LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-08 AT 04:28AM (MST)[p]Mixed emotions.
I think 12a and 13a definitely needed it, long past due, Congrats G&F. I agree 12b probably didn't need it, but they just decided to move all units N of the Ditch together and added 13b, so a good move.
For the rest of the units south of the ditch, I just think its a move toward a future, bigger plan. The rest of the state in a draw, yes that's obvious, but that's not my concern. I'm more worried about the # of rifle tags that continue to hold steady, and this "opportunity" mentality, crowding and trying to reduce success rates to increase opportunity.
Look at the proposed rifle seasons coming, moving 3/4 of the tags from two separate seasons into one season, trying to reduce hunter success yet still harvest the same number of rifle bucks in hopes of selling more tags.
If you want to reduce archery kills to increase the heard, then I'm all for it and take my tag, but don't do it to sell more or the same amount of rifle tags. This is where I feel we need more wildlife management and less business suppply and demand management that I see. If I'm sacrificing just to balance opportunity for rifle hunters and not based on improving the heard then something is wrong in my mind. Especially with no actual data on harvest, and only skewed guesstimates as those harvest statisitcs already posted. Ridiculous.
They won't sell more total tags now that archery tags are reduced, but they can kill more rifle deer and less archery. Its not what I want to see as an archer. I see the archers carrying the weight of poor management.
Some units desperately need a cut in rifle tags as well, the G&F just doesn't see it that way.