The archery situation is a conundrum. Archery has long been considered an ‘opportunity’ tool vs. a ‘management’ tool because of 1) generally low success rates and 2) primarily the males are targeted/harvested. I think that’s a big part of why the impacts (harvest and effort) aren’t examined as closely as maybe they should be.
Opportunity can be viewed from several different lenses, i.e., ample opportunity for lots of people to get out or the opportunity to have a quality experience. Sometimes and increasingly more often those are mutually exclusive. Just like with mule deer management this is where I think the bowhunter camps (and management philosophies) diverge. Especially in LE areas, there are bowhunters that want the long-gone 900-20 archery odds (100% first choice, certain % second choice, quota should continuously increase to meet demand) and there are bowhunters that don’t want to see as many bowhunters in the woods, especially as the denominator (accessible land) diminishes.
As archery technology improves, more people participate in it, and quotas match demand, the amount harvested increases and pressure increases. It’s a literal feedback loop of “if you build it [gadgets and permits] they will come.” We don’t have to worry about population-level impacts unless archers brought the buck:doe or bull:cow ratio down beyond a certain threshold, but at a point there’s definitely an impact to the number of bucks or bulls in a population, which can be considered ‘management’ if you’re honed in on reducing the male segment. And there can be inequity in archery vs. rifle harvest but this is typically in areas with really low rifle permits/licenses and high archery permits/licenses. Like the antelope districts already mentioned, and some elk districts, 410 for instance.
When it comes to archery elk, it’s really hard if not impossible (especially now with no more quota ranges) for biologists to recommend and get through archery permit reductions. It’s kind of funny because on the one hand “elk are over objective, more need to be shot” and “archery is an opportunity hunt and not a means for management” can be said by the same person within the same minute. Biologists are told to make recommendations based on biology and not social factors but a large aspect of archery is the social aspect of it. Outside of those few HDs where the balance is shifted.
It would be enlightening and also likely depressing to have accurate accounts of wounding loss each year but even with mandatory reporting in place I don’t see enough people willingly volunteering that information to give us an accurate picture to make for worthwhile data.
I definitely think there’s going to be a reckoning soon with the way things are going. Splitting up the 900-20 elk was an attempt to reduce pressure in HDs that were getting the brunt of it, but when a lot of the quotas got bumped up in commission and the “hunt your district” rule got implemented, any benefits of that split were lost. I agree with what was commented in the commission meeting last Feb that we can’t keep raising quotas just so everyone draws. I just don’t know when that line will finally be drawn.
