# Easy fix for deer



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I know I will probably get razzed for this quite a bit. However, I feel that it needs to be stated and brought up.

Everyone is upset and complaining about Utah's deer management and it appears everyone wants to do something about it. The key is making sure that the deer in Utah benefit from management and also give opportunity for hunters. WELL....HERE IS MY THOUGHTS.

If we want the mule deer herds to increase then why do we use long range rifles at all? This is a serious question and not just something I prefer because I am a bow hunter. It appears to me that the solution is pretty PLAIN and SIMPLE.......*DO AWAY WITH UTAH'S RIFLE SEASON.*

There are many states that don't have a rifle season. Illinois comes to mind. Granted that their reasons for doing so may be different but why not? If Utah had an unlimited number of tags for deer and only allowed hunters to use archery or muzzle loader equipment (black powder traditional) I would dare say that the problem would be solved.

Utah could have a 2 to 3 month season for deer and all those that really wanted to hunt would have the opportunity. Anyone can pick up a bow and muzzy. Even handicapped individuals could use cross bows and modern day muzzys. The deer herd would increase because success rate would go down and EVERYONE would have as much OPPORTUNITY as the next guy. They could even have a "shotgun" season if they wished.

As far as wounding rates going up&#8230;.well, that might happen but I don't think they would get as high as the mortality rate for the rifle hunt.

Anyway, Just a thought and a wonder as to why something along these lines has never come up. I think it would solve some problems.


----------



## Briar Patch (Feb 1, 2010)

I would think that the loss in revenue would be significant. :shock: :shock: 
Besides, would YOU want to torque of that many people with rifles? The powers that be probably don't want to either. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Briar Patch said:


> I would think that the loss in revenue would be significant. :shock: :shock:


And that right there is why it has never come up. Even though it could save deer herds and help hunting in Utah. Utah is all about the $.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Throw in shotguns (slugs or buckshot) and you've got a deal!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I think the idea merits a discussion! Even if not taken to quite that extreme would be to seriously restrict the general tags and seriously increase the other weapons as a second choice if they don't draw the general tag. Virginia is another state that does not allow center fire, mainly due to the homes being everywhere, or at least that is how it is in the east side of the state.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Riffle hunters are the bread and butter of our hunting community. Sound like this would exclude the "average Joe"

We must remember that by merely posting and reading on a hunting forum excludes you from being an "Average Joe".

Here is a study that will help us understand who the "average Joe" is.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Im all for it..........would not bother me, but the problem I see is hunter recruitment.

Iron Bear Posts sums it up,

When most people begin hunting, its with a rifle, for a number of reasons but I think you would be amazed at how many are "gun shy" about muzzleloaders/archery equipment. I think a lot of it has to do with not knowing a whole lot about them.

Also many, many family's rifle hunt. Im afraid that would be tough to get grandpa to take up archery/muzzleloading after all he knows is the ol 30-06.

Ramification of this would be much worse than even the dreadful option #2


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I don't thing the difference between a rifle and a muzzle loader are so different that rifle hunters would be out of their element. Just my .02, C'mon, you have to admit that it would increase herd numbers and help the herd. 

You are never going to help the herd unless you decrease success rates. That is what archery and traditional style weapons accomplish. It is a great TOOL in the dwr's tool box that, in my opinion, doesn't get used enough. Archery success rates are low but still provide opportunity.

And as far as hunter recruitment goes....I see guys all the time getting their kids involved in archery and more traditional style weapons. Look as ELK22HUNTER......ask Scott if he's had a problem getting his kids interested in hunting.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

An easy fix for deer is to import a few thousand whitetails and turn'em loose.

-DallanC


----------



## a_bow_nut (Feb 25, 2009)

Nah. Lets just kill off all of the elk and predators so that there is more room for the deer. We can also tear down all of the houses that are on the winter ranges too.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> I don't thing the difference between a rifle and a muzzle loader are so different that rifle hunters would be out of their element. Just my .02, C'mon, you have to admit that it would increase herd numbers and help the herd.


My thoughts exactly as I got my omega. I like the muzzy season the best, but I chose to hunt together with the fam this year, it is a lot of fun and all things considered it is my new favorite. 
It is funny and ironic how some of the loudest complainers about how poor the deer herds are are the same ones who are not willing to change anything in their own behavior to help.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> It is funny and ironic how some of the loudest complainers about how poor the deer herds are are the same ones who are not willing to change anything in their own behavior to help.


MY thoughts exactly!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> .
> And as far as hunter recruitment goes....I see guys all the time getting their kids involved in archery and more traditional style weapons. Look as ELK22HUNTER......ask Scott if he's had a problem getting his kids interested in hunting.


To take on the sport of archery.......a guy needs to spend A LOT more time in the off season practicing, tuning, etc. A lot of guys cannot afford the time and thank god they stay out of the sport. Not everyone has this kind of time/determination, sure some guys pull the old trusty bow out of the closet the night before the opener and do it, but its usually them that gives the sport the black eye it sometimes gets.

I would rather see young hunters being ethical, and no doubt some guys can do this like elk22hunter and I fully support it and wish more would.

Also........you can forget some of the perks that go with muzzleloading/archery if something like this went into play. I for one enjoy less hunters afield with me, especially with a bow in hand.

And unless your opinion of "healthy herd" is more bucks/doe, this is not going to increase the overall herd numbers by cutting rifle tags, just increase buck/doe ratios.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> It is funny and ironic how some of the loudest complainers about how poor the deer herds are are the same ones who are not willing to change anything in their own behavior to help.


Was it not you, Huge in other posts, saying that raising buck/doe numbers is not good, and going along with the flow of the forum stating that option 2 is a bad idea.........if so please enlighten me as to what is wrong with number 2 then.

Removing the rifle hunt WILL not increase the deer herds.........maybe buck/doe ratios.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

If Im mistaken Huge my appologies


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> If Im mistaken Huge my appologies


You must be confused with my nemesis, Huge30, it is a common error. Just kidding! I was not really heavily involved in the other discussions and did not make a statement like that.
Nonetheless, aren't the success rates much lower on archery/muzz than the general? If so, wouldn't that result in less bucks killed, which in turn helps the ratios and the overall quantity in the herd? Maybe I missed something.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> ntrl_brn_rebel said:
> 
> 
> > If Im mistaken Huge my appologies
> ...


Maybe its just the green..............my bad


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I would be inclined to do away with the rifle hunt if at the same time we dialed back and outlawed compound bows and inline muzzle loaders. Lets go with TRUE primitive weapons ie... long bows and recurves w/wood arrows and stone arrowheads. Traditional muzzleloaders with round balls and no scopes.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I bet the knife hunt would be easy to draw?

Or a extended stone throwers hunt that goes threw January. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muzzle loader success rates are within a percentage point or two of center fire success rates year in and year out. 

And, while changing season dates and weapon allotments could give more/less opportunity, this is STILL focusing on the buck portion of the population,which is NOT where the focus needs to be in order to help the deer herd.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I would be inclined to do away with the rifle hunt if at the same time we dialed back and outlawed compound bows and inline muzzle loaders. Lets go with TRUE primitive weapons ie... long bows and recurves w/wood arrows and stone arrowheads. Traditional muzzleloaders with round balls and no scopes.


There ya go!


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Actually I'd be all for the bow only (any bow) and muzzy season and I think it would really help. However, most people would have to outfit their whole family with either new bows or new muzzleloaders. A lot of people just can't afford that. I know what you saying Bowdacious and I, like you, would love to see it fly but it won't happen. Good topic for discusion though.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We should also require people that build their houses on the winter range to plant bitterbrush and sage brush for the deer. People need to realize that while they live there then wildlife comes first.

Public parks next to the foothills should be planting bitterbrush and sagebrush for the deer. 

We can grow the habitat pie bigger.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I bet the knife hunt would be easy to draw?
> 
> Or a extended stone throwers hunt that goes threw January. :mrgreen:


You are so self centered! What about those of us who support the sling shot, blow dart, Atl-Atl, throwing hatchets, pit traps, bulldogging and spear hunts? I can really see this going somewhere.


----------



## uffda (Sep 13, 2009)

How about party hunting 2 people per deer license. Like I said they do it for Mn moose hunting


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> We should also require people that build their houses on the winter range to plant bitterbrush and sage brush for the deer. People need to realize that while they live there then wildlife comes first.
> 
> Public parks next to the foothills should be planting bitterbrush and sagebrush for the deer.
> 
> We can grow the habitat pie bigger.


How about just paying farmers to plant a winter crop for wildlife. The Monroe has 1000s of acres on winter range that would work nicely.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Huge, I hardly consider today's advanced blow dart guns as a primitive weapon.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> I don't thing the difference between a rifle and a muzzle loader are so different that rifle hunters would be out of their element. Just my .02, C'mon, you have to admit that it would increase herd numbers and help the herd.
> 
> You are never going to help the herd unless you decrease success rates. That is what archery and traditional style weapons accomplish. It is a great TOOL in the dwr's tool box that, in my opinion, doesn't get used enough. Archery success rates are low but still provide opportunity.


15 years or so years ago the DWR/WB removed 60% of the permits being issued to general hunters. There has been pretty little change in the deer herds in those 15 years when it comes to bucks. The over all difference in success between Primitive weapons and rifle from high to low in around 10%. So if all the rifle hunters went to primitive, 10% move bucks would survive. I guess I just dont see how 10% more bucks surviving is going to have this dramatic increase after seeing what the last 15 years has brought.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Hey Bow. Great idea! Heard a guy last night on Roughin it outdoors at a rack meeting. Givein the dwr. what they needed. "" We hunters have been tryin to tell you guys for 10 years that the mule deer in are state are on the decline. It was negetive comment you guys just wouldn't listen to the hunters" So what I'am tryin to say is give yourself 10 more years , someone may listen. Hows that longbow? Heres an OPINOIN that will really Pi-- off some people. COMBINE the Muzzy Hunt with the rifle hunt shoot 200 yrds. and let the hunt run Sat to Monday night Go down and set up camp on a tuesday. Gives ya camp time plus hunting time over 70% of the deer . according to the DWR are harvested in the first 3 days..


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Muzzle loader success rates are within a percentage point or two of center fire success rates year in and year out.
> 
> And, while changing season dates and weapon allotments could give more/less opportunity, this is STILL focusing on the buck portion of the population,which is NOT where the focus needs to be in order to help the deer herd.


Pro is right. The problem with this plan is it only focuses on the buck portion of the herd. If we truly want to improve the hunting in Utah we need to come up with plans that help the whole herd.

I've said from the start that we are focusing our energy in the wrong area, hunter management is not the problem with deer herds.

Think of it this way. If your car is having mechanical problems do you devise plans to drive it less, or drive it less distances, or drive it in smoother terrain? That's all we are doing right now with all of these hunter management plans. Or is the better plan to find the mechanical issue and fix it? By fixing it properly as long as you follow proper maintenance and take reasonable care of the vehicle it will perform as it should.

If we want to up deer numbers, which will improve hunting for all types of hunters and preserve opportunity, we need to quit focusing on hunter management and start looking focusing on deer management.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

To some degree you have to manage HUNTERS along with the DEER. If one of biggest threats (hunters) to the deer herd isn't managed correctly, you're going to have problems. I say hunters are threats because anything that goes in and kills thousands (what's the number 40,000 plus?) of animals a year, would be a major threat to anything.

Hunters may only focus on BUCKS but don't let that fool ya that the deer herd as a WHOLE isn't effected by that.

So, once again, the answer is simple.....Cut out the rifle hunt (managing hunters WITH the deer), eliminate doe tags (which are mostly there for opportunity and since archery provides that, are no longer needed), keep wolves out of Utah and keep predator numbers as low as possible, and increase winter range and habitat.

Once again, seems pretty simple. The hard part is not fixing the problem....the hard part is catering to special interest groups *and* fixing the problem. In my opinion, it can't be done. No man can serve two masters!

The DWR, WB, and HUNTERS need to have the balls to do the right thing....Whatever that may be.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Meh...sounds selfish. Should the number of tags be cut in some areas? Sure, but cutting it out is stupid. What if you had a bunch of people applying for archery and ML? Wouldn't those tags become harder to draw? And you would probably see an increase in un-recovered wounded deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Bowdacious said:


> To some degree you have to manage HUNTERS along with the DEER. If one of biggest threats (hunters) to the deer herd isn't managed correctly, you're going to have problems. I say hunters are threats because anything that goes in and kills thousands (what's the number 40,000 plus?) of animals would be a major threat to anything.


You're right but we are already managing hunters and the hunter management practices are now a scapegoat for declining deer numbers. It's the easiest thing to change I suppose.

My point is I believe we are being reactive, meaning by only changing hunter management practices all I see is limiting hunter opportunity more and more as time goes on. We are reacting by limiting opportunity rather than being proactive and looking at ways to improve doe and fawn populations. It's really kind of silly if you think about it. If we want to hunt mule deer 30 years from without having royalty status or a huge pocket book we need to focus on increasing does and fawns, not bucks.

To me it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean what we are really saying is let's improve opportunity to kill a buck by cutting opportunity to hunt.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> If Utah had an* unlimited number of tags *for deer and only allowed hunters to use archery or muzzle loader equipment.
> 
> As far as wounding rates going up&#8230;.well, that might happen but I don't think they would get as high as the mortality rate for the rifle hunt.


Apparently, Lehi, you missed these parts of my post.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Doe tags are NOT issued for "opportunity", they are issued due to deer numbers being over objective or because of depredation issues.

I don't see how getting rid of rifle hunters will result in as much as one more deer living in Utah. This would be yet another 'feel good' move that does NOTHING to address the actual problems. Its akin to the TSA groping kids for 'safety' reasons, it does NOTHING to stop terrorists, but many of the sheeple FEEL safer. Reducing the number of bucks harvested does NOTHING to grow more deer, but many of the sheeple FEEL like the change is 'needed', so the Wildlife Board in complete ignorance complies and focuses on the symptoms rather than the causes of the deer herd struggles.


----------



## ace2010 (Oct 16, 2010)

You know you're just a moron, I can bet that you have lossed more dear with your bow than you can count, thats all I hear about from bow hunters, "oh I hit one but I just couldnt find it" so who is the one doing more damage here because every dear that I have shot at I have killed and found, unlike 80% of most bow hunters. It shouldnt be getting rid of one hunt, it needs to be that everyone should hunt all at the same time no matter the weapon. So yeah once again you are a MORON!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ace2010 said:


> You know you're just a moron, I can bet that you have lossed more dear with your bow than you can count, thats all I hear about from bow hunters, "oh I hit one but I just couldnt find it" so who is the one doing more damage here because every dear that I have shot at I have killed and found, unlike 80% of most bow hunters. It shouldnt be getting rid of one hunt, it needs to be that everyone should hunt all at the same time no matter the weapon. So yeah once again you are a MORON!!!!


You seem like a very intelligent person. Way to stick it to him.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> ace2010 said:
> 
> 
> > You know you're just a moron, I can bet that you have lossed more dear with your bow than you can count, thats all I hear about from bow hunters, "oh I hit one but I just couldnt find it" so who is the one doing more damage here because every dear that I have shot at I have killed and found, unlike 80% of most bow hunters. It shouldnt be getting rid of one hunt, it needs to be that everyone should hunt all at the same time no matter the weapon. So yeah once again you are a MORON!!!!
> ...


 -_O-


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

ace2010 said:


> You know you're just a moron*, I *can bet that you have* lossed *more *dear* with your bow than you can count*, thats *all I hear about from bow hunters, "oh I hit one but I just couldnt find it" so who is the one doing more damage here because every* dear *that I have shot at I have killed and found, unlike 80% of most bow hunters. It *shouldnt* be getting rid of one hunt, it needs to be that everyone should hunt all at the same time no matter the weapon. So yeah once again you are a MORON!!!!


I'm not going to respond except to highlight a few things from your post...........


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Hey, Hooked on Phonics worked for him!


-DallanC


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Hey, Hooked on Phonics worked for him!
> 
> -DallanC


Don't you mean "huked on foniks"?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Thank goodness I have Firefox working for me. :|


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm not the best speller in the world...but atleast I don't mispell common 4 letter words in the same paragraph I just called someone else a moron. 

Ok, new proposition...If you can't spell it, you shouldn't be able to hunt it! How do you think that would work for the deer herds?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> So, once again, the answer is simple.....Cut out the rifle hunt (managing hunters WITH the deer)........


So with this simple plan, how many bucks are you figuring you are going to save each year?


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > If Utah had an* unlimited number of tags *for deer and only allowed hunters to use archery or muzzle loader equipment.
> ...


Apparently, yes, because I am too lazy to read all of your posts. 

But I still stand by my statement that cutting out rifle hunting is selfish, and wounded rates would go up. I don't think you can say with %100 confidence that the total mortality of a 2-3 month primitive weapons season would be less than a 5 or even 9 day rifle hunt. 
And how does this play into helping the overall health of the herd?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Somebody posted the wounding rates for archery deer hunters derived from a survey the DWR did. I can't remember the exact number but it was somewhere around 4% for general hunters. That hardly equates to 80% of archery hunters wounding game.

But hey 47% of all quoted percentages are made up on the spot. 

I am an archery hunter first and foremost but I can't be a hypocrite. I certainly wouldn't be personally effected by more archery tags but I have been preaching opportunity and a majority of hunters are rifle hunters so I've got be consistent in saying that cutting rifle cuts and giving them to archers diminshes opportunity for most.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > So, once again, the answer is simple.....Cut out the rifle hunt (managing hunters WITH the deer)........
> ...


In all honesty I haven't really sat down and looked at the numbers in order to give you that information. Sorry, I'd have to get back to you on that.



lehi said:


> But I still stand by my statement that cutting out rifle hunting is selfish, and wounded rates would go up. I don't think you can say with %100 confidence that the total mortality of a 2-3 month primitive weapons season would be less than a 5 or even 9 day rifle hunt.
> And how does this play into helping the overall health of the herd?


You're right&#8230;I can't say with 100% confidence that the total mortality rate in a 2-3 month primitive weapons season would be less than a 5-9 day rifle hunt, but I can't say with 100% confidence that I will wake up in the morning or not get in a fatal accident on my way to work. I'm throwing this idea out there as something to talk about and get out there on the table. I think some of the current proposals are tons more asinine that what I am proposing.

I think having a longer season will help to stretch and spread out the hunters that want to hunt. I feel that with traditional weapons the dear heard (for you ACE2010&#8230;to help you understand) feels less pressure. Just some thoughts.

Pro says that this proposition might only create more bucks&#8230;not help the overall herd. But, isn't this what everyone is saying the problem is? The way I see it&#8230;most people that have complained this year about the deer herd are people that aren't seeing enough BUCKS. I've talked to many people that say they have seen tons of does but not very many bucks and so have come to the conclusion that the herd is suffering. I see tons and tons of does and fawns. Where I hunted this year I saw so many does I thought I would scream If I had to see another one. We didn't see as many bucks, but we saw tons of deer. What I am hearing is that people are saying this is a problem of not having enough bucks to hunt&#8230;.so this is an easy solution. I think it is a multifaceted issue.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Cool. I'd love to get and hunt with a Crossbow... something Utah allows if you get a doctors note 


-DallanC


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I am an archery hunter first and foremost but I can't be a hypocrite. I certainly wouldn't be personally effected by more archery tags but I have been preaching opportunity and a majority of hunters are rifle hunters so I've got be consistent in saying that cutting rifle cuts and giving them to archers diminshes opportunity for most.


Having unlimited archery tags doesn't diminish opportunity but increases it....*any opportunity that would be lost would be at the decision of the hunter. *I understand that there may be a lot of people that physically can't shoot a bow but it is just as easy to shoot a cross bow as it is a rifle. It gives everyone the opportunity to hunt every year, they just have to want to do so.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Bowdacious said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > I am an archery hunter first and foremost but I can't be a hypocrite. I certainly wouldn't be personally effected by more archery tags but I have been preaching opportunity and a majority of hunters are rifle hunters so I've got be consistent in saying that cutting rifle cuts and giving them to archers diminshes opportunity for most.
> ...


Opportunity would be lost for a lot of hunters. Anyone that likes to hunt with a rifle to be exact. The thing is that like it or not buck numbers go somewhat hand in hand with doe and fawn rates.

Think of it this way. I believe it was tree or gary (can't remember now) that did a survey, did the math and if we up the buck to doe ratios by 3 bucks per 100 does that means the average hunter sees 0.9 more bucks per day in the field. If everyone sees 1 more buck per day while in the field do you really think that everyone will suddenly be happy? If you double the deer herd all of a sudden everyone is seeing twice as many more bucks per day in the field. Increasing overall numbers seems to be the only way to quench the appetite of Utah hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> Pro says that this proposition might only create more bucks&#8230;not help the overall herd. But, isn't this what everyone is saying the problem is? The way I see it&#8230;most people that have complained this year about the deer herd are people that aren't seeing enough BUCKS. I've talked to many people that say they have seen tons of does but not very many bucks and so have come to the conclusion that the herd is suffering. I see tons and tons of does and fawns. Where I hunted this year I saw so many does I thought I would scream If I had to see another one. We didn't see as many bucks, but we saw tons of deer. What I am hearing is that people are saying this is a problem of not having enough bucks to hunt&#8230;.so this is an easy solution. I think it is a multifaceted issue.


I applaud your willingness to look for solutions, I really do. But, not *every*one says creating more bucks via focusing on hunter harvest is the problem/cure. Many of us are saying focusing on buck harvest is focusing on a symptom, not the cause for the lack of bucks (perceived or real). As I have stated in other threads, fawn birth rates are important, but it is fawn survival rates that are the most critical. This is where 99.99999999999% of the focus should be, on finding ways to increase fawn survival rates.

Ironically, one of the most vocal people on here saying there is a lack of mature bucks posted pictures this weekend of some nice bucks, one of which he passed on THIS year. I guess being able to pass on mature bucks isn't enough, we 'need' to be able to pass on 170 class bucks, eh? That is, until we get spoiled and the demand becomes for EVERY hunter having 100% success and being able to pass up 'dink' 185 class bucks, until we start demanding 200 class bucks or bust for every hunter that are put down on the opening day, until............ You see where this is going? If SPORTSMEN want more bucks around, find ways to get more deer. Back in the heyday of mule deer hunting in Utah, the buck:doe ratio was often LOWER than it is now, but there were lots of bucks because there were lots of deer. Rationing NEVER results in increases, it only results in more rationing. Reducing buck deer permits is rationing.


----------



## duck jerky (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > Pro says that this proposition might only create more bucks&#8230;not help the overall herd. But, isn't this what everyone is saying the problem is? The way I see it&#8230;most people that have complained this year about the deer herd are people that aren't seeing enough BUCKS. I've talked to many people that say they have seen tons of does but not very many bucks and so have come to the conclusion that the herd is suffering. I see tons and tons of does and fawns. Where I hunted this year I saw so many does I thought I would scream If I had to see another one. We didn't see as many bucks, but we saw tons of deer. What I am hearing is that people are saying this is a problem of not having enough bucks to hunt&#8230;.so this is an easy solution. I think it is a multifaceted issue.
> ...


 :O||: +1


----------



## Briar Patch (Feb 1, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> .. I can't remember the exact number but it was somewhere around 4% for general hunters. That hardly equates to 80% of archery hunters wounding game.


You Sir are incorrect!

Allow me to qualify my accusation.

In 2009 approximately 15% of hunters used bows to hunt deer. Of that 15% who used bows, 99.8% of them consider themselves Bow Hunters. The other .2% of them considers themselves Archery Hunters (These are the elitists, like Tex, who turn up their noses at training wheels). There were a little over 13,400 hunters using a bow in 2009. Punch the numbers and you will see that 27 of those hunters were the elitists.

Approximately 2880 deer were shot at and hit, 2773 is the number of deer harvested. The 4% that were hit and not recovered consists of 110 animals. Of those 110 animals, 21 were injured by Elitists - read Archery Hunters.

ace#### was correct, that does indeed work out to 80% of archery hunters. :mrgreen:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Briar Patch said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > .. I can't remember the exact number but it was somewhere around 4% for general hunters. That hardly equates to 80% of archery hunters wounding game.
> ...


 -_O-

Good point but you are forgetting that we can't calculate elitist numbers since they know more than any spring chicken with a degree that ain't worth the paper it's written on. They wipe with college degrees. Therefore any science based conclusion is considered null and void.


----------



## Boly (Sep 23, 2008)

I have another idea that would add a twist to your Idea Bowdacious. Keep the rifle hunt as is and add GOOD incentives for people to take up the bowhunt. An idea I had was to make the deer archery hunt last significantly longer (maybe 3 months long) and for more areas than the current extended hunt gives for the archery hunters. I think that this would do several things; first it would keep the money coming into the DWR, and second it would decrease the success rate of the deer hunters so more bucks would survive. Seems like it could be a win win to me.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Boly said:


> I have another idea that would add a twist to your Idea Bowdacious. Keep the rifle hunt as is and add GOOD incentives for people to take up the bowhunt. An idea I had was to make the deer archery hunt last significantly longer (maybe 3 months long) and for more areas than the current extended hunt gives for the archery hunters. I think that this would do several things; first it would keep the money coming into the DWR, and second it would decrease the success rate of the deer hunters so more bucks would survive. Seems like it could be a win win to me.


So...not only are rifle hunters killing lots of deer but the harvest rate of bow hunters goes up too? Seems like a lose for the deer.

If you do away with the rifle you also do away with rifle success rates.


----------



## Boly (Sep 23, 2008)

I think that if you have more hunters go to archery you'll have fewer rifle hunters and lower rifle success.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > So with this simple plan, how many bucks are you figuring you are going to save each year?
> ...


Ill be here waiting.

Because in all honesty I believe deep down you really know that of the 70,000 rifle hunters only a small fraction will take up archery or muzzy no matter if the tagges are unlimited.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


I guess I don't really understand what the big deal is. I don't know why rifle hunters wouldn't switch to archery if that was all that was offered. I know that if all that was offered was rifle hunting.....I would switch. I would switch because I love hunting and I'd do whatever it took to be able to hunt. I guess I assume too much when I assume that other HUNTERS are like me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Bowdacious, I would be more likely to get on board if the move from rifle to archery was done with incentives rather than with force. Several states have more archery friendly season dates/lengths among other incentives that get hunters to gravitate to archery. Taking hunters choices away is a guaranteed way to decrease hunter recruitment/retention.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Bowdacious, Just browse over this study and you will understand just how far from the norm you are in terms of hunting. Only 35% of hunters bought a deer tag 5 consecutive or more. :shock:

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/HuntingLicTrends-NatlRpt.pdf


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Pray, that's the answer. For the most part, substantially increasing deer numbers is beyond our control with the given parameters, but it's something that human beings have a hard time accepting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Pray, that's the answer. For the most part, substantially increasing deer numbers is beyond our control with the given parameters, but it's something that human beings have a hard time accepting.


BINGO!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I'll support the movement to incentivize archery and muzzy opportunities. I think it would be a huge benefit to the herds to have a 9 to 15% harvest success. Imagine a season running from Aug. 25 through Dec. 15th or so statewide - and the DWR could increase tag sales by 300-350% and still not kill as many deer as they do now with rifle hunting.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I would support incentives to have rifle hunters move to archery.


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> I know I will probably get razzed for this quite a bit. However, I feel that it needs to be stated and brought up.
> 
> Everyone is upset and complaining about Utah's deer management and it appears everyone wants to do something about it. The key is making sure that the deer in Utah benefit from management and also give opportunity for hunters. WELL....HERE IS MY THOUGHTS.
> 
> ...


I don't see where the type of weapon used to kill an animal plays an important role in increasing the the health of the herds. You could look at it the other way and say rifle-only for deer, and still have the same affect. If there is not a way to get accurate counts and then ration/issue tags each season accordingly, the health of the deer herds are relying only on a crap shoot - regardless if the deer hunt was changed to primitive-weapon only. I also wonder what the comments would be if EVERYONE who currently hunts with a rifle picked up a bow? But in reality, many would not hunt anymore seeing it as LOST opportunity.

Myself I would rather see them shut down ANY/ALL hunts as needed - then issue tags according to what is needed to achieve/maintian healthy ratios and numbers.

As far as your primitive-only idea, I personally think the DWR should send out a survey to all hunters to see what weapon they would prefer, then issue tags accordingly. Who knows, maybe the majority voice would be primitive?


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm not a stick and string guy and never will be. However, I have no problems using my muzzy for a few years if they gave use a few more days to put meat in the freezer.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> I guess I don't really understand what the big deal is. I don't know why rifle hunters wouldn't switch to archery if that was all that was offered. I know that if all that was offered was rifle hunting.....I would switch. I would switch because I love hunting and I'd do whatever it took to be able to hunt. I guess I assume too much when I assume that other HUNTERS are like me.


That's right you don't understand. You don't understand how somebody can be as passionate about rifle hunting as you are about archery. You don't understand the person that physically can't handle archery gear.
The simple fact is REAL HUNTERS take care of the game as well as each other. While we are not going to make everybody happy, we can do better then throwing 70,000 hunters to the wolves.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> That's right you don't understand. You don't understand how somebody can be as passionate about rifle hunting as you are about archery. You don't understand the person that physically can't handle archery gear.


Well said.

Its remarkable how quick people are to throw out hunting restrictions that only affect other people. o-||

-DallanC


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't like any proposals that isolate any group of hunters, we are all hunters and if we truly believe we are near carrying capacity, none of this will help the deer, it may allow more opportunity, but most hunters are rifle hunters. They are the majority so they should get a majority of the tags. I am an archery hunter BTW. haha


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Incentive to archery hunt? :shock: :roll: 

A 30 day statewide tag might work.


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I don't really understand what the big deal is. I don't know why rifle hunters wouldn't switch to archery if that was all that was offered. I know that if all that was offered was rifle hunting.....I would switch. I would switch because I love hunting and I'd do whatever it took to be able to hunt. I guess I assume too much when I assume that other HUNTERS are like me.
> ...


...And also does nothing to improve the health of the herds. The only thing it would do is provide "more opportunity" to those already preferring to hunt with primitive weapons, and run the majority of hunters (rifle) right out of Dodge.

I agree with your statement of trying to take care of the critters and other hunters - this idea and the way it was posted sounds more like "to he!! with the rest" and does nothing to take care of either.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Bowdacious said:


> I know I will probably get razzed for this quite a bit. However, I feel that it needs to be stated and brought up.
> 
> Everyone is upset and complaining about Utah's deer management and it appears everyone wants to do something about it. The key is making sure that the deer in Utah benefit from management and also give opportunity for hunters. WELL....HERE IS MY THOUGHTS.
> 
> ...


Sorry but I just don't understand guys mindframes. How is killing bucks buy rifle guys causeing the deer herd to fall. Utah has been killling bucks with rifle for the whole time and because of OTHER events the deer herd is falling. How does not killing with a rifle combat those other evens? I don't think this will help at all and would even hurt things and this is why. You can shoot does with a bow and that would mean all the rifle guys would go get a bow and tons of them would just shoot a doe!!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Here is an even easier fix, just end all deer hunts and the herd will really increase. Even though when I asked when did the deer start declining pretty much everyone said it was after a hard winter in such and such year and then a drought and another hard winter. So what does that have to do with hunters? I just don't understand why guys want to change hunting programs in order to fix a different problem!! Everybody complains about Utah being all about money and that is why they don't cut certain hunts. Maybe they hear all of the simple fixes and just think about how that has nothing to do with the real problem. I don't know but it seems to me the state needs to raise MORE money so they can buy winter grounds and plant feed for them!! I'm all for paying TWICE as much for a tag next year if they make that program!!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Oh and if you think hunting is the problem than put up or shut up is what I say. Stop being a part of the problem and don't hunt!! Nnot trying to fuss about this but I think we should stop blaming each group and get together and see the CAUSE of the decline and then change what is happening!!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

hoghunter011583 said:


> I don't know but it seems to me the state needs to raise MORE money so they can buy winter grounds and plant feed for them!! I'm all for paying TWICE as much for a tag next year if they make that program!!


I've been saying that for years and I keep getting shouted down. Deer tags are way too cheap IMO.

-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with tag fees. Raising them wouldn't hurt me much. 

Hoghunter, the only place you can shoot does is in selected extended areas.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Bowdacious said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Bowdacious said:
> ...


Well, with my experience this year, I haven't seen **** for does. You and I probably hunt in different areas of the state, but hell it would be nice to see a decent amount of DEER once in a while. Saw elk, plenty of them. In the areas I hunt there SHOULD be more does. But that is just comparing my hunting experience with yours. I think there are ways to increase the numbers of deer without restricting weapon choice. Are you sure the other proposals are more Asinine than yours? :mrgreen:


----------



## sparkey (Nov 23, 2010)

well if the stupiod washatch front wouldent take all the winter range away then come up and hunt in the country so you ask yourself thats why


----------



## sparkey (Nov 23, 2010)

well if the stupiod washatch front wouldent take all the winter range away then come up and hunt in the country so you ask yourself thats why


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

sparkey said:


> well if the stupiod washatch front wouldent take all the winter range away then come up and hunt in the country so you ask yourself thats why


Bassrods???


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

sparkey said:


> well if the stupiod washatch front wouldent take all the winter range away then come up and hunt in the country so you ask yourself thats why


I was doing good until this one. ???? :?: *\-\* 
Anyway maybe we can implement something like this on the "recovery units" Atleast for 2 or 3 years have it archery only, just an idea.


----------



## sbs20ga (Sep 20, 2009)

i don't think doing away with the rifle hunt altogether would be necessary. i did propose once that the "general rifle hunt" be limited to an every other year thing, and on the hunters "off" year, they would have preference in the control or depradation hunts. never heard anything back-- too much lost revenue would be my guess.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yea, that's it. :O•-:


----------



## BIG (Nov 12, 2009)

Based on some of the logic against 29 units why would an archery only be better? If it really does allow for more buck survival than you are adding bucks to winter range that should be for fawns to grow. As some would say this biologically doesn't make sense.

Do away with the archery only portion of the Wasatch front. It is managed like a micro, there are excess bucks, and it took away hunter opportunity and displaced rifle and muzz hunters.

This archery concept only focus's on bucks and not the deer herd.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nope,,,not true.....from the 2010 guide book.

In the Wasatch Front and Uintah Basin extended archery areas, you may use archery equipment to take a deer of either sex from Aug. 21–Nov. 30. From Dec. 1–Dec. 15, only antlerless deer may be taken.


----------



## mgdhunter (Nov 21, 2010)

If you take away the rifle hunt, the hunting sport will be a thing of the past. Without support of all hunters, we will lose our hunting opportunities. And yes, it is about money to a point. When you cut out rifle hunters, you cut 75% (guesstimate) of revenues generated from liceneses for our Wildlife resources in the state. I own rifles, I own bows, and I own muzzleloaders, and I am not partial to one or the other. I make my choice and live with it each year. Each of us, whether bow hunter, rifle hunter, or smokepoler, had better realize that all of us are going to have to sacrifice to get things better. Being selfish about any one discipline in hunting will only make things worse. We had better stick together and try to find ways to make it better for all. *There is no easy fix for deer! *


----------



## sneekers (Nov 23, 2010)

Personally, I believe that the inline muzzleloaders should be done away with. If you want to hunt primitive, like archery for example, inline muzzleloaders give you an unfair advantage if you want to hunt primitive. Cap and ball, or flintlock should be the norm. Some inline muzzleloaders have similarities of a regular rifle. Either hunt the rifle hunt, or hunt primitive. Just a thought.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

sneekers said:


> Personally, I believe that the inline muzzleloaders should be done away with. If you want to hunt primitive, like archery for example, inline muzzleloaders give you an unfair advantage if you want to hunt primitive. Cap and ball, or flintlock should be the norm. Some inline muzzleloaders have similarities of a regular rifle. Either hunt the rifle hunt, or hunt primitive. Just a thought.


Do compound bows give you an unfair advantage in archery? How about peep sights? How about whisker biscuits or pins? How about pelletized powder? Conical bullets? We could play this game all day. Just a thought.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

sneekers said:


> Personally, I believe that the inline muzzleloaders should be done away with. If you want to hunt primitive, like archery for example, inline muzzleloaders give you an unfair advantage if you want to hunt primitive. Cap and ball, or flintlock should be the norm. Some inline muzzleloaders have similarities of a regular rifle. Either hunt the rifle hunt, or hunt primitive. Just a thought.


You understand of course inline muzzleloaders predate sidelocks by 100 years right?Germany produced them in 1734.

I detest this argument, its rediculous and unfounded. You really believe the direction the hammer moves has such a dramatic impact in velocity, accuracy and distance? Good lord.

I have sidelocks, that are barreled identically to my inlines. Fast twists, magnum powder charges... there is absolutely no difference in terms of accuracy. To state one has an unfair advantage over the other... really shows a lack of understanding / research.

There are FLINTLOCKS out there boasting enhanced ignition designed to ignite magnum charges of PELLETS, fast twist sabot barrels, fiber optics, composite stocks... and you concider these primative? Do some research before you make comments like that if you want to be taken seriously.

I prefer my inline over my sidelock for hunting due to 1 major feature, my inline has a safety. Thats it. I get no other advantage over my hawkin... and actually a few more disadvantages (harder to clean, harder to cap etc etc).

You want to limit ML range, you do it via components. Roundball only for example will limit ranges.

Let me close with one other thing. If I went to the smithsonian tomorrow, and borrowed a true 1830's Ferguson black powder rifle from their armory, an AUTHENTIC rifle from that period of time, it would be 100% illegal to hunt with under todays rules. How idiotic is that!

-DallanC


----------



## JOKER (May 22, 2010)

I can't believe someone would even post something so ridiculous.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

JOKER said:


> I can't believe someone would even post something so ridiculous.


Well your new here but prepare yourself for many more comments in the future that make ya say HUH :?: :?: Oh and welcome to the forum lol


----------



## sneekers (Nov 23, 2010)

Bo0YaA said:


> JOKER said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe someone would even post something so ridiculous.
> ...


That ain't no ****!! LOL


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

JOKER said:


> I can't believe someone would even post something so ridiculous.


Are you saying I'm rediculous?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Well JOKER, here is another one for ya.......shut down ANY and ALL deer hunts for 5-6 years and then re-open. See what that does for the deer herd.


----------

