Draw for bow hunting

[gottafish]

This will be touchy but here it gose . how do you "bow hunters" feel about a draw for bow hunting? or if you put in for a rifle hunt you may not buy a bow tag. I think this would reduce the pressure on most areas we hunt.

[Mello-Yello]

I have a better idea...proficiency testing. 25% of your score is how you answer ethics questions, 75% is being able hit what you're aiming at, under immense pressure.

This alone would thin the woods out to a more 'natural' balance. Or maybe re-introduce Grizzly bears to Oregon. :grin: You can't hunt them, but they can hunt you.

If we could somehow get private timber owners to free up land for hunting, there wouldn't be near the over-crowding.

Again, we can't afford a continued decline in families that hunt. This would be a one-way ticket to no hunting whatsoever (except with a camera...maybe).

[TheRogue]

If we could somehow get private timber owners to free up land for hunting, there wouldn't be near the over-crowding.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That's for DAMN sure. Due to the threat of fire, most of the coast is locked up during archery season. Now, really, how many archery hunters do you know that would walk in behind locked gates, smoking cigarettes and flick them into the brush? Always seems that the timber companies have a vendetta against the (us) stick-flingers.

TR

[Bubzilla]

If we could somehow get private timber owners to free up land for hunting, there wouldn't be near the over-crowding.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Most of the timber holdings on the east side are open to public entry during archery season--save a few big examples like the the old Ochoco Lumber ground in the Ochoco unit (bought by U.S. Timber Lands, and now allegedly sold to a private investment group for a hunt club). But for the most part, that's not much of a problem east of the Cascades. And, that's where limited entry is being proposed/discussed most seriously.

Frankly, it's probably bound to happen eventually. And, it's only fair. Archery tags probably shouldn't be statewide, unlimited general entry. I know I like being able to hunt in several areas each year (when I bow hunt, which is most years), but I do recognize that everyone does that too, and the result is concentrated pressure in certain areas.

[skein]

I was told by a timber company employee that one of the reasons they lock the gates for the archers but not the rifle hunters is vandalism. If they try to lock the rifle hunters out, the rate of pulled gates and shot up locks skyrockets. Archers don't do that.

I like the idea of having to make a choice and declare your mode of hunting before you apply for a tag or special hunt. You choose up front whether you're going to be bowhunting or rifle hunting. If you put in for rifle and don't draw, you can't hunt with a bow.

I also really like the proficiency test idea, but there again, who will administer it? Where does the money come from?

Sometimes I've thought about a draw a year in advance - you draw for 2005 in the spring of 2004. That gives you a year to scout an area, make contacts, etc, even during the time of year you will hunt.

I anxious to hear other's ideas.

Skein

[gottafish]

How many times have you been at the range and hear some guy say well I didn't draw this year so i guess i'll have to bow hunt !! That just puts my panties in a bind! I have bow hunted 25 years If this trend keeps up bow hunting will be more crowded than rifle hunting. Thats why I quiet rifle hunting. I think the test could and should be done and on top of that add a bow hunter education coures to be required in order to buy said Tag. I would also Like to see a one for two rule. You get a tag in 2003 you cant get one until 2005 every other year. This would not decrease the number of hunters but it would make for much better hunting for rifle and bow hunters. not to mention the herds would respond much better. Another thing that is starting to get me going is this sudden privet profit from wildlife. In the ochcoos this year the ranchers herded up the elk and drove them on to there property and charged guy's money to go in and shoot them . We reported it to fish and game but they did nothing we never even got a call back. Is the ODFW in bed with these ranchers? The state police were called and they drove by but did nothing, hell these jokers where riding the fences on horse back with rifles keeping the heards in and shooting there guns off to keep them there. I say boycotte that kind of crap dont pay to play.. It is the fate of our sport. when Joe blow cant affored to pay and has no option on public land that will be the death of hunting.,

[ 10-18-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by skein:
1. I was told by a timber company employee that one of the reasons they lock the gates for the archers but not the rifle hunters is vandalism. If they try to lock the rifle hunters out, the rate of pulled gates and shot up locks skyrockets. Archers don't do that.

2. I like the idea of having to make a choice and declare your mode of hunting before you apply for a tag or special hunt. You choose up front whether you're going to be bowhunting or rifle hunting. If you put in for rifle and don't draw, you can't hunt with a bow.

3. I also really like the proficiency test idea, but there again, who will administer it? Where does the money come from?

4. Sometimes I've thought about a draw a year in advance - you draw for 2005 in the spring of 2004. That gives you a year to scout an area, make contacts, etc, even during the time of year you will hunt.

I anxious to hear other's ideas.

Skein

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">1. That doesn't surprise me.

2. I agree with that, on a species by species basis.

3. I love that idea, but, yeah, where will the money (and political muscle) for that type of thing come from?

4. If anything, I'd like to see the draw moved CLOSER to seasons, rather than later. I hate planning 6 months in advance, my life doesn't work on that type of planning, unfortunately.

TR

[Norm]

I think the problem you are trying to solve is over-crowding in some areas. Several unit's on the east side are already draw entry. This has compounded the problem by lowering the amount of open land to hunt. It's still not as bad as rifle season. I would say if your hunting in an area that's too crowded, move to another area. I try and hunt area's that don't have a ton of pressure, they are pretty easy to find on the westside. I bowhunted the eastside twice in my life, the number of quad hunting, closed road driving, road hunting dipsticks was amazing. I always thought that a ethics and proficiency tests are a great idea. The idea would probably need to come from OBA(Oregon Bowhunters Assoc.) to hold much weight with ODF. I also wish they would start ticketing the road hunters. I saw some on the eastside that take the cake, lawn chairs and all [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] . As for private timer companies closing thier land for fire danger, I really can't blame them. When the fire danger is high, they close it on the rifle hunters also.

[Capin' Dan]

The thing is that each of us should be allowed to pursue our sport in some way or another each year if not by rifle then by bow. If you are concerned about over crowding then get off your toosh and get back into the woods. Making it a draw only would just take more money out of our pockets which are already stretched thin for a lot of us.

Question: do we want to make hunting and fishing a rich mans sport? That is how is seems sometimes especiallay on this board. Would you pay more for this or that. The answer should be no. Not until you start properly manageing what you get now. That is the main reason that the draw system is so popular in states today is because it brings millions of revenue in just for them to tell you whoops sorry try again. Now some of you want to spoil the archery season for folks.


Proficiency testing probably not a bad idea just not sure how you could get the actual adrenelian rush into it for the pressure during that cruicial moment.

You guys are fusterateing sometimes

[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[ 10-19-2003, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Capin' Dan ]

[TheRogue]

That is the main reason that the draw system is so popular in states today is because it brings millions of revenue in just for them to tell you whoops sorry try again. Now some of you want to spoil the archery season for folks.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I respectfully disagree 100%.

ALL states are experiencing overcrowding, loss of habitat, and locking up of private land which was once open for public hunting. As we continue down that road, it will just get worse. Especially when we have problems with animal populations, such as the blacktail decline(lack of logging), and the decline of mulies (lots of reasons).

The only way to keep things in check is to go to a drawing-only system, IMHO.

Do you think the $3 application fee is making it too tough for the "non-rich" to participate nowadays?

TR

[sliverpicker]

Just wondering, is there a proficiency test for rifle hunters? Then why have one for bowhunters!

I think alot of the problem with wounding loss is guys trying to shoot further and further. They see where Chuck Adams shoots another world record this or that at 50-60-70 yards, and by-gawd so can I.

Personally I'm only good out to 20-25 yards, and I stick to this self imposed limit. I hunt with recurve or a longbow, but I'm right-handed and left-eye dominant. So my shots get spread out beyond my range.

I took a Bowhunter Education Class about 10 years ago at the bowshop that used to be on Airport Way in Portland(the name escapes me). At the outset we were told to write down the distance we could consistantly hit the kill zone, I wrote down 10 or 15 yards. At the end of the day we went across the street to a vacant lot and they had a steel bear set up with a foam kill zone. The instructors started calling the folks who wrote down the longer distances and we began shooting until we got to the shortest distance written down. Myself and two others in the class of 25?actually hit the foam at the distance we'd proclaimed.

I'd love to see a declaration of weapons in the springtime. Before the controlled hunt deadline! That's my cents.

sliverpicker

[chromebright]

I have to agree with Norm and Capin' Dan.

1. I am one of the people who bow hunt when I do not draw a rifle tag. I feel I do have the right to hunt if I do not draw a tag. All the westsiders can go out and by an over the counter rifle tag when they don't draw a tag. There is plenty of land around here with nobody hunting it.

2. I bow hunted for deer this year. Probably hunted 10-12 days NEVER saw another hunter! White River Unit where I saw PLENTY of bucks. If the unit you are hunting is crowded then don't be like the rest of the clones go somewhere else. There is tons of uncrowded land out there with good hunting. It is just like the fishing, the masses stay with the masses, but it is not the masses who catch most of the fish.

3. ODFW is not basing the tags on how many people are in the woods, but by how many animals are harvested. There could be 2 times the bow hunters in the woods if they only harvest 1/5th the animals as rifle. Lets see some statistics of harvest totals from all of you who are complaining of over harvest.

4. For everyone who is complaining about less animals(Eastside). You obviously have not been on some of the Private land lately. There is a phenomenon going on in the last 10-15 years. As the access to private land decreases so does the hunting pressure and the animals are flocking to these lands. Even without landowners herding them in. Some of them are LOADED with animals. This is an issue that ODFW is going to have to address soon! These same landowners are getting "Damage Control" tags while reaping the rewards of the animals on their land. The are playing both sides of the fence at our expense.

I don't mean to be overly confrontational, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that we live in far too populous a state to simply allow everyone who wants to go hunting to go each and every year. We simply can't have a policy of trying to get as many people into the woods as possible each year anymore. The end result is a ruined experience for everyone. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that we need to embrace reality: if we are going to have anything approaching quality hunting, we are not all going to be able to go hunting every year, AND, we are not going to be able to kill a deer for less than $15.00, and an elk for less than $40.00. There are states that can still subsidize subsistence hunting for residents--Oregon just isn't one of them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I have a great solution:
The people who are residents in a unit get drawn first. Similiar to what it is now, but by resident location. When those tags are gone then it goes to the pref. points for everyone else. This way the lifestyle of those who choose to live the rural life and have done so for sometimes many generations, is not ruined by the mass population influx into urban Oregon. Before you start currsing me as some country Hick who is trying to keep you out of his hunting ground. I don't even put in for tags in my home unit, but I would hate to see the day a guy can't hunt in his backyard because so many people from the city have choosen to "PROTECT" HIS HUNTING GROUNDS FROM THEMSELVES.

Rick

[ 10-19-2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: chromebright ]

[Bubzilla]

Chromebright,

I don't think many would refer to someone from Hood River as a "hick." To me, someone who lives in Southeastern Oregon, that's basically still Portland.

As for the hunting private ground thing, I do, and have--unfortunately, most of the guys I like to hunt with can't afford to pay several thousand dollars for access. It's not a new "phenomenon" (well, up next to Portland, maybe it is), in Eastern Oregon. Pressure on public land has always made private land better hunting, but what has changed is the price of access to private ground.

As far as preferences to "residents" of the unit, good luck. Land owner preferences alone have always been controversial.

[chromebright]

Bubzilla

Of course low access lands have always had better animals. I am not referring to private ranches that have always been closed. I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of acres of private land that was open to hunt until the last decade or so. Land that my reletives hunted for over 50 years. As soon as ODFW began handing out free tags that land owners could sell or do with as they please the economic draw was to great to resist.

As far as Hood River not being a hick town. How long you been around Oregon? 15 years ago Hood River was NOTHING but a logging and farming town. There were no fancy shops and windsurfers. Once you get 5 miles from the freeway there is as much "Country" in the people as there is anywhere. I would never claim to be a hick(in the negative sense), but I have had, and my wife does have 4 generations of family here. My grandpa and her great grandparents came here on wagons. My grandpa road the log flume from Parkdale to Hood River on Fridays for gods sake. My dad has ran a lumber mill for 30 years. If you want to think HR is just a suburb of Portland you better get your facts straight.

BTW

To me, someone who lives in Southeastern Oregon, that's basically still Portland.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You don't think HR is in Southeastern oregon do you?

Of course I was being mostly sarcastic about the tags by residence, but I was trying to make the point that there are allot of people in this state that have seen their hunting privileges decreased dramatically over the last 2 decades. Largely because of more people moving into the urban areas. This is reality. We are all Oregonians and must share in SOME of the burden, but is it really fair to start taking away more hunting privileges to those people have enjoyed this way of life for a long time just because someone says "Their" hunting area is too crowded. If someone shows me that there is an overharvist in an area then I would say lets restrict it. Until then I think it sounds too much like someone trying to take away more of my hunting privileges.

[ 10-19-2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: chromebright ]

[Bubzilla]

You don't think HR is in Southeastern oregon do you?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">What? I live in Southeastern Oregon--real country where you don't need to qualify your remarks in reference to distance from the highway. And, I've lived in Oregon my entire life--most of it east of the Cascades and more than 65 miles from downtown Portland.

15 years ago Hood River was NOTHING but a logging and farming town. There were no fancy shops and windsurfers.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hmmmmm.... Okay, but seeing as how we're talking about now.

If you want to think HR is just a suburb of Portland you better get your facts straight.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Fancy shops and windsurfers? Sorry, but sounds pretty much like a suburb of Portland to me. Kind of like Tillamook these days--two boats from town on any river, and twenty from Portland.

My point was not to disparage Hood River, or to make any claim that it didn't afford some wild areas near civilization. My point was that I am willing to bet that there are thousands of guys that live in and around Portland that believe the woods around Hood River are their home grounds too. That's just the reality of living less than an hour from a million people.

[ 10-19-2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[Capin' Dan]

Bub and Rogue, Lets look at what some other states so. Which state has the highest elk population. They have three different seasons and yes you can buy them over the counter for some of the hunts as well. they have the drawings also for some areas as we do. If I have my facts right Oregon is ranked #3 or #4 for elk numbers. Its not the hunting that is causing the reduced numbres its the preditars. As far as the black tail porblem it is going to get worst before it gets better. oregon hasn't learned very well from other states in the nation and the over population of blacktails has caused nature to take over to control the numbers. it is the hairloss sickness that is hurting this population as is the preditation from bear, cats and coyotes. They will rebound. what the whitetail folks have found out if they manage their does then they have a healthier deer population. I've been there and seen it growing up in the south. It also looks like you have not purchased your applications lately. They are $4.50 for the applications. Do this five times a year and figure three to four years per animal and more for antelope, sheep and goats.
$4.50 times 5 Times four years comes to around $90 before you draw. This actually comes to about $90 for two animals. This is a lot for some. We need to try and keep cost in perspective here.

Draw system for archery is a bad thing and yes public land is a resource that belongs to all of us to use and share alike sorry if it seems like someone is stepping on your toes every time you go out. I still think if you put in your time and get back in the outback you will be alone and have the area to your self.

[ 10-19-2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Capin' Dan ]

[Bubzilla]

The thing is that each of us should be allowed to pursue our sport in some way or another each year if not by rifle then by bow.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sorry, no offense, but NO, absolutely NO! Everyone should not expect to have the opportunity to go hunting every year. It's this mentality that is the root cause of our overharvest problems in this state. And, it's ODFW's desire to appease this sentiment that is the single biggest problem with their management.

[D]o we want to make hunting and fishing a rich mans sport? That is how is seems sometimes especiallay on this board. Would you pay more for this or that. The answer should be no. Not until you start properly manageing what you get now.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">What we have now is not properly managed primarily because ODFW is concerned with pandering to those who want to kill an animal, regardless of size, sex, or location, each and every year for as little cost as possible. Proper management of Oregon's hunting opportunities would begin with SUBSTANTIAL increases in tag costs, followed by SUBSTANTIAL limitations in tag numbers. Look at what states with quality hunting do--it doesn't resemble Oregon's management even slightly. Most don't allow the harvest of spike elk; most have VERY limited antlerless hunts; most do not even attempt to give everyone a chance to hunt every year; and most charge two, three, and even four times as much for resident tags. Result? Quality hunting.

I don't mean to be overly confrontational, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. It's just that we live in far too populous a state to simply allow everyone who wants to go hunting to go each and every year. We simply can't have a policy of trying to get as many people into the woods as possible each year anymore. The end result is a ruined experience for everyone. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that we need to embrace reality: if we are going to have anything approaching quality hunting, we are not all going to be able to go hunting every year, AND, we are not going to be able to kill a deer for less than $15.00, and an elk for less than $40.00. There are states that can still subsidize subsistence hunting for residents--Oregon just isn't one of them.

[ 10-19-2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[tailchaser]

One thing alone would open up archery and that's to open the timberlands. I know most of the west side of Oregon is owned by some sort of timber companies. At least where I'm at, about 80% of decent hunting area is owned by them. They always shut the woods down one week before the opener even though it rarely tops 80 degrees here. I can't remember when we actually had a bad fire in this climate but none the less it's closed off. ODFW doesn't care one bit about it either, and I might understand it when bows start shooting flames out of the bow, but until then I'll be confused how they continue logging operations, drive up and down the road all day, but a bowhunter would cause problems. I know for one, I wouldn't go east if I could hunt the local land where I wanted to.

It's funny how it works also. The last two weeks, they all closed thier land to hunting, we didn't have any rain the week after but ironically they opened the gates the day before rifle season? Make sense of that one. I used to work for Weyerhauser in college in the summers doing security and have been at these meetings deciding whether to open it or not. It consisted of this: "Should we open it or not?... No, we should give our boys the first crack at the elk, we don't need them shooting all the bulls before rifle season, just say the humidity is bad and we can't allow it." I remember it like yesterday as my mouth hit the ground. Then in the paper they made all of these technical remarks how they came to the conclusion and it was all bs. From that point on I never believe what comes from the timber companies.

I also ticked off the menasha head down here this year when I asked at what point will they open up? He said it's so dry right now that theoretically flames could instantly occur anywhere. I noted I would like to see that happen, since I've never heard of it in my life besides under wet hay stacked with tons of pressure. So he got mad that I was questioning his theory and lame excuse why I couldn't go hunting.

Anyhow, the moral to the story is, half the people I see hunting east are all from the valley or the coast simply because we are locked out of the woods here. Solve that and you'll solve some overcrowding.

tc

[blackdog]

I'll have to jump in on this and agree with some of those who are supporting having to choose your weapon ahead of time and not just rely on bowhunting as a packup. Just as an opinion, not backed by anything but speculation and emotion, I think this would help eliminate some of the lack of ethics and roadhunting type problems died in the wool bowhunters complain about. I would also support more units going to draw hunts for bowhunting. I would rather have a 'quality' hunt every other year or so than fight the crowds for few animals every year.

As far as the eastside goes, I agree with chromebright about the private land issue. Hunted the Ochocco, Grizzly, or Fossil Units lately? The numbers of animals on public land during hunting seasons (and probably year around) has been going down every year. And why not? With the rich and famous buying up or leasing any available land and managing it oftentimes strictly for maximizing their hunting interests, the animals are going to make the easy choice to habitate there as opposed to trying to elude the masses or compete with cattle for food on the public range. Hard to fault anyone on that alone, but when the state gives these landowners thousands of tags every year to sell at their own discrection, I get the feeling the public is getting *****. On top of selling their premium hunts, they're also selling 'damage' control hunts as well. If the state would somehow 'encourage' these landowners to accept some sort of access program like other states have, it would at least allow for some public benefit.

I also think a different approach to predator management would benefit our big game herds statewide, but that is a whole different ball of wax.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Capin' Dan:
Bub and Rogue, Lets look at what some other states so. Which state has the highest elk population. They have three different seasons and yes you can buy them over the counter for some of the hunts as well. they have the drawings also for some areas as we do. If I have my facts right Oregon is ranked #3 or #4 for elk numbers. Its not the hunting that is causing the reduced numbres its the preditars. As far as the black tail porblem it is going to get worst before it gets better. oregon hasn't learned very well from other states in the nation and the over population of blacktails has caused nature to take over to control the numbers. it is the hairloss sickness that is hurting this population as is the preditation from bear, cats and coyotes. They will rebound. what the whitetail folks have found out if they manage their does then they have a healthier deer population. I've been there and seen it growing up in the south. It also looks like you have not purchased your applications lately. They are $4.50 for the applications. Do this five times a year and figure three to four years per animal and more for antelope, sheep and goats.
$4.50 times 5 Times four years comes to around $90 before you draw. This actually comes to about $90 for two animals. This is a lot for some. We need to try and keep cost in perspective here.

Draw system for archery is a bad thing and yes public land is a resource that belongs to all of us to use and share alike sorry if it seems like someone is stepping on your toes every time you go out. I still think if you put in your time and get back in the outback you will be alone and have the area to your self.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">1. Colorado has a huge elk population. They also have more specific elk habitat. They also have a growing problem with herd demographics...there's too many cows, and not enough mature bulls, except, of course on private ranches.

2. Actually, the last numbers I saw from an RMEF publication listed Oregon as a dead heat with Idaho for #2 for elk populations...they've been dealing with wolves and grizz for a while now.

3. I believe most of the studies indicate that the problems with the blacktail herd are more from habitat loss (lack of logging on federal land) and disease, rather than predation. There will be NO rebound unless these two problems can be solved.

4. Yes, I was mistaken, it's $4.50. Personally, I'd like to see it go back to paying the tag cost UP FRONT, and getting a refund if you don't draw. That would keep people serious.

5. I agree, it's still fairly easy to get away, just takes scouting, planning, and footwork. Unfortunately, in today's world of 60+ hour workweeks, and growing populations, getting the time to do that is becoming tougher.

TR

[Spotted Owl]

I think the either or draw, not the I'll do this if I don't get that, sounds good. I also think that pressure would be reduced if we saw more law enforcement in the woods. Hammer down on the lazy road hunters. I realize that some road hunt because of physical limitations. But I think many of those same people could get out and walk if they gave a good honest try and removed there backside from the cab of there vehicle. Manditory Hunter Education for all ages. Loss of priveleges if you shoot another human, for that there is no other excuse than murder, you must always know what you are shooting at, and what or who is beyond the intened target


I don't blame the timber co. for openning there gates for rifle hunters. As a general whole rifle hunters a seen as an unruly, disrepectful, vandalizing, unethical bunch. I would be willing to bet that if you lined up 12 people neutral to hunting not anti's and not supporters. Ask them what they think you would hear 1 of the 4 problems mentioned above. Why do you think private mom and pop land owners have closed off their land to the genneral hunting public.


I switched to bow instead of rifle for two reasons. One safty I don't like being shot at. Two
I tried to distance myself from the above mentioned behavior. This year I noticed that Bow hunters as well are this way although not on as big of a scale. This year I wtinessed Two gates being winched over, Stump road barriers being removed, and spray paint to signs, gates, and equipment. Not as big of scale I fear because not as many bowhunt not because of a breed.


Choose your weapon, get out of the truck, treat the land as if it were yours. I think that
Everybody would enjoy themselves a lot more things would be calmer and safer.

Hope I didn't get to far out of line but think on these thoughts honestly and I think you might come up with the same general ideas. I donot mean to slamm anyone or there choise of hunting tradition. Just remember BE SAFE, HONEST, AND THOUGHTFULL OF THER OTHERS AROUND YOU NO MATTER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO HARVEST YOR ANIMAL.

[dimwit]

When I hunted in Oregon as a teenager, you would buy a single tag for elk and a tag for deer. If you didn't fill the tag during bow season, you could hunt with the same tag during rifle season anywhere in the state. Then they changed the law and required you to choose your weapon and most people went with rifle. I hardly ever saw anyone hunting during bow season. Later they separated the state between east and west for rifle, then went to a draw only for rifle in the east. As they made it more restrictive for rifle hunting, more people started bow hunting. I don't know what the actual statistics are, but it seems from what I see, the bowhunters' numbers are getting higher every year. The percentage of success doesn't get any better but just by sheer numbers, more animals are being taken. It seems inevitable that its going to either be limit the number of bowhunters (by making you choose your weapon) or its going to be make the bag limits more restrictive (bucks &, bulls only and make the season shorter) or maybe a combination of both. I certainly wouldn't mind a "choose your weapon" requirement since I did that a long time ago, but I'm afraid the already declining revenue from licenses and tags would only get worse. I would really prefer more road closures. Sell as many tags as you want but make them work for it. Let someone kill an elk where they have to pack it out 2+ miles and they'll think twice about doing it again unless they are really serious. One area where I hunt they've opened up roads instead of closing more. Since then, people camp where I used to hike hours to get to. I've packed several elk out of there over the years but now I don't even bother going there.