# Statewide archery hunt a thing of the past?



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm posting this in the big game end to see rifle hunters views as well. With the current mule deer system up for revamping this year, What are the odds that they will do away with the state wide hunt for archers in the future? Are there enough people that really want to do away with it? What do you all think and want? 
I for one want to keep the statewide hunt. Archers are the best management tool.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> Archers are the best management tool.


Wow... this ought to get interesting pretty quick if enough people are around to respond to it. :lol: o-||


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Saddle the first Mule Deer Committee meeting was on Monday. The topic didn't come up
but I am sure it will eventually.

Most of those opposed to the statewide hunt are from the southern regions of the state. The perception is that the hills are becoming more and more crowded. This may be the case as the archery permits have sold out for the last several years, and this year the bow tags were gone in record time.

Bowhunters of Utah and the UTDWR both conducted surveys that showed that hunter density was highest in the area's closest to the Wasatch Front. Mostly the central unit was most utilized by bowhunters. This is in no way saying that what our friends down south are seeing doesnt exist. It would only make sense that if you are selling more tags ( selling out of archery tags ) then you are going to see more *PEOPLE* Not necessarily hunters but people in the woods. Mix in the people that are actually hunting with the people in camps that are more visible because of the ATV factor and you will tend to notice more people in the woods.

I will tell you right now that Bowhunters of Utah will fight with all that we've got to not let this happen.

If you have a concern about this matter or any other loss of hunting opportunity that is *NOT FOUNDED ON SOUND BIOLOGICAL GAME MANAGEMENT* Join BOU and have your voice heard


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> I'm posting this in the big game end to see rifle hunters views as well. With the current mule deer system up for revamping this year, *What are the odds that they will do away with the state wide hunt for archers in the future?*


As an archer I would hope it doesn't change. We primarily hunt the Northeastern, but live and enjoy after work hunts here in the Central with the every couple years back down to the northern end of the southern.



blazingsaddle said:


> Are there enough people that really want to do away with it?


Yes bet your a$$ there is.. 17K of us if we all agree vs. 100K muzzy and rifle folks that think we have it too good..



blazingsaddle said:


> What do you all think and want?
> I for one want to keep the statewide hunt. Archers are the best management tool.


I would like see it stay the same, but on the other hand if the state goes to the "micro" units, logic says it should change also. As far as archers being the best management tool, well you've just opened up a whole 'nother can of debatable worms with people.. :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

NoShot said:


> I would like see it stay the same, but on the other hand if the state goes to the "micro" units, logic says it should change also. As far as archers being the best management tool, well you've just opened up a whole 'nother can of debatable worms with people.. :shock:


Why would/should statewide archery change if/when micro units are formed? The purpose of micro managing is to prevent over harvest in certain areas. The numbers show archers have little effect on quality/quantity in general areas. I point to the Wasatch Front as a perfect example of how archers are THE BEST management tool, at least as far as weapon choice. How that can be debated is beyond me.

As for fighting to keep statewide archery, UBA will be there side by side with BOU and any/all other groups individuals who are willing to fight the good fight. I believe once the DH issues are straightened out for the micro units, the numbers will show NO NEED to limit archers to regions/micro units. A year and a half ago, myself, Jerry Slaugh(broadside-shot), and Scott Weatherspoon (swbuckmaster) traveled to St George and talked with 200+ southern Utah archers about the 'over-crowding' issues. We had the data compiled from the DWR and we were able to show the 'crowding' issue is not reality, and a big part of the increase is more archers overall, DH's, and recreational public land users.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

> Why would/should statewide archery change if/when micro units are formed?


That's a simple one if you ask me, why form micro management units if you have no intention on using them to their fullest extent? I know it has been mentioned that archery hunters have little impact on the deer herd because their success rate is so low. However, when your herds are below objective every little bit helps to get them back on track. Besides that, in the past 10 years what have archery hunters gave up for the betterment of the deer herd?.......Yep NOTHING! If anything archery hunters have more opportunity now then they did 10 years ago with the extended archery seasons (Wasatch Front, Uinta Basin, and Sanpete Valley extended archery). Everything the DWR has tried so far to help the deer herd recover has been at the expense of muzzleloader and rifle hunters. Seasons dates have changed for mid November to late September, seasons lengths have been shortened down to as little as 5 days, the state has been split up in to the 5 general season units that they need to choose from to mention a few things that we have sacrificed. It is now time for archery hunters to step up to the plat and sacrifice a little for the BETTERMENT of the deer herd. Everyone in clouding archery hunters complain from time to time about the deer numbers. In order to get the numbers back to where we would like them ALL must sacrifice some weather great or small. So PRO if archery hunters are not willing to give up their statewide archery hunt what are archery hunters going to sacrifice to help improve the deer herds? It's time for archery hunters too ANI up!

400bull


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

Here is away to solve this issue get rid of the rifle hunt and just have muzzleloader and archery hunts.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

400- 
Ani up? Archers harvest % shows their ani. In 2006 Utah rifle hunters had a harvest percentage of 38% in an average of 3.5 days in the field. Muzzy hunters had 32.6% harvest with 4.3 days averaged. Archery hunters had the lowest harvest average of 22.1%, with the highest average number of days hunted with 9.2. It took Archers almost triple the number of days to have a harvest percentage just a little more than half that of the rifle hunters. The proof is in the pudding. I agree every little bit helps if numbers are shy of objectives, but as a whole the state deer numbers are increasing!
Our state should not be managed by whats fairest among different weapon hunters. It should be managed for whats the best for the future of the sport. The future involves many things though: Healthy animal populations, enough open public land, enough quality winter range, hunter recrutment, ect. 
You say that muzzy and rifle hunters have given the most, (which for the most part I can't argue), but they still do have the biggest impact on the herds. If you play the odds only, your best bet to harvest a deer is with the rifle, even with all they have "given up."
Archery is the best way to issue the most tags and have the least amount of impact on the animals.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> Here is away to solve this issue get rid of the rifle hunt and just have muzzleloader and archery hunts.


But no in-lines right?? and the bows have to be hand crafted from local wood... maybe some nice thick scrub oak or something. :lol:


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Blaze,

Most of my hunting over the years has been archery hunting. It was not until I talked my wife into hunt that I started to do more rifle and muzzleloader hunting. I under stand completely that archery hunting is difficult and comes with a very low success rate. If you reader my original post you will see that I noted that. I don’t buy into this archery hunting is difficult with low success as part of your ANI. You knew going into archery hunting that it was going to be difficult and you would harvest a deer once every 4 years at best. I think that you absolutely correct in thinking that muzzleloader and rifle hunters should make the biggest sacrifice because they have a much higher successes rate and harvest more animals than archery hunters do. The fact still stands that archery hunters have not given up ONE thing in the past ten years. I don’t think that it’s asking much to take away the state wide archery season and make archery hunters hunt with in a given unit. 

400bull


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I believe it will not affect anything if archers are able to continue hunting statewide, so my question is why restrict them if it does not affect anything? Should we restrict archers only for the fact we are restricting the other weapons? Or its just the archers turn to give? If it would benifit the sport as a whole, lets do it. But, I do not think it has an impact if we limit archers. 
I hunt the same two areas every year, northeastern and the extended, so it really does not affect me, if we had to choose an area. My point is, I would like to see as few "restrictions" as possible, for all weapons and hunting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

[quote="400BULL" The fact still stands that archery hunters have not given up ONE thing in the past ten years. I don't think that it's asking much to take away the state wide archery season and make archery hunters hunt with in a given unit.

400bull[/quote]400, I think you better do a little research before making such claims. I know there are folks over on MM that spew this stuff, so I realize you have been mislead, but it is 100% inaccurate to state archers "have not given up ONE thing in the past ten years". I am feeling nice today, so I won't be the one to blast you, but you WILL get called to the carpet by a few 'true' archers on this one.

I agree that archers know going in their odds of downing an animal are lower than with more effective weapons. That has NOTHING to do with making archers have shorter season dates and/or picking a Region/Unit. The truth is, as you have hinted at as an archer no less, it comes down to the MYTH that only rifle/muzzy hunters have had to 'sacrifice' in the past ten years. Truth is, archery is a GREAT management tool that is NOT being used as it could/should be. If used properly quality AND quantity would increase both for the animals AND the hunters. People complain there are no big deer, guess what would happen if there were FEWER rifle/muzzy tags issued and MORE archery tags? Bigger and more bucks all while INCREASING opportunity. I am at a loss as to why Utah is so anti-archery in todays world. Other states are realizing the benefit*s* of channeling MORE hunters to primitive weapons, yet hunters in Utah seem hell bent on pushing people AWAY from primitive weapons. WHY, WHY, WHY???


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

This is a dumb issue....in the fact that rifle and muzzy hunters want to have their cake and eat it to. They want more time in the field and more places to hunt in so that they can take even more animals from their 300yrd hiding spot. The same may be said about archery but I don't see it that way. Archery hunters know that they will have a lower success rate but still hunt because they LOVE to hunt. If everyone else wants the same opportunity to hunt and wants more time in the field...then why don't they switch to archery? Why are people trying to do away with something that could very well benefit them also (just switch to archery)? If we limit the archery opportunities don't you think that there will be more people in the field during muzzy and rifle...hence more game taken and less land to do it in? Limiting archery to pick a unit and do away with the state wide hunt, in my mind, would discourage some hunters from archery and would cause an influx in the amount of rifle hunters and muzzy hunters or possibly no hunters at all. Why is everyone so against bow hunting opportunity? How in the world does it make sense in anyone's mind to limit archery when their impact on the herd is the least felt when compared to rifle and muzzy? This thought is very foreign to me. In truth it sounds like Obama's take from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone is EQUAL. How dumb is that thought process? Very Very Very liberal. How does that make sense? Archery works hard for their harvest. Our success rate is lower (as pointed out in previous posts) and it is impossible to take long shots....I.E. 80 (questionable) plus yards. We have to be up close and personal to be able to harvest an animal. We may spend more time in the field but I guarantee that we spend more money in the field than rifle and muzzy spend (how is that FAIR?). Despite the time we spend in the field, despite the money we spend, despite the fact that our season is longer and we have "more OPPORTUNITY" but HARVEST LESS.......we have made our choice and stick to it. IN MY MIND THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE FAIR IS THAT YOU ALSO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE......THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE ARCHERY. I wish all of you "anti-archery" would look at the facts and harvest %'s and stop all of your whinin' and cryin' about FAIR. Ya'll talk about takin' away state wide archery like it's no big deal......this is the dumbest thing in the world and it just *HACKS ME OFF! ! ! !*

If you want the same "opportunity" as archery.......SWITCH TO ARCHERY! ! ! !


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW, I need your help/backup over on the MM. It is me and Alpine against the hordes of anti-archery socialists.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG.
Why dont we take away rilfe hunting and put in that place a pistol season? Im all down for that. I would give up my Rifle tag for a pistol season. I hunt with rilfe and bow. I injoy archery hunting better then I do rilfe. With a pistol you have to get withen 100 yards and that would help the deer heards and get us bigger bucks.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

400bull,
Do you recall the AR-301 hunt? You said bowhunters have not had to give up one thing in 10 years. Your facts are incorrect. The AR-301 hunt was an awesome opportunity for bowhunters to hunt elk and it was taken from us several years ago. That is just one example. I can give you more if you want.

I am not going to get into an argument over why bowhunting is a VERY successful management tool. If you don't get it, especially when you ARE a bowhunter (blows my mind), I don't think you ever will. Pro and UZ-A-BOW have put it pretty plainly so I will leave it at that.

Bowhunters have given things up in the past and will need to fight to maintain what we have currently until this state begins to catch on that Bowhunting can be used effectively to create quantity and quality in our herds (Wasatch Front bears this out better than anything I can write or say)!!!!!

Cory


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Pro,

Please enlighten me on what archery hunters have sacrificed (given up) with in the past ten years. I tried to be open minded about this, could not think of what archery hunters had ten years ago that they do not have today before I made that comment. It had nothing to do with any comments or discussions that have or had been going on MM. If I am wrong in saying that then I will take back what I said. I cannot think of anything that archery hunters have given up. To me it seems to be a one-side deal when it comes to archery hunting, a whole lot of take with very little give. 

I know that you are a lot more involved with the DWR and regulations making process then I am. A lot of your ideas and thoughts have a lot of merit. I personally thank you for all your efforts that you do for us as a hunting community. I do not agree with your comments about me (Utah) being anti-primitive weapon. Once again, please correct me if I am wrong, I don’t know of an other state neighboring on to Utah that gives out a state wide archery tag. To my knowledge all neighboring states require archery hunters to hunt with in a given region. If Utah is so anti-primitive, why is it that we are the only state the currently has a statewide archery hunt? Why are we so anti-primitive if all that we are asking is install a regulation similar to what every other state currently have in place? 

I know that archery (primitive weapons) is a great management tool that the DWR has at its disposal to us when it can. But not everyone wants to hunt with a primitive weapon. It’s just not everyone’s blood like it is in yours and mine. I would much rather hunt with a muzzy or a bow then I would a rifle, my wife on the other hand could care less if she ever picks up a bow. So when you talk about quantity and quality you need to keep these kind of people in mind. You cannot keep giving to the primitive weapons group and taking away from the modern up to date group and expect to keep everyone in the ball game. The modern group is just as effective and management group as the primitive weapons group is. With out ether one we all loose. The whole thing is a balancing act, and right now, I do not see things being balanced.

400bull


----------



## UintaMan (Sep 16, 2007)

I must admitt that I have never bow hunted, I prefer the muzzy hunts, with that being said, I don't understand what the issue is with the statewide archery. In my opinion it comes down to jealousy. If opponents of the statewide archery don't have any facts to back up their argument and the archery boys do when defending their stance, I don't see how it can be anything other than jealousy. Seriously what is the big deal? :roll:


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

> But not everyone wants to hunt with a primitive weapon. It's just not everyone's blood like it is in yours and mine. I would much rather hunt with a muzzy or a bow then I would a rifle, my wife on the other hand could care less if she ever picks up a bow. So when you talk about quantity and quality you need to keep these kind of people in mind. You cannot keep giving to the primitive weapons group and taking away from the modern up to date group and expect to keep everyone in the ball game.


I would have to second this. I want to do more primitive huniting but my wife will not and some of my other family members feel the same way. Its a balancing act that with micro managing units will help. I think that if they gave out more archary tags/year that they would have to set up limits to certain areas(which would cause a "region" draw). If not there would be tons of people on the wasatch for the extended, ect. Then we could get more archery tags. If anyone noticed they seem to be a hot item. it took what, a week to sell the remaining ones. 
just my .02 cents


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

ElkhunterUT,

Thanks for pointing out the AR-301 hunt, I had completely forgot about that hunt. I apologize to all archery hunters for saying that they have not given up anything in the past 10 years. 

Please don’t get me wrong I am all for primitive weapons hunts. I understand completely just how effective primitive weapons hunting can be as a management tool. I would love to see everyone out their at sometime in their hunting career pick up a primitive weapon and give it a try. I honestly think that anyone who gives it a try would come to realize the sport and changes that can only be found when hunting with a primitive weapon. The truth of the matter is not everyone who hunts wants to try it with a primitive weapon. As passionate as you guys are about archery hunting you have other people that could care less about it. It’s a balancing game that needs to be played and right now it’s not balancing out. 


Uintaman,

You ask what is the big deal? The big deal is the deer management team is currently looking at a plan that would break the state up into even smaller units then it currently is. That could mean that your hunt area just might be split in half if this plan goes through (by the way I am for the micro management). So come next year you just might have to choose which half of your current hunting area you are going to hunt. At the same time archery hunters think that they are entitled to hunt the entire state because there hunt is so much more difficult. Where they get this concept of entitlement bets me.


400bull


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

It seems to me this simple. If any unit is to be micro managed you would need to have as few variables as possible. If you have no idea of how many hunters or hunter days that there are in the field then you are defeating the WHOLE purpose of micro managing. Everyone will give up something to help get Utah back into managing the deer herds again. It looks as if archers may have to hunt in one area. I don't see a problem with it at all.

Drifter


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

400BULL said:


> You ask what is the big deal? The big deal is the deer management team is currently looking at a plan that would break the state up into even smaller units then it currently is. That could mean that your hunt area just might be split in half if this plan goes through (by the way I am for the micro management). So come next year you just might have to choose which half of your current hunting area you are going to hunt. At the same time archery hunters think that they are entitled to hunt the entire state because there hunt is so much more difficult. Where they get this concept of entitlement bets me.
> 
> 400bull


First, I didn't mean to include you with the completely anti-archery crowd which IS real. My apologies.

Second, which group, for the most part, is asking for the micro units? Is it the archers or the rifle/muzzy hunters? Now, what is their 'desired outcome' of micro management? Isn't it to prevent over harvest in certain areas? I have asked MANY times for ONE ounce of evidence that archers are a threat to over harvest in an area, I have yet to receive even an attempt to produce evidence. So, that leaves ME with little else to conclude to than little else but an anti-archery mentality. You yourself keep saying how archers aren't "giving anything up", even though you now admit that is FALSE. :wink: Is this about making archers 'sacrifice' just so rifle/muzzy hunters 'feel' better? Because it sure has no/little ground to stand on as far as a benefit to the deer. Studies HAVE been done, and ALL the data shows there is NO need to limit archers to a region/unit. How you, or any other, can argue this is about fairness is beyond me. I thought this was about what will benefit the deer herd, guess I was wrong. It seems this about how Bobby gets a lollipop and Johnny doesn't. :?

I understand not all hunters are, or should be archers. No one is advocating that here. But, if you make archery more attractive to more hunters, the success rates will lower, which in return will do one of two things or both. It will allow for more tags to be issued meaning MORE opportunity, and/or more bucks surviving each year. A winning proposition regardless.


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

Bart aren't you forgetting (I know you are not forgetting just refusing to acknowledge) the impact of the hunters days in the field and the unknown amount of hunters. If you want to manage something whether it is in the business world or animal kingdom you need to know all you can about it. You do not put a variable in to the equation that you have no control over. You take the variable out of the equation so you are in control. This is smart management.

Drifter


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

drifter said:


> Bart aren't you forgetting (I know you are not forgetting just refusing to acknowledge) the impact of the hunters days in the field and the unknown amount of hunters. If you want to manage something whether it is in the business world or animal kingdom you need to know all you can about it. You do not put a variable in to the equation that you have no control over. You take the variable out of the equation so you are in control. This is smart management.
> 
> Drifter


If that 'variable' is so small it makes little/no difference to the outcome why worry about it? The DWR has a fair idea on how many days in the field and where in the field archers spend each year. As I have stated MANY times, the data says their is NO BIOLOGICAL need to limit/restrict archers. This 'movement' is 100% based on a 'fairness' BS load. Again, back to the lollipop. :?

I know "impact" is the word of the day, but I have yet to see an ounce of evidence on the "impact" archers put on deer in a negative way. You could have double the archers and let them hunt twice as many days and their "impact" would still be less than the negative "impact" rifle/muzzy hunters place on deer. So, based on this "impact" craze, we should LIMIT rifle/muzzy hunters even MORE. :shock:


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

You crack me up. You say you could have twice the hunters and twice the days and it wont impact the units. Well back at you, show me the fact to back this up! If the state is going to get the deer herd in order they need to control all the variables they can. In your opinion this is a small one. In my opinion this is a large one. It is however something that can be managed and your way there is no management of it. By including a unknown into something is the wrong way to start this proposal off.

Drifter


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Pro,

I agree with that in the short run archery hunters have little to no effect on the heath or the heard. I do not agree with egnoring the effects of archry hunters in the long run. I think it would be like me giving you my back account and allowing you to withdrawl 10 cents from it every day. Both you and I would probably agree that 10 cents is pocket change. It does not make a ton of diffrenece on your bank acount if allowed to happen for a short period of time. If left untouched this could lead to hundreds if not thousands of dollars lost in revenue. This seems to be the way you are propossing to handle the statewaide archery hunt. Even though the impact is very minimal I would assume that there is enough of an impact that we can not afford to egnore in all to gother. 

400bull


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

drifter said:


> You crack me up. You say you could have twice the hunters and twice the days and it wont impact the units. Well back at you, show me the fact to back this up! If the state is going to get the deer herd in order they need to control all the variables they can. In your opinion this is a small one. In my opinion this is a large one. It is however something that can be managed and your way there is no management of it. By including a unknown into something is the wrong way to start this proposal off.
> 
> Drifter


In 2006 according to the stats on the DWR website Rifle and ML hunters killed 22,959 deer that year. Archers killed 2,984. You could double the archery kill to 5,968 and still not make as big of impact as Rifle. Yes 5,968 is still an impact but is is still 26% of what the other weapon types are killing.

I can't figure out why rifle hunters are upset with archery hunters other than the percieved idea that they are getting more breakes. I would think they would like seeing more archers, less impact on the deer herds which will make more deer for them and less competition for the coveted rifle tags.

And I agree with what Pro and others have said Utah is a very unfriendy primitive weapon state when compared to the other states around.

Mark

Mark


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

400BULL said:


> Pro,
> 
> I agree with that in the short run archery hunters have little to no effect on the heath or the heard. I do not agree with egnoring the effects of archry hunters in the long run. I think it would be like me giving you my back account and allowing you to withdrawl 10 cents from it every day. Both you and I would probably agree that 10 cents is pocket change. It does not make a ton of diffrenece on your bank acount if allowed to happen for a short period of time. If left untouched this could lead to hundreds if not thousands of dollars lost in revenue. This seems to be the way you are propossing to handle the statewaide archery hunt. Even though the impact is very minimal I would assume that there is enough of an impact that we can not afford to egnore in all to gother.
> 
> 400bull


Using the analogy above. What if Pro is depositing 50 cents everyday? So even though you are taking 10 cents everyday there is a net positive of 40 cents. I know it is much more complicated than that. Deer are reproducing which is a factor to think about and I don't know the numbers, but I would assume that bow hunters kill deer and a rate much, much less than the reproduction rate.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Can anyone explain to me why 25,000 plus archers (I added in Dedicated hunters) would over-crowd the state than 95,000 ML and rifle hunters?

I think archers are getting the blame when other people are camping with families and not actually hunting. You have the Grouse Hunters. You have rifle and ML hunters who are scouting for elk and deer at this time.

The archers arent causing the problem with over-crowding.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm with Pro. It sounds like this whole thread has LIBERAL MENTALITY all over it. If it ain't broke Don't fix it! The mentality that things "aren't fair" ...doesn't work. Why should we ruin a good thing just so that everything can be fair? Once again, dumb mentality. Look at one thing in your life that is fair. Life is not full of fairness. Everyone is not on the same level. This really has nothing in the world to do with fairness and everything in the world to do with herd management. As the numbers show bow hunters impact on the deer herd is very minimal compared to rifle hunters. Granted, every hunter in the field has an impact....so does every hiker, mountain biker, camper, fisherman and the list goes on and on and on. The point is that when looking at the impact of these types of hunters on the herd, it appears that the rifle hunters have reached the acceptable impact limit. So, in order to fix the problem and MANAGE the health of the herd and impact on them, the the unacceptable impact...i.e. rifle/muzzy hunters must be dealt with and managed. When the ARCHERY HUNTERS start to have a negative impact on herd growth and herd management then I assume that that negative impact (archery hunters) will be managed and dealt with. Until then, like I said above, why fix a good thing (both for hunters and the deer herd) based entirely on fairness? 

Like I mentioned in my other post.....if you want bow hunter "benefits" than bow hunt. If you aren't interested in bow hunting than that is your choice and you must accept or deal with the regulations that are set. We all have the same opportunity....some just choose to use it differently! 

400bull......you have a very liberal mentality when it comes to this issue and I don't like it. :wink: Man, pull your head out and listen (or read) what you are saying here. THINK! ! !


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

How the heck can anyone say that Utah is anti-primitive (archery) hunting? Have any of you looked at other states Big Game guides. Every state that I have looked at or even herd of has archery hunters hunting a given UNIT (note it is singular not plural). Utah on the other hand lets archery hunters hunt the entire state. Where do you get off on thinking that everyone is against archry hunters?

Who decided that the curernt managment system was/wasn't broke?........ Oh ya we as a hunting community decide that when we asked the divison to re-visit the idea of going to a micro-management type of a systems last year during the fall RAC meetings. Sorry UZ, apparently more then one individual was under the imprestion that a few things could be improved. Like it or not, not everyone thinks that you a Pro have all the answers. Now that we are looking into a new management paln and debating about going to a micro-management type of plan now is as good as anytime to make sure we get all our ducks in a row. In my opinion that means manageing everyone. It makes absolutly no since to me to manage 2/3 of your assites and let the other 1/3 run free hoping that they will manage them selfs. I know and have said it many times on this thread alone that archery hunters have minimale impact on the herd. I don't see how any one could say or think that archery hunters have such a small impact that they don't need to be acount for at all.

400bull


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

400BULL said:


> Now that we are looking into a new management paln and debating about going to a micro-management type of plan now is as good as anytime to make sure we get all our ducks in a row. In my opinion that means manageing everyone. It makes absolutly no since to me to manage 2/3 of your assites and let the other 1/3 run free hoping that they will manage them selfs. I know and have said it many times on this thread alone that archery hunters have minimale impact on the herd. I don't see how any one could say or think that archery hunters have such a small impact that they don't need to be acount for at all.
> 
> 400bull


We are talking deer not ducks. :wink:

What 1/3 are you talking about? The state issues 97,000 deer tags, 14,000 of them are archery tags, that is 14.4% not 33.3%. :?

If archers "have minimal 'impact' on the herd". why should they be more restricted than they already are? You say, "I don't see how any one could say or think that archery hunters have such a small impact that they don't need to be account for at all." Who is advocating '*no accountability*'? No need for such hyperbole. :roll:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

You don't get it.....nobody is saying that archery doesn't need to be accountable. I didn't think that this thread had anything to do with accountability. This thread had to do with MANAGEMENT. Archery hunts are a great management tool and have been used as such here in Utah. You yourself said that archery has a minimal effect on the herd and so why change it? Changing statewide archery just because every other state has units and Utah is the odd man out is just a complete asinine idea. Change it because there are facts and proof that show that it will better the herd. Don't just jump of the bridge because everyone else is doing it. Pull your head OUT and THINK! ! ! ! Your entire last post made no sense. You are so stuck on the fairness idea and the everyone is doing it idea that you can't see or realize that your sieve holds no water. 

P.S. I know that not everyone thinks I have all the answers, I don't even think I have all the answers. I rarely speak up on topics like this unless I feel strongly about them. If nobody was on my side....I would be proud to stand alone.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I've just read every post on this thread and have yet to discover what it is that rifle/muzzy (primarily) hunters hope to accomplish herdwise by removing the statewide archery benefit. Maybe I missed it, but it would help if it were made clearer. I read that it's to better "manage" the herd, but in what way(s)? Are we looking for more deer? More bucks? More big bucks? Higher buck to doe ratio, Higher hunter success rate? Lower hunter success rate? Fewer hunters? More new/young hunters? Higher doe fawning rate? Lower fawn mortality? Lower winter kill? More opportunities to hunt? And how will limiting archery hunters to regions/units and/or shortening the archery season accomplish those goals? I don't see it!

I tend to agree that changing this regulation will either push more hunters into the rifle season or out of hunting altogether, neither of which is to our benefit. Bowhunting is difficult enough already that only about 15% of us chose to do it, and you want to make it even harder? Why? We're not in competition, are we? (The anti's would love that!) Do you think we make your hunt harder? Again, I may have missed something. Clue me/us in.

Lee


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

Yay!!! Let's all wave the flag!
:roll: :x .
We all suck. Get over it.
Oh? Do I hear an elitist receiving their wings?


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

No matter what the changes are, someone will always cry about it.
I think they should just break up all the units into small areas(micro managed) and have a season for each unit. Put in for the unit you want to hunt and the wepon you want to use, and it's as simple as that.

You people need to be grateful that you even have the right to hunt at all. Depending on the election, we might be giving up our wepons and the sport we love, or even worse be hunting men in other countries instead of big game (War). Be grateful for what you have, and shut your **** mouths.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

UZ,

I am going to guess based on your need for numbers to chnage things that you are in 100% suport of allowing the rifle hunt to return to the 9 day hunt instead of the currect 5 day hunt in the south and southeastern units. The numbers that the DWR has put out on that show that there is no benifit going to a 5 day hunt. I would also like to see the numbers that show going to a micro-management style is the way to go. Un fortunutly I don't think those numbers exsit. This whole movement is completly based on what other states seem to be doing, and seems to be working for them. Is this a "grass is greener on there side of the fenced" type of movement. If it is then lets squash the whole dang thing and keep what we current have. It has clearly been pointed out that the herds are recovering, the buck to doe ratios are where the DWR wants them. If the current systems is so dang good why change it at all?

The reasoning that I feel that the DWR needs to implement a unit based archery hunt is because with out it they have NO way of knowing how many animals are being harvested rather great or small in a given arrea without such a plan. If they do not have a CLUE who is harvesting the animals or how many are being harvested how can the accuratly adjust the number of permits to correct tthe issue? This is not going to be an over night problem, this is a problem that will over time creep into the system. 

That's a good one PRO, I knew I should have polled the exact numbers for ya. :wink:


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't know where this fits into the argument, I have not read all of the pages, but I do not think archery tags should be restricted at all. I do not think you could get enough archery hunters in the state to impact the heards thru natural hunting season culling. It allows for more people to hunt, thus not getting 'cut off', it spurs the economy, it grows the hunting opportunity which is a great fact to support growth and popularity of hunting needed in statistical information to battle the anti gunners and hunters. There are plenty of reasons to not restrict the archery tags given out by this state, and they should all be able to hunt any open area in the state, for four full weeks. I do think that if archery hunting numbers increase at a high rate, then the extended areas should have some sort of restriction placed on them. I also think that LE areas should increase the archery tag numbers on them.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Welcome aboard EPEK, most of your comments are right inline with what has been or is currently being talked about.



> I do not think you could get enough archery hunters in the state to impact the heards thru natural hunting season culling. It allows for more people to hunt, thus not getting 'cut off', it spurs the economy, it grows the hunting opportunity which is a great fact to support growth and popularity of hunting needed in statistical information to battle the anti gunners and hunters.


As I meantioned earlier not everyone has the passion or desire to archery hunt like you do EPKE. How does keeping a state wide archery hunt improve opprotunity for everyone? This is a selfish desire and benifits only archery hunters.



> I do think that if archery hunting numbers increase at a high rate, then the extended areas should have some sort of restriction placed on them. I also think that LE areas should increase the archery tag numbers on them.


How/who determins if/when archery hunting numbers have increased to the point that it is having a negitive impact on the herd numbers? I don't see how the DWR could ever come to this conculsion with a statewide archery hunt. There is nothing currently in place that would give them accurate enough numbers to ever identify when they have reached this point. This is exactly the reasoning why I do not think that state wide archery hunt is a good idea if the micro-management plan concept is adopted.

400bull.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> As I meantioned earlier not everyone has the passion or desire to archery hunt like you do EPKE. How does keeping a state wide archery hunt improve opprotunity for everyone? This is a selfish desire and benifits only archery hunters.


This has been mentioned several times and in some ways may be true but no one has said how it *HURTS* the rifle or muzzy hunts. Can someone enlighten me. If the amount of archery hunters is so low and the success rate is so low I don't see how the statewide archery hunt hurts the rifle or muzzy hunts.

I hunt all three.

I think the 5 day hunt has helped the deer herds in the south with great success.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mandatory reporting by everyone will get you all the hunter numbers you need to make your case either way, and to micro-manage (whatever that means) smaller units. We're already on the computer system and telling the DWR online what we did, when, and where regarding the hunts should be a simple matter as long as we know before the hunt that we're gonna have to do it. Then we can make proper changes if need be.

BTW: Micro-managing (nitpicking) businesses and organizations is difficult, time consuming and usually counterproductive, so I hope we're talking only about managing smaller/micro units. Actually micro-managing wildlife units would be impossible due to weather, fires, disease, predators, crops, land sales, logging, etc., etc. 

And, joking/teasing are ok, but negative name calling is divisive and counterproductive.

Lee


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

400-
how does keeping statewide archery hunt improve opportunity for everyone? 

EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE has the choice to archery hunt. Even impaired people. Some CHOOSE not to. In other words every one could have the opportunity to hunt the entire state. If you could choose to hunt one little unit, or statewide, what would you choose? If every hunter in the state was a bow hunter, more tags could be issued=more opportunity. Does that feed your argument? 

Bowgy- It hurts the rifle and muzzy hunters cause "its not fair"

Why put more restrictions on any hunter if the benefit is not there? If I could see a clear cut benefit I would be in favor. But I just can't see it. I understand some restrictions are a must, but in todays world, we imply more restrictions than we lift.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I think the one thing that has been overlooked and needs to be considered is the increased incentive statewide archery offers to ALL HUNTERS. People are moving to archery because it provides an opportunity to hunt every year (if you don't procrastinate purchasing your tag) and allows them to hunt in their respective hunting grounds without having to worry about drawing the region. If you self centered rifle hunters feel so inclined to press the issue of having the statewide archery taken away, expect many of the not-so-dedicated archers to move back to rifle and muzzy, only further decreasing your odds of drawing YOUR desired tag. Then we can really see you all whine and  . In the mean time, I will continue to hunt every year, regardless of where I might be :lol: .

In my opinion, archers need MORE incentive. This is a win-win for all because archers will benefit from more incentives and rifle/muzzy hunters will increase their draw odds by more hunters moving to archery for the added incentives.

Wowwww, amazing how that works. This whole idea just pisses me off.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

With out being able to accuratly accout for all archery deer harvest the DWR has not way of knowing where the harvest came from. If a unit had a suddent influx of archery hunters there is a good chance that the herd numbers could be negitivly effected. This in turn would lead to tags from that area being removed all together or reallocate to a different unit untill the herd recovered.

Ok guys I am going to show that I am not anti-archery and I am trying to have an opened mind about this whole state wide archery things. Lets say that we do decide to leave the state wide archery thing in place. As a archery hunter myself I would love to do this. One of my concerns that I have on the state wide archery hutn is being able to accuratly account for all deer that are harvested. What would you die hard archery hunters think about keeping the state wide archery hunt but having a mandated harvest report that you would need to feel out each year. I think if we set something like this up we could keep the statewide archery hunt as well as keep accurate records of where and who are harvesting the animals. This would also allow the DWR to make accurate assements of the problem when they arrive and make educated corrections to off set the problem.

400bull


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> What would you die hard archery hunters think about keeping the state wide archery hunt but having a mandated harvest report that you would need to feel out each year. I think if we set something like this up we could keep the statewide archery hunt as well as keep accurate records of where and who are harvesting the animals. This would also allow the DWR to make accurate assements of the problem when they arrive and make educated corrections to off set the problem.


I love the idea, but make it for ALL big game hunts. With online reporting, compiling and analyzing the data would be simple and not require much in addtional overhead to the DWR.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I don't buy the "it's not fair" argument. 

Since I hunt all three hunts I can see the need for the archers to have more incentives to make "IT FAIR", I can take a deer well over 100 yards with my muzzel loader and well over 300 yards with my rifle, however, with my bow I need to get much closer, (unless I just hold a little high :wink:  ) I have never had a hard time harvesting a animal with my rifle, the bow however is much harder and is more labor intensive from practice to stalking to taking.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I would also go for mandatory reporting, make it a requirement before you can qualify for your next tag.

It would be easy to put it online, I know all don't have internet but all can go to the library, and I would say yes to all hunts.


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> I don't understand what the issue is with the statewide archery. In my opinion it comes down to jealousy. If opponents of the statewide archery don't have any facts to back up their argument and the archery boys do when defending their stance, I don't see how it can be anything other than jealousy. Seriously what is the big deal?


+1

This simply boils down to an issue of the "I want what you have, but I can't get it so you shouldn't either" mentality. If bowhunters have it so good, then buy a bow and an archery tag and come join us. If you're not willing to give up the rifle to receive the benefits of archery, then live with and abide by the restrictions of your choice and stop trying to take from us because archers have an "unfair amount of oppurtunity." Speaking of unfair, as Pro pointed out bowhunters are only getting 14% of the tags in this state. Yet, as we've seen over the last few years, the archery deer tags are selling out well before the rifle tags. Maybe we need to look at reallocating the tag numbers. To be "fair", shouldn't we be issuing 1/3 rifle tags, 1/3 muzzy tags, and 1/3 archery tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

400BULL said:


> With out being able to accuratly accout for all archery deer harvest the DWR has not way of knowing where the harvest came from. If a unit had a suddent influx of archery hunters there is a good chance that the herd numbers could be negitivly effected. This in turn would lead to tags from that area being removed all together or reallocate to a different unit untill the herd recovered.
> 
> 400bull


This is a fear of what ifs that has NO merit to it. As I pointed out on the MM, archers kill 10% of the bucks in Utah while accounting for 14.4% of the tags, and 10 archers will "impact" the deer LESS than 2 rifle hunters on a ridge. If the desired outcome is minimal "impact" on the deer, rifle/muzzy tags should be decreased IMMEDIATELY, and have those tags shifted over to archery tackle. But, since that is NOT the basis for this push to limit archers, that won't happen. Archers kill fewer deer per 100 hunters, spend more time ALONE in the woods, make less noise while in the woods (arrows make very little noise in comparison to bullets being sent into orbit), and they are more spread out across the state than rifle/muzzy hunters. How is that warranting a change?

I am 100% in favor of mandatory reporting for ALL big game tag holders.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Sorry PRO I have not been reading the discusion that has been going on on MM. I have no idea of what has or has not been presented or said on that site. 

My question to you is under the current management system can you accuratly identify to me where the 10% of archery harvest came from? The answer to that is you can not. I don't see how any one can make and accurate assment of the problem without having accurate numbers to work with.

In your managment planning commity meetings have you talked about the thought of having mandatory harvest report for all weapons type? If not is this something that you would be willing to disguss and could this be something that the division could easly implement? If so I would be willing to allow the state wide archery hunt to continue as is or untill the division is able to identify (if any) that is being negitivly effective by archery hunting. 

400bull


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sorry 400, there is someone using the same 'handle' over there, I assumed it was you.  

The DWR has a pretty good idea where deer are harvested by archers each year. But, I agree 100% reporting would be BETTER. The deer committee has only met once, it was mainly going over the agenda. No meat and potatoes yet. I do know the DWR is resistant to going mandatory reporting, so that will have to be dealt with somehow. The NUMBER ONE priority of the deer committee is recruitment/retention of hunters, not 'bigger' bucks. That is a good start.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

Just bork down a read the thread that you where talking about on MM. They have some good points both for and against the statewide archery hunt. Wish some of them could have kepted all the name calling and figure pointing out of the discussion. Once that startes it quickly becomes a pissing match.

I am glade to see that the planing comity has its priorities in line. Retention and recurtment needs to be the number 1 item on the agenda. Please keep in mind that not all hunters want to archery hunt. As wrong as my LEBERAIL ideas are about our current management are, it's just as wrong to take the NeoNaize (spelling) aproach by forcing everyone in to archery hunting. Quality and opprotunity needs to be addressed accross the board.

I hope that you and your committe members will be able to find some mechinisum for accuratly accounting for all deer that are harvested. Rather that means the state is to be broken down into micro units for everyone, some kind of mandatory reporting system, or some other way. Good luck this could get very ugly.

400bull


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

400BULL said:


> Please keep in mind that not all hunters want to archery hunt. As wrong as my LEBERAIL ideas are about our current management are, it's just as wrong to take the NeoNaize (spelling) aproach by forcing everyone in to archery hunting. Quality and opprotunity needs to be addressed accross the board.
> 
> Good luck this could get very ugly.
> 
> 400bull


Who exactly is pushing to have all hunters become archers? It sure isn't me, the only time I have made a statement about such is to PROVE how narrow minded it is to say archers should be limited due to "impact", all while ANY rifle hunters have MORE of an "impact" than unlimited archers on a given unit.

I think, "it could get ugly" i sthe under statement of the week. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

400BULL said:


> Please keep in mind that not all hunters want to archery hunt. As wrong as my LEBERAIL ideas are about our current management are, it's just as wrong to take the NeoNaize (spelling) aproach by forcing everyone in to archery hunting. Quality and opprotunity needs to be addressed accross the board.
> 
> Good luck this could get very ugly.
> 
> 400bull


Who exactly is pushing to have all hunters become archers? It sure isn't me, the only time I have made a statement about such is to PROVE how narrow minded it is to say archers should be limited due to "impact", all while ANY rifle hunters have MORE of an "impact" than unlimited archers on a given unit.

I think, "it could get ugly" is the under statement of the week. :?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

400...

NOW you are getting somewhere...make all big game hunters fill out a harvest report before they can buy the next years tag. THIS makes sense....eliminating statewide archery does not!


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Would people be ok with this if it allowed the dwr to give more archery tags.

The problem as I see it with statewide archery from a management standpoint is the state has no mechanism to guarantee that every archer won't go to the same area at the same time creating pressure problems for that area. to prevent this overcrowding in popular areas under the current scheme the DWR would just have to limit the number of statewide tags.

If the logic to the change is that the DWR could give away more tags if they could be sure that those that get the tags aren't using them in the places that are currently higher pressure and still allow the same number of hunters on the higher pressure area's would people be in favor? If so why not?

I want to let people know that I'm not a bowhunter and I really don't care what the DWR does. I just want a better understanding of the discussion.


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

bowgy said:


> I would also go for mandatory reporting, make it a requirement before you can qualify for your next tag.


+1
I think that is an excellent idea. I think this would solve tons of "party hunting" and poaching problems that go on here in Utah. There should also be a stiff penalty if havest is not reported.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Other states have the state divided up into regions, but do they also have a state-wide Archery hunt?


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Other states have the state divided up into regions, but do they also have a state-wide Archery hunt?


Arizona has a state wide hunt similar to ours. certain areas are draw but many are open for 2-3 months of the year.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Arizona has a state wide hunt similar to ours. certain areas are draw but many are open for 2-3 months of the year.


Yes the Kaibab is open to Archery hunters until January and the Kaibab has some monster muleys. This goes to show that archery hunters havent reduced the quality on this unit.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Arizona has a state wide hunt similar to ours. certain areas are draw but many are open for 2-3 months of the year.
> 
> 
> Yes the Kaibab is open to Archery hunters until January and the Kaibab has some monster muleys. This goes to show that archery hunters havent reduced the quality on this unit.


and now unfortunately they put part of the kaibab into the draw now because of the same thing people are whining about here, the perception of To many people. Well I know plenty of people that have hunted it with success by getting away from those crowds. I have also heard it has lost some of its quality but there still seem to be better bucks killed there than what are hear on general units. So here you have a unit that has very limited rifle and muzzle loader hunters and unlimited archers that still produces one of the most coveted tags in the west.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HHHMMMM 8)


----------

