Hunt proposal, more limited archery units

[Delw]

35 minutes ago, Desertguide said:

That makes prefect sense the way you explain it. I wish the individuals at the dept I had conversations with had explained it that way. Thank you

UNless your talking to people that are in the data side and have many years with game and fish its hardly every explained. theres reasons for it you cant have anyone that works at G&F explain it as it will be taken out of context and start a bunch of complaining. Everyone I have ever met at G&F has been always talkative on things but they can only answer the questions and talk about what they know is fact and not hypthetical.

Wanna really get your mind blown talk to the the higher ups that do the endangered species stuff. I learned alot from one particular person on eagles, wolves and a few other species. and dont think just because there working for such and such species they are tree huggers cause they are not. actually the wolf guy he was a good friend I felt sorry for he got it from all the groups. hunters Ranchers USF&W every tree hugger group in the world , politicians and the list goes on.

[CouesFanatic]

Can anyone explain me this? 4A, 6A, 17A, 20A, 22 and a lot of other units will now not be available to archery hunt in December or January, only in August. Why are these hunts not going to draw when units like 7 or 11M? Seems like the dec/jan is going to disappear and the august/sept hunts go to draw (see units 1, 27, 2ABC, 3a/3c).  So this means in a few years there will be no dec/jan archery hunts? Why don't they convert the dec/jan hunts to draw instead of eliminating them?

[UggRedBilly]

18 minutes ago, CouesFanatic said:

Can anyone explain me this? 4A, 6A, 17A, 20A, 22 and a lot of other units will now not be available to archery hunt in December or January, only in August. Why are these hunts not going to draw when units like 7 or 11M? Seems like the dec/jan is going to disappear and the august/sept hunts go to draw (see units 1, 27, 2ABC, 3a/3c).  So this means in a few years there will be no dec/jan archery hunts? Why don't they convert the dec/jan hunts to draw instead of eliminating them?

Or a limited first come first serve OTC like leftovers are done. Like block hunts or single unit tags. I knew they would be getting rid of some hunts but I didnt expect that many

[AZBIG10]

4 hours ago, Delw said:

Its called a standard. They do the exact same thing on the lakes. this way they have more accurate info over the years how the game and fish species declined or got better. it gives more accurate data doing it this way. if they do everything the same way in the same spots and same time frame its a better way of getting info. While it doesnt make much sense to most people, it makes more sense when its explained and used.

Granted some areas do change, because of loss of habitat its the best way to get a more accurate number. were talking years and years of data from the same places.

 

Let’s use unit 24a for example. Let’s say a survey was conducted from a basin in a remote spot that is getting zero pressure. 

Thia basin can be observed with 18 bucks and 23 does.

they know it’s there so that’s where they collect data. However the rest of the unit is absolutely run into the ground. And over used by the public. Yet they multiply their counts over the x amount of hectares. In the unit and tags are issued solely from this one collection point. 

I call it cherry picking. As you can count deer on many surrounding areas and not find a single deer. 

Am i wrong?

 

[Delw]

They dont do data based on one area, they do it on multiple areas in a particular unit. usually those areas are the different types of habitat in that unit.

Ie sage, junipers forrest etc etc. if I remember correctly they have a plan for xx areas , like maybe they have 10 different areas, this year they will run 7 or 8 out 1-8 and next year run 3-10. this gives them a better average over all. I forget exactly what they do and how but its basically Known data points over the years.

[Flatlander]

AZGFD is one of the VERY few agencies that does surveys and adjusts tag allocations every year (or every other year now). This is a huge undertaking and is extremely active management for western big game. We are pretty fortunate that our management agency puts forth this kind of effort into developing tag numbers.

Keep in mind, you can voice your opinion as much as you want right now, but these adjustments all align with the hunt guidelines which are established every five years. Although they are taking comments, they are limited in what they have to do based on those guidelines and will not work outside of them. I believe the current guidelines were established in 2018. So in 2 years there will be a public comment period on new guidelines which is where most of the changes being suggested here and elsewhere would need to occur.

https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/guidelines/

[68OLDS]

24 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

AZGFD is one of the VERY few agencies that does surveys and adjusts tag allocations every year (or every other year now). This is a huge undertaking and is extremely active management for western big game. We are pretty fortunate that our management agency puts forth this kind of effort into developing tag numbers.

Keep in mind, you can voice your opinion as much as you want right now, but these adjustments all align with the hunt guidelines which are established every five years. Although they are taking comments, they are limited in what they have to do based on those guidelines and will not work outside of them. I believe the current guidelines were established in 2018. So in 2 years there will be a public comment period on new guidelines which is where most of the changes being suggested here and elsewhere would need to occur.

https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/guidelines/

Yes you are correct.  The guidelines are the driving force behind the hunt recommendations.  But I Will disagree on the point of having limited input by making our voices heard.  There are multiple solutions to achieve the same end result and still work within the confines of the prescribed guidelines.  For example, the current guidelines  state archery OTC harvest shall be less than 20% overall.  This is One of the main reasons mentioned last night during last night’s webcast for the proposed changes.  
one solution, or compromise for azgfd to consider would be to eliminate the almost 5k non resident otc tags that were issued, Using last years data.

now on the flip side of the coin, I am all for strong wildlife management that will benefit the populations as a whole over time.  I do think these changes will help especially taking pressure off the mule deer populations during peak rut times.  

[Flatlander]

35 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

Yes you are correct.  The guidelines are the driving force behind the hunt recommendations.  But I Will disagree on the point of having limited input by making our voices heard.  There are multiple solutions to achieve the same end result and still work within the confines of the prescribed guidelines.  For example, the current guidelines  state archery OTC harvest shall be less than 20% overall.  This is One of the main reasons mentioned last night during last night’s webcast for the proposed changes.  
one solution, or compromise for azgfd to consider would be to eliminate the almost 5k non resident otc tags that were issued, Using last years data.

now on the flip side of the coin, I am all for strong wildlife management that will benefit the populations as a whole over time.  I do think these changes will help especially taking pressure off the mule deer populations during peak rut times.  

Agree 100%. I was just noting that the solutions that can be employed must align with the current guidelines and that we should also be aware that a new guideline process will be starting probably next year.

[Big or Bust]

There is a recent grittybowmen podcast with Heffelfinger that discusses a lot of these issues in detail for those asking questions. Good listen and directly pertains to the issues at hand....

Episode 623.

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/gritty-podcast-6123/episodes/ep-623-desert-mule-deer-jim-he-85697151

 

[knothead]

Since we are all just spit balling, maybe do some rotational Dec-Jan OTC mule deer units?  Much like they do for Trophy elk hunts.   Rotate a unit or two in each region with mule deer.  

Raise prices on OTC tags to make up any loss of revenue.

 I still believe AZ should not be offering any OTC opportunities for NR's.  Make them apply for a very limited number of permits.

[trophyseeker]

15 hours ago, Desertguide said:

I had the opportunity to sit down with a former Game Branch Chief. I asked him all kinds questions. Supposedly they have some complex mathematical formula they use to determine the total number of bucks, does and fawns based on what they see when they fly. Problem is, they only grid and fly certain areas of a unit... never the entire unit. 

What I've always wondered is how they do aerial surveys in thick country like in the pines. You're telling me they can get a relatively precise count of elk and deer flying over a pine canopy? Horsesh!t. 

Not to mention they pay $1500 per hour to fly. 

We should demand the WMs get their butts out there with a notepad & pencil to do a hands-on count so it's more accurate. 🙄

[Desertguide]

14 minutes ago, trophyseeker said:

We should demand the WMs get their butts out there with a notepad & pencil to do a hands-on count so it's more accurate. 🙄

Well,  after reading what Delw had to say, I learned I don't know crap about surveys. I've never had an issue with WM's. I think they do the very best job they can with the resources they're provided. I still don't agree with the fact that we don't have mandatory reporting. They can know exactly how many deer are out there but if they don't know exactly how many are harvested, what's the point? Maybe it doesn't need to be that precise... idk. 

[68OLDS]

37 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

Agree 100%. I was just noting that the solutions that can be employed must align with the current guidelines and that we should also be aware that a new guideline process will be starting probably next year.

👍

[trophyseeker]

1 minute ago, Desertguide said:

Well,  after reading what Delw had to say, I learned I don't know crap about surveys. I've never had an issue with WM's. I think they do the very best job they can with the resources they're provided. I still don't agree with the fact that we don't have mandatory reporting. They can know exactly how many deer are out there but if they don't know exactly how many are harvested, what's the point. Maybe it doesn't need to be that precise... idk. 

What he said is dead-in. Over many decades. statistical analysis has proved to be pretty accurate regardless of which end it's on -- the production or the consumption end.  

[Desertguide]

Just now, trophyseeker said:

What he said is dead-in. Over many decades. statistical analysis has proved to be pretty accurate regardless of which end it's on -- the production or the consumption end.  

That's what I've been told about harvest statistics and why there's no need for mandatory reporting. Even if it doesn't provide the dept with any real new information, I think it would be good to keep hunters accountable.