Native Resident proposal

[billrquimby]

"That being said, I feel the only way to change any State department is to allow the voters to decide on how things are going to be run. Allow the hunters to vote on who gets elected as G&F commissioner instead of the Govenor, allow the hunters to elect the G&F commission, allow the hunters to vote on the issues that effect all of us in the long run. Force the commission to make decisions that affect game animals based on sound scientific fact and evidence and not on biased decisions that may or may not be financially driven. There are ways to change the entire system, including the draw, but it makes the system more complicated, and of course ends up costing more in the long run. The only way any Government department or agency will ever change anything is, if they are forced to do it, or they can get more money from it."

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. If game commissioners were elected by voters, the chances of ever having another hunter on that panel would diminish greatly. By law, the game and fish department and commission exist to preserve and enhance Arizona's wildlife for all Arizonans. Like it or not, we hunters are a minority.

 

Bill Quimby

[Tines]

I don't believe length of residency should have anything to due with the bonus point system. You are assuming that if you've lived in AZ for a long time that you've supported G&F that entire time. I know guys who have lived in AZ for 30 years and have purchased fewer than 5 licenses with even fewer big game tags. Should this guy get preference over the five year resident that puts in every year for all species? I don't think so.

 

I would much prefer to see a system that creates preference for the hardcore hunter over the casual weekend warrior / camp with guns crowd. I think we already have two areas where this is created - first hunters safety point and second loyalty point. I think they could also add some others such as the conservation point that was being discussed. Maybe modify the loyalty point system so that a point is awarded for every 5 years you apply.

 

Do they need to improve the system to give more "consideration" to the more active? Absolutely!! Does it have anything to do with residency? I don't think so.

 

Exactly my thoughts! The only downside I could see is this: Those of us who are "hardcore" will ALWAYS apply regardless of draw results (and unfortunately THEY know this). Those that aren't that serious??? They might lose interest real quick and drop the sport all together if not drawn for a couple of yrs straight. And we all know what that means- less applicants means less application fees that the g&f collect........

[Snapshot]

"That being said, I feel the only way to change any State department is to allow the voters to decide on how things are going to be run. Allow the hunters to vote on who gets elected as G&F commissioner instead of the Govenor, allow the hunters to elect the G&F commission, allow the hunters to vote on the issues that effect all of us in the long run. Force the commission to make decisions that affect game animals based on sound scientific fact and evidence and not on biased decisions that may or may not be financially driven. There are ways to change the entire system, including the draw, but it makes the system more complicated, and of course ends up costing more in the long run. The only way any Government department or agency will ever change anything is, if they are forced to do it, or they can get more money from it."

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. If game commissioners were elected by voters, the chances of ever having another hunter on that panel would diminish greatly. By law, the game and fish department and commission exist to preserve and enhance Arizona's wildlife for all Arizonans. Like it or not, we hunters are a minority.

 

Bill Quimby

 

I certainly understand that. I guess I should clarify myself, when I say "Voters", I mean anyone with a valid hunting license only!

[Tines]

Let's say a person gets drawn for an early bull tag in a unit that has only 25 permits.

 

Most Early Bull hunts have a ton of applicants (as do all prime hunts) so if there was a 3 year waiting period, there are only going to be 75 fewer people after the 3rd year of the system and each following year that could potentially put in for that unit or hunt.

 

If we were to take the number of all the early bull hunts and discount those who drew for the next 3 years, it is still a very minimal amount of hunters. There is still competition with 1000's of people for a very limited amount of tags.

 

With December whitetail tags being significantly reduced, the same would apply to them, just as mentioned above. Still a minute amount of people being sidelined for a few years.

 

The draw odds do not go up substantially just the satisfaction of some, knowing that the guy that drew last year has no odds of getting the tag again for the next three years.

 

It may be significant enough for elk hunts, if a person draws a bull tag, they are exempt from drawing another bull tag for 3 years. This may help odds a bit more.

 

However, for Antelope and deer it would be difficult to put a dent in the odds. For antelope, there are just too few permits available . I don't think it would be a good idea for recruitment or retention to exempt thousands of people for three years just because they drew a deer tag, as they are all for antlered game

 

You're right, BUT the idea is to give those who have waited longer, a better chance. And it would do that- as minute as it would be. And the game and fish probably wouldn't have the "revenue" crutch to lean on at all. Because if those successful can still apply for non-"premium" hunts during their "waiting period", they'd have a chance at drawing those. OR, you know that those who DID draw would at the very least buy a BP. So they're still getting their application fee.... There are definitely ways to tweak it here and there and get positive results...

 

[JACK]

Not sure what hunts you are putting in for...but For example...if you put in for unit 10 early bull...there are 25 tags...more than 3800 people put in for that hunt...it would take 152 years to give each one of those applicants a tag...how could the G&F ever make that fair?

 

I wouldn't mind having to sit out three to five years after drawing a tag...However...if someone had to sit out five years after drawing an elk tag...There were approximately 26,500 elk tags in the state so 26,500 x 5=132,500...132,500 people would be out of the draw You know how much $$ the G$F would be losing on licences, application, and intrest...they would never agree to such a thing!

 

I am a 30 year native have been putting in every year since I was ten and over all I think the way it is set up is pretty fair...

[loco4coues]

"That being said, I feel the only way to change any State department is to allow the voters to decide on how things are going to be run. Allow the hunters to vote on who gets elected as G&F commissioner instead of the Govenor, allow the hunters to elect the G&F commission, allow the hunters to vote on the issues that effect all of us in the long run. Force the commission to make decisions that affect game animals based on sound scientific fact and evidence and not on biased decisions that may or may not be financially driven.

 

There are ways to change the entire system, including the draw, but it makes the system more complicated, and of course ends up costing more in the long run.

 

The only way any Government department or agency will ever change anything is, if they are forced to do it, or they can get more money from it.

 

Just my opinion! "

 

 

I was born and raised here in AZ. I am 23 years old. I agree with the quote from above.

[Coueser]

It's a bad idea that sets a bad precedent. It's a form of segregation bsed on how long someone has lived in a state. We are all U.S. citizens and our state of residency is already taken into account when applying. People move around frequently enough in an effort to gain meaningful employment and support their families and defend our country. Giving one preference just because they have lived in a state for a long time and supported that state's G&F department is ludicrous. If we were going to do that than we ought to just start selling bonus points to the highest bidder since his money would go to "supporting wildlife in the state". Anyway, like I said before, BAD IDEA.

[wetmule]

Bill is exactly right, you let the voters decide who makes up the commission and we will have literally just slit our own throat, IMO, we will lose everytime and every commission appointment and every decision will be a nightmare. We are just now starting to rebound and recover from some PATHETIC Napolitano commissioners. We have a new director and a department that I believe is much more hunter friendly.

That said, all of those that think we need to dump the bonus points system alltogether because average joe gets three quality tags in six years will be sorely disappointed. One only needs to look back before bonus points were instituted and the reason why they were instituted, one of those reasons was because some average joes were getting five quality tags in six years. Same story now only to a much lesser degree. I'd say leave it alone.

[Snapshot]

Bill is exactly right, you let the voters decide who makes up the commission and we will have literally just slit our own throat, IMO, we will lose everytime and every commission appointment and every decision will be a nightmare. We are just now starting to rebound and recover from some PATHETIC Napolitano commissioners. We have a new director and a department that I believe is much more hunter friendly.

That said, all of those that think we need to dump the bonus points system alltogether because average joe gets three quality tags in six years will be sorely disappointed. One only needs to look back before bonus points were instituted and the reason why they were instituted, one of those reasons was because some average joes were getting five quality tags in six years. Same story now only to a much lesser degree. I'd say leave it alone.

 

 

This scenario is a double edge sword. You just said it yourself that we are just starting to recover from the commission that Napolitano put in place. What happens if we get someone worse than Napolitano in office (if thats possible?) How long will this more hunter friendly Commission last if we get a bunny hugger for Govenor?

 

I know that it would be segregating to just let licensed hunters vote on G&F issues, and alot of uninformed hunters might not make an educated vote, but stranger laws have been created in other circumstances? Maybe the G&F department could vote in its own commission. ?

 

Personally, I would like to see some department wildlife biologists on the board of commissioners

[wetmule]

Snap, How many wildlife biologists do you want on the commission? We have two now and neither are all that hunter friendly, IMO, and are more into watchable wildlife and seem to tend towards the non-consumptive side of the Dept. The private sector background commissioners are far more hunter friendly. The answer is never ever elect another Democrat as governor unless you can be assured that person is a hunter. There is a group (AZSFW) that has worked the political side extremely hard to set forth a commissioner candidate vetting - interview type process and get it incorporated into the selection process when an opening becomes available. Then they lobby extremely hard at the legislature for hunter friendly persons once they are selected and fight tooth and nail against the ones they don't believe are so inclined.

[AZWildcat]

There is always the option that New Mexico follows, meaning the high demand and quality hunts. If an applicant is drawn for a unit with that designation, then they are not able to drawn for any unit with a HD or Q designation the following year. It rotates the hunters in and out of the unit and seems to be a fair approach. The upside is two fold, for the hunter is the odds are better on a year to year basis and the game and fish are more than happy to charge a nominal fee for a higher grade hunt. I would not want to lose the bonus point system in the process, I think it could work in conjunction with the HD/Q system. Thoughts?

[Snapshot]

Snap, How many wildlife biologists do you want on the commission? We have two now and neither are all that hunter friendly, IMO, and are more into watchable wildlife and seem to tend towards the non-consumptive side of the Dept. The private sector background commissioners are far more hunter friendly. The answer is never ever elect another Democrat as governor unless you can be assured that person is a hunter. There is a group (AZSFW) that has worked the political side extremely hard to set forth a commissioner candidate vetting - interview type process and get it incorporated into the selection process when an opening becomes available. Then they lobby extremely hard at the legislature for hunter friendly persons once they are selected and fight tooth and nail against the ones they don't believe are so inclined.

 

 

Thanks for the info wetmule.! I did not realize those two are biologists. All of the draw change issues aside, sound biological and ecological data go along way in determining ways to maintain healthy animal herds and the long term impact and possibility of over hunting our deer with the major increase in tags for various units.

 

What better way to get commissioners that won't turn the other cheek than a couple of gun toting, venison eating biologists who can see the big picture? Maybe I am asking for too much, but I am concerned about the future of our herds.

 

I am certainly no expert on the subject, but I feel with the increase in permits and the extra late November hunt added into the mix, that the overcrowding and extra hunting pressure may lead to bad things in the future.

 

An example of this is a major increase in whitetail permits for my favorite unit . There are good bucks in the unit, but in my opinion it does not have near the population that the better whitetail units have. I would like to see good data that supports

the possible increase in harvest without effecting the long term buck/doe ratios and quality potential.

 

Unfortunately science and politics dont mix well.

[deserthunter23]

I have been lucky enough to have been here for 31 yrs.I guess that would give me 2 more bonus pts under the proposal.To me it all comes down to what we have here.We arent like Colorado with 200,000 + elk,or Wyoming with huge antelope heards.What we do have is quality,even in a non trophy hunt (elk or deer) the chances off shooting a book animal still exist.I have 17 bonus pts for antelope but really dont see anyway to make it more fair except to possibly raise the bonus pt 1st pass to say maybe 50%.That would still leave room for those hail mary shots at a tag.There are always stories of people drawing trophy tags with 0 points.Problem is the animal populations just arent big enough to have a waiting system work.Good luck to all who drew.

[Snapshot]

Maybe G&F could start a bonus point purchasing program, say at a price of $250.00 each. They could make a ton of cash from wealthy or overly eager applicants. I bet the "well to do" NR's would be lining up to buy points. Does anyone see this happening in the distant future?

[archery nut]

It has been very interesting listening to all the replies on this subject. I definitely think the system has some flaws but it is not the worst system out there. I apply for 6-7 states annually, so I have become somewhat familiar with all the different systems out there. Take Utah for example. They will have a unit that is big and has tons of elk. In Arizona that unit would be given about 150 archery tags, whereas in Utah it might have 20-30. The funny thing is that Arizona offers more tags but the units continue to produce huge bulls year in and year out with no noticeable decline in quantitiy or quality. Also, I believe Utah guarantees that 80% of the Premium and limited entry permits go to max point holders. That doesn't leave much left over the the rest. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the people with the most points should be given a strong advantage but the other people in the pool should also have somewhat of a fighting chance. In my opinion, Nevada has the best points system hands down. They square your bonus points, which gives you a much greater chance that the person in the lower bonus point pools. They also have waiting systems for sheep, elk and antelope. I believe that if you get drawn for bull elk and kill an elk you have a mandatory 5-7 year waiting period before you could reapply. I don't agree with this long of a wait period but if you divided the tags into a premium category (Ex: early archery or rifle elk, archery or rifle antelope) and general category (Ex: late rifle bull) and you make everyone that drawns a premium tag and harvests an animal go through a 3 year waiting period this could improve the fairness of our system.