Hunt proposal, more limited archery units

[68OLDS]

1 hour ago, UggRedBilly said:

Why isnt mandatory harvesting even a thing here? Why are some people against it to begin with? I'd love to see it be a new rule

The azgfd program manager said last night they do not want to put additional regulatory burden upon hunters by going to a mandatory Harvest reporting.  One of their rationales was this would deter people from hunting and reduced overall hunter recruitment.  
She also stated that the current 20-50% survey response rate was statistically sufficient to account for accurate harvest data.

take it for what it’s worth.  Not sure I believe any of that but that is their position on the subject.

[AZtroutman]

11 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

The azgfd program manager said last night they do not want to put additional regulatory burden upon hunters by going to a mandatory Harvest reporting.  One of their rationales was this would deter people from hunting and reduced overall hunter recruitment.  
She also stated that the current 20-50% survey response rate was statistically sufficient to account for accurate harvest data.

take it for what it’s worth.  Not sure I believe any of that but that is their position on the subject.

So they think people will give up hunting because they have to answer a 5 minute survey? 🤔 makes sense 

[trphyhntr]

 surprised how many guys that spend hardly any time out during archery season wanna talk about how there’s so few non res out there in January. 

[Desertguide]

1 hour ago, trophyseeker said:

Obviously. 🤣

🙄🙄🙄

[68OLDS]

31 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

 surprised how many guys that spend hardly any time out during archery season wanna talk about how there’s so few non res out there in January. 

What do you mean? 
hunted unit 27 for 3 weeks this last January OTC season. I estimate the ratio of NR:res hunters I saw was about 2:1.  

[HuntHarder]

46 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

 surprised how many guys that spend hardly any time out during archery season wanna talk about how there’s so few non res out there in January. 

Based solely on OTC tags issued, the non res make up about 10% of the total hunters on OTC deer.  I think the reason it seems magnified is they concentrate in a few select units and also really only hunt January.  Where I hunt in January, non residents are a non issue.  Where I used to hunt near Wickenburg, the amount of non-res hunters has increased dramatically.  

[trphyhntr]

17 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

What do you mean? 
hunted unit 27 for 3 weeks this last January OTC season. I estimate the ratio of NR:res hunters I saw was about 2:1.  

Sounds about right 

[68OLDS]

4 minutes ago, HuntHarder said:

Based solely on OTC tags issued, the non res make up about 10% of the total hunters on OTC deer.  I think the reason it seems magnified is they concentrate in a few select units and also really only hunt January.  Where I hunt in January, non residents are a non issue.  Where I used to hunt near Wickenburg, the amount of non-res hunters has increased dramatically.  

100% agree

just search “arizona OTC deer hunting” on YouTube and you’ll see how popular az has become with out of state hunters. My brother Ran into some hunters a few years ago Michigan I believe saying that they heard about Arizona’s OTC particularly unit 27 in the Local magazine and hunting publications. These outside influences are definitely not helping things here at home.  

[Desertguide]

19 minutes ago, HuntHarder said:

Based solely on OTC tags issued, the non res make up about 10% of the total hunters on OTC deer.  I think the reason it seems magnified is they concentrate in a few select units and also really only hunt January.  Where I hunt in January, non residents are a non issue.  Where I used to hunt near Wickenburg, the amount of non-res hunters has increased dramatically.  

A few years ago they were concentrated in predictable areas in region 4. Now they're getting adventurous and expanding into new areas... well... new areas to them. It doesn't alarm me too much. I watch them fumble around the desert and I can tell you, most don't have any idea what they're doing. But.. pressure is pressure and deer in the desert don't respond well to too much pressure. Add them to the hoards of snowbirds in those stupid freakin SXS caravans and the desert can get downright stupid. 

[Riesop]

Nonresidents were never an issue where I hunted either until last year.  It's only a matter of time and it'll be an issue everywhere.  I know it's a money thing and nonresidents bring in more money but I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hunt that is just for residents, heck, we're the ones paying taxes in the state.  It would just be nice to have ONE hunt to ourselves.

[654321]

33 minutes ago, Riesop said:

Nonresidents were never an issue where I hunted either until last year.  It's only a matter of time and it'll be an issue everywhere.  I know it's a money thing and nonresidents bring in more money but I'd be willing to pay a little more for a hunt that is just for residents, heck, we're the ones paying taxes in the state.  It would just be nice to have ONE hunt to ourselves.

Paying taxes in this state doesn't have anything to do with game management.  AZGFD gets no tax money from the general fund.

[ThomC]

Now girls go out and buy some Tide.  You are obviously not biologists or economists.  But, mostly anecdotists.  😲

[huntlines]

2 hours ago, 68OLDS said:

The azgfd program manager said last night they do not want to put additional regulatory burden upon hunters by going to a mandatory Harvest reporting.  One of their rationales was this would deter people from hunting and reduced overall hunter recruitment.  
She also stated that the current 20-50% survey response rate was statistically sufficient to account for accurate harvest data.

take it for what it’s worth.  Not sure I believe any of that but that is their position on the subject.

I heard the 20% to 50% stuff but didn’t hear them talk about placing an undue burden on hunters. Admittedly I was in and out of the livestream due to work. 
 

I just don’t understand this rationale. Do they have data supporting these claims of reducing hunter recruitment? How does that keep people from wanting to hunt? If that’s all it takes to get less people out in the field then we need to raise heck until it’s adopted.

[68OLDS]

6 minutes ago, ThomC said:

Now girls go out and buy some Tide.  You are obviously not biologists or economists.  But, mostly anecdotists.  😲

I actually am a biologist Thom.  ASU, class of ‘06.  Conservation Biology.

More importantly we are all sportsmen and wildlife is held in the public interest, as you know, following the North American model.  We all have a right to a fair discussion.  We voice thoughts and concerns for what is in the best interest of the wildlife resource in AZ.

[68OLDS]

4 minutes ago, huntlines said:

I heard the 20% to 50% stuff but didn’t hear them talk about placing an undue burden on hunters. Admittedly I was in and out of the livestream due to work. 
 

I just don’t understand this rationale. Do they have data supporting these claims of reducing hunter recruitment? How does that keep people from wanting to hunt? If that’s all it takes to get less people out in the field then we need to raise heck until it’s adopted.

I don’t quite understand it either.  I don’t see it being THAT MUCH more of a burden.  She said more data could be good, and could be bad.  I would argue more/better data in would give better results out.  
Someone mentioned the Navajo nation survey approach.  You don’t complete your survey, you aren’t eligible for the draw the next year.  I am not sure how that would look but it can’t be too difficult to put in place.  It sounds like azgfd is happy with where they are on harvest statistics.