Changing Seasons

[gamespec]

Here's an article Brian Wakeling and I wrote on the reasons for the changes to this year's hunting seasons. An abbreviated version (mosty just the deer part) will be published in the upcoming AZ Wildlife Views magazine (Sep/Oct). You saw it here first folks!

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/i_e/pubs/ChangingSeasons.shtml

 

 

JIM

[tommat]

Very interestng....thanks....

[Rembrant]

Jim,

In the article it is atated that "hunter participation has been decreasing for decades". Is this a broad general statement for the entire United States, or the whole world? Because I used to get a deer tag and even an archery bull tag nearly every year here in Arizona; turkey tags too. Now I'm lucky to get a deer or turky tag, and hope I can remember how to hunt elk if I ever get drawn again.

The common sense that God gave me tells me this is because there are just too darn many applicants per permits - more than ever. Isn't this also the main reason behind the new hunt structures, to allow more people in the field (that nowdays have to sit home 'cause they can't draw a tag?)

How in the heck can you qualify the above quote?

Mike

[bowsniper]

Jim,

 

My respect for your knowledge of coues deer is never-ending. However, my tolerance for this kind of hunkie-dory window dressing article is pretty thin. Since you brought it up, let me ask you a few questions:

 

You said about deer:

 

“Now let’s examine harvest. Archers are required to phone in their harvest, yet noncompliance is a persistent issue. So, we estimate harvest using a voluntary survey card that is mailed to hunters. Questionnaires are a consistent way to obtain precise estimates with similar bias.”

 

Do you mean that archers don’t comply so you estimate (archery or rifle harvest?) using the voluntary card mailed out to rifle hunters? This statement is pretty confusing, and in my paranoid mind I think you are just trying to window dress/confuse the whole issue mandatory archery reporting and volunteer draw permit reporting to the uninformed, non-questioning hunter. Can you explain what you were trying to say here? Can you please explain to me why it would not be a better management tool to initiate mandatory harvest reporting for all?

 

 

You said about elk:

 

“Relatively few changes occurred to the elk hunt guidelines compared with the deer. The most notable amendment was the addition of 400 permits for archery bull hunts during November. This was a new idea, similar to moving white-tailed deer permits out of December to provide greater numbers of tags.”

 

Jim, this is untrue, this was not a new idea, it was just “repackaged’ from two years earlier. Leonard tried to ram it down our throats three years ago, but thanks to David Myrick and dedicated hunters presenting a scientific survey to the commission, archery hunters were able to stop the transfer of rut tags to November tags three years ago, but not last year. My question is, how long will these additional 400 bull tags be sustainable until you have to reduce the bull rut tags to make up for the new November harvest?

 

A question about Javalina: Why did you change the metro unit tags to over the counter? Could this possibly wipe out metro unit herds? As I remember, Javalina went to a draw because the herds closest to the metro areas were getting hit too hard.

 

Mark

[DesertBull]

I wish they would quit blaming everything on the weather and start putting the blame where it belongs....predators and loss of habitat.

 

In the words of Sam Kennison....IT'S A FREAKIN DESERT!!!!

 

Example - The USFS removing cattle from the Tonto basin forced the lions to feed exclusively on game, mostly mule deer and then sheep, but we continue to blame it drought so as to not upset the kitty huggers.

 

Yavapai, Pima, and Maricopa county's management of housing development and sprawl is an embarrassment, further leading to more opportunity lost.

[gamespec]

Jim,

 

My respect for your knowledge of coues deer is never-ending. However, my tolerance for this kind of hunkie-dory window dressing article is pretty thin. Since you brought it up, let me ask you a few questions:

 

You said about deer:

 

“Now let’s examine harvest. Archers are required to phone in their harvest, yet noncompliance is a persistent issue. So, we estimate harvest using a voluntary survey card that is mailed to hunters. Questionnaires are a consistent way to obtain precise estimates with similar bias.”

 

Do you mean that archers don’t comply so you estimate (archery or rifle harvest?) using the voluntary card mailed out to rifle hunters? This statement is pretty confusing, and in my paranoid mind I think you are just trying to window dress/confuse the whole issue mandatory archery reporting and volunteer draw permit reporting to the uninformed, non-questioning hunter. Can you explain what you were trying to say here? Can you please explain to me why it would not be a better management tool to initiate mandatory harvest reporting for all?

 

 

You said about elk:

 

“Relatively few changes occurred to the elk hunt guidelines compared with the deer. The most notable amendment was the addition of 400 permits for archery bull hunts during November. This was a new idea, similar to moving white-tailed deer permits out of December to provide greater numbers of tags.”

 

Jim, this is untrue, this was not a new idea, it was just “repackaged’ from two years earlier. Leonard tried to ram it down our throats three years ago, but thanks to David Myrick and dedicated hunters presenting a scientific survey to the commission, archery hunters were able to stop the transfer of rut tags to November tags three years ago, but not last year. My question is, how long will these additional 400 bull tags be sustainable until you have to reduce the bull rut tags to make up for the new November harvest?

 

A question about Javalina: Why did you change the metro unit tags to over the counter? Could this possibly wipe out metro unit herds? As I remember, Javalina went to a draw because the herds closest to the metro areas were getting hit too hard.

 

Mark

 

Since I only wrote half the article I enlisted my coathor's help in responding.

 

re: DEER questionnaires:

Mandatory reporting is required for archery deer hunters if they harvest a deer. We know that compliance is increasing over time, but it is not consistent among years and indications are that not everyone has gotten the word that they need to report. Even if it were 100%, we are asking for data in a different way than we do when we send out the voluntary questionnaire to all hunters. We wanted to collect the data and analyze it in a way that minimized any potential biases. By using the voluntary questionnaire for both archers and general season hunters, we have a consistent data set with consistent biases. Using this approach, we can get the most realistic comparison of harvest, hunt success, and participation. It seemed the best way to make this comparison.

 

The agency is currently evaluating how we conduct all hunter questionnaires. As we move forward with innovations, we hope to be able to find the best way to get this necessary management data with the least burden on the hunter. Better data generally comes at a greater cost, either through finances or requirements on hunters. We want to do this in the least painful way possible to everyone involved. Mandatory reporting would be a better management tool. In fact, requiring all hunters statewide to physically check out their harvested deer at a checkstation or AZGFD office would yield even better management data. We try to balance collecting useful data for management with reasonable requirements for hunters.

 

re: ELK

Relatively speaking, two-three years ago it was a new idea. Maybe we should have written "relatively new idea." We are genuinely looking for a way to get more people in the field. You are correct, we did not factor these 400 permits into the allocation formula when parsing tags to the various weapon types. The archers received 400 extra tags that were not included in the allocation. The overall harvest was factored into the wildlife manager’s hunt recommendations when estimating the expected harvest and managing for bull:cow ratios. From that perspective, we could maintain these extra 400 permits indefinitely if the Commission chose to, but it would be giving archers more than their fair share. The hunt guidelines will be re-examined this spring and summer (Commission will see them again in August 2009), and consideration will have to be given to how to handle those seasons at that time. We will definitely be taking a lot of public input and adjusting our recommendations in consideration. Abe Lincoln was right about trying to please all the people all the time, but we do want to hear about the best alternatives anyone can come up with to get more people afield.

 

re: Javelina

I remember Tice Supplee remarking once that we permitted the javelina hunts because the units near the metro areas were being over-harvested (true) and now we are spending A LOT of time and money dealing with problem javelina around the metro areas! She wasn't involved in this change of seasons but it does seem silly that hunters have a limited chance to pursue javelina close to the city and meanwhile the department is running all over darting, trapping, and moving javelina further away from the city. This won't wipe out the herds in the metro units, but it may reduce the distracting time the department spends dealing with rogue javelina.

 

Hope that helps!

 

JIM

 

 

 

 

 

[jeepers creepers]

I wish they would quit blaming everything on the weather and start putting the blame where it belongs....predators and loss of habitat.

 

In the words of Sam Kennison....IT'S A FREAKIN DESERT!!!!

 

 

[gamespec]

Jim,

In the article it is atated that "hunter participation has been decreasing for decades". Is this a broad general statement for the entire United States, or the whole world? Because I used to get a deer tag and even an archery bull tag nearly every year here in Arizona; turkey tags too. Now I'm lucky to get a deer or turky tag, and hope I can remember how to hunt elk if I ever get drawn again.

The common sense that God gave me tells me this is because there are just too darn many applicants per permits - more than ever. Isn't this also the main reason behind the new hunt structures, to allow more people in the field (that nowdays have to sit home 'cause they can't draw a tag?)

How in the heck can you qualify the above quote?

Mike

 

Declines in hunter participation in general is widely recognized by those that track such things. Wildlife agencies all over the country are trying to take aggressive steps to preserve our hunting heritage. Here's a quote from the abstract of a paper published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (Vol. 28, No. 4 Winter, 2000, pp. 817-824) by Jody W. Enck, Daniel J. Decker and Tommy L. Brown. The paper is called "Status of Hunter Recruitment and Retention in the United States."

 

"Participation indicators of hunter recruitment and retention in the United States (U.S.) point to decreasing trends, although some regions of the country are experiencing slight increases in hunter-education graduates and license buyers. If the overall declining trends persist, they could have serious implications for continuation of some wildlife agency programs that depend on hunters for political, financial, or harvest-related support. Superficially, these trends also might be interpreted to indicate lessening need for programs aimed at providing hunting recreation or maintaining cultural benefits relating to hunting."

 

Wow, did you read that? In otherwords if decreasing trends in hunting continue, and agencies have to get funding elsewhere, hunters are going to have less and less say in how state wildlife agencies manage wildlife. That's scary.

 

The AZGFD's Hunting Heritage Working Group has come up with a lot of inovative things to help us show the average soccermom how important hunting is for this fantastic system of wildlife conservation. We have radio spots coming on, highway billboards, & all sorts of programs. Next week I am doing my annual talk at the UofA on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to senior-level wildlife management students. You would be depressed to see how many of them are hearing our great conservation success story for the first time. I do that every year so our wildlife students coming out of the wildlife program there hear it at least once from me.

 

Wait, what was the question. ...?

 

Oh yeah,... AZ has had a fairly stable number of first choice applicants for deer (to use as an example) for the last last decade, but the number of permits have decreased dramatically (we have half the permits we had in 1986). We have similar demand and half the supply and the result is that it is harder and harder to get a tag. This brings us full circle to the purpose of these changing seasons.

 

JIM

[coueshunter]

Jim, there are so many topics to discuss in the post, so many questions we average hunters have, but one thing in particular seems to stand out to me. AZGFD is looking at RECRUITMENT = new hunters (I believe thats a good thing) while many of your existing clients feel unheard, overlooked and totally ignored. These feelings are primarily a result of the last few online surveys that many of us worked hard to get to our groups of people and then it felt as if all our responses were ignored and AZGFD just implemented what they intended to do in the first place. #2 alot of us have seen arrogance amongst the commissioners, totally ignoring our conservation groups and acting on their own opinions. These two items I mention cause a dramatic affect on retention as well as participation in conservation groups where a substantial amount of AZGFD funding comes from. Please dont take this post as accusation, I patiently am looking forward to you helping me understand why these feelings linger, or help me see where AZGFD is going. I know that most all AZGFD employees work very hard at their jobs, and they dont control the commissioners, but there still seems to be distrust between hunters and the department that maybe some of it can be squelched by logical respones to these questions. Thank you...............respectfully...........Allen Taylor...............

[ultramag]

Jim, there are so many topics to discuss in the post, so many questions we average hunters have, but one thing in particular seems to stand out to me. AZGFD is looking at RECRUITMENT = new hunters (I believe thats a good thing) while many of your existing clients feel unheard, overlooked and totally ignored. These feelings are primarily a result of the last few online surveys that many of us worked hard to get to our groups of people and then it felt as if all our responses were ignored and AZGFD just implemented what they intended to do in the first place. #2 alot of us have seen arrogance amongst the commissioners, totally ignoring our conservation groups and acting on their own opinions. These two items I mention cause a dramatic affect on retention as well as participation in conservation groups where a substantial amount of AZGFD funding comes from. Please dont take this post as accusation, I patiently am looking forward to you helping me understand why these feelings linger, or help me see where AZGFD is going. I know that most all AZGFD employees work very hard at their jobs, and they dont control the commissioners, but there still seems to be distrust between hunters and the department that maybe some of it can be squelched by logical respones to these questions. Thank you...............respectfully...........Allen Taylor...............

yea that survey was a good one.

woud you like to hunt elk more often...........who wouldn't

the cool aide drinkers drank lots of cool aide for that POS survey.

[gamespec]

Jim, there are so many topics to discuss in the post, so many questions we average hunters have, but one thing in particular seems to stand out to me. AZGFD is looking at RECRUITMENT = new hunters (I believe thats a good thing) while many of your existing clients feel unheard, overlooked and totally ignored. These feelings are primarily a result of the last few online surveys that many of us worked hard to get to our groups of people and then it felt as if all our responses were ignored and AZGFD just implemented what they intended to do in the first place. #2 alot of us have seen arrogance amongst the commissioners, totally ignoring our conservation groups and acting on their own opinions. These two items I mention cause a dramatic affect on retention as well as participation in conservation groups where a substantial amount of AZGFD funding comes from. Please dont take this post as accusation, I patiently am looking forward to you helping me understand why these feelings linger, or help me see where AZGFD is going. I know that most all AZGFD employees work very hard at their jobs, and they dont control the commissioners, but there still seems to be distrust between hunters and the department that maybe some of it can be squelched by logical respones to these questions. Thank you...............respectfully...........Allen Taylor...............

 

You rarely hear the word "Recruitment" without the word "Retention" quickly following. You are right, they are 2 sides to the same coin. AZGFD is working hard on both. Retention involves making sure we don't have people quit hunting. The class of hunters we are most apt to lose are those that aren't all that serious about it. They don't come to commission meetings, they don't join Wildlife Conservation Organizations (WCOs), they don't e-mail/meet with Game Branch, and they don't visit these websites (believe it or not, many don't have e-mail accounts). They may not hunt every year. We need to make sure we reach these people when we are getting input on how to structure our seasons -- this is no easy task. To reach all hunters, the surveys have to be structured in such a way so that everyone who purchased a hunting license or applied for a deer tag (for example) has an equal chance of providing input. I know how the website-based surveys have caused so much discontent, but anyone involved in surveying public input (in any field) will talk about the importance of sampling the entire population of interest (all hunters) so that everyone has an equal chance of providing input. Management decisions based on data obtained that way should support the interests of the entire hunting population. The company that AZGFD contracts with to conduct these surveys also writes similar surveys for lots and lots of state wildlife agencies all over the country. These surveys are just like the ones you have seen from AZGFD, with some modifications for local management questions each state has. That company does nothing but these surveys full time and the way the questions are written is subject to professional scrutiny and the publication/review process over and over and they are deemed on solid grounds in terms of valid ways to obtain representative opinions.

 

I have had good friends that say the Department is forsaking their most active (from a volunteer and financial standpoint) supporters by not doing what these more active and vocal hunters want done. These particular constiuents are extremely vital to our success, but when structuring hunts AZGFD has to listen to the desires of all hunters not just those that are the most active in organizations or on the internet. From my perspective I see the Department being very responsive to some long-time sportsmen and women and the WCOs - they all still carry tremendous clout in many dealings with the agency. However, when the Department is asking for input on big management issues, they do so with the most scientifically-accepted human dimensions survey techniques to sample the entire popualtion of hunters. I think that's fair.

 

When someone tells me the commission never listens to them, I get flash-backs of a lot of things that were changed based on public input (Kaibab doe tags, misc season dates, falconry quail seasons, archery crane seasons, Mearns' quail bag limit). In the last 16 years, I have seen the Commission respond a lot to the public - sometimes even just an individual who makes a logical suggestion. It is not uncommon for the biologists to have to get together during a break or at lunch at a commission meeting to see if we can work something out that was suggested by the public.

 

JIM

[SunDevil]

Jim - first of all let me say thank you for providing the info on the mule deer triplet fawns. I saw them again last Sunday afternoon.

 

I somewhat disagree with this statement in your article:

 

"In the 2007 fall draw, 72,651 people applied for a deer tag and only 42,585 people received one. So 30,066 (41 percent) of people who wanted to hunt deer had to stay home and find something else to do with their families."

 

Some of those 30K people could have done a little research on draw stats and applied for units with 100% odds. more than likely, they had a specific unit they wanted to hunt and that is the only unit they applied for. their thinking was I only want to hunt the unit I have hunted before and am familiar with. they made a conscious choice before they applied to put in for a hunt they might not draw vs put in for a 100% draw hunt and go hunting for the sake of going hunting. additionally, many of those 30K applicants were probably non-residents who only applied for the strip. they made the choice to apply for a hunt with only 2% draw odds. more than likely they apply in other states and are not "staying at home to find something else to do with their families."

 

I do believe the G&F is tasked with a difficult situation.

 

I do not believe a dec hunt that is now - one) the 4th, 5th or even 6th hunt within a particular unit or - two) has a nov hunt that ends 7 days before the dec opener can be considered a 'quality hunt'. I did not apply for Dec 33 this year because it was going to be the 6th rifle hunt in this unit (2 jr hunts and 3 general hunts). this does not count the archery hunt or the javelina hunts. previously the nov hunt would end the weekend before turkey day and allow 3 weeks before the dec opener. now the 2nd nov hunt ends on dec 5 which is only 7 days before the dec opener. this does not equate to quality for me. there were WT tags leftover in 36C this year. if this is an alternative unit with quality being key, why add another 4th hunt when original demand is not greater than the original 3 hunts and allow for 3 weeks before the dec opener instead of just 1.

 

clearly the dept is managing to quantity with quality being thrown under the bus. yes there are the token 'alternative units' but again, I would question a 4th WT hunt with the dec opener being 7 days after the previous hunt closing as a serious consideration being taken for quality. additionally, why add more tags and hunts to units that historically have tags leftover? this goes back to my first point. if going hunting is someone's priority than they should put in for Oct 30B as their 5th choice. they are guaranteed a tag. if not, than they are not that serious about going hunting in the first place. opportunity previously existed for this hunter and he choose not to take advantage of it. if there are historically tags leftover for so many units (30A, 30B, 36A, 36B, etc) this indicates to me plenty of opportunity in these units and an additional hunt and additional tags are not warranted. adding an additional hunt and additional tags to these units just further makes my point of managing to quantity, quantity and more quantity at the additional cost of quality.

[.270]

ok, i have a question or two. well i have about a million of em, but i'll try and hold it to 2 simple ones.

 

1. why do folks, especially wildlife professionals, always act like dry years are something out of the norm in Az. and use it as an excuse for declining game numbers? this is ARIZONA. it's a desert. it's always dry. that's why we have cactus and mesquites instead of coastal cedars and moss. sometimes we have a wet year, but those are the out of ordinary years. the dry years are the normal years. i also have a hard time with any type of deer data that says absolutely nothing about predator numbers. you guys do know we have soyotes and lions don't ya?

 

2. i asked this question of an azgfd guy a couple years ago and he wouldn't answer me. i hunted in 22n with my cousin a couple years back. i can't remember the year for sure, maybe 2006? he had the 2nd of 2 late hunts. saw a lot of elk, they got a couple, had a good time. this was the last year that we had to apply for deer, elk, pronghorn, sheep, etc all at the same time. the draw for elk for the next year was the first year with the early drawing for elk and pronghorn. seems like the numbers for permits were out within days of the end of the season. lo and behold, they had doubled the tags for one of the u22 late bull hunts and had over a 50% increase for the other u22n late hunt. what kind of data did the azgfd use to come up with the increases in permits? it dang sure wasn't from the harvest mailers they send out, because the permit numbers were set before they were ever mailed. there was no time to do any kind of good survey with ariel or land based methods. just exactly what kind of data was used? i have my own conspiracy theory that i will always assume is correct, because i'm a smart guy and can make 2+2= whatever i want it to. anyway, this is something i've been wondering about for, well since it happened. only reason i noticed it was because i was thinking of applying for that hunt. i wait with anticipation for answers. Lark.

[GameHauler]

ok, i have a question or two. well i have about a million of em, but i'll try and hold it to 2 simple ones.

 

1. why do folks, especially wildlife professionals, always act like dry years are something out of the norm in Az. and use it as an excuse for declining game numbers? this is ARIZONA. it's a desert. it's always dry. that's why we have cactus and mesquites instead of coastal cedars and moss. sometimes we have a wet year, but those are the out of ordinary years. the dry years are the normal years. i also have a hard time with any type of deer data that says absolutely nothing about predator numbers. you guys do know we have soyotes and lions don't ya?

 

2. i asked this question of an azgfd guy a couple years ago and he wouldn't answer me. i hunted in 22n with my cousin a couple years back. i can't remember the year for sure, maybe 2006? he had the 2nd of 2 late hunts. saw a lot of elk, they got a couple, had a good time. this was the last year that we had to apply for deer, elk, pronghorn, sheep, etc all at the same time. the draw for elk for the next year was the first year with the early drawing for elk and pronghorn. seems like the numbers for permits were out within days of the end of the season. lo and behold, they had doubled the tags for one of the u22 late bull hunts and had over a 50% increase for the other u22n late hunt. what kind of data did the azgfd use to come up with the increases in permits? it dang sure wasn't from the harvest mailers they send out, because the permit numbers were set before they were ever mailed. there was no time to do any kind of good survey with ariel or land based methods. just exactly what kind of data was used? i have my own conspiracy theory that i will always assume is correct, because i'm a smart guy and can make 2+2= whatever i want it to. anyway, this is something i've been wondering about for, well since it happened. only reason i noticed it was because i was thinking of applying for that hunt. i wait with anticipation for answers. Lark.

 

Question # 2's answer did NOT come from the local WM's input

or that of Mogollon Sportsman Society.

There will not be hardly any elk to be found after this year

or one more with permit #'s where they have them now.

 

My conspiracy theory thought on this is that it is close to Phoenix

So we will let the (lets put in for the heck of it) hunters have a chance to

to draw a tag and rent a motel room and hang out in the local Bar..

 

I am going to stop now because I have a Bunch of issue with this

and do not want to get worked up tonight.

 

Jim, thank you for your post

[.270]

well, maybe he ain't gonna reply. my theory was that i saw a lotta uso action up there. it was apparant they applied a lotta folks for that unit. like they useta do in 27. anyway, i figgerd with the cap on nonresident tags for any given unit, they upped the tags in order to get more o' them big nonresident dollars. but that's just my theory. and until someone shows me some real data as to why they did, that's what i'll believe. i don't know how they could arrive at the numbers they did, without any success data to use. the Az elk herd is pretty much livestock that is being managed to finance the rest of the azgfd, with the deer herd paying a big price. Lark.