Native Resident proposal

[billrquimby]

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?

 

 

Let's carry that thought a bit farther. How about $1,000 each per bonus point for residents and $5,000 each for non-residents? At $250 each, one of your really well-to-do applicants wouldn't blink at having to cough up $10,000 for 40 bonus points and a guaranteed bighorn or prime-unit elk tag. No way do we need this.

 

I've said this before: we need to quit worrying about the petty details of a failed lottery system and concentrate on the real problem, which is we don't have enough deer for everyone who wants to go deer hunting. Other states with a heck of a lot less deer habitat than Arizona have no problems accommodating their hunters. In fact, a large number of small states have a problem with too many deer.

 

If you want to debate whether management-through-a-lottery-system has failed or not, just ask yourself why Arizona issues fewer tags today than it did twenty or thirty years ago. After just one year short of four decades of permit-only deer hunting, we should have more (and not fewer) deer and deer hunters if permit-only hunting were a valid method for managing deer.

 

And please don't say it's because the advance of civilization and a growing population has caused a dramatic shrinkage of Arizona's deer habitat. Only 18 percent of this state is in private ownership. The remainder is managed by state, tribal and federal governments and most of it remains open to hunting (although it costs more to hunt on reservations). We have lost some land because of the expansion of national parks, granted, but our real problem has been a huge loss of access to many thousands of acres of public lands.

 

Access is just one of the things we need to address, though. Predation, disease, drought, and a dozen other things may or may not be factors in the poor survival rate of deer here, and all need to be addressed. Worrying whether longtime residents should get extra bonus points is like putting Band-aids on our problem.

 

Bill Quimby

[mje1]

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...

 

 

make it a preference point system or a minimum number of points to draw. at least 4 points for elk , that way to keep building points and not lose your loyalty point you still need to purchase a license and pay app. fee. It might help a little but i dont think much can be done we only have so many animals in this state and everyone wants them, it is a quality state.

[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?

 

 

Let's carry that thought a bit farther. How about $1,000 each per bonus point for residents and $5,000 each for non-residents? At $250 each, one of your really well-to-do applicants wouldn't blink at having to cough up $10,000 for 40 bonus points and a guaranteed bighorn or prime-unit elk tag. No way do we need this.

 

I've said this before: we need to quit worrying about the petty details of a failed lottery system and concentrate on the real problem, which is we don't have enough deer for everyone who wants to go deer hunting. Other states with a heck of a lot less deer habitat than Arizona have no problems accommodating their hunters. In fact, a large number of small states have a problem with too many deer.

 

If you want to debate whether management-through-a-lottery-system has failed or not, just ask yourself why Arizona issues fewer tags today than it did twenty or thirty years ago. After just one year short of four decades of permit-only deer hunting, we should have more (and not fewer) deer and deer hunters if permit-only hunting were a valid method for managing deer.

 

And please don't say it's because the advance of civilization and a growing population has caused a dramatic shrinkage of Arizona's deer habitat. Only 18 percent of this state is in private ownership. The remainder is managed by state, tribal and federal governments and most of remains open to hunting (although it costs more to hunt on reservations). We have lost some land because of the expansion of national parks, granted, but our real problem has been a huge loss of access to many thousands of acres of public lands.

 

Access is just one of the things we need to address, though. Predation, disease, drought, and a dozen other things may or may not be factors in the poor survival rate of deer here, and all need to be addressed. Worrying whether longtime residents should get extra bonus points is like putting Band-aids on our problem.

 

Bill Quimby

 

 

Bill,

 

I was just joking about the bonus point purchase! It would be a total meltdown of the Bonus point system if that ever happened!

[mje1]

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?

 

 

 

I think on elk in this state all the hunts should be rated equally that way the people drawn for certain quality units dont flock to the other units on their off year, same for antelope they would all be quality hunts. It might work ok on the deer hunts though but not totally sure. I still think minimum points to draw for elk and ant. could help.

[Sam]

I have lived in Arizona all of my 41 years, actually tomorrow I will be 41. I got my first shotgun when I was 9 and I have been hunting big game since I was 10 years old. Fishing a few years earlier. So, I have been supplying revenue to the Game and Fish Department for at least 31 years - application fees, tag fees, licenses; not to mention all the taxes that came from the purchases of hunting, archery and fishing related items. I have 15 bonus points for antelope, been putting in since high school. No tag yet. I also did an unpaid internship for the GFD while in college - 2 months hiking around southern Arizona. Well, that actually was worth it, pay or no pay.

I would love to see some type of extra bonus point given to long time supporters.

 

Here is another question I will throw out to you guys. What about setting aside a limited number of tags for people who hold a Pioneer License? Or having a special hunt? We have many opportunities for the youth - which I am thankful for; my daughter pulled a cow elk tag last year, we need these hunts. But, these older guys and gals have supported our state wildlife for years, why not give them a few more hunts before it is too late. Personally, my Dad, who is 73, can't wait another 7 years for another elk tag. His last antelope tag was in 1975!!!

 

Let's do something to help these guys - one day, we will all be there, holding a Pioneer license. Our time will come.

 

[HillbillyNnevada]

Hey guys, I have been watching from the outside on this site for quite a while and I figured it was time to post. However, I really picked a tough topic to make my first post on.

 

I catch some heat on other sites when I post on this topic because people don't like what I have to say. Anyways, I play the draw odds in just about every Western state and have learned the ins and outs. If you guys are really concerned about some guy getting lucky drawing a quality tag 3 years in a row, then you need to create a waiting period to make those guys sit on the sidelines a while. Creating a new class of points is not the anwer. It only makes odds worse. Although I have not drawn an AZ tag and I pay quite a lot as a NR to apply each year, I generally like the system. The only thing I would change is the rule that causes only NR with max points to draw the premium tags; every applicant should have a shot even it it is 0.00001%.

 

I personally love NV's system with square points and waiting periods. A preference point system would be a catastroply for AZ because point creep would never end with AZ's limited tags. Also, AZ has to be careful that it doesn't go too far on the resident preference because the Constitution does have the privileges and immunities clause that limits how far AZ can go. I know it reminds everyone of the USO lawsuit fiasco. Just remember, we are all a NRs outside our home states. Anything you do in your home state to limit NRs, is likely to be used against you other states when you want to hunt there as a NR. I love this site and look I forward to being a member.

[Coues79]

Access is just one of the things we need to address, though. Predation, disease, drought, and a dozen other things may or may not be factors in the poor survival rate of deer here, and all need to be addressed. Worrying whether longtime residents should get extra bonus points is like putting Band-aids on our problem.

 

 

Bill has some very good ideas and I believe is looking into the future. As a new father, I worry about the future of hunting, access, permit increases, etc. My biggest concern is being able to have this sport accessible and enjoyable for my son and God willing more children, when the time comes for them.

 

I am not so concerned about long time residents acquiring more points, but rather ensuring that my children will be given at least the opportunity to develop a love and passion for this great sport. As Bill said, there are other problems that need to be addressed, every hunter with his/her own ideas of what is important. The bonus point system is never going to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time, neither will a change to the system.

[MattMan]

The bonus point system is certainly the worst of any system out there, except for the rest.

 

The problem is, the tag you REALLY want, is the tag EVERYONE ESLE WANTS TOO. Should you have a better chance at a unit 10 early rifle bull tag after putting in for 10 years straight than someone on their first attempt? YES. And you do, with 10 (+/-) bonus points, but that guy with 1 point, or that 10 year old, has a chance, however small, of getting that same tag. That's the stuff kid's dreams are made of. Guys who waited the longest, with MAX bonus points, say 12, have the BEST chance... and a 20% pass. Every bonus point gets a random number. You get 11 random numbers, the 10 year old, or first time hunter, or guy who got drawn last year, gets ONE. ONE!

 

Say you and the 10 year old kid both get drawn, the same year. The next year you both have the same chance of getting a tag. Maybe you get one, maybe not. But at least you have a shot.

 

With a system based on preference points, that 10 year old has to wait 10 years to get the 11 points required for a tag. You get the tag because you have the MINIMUM of 10 preference points for that tag. The next 10 years you have NO chance of getting a tag, so you keep putting in. So you keep putting in for that trophy hunt, and finally draw it with 16 preference points. WOOHOO! Problem is, YOU'LL NEVER DRAW THAT TAG AGAIN, CAUSE YOU CAN'T ACCUMULATE ENOUGH POINTS TO CATCH THE SYSTEM BEFORE YOU'RE TOO OLD TO HIKE INTO THE FIELD TO PUNCH THE TAG!

 

With no point system at all, that 10 year old has the same chance you have, with 10 consecutive years of unsuccessful applications, at a cow tag, late tag, trophy tag, any tag. Truth is, with no point system at all, you can put in for that tag of a lifetime, for your entire life, and NEVER GET IT, no matter how many years in a row you get a pink slip.

 

The bonus point system, with a % pass for max bonus points addresses the so called "dedicated hunter". You wait long enough, you'll be the only one with 16, 20, whatever points are max for that year, and you WILL get that trophy tag in the 20% pass. If you're that patient, I commend you for the intestinal fortitude to read your draw results every year. If you put in for trophy hunts every year and accept nothing less, I don't feel sorry for you for not getting drawn! Everyone else wants that tag too! It's your choice to wait for it and accept nothing less. You really want to hunt? You're a "dedicated hunter"? PUT IN FOR AN EASIER TAG TO DRAW!

 

I put in for a specific early rifle bull tag for 12 years, first choice, nothing else on the application. I knew what I wanted, paid my dues, got lucky, and got a tag. I had that chance every year. I could have put a late tag or cow tag if I really wanted to hunt.... but made a conscious decision to wait for what I wanted, and studied how the system works. Suck it up and pay your dues, buddy, I DID. I'm now consciously sitting on more than a couple of bonus points, and hope to heck to beat out some guy with more points next year, but he still has a better shot than I do. Beats the heck out of putting in for a minimum of 12 years in Colorado for a chance at an early tag.

 

Rant over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pwrguy]

This is an interesting string. It is alway's going to boil down to few animals and lots of hunters wanting them, no matter how they rig up the draw. You have to find alternatives if you need to be in the field and yet still want chances at true trophy quality hunts. Try archery, varmit/lion hunting, playing with trail camera's, waterfowl etc. There is alway's something you can do to get outdoors.

[billrquimby]

This is an interesting string. It is alway's going to boil down to few animals and lots of hunters wanting them, no matter how they rig up the draw. You have to find alternatives if you need to be in the field and yet still want chances at true trophy quality hunts. Try archery, varmit/lion hunting, playing with trail camera's, waterfowl etc. There is alway's something you can do to get outdoors.

 

My point is it does not always have to always "boil down to a few animals" if good minds get together and work on the real problem. Instead of worrying about bonus points and methods to decide who gets to hunt, we need to learn why reproduction and survival rates on Arizona's deer are so low and then do something about it.

 

As for the "lots of hunters wanting them", twice as many hunters as we now have (or more) would be no problem in a state as large as Arizona if all the locks and no trespassing signs that block our entry to state, BLM and forest service land were removed.

 

Forget "how they rig up the draw." A lottery wouldn't be needed if we had more deer.

 

Other reasons to get outdoors are fine, but deer hunting itself is threatened if we continue to tell thousands of would-be hunters to stay home.

 

Bill Quimby

 

[Snapshot]

This is an interesting string. It is alway's going to boil down to few animals and lots of hunters wanting them, no matter how they rig up the draw. You have to find alternatives if you need to be in the field and yet still want chances at true trophy quality hunts. Try archery, varmit/lion hunting, playing with trail camera's, waterfowl etc. There is alway's something you can do to get outdoors.

 

My point is it does not always have to always "boil down to a few animals" if good minds get together and work on the real problem. Instead of worrying about bonus points and methods to decide who gets to hunt, we need to learn why reproduction and survival rates on Arizona's deer are so low and then do something about it.

 

As for the "lots of hunters wanting them", twice as many hunters as we now have (or more) would be no problem in a state as large as Arizona if all the locks and no trespassing signs that block our entry to state, BLM and forest service land were removed.

 

Forget "how they rig up the draw." A lottery wouldn't be needed if we had more deer.

 

Other reasons to get outdoors are fine, but deer hunting itself is threatened if we continue to tell thousands of would-be hunters to stay home.

 

 

Bill Quimby

 

Absolutely right! The draw system is a minor issue compared to the future of the game animals.

[CouesWhitetail]

This is an interesting string. It is alway's going to boil down to few animals and lots of hunters wanting them, no matter how they rig up the draw. You have to find alternatives if you need to be in the field and yet still want chances at true trophy quality hunts. Try archery, varmit/lion hunting, playing with trail camera's, waterfowl etc. There is alway's something you can do to get outdoors.

 

My point is it does not always have to always "boil down to a few animals" if good minds get together and work on the real problem. Instead of worrying about bonus points and methods to decide who gets to hunt, we need to learn why reproduction and survival rates on Arizona's deer are so low and then do something about it.

 

As for the "lots of hunters wanting them", twice as many hunters as we now have (or more) would be no problem in a state as large as Arizona if all the locks and no trespassing signs that block our entry to state, BLM and forest service land were removed.

 

Forget "how they rig up the draw." A lottery wouldn't be needed if we had more deer.

 

Other reasons to get outdoors are fine, but deer hunting itself is threatened if we continue to tell thousands of would-be hunters to stay home.

 

Bill Quimby

 

 

 

I agree with Bill. I would love to see more focus on trying to improve deer numbers. That is one of the reasons that the AZ Deer Association funded a fawn mortality study in the 3-bar. As well as funding research to improve monitoring and survey methods of deer in the Kaibab.

 

Access is another issue and AGFD has staff dedicated to trying to keep gates open for hunters. The AZ Deer Association is just beginning an adopt a ranch program where we hope to help ranchers with projects they need so that perhaps they are not so likely to close a gate when/if they encounter a problem with some hunters.

 

 

Amanda

 

 

 

 

 

[billrquimby]

This is an interesting string. It is alway's going to boil down to few animals and lots of hunters wanting them, no matter how they rig up the draw. You have to find alternatives if you need to be in the field and yet still want chances at true trophy quality hunts. Try archery, varmit/lion hunting, playing with trail camera's, waterfowl etc. There is alway's something you can do to get outdoors.

 

My point is it does not always have to always "boil down to a few animals" if good minds get together and work on the real problem. Instead of worrying about bonus points and methods to decide who gets to hunt, we need to learn why reproduction and survival rates on Arizona's deer are so low and then do something about it.

 

As for the "lots of hunters wanting them", twice as many hunters as we now have (or more) would be no problem in a state as large as Arizona if all the locks and no trespassing signs that block our entry to state, BLM and forest service land were removed.

 

Forget "how they rig up the draw." A lottery wouldn't be needed if we had more deer.

 

Other reasons to get outdoors are fine, but deer hunting itself is threatened if we continue to tell thousands of would-be hunters to stay home.

 

Bill Quimby

 

 

 

I agree with Bill. I would love to see more focus on trying to improve deer numbers. That is one of the reasons that the AZ Deer Association funded a fawn mortality study in the 3-bar. As well as funding research to improve monitoring and survey methods of deer in the Kaibab.

 

Access is another issue and AGFD has staff dedicated to trying to keep gates open for hunters. The AZ Deer Association is just beginning an adopt a ranch program where we hope to help ranchers with projects they need so that perhaps they are not so likely to close a gate when/if they encounter a problem with some hunters.

 

 

Amanda

 

 

Ranchers and private landowners are not alone in denying us access to public land. Public land managers over the past two decades have been closing perfectly good two-track roads that used to disperse us across the national forests and BLM lands.

 

The trend has been if a road is not "maintained" (bulldozed and graded) and seemingly goes "nowhere" it should be closed to vehicular traffic because it is difficult to "manage."

 

Congress and various administrations in recent years also have created budgets for "outdoor recreation" that ignore hunting and fishing while spending millions for hiking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling and wildlife watching.

 

The recreation managers of these agencies use the funds to create expensive paved roads to parking lots and drop toilets, then erect berms and pile boulders at what they now call "trailheads," transforming primitive 4x4 roads that once spread hunters' camps over hundreds of square miles into "trails" for these "special users."

 

Not long after this happens, a wildlife manager and the area's forest manager drive up the only road still open on that side of the mountain, see hunters' camps every three or four hundred hundred yards, and tell each other that the resources they are responsible for protecting are being threatened by overuse.

 

The wildlife manager recommends a reduction in deer tags while the forest manager suggests that his superiors consider new rules requiring that hunters camp in designated campgrounds.

 

Meanwhile, we hunters ignore road closure proposals and debate how drawings should be conducted to distribute a shrinking number of deer tags. Will we wake up after the last non-maintained road is closed?

 

I doubt it. We'll still be trying to figure out how we can draw tags for ourselves and out of the hands of those who aren't "serious" about hunting.

 

Bill Quimby

[Snapshot]

Bill,

 

I can certainly relate to the concerns on the issue you mentioned above.

 

A perfect example of this is down in unit 30B, a unit that always goes undersubscribed in the draw, and for good reason.

Back in the 70', my dad and I hunted down there for a few years and the Mule deer hunting was pretty good, with good bucks to be had.

Over the years I have always put 30B as my 3-5th choice simply for the fact that I know the area, and I had alot of good times there as a kid, there are still bucks to be had with a little savvy and hard work.

The big issue down there is sub-developments, private land, and access problems, which have seriously condensed the hunters into smaller areas, and it has created areas that are being overhunted. The success rates are average or below most of the time, but the majority of the deer I see, and the ones that I see harvested by others, are mostly immature deer.

I guess I simply do not understand why more tags are issued, and an extra hunt added to places like this, that, in my opinion, simply can not support the extra pressure. I understand the "opportunity" side of things, especially for the younger generation of hunters. I do not see any long term benefit coming from a unit that has mostly 70-80 pound spikes and fork horns running around. Lack of access compounds the problem. Most of the good mule deer hunting in 30B is on private land, or blocked by private land.

Some of the ranches around the state also sell off sections of land, which in turn get sold off as 30- 40 acre Ranchettes and ranch land that was once accessible (or not) will never be again.

 

 

Str8shot,

Sorry to Jack your thread bro! But it always happens with these kind of topics.

 

 

 

 

[Guest 300ultramag.]

 

 

Anyhow the bonus point system is like a raffle you can have a bunch of tickets and not win or have 1 and win BIG.....

I agree with Amanda mortality rate should be of higher concern!!

 

Beau