Survey: Hunting Archery and Rifle Seasons

[cmc]

The possible reason you don't hear noise about cow tags is because it makes good management sense. Theres a valid reason for it. I don't even hear much noise when they drop bull tags. I mean there is grumbling but not surveys like this one. This isn't about lowering tags, its about shuffling things around for some strange reason. They aren't even following their own protocol!

 

 

uh... it was 98% based on tag shuffeling around. You might want to go look that one up. When time permits I'll find ya the info.

 

 

cmc

[donniedent]

The possible reason you don't hear noise about cow tags is because it makes good management sense. Theres a valid reason for it. I don't even hear much noise when they drop bull tags. I mean there is grumbling but not surveys like this one. This isn't about lowering tags, its about shuffling things around for some strange reason. They aren't even following their own protocol!

 

 

uh... it was 98% based on tag shuffeling around. You might want to go look that one up. When time permits I'll find ya the info.

 

 

cmc

 

 

You don't have to look it up, I remember the instance you're talking about. Well... you have a good point. Still doesn't change the fact that G&F is managing hunters more than the wildlife and that their decisions sure don't make alot of good sense. They need to take some lessons from Colorado or Wyoming, shoot Wyoming doesn't have much more water as of late than we do and they have a great deer herd.

 

 

Donnie

[cmc]

They need to take some lessons from Colorado or Wyoming, shoot Wyoming doesn't have much more water as of late than we do and they have a great deer herd.

 

 

Donnie

 

 

They are taking lessons from CO. Heck WE have a commissioner that's retired biologist from the CO G&F that's now calling the shots here in AZ. I might remind you that the majority of CO manages herds for Quanity... not Quality. Hence the changes you're seeing take place recently. That alone is probably the root cause of your observations and frustration. At least from my perspective working extensively with the department. Oh and I don't put blame on that one individual mind you. Wildlife management is a group effort.

 

cmc

[crazy4COUES]

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

 

No, I read the whole thing.

 

"They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity" ...that told me all I needed to know.

 

 

cmc

 

 

LIKE I SAID BEFORE NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT ELK DOWN SOUTH....what am I missing that you are getting?

[cmc]

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

 

No, I read the whole thing.

 

"They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity" ...that told me all I needed to know.

 

 

cmc

 

 

LIKE I SAID BEFORE NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT ELK DOWN SOUTH....what am I missing that you are getting?

 

 

I get that for you, it's all about money. That's fine. Your opinion and I'm not out to change it.

 

I see the department answering the public outcry for the hunters of this state over the past few years of "I haven't been drawn in x amount of years, why is the department so stingy with tags, all the surveys (even like this one on CWT) keep saying the public wants more tags and more opportunity" Sooooo they restructure for more tags, quantity over quality just like Colorado, and now they get the public outcry of they are only in this business for the money.

 

I guess my point is they'll never win in the (internet) publics eye. Someones bound to be disgruntled.

[crazy4COUES]

You have mis-understood what "OPPORTUNITY" I am referring to. It is the G&F term that they want to use to screw up everything just as you mentioned. I am using it with some sarcasim, because they have used what we consider "opportunity" to screw with us. The first time I heard this phrase was when they had a meeting about the archery elk hunts. They asked what we, the hunting public, wanted? The majority wanted an increased opportunity to draw an elk tag. The G&F turn that around to restructure the hunts for more "opportunity" and less quality. This created a uprising among the hunting public. People spoke up and defended what they had. Most hunters are tired of having no elk tags while others have multiple tags within a couple years, sometimes back to back. One suggestion was after drawing an elk tag the person would have to "sit out" of the draw for two years. Thus allowing someone else an "increased opportunity" to draw a tag. To say the least nothing has been done. By the way I am not talking about elk down south.

 

Now they want to take our OTC deer hunts that account for 6% of harvest objectives and make them a draw. Meanwhile the rifle tags can account for 2/3 rds the objective with no changes. Why don't they look at it like this: total harvest objective 20%, right? Archery hunters (OTC) 6%, rifle hunters 17%. OOPs we need to reduce the rifle tags because our harvest objective was exceeded. Get it? It is because of money!

[donniedent]

Now that I've heard more than a couple sentences from cmc I understand what he's saying.

 

I'm gonna play devils advocate here:

 

Who are the guys that are actually gonna put in for an archery draw? Hardcore guys.

What kind of deer are the hardcore guys after? Tropheys.

What kind of deer are the average Joes shooting? Anything.

Whats gonna happen to the smaller bucks in those units that aren't hunted as hard? Their gonna have a chance to get bigger.

Whats gonna happen to those units after about 5 years of this? They will have a larger buck population with an older average age class of bucks.

 

You know if they tweeked this a little and possibly added point restrictions as well as the draw and let guys have a liberal season it may end up working out pretty well for the deer.

 

hmmmm.

 

Donnie

[donniedent]

What if G&F did this:

 

You draw a permit for unit x. You can hunt the early hunt with a bow, if you don't tag out you come back for the rifle hunt and then if you don't tag out with a rifle, you come back with a bow for the rut hunt. (If its a unit that can handle a rut hunt) Or they have a completely seprate tag you have to draw for the rut hunt and only offer maybe 50 tags but you can hunt with a rifle. Basically you get one tag.

 

 

What do you guys think about that and why????

 

Trivia Question: Which state already does it this way???

[Packer]

"That is the problem I have is the G&F manages for MONEY PERIOD. If they want to help arizona residents with increased hunter opportunity then eliminate more non-resident hunts."

 

crazy$COUES,

If you read this statement you made and really look at it for what it is you will see that it makes very little sense. I have not done any hunting out of state as of yet and have only begun to look at those opportunities that exist elsewhere. I have noticed however that there are many states that are way more liberal at granting us "non-residents" tags than Arizona is. Take for instance Colorado; there are many units that have upwards of 30% of the tags allocated to non-residents. This means that they are basically set aside and residents do not even have a chance at them. Arizona on the other hand allows a max of 10% of the tags in any specific hunt to go to non-residents. This does not mean that they are guaranteed this many, this is just the max. I think we should count ourselves lucky to have the limits we do on how many non-residents are allowed to hunt here.

 

 

"Now they want to take our OTC deer hunts that account for 6% of harvest objectives and make them a draw. Meanwhile the rifle tags can account for 2/3 rds the objective with no changes. Why don't they look at it like this: total harvest objective 20%, right? Archery hunters (OTC) 6%, rifle hunters 17%. OOPs we need to reduce the rifle tags because our harvest objective was exceeded. Get it? It is because of money!"

 

I thought I answered this with my first post but will try to clarify it again. OTC deer hunts do not account for 6% of the harvest objective but they average 6% harvest. So for every 100 hunters about 6 deer are killed. Rifle tags account for about 80% of the harvest, as they want the remaining 20% for the archers. This is based off the survey that said a majority of the hunters in the state are rifle hunters (I am assuming about 80% or so). The total harvest objective is 100% so the last part of your statement makes no sense.

 

Also just as a side note; the reason that they have not adjusted permits in unit 1 is because the hunt success has remained steady at just above 20% for the last five years, according to the hunt Arizona book.

 

I don't even know why I have been compelled to join this post as it is getting off track and is not accomplishing anything, other than getting people's blood pressure to rise. I think at this point people have their minds made up and may not be looking at things with an open mind. I do beleive that at some point WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT does come down to managing people. I think that way back in hunter ed when I was 10 or so I learned that hunting was a tool that was used to regulate game animal populations. If we did not have hunting as a tool there would obviously be some major negative consequences as a result. Without being able to manage hunting, by allowing more opportunity (ie OTC tags) or by limiting that opportunity (ie going to a draw) then we are tying the hands of the managers. Now if all of you that are saying that the department is doing this without wildlife in mind would put your biological background forward and give some good scientific advice on how to limit harvest in a state with an ever increasing population of hunters, I am sure that all of us here and the department would be all ears. However, if you are just making statements that seem to "sound good" on the computer screen but have no scientific basis then maybe we should not make so many comments. After all, not using science is what we have accused the department of so why should we hold them to any higher standard than ourselves.

 

Anyway, before my blood pressure rises any more I will let you all mull over that and fire away.

 

Packer

[Outdoor Writer]

"I do beleive that at some point WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT does come down to managing people. I think that way back in hunter ed when I was 10 or so I learned that hunting was a tool that was used to regulate game animal populations. If we did not have hunting as a tool there would obviously be some major negative consequences as a result. Without being able to manage hunting, by allowing more opportunity (ie OTC tags) or by limiting that opportunity (ie going to a draw) then we are tying the hands of the managers. Now if all of you that are saying that the department is doing this without wildlife in mind would put your biological background forward and give some good scientific advice on how to limit harvest in a state with an ever increasing population of hunters, I am sure that all of us here and the department would be all ears. However, if you are just making statements that seem to "sound good" on the computer screen but have no scientific basis then maybe we should not make so many comments. After all, not using science is what we have accused the department of so why should we hold them to any higher standard than ourselves.

 

Packer

 

Never interject common sense and facts into a good argument!!! -TONY

[donniedent]

Well, the nice thing is, if you have an open mind and are willing to listen, forums like this can really bring some clarity to sometimes cloudy subjects.

 

Above all, sometimes I wish G&F would be a little clearer as to their intentions. I think that sometimes they fail to provide all the colateral effects of their decisions. I do believe if they tried a little harder to help the hunters understand the overall picture, they would recieve much more support from alot of guys (like me) that just want to understand "The Big Picture". I understand they have a tough job, balancing wildlife management with the desires of hunters, but it seems they'd want our full support and a full explanation and an overview of all the impacts of thier decisions might go a long way with us regular Joes. Shoot its taken me almost 5 pages on this forum and alot of typing to come even close to understanding why they are doing what they are doing.

 

Just thoght I'd throw that in.

 

Donnie

[Huntn coues]

"Hunters play an important role by providing some of the information from the field that wildlife managers need"

 

Right out of the hunters hand book. This is what we are teaching at hunters ed so maybe it's time that they actually

listen to us with a open mind. We as hunters probably know alot more than they think as far as buck to doe ratio's'

feed, water situations etc.....

 

I have been amazed at the knowledge that alot of you guy's bring to this site and I just hope one day that

AZGFD will listen to us to some extent.

[cmc]

Awesome post Packer.

 

cmc

[Ron G.]

"I don't even know why I have been compelled to join this post as it is getting off track and is not accomplishing anything, other than getting people's blood pressure to rise. I think at this point people have their minds made up and may not be looking at things with an open mind. I do beleive that at some point WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT does come down to managing people. I think that way back in hunter ed when I was 10 or so I learned that hunting was a tool that was used to regulate game animal populations. If we did not have hunting as a tool there would obviously be some major negative consequences as a result. Without being able to manage hunting, by allowing more opportunity (ie OTC tags) or by limiting that opportunity (ie going to a draw) then we are tying the hands of the managers. Now if all of you that are saying that the department is doing this without wildlife in mind would put your biological background forward and give some good scientific advice on how to limit harvest in a state with an ever increasing population of hunters, I am sure that all of us here and the department would be all ears. However, if you are just making statements that seem to "sound good" on the computer screen but have no scientific basis then maybe we should not make so many comments. After all, not using science is what we have accused the department of so why should we hold them to any higher standard than ourselves.

 

Well said Packer!

[redline410]

This is just a random thought and Tony, you probably are the best one to direct it to since it baffles me everytime I think about it and you seem to have done significant research on the affects of drought on wildlife but everyone else can check it out too:

 

The Walnut Canyon Game enclosure in unit 22 caps out every year as far as number of deer per square mile. it's been a couple of years since I had spoken with the WM in charge of the facility, Stan Cunningham was his name, but if I recall correctly they maintain 50 or 60 deer in this one square mile enclosure. After that they punch a hole in the fence and run a few out. Same vegetation, same rain fall, one guzzler yet there is something like a 110% fawn crop every year (for you mathematicians, that extra 10% is because of twins ) and the horn growth on the bucks is insane. Now, if drought is such an issue how is it that that little slice of heaven can produce boomer bucks and ridiculous numbers of fawns while the world on the outside of the chain link is just scraping by??

 

With the only difference being the lack of predators on the inside, I gotta think that drought has much less of a impact than everyone thinks. That nasty ol' desert can more than sustain a deer population of 60 deer/sq. mi. based on the Walnut Canyon study and there are areas in this state with much greater vegetation and water resources.

 

My non-biology degree having arse is far more inclined to believe predation and poor management has a lot more to do with the decline of the deer herds than archers and drought...........

 

stay loose guys and dolls-

 

Dave