# Taking Away State Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!



## Old Fudd

Remove State wide Archery>>It's a Joke! Have talked to a bunch of archers.Old Timmers, Youngsters .Middle Age folks.Thats our sons, middle age. When I first started Bow hunting 48 years ago.As we started our family it was pretty cool after bustin butt unloading freight to come home grab the wife and our 1st son, drive up the canyons.stomp around with the bow chasing buckskins, did the same with R other son. was a great time. never harvested alot, the recurve just didn't shoot a 100 yards.. did kill my 1st buck just above Ruths Cafe, all homes now.The fun we had, the things that my sons learned.we could just take a drive 
go north, go South go East go out West. NOW FAST FOWARD.... MICRO MANAGEMENT UNITS .. Whats is the % of deer harvested by archers? What kinda impact ?Who in there right mind can get off work, take there sons or daughters out after work and hunt with there bows if ya gotta drive 150 miles more or less. I feel this No State wide Archery Is A Horrible Mistake.HELL1 State Wide is what made it so cool to hunt with a bow.We had to make a choice of what weapon to hunt with.. Archers did this.even with the hunt being extended to a longer season I just don't get it.. So HELP This OLD FART OUT!What is the reason for the Stupied MICRO RULE? Some of the DWR officers out in the field just scratch their headsand have this ??? look on their face.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*

You can thanks SFW for it.It will back fire on them again.Like a couple years ago where we had to pick a area to hunt for a couple weeks and then got to hunt the extended area after that.They was saying down south was over run from people up north hunting down there.But that turned out that was not that case.So they gave us are state wide back and now they are taking it away from us again.I agree it bull ****.


----------



## bullsnot

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*

This is nothing more than a "perception" issue. Archers don't kill very many deer and statewide archery has no real biological impact. The ONLY reason statewide archery was eliminated is because the perception was that is wasn't fair to rifle and muzzy hunters. It can be sugar coated with any kind of explanation you like but that's it.


----------



## bwhntr

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*



dkhntrdstn said:


> You can thanks SFW for it.It will back fire on them again.Like a couple years ago where we had to pick a area to hunt for a couple weeks and then got to hunt the extended area after that.They was saying down south was over run from people up north hunting down there.But that turned out that was not that case.So they gave us are state wide back and now they are taking it away from us again.I agree it bull ****.


OMG, you can thank your DWR. :roll: Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go. I don't agree with it either but get your facts straight.


----------



## Old Fudd

In my opinoin. It's time for ArchersTo Band together . PETITIONS!! Strength in Numbers. 
The Powers to Be Obviously do not listen...Archery Shops are Mad As Hell...Something needs to be done to protect the sport..They,, the DWR doesn't speak for me!~


----------



## pheaz

Its just always got to be SFWs fault everytime huh? Well I suppose not anyone of the wildlife board chairmen didnt want this. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bowdacious

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*

This idea of limiting archers does nothing...NOTHING....to help the sport of hunting in Utah. Archery should be used as a tool for hunter retention and recruitment. The state is so blinded by the $ signs in their eyes that they can't think straight and see the truth.....or better yet, they see just fine and don't give a chit about the truth as long as the $ keeps rolling in. If anything there should be more opportunity created for archers to persuade others to use archery equipment....this would give more opportunity to those that want it without necessarily increasing hunter success rates.

If rifle hunters were limited to the 29 units.....tag numbers cut and used to increase archery tags........would more hunters switch to archery? I think so. I think the power player high rollers are raping the state and one day the state will wake up and realize they have a ******* child that won't stop crying and they don't know what to do with it. Just my thoughts. o-|| o-||

It is sad to watch my children's hunting future in this state slip away and know that I don't have the money to stop it. Oldfudd......I don't think the DWR has spoken for the the "average hunter" since many moons. It's hard to hear the average hunter's voice when high rollers and power players have filled the states ears with.............$


----------



## dkhntrdstn

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*



bwhntr said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thanks SFW for it.It will back fire on them again.Like a couple years ago where we had to pick a area to hunt for a couple weeks and then got to hunt the extended area after that.They was saying down south was over run from people up north hunting down there.But that turned out that was not that case.So they gave us are state wide back and now they are taking it away from us again.I agree it bull ****.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, you can thank your DWR. :roll: Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go. I don't agree with it either but get your facts straight.[/quote
> 
> That funny Shane every DWR guy I talked to about it.Did not like it all all.It going to make there Job even harder now because of it.So there take that and shove it up your tail pipe. :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its just always got to be SFWs fault everytime huh? Well I suppose not anyone of the wildlife board chairmen didnt want this. :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Did I say all of them was for it no. I know not all of them wanted it. But most of them did.


----------



## Mrad

And the wheels on the bus....


----------



## bwhntr

Apparently they did Dustin...THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MAKES THESE DECISIONS!!! All SFW can do i make recommendations. This has nothing to do with field officers. This is your wildlife board and DWR biologists.


----------



## alpinebowman

bwhntr the division wanted to leave the archers state wide. It was the WB alone that took statewide archery away.


----------



## Broadside_Shot

Alpine, you are absolutely correct. The hardest fight I fought with UBA was this issue. The DWR Biologists were in favor off statewide Archery. I held a meeting at Jakes Archery in preparation to go to the RAC's and fight it.

The whole agenda for that meeting changed that night when the Big Game Coordinator came to me right before the meeting started and said the Division's recommendation had now changed to the pick your region until Sept 1st.

Basically the Wildlife Board wanted it that way.

We still fought the battle and although we convinced the RAC's in our favor it was shot down by the Wildlife Board for that year. Then we got it back from the same people the next year.

Crazy way to manage


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

> Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go.


Gimmy a break Shane!

Ya, they make all the decisions alright, after they listen to everyones ideas and then go with the one that's backed with a big greazzy SFW payoff check.

SFW has been RUNNING the show for twenty years. Back then it sounded good and everyone bought into it and drank the coolaid. Now we're all hunting tiny little micro managed units and hoping we even GET a tag. SFW is all about high dollars and higher percentages. That means LE hunts and Rifle hunting. Bowhunters have been taking it in the ass in this state for twenty years and it's only gonna get worse. Candy coat SFW all you want, they're the problem, not the answer. And if you think they ARE the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question. They are a kin to hunting as big government is to our nation. I saw the righting on the wall twenty years ago and everything I knew would happen has. BTW, all you Wasatch extended hunters better get your licks in now. That hunt is the next one they'll take away. Hide and watch...


----------



## dkhntrdstn

TEX-O-BOB said:


> all you Wasatch extended hunters better get your licks in now. That hunt is the next one they'll take away. Hide and watch...
Click to expand...

Tex I have a feeling you are right on this. sad thing to think but so true.


----------



## GaryFish

I am not an archer, so bare with me here. I'm trying to better understand here. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I don't deer hunt in Utah any more, but I'm trying to understand it. I've read several reasons addressing about archery filling a demand, when rifle hunting becomes more restrictive. I get that. 

But why does an archery hunter NEED to have a statewide tag? Most guys I know that hunt archery, select a hunting locale, scout it very well, put up trail cams, and know the deer by name before they fling an arrow. All told, most guys I know limit their hunting to a place under 1,000 acres. But they know that 1,000 acres better than their own back yard. If you were to get the tag for your unit, why do you NEED to have a statewide tag?

Again - I'm not trying to argue here. I am trying to better understand. Please explain WHY a statewide is necessary, as opposed to why the unit by unit thing sucks.


----------



## Old Fudd

Read my first post<The powers to be said over and over again, This will increase the Buck to Doe Ratio, I disagree. Lot a guys just like to run up hunt with their kids. Agreed most archers hunt the Opener and then some in a spot they have probally hunted their entire lives. and most come home and eat tag soup. so with the costs being what they are for Gas< Food>and such.One big push during the opener is over. so ya keep tryin closer to home.TEX hit right on the money. You watch how fast they change and take the Wasatch Front away. Or figure out some stupid way to charge a chunk of money to hunt. Maybe turn it in to a LE Unit.HELL! for that matter close it all. and let the Home oweners and the DWR come in and Blow em Away. OOPS! that sound like Bountiful..


----------



## GaryFish

So I understand it, you want a place where you can hunt that is convenient to your home. I understand that. But doesn't that eliminate 3/4 of the state anyway? If that's what you want, I don't see why a tag specific to the unit closest to your home would prevent that. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you - just trying to understand the scope of the discussion.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

GaryFish said:


> I am not an archer, so bare with me here. I'm trying to better understand here. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I don't deer hunt in Utah any more, but I'm trying to understand it. I've read several reasons addressing about archery filling a demand, when rifle hunting becomes more restrictive. I get that.
> 
> But why does an archery hunter NEED to have a statewide tag? Most guys I know that hunt archery, select a hunting locale, scout it very well, put up trail cams, and know the deer by name before they fling an arrow. All told, most guys I know limit their hunting to a place under 1,000 acres. But they know that 1,000 acres better than their own back yard. If you were to get the tag for your unit, why do you NEED to have a statewide tag?
> 
> Again - I'm not trying to argue here. I am trying to better understand. Please explain WHY a statewide is necessary, as opposed to why the unit by unit thing sucks.


Here is my input.Im not talking for all bow hunters on this.It just me.Ok I like to hunt away from home the first week of the hunt.So I hunt my spot for tens days with my family and friends.Then if I don't bag a buck.I like to come home and run up and hit the front after work with my hunting buddy and we can hunt more closer to home and stead of driving 100+ miles to hunt. Many hunters like to do the same thing.Plus if you can only hunt the morning or the after noon on a weekend you can run up and hunt.I all so like it because I don't feel like I have to get that kill done in that short of time with my bow and I can in joy the time with my family.Now when I go rifle I know if I get the chance at a buck im done so there not that much worry on me.Yea I know I should not worry about the kill and in joy god country with my family.But I need to put meat on the table for my family and me.I hope that make sent to you Gary .


----------



## GaryFish

That helps. Thanks. You want destination hunting, as well as convenience hunting.


----------



## Broadside_Shot

Gary, I think it has alot to do with the reason for taking statewide away. Studies have shown that Archery has minimal effect on the resource (Deer) so therefore you have the perk of hunting statewide if you choose and I doesn't severly hurt the Deer Herd.

The reason's for taking it away are things like "Jealousy", "Trophy", "Too Crowded". etc.

I don't know if you fish but based on your name I would think you do. Would you be in favor off someone saying you can only fish Monday, Wednesday and Friday even though you know it has nothing to do with Biology and everything to do with jealously about someone else not wanting you to fish in their spot. Even if it wasn't close to my spot I would be against it.

Another Analogy. Would you be in favor of cutting you health insurance just to make you boss richer.

I think we should maximize our hunting privleges as long as our resource can sustain it. 

That being said I think our Deer herd is suffering but that another topic


----------



## GaryFish

Good points, though I'm not sure I agree with the analogies. Again, I'm not here to argue. In fact, I'm all for statewide hunting not only for archery, but for muzzy and rifle as well. And if a guy can only get one deer, I don't see why he can't hunt all three weapons when it all comes down to it. If we must manage specific units, I'd like to see unit tags, and with those, there would be a time when you could use archery only (4 weeks), then archery or muzzy (2 more weeks), and then finish the season with any weapon (two more weeks). But that is just me. I don't hunt deer in Utah anymore because 1)I am a rifle hunter, and 2)I don't feel safe being in the mountains during the rifle hunt; and 3) Opportunity has been so limited, I can't predict in January what I'll be doing with work/family/church for the five days I am allowed to hunt. So I take my rifle and go to Montana. Its cheaper, better hunting, more deer, fewer hunters, better opportunity, and longer season. 

I respect archery hunting. And I respect the push back on taking away opportunity - its what has driven me out of state. I'm just trying to understand the real, functional difference between a unit-specific tag, and a statewide tag. In theory there certainly is a difference. But in reality, do you really travel all over the state chasing deer with a bow?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

> But in reality, do you really travel all over the state chasing deer with a bow?


I genuinely do. I live in the northern end of the state, but hunt the southern unit. Then I hunt up here during the week or if I can't make it back down there.


----------



## Broadside_Shot

I hear what you are saying. I guess someone can use a number of reasons of why they want statewide hunting and why they like micro units. Everyone has their theory.

My opinion in a nut shell is why limit opportunity when it doesn't hurt the resource.


----------



## middlefork

Rifle and Muzzy hunters don't have to share their deer hunts with the elk hunters. Rifle and Muzzy hunters can put in for one unit for deer and and hunt a lot of the state for elk a different time of the year. It makes it a little difficult to hunt both if your normal hunting area doesn't have elk.

And I agree, why limit opportunity if it does not affect the resource.


----------



## Old Fudd

We Archers are a strange bunch for sure. But there is no absolute reason for not sticking with State Wide Archery..It's like tellin people don't idle your cars.. Better than that lets limit are driving to middle of the day, so we don't hit so many Deer< Elk< Moose> at night time. There is more impact from road kills. than what gets harvested with Bow & Arrow..


----------



## creature22

"It makes it a little difficult to hunt both if your normal hunting area doesn't have elk."

This is what I dont like about it. expeshally if the front goes away. I will have to choose between elk hunting and deer hunting.


----------



## Finnegan

I think I've paid enough dues on this issue to spout off, so here I go.

Those of you pointing a finger at the DWR need to put your finger someplace else. The DWR is 4-square behind bowhunting...that's a fact. I dare guess they always will be. They're biologists. As a bowhunter, I'm proud to work with them.

Bowhunters have nobody to blame but ourselves. Straight up, the bowhunters of UBA need some serious help and BOU is on it's last legs. A dozen men can't carry the fight year after year while all the other bowhunters in Utah sit back and do nothing.

We got blindsided, sure...sucker punched by an illegal decision of the Wildlife Board. No RAC presentation, no public comment, no discussion of any kind relevant to unit management - just an unscheduled and unannounced vote of the Wildlife Board that really came down to the vote of a single man who gave it no more thought than he gave his choice of socks that morning. (And that vote came after days of discussion about how to help the deer herds?)

You think the loss of statewide hunting is crap? Just sit there like a lump and see what's coming up next.

Why is statewide archery important? Good question...here's your answer:

1. Because bowhunting provides maximum participation with minimal impact on the resources, it only makes sense to provide incentives for hunters to choose the bow. Most certainly, disincentives to bowhunting are counter-productive to participation, revenue and hunter recruitment.

2. Since the Utah deer and elk bowhunts are concurrent, statewide archery allows bowhunters the mobility to hunt units according to the predominance of elk and/or deer. Without statewide deer hunting, those units that offer opportunity for both species become de facto premium limited entry units without the due process of any public input and without support of any objectives of either the mule deer or elk management plans.

3. Because the bow seasons occur during a recreational peak, bowhunter mobility is essential to avoid overcrowding and consequential stress on natural resources and degradation of habitat. Documented fact.

I hear that both UBA and BOU will be bringing up this issue again next month. Hmmmm.


----------



## swbuckmaster

You always say it best finn


----------



## Bowdacious

Finnegan said:


> I think I've paid enough dues on this issue to spout off, so here I go.
> 
> Those of you pointing a finger at the DWR need to put your finger someplace else. The DWR is 4-square behind bowhunting...that's a fact. I dare guess they always will be. They're biologists. As a bowhunter, I'm proud to work with them.
> 
> Bowhunters have nobody to blame but ourselves. Straight up, the bowhunters of UBA need some serious help and BOU is on it's last legs. A dozen men can't carry the fight year after year while all the other bowhunters in Utah sit back and do nothing.
> 
> We got blindsided, sure...sucker punched by an illegal decision of the Wildlife Board. No RAC presentation, no public comment, no discussion of any kind relevant to unit management - just an unscheduled and unannounced vote of the Wildlife Board that really came down to the vote of a single man who gave it no more thought than he gave his choice of socks that morning. (And that vote came after days of discussion about how to help the deer herds?)
> 
> You think the loss of statewide hunting is crap? Just sit there like a lump and see what's coming up next.
> 
> Why is statewide archery important? Good question...here's your answer:
> 
> 1. Because bowhunting provides maximum participation with minimal impact on the resources, it only makes sense to provide incentives for hunters to choose the bow. Most certainly, disincentives to bowhunting are counter-productive to participation, revenue and hunter recruitment.
> 
> 2. Since the Utah deer and elk bowhunts are concurrent, statewide archery allows bowhunters the mobility to hunt units according to the predominance of elk and/or deer. Without statewide deer hunting, those units that offer opportunity for both species become de facto premium limited entry units without the due process of any public input and without support of any objectives of either the mule deer or elk management plans.
> 
> 3. Because the bow seasons occur during a recreational peak, bowhunter mobility is essential to avoid overcrowding and consequential stress on natural resources and degradation of habitat. Documented fact.
> 
> I hear that both UBA and BOU will be bringing up this issue again next month. Hmmmm.


AWESOME! I also like the part that was said earlier about why limit opportunity if it doesn't hurt the resource.......but then again, we are using common sense here and that is obviously not considered when deer management is concenrned.


----------



## north slope

IMO one of the reasons we are in this pickle is beacause of the UBA and BOU. We need ONE voice in Utah and until we do.....Well there is Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota and plenty of other state I will give my money to. **** Utah, unite the groups or forever get walked over.


----------



## bwhntr

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Gimmy a break Shane!
> 
> Ya, they make all the decisions alright, after they listen to everyones ideas and then go with the one that's backed with a big greazzy SFW payoff check.
> 
> SFW has been RUNNING the show for twenty years. Back then it sounded good and everyone bought into it and drank the coolaid. Now we're all hunting tiny little micro managed units and hoping we even GET a tag. SFW is all about high dollars and higher percentages. That means LE hunts and Rifle hunting. Bowhunters have been taking it in **** this state for twenty years and it's only gonna get worse. Candy coat SFW all you want, they're the problem, not the answer. And if you think they ARE the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question. They are a kin to hunting as big government is to our nation. I saw the righting on the wall twenty years ago and everything I knew would happen has. BTW, all you Wasatch extended hunters better get your licks in now. That hunt is the next one they'll take away. Hide and watch...
Click to expand...

Pull your head our of your ass! Darin. Its funny that you have to make this a SFW argument when people like Finn have put up a great argument of what is actually going on. I also find it interesting that your fair weather attitude comes shining through when it comes to archery hunting. Argue about wolves or look for a place to host a taxidermy competition and they are your best friend. The WB made the decision, period.

Great post Finn. I think there are a few of us on here who would like to know what more we can do to protect our interests in the Archery program. However, if the WB isn't listening to these groups or the RACs then what is the point? What other avenues are there?


----------



## c3hammer

I think you guys have all missed the reason the statewide archery hunt was eliminated.

The purpose of the 30 unit micro management plan is to increase the value of conservation/landowner/expo tags. End of Story!!! The SFW and other organizations now stand to tripple the number of permits they can auction off. You can't sell these tags if 15,000 archers could go there and hunt those bucks.

Not one tiny bit of it has to do with management or biology or growing our deer herd. It is exclusively in the relm of the tag grabber, wealth hunter and the one that stands to benifit from the selling of our resource to the highest bidder


----------



## bwhntr

That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## pheaz

c3hammer said:


> I think you guys have all missed the reason the statewide archery hunt was eliminated.
> 
> The purpose of the 30 unit micro management plan is to increase the value of conservation/landowner/expo tags. End of Story!!! The SFW and other organizations now stand to tripple the number of permits they can auction off. You can't sell these tags if 15,000 archers could go there and hunt those bucks.
> 
> Not one tiny bit of it has to do with management or biology or growing our deer herd. It is exclusively in the relm of the tag grabber, wealth hunter and the one that stands to benifit from the selling of our resource to the highest bidder


OK Im lost now. :roll:


----------



## GaryFish

I think the point he was making was you can't charge high dollars for a tag that anyone can buy. Restrict access to that tag, and you can now charge more for it. In economic terms, its creating an artificial scarcity, thus driving the price up. I get the argument, I'm just not sure it applies.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

> I also find it interesting that your fair weather attitude comes shining through when it comes to archery hunting. Argue about wolves or look for a place to host a taxidermy competition and they are your best friend. The WB made the decision, period.


Well Shane, my hypocrisies only go so far... I can smile and shake hands while taking it up the tail pipe with the best of em. Shall we talk about yours?


----------



## GaryFish

Gentlemen, please keep the discussion to the subject at hand and keep the personal attacks out of the thread. 

I am enjoying this thread and learning a ton. I don't want to have to play Mod in the process. There is plenty to talk about without the personal attacks among friends.


----------



## bwhntr

Yes Tex, go ahead and talk about mine.

Gary, I truely want to know what other avenues we have when the WB doesn't want to play nice?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Question: How many WB members are card carrying SFW members? :O•-: o-|| 

And Shane, if we delved into your hypocrisies we'd have to start talking religion and politics. NOBODY wants to do that! :mrgreen:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

GaryFish said:


> Gentlemen, please keep the discussion to the subject at hand and keep the personal attacks out of the thread.
> 
> I am enjoying this thread and learning a ton. I don't want to have to play Mod in the process. There is plenty to talk about without the personal attacks among friends.


Keep your shirt on Gary, It's just freindly MAN banter. Shane would kiss me on the lips right now if he could cuz he loves this sh*t!


----------



## Old Fudd

Sitting like a LUMP. what the heck is that all about?I've busted my LUMP to insure that the young Archers coming into this sport have the same chances that Myself and my Family have had,...Sorry , If ya want to go and stand infornt of the DWR an protest this CRAP give me a Shout. Be right there with ya>


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Scream, yell, holler, stomp, shout, wave your fist all you want Fudd. Hell, you could even make perfectly good commonsense to them and they wouldn't listen to a word. They're gonna do what politically driven special interest and $$$ dictates they do. NOTHING else matters. Get used to it.


----------



## GaryFish

I don't intend to put down the criticisms of the Wildlife Board. I think critique and review of any policy making board at it relates to wildlife is absolutely appropriate here. 

It is when I read comments attacking other forum members personally that I'll interject as a mod. Those attacks if you feel you need/want to make them, do it in a PM. And if you are just trash-talking with your buddies, then do so via personal email, facebook, or over your favorite beverage while watching a football game or whatever. On the forum, it is hard to differentiate two buddies trashing talking, and personal attacks. 

As for dealing with the Wildlife Board, that is a tough one. I don't envy their position at all. The way it is constructed does not favor the sportsman first off. And so their objectives as individuals can and certainly are very different than most sportsmen, or the DWR. The other thing I see is that while DWR manages the critters as directed by the Wildlife Board, they have very little if any control over the habitats. Like being told to grow a garden, but you aren't allowed to till the soil, fertilize it, plant what you want, or water it. And, someone else owns the garden spot, and is using it for something else. But go out and grow a garden anyway. 

In all honesty, look through the wildlife board members and find who you might have something in common with and schedule a chance to meet with them. Go to them in a spirit of understanding and you'll get much further than if you go in guns a blazin' saying "look you stupid somebeach, let me tell you what......." It may or may not work out, but if you do meet with some of the Wildlife Board members, I think you might be surprised at the level of impact that can have. 

The bigger issue as I see it that needs to be resolved, is that the system of policy making is screwed up. And that would require fixing by the Legislature. So call up your State Representative or Senator and talk with them about that. Until the Wildlife Board structure is changed to address sportsmen concerns at least on even keel with livestock concerns, we'll continue to take the back seat on things.


----------



## bullsnot

Gary you have some good points but if I may I think we can break down the situation even further. Sure there are problems with issues such as livestock being a bigger swaying factor than hunter desires. That will always be an uphill battle in any system.

But we also have situations where the WB just plain misses the mark when it comes to hunter desires and there are no other real outside issues. At the legislative level you have 3 checks and balances, the house, the senate, and the governor. If one misses the mark the idea is that one of the other 2 will stop or correct it. 

I'm not trying to get into a debate as to whether or not that system actually works but rather point out there are no checks and balances with the WB. No real oversight and really no one pays much attention to what they do. I believe they need to have some sort of oversight, not because I beleive they are corrupt (although it could exist to some extent) but rather because sometimes they just get it wrong. There needs to be some sort of checks and balances there. It is my belief that the RAC's are more of a dog and pony show (you've got to take public input to get Federal Pittman monies) and perhaps they should have some more power in the process. If the RAC's and WB deadlock then either they need to work it out until common ground can be found or have a 3rd option, like the DNR director, to break the tie so to speak. 

I'm sure there would be others with better ideas but maybe this can get some "outside the box" juices flowing.


----------



## Packout

The inner me is fighting to both respond and stay out of this, so.......

Here is where archers loose people-- Claims that archery has no impact. Hooey. When I shot a buck or bull with my bow did it make an impact on the herd? Yes it did. Archers have a 20% success rate plus a wound rate of at least another 10%. Rifle and ML guys have a success rate of 30% and a wound rate of at least 10%. So 1,000 archers slam 300 bucks. 1,000 rifle hunters slam 400 bucks. ARCHERS HAVE AN IMPACT! Until archers stop claiming they are almost "non-consumptive" then they people will tune them out.

I love to hunt with my bow, my ML, and my rifle. I like to hit the areas farther from home that I hunted as a kid and I like to run up the canyon with my son after school. No MATTER the weapon. We are all hunters and the rule change effects HUNTERS. (We all know it will do very little for deer herds)

I like the large areas to hunt and don't want to be confined to a one unit, no matter the weapon I choose to hunt with. (as long as the deer herd is not suffering from such liberal regulations)


----------



## c3hammer

bwhntr said:


> That makes absolutely no sense.





pheaz said:


> OK Im lost now. :roll:


Now you guys really have shown how clueless you are to the ways of money and politics


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

"Haven't ya heard boys! It's ALL ball bearings these days!" 

"Now go get me some 60 weight oil and some gause pads."


----------



## Theekillerbee

Packout said:


> The inner me is fighting to both respond and stay out of this, so.......
> 
> Here is where archers loose people-- Claims that archery has no impact. Hooey. When I shot a buck or bull with my bow did it make an impact on the herd? Yes it did. Archers have a 20% success rate plus a wound rate of at least another 10%. Rifle and ML guys have a success rate of 30% and a wound rate of at least 10%. So 1,000 archers slam 300 bucks. 1,000 rifle hunters slam 400 bucks. ARCHERS HAVE AN IMPACT! Until archers stop claiming they are almost "non-consumptive" then they people will tune them out.


Not sure where you get your numbers, but the big archery studies put success rates for archery at 9-11%, no where near the 20% you claim. I'm not sure where the wound rate numbers come from. I've never read a study about any weapon's wound rate on animals. If there is one, I'd like to read it. Assuming you are correct on wound rates, archers would kill 1/2 as many deer. I agree that there is a small impact made by bow hunters, but there is much more "bang for the buck" when it comes to bow hunters and the money they bring in to the state.

Here's a thought, why not restrict cars on roads that deer roam? More deer are killed by cars in our state than by all hunters combined!


----------



## elk22hunter

TEX-O-BOB said:


> "Haven't ya heard boys! It's ALL ball bearings these days!"
> 
> "Now go get me some 60 weight oil and some gause pads."


I love Irwin Fletcher!

I love watching Tex and BWHNTR act like Archy and Meathead. One is based on twisted facts and the other emotion but they are best of friends.


----------



## pheaz

c3hammer said:


> I think you guys have all missed the reason the statewide archery hunt was eliminated.
> 
> The purpose of the 30 unit micro management plan is to increase the value of conservation/landowner/expo tags.What proof might you have? End of Story!!! The SFW and other organizations now stand to tripple the number of permits they can auction off.Proof again considering SFW voted against 30 unit micro managements I'm not sure where you are getting your info. You can't sell these tags if 15,000 archers could go there and hunt those bucks.
> 
> Not one tiny bit of it has to do with management or biology or growing our deer herd. It is exclusively in the relm of the tag grabber, wealth hunter and the one that stands to benifit from the selling of our resource to the highest bidder


----------



## DallanC

pheaz said:


> Proof again considering SFW voted against 30 unit micro managements I'm not sure where you are getting your info.


Proof? WTF...

Listen to the wildlife board meeting where Byron got up and stated the SFW is for Option 2 (ironically he said that right after admitting predators were the primary problem, and just before handing over the $300k check).

The MP3 of the meeting is out there for the world to hear, SFW was fully in support of Option 2.

-DallanC


----------



## pheaz

Perfect Im glad my voice got heard then and that my SFW have some POLL.


----------



## jahan

I hesitate to even get involved in this thread, but here is my take. It was clear that SFW supported option 2 despite what pheaz said, but it wasn't just SFW in fairness, there was other folks and groups that were hard core for this. My biggest issue isn't the sub-units, it is the changing of the buck to doe ratio for no biological reason. Same goes for eliminating the statewide archery, the reason given by the chair was because it wasn't fair! Really, when has wildlife management been about what is fair and not about what makes most sense biologically? If it was proven that statewide archery has a major impact on the herds and was hurting the deer, I would be 100% behind getting rid of statewide archery, but that is simply not the case. Most of the decision made by the WB lately have been entirely based on social issues and not backed by biological data. This is my heartburn.


----------



## DallanC

IMO the wildlife board needs to be eliminated. Return the decision making power to the DWR, those are the guys that went to school to earn degrees on the topic. It makes no sence they can only make their recommendations to the board, not policy.


-DallanC


----------



## pheaz

DallanC said:


> IMO the wildlife board needs to be eliminated. Return the decision making power to the DWR, those are the guys that went to school to earn degrees on the topic. It makes no sence they can only make their recommendations to the board, not policy.
> 
> -DallanC


And that is very well said and couldnt have been put any better. +1


----------



## c3hammer

pheaz said:


> ...considering SFW voted against 30 unit micro managements...


bwwwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhahahahahahahaha    

Was that right before or right after Byron handed the infamous check to the wildlife board during their annual big game board meeting? Wasn't the exact words of one of the board members shortly there after "ok, lets get this thing done"?

Like I said above ........ wait there's already a movie called that 

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Huntoholic

The sole purpose for the 30 units (option 2) is/was to restrict the number of hunters (all hunters) in a small defined area. Period.......

So with that being said if the 15000 archers could roam the whole state and an area was to be worthy of only a 100 tagges, in theory 2000 archers could show up and over harvest that unit.

These are now limited entry hunts and in the world of LE hunts everybody is restricted. No different then the LE hunts that we currently have.


----------



## GaryFish

So this discussion got me to thinking. Much has been said about there being no biological need to restrict archers to a single unit. Which got me to thinking - is there a biological need for hunting at all any more in Utah? 

Certainly, with the OIL species, they are not over populating ranges so we can probably say there is no biological need for harvest of any of those. 

And with deer, we know herds are struggling statewide - and more in some areas than others. Elk seem to be thriving in some areas, but is there really such an overabundance of them, that we must remove ## elk from the herds every year to prevent overgrazing? It might be a dangerous question to ask because we might not like what the answer is. Don't get me wrong here. I love hunting. It is part of who I am. But setting aside the emotional and social attachments we may have as hunters, is there ANY biological reason at all to hunt ANY big game in this state?


----------



## pheaz

c3hammer said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...considering SFW voted against 30 unit micro managements...
> 
> 
> 
> bwwwwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhahahahahahahaha
> 
> Was that right before or right after Byron handed the infamous check to the wildlife board during their annual big game board meeting? Wasn't the exact words of one of the board members shortly there after "ok, lets get this thing done"?
> 
> Like I said above ........ wait there's already a movie called that
> 
> Cheers,
> Pete
Click to expand...

So did the big bad SFW wolf also say you must eliminate 13,000 tags also.


----------



## pheaz

GaryFish said:


> So this discussion got me to thinking. Much has been said about there being no biological need to restrict archers to a single unit. Which got me to thinking - is there a biological need for hunting at all any more in Utah?
> 
> Certainly, with the OIL species, they are not over populating ranges so we can probably say there is no biological need for harvest of any of those.
> 
> And with deer, we know herds are struggling statewide - and more in some areas than others. Elk seem to be thriving in some areas, but is there really such an overabundance of them, that we must remove ## elk from the herds every year to prevent overgrazing? It might be a dangerous question to ask because we might not like what the answer is. Don't get me wrong here. I love hunting. It is part of who I am. But setting aside the emotional and social attachments we may have as hunters, is there ANY biological reason at all to hunt ANY big game in this state?


Well said Gary and thats why I for one would not be upset to see atleast the deer and moose hunts shut down for a few years. Knock me all ya want.


----------



## DallanC

GaryFish said:


> Which got me to thinking - is there a biological need for hunting at all any more in Utah?


Yes, my biological body requires a certain percentage of Venison consumption per week for survival.

:lol:

-DallanC


----------



## Packout

Killerbee- going off the UDWR data. Those success rates are avg for Utah. They have data that shows archery wound rates as high as 25%. I don't believe it is consistently that high. 

Pheaz- shut down why? Lots of fawns so there are enough bucks to service the doe population. And moose, rumor is a nasty bug may be killing them before they are reaching 5-6 years. Thus the liver samples.....


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*



bwhntr said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thanks SFW for it.It will back fire on them again.Like a couple years ago where we had to pick a area to hunt for a couple weeks and then got to hunt the extended area after that.They was saying down south was over run from people up north hunting down there.But that turned out that was not that case.So they gave us are state wide back and now they are taking it away from us again.I agree it bull ****.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, you can thank your DWR. :roll: Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go. I don't agree with it either but get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

If we're getting facts all in a bunch like your panties, then lets make sure it is straight... The DWR made STRONG recommendations to NOT change the statewide archery hunt, BUT the Wildlife Board, made up of political puppets put in place by....

wait for it....

Yes, SFW and other special interest groups - solely to purport the expedited limitation of public hunting opportunities and options to favor increased fares and revenues for their auctionable tags - They, the Wildlife Board made that decision contrary to all FACT, SCIENCE or POPULAR VOTE.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

*Re: Taking Away Stae Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*



TopofUtahArcher said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can thanks SFW for it.It will back fire on them again.Like a couple years ago where we had to pick a area to hunt for a couple weeks and then got to hunt the extended area after that.They was saying down south was over run from people up north hunting down there.But that turned out that was not that case.So they gave us are state wide back and now they are taking it away from us again.I agree it bull ****.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, you can thank your DWR. :roll: Ultimately they make the decision in what direction to go. I don't agree with it either but get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we're getting facts all in a bunch like your panties, then lets make sure it is straight... The DWR made STRONG recommendations to NOT change the statewide archery hunt, BUT the Wildlife Board, made up of political puppets put in place by....
> 
> wait for it....
> 
> Yes, SFW and other special interest groups - solely to purport the expedited limitation of public hunting opportunities and options to favor increased fares and revenues for their auctionable tags - They, the Wildlife Board made that decision contrary to all FACT, SCIENCE or POPULAR VOTE.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Another person with some common sense.


----------



## elkfromabove

Packout - Even if your numbers were correct, your implied claim that archers have a significant impact on the herds because "1000 archers take 300 deer while 1000 rifle hunters take 400 deer" falls apart when you consider there are 80,000 rifle hunters (32,000 deer) and only 15,000 archery hunters (4,500 deer). Add to that that those archery numbers will include some does. There is some impact, but not enough to justify eliminating statewide archery.

Pheaz - No, the big bad SFW didn't directly say we must eliminate 13,000 tags, but raising the buck to doe ratio to 18/100 per Option #2, which they pushed, requires it. You have to kill fewer bucks on some units to reach that ratio and the DWR staff came up with that figure in order to comply with the directive from the WB.

All I can say about SFW running the show, at the last Southern Region RAC meeting I was able to attend, SFW was represented by at least 4 speakers (Utah SFW, Iron County SFW, Beaver County SFW, and Washington County SFW) and 1 of them was allowed 5 minutes to speak for SFW and an additional 3 minutes to speak as an individual. And the subject and proposals were all the same! Hint: UWC, we need county or even city chapters!!!!

Edited; Huntaholic - 2000 archers in a 100 tag area simply means that there are 29 other units that are less crowded, at least this year. And they will self-adjust because of the supposedly reduced buck numbers. Who would want to continue hunting an area with no bucks? And FWIW, we have that possible scenerio going on now and it's just not happening per the overcrowding claim issue of a couple of years ago.

GaryFish - It isn't just the "unit closest to your home" that many of us hunt. I live in Enoch (Cedar City) and if you'll look at the 30 unit map you'll see that 5 different units converge "closest to my home". Depending on the weather, the vehicle I have access to, how much time I have and time of day, who I have with me (adult hunting buddy, 9 year old grandson, etc.) road conditions and/or closures (SR 14 up Cedar Canyon will be closed for about 3 to 4 months, so they say, due to a massive mud slide.), my health, how much sleep I've gotten, the archery tags I have (buck deer, elk, buck antelope, antlerless deer, antlerless elk, doe antelope), and my treestand or blind setups, I may go west to Enterprise (Pine Valley) for deer and/or antelope, or I may just drive up to Yankee Meadow (Panguitch Lake) for deer and some fishing, or I just might check the roads off of I-15 in Shurtz Canyon (Zion) to fill my antlerless deer tag, or go to my favorite waterhole setup on Strawberry Ridge (Zion) for elk, deer and antlerless elk, or go to the mouth of ****** Liza Canyon (SW Desert) for deer and the grandson of the 17" pronghorn I missed in 2008. And FWIW, I do very little scouting on a yearly basis because I've already hunted these areas, and others, for years and know the animals are generally there in huntable numbers. and if I don't find them in one place I just look in another. The 30 unit restriction changes all of that and will undoubtedly reduce my opportunities and harvest rate even further.

There are those who tell me since I'm the one who chose to hunt with a bow, I'll just have to adjust to the changes, and they seem to think that I'll still play the game even if the rules change. When I chose to bowhunt long ago the package included unlimited over the counter statewide deer tags, a long archery season, (Edited: and we could take either sex statewide), and the chance to take a buck with a rifle if I didn't get a deer with a bow. Over the years most of that has gone away and now they are trying to take the rest of it away as well (Many rifle hunters also want to shorten the season.) The package won't be anywhere near as attractive as it once was, and it will be much harder to swallow, especially for young folks. 

Now, while we are discussing what is fair, let's take a look at what really is fair. As an archer, I have to reload after every shot, so to be fair, let's require that of the rifle hunters. Single shot rifles only. I mean, fair is fair. Isn't that what you want? And no shots over 60 yards, and standing broadside or quartering-away shots only, no running shoots, and no prone position shooting, and no rifle rests (freehand only), and your shooting area must have 2 foot clearances in front, below, above and behind you, and you need to practice much more. There isn't much we can do about the difference in speed of the projectile or the trajectory, but those few suggestions ought to make it more fair don't you think? What? Those are ridiculous, illogical suggestions, you say? They have no merit or purpose? They would be more difficult to enforce? They would greatly reduce the success rate? AND they would drive people away? DUH!!!!


----------



## Finnegan

Packout said:


> Archers have a 20% success rate plus a wound rate of at least another 10%.


I wrote an article on wounding for BOU a couple years back and did a lot of research to get my numbers straight. Based on DWR data from 2006-2008, general season wounding rate was below 4%. Statewide harvest was 2,631 in 2008 compared to 12,261 on the rifle hunt, (just to put the proper perspective on this discussion).

But wounding rates aren't consistent. Wounding rates on LE hunts in the same years shot up to as high as 20%, indicating that bowhunters become less selective in their shots on LE hunts, (without benefit of a better explanation). If that's the case and reducing harvest is the objective, then going to LE bowhunts isn't the way to do it.

Also worthy of some serious consideration is the idea that no matter how restrictive we get, there's a class of bowhunters that will stick with it. These are the guys who punch their tags regularly. Removing incentives to hunt with a bow may reduce the number of bowhunters, but it won't likely result in a significant reduction in harvest. In the end, we're probably talking about a difference of only a couple hundred animals statewide.


----------



## hitman archery

I agree with you Lance 100 %
Its all about the $


----------



## Packout

> Packout - Even if your numbers were correct, your implied claim that archers have a significant impact on the herds because "1000 archers take 300 deer while 1000 rifle hunters take 400 deer" falls apart when you consider there are 80,000 rifle hunters (32,000 deer) and only 15,000 archery hunters (4,500 deer). Add to that that those archery numbers will include some does. There is some impact, but not enough to justify eliminating statewide archery.


Elkfromabove- Come on, this is exactly what I am talking about when archers refer to themselves not having an impact. No where did I say archers have a "significant" impact on the resource? I didn't, I stated they have an impact (rifle and ml have an impact also). The theory does NOT fall apart because I look at it PER Hunter. You see, I don't distinguish a rifle hunter - from an archer - from a ML hunter. So yes, more bucks are killed on the rifle hunt, because more hunters choose to use a rifle, but both groups kill at a decent harvest rate-- in fact there have been years where archery success rates were comparable to rifle success rates.

Finn- I don't know if anyone has firm numbers on wound rates, but I wager it is comparable across the board between the weapon types. I included some wound loss in my example to show that archers do in fact use the resource. To get that proper perspective for your numbers, you have to figure that per capita archers killed about 18 bucks per 100 hunters while rifle hunters killed 30 bucks per 100 hunters. (I think the number should have been 21,261.)

--
I supported Finn and BOU and UBA in maintaining the statewide archery during the Mule Deer Committee meetings. I also fought for Regional hunting. We need to stick together on these issues as hunters, fighting along side one another rather than vilifying other weapon types. Micro-ing the units will only lead to more restrictive management practices which hurts HUNTERS, all the while it will do very little for our deer herds.


----------



## GaryFish

Isn't a dead deer, a dead deer? I'm not sure it is more or less dead if it is arrow'd or bullet'd. And every deer killed by any hunter has an impact on the herd. The numbers are what the numbers are. 

In a time though, when in all reality, there is no biological NEED to hunt, then any decisions about managing HUNTERS will be made on social, emotional, and financial basis. DWR does not manage wildlife. They manage hunters. And any limitations on hunters attempt to balance the number of critters at a level where the people are still willing to chase them - be it with arrow or bullet. 

In industry, it usually takes a large scale labor dispute to bring about any kind of significant change. What would happen if the Average Joe hunters - both archery and rifle - banned together for a year and boycotted the whole deal all together? No draw applications. No license sales. No general tags. No nothing. You'd see DWR bending over backwards to see to the needs of the every day guys. And as a biproduct, you'd also see 22,000 deer get a year bigger and herds would be that much bigger as well.


----------



## creature22

I dont really understand the Weapons harvest comperison. I have been at 100% success with the rifle deer hunt. even the first year I hunted when I did not know what i was doing. I would be embaresed to tell how much time I have spent archery hunting this year, and still have not filled a tag. I have had multiple chances to kill a doe, but I wont do it because it is too easy. I have hunted the front during the rifle season a few times where rifles were allowed and could have easily taken nice bucks, but did not have a chance with a bow. I really think without the extended archery, the success ratio would be less than half what it is. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

> I dont really understand the Weapons harvest comperison. I have been at 100% success with the rifle deer hunt.


I don't get it either... :? I think you'd have to be Ray Charles not to kill a deer in this state with a rifle...


----------



## pkred

I wonder if we will ever see a time where there is a longbow hunt and a compound hunt for archery. Perhaps the guys worrying about the archery hunters being able to get first crack at all the large bucks would not mind state wide traditional archery? I mean come on who can kill a buck with a longbow?


----------



## creature22

If it was state wide, At least that would leave me with option. I just like to enjoy hunting many different parts of the state.


----------



## Finnegan

Packout said:


> Finn- I don't know if anyone has firm numbers on wound rates, but I wager it is comparable across the board between the weapon types.


The wounding issue has been studied to death, and many of those studies were in response to pressure from anti-hunting forces. The numbers aren't consistent, but the patterns and correlations are very consistent.



Packout said:


> We need to stick together on these issues as hunters, fighting along side one another rather than vilifying other weapon types. Micro-ing the units will only lead to more restrictive management practices which hurts HUNTERS, all the while it will do very little for our deer herds.


I absolutely agree. I love my .06 and I'm going to take a cow elk this winter with my new Sharps. Promoting a weapon type as a sound and _sustainable_ (today's magic word) management tool doesn't have to vilify other choices. It just comes back to that fundamental question: Are we managing deer to hunt, or hunting to manage deer?

Unit management was implemented for foolish reasons and those who pushed for it won't be happy with the results, (or lack of results). But since we're here, why not take advantage of the situation by experimenting a little? Set two units aside as "archery only" deer units for 3 years...


----------



## pheaz

Finnegan said:


> Unit management was implemented for foolish reasons and those who pushed for it won't be happy with the results, (or lack of results). But since we're here, why not take advantage of the situation by experimenting a little? Set two units aside as "archery only" deer units for 3 years...


And then set two units aside for muzzy only and 2 units aside for rifle only right? I hunt dedicated so I really dont care but whats fair for one is fair for all right? 9 day hunts across the board for all 6 regions?


----------



## elkfromabove

pheaz said:


> Finnegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unit management was implemented for foolish reasons and those who pushed for it won't be happy with the results, (or lack of results). But since we're here, why not take advantage of the situation by experimenting a little? Set two units aside as "archery only" deer units for 3 years...
> 
> 
> 
> And then set two units aside for muzzy only and 2 units aside for rifle only right? I hunt dedicated so I really dont care but whats fair for one is fair for all right? 9 day hunts across the board for all 6 regions?
Click to expand...

And since archers and muzzleloaders have to reload after every shot, then everybody has to reload after every shot, so single shot rifles only. And extended hunts for all weapons. And scheduled all at the same time. And no shots further than 100 yards. Etc.,Etc.,Etc.

We could probably go on forever without making it "fair" for all. Someone is always going to feel slighted, ignored, picked-on!

This is like seeing someone in your department at work who makes more money than you, but instead of trying to get a raise to make you feel better, you try to get his income reduced so both of you are miserable! What's fair for one is fair for all, right?


----------



## swbuckmaster

I would support area specific or weapon specific areas. Meaning rifle only areas, muzzy only areas, and more rifle only areas. I can guarantee you the rifle areas would suck and the buck numbers would still decline and the tags would ha e to be almost eliminated to see any quality. All you have to do to prove my point is look at the desert cwmu. No bows and only 70 or so tags for 240,000 acres. No look at the front archery only area, don't know the acres but I know it has 1000's of people hunt it every year. 

So no on can tell me archers wound 5 or even 1 to every buck they tag. Its a flat out bullsheit lie. 

The facts are the rifle hunt sucks, its a social thing, they get sick and tired of spending 1000's on 30 foot trailers, wheelers, gas, bullets, to eat the dust of the guy in front of him on the road while road hunting. Then go out in a short hike and see orange on every hill. It sucks they can't drive around in the snow durring the rut and have a wet dream of a rifle hunt.

Rifle tags need to be not only cut but slashed till its socially exceptable fun and way more easy hunt.


----------



## Old Fudd

swbuckmaster. You got some nerts! Every Rifle Hunter and Muzzy Hunter probally wants to string you up by the short hairs for speaking the absolute TRUTH!!!


----------



## goofy elk

I will say,,Eliminating the state wide archery hunt is NOT the answer.......

But getting rid of 50% of the rifle permits wouldn't hurt..


----------



## elkfromabove

goofy elk said:


> I will say,,Eliminating the state wide archery hunt is NOT the answer.......
> 
> But getting rid of 50% of the rifle permits wouldn't hurt..


Wouldn't hurt what/who?


----------



## silversurfer

I never thought that Utah would ever came to this, but all they care about is the money. I bet if we all didn't buy a tag one year thing would change fast. This is getting alot like England where only the rich and land owner can hunt.


----------



## fishjunkiejim

This is a very interesting thread. 

I just happened to catch a show on the outdoor channel the other day. Not sure of the name, but the host is Bob Burnsworth, and they were hunting MONSTER mule deer in Alberta. They were everywhere. Anyway, at the end of the show he stated that, " It take a resident 5 years to get a tag to hunt this area, but "you" as a non resident can buy a outfitters tag every year". Is this where we are headed? I think so. 

I am sure some of you will say, "Well thats in Canada!" But IMHO it has already started.

I bow hunted for about for about 15 years. And let me just say, it was not just on the the weekends. It was a full 10 days every year.
I pretty much stopped big game hunting all together in about 2003. Except for the occasional spike elk tag.
To me it just isnt what is used to be. For starters most (not ALL but MOST) of the people you bump into out in the field are "D$CKS". No one is willing to help anybody out with anything, and most would screw up anything anybody has going on, just so they could take some crazy @$$ shot at a 2 point.

And on a side note. Today in "Archery" we have Trail cams, scent elimination, range finders, carbon arrows and bows that shoot 350 fps. Is this really a "primative weapon hunt?" Look at the Muzzle Loaders today, would you really call an "Inline" a primative weapon? Ohhh and the rifle hunt, now we have long range hunting. Shooting at big game 1000 yards away, WOW, pretty sporting! With all of this technology, it just does not seem like a fair fight anymore, not that it ever really was. 
Sorry if i wandered a little off topic. It just seems to me that it is all about the "MONEY & INCHES" anymore. Kinda sad!
Trust me, I AM NOT A TREE HUGGER! I'm just a guy who used to love to hunt, and can't stand to see the turn hunting has taken. 
Flame away!


----------



## Finnegan

pheaz said:


> And then set two units aside for muzzy only and 2 units aside for rifle only right?


WTF? Wrong...



pheaz said:


> I hunt dedicated so I really dont care but whats fair for one is fair for all right?


Wrong... and your DH status is very temporary, so if you "really don't care", then there you go. Ironic that a DHer would be whining about "fair" anyway.



pheaz said:


> 9 day hunts across the board for all 6 regions?


My comment was about unit deer management for the purpose of increasing the number of mature bucks. Uniform season lengths is about something else.


----------



## Old Fudd

Residents wait 5 years to get an Alberta Mule Deer Tag.But a Non Resident can get a tag every year...Costs 10 grand 20 grand 30 grand 35 to 40 grand...Texas.. Hunt 365 days a year on a Ranch biggest % of Texas is this way..Cost same as above? CHMU CWMU CULATER TAKE THE MONEY UNIT>>If we don't pull are heads out I beleive we will all be looking at the same thing..UTAH.. Micro Mangement.. Taking Away State Wide Archery. Antlerless permits when populations are down...Walking miles and miles Archery Hunting Soapstone..Smithmore House.. Strawberry.. Tabby Mtn. Tabby Flatts, Fishlake unit. Not cutting a track not seeing a turd.. Must be them **** Bowhunters Fault WHY? they get the first crack at trophy bucks. OH! and least we forget. they wound bout 5 per hunter every year!Lets take away State Wide.. So the High Rollers can get a crack at what them darn old Bowhunters take away ..Am A Bowhunter who hasen't pulled an arrow for 4 years>as far as wounded Deer that just insults the hell outa me!


----------



## pheaz

Finnegan said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then set two units aside for muzzy only and 2 units aside for rifle only right?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? Wrong...
> Setting sarcasm beside here but this is what you will hear. Why is it fair for the archers to get there own 2 regions Finn.
> 
> 
> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hunt dedicated so I really dont care but whats fair for one is fair for all right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong... and your DH status is very temporary, so if you "really don't care", then there you go. Ironic that a DHer would be whining about "fair" anyway.
> And why is it ironic that a DHer would be whining about "fair" Finn.
> 
> 
> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9 day hunts across the board for all 6 regions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comment was about unit deer management for the purpose of increasing the number of mature bucks. Uniform season lengths is about something else.
Click to expand...

Why should an archer get anymore time than any other should get Finn?


----------



## Huntoholic

goofy elk said:


> I will say,,Eliminating the state wide archery hunt is NOT the answer.......
> 
> But getting rid of 50% of the rifle permits wouldn't hurt..


Spoken like a true outfitter..........


----------



## Huntoholic

oldfudd said:


> swbuckmaster. You got some nerts! Every Rifle Hunter and Muzzy Hunter probally wants to string you up by the short hairs for speaking the absolute TRUTH!!!


The only truth is that some archers thought they were going to cut a fat hog with the micro units. Now they are going to find out that they will have to play by the same rules.


----------



## Mrad

So how does cutting 13,000 permits equal more money for the DWR? 

I don't understand the argument that they're doing it for the money???

I support micromanagement.


----------



## DallanC

Mrad said:


> So how does cutting 13,000 permits equal more money for the DWR?
> 
> I don't understand the argument that they're doing it for the money???


Its not the DWR that is "doing it for the money", in fact the DWR flat out stated they would have to reduce services due to the lack of revenue brought by Option 2.

The people that WILL make more money are the guys running the conservation expo with tags they get to auction off. Limit the resource (tags) and drive up prices. Watch them lobby now for additional tags to auction off.



> I support micromanagement.


I truely can't imagine why... I honestly dont.

-DallanC


----------



## c3hammer

pheaz said:


> Why should an archer get anymore time than any other should get Finn?


Sorry to be so blunt here pheaz, but either you are being totally dishonest or you are thicker than a brick. Archery is a way lower success weapon. The resource can support 5 times the hunters and five times the season length than it can with rifle hunters. What don't you get about that? It's not a question of fair, but of what is the best use of the resource.

Why would archers want there to be 5 times the number of hunters competing for the same critters? Fair is that we all want to hunt. More archery and less rifle is the only way we can all hunt and not destroy the resource. What is it that you don't get about that?

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## elkfromabove

pheaz said:


> Why should an archer get anymore time than any other should get Finn?


There are about 20 disadvantages an archer has compared to a rifle hunter, and it usually takes much longer for all the right elements to come together for an ethical, killing shot. If we're both sitting on the edge of a 100 yard meadow looking at two shootable bucks on the other side and it's almost sunset, and you've got a rifle and I've got a bow, your hunt is over, but mine will have to wait another day.

You don't have to have a standing, 50 yard or less, broadside or quartering-away shot at a calm deer. You don't have to check to make sure you have clearance above you, below you, and behind you, as well as in front. You don't have to make sure that the deer or one of his companions doesn't see you draw. You can shoot in a prone position and can use a rest in any position. You're much more likely to get a second shot. You can hold a ready weapon for a much longer time, especially if you use a rest. You have a projectile that has enough speed to reach the animal before the sound ever gets there so the deer cannot react to the sound of the shot, and a trajectory that commonly allows you to misjudge the distance by as much as 100 yards. You don't have to worry so much about the wind and your odor. And you don't have to spend a lot of time practicing and getting and keeping your arms, shoulders and back in shape.

Taking away statewide hunting eliminates one of the advantages archers have that helps compensate for the disadvantages, and shortening the season eliminates another. So to be fair, which two of the above listed advantages are the rifle hunters willing to give up?

Ironically, even with the two so-called advantages that are under fire, archers still only have a success rate about half that of rifle hunters, and that's still too high? We need to drop it even further?
How much further? We can always eliminate the Extended Hunts, and change the timing of the archery hunt to January/February so the bows will ice up and our fingers are numb and the deer are spooked after being hunted all fall, and, of course, drastically cut the number of tags. That'll show them who's in charge!!! :O•-:


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Why would archers want there to be 5 times the number of hunters competing for the same critters? Fair is that we all want to hunt. *More archery and less rifle is the only way we can all hunt and not destroy the resource. What is it that you don't get about that?*


But not everyone wants to hunt deer with a bow this is why there is more rifle tags and ML tags. Some people don't have the time to practice shooting a bow almost every night for months before the archery hunt so why would they want to take up archery hunting?


----------



## JuddCT

If you are going to cut rifle tags create a "cross-bow" season to make it an easier transition for the displaced rifle hunters (I'm talking about deer). I've got to believe the success rates aren't as high as using a rifle (but I haven't done extensive research so I don't know for sure). Take the last week of the current "archery" hunt and give it solely to the "cross-bow" crowd. We all have to sacrifice a little and requiring only the rifle hunters to take a big hit and forcing them to switch to archery isn't the only solution. We got to stick together as hunters and everyone give a little so we don't continue to lose so much OPPORTUNITY!


----------



## Old Fudd

You can hunt with a crossbow if u are disabled or handicaped. As for making the transition easy. Just do it. Practice shooting 5 to 8 months a year.getting ready for the hunt. It ain't easy.. Raise you ethics. pretty hard to shoot a bow with one hand on the Bow and one hand on a Budwiser.LOL Hunting with Bow and Arrow is the most fun you can have with your clothes on! Start your girls and boys young, They will thank you later in life.


----------



## ktowncamo

elkfromabove said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should an archer get anymore time than any other should get Finn?
> 
> 
> 
> There are about 20 disadvantages an archer has compared to a rifle hunter, and it usually takes much longer for all the right elements to come together for an ethical, killing shot. If we're both sitting on the edge of a 100 yard meadow looking at two shootable bucks on the other side and it's almost sunset, and you've got a rifle and I've got a bow, your hunt is over, but mine will have to wait another day.
> 
> You don't have to have a standing, 50 yard or less, broadside or quartering-away shot at a calm deer. You don't have to check to make sure you have clearance above you, below you, and behind you, as well as in front. You don't have to make sure that the deer or one of his companions doesn't see you draw. You can shoot in a prone position and can use a rest in any position. You're much more likely to get a second shot. You can hold a ready weapon for a much longer time, especially if you use a rest. You have a projectile that has enough speed to reach the animal before the sound ever gets there so the deer cannot react to the sound of the shot, and a trajectory that commonly allows you to misjudge the distance by as much as 100 yards. You don't have to worry so much about the wind and your odor. And you don't have to spend a lot of time practicing and getting and keeping your arms, shoulders and back in shape.
> 
> Taking away statewide hunting eliminates one of the advantages archers have that helps compensate for the disadvantages, and shortening the season eliminates another. So to be fair, which two of the above listed advantages are the rifle hunters willing to give up?
> 
> Ironically, even with the two so-called advantages that are under fire, archers still only have a success rate about half that of rifle hunters, and that's still too high? We need to drop it even further?
> How much further? We can always eliminate the Extended Hunts, and change the timing of the archery hunt to January/February so the bows will ice up and our fingers are numb and the deer are spooked after being hunted all fall, and, of course, drastically cut the number of tags. That'll show them who's in charge!!! :O•-:
Click to expand...

+50

Now if the bow organizations could quit quibbling over who is the better bow organization in this state and unite, perhaps bow hunters wouldn't be at the mercy of the WB


----------



## c3hammer

coyoteslayer said:


> But not everyone wants to hunt deer with a bow this is why there is more rifle tags and ML tags.


By this way of thinking we all get less opportunity to hunt mature bucks and bulls. "If I can't hunt with my prefered weapon, no one can" way of thinking is turning the whole state into a Henries, where but a very few get to play. It's the ultimate display of selfishness and plays right into the hands of the wealth tag system we see taking over our state.

Before you point the finger back at me, remember the archers of this state are suggesting doubling the number of hunters competing with them in exchange for the ability to get to hunt. No, of course I don't want that, but there is no other option if we all want to continue to be able to play given the resource we have right now.

We either band together and agree to make changes that limit harvest with higher oportunity weapon types or we turn it all over to be sold to the highest bidder. The two concepts are inexorably linked unfortunately.

The more we limit opportunity, the fewer of us there are to have a say and the fewer dollars flow into the coffers from license and application fees. Another home run for the wealth tag system!

The elimination of the statewide archery was a huge win for that system. It paves the way to selling more and more and more tags on the best of the 30 units we will have.

Can't you see the road we are going down here?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

There's a tipping point. I think they could stand to raise bow tags and lower rifle/muzz tags some. At least hit the point where demand for archery tags is fairly equal to supply. Selling as many bow tags as possible would increase opportunity for everyone and perhaps make the rifle hunt less crowded and more enjoyable for some.

I know quite a few people who wanted to hunt with a bow his year who were unable. I see absolutely no reason not to let people that want to tax the resource less to acquire an archery tag. It doesn't have to be a lose/lose. There could easily be a comprehensive survey that allowed the state to more closely allocate tags according to hunter and biological desire.


----------



## coyoteslayer

c3hammer said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not everyone wants to hunt deer with a bow this is why there is more rifle tags and ML tags.
> 
> 
> 
> By this way of thinking we all get less opportunity to hunt mature bucks and bulls. "If I can't hunt with my prefered weapon, no one can" way of thinking is turning the whole state into a Henries, where but a very few get to play. It's the ultimate display of selfishness and plays right into the hands of the wealth tag system we see taking over our state.
> 
> I never said such a thing :roll: People would already be hunting with a bow if the bow hunt is so great. You do realize that bowhunting takes a lot more time practicing right? A lot of people don't have the time required to learn how to shoot a bow properly so how do you propose fixing their time issues? Maybe letting people hunt with crossbows in the answer because it doesn't take as much time and skill to learn to shoot a crossbow.
> 
> The more we limit opportunity, the fewer of us there are to have a say and the fewer dollars flow into the coffers from license and application fees. Another home run for the wealth tag system!
> 
> Yes, I agree, but you also have to come up with solutions more realistic then telling people the only way they can hunt is to pick up a bow. This doesn't go over well with a lot of people. You will have a lot of angry people who do not want to even learn to shoot a bow or even care less about the bowhunt in general.
> 
> The elimination of the statewide archery was a huge win for that system. It paves the way to selling more and more and more tags on the best of the 30 units we will have.
> 
> No I believe it was breaking the state up in 30 units and reducing tags. The archery hunters aren't seeing a reduction in tags. They just can't hunt every part of the state like they have in the past.
> 
> Can't you see the road we are going down here?
Click to expand...


----------



## creature22

It would be much easier to tell people to pick up a bow if they want to hunt than it is to say sorry you have to put in for another 3 years before you get a tag.

At least there would still be an option to hunt.


----------



## middlefork

[quote="The elimination of the statewide archery was a huge win for that system. It paves the way to selling more and more and more tags on the best of the 30 units we will have.

No I believe it was breaking the state up in 30 units and reducing tags. The archery hunters aren't seeing a reduction in tags. They just can't hunt every part of the state like they have in the past. 

Can't you see the road we are going down here?[/quote][/quote]

Which brings up an interesting question. How are they going to allocate tags by weapon for each unit? The same as the overall tags are now?


----------



## Packout

Middlefork- It is set up to be a 20% archery - 20% ml - 60% rifle split. Archery will see a slight increase in permits and ML will see a larger increase in permits.

elkfrom-- If you talk to the boys at Humphries they'd tell you the buck at 100 yards would be a dead buck either way-bow or rifle. 100 t'ain't nothin....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Haha, that's a poor example at best. I hope too many aren't talking to them........


----------



## bullsnot

Packout said:


> Middlefork- It is set up to be a 20% archery - 20% ml - 60% rifle split. Archery will see a slight increase in permits and ML will see a larger increase in permits.


It is worth noting that this is not a written rule. I know that's not what you were saying Packout but in the past I was told that in the management plan it was spelled out what the weapons split should be but I looked it over real hard and it's not there. I don't think anyone really knows why the split is what it is other than that's what we've done for a while now.

In fact this last year we lost 7,000 tags but none were taken from the archery pool which in and of itself shows that there is no written rule. Statewide the split looked this in 2011, archery 18.39%, ML/Rifle 81.61%. In 2010 it was archery 17.02%, ML/Rifle 82.98%.

My larger point is there is some wiggle room to lobby for a different allocation of tags going forward. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and it's not fair to ask some hunters to put down a rifle and pick up a bow to hunt, it is however absolutely essential if we want to give lots of people the chance to hunt looking into the future.


----------



## Old Fudd

I still beleive this will blow up in someone face. ,Just like it did when you had to pick the unit u wanted to hunt with a bow.. NUTS! DWR WB and the other bunch. Keep Saying. We want and need more younger hunters.Were losing are young hunter base. Need to encourage young hunters to stay involved.. HYPO Question. Your a young hunter. live in some place other than Salt Lake. Want to head up into the Foothills to try and harvest a buck with your Bow after school..after work.. your day off. OOPS! I for the life of me can't understand what the people in charge were thinking...Just sent off a letter to the DWR Director on behalf of my 18 yr old & 21 yr old grand sons..Met with a bunch of Archers at a Hoyt get together.. Archers R Mad as Hell! not so much for whats going to happen to the sport they love.. But for the future.. Young Bow Hunters..


----------



## elkfromabove

Per the Southern Region DWR staff, here's how some of this is going down.

Packout, Bullsnot; For clarification, the weapon tag breakdown is actually in only 2 pools. There's the Archery pool and the Rifle/Muzzleloader combined pool. Currently, it's a 15 archery to 80 rifle/muzzy ratio. (15,000 archers to 80,000 rifle and muzzy hunters combined or 15.8% archery, 84.2% rifle/muzzy) The rifle tags and the muzzy tags are taken from the same pool in chronological order, lowest to highest draw number. In other words, if a unit has only 100 tags and the lowest 100 draw numbers happen to be muzzy hunters, there will be 100 muzzy hunters during the muzzy season and zero rifle hunters during the rifle season. That pool doesn't have a set percentage of rifle or muzzy, while the archery pool only has archery hunters in it. 

Also Packout; There may be others who would take the 100 yard archery shot, but as I stated, my hunt would have to wait another day.

Coyote and Middlefork: Actually, the archers are taking a cut in tags in the same ratio as above. The cuts are across the board. So that's 2,053 fewer archery tags and 10,947 fewer rifle/muzzy tags. Fair is fair, right?

Others; FWIW, I led you astray on some things because the state staff apparently changed their minds. The Buck/bull and OIL draw will NOT happen next year at the same time as the Antlerless. It is now scheduled for Feb 1 to Mar 1 without the final tag numbers, while the Antlerless draw will happen in June after the count/classifications. Also, the guidebooks/proclamations will NOT be consolidated next year either and they'll be like they were this year. The Application Guidebook should be online Feb 15 while the Field/Antlerless Guidebook will be online sometime in May.

I don't know how or if this changes anyone's thinking, but it's something to consider!


----------



## wileywapati

http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/media/mag ... /part2.php

"The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the&#8230; conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many. Our aim is to preserve our natural resource for the public as a whole, for the average man and the average woman who make up the body of the American people."

"Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is&#8230; in our power&#8230; to preserve game&#8230;and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means."

How far has the pendulum swung??


----------



## Packout

Elkfrom- you know I was razzing you about the 100 yard shot, even if the statement I made was true. I've read enough about you to know you're a good guy. As for the tag allocations, I guess we will all know what it will be a month from now. I doubt it will end up without specific allocations per hunt, per unit-- just a guess. 

OldFudd- That is the problem I have with these discussions- it should be Young Hunters. I don't care if a kid takes his bow, ml, or rifle. I want all youth to give hunting a try! Regional rifle/ml and statewide archery gave kids the opportunity to hunt closer to home which is more convenient for them. If my boy draws a Wasatch West tag then we will be able to hunt around his schedule. But give him a South Slope tag and he'd get one or two days. I agree with you on having more areas, as long as the deer herd isn't suffering.

Bull- Only problem I have with what you say about taking it from one and giving it to another is the "taking it from one part". You might give a few more tags to others, but it takes hunting opportunity away from my dad, my wife, my uncles, my young kids, my cousins, and all the others I know who enjoy the hunt with a rifle or ml.

Gordy- Far to far...... The pendulum has swung so far it is starting to rip the gears apart.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

The pendulum (let's use teter-toter) has swung that far down the path it is on because there is a 200# gorilla pushing it that way politically for the financial gain of those who have entrenched themselves "inside the political machine" and they are going to keep it that direction untill enough weight is shifted back the other direction by a well-informed and knowledgeable public. There is simply too little knowledge being put out to the general populace to allow for that momentum to change. We, the informed need to get science and fact-based research into a formula that is easy enough to digest that the public will taste it, and when they see it tastes good, they'll partake and pass it along to their circles. Is there anyone who would be willing to start a magazine to distribute similar to Trophy Hunter or Eastman's that could be a platform for what Wiley stated - which is the US Wildlife's model for conservation?


----------



## DallanC

Step 1, put on the ballet a reformation to disband the Wildlife Board and return decision making to the DWR.

Nothing else will matter until that happens.


-DallanC


----------



## shaun larsen

Packout said:


> If you talk to the boys at Humphries they'd tell you the buck at 100 yards would be a dead buck either way-bow or rifle. 100 t'ain't nothin....


its a true statement... just depends on who is behind the bow


----------



## bullsnot

elkfromabove said:


> Currently, it's a 15 archery to 80 rifle/muzzy ratio. (15,000 archers to 80,000 rifle and muzzy hunters combined or 15.8% archery, 84.2% rifle/muzzy)


You are close...in 2011 the WB approved 16,000 achery tags (18.39% of the pool) and 71,000 ML/Rifle tags for a total of 87,000 tags. In 2010 there were 16,000 achery tags (17.02%) and 78,000 ML/Rifle tags for a grand total of 94,000 tags.


----------



## bullsnot

Packout said:


> Bull- Only problem I have with what you say about taking it from one and giving it to another is the "taking it from one part". You might give a few more tags to others, but it takes hunting opportunity away from my dad, my wife, my uncles, my young kids, my cousins, and all the others I know who enjoy the hunt with a rifle or ml.


I don't think it will be a matter of "taking" the tags from the rifle pool so that archers can have them. I think it will become a matter of move some tags to archery or lose them altogether.

I think the concept in a nutshell is simply based on success rates. Based on success rates if we determine to meet buck to doe ratio objectives that we can only kill X amount of bucks then we can do the math based on success rates to determine how many tags we can sell. Well if we change the split of ML/rifle vs. archery tag by adding tags to the archery pool we could see that the total tag count will go from 81,000 (anticipated 2012 level) to say 85,000 or higher.

Ideally I would like to see buck to doe ratio objectives on some or all general units reduced and more importantly I would like to see mule deer numbers grow to produce more tags. However if the last 20 years repeats itself my suggestion would be to teach your wife, your kids, cousins and other family members how to shoot a bow then lobby for a different split so we can get tags into more hunters hand or lobby for rather than cutting 13,000 ML/Rifle tags we simply move many of them to the archery pool to accomplish killing less bucks which is of course the reason for cutting tags in the first place.


----------



## elkfromabove

bullsnot said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, it's a 15 archery to 80 rifle/muzzy ratio. (15,000 archers to 80,000 rifle and muzzy hunters combined or 15.8% archery, 84.2% rifle/muzzy)
> 
> 
> 
> You are close...in 2011 the WB approved 16,000 achery tags (18.39% of the pool) and 71,000 ML/Rifle tags for a total of 87,000 tags. In 2010 there were 16,000 archery tags (17.02%) and 78,000 ML/Rifle tags for a grand total of 94,000 tags.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm sorry for not verifying the numbers, but the problem remains, doesn't it? And assuming that nothing changes from what I was told yesterday, we'll still lose 13,000 tags across the board. Yes, It would be ideally, biologically and financially sound to transfer some rifle/muzzy tags to the archery pool. Maybe the additional archery tags wouldn't be taken in the draw, but they would likely be sold to two/three weapon hunters who didn't draw rifle tags. But with the current thinking, I'm afraid, socially, it would be a disaster! It just wouldn't be "fair" would it? And with the lose of statewide archery, they wouldn't be as attractive.

We've muddied the waters and it will take a couple of years for them to settle. In the meantime, let's hope there isn't too much damage done to the herds, the hunter retention and recruitment, the division among hunters, the budget of the DWR, the local economies, and the general public PR.


----------



## Huntoholic

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks! I'm sorry for not verifying the numbers, but the problem remains, doesn't it? And assuming that nothing changes from what I was told yesterday, we'll still lose 13,000 tags across the board. Yes, It would be ideally, biologically and financially sound to transfer some rifle/muzzy tags to the archery pool. Maybe the additional archery tags wouldn't be taken in the draw, but they would likely be sold to two/three weapon hunters who didn't draw rifle tags. But with the current thinking, I'm afraid, socially, it would be a disaster! It just wouldn't be "fair" would it? And with the lose of statewide archery, they wouldn't be as attractive.


I've been trying to figure out how to saw this nicely, but I'm not sure can be. So I'm just going to say it. As long as you and SW make villians out of rifle hunters, you will be driving that wedge in. Some of you seem to have forgotten that rifle hunters have given up over 200000 tagges since 1994 with no noticeable change in the herd. The youth tagges come out of the rifle allotment and not the archers allotment. The 13000 reduction tagges will be coming out of the rifle tagges and you and I know that. Then you give your list of 20, which made me so mad that at that point I'm more then willing to throw the 13000 out the window as long as archers don't get them (by the way half that list was garbage). The constant harping about pumpkin patches just makes me laugh cause unless you are an old guy you have no idea what we went through in the "old" days. What the rifle hunters have now is a bit of heaven.
Now you can sing the song of brotherhood (as you have in the above paragraph) or you can keep driving that wedge in.
For me, I'm one of the multi weapons guys. But my first choice is my 75 year old father and he prefers the rifle hunt. But my guess is that unless he is lucky, 2011 will have been his last hunt. And that to me is far sadder then the archers loosing the state wide access. So you are correct in that any archery or muzzy tagges left over will go to us with multi weapons on the 2nd and 3rd draws.


----------



## bullsnot

elkfromabove said:


> I'm sorry for not verifying the numbers, but the problem remains, doesn't it? And assuming that nothing changes from what I was told yesterday, we'll still lose 13,000 tags across the board. Yes, It would be ideally, biologically and financially sound to transfer some rifle/muzzy tags to the archery pool. Maybe the additional archery tags wouldn't be taken in the draw, but they would likely be sold to two/three weapon hunters who didn't draw rifle tags. But with the current thinking, I'm afraid, socially, it would be a disaster! It just wouldn't be "fair" would it? And with the lose of statewide archery, they wouldn't be as attractive.
> 
> We've muddied the waters and it will take a couple of years for them to settle. In the meantime, let's hope there isn't too much damage done to the herds, the hunter retention and recruitment, the division among hunters, the budget of the DWR, the local economies, and the general public PR.


For now yes the problem remains and the perception that there is an "archers vs. rifle hunters" battle remains intact and we certainly have taken away some of the incentive to switch to archery with the loss of statewide hunting. The truth is though we are all hunters. We do have our own personal preferences on what type of weapon we hunt with. It's a different type of hunting style and changes our options.

However I do think that if the current trend of cutting tags continues "rifle only" hunters will do one, or more, of the following:

1 - They will simply deal with the situation
2 - They will start hunting other species more often (an unintended consequence of tag cuts for one species, it ups the applicants for other species)
3 -They will start looking at other weapon types (swithcing from rifle to ML does nothing since the tags come from the same pool.)
4 - They will start hunting out of state
5 - They will quit hunting altogether

As individuals you have many hunters who will do one or more of the above. My point is as time goes on there will be some rifle only hunters that will start picking up a bow. It's already happened, there are lots of archers that grew up doing nothing but rifle hunting. (Oh pick me!!!) There are some guys that wouldn't be caught dead with anything but a bow, they have bumpers stickers that say "real men do it in a treestand" or something to that effect. You have rifle only folks that refuse to pick up a bow because they feel like it's "unfair" and their liberty and pursuit of happiness is being stripped from them. They won't let "the man" beat them. But there are some hunters who fit somewhere in the middle and just want to get out and hunt. Many of those folks will be willing to make the switch, somewhat reluctantly, and those folks (like me) get to do all kinds of stuff. Those are the folks that will have options. I've hunted 3 different species with 3 different weapons in one year because I could draw those tags.

At the end of the day I believe that rifle only hunters shouldn't be losing tags without any bio benefit to deer and I stand by that and I will continue to. However if we want to get more hunters out hunting, archery is certainly the wave of the future. I'm not trying to shove my ideals down anyones throat. I'm simply putting it out there to give people something to think about. I only hope people will be willing to step outside of their comfort zones so that they can think of ways to be able to continue to hunt more often.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Im not making villains out of a rifle hunter. I am a rifle hunter! In fact id toss the bow in the trash if I could draw a tag every year and hunt big bucks with it. I am smart enough to see hunting with 90,000 tags in a small couple of areas is a pipe dream. I hate the rifle hunt the way it is right now. I don't give a rip how crowded it was in the 60's either. There was so many deer back then it didn't matter. People didn't feel like it was a competition or a race. They also didn't give a rip about the horns. Most tossed them in the trash. 
Now days there isn't 300,000 deer like the division says. Not even close to that number. The deer on most units are in a very sad shape compared to what I've seen in my earlier days and to what I've seen on the front now days. If I didn't see how good it is with quality and quantity on the front id say archery isn't working. They must be right archers wound way to many deer. But I have experienced how good it can be.


----------



## swbuckmaster

*Re: Re: Taking Away State Wide Archery,WELL It's Just CRAP!*



bullsnot said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull- Only problem I have with what you say about taking it from one and giving it to another is the "taking it from one part". You might give a few more tags to others, but it takes hunting opportunity away from my dad, my wife, my uncles, my young kids, my cousins, and all the others I know who enjoy the hunt with a rifle or ml.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it will be a matter of "taking" the tags from the rifle pool so that archers can have them. I think it will become a matter of move some tags to archery or lose them altogether.
Click to expand...

+100


----------



## elkfromabove

Huntoholic said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I'm sorry for not verifying the numbers, but the problem remains, doesn't it? And assuming that nothing changes from what I was told yesterday, we'll still lose 13,000 tags across the board. Yes, It would be ideally, biologically and financially sound to transfer some rifle/muzzy tags to the archery pool. Maybe the additional archery tags wouldn't be taken in the draw, but they would likely be sold to two/three weapon hunters who didn't draw rifle tags. But with the current thinking, I'm afraid, socially, it would be a disaster! It just wouldn't be "fair" would it? And with the lose of statewide archery, they wouldn't be as attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to figure out how to saw this nicely, but I'm not sure can be. So I'm just going to say it. As long as you and SW make villians out of rifle hunters, you will be driving that wedge in. Some of you seem to have forgotten that rifle hunters have given up over 200000 tagges since 1994 with no noticeable change in the herd. The youth tagges come out of the rifle allotment and not the archers allotment. The 13000 reduction tagges will be coming out of the rifle tagges and you and I know that. Then you give your list of 20, which made me so mad that at that point I'm more then willing to throw the 13000 out the window as long as archers don't get them (by the way half that list was garbage). The constant harping about pumpkin patches just makes me laugh cause unless you are an old guy you have no idea what we went through in the "old" days. What the rifle hunters have now is a bit of heaven.
> Now you can sing the song of brotherhood (as you have in the above paragraph) or you can keep driving that wedge in.
> For me, I'm one of the multi weapons guys. But my first choice is my 75 year old father and he prefers the rifle hunt. But my guess is that unless he is lucky, 2011 will have been his last hunt. And that to me is far sadder then the archers loosing the state wide access. So you are correct in that any archery or muzzy tagges left over will go to us with multi weapons on the 2nd and 3rd draws.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry my posts seem so inflamatory to you (and maybe to others) but that was never my intent. I'm just trying to educate readers by pointing out some of the probable unintended consequences that are in store. And I just think that most of those who favor and promote this aspect (and others) of Option #2 for the purpose of increasing the herd population and making things "fair" are mistaken in it's purpose and are simply running on emotion when it comes to making things "fair".

I had a a long reply written this morning, but I think I'll just let the real villain, Option #2, speak for itself when the Application Guidebook comes out and when the unintended consequences rise up. Let's see if those events are better education tools!

And, FWIW, I'm 70 and have hunted with a rifle since I was 16 and a bow since I was 24. I much prefer the bow, but will hunt antlerless with a rifle or sometimes when I have kids or grandkids draw a rifle tag. I've seen a few seasons.


----------



## Huntoholic

elkfromabove said:


> I'm sorry my posts seem so inflamatory to you (and maybe to others) but that was never my intent. I'm just trying to educate readers by pointing out some of the probable unintended consequences that are in store. And I just think that most of those who favor and promote this aspect (and others) of Option #2 for the purpose of increasing the herd population and making things "fair" are mistaken in it's purpose and are simply running on emotion when it comes to making things "fair".
> 
> I had a a long reply written this morning, but I think I'll just let the real villain, Option #2, speak for itself when the Application Guidebook comes out and when the unintended consequences rise up. Let's see if those events are better education tools!
> 
> And, FWIW, I'm 70 and have hunted with a rifle since I was 16 and a bow since I was 24. I much prefer the bow, but will hunt antlerless with a rifle or sometimes when I have kids or grandkids draw a rifle tag. I've seen a few seasons.


By all means educate. Lets talk about how not to loose any more tagges and to get back to biology. 
But when individuals suggest removing 30,000 more rifle tagges and only increasing archery tagges by 4,000 it does cause me to see red. We all know that we could double the archery tagges and there would be minimal impact. So what this tells me is like I pointed out earlier, some individuals think they are cutting a fat hog. An easy way to cut 30,000 more rifle hunters out of the picture and only opening a token (less impact to archers) to the current pool of archers. 
You are right, there are going to be unintended consequences to option #2. Unfortunately it looks like the first will be the loss of state wide archery.


----------



## Packout

swbuckmaster said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull- Only problem I have with what you say about taking it from one and giving it to another is the "taking it from one part". You might give a few more tags to others, but it takes hunting opportunity away from my dad, my wife, my uncles, my young kids, my cousins, and all the others I know who enjoy the hunt with a rifle or ml.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it will be a matter of "taking" the tags from the rifle pool so that archers can have them. I think it will become a matter of move some tags to archery or lose them altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> +100
Click to expand...

That isn't really true when you look at it from a numbers aspect. Since so many seem to disagree with the UDWR Harvest Data, lets say archers kill at a 15% clip (lower than reports) and Rifle guys kill at a 30% rate (about avg from the reports). So you can put 6 archers on the mtn and they kill 1 buck. You put 3 rifle hunters on the mtn and they kill 1 buck.

So to get those 13,000 tags back we can't just give them to archers because those 13,000 archers will kill 2,000 bucks. That would be equal to 6,000 rifle permits. Why would those who desire the lowered harvest allow more archery tags to be issued?

If we want to "move" the archery tags then we are moving some harvest from rifle to bow. For every 2 archery tags, a rifle hunter is cut. I look at like this:

We cut 10,000 rifle tags (as SW has suggested) and we can issue 20,000 archery tags. But we just cut 10,000 people from a Hunting Opportunity. One of those 10,000 cut could be my 12 year old (who is not capable of hunting with a bow) or my Dad (who is in his 70s and can not pull a bow back) or my wife (who would rather not spend $700 on a new set-up, nor does she have any desire to bow hunt). It isn't as easy as saying--



bullsnot said:


> my suggestion would be to teach your wife, your kids, cousins and other family members how to shoot a bow


Most will make do with less opportunity to hunt or they will just quit. There isn't really another viable option to hunt Big Game in Utah. Of course, there could be someone to take their place in the future, unless permits keep being lowered by special interest lobbying (for no biological reason), which means everyone looses. We successfully cut 100,000 hunters from being our competition the last time we changed the system....

Now, I am going to shoot my bow with a buddy so we can hit the Front in the next couple weeks, looking for a mature buck to chase. One like you shot would work perfect.


----------



## Huntoholic

swbuckmaster said:


> Im not making villains out of a rifle hunter. I am a rifle hunter! In fact id toss the bow in the trash if I could draw a tag every year and hunt big bucks with it. I am smart enough to see hunting with 90,000 tags in a small couple of areas is a pipe dream. I hate the rifle hunt the way it is right now. I don't give a rip how crowded it was in the 60's either. There was so many deer back then it didn't matter. People didn't feel like it was a competition or a race. They also didn't give a rip about the horns. Most tossed them in the trash.
> Now days there isn't 300,000 deer like the division says. Not even close to that number. The deer on most units are in a very sad shape compared to what I've seen in my earlier days and to what I've seen on the front now days. If I didn't see how good it is with quality and quantity on the front id say archery isn't working. They must be right archers wound way to many deer. But I have experienced how good it can be.


The sad thing is you are and continue to make the rifle guy the villain. In my opinion you need to care about the past. The past contains the keys to what made hunting great. The road that hunting is currently on will leave a few sitting on the mountain with no one to share it with or who will even care.


----------



## coyoteslayer

It's interesting because a lot of archers on this forum have talked about how unethical rifle hunters are. They talk about guys taking 500 plus shots wounding deer, and they never go and check for blood. SWbuckmaster made a video a while back and his character was a [email protected] hillbilly.

So why would you encourage these hillbilly/******** who have no hunting ethics to now pick up a bow and starting hunting during the archery season. I can only image the problems that these people would cause on the Wasatch Front.

There is a lot of unethical archers now, but you don't see their actions as much as rifle hunters because their number is smaller. These problems always gets worse when more people are added to the pool

Dont complain when some [email protected] start ruining the sport of archery. Dont complain if they dont practice months before the hunt because their ethics won't change when they hunt with a bow.

With more archers in the field then more guys will complain that someone stole their waterhole/treestand or some jackwagon decided to set his blind up only 100yds away at the same waterhole. Then maybe some archers will quit and switch to another hobby because they will think it's not worth the time to spend all year practicing to have jackwagons messing up their hunts. 

maybe I'm wrong, but most forums I read are full of complainers and I could see happening in the future.


----------



## swbuckmaster

You guys make me tired. This a whole argument makes me tired. You will never change my mind right now on how I feel that the general rifle hunt sucks balls and the Wasatch front archery only areas is the shizzzz. How come the wasatch front archery only area has to allow doe harvest to stay under objective? How come it has loads of cougars and coyotes and no winter range. It also dosent have sfw money ect. In all reality it should fail, BUT continually crankes out big bucks and the deer herd is stable unlike any general rifle area in this state. 
When you can honestly answer this question let me know and we can make the rest of the state just as nice.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Guess what coyote I've made more than one video with that dumb a and no one is safe. He is like Tosh.o he takes it out on all weapons that is the beauty of comedy. If you can't laugh at yourself then what can you laugh at.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> You guys make me tired. This a whole argument makes me tired. You will never change my mind right now on how I feel that the general rifle hunt sucks balls


Maybe it sucks balls for you, but I know a lot of hunters including my own family that constantly shoot big bucks with a rifle on public land.


----------



## GaryFish

I don't see a whole lot of cows grazing the Wasatch extended.


----------



## coyoteslayer

swbuckmaster said:


> Guess what coyote I've made more than one video with that dumb a and no one is safe. He is like Tosh.o he takes it out on all weapons that is the beauty of comedy. If you can't laugh at yourself then what can you laugh at.


I laughed at your video. I found it very funny, but it's funny you talk about how stupid rifle hunters are and then you want these same people to keep up a bow and start hunting archery.


----------



## JuddCT

coyoteslayer said:


> So why would you encourage these hillbilly/******** who have no hunting ethics to now pick up a bow and starting hunting during the archery season. I can only image the problems that these people would cause on the Wasatch Front.


The easy answer is because we all know that the majority of those rifle hunters WILL NOT pick up a bow and in some people's minds that is okay (not mine). I know archery deer permits are draw now, but if they were OTC purchase, how many would be sold? The majority of those permits that would be cut and "transferred" to archery would just increase the chances of those who currently aren't drawing the archery tag. Let's be honest, my dad, brothers, wife, brothers-in-law, and nephews will not pick up a bow (believe me I've tried to get them to follow me this year in my quest to become an archer).


----------



## GaryFish

I am among rifle hunters that won't cross over to archery. I decided long ago, I could only afford one gadget/time intense hobby, so I choose fly fishing. The result is I don't big game hunt in Utah any more. But that's just me.


----------



## coyoteslayer

> The easy answer is because we all know that the majority of those rifle hunters WILL NOT pick up a bow


Sure they will pick up a bow if they couldn't rifle hunt. They like to be out in the hills just like everyone does. They might even like the warmer weather during the archery hunt.


----------



## Huntoholic

swbuckmaster said:


> You guys make me tired. This a whole argument makes me tired. You will never change my mind right now on how I feel that the general rifle hunt sucks balls and the Wasatch front archery only areas is the shizzzz. How come the wasatch front archery only area has to allow doe harvest to stay under objective? How come it has loads of cougars and coyotes and no winter range. It also dosent have sfw money ect. In all reality it should fail, BUT continually crankes out big bucks and the deer herd is stable unlike any general rifle area in this state.
> When you can honestly answer this question let me know and we can make the rest of the state just as nice.


I'm glad you have a place you are happy with. Hunt it. There should be no reason for you to hunt any other unit if it is that great.

I guess there is no reason for you to hunt state wide......


----------



## DallanC

LOL!

-DallanC


----------



## JuddCT

coyoteslayer said:


> The easy answer is because we all know that the majority of those rifle hunters WILL NOT pick up a bow
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they will pick up a bow if they couldn't rifle hunt. They like to be out in the hills just like everyone does. They might even like the warmer weather during the archery hunt.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely (just speaking from my personal relatives that rifle hunt). I guess we just will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## coyoteslayer

JuddCT said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy answer is because we all know that the majority of those rifle hunters WILL NOT pick up a bow
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they will pick up a bow if they couldn't rifle hunt. They like to be out in the hills just like everyone does. They might even like the warmer weather during the archery hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree completely (just speaking from my personal relatives that rifle hunt). I guess we just will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

That might be the case the first few years, but why not let people hunt with a crossbow?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

The cross bow issue is a tricky one. I personally see the merit in allowing crossbows for general hunting, WITH RESTRICTIONS on equipment. There are some bows crossbows that don't require much practice and that are accurate out to long distances (+100). These shouldn't be allowed.

On the flip side, your every day run of the mill crossbow is less capable than most compound bows these days.

So my opinion, let's test out crossbows and see what happens, especially if we are talking about pressing other weapon hunters into "archery".


----------



## JuddCT

coyoteslayer said:


> That might be the case the first few years, but why not let people hunt with a crossbow?


I'm glad you went there. I agree with you 100%.


----------



## JuddCT

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The cross bow issue is a tricky one. I personally see the merit in allowing crossbows for general hunting, WITH RESTRICTIONS on equipment. There are some bows crossbows that don't require much practice and that are accurate out to long distances (+100). These shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> On the flip side, your every day run of the mill crossbow is less capable than most compound bows these days.
> 
> So my opinion, let's test out crossbows and see what happens, especially if we are talking about pressing other weapon hunters into "archery".


+1


----------



## bullsnot

coyoteslayer said:


> So why would you encourage these hillbilly/******** who have no hunting ethics to now pick up a bow and starting hunting during the archery season. I can only image the problems that these people would cause on the Wasatch Front.


This is a myth and I don't believe it for a second. All groups are nothing more than a cross section of society. There are archery hunters that poach, drink beer and hunt at the same time, do drugs, committ crimes, and and do all the unsavory things we detest. It's just more prevelant with rifle hunters because there are more of them.

Enough of the archers vs rifle hunters thing!! We are all just hunters.


----------



## swbuckmaster

+1 bullsnot


----------



## bullsnot

Packout said:


> So to get those 13,000 tags back we can't just give them to archers because those 13,000 archers will kill 2,000 bucks. That would be equal to 6,000 rifle permits. Why would those who desire the lowered harvest allow more archery tags to be issued?


Your numbers are correct but I guess the argument that I'm trying to make is that when tag cuts are on the table I believe they would be less drastic if wildlife managers had the "move tags to archery" tool in their toolbox. I think long run the rifle tags may suffer slightly but overall we'd have more tags. I think that had that tool been available the options presented and the one chosen may have been different last fall.



Packout said:


> It isn't as easy as saying--
> 
> 
> 
> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> 
> my suggestion would be to teach your wife, your kids, cousins and other family members how to shoot a bow
> 
> 
> 
> Most will make do with less opportunity to hunt or they will just quit.
Click to expand...

You and I have chatted about this before but I've seen it first hand and kids LOVE shooting bows. More than I even realized. The next generation would embrace this concept for the most part. There is certainly those that aren't into it and I will always believe that there should be rifle tags and even the lions share should be rifle tags.

But I guess this leads to a bigger question and that is what is a fair split anyway? I believe that at some point we are going to all have to ask ourselves some hard questions. There will always be those with a preference but this is almost like the chicken and the egg...do most rifle hunt because there are more rifle tags available? Or are there more tags available because most rifle hunt? I'm sure that most still genuinely prefer rifles but is it really 20% vs 60%?



Packout said:


> ..unless permits keep being lowered by special interest lobbying (for no biological reason), which means everyone looses. We successfully cut 100,000 hunters from being our competition the last time we changed the system.....


You probably realize this but I just wanted to make sure you knew we are completely on the same page here. This archery tag discussion is way down on the list compared to what you just said above.



Packout said:


> Now, I am going to shoot my bow with a buddy so we can hit the Front in the next couple weeks, looking for a mature buck to chase. One like you shot would work perfect.


Good luck!!! I can't wait to see the euro mount!!


----------



## coyoteslayer

bullsnot said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why would you encourage these hillbilly/******** who have no hunting ethics to now pick up a bow and starting hunting during the archery season. I can only image the problems that these people would cause on the Wasatch Front.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a myth and I don't believe it for a second. All groups are nothing more than a cross section of society. There are archery hunters that poach, drink beer and hunt at the same time, do drugs, committ crimes, and and do all the unsavory things we detest. It's just more prevelant with rifle hunters because there are more of them.
> 
> Bullsnot, I guess you didn't read what I wrote.
> 
> Enough of the archers vs rifle hunters thing!! We are all just hunters.
Click to expand...


----------



## swbuckmaster

I am also for the cross bow. It only limits the range of the weapon and how many shots anyone gets at a deer especially if you are going to have to move rifle hunters to a more primitive weapon so everyone can still have the opportunity to hunt.

33% bow 33% rifle 33% muzzy tags. Three seasons with 20,000 hunters a season will alleviate hunting pressure. It will also allow for more deer to survive year after year by limiting the range and amount of shots you get at a deer.

There is no more fair way to distribute the tags imho. Fair is fair right? No the real question is how is this not fair?


----------



## coyoteslayer

swbuckmaster said:


> I am also for the cross bow. It only limits the range of the weapon and how many shots anyone gets at a deer especially if you are going to have to move rifle hunters to a more primitive weapon so everyone can still have the opportunity to hunt.
> 
> Well some of the new crossbows then it only takes two seconds to co ck (I guess you cant say co ck on the forum) a crossbow so you can shoot them almost as fast as a compound. Plus how many shots does it take to kill an animal?
> 
> 33% bow 33% rifle 33% muzzy tags. Three seasons with 20,000 hunters a season will alleviate hunting pressure. It will also allow for more deer to survive year after year by limiting the range and amount of shots you get at a deer.
> 
> There is no more fair way to distribute the tags imho. Fair is fair right? No the real question is how is this not fair?


----------



## JuddCT

swbuckmaster said:


> I am also for the cross bow. It only limits the range of the weapon and how many shots anyone gets at a deer especially if you are going to have to move rifle hunters to a more primitive weapon so everyone can still have the opportunity to hunt.
> 
> 33% bow 33% rifle 33% muzzy tags. Three seasons with 20,000 hunters a season will alleviate hunting pressure. It will also allow for more deer to survive year after year by limiting the range and amount of shots you get at a deer.


Would crossbow hunters still be given the same season length as a compound/trad guy? If so including crossbows in the general archery pool would drastically increase the amount of people willing to archery hunt as I know a lot of my rifle hunting relatives see that as an "easy" transition into "archery" hunting (boy do they have a lot to learn about stalking a deer )


----------



## bullsnot

coyoteslayer said:


> Bullsnot, I guess you didn't read what I wrote.


Ok I re-read you post....I'm not exactly sure what you were tying to say. Don't complain when archers are painted as a bunch of hillbilly ********? Sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## coyoteslayer

bullsnot said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullsnot, I guess you didn't read what I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I re-read you post....I'm not exactly sure what you were tying to say.
> 
> Maybe this will help you out.
> 
> So why would you encourage these hillbilly/******** who have no hunting ethics to now pick up a bow and starting hunting during the archery season. I can only image the problems that these people would cause on the Wasatch Front.
> 
> *There is a lot of unethical archers now, but you don't see their actions as much as rifle hunters because their number is smaller. These problems always gets worse when more people are added to the pool*
> 
> Dont complain when some [email protected] start ruining the sport of archery. Dont complain if they dont practice months before the hunt because their ethics won't change when they hunt with a bow.
> 
> With more archers in the field then more guys will complain that someone stole their waterhole/treestand or some jackwagon decided to set his blind up only 100yds away at the same waterhole. Then maybe some archers will quit and switch to another hobby because they will think it's not worth the time to spend all year practicing to have jackwagons messing up their hunts.
Click to expand...


----------



## coyoteslayer

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The cross bow issue is a tricky one. I personally see the merit in allowing crossbows for general hunting, WITH RESTRICTIONS on equipment. There are some bows crossbows that don't require much practice and that are accurate out to long distances (+100). These shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> Why not limit things on compound bows? Maybe put more restrictions on ML and rifles. Where would the restrictions end? Who decides what these restrictions should be?
> 
> On the flip side, your every day run of the mill crossbow is less capable than most compound bows these days.
> 
> So my opinion, let's test out crossbows and see what happens, especially if we are talking about pressing other weapon hunters into "archery".


----------



## elkfromabove

ONE buck deer season, ANY weapon (including crossbows), 3rd Saturday in Sep. to 2nd Saturday in Oct., 81,000 tags distributed from one draw pool proportionally to the 30 units as determined by the classification/count and considering the buck to doe ratio as it now stands (or per Option #2). Per the 2008 management plan, those units that fall below 10 (ok, 15) bucks/100 does will have some of their tags shifted to units that are above 15 (ok, 18) bucks/100 does (or dropped if necessary). Keep the current LE and Premium LE units and program including the buck to doe ratios, and tags determined by the ratios/counts as currently established. Everyone wears orange which may include orange camo and whoever hits the deer in the vitals first gets to tag it.

We're all hunters and should stick together and fair is fair, right? And the longer/shorter season would help spread us out so we're not too crowded. Problems solved, waters cleared!!!


----------



## BugleB

I think we should all boycott the archery hunt this year. That would hit them where it counts ($$$$$$).

While we are at it, lets boycott all of the deer hunts and teach our children to not take up hunting.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Let's be "Fair" to all walks of the hunting community and take away the perceived "rivalries between hunters" ... let's divide the total number of deer tags allocated evenly between the 3 weapon types... so ~87,000 + 16,000 = 103,000 / 3 = ~34,330 tags for each weapon type.

Then let's divide the seasons and units up to create our weapons seasons ... an early season from ~Sept 5th-15th, middle season from Sept 25-Oct 5th and a late season from Oct 20-30th...

Then lets divide the units up so that 1/3 of the units are archery only, 1/3 are smokepole only, and 1/3 are rifle only.

To make it even more "Fair" to all weapons types, we then need to cycle the units so that every weapon type has a chance to hunt every unit during a different hunt season (early, mid or late) at some time during the 3-year rotation, to allow hunters to experience a "Fair" distribution of "opportunity" amongst the 30 units and 3 varying seasons...

Then we need to eliminate the advantages of the different weapons systems... to make it fair. No scopes on rifles, no in-line slug-primered muzzleloaders or using sabots - roundball only, no moving sights or more than 5 pins on bows ... etc. etc...

Then we need everyone to have a certified witness with them while hunting to account for and prevent 500+ yard shots with long guns, or 200+yd roundballers, or 60+ yrd stick-flippers... *you wound a deer/elk/etc. you notch your tag and you are done ... done*. Eliminate the question of wounding rates by having witnesses actually count the number.

Fair and balanced hunting...


----------



## Huntoholic

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Let's be "Fair" to all walks of the hunting community and take away the perceived "rivalries between hunters" ... let's divide the total number of deer tags allocated evenly between the 3 weapon types... so ~87,000 + 16,000 = 103,000 / 3 = ~34,330 tags for each weapon type.
> 
> Then let's divide the seasons and units up to create our weapons seasons ... an early season from ~Sept 5th-15th, middle season from Sept 25-Oct 5th and a late season from Oct 20-30th...
> 
> Then lets divide the units up so that 1/3 of the units are archery only, 1/3 are smokepole only, and 1/3 are rifle only.
> 
> To make it even more "Fair" to all weapons types, we then need to cycle the units so that every weapon type has a chance to hunt every unit during a different hunt season (early, mid or late) at some time during the 3-year rotation, to allow hunters to experience a "Fair" distribution of "opportunity" amongst the 30 units and 3 varying seasons...
> 
> Then we need to eliminate the advantages of the different weapons systems... to make it fair. No scopes on rifles, no in-line slug-primered muzzleloaders or using sabots - roundball only, no moving sights or more than 5 pins on bows ... etc. etc...
> 
> Then we need everyone to have a certified witness with them while hunting to account for and prevent 500+ yard shots with long guns, or 200+yd roundballers, or 60+ yrd stick-flippers... *you wound a deer/elk/etc. you notch your tag and you are done ... done*. Eliminate the question of wounding rates by having witnesses actually count the number.
> 
> Fair and balanced hunting...


Ya missed one, no compounds. Recurves and long bows only.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Well, then we need to limit the rifle hunters to wearing old washed out Levis (no Wrangler-butts) and plaid shirts and an open sight 30-06. Muzzleloaders would only be able to hunt in hand-tanned elk leather and beaverskin lined jacket/pants and a roundball 50 cal flint-lock. Archers shooting recurve/longbows would then have to run around in loin-cloths.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Wait a minute!! Tree, Tex and a few already do that - so there is no FAIRNESS in that!


----------



## pheaz

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Wait a minute!! Tree, Tex and a few already do that - so there is no FAIRNESS in that!


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## elkfromabove

Archers and Muzzleloaders have to reload after every shot, so it'll also have to be single shot rifles only to be fair!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Now we're talkin!!! 

Pheaz, are those smiles of agreement - meaning you've seen those guys in loin cloths? or smiles of "Oh yeah! I getta pull out my cloth again n go native!" ?


----------



## Elkoholic8

Lance, Lance, Lance, that will never fly!! You are using WAY too much common sence for the WB members to comprehend. They are too affraid that a plan like this will discourage too many big dollar hunters to go to another state. The all mighty dollar is what drives regulations in this state. I hate to say it, but it is the truth!! Bet you won't see that mentioned in a Primos video!!


I do agree with your philosophy though. I also think we should have mandatory harvest reporting, and reporting on how many predators we see per trip per area. This would help the biologists get an acurate idea of just how many predators are in their areas.


----------

