Say goodbye to Dec. coues hunts.

[DEERSLAM]

Wow

I read that just as fast and clear as if every word was spelled correct.

[25-06]

Bill that was cool.

[Couesi1]

Alright!

If these changes are ultimately approved by the game and fish commission, I can look forward to enjoying a 10 day hunt in 22/23/24B or 24A in October or November. Sounds like a new challenge and adventure to me!!!!!!!!!!!, not the end of the world. I haven't been drawn for deer at all in two of the past three years. I don't need a rut hunt in Arizona or $3000.00 to kill a good whitetail buck, just the opportunity. Bring it on Game and Fish and keep up the good work. As it stands now, I rarely get drawn for late hunts in region 6 anyway! Thank you for your efforts. I'll start dusting off the backpack now and getting in top shape.

c-1

 

p.s. change happens, it's not always bad.

[muley]

Change wouldn't be bad if it happened in the Game and Fish Dept.

[Rembrant]

Come to think of it, December is pre-rut for whitetails anyway.

Aren't a lot of the biggest whitetails killed in Oct or Nov when they are more predictable?

I am more disturbed about the archery elk hunts getting moved out of the rut.

But then again, I can't get one of those tags any more either!

Seems that half the guys on this site want more tags and the other half don't want more tags. There is no united voice - not that I can see - except the commission. They've been heading this way for a long time.

I'll let the dust settle, and then go hunting... uh... maybe. Yeah maybe I'll get a tag.

So if the Game Dept changed, Muley, what in your estimation would those good changes be?

Mike

[.270]

a couple years ago i wrote a post that said this was gonna happen, only i did it on april 1. i remember allen taylor bit on it and was really raisin' heck until he figgerd it out. didn't ever think that it would actually happen. i'm gonna quit jokin' so much. i can't believe they're gonna have an elk hunt in august. the october rifle hunt was so hot this past year that it was a race to keep the meat from gettin' sour. ya won't have a prayer in august. if ya can't get one next to the road and get it skinned and to a locker real quick, it won't taste very good. you'd think keeping animals edible would at least be a concern of the azgfd. guess not. at least not this buncha losers. shroufe has gotta go. he left quite awhile ago, as far as doing any real work. now him and his toadies have gotta go. Lark.

[Rembrant]

Lark,

What would the new Game Dept look like?

How would you have it structured?

Who would be on it?

How would they get there?

What would you want them to do?

Mike

[ThomC]

Lark,

What would the new Game Dept look like?

How would you have it structured?

Who would be on it?

How would they get there?

What would you want them to do?

Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would get rid of the non-game branch, endandered species, etc. If the public wants this stuff then general fund money should be used for it. Quit putting the whole load on the hunters and fisherman for these eco terriosts projects. Another thing get rid of the PR people they are growing.

[Rembrant]

The non-game branch is funded by the Heritage fund generated by the Arizona Lottery.

What else would you do?

Mike

[AZcoues_addict]

I think many people are arguing over more or less tags each year, it's sad and not what I want either but we have a problem here. Why can't we think outside the box, and possibly come up with a better solution? I don't know the answer, but it seems we could all put our heads together and come up with something better than what the game and fish dept suggests, and still address some sort of compromise?

 

If we want more hunter opportunity, to me that means ultimately getting drawn but this fact depends on the hunt you apply for. Therefore in my opinion this means having higher odds of getting a tag, but not necessarily every year. Why not then limit hunters who draw a premium tag from getting drawn the next year or two? Maybe limit premium hunts only, maybe limit the season in which they can apply, maybe limit them from getting drawn period (especially as for bull elk, rifle or archery). The can still apply for the bonus point so they or the G&F won't lose out there, just increase everyone else's "opportunity" to get drawn for those years the hunters are taken out of the draw. Maybe this would circulate premium tags better (not on a yearly basis) but allow people to draw the hunt they want in a shorter # of years? In the end I think this would increase opportunity, not simply put more hunters in the field today, but give them a quality hunt and a chance to draw the tag they want in more of an expected time frame. Now this type of proposal would indicate if the G&F dept really was interested in providing increased opportunity, or whether this decision is simply for more $. For the previous year(s) successful applicants, they can hunt coues during the shortened Dec-Jan archery season that year if they want to hunt and buy the bonus point, or apply for carp. As for elk, they can buy the bonus point and wait, or apply for cow. Ultimately this does take away some opportunity yes, but maybe it would distribute it better, especially with the increasing number of residents. IMO we need to think of a better proposal, since as we said AZ is only increasing the resident hunting population.

 

What about limiting the size of antlered deer that are harvestable, this would decrease hunter success and may allow for more tags and opportunity?

 

We all need to be more creative with the ways in which we solve difficult issues such as this. I don't know how many of you would support some type of modified draw system, but I still find a way to hunt even if I don't get drawn for the hunt I want. I'd support some type of change, but not simply making hunts less desirable and the desirable hunts less likely. As mentioned, simply increasing the # of tags may have other affects not yet known, or could lead to increased harvest in certain years (or at least a less balanced or buck size harvest). I don't complain about not getting drawn, I'm just trying to find a better solution for a difficult issue that needs to be addressed. I don't know the solution, but I do think the AZ G&F needs to be more proactive in surveying hunters and getting large-scale feedback, and then be more creative or seemingly insightful about the changes.

 

That's my more than 2 cents!

[DesertBull]

I would cut the October tags in 1/2, Make the November hunt a 6 day hunt instead of two weeks, then add two late hunts of one week each. One in December and one in Jan. I would also make the late hunts a 3 bonus point minimum, meaning you must have 3 BP's to apply for it. I would also set some of the late hunts up as jr hunts. Why do we give the kids the crappiest hunts? I thought they were trying to recruit NEW HUNTERS!

 

Now, before flaming me on that last one about the BP's, think a minute. Most of us have a BP for the hunters ed and most of us have the loyalty BP for applying 5 consecutive years. That means we really only need one more point to qualify. I would rather hunt Dec/Jan every other year or every 3 years than hunt in October every year, but that is just me.

 

I would also consider making archery hunters, of which I am one, pick a species, either muley or Coues and I would open all units to archery in both the late and early seasons. Why can't we bowhunt units 1,4,5,9,12 etc in Dec / Jan now? Makes no sense.

[ultramag]

I want more deer, more tags,more time off work to chase them,a millon dollars,a lot of diesel fuel and a camp cook that can give topless dances around the camp fire,and gather fire wood.

[KGAINES]

ultramag, are you asking Lark to apply as your cook.

[ThomC]

The non-game branch is funded by the Heritage fund generated by the Arizona Lottery.

What else would you do?

Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know how to slip funds around and G$F is expert at doing it. Your spin doesn't fool me. And what about the money spent on wolves and tiny minnows. I would like to see what happens if the G$F was audited. Lots of scrambling. LOL