# Removing State Wide Archery



## Old Fudd

Wondering how Utah Archers feel a bout removing State Wide Archery?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

It sucks the big one!


----------



## 2full

I'll get ripped, but what the heck.
I agree with it, everyone else has to pick a unit, why should archery not have too?
Archery gets a 4 week hunt, and extended wasatch front.
I love to bowhunt, and still feel that way.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

I would be strongly in favor of at least going back to regional for archery, but I don't agree with having to pick a unit when there are only 16,000 archery deer tags statewide. 

People keep complaining or citing "fairness" and "equality" ... so, lets go "fair crazy" and split everything into thirds... split the units into 1/3 LE, 1/3 management and 1/3 general tag for both elk and deer. Then let's divide the total number of deer/elk tags equally between the three (3) weapon's categories and have three 10-day seasons that are set in stone, with one weapon being assigned to each season on a rotating cycle over a three-year period. Next let's make it fair by giving each weapon class limitations on range that cannot exceed the maximum effective range for the lowest denominator... 

Then let's talk fair abour OIAL tags being issued in like manner...1/3 to archery only, 1/3 to muzzy only and 1/3 to rifle only on a similar rotating season to the general seasons - so we don't have overlapping rifle/archery/muzzy hunts going on in the same unit, the season has to coincide with the general, Management or LE weapon season that is in effect.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Oh yeah, I forgot, lets make CWMU fair by splitting the tag allocations AT LEAST in half, and make them pay AT LEAST half of their total revenue from tag sales with the state... and they have to give public draw hunters the same time and access to ANY of their paying clients.

And then we move onto the auction tags...split half of the income off those with the state, and have half the total "Special Raffle and Auction Tags" allocated to Not-for-profit free raffle groups, and the other half to special interest groups...

I could go on...and on... and on...


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

Fair is a four letter F-word reserved for middle children.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

i got mix opponents about it.


----------



## klbzdad

TopofUtahArcher said:


> I would be strongly in favor of at least going back to regional for archery, but I don't agree with having to pick a unit when there are only 16,000 archery deer tags statewide.
> 
> People keep complaining or citing "fairness" and "equality" ... so, lets go "fair crazy" and split everything into thirds... split the units into 1/3 LE, 1/3 management and 1/3 general tag for both elk and deer. Then let's divide the total number of deer/elk tags equally between the three (3) weapon's categories and have three 10-day seasons that are set in stone, with one weapon being assigned to each season on a rotating cycle over a three-year period. Next let's make it fair by giving each weapon class limitations on range that cannot exceed the maximum effective range for the lowest denominator...
> 
> Then let's talk fair abour OIAL tags being issued in like manner...1/3 to archery only, 1/3 to muzzy only and 1/3 to rifle only on a similar rotating season to the general seasons - so we don't have overlapping rifle/archery/muzzy hunts going on in the same unit, the season has to coincide with the general, Management or LE weapon season that is in effect.


Agreed! Regional would be great since animals move so often and across boundaries. I am kind of tired of the "you get longer to hunt" diatribe too. Its tired and the list of reason why it is longer is almost unending.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

dkhntrdstn said:


> i got mix opponents about it.


Is this you trying to be eloquent? Dude...... :roll:

I liked the other Dustin better. 

(Eloquent means to talk fancy and use big words)


----------



## BUL_KRZY

I do think the statewide opportunity to hunt the extended is crap. I think you should have to draw the unit the extended is in to hunt the extended. This will drive a better distribution and lower (a bit) the pressure on these animals when they are most vulnerable. 

Don't get me wrong - I love hunting the extended... but I always have drawn/bought a tag that would be applicable under the above.


----------



## bullsnot

Archers have so little impact on the resource there is no logical reason to limit them to units or regions. There is no benefit to the resource or to management strategies.

The only reason to limit archers to units or cut down season length or anything other limitation would be if we drastically increased the number of archery tags or to help those that don't hunt with a stick and string sooth their hurt feelings.


----------



## LETTER-RIP

It needs to go back to state wide!! At least when it was state wide they sold all the tags to Archery hunters. This yr they took left over tags from some of the units that had not sold out and decided to sell them as Muzzy tags. Then what did not sell as a Muzzy tag got sold as a Rifle tag. Does that not sound like a bunch of crap??

So basically what we are saying is, this area can only handle so many Muzzy, and Rifle tags, until we do not sell all are Archery tags for that area. Then we put more tags in the hands of Muzzy and Rifle hunters???? Would this not cause the management in these areas to possibly be effected??


----------



## RuttCrazed

-O\__-   

That should sum it up.

Rut


----------



## klbzdad

bullsnot said:


> Archers have so little impact on the resource there is no logical reason to limit them to units or regions. There is no benefit to the resource or to management strategies.
> 
> The only reason to limit archers to units or cut down season length or anything other limitation would be if we drastically increased the number of archery tags or to help those that don't hunt with a stick and string sooth their hurt feelings.


I say this quietly but firmly.....HELL YUP!

:O•-: :O•-: :O•-: :O•-:


----------



## dkhntrdstn

TEX-O-BOB said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> 
> i got mix opponents about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this you trying to be eloquent? Dude...... :roll:
> 
> I liked the other Dustin better.
> 
> (Eloquent means to talk fancy and use big words)
Click to expand...

no. I just dont know yet.


----------



## blazingsaddle

I see no reason for doing away with statewide. I am not in favor of picking units.

I go crazy when I hear someone say how unfair it is, and archers have it so good. If the person truly felt it was so lop-sided, wouldn't you think they would start archery hunting? They do have that choice.


----------



## silversurfer

This is all we need to make this a state where only the rich can hunt, as soon as the DWR proof to me they know how to manage anything I said let it be.


----------



## duckhunter1096

I love listening to Archery hunters whine about stuff bein' taken away from them... Welcome to the world of a rifle hunter... Yeah, Rifle hunters take more animals than archery hunters... BIG EFFING DEAL!!! If you want a better chance at taking an animal, statistics tell me that you should pick up a rifle. If you want to feel like your ancestors, and not have as good of a chance at harvesting an animal, pick up your bow. 

Knock of your "Special Interest" bullcrap by saying "Archers have less of an impact on the animals, so we should have more opportunity"... What's next!? "When a white guy is running down the basketball court for a dunk, the rim should drop a foot, cuz white dudes can't jump as high... they need more opportunity"... 

Like the dude said above, y'all are beating a dead horse. Quit your **** whining... build a bridge... and get the hell over it.


----------



## klbzdad

duckhunter1096 said:


> I love listening to Archery hunters whine about stuff bein' taken away from them... Welcome to the world of a rifle hunter... Yeah, Rifle hunters take more animals than archery hunters... BIG EFFING DEAL!!!
> 
> Like the dude said above, y'all are beating a dead horse. Quit your **** whining... build a bridge... and get the hell over it.


Huh? Statewide restriction on archery was stupid. No reason but RIFLE hunters boobing about archery hunters soooooooooo....whatever. Also, way to pull a pillar out from under any bridge that could have been started here by bagging on us to begin with.

:roll:


----------



## Old Fudd

Didn't mean to pi-- off the gun hunter, that was not my intent. Just a little survey to see how many Archers feel that taking away of State Wide Archery was a mistake. looks like I struck a nerve with someone..Sorry that person feels that way,, Watch out for that for that Bridge.


----------



## duckhunter1096

Was just weighing in with an opinion... I'm not pi$$ed off... It's just kicking a dead horse. Why don't we go back and re-hash... "When I was younger, my deer tag came as part of my $35 combination license, which included small game & fishing as well." Times change things. Or, "Let's just let everyone hunt wherever they want, like they could in the 50's & 60's"... Times change things. Sorry that has to include Archery hunting statewide. 

How is it okay for one person to say "If he wants a longer hunt, or to hunt statewide, he should pick up archery", but it's not okay for me to say "If you want a better chance at harvesting an animal, pick up a rifle"? Same concept, to an extent... but from differing views... All OPINIONS.


----------



## wyoming2utah

duckhunter1096 said:


> I love listening to Archery hunters whine about stuff bein' taken away from them... Welcome to the world of a rifle hunter...


Why has "stuff" been "taken" from rifle hunters? Does it have anything to do with the impact rifle hunters have on the resource?

My question is this: Why should restrictions be placed on fishermen/hunters when those restrictions do NOT benefit the resource? What is the goal or reasoning behind the restriction?

Why were archers restricted? That, to me, is the question that needs to be asked of the RACs and the WB? IF the reasoning is to get a better handle on harvest numbers, I can live with it. But, if the reasoning is social and just to keep it "fair" or the same for all weapon types, I ain't buying it!


----------



## duckhunter1096

wyoming2utah said:


> duckhunter1096 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love listening to Archery hunters whine about stuff bein' taken away from them... Welcome to the world of a rifle hunter...
> 
> 
> 
> Why has "stuff" been "taken" from rifle hunters? Does it have anything to do with the impact rifle hunters have on the resource?
> 
> My question is this: Why should restrictions be placed on fishermen/hunters when those restrictions do NOT benefit the resource? What is the goal or reasoning behind the restriction?
> 
> Why were archers restricted? That, to me, is the question that needs to be asked of the RACs and the WB? IF the reasoning is to get a better handle on harvest numbers, I can live with it. But, if the reasoning is social and just to keep it "fair" or the same for all weapon types, I ain't buying it!
Click to expand...

I'm not here with the argument that rifle hunters don't have a greater impact on the herd. If that's what you've read, I apologize... But that's NOT what I've said.


----------



## wyoming2utah

duckhunter1096 said:


> I'm not here with the argument that rifle hunters don't have a greater impact on the herd. If that's what you've read, I apologize... But that's NOT what I've said.


That's not what I read and that's now what I gathered from your post...but, my question was still aimed at you for that reason. You said that we should look at all the changes in the past that rifle hunters had to undergo and should expect some for archers. I only think that is true as far as it impacts the resource. The reason rifle hunters have had to undergo so many changes is because they do impact the resource more...in my eyes it makes no sense to limit the opportunity of hunters on general season units unless those changes are going to benefit the animals.

Archery hunters are "whining" about "stuff being taken from them" because they--the archers--are having a limited impact on that resource and the change--taking away statewide archery--isn't going to have a positive impact on the resource. So, sorry about "whining", but your reasoning is flawed because comparing the things taken from rifle hunters to what is being taken from archery hunters are not at all similar.


----------



## RuttCrazed

It was done to get a better handle on how many archers were in each unit and limit their take according to an average harvest rate.
Does that make you all feel better?

Rut


----------



## middlefork

It was a social issue. Nothing else. From a resource perspective it makes no difference at all.
I wouldn't mind if the rifle hunters could hunt state wide for for six weeks if they reduced the tags to account for a 100% success rate. Like even the rifle hunters would let that happen


----------



## bullsnot

duckhunter1096 said:


> I love listening to Archery hunters whine about stuff bein' taken away from them... Welcome to the world of a rifle hunter... Yeah, Rifle hunters take more animals than archery hunters... BIG EFFING DEAL!!! If you want a better chance at taking an animal, statistics tell me that you should pick up a rifle. If you want to feel like your ancestors, and not have as good of a chance at harvesting an animal, pick up your bow.
> 
> Knock of your "Special Interest" bullcrap by saying "Archers have less of an impact on the animals, so we should have more opportunity"... What's next!? "When a white guy is running down the basketball court for a dunk, the rim should drop a foot, cuz white dudes can't jump as high... they need more opportunity"...
> 
> .


You are looking at it completely backwards!!! Rifle hunters have the limitations they do because of the impact they have on the resource, not archers should recieve special treatment because they don't. Why limit anybody in anyway at all unless we have to?? If the resource could sustain it we would be able to hunt 365 without a license. It can't so we had to put limitations in place and putting limitations where they don't belong is just plain stupid.

Your point of view is yours and you are entitled to it but it makes no sense.


----------



## swbuckmaster

+1


----------



## Huntoholic

Option 2 was sold on the premise to limit hunters to a smaller unit to better control harvest of bucks. All hunters. There is nothing stopping the DWR from issuing more archery tagges for a particular individual unit for opportunity. The moment in time where we turned our hunting into a limited entry hunting, most opinions become mute. 

In theory 5000 archers could show up on a unit with a 1000 tag allotment.

As been shown in other threads, even when hunter numbers are controlled, there sometimes are area's that will get heavier useage.

I have a feeling that if some archers knew that they were going to loose Statewide, that maybe Option 2 would have been left on the shelf where it belongs.


----------



## 10yearquest

As an archer it didn't really bother me that much. I was a little pissed at the borders due to the area I hunted for many years being split in three. But I had been spinning my wheels there for long enough. So I found a new place and spent my entire hunt on one unit. I guess if i was one of the guys who goes down south or far across the state for the first weekend then went somewhere close for the other weekends I would be really mad.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

The thing a lot of archery hunters are blind to is the fact that our sport has changed dramatically in the last ten years. Although I still believe archery hunters have very little impact on the herds, the powers that be are watching and listening. Advanced technology in our sport has created a silent monster. Bows that shoot flat and accurately out to 130 yards coupled with idiots who take those kinds of shots, then luck out and actually KILL something at those ranges, and then come on a sight like this one and brag about it are doing nothing but help skew the thinking of the powers that be. The wildlife board sees this kind of crap happening, listens to other hunters crying about archery hunters killing and wounding more than their "fair" share, and they make laws according to who screams foul the loudest. It's as much our fault as it is the ninnies who cry about us. I could get up in hear and preach ethics and woodsmanship till I'm blue in the face, but that ship has sailed. 

Losing state wide archery is a shame and a sham, but we're as much to blame for it as anyone.


----------



## Old Fudd

Tex I totally agree. Ya go to an Archery Shop. It's all bout the bows that with the proper set up will shoot 200 yards accurate. I was taught long time ago that the average kill area on a mule deer was like 18" by 15".So at the distance some folks are shooting, got to be a kill zone bout the size of a quarter, It is, and should be bout getting close to increase your chances of a clean kill and harvest.not bout how many you stick. I still don't get the removing State Wide Archery. I don't support and never will.. 16,000 tags? 52,000 tags? you tell me bout herd impact..


----------



## Huntoholic

Lets use the beloved Monroe as the example. We'll will use 2010 (last available) success rates:

1000 Permits available total in 2012
600 rifle 21.1% = 126
200 muzzy 25.0% = 50
200 archery 10.8% = 21
Total harvest = 197 Bucks

1000 Permits Planned for (but unlimted archers could, will assume 1000 show up)
600 Rifle 21.1% = 126
200 muzzy 25.0% = 50
1000 Archery 10.8% = 108
Total harvest = 284 bucks

Now I'm not sure how anybody can say that archers would not have an impact on this unit under the the above example.

PS: fixed the math


----------



## bullsnot

Huntoholic said:


> Lets use the beloved Monroe as the example. We'll will use 2010 (last available) success rates:
> 
> 1000 Permits available total in 2012
> 600 rifle 21.1% = 126
> 200 muzzy 25.0% = 50
> 200 archery 10.8% = 21
> Total harvest = 197 Bucks
> 
> 1000 Permits Planned for (but unlimted archers could, will assume 1000 show up)
> 600 Rifle 21.1% = 126
> 200 muzzy 25.0% = 50
> 1000 Archery 10.8% = 108
> Total harvest = 234 bucks
> 
> Now I'm not sure how anybody can say that archers would not have an impact on this unit under the the above example.


In your example you had to multiply the archer numbers by a factor of 5 to show an over harvest of 37 bucks. It is possible but it doesn't happen like that in the real world and even if it did you still only over harvested by 37 bucks which could easily be dealt with by adjusting tag numbers the following year. But again the scenario you are outlining just doesn't happen.

Your own example shows how little impact archers have. 5 times more archers can show up than expected and only harvest an additional 37 bucks.

EDIT: Hold on your math is wrong. The total harvest in the second section is off. It's 87 bucks but that would take 5 times the number of anticipated archers to accomplish that and that just didn't happen when it was statewide.


----------



## swbuckmaster

The more archers you have the less success you have. Unlike a rifle hunt. It also takes five times the amount of time to be successful with a bow.


----------



## Kdub

swbuckmaster said:


> The more archers you have the less success you have. Unlike a rifle hunt. It also takes five times the amount of time to be successful with a bow.


Bingo.


----------



## Huntoholic

Bullsnot you are missing the point. Option 2 was sold as a control of hunters. If the goal is a 197 bucks to be harvested and you go past it and "have to adjust next year" you are having an impact. And if you have to adjust were do you think the adjustment is going to come from?

You are correct in that the more permits available to a unit the less impact that archery would have. But like wise the smaller the number of permits available the easier to over harvest could be with unlimited archery.

Under the current understanding of the goal (hunter control of harvested bucks to a specific unit), it would be easier to control a Units bucks by just adjusting small to medium up swings with increased archery allotment while leaving the rifle/muzzy where they are at. Adjust Rifle/Muzzy when big changes need to take place.


----------



## Huntoholic

swbuckmaster said:


> The more archers you have the less success you have. Unlike a rifle hunt. It also takes five times the amount of time to be successful with a bow.


Archery "mean days hunted" = 9.5 days. From the 2010 report.


----------



## klbzdad

swbuckmaster said:


> The more archers you have the less success you have. Unlike a rifle hunt. It also takes five times the amount of time to be successful with a bow.


SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!


----------



## klbzdad

Huntoholic said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more archers you have the less success you have. Unlike a rifle hunt. It also takes five times the amount of time to be successful with a bow.
> 
> 
> 
> Archery "mean days hunted" = 9.5 days. From the 2010 report.
Click to expand...

Yeah scattered over the season. The very nature of the time of year the archery season takes place during requires special time management by each individual hunter. I probably spent 14 total days hunting but not all at once.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> Bullsnot you are missing the point. Option 2 was sold as a control of hunters. If the goal is a 197 bucks to be harvested and you go past it and "have to adjust next year" you are having an impact. And if you have to adjust were do you think the adjustment is going to come from?


You are forgetting, though, that the Monroe nor any other unit, would be the only place archery hunters would hunt. Under a statewide scenario, hunting pressure would be distributed across the state...in such a scenario, the hunting pressure may very well be less than on a unit-by-unit basis depending on the unit (The Beaver unit would be an example...in 2010, 672 hunters hunted the unit, this year 700 tags were given). Also, even on units where hunting pressure may be higher, it will only be slightly higher and thus the impact even less minimal.

Look at the Monroe as an example, again. In 2010, 298 hunters hunted the unit during the archery hunt. They harvested, as you said, at a 10.8% clip. By way of comparison, this year 200 archery tags were given...if those 200 archers harvested at a 10.8% clip, they would have harvested about 11 less deer than in 2010. I would hardly say that is any kind of real noticeable impact!


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> You are forgetting, though, that the Monroe nor any other unit, would be the only place archery hunters would hunt. Under a statewide scenario, hunting pressure would be distributed across the state...in such a scenario, the hunting pressure may very well be less than on a unit-by-unit basis depending on the unit. Also, even on units where hunting pressure may be higher, it will only be slightly higher and thus the impact even less minimal.
> *But the fact is if I am only trying to harvest 197 bucks, then allow one of the weapons to be unrestricted defeats the purpose of controlling to that 197 and Option 2. Any increase to a units allotted tags is an impact, small or big. *
> 
> Look at the Monroe as an example, again. In 2010, 298 hunters hunted the unit during the archery hunt. They harvested, as you said, at a 10.8% clip. By way of comparison, this year 200 archery tags were given...if those 200 archers harvested at a 10.8% clip, they would have harvested about 11 less deer than in 2010. I would hardly say that is any kind of real noticeable impact!
> *We can get into deep discussion, but as you have pointed out there is an impact, good or bad, large or small. Maybe to you and I it's not a real noticeable, but this issue is all based on the bill of goods sold. Control hunters to a specific small area. Under this definition, however small, archers could have an impact. *


----------



## Huntoholic

klbzdad said:


> Yeah scattered over the season. The very nature of the time of year the archery season takes place during requires special time management by each individual hunter. I probably spent 14 total days hunting but not all at once.


Come on..........

You are not talking to somebody who has never archery hunted.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I hate to say it but could you imagine what the hunting would look like if this state wasn't so anti archery.

Have a look at my pipe dream for a second. 

You could have a 6-10 week hunt with archery tackle and 80,000 tags. Then had a one week season with 20,000 rifle hunters. The rifle hunt being LE and anyone could apply for it. You would be guaranteed a tag every 4 years. 

The bonus point butt plugg system would have a laxative meaning you could hunt a quality hunt with low numbers of people and hunt for a quality deer. The system right now is 10 years for a rifle tag on the bookcliffs. It could be knocked down to 4.

Then if you were on your 4 year waiting period you could still pick up a bow and fricken hunt! You could still be hunting a better quality buck, still have the same family experiences. With a longer archery season people could spread themselves out better so the 80,000 tags won't feel so crowded. Its a win win quality and hunting opportunity. 

lifetime license holders would still be guaranteed a bow tag in my pipe dream :lol: 

I also know the bow tags would be a hard sell at first but I guarantee you they would increase in sales when people saw the size of the deer that would follow. 

I also guarantee you the tag cuts are coming in the near future with sfw.This crowd of morons are taking a bite of the pie one bite at a time. So it only makes sense to propose a different alternative. An alternative to still be able to hunt.


----------



## swbuckmaster

never mind I just woke up from my pipe and remembered bucks don't make fawns and our deer herd would crash major big time if we quit killing everything that walked. :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are forgetting, though, that the Monroe nor any other unit, would be the only place archery hunters would hunt. Under a statewide scenario, hunting pressure would be distributed across the state...in such a scenario, the hunting pressure may very well be less than on a unit-by-unit basis depending on the unit. Also, even on units where hunting pressure may be higher, it will only be slightly higher and thus the impact even less minimal.
> *But the fact is if I am only trying to harvest 197 bucks, then allow one of the weapons to be unrestricted defeats the purpose of controlling to that 197 and Option 2. Any increase to a units allotted tags is an impact, small or big. *
> 
> Look at the Monroe as an example, again. In 2010, 298 hunters hunted the unit during the archery hunt. They harvested, as you said, at a 10.8% clip. By way of comparison, this year 200 archery tags were given...if those 200 archers harvested at a 10.8% clip, they would have harvested about 11 less deer than in 2010. I would hardly say that is any kind of real noticeable impact!
> *We can get into deep discussion, but as you have pointed out there is an impact, good or bad, large or small. Maybe to you and I it's not a real noticeable, but this issue is all based on the bill of goods sold. Control hunters to a specific small area. Under this definition, however small, archers could have an impact. *
Click to expand...

That impact, though, evens out...if the impact is noticeable one year, hunters naturally shift to somewhere else. That is the frustrating thing about this whole mess...hunters will naturally disperse themselves much better than regulations will. Sure, 11 more bucks might be shot on one unit, but 11 less will be shot somewhere else...the next year a number of hunters will shift from one unit to the other.

Also, there is no set number of bucks that we are trying to limit the harvest to. The objectives are to maintain ratios in between certain numbers...harvest rates should rise and fall with herd numbers. And, with such a small impact, ratios would most likely not change!


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> That impact, though, evens out...if the impact is noticeable one year, hunters naturally shift to somewhere else. That is the frustrating thing about this whole mess...hunters will naturally disperse themselves much better than regulations will. Sure, 11 more bucks might be shot on one unit, but 11 less will be shot somewhere else...the next year a number of hunters will shift from one unit to the other.
> *You and I agree that you and I are not worried about dispersion. Don't get me wrong. I just as soon issue tagges based on available excess bucks and hunt were we want. But under the model that was put forth that is not the case.*
> 
> Also, there is no set number of bucks that we are trying to limit the harvest to. The objectives are to maintain ratios in between certain numbers...harvest rates should rise and fall with herd numbers. And, with such a small impact, ratios would most likely not change!
> *I disagree. The moment you defined a physical area and limited the number of tagges you are planning to issue, you have said I am expecting to harvest set number of animals from that area. Yes it will be plus or minus, but there is a number.*


I have to admit I am starting to lean towards a philosophy of like they are doing with the wolfs in Montana and Idaho. Set a cap of the number of animals to be harvested in a unit. When the number of set bucks are taken or the unit sees to much pressure the unit is closed.


----------



## Huntoholic

swbuckmaster said:


> I hate to say it but could you imagine what the hunting would look like if this state wasn't so anti archery.
> 
> Have a look at my pipe dream for a second.
> 
> You could have a 6-10 week hunt with archery tackle and 80,000 tags. Then had a one week season with 20,000 rifle hunters. The rifle hunt being LE and anyone could apply for it. You would be guaranteed a tag every 4 years.
> 
> The bonus point butt plugg system would have a laxative meaning you could hunt a quality hunt with low numbers of people and hunt for a quality deer. The system right now is 10 years for a rifle tag on the bookcliffs. It could be knocked down to 4.
> 
> Then if you were on your 4 year waiting period you could still pick up a bow and fricken hunt! You could still be hunting a better quality buck, still have the same family experiences. With a longer archery season people could spread themselves out better so the 80,000 tags won't feel so crowded. Its a win win quality and hunting opportunity.
> 
> lifetime license holders would still be guaranteed a bow tag in my pipe dream :lol:
> 
> I also know the bow tags would be a hard sell at first but I guarantee you they would increase in sales when people saw the size of the deer that would follow.
> 
> I also guarantee you the tag cuts are coming in the near future with sfw.This crowd of morons are taking a bite of the pie one bite at a time. So it only makes sense to propose a different alternative. An alternative to still be able to hunt.


It would most likely be great if you were an archer. But for the 200,000 rifle hunters it would be a bigger butt plug then we have now. A four year wait would be a pipe dream. More like a once in a life time hunt.


----------



## RuttCrazed

wyoming2utah said:


> Under a statewide scenario, hunting pressure would be distributed across the state...in such a scenario, the hunting pressure may very well be less than on a unit-by-unit basis depending on the unit (The Beaver unit would be an example...in 2010, 672 hunters hunted the unit, this year 700 tags were given). Also, even on units where hunting pressure may be higher, it will only be slightly higher and thus the impact even less minimal.


May very well be? Only slightly higher? That sounds very scientific and not at all skewed to your agenda. :roll:

Again ----> -O\__-

Rut


----------



## wyoming2utah

RuttCrazed said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under a statewide scenario, hunting pressure would be distributed across the state...in such a scenario, the hunting pressure may very well be less than on a unit-by-unit basis depending on the unit (The Beaver unit would be an example...in 2010, 672 hunters hunted the unit, this year 700 tags were given). Also, even on units where hunting pressure may be higher, it will only be slightly higher and thus the impact even less minimal.
> 
> 
> 
> May very well be? Only slightly higher? That sounds very scientific and not at all skewed to your agenda. :roll:
Click to expand...

What do you have a crystal ball? Maybe you should change your name to Merlin. :roll: The only thing anyone can do is guess....and based on past numbers you can easily say that the Beaver unit, for example, will have more harvest this year than last year (because more tags were given this year than hunters hunted it in the past) and that the Monroe unit will only have very few if any more bucks shot last year compared to this year. But, again, neither of us have a crystal ball and neither of us can look at all the factors--like how much growth or loss a herd has had from one year to the next.

The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. Based on old RAC meetings and WB meetings it was because of an overcrowding issue...looks to me like this unit-by-unit BS has made the problem worse in some situations.


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. .....


It has been answered. Now whether or not it is logical is another question.

The State of Utah is all a limited entry hunt and limited entry hunts do not allow hunters to move from one unit to another.


----------



## RuttCrazed

wyoming2utah said:


> What do you have a crystal ball? Maybe you should change your name to Merlin. :roll: The only thing anyone can do is guess....and based on past numbers you can easily say that the Beaver unit, for example, will have more harvest this year than last year (because more tags were given this year than hunters hunted it in the past) and that the Monroe unit will only have very few if any more bucks shot last year compared to this year. But, again, neither of us have a crystal ball and neither of us can look at all the factors--like how much growth or loss a herd has had from one year to the next.
> 
> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. Based on old RAC meetings and WB meetings it was because of an overcrowding issue...looks to me like this unit-by-unit BS has made the problem worse in some situations.


Maybe the next step is to make all hunts require a mandatory season ending hunt survey. What unit did you hunt? What weapon did you use? Did you kill anything? You fill out the survey or you don't hunt next year. No need for a crystal ball, take your data, plug it in to your range counts and presto, the number of tags magically appears. 
Sorry to throw logic into your arguement, please carry on.

Rut


----------



## klbzdad

I would absolutely support mandatory end of season reporting! And I was NOT impressed with Anis's cost argument at the RAC's this last year concerning the automation system handling it BEFORE you are able to apply for the following year's permits.....HOWEVER, before anyone thinks I'm make strides by suddenly not adhering to everything Anis says, I fully agree with him and others who say that some sportsmen will not be honest with their reporting. The only way harvest reporting could possibly work is if we do it, as in other states, at a dwr checkpoint, office, or via meat processing stations.


----------



## RuttCrazed

Some will lie, some wont, but isn't that better than guessing? I wasn't aware that this had been suggested at a RAC.

Rut


----------



## wyoming2utah

Mandatory harvest reports offer a bunch of problems and don't give you any better information than phone surveys of statistically valid samples...why spend extra money on something that doesn't offer more?

The simple answer: Because mandatory harvest reports don't give the DWR any better information.

The long answer:
A few points by the article: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E005349.pdf
1) Mandatory reporting does NOT ensure 100% reporting or 100% accuracy...in fact, sometimes hunters perceive an incentive to actually lie about their success or lack thereof--" Gamesmanship, or perceived dangers from giving true information may cause people to misrepresent the truth (i.e. lie), especially about killing an animal. This might be more prevalent for...hunters who may believe tag numbers would go down if kill rates are high or among individuals who might believe that reporting the harvest of an animal could lower their personal chance of getting a tag in future." 
2) Costs--"When all costs are considered, mandatory reporting may cost about nine 
times as much as an equal size voluntary sample and six times as much per report (see "The costs of big game harvest assessment", page 9). Optimal sampling within the deer or moose programs would produce statistically valid harvest estimates with about 30 per cent of hunters sampled. In these cases mandatory reporting from all hunters could cost as much as 23 times more than optimal voluntary programs." Also, "Statistical methods operate on the principle that a representative sample can provide information which is as good as a complete count, but less (often much less) expensive. In many cases, a complete count is not possible. Mandatory reporting ignores the economic savings which optimal sampling could provide. It should be necessary to demonstrate that the economic efficiency of mandatory reporting exceeds that of optimal sampling (i.e. that a 300 per cent increase in costs produces at least a 300 per cent improvement in information value)."
3) Hunter surveys tend to overestimate harvest which errs on the side of conservation--""Statistical Estimates" of harvest are not expected to be perfectly accurate. They depend on an assumption that the activities of hunters who report are similar to those who do not report or those who are not sampled. This is not always true. Voluntary sampling tends to overestimate harvest because hunters who feel they have something important to report (i.e. a harvested animal) tend to respond at a higher rate than those who do not harvest game. This error is on the side of conservation, but can be corrected, again by statistical techniques. Generally, statistically estimates may be either higher or lower than the true 
harvest, but they are correct "on average"."
4) Mandatory harvest reports tend to underestimate harvest--"Mandatory reports would likely underestimate harvests. Few people would be expected to report killing an animal if they did not and more advantages might be gained by not reporting actual kills. Because harvest information is "added" for mandatory reports rather than "projected"(as with sampling), every animal which is not reported represents an underestimate of the true harvest."
5) A wealth of information aside from harvest is needed to best control big game populations--"Many factors influence the abundance of game and the allowable harvest. 
These include habitat quality, productivity, predation, accidental mortality, as well as subsistence harvests and recreational hunting. Each of these differ geographically, probably annually, and they may interact in complex ways. The important point is that most of these factors are measured crudely or not at all. The value of obtaining extremely high quality harvest information at relatively high cost is undermined by having little or no information on other factors."
6) Mandatory harvest reporting rarely gives drastically different information than samples--"If all other things are equal and unbiased, a proper statistical interpretation of the harvest estimate for a hypothetical WMU would state that "the harvest was probably between 95 and 105 animals, and averaged 100 animals over the past three years." Mandatory reporting would state "the harvest was 96 in year 1, 106 in year 2, and 98 in year 3." There is no reason to believe that mandatory reporting would provide a totally different answer (like the harvest was 50 or 150 animals) and clearly the management decisions from both voluntary and mandatory assessments should be identical."

Arizona just went through a debate recently on this very topic (2009) and decided that mandatory harvest reporting was not the best idea because of the above reasons...

Read this report done by Arizona:
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/Hunt ... 081216.pdf

Then, read this news report from Pennsylvania:
http://www.outdoornews.com/July-2012/Ha ... -big-deal/


----------



## wyoming2utah

RuttCrazed said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have a crystal ball? Maybe you should change your name to Merlin. :roll: The only thing anyone can do is guess....and based on past numbers you can easily say that the Beaver unit, for example, will have more harvest this year than last year (because more tags were given this year than hunters hunted it in the past) and that the Monroe unit will only have very few if any more bucks shot last year compared to this year. But, again, neither of us have a crystal ball and neither of us can look at all the factors--like how much growth or loss a herd has had from one year to the next.
> 
> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. Based on old RAC meetings and WB meetings it was because of an overcrowding issue...looks to me like this unit-by-unit BS has made the problem worse in some situations.
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a crystal ball, take your data, plug it in to your range counts and presto, the number of tags magically appears.
> Sorry to throw logic into your arguement, please carry on.
Click to expand...

Even if you had the previous year's exact harvest numbers, you would still need a crystal ball to 100% accurately predict the next year's numbers. Currently, tag numbers are already set on previous year's harvest numbers and range counts...we already do that. Who's guessing? The problem is that a myriad of factors change from year to year that influence harvest--the number of yearling bucks recruited into a herd and the weather are just two. That is why I can say that it "may very well be" or "slightly higher" and be just as accurate/scientific as the next guy.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. .....
Click to expand...

So, what is the answer, then? Why have archers been limited to one unit? What was the reasoning given by the WB? You can't say the question was answered by saying because that's the way it is...what is the reasoning?


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what is the answer, then? Why have archers been limited to one unit? What was the reasoning given by the WB? You can't say the question was answered by saying because that's the way it is...what is the reasoning?
Click to expand...

*All of The State of Utah is a limited entry hunt and limited entry hunts do not allow hunters to move from one unit to another.*

I gave you the answer. Name one of the High End (i.e. premium LE) that allows archers to move from one unit to another. No difference. Our units are all LE's, thus controlled as such.


----------



## RuttCrazed

wyoming2utah said:


> RuttCrazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have a crystal ball? Maybe you should change your name to Merlin. :roll: The only thing anyone can do is guess....and based on past numbers you can easily say that the Beaver unit, for example, will have more harvest this year than last year (because more tags were given this year than hunters hunted it in the past) and that the Monroe unit will only have very few if any more bucks shot last year compared to this year. But, again, neither of us have a crystal ball and neither of us can look at all the factors--like how much growth or loss a herd has had from one year to the next.
> 
> The question I don't think has ever been answered is why have archers been limited. Based on old RAC meetings and WB meetings it was because of an overcrowding issue...looks to me like this unit-by-unit BS has made the problem worse in some situations.
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a crystal ball, take your data, plug it in to your range counts and presto, the number of tags magically appears.
> Sorry to throw logic into your arguement, please carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if you had the previous year's exact harvest numbers, you would still need a crystal ball to 100% accurately predict the next year's numbers. True, but your estimate would at least be a SWAG instead of a WAG. Currently, tag numbers are already set on previous year's harvest numbers and range counts...we already do that. Who's guessing? You are! You don't know the harvest numbers, you are extrapolating them from a small sample size based on your phone survey.The problem is that a myriad of factors change from year to year that influence harvest--the number of yearling bucks recruited into a herd and the weather are just two. That is why I can say that it "may very well be" or "slightly higher" and be just as accurate/scientific as the next guy.  Not if the "next guy" actually used science!
Click to expand...

 :roll: 
I am curious, have you ever been wrong?

Rut


----------



## wyoming2utah

RuttCrazed said:


> True, but your estimate would at least be a SWAG instead of a WAG.  You are! You don't know the harvest numbers, you are extrapolating them from a small sample size based on your phone survey.T  Not if the "next guy" actually used science!


Oh please...is this the best you can come up with?
1) My numbers are based on range counts, phone surveys, and harvest checkpoints...they are just as scientific as a mandatory harvest survey. 2) My sample size is statistically valid. It is much larger than you think and includes more than just the phone surveys. 3) How is what I am doing not using science?

:roll:

The funny thing is that I am backing up my beliefs with science...out of curiosity have you ever been wrong? :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> *All of The State of Utah is a limited entry hunt and limited entry hunts do not allow hunters to move from one unit to another.*
> 
> I gave you the answer. Name one of the High End (i.e. premium LE) that allows archers to move from one unit to another. No difference. Our units are all LE's, thus controlled as such.


I don't buy that as a reason...I asked, "Why?" Your answer: "Because it is". Our GS deer units are not high end premium LE units. They are general season units (you can call them LE and you can say that tags are not unlimited, but the same can be said before statewide archery was taken)...what reasoning was given to archers by the WB or RACs as to why archers should be limited to one unit?


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All of The State of Utah is a limited entry hunt and limited entry hunts do not allow hunters to move from one unit to another.*
> 
> I gave you the answer. Name one of the High End (i.e. premium LE) that allows archers to move from one unit to another. No difference. Our units are all LE's, thus controlled as such.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that as a reason...I asked, "Why?" Your answer: "Because it is". Our GS deer units are not high end premium LE units. They are general season units (you can call them LE and you can say that tags are not unlimited, but the same can be said before statewide archery was taken)...what reasoning was given to archers by the WB or RACs as to why archers should be limited to one unit?
Click to expand...

Option 2 is the reason. Option 2 was sold as a limited number of hunters to a limited area. Period. Option 2 wasn't sold as only limiting long guns. It doesn't matter if you buy it or not. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not to you or I. It is the reason.

And humbly speaking, you can call them GS units all you want, but in 1994 they became and are LE units. The only difference between the high and the low end units is the number of tagges available. Archery lost a privilege of hunting state wide. No different then the changes in 1994.


----------



## RuttCrazed

wyoming2utah said:


> [...out of curiosity have you ever been wrong? :roll:


Once, when I thought you would realize your "facts" were clouded by emotion.

Rut


----------



## klbzdad

Uhmmmmm....I'd rather we spend money on actual data (mandatory age reporting just like bear) than keep guessing who is being dishonest on the stupid phone survey, which are NOT mandatory either. Provide ivory or other dna of your harvest and unit data and option 2 suddenly might make some sense to many people. Maybe even THIS archer!

I'll bow out....allow your two to continue your bromance


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Other states like Nebraska where I just finished a whitetail hunt have mandatory reporting on ALL big game kills. When you kill a deer you have 48 hours to call an 800 number and give them your data. They ask you where you killed it, unit and county, what weapon you used, and the sex and age of the deer. Then they give you a conformation number that must be written on your tag. Failure to comply can result in a fine and or loss of hunting privileges. I would support something like this in Utah 100%. It's easy, doesn't cost the state very much and allows very accurate record keeping. Of course you'll get the guys who don't report, but I think that number would be minimal.


----------



## swbuckmaster

+1


----------



## Chuck

+2


----------



## klbzdad

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Other states like Nebraska where I just finished a whitetail hunt have mandatory reporting on ALL big game kills. When you kill a deer you have 48 hours to call an 800 number and give them your data. They ask you where you killed it, unit and county, what weapon you used, and the sex and age of the deer. Then they give you a conformation number that must be written on your tag. Failure to comply can result in a fine and or loss of hunting privileges. I would support something like this in Utah 100%. It's easy, doesn't cost the state very much and allows very accurate record keeping. Of course you'll get the guys who don't report, but I think that number would be minimal.


Precisely! Its the same in Virginia. But were you successful?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

[quote="RuttCrazed"
Maybe the next step is to make all hunts require a mandatory season ending hunt survey. What unit did you hunt? What weapon did you use? Did you kill anything? You fill out the survey or you don't hunt next year. No need for a crystal ball, take your data, plug it in to your range counts and presto, the number of tags magically appears. 
Sorry to throw logic into your arguement, please carry on.
Rut[/quote]

I like the idea of having mandatory reporting or tag-returning like they did for Dedicated Hunters - no report, no hunt the following year.


----------



## swbuckmaster

another +1


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

klbzdad said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other states like Nebraska where I just finished a whitetail hunt have mandatory reporting on ALL big game kills. When you kill a deer you have 48 hours to call an 800 number and give them your data. They ask you where you killed it, unit and county, what weapon you used, and the sex and age of the deer. Then they give you a conformation number that must be written on your tag. Failure to comply can result in a fine and or loss of hunting privileges. I would support something like this in Utah 100%. It's easy, doesn't cost the state very much and allows very accurate record keeping. Of course you'll get the guys who don't report, but I think that number would be minimal.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely! Its the same in Virginia. But were you successful?
Click to expand...

No, it sucked, I only killed five deer in six days of hunting... :mrgreen:

Total waste of time and money! :O•-:


----------



## klbzdad

Heartbreaking :O•-: :mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All of The State of Utah is a limited entry hunt and limited entry hunts do not allow hunters to move from one unit to another.*
> 
> I gave you the answer. Name one of the High End (i.e. premium LE) that allows archers to move from one unit to another. No difference. Our units are all LE's, thus controlled as such.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy that as a reason...I asked, "Why?" Your answer: "Because it is". Our GS deer units are not high end premium LE units. They are general season units (you can call them LE and you can say that tags are not unlimited, but the same can be said before statewide archery was taken)...what reasoning was given to archers by the WB or RACs as to why archers should be limited to one unit?
Click to expand...

Per my GRAMA request, the official reason per the WB's response to the RAC's is as follows:

"*Statewide Archery: SRO was the only RAC that voted to move Archery to unit by unit under Option #2. Board passed Unit by Unit Archery under option #2 by a 4 to 3 vote, with the Chair breaking the tie.

Board Motion:* I move that archery hunters choose a unit starting in 2012.

*Reasoning:* Under the DWR presentation archery hunting could go either statewide or unit by unit under option #2. If the Board let archery continue statewide hunting, this would contradict what the Board was trying to accomplish in addressing the plan amendment changes under Option #2."

I guess you could dissect that "reasoning" all you wanted, but the real answer seems to be: It was purely a social decision with no real reason. (Note the *only* RAC to pass it was the Southern RAC and it squeaked through the Wildlife Board vote by a 4 to 3 margin.)


----------



## RuttCrazed

How does enforcing something that would contradict the entire plan mean that it was a "social decision"? I am not sure how this board is set up, but in projects I have been envolved in, a RAC is merely a sounding board where people get to voice their opinions, but in the end, the decisions are made by the people in the know, hopefully in this case the biologists.

Rut


----------



## klbzdad

RuttCrazed said:


> How does enforcing something that would contradict the entire plan mean that it was a "social decision"? I am not sure how this board is set up, but in projects I have been envolved in, a RAC is merely a sounding board where people get to voice their opinions, but in the end, the decisions are made by the people in the know, hopefully in this case the biologists.
> 
> Rut


Someone needs to start attending their RAC.


----------



## RuttCrazed

Is that not how they work? Does the public get a vote? I am not trying to start anything, I really don't know how they work?

Rut


----------



## swbuckmaster

no the public doesn't get to vote. You can stand up making a fool out of yourself say what you want and the crap has already been decided before you even attend. Its just a dog and pony show!


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

RAC meetings are a way for the WB and the special interest groups who run the WB to let you know what they are going to rubber stamp through the process. They let you talk just to humor themselves. It should be called the RAC-ket...


----------



## RuttCrazed

OK, that is what I thought happened. You get to speak your peace, but the decision is made at a much higher level.

Rut


----------



## klbzdad

TEX-O-BOB said:


> RAC meetings are a way for the WB and the special interest groups who run the WB to let you know what they are going to rubber stamp through the process. They let you talk just to humor themselves. It should be called the RAC-ket...


Yet....it could be argued that if more of us showed up it, changes can be made in regard to what the predisposition might be. They will accept emails but in general, human nature hates to confronted face to face.


----------



## elkfromabove

RuttCrazed said:


> How does enforcing something that would contradict the entire plan mean that it was a "social decision"? I am not sure how this board is set up, but in projects I have been envolved in, a RAC is merely a sounding board where people get to voice their opinions, but in the end, the decisions are made by the people in the know, hopefully in this case the biologists.
> 
> Rut


First off, as admitted by the Board in their response and per the DWR presentation, statewide archery hunting would be allowed because it *did not* contradict the entire plan, ie; "archery hunting could go either statewide or unit by unit under option #2"

Second, statewide archery hunting didn't contradict the entire plan, it only contradicted "what the *Board* was trying to accomplish". (I guess you'll have to decide what they were trying to accomplish.)

Third, There is now only one biologist on the Board (Mike King), but at the time there were none, so biology had very little to do with it! (See below)

Reading Page 29 of the Wildlife Board minutes gives us the following:

The following motion was made by Tom Hatch, seconded by Jake Albrecht and passed 4-3 with Bill Fenimore, Ernie Perkins and Del Brady opposed. Chairman Woodward gave the tie breaking vote.

*MOTION: I move that archery hunters choose a unit starting in 2012.*

Mr. Perkins said that 4 of 5 RACs voted for archery statewide, including two that voted for option 2. How can we possibly vote against 4 RACs?

Mr. Brady asked if they go statewide, does that muddy the waters for permits.

Director Karpowitz said they would not be included in the number of permits for each unit. The 16,000 archers will be able to hunt any unit. They will go as they distribute themselves.

Mr. Fenimore asked how many archer permits would be allowed.

Director Karpowitz said 16,000 if we stay with the current numbers. Permit numbers are not decided today.

Mr. Brady said he has opposed a long archery season. The wildlife needs a break. He is more in favor of giving archers a statewide option, but cutting some days off their hunt.

Mr. Aoude said they will discuss season dates on the next agenda item today for 2011.

Director Karpowitz said they were trying to see how option 2 fits into this which does not kick in until 2012.

Mr. Fenimore spoke against the motion and reducing opportunity, confining it to the point where people will lose interest and drop off the board.

The motion was voted on and passed with Chairman Woodward breaking the tie. Jake Albrecht, Tom Hatch and Keele Johnson were in favor and Bill Fenimore, Ernie Perkins and Del Brady were opposed.

Note; The only vague reference to biology was "The wildlife needs a break", whatever that means! It was about hunter numbers and distribution, which are social issues!

I could also go into the Southern RAC meeting minutes to make the point further, but that is 70 pages long and has too many questions and comments to bore you with. The point is that unit by unit archery hunting has no biological or actual social benefits, but was passed to correct some falsely perceived advantages, nothing more!


----------



## Old Fudd

Elkfromabove. Hey Thanks for the Information. I think the stress on the wildlife is valid. But the Archers? How many Deer or Elk do you see haulin butt canyon to canyon with their tongues hanging to their briskets when the first bow shot goes off? I think the folks that removed State Wide need to check their decision.. re think the move and fess up that a mistake was made, Said it once say it again. DUMB MOVE..


----------



## bullsnot

Huntoholic said:


> Bullsnot you are missing the point. Option 2 was sold as a control of hunters. If the goal is a 197 bucks to be harvested and you go past it and "have to adjust next year" you are having an impact. And if you have to adjust were do you think the adjustment is going to come from?


Hunt...I understand that point but I do not think the gains that you get by limiting archers to a unit is worth the payoff.

We can use "what if" scenarios all day long but the decades of data that we have shows that there is no real benefit or pay off to managing buck to doe ratios accurately in an area by limiting archers to a unit. They just didn't have that big of impact on harvest. This isn't based on theory but rather real data collected over decades. The "unknown" factors that came with statewide archery were so small that they were easily handled in tag numbers from year to year.

This is like spending $5,000 on your vehicle to get 1 more mile per gallon out of it. By the time you sell the car you would've spent the same amount of money either way. No real net gain.

Sure you might over harvest by a couple of bucks this year and cut a few tags next year but there is nothing substantial or tangible lost or gained in that scenario either way. Certainly not enough to take something from 16,000 people annually. At the end of 10 year cycle you would have the same buck to doe ratio in a unit under either system and the plus/minus on that would be so small all the effort would feel completely wasted.


----------



## bullsnot

RuttCrazed said:


> How does enforcing something that would contradict the entire plan mean that it was a "social decision"? I am not sure how this board is set up, but in projects I have been envolved in, a RAC is merely a sounding board where people get to voice their opinions, but in the end, the decisions are made by the people in the know, hopefully in this case the biologists.
> 
> Rut


Rut,

Saying that it would condratict the entire plan was an opinion by a few individuals on the Wildlife Board and was NOT the position of the DWR and it's biologists.

To be clear the Wildlife Board makes the decisions, not the biologists. The DWR and it's biologists make recommendations, the RAC's makes recommedations but the Wildlife Board makes the final decisions.

In this case the DWR, as stated above, said that statewide archery would work under Option #2 in their opinion.


----------



## Huntoholic

bullsnot said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullsnot you are missing the point. Option 2 was sold as a control of hunters. If the goal is a 197 bucks to be harvested and you go past it and "have to adjust next year" you are having an impact. And if you have to adjust were do you think the adjustment is going to come from?
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt...I understand that point but I do not think the gains that you get by limiting archers to a unit is worth the payoff.
> 
> We can use "what if" scenarios all day long but the decades of data that we have shows that there is no real benefit or pay off to managing buck to doe ratios accurately in an area by limiting archers to a unit. They just didn't have that big of impact on harvest. This isn't based on theory but rather real data collected over decades. The "unknown" factors that came with statewide archery were so small that they were easily handled in tag numbers from year to year.
> 
> This is like spending $5,000 on your vehicle to get 1 more mile per gallon out of it. By the time you sell the car you would've spent the same amount of money either way. No real net gain.
> 
> Sure you might over harvest by a couple of bucks this year and cut a few tags next year but there is nothing substantial or tangible lost or gained in that scenario either way. Certainly not enough to take something from 16,000 people annually. At the end of 10 year cycle you would have the same buck to doe ratio in a unit under either system and the plus/minus on that would be so small all the effort would feel completely wasted.
Click to expand...

Bullsnot, if you want to talk about this more I am planning to be at the Central RAC. I can get there early if you would like to talk. Let me know.

thanks


----------



## RuttCrazed

I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.

Rut


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

RuttCrazed said:


> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut


No, we've just got 1600 screaming idiots hunting the front from September 15th till it closes... :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

RuttCrazed said:


> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut


Nope.

A few of us were on the committee that looked at this when they went to pick your unit for a year, 3 or 4 years ago. Result? The overcrowding was in the Northern region. Hunters that chose to hunt in the south had nearly 3 times the amount of public acreage per hunter.

You're right, not in my back yard.......


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

TopofUtahArcher said:


> RuttCrazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the next step is to make all hunts require a mandatory season ending hunt survey. What unit did you hunt? What weapon did you use? Did you kill anything? You fill out the survey or you don't hunt next year. No need for a crystal ball, take your data, plug it in to your range counts and presto, the number of tags magically appears.
> Sorry to throw logic into your arguement, please carry on.
> Rut
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of having mandatory reporting or tag-returning like they did for Dedicated Hunters - no report, no hunt the following year.
Click to expand...

I inquired about this extensively. The answer is that they have tried this and cross referenced data and came away with their samples being as accurate as 100% reporting at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## Old Fudd

Years Ago... Choose Your Weapon.. Did That. . My choice was the Bow.. So now What . OH! Choose Your Area. Limited 16,000 Archers.. With No Data that makes sense.. One weapon one hunt,


----------



## RuttCrazed

Treehugnhuntr said:


> RuttCrazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> A few of us were on the committee that looked at this when they went to pick your unit for a year, 3 or 4 years ago. Result? The overcrowding was in the Northern region. Hunters that chose to hunt in the south had nearly 3 times the amount of public acreage per hunter.
> 
> You're right, not in my back yard.......
Click to expand...

Your results indicated overcrowding in the Northern Unit based on public acreage per hunter? That is why no one trusts statistics, you can skew them to fit any arguement. Just because there was less public ground in the north (but still tags available over the counter for every hunt!) you conclude that the Northern region experienced overcrowding while the Southern unit sells out every year but is all BLM property and no one even sees another hunter. :roll: 
That must be why the Southern RAC was against statewide archery, they didn't want people getting lonely while hunting.

Rut


----------



## elkfromabove

RuttCrazed said:


> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut


Nope! 
The shoe is on the other foot! I'm from the Southern Region (Enoch/Cedar City) and have archery hunted here for the last 23 years and have seldom seen it crowded with archery hunters. There are ATVers, hikers, bikers, campers, fishermen, picnickers, tourists, firewood gatherers and photographers all over near the major roads, but hardly anyone 100 yards off the roads. And if it was crowded (Labor Day) I'd just go somewhere else. (At least I used to be able to!)

There was/is no problem here, it was only "perceived" per the Southern RAC meetings I've attended. But you're certainly right about Not In My Backyard! Because some of the locals (or their pioneer-stock families) own a piece of the mountain, most of the lifelong locals here think they own the whole darn thing. I've even had issues with illegally posted public land and with cousins of friends who gave me written permission to hunt family property and with friends trying to get permission to take me with them to hunt their own family property. And even after 23 years, I'm still considered an outsider when it comes to hunting here.

Luckily, there's nearly 2 million acres of accessible public deer habitat within 100 miles, along with elk, sheep, goat and antelope habitat as well, so I've got plenty of places to choose from. (Or, at least I used to!)


----------



## jahan

RuttCrazed said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RuttCrazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> A few of us were on the committee that looked at this when they went to pick your unit for a year, 3 or 4 years ago. Result? The overcrowding was in the Northern region. Hunters that chose to hunt in the south had nearly 3 times the amount of public acreage per hunter.
> 
> You're right, not in my back yard.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your results indicated overcrowding in the Northern Unit based on public acreage per hunter? That is why no one trusts statistics, you can skew them to fit any arguement. Just because there was less public ground in the north (but still tags available over the counter for every hunt!) you conclude that the Northern region experienced overcrowding while the Southern unit sells out every year but is all BLM property and no one even sees another hunter. :roll:
> That must be why the Southern RAC was against statewide archery, they didn't want people getting lonely while hunting.
> 
> Rut
Click to expand...

To clarify it was the divisions results, not Tree's results. No skewed data.


----------



## RuttCrazed

The data isn't skewed, the interpretation/presentation is.

Rut


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

RuttCrazed said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RuttCrazed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that the only RAC to vote it down was the Southern unit shows exactly where the problem was, the Southern Unit! Sounds like a huge example of Not In My Backyard! Of course everyone on the Wasatch Front thought it was a bad idea, their home unit didn't have 16,000 people hunting it opening morning! If the shoe was on the other foot, you all might be singing a different tune.
> 
> Rut
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> A few of us were on the committee that looked at this when they went to pick your unit for a year, 3 or 4 years ago. Result? The overcrowding was in the Northern region. Hunters that chose to hunt in the south had nearly 3 times the amount of public acreage per hunter.
> 
> You're right, not in my back yard.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your results indicated overcrowding in the Northern Unit based on public acreage per hunter? That is why no one trusts statistics, you can skew them to fit any arguement. Just because there was less public ground in the north (but still tags available over the counter for every hunt!) you conclude that the Northern region experienced overcrowding while the Southern unit sells out every year but is all BLM property and no one even sees another hunter. :roll:
> That must be why the Southern RAC was against statewide archery, they didn't want people getting lonely while hunting.
> 
> Rut
Click to expand...

To be clear; there weren't any tags allocated to specific units. They simply made hunters choose where they wanted to hunt. The result was that there wasn't a mass exodus from the north/central to the southern units, which is what had been presented as an argument for those that were claiming overcrowding in the south.


----------



## Old Fudd

Overcrowding down South.. 48 Years in that country. Hell after the first 3 to 5 days your almost alone.


----------



## Critter

oldfudd said:


> Overcrowding down South.. 48 Years in that country. Hell after the first 3 to 5 days your almost alone.


That's the way that it is in the majority of the units in the state.


----------



## bullsnot

RuttCrazed said:


> The data isn't skewed, the interpretation/presentation is.
> 
> Rut


No the data was pretty clear in this case. No funny math or thick glasses were needed to read it right. The data showed that archers did a pretty good job of spreading themselves out. The Southern region was by no means overcrowded as many had thought. I think that Tree meant if there really was an overcrowding issue, which there wasn't, then by definition it would've been in the Northern region.

To your point though many of the Southern guys do strongly BELIEVE that there was an overcrowding issue and they continue to BELIEVE that and no amount of data will change their minds. Because of that some from the Southern region may push for certain policies based on those beliefs.


----------



## bloodtrail

Removing Statewide archery is the worst move yet by the Wildlife Board! Thanks SFW *** holes


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Rut,
Saying that it would condratict the entire plan was an opinion by a few individuals on the Wildlife Board and was NOT the position of the DWR and it's biologists. 
To be clear the Wildlife Board makes the decisions, not the biologists. The DWR and it's biologists make recommendations, the RAC's makes recommedations but the Wildlife Board makes the final decisions.
In this case the DWR, as stated above, said that statewide archery would work under Option #2 in their opinion.[/quote]

That right there is our main problem... the DWR and the biologists don't make the decisions, a politically oriented, appointed WB makes the decisions, which in my experience have NOT been supported by the scientific data nor the popular vote...but instead by a special interest investment.


----------



## DallanC

... and lets be fair. The DWR put forth Option 1 as their choice. Had we gone with that recommendation NONE of this would be an issue.


-DallanC


----------



## bloodtrail

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Rut,
> Saying that it would condratict the entire plan was an opinion by a few individuals on the Wildlife Board and was NOT the position of the DWR and it's biologists.
> To be clear the Wildlife Board makes the decisions, not the biologists. The DWR and it's biologists make recommendations, the RAC's makes recommedations but the Wildlife Board makes the final decisions.
> In this case the DWR, as stated above, said that statewide archery would work under Option #2 in their opinion.


That right there is our main problem... the DWR and the biologists don't make the decisions, a politically oriented, appointed WB makes the decisions, which in my experience have NOT been supported by the scientific data nor the popular vote...but instead by a special interest investment.[/quote]

+1000

It is the Wildlife Board and extreme groups like the SFW that made the choice. THE DWR DID NOT SUPPORT OPTION 2! Put the blame where it belongs - on the Governer appointed Wildlife Board that can do whatever the **** it wants! This one ultimately falls on the head of the Governer! The whole system needs fixed! The Biologists should have the decision authority, not the politicians!

Getting rid of statewide archery was not even part of option 2 until the end when the SFW and a few rifle hunters started complaining that it wasn't fair that archery hunters get to hunt statewide.


----------

