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

[wetmule]

hey wetmule, you gotta remember one thing, half-assed is an improvement for the azgfd. they'd love to be, well, like a mule, half assed. Lark.

 

That's funny, if I add up my two half asses I guess I end up with one complete butt.

[Outdoor Writer]

G&F uses 90% as its confidence level, and there's no need to guess at the numbers. Here are the exact ones for the 2007 Unit 32 WT hunts.

 

 

Hunt---Permits----Bucks----Success-----90% CI---Returned Cards

1097---650---------186-------- 31----------3.8--------- 276

1098---650---------156-------- 26----------3.6--------- 283

1099---175---------90----------56----------5.8---------105

 

If one would go back 20 or 30 years, the rate of return has remained pretty much the same.

 

And yes, counting every head of game is unrealistic, which is my point. The concept of using estimated population and estimated harvest figures has been used across the country for years to manage game for biological purposes. And as long as the population is nothing more than a high confidence estimate, the harvest need not be any more than a high confidence estimate.

 

BTW, if I recall, G&F actually has the fudge factor worked in for the dingalings who think they are accomplishing some good by lying on the survey cards. And those who tear them up, should remember the adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face. If enough folks in a unit act like juveniles, it can easily skew the figures where it works against them. For example, let's say a bunch of guys who didn't kill a deer don't send in the cards from the new archery draw units, but those who do are mostly successful. That will raise the success rate and perhaps lead to even fewer archery permits down the road if the archery harvest remains above that magical 20% of the total harvest in that unit. -TONY

[Red Rabbit]

How big of a deal is it that there is no mandatory reporting?

 

Seems the bigger concern should be about the smaller population surveys covering buck:doe ratios and fawn:doe ratios.

The calculated harvest success probably varies more with the effects of weather during the hunt, monsoon moisture of previous years, and what type of hunter get drawn thatn the variations in the returned cards.

 

If one is upset about the accuracy from the returned cards and yet does nothing to create more accurate data under the current system by refusing to return their card, then bad karma or failure to draw should follow them, IMO.

Better would be to supply correct data with the survey cards while lobbying for mandatory harvest reporting, if one is inclined to that direction.

 

The 40-45% return rate is a bunch better than the voter turnout in November; perhaps we should have mandatory voting in the general elections. And it's immensely better than the turnout at the public and commissioner G&F meetings.

 

Lots of Tycho Brahes in the crowd.

 

RR

 

 

[SunDevil]

come on guys - lets continue to support a system that could be improved upon because the dept is stuck in the 70s and is unwilling to move to a better system. sorry not buying in. the only successful lobby effort I saw in regards to the G&f was the archery elk hunters. good for them. what about all the guys that lobbied for quality deer hunting over quantity. oh that lobby was a waste of time because look what we got stuck with - opportunity, more and more opportunity. oh the tree huggers were successful in their lobby efforts to get 3 months wacked off from the mtn lion hunting season.

[SunDevil]

oh and by the way - the G&F is still guessing. why do you think they use 90% when 95% is the gold standard for research sake - so they can make their numbers look better. if they used 95% that +/-5.8% on the dec stats would shoot up to a lot more than that.

[bowsniper]

If one is upset about the accuracy from the returned cards and yet does nothing to create more accurate data under the current system by refusing to return their card, then bad karma or failure to draw should follow them, IMO.

Better would be to supply correct data with the survey cards while lobbying for mandatory harvest reporting, if one is inclined to that direction.

 

RR

 

Why bad karma? Remember, it is VOLUNTARY! As far as lobbying goes, haven't we repeatedly tried and failed? It is getting a little old and discouraging to be continually ignored, not only on this issue, but several others.

 

the only successful lobby effort I saw in regards to the G&f was the archery elk hunters. good for them.

 

Actually, that effort was really unsuccessful. G&F brought back the same crap last Fall and rammed it down our throats.

 

 

Because bowhunter4life had a better idea, I retract my suggestion to tear up your cards. The better idea is to not answer the questions, but write on the card something like "When G&F make harvest reporting mandatory for all hunts, I'll be happy to share the information."

 

Mark

 

[SunDevil]

Because bowhunter4life had a better idea, I retract my suggestion to tear up your cards. The better idea is to not answer the questions, but write on the card something like "When G&F make harvest reporting mandatory for all hunts, I'll be happy to share the information."

 

Mark

 

 

sounds good to me

[Outdoor Writer]

If one is upset about the accuracy from the returned cards and yet does nothing to create more accurate data under the current system by refusing to return their card, then bad karma or failure to draw should follow them, IMO.

Better would be to supply correct data with the survey cards while lobbying for mandatory harvest reporting, if one is inclined to that direction.

 

RR

 

Geez, what a unique concept you pose, Doug.

 

Nah, it'll never work. Better to piss and moan and have that "I'll show the SOBs" attitude. I'm doing that right now with the oil companies; I quit buying gas to protest the high prices. I see it's working already since the price of oil dropped a bit. -TONY

 

 

[SunDevil]

well Doug we will see if I draw a Dec tag or not. if I don't it will probably be due to not having enough bogus points and there being to much other opportunity.

 

on another note, if EVERYONE stopped buying gas than as a result of demand going away the price would come down. same situation here. if EVERYONE tore up their survey cards then the G&F would be forced to implement mandatory reporting.

 

I think almost everyone on this site would agree that lobbying the G&F is a futile effort. history has repeatedly shown that they do what they want regardless of public input.

 

Tony, since you are in the know with the G&F, can you provide some input on what kind of lame excuses they are using for 1) not having applications online and 2) not having mandatory reporting? if you do not know, would you be willing to find out for us?

 

IMO - these are two things that can be done and would be improvements over how they are currently being done. their refusal to listen to their customers, change and make improvements where possible is ridiculous. like I said before, if this organization was operating in the private sector, they would have been out of business years ago.

[Outdoor Writer]

oh and by the way - the G&F is still guessing. why do you think they use 90% when 95% is the gold standard for research sake - so they can make their numbers look better. if they used 95% that +/-5.8% on the dec stats would shoot up to a lot more than that.

 

Yup, they're still guesing. So what?

 

On a biological basis, it makes little difference whether the harvest figure is plus or minus 10 or 20 deer, as long as the estimates are consistent throughout. This is especially true given the fact that G&F generally sets permit numbers conservatively in regards to the estimated population in a given unit. In reality, mandatory reporting wouldn't change the numbers much if at all. The only thing it might do is soothe the minority of bruised selfish egos out there.

 

I kinda laugh when someone cites the mandatory reporting in NM and Utah as if it is producing any better hunting than AZ. Over on MM, the Utah residents are constantly bitching about how the UDWR is so screwed up with their seasons and permit allotments. They also bitch about the condition of the elk and deer herds. Sounds like deju vu all over again.

 

BTW, it seems everyone thinks G&F was picking on the bowhunters when it initiated the mandatory reporting. Of course, as it is with most of the supposed conspiracy theories, it was done for a very specific reason: to get timely information.

 

Here's why:

 

Unlike permitted hunts, G&F has no idea who bought the OTC archery tags until well after the seasons, i.e. year end and later when all the license dealers across the state turn in their sales receipts. Anyone here involved with selling the licenses knows how the routine works. Although there is a monthly report, many dealers never even sell all the OTC tags in one book. So they do not return it until the final report of the year. If G&F waited until then and used the voluntary survey cards, they would have to take all of the OTC archery tag sales as they straggle in from the dealers, input them into a database and go about mailing out the survey cards. This process couldn't occur until well into the following year.

 

In contrast, the rifle guys with a lottery permit are in the database as soon as permits are issued. So long before the archery OTC info is returned to G&F, the majority of those with permits have already received and returned their survey cards. Or at least the majority other than those who are punishing G&F have done so.

 

This is exactly why those archery permit holders in the new draw units will no longer have the mandatory reporting requirement; G&F will know who they are, and they will now get the survey cards mailed to them just as it is with the rifle permits. OTOH, OTC bowhunters will still have to report within the alloted window of time. -TONY

[SunDevil]

The only thing it might do is soothe the minority of bruised selfish egos out there.

 

FYI - I have nothing at stake in this, and as such, my unselfish ego has not been bruised. I would just like to see some of the things the dept does move out of the 70's and into this century.

[Outdoor Writer]

FYI - I have nothing at stake in this, and as such, my unselfish ego has not been bruised. I would just like to see some of the things the dept does move out of the 70's and into this century.

 

I don't believe there was a finger pointed at anyone in particular. That said, it certainly begs the obvious question:

 

If you have nothing at stake, then why are the prehistoric methods of G&F seemingly a major concern?

 

In regards to the following in your other message:

 

>>on another note, if EVERYONE stopped buying gas than as a result of demand going away the price would come down. same situation here. if EVERYONE tore up their survey cards then the G&F would be forced to implement mandatory reporting.<<

 

Ah, but there's the rub. EVERYBODY won't tear up the survey cards because the MAJORITY of the hunters in this state see no need for mandatory reporting. It's a small, but very vocal minority, that have the "sky is falling" attitude in regards to what G&F is doing. Most of the other hunters just want to be able to get a permit so they can hunt. And G&F is doing its best to accomplish that. When they cite creating more "opportunity," they don't mean so ONE hunter can hunt several seasons and many days for a particular species. They mean getting more DIFFERENT hunters into the field, spreading the wealth so to speak.

 

>>I think almost everyone on this site would agree that lobbying the G&F is a futile effort. history has repeatedly shown that they do what they want regardless of public input.<<

 

Nah, it isn't totally futile. See "vocal minority above."

 

>>Tony, since you are in the know with the G&F, can you provide some input on what kind of lame excuses they are using for 1) not having applications online and 2) not having mandatory reporting? if you do not know, would you be willing to find out for us?<<

 

Far as I know, they are working on getting the online process back as we speak. BUT...this time they're being a bit more careful. The last effort was aborted when the company they enlisted wouldn't get a performance bond, which would have protected the revenue.

 

The reason to resist putting the manadatory reporting into effect? First, see my previous comments where it is bascially unnecessary for managing game on a biological basis. Plus, for those holding permits, it just makes for another hoop to jump through; the voluntary survey cards accomplish the needed job.

 

>>IMO - these are two things that can be done and would be improvements over how they are currently being done. their refusal to listen to their customers, change and make improvements where possible is ridiculous. like I said before, if this organization was operating in the private sector, they would have been out of business years ago.<<

 

Right. So here's what I think everyone should do: quit applying for all the big-game hunts. That'll dry up all the funding and drive G&F out of business. -TONY

[Rembrant]

Yep, what Tony said.

Mike

[DesertBull]

How come it's "jumping through a hoop" for rifle deer, antelope and elk hunters to have mandatory reporting, but not for archery deer, all bear, lion and sheep hunters? That is my only question. If it's good enough for one group, it should good enough for all.

[TLH]

Tony,

 

I think the archers fill that they have been given the hook because of the way game and fish came up with the 20% number in certain units. The thing about survey cards is that you need them from both groups to find the 20% number it should have taken to send a unit to draw. I know you see this and i know you probably agree that the game and fish could have done this a little more scientifically using the actual data that they would have generated from the mandatory harvest cards they should have sent out.

 

I have no problem with the units going to draw i just think they did it Willy nilly and with out factual data.

 

I am one of those folks who think the game and fish are doing a good job but in this case they failed--they failed to use any kind of gathered data at all to make this decision.

 

If you would have been at the commission meeting you would have heard Hernbrode attack Dick King and you would have heard Hernbrode state that the archers are (i am paraphrasing here) a bunch of spoiled hunters.

 

If you had been at the meeting Tony you would have heard Dick King in his quite and humble voice explain the reasons why the department should wait until they had good hard data before they decided to put archery to a draw--you would have heard the chairman tell Dick that he couldn't speak any more--you would have been somewhat embarrassed at the way this commission treated one of the most respected people in this sport.

 

I am sorry Tony, the department needs to get hard facts before they make decision like they did this year--until they do that a lot of people will lose faith in them and it WILL be a them against us type of attitude.

 

You are a wise man Tony but this battle is real and one that needs to be taken care of--this commission does not like archers--period.