Unit 10 Bull Tags to Increase

[Sneaker]

I went to the Public Forum in the Kingman office on Monday night. There were 3 members of the public there including myself. Big turnout I know haha. The only real notable type item was that their recommendation to the commission is that the Bull tags in 10 need to be increased based off of the survey they did (the bull to cow ratio that they counted was above the suggested range, sorry I didn't take good notes, didn't get their exact most recent ratio or count) mostly and also that hunt success has been within or high end of the units suggested range. It wasn't a huge increase. 50 tags maybe? They did say that all of the tags would be added on the late bull hunt, so they wouldn't be messing with the premium hunts. I made a comment that this seems like a knee jerk over-reaction to survey of only some of the elk in the unit. There response was that "100% of the elk habitat in the unit is surveryed" so they have alot of confidence in their survey. Riiiggghhhtttt. How many square miles in unit 10?? Not that I know anything about aircraft surveying, maybe the really do see most of the elk in the unit by the time they are done, but it seems unlikely.

 

Just thought some of you might want to know. I have heard from several 10 hunters this year that they have had seen fewer elk than normal. I haven't been able to find the written 2015 Elk recommendations anywhere.

[naturebob]

Thanks for the info. Didn't they have 100 tags for the early rifle bull hunt the last 2 years. I was wondering how many trophies are left in there with all the guideing and pressure. Thanks ,........BOB!

[johnnie blaze]

Do they survey before or after the migration? Lol

[elkaholic]

DO NOT INCREASE BULL TAGS _ BUNCH OF FFEEAKKIN IDIOTS -- CUT DOWN ON ALL THE DDDDD COW ELK TAGS!!!!!!

 

1600 cows elk tag past 8-10 yrs that's why they are probably seeing more bulls

 

DUH _ DUMMYS

 

 

that's the answer - more bull tags then we have even less elk!!

[elkaholic]

the survey is based on flying grids across the unit and then multiplying results - means basically crap to the actual elk #'s in any unit

 

unit 10 really doesn't have a great number of elk that migrate - there are no big herds left to migrate anyway

[Sneaker]

I like elkaholic's point, they assume the problem is that there are too many bulls. Maybe the problem is that there are too few cows? It is not hard to imagine what will eventually happen if every time the survery ratio gets a little lopsided their solution is to issue more tags for the sex that has too high of a ratio. Next year kill more bulls. The year after kill more cows, repeat. I know they take hunt success into account, but we need a broader view of this. They need to read up on some stats, correlation is not causation...

[Str8Shot]

Again so many hunters seem as the are arm chair wildlife biologists and know how to manage the herds in our state better than others... Some hunters seem to think that ratios are the only possible reason and that it is all about money, but they do not take into account that total #'s of all elk within a range are also a factor... I will not say that G&F does not make mistakes and always make the right moves when it comes to tag numbers, but they often correct them quickly when seeing a negative impact or results not to what the intentions were. If it is all about the money what is better for a business .. Taking more money for a shorty duration or taking a little bit less money for a much much longer duration ... The real answer IMO is following the formula that the WMAT uses at limiting trophy Elk tags , making Rag horn tags ( to cull the bulls) and then cow tags that balance with the numbers to insure higher fawning rates... I know plenty of hunters that would pay a little less to harvest a rag horn in units where many are passed up by all the trophy hunters... Oh and to top that off the quality of trophy bulls will go up over time by such a system ... ( look at Colorado for a good example of what happens to quality bulls when you do not manage the ratios properly, Not too many 380+ bulls coming from there in the last couple decades) ... That being said I think hunters as a whole should stop the BS when it comes to G&F and what they are trying to do to insure a sustained herd for future generations... Some on here just cry way too dang much !

 

 

p.s. Do not work for any government agency and despise most as much or more than any of you, but G&F(as a whole) is not one of them I do despise!

[elkaholic]

lets just think for a minute -- ratio is out of control too many bulls per cows

 

we give 1800 cow tags and hope to get rid of 500

 

so lets make 50 more bull tags in the unit ( LATE HUNT)that has the lowest percentage of kills

 

less just say they harvest 1/3 so 15 more bulls are killed

 

 

how in the ????????? is harvesting an extra 15 bulls gonna control the ratio wouldn't it be more logical to reduce the # of cow tags to say 1200 and only harvest 400

 

wouldn't it seem logical to say that saving 100 cows and they all have calves be a better idea than harvesting another 15 bulls

 

do this for 5 yrs and you just uped the cow #'s several thousand or more -- compared to killing an extra 60 bulls

 

as an arm chair biologist - seems logical which is a better answer to the bull to cow ratio

 

it doesn't take an college education to do the math!!

 

but to the guys whom do the $$$$ we can't think of losing the income on 3000 cows tags over a 5 yr period when we can gain $$$ for the 250 bull extra tags over a 5 yr period **** here's the real ratio ***

 

NOW the Commission can give the impression that they really care about the elk ratios and have taken appropriate action (some kind of action ) by accepting the survey information

 

ITS A JOKE IF THEY ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

 

if they allow 500 cows to reproduce for 5 yrs do not you think the ratio of bull to cows will be a better balance than just harvesting and extra 60 bulls over the same time period.

[AverageJoe]

Again so many hunters seem as the are arm chair wildlife biologists and know how to manage the herds in our state better than others... Some hunters seem to think that ratios are the only possible reason and that it is all about money, but they do not take into account that total #'s of all elk within a range are also a factor... I will not say that G&F does not make mistakes and always make the right moves when it comes to tag numbers, but they often correct them quickly when seeing a negative impact or results not to what the intentions were. If it is all about the money what is better for a business .. Taking more money for a shorty duration or taking a little bit less money for a much much longer duration ... The real answer IMO is following the formula that the WMAT uses at limiting trophy Elk tags , making Rag horn tags ( to cull the bulls) and then cow tags that balance with the numbers to insure higher fawning rates... I know plenty of hunters that would pay a little less to harvest a rag horn in units where many are passed up by all the trophy hunters... Oh and to top that off the quality of trophy bulls will go up over time by such a system ... ( look at Colorado for a good example of what happens to quality bulls when you do not manage the ratios properly, Not too many 380+ bulls coming from there in the last couple decades) ... That being said I think hunters as a whole should stop the BS when it comes to G&F and what they are trying to do to insure a sustained herd for future generations... Some on here just cry way too dang much !

 

 

p.s. Do not work for any government agency and despise most as much or more than any of you, but G&F(as a whole) is not one of them I do despise!

Spot on straightshot. So many people on here think they know better than game and fish. The guys that complain ONLY care about shooting a big bull. They have no regard for what the land can hold, future predictions, disease, drought, etc. as long as they can kill a big bull and no other hunters are around they are happy.

[Guest 300ultramag.]

poor g&F always gettin the bad rap.

[Str8Shot]

lets just think for a minute -- ratio is out of control too many bulls per cows

 

we give 1800 cow tags and hope to get rid of 500

 

so lets make 50 more tags in the unit ( LATE HUNT)that has the lowest percentage of kills

 

less just say they harvest 1/3 so 15 more bulls are killed

 

 

how in the ????????? is harvesting an extra 15 bulls gonna control the ratio wouldn't it make more logical to reduce the # of cow tags to say 1200 and only harvest 400

 

wouldn't it seem logical to say that saving 100 cows and they all have calves be a better idea than harvesting another 15 bulls

 

do this for 5 yrs and you just uped the cow #'s a thousand or more -- compared to killing an extra 60 bulls

 

as an arm chair biologist - seems logical which is a better answer to the bull to cow ratio

 

it doesn't take an college education to do the math!!

 

but to the guys whom do the $$$$ we can't think of losing the income on 3000 cows tags over a 5 yr period when we can gain $$$ for the 250 bull extra tags over a 5 yr period **** here's the real ratio ***

 

NOW the Commission can give the impression that they really care about the elk ratios and have taken appropriate action (some kind of action ) by accepting the survey information

 

ITS A JOKE IF THEY ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

 

if they allow 500 cows to reproduce for 5 yrs do not you think the ratio of bull to cows will be a better balance than just harvesting and extra 60 bulls over the same time period.

I am not going to assume anything as I nor you have all the information that they are using to feel an increase is needed... I do know though based off other management models used by other states and used on The WMAT res that the best way to reduce the quality of bulls( especially in a Unit so many look for trophy bulls) is to let the Bull population rise to far.... You know, you may be right, those 15 bulls extra will not make a big difference, but you may also be wrong ... Maybe those tags would not be needed if more hunters were willing to cull Rag horns from the population ... Killing off the biggest best bulls over 5 years while not culling lesser rag horns will turn that unit into just an average unit with more under 300 bulls coming out of it over next decade... Still I will respect those that actually get paid to do the job and are privy to a more focused education as well as all the information to try their best for quality and longevity of the herd....

[elkaholic]

I could give a rats behind about killing a big bull or a trophy elk - deer -antelope etc.

 

my last 2 tags were a cow and spike - by the way both tags were for any elk in an early oct hunt!

last deer was a fat forky

 

I have property in 10 and its just sad to sit for days and never see an elk-I never herd a single bugle this yr- my neighbor who lives there yr round heard one and hasn't seen any elk around , when just 4 yrs ago they were everywhere and not just groups of 4-5 like the last couple yrs but big herds of 30- 50

 

THEY are gone and to say we need to harvest more bulls to balance the new survey ratio is B.S.

 

by the way I don't even hunt in unit 10!

[Chris]

I agree. If you have been hunting elk in Az for the last 30 years, you've got a great idea of how full-of-crap the G&Flakes are with their stats!

 

How about we start keep toll of all the kills .... mandatory.

How about printing the # of spikes, 2 pt, 3pt, 4pt etc bulls.

 

Does anyone have the tag allocation numbers from the early 80's or 70's ...... I'd love to see it to compare !

[Northern Pintail]

This is another example of why GF does what it does. There were THREE people at the meeting. If WE want something to be changed or managed differently we need to attend these meetings. Most of you are going to say they don't listen, fine, but they don't have the chance if we don't attend. There are more people complaining on here than will probably go to all the meetings combined. I'm not a fan of every thing they do they are going by what we agree to every year, and that is the guidelines. I believe its a very, very small percentage of hunters in this state that feel like the bull to cow ratio, or buck to doe ratios are not being managed right. Would I like to see more bulls, bucks, of course, but I do enjoy hunting every year. If we wanted to push the issue I believe the best way would to do another survey, like they did several years ago, and see what the results are again, but with more defined questions and not so vague.

[elkaholic]

one more comment - sure everyone who draws a bull elk tag has visions of a big "trophy" bull-- maybe 3 in 10 will actually harvest a huge bull- so do the 7 others just say forget it - I'm a trophy hunter it's a 360 + or forget it I go home without tagging an elk.

 

maybe 1 or 2 are really that dedicated - so at least 50% of those with tags will most likely shoot something in the raghorn to spike range -- the majority of hunters will most likely shoot the first thing with antlers

 

there will always be big bulls around - there will be far less if we don't have enough cows to give birth each year- so the herds can recover.