Archery HUNTS!!! Some food for thought.

[Becker]

So I have seen some posts about the closure of some of our December archery hunts, and have heard many people complaining about how Game and Fish has changed some units over to a draw permit for some of the archery hunts.

 

I have been thinking and wondering if Game and Fish is so concerned about the harvest rates on deer during the archery hunts, WHY don't they change it over to be the same or very similar to the bear hunts.

 

Have Game and Fish set a Quota for the number of bucks they want harvested.

 

Make it mandatory reporting, which it already is pretty much.

 

When the quota gets met, shut down the unit the following Wednesday.

 

If they put this into place it seems as though they (GandF) would get both of what they want. Controlling the number of deer harvested by archers, plus still providing OPPORTUNITY for every to still hunt their favorite units. The revenue off tag sales would stay the same because everyone is still going to hit the hills come opening day of their favorite archery season.

 

What do all you guys think about this idea??? VS draw permit tags VS closing units......

[soccerstar2013]

Love that idea!

[firstcoueswas80]

It makes sense..... So don't expect it to happen!!

[trophyhnter]

Good idea! On step further, harvest report should be mandatory for all harvest so that unit can be shut done when the harvest objective is met. Like bear, have harvest objective for all season (archery, muzzleloader, and rifle seasons). If game and fish is serious about harvest objectives, like they are with bear, then they should go with these ideas, Right????? I dont think they would ever manage other big game like bear because it too much work but they could at least give an incentive to reporting like giving a bonus point for reporting. I dont remember seeing how many people respond to the hunt surveys but Im sure it is well short of 100%.

[Guest akaspecials]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a wildlife biologist), but it is my understanding that bear is done the way it is because the harvesting of sows affects the population much more than the harvesting of cows and does. This is mostly because sows don't breed every year and take longer to get to breeding age than other species such as deer and elk.

 

Also, the majority of elk and deer taken are males, not females, so the number of offspring is not affected in the same way as the bear population (where it's harder to determine sex) because a single male will breed multiple females. A single female being taken out effects the population much more than a single male.

 

Overall, what I'm trying to say is I doubt harvest objectives for other species are nearly as critical as for bear; therefore Game and Fish will not take the time and energy to do other species like bear.

 

I hope that makes sense. Anyone with some more knowledge want to chime in?

[Becker]

I would agree with your statement on the bear female harvest being more important and the correlations or lack of to male only harvesting in the deer, elk etc. populations. However, the last couple years from what I have seen with Game and Fish and game wardens I have talked with is they have been basing changing units over to draw tags on a certain success ratio. Unit 1 archery deer as an example. Obviously they have a percentage they are looking at. That could easily be changed into the actual number of bucks they want harvested correct? From what I understand is one person checks the automated phone calls on the bear harvesting, puts the tallies on a dry erase board, when quota is met they change the message on the phone. Does not seem like that outrageous of a work load, and would keep a ton more hunters happy that they could hunt any unit they want until the quota is met VS closing hunts VS having to draw tags. Again just my 2 cents, mulling over this idea

[THE RIFLEMAN]

This would not work for 13a & 13b.....Or for the 12units either.... There would be 1000s of bowhunters up there!!!!! Remember the draw archery units are not just Coues units....

[bowhunter4life]

It is clearly because they do not manage for wildlife, if they wanted the facts then all species would have a mandatory reporting structure.

 

The problem;

 

Wildlife manager gives his opinion, let say 300 bucks to be harvested in a unit,

Reviewed by Supervisor, he changes it to 400 bucks to be harvested,

Goes for review to big game manager, he changes it to 500 bucks to be harvested,

Reviewed again before commission meeting for approval and add another 100 making 600 bucks to be harvested in the name of hunter retention, recruitment, "more opportunity."

Commission looks at pie chart, see's archery success is 20% success based on a 40% return rate on rifle hunter harvest mail flyers. They then approve closures to archery opportunity.

 

This is very close to how it is done...

[Coach]

Good post, and good ideas. I agree that the model used for bears could be adapted for deer. But as mentioned, a big portion of the bear management plan is centered around minimizing sow harvests. I think it's a good idea, and one that could work, with some common sense adaptations.

 

The good news is, from what I've seen mule deer numbers are increasing in several units. I just checked my trail camera in unit 1 and had a solid group of 9 does at one time in an area that I'm not used to seeing many deer at all. 3A/C has been producing amazing deer over the past several years as the posts of youth hunters sitting behind 200+ bucks will attest to. And by most accounts, unit 1 should follow that model after the fire- just last fall I saw more bucks and higher quality than I saw in years, and that unit is just starting to rebound.

 

I'm waiting to see what happens in 27 after the fires, and with the already-apparent rebound. That place used to be crawling with deer, and some really good ones. Hopefully it will be a sleeping giant in years to come.

[shanehamblin]

Ive been hoping for something similar for a long time. I love the idea of a mandatory harvest report like new mexico. U have to file a harvest report before u apply again. If u file before a certain date ur good to go. After that date u r charged a fee. and I would also love to see it changed to a branch antler instead of any antlered deer. Let them grow up a little bit.

[azgutpile]

I can understand making it manditory to report you kills; however I much prefer the system we already have. At least right now, I can schedule a time to hunt without the risk of the hunt shutting down on.

[gonehuntin]

the good news i think it will increase the mature buck populations, by eleminating dec hunts people wont go there just to tag out.

[trophyhnter]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a wildlife biologist), but it is my understanding that bear is done the way it is because the harvesting of sows affects the population much more than the harvesting of cows and does. This is mostly because sows don't breed every year and take longer to get to breeding age than other species such as deer and elk.

 

Also, the majority of elk and deer taken are males, not females, so the number of offspring is not affected in the same way as the bear population (where it's harder to determine sex) because a single male will breed multiple females. A single female being taken out effects the population much more than a single male.

 

Overall, what I'm trying to say is I doubt harvest objectives for other species are nearly as critical as for bear; therefore Game and Fish will not take the time and energy to do other species like bear.

 

I hope that makes sense. Anyone with some more knowledge want to chime in?

 

I think your right about the purpose/process for bear management but I/we were just applying the bear management process to get acurrate harvest numbers for deer and if G&F was realy into harvest objectives for deer then they could close the specific season instead of only closing the archery hunts.

[soccerstar2013]

It makes sense..... So don't expect it to happen!!

+1

[Becker]

YOU ARE ALREADY REQUIRED TO REPORT YOUR ARCHERY HARVEST PG 42 of the regs, unless you have a draw tag.

 

Coach, I would agree the mule deer herds up there in those regions seems to be doing well. My general assumption though is it is NOT management related. It is due to the monster fires up there. To me it appears we need some sort of natural disaster in order to get mule deer numbers up. I attended a Mule Deer Foundation banquet up there and a Game Warden gave a presentation on mule deer numbers. This was I believe a year or two after the Rodeo fire. All the surrounding units in the region had low numbers and the general trend of them all was going even lower, except for those 3 units that had that fire.

 

As far as 13a and 13b go that is one special place. However you have to remember it was not that long ago when it was over the counter. Back then nobody, or hardly anybody ever thought about going up there archery hunting. This is a total different topic but there are certain units that I agree should be classified as TROPHY units, not only for deer but sheep, and perhaps elk as well.

 

azgutpile, I also like the current system. But there are more and more examples where that is getting shut down. Example 34a december archery deer. Unit 1 went to the draw then went back, 3a and 3c is a draw tag for archery.

 

I think some of you are also misunderstanding some of the objective here. It is not so to say lock down an exact number on the deer harvest. Or trying to get a specifics like are necessary for bears. I am saying if these units are having such a high archery success that they want to shut them down or make it a draw to limit archery hunters success, why not implement a quota system similar to what they have in place for bears??? Let everyone still have an opportunity to hunt the unit until a quota gets met.