Jump to content
huntlines

Hunt proposal, more limited archery units

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Explorer said:

Does game and fish require wardens to have biology degrees?

Yes and about every other employee they hire except maybe the front counter help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, huntlines said:

So what is wrong with mandatory reporting and if you get caught lying you loose your hunting rights for 5 years? I don’t know anyone willing to give false information and loose their hunting privileges for that long. You keep saying hunters lie but if there was a consequence the far majority would not. the data would be much more rock solid than the aerial bull crap they use now.

 

Not to mention all the money they would save not paying companies to fly them.....

I see where you’re going here and generally agree with the line of thinking you have.

but I do see a problem.  How in the world will the AZGFD know if you’re lying?  That could turn into a staffing/logistical nightmare them trying to prove or show someone lied on a survey. Seems like a tough task, how do other states/jurisdictions pull it off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 68OLDS said:

Delw, you literally just said this 1 hour ago.  
 

am I missing something here?  Help me understand because I’m pretty sure I’m reading that post correctly.  

 sorry just got home, Now I see what your saying, yeah thats not the way I meant it.

2 hours ago, 68OLDS said:

I’ve read the every post on this thread, including yours.  Some definitely make more logical sense than others that’s for sure.

definitely not taking anything out of context and and MOST DEFINITELY NOT BITCHING about the game and fish DEPT.  Not sure where you’re going with that comment, but not liking some of the generalizations you’re making there bud.

its just the way I was explaining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Desertguide said:

They have to get numbers on both sides. They have to know how many are out there... aerial surveys.... and they have to know how many bucks are killed.... mail surveys/mandatory reporting. Aerial surveys are actually more important because that's when they can count does and fawns... which are the true measure of herd health. Knowing how many bucks are killed is important so they can maintain target buck:doe ratios but... buck harvest isn't nearly as important to herd health as fawn recruitment. 

You don’t need aerial surveys to collect this data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 68OLDS said:

I see where you’re going here and generally agree with the line of thinking you have.

but I do see a problem.  How in the world will the AZGFD know if you’re lying?  That could turn into a staffing/logistical nightmare them trying to prove or show someone lied on a survey. Seems like a tough task, how do other states/jurisdictions pull it off?

Easy, if you say you didn’t kill a buck but you show everyone your harvest photos, social media(evidence), you lied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys really need to take a statistics class.  A lot of of talk of lying on harvest reports here, but it’s in both directions, some of you saying that hunters are gonna lie to say they didn’t kill to push for more tags issued and some saying the opposite.  If it’s a real issue and it’s actually happening, then one side of the other needs to be of statistical importance.  Also how does a mandatory survey keep you from lying?  I take them annually in Utah and NM when I’m lucky enough to draw and you could easily lie on either.  
To suggest that harvest surveys are the holy grail is missing a massive piece of the puzzle.  They also have error in their population surveys, so you account for both errors in your statistics when you crunch the numbers.  That’s how it works.  The only other option would be to hire 50,000 people do drive every patch of cover while the helicopter hovers over to make sure they count EVERY deer.  It’s impossible so you count what you can and you use historical data to calculate your true numbers.  Same goes for hunter harvest.  If they’re really so worried about this alleged rampant lying then they would have to have mandatory check in, and literally have them on every major road accessing areas.  It’s simply not possible.  They manage archery OTC opportunity based on rifle success in the unit.  So with their current management plan, the success and numbers of OTC hunters is actually statistically unimportant regardless of how much it bunches y’all’s panties. The NR numbers are an obvious concern, and even as a NR I would agree with you guys on that going to draw, even if it’s only symbolic.  HOWEVER, everything comes back to the numbers when it comes to wildlife management, and the fact of the matter is the 390 deer the NR OTC archers killed is statistically unimportant when spread across a big of an areas as the OTC units cover.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, yotebuster said:

You guys really need to take a statistics class.  A lot of of talk of lying on harvest reports here, but it’s in both directions, some of you saying that hunters are gonna lie to say they didn’t kill to push for more tags issued and some saying the opposite.  If it’s a real issue and it’s actually happening, then one side of the other needs to be of statistical importance.  Also how does a mandatory survey keep you from lying?  I take them annually in Utah and NM when I’m lucky enough to draw and you could easily lie on either.  
To suggest that harvest surveys are the holy grail is missing a massive piece of the puzzle.  They also have error in their population surveys, so you account for both errors in your statistics when you crunch the numbers.  That’s how it works.  The only other option would be to hire 50,000 people do drive every patch of cover while the helicopter hovers over to make sure they count EVERY deer.  It’s impossible so you count what you can and you use historical data to calculate your true numbers.  Same goes for hunter harvest.  If they’re really so worried about this alleged rampant lying then they would have to have mandatory check in, and literally have them on every major road accessing areas.  It’s simply not possible.  They manage archery OTC opportunity based on rifle success in the unit.  So with their current management plan, the success and numbers of OTC hunters is actually statistically unimportant regardless of how much it bunches y’all’s panties. The NR numbers are an obvious concern, and even as a NR I would agree with you guys on that going to draw, even if it’s only symbolic.  HOWEVER, everything comes back to the numbers when it comes to wildlife management, and the fact of the matter is the 390 deer the NR OTC archers killed is statistically unimportant when spread across a big of an areas as the OTC units cover.  

Well put. Except for your first sentence. And statistics show all but one thing. The next #

there are so many moving parts in this equation and wildlife management is a unique dynamic in itself. It would only serve the greater good of a limited resource to utilize all data available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Desertguide said:

Really? So how would you suggest they do their annual surveys? 

I’ve flown areas and then I’ve hiked in and sat my happy butt down with my 18/56’s in the same area. Guess which one I counted more animals doing. I know this isn’t scientific data yada, yada, yada.....

They should spend the money on good optics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, huntlines said:

I’ve flown areas and then I’ve hiked in and sat my happy but down with my 18/56’s in the same area. Guess which one I counted more animals doing. I know this isn’t scientific data yada, yada, yada.....

They should spend the money on good optics. 

I've only seen G&F watch hunters like me thru their expensive optics, hoping to swoop down and fine me for somethin.

Whatever decision azgfd comes up with it needs to benefit resident hunters and wildlife. NRs can come and watch spring training or visit Colossal Cave then go home.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, huntlines said:

I’ve flown areas and then I’ve hiked in and sat my happy but down with my 18/56’s in the same area. Guess which one I counted more animals doing. I know this isn’t scientific data yada, yada, yada.....

They should spend the money on good optics. 

I think its pretty easy for us to forget that WM's are responsible for more than counting deer. They are responsible for ALL game species in their unit/units. But let's just focus on deer. They do their counts during the rut. Many also have hunts going at that time. Deer, javelina, quail.. to name a few. So while trying to do surveys they're also trying to keep a handle on their unit and actual enforcement. At the same time they're getting calls from hunters about a whole list of things. One call we make quite a bit is to report idiots driving in the wilderness. So getting out and planting their butts on top of a mountain with optics isn't even feasible given the time it would take to cover all the ground they would need to. Not to mention the manpower it would take to get it done in time to get recommendations done for the exact thing we are discussing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more we discuss this and I read all these comments... and remember everything I've personally learned.... I think many of us are over thinking this whole thing. Myself included.

 

I think we are placing too much importance on bucks for one. One thing that was a real eye opener for me was when I learned how unimportant bucks are to heard health. One buck can cover up to 20 does during the rut. Thats a 100:5 doe:buck ratio. That's an abysmal ratio for a unit. But... thats a ratio that would maintain herd size with all other aspects excluded. 

Now we can go back and forth about surveys but the most important number they are focused on is doe:fawn ratios. Fawn recruitment is FAR more important that how many bucks are out there... so long as theres enough bucks to breed all the does. Once the number of bucks drops to a level that all the does aren't being bred, they have to cut tags. The other reason they will cut tags is to maintain hunt/trophy quality... for us. 

I guess my point is, we are so hyper focused on tags, we aren't considering herd health. We can sit back a nit pick how they do surveys, whether they be voluntary or mandatory... but surveys only focus on bucks... the least important element in the entire equation. We should be thankful they are cutting tags and shift our focus to doe survival and fawn recruitment if we truly care about what's happening with our deer. How long and how many of us have bitched and moaned about how there are too many tags? Well... we are getting our wish. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, huntlines said:

I’ve flown areas and then I’ve hiked in and sat my happy butt down with my 18/56’s in the same area. Guess which one I counted more animals doing. I know this isn’t scientific data yada, yada, yada.....

They should spend the money on good optics. 

Counting "more animals" is completely missing the point..

And FWIW, I usually go to the highest point possible when glassing for animals.  Where do you typically sit with your 18/56's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Desertguide said:

The more we discuss this and I read all these comments... and remember everything I've personally learned.... I think many of us are over thinking this whole thing. Myself included.

 

I think we are placing too much importance on bucks for one. One thing that was a real eye opener for me was when I learned how unimportant bucks are to heard health. One buck can cover up to 20 does during the rut. Thats a 100:5 doe:buck ratio. That's an abysmal ratio for a unit. But... thats a ratio that would maintain herd size with all other aspects excluded. 

Now we can go back and forth about surveys but the most important number they are focused on is doe:fawn ratios. Fawn recruitment is FAR more important that how many bucks are out there... so long as theres enough bucks to breed all the does. Once the number of bucks drops to a level that all the does aren't being bred, they have to cut tags. The other reason they will cut tags is to maintain hunt/trophy quality... for us. 

I guess my point is, we are so hyper focused on tags, we aren't considering herd health. We can sit back a nit pick how they do surveys, whether they be voluntary or mandatory... but surveys only focus on bucks... the least important element in the entire equation. We should be thankful they are cutting tags and shift our focus to doe survival and fawn recruitment if we truly care about what's happening with our deer. How long and how many of us have bitched and moaned about how there are too many tags? Well... we are getting our wish. 

Agree. I was very sad when they had input on hunt quality vs hunt opportunity. The far majority of responses they got were for hunt opportunity. Increasing tags was the outcome and we are seeing the effects it is causing on the quality. 
 

If getting a tag every year is the only important thing to you, your not a true sportsman/woman. The overall health of our game should be the end goal for everyone.

I still feel the aerial surveys are less beneficial though. It still takes the WM out of the field, unable to answer calls, just as much as it would if they were on foot glassing. Not to mention why are the LEO’s out doing this at all? I see lots of non-LEO’s out in G&F vehicles working on the wolf project. They are not out taking calls but only focused on research. 
 

There needs to be a separation between LEO’ and research analysts. LEO’s have their work cut out for them just taking calls for service. It’s cheaper to hire non-LEO’s to do the data research due to the agency not having to pay into the public safety retirement system, training and other benefits. All that doesn’t even include vehicle cost and equipment needs for LEO’s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×