# Statewide Archery



## BucksNBulls (May 27, 2008)

So.........How is the fight progressing for KEEPING statewide archery? How does the future look?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Anybody's guess. We've got a strong hand, but there's cards under the table. The real question is how the fight for public input is going.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

The thing I can't understand is this, if the southerners are the only ones crying, why do they want to limit the rest of the state. If they can't resist eliminating the statewide archery, why not make the southern region one archery region and the rest of the state another region. Don't they know that unduly restricting your choices of where to go takes a lot of the fun out of it and when the fun is gone, the hunters are gone too.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

They may know that.....but they don't CARE! ! ! !


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I sent emails to RAC members across the state arguing that this proposal was not a good one. One of the southern RAC members stated in his reply that 60% of the archers in the state are hunting the southern region...where he gets that number I do not know. But, if that is true, the south is getting more than its share of archers....whether or not the south can handle that pressure is another story.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I sent emails to RAC members across the state arguing that this proposal was not a good one. One of the southern RAC members stated in his reply that 60% of the archers in the state are hunting the southern region...*where he gets that number *I do not know. But, *if *that is true, the south is getting more than its share of archers....whether or not the south can handle that pressure is another story.


IF........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

He pulled that 60% out his backside. The northern rac voted 9-0 in favor of keeping statewide archery. I hope bow hunters show up in mass tonight at the central rac. This IS a fight worth fighting, and we can/are winning it.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Pro....what makes you think we are winning? Just curious as to the steps taken.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

4 of the 5 rac's have met, 2 voted to keep statewide (one was 9-0), the southern (where all the noise is coming from) voted 6-3 to have a committee formed to address the issue and then voted to go with the DWR's recommendation, kind of a no vote as I see it. The vote was close at the northeast, but they ended up going with the DWR's recommendation as well.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> He pulled that 60% out his backside. The northern rac voted 9-0 in favor of keeping statewide archery. I hope bow hunters show up in mass tonight at the central rac. This IS a fight worth fighting, and we can/are winning it.


Maybe he did...I don't know. OF course the northern rac voted that way...I do hope, though, that the statewide archery thing is kept.

How about a run down on the whole meeting?


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Even if 60% of archers did hunt Southern as this guy stated, that still equals roughly the same number of rifle hunters in the South. 

How come no one talks about the number of dedicated hunters that end up bowhunting down south? How many of the DH also rifle hunt the southern region? In my mind, there is just as many or more overall rifle hunters as there is overall archers. How come these southern boys (and girls) aren't raising a stink about the DH program as a cause for the "overcrowding" issue? Maybe it is because a lot of them depend on the program to guarantee them a tag for their "coveted" region. I say we propose a regional draw for the DH program if this retarded idea of regional draw for archery goes through and base it on the perception of overcrowding in the South due the the DH program.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Actually, they are and have....if you look back at some of the RAC meeting minutes from the south, you will also see that the DH program adding to the number of hunters in the south. Part of what Jake Albrecht has complained about is that the DH hunters from all over the state are spending a large amount of time in the south...during the archery and muzzleloader hunts.

Here is the exact quote by Rex Stanworth from the RAC that I am referring to: "I was just wondering, are we getting anywhere with control over the archery hunters and where they go? And the dedicated hunters from arbitrarily being able to say we’re going to go to the southern? We are getting by far our bigger percentage of those. They are not jointly shared by other 
regions. Are we getting anywhere close to having those done?"


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

DH... Hunters hit the southern area in droves.. druing the archery and muzzy hunts.. Been that way for about 6 years..That said.. The Piaute trail riders who run the west Pavhant unit to death,, They need to limit some of them.. Ya ever tried to stock a buck.. with a 2 stroke .loud screaming.,,, racer or an enduro.. flying side by side up a canyon... with no disreguard for their safty.. yet alone the poor sucker who just spent 2 hours on a stock!! I .own a wheeler..at my age its low and slow..I try really hard to not screw up another hunter..Ethics first..


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 4 of the 5 rac's have met, 2 voted to keep statewide (one was 9-0), the southern (where all the noise is coming from) voted 6-3 to have a committee formed to address the issue and then voted to go with the DWR's recommendation, kind of a no vote as I see it. *The vote was close at the northeast, but they ended up going with the DWR's recommendation as well*.


What's in it for the Basin boys (girls) to have voted with the DWR? So, If the Central RAC votes on keeping Statewide....then that's it? From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody really cares what the RACs do and in the end, when all is said and done, the board will just do what it wants to anyway.


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

uzabow-Man! you hit the nail on the head with that one!!


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

PLUS.....if we actually hold on to state-wide archery, which would be GREAT, are we going to be right back in this same situation next year or the year after or after that? If we are going to WIN, maybe we should strive for holding on to it for longer than the upcoming year. JMHO!


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

John, one of the board members at the central RAC, suggested keeping archery as is for one more year then forming a committee to discuss the issue for the next year (2010). So even if we do keep statewide for the time being, I guarantee this issue will come up again in the near future.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

UBA was very persuasive tonight. I think the commitee idea is a great plan. I think the rac heard that tonight. I didnt get to stay for the dedicated part since it was item 12 on the agenda and after 3 hours, they were to number 4. :roll: 
Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Agreed, Nor-tah. But there's a lot of credit to be spread around. I spoke with the chair and a couple RAC members before the meeting and their minds were already pretty much made up because of the avalanche of emails they had received from the rest of you guys. Even though that was the lightest attendance of a Central B & B RAC that I've seen for a few years, you guys found a meaningful way to get involved. Well done!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The Statewide Archery should NEVER be an issue because there is 16,000 archers Statewide and it just sounds ridicious to make an archer choose a region


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The Statewide Archery should NEVER be an issue because there is 16,000 archers Statewide and it just sounds ridicious to make an archer choose a region


Agreed! However, I think we will continue to see archers looked at as a "threat" and this is a fight we will have to be completely 100% dedicated to or eventually it will be taken away. We will always have to fight this fight.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

It's about time one of the "southern boys" got into this fray. Please don't lump us all in with the few "southern, mostly rifle, boys" who are making this fuss! The vast majority of us "southern boys" hate the statewide proposal as much or more than the rest of you! I live in Enoch (Cedar City) and if this proposal were to reach it's obvious intended goal of making this permanent, and I didn't happen to draw a Southern tag, my archery deer hunt is cut by 2/3. And for most working people, (I'm retired) it amounts to a 1 holiday (Labor day) and 1 and 1/2 weekend hunt. (Look at the 2009 calendar). The nearest Regional boundary to me is 150 miles/2+hours/$45 gas money away, and that's just to the boundary, not to the hunt. If I were still working, I'd never make it after work. And since I have church commitments, I wouldn't be there on Sunday either. On top of that, the 3 day holiday weekend is one of the busiest outdoor weekends all year because it's the last one of the summer and everybody (ATV'ers, campers, bikers, hikers, fishermen, picnikers, tourists, photographers, firewood cutters, etc.) wants to get their last licks in. And, on top of that, many of the deer archery hunters causing the "overcrowding" are actually deer rifle hunters who are archery elk hunting which happens at the same time! Most of them have family rifle deer traditions and don't want to change that and the archery elk hunt is a bonus gimee hunt for them, so they're up there both seasons.

We learned at the RACS that many of the complaints are coming through the BLM and FS from the overcrowders themselves. And others are coming from the rifle hunters who don't hunt until a month later and with them this is not an "overcrowding" issue, it's an ego issue! The vast majority of southern bowhunters oppose this proposal. And most of the southern rifle hunters are neutral because they don't think this affects them. We can't allow the few complaining hunters and non-hunters to control our archery hunts because it will never be enough since this "overcrowding" is based only on a perception and not on actual numbers.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

The whole thing just makes me sick! _/O


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

E-mail the WB. tell them politely how you feela bout the statewide, spike elk, Bonus points etc. They need to hear it loud and clear. BOU and UBA really stepped up with huge support from the bowhunting community! Great job guy's! Let's finish it off with a strong showing at the wildlife Board mtg!


----------



## wimpy (Apr 30, 2008)

Great post elkfromabove - it gives a nuts and bolts reply and reason from the south. Send it directly to the Wildlife Board!!! :!: :!:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I just sent an email to all the members of the wildlife board asking them to reconsider the issue. I stated that politics should never be used as a reason to sidestep good management based on biological principles. I also stated that I have 3 children that are either through hunters safety or will be within the next 3 years, and that the archery hunt really is one of the last reasons that I don't take my money to Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana. I mentioned that if my money goes elsewhere, chances are good that the next generation will follow as well. If I'm going to have to scramble to get a permit that should be over the counter, be locked into a particualar region etc, that I would see a lot of value in hunting the archery season somwhere else, much as i have done with antelope in Wyoming. 

Will they even read it though?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > 4 of the 5 rac's have met, 2 voted to keep statewide (one was 9-0), the southern (where all the noise is coming from) voted 6-3 to have a committee formed to address the issue and then voted to go with the DWR's recommendation, kind of a no vote as I see it. *The vote was close at the northeast, but they ended up going with the DWR's recommendation as well*.
> ...


I don't know why we voted the DWR's way on this. Most of the people I have talked to don't care because they will still be able to hunt here. Thats the thing here is almost everyone stays and hunts the the hills in our neck of the woods.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> I don't know why we voted the DWR's way on this. Most of the people I have talked to don't care because they will still be able to hunt here. Thats the thing here is almost everyone stays and hunts the the hills in our neck of the woods.


What the hunters in your area may want to think about is, if this goes through and they restrict the number of archers in other regions, where do you think those hunters will go? 'Your' areas, This affects ALL archery deer hunters, not just the ones in the southern region.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why we voted the DWR's way on this. Most of the people I have talked to don't care because they will still be able to hunt here. Thats the thing here is almost everyone stays and hunts the the hills in our neck of the woods.
> ...


I agree, I don't know why the vote was made. Bunch of old timers out here and they just didn't realize what was happening I think. Why do you think we voted the way we did?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> UZ-A-BOW said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


It's all confusing to me....I am from "your neck of the woods" (Duchesne) and everyone I know out there is all for STATEWIDE archery!


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I am too, I don't know why the vote was the way it was, just throwing out a reason I thought it might have went that way. Don't know who was doing the campaigning. :roll: It sucks that we might be the deciding factor on if it passes or not.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It seems to me that the WB will take the results of the RAC recomendations add them altogether divide by 5 add the vast amount of emails from archers subtract by 2 and do whatever they feel like doing. :evil:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

middlefork said:


> It seems to me that the WB will take the results of the RAC recomendations add them altogether divide by 5 add the vast amount of emails from archers subtract by 2 and do whatever they feel like doing. :evil:


Yeah, I feel the same!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Prediction: *IF* we lose statewide archery hunting it will only be for a year or two before whoever is pushing this realizes that it has so many unintended negative consequences, even for them, that they will either push for it's return or, at least, stop fighting us when we petition for it's return.

Of course, until that happens, if ever, we need to continue to e-mail and snail mail and phone the RAC and Wildlife Board Members, and the Governor if necessary, and to attend the RAC's and Board meetings to get them to see the harm this proposed split region/statewide archery season would do. And continue talking to other hunters (archery, rifle, and muzzy) who think this won't effect them because it does.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I tend to disagree.....I can't remember what president it was but one of them said something along the lines of ......NO country (people, land, group) that has had freedom and lost it, ever got that freedom back. I think that is the same with this statewide thing. If we lose it....it will just make it easier for them to take away more from us...and more ....and more! It won't stop. THAT is why we need to stand NOW and do something. I've been writing e-mails like mad....no suprise I haven't gotten any responses.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> I tend to disagree.....I can't remember what president it was but one of them said something along the lines of ......NO country (people, land, group) that has had freedom and lost it, ever got that freedom back. I think that is the same with this statewide thing. If we lose it....it will just make it easier for them to take away more from us...and more ....and more! It won't stop. THAT is why we need to stand NOW and do something. I've been writing e-mails like mad....no suprise I haven't gotten any responses.


You may be correct, and maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. The trouble is, we wouldn't know until it's too late and we can't let that happen! And your point is made (along with mine) that we need to get into, and stay in this fight. I just sent my first of several e-mails to the WB.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

well, keep sending them....I've sent several and haven't gotten one response but I think it could be making an impact....at least a little bit.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am all in favor of keeping statewide archery...I only hunt the south and I have had no problems with the number of hunters in this region. However, I think many of you are out of touch with the arguments being made in the south by southern hunters...

...if you look at the stats, you would find that in looking at your season deer harvest, the southern region had 1,207 deer harvested during the archery hunt. By way of comparison, the central region harvested 336, the northeastern 528, and the northern was 265. To put things into perspective, the success rates for each region were similar (These are the numbers the DWR puts out...not my own). So, if the harvest numbers for the south more than double the other regions and the success rates are the same, what does that tell us about the number of archery hunters in the south?

The problem is more than just perception...it is reality. The argument by those of us who do favor keeping the statewide archery hunt should NOT be based on the idea that the south isn't getting more than its share of archery hunters, but that the south can handle that pressure. Again, if you check the numbers, the southern region is still meeting objectives for buck/doe ratios and the per/unit effort is similar to the other regions. The bottom line is that the southern region has the deer, so why shouldn't archers be allowed to take advantage?

Also, according to the DWR's numbers, almost 50% of dedicated hunters were wanting to choose the south as their region choice. As a result, the southern region hunters who are not dedicated have more tags taken out of the general draw than any other region from dedicated hunters. In all honesty, I can understand the numerous complaints made by southern SFW chapters and individual hunters at RAC meetings over the past few years...again, however, the south can handle the pressure--DWR stats show that dedicated hunters only harvest at a success rate of about 17% compared to 30% by regular general season hunters...so the additional pressure is not hurting.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Good post W2U


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Also, according to the DWR's numbers, almost 50% of dedicated hunters were wanting to choose the south as their region choice. As a result, the southern region hunters who are not dedicated have more tags taken out of the general draw than any other region from dedicated hunters. In all honesty, I can understand the numerous complaints made by southern SFW chapters and individual hunters at RAC meetings over the past few years...again, however, the south can handle the pressure--DWR stats show that dedicated hunters only harvest at a success rate of about 17% compared to 30% by regular general season hunters...so the additional pressure is not hurting.


One slight problem with your theory; out of the five RAC's only ONE person who admitted to being an archer stood up in favor of doing away with statewide archery, ONE! EVERY other person who voiced support on doing away with it were/are rifle/muzzy hunters. The chairman of the Dixie chapter of SFW admitted to me in front of witnesses, some of whom frequent this site, that the noise is coming from rifle hunters frustrated that they can't draw a southern region rifle tag while 'outsiders' buy a OTC archery tag EVERY year and hunt 'their' mountain. The DWR showed their poll data from deer hunters, archers were, in EVERY category, the most satisfied of all weapon types as well as LE/Premium LE hunters. Ironically, on the over-crowding issue, archers where happier on the number of hunters in the field than the *PREMIUM LIMITED ENTRY* hunters. Explain to me how that equates to 'reality.

Also, you mention the nearly 5000 dedicated hunters that hunt the south, half of which are southern residents, the other half are 'outsiders'. How will restricting archers address that? How will it address the THOUSANDS of rec users during archery season? ArcherBen asked Anis at the central region how it is possible for MORE rifle hunters not be 'over-crowded' than FEWER archers, Anis had NO answer. No answer because it is a PERCEPTION propagated by NON archers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro...instead of trying to make an argument when there is none. Stop and listen to what has been said. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that more archery hunters hunt in the southern region than any other unit...the TRUTH and the REALITY is that more than double the deer are killed by archers in the southern region than any other region. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that the 50% of dedicated hunters who hunt the south are taking general season tags away from rifle hunters...many of whom buy archery tags when they otherwise wouldn't. The TRUTH and REALITY of the situation is that if the number of southern archery hunters were reduced, buck/doe ratios may be higher and, instead of being on the lower end of the objective scale, they would be on the higher end. What the complaining hunters understand that you seem to disregard is that "their" hunt would be better if the numbers of archers and dedicated hunters who did hunt in the south were reduced...

...After reading through the various comments made in past RAC meetings about the statewide archery hunt and dedicated hunters, I think the whole concern is that the southern region is getting a much larger hunk of the pressure than other regions. The complaints stem from the idea that the regions should jointly share the pressure...a more equal distribution of archery hunters would appease those doing the complaining.

The REALITY is that the south is getting a much larger hunk of the archery pressure than any other region...before going spouting off that this isn't true and is only a perception, at least take the time and do the research. 

And, before getting your panties all bundled up in a wet wad, at least understand where the frustrated southern hunters are coming from. You are showing absolutely no understanding of the opposite viewpoint...and are totally disregarding the reason some people are upset. Also, you seem to forget that I am on your side....and, I too, agree that the proposal will not help the situation and only hurt it.


----------



## Outdoor Adict (Nov 20, 2008)

Where and when is the Central RAC meeting being held? I know it is tonight but what time? It is hard for me to understand why with as much noise there is against this that RAC's are voting to go with the DWR recomendation VS what the hunters are saying. Not to stir the pot but it smells like somone is getting paid.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro...instead of trying to make an argument when there is none. Stop and listen to what has been said. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that more archery hunters hunt in the southern region than any other unit...the TRUTH and the REALITY is that more than double the deer are killed by archers in the southern region than any other region. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that the 50% of dedicated hunters who hunt the south are taking general season tags away from rifle hunters...many of whom buy archery tags when they otherwise wouldn't. The TRUTH and REALITY of the situation is that if the number of southern archery hunters were reduced, buck/doe ratios may be higher and, instead of being on the lower end of the objective scale, they would be on the higher end. What the complaining hunters understand that you seem to disregard is that "their" hunt would be better if the numbers of archers and dedicated hunters who did hunt in the south were reduced...
> 
> ...After reading through the various comments made in past RAC meetings about the statewide archery hunt and dedicated hunters, I think the whole concern is that the southern region is getting a much larger hunk of the pressure than other regions. The complaints stem from the idea that the regions should jointly share the pressure...a more equal distribution of archery hunters would appease those doing the complaining.
> 
> ...


It's true that the Southern Region gets twice the number of bowhunters as any other region, but that doesn't necessarily translate into twice the hunting pressure. It is the largest region in size and has, by far, the most accessible deer habitat, both public and un-posted private.

Looking at a Utah ownership map and the Big Game guidebook deer reference map, pages 76 and 77, The Northern Region is about half the size of the Southern and has the highest percentage of private land (most of it posted), the least amount of accessible public deer habitat, the greatest number of CWMU's, one huge lake, a Limited Entry area and a large military complex. The Central Region is about the same size as the Northern and is similar in configuration except it has 2 larger military complexes, 2 Indian reservations and a large Limited Entry area The Northeastern Region is similar in size and has more accessible public deer habitat but it has a large, crazily configured Indian reservation, lots of posted private land, a large wilderness area, many CWMU's and 2 LE areas, one which is very large. The Southeastern Region is larger than those mentioned above, but smaller than the Southern. It has much more public land than the other 3 mentioned above, but a lot of it is unhuntable National Parks and Monuments and/or slot canyon country that is difficult to negotiate and it has 2 very large Limited Entry areas and 1 small one. The Southern Region is the largest and has 3 LE areas, a couple of small Indian reservations, 2 National Parks, 1 huntable and 1 unhuntable National Mon., but it has the largest amount of National Forest & BLM & State lands, the fewest CWMU's, and the lowest percentage of posted private land. Add to that the flattop mountains, the drivable dirt roads, and the scenic beauty, it's no wonder it's so popular with *everybody*. So to say that the _overcrowding_ is caused by archery deer hunters is ludicrous. And as far as the pressure on the deer herds, the number of deer taken by archery hunters in the Southern Region is only 26% of the number taken by the rifle hunters. And it's much less for the DH archery hunters vs DH rifle hunters (14%).

Also, the idea of the overcrowding being a perception came from Anis. He's the one that has explained it was an individual viewpoint, depending on who you talked to. And we already know where the loud, but few in number, southern hunters are coming from and the reason they are upset. It's *their* mountain and thus, *their* deer and the archers are invading their turf.
This is nothing more than a selfish attempt to help them to get their trophy buck without working so hard!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

5000 archers and over 17,000 any weapon hunters??? The 5000 has a crowding issue and the 17,000+ does not???


Define CROWDING PLEASE???? ANYBODY????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro...instead of trying to make an argument when there is none. Stop and listen to what has been said. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that more archery hunters hunt in the southern region than any other unit...the TRUTH and the REALITY is that more than double the deer are killed by archers in the southern region than any other region. The TRUTH and the REALITY is that the 50% of dedicated hunters who hunt the south are taking general season tags away from rifle hunters...many of whom buy archery tags when they otherwise wouldn't. The TRUTH and REALITY of the situation is that if the number of southern archery hunters were reduced, buck/doe ratios may be higher and, instead of being on the lower end of the objective scale, they would be on the higher end. What the complaining hunters understand that you seem to disregard is that "their" hunt would be better if the numbers of archers and dedicated hunters who did hunt in the south were reduced...If there is "no argument", then why are *YOU* bringing it up?
> 
> ...After reading through the various comments made in past RAC meetings about the statewide archery hunt and dedicated hunters, I think the whole concern is that the southern region is getting a much larger hunk of the pressure than other regions. The complaints stem from the idea that the regions should jointly share the pressure...a more equal distribution of archery hunters would appease those doing the complaining. Pay attention, the 'concerns' being brought up are not being brought up by *ARCHERS*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Also, the idea of the overcrowding being a perception came from Anis. He's the one that has explained it was an individual viewpoint, depending on who you talked to.


Those comments are based on the DWR's 2006 data that showed that more archers (by permit count) hunted the Central. What's incredibly stupid about this entire issue is that just 100 archers in a region is overcrowded if those archers are all in the same valley. This isn't like assigning seats in a stadium. Because it restricts movement across regional boundaries, eliminating statewide archery is far more likely to create overcrowding than to prevent it and particularly so as units within a region fall under triggered management, (which they certainly will). Of course, the boys pushing this idiotic agenda don't care about that because they aren't bowhunters.

The number of permitted hunters in a region is extremely misleading. When we look at ALL the numbers, including huntable acreage, deer populations, extrapolated success rates for all hunts, annual harvest, etc. the region that receives the greatest *impact on deer herds* is actually the Northern.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Finn, It is as obvious as spots on a dalmation that the Northern gets hit hard and is suffering. Now, I've still seen lots of deer this year and plenty of decent sized ones but in comparison the North is hit harder than any where in the state (due to human population being higher in the North). So, why doesn't anyone *CARE*?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I care.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> Finn, It is as obvious as spots on a dalmation that the Northern gets hit hard and is suffering. Now, I've still seen lots of deer this year and plenty of decent sized ones but in comparison the North is hit harder than any where in the state (due to human population being higher in the North). So, why doesn't anyone *CARE*?


Many people care. That's why so many proposals from hunters include taking away deer tags from the Northern Region and giving them to archers and/or other regions.

The trouble with managing the Northern Region is the large population of humans (many of them Bambi fans), the encroachment of development into deer habitat, the lack of public lands, the large number of CWMU's and the posting of private lands. You jam the large number of hunters into the small amount of accessible public deer habitat and there ain't nothing gonna come out of there alive. Unless they go into the thick stuff, become nocturnal or move onto the private land to survive. There's a few there, but they are difficult to hunt. And the hard winters and steep mountainsides don't help their survival either.

The DWR definitely needs to reduce the number of Northern tags and also take some of the pressure off the Wasatch Front Extended Archery Area by establishing other Extended (Antlerless only?) hunts in other regions.


----------



## Addicted (Apr 10, 2008)

How can you quote numbers from the DWR? This state has no kind of mandatory reporting, so the DWR numbers come from worthless phone calls to a few hunters, from people who are getting paid minimum wage and dont care and dont have the slightest clue what the hell they are doing. I think until the DWR starts getting accurate numbers and info then their numbers might as well be worthless.
Even IF the southern boys that are fighting to do away with the statewide archery were trying to use kill numbers as a reason for doing away with the statewide archery just like elkformabove said they have twice the area and animal numbers. If the numbers were available im sure they would show that southern boys are doing most of the killing anyways.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

BTW, and if it should make any difference, and in case some of you may not know, *I am one of the Southern Boys! And a bowhunter*, though I hunt antlerless with a rifle and help my kids and grandkids with their rifle hunts. And this proposal, if it reaches it's intended goal of making the split regional/statewide archery season permanent, will hurt us the most. If the whole state has to apply for regions, the Southern Region will be swamped with applications and it will make it harder to get a tag to hunt in our own backyard, after work, on the spur of the moment, in our secret spot, with our friends and family, _on our own property_! This proposal serves no purpose, has no value, accomplishes nothing, satisfies no one (in the long run), and only alienates the vast majority of archers and potential archers whom the state is trying to recruit. *I hate this proposal!!!*

Any questions? Do I make myself clear?


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I am sure there were others but I was at the northern rac and elkfromabove spoke passionately not to mention driving all the way from the Cedar City area to Ogden to attend speaks volumes to me. I am a rifle hunter although I do own a bow and even did the bow hunt one year and amazingly even had the opportunity to shoot a buck that year but didn't because of a mental block that wouldn't allow me to release the arrow. I just have a hard time grasping the concept of a little stick effectively killing an animal. Even I think doing away with the statewide archery is a bad idea being propagated by a few selfish territorial individuals. If a guy is willing to drive 700+ plus miles roundtrip to shoot a deer I say more power to that person. I would never drive that far to shoot a deer but thats just me. I am a cheapskate tightwad.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I am sure there were others but I was at the northern rac and elkfromabove spoke passionately not to mention driving all the way from the Cedar City area to Ogden to attend speaks volumes to me. I am a rifle hunter although I do own a bow and even did the bow hunt one year and amazingly even had the opportunity to shoot a buck that year but didn't because of a mental block that wouldn't allow me to release the arrow. I just have a hard time grasping the concept of a little stick effectively killing an animal. Even I think doing away with the statewide archery is a bad idea being propagated by a few selfish territorial individuals. If a guy is willing to drive 700+ plus miles roundtrip to shoot a deer I say more power to that person. I would never drive that far to shoot a deer but thats just me. I am a cheapskate tightwad.


Thanks! We really appreciate hearing from a rifle hunter who also recognizes the follies of this proposal. In fact, it will impact you as well because it will drive many of the current archers into the rifle hunt, thus making it harder for you "cheapskate tightwads"  to draw your region also. And it will discourage many young hunters from going archery, thus increasing your ranks even more. Admittedly, this proposal will allow archers to hunt their own region for 10 days even if they don't get a tag for their region, but think about it; Which would you choose, a local 9 day *rifle* hunt with a *67.9%* success rate or a local 10 day *archery* hunt with a *14.2%* success rate? Tough decision for a twelve year old, huh? :roll: Or even an adult!

Any way you look at this proposal, it lacks credibilty!


----------

