Outdoor Writer

Nah, it isn't a contradiction, nor is it surprising that a LOT of guys apply for the Dec. permits. That doesn't mean they won't accept permits for an earlier season. That fact is proved true when ALL of the leftover permits disappear rather quickly once they become available. It's just the nature of the beast that many hunters will apply for the most difficult permit to pull as their 1st choice. If the department uses first&second choice applications to determine demand, then it is not a contradiction. If the survey takers really wanted to just go hunting, they would have selected these early hunts to guarantee their draw an go hunting. But they didn't. Of course they didn't because they already KNOW there will be less desirable permits available to them in the 3,4,5 choices and with the first-come/first-served leftovers. So they play the long odds early. I did it for many years, though my early choices were for the Kaibab while Coues hunts occupied the 2nd three. I quit that five years ago and don't even fill in the last three choices now. Sooo...knowing that happens, G&F removes X number of permits from a Dec. hunt that has a high success rate to another hunt where the rate is half as much or less. By doing that, they can not only add the permits from the Dec. hunt, but feasibly DOUBLE the number yet not have any more of a biological impact on the deer population in that unit. And, using simple math, more opportunites to hunt deer are available to EVERYONE. What I can't understand is how someone sees the removal of permits from a Dec. hunt as a drop in quality. That IS a contradiction. I'm not sure of the number of times I've read here about having more hunters in the woods means a less-than-quality hunt. Then when the number of hunters is cut, it still means a drop in quality. Geez, it can't go both ways. -TONY Reducing the number of December tags to 15 in u27, or to 40 in the much larger u33 & u36B is not needed for quality. U36B encompasses over 500 square miles. When the permits were at 10%, were those hunters complaining about crowding?-I didn't hear it. If lowering the Dec permit numbers increases quality, then just having ONE permit would be the epitome- UH-HUh? Now wouldn't it be a dandy hunt with one permit and a month long season? Talk about ultimate quality. But of course, the quality complaint of too many hunters in the field is not new to this year's proposals; it has gone on for while here. -TONY

Nah, it isn't a contradiction, nor is it surprising that a LOT of guys apply for the Dec. permits. That doesn't mean they won't accept permits for an earlier season. That fact is proved true when ALL of the leftover permits disappear rather quickly once they become available. It's just the nature of the beast that many hunters will apply for the most difficult permit to pull as their 1st choice. Sooo...knowing that happens, G&F removes X number of permits from a Dec. hunt that has a high success rate to another hunt where the rate is half as much or less. By doing that, they can not only add the permits from the Dec. hunt, but feasibly DOUBLE the number yet not have any more of a biological impact on the deer population in that unit. And, using simple math, more opportunites to hunt deer are available to EVERYONE. What I can't understand is how anyone sees the removal of permits from a Dec. hunt as a drop in quality. That IS a contradiction. I'm not sure of the number of times I've read here about having more hunters in the woods means a less-than-quality hunt. Then when the number of hunters is cut, it still means a drop in quality. Geez, it can't go both ways. -TONY

Yeah, one of the more famous liars in the history of this country. Oh wait, he's probably no different than most politicians. -TONY

Well, ain't that something. Actually, I already knew that, thus the reason I mentioned it. I recall where they nailed some guy for a bull elk several years ago when they checked the records of a taxidermist. A famous dude named Forest once said: "Stupid is as stupid does." -TONY

Yeah, there ya go. Then folks can bitch even more about how badly G&F manages the resource Wouldn't it be something if a guy kills a buck and posts the photos here. Then he goes about being "untruthful" on the survey card, and G&F happens to match up the two. Or perhaps they compare taxidermists' reports to survey cards? I wonder if they would have any legal recourse where something like falsifying information would kick in?? BTW, "untruthful" is like lying, no? But it's only a "little white lie." -TONY

Are the successful hunters the ones more apt to return the cards? No, I don't think so. At least the stats I have don't indicate that. Just look at the example from the book; only 18 of 43 who returned the cards tagged a deer. Do successful hunters lie about the kill and say NO, so that the published success rate will be lower and will subsequently draw less competition? We can only speculate on that. That said, I'm sure SOME hunters are less than honest, and that's unfortunate. But the only way to prevent it would be to make a PHYSICAL check mandatory every time someone goes afield, whether successful or not. That's the way the Kaibab hunts used to be years ago. BUT...you ain't gonna see that happen because it takes too much manpower to have check stations spread all over the state during all of the various deer seasons. Are hunters lying about wounding and not recovering game? See above in regards to speculation. The recent stats I have do have the reported wounding figures included. My GUESS is they are very much under the actual rates. Has a survey been done to all hunters drawn for a hunt to see how accurate an extrapolation would be? Not sure what you mean here by a "survey." In the 2007 report, surveys cards went to EVERY hunter in many units. But again, the returns do not number the same as mailed. If you mean a follow-up phone survey or such, I doubt it. -TONY

Over the last few years, I've gone round and round with a couple folks at G&F over the survey cards. In fact, I had such a discussion just two days ago. Anyone who has read the How To HunT Coues Deer book would have seen how I addressed it with this excerpt: LOTTERY PERMITS All firearms hunters must go through a computer lottery to obtain a deer hunting permit for Arizona and for certain units in New Mexico. A bowhunter may purchase a tag over the counter, however. If you’re a nonresident or not familiar with the hunting units and decide to apply for a draw permit for a do-it-yourself hunt in either of these states, do some research. Try to contact other hunters, guides or even the game departments for information and advice. Also study the hunt statistics from prior years, but consider the success rates and actual harvest with some skepticism because the figures are usually extrapolated from mail-in survey cards. The return rate of these cards for almost every whitetail hunt in Arizona averages between 25 and 45 percent. A real-time example from the 2002 season shows a harvest of 42 deer and a success rate of 42 percent for the December hunt in unit 36B, where 100 permits were issued. Only 43 hunters returned the cards. That means 18 of the 43 reported a deer kill, but with such a small sampling, the figures could be way off. Perhaps three-quarters of the hunters who didn’t send the cards back were unsuccessful, or it could be the other way around. So just use the stats as reference points to compare one unit with another. The argument they often use is that the survey cards are no different than the types of polls conducted by phone, etc. where the margin of error is generally within 4-5 percentage points. IOW, the cards that ARE returned show the general trend for those that do not get returned. And they are probably correct in that IF the sampling is fairly large -- i.e. in units with a fairly large number of permits. Where the problem comes is in those units with fewer permits, thus a too small a sampling to accurately reflect a trend. -TONY

Here ya go in context. The point doesn't change. (see below) Duh!!! BTW, the delegates from the electoral college generally vote according to the popular vote. That's why every individual's vote counts. -TONY AND... NOT voting can change the outcome to something we don't want whether it's by popular vote or through the electoral college. Even if the choices aren't what we would like, that non-vote matters because regardless, the election poceeds and the outcome stands. So yes, a vote even for the lesser of two evils is better than none at all. -TONY

Duh!!! BTW, the delegates from the electoral college generally vote according to the popular vote. That's why every individual's vote counts. -TONY

Bingo! Makes no diff if you add one by voting for either Clinton or Obama or substract one by not voting for McCain . Either results in an advantage for the Democraps. One less vote for McCain merely means the Dem. candidate needs one less to win. -TONY

I have all the harvest stats for the gun, ML and Junior hunts, including the breakdown of survey cards by unit, but nothing for the archery hunts. That report won't be done until at least mid-May because they weren't draw hunts. So the department has to wait for the license vendors to send in their 2007 sales reports, etc. I do have both general and archery elk reports, as well. -TONY

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in," says the man. "Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in heck and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity." "Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to heck. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time but before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and wave while the elevator rises... The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit heaven." So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. "Well then, you've spent a day in heck and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in heck." So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to heck. Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?" The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."

Bill, The last time I had a Coues deer permit, my oldest son and I hunted along the Warsaw Canyon road in 36B. One morning as we made our way from camp up to higher ground through a small wash, we looked up at a well-vegetated hillside and spotted a coati in a tree. When he spotted us he jumped down and took off. A few minutes later the hillside came alive with at least 30-40 of them proceeding along a cow path in single file. They weren't more than 100 yards away. It was quite a sight. I opted not to kill one since I didn't want to disrupt our opening morning deer hunt to tend to it. One of these days, I wouldn't mind heading back there to chase one up, however. I think one would make an interesting mount. -TONY

Eh? What did you say?

Aha. So you're the one that has been shooting up those signs, hoping to get your name in the records books, huh? -TONY

Why should the above be anymore of a problem than when a hunt for a single species takes place in units with both deer and elk in it?? -TONY More folks in the field. Uneducated deer tag holders seing folks driving out with "350" coues deer", i just make it a habit to never underestimate stupidity. More folks in the field -- yes. The rest makes no sense. If deer or elk hunters are "uneducated" when two seasons are going on at the same time in a unit where elk and deer live, those same hunters get no smarter when only one season is going on. So if they're going to kill the wrong species because of "stupidity" that none of the more intelligent folks here exhibits, they will do so regardless. Of course, figuring that out is pretty simple with some intelligent thought. -TONY

Why should the above be anymore of a problem than when a hunt for a single species takes place in units with both deer and elk in it?? -TONY

I haven't seen the final PROPOSALS yet, and most certainly nothing is written in stone until the commission approves them at the meeting this month. -TONY

Some of the above is true, but....a bit of clarification: The basic rule will indeed be proposed during either the June or August meeting. The process from there for any major rule change is a multi-step one that takes anywhere from 3 to 8 months to complete. IOW, they can't propose a rule and have it automatically rubber stamped by the commission. Now, once the initial wording is proposed, they must open that proposal to public input for a specific period of time. Once that is done, the rule making team must then consider the input and move on from there. Usually the next step is the rule presented to the commission in its FINAL wording if any changes are made. In this case, that would likely take place no sooner than Dec. 2008. Sometimes in regards to a major change, it must also pass muster with the Governor's review committee. Once all this is done, the rule cannot take effect for 60 days. Hence, the Sept. 2009 date. As an aside, neither Ordway or the adminstrative assistant you spoke to are on the rulemaking committee. -TONY

See my post in the Fall 2008 AZ Hunt Recommendations? thread. -TONY

For those of you planning to attend the commission meeting just to provide input on a possible ban on baiting, you can save a trip. Any proposed rule changes -- and there will be several -- will NOT be on the agenda for the April gathering. Instead, those proposals will likely be presented at the June meeeting at the earliest as part of "Proposed Rule Changes to Article 3," which will be presented by Jennifer Stewart. After that meeting, there will also be regional ones for public input on the proposed changes. -TONY

Carl, Way back when, the 3-year rule was in effect here for several years. If I recall, it was for elk and pronghorn. In the grand scheme of things, it's statistically meaningless. If you have 4500 applicants for a unit with 5 'lope permits, removing the 10 lucky dudes from the two prior years might up the odds by a whooping .02%. That's exactly why G&F eventually dumped it and went to the bonus point system. As for more opportunity, who actually draws the permit does nothing to INCREASE opportunities. Increased opportunities relate to getting MORE hunters in the field, not substituting one guy for another. -TONY

Amanda, The only REAL incident that comes to mind is the one I already cited in my other message -- the elk on last year's governor's tag. I don't recall if a citation was issued or not. I agree with you, however, that safety is certainly an issue and would have much to do with it. But let's take a hypopthetical of a cabin in the woods and make a triangle (see below) with that cabin at the right angle of two of the legs. Now let's say there's an elk standing 300 yards due east of that cabin along one leg and a hunter is due south, 500 yards away on the other leg. That means he would be shooting along the hypotenus and nowhere near the cabin itself. The way the law is actually written, my interpretation would make it legal since the DISCHARGE of the firearm would take place farther than the 1/4-mile specified within the law. Under the WM's interpretation, it would be a violation. Obviously if the elk is standing quite near or on the porch, it would then become an issue, but it might also be addressed under other stautes, perhaps as reckless endangerment, etc. And no, I have never been in a situation IN AZ where I had to worry about shooting that close to an occupied building at BIG GAME, but I have legally (with permission of the owner) discharged a firearm within 1/4-mile of such at small game many, many times. I have also done so on big game in other states, but also with permission of the owners. Interestingly enough, back in the late 1980s, a bunch of us were invited by the owner to hunt doves on a farm in southwest Phx. Rather than tell the tale again, here's the subsequent Last Shot column I later wrote in AZ HUNTER & ANGLER. -TONY SHERIFF SPOILS DOVE OPENER The August LAST SHOT column concerning Arizona State Trust Lands revealed that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department deputy who denied access to a citizen was unaware of the statute that permits licensed hunters and fishermen to legally trespass on trust lands. September's column covered the subject of poaching and obeying the game laws. Coincidentally, this column will intertwine with that one. On September 1, at the invitation of President Michael Bond, I joined about 40 other members of the Phoenix chapter of Safari Club for a pancake breakfast and dove hunt on a private dairy farm southwest of Phoenix. The organizers of the shoot had obtained permission from the owner. At first light, we spread out along the two private dirt roads on the farm to await the morning flight of birds. An hour later, a Maricopa County Sheriff's Department car with two uniformed officers --- one male and one female --- drove up and stopped to tell each one of us we were hunting illegally. My conversation with the male half of the duo went something like this: "I'm going to have to ask you to leave," the deputy said. You're hunting within a quarter of a mile of those houses." He cocked his head in the direction of a row of houses. To me, all of the homes seemed to be much farther away. "I can't really argue with you because I haven't measured the distance, but they look like they're at least a half-mile away," I said. The deputy then pointed to a farm shed less than 100 yards away. "What about that one?" he asked. "That's only a hundred yards away, but it's not occupied. Besides even if it was, we have permission to hunt here. In fact, I could be shooting off of the farmer's back porch if I wanted to." "Do you have written permission on you?" he asked. "I don't need written permission. All I need is verbal permission. If you're so concerned, drive over and ask the farmer. "How many birds do you have?" I reached down and counted the doves on my bird belt. "Six," I replied. The deputy said, "You're done hunting anyway. You've got your limit." By this time, I was starting to get angry. The last thing I needed was a game law violation on my record. On the other hand, I thought no court possibly could find me guilty of a citation from a deputy with little knowledge of the game laws. With a degree of sarcasm, I let my displeasure be known, almost daring him to write me a ticket. "The limit happens to be ten, and no more than six may be whitewings," I told him. "If you plan on enforcing the game laws, you should know what they are." "It seems you're the one who doesn't know them. You'd better leave or I will cite you." I though twice about wanting a citation. Resisting the urge to challenge the deputy further, I picked up my spent cases while the deputy spoke to the others. We all then joined up over coffee. In the meantime, I already was thinking about this column. Ironically, the subjects of my last two columns had merged, so to speak, to affect me personally. I later found out the female deputy was a detention officer for the sheriff's department and lived in one of the houses the male deputy had said we were too close to. Unfortunately for us, two hunters who were not part of our group had parked near her house and had hunted quite close to it. A few of their errant shots had peppered her car and roof. Since we were hunting nearby, we too were deemed lawbreakers. As a result, rather than call the game department, she contacted the county sheriff's substation in Avondale for assistance. She no doubt figured that would provide her a quicker response. Of course, if the deputy who answered the call knew anything about ballistics, he would have realized the chance of our teeny no. 8 shot coming remotely close to any of the houses, even if they were within a quarter-mile, was highly unlikely. The small pellets from the low-based loads probably travel no more than 150 yards, at best. After the two officers left, one of our group hopped in his truck, drove to the nearest house and clocked the distance to the spot we were hunting. It measured just under a half-mile. Still fuming from the morning's undue harassment, I called the Avondale substation later in the day and spoke to Officer Ott. I asked for the deputy's name. Ott told me the car's license number was not enough to identify the deputy. When he asked why I wanted it, I told him. I also cited the pertinent laws regarding the accusations. Here's how they read: BUILDINGS - It is unlawful to discharge a firearm within one quarter-mile of an occupied building while hunting without permission of the owner or occupant. (Title 17, 17-309, #4 of 1987 Arizona Game & Fish Regulations) DOVE LIMIT - Ten (10) mourning and white-winged in the aggregate, of which no more than six (6) may be white-winged doves. (Commission Order 19, Federal Migratory Bird Regulations) As anyone can readily see the deputy was off base on all counts. The law makes no mention of the need for written permission, and a ramshackle stock shed definitely fails to meet the criteria of an occupied building. (NOTE the wording change of the current law!) As for the dove limit, the numbers are quite clear. I sympathized with Ott when he told me most of his officers did nothing but police dove hunters on opening morning. At the same time I expressed my concern at how a peace officer can answer complaints and cite violators when he is ignorant of the laws. Officer Ott said he would mention the confrontation to his supervisors. A few days after the incident, I spoke with Bill Powers, the head of the game department's enforcement division. He concurred with my assessment of the unfortunate incident. I suggested he send numerous copies of the regulations to each substation. Surprisingly, he said before the season began he had mailed over 30,000 memos outlining the 1987 dove hunting regulations to every law enforcement officer in the state. The department had done this to eliminate exactly what occurred, Powers said. At least one individual evidently failed to read the pertinent memo. Or perhaps, because the person doing the complaining just happened to be a fellow officer, the correct statutes made little difference? Regardless of the reason, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department needs to have their officers bone up on the multitude of Arizona's laws, or it should leave the enforcement of such laws to the agencies who do know them.

>>That means both you and your target must be more than ¼ mile from any homes in the area.<< Now there's an interesting comment supposedly written by a wildlife manager from a thread in another section. Here's how the law reads: A.R.S.17-309 Violations; classification A. Unless otherwise prescribed by this title, it is unlawful for a person to: 4. Discharge a firearm while taking wildlife within one-fourth mile of an occupied farmhouse or other residence, cabin, lodge or building without permission of the owner or resident. -TONY