Just how good is the xbow

[RidgeHunter]

If the ratio is the same but the numbers are smaller....that's fewer bucks getting killed. Doesn't matter if it's the exact same ratio. It's still fewer. Less. Not as many.

If you have a 17% success ratio, and it drops to 10%.....and buck/doe ratio remains the same....there are still less bucks being killed.

The study is an explanation of the reasoning behind trad only at MCAAP. Keeps the buck do ratio where they want it while allowing the maximum number of hunters possible.

We've progressed passed logic if that study does not speak for itself. I'm sure I'm wrong and it's a vast conspiracy to pick on the disabled and crossbow hunters, not a way to get more people a chance at hunting the depot like I've been told and read. I do apologize for being gullible. Cheers.

 

[dennishoddy]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the people are DISABLED. I mean they might not be as able to be still, climb up in a tree, shoot even a xbow due to their handicap. I think that your example is a poor representation. Look at the thread and the article concerning the quite short bear season for data going the other way.

I have gone to the disabled hunt last year for the first time with my crossbow.
I cannot pull a bow back because of a ruptured bicep tendon.
that is the restriction.

Most have had shoulder surgery, etc. 90% of the hunters were still independantly mobile, but cannot pull a bow back any more because of their health or injury.

Can't speak for anybody else, but took a ladder stand to get up on.
Just have to use the left arm for most of the lifting...

So, I stand by most of my original post.

Oh, by the way, those stats included 30 conventional bow hunters that had mistakenly clicked on the disabled hunt. They had XXX number of slots to fill, and were short of disabled hunters, so allowed these guys to go ahead and come...
Bill Starry, the resourse manager, gave them a pretty good tounge lashing for clicking on the wrong hunt.....Justifiable so.

 

[dennishoddy]

It really has more to do with the fact that it is the first hunt of the year and it is usually still to hot for good deer movement.

First hunt of the year when the deer were not ran all over?
The weather was perfect. 50-60 degree days with a cold front and drizzle for the hunt.
Perfect weather.

 

[Buzzgun]

If the ratio is the same but the numbers are smaller....that's fewer bucks getting killed. Doesn't matter if it's the exact same ratio. It's still fewer. Less. Not as many.

If you have a 17% success ratio, and it drops to 10%.....and buck/doe ratio remains the same....there are still less bucks being killed.

The study is an explanation of the reasoning behind trad only at MCAAP. Keeps the buck do ratio where they want it while allowing the maximum number of hunters possible.

We've progressed passed logic if that study does not speak for itself. I'm sure I'm wrong and it's a vast conspiracy to pick on the disabled and crossbow hunters, not a way to get more people a chance at hunting the depot like I've been told and read. I do apologize for being gullible. Cheers.

You keep saying that the traditional equipment restriction allow more hunting opportunity but the study shows that the hunter numbers remained virtually the same regardless of equipment restrictions, so, where is the additional opportunity??

Obviously, if you reduce the success rate, you reduce the number of bucks taken, but you also reduce the number of does taken, so the balance of the herd remains the same. Now, they almost beg you to take a doe and reward you with a free pass for the next year if you kill a doe first! What does that tell you about the buck/doe ratio?? Dropping the success rate from 17% to 10% won't reduce the deer population on the ammunition plant, restricting equipment so that the success rate is reduced to 10% certainly doesn't keep up with deer reproduction! Even back in 1984 there was no shortage of deer on the plant!!

Like I said, if they REALLY wanted to reduce the number of bucks taken, they would discontinue the hunts during the rut. Do you see that happening??

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe the traditional equipment restrictions were instituted only to reduce the buck harvest. When I see the plant hosting a large traditional archery tournament, and I remember what I heard back in 1988, I can put 2 and 2 together. Did you ever wonder who has the authority to sponsor a traditional tournament on a federal ammunition plant and why they would go to the trouble to do so?? I can understand them going to the trouble to have hunts to thin the herd, but they get no benefit from hosting an archery tournament. One can only assume that somebody at the base with some serious stroke MUST be a big traditional archery fan!

Bottom line:

If restricting buck harvest was really the goal, it could have been easily achieved by eliminating the hunt during the rut and/or making some or all of the hunts doe only.

 

[Buzzgun]

First hunt of the year when the deer were not ran all over?
The weather was perfect. 50-60 degree days with a cold front and drizzle for the hunt.
Perfect weather.

That was THIS year, that is NOT the normal weather pattern for the first weekend in October in McAlester and I suspect you know that!

 

[RidgeHunter]

You keep saying that the traditional equipment restriction allow more hunting opportunity but the study shows that the hunter numbers remained virtually the same regardless of equipment restrictions, so, where is the additional opportunity??

Obviously, if you reduce the success rate, you reduce the number of bucks taken, but you also reduce the number of does taken, so the balance of the herd remains the same. Now, they almost beg you to take a doe and reward you with a free pass for the next year if you kill a doe first! What does that tell you about the buck/doe ratio??

Like I said, if they REALLY wanted to reduce the number of bucks taken, they would discontinue the hunts during the rut. Do you see that happening??

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe the traditional equipment restrictions were instituted only to reduce the buck harvest. When I see the plant hosting a large traditional archery tournament, and I remember what I heard back in 1988, I can put 2 and 2 together. Did you ever wonder who has the authority to sponsor a traditional tournament on a federal ammunition plant and why they would go to the trouble to do so?? I can understand them going to the trouble to have hunts to thin the herd, but they get no benefit from hosting an archery tournament. One can only assume that somebody at the base with some serious stroke MUST be a big traditional archery fan!

B

NOW we get to the root of it. Thanks for your candor.

Though for some reason you still don't have a firm grasp of the numbers in study (Harvest numbers dropped, not hunter numbers....that was the constant, equipment was the variable....you just made my point for me. Thanks for that also.), it's irrelevant because the bottom line is you smell a conspiracy, don't like what you smell and refuse to believe different because of "your suspicions"

A spotlight and a suppressed .223 could control the population. Ain't no need for hunters at all. "They get no benefit" is a subjective opinion anyways (and not entirely true)
The MCAAP and the wildlife management program are not the same thing. One is guest of the other. They don't have to, nor have they always wanted to let hunters on base.

The Archery Tournament coincidences with producing publicity for the hunt, which is why they got it going. That's their job. They manage for and promote those hunts to the public. It's no secret a "like for stickbows" plays a role. It's not a cover up. But it's simply their preferred management style. You can't please everybody. Starry's record of dropping the buck/doe ratio from 1:5 to 1:2 says it works.

As long as they have permission to manage the deer, it's theirs to do as they see fit. I and thousands of others nationwide like the way it is now. If you don't, don't apply. One mans gift horse is another mans Trojan Horse I guess. Have fun in the conspiracy camp, I'll be in the grateful hunters camp.

 

[Buzzgun]

I have been there, I know that the wildlife dept does not manage the deer on McAlester. I do believe I have a firm grasp on the numbers in the study, not sure you do though? From the study you referenced, the switch from modern to traditional equipment reduced the success rate by 7%, but the harvest was ALREADY too low to keep up with natural reproduction rates on the base (average harvest was 231 deer/year with compounds)! So, telling us that they needed to impose equipment restrictions because the harvest was too high to support the numbers of hunters they wanted is simply foolish! If they didn't need to reduce the harvest, and they didn't add more hunters, then, tell me, WHY did they institute equipment restrictions??

You seem to have missed my point, I'm not against the traditional hunt or traditional hunters, I am not against them managing the deer herd as they see fit and I do appreciate that they, unlike most military bases, allow civilian hunters to hunt on the facility.

I just wish they would tell the truth about WHY they restrict this hunt to traditional equipment.

I'm not asking them to allow compounds, wouldn't do me a bit of good because I couldn't use one if they did.

I also dislike the fact that they pigeon hole disabled hunters into what is usually the worst weekend, instead of giving them the same opportunity to draw a tag during the prime weekends of the hunt.

As far as them hosting the traditional shoot to promote the base hunt, you MUST be kidding! Have they EVER had a shortage of applicants for the hunt??

I last hunted McAlester in 1984, my dad and I applied for the crossbow hunt there in 2003 (I only applied so I could go with him), I drew an antelope tag that year and he drew the McAlester hunt. I believe that is the only time I applied for the McAlester hunt after 1984 and I doubt I'll ever apply for it again, unless they allow disabled hunters to apply for the rut hunts. I am fortunate enough to have other hunting opportunities, so I only apply for hunts with very good trophy potential. The "disability" hunt at McAlester is NOT a hunt with great trophy potential because it is held on the first weekend which is usually too warm for good daytime deer movement.

I'm seriously appreciative that hunting is allowed on MAAP, even though I don't apply for the hunt under current rules. This year, there were at least 1850 hunters that drew a hunt there that didn't draw a hunt where I applied (I didn't draw) and they won't have any preference points for next year's controlled deer hunts!

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Tell you what, I learned this weekend that the xbow isn't worth a squirt of warm urine when you can't get a shot at a deer. Saw one gump deer is all.

 

[dennishoddy]

That was LAST year, that is NOT the normal weather pattern for the first weekend in October in McAlester and I suspect you know that!

Yeah, its supposed to be high 80's during the day, and hi 50's in the mornings.
Yes, I did get a quality pass to go back this year.
Jacket in the mornings and suntan oil and flip flops in the evening.

I guess my whole point in putting up this post was in reference to some of the posts on this forum by folks that think a few people coming into the woods with Xbows for the first time, are going to ruin hunting as we know it during archery season wiping out all known deer herds.

I haven't done the math figuring out the kill ratio per X number of hunters during the disability hunt with X bows vs the kill ratio of the traditional bow shooters.
I'm thinking the percentage is pretty close though.
I may have to sharpen up a #2 and do some ciphering after awhile, and see how the numbers come out.

 

[Buzzgun]

Dennis,

I gotcha, figured there was some sarcasm in your first post!

A little research into states that have allowed crossbows during archery season will prove that the success rate of crossbow hunters is not significantly higher than compound hunters.

Good luck on your hunt, hope you kill a monster!

Dr. T

Just remember a bad day in the woods still beats working!