Mandatory Success Reporting

[ajohunter]

Although this sounds like a good idea, I agree with Bill. I think most people like it for the idea of people forgetting to make a report so there will be fewer people eligible for tags thus raising their own chances.

[KGAINES]

Bill you may be completely correct, but what I see happening is that the numbers are skewed the wrong way. I think succesful hunters are more likely to report with the mail in survays sent out, the people that don't kill an animal throw theirs in the trash in larger numbers, I could be wrong.

[billrquimby]

Bill you may be completely correct, but what I see happening is that the numbers are skewed the wrong way. I think succesful hunters are more likely to report with the mail in survays sent out, the people that don't kill an animal throw theirs in the trash in larger numbers, I could be wrong.

 

There are statistical ways to correct a survey that is skewed that way. My question remains: why create another level of regulation for no good reason? Deciding how many permits to issue is not an exact science, and Arizona's wildlife managers have a long history of being extremely conservative in the number of deer, elk, and javelina tags they allow us to have.

 

Bill Quimby

[bowsniper]

Dick King and others have been pushing this for years. Two years ago Leonerd Ordway's reason was that "G&F" did not want create more obstructions or roadblocks for hunters. Gee, thanks Leonerd!

 

I always suspected that G&F did not want good data. Good data would be more difficult to manipulate.

 

Mark

[KGAINES]

Everything I have heard from the AZGFD is that they are very happy with the hunter success surveys they already have and do not want to change, funny that they did it for archery (maybe just to regulate more). Bill I wasn't around and hunting much prior to the eighties and don't know what hunter numbers were then or even in the nineties, and maybe thats why on some hunts now it seems really crowded to me. Heck I heard stories about Coues deer when I was younger, but nobody ever hunted them that I knew. Now they are offering four rifle hunts for coues, not counting the muzzleloader hunts and the archery seasons. Your best guess how have the numbers of hunters changed in your lifetime. Thank you Bill for the Knowledge you bring to us, I am still learning on this and want to do whatever it takes so that my kids and their kids still have the opportunity to hunt in their lives.

Take care and God Bless

[4Falls]

Once again Mr. Quimby is correct. Mandatory reporting does not equal mandatory truth telling and would not equate to better info for G & F.

 

I know a few guys who fill out their cards as unsuccessful because they firmly believe that G&F will not draw them the following year if they put down that they were successful. Granted, they have no evidence to prove this they are just that paranoid. But it illustrates my point. You probably have guys who always tell G&F they were succesful as well.

[Coues79]

Just one question: Why? The reasons posted simply do not compute.

 

The numer of hunting permits for everything we hunt (except pronghorn and bighorn) are so conservative and are not based upon the actual number of animals available, what could possibly be gained be exposing ourselves to one more level of regulation?

 

Bil Quimby

 

I'm not going to do my homework on this one, which may leave me vulnerable, but I believe I read a post by Heffelfinger last year about how the biologists recommend tag number increases or decreases. One of the stipulations regarded hunter success; If the success rate falls within a certain percentage, they will either increase, decrease or maintain current tag numbers. (If I'm wrong then I'm wrong)

 

If Game and Fish uses success percentages to help dictate how many tags are issued, why not have mandatory success reporting?

 

Why not have mandatory success reporting anyways? What harm would it do to our wildlife herds?

 

I can see your argument about regulations as I am for less too. But taking 2 minutes out of our lives to report if you were successful on a hunt seems something that would be easy to do and isnt' going to hurt the wildlife.

 

 

 

 

[aztrophytakers]

Just one question: Why? The reasons posted simply do not compute.

 

The numer of hunting permits for everything we hunt (except pronghorn and bighorn) are so conservative and are not based upon the actual number of animals available, what could possibly be gained be exposing ourselves to one more level of regulation?

 

Bil Quimby

 

I think a lot of hunters dont believe they are conservative. In fact, I think they are killing off the coues deer with all these extra tag increases and additional hunts that they are heading down the same road they did with the mule deer... I think the permit numbers are far from conservative.. If you look at the ratio of permits/size of herd AZ is much higher than the majority of the western states. Issuing 400 buck deer tags in 9 and 600 or whatever it is in 10? Are you kidding me, there are not even that many deer, let alone bucks in the dang unit.

 

The number of permits may not be determined by the number of animals available, but the harvest succees drives the permit #'s. I think if it was mandatory and they saw what the real harvest numbers are they would not be able to justify all the permits they give out... thus creating a bugdget shortfall...

 

Creating a statistical way to fix the analysis is not good enough. Requiring mandatory reporting is the only way to get good data that cant be manipulated by the dept.

I couldn't agree more. I think most of the Coues /Mule Deer hunts are anything but conservative. If you want conservative look to NM or NV.

 

[billrquimby]

"Bill I wasn't around and hunting much prior to the eighties and don't know what hunter numbers were then or even in the nineties, and maybe thats why on some hunts now it seems really crowded to me. Heck I heard stories about Coues deer when I was younger, but nobody ever hunted them that I knew. Now they are offering four rifle hunts for coues, not counting the muzzleloader hunts and the archery seasons. Your best guess how have the numbers of hunters changed in your lifetime."

 

 

Before permit-only hunting came along in 1970, we had as many as 103,000 people buying deer tags over the counter. They were not spread out over several seasons with multiple opening days, either. Everyone hunted at the same time. The season usually started on the third Friday of October and ran two to three weeks, depending upon the area. Some years we could hunt north of the Gila River in the first season then, if we weren't successful, hunt south of it in the second season with the same tag. Everyone wanted to go out opening weekend, and by the second or third weekend, we had the hills to ourselves.

 

After 1970, Arizona's deer permit numbers began to decline from about 70,000 that first year to plus or minus 40,000 now. The number of deer hunters nationwide has declined from a high of about 18 million to fewer than 14 million during this same period.

 

The last I heard, there were only about 80,000 people APPLYING for deer tags in Arizona now. That's 20,000 fewer than those who HUNTED in 1969. It was not as crowded as you might think prior to permit-only hunting. Several things have happened over the past 40 years:

 

1. We have lost a large percentage of the access we used to have. Land management agencies have eliminated roads and created official and de facto wilderness areas, and landowners and ranchers have locked their gates. This has caused hunters to gather along the few roads that still are open.

 

2. Hunters have changed. In the past, we were satisfied with success rates of 10% to 15% (or less). Trophy size was not important. Today, most hunters have grown up with success rates of 25%-30% and higher, and your goal is to take not just a buck, but a trophy buck.

 

3. Hunting techniques also changed. Today, the majority of the people on this forum will use optics that cost more than their rifles. Prior to 1960, few hunters had scopes. By 1970, a very few carried binoculars. Today, a deer hunter may spend all day glassing from just two or three spots. If he/she sees six or seven groups of hunters out to two miles away, he/she may say, "this place is crowded."

 

4. You are welcome to disagree, but it is my opinion that there are more deer in Arizona now than ever. I have hunted deer in this state every year since 1948, except 1949 (when my father got angry and broke camp before I could hunt) and 1998 (when I didn't draw a tag).

 

Yes, we hunted Coues deer in the "good ol' days." We didn't call them that, though. They were just "whitetails."

 

Bill Quimby

[Diamondbackaz]

"Bill I wasn't around and hunting much prior to the eighties and don't know what hunter numbers were then or even in the nineties, and maybe thats why on some hunts now it seems really crowded to me. Heck I heard stories about Coues deer when I was younger, but nobody ever hunted them that I knew. Now they are offering four rifle hunts for coues, not counting the muzzleloader hunts and the archery seasons. Your best guess how have the numbers of hunters changed in your lifetime."

 

 

Before permit-only hunting came along in 1970, we had as many as 103,000 people buying deer tags over the counter. They were not spread out over several seasons with multiple opening days, either. Everyone hunted at the same time. The season usually started on the third Friday of October and ran two to three weeks, depending upon the area. Some years we could hunt north of the Gila River in the first season then, if we weren't successful, hunt south of it in the second season with the same tag. Everyone wanted to go out opening weekend, and by the second or third weekend, we had the hills to ourselves.

 

After 1970, Arizona's deer permit numbers began to decline from about 70,000 that first year to plus or minus 40,000 now. The number of deer hunters nationwide has declined from a high of about 18 million to fewer than 14 million during this same period.

 

 

 

The last I heard, there were only about 80,000 people APPLYING for deer tags in Arizona now. That's 20,000 fewer than those who HUNTED in 1969. It was not as crowded as you might think prior to permit-only hunting. Several things have happened over the past 40 years:

 

1. We have lost a large percentage of the access we used to have. Land management agencies have eliminated roads and created official and de facto wilderness areas, and landowners and ranchers have locked their gates. This has caused hunters to gather along the few roads that still are open.

 

2. Hunters have changed. In the past, we were satisfied with success rates of 10% to 15% (or less). Trophy size was not important. Today, most hunters have grown up with success rates of 25%-30% and higher, and your goal is to take not just a buck, but a trophy buck.

 

3. Hunting techniques also changed. Today, the majority of the people on this forum will use optics that cost more than their rifles. Prior to 1960, few hunters had scopes. By 1970, a very few carried binoculars. Today, a deer hunter may spend all day glassing from just two or three spots. If he/she sees six or seven groups of hunters out to two miles away, he/she may say, "this place is crowded."

 

4. You are welcome to disagree, but it is my opinion that there are more deer in Arizona now than ever. I have hunted deer in this state every year since 1948, except 1949 (when my father got angry and broke camp before I could hunt) and 1998 (when I didn't draw a tag).

 

Yes, we hunted Coues deer in the "good ol' days." We didn't call them that, though. They were just "whitetails."

 

Bill Quimby

 

+1

 

[Webber]

Shoot yeah I like the way New Mexico does it also, if you don't fill it out you have to pay a late fee and if you don't do it your application will be rejected to!! To bad Arizona did't have Quality or high demand hunts. When you draw Q or HD in New Mexico the next year you can only put in for a standard hunt. It would give alot of other people opportunity to draw a good hunt if Arizona did this to.

[jnobleinaz]

The biggest problem with the way it is now is that they HAVE changed hunts due to these survey cards. So if it isnt mandatory then you might as well pick a number out of a hat to guess the harvest. It does matter when you base your archery hunt structures on them!

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

Just one question: Why? The reasons posted simply do not compute.

 

The numer of hunting permits for everything we hunt (except pronghorn and bighorn) are so conservative and are not based upon the actual number of animals available, what could possibly be gained be exposing ourselves to one more level of regulation?

 

Bil Quimby

 

 

I think that if they are using the mail in surveys vs. manditory archery hunt reporting, the numbers cannot be assumingly correct.... Really, this issue only currently applies, IMO, to Manditory deer reporting by all legal taking methods. However, if they removed the mail-in surveys alltogether and institute an online survey.... it would save the thousands of $$$$$ per year in postage alone!

[SunDevil]

this should be mandatory and people should not view it as a big deal. it can be mail in, phone in or internet based. the numbers would be better. I hunt NM and UT and they both do it. it is not a big deal.

 

yes mandatory reporting does not equal greater truthfulness but it would be more accurate. yes that is correct, I said more accurate. this is especially true for the new and improved dec WT hunts we have now that only have 40 tags.

 

just another example of how our dept is stuck in the dark ages - kind of like online applications but that is for a different forum topic.

[Browning'sCustomMeat]

I am all for it. The Navajo Nation enforces this and it is a great law. If you fail to report whether its a harvest or not pulls your name for the following years draw. Also, another one I like is, that if you were drawn for antelope you are then ineligible to put in for antelope for the next three years. It just makes sense.

 

-Jeremy-