Only 180 NR bow tags this year

[TylerS]

Scoot,

In all sincerity, I believe the distinct line between bowhunting and rifle hunting is beginning to thin.

Last year at the G&F public meeting, the topic of capping archery tags was brought up by the public. It would seem the G&F has considered this, especially since archery success has increased substantially in recent years. I can't remember the exact statistic, but it's not nearly as bleak as some archers would like us to think (want to say upwards of 40 percent).

Anyway, that's all hearsay without data to back it up, so I apologize for mentioning it. While I agree that archers certainly have a more difficult time bagging deer than do gun hunters, we can't simply disregard their impact when bow hunting numbers increase year after year, as does their success.

[TylerS]

And BTW, totally agree with you on the NR/R thing. Comparison to elk tags out west are spot on.

[holmsvc]

I can understand the G&F liking the NR money, but western ND is plenty busy without the NR hunters. I realize that they aren't going to completely get rid of the tags. I was just making a point that with our current mule deer herd that NRs should be happy that there are any tags available.

I had been buying preference points for SD antelope and mule deer for the past few years and our group had planned to go to SD and rifle hunt antelope, but when I called their G&F because there was no apps online they said that the only way there would be NR tags is if there were some left after the resident tags. While I was annoyed it made sense to me.

I can't imagine that residents are waiting a minimum of 3 years to draw a tag in most of the states you mentioned.

I wouldn't see an issue with the NR tags if people were waiting a year or two to draw a ND Muley tag, but the numbers are just way too low right now.

holmsvc, I can certainly appreciate the frustrations of giving NR tags when there's a limited number of R tags given. However, what happens when you apply for an elk, antelope, or muley tag in WY, MT, CO, AZ, NV, UT, or ID? The residents gripe because there's a limited number of R tags given to them and their state still gives out NR tags.

Why give out NR tags when you limit the number of R tags? The answer is simple- $$$. NRs generate money for the G&F (much higher cost for the license than the residents pay) and they also generate revenue for business throughout the state of ND. Hotels, cafes, gas stations, etc. all get money from the NRs.

People often gripe about giving NRs tags within the state they live in. However, when these same people want to hunt a state other than the one they live in they are appauled by the low number of tags offered to NRs and the abysmal draw odds. You may question the number of NR tags given, but I personally believe it'd be a big mistake to not give any NR tags out. Even if we did, it would mean little in terms of the wait time you or your buddies would have to draw a rifle tag. 180 NR archery tags are a drop in the bucket and have little impact on the draw odds for the rifle tags. Even if they did, I continue to believe, and so do the G&F of every state that has mule deer, giving a percentage tags to NRs is an important and valuable piece of the licensing scheme.

[Scoot]

I can't imagine that residents are waiting a minimum of 3 years to draw a tag in most of the states you mentioned.

Take CO as an example- to draw the top four units for deer a resident who wanted to bowhunt would need 13, 14, 15, and 16 preference points. This means they'd have to wait 13, 14, 15, or 16 years to draw these tags. To draw the top four archery elk tags a resident would need to have 13, 13, 16, and 18 preference points. Keep in mind too, that these are for archery tags, they'd need at least a couple more years worth of points for a rifle tag. Add onto that point creep and if you wanted to draw a rifle tag in CO in one of these units and were just getting started now, you'd be looking at needing upwards of 25 points. So a cool quarter century from now you could hunt a great unit in CO with a rifle. Six years isn't such a long wait in comparison, is it?

[Scoot]

In all sincerity, I believe the distinct line between bowhunting and rifle hunting is beginning to thin... especially since archery success has increased substantially in recent years. I can't remember the exact statistic, but it's not nearly as bleak as some archers would like us to think (want to say upwards of 40 percent).

While I agree that archers certainly have a more difficult time bagging deer than do gun hunters, we can't simply disregard their impact when bow hunting numbers increase year after year, as does their success.

Tyler, if archery is having a significant and negative impact on deer numbers, as you're suggesting, then I'm totally onboard with you. I'd love to see some numbers on the actual numbers of bowhunters, the number of mule deer bowhunters, the number of archery tags filled in total, number of archery tags filled for whitetails, and the number of archery tags filled for muleys. I've heard of the increase in archery success and I'm very curious about how this success rate breaks down across whitetails and muleys. My guess is that whatever the number is that you're referring to (you mentioned "upwards of 40 percent"), that's either for all archery hunters or it's for whitetail hunters. I'm very skeptical that number applies to archery hunters who are chasing muleys. Do you recall if the G&F person who said that was referring to archery muley hunters or bowhunters in general? Maybe I stink at muley hunting, but I'm extremely doubtful that 40% of bowhunters can go out West and shoot a muley in any given year. I'm quite certain that 40% of the guys I talk to who hunt out there don't shoot a deer. Related to this, I know some of the best archers and bowhunters in the state. So, as I said above- I'm skeptical that this number applies to mule deer bowhunting.

Regardless, if bowhunters are having a significant negative impact on the muley population then I'm totally onboard with your logic. But in my mind it all comes down to the numbers- if the numbers say bowhunters are a substantial part of a problem, particularly when the muley numbers are low, then I totally agree with you. If, however, it's simply driven by a jealous frustration because rifle hunters don't draw tags often enough, then it seems petty, not founded in sound management, and a good way to hamstring the G&F from providing a lot of opportunity without negatively impacting the number of animals in the state.

If you and others dno't agree with me, that's ok by me. That's my take on the matter though.

[KEN W]

Scoot.....I don't take any of this personally.Your opinion is just different than mine.I really didn't want this to be a res vs non-res thing.I grew up in Minn and hunted waterfowl here until after graduating from St Cloud State and moving here.All my family still comes here from Minn to hunt.

I really don't have a problem with giving non-res some tags.The non-res bow tags are a lot compared to rifle non-res tags,which are no more than 1% of the buck tags in a unit.And the 1% includes tags to non-res landowners and the 100 non-res buck tags going to G/O here.

Looking at the number of res rifle tags in the mule deer units of 3-400.That means 3 or 4 rifle tags to non-res rifle hunters.Subtract those going to non-res landowners and there are ZERO left for non-res to get in some units.And they don't know they have zero chance to get one when they apply unless they contact our GNF and ask.So they are contributing application fees with no chance of drawing.

I asked our head of big game division about this at the last GNF meetings and he said yes that is true.

Chad.....yes I am 64 yrs old.Hunted deer every year until last year.I will not be convinced that bow hunters should not receive some cutbacks.

Tyler is right.....Our GNF commissioner even said that last spring at the meeting I was at.But when it came time to set the seasons,they did nothing.And he is right about success rates for bow hunters....it was somewhere in the 40% range.

Hopefully the deer will rebound quickly.But until that happens,rifle and muzzle loaders hunters should not take all the hits,while bow hunters take none.

[KEN W]

You guys are right.....I can chose to bow hunt.But why should I have to do that?Rifle,muzzle loaders,and bow hunters should have the same opportunities.We pay the same amount for a tag.All 3 should take the same drop or increase in tag numbers.Success rate should really have nothing to do with getting a tag or not.We are hunting the same deer.

[NoWiser]

I've been reading this thread with some interest. Take my opinion or leave it, as I have not hunted ND before (although I was starting to think about heading out there and giving it a shot in the near future), but here is how I am seeing this issue. I don't have any hard data to back this up, but if a hunter like Scoot is successful 1 out of every 6 years, I can't imagine the average archery success on mule deer is much, if any, more. So, Scoot shoots a mule deer every 6 years, and in that time pays $120.00 in license costs to do so. A rifle hunter draws a license once every 6 years, contributing $20.00 in license costs, and I'm assuming, has a success rate of near 100%. Both will shoot approximately the same number of deer over a lifetime. It seems to me like the system they have in place right now is actually not all that unfair. Without any good harvest data to back this up, though, it really all is just speculation.

I'm not trying to fuel an argument here, just throwing out another way to look at this issue.

[holmsvc]

I don't have any hard data to back this up, but if a hunter like Scoot is successful 1 out of every 6 years, I can't imagine the average archery success on mule deer is much, if any, more. So, Scoot shoots a mule deer every 6 years, and in that time pays $120.00 in license costs to do so. A rifle hunter draws a license once every 6 years, contributing $20.00 in license costs, and I'm assuming, has a success rate of near 100%. Both will shoot approximately the same number of deer over a lifetime.

I think the success rate is higher than 1 out of 6 years. I am assuming the Scoot is only shooting mature deer and not just sticking one at the end of the trip to fill the freezer. I think an awful lot of people that are investing the time and money in an out of state bow hunt are going to shoot one at the end of the trip to bring something home. Younger mule deer are not real elusive early in the fall.

[TylerS]

Scoot,

You're right. The statistic for successful archers was whitetail. I have no recollection of discussions about mule deer, but I'd bet you are correct in that archery mule deer has much less success than white tails. I don't doubt that for a second, given the nature of mule deer, the terrain, spot-and-stalk tactics, etc.

The argument remains for whitetail, however, that given the current state of rifle tags (decreasing) and the fact you can only get one, more people are turning to archery to get that second tag and increase their chances. This is double true if a person gets snubbed during the rifle tag draw completely, or doesn't get their coveted buck tag. Well, no biggie, I'll just buy an archery tag and sit by the grain bin to wait for that 160 I've been seeing on the trail cameras. (I'm being facetious, of course, but you get my drift). It currently is open to anyone, and at the meeting I attended, they saw the trend in archery participation rising. If success is higher, too, then we can't simply brush off the impact of bow hunting on the deer population. Although it may be markedly less than firearm hunters, if the goal is to truly grow deer numbers, than bow hunting needs to be considered, too.

That was my only point. I think mule deer are a much more fragile population and require stricter limits (just as the G&F have implemented).

[Scoot]

You guys are right.....I can chose to bow hunt.But why should I have to do that?Rifle,muzzle loaders,and bow hunters should have the same opportunities.We pay the same amount for a tag.All 3 should take the same drop or increase in tag numbers.Success rate should really have nothing to do with getting a tag or not.We are hunting the same deer.

Ken, from the perspective of the G&F isn't a great deal of this about the management of the mule deer numbers? I think that's the case and much of what you and Tyler have been talking about is directly or indirectly about the number of mule deer in the state. With that in mind, the success rate is hugely relevant: if 100 rifle hunters hunt mule deer and they shoot 80 muleys and 100 bowhunters hunt mule deer and they shoot 8 mule deer, that is your definition of fair as I understand it, because they each have the same opportunity. I'm certainly not saying it's unfair that bowhunters aren't as successful as rifle hunters- I accept that as the nature of the beast. However, it seems that our G&F understand that too and that's why they have freely given so many archery tags out. Lots and lots of bowhunters can go out and not devistate the population of the mule deer nearly so much as rifle hunters do. So, the G&F let's them to, by my estimation, maximize the enjoyment of the resource. If they allowed everyone a rifle tag for mule deer I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any muleys left in a hurry.

With all of this being said, I want to make clear that I'm absolutely not in any way against rifle hunting for muleys or anything else for that matter. It's just that limiting the number of bowhunters in a way that corresponds with the number of gun hunters doesn't make sense to me given that bowhunters, like me, suck at killing muleys in ND.

[Scoot]

Scoot,

You're right. The statistic for successful archers was whitetail. I have no recollection of discussions about mule deer, but I'd bet you are correct in that archery mule deer has much less success than white tails. I don't doubt that for a second, given the nature of mule deer, the terrain, spot-and-stalk tactics, etc.

[Scoot]

I think the success rate is higher than 1 out of 6 years. I am assuming the Scoot is only shooting mature deer and not just sticking one at the end of the trip to fill the freezer. I think an awful lot of people that are investing the time and money in an out of state bow hunt are going to shoot one at the end of the trip to bring something home. Younger mule deer are not real elusive early in the fall.

I have absolutely no data to back it up, but I'd guess 1/5 or maybe a little less would be a reasonable guess. 40%??? No way I'll believe that until I'm proven otherwise. holmsvc, you're correct about my approach though and I agree with you, at least in part, about young muleys. Even still, it's not like fish in a barrel. Getting inside of 40 yards on a mule deer, any mule deer at any time of year, can be dang tough.

Thanks NoWiser for the kind words! However, there's nothing magic about anything I do. I've learned a lot over the past 30 years of bowhunting, but I don't do anything special and I'm not exactly the second coming of Fred Bear (I wish!)

[KEN W]

Scoot.....as I said a couple pages back.....it's not if I shoot a deer or not.It's if I have the chance to hunt at all.You have a 100% chance right now to bow hunt every year.As do ALL bow hunters.30,000 rifle hunters had no chance to hunt this past fall.Big difference.I just want a level playing field for all deer hunters.

If the state issued less bow tags,they might be able to issue more rifle tags.Thus equalizing the opportunities.

[Scoot]

Ken, I think part of our disparate believes about this have to do with equal opportunity to hunt vs. herd management. You want rifle hunters and bow hunters to have an equal opportunity to hunt. I want the herd managed well. I imagine that's an easy take for me given that I'm a bowhunter and on the "happy side" of the opportunity equation.

Not to beat a dead horse, but your last statement about issuing fewer bow tags so they could issue more rifle tags- that continues to be where I totally diagree with you. As I said before, issuing 100 rifle tags likely results in 80 dead deer. Issuing 100 bow tags likely results in a dozen dead dear. It seems like you'd define fair as 100 bowhunters hunting and 100 rifle hunters hunting. I certainly don't- the bowhunters make use of the badlands but don't exhaust the resource (deer) like the rifle hunters do.

Issuing more bow tags allows more people to enjoy hunting while not killing all the dang deer. Simply because you choose to not take advantage of that option doens't make it a poor choice for the G&F- it simply allows more poeple to enjoy the resource while not decimating it. Issuing the same number of rifle tags would result in a whole boatload of dead muleys. Giving a lot more bow tags and fewer rifle tags is simply following suit to what every state I know of that has mule deer does.

OK- horse is officially beaten! I won't keep rehashing our disagreements... Ken, you make reasonable points and I appreciate the discussion. I don't agree with your take on it (and vice versa obviously), but I'm glad we could have reasonable, level-headed discourse on the topic.

[KEN W]

Same here Scoot.Will be interesting to see what they have to say at the April meetings after winter is over.Would be nice if it's a little closer to us next time.

[Gun Slinger]

Ken,

Seriously, you should just forget about watching the Viqueens on Sunday and start bowhunting. Rifle hunting in North Dakota is such a joke anyway. It seems like all anybody does is just roadhunt and shoot right out the window.

[Recon]

The past three years we've been bow hunting mule deer in western North Dakota. We DIY on public land and truely look forward to the trip. If one of us draws this year we will probably all still go. The odds don't look to good! Getting a "buck" is not what the trip is all about. It's the fun we have. We've harvested one buck in three years. We have never seen any other hunters resident or non bow hunting!

I grew up in ND and have hunted there for over 50 years. Burns me that non residents are considered a problem by some! I took up bow hunting 3 years ago, at age 60, and will probably never hunt deer with a gun again. Archery success rates are not 40%, as one poster stated, but more like 10%!

Public land belongs to us all, not just residents of the state its in. Whether grasslands, BLM or National Forest land we all have just as much right to enjoy it! So in my opinion any licenses given out, by any state, should be done by a drawing with resident and non residents having an equal chance too hunt.

This picture ( if it loaded) is the reason I hunt!

[TylerS]

Public land belongs to us all, not just residents of the state its in. Whether grasslands, BLM or National Forest land we all have just as much right to enjoy it! So in my opinion any licenses given out, by any state, should be done by a drawing with resident and non residents having an equal chance too hunt.

What about private land? What about state-owned land, paid for by residents? You should have as much right to hunt here as the people who pay taxes here?

[candiru]

Public land belongs to us all, not just residents of the state its in. Whether grasslands, BLM or National Forest land we all have just as much right to enjoy it! So in my opinion any licenses given out, by any state, should be done by a drawing with resident and non residents having an equal chance too hunt.

This picture ( if it loaded) is the reason I hunt!

Are you saying that moose hunting in NE MN, if it reopens, should be available to the hundreds of thousands of WI and MI deer hunters that may apply?

[Scoot]

Recon, apparently similar to the two responses above, I couldn't disagree more. Find me one other state that does this in their drawings for their primary big game species... There are a couple of odd ball examples, but 99% of states and big game drawings are not done this way. IMO they should not be done this way.

[Recon]

Did I mention private land---- NO ! What I said is in " my opinion" Did I say anyone was doing it this way! NO ! I should of said federal land! Federal land belongs to us all and as far as ----I'm concerned ---so does the wildlife that runs around on it. As far as private land goes if the owner gives me permission than I guess I have the right to hunt it and others don't! Since some on this sight just don' t read what someone says but like to read between the lines and fly off into their own little snit, I'll just await my "any deer bow license" and enjoy my hunt with my son! From now on I'll keep my opinions to myself!

[Scoot]

Ummm... speaking of flying off the handle...

You gave your opinion, I gave mine. I wasn't upset when I replied and I'm pretty sure I didn't "fly off the handle". Sounds like we don't agree- that's ok by me. Good luck on your bowhunt with your son- I hope you both have a great time.

[harvey lee]

I find it hard to compare harvest percentage kill numbers as there is so much to consider.

For me, I harvest an archery deer every season and have for the past 25 years. But, I am not picky and will harvest any nice doe that comes walking by my tree.

Now, we will take my son, he may go 2-3 years without even a shot as he will only harvest a larger buck, his choice.

So, for archers that are willing to harvest a doe, on the ranch we hunt, if you can shoot, you will harvest a doe every year or a buck if you are not to picky.

Now we get to the guys who hold out for nicer bucks like my son and Scoot and those harvest numbers really drop and very low.

I agree with the theroy that 100 rifle hunters will do much more damage to the deer herd than that same number of archers. That's a no brainer.

Over the 25 years I have hunted in ND as a NR, I do not know of any of our group that has not filled thier tags or the residents that hunt with us. That's 25 years of rifle hunting with a 100% success rate. Archery, way less.

So, pull 50 archery tags away from archers and give tham to rifle hunters and watch the deer herd drop big time unless they drop the total number of tagts given out.

These numbers for thye ranch I hunt are accurate.

I control the amount of rifle hunters big time as I know if I let 15 hunters in, 15 deer will be shot. If I let 15 archers in for say a 16 day hunt, I would guess at best, 8 would be shot if they were not to picky.

As far as getting gun tags, I get on average about 1 tag for evey 5-6 years and I have only recieved 1 muzzleloader tag while hunting in ND. I realize that I am a non res.

I would not ask for a increase in non res gun tags as I know that would NEVER happen in ND.

I am fine with my archery tag and if I get lucky to pull a gun or ML, great. But I do not plan on getting them unless I wait 4-5 years at a minimum.

[Recon]

I should have responded under another post! Not yours. As an example Camp Ripley, open to anyone who applies resident or non. Both have an equal chance of being drawn.Just buy an archery tag and go if you are drawn. Not just for residents. I'm fortunate to live by thousands of acres of public land, mostly tax forfeited, it's not my land it's all of our land. You have as much right to hunt it as I do. We are blessed here in the Midwest with Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Dakota and Nebraska having over the counter nonresident archery licenses. Hope it stays that way!