Use primitive weapons instead of cutting tags,

  • Thread starter coolspringoutfitters
  • Start date
C

coolspringoutfitters

Guest
A lot of guys are not happy about the thought of cutting tags, why not increase the primitive weapons tags? With technology the way it is, by cutting rifle tags and having people use weapons that can't shoot 1000 yards, it would give the deer a better chance at survival. Even though archers can shoot 100 yards, and smokepolers can shoot 250, it would give the deer a better chance. Think about it, back when you saw deer all day every day during a hunt, we didn't have all the high tech stuff we do today. Most long rifle guys wouldn't shoot over 300 yards, now thats a chip shot...
I know some of you will say that there may be more injuries, but I am a firm believer that animals are wounded no matter what weapon people use. For some reason, a VERY small group of people will shoot beyond their capabilities whether it be a rifle, bow, or muzz.
What is the success rate for archery, muzz and rifle??? If we don't want to cut tags, this could be a good compromise. We could even have a traditional muzz season... Just to make it interesting.

CSO

It's all about the good times...

MonsterMuleysLogo.png
 
Todd,
I'm just brainstorming... There are so many different issues with the deer herd, no one can focus on just one. So, I thought I would throw out a couple different ideas to get people thinking. It has been interesting. I like to hear different points of view and I think all of my posts have brought up some good thoughts. Either for or against.
As for the "Primitive" weapons, I agree, they are WAY more advanced than they use to be... That being said, its harder to get 100 yards from a deer than it is 1000... and you can't even see a deer with a one power scope at 500 yards. I would think the deer might have a better chance at survival if the weapons can't kill them from 3/4 mile away...
I just thought it might be a way to not cut tags so much and still allow people to go hunt. Besides that, camping in August or September is MUCH more pleasant than in the end of October... :)

CSO

It's all about the good times...

MonsterMuleysLogo.png
 
Its a thought, but you can't even get most people to talk about giving up their DH three season hunts.
 
+1 - I love the idea and will always support it, but it goes over like a turd in a punchbowl in this state. Guys whine and cry about saving the deer herd on this site and others, but if given the opportunity to hunt, they want to kill and most are scared that would not happen if their only chance was with a bow. Most guys flat out can't get it done with a bow and know it, so they will not support this approach.

This option is a win-win for hunters and deer - guys still get to hunt, but harvest of animals goes down. Makes too much sense to happen in this state :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-12 AT 01:54PM (MST)[p]CSO

I understand the brainstorming thing, however.

If its about deer surviving brainstorm this. Why are we hunting them at all? If we want deer to survive killing them or hunting them is not a good option surely you can see that. Maybe we could just sell a mule deer observing permit. Give guys a chance/opportunity to go out and look without shooting anything. If its about shooting there's unlimited opportunity to shoot jackrabbits, coyotes, prairie dogs, skunks, raccoons etc. Seriously we need to think outside of the box on this one.

What is this really about? Reducing harvest why increasing opportunity? If that's the case i will call BS. You can't tell me by increasing so called primitive weapons opportunities that you will reduce harvest, sorry I don't buy into that punch bowl. Of course unless you are using the 6 knife season. If its about keeping opportunity so that everyone who wants to buy a tag can do so, sorry to break the bad news to you....times have changed and those kind of opportunities are unfortunately in the past. Cold hard realities of all those 'issues' that have reduced the no. of mule deer across the west.

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
Weapons are far more accurate and more humane than ever before... why would you ever want to get rid of that? I for one like to be confident that I can kill an animal without losing it! A fast humane kill is what most people want! If saving deer from the number of hunters so they can come back there are few things that should be done...

Have regulations on what hunters can kill.

Drop tags.

Stop hunting all together.

AND thats about it!
 
The number of bucks killed each year has very little effect on the overall number of deer. Killing fewer bucks, by whatever means you can devise, will only result in those extra bucks being available the following year for harvest. It will not result in more bucks being produced!

What you're suggesting would help out immensely with the LE units, allowing a lot more people the chance to hunt. General hunting units are a different creature though. Not everyone can devote 10-15 days to a deer hunt. People want a chance to harvest something on opening weekend and the firearm hunts provide that.
 
"Not everyone can devote 10-15 days to a deer hunt. People want a chance to harvest something on opening weekend and the firearm hunts provide that."

I'll call BS on that all day every day!! People may CHOOSE not to devote 10-15 days to a deer hunt but don't tell me they CANT!! People want want want...do something about it if it's that important to you!! Set yourself up in advance to be able to do it. I understand different people have different priorities but anyone who seriously WANTS to kill a deer CAN give themselves the opportunity if they CHOOSE to do so...

I'm so tired of everyone's solution to make deer hunting better. With the right attitude, deer hunting in Utah is pretty damn good as is!!

~Z~
 
Todd,

I agree with you when you say that the real issue is we need to stop hunting them at all if we want to increase the deer herds, but we all know that is never going to happen as long as the DWR is funded by tag fees.

I am confused with your stance, or as you siad "I don't buy into that punch bowl", when it comes to using primitive weapons.

Do you really believe that using a bow has the same harvest rate as using a rifle???

In what world does that make any sense? The harvest data tells us that using a primitive weapon gives us a much lower success rate.

I am a Stickflipper and I can even admit that I would much rather hunt LE Elk or Deer in this state with a rifle because I KNOW my chances are much higher at success than with a bow.

Now, I know there is a lot more to this problem than this simple theory, but how can anyone argue, rifle hunter or not, that using a primitive weapon won't lower success (or harvest) rates?

What better way to keep giving people opportunity to get out and hunt than to be able to give the same amount of tags with a lowered success rate? Keeps the money coming in and keeps people out hunting while allowing the herds a little room to recover!

I will say I am a big fan of shutting things down for a while because I believe we are that far gone and something drastic needs to happen and happen soon, but we all know that money talks and in this case tags = $

Please help me understand your point here and thanks for letting me rant :)


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
[blockquote]"really.

So if you kill 350 bucks on a give unit year one are you saying that even with a high natural mortality there won't be at least 100 more bucks year 2? Production and overall population are 2 different things."[/blockquote]

I don't understand what you are saying. None of your numbers relate to anything, they are totally random. ????

My point of view is simply that buck:doe ratio has very little to do with fawn recruitment/survival. Compare the Henry Mountains with the West Desert, for example. Henry's: 60 bucks per 100 does, West Desert: 9 bucks per 100 does. Both units have very similar fawn recruitment despite a buck:doe ratio 6 times higher on the Henrys. In actual fact the West Desert has a slightly higher recruitment. So the FACTS are pretty clear: thinning out bucks has no significant effect on how many fawns are born.

[blockquote]"I'll call BS on that all day every day!! People may CHOOSE not to devote 10-15 days to a deer hunt but don't tell me they CANT!! People want want want...do something about it if it's that important to you!! Set yourself up in advance to be able to do it. I understand different people have different priorities but anyone who seriously WANTS to kill a deer CAN give themselves the opportunity if they CHOOSE to do so..."[/blockquote]

There is a literary element called "hyperbole". It is a type of exaggeration used to create effect. You must have been dying to find something to disagree with! (Note the hyperbole in that sentence, too).
 
stupidpost.jpg



horsepoop.gif


Disclaimer:
The poster does not take any responsibility for any hurt or bad feelings. Reading threads poses inherent risks. The poster would like to remind readers to make sure they have a functional sense of humor before they visit any discussion board.
 
Blanding_Boy,
I have read quite of few of the articles you have published as to the decline of mule deer, while I doing an english paper in college. I am sure you have put it out there before but, what is your solution to the problem? If the fate of mule deer was put all on your shoulders what you do? I don't ask this in an argumentative fashion but, with an honest desire to know.
 
>If UT is going to cut
>tags, sall cuts should go
>to non residents first.
>
>
>
>It was a big bodied 2
>point. (this is my signature)
>


Whats a sall cut?
Is that like denuding?
neutering?
I am a lil scared.
 
El_Matador, thanks for the response. That does make sense and I had never thought about like that.

Blanding Boy - I am truly interested in your take on my question. I am honestly trying to learn here and the more diverse opinions presented the more I feel I learn!


"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
If you want more deer, provide more habitat, food, and less predators. If you want bigger buck and opportunity, we must educate people on not shooting young deer. If only 4 year old bucks were killed, then every year there would be a new crop of 4 year olds and many that will survive to their prime.

[strong]How about this: [/strong] You shoot a buck, pull out the tooth and have it sent in to be aged. If it comes in as a 4 year old or over buck, you get to buy a tag the following year. If it comes back as younger than 4, then you have to skip a year. You could make the age limit 3, 4, 5, or whatever; it all depends on how big of bucks you want.

Of course, this would cost money,so the hunters are going to have to foot the bill. A small price to pay for a quality experience.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 10:53AM (MST)[p]Todd do you spend any time off a LE unit?

You know as well as I know Le deer hunting with a bow is a whole different game then general season with a bow. The le deer are retarded because of lack of hunting.

On general season rifle hunts most people are done hunting on Sunday with a yearling in the truck. If its brown its down. With such an effective weapon they can do it very effectively. They can shoot out the window of their truck way to easy. Pretty much any deer in sight can be killed. You don't shoot running deer with a bow. You don't get multiple shots with a bow. You can't be as selective with a bow.

So just moving some of those rifle tags to archery equipment will with out a doubt have an effect on increasing the bucks on the general season units because even the good bow hunters will have to hunt more then 6 days to get it done. Talking from experience hunting on general areas with a bow for more then 10+ years. The hacks will probably never get a deer no matter how many days they hunt. It is damn hard to get an arrow in any deer let alone wound loads of them. I put in over 30 days this year and was only in shooting distance of 3 bucks. The average hunter will not put in this much time!

There is nothing wrong with making the rifle hunter draw a tag while still allowing any hunter to pick up a lesser weapon if he didn't draw a rifle tag and still hunt.

The 33% 33% 33% tag allocations will work if given the chance!!! It is the only fair system for the opportunist and trophy hunters! But Hey if your drinking the SFW cool-aid and want to make our buck hunts oil just like our elk then this system wont make any sense.. O wait you make your money off the guys that have put in for an area for half their life and don't want to wast the five days they have to hunt. I get your angle/point of view.
 
Dont rip on me too much. Just food for thought. In any givin unit, the state wants to maximize hunting oppuritunty and if its a LE area, try to grow older animals.

Heres Another approach that might work: Point/size restriction. Mabey in a general area, must be larger than 2 points on 1 side or both sides might be realistic. If LE, 3 or 4 point... Just using numbers for figures of speech. Could go even one more step further, certain width or gross score. Alaska does this in some areas with moose, dont quote me on exact numbers but its like a bull has to have 4 brow tines on one side or 50 inch wide in select areas. Theres the arguement that a hunter cant judge exactly 50 inch if it doesnt have 4 browtines. Thats the beauty of it, if your 2nd guessing if the animal is legal or not, dont shoot it. Animal lives another day. Less harvest rate....

In my opinion, The success rate will go down, the guys who just shoot something have to idenify first before shooting. Keeps more hunters afield as the success should be lesser. Want lesser success rates, raise the bar on the size restriction. Naturally the meat hunters will might not like this idea. The horn hunter would welcome this idea as it should increase the age of animals.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-12
>AT 10:31?AM (MST)
>
>What is a primitive weapon these
>days?
>
>Are they bows that can shoot
>out past 100yards?
>
>Muzzleloaders that can shoot out to
>500yds.
>
>This is kind of similar to
>your theory that closing units
>doesn't increase the deer population?
>
>
>Todd Black
>
>Visit our YouTube page
>http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum

Amen!


"In the breast of every meat hunter there beats the heart of a secret, frustrated trophy hunter."
 
I have always thought along the same line as the original post. But lets face it, I am an archer and am bias. As I was reading this and thinking about it. In a way the state of utah, I am unfamiliar with other states archery hunts :(, they already cater to the stick and string guys. We get a long season, we get first crack at those peaceful summer bucks, plus they throw in an extended season that lets us hunt pretty much 4 months. It seems to me though it has only been the last few years that they have finally been selling out on archery tags. If they decrease rifle tags and increase bow tags are there really that many guys willing to make the switch. archery hunting takes serious dedication and is expensive. If you don't shoot regularly do we really want you out on the hill. its not like a guy who goes and sites his rifle in the day before the hunt and can shoot pretty good. I just don't think it is an idea that can make a difference. just my opinion. But hey if the state wants to do more to make archery hunting more appealing then I am all for that. How bout a utah late season hunt even for a week or two outside the extended areas. I don't think it would help dear herds but would really be nice for bow hunters.
 
>The 33% 33% 33% tag allocations
>will work if given the
>chance!!! It is the only
>fair system for the opportunist
>and trophy hunters!

I don't see how anyone can disagree with this. It's totally fair and evenly divided. What on earth is wrong with this? And why haven't we implemented it yet???

Simple answer: MONEY
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-12 AT 09:28AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-12 AT 09:20?AM (MST)

Heres some facts and stats on the archery hunts. The buck harvest of archery hunting in Utah is not insignificant! These #'s are taken straight out of the DWR's 2010 Big Game Annual Harvest Report. 2010 is the latest #'s the DWR has published.

This is the % of total harvest by weapon type for 2010. Do not confuse this with success rate.....this is % of total harvest by weapon type, not % of successful hunters by weapon type.

% of total harvest - 13% archery, 18% muzz, 69% rifle

Now here is the sucesss rate by weapon type for 2010.
25% Rifle, 22% Muzz, 17% Archery
Not a lot of difference.

2010 General Season
Total # of hunters by weapon type
13,984 Archery Hunters or 18,151 archery hunters if we include the Dedicated Hunters
13,189 Muzz Hunters or 17,813 muzzle hunters if we include the Dedicated Hunters
45,810 Rifle Hunters or 50,825 rifle hunters if we include the Dedicated Hunters

The rifle harvest is greater than the archery, but that is because there are 2.5 times more rifle hunters than archery hunters with a little higher weapons success rate.

2010 General Season Buck Harvest (Including Dedicated Hunters)
Total bucks harvested statewide - 18,967 bucks
Total Archery Harvest - 2,532 bucks (13% of the total buck harvest)
- 2,532 bucks dead and in the freezer before any muzzleloader or rifle hunter has an opportunity to hunt. Imagine a group of 2,532 bucks - that is a lot of bucks.
- In any statistical analysis, a 13% decrease or increase is significant. If you think 13% of the harvest is not insignificant, then cut your paycheck by 13%. I think you will notice the cut.
- Divide 2,532 bucks equally among the new 30 units and you get a harvest of 85 bucks taken by archery within each unit. Again imagine a group of 85 bucks - that is a lot of bucks in one unit dead and in the freezer before any rifle or muzzleloader hunter has an opportunity to hunt the unit.

FOR THOSE THAT THINK THE STATE SHOULD HAVE TAGS DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONG WEAPON TYPES. Now how fair is that really? Take a moment and look at it from another perspective. There is a far greater amount of people that want to hunt with a rifle or muzz than archery. So, who is it fair for? Only fair to those who want to hunt with archery. Archery hunters will get A LOT more permits for their small group at the expense of the Rifle group. That seems a little unbalanced. Yes, archery hunters may say it is fair. But how fair is that to the majority of deer hunters (rifle hunters) in this State? As you can see by the stats, the archery harvest IS SIGNIFICANT and DOES contribute to the decrease in buck/doe ratios. So, giving more tags to archery really wouldn't get your increased buck/doe ratio as quick as you think.

To make it fair (as has been stated in previous posts) and balanced, there needs to be a larger percentage of available tags to rifle hunters, because that is the majority of deer hunters. If tags are cut, it needs to be across the Board among all weapon types. Decreasing rifle and muz tags while increasing archery tags will increase opportunity, BUT IT WILL INCREASE OPPORTUNITY FOR ONLY THE SMALL GROUP OF ARCHERY HUNTERS. It will DECREASE OPPORTUNITY for rifle hunters. Then it is said, "YEAH come join our group".......WELL, maybe there are those that do not want to be forced (by giving all the tags to archery hunters) to join your group. Why should their opportunity to hunt with their preferred weapon type be cut, when you can still achieve an increased buck/doe ratio by cutting tags equally among the weapon types?

Also, all other surrounding States still issue the majority of deer tags as RIFLE DEER TAGS. These surrounding States have better buck/doe ratios than UTAH's general season units with the majority of their tags being rifle tags.

I do think we need to cut tags, but not at the expense of one group, just to favor another. That is unbalanced.

The asking of 33% of the tags by a small group of hunters is a little unbalanced when considering the # of hunters that want to hunt with a rifle and given the stats I presented above.
 
the 33% 33% 33% tag allocation

with a bow you cannot shoot anything in sight. You cannot shoot a bow out of your truck window. you seldom ever get multiple shots at a deer with a bow. All these things factor into a higher quality bucks left over for one more season. which is fair for the trophy hunter!

Having the tags split 33% you apply pressure more evenly and spread hunters equally.

The best part about the 33% system is you can now put in for the rifle tag and if you don't get the tag you can then put in for a muzzy or bow for your second or third chance and possibly still draw a tag and hunt but it will be with a lesser weapon. Now if a person is such a die hard rifle hunter and wont stoop to a bow we could in this system reward them with an extra preference point for not hunting and gives them a better chance at the tag he prefers.

This system gives everyone a fair crack at a rifle tag!

All seasons get the same length of time which is fair! You reward a hunter who sticks with one weapon with an extra preference point in the draw. You have now shorted the range and effectiveness of the weapons and allowed more deer to reach maturity. Now if you choose to not put in for a 2nd or 3rd choice archery of muzzy tag then you are voluntarily restricting yourself "this is also fair". If the tags don't sell out then we as hunters also volunteered to cut our own tags by choosing to not hunt with a lesser weapon. This is better then just having the state cut your tags. It also again allows more deer to reach maturity.

How is this system not a fare system? Its a win win!
 
Rackster,

I think you make a good point but your numbers can be a little misleading as well.

The difference between the rifle and archery success rates is "significant".

Based on the numbers you presented a rifle hunter is 32% more likely to fill their tag than someone hunting with a bow.

That is a pretty "significant" increase in odds.



"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
Change the opening of the Archery and Rifle hunts to Wednesday. That will work to with the 33% Allocation. We gotta try something...
 
SWbuckmaster - you are still favoring a small group of hunters over a much larger group. You said that it is voluntary if they do not put in for an archery tag. That may be true, but it would not be voluntary when a large portion of the rifle tags are given to archery. The rifle opportunity would be signifcinalty cut. A straight across the Board cut would retain a much larger pool of rifle tags than your way....even with a siginficant tag cut to get buck/doe ratios up. The guys putting in for rifle tags are a much larger group and would have a much decreased chance of getting a rifle tag under yopur proposal. At any rate, You missed my point! Your proposal is favoring a small group at the expense of a much larger group, and it is unnecessary. It will only benefit those who hunt "archery only"! Also, why should Utah go to 33% archery tags when no other State does that? AS I said before, the other surrounding states still have higher buck/doe ratios than Utah and still give a majority of their tags to rifle hunters. I do believe your proposal is meant for one thing......to get more tags in the archery pool so archery hunters won't have as hard a time drawing a tag. Again, buck do ratios can be improved by straight across the Board tag cuts among weapon types without favoring a small group over the much larger group.

OSOK - not sure where you got the 32% from. At any rate, the #'s of bucks harvested by archery cannot be disputed. The success rate by weapon type cannot be disputed either. Those are the #'s. I do agree that you are less likely to harvest a buck with a bow than a rifle, but..........the odds are not as dismal for archery as is commonly believed.
 
I got the 32% as follows:

Archery success = 17% / Rifle success = 25%

17/25 = 0.68-1 = .32 or 32%

Which is simply showing that a Rifle hunter is 32% more likely to fill his tag than an Archer.

Are there other factors that affect success rates? Of course, but in general a rifle is going to have a much higher success rate than a bow.

That's all I am saying.

Like I said, I think you make a valid point but as others have pointed out, something's gotta give or none of us will be able to chase these critters!



"The problem with quotes on Internet Forums is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
 
OSOK - I played with the #'s for a minute and I see how you got the 32%. If you take the sucees rates of rifle and archery and then get the % of those # will give you the % more likely of rifle hunters to harvest than archery(17 is 68% of 25), which is 32%. That percentage (32%) is significant, and i'll give you that. That is a good point, however but not surprisng. Really, with all that is said of how low success is of archery hunting, I would have expected rifle hunters to have a much larger likelihoood of harvesting over the archery hunters. I would have thought that it would have been upwards of 90% more likely.

So, you proved the other point I was making, which is archery hunters have a higher success rate than is said and that their harvest is a significant part of the harvest.
 
Look what happens when we manage are elk for trophy and rifle. It now became oil.

Doing it the way I did maybe my kids can draw a tag some day.

avatar_2528.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 07:56AM (MST)[p]This deer population cut tags or not in UT BULLCHIT is never gonna change! Reminds me of soap operas, you could flash back 5 years and read the chit here or forward ten and pick right up where you let off!

Nobody wants to give up their piece of the pie or sacrifice ANYTHING but they want change in the population and herd quality. Guess what UTAH? Somebody has to give up something to get this right! If every idea is shot down because some puzzy isn't willing to give a little then you will kill your last deer in your state in your lifetimes and your kid that you all say you want to see be able to draw tags and hunt won't have to worry about that.

Grow the puck up and wake the puck up and realize that you have much more to lose here than the ability to hunt every year or with the weapon YOU choose in this!

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Wisconsinfarmer - I agree. But then we also need to take the compound bow away. Take the overdraw off. Take away the graphite arrows. Take off the site pins. Take off the silencer. Take away the quick release.....etc. Archery needs to go back to the recurve or the long bow. You do this and the success of archers will go way down and the annual harvest of archers will go way down. As is archers take over 2,500 bucks annually. That is a lot of bucks.

huntindad4 - I agree with you as well. But if tags are cut, everyone (archers included) should share in the cuts it is going to take to make a smaller pie. There is no biological reason why rifle hunters in Utah should take it in the shorts "Again", while the archery hunters get additional tags. The biology is not there. The stats I presented above show that. It is just one small group (archers) that wants to get more of the pie, while everyone else gets their part of the pie drastically cut. No other State in the West gives 33% of their deer tags to archers. I also realize that not all archers want the 33%. It is really only a handful of archery hunters that keep wanting more.

The pie needs to be smaller, but all groups of hunters need to be willing to take the cuts necessary to do that.
 
Take the overdraw off? Graphite arrows? Silencer? Who the hell uses that crap on their bow?

Rifle tags should be cut more because plain and simple... they kill a lot more deer than archery hunters and MZ hunters.
 
I agree that all involved should give something. I'm down with the recurve or longbow since I hunt with a recurve and not a compound anyway.

Opportunity seasons and tag numbers are not conducive with rifle hunting with todays equipment IMO. I think this is one way Oregon has it right in that you can hunt with archery gear on a pretty much wide open basis and rifle is draw only (for mule deer) except I think they have their unit quotas too high for what their populations are right now.

I know the brilliant mob here will remind me how chitty oregons deer herd is right now so I will remind you that which has been said here by a few intelligent fellers and that is the fact that there are 20+ reasons for deer herd decline and Oregon still has too many tags and doesn't allow dogs or bait for bear and cougars.

It was said above in a comparison of the Henries and another unit with a much lower buck to doe ratio that does were not any more successful at breeding and raising fawns well you cannot look at buck to doe ratio alone in this comparison. Are both units at the same level in the carrying capacity of the winter range? Are both units comparable in predators? What about deer distribution in the rut? Because if deer on the Henries are spread out and deer on the other unit are concentrated because of food, water or terrain then it will take a different ratio of bucks to breed the two populations of does. In other words don't compare apples to oranges.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Rackster

looks like you didn't pay attention to what was said in the wildlifeboard meeting. The archers are already getting it in the shorts when it comes to tags. They have been for years! They are going to increase them.

If you want to play numbers 2,000 deer isn't crap compared to 300,000 deer especially when your talking bucks. Also the caliber of bucks guys are taking with there archery tags are not the high end or older bucks. Archers take from a broader range of bucks. Its the high efficient rifle that can take what ever is in sight.

You sit here and think there are only 15,000 archers well there are 10,000 extra dedicated hunters. that's 25,000 tags.

You could just bag the dedicated hunter program and cut tags back to 40,000 state wide and allow you you to hunt all three weapons. If you suck with a bow and a muzzy then you are only shorting yourself 20 extra hunting days.
 
just make sure you keep giving the most dedicated hunters all three seasons to hunt,now whats the argument about? until Utah stops that nonsense nothing will change, it will be constant and steady poor hunting, you can take that to the bank. In Nevada they let kids under 17 hunt all three seasons, I understand that concept, but letting the most dedicated trophy hunters hunt all three? Only in the late great state of Utardia.
 
SW, maybe you should push for the use of crossbows, that way you too could shoot out of the window of a truck. Just trying to help.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 12:54PM (MST)[p][blockquote]"It was said above in a comparison of the Henries and another unit with a much lower buck to doe ratio that does were not any more successful at breeding and raising fawns well you cannot look at buck to doe ratio alone in this comparison. Are both units at the same level in the carrying capacity of the winter range? Are both units comparable in predators? What about deer distribution in the rut? Because if deer on the Henries are spread out and deer on the other unit are concentrated because of food, water or terrain then it will take a different ratio of bucks to breed the two populations of does. In other words don't compare apples to oranges."[/blockquote]

I don't know all the other variables. But if buck harvest was so closely tied to fawn production would you not see that reflected in the surveys? Here is a chart showing 46 of Utah's deer units and their respective buck:doe ratios and fawn:doe ratios. All these numbers are a 3 year average from 2009-2011.
image002.png

The data is sorted by buck:doe ratio. As that ratio increases you can see no correlation whatsoever in the fawn:doe ratio. It should no longer be just apples to oranges now that I've thrown 44 other types of fruit into the bowl :)

*edit* Just for reference, the Henry Mtns(63 bucks) and West Desert(9 bucks) are the 2 extremes on the chart.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 01:21PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 01:14?PM (MST)

swbuckmaster and lucaar -

I provided the stats above for the amount of hunters by weapon type and the # of bucks killed by weapon type. Those are the facts. 2,500 bucks is a crap load of bucks that are taken by archery on an annual basis. If 2,500 isn't crap, then the 13,000 that is harvested by rifle hunters can't be much more than crap. Additionally, if there were as many archery hunters as rifle hunters, then the archery harvest would go up considerably.

I disagree that archers have been taking it in the shorts.....that just isn't true. Archers have been increasingly getting more of the pie and/or special privileges over muzz and rifle hunters for quite some time. You can look that up in the Wildlife Board archive for the last 10 years. Its there for you to see, since it sounds like you have not listenened to the Board.

All I am saying is that archery hunters need to quit asking for more and more of the pie, while advocating taking the opportunity away from everyone else. Archery hunters need to share in the cut. Their harvest is significant. The majority of deer hunters are rifle hunters and a small group of archers should not get 33% of the tags. Archery hunters are a very small group compared to the rifle group. The real reason that some archers want the 33% is to increase their odds of getting a tag every year. Sure, who wouldn't want that?

We agree on one thing......there needs to be tag cuts. But I do not advocate a small group getting an increase of tags, while the larger group gets a drastic cut.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 04:20PM (MST)[p]The last board meeting Jon Bear said "isnt there a way of increasing the archery tags instead of cutting tags". Anis basically said "sure the archers are already taking it in the shorts. The lE units are 60 20 20. The general units are 60 25 15 so yes we could move some of the tags around"

So rack do you think we should get rid of the dedicated hunter?

Do you think we should just make everyone equal in the draw and when you draw you can hunt all 3 seasons? That seems fair to me!

If tags need to be cut then its easy to just cut them in this system. No need to worry about dikcn'en anyone in the process cause everyone is equal.

When I was a kid it was fun to be able to hunt all three weapons!

So rack is this ok with you or is this a no go because its your way or the highway?

Just a guess but in the past when I deal with a guy that has a lifetime license the dislike the bow hunters for killing their buck. So rack you one of the lucky ones?
 
Well matador you have answered nothing with your graph without variables. I never said it was tied directly to buck to doe ratio. In fact I feel ir is more directly tied to distribution of does during rut and feed! But many here claim anything over 18 bucks per is an EXCESS buck.and a freebie to be killed. I say not because if distribution is such that 60 bucks cannot breed all the one hundred does then 18 sure the puck ain't gonna get them.

All your graph proves is that JUST because there is a high buck ratio doesn't mean there will be a high count of fawns. In fact if we are to believe your graph then it is better to have 41 bucks than 42 but if you have 43 your right back up there.

Your extra fruit answers nothing.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Its funny this whole debate is rifle guys whining that archery guys are selfish and "they" (the rifle guys) should be getting more of the pie. Kinda sounds a little hypocritical. Since everyone thinks I'm selfish I can say that!





It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-18-12 AT 07:57PM (MST)[p]Funny how you can go to a small archery only area and hunt it for 4 months with 15,000 regular archery tags then hunt it with 10,000 dedicated hunters, and hunt it in the rut and find le quality bucks, then cross themselves road to where rifles are allowed and only find 2 points. Ya it must be the archers wounding and shooting all the deer.

This is why I've always said there is a balance between archery only and the bs we have now. 33% rule is that balance!
 
SWB, what do you think the 33% rule will change? You have stated that you hunt 180" bucks every year with archery equipment, while most rifle hunters will never even SEE a buck that big. You have stated that you have LE quality bucks on the extended hunt during the rut, something else rifle hunters don't enjoy. You already have a longer season and the times of year when big bucks are visible all to yourself with the archery hunt. I'm really trying to figure out what it is you feel the rifle hunters owe you.

By the way, I hunt with all weapons and I like the way the perks are spread out evenly right now.
 
swbuck -

I could go with that suggestion, but I doubt that will get through the RAC's and Board. I too remember the days when I was a kid and you could hunt all 3 seasons. I liked it. Thats why I have been a Dedicated hunter in the past. I also have a bow and have hunted on the extended archery. I would have hunted the general archery, but I am not fond of velvet bucks......I'd rather have the polished horns.

At the Board meeting that may have been what was said.....BUT that is not what has been happening. I was not there at that particular Board meeting, but if Anis did say that, then he is incorrect. The Divison has also made the statement that the archery harvest is insignificant, which is absolutely false!! Look at the Archived Decisions of the Board and it will tell the story of archery hunters getting increased priveleges over time, and for no biological reason. I have been to too many RAC and Board meetings where it never fails that some archer trys to get a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of rifle and muzz hunters. Usually it is a rep from the two archery associations (UBA).

As far as being my way or the highway......well I am fairly head strong on what I believe. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't be who I am.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-12
>AT 10:31?AM (MST)
>
>What is a primitive weapon these
>days?
>
>Are they bows that can shoot
>out past 100yards?
>
>Muzzleloaders that can shoot out to
>500yds.
>
>This is kind of similar to
>your theory that closing units
>doesn't increase the deer population?
>
>
>Todd Black
>
>Visit our YouTube page
>http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum


Heres just a shot:

Recurve bows: You can have extended seasons and whatever if you use a recurve. Use whatever arrow/tip you want, just has to be recurve. If you go compound you get a 9 day season.

Sidehammer Muzzleloaders: Yeah we could go flintlocks if you want but lets say sidehammer(no inline) using an ignition system no larger than a musket cap. Not sabots, no pellets, no optics at all, iron sights. Go this route, you get the old muzzy season back, 7 days, first week of Nov. Want to stay modern, you get one week, third week of sept.

As for rifles, pretty hard to draw a line in whats modern vs. primitive so there would be no change.

I killed my first muzzy deer with a sidehammer Thompson New Englander, #11 caps, and Maxi-hunters, using loose powder. I would gladly hunt with this set up in exchange for hunting the first week of Nov.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
Its funny how I say get rid of the dedicated hunter and make everyone draw a tag where that person can hunt all three weapons. This is the most fair system out and you goons still find away to say im trying to make rifle hunters owe me something.
 
I think every one misses the point here. We can go back and forth on what we think is right and fair but in the end it all comes down to the mighty dollar. My guess is the big guys up top are going to sell the optimal amount of archery tags as they think possible. They will add perks like long seasons and extended areas to make an archery tag more desirable. If they could sell as many archery tags as rifle tags they would. More money in there pocket and less dear killed. I don't think the state or any state would have a problem killing off enough deer to manage there herds. That is just my problem with all this. I don't think most in charge are as concerned with the deer herds as a majestic group of animals that depends on us for survival, but as a commodity for them to use to bring in revenue. I am sure there are those who care but from what I see it is a money game. What is right or fair I don't know. I am an archery hunter and love the opportunities I have but I have to hunt way harder than I ever did when I used a rifle, so I am greatful for those perks. I wish there was a way to manage herds so every hunter could take a big buck every year. All I know is I eat tag soup a whole lot more than venison and I am ok with that. I just love to hunt.


Peace
 
swbuck -

Look MAN, originally you said you wanted tags TAKEN AWAY from the rifle hunters and given to YOU and other archers. So, thats what Elmatador and I were talking about (What do the Rifle hunters owe archery hunters?). IN other words - TAKE from RIFLE Hunters and GIVE to YOU and the Archers.

As I said, I could go with your suggestion on doing away with the Dedicated Hunted Program, cut tags, but then when you do draw a tag you can hunt all 3 seasons. Everyone would share in the pie and one group would not be favored (or taking away from another group). I do think that is a good suggestion and I said that in my previous post. Although I think it will be hard to convince the DWR and Board.
 
Why is this argument always about Rifle vs Archery? I 100% agree if we do cut tags they should be cut from the rifle tags. If a guy just flat out doesn't want to hunt with a bow that's fine. But why not give more muzzy tags and cut the rifle tags. We would kill less deer have more opportunity and you can still use a gun. Granted you can't shoot 1000 yards but at least you can hunt more often and see better bucks in the field.

I love to hunt all three weapons. I wish we could all have rifle tags and kill good bucks year after year but that is not reality. Ask yourself are you a hunter or a killer? If all you want to do is kill, go shoot pot guts at 1000 yards. For me I would rather hunt with a bow or muzzy and see more bucks and come home with tag soup than shoot a 2 point at 500+ yards.
 
Catapults..Roman Catapults...I want to launch a 1 ton rock 500 yds and if I miss it'll smash all the dead blow-down rolling back down the ridges and improve habitat...killing two birds with one stone RIGHT??
 

Similar threads

Tristate
A story of what can be.
2
Replies
101
Views
3k
elkfromabove
E
D
Beware of Guided Mule Deer Hunts in Huntsville UT
Replies
97
Views
5k
wstrntines
wstrntines
urge2hunt
Idaho Semi-Guided Deer & Elk Hunts Available for 2024
Replies
2
Views
1k
urge2hunt
urge2hunt

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

1A00ECBC-EAAA-4CA5-9E4F-72B7AA5918FE.jpeg
WGI_0048.JPG
Screenshot_20201006-091043_Gallery.jpg
fullsizeoutput_763.jpeg
B9AE778D-502F-4215-A221-BDCD7C88AB81.jpeg
7DCA8C9B-3CA7-4819-B3B5-1A32D668B0A9.jpeg
Screenshot_20211111-171327_Instagram.jpg
P1250169.JPG
95AC0DCD-B911-4ECF-BBD9-B846C8D91BE7.jpeg
Screenshot_20200726-152237_Gallery.jpg
IMG_1045.JPG
IMG-20201006-WA0003.jpg
Back
Top Bottom