Bowhunters of Utah

If you've read the article "Where Were at - Archery Deer Tags Gone in 2 ½ Hours!" (if not head on over and check it out!) let us know what you think here. The Board will be reading/participating in the responses here to see which direction they should head.

Now's your chance to get your voice heard.

One idea is to divide the state up into individual units(like Colorado). This would lower the number of hunters in some of the more over populated areas while raising the total number of tags. We could manage the number of hunters/harvest on a more controllable level creating a larger deer herd and more trophy opportunities. It seems to work in other states. I know it might mean you don't get to hunt your favorite area or with your family or friends every year but that is happening more and more now anyway.
This is just an idea I like, it needs some expansion. Pros? Cons? Let us Know.



Is it Good for wildlife?
Is it good for bow hunting?

can you clarify a few things for me, im not the sharpest knife in the drawer

proposal #5, im lost, maybe im slow but you could you clear that up for me??

and as far as proposal #3 and making the wasatch extended separate, would it be just like a LE draw and you use bonus pts etc? or how would that work

thanks for your time and effort

Fez

#5 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand this to mean that muzzy and rifle guys couldn't simply pick up an archery tag if they didn't draw their designated area or in the draw, making a rifle hunter a rifle hunter, a muzzy hunter a muzzy hunter etc.............

Also, it designates points for weapon type, not animal type.

#3 to me means that the same preference points would be used(As opposed to bonus points used on LE hunts), and that the extended hunt would be designated as a separate hunt, not an additional hunt to a general tag, meaning, you would have to choose between putting in for a general season tag or an extended tag.

Hopefully this helps and doesn't make things worse.

Tye

I'm with bowboy on this one. I thinks Colorado has nailed deer management and deer hunter management. If the state has 25+ units some of the premium units will be on a 2-5 year draw for archery but most of the units will be a 0 point draw or have left over tags.
If Utah is going to manage the deer tags using only 5 units as we currently are, I would propose option # 1. Leave the system as it is. People need to realize that with suffering deer herds and growing hunter numbers that a guaranteed tag is a thing of the past. If you put the General season archery as your 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice in the draw you would have gotten in. You could have even kept your preference points if you drew as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.

Brandon

When the deer committee met last summer, we discussed unit management in detail. Utah already manages deer by unit, as you probably know. So for example, we were able to install buck/doe ratio triggers into the management plan. (Population triggers were also approved by the committee but later removed from the DWR's plan recommendation.)

After considerable discussion, the committee could not come to a consensus on the value of managing hunters by unit. It's a simple idea that raises a lot of contentious social issues. So the discussion came to a quick end when the DWR stated that unit by unit permit allotments would result in a significant net reduction of permits without any significant benefit to deer populations.

If you can't read between the lines, let me caveat this to point out that the DWR and the Wildlife Board have two over-riding credos: killing bucks doesn't effect deer population; all management proposals must be "revenue neutral".

Finn,

Check me if I am wrong, but they manage by unit, but give tags based on region? More of a micro-management system will tend to do a better job. The more I learn about how states manage wildlife, the more I think CO really figured it out. They have figured out how to maximize quality, without sacrificing too much on the quality end.

That said, I would tend to agree with Brandon, leave it alone. Until habitat improves and numbers increase, it is what it is. Archery deer hunters in Utah have fairly good opportunity, especially compared to elk, all they have to do is apply. If you are a bowhunter, then be a bowhunter. Apply for the tag and you will more than likely be hunting deer with the bow in Utah every year. Nothing wrong with that.

I say this at the risk of offending, but one thing to keep in mind. The "easier" it is to become a "bowhunter" the harder it is going to be to draw tags. Supply and demand, the supply is fairly fixed as we know. Demand just keeps going up and up, especially for archery tags. Overall hunter numbers are dropping all over the country, but people who really want to hunt are figuring out it is pretty easy to go to the local pro-shop and become a "bowhunter"

We need to be careful,

Nathan

You're absolutely right, Nathan. It seems logical that every time I recruit a new bowhunter, I reduce my own chances of obtaining a permit. But there's more to it than that. I firmly believe that the best thing we can do for deer hunting is reduce harvest. The best way to do that is to ween hunters off the rifle.

Reducing harvest rates allows for more permits AND increased hunt participation. That increases the contribution base to Pittman-Roberts funding not to mention that archers probably spend more on equipment than rifle hunters anyway. In addition, I believe bowhunters are capable of being more selective which realistically enables such things as antler restricted hunts. Bowhunting also causes lower wound rates, inflicts more survivable wounds, "shares the mountain" better in our multiple-use world and enables hunting to be used as a management tool near population centers, (Salt Lake county).

The icing on the cake is that weening hunters away from the rifle also increases the ability of the remaining rifle hunters to draw tags.

Finn,

In theory, if bowhunters received the "extra" tags that decreased harvest produced, then you might be right on. Then the problem would be keeping hunt quality as good as possible with the increase in bowhunters.

It is a tough call. I am very worried about hunt quality and opportunity across this country due to increased bowhunter numbers and what it takes to be a "bowhunter" these days.

Nathan

These are all valid points. The way things are now it is going to make people commit to one or the other. Right now I think a lot of people only pick up a bow tag when they didn't draw their rifle or muzz tag. If people want to bow hunt they will have to decide early thus creating more committed bow hunters which is will help our ethics and sport overall.




Maybe if we can't go to smaller unit draw statewide, we could add a few more limited entry areas? There are some good ares that could be great with a little closer management.