What does AZGFD do exactly?

[motoxno53]

This is an interesting post and a very valid question. Red Rabbit provided the link to our website, and there is a lot there. My guess, based on the remainder of the first post is that the real interest here lies with game management, and probably primarily deer and elk.

 

Deer populations are admittedly low right now, but the low point was probably reached around 2002. Since that time, statewide we have been seeing a cautious increase. It is nothing like it was in the early 1980s, and I'm not claiming that we can just sit back and watch things improve. But the Department and Commission have been struggling with several concepts that consider both improving wildlife and wildlife habitat and keeping as many hunters engaged as possible. That was the "opportunity" phase that many hunters seemed to dislike. And despite our efforts to put more people afield, statewide buck to doe ratios increased.

 

This year, the Commission listened very closely to what hunters had to say and they adopted new hunt guidelines that direct the Department to manage for higher buck to doe and bull to cow ratios. In the short term, managing for higher ratios will generate fewer tags and fewer hunters in the field, but should provide more older age class animals and probably a better quality hunt for more people. The Commission followed that action in August with a reduction of over 1,000 elk tags at the December meeting. We have yet to set the deer tags for fall 2012, but I expect to see permit reductions there as well when we address them in April 2012.

 

Permit reductions certainly do reduce the revenue that the Department receives. And the Department is primarily funded by hunter (and angler) dollars, either through license fees or federal excise taxes. This is a double edged sword - hunters and anglers do fund most conservation, but conservation is not always cheap.

 

We work with several wildlife conservation organizations, including the Arizona Elk Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Arizona Deer Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, Arizona Antelope Foundation, and the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society just to name a few. These groups raise money in a variety of ways that we then put on the ground to benefit wildlife. Each year, they raise between $1.2 and $1.5 million through special license tag sales that they have to market. But we jointly decide on how we can best enhance game habitat through the Habitat Partnership Committee. Some of these groups work to raise additional funds through their banquets (the National Wild Turkey Federation routinely contributes as much to habitat work through fundraising banquets as they do through tag sales) or other grants (the Arizona Antelope Foundation recently secured a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to benefit pronghorn in southern Arizona). This is work that we jointly pursue. Joining one of these organizations can be a great way to get involved, make a difference, and assist with solving management problems.

 

The Commission has recently liberalized mountain lion and coyote seasons in those units where predation may be influencing prey population declines. Mountain lions and coyotes may now be pursued with artificial light during daylong seasons in specific areas and specific times so that hunters may be more involved in assisting with predation management. This isn't statewide, but it is designed to help in specific areas. For instance, hunters can harvest multiple lions within Unit 16A South, and even do so using artificial light after dark, and we just released 20 bighorn sheep in this area with funding provided by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. If you have questions about why the Commission makes the decisions that they do, please attend the meetings. They are publicly noticed and you may address the Commission on any noticed agenda topic.

 

I have only scratched the surface on what the Department does. I am not suggesting that we are perfect, nor that we cannot improve. Our goal is to constantly keep improving. If you have suggestions, please send them our way. If you have specific questions, feel free to contact me directly at bwakeling@azgfd.gov.

 

Like I said, this is an important question. There are a number of subjects on which I am not well informed, so if there is a topic for which you have a question that I cannot answer, I can probably find someone that can address that topic.

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to post.... It is great to see you taking an active role to help shed some light on things. Do you know if the talks have been had regarding an antler restriction and if so do you see that in the future(I hope so)?

Chris

[rcdinaz]

We have been in 32 for a very long time and out of the 4-5 guys over the years only one has acted the way your are describing. To bad the G&F took a big black eye for that guy he caused 6 hunters to not care much for the G&F. It was years ago and everyone still talks about him. The officer that was out last year almost made up for him he was very helpful, polite, and seemed genuine. I always figure the officers have to deal with a lot of knuckle heads just like the police do so it gets tough to trust people so I really appreciate the guys who are able to give us the benefit of the doubt.

 

I am pretty sure most of the G&F are probably hard working just like the rest of us. I have a rule to not be one of the guys asking "what does that guy do!". After holding a number of positions I realize I don't know too many people that don't feel they work hard. "Work smart" now that is a whole different ball of wax.

 

I would guess most of the G&F folks hate the politics and constant budgeting changes as much as we do. Although like the post office I wish they would raise prices enough to quite screwing with stuff constantly. I also would rather get drawn every other year than hunt with 500 other guys every season.

[Coach]

I've been hunting Arizona for a long time. The debate over tag allocation (read quantity) vs. "quality" has become the new cornerstone of wildlife management in Arizona.

 

To back up just a few years, many units in this state used to provide huge numbers of game animals - from bear to deer, javelina and turkey. In those days there weren't nearly as many hunters as there are now. In the 1980's for example there were more coues deer tags in AZ than hunters. Based on memory of the hunting back then, units like 23, 24A, and 27 always had leftover tags for everything from javi's to mule deer, and coues deer tags were considered "give-away" in that anyone could buy them OTC, leftover and kill one, maybe two and not count against the legal deer bag limit of one muley per year. Correct me if I'm wrong - but in the late 80s, didn't taking a whitetail not preclude you from the annual bag limit. Long time ago, and I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.

 

Maybe I'm assigning more nostalgia to that time period than it merits, but I still have pictures of some old-school AZ hunters posing behind a 107" buck and a 117" buck taken 100 yards apart and with 10 minutes of eachother right in the heart of modern coues hunting, before anybody was even into it.

[bwakeling]

There have been quite a number of comments and ideas shared since I posted some information on what the Arizona Game and Fish Department does, and I'll try to respond to some of the thoughts.

 

One comment stated that we raise fees and tag numbers. Well, the last time we raised fees was in 2007. So we are going into our fifth year without any change to licenses and tags. And the increase before that was in 2001. So yes, we do raise fees, but we try to keep those fees in line with cost of doing business, and we try not to do so too often. A resident general hunting license was $25.50 in 2001 and it costs $32.25 today. It had been at $18.00 since 1991. So the general license fee for resident hunting has increased $14.25 in a little over 20 years. Yes there have been fee increases in other tags and permits, but I haven't seen a lot of rampant fee increases. A license is still cheaper than a tank of gas.

 

Increases in permits was something else that was mentioned. In 2010, we issued 43,993 general deer permits. The lowest number issued was in 2004 when we issued 36,665. In 1986 we issued 94,871. Yes we had more deer at that time. We also have more deer today than we had in 2004. Deer populations fluctuate, and the harvest of bucks doesn't influence recruitment or survival of the reproductive segment of the population. So while hunting can influence the number of mature bucks and the abundance of bucks, the trajectory of the overall population is influenced by other things like weather, habitat conditions, habitat development and fragmentation, water availability, and predation. In case you missed it in my first post, the Commission has now provided the Department direction to manage for higher buck to doe and bull to cow ratios. That will mean fewer tags will be issued next year. We dropped just over 1,000 elk tags next year when compared to this past fall.

 

And as for the nostalgic memories of Units 23, 24A, and 27 - in 1986 there were 2 hunts in Unit 23 with 2,300 and 900 permits; there were 2 hunts in 24A West with 800 permits each, 1 hunt in 24A East with 1,500 permits, and 1 hunt in 24A East and West combined with 600 permits; and there were 3 hunts in Unit 27 with 2,600, 3,200, and 200 permits. Hunter crowding must have been better tolerated when there were more deer.

 

Someone made a comment about increasing the number of trophy (or what we call Alternative Management Units) areas in the state, at least one for each Region. The guidelines that were adopted by the Commission include mule alternative units in 3A/3C, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 45A, 45B, and 45C. White-tailed deer alternative units include Units 6A, 23, 30B, 31, and 36C. Alternative elk Units are 1, 9, 10, and 23. Additionally, the Commission directed the Department to offer up to 10 late season mule deer hunts with up to 40 permits each, so there will be more late season opportunity around the state for mule deer as well.

 

So why have deer populations declined. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies formed the Mule Deer Working Group to help find solutions to this dilema. While there are lots of potential causes, the most likely deal with changes to the habitat occupied by deer. This can be a result of fire suppression, fragmentation by urbanization and road development, brushier habitats that favor stalking predators like mountain lions, or denied access to waters or high quality habitat. Solar arrays and wind generating power sources are continuing to develop more habitat. Junipers are encroaching into what once were productive areas. Things are changing and many of them are not favorable. We have seen deer rebound following fires in some habitats (like the Rodeo-Chedeski and hopefully following the Wallow Fire), but not so well in others (like the Bridger Knoll on the Kaibab).

 

Quail management is a popular theme this year. Improving quail populations is really dependent on improving habitat, which can be done through active land management activities or through favorable rainfall patterns and quantities. We are not the land management agency and we don't determine the acceptable grazing levels on quail habitat. We do coordinate with BLM and USFS, but we are not always in complete agreement with their determinations. That said, cattle grazing is far better managed today than it was just a decade ago, and ranchers and land managers are working to improve landscapes in coordination with our wildlife managers and habitat specialists. Little of what influences quail populations is in our direct control. Again, the influence of hunting has been demonstrated in repeated research studies to have little influence in next season's population levels.

 

Why do we partner with wildlife conservation organizations and land management agencies rather than just doing it ourselves? Frankly, I see two primary reasons. One, we don't have jurisdiction over all aspects of natural resource management. And two, it greatly expands our reach and influence. We can't do nearly as much without partnering, and neither can our partners. We get more done working together.

 

Should anyone have any trouble with misconduct of an employee of this agency, please report the specifics of the misconduct to our Department offices. Call any office and ask to report employee misconduct. We will initiate a formal investigation. We cannot handle this type of information through a post on a web site, but we do take these seriously and they are formally investigated.

 

Finally, someone said their 12-year-old son could do a better job managing wildlife than we do. You might be right. But I would also suggest that there is a lot more to managing Arizona's wildlife than what meets the eye.

 

Again, I believe this is a healthy discussion. But little of what we do is obvious. We are required to comply with strict purchasing procedures to keep government from favoring friends or special interests. Those same procedures require minimum specifications that to ensure quality and protect the public. Our intent is to keep costs low by keeping a fleet of vehicles that remains within warranty to the extent possible. Vehicles that are not used substantially do not get replaced. Most of the professionals that I work with are far more dedicated to what they do than most people realize. They don't get into this work because they plan to get rich. They do it because it is a passion for them. Obviously, this is a passion for many of you as well. We know that you all aren't poachers - please keep in mind that we aren't all government hacks feeding at the public trough. We need each other.

 

I hope everyone has a great holiday season, and also wish the elk tag of your dreams to be in your pocket next fall. There is still time to apply...

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

[azmetalman]

There have been quite a number of comments and ideas shared since I posted some information on what the Arizona Game and Fish Department does, and I'll try to respond to some of the thoughts.

 

One comment stated that we raise fees and tag numbers. Well, the last time we raised fees was in 2007. So we are going into our fifth year without any change to licenses and tags. And the increase before that was in 2001. So yes, we do raise fees, but we try to keep those fees in line with cost of doing business, and we try not to do so too often. A resident general hunting license was $25.50 in 2001 and it costs $32.25 today. It had been at $18.00 since 1991. So the general license fee for resident hunting has increased $14.25 in a little over 20 years. Yes there have been fee increases in other tags and permits, but I haven't seen a lot of rampant fee increases. A license is still cheaper than a tank of gas.

 

Increases in permits was something else that was mentioned. In 2010, we issued 43,993 general deer permits. The lowest number issued was in 2004 when we issued 36,665. In 1986 we issued 94,871. Yes we had more deer at that time. We also have more deer today than we had in 2004. Deer populations fluctuate, and the harvest of bucks doesn't influence recruitment or survival of the reproductive segment of the population. So while hunting can influence the number of mature bucks and the abundance of bucks, the trajectory of the overall population is influenced by other things like weather, habitat conditions, habitat development and fragmentation, water availability, and predation. In case you missed it in my first post, the Commission has now provided the Department direction to manage for higher buck to doe and bull to cow ratios. That will mean fewer tags will be issued next year. We dropped just over 1,000 elk tags next year when compared to this past fall.

 

And as for the nostalgic memories of Units 23, 24A, and 27 - in 1986 there were 2 hunts in Unit 23 with 2,300 and 900 permits; there were 2 hunts in 24A West with 800 permits each, 1 hunt in 24A East with 1,500 permits, and 1 hunt in 24A East and West combined with 600 permits; and there were 3 hunts in Unit 27 with 2,600, 3,200, and 200 permits. Hunter crowding must have been better tolerated when there were more deer.

 

Someone made a comment about increasing the number of trophy (or what we call Alternative Management Units) areas in the state, at least one for each Region. The guidelines that were adopted by the Commission include mule alternative units in 3A/3C, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 45A, 45B, and 45C. White-tailed deer alternative units include Units 6A, 23, 30B, 31, and 36C. Alternative elk Units are 1, 9, 10, and 23. Additionally, the Commission directed the Department to offer up to 10 late season mule deer hunts with up to 40 permits each, so there will be more late season opportunity around the state for mule deer as well.

 

So why have deer populations declined. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies formed the Mule Deer Working Group to help find solutions to this dilema. While there are lots of potential causes, the most likely deal with changes to the habitat occupied by deer. This can be a result of fire suppression, fragmentation by urbanization and road development, brushier habitats that favor stalking predators like mountain lions, or denied access to waters or high quality habitat. Solar arrays and wind generating power sources are continuing to develop more habitat. Junipers are encroaching into what once were productive areas. Things are changing and many of them are not favorable. We have seen deer rebound following fires in some habitats (like the Rodeo-Chedeski and hopefully following the Wallow Fire), but not so well in others (like the Bridger Knoll on the Kaibab).

 

Quail management is a popular theme this year. Improving quail populations is really dependent on improving habitat, which can be done through active land management activities or through favorable rainfall patterns and quantities. We are not the land management agency and we don't determine the acceptable grazing levels on quail habitat. We do coordinate with BLM and USFS, but we are not always in complete agreement with their determinations. That said, cattle grazing is far better managed today than it was just a decade ago, and ranchers and land managers are working to improve landscapes in coordination with our wildlife managers and habitat specialists. Little of what influences quail populations is in our direct control. Again, the influence of hunting has been demonstrated in repeated research studies to have little influence in next season's population levels.

 

Why do we partner with wildlife conservation organizations and land management agencies rather than just doing it ourselves? Frankly, I see two primary reasons. One, we don't have jurisdiction over all aspects of natural resource management. And two, it greatly expands our reach and influence. We can't do nearly as much without partnering, and neither can our partners. We get more done working together.

 

Should anyone have any trouble with misconduct of an employee of this agency, please report the specifics of the misconduct to our Department offices. Call any office and ask to report employee misconduct. We will initiate a formal investigation. We cannot handle this type of information through a post on a web site, but we do take these seriously and they are formally investigated.

 

Finally, someone said their 12-year-old son could do a better job managing wildlife than we do. You might be right. But I would also suggest that there is a lot more to managing Arizona's wildlife than what meets the eye.

 

Again, I believe this is a healthy discussion. But little of what we do is obvious. We are required to comply with strict purchasing procedures to keep government from favoring friends or special interests. Those same procedures require minimum specifications that to ensure quality and protect the public. Our intent is to keep costs low by keeping a fleet of vehicles that remains within warranty to the extent possible. Vehicles that are not used substantially do not get replaced. Most of the professionals that I work with are far more dedicated to what they do than most people realize. They don't get into this work because they plan to get rich. They do it because it is a passion for them. Obviously, this is a passion for many of you as well. We know that you all aren't poachers - please keep in mind that we aren't all government hacks feeding at the public trough. We need each other.

 

I hope everyone has a great holiday season, and also wish the elk tag of your dreams to be in your pocket next fall. There is still time to apply...

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

 

 

Brian thanks for the professional response. There are a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks in all sports. Ours is no exception. I have fished and hunted Arizona big game from North of Flagstaff to the Mexican border on the South and East to the New Mexico border since 1959. Over the years I have seen several up and down cycles in big game and small game populations. The Department has, in my opinion, done a very good job in spite of public pressure, political pressure, special interest groups, funding problems, hiring freezes, internal turmoil, droughts, wild fires, new directors and new commission members. The list could go on and on. You folks have a huge task and you get it done.

I am grateful for the Department's efforts that have given us sustainable populations of big game, fish and non-game species as well as some great programs for kids and the non hunting public.

 

Thank You