Our issue is the advantages given archers that is resulting in a yearly increase in the percentage of the total kill. I get the nice weather, etc,etc. However, with each year that goes on, the rifle crew has less opportunities. Let’s project a possible 50-60 percent archery kill 15 years down the road. What would that do to rifle participation or season length? Do they wait until the rifle hunters essentially quit because it’s not worth it?
Compound....public.
So, lest I be guilty of making up stuff that you say, are you of the opinion that rifle hunters have a claim to a certain percentage of the deer, irrespective of the number of hunters who use either type of weapon, or as is common, both types? I don’t have any figures on how many hunters fit into those groups, do you? What about success rates within those groups; are they going up, down, sideways? Without taking those numbers into consideration, simple kill figures are meaningless.
Speaking of making things up, which body orifice did you pull your future archery kill projection out of? No, don’t tell me, pretty sure I know.
Funny, but for years the stickbow boys bitched about compounds ruining their hunting, then both had a tizzy when crossbows began to be accepted. This is the first time I can recall rifle hunters whin-, er lamenting about archers killing so many deer that their opportunities were growing fewer. I’ve always looked on special seasons as more opportunities for me to hunt, not an attack on what I was doing before. The article tzone posted a link to shows that PA is doing a pretty good, stellar actually, job of managing the deer compared to the rest of the states. Maybe there are local problems here and there, but the numbers show that great opportunities exist for those who want them and maybe are willing to adapt a bit as to how and maybe where they hunt. Contrast PA with states that make you draw for every tag. You’ve got it really, really good.
