mc68 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 The dates I propose don't affect those hunts...that's why I chose them. At least not the deer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted September 23, 2013 Confused by your comment Outdoor writer. I'm guessing you didn't understand what he said? Now instead of only 1 choice per unit you will have 2. This doubles the amount of choices you have to put in for therefore the frequency that you get drawn CAN increase and it reduces the amount of hunters in the field at the same time. Oh, I think I have a pretty decent grasp of reading comprehension. It isn't a case of not understanding what was stated; it's a case of not agreeing with it. To wit, it will do zilch to create more "opportunity" without adding permits somewhere. If there are 200 permits for a 20-day season, and they are split to 100 per 10-day season, the "opportunity" has remained the same. And regardless how one applies, the odds of drawing a permit will not change. In fact, what will result is a trade-off of sorts: there will be fewer hunters in the unit for each 10-day season but it will also remove 10 hunting days for all 200 permit holders. I would label that as less hunting opportunity than the original single season. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wapitibob Report post Posted September 23, 2013 Confused by your comment Outdoor writer. I'm guessing you didn't understand what he said? Now instead of only 1 choice per unit you will have 2. This doubles the amount of choices you have to put in for therefore the frequency that you get drawn CAN increase and it reduces the amount of hunters in the field at the same time. Oh, I think I have a pretty decent grasp of reading comprehension. It isn't a case of not understanding what was stated; it's a case of not agreeing with it. To wit, it will do zilch to create more "opportunity" without adding permits somewhere. If there are 200 permits for a 20-day season, and they are split to 100 per 10-day season, the "opportunity" has remained the same. And regardless how one applies, the odds of drawing a permit will not change. In fact, what will result is a trade-off of sorts: there will be fewer hunters in the unit for each 10-day season but it will also remove 10 hunting days for all 200 permit holders. I would label that as less hunting opportunity than the original single season. exactly If those in favor could only apply for the earlier season of the two, the enthusiasm would diminish greatly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattMan Report post Posted September 23, 2013 I'd be a lot more in favor of far fewer tags for the rut archery hunt, turning it back into the quality experience a rut archery elk hunt should be. The increasing trend of having 9 buddies show up with glass, radios, and calls to "assist" the one or two guys with tags doesn't help either. If there is a desire to increase archery opportunity, do it in late October/early November... there ARE already 2 archery options for elk in many units, it just to happens they have the tag numbers reversed from what they should be. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mc68 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 Guys these are exactly a couple more of the reasons I like the stratified idea. One of the main reasons that so many people go on an archery hunt to "assist" is because they can't get drawn and when you do you want to take full advantage of it. Stratifying the hunt WILL lower the people in the field during the hunt offering a more quality experience. And if right now there are 20 archery hunt choices in the state, and you increased that to 40 choices don't you agree that you could draw more often? Thank you for your input, I just try to clear things up as to my thoughts....as that's the most important one right?! And, the Cardinals got handled today!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muledeerarea33? Report post Posted September 23, 2013 Like outdoor writer said.. Twice the hunts with the tags split between the two doesn't increase draw odds. It no different than having the same hunt and same tag amounts. If you cut two apples in half, you still have two apples! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jcubed Report post Posted September 23, 2013 This is funny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Devil Diver Down Report post Posted September 23, 2013 I really, really like the idea of fewer hunters in the field per hunt, without lowering the opportunity to draw (fewer tags) but I'm with others who don't see this as necessarily increasing draw odds and tags drawn over time - one apple cut in half is still one apple. Biologically, I think there might be an issue of increasing stress on the animals, as having hunters in the field for more days (i.e. 20 for archery instead of the 14 now) doesn't give them a rest period. If it's a non-issue from a biology standpoint, I would like to see it tried out in some units. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rookiearcher09 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 So if I am understanding this right, what mc68 is saying is this. You have 100 hunters currently putting in for say 40 tags in one unit, you split that hunt to 2 different hunts of 20 tags each. Now you have 100 hunters who have to decide between one or the other so you could potentially have 80 hunters putting in for one hunt of 20 but 20 hunters putting in for the other hunt of 20. So depending on how people applied you could have increased odds for one of the hunts, but you could also have decreased odds for one of the hunts as well? So in the end I am not seeing 100% how your odds really increase unless you have some sort of inside info letting you know which hunt had more applications attached to it before you applied yourself? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mc68 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 That is exactly it rookiearcher. The more hunt choices the better your chances of drawing due to playing odds. That's why I stated that you COULD draw more often but you would DEFINITELY have fewer hunters in the field at the same time thus probably leading to a more positive experience. I have never heard of a hunter coming on here complaining of too few people in the woods but it is very common to hear of too many folks out there. Just thinking it would be a great way to enjoy the outdoors even more and to hopefully offer more hunting opportunity. Thanks for the comments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rookiearcher09 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 Yeah, I mean in the end as long as the tag amount stays the same. I know the area I just hunted was running wild with guys blowing cow calls for days on end, and the better quality time of the hunt was during the week days when a lot of guys had to leave. Interesting thought here, I will give it that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted September 23, 2013 NO NO NO NO NO. No more hunts!!! We need less tags and we need to rotate the hunts. Why is it that archery hunters get first dibs at all of the trophies in the field. The hunts were designed 25+ years ago when 50yds was a LOOOOONG shot. Now there are guys consistently killing at 100+yds. Archery hunts were designed for a stick and a string, guys were shooting 1300gr arrows out to 40yds accurately. Now we're shooting 350gr arrows at 100 accurately. Muzzle loader hunts need to go away as well. They are in the same group, they were designed for muskets not 500yd snipers. You can use one in the rifle hunt. Tags in the "trophy" hunts need to be cut in half, the price doubled, and rotated every year. While I'm at it, once you are drawn, you would have to wait 2 years to put in for it again. Just my $.02 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattMan Report post Posted September 23, 2013 A wait period is STRICTLY punitive, and does NOTHING to change draw odds. This has been covered before... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted September 23, 2013 A wait period is STRICTLY punitive, and does NOTHING to change draw odds. This has been covered before... How could it be when you would have a couple thousand less people putting in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cohntr6 Report post Posted September 23, 2013 I hunted in 27 this year AND last year and saw no "cluster" this year. I was initially worried about he 100 extra tags (cow and bull) but where I was hunting I saw no change in the number of people. You folks complaining about too many tags need to go where there isnt people. If your going to hunt against the rez line (in any unit) you know you are going to have other company.The more tags there are the more people are going to be hunting obvious/easy places and the easier it is to get away to the harder less accessable places. BTW, tags numbers will probably go up again next year in 1 and 27. I am all for getting drawn again! Jeff 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
