Say goodbye to Dec. coues hunts.

[Redbeard]

I talked with a WM from AZGFD for two hours today. I promised not to give his name for obvious reasons but he's been with the Dept. for many years. He's as frustrated as we are. One thing he said is that the Dec. coues hunts are going to be drastically reduced so that the tags can be raised and the hunt moved to Nov. during the general mule deer season. The idea is that they can sell more tags and have a lower kill success so kill the same number of deer. The ratio is for every two Dec. tags they take away they will issue three in Nov. This applies to the Northern units mostly but they will be adding a fourth hunt in the southern units and taking away dec. tags there too. Just thought you guys would be interested.

 

He also said that all of the BS coming out from them (AZGFD) lately is coming from the top down. The WM's input is not even asked for and most are opposed the the changes but the higher ups don't care. The WM's might as well not be doing surveys because all of the decisions are being made without their opinions.

 

He also said that the public comments made by individuals are not given much weight. Organizations have much more influence. He suggested it is time for a change at the top of AZGFD to a philosophy that cares about big game and hunters especially since we pay the bills. He said we need to start pushing now because Duane Shroufe will be leaving in 2008 and will likely be replaced by somebody with exactly the same philosophy unless there is pressure to do someting different.

 

Time to organize guys.

[DesertBull]

What ever happened to the AZ SFW that was forming?

 

I know it was controvertial, but these are the types of things that they were supposed to take issue with.

 

I am still kind of hesitant about it, being that the original SFW in Utah corrupted the tag structure there and put hundreds of their tags up for the highest bidder. The guys running the AZ version swore that they had no intentions of doing that here.

 

If they had written into their by-laws that they were opposed to such things, like land owner tags and the "wealth" tags, as Utah hunters call them, I would join today.

 

In the meantime, the best way to protest would be to try and get people to NOT apply for any of the new tags.

 

That would probably be as successful as a gas boycott! LOL!

[audsley]

The worst thing we can do is have a defeatist attitude. I don't believe these changes are a done deal.

 

Regarding these changes to the hunt structure, I'm not sure organizations have more influence than independent hunters. That's generally been true in the past, but there are signs that some of the commissioners want to change that. For one thing, all the organizations are against the changes, but they aren't having much effect. The commission seems to think it is helping the independent hunter, and they're telling the organizations to just chill out, this whole thing isn't just for them. At the December commission meeting in Casa Grande, one of the commissioners stated that the hunters who typically attend commission meetings are not representative of the hunting public at large.

 

If we want the commission to reconsider these changes, independent hunters need to attend the public meetings on the changes as well as the commission meetings.

 

I believe the principal thing driving these changes is a misguided attempt to get more people hunting. The department surveyed more than 6,000 hunters and asked them why they didn't hunt more often. The most common reason they received was "didn't draw a tag." If you think about it, that's probably what all of us would have said. After all, if I'd drawn a sheep tag last year, I would have hunted more. Aside from that, I probably hunted just about all I wanted to within the limits imposed by marriage and employment.

 

I believe the department and commission misinterpreted the results of the survey. They should have also asked whether we would prefer to have all of our hunts more crowded and with lower probability of success, or would we rather continue to hunt slightly less often and have better quality hunts when we do go. I'd prefer the latter, as I believe most of us would.

 

A couple of the changes might actually be good. For example, a bighorn sheep authority I know tells me he's sure more trophy rams die of old age than are killed by hunters. That's a waste. His opinion is based on skulls found in the course of doing projects with the sheep society. It's also possible that a few more deer tags are in order, but not many. The department needs to be working on bringing back the mule deer statewide. Some of the problem is drought, but much of it is predation and changes to vegetation.

 

I do not believe the principal motivation is money. That's an easy answer, but there is ample evidence that other issues are driving these proposals to get more hunters in the field.

[Redbeard]

THe WM I talked to said that the Dept. doesn't consider "serious hunters" like us representative of "Joe Average Hunter" so you are right on the money. So why go to meetings anyway? So why do they conduct hunter surveys? Maybe that's why they ask in their surveys what hunting/conservation organizations we belong to. If we say we do maybe they throw our opinions in the discard pile?

 

But Joe A. Hunter isn't the one who cares about the future of hunting either. They will go if they draw a tag but otherwise they will just go to the dunes or something. The Dept. needs to recognize that their future and support isn't with those guys anyway. They are not volunteering, applying for 8-10 hunts a year every year, buying archery and over the counter tags every year, turning in poachers, contributing to conservation organizations, etc. Joe A. huter is often the problem with hunting getting a bad rep. when they are seen driving around road hunting while drinking beer and tossing the cans out the window.

[Rharris]

THe WM I talked to said that the Dept. doesn't consider "serious hunters" like us representative of "Joe Average Hunter" so you are right on the money.  So why go to meetings anyway?  So why do they conduct hunter surveys?  Maybe that's why they ask in their surveys what hunting/conservation organizations we belong to.  If we say we do maybe they throw our opinions in the discard pile? 

 

But Joe A. Hunter isn't the one who cares about the future of hunting either.  They will go if they draw a tag but otherwise they will just go to the dunes or something.  The Dept. needs to recognize that their future and support isn't with those guys anyway.  They are not volunteering,  applying for 8-10 hunts a year every year, buying archery and over the counter tags every year, turning in poachers, contributing to conservation organizations, etc.  Joe A. huter is often the problem with hunting getting a bad rep. when they are seen driving around road hunting while drinking beer and tossing the cans out the window.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have to get together on this and not just roll over. You can e-mail the G and F and you can also attend the meetings. I have heard all of the above and confirm that this came from the top. What I was also told was we need to organize and attend all the public meetings especially the meeting in Phoenix that the commision will be present at. If each and everyone of us attends I know we can keep our December hunts. Just dont roll over.

One sad thing is that I have talked to several frineds that enjoy coues hunting that know nothing about these recomendations. Get the word out! Amanda can you create a survey on this site. Can you e-mail all those that are members here?

I will say it again, don't roll over on this one. I am trying to get my schedule arranged for the big meeting in Phoenix. If I attend I will give a ride to anyone in the Safford area a ride. I will definetely be at the Safford meeting in Feb. and have already e-mailed the GandF.

[pollohombre]

Someone here who is an attorney or can write in a understandable manner should start a petition and have everyone sign it. We should contact all of our friends who hunt get on the website and sign it. Then we should submit this to the Game and Fish. Maybe it would help?

[DesertBull]

If someone would write it and post it here and once we we all agree on the wording, I will prepare an electronic petition.

 

One hint, don't make it a 3,000 word essay. State our position clearly and be respectful.

[SunDevil]

I would have to disagree with AUDSLEY - money is the root of all evil!!!

 

What they don't understand is they could bump up the price of a dec tag by 50% and still achieve the same result. At say $30 a tag, currently 2 Dec tags is worth $60 and 3 Oct tags are worth $90. If they make the Dec tags $45 then they get there $90.

 

Yes I am sure they have received complaints about hunting opportunities but guess what the population of our state has exploded and deer tags have gone down.

 

Have the decision makers been out on an Oct or Nov deer hunt? I would guess not or else they wouldn't be suggesting to increase those tags. You can't get away from people as it is on those hunts and now they want to allow more hunters on them. Go figure.

 

Yes demand has gone up but unfortunately there is very little that can be done on the supply side of a finite resource.

 

This is not rocket science. Unfortunately I do not think that they get how basic it is.

 

Why don't they do something about reducing predation and in 5 years there would be more deer available and then they could offer more tags.

[Coues79]

I would have to disagree with AUDSLEY - money is the root of all evil!!!

 

What they don't understand is they could bump up the price of a dec tag by 50% and still achieve the same result.  At say $30 a tag, currently 2 Dec tags is worth $60 and 3 Oct tags are worth $90.  If they make the Dec tags $45 then they get there $90.

 

Yes I am sure they have received complaints about hunting opportunities but guess what the population of our state has exploded and deer tags have gone down.

 

Have the decision makers been out on an Oct or Nov deer hunt?  I would guess not or else they wouldn't be suggesting to increase those tags.  You can't get away from people as it is on those hunts and now they want to allow more hunters on them.  Go figure.

 

Yes demand has gone up but unfortunately there is very little that can be done on the supply side of a finite resource.

 

This is not rocket science.  Unfortunately I do not think that they get how basic it is.

 

Why don't they do something about reducing predation and in 5 years there would be more deer available and then they could offer more tags.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Sundevil. More emphasis needs to be put on predation to increase the amount of deer. This will inturn produce more opportunity for hunters to harvest animals. Its like it was mentioned above, it's not rocket science. You could easily bump up the price of rut hunts and people will still pay for them. I'm not in favor of hiking the costs up on hunts, but when all this crap starts getting around, I would definitly rather do that than see more people out in the field during the November hunts. There is already too many as it is.

[dustyb0]

I went to the G@F public meeting tuesday night in mesa.The main guy,first name is Leonard,went on and on about the dept. being ordered by the commission to enhance hunter oppertunity.That would create more hunters and retain more hunters.He tried to blame it on the commission but these recommendations were thought up by the Game @ Fish Department.I personaly hate what they came up with but they wont change anything unless somone or better yet an organization can come up with something that will satisfy the commissions order.The arizona bow hunter org. is meeting with the dept. main guy ,leonard,about the sept. elk recommendations.They are making a little headway and the guy from the elk survey was there with some results,4100 surveys done,61% of hunters who have had the 22 or 23 nov. elk hunts rated it poor and would not apply for those hunts again.I really got the feeling the dept. wont change anything without alot of pressure from us.I MEAN ALOT.

[Red Rabbit]

At last night's G&F meeting in Flagstaff, the publications handed out said G&F wants 5-10% of the WT tags in the late season( alternative deer management plan handout, and stated in Guidelines and Recommendations handout), up to 10% of the permits offered during December(in letter from Leonard Ordway, Game Branch Chief, ) Brian Wakeling (sp?) of G&F stated they would like to see the December tag numbers around 10%, and those units with 6% now could (note: not would) see an increase.

 

For 2005, the % of December tags ran from 0% to 10.3% (my calculations)

Unit 29=5.3%, 30A=8.3%, 30B=0%, 31=4.8%, 32=6.4%, 33=6.75%, 34A=1.4%, 34B=4.3%, 35A=8.3%, 35B=5.9%, 36A=5.5%, 36B=7%, 36C=10.3%

 

If they hold to 5-10%, some units should see an increase. If they want to increase opportunity in the south, some could see an decrease in the December tags and still be in the 5-10% range.

 

The big shift in tags from December will be for the central AZ units. In the Hunt Guidelines, units 6A, 21, 24A, 24B are proposed to have Nov 10-19 and Dec 22-31 whitetail hunts. Units 22, 23, 27, 28 have proposed Oct 27-Nov 5 and Dec 22-31 hunts. Unit 6B has Nov 3-9 and Dec 22-31 listed. No units have four WT hunts listed (as some have said).

 

95% plus of the attendees at last nights meeting in Flag were opposed to the restructuring of the WT tags and of the Archery elk tags.

 

Email address to send your comments to G&F is

azgamebranch@azgfd.gov

 

You can fax your comments to 602-789-3929

[CouesWhitetail]

Please everyone, make your opinions known. Don't take a "this is a done deal" attitude. It certainly will be done without a lot of pressure from the public.

 

This Saturday the 21st is the "meet the commission" event at the Doubletree Paradise Valley Resort, 5401 N. Scottsdale Rd in Scottsdale. The event begins with the chairman's welcome and commission introductions at 1:30. I have been told they will have an open mike where anyone can get up and ask or address anything that afternoon. So if you can go and speak, please do.

 

Amanda

[bowhunter4life]

time to ba accountable.I was at the mesa meeting.It starts here, we had 8 people from our desert christian archers group there.we all spoke and were against the new plans.I will be at the phx meeting plus others to stand and voice my frustation with these changes.lets all make a commitment to be at these meetings.

 

 

 

 

I will be there will anybody join me

 

 

 

 

it starts here

 

 

1 person

[az4life]

I believe many of us caught the obvious rubber stamp recommendations supposedly from the WMs used to craft the new permit proposals.

This stinks so bad you can smell it 5 miles away, upwind.

 

I think the writing is on the walls. the AGFD HAS made up their plan and the 5-10% of serious hunters will suffer so the dept can make more money.

 

I have sent my letters and feel they met the round file immediately after opening. I have attended meetings in the past and the apathy that is presented by many of the commisioners is appalling. Sure, Joe A Hunter is not accustomed to public speaking and cna be boring when 9 out of 10 complain about the same thing, but thye should at least listen. Maybe groups like ADA might have some impact but I cannot believe the department is interested in increasing opportunity. They won't do anything to reduce depredation from lions. They only want more revenue. This so called plan will serve to discourage the real hunters, and put more hunter wannabe's in the field. Scarey proposition!

 

AGFD has lost site of their mission and it may be impossible to get it back.

There are a Few Western Minded states left, and they are looking better all the time.

 

AGFD take note, You are not fooling anyone here!

[SunDevil]

Has the AZ Deer Association got together on this? Do they have a uniform position on it and are planning on going to the state with it? How many people belong to the ADA that they represent. Just curious. CB