Hunt proposal, more limited archery units

[Flatlander]

11 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

it can’t be too difficult to put in place.  

Did you see what happened when they tried to simply update their portal?

🤦‍♂️🤣🤦‍♂️🤣

[Desertguide]

5 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

Did you see what happened when they tried to simply update their portal?

🤦‍♂️🤣🤦‍♂️🤣

Exactly... mine still isn't right... lol

[68OLDS]

4 minutes ago, Flatlander said:

Did you see what happened when they tried to simply update their portal?

🤦‍♂️🤣🤦‍♂️🤣

Good point, was sort of thinking that as I was typing the post.  

[Desertguide]

Going back to the NR draw idea...

We have quite a few clients that come every year to hunt with us in Jan that are also building points. I can't imagine NR's that are building points being willing to burn them on an archery rut hunt. I would bet that less than half of the NR's who currently come for the OTC hunts would apply for the same hunt if it went to a draw. Maybe even closer 1/3. That's a pretty good loss in revenue. 

[AZBIG10]

3 hours ago, AZtroutman said:

So they think people will give up hunting because they have to answer a 5 minute survey? 🤔 makes sense 

I almost left Cw because I had read this reply. TL:DR

[Delw]

Got to take a quick break,

Regards to mandatory hunters surveys/ or volunteer surveys. There unreliable no if's an's or butts about it.

your asking hunters to do a survey, most most will tell a white lie to get what they want ie more tags. so the survey comes around and 20 people say no deer taken 10 people say deer taken. hunters will lie about what they shot if it means more tags or keeping a units open for OTC tags. when they had it in the past lots of hunters said no they didnt get one hoping G&F would see poor results and increase the tags. hence why they have a system that doesnt involve the general public. cause bottom line they cant be trusted even on a survey.

Seen it happen in Washington State in the late 70's for deer and elk and especially the salmon and steelhead runs, seen it happen in this state with the surveys other hunters even discouraged from saying you got a Deer and like wise when g&f was trying to do fish studies here in Az.

It got bad in certain units in washington state that G&F would block roads in and out of certain areas to do a survey. it wasnt because of poaching it was do to there surveys being falsified by hunters for there own gain.

The last thing I want to see is hunters/ hunter groups/guides having ANY input into tag allocation seasons and limits.

[Desertguide]

8 minutes ago, Delw said:

The last thing I want to see is hunters/ hunter groups/guides having ANY input into tag allocation seasons and limits.

Then why even have a public comment period? 

[bowhunter4life]

I absolutely disagree with this proposal. Show me the unit by unit hunt success for the last 5 years. Number of archery hunters per unit and the number of deer harvested and by either mule or coues deer. We can start with only the proposed closed units. Without mandatory check in's as we have for bear or lion, everything is a best guess estimate. With increased and 10% of non resident archery hunters- what is the success rate between non resident and resident?

[68OLDS]

5 minutes ago, Desertguide said:

Then why even have a public comment period? 

Ya I’m not too sure what delw means by this?

Literally, the entire game and fish approach to wildlife conservation is based on the North American model.  That model says the wildlife resource is held in the public interest.  We all have a say into what is in the best interest of the resources, including hunt allocations, tag limits, seasons, etc.  

[68OLDS]

9 minutes ago, bowhunter4life said:

I absolutely disagree with this proposal. Show me the unit by unit hunt success for the last 5 years. Number of archery hunters per unit and the number of deer harvested and by either mule or coues deer. We can start with only the proposed closed units. Without mandatory check in's as we have for bear or lion, everything is a best guess estimate. With increased and 10% of non resident archery hunters- what is the success rate between non resident and resident?

Valid points here.

I would urge you to copy paste this message and share your thoughts AZHuntGuidelines@azgfd.gov

[68OLDS]

14 minutes ago, bowhunter4life said:

I absolutely disagree with this proposal. Show me the unit by unit hunt success for the last 5 years. Number of archery hunters per unit and the number of deer harvested and by either mule or coues deer. We can start with only the proposed closed units. Without mandatory check in's as we have for bear or lion, everything is a best guess estimate. With increased and 10% of non resident archery hunters- what is the success rate between non resident and resident?

Well it’s not unit by unit, but here’s the overall success and harvest over the years for OTC tag hunts 

[Desertguide]

15 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

Ya I’m not too sure what delw means by this?

Literally, the entire game and fish approach to wildlife conservation is based on the North American model.  That model says the wildlife resource is held in the public interest.  We all have a say into what is in the best interest of the resources, including hunt allocations, tag limits, seasons, etc.  

68OLDS,

Well I'm sitting here wondering... If the dept knows how many deer were killed out of 1000 tags by how 50% of the tag holders responded on their surveys... do they have a formula to figure out how many of the 50% that did return the survey actually lied on their survey? Or do liars not return voluntary surveys? Or do they? Maybe they return the voluntary surveys just to lie to keep more tags in the unit they draw every 4 years!!! What if it's OTC? How many of that 20% are liars? In my experience bowhunters lie at a much higher rate. 

Delw,

I'm being a smarta$$ of course. Sorry Delw. I appreciate your knowledge and explaining the aerial survey process to me but I'm not buying what the dept is trying to sell us on mandatory reporting. 

[huntlines]

1 hour ago, 68OLDS said:

I don’t quite understand it either.  I don’t see it being THAT MUCH more of a burden.  She said more data could be good, and could be bad.  I would argue more/better data in would give better results out.  
Someone mentioned the Navajo nation survey approach.  You don’t complete your survey, you aren’t eligible for the draw the next year.  I am not sure how that would look but it can’t be too difficult to put in place.  It sounds like azgfd is happy with where they are on harvest statistics.

New Mexico is the same way, no harvest report from the previous year, not eligible for current draw. It’s not hard for them and should not be here in Az.

[huntlines]

1 minute ago, Desertguide said:

Well I'm sitting here wondering... If the dept knows how many deer were killed out of 1000 tags by how 50% of the tag holders responded on their surveys... do they have a formula to figure out how many of the 50% that did return the survey actually lied on their survey? Or do liars not return voluntary surveys? Or do they? Maybe they return the voluntary surveys just to lie to keep more tags in the unit they draw every 4 years!!! What if it's OTC? How many of that 20% are liars? In my experience bowhunters lie at a much higher rate. 

I'm being a smarta$$ of course. Sorry Delw. I appreciate your knowledge and explaining the survey process to me but I'm not buying what the dept is trying to sell us on mandatory reporting. 

100%! I know people who admit they are not honest on the survey because they know it will impact tags. They submit them every year but with inaccurate info. 

[bowhunter4life]

19 minutes ago, 68OLDS said:

Valid points here.

I would urge you to copy paste this message and share your thoughts AZHuntGuidelines@azgfd.gov

Yes I did and I also put in for a public records request to obtain the statistical information.