gamespec

The fall Turkey and bear can be changed April 21, but these hunts are placed where they are for different and important reasons. When we start messing with these interconnected hunts it always snowballs and we end up with a lot more unforseen problems like the one we are trying to fix here. JIM

I agree that there is no reason we can't have certain areas that remain quality deer areas. The Department has an "Alternative Deer Management Plan" for those areas. Opportunity is not the emphasis there. JIM

Regarding the Kaibab antlerless hunt, the Flagstaff folks will have to provide details about the recommendation. As a deer biologist watching them make that recommendation for 15 years and seeing the data behind it, I feel very comfortable that they are doing what is right for the long-term health of the deer herd and its habitat. Red Rabbit mentioned antlerless hunts and "opportunity" but these are not related. The Dept does not use antlerless hunts to provide opportunity. You only kill does when you think the populaiton is, or will be, over the carrying capacity of the habitat (based on vegetation monitoring). The number of doe tags recommended each year is based solely on biology and not sociology. Doe tag recommendations are based on the condition of the winter range right now that deer are done using it for the year and the projection of whether the population will increase, decrease, or stay the same by the time the deer go back onto winter range in November. The buck-only hunts are where you look for opportunity. Regarding the archery hunts: I called Brian Wakeling yesterday to try to understand exactly what is behind the overlap. He explained it to me over the phone at length and in detail, but frankly I missed it all and didn't fully understand what was going on. I think everyone on this forum deserves some kind of explanation about why it is the way it is. Then, you can decide if you want to provide the Commission with comments and you can better formulate your comments and suggestions. So when I got in the office today I got out the regs for 2005, 2006, and the proposed for 2007. I made a table showing what the deer and elk archery dates have been the last 3 years. Then I called him again and asked him to speak more slowly so my feable mind could grasp the details. Here's what I learned: We start the seasons on the same Friday each year and run the seasons for the same number of days. We have to have some kind of structure so we have consistency. The deer archery hunt starts the Friday of week 35 and runs for 22 days; the elk archery hunt starts the Friday of week 37 and runs 14 days. This is all published in the Hunt Guidelines that the department makes public each year at public hunt meetings. The Archery deer always ends the day before the archery elk with this system. Here's the dates from 2005-07: 2005 -- Deer: 8/26 - 9/15 Elk 9/16 - 29 2006 -- Deer: 9/1 - 21 Elk 9/22 - 10/5 Here's what WAS originally proposed for 2007 -- Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/21 - 10/4 (this follows our rule of starting the Fri of Week 37) The Department and Commission received complaints from some archers that this elk season was too late and they asked the Commission to move it 1 week earlier. I do not have the names of people requesting this, but it was in a public meeting so I'm sure someone in the archery community knows where this came from (although I doubt they'd speak up now). The proposed dates going before the Commission April 21st are: Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/14 - 27 (creating a 7-day overlap) Responding to this input and hearing no opposition at the public meeting, the Commission manually took the archery elk hunt out of the structured time frame and moved it one week earlier to overlap better with the rut. They realized there was an overlap with the deer archery season, but no one in attendance spoke about that being a problem. The input the Dept received was that it would be really great to be able to hunt squirrels, bear, deer, and elk (if drawn) just like the "fruit salad hunts" of the good 'ol days. If this is not desireable let us hear from you (officially). That's what the public process is all about. We welcome suggestions on how we can do a better job. You are all an important part of the process. Now, what are the options? The elk archery season is set and final, as is the squirrel season so we can't do anything about those. The archery deer hunt can basically be truncated to end one week earlier on 9/13/07; or the whole archery deer hunt can be shifted one week earlier so it is the same number of days and would be 8/24 - 9/13. Be aware that shifting the whole archery deer season then means that the bear, squirrel, turkey, and fall archery javelina no longer coincide with the archery deer like they usually do, which could create some accidental violations from confused hunters. JIM

You're right there is always room for improvement. I have over 45 different recommendations in the fall just for Region 5 (there are 5 other regions). It would be difficult for me (or the department) to publish a detailed account of each recommendation -- I have 2 big binders and a couple of other files I take to the Commission Meeting. Each recommendation - even those that do not change - starts with a recommendation justification from the WM - some are 5 pages long. Nothing is secret, it is just a matter of how would you ever publish all that information each year and who would want to wade through the hundreds of pages. Any individual recommendation can be explained and data can be provided to anyone who is interested. I am always happy to open the data books and dive in with an interested hunter. Now, that being said, you are right about big recommendations or those that are perpetual sticking points (like antlerless Kaibab tags) -- we could and should provide more justification some where so that the public can see right up front why the recommendation is what it is. I do not know the details this year, but if Red Rabbit is right that the fawn:100 doe ratio is near 100:100 and if (?) the winter range the deer just left is browsed over 50% then we as responsible sportsmen may need to take management actions to keep the deer population within the capacity of the winter range next year. When a reduction in the deer populaiton is needed I hope sportsmen will be our partners and not an obstruction to good management. Here's an example of the type of information that is used to determine if antlerless tags are needed (from 2001): JIM

Excellent post Red Rabbit - thanks for sharing that information. Proof that questions beat ranting any day. I'm hoping someone with a lot of experience hunting Colorado for years will jump in. That state was (now I'm REALLY out of my backyard) over-the-counter deer tags for a long time and only recently started to limit the harvest with a draw -- like AZGFD has been doing since 1971. Colorado's B:D ratios have come up in just the last few years. According to Bruce Watkins (Colorado Div of Wildlife): "All deer licenses in Colorado became limited in 1999 because of concern about declining deer populations and low buck:doe ratios. Prior to 1999, most licenses for antlered deer had been unlimited and issued over-the-counter. As a result of limitations, the number of deer hunters in Colorado dropped from an average of 185,300/year from 1980-1998 to 84,400/year from 1999-2005 and statewide harvest dropped from an average of 64,000 deer/year to 36,600 deer/year during the same periods." The hunters are not unhappy with the new system from what I have heard, BUT (this is important!) even with this frightening drop in the number of tags, all or almost all hunters get to go deer hunting each year. This is a major difference from AZ. We have somewhere around 40,000 people that can't go deer hunting each year. Dr. Watkins continues: "Even so, demand for limited deer licenses in many units has remained relatively low. In most units, hunters have an opportunity to draw a deer license without preference points. Some Colorado deer hunters appear to have shifted to elk hunting, where unlimited licenses are still available, whereas others appear to have stopped hunting big game in Colorado altogether." The big question in my mind is "where did those 100,000 hunters go that no longer hunt deer in CO?" (185,300-84,400). In my opinion, the slippery slope for our kid's future is maintaining a conservative harvest so less people can harvest older bucks. We need to get more of those 40,000 out in the field if we are to keep hunting strong and preserve our heritage. In my personal opinion, opposing an increase in deer tags so you can kill a bigger buck is selfish and not in the best interest of hunting in the big picture (there, I did my part to keep this thread going strong!) When the department used the nation's leading natural resource human dimensions company to survey a random sample of hunt applicants, the results showed that just getting a tag was more important than getting a mature buck. That is the same result they have found in state after state when they asked that question (asked basically the same way). That company (Responsive Management, Inc.) is considered the leader in this sort of thing and their methods and statistics are state of the art. I know there's a lot of discontent about that survey among some people, but the methods are rock solid and the quesitons are what I see used all over the country. I am the Chair of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' "Mule Deer Working Group." This is a group of one mule deer expert from each of 23 western states and Canadian provinces and we won the Wildlife Management Institute's "Touchstone Award" last year for the work we have done for mule and black-tailed deer. In my many and frequent discussions with all those deer experts across western North America, I am always struck by how well AZGFD is respected as a leader in the West when it comes to managing deer with current data. There are other states that do some things better than us, but we really are seen as one of the best. I've worked for, and close to, other state agencies and I am so proud to be with this outfit. Again, I would encourage anyone with "issues" as they say, to call the local regional AZGFD office and ask some "How come you....?" questions. Jim

I'm getting off here then, because I need to get materials together to look at tonight. When I came in the office today I noticed a big (new) sign on the door saying that weapons are not allowed in the building. All I can say is "Perfect Timing!"

That figures. The one quesiton outside my region that I tried to answer just to be of assistance I apparently got all wrong . My apologies if I was the source for misinformation this time. I think readers understand that I was not trying to deceive anyone, just trying to help. I'll stay in my own backyard from now on. Thanks for the correction! JIM

Just a note: I'm not here because anyone told me to -- I'm here because I care about you all getting good information and having your questions answered. In fact, I have some very important things that were supposed to be done long ago, and I set all that aside to provide some information here. In fact I have to get materials ready for this Open House! I posted a response to the WT 31 thread a short while ago so here's a link. http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...?showtopic=5527 You don't have to agree, but you should ask specific quesitons to the specific issues you are interested in. Your regional office is your best bet for on-the-ground details related to hunt recommendations - that's where the recommendations come from. Also, keep things in perspective: We are a $68+ million/year agency, the money generated from a couple hundred more deer tags is not what drives our management decisions. JIM

Sorry for the delay, I thought I clicked on the spot that would notify me of replys. Our WMs surveyed (actually saw) 334 WTs in 137 groups during the Dec 15 - Feb 15 survey period in Unit 33. The Bucks:100 Does was 26, which is up from the 5-year average of 22. Our management guidelines indicate a decrease in permits when the B:100D ratio is below 20 and an increase above 30. This unit seems to be right in guidelines. As for Fawns:100Does we had 31:100 and that indicates a decrease in permits (range to stay the same - 35-45). The hunt success was 40% in the Oct hunt, 37% in the Nov hunt and 56% in the Dec hunt. That is very high! We now manage for 15-20% hunt success in the Oct/Nov hunts (the Dec hunt success is usually twice the Oct/Nov so we don't include that when deciding permit adjustments). We have not used volunteers in the past because it takes a certain amount of effort to coordinate surveys and maintain consistency among surveyors. I have some hunting partners that I would not want contributing DATA to the state's survey database. I think just manageing the quality control among an army of volunteers would be difficult. You might have people also with dubious intents thinking that if they turn in mostly doe sightings then AZGFD will lower permits and make his archery spot better. We also need to make sure the same deer are not counted twice. WMs make sure they don't survey the same areas more than once. This would be harder to coordinate with volunteers. More importantly, we have analyzed the survey data over the years and found that when you reach a certain point, the ratios don't change. Once you get a sample size that adequately estimates the whole populaiton, then more deer don't change the overall estimate. Each WM has a target sample size and we reach that in most units. Jim

Wow What a lively discussion we have here! As Coues7 said there is a lot of misunderstanding about what these regional open houses really are. The concept is new (last year). It is not the old public hunt meetings we used to have (we will have those this summer) - they are simply this: An opportunity for anyone to come in to the office afterhours and look at the documents that are posted on-line (if they don't have internet access) and, more importantly, to talk to an AZGFD biologist about why we are doing this or doing that. From reading the posts in this thread I can see what a great need there is for a little two-way dialog. Most of these questions posted are very good questions (I would have worded some differently!). An open house like this allows you to come in and ask very specific questions and then you and the biologist can look at the data and guidleines together and he/she can explain why each change was made. This is much better in my opinion than just a runaway train of complaints. Here is the press release I wrote to explain to everyone what this open house really is. This was supposed to be distributed far and wide. After talking to Coues7 I called around the dept and did some research and found out that we as a department did a very poor job at advertizing these. My press release (below) went only to the Tucson Citizen and the AZ Daily Star. Game Branch thought the regions were doing a good job in advertizing these and they did not send it out or post it anywhere. That's not good and we will do better in the future. I just checked our website and found that the notice of these open houses was not distributed in the Wildlife News e-mails, Hunter Highlights e-newletter, not posted on the Sportsman's Calendar, nor was it on the website as new information. I'm embarrassed that we didn't do better - I will personnally make sure we do it right next time. Here's my press release: “The Arizona Game and Fish Department is holding an open house at the Tucson Office to allow the public an opportunity to review the fall hunt recommendation packet. This open house will occur 6-8pm on April 10, 2007. There will not be a presentation at this open house and no input will be recorded, however the draft regulations will be distributed for review before they are finalized by the Commission at their Public meeting on April 21, 2007 in Phoenix. This is a chance to review the Department’s hunt recommendations to the Commission prior to that meeting for those who may want to provide input directly to the Commission. Public meetings will be held this summer to obtain comments on the Hunt Guidelines (season structures and management guidelines, not permit levels) for the next 2 years” As for the specific questions that appear in this thread, I can't do a good job at answering those that are outside of SE AZ. But, your copy of the regs and the AZGFD website (and 1411) have the numbers of all the AZGFD offices in the state. It is so easy to just pick up the phone and call and get more information about a specific topic. For example if someone called and said: "Why is your head so far.....I mean, why are you increasing WT permits in GMU 31 when I didn't see any deer last season in 10 days of glassing?" I would pull out my data binder and go to WT31 and see that the B:D ratio was 40:100 this year (after the 2006 seasons) with 138 deer sampled. This is quite a bit above the 20-30 we manage for. It is also a steady continuation of a multi-yr increase in this respect. The B:D ratio has increased from 16, 27, 32, to 40 in the last 4 years. In addition, the hunt success was 26% in the Oct hunt, 28% in the Nov hunt, and 47% in the Dec hunt. We start thinking about increases in permits if B:D is over 30 and hunt success in the Oct/Nov hunts is over 20%. So several pieces of informaiton (that's not all we use) indicated we could let a few more people hunt WT in 31 in the fall of 2007. This 100 permit increase will result in another 23 bucks killed in more than 400 square miles of WT habitat in 31. I think this is a reasonable recommendation and in keeping with the way we have successfully managed deer herds for many decades. I lay this out there as an example of why we made this particular recommendation. There is a similar story for every one of the comments in this thread. You may not agree with the department's recommendation, but there is a good reason (in the opinion of the biologist) for each change. Miscellaneous comments: The MD hunts in 29 and 31 were getting to such small permit levels that we thought it would be better to combine the hunts into one Nov hunt to reduce the interference with WT hunters in the Oct time frame. The number of MD hunters in the field should still be below the number we used to have during the Nov hunts when we had much higher permits. This should be a good deal for everyone. I was told that the Elk archery hunt was moved earlier so it would better encompass the peak of rut. This was a move the department made in response to public comment. The overlap with the deer archers was the result (we DO listen and sometimes it gets us in trouble with other users). If you feel strongly about this being a good or bad thing, you know what to do. I always hear about how the dept doesn't listen, but those of you that have been to April commission meetings know this is not true as a rule. I don't remember an antlerless Kaibab recommendation that was approved as recommended. Polite and well-reasoned public comment does make a difference. Keep in mind that there is a large segment of the hunting public that does not come to the April commission meeting and have never posted on this site. We have to manage for them also. One more comment, but an important one. I read "us" and "them" way too much. With all the challenges we will see in the future of hunting, let's remember that the "moat" is out there around us all. Jim Heffelfinger Tucson Regional Game Specialist AZGFD