# Bow Hunter Meeting



## proutdoors

Utah Bowmen Association is holding a Bow hunting meeting October 14th at 6:30 pm. It will be at Jake's Archery in Orem. We will be discussing the very real possibility of a proposal being made to do away with statewide archery, as well as any other archery related topics people want to bring up. Anis Aoude will be there to answer POLITE questions.

Last night I had the privilege of meeting with several passionate bow hunters to discuss the statewide archery and EVERYONE in attendance agreed we need to fight to keep it. Thank you BOU for being there, and being willing to stand side by side with UBA fighting for ALL bow hunters in Utah. The fight will be tough, but I am confident we can win if we unite and SHOW UP at the RAC's/Wildlife Board and voice are objections to doing away with statewide archery. If you are a bow hunter who likes bow hunting you need to SHOW UP and let your voice be heard!


----------



## wyoming2utah

proutdoors said:


> If you are a bow hunter who likes bow hunting you need to SHOW UP and let your voice be heard!


Or, you can simply show up to RAC meetings and voice that opinion...or, you can contact any RAC member, Board member, or even Anis himself and let him know your opinion.


----------



## proutdoors

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are a bow hunter who likes bow hunting you need to SHOW UP and let your voice be heard!
> 
> 
> 
> Or, you can simply show up to RAC meetings and voice that opinion...or, you can contact any RAC member, Board member, or even Anis himself and let him know your opinion.
Click to expand...

Uh..............that's what I said! Good grief. :?


----------



## dkhntrdstn

Dam pro if it was not so farr to drive I would go to it and hear what has to be said.


----------



## truemule

That is a little bit of a drive but I will try to make it there and to the RAC's


----------



## proutdoors

Mzaybe some of you northern boys can carpool. :idea: :wink:


----------



## elkfromabove

I'm from Enoch, but I'll be in Magna that weekend. I'll send my wife home Sunday, but I'll stay and make the meeting. We may have to drive two cars. Where's Jake's?


----------



## proutdoors

765 S. Orem Blvd. Take the Orem Center Street exit, head east until you hit Orem Blvd, turn left. That's the directions I just received from Jake's.


----------



## utfireman

Bart, shall we car pool?


----------



## proutdoors

utfireman said:


> Bart, shall we car pool?


Sir, yes sir!


----------



## DBCooper

For those ignoramuses like myself, where are the northern(Ogden) RACs and where can we find the contact information for individuals to give our 2 cents?

Thanks


----------



## truemule

DBCooper said:


> For those ignoramuses like myself, where are the northern(Ogden) RACs and where can we find the contact information for individuals to give our 2 cents?
> 
> Thanks


http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/


----------



## Bucksnbulls08

Good job Bart, it is good see both groups uniting. United is the only way bowhunters in Utah will survive. Can we get an email address for Anis so we can send comments directly to him? All comments will be made in a professional manner and leave emotions out of the dialog.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

dkhntrdstn said:


> Dam pro if it was not so farr to drive I would go to it and hear what has to be said.


What! you'd drive twice that far to go shoot a stinky duck... :roll:

If you want to post a valid excuse, why not say you need to re-arrange your sock drawer or something... :?


----------



## swbuckmaster

if im in town ill be there


----------



## dkhntrdstn

TEX-O-BOB said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dam pro if it was not so farr to drive I would go to it and hear what has to be said.
> 
> 
> 
> What! you'd drive twice that far to go shoot a stinky duck... :roll:
> 
> If you want to post a valid excuse, why not say you need to re-arrange your sock drawer or something... :?
Click to expand...

I will be getting ready for my deer hunt. so sorry.I really want to go but have to get ready for the rifle hunt.


----------



## truemule

dkhntrdstn said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dam pro if it was not so farr to drive I would go to it and hear what has to be said.
> 
> 
> 
> What! you'd drive twice that far to go shoot a stinky duck... :roll:
> 
> If you want to post a valid excuse, why not say you need to re-arrange your sock drawer or something... :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be getting ready for my deer hunt. so sorry.I really want to go but have to get ready for the* rifle hunt.*
Click to expand...

What kind of bow hunter are you? Your going to miss a meeting about loosing your archery season over a *gun hunt*? I agrre the sock drawer was a better excuse.  J/k


----------



## Riverlution

Will try to be there. Would be nice to ride down with someone. I live in Layton. Anyone else up here going down.


----------



## utfireman

Will someone do all my work for me, I really like hunting but once I get off the mountain it's just to hard to do anything hunting related....


----------



## utfireman

Riverlution and anyone from the north. We will be coming from Tooele area so we could meet in northern SLC if you want to car pool.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Riverlution said:


> Will try to be there. Would be nice to ride down with someone. I live in Layton. Anyone else up here going down.


I live in Kaysville, lets hook up. Darin

682-8028


----------



## north slope

I don't know if Jakes can handle this many attitudes and egos at one time at one place.  Maybe I will have to come over and make sure you clowns don't burn the place down.


----------



## proutdoors

north slope said:


> I don't know if Jakes can handle this many attitudes and egos at one time at one place.  Maybe I will have to come over and make sure you clowns don't burn the place down.


I'll make sure and save a high chair for you. :shock:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

proutdoors said:


> north slope said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if Jakes can handle this many attitudes and egos at one time at one place.  Maybe I will have to come over and make sure you clowns don't burn the place down.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make sure and save a high chair for you. :shock:
Click to expand...

 -/O_- -/O_- -/O_-

I think he's graduated from a highchair to a booster seat now. :mrgreen:


----------



## north slope

I have a 'custom' built chair down there, after all Jakes is my archery shop. I will help you guys get out of your rascals when you get there. Tex are you still using a bladder bag or do you need a seat next to the bathroom? I am sure we can help you old timers in anyway, still using depends Pro?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Pro, are they going to allow Trolls at this meeting?

They can be very abrasive and offensive. Not to mention their awful odor. -)O(-


----------



## HOGAN

Check out NS avatar, his deer looks as big as a moose compared to him. :lol:


----------



## north slope

HOGAN said:


> Check out NS avatar, his deer looks as big as a moose compared to him. :lol:


At least I FIND my deer when I kill them..... :shock:


----------



## HOGAN

north slope said:


> HOGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out NS avatar, his deer looks as big as a moose compared to him. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I FIND my deer when I kill them..... :shock:
Click to expand...

That was low. But I did find him headless in my defense. Plus it is easier for you to track.


----------



## north slope

That was low.... It is easier for me to track cause I am so close to ground I can see the blood trail better. And trolls have excellent noses. :mrgreen:


----------



## clean pass through

I cant be there because of work restraints but I sent a email to Anis with my thoughts. Hope you all have fun.


----------



## wapiti67

I'll come


----------



## Bowdacious

I'll come too. I'm really looking forward to it. I work in NSL and would be going after work. I would love to carpool with someone if they had a mind to. 

Luke (801)502-4458....or PM me.


----------



## Bowdacious

I'll come too. I'm really looking forward to it. I work in NSL and would be going after work. I would love to carpool with someone if they had a mind to. 

Luke (801)502-4458....or PM me.


----------



## alpinebowman

I am in W. Jordan so I could catch a ride or meet some of you from up north and take you down.


----------



## TheMtnGuide

I'll be there. I live in SLC if anyone wants to catch a ride down. Email me if you want and we can figure out where to meet up. Thanks Pro for the heads up.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Me n' idiot will be there. Will there be cake?


----------



## HOGAN

I will go if someone picks me up.


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Me n' idiot will be there. Will there be cake?


You said you are bringing cake? SWEET! -()/-


----------



## suave300

proutdoors said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bart, shall we car pool?
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, yes sir!
Click to expand...

Come get me on your way in as well, if you wouldnt mind?


----------



## utfireman

BUMP< just a simple reminder for tomorrow night!!!!!


----------



## wapiti67

Can't come...playing force on force with the Special Forces all week.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I hope that's not code talk for luvin up on some fellers. _(O)_


----------



## fixed blade XC-3

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I hope that's not code talk for luvin up on some fellers. _(O)_


 -BaHa!-


----------



## Huntoholic

> Pro


If it is not to much trouble it would be nice to hear a short report on your meeting for those of us that are interested but can't be there.

Thanks


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Anyone else want to jump in the truck? I'm coming from Bountiful.

T


----------



## proutdoors

Huntoholic said:


> Pro
> 
> If it is not to much trouble it would be nice to hear a short report on your meeting for those of us that are interested but can't be there.
> 
> Thanks


Will do! 8)


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

OK, here's my "short report".

Bottom line is, the recommendations to end statewide archery and make every one choose an area for the first ten days have already been made. Someone down south with a lot of pull is throwing a temper tantrum based *entirely* off emotion and personal reasons. It has *nothing* to do with biology or what's best for the wildlife and everyone involved. So, for it not to go through, all the archery hunters that would do anything about it have to show up at the racks (in LARGE numbers) and jump through hoops to prove they have no *VALID* reason for changing it. So, if you love a good fight only to get your as$ handed to you by a big mean bully, by all means, go to the racks and have at it.

It's all political and I'll bet, has a lot to do with someones (SFW) long term agenda...

Personally, I HATE, no, I LOATH the political can of worms our fish and game has become.

My .002


----------



## Greenhead 2

Who is the guy down south? I heard it was Neymeyer but I don't know what he would gain so I don't think it is him? I also can not understand why so many support SFW? Remember when this was a non-issue only to be brought before the RAC a few months later!!!!!! I have all but given up big game hunting, like Tex I am tired of all the political bullchit and good buddy back scratching that goes on.

I turned in a poached deer yesterday! Head missing and shotgun shells all around it, best I can tell nothing was done the deer and shells are still there, guess there was not enough money in it for them????


----------



## idiot with a bow

Even if we feel like this is a losing battle, I think it would still do us well to show up in mass numbers to the RAC's. If this thing passes in the face of the majority of hunters wanting to keep state wide archery, it shows there is corruption somewhere in the process. 

I think Tree has it pegged when he says that there is a payoff to someone somewhere that we will not know about until this is put into place. 

Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

> If this thing passes in the face of the majority of hunters wanting to keep state wide archery, it shows there is corruption somewhere in the process.


This is the ONLY reason I see to fight it. It's _NOT_ going to get anything accomplished, but at least we'll know where we (still) stand as bowhunters in this state.


----------



## elk22hunter

I appologize if I am offending any of my close friends by mentioning a possible "other" side to the story. Don't get me wrong on me being on your side because I want to see the same opportunity given to everyone as bow hunters that they have been used to. I just need to mention that there are always two sides to a story and that the same old saying is valid here in the fact that you can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all of the people all of the time. Darts are being cast at SFW in whom I have always made it known that I am a HUGE supporter. They have made it possible for me to enjoy the hunting that I now have and the amount of animals as well as the size of animals. I will not beat that dead horse again but I can see a bigger picture than some. I stood on those steps at the capitol some 14 years ago when our herds were going down the drain in a hurry. I have seen the change. They have raised unheard amounts of money in the many millions for our wildlife. Yes with that much money they have had a say in what goes on with wildlife. The DWR needs money and SFW has come to the plate with that money. If you want to call that "back patting" then so be it. If I gave someone that kind of money, I would want some gain from it also. It only makes sense. The difference is that for the most part they have always done what was in the best intrest for ME. On this issue of the southerners being upset that the northerners are shooting all of their deer, I see their side of the story as well as we all would if it was reversed. I personally don't hunt the south so it doesn't effect me as much as others. I have been in the dedicated program since the day it started and have yet to have another tag than a Northern and a couple of Centrals. I am simply saying that there are many SFW supporters in the south and they have money to spend on Utahs wildlife also. If SFW doesn't listen to them then they will be accused of all of the same horrible names, cheating, crooked politics and other things that we are hearing from our friends in the North. SFW is simply caught in the middle of a CIVIL WAR and they are trying to be nice to both sides but someone is going to get their nickers in a twist on either side if a change is made or not made. I am for you and not against you even though it doesn't effect me. I am simply pointing out another side of the story and not biting the hand of the organazation who in my oppinion has saved the herds that I love to persue. Believe it or not they have. You still say that we have no deer so how could this be? A few years ago the division head said that the herds were headed to extinction in this state and hunting would be a thing of the past. Our deer are down but it is a heck of a lot better than NONE. Fight your fight but don't bite the hand that feeds you. Don't put the blame on someone who is on your side for the big picture but may look to not be fighting your battle at the present. Go in groves to the RAC. Stand up and speak your words. Be calm and business like. Don't get into a rampage and show possible ignorance. I just don't like the words "political Corruption". That is a cop out. Just fight the fight.


----------



## skeet4l

Pro-Tex, I had planned on making it to the meeting as a first in a very long time but once again found myself working longer than expected. I wanted to take a minute and thank you (not to forget there are others) for the representation and the support you have given us over the years and I look forward to your reports and comments. Once again I commend you for your diligence and support. SK....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Ok Elk22, We'll forgive you because you showed up to the "after meeting". :mrgreen:

Fact- The southern region crowding issue is a "perceived" issue. Anise stated that there was actually NO DATA that shows an actual problem in the south, but that it is a sociopolitical issue.

Fact- The forest service in a couple of areas DID have overcrowding issues, but this was stated to have been from the overlapping elk and deer openers. Many chose to _concentrate_ on elk. So why is this a deer issue??

Fact- SFW has done many great things for Utah's wildlife, everyone has their own interpretation of "great".

Fact- WHen asked what the "pay off" is, No REAL answer was given.

I just don't see it and I'm not pointing fingers, because I don't have a clue on why, which is why I asked questions that were what I felt to be unanswered. WHAT IS BEING GAINED BY DOING THIS? What's that smell??

To date, the answer has been "Southerners THINK there is overcrowding and we can't convince them otherwise, so we're implementing change statewide. HUH? So since the cognitive skills of the vocal majority in the south is below par, the rest of us get to suffer??? How easy would it be and how many would support a simple letter to _every_ southern tag holder that states "Dear hunter, your emotionally based theories on the southern region bowhunter crowding issue are false and unwarranted. The DWR has run the numbers and there is no overcrowding taking place. Have a nice day." Why does the Southern RAC have this much pull? Why is it that emotionally based logic (oxy what?) takes precedence over FACTS????? What's that smell?

Scott, you made this about SFW, I don't think most are pointing the majority of the finger at them, but _something_ stinks. we just need to follow our noses until we find the source and in the mean time, send emails and show up in droves to oppose this. Also, what happens when half of the southern guys can't get an archery tag for their own region???

Remember, Anis himself said this is a political problem and based solely off of emotion. Politicians don't work for free, there is always a pay off.

Here are the emails, let them know that you oppose pick your region archery:

http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html

http://bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cf ... es.Contact

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... embers.php


----------



## bwhntr

Good post Elk22...The conspiracy theories are getting old. I am not for setting more restrictions, BUT we need to remove the blinders and look at ALL sides of the spectrum!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

bwhntr said:


> Good post Elk22...The conspiracy theories are getting old. I am not for setting more restrictions, BUT we need to remove the blinders and look at ALL sides of the spectrum!


Shane, the meeting wasn't about conspiracies. The ONLY reason this is being proposed is due to the emotionally based outcry from southerners. It's really quite silly.


----------



## bwhntr

Treehugnhuntr said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good post Elk22...The conspiracy theories are getting old. I am not for setting more restrictions, BUT we need to remove the blinders and look at ALL sides of the spectrum!
> 
> 
> 
> Shane, the meeting wasn't about conspiracies. The ONLY reason this is being proposed is due to the emotionally based outcry from southerners. It's really quite silly.
Click to expand...

I understand the meeting wasn't about conspiracies, however it seems these discussions ALWAYS get side tracked about non issues instead of focusing on the real point of interest.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

I understand, but the conspiracies come from lack of information on the part of the division and the parties involved with pushing this.

The only thing we were given is "The guys in the south are upset and perceive an overcrowding of the southern region". So change to statewide???????? It doesn't make a lick of sense,

I HOPE there is something more to this, otherwise we are all in trouble.


----------



## bwhntr

Please note Idiot's thread in th Big Game section! :mrgreen: It will probably be more effective!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Kind of, the sarcasm is escaping some.


----------



## bwhntr

I noticed! :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

idiot with a bow said:


> Even if we feel like this is a losing battle, I think it would still do us well to show up in mass numbers to the RAC's. If this thing passes in the face of the majority of hunters wanting to keep state wide archery, it shows there is corruption somewhere in the process.
> 
> I think Tree has it pegged when he says that there is a payoff to someone somewhere that we will not know about until this is put into place.
> 
> Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks!


For clarity, I'm not speculating as to what "pay off" means or is. It just doesn't click when everything is added up. Why would the division, RAC and board cave to an illogical, emotional stance?


----------



## EPEK

Here is an email that I sent to Don via Scott this morning. I could be wrong, I spelled Enis wrong, but this is how I feel presently:

Scott, 

Thanks and if you could send this on also, I have just chose to keep you in the loop. Here is my response. I could not agree more with Don about banning together and fighting the big fight. But I see a very serious problem developing here and may not even be identified by those in the battle. How can Don state that we need to ban together and in the same message, which I don’t think he wrote, but I am sure he agrees with, separate us. I have a strong feeling right now that in order to win a hunting battle, which I identify as not allowing bowhunters to lose another opportunity, that I have to fight against the people down south. I wonder if when he states that we have to protect our own back yard if he realizes that I consider St. George, my back yard also. Those units, and those herds do not belong to the residents of St. George, Beaver, Blanding or any resident of a small southern Utah town, they belong to us, all of us, all Utah residents and even out of state’rs that contribute to our resource. I could be wrong on this, but as I understand the process, an elected official, in this case Governor Huntsman appoints a board over the division of wildlife. Just like he does over the division of real estate and the department of transportation etc… That board is set up to make decisions concerning the resource they have jurisdiction over. The board uses hired employees of the state that have presented a resume and went thru a hiring process that puts them in a position of qualified expert of that resource. Enis, went thru that process by getting a degree in wildlife biology, and gaining experience in that field and then when he applied for that job and eventually put in that position, he was the voice of the resource. He can give the board independent, factual data, and the board can make decisions based upon the input from a field staff of experts as they compile important data to manage our resource. Enis basically admits his frustration when he states that he does not use his biology background to go thru this process but instead has to use social and political plays to end run and appease those that are playing these political battles. This goes to show that the resource is not our herds, but the resource that he seems to be managing is public opinion concerning hunting opportunity, a field that he did not spend hardly any amount of time studying in college, so how could he be a designated expert giving scientific data to the board who makes FINAL decisions. He stood right in front of a group of about 100 folks and said he made a recommendation to the board, not based on what he thought was best for the resource, but a recommendation that he thought would be a sufficient compromise to appease the squeaky wheel that exists somewhere that was not really identified. This leaves us to do what emotional passionate people do, speculate. I will not go into my speculations as they would not be based on facts, data or anything that would add up to any ball of wax, but obviously something is going on behind the scenes, under the table or somewhere to cause this to even be a consideration. The majority of archery hunters and certain percentages of big picture hunters see this as an unnecessary move that equals nothing more than a monkey wrench in a presently very well working plan. At some point in time, in the fairly recent past, the state made a big push to promote hunters to pick up a bow and change their methods of hunting. I feel that they did this for a very good and valid reason. Most states already know this simple fact that archery hunting allows for much more hunting opportunity with a lesser impact of hunting harvest on the herds. But, the battle line was drawn amongst the ranks of hunters and rifle hunters, muzzy hunters and archery hunters all found themselves fighting their own battles AGAINST each other and that is absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is there are die hard rifle only hunters, die hard muzzy only hunters and die hard archery only hunters, but those die hards represent a very small percentage of each group represented. Most hunters are opportunists and the dedicated hunter program allows for a fourth group, which is hunters that enjoy pursuit with what ever the season allows. So to bring this full circle, I do not want to see another hunting opportunity reduced or taken away, I don’t want to see anything but opportunity increased for all that enjoy the wholesome, and very moral activity of hunting. I would feel it an obligation to champion any cause that would increase opportunity for rifle hunters, muzzy hunters, but biologically, and for the best interest of our herds, I would love to see archery not only keep every opportunity, but I feel very strongly that it would be in the best interest for the biological interest of our deer and elk herds to increase opportunities for archery hunters by bringing back the AR301 option, I feel that more archery tags could be issued in LE units, I feel that more extended season areas should be considered and although I know this sounds like me, me, me, I hope that anyone for fish and wildlife would look past the little battles that not only should not be fought, but should not be started. We did not start this little battle, it would not even be an issue if SFW would not have proposed it, there is no reason for this to be a consideration (unless biological data can be produced that one, shows that overcrowding in the south is an issue and two, that it is affecting our herds.) By the way, the proposal that Enis took to the board was the exact proposal that SFW inked. I know I go out on a limb making a statement like that, but this proposal smells of politics and not of biology. Now, I have nothing but respect for the talents of Don, and I deem him to be on my side as a hunter, but his talents are his ability to play the game and he is great at it, so what I ask is for SFW to step back and take a very honest look at this and see it for what it is. This has to be a simple chip in a bigger play, it can’t be anything but that, somewhere, somehow, there is a play down the road that we can not presently see not being as involved in the game as Don is. Please tell us what that long term play is going to be, maybe it will make more sense and bring around reasonable thinkers, maybe it will expose it for what it seems to be, a favor to a group of good ole boys that showed up and helped with a guzzler project and want the mountain all to themselves (sorry, I told you I would not speculate, but I could not help myself and this example was completely made up and not intended to be an actual event.) I don’t mean to be mean or to step out of line, but come on, this is ridiculous. By the way Don, if you can arrange me a lifetime archery tag for the Heneries, I might change my mind on this.



Thanks for all you do, and good luck in your endeavors of fighting the Big fight. I don’t agree that these little battles need to be fought because I don’t think this little obnoxious battle should have ever been started. Yours in the greatest endeavor that exists, fair chase, 



Greg Robbins


----------



## suave300

Good post EPEK!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Me gusta mucho.

Epek, my sentiments exactly. How do I sign the letter too?

Scott, no worries, I get your come from and it's spawned of goodness.

Shane, your a bad man. :mrgreen:


----------



## suave300

I think the meeting went well. There was a lot of emotion in the room. I just hope that we all can channell that emotion and move forward with smarts. We need to spread the word to our friends that they need to come fight as well. Anis even said at the meeting that if we stand up and fight this, that he believes we can win this!

This is the time that we need to band together and SHOW UP in droves to the RACs and BOARD meetings. We also NEED to voice our concern through e-mail.

This is the time to that we can DO something about it. Lets rally the troops and make a difference. DO IT!!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

-*|*- -*|*- -*|*- *GO, FIGHT, WIN!!!* -*|*- -*|*- -*|*-


----------



## Huge29

TEX-O-BOB said:


> -*|*- -*|*- -*|*- *GO, FIGHT, WIN!!!* -*|*- -*|*- -*|*-


If that does not rally the troops nothing will.

Epek,
Can we use your same letter and email to others?


----------



## EPEK

yup


----------



## Greenhead 2

Who are these southerners? I live down here, I don't want the change and everyone I know here not one wants the change, even the SFW members! Over crowding? The hunt takes place during labor day weekend! I'd guess every place gets a little crowded then?

Changing the elk hunt put more pressure on all the units, what did they think was going to happen? So now they change the elk hunt to help out very few LE guys and because of the change to help them the rest of us have to pay for it?

I absolutely hate SFW I think in the begging they had great intentions, but like most look at the money they can put in their pocket. How are they supporting their members when the majority of them are against this. I'd stop hunting TODAY if it were in the best interest of wildlife to do so, I'd back up SFW completely if I felt this was in wildlifes best interest, but its not!

Someones pockets? That's my guess, you help me I'll help you? Could be. It has nothing to do with wildlife!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Greenhead, are you coming to the southern RAC? Would you mind emailing some folks and having your friends do the same? You guys would eventually be staying home due to not drawing if this happens.


----------



## wileywapati

OK couple of things. Thanks to those that showed up ( I did not and believe me you don't want to know why ) 
Second thing why not call a freaking spade a spade SFW is pushing this agenda 
in one way or another. Like GH2 said if there was biological merit behind this or if this was what the majority or Utah mule deer hunters wanted then so be it.

I pulled the numbers from the Divisions own survey they had responses from a little over 10,000 bowhunters that had the ability to hunt STATEWIDE on the same page two lines down there were responses from over 17,000 southern region rifle hunters. How can we manage to put double the number of hunters in the region with a rifle and have no issues but 
8,000 bowhunters is the end of the world??

Quit coddling these guys and ask them why they are not representing the majority on this issue?? This is their rallying cry "well the majority of the members want this" or "the majority of the members want that" The Division needs to be held to the same standards of accountability here and represent what is best for wildlife first then what is best for the majority of it's customers.

I am sorry elk22 but SFW is coming out with their self serving back door tactics in getting this done. 

At least get one of the SFW reps at the mic in the RACs proposing this, take credit and the fallout for it don't pawn this B/S. off in Anis' lap. Pretty freaking chicken_ _ _ _ if you ask me


----------



## alpinebowman

Greenhead like tree said we need to get people like you and bowguy and the rest of your friends there at the South RAC with the rest of us that will be down there and stop this. We can and will win this with numbers. I will get in touch with bowguy and make sure he rallies his troops.


----------



## Greenhead 2

If someone give me a name I'd go knock on their god **** door! Like gordy just posted, there are double the rifle hunters in the southern region, even if you added the guys who were just hunting elk and not deer too, it still dosent amount to the number of rifle hunters. This is BS, SFW is BS and the DWR is chicken chit!

I am so very close to being done with big game hunting. I am tired of getting the crumbs while the conservation clubs get the benefit of our public lands and wildlife. If this passes I can guarantee you that over 30 permits will not be sold in my direction. Of that 30 about eighteen are youth hunters, yep the future of hunting. I am sure many more will fall by the wayside in just a few years.

I'm surprised these fokers are not suggesting that the region you hunt is determined by zip codes, hunt the region you live in, I hope I didn't just give these maggots another non-issue idea! Tree if you can get me the names and email addresses to who I need to contact, I'll make sure I get many others to send letters. I'll make the RAC if I'm not out trying to pay off the new I can't pay my bills gonna lose my house bail out BS plan!


----------



## inbowrange

I say if this goes through we all aply for the Southern unit and log jam that up so bad that these SOB will start crying lets change it back to the good 'ole days. This is so stupid!!!!


----------



## bwhntr

Hmmm...you might want to pick your leaders carefully. You don't want the ignorance to be too obvious. :roll: _(O)_

btw, good post Epek, I appreciate your point of view.


----------



## bowgy

> bwhntr wrote: Hmmm...you might want to pick your leaders carefully. You don't want the ignorance to be too obvious.


Now that made me laugh.

I have lived in Southern Utah all my life and have hunted it for over 30 years so I have seen a lot of the changes, some I liked some I didn't. I have friends that have given up hunting, at least in Utah, because of some of the changes. I love to hunt Utah so I decided I would play the game no matter how the rules changed.

That being said, and back on subject. I have no problem with the statewide archery even though I have only hunted in the northern region once with my son when he lived up there.
I think overcrowding is a lame excuse, changing the age limit and putting the rifle to a draw is when I saw the greatest increase in hunter numbers.

Most hunters don't get 1/4 mile from their truck so most hunters don't effect my hunting, the only problem with that is in southern Utah it is hard to walk a 1/4 mile without crossing another road. :?

No one that I have talked to has said anything negative about the statewide archery but I will quiz some of the members of the local archery club.


----------



## Greenhead 2

Yep I am one eyed, I have watched with the help of SFW the DWR take so much of the southern region and turn it into their cash cow, I remember how not long ago SFW talked of (A) and (B) hunts and wanting to take more southern region. I have friends that need to drive 60 miles or more to hunt, why? Because places like the dutton, Henries and panguitch are now off limits. Call me one eye, but with that one eye I see a whole lot better than any SFW supporter!


----------



## proutdoors

Bad day for me to actually be busy at work. :evil: 

Here is my take; I see NO biological reason(s) for doing away with statewide archery that have been put forth, NONE. I asked Anis, whom I respect, point blank night why the DWR is thinking of proposing archers being restricted to a region of the first 9 days. He said it had NOTHING to do with biology and everything to do with politics, and the DWR is trying to make a 'compromise' in an effort to 'appease' (**** I HATE THAT WORD) those who are not in favor of statewide archery. That is a HORRIBLE reason for the DWR to make a proposal. But, that isn't the whole story, later I mentioned how SFW came to UBA and suggested we (UBA) make the VERY SAME proposal at the RAC's, we turned them down and suddenly the DWR is leaning toward proposing the VERY SAME proposal. I implied/said that SFW was/is putting pressure on the DWR, at which Anis quickly stated he/DWR is not being pressured by anyone. So, I ask AGAIN, if there is no 'pressure' from any group(s), who the HELL are they 'compromising' with? :? 

I am a SFW member, who believes they have done many great things and a few bad things for Utah's wildlife. I have voiced my views to them on this topic. I have mentioned how their OWN poll voted 3 to 1 in favor of KEEPING statewide archery, and yet they seem to be going forth with trying to end it. Why does a few loud voices in the southern part of the stae carry more weight with this group and the DWR over the voices of the overwhelming majority of bow hunters? It makes me wonder if there is some validity to the theory being thrown out there on there is more to this than over-crowding and/or over harvest of deer by archers in southern Utah. What it is/may be, I honestly can't grasp. But, how else does it get explained?


----------



## alpinebowman

come on PRO I heard last night that you could multi-task better than this.


----------



## Greenhead 2

_(O)_ :wink: Can someone esplain to me what the big picture is? Bwhntr, you seem to fall for whatever it is SFW tosses out. So buddy tell us all what we are missing? Tell me how this benefits wildlife? Tell me how closing up so much land that animals are dying of old age and the DWR is losing money on these units, how does this benefit hunters and more importantly wildlife?

I read it hear and my buddies who are SFW members (who also oppose this) always say your missing the big picture, is that written in some handbook you get when you join? What is the big picture behind this? _(O)_ :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

proutdoors said:


> Bad day for me to actually be busy at work. :evil:
> 
> Here is my take; I see NO biological reason(s) for doing away with statewide archery that have been put forth, NONE. I asked Anis, whom I respect, point blank night why the DWR is thinking of proposing archers being restricted to a region of the first 9 days. He said it had NOTHING to do with biology and everything to do with politics, and the DWR is trying to make a 'compromise' in an effort to 'appease' (**** I HATE THAT WORD) those who are not in favor of statewide archery. That is a HORRIBLE reason for the DWR to make a proposal. But, that isn't the whole story, later I mentioned how SFW came to UBA and suggested we (UBA) make the VERY SAME proposal at the RAC's, we turned them down and suddenly the DWR is leaning toward proposing the VERY SAME proposal. I implied/said that SFW was/is putting pressure on the DWR, at which Anis quickly stated he/DWR is not being pressured by anyone. So, I ask AGAIN, if there is no 'pressure' from any group(s), who the HELL are they 'compromising' with? :?
> 
> I am a SFW member, who believes they have done many great things and a few bad things for Utah's wildlife. I have voiced my views to them on this topic. I have mentioned how their OWN poll voted 3 to 1 in favor of KEEPING statewide archery, and yet they seem to be going forth with trying to end it. Why does a few loud voices in the southern part of the stae carry more weight with this group and the DWR over the voices of the overwhelming majority of bow hunters? It makes me wonder if there is some validity to the theory being thrown out there on there is more to this than over-crowding and/or over harvest of deer by archers in southern Utah. What it is/may be, I honestly can't grasp. But, how else does it get explained?


Wheeeeeeaaatt a second, I don't think I heard you correctly. :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr

Chris...I have beat my head into the wall one too many times on this with you. I am sorry to say, but it just isn't worth it anymore. SFW is about a bigger picture than you seem to misunderstand. Luckily there are many of us "average joes" who will continue to support a group of sportsman that is looking out for our hunting heritage. That check is easy to write. Do I know the exact specifics on what role they are playing in this particular issue? No. Apparently nobody else on here does either. All I hear is a bunch on speculating on where they stand. Why don't you ask the source? I guess I am just a little more methodical with my thought process than most. I don't see the point in getting emotions involved. I have my thoughts and opinions on this particular issue, but I can't answer for anyone else. I will leave it at this, there is a professional and diplomatic way of dealing with these things.

Like I said before, the problem with this discussion is most can't debate without crying conspiracy theory. Why not discuss the issue at hand and not what you hate about SFW?


----------



## proutdoors

Shane....I HAVE asked the 'powers to be' at SFW, I have yet to get a straightforward answer. I have also yet to receive ANY data to support doing away with statewide. I usually stand at the front defending SFW, but I don't see how to defend their stance on this. If you, or any other SFW member, can get a solid REAL answer, not a BS political spin, on why they are pushing this feel free to share it with the rest of us. Better yet, invite Don, Ryan, John, Byron or ANY SFW 'power' player to come on here and address us/me directly. You/I are engineers, so I dare guess you like numbers like I do. There are NO numbers out there to support this, so what is driving this? You find out and I'll grill you up some more elk burgers. Leave me hanging and you owe me. What do you say? :wink:


----------



## bwhntr

You know Bart I like the elk burgers idea, now we are getting down to business. I think you and I agree almost 100% of the time. I probably agree on this issue as well, I am just not so quick to throw SFW under the bus until I know the facts. I would be happy to send a email to Don and get his personal response. I was holding off in anticipation we would get an answer to Epek email already sent. It very well could be political, maybe part of a larger scheme, or maybe they aren't even playing in this sand box. It doesn't hurt to ask though. How about this, I will send a letter out to Don tomorrow if we haven't heard back on Greg's.


----------



## proutdoors

Cool. But, *I KNOW* SFW is behind this because they came to UBA/me about it. There is NO doubt they are "in the sand box" on this, the only question is why??


----------



## EPEK

This is not an issue of whether or not SFW is good or bad, or who is pushing to get it thru, this is an issue of: if we follow the system set up to make these kinds of decissions this will get thrown into the waste bucket, and no hunting opportunities will be lost.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

-*|*- -*|*- -*|*- *GO, FIGHT, WIN!!!* -*|*- -*|*- -*|*-

Good luck getting a straight answer Shane. I think Mr. Don Pay is a MASTER manipulator and political BS spinner. I'll be very interested to here what he says.


----------



## wileywapati

EPEK good idea and to a point I can agree with the SFW faithful that the big picture must be kept in mind. I sent Don an e mail today basically asking him to do what is right in representing the majority of SFW members and Utah mule deer hunters. 

Make no mistake about who is behind this. Why would Ryan F. be calling archery proshops trying to sell this compromise? Why would Ryan push SO hard to get this proposal to come out
of the mule deer committee to the point of belitteling fellow committee members? I am not 
casting blame or bashing anyone here I am just asking a few questions. If an organization 
pushed an agenda that only a small minority of their members wanted pushed and none of the other members asked questions well then that is on you for not speaking up. If an organization touts itself as the "sportsmans voice" and they are supposed to be speaking for me or pushing my agenda and the Division and Wildlife Board is either to scared to do anything about it or doesn't know the difference that is where someone needs to step up and call BULLCHIT and that is what Myself, Bart, Jerry, Finn, Greg, Chris, Darin and countless others are doing. 

Like I told Don in the e mail this is going to be an ugly fight that is absolutely unnecessary
but I am totally prepared to be as ugly as I need to be. Skeletons are going to come out of the closet on this deal and I will guarantee you I ain't got near the amount of bones in the closet that the current system and SFW has now!!


----------



## InvaderZim

I don't know what you guys are talkig about but I do know a couple of things.'

Where there is power, there is greed. Somebody has a purpose in this proposal, for their own well-being. It really is just that simple.


----------



## HOGAN

Whoever has a thing over Ryan F., Don (Whom I used to have a lot of respect for), and the Southern region idiots, kiss my a$$. It will never happen, not in my lifetime.

Get on board or don't but don't expect to ride the fence on this issue. We are in good hands and the bigger they are the harder they will fall. :evil:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Has anyone asked bwhntr about our new spokes, uhhhh, person? I say it's a no brainer.


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Has anyone asked bwhntr about our new spokes, uhhhh, person? I say it's a no brainer.


I agree, SHE would be perfect!


----------



## suave300

Asd long as I am there to witness her negotiating, SWEET!


----------



## idiot with a bow

Shane, I don't know how you put up with all the immature comments about your wife.............. but I'm glad you do, because she is freaking hot!


----------



## idiot with a bow

Also, let me apologize for speaking on behalf of Tree in my first post. I didn't mean for him to sound so educated and eloquent.


----------



## proutdoors

idiot with a bow said:


> Also, let me apologize for speaking on behalf of Tree in my first post. I didn't mean for him to sound so educated and eloquent.


 -BaHa!-


----------



## HOGAN

Shane your wife is way cool. She is a keeper for sure, I would put up wit it too.


----------



## bwhntr

I see how it is...The ONLY reason I get invited anywhere is if I bring my wife! :mrgreen: You guys don't really care about me. However, If you got her on board then this one is definitely a slam dunk!


BTW, I already know I am over wifed! 8)


----------



## proutdoors

Shane, you could be married to Rosie O'Donnell and still be 'over-wifed'. :shock:


----------



## bwhntr

Ouch! WTH??? 

It is good being that guy that you guys are talking about, "what the hell is she doing with him?"


----------



## proutdoors

Just keeping it real. :mrgreen:


----------



## Riverrat77

proutdoors said:


> Shane, you could be married to Rosie O'Donnell and still be 'over-wifed'. :shock:


Ummmm literally? :shock: Your wife is a nice gal man... it was cool to meet you all last winter. My wife thought she was nice too and thought it was cool that she and Mrs. Tex were in there mixing it up with the guys on the range.


----------



## bwhntr

Thanks, it was good meeting you guys too. She really has a good time at the couples league. We will be there again this year.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Ya, but Mrs Bwhntr is just a poser. Mrs. Tex actually KILLS stuff with her bow! :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr

This is true...Mrs. Bwhntr won't kill a moth let alone run an arrow through a set of lungs! Hmmmm...thinking about it now, I am sure she could let one fly on me though... :shock:


----------



## utfireman

Until I start to see pics, I am thinking that she is really something along the lines of "looks good from far, but far from good looking"!!!!


----------



## bwhntr

utfireman said:


> Until I start to see pics, I am thinking that she is really something along the lines of "looks good from far, but far from good looking"!!!!


Oh man what can I say...Think of the hottest woman you have ever imagined, times it by 5, and that will give you an idea of what my wife looks like! :mrgreen: Sorry to disappoint you. 8)

I think TAK has pics...I would like to see them too! I like how Tex discribes her...KRC Hot!


----------



## proutdoors

Word on the street is NOT good! The DWR is going to recommend archers be limited to ONE region until September 1st. Do the math on how many days you get statewide with that 'brilliant' "compromise! The archery hunt will start August 15th and end September 11th next year. :evil:

Supposedly, the 'logic' is that will allow the DWR to know how many archers actually hunt each region. I am sure they are going to require rifle hunters to hunt a specific sub-unit so they know how many rifle hunters hunt each sub-unit, right?

The 'compromise' for archers is they won't put a cap on the number of archers in any given region. The stink is getting WORSE, not better. I know Anis has done this based on good intentions, but it shows why I *HATE* appeasement. All it does it make things WORSE. The DWR *SHOULD* be basing their recommendations on biology and FACTS, not politics. I expect politics from special interest groups, not from the 'professionals'.


----------



## bwhntr

proutdoors said:


> ...The 'compromise' for archers is they won't put a cap on the number of archers in any given region...


Now this makes even LESS sense than it did before?????

I have to agree I am not seeing the point.


----------



## proutdoors

Great idea, lets 'compromise' until we do NOTHING! What a freaking joke! I am beyond baffled at where we are headed and why.


----------



## bwhntr

My thoughts exactly...compromise for what??? Weird...


----------



## proutdoors

This is from an e-mail I got from a SFW official today:


> Bart
> 
> SFW does *not* have a position to "do-away with statewide archery". We support that which was discussed at the mule deer committee meeting which is this..................if 5000 permits are taken from the northern region and given to archery we support evenly distributing them into each region and then making you choose your region for the first 9 days of the season, then hunt statewide for the remaining 28 day season. Yes their are some concerns about dedicated hunters permit distribution and that needs to be addressed as well. We support this because it is a win/win situation..........Win #1 License sales are not in-line with deer populations/objectives in the northern region thus reducing the # of permits being sold should provide a better hunting experience and increase a few bucks, Win #2 Archers get more permits to grow their sport and introduce new people to archery. If the permit's are taken out of the northern region........simply put......... you cannot have a fair distribution of hunters by adding 5000 archery permits........you need to do something and this seems like reasonable win/win solution. This is not doing away with statewide archery..............making everyone choose a region for 9 days then hunt statewide for the remaining. We think this is a good compromise and solves a couple important issues.


I take this man at his word, so who is the DWR 'compromising' with? :?


----------



## inbowrange

I say picking a unit for the first 9 days is not that bad if we get 28 more days to hunt state wide. Thats 37 days we get to hunt, right know we only get 28. More tags and more hunting thats another bonus for archery.


----------



## proutdoors

inbowrange said:


> I say picking a unit for the first 9 days is not that bad if we get 28 more days to hunt state wide. Thats 37 days we get to hunt, right know we only get 28. More tags and more hunting thats another bonus for archery.


You better re-read that! You wouldn't get an additional 9 days of hunting, you would be FORCED to choose a region for the first 9 days, and then hunt statewide the remaining 19 days.


----------



## idiot with a bow

So here is what it sounds like is happening. No cap in any given region, means that everyone that draws an archery tag can choose Southern as their region? If this is the case I am choosing Southern because I am an A hole. Everybody else should do the same.


----------



## TAK

Ahh Shane you need to rake the leaves in the front yard and get me a beer on the way in, when your DONE!!


----------



## proutdoors

idiot with a bow said:


> So here is what it sounds like is happening. No cap in any given region, means that everyone that draws an archery tag can choose Southern as their region? If this is the case I am choosing Southern because I am an A hole. Everybody else should do the same.


If this DUMB idea goes through, I agree we should ALL show up on the southern region.


----------



## Riverrat77

idiot with a bow said:


> So here is what it sounds like is happening. *No cap in any given region, means that everyone that draws an archery tag can choose Southern as their region?* If this is the case I am choosing Southern because I am an A hole. Everybody else should do the same.


Is this so?? So if there is no cap and everyone that puts in for an archery tag in the draw gets one, they can potentially issue several thousand "Southern" tags for the first nine days? Are they really that stupid?


----------



## proutdoors

Riverrat77 said:


> idiot with a bow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here is what it sounds like is happening. *No cap in any given region, means that everyone that draws an archery tag can choose Southern as their region?* If this is the case I am choosing Southern because I am an A hole. Everybody else should do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this so?? So if there is no cap and everyone that puts in for an archery tag in the draw gets one, they can potentially issue several thousand "Southern" tags for the first nine days? Are they really that stupid?
Click to expand...

Correction, it would be for the first *17 days*.

And, the answer is YES! :evil:


----------



## EPEK

Dear Don, or Deer Don,

I appreciate that you see this as a win, win, but maybe we ought to look at the whole story which is a win, loose, win, lose, lose, lose, win, win, lose, win. First win = more tags for archery, you say 5,000 they say 3,000) this means as much as $3,000,000.00 into the archery economy and good for local shops. First lose = the 14,000 - 16,000 existing archery hunters now will have to hunt in an enviroment of over crowding with as much as 26% more hunters afield, almost a gaurantee that the original problem this was set to solve for the south will even be worse, as the southerners that were whining, (I wish I could come up with a better word that combines whining, crying and acting like a blubbering drunk that just lost his toothless girlfriend with snot comming out of his nose.) will now have to maybe not draw a tag in their "backyard" and if they do, will do so with 26% more forced to go there instead of choose to go there. Second win = we might be able to take the 3-5,000 new archers and increase our voice as we ban together and agree to go thru an education process that will help us become more 'green' hunters and other classes that could teach us the political process to make sure that we are not politically governed out of our dynamic. Second lose = Where we as archery hunters used to be the only family and friend friendly option out there, we now will be faced with the same dreaded regional limitations that rifle and muzzy hunters have to deal with when I call buddy number 1 to see if he is bringing the brauts only to find out he didn't draw the region we have been hunting and scouting for years. Third lose = once again I have to go thru the holy crap feeling of I can't believe that went thru, it made no sense, how can something that makes no sense get passed by........... oh never mind we are talking about the governmental process of what the stink is going on here. fourth lose = as you know archery hunters really have to be scent concensious and it will be almost impossible to sneak up on a deer with this stink all over us. Third win = we might get a certain someone on the board that is an archer and biologically based on herd management and knows that archery hunting is a very viable option for herd management / hunter opportunity ratios, (this win might not even come to fruition, so it can't be counted yet. However, if this it the take vs the give then I do like this win, but I don't understand why we would have to give up what we presently have to get this one done, so it might be a win, but is counter balenced by the lose.) Next win, more people will want to buy my broadhead and at two packs a piece that could be a could thing. Next lose, they say you are what you eat and because I keep getting fed crap, I feel like crap on this one. Next lose, SFW does not come out looking good on this one for two main reasons, 1. There is no way you will ever be able to convince me that SFW didn't come up with this proposal...... seemingly out of the blue. I doubt anyone on the board even thought about it until a little SFW bird whispered something into someones ear. I know SFW went to groups and individuals and tried to get them to champion this so that SFW would not be looked down upon, you put up a poll on your own web sight and it was UNANIOMOUSLY voted down, a meathodology that SFW has used before to get er done, but this lose is that you have stepped very near a mine and it has blown up and SFW will spend a bit of time recovering from the shrapnel that ripped thru your leg. Last win = give it to SFW they sure now how to get stuff done, they have proved again and again that they are the ones that when it is all said and done are the only ones that can get anything done in this state, and ten years down the road when we just happen to have three mild winters in a row, you can say that our deer herds are better than before because we took the state wide archery hunt away from those pesky archers that only go out and take long shots and wound all of "OUR" deer.

Some wins, lots of losers. I'm out.

Give me back my son!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Question; Do we get a kiss and a cigarette if this goes through, or just a "get out of the car, here's your twenty dollars"?

I personally would like some kind of ointment, because odds are I will need it..


----------



## HOGAN

I am in the Southern region idea also. I really feel if they make us pick the first 9 days that it won't stop there, that will be the first step to whatever destination they are heading in. These boys are smart and know if they get this passed the next step will take care of itself. I am with Tree lube up! :shock:


----------



## Packout

OK-- Lets talk about this proposal. This has obviously been around for years, because one group of hunters is allowed to access the Cookie Jar any time, while the other 2 hunting groups must wait in line (for up to 3 years to get their cookie). That is a fact and a true sentiment. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but that is the way it is. Southern guys who do not or can not hunt with a bow see archers come to their region every year while they wait years between tags. We can all understand what they feel (heck, even EPEK put it into words). So you are going to have to fight that stigma. 

Next, this problem was a SOCIAL issue until the Forest Service saw the huge increase in use on some areas for the first weekend of the Archery Hunt. This issue was really brought to a boil by the Forest Service Rep at the Mule Deer Committee meeting. NOW, you have 2 Federal Land Agencies with Reps on every RAC that will vote together for some kind of restrictions. The Non-Consumptive Reps will also vote with these Reps and most likely the Ag interests will also go along with the Fed. Reps. It is my opinion that archers MUST ask to move the elk hunt back as a way to gain favor with the Fed Reps and show that they are willing to police their use. This MIGHT persuade the Fed Reps to not vote for the statewide restriction.

Those are the 2 issues which you guys are fighting. One is fairness and one was a very real use issue that was observed and unfairly put on the shoulders of bow hunters.

Now, I sure hope that the 5,000 tags out of the Northern Region are not put into the other Regions. Regions that are barely meeting herd objectives can't handle the additional pressure. If the Northern Region had 5,000 tags too many then we cut those tags and raise the fee by 5% ($2 per license). We should not put those tags into other regions which have similar buck to doe ratios.


----------



## proutdoors

Packout said:


> Now, I sure hope that the 5,000 tags out of the Northern Region are not put into the other Regions. Regions that are barely meeting herd objectives can't handle the additional pressure. If the Northern Region had 5,000 tags too many then we cut those tags and raise the fee by 5% ($2 per license). We should not put those tags into other regions which have similar buck to doe ratios.


Anis told me yesterday the DWR is NOT recommending a reduction in Northern tags.

Good post Packout! Very good points.


----------



## truemule

proutdoors said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I sure hope that the 5,000 tags out of the Northern Region are not put into the other Regions. Regions that are barely meeting herd objectives can't handle the additional pressure. If the Northern Region had 5,000 tags too many then we cut those tags and raise the fee by 5% ($2 per license). We should not put those tags into other regions which have similar buck to doe ratios.
> 
> 
> 
> Anis told me yesterday the DWR is NOT recommending a reduction in Northern tags.
> 
> Good post Packout! Very good points.
Click to expand...

So does this mean they are pulling the 3000 additional archery tags out of there proposal as well? I don't like there proposal as it is. They don't need to go making it any worse.


----------



## proutdoors

truemule said:


> So does this mean they are pulling the 3000 additional archery tags out of there proposal as well? I don't like there proposal as it is. They don't need to go making it any worse.


Correct on all counts! The more the DWR 'compromises' the WORSE it gets for the deer and the hunters.


----------



## jahan

Overcrowding on public land? Am I missing the boat here, isn't this "public" land we are talking about. :? So what if there was a sudden influx of hikers or mountain bikers, would they limit them? I highly doubt it, this comes down to selfishness and it pisses me off. :evil:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Packout said:


> OK-- Lets talk about this proposal. This has obviously been around for years, because one group of hunters is allowed to access the Cookie Jar any time, while the other 2 hunting groups must wait in line (for up to 3 years to get their cookie). That is a fact and a true sentiment. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but that is the way it is. Southern guys who do not or can not hunt with a bow see archers come to their region every year while they wait years between tags. We can all understand what they feel (heck, even EPEK put it into words). So you are going to have to fight that stigma.
> 
> Next, this problem was a SOCIAL issue until the Forest Service saw the huge increase in use on some areas for the first weekend of the Archery Hunt. This issue was really brought to a boil by the Forest Service Rep at the Mule Deer Committee meeting. NOW, you have 2 Federal Land Agencies with Reps on every RAC that will vote together for some kind of restrictions. The Non-Consumptive Reps will also vote with these Reps and most likely the Ag interests will also go along with the Fed. Reps. It is my opinion that archers MUST ask to move the elk hunt back as a way to gain favor with the Fed Reps and show that they are willing to police their use. This MIGHT persuade the Fed Reps to not vote for the statewide restriction.
> 
> Those are the 2 issues which you guys are fighting. One is fairness and one was a very real use issue that was observed and unfairly put on the shoulders of bow hunters.
> 
> Now, *I sure hope that the 5,000 tags out of the Northern Region are not put into the other Regions. * Regions that are barely meeting herd objectives can't handle the additional pressure. If the Northern Region had 5,000 tags too many then we cut those tags and raise the fee by 5% ($2 per license). We should not put those tags into other regions which have similar buck to doe ratios.


So, as a member of the committee is the general plan of action based on "hope" or actually doing something?

Also, if we move the archery elk opener date forward to wed., as Anis said is their recommendation, that would leave the social issue, which is asinine at best, What then?? I still don't but the squeaky wheel theory, there has got to be more to this. There is no _real_ advantage to doing this, at least not a visible one. There is absolutely nothing to gain from changing the dates. Are the southerners going to stop buying tags? NO. Is the DWR just sick of dealing with this and see it as the easiest way to get rid of a headache? I DOUBT IT. Are there other scenarios and possible scenarios that can be discussed and implemented with this as a contingency? WHO KNOWS (That's a problem). Is it _coincidence_ that mandated rifle deer dates were done away with, allowing big changes in dates and tag allocations, especially if a few other things are 'tweaked'? I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.

Packout, how many items from the committee are being taken to the RAC's?????

Three words:
$$Dixie Wildlife Federation


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Does anyone have a relative who is down on their luck with access to a baseball bat?


----------



## proutdoors

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Does anyone have a relative who is down on their luck with access to a baseball bat?


 -_O-


----------



## Finnegan

proutdoors said:


> The more the DWR 'compromises' the WORSE it gets for the deer and the hunters.


There's no compromises being made. That's why Anis couldn't answer you at the meeting. We're just seeing the full proposal as it's revealed, piece by piece, and we still haven't seen it all.

I was told that if we didn't accept the deal, the 5,000 tags would be gone. I was also told the entire season would go to regional draw. I figure that piece and at least one more will come out at the Board meeting.


----------



## Mountain Time

jahan said:


> Overcrowding on public land? Am I missing the boat here, isn't this "public" land we are talking about. :? So what if there was a sudden influx of hikers or mountain bikers, would they limit them? I highly doubt it, this comes down to selfishness and it **** me off. :evil:


So true....

Any place that I have ever gone on the opener of the Archery has been "over-crowded". 
Including; The Wasatch Front,Manti's, Sawtooths etc......

I suggest that we make the archery season around 28 days long so that people aren't all forced to go on one weekend......What's that? It already is? Problelm solved. You are welcome:lol:

Has anybody considered that in the last couple of years more people have started hunting during the archery hunt. Archery tags are now selling out which is something that didn't use to happen.

Maybe I shouldn't point this out but allowing archers to hunt the region of their choice after 9 days or Sept 1st will just create two Openers. The first day archery opens and the second when everybody heads to the region they really wanted to hunt. That may be the southern, northern central or whatever.....So how will we solve that problem? Pick your region period?


----------



## bwhntr

Finnegan said:


> ...We're just seeing the full proposal as it's revealed, piece by piece, and we still haven't seen it all.


Exactly! I am sure there is more to come...


----------



## Packout

Tree- The Committee recommended there be more emphasis on units within regional hunts. We have recommended cuts in RIFLE days afield on units which are not meeting objective, even making units at or below 10 bucks per 100 doe as limited entry until they get back above 15. The major feeling of the Committee is that there is a decent growth of the herd so there were no real needs to make major changes BUT those cuts I mentioned will have a huge impact, because they will address unit management, while maintaining regional hunting opportunity. Kind of like archers wanting to maintain their hunting opportunities.....

You can shoot the messenger all you want. I really don't care. I am just trying to give you guys an outside perspective of what I think you need to do to maintain the opportunity. I do remember when the State went to pick a Region and all the cries from rifle hunters at that time. It killed my family's annual hunts. I hate to see it happen again. But showing up at RACs and Board meetings with no show of compromise and fire in your eyes will only burn down your ship.


----------



## Mountain Time

Packout said:


> You can shoot the messenger all you want. I really don't care. I am just trying to give you guys an outside perspective of what I think you need to do to maintain the opportunity. *I do remember when the State went to pick a Region and all the cries from rifle hunters at that time.* It killed my family's annual hunts. I hate to see it happen again. But showing up at RACs and Board meetings with no show of compromise and fire in your eyes will only burn down your ship.


Good post Packout. Sincere question since you seem like you are in the 'know'.

What purpose was there in forcing rifle hunters to pick a region? Was there an over-crowding issue? If so has this change benefited the deer herds?


----------



## proutdoors

Mountain Time said:


> What purpose was there in forcing rifle hunters to pick a region? Was there an over-crowding issue? If so has this change benefited the deer herds?


I'm nowhere near as smart as Packout, but if I recall correctly they went to regions to prevent over-*harvest*, not over-*crowding*. As far as I know, this would be unprecedented waters. Managing on a "perception", freaking brilliant!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Packout said:


> Tree- The Committee recommended there be more emphasis on units within regional hunts. We have recommended cuts in RIFLE days afield on units which are not meeting objective, even making units at or below 10 bucks per 100 doe as limited entry until they get back above 15. The major feeling of the Committee is that there is a decent growth of the herd so there were no real needs to make major changes BUT those cuts I mentioned will have a huge impact, because they will address unit management, while maintaining regional hunting opportunity. Kind of like archers wanting to maintain their hunting opportunities.....
> 
> You can shoot the messenger all you want. I really don't care. I am just trying to give you guys an outside perspective of what I think you need to do to maintain the opportunity. I do remember when the State went to pick a Region and all the cries from rifle hunters at that time. It killed my family's annual hunts. I hate to see it happen again. But showing up at RACs and Board meetings with no show of compromise and fire in your eyes will only burn down your ship.


Hopefully you don't think I was pointing any fingers at you. My experience is that you play it with the cards up. I was more or less pointing a few things out and asking some questions. My apologies if you thought that was the case.

What is your feeling on this thing? I've talked to several committee members and most supported this at the beginning, but when the facts came out they flip flopped on the issue.


----------



## EPEK

My new found frustration is that we are being asked to compromise to a suggestion, not a situation. Someone suggested that we take away state wide archery, (that someone must have forgot that one of the reasons we went to state wide archery was to promote archery and get people like idiot with a bow to think about not rifle hunting and start archery hunting..... it worked. Sort of like a drug dealer mentality, give them some free tree and once they find out that they like it, make em pay.) and now we are being asked to only take it away for 17 days instead of the whole 28 and we are the ones that are being compromized, because it won't add up to a bucket of luggabaloo poo either way as far as the herds are concerned, they will basically recieve the same pressure either way.


----------



## proutdoors

I stole this from another site, I thought it has a lot of merit:


> This is also the first step to getting the whole state made into limited entry units and we all know that once a area is made into a limited entry unit it never changes back.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Tahdaah!!


----------



## wileywapati

OK I made a few phone calls while I was in the duck blind this morning. I talked to three of 
what would be considered the power players in the game. I sent an e mail yesterday to a person that has been an ally for several years, this person is in a position that matters and I was advised to develop our own idea I took this advice to heart.

What is missing in the DWR proposal, besides everything, is looking out for what matters most _*OUR FREAKING MULE DEER *_ Within the next week you will see a proposal that will be presented at the RACs that first and foremost will take care of Utah's mule deer.

SFW is not involved and _*WILL NOT*_ be involved, in my opinion they have created enough havoc already and will be nothing more than a stumbling block we don't need this late in the game. I saw all I needed to see out of Ryan at the last Mule Deer Committee 
meeting to know where his intentions are at. Oh yeah I'm coming after your premium units to!

This proposal will be done next week once everybody gets back in town and be presented for your input. It will include a _*BIOLOGICALLY RESPONSIBLE*_ reduction in tags where it is needed, the continuation of the statewide bowhunt, incentive for youth hunters 
and more. Like I said this can't be just a BOU deal this is going to take much more than 
one or two groups and that is what I have lined up.


----------



## Packout

Tree-- no hard feelings here. 

Pro has it right as far as I remember also. I was out of the country in 1993 when the change was made at first, but the reason I have been given and which makes sense was the regions were implemented to prevent extreme hot spotting, while the tag cuts were meant to reduce pressure on the resource.

Whomever thinks SFW got everything it wanted in the Mule Deer Management Plan really does not understand what happened in those meetings. They protected the top two units and compromised on many other issues. I also took the brunt of some harsh criticism, but that is too be expected. I sat in every minute of every meeting and I know what happened. 

Gordy---- Please explain what your last post meant. Are you guys going to propose your own management plan OR is this proposal going to deal only with archery??? You guys have me confused.


----------



## HOGAN

look forward to seeing what is in store. Thanks Gordy.


----------



## BugleB

If this pick your reigon thing goes through, there are four possible way to react. 1 - all bowhunters put in the the southern region "just to show them", 2 - boycott bowhunting, give up this stinking inadequate weapon and go to the rifle or muzzy hunt where the odds are a lot better anyway, 3 - screw Utah and go somewhere else to hunt, 4 - bow and scrape and take whatever crap the DWR dishes up and then say "thank you sirs for being so kind as to allow me to take whatever kind of crap you decide to send my way".

I think I will go with option 2 or option 3 if I can draw a tag somewhere else.


----------



## wileywapati

Mike I agree with you 100% about SFW not coming out with what they wanted out of the mule deer committee. In fact it is now going to be worse by going to pick a region and sending everybody down south for the last hurrah. If you think SFW and Dixie Wildlife are freaking now wait till this time next year. This will not be a good thing for bowhunters, SFW or the southern sportsmen.

I will do as I was advised to do and will be working with a few other groups and key individuals to put together a proposal that will benefit mule deer. What the Division is going to propose in my opinion will just make matters worse and doesn't do squat for our herds.

Mike if you would like to provide input I would be happy to have it.


----------



## Finnegan

Packout said:


> Whomever thinks SFW got everything it wanted in the Mule Deer Management Plan really does not understand what happened in those meetings. They protected the top two units and compromised on many other issues. I also took the brunt of some harsh criticism, but that is too be expected. I sat in every minute of every meeting and I know what happened.


I, for one, appreciate your efforts there. It seemed obvious to me that your primary goal was to look out for mule deer and it was an honor to work with you. If everyone in the room had shared your dedicated perspective, we would have had a much better result. Thank you.

I think I understand what happened and I disagree with your assessment of SFW's influence, but only because I don't look at it in terms of organizations. I see it as a matter of opposing philosophies...herd management vs. antler management, wild management vs. ranch management, facts vs. opinions, i.e., biology and data vs. politics. Politics won, hands down. "Satisfy the customer." You remember that phrase.

The mule deer committee is water under the bridge. But political opposition to biological science presents a threat to wildlife. For example, SFW did not protect the top two units. They protected the trophy bucks on those units. There's a big difference. The deer on those units don't need the age class management that generated long and heated debate. They need the viable habitat that got no real discussion at all.


----------



## Finnegan

BugleB said:


> If this pick your reigon thing goes through, there are four possible way to react.


You forgot the best option - boycott the Southern. Do no business there. Of course, that's not going to happen. What will happen is that every bowhunter who wants to hunt there or ever thought about hunting there will apply, thinking this will be their last best chance before the cap comes on. The result will provide the data needed for Anis to say, "see, I told you!" Anis knows this. And like any school kid who ever studied scientific method, he knows what's wrong with it.


----------



## Packout

Well, if what I understand is that BOU is going to give their own mule deer management plan then that is a travesty to the system. We were privileged be part of the Mule Deer Committee and to now do an end run is what is wrong with the system. I can see lobbying for the Statewide Archery, but if you guys are going give a "Different Management Plan" then why in the blazes didn't you present it DURING the actual Committee meetings??? BOU was, for the most part, silent on many issues. This is the exact PROBLEM with the process, throw out the whole Plan rather than try to tweak the one thing which bothers you. That is what "Other" groups do. What a frickin' joke. 

Finn- Like I said in the Committee, I am not willing to fight over 7,500 deer which could adversely effect the rest of people's hunting opportunity. You heard my rants on the whole issue. I know the Committee did not recommend anything to do with the Statewide hunt, yet many good ideas were implemented to the management plan.


----------



## wileywapati

Mike you are missing my point. Right now the whole statewide bowhunt deal is pretty far down the list. The goal of the mule deer committee was to help mule deer and then the Division pulls out it's own proposal that.

1 Does not reduce tags in the Northern Region as was asked for and passed by the Committee.

2 Restricts Bowhunters to a region till Sept 1st. WITHOUT ANY REGIONAL CAPS to get an "accurate accounting of where hunters are going during the archery season". What do you think is going to happen next year once bowhunters figure out that this may be their last open shot to head south?? What if I have an elk tag in my pocket?? Does this mean that I can't hunt the Fishlake, the Division has not thought this through and I want to know how this will figure in to the equation.

3 will use these flawed numbers to set up guidlines for the upcoming years, will further inflame the "people down south" untill a worse case scenario occurs.

I am not trying to undo what you guy's spent all summer working on!! Exactly the opposite!! I am trying to get the Division to uphold the items that you guys voted on that they seem to have blown off. 

Mike it ain't just me and BOU on this deal. Plenty of people are pretty pissed and I would have hoped that you would be one of them. It's the things that you put together that are being ignored.

I absolutely promise you that this ain't about me or bowhunters to the extent that you think it is. Yeah I want bowhunters to get a fair shake and not have to accept a system that is nothing more than a set up to fail scenario, but my number one concern is getting the deer herd back to a stable state. Especially up north.

The Division is the group that is undoing what you guys did not me.


----------



## Packout

Gordy, thanks for the call. We will see how this all shakes out.


----------



## EPEK

Let me ask a dumb question: Why can't they get their data with a mandatory poll? If you want to draw a state wide archery tag for 2009 you have to go to www.utaharcherypoll.com and fill in the data of where you hunted last year and for how long and if you harvested etc... when you take this poll, at the end it gives you a sectet number that you have to use to apply for the 2009 draw. Then they will have their data vs how they are going to go about getting gauranteed scewed data.


----------



## proutdoors

Way too easy EPEK! Silly fellar.


----------



## wileywapati

Alright let me clear the air on a few things.

I had an e mail this morning from Mr. Peay stating the innaccuracies that are swirling
around the current situation. I replied and asked if Mr. Peay would call me which he did.

I have no intention of speaking for Mr. Peay or quoting him but let me say that what the Division is proposing and what SFW is proposing are two entirely seperate things.

I don't think either plan is good for bowhunting or mule deer in Utah especially the Division's plan to pick a region and not include a cap system.

I was further assured that there were no "back door efforts" on the part of SFW to push this plan through.

At this moment I am going to give Mr. Peay the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.

The proposal that deals with bowhunters picking a region falls squarely on the shoulders 
of the Division at this point. I would suggest that calls and E mails be sent to the RAC members, Wildlife Board members, and Anis.

Thanks
Gordy


----------



## Mountain Time

proutdoors said:


> Mountain Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose was there in forcing rifle hunters to pick a region? Was there an over-crowding issue? If so has this change benefited the deer herds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm nowhere near as smart as Packout, but if I recall correctly they went to regions to prevent over-*harvest*, not over-*crowding*. As far as I know, this would be unprecedented waters. Managing on a "perception", freaking brilliant!
Click to expand...

Pro that is where my question was leading. Was there biological evidence that showed over-harvesting in certain areas or "hot spotting" as PACKOUT put it? It sounds like there was. If that was the case this is a good example of how WILDLIFE management decisions should be made.

I have more thoughts on this but I think they just echo what everyone else is saying.......I hope those people making the decision would step back and look at this. If there was a reason to make the change I think archers would be all for it......since there is not, people are going to lose faith in the system.



Gordy said:


> The proposal that deals with bowhunters picking a region falls squarely on the shoulders
> of the Division at this point. I would suggest that calls and E mails be sent to the RAC members, Wildlife Board members, and Anis.


+1


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Politicians are such *good* liars!


----------

