewide, as well as the extended areas that are 90+ days long. The fact you openly admit to not wanting any more archers is very telling. It tells me you are NOT about opportunity, and are about yourself. I drew a LE elk tag this year, and I would apply for the same tag next year of I could. Do I think the dates should be changed? You bet, question is how to get it done. Just because archers want it doesn't mean we will get it. There are more rifle guys than archers, that is the bottom line. You come up with a proposal that will get it done and I will listen, but to say you are against MORE OPPORTUNITY isn't going to cut it!


I see your point kind of.(once again you agree the archer have it to good.) But SERIOUSLY what would the state be losing leaving it how it is.



> I beg to differ. One of the goals of UBA is to GROW the sport, bith in quality and quantity. I am a firm supporter of this goal.


I try to convince my buddies all the time to switch to archery. My six year old twin boys shoot with me weekly with their mini genesis bows. I want guys who want to archery hunt not guys who are forced to archery because they didn't draw a tag.



> If you truly want to increase archery in Utah get better season dates thus creating better success rates and guys who want to archery hunt will show up. Don't try and sell me the idea that 5000 more archery tags makes Utah an archer friendly state, and now my buddy who has been killing deer and elk with his rifle and muzzyloader will have some kind of desire to come archery hunting because there are magically 5000 more tags. [quote:195e4mjk]I am always looking/working on ways to improve season dates, but it is easy to complain about it, it is harder to DO something about it. Talk is cheap, action is expensive. I will always fight for better dates, longer seasons, more opportunity, but I will also be realistic about it.


[/quote:195e4mjk]

I will come to any meeting you have. But I want a proposal to better archery in Utah not an acceptance letter to a threat.  I don't have any inside information like you. I am not a political giant. But I do understand force feeding and this is being force fed as the only viable option. Accept it or be destroyed type of deal. You are telling me that UBA, the BOU, and archers in general can't come up with a better option than that.

I believe that the state wants hunting revenue and that if you can show a way to increase revenue and have a limited impact on the herd they will listen. Changing the dates, makes archery more appealling to more people thus the number of archers increases. Archery hunting has a lower success rate thus fewer deer killed. More archers more revenue, lower success rate better animals in the future. and if state says no thank you. We move to option 2. and then option 3. and then okay a 9 day regional hunt. Your insider (who or whatever it is) atleast gave you two options. 9 days or regional?

Hunters are a limited resource. You either hunt or you don't. There are not alot of people waking up in the morning saying gosh today i am going to try Archery hunting. You are either converting a rifle/muzzy hunter or raising a child.

Pro, you are alot closer to this than I am. I apologize if you took it personal. I in know way intended to offend you. But somehow with your 90 plus days of hunting speech you make it sound as if you think archery hunting dates in Utah are great. And we should bow down to the great proclamation for being so generous.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I love a good fight as much as ever, but when I get in a dust up I want to be able to win and not get tapped. I am just not sure this is where I want to make my Custer stand.


If you have the support why not!


----------



## LETTER-RIP (Sep 14, 2007)

There is not a demand. The tags are being bought by people who did not draw the Rifle/Muzzy tags. When theyt do, they get to hunt there home mountains. Period.



proutdoors said:


> The 5000 tags we are talking about are rifle/muzzy tags right now. We are thing about adding 5000 tags to the archery pool that would be distributed amongst ALL five regions for archery. That comes out to around 1000 new archery tags per region for the first 9 days.
> 
> In truth, I know there are hunters like TAK out there, I grew up in a town where the southern/southeastern/central regions all meet, but this is NOT about TAK/PRO, this is about ALL archers. As EPEK stated, we should be looking for ways to grow archery, both as a hobby and as a management tool. I seriously doubt there would be hunters give up archery to hunt with a rifle/muzzy because they have to pick a region for the first 9 days while still being able to hunt statewide for 19 days. Last I checked, the rifle/muzzy hunters are limited to a region for their WHOLE season. Archery tags sold out BEFORE northern rifle/muzzy tags did, that tells me there is more of a demand for archery tags than northern rifle/muzzy tags, so why not move the tag allotments to reflect that? It also will help the deer in the northern region as fewer bucks will be harvested each year, with little impact on the other regions. The data says that archers are NOT a limiting factor in deer health, both on the whole and on the buck:doe ratios. In fact, the data shows there is no biological reason for a cap on archery tags at all. It is politics that dictate a cap on archery tags, so when the opportunity is there to INCREASE opportunity, why would we quickly turn it down?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TAK said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I love a good fight as much as ever, but when I get in a dust up I want to be able to win and not get tapped. I am just not sure this is where I want to make my Custer stand.
> ...


That's my point, I don't think we have the support!

Riverlution, go back and reread/read my FIRST post on this thread. I asked for INPUT/SUGGESTIONS/SOLUTIONS. I have yet to say what UBA will do, because we haven't made that decision yet. If you think I am not willing to fight for more for archers, you need to go back and get got caught up. I have gone to war at the RACS/Wildlife Board for improvements for archers. One thing I do KNOW, no matter what proposal UBA makes, we will tick off people, that is assured. So, we are asking for as much feed back as possible so that we can make an intelligent and well thought proposal/stand. We will be meeting with BOU next week, we will be holding a public meeting at Jake's Archery next month, and we are asking for input from EVERYONE, yes even folks from SFW/MDF/RMEF and other hunting groups.

I personally keep changing my views on this. So, before you lay accusations against my position, maybe you should wait until I have one. :idea: :?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TAK said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


As anything I think we need everything out on the table! I read one club is against it and the other is up in the air. Together you will be stronger. You want more to join? Well you better assure them that each club is going to fight for what the majority wants!!!!!


----------



## Riverlution (Sep 23, 2008)

Pro, 

Unfortunately I have read the entire ten pages of this and my comprehension of it as poor as it might be is that you are for accepting the 9 day proposal. I understand you want to meet with other groups but your stated reason for doing so is that the current proposal is better than the alternative and I have heard of no other alternatives from you. And every other possible options gets shut down by you because it will make some one mad. 

You mention that you go back and forth on where you stand. My understanding is that you go back and forth on whether to fight this or not. What options do you have? I would like to know what is swaying you back and forth. Are you waiting for some kind of million archer march on the capital? Your not going to get it. A lot of archers I know this year didn't even care enough to read the proclamation and find out the elk season dates changed. And you think you are going to get enough support from some online forum to help you decide whether to fight this or not. 

My point is. What other ideas have you and the UBA come up with? That is what I want to hear. I through out change the dates. I am in agreement with you that there are pobably better and more acceptable ideas out there. I would rather hunt 9 days during the rut and loose state wide hunting for mule deer. That is my personal opinion. What is your opinion? 

Let me know when the meeting at Jakes will be? I would love to meet you. I hope you understand I am on your side. I want what is best for Archery in Utah. I just want more than one option to consider.


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Riverlution said:


> I would rather hunt 9 days during the rut and loose state wide hunting for mule deer. That is my personal opinion. What is your opinion?


This is a bad idea... The deer herds struggle in our entire state, helping out the Deer should be the objective, not giving us the best chance to bag a larger rutting buck. Now if we had a strong herd and could handle this... OH HELL YES!

If there is a change, it should be made to help out the struggling deer herds... Not to please some of the southern hunters that get invaded every year.
From what I see that the Deer are becoming something of the past. I agree something needs to be done (Like that has not been said before) but increasing tag numbers?

I still think it is the best idea in the world to have those with even years on there birth date get to hunt deer that year and odd years the odd years get to hunt. That will cut the numbers in half!!!!!!! But that also is the $$$$ Issue. I already have waited over 10 years for a chance at a big bull, I know I could go every other year for deer hunting! I know it is far fetched but I am telling ya. The Deer numbers are blaaaaaa!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm a southern boy (Enoch) and a southern hunter and I have no complaints about being invaded by out-of-region hunters. Maybe it's an issue for other southern hunters, but my experience is that it's not hunters that are the big invaders, even ATV road hunters who are trying to go slow and quiet. The numbers come from noisy, racing, recreational ATV'ers, firewood cutters, and general sightseers. They have the right to be there too, so I do what any other bowhunter can do. I find places where the "invaders" can't or won't go, but the animals do. And it's not that hard. All of the regions are HUGE and mostly public land. And much of the private land is accessible if you do your homework/P R work and/or is used by owner/hunters who don't hunt public lands. This so-called hunter invasion isn't!!! And we will find that out when mandatory hunting reports by EVERY hunter are instituted, if they ever are!

We're fighting amongst ourselves, but we're not the enemy. We happen to be the only users who are regulated to any degree, so we end up being the only target for the regulators. One of our country's founding fathers (I don't remember which one.) said, "If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately."

For personal reasons I have and want no affiliations with hunting groups but that doesn't mean I won't fight/work alongside them. And I have some misgivings about the possible proposals, but I think good ideas are good ideas regardless of who thinks them up. I'll be in Magna on the 14th and can make the meeting at Jake's. Give us details, including an address/directions.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> *Riverlution wrote:*
> You mention that you go back and forth on where you stand. My understanding is that you go back and forth on whether to fight this or not. What options do you have? I would like to know what is swaying you back and forth. Are you waiting for some kind of million archer march on the capital? Your not going to get it. A lot of archers I know this year didn't even care enough to read the proclamation and find out the elk season dates changed. And you think you are going to get enough support from some online forum to help you decide whether to fight this or not.





> So, I would love some feedback from hunters, archers/rifle/muzzy alike. I do NOT want this turning into a war among weapon choices, *I would like to see some positive suggestions *on this topic.


This is a quote from the first post of this thread, second paragraph. How much clearer could I be? :? I am NOT asking for a "million archer march", I am asking for feedback/proposals/suggestions. I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow archers, and I am willing to stand alone for a cause I believe in strong enough. My point is, I do NOT think we have exhausted all the possible solutions to this very real threat. When draw a line in the sand when it isn't warranted yet? If it comes down to i=that being the LAST option I will be right there in the trenches with any/all willing to get dirty. Until then I prefer to keep my options over. I see the 'compromise' as possibly a benefit, but it certainly is not w/o risk. UBA made a proposal last year regarding the archery elk dates that asked for the opener to start the same day as the deer opener, and to add a week onto the end in the any-bull areas, while giving the LE hunters on spike units five days w/o spike hunters. The Wildlife Board changed the opener, and gave the LE hunters the last five of their hunt w/o spike hunters, but they didn't give us the extra week on the any-bull units. That changed the whole dynamics of our proposal and what the effects were across the board for all archery elk hunters. My biggest fear is that UBA makes a proposal, or agrees with a proposal made by others, and then the Wildlife Board neuters it and UBA is blamed for the aftermath. I want to have all the bases covered, and to have insurance that the WB won't do a hatchet job on archers AGAIN. I do NOT think the WB is the 'enemy', I believe they get lots of bad info from different sources that cloud reality. So, we need to be able to educate the Board on the benefits of archery as a revenue source and more importantly as a management tool.

If I question a suggestion it is because I see flaws with it, and I believe that is the only way to improve on an idea. For example, I think the idea of moving the archery deer hunt into the rut would be met with incredible resistance from multiple groups including the DWR/WB. I do appreciate the fact your are finally offering up ideas instead of attacks. Thank you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> For personal reasons I have and want no affiliations with hunting groups but that doesn't mean I won't fight/work alongside them. And I have some misgivings about the possible proposals, but I think good ideas are good ideas regardless of who thinks them up. I'll be in Magna on the 14th and can make the meeting at Jake's. Give us details, including an address/directions.


As soon as I get the exact details I will start a new post as to minimize it getting lost in the shuffle. 8) I look forward to finally meeting you in person. There we can work on the details to set up a meeting down in your neck of the woods in the near future.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I have to comment on this proposal. It would be nice to take some pressure off the northern region. When the DWR first started the region idea, the northern herd was at a low point. They gave more tags to the northern than any, way too many tags to allow the hunting to ever improve. My hunting buddies said the DWR is just trying to send all the hunters where the deer aren't.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen if they go to choose your reigon again for the archery hunt. They won't be able to sell all the tags they do now, let alone 5,000 more. How many are going to put in for an archery hunt in the north or northeast units? Not many will do that even if it is the only choice left.

I have bow hunted for 45 years, and invaded the southern region from my northern home for decades before they even created regions. I agree with whoever said that the biggest problem is with the Piuter tourists, not bowhunters.

The main reason I started bow hunting was for the extra hunt. Of course, that is long gone and almost forgotten now. I have stuck with the bow because the rifle hunt is such a circuis, and when the kids were in school, the muzzy hunt was too inconvenient. Also, the first week of the bow hunt hit before school started. Now that I am getting older and the kids are all out of school, I am starting to get tired of this inadequate weapon (bow) and have about decided it is time to switch to the muzzy or rifle hunt. If I have to choose a region, the will be the final straw and I will be switching over for sure, along with a lot of other bowhunters.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

Let me get this straight. The land management agencies (Forest Service and BLM) are upset about an increase in user density because more people are using OUR LAND in Southern Utah. So now they are trying to find a way to limit OUR usage of OUR LAND. Am I the only one who sees the bigger picture in this? This should not be a fight just for the archers, but all hunters, campers, fishermen, hikers, bikers, etc. The public land reps on every RAC should be afraid to even mention the idea because of the stand WE ALL SHOULD TAKE.

As archers if we don't fight now then when? I'd rather lose fighting than lose rolling over. If we don't we'll be setting ourselves up to lose for years to come. If we fight with everything we have we can make them think twice about making an unjustifiable attack on archery hunting ever again. Now is the time to stand together!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

TAK IDhunter I like the way you guys think :lol:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I'm a southern boy (Enoch) and a southern hunter and I have no complaints about being invaded by out-of-region hunters. Maybe it's an issue for other southern hunters, but my experience is that it's not hunters that are the big invaders, even ATV road hunters who are trying to go slow and quiet. The numbers come from noisy, racing, recreational ATV'ers, firewood cutters, and general sightseers. They have the right to be there too, *so I do what any other bowhunter can do. I find places where the "invaders" can't or won't go, but the animals do. And it's not that hard.* All of the regions are HUGE and mostly public land. *This so-called hunter invasion isn't!!! *And we will find that out when mandatory hunting reports by EVERY hunter are instituted, if they ever are!
> 
> We're fighting amongst ourselves, but we're not the enemy. We happen to be the only users who are regulated to any degree, so we end up being the only target for the regulators. One of our country's founding fathers (I don't remember which one.) said, "If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately."
> 
> For personal reasons I have and want no affiliations with hunting groups and I have some misgivings about the possible proposals, but I think good ideas are good ideas regardless of who thinks them up.


Your sentiments on the "southern invasion" is what I've heard from both hunters that live in the south (I talk to quite a few hunters working where I do) and guys that go down to hunt. None of them have ever said, "Boy, why don't you Northern guys stay in your own half of the state?" or, "Man, there are a ton of people in the southern units pushing deer around". The guys I've talked to and actually asked about hunter numbers in the southern parts of the state have said that they never have trouble getting away from the crowds to go find critters and some solitude. I would like to say well, if I had a vote I'd vote against the whole pick a region bit but honestly.... if the archery tags stay the same or even increase, I don't see that the odds for me go down all that drastically. I don't hunt the Southern or Southeastern region but have hunted the NE region for deer/elk and have seen plenty. That gives me the Central, NE or Northern to choose from, let alone all of the extended and statewide to hunt after the first 9 days are up. Not so bad I guess but the 9 day thing is kinda ridiculous.... just because.... whats to stop all the folks from just dorking around close to home for the first couple weekends then crowding onto *if such a thing is even happening* the more desired units for the rest of the hunt? Nine days doesn't seem to solve much and if its not even a "hunter numbers" issue... why stand for the reduction in time? Seems like a pretty straight forward up yours from the non hunting entities directed at archers even though we're not really the problem. I'd say fight it and see where that gets us and if we just have to settle, well then, 9 days before statewide opening is better than having them cut our season down to just 9 days and making us pick a unit to hunt. Nice having an extended unit 15 minutes away I suppose but it sounds like the guys without that luxury stand to get hosed pretty badly if we don't try to make our stand en masse.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If we "fight it" we stand a real chance of getting statewide gone for ALL 28 days. That is a fact. And, it isn't just the Forest service and ATV users complaining. The loudest complaints are coming from within the hunting ranks. 'Archers' from the southern region have been whining for at least two years, as have rifle hunters been saying we get too many 'perks'. Their voices are being heard by the RAC members and the Wildlife Board members. When the perception is that archers are 'greedy', how do you deal with it? By simply saying we will go down in a blaze of glory sounds tough, but is it wise and prudent? I don't know.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

Good point PRO. I say we loose to gain.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

PRO, Then I guess I don't understand the mentality of the full time rifle hunters. Are they trying to push archery hunters into rifle hunting or out of hunting altogether? Either way rifle hunters lose! It's simple!! If you make bowhunting harder by removing those so-called perks, bowhunters will quit bowhunting!

On other threads I've outlined at least 17 (it's up to 19) challenges faced by bowhunters that rifle hunters don't have to deal with, while only 5 advantages. And rifle hunters want to curtail 2 of those 5 advantages? That will tip the scales too far to the challenge side for most bowhunters (including me, a 48 year bowhunter) and, IMHO, we'll lose most of them. And if those ex-archers become rifle hunters then all that means is rifle hunters have even more competition, either with the draws (if the tag numbers remain the same) or with the hunt (if archery tags become rifle tags). And if archers quit hunting altogether, then the anti's will have a victory celebration and will be able to double their efforts on the remaining rifle hunters. 

As far as the southern boys go, MANDATORY HUNTING REPORTS will tell a different story than they're telling. I know their mentality when it comes to land, even public land. IT"S THEIRS!!! There are lawsuits, feuds, family fights, divorces, changing of wills, illegal posting. locked gates, even violence over land, its usage and access. I've lived in Enoch for (only) 19 years and, though I've tried many times, I have yet to gain hunting access to any private ground on Cedar Mountain and only once on an antelope hunt in the SW Desert, even from friends, coworkers and/or members of my LDS ward. When it comes to hunting, I'm still considered an outsider. So it's no wonder they view any strangers as an invasion. But they can't (or shouldn't) win an argument with facts.

I look forward to our meeting down here. It should be an eye opener for all of us.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> PRO, Then I guess I don't understand the mentality of the full time rifle hunters. Are they trying to push archery hunters into rifle hunting or out of hunting altogether? Either way rifle hunters lose! It's simple!! If you make bowhunting harder by removing those so-called perks, bowhunters will quit bowhunting!
> 
> I look forward to our meeting down here. It should be an eye opener for all of us.


You are expecting rational thought from people that have shown little capacity of doing so. 

I look forward to a meeting down there as well. I attended the Sneekee Expo in April 2007 with a couple of other UBA members, and we had some great feedback on this subject. I also understand the "my mountain" mentality. I don't agree with it, but I understand it as I grew up in a small community where a good chunk of the hunters had that belief. I once dared bring a friend from SLC down for the deer rifle hunt, I was almost kicked out of the 'clan'.

It is sad that the main people driving this are rifle hunters, and people who claim to be bow hunters from the southern/southeastern regions. It is this "ALL FOR ME" attitude that is what puts hunting at risk more than any one thing IMHO.


----------



## IDHunter (Dec 17, 2007)

I don't think it has anything to do with trying to sound tuff, but everything to do with standing up for what's right. From someone who negotiates for a living, I believe that if we fight from the beginning the worst we will see is a loss of the first nine days. I'm of the opinion that the threat of taking statewide away for all 28 days is nothing more than a threat to entice us to take the deal on the table. 

If we show up and give them the fight of their life, and lose, we will expose the RAC process for the farce it is.

We need to stand together and push for a better deal. If we end up with the first nine days lost then so be it. At least they will know we can't be pushed around in the future because we're united. If we give in now we will be setting a negative precedence for ourselves in the future. We will be asked to give more and more each year without any sound biological reason.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

BART I swear to the man above that IDHunter and I are two seperate individuals.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Pro I’ve read about your wife being sick hope see gets well soon my thoughts are with you.

I’m new to archery this past season was my first archery hunt. It was also the first time I took my son big game hunting. The reasons I switched from rifle to archery were.

1) The first week of the season was before school started so my son wouldn’t miss any algebra 2/ trig. Lessons.
2) I could take him to an area I was familiar with and knew we would see both deer and elk without having to wait 2 years to draw a tag.
3) I could buy a tag over the counter ( over the internet) after we knew we didn’t draw a LE tag. Being a non resident hunter I can’t have two tags at different times due to lack of vacation time and money. 
I can’t say what other archers would do if things change only how it would affect myself and my son. If any of the above were to change much I would most likely quit archery. The nine day pick a region will force me into another drawing and my unit of choice is southern so I will most likely only draw a tag every other year. I would also have to gamble on drawing two tags of which one I would not be able to hunt. Either that or stop applying for LE elk and I have to many points to quit now. My son would not be able to utilize the other 28 days of state wide due to school as would most of the other youth hunters trying to get a hunt in before school. This is huge in my opinion as the youth hunters are the future of hunting. 
Just my two cents.

Two more cents. 
I didn’t see any over crowding were I was hunting in fact there were very few hunters compared to the rifle hunt. What I did notice was a lot of the camp sites had trailers parked in them not being used just holding a spot I guess. This could be viewed as over crowding though I’m not sure the trailers belonged to hunters or whoever.

I say fight to keep the state wide archery! Shoot for the moon go for the 5000 tags to! At the very least let the youth hunters and those that apply with them have state wide!

Allen


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I do appreciate the fact your are finally offering up ideas instead of attacks. Thank you.


Pro, my comments are only directed to you in hopes you can see that "I" and maybe many believe that you may have a louder voice to air our concerns. That and you have more than likly broke bread with a few of them!


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

From what I have seen of the DWR over the years, they indulge heavily in wishful thinking. If they eliminate the statewide archery hunt, large numbers of archery hunters will give it up and switch to rifle or muzzy. That won't be a benefit to anybody.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> From what I have seen of the DWR over the years, they indulge heavily in wishful thinking. If they eliminate the statewide archery hunt, large numbers of archery hunters will give it up and switch to rifle or muzzy. That won't be a benefit to anybody.


So you believe the only benefit that archers have is the statewide archery hunt? I want to get into Archery more, and I could care less if its statewide or not. You cannot be in 5 regions at once and if you bounce around from region to region then you must not be seeing good bucks or else you would be hunting them instead of traveling to another region.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > From what I have seen of the DWR over the years, they indulge heavily in wishful thinking. If they eliminate the statewide archery hunt, large numbers of archery hunters will give it up and switch to rifle or muzzy. That won't be a benefit to anybody.
> 
> 
> So you believe the only benefit that archers have is the statewide archery hunt? I want to get into Archery more, and I could care less if its statewide or not. You cannot be in 5 regions at once and if you bounce around from region to region then you must not be seeing good bucks or else you would be hunting them instead of traveling to another region.


Hmmmm, the one answer fits all scenario. I like to hunt different regions, but always because I'm looking for a booner. I like to spend time in different places,for many different reasons, but thanks for letting me know it was because I wasn't seeing good bucks.

That take the cypherin out uv it. *\-\*


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bart’s my bud but I am against caving into loosing the state wide archery hunt. 

I believe UBA is wrong on this one and BOU is correct on this one. I just wish we as bow hunters could have a united voice on bowhunting issues. There are no guarantees that we will get any more tags. In fact I bet the board would kick us in the balls for even trying to get them. The board doesn’t take our bowhunting proposals and even follow them. They rewrite them however they like. 

We will never take rifle hunter tags away from rifle hunters and look like a dove. They will despise us even more for making a proposal like that.

I say we shut these southern boys up once and for all or go down trying. These greedy suckers don’t want us down their and they want to be still be able to hunt the greatest over the counter area in the state. 

I say if we loose state wide archery we make it pick your region for the entire hunt!


----------

