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

[Outdoor Writer]

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.

 

I already explained the reason for the mandatory archery reports. Did you read it?

 

RE: bear

 

Obvious to anyone who reads the regulations; there are harvest limits for sows in most units. When that limit is hit, the season is shut down. That's why the mandatory part, unlike the deer survey cards, is for only those who actually kill a bear.

 

RE: lion

 

If I recall, there are also limits on the lion harvest in some units.

 

In addition, both bear and lion are checked for ongoing research purposes. That's why the hunter must bring in the skull & hide and not merely report a kill.

 

Sheep is a no-brainer: G&F affixes a seal in the horn during the check-in process to assure that it is a legal head. Of course, with sheep, even the unsuccessful hunters must report because in this case -- and somewhat with lion and bear, too -- it comes down to more finite managment, given the smaller populations.

 

Now contrast the small group of hunters involved with lion, bear and sheep to the nearly 50,000 permitted deer hunters. Big diff in the number. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Terry,

 

>>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. <<

 

They were already getting the survey cards from the rifle hunters and in a prior message I explained why they made the reports mandatory for the bowhunters. So the only complaint might be that the survey cards didn't produce "hard data," i.e. the EXACT numbers a mandatory report would supposedly provide. I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet some money that the mandatory archery reports didn't produce exact numbers either, due to non-compliance with the rule -- something nearly impossible to enforce.

 

>>they failed to use any kind of gathered data at all to make this decision.<<

 

That's simply not true. They had survey cards from the permit hunts and the mandatory archery reports. Maybe you meant to say that they didn't use the data some bowhunters wanted them to use??

 

>>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.<<

 

I don't know Dick personally, nor did I see what happened at the meeting. So I can't comment on it. As for the "spoiled hunters" comment, maybe it has a ring of truth to it. -TONY

[TLH]

There are spoiled people in every sport--but Dick King is not one of them. Tony, i think you are trying a little too hard to get a sheep tag in this thread. The game and fish do a damned fine job in the field, they work very hard to get the data to the commission and then the data is thrown to the side and the commission does what the commission wants to do--usually just the opposite of what the hunters (and some WM's) want.

 

To increase deer tags in units that had only kill ratios in the low teens is ridiculous and only shows that they use the word "opportunity" for a cash cow. Once again, they did not use data to establish the number of tags that should be given in a unit they used their own ideas as to what they think this state needs--which should be better biology and less accounting.

 

Science is when you take factual data and then you apply it to your decision and there should not be any $ signs in the data.

 

One last thing--the Arizona Deer Association has spent tens of thousands of dollars doing a three year study on the Kaibab--the data will not be complete for another year yet the game and fish (commission) decided to increase the doe tags to 500 this year--they have no idea how many deer are on the plateau but they felt that 500 does will not be a huge impact to the Kaibab--once again, they did not want to wait for one more year for the data that will be gathered by the biologists (both game and fish and independent) to make their recommendations--no data once again Tony yet they will slaughter the future of the Kaibab--

 

Tony, you really need to make it to a few meetings, i know i will be there just to see how the commission treats the people who raise more money than anyone to help with habitat improvements and other wildlife friendly projects.

 

 

 

 

[DesertBull]

Yes, we are spoiled. We don't have to report our hunt success like MANY other states require.

[bobbyo]

To increase deer tags in units that had only kill ratios in the low teens is ridiculous and only shows that they use the word "opportunity" for a cash cow. Once again, they did not use data to establish the number of tags that should be given in a unit they used their own ideas as to what they think this state needs--which should be better biology and less accounting.

 

Science is when you take factual data and then you apply it to your decision and there should not be any $ signs in the data.

 

TLH,

Your too radical man. using science for decisions. Next thing is you will want some transperancy to the commissions decisions. Wow what you think we live in a Democracy.

Bob

[KGAINES]

It seems to me that any time there is something to fight about with the department the arhery hunters get involved, they attend meetings to get information and then make sure they have their say in front of the commission. I have heard Dick King in front of the commission several times backing the ADA and many other groups on issues with the department that has little to do with archery hunting. Getting involved and having your say doesn't make someone a whiner, when you allow everything to collapse around you and don't give a dang as long as it stays the same, and then you complain that it is still not good enough might make you a whiner, I don't see that with the archers in Arizona and I don't see it with the ABA and the other bowhunting groups. This commission it seems to me is good at isolating and attacking when they want to, they throw a few things out there to get everyone looking in one direction and then attack an easy group. I see this continuing every year and it won't stop until we all get together and back each other up. What is so freaking hard about filling out a mandatory survey card for deer, for all hunters, I don't care if a percentage of the number makes it scientific or not, allow the archers to fill out the random survey cards as well. Why is it the best thing ever for the rifle hunters and the department praises how great it works, but it is different for the archers, are they saying that bowhunters are poachers and need to be checked, are they saying that since they use a bow they can't read and write therefore the survey cards wouldn't work for them, or is the truth that a few of the commissioners hate the archery hunt structure and are looking for any way they can to change it for good.

[TLH]

Bob, you're right man, what the heck was i thinking?

[SunDevil]

we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one tony because it is apparent you will defend the G&F to the death.

 

despite what you may think, I most certainly do not think the "sky is falling". nor do I think mandatory reporting vs voluntary survey's to be a major concern. what bothers me is in general how big the government has become and how, in general, they operate.

 

in regards to the G&F specifically, it does not appear that they truely listen to their customer - the public. additionally, like all gov, they are slow, slow, slow to change, even for the sake of improvement. finally, it is fairly apparent that the dept has agendas that are not publicized. if you go back to "the opportunity survey", I remember when I took the survey that it was apparent the questions were worded in certain ways to promote desired responses. guess what the outcome was - what they wanted it to be (which was based on how they wrote the questions). then, in order to execute "more opportunity", at least for WT deer, they knew they had to reduce the % of total tags available for dec hunts. so what did they do, several year ago they changed the management guidelines from 10% of total dec tags down to 5% to start in 2008. by the time they came out with the 2008 hunt guidelines there was no turning back, the pieces had already been put in place and the "public meetings" that are held for john doe to lobby his opinion were really just dog and pony shows as no changes were ever going to be made.

 

regarding the two items mostly discussed in this thread:

 

first - the day after they had their fiasco several years ago with their online vendor's bond problem, they should have immediately taken actions to ensure the online application process would be back up in place for the next application period. guess what - didn't happen and still has not happened.

 

second - I would much rather say "I am 99% confident that the hunter success for the unit 32, October WT hunt was 31%, +/- 1% (30% - 32%)" than "I am 90% confident that the hunter success rate for the unit 32, October WT hunt was 31%, +/- 4% (27% - 35%).

 

IMO - online applications are far superior to paper apps. to me, and based on the technology that is currently available, it is inexcusable that we have to complete paper applications. why are we still doing paper apps? why? I would like to know.

 

IMO - mandatory reporting is not that big of a deal. I have been doing it for years in other states. it only takes a couple of minutes. plain and simple, the numbers that are compiled from mandatory reports are superior to voluntary surveys. why are we still doing voluntary surveys? why? I would like to know.

 

if the AZ G&F Dept was operating in the private sector they would have been out of business years and years ago.

[Outdoor Writer]

>> Tony, i think you are trying a little too hard to get a sheep tag in this thread. <<

 

Yeah, that's obviously my aim.

 

>>The game and fish do a damned fine job in the field, they work very hard to get the data to the commission and then the data is thrown to the side and the commission does what the commission wants to do--usually just the opposite of what the hunters (and some WM's) want.

 

One last thing--the Arizona Deer Association has spent tens of thousands of dollars doing a three year study on the Kaibab--the data will not be complete for another year yet the game and fish (commission) decided to increase the doe tags to 500 this year--they have no idea how many deer are on the plateau but they felt that 500 does will not be a huge impact to the Kaibab--once again, they did not want to wait for one more year for the data that will be gathered by the biologists (both game and fish and independent) to make their recommendations--no data once again Tony yet they will slaughter the future of the Kaibab<<

 

Terry, the above doesn't seem to square with what I've seen. The game department's WMs/biologists presented the recommendation TO THE COMMISSION for 600 antlerless permits in 12A, which was a 200 increase over the previous year. And that's exactly what the commission approved -- 600 junior permits, not 500 as stated in your message. So it appears you're pointing a finger in the wrong direction; you should be bitching about those who made the recommendation. All the commission did was approve what was put before them.

 

As for the department not having any idea how many deer are on the Kaibab, that again is simply not true.

 

In 2004/2005, they estimated there were 10,000 or so deer on the plateau, with about 6,800 of them on the west side where the junior antlerless hunt will take place. Somewhere near 4,000 of the west-side population are does. Since 2005, the recruitment has been excellent. In fact, the fawn/doe ratio was more than 100/100 one year, and last year it was 97/100. That makes for incredible herd growth, considering anything over 50/100 normally indicates a growing herd. With those numbers, the 600 antlerless permits (that means even some buck fawns could be killed) is a drop in the proverbial bucket, considering G&F estimates the junior harvest will be 300 from those 600 permits.

 

So your dire "yet they will slaughter the future of the Kaibab" is a bit farfetched.

 

>>Tony, you really need to make it to a few meetings, i know i will be there just to see how the commission treats the people who raise more money than anyone to help with habitat improvements and other wildlife friendly projects.<<

 

Actually, I just watched the taped testimony that took place at the April meeting, including Dick's. Your characterization of what transpired seems a bit exaggerated compared to what I watched. He certainly was allowed to provide his complete and somewhat long presentation and to answer questions from several commissioners. In fact, in response to the somewhat meaningless statistics cited, Ms. Martin made the point I did here earlier in regards to opportunities, i.e. not one hunter spending 100 days hunting over several seasons, but more hunters each spending 6-7 days hunting.

 

RE: money

 

Now we get to the crux of the matter and why I have mixed emotions about the various alphabet "advocacy" associations. Granted, raising funds is a huge benefit to wildlife. But to use that as some sort of hammer to sway the department's management of game into the mold of what the ADA members -- a VERY tiny segment of the deer hunters in this state -- want for their own self-serving satisfaction is not something I support. It reminds me too much of what's goes on between the Congress critters in D.C. and the various folks who heavily contribute to their war chests; in return, they expect preferential treatment and favors. It's an unhealthy relationship.

 

It would be much better, IMO, if the game department conducts its own raffle and auctions through an independent entity. Maybe they could even hold the auction for all the tags at the annual Expo. But it will probably never happen.

 

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word. I've already wasted too much time on this topic, and the time spent is not likely to change anyone's views on the topic. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

I don't care if a percentage of the number makes it scientific or not, allow the archers to fill out the random survey cards as well. Why is it the best thing ever for the rifle hunters and the department praises how great it works, but it is different for the archers, are they saying that bowhunters are poachers and need to be checked, are they saying that since they use a bow they can't read and write therefore the survey cards wouldn't work for them, or is the truth that a few of the commissioners hate the archery hunt structure and are looking for any way they can to change it for good.

 

Go back and reread what I wrote about the reason for the mandatory archery reports. The archers in the new PERMITTED units WILL get to fill out the regular survey cards because G&F will know who they are as soon as they draw a permit. The OTC ones will still need to report their success, however. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one tony because it is apparent you will defend the G&F to the death.

 

You're correct on the first part, but wrong on the second.

 

I often complain about something G&F does that I don't agree with it. In fact. I probably wrote at least two dozen Last Shot columns to that effect when I was writing regularly for AZ Hunter & Angler.

 

Now, as I said to Terry, you can have the last word if you so choose. I'm heading out to start counting deer so I can be 99% confident within +/- 1% that the population count is accurate to Nth degree. -TONY

[SunDevil]

it must be nice to know everything about everything and then not be shy about letting everyone know about it.

 

but hey, I'm "not pointing a finger at anyone in particular".

[jnobleinaz]

Go mandatory or go home!!! You guys are trying to argue stuff that doesn't really matter. If you do not have hard data you cannot and should not make permit allocations with this information. I know the biologists work hard to recon info on the herd sizes and they do a great job. But as for harvest data survey cards are a joke. I think it is ridiculous to have set draw permit only archery units. I went to some meetings on this subject. But it seems that they let you speak but somewhat let most of it go in one ear and out the other. The four season coues hunts are also a complete joke, if you ask me. Oh and the national forests are going too close as many roads as possible now too!! I cant wait until this state becomes f-en california. And if we get a democrat in the white house with a democrat congress, god help us all. This country is going soft and I think it sucks a## that people don't look around and see whats happening. Issues, issues, issues, lots too many to worry about.

[Outdoor Writer]

it must be nice to know everything about everything and then not be shy about letting everyone know about it.

 

but hey, I'm "not pointing a finger at anyone in particular".

 

Just consider it a free contribution to your ongoing education. -TONY

[TLH]

Tony,

 

You will always feel you have the last answer--i guess that comes with age--i really don't know. I can tell you that the game and fish would be up crap creek with out the groups that work with them. I am not sure what kind of money we make and how much money we spend but that money is taken from a group that has worked hard to generate it for one cause and that is habitat and wildlife projects. if you think the game and fish could make the money that the groups generate on these tags then you would be very wrong.

 

Your right, 600 doe tags--that makes it a lot better and remember estimates are just that--once again, no data used in this "estimation" just a guess--nice work there huh?

 

From your responses one must ask what agenda you have?

 

I know you can't resist--come on, respond--you are the kind that can't stand not having the last word.