Seasonal Differences on Hunt Success

[Red Rabbit]

A quick look at the online regs gave me a surprise. I was thinking that the first coues hunt in October would have much higher success than the two November hunts, due to first chance at unspooked game. But the hunt success between the first 3 seasons is relatively close.

 

RR

[Red Rabbit]

unit: Oct, Nov, Nov, Dec

6A: 26, 17, - , 61

29: 18, 30, 21, 53

33: 44, 36, 33, 75

34A: 30, 26, 24, 40

36B: 27, 23, 23, 74

36C: 28, 30, 25, 62

[soazarcher]

Unfortunately, without mandatory harvest reporting, the numbers don't mean a whole lot.

 

If I remember correctly from last year, a couple of those numbers increased this year, some by 10%.

 

Seems like Oct 34A was 21 or 22%.

 

I was surprised that Dec success was that low in 34, wasn't in the 60% range?

[GameHauler]

Could maybe have something to do with the early Elk hunts

Just wrapping up

[WFGinNM]

"Unfortunately, without mandatory harvest reporting, the numbers don't mean a whole lot."

 

How does AZ figure these rates without a mandatory reporting system? Just curious. Maybe they figure fold not being honest in the first place?

 

--Bill

[Red Rabbit]

I believe everyone with a tag was sent a survey card. Return rate is something like 35%. Those that are successful are more likely to return the card. But some may indicate unsuccessful so that the hunt success % does not look high and maybe have less people apply next year for their unit. I think the published rates reflect a fudge factor based on studies.

 

Even with mandatory reporting, hunters that are successful could lie if they were not checked by a WM, did not use a game processor or taxidermist.

[WFGinNM]

Hmmm,

I didn't get a card, and I totally believe in accurate reporting. Maybe being a Non-Resident I just wasn't sent one. When lion hunting here went to the quota system I know of quite a few guys that would stretch unit boundaries to keep their unit open longer

 

--Bill

[June]

Been a resident for awhile now,

 

Haven't seen the regs. But if I can be guaranteed an almost certain draw and pretty good success rate, in what? Oct. Without a tree-stand then I'm all in. Could never get one of those Dec. tags anyway. By the way isn't there a number on your survey card identifying you. So, they know who isn't returning their surveys. IMO. Just happened to look at the one my friend forgot to send in.

[GameHauler]

I'm getting really good at this

[SilentButDeadly]

I'd like to see the error bars on those numbers...

 

They could be + or - 10% which blows the statistical significance

[RoughCut]

Just some info for thought. In one of my favorite units (unit 33) this past year(2008). There were roughly 300 additional whitetail bucks taken from here this year. I assume from the additional allocation of tags. This doesn't include the jr's tags either. An increase in take of 70% over 2007.

 

Cause for concern????

 

 

These numbers take into consideration that the survey results are remotely accurate.

[Red Rabbit]

RoughCut,

From the Hunt Arizona book, I added 620 WT killed in 2007 for unit 33.

Multiplying the permit numbers by % success, I get 765 killed in 2008.

 

What numbers did you get?

 

If the coues density is about 10/sq mile, and the buck:doe ratio is 25:100, there would be about 2 bucks/sq mi.

How many square miles is unit 33 coues country? to determine about how many bucks there might be in 33, and compare to the harvest.

 

RR

 

 

[RoughCut]

RoughCut,

From the Hunt Arizona book, I added 620 WT killed in 2007 for unit 33.

Multiplying the permit numbers by % success, I get 765 killed in 2008.

 

What numbers did you get?

 

If the coues density is about 10/sq mile, and the buck:doe ratio is 25:100, there would be about 2 bucks/sq mi.

How many square miles is unit 33 coues country? to determine about how many bucks there might be in 33, and compare to the harvest.

 

RR

I got the 765 the same as you did for 2008 I did the same math for 2007 and got 453. THe arizona hunt data book I think might include jr hunts muzzys etc..

 

I was just wondering if this big jump was due to the extra tags allocated or perhaps something else.

[Red Rabbit]

I come up with 654 killed in 2007, for the 3 hunts (#permits x %).

620 vs 654 may be due partly to those having a permit and not hunting.

 

Success in 2007 was 38%, 36%, 66%

In 2008, was 44%, 36%, 33%, 75%

Early hunt success was about the same % on average, so increased harvest likely due to increased tags overall, and maybe an increase in 1 1/2 y.o. bucks from good moisture 2 years ago.

[RoughCut]

geez, your numbers are right. I don't know how I got that. Phew that is a little better, not quite the jump in bucks taken than I had thought.

 

I wonder if this holds up in the other units that had an increase in tags.

 

If I remember right I thought Game and fish was aiming for more opportunity, same harvest number. Am I making this up or does anybody else remember that. I also know this is only one year of data, and hardly significant enough to be indicative of a serious trend.

 

Also, I hope the 2 bucks per square mile thing is WAY off. I used the ruler on google earth to measure the size of 33. Came up with real close to 1000 square miles. I hope we didn't take upwards of 40 percent of the bucks out of there last year.