Outdoor Writer

I also should have mentioned that someone who lives close to Glendale is welcome to come to my place and car pool because I also have a free parking pass. Sitting next to me might be the reason no one has jumped on this offer yet. But they can sit next to my lovely bride if that's a problem. -TONY

The draw results for the 2007 fall hunts are now posted on the AZ G&FD website. I didn't get drawn for sheep again. -TONY

Just consider it a free contribution to your ongoing education. -TONY

You're correct on the first part, but wrong on the second. I often complain about something G&F does that I don't agree with it. In fact. I probably wrote at least two dozen Last Shot columns to that effect when I was writing regularly for AZ Hunter & Angler. Now, as I said to Terry, you can have the last word if you so choose. I'm heading out to start counting deer so I can be 99% confident within +/- 1% that the population count is accurate to Nth degree. -TONY

Go back and reread what I wrote about the reason for the mandatory archery reports. The archers in the new PERMITTED units WILL get to fill out the regular survey cards because G&F will know who they are as soon as they draw a permit. The OTC ones will still need to report their success, however. -TONY

>> Tony, i think you are trying a little too hard to get a sheep tag in this thread. << Yeah, that's obviously my aim. >>The game and fish do a damned fine job in the field, they work very hard to get the data to the commission and then the data is thrown to the side and the commission does what the commission wants to do--usually just the opposite of what the hunters (and some WM's) want. One last thing--the Arizona Deer Association has spent tens of thousands of dollars doing a three year study on the Kaibab--the data will not be complete for another year yet the game and fish (commission) decided to increase the doe tags to 500 this year--they have no idea how many deer are on the plateau but they felt that 500 does will not be a huge impact to the Kaibab--once again, they did not want to wait for one more year for the data that will be gathered by the biologists (both game and fish and independent) to make their recommendations--no data once again Tony yet they will slaughter the future of the Kaibab<< Terry, the above doesn't seem to square with what I've seen. The game department's WMs/biologists presented the recommendation TO THE COMMISSION for 600 antlerless permits in 12A, which was a 200 increase over the previous year. And that's exactly what the commission approved -- 600 junior permits, not 500 as stated in your message. So it appears you're pointing a finger in the wrong direction; you should be bitching about those who made the recommendation. All the commission did was approve what was put before them. As for the department not having any idea how many deer are on the Kaibab, that again is simply not true. In 2004/2005, they estimated there were 10,000 or so deer on the plateau, with about 6,800 of them on the west side where the junior antlerless hunt will take place. Somewhere near 4,000 of the west-side population are does. Since 2005, the recruitment has been excellent. In fact, the fawn/doe ratio was more than 100/100 one year, and last year it was 97/100. That makes for incredible herd growth, considering anything over 50/100 normally indicates a growing herd. With those numbers, the 600 antlerless permits (that means even some buck fawns could be killed) is a drop in the proverbial bucket, considering G&F estimates the junior harvest will be 300 from those 600 permits. So your dire "yet they will slaughter the future of the Kaibab" is a bit farfetched. >>Tony, you really need to make it to a few meetings, i know i will be there just to see how the commission treats the people who raise more money than anyone to help with habitat improvements and other wildlife friendly projects.<< Actually, I just watched the taped testimony that took place at the April meeting, including Dick's. Your characterization of what transpired seems a bit exaggerated compared to what I watched. He certainly was allowed to provide his complete and somewhat long presentation and to answer questions from several commissioners. In fact, in response to the somewhat meaningless statistics cited, Ms. Martin made the point I did here earlier in regards to opportunities, i.e. not one hunter spending 100 days hunting over several seasons, but more hunters each spending 6-7 days hunting. RE: money Now we get to the crux of the matter and why I have mixed emotions about the various alphabet "advocacy" associations. Granted, raising funds is a huge benefit to wildlife. But to use that as some sort of hammer to sway the department's management of game into the mold of what the ADA members -- a VERY tiny segment of the deer hunters in this state -- want for their own self-serving satisfaction is not something I support. It reminds me too much of what's goes on between the Congress critters in D.C. and the various folks who heavily contribute to their war chests; in return, they expect preferential treatment and favors. It's an unhealthy relationship. It would be much better, IMO, if the game department conducts its own raffle and auctions through an independent entity. Maybe they could even hold the auction for all the tags at the annual Expo. But it will probably never happen. Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. I've already wasted too much time on this topic, and the time spent is not likely to change anyone's views on the topic. -TONY

As in: "Commissioner Martin asked if Mr. Anderson was also involved in the illegal take of an elk and if that was a separate incident."

Terry, >>I think the archers fill that they have been given the hook because of the way game and fish came up with the 20% number in certain units. The thing about survey cards is that you need them from both groups to find the 20% number it should have taken to send a unit to draw. << They were already getting the survey cards from the rifle hunters and in a prior message I explained why they made the reports mandatory for the bowhunters. So the only complaint might be that the survey cards didn't produce "hard data," i.e. the EXACT numbers a mandatory report would supposedly provide. I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet some money that the mandatory archery reports didn't produce exact numbers either, due to non-compliance with the rule -- something nearly impossible to enforce. >>they failed to use any kind of gathered data at all to make this decision.<< That's simply not true. They had survey cards from the permit hunts and the mandatory archery reports. Maybe you meant to say that they didn't use the data some bowhunters wanted them to use?? >>If you would have been at the commission meeting you would have heard Hernbrode attack Dick King and you would have heard Hernbrode state that the archers are (i am paraphrasing here) a bunch of spoiled hunters.<< I don't know Dick personally, nor did I see what happened at the meeting. So I can't comment on it. As for the "spoiled hunters" comment, maybe it has a ring of truth to it. -TONY

I already explained the reason for the mandatory archery reports. Did you read it? RE: bear Obvious to anyone who reads the regulations; there are harvest limits for sows in most units. When that limit is hit, the season is shut down. That's why the mandatory part, unlike the deer survey cards, is for only those who actually kill a bear. RE: lion If I recall, there are also limits on the lion harvest in some units. In addition, both bear and lion are checked for ongoing research purposes. That's why the hunter must bring in the skull & hide and not merely report a kill. Sheep is a no-brainer: G&F affixes a seal in the horn during the check-in process to assure that it is a legal head. Of course, with sheep, even the unsuccessful hunters must report because in this case -- and somewhat with lion and bear, too -- it comes down to more finite managment, given the smaller populations. Now contrast the small group of hunters involved with lion, bear and sheep to the nearly 50,000 permitted deer hunters. Big diff in the number. -TONY

I don't believe there was a finger pointed at anyone in particular. That said, it certainly begs the obvious question: If you have nothing at stake, then why are the prehistoric methods of G&F seemingly a major concern? In regards to the following in your other message: >>on another note, if EVERYONE stopped buying gas than as a result of demand going away the price would come down. same situation here. if EVERYONE tore up their survey cards then the G&F would be forced to implement mandatory reporting.<< Ah, but there's the rub. EVERYBODY won't tear up the survey cards because the MAJORITY of the hunters in this state see no need for mandatory reporting. It's a small, but very vocal minority, that have the "sky is falling" attitude in regards to what G&F is doing. Most of the other hunters just want to be able to get a permit so they can hunt. And G&F is doing its best to accomplish that. When they cite creating more "opportunity," they don't mean so ONE hunter can hunt several seasons and many days for a particular species. They mean getting more DIFFERENT hunters into the field, spreading the wealth so to speak. >>I think almost everyone on this site would agree that lobbying the G&F is a futile effort. history has repeatedly shown that they do what they want regardless of public input.<< Nah, it isn't totally futile. See "vocal minority above." >>Tony, since you are in the know with the G&F, can you provide some input on what kind of lame excuses they are using for 1) not having applications online and 2) not having mandatory reporting? if you do not know, would you be willing to find out for us?<< Far as I know, they are working on getting the online process back as we speak. BUT...this time they're being a bit more careful. The last effort was aborted when the company they enlisted wouldn't get a performance bond, which would have protected the revenue. The reason to resist putting the manadatory reporting into effect? First, see my previous comments where it is bascially unnecessary for managing game on a biological basis. Plus, for those holding permits, it just makes for another hoop to jump through; the voluntary survey cards accomplish the needed job. >>IMO - these are two things that can be done and would be improvements over how they are currently being done. their refusal to listen to their customers, change and make improvements where possible is ridiculous. like I said before, if this organization was operating in the private sector, they would have been out of business years ago.<< Right. So here's what I think everyone should do: quit applying for all the big-game hunts. That'll dry up all the funding and drive G&F out of business. -TONY

Yup, they're still guesing. So what? On a biological basis, it makes little difference whether the harvest figure is plus or minus 10 or 20 deer, as long as the estimates are consistent throughout. This is especially true given the fact that G&F generally sets permit numbers conservatively in regards to the estimated population in a given unit. In reality, mandatory reporting wouldn't change the numbers much if at all. The only thing it might do is soothe the minority of bruised selfish egos out there. I kinda laugh when someone cites the mandatory reporting in NM and Utah as if it is producing any better hunting than AZ. Over on MM, the Utah residents are constantly bitching about how the UDWR is so screwed up with their seasons and permit allotments. They also bitch about the condition of the elk and deer herds. Sounds like deju vu all over again. BTW, it seems everyone thinks G&F was picking on the bowhunters when it initiated the mandatory reporting. Of course, as it is with most of the supposed conspiracy theories, it was done for a very specific reason: to get timely information. Here's why: Unlike permitted hunts, G&F has no idea who bought the OTC archery tags until well after the seasons, i.e. year end and later when all the license dealers across the state turn in their sales receipts. Anyone here involved with selling the licenses knows how the routine works. Although there is a monthly report, many dealers never even sell all the OTC tags in one book. So they do not return it until the final report of the year. If G&F waited until then and used the voluntary survey cards, they would have to take all of the OTC archery tag sales as they straggle in from the dealers, input them into a database and go about mailing out the survey cards. This process couldn't occur until well into the following year. In contrast, the rifle guys with a lottery permit are in the database as soon as permits are issued. So long before the archery OTC info is returned to G&F, the majority of those with permits have already received and returned their survey cards. Or at least the majority other than those who are punishing G&F have done so. This is exactly why those archery permit holders in the new draw units will no longer have the mandatory reporting requirement; G&F will know who they are, and they will now get the survey cards mailed to them just as it is with the rifle permits. OTOH, OTC bowhunters will still have to report within the alloted window of time. -TONY

Geez, what a unique concept you pose, Doug. Nah, it'll never work. Better to piss and moan and have that "I'll show the SOBs" attitude. I'm doing that right now with the oil companies; I quit buying gas to protest the high prices. I see it's working already since the price of oil dropped a bit. -TONY

Hmmm. Unless I read it wrong, the fine for the violation was as stated below: Anderson was found guilty by the Cochise County Justice Court #5 for: Count A: Knowingly take wildlife during closed season (Gould’s turkey); and sentenced Count A: Fined $942.00, $314.00 of which was suspended per county attorney plea agreement and Judge’s Order. BUT...the reimbursement of the turkey's value to G&F was just a bit more than a turkey hunt in Mexico would cost, as in: THAT THE DEPARTMENT BE DIRECTED TO COLLECT CIVIL DAMAGES OR TO BRING CIVIL ACTION AGAINST RALPH E. ANDERSON TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF $5000.00 FOR THE LOSS OF ONE (1) GOULD’S TURKEY Since he claimed to have eaten it, that was one expensive Thanksgiving dinner at $5,628. It would have probably been cheaper to kill a spotted owl. -TONY

G&F uses 90% as its confidence level, and there's no need to guess at the numbers. Here are the exact ones for the 2007 Unit 32 WT hunts. Hunt---Permits----Bucks----Success-----90% CI---Returned Cards 1097---650---------186-------- 31----------3.8--------- 276 1098---650---------156-------- 26----------3.6--------- 283 1099---175---------90----------56----------5.8---------105 If one would go back 20 or 30 years, the rate of return has remained pretty much the same. And yes, counting every head of game is unrealistic, which is my point. The concept of using estimated population and estimated harvest figures has been used across the country for years to manage game for biological purposes. And as long as the population is nothing more than a high confidence estimate, the harvest need not be any more than a high confidence estimate. BTW, if I recall, G&F actually has the fudge factor worked in for the dingalings who think they are accomplishing some good by lying on the survey cards. And those who tear them up, should remember the adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face. If enough folks in a unit act like juveniles, it can easily skew the figures where it works against them. For example, let's say a bunch of guys who didn't kill a deer don't send in the cards from the new archery draw units, but those who do are mostly successful. That will raise the success rate and perhaps lead to even fewer archery permits down the road if the archery harvest remains above that magical 20% of the total harvest in that unit. -TONY

They have been using the same "skewed" data for as long as I can remember. And that is a VERY long time. Amazingly, it all remains pretty consistent throughout all the years, i.e. the percentage of returned cards and the success rates in each unit from year to year. That's the way statistical analysis works, as Bill mentioned. It's all based on probabilities and margins of error. Does it produce completely accurate data to the exact numbers? Nope, and no system -- including mandatory reporting -- will unless a game warden is required to accompany every hunter in the field and file the reports. And of course, one part of the system is only as good the rest of it. So it is with predicting the deer population and how many deer can be harvested in any particulatr unit. The data for this, also based on statistical anaysis, then too is "skewd." Maybe we should also demand that G&F do an exact head count of deer in every unit rather than hit and miss aerial surveys?? Sounds like a good weekend project for the ADA to take on. Gather all the members each weekend in a different hunt unit and walk a grid to count deer. That way G&F can set accurate harvest goals from accurate population stats rather than using "skewed' data all the time. Here are the deer survey card figures for 2007: Number mailed: 42,543 Number returned: 19,177 Return rate: 45.1% Previous year's rate: 44.2% Elk returns average slightly higher: Number mailed: 19,235 Number returned: 10,249 Return rate: 53.3% Previous year's rate: 53.3% -TONY

Okay, here's the scoop on the "Cap & Trade" email. The AZ G&FD is a member of the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition via its membership in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As such, it receives periodic updates on issues, funding, etc. and often forwards them along as FYI emails, as was the case with this one. Unfortunately, the template being used makes it appear that the content is something AZ G&F endorses, which it can't legally do when it comes to political issues such as that provided in this particular email. The game commision has no such constraints in this regards, however. That said, my contact at G&F said they will probably be revamping the template and will better explain the purposes in the future. They will also keep a closer watch on forwarded contents so as not get into the middle of any politcal issues. In other words, this one was a bit of a screw-up that shouldn't happen again. -TONY

What's a bit strange to me is that I receive about every email sent out from G&F, but I didn't get this one. Even the formatting of it seems a bit strange, but I'll be checking it out. Also note the "This update from the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition is provided courtesy of the Arizona Game and Fish Department Commission." As Bill mentioned, the game DEPARTMENT is precluded from getting involved in political lobbying and such. That's why it could not do anything when the trapping referendum was on the ballot. -TONY

Another good way to protest the survey cards is too attend a commission meeting. Then get down on the floor, stomp your feet and fists on the floor and throw a hissy fit. A lot of 5 and 6-yr. olds get their way using this technique. -TONY

Where did you get that copy, Mike? Was it an email to you directly? If so, what was the SENDER'S email address? -TONY

TJ, You're dead on. The ORIGINAL AZ Big Ten was around long before the RM sheep became a resident here. Same for the Gould's turkey. Actually, with those two species, we might say there's now an AZ Big 12. I lack a desert sheep and a bison for my original Big Ten, and I'll probably never get to hunt RM sheep in AZ IF I ever draw my desert permit. I've killed a Gould's in Mexico but never applied for one of the few permits here. -TONY

They just received the copies at the Glendale libraries last week. All 3 copies are checked out. I had put a "hold" in a couple weeks ago but was 6th on the list. It will probably be a week or two before my name hits the top. -TONY

Well, Gino, we coulda told you to go fish and find out for yourself the way the rest of us have. It's more rewarding that way, ya know. -TONY

As of right now, you don't need a passport for return to the U.S. from Mexico IF you are driving! You DO need a passport to return if you are flying, however. Here are the MOST current riles from the State Dept.: AIR TRAVEL ALL PERSONS traveling by air outside of the United States are required to present a passport or other valid travel document to enter or re-enter the United States. LAND AND SEA TRAVEL The following summarizes information available on the Department of Homeland Security’s website. CURRENTLY: U.S. citizens need to present either (a) a passport, passport card (available in spring 2008), or WHTI-compliant document; or ( a government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license, along with proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate. LATER: On June 1, 2009, the U.S. government will implement the full requirements of the land and sea phase of WHTI. The proposed rules require most U.S. citizens entering the United States at sea or land ports of entry to have a passport, passport card, or WHTI-compliant document. Note: The passport requirement does NOT apply to U.S. citizens traveling to or returning directly from a U.S. territory. U.S. PASSPORT AND WHTI COMPLIANT DOCUMENTS: U.S. Passport: U.S. citizens may present a valid U.S. passport when traveling via air, land or sea between the U.S. and the aforementioned Western Hemisphere countries. The Passport Card: Passport card applications are currently being accepted in anticipation of land border travel document requirements. Based on current projections, we expect to begin production of the passport card in June, and be in full production in July. We will provide additional updates as available. Once in production, the passport card it will only be valid for land and sea travel between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean region, and Bermuda.

Went up to Lake Pleasant yesterday to shoot some pix of the new Hook Up Oufitters tackle shop at the Pleasant Bay marina for an article I'm doing in this week's Thurs. AZ Repulsive. While my fishing partner and I were there, we went out on the lake with one of the guides and got into a good striper bite. After a few hours, we had caught 50 or so fish in the 2-4 pound range. It was great fun because we were using light spinning gear. All the fish were similar to the one in the photo of Bruce Fritz and one of his fish. -TONY

This is the only mention of the Three Bar study that I recall on the G&F web site. -TONY The effect of fire, predation and vegetation quality on mule deer habitat use and fawn survival