2013 Archery Mule deer going on Draw

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

This was the information I was basing my statements on....comments Dr. D. made eaerly in the thread. Maybe you skimmed over it? He then stated that in that zone there were 2 confirmed archery kills.....

LC

I didn't skim over it at all....I just didn't twist his words to suit my needs.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

....you insinuated in another thread that I suggested people should not fill out the survey which I did not say and do not support.

LC

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.....

You win...I said all those things.....feel free to attribute anything else you need to me as well.

Please don't tell me what I said. I know what I said and your version lacks a lot of truth but I guess if it suits your needs, all's fair..............

[Lefty-Canuck]

I am done here....I didn't twist anything to suit anything I read what he posted and wondered how they could interpolate the data if only 10 people responded to it in the entire zone....based on what Dr. D put forth in the thread.

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.....

You win...I said all those things.....feel free to attribute anything else you need to me as well.

Please don't tell me what I said. I know what I said and your version lacks a lot of truth but I guess if it suits your needs, all's fair..............

OK.....I'll bite....

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I hope you aren't suggesting people don't accurately fill out or don't fill out at all the surveys. They are one of the cornerstones of good game management.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I agree with you and nope not at all...no mention of the sort (no words in my mouth please ). My point is a voluntary survey is only as accurate as the information they get from the folks willing to volunteer it.

LC

Okay LC.....

When I say I hope you don't mean....it means I hope you don't mean. You said you didn't.....my hopes were realized

When you say I clearly support a draw...it's a bald-faced lie.

See the difference?

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I am done here....I didn't twist anything to suit anything I read what he posted and wondered how they could interpolate the data if only 10 people responded to it in the entire zone....based on what Dr. D put forth in the thread.

LC

Okay, are we reading different posts by Dr D.?

Where did he say there were only 10 responses? Where did he give any indication how many people responded?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Okay LC.....

When I say I hope you don't mean....it means I hope you don't mean. You said you didn't.....my hopes were realized

When you say I clearly support a draw...it's a bald-faced lie.

See the difference?

And I apologized for my BOLD faced lie....I take it back. Should not have put words in your mouth.

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Okay, are we reading different posts by Dr D.?

Where did he say there were only 10 responses? Where did he give any indication how many people responded?

Originally Posted by Dr Death
When questioned directly about that zone one of the bios said there were over 40 antlered mule deer harvested by archers last year and only 10 by rifle hunters! When asked where those number were derived from they admitted there were less than 10 hunters total who answered the survey for 404 and that indeed the harvest estimates are very unreliable due to lack of response.

We must be reading different things....I am basing my information on the above statement from Dr. D. taken from this thread post #175

LC

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Originally Posted by Dr Death
When questioned directly about that zone one of the bios said there were over 40 antlered mule deer harvested by archers last year and only 10 by rifle hunters! When asked where those number were derived from they admitted there were less than 10 hunters total who answered the survey for 404 and that indeed the harvest estimates are very unreliable due to lack of response.

We must be reading different things....I am basing my information on the above statement from Dr. D. taken from this thread post #175

LC

I was looking at his post from today...I apologize. In it he said he didn't know the number of respondants province-wide.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I was looking at his post from today...I apologize. In it he said he didn't know the number of respondants province-wide.

Accepted.

Can you kinda see what I am getting at? or do you think I am out in left field?

.....wait don't answer that....

LC

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

And I apologized for my BOLD faced lie....I take it back. Should not have put words in your mouth.

LC

Thanks

Guess I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to phrases.
Just as an FYI

The original term seems to have been bald-faced (bare-faced) and refers to a face without whiskers. Beards were commonly worn by businessmen in the 18th and 19th century as an attempt to mask facial expressions when making business deals. Thus a bald-faced liar was a very good liar indeed, and was able to lie without the guilt showing on his face.

The more correct term is "bald-faced lie" or "bare-faced lie" (bare is more common in Great Britain). It refers to a "shameless" or "brazen" lie. One where the teller does not attempt to hide his face while telling it.

It's just the last 5 yrs or so that "bold" has come into usage. It refers to typeface. It is used metaphorically in speech. In the same way that a typesetter uses bold face type to highlight specific text and set it apart, a bold face lie stands out in such a way as to not be mistaken for the truth.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Thanks

Guess I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to phrases.
Just as an FYI

No worries....you do have a couple years on me I learned something new about how things used to be done

LC

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Accepted.

Can you kinda see what I am getting at? or do you think I am out in left field?

.....wait don't answer that....

LC

The funny thing was I never made an arguement that the data was solid...pretty hard to do when you don't know all the facts. See what I'm getting at?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

The funny thing was I never made an arguement that the data was solid...pretty hard to do when you don't know all the facts. See what I'm getting at?

Kooombayah

LC

[DC72]

I live in a wmu that traditionaly has 38 rifle tags, last year bowhunters killed 14 that i know of, that being said maybe all wmu does'nt have a problem but others need better managment. Another thing that might have stirred this pot is landowners, the ranchers around here are fed up with the bowhunters flocking in unrestricted, just go talk to a few of them along the south end of the porkies and you'll quickly find out their opinion

[The Bit Runner.]

Originally Posted by The Bit Runner.

Sheep,

With this info do you think they are doing the right thing here? If you were on the board and you were told and shown this info like the wmu 404 info would you be on board with putting the mule deer on draw.

I have always filled in the surveys and will continue too but this kind of info will, I guarantee put a real bad taste in alot of peoples mouths. Basically what the SRD are saying is they could realy care less on what they recieve they will make the call anyways, What a JOKE!!!!!

You never did answer the question but it doesnt matter. I am done with thread but i feel us bowhunters are taking the blunt of this on information that is impossible to make a truthful decission on. I totally understand that some wmu took a huge hit on Mule Deer and something should be done but i do not believe they are going about there decision on 100% Facts!!!

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

I wonder what position interest groups sitting at AGMAG are taking on this discussion?

What is the position of the AFGA?
APOS?
ABA?
SCI Alberta?


I suggest members of these groups ask for a written position statement and confirm how their representatives will vote on proposed changes. Please post up any replies. We might be surprised with some of the answers.

Thank you for answering my question somewhat WB! Who else is part of Agmag???I didn't realize that SCI was part of it.

Anyone know who the rep for SCI at Agmag is????

And how I can get a hold of him, I'd like to send him a letter on his thoughts and stance!

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I wasn't there and we are hearing the poster's interpretation of the presentation. Perhaps there was more context to it....perhaps not....I honestly don't know but it does make me want to know more for sure but I'm also not going to base my opinion on it.

I ask again...why has there been no large outrage about moose and elk going on the draw the past couple years. I'm sure it's based on the same info. Could it be that there really are that many more mule deer hunters? Do you truly believe that archers aren't killing more than 15% of the mule deer bucks in some WMUs? Is it really that hard to fathom that one buck was killed on a general tag in WMU 106 for example. We are only talking a couple deer is some zones. This proposal is not for a province-wide draw. Only WMUs exceeding 15% harvest by archers.

I truely believe they aren't .

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I truely believe they aren't .

So you don't believe that one buck was killed in WMU106 last year by an archer on a general tag?

[stringer]

Originally Posted by DC72

I live in a wmu that traditionaly has 38 rifle tags, last year bowhunters killed 14 that i know of, that being said maybe all wmu does'nt have a problem but others need better managment. Another thing that might have stirred this pot is landowners, the ranchers around here are fed up with the bowhunters flocking in unrestricted, just go talk to a few of them along the south end of the porkies and you'll quickly find out their opinion

How many of the 14 were taken by non resident hunters?

[DC72]

Originally Posted by stringer

How many of the 14 were taken by non resident hunters?

Two by the outfitter and four on hunter host, and before this turns into an outfitter bashing contest don't think outfitters won't lose tags over this along with the big cut they're taking already on rifle permits. I make a good part of my living guiding these guys, so its money out of my pocket and yet i still support it because it makes sense to me if you want to properly manage the deer herd

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So you don't believe that one buck was killed in WMU106 last year by an archer on a general tag?

I believe in cold hard evidence ! So I don't have an answer !

Can you help me with my Agmag question?

[bakerman]

Why the heck can't they make a mandatory registration for any mule deer shot with a bow, (just like they do for cat season) and when the quota is filled then close the wmu, when all the wmu's are closed then the season is over.It's a very simple procedure and would give srd all the data they needed for accurate numbers being killed. We can't let another season be taken away, we've already lost over half of our good hunting areas in bowzone wmu 410 and nothing has ever been done about it. When will it stop??

[Rob Miskosky]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Can you help me with my Agmag question?

I think this is the answer to your question.

Alberta Bowhunters Association
Alberta Fish & Game Association
Hunting For Tomorrow
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society
ESRD
Tourism & Parks
Pheasants Forever
Wild Sheep Foundation (Alberta)
Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties
Alberta Beef Producers
Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society
Delta Waterfowl
Ducks Unlimited Canada

[KCL]

So I buy an archery permit every year, but I only hunt bear with a bow. So I'm actually included in the 15%, but I increase the amount of mule deer allowed by archers? I agree that archery mule deer should be on draw, if they aren't killing more than 15% then there should be undersubsribed tags. However, the whole system needs a major overhaul.

[KCL]

This would also mean that bowhunters should really like rifle hunters that buy bow permits but don't take bow hunting that seriously or put the time and effort in to actually kill with their bows. They increase the percentage of bow hunters thus increases the percentage of harvest bow hunters are allowed. I'm a rifle hunter at heart but always buy a bowhunting permit as an excuse to go "hunting" in the early season when really I'm just scouting for rifle season. I'm actually increasing all you bow hunters harvest percentage, you're welcome!

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by KCL

This would also mean that bowhunters should really like rifle hunters that buy bow permits but don't take bow hunting that seriously or put the time and effort in to actually kill with their bows. They increase the percentage of bow hunters thus increases the percentage of harvest bow hunters are allowed. I'm a rifle hunter at heart but always buy a bowhunting permit as an excuse to go "hunting" in the early season when really I'm just scouting for rifle season. I'm actually increasing all you bow hunters harvest percentage, you're welcome!

Not really....it caps at 15% of the harvest, I don't think that it assists the numbers as the % harvest does not increase relative to the % of bowhunters. For example they would not allow 25% of the harvest to the bowhunter if the number of permits hit 25% of the total hunters.

It does skew the numbers in one fashion though....total number of guys who bowhunt.

LC

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

I think this is the answer to your question.

Alberta Bowhunters Association
Alberta Fish & Game Association
Hunting For Tomorrow
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society
ESRD
Tourism & Parks
Pheasants Forever
Wild Sheep Foundation (Alberta)
Alberta Association of Municipal Districts & Counties
Alberta Beef Producers
Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society
Delta Waterfowl
Ducks Unlimited Canada

Sweet, Thanx Rob !

I gotta save this !

[KCL]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Not really....it caps at 15% of the harvest, I don't think that it assists the numbers as the % harvest does not increase relative to the % of bowhunters. For example they would not allow 25% of the harvest to the bowhunter if the number of permits hit 25% of the total hunters.

It does skew the numbers in one fashion though....total number of guys who bowhunt.

LC

Oh, I thought that bowhunters make up 15 % of the total hunters therefore they are allowed 15% of total harvest. I think that when the total harvest surpasses the 15% then the WMU is put on draw, so if the total number of bowhunters in relation to total hunters was 20% then they would be allowed 20% of total harvest. If it dropped to 10% of total hunters then 10% of total harvest. Am I wrong here? I would say the half assed rifle hunters who buy bow permits are doing you a favour, but on the other hand I don't really care. Back to your self righteousness LC.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Ya, but now the question is. What happens if bowhunter numbers go up to 25 %, does the bowhunter allowance go up ? If they do go up, where do they get those extra tags from? Do they take them away from the rifle guys?

Could something that looks good for the average rifle guy turn around and bite him ! or will Srd not follow suit?

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It is proportional now so I can't see why that should change.

The numbers are a bit skewed in the fact that there is a fairly large number of hunters using both rifle and bow so you can't really count only rifle hunters and only bow hunters.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Not really....it caps at 15% of the harvest, I don't think that it assists the numbers as the % harvest does not increase relative to the % of bowhunters. For example they would not allow 25% of the harvest to the bowhunter if the number of permits hit 25% of the total hunters.

It does skew the numbers in one fashion though....total number of guys who bowhunt.

LC

You hope they would follow suit !

[KCL]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Not really....it caps at 15% of the harvest, I don't think that it assists the numbers as the % harvest does not increase relative to the % of bowhunters. For example they would not allow 25% of the harvest to the bowhunter if the number of permits hit 25% of the total hunters.

It does skew the numbers in one fashion though....total number of guys who bowhunt.

LC

Oh, and skewing the numbers to show more bow hunters is good for bow hunters, isn't it?