2013 elk recomendations

[Flatlander]

Is it just me or did anyone else see more big bulls killed this year than in recent memory? More hunters in the field isn't always fun, but I don't know one hunter that I know complained they drew a tag ever. Game and fish will never get credit for pleasing everyone, its impossible. I would absolutely think that they would know a whole lot more about managing wildlife than we do. Don't forget that all our dollars go back to managing wildlife with that tag increases. Putting more hunters in the field is a good thing. Not everyone is looking for a trophy bull, I would say about half just want a decent opportunity. There are plenty of elk out there and obviously still some giants being taken and will continue to be taken if there's another good rain. I would say the game and fish absolutely want you to be successful! Saying that the don't want you to be is a hoax. They provide all the info, tag numbers, and managed wildlife. Just my 2 cents

You must not have talked to many hunters this year who drew a tag in 4B. Most of those big bulls came from 27 and unit 1. Definitely not 3C. 4B had the exception of 1 400 bull. Which hasn't happened in a long time. Our money from the tag increases goes straight to their pockets and they claim to be using it to manage wildlife. The most insane thing to me is what they are doing to unit 4B and 3C. 4B has about a total of about 200 elk in it. You could drive for years out there and not see a living thing. Yet somehow they raised tags by 25 this year to 175. That's just the archery tags. Game and fish only wants us to be successful in the draw so they can get their money. Other than that they don't care if we kill anything. We're kind of going in circles here in this post but I know of many more people in this state that are unhappy with AZGFD than those that are happy. We are fed up with these greedy money hungry people. Whether you're going to agree with me or not start asking around and see what they guys up here in the white mountains think about AZGFD. I promise you're not going to find many happy hunters. Yeah they are still going to hunt and put up with it because that's the only thing we can do if we still want to hunt. I'm not sure why they even have these public input meetings. They don't care what we say. They want the money and they are going to get it. It's been shown in the past when everyone at the meeting disagrees with tag numbers in a unit and then the regs come out with more tags than they recommended anyway. Alright all done. Hope it changes someday! But I fear we're screwed and it's only gonna get worse.

BC - You have failed in your half dozen posts to use one single piece of empirical evidence. All I hear is a whole bunch of "Me and my friends", "I never see bulls", "All the elk are gone". I find it laughable that you mention 4B as only producing one 400" bull this year. First of all, how in the world did you find time to go personally score every bull killed in that unit? Second, 4B is not historically known as a trophy unit, hence the very favorable draw odds. AZGFD does not owe us some made up quota of 400" bulls every year. You point out that quality has dropped over the last 5 years, well 5 years ago there were MORE tags than they are recommending for 2013, and A LOT more than there were this year. Just because the people you hunt with can't find elk doesn't mean that every unit in the state is on the brink of losing its elk herd. I share your opinion that unit 3C has declined, but I feel that there are a lot of reasons for that, for instance the popularity the unit gained over the past decade and not necessarily that AZGFD is trying to hunt elk into extinction.

 

Your statement that AZGFD takes our tag and license dollars and puts them in their pockets is a perfect illustration of just how shallow your understanding of the department is. Money from tags and licenses was directed to the state general fund by Janet Napolitano years ago. The department is incapable of putting the $ in their own pocket.

 

So you go ahead and sit around Charlie Clarks moaning with all your buddies about how awful AZGFD is; the rest of us will do research, get the facts and form our own, informed, intelligent opinions. My recommendation for you is to just give up, we're screwed anyways and it's only gonna get worse. So you might as well quit now.

[6ANut]

From what I understand the azgf is only doing what the people asked for more tags than a better quality of hunts. IMO they should have raised tags on some units to please the masses but also leave the trophy units alone to please the trophy hunters.

 

On my deer hunt in 6b their were 250 deer tags and I didn't see one dead deer. You do the math.

[bowhunter81]

I'm quite positive game and fish workers don't get paid squat... That's a fact, they are under paid, they're salary hasn't increased that dramatic in long long time. They must be pretty rich if they pocket all of money, its just that simple... They don't. The fact is that managing wildlife ain't cheap. It takes a lot of time and conservation. If unit 4 hasn't produced that much choose another unit. Some units are better than others. I have tons of ties in the white mountain area who feel the same way as I do. Would rather hunt elk more frequent than wait 12 plus years for tag. To say your fed up with the game and fish is your own deal, like I said they will never be able to please everyone. We all still get to choose what unit s we want to apply for, no ones twisting your arm. I'm not a biologist or a wildlife manager ill let them do there job. It's like someone telling a mechanic how to do his job just because it was expensive part, not knowing a thing about his field. There's always room for improvement with game and fish and they really do work on it for little pay. Your either part of the problem or the solution. I sure can think of several things they changed to cater to us hunters one being earlier with results for more time to plan in advance. I respect those who put their lifes on the line to protect wildlife to ensure conservation for future generations to come.

[Packer]

Well, even though I have not had any say in this conversation thus far I guess I have some ownership in it since I wrote the recommendation for unit 27 that so many people are bashing. With that said I will guarantee that the whole money part of the conversation is way off base since that thought never entered my mind. I am sure those who voiced that opinion will continue to maintain that thought and for that I feel bad for you because it is not true.

 

As for the tag increases that you see. First off you need to know that we are looking to maintain the herd at current levels to allow recovery after the Wallow fire. When I say recovery I am referring to recovery of the entire unit and not just in the high elevation where everyone can see that we have more herbaceous forage than ever before. We are monitoring aspen recovery as well as recovery of the mast producing plants and shrubs down off the rim in the blue that were hit hard and where no replanting occurred. Because of this management direction I recommended an increase in cow permits to minimize the overall growth of the herd. Although, with current calf crops and predicted better calf crops in the future these increases may not be enough to stabalize the overall population.

Now getting to the bull tag increases, which consist of 75 archery tags and 15 early muzzy tags. These increases were done to address an ever increasing Bull:Cow ratio which was at 45:100 this year. Current guidelines call for a Bull:Cow ratio of 25-35:100. As you can see we are well above this guideline and we are trying to head in that direction. At the current rate we will not get there for 5 years or so, if we do then. Also, hunt success for the late bull hunt is supposed to be somewhere between 20 and 30% . We have been at 40% for the past 5 years.

Here is a table of the survey data from the past 10 years.

YEAR SPIKES BULLS COWS CALVES UNCLS TOTAL

2002 19 73 226 88 7 413

2003 6 21 88 25 0 140

2004 15 32 143 52 2 244

2005 9 18 117 42 2 188

2006 18 45 214 63 6 346

2007 6 38 116 32 0 192

2008 10 28 143 58 5 244

2009 33 49 391 166 0 639

2010 25 28 275 88 0 416

2011 27 99 472 115 55 768

2012 34 184 485 183 9 895

 

 

From this table you cas see that overall observations are up the last two years. I would say alot of this increase is due to increased visibility since the fire in 2011 but even looking at the last two years you can see that we are seeing more elk. Then look at the numbers of bulls we saw. In that category we just about doubled in the last year. Now how do you think that happened? We obviously didn't grow elk that fast so either the elk were already there and we have just been not hunting them as hard as we could have or else we are getting elk that have moved into the area from outside the fire area. Whatever the case may be we have a few more bulls out there than are needed so I thought I would give a few more hunters the opportunity to harvest them.

 

I am not going to go into any further detail on this recommendation and there are those who will look at this and still wonder why I increased tag numbers. I guess you are still entitled to your opinion and have that right. I will say that with the current commission those who want more of a "quality" hunt should be at every meeting and express your opinion. But when we get a total of 5 people to show up for a meeting it is hard to say that that is the voice of the hunting community and take everything they say and run with it. If we actually had a showing it would definately carry alot more weight.

 

Trust me I love to hunt more than the average joe and I would venture so say more than alot of people that spend time on this board. I am also willing to put in alot of work to do it and will spend a majority of my hunts in the middle of nowhere with only a pack on my back for company. Unit 27 has the advantage of alot of roadless areas where a person can get away from the crowds if they want to but they have to be willing to work at it. For those that think there are now too many tags and a ruined hunt, I am sorry but I hope you can find a place where you can hunt and have the experience you want. As for me I am hoping to draw one of those tags and maybe place my hands on another 400" bull.

 

Aaron Hartzell

Wildlife Manager

[Flatlander]

Great info Packer. Thanks for being willing to clue us in to what goes through a WM's mind as they make recommendations. Good luck on your hunts.

[cw4192]

azkiller, 15-20 years ago the October deer hunt was also any antlered deer FYI

[AZkiller]

Well, even though I have not had any say in this conversation thus far I guess I have some ownership in it since I wrote the recommendation for unit 27 that so many people are bashing. With that said I will guarantee that the whole money part of the conversation is way off base since that thought never entered my mind. I am sure those who voiced that opinion will continue to maintain that thought and for that I feel bad for you because it is not true.

 

As for the tag increases that you see. First off you need to know that we are looking to maintain the herd at current levels to allow recovery after the Wallow fire. When I say recovery I am referring to recovery of the entire unit and not just in the high elevation where everyone can see that we have more herbaceous forage than ever before. We are monitoring aspen recovery as well as recovery of the mast producing plants and shrubs down off the rim in the blue that were hit hard and where no replanting occurred. Because of this management direction I recommended an increase in cow permits to minimize the overall growth of the herd. Although, with current calf crops and predicted better calf crops in the future these increases may not be enough to stabalize the overall population.

Now getting to the bull tag increases, which consist of 75 archery tags and 15 early muzzy tags. These increases were done to address an ever increasing Bull:Cow ratio which was at 45:100 this year. Current guidelines call for a Bull:Cow ratio of 25-35:100. As you can see we are well above this guideline and we are trying to head in that direction. At the current rate we will not get there for 5 years or so, if we do then. Also, hunt success for the late bull hunt is supposed to be somewhere between 20 and 30% . We have been at 40% for the past 5 years.

Here is a table of the survey data from the past 10 years.

YEAR SPIKES BULLS COWS CALVES UNCLS TOTAL

2002 19 73 226 88 7 413

2003 6 21 88 25 0 140

2004 15 32 143 52 2 244

2005 9 18 117 42 2 188

2006 18 45 214 63 6 346

2007 6 38 116 32 0 192

2008 10 28 143 58 5 244

2009 33 49 391 166 0 639

2010 25 28 275 88 0 416

2011 27 99 472 115 55 768

2012 34 184 485 183 9 895

 

 

From this table you cas see that overall observations are up the last two years. I would say alot of this increase is due to increased visibility since the fire in 2011 but even looking at the last two years you can see that we are seeing more elk. Then look at the numbers of bulls we saw. In that category we just about doubled in the last year. Now how do you think that happened? We obviously didn't grow elk that fast so either the elk were already there and we have just been not hunting them as hard as we could have or else we are getting elk that have moved into the area from outside the fire area. Whatever the case may be we have a few more bulls out there than are needed so I thought I would give a few more hunters the opportunity to harvest them.

 

I am not going to go into any further detail on this recommendation and there are those who will look at this and still wonder why I increased tag numbers. I guess you are still entitled to your opinion and have that right. I will say that with the current commission those who want more of a "quality" hunt should be at every meeting and express your opinion. But when we get a total of 5 people to show up for a meeting it is hard to say that that is the voice of the hunting community and take everything they say and run with it. If we actually had a showing it would definately carry alot more weight.

 

Trust me I love to hunt more than the average joe and I would venture so say more than alot of people that spend time on this board. I am also willing to put in alot of work to do it and will spend a majority of my hunts in the middle of nowhere with only a pack on my back for company. Unit 27 has the advantage of alot of roadless areas where a person can get away from the crowds if they want to but they have to be willing to work at it. For those that think there are now too many tags and a ruined hunt, I am sorry but I hope you can find a place where you can hunt and have the experience you want. As for me I am hoping to draw one of those tags and maybe place my hands on another 400" bull.

 

Aaron Hartzell

Wildlife Manager

Thank you for the info. Does the G&F take into account the advances of technology in thge hunter success rate with better glass, guns and rangefinders. I feel that the entire hunting public has gotten ALOT more effecient at their hobby. Take for example muzzle loaders. Was it the intent to have them shooting 3 - 400 yds, or was the intention for the traditionalist hunter. The archery hunters are now constently killing at over 100yds. The bull to cow ratios could be acheived by not killing so many cows, no? 27 is one of the last units to get away from people, what about the rest of the units?

[twigsnapper]

The G&F is working on legislation that will allow them to adjust tag fees without having to get approval from the state legislature, which is the current situation. Today it's much easier to increase the number of tags then it is to increase the cost of the tags so an increase in tag numbers is more likely to happen although I don't entirely buy the conspiracy theory. They do try to manage to harvest objectives and population numbers. Keep in mind the carrying capacity and harvest objective of a particular area may not be in line with what some may consider a quality hunting experience.

[bonecollector777]

Flatlander, your name says it all for me. You live down in the valley and probably get in the woods once or twice a year and have a love affair for the department just like many others from there. You think they are just working so hard to get us the best hunting possible and that they could never be wrong with any decision they make because they are the Game and Fish department. I'm sure in you're head it has absolutely nothing to do with money right? Just great game management and all that..and how do I know? Because when 400 inch bulls come from units that never produce 400 inch bulls and knowing many hunters that were out there everyday and talking to the game warden about bulls killed in the area you hear about things like that. Anyone with a 400 inch bull is gonna show it off. Being from such a small town right in the middle of 4B and 3C you eventually hear about it. Unlike flatlanders who don't know anything about the hunting or quality of bulls in the areas up north. You're happy getting your cow tags and bull tags and kill 300 inch bulls. The majority of us up here aren't.

You mentioned that tags this year and next year will be less than 5 years ago. Did you think that maybe Game and Fish thought they better stop killing all the elk before they ran out of them? When you're consistently killing hundreds of elk per year and raising tag numbers you're eventually going to run out of elk if you keep it up. So there may be less tags this year but there are DEFINITELY less elk here. And DEFINITELY lower quality elk. Therefore the Game and Fish had to give somewhere before they completely ruined the unit. Living in the heart of 3C and knowing hundreds of other elk hunters that feel the same way I do and have seen it first hand is much better proof than anything AZGFD or some flatlander like yourself can give me. I definitely am giving up on 3C, you can bet on that. We're definitely screwed here in 3C if we want a bull bigger than 350-360.

So continue your love affair and believe all the "facts" you read in the numbers and "facts" the department gives you but as for myself I'm gonna go off of what myself and hundreds of other hunters from up here have seen first hand and are only seeing it get worse. Worse in the sense of quality bulls in the area. Not in you're sense of being happy with little bulls and cows. You can have all of that you want. So I suggest you continue putting in for 3C and 4B and whatever other units you enjoy hunting in and continue killing those little bulls. Or just get out and enjoy the great outdoors like you mentioned earlier if you can't seem to find an elk or if you can't avoid getting stepped on by the insanely crazy amount of hunters in the area during your hunt. As for me I'll be putting in for areas that produce quality bulls, while I still can, before the department ruins those areas too.

Packer, it's hard for me to believe a whole lot of what the department tells us. It may seem to some that you're doing everything you can to make the units better. But I just can't believe it when I hear things MUCH different from hunters first hand everywhere I go in the white mountains. Keep the units that produce big bulls the way they are. Don't bring them down to the level of nearly every other unit in the state with small bulls and a ton of cows. I have been to meetings where there have been many people there that state their opinions. Most notably when the department decided to make 3C a trophy deer unit. Everyone there stated their opinion that they wanted less tags. 100 tags were agreed on and 100 tags were recommended. And when they regulations came out they had 200 tags! And still had a juniors hunt in the area. WTF? It just showed me and many others that once you guys have your minds made up it doesn't matter what we say. You're going to do what you want. I also agree with what AzKiller said, why not just stop killing so many dang cows and your bull:cow ratio will get to where you want it much quicker than trying to kill more cows. You guys act like there are so many elk there they are going to burst at the seams and they are going to eat every plant in the area and all die. Give me a break. So when the department starts showing us that they can actually manage a trophy unit and keep it a trophy unit and not kill every decent sized elk in the unit or that you can show us you can bring a unit back to being a good unit from being a poor unit (4B perfect example, not an elk within 20 square miles in some spots but tags just keep going up and up.) I'll start believing what they say. But until then many of us in the white mountains won't have very high opinions of the wardens or the department as a whole.

[Coues79]

Hey Packer,

 

Congratulations on your bull! What a stud that many of us would be thankful to have. I imagine you are still on cloud 9 after having taken him.

 

Thank you also for bringing up the information that you did; it is good to know.

 

I have a couple of questions:

 

-Is there a possibility of stratifying the hunts more to have less people in the field at once which would help make it more enjoyable for those that would like to have fewer people to contend with? For example, cow hunts that don’t coincide with a trophy bull hunt? Or, reducing the number of tags per hunt, allowing more hunts, but having shorter hunts to still allow for the tag allocation to be met?

 

- On your guess, what number of people would be needed at a dept meeting to actually sway recommendations? You say only 5 people may show up, which doesn’t show a great concern…. I would say that the dept needs to extend its method of receiving input rather than just at face to face meetings. The world is changing in communication purposes and just because folks do not show up at a meeting does not mean that they do not have concern. This is fact.

 

Another question is not "why", rather “how” can you accommodate so many folks in the field and expect them to have a quality hunt with the tag increases? For example, unit 22 does not have the room to hold the amount of tags that are recommended for people to have hunting opportunities with fewer people. Take for example the muzzleloader hunt during the rut, 40 tags last year, raise it to 50 this year. Yet, the huntable area and elk habitat for 22 S is ridiculously smaller than units that have a substantial amount of elk habitat and their rut hunts have fewer tags allocated… That doesn’t make sense, especially when other areas have a larger population of animals.

 

- Why not break the numbers down with fewer hunters in the field at once? Give out more hunts to hunt on, which would increase the draw results… With the same number of tags that you want to allocate, the harvest objective would be met, just over more hunts?

 

- There are things that the dept are doing well and things that can be enhanced to better the system. I very strongly disagree that just because folks don’t show up to a meeting that they are dispassionate about what is happening and I do feel that the dept needs to get their opinion in some other manner than at these meetings and get better involved with the times that we are in with communication. The fact that you have many folks active in this thread shows the passion and imagine the number that "want" to engage in the thread but won't for whatever reason.

 

- I see the tag increases and understand how you can make a recommendation based on several factors, but then again there are many subject to your opinion and recommendation that don’t feel like we have any choice but to “take it” and live with it. Maybe the mindset of “we have meetings to discuss it and no one shows up” needs to be “let’s figure out a new way to let hunters help with what they are seeing in the field” and take our word into the factor as well.

 

Thanks

[ScottAdams]

Thank you for the great info Aaron, you saved me a phone call to you. I know you didn't have to come on here and explain your reasoning but I'm glad you did. Keep up the good work.

[cmc]

I think one thing that would help those wanting to see some changes change is to understand the process a bit more.

 

www.azgfd.gov/w_c/conservation/GameSpeciesManagement-new.shtml

 

Notice where hunt recommendations fall into the overall picture. It's my oponion that showing up to a meeting to suggest change about hunt recommedations is way to late in the game where if you engage in the process that feeds the hunt recommendations you will find more sucesss in change. There's a foundation to the madness and asking to have a basement on a house when the contractor is working on the rafter installation seems kind of interesting.

 

I've watched some folks engage in the system early on and have sucess but knowing where to engage in the process is key. I myself have engaged way too many times when it's too late for making an impact. Lesson learned.

 

 

cmc

[AZkiller]

What about changing the hunts from 7 days to 3 or 4? Start the season on a monday thru thursday, then have a friday thru sunday hunt? That way the people that want the OPPERTUNITY, can have it on the weekend. The rest of us that don't like people can hunt before them without the crowds.

[Flatlander]

Flatlander, your name says it all for me. You live down in the valley and probably get in the woods once or twice a year and have a love affair for the department just like many others from there. You think they are just working so hard to get us the best hunting possible and that they could never be wrong with any decision they make because they are the Game and Fish department. I'm sure in you're head it has absolutely nothing to do with money right? Just great game management and all that..and how do I know? Because when 400 inch bulls come from units that never produce 400 inch bulls and knowing many hunters that were out there everyday and talking to the game warden about bulls killed in the area you hear about things like that. Anyone with a 400 inch bull is gonna show it off. Being from such a small town right in the middle of 4B and 3C you eventually hear about it. Unlike flatlanders who don't know anything about the hunting or quality of bulls in the areas up north. You're happy getting your cow tags and bull tags and kill 300 inch bulls. The majority of us up here aren't.

 

You are right. I don't know why they bother paying WM's. What we ought to do is just have you and your buddies get together at the Red Onion eat some monster burgers and just tell the rest of us ignorant city slickers how many tags there should be. Then everything would be fixed, 400" bulls would abound, everyone could draw a tag, your arteries would be clogged, the elk would be saved from extinction, and there would be peace in the middle east. Problem solved.

 

Packer - You better start looking for a new gig.

[AZkiller]

Flatlander, your name says it all for me. You live down in the valley and probably get in the woods once or twice a year and have a love affair for the department just like many others from there. You think they are just working so hard to get us the best hunting possible and that they could never be wrong with any decision they make because they are the Game and Fish department. I'm sure in you're head it has absolutely nothing to do with money right? Just great game management and all that..and how do I know? Because when 400 inch bulls come from units that never produce 400 inch bulls and knowing many hunters that were out there everyday and talking to the game warden about bulls killed in the area you hear about things like that. Anyone with a 400 inch bull is gonna show it off. Being from such a small town right in the middle of 4B and 3C you eventually hear about it. Unlike flatlanders who don't know anything about the hunting or quality of bulls in the areas up north. You're happy getting your cow tags and bull tags and kill 300 inch bulls. The majority of us up here aren't.

 

You are right. I don't know why they bother paying WM's. What we ought to do is just have you and your buddies get together at the Red Onion eat some monster burgers and just tell the rest of us ignorant city slickers how many tags there should be. Then everything would be fixed, 400" bulls would abound, everyone could draw a tag, your arteries would be clogged, the elk would be saved from extinction, and there would be peace in the middle east. Problem solved.

 

Packer - You better start looking for a new gig.

Your on to something.....Except for the middle east, I would turn it to glass. Other than that, yeah. We finally agree.