# Teaser from the DWR



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

The DWR put out a news release today:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2301-dwr-proposes-new-big-game-hunts-in-2019.html

But as far as I can tell, the RAC packet isn't available yet. I'm anxiously awaiting its release.

In case you're too lazy to read the article, here are the main things they highlighted:

1. New bison hunts on the Henry Mountains and the Book Cliffs. I assume we'll see multiple seasons on the Book Cliffs like they do on the Henry's. Not sure what they have in mind for the Henry's - maybe January cow bison hunts will become a regular thing?

2. More muzzleloader/archery pronghorn hunts

3. Resurrecting the Oquirrh-Stansbury bighorn sheep hunt

4. New extended archery hunts in Utah county and near Herriman

I'm glad the DWR is pushing for more hunter opportunity in Utah - let's just hope the wildlife board won't hinder those efforts like they did last year. O|*

You can all rest assured that I'll post a link to the RAC packet, and probably more opinions on the recommendations than you would ever care to hear, when I find it.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Thanks for the heads up. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

I am really curious to see the boundaries for the extended archery in Utah County?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Absolutely against increasing the extended Archery into Utah County.




-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Absolutely against increasing the extended Archery into Utah County.
> 
> -DallanC


Based on the complaining from Utah county cities about residential deer, I suspect this proposal was inevitable. I am wondering what the proposed Eastern boundaries would be.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Based on the complaining from Utah county cities about residential deer, I suspect this proposal was inevitable. I am wondering what the proposed Eastern boundaries would be.


I agree. After Highland implemented its deer management program, Alpine, Cedar Hills, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, and Provo began exploring ways to deal with "problem" deer. It is unfortunate that deer are seen as nuisances, but the DWR is trying to respond to continuing complaints from these cities regarding vehicular collisions and damage to landscaping.

I have mixed feelings about the extended archery proposal. On one hand, I welcome additional opportunities to hunt mule deer during the late fall. However, I am worried that the increased opportunities for the archery hunters will come at the expense of some rifle hunters. I think it is pretty clear that this proposal will have a dramatic effect on some areas, which will reduce the opportunities for Wasatch West rifle hunters. Yet, the dramatic population growth along the Wasatch Front has, as Catherder suggested, probably made this inevitable.

As far as the eastern boundary, the Utah-Wasatch county line? Thoughts?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm thinking the new bison hunts are going to be archery only hunts.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> I'm thinking the new bison hunts are going to be archery only hunts.


Agree, and I could also see an early and late Book Cliffs hunt as well.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Based on the complaining from Utah county cities about residential deer, I suspect this proposal was inevitable. I am wondering what the proposed Eastern boundaries would be.


Well- the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Boundaries should be the cities' limits. The nuisance deer are those that live year round in the city and not the deer that migrate down from the Mtns in the winter.

This proposed unit has low buck to doe ratios (which barely meet objective) and high public lands access. It is not the same as the current Extended Unit. The mountain herd does not need more pressure. Period.

It will provide more opportunity to archers with a tag in their pocket, but possibly reduce the number of hunters (rifle, ML, archery) who can hunt the following season.

..


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> I'm thinking the new bison hunts are going to be archery only hunts.


I sure hope not. The bison success rates are close enough to the Any Weapon success rates that there is no need to give more tags to a smaller pool of hunters.

..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> Well- the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Boundaries should be the cities' limits. The nuisance deer are those that live year round in the city and not the deer that migrate down from the Mtns in the winter.
> 
> This proposed unit has low buck to doe ratios (which barely meet objective) and high public lands access. It is not the same as the current Extended Unit. The mountain herd does not need more pressure. Period.
> 
> ...


+100

This is exactly the reason why I am against it. The true problem deer that live in city limits year around will never get addressed because they are un-huntable. There are no large city owned properties like Highland where a high population of the problem deer live that hunting could be allowed on.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Packout said:


> Well- the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Boundaries should be the cities' limits. The nuisance deer are those that live year round in the city and not the deer that migrate down from the Mtns in the winter.


I agree with the statement, but how can the DWR hold a meaningful "extended" hunt with these boundaries when they are almost totally inaccessible for hunting? I know here in Springville, very few of the problem deer frequent locations where public hunters could get at them.



Packout said:


> This proposed unit has low buck to doe ratios (which barely meet objective) and high public lands access. It is not the same as the current Extended Unit. The mountain herd does not need more pressure. Period.


I also agree with this. That is why the boundary question becomes important. Depending on where it is, it would seem to just put more pressure on non problem deer and not help the problem much. I just don't see how they can have *any* hunt though, if it is just limited to city limits.

It kind of seems like the DWR is wearied by the complaints from these municipalities to "do something", so they are, even if the benefits may be questionable.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Packout said:


> I sure hope not. The bison success rates are close enough to the Any Weapon success rates that there is no need to give more tags to a smaller pool of hunters.
> 
> ..


From what I see, the archery any bison tags had a 66.7% success averaging 7.4 hunting days versus the two any weapon any bison hunts that had 88.9% and 94.1% and took less than three days in average. That in theory would allow for a +20% increase in tags issued by switching from any weapon to archery


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

The news release makes the DWR's intention pretty clear. The proposal to create an extended archery areas in Utah County is not designed to address deer already living in the cities, i.e. city deer. According to the release the proposed extended areas are an attempt to, "Reduce the number of deer that are _making their way into cities and towns_ in Salt Lake and Utah counties." (emphasis added)

As Catherder mentioned, creating extended archery areas in Utah County would be an ineffective tool to address city deer. Furthermore, I imagine the bulk of complaints coming from Utah County cities are related to deer moving into the cities during the winter. It seems to me that the proposed extended archery areas in Utah County are designed to reduce the overall number of deer along the Wasatch Front in Utah County. In fact, I cannot see how the proposed extended archery hunts, combined with the existing Wasatch West hunts, will not reduce overall deer numbers in the affected areas.

As far as the eastern boundary is concerned, the eastern borders of the other extended areas along the Wasatch Front are either prominent ridges or county borders. The Utah-Wasatch county line seems too far east and would definitely have an effect on deer that never make their way to the city. Instead, it seems more likely the border will follow prominent ridges from White Baldy, Box Elder Peak, Timpanogos, Cascade, Provo Peak, all the way to Hobble Creek. Yet, how far east the boundary extends seems somewhat immaterial. If the season dates for the proposed extended areas are similar to existing extended areas, e.g. ending November 30th, then, depending on weather, many of the deer from surrounding areas will be in the foothills above the cities, which will certainly be within any proposed boundary.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

I’m excited for the new extended areas. I’ve been saying for years I wish it would go through Utah County as well. I hadn’t really considered the effect on other hunts though in those mtns because the extended through Salt Lake county doesn’t get hunted w rifles. Anyone on the Wasatch extended hunts should see this as a good way to spread out the pressure. I know there are plenty of folks traveling from Utah county to hunt the front. 
PS I’ve hunted the front since 2002 and haven’t affected the population yet so don’t worry too much about this guy killing deer off your area.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

If you want to keep Deer out of the City, stop building Homes where deer winter! Simple solution..


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Mike Honcho said:


> The news release makes the DWR's intention pretty clear. The proposal to create an extended archery areas in Utah County is not designed to address deer already living in the cities, i.e. city deer. According to the release the proposed extended areas are an attempt to, "Reduce the number of deer that are _making their way into cities and towns_ in Salt Lake and Utah counties." (emphasis added)


Actually there is another aspect to this, the current Mayor of Alpine is severely anti-gun and is trying to get the forest service to shut down all hunting and shooting in the national forest that borders Alpine. He has publicly stated this is a major goal of his currently.

Getting it swapped over to extended archery is certainly a step in that direction.

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple more comments

1.


Mike Honcho said:


> Furthermore, I imagine the bulk of complaints coming from Utah County cities are related to deer moving into the cities during the winter.


While this may be the case in some areas, most of the current problems and complaints are coming from deer that live in town year round. Here in Springville, the biggest complaints among my neighbors are that the deer eat gardens and flower beds. Obviously, this is not a wintertime issue. I hit a deer within Provo city limits a couple years ago during the summertime.

2.


taxidermist said:


> If you want to keep Deer out of the City, stop building Homes where deer winter! Simple solution..


While building in winter range is undoubtedly a prominent issue with our deer herds, it is not the only aspect of the urban deer problem, which is increasingly an issue whether the adjoining winter range is good or not. Deer are more adaptible than we sometimes give them credit for and do well in modern urban environments.


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> From what I see, the archery any bison tags had a 66.7% success averaging 7.4 hunting days versus the two any weapon any bison hunts that had 88.9% and 94.1% and took less than three days in average. That in theory would allow for a +20% increase in tags issued by switching from any weapon to archery


What if a person doesn't want to switch? Archery hunters are getting more and more and more, it's almost as if they are a protected class. What s the % of archery hunters in the state?

IMO if a person wants to use archery great, good for them but the OIL hunts are called "any weapon". I don't agree with splitting the OIL into archery and any weapon but I fully understand why the DWR is advocating for this.

Just wait until they have archery only sheep tags.....Coming soon


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

300 Wby said:


> What if a person doesn't want to switch? Archery hunters are getting more and more and more, it's almost as if they are a protected class. What s the % of archery hunters in the state?
> 
> IMO if a person wants to use archery great, good for them but the OIL hunts are called "any weapon". I don't agree with splitting the OIL into archery and any weapon but I fully understand why the DWR is advocating for this.
> 
> Just wait until they have archery only sheep tags.....Coming soon


Frankly, I'm in favor of whatever allows more people to get out and hunt while maintaining healthy herds. And yeah, that probably would result in even more point creep for those that want to stick to the any weapon pool, but at the end of the day there will be more people who have had a chance to hunt these cool animals if we switch to archery. I can't wait to see archery only sheep tags and expansions of goat and bison tags too. Moose, I don't think there would be any room for additional tags as moose are pretty easy to get close to.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Just like I’ve said in numerous other threads, cutting any weapon tags to favor archery is a bad idea if the goal is to move more people through. 

If the goalie just to placate and give everything archery hunters only, and leave the crumbsto the vast majority of the rest of us, just keep creating more archery only hunts.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Since the vast majority of the deer that are causing the problems around cities are does shouldn't they only be allowed to shoot does and not bucks on these extended hunts?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Just like I've said in numerous other threads, cutting any weapon tags to favor archery is a bad idea if the goal is to move more people through.
> 
> If the goalie just to placate and give everything archery hunters only, and leave the crumbsto the vast majority of the rest of us, just keep creating more archery only hunts.


Vanilla, on the OIAL tags I have to disagree--provided that more total tags are able to be issued due to lower success rates. The recent addition of archery tags made no noticeable impact on the total number of hunters applying for bison or goat tags. While shifting tags from any weapon to archery will increase the lag on the any weapon pool, it should increase the total number of tags in pockets overall. If the pool is staying the same size (accounting for average annual growth in applicants) but the numbers leaving the pool due to successful drawing is increased, that is fantastic IMO.

But if the DWR does not increase total tags issued, and moves any weapon tags 1:1 into archery then I oppose that tooth and nail. That is what was done for these initial hunts, but I believe that was necessary to obtain a baseline on harvest rates to know by how much they can increase the archery tags over the any weapon tags.

From my perspective, opposing the removal of X any weapon OIAL tags to create X*n Archery tags is in some ways analogous to those that oppose spike hunts on LE elk units. Sure, if we cut spike tags we would get some increase in mature bulls allowing for some increase in tags, but at a massive opportunity cost to get out and hunt. And yeah, some guys have zero desire to hunt a spike (or in the OIAL case, pick up a bow) and would rather wait decades to chase mature bulls (any weapon OIAL).

I think you could move a lot of people through goat and sheep pools with archery only tags, especially on certain units. If you took some of the harder access/lower goat population units in the Uintahs and made it archery only-billy only, I bet you could issue +50 tags for every goat available for harvest. And you'd have plenty of people willing to apply for that even with the super low odds of success. Obviously areas like Timp, Willard, and Beaver wouldn't work that way, but still. Sheep all the more so, as they are more wary than goats in my experience. You could probably make one of the really hard to access desert sheep units OTC, archery only, +3/4 curl, and impose the OIAL and not kill so many rams that it hurts the herd. Lots of people would probably grab a tag, and realize just how in over their heads they are 1-2 days into a hunt and give up. But they still would have had a chance to kill a sheep/goat, and now be out of the pool in easier to harvest units.

Based on the small data pool from the Henry's bison hunts you could increase permits an additional 20% by switching any bison tags in the fall to archery only. My guess is that if you held a December or January archery cow hunt you'd see success rates well below the 60-70% cow hunt average, maybe as low as 30%. That could help a lot more people have a chance to HUNT really cool animals that otherwise they would never be able to draw a tag, even if they don't manage to ever get close enough for a shot. Ignoring the additional 109 Henry's bison tags this year, we could probably sustain +200 archery bison tags each year without lowering the herd population below objective versus the current ~60-100/yr average. Same for the Bookcliffs. Would it be more crowded? Yep. Would it be harder? Of course. But given the choice, would you prefer to maybe have a chance at drawing a bison tag by the time you are 80 years old and hunt it with the weapon of your choice or have a realistic chance at drawing a tag to chase bison with a bow in under 20 years from the first day you applied?

I am likely in a small minority, but I have zero problem with OIAL hunts having very low success rates.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Let’s use round, arbitrary numbers just for the sake of argument, and to be simple. After all, we know lawyers can’t do math. 

Hypo 1: Currently there are 100 any weapon bison tags. The proposal plans to increase the overall tags to 110, adding 10 archery only tags, keeping the any weapon numbers as they are. I would 100% support this. 

Hypo 2: Currently there are 100 any weapon bison tags. The proposal is to reduce any weapon tags to 75, and to implement 50 archery only tags, for a total of 125 tags. I would 100% oppose this. 

As they say, the devil is in the details. So I guess we’ll see. But the shift and people asking to take care of a very minority group of hunters by taking from other groups will never be acceptable to me. Most archery hunters are fine with things as they are, just like most rifle and muzzy hunters are fine with how things are. But there is a small group that have powerful people’s ears getting really loud that are trying to completely screw Utah hunters in general to benefit their own desires.


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Let's use round, arbitrary numbers just for the sake of argument, and to be simple. After all, we know lawyers can't do math.
> 
> Hypo 1: Currently there are 100 any weapon bison tags. The proposal plans to increase the overall tags to 110, adding 10 archery only tags, keeping the any weapon numbers as they are. I would 100% support this.
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

And I would be in favor of both of those scenarios, with a preference on Hypo 2, as there are 15 additional people in the field. Hunters would be able to choose which line they want to wait in, and whether picking up a new weapon, learning how to use it, and increasing the odds of going home empty handed is worth shaving some time off the expected wait.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It won’t cut down wait times. I’ve already shown in LE elk talks how that perception just isn’t real. 

And again, I’m not about cannabilism. It seems this small, vocal minorities yapping for change right now are content being Hannibal Lecter.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The bison permits is a bad one to actually use. There is a agreement that there can only be XXX amount of bison on the Henry Mountains. Currently they exceed the amount by XX and the new only for 2019 January hunt at this time is to reduce the herd number under the control number because of the drought down there. Perhaps in 2020 they will have it again but it is doubtful right now. 

The Book Cliff herd is a different question. I haven't heard of just what the plan is for it and how many they plan on having out there. But also they are not going to have extra hunts to try and bring the population of them down other than the regular hunts that they have scheduled.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> Since the vast majority of the deer that are causing the problems around cities are does shouldn't they only be allowed to shoot does and not bucks on these extended hunts?


I'm not so sure about that.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Did you miss where I acknowledge the oddity of this year's Henry bison tag numbers? This year there are 219 tags, but there have been 60-100 tags the past several years. Basically I am saying I think you could maintain the 325 adult bison objective even if you issued +200 archery only tags with a heavier weight towards the December-January time frame. 

And Vanilla, you just can't convince me how increasing the total tags issued while maintaining the same applicant numbers doesn't result in a decrease in overall wait times.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

A small sub-group of hunters will move through quickly. You’re talking about only archery hunters and only archery hunters for that one species. Look what it does to point creep in the any weapon hunt. 

I guess 400 years isn’t much different of a wait than 300 years. So let’s sell out to the whiny vocal minority and screw everyone else. Seems reasonable... (no it doesn’t) 

Sorry, you’ll never get me to believe in this idea that “if you want to hunt them, buy a bow.” That is not increased opportunity for the vast majority of hunters. And you can’t say it is anymore than saying if someone wants to hunt pronghorn, move to Wyoming because we’re giving all Utah tags to archery hunters.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

I think The DWR should just get rid of everyones bonus points and reset the system and do away with bonus points and waiting periods all together and we can piss and moan about it for a couple years until we get over it, all the while we all put in for our hunts with the same equal opportunity and life moves on. BUT, then we would start pissing about bringing back the bonus point system again because some people still wont draw tags etc etc.. wash, rinse, repeat.

As an Archery hunter, I hope they do NOT extent the extended area (pun intended) because, that will screw up a lot of peoples Rifle opportunities. After all, I am a rifle hunter too. 

AND, what is that going to do for elk? Are they going to extent the area for the extended elk hunters too?? if so, its gonna be an elk saluter fest.. #DWRstrikesagain


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm on Team Vanilla.




-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Catherder said:


> I'm not so sure about that.


Except they won't let you shoot him 

I am pro-extended... but it is funny seeing deer all around the city that are actually causing issues but can't be touched, instead we shoot the deer that are trying to winter but can't because we build houses.

City deer don't get shot.

I sure would love to shoot any of the deer that are on my Grandma's 6 acre lot and eat her garden... but it's in city limits.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

For a group of people that are constantly complaining about opportunity. 
I would love to see the extended area extended. But I would also like to so a 3 or 4 point or better for bucks rule. 
We are all hunters and just because it’s archery the rifle and muzzy hunter are butt hurt as they are left out. 

Well the truth is if we are going to be able to hunt the front it is gong to be with a bow. The current population and demographic of the residents of the front is more and more becoming anti-hunting. And when they hear gun shots they go meetings and raise hell to get it stopped. 
I was a rifle hunter and really still am. But I picked up a bow 4 years ago and now I will chose it over a rifle any day. Some of us are tired of dealing with the long range idiots. And the Utah ATV army. 
Now does any of this really effect a true rifle or muzzy hunter. No unless you are the guy that wants to shoot the 2 point out of the truck window this will not effect you in any way. 

From what I have been seeing the last few years I’m surprised the rifle hunts are not under attack more. The amount of idiots out there is shocking. And there is now way we as hunters want that crap show on the front for all lib’s to see. 

The more I rifle hunt the more I want to bow hunt.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Packet is up. I figure it deserved its own thread.

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/196383-rac-packet-up.html#post2095613


----------



## JC HUNTER (May 18, 2015)

It'll be interesting to see how many people jumped shipped from normal bison hunt to the archery only hunt (maybe that data is somewhere). Without those numbers we're basically just blowing smoke out our butts. But lets play around anyhow. 

For the sake of all of us here, we'll use simple numbers. Let's say there are 100 applicants but only 10 tags. Every hunter has a 10% chance of drawing a tag. If they lowered the any weapon tags by 10% and moved them into the archery only pool and lets say 25% of those applicants (25 people) switched over to the archery only pool, you now have 75 any weapon hunters applying for 9 tags. Those 75 people that stayed in the any weapon pool now have a 12% chance of drawing a tag instead of 10%. The true losers are the ones that switched to the archery pool. You now have 25 people applying for 1 tag. Their odds just went from a 10% chance of drawing to a 4% chance.

In the old model it would've taken 10 years to clear all 100 applicants. Now it will only take 8.3 years to clear the any weapon pool and 25 years to clear the Archery pool. That's why moving the tags 1 for 1 doesn't work. It wouldn't make sense for an archery hunter to switch. But if they can lower the any weapon tags by 10% and in turn increase the archery tags by 30%. You now have 25 archery hunters applying for 3 tags. That gives them a 12% chance of drawing a tag instead of the 10% they had before they switched and it clears the archery pool in 8.3 years. So you've now cleared the same 100 hunters (rifle and archery) in 8.3 years where before it was going to take 10 years. and the herd remains the same because success rates will be lower with a bow.

The only way this model doesn't work is if the percent of hunters that switched was less than the percent of tags that were reallocated (which would surprise me). I'm betting that a lot of hunters switched over to the archery bison tag, myself included.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

JC HUNTER said:


> It'll be interesting to see how many people jumped shipped from normal bison hunt to the archery only hunt (maybe that data is somewhere). Without those numbers we're basically just blowing smoke out our butts. But lets play around anyhow. .


Uhhh-- the numbers are somewhere and every "example" you gave is incorrect or full of smoke.

Just comparing the Henry Mtns Hunter's Choice--

In 2017, 6011 Any Weapon hunters for 2 hunts had odds of 1 in 215.
495 Archery applicants had odds of 1 in 49.
If we add the 8 of the 10 archery tags (the number of Any Weapon tags it would take to kill the 7 archery harvested bison) into the Any Weapon Pool the and we add the Archery Applicants back into the pool then the odds become 1 in 180.

In 2018, 6502 Any Weapon hunters for 3 hunts had odds of 1 in 102.
422 Archery applicants had odds of 1 in 32.
If we add all 13 archery tags into the Any Weapon Pool the and we add the Archery Applicants back into the pool then the odds become 1 in 89.

There is no doubt that taking archery tags out of the Any Weapon allocation increases Any Weapon draw odds. To make the problem more significant, Any Weapon applicants INCREASED, while archery applicants DECREASED and the Archery allocation of tags increased.

We need more data on harvest rates, but with the snapshot we have archery success for bison was 70% while Any Weapon is 80-90%. So we can give 1 or 2 tags more if we include archery hunts. But by doing so, we penalize the Any Weapon pool of applicants.

I know, "pick up a bow and you can have better opportunity", said an archer....


----------



## JC HUNTER (May 18, 2015)

Packout said:


> Uhhh-- the numbers are somewhere and every "example" you gave is incorrect or full of smoke.
> Just comparing the Henry Mtns Hunter's Choice--


I would like to know why you think my "example" is incorrect. I thought I laid it out pretty clear that as long as a greater % hunters switched from the any weapon pool than the % of tags then it's a win for the rifle hunters. I didn't think the draw results were up yet so I honestly didn't look before, but I've since found them. I'm Just looking at Henry Mtns Hunter Choice for 2018 (I only see 2 any weapon hunts where you stated there were 3 so our numbers differ a little). Total tags between the 2 any weapon and 1 archery hunts is 55 tags. 13 of those tags (23%) went into the archery pool. There were 6467 total hunters with only 422 (6.5%) of those switching to the archery pool. So in this case it's better to keep those tags in the any weapon pool because the % of tags reallocated was greater than the hunters that switched.

I think we all agree that the current system sucks even though it's probably the most fair. Nobody wants to wait 25-30 years to hunt a bison. And I think we all agree that raising the any weapon tags just to get hunters through the system probably isn't the best for the herds. The only option I see (and I think the DWR agrees) is to create more hunting opportunities with lower success rates and adding archery only hunts is an easy way to do that. obviously we are looking at a very small sample size, but I can think of several reasons why the number hunters that switched to the archery pool was so low. #1 reason I imagine is due to the hunters with existing points. Looking at the 1,491 hunters that had 11 points or more, only 70 (4%) switched to the archery pool. I think this makes sense, if I had several points invested in bison I wouldn't switch either and I'm primarily an archery hunter. But if I look at the 2,007 applicants with 1 point or less, 186 (9.2%) of the applicants applied for the archery hunts. So you can see that the trend is higher for new applicants. That's still not enough to justify the 13 tags being reallocated, but the more hunters that switch to archery the better it is for the any weapon hunters.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

JC HUNTER said:


> I think we all agree that the current system sucks even though it's probably the most fair.


No, that is why it DOESN'T suck. Go look at states with no points systems, there are unlucky people who've put in for 20 years for LE tags and never drawn anything... ever.



> Nobody wants to wait 25-30 years to hunt a bison. And I think we all agree that raising the any weapon tags just to get hunters through the system probably isn't the best for the herds.


So make more herds. The new bookcliffs herd is a step in the right direction. There could be other areas as well where a new herd could be established.



> ... but the more hunters that switch to archery the better it is for the any weapon hunters.


Make Crossbows legal and I'll support your proposal.

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

JC HUNTER said:


> I would like to know why you think my "example" is incorrect. I thought I laid it out pretty clear that as long as a greater % hunters switched from the any weapon pool than the % of tags then it's a win for the rifle hunters. I didn't think the draw results were up yet so I honestly didn't look before, but I've since found them. I'm Just looking at Henry Mtns Hunter Choice for 2018 (I only see 2 any weapon hunts where you stated there were 3 so our numbers differ a little). Total tags between the 2 any weapon and 1 archery hunts is 55 tags. 13 of those tags (23%) went into the archery pool. There were 6467 total hunters with only 422 (6.5%) of those switching to the archery pool. So in this case it's better to keep those tags in the any weapon pool because the % of tags reallocated was greater than the hunters that switched.
> 
> I think we all agree that the current system sucks even though it's probably the most fair. Nobody wants to wait 25-30 years to hunt a bison. And I think we all agree that raising the any weapon tags just to get hunters through the system probably isn't the best for the herds. The only option I see (and I think the DWR agrees) is to create more hunting opportunities with lower success rates and adding archery only hunts is an easy way to do that. obviously we are looking at a very small sample size, but I can think of several reasons why the number hunters that switched to the archery pool was so low. #1 reason I imagine is due to the hunters with existing points. Looking at the 1,491 hunters that had 11 points or more, only 70 (4%) switched to the archery pool. I think this makes sense, if I had several points invested in bison I wouldn't switch either and I'm primarily an archery hunter. But if I look at the 2,007 applicants with 1 point or less, 186 (9.2%) of the applicants applied for the archery hunts. So you can see that the trend is higher for new applicants. That's still not enough to justify the 13 tags being reallocated, but the more hunters that switch to archery the better it is for the any weapon hunters.


But in reality those 13 archery only tags would only have been 10 tags in the any weapon pool. Based on these numbers, the any weapon odds with the archery tags were 42/6045 or 1:144 and 13/422 or 1:32 for archery for an overall average draw odds of 1:118. Putting the 13 archery tags back in as 10 any weapon tags, and returning the archery applicants to the pool you end up with 52/6467 or 1:124 overall.


----------



## JC HUNTER (May 18, 2015)

johnnycake said:


> But in reality those 13 archery only tags would only have been 10 tags in the any weapon pool. Based on these numbers, the any weapon odds with the archery tags were 42/6045 or 1:144 and 13/422 or 1:32 for archery for an overall average draw odds of 1:118. Putting the 13 archery tags back in as 10 any weapon tags, and returning the archery applicants to the pool you end up with 52/6467 or 1:124 overall.


I wasn't sure if they increased the total tags or if all 13 tags came out of the any weapon pool. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## JC HUNTER (May 18, 2015)

DallanC said:


> No, that is why it DOESN'T suck. Go look at states with no points systems, there are unlucky people who've put in for 20 years for LE tags and never drawn anything... ever.-DallanC


It sucks in the fact that it takes so long to be guaranteed a tag. But you're absolutely right that the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side. We just need to find ways to get people through the system faster.



DallanC said:


> So make more herds. The new bookcliffs herd is a step in the right direction. There could be other areas as well where a new herd could be established.-DallanC


I think everyone can get behind creating more herds. but that's easier said than done. At this rate we need more herds just keep up with the current point creep.



DallanC said:


> Make Crossbows legal and I'll support your proposal.-DallanC


I am all for legalizing cross bows for the archery season. In fact my family owns 3 of them. My dad and brothers use them when we hunt my grandparents farm in Ohio. Most of the negative comments I hear about crossbows come from people that have never shot one. Even though I have access to crossbows, I still prefer my compound and pay the extra $70 luggage fees to fly my bow back and forth.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

JC HUNTER said:


> I would like to know why you think my "example" is incorrect..


Because you assumed 25% of applicants would go after archery tags and the actual numbers showed different. Historically, archery applicants make up 8-10% of overall applications. That is the fallacy of every time "archery" tags come up as a way to increase opportunity on OIL hunts. Yes they might get an additional tag or 2 for every 10 permits given, but those tags only go to archers. (And I like to archery hunt.)


----------



## JC HUNTER (May 18, 2015)

Packout said:


> Because you assumed 25% of applicants would go after archery tags and the actual numbers showed different. Historically, archery applicants make up 8-10% of overall applications. That is the fallacy of every time "archery" tags come up as a way to increase opportunity on OIL hunts. Yes they might get an additional tag or 2 for every 10 permits given, but those tags only go to archers. (And I like to archery hunt.)


That's why I started off my post by saying that without the numbers we're just blowing smoke out our butts. I used 25% but it was an even number that was easy to multiply by. Regardless if it's 25% or 5% it's only beneficial if the percent of hunters switching is greater than the percent of tags that's being reallocated. Now that I've found the numbers we can see that is not the case right now, but that's not to say it won't be in the future. We have such a small sample size that it's hard to know.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

For bison, I'd like to see more opportunity on Antelope Island for those folks that want to do archery and/or any weapon. Instead of selling off so many bison - for example in 2017, 27 mature cows and 30 two year old bulls were sold. What if the price of the tags on the Island increased and more tags were offered? Instead of selling 30 two year old bulls, why doesn't the Island auction off 15 and then offer 15 more tags? Then instead of selling 27 mature cows, the Island could auction off 15 and offer 12 tags . . .


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Cuz they want the $$$. They probably wish there were zero bison hunts there so they could sell all the animals for even more $$$$$


-DallanC


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

They would still get the money - raise the price of the bison tag on the Island to reflect the average sales price of the bison for a five year average. Wyoming raised their prices and hunters still applied.

Would you rather pay a $1,500 - $2,000 tag fee now, or the $413 tag fee 20 years from now?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Funny how the proposal would be for AI to charge significantly higher tag prices to hunters... who ya know... raise 300K each year for one single **** deer tag for them.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> For bison, I'd like to see more opportunity on Antelope Island for those folks that want to do archery and/or any weapon. Instead of selling off so many bison - for example in 2017, 27 mature cows and 30 two year old bulls were sold. What if the price of the tags on the Island increased and more tags were offered? Instead of selling 30 two year old bulls, why doesn't the Island auction off 15 and then offer 15 more tags? Then instead of selling 27 mature cows, the Island could auction off 15 and offer 12 tags . . .


I've put a fair amount of time into calling people/researching on this. I think it is a no brainer, but the park management is not exactly hunter friendly at the end of the day.

The problem I have with people saying things like 'only benefits if more applicants %-wise switch to the archery pool than % of tags allocated' is that it completely devalues and ignores the benefit to those that choose to switch pools. They were most likely in the any weapon pool before, and saw the value in moving to a lower likelihood of harvest. When we have finite animals in finite habitat with growing numbers of applicants, the only feasible means of increasing opportunity is to reduce harvest success rates--and in many cases, archery is an easy answer.

I am hardly what I would consider an "archer" but I do have a bow. But I do know several people in Utah that after looking at the OIAL archery tags recently and these new proposals that have either gone out and bought bows or plan to. I absolutely think that as more "benefits" and opportunities are transitioned to archery hunts more and more people will make the switch. Which will allow more people to draw a tag and HUNT, versus our current expectation of drawing and killing.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> Funny how the proposal would be for AI to charge significantly higher tag prices to hunters... who ya know... raise 300K each year for one single **** deer tag for them.


True - I just figured the Island would never allow more animals to be harvested without getting some form of compensation. . .

Speaking of the Island, this Saturday is the bison roundup - how cool would it be to hunt the bison off a horse with a bow and arrow just like in _Dances with Wolves_?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> The problem I have with people saying things like 'only benefits if more applicants %-wise switch to the archery pool than % of tags allocated' is that it completely devalues and ignores the benefit to those that choose to switch pools. They were most likely in the any weapon pool before, and saw the value in moving to a lower likelihood of harvest. When we have finite animals in finite habitat with growing numbers of applicants, the only feasible means of increasing opportunity is to reduce harvest success rates--and in many cases, archery is an easy answer.
> 
> I am hardly what I would consider an "archer" but I do have a bow. But I do know several people in Utah that after looking at the OIAL archery tags recently and these new proposals that have either gone out and bought bows or plan to. I absolutely think that as more "benefits" and opportunities are transitioned to archery hunts more and more people will make the switch. Which will allow more people to draw a tag and HUNT, versus our current expectation of drawing and killing.


The problem is the "benefits" for one small group (less than 10%) are a detriment to the large group (more than 90%). The success rate difference between bison archery and any weapon hunts is not drastic enough to give many more permits. 70% archery success vs 75-85% historical Any Weapon success. 0-2 extra archery tags per 10 tags given. That just does not justify making the Any Weapon odds worse while making the archery odds way better. Maybe the archery success will drop way down and the idea can be justified. But as of now, an archery applicant is rewarded with much better drawing odds and similar chance at punching their tag.

All the harvest data for years is available to look at- the Any Weapon Hunters Choice success rates range from 55-95%. The Archery hunt last year was 70% (yes, it says 66%, but non-common core math says 7 out of 10 is 70%)


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Clarq said:


> As far as archery OIAL tags go,
> 
> In 2018, the archery goat tags had 155 applicants for 4 tags, while the goat hunts as a whole had 6784 applicants and 108 tags (excluding nonresidents). So, 3.7% of the tags were archery only, and 2.3% of the applicants went for them.
> 
> ...


I posted this in the other RAC thread. Probably should have posted it here...

I've been thinking about this a little more, and I think I've determined a condition under which most of us could support archery OIAL tags: the proportion of animals harvested by archery hunters should match the proportion of hunters applying.

Here's an example. Rounding a bit, about 1 in 40 mountain goat applicants applied for the archery tags last year. Let's imagine a unit that needs around 40 mountain goats harvested, and has 2000 hunters applying. If all tags went to any weapon, they would probably offer 40 tags (maybe a few more, but for the example, let's assume a 100% success rate on the rifle hunt). Drawing odds would be 1 in 50.

A "fair" share for the archery hunters would be 1 harvested goat (consistent with 1 in 40 people applying for the archery tags). Now, let's say archery success on the unit is 50%. Instead of offering 40 rifle tags, they would offer 39 rifle tags and two archery tags. 50 people would apply for the archery tags. Odds on those tags would be 1 in 25. 1950 people would apply for the 39 rifle tags, so odds on those tags would remain at 1 in 50.

Everyone wins. Archery hunters get better odds and an opportunity, and rifle hunters are no worse for the wear. I think the idea would get pretty broad support if implemented that way. And if in future years more people start applying for archery tags, they can raise the archery quota to once again provide a proportionate share of harvested animals to the archery pool.

That's why I thought the goat tag numbers looked ok this year. The amount of archery tags offered was more-or-less in line with the demand, relative to the others (we'll see how the success rates turn out). Rifle bison hunters on the Henry's took a big hit for the sake of the archery guys, though...

That's also why I don't support the idea of archery-only sheep hunts at this time. You could maybe turn 1 rifle tag into two archery tags and keep things relatively proportionate. Offer any more archery tags, and it comes at a big cost to the rest of the applicants. And besides, where do you offer the archery hunt? A lot of units only have 2-3 tags. Take even one any-weapon tag away to start an archery hunt, and you have quite an effect on peoples' chances to draw. The only way I would even consider supporting it was if it occurred on a very hard unit - like the Escalante or Henry mountains - and success was below 33%. Tell me you can turn 1 tag into 3, and I'll start listening...

P.S. I'll be at the RAC meeting so I can give my 2 cents on the matter when SFW starts advocating for archery sheep tags. I'm counting on it.


----------

