# We Can Bring It Back!



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The loss of Statewide Archery for deer hunters was a shame and a sham, but we have a chance to bring it back! Although we're too late for the Northern and Central RAC's, we stiil have time for the Southern, Northeastern, and Southeastern RAC's and for the Wildlife Board meeting, if we hurry! 

After posting on another thread in the Archery forum, I got to thinking about what got us into this situation and what we could do about it. What got us into this situation was that the Southern RAC was the ONLY RAC to vote for the unit archery hunt, but the then current Wildlife Board went against the other 4 RAC's and the DWR recommendation and voted for the unit archery hunts anyway, by a 4 to 3 margin, with the WB Chairman breaking the tie. Well, guess what folks! 3 of the 4 WB members who voted against the statewide archery hunt are GONE! (Keele Johnson, Tom Hatch, and Chairman Rick Woodward). Jake Albrecht is the only one left. It's a whole new ballgame.

To reiterate, the change to the 2008 five year deer management plan per options #1, #2, or #3 was decided in the RAC meetings in Nov 2010 and the Wildlife Board meeting in Dec 2010. The final WB count was 4 to 3 in favor of Option #2, the 30 unit hunts. The 30 unit hunts were targeted for the rifle and muzzleloader hunts, while the statewide archery hunt was not included in the tag numbers nor the hunt schedule nor the RAC and WB agendas.

In fact, this issue wasn't even mentioned in the Central RAC meeting, and only once in the Northern RAC when Dillon Hoyt said to keep statewide archery even though he was for Option #2. 

And in the Northeastern RAC, only two references to it came up. Once when a question was asked by Ryan Baker about why archers need the whole state and and a month to hunt. Per Anis' reply, we were trying to attract archers and even with the 28-day hunt, their success rate is about half of the other weapon hunts and they're not harming the resource. The other reference came from Rod Weaver (Utah Bowman's Association) when he supported Option #1 and recommended we keep statewide archery hunting.

In the Southeastern RAC, there was a bit more discussion with Verd Byrnes, a former RAC member recommending unit archery hunting, but when it was discussed by the RAC prior to the vote, it turned into a separate motion for a region hunt which was then rejected by a 3-7 margin. In other words, they wanted to keep it a statewide hunt and didn't even want it changed to a region hunt, let alone a unit hunt.

The Southern RAC meeting was, of course, another matter. The discussion went on for quite a while with people on both sides, but in the end, they amended the Option #2 recommendation to include unit by unit archery hunts.

So, now what? I think this has to be a true grassroots project with no form letters, no surveys, no signed petitions, no scripted emails or recorded phone calls. I'm not speaking for anyone but myself but I'm going to send emails to the RAC members and WB members to overrule the bad decision made by the previous WB members based on the facts that it WASN'T/ISN'T based on biology, it will NOT increase the deer herds, it will NOT attract new bowhunters, and it has NOT changed the overcrowding perception! I will also tell them that returning to statewide archery WILL keep the family hunt going, it WILL make it easier to hunt closer to home and it WILL afford more opportunities to more people to actually hunt per their schedules.

I urge you to also make the effort to contact the RAC's and WB! We only have 3 1/2 days before the second round of RAC meetings begin on Tuesday (Southern, Northeastern, Southeastern). Go to wildlife.utah.gov and click on RAC and WB meeting schedule for further info.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm just curious, but where in the Option #2 presentations did it say that Option #2 was only targeted to rifles?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

You might... MIGHT have a chance to get regional hunting restored but I doubt there is any chance of a return of statewide archery.


-DallanC


----------



## Elkster (Aug 22, 2008)

I hope it doesn't come back.... Just my .02


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Elkster:
+1


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> I'm just curious, but where in the Option #2 presentations did it say that Option #2 was only targeted to rifles?


Per the WB meeting audio, 16:20-35:35: The DWR presentation given by Anis referred only to the unit hunts vs regional hunts (rifle, muzzy) when discussing the differences in the 3 options. And the discussions following (35:36-39:25) treated the archery hunt as a separate hunt.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dallan C, Goofy, I guess I'm more optimistic than you! 75% of the problem is GONE! And one of the replacements is an actual real-live wildlife biologist!

Elkster, 2full, I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. I'll send my email and urge you to send yours so this issue gets addressed!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Elkster and 2full, Why do you not want it back? Serious question. 
I would love to see it back, I believe it would take alot of people out of the Rifle and Muzzy pools and switch them to archery, which is a good thing.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just curious, but where in the Option #2 presentations did it say that Option #2 was only targeted to rifles?
> ...


While what was talked about during the WB meeting may have been gray, what was published was not.
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/2011-deer-changes.html


> Option 2
> Unit-based management, hunting in 29 units
> 
> This option would require the DWR to manage each of the state's general-season deer units for a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. It would also require a switch to unit-based hunting. There would be 29 general-season hunting units. As part of this option, the DWR would:
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I hate Option 2. But I am tired of the continued changes that produce nothing for the Herd.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

EFA , Did you not see this?
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... anges.html

The only changes we are going to see the next few years are tag cuts on over crowded
units AND units with low buck to doe ratios from this winter counts..THATs IT..


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Mike:
My opinion is quite simple.
All, or none, should have to pick a unit.
I am mainly a bow hunter who likes to muzzle sometimes.
I have not rifle hunted since they made us pick a hunt.
So, it not that I am against bow hunters in any way.
Just the way I feel about it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


So, at what point do we say enough is enough? When they try to shorten the archery season (I think that's next)? When they shorten the rifle and muzzy seasons? When they raise the buck to doe ratio to 20-25/100? When the permit numbers are cut in half? When the resident permit fees are doubled? When units are closed down completely? When we can only shoot 4 points? All of these things have already been proposed by hunters and none of them increase the herds. Maybe I/we won't win this one, but can we count on you to help us win the next one? Or the next?


----------



## Elkster (Aug 22, 2008)

2full said:


> Mike:
> My opinion is quite simple.
> All, or none, should have to pick a unit.
> I am mainly a bow hunter who likes to muzzle sometimes.
> ...


I agree with the above statement. I don't have anything against bow hunters, I just fell they have a lot of oportunity as it is. Everyone cried that they wanted more deer. They wanted this multi unit mess that we're into now. So, my feelings are, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Isn't one of the main complaints that was made was hunting pressure?? Why open it back up and let the main pressure flow back down into the hardest hit units, like in years past? I don't buy the less pressure by archers crap that gets thrown around. Granted, you don't have a boom stick, but, human pressure on the animals is still pressure. We've all seen it.

That, in a nutshell, is why I don't want to see it back.

I'll be sure to let my local RAC reps know my thoughts.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> So, at what point do we say enough is enough? When they try to shorten the archery season (I think that's next)? When they shorten the rifle and muzzy seasons? When they raise the buck to doe ratio to 20-25/100? When the permit numbers are cut in half? When the resident permit fees are doubled? When units are closed down completely? When we can only shoot 4 points? All of these things have already been proposed by hunters and none of them increase the herds. Maybe I/we won't win this one, but can we count on you to help us win the next one? Or the next?


Right now.......Enough

One thing I've learned from trouble shooting, is if you continually change things before you have a chance to see if they work, it becomes very difficult to identify the actual cause of the problem.

There have been enough changes in the last few years. As far as I'm concerned I just as soon see no changes for the next 3 years, except to tag alotment base on actual counts and models. At the end of three years it will be easier to stand before the RAC/WB and point out that the herds have not increased, therefore option 2 is a bust and get rid of it for all, not just archers. I'm tired of the State of Utah being turned into a "High Fence Hunt".


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, lets not bring back statewide archery, and let more people go to rifle and muzzle loader hunts. :roll: If restricted to units, more archery hunters will switch to rifle and muzzle loader hunts, because as you decrease oppurtunity, many hunters will trend towards a higher probability of harvest. This in turn will cause more archery tags to be converted to rifle tags, there for increasing crowding and deer harvest. So its just one more way Option WFT? is bad for hunters and deer. So as tags are cut to compenasate for this, we just have fewer hunters. This does nothing for deer, overhunting is not the issue with mule deer declines. So the deer continue to decline, as do hunters, until there are not enough hunters to fund anything meaningful that does benefit deer. 

Bringing back statewide archery is good for all hunters. Rifle and muzzle loader hunters will see less crowding, and deer havest will be reduced. If we are going to implement hunter control, under the guise of wildlife management, it might as well actually benefit wildlife.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

2full & Elkster,

All or none? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? That's the old fairness argument. 
Does that apply to the season length? The extended hunts? The timing of the season? The rifle bull only elk rule? The hunter orange rule? The firearms restricted areas? The special youth hunts? Where does this fairness thing end? And why is it only one-sided? 

When I chose to hunt archery many, many years ago it was just one of the hunts I could do with my tag which came with the license OTC. I could also hunt statewide for a month and could take either sex. And if I didn't take a deer with my bow, I could use my rifle during the rifle hunt. I chose archery hunting because those benefits outweighed the challenges. But over the years those benefits started disappearing, but the challenges remained. Yes, I know, I now have compound bows and carbon arrows and sights and drop-away rests, but I still have to get within 40 yards of a deer to make the shot and I still have to reload after every shot and I still have to watch for branches and I still have to make a lot of movement to draw and I still have to estimate the distance, etc. And after all that, I still have a low success rate. 

It's like choosing to work graveyards, even though the hours are tougher, because the pay is better and you only work 7 1/2 hours and the place is quieter. But the boss comes and says the daytime employees think it's unfair that you get a bonus and fewer hours and so we have to reduce your salary so that everyone gets paid the same and increase your hours so that everyone has to work the same amount of time. Suddenly graveyard shift doesn't look so good anymore and you want to go to days, but there are no openings. Now what? Find a new job? Bump one of the newer day shift employees? Sue the company? Retire early? Or just suck it up and say nothing? And how does that benefit the day shift employees?

Removing statewide archery benefits nobody, not even the deer herds!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Anyway can help let me know. Hate the fact of NO State Wide Archery.. DUMB! DUMB! Just don't think the powers to be could give a RATS A--.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Removing statewide archery benefits nobody, not even the deer herds!





oldfudd said:


> Just don't think the powers to be could give a RATS A--.


You guys are starting to get it. Its NOT about managing herds, its purely the first major step in managing hunters. Option 2 should have never been allowed, it just cracked the door open for major hunting restrictions down the road.

Peta should be just giddy with what we are doing to ourselves. Their next strategy should be to endorse the SWF, and push for 50:100 buck doe ratios (they truely want that btw, they feel its natural as a doe gives birth at a 50:100 rate) which will mean more restrictions and fewer tags.

Its more amazing to me is not that it happened, but that people are still happy it happened.

-DallanC


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

elkfromabove

You were told what was going to happen by going to Option 2, but yet a whole bunch of archers supported Option 2 because they thought some how they could convience the powers to be to not take away State Wide. They thought exactly as you have stated, that this was going to turn into a restriction of long guns only. How dare the WB do exactly what they said they were going to do with Option 2, "Restrict Hunters".

To the archers that supported Option 2, you got what you asked for. To those archers that could see Option 2 for what it was, I am sorry. Your brothers and mine in hunting, that supported Option 2, have cost us a hunting history that I'm afraid we will never see again.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> Your brothers and mine in hunting, that supported Option 2, have cost us a hunting history that I'm afraid we will never see again.


+1000000

-DallanC


----------



## Elkster (Aug 22, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> elkfromabove
> 
> You were told what was going to happen by going to Option 2, but yet a whole bunch of archers supported Option 2 because they thought some how they could convience the powers to be to not take away State Wide. They thought exactly as you have stated, that this was going to turn into a restriction of long guns only. How dare the WB do exactly what they said they were going to do with Option 2, "Restrict Hunters".
> 
> To the archers that supported Option 2, you got what you asked for. To those archers that could see Option 2 for what it was, I am sorry. Your brothers and mine in hunting, that supported Option 2, have cost us a hunting history that I'm afraid we will never see again.


Pretty much nailed it!!! I fought Option 2 tooth and nail. Sent emials, made my pitch to RAC members, hunters, etc. It obviously fell on deaf ears. Those of you who wanted it, and thought it was a great idea, time to eat the pie. I don't think archers deserve anymore than the next guy. I'm sorry if that makes you mad, but, that's my feelings. You can argue with me, or try to make your point to me all you want, it's not going to change my views on it. The same goes for me, I won't change yours either. I'm not trying to. If you want to complain about it, go to the Northern and Southern RAC's and sportsmen who pushed for and passed this. The Central RAC voted against it.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

So Huntoholic are for or against statewide archery? If your for it then I'm getting the feeling that you don't even want to try to get it back.
I see it as a way to make it fair for everyone. More deer are killed on the rifle and muzzy hunts then on a statewide archery hunt. So if we give more insentive to hunt archery the less deer that will be killed. And that means less muzzy and rifle hunters crowding areas. 
I've hunted the archery hunt more than any other, but since they made it choose your unit, I probably will go with rifle. Its the same with most of my friends. There is a reason people hunt archery and its not because you have a better chance of harvesting. elkfromabove explained it best.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.


You mean hunter unit management? Deer unit management has been in place since the 1997 and in some form even before that.

It would be nice to open the statewide back up. Keele and Tom...good riddance!!!!!!!!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.


Are you stating that the DWR and WB had nothing to do with this and it was SFW's call?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

mikevanwilder said:


> So Huntoholic are for or against statewide archery? If your for it then I'm getting the feeling that you don't even want to try to get it back.
> I see it as a way to make it fair for everyone. More deer are killed on the rifle and muzzy hunts then on a statewide archery hunt. So if we give more insentive to hunt archery the less deer that will be killed. And that means less muzzy and rifle hunters crowding areas.
> I've hunted the archery hunt more than any other, but since they made it choose your unit, I probably will go with rifle. Its the same with most of my friends. There is a reason people hunt archery and its not because you have a better chance of harvesting. elkfromabove explained it best.


I sorry Mikevanwilder, but I'm one of the old guys. There is nothing that we have now that would even come close to what I have already been through when in comes to crowding. The crowding and hot spotting issues are BS to me. Just another social issue. Just like the over crowding in the southern units. Just BS.
I am against Option 2 for all hunters and not just archers. Option 2 is a social issue and nothing more. You do know that the number of tagges available is fixed by unit right. So I'm not sure where this more hunters showing up is coming from. You go ahead, hang up that bow and stand in that long line for those rifle tagges. Hunt every 3 to 5 years. As for me I will most likely pickup one of those left over archery tagges and go hunting. Every year. 
Heck, I will most likely buy a whole new setup while I'm at it too. What I really miss is being able to hunt with all three weapons without jumping through a bunch of hoops. I just as soon fight for a return to regional with state wide archery.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.
> ...


What I'm saying is: EVEN IF SFW was lobbying for state wide archery to return,
I don't think it would happen.........

The Wild life board & the DWR have made it very clear " No deer hunt changes "
in the next few years other than permit adjustments.....and youth archery.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.
> ...


How do you have 'true' deer unit management without controlling permit numbers
on any given unit? That was the problem with regional deer permits...IMHO.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Hmmmm.....back in the "good ol' days" we didn't have to manage hunters because they managed and dispersed themselves just fine. But I digress.....I'm anxious to see what the numbers end up being in a few months concerning permit numbers and how those were constituted into the "math".


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Huntoholic I think we miss understood each other. I agree 100% with your opinion of option. I hate it. But the issue I asked about was statewide archery, and if your for it. We have to fight for something or we will lose everything for no other reason than money and horns!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":3k0f7boh]I don't think SFW could bring it back at this point,,, Deer unit management is a done deal.
> ...


How do you have 'true' deer unit management without controlling permit numbers
on any given unit? That was the problem with regional deer permits...IMHO.[/quote:3k0f7boh]

And thus we're back to the concept that killing or not killing excess bucks has something to do with the deer population numbers, ie: bucks are also delivering fawns.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I don't know about anyone else, but in "the good 'ol days" I would sneak into a bowl for opening morning and when it got light there was orange everywhere around me.
They weren't very dispersed..........it was quiite spooky.....
That was back when they sold 250,00 tags.
Don't know how far back your "good 'ol days" go.
Just saying.........


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

2full said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but in "the good 'ol days" I would snuck into a bowl for opening morning and when it got light there was orange everywhere around me.
> They weren't very dispersed..........it was quiite spooky.....
> That was back when they sold 250,00 tags.
> Don't know how far back your "good 'ol days" go.
> Just saying.........


And you think regulating hunters to smaller units will change that? Those popular bowls are still there and will still draw a crowd. Though the crowd will be smaller because the number of permits is smaller, the only ways to clear your bowl is to either cut more permits and/or to make even smaller units and/or to have more than one season. But in the end, none of those actions will increase the deer herds.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Nope,
I was just thinking out loud and dating myself. That's why I said.......... just saying.......
I personally do not want to go back to those days. I think it's better now than then. See more and better deer.
Don't you feel at all that some parts of the old regions fare better than other parts, and might need some different types of management? The goal in going to smaller units was to help bring back the areas that need help.
Not saying I like everything about it, but at least it is an attempt. We have to give it time to see if it works.
No need to jump all over me just because I might differ in opinion from you.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

mikevanwilder said:


> Huntoholic I think we miss understood each other. I agree 100% with your opinion of option. I hate it. But the issue I asked about was statewide archery, and if your for it. We have to fight for something or we will lose everything for no other reason than money and horns!


In principle, Yes.

But the reason archers lost State Wide was because of Option 2. You want to bring back State Wide, then get rid of Option 2.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

2full said:


> Nope,
> I was just thinking out loud and dating myself. That's why I said.......... just saying.......
> I personally do not want to go back to those days. I think it's better now than then. See more and better deer.
> Don't you feel at all that some parts of the old regions fare better than other parts, and might need some different types of management? The goal in going to smaller units was to help bring back the areas that need help.
> ...


  Sorry, I didn't mean to jump all over you. I just get frustrated when people base their opinions on the belief that regulating/limiting hunters who only shoot bucks has an effect on the long term numbers of deer in any area. It doesn't! It can't! And all the studies I've seen show that.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I went rifle hunting in Utah this year for the first time since they went to pick your weapon hunts. I didn't enjoy it at all, and I didn't reduce the herd any more with the rifle than I usually do with my bow (no score). 

It makes my head hurt to even think about which ridge I want to hunt next year. I think the best answer is "none of them". I say boycott Utah next year and stay home until they bring back the statewide archery hunt. Think of all the deer and gas money that can be saved if everyone did that.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> 2full said:
> 
> 
> > Nope,
> ...


But you READ those studies and QUESTION directly the bios who do them. Stupid science and data anyway.

:O•-:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Well, we lost the Southern round, at least for now! But I did get to speak my piece and there were only two comments from the RAC, both against, and both with the old "fairness/they are never satisfied/let's not change anything in midstream" narrative (this from 2 people who adamantly pushed for Option #2), and no comments from the public. (Of course there were only about ten of us.) But on a happier note, they did get 6 other pro emails which I assume came from some of you. Thanks!

Anyway, they never brought it to a vote and the format doesn't allow for public comments after the RAC comments so I couldn't respond to the narratives nor ask for a vote. And, remember, the Southern RAC was the only one who voted to remove statewide, so I guess I can feel happy I came out alive.

Though I did send emails, I'm not able to go to the other 2 remaining RAC's, (Southeastern and Northeastern) so feel free to go and speak out if you so desire. I suspect that if we quit pushing back, they'll feel like they can take their agenda anywhere they want to go with it.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Well crap! Guess I should have pulled myself together and fought this stomach thing and "stomached" the rhetoric enough to go and give my own narrative....or maybe its a good thing I didn't go to the RAC. Were our wonderful "friends" from the Farm Bureau there to talk about wolves and predators...just cause....again?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Personally I would rather see some archery only units rather than see the state wide hunt brought back.

If you had attended RAC meetings for the past SEVERAL years and not just last year you would know exactly the reason the archers lost their state wide hunt. Those that attented some of those meetings will know exactly what Im talking about. Sometimes when groups are unwilling to budge and not give an inch they lose more in the end. IMHO.

:O•-: :O•-: :O•-:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

SOME of us read the entire painful, sometimes eye and mind bleaching minutes from ALL past RACs. What are some examples of units that would benefit from archery only?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

klbzdad said:


> Well crap! Guess I should have pulled myself together and fought this stomach thing and "stomached" the rhetoric enough to go and give my own narrative....or maybe its a good thing I didn't go to the RAC. Were our wonderful "friends" from the Farm Bureau there to talk about wolves and predators...just cause....again?


It would have been fun to have you there, Shawn, but I represented myself on this issue. Besides, I think I was viewed as the underdog after the diatribe from the two RAC members. I gave them science and logic, while all I got back was personal perception and emotion. You would have changed the climate, I'm sure. Anyway, I set them up for next time. 

No Farm Bureau that I know of, but a couple of SFW folks were there, but no talk of wolves or coyotes or lions. And in our group conversations with two of the RAC members (one pro and one con) after the meeting, the Beaver SFW rep sided with me when the con RAC member brought up the ever-present wounding and crowding issues, so this meeting was not all dumpsterville.

Edited: Oh, and Jake Albrecht (the only "no" left on the previous Wildlife Board) was there, so he knows I'm serious about this. Besides, I had already emailed him!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> If you had attended RAC meetings for the past SEVERAL years and not just last year you would know exactly the reason the archers lost their state wide hunt. Those that attented some of those meetings will know exactly what Im talking about. Sometimes when groups are unwilling to budge and not give an inch they lose more in the end.


Really? I spoke at the RACS, participated in several other stake-holder meetings, attended and spoke at the Board meetings and sat on the 08 Mule Deer committee. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, (as evidenced by the fact that I did all that), but I know enough to know you're full of beans.

There were several factors that wiped out statewide archery, all of them based on petty emotional interests. Seeing as how hunters have repeatedly and successfully defended ourselves against anti-hunting efforts with the argument that emotions have no legitimate place in wildlife management, it's disappointing to see so many like you jumping on the emo bandwagon.

A WB member has suggested that there's a pendulum effect, here. He believes the pendulum will swing back eventually. I highly doubt statewide can ever come back, and that's okay. I'm just hoping the pendulum swings away from emotionalism and leaves the emo kids sobbing in their pillows, "It's not fair...it's not fair!"


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > If you had attended RAC meetings for the past SEVERAL years and not just last year you would know exactly the reason the archers lost their state wide hunt. Those that attented some of those meetings will know exactly what Im talking about. Sometimes when groups are unwilling to budge and not give an inch they lose more in the end.
> ...


+1

Full of beans: Lots of hot air. -)O(-


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Finnegan said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+2

While not at every one, I've tried pretty **** hard to be pragmatic with my opinions and where I place my support for important issues. You can't make everyone happy all of the time but this was a perfect statement we all should read and take a moment to absorb. Thanks Finn!


----------

