AZGFD Hunt Recommendations

[gamespec]

You're right there is always room for improvement. I have over 45 different recommendations in the fall just for Region 5 (there are 5 other regions). It would be difficult for me (or the department) to publish a detailed account of each recommendation -- I have 2 big binders and a couple of other files I take to the Commission Meeting. Each recommendation - even those that do not change - starts with a recommendation justification from the WM - some are 5 pages long. Nothing is secret, it is just a matter of how would you ever publish all that information each year and who would want to wade through the hundreds of pages. Any individual recommendation can be explained and data can be provided to anyone who is interested. I am always happy to open the data books and dive in with an interested hunter.

 

Now, that being said, you are right about big recommendations or those that are perpetual sticking points (like antlerless Kaibab tags) -- we could and should provide more justification some where so that the public can see right up front why the recommendation is what it is. I do not know the details this year, but if Red Rabbit is right that the fawn:100 doe ratio is near 100:100 and if (?) the winter range the deer just left is browsed over 50% then we as responsible sportsmen may need to take management actions to keep the deer population within the capacity of the winter range next year. When a reduction in the deer populaiton is needed I hope sportsmen will be our partners and not an obstruction to good management.

 

Here's an example of the type of information that is used to determine if antlerless tags are needed (from 2001):

 

JIM

[Red Rabbit]

Jim,

 

If I recall correctly, the figures given were something like 102 or 105:100 for last year, whereas the normal has been about 50:100 on the Kaibab,

and closer to 20-30:100 south of the river. Unasked was why the doe permit numbers were reduced last year, in reponse to ADA recommendations, but upped again this year. (I can suspect the answer would be for hunter recruitment, retention and opportunity)

 

Last year on the first hunt on the Kaibab west side, the hunter success was higher than wanted, like 50%. They hope that moving the season up, success will drop to 35-40% With the increase in tag numbers from 500 to 900, one would estimate another 65-90 deer killed over last year, but less than the 450 of 2005 (45% success of 1000 tags)

 

ABA will most likely address the archery issue at the April 21 meeting, as the ADA will likely speak towards the Kaibab permit numbers and earlier Oct season dates.

 

It was mentioned that the elk season was shifted forward in response to the hunter comments about wanting the archery and early rifle hunts to be closer to the rut. The conflict/overlap was noticed at that time, but nothing corrective was done.

 

Doug~RR

[cmc]

I have 2 big binders and a couple of other files I take to the Commission Meeting. Each recommendation - even those that do not change - starts with a recommendation justification from the WM - some are 5 pages long. Nothing is secret, it is just a matter of how would you ever publish all that information each year and who would want to wade through the hundreds of pages.

 

 

I think this one is well worth stating again.

 

Printing cost aren't free and I can only hear what the complaint would be if they offered to send it out to everyone but for a fee... Something about in it for the money. Business comes at a cost as well I think that laziness on ones part shouldn't be looked at as a fault point of another. Nothings being kept from anyone but unless you want to cover the cost of the resources to get it out, one is going to have to put forth the effort to find it.

 

cmc

[HUNTMUP]

First off I would like to say thank you Jim for jumping in.

 

I know how passionate us hunters can be about issues and sometimes we get a little out of control. I have always supported the G&F and especially the Biologists/ Wildlife Managers and yes I have hunted Colorado multiple times for elk over the years. These trips into Colorado have all been on public / national forest lands and self guided. I have been in the Grand Mesa, West Elk and the Weminuche areas and have never even come close to having the type of quality outdoor experience as I do in my home state. I am proud to say that I live and hunt in Arizona and all of us owe that to the G&F Dept and it employees. There is only so much "opportunity" to go around, simply the best we can do is give as much as we can to allow people more chances at hunting and being in the outdoors as possible but at what cost? I understand from the survey that most people at this current time put more emphasis on just being draw than actually getting a chance at a good hunt or the opprtunity to harvest an animal. If that is the case then people have come to realize that 7 to 8 out of 10 hunters will come home empty handed. I have not drawn an archery bull tag for seven years and this was my lucky year and I got my second choice (tag #5?, not sure how that worked..) Last year I hunted around Flagstaff for archery deer the 5 days prior to the elk hunt start and the traffic was heavy. It will definitely effect the quality and the outcome of the archery elk seasons. There will be many altercations between hunters due to conflict of interest. I usually do not sit a water hole while hunting elk but I know a lot of hunters do, especially the older hunters and the ones who may not physically be able to chase elk cross country and I especially feel sorry for them. I understand that you can not change everything and I am sure that I speak for many of us on this forum when I say thank you for your input and hearing our issues. Sometimes it is nice to be acknowledged....

 

See you on the 21st....

[hawkeye]

Excellent post Red Rabbit - thanks for sharing that information. Proof that questions beat ranting any day.

 

I'm hoping someone with a lot of experience hunting Colorado for years will jump in. That state was (now I'm REALLY out of my backyard) over-the-counter deer tags for a long time and only recently started to limit the harvest with a draw -- like AZGFD has been doing since 1971. Colorado's B:D ratios have come up in just the last few years. According to Bruce Watkins (Colorado Div of Wildlife): "All deer licenses in Colorado became limited in 1999 because of concern about declining deer populations and low buck:doe ratios. Prior to 1999, most licenses for antlered deer had been unlimited and issued over-the-counter. As a result of limitations, the number of deer hunters in Colorado dropped from an average of 185,300/year from 1980-1998 to 84,400/year from 1999-2005 and statewide harvest dropped from an average of 64,000 deer/year to 36,600 deer/year during the same periods." The hunters are not unhappy with the new system from what I have heard, BUT (this is important!) even with this frightening drop in the number of tags, all or almost all hunters get to go deer hunting each year. This is a major difference from AZ. We have somewhere around 40,000 people that can't go deer hunting each year.

 

Dr. Watkins continues: "Even so, demand for limited deer licenses in many units has remained relatively low. In most units, hunters have an opportunity to draw a deer license without preference points. Some Colorado deer hunters appear to have shifted to elk hunting, where unlimited licenses are still available, whereas others appear to have stopped hunting big game in Colorado altogether." The big question in my mind is "where did those 100,000 hunters go that no longer hunt deer in CO?" (185,300-84,400). In my opinion, the slippery slope for our kid's future is maintaining a conservative harvest so less people can harvest older bucks. We need to get more of those 40,000 out in the field if we are to keep hunting strong and preserve our heritage. In my personal opinion, opposing an increase in deer tags so you can kill a bigger buck is selfish and not in the best interest of hunting in the big picture (there, I did my part to keep this thread going strong!)

 

When the department used the nation's leading natural resource human dimensions company to survey a random sample of hunt applicants, the results showed that just getting a tag was more important than getting a mature buck. That is the same result they have found in state after state when they asked that question (asked basically the same way). That company (Responsive Management, Inc.) is considered the leader in this sort of thing and their methods and statistics are state of the art. I know there's a lot of discontent about that survey among some people, but the methods are rock solid and the quesitons are what I see used all over the country.

 

I am the Chair of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' "Mule Deer Working Group." This is a group of one mule deer expert from each of 23 western states and Canadian provinces and we won the Wildlife Management Institute's "Touchstone Award" last year for the work we have done for mule and black-tailed deer. In my many and frequent discussions with all those deer experts across western North America, I am always struck by how well AZGFD is respected as a leader in the West when it comes to managing deer with current data. There are other states that do some things better than us, but we really are seen as one of the best. I've worked for, and close to, other state agencies and I am so proud to be with this outfit.

 

Again, I would encourage anyone with "issues" as they say, to call the local regional AZGFD office and ask some "How come you....?" questions.

 

Jim

 

I called and asked some how come questions. That was a joke. I talked to a man named, Brian "I think" Wigglin. We talked for quite some time and boy is he a good public relations man. I was never given a reason for the overlapping archery deer and elk hunt. He danced and danced around the subject, and at one time told me that it was what the archery hunters wanted, and voiced that oppinion at the December meeting. I was not at the December meeting, but I can't believe that archery hunters showed up and wanted this change. Can anyone that attended that meeting remember this happening? It might have, but I doubt it.

[cmc]

Very well said HUNTMUP.

 

cmc

[cmc]

but I can't believe that archery hunters showed up and wanted this change

 

Archery bull elk hunters have always wanted to have the hunts fall at the peak of rutting every year, just ask one that drew a tag this year, they'll tell ya. In years past they've voiced it several times at meetings, not commission or hunt recommendations being the only place it happens. I guess in a perfect world the hunt dates wouldn't even be posted till just before the rut starts but it can't work like that so at some point in time a line has to be drawn in the sand to say when. Finding that happy medium between archery elk hunters and archery deer hunters is what becomes a battle.

 

I hope you look at the flip side of things. Say the elk hunt starts the weekend after archery deer ends so they don't overlap. Now you're an archery deer hunter that has gone 13+ years without ever in his/her life taking a deer with a bow. You've put the hours of scouting and prepping then go afield stalking that buck of a lifetime when a bull tag holder comes out and starts to bugle to see if any bulls will answer and runs off the bucks you been chasing for years. Welcome to public property and unfortunately even though I myself get really frustrated at times with it I'm sure glad we have it that way vs. Texas or the like. One hunters idea of a quality hunt is not quite another hunters idea of a quality hunt. 'Quality' has seemed to take on the term 'record book only or you're a complete failure' in the mainstream hunting these days. It's a shame but seems to be a mindset that I don't see any near-term change for. Greed, popularity, and the spotlight have taken over the longtime morals of tradition, respect and conservation for mother nature we seen in good old yester-years.

 

hawkeye, that must have been Brian Wakeling, AZGFD Big Game Program Supervisor.

[111]

On the 21st I think the proposed hunt structure can be changed for the overlap of elk/deer hunt if enough of us disagree with it. IMO I think the archery deer hunt should begin on Friday August 24th the week before labor day and last until Thursday September 13th, which is the way it always used to be done. Archery elk starts on September 15th and I think the one's that drew tags or even that didn't will have a lot to say on the 21st about this.

 

Jim I appreciate all the info that you provide! I can't argue with the facts you provide on the Southeastern Arizona deer numbers. The deer numbers proposed look to be well researched and thought out in advance before making decisions.

 

Doug, thanks for all the info on the meeting. It really helps to see what the plan was for the two week earlier date recommendations and it's also good knowing how the Kaibab's doe ratio is. I would have never thought the Kaibab had such a good fawn crop, hopefully a good sign for the future on the Kaibab deer herd.

 

I still disagree with the Kaibab deer permit levels, eventhough a well trained biologist is making the right decisions for the management plan they are after. I think many of us would love to see the Kaibab come back the way it used to be and we would like it right now, but it just can't happen. I don't know if that is in the game biologists plan for less deer and more hunter opportunity on the Kaibab, or if the plan will always be affected by the winter range. Maybe Arizona is becoming too populated to ever have it like the good ol days. Hunter opportunity may be more important for the future hunters rather than having the opportunity at larger bucks and seeing more deer during a hunt. I think increased opportunity is great, but with increased opportunity in a designed trophy deer area I think it's the wrong decision being made. Having more deer and larger bucks may be greedy and selfish, but I think in certain areas of the State people are willing to wait for a quality deer tag. We already have hunter opportunity with a Statewide archery deer hunt, and I think it should continue for many years to come. This may seem wrong to rifle only hunters, but like many other States if you want opportunity you must be willing to hunt in a less desirable unit and Arizona has plenty of those type of units you can draw regulary. Overall I would like to see the Kaibab become a awesome archery deer hunt, and I believe it can be done while still providing a very quality rifle buck hunt on the Kaibab. The fact is rifle buck numbers would have to be reduced to probably around 200-300 and flucuated from there while eliminating doe hunts. Hunter opportunity comes from archery anyway, and if more of us want to be in the woods for a quality hunt you must take up archery, and someday hope to draw a quality rifle deer tag, while you are still having awesome hunter opportunity with a bow and seeing quality animals and deer numbers. As always Arizona has plenty of other less desiable rifle deer units for those wanting to hunt with a rifle often. That's just my opinion on the situation, agree or disagree, I just have more hope for an area of the State that I feel is being mis-managed.

[Hooked_on_Coues]

Wow:

 

First off, Jim thanks for coming on and trying to explain things. You are never going to please everyone.

 

Everyone needs to read the links Amanda posted about the survey. We diehards may only make up a small percentage of the total surveyed but the overall result was clear. The majority wanted more opportunity. G&F is giving what the majority wanted. They also have a pretty good explanation of how they are increasing tags without exceeding harvest goals, ie, earlier hunts with more tags and lower success.

 

It is not all about money. When the 10% cap on NR was put in place it increased resident odds of drawing, hence more opportunity. There has to be a significant loss of income from NR tags.....

 

I am a NR so my chances have been reduced severely.

 

Az's budget is huge compared to NM, which is primarily funded by license sales. In NM it is all about money. With the "Guide and Outfitter Welfare Act", 12% of the tags were set aside for outfitters. Check the draw odds. A guided NR has a HUGE advantage on drawing tags over NM residents. A total of 22% of our tags go to NRs. That is not a cap, but an actual set aside. I wish NM G&F would follow AZ's lead but that will never happen because the amount of money being generated, not only for the State but Outfitters, Guides and Ranchers. We currently have a system in place that allows Ranchers to sell tags for hunts on public land. So, for the critics, remember it could be worse.

 

It certainly does not benefit me, but AZ G&F is clearly attempting to create opportunties for residents to go hunting more.

 

If I were an AZ resident, I would give G&F a little more credit. It can't be all things to all people, but is trying to take care of its own first.

[gamespec]

Regarding the Kaibab antlerless hunt, the Flagstaff folks will have to provide details about the recommendation. As a deer biologist watching them make that recommendation for 15 years and seeing the data behind it, I feel very comfortable that they are doing what is right for the long-term health of the deer herd and its habitat. Red Rabbit mentioned antlerless hunts and "opportunity" but these are not related. The Dept does not use antlerless hunts to provide opportunity. You only kill does when you think the populaiton is, or will be, over the carrying capacity of the habitat (based on vegetation monitoring). The number of doe tags recommended each year is based solely on biology and not sociology. Doe tag recommendations are based on the condition of the winter range right now that deer are done using it for the year and the projection of whether the population will increase, decrease, or stay the same by the time the deer go back onto winter range in November. The buck-only hunts are where you look for opportunity.

 

Regarding the archery hunts:

I called Brian Wakeling yesterday to try to understand exactly what is behind the overlap. He explained it to me over the phone at length and in detail, but frankly I missed it all and didn't fully understand what was going on. I think everyone on this forum deserves some kind of explanation about why it is the way it is. Then, you can decide if you want to provide the Commission with comments and you can better formulate your comments and suggestions. So when I got in the office today I got out the regs for 2005, 2006, and the proposed for 2007. I made a table showing what the deer and elk archery dates have been the last 3 years. Then I called him again and asked him to speak more slowly so my feable mind could grasp the details. Here's what I learned:

 

We start the seasons on the same Friday each year and run the seasons for the same number of days. We have to have some kind of structure so we have consistency. The deer archery hunt starts the Friday of week 35 and runs for 22 days; the elk archery hunt starts the Friday of week 37 and runs 14 days. This is all published in the Hunt Guidelines that the department makes public each year at public hunt meetings. The Archery deer always ends the day before the archery elk with this system. Here's the dates from 2005-07:

 

2005 -- Deer: 8/26 - 9/15 Elk 9/16 - 29

2006 -- Deer: 9/1 - 21 Elk 9/22 - 10/5

 

Here's what WAS originally proposed for 2007 -- Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/21 - 10/4 (this follows our rule of starting the Fri of Week 37)

 

The Department and Commission received complaints from some archers that this elk season was too late and they asked the Commission to move it 1 week earlier. I do not have the names of people requesting this, but it was in a public meeting so I'm sure someone in the archery community knows where this came from (although I doubt they'd speak up now).

 

The proposed dates going before the Commission April 21st are: Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/14 - 27 (creating a 7-day overlap)

 

Responding to this input and hearing no opposition at the public meeting, the Commission manually took the archery elk hunt out of the structured time frame and moved it one week earlier to overlap better with the rut. They realized there was an overlap with the deer archery season, but no one in attendance spoke about that being a problem. The input the Dept received was that it would be really great to be able to hunt squirrels, bear, deer, and elk (if drawn) just like the "fruit salad hunts" of the good 'ol days. If this is not desireable let us hear from you (officially). That's what the public process is all about. We welcome suggestions on how we can do a better job. You are all an important part of the process.

 

Now, what are the options? The elk archery season is set and final, as is the squirrel season so we can't do anything about those. The archery deer hunt can basically be truncated to end one week earlier on 9/13/07; or the whole archery deer hunt can be shifted one week earlier so it is the same number of days and would be 8/24 - 9/13. Be aware that shifting the whole archery deer season then means that the bear, squirrel, turkey, and fall archery javelina no longer coincide with the archery deer like they usually do, which could create some accidental violations from confused hunters.

 

JIM

[hawkeye]

but I can't believe that archery hunters showed up and wanted this change

 

Archery bull elk hunters have always wanted to have the hunts fall at the peak of rutting every year, just ask one that drew a tag this year, they'll tell ya. In years past they've voiced it several times at meetings, not commission or hunt recommendations being the only place it happens. I guess in a perfect world the hunt dates wouldn't even be posted till just before the rut starts but it can't work like that so at some point in time a line has to be drawn in the sand to say when. Finding that happy medium between archery elk hunters and archery deer hunters is what becomes a battle.

 

I hope you look at the flip side of things. Say the elk hunt starts the weekend after archery deer ends so they don't overlap. Now you're an archery deer hunter that has gone 13+ years without ever in his/her life taking a deer with a bow. You've put the hours of scouting and prepping then go afield stalking that buck of a lifetime when a bull tag holder comes out and starts to bugle to see if any bulls will answer and runs off the bucks you been chasing for years. Welcome to public property and unfortunately even though I myself get really frustrated at times with it I'm sure glad we have it that way vs. Texas or the like. One hunters idea of a quality hunt is not quite another hunters idea of a quality hunt. 'Quality' has seemed to take on the term 'record book only or you're a complete failure' in the mainstream hunting these days. It's a shame but seems to be a mindset that I don't see any near-term change for. Greed, popularity, and the spotlight have taken over the longtime morals of tradition, respect and conservation for mother nature we seen in good old yester-years.

 

hawkeye, that must have been Brian Wakeling, AZGFD Big Game Program Supervisor.

 

you have missed my point. Why not start the deer season the same that it has been in the past? Why move it up? And the biggest thing about the overlap is not the quality of the elk hunt, it is the problem with poaching and making a better opportunity for it. I have hunted in Arizona for over 42 years and Their are a lot of unethical hunters out there with a great big grinn on their face. If you have anyone in the field with a bow during an archery elk season there is no way to enforce against poaching. One person can draw a tag and the whole famn damily, and friends are out hunting for the elk. Unless you actually see the person shoot the elk their is no way to catch them. Just by not allowing archers in the field durring an elk hunt, unless with a tag will make it harder to poach. This was law in years past and I can't for the life of me understand the thinking in changing it. It was put there for a reason. If you don't think poaching is a real problem, I don't know what to tell you. As for the hunts overlapping it doesn't change the way I will hunt. It seems to me that the AZGFD is trying to put all of the hunters in the field at the same time.

[hawkeye]

Regarding the Kaibab antlerless hunt, the Flagstaff folks will have to provide details about the recommendation. As a deer biologist watching them make that recommendation for 15 years and seeing the data behind it, I feel very comfortable that they are doing what is right for the long-term health of the deer herd and its habitat. Red Rabbit mentioned antlerless hunts and "opportunity" but these are not related. The Dept does not use antlerless hunts to provide opportunity. You only kill does when you think the populaiton is, or will be, over the carrying capacity of the habitat (based on vegetation monitoring). The number of doe tags recommended each year is based solely on biology and not sociology. Doe tag recommendations are based on the condition of the winter range right now that deer are done using it for the year and the projection of whether the population will increase, decrease, or stay the same by the time the deer go back onto winter range in November. The buck-only hunts are where you look for opportunity.

 

Regarding the archery hunts:

I called Brian Wakeling yesterday to try to understand exactly what is behind the overlap. He explained it to me over the phone at length and in detail, but frankly I missed it all and didn't fully understand what was going on. I think everyone on this forum deserves some kind of explanation about why it is the way it is. Then, you can decide if you want to provide the Commission with comments and you can better formulate your comments and suggestions. So when I got in the office today I got out the regs for 2005, 2006, and the proposed for 2007. I made a table showing what the deer and elk archery dates have been the last 3 years. Then I called him again and asked him to speak more slowly so my feable mind could grasp the details. Here's what I learned:

 

We start the seasons on the same Friday each year and run the seasons for the same number of days. We have to have some kind of structure so we have consistency. The deer archery hunt starts the Friday of week 35 and runs for 22 days; the elk archery hunt starts the Friday of week 37 and runs 14 days. This is all published in the Hunt Guidelines that the department makes public each year at public hunt meetings. The Archery deer always ends the day before the archery elk with this system. Here's the dates from 2005-07:

 

2005 -- Deer: 8/26 - 9/15 Elk 9/16 - 29

2006 -- Deer: 9/1 - 21 Elk 9/22 - 10/5

 

Here's what WAS originally proposed for 2007 -- Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/21 - 10/4 (this follows our rule of starting the Fri of Week 37)

 

The Department and Commission received complaints from some archers that this elk season was too late and they asked the Commission to move it 1 week earlier. I do not have the names of people requesting this, but it was in a public meeting so I'm sure someone in the archery community knows where this came from (although I doubt they'd speak up now).

 

The proposed dates going before the Commission April 21st are: Deer: 8/31 - 9/20 Elk 9/14 - 27 (creating a 7-day overlap)

 

Responding to this input and hearing no opposition at the public meeting, the Commission manually took the archery elk hunt out of the structured time frame and moved it one week earlier to overlap better with the rut. They realized there was an overlap with the deer archery season, but no one in attendance spoke about that being a problem. The input the Dept received was that it would be really great to be able to hunt squirrels, bear, deer, and elk (if drawn) just like the "fruit salad hunts" of the good 'ol days. If this is not desireable let us hear from you (officially). That's what the public process is all about. We welcome suggestions on how we can do a better job. You are all an important part of the process.

 

Now, what are the options? The elk archery season is set and final, as is the squirrel season so we can't do anything about those. The archery deer hunt can basically be truncated to end one week earlier on 9/13/07; or the whole archery deer hunt can be shifted one week earlier so it is the same number of days and would be 8/24 - 9/13. Be aware that shifting the whole archery deer season then means that the bear, squirrel, turkey, and fall archery javelina no longer coincide with the archery deer like they usually do, which could create some accidental violations from confused hunters.

 

JIM

 

Thanks Jim, for your time and effort. The only thing that was different back in the good ol days with the fruit salad hunt was that unless you had an elk tag you were not allowed in the field with the bow. And that is the only problem with me. It opens a whole new way that the poachers can operate.

[cmc]

hawkeye, I'm aware of the poaching possibilities I failed to add that in as a viable 'Con' argument.

 

I think for why the dates are as they are... Jim posted while we posted and explained some things there. I'll defer to his recent post.

 

 

cmc

[gamespec]

Having more deer and larger bucks may be greedy and selfish, but I think in certain areas of the State people are willing to wait for a quality deer tag.

 

I agree that there is no reason we can't have certain areas that remain quality deer areas. The Department has an "Alternative Deer Management Plan" for those areas. Opportunity is not the emphasis there.

 

JIM

[KGAINES]

Jim I just spoke with Leonard and he told me about the meeting in Dec. that elk hunters wanted the archery season moved a week earlier, he said that at the meeting the overlap would occur and no one spoke up then. He said that he and the dept were very surprised at the outcry now, he also said that they are listening, and they would inform the commission of the publics response to the overlap, even those who do not show up at the meeting but are sending emails, letters, and messages. I would say this, that if they are listening it behooves us to leave emails and messages that are respectful and well thought out, including our own solution to these problems. The commission can change the hunt structures and they have listened a few times in the past.

 

I want to thank Leonard for being very helpful and answering the questions I asked, I might not agree with him but he took the time to explain what they were working with.