HEY SMELLYBUCK . . . . . . . .

A

AWHOLELOTTABULL

Long Time Member
Messages
4,357
So far I haven't seen any accurate STATS posted on your statement regarding archery wound percentages ("archery has a 75% wound rate"). I'm assuming that this was just one of those numbers you pulled out of your . . . hat? Give us a name of the legistlator you talked to so we can get that information for ourselves.

Personally I think you just like to call people out. Your personal attacks on people that actually do A LOT for wildlife need to be taken to another internet site. Maybe try www.dumb*#&.com.



It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Ahhh, I missed that post. I'd argue archery wound statistics until the cows come home. Oh well.
 
I'm only aware of one archery wounding study that has been conducted. It was on a controlled hunting area, hunters knew they were going to be interviewed after their hunt. When a deer was reported to have been wounded and not recovered, dogs and extra people were brought in to conduct a search of the area. At the end of the hunt an exhaustive ground search was conducted. It has been twenty or so years since I have read the study, but wounding rates during archery season were compariable to wounding rates for other methods. I won't give precentages because it has been a long time.

I have searched for a copy of this report in the past. Maybe someone can find it. If I rememmber right it was conducted in the midwest. I wish I had more information.

I also didn't read SMELLYBUCK's post but would love to see the study or research.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-15-08 AT 11:38AM (MST)[p]Read Camp Ripley study opinion...

WOW!!!!

Bow hunting is a crime??? Holly crap am I a criminal. Man there are some messed up freaks in this world. It just goes to show what we are up against. Maybe smelly is one of them???


HK


GO HARD KORE OR DON'T GO AT ALL
 
OK, maybe I was a little hard on SMELLY. However, 75% wound rate. Hell, theres not 75% opportunity. I'm still waiting for a "credible" study or source to prove that point not some "anti-hunter study done in the eastern states. It should be a western study anyway. Opportunity with a bow and arrow is A LOT more prevalent in eastern states than out here in the west. We are talking about our mule deer herds, not about a state study that has 5 million white tail running around.


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
I guess I'm supposed to fall in step with the anti-hunters after reading their response to the wounding study. Talk about bias!!!!! Just reading the statement at the end, that they were not intereseted in wounding rates, but rather that all hunting is cruel.

The people who wrote the report are the same ones that are suing to stop wolf management. With all of the tough words against them regarding wolves I would expect less weight to be placed on their opinion regarding wounding rates.

Forkedhorn

I appreciate the information and will try and locate the study.

SMELLYBUCK ..... Still waiting to see your information. I would be very interested in knowing where you got your information.

The most important information from the report posted by is that what we say will be used against hunting. Read the quotes and read the names of the people whose names are attached to them. Do any of you really think that those quotes are taken in context.
 
He already awnsered the question on that post...

SMELLYBUCK (180 posts)
May-12-08, 09:16 PM (MST)
124. "Humble Pie Update"
Nochawk & fellow MM members,
I might have to eat some crow sooner than later. I e-mailed the DWR today for information. They said they don't track wound rates. I know that is b.s. as I've been asked in their surveys if I lost any game.

I then spoke with the legislator who gave me the 75% figure, he said he couldn't remember exactly who gave him that number but seemed to think he could find out. (Some of you guys saw this number coming. I can only hope he delivers.)

I'm now more interested in finding out what the wound rates are regardless of how correct I am. Does anybody have an idea where this information can be found. Everyone seems certain I am wrong but nobody has a number.

Smelly
 
I guess it boils down to what kind of numbers they are basing the "75%" on. Is it 75% of all hunters (I highly doubt that)? Is it 75% of hunters that had opportunity? Is it 75% of hunters that harvested an animal wounded an animal prior to harvesting theirs? 75% could mean a lot of different things. This is the kind of thing PETA and other anti-hunting groups thrive on. Taking a number like 75% and turning it against the hunter. I am interested as well in the actual number and the context from which it was obtained.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Thanks Nochawk, I hadn't seen that post.

People throwing "facts" around that can't even remember who told them, and they are in a position to impact our sport. Wonderful !!!!!!
 
Whole,

I have only made few personal attacks against people on this site. I lashed out on Bess, because his posts indeed give me a headache, and I thought he should know it. I've also tried to call Prism on a few instances where I think his observations and predictions are wrong. I think his general management ideas are a dead end road for public hunting and management. I get mean with him from time to time. Probably because I want to make sense of his ideas as a lot of people are on board with him but it hasn't clicked yet.

I question people's ideas of management and state where I disagree. I get tired of management ideas that are little more than creative accounting. Some people take it personal when I tell them I think their ideas are lame. I do too to some degree so I can't blame them.

I won't give the legislators name for his safety, I consider him a friend. I indeed felt like a sucker especially when I pressed him after the fact and he couldn't deliver a name or a study. I ususally know better as I am a real estate appraiser by trade and can ususally smell a realtor's B.S. from a mile. I deal with it day in & day out. I believed the legislator's figure because that's inline with my stats before I gave up archery. (I know I'll get grilled on this, oh well) I also worked at Hurst's Ace Hardware in southern Utah as a teenager and can't tell you how many times I would hear a report in the sporting section, "we'll I hit "x" amount of deer but couldn't find them."

I do know the DWR has stats regarding wound rates, but they choose not to post them. They atleast have it for L.E. hunts as every limited entry hunter is required to fill out a questionaire. They choose to not make it public for some reason.

I'm amazed at how furious people have been at the 75% number when they themselves don't know what it is.

If you go back to the thread where this was discussed you'll see I've already apologized to Nochawk and the site for throwing out an unsubtantiated number. I thought my source was reliable. And perhaps I will find another website.

(Another chunk of time wasted)

Late,

Smelly
 
Smelly,
Just don't let your Appraisal Board know you're overinflating unsubstantiated values (harvest/loss rate). It sounds like your extraordinary assumption is biting you in the arssss.

In journalism school, the first thing they tell you to do when reporting is to consider your source.

It sounds to me IMHO that you are guilty of the very thing that bothers you the most....faulty reasoning and faulty statistics. Old water-cooler hunting stories typcially are not worth repeating say EVER....remember consider the source.

Right now it appears you have some external obsolescence, stemming from MMrs barking outside your door. This obsolescence can be cured with better logic, reasoning and especially accurate statistics on harvest/loss rates IMHO.


HK


GO HARD KORE OR DON'T GO AT ALL
 
WELL I GOT MY INFO/NUMBERS FROM SMELLYBUCK!!!

IT MUST BE GOSPEL!!!

AFTER ALL HE IS IN REAL ESTATE!!!

I'M SURE HE'S NEVER SCREWED ANYBODY OVER!!!

IT'S THE REALTOR THAT DOES THAT 110% OF THE TIME!!!

WHY WOULD MY POSTS GIVE YOU A HEADACHE???

YOU MIGHT WANNA READ A FEW MORE OF THEM!!!

-----------------------------------------

O.K. YOU STICK FLIPPERS!!!

THE NEXT TIME YOU DRAW BACK ON AN ANIMAL THINK!!!

IS THIS ONE OF THEM 75% SHOTS???

YOU KNOW,WOUND & ROT SHOT???

IF THERES EVEN A 1% CHANCE OF BEING IN THAT 75% I'D RECOMMEND WAITING FOR THE SHOT THAT WILL NET YOU THE ANIMAL!!!

YOU WOULDN'T WANT THIS 75% TO GO TO 76% WOULD YA???

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW???

I GET MY FIGURES FROM SMELLYBUCK!!!

THERE ARE SO CALLED BOW HUNTERS WITH PISS POOR RATES SUCH AS 75%!!!

EVER NOTICE ITS THE SAME IDIOTS YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH PISS POOR EQUIPMENT AND LOWLIFE ETHICS???









THIS IS MY NEW GUN,YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT,YOU'LL LIKE IT A HELL OF A LOT LESS WHEN IT HITS ITS DESTINATION!!!
47654abd5a8fd79a.jpg


469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
Excellent HK!!! Best laugh I've had on here in a long time and point well taken.
 
"I think his general management ideas are a dead end road for public hunting and management."

Smelly, Gonna give you a chance to tell me (and everyone else) what my general management ideas are. AND ESPECIALLY HOW THEY'RE A DEAD END ROAD FOR PUBLIC HUNTING AND MANAGEMENT.....sounds more like just another personal attack.

So, here's your chance to back it up for the world to see.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-08 AT 10:16PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-22-08 AT 10:01?PM (MST)

1) You don't back off the idea of cutting tags. Even when your predictions do not come to pass. You implied that we wiped the herd out in 2004. It was a high success year preceeded by a snow storm. Four years latter the population was high enough to have serious winter kill. Would cutting tags in '05, '06, '07 alleviated the winter kill? I don't see how. Would increasing tags these same years alleviated the winter kill? Possibly. I never noticed a northern tag increase since the winter kill of 1994 even though the herd largely rebounded. Please reconcile.

2) You have scoffed at the idea of increasing cow tags this year. The elk population is increasing. What's wrong with freeing up some tags?

3) You seem to think that going primitive is a win/win for management as it increases "opportunity" and "limits" success. I've harped on the DWR for this approach, so don't feel too special. I don't think it should be an agency agenda to limit my success. We go out to have successful hunts for the most part. If the herd is in poor shape - go ahead and cut the tags, but don't make it a priority to decrease success rates. That turns more people off.

4) I don't understand your concept of funding as you seem very resentful whenever a money generating decision is made to increase tags. UDWR has serious budget constraints and spends way too much time listening to the MM masses complain (I include myself). They could otherwise be getting to work instead of listeining to all our brilliant ideas. These guys aren't getting rich. I have an educational background in natural resources and bailed out of that career course for a large part because of money. The habitat in this state will go nowhere unless some big $$$ are generated. Raising tag fees is a tough sell. The need for money is a simple fact & should not to be scoffed at. (Colorado has other funding opportunities besides deer tags.) For better and worse we can all learn from Don Peay on this one. As important as advising agencies on what to do, we should be include a plan on how to pay for our ideas. How do you propose the DWR make up for the $$$ when they cut tags at your request? Can you explain to the masses why it should cost so much to "live off of the land?"

5) I admit this is personal but would like your thought, feel free to slam back. You often refer to the people of my state as UTARDS. That's great in a joking way but not in a "you're stupid, I'm smart" condescending way. Also, you recently inferred to some guy that he has a limited persepective because he doesn't hunt out of state. In a great degree you are in the same camp. You don't hunt public lands but seem to know that its just awful out there. I just don't agree. I can ususally find mature bucks on public land (killing them is an entirely different matter.) Try it!!! You might like it. I quit hunting private ranches about 10 years ago because it seemed the owners were always changing the rules. I like hunting public lands where I know I can go back year after year, and I can scout at my leisure - even if there are more crowds.

That's about it. Thanks for the vent. I'm know there are some inconsistancies in there so enjoy!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-22-08 AT 10:19PM (MST)[p]Smelly,

After some deep thought I've decided it's not worth the time and effort.

I don't know you, and you obviously don't know me (a fellow Utard).

I'm sure you're a great guy and we'd probably get along great in deer camp, even on public ground in Utah ;-). I think it'd be safe to say that I spend more time than most hunting public land all over the west, even in Utah. BTW-My biggest bucks have all come off of public land. I've only shot 1 180+ buck on private, all others DIY public baby...

Personal issues on here are fun to read, but I don't want to get caught up in it. A lot of what I say is said tongue in cheek. I know I don't have all of the answers, but a lot of questions.

As for Pro, I was just giving him a hard time-I consider him a friend and a good guy. We just agree to disagree. Hopefully you and I can do the same.

So there you have it.
 
Prism,

Please atleast reply to #1. I can let the other stuff go, but I get so rattled every time I see a post that we need to cut tags rain, shine, or snow. Of course you could withhold comment and win by sending me to an assylum.

I'm sure you are enjoyable person, and I mean well even when I'm being a jerk. I'm calling you on #1 and am giving you the opportunity to explain yourself on what I have felt is a fundamental flaw in your opinons regarding management.

Smelly
 
Smelly,
Like I said before, I respect everyones oppinion, even when I highly disagree. Your oppinion is no different. Than being said, I too am one of the tag cutters. I don't see how the herd can come back the way people want with the current number of tags. Somebody posted on another thread the idea of a "2 year license" plan that would allow you to take 1 buck in 2 years. If you harvested it on the first year you still paid for your license the second year. There are ideas out there that would limit harvest yet still provide for the opportunist. We won't ever get a solid mature buck population if we continually slaughter the younger bucks. I personally don't take my kids on the general hunt in Utah. It's my personal oppinion that it's a waste of time. I have tried to teach them about animal maturity and trying to harvest only mature animals. It's a lot easier with girls that boys. The girls don't "have to kill something" to feel good about their hunt. Boys seem to bow to peer pressure. Anyway, I am sure that you are a great guy with a passion for hunting. You wouldn't feel as strongly as you do if you didn't have a passion. I guess it's one of those agree to disagree issues.

Jim


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-23-08 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]smelly- i understand the money issue.i too like to see management ideas that include the financial aspect.so im gonna throw it out there.this is the first year the UDWR has implemented the mandatory sm.game license,but at the same time they dropped the tag prices.the biggest impact being on the general tags.this tells me they are after the federal money that will come from the pittman/robertson act(i think thats the name of it).for those that dont know what this is theres a tax on everything that has to do withhunting;camo,ammo,guns,scopes. after the feds have the money they divide it up among the states according to the amount of overall permit sales within each state.this has to of increased utahs total # of permits substantialy.i believe other states have been doing this for quite some time,therefore they have been getting more federal help for quite some time.i too do most of my hunting in utah so i try to keep my comments only about utah.but when i hear guys talk about whats goin on in other states i pay attention so i can form my own opinion as to what we should do or try in my home state.it will be interesting to see how much the new revenue will help us.i feel like we should be able to look at the budget then people might have more financial ideas.until then its hard for people to throw ideas out when they dont know what the budget consists of.i agree natural resources careers dont always pay the best but most these people are doing what they love,yeah most of them are tree huggers but not all.maybe the new revenue will make it easier for them to cut tags and still take a 3% pay increase each year.utah has tried to be all about opporutinity thats what most of the people ask for.but im starting to feel like those days are coming to an end. just my 2 cents not trying to get anybody ticked off edit-and by the way this place just wouldnt be as much fun without bess and some of the other attitudes on here.im curious how old bobcat is.just to see if it fits my mental picture of him.:7:7
 
Jim,

I'd like your take on a few things.

1) How is the 1 kill per two years thing going to improve our current system? Central & Southern Hunters are already on a hunt every two years program. There will still be the same amount of tags chasing the same amount of deer - am I'm missing something?

2) In the 80's people screamed that we needed to go to choose your hunt. It was just killing off our herds. We screamed that we needed to cut tags. Some thought we needed to go to regions. The winter kill in the early 90's spurred it all on and those who lobbied for such got a chance to see what would happen. I don't really hear anyone concluding that it helped. All I hear is cut more tags, make more units, impose more restrictions - and then we'll be happy. I've seen vast improvement since the mid 90's. I just can't buy off on how bad things are, I think I've seen a lot worse, and I'm scarred we will get more restrictions and the complaints will continue.

3) Please feel free to comment on #1 of my reply to Prism

4) I think my final reservation in piling on the restrictions is the fact that the average hunter in the 40's - 60's killed a lot more deer. The party hunted and poached. People found it easy to pass on yearlings and there were atleast as many tags as there are now. They hunted hard in the 40's and the deer were there in the 50's, they hunted hard in the 50's, and the 60's. Something just changed in the 70's. I think the problem was deeper than tag numbers. I think cutting tags is a great short term solution to winter kills and such, but hopefully we can do better in the long term. On concluding scenario is the Browse Unit on Pine Valley Mountain in Washington County. Supposedly they killed deer out of there in the 60's by the truck load - even the Californians. This was put into draw unit in the 80's, and the deer herd crashed for some reason. No winter kill, light pressure, no deer. This went back into the general hunt about 10 years ago and people aren't rushing back in. What happened? I think our problems are far greater than tag numbers and as long as we continue to winter kill every 10 years, I don't see the point.

Sorry for the lengthiness. Your thoughts are appreciated.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Deer Tailgate 2.jpg
0104E1E2-D468-4B7D-872F-A0D2D0045FC5.jpeg
IMG_0258.jpeg
Attachment-1.jpeg
20240718_221850.jpg
98760681-F676-412B-B45A-9F6AB7C86B94.png
Screenshot_20211109-150949_Messages.jpg
Screenshot_20240718_222343_Gallery.jpg
Elk Tailgate.jpg
ABCA1A49-5E77-443D-BEC7-DD732F14F29A.jpeg
WGI_0048.JPG
IMG_3188.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom