MarkIIVT

Here it is Doug and Pain, don’t shoot the messenger. Will get back with you Trebarker on the other thing. I am getting the other thread ready, the topics are Population, regulation and Money

For the record, I am and do support archery hunting and do not want to see it banned. I think this info is more damaging than the pic that was posted. My intent is not to damage to hunting, but recognize the reality of our hunting situation in this day and age.

A responsible hunter is compelled to acknowledge the limitations of their gear and to hunt within those limitations. So, you asked for the research, here it is. DO NOT take it out of context or make the inference that I want to end bowhunting….I do not.
This is the research and not all of it. Put “Archery and wounding rates” into your web browsers and you will get a lot of information. MOST all of it (>60%) is from AR or anti-hunting groups and that portion suggests an 80% loss rate, but that is garbage results by agenda driven agencies IMHO. I do not find statistical validity with the bulk of that type of “science”. The following was done by wildlife agencies or wildlife management associations, and the process looks pretty good from a scientific standpoint, however the sampling rates are not as high as I would like to see . The Ripley study does have a great sampling pool though.


“Aspects of Wounding White-tail Deer by Bowhunters” M.S. Thesis, Kruger, W., 1995, has been referred to by the bowhunting community and the Archery Manufacturers and Merchant Organization. In fact bowhunting organizations and the Archery Manufacturers and Merchant Organization funded the study. The numbers quoted by the parties are a 13% wounding loss estimate with an 87% recovery rate. These are the numbers for the research recoveries including hunting. Hunters recovered 75% and the research group using infrared imaging video, helicopters, and research search parties recovered the additional 12%. The researcher also discusses in the research of the limitations placed on using helicopters based on how expensive it was. Secondary hunters recovered 45% of this 75% recovered by hunters or a 41.25% recovery rate by primary hunters, that is not 87% recovery. You need to read the whole Ripley study all 118 pages of it, it is a testament to good bowhunting recovery but is often misinterpreted and the above central issue is often not reported.

From the Archery Manufacturers and Merchant Organization " The Bowhunting Book" ; " Bowhunters are the most committed and ethical of sportsmen. They have chosen a sport with lower success rates for the challenge and enjoyment of the outdoors."

Downing, R.L. 1971, " Comparison of Crippling Losses of White Tailed Deer Caused by Archery, Buckshot and Shotgun Slugs" , Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 25: 77-82, 50% wounded.

Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. 1989, " Survey of Archery Hunters, 1987" , Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. 17pp., 52% wounded.

Ditchkoff, Stephen S. 1998, “Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment”, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, OSU, 50% wounded.

Ditchkoff, Stephen S. 1998, “Deer Harvest Characteristics During Compound and Traditional Archery Hunts”, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, OSU, 50% wounded.

MarkIIVT

A market can be created, but if there is no demand it will not continue. What is driving the need or demand. That is basic Econ 101. A landowner has the right to do anything on the land if it does not infringe upon others rights and impact adjoining resources. This is not only a wildlife legal precedent, but it is a pollution and environmental impact burden of proof as well. I am an Environmental Scientist and have considerable professional experience dealing with legal issues, regulation and compliance, and scientific data and what it means. I have done heavy metals remediation on Midway Island for Goonie bird protection to hazmat work at Johnston Island for a host of things. Put Johnston Island or Johnston Atoll in your web browser and looked where I worked, you will be amazed, trust me. The above is just to let you know you are not talking with a professional lightweight here. What I have been and am saying has scientific and legal basis.

Back to the Econ Issue. Who is leasing and what is their motivation to lease? People do not part with money for no reason. I explained my exasperation in public land and the free for all that is going on. So for me it is worthwhile to even consider leasing, how many other people are considering if for the same reasons I am? The amount of deep pocket hunters is a limited pool one that I am not a member of regretably. Hunting is so important for many people that the parting of a portion of a limited income stream in order to have a higher quality level of hunting experience justifies the considerable expenderature, even with limited funds. It is what I am considering, how many others are considering the same for the same reasons?? The demographics of the economic standing in Kansas residents is fairly consistant, and the majority of people leasing to hunt are residents with resident permits. That is your demographic for this particular market, other Kansas Hunters.

My main concern is the unaddressed issue of impact on the herd and the lack of herd characteristic information. Is an uncontrolled increase likely or a massive crash? This point is where you want to spend your effort and is the ammo you need. It is not what you think, and would be of GREAT Value to you in your efforts to push back the issues you are concerned with. It is the silver bullet...well for you the platinum arrow.

As for the legislature. The People of the State of Kansas own the deer. The stakeholder breakdown is 80% nonconsumptive and 20% consumptive. Using these numbers, if this 80% decide we have too many deer, we have too many. I don' t agree, my agrument is we don' t know how many we have and whether it is too much or too little is a whole nother argument. What is the pop. and what is the MSY???

As for the consumptive 20%, 15% is rifle/ML and 5% is archery roughly. That 15% wants to hunt the rut, the 5% doesn' t want this...but the 80% set the season, KDWP did it, but it was at the will and pleasure of the People. If the 80% decided to centerfire rut hunt, that will happen. A few Senators getting linig their pockets might be happening, but the bill was passes with an overwhelming vote.

please pay attention to this, it is very important, I have been saying this for several years:

By using the car/deer strike as a basis for population, KDWP opened the door to the insurance industry to get into deer management. IF KDWP stated that deer population and deer/car accidents were unrelated (which is true in almost all other states), the insurance companies would not have a legal leg to stand on to influence tag increases. But since the KDWP uses this it assisted the insurance company for it' s burden of proof. If KDWP used other data and followed all the research, the insurance lobby would have burden of proof to tie population to accidents, instead of the true factors for car/deer strikes: car density, miles driven per vehicle, human population density levels (surburban vs metro), and car technology. Randy, the map you made is the same argement I am making. If you have any influence, get rid of this index and the waste of time and resources it involves. The only reason it has continued, because agancies are too slow to change even in the face of lucid arguments.

BOWFANATIC

Once again , care to post some facts that correspond to your above quote?

You talk about how ineffective bowhunting is at reducing deer populations in surburban areas and you come back with a post on wound - recovery ratios in bowhunting , which btw I can post better percentage rates than that from a study that was done last year and published in my bowhunting magazine last month. I dont think wounding vs recovery rates in archery vs gun hunting is a road you want to go down. I' m sure the numbers would be quite shocking!

The problem of reducing deer herds in surburban areas is not a problem of archery hunting not being a " viable enough management" tool. When bowhunters were given the opportunity to reduce deer herds in surburban areas it has been quite successful. The key word in that sentence is " opportunity! I happen to hunt alot of farm lands that butt up against surburban areas that dont allow hunting. Guess where the majority of the deer go once hunting season starts.

Trebarker

Have we ever met before MarkIIVT? What name have you used on Bowsite or did you just lurk there? I choose to use the same name on here as I use on Bowsite to show you and others I am not afraid to say what I feel and to stand behind it. Theres alot of things going on with our resource now that demand all of our attention without the us-vs-them becoming involved it the mix. I know that it will be virtually impossible to get that accomplished(unity)due to the competitive nature of us all, but it sure would help to straighten out the mess that has been made. I am a bowhunter Doug, but will be first to admit there is alot of BS published in archery mags concerning rifle season, as there is in the gunner mags about archery, it is a typical human way of trying to make one' s self look better by making the others look bad. Email me MarkIIVT if you want to hear why I feel the seasons shouldn' t be changed, things get to emotional on public forums like this one.

Ruger1

Trebarker, Bowfanatic and KJr;

It is really easy to have the sweetest friut on the tree and tell everybody else they need to be happy with the crap that they getting. Firearms hunters have been getting screwed for so long in the state of Kansas, and I for one only see it getting worse.

It seems funny to me that KDWP operates so much without hard data about this very situation - now you guys want to see hard data!

Let me give you some food for thought, this is a letter that was recieved by the Game Commission, make no mistake, this a is a culmination of the thoughts of MANY firearms big game hunters in the state of Kansas:

Commissioners;

I wanted to write to you originally to thank you for the firearms season in the new Unit 19 in the October time frame. But, as I read the remarks of Chairman Dykes, Commisioners Warner and Carpenter and the absence of statements of support for firearms issues from the other Commissioners - I got the general feeling that it was a big mistake and something the Commission did NOT like. You see at first I thought maybe the Commission was really interested in restoring fairness for firearms deer hunters, but I guess it now seems it was not an intended move to equity. To make matters worse Commissioner Warner wanted the firearms regulated to shotgun and muzzleloader only. WHY? Anyplace that is safe for a shotgun or muzzleloader is safe for anything you can put in a Contender pistol or in a revolver. Why is the Commission so dead set againist centerfire firearms? Why do you regulate the .44 Magnum pistol the very same way that you regulate the 300 Weatherby Magnum rifle? What is the real problem with straight walled non-belted cartridges in handguns, carbines and rifles? Shotgun slugs offer no real margin of saftey over these firearms. Shotgun only areas are political solutions - NOT practicle solutions. The archery crowd is already rasing alot of cain over the Oct firearms season in Unit 19. I beleive that this may be the only year for that firearms season, I believe you will follow the wishes of the bowhunters, and move kill the Oct season. Another problem with shotgun only in Unit 19 - we all know it won' t stop there. It is no secret certain bowhunters would certainly like to abolish the centerfire firearms season in this state.

I think the biggest problem is a Commission that is closed minded to providing equity for firearms hunters. It also reflects how out of touch this Commission is on firearms issues. After all, you would have to be crazy to go deer hunting during the firearms season - is that the correct statement Commissioner Carpenter (according to the minutes)? Many good ideas have been brought before this Commission regarding firearms seasons and deer hunting, but you continue to ignore them. The only thing you seem to be interested in is pandering to the KBA. Best example is the issue a couple of years ago when you did away with the regulations for pull weight, draw length and let off requirements for bows. I know it was done to get youth involved in bowhunting. Consider, in order for a young person to hunt deer with a firearm he must be able to handle enough gun to responsibly take a deer. Archery equipment is even more critical in this area, and this Commission has seen fit to shirk it' s responsibilities in this area and bend to the bowhunters demands, knowing full well it is not a good idea. In the area we hunt we have a sloppy bowhunter with one of these underpowered bowes. We are constanly cleaning up after this guy(s), but no more, we are moving to a new location - what ever happens to the arrow stuck deer there happens. We' re tired of seeing it. You can bet the surban people will tire of it faster than we did, especially if an arrow stuck deer is bleeding, thrashing and dying in their flower bed with thier kids watching. Commissioner Warner, Carpenter and Chairman Dykes, I and many other hunters have a bigger problem with a bowhunter hunting an urban area with an underpowered bow than we do with someone hunting in the same area with a 44 Mag pistol or carbine. We feel the latter hunter is just more responsible because he realizes what it takes to hunt this type of environment and more than likely, saftey will be his/her utmost concern. I also realize this statement is too much of a leap of faith for most of this commission.

The last series of workshops for deer management concentrated its efforts mainly on the transferable tag issue, and in the opinion of many hunters afield turn out to be a failure. Management issues were not discussed, it turned out to be nothing more than a squabble over transferrable tags with all participants protecting thier own turf. There certainly wasn' t much forward thinking going on. That is nothing new with this commission, you have been operating basically on historical momentum. That happens when you operate with the gross lack of data. Commissioner Hall, I want to thank you for pointing out the obvious about inadequete data. The rest of the commission and the KDWP certainly aren' t hearing the publics complaints on this particular issue(and it has been brought to their attention many times) - maybe they will listen to you.

I do wish to thank this Commission for changing my thoughts on a couple of issues. One is KDWP acquiring more lands for public hunting. I no longer am in favor of this. Chairman Dykes has said on many occasions that one of the goals is to open more public grounds to hunters. He has to be making these statement for bird hunting and bowhunting because it certainly isn' t true for firearms deer hunters. Quite the opposite, firearms deer hunters loose more ground every year. Just last year (2002)the Flint Hills Wildlife areas are no longer avaliable for center fire firearms for big game hunting. There isn' t one wildlife area manager in this state that DOESN' T have plans to reduce the areas avaliable to centerfire firearms for big game hunting in the next 5 to 10 years. More land acquistion for bowhunting preserves at my expense? No thanks, I am no longer interested. Chairman Dykes, your words and the actions of the department are 2 different things. The other thing that I am now in favor of is maximizing the transferable tags. This seems to be the only way that firearms hunters will be able to have a decent crack a getting an any deer tag. In the past 9 years I have had an any deer tag only twice. Bowhunters get those tags every year, consistantly and constantly, while firearms hunters are subject to accumulating points and listening to that bogus " success rate study" that the KDWP and the KBA so fluently speak. I have since found out that " study" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated theroy. What' s more it was originally concieved by a bowhunter from upper New York state. It' s unsbstantiated because of NO CREDITABLE DATA.

I also hear rumbling of the species specific tags. I would just as soon KDWP and this Commission just leave well enough along on species specific tags. I really believe things would only get worse for the firearms hunters in this state.

A backlash is looming. I believe more firearms hunters are going to be doing business with outfitters(if you loose accesses you move to the next desirable option). On checking these guys out they are very adept at herd management and extremely knowlegable. They operate from hard data. In my opinion that gives them a leg up on the KDWP and this commission. They don' t take such anti-gun stances and they certainly are more welcoming of firearms hunters. One problem about being out of touch with the firearms hunters, is they are the majority and that puts you out of touch with the majority. A time will come when outfitters with the backing of firearms hunters will have the clout to help appoint commissioners to this commission that are far more fairness minded. I and many other hunters will be right their with them. Maybe at that time we can get the KDWP back to the state of Kansas and out of the hands of the people responsible for their new nick name: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Bowhunters.

Thank you for you time and attention. From a personal level, I do understand the difficulties in tackling these issues.

KJr

My comments were directed at the statement that bowhunting wasn' t a valid game management tool, not against firearms hunters. I have nothing against firearms, I own a few, love to shoot ' em, have friends and family that hunt with firearms, etc. but I bowhunt to give myself a greater handicap against the game I pursue. It is no challenge for me to get within rifle range, even shotgun slug range, of any game animal that I' ve hunted so far.

I realize that bowhunters are the minority and don' t wish to create any wider of a gap than what already exists between firearms hunters and bowhunters. I was only pointing out that the areas where the biggest deer populations are will probably never allow anything other than bowhunting. Consolidating parts of several units into one urban management zone didn' t take any land away from firearms hunters or give any more to bowhunters than what was already there, it just specified where we could fill the rest of our game tags.

I definately agree that the state has no solid data on the deer herd and think that is a very poor way to run any kind of management program. I' d like to see check stations personally, or at least make it mandatory for you to return part of your deer/turkey tag to the state with the same info they send out for antelope and furbearer tags, i.e. days hunted and animals taken, then if you didn' t return the info you wouldn' t be able to buy a tag the next year. Car/deer accidents and spotlighting aren' t giving us any real information on herd structure or harvest numbers. I also think the legislature needs to get out of the wildlife management business and let the trained professionals decide how many tags need to be issued based on hard facts so we don' t lose a valuable resource for all of us to enjoy.

As far as someone shooting a deer with a bow in town and having it die in someones flower bed with mom and the kids looking on, fat chance....almost all the suburban areas that allow bowhunting have to be a minimum of 20 acres so it' s not like we' ll be hunting in anyone' s back yard, and anyone lucky enough to be able to obtain permission will more than likely (hopefully) be very cautious about what they do and how it can be perceived if they have any sense whatsoever. Also, the non-hunters are starting to realize that the deer numbers in these areas are needing to be thinned out and they are the one' s we need to project a good image to, not the anti' s...we won' t change their minds.

I' m trying to be part of the solution, care to join me?

KJr (aka Pain)

Trebarker...my Bowsite handle was already taken on here and I didn' t feel real creative at the time [8D]

Trebarker

Ruger 1, having been involved in this past two legislative sessions, attending KDWP Comm. meetings and acting on issues as an individual not as a representative of KBA or any other organization, I would say that if you wrote that letter you are one very uninformed individual. I am willing to bet the Commissioners(all of them) hit the delete button or tossed it in the can before they finished half of it. You don' t get anywhere pointing fingers at other groups and whining about what they have. You get absolutely no respect at all making threats and innuendos. If you havent already trolled at bowsite.com, do so and see how many KBAers are happy about the deer hunting issues in general. Sure alot of bowhunters were not happy about Unit 19,(the ones who reside there) but if you knew anything about bowhunting at all, you would understand their reasons. If it adversely effected your hunting season you would be bellyaching too. I have a deal for you. I will listen to what you feel needs to be done, why it needs to be done, how it could be done, what effect it will have on the resource and long term health of the herd, benefits that can be expected, etc. Then I want to hear what your organization has done to benefit all hunters in Kansas, not just your weapon of choice, in the last few years. Have they fought for the sport itself, the resource, or just to gain a better package for rifle hunters only? Then I would to have the opportunity to explain my side of the coin to you, as a deer hunter NOT as a member of KBA, not just as a bow hunter.

Randy Smith

I figured out their profile button a long time ago Ken.

MarkIIVT

One fact is that deer hunters are passionate about this activity. This thread has hit a nerve.

Pain and Trebarker, I think we have established some common ground and issues of concern. Please, take into consideration that others are as passionate and concerned as you are. This thread has 770+ hits at this time so there are a lot of lurkers, but that is not a bad thing. As we debate, others will form opinions (i hope they make up their own minds) on presented materials. Some of this emotion and intensity comes the frustration of trying to be heard. You are correct, I took the message to the KSRA last year and got no action, at the time they were more concerned about support for the Governor candidate and concealed carry only and did not want to spend their political capitol on this emotoional issue. You guys are right that the outdoor Orgs need to get involved and address the core concerns of this issue.

I believe in the end, we will find after going over everything the gun vs. bow debate in Kansas will be identified as a symptom the problem, instead of the actual problem.

Randy, Thanks for the email. If next week won' t work, the following week won' t work for me, howerver, let' s meet and have a sit down. Bring your records and data. Let' s start " The Independent Kansas Deer Project" . It' s clear that something needs to happen.

Dana

BOWFANATIC

Ditto! In fact I also hunt the gun season! My comments were directed solely at a couple of misinformed comments. I would be first in line to fight for your gun hunting rights in Kansas!

Trebarker

The special season in SE Kansas, Game tags, and the late season were supposedly all about reducing herd numbers in response to overpopulation complaints. I would like to know how many of you were able to find landowners willing to allow you onto their property to deal with these " problem deer" without a trespass fee or lease? Most of the wrangling going on in Topeka is not about reducing deer numbers, it is about liberalizing the very deer management principles that developed our trophy quality deer. Individuals and outfitters plan to profit off the resource by getting more NR tags, what they really wanted in the first place. T-tags should be embarrassing to any of us, they benefit scalpers not hunters. Leasing is up to the landowner, I for one will never argue about them having the right to do what they want with their land. I do not feel they should be allowed to profit off tag sales. Allowing landowners to sell deer from their property will only encourage land isolation, deer population growth, and additional claims of deer depridation to get more tags. It is a no win situation for Kansas resident hunters.

When we buy a tag, it allows us the opportunity to hunt deer, it is not a guarantee to take home venison. As hunters, we are management tools KDWP uses to control herd size. The sooner everyone understands that if we were allowed to hunt when it is the most appealing, or as long as it takes to " fill my tag" , it would not take long to exterminate the deer resource again like it happened back in the late 1800' s.

Centerfire hunters were reported as having 50% success. Bowhunters were reported as being 52% successful. These percentages are tallied from the report cards that are mailed back to KDWP. I recently went in and talked with Lloyd Fox at the Emporia KDWP and he showed me several samples of report cards they had received. Any that were not filled out right were not included in the total. A small percentage of cards were returned. What does this tell you? The chances of a accurate total are flushed down the drain due to hunters not filling the cards out properly, you contribute to the further exploitation of the herd by doing this. Successful hunters are more apt to fill out the report cards. Folks not seeing enough deer to get the chance to harvest typically do not fill out the reports. Don' t base your argument on success rates, it is flawed. Solution? FILL OUT YOUR REPORTS ACCURATELY!!!!!! and turn them in successful or not.

Sorry for the editing, hit the wrong key earlier. Think about these things, and ask if you don' t see yourself in them.

Randy