Let your voice be heard

[JustinB]

Here you go. You here lots of people on here express feelings of not being to found of the current hunt structure being managed for oppurtunity to hunt vs having a quality hunting experience. This is the chance for your voice to be heard. There might be a real impact if sportsman turn out and express their opinions. Hope as many as possible can make it to one of the meetings around the state.

http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/2017-pronghorn-elk-hunt-recommendations-to-be-available-for-review.shtml

[5guyshunting]

Real nice they avoided phoenix.

[Zeke-BE]

I am interested in what you guys would ask, or wish to bring up? I don't get into this enough.

[billrquimby]

Count me as among those who are not fond of the current hunt structure. However, it is because Arizona could offer even more opportunity than it does. A quality hunting experience does not mean staying home or traveling to another state because we can not draw a tag.

 

We hunters and fishermen are our own worst enemies. Avid fishermen campaign for reducing limits in the belief they are saving the resource and ignore there can be unintended consequences.

 

For example, when the Arizona trout limit was 10 per day, many people quit fishing on slow days after catching just three or four fish. With a six-fish limit today, a large number of anglers with three or four trout will keep fishing because a six fish limit seems more attainable than a ten fish limit. Unintended consequence: More fish may be taken by the same number of anglers.

 

Avid hunters who lobby for antler-size minimums and fewer hunters in the field ignore that it is not (and should not be) the mission of a state wildlife agency to grow trophy animals for fewer hunters. Unintended consequence of reducing hunter numbers: Those who want to end all hunting move another step closer to their goal.

 

Bill Quimby

[JustinB]

Count me as among those who are not fond of the current hunt structure. However, it is because Arizona could offer even more opportunity than it does. A quality hunting experience does not mean staying home or traveling to another state because we can not draw a tag. We hunters and fishermen are our own worst enemies. Avid fishermen campaign for reducing limits in the belief they are saving the resource and ignore there can be unintended consequences. For example, when the Arizona trout limit was 10 per day, many people quit fishing on slow days after catching just three or four fish. With a six-fish limit today, a large number of anglers with three or four trout will keep fishing because a six fish limit seems more attainable than a ten fish limit. Unintended consequence: More fish may be taken by the same number of anglers. Avid hunters who lobby for antler-size minimums and fewer hunters in the field ignore that it is not (and should not be) the mission of a state wildlife agency to grow trophy animals for fewer hunters. Unintended consequence of reducing hunter numbers: Those who want to end all hunting move another step closer to their goal. Bill Quimby

So what do you think the best solution will be Bill? I am not suggesting fewer hunters or fewer hunters in the woods. I am thinking fewer hunters in the woods at one time. Break seasons up offering multiple seasons/hunts. That might alleviate seeing more hunters in the field than game. I would imagine the same number overall but they spread out over early, middle and late. I think this is how that conversation needs to start. Sportsman kicking around a multitude of ideas to help guide the process. I have been told multiple time now by AZGFD officers that they are no longer managing units for trophy quality animals. That is silly. We have some of the best elk hunting in the country. We should be managing certain units for trophy quality hunts. If your not after a trophy hunt you simply apply for another unit. i think as a community we need to start making and promoting suggestions vs. just bitching about poor experiences. There are a lot of moving parts and by fixing one item it is inevitably going to affect another adversely. they get such a small turn out at these events and so little input. Sportsman need to take a more active role in helping guide this process.

[JustinB]

Real nice they avoided phoenix.

wow. I hadnt noticed that. i guess Mesa is a close as its gonna get. Must be the lack of population density right? I joke.

[metau]

They are being held at each regional office. Region 6 headquarters are in Mesa.

[jim]

I attended the last meeting in Kingman about the elk and antelope recommendations. Me and My wife were the only 2 that showed up. Last meeting before that I went to only 7 to 8 folks.

[Xnt]

I am interested in what you guys would ask, or wish to bring up? I don't get into this enough.

 

Antler point restrictions for deer tags, especially in the southern units where they are desperately needed.

[AZ8]

Too late in game. The time for suggestions is over. These open houses are simply a question and answer session as the guidelines have already been determined. This is just a formality before the Commission approves them on Dec 3rd.

[billrquimby]

JustinB -- What we need is access to all public land where hunting is allowed. Too much is inaccessable because private landowners (and land agencies) lock up or eliminate historic access roads and this concentrates hunters and their camps along the only roads still open. We already have stratified seasons that reduce the number of people afield at the same time. If we continue down that route, we could have a bunch of three-day seasons with a day of rest between them. It is not silly for wildlife managers to say they do not manage for trophy quality. Growing trophies for fewer hunters should never be their mission. As bowhunters who hunt the rut know, there are trophy bucks that have eluded hunters for five, six, or even more years in every unit. Those same deer were available in the earlier seasons but were too smart to allow themselves to be killed by hunters. -- Bill Quimby

[MRL1984]

Bill I disagree on you with less tags. The rate of hunters and knowledge they have requires less folks in the field. The 36s are hammered with too many hunts and hunters. Go back to a 4 day, 10 day and December Whitetail hunt for rifle. No left over tags available. Maybe even a year where it's doe or perhaps make junior hunts doe only, seems to work on the Kaibab.

 

Not a matter of growing trophies as it sustaining the population. I'm not going anti despite not having an elk tag in 20 year, so folks will survive not having a deer tag for a year or two.

[billrquimby]

"so folks will survive not having a deer tag for a year or two." The question is why must anyone have to stay home? Nearly 80 percent of Arizona is in some form of public ownership, and a lot more than one half of our big state could be hunted if historic roads were reopened. -- Bill Quimby

[MRL1984]

"so folks will survive not having a deer tag for a year or two." The question is why must anyone have to stay home? Nearly 80 percent of Arizona is in some form of public ownership, and a lot more than one half of our big state could be hunted if historic roads were reopened. -- Bill Quimby

Sustainability is as good a reason as any. We all get a 34B lope tag, a sheep tag and a goulds tag as well then right? There won't be anything left to hunt.

[208muley]

Being a hunter and having an opinion on game management in this state is about as worthless as me typing this on this topic. Azgfds mind is already made up on what they are gonna do and wether we like it or hate it we will still buy every tag they offer us and thank them for the OPPORTUNITY to buy overpriced tags in over hunted units.