Revised Archery Elk Proposal

[Red Rabbit]

This is a copy of an e-mail that Leonard Ordway (Game Granch Chief) sent out.

 

All: Attached is the Commission agenda for the upcoming Commission Meeting in Yuma for your reference. Also, attached is the Commission Memo specific to the archery elk hunt guideline item that will be heard on Saturday, Feb. 11th. The memo outlines a trial (3 year period) hunt structure alternative whereby approximately 10% (or roughly 230) of the archery bull elk tags are repositioned from the rut period into a pre-rut and post-rut archery bull elk hunt structure; overall this alternative expands bull elk archery hunting opportunity annually by about 14% (or roughly 350-400 tags) and allows for assessment of a couple different hunt periods. If you will recall the Commission did not accept the elk archery hunt guideline as presented in December, and directed the Department to work with the ABA to come up with another alternative that still moves some archery bull elk tags from the rut period to another period with less hunt success thus allowing for expanded hunt opportunity. Also, as you are probably well aware there has been substantial input from the engaged hunting public since December and throughout the public hunt guideline meeting process indicating that no change should occur from the present archery bull elk hunt structure. There are still three public meetings left before the Commission Meeting on February 11th; any comments taken on the elk hunt guidelines will be shared with the Commission when they review this alternative with the Department at their meeting. The alternative provided in the memo meets the Commission direction given to the Department. We appreciate greatly the input and assistance of the members of the ABA and the bowhunting public who worked with us to derive this alternative. We continue to recognize that public input supports no change and we will share that with the Commission. I apologize to anyone who may have been left off this email distribution and gets it second hand; we searched our email lists here in Game Branch and sent to as many obvious interested parties as possible. Our thought in mind was that those receiving the direct email would email secondarily to others. I encourage you to call me (contact #'s below) or Brian Wakeling (602-789-3385) and discuss any items or issues that that you need additional information on. Thank you for your collaboration with us on our hunt recommendation process. ((REVISED 2-06 Agenda.pdf)) ((Commission Memo on archery elk direction REVISED.pdf)) Leonard L. Ordway Game Branch Chief Ofc. (602) 789-3350 Cell (480) 710-0146 Ofc. E-Mail - lordway@azgfd.gov Phone E-Mail - 4807100146@vtext.com

 

 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Greenway Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85023 MEMO (Revised) S - 2

 

Duane L. Shroufe, Director FROM: Bruce D. Taubert, Assistant Director Wildlife Management Division PRESENTER: Leonard L. Ordway, Game Branch Chief TITLE: Consideration of Increased Hunting Opportunities Associated with Archery Bull Elk Hunts for Fall 2006 DESCRIPTION: The Commission will be briefed on progress regarding their prior direction to the Department to investigate resolution with the archery hunting community regarding implementing amended hunting structures that increase archery hunting opportunity by moving a portion of permits away from high hunt success time period. The Commission will be asked to provide the Department with additional direction on preferred structures. The Commission may vote to take action on, or provide the Department direction on, this item. DATE: January 31, 2006 Background: At the December Commission meeting, the Department presented the 2006-2007 hunt guidelines to the Commission for their approval. Part of that presentation included an option whereby additional bull elk hunting opportunity could be provided to archers. Specifically, the Department recommended moving 50% of the archery bull harvest into a late November-early December time frame. During fall 2005, the Commission authorized 2,679 archery bull elk tags. Of these, 2,294 permits were authorized during the traditional rut period in September, whereas 385 permits were authorized during November. During 2005, the early season archers experienced a 49% hunt success while the late season archers had a 21% hunt success. Using last year's permit numbers, hunt success, and weapons allocation, the original proposal that the Department shared with the Commission would have increased the number of permits offered to archers by about 1,300 permits with about 67% of the permit tags offered during a late season structure, probably in November. The bowhunting community voiced negative concerns and issues regarding the proposal at the December Commission meeting, and the Commission directed the Department to work with archers and the Arizona Bowhunter's Association (ABA) to develop an alternative to move a smaller portion ((50%) of the harvest into a time frame with lower hunt success that would facilitate increasing hunter opportunity (i.e. number of tags) available to archers. Coordination with ABA and Bowhunting Public: Subsequent to the December Commission meeting, the Game Branch met with representatives of the ABA Board, Desert Christian Archers, and other bowhunters to: provide support and information Alternatives to Existing Archery Bull Elk Hunt Structures January 31, 2006 2 during the ABA sponsored public meeting regarding this subject in the Department?s Deer Valley North Roadrunner Room on December 19, 2005, and on January 27, 2006, at the Department?s Phoenix Office to discuss proposal for presentation to the Commission at their February 11, 2006 meeting. During the interim, several information exchanges occurred whereby the Game Branch provided feedback and recommendations regarding implementation and contents of the Arizona elk bowhunters? opinion survey. During the December 19 public meeting, an individual recommended an earlier bull elk structure as a possible alternative because New Mexico had a similar "pre-rut" structure. Game Branch contacted New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and determined that they typically hold an archery bull elk hunt during September 1-20, or September 1-15 and 16-20. These hunts typically encompass a portion of the rut and do not truly constitute "pre-rut," although hunt success is typically 20-25% during the early September time frame. The bowhunters assessed the elk hunting public?s opinion of this earlier hunt structure in addition to a later hunt structure with their survey. At the January 27 meeting, the ABA working group (Dick King, Randy Spray, and David Myrick) and Game Branch discussed feedback regarding the proposal to move some of the archery harvest into a time period with reduced hunt success based on comments from Department Public Hunt Guideline Meetings held to date, written correspondence received by the Game Branch, data compiled from the hunter questionnaire program, and feedback from the ZAP internet survey conducted by the bowhunters. Overwhelmingly, the majority of feedback received from the public through meetings, correspondence, and internet surveys indicates that no change to the current structure was the desired outcome. This perspective was not unanimous, but nearly so. Some individuals welcomed the effort to increase opportunity especially for local hunters near affected units. At the meeting on January 27, the ABA working group provided input and came to consensus with Department Staff on a pilot approach that might be used to gauge public acceptance and suitability. The ABA working group did not endorse a change, but if a change were made to the archery bull elk structure, they were in consensus with the proposal arrived at during this meeting. Alternative Archery Elk Structure Proposal: The new alternative is to create 8 new hunts in 8 units to assess the proposed change. In Units 1, 4A, 5A, and 23, an early pre-rut hunt structure for archery bull would occur during August 18-31, 2006, with 125 permits each. In Units 4B, 5B, 10, and 22, a late post-rut season hunt structure for archery bull would occur during November 10-23, 2006. Both of these hunt periods would be 14 days in length for added hunt time incentive, whereas the rut period archery hunt period would be 10 days as originally proposed in December because of continued increasing hunt success. Permits for the out-of-rut hunts would be adjusted to achieve equitable harvest of bull elk to achieve desired bull to cow ratios, with remaining harvest of bull elk staying in the existing September archery elk season structure. Additionally, both Units 22 and 23 would have a September archery elk season established, which neither unit currently has. This provides consistent archery hunt structure Alternatives to Existing Archery Bull Elk Hunt Structures January 31, 2006 3 management across the state. Based on current data, about 50 permits would be removed from the September hunt in each unit to establish the August or November seasons with about 125 tags each. For Units 22 and 23 approximately 125 permits would remain for the out-of-rut period hunts and the remaining permits would be adjusted into the respective rut period hunts for each unit (approx. 60-70 rut hunt tags combined). This proposal would yield about 1000 permits, 500 of which would occur in August, 500 in November, and would allow the evaluation of these hunt periods for future permit management. The overall reduction in rut permit opportunity is about 230 tags (approx. 10% reduction). Whereas this proposal is likely to yield about 350-400 additional archery bull elk permits than are currently offered (approx. 14% increase), and if accepted, should be used for no less than 3 years to be able to adequately evaluate management effectiveness and acceptance. The ABA working group was not supportive of reduction to 10-day rut hunt period or a 3-year evaluation period; they preferred 14-day seasons and no more than 2 years of evaluation. The Department continues to assert that the 10-day period provides ample opportunity and the hunt period reduction will help offset increasing archery hunt success. Further, our concern with the 2- year evaluation period is that adequate data would not be available prior to the December hunt set meeting to effectively evaluate late elk season hunt success. Reference Information: Appended to this memo are the results of the ABA ZAP internet survey as of January 27, 2006 with 4,908 responses. Note that 32% of the respondents characterized themselves as primarily applying for firearms elk seasons, so a reasonable cross section of opinion was obtained. When asked if the respondent would support moving archery bull elk permits out of the rut, almost 76% opposed moving to a November date, whereas just over 66% opposed moving the season to an August date. Of the 2,419 respondents that indicated that they had hunted elk in September, just over 90% indicated that their hunting experience was good or excellent. Ninety-eight percent of these respondents indicated that they would reapply for a September elk hunt. Of the 330 respondents that indicated that they hunted bull elk in November, only about 27% indicated that they had a good or excellent hunting experience. About 41% indicated that they would apply for a November archery bull hunt again. Department data indicates that hunt success has been substantially higher in September than in November archery bull elk hunts. In fact, the following graph indicates the increasing hunt success of September archery bull hunters, which in turn yields a lower number of permits when allocating permits based on hunter demand and hunt success. Alternatives to Existing Archery Bull Elk Hunt Structures January 31, 2006 4 Archery Bull Hunt Sucess 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Years Hunt Success Nov Bull Sept Bul Despite common concern among archers that hunt quality is lower in November than during September, Department data indicates that the average points per side on bulls harvested by archers and the days hunted in September and November seasons actually differ little. Average Points per Side - Archery Bull 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Average Points Sept Bull Nov Bull Average Days per Hunter - Archery Bull 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Days per Hunter Sept Bull Nov Bull When comparing demand for the September and the November archery bull elk hunts, it is plain that the September season is the more highly sought after tag. However, the demand for the rut hunts far outstrips the supply. As the supply of tags available during November has increased, the number of applicants for those tags has increased as well. Although the following graphs show only first choice applicants, the demand for these November permits is about 1:2 or 1:3. Alternatives to Existing Archery Bull Elk Hunt Structures January 31, 2006 5 Sept Archery Bull - Application Pressure 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Number 1st Choice Applicants Permits Authorized Nov Archery Bull - Application Pressure 0 100 200 300 400 500 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Number 1st Choice Applicants Permits Authorized Summary: As per the direction of the Commission in December, the proposed alternative moves some archery elk hunt opportunity (~10% or approx. 230 permits) from the high hunt success rut period to lower hunt success periods and increases net overall archery elk hunt opportunity (~14% or approx. 350- 400 permits). It allows for assessment of two hunt periods that differ from the current one and may provide means to further increase hunt opportunity in the future. And finally it incorporates inputs from the public relative to archery elk hunt structure should changes be implemented (e.g., "if change is to occur do it on trial basis," "10% is more acceptable than 50%," "try a pre-rut hunt structure if change is to occur," and "manage bull and antlerless take separately - don't designate tags as ?any elk?"). Recommendation: The Department recommends that the Commission VOTE TO APPROVE THE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDED HUNT STRUCTURE FOR ARCHERY ELK SEASON GUIDELINES FOR UNITS 1, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 10, 22, AND 23 FOR 2006-2008. BDT:BFW:bfw Attachment

 

(note that the graphs did not show but as data in e-mail)

Commisioner meeting Saturday Feb 11 (and Friday) is at Shilo Inn, 15510S. Castle Dome Rd. Yuma. Starts at 8am

[Rharris]

Here is a recent e-mail I sent Mr Ordway.

 

Leonard:

 

So far every meeting has had an over whelming % of hunters that are against the proposed changes to the Elk, Coues, Javelina, and Lion hunt proposals. What is it going to take to get you and the commission to see we (the majority) do not want our wildlife managed for quantity but quality? If I am not mistaken we are the ones paying for Arizona?s wildlife management. We should be the ones to have the final say not some executive committee. Put the question out to us its real simple. Do we want quantity or quality? QUALITY is the answer that you are hearing at every public meeting.

 

You have WM?s that are very frustrated and moral is low because you are not allowing them to do the job that they went to school for. You hand down an assignment ?create hunter opportunity? Instead of assessing sound biological information. This is not about negotiating, give the power back to the WM?s and the individuals who are paying the bills (hunters and fisherman). Your job is to manage the direction we give. If we ask for changes you direct these questions to the WM?s they in turn research it based on the direction of QUALITY, if the proposal is going to effect the quality of our wildlife it gets presented back to the public and we move on. You must have one main objective in order to show continual improvement in a company or business. QUALITY should be the G and F?s objective.

 

 

 

Arizona is growing at an alarming rate: If you keep going in the direction you are proposing where will it end? Let?s stop right now and make a stance. We want our wildlife managed for QUALITY. Everyone needs to be honest with themselves and understand that this means drawing a tag is always going to be tough. But when they do draw it will be a real quality experience. Hunter recruitment is not an issue. When draw rates are in the teens or single digits you cannot point at recruitment. If we focused our efforts on predator management, habitat improvement (controlled burns) and poaching we can increase permits in time. These are all attached to QUALITY.

 

I could go on and on Leonard but this in a nut shell is my stance as well as many others in my area. Please take the direction the majority is giving our department and remove these proposed changes from the department?s agenda.

 

 

 

Sincerely

 

 

 

Ralph Harris

 

 

I have created a petition that I would like to offer to any and all of you to print and circulate. If each of us does this even within our own circles it could prove benefical to our cause. It essentially states that those that sign are opposed to all proposed hunt changes. My only problem is I don't know how to attach it to this so all of you can print it to circulate. If someone can help me e-mail me at: harris@vtc.net. There are several other sites that it should get posted on as well.

Amanda can you help?

[Coach]

Excellent job! I'm in the process of putting together a similar letter. There's no doubt that "increasing opportunity" can only be achieved by sound management practices that over time increase overall herd strength, not moving permit allocations around.

 

The only permit allocation change that I can seem making a difference (in my humble opinion ) is reducing permits for mule deer and javalina in areas that are most affected by the drought. I really think that if they got mule deer, javalina and pronghorn herds to rebound anywhere near the carrying capacity of the land, there would be ample opportunites for just about everyone to get some sort of tag pretty much every year.