KGAINES Report post Posted February 13, 2008 Adding more opportunity for the early hunt to keep total harvest the same: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits, 40% success -- 20 deer Oct. hunt -- 1700 permits, 15% success -- 255 deer Total harvest -- 275 deer Any questions??? -TONY How many hunters does that scenario have calling the AZGFD and complaining about overcrowding, no place to camp, hunters everywhere, they messed up my stalks. There is good and bad with every scenario, but the azgfd loves the one above. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elpepe25 Report post Posted February 13, 2008 the big picture being what? taking away rights? if people want more opportunity they can take up bowhunting. dont ding the stick flingers for a pooly managed herd that has been over hunted by all means for 15+ years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 I totally agree Tony. Protein feeders and food plots would be a better way to improve the deer herds in Arizona but I don't know of any programs that allow hunters to help out with this type of activity. I am sure that on private ranches supplemental feeding is being done, but not on public land. Why isn't G&F looking into something like this. It would strengthen the numbers and allow for more hunters in the field to produce the almighty BUCK in G&F's pocket, but at the same time allow for a better deer herd in Arizona. I don't think there are any laws preventing individuals from planting food plots, but on the whole, they probably wouldn' fare any better than the deer's natural food sources. Both take moisture to maintain, and when that is present, there's no need for supplemental feeding; deer will get all the nutrition they need from the natural foods. As for G&F doing it, it won't ever happen and shouldn't unless there is some very unnatural occurence that might cause mass starvation. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KGAINES Report post Posted February 13, 2008 That's another thing, AZGFD has said that the Coues deer are doing well across the state, it's not like they noticed the numbers dropping lately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 Adding more opportunity for the early hunt to keep total harvest the same: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits, 40% success -- 20 deer Oct. hunt -- 1700 permits, 15% success -- 255 deer Total harvest -- 275 deer Any questions??? -TONY How many hunters does that scenario have calling the AZGFD and complaining about overcrowding, no place to camp, hunters everywhere, they messed up my stalks. There is good and bad with every scenario, but the azgfd loves the one above. The kind of numbers in the field now are little different than they were two+ decades ago. In fact, there were three times the number of deer permits available. And that would have continued to be the case IF the state's deer herds had maintained the aberrant numbers that were due to several HIGHLY unusual years of rainfall. No one complained about the number of hunters in the field back then. In fact, most hunters were thankful to be able to hunt. AND..that is likely the case with MOST hunters in this state today, contrary to the minority who constantly complain. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 What is the difference in shooting a deer over a pile of corn, or shooting one at 800 yds, Depends on who you ask. No doubt many guys would say there is no difference and both are wrong. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 OW, I have a question, who are the 1700 hunters who want to fight 1699 other hunters in 100 degree weather to have a 15% chance at taking an immature deer? Another question, who thinks that this would be enforceable when g$f guys never get out of thier truck? That would be a good question to ask the folks who draw those permits. For a small charge, G&F will supply the list. As for the 2nd question, an ethical hunter obeys the law and only does what's legal, no?? Afterall, I keep reading all this "if it's legal it's ethical." So the converse must be true as well. Otherwise, he's a poacher. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesFanatic Report post Posted February 13, 2008 The more and more I hear of this state makes me sick! Who wants to archery hunt deer in 110 degree weather when you can't get away from billions of people? Who wants to archery hunt elk in November when you are lucky to even find a bull? The more stuff I hear about the AZGFD, the more and more it is about gaining $$$ and screwing us over on our success rate. I don't want a small chance at a tiny forky. I want to hunt deer or elk in the rut and at least have a chance of seeing a quality mature animal. More and more we are getting screwed by the AZGFD. Time to move states. New Mexico is looking nice about now. BTW Why does it seem like we always get screwed on deer and elk? Antelope and Sheep never change it seems. We never have HUNTER OPPORTUNITY there! We can never get drawn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted February 13, 2008 What I find contradictory is that they can issue 3x the amount of rifle tags in units 22 and 23 as they were 3 years ago, but sitting over a block of salt with a bow in your hand is devestaing the deer herd. It's not really rocket science. If you take away permits for a hunt that has 40% success on average such as Dec. WT one and move them to a hunt with only 15-17% success such as an early Oct. hunt, you can increase permits even more for the Oct hunt and still keep the total harvest for the two hunts together about the same because those permits that were moved will have less than half the success rate during the early season. So...more opportuntities for more INDIVIDUAL hunters with no detrimental effect on the deer population. For discussion sake, some hypothetical figures. Before the change: Dec. hunt -- 500 permits, 40% success -- 200 dead deer Oct. hunt -- 500 permits, 15% success -- 75 dead deer Total harvest: 275 deer After removing 450 permits from one to the other: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits , 40% success -- 20 dead deer Oct. hunt -- 950 permits, 15% -- 142 dead deer Total harvest -- 162 Adding more opportunity for the early hunt to keep total harvest the same: Dec. hunt -- 50 permits, 40% success -- 20 deer Oct. hunt -- 1700 permits, 15% success -- 255 deer Total harvest -- 275 deer Any questions??? -TONY I understand the numbers game, but a few people sitting over a block of salt in which a buck might wander by every other day is not the same as 1700 guys with .300 winmags and a $2000 binoculars. Sorry, don't buy it. The problem is, the way I see it, is the G&F admit they don't know the true success rates of the hunts. They depend on people returning their cards and replying honestly. Also, in your example, the worst case you give is 15% success rate. I would be willing to bet that there has never been an archery deer hunt success rate, using their numbers, of 15% overall. More like 10% in a great year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 I understand the numbers game, but is not the same as 1700 guys with .300 winmags and a $2000 binoculars. Sorry, don't buy it. The problem is, the way I see it, is the G&F admit they don't know the true success rates of the hunts. They depend on people returning their cards and replying honestly. Also, in your example, the worst case you give is 15% success rate. I would be willing to bet that there has never been an archery deer hunt success rate, using their numbers, of 15% overall. More like 10% in a great year. Okay, I tried to answer the question since it sounded as if you didn't "understand the numbers." That said, perhaps you can clarify the relationship between that question and the "...a few people sitting over a block of salt in which a buck might wander by every other day" because I can't see a relationship between the two dissimilar topics. The point?? I agree that the harvest stats MIGHT not be totally accurate, but that goes across the board -- not for just one type of hunt and not another. In fact, I've have many discussions with G&F folks about it over the years and even denigrated how it's done in the Coues deer book. But I'm guessing those stats are a bit more accurate than pure speculation by anyone. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 I want to hunt deer or elk in the rut and at least have a chance of seeing a quality mature animal. Then do what I do; apply for those hunts that appeal to you and don't apply for the ones that don't. Leave those other hunts where they hide all the mature critters for those who care only about getting a permit and being able to hunt at all. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesFanatic Report post Posted February 13, 2008 I agree Outdoor Writer (thats what I do), but I'm not sure I agree that salt and feed really make a big difference. I guess i'm just tired of being regulated to death. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted February 13, 2008 I understand the numbers game, but is not the same as 1700 guys with .300 winmags and a $2000 binoculars. Sorry, don't buy it. The problem is, the way I see it, is the G&F admit they don't know the true success rates of the hunts. They depend on people returning their cards and replying honestly. Also, in your example, the worst case you give is 15% success rate. I would be willing to bet that there has never been an archery deer hunt success rate, using their numbers, of 15% overall. More like 10% in a great year. Okay, I tried to answer the question since it sounded as if you didn't "understand the numbers." That said, perhaps you can clarify the relationship between that question and the "...a few people sitting over a block of salt in which a buck might wander by every other day" because I can't see a relationship between the two dissimilar topics. The point?? I agree that the harvest stats MIGHT not be totally accurate, but that goes across the board -- not for just one type of hunt and not another. In fact, I've have many discussions with G&F folks about it over the years and even denigrated how it's done in the Coues deer book. But I'm guessing those stats are a bit more accurate than pure speculation by anyone. -TONY Except that archery hunts now have mandatory reporting and the other other hunts do not. To me, that skews the numbers right from the start. My point was, I do not see one tactic as being advatageous over the other. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the guy glassing for deer SEES more bucks per day than he guy sitting in a tree stand, but we want to further limit the sitter. I do not really have a problem with banning it per se, but to me it's a stepping stone to other things that will limit all us further. What's next? No shooting after 12:00 noon like they do with the dove hunts? No tree stands? No ..fill in the blank...? It's the progressive restrictions that I fear most. How about we let the new opportunity philosophy take hold and evaluate the results in a few years instead of just piling on more and more restrictions every year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 Except that archery hunts now have mandatory reporting and the other other hunts do not. To me, that skews the numbers right from the start. My point was, I do not see one tactic as being advatageous over the other. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the guy glassing for deer SEES more bucks per day than he guy sitting in a tree stand, but we want to further limit the sitter. I do not really have a problem with banning it per se, but to me it's a stepping stone to other things that will limit all us further. What's next? No shooting after 12:00 noon like they do with the dove hunts? No tree stands? No ..fill in the blank...? It's the progressive restrictions that I fear most. How about we let the new opportunity philosophy take hold and evaluate the results in a few years instead of just piling on more and more restrictions every year? We've discussed the reporting methods and whether it should be mandatory here several times. So rehashing it all isn't something I have time to do right now. In fact, I was even reluctant to get into this thread because of that. That' said, I AGREE everyone should have to report, but it probably won't be any more accurate than the old method because lots of people will fib. In fact, the only SURE way to get accurate harvest stats is the way it has been done in many states -- a mandatory PHYSICAL checkout of a kill that gets a seal similar to one used on bighorn sheep. But then the same chronic complainers would bitch about it because of more regulations and inconvenience. The unfortunate fact is regulations become necessary for two reasons: 1. To protect the resource 2. to eliminate practices that provide unfair or seemingly unethical advantages in regards to #1. Sometimes those practices start on a very small scale and then grow into much larger and more detrimental numbers. The regulation about flying just prior to or during a season came under #2 and mostly as a result of the growing use of chute planes. The dove regulation resulted because too many "hunters" took advantage and literally became poachers by repeatedly breaking the law about daily limits on doves. The use of bait -- whether salt or food stuffs -- along with trail cams is one of the growing ones. All one needs to do is consistently look at this site to see that. Me thinks part of the problem is an inability to police our own ranks when it comes to questionable issues, and the mentality that every hunter should march along in lockstep is the wrong road to take. I will NEVER support something that *I* believe is wrong regardless if it is legal or not. To do otherwise would be a compromise and betrayal of my own ethics. Do I favor every regulation or rule that is made? Nope, far from it. But I also don't see some grand conspiracy behind them being made. And it gets real tiresome reading all the "game department is out to get us" like comments. That's likely because I'm a bit jaded since I talk to the folks at AZ G&F several times a week, and some of the conversations are off-the-record, so to speak. The long and short of it is I put more stock in what the professionals think and do than I put on the opinions of the common folk, and the latter includes me, despite my education in things wildlife related. Why? Because I'm not on the ground so to speak in the everyday management of the state' wildlife. More folks need to realize that the department's focus is two-fold -- managing wildlife (that's ALL OF THE WILDLIFE, not only those animals with targets on them ) and managing people. Both are intertwined, and when it comes to managing people...well you probably know the adage about opinions. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Outdoor Writer Report post Posted February 13, 2008 One other thing I forgot to add in regards to using salt/bait and cams. I think some folks make an erroneous assumption that only bowhunters are doing it when in fact gun hunters are also doing it. Somone might liken it to a growing cancer, but I won't. -TONY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
