AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).

For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the

It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.

(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)

---

That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with maximizing license sales. And in my opinion cheapens most of the mantra coming from the bow hunting community. Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.

---

The thing that "anti-bowhunters" always seem to miss in the argument is that EVERYONE is allowed to participate in bow season. All you have to do is learn to shoot a bow! Bow hunters get sick of the envy and angst thrown their way by jealous hunters that think we have it made. All you have to do to join us is get a bow!

(Or take shortcuts and just buy a crossbow! The best of both worlds! I'm just like a bowhunter except I'm still pointing and clicking!)

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).

For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the

It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.

(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)

---

That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed.

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Advantages of what? Specialized seasons with limited competition and none from other weapons.

And what wouldn't be allowed?

Hunting other seasons with other weapons to expand the hunt longer and increase the odds of success.

Quote:

---

Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.

---

And I would do none of this, nor understand what you mean about pushing you off a mountain?

Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.

---

---

Classic. Jealous much?

Quote:

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Advantages of what? Specialized seasons with limited competition and none from other weapons.

And what wouldn't be allowed?

Hunting other seasons with other weapons to expand the hunt longer and increase the odds of success.

---

I have no problem with hunters hunting all seasons with whatever weapon is available, so I'm not sure what to say here...

Quote:

---

Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.

---

That's just public hunting, man. However, what state can you walk around on public land with a bow for months at a time?

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.

---

---

I believe in CO... If the bow hunter was indeed hunting during bow season, he would have purchased an archery tag. If the same bow hunter was hunting during any rifle season (wearing blaze orange of course)... they also had a rifle tag. Would have paid for both. If on public lands, they would have just as much of a right to be there as any rifle hunter.

I had a bad experience during my elk rifle season... we were about 1.25 mi into the "no motor vehicle use area" and we watched one of the guys that had been rounding up cattle (in the pasture adjacent to the "no motor vehicle" area) drive through the valley we were overlooking on a four wheeler. I don't think that helped our morning hunt. Stuff happens on public lands. Keeps it interesting?

AggieChemist said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

In most western states, part of the reason bow hunters are allowed to hunt animals during the rut is because the efficacy of bowhunting is lower. Bulls and bucks are at their most vulnerable during the rut, and if rifle hunting was allowed, there would be many more animals killed. The states are (or should be) in the business of managing the herd while attempting to allow as many people the opportunity to hunt as possible (as well as maximizing revenue).

For example, assume for a particular unit that 100 bull elk needed to be killed and assume the rifle success rate is 30% and archery success rate is 10% (rifle success is probably higher, actually). The unit could support 1000 archery hunters to achieve the desired kill rate or 333 rifle hunters. Allowing archery only during the rut provides more opportunity for the public, while also bringing in more revenue - the cost of the tag is the same regardless of method of take, except the state would sell 3x as many tags to archery hunters. Rifle hunting is then allowed after the rut (or right at the end) so that enough elk can still be killed to hit the

It's not really an argument of what's fair, it's a complex system based on lots of factors.

(and yes, I got most of this from the MeatEater podcast several weeks ago)

---

That's widely understood. That however, has nothing to do with allowing those advantages to be doubled down in later seasons with other weapons. If it was truly about limiting the harvest, that wouldn't be allowed.

---

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Advantages of what? Specialized seasons with limited competition and none from other weapons.

And what wouldn't be allowed?

Hunting other seasons with other weapons to expand the hunt longer and increase the odds of success.

Quote:

---

Don't rub bow hunting is better in my face and fluff up your facebook page in the early season only to push me off a mountain later with a rifle because you suck at bow hunting.

---

And I would do none of this, nor understand what you mean about pushing you off a mountain?

Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.

---

---

Classic. Jealous much?

---

Of the long season and advantage bow hunters get, yes. Of bow hunting, no. I have no interest. It doesn't appeal to me in my goals of hunting.

AgEng08 said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

AgEng06 said:

---

Great. That's the way it should be, but the average bow hunter does. The worst part of rifle hunting is to get miles in from a trail head in the dark only to have other hunters walk right through the area after day light. Especially if you find out they've been hunting for months before your only weak long season started and probably sucking just as bad the entire time.

---

---

I believe in CO... If the bow hunter was indeed hunting during bow season, he would have purchased an archery tag. If the same bow hunter was hunting during any rifle season (wearing blaze orange of course)... they also had a rifle tag. Would have paid for both. If on public lands, they would have just as much of a right to be there as any rifle hunter.

---

Agreed. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the stereotypical bow hunting who looks down on other methods and then uses them when they suck at bow hunting.