# Archery Elk Question



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I posted this thread in the Archery section versus the Big Game Section because it applies more to us who elect to chase big stinkys with a stick and string, but at the same time affect elk as a whole. Something has concerned me for some time. Currently Utah is faced with a dilemma of the potential for declining elk herd health due to an overpopulation of bulls. My concern is in regards to the Hunters Choice option for us archers. Now, don't get me wrong, I am for opportunity and in no way desire to take away an archers choice to harvest a cow. My concern is with reporting and how it affects the herd. 

I think there should be mandatory reporting of both sex and location of harvest on archery elk tags to increase management efficiency. That way the DWR can better determine how many anterless tags should be alloted in a specific location without dramatically affecting bull:cow ratio. Management tags were obviously a flop and I400 has yet to be implemented, which are designed to help with the overpopulation of bulls. To my knowledge, antlerless harvest numbers during archery elk hunts is unknown. My thinking is with mandatory reporting, both bull tags and anterless tags can be adjusted to maintain management objectives. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

I think harvest stats are a very important part of the hunt. I do and don't have a problem with *mandatory* reporting on the archery Elk, having bowhunted Elk for 22 out of 23 seasons, I have been contacted a helluva lot more than not about my hunt, same goes for my dad. I don't know the exact numbers of archery elk hunters for the last few years, but I am sure that we as archers are not killing that many cows(since going to an either sex tag, I have killed 7 cows and 4 spikes(but I also drew the either sex tag twice before in the late 80's)). As to the amount of mature bulls, I love hunting Elk, the more the merrier, and I have not seen this HUGE amount of surplus mature bulls, but then I do hunt an area that has been an LE Mature bull unit for hell, what 12 years now, we see good bulls every year, but if i were to draw that tag, I wouldn't hunt there..

I guess my thought is, yes *everyone* should report/questionaire, If your going to make bowhunters do it, then you better make **** sure ML /Rifle cow/spike/mature hunters report also... 
IMHO,,Archers are not killing enough animals to base an Elk objective from. 
I400, not for it or against it.


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

As i've thought about this, and i'm being quite prejudice in my leaning since I am a bowhunter, if you want to take away the either sex because of the too many cows we harvest and amount of bulls that have the ability of decimating the herds, how about giving us archers a state wide(other than true LE areas) any bull permit.. :shock: 

I would gladly start hunting the southern end of the Manti again. :mrgreen:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

NoShot said:


> As i've thought about this, and i'm being quite prejudice in my leaning since I am a bowhunter, if you want to take away the either sex because of the too many cows we harvest and amount of bulls that have the ability of decimating the herds, how about giving us archers a state wide(other than true LE areas) any bull permit.. :shock:
> 
> I would gladly start hunting the southern end of the Manti again. :mrgreen:


Amen Brutha,

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming all do this, why can't Utah?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

NoShot said:


> As i've thought about this, and i'm being quite prejudice in my leaning since I am a bowhunter, if you want to take away the either sex because of the too many cows we harvest and amount of bulls that have the ability of decimating the herds, how about giving us archers a state wide(other than true LE areas) any bull permit.. :shock:
> 
> I would gladly start hunting the southern end of the Manti again. :mrgreen:


Yes, I like this Idea A LOT! How do we push this through?


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm in, and not because it would be awsome for me and mine, but it would be good to great for the over all elk herd.


----------



## muzzlehutn (Oct 26, 2007)

+1 no more lookn for spikes in areas and big bulls in others <<--O/


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

I know were small, but I WOULD BE all over where it comings from to point it out.. Aimimg to get hurd in a RAC meeting woulbe be Great firstep, stepmight get into tho board meetings and gave some backinng.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

My question is which conservation groups are willing to step up and support this. I haven't seen any posts stating their stance or thoughts on this. I for one am eagerly awaiting a response.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

So, Once again I ask....What do we need to do to get this one pushed through. Someone tell me and I'll be the first to stand up on this!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> So, Once again I ask....What do we need to do to get this one pushed through. Someone tell me and I'll be the first to stand up on this!


Not sure what you are trying to get pushed through. Help me out.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

NoShot said:


> how about giving us archers a state wide(other than true LE areas) any bull permit.


This is probably what everyone is talking about. I wouldn't mind such a thing, but there is no flippin way this idea will fly. So many people are anti-archery already. Anything that seems to give archers more perks just makes everyone jealous.

But, if you look closely at the I400 regulations, those hunting conditions would not be too different. I believe that archery tags would be very easy to draw. And while there wouldn't be 6-point bulls all over the place, there would still be a lot of bigger bulls running around.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

I didn't vote cause I believe that ALL big game seasons should be manditory reporting. The truth is that we don't know exactly how many of what is being harvested.

State wide would be cool though.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> I didn't vote cause I believe that ALL big game seasons should be manditory reporting. The truth is that we don't know exactly how many of what is being harvested.
> 
> State wide would be cool though.


It would be cool, but I can't envision a scenario where it would be possible. Like El Matador said, there are many who believe archers already get too many 'perks'. True or not, that is the obstacle here.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Hey guy's,

I don't ever see a time where you will get a statewide any bull for archery. This state is rifle oriented rather than biology oriented. The biggest thing that would help the herds would start with mandatory reporting for all weapon types and all species. This can already be done for LE tags on line. Would not take much more effort to complete it to general tags as well. I 400 is really the very best idea so far that would give you the tags/opportunity to hunt elk more often. Hopefully the RAC/WB will give it a shot.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Elkhuntingfool said:


> I voted for
> 
> Implement I400 immediately and focus attention on bull populations instead.
> 
> I haven't heard much from the I400 crowd - thought I'd vote to see if it stirs the pot a bit more.


I have and will continue to resist. *\-\*


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

*Pro....*I was talking about state wide any bull permits for archery. I guess I missed the boat on I400 and still don't fully understand what it all entails. How is it kinda like the state wide any bull permit?


----------

