Getting tougher to find wildlife managers

[GRONG]

John F, you said it best in your last post.

 

Ya a tree hugger is the same as a bunny hugger, no difference. Some call them granolas as well. I will say that my comment may seem a little harsh but I will stand by it as well. I do know that there are a few good game wardens out there that I could trust to an extent and some others that work for the dept in one way or another. From my personal experience with game wardens is all I can go on. I think that most of them are looking to make a name for themselves w/in the dept somehow and they will do anything to do it, ie: make up stories about a case and outright lie about "what they think went on" instead of what the facts actually were. They're an interesting bunch that's for sure. I'm just telling you P15 that if I were you I'd watch every little word you tell a GW cause you never know how he's gonna try and twist anything and everything you say and try to make it into a case somehow. Someone that that will do that to another person doesn't have a thread of integrity and zero concious. They can drag a poor blue collar worker thru the court system for years requiring them to spend $10's of thousands of their hard earned dollars to defend themselves against the AZG&F over what a person whimsically said that they did. If you care to find out more, read old posts from a couple years ago about certain individuals that personally went thru that exact kind of stuff. If you don't care to look then PM me and I'll be more than happy to enlighten/educate you about a few instances that I personally know of. I'd rather not waste my time though but if I must prove a point then I will.

 

Good hunting everyone, I'm off to go try and put a little arrow between a certain buck's ribs.

[Rembrant]

It grieves me to see this whitetail forum used as a vehicle to bash our game Dept and its personel.

Yep, there are "game wardens" that are real jerks. From my experience they are few and far between. I know a number of Wildlife Managers personally, and I can attest that they have considerably more than a thread of integrity.

All I gotta trust a WM to do is earn his pay by upholding and inforcing the game laws of this state. If a WM can't do that, THEN he lacks integtity. The WM's that are jerks - need to be, and are begging to be - reported. That's our job. These guys are good at asking questions and having 'America's dumbest criminals' roll over. These guys are cops. It's their job. That's what we pay them to do, among other things.

If you are not breaking the game laws, then you have nothing to fear from an Arizona Game Dept Wildlife Manager, and even though he will ask probing questions, he is your friend, and your employee doing his job.

This isn't a perfect world, and I don't doubt that there have been bungled cases - just like there are a few jerks in the Dept.

I don't know of the cases Josh is referring to. I'm sure he ain't making it up, but I do know that cops don't have to make stuff up for simple cases. They do try real hard however, to make cases against career criminals.

The Dept knows who the habitual poachers are. These are the guys who should be antagonistic and real nervous around Game Wardens.

Mike

[Bill]

Rembrant I agree with you whole heartedly. Since the creation of the department, commission and wildlife mangers the the habitat, wildlife and hunting opportunities have improved over the previous system. Those that protest the loudest and paint with a broad brush raise the most suspision.

 

Bill

[billrquimby]

Rembrant I agree with you whole heartedly.  Since the creation of the department, commission and wildlife mangers the the habitat, wildlife and hunting opportunities have improved over the previous system.  Those that protest  the loudest and paint with a broad brush raise the most suspision.

 

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Can't say I agree entirely with you, Bill.

 

Habitat hasn't improved that much. It is about the same as it was when I shot my first deer on Lynx Creek near Walker at age 12 in 1948. Overgrazing has been reduced somewhat, but this is due to the land management agencies, not Game and Fish. As for loss of habitat to civilization's advance, I will not buy that untrue bromide. Sure we have more people, more houses, more roads, etc., but we still have 82% of our state protected by some sort of public ownership. Only 18% is privately owned, and only a small portion of this has been or ever will be gobbled up by "civilization."

 

You have a point about wildlife. In my humble opinion, we have more deer, elk, bighorn, bear, javelina, turkey, etc. (everything except antelope) than any other time in my 70 years in this state. Whether this is due to Game and Fish or not can be debated, but I'll grant you this one.

 

As for hunting opportunities, I beg to strongly disagree with you. Arizona's commission/ department system began sometime in the 1920s and developed over time into what it is today. "Wildlife managers" instead of "game wardens" came along about the time of WWII.

 

In 1970, Arizona became the first western state to initiate permit-only deer hunting -- not because of a lack of deer, but because of a political "deal" in the Arizona Senate involving a pay raise for the AGFD director. We had slightly more than 105,000 deer hunters in 1969, and hunter success averaged 18-20% or so. Today hunter success is higher, mostly, but fewer than 40,000 of us are allowed to go deer hunting.

 

We have LOST -- not gained -- more than 65,000 deer hunting opportunities under the AGFD's direction.

 

I believe the people who work for Game and Fish .... from the janitor to the director, and the commissioners themselves ... are honest, intelligent, well-educated, hard-working, and well-intentioned people, some of whom are underpaid. Most of them are nice people, too. I just feel they need to look with unbiased and creative eyes at ways to increase our hunting opportuniities.

 

If Defenders of Wildlife or PETA had reduced Arizona's deer-hunter numbers from 105,000 to 40,000 we would be up in arms! Instead we hunters quibble about everything except the fact that our hunting opportunities are eroding.

 

Bill Q

[DEERSLAM]

If Defenders of Wildlife or PETA had reduced Arizona's deer-hunter numbers from 105,000 to 40,000 we would be up in arms! Instead we hunters quibble about everything except the fact that our hunting opportunities are eroding.

 

Bill Q

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Bill,

You hit the nail on the head

[billrquimby]

"Bill, You hit the nail on the head "

 

Thanks.

 

I get angry whenever I think about what we have lost, and how it all began with an AGFD director who wanted the Legislature to give him a pay raise and just one misguided but powerful politician.

 

Incidentally, what species will you apply for licenses for in 36 states? I can't think of 36 states that have permit-only hunting.

 

Bill Q

[Rembrant]

Bill,

Thanks for the history lesson.

Sorry you've been holding that resentment in your crop for ... how many years?

 

Do you guys think the deer resource that we have today that stands against 40000 permits could handle the pressure of 105000 permits?

You guys don't mind bumping into other hunters in the field? How 'bout 104999 other hunters?

Permit-less hunts are what has made Colorado's elk hunt what it is today- Raggy. And also New Mexico's deer permit-less areas. Scouted those lately?

 

Our permit system in its conception was way ahead of its time. That's where all the other Western states are going and will end up. They have to, to protect the resource against over harvest. And they will do this at the cost of selling less permits - just like Arizona did. So the arguement that the Az Game Dept is all about money don't quite stand up, does it?

 

Arizona's permit system is the best model of resource management in the West - reguardless of how it came about.

Mike

[DEERSLAM]

"Bill, You hit the nail on the head "

 

Thanks.

 

I get angry whenever I think about what we have lost, and how it all began with an AGFD director who wanted the Legislature to give him a pay raise and just one misguided but powerful politician.

 

Incidentally, what species will you apply for licenses for in 36 states?? I can't think of 36 states that have permit-only hunting.?

 

Bill Q

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Bill,

I will be filling out approx. "36" apps for nearly every species of big game in our "10" western states.

[Buckhorn]

Bill Q,

 

Sounds like your the resident G&F history buff so you may correct me but if my memory is right I remember my grandfather telling me that when he started with the USFS (@1942) he was also classified as a USF&G Officer half his wages where paid by USF&G and the other half by USFS. He helped cover the area from Flag - Winslow - Down the Rim to Camp Verde - Back to Flag. He also said the government (Washington) at the time didn't think that they needed Wildlife Managers and decided that for the time it would be a joint effort between the States and the Government. When it started becoming more and more work and more and more money the Government backed out and the AZG&F really took off. Most of the guys that were involved in the start up of the USF&G/USFS were given the choice of staying with the USFS or transferring to the new AZG&F and when asked back then where the money was going to come from AZG&F had to show ample proof that they could sustain X amount of pay roll to even exist. And even back in the late 40s early 50s they had the idea of charging X amount for hunting each species of animal among other things and had proposed some sort of drawing system. This aggravated the employees and residents and they ended up not haveing a draw system and it never came to surface agian until the number of transplanted Elk reached large numbers and got huge attention, they started re thinking the draw system and ultimately we have what we have today. It's enteresting to think of what could be if our hunting wasn't controlled by AZG&F but was controlled by USF&G. Would our voice be heard? And would Wildlife Management be Better or Worse?

 

Buckhorn

[billrquimby]

Buckhorn:

 

As far as I know, management of wildlife was always the sole domain of the states (except in national parks and wildlife refuges) until passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty, which put certain bird species under federal control. The U.S. Endangered Species Acts of the late 1960s and 1970s took more control from the states. In the mid-1970s, states lost their traditional control of wildlife on Indian reservations through court rulings.

 

Arizona?s elk, bison, pronghorn, and desert bighorn hunting have always been permit-only since legal hunting of these species began in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Permit-only deer hunting began in 1970; permit-only javelina hunting followed soon after.

 

It has only been within the past 30 years or so that the National Forest Service has had wildlife biologists/managers in each forest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has exclusively managed its wildlife refuges in all of my memory.

 

In my opinion, federal wildlife management would be a disaster. Would you travel to D.C. to testify on a deer-hunting proposal? How long do you think we?d have bighorn, mountain lion, and bear seasons if the feds were setting seasons? Do you think residents would have preference on permits?

 

Bill Q

[billrquimby]

Mike

 

Yes, I believe our deer resource could stand 100,000 or even more hunters.

 

My family and I hunted here when we had that many, and deer were not exterminated, hunters were not on every rock, and the sky did not fall. We can have that many again if you will accept a lower hunt success and a different hunting structure, and also demand access to all our deer hunting areas.

 

The highest deer kill comes on an opening weekend. Under the present system we have three or four opening weekends in many units, more if you count the archery, muzzleloader, youth season, first season, second season, and the late season to say nothing about another archery season. Talk about pressure.

 

Our permit system in its conception was an ugly political scandal that should have resulted in the firing of the game department director and the ousting from office of a too powerful Arizona senator. The director got his pay raise and we got a 30% cut in hunting opportunities the first year. More cuts followed, and more will come.

 

I have always known that the Game and Fish Commission and Department do not make decisions regarding wildlife based on money, and I?ve never said they did..

 

If our system is the best model of resource management in the West, how come our hunting opportunities keep shrinking?

 

I've watched Arizona deer hunter numbers go from 105,000 to 70,000, to 60,000, to 50,000 to 40,000. What will it take for you and other hunters to get angry, too? Just 30,000 of us allowed to hunt deer in this huge state? 20,000? 10,000? 5,000? 1,000?

 

Bill

[bchoitz]

I am a transplant from Colorado, and was not here when Az had 105K hunters in the field for deer, but I am curious about how many elk were in the state at that time, and if the increases in elk population have reduced the number of deer, particularly along the rim. I can only think of one reason why the number of permits available would go down, and that is because the harvest objectives are being met with the number of hunters in the field, or because the number of animals in the field is declining due to the increasing drought and loss of winter range. I do believe if the AZG&F could sell 105K deer permits instead of 40K deer permits and maintain the deer population, they would do so.

 

 

Also, for any college students with hopes of becoming a wildlife manager in the future...

 

I really hope all the hatred expressed by some of the people posting here does not deter you from a career that will provide you with low pay, long hours, potentially dangerous work, and some blatent and misdirected frustration from a group of people that you try to help and even consider yourself a part of.

 

Know that there are some of us who will respect you in the field, and respect your choice of career. We know you are not choosing it for the money..

 

Bret

[Rembrant]

I'm putting in a few early hours today and then going deer hunting for three days.

I'm going to my favorite area, and hunting my favorite species - in the rut! I was able to obtain this coveted tag for less than $25.00. AND I get to hunt for the entire month of January!! If I can't find the deer I want in January, I can use this same tag again in September for a couple of weeks, and if that don't work, I can go hunt again in December for a couple of more weeks! Not only that, but I can hunt my choice of two species of deer: Mule Deer, or Coues Whitetail. I got another inexpensive tag that I'll carry at the same time that allows me to harvest another fabulous big game species - Mountain Lion!

Along with the price of these tags, I get the services of law enforcement. If I see someone doing something illegal, I have the opportunity, the privilage, and the responsibility to report them. There is a state agency that handles this. They'll take care of it. All I gotta do is report it.

If I get stuck or lost, it might be these guys that help me out. I've seen them help people in these situations for years. These guys do everything! They even survey the animal populations to make sure that the herds aren't getting over-harvested or that the range is being over grazed. Heck, they'll even work with other agencies and ranchers with this. This is a good thing because I don't have this tag because I'm special; anybody can get this tag. Just go to Wall Mart and buy one!!!

Another cool thing about this tag that I have is that it's an archery tag. But even though I have obtained an archery tag, I am still allowed to put in for the lottery draw that gives me a chance at getting a rifle deer tag for any unit of my choice!!

And I'm supposed to be pissed off about this?!?

It's not difficult to find bigger problems in life.

Mike

[billrquimby]

Mike:

 

You?ve explained perfectly why you don?t care when more rifle hunters must stay home.

 

Bill

[Rembrant]

Guess I don't care if you stay home, Bill.

I didn't get a rifle tag this year either. It hurts bad. My younger brother and I make that the big event of our year. Last year we spent 11 backpacking days in the mountains. Since I didn't get a tag this year, I went with a buddy up to the Kaibab in December with cameras. What a kick. still didn't "get" a monster, but got pics of some other cool bucks. We plan to do that again in the absence of a late Coues tag.

A late whitetail tag is a really important thing for me, but it doesn't make or break my life.

Staying home is your choice.

Mike