....Should bowhunting be curtailed in Michigan?...

[fairfax1]

[QUOTE=Tom Morang]....."Commissoner Wheatlake....... also said that bowhunters have too much time in the woods and that "we" have to do something about that."

Thought you might like to read several posts that are now appearing on the 'Whitetail Hunting' forum of the Michigan-Sportsman site. Look for the thread under 'NRC Meeting digresses to talk deer......."

In that thread several posters report comments by NRC commissioner Wheatlake that seem to indicate he feels that bowhunters have too much of the deer hunting pie in this state.

Please read the posts on that thread and draw your own conclusions.

[GVDocHoliday]

It's never gonna happen. Bowhunters account for such a small percentage of the overall buck harvest, harvest a higher number of antlerless deer, and the success rate is so much lower than rifle hunters, that the DNR is bringing in too much money to curtail the archery season any.

In other words, if deer hunting was gamblig and the state of MI was a casino, and the DNR is the house, then the odds are in the houses favor. Why mess up a good thing?

Wheatlake is nothing but a rifle hunter who can't get a deer every year because he don't know how to hunt, so he's looking for scape goat to his inadequacy in the woods. He has bow envy...because bowhunters can get to within 20 yards of their quarry and he can't even get to within a 100 yards of his.

[bullcan]

It won't happen, they just expanded the muzzleloading season to help reduce the population in zone 3, they won't reduce another season at this time.

[SR-Mechead]

Hell as many deer as I shot with a bow last year I say lets make it year around.:lol:
I agree it is some gun hunter who wants the bow hunters out of the woods.
Bob

[huntingfool43]

It won't happen, they just expanded the muzzleloading season to help reduce the population in zone 3, they won't reduce another season at this time.

Well lets see, shorten archery by 2 weeks and extend gun season. Acorrding to all the bow hunters the gun hunter kills all the deer anyway so they can increase the deer harvest this way.:lol:
Seriously when are bow hunters going to learn to get along with the gun hunters and vise versa? Both sides need to learn to get along and share the woods. In the 70's you would rarely if ever see another bow hunter and today they are everywhere. Dose it have an effect on the deer come opening day of gun, you bet it dose. The gun opener is far different today than it was even 5 to 10 years ago. You see less and less gun hunters in the woods do to everyone and their brother taking up archery. The DNR has never changed a thing other than to allow more tags and the impact archery season now has on the deer should be taken into consideration. I bow hunt and gun hunt and don't understand why the two groups can not get along But remarks like this will just drive the wedge deeper
"He has bow envy...because bowhunters can get to within 20 yards of their quarry and he can't even get to within a 100 yards of his."
Better learn to get along before it's to late. Remember " United we stand, devided we fall."

[twodogsphil]

Doc, you state "...Bowhunters ... harvest a higher number of antlerless deer, and the success rate is so much lower than rifle hunters..." Wrong!! According to MDNR harvest data for the last several seasons, bowhunters consistently take 10,000+ more bucks than does. Also, there is only a negligible difference in success rates. For example, 31% for archery vs. 33% for firearm season in 2004.

[GVDocHoliday]

What I mean to say was percentage wise. The ratio is a lot smaller. Considering firearm hunters harvest roughly 3 times the number of bucks than does. 31% success rate for 200,000 bowhunters vs 33% success rate for 750,000 firearm hunters. You want to do the math on that one?

[Backwoods-Savage]

...Seriously when are bow hunters going to learn to get along with the gun hunters and vise versa? Both sides need to learn to get along and share the woods. In the 70's you would rarely if ever see another bow hunter and today they are everywhere. Dose it have an effect on the deer come opening day of gun, you bet it dose. The gun opener is far different today than it was even 5 to 10 years ago. You see less and less gun hunters in the woods do to everyone and their brother taking up archery... Remember " United we stand, devided we fall."

I really don't want to start anything here, but am I missing something here? You ask when the hunters are going to learn to get along.... and then follow up with a negative on opening day of gun season.

Personally, I have not noticed any change on opening day of gun season even though we have far more hunters than we used to.

Speaking just for the area where I hunt, I used to have the woods pretty much alone through bow season. Now I can count 24 bow hunters on adjoining land. During gun season, there used to be about 7 hunters on adjoining lands. In 2006, there were not less than 30.

Granted, that is talking about only one small area, but it shows just how many hunters we have. Want more? Well, if I were to increase the area to within a mile from our hunting place it would be phenomenal. One 80 acre piece alone has a dozen hunters or more and there are two leases that bring in many, many more. We definitely don't need more hunters in this area; we could stand to lose a few.

As far as a season change, I ask why? Holy cow, we used to be able to bow hunt the first 19 days of October before the guns came into the woods. Now they are hunting squirrels on Sept. 15, two weeks before bow season starts. We do have to share the woods more now and I am willing to do that but can't see any reason for a season change.

[Munsterlndr]

What I mean to say was percentage wise. The ratio is a lot smaller. Considering firearm hunters harvest roughly 3 times the number of bucks than does. 31% success rate for 200,000 bowhunters vs 33% success rate for 750,000 firearm hunters. You want to do the math on that one?

Let's be accurate here.

Firearms hunters harvested around 147,000 bucks and around 118,000 antlerless deer last year, hardly "3 times the number of bucks as does".

Archers harvested around 68,000 bucks and about 58,000 antlerless deer.

The ratio's are 44% of the archery kill are antlerless vs. 46% of the firearms kill. I would not say that is a lot smaller

Also, there were around 650,000 firearms hunters and around 320,000 bow hunters so you are off a little on those numbers. The success rate was pretty close for both archers and firearms hunters. Interestingly enough, muzzleloaders only had about an 18% success rate.

Previously you said that bowhunters account for such a small percentage of the buck harvest. I guess I would not call 30% a small percentage.

I don't know where you are getting your information but your ideas that bowhunters have a negligable impact on buck harvest, that bowhunters have a much lower success rate and that bowhunters harvest a much higher percentage of antlerless deer than firearms hunters are just not supported by the facts.

[Ibow]

It takes bowhunters 77 days to kill less than one third (28% - both sexes) as many deer as other deer hunters take in 2 weeks of gun deer season, muzzleloading season and late antlerless season.

Is that accurate? :)

[Munsterlndr]

It takes bowhunters 77 days to kill less than one third (28% - both sexes) as many deer as other deer hunters take in 2 weeks of gun deer season, muzzleloading season and late antlerless season.

Is that accurate? :)

Um, actually according to the DNR it is a 78 day season but you were pretty close. :)

Here is another way to look at it.

650,000 firearms hunters, (56% of total deer hunters) Harvested 59% of the total harvest during the regular firearms season.

320,000 archers, (27% of total deer hunters) harvested 28% of the total harvest during the archery season.

200,000 Muzzleloader hunters ( 17% of total deer hunters) harvested 10% of the total harvest.

I really don't think the season lengths have that big an impact on harvest statistics. My guess is that you could lengthen or shorten bow season by a couple of weeks and it would have almost no impact on harvest numbers. According to the DNR the mean number of days spent by archers in the field, out of the 78 day season, was approx. 15 days. The mean for firearms hunters was 7 days. I think to some degree the same thing is true with shortening or lengthening firearms season. I doubt that it would impact the harvest statistics much. The bulk of the deer are killed during the first three days of firearms season because that is when the greatest number of hunters take to the woods. Making firearms season a week long or a month long would have only a marginal impact on the harvest numbers.

[carp_assasin]

There is not a group of hunters that are excluded from bow hunting. Every age eligible hunter, with a bow, can bow hunt. Whether one chooses to partake is ones own decision. Instead of crying about how long bow season is, go to any pawn shop, buy a bow for $50.00 and enjoy the outdoors in comfortable, lightweight camo, on a 50 degree day. Bow hunting will improve your chances to fill a tag. If a person is complaining about not seeing too many deer in gun season, they should start bow hunting, and add some opportunities. ;)

Ben

[huntingfool43]

Backwoods
Not sure where you hunt, if you are near a large city or what but out in the middle of nowhere the number of hunters has droped. It use to be world war 3 on opening day, now if I hear 20 shots all day thats doing good. You could drive down the roads and see people parked in about every feild, now days you are lucky to see 10 cars in a 10 to 12 mile stretch. Some of this has to do with leasing which has cut down on the number of hunters but their are also some that tag out with a bow and don't gun hunt. Squirrel season has opened on Sept. 15 as long as I can remember,least wise the early 70's I think if not before. As long as hunter numbers increase we will just have to bit the bullet and learn to share.

[Tom Morang]

Season lengths do have an impact on hunter time afield. We should maximize the benefits of a long season with the impact on the resource.

Bowseason yields the most recreational hours afield with the least impact on the resource.

[lwingwatcher]

What I mean to say was percentage wise. The ratio is a lot smaller. Considering firearm hunters harvest roughly 3 times the number of bucks than does. 31% success rate for 200,000 bowhunters vs 33% success rate for 750,000 firearm hunters. You want to do the math on that one?


The math....on success rate...doesn't mean squat when considering overall buck kill. When you have archers flinging arrows for 45 days straight, bucks are going to die...even though they are not recovered or tagged by somebody other than the person that shot them.

45 days is too long for archers to be shooting at bucks if we ever want to have a chance of seeing mature bucks in the State of Michigan.

I wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if the month of October was does only. And, let me add that I kill far more bucks with an arrow than I do a bullet and I like bow hunting far more than deer shooting with a firearm.

[Overdew]

[quote=Tom Morang]....."Commissoner Wheatlake....... also said that bowhunters have too much time in the woods and that "we" have to do something about that."

Thought you might like to read several posts that are now appearing on the 'Whitetail Hunting' forum of the Michigan-Sportsman site. Look for the thread under 'NRC Meeting digresses to talk deer......."

In that thread several posters report comments by NRC commissioner Wheatlake that seem to indicate he feels that bowhunters have too much of the deer hunting pie in this state.

Please read the posts on that thread and draw your own conclusions.



Like it is so easy to kill a deer with a bow, this is the people who do not know. Many years of practice and scouting. Did it all on my own. Wish there
was a web page like this 30 years ago

[Tom Morang]

lwingwatcher---I think you need to be brought up to speed on the facts on bow wounding. Read this with an open mind and I hope you will see bowhunters are not the evil people you make us out to be.

http://www.nbef.org/ripley.html

"Conclusion

What is McAninch's biggest impression after spending thousands of hours involved in this study? "I'm more clearly focused than ever on using bowhunting as a management tool," he said. "Bowhunting deserves to maintain its place as a legitimate form of recreation, primarily because it's a sound tool for controlling deer populations."

"This study reinforced that the number of deer lost to bowhunting is not biologically significant. The loss rates are extremely low, and they show archers are working hard to get those numbers as low as possible.""

[Munsterlndr]

I think you need to be brought up to speed on the facts on bow wounding. Read this with an open mind and I hope you will see bowhunters are not the evil people you make us out to be.


In other threads your buddy Ibow automatically discounted articles concerning crossbow use claiming that they were tainted because of alleged sponsership by crossbow manufacture's. Look at the list of sponsers for this study, they are almost all bowhunting organizations. Should we apply the same standard to this study or do you traditional guys want to be inconsistant?

Putting the validity of the study aside, I fail to see how it makes much of a case for the "wounding" rate being insignificant. According to the study bowhunters wound between 19% and 29% of the deer they shoot at and fail to recover them. Hardly insignificant. While they claim that many of those deer are recovered by other hunters, you have to take into account the circumstances of the study. It was conducted during intensive two day hunting periods by hunters that were probably more experienced than your average bow hunter. Because the study was limited to the area of the reservation there was a hunter density of approx. one hunter for every 30 acres, probably a greater deensity than most bow hunters usually experience, especially during the earlier portion of the season. It is not surprising that this increased hunter density would result in more unrecovered, wounded deer being recovered by other hunters.

Bowhunters harvested around 125,000 deer last year. Using the numbers from this study that means that bowhunters are potentially shooting another 30-40,000 deer a year, many of which are not recovered. Is 30-40,000 deer a year biologically insignificant?

[Tom Morang]

Do you honestly hate bowhunters that much? You use much speculation in your analysis of the data.

Now you sound like an anti hunter.

[One Eye]

I wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if the month of October was does only. And, let me add that I kill far more bucks with an arrow than I do a bullet and I like bow hunting far more than deer shooting with a firearm.
Yeah, just what we need. More pressure on does :rolleyes: :yikes: :rolleyes: :yikes:

I am still waiting for an explanation of why we had way more deer during the years when we had 4 UNRESTRICTED buck tags than we do now with 1 UNRESTRICTED buck tag?????? How about this for an answer - - the WANTON slaughter of does in areas that did not need herd reduction!!

As for fishing for a quiet period, are you going to also eliminate small game hunting, duck hunting, turkey hunting, trapping, etc. during your so-called "quiet" period?? I bet that would do wonders for the maximizing of recreational time afield, wouldn't it?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Leave it to Munsterlnder to weasel the "crossgun" into this discussion :rolleyes:

Dan

[GVDocHoliday]

I think to some degree the same thing is true with shortening or lengthening firearms season. I doubt that it would impact the harvest statistics much.


That's a pretty good point.

[lwingwatcher]

l

"This study reinforced that the number of deer lost to bowhunting is not biologically significant. The loss rates are extremely low, and they show archers are working hard to get those numbers as low as possible.""

I think "this study" is wonderful. But, I would like to know what the definition of "biologically significant" is and how it relates to mortality rates of 1.5 year old bucks at the hands of bowhunters.

I can tell you for a fact that around me....more bucks are stuck than tagged and...when combined with every buck that gets tagged by bowhunters, their mothers, their sisters and....well.....there is a pretty good reason why "us bowhunters" tend to pizz off the guys that care about mature bucks...or even immature bucks for that matter.

Part of the reason I kill most of my bucks during bow season is cuz there aren't many left come rifle season....at least around the area that I hunt. So...you can report all the studies you want....biological and all but...it is only logical to reason that if you stick arrows in enough bucks during 45 days of flinging arrows...something has got to suffer.

[lwingwatcher]

Yeah, just what we need. More pressure on does :rolleyes: :yikes: :rolleyes: :yikes:



Wait a minute....you mean to tell me that you think it is better for the herd...and hunting in general to target 1.5 year old bucks instead of does?

Tell me why there are unlimited antlerless permits for the guys that want to go hose does?

It would seem to me to make more sense to force archers that just want meat to reduce the doe population and let a few more bucks live to see another day.
The only way that we are going to see a better herd, more mature bucks and keep everybody happy is if we rethink our position as bow hunters.

Does are gonna get killed whether we like it or not....but--we need to make better choices regarding bucks...and if it takes legislation to get us to see the light...so be it.

[Munsterlndr]

Do you honestly hate bowhunters that much? You use much speculation in your analysis of the data.

Now you sound like an anti hunter.

It's been my experience that when people have a weak argument they tend to resort to name calling, as you seem to be doing. If you think my speculation was inaccurate why don't you defend your study?

Your study indicated that approx. 28% of the deer that the bowhunters in the study shot were not recovered by the hunter who shot them.

They then used some interesting interpretation to try and minimize this number. For instance they claimed that around 45% of the wounded, unrecovered deer were killed by another hunter the same day. Do you really believe that this statistic would be replicated by your average bowhunter, out in the field , in Michigan? That 45% of the time another bowhunter would harvest the same animal, that same day? Personally I kind of doubt it.

But hey, I'm glad they came to the conclusions that they did. It sure would have been disappointing for the 35 bow hunting organizations that sponsered this study if it had come out differently. :rolleyes:

[Tom Morang]

lwingwatcher said: "when combined with every buck that gets tagged by bowhunters, their mothers, their sisters and....well.....there is a pretty good reason why "us bowhunters" tend to pizz off the guys that care about mature bucks...or even immature bucks for that matter."


Sounds like you have a poaching problem not a bowhunter problem. A quiet period won't help you out. Fact is a quiet period will just make it that much harder to catch them bad guys because legit hunters won't be in the woods to report those poachers that you have over there lwing.:)

[lwingwatcher]

Do you honestly hate bowhunters that much? You use much speculation in your analysis of the data.

Now you sound like an anti hunter.

Why do you assume that anybody with a different viewpoint is an anti?

Tom....I bowhunt more than I do rifle hunt and it sickens me to hear of the lost bucks out there...so much so that my neighbors and friends are hesitant to even bring it up or call me to track cuz I get so pizzed off. I am not perfect either....I lost a fine 8 pt this year...it got onto ground I couldn't go on to do a decent track.

The real problem here is deer hunters pitting themselves against each other because they fail to listen to reason and figure anybody that sees things differently is wrong.

United we stand...divided we fall....figure it out...

[Tom Morang]

Yep, wounded deer sickens me too lwing. Bowhunter Education would help a great deal. Have you taken the course?



You are doing way too much assuming there munster.:D

I said you sound like an anti hunter, I didn't say you were one.;)

And yes the wounding survey does have conflicting data, everyone I have ever read does. How you interpret that data is key.

If the bowhunters are that close to one another it makes sense to me that some mortally wounded deer could "bump" into other bowhunters who would retrieve those deer before the bowhunter who shot them could get to them.

Deer mortally wounded in the same manner would most definitely be recovered in real world conditions by the bowhunters who shot them.

[Overdew]

The math....on success rate...doesn't mean squat when considering overall buck kill. When you have archers flinging arrows for 45 days straight, bucks are going to die...even though they are not recovered or tagged by somebody other than the person that shot them.

45 days is too long for archers to be shooting at bucks if we ever want to have a chance of seeing mature bucks in the State of Michigan.

I wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if the month of October was does only. And, let me add that I kill far more bucks with an arrow than I do a bullet and I like bow hunting far more than deer shooting with a firearm.

YOU ARE A VERY BAD MAN. Who do you think you are making a statement like that. I Know the Alma area. Just sit in a corner of ditch rows around the big corn field WOW that takes alot to figure out yea I ONLY need 2 days bowhunting
I will stop now

[Liver and Onions]

.........
Tom....I bowhunt more than I do rifle hunt and it sickens me to hear of the lost bucks out there...so much so that my neighbors and friends are hesitant to even bring it up or call me to track cuz I get so pizzed off. I am not perfect either....I lost a fine 8 pt this year...it got onto ground I couldn't go on to do a decent track.
...

If you have an interest in getting or training a deer recovery dog, visit www.deersearch.org

L & O

[lwingwatcher]

If the bowhunters are that close to one another it makes sense to me that some mortally wounded deer could "bump" into other bowhunters who would retrieve those deer before the bowhunter who shot them could get to them.

Deer mortally wounded in the same manner would most definitely be recovered in real world conditions by the bowhunters who shot them.


I don't know that it is even the bumping thing....it happens but I think it is more likely to occur days after an arrow shot deer is lost. Ask processors how many deer they get in a year that have broadheads in them. One of the deer taken by a neighbor this last fall in rifle season had been shot two weeks earlier in the next section to the north (prolly 3/4 mile away). The deer reportedly showed no signs of being hit but that buck was carrying broadhead and alot of shaft. Turns out that it had been whacked by a neighbor whoe lemme just say....loosed a few arrows into deer last fall.

Remember, hunters can legally hunt (and fling arrows) until they use up there tags. That is the essence of my concern over the 45 days of bow hunting bucks.

[lwingwatcher]

YOU ARE A VERY BAD MAN.
I will stop now

Oh...so you took the rest of your comments to a PM ???? Prolly a wise move in view of what you said.

Geez....
:rolleyes:

[lwingwatcher]

If you have an interest in getting or training a deer recovery dog, visit www.deersearch.org

L & O


Thanks....I checked out the site but, need to spend more time on it to try and figure out who the Michigan guys are.

I have wanted a deer tracking dog for years...and never realized that there was an organization devoted for them. Man....the deer I might have found for folks over all these years...

But, what with two yote dogs, a pup I just got for a squirrel dog...no time for training right now. But, I sure would love to find somebody that has them to watch.

[Mickey Finn]

I don't agree with curtailing anyones use of our resources. I would agree with eliminating the weapon specific seasons and let the hunter make there own decision on what to use.

I don't think anyone would argue that a rifle is a more efficient tool. Nor do I think, anyone really doubts that a bow is suitable for deer hunting. It is up to the hunter to use either in a safe and humane way.

[GVDocHoliday]

I'm still finding this hilarious that 'firearm', not rifle hunters as there's really no such season...it's firearm season, are complaining about bowhunters as the reason to their inability to get a deer...primarily a buck.

Mr. Wheatlake is still an imbicile, as a quiet period would never happen because it would effect too many activities including those activities of non-hunters who utilize the woods for hiking, biking, and running. 95% of firearm hunters in the state usually wait til the first two weeks of November to sight in their rifles, what's gonna happen when they actually have to do some preseason work in the summer and stop procastinating? To put it simple there are not enough CO's in the state to enforce it if it was made law.

In every other state firarm season is short. Usually a week of firearm with a week of muzzleloader and several months of archery. Look at Kentucky, their archery season runs from September 1st through the end of January. Iowa, Illinoise, there firearm seasons are all shorter, and guess what, they have a much higher success rate and harvest nearly twice as many antlerless deer as antlered. I'm one to believe that archery season should start in September. That way they can make September doe only and October either or.

If the DNR actually cared about the science behind deer management they wouldn't listen to the hunters and actually move the firearm season. Having the firearm season during the peak of the rut is...well...asanine. In all reality the season should start the first Saturday of December and last for a week. With a Muzzleloading season actually preceding the firearm season the previous week.

[lwingwatcher]

In every other state firarm season is short. Usually a week of firearm with a week of muzzleloader and several months of archery.

If the DNR actually cared about the science behind deer management they wouldn't listen to the hunters and actually move the firearm season. Having the firearm season during the peak of the rut is...well...asanine. In all reality the season should start the first Saturday of December and last for a week. With a Muzzleloading season actually preceding the firearm season the previous week.

Well, Michigan isn't built like every other state...we have our own "zones" so to speak due to differences in all sorts of things. Heck, we even have different types of zones (as do other states I am sure). Then you have to take into consideration the Michigan culture....November 15 means something in Michigan hunting tradition. Interesting thoughts but...t'ain't likely to happen.

The notion of having muzzleloading season precede firearm season is a joke! Modern muzzle loaders being what they are, what the heck is the difference except for how many shots you have fired in the woods? Having muzzleloader season precede regular firearms season would just boost muzzle loader sales and make little difference for the firearm hunters except....give them one more week of warning of the orange before the rest of the hunters got out there....

We have 3 friggin months to kill deer, no sense opening it up into September.... All things considered, somebody give me a better plan (one that is enforceable and will stimulate change in hunter attitudes over time) that will aid in the effective management of our deer herd than making October the month of anterless only.

[Tom Morang]

"We have 3 friggin months to kill deer, no sense opening it up into September.... All things considered, somebody give me a better plan (one that is enforceable and will stimulate change in hunter attitudes over time) that will aid in the effective management of our deer herd than making October the month of anterless only."

It's called education lwing. QDM tried management by legislation and it backfired on them. They now are using an education campaign that just might get a lot more people involved voluntarily.

Encouraging bowhunters to take the Bowhunter Education Course and using tracking dogs whenever necessary would be a good start.

What do you do about duck hunters who fling steel at ducks at 60 yards?
Do you shut down the best part of the migration?
You educate them don't you?

[Munsterlndr]

Mr. Wheatlake is still an imbicile,


Um, I think the word is imbecile.

Yeah, a longer bow season is just what we need, it's pretty unreasonable that we only allow archers 78 days to shoot deer. Heck, maybe we should just make bow season year round. :rolleyes:

[mikieday]

untill the DNR can come up with a better way of collecting their numbers, and a better plan for managing our deer heard i just can believe anything they say on numbers etc...in my opion they are a puppet for the insurance industry..(yes i agree they do alot more good then bad...)buuuuut.

if they want to show all these numbers and calculate kill alotments then they need to install a real method of counting the deer harvested....alot of other states do it...

JMO
Mikie

[lwingwatcher]

Encouraging bowhunters to take the Bowhunter Education Course and using tracking dogs whenever necessary would be a good start.

What do you do about duck hunters who fling steel at ducks at 60 yards?
Do you shut down the best part of the migration?
You educate them don't you?

"a good start" but, not nearly enough. My son took a bowhunter education course at the Ted Nugent Kamp for Kids better than 10 years ago. He was a good enough shot to win the Kamp shootoff and then beat Ted. But, even with the education he got there and the education he has obtained afield (and from his dear old Dad), he still has what I consider to be an unacceptable loss rate.

Education works but, only to a certain extent. Every driver out there must take Drivers Ed but....look at all the "accidents" that we still have.

I truly believe that an October "anterless season" could and would lead towards a change in hunter attitudes and at the same time, enable more bucks to breed and maybe even reach maturity. Hell, things are so sad in this State that most hunters don't even know what a mature whitetail looks like....we have this silly "points" thing ingrained in our minds eye of success...
Let the bowhunters that want freezer beef, or even to just shoot something...shoot the anterless deer.

For too long....hunter have said, "if I don't kill it, somebody else will" and in many areas, that is a true statement. If bucks were not in season in October....poachers would have to shoot and shutup....and process their own ill gotten game, they wouldn't be able to put somebody's buck tag on it.

I would much rather see the month of October shut down for bucks than going to a one buck (easy to violate) system or a draw for antlered permit system. I think it would have the greatest impact with the least amount of restriction on hunting opportunities and I guess I will await a response that proves to me that I am somehow mistaken. So....lets hear (read) it!!!!

[GVDocHoliday]

[QUOTE=
Yeah, a longer bow season is just what we need, it's pretty unreasonable that we only allow archers 78 days to shoot deer. Heck, maybe we should just make bow season year round. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


That wouldn't be so bad, the harvest numbers would still remain biologically insignificant. That is, has little to no measurable effect on the overall population. Ironically that's the same impact coyotes and wolves have on the deer population as well.

[GVDocHoliday]

The notion of having muzzleloading season precede firearm season is a joke!

Seems to work in other states.

[fairfax1]

This thread's been fun to read. A little different than what I expected when I posted Tom Morang's account of the Commissioner's comments.

But, speaking of the Commissioner, I think he ...and the NRC...need to be contacted by any and all interested individuals for an explanation of his comments. Surely, the reporter's and Tom's, brief accounts of what he said can be more completely explained by Mr.Wheatlake himself.

I'm writing him to find out if he is willing to do that. Maybe, you could too......

[fairfax1]

For a moment I thought I was on the Trad forum.

Still, my post above is ambidextrous....it will fit both.

[lwingwatcher]

That wouldn't be so bad, the harvest numbers would still remain biologically insignificant. That is, has little to no measurable effect on the overall population.

Ok, so know you have defined 'biologically insignificant" has having little to no measureable effect on the overall population.

What????????? You gotta be kidding me....who in the heck is gonna believe that harvest numbers have little effect on overall population?

And....your line of thinkin on muzzle loader season preceding regular firearms season....well, again I say...you cannot just say that because "it seems to work in other states" becaue you have failed to provide any sound basis for your claim that a change in the batting order would work for Michigan. Please explain just how it will work for us...

[Overdew]

Ok, so know you have defined 'biologically insignificant" has having little to no measureable effect on the overall population.

What????????? You gotta be kidding me....who in the heck is gonna believe that harvest numbers have little effect on overall population?

And....your line of thinkin on muzzle loader season preceding regular firearms season....well, again I say...you cannot just say that because "it seems to work in other states" becaue you have failed to provide any sound basis for your claim that a change in the batting order would work for Michigan. Please explain just how it will work for us...

Well I was putting mineral licks out this morning and booted a doe so i killed it with a stick. Big deal it is just another critter
Everyone bow to the almighty Iwingwatcher:bowdown:

[GVDocHoliday]

I was only referring to harvest numbers of a year round archery season. Think of it this way. I doubt that a year round archery season would even double our current archery only harvest...Lucky to even get half as much.

Anyways, winter mortality the following year would actually decrease as the higher abundance of nutrition would allow fawns and adults to build up a higher fat storage to make it through the harsh winter months. In most cases, deer are starving by the time spring comes around and that results in several predatory kills and miscarriages. The remaining storage that they are able to carry over from the fall to the spring will actually aid in growth instead of just staying alive. This will improve the ability of the animal to thwart predators.

An ideal harvest number would actually be 40-45% of the current population every single year. If left unhunted, whitetails have the potential to double their population in a single year. They are a very resiliant and persistant, they adapt and they bounce back. I still believe that the over all status of the current population is too high for the habitat, especially in the northern part of the LP. The southern half has such a high K that they could nearly support three times the current population. But then all the farmers would go broke.

In my opinion other states do it right. Their seasons, the time, the length, etc. In all of the surrounding states they have great hunting...and they all have one thing in common. Very short firearm seasons and typically a muzzloader season thats before the firearm season. Wanna see how it works? See what states have the highest non-resident license fees. They're banking on their management.

[Luv2hunteup]

Here's a link to Michigan's hunting stats for 2004. Decide for yourself, bowhunters take alot of deer. Is that a bad thing?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/report3444_135086_7.pdf

There is also a study by Ed Langenau and Bill Moritz that indicates that Michigan bowhunters take a very high percentage of young bucks. I think the name of it is "Allocating Deer Hunting Opportunites".

Bow hunters do take alot of deer, they do wound deer, they don't take enough does, they hunt early in the season before deer wise up, they hunt during the prerut when bucks are very vunerable, they hunt during firearms season (those days count too), they hunt late season deer in yarding areas, all are legit concerns. Even combined are they enough to curtail archery hunting opportunities? I don't have the answers but I'm also concerned with the future of hunting in our state.

[lwingwatcher]

I

Anyways, winter mortality the following year would actually decrease as the higher abundance of nutrition would allow fawns and adults to build up a higher fat storage to make it through the harsh winter months. In most cases, deer are starving by the time spring comes around and that results in several predatory kills and miscarriages. The remaining storage that they are able to carry over from the fall to the spring will actually aid in growth instead of just staying alive. This will improve the ability of the animal to thwart predators.



Wait a minute...weren't you the one that just got through saying that yotes and wolves don't significantly impact the deer population? So, to clarify things so it doesn't appear that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth...please tell us exactly what other predators you are referring to.

And, you don't appear to be considering the fact that a very good portion of this state doesn't have a winter mortality rate to begin with and if it does on occassion, I would have to say that the impact would be (what are those fancy words) "biologically insignificant" in much of this state. That is precisely the reason that no management strategy will work the same in all of Michigan any more than we can attempt to emulate what other states do. There are just too many variables to implement a fix so easily.

I am not even gonna bother addressing that ludicrous suggestion of a year round season...
:lol:

[HoytKimberShimano]

Like the DNR has a clue on any of this anyway (success rate and anything related to harvest and deer population). They've never talked to me....or anyone in my family, so how in the heck do they know? They don't. Pretty simple in my book and it's just scary that we have someone like Wheatlake in a potantially influential position making comments such as those, but this is the way of MI deer hunting I guess. :sad:

[Tom Morang]

Luv2hunteup said:

There is also a study by Ed Langenau and Bill Moritz that indicates that Michigan bowhunters take a very high percentage of young bucks. I think the name of it is "Allocating Deer Hunting Opportunites".



The study said that 82% of the bowseason buck harvest was 1-1/2 year olds. 65 % of the gun buck harvest was 1-1/2 year olds. Who killed the most 1-1/2 year old bucks? Gun hunters. Who killed most of the bucks with larger antlers? According to the study the gun hunters did.:chillin:

The study also said that records of deer scored by Commemorative Bucks of Michigan showed that most trophy deer (typical score of 170 or more or nontypical score of 195 or more) were taken during firearms season. More trophy deer were poached, salvaged, or hit by motor vehicles than were taken by bowhunters.:) :D

[Ibow]

Wow - those are some astonishing stats TM ... I wonder if Wheatlake remembers them? :)

[lwingwatcher]

Luv2hunteup said:

There is also a study by Ed Langenau and Bill Moritz that indicates that Michigan bowhunters take a very high percentage of young bucks. I think the name of it is "Allocating Deer Hunting Opportunites".



The study said that 82% of the bowseason buck harvest was 1-1/2 year olds. 65 % of the gun buck harvest was 1-1/2 year olds. Who killed the most 1-1/2 year old bucks? Gun hunters. Who killed most of the bucks with larger antlers? According to the study the gun hunters did.:chillin:

The study also said that records of deer scored by Commemorative Bucks of Michigan showed that most trophy deer (typical score of 170 or more or nontypical score of 195 or more) were taken during firearms season. More trophy deer were poached, salvaged, or hit by motor vehicles than were taken by bowhunters.:) :D

I think CBM only requires 100" for bow kill and 130" for gun kill entries.

Anyway....that survey of hunters thing....concerns me some cuz I really don't think that it takes into account all the technically poached (using somebody elses tag) deer and it sure as heck doesn't count the deer that were stuck but not recovered.

And...sad as it is....too many bowhunters are willing to whack all those 1.5 year olds and do it time and time again....and that contributes to the lower numbers killed by bowhunters. Heck...if there were more 2.5's and 3.5's and pick an age that survived the over zealous arrow flingers their first year...we would stand a helluva lot better chance of seeing and maybe placing an arrow in a bigger, more mature buck.

Some guys just don't have primo ground to hunt and if all the bucks are whacked at an early age...they are never likely to even see much less get a chance to bag a mature white tail, which is truly a majestic creature and a sight to behold.

The only bad thing about taking a booker is....all the 1.5's are just babies after that....

[Tom Morang]

Lwing doesn't like facts and would rather base his beliefs and limit hunting opportunity on anecdotal hearsay.

And


You still didn't answer my question about duck hunters.

What do you do about duck hunters who fling steel at ducks at 60 yards?
Do you shut down duck hunting during the best part of the migration to stop it?

[SR-Mechead]

I don't understand what the problem is. Michigan is one of the best states to hunt deer with bow or gun. Now if you want a monster buck you better think of going to another state. Michigan has got thousands of acres of state land which states like Wisconsin and others do not have. As long as we have got the state land big bucks are going to be hard to come by. I let 9 small bucks walk in bow season only to see some of them shot during rifle saeson and guess what I wasn't even mad because the hunters had a tag to fill and they did.
One more thing I don't think that the DNR has a clue to how many does or bucks have been taken in this state bow or gun. How many of you were stopped and checked in the last 5 years and asked what is your success story.
Lets just leave the seasons alone and enjoy the time we can have in the woods. I sit in my stand and every so often bird hunters with there dogs come walking by which is just fine with me. I will go bird hunting myself sometimes.

[Munsterlndr]

Lwing doesn't like facts and would rather base his beliefs and limit hunting opportunity on anecdotal hearsay.


Gee Tom, would that be the same Ed Langenau whose study showed a 62% wounding and non-recovery rate among bow hunters?

"Langenau, E.E. "Factors Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotgun Slugs" 1986

Or do you only accept the scientific validity of studies that support your point of view?

[lwingwatcher]

Lwing doesn't like facts and would rather base his beliefs and limit hunting opportunity on anecdotal hearsay.

And


You still didn't answer my question about duck hunters.

What do you do about duck hunters who fling steel at ducks at 60 yards?
Do you shut down duck hunting during the best part of the migration to stop it?


Hearsay...how about seein with my own eyes and hearing lots of stories about what got whacked and not recovered. I get sick and tired of "I hit one" stories and don't even try and convince anybody here that you haven't heard those kinds of tales yourself over the years.

And, I don't think many duck hunters can effectively kill ducks at 60 yards either but...the comparison isn't about distance of shots at all it is about the seasons remember? Anyway...duck hunters have faced a shut down season for the best part of the migration for years (this year being kind of an exception) so...it is nothing new to us. So, you really picked a lousy example of comparing apples to oranges...just as some of the folks here have done by comparing Michigan deer management to that of other states...it just doesn't work.

[One Eye]

Lets just leave the seasons alone and enjoy the time we can have in the woods. I sit in my stand and every so often bird hunters with there dogs come walking by which is just fine with me. I will go bird hunting myself sometimes.
My point about the quiet period should not be construed to mean that I think the seasons during the November 1-14 time frame "should" be curtailed. My point was that there is a lot more going on in the woods during this period than archery hunting. I too bird hunt, small game hunt, turkey hunt, predator hunt, etc. I do not want to see any of these activities reduced.

I was trying to point out how clueless Mr. Wheatlake is when it come to his attacks on other hunting groups that he apparently feels cut into his favorite method.

Dan

[Tom Morang]

I would like to see a copy of that study Munster.

lwing--I honestly don't think you are ever going to be happy with other people killing deer. Let's face it, you would rather believe stories and use your anecdotes to keep others out of the deer woods.

I have duck hunted most of my adult life and I've got to tell you I can't remember a year when we didn't have good hunting and shooting at the peak of migration.

[Ibow]

Yeah - I'd like to see that report as well Munster. Please provide a link for all of us or else you can email it to me.

ibow55@chartermi.net

[Ibow]

And Munster - please don't provide us with a paste of Langenau's comments that were taken completely out of context in the article written by the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance on the North American Animal Liberation Front's website.

Please provide us with Langenau's actual comments in their entirety.

[Munsterlndr]

Tom -

It's not available online, as far as I know, but it is referenced in a pamphlet called "Bowhunting: An Examination of the Facts" published by the American Archery Council.

The study is also mentioned by Roy Marlow in his book " Timeless Bowhunting: The Art, the Science and the Spirit"

Langenau's study indicated a 62% wounding and non-recovery rate among bowhunters and a 19% wounding and non-recovery rate among shotgun hunters.

BTW, I'm not saying that I necessarily believe Langenau's results, just pointing out that if you are basing an argument on the results of a specific researcher then it is hard to dismiss the results of his other work. Since you previously quoted the Ripley Study I figured you would be familiar with Langenau's previous work, since it was one of the studies that the Ripley Study was specifically intended to contradict.

Believe it or not I am not anti-bowhunter. I have bowhunted in the past, own a bow and probably will bowhunt in the future. As far as the question posed in this thread, I actually am not in favor of curtailing the bowhunting season, although I am also not in favor of extending it. What irritates me is the knee jerk reaction by some bow hunters, that just because someone voices a personal opinion (in this case Wheatlake) he is automatically labeled an imbecile and some members get out their pitchforks and start heating the tar and readying the feathers. If people don't agree with his opinon, refute him with some facts. The automatic name calling is just plain childish.

[Tom Morang]

I agree with you Munster, name-calling is childish and uncalled for. And Commissioner Wheatlake isn't the first Commissioner to express his feelings about a quiet period. Commissioner Charters and others have posed the same question to me at NRC meetings and they always get a polite but firm response in return. He may not like what he hears but it usually gets his attention with a little jocularity thrown in.:chillin:

[Liv4Huntin']

Two-day hunts. 1986. 1992, 1993. Are there any studies more current and in Michigan? MUCH has changed in 19 years and 13 years.

Some of these posts are bordering on childish, name calling and such. We have a tendency to 'key in' on the person/persons we're answering and forget this is such a widely-viewed site. Not a really good image we're projecting here........ And the 'anti's' are grinning from ear to ear-- I can just SEE 'em.!!!
~ m ~

[Tom Morang]

Let them grin;) . We need to concentrate on the non hunters. There are fewer and fewer people who even know a hunter as a person. Forget the anti's. They can't be persuaded. :grouphug:

[lwingwatcher]

lwing--I honestly don't think you are ever going to be happy with other people killing deer. Let's face it, you would rather believe stories and use your anecdotes to keep others out of the deer woods.

I have duck hunted most of my adult life and I've got to tell you I can't remember a year when we didn't have good hunting and shooting at the peak of migration.

Tom: Maybe I figured out an excuse for your line of thinking...you sound like a friggin mud humping hunter of bread eaters. I can assure you that there have been many years that the peak DIVER migration was not within the season that we could kill them in Michigan. And, you and I both know that waterfowl season limits and bag limits change with not only the days but location in Michigan so...you prolly would be better served to refrain from further duck hunting references, if you wish to maintain some semblence of credibility.

As far as the deer killing....I have no problem with others killing everything they shoot at (except for the poachers) so...why are you trying to post my position when there is nothing posted in this thread to lead a reasonable person to believe that I feel that way. And, just because you choose to ignore very real loss ratios (based on published studies or personal experience) does not mean that it doesn't exist. My position is and was that the mature buck population would benefit from my October proposal and in the process have the potential to reduce some of the differences among deer hunters both now and in the future. Think about that will ya?

[Tom Morang]

I have thought about it - a lot -. Science is used when duck seasons and bag limits are proposed, not anecdotal evidence.

You are going to solve hunter conflicts or perceived differences by demanding a quiet period or uncalled for restrictions on bowhunters only?
:confused:

[lwingwatcher]

You are going to solve hunter conflicts or perceived differences by demanding a quiet period or uncalled for restrictions on bowhunters only?
:confused:

You certainly are confused allright. Up until now, there is no place in this entire thread or even on this board where I have ever addressed "quiet periods" much less advocated them. You do seem to make things up as you go along...just because it suits your particular position. You will also be hard pressed to find anywhere on this board where I have suggested restrictions on bowhunters only much less uncalled for restrictions on bowhunters only. So, please feel free to back up your outlandish statements with a quote.

I will tell you this though...you do keep folks hopping...just correcting your faulty assumptions...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :lol:

[Tom Morang]

Ok my bad on the quiet period thing but ......lwing, didn't you make this statement? Isn't this wanting to impose restrictions on bowhunters only? :confused:



"45 days is too long for archers to be shooting at bucks if we ever want to have a chance of seeing mature bucks in the State of Michigan.

I wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if the month of October was does only. And, let me add that I kill far more bucks with an arrow than I do a bullet and I like bow hunting far more than deer shooting with a firearm."


And btw I wouldn't eat those fish eatin divers, you can have em all. ;)


;):confused: You can tell a lot about a guy by how easily he is confused:lol:

I'm laughing with ya not at ya...............

[lwingwatcher]

45 days is too long for archers to be shooting at bucks if we ever want to have a chance of seeing mature bucks in the State of Michigan.

I wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if the month of October was does only.

And btw I wouldn't eat those fish eatin divers, you can have em all. ;)


;)

Yup, I said that....but, it is a stretch to envision that needed changes in the regulations (you call them restrictions) would be limited to bow hunters only even though the month of October is presently limited to archers.

And...since you are not denying my presumption that you are a park duck hunter....it makes everyone more aware that you base your statements on a very limited perspective. What is that phrase you are fond of "antecdotal evidence" or some such thing. And even if you are a park duck hunter...tell me when the last time our seasons coincided with the teal migration...and don't even get me going about us being a production state for wood ducks or....man, .....you have a tendency to go off half cocked....

Oh, gimme those divers any day!!!!! And mature bucks too....

[Tom Morang]

I see plenty of teal every year during the season don't you. And I didn't say I didn't like diver huntin, just don't like diver dinner. Way too much assuming going on there lwing:D. Better calm down, we got a long time before we can say high to all the guys in the marsh. They camp out there all night ya know?

Nothing like eatin a mustard and onion samitch in a layout boat eh? That reminds me, my sneak boat needs fixin................

I am with you on the mature bucks though.

[SR-Mechead]

[QUOTE=Munsterlndr]Tom -

"

Langenau's study indicated a 62% wounding and non-recovery rate among bowhunters and a 19% wounding and non-recovery rate among shotgun hunters.


This study is a bunch of BS,and all good hunters know that. When was this study made in the days of the Indians.

[Liv4Huntin']

"There are fewer and fewer people who even know a hunter as a person. "

What do you mean by this?

And Wheatlake..... how'd he get the position? Is this an appointed position? If so, by whom?
~ m ~

[One Eye]

And Wheatlake..... how'd he get the position? Is this an appointed position? If so, by whom?
~ m ~
Per the DNR website.

What is the NRC?
The Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) is a seven-member public body whose members are appointed by the Governor and subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Commission conducts monthly, public meetings in locations throughout Michigan. Citizens are encouraged to become actively involved in these public forums.

The Commission establishes general policies for the Department of Natural Resources and hires the Department's Director. Voter adoption of Proposal G in November 1996, vests exclusive authority in the Natural Resources Commission to regulate the taking of game.

Here is Mr. Wheatlake's information per the DNR wesbite:

Frank C. Wheatlake
Reed City Power Line Supply,
420 N. Roth Street,
P.O. Box 147
Reed City, MI 49677
231-796-5491 (Home)
231-832-2258 (Office)
Appointed: 2/6/01
Re-Appointed: 5/3/05
Term Expires: 12/31/08
Independent

[Tom Morang]

A non hunter (not an anti) needs to know that hunting is a necessary management tool. Who are they going to learn that from? We need to get out and let those people we work with and meet everyday know that hunting is a necessary wildlife management tool. Those people will ultimately decide if we will continue to be part of wildlife management in the future.

[Liv4Huntin']

Please tell me what you mean..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are fewer and fewer people who even know a hunter as a person. "

~ m ~

[TheNatural]

how about we change the youth hunt and the gun season get shorter.

[Tom Morang]

"There are fewer and fewer people who even know a hunter as a person. "

Our numbers are getting smaller, and therefore less and less people(wives, fellow workers, neighbors etc) truely know and understand what hunting is all about.

[Gilbey]

I don't even know where to start this fine monday morning without enough caffeine yet to really respond, but here goes as this is the first time that I've seen and read the post, all whatever pages that there are, but here goes.

First of all, how many differing arguments are actually in this post?

Reduction of bow hunting
Injuring of deer during this time frame
Killing too many deer during this season
Shortening all seasons
Changing the muzzleloading seasons
Killing too many 1.5 yr old bucks during bow season
Bucks are "easy to kill" during this time frame

ETC ETC ETC ETC

First of all, there ARE many less bow hunters in the state. From what I see, less and less every year. Secondly, you guys must know a lot more people than myself that have to injure deer every year. I don't know any of these guys myself.?? I've had to that during gun season every year....you know, getting on a trail for 3 miles cuz someone can't sight in a gun!! I know I hunted all year long withe the bow and that is the only weapon during season that I DIDN'T kill anything with. Killing 1.5 yr old bucks is BS and should not be allowed at all by anyone in MY BOOK. Let em go and let em grow. Bucks are not easy to kill, unless they're these 1.5 yr olds. MARS/restrictions could fix this.

Not eliminating bow hunting!!!

From my perspective, this is a season that takes time and patience. The right trail. The right tree. The right wind. The right time. In placing all that together, WHO THE HELL sees this as easy. The bucks are vulnerable. BS. Good scouting will give you the shot. Time in the woods, preparation, and a little luck.

In talking ease of taking deer. Gimme a break. I can take my rifle and put a shot through the heart at 100's of yards. Can I do that with my bow? How many bow hunters see bucks and say I saw a dandy but never had a shot. Me - probably two dozen times a season. With a gun, it would be over after seeing the first one of those.

And if you do injure umpteen deer with a bow. You are not a bow hunter. You are a bow shooter. One that should sight in their rifle and wait a few extra weeks b4 stepping out into the woods.

Just my .02

[jawbreaker]

Just like Gilby I am just reading this thread for the first time. All I have to say about it is this.........thanks Gilby you just saved me a whole lot of typing. ;)

To blame a bow hunter for "pressuring" the woods and preventing the gun hunter from seeing deer seems kinda ridiculous. I mean c'mon, if we go galavanting around the woods dropping scent and bumping deer everywhere we aren't going to have a very successful season. We rely on being stealthy and scent free.

Another thought.....why do 80%ish of the gun kills happen in the first 3 days?? Maybe all the gun hunters and shooting has an impact on the deer sightings after the first three days. I could be wrong on this one though.

I hunt up by Glennie a few times a year. During the archery season I see deer everyday. Opening day of gun season I may or may not see deer. Days 2 and 3 of gun season I very very very rarely see deer. Muzzleloader season I have not seen a deer in 4 years.

See the pattern??

Don't blame archery hunters for the lack of deer sightings during gun season its just not the problem.

Random thougths...................

If you go to the same old blind year after year after year and aren't seeing deer, maybe you need to scout out another location or 5.

I wonder how the lack of 5 ton bait piles has influenced some hunters success over the last say 5 or 7 years??

If ya can't beat em join em.

I wonder how many deer a day are killed on average during the two seasons in question.



Jawbreaker

[lwingwatcher]

Maybe this entire thread should have been---should changes in bow hunting regulations be considered?

I have to agree...this thread has taken many twists and turns but, it is obvious that different perspectives lead to different opinions on what could or should be done to improve the situation for deer hunters and the deer.

Trouble with that is...those darned different perspectives...and it doesn't appear that there will ever be any consensus...even among hunters. And that is the saddest part of all...

[treestand6]

I just found my copy of the "allocating deer hunting opportunities to michigan deer hunters"---it isWildlife Division Report No. 3208

In 1992- archery hunters took 7.4 antlered deer per 100 days of effort

Fire arms and muzzleloader hunters took 26.1 antlered deer per 100 days of effort

(that is about 3 times the amount of effort to get a deer with arechery equipment)


Firearms and muzleloaders took 136,269 antlered deer under 1 1/2 yrs old

Archery hunters took 51,109 antlered deer under 1 1/2 yrs old

(That is 2 1/2 times young bucks killed by firearms and muzzlloaders as archery)

There numbers are dated---the muzzleloader firearms hunters numbers have probably grown.


Before you start the complaining---I hunt archery and firearms---It is alot easier to kill a deer with a gun than a bow---if you don't believe itnext year i'll only hunt with a gun if you only hunt with a bow (to the gun only hunters)

[lwingwatcher]

Firearms and muzleloaders took 136,269 antlered deer under 1 1/2 yrs old

Archery hunters took 51,109 antlered deer under 1 1/2 yrs old

(That is 2 1/2 times young bucks killed by firearms and muzzlloaders as archery)

There numbers are dated-


And, suffice to say....you can torture statistics until they tell you anything you want to hear.

Bottom line is....more deer hit with a gun are recovered than deer hit with an arrow.

Remember, we only count tagged deer...not ones that were shot and not recovered.

And, I would still like to know where they got those numbers cuz the guys that whack half a dozen or more bucks during bow season sure as hell don't report them.

[kingfisher 11]

Very true about archery and stats.

I have only lost three deer in the last 25 years, both with a bow. I guess it depends on who you talk with. I hear several stories every year of lost deer with archery. I think it is common. You can scew stats to show you anything. My experience is the group of 14-30 year olds wound and lose more deer then older hunters. I could show you that stat but not mention they might be the largest hunting block. I don't trust stats very often. I look to see what the person who presents the stats gives his opoint of view, is he neutral or bias.

[lwingwatcher]

Very true about archery and stats.

I have only lost three deer in the last 25 years, both with a bow. I guess it depends on who you talk with. I hear several stories every year of lost deer with archery. I think it is common. You can scew stats to show you anything. My experience is the group of 14-30 year olds wound and lose more deer then older hunters. I could show you that stat but not mention they might be the largest hunting block. I don't trust stats very often. I look to see what the person who presents the stats gives his opoint of view, is he neutral or bias.

True, true, true...but, I know a Dad that taught his son to be a crippler...and both of them are all about numbers, and they fling lots of arrows to try and prove that they are better hunters than the next guy...even though they have no room for the buck meat. Go figure eh.....
:rolleyes:

[treestand6]

lwingwatcher said:"Bottom line is....more deer hit with a gun are recovered than deer hit with an arrow."

More deer are hit with a gun because there are more gun hunters. Which would be more apt to survive, a deer shot with a marginal shot? One shot with a bow or a gun.. We know the answer to that--the one bow shot. Why are deer shot years later with a broad head in it? It is because of the clean cut. With a gun there is tissue damage.

Read the Camp Riley study on bow wounding and recovery.

[SR-Mechead]

And, suffice to say....you can torture statistics until they tell you anything you want to hear.

Bottom line is....more deer hit with a gun are recovered than deer hit with an arrow.

Remember, we only count tagged deer...not ones that were shot and not recovered.

And, I would still like to know where they got those numbers cuz the guys that whack half a dozen or more bucks during bow season sure as hell don't report them.


Where in the hell are you getting your info from. Whack a half dozen or more bucks in a season. I hope that they are not people that you hunt with.
You sure have come up with alot of off the wall BS in this thread. Calm down a little

[lwingwatcher]

lwingwatcher said:"Bottom line is....more deer hit with a gun are recovered than deer hit with an arrow."

More deer are hit with a gun because there are more gun hunters.
.

Yup....I said what was quoted BUT, you are the one saying that more deer are hit with a gun because there are more deer hunters. No sheet...but...you should see the fallacy of your association.

The point I was trying to make...was that there is a higher recovery rate for deer shot with firearms....get it? Nothing more...

[Erik]

Michigan is bar none the bowhunting capitol of the world! I for one am proud of that heritage! I plan to do my best to see to it that that legacy continues for a long long time!
You want to take my bow from me? Pry it from my cold dead fingers cause thats the only way your ever going to get it!!!!!

[lwingwatcher]

Where in the hell are you getting your info from. Whack a half dozen or more bucks in a season. I hope that they are not people that you hunt with.
You sure have come up with alot of off the wall BS in this thread. Calm down a little

For starters....I am perfectly calm and quite confident that I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to guys whacking multiple bucks...both recovered and not recovered in a single season and...they keep right on hunting. If you don't know folks like that in your area....maybe there are either lousy hunters or no bucks to begin with. Around me...if you spend your time in the right places...you are going to get your shots. The more you hunt, the more shots you are likely to get. Some guys just don't know the meaning of the word pass and they don't if it has horns.

We can sit here and deny that it occurs until we are blue in the face and for what---everybody knows it happens...at least those in the know know....
Sure, some of it is just kind of unethical....some downright unlawful but...the FACT remains, bow hunters have the opportunity to put a serious hurt on multiple bucks during that initial 45 day period. That was and is my point of contention. And, I am still waiting for somebody to take me up on my request to come up with a plan better for the deer herd and for all deer hunters than to place further restrictions on antlered deer tags in the month of October. Oh, and please remember that it has to be enforceable to stand a prayer of being effective and begin to change hunter attitudes.

[treestand6]

lwingwatcher said: "there is a higher recovery rate for deer shot with firearms....get it? Nothing more..."


prove it?

[Erik]

If you guys want to go there...
How many people have accidently shot themselves while bow hunting? How many people have accidently shot someone else while bow hunting? How many deer have you seen walking around missing a leg because a bowhunter shot one of them off????

All these arguments are old. They didn't hold water when they were first uttered, and they don't hold water now.

Back when bowhunting seasons first came about mi bow hunters offered rewards to anyone who turned in an arrow they had found in a deer wounded by a bowhunter. Know how many rewards they had to give out??? None.

[treestand6]

The Facts on Bow Wounding


Net version published by The Bowsite with permission from Wendy Krueger


Comprehensive Information From The Myth-Shattering Camp Ripley Study

This report is the result of a comprehensive study on bow-wounding on deer at Camp Ripley in Central Minnesota. The articles originally appeared in the August 1994 and 1995 issues of Deer and Deer Hunting Magazine and have been condensed for the web. For the full report, please contact the National Bowhunter Education Foundation at 970-635-1994.


In May 1995, the wounding research was completed and accepted by West Virginia University as a master's thesis. The study was paid for by the Save our Heritage Committee of AMO, and more than 50 bowhunting and conservation organizations. The study was written by Wendy Krueger of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The study was supervised by Jay McAninch of the Minnesota DNR and Professor Dave Samuel at West Virginia University.


An Attention-Getter


This study received extensive media coverage. Newspapers and most major magazines carried the results as well as radio and television. By the end of 1995, the bowhunting wounding study became the most widely known and understood hunting study ever completed.


Anti-Hunting Response

How have anti-hunters responded to the study? No legal challenges or calls to end bow-hunting have been made since the study's release. That doesn't mean wounding rates are satisfactory to anyone, but it indicates the anti-hunters' message has been damaged by hard evidence collected scientifically.


The Animal-Rights Influence


At the core of the study - like it or not - was one of hunting's most debated questions: "Do archers wound too many deer?" The study needed to address a growing number of controversial statements about bowhunting wounding rates. McAninch, Dr. Dave Samuel of West Virginia University, and their colleagues on the professional Wildlife Management Committee of the American Archery Council realized the trump card the animal protectionists groups kept drawing was wounding rates taken from sometimes questionable research. Clearly an intense, scientific look at this issue was warranted.


First, Krueger and her colleagues reviewed the available technical literature, which involved 47 papers on bow wounding. They found few of the studies had dealt with archery wounding in depth, and only three had used post-hunt ground searches to locate dead or dying deer.


Research Team Forms


McAninch, Krueger, and Samuel set out to develop a meaningful study, and to find a way to pay for it. The research would eventually cost $250,000, which the Minnesota DNR could never have paid for by itself. Even though animal-rights groups were asked to help financially, none responded. The cost was picked up by those who had the most to lose: bowhunters and archery companies.


Why Camp Ripley?


The researchers chose Minnesota's Camp Ripley for their work. This National Guard camp covers 53,000 acres and is the site of two, two-day archery hunts each fall. Krueger said camp Ripley was picked because it has a long history of bowhunting. "It's been famous since 1950's and has produced more than 40 P&Y bucks," she said.


Ripley was also ideal for this study because all hunters must check in and out of the camp at the start and end of each hunting day. These factors allowed the research team to interview most hunters at the close of each day. Most previous studies were conducted well after the hunts conclusion, and relied mainly on interviews or mail-in surveys. Krueger trained her interviewers to conduct the on-site questioning using a non-threatening, conversational technique that allowed the hunters to participate in the information-gathering process.


Figure 1. Percent of Bow-Hunters Interviewed




Hunters Hunt 1 - 1992 Hunt 2 - 1992 Hunt 1 - 1993 Hunt 2 - 1993 Average
Successful 96% 99% 100% 100% 98.9
Unsuccessful 49% 51% 65% 79% 60.8%
Total Hunters 1,859 1,307 2,107 2,020 1,823




This chart shows the percentage of archers who were interviewed after their daily hunts by researchers at Camp Ripley. For example, after Hunt 1 in 1992, 96 percent of the successful hunters were interviewed, while 49% of the unsuccessful hunters were interviewed.


Interview Data




Questions Asked of all Hunters Questions Asked of Successful Hunters
Compartment (area) where they hunted Type of bow used
Hunting method used Bow's draw weight
Number of deer seen Deer's position when shot
Shots taken and their outcome Time of the kill
Shots passed on deer they could have killed






Standard Terminology


A primary goal of the Camp Ripley research was to develop standard terminology for the many scenarios that can occur after a hit. This chart shows the various outcomes of deer hit, and how they are categorized by researchers.


Figure 2: Outcomes of Deer Hit





Defining Standard Terms




Retrieved Deer A killed deer taken from the field by a hunter
Reported Deer A deer the hunter reported hitting, but did not retrieve. These deer were listed as follows:
Presumed Deer
The hunter believes he hit a deer, but could provide no direct evidence, such as blood or hair on the arrow or ground. The hunter said the deer limped, jumped or moved abnormally after the shot. The hunter might or might not have recovered his arrow, but perhaps his shot missed.
Substantiated Deer
The hunter found direct evidence of a hit, such as blood or hair on the arrow or ground, or saw a wound or arrow in the deer.
Claimed Deer
The hunter reported hitting a deer, but claimed it was retrieved by another hunter.
Prior Hits
A hit made on a deer by another archer before the deer was shot by the hunter who retrieved it. Prior hits came to light while researchers were examining a hunters deer, and discovered another wound made earlier in the day.





Figure 3. Estimated Percent of Deer Hit by Type




Deer Hit Hunt 1 - 1992 Hunt 2 - 1992 Hunt 1 - 1993 Hunt 2- 1993 Average
Retrieved 75% 72% 72% 70% 72.3%
Presumed 2% 0% 2% 0% 1.0%
Substantiated 13% 22% 20% 22% 19.3%
Claimed 10% 6% 6% 8% 7.5%
Total Deer Hit 331 219 266 139 238.8




Researchers found that 45 percent of deer that sustained a substantiated hit were soon retrieved by another hunter. In the past, these substantiated hits were more than likely recorded as wounded deer, and received no further consideration. Thus this oversight inflated the "wounding rate" in previous studies unintentionally.


Figure 4. Percent of substantiated deer hit that were accounted for as prior hits





Hunt 1 - 1992
Hunt 2 - 1992
Hunt 1 - 1993
Hunt 2 -1993
Average

50%
35%
50%
44%
45%






Unretreived Deer


Next, researchers turned their attention to the remaining substantiated deer hit that they could not account for at the end of the hunt. They did this by carefully recording all deer hit during the Ripley hunts categorizing them by type, and tracking the fate of as many wounded deer as possible. After taking those steps, researchers came up with a number they called the "loss rate" those percentages are shown in figure 5.


Figure 5. Loss Rate





Hunt 1 - 1992
Hunt 2 - 1992
Hunt 1 - 1993
Hunt 2 - 1993
Average

8%
17%
12%
16%
13%




Locating Unrecovered Deer


Unlike most previous research, a big part of the Camp Ripley study involved expensive, exhaustive searches for deer that weren't recovered by bowhunters. Besides interviewing archers after the hunt, the research team went out and looked for dead deer in each hunt area. This was accomplished in two phases: The first involved flying the various hunt compartments (areas) with a helicopter and scanning the terrain for carcasses with high-tech infrared video equipment. This technique called aerial videography, is "terribly expensive," McAninch said. The helicopter alone cost about $600 per hour to operate. In addition, all videotapes were enhanced by a computer and evaluated by research staff.


In the second phase of the search, researchers went to the coordinates provided on the video tape to verify that the video image actually was a deer carcass.


Conclusion


What is McAninch's biggest impression after spending thousands of hours involved in this study? "I'm more clearly focused than ever on using bowhunting as a management tool," he said. "Bowhunting deserves to maintain its place as a legitimate form of recreation, primarily because it's a sound tool for controlling deer populations."


"This study reinforced that the number of deer lost to bowhunting is not biologically significant. The loss rates are extremely low, and they show archers are working hard to get those numbers as low as possible."


Camp Ripley Study Contributors




Save Our Heritage Foundation (AMO) Kansas Bowhunters Association
Safari Club International (SCI) Maine Bowhunters Association
SCI-Minnesota Maryland Bowhunters Society
SCI- Minnesota Archery Committees Michigan Bowhunters
SCI- West Michigan Bowhunters Commemorative Bucks of Michigan
SCI-Houston Chapter Missouri Bowhunters
International Bowhunting Organization North Carolina Bowhunters Association
Retailers and Archery Manufacturers of Minnesota Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association
Australian Bowhunters Assoc. United Bowhunters of New Jersey
Bowhunting Council of Oklahoma United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Bowhunters of Wyoming Wapiti Bowmen of Oregon
Idaho State Bowhunters West Virginia Bowhunters Association
Colorado Bowhunters Association Wisconsin Bowhunters Association
Illinois Bowhunters Society Bowbenders Archery Club; Mankato, Mn.
Indiana Bowhunters Association Frankenmuth Archers, Mi.
Iowa Bowhunters Association Martin Archery, Wallawalla, Wa.
Lapeer County Sportsmen, MI Bad River Bowhunters, ST. Charles, MI
Flint Bowmen; Burton MI Krause Publications, Wisconsin
Little Crow Archery, Hutchinson, MN Rapids Archery Club, Coon Rapids MN
Kaposia Archers; South St. Paul MN George Mann, AL




Reference: Krueger, Wendy J. 1995 - "Aspects of Wounding of Whitetailed Deer by bowhunters." MS-Thesis, School of Agriculture and Forestry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.V.

[TheNatural]

i've deer wounded in both seasons but by far more during gun season, shotguns with no scopes and buckshot but the people shooting at deer 150 to 200 hundred yards away running.
and what about the youth hunt, im not against it but do you really think that helps the pressure of the deer with guns going off that early. if they make it before bow mak'em use a bow and kill does only, if not make it after regular fire arm season and shorten fire arm season.

[Great White Hunter]

You can't be serious! I do both, but by far I prefer to bowhunt. I would never post something that says that we should curtail any form of hunting. We have enough trouble form Anti's to be picking on each other. You are no hunter if you try to take away another Hunters rights. If you are having a problem havesting a deer,you should look at yourself first. Anyone who comes on this post and says that we should take away another hunters rights is just as bad as PETA, no not as bad worse!Gun Hunters(who are having a hard time with the bow season here in Mich) be greatful that you have as much time that you have, There are states out ther that only give a few days to Gun Hunters, and the bow season starts in Sept. and ends in mid Jan. Take a look at your local fields and you will see a ton of shooting Shacks over looking the fields. If bowhunters mess up the deer hunting, why is it on opening day you hear a ton of shots(where I hunt it soulds like WWIII) comming from these shooting shacks, then three days later you can't find a deer on the feilds untill Jan! If the bowhunters mess things up like some of you ANTI_HUNTERS(thats anyone on this post who has said that you should take away one way of hunting over the other because of what ever reason)say then don't you think the deer would not be on the feilds on Nov 15th. Yes I know that deer get wounded during bow season, but that happens in gun season also. If anyone says that one way of hunting wounds less deer then the other you are full of sheet. You have no solid way of proving that. Stop being a a_ _ hole and start helping your fellow hunter. I came to this site to talk and share with my fellow Michiganders not fight with PETA. You guys make me sick. Grow up and become a hunter. If you don't like how the season is set up pick up a bow so you have more time in the woods, or just quit hunting and join the ANTI's. Shut up and Hunt!! We need to stop fighting with each other about hunting season, when we have a cougar problem here in Michigan that needs to be solved! Fight the cougar, not the hunter

Call Mr. Wheatlake at home and tell him how you feel!
Frank C. Wheatlake

Reed City Power Line Supply,

420 N. Roth Street,

P.O. Box 147

Reed City, MI 49677

231-796-5491 (Home)

231-832-2258 (Office)

Appointed: 2/6/01

Re-Appointed: 5/3/05

Term Expires: 12/31/08

Independent

[Munsterlndr]

The Facts on Bow Wounding


Net version published by The Bowsite with permission from Wendy Krueger


Comprehensive Information From The Myth-Shattering Camp Ripley Study

Save Our Heritage Foundation (AMO) Kansas Bowhunters Association
Safari Club International (SCI) Maine Bowhunters Association
SCI-Minnesota Maryland Bowhunters Society
SCI- Minnesota Archery Committees Michigan Bowhunters
SCI- West Michigan Bowhunters Commemorative Bucks of Michigan
SCI-Houston Chapter Missouri Bowhunters
International Bowhunting Organization North Carolina Bowhunters Association
Retailers and Archery Manufacturers of Minnesota Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association
Australian Bowhunters Assoc. United Bowhunters of New Jersey
Bowhunting Council of Oklahoma United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Bowhunters of Wyoming Wapiti Bowmen of Oregon
Idaho State Bowhunters West Virginia Bowhunters Association
Colorado Bowhunters Association Wisconsin Bowhunters Association
Illinois Bowhunters Society Bowbenders Archery Club; Mankato, Mn.
Indiana Bowhunters Association Frankenmuth Archers, Mi.
Iowa Bowhunters Association Martin Archery, Wallawalla, Wa.
Lapeer County Sportsmen, MI Bad River Bowhunters, ST. Charles, MI
Flint Bowmen; Burton MI Krause Publications, Wisconsin
Little Crow Archery, Hutchinson, MN Rapids Archery Club, Coon Rapids MN
Kaposia Archers; South St. Paul MN George Mann, AL

Reference: Krueger, Wendy J. 1995 - "Aspects of Wounding of Whitetailed Deer by bowhunters." MS-Thesis, School of Agriculture and Forestry, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.V.

This thread has really gone down hill and should probably be closed. I'm sure I'll be labeled an anti-bowhunter for what I'm about to say but that is really just not the case. I would simply point out the following.

During the 1980's, while bowhunting was undergoing a large spurt of popularity, there were a number of studies conducted, for the most part by State game agencies, to study the wounding and recovery rate by bowhunters. While there was some variance in the results, for the most part they were surprisingly consistant, and showed a wounding rate of between 35 -62% with around 50% being the average. Now remember, this was during the 1980's when equipment was much more primitive and there was a flood of new archers flocking to the sport. Wounding rates that were this high created a great deal of concern among the bowhunting community.

The Camp Ripley study was designed to counter these previous results. It was a private study funded by over 35 bowhunting organizations and by an archery manufacturer's group. The initial results of the Camp Ripley study, showed a wounding rate of around 28%, not that far removed from previous studies. Remember that the camp Ripley study took place in 1993, in some cases 10 years after the previous studies and I'm sure there were further advances in archery technology that may account for a reduction in the wounding rate. Then the Camp Ripley study made some further conclusions about what happend to the wounded deer and came up with an even smaller wounded percentage.

My good buddy Ibow tried to chastise me for not providing the full text of the Langenau study that was mentioned in a previous post in this thread. Because he is such a fair and balanced guy, I'm sure he will also demand that treestand6 provide the original copy of the Camp Ripley study, as well.
What was posted was in fact an excerpt of the Camp Ripley study that was provided by Bowsite. When the title of the excerpt describes it as the "Myth Shattering Camp Ripley Study" I have to wonder whether there is not some bias entering into this interpretation of the study. Maybe, maybe not.

The fact is that I have not read the full version of the Camp Ripley study. Nor have I read the full versions of the previously mentioned studies. I would also submit that I highly doubt whether anyone else posting in this thread has either. Quite frankly none of us have any idea about the true wounding rate involved in bowhunting, other than those conclusions drawn by personal anecdotal evidence. To dismiss one study out of hand because the results don't support your argument and embrace another because it does, is hardly sound science. As everyone knows, you can twist and turn statistics until they suite your purposes. It seems kind of silly to continue to argue this point based on "well, my statistics are better than your statistics". We are starting to sound like a bunch of third graders in here.

I would submit that in any hunting situation, whether using bow or gun, some deer are going to be wounded and go unrecovered. I don't think any hunter intentionally sets out to wound game and if they do they are not really a hunter. Let's stop beating this dead horse and move on to the next topic.

For those that are interested in the names and results of the studies prior to the Camp Ripley study, here ya go.


The studies:

Author Study Hunter reported
(year) Location wounding rate

Lohfield (79) New Jersey 52%
Herron (84) Wisconsin 36%
Severinghaus New York 7%
(1963)
McPhillips(85) North Dakota 48%
Langenau (86) Michigan 62%
Boydston & Gore Texas 50%
(1987)


Citations
Boydston, G.A. & H.G. Gore, 1987, Archery wounding loss in Texas,
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 11pp

Downing, R.L. 1971, Comparison of crippling losses of white-tailed deer caused by archery, buckshot and shotgun slugs. Proc. Southeastern
Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 25:77-82

Herron, J.S.C. 1984, Deer Harvest and Wounding Loss Associated with Bowhunting White-tailed Deer. Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Langenau, E.E. 1986, Factors associated with hunter retrieval of deer hit by arrows and shotgunslugs. Leisure Sciences 8:417-438

Lohfeld, M.L. 1979, Crippling loss and illegal kill of white-tailed
deer, (_Odocoileus_Virginianus_) during a controlled hunt in a New
Jersey State Park. Masters Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
NJ

McPhillips, K.B., R.L. Linder, & W.A. Wentz, 1985, Nonreporting,
success, and wounding by South Dakota bowhunters. Widl. Soc. Bull.
13:395-398

Stormer, F.A., C.M. Kirkpatrick, & T.W. Hoekstra, 1979, Hunter-
inflicted wounding of whitetailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bul. 7:10-16

[Liver and Onions]

The Camp Ripley information is interesting. I wish it were could be done again with the use of deer recovery dogs. I would find it interesting to know what percent of deer would be recovered using dogs after 2-3 hunters gave it their best shot on trying to find a wounded/dead animal.
Around 50 % of the animals are found by the volunteer deer search group out of N.Y.

L & O

[Gilbey]

For starters....I am perfectly calm and quite confident that I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to guys whacking multiple bucks...both recovered and not recovered in a single season and...they keep right on hunting. If you don't know folks like that in your area....maybe there are either lousy hunters or no bucks to begin with. Around me...if you spend your time in the right places...you are going to get your shots. The more you hunt, the more shots you are likely to get. Some guys just don't know the meaning of the word pass and they don't if it has horns.

We can sit here and deny that it occurs until we are blue in the face and for what---everybody knows it happens...at least those in the know know....
Sure, some of it is just kind of unethical....some downright unlawful but...the FACT remains, bow hunters have the opportunity to put a serious hurt on multiple bucks during that initial 45 day period. That was and is my point of contention. And, I am still waiting for somebody to take me up on my request to come up with a plan better for the deer herd and for all deer hunters than to place further restrictions on antlered deer tags in the month of October. Oh, and please remember that it has to be enforceable to stand a prayer of being effective and begin to change hunter attitudes.


I'm having some troubles here understanding exactly what some of your meanings are. I think that you're trying to say that bow hunters can be in the woods longer.

For one....I don't think that I'm a lousy hunter because I didn't injure a buck this year. I don't think that I'm a lousy hunter because I didn't kill many bucks this year. I don't think I'm a lousy hunter because I didn't kill any yearling bucks this year.

But based on what you've said here...........you make it sound as if this if the NORM. This is what we're supposed to do. I really don't care that you know people such as this. I could care less. Maybe instead of ALL archer's going out in the woods for 45 days, maybe the people that you know should just stick to guns. Or join the crusade against all hunters cuz that can't shoot anything anyways.

Oh, and incidentally, I had to run after two bucks last year that were injured by others. One with a .308, the other with a .50 cal muzzle.

Hmmmmm.....guess it's the archer's faults that they were lousy shots.

Treestand, good study. Gives some real #'s. I would be embarrassed if I injured a buck. And at 75%ish, they are low. l

And thank you Great White Hunter. Nuff said.

[lwingwatcher]

You are no hunter if you try to take away another Hunters rights.


If the bowhunters mess things up like some of you ANTI_HUNTERS(thats anyone on this post who has said that you should take away one way of hunting over the other because of what ever reason)...

Stop being a a_ _ hole and start helping your fellow hunter. I came to this site to talk and share with my fellow Michiganders not fight with PETA. You guys make me sick. Grow up and become a hunter. If you don't like how the season is set up pick up a bow so you have more time in the woods, or just quit hunting and join the ANTI's. Shut up and Hunt!! We need to stop fighting with each other about hunting season,



Welcome to the site...I think.:rolleyes: While I don't claim to be a great whit hunter, I do possess a certain level of reading comprehension. Perhaps you should find someone to read this thread to you and explain that folks are not advocating the removal of hunter "rights" (whatever those are). Fortunately, there don't (by your definition) appear to be any anti-hunters here as I guess I just don't recall anybody advocating taking away a current form of hunting.

I do find your comments rather amusing though...you claim to come here to talk and share with fellow hunters and in the same breath, you call folks azzholes and say we make you sick. Hmmmm....that seems like a productive form of communication now doesn't it?:rolleyes:

When you get that person to read this entire thread to you, have them make a special point of rereading to you the part (pages ago) where I said I bowhunt and prefer that to firearms. While I haven't kept track of numbers in years (since I started passing on a regular basis) I suspect that I have more bow kill racks lying around than I do gun kills. But, this isn't just about you or me or anything...it is about what we can do to improve the sport for all of us.
And, I can assure you that name calling isn't going to go far toward hunter bonding....

[Gilbey]

You're right - it's preservation of sport.

To me, this is the most highly skilled sport that there is when it comes to deer hunting. I could see a reduction of gun hunting season over this. Gun hunting is a world war sounding event, and if you don't get yours in the first few days so be it.

I just don't feel that bow hunters are getting a fair rap regarding this. Now....the biggest thing is that somebody that hasn't picked up a bow for 6 years, no sight in's or anything affects our name. Those people should be like the rifle guys that don't even take a few practice shots. Not allowed to do anything more than drink beer at camp.

[lwingwatcher]

I'm having some troubles here understanding exactly what some of your meanings are. I think that you're trying to say that bow hunters can be in the woods longer.



Well....thanks for stating that...I don't think you are alone. Originally, all I was trying to point out is that bow hunters flinging arrows at bucks for 45 days has a potential to seriously dent the local population reducing the likelihood of many bucks reaching maturity. And, considering the increasing differences in opinions that many hunters have, we would be well served to try and get on the same page in the best interests of deer hunting as a whole. I have repeatedly requested that somebody come up with an effective management tool (eg regulation change) that will meet our needs but....no....all folks seem to want to do at times is draw faulty conclusions and point fingers...and that does no good...

Not that my opinion means sheet but, thanks for asking for clarification instead of just calling me names...

[HTC]

Had a long holiday weekend, come to work.....check my favorite page.....wow

[SR-Mechead]

lwingwatcher said: "there is a higher recovery rate for deer shot with firearms....get it? Nothing more..."


prove it?


Maybe your right but the fact of the matter is there is a lot more deer shot with firearms than bows .When you start talking about rifles, muzzelloaders,shotguns pistols. In the area where I hunt there is not a lot of deer so this year when I have been out in the woods after season I have have only found a couple of dead deer and both were shot by a gun hunter. And I have been out just about every day looking for new spots for next year. Anyone who says that they have not wounded a deer with a gun or a bow is a very lucky person.
Some of you people are reading to many books and becoming rocking chair advisers. Get your butts out in the woods where you hunt and look for dead deer and then give us the facts about how many deer were wounded with a bow. Just because it says on page 50 that more deer are wounded with bows than guns does not mean a damn thing to me. With the equipment the bow hunters have today they can put down a deer just like a gun can. It is not a stick and string anymore.
I do think that we have a couple of Anti-bow hunters on this thread, and it is a shame that we are feeding them.

[treestand6]

lwingwatcher said: "there is a higher recovery rate for deer shot with firearms....get it? Nothing more..."


prove it?

[lwingwatcher]

With the equipment the bow hunters have today they can put down a deer just like a gun can. It is not a stick and string anymore.


I do think that we have a couple of Anti-bow hunters on this thread, and it is a shame that we are feeding them.


Well, I hope that you are not including me in your catagorization but...it you are I would like to point out that you are mistaken. And, I guess I just do not recall anybody stating in this thread that they are opposed to bow hunting but unfortunately, we do have people that seem to thing that just because a bow hunter has a different perspective on things, that he or she must be an "anti". Well, I guess that there is no way to help the way folks jump to misguided and faulty conclusions.

I do have to agree with you somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) regarding the improved lethal capabilities of modern archery equipment. You are correct...it has progressed to much more than just a stick and a string but, I think you grossly over exaggerate the killing capability of a bow, even in the hands of the most proficient archer...

But, if archers are indeed the proficient killers that riflemen are...wouldn't you tend to agree that 45 days of killing is an important factor in the survival rate of immature bucks?l So...who ya feeding now?????

[SR-Mechead]

[QUOTE=lwingwatcher

But, if archers are indeed the proficient killers that riflemen are...wouldn't you tend to agree that 45 days of killing is an important factor in the survival rate of immature bucks?l So...who ya feeding now?????[/QUOTE]

No I don't agree with your statement above because if you go to the 95- 5 rule then 95% of the archers will wait for a good kill shot and let a lot of deer walk. In our camp a lone I know that we let a lot of small bucks walk. As I stated above I myself let 9 small bucks walk this year with my bow. I had to take a doe with my rifle to put some meat in the freezer. So I look at the 45 days as a great time to be in the woods with a bunch of good hunters .Not slop hunters as you make us out to be .Wounding 6 bucks in a year. BS

[lwingwatcher]

No I don't agree with your statement above because if you go to the 95- 5 rule then 95% of the archers will wait for a good kill shot and let a lot of deer walk.

.Wounding 6 bucks in a year. BS


Lemme get this straight...are you trying to tell me that only 5% of archers take bad shots or don't let bucks walk when they can kill them? I guess you are just going to have to back that up with some statistics, tortured or not.

As far as shooting lots of deer....I agree that whacking that many is ridiculous yet----skilled hunters can do it quite easily and...that is precisely the point that I am trying to make---MANY DO JUST THAT!!!!!!

Sure, those guys aren't likely to post up here and say...well, I whacked a 3 pt opening morning, a "big" 5 point opening night (and I didn't find it cuz it rained the next afternoon before I got home from work) so I shot a decent 6 (that my wife tagged) and I shot a 8 point for the neighbor and...I can hardly wait until rifle season cuz there is a big one running around and...

Or...take the proficient killer, who gets off on killing sheet...moreso on bucks, and has the time to hunt them heavy and kills a ton of them each and every year.

I know plenty of guys that you don't bother asking if they got their buck, you ask them how many or any good ones yet.

And, if the rest of you don't have those kinds of problems in the areas that you hunt, you are lucky and maybe stand a better chance of actually seeing a mature whitetail buck in the woods instead of some magazine...
If you aren't one of those guys, great and I guess it is even better if you know for a fact that you don't have any in your neck of the woods. But, don't go jumping to conclusions when you don't see or cannot envision a very real problem.

[Ibow]

My good buddy Ibow tried to chastise me for not providing the full text of the Langenau study that was mentioned in a previous post in this thread. Because he is such a fair and balanced guy ...

I'm glad you think of me as your good buddy. I just like to give you a hard time sometimes ... And you must watch Fox News so you can't be all bad. ;) :)

[SR-Mechead]

[QUOTE=lwingwatcher]Lemme get this straight...are you trying to tell me that only 5% of archers take bad shots or don't let bucks walk when they can kill them? I guess you are just going to have to back that up with some statistics, tortured or not.

Wingnut there is a rule in the work force that 95 %of the workers are good workers and 5% are pet rocks. I just think that also applies after work hours and if it means in the woods hunting then so be it. The 5% are the ones who trash the woods leave carrot bags all over the place beer cans laying around camp sites looking like a dump. If you know someone who is shooting 6 bucks in a year with a bow then you as a good hunter should turn him or her in for poaching,and if you don't then shame on you

[lwingwatcher]

Wingnut there is a rule in the work force that 95 %of the workers are good workers and 5% are pet rocks. I just think that also applies after work hours and if it means in the woods hunting then so be it.


This isn't the work force...it is us bow hunters and most of us are not lounging on the bosses payroll, looking for a handout that we don't deserve. Most bowhunters work for their bucks and some even think that if they can kill them before somebody else does...that is a good thing. I just think that your 95/5 example doesn't get it in this particular analysis.

And about the turning in of other hunters...c'mon...you mean to tell me that you snitch off every friend, relative, or neighbor that downs a deer and has somebody else tag it or...that friend, relative, or neighbor tags one that somebody else shot or... Maybe you should run a poll and ask all deer hunters how they feel about that. I think that the odds are, there are very few people on this board that have not known about a similar situation and then refrained from dropping a dime. Real life is sort of like this forum...there are alot of readers but fewer folks that post....and for that very reason, it is going to take a major change in the way many folks think to get them to be willing to turn somebody in and testify in court if need be. Sure, you have Mr. A Nony Mous....but....that doesn't always put LE in a position to do what needs to be done.

Again I assert...ya gotta look at the big picture and....I have yet to read a better plan than what I have proposed...

[kingfisher 11]

I know my nephews buddy loses normally 2 deer a year with the bow. Not illegal, what can do about someone like him? My nephew is not much different when it comes to guns. Of course he h