More OPPORTUNITY

[Red Rabbit]

Tony,

 

I prefer the early archery elk season since you can call, chase and intereact with the bulls. It creates a much higher level of enjoyment. Yes, I can (and have) sit a water hole and be rather successful, but calling and chasing is more enjoyable and less boring. Kind of like spring turkey vs fall turkey.

 

For coues, a big plus to me in favor of the December season is the lower number of hunters in the field. Something about glassing more hunters than deer on the opposing hillside, or being in a race in the morning to get to a glassing spot before another party of hunters, or having hunters go through your glassing area and possibly spooking the deer out, or you feeling you are walking into someone elses area and screwing them up. The most deer I have seen have been on a November hunt, but would like to see them in an undisturbed state. Two years ago, I was sizing up some antlers on 2 bedded bucks about 700 yards away until a couple of other hunters walking below them sent them fleeing.

 

I also wonder about the success in December being greater because the hunter effort may be greater since it is a December quality hunt, and not just that it easier and more bucks are supposedly running around. In looking at the 2005 data for unit 36C, 276 hunters spent 769 days afield for an average of 2.79 days/hunter in the 3 day October hunt, 289 hunters spent 1114 days for a 3.85 days/hunter in the 10 day November hunt. 73 hunters spent 434 days for an average 5.95 days/hunter in the 15 day December hunt. Comparing the November and December seasons, the average hunter spent 55% more days afield, but the season was 50% longer. The success was also increased 80% from 31% to 56%. Was this increase in success due to more bucks being out in December, or hunters hunting harder/being more dedicated in December, or hunting 50% more days? (as an aside hunter success in the 2005 October hunt was 44%.

 

Comparing the October with December hunt, the ratio of days/hunter to % success gives a 15.8% success per day hunted in October (44%/2.79), and 9.4% success per day hunted in December (56%/5.95). Maybe the hunting in December really is not easier? Perhaps it depends more on the weather that weekend.

 

Doug~RR

[DesertBull]

I don't think the Dec hunts are easier either, just more desirable conditions to be out in the desert. December also gives me more days to hunt. With the hunt taking place over the Christmas holidays, I usually have more time off work without have to burn limited vacation days. Kids are out of school also, which makes it easier.

 

Most of the hard rutting takes place in Jan anyway.

 

What if they just cut those Dec hunts to the week between Christmas and New Years instead of 2.5 weeks and left the tag numbers alone?

[Red Rabbit]

Both November and December seasons have an equal number of 2 weekends, but the week after Christmas does give many additional vacation days not on a weekend.

 

They are proposing that the Dec WT season start Dec 12 in 2008 and run to the end of the month. Seems to be a week longer than present. Would be good for the 5% chosen. But the success would go up, and then more Dec tags could be shifted to the earlier seasons as a result.

[CouesWhitetail]

I think part of the problem is dwelling on the idea that the Sept bull hunts or Dec WT hunts are "trophy hunts". For me they are high quality hunts not just a chance to kill a big bull or buck. I love the Dec WT hunts because of the lower hunter density, the cooler weather and thus the deer are more active. I can't stand hunting when it's 80+ degrees out. Granted you get some hot days in Dec, but far fewer than in Oct and Nov. I hate feeling crowded on a hunt and like doug said I hate feeling like I have to beat someone to a spot or I won't get to hunt where I want that day. With the early season hunts, the hunter density is such that many conflicts arise.

 

So for myself and many others, there is far more to a quality hunt than the idea of getting a big buck. Being able to hunt without worrying about bumping into other hunters and enjoying the cooler weather are a big part of it.

 

Check out this graph that shows WT hunter satisfaction from the 6500 hunters who took the ADA survey last year. We asked people to rate their experience. You can see that people enjoyed the Dec WT hunt much more than the early season hunts. 81% of those who had hunted a Dec WT season rated their experience as excellent or good. If you select out only those who primarily hunt WT, then that percentage goes up to 88%.

[missedagain]

I thought I would share my email to the dept.

 

 

 

I am writing to express my concern over the proposed hunt guidelines for 2008 to 2010. My main concern deals with this excerpt from the document:

 

 

"Maximize hunter opportunity while maintaining wildlife population health, structure, and integrity. Guidelines for this approach are:

 

• Minimize hunt opportunity when the legal animals are most vulnerable (e.g., breeding period) in standard management areas.

 

• Optimize hunt opportunity with respect to demand. "

 

 

These two guidelines are obviously conflicting with each other because the majority of demand from Arizona hunters is hunts that are in the breeding season. I know that the department would like to believe that their surveys show that hunters prefer opportunity over quality however actions speak louder than words and most of the first choices on applications are for quality (e.g. low opportunity) hunts.

 

 

Turning Arizona hunting into high opportunity low quality hunts will eventually be a very costly mistake for the department. Unlike Colorado that can afford to sell hundreds of thousands of tags and still set aside quality units Arizona does not have the animal populations to support this. Quality is all Arizona has going for it!

 

 

I commend the department for using demand of weapon type to dictate allocation of elk permits however I believe that this model should also be used to dictate deer management. If more than a certain percentage of deer are harvested in the archery season than this is obviously how hunters are choosing (demand) to hunt. Instead of lowering the archery permits maybe the department should adjust to the demand and lower the rifle permits.

 

 

Thank you for your time!

 

 

Christopher Allen

[AZcoues_addict]

I used the word "trophy hunters" in my previous post and I admit it was the wrong term to use, but it has been perceived and stated this way for my whole life so that is what i am used to hearing. The true term should be something like "high demand" hunt or "high quality" as Amanda states. Now we can argue the "high quality" terminology, but over the years the data shows that hunters in these high demand hunts have increased success rates and therefore are higher quality in my mind, yet maybe not in term of the size of the animal. I'm using the term quality hunt, independent of the age of the animal.

 

I think the high demand hunts are exactly what is stated by Desertbull and Amanda, more desireable conditions. Not only for the hunters, but for the animals which are moving around more during daylight hours. They may not even be rutting, but they are not solitare nor bedded all day due to the hot temperatures of October either. For the simple reason that the bucks are moving more during daylight, the opportunity is better to see more animals, and the more you see the better your chances are of harvesting one - "trophy hunt". After all, the trophy is in the eye of the beholder right?

 

I'd be for shortening the Dec. hunt if needed be, but the only thing the department wants to due is sell more tags, and the only way to have more tags is to reduce your success rate! They can call it whatever they want and disguise it as they wish, but reducing success rates of certain hunts is the goal. If shortening the season doesn't reduce success rates, then I feel the only thing that will happen will be the shortening of the season first, and the reduction of tags in Dec a few years later down the road.

 

This is the same fear I have of trying to balance supply and demand of archery hunts vs. rifle hunts, or balancing late and early season hunts. Who's to say that the departement will not change their objectives later down the road? They want to reduce late season hunts to 5%, but in 10 years they could be reducing it futher Then they will drop the archery hunts from 20% harvest to 10% to sell even more rifle tags.

 

The #'s look like there are approximately the same # of applicants each year with variance of +/- 10%, and a steadily decreasing # of tags over 30 years to about half of the original # of tags. Also the harvest of deer has increased until 1986, and then steadily decreased until 2004. Some of the lowest harvest ratios ever recorded in AZ, and they want to put more people in the field with even less of a chance at harvesting a buck? Also they want to decrease buck to doe ratio?

 

Stop running that computer model to give all the answers, and start building a couple more water catchments! Maybe larger ones, repairing ones that are cracked or insufficient, or build tanks that maybe need to be filled every 3 months during the dry months? I know this won't help the forage, but at least the deer won't have to travel to the only water source within 5 miles every 3 days in some areas? I've already emailed Ben the unit manager of 37B who has water project posting, and I don't even hunt in that unit!

[CouesWhitetail]

Just a reminder that the deadline to submit comments is June 25 (Monday). You can email comments to:

azgamebranch@azgfd.gov

 

I emailed some comments today and have attached that document to this email in case anyone is interested. Doug, I used your application stats, thanks for digging that up.

 

Amanda

comments_regarding_AGFD_hunt_guidelines_2008_2010.doc

[muskrat]

I couldn't make the meeting, so I e-mailed some comments as well.

[Red Rabbit]

I sent this e-mail in today:

 

Sirs:

 

I have added up application and permit numbers for the 2006 WT hunts to help analyze and support my opinions regarding the hunt guidelines.

 

My feelings are that people will put in for what they would like to hunt for their first choice, and what they would settle for their second choice in order to have a tag and hunt. Third through fifth choices are almost moot choices as not many permits remain in the second round of the draw. The department uses this same first choice rationale to allocate archery vs. rifle hunts and bull vs. cow hunts.

 

Permits have been shifted to the November and October hunts and these will be considered "opportunity" hunts for the sake of discussion. December hunts will be considered quality hunts. 15,345 permits were issued in 2006 for the Oct/Nov opportunity hunts. 1875 permits were issued for the December Quality hunts. In other words, 89% of the permits were allocated as opportunity hunt permits, and 11% for quality hunt permits.

 

For the Oct/Nov hunts, there were 10,097 first choice applicants for the 15,345 permits. For the quality Dec hunts, there were 10,474 first choice applicants for the 1875 Dec permits. In other words, 51% of the applicants applied for the quality Dec hunts and 49% for the early opportunity hunts. 51% of the first choice applicants would like to draw for only 11% of the tags. 51% of the applicants would like a quality trophy hunt over an opportunity hunt. 10474 hunters applied for only 1875 permits, for a mathematical draw percentage of 18%. 10,097 first choice hunters applied for 15,345 permits for an overall draw average of 100% (more permits than applicants).

 

The percentage of hunters applying for a quality trophy WT hunt (51%) (and in my mind saying they prefer a quality hunt), does not coincide with the survey results that showed that about 35% said harvesting a trophy was more important and 65% said having more frequent opportunities to hunt was more important. Actions may speak louder than words if one considers the number and type of applications versus the survey results.

 

I realize that having 51% of the permits in Dec will not result in a quality hunt due to crowding, and the buck population could not support such a shift in permits to December and still maintain an age class of quality WT. But I do feel the analysis of applicants support the concept of having some WT hunt units managed for quality rather than all for opportunity, as I have mentioned before.

 

The proposal to reduce the number of December whitetail permits to 5% or less of the total goes against the demand by applicants, and also against the fact that most October and November hunts approach a 100% draw anyway. Hunters that seek opportunity can make these hunts a second choice on their applications and get to go deer hunting nearly every year. I would recommend maintaining the current 10% December tag allocation

 

Declining buck:doe ratios are another concern. The whitetail ratio in 1946 is published as 66:100, but declined to near 24:100 in ten years ago and was given as 36:100 in 2005. The desire to maintain current harvest rates does not seem wise in the face of this overall decline, increasing human population, access issues and continuing drought.

 

Arizona does not have enough deer, elk, turkey, sheep and antelope to satisfy the number of hunters. It seems the game populations are decreasing (aside from elk) and we sportsmen must realize that hunting will be limited. Arizona has had a high level of quality and I hope that the game populations will not suffer, and this quality that many value, perish in the department’s quest to supply opportunity.

 

Regarding the junior hunts and hunter recruitment, I support the increase from 2 to 3% of the permits. If increasing the number of permits 50% still does not help the youth draw a tag, how about an increase to 4%?

 

And finally to archery. I am an avid archer and have been a board member of Flagstaff Archers since moving to Flagstaff in the early 90’s. I have mixed feelings about placing the archery deer hunts under a draw. However, due to the low hunt success by individual archers, I would not like to make the draw an either or situation regarding weapon choice. I support placing the Kaibab on a lottery, simply to reduce the number of hunters, as it is often a frustrating experience. Perhaps a lottery among OTC archery deer permit holders for archery deer hunts (in units like 12, 13, 17 where the total deer harvest and hunter numbers are significant) could be implemented. This would still allow archery deer in other units and the application for the rifle draws. This lottery would limit hunter numbers in specific units, and not pit rifle against bow and have a detrimental effect on the archery community/industry like reportedly happened when Utah went to an archery draw.

 

Doug Koepsel

Flagstaff, AZ

[wetmule]

Good Job Doug,

My comments were similar

Today's the last day, get your comments in if you haven't already done so!!

[DesertBull]

I wonder what their ratio of "I support opportunity hunts" to "Leave the hunts alone" correspodence is?

 

I wonder of they would tell us?

 

[muskrat]

My letter -

 

Sirs - First off, please let me say that generally, I support AZG&F - especially the folks in the Field that are doing all of the work on "the pointy end". That being said, I have grown concerned over the past 2-3 years with the direction that the Department is taking when it comes to managing our game. The thoughts I pass along are general in nature, rather than addressing specific, proposed rule changes.

 

1) The apparent shift of management goals. It appears that instead of managing for quality, we are heading towards managing for quantity. Arizona has long held a reputation for world-class game, whether it is elk, Coues, mulies, or antelope. Sure, hunters get disappointed when they don't draw a tag. My belief is that, long term - drawing nearly-worthless tags, or harvesting animals of limited quality will not benefit our sportsmen, nor our wildlife herds. Wildlife Managers should be deciding optimal carrying capacities and buck:doe ratios, and managing accordingly. These decisions should be made based on the best data available. Allocation of tags (juniors/archers/rifle) should be as equitable as possible, while recognizing the proportionality of each "group".

 

2) Sound management is based on sound data. To me, mandatory check-in of game is a no-brainer. The decision to not implement such practices should not be affected by "hunter convenience". In my mind, the definition of inconvenience is having poorly managed game herds - not checking in my game. This is done in other parts of the country, and I can't recall ever hearing someone complain about it. When it comes to hunter input - I understand that the Department has been criticized in the past, for "not listening to hunters". I feel that the pendulum has now swung in the other direction, and many of these newest plans are based on the latest hunter survey. It is my opinion that, deliberate or not, that survey was written in such a way that the results are skewed.

 

3) Most of us understand that the Department is trying to manage a finite resource, in the face of skyrocketing demand. Add to that secondary goals of hunter recruitment and retention, desires of the non-hunting public, and finally -some very real financial challenges; management becomes that much more difficult. Hunters may be recruited on easy-drawing tags, but I honestly don't feel that they will be retained after numerous seasons of sub-par hunts. I believe the Department is best served by getting back to basics - good, sound population and harvest data; the more accurate, the better. Tag allocation based on optimal herd numbers and ratios, not hunter wish-lists or revenue needs. Allocation of x tags based on accurate numbers (including predicted success rates) to archers, juniors, and rifle hunters. I believe in public input, but I believe also in educated input - not mob dynamics. I feel that, generally - the best input will come from the conservation groups such as the Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Elk Society, Arizona Bowhunters' Association, and the plethora of other hardworking organizations that really do have their "finger on the pulse" of what is happening in the field.

 

I thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my points.

 

 

 

Marshall MacFarlane

30576 N Appalachian Tr

Queen Creek, AZ 85243

[peloncillo]

I sent an e-mail also. I wish I could figure numbers like Doug. It just doesn't seem right to be going in the direction they want to go.

 

 

Keven

[bowhunter4life]

I sent mine in also, I hope they understand. the public want good hunts with limited hunter in the field,comparied to hundreds of hunters in a "box" during the worst hunting time.Most I know would wait to have a high quality hunt and wait a few years between hunts,then have a tag every year. that was in poor hunting conditions. I like the idea, listing to our state hunting organizations for imput.

[CouesWhitetail]

Blaine Bickford asked me to post his comments that he sent to the dept. Blaine also attended the commission meeting in Payson and took the opportunity to share his comments during the "call to the public". Thank you Blaine. Blaine is an active conservationist that lives up in the Springerville area. Blaine encourages everyone to continue to send in your comments even though the official deadline to submit them was yesterday. here is his letter. And thanks to all those who took the time to send in their thoughts to AGFD.

 

To: Arizona Game and Fish Commission

Michael M. Golightly-Chairman

William H. Mclean

Bob Hernbrode

Jennifer L. Martin

Robert R. Woodhouse

 

Regarding: 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 Hunt Guidelines

This document represents only my personal opinions, thoughts, comments, beliefs and recommendations as they apply to the current proposals for the guidelines for game management.

 

Thank you in advance for taking your time to review this material.

 

1. A false sense of security in the foundation of Hunters wanting more “OPPORTUNITY”

2. Polarized Goals

3. Short term Hero status for more “OPPORTUNITY”; long term potential for disaster

4. Recruitment/ Retention- wrong target of population for success

5. Value of resources diminished to the point that the Public Trust Doctrine does not apply and the North American Model for Wildlife Management is gone

6. Emphasize on “OPPORTUNITY” for small game, non-game, predators and others

7. Cooperative work efforts with “VALUED PARTNERS”

8. Over the counter Turkey and Archery Deer tags and the potential permitted hunts and existing hunts

9. How does this advance the Department goal of making everything “Simpler and Consistent”

10. Wildlife resource damage and loss of value to hunting and non-hunting public.

11. Time for comments: effectively fractures “Valued Partners”

• Individual effectiveness for well thought-out recommendations

12. My brain-storming suggestions for recommendations

 

• The foundation of the Department’s recommendations and management plans are based upon incomplete information as supplied by hunters during the survey where they checked the yes box for wanting more “opportunity”. This foundation is unstable, treacherous and insecure. This plan is 90-95% social/political and 5-10% biology.

 

While we all want more opportunity to have a tag(s) the survey allowed no place to explain that we will not sacrifice the over all health of a species/herd nor the individuals making up this group/structure for the end result of “opportunity”. This approach supplied an extremely simplistic answer to a very complex and detailed situation. In other words, in-accurate and in-complete information into the equation and the same coming out. A foundation designed to collapse.

 

We were not allowed to explain that we will not sacrifice the quality of the experience while we are in the field either. The quality of the whole experience involves the being with nature, friends, family and other complex issues of hunting but also being able to observe the species (and other wildlife) we have a tag for in adequate numbers and an a regular basis, not just seeing one or two animals/birds with no chance to harvest an animal/bird IF WE CHOOSE.

 

• Polarizing Goals; when we set goals at such extremes there is only one direction the over-all effect can end up and that is a long term negative for the wildlife resource(s), the quality of the experience for the hunters and the goal of recruitment/retention. I will use data as presented at the Public Meetings for Mule Deer but appears to apply to the FOUNDATIONAL PHILOSIOPHSY for the proposed “Guidelines” for most all species.

 

With buck to doe ratios set at 10-20 per 100 (as one goal), hunter harvest percent targeted at approximately 15% (the next goal) and the philosophy of Maximizing “OPPORTUNITY”(the major goal) WITHOUT CAUSING RESOURSE DAMAGE as the corner stones for this management approach I see little doubt that we will drop as quickly as possible to the 10 bucks per 100 does in order to achieve more “HUNTER OPPORTUNITY” and I feel that we will digress from 15% hunter harvest to a lower percent to achieve “MORE HUNTER OPPORTUNITY”.

 

• Short term we will appear to be HEROS by providing more tags and seeing more hunters in the field; in the long term resources will diminish and DECREASE IN PUBLIC VALUE, tags will disappear, hunter satisfaction will drop to all time lows and the perceived positives for “Recruitment and Retention” will turn 180 degrees towards the negative.

 

• Recruitment and Retention; while GREAT and OUTSTANDING GOALS that I/we all desperately want to achieve at the highest levels will actually turn to dust. As I see this few currently active hunters and a much lesser percent of new hunters (especially youth) want to basically go for days enduring heat, freezing, loss of sleep and all the fun stuff related to hunting and seeing minimal wildlife and few or no harvestable animals/birds let alone having a reasonable opportunity (reasonable-defined by individual skills as taught in Hunter Education) to harvest the wildlife they are legally authorized to “take” IF they choose to pull the trigger.

 

• When the value of the resources (wildlife) is diminished to the point it is has no real or perceived value to the public the protection of the Public Trust Doctrine is lost.

There becomes a point/level that a resource(s) becomes of no value/worth, real or perceived, to the general public and when that occurs and the safe guard of the Public Trust Doctrine no longer applies; the North American Model for Wildlife Management collapses.

With this loss of the Public Trust Doctrine and the North American Model for Wildlife Management the following are lost as well: management of wildlife for public benefit (The Arizona Game and Fish Department, as the managing agency), hunting, fishing and related activities basically are gone; most likely forever!!

 

• “Emphasize small game, predator-furbearer hunting, upland and migratory bird hunting opportunities.” This has been the foundation for starting new hunter(s) into the life style of hunting and teaching the basics of resource management, ethics, safety, and dozens of other subjects for time on end.

This is also the most under utilized “Opportunity” for family and individuals to experience, group/family hunting trips with minimal crowding, abundant wildlife and almost unlimited chances for seeing and harvesting a mixed bag of wildlife.

This is an area where year around or almost year around “OPPORTUNITY” exists (limited only by imagination and effort) the Commission/Department/Valued Partners can organize activities (camps and such) to promote “Recruitment and Retention” of new and existing hunters. Heck these types of activity are fun not only for the participants but the Volunteers and Department Staff and participating sponsors and Commissioners as well. What a great way to spend some time in the outdoors hunting, making friends and having fun!!!!

 

• “Valued Partner”- Cooperation with and the need for.

 

At the Conservation Work Shop held in Payson on the weekend of June 9, 2007 the aspect of the Valued Partners (hunting-fishing/conservation organizations) working with the Department/Commission was mentioned frequently. The bottom line is with out the work we (Valued Partners) do: Banquet Fund Raising, Special Tags, Volunteer hours, fighting the political wars with Legislatures/others and all the other work we do the wildlife resources of Arizona suffer and the effectiveness of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is reduce drastically or disappears.

 

How I feel is that the currently proposed Guidelines should have been cooperatively constructed with input from the Valued Partners and Public creating a working draft then presented through the structured Public Meetings for final comments prior to being presented to the Commission for Approval. There will never be a perfect program but this approach, in my opinion would go a long ways towards creating a more trusting and stronger working relationship between the public and the Department/Commission. HARD WORK YES BUT THE PAYBACK IS BEYOND MEASURE.

 

It seems that the Department waits until the last legal/optional moment to make information available to the Valued Partners and the Public. In this case, the presentation at the Public Meetings contained information on major and complex changes. This was the first time most participants had a clue what changes would be proposed. This allowed no time for the participant as individuals to do any research or structure our thoughts so we could make positive suggestions. This also creates huge obstacles for the Valued Partners to make this information available to their members, get responses and to structure their comments, concerns and official position(s).

 

The bottom line is the VALUED PARTNERS get blind-sided. At least this is how I feel as well as greatly disappointment that after all the work and support we give freely to the Department this is what we get in return.

 

• Over the Counter (OTC) tags and Permitted hunts for Turkey and Archery Deer. While there are some potentially positive outcomes for this approach there exists major negative impacts to the wildlife, public relations and some basic ethic issues.

 

Let’s start with Turkey; while harvesting up to or over 70% of the male population during a spring hunt(s) basically will not harm the resource’s ability to remain stable (or so some studies and biologist independent from the Department say) there exists conflicts: the approach of OTC (unlimited) junior tags with no change to current junior and general season structures (as I understand it) will have massive impacts on those who apply and have applied for a spring turkey tag and not been drawn, along with those that have drawn the tag waiting to have a quality experience “and” maybe have the chance to harvest a mature bird.

 

A Biologist, not employed by the Department, commented that there will be major declines in the number of mature males within the structure of the flocks and species.

 

I do not think this is what the hunting community thinks is good management for turkey and I feel that the non-hunting community would more than agree this management style would be detrimental to the value of the species.

(ETHICS) This would put unlimited juniors in the field a week ahead of the general permit hunter and continue until the general season ended. Five straight weeks, the question is what future hunts species will be next? The next question is how would you feel as a person who has applies for years with certain expectations and then to have this situation occur?

As I intend this for public distribution, I will add this; before anyone gets the idea I am against or non-supportive of junior hunting/shooting activities please taking the time to contact me or someone who knows me and you will find I have, do and will fight like heck for the youth.

 

In the case of Permitted and Non-Permitted Archery Deer hunts my major concern is not to debate permitting or not-permitting the hunts but other issues related to this management proposal.

 

I feel there is no doubt that with some units permitted and other units that border the OTC tags, the masses will migrate to the OTC units creating a negative impact on the Deer (and other wildlife species) of that unit, reducing the quality of the experience of the hunt with over crowding, increased conflicts between not only hunters but non-hunters as well. Especially, during Labor Day weekend.

 

This type of management structure does nothing to comply with the Department goal of making rules, regulations, and hunt structures simpler or consistent. This philosophy was part of the reasoning that hunt start dates and such were changed in 2006 from what had worked well for years.

 

As a member of several Organizations that are referred to as Valued Partners I wonder why I would request these Organizations to continue to pour their resources into major landscape projects helping in the effort to manage the land for increased forage and water to help wildlife populations increase when this management style can have major negative results.

 

I will use Hunt Units 1 and 27 as an example. Unit 1 will be permitted and Unit 27 OTC.

Data that is available from the Department will show that the Unit 27 deer herd has been on a down hill slide from the mid-1980’s. This has resulted in major reductions in tags issued, deer harvested, seasons combined, loss of hunter days in the field and more.

 

This last February, I was invited to a meeting at the United States Forest Service Office in Springerville as a representative for a couple of organizations. The subject was the Washington USFS folks would be there in part to hear about the success that Frank Hayes (District Ranger, Clifton) and the project partners are having in a major landscape project that started small and has grown to tens of thousands of acres of thinning and burning (still burning as of a week or so ago) - (from approximately Juan Miller to the top of the Mogollon Rim at Stray Horse Canyon) and from thousands of dollars to over a million dollars and climbing. This has been so successful Mr. Hayes received a prestigious award from the Arizona Deer Association in addition to other National awards.

This is and will be a role model for future projects not only locally and Arizona wide but has potential National possibilities as well.

 

Now my fear is we will wipe this effort out by hammering the deer due to increase numbers of hunters and harvest.

 

Think how this will apply in other areas of the State.

 

• One thing we do need for timely distribution and response is all the information including potential length of season days, number of permits and time of year for seasons. None of these were adequately cover in this year’s process so far. The result is we are asked to provide comments without a full book of information.

 

• I think I have covered these enough but please re-think how we go about this process; I feel it is time for a change. No more last minute distribution of information and develop a stronger working relationship with the Valued Partner and Public in general.

 

• My suggestions; I will point out my views/ideas are not perfect/complete nor will everyone agree and that is fine, I just hope to stimulate a lot of though, expression of your thoughts and people taking action.

 

I feel that the Department’s recommendations for all big species need to be tabled and we continue with what we currently have or revert back to the hunt structure of 2004-2005/2005-2006. There was nothing wrong with this structure and by doing this we will have time to get any future potential changes as near correct as possible.

We can develop a relationship of cooperation in working from “brain storming ideas” to collectively selecting the top ones through a filtering process and then fine tuning them. We can work off each others strengths rather than picking apart the weaknesses.

 

We can finally have open discussions concerning all survey structures, applicability and results that not only tell the simplistic check “yes” or “no” but really get into the complex “why of the question(s) as the information relates to survey results.

 

We can set goals that work in the same direction rather than being 180 degrees apart (Maximize Opportunity vs. reduced harvest percent vs. resource stability/decreased {buck to doe/bull to cow ratios} vs. QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE, including ALL aspects of the hunt).

 

We can develop good short term approaches for increasing tags, days in the field, quality of experience with the resources we have available while changing our long term focus to increased habitat, reducing the loss of habitat (conservation easements, land purchase), preparing the habitat we currently have for the best production of forage growth when we get out of the drought and making the best use of the moisture we do get. IF WE CAN’T FEED, WATER, SHELTER AND PROVIDE SPACE for wildlife we CAN’T SEE THEM, TAKE PICTURES, HUNT OR HARVEST THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Recruitment/Retention and emphasis on small game, non-game, predator-furbears, upland birds-migratory to me all go together.

 

If we hang our future solely on big game them we will lose (UNDERSATEMENT). I started out hunting game, other than big game as many of have; I still have a great enjoyment for this segment of hunting. This will be an issue of cultural change and education in some respects. Maybe renewal of views and thinking is a better term.

 

Us old hunters need to get back to our starting point and make the most of it with our families, other families and friends and take new folks. For true and real recruitment we need to get past those of us who hunt and our children, and into individual and groups of the public that don’t and won’t unless we take the lead.

 

I have said for years and it seems like we are finally headed this way that we need to have programs that reach out to the non-user section of the public and now we are: the Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP), Arizona Archery in Schools (AAIS), Hunter Recruitment camps designed for the non/new-hunter to be shown the way and sponsored by non-conventional businesses/financial sources.

 

We (Hunting/Fishing/Conservation/other groups, the Commission, the Department, and Individual Volunteers) are supporting and/or leading the way with youth camps across Arizona to help the youth and their parents during the junior’s hunts, we have scholarships issued by Hunting/Conservations groups, we have clinics to help old, new, youth and others prepare for their hunt. We have people bring non-hunting/shooting youth to water tank and other wildlife projects.

LET’S NOT ONLY KEEP DOING THIS BUT MAKE THESE PROGRAMS A PRIORITY FOR ALL OF US AND EXPAND THIS TO GROUPS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I encourage everyone to speak your thoughts in a polite, respectful and well informed manner and to encourage all that you know to do the same; this will build strength and positive growth.

 

JUST BECAUSE AN OFFICAIL DEADLINE HAS EXPIRES ON THIS SUBJECT ON JUNE 25, 2007 DO NOT STOP OR SLOW DOWN WITH YOU COMMENTS AND VIEW. THERE IS NO COMMISSION MEETING IN JULY AND THE “GUIDELINES” WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AS SCHEDULED ON THE AUGUST 11, 2007 AGENDA.

With this I will end this document; I encourage discussion as this is how we grow so below my cell and email are provided please utilize them.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Blaine Bickford

We are 20-50 years behind and cooperative, open and trusting.

Teamwork is what will win the day.

602-319-8907

blainebickford@yahoo.com

 

 

C.C:

Duane L. Schroufe-Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Steve Ferrell, Deputy Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Open to the Public, Inter-net postings

Open E-Mail to Hunting/Conservation groups, members and other