donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Everybody that is follwing the AZSFW story NEEDS to go to this link and read what game and fish has to say about AZSFW's claims. Thanks to Videoshot for spotting this and posting it on TAH. Hers the link. http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/Important-information-for-sportsmen-and-other-wildlife-enthusiasts-Part-1.shtml There is no substitute for truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karmiller Report post Posted March 30, 2012 And I'm sure that none of this increase in permits has anything to do with removing rut hunts and adding December tags, 400 to 500 youth doe tags in the Kaibab, a 3rd whitetail hunt in almost all of the Southern units in the state. The G&F Commission put forth to G&F a few years back that they needed to create more hunter opportunity so this is how they achieved it. Very controversial and I'm sure many of you remember this. But it did work because when you talk to some of the folks at G&F and a couple of the old commissioners they'll tell you, we have left over deer tags every year now and there are elk permits which come close to or are 100% draw along with over the counter elk tags. I am by no means trying to defend AZSFW, everyone just needs to realize that G&F and the Commission can be just as bad. If you like to hunt then you need to start taking an active role and quit leaving it to others to make decisions. Rick Miller Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Amen on the last sentence Rick. I have had the chance recently to speak to some folks at Game and Fish. The dept folks truly want what is best for Arizona wildlife. They want to see our herds flourish. The problem you run into with commissions is they are put in place, basically by the Gov. If you get a liberal Gov, you end up with a left leaning commission. The commission we have now is very right leaning which tends to line up with our thinking. The dept itself is made up of biologists. They aren't politically motivated, they are research and data motivated. They don't base their decisions on any emotion what so ever, they base it on data. But, if you have a commission that wants to say... Knock down predator numbers, many times the commission puts forth a directive to the dept and sometimes, the commission makes decisions without giving the dept the time to have a biological reason to make the change to knock down predators. That is why its is so important that we work with the dept and understand their way of thinking before we go crying to the commission. The system we have is a good one but... We NEED to work with the dept cheifs and come up with ideas with them before we take anything to the commission and push for quick fixes. We always complain that the dept manages hunters more than wildlife, well... Work with the dept instead of against them and they won't have to manage us! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Couple of things... this commission isn't the Nappy commission of 08'. The hostilities of that commission can be directly related to the rise of azsfw and their tactics of relationship with that commission, especially the appointment of Martin. Statistics can be manipulated to support any view or stance. The depts numbers above are just to refute the premise of a specific stance of azsfw's. Here's my statistic with the same numbers of azsfw... in the last 20 years the chart indicates a dramatic decrease of wildlife and permits while there has been a continue increase in nonprofit wildlife organizations, members and fundraising. If you think mine is silly, think about azsfw's... Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Let me add this, I've noticed a pattern with azsfw... create a wedge between the dept/commission and hunters... bad commission/good commission... they want us to believe any commission is bad so they can justify taking over management of tags. They are now attempting to drive a wedge between us and our legislators and Governor... The same ones we applaud for sticking their finger in Obama's face and stand up for us on a federal level. That's not going to work either, I'm not going to fall for that and start cussing my Governor... we need to keep up the steady march forward and not get sidetracked. Kent 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
40-year-AZ-hunter Report post Posted March 30, 2012 It's not only on their website, I got it in an email. I assume they are sending it to their email lists. Looks like they are finally taking a proactive stance! Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CEI Report post Posted March 30, 2012 I do not agree with HB2072, but I also do not 100% agree with these statements either... DESIRED POPULATION STRUCTURE. Permit numbers are influenced by desired population structure. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission currently manages for 20-30 bucks per 100 does. FYI-this was just changed because many Arizona Sportsmen hounded them to go back to pre-2006 guidelines, as many were seeing less deer. There is a range in which the decision does not influence the biological capability of a population to reproduce. Research has demonstrated that with as few as 5-7 bucks per 100 does, reproduction and recruitment is not diminished. *I would like to see where this research or study was held? What were the dynamics? Until, then I believe this is NOT valid for Arizona. Alternatively, in many studies, when buck-to-doe ratios exceed 40:100, recruitment begins to diminish for reasons that may involve competition for limited resources. [/i]Based upon public input and Commission guidance, the Department manages within a conservative range for buck-to-doe ratios, but could increase permits for deer or elk, without any negative consequences to recruitment, if there is a desire to increase the numbers of permits. *This maybe be true in 1960, but in the Arizona Subdivided Desert I would again like to see a study that supports this. Also, you will LOSE hunters if you drop those numbers that low! Guys DO NOT have to kill trophy animals, but the average Joe does want to see animals while on his hunt. The Commission has chosen a conservative range because sportsmen have requested a more conservative hunt structure, often focusing on public desires to pursue older age class animals. *This is 100% true! Keep in mind guys, from 2006-2011 the general guidelines were being managed at 10-20. This was just CHANGED, or else AZ would have been at the lowest end of the chart! Arizona’s guidelines for mule deer buck-to-doe ratios fall within the center of the ranges managed by other states. Selecting this conservative strategy reduced permit availability. Again, I do not agree with HB2072, but I also do not 100% agree with these statements either. Guys stay engaged! You do not have to be a part of a Non-Profit to VOICE your opinions. You are a Resident of this state & YOU financially support the AZ Game & Fish! Go to meetings, write emails & make phone calls. I commend the AZ Game & Fish Department for listening to the AZ Sportsmen. We should also thank the ADA & those individual sportsmen that worked hard to express their concerns for the Arizona Deer population trends. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Go to muledeerworkinggroup.com and you'll find many of the numbers come from there. AZGFD participated in the study. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CEI Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Go to muledeerworkinggroup.com and you'll find many of the numbers come from there. AZGFD participated in the study. Thanks for sharing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trophyhnter Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Get info guys. Hopefully what will come out of this is that we will find people that can shed light on all the information that the rest of us dont know so we can all feel conformatable with the information we are receiving and not think everything is misinformation. Where can we find that G&F was indeed managing for 10-20 buck to doe ratio? In the Hunting Recommendations prior to the final hunting regs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 I'm not sure where to find the ratio's but I do know the commission voted to adopt the new ones at their meeting in Kingman. If you go to this link you can read the different studies done. I have the forth one down and its a good read. Brian Wakeling told us about this website. Loads of knowledge! Check out the one on ecoregions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 Sorry you might need this link: http://muledeerworkinggroup.com/index_files/Page1525.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted March 30, 2012 I will say this. In forming our new group we have spoken with different people and Game and Fish and they welcomed us with open arms. The best approach with them is a willingness to listen. They have a wealth of knowledge and want us to be informed. They may seem slow to respond to changes sometimes but it is because they are very methodical in their work. They don't like making drastic changes without the data to support it. The more we learn their process, the more we will understand them and be able to have a good working relationship with them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krp Report post Posted March 31, 2012 Again, the issues of 2006 to 2009 we are still dealing with and I'm glad G&F are reversing some of them. It's not a coincidence that the Peak of the Nappy commission and the advent of a new path of supposed leadership of the orgs 'azsfw' had hostile clashes. Eventually having orgs like ADA asking unaffiliated folks to address the commission because they were effectively blackballed... for hostile personal statements of commission members it seems. I'm not blaming this commission or politics for that fiasco and they seem to be silently cleaning it up and we need to help on our end of 'Sportsmen groups and individuals'. Kent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
