Survey: Hunting Archery and Rifle Seasons

[donniedent]

I know we blame the azgfd for a lot of the problems with our wildlife. The biggest problem I see, too many hunters. The game and fish don't seem to know how to deal with it. Take Kiabab for example who here likes to hunt the early hunt with 1,000 other hunters. I don't I will never put in for that hunt. The otc deer tags are nice, because you can go each year if you choose. But when I go archery it seems like everyone and their mother is in the same area as me. I would like the archery tags to go to a draw. I enjoy archery and it would be nice to be in a unit with only 100 other huters. But I think the game and fish if put to a draw would keep the tags up around what they are otc. Which I think defeats the purpose. Who here would be infavor of a few archery trophy deer hunts and a seperate season for all the otc deer hunters. How nice would it bee to go to Kiabab September 1st with only 250 hunters. Sounds like a nice hunt to me. Consider Setember 15th all the otc deer hunters can take a wack at Kiabab. I was just using Kiabab as an example we could have an archery deer draw for the top 10 units. But also keep the otc just make them hunt after the draw hunts.

 

just a thought

 

 

Also, the problem isn't too many hunters the problem is too few animals. It feels like too many hunters because the deer that are left are concentrated is smaller areas forcing us to hunt on top of each other. The other problem is that we as hunters have gotten very lazy. We don''t get off the beaten path far enough to find the areas others don't go.

 

Donnie

[Outdoor Writer]

There is a discussion on a different forum about systematically shutting down units for up to 3 years to get the total numbers up, thats wildlife management.

Donnie

 

 

-TONY

[crazy4COUES]

I don't have a problem with draw archery tags, what I have a problem with is why! They aren't doing it for the good of the herd, they're doing to manage hunters. So much is focused on how to keep this group or that group happy while keeping the money rolling that they're forgetting about the most important thing and the reason they exist.... wildlife management!!! The main reason they want an archery draw is to keep the 20% of the so called archers (most hunt with a rifle also) from taking more than 20% of the deer out of said unit. Where is the wildlife management in that????? There are 1000 different things they could do besides going to a draw. There is a discussion on a different forum about systematically shutting down units for up to 3 years to get the total numbers up, thats wildlife management. Not this crock of crap they're trying to feed us now. I don't know and don't really care if its the comission or the department but someone needs to remind them why they exist in the first place. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT!!

 

Donnie

 

WELL SAID donniedent! If they would honestly give it a try and see the benefits. They need to incorporate quality game managment mentality and get rid of the "lets manipulate the whole system for $$$" mentality.

[bcoover]

We live in the desert. There is only so much this state can offer to its wildlife. The animal populations are not going to grow nearly as fast as our hunter populations. Think about it if you double the our current deer heard half of them will die an a year or two there just isn't enough water here for that kind of explosion. But the number of hunters increase every year. Take into consideration the last twenty years Arizona has grown and so has the amount of hunters in the field. There is no such thing as a secret spot anymore. Look at how many cameras are being stolen. I haven't had any of mine stolen but mine are aslo two to three miles in. Which doen't make them safe. My point is how in the heck do you find a camera out in the middle of now where. The answer too many people in the field.

[donniedent]

There is a discussion on a different forum about systematically shutting down units for up to 3 years to get the total numbers up, thats wildlife management.

Donnie

 

 

-TONY

 

 

Here is a copy of some of the posts Tony...

 

" The main problem is not the total number of bucks, its the total number of deer. Muley numbers are down, plain and simple. So closing a unit for a couple years would be perfect for some units here. Largo3 makes a good point if you're trying to raise only the number of bucks but like I said, Arizonas problem is total numbers not just buck numbers. The other problem here is you've got a few very smart BIG bucks and a bunch of dinks. So many people shoot 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 year old bucks that the ones that make it disappear only to be seen during the rut, if even then. I see giants all the time.... at night. They're educated. AND.... all the units we love to hunt up north in the pines aren't open during the rut. But, overall the largest problem muleys in Arizona face is predators. Deer number have been going down since they did away with trapping. So... drought, predators, questionable management motives and hunters not letting the babies get bigger equals a sh!tty place to hunt muleys."

 

AND

 

"The best way for G&F to manage a systematic unit closure would be this, if said hunter wants a shot at the unit that was closed for 2 years he must pay tag fees for the unit every year its closed. They would probably make more money in those 2 closed years and the first open year than if they just continued to leave it open. Could you imagine the chance at hunting a unit thats been closed for a couple years???? I'd pay, thats for dang sure! Now check this out... all the hipe over said unit would last at least 5 years, so ride the hipe then do it all over again. Do that in a couple units a year and within 15 years you've got a top notch muley state. Now think about all the regular guys that just want to meat hunt, what would they do??? They'd just shift to the open units, so G&F doesn't lose a dime, in fact they'd make more money. Think about what the non-residents would do. They'd try to get in on the hipe unit too.... more money! Think about it from the G&F point of view, they'd be making money on a product that isn't being deminished. They are trying to run the dept. like a business, so why don't we use our heads and play their game to our advantage. Appeal to their pockets, thats what motivates them anyway, we can all see that!"

 

Basically The idea is to shut a unit down for a few years to get the numbers back up.

[Outdoor Writer]

Here is a copy of some of the posts Tony...

 

" The main problem is not the total number of bucks, its the total number of deer. Muley numbers are down, plain and simple. So closing a unit for a couple years would be perfect for some units here.

 

 

Basically The idea is to shut a unit down for a few years to get the numbers back up.

 

The first comment above is a total contradiction. The second would do little to get "numbers back up."

 

I've already addressed this. In fact, it was a message to YOU, if I recall. I'll see if I can locate it again.

 

Stopping the hunting of BUCKS has no relationship to increasing the OVERALL population. Bucks do not have fawns, so until we start killing does, other than to change the buck/doe ratio, HUNTING as now done has little to do with fawn recruitment and population increases. In fact, as I had previously stated, it could ADVERSELY affect a population in an area where habitat is poor, as it is in many of those units where populations have declined. THAT is exactly why the herds have declined. This is all mostly included in Biology 101.

 

Now, if you really want to do something to increase the deer populations, start by doing a few rain dances every day. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Donnie,

 

Here's the message from the What Would You Change? thread. Feel free to copy/paste to your other discussion. -TONY

 

 

(donniedent @ Jul 27 2007, 07:30 AM)

I'd like to see the department systematically shut down most of the deer units in the state for at least 2 years to let some of these herds start to bounce back for this mismanagement we've seen for the last 25 years.

Donnie

 

 

Biologically, it would be a meaningless move. We hunt BUCKS, not does, which are the most important for the recovery of deer numbers. All shutting down the season might do would be to possibly increase the buck to doe ratio and maybe produce some older class bucks. BUT...on the downside, it will leave more deer in an already stressed habitat, thus creating poor conditions for fawn recruitment and survival. And..the increased number of bucks would cause more infighting among them, stressing them even more.

 

The additional stress on the habitat is exactly why G&F has been promoting the doe hunts on the Kaibab's westside winter range for the last couple of years.

 

As for eliminating hunting during the rut, it too wouldn't mean much. It doesn't take many bucks to breed every doe in the neighborhood, and they will do so whether they are shot at or not.

 

I wrote the following article several years ago when Ray Lee was the big-game branch head. It outlines HOW our deer herds will grow. If you know anyone with some spare winter rains, tell them to send 'em to AZ. -TONY

 

 

Arizona Deer -- Oh, How they thirst

 

 

 

Copyright 2000 by Tony Mandile

No Reproduction without express permission

 

 

For more than a decade now, Arizona's deer population has been on the proverbial roller-coaster ride. Sadly, in recent years the downs have been a lot lower than the ups have been high. As a result, the state's overall mule deer population is currently approaching the lowest it has ever been. Although the Coues deer have done somewhat better, their numbers have also dropped.

 

This fact became quite evident last spring when the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) made its recommendations for the fall 2000 hunts. The total allocation for both species approved by the five-member game commission was 45,850 -- the lowest total since the AGFD began compiling data in 1946. It was 970 fewer than the 1999 total. And if the rest of this year plays out as it has so far, the permit allocation could fall even more when the commission considers next year's hunt proposals in April, 2001.

 

Who can we blame for all this and especially for the loss of deer hunting opportunities?

 

No one that could make a difference; the game department, you or me can't do a thing to change it. The culprit has been Mother Nature, or more specifically her unwillingness to bestow bountiful rains on the Grand Canyon State for more than one year in a row.

 

AGFD big-game supervisor Ray Lee's enthusiasm has followed the same trend as the state's deer population. After many years of watching the herds steadily decline, Lee happily witnessed the effects of El Nino over the winter of 1997-1998.

 

"We thought we might have turned the corner in 1999 when fawn recruitment statewide increased considerably. But it was a short-lived jump, and the reason why I had stated back then that hunters shouldn't be too enthusiastic until we have a couple rainy years strung together."

 

Lee's warning proved prophetic.

 

As it turned out, 1999 was one of the driest years on record in Arizona. The Phoenix metro area went for more than 100 days between September and December without any measurable precipitation. When the rain finally arrived, it wasn't enough to require the use of windshield wipers. Finally in March, 2000 a big storm hammered the state, dumping more than two inches on Phoenix and even more in other areas. But the two-day deluge overwhelmed the watersheds. The ground couldn't absorb the water quickly enough, and most of it ran downstream into the lakes or Mexico's Sea of Cortez.

 

Pointing to the Palmer Drought Severity Index compiled by The National Atmospheric Association, Lee doesn't hold much hope for the very immediate future.

 

"The Palmer Index examines past and current rainfalls, winds, temperatures and other factors. The most recent chart shows the southwestern United States and more specifically, Arizona, as being in the middle of extreme drought conditions. In other words, even if the entire state received two inches of rain tomorrow, it probably wouldn't take us out of that extreme category because of the moisture we haven't received in previous months," he said.

 

The major concern of biologists when it comes to the relationship of rain and deer is timing. Rains that come at the wrong time of the year provide little benefit to big game. In the case of deer, the two key periods to benefit them are late winter and late summer.

 

Lee points to the 1998 deer population jump as a perfect example of what can happen.

 

"We had normal winter rains, good spring rains and adequate summer rains. Statewide, fawn recruitment went to nearly 40 fawns per 100 does in areas of the state where it had dropped to as low of 20 fawns per 100 does. On the Kaibab Plateau, somewhat different climatic conditions caused the corresponding recruitment to rise to nearly 90 fawns per 100 does. It was an exceptional year. Unfortunately, it was only one, and that won't do it."

 

According to Lee, the lack of moisture to sustain ideal deer populations started in 1988 and pretty much reflects the trend that occurred about 40 years ago.

 

"Our deer numbers reached the highest ever in the 1960s, but the population dropped very rapidly from those numbers to all-time lows by the late 1970s. That's why we put deer on the permit system in 1972. And if we look back at the weather conditions from the late 1960s and early 1970s. we would quickly see they mirror the same patterns that are occurring right now. The deer population is also following the pattern."

 

"Then the deer numbers shot up again in the early and mid-1980s because we had an anomaly of sorts with rains that produced three 100-year floods over a five-year period. Even the normally dry Salt River was running at 200,000 feet per second and washing out bridges in downtown Phoenix.

 

"The result on our deer herds was quite predictable. For a few years running, all of the does had twins, their twins had twins, and those twins -- and so on. So we wound up with more deer than we knew what to do with. Over the next several hunting seasons, we had more permits available than we had hunters to apply for them. In 1986, we set the all-time record with 95,821 permits. That is more than double the permit allocation for 2000.

 

"The one thing hunters shouldn't do, however, is think we'll ever get to that point again. The floods were very uncommon occurrences that created the best deer habitat we've ever had. So unless those conditions repeat themselves, which isn't too likely, our traditional optimum deer numbers will be considerably less than what we had in 1986."

 

Fortunately, even though the permit numbers are at an all-time low right now, there are still more deer today in Arizona than there were in the 1970s when the population hit bottom. The reason is a different management concept put into place by the AGFD.

 

When the herds plummeted in the 70s, the hunter success did likewise, averaging 16 to 18 percent statewide -- a result of supply and demand with only so many deer to go around. This prompted many complaints from hunters. Rather than allow that trend to continue, the game department began adjusting the permit allocation whereby the hunter success remained fairly consistent at 21 to 24 percent in most units. So while fewer hunters go afield now, many of those that do get to a tag a buck.

 

The relationships between moisture and deer populations can be somewhat difficult to understand, but what it mostly comes down to is habitat.

 

'In years of good moisture, deer can normally get all the moisture they need by eating. As the rains decrease, they have to find other sources, which are mostly tanks or other standing water. That walking and use of standing water sources increases the chance for predation and burns up additional energy.

 

"Without water, a doe doesn't put on weight, and the chances for her to drop twins go down considerably. She also has a lower milk production when she does drop a fawn, and the lack of good cover makes the survival of that fawn more iffy because of predation. And we're not talking a lot of weight to make a difference. If a doe can increase her weight by 5 percent, it's likely her fawn will weigh a pound more when born. That is significant for the survival of a fawn that weighs five or six pounds at birth."

 

Another consequence of the recent drought years have been forest fires. Earlier this year, at least three major ones devastated large portions of Arizona's landscape. The highly extreme conditions for more fires prompted the U.S. Forest Service to shut down any access to large portions of several national forests in the state.

 

Lee feels the forest fires come under that ol' good news/bad news syndrome, though.

 

"Even though a lot of Arizona burned up this year, by and large forest fires are good for the habitat. It's a case of looking at fires over both the short term and the long term. At first, the effect is not too good because those areas basically are sterile. All the growth that deer might utilize this fall is gone. But Mother Nature does wonderful things to compensate.

 

"Once we start getting some moisture in those areas, the nutrients begin going back into the soil, and all sorts of fresh browse sprouts. Deer don't eat pine trees, but they relish these tender forbs. So in the long run, the fires can be a blessing for our deer herds. Again, though, the key factor in the equation is rainfall. If we don't get rainfall on those burned out areas this winter, the likelihood of them greening up next spring is fairly remote.

 

"The burned out areas are certainly a concern, but right now even the habitat where fires haven't taken a toll are being stressed. Perennial plants such as cliffrose, which is a key food source for deer, can exist a long time with low moisture from year to year, but eventually that lack of moisture will kill off individual plants. You can only stress plants so many times until they become decadent. Although this hasn't happened to any great level across the state yet, some of our range people do view it as a potential problem. For the most part, habitat is fairly resilient and will eventually recover as it always seems to do. Moisture and time are the only requirements."

 

The condition of the habitat isn't the only thing that bothers Lee, however.

 

"What concerns me more is a lack of habitat for the future. We're losing it fast as more and more people move into Arizona and especially into the places that have been traditionally good deer areas. Just look all around Phoenix, where even the desert areas within a 50-mile radius once harbored decent deer numbers. Now many of them are covered with houses and shopping malls. The same thing is occurring around Prescott, Payson, Tucson, Flagstaff or even in the White Mountains, where more and more developments of ranchettes and such are springing up. Mule deer simply won't strive in subdivisions even if the residents plant acres and acres of succulent landscaping. So even if we get several years in a row of good rainfall at the right times, we might never reach the high deer populations of the past because there will be fewer places for deer to live."

 

While the future appears filled with doom and gloom for Arizona's deer, in reality it could turn around quickly. In fact, even now there are places in the state where the herds are thriving and even growing somewhat, despite the so-so habitat conditions.

 

One such place is the North Kaibab Plateau. Several years ago, a huge fire wiped out a large portion of the winter habitat on the west side. What remained has been in good shape for the most part, so the deer have done well. Still, the game department has continually managed the deer there to keep them in check.

 

Lee feels the deer on the Kaibab are healthy.

 

"The forage is in good shape but limited right now in that it will support only so many deer. We've attempted to keep the numbers down in such a way where the herd will rebound as the burned-out area comes back. That's why we're still issuing doe permits there. If we can hold the population down to the point where it won't destroy the good habitat that now exists, we'll never have to have a drastic cut on the deer numbers there."

 

Another area where the deer have done fairly well is the far western edge of the state from Kingman on down to Yuma where rainfall has been significantly better over the last two years. The result was a slight increase in deer permits for the 2000 hunts.

 

Coues deer have also fared a bit better, according to Lee.

 

"We had been cutting back on mule deer permits for the past 10 years or so but didn't start making noticeable cuts in whitetail permits until the last couple of years. This is mainly due to the way Coues deer live in comparison to mule deer.

 

"The mule deer tend to be in larger groups. So they need more water and forage. Whitetails move in smaller groups and stay at the higher elevations where the moisture has been more prevalent. Plus, whitetails are what I like to term as a 'bushier' animal; they wander over smaller areas and use dense cover a lot more than mule deer do. The result is a lesser need for water. They get much of it from the vegetation they eat as long as the moisture content is sufficient."

 

At one time, Arizona's mule deer numbered somewhere between 250,000 to 300,000. Today, there are about 100,000, while the optimum goal for the available habitat is now about 200,000.

 

Lee feels that goal is easily attainable.

 

"It won't take much. We'll need some back to back years of good rainfall. Two would do it, but three would be even better. It can't be an 'every other one' deal. If we have successive years with good moisture, most of the does will drop twins, and during the next year, the yearling does will go into estrous and get serviced by a buck because they will have gained a lot more weight than they would have during a low-moisture year. In all likelihood that yearling will have a single fawn, but one is better than none.

 

"I certainly can't predict this will happen in the immediate future. Yet if and when it does, we could again be enjoying the glory years of plenty of deer to go around. All we need is for Mother nature to quench the thirst of our deer herds."

 

 

 

------30-----

[donniedent]

We live in the desert. There is only so much this state can offer to its wildlife. The animal populations are not going to grow nearly as fast as our hunter populations. But the number of hunters increase every year. Take into consideration the last twenty years Arizona has grown and so has the amount of hunters in the field. There is no such thing as a secret spot anymore. Look at how many cameras are being stolen. I haven't had any of mine stolen but mine are aslo two to three miles in. Which doen't make them safe. My point is how in the heck do you find a camera out in the middle of now where. The answer too many people in the field.

 

 

Archery hunters in the field have grown in numbers but not overall hunters. There are far less permits issued to rifle hunters now than 20 years ago so for that section of the hunting public there are actually less hunters in the feild. Archery hunters only take 6% of the deer taken, so how the heck are they affecting the herd numbers?? 6 out of 100 deer WILL not make or break a herd... sorry! There may be more archers out there but they aren't affecting the wildlife enough to warrant a draw system.

 

Tony,

 

I guess I just got educated... lol

 

I actually did an edit to this post after readin what you said. Now I know why G&F hasn't done it yet!

[Outdoor Writer]

Donnie,

 

Here is another one of my older articles to show deer isn't the only species where closing seasons, etc. does anything to increase populations when the HABITAT is rotten because of the lack of rain at the right times. -TONY

 

 

Mearns' Limit Cut

 

Under pressure from a segment of hunters, the 5-member Arizona Game & Fish Commission reduced the daily bag limit on Mearns’ quail from 15 to 10 birds for the 2002-2003 season, which begins on Nov. 22 and closes on Feb. 10.

 

A couple members of the commission and many within the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) viewed the limit reduction as a “social” decision likely to have no effect on the population, however.

 

The controversy over the Mearns’ quail had been brewing for several years with a contingent of hunters saying that overhunting was severely depleting the number of birds in many areas. They even claimed the birds no longer existed in some places because they had been overharvested.

 

On the other side, biologists and officials at the AGFD presented figures and facts showing the limit drop will likely do nothing in regards to increasing the number of birds from one year to the next.

 

The colorful Mearns’ quail has a small range in the United States, with the largest population along a wide swath crossing southern Arizona from the New Mexico border to the Baboquivari Mountains in the west. Nearly all of the grass-covered, oak-studded foothills of the major mountain ranges around Willcox, Benson, Patagonia, Sonoita, Ruby and those south of Tucson harbor Mearns’ quail. The Patagonia, Huachuca, Peloncillo, Chiricahua, Whetstone, San Luis, Atascosa and Dragoon Mountains support decent bird numbers.

 

Mearns’ hunting is a relatively recent happening. Because the overall range was so tiny, and biologists knew little about their reproductive capability, the colorful quail remained protected during the early 1900s. Then in 1951 Steve Gallizioli, a now-retired chief of the AGFD’s wildlife division, began an intensive quail study.

 

The initial study on Gambel's quail, conducted over a 10-year period, compared areas where hunting was allowed to other areas that were closed to hunting. Although many birds died annually from natural causes, and populations fluctuated a bit at the end of the seasons because of the immediate additive mortality from hunting, the data over the entire study had the bird counts in the hunted areas in line with those in the closed ones. A similar study on Mearns’ quail in habitat near Patagonia and Sonoita, southeast of Tucson, produced similar results.

 

The data did reveal that habitat, in the way of succulent vegetation, was the deciding factor, with rainfall as the key to the whole thing. If no rain came during the months just prior to the nesting seasons, the number of quail dropped off for the following fall.

 

In the case of the Gambel's, the rain must come during the winter months, basically from late November and into March. Later than that and the rain is wasted in respect to the birds. Mearns, on the other hand, depend on summer rains, which have been a bit more numerous during the decade.

 

The actual reason for the importance of plants in the reproductive scheme was an unknown factor for a long time. Biologists knew green vegetation was necessary, but they weren't quite sure why until research by the University of Arizona unraveled part of the mystery by determining Vitamin A was a key to the quail's sexual development for mating. The university's study found higher concentrations of the vitamin in the bird's livers when they were mating.

 

For Gambel’s quail the newly sprouting greenery, such as Vitamin A-rich alfilaria and storksbill, raise the hens' hormone level, providing the ingredients for large broods. Later, after chicks have hatched, the springtime vegetation furnishes needed forage, including a large supply of insects, for both adult and chicks. Heavy plant growth provides additional hiding places from predators, as well. When the weeds are missing, so are the birds. The same greenery growth and reproduction cycle repeats when the Mearns’ nesting period takes place in late summer.

 

Over the last decade, the spring rains have been sporadic, thus the population and harvest of Gambel’s quail have followed the same trend. The Mearns’ population has remained fairly stable, however, because the summer rains, sometimes referred as the “summer monsoons” have shown up more consistently than the early spring rains have.

 

According to AGFD’s big-game supervisor Brian Wakeling, information gathered over the last few years confirms that the limit will do little to bring about any population increase of Mearns’.

 

“Our small game surveys and wing counts tell us the average daily bag for Mearns’ quail hunters is somewhere between 1.2 and 3.5 birds per day. So dropping the limit to 10 birds will do nothing more than appease a small number of hunters,” he said. We had the limit at 8 for four years in the 1990s and the number of quail the fifth year was about what it was before we reduced the limit.”

 

To further support this biological fact, Wakeling pointed to the 2000-2001 season in which hunters killed nearly 70,000 Mearns’ quail, the best harvest since the 80,702 killed in 1979. “We predicted it would be a good year and it was. But we also predicted the 2001-2002 season would be nowhere near as good, and the harvest plummeted to 36,000. We made both predictions mostly by the rainfall patterns in the prime Mearns’ habitat,” he said. “Basically that precipitation accounts for about 47 percent of the change from one year to the next. Many other factors come into play, but the harvest by hunters is a very small part of the overall dynamics of the quail population puzzle.”

 

Game branch chief Tice Supplee said the now gone 15-bird limit was doing the job as intended, even in the drier years. “Although the mortality from hunting caused a drop in bird numbers during the season, enough birds remained for the population to rebound to pre-season numbers for the next year. When we had the 8-bird limit, it dropped the harvest by only 7 percent, and we estimate the new 10-bird limit will amount to about 3 percent fewer birds killed. We also calculated a 4-bird limit would result in a 25 percent decrease in the annual harvest. But on the grand scale of the overall population from year to year, it too would have a minimal impact,” she said.

 

Some of the people that lobbied for the lower limits even suggested closing the season for a year or more. Biologists would quickly point out that this could prove as useless as the limit reduction and instead could also be a detriment. Many resident and nonresident hunters buy licenses solely to hunt quail, so closing the season would also take a chunk out of the game department revenue.

 

In reality fewer birds result in a self-controlling factor as far as the harvest is concerned. Tough hunting due to low populations means fewer hunters go after quail. Less hunters and days afield equal fewer birds in the freezer. So just looking at the total harvest from one year to the next can be misleading.

 

“Last year’s harvest was way down from the previous year, but so were the hunter numbers and days afield. Two years ago, 8,441 hunters went after Mearns quail compared with 5,690 last year. ” Supplee said.

[donniedent]

I'm gonna copy and paste these to the other thread... thanx for the info brother.

[bcoover]

Here is some facts for you

 

Arizona's population

 

1987 3,437,103

2005 5,939,292

 

The game and fish use a 5% of the populations is hunters rule of thumb.

 

estimated hunter population

 

1987 171,855

2005 296,964

 

We have doubled the amount of hunters in this great state in the last 20 years. I am sorry to say mother nature doesn't move that fast. We have the same amount of space, water, animals etc. That does mean you can expect just as much of an increase in hikers, treehuggers, etc. Too many people, is a huge problem for the game and fish. Come up with a solution for that. I can't and it doesn't look like the game and fish can either.

 

The only thing I can see them doing is gowing deer on farms and stocking our hills like they stock fish. That is the only way you would be able to please the majority of hunters. So until then lets not get in to these stupid arguments. Where niether person really has any facts. Best of luck to everyone with a tag.

[Outdoor Writer]

Here is some facts for you

 

Arizona's population

 

1987 3,437,103

2005 5,939,292

 

The game and fish use a 5% of the populations is hunters rule of thumb.

 

estimated hunter population

 

1987 171,855

2005 296,964

 

And those figures don't even include the huge increase of NR hunters over that past two decades.

 

That said..."We have the same amount of space, water, animals etc." is a bit off the mark if we're comparing 1987 to 2005. -TONY

[donniedent]

Oh theres no doubt that the hunter population has increased but the amount of permits G&F issues has not, its gone down so how could there possibly be more hunters in the field??? Why do you think its so hard to draw tags here!

 

Now, like I said before there are thousands more archery hunters now but the percentage of deer they actually take is still only an average of 6% of what the rifle guys are taking, so its obviously not a WILDLIFE management issue, its a HUNTER management issue. Lets not call it something its not. To claim that the increase in archery hunters is hurting the deer herds and thats the reason for the change is just not correct. All the units game and fish intends on adding a draw to have high archery success but also have low rifle success (except for the units above the canyon and those are the ones that need a draw) so its not that hard to get the achery success above the 20% they are talking about. If rifle hunters only take 10 deer out of a 100 tag unit and archers take 3, you're already above the 20% mark they are talking about. AGAIN, they need to quit trying to manage hunters so much and manage the dang wildlife more!

 

 

Donnie

[Packer]

Donniedent,

I hate for this to be my first post but I have to say something. First off you math is way off. Archery hunters do not only take 6% of the total number of deer taken but rather they have a 6% success rate. That means that for every 100 hunters out there they kill 6 deer, give or take. The problem with having OTC tags in some units, I will refer to unit 1 as that is what I am familiar with, is that there is no way to currently limit the number of hunters. I know that 6% success sounds low but when you are talking 6% of an unlimited number of hunters that number can add up. I don't know how many of you hunt unit 1 but there has to be several thousand archery deer hunters in the field, at least that is the way it feels, during the opening and labor day weekends. 6% of several thousand can be quite a few deer. Additionally, we all know and have felt the fact that the game and fish department is currently offering less tags than in the past. This does not change the fact that there are more hunters in the state. All this means is that there are more people trying to get fewer tags, hence trying to make more opportunity so that a larger percentage are in the field and not just spending their time arguing on different forums about how the Game and fish is trying to screw everyone. Sure this may be a hunter management issue, but with the number of people out there that translates into a wildlife management issue, hence going to a drawing for rifle hunters back in the day. Can you immagine if that arguement was made when the state first went to a draw and they left all rifle tags as over the counter? Can you say deer extinction. At some point this state could handle the number of rifle hunters and not have to worry about a drawing but eventually the number of hunters exceeded that capacity. I see the same thing happening now for archery. At one point we could handle the stress that it put on the herds as a whole and at some point we have to realize that the herds need some help. I just hope we all realize this before things get too ugly.

 

Bobbyo,

Game and Fish is not being biased against archery hunters, in my opinion, they are just managing what they have control over. Currently, yes when a unit has high hunt success they increase the number of tags. If units go to OTC for archery then they too will reap a benefit of rifle hunters have a higher hunt success. As hunt success goes up tag numbers should go up for both rifle and archery, if they are to keep the ratios right as they have been talking about.

 

Anyway, I think that is enough for a first post.

 

Packer

[donniedent]

Actually Packer, you're right my numbers are off. The success rate statewide is only 4.4% for archers. Unit 1 was 3% with 28 deer taken. So there may be thousands of archers there but they ain't shooting that many deer.

 

That number isn't just one year. Its from the last 5 years.

 

The highest success rate was out of 35A at 9.8% or 37.4 deer.

 

12A was 6.8% or 168 deer

 

I do agree that 12a needs to be put on a draw.

 

We as archers make such a low impact that it doesn't make good management sense to put any of the units south of the ditch on a draw.

 

Packer welcome to the forum and thanks for your input.

 

Donnie

 

The numbers I posted are from Dave Kings letter to the comission. He got his numbers from the "Hunt Arizona -2007 edition- Survey, Harvest & Hunt Data For Big Game" booklet.