Survey: Hunting Archery and Rifle Seasons

[crazy4COUES]

Donniedent,

I hate for this to be my first post but I have to say something. First off you math is way off. Archery hunters do not only take 6% of the total number of deer taken but rather they have a 6% success rate. That means that for every 100 hunters out there they kill 6 deer, give or take. The problem with having OTC tags in some units, I will refer to unit 1 as that is what I am familiar with, is that there is no way to currently limit the number of hunters. I know that 6% success sounds low but when you are talking 6% of an unlimited number of hunters that number can add up. I don't know how many of you hunt unit 1 but there has to be several thousand archery deer hunters in the field, at least that is the way it feels, during the opening and labor day weekends. 6% of several thousand can be quite a few deer. Additionally, we all know and have felt the fact that the game and fish department is currently offering less tags than in the past. This does not change the fact that there are more hunters in the state. All this means is that there are more people trying to get fewer tags, hence trying to make more opportunity so that a larger percentage are in the field and not just spending their time arguing on different forums about how the Game and fish is trying to screw everyone. Sure this may be a hunter management issue, but with the number of people out there that translates into a wildlife management issue, hence going to a drawing for rifle hunters back in the day. Can you immagine if that arguement was made when the state first went to a draw and they left all rifle tags as over the counter? Can you say deer extinction. At some point this state could handle the number of rifle hunters and not have to worry about a drawing but eventually the number of hunters exceeded that capacity. I see the same thing happening now for archery. At one point we could handle the stress that it put on the herds as a whole and at some point we have to realize that the herds need some help. I just hope we all realize this before things get too ugly.

 

Bobbyo,

Game and Fish is not being biased against archery hunters, in my opinion, they are just managing what they have control over. Currently, yes when a unit has high hunt success they increase the number of tags. If units go to OTC for archery then they too will reap a benefit of rifle hunters have a higher hunt success. As hunt success goes up tag numbers should go up for both rifle and archery, if they are to keep the ratios right as they have been talking about.

 

Anyway, I think that is enough for a first post.

 

Packer

 

Good point Packer but look at it this way, even though there seems to be thousands of archers in unit 1 and 6% can add up to be quite a few. How many rifle tags were cut because of this 6% of thousands that archery hunt? Personally I feel the G&F manages unit 1, as well as most of the rim country, for elk and could care less about the deer populations. Just as they manage the kaibab for deer, not elk. They are managed that way for MONEY. That is the problem I have is the G&F manages for MONEY PERIOD. If they want to help arizona residents with increased hunter opportunity then eliminate more non-resident hunts. Oh wait that takes from the MONEY! They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity. Until both side can see the same picture it will continue to get worse. And I will bet you IF the game and fish takes the archery deer to a draw. Somewhere us sportsmen are going to pay for it. Cause it will hurt the amount of MONEY they recieve!

[donniedent]

I'm still trying to figure what they have up their sleeve as far as losing money with the otc archery tags. My bet is that they will charge the same as they do for a rifle tag. They'll call it admin costs.

 

Look at this comment from Dick King from another thread.

 

"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. "

 

This was from Dick King the vice-chairman of the ABA.

 

Dick also stated that he does NOT feel that they're are making decisions based on revenue. I happen to disagree.

 

The retarded thing is that 99% of the archers that make up that 20% are rifles hunters too!!! The dept has to realize that so what in the world are they gaining by putting it to a draw. I think they will set the seasons for 1 month sometime in Oct. that way they lose less product for the same money.

 

Its all a bunch of crap!

 

Donnie

[cmc]

After reading through the results sure looks to be a lot of 'opportunity' folks here....

 

I haven't voted as I don't see possible choices for my reasoning behind hunting with rifle or bow.

 

cmc

[cmc]

Good point Packer but look at it this way, even though there seems to be thousands of archers in unit 1 and 6% can add up to be quite a few. How many rifle tags were cut because of this 6% of thousands that archery hunt? Personally I feel the G&F manages unit 1, as well as most of the rim country, for elk and could care less about the deer populations. Just as they manage the kaibab for deer, not elk. They are managed that way for MONEY. That is the problem I have is the G&F manages for MONEY PERIOD. If they want to help arizona residents with increased hunter opportunity then eliminate more non-resident hunts. Oh wait that takes from the MONEY! They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity. Until both side can see the same picture it will continue to get worse. And I will bet you IF the game and fish takes the archery deer to a draw. Somewhere us sportsmen are going to pay for it. Cause it will hurt the amount of MONEY they recieve!

 

 

Umm. There aren't any elk down south... so I fail see your point?

 

cmc

[crazy4COUES]

Good point Packer but look at it this way, even though there seems to be thousands of archers in unit 1 and 6% can add up to be quite a few. How many rifle tags were cut because of this 6% of thousands that archery hunt? Personally I feel the G&F manages unit 1, as well as most of the rim country, for elk and could care less about the deer populations. Just as they manage the kaibab for deer, not elk. They are managed that way for MONEY. That is the problem I have is the G&F manages for MONEY PERIOD. If they want to help arizona residents with increased hunter opportunity then eliminate more non-resident hunts. Oh wait that takes from the MONEY! They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity. Until both side can see the same picture it will continue to get worse. And I will bet you IF the game and fish takes the archery deer to a draw. Somewhere us sportsmen are going to pay for it. Cause it will hurt the amount of MONEY they recieve!

 

 

Umm. There aren't any elk down south... so I fail see your point?

 

cmc

 

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

[donniedent]

After reading through the results sure looks to be a lot of 'opportunity' folks here....

 

I haven't voted as I don't see possible choices for my reasoning behind hunting with rifle or bow.

 

cmc

 

 

I don't think we're opportunity folks. I think we're good management folks.

 

Donnie

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

After reading through the results sure looks to be a lot of 'opportunity' folks here....

 

I haven't voted as I don't see possible choices for my reasoning behind hunting with rifle or bow.

 

cmc

 

 

I don't think we're opportunity folks. I think we're good management folks.

 

Donnie

 

I agree.

[cmc]

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

 

No, I read the whole thing.

 

"They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity" ...that told me all I needed to know.

 

 

cmc

[donniedent]

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

 

No, I read the whole thing.

 

"They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity" ...that told me all I needed to know.

 

 

cmc

 

 

I think your pickin' him apart a little too much. The general consensus I've seen around here is basically don't fix it if it ain't broken and thats exactly what G&F is doing. In their minds they're thinking "Archers are taking more than their share of deer and paying less than the rifle guys to do it". You see the department don't like that. Thats a money minded mentality. I can gaurantee you one thing, we'll be payin' rifle tag prices for those archery tags... mark my words. That will be when we find out what their really after. I wouldn't mind one bit if they were making these changes for a good management reason but they aren't, their managing money (hunters). This is the same reason all that crap went down with Taulman, money. If they make decisions based on wildlife management and they can relate that to hunters, 99% of us wouldn't make a peep, as long as it makes sense. But when you go making changes that make absolutly no management sense then yeah, guys are gonna make a stink! I've seen a few guys around here that are for it for the simple reason that they want to see less hunters in the woods, which I can understand but I think its a very short sighted train of thought. If you think these 8 or 10 units is where its gonna stop, you've got another thing coming.

 

Oh and another thing, if you think the success rates for archers is too high now in some units, wait till it goes to a draw and they have time to really think about how their gonna hunt and where their gonna hunt, I'd bet the success rate goes way up. Remember, its not gonna be just a weekend getaway anymore, these guys drew this tag and they ain't gonna waste it!

 

Donnie

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

You failed to read the entire post as well...I was referring to UNIT 1! As this is one of the units that have been put on the table for ending the OTC archery deer tags. Nothing mentioned about elk down south.

 

No, I read the whole thing.

 

"They see tags as revenue, we see tags as opportunity" ...that told me all I needed to know.

 

 

cmc

 

 

I think your pickin' him apart a little too much. The general consensus I've seen around here is basically don't fix it if it ain't broken and thats exactly what G&F is doing. In their minds they're thinking "Archers are taking more than their share of deer and paying less than the rifle guys to do it". You see the department don't like that. Thats a money minded mentality. I can gaurantee you one thing, we'll be payin' rifle tag prices for those archery tags... mark my words. That will be when we find out what their really after. I wouldn't mind one bit if they were making these changes for a good management reason but they aren't, their managing money (hunters). This is the same reason all that crap went down with Taulman, money. If they make decisions based on wildlife management and they can relate that to hunters, 99% of us wouldn't make a peep, as long as it makes sense. But when you go making changes that make absolutly no management sense then yeah, guys are gonna make a stink! I've seen a few guys around here that are for it for the simple reason that they want to see less hunters in the woods, which I can understand but I think its a very short sighted train of thought. If you think these 8 or 10 units is where its gonna stop, you've got another thing coming.

 

Donnie

 

Again, I'll just say...... Well put, Donnie.

[cmc]

Threads like this seem to solidify my belief that there are more hunters than I'm aware of that are more greedy than the department is when it comes to tags.

 

That and allocation of tags will always fall into the category of "you can't please everybody".

 

Hows that line go... some folks would whine if they were hung with a new rope?

 

The internet.... It's a wonder complaint department.

 

cmc

[Red Rabbit]

Cannot see where rifle and archery deer tags cost different. Both are $34.50. The rifle permits have an additional 7.50 for the application/draw process, just like turkey and bear have the additional 7.50 added for the draw process over the non-permit tag costs.

[donniedent]

Cannot see where rifle and archery deer tags cost different. Both are $34.50. The rifle permits have an additional 7.50 for the application/draw process, just like turkey and bear have the additional 7.50 added for the draw process over the non-permit tag costs.

 

 

Oops, I guess you're right, I forgot about the price hike.

 

 

cmc,

How the heck are we being greedy??? We just want changes to make good management sense. This isn't about tags! Like I said before and the part you must have missed, I don't care if they put it to a draw and there is a valid wildlife management reason for it. THIS DECISION IS NOT BASED ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT!!!! You disagree??? Prove me wrong! Prove to me how this will benefit wildlife. Prove to me how the current number of deer taken by archers are hurting the deer populations in those proposed units. Prove it and I'll shut up.

 

 

Donnie

[cmc]

Donnie - you and I both know there isn't a thing anyone can do or say to change your mind on the department so I'm not going down that road.

 

I just chuckle as I sure didn't see this type of attitude when they cut the archery cow elk tags....??? I wonder why. Oh that's right no antlers involved so it doesn't matter. Toss in some antlers on that animal and folks get in a tizzy. I fail to see that logic & attitude.

 

Don't get me wrong... I have extreme concerns over the changes.

 

cmc

[donniedent]

I don't doubt that some have that attitude. I for one do not. I don't even hunt the units that are proposed, not regularly anyway. I probably wouldn't even be bothered if in the past 5 years I heard anything from G&F on what they were planning to do to rehab the muley populations. How is that the WT populations have stayed stable and muleys are down bacause of the rain????? Is there only a drought where the muleys are standing??? And I'm talking about units where they share habitat. All we hear from them is "we need rain", well I'm sorry there are other things that we can do to help.

 

The possible reason you don't hear noise about cow tags is because it makes good management sense. Theres a valid reason for it. I don't even hear much noise when they drop bull tags. I mean there is grumbling but not surveys like this one. This isn't about lowering tags, its about shuffling things around for some strange reason. They aren't even following their own protocol!

 

If I'm wrong I'm ALWAYS the first to admit it. If someone can show me where I'm wrong on this I'll listen. I have NO problem being wrong, thats how we learn.

 

cmc, I can promise you this isn't about horns for me brother, I'm tired of seeing the dept. do things that don't make any management sense and we as hunters are the ones that suffer. Thank goodness this won't have any ill affects on the deer herds. At least I don't think it will.

 

Donnie