Getting tougher to find wildlife managers

[billrquimby]

"Staying home is your choice."

 

 

Mike:

 

Not so, at least no so in my case. I dropped a pickup truck on my left arm on a sheep hunt and haven't been able to draw a bow ever since. (I took a mule deer and 5 or 6 pigs with bows before that accident.) I'm afraid I'm stuck with the luck of the draw.

 

The point is not whether you or I can draw a tag, but the fact that there is a very real threat of all of us losing our right to hunt at all as fewer and fewer of us are allowed to go out.

 

We need more hunters, not fewer, if our traditions are to be passed on to coming generations.

 

Bill Q

[ultramag]

just when was there 104,000 deer hunters in the field in az?...........never!

[DEERSLAM]

I understand what Bill Q. is saying. The more hunting opportunities we loose the more hunters we loose the closer we get to loosing the sport we all love so much.

 

Mike I also understand your point but alot of people aren't going to feel the same as you about that archery tag. No offense.

[billrquimby]

just when was there 104,000 deer hunters in the field in az?...........never!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1969.

[audsley]

I don't agree that tags should be increased.

 

Yes, we used to have more hunters in the field than today. But the old days were not the good old days in my book.

 

Used to be we had no October hunt, and in November there were 10,000 whitetail hunters falling over each other. Canyons like Gardner, Peppersauce and Pinery were circuses in November. I had to work harder to get away from the crowds.

 

Today we have far more access problems. Not all of the areas that could be hunted 20 years ago are still accessible. The front side of the Catalinas is pretty well locked up, and the Santa Ritas are increasingly being subdivided and ranchetted. Part of the Tumacocoris near I-19 is now lost. But the worst of it has been in Cochise and Graham Counties. Read the Hunt Unit Reports on AG&F's website. There are serious access problems in Units 29, 30A, 30B, 31 and 32, and they're getting worse every year.

 

I compared total Southern Az. whitetail permits for 1992 and 2004. East of the San Pedro, permit numbers have declined 21%. West of the San Pedro, permit numbers declined only 4%. Presumably we've experienced the same drought on both sides of the river. I believe the difference is in loss of access. AG&F does issue permits for deer that cannot be accessed by hunters.

 

I'm told the Winchester Mtns. have pretty well become one family's private hunting preserve because they control the only access. Roads that cross private land are blocked off and used to deprive the public of access to public lands. Remember John Long Canyon in the Chiricahuas? It was closed off to most people for years before AG&F acquired a right-of way. Anyone hunted the Swisshelms lately? How about the Dragoons? Or the San Rafael Valley, or Sonoita?

 

I noticed that in the last three years, 98.4% of those appying for any S. Az. whitetail tag as a first choice got to go hunting. Is that a bad draw success rate?

 

As for the higher harvest, I believe that's partly the result of better hunting skills and equipment. The cowboy-style hunter is pretty much gone. You can blame John Doyle for teaching us not to just walk around the hills the way Jack O'Connor used to do, but to sit and glass with optics O'Connor couldn't have even dreamed of. We now have rangefinders, spotting scopes, more accurate rifles and better riflescopes. These developments alone could be enough to take success rates from the 18-20% Bill Quimby remembers to the 23% experienced statewide the last three years.

 

The casual hunter seems to be a vanishing breed. That's a problem in some respects, but it's also a blessing. I believe the casual hunter, the guy who just wanted to be out with the boys and boozed it up in camp and wasn't all that serious about his hunting, had looser ethics than the serious guy, and he made more mistakes. I can't prove all that, it's just my feeling. Note the fact that hunting accidents have been steadily declining over the years.

 

I believe we are now experiencing the golden years of southern Arizona whitetail hunting. Let's keep them as long as we can, and in the meantime start working on our access issues. (Suggestion: A state law requiring all grazing leaseholders to grant hunting access to all leased public lands. You'll be hearing more from me on this subject in the coming months.)

 

Larry Audsley

[Rembrant]

Sorry about the arm Bill. And maybe you've thought of this, but I think you may be qualified to use a crossbow during the archery hunt - with a handicap permit. That'd be a slick way to toss a wrench into the boiler room of a deer.

Hey Larry, thanks for the well written and thought out response. Making the ranchers open access to the land that WE own would be the best thing. I think the ranchers should really be more accomodating in this area. Never did understand how they can legally keep us off OUR state and federal lands. What's to keep the state from whooping the 'imminant domain' thing on the ranches of this state and giving the land back to the people that own it. Heck, people have lost their homes so that strip malls could go in. I don't mean to be so antagonistic towards the ranchers, but denying the people of the state access to their lands is no small deal. Besides Arizona ranchers provide, what, 2% of the nation's beef?!

Something to think about.

Meanwhile the ranchers are locking up private hunting areas only as long as able bodied hunters don't backpack in and take advantage of the closures.

 

There's always going to be the debate over hunter numbers and wildlife management. It will only get worse from here on.

Personally, I think the Dept. does a good job, and it's a good thing that Dept. biologists and managers have the control over what takes place and not me, or other armchair managers that type their frustrations on this forum.

Mike

[bchoitz]

Larry and Mike,

 

Thank you, that was well put on both accounts.

 

I like the idea of access points required by lease holders. On the flip side, we the people accessing these areas need to remember that the area we travel through to get to our public land is to be treated with respect or access may be denied in the future.

 

My hat is off to the owners of the land north of the Nogales airport, and at three R canyon for allowing access at those points. Thank you.

 

Bret

[billrquimby]

Larry, Mike, Bret:

 

You are correct that access to our public land is the number one problem affecting Arizona?s deer hunters. Number two is the declining number of permits that results when permit numbers are based on access. In effect, whether we get to hunt or not is determined by parking spaces and not by deer population trends.

 

I don?t think I?ve advocated that we return to more than 100,000 deer hunters. What I said was, ?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.?

 

A different hunting structure requires some creative thinking. Although I?m not advocating it, a two-month season would result in just one opening weekend. If someone wanted to escape hunters all he or she would have to do is wait three or four weeks before going out. Selling tags over the counter and ending unit-by-unit restrictions would result in hunters distributing themselves into areas where deer populations are highest (and can take the pressure best). It has been shown elsewhere that hunter success rates would drop, but the deer kill would not rise proportionately as participants increased. Access to our public lands must be restored first, however.

 

I repeat, I?m not advocating two-month seasons. I?m only pointing out that something else is needed. The present lottery system is a proven failure, in my opinion, or we would have more hunting opportunities instead of fewer today.

 

I could say all this makes no difference to me. I?m an old man and no longer physically able to hunt as I did before my heart attack. I suppose I?ve already killed my last whitetail in Arizona. That doesn?t bother me because I?ve taken more than my share of game and have been fortunate to have had experiences that others can only dream about.

 

What does bother me is that deer hunting permits in Arizona have been consistently shrinking an average of 1,900 permits per year over the past 35 years. For the sake of hunting?s future this cannot be allowed to continue. We have too little political influence today. Just imagine how little we will have when there are only 21,000 of us in ten years, or just 2,000 in twenty years if something isn?t done. I shouldn't worry, I guess. I won?t be here in either case.

 

Larry, our friend, the late, great John Doyle, and his chums did change the way dedicated whitetail hunters hunt but I suspect the majority of people continue to hunt as O?Connor did. Guys with $39.95 7x35 Walmart specials on their necks still come home with deer.

 

Bill

[audsley]

Bill,

 

I'm actively opposing - and I do mean actively- the changes to the hunt structure for Coues deer. However, I'm grateful to you for the most articulate rationale I've seen to date for the opposing side. Hope you don't mind that I copied three of your posts and forwarded them to several people, including one official who is supporting the tag number increases.

 

Now I'm extremely interested in the details behind why we went to the permit system in the first place. I didn't get here until 1973, so I missed that episode.

 

Did you ever know why this state senator wanted a permit system?

 

My guess is that it had something to do with limiting the number of hunters pounding the landscape every fall, and that ranching interests were behind it. Is that a good guess? Or was it public land management agencies? Or both?

 

Larry Audsley

[billrquimby]

Bill,

 

Did you ever know why this state senator wanted a permit system?

 

My guess is that it had something to do with limiting the number of hunters pounding the landscape every fall, and that ranching interests were behind it.  Is that a good guess?  Or was it public land management agencies?  Or both?

 

Larry Audsley

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Larry:

 

It had more to do with personalities and actually involved very few people. Sen. Bill Hardt of Globe, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, was a personal friend of George Parker of Amado. George wanted a five-year moritorium on deer hunting "to save the deer."

 

AGFD director Bob Jantzen wanted a pay raise and promised Hardt's committee that he "would do something for the deer" (his exact words) in exchange for its approval of the raise.

 

Jantzen returned to his agency and sent a memo to the game branch and regional supervisors ordering them to come up with a system that would reduce deer hunters by 30%. The permit-only system resulted.

 

There was talk of "a domino effect," with wildlife managers away from urban areas saying permits weren't needed in their units but they were afraid they would be over-run with hunters from Tucson, Phoenix, and Flagstaff if their units didn't have permits, too.

 

Parker was a crusty ol' rancher, but this was not why he wanted the moritorium. He also guided influential friends from all over the world (including Prince Abdorreza of Iran for whom I later wrote a biography) and was having trouble finding the big bucks that he produced when he was younger.

 

I knew George well and even hunted with him a couple of times. I think he honestly felt a moritorium was needed "to save the deer." The AGFD and most sportsmen believed the herds were not in trouble, however.

 

The Tucson Rod and Gun Club and the Arizona Wildlife Federation were opposed to the permit system at first, but Parker got to AGFD commission chairman Jack Mantle of Tucson.

 

Leaders of the local sportsmen's clubs met at my house in early 1970 with Mantle to try to convince him to block Jantzen's action, but , Mantle pushed the other commissioners for and got a 5-0 vote to go to permits. Mantle was an avid quail hunter, and did very little (if any) deer hunting.

 

Bill

[audsley]

Bill,

 

Thanks for the interesting story. That's a reminder of the games that can be played, and why we need to examine all change proposals carefully.

 

I still oppose dramatic increases to the number of Southern Arizona whitetail permits. Right now the deer country is as filled with hunters in October and November as I'd ever want it to be. You say there didn't used to be hunters on every rock. Well, there must have been more rocks out there when you were younger. Doubling the number of whitetail hunters we currently have would make it crowded enough that I'd want to let someone else have my rock while I did something else. Conditions like that would probably drive me, however reluctantly, to become a full-time bowhunter.

 

It's my belief that most people who want to hunt Southern Arizona whitetail can do so right now if they're willing to include October hunts among their choices, and if they fill out their applications correctly. In the past three years, the number of people selecting whitetail hunts as their first choice was only 98% of the available tags.

 

Larry

[TLH]

This is actually how the Game and Fish was started:

 

The first major project of the AWF after its founding in 1923 was legislation to get politics out of wildlife management. They accomplished this by drafting a state game code which provided for a Commission/Department form of wildlife administration. It wasn't willingly accepted by the politicians of that day, including the governor, but was finally adopted by referendum in 1928.

 

Neither the governor nor his henchmen were willing to accept this accomplishment, and in 1930 tried to again take control of Game and Fish. With the help of its affiliate organizations the AWF managed to beat back this effort. Despite other attempts over the years, including the most recent effort some 15 years ago, we continue to have essentially the same type of administration as was established about 70 years ago.

 

In 1958, through efforts of the AWF, the game code was revised to its current form without altering the Commission/Department structure.

 

The AWF supported a revision of the state water code to specifically establish wildlife as a beneficial use of water. This made possible the development of many fishing lakes, especially on the Mogollon Rim.

 

The AWF supported the introduction of pronghorn antelope to the Arizona Strip, the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, and other historic pronghorn habitats. The introduction of the Merriam Turkey into suitable habitat, including the Kaibab Plateau, was also strongly backed by the AWF.

 

The AWF was also instrumental in the establishment of the federal Kofa Game Refuge for the protection and management of the desert bighorn, leading eventually to the opening of this magnificent big game species to limited hunting.

 

AWF members were also involved in the development of Arizona's buffalo herds and in the re-introduction of elk in this state.

 

Since the creation of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission the AWF has worked closely with the sitting governor in screening and endorsing qualified individuals as Commission members.

 

The AWF and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association established a Stockmen-Sportsmen Committee to address the problem of vandalism on the rangelands of the state.

 

The AWF worked closely with the Department and Commission, the University of Arizona and the Wildlife Management Institue to establish a Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit at the University.

[billrquimby]

TLH:

 

Your view of the the AGFD history is correct, except that the AWF was called the Arizona Game Protective Association until about 1966 or 67, when then-AGPA president Bill Winter (a Phoenix advertising agency owner) pushed for a more politically correct name.

 

AGPA/AWF's past contributions to hunting, fishing and conservation cannot be disputed.

 

AGPA/AWF had total control over who received game commission appointments ... until Bruce Babbitt became governor. That was about the time Bill Hardt left the AZ Senate, too.

 

Since then the AWF has had much less influence. Like our hunting opportunities, the AWF's numbers have been shrinking.

 

Bill Q

[audsley]

Since then the AWF has had much less influence. Like our hunting opportunities, the AWF's numbers have been shrinking.

 

Bill Q

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In addition to shrinking in number, AWF made a hard left turn somewhere along the way and lost the support of many in the hunting community. (Maybe those two events are related - ya think?) That's a shame because single species groups aren't set up to do what AWF used to do.

 

But recently there have been some encouraging signs. I'm watching to see whether hard-core hunters like TLH continue trying to shape AWF's direction. If he doesn't stomp off in disgust pretty soon, I'll have to take another look at that group. If AWF could return to being a statewide voice for hunters, a huge hole would get filled.

[billrquimby]

"That's a shame because single species groups aren't set up to do what AWF used to do. .... But recently there have been some encouraging signs. I'm watching to see whether hard-core hunters like TLH continue trying to shape AWF's direction. If he doesn't stomp off in disgust pretty soon, I'll have to take another look at that group. If AWF could return to being a statewide voice for hunters, a huge hole would get filled."

 

Larry:

 

I agree with everything you've said, especially about single species groups.

 

Arizona needs something similar to the old AGPA, a super strong association of ALL of Arizona's hunting, fishing and shooting clubs, with a full-time, personable and knowledgeable executive officer paid to grow membership, raise funds, and be our mouthpiece.

 

Anyone out there got $500,000-$750,000 or so for seed money?

 

LTH may say we already have this in the AWF but I'm afraid it has a long way to go to recover its former glory, in my opinion. I wish it well.

 

Its left turn, incidentally, began not long after its name change and AGFD's adoption of the permit-only hunting system, which AWF leaders opposed then supported. Neither may have been the cause, but the timing was the same.

 

BillQ