October hunts?

[Outdoor Writer]

When and where will we be able to read your interview?

 

I conducted the interview as part of the 2006 Arizona Deer Forecast, which will be published in the Sept issue of Rocky Mt. G&F magazine. So it's really not the complete interview with Wakeling, though there is some of it quoted verbatim. But we sure discussed lots of things.

 

I *think* I know the reason, but I'll call Wakeling again in the morning and put your #1 & 2 on the table. Stay tuned. -TONY

[audsley]

I believe the survey skeptics have a weak argument. Granted, you don't get a representative survey using the methods ADA used. But the department had ample opportunity to survey by other means. I suggested this to several people both on the commission and in the department. For example, they could have set up tables at Sportsman's Warehouse and Cabelas, or other places deer hunters are likely to frequent. They could have avoided the "rallying the troops" factor by only keeping the table up an hour at a time in any one place so as to avoid letting word get around. Obviously they chose not to do this. I suspect it's because they didn't want to risk getting a survey showing that randomly selected hunters also opposed the changes. They believed they could dismiss the ADA's survey as invalid and wanted to quit while they were ahead.

 

It is my opinion that the commission and department were determined to make the changes in central Arizona because they believe it is the best thing to do regardless of how people feel about it now. That's just my opinion, but I'm fairly confident that's what happened.

 

Time will tell whether they were right.

[Outdoor Writer]

I believe the survey skeptics have a weak argument. Granted, you don't get a representative survey using the methods ADA used.

 

A bit of a contradiction in the above, no?

 

Let's back up PRIOR to the recommended changes, like to the survey G&F conducted a while back where a majority of those who took it wanted *MORE* opportunity to hunt. The change to the late whitetail seasons was an effort to do just that, thus managing wildife for the whole rather than a much smaller segment of hunters. The game dept. thought the recommendations did just that, thus had no reason to conduct ANOTHER survey of its own.

 

Now, one thing I can't quit grasp is this: In the CENTRAL units where there are now fewer late tags, the late season will become a more QUALITY hunt for those lucky enough to draw. I certainly would prefer it that way rather than having three times as many hunters afield as it had been. In fact, I probably answered the survey questions much differently than most members here.

 

It is my opinion that the commission and department were determined to make the changes in central Arizona because they believe it is the best thing to do regardless of how people feel about it now.

 

Yeah, they were likely doing their jobs -- managing both wildlife and people to the best of their ability. Sometimes it merely comes down to the adage, "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Certainly, they are not infallible. Overall, however, the AGFD probably ranks in the tyop 10 in this country. -TONY

[Guest Ernesto C]

It's really hard for me to believe and see how many people in here is/are being saying that they knew that the survey was missing something but still they kept their mouth shut,unbelievable!!.

 

If a blind guides another blind were we'll go?? If the ones that know,do not teach the ones that do not know

where we'll end up?

 

Knowledge and wisdoms are blessings and we should used to bless others not to keep it for our selves;other wise those blessing may be taken away from us.

 

Ernesto C

[TREESTANDMAN]

"Let's back up PRIOR to the recommended changes, like to the survey G&F conducted a while back where a majority of those who took it wanted *MORE* opportunity to hunt. The change to the late whitetail seasons was an effort to do just that, thus managing wildife for the whole rather than a much smaller segment of hunters. The game dept. thought the recommendations did just that, thus had no reason to conduct ANOTHER survey of its own. "

 

 

I remember taking that random survey where the AZGFD asked if hunters were in favor of "MORE" opportunity to hunt. What they omitted was that they would be sacrificing quality hunts for more lower quality hunts. Obviously every average joe is going to click that he wants more opportunity to hunt if there is no opportunity cost. The survey the AZGFD conducted was poorly drafted and leading to the ammunition to back up the current decision.

 

I want all of you ADA survey skeptics to ask yourselves if you personally prefer a LOT less december tags with an easier chance of drawing an october or Nov tag (even though most draw odds for the oct/nov tags were already at or close to 100%) as opposed to an easier but still rewarding dec tag opportunity? What was your vote?

 

AZGFD made a greedy decision in favor of the obvious minority vote. Can you blame them? Wouldn't you give yourself a raise if you could?

[25-06]

When and where will we be able to read your interview?

 

As far as the survey goes, there are two things that bother me:

 

1) The archery elk hunters went through the exact same process and the Commision accepted their results with little opposition.

 

2) The Game and Fish Dept helped conduct and design the survey, then disregarded the results. They could have saved alot of time, money and effort by just being upfront about it and saying they were going through with the changes no matter what.

3) Why would they let ADA go on and spend a but load of $ and blow it off....To me that servey was the only way that I could partake in this survey (at least I thought it was a survey)

[dave]

Tony,

 

I would be very interested in hearing your interview. Please share it with us. I doubt that the many folks that worked on the survey have much understanding of how all this works. I would like to hear exactly what Brian says is wrong information. I would like to hear their explanation of exactly all the components that went into their "retention" survey and how it differed from the ADA survey and the Elk survey. I would like to know if the ADA did not receive correct guidance from the Department in conducting their survey. I would like to know why the "retention" survey was even conducted. I would like to know how the "retention" survey takes precedence over the established guidelines for the public to communicate with the Commission. I would like to know why the established methods for the public to communicate with the Commission have been disregarded. I would like to know why the public?s voice is now interpreted by the Department to be different than what they are actually saying.

 

There is a lot of bull flying around; I hope you can get to the bottom of it.

 

I know in the very limited time (several hours) I have spent talking to people in the Department and Commissioners about this issue, I totally do not buy any explanations given. I believe this was a plan to create more revenue. Being from the south, I think stratifying the central units was a good thing, however, the way it was done and the percentage of tag distribution was wrong. It would have really meant a lot to many hunters if this Department and Commission would take a little more time communicating before going against everyone?s wishes and slamming the hunters, their supportive constituents.

 

Now we have one Commissioner making recommendations to create female harvest objectives for mountain lions in conjunction with the wishes of the Animal Defense League of Arizona. Please don't question that at a Commission meeting.

 

Hey, since you and Mr. Quimby seem to understand all this and have it all under control, maybe I should just forget all this and go hunting.

 

Dave

[Rembrant]

Dave,

Your last sentence just wigged me out. It's not all about you. You are one of the guys on this forum that makes sense, does homework, and cares. You ain't going nowhere. We need to stick together buddy.

Mike

[DesertBull]

[

[stanley]

OK, here's something for all to consider;

 

I just opened the new regs (on-line) and noticed that the hunt success reported for one of the units that I like to hunt actually had a higher success % for the October hunt than the November hunt?

 

For what it's worth....

 

S.

 

[Red Rabbit]

Stan, I noticed that also, but it was probably just an anomoly last year. What surprised me is only the 6% success in 6A last October, and this year the number of tags will be increased from 175 to 400 . I don't have enough peanuts for that upcoming circus. Don't forget the javelina hunts overlapping next Novembers whitetail and muley hunts down south. More peanuts back-ordered .

 

RR

[dave]

Too bad we don't have mandatory success reporting for all species on all hunts. Oh well, some surveys are judged good and some are dismissed.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure how science and agenda's don't mix.

 

I am sure that scientific data and surveys played a big part in how our wives got stuck with us. Good thing it was not a random study.

[billrquimby]

"It's really hard for me to believe and see how many people in here is/are being saying that they knew that the survey was missing something but still they kept their mouth shut,unbelievable!!. If a blind guides another blind were we'll go?? If the ones that know,do not teach the ones that do not know where we'll end up?

Knowledge and wisdoms are blessings and we should used to bless others not to keep it for our selves;other wise those blessing may be taken away from us."

 

Ernesto:

 

The "survey" already was in place when I first saw it.

 

My commenting then would not have changed anything.

 

Bill Quimby

[Muley62]

The department made their hunt recommendations in response to a survey they sent out to the people on thier e-mail list. The question that started this whole thing was about the barriers to hunting in AZ. 90% stated that getting drawn was the biggest barrier. Now, we live in a state that has a limited draw system so that is an obvious answer! I can only guess that the 10% who did not choose this response are small game hunters exclusively.

 

The department sent 50,000 e-mails and recieved 6,665 responses. The ADA sent their survey to the exact same list plus 15,000 post cards and a massive online campaign. How can anyone in their right mind call the departments survey "scientific" and not the ADA's?

[dave]

As far as I know, there were only two people that thought something was wrong the the ADA's survey. What was wrong with it is that it was contrary to the agenda of those two Commissioners. They also dismissed the public comment at meetings held through out the state, written public comment and the comments given at the Commission meeting.

 

I am sure they can construct a sientific random survey to push any agenda they might have.

 

Hey, how would you folks like some more hunting opportunity?