Say goodbye to Dec. coues hunts.

[CouesWhitetail]

The ADA board met on Wed night and discussed this. We are planning another meeting in a few weeks to try and come up with alternatives. I think the commission feels a change needs to be made and of course the only way to increase permit numbers at the moment is to reduce hunter success and that is how the current proposal came about. We will be meeting with Leonard Ordway as well. Currently I believe the ADA has 350 members.

 

I don't think people should discount their individual contributions. Although an organization may have more sway, if you get 500 individuals coming and saying the same thing, then it will have an impact. And sometimes I think the commission discounts organizations because they feel that the average hunter isn't represented by that organization. Again, I encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to go and speak their mind. I know it can be difficult to get up and speak, so if you don't feel you can do that, at least write your comments down and submit them at the meetings or email AGFD or call.

 

Amanda

[audsley]

I hope the Az Deer Association gives this issue a high priority.

 

For alternatives, I suggest looking here:

 

1. Habitat management. Forest conditions have changed for the worse for deer. The controlled burns being carried out in Unit 27, which I believe the ADA is helping to fund, should improve deer habitat and help restore permit numbers. We need more projects like this. Today Unit 27's deer permit numbers are a fraction of what they were in the 1980s. Also, some of our western units used to have a lot more mule deer.

 

2. Predator management to restore game species. That doesn't mean predator annihilation, just temporary reductions while game species recover. The results of a recent Three-Bar study, which every licensed hunter should know about, proved that deer reproduction can remain high even during drought.

 

3. Access. In southern Arizona, more Coues tags have been cut back due to loss of access to public lands than to the drought. We need a legislative solution to stop the practice of closing off roads through private property in order to deny access to public lands beyond. This is something the Arizona Deer Association and other hunting-oriented conservation groups should take on this year. If one or more of these groups took the initiative, maybe the Commission would get a little more aggressive about it.

 

Hunter numbers are going down, and the Commission is taking the easiest solution they can find. If we let them do this, it's our own fault.

[DesertBull]

The G&F give too many deer permits as it is now.

 

Mule Deer tags - 2005

 

Unit 7 - 700

unit 8 - 500

unit 9 - 650

unit 10 - 700

Unit 33 - 700

[Rharris]

So which Meeting is going to be "the" meeting where we get our opinion out to the Commission. Is it this one this weekend or the one they usually have in April. I hear of discussions going on beyond this weekend so I am just wondering. If we have time to get a petition together then lets do it. All it needs to have is the G and F proposals summmarized and the statement saying all those that sign this petition are completely opposed. Am I write?

 

RH

[coueshunter]

I have alot of questions as well. Arizona Deer Association is involved in this but to what extent I am not totally sure. As for SFW I am still not sure who or what is happening with it and its involvement in these crucial political times. I really really think Janet Napolitano is behind alot of the AZGFD plans and her primary goal is revenue generation especially in light of the upcoming re-election campaign. I thought Pete Cimellaro from ADA was stepping in as the SFW person and would be aggressively fighting legislation/political actions that adversely affect wildlife and sportsmen interests. Hopefully ADA and SFW is working behind the scenes on these issues and the recent appointment of an under qualified game commissioner. I suspect Napolitano is quietly making appointments and strategically aligning forces within many departments to strengthen her position which will not necessarily help us hunters..........Allen Taylor........

[runningbird]

IMO regarding the groups like ADA and big horn sheep, rocky mountain elk, and so on. these groups send a few individuals to the meetings, usualy the same people. they all say the same thing (we represent our membership). I don't think this works any more. each year it becomes easyer for the commision to say no to these few individuals. they don't hear a public outcry. I think we need to do something more drastic. for instance we could all attend meetings, our groups could help organize us. or we could even set up some kind of prostest at the G&F. we are all making it too easy for them to make unwise, thoughtless decisions.

mark

[dave]

I need to study this more. If we take some of the 25 December whitetail tags from unit 34a, how much opportunity will that produce for the October and November hunts? How about the 25 December whitetail tags in 34b? Shazam this is really starting to add up to a LOT of opportunity. Hold on, I have to reset my calculator decimal point to be able to handle the opportunity.

I am glad to see that the Department is right on top of archery success. If you look at the whitetail harvest in 36b, in 2001, 2002, there were ZERO bucks killed. It got way out of hand in 2003, there were 10 bucks harvested after a 6 week fall winter season combined with the 28 day season in August/September. Seems like that is about 70 days of archery hunting. Good thing they are cutting the season by two weeks. Hey, cutting the season, thats opportunity to take up golf. You can have a 10am T time after the frost has melted and don't need gloves to keep the cat claw from ripping your hands up.

 

I just hope every hunter in this state shows up to as many meetings as they can and speaks out.

 

This science makes me want to barf.

[Redbeard]

Hunter numbers are down because the deer herd is at record low levels. It's not like they just don't have enough people applying so have leftover tags. The idea is to move the hunts to a time when hunters will be LESS successful so they can get more hunters out there without killing more deer. (or elk) They are lowering their buck/doe ratio goals and their kill success goals, and any spike is considered a "buck" in their counts too. All this when the deer herd is already hurting. The idea is (I think this is the simplest but most truthful way to say it) make AZ hunts worse in terms of kill success, quality of the experience (bucks seen, number of other hunters in the field), and trophy quality so more people will be hunting and buying tags. Don't forget that the federal money that AZGFD gets depends upon the number of licenses sold. So it isn't just the increase in money from selling another couple thousand tags but it is added to by the Fed. money increase. I'm told that they just care about getting as many people hunting as possible and the quality of the hunt, kill success %, and the quality of animals taken is NOT important. Furthermore, it will be even more dangerous to be in the field and enforcement will be impossible with so many mulie and coues hunters in the field at once screwing each others hunts up etc. The reduced number of Dec. coues tags and Sept. bull tags is just setting us up for the A/B hunts and tag price increases they are proposing. It will happen once they have arranged the tags so it is clear what an A hunt is. You'll see...

 

What is the ONE thing that AZ has had over other states that has made us so popular with NR's? Quality of the hunts and trophies. AZGFD is literally trying to ruin that with these rules. They no longer care about managing the wildlife populations and having a quality experience. Period. I dare them to say otherwise.

 

We are entering the Dark Days of Az hunting. The things that made it worth waiting so long to draw a quality tag will be gone in a few years with this new management philosophy. I don't know if we can do anaything abaout it short of having a revolt of some kind but they know they don't need to listen to us serious hunters. They know we will continue to apply no matter what and if we don't no big deal they are counting on all of the once every few years hunters to buy tags. It is kind of supply and demand. The demand is way higher than the supply so they can jack with us and still sell out.

[az4life]

Dave might be on to the "increased opportunity" the AGFD is referring to.

Shorter deer seasons might shift the hunters and anglers toward A new hunt season for the elusive "Round dimpled bogey bird".

 

Pretty difficult quarry for sure. I have hunted these things all over valleys and hills, lakes and riverbeds, desert and forests but I never seem to come out the winner. Those suckers tease you with near misses all day long, and after shooting for them more times than Casey, you finally hit a good one you cannot find it!

There is always 1 shot that seems to bring you back another time. but a miss of 1 inch costs just as much as a miss by a mile.

 

This is one species of "Game" that the Politicians know inside and out!

[dave]

I would like to hunt them, but after 50 you are just a decoy.

[lfootmatt]

These policies seem very short sighted. Instead of enacting policies to increase game species populations, reduced predation and improved habitat, that all would lead to long-term game species population increases. Long-term, these policies would lead to more tags (and money), and an improved hunter experience. If the state truly wants revenue increases for the state it should look at hunting, habitat and game populations as an investment in a renewable resource. Lets face it, everyone here spends stupid amounts of money to hunt.

 

I grew up in Missouri and attempted to deer hunt in the early 80's when deer populations were decimated and you couldn't even hunt turkeys. The state invested in policies to improve habitat and now have huge populations and produce prodigious amounts of trophy deer. I'll be traveling back there this year if I don't get drawn out here. A former co-worker invited me back to hunt on his 2000 acre ranch that's routinely producing 160-200" bucks. That is in a state that has invested huge money in its outdoor activities, from lakes and fishing to public access and hunting. They took the long-term approach. Less than $200 to hunt out of state, I'm in. It isn?t Coues hunting, but it beats the sidelines.

 

OR:(the dark side of the equation)

 

In the short term, increase revenue going into an election year by offering lower quality tags and killing less deer due to crappy hunts, increase hunter dissatisfaction, push more hunters to other activities and further marginalize the shrinking hunter population in Arizona. The only people helped in this equation are the politicians who are pushing an animal rights agenda, and the animal rights people. The animals will lose along with the hunters. The tree huggers will not do a thing to improve or protect wildlife habitat. That will only come from us and AZF&G. No controlled burns, no reintroduction of threatened species, nothing. Want a mountain lion or bear? better get it soon! In Colorado they have already lost some of their predator hunts, spring bear is gone and trapping as well.

 

If these bad, short term policies age coming from the top down with no input from the actual game managers, then it is coming directly or indirectly from the Governor?s office via her appointees.

 

My $0.02,

 

Matt

[audsley]

IFOOTMATT,

 

I strongly agree with your entire first paragraph and most of what you said afterward. However, an important clarification is in order.

 

In Arizona, Game & Fish is operated as something like an enterprise fund where it receives only the money it brings in from sportsmen and from Federal funds that are based on the money derived from sportsmen. Game & Fish receives no General Fund money. Consequently, politicians really don't care about G & F's revenues since they can't get their hands on any of it. (Let's not go into the Heritage Fund just now.)

 

That could change, however, in a couple of years. Game & Fish is looking to put an initiative on the ballot that would add a 1/20 of a cent sales tax for Game & Fish. I have some problems with this initiative as it is currently envisioned, but I'll not go into that now. This would be similar to the conservation sales tax Missouri has had for many years, but a smaller percentage and wouldn't raise nearly as much money.

 

By the way, IFOOTMATT, when I grew up in Missouri - and I'm dating myself here - there were NO deer to hunt in many parts of the state. There was an occasional deer, but not enough to hunt. Deer hunting wasn't widespread in the state until about the late '60s or early 70's when I was in college. None of my hunting friends in college ever talked about hunting deer. I grew up hunting squirrels, rabbits and Bobwhite quail, and was happy as could be to do it. In 1971 I witnessed the release of five turkeys in Andrew County where they had not existed for 100 years. Then I went west and found all this wonderful , uncrowded public land and interesting ways to hunt them. When I went back in the late 70s and 80s, I found my farm relatives were doing deer drives and sitting in elevated blinds. Thank God I'm an Arizona hunter!

[KGAINES]

Well said Matt.

 

I wish they would also give a bonus point for lions, if you take a lion you receive one bonus point for the species of your choice, maybe after five lions you receive one permanent bonus point, proving you took the lion I guess would be the tooth that is turned in.

The december hunts are prized hunts that are hard enough to draw already, there are leftover oct. hunts, why create more hunts that nobody wants unless it is a last resort. They need to learn to take care of the valued customers ( devoted hunters ), the group they are trying to appease could care less when they hunt, and if they don't get drawn they have other things planned. In the short term they will make money, in the long term nobody will want to hunt in AZ including the residents.

[DesertBull]

If the G&F department are hearing complaints about not being drawn, it's most likely that the people that are complaining are the ones that only put in for the best hunts.

 

Increasing the October hunts and decreasing the December hunts is not going to cut down on the complaints, it's going to increase them.

 

80% of the people that put a OCtober hunt as either first or second choice are already getting drawn.

[Red Rabbit]

Desert Bull,

 

That is a great point. Many October hunts are still 100% draws. If hunters are not drawing for whitetail, it is because they choose to not be drawn by not selecting an October hunt. Increasing the number of October hunts would not make a difference to them, and decreasing the December hunts will only upset all of us who apply for them. Nobody is gaining.

 

This fact should be e-mailed and faxed to G&F by all of us.

 

RR