Changing Seasons

[gamespec]

as far as ignoring data, just last year you did a big predator study on the 4 bar that showed that predator controll needed to be stepped up. and right in the newspaper article about it the azgfd spokesman said that becasue of political pressure from anti's that there would probably be little done with the data. and if you're gonna be a proactive, do something about the desert elk and the rocky sheep, now. a few years ago when these asian doves started showing up the first thing the azgd did was put a season and limit on em. they retracted it later, but the first reaction was to set a season and limits. there are too many glaring problems with wildlife management in Az. for folks to just sit by. you can flower things up all you want, but we have some real problems that needed dealt with yesterday, not tomorrow and the longer folks wait, the more the wildlife of this state suffers. like i said, i love to hunt elk. there are few things i'm better at. but they don't need to be in the desert and the longer they're allowed to stay in the desert, the worse off the deer are. this state is divided and subdivided and sub-sub dividied into many small areas. by highways, freeways, fences, towns, cities, canals, industrial complexes, reservations, etc, etc. and each area between those dividers needs managed as it's own little habitat. there isn't any wilderness anymore. we have what we call wilderness areas, but they aren't big enough to be true wilderness. everything needs good management and the management needs to be ahead of everything else. you can't wait until a problem becomes critical before you work on it. Lark.

 

 

The latest 3-Bar predator study showed the same thing the 1970s 3-Bar predator study showed: If you remove all the predators in a 1 square mile enclosure the fawn survival skyrockets and the deer population increases. This is not disputed by biologists, the problem is removing predators at a significant-enough intensity to reproduce that effect at the GMU level (or multiple GMUs or statewide?). This would take more money than AZGFD can afford to do. This would also produce an effect for only one year as we know predator populations rebound very quickly. Should your wildlife conservation money be spent on removing predators for one year in one GMU or habitat improvements that will last a decade? Its really a matter of where to spend your precious contributions and not so much who wears fur. One Texan wrote an article about the "Corral to County Continuum." He explained that what you can do in a one-square-mile pen (a "Corral") can't be reproduced easy at the "County" (GMU) level. The smaller the area (and the more control you have over ingress) the easier and cheaper it is to create these effects.

 

I think the Department established the season on Eurasian Collared Doves so they were legal to harvest. An animal is not legal to harvest unless we open a season on it. This year it is open year-round with an unlimited bag. You can argue we didn't get to this stage fast enough, but you can't hunt them any harder than we are now.

 

JIM

 

[.270]

ok, 3 bar, i've got u27 on my mind right now. i knew if i kept at you long enough you'd talk yourself into a corner. you say that removing predators causes the deer population to shoot up? i agree. fully. 100%. and i agree that it isn't feasable to remove all the predators. nor is it a responsible thing to do. in fact it is completey irresponsible. predators are a very important part of the outdoors. they are integral. removing them is like removing a gear out of a drive train. it doesn't work anymore. seems like i was told, many years when i was in college, they did something similar to that many years before on the kaibab and it had a disastrous affect on the deer, because they ate themselves into starvation. sort of like the lions did on the strip some years back, when they killed off the deer to the point that there wasn't even a deer season for awhile. but tell me, where does shutting down lion season, even if for a few months in the summer, just because guys don't like to run their hounds then, help even one thing? at least as far game management? even if a minimal number of lions are taken, it would be a help. dang sure wouldn't hurt. if a guy finds a kill, it ain't a big deal to catch a lion with hounds, no matter what the weather is like. or sit on it and shoot it when it returns for another meal. and it takes the gun right out of the hands of anyone who might just bump into one while he's out doing whatever. unless you're actually going to argue that our lion population is too low? or even just right. removing even a couple lions from some areas could relieve the deer herd tremendously. look at what just a couple lions are doing to sheep in the kofas right now. looks to me like this new law really helps outfitters because it saves a few lions that might be taken by anyone who got lucky, for when it's a little cooler and they feel like turnin' the hounds loose and have a client, while possibly denying joe hunter a chance at a lion because the season is closed. that or he can be an outlaw and shoot it anyway. i really don't know for sure, scientifically, that there are too many lions. but i know i see more sign now than at anytime in my life, and i've spent a lotta time in lion country. and i do know that lions are one sneaky sucker and they are real hard to get a handle on, if you ever lose it. and i do know that with everything else that we have stressing wildlife, especially deer, a few less lions would not be a bad thing. as far doves, who cares? i just like to use that one. the asians will interbreed with whitewings and mournings and we'll have a bastard buncha doves soon anyway. sorta like the sheep. Lark.

[gamespec]

ok, 3 bar, i've got u27 on my mind right now. i knew if i kept at you long enough you'd talk yourself into a corner. you say that removing predators causes the deer population to shoot up? i agree. fully. 100%. and i agree that it isn't feasable to remove all the predators. nor is it a responsible thing to do. in fact it is completey irresponsible. predators are a very important part of the outdoors. they are integral. removing them is like removing a gear out of a drive train. it doesn't work anymore. seems like i was told, many years when i was in college, they did something similar to that many years before on the kaibab and it had a disastrous affect on the deer, because they ate themselves into starvation. sort of like the lions did on the strip some years back, when they killed off the deer to the point that there wasn't even a deer season for awhile. but tell me, where does shutting down lion season, even if for a few months in the summer, just because guys don't like to run their hounds then, help even one thing? at least as far game management?

...

as far doves, who cares? i just like to use that one. the asians will interbreed with whitewings and mournings and we'll have a bastard buncha doves soon anyway. sorta like the sheep. Lark.

 

When the lion season was closed I don't remember anyone making an argument that it was a biological decision. As a biologist I would love it if all wildlife management decisions were about biology. (am I still in the corner?)

 

As for the dove hybridization...I have heard non-biologists say that they interbreed. I have not seen any record of that happening yet, and because we are talking about North/South American doves vs. Eurasian doves I don't think it is going to happen.

 

JIM

[gamespec]

2. I'm not sure I understand this question, but I think you are asking 2 things: 1) how did we make recommendations so fast w/o getting the harvest data back and why were permits increased? I think what you are refering to in the first case is the year we switched and added a 3rd draw (antelope and elk). During that transition, we had to make recommendations without the benefit of the harvest data because of the timing of it all. Normally we get elk post-hunt questionnaire cards with harvest data back in about Jan and then that info is available for our elk hunt recommendations that were made in February. That year we had to have the final recommendations to the commission for the December meeting so for that year only we had to make recommendations without the hunt data (those data are still important to look at long-term trends). We added this 3rd draw in response to hunters who wanted more time to prepare for antelope and elk hunts. I don't know how how else we could have transitioned to an earlier draw.

 

JIM

 

Correction to this earlier post.

We have not used the current-year harvest data since that transition (it was not just that transition year). We moved the draw earlier to accompodate public requests and that moved the whole hunt recommendation process back to the point where we finalize the elk & pronghorn recommendations at the December commission meeting and there are still elk hunts occuring at that time. We knew this when we made the change and didn't see this as a problem.

 

JIM

[bobbyo]

Jim,

 

I would like to interrupt your interrogation to thank you for your honest responses. Hopefully you will continue to post on this site. I appreciate all you do. I too wish that all G+F decisions were based on biology. If G+F could inform the public with legitimate Biological reasons for policy changes I am sure there would be little outcry about any changes implemented. We both know that it is impossible to make all stake holders happy. I personally think that the commission oversight system is not the best method to manage the G+F resources. Anger at their poor decisions are often times misdirected at other G+F employees. Please don't think that Larks obvious anger toward anything G+F speaks for everyone on this sight. I know he does not speak for me. You can tell he is passionate about all things hunting and quite knowledgeable as well. But I believe he see's things only in black and white. 'G+F limits lion hunting they must be tree huggers.' I think he does not consider all the gray areas and the diverse interests that department employees have to respond to .

Bob

[IHunt2live]

Well said Bob! I to want to thank Jim for the time he has spent here. He doesn't have to and I know he is a very busy man. Jim is well know in his feild and he knows his game management. We are lucky to have him here shareing with us his knowledge.

 

Looking foward to see the results of your mule deer genetics work Jim, Carlos said its pretty intrusting.

 

Mike R.

[.270]

exactly, the desires of a few guys were taken in order to pacify some folks that were going to ask for limits on lions, before they asked for it. not a decision based on anything to do with biology. nor did it have anything to do with "creating opportunity". instead it took away 25% of the lion season. and who suffers? not the lions, not the hound doggers, not the huggers. nope, it was the deer and the hunters that might have a chance at shooting a lion in those closed months.

 

azgfd has some real hard choices to make and i don't see em wanting to make the right ones. they make the one that will pacify the folks that will squall the loudest and will make the most money. while leaving the wildlife, and the folks that truly care about it and provide the dollars to fund the programs, on the outside looking in. in wildlife management, the things that concern the wildlife should be paramount. they should come first. time and time again, that isn't the case. whatever makes the most money and causes the least amount of bad press is what seems to be the bigger concern. i said 30 years ago, the first time i saw a rocky bighorn south of eagle creek, that they would eventually mix with the desert sheep. and now they have. and there is no plan whatsoever to take care of the problem. and it's a pretty simple fix. is the azgfd oblivious of it? i hope not. you guys spend more time in the field than even me. i hope you've seen it coming. this elk deal has been going on for 30 years too. but i don't see any attempt to fix it. only ways to profit from it, at the expense of the deer and other wildlife. before that it was the lion/deer problem on the strip, allowing trapping to die all over the state, getting on the wolf wagon with the huggers, etc, etc, etc. there have been some many crummy decisions made by the azgfd that it ain't funny. and they were always made for the same reasons. pacify huggers and money. same with the doves. say what you want, but they will eventually cross with the native animals. hide and watch. and the azgfd's intial reaction to them was to limit it. probably didn't make any difference, but just the fact that they did is a convenient way for a joe hunter like me to come up with a good example of a trend that bugs me. wildlife management should be the azgfd's #1 goal. not hunter opportunity or the bottom line. if wildlife can be managed and still have enough animals for folks to hunt and angle, then you can worry about the other stuff. what i see is a concerted effort to enhance the bottom line, while skirting around anti's protests as much as possible, with the welfare of the wildlife coming in a distant 3rd. "opportunity" is great. i appreciate the work that goes into creative ways to provide it. but i don't see all this opportunity doing much more than selling more tags and adding to the stress on the deer herd. crunch the numbers and count the beans all you want, there are only so many game animals and they aren't livestock. they aren't a commodity to be sold. show me some real effort to balance things and do it in a way that is based on science, and i'll be on the wagon with ya. but keep up the "head in the sand while at the same time smiling for the cameras" attitude, and i'll just do what i do best. needlin'. i aint' stupid and it really ain't a crank. i'm just tired of what i see as really poor decision making. Lark.

[.270]

exactly, the desires of a few guys were taken in order to pacify some folks that were going to ask for limits on lions, before they asked for it. not a decision based on anything to do with biology. nor did it have anything to do with "creating opportunity". instead it took away 25% of the lion season. and who suffers? not the lions, not the hound doggers, not the huggers. nope, it was the deer and the hunters that might have a chance at shooting a lion in those closed months.

 

azgfd has some real hard choices to make and i don't see em wanting to make the right ones. they make the one that will pacify the folks that will squall the loudest and will make the most money. while leaving the wildlife, and the folks that truly care about it and provide the dollars to fund the programs, on the outside looking in. in wildlife management, the things that concern the wildlife should be paramount. they should come first. time and time again, that isn't the case. whatever makes the most money and causes the least amount of bad press is what seems to be the bigger concern. i said 30 years ago, the first time i saw a rocky bighorn south of eagle creek, that they would eventually mix with the desert sheep. and now they have. and there is no plan whatsoever to take care of the problem. and it's a pretty simple fix. is the azgfd oblivious of it? i hope not. you guys spend more time in the field than even me. i hope you've seen it coming. this elk deal has been going on for 30 years too. but i don't see any attempt to fix it. only ways to profit from it, at the expense of the deer and other wildlife. before that it was the lion/deer problem on the strip, allowing trapping to die all over the state, getting on the wolf wagon with the huggers, etc, etc, etc. there have been some many crummy decisions made by the azgfd that it ain't funny. and they were always made for the same reasons. pacify huggers and money. same with the doves. say what you want, but they will eventually cross with the native animals. hide and watch. and the azgfd's intial reaction to them was to limit it. probably didn't make any difference, but just the fact that they did is a convenient way for a joe hunter like me to come up with a good example of a trend that bugs me. wildlife management should be the azgfd's #1 goal. not hunter opportunity or the bottom line. if wildlife can be managed and still have enough animals for folks to hunt and angle, then you can worry about the other stuff. what i see is a concerted effort to enhance the bottom line, while skirting around anti's protests as much as possible, with the welfare of the wildlife coming in a distant 3rd. "opportunity" is great. i appreciate the work that goes into creative ways to provide it. but i don't see all this opportunity doing much more than selling more tags and adding to the stress on the deer herd. crunch the numbers and count the beans all you want, there are only so many game animals and they aren't livestock. they aren't a commodity to be sold. show me some real effort to balance things and do it in a way that is based on science, and i'll be on the wagon with ya. but keep up the "head in the sand while at the same time smiling for the cameras" attitude, and i'll just do what i do best. needlin'. i aint' stupid and it really ain't a crank. i'm just tired of what i see as really poor decision making. Lark.

[WildlifeSpec]

exactly, the desires of a few guys were taken in order to pacify some folks that were going to ask for limits on lions, before they asked for it. not a decision based on anything to do with biology. nor did it have anything to do with "creating opportunity". instead it took away 25% of the lion season. and who suffers? not the lions, not the hound doggers, not the huggers. nope, it was the deer and the hunters that might have a chance at shooting a lion in those closed months.

 

 

I think I can clarify the lion closure issue for you. What is true is there were some houndsmen who were in favor of the closure due to how strenuous the hunts were. Both the Cougar Fund and Defenders of Wildlife were pushing for a closed season like most of the Western States currently have (the exception was AZ and TX). But the decision for the closure was based upon biology when these groups approached the Department and then examined the data. The general trend of mountain lion harvest over the past 25 years is steady with between 250 and 350 lions taken in a calendar year. In the months of the closure (June, July, & August) less than 4 % of the total annnual harvest is taken. Therefore these three months being closed only minimally affected the overall annual harvest levels. The impact of the closure is minimal at best and should not be seen as a negative, but a way to balance the desires of all people involved. Remember this is a tenant of the North American Model of Conservation, that wildlife is held in the public trust for all people. I hope this helps to clarify what was done.

 

John

 

[IHunt2live]

My only beef with the Lion season closure is that its not open for the archery deer season. Why not let those archery have a chance to take a lion.

And I can't understand why some lion hunters wanted the season closed during the summer becouse its to strenuous, if its that strenuous why hunt, just stay home, or do some feel obligated to hunt just because theres a season?

[.270]

don't care what kinda reasoning was used. it still takes 25% of the season away from joe hunter and saves a few lions for outfitters. i've agreed all along that not many lions would get taken then, but now even if a guy gets lucky and sees one, he can't shoot it. and all just to pacify anti's and so hound hunters can rest their dogs. 25% of the season was taken away from 99% of the hunters because 1% of the hunters wanted to pacify anti hunters and save a few lions for them to guide folks to. was there some law saying that hound hunters "HAD" to hunt then? i don't recall one. nothing said that they couldn't stay home in the summer. there ain't enough dry ground, cold trailin' hounds or men that know how to raise or use em left anyway. most of the so called lion hunters i see ride around in a pickup after a snow looking for a track across the road. heck, just make lion season when there is snow on the ground. but now even if a guy finds a kill or just happens to jump a lion, for 25% of the year, he can't do anything about it. legally. none of the excuses so far carry any weight. definitely not enough weight to deny 99% of the hunters 25% of the season. think about that awhile and then tell me again why it was a good decision. biology had nothing to with it. lions are prolific. they breed and reproduce year round. it was already illegal to kill females with kittens. the azgfd saw a way to do some politickin' with the anti's and maybe get a feather to use down the road somewhere, while telling 99% of the hunters that could no longer take a lion for 25% of the year. did you ever look at it that way? tell me again why it was a good decision to take 25% of the season away from 99% of the hunters? Lark.