Over the counter deer tags

[Outdoor Writer]

Two years ago, the Department implemented a "mandatory harvest report" for archery deer hunters. Ironically, that is not the case for general rifle hunts.

Today, Leonard feels that that program is a failure. He claims that it puts another barrier on the hunter to obtain information that is not needed. He stated that compliance is poor, I believe the number he quoted was 75%.

 

The above is a quote from the letter.

 

Maybe G&F needs to do what a couple other states now do: no report, no permit the following year. That should increase compliance for better harvest stats, huh? And yes, it SHOULD include ALL hunts so the stats are accurate. Here's why:

 

In the How To Hunt Coues Deer book, I explained how the harvest stats are derived from the mailed survey cards and why they can be really skewed, especially in units with a low number of permits. The stats are taken from only those cards that are actually returned. So if a unit has 100 permits but only 20 get returned and 10 people report killing a buck, the success rate is put at 50%. Of course, no one knows about the other 80 permits holders really did, but the assumption being made is they had the same average success rate. The problem is the statistical base to conclude that is really too small. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Two years ago, the Department implemented a "mandatory harvest report" for archery deer hunters. Ironically, that is not the case for general rifle hunts.

Today, Leonard feels that that program is a failure. He claims that it puts another barrier on the hunter to obtain information that is not needed. He stated that compliance is poor, I believe the number he quoted was 75%.

 

The above is a quote from the letter.

 

Maybe G&F needs to do what a couple other states now do: no report, no permit the following year. That should increase compliance for better harvest stats, huh? And yes, it SHOULD include ALL hunts so the stats are accurate. Here's why:

 

In the How To Hunt Coues Deer book, I explained how the harvest stats are derived from the mailed survey cards and why they can be really skewed, especially in units with a low number of permits. The stats are taken from only those cards that are actually returned. So if a unit has 100 permits but only 20 get returned and 10 people report killing a buck, the success rate is put at 50%. Of course, no one knows about the other 80 permits holders really did, but the assumption being made is they had the same average success rate. The problem is the statistical base to conclude that is really too small. -TONY

 

I just finished reading the entire letter and saw the recommendation for manadatory reporting/no license was indeed suggested in it. Bingo! Then all they would need to worry about is hunters telling the truth on the survey cards. -TONY

[KB-AZ]

That letter sums up my feelings exactly. Thank you Dick.

[billrquimby]

"A scary thought - the world record typical Coue's was killed in Pima County - what are the chances that the habitat that once held that world record deer is now part of a subdivision somewhere in suburban Tucson??"

 

If you mean Ed Stockwell's buck, it may be listed somewhere as "Pima County," but he showed me the hill where he shot it and it is in Santa Cruz County. There still are good bucks there. Although there are no houses there yet it is not far from a "subdivision."

 

Bill Quimby

[DesertBull]

Two years ago, the Department implemented a "mandatory harvest report" for archery deer hunters. Ironically, that is not the case for general rifle hunts.

Today, Leonard feels that that program is a failure. He claims that it puts another barrier on the hunter to obtain information that is not needed. He stated that compliance is poor, I believe the number he quoted was 75%.

 

The above is a quote from the letter.

 

Maybe G&F needs to do what a couple other states now do: no report, no permit the following year. That should increase compliance for better harvest stats, huh? And yes, it SHOULD include ALL hunts so the stats are accurate. Here's why:

 

In the How To Hunt Coues Deer book, I explained how the harvest stats are derived from the mailed survey cards and why they can be really skewed, especially in units with a low number of permits. The stats are taken from only those cards that are actually returned. So if a unit has 100 permits but only 20 get returned and 10 people report killing a buck, the success rate is put at 50%. Of course, no one knows about the other 80 permits holders really did, but the assumption being made is they had the same average success rate. The problem is the statistical base to conclude that is really too small. -TONY

 

I just finished reading the entire letter and saw the recommendation for manadatory reporting/no license was indeed suggested in it. Bingo! Then all they would need to worry about is hunters telling the truth on the survey cards. -TONY

 

 

NM does that and it's not a "barrier" to hunter retention there, as far as I know.

 

In fact, why does it have to be limited to just reporting harvest? Why not make everyone return the card, even if they did not harvest an animal? Then there is no excuse for not complying.

[Outdoor Writer]

NM does that and it's not a "barrier" to hunter retention there, as far as I know.

 

In fact, why does it have to be limited to just reporting harvest? Why not make everyone return the card, even if they did not harvest an animal? Then there is no excuse for not complying.

 

Yup, NM and I think ID does it, as well. I know WA does it because I wrote this little snippet for the NSSF's HuntandShoot web site, where I do short items on 10 western states every two weeks. But they levy a fine rather than deny a license.

 

Reporting Harvest Is Easier Now

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has made it easier for hunters to report their harvest with a new automated system.

 

All hunters with deer, elk, bear or turkey tags are required to report their hunting activity by Jan. 31 to avoid a $10 fine. Reports must be filed even if the hunter was unsuccessful or chose not to hunt. Reports are used to monitor wildlife populations and set future hunting seasons.

 

Hunters can file their harvest reports online or by calling toll-free at (877) 945-3492.

 

 

When I used "reporting harvest," that also includes reporting the lack of it. Although I haven't seen what archery hunters must now report, the regular hunt survey cards already have an option to check if one didn't kill a critter. It also has one to report wounding an animal. In either case, it takes all about 30-45 secs. to fill out. Geez, if I recall, it's even postage-paid. -TONY

[mattys281]

It seems funny to me that I've read in several G&F newsletters, articles, etc. that the number one threat to hunting in Az is new hunter recruitment & hunter retention. This implies that the number of hunters as a whole is declining, yet the number of archery hunters is increasing every year, across the country. So why, if you're looking to recruit more hunters, would you take the one method of hunting that seems to be successfully attracting new faces and make it more difficult for the newbies to participate? The OTC tags have always been a staple for bowhunters as a "back-up" plan. Didn't draw an elk tag - ohh well, there's still archery deer. Take that away & some of us will end up going years without being allowed to hunt anything at all, & that's obviously no good for hunter recruitment or retention.

 

Bowhunter magazine usually publishes a deer forecast every year, & it seems that the numbers I read were some where in the ball park of fewer than 30,000 bowhunters in Az with a success rate of less than 5%. That equals, at most, 1500 deer harvested. If 10% of that all came out of one unit, you're still only talking about 150 animals. I'm not seeing the logic here, unless its a ploy to either a.) reap in the extra $7 application fee for drawing the tag & then give us all tags anyway, or b.) weed out archery hunters in order to increase "opportunity" for rifle hunters, as that's where they perceive there's a higher demand & more potential dollars. Either way it smells like the numbers being calculated here are dollars, not deer.

[born2bhuntin]

I would like to see it go to a pick your weapon-only 1 deer tag-as theiy are going out and killing several deer a year if they are not checked. I like the idea of draw for the northern units-because they are overrun with non-residents-this way they could keep the amount to 10%!

[DesertBull]

a.) reap in the extra $7 application fee for drawing the tag & then give us all tags anyway

 

That was my first thought also. If there are 30,000 OTC tags sold every year, that equates to an extra $210,000 per year in app fees they are missing out on. I'll bet that 99% of all hunters applying for an archery deer tag would get their tag.

 

Next up - fall bear hunts, lion, and archery turkey.

[mulie hunter]

a.) reap in the extra $7 application fee for drawing the tag & then give us all tags anyway

 

That was my first thought also. If there are 30,000 OTC tags sold every year, that equates to an extra $210,000 per year in app fees they are missing out on. I'll bet that 99% of all hunters applying for an archery deer tag would get their tag.

 

Next up - fall bear hunts, lion, and archery turkey.

The almighty dollar comes into play in game mangement once again. I'm against an archery draw, the harvest by archers in the state pales in comparsion to rifle hunts.

 

born2bhuntin- I normally have a archery tag and a rifle tag each year, and never kill more than one deer, sometimes I don't even do that, it's a double dose of tag soup. Those who do what you say are poachers not hunters.

[jbone]

a.) reap in the extra $7 application fee for drawing the tag & then give us all tags anyway

 

That was my first thought also. If there are 30,000 OTC tags sold every year, that equates to an extra $210,000 per year in app fees they are missing out on. I'll bet that 99% of all hunters applying for an archery deer tag would get their tag.

 

Next up - fall bear hunts, lion, and archery turkey.

 

 

If there is 30,000 OTC tags sold every year, I bet that 99% of those tag holders are applying for rifle deer tags also during the regular draw. So your thought sounds right, but it would not be the case unless you could apply twice for deer and pay twice for the application fee. The G&F would still only get a one time application fee for deer.

[KGAINES]

How many people would apply for an archery only hunt and that be their only hunt, a lot less than the 30,000. Plus if we allow that and they get a lot of apps for certain units they will start cutting down the number of days allowed for each hunt and have seperate archery hunts for each unit, a certain amount in aug., they can probably split dec. into two hunts, and the same for jan., thats five seperate hunts that they can add, or they can leave it alone and continue to work on the mandatory harvest reports. One more thing that I look at as well, AZ and our animals and habitat produce excellent quality animals that the AZGFD has spent years to get that way, now they are trying to model our state after the ones that are for the most part mediocre, we are heading in the wrong direction if you ask me.

[ghost hunter]

I believe two things already mentioned are correct:

1) most all of the achery tags are bought by people with or have put in for rifle tags

2) money seems to be the root of all their decisions

 

BUT, I also believe:

1) G&F believes that a portion, big or small, of the archery hunters are tagging 2 deer because they have "2 tags in

their pockets and are "entitled" to get 2'

2) By going to a draw for archery based on harvest numbers, it will actually let G&F use their new buzz phrase,

"expand hunter opportunity" because they will take the extra tags not allocated to the archers and put them in

the rifle hunts. Boy will it get crowded in the rifle hunts. But the archers are going to get &*()_ed

 

Just my .02

[AZP&Y]

Hmmmmm.. 16 months later...sounds like it's well on its way to becoming reality...

 

http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...pic=3134&hl=

 

 

AzP&Y

[monstercoues]

Wow! It seems like everyone is missing the big picture here. I guess I am one of the few who seem to back the AZGFD. It makes me sick when everyone brings up money when anything new changes with the AZGFD. I volunteer alot of time and effort helping wildlife and working with some of the wildlife managers in southern AZ. I just want to say that if something doesn't change with the archery harvest, theres not going to be any deer left for our kids to hunt. It's about wildlife management. There are several units in the state where archery harvest is at or greater than rifle harvest in this state. I am not going to mention them, but if anyone wants the info they can call there local AZGFD office and get that info. I don't know what the solution is, but I know there will be happy and unhappy people with the outcome.

 

Bottom line is, something needs to change to limit the amount of harvest during the archery hunts. It has nothing to do with money. Just ask any wildlife manager what he makes a year. If he or she even replies I bet you your jaw would drop to the ground in amazement. They don't get paid half as much as they should for the jobs they do. Just my 2cents.