# SFW Bowhunting Poll for Statewide Archery



## bwhntr23 (Sep 29, 2008)

I got an email the other day that told me SFW was conducting a poll on their website about the whole 9 day region and then going to statewide. Just thought some of you might want to cast your vote in the poll. I personally voted no because I want to see the statewide hunt stick around for the entire hunt. Here is a link....

http://sfwsfh.org/


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow... poll results when I took it were 65 yes and 227 no. Ummm... does that count as the majority having spoken? :lol: Doesn't sound like there are a lot of folks wanting to just roll over and squeal as we get reamed out of statewide archery and ramrodded into some stupid "draw for 9 days" deal.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

That equates to 77.7% are in favor of keeping statewide archery. -()/-


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

All you archers and hunters. Keep a real sharp eye on this! 77.7 percent. Don't want this ...Wait and see. won't work! Get involved.. I guess will see how much weight SFW carries!! The DWR needs to listen to the people, whos pockets may not be as deep as the SFW,,,, Man I hope SFW fall on their KEISTERS!!!!


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That equates to 77.7% are in favor of keeping statewide archery. -()/-


Man... I really hope the two big bowhunting groups can make an impact in favor of all the archers out there. I've said it before, having to draw wouldn't really affect me too badly I guess but I'm sure it'd be a heck of an inconvenience for some guys who go a long way to bowhunt. Lets kick apart this snowball before it really gains any momentum.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

From what i have have heard they want the statewide gone, do you think they will take note of what the poll says in the end and listen to its members? After all, they represent the sportsmen right?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am one member demanding they listen to ALL their members not just a few whiners from the south! UBA/BOU/MDF/RMEF are all in favor of keeping statewide archery deer, as is the DWR. There is NO biological reason to do away with it, so you would think it would be a dead issue, but alas, the vocal minority have found sympathy from the 'power' players of SFW and of a few Wildlife Board members. I am a SFW member, and I still support them on MOST issues, just NOT this one.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am one member demanding they listen to ALL their members not just a few whiners from the south! UBA/BOU/MDF/RMEF are all in favor of keeping statewide archery deer, as is the DWR. There is NO biological reason to do away with it, so you would think it would be a dead issue, but alas, the vocal minority have found sympathy from the 'power' players of SFW and of a few Wildlife Board members. I am a SFW member, and I still support them on MOST issues, just NOT this one.


It is good to hear everyone is all on the same page now. I think it is a fight worth fighting, thanks.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I am a supporter of SFW on some issues but their southern chapter members can kiss my keester with this proposal. 


Keep the state wide archery!!!


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

If the statewide archery goes away it will just continue to get worse. They will see that we are willing to give on this "little" issue and eventually that will lead to taking away so much more....after all, we all know how much the state supports bowhunters! :roll:


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

This is definately not an issue to roll over on. There are many other states that are trying to increase bow hunter participation by giving benefits not taking them away.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I noticed the statewide bowhunting poll is gone from the site now, replaced by a generic do you favor more restrictions on the general deer hunts to increase buck to doe ratios. I voted no because I don't know what restrictions they're referring to. 3 points or better? more LE units? waiting periods?, two permits every three years, a permit every other year?, units being closed? shorter seasons? fewer permits?

I guess they were losing the other poll so badly that they didn't dare leave it on. This one they are winning, though I don't know why!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The statewide archery poll was 3 to 1 in favor of keeping statewide archery. I am calling Ryan tomorrow and asking him what that means for their position on it now.

I also voted no on their new poll.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I voted no because I don't know what restrictions they're referring to.


The new state management plan provides population and buck/doe ratio triggers so that the DWR can take appropriate action on any given unit to bring the deer to objective. If a proposal was made to raise the buck/doe ratio on general units to say, 25/100, it would automatically trigger some type of restrictions on several units.

Just a guess.

I vote we pay more attention to growing deer and less attention to hunting them. If we expand the population as we should, the hunting concerns will take care of themselves.

We have some serious habitat problems on the Pauns, but all anybody wants to talk about is a "management" hunt to preserve "quality"? A prime analogy of the state.

Acreage and habitat are not the same thing. We're losing habitat fast, but everybody wants to talk about buck/doe ratios?

Who's worried about statewide bowhunt when ATV abuse is a real and present threat? Meanwhile USA-ALL is blasting the governor for daring to speak up about it? Why doesn't SFW run a poll about that?

We all need to wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I voted no because I don't know what restrictions they're referring to.


I did the same thing. As a matter of fact I e-mailed them and told them they needed to say what restrictions they were referring to.


----------

