What would happen if???

[Non-Typical Solutions]

I remember as a kid in New Mexico buying my deer tag over the counter and being able to hunt anywhere in the state.

As I was traveling down south this weekend I got to wondering what would happen to our hunts if:

I am going to use easy numbers here........1000 tags per hunt.

Example,

First two weeks of October 1000 tags (by lottery draw) those tag holders could hunt anywhere they wanted in the state

Second two weeks of October 1000 tags (by lottery draw) those tag holders could hunt anywhere they wanted in the state.

 

Instead of having units it would be a statewide hunt, if I wanted to go to southern AZ I could go hunt there, if I wanted to hunt in my back yard, I could hunt there........

 

I know.....it sounds crazy but those of you that are numbers gurus what would happen to the wildlife populations?

 

I realize I am setting myself up for some bashing but being the hands on person I am sometimes the numbers don't click upstairs for me........

 

 

[5guyshunting]

The strip would get hammered.

[TOBY]

The strip would be depleted as well as the 12s.

And the the rim units with monsters as well.

2000 mature bucks dead in one month.

Sounds devastating with todays optics and posse hunting.

[GreyGhost85]

they used to do that when people were just hunting for meat with open sight 30-30's and binoculars were a rare luxury.

[oz31p]

 

 

They issue 43000ish tags now. A reduction in tags to 2000??? You may never draw a tag.

 

They issue around 1700 strip and kaibab tags now. There's not 1700 mature bucks killled

 

Sounds like a silly idea to me

[Non-Typical Solutions]

They issue 43000ish tags now. A reduction in tags to 2000??? You may never draw a tag.

 

They issue around 1700 strip and kaibab tags now. There's not 1700 mature bucks killled

 

Sounds like a silly idea to me

My example was a generalization....you would issue tags corresponding with current hunts throughout the hunting season. And the 1000 was just a number. It is a silly idea for sure but I was more curious really if people would hunt the areas they are familiar with and close to home instead of trekking clear across the state to a unit they knew nothing about because that was the unit they got drawn for.

[oz31p]

In that light I would continue to hunt the areas i hunt now.

 

A better question is why do people put in for units they Know nothing about.

[TOBY]

So they can come here e-scout and get that lucky pm that takes them to someone else's favorite spot.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

In that light I would continue to hunt the areas i hunt now.

 

A better question is why do people put in for units they Know nothing about.

Two personal experiences.......

 

First one I transposed numbers on my application so I ended up in 36B.....and that is how I got to know about CWT......which has in and of itself been a great stumble for me. I enjoyed that hunt and thanks to the CWT members who pitched in and helped with some info.

 

Second......I am going to hunt unit 23 mule deer this year knowing only what I have learned in several trips to that unit. Why that unit??? I wanted a unit that was more central to the people I wanted to hunt with and we wanted to try a mulie hunt after 10 years of chasing the white ghosts!!!

[mbiewer]

Well it would be completely contradictory to what the purpose behind issuing tags is for, and subdividing of units. The unit is precise population control in area.

 

Like someone before mentioned, (regardless of the numbers used)... people would congregate one particular area and then eradicate them, while numbers in less popular areas flourished beyond a healthy sustainable level. Someone correct me if im wrong, but that's the reasoning behind splitting the elk draw to feb rather than the spring-fall 2 draw cycle. People were putting in for deer and elk back when there was one process for fall... be lucky enough to get both deer and elk tags, but decided the elk tag was a better deal... and let their deer tag go to waste... thusly letting the herd size grow for deer which would have a negative sustainability impact for deer.

[Flatlander]

Well it would be completely contradictory to what the purpose behind issuing tags is for, and subdividing of units. The unit is precise population control in area.

 

Like someone before mentioned, (regardless of the numbers used)... people would congregate one particular area and then eradicate them, while numbers in less popular areas flourished beyond a healthy sustainable level. Someone correct me if im wrong, but that's the reasoning behind splitting the elk draw to feb rather than the spring-fall 2 draw cycle. People were putting in for deer and elk back when there was one process for fall... be lucky enough to get both deer and elk tags, but decided the elk tag was a better deal... and let their deer tag go to waste... thusly letting the herd size grow for deer which would have a negative sustainability impact for deer.

I agree with your statement about what would happen if tags were not for designated areas. It decreases the population control of specific herds.

 

However, I would suggest that the elk draw was moved earlier to provide more time before antelope and archery elk hunts, and more importantly it put AZ at the front end of big game draw cycles for western states. This means that NR who apply for multiple states do not wait to see if they drew other states before choosing whether or not to apply for AZ tags. With an early draw people are forced to apply for AZ and then wait to decide about other states.

[jim]

The main factor of the early draw was to provide more time for hunters to prepare for the hunts. This was asked for at the game and fish meetings and the department provided it.

[ThomC]

There are tooo many idiots. When you have tooo many idiots then you have to have more controls. Controls spread out the idiots so they are not all in the same unit. Even idiots dont want to hunt in a unit full of idiots.