Free: Contests & Raffles.
I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.
Quote from: bobcat on February 08, 2009, 08:51:29 PMI really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.
Quote from: bowhuntin on February 09, 2009, 07:14:03 AMQuote from: bobcat on February 08, 2009, 08:51:29 PMI really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.Actually, it MANDATES that success rates be basically equal. Here is how. If 70 % are Modern Firearms, they harvest 70% of the animals. Let's say that 19% of them are successful in order to reach the 70% take level.Now, look at archery. 15% of the hunters buy archery tags. Therefore they get 15% of the animals. It will take longer to get them so seasons are longer, BUT, when Archers reach their R/A goal of 15%, we see that it took a 19% success rate. The same as rifle. Same with Muzzy.It's mathematical. X (number of animals to be harvested) divided by Y (# of Hunters) = Z (success rate)Fill in the numbers for any of the three groups and the number of animals they are suppose to take and you will get the same 'Z' ! That is R/A. What the WAC committee is suppose to do is set the length of time each group needs to take their share. Now, as far as Archers and Muzzleloaders restricting themselves One must remember that when the division of user groups came about, the selling point made to those who chose either archery or muzzleloader and took themselves out of the MASSES of rifle hunters, was that they would get longer seasons and have THE SAME CHANCE of harvest as anybody else.I concur, if you are going to make people choose their weapon to reduce crowding, R/A is a very fair way of doing it.
take a look at which group is taking the large bulls.........not rifle hunters.and hey I don't rifle hunt so I'm not just stickin up for myself.
The Commission acknowledges that they support resource allocation. Commissioner Gutlwiler said that out loud at the Commission meeting last Friday.But what is now clear (and what will be costing bowhunters time in the field) is the mature buck and bull harvest.The WDFW is taking elk time away and changing elk dates because stats that show that 25% of the "mature bulls" killed are taken by bowhunters, but bowhunters only make up 19% of all hunters; so we are 6% over. The M/F take 60% of the "mature bulls" and are 66% of the total number of hunters; they are 6% percent under. So the M/F representative complained that archers are killing a disproportionate amount of 'mature' class bulls.What the WDFW calls a "mature" bull is, in my opinion, arguable. They define a 'mature bull' as having 5 or more points on one side. So it doesn't matter if it is a raghorn three-year-old five-point or a five-year-old five-point. They are counting it as "mature".M/F (80%) kill 87% of the mature bucks. Archers (13%) take 8% of the mature bucks.At yesterday's meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub-committee it was confirmed that the WDFW is holding strong on their 2009-11 season proposals. The only thing we appear to have gained through yesterday's negotiation is that we will again get first crack at the Sherman GMU 101 for whitetail, but the start date will be pushed back to the 20th (instead of the 10th). I hope to get a full report in a day or so.
If anyone can direct me to published information that will show that my hunch about 3-year-old bulls having five points is right, please, will you do so? I have four days to gather data to prove the point. Thanks.
So if Archers are BEHIND in their BUCK take, Why are they taking away the Best opportunity to increase our BUCK take by doing away with all the 200 units late openings???They can't have it both ways!If it's good for the M/F elk hunters then it should be good for the Archery BUCK huntersMORONS!
I don't know if they have data indicating how many points the bulls have that have been taken by all user groups. Is that a question that is asked on the hunter reports that we are asked to submit?Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.I need a copy of page 13 of Jim Zumbo's book Elk Hunting. I can view it on-line but can't print it. It says a bull in its second year (a raghorn) will have four or five points, and goes on to say that they will usually gain their sixth point in their fourth year.
