Jump to content
Yuma Outdoorsman

Saw this on Instagram...what’s your take?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dustin25 said:

I doubt anywhere even close to 3600 archery deer were killed last year. Maybe the 800

I completely agree, that’s a big maybe too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the best proposal out there. Everyone should email the commission about this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

It’s the best proposal out there. Everyone should email the commission about this.

I have no problems reporting if I killed an animal or not. I also think it’s the best chance to keep OTC hunts open long term. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threshold is the worst option. All the units will end up closing before we even get to the rut. No thanks. Time for a draw. I'd love to hunt all of January with my bow with very little pressure. 

I agree with mandatory reporting. I'm hoping the e-tag option will incorporate that into a one step process. Punching your tag electronically should be the reporting.

This extra draw makes me wonder if they know they will be going to an archery deer draw and need the funds to make up for that loss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My emails to the commission over the years recommended mandatory reporting or a loss of ability to apply for the next years  draw years ago, modeled after the Navajo GF.  The response was it would discourage hunter participation. Suddenly, because  of Rimzas position with the 
ABA they’re going to listen to it?  Freaking politics......  I guess you gotta be a “somebody”   to be listened to.  I fully support the idea, I am just highly amused that now it’s a consideration.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threshold idea sounds good initially.  As thresholds are met, remaining open units would likely be overrun.  Time to go to a draw for archery deer.  Maybe do OTC permits for traditional archery (no wheels, no sights).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My emails to the commission over the years recommended mandatory reporting or a loss of ability to apply for the next years  draw years ago, modeled after the Navajo GF.  The response was it would discourage hunter participation. Suddenly, because  of Rimzas position with the 
ABA they’re going to listen to it?  Freaking politics......  I guess you gotta be a “somebody”   to be listened to.  I fully support the idea, I am just highly amused that now it’s a consideration.

Brian has done a heck of a lot more than send an email to get this considered. He has been pitching this idea, adapting and improving it for almost a year in an effort to try and preserve OTC opportunity in AZ. I am learning the hard way that sending a few emails is not an effective way to get anyone to listen to your ideas. 
 

Pretending Brian is getting some special treatment is just plain ignorant. Trust me, the dept (Amber Munig specifically) started giving the same nonsensical argument about barriers to participation etc. and Brian didn’t let it go. He took it to the commission, branch chiefs, critter groups, etc. There is no need for sour grapes. Mandatory reporting is good for wildlife management and we have been asking for it long enough. Let’s make sure everyone hears it this time.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dustin25 said:

You guys that want a draw are out of your minds. That would be a dang shame.

AZ's population going from 1.5 million to 8 million+ and growing is a dang shame.  AZ is the only western state in our vicinity that does not have a draw for archery deer.  OTC deer is toast, if not now soon.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CouesFanatic said:

Threshold is the worst option. All the units will end up closing before we even get to the rut. No thanks. Time for a draw. I'd love to hunt all of January with my bow with very little pressure. 

I agree with mandatory reporting. I'm hoping the e-tag option will incorporate that into a one step process. Punching your tag electronically should be the reporting.

This extra draw makes me wonder if they know they will be going to an archery deer draw and need the funds to make up for that loss.

Not if the hunting year started in January.  You’d be at the beginning of the season. Worst case, August gets closed early.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yuma Outdoorsman said:

CC0E7CBD-8644-4758-BE38-6190C491192D.png

B3645E24-2CE2-4581-8ADC-0E8187A06665.png

8796190C-FD43-4E01-B795-7BD9357C93BC.png

I listened to Rimsza on the Scott outdoors podcast, I really am in favor of his proposal.  Listen to the podcast before you throw this under the bus.  He has a lot of good ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory reporting is the most exacting method to manage the herds. It also puts absolute pressure on G&F to discover the true reasons for herd loss/reductions if not due to hunting. Real, trackable management!

i.e. Why are there so few mule deer in 3B?

I know part of the answer is poaching in that area because while hunting we had a local admit to it and invite us to come back anytime and do the same.

Outside of 3B we know that Nobull360's brother was eventually convicted of poaching and Nobull360 made it sound like no big deal.

How big is the poaching problem by locals really? And by others?

Mandatory reporting would help diagnose and prove what the true causation of herd loss was/is and allow G&F to focus on the real problems and thus more efficiently utilize the revenue to improve game opportunities.

I would only exempt varmint for now unless there is a very rapid or major reduction.

Nobody likes regulation. I hate regulation! But to help sustain our wildlife opportunities all hunts should be reported ( still excepting varmints) to stop the thieves and provide quicker response to health and thief issues.

Safeguards should be in place so that exact location is not required but general info like 3B N (or S,E,W, central) would be helpful but they should be required to  protect any information on location other than the hunt area (i.e.  just the 3B) from public release. Such should be enough for herd management. Even that exacting may not be necessary.

I use 3B because 3B seemed to me to be in real trouble for mule deer. That is where I hunted this year and I learned a lot!

  • 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

×