Question about Gen archery

M

Muleyhunter05

Member
Messages
50
Me and some friends drew general elk tags and Im just going through thinking about stuff. With our general tags we can buy the 30 dollar non resident archery tag and hunt the general archery hunt with the general tags right that goes through August right? Thanks everyone Im just stressing sitting here thinking about the hunt.
 
The archery permit is $35 and the special seasons are either part of or all of September, as listed in the Final Regulations that nfh mentioned.
 
The only August hunt I ever knew of was the Thorofare which was a few years ago. But since the regs/seasons are subject to change every year I don't know if it still exist. Then the Therofare rifle season started in September and again I don't know what the season is now for that. I haven't taken the time to look.
 
I was at meeting Thursday night and there may be some new type 9 areas. Those are archery only elk areas, but we also recommended/agreed to make those the only archery hunts in two elk areas. No hunting archery on a type 1 in those if that proposal goes through.

So don't assume that if you have a type 1 you can always hunt archery in that elk area.
 
What areas did they add type 9 licenses for? They really need to look at all Limited entry areas for this proposal.
 
As soon as I read the post by ICMDEER a short while ago I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with the idea of separate weapon tags for all areas. It didn't even take an hour and I'm not surpised at who posted it!
 
>I was at meeting Thursday night
>and there may be some
>new type 9 areas.
>Those are archery only elk
>areas, but we also recommended/agreed
>to make those the only
>archery hunts in two elk
>areas. No hunting archery
>on a type 1 in
>those if that proposal goes
>through.
>
>So don't assume that if you
>have a type 1 you
>can always hunt archery in
>that elk area.


Does this mean that they are going to 'choose your weapon' in two elk areas?
 
TOPGUN, you make me chuckle. Not sure what you are insinuating, but it struck me as funny. Like I have some special power and/or bias. Just a guy who has a passion for Wyoming wildlife and who happens to go to a few meetings.

Anyway, it's speculation right now. What I understood is that a few of the Big Horn areas are already that way; I sure could be wrong. There's discussion about others, but it is only discussion. Struck me that nonresidents would miss out if any change is made this year because their application deadline has already passed. And in the same vein, G&F would miss out on a significant chunk of change because all of any new type 9 licenses would go to residents at a much lower price.

Go to your local season setting meetings. They are coming up. The Wyoming Game and Fish has them every year in every county as far as I know.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-14 AT 09:24PM (MST)[p]>TOPGUN, you make me chuckle.
>Not sure what you are
>insinuating, but it struck me
>as funny. Like I
>have some special power and/or
>bias. Just a guy
>who has a passion for
>Wyoming wildlife and who happens
>to go to a few
>meetings.
>
>Anyway, it's speculation right now.
>What I understood is that
>a few of the Big
>Horn areas are already that
>way; I sure could be
>wrong. There's discussion about others,
>but it is only discussion.
> Struck me that nonresidents
>would miss out if any
>change is made this year
>because their application deadline has
>already passed. And in
>the same vein, G&F would
>miss out on a significant
>chunk of change because all
>of any new type 9
>licenses would go to residents
>at a much lower price.
>
>
>Go to your local season setting
>meetings. They are coming
>up. The Wyoming Game
>and Fish has them every
>year in every county as
>far as I know.


***You totally misunderstood my post. I was referring to the post by Feduptwo that followed yours, LOL! Yes, there are some units in the Bighorns that either don't allow archery on a type 1 when there is a type 9 license and at least one that does have a 2 week season for type 1 along with the 30 day season the type 9 tag has.
 
Bow Hunters of Wyoming had some Type 9 proposals at last years Wyo legislature and they got ripped apart by many.

Maybe by going slower and for just a unit or 2, this idea will creep along and include many more units over the following years.

Robb
 
>Bow Hunters of Wyoming had some
>Type 9 proposals at last
>years Wyo legislature and they
>got ripped apart by many.
>
>
>Maybe by going slower and for
>just a unit or 2,
>this idea will creep along
>and include many more units
>over the following years.
>
>Robb

No Robb, it wasn't a type 9 bill,

Last year BOW wanted 10% of ALL type 1 licenses set-aside as archery tags. The sponser of that bill got so much grief he didn't show up at committee hearing for his own bill. It died of course.

Now there is word BOW wants Nov archery only mule deer tags. When does this nonsense ever stop? It seems types 9 licenses are here to stay and unfortunately it's not as a wildlife management tool, but a hunter management tool.

It's sad to see our opportunities eroding away in Wyoming.
 
The Bowhunters of Wyoming better keep themselves in check...not many other hunters are very happy with their selfish ways.

I'll be on the phone tomorrow seeing about the "speculation" that a couple outfitters and BOW are trying to force on everyone with more type 9 tags. As jm77 stated, they got their arse handed to them on their bill last year.

The days of bowhunters saying they have no impact on the resource are over. This isnt 1970 and a handful of guys shooting recurves and longbows.

Its mechanical dowel flinging devices, thousands taking to the field, and they're shooting 60-100+ yards and having 35% success rates.

They still want the public to believe they arent having any impacts, dont put any pressure on elk, deer, pronghorn, etc. etc.

The last straw for me was the bear regulations that were recently adopted around Laramie. Rifle hunters will be lucky to kill a bear at all in the fall seasons, beings how archery hunters are going to have it pretty much to themselves.

Why am I not surprised that BOW is not worrying about the resource and asking for November mule deer buck hunting? Mule deer are in the tank and they want November archery seasons...WOW!!!!

Time to jump into reality.
 
A archery season in November??? Why cant they just bow-hunt in November during the rifle season? I don't think we need another archery season.

I do enjoy archery season. I actually have ok luck in September but depending on my mood I will grab my bow during rifle season and get in the deep woods and do just fine.
 
Thanks jm77 as that is what I was talking about.

I never looked at it like that buzz---very true what you typed, lots more modern bows and certainly lots longer shooting accuracy.

Robb
 
Hey Buzz, Why don't you try sticking to the facts. Nobody representing BOW has ever asked G&F for a November archery mule deer season. We get it. You don't like Bowhunters of Wyoming.
 
Hey Ron,

Next you're going to tell me nobody from BOW asked Hicks to carry legislation to make 10% of all elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, moose, goat, and bison tags available to archery only hunters.

Are you going to also deny the "award" BOW gave Hicks at the Sportsmens Reception?

Are those facts?

Or would you rather not talk about it?
 
>Hey Buzz, Why don't you try
>sticking to the facts. Nobody
>representing BOW has ever asked
>G&F for a November archery
>mule deer season. We get
>it. You don't like Bowhunters
>of Wyoming.


***Hey newbie first time poster! jm77 was the first to post that there was a rumor BOW was asking for an archery Novemeber mulie hunt, not BuzzH! BuzzH then came on with his comment, so it would appear that if two well respected long time members of this site have heard the same thing that just maybe where there's smoke there's fire!
 
For those who feel swayed by the comment about BOW's selfish ways, please consider this. Bowhunters of Wyoming is an organization that cares just as passionately as anyone about the resourses of Wyoming. We are very involved with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Commission and have established good relations with them.

What we have done for Wyoming's wildlife is donate the following:

$77,878 for conservation projects.
$42,375 for Education.
$20,100 for law enforcement.
$17,332 for Access Yes Program.

Yes, we are working closely with the department to try to establish some more Type 9 elk tags in Limited Quota areas. The interest and demand is there. No, we have not recommended that the department make it a choose your weapon option.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-14 AT 07:16PM (MST)[p]>For those who feel swayed by
>the comment about BOW's selfish
>ways, please consider this. Bowhunters
>of Wyoming is an organization
>that cares just as passionately
>as anyone about the resourses
>of Wyoming. We are very
>involved with the Wyoming Game
>and Fish Department and Commission
>and have established good relations
>with them.
>
>What we have done for Wyoming's
>wildlife is donate the following:
>
>
>$77,878 for conservation projects.
>$42,375 for Education.
>$20,100 for law enforcement.
>$17,332 for Access Yes Program.
>
>Yes, we are working closely with
>the department to try to
>establish some more Type 9
>elk tags in Limited Quota
>areas. The interest and demand
>is there. No, we have
>not recommended that the department
>make it a choose your
>weapon option.


***That's all real nice and I salute the group for that. However, as a group you have also shown your greedy side trying for tag setasides that got shot down last year. Everyone will be watching closely to see that crapolla like that doesn't happen again. There are enough people, including us NRs, that are now interested and involved that you can't take a dump any more without someone finding out what's going on. Remember that Sir!
 
>Yes, we are working closely with
>the department to try to
>establish some more Type 9
>elk tags in Limited Quota
>areas. The interest and demand
>is there. No, we have
>not recommended that the department
>make it a choose your
>weapon option.

I want ronniz(BOW) to explain to me how Type 9 tags fit into Wildlife Management. Now take your time and get it right.
 
Ron,

You dont want to comment on your bill last year? I'll remind you, BOW asked for 10% of all the tags issued in the State of Wyoming, for all species, to be archery only. Not much consideration given to those that may not archery hunt, or those that may want to do both. I hear you're fracturing a lot of support from your own membership over this agenda. Is that a good thing?

As to the type 9 elk comment, theres NO biological reason for archery hunters to be awarded seperate tag allocations.

The only reason you're pushing type 9's so hard is that you want better draw odds in trophy units, plain and simple. How about archery hunters apply for type-1 tags like everyone else? Any reason, biologically, why that shouldnt continue? Anyone that draws a type 1, other than the areas YOUR group jacked up in the Bighorns, is allowed to archery hunt the full month of September. How much more opportunity does BOW feel is appropriate? I guess 30 days to hunt bull elk when they're the most vulnerable isnt enough? I guess 30 days to hunt in general units with archery gear, while rifle hunters get 9-14 days is somehow "fair" in your book?

You and BOW have a very self-serving agenda, and many Residents, including a lot of archery hunters, are sick of it.

The good that BOW does in commendable, no question. But, all the good deeds you do, wont matter when BOW makes a run at a self-serving agenda.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, YES, I bowhunt, and have since 1984.

Where we differ is I believe in fairness in the drawings for LQ, and LE permits. I dont need to lobby the Legislature for a set-aside of tags for purely selfish reasons.

I wonder how much support BOW would give allowing ML hunters to apply for type-9 tags? I mean, they're both "primitive" weapons.
 
I have been a member of BOW for many, many years.
I try and join as many state bow orgs as I can for the states I apply with in and hunt.

I sure as hell do not know the local, in state politics of any of these other states bow orgs.

I feel confident stating that I have never felt any type of deception or backdoor bargaining by BOW for all the years I have been a member.

No--I have never personally met this Ron N. fellow but we have had many chit-chats over the years and I feel he is a very respectful dedicated to hunting type person.

Just my simple input---

Robb
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-14 AT 07:17AM (MST)[p]>I have been a member of
>BOW for many, many years.
>
>I try and join as many
>state bow orgs as I
>can for the states I
>apply with in and hunt.
>
>
>I sure as hell do not
>know the local, in state
>politics of any of these
>other states bow orgs.
>
>I feel confident stating that I
>have never felt any type
>of deception or backdoor bargaining
>by BOW for all the
>years I have been a
>member.
>
>No--I have never personally met this
>Ron N. fellow but we
>have had many chit-chats over
>the years and I feel
>he is a very respectful
>dedicated to hunting type person.
>
>
>Just my simple input---
>Robb

***Robb, how can you say in one sentence that you don't know the politics of the organization you belong to and in the next one say you don't feel there has been any deception or back door bargaining? That is certainly what many of us would call what was done by BOW last year when they tried to get that 10% tag set-aside for archery hunters and now they are trying to get more A/O tags in units like they already have and it's for no real reason other than greed as BuzzH stated! Now friends out there, along with others on this Forum, are telling me they are hearing rumors of a possible attempt by BOW to get an archery only season for mulies in November. It sounds to me that if these rumors are true, and they won't be rumors if any such Bills are introduced in the Legislature's session next year, that just maybe you need to rethink what groups you belong to. It's a damn shame that more and more of these type of groups only seem to be looking at their own selfish wants and are, therefore, alienating the overall body of the hunting community!
 
No, there is no biological need to have archery only seasons. This is strictly a hunter opportunity issue. I fully understand that we will not all agree and that's ok. BOW has not asked that the G&F make more areas choose your weapon, only implement Type 9 tags for more hunter opportunity and for revenue for the department. In our proposal, Type 1 license holders would still be able to bowhunt.

Archery demand has shot up dramatically in recent years, and we have been asking the G&F to manage accordingly for that increase in demand. We have had ongoing meetings with them for several years now.

I know some will bash me for the idea that all we want is easier to draw tags. Not true. On average, there is a 9% difference for drawing Type 9 tags vs. Type 1 tags and the gap is shrinking quickly.

What I can do is cite statistics about some Type 9 units. On average, in the last 7 years, it became 25% more difficult to draw a Type 9 license, while becoming 3-4% easier to draw a Type 1 license. These are statistics from Units 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45 and 54. The stats are from 2006-2012.

It is my belief that the drawing odds for Type 1 licenses will not be affected, or may even increase slightly by taking out all people like myself and others who only wish to hunt with a bow.
The G&F gets increased revenue which may delay or avoid future license fee increases for all of us. - Draw opportunities are better balanced to demand. - Rifle hunters have less competition for type 1 tags as bowhunters shift applications to type 9 tags.

For better or worse, that's our position guys. I know we will still probably not agree, but I wanted you to have our ideas firsthand and not from any rumors.

Thanks. I would be happy to visit with any of you any time.
Ron Niziolek
 
Hello on a couple levels...as a first time contributor to the forums, and as someone new to this conversation. I can confirm, as I sit on the executive council of BOW, that the organization is not attempting to get an archery only season for mule deer in November. I have no idea where or how that rumor started, but it's never even been part of any discussions we've had, nor anything the membership has stated as something they'd like us to pursue. As you can see, a few of us from BOW are trying to engage in a helpful conversation here, so I hope that shows that we're not trying to alienate anyone. I would encourage you all to contact one of our officers to discuss your issues instead of badmouthing a group of really amazing individuals before you even gather all of the information. We're all more than willing to discuss our initiatives but I'm not going to participate in the type 9 debate here - only because there seems to be too much heated emotion already generated. I think it would be awesome, however, if we could all have future conversations either on the phone or in person, especially after the emotions have calmed. The one thing I will not tolerate is having our organization be accused of back door bargaining. We lobby and discuss our initiatives just as any other organization. That's how progress happens. It's as legit as any efforts out there. As fellow hunters, I wish you all the best in the field and in your efforts to pursue your passions. But as we move forward, let's try to treat each other with as much respect as possible and open more doors for personal discussion rather than arguments in forums. It's too difficult to cover all the details and background of issues in what are essentially public emails. The contact information for our officers is located on our website. Please do not hesitate to engage in productive conversation. Who knows, your perspective might open some eyes, or ours could help you see where we're really coming from. We might not always end up in an agreement, but at least we can merge in some kind of understanding of each side of the issue and agree to move forward respectfully in our separate efforts. I can assure you that we're not a group of horrible people who want the rest of the hunting world to suffer. In fact, we're quite the opposite. If any of you would like to attend our banquet in Laramie on the 29th, I invite you to do so. It would be awesome to have you there, and I think we'd all benefit from some good dialogue.
 
Ron and mka,

You can claim you arent alienating anyone all day long...but thats just not a fact. I've seen it first hand, at the legislature last session.

Since you're both ignoring my questions about the bill that you had Hicks carry to the legislature I'll ask again.

How about some explaination of how that bill was anything but a self-serving bill strictly for the benefit of archery hunters at the expense of every other Sportsman in the State of Wyoming?

Theres no reason to allow any more type-9 tags in the State. Archery and rifle hunters currently have the EXACT same draw odds in every type-1 unit in the State.

The only difference is that archery hunters have access to 100% of the available opportunity, as well as 100% of the available resource. Its an undebateable fact, that archery hunters DECREASE rifle opporunity via harvesting animals before a rifle hunter even has a chance. Every elk killed within a special archery only season, is one less elk available to rifle hunters.

I'm fine with the September archery rut hunting, but what I'm not fine with is the continued pressure that BOW puts on the GF and resource at the expense of all others. Instead of being selfish and always wanting more, more, more maybe sit back and think how unselfish the rifle hunters are. They ALLOW you 30+ days of archery elk hunting, with compound bows shooting 100+ yards, when bull elk are the most vulnerable. Perhaps you shouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth, and realize that rifle hunters are being very generous allowing you that unique opportunity.

Theres an old saying that applies here...pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. I'd keep that in mind next time you're "thinking" about making a run at a self-serving agenda.

There is NO question that all this type-9 crap is doing, is creating more opportunity for archery hunters at the expense of everyone else. Its being proposed to increase draw odds for archery hunters in LQ areas.

Undisputable FACT.
 
BOW Did Not ask Senator Hicks To Present That Bill Last Year. In Fact, We Disagreed With Him Doing So. You Can Ask Senator Hicks Yourself. Our Membership Does Want More Type 9 Tags But We Want The Decisions To Be Made By The Game And Fish, Not Be Made Legislative Mandate. The Only Bill We Have Asked Senator Hicks To Present In The Last Two Years Was The Bill This Year For A Lifetime Archery License.
(Sorry Every Word Is Caps...It's Doing It Because I'm Now On My Phone)
 
Strange??? In particular since people identifying themselves as B.O.W. reps spoke in favor of it at the Senate TRW committee hearing.

If BOW was not in favor of it, whey did they support it in testimony at the Senate and House TRW committee hearings?

When things dont make sense and add up, theres usually a reason why.

Somebody doesnt have their facts straight...and I was there and heard the testimony. Kind of narrows it down to who may be in full on fabrication mode.
 
mka
That is not what I was told in Cheyenne. Are you aware of another group of bowhunters that pushed the bill with Hicks?

I for one here in Natrona County have started a dialog with G&F about this type 9 issue. The system we have now is a good one and no matter what BOW says, type 9 licenses lead to 'Weapon of Choice".
One only has to look north to see it has happened already. Now we have the same talk in elk area 16 and 24 out of the Laramie District.

Type 9 licenses are simply an avenue for one group of sportsman to get the advantage of better drawing odds. The are not a tool for better wildlife management.
 
Sure wish we could have a face-to-face conversation about this...there's so much detail that would be best in a real conversation. But I'll try to provide what I can, especially now that I'm back on a computer and can type better. Can I ask that we have more person-to-person conversation in the future though? It sure would help people, I think.

When the bill went to the Senate side last year, we'd been in lots of conversation about various aspects of it. We didn't agree with having legislative mandate over the type 9 tags. We didn't want a blanket mandate on every area. Our membership would like more type 9's and we want to negotiate that with the Game & Fish for certain areas in the state where they make sense (which I already am well aware now that you think they make sense nowhere - you've made your point loud and clear. I can respect your opinion, but I'm going to just continue to tell you our side of this because you've asked for that information). But, as you can recall, the G&F were looking everywhere possible for funding opportunities and we were on board with that aspect of things, because that bill would have definitely brought in more funds for the department. Overall, though, we still weren't that comfortable with it. But you asked if we had requested the bill to begin with, through Senator Hicks, and I answered it - no, we did not.

Then when the bill proceeded on to the House, the G&F asked BOW if this was really, truly what we wanted. We said no...we'd much rather have the decisions made by the G&F and not make it a legislative mandate. We told them that we would just like the opportunity for discussions for future type 9 tags in some areas of the state. So, BOW probably had more to do with the bill dying at that point than anything else.

I hope this provides some clarity to what, from the outside, probably appeared to be much different. You see, Buzz, there are a lot of details to these situations and it's unfortunate that you've made a lot of assumptions about us as individuals and as an organization.

Again, we're more than happy to always discuss these details with you or any other person. It would be awesome if they could be real conversations over coffee or during a phone call. I'd like to really encourage that dialogue moving forward, please.
 
I'm not trying to be rude here...but I think I'm done talking on this thread. I appreciate you all hearing out some of the details associated with BOW and things that have happened. I also appreciate the opportunity to clear up some rumors. But I again just want to encourage real conversation either over coffee or on the phone. It's just very difficult to have a clear and comfortable conversation on these forums. Best wishes.
 
mka,

I appreciate your response, but its more than apparent that what actually transpired was NEVER meant to be something that was transparent to the general hunting public.

I still have some major questions, which you again avoided regarding SF155 last session.

Two items:

1. If BOW was so dead set against the idea of taking 10% of all type-1 tags for all species, then why did they support it at the TRW Senate...and HOUSE committee hearings?

2. If Hicks is truly not representing the views of BOW, why then the award BOW handed him at the Sportsmens Reception?

It just doesnt add up that BOW was not pushing that bill, and in fact, AGAINST SF155 and Senator Hicks doing so. The facts cant be denied! I was THERE.

I'm fine with one-on-one discussions, but its more important, and appropriate, that TOTAL transparency on these issues is shared via forums like this. One on one discussions lead many to believe that, in fact, there are things to hide.

I'll not apologize for what I know happened last session. I dont believe BOW is being honest about type 9 tags, and I KNOW they're not being honest with last years SF155. I heard the testimony.

I have nothing to hide, and I dont mind being taken to the woodshed by concerned sportsmen. jm77 has taken me to task on several issues on this board...and thats great. Broad shoulders and I'm all about the truth.

Transparency is not something to avoid. Any group better be willing to own what they represent.
 
I've Told The Truth And Do Not Take Kindly To Being Called A Liar. The Conversation With The Game And Fish At The Time Of The House Hearing Happened In private. Sorry You Weren't Able To Overhear It. We Truly Were Happy When The Bill Died. And The Plaque Of Recognition We Gave Last Month Was For Overall Efforts In The Areas Of Wildlife. Again, The Only Bill In The Last Two Years We Asked Senator Hicks To Present Was This Year For The Lifetime Archery License. Believe What You Want. I've Given You All Of The Details And The Truth, And Been As Transparent As Possible. I Think You're Not Ever Going To Be Open To Hearing It.
 
mka & ronniz

On the issue of Nov mule deer archery tags. Be careful how you boast about affiliate members and how they are included as members of your organization.

I have been told that the request for those tags came from a group that is one of your affiliates.
 
Damned if I couldn't replace some of these comments by BOW with SFW comments we've heard in the past about eveyone just having the wrong perceptions as to what they really want and are for, LOL! I'll come right out and not mince words and say BS to some of these distortions that have been posted in the last couple hours by these new BOW members here. Tags only good for archery aren't going to add enough money to the G&F budget to amount to a hill of beans, so to say you're helping the G&F is pure horse manure! All they will do is take away a number of licenses that are now available to ANYONE if they get in line and compete with EVERYONE else like they should. Type 9 tags sound great, but as has been stated before, all they do is manage humans, not the resource! I have no reason to believe that BuzzH didn't hear exactly what he stated at those meetings regarding the stance and testimony of BOW representatives on last year's Bill to set aside 10% of the tags for themselves. Furthermore, to give Hicks any kind of an organizational award for the BS he's been pulling the last couple years, unless theyr'e in bed with him, tells me more than I'll ever want to know about the group and it's goals! It appears two guys came on this thread trying to put the fire out similar to when SFW discussions get going, but now when it's getting a little hot with the true facts coming out from people who have been there and know what's actually going on, they're going to run for cover and can only discuss it one on one in person. That's about the way Bob does with his SFW schemes that, according to him, are never for anything but the good of us all, LOL!
 
re: the Nov mule deer archery tags...it came from one of our affiliates? I have no idea who you're referring to but we did not request it. We are not showing support of it. This forum was actually the first we'd heard of it. Maybe you should talk to them about it instead of naming us as the responsible organization.

re: the bill from last year, here's a message from the area rep that represented us at the hearings...
"Here are a few facts about SF155.
BOW favors Type 9 tags in limited Quota areas on a case by case basis. BOW recognizes that type 9 tags are not good for all species or even all areas.
BOW talks with the Game and Fish annually about type 9 tags.
BOW did not approach Senator Hick about type 9 tags or SF155
BOW did speak in favor of SF155 on the senate side.
BOW spoke against SF155 on the house side stating - BOW would rather type 9 tags be discussed with the Game & Fish on case by case bases, at which time the house failed to bring the bill out of committee.
These are the true facts?..and I too was there!!
BOW area 5 Representative
Cheyenne Wyoming"

Seriously, guys, I've given you all that I can on these topics. There's really nothing more to say. I'm guessing you're going to continue accusing us of things that aren't true, but that's on you. We're not who you're making us out to be. Everything I've said is true and I've provided all of the details there are to provide. I've told you everything. So, if you're going to continue this thread with more accusations, I'm just not going to reply because it's just unproductive. If you want to ask legitimate questions, I'll be happy to respond.
 
Ya, I just changed my mind. I'm no longer responding, regardless if you have questions. It's not because I'm scared of transparency. I've told you all everything there is to say. You know all the details. Nothing more to give you. But it's more than obvious your minds are made up about a lot of things and you're just going to continue with your badmouthing and mistrust. I'm not going to continue to let it affect my day. Take care and God bless.
 
>re: the Nov mule deer archery
>tags...it came from one of
>our affiliates? I have
>no idea who you're referring
>to but we did not
>request it. We are
>not showing support of it.
> This forum was actually
>the first we'd heard of
>it. Maybe you should
>talk to them about it
>instead of naming us as
>the responsible organization.
>
>re: the bill from last year,
>here's a message from the
>area rep that represented us
>at the hearings...
>"Here are a few facts about
>SF155.
>BOW favors Type 9 tags in
>limited Quota areas on a
>case by case basis. BOW
>recognizes that type 9 tags
>are not good for all
>species or even all areas.
>
>BOW talks with the Game and
>Fish annually about type 9
>tags.
>BOW did not approach Senator Hick
>about type 9 tags or
>SF155
>BOW did speak in favor of
>SF155 on the senate side.
>
>BOW spoke against SF155 on the
>house side stating - BOW
>would rather type 9 tags
>be discussed with the Game
>& Fish on case by
>case bases, at which time
>the house failed to bring
>the bill out of committee.
>
>These are the true facts?..and I
>too was there!!
>BOW area 5 Representative
>Cheyenne Wyoming"
>
>Seriously, guys, I've given you all
>that I can on these
>topics. There's really nothing
>more to say. I'm
>guessing you're going to continue
>accusing us of things that
>aren't true, but that's on
>you. We're not who
>you're making us out to
>be. Everything I've said
>is true and I've provided
>all of the details there
>are to provide. I've
>told you everything. So,
>if you're going to continue
>this thread with more accusations,
>I'm just not going to
>reply because it's just unproductive.
> If you want to
>ask legitimate questions, I'll be
>happy to respond.


***So let's get this straight once and for all! If those are the TRUE facts above that you have just posted, then one is exactly what BuzzH stated when he said BOW represenatives testified in favor of SF155 while he was there to witness it! One post says no and now you say yes you did. Do you not see why those kinds of distortions (notice I didn't say outright lies)lend themselves to people not trusting anything that is said when you do a 180 like that?
 
You're wrong if you read what I actually said. One post does not say no. It says that the conversation with the G&F happened in private. I didn't address the fact that we did testify against it because I didn't want to spark a confrontation since Buzz insisted he heard differently. I left it to the BOW rep who actually stood there and testified to make that statement. So, do you see that there was no distortion or lie? No 180. No problems. You guys are trying to make us into something we're not. Ugh...I said I wasn't going to reply anymore. I seriously have to be done with this. I have other stuff to do to today. I'm just not going to read anymore of your replies because then I feel obligated to respond. It just has to stop.
 
"You're wrong if you read what I actually said. One post does not say no. It says that the conversation with the G&F happened in private. I didn't address the fact that we did testify against it because I didn't want to spark a confrontation since Buzz insisted he heard differently. I left it to the BOW rep who actually stood there and testified to make that statement. So, do you see that there was no distortion or lie? No 180. No problems. You guys are trying to make us into something we're not. Ugh...I said I wasn't going to reply anymore. I seriously have to be done with this. I have other stuff to do to today. I'm just not going to read anymore of your replies because then I feel obligated to respond. It just has to stop."

***Continue to deny it all you want, but there are at least two posts by you guys up in black and white on this thread today with one saying BOW did not testify for SF155 and the other you just posted saying the group did in the Senate, just like Buzzh said he heard the BOW guy testify in person at the meeting that was certainly not private. I'd slink slowly away if I were you too, because where there is one untruth there may be more and I'm not one to give a person the three tries and your out gig before I call BS when we're dealing with things that can be answered with a simple yes or no!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-14 AT 02:02PM (MST)[p]I guess maybe I just ask too many tough questions. Beings how I was there when alot of this stuff happened, I'm afforded the luxury of not having to guess what was said, and by whom it was stated.

I still have a few questions regarding sf155, if BOW was really not in support of SF155, and were unhappy with Hicks...then why was there support for it in the Senate TRW committee hearing? I still have the "PowerPoint" presentation that Hicks gave when he presented the bill to the TRW Committee. Bigger question is if BOW was really not supportive of SF155, that clearly was an egg in the face for BOW...why would you give the guy an award that made your group look so foolish?

Also, if its not too much to ask, I'd like to see a list of all the things that Hicks has done via the Legislature that BOW deems worthy of an "award".

I will give full credit for Hicks' support of SF45 this year, thats much apprecitated. Other than that, I've not seen much positive for the Department or Wildlife that he's supported. In fact, his sheep bill last session, set a very bad, and potentially damaging, precedent in how we deal with livestock/wildlife issues.

I'll cut to the chase here, BOW simply made a run at 10% of the available tags in Wyoming. BOW didnt oppose it "from the beginning", testimony proves they wanted SF155 to pass.

BOW was sampling the water, and I can assure you, if nobody would have been contacting the Legislature against SF155, this bill would of found its way through the Legislature, and 10% of every tag in Wyoming would be archery only. BOW decided to not support it, only after the fertilizer hit the ventilator. BOW wouldnt have stopped this Legislation...and thats a fact.

The last thing I'd do as an organization, is give a Senator an award that I was opposed to on something as directly hitched to my organization as 10% of all tags.

BOW got caught with not one, but BOTH hands in the cookie-jar.

Since that didnt pass, now its work through the Commission to get the type-9 tags.

I think most can read "sign"...count me in the group that can.
 
We had a conversation with the G&F and they asked us if the bill was what we truly wanted. We said no. That was when the bill died. I stated that as my way of avoiding a direct statement against Buzz saying what he heard...ya, I guess I avoid confrontation. He tried to get me to fight with him again by again stating what he heard. I again avoided it by saying that we talked to the G&F privately. But the BOW rep who was there was fine with stating outright what he said during the hearing. Worked for me. I didn't want to go there with an argument when Buzz was so insistent on what he heard.
So, there were two things that happened at that hearing...we had a private conversation with the G&F that let us express how we felt about the bill and then the BOW rep made his testimony.
I'm not really slinking away from anything, other than this time suck. You are just using me saying that I'm leaving the discussion as an opportunity to talk smack about me. It's not right. Everything I've said is true and has addressed your questions. The end. Have a wonderful day!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-14 AT 02:13PM (MST)[p]BuzzH---They not only got caught with both hands in the cookie jar, but now there are posts by these top BOW guys in black and white on this thread with complete contradictions on where BOW stood on SF155. For the life of me, I don't know how they can't see that or is it more that they have two guys typing while not reading what the other is saying first?! Maybe they need to have just one spokesperson so at least he either gets things right or wrong and they know who to either clap for or blame, LOL!
 
>We had a conversation with the
>G&F and they asked us
>if the bill was what
>we truly wanted. We
>said no. That was
>when the bill died.
>I stated that as my
>way of avoiding a direct
>statement against Buzz saying what
>he heard...ya, I guess I
>avoid confrontation. He tried
>to get me to fight
>with him again by again
>stating what he heard.
>I again avoided it by
>saying that we talked to
>the G&F privately. But
>the BOW rep who was
>there was fine with stating
>outright what he said during
>the hearing. Worked for
>me. I didn't want
>to go there with an
>argument when Buzz was so
>insistent on what he heard.
>
>So, there were two things that
>happened at that hearing...we had
>a private conversation with the
>G&F that let us express
>how we felt about the
>bill and then the BOW
>rep made his testimony.
>I'm not really slinking away from
>anything, other than this time
>suck. You are just
>using me saying that I'm
>leaving the discussion as an
>opportunity to talk smack about
>me. It's not right.
> Everything I've said is
>true and has addressed your
>questions. The end.
>Have a wonderful day!


***WTF---Can't you read what you wrote before you make responses? Right in your post you stated one of the things the BOW rep said was that the group testified FOR SF155. How in the he** is that a contradiction on the part of BuzzH or myself when BuzzH says that is exactly what he heard in OPEN testimony by your Rep?!!!
 
Buzz and TOPGUN,

It appears that you both are competing for a weiner wagging competition:) I don't know who's winning, but let's try having some positive dialog. I just spent an hour on the phone with jm77 and that phone call was much more productive than spending time on here typing. We ended up agreeing to disagree I think, but he's a hell of a nice guy. I'm willing to bet that we'd all have a good time if we could sit down and discuss isses over a cold beer.

I'm not on BOW's executive council, and wasn't when this bill was introduced. I am a past President of BOW though. When I first heard there was a Type 9 bill introduced, I was on my phone and email supporting it. Gradually, through discussions with BOW members and officers, we worked our way through the bill and some of the negative ramifications of it and decided that it was not in anyone's best interest for it to pass. The move was made to kill it. So despite what you might believe, despite your efforts (correct ones I might add), the bill still would not have passed.

As for "now just going through the Commission", Buzz, I made a Type 9 presentation to the Commission in 2006. This is not something brand new we are trying to sneak through. It has been a genuine yearly dialog we've had with the G&F.

As for some of your other questions, I do not have an answer for you. How about you come to our annual meeting in Laramie? I'll buy you a beer and we'll discuss whatever you'd like.

As sportsmen, we are usually not that far off on our core beliefs as my recent conversation with jm77 proved. How about enough of the bashing and let's find some common ground to do something productive?
 
Ron,

Real easy...leave the remaining type-1 LQ elk areas alone and as they are. Everyone applies for the same tags, everyone has an equal chance at the tags.

Archery hunters get 100% of the opportunity, both seasons, and animals available to them.

Thats productive, no reason to reinvent the wheel and cause a bunch of grief between BOW and every other sportsmen in the State of Wyoming.

Savvy?
 
Buzz,

I hear ya - I really do. I just have a different opinion. Add Type 9 tags for the people who only wish to archery hunt and have no desire to take away a tag from someone who wants to rifle hunt. Type 9 hunters are restricted to the archery season only by choice. Type 1 or 2 hunters can still hunt archery hunt as well as rifle but won't have to compete in the application process with a bunch of applicants who only want to bowhunt.

I'm talking as a sportsman and a member of BOW. Again, I am not speaking for them since I'm not on the Exec. Council.

Ron
 
Ron,

So what you're saying is create type-9, that archery only guys can apply for...but if draws odds are better for the type-1 and 2, then they can apply for those. Sounds like a win-win for archery hunters, and a shot in the arse for those that only rifle hunt. There will be archery hunters applying for ALL three tag types. Sounds "fair" to me...(sarcasm).


So, are we going to take quotas away from type-1 and type-2 tags to create the new type-9's? If not, how does BOW justify additional tags and pressure being put on the resource? If we add type-9's on top of the 1-2 tag types, how is that going to impact the resource?

Oh, thats right, I forgot, archery hunters dont impact the resource or apply additional pressure.

You're right about one thing, we arent going to agree on BOW and their tag grabs.
 
Damn you are pigheaded Buzz. I try my hardest to have a level headed discussion and you act like a spoiled teenager bully that needs a good ass kicking. You're on quite a power trip.

If anyone would like a copy of BOW's proposal to the G&F department, feel free to email me for a copy. It spells out exactly what impacts there are for hunters and the resource.

On a final note, for any bowhunters, please join BOW and let your voice be heard. We welcome diversity of opinion in our ranks and feel it will only make us a stronger and better organization. Thanks guys. Ron
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-14 AT 05:20PM (MST)[p]Wow Ron, calm down!

I pointed out to Ron in our conversation today that I am against type 9 licenses because they are prone to all kinds of mutations, so to speak, like 'Weapon of Choice' for one and a variety of different applications.

In some areas type 1&2 are allowed only 1/2 of the bow season. In other areas no bow season for 1&2. Outfitters, in their infamous wisdom, talked G&F to have type 9 tags in general areas, knowing full well that residents would not buy them and they would be available to NR as leftovers. There is also the real possibility of more pressure on the resource(namely buck deer & bull elk). How many bowhunters would apply for antlerless only type 9 tags?

And lets not forget the possible loss of opportunity for young hunters who might have to choose between seasons in their early hunting careers. This is how it would be in those areas where Jim Freeburn and Tad Anderson (both outfitters) want hunters to choose their weapons.
 
Wow is right! Ron gets all bent out of shape because he comes on this thread and BuzzH tells him exactly what their ideas would do and why and gets called pigheaded and he should get his arse kicked. That's a real good post to get people interested in your organization Ron! Everything BuzzH and jm77 have stated is right on the money if Type 9 tags are increased and there is no way you can logically dispute that more tags will not stress the resource, especially when they are only in favor of one particular segment of hunters they represent that already have the best deal in all of the western states. That, to me, says the people proposing it are a bunch of greedy bass turds in plain English.

As for mka and his statements that I have brought out and he says is not a 180 I will again refer to his post #39. In it he specifically states that BOW did not favor SF155. However, he then gives a synopsis of what a BOW Rep. from Area 5 sent him saying they are "true facts" and it includes the statements that (a) BOW spoke aginst SF155 on the House side and (b) BOW spoke for SF155 on the Senate side. Now if that isn't a 180 I don't know what is!
 
Ron,

I guess presenting facts is too tough for you to handle.

I'd be cautious of calling anyone "spoiled", when YOU'RE the one asking for archery only tags for nothing more than better drawing odds.

I'm not asking for a set aside of tags that only people that live in Laramie, have a last name that starts with H and ends with K, can apply for.

I'm asking for nothing but leaving the current system in place. A system that affords equal opportunity for all applicants in a random draw, no matter their choice of weapon. I'm fine with archery hunters having a month of elk/deer/pronghorn seasons with the tags they draw prior to rifle hunters. I'm fine with archery hunters being allowed to hunt bull elk, at their most vulnerable time, for an entire month.

Maybe a bit of self reflection of the great opportunities you're already afforded as a bowhunter in Wyoming needs to be revisited on your part. Instead of constantly asking for more, maybe you should be happy with what you already have.

Like I said, I've bowhunted since 1984, killed lots of animals with a bow, including many in Wyoming. I dont expect or want anything more, in paricular in light of the huge advances in archery equipment.

Theres plenty of good reasons to shorten archery seasons and limit technology rather than expand seasons, tags, and technology.
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
812
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
FirstNightOut
Pine Valley Archery - Help!!! 🙏🏼
Replies
5
Views
281
one_dryboot
one_dryboot

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

71BD7D00-9B9C-4D7A-8606-8DE139E4D308.jpeg
20220415_180343.jpg
5978F653-88A8-43EB-91F5-6EEABD98471A.jpeg
IMG_7828.jpeg
FDA53CCA-2665-4B7A-A1C9-5A549B3D7449.jpeg
bull on turkey tank.jpg
Amazing Velvet Droptine Buck
20230815_215307.jpg
IMG_2347.jpeg
061AAB5F-4292-4C81-8E7C-C555D7B3F97E.jpeg
E00D82C9-B63F-4B40-866E-C445BB25C9E6.jpeg
3517EDE8-6D22-4685-94B6-424B8FF5B120.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom