Over the counter deer tags

[mattys281]

I just want to say that if something doesn't change with the archery harvest, theres not going to be any deer left for our kids to hunt. It's about wildlife management. There are several units in the state where archery harvest is at or greater than rifle harvest in this state.

 

 

This may be true of certain units, like the Kaibab & those around it. The unfortunate parts is that if they institute a draw for archery on those units alone, it'll be a stepping stone to putting them all on a drawing basis in the very near future. Harvest objectives, as someone already mentioned, & mandatory physical check in points are a much better solution for hunters. I can tell you one thing for sure, the first year that I fail to draw any tags and am subsequently not allowed to hunt any big game in this state will be the year that you see a real estate sign in my yard and the rear end of my truck as I haul-butt up to wyoming w/ AZ4Life. And I'll be taking my 3 kids that I'm teaching to hunt with me. How's that for hunter recruitment & retention? You can't retain hunters if you don't allow them in the field. Period.

 

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the wildlife managers or wardens in specific units are all about money. I've met some of these folks & they left me with the impression that they really care about the animals & what's going on. The commission is another story, & unless I'm mistaken, it's the commissioin who has the final say in these matters. Taken as a whole, the dept. is a business not a charity, and every business wants their balance sheets to look good at the end of the year, including government agencies.

[ghost hunter]

Monstercoues,

 

To say its all about 'money' and not about 'management' may be a bit simplistic. BUT when your only revenue source is the actual sportsmen its not hard to imagine that management might not give way to economics at some point. You are right, the G&F employees are under paid and I feel for them. We all need to support the new sales tax initiative that is being proposed for the 2008 election. It will add a different revenue source that is not tied to license, tag, equipment sales. Hopefully, that will eliminate all this "its all about money" talk.

 

I volunteer alot as well and I listen to what they say. Unfortunately, sometimes what comes out at the top ain't the same.

 

Maybe they are trying to 'manage' the archery success rate, maybe they are trying to deal with people taking more than 1 deer a year, maybe they have figured out how to eliminate the "two season hunter" and take those double dippers tags and sell-assign-allocate, what ever you want to call it, to others. No, they won't generate any more money from tag sales, but they will get more people into the field and THEY will buy more equipment which will filter back to G&F as fed money.

 

I've been a two season hunter for the past 25+ years and I never took more than 1 deer a year. I always figured that 'eating' a rifle tag or vise versa was just my way to donate to G&F. Guess its true, the honest ones get punished for what a few knuckleheads have done.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I, also, do not support this archery draw idea.......

 

 

I realize that the North Rim units have always had a different management plan and maybe this is one of those times..... but a draw may or may not really the solution.

 

 

I do really support the idea of having a harvest objective for archery deer, just like bear. This allows for hunter opportunity, while it does not stress the deer herd. Everyone wins.... AZGF still gets the money, we all still get to hunt where we want, at least part of the time.

 

IMO..... either the AZGF wants hunter recruitment and hunter opportunity...... or they really want to slowly cut us off from hunting all together.... If they implement an archery draw instead of a harvest objective.... we will truley know their final objective.

 

CnS

[bowhuntinmaniac]

G&F doesn'tt know what the harvest numbers are...there is no mandatory reporting for gun hunters and they have less than a 50% return on survey cards. So, at best, they are guessing on 50% of the time. A great way to manage wildlife.

What we need is, G&F to implement a system where they get the most accurate numbers to decide on future hunts and changes. We need mandatory reporting on all species. heck, we are almost there. We have mandatory reporting on about half of our species now.

[mattys281]

G&F doesn'tt know what the harvest numbers are...there is no mandatory reporting for gun hunters and they have less than a 50% return on survey cards. So, at best, they are guessing on 50% of the time. A great way to manage wildlife.

What we need is, G&F to implement a system where they get the most accurate numbers to decide on future hunts and changes. We need mandatory reporting on all species. heck, we are almost there. We have mandatory reporting on about half of our species now.

 

Somebody already made the suggestion of not issuing a new permit unless the survey card from last season was turned in. Seems like an effective & simple way to enforce the harvest report to me. Then the only variable they would have is that some hunters will lie on the card, but there's really no way to completely eliminate those who are determined to buck the system.

[DesertBull]

Monstercoues,

 

To say its all about 'money' and not about 'management' may be a bit simplistic. BUT when your only revenue source is the actual sportsmen its not hard to imagine that management might not give way to economics at some point. You are right, the G&F employees are under paid and I feel for them. We all need to support the new sales tax initiative that is being proposed for the 2008 election. It will add a different revenue source that is not tied to license, tag, equipment sales. Hopefully, that will eliminate all this "its all about money" talk.

 

I volunteer alot as well and I listen to what they say. Unfortunately, sometimes what comes out at the top ain't the same.

 

Maybe they are trying to 'manage' the archery success rate, maybe they are trying to deal with people taking more than 1 deer a year, maybe they have figured out how to eliminate the "two season hunter" and take those double dippers tags and sell-assign-allocate, what ever you want to call it, to others. No, they won't generate any more money from tag sales, but they will get more people into the field and THEY will buy more equipment which will filter back to G&F as fed money.

 

I've been a two season hunter for the past 25+ years and I never took more than 1 deer a year. I always figured that 'eating' a rifle tag or vise versa was just my way to donate to G&F. Guess its true, the honest ones get punished for what a few knuckleheads have done.

 

 

Well said, but they have other sources of $$$ besides tag and license sales. They get money from federal excise taxes, matching fed funds, lottery, etc.

[Huntn coues]

Is G/F using the data from the mandatory phone call that is required as of last year for archery deer hunters to get

the info on the harvest number?

[bowhuntinmaniac]

G&F says they are getting only about 75% mandatory reporting, and that the survey cards have better reporting results. But, I never got a survey card for archery deer, so they don't send it out to all bowhunters.

[mattys281]

G&F says they are getting only about 75% mandatory reporting, and that the survey cards have better reporting results. But, I never got a survey card for archery deer, so they don't send it out to all bowhunters.

 

I don't recall getting one for deer either, but we did receive & return cards for the javelina hunt.

[bowsniper]

I just want to say that if something doesn't change with the archery harvest, theres not going to be any deer left for our kids to hunt.

 

This comment is bizarre, completely false, and irresponsible. It sounds like it came from a jealous, frustrated rifle hunter. In all the units that G&F identified (except for unit 1) the archery harvest was less than 30% of the rifle harvest. The average overall archery success in these units was less than 4.4% (Dick King number) How many guys would still go rifle hunting if the rifle success were less than 5%? Archery success might be a threat to some rifle hunters, but I doubt that it will kill all the deer so our kids can't hunt.

 

Mark

[Dick]

If you get back to my letter, (thanks to whoever posted it) you will see that the Dept. does send out survey cards to bowhunters, according to the Department, about 2/3 of 25,000 or 16,000 survey cards. 35% of the reciepients reportedly returned them(5,000 +) or 23% of the total number of bowhunters. Slightly more than one of five.

 

I have personally never felt that the decisions that the Dept makes in regards to management is about revenue. When they really needed to increase revenue, they asked for an increase in license and permit fees. I thought they have always been up front about that.

 

I do not see any units in the State that appeared to have such a high rate of harvest from archery hunters that the deer population is being threatened, Leonard nor no one else from the Dept has ever suggested that. The data in the "Hunt Arizona" does not indicate that either. Therefore I would have to think that it isn't the case.

 

Their motives for this decision, from what I can see and after talking with Dept employees and attending the meetings,

is that they feel archers make up about 20% of the pool of deer hunters, therefore they should not be entitled to more than 20% of the harvest in any unit. If the harverst should exceed that, they want to implement methods of reducing the harvest. That is, a draw, shorters seasons, no season, or whatever.

 

Our, the ABA board I should say, finds the biggest problem is with the "data" being used. We (archers) have had a mandatory reporting of harvest by phone for a couple years, the Department feels that there is 25% of those who harverst deer, do not report their harvest. That means that 75% does! From the survey card numbers stated earlier, 23% of the 25,000 bowhunters return survey cards. Why the Department feels that it is better to use the 23% number than the 75% number is where I am having a struggle with data. They have also indicated that reports from meat processors and taxidermists would indicate that deer are being taken that are not being reported and I am sure that is a case to a certain degree.

 

Many states have gone to mandatory reporting, everyone fills out a report via one method or another, or they are subject to some form of restriction the following year. What that restriction might be varies from one state to another, in some states it is might be a simple "buy in" of a few bucks or it might mean no license next year. At least it would make everyone responsible, it would give the Department better data, it would take away the arguement that we have today that says "your data is invalid" and it would put the burden back on the individual. It is called "accountability". I don't think there is a bowhunter in Arizona that would want to see the resource damaged by poor management, but neither do we want to see opportunity taken away because of lack of good management. In my opinion, and that of many others, mandatory reporting "is" good management.

Archers would not have to be permitted to get the data, if you go to purchase your license next year, and the vendor checks to see if you have not filled out your survey card (computers) you don't get the license till you do!

 

Maybe I think to simple? Or maybe I hope for more than one should expect from our fellow bowhunters?

[monstercoues]

I don't even know why I bother to waste my time posting stuff anymore. Theres always someone who has to make a stupid comment like this guy. Just for your information, I bow hunt just as much as I rifle hunt. Theres is no way in heck that we can allow archery hunters to harvest as many deer as rifle hunters and still support a healthy huntable population year after year. Thats what I am getting at when I say there won't be any deer left for our kids if we kill em all. Hasn't anyone heard of the North American Model? We wouldn't have what we have now, if it wasn't for game laws and restrictions to harvest. The units I am talking about aren't even near the Kiabab. Try units 23 and 22. Yeah they are recieving harvest rates from archers that are equal to the rifle hunters. Plus who said that archers don't get survey cards needs to check the regulations some time. There is a mandatory reporting for successful archery deer hunters.

 

Go ahead and bash my comments. I am done with this post.

 

 

 

I just want to say that if something doesn't change with the archery harvest, theres not going to be any deer left for our kids to hunt.

 

This comment is bizarre, completely false, and irresponsible. It sounds like it came from a jealous, frustrated rifle hunter. In all the units that G&F identified (except for unit 1) the archery harvest was less than 30% of the rifle harvest. The average overall archery success in these units was less than 4.4% (Dick King number) How many guys would still go rifle hunting if the rifle success were less that 5%? Archery success might be a threat to some rifle hunters, but I doubt that it will kill all the deer so our kids can't hunt.

 

Mark

[bobbyo]

Their motives for this decision, from what I can see and after talking with Dept employees and attending the meetings,

is that they feel archers make up about 20% of the pool of deer hunters, therefore they should not be entitled to more than 20% of the harvest in any unit. If the harverst should exceed that, they want to implement methods of reducing the harvest. That is, a draw, shorters seasons, no season, or whatever.

 

Why don't we limit rifle tags in all the low archery harvest units to protect the deer herds for archery. We should limit rifle tags in all the units that have more than a 85% harvest for rifles. Rifle hunters are taking more than their fair share in these units! If it is a 80 to 20 ratio. Why is it ok for rifle hunters to take more than there fair share, but not ok for Archers in some units to harvest slightly more. Why is archery always subservient to gun hunting.$$$$$$$$$

Bob

[wklman]

the reason archery hunting is subserviant to gun hunting is because most of the archery guys gun hunt as well bobbyo so they can maximize their time in the field. so if they don't get a deer archery hunting they can get one with a gun.if you make a person choose between a gun hunt or bow hunt i'd say 75% would gun hunt.thats what dick was saying in his letter to game and fish.if you make archery a draw you'd lose a bunch of hunters because they would quit bowhunting and strictly put in for rifle because they were forced to make a choice.personally i think there needs to be a change somewhere with archery tags.i've heard and seen more than just 1 case where guys are shooting a deer with an archery tag and then getting one in the rifle season too. its been way too easy for people to do this and something needs to change.i'd say a mandatory physical check in with both rifle and bow hunts would do the trick.that way they can check their records and catch people trying to buck the system.

[mattys281]

Why don't we limit rifle tags in all the low archery harvest units to protect the deer herds for archery. We should limit rifle tags in all the units that have more than a 85% harvest for rifles. Rifle hunters are taking more than their fair share in these units! If it is a 80 to 20 ratio. Why is it ok for rifle hunters to take more than there fair share, but not ok for Archers in some units to harvest slightly more. Why is archery always subservient to gun hunting.$$$$$$$$$

Bob

 

I'm definietely with bobby on this one. I don't even own a fire arm. Everything I hunt is with a bow & arrow, and I think it's crap that archers have to give way to gun hunters, particularly when we're a faster growing portion of the sport. According to what I've read (Bowhunter, Petersons) the number of bowhunters grows every year, yet the state of Az is having a problem with hunter retention & recruitment. Ok, so lets take away from the group that's growning in order to accomodate a group that's not even holding it's current number. That's logical. If anything, they should be doing the opposite.