Tradtional bow only season.

[Cyclic-Rivers]

I don't see how hacking our season up any more can be beneficial. The only thing I would like to see is it extended into January. So I guess they can add 4 weeks of trad only atvthe end of everything else. Of course it wouldn't do much good at reducing herd numbers so I don't see how it would hurt anything.

[Tedd]

Imagine the increase in the traditional archery industry if hi tech equipment w restricted. Bear Archery might be back in it's glory days?
Since most are saying archery seasons are already long and there is no room to add a traditional season. Should the question be - Should part of archery season be traditional only?
  Any healthy person using a crossbow in archery season is cheating themselves out of the experience that is bow hunting. They are taking a  shortcut. I would guess that the politicians that allowed the crossbows to be added were so ignorant of the subject that they were easily buffaloed. One state passed them so the rest did.  Crossbows hardly existed a few years ago and now outnumber traditional hunters.

[Tedd]

I don't want to be grouped with x bow hunters.  We shouldn't go down with their ship.
(i am in agreement with bows for health reasons)

[Michael Arnette]

Originally posted by Cyclic-Rivers:
I don't see how hacking our season up any more can be beneficial. The only thing I would like to see is it extended into January. So I guess they can add 4 weeks of trad only atvthe end of everything else. Of course it wouldn't do much good at reducing herd numbers so I don't see how it would hurt anything.

Yes we would need to settle for the end of season

[Michael Arnette]

Yes and very much have a handicap exemption

[KSdan]

You would think that Trad guys would be all over this as a key discussion.  Its NOT a debate about personal preference, what/how-much season one "deserves", my weapon is better than yours, chopping up a season, etc (I personally could care less if a guy wants to hunt with a gun, compound, trad, crossbow, spear. ..  I really do not care!)

The issue being raised really is a Renaissance of the discussion that gave us special seasons back 50+ years ago. With the introduction of more and more technology- the harvest rates have increased, which needs to be addressed.  

For Matt's point earlier- its just one tag Matt.

Remember again - its a CONSERVATION discussion.  Harvest #s in archery season are too high. Read that again: (Given the premise being stated by F&W) Modern archery is harvesting too high %.  You only have a few viable options:  1) Reduce the length of the season.  2) Alter the season to protect the rut and even perhaps early summer pattern seasons.  Or,  3) Re-define what "archery" equipment means and create limits- perhaps having various limited hunting days for particular weapons.    

Lengthy seasons for bowhunting were predicated on the harvest rate of the weapon.  And much of that was predicated on trad bows!

BTW- As noted by Michael, definition of equipment is not difficult.  CO already does this with limits on what a "muzzleloader" means for the muzzleloader season.  (iron sites, loose powder, and a few other specifics)  

The very fact that this is even being discussed in the public arena is a VERY positive for trad archery/hunting.    

Dan in KS

I think the entire month of October in Iowa should traditional archery only, with no overlapping youth or muzzleloader seasons.

[tomsm44]

Originally posted by KSdan:
You would think that Trad guys would be all over this as a key discussion.  Its NOT a debate about personal preference, what/how-much season one "deserves", my weapon is better than yours, chopping up a season, etc (I personally could care less if a guy wants to hunt with a gun, compound, trad, crossbow, spear. ..  I really do not care!)

The issue being raised really is a Renaissance of the discussion that gave us special seasons back 50+ years ago. With the introduction of more and more technology- the harvest rates have increased, which needs to be addressed.  

For Matt's point earlier- its just one tag Matt.

Remember again - its a CONSERVATION discussion.  Harvest #s in archery season are too high. Read that again: (Given the premise being stated by F&W) Modern archery is harvesting too high %.  You only have a few viable options:  1) Reduce the length of the season.  2) Alter the season to protect the rut and even perhaps early summer pattern seasons.  Or,  3) Re-define what "archery" equipment means and create limits- perhaps having various limited hunting days for particular weapons.    

Lengthy seasons for bowhunting were predicated on the harvest rate of the weapon.  And much of that was predicated on trad bows!

BTW- As noted by Michael, definition of equipment is not difficult.  CO already does this with limits on what a "muzzleloader" means for the muzzleloader season.  (iron sites, loose powder, and a few other specifics)  

The very fact that this is even being discussed in the public arena is a VERY positive for trad archery/hunting.    

Dan in KS

For clarity, it's just one tag in OR, or where you're at in KS?  Wasn't positive what you meant there.  In a situation where each hunter already only has one tag, then yes, a reduction in season length would be needed, and in that case, I'd say the trad community has a legitimate argument for having a separate longer season.  The only other option would be to go to a lottery tag system, which I'm not a fan of unless it's the last option remaining to get reasonable harvest numbers.

[KSdan]

Matt- OR (like many western states)  One tag.  But the pertinent discussion is the higher % harvest #s with modern archery equip.

[Bowwild]

My points have to do with hunter-driven efforts to change seasons. I realize KSDan offers that OR DW is making this examination of success rates.   I'd be very surprised if ODW is looking at this on its own.   Agencies are often "inspired" by special interests.

Here are the 2015 all-season hunter success rates of some western states (deer and elk combined):
WY - 44.3
ID - 26.2
UT - 25.9
MT- 22.4
CO - 19.8
OR- 16.8
WA- 11.5

These stats include all equipment users. I don't have the archery-only stats in front of me.  However, I would be surprised if you tease out the gun hunters if bowhunter success would be greater than 8%?  I doubt success rates for archery, no matter the equipment, are significant enough to warrant any reductions if the real goal is to reduce take.  

If the agency feels the need to reduce hunter days to reduce take it will be most effective doing so with firearms days; reduce total days or change dates. However, this is tough for some to do without hitting everyone, including the bowhunters who have less impact.

Most agencies value "Recreational Days" quite highly.  This is where bowhunting shines.  We can hunt for 30 days and achieve a fraction of the firearms harvest but add up to a lot of recreation days.

The agency's first responsibility is to the resource. However, without strong hunter support, the resource is in great danger. If there is a problem the agency should be looking for a solution that doesn't take anything from any current user group, at least not without some type of trade off.

I'm not fond of these options but some are:
- Open seasons on a weekday
- Close seasons on a Saturday
- Go to one bull or buck rule/season/all equipment types
- Reduce OTC tags to more strictly control take
- If not currently legal, allow archers to bow hunt during the firearms seasons. This will remove some who are choosing firearms to take bows thus reducing harvest.

Here's a wild one. For a long time many states were implored not to allow electronic aids on the bow (lighted sights and lighted nocks). I'd argue, for a lot of western bowhunters the range finder is a far more essential tool. What if rangefinders were outlawed? Most hunters want to hit what they are shooting at. Without a range finder these hunters would be forced to take far closer shots, which would translate to fewer shots taken, fewer animals killed.   I know, some would guess badly and simply wound but these folks are making other decisions that lead to unrecovered game already.

Don't get me wrong, I like my rangefinder, just bought a new Sig in fact to replace Leica.

Finally, just a comment on JR firearms hunting seasons. We have a weekend for youth firearms during our bow season (and one for MZZL too). I see no problems with these seasons. Especially the youth one. October (when our JR season occurs) is much more mild weather than our November firearms season.  

Giving parents a chance to introduce their youngsters to deer hunting then often gets these kids hunting at an earlier age.  Here in KY, the last time I checked we had around 3,000 youth hunting during the Oct. JR firearms weekend. The only kid I've seen hunting during that season has been my grandson.

Most 10-year olds are ill-equipped  to bow hunt at that age. Yep, I see some 6-7 year olds in pictures with bows and deer.  Call me skeptical to the extreme.

[dbd870]

We have enough seasons already - just leave it alone.

[toddster]

My personal opinion is there are too many dedicated season's for the weapon used.  Here in Illinois you can hunt from October 1st until January 15.  You cannot bowhunt during the shotgun season weekend before and after christmas.  During Muzzleloader week have to wear blaze orange.  This is for whitetail deer.  I thought the whole reason for hunting season's was conservation and keep population in check.  What does it matter what "item" you are using to take the game.  I get the blaze orange for safety, since majority of people do not identify what they are shooting at.  Now you can use a crossbow in December.

[Kevin Dill]

The arguments made to split (trad vs modern) archery seasons or areas are almost universally centered around the need to lower the archery hunt success rates in a given period or location. There really is no other argument which holds water at the level of state game management. If state game management ever agrees that archery success rates are too high...and that something must be done to limit the overall archery take...that state's game management will look at multiple logical actions which could accomplish that. Maybe one of those would be to split off a separate period or place for traditional archery hunting only.

I think any state would look very hard and critically at what a separate season entails in terms of implementation, management and logistics. The harder it is to make happen and manage at the state level, the less likely we'd ever see it. Then there is the matter of immediate measurable results. How rapidly would the state see a change in kill stats and improvement in game numbers? What course of action would yield the fastest and most dependable results? Cost-benefit ratios always matter for managers.

What about the consequences...if unintended...of 'taking' opportunities away from modern archery hunters? PR nightmare? Would the state be better to simply limit access, tags, and opportunities equally across the spectrum of bowhunters? If you were a politician or management official looking at this, would you see the logic in upsetting 50 typical modern bowhunters while pleasing 1?

While I love my weapon and style of hunting, I simply do not realistically ever see any state favoring me (or us) with an exclusive traditional archery season if it appears to remove opportunities from modern archers. I just think the states will see it as far too exclusionary given the relative few traditional bowhunters compared to modern ones. I also think the fallout from splitting weapons and potentially angering a majority of bowhunters (modern weapons) would be a huge concern for managers.

In the end I suspect most states would very logically consider all the possibilities. If bowhunters are too successful then bowhunters will share any loss of opportunities. I've never seen a state remove opportunities from modern bowhunters while keeping them for traditional bowhunters. That's because basically no state recognizes traditional bowhunters as a separate entity statewide in their management plan. As far as management goes, we are part of the overall bowhunting group...not separate and distinct.

Recurves and longbows...the original modern bowhunting tools of the past...were eclipsed by today's weapons. Swallowed up in the enormous bulge of tech progress. Getting a state or states to ever see these more traditional weapons and users as a separate and distinct entity worthy of their own season would be unlikely, given that most management people (and people in general) are not given toward solutions which appear regressive and divisive.

As for myself: I could only ever argue in favor of a traditional season if I saw it as the BEST solution for a problem r/t game management and kill numbers. Since I've never been a guy who thinks in terms of trad vs modern....I would likely find it very hard to take opportunities away from some bowhunters while having them for myself. That's just me, and I'm not saying I'm right....just honest.

[Michael Arnette]

True Kevin! Think about it this way though, in some areas (western states especially) modern bow hunters are taking away opportunities from themselves and others including those like us who choose to limit ourselves.

[KSdan]

Great input Kevin and Roy.  Apart from understanding the OR discussion that seems to be unfolding, I always assumed- for the most part- that Trad (and all archery really)  rode on the back of firearms as a conservation tool.

Thanks guys
Dan

[Kevin Dill]

Originally posted by KSdan:
...I always assumed- for the most part- that Trad (and all archery really)  rode on the back of firearms as a conservation tool.

I get that completely, but here's a contrast.

In Ohio the total yearly archery deer kill has basically achieved parity with the main firearms season. The numbers can be picked, but the big messages here are that bowhunting is huge, bowhunting is as important to deer management as are guns, and bowhunters have a big voice in deer management. Killing enough deer is a yearly objective of our state.

If anything was enacted to seriously lower bowhunting success here, the winners in Ohio would be the firearms hunters who would gain additional time...in order to kill enough deer to meet the management objective. Point being every state is different of course.

[KSdan]

Kevin- very interesting. . . So in OH case, modern archery (given tech, length of season, etc) has really raised the bar as to its effectiveness as a harvest/conservation tool.

Good discussion. . will be interesting to see how this unfolds in OR.

Dan in KS

[Kevin Dill]

KSdan...most definitely...bowhunting with modern gear has drastically altered success rates and (subsequent) management strategies here. Interpretation (as good or bad) is up to the individual. In Ohio the 50-year progression of bowhunting has brought in more people and given bowhunters a greater voice in hunting opportunities.

[Michael Arnette]

KS Dan, same here in my home state, archery season represented 12% of the harvest in 1990, it represents approx 30% as of the last few years and is climbing each year in stats. I think that Archery would represent more but our rifle season runs smack in the middle of the rut where as ohios runs later.

[Kevin Dill]

Michael I agree with your assessment regarding firearms during the rut. Hunters are not dumb and they know the rut is THE season to kill. They will be out there with bow, gun or grenades...whatever the legal weapon. A huge number of deer are taken here with bows during the rut which pushes archery success rates higher.

As to your previous post:

 

Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
True Kevin! Think about it this way though, in some areas (western states especially) modern bow hunters are taking away opportunities from themselves and others including those like us who choose to limit ourselves.

Just don't forget that state game management divisions don't recognize two groups of bowhunters. They recognize bowhunters. The successful effort(s) to get states to see and then officially recognize 2 completely different bowhunting ideologies is what hasn't happened. The state doesn't see it as them and us. Modern bowhunters don't see it as them and us. Some traditionalists DO see it as them and us, but that is probably a miniscule drop in the bucket of total bowhunters afield who all have skin in this game.

The reality is there are currently few reasons and no will for a state to risk dividing their bowhunters into separate divisions and enduring the fallout which might well extend beyond bowhunters. Convincing them to do that will be a monumental task and they will still need to see that avenue as being better than simply limiting bowhunting opportunities overall...which is probably a more logical / less risky strategy in their minds. The objective is to solve a problem while not creating a subset of new problems.

I don't think we necessarily 'deserve' our own seasons. I only think they should happen if a state sees them as the best way to manage bowhunting success rates. I doubt they ever will, though. It comes down to minorities, majorities, and political power. If it came to a public hearing where the stakes are 'Traditional bowhunters would gain their own season, while modern bowhunters could lose x% of their opportunities', anyone care to speculate what that hearing room would look and sound like?