Quick question for you bow pro's

[RadSav]

Archers have lost some days and permits yet archery is the user group that has seen the largest increased in size (participation) and success rate over the past 10 years.  As popularity and success increases something has got to give.  It could have been a lot worse.

As far as equipment - archers used to be limited to 65% let-off and 400 grain arrow minimums.  Both hurt many youth and lady hunters as well as aging bowhunters.  Now we have no let-off restriction and minimum arrow weight is 300 with a 6 grain per pound minimum.  Not ideal, but definitely getting better.

Muzzy hunters just a few short years ago could not use jacketed bullets and/or sabots.  Both should greatly improve the efficiency (external and terminal) of most muzzy hunters now that they are legal.  Again it's still not perfect for all of us (I myself would like to see 209 primer usage) but it's getting better.

The WDFW director has to balance revenue, stewardship and all three of our sport hunting groups.  And everyone involved demands everything to be fair.  To see the challenges and positive changes we have to look at the numbers...

Between 2000 and 2010 this state lost 12.5% of our deer hunters and 17% of our elk hunters.  That is a loss of about 19,000 deer and 15,000 elk hunters that paid lots of tag, permit and license fees.  This drop in hunters is consistent with the overall national averages so you really can not blame the state for that one.  Blame entitlements and the progressive movement as history proves when one rises the other falls.

In 2000 archery deer hunters saw a 19% success rate and in 2010 the success rate improved 32% to 25.1%.  During that same period archery deer hunting participation increased by about 2,250 bowhunters or 12.5%.  Archery elk hunters in 2000 saw a success rate of 9.3% and in 2010 that improved 17% to 10.9%.  During that same time bowhunters participation in elk hunting increased by 16% or 2,300 bowhunters.  Archers may have lost some opportunities, but their success ratios increased at a greater rate than participation.

Similarly muzzy deer hunters in 2000 saw an 18.5% success rate and in 2010 the success rate improved 37% to 25.4%.  Participation in muzzy deer hunting increased by 11% in that same time period.  Between 2000 and 2010 muzzy elk hunting saw a decrease in participation of 9% while the success rate improved by 7%.  In looking into year by year numbers it was clear that the additional modern rifle cow tag opportunities led to the decrease in muzzy elk participation.

Modern rifle deer hunters lost 22,000 or 18% participants between 2000 and 2010.  They also lost 2% in success rate during that time falling to 25.5%.  Modern rifle elk hunters lost 16,000 or 26% of participants in that time period.  Success rate for these elk hunters improved by 29% in that 10 year span.

So I would say that fairness, if graded by success rate, has improved greatly in the past ten years.  Especially for deer hunters where variation in success rate is less than 0.5% between all user groups.  Elk hunters are not quite as close, but if one user group had a reason to complain it would be the modern rifle group as they experience a 5% lesser success rate under the more successful muzzy hunters.  Though the state has made it clear they want to encourage more participation in muzzy seasons.  That may be what we see reflected in those two success ratios.

If we narrow our view to just the past 5 years those numbers don't look quite as good.  Success rates have been hit hard in all user groups since 2005 when there was a spike in success and the balances between groups was not nearly as even.  There has been a lot of changes since then.  Some worked and some did not.  Though I do think it shows a definite attempt toward balance and fairness while keeping a conscious eye on stewardship and revenue.

I share the skepticism and negativity at times.  Especially if I take a narrow view of certain trends.  But working with a long term graph shows definite positive trending.  I'd most certainly like to see a faster result and many changes for the better.  However I have the luxury of worrying only about the archery user group and my personal enjoyment.  The last thing I would want is the responsibility and political nightmare the WDFW director must endure.

As far as equipment changes - they definitely have been for the better for archers and muzzy hunters. 

I do believe that pointed discussion and negative feedback are the essential tools needed to change course in a positive direction.  I encourage everyone, whether you agree with me or not, to respectfully voice those to the state.  It's far more productive than crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. 

Of course I could be completely wrong.  And, I am sure many if not most will be certain I am. But what can I do?  That is my personal opinion.

[dreamingbig]

As far as equipment - archers used to be limited to 65% let-off and 400 grain arrow minimums.  Both hurt many youth and lady hunters as well as aging bowhunters.  Now we have no let-off restriction and minimum arrow weight is 300 with a 6 grain per pound minimum.  Not ideal, but definitely getting better.

Good points.  Some equipment changes for the better but I hope they don't approve mechanicals and electronics on bows as well.  As an user group we need to draw the line somewhere.

If we narrow our view to just the past 5 years those numbers don't look quite as good.  Success rates have been hit hard in all user groups since 2005 when there was a spike in success and the balances between groups was not nearly as even.  There has been a lot of changes since then.  Some worked and some did not.  Though I do think it shows a definite attempt toward balance and fairness while keeping a conscious eye on stewardship and revenue.

I share the skepticism and negativity at times.  Especially if I take a narrow view of certain trends.

The past 5 years is what I am worried about!  Give it another 3 years with the same trend and archery success rates are going to be horrible.  Currently in some GMUs we have 13 days afield for early archery elk with spike only seasons and no cow permits.  This is versus 9 (muzzy) and 7 (modern) days afield for spike only seasons + 25 cow permits for each of those user groups.  That is not equitable in my opinion and just one example of the conpitulation that we as an user group is enduring.  If we aren't careful they are going to steal more and more and more... well you get the point.

[Matt]

Dreamin you are talking about the loss of cows for the peaches ridge area in the early season.  Yeah so we lost them in early season but still have them in late season.  Not to mention that they opened up the Little Nachese which archers had wanted for a long time.  That was a fair swap.

If they aprove the praposal to allow you to apply for any quality elk hunt regardless of west or east side tag holder then you will have something to bitch about.  Your chances of drawing a quality elk tag on the east side will go down to slim to none.  West siders will have nothing to lose, 3 point min on the west side or draw a quality on the east.  They are hunting bulls no matter what.

Constructive criticism and well thought out responses are what is needed.

[dreamingbig]

Matt,

I agree with you on the east/side west side argument and have let them know as much.  I filled out the survey and I sent my constructive criticism.  I have never got a response from Phil or Dave Ware but I will keep trying.  I have sent them loads of information on the reduction in bull permits by user group over the past 5 season.  Archery has taken the biggest hit by a percentage.  I will see if I can dig up my research.  My guess is it will fall on deaf ears again.

[RadSav]

That's a tough area to get a grip on trending.  One of the few areas that have been loosing all user groups including archers.  It is also an area that has lost percentages on harvest rates by all user groups since 2005.  But the numbers seem to be relatively equal by harvest percentage.  Will be very interesting to see where the 2011 numbers fall.  Rifle hunters still seem to be getting the short end on success ratios though.

I know that region 3 as a whole has been the most difficult for the state to manage.  Colockum being the worst.  I can't remember when it was they sent out the letter explaining the challenges - maybe 2009.  It was very interesting and showed they were really in need of feedback from sportsmen in that area.  However, it did show a desire to get success rates balanced while maintaining the health of that herd. 

I think it was mismanaged for way too many years.  And still not convinced it isn't today. Would think it is going to take some time to clean up that mess.  Not sure that Bernatowicz and Livingston are the guys to do this though.  In my opinion they have produced the weakest reports for the WDFW.  That may not represent their competence, but it's not overly comforting.  I'd really like to get Russell Link's view of that region.  Seems to be a biologist that looks at things objectively and can give detailed reports without lists of excuses.