# Change the plan again!



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Since the "new" plan the WB approved doesn't go into effect until 2012, I would suggest that there is still time to get option #2 thrown out. Granted, with the current WB members, it is a long shot, but I think hunters need to keep a strong voice and keep making the same complaints about what they have done. Maybe if we are lucky a couple of the WB members could be swayed to change the plan again next fall...gain back the statewide archery by lobbying to the RACs and the WB!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree. These events should be nothing more than motivation for people to be proactive.

Change only happens with action. Make it happen people.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I agree, but i think someone very educated on the subjects needs to start something we can get behind and steam roll it.


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

What do you guys think is more critical Statewide archery or shortening the archery hunts? Does it make sense to give up on the Statewide archery fight and try to just save the longer archery season?

Mark


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I would be happy regaining either one...which is more important to me? Good question. I think I would rather have the longer season if I had to choose.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I would rather have season length than statewide archery...if I had to choose one over the other...


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm with Stable........


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Statewide doesn't matter to me. Lenght of hunt is the important one to me.

We need to get people to understand that the length of the hunt needs to correlate with success rates. If success rates with archery are significantly lower than other weapons, then the season should be extended to make up for the lack of success. Isn't that the whole purpose? It has nothing to do with how many days you get to be in the field. Bring it all back to herd management \ health.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I agree, and I already sent the board members my letter explaining my displeasure with their decision. 
I too think we need some type of lobbyist or state representative to get the ball rolling so we can get behind them. There is a year left to try and get this mess fixed.

As for the other question, I think I would fight the statewide first. We don't know how short the new season will be yet. The statewide is an incentive to get people to choose archery and out down the gun. Take away all the incentives and guys will put down the bows and pick up the guns. I wonder how many more deer will get killed because they are now going back to the guns???


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Why should we 'settle' for either/or? Also, remember that the two WORST Board members are GONE next month, so we MUST be proactive in getting two people of principle appointed! Then, and ONLY then, will we have a shot at reversing this mess.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Agreed!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Both are incentives that benefit wildlife AND the hunters who choose to hunt with a gun. I think a compromise will be necessary. But like Pro, I don't think that compromise needs to be either/or. There are other ideas.

One thing's sure, the stage is now set to determine whether future funding for wildlife will come from a relative handful of high-end trophy permits, as Peay would have it, or from a much larger number of public hunters. If the public stands a prayer, we've got to ween as many of our fellow hunters off of the rifle as we possibly can. That won't happen without incentives.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Sorry Finn but I wouldn't care if they opened the whole state up to archery,allowed you to take 5 deer per season and ran the season from August to January. I would not put my rifle down and pick up my bow. I love hunting with my rifle as much as Archers like yourself.elk22,bowdacious and others love hunting with your bows. If I had to choose between not hunting at all and having to hunt with a bow I would choose not to hunt. Before any body says it's just cuz you can't get close enough to kill with a bow I haven't shot at an animal over 100 yds since 1999. Matter of fact I killed a deer today at about 70 yds. Nothing better than lining up a shot squezzin off and the animals arches it's back jumps straight in the air and hits the ground dead. That chit makes me tingle all over. You just don't get that with a broadhead. Even with the awesome epek. By the way I love shootin a bow I just don't like hunting with one.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't apologize to me. I'm not an elitist and I love my .06! Back when I started hunting, we had the best incentive for bowhunting ever - an additional tag for the bow season. I took several deer and elk with a rifle before I ever did with a bow. My last rifle hunt was a cow elk hunt just a couple years ago.

I couldn't support a return to two tags, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. But it's a fact that incentives like statewide opportunity, longer seasons and the extended hunts have increased participation in bowhunting while causing no sacrifice of any kind to hunters who prefer other weapons. In fact, those incentives obviously reduce competition for rifle tags by taking guys like me out of the rifle draws.

Eliminating 13,000 permits will reduce buck harvest, sure. It will also reduce tag revenue as well as Pittman-Robertson revenue. But a number of options incorporating archery would also reduce buck harvest while offering hunters some choice AND be revenue-neutral.

Nothing wrong with hunting with a rifle. But there's everything right about hunting with a bow. Stripping away incentives that encourage that choice is just plain stupid.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I know your not an elitist Finn. I agree about stripping the incentives that is just plain wrong. Taking away the statewide and shortening the archery was pure BS with absolutely no reason based on the percentage of success.In fact I would hazard to say we could double the length of the archery season with out causing any damage to the herds and would most likely help because many would switch from rifle with that incentive. I just took your first post as if we don't get rifle hunters to switch to archery then hunting will end for all of us.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Like I posted in another thread, as a businessman I can understand to a degree wanting to trade in 91,000 units at a cost of $35 each ($3,185,000) for 20,000 units that sell for $160 each ($3.2 mil). I mean heck, you'd have almost 1/4 the paperwork and on the ground work and would have the same (possibly more) revenue... but when it is a publicly managed and State owned item such as wildlife, the public ought to have a say in how it's done, which is totally contrary to the vote from last week. 

On the other side of that, look at how successful retail businesses are running their companies - it isn't about the quality as much as it is about drawing in the masses and selling LOTS of product for LOTS of savings. Can you imagine how much a new gun will cost or a new bow will cost once SFW gets the deer tag numbers down to the 40,000 range? For a bow shop or gun shop to keep afloat, they will have to follow the model and raise weapon prices so high that it'll be a deterrant to people to get into and stay in a shooting sport.


----------

