RIP UP THOSE AZG&F SURVEY CARDS!!!!

[tjhunt2]

I'm not sure how far back these survey cards go but I can remember me thinking if everyone would say they were unsuccessful then I believed g&f would never go to a draw for pigs. I was not helping g&f one bit by falsifying information they so much depended on. I do know why some of you feel the way you do and that is your right but I don't think tearing them up and falsifying information is the answer here. I was wrong back then when all I thought about was killing my next critter instead of doing my part in helping manage for the critters I enjoyed pursuing.

 

IMO...I strongly believe that if one is not happy with the way g&f is handling things then one needs to do their part assisting g&f collect the most accurate information they can with the situation now in place until mandatory survey is implemented. Yes, I am in favor of mandatory survey. The survey is a tool and if used correctly, (truthful information), can be a big asset for the g&f.

 

TJ

[TLH]

During the rules and regulation meeting the commission turned a lot of archery hunts into a draw because they made reporting the harvest mandatory--the archers felt like they were singled out because the mandatory reporting only applied to them--i agree, they were hosed on that one. The whole premise of the 20% rule that caused this draw situation was from the harvest reports. If the archers were the only people that were mandated to return the harvest report and the rifle hunters were not how in the heck did the commission come up with the 20% ruling??

 

If they would have made the reporting mandatory for all deer hunts then they could have justified the 20% rule but with only a small % reporting their rifle and muzzy kills the way they did the archers was bogus.

 

I think they should have made reporting mandatory and then seen just how many deer were being taken--this would have been the only real and fair way that the draw should have came about for the archers.

 

 

 

[Coues Sniper]

I think the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is going to get us nowhere. Fill out the card. We have to at least give them the opportunity to do the right thing! Making the cards mandatory would certainly help. but it's no guarantee. If you don't return your survey in NV, you lose your hunting privileges for the following year. Pretty good incentive. But they've ran our elk herds down into the ground as well. I don't want to get drawn in NV at this point for elk. That's how bad it is. Game and Fish raises quotas for one reason: $$$ They get no money from taxes, so in order to write their own checks, they do everything they can to increase permits. What do they care if trophy quality is going down? They're still going to get more applicants than tags anyways. That's the attitude we need to somehow change.

[billrquimby]

I've some questions:

 

1. How much will it cost to enforce the mandatory requirement?

2. What happens if there is such a rule, you mail your card, and AGFD says it didn't receive it?

3. What will be the punishment? $500? $2500? Loss of your license for a couple of years?

 

For a long time I've felt that Statistics 101 should be a required course for every freshman college student, just as math and English are now.

 

Believe it or not, not every card needs to be returned, and the percentage of people who fib about their success can be determined and factored in, to learn what happened during any hunt. Mailing cards to every permit holder creates a large enough sample that the rate of accuracy should be very, very high.

 

Gathering data through surveying is not a pure and exact science, but it works when the geeks who set up the format follow proven techniques.

 

After reading your posts, I suspect the mandatory requirement for archers began with someone in authority who felt archers would want it before they acceoted changes in archery hunting.

 

Bill Quimby

[wetmule]

I think the approach the G & F Dept. is taking on this issue is Dead Wrong. Essentially what they are telling the hunting public by not making all reporting mandatory is this:

1. Here is our survey card, you can fill it out and turn it in if you want, but if you don't want to that's OK too - we really don't care.

2. If you do happen to fill it out and turn in your card that's cool, we'll plug whatever information you give us into some computer model and it will give us a baseline as to what's going on out there (Not taking into account whether the survey cards are being filled out accurately or not, IT DOESN'T MATTER) and we may or may not use that information to manage our wildlife populations based on what direction the commission and or the Director wants us to go.

3. Reporting for archery is mandatory but we are not going to enforce it AND we are going to use whatever information we get (Accuracy Notwithstanding) to regulate the archers and set permit numbers. See TLH's post above - he's right on.

 

The whole thing is a joke IMO - If they really wanted to know, they they could VERY easily institute a system that would accurately give them harvest info., as most people are pretty honest and will report the truth. With the system they have they are encouraging and fostering the dishonest report, as many people don't want their information to further decrease their odds in their favorite unit or further erode their particular hunting opportunities based on their personal beliefs of what is going on.

 

I think they would be wise, once they get the online system back up and running to institute an online mandatory reporting system whereby if you don't report you lose a bonus point or some other incentive be it positive or negative, that encourages people to report and give accurate data. With the system the way it currently is, it only fosters the perception that there is some funky stuff going on within the Dept. Either real or perceived, perception is reality.

My .02

 

[Snapshot]

I have been sending in my hunter survey cards for as long as I can remember, and I will keep on sending them in the hope that they actually do some good. I am an advocate for mandatory reporting with an online system. At least help the biologists present solid data.

All of you bring up some very valid points and concerns, and I certainly agree. Sometimes I feel that the whole wildlife management system is being snubbed by bureaucratic B.S

Does anyone remember that the State of Arizona is in a budget defecit, and it wanted to dip into the funds of all its agencies? What is the easiest way for G & F to recapture that money? Offer more permits in the name of opportunity.

How many times do you think that the G&F biologist's have presented sound information to the commission, only to have it ignored or pushed aside? Remember the G&F online survey awhile back, that was so cleverly worded that it made us wonder what questions we were actually answering to , and the survey presented by the ADA which got pushed aside as well? I feel the G&F already had its mind made up before that survey was even analyzed, but that is just my opinion.

I have said it before that I would gladly pay double the current permit price if I knew half of that money would be well spent on future wildlife research and problem solving, and allow for the continunance of quality hunt availability.

We all have different views on what we feel is a viable solution to current issues,who's right or wrong, I have no idea ? But I do believe that the future of our wildlife and hunting heritage is going to be based on sound long term wildlife managment and data, and then getting the commission to act accordingly.

[.270]

a lot of states have a mandatory survey. no fine involved, but if you don't send it in, you can't apply the next year. Az. is real easy compared to a lot of states with a lot of their rules. but i don't see a lot of benefit from them either. heck, i had to make a 20 minute phone call in colorado to validate a dang small game permit so i could shoot some prarie dogs. you buy a license, then you have to make a phone call and with the keys, tell them what you are planning on hunting and where. if you don't, the license ain't valid. talk about some big brother BS. if Az. actually used the survey data, i'd have no problem with it. what i do have a problem with is spending a buncha money on a program that is ignored. somebody said something about the archery guys getting singled out. in my opnion, they needed to that years ago. too many guys getting a deer with a bow and then going rifle hunting. it was next to impossible to enforce the rules they had. Lark.

[Outdoor Writer]

Another good way to protest the survey cards is too attend a commission meeting. Then get down on the floor, stomp your feet and fists on the floor and throw a hissy fit. A lot of 5 and 6-yr. olds get their way using this technique. -TONY

[Snapshot]

Another good way to protest the survey cards is too attend a commission meeting. Then get down on the floor, stomp your feet and fists on the floor and throw a hissy fit. A lot of 5 and 6-yr. olds get their way using this technique. -TONY

 

Thats an option. I know my wife and stepdaughter use that technique to get what they want with me

 

[KGAINES]

I've some questions:

 

1. How much will it cost to enforce the mandatory requirement?

2. What happens if there is such a rule, you mail your card, and AGFD says it didn't receive it?

3. What will be the punishment? $500? $2500? Loss of your license for a couple of years?

 

For a long time I've felt that Statistics 101 should be a required course for every freshman college student, just as math and English are now.

 

Believe it or not, not every card needs to be returned, and the percentage of people who fib about their success can be determined and factored in, to learn what happened during any hunt. Mailing cards to every permit holder creates a large enough sample that the rate of accuracy should be very, very high.

 

Gathering data through surveying is not a pure and exact science, but it works when the geeks who set up the format follow proven techniques.

 

After reading your posts, I suspect the mandatory requirement for archers began with someone in authority who felt archers would want it before they acceoted changes in archery hunting.

 

Bill Quimby

 

If it's mandatory for some it needs to be mandatory for all, to single out a specific group in one sense isolates them and therefore the rules instituted on them are perceived to be unjust. A simple online survey and manditory reporting prior to applying for the next years hunts would be a simple process, maybe a penalty of some sort for the survey being late, like equal to the price of the tag you are applying for or equal to a license. The AZGFD is definately lacking when it comes to online processes and the ability to use that to their advantage. As Desertbull stated the savings from postage alone for all those survey cards would go far in hiring someone to do the computer work.

 

With all that being said the survey cards are nothing compared to the one sided skewed surveys that they use every year to get what they think hunters want, if you ask one question six different ways and have the answers set to get the results they want they are going to do what they want every year and state that the public is behind them, no matter what we do.

 

[SunDevil]

I am sorry but I can not justify continuing to support a system that can and should be improved upon. I am not talking about fines but if you do not report than you can not apply the next year. Put it online or over the phone with a confirmation number for people to keep for their own records. THIS IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED PEOPLE.

 

It is like the online application process. Why is AZ not online?

 

Other states do both of these things. I specifically know and have experience with both of these things in UT and NM.

 

WHY IS AZ NOT DOING THEM? There has to be a reason. What is it? There is a difference between "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "there are better ways of doing things so let's look at ways of improving the things that we do for our 1) our dept 2) our state and 3) our customers".

 

The problem is that the department has the only ball and if we want to play, we are FORCED to play by their rules. Well not in this instance. If we collectively boycott the survey cards than it would FORCE the G&F to look at themselves in the mirror. Hopefully they would see that they are not in the 70s anymore, there are better ways of doing things and their customers have spoken. Yes it might cause a blip in survey data for one year and the G&F could say "poor us, we do not know what to do with tags next year because people did not turn in their survey cards" but they could easily keep it status quo for one year and the impact to wildlife would be insignificant.

 

If this entity operated in the private sector they would have been out of business years and years ago.

 

The people that support the survey program would not lose their jobs and they would probably feel better about what they do in knowing their final product is more accurate.

[KGAINES]

Every thing I have heard is that the companies that do the online process messed up during the process, sci-nevada had a problem and would not change it, the company from tn or ky where evr they were from messed up two years in a row, so azgfd decided that they would suspend the online process until they could find a vendor that could do it properly. In this I don't have a problem, if you can do it right with the paper apps. do it, but finding a company to do the online process shouldn't be that hard, and monitor them, to me the best answer is to do it from within, I would think that the dept. should have someone that could do something like this, and not only the draw, but licensing, and any number of survey type data that would include all the charts and graphs that are thrown in our faces at the commission meetings. I thought most companies had computer people in their employment, I don't see where the azgfd should be any different.

[25-06]

I have always filled my out and sent it back, just knowing that I have done my part makes me sleep better at night. I also like to think the G&F aint doing us all wrong either...Just be happy our state is 10+ years behind time with the rest of the west.....

[bowhunter4life]

Well I have been faithful of sending those cards back over the last 15 years intell about 2 years ago when they made mandatory archery harvest. since then I still send them back but with a twist I write on the survey card. "when they make it mandatory for all big game reporting then I'll be glad to share info". It is a bunch of *@$# that they only make it for overcounter deer,"except lion,bear". And now they take away that requirement on the draw units for deer. They sure make it seem that they do not want to know the TRUE FACTS of how many deer are being taken! How can our wildlife managers give honest reports when they do not have the true numbers? What if the new draw units have a 30% harvest ? " we draw a tag with less hunting pressure were going to now put much more effort and harvest more deer! " g-f will not have true numbers only the hopeful 35% return of cards. and as I've heard the cards that are not returned are assummed " made an a$$ out of you and me" to be non successful. showing maybe 12% harvest. It is hard to understand there logic. Intell all big game critters are made mandatory reports our wildlife managers will have to countinue to use there BEST GUESS when reporting to our commish! just my 02cents .mike

[ultramag]

I always send in my survey cards. Not anymore g&f can shove those cards in their butt. and call it oppertunity.