GAME AND FISH TO CHANGE HUNT STRUCTURES

[ghost hunter]

You can't just ask all the archery elk hunters who DREW a tag. How about all the rest of us? I'll gladly offer them three choices: No, heck No, and No F..'ing Way.

 

I don't know about everyone else, but no one I know, would put in for the late hunt. Might be the first time in history that there will be left over elk tags. Would serve them right.

[Becker]

I see a lot of posts about Game and Fish looking for more $$$$. I just wanted to make one comment on that. I think a lot of the money they are looking for is to increase pay for employees. I am graduating college in May with a wildlife and fisheries degree and I must say that although hunting and fishing is my passion there are many more oppurtunities out there that pay a heck of a lot more than the Game and Fish can. I don't think the G and F is being able to attract and keep some of the better biologists, etc. any more. That is a major problem in my mind. I see a bunch of people really harping about small fee increases and I am not sure that they realize that money is paying for the people who are actually out there trying to manage the wildlife so we can enjoy it. If you aren't willing to pay a little I don't see how you can expect to have it much longer....Just a one of my concerns

[dave]

Yes, if it is conducted properly with specific data to choose from and not just an vague question like, "would you like more opportunity?"  Also, if they are able to document that the people completing the poll have a hunting license and have participated in the specific hunts being polled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What I am talking about is narrowing the poll down to bowhunters and giving them specific choices to choose from.

[ghost hunter]

I agree that G&F employees are under paid. But the money issue, can't be the issue here. G&F is getting a big jump in rates effective next year, followed closely by the sales tax funding. What more do they want? Moving that many elk tags around "Just for the money" isn't gonna do anyone any good.

[megahunter6969]

If Any of there BS ideas go through, especially the Movement of the Dec. Wt hunts and Sept. Archery bull hunts, I know for a fact that they will be looking at a class action law suit! There are several outfitters from Arizona and from out of state that will be pursuing the idea of a class action suit to get them to turn there CRAZY SUPPOSED managment plan around!!! And yes it is sad that they wont listen(or should i say consider) any of the sportmens ideas!

[COOSEFAN]

If Any of there BS ideas go through, especially the Movement of the Dec. Wt hunts and Sept. Archery bull hunts, I know for a fact that they will be looking at a class action law suit! There are several outfitters from Arizona and from out of state that will be pursuing the idea of a class action suit to get them to turn there CRAZY SUPPOSED managment plan around!!! And yes it is sad that they wont listen(or should i say consider) any of the sportmens ideas!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a lot of meetings to go before there will be anything to file a law siut against. A lot of meetings where we can voice our opinions and opposition to the changes. I haven't heard anyone say that they WON'T listen or consider our ideas. Actually, from what Amanda said, the commissioners were WANTING our ideas and alternative solutions. The meeting sprung up fairly quickly, and caught most of us off guard and there will be better prepared attendees at the next meetings with plenty of ideas, opposition, and alternative solutions! Everyone who opposes the changes should attend! JIM

[audsley]

Fellow Coues hunters,

 

Tell me if you agree with this.

 

The November whitetail hunts are decent quality hunts and not unacceptably crowded. It's cool enough that there is usually a decent amount of deer activity, and some pretty decent bucks can usually be found if you know how to look. If you hunt during the week you'll see very few other hunters. On the second weekend hunter density typically drops to less than half what you saw opening weekend. I'm surprised people say they want a December hunt or nothing. I don't feel that position is justified.

 

The October hunts are much poorer quality hunts - warmer weather and less daylight deer activity, and higher hunter density. However, October offers a major opportunity for trophy hunters and guides: they can scout September and October, locate a big buck and learn his feeding and bedding locations. Come the start of the October hunt, this buck can often be found and taken before he's spooked. But adding another six days to the October hunt wouldn't help them much because after a day or two of a hunting season, the deer have been alerted, some have abandoned their routines, and in many cases re-located. Also, some people seem to want to hunt only one weekend as evidenced by the drop in hunter activity on the second weekend of the November hunts. These people wouldn't benefit much from stretching the season longer either.

 

Consequently, October Coues hunters probably consist mainly of (1)a few serious hunters who did their homework, (2)hunters who were unlucky in the draw and got their 4th or 5th choice, (3)hunters who only want to hunt one weekend anyway and want to go first, (4)hunters who hope to have something else to do in November (like hunt elk), and (5)hunters who simply don't know any better than to apply for October.

 

Is that about right? Because I'm planning to explain it this way to a couple of commissioners so hopefully they will see that their plan to stretch the October hunt won't really make October much better, but will seriously damage the quality of the November and December hunts.

[donniedent]

Unfortunatly, I've haven't seen any action out of the commision that would indicate that they really care what we think. They're taking adjantage of the fact they the feds gave the states ALL the control. I think any attempt at lawsuits would be a waste of money and because of the USO fiasco, any lawsuit would recieve resistance from hunters that don't know that facts. I believe in my creator and if he decides he wants me to get drawn, it doesn't matter what G&F does, I'll get blessed anyway!!

 

Donnie

[audsley]

  Bottom line is the deer need a break sometime, the deer can't handle a bunch more tags (our deer heards aren't that great), if we want to hunt in 20 yrs. from now were going to have to manage our heard and let hunters come second.  I know this sucks, but managing the heard for both quality and quantity should come before appeasing a group of people.  Right now isn't the time to increase deer, elk, ect..... tags b/c the heards can't support it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let's not get everyone confused. AG&F isn't suggesting an increase to tags or expanding the number of days afield. That's why they're tying an increase for October days to a decrease in December days.

[couesdiehard]

audsley,

The way I read the proposed changes, several of the Units will see a net increase in tags for whitetail as they are adding more tags to the earlier hunts and taking less or none away from the Dec. hunts in those units. That's the way I read it anyway.

Lee

[audsley]

SDRHUNTER,

 

I stand corrected. What I meant to say is they aren't planning to increase the harvest. Since success rates in December are higher than October's, they can increase hunter days afield in October, decrease hunter days in December, and actually increase the number of permits without increasing the harvest.

 

A wildlife biologist I know who doesn't like the idea has said he doesn't think it will cause any more deer to be taken. It will just make for less successful hunting.

[venadoslayer]

I see a lot of posts about Game and Fish looking for more $$$$.  I just wanted to make one comment on that.  I think a lot of the money they are looking for is to increase pay for employees.  I am graduating college in May with a wildlife and fisheries degree and I must say that although hunting and fishing is my passion there are many more oppurtunities out there that pay a heck of a lot more than the Game and Fish can.  I don't think the G and F is being able to attract and keep some of the better biologists, etc. any more.  That is a major problem in my mind.  I see a bunch of people really harping about small fee increases and I am not sure that they realize that money is paying for the people who are actually out there trying to manage the wildlife so we can enjoy it.  If you aren't willing to pay a little I don't see how you can expect to have it much longer....Just a one of my concerns

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that the Game Officers are underpaid as well, but what i would like to know is how much of the money for increases in fees going to be used to pay the officers and how much is going to be used to support the wolf program and other endangered species rather than the big game we hunt?

[Rembrant]

Support for non-game species are paid for by the Heritage fund (Az lottery).

Mike

[Coach]

I think the best message any of us can send to the commission is that we absolutely do NOT want to trade high quality hunts for higher draw odds (for inevitably lower quality hunts).

 

They seem to be under the assumption that this is not the position of the majority of hunters, but if you look at posts here as well as the Arizona regional forums on www.bowsite.com and I'm sure many others, the sentiment is overwhelmingly against this. Most of us think it's the worst thing we've ever heard wrt hunting in Arizona - even worse than last year's nonresident debacle.

 

Now it sounds as if the commission only wants to hear alternatives, but from what I've heard, the alternative everyone wants is to leave it just like it is.

 

Audsley.

If you have the ear of commissioners, you have an opportunity many of us do not. If the Arizona G&F and its commissioners really want to act in the best interest of the sportsmen here, the best thing they can do is drop this for 2006 and use this year's application process as a voting tool. They can include on every application an array of choices ranging from leaving it as it is to the current proposals.

 

They could even restrict voting to those who actually apply for the hunts that will be affected to make sure they are hearing from the people who stand to gain or lose the most as a result of their decision. There has to be a way to convince them that these proposals are not what Arizona hunters want.

 

Please, everyone who feels strongly about this - send emails to the commission, send letters, and get a fire lit under everyone you know who also does not want to see 50-90% of the best hunting opportunities in our state traded for higher draw odds in poor quality hunts.

[.270]

Amanda, i have a suggestion that will make a lot of folks happy and will dramatically improve everything concerning wildlife in Az. immediately. shroufe retires and the commission all resign. our illustrious governess appoint a commission of folks with no politcal ties and who really give a dang about Az. and they go find us a good commissioner. anything that happens after that will be an improvement. Lark.