AZGF what are you thinking?

[couesdiehard]

Elkhunter1 the Jan.2013 archery hunt in 34A is clearly shown on page 14 of the Fall Hunt Recommendations (Commission Order 2: Deer Page 6 of 9)

 

Directly from the Fall Hunt Recommendations

Page 14 of 58

 

Archery-Only Nonpermit Tag Required Deer

8, 9, 16A (except Mohave County Park lands),

19A, 20A, 22, 23, 27, 29, 34A, 37A, 42, 45A,

45B, and 45C

Jan 1 - Jan 31, 2013 (6,22,30,31,33) Any antlered deer

 

I SIT HERE CORRECTED!!!!!!!!!!!! My apologies to everyone on this part of my complaint. I still don't get their reasoning behind the closure.

 

 

It's all good Elkhunter1,

I have misread the recommendations/guidelines/regs more times then I can count. I have a special interest in this particular hunt and area that's why I was already deciphering it when you brought up the potential issue. At least you brought it up, so that we could investigate it. I also don't agree with the logic of basing hunt permit numbers on inconclusive surveys.

Lee

[Packer]

I don't know the particulars of this unit so I am only basing my statements on what has been posted. The guidelines call for archery harvest to not exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. If it does exceed this threshold then the first archery opportunity to be lost is the December hunt. As for them raising the harvest on the general hunt; that was probably because the buck:doe ratio was too high and called for increased harvest, or the hunt success was above the 20% threshhold, or both. (for that i am just speculating because I am not looking at the data) Increasing these general tags while getting rid of the dec archery opportunity should shift the overall balance of the harvest so that archers are no longer exceeding the 20% of overall harvest and hopefully they will not have to get rid of half of January as well to make it balanced. These two management decisions are not totally tied to one another and it could be that one was done independantly of the other. As for the numbers used to make these decisions. While it is true that there is a reporting requirement for archery take this is based on the survey forms for archery as well as for rifle so that we are comparing apples to apples. I hope this clears up some of the questions and does not just confuse people further.

 

Aaron

[Elkhunter1]

I don't know the particulars of this unit so I am only basing my statements on what has been posted. The guidelines call for archery harvest to not exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. If it does exceed this threshold then the first archery opportunity to be lost is the December hunt. As for them raising the harvest on the general hunt; that was probably because the buck:doe ratio was too high and called for increased harvest, or the hunt success was above the 20% threshhold, or both. (for that i am just speculating because I am not looking at the data) Increasing these general tags while getting rid of the DEC archery opportunity should shift the overall balance of the harvest so that archers are no longer exceeding the 20% of overall harvest and hopefully they will not have to get rid of half of January as well to make it balanced. These two management decisions are not totally tied to one another and it could be that one was done independantly of the other. As for the numbers used to make these decisions. While it is true that there is a reporting requirement for archery take this is based on the survey forms for archery as well as for rifle so that we are comparing apples to apples. I hope this clears up some of the questions and does not just confuse people further.

 

Aaron

I would believe they would look at the overall harvest numbers vs the target numbers. Isn't the idea to take the the target number from the units population, how it is done shouldn't matter, as long as it is legal.

[wardsoutfitters]

I don't know the particulars of this unit so I am only basing my statements on what has been posted. The guidelines call for archery harvest to not exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. If it does exceed this threshold then the first archery opportunity to be lost is the December hunt. As for them raising the harvest on the general hunt; that was probably because the buck:doe ratio was too high and called for increased harvest, or the hunt success was above the 20% threshhold, or both. (for that i am just speculating because I am not looking at the data) Increasing these general tags while getting rid of the dec archery opportunity should shift the overall balance of the harvest so that archers are no longer exceeding the 20% of overall harvest and hopefully they will not have to get rid of half of January as well to make it balanced. These two management decisions are not totally tied to one another and it could be that one was done independantly of the other. As for the numbers used to make these decisions. While it is true that there is a reporting requirement for archery take this is based on the survey forms for archery as well as for rifle so that we are comparing apples to apples. I hope this clears up some of the questions and does not just confuse people further.

 

Aaron

The survey for the archers is mandatory. While the rifle hunters can report their kills if they want!!!! You can’t call this comparing apples to apples!!! IT’S A FACT THAT IT’S A GUESS AS TO HOW MANY DEER GET HARVESTED BY RIFLE HUNTERS IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

[AverageJoe]

Well it must be a good guess, maybe an educated guess?!? Maybe they have years of experience doing this?

 

Everyone is a critic and can do it better than the game and fish.

[Elkhunter1]

Well it must be a good guess, maybe an educated guess?!? Maybe they have years of experience doing this?

 

Everyone is a critic and can do it better than the game and fish.

 

 

I am not telling them what to do, I merely questioned the rational to their decision to decrease bow season while increasing the general hunt tags. From the "average joe" hunters point of view, the numbers don't add up to a hill of beans.

[wardsoutfitters]

Well it must be a good guess, maybe an educated guess?!? Maybe they have years of experience doing this?

 

Everyone is a critic and can do it better than the game and fish.

With the decline of animal numbers in the state of Arizona We can not go by guesses!!!!!! Everyone should be mandated to report their kills for every species of big game !! This is the only way to effectively manage the game.I have years of experiance im trying to guess the power ball numbers and still haven't won.

[bmf1321]

They should issue more mule deer rifle tags in 34a. From what I've seen numbers are strong. That would give them the successful archery % they need.

[lilcoues]

Why do you think that the archery harvest % has been increasing over the past decade? Do you think hunting over water and using bait should be banned? As a rifle hunter I don't use either method of hunting. I have nothing against archery hunters that use those two methods but I do feel that they greatly contributed to the overall increase in archery success. Just wondered what you guys thought.

[Huntn coues]

Why do you think that the archery harvest % has been increasing over the past decade? Do you think hunting over water and using bait should be banned? As a rifle hunter I don't use either method of hunting. I have nothing against archery hunters that use those two methods but I do feel that they greatly contributed to the overall increase in archery success. Just wondered what you guys thought.

 

 

 

I haven't been on this site a lot in awhile but you may have just opened a large can of worms

[wardsoutfitters]

Why do you think that the archery harvest % has been increasing over the past decade? Do you think hunting over water and using bait should be banned? As a rifle hunter I don't use either method of hunting. I have nothing against archery hunters that use those two methods but I do feel that they greatly contributed to the overall increase in archery success. Just wondered what you guys thought.

There is no dought that archery is becoming more successful. But it can’t all be contributed to attractants and water hunting. Bows are more efficient than ever. Hunters are better educated these days than in years past, laser rangefinders have played a huge role in making the shots. But on the other hand rifle hunters also have become more efficient, with long range weapons, high powered scopes and also range finders. All I am saying is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If rifle hunters go over the % that azgfd makes for any given hunt then why do they not lose that hunt??

[JLW]

Why do you think that the archery harvest % has been increasing over the past decade? Do you think hunting over water and using bait should be banned? As a rifle hunter I don't use either method of hunting. I have nothing against archery hunters that use those two methods but I do feel that they greatly contributed to the overall increase in archery success. Just wondered what you guys thought.

The fact that there are increasingly more archery hunters every year is IMO the main cause of increase in kills. There is no way of knowing the true # of hunters in any given unit besides draw units (archery) and archery hunters who are successful. I'm sure the G&F can give us the # of OTC tags sold versus the success % by each year as a totall.

People gain more experience with each time they go afield. Technology gets better, archers can shoot farther than ever before. While not in my abilities, 80-100yd shots are more common today than they were 8-10 years ago.

Sittin water food or bait has no more guarantee than someone sittin a hot trail.

 

James

[DesertBull]

I don't care why they did it, I just know that one of those hunts will be on my app this year. I keep hoping they will open a early season archery hunt in 37B, on a draw basis. Even if it's only 5 tags, I would apply for that every year.

[Packer]

I don't know the particulars of this unit so I am only basing my statements on what has been posted. The guidelines call for archery harvest to not exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. If it does exceed this threshold then the first archery opportunity to be lost is the December hunt. As for them raising the harvest on the general hunt; that was probably because the buck:doe ratio was too high and called for increased harvest, or the hunt success was above the 20% threshhold, or both. (for that i am just speculating because I am not looking at the data) Increasing these general tags while getting rid of the dec archery opportunity should shift the overall balance of the harvest so that archers are no longer exceeding the 20% of overall harvest and hopefully they will not have to get rid of half of January as well to make it balanced. These two management decisions are not totally tied to one another and it could be that one was done independantly of the other. As for the numbers used to make these decisions. While it is true that there is a reporting requirement for archery take this is based on the survey forms for archery as well as for rifle so that we are comparing apples to apples. I hope this clears up some of the questions and does not just confuse people further.

 

Aaron

The survey for the archers is mandatory. While the rifle hunters can report their kills if they want!!!! You can’t call this comparing apples to apples!!! IT’S A FACT THAT IT’S A GUESS AS TO HOW MANY DEER GET HARVESTED BY RIFLE HUNTERS IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

 

 

You are correct there there is a mandatory requirement for archery, but archery hunters also get a non-mandatory questionare to fill out. When making a recommendation this non-mandatory information is what is used so that they are comparing like data. If you want to call this a guess you sure have that right but statistically it is valid data. So I will call this comparing apples to apples.

 

Aaron

[Elkhunter1]

I don't know the particulars of this unit so I am only basing my statements on what has been posted. The guidelines call for archery harvest to not exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. If it does exceed this threshold then the first archery opportunity to be lost is the December hunt. As for them raising the harvest on the general hunt; that was probably because the buck:doe ratio was too high and called for increased harvest, or the hunt success was above the 20% threshhold, or both. (for that i am just speculating because I am not looking at the data) Increasing these general tags while getting rid of the dec archery opportunity should shift the overall balance of the harvest so that archers are no longer exceeding the 20% of overall harvest and hopefully they will not have to get rid of half of January as well to make it balanced. These two management decisions are not totally tied to one another and it could be that one was done independantly of the other. As for the numbers used to make these decisions. While it is true that there is a reporting requirement for archery take this is based on the survey forms for archery as well as for rifle so that we are comparing apples to apples. I hope this clears up some of the questions and does not just confuse people further.

 

Aaron

The survey for the archers is mandatory. While the rifle hunters can report their kills if they want!!!! You can't call this comparing apples to apples!!! IT'S A FACT THAT IT'S A GUESS AS TO HOW MANY DEER GET HARVESTED BY RIFLE HUNTERS IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

 

 

You are correct there there is a mandatory requirement for archery, but archery hunters also get a non-mandatory questionare to fill out. When making a recommendation this non-mandatory information is what is used so that they are comparing like data. If you want to call this a guess you sure have that right but statistically it is valid data. So I will call this comparing apples to apples.

 

Aaron

It would be a complete injustice to the deer population for them not to use all the data at their disposal. Again if they want to get a complete accounting of the harvest they need to have a 100% reporting of ALL the hunting seasons. I know that in Tenn. you must not only report your harvest, you need to take it to the Tenn. DNR. Only after you have done that you can get another deer tag there. If that type of reporting was done here they might get a more complete accounting of the harvest and the final survivability rate at the end of the seasons. Now having said that, I am not saying they need to do this exactly as Tenn. DNR does, just do something similar.