Over the counter tags

[Big or Bust]

The amount of hunters this year is epic. It's bad. Like really, really bad....

[654321]

I ran into a WM this weekend in the field and we got to talking about the insane number of people hunting the OTC.  He told me that one store in Flagstaff had an 800% increase in sales for the OTC tags this year.

[HuntHarder]

Yup, shits gonna hit the fan after this years tag sale #'s.  Non reaident draw would be ideal.  

[Outdoor Writer]

13 hours ago, Riesop said:

We're not talking about banning nonresidents.  We're talking about how to manage an already struggling deer herd by regulating the amount of tags sold and not just looking at money.

I've been following along on this thread, resisting the urge to comment. But it's seems a bit confusing determining what problem needs fixing. Is the idea to save the deer from getting killed as in "manage an already struggling deer herd," which is a biological issue, or is it to manage NR hunters so residents can each have his own mountain, which is a social engineering issue? 

13 hours ago, Big or Bust said:

The amount of hunters this year is epic. It's bad. Like really, really bad....

So,,,,how bad is "really, really bad?" Like how many is too many? Of the "amount," how many were actually NRs? 

3 hours ago, 654321 said:

I ran into a WM this weekend in the field and we got to talking about the insane number of people hunting the OTC.  He told me that one store in Flagstaff had an 800% increase in sales for the OTC tags this year.

An  800% increase sounds mind boggling until one realizes that could mean instead of one tag, the joint sold 9. And of course, other circumstances such as other sources of tags being closed down, etc. could have contributed to a switch in venues.  Brings to mind the oft repeated adage: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 😉 

And now I'll go back to lurking.....

[DCS]

Anymore the G& F doesn't care about the struggling deer herd,its all about the money.

[GreyGhost85]

2 minutes ago, DCS said:

Anymore the G& F doesn't care about the struggling deer herd,its all about the money.

They only care about the deer herd North of the Grand Canyon. As long as the Strip and Kaibab keep producing giant bucks they don't care about the rest. The only photos and publicity that deer in AZ get are from there and people looking in from the outside only see/hear about those places and the size and number of deer they have. If the scores/age of every mule deer killed in AZ was averaged it would probably be like 2.5 years old and 100". 

[Flatlander]

In order to help quantify the anecdotal information that has been shared I have again reached out to the Dept for total otc tag number for 2018-2020 and nonresident numbers for the same rime period. This time I sent it to their customer service email ilo Amber Munig directly.

[Riesop]

Ok "Outdoor Writer" let me see if I can state this more clearly.  Yes, it is to keep deer from getting killed, but I don't necessarily think it's a biological issue.  If I have 100 deer in an area and I sell 500 tags, what are the chances that those deer get wiped out?  If I manage how many people go in there and maybe sell 25 tags, I KNOW that there are deer left.  I'm not saying I want a mountain to myself, nor am I saying that I want to ban nonresidents.  I am however saying that past years was like putting 25 hunters where there were 100 deer.  This year is like putting 1000 hunters where there are 100 deer.  Not a biological or social engineering issue.

[GreyGhost85]

10 minutes ago, Riesop said:

Ok "Outdoor Writer" let me see if I can state this more clearly.  Yes, it is to keep deer from getting killed, but I don't necessarily think it's a biological issue.  If I have 100 deer in an area and I sell 500 tags, what are the chances that those deer get wiped out?  If I manage how many people go in there and maybe sell 25 tags, I KNOW that there are deer left.  I'm not saying I want a mountain to myself, nor am I saying that I want to ban nonresidents.  I am however saying that past years was like putting 25 hunters where there were 100 deer.  This year is like putting 1000 hunters where there are 100 deer.  Not a biological or social engineering issue.

Exactly. Draw tags are (supposed) to be issued in quantities that that are manageable for the herd size. Who is managing the amount of archery tags that get issued? I would guess that in some units, the amount of archery hunters FAR surpasses the amount of rifle hunters. Offering unlimited archery OTC tags all the while not having mandatory harvest reporting is absolutely ludicrous. G&F has no idea of the impact of these hunts. 

[Outdoor Writer]

41 minutes ago, Riesop said:

Ok "Outdoor Writer" let me see if I can state this more clearly.  Yes, it is to keep deer from getting killed, but I don't necessarily think it's a biological issue.  If I have 100 deer in an area and I sell 500 tags, what are the chances that those deer get wiped out?  If I manage how many people go in there and maybe sell 25 tags, I KNOW that there are deer left.  I'm not saying I want a mountain to myself, nor am I saying that I want to ban nonresidents.  I am however saying that past years was like putting 25 hunters where there were 100 deer.  This year is like putting 1000 hunters where there are 100 deer.  Not a biological or social engineering issue.

Everything above indeed has to do with it being a biological issue. The answer to 100 deer/500 hunter scenario is 0 chances unless every one of the 100 are bucks, and of course the size of the "area" also matters. Both of those things will affect the success rate. BUT..let's say for the sake of discussion it really is a concern. To avoid a potential problem, wildlife managers might shorten the season or reduce the number of hunters overall by a draw, etc.  

Now, we get to the social engineering issue, which comes into play when limiting NRs access to tags. See the deer don't give a rat's pizaazz where a guy lives, nor does it matter in regards to the BIOLOGICAL issue above. If we cut the access from 500 to 25 tags, it makes no difference biologically whether the 25 tags are residents or nonresidents. 

[oz31p]

2 hours ago, Outdoor Writer said:

I've been following along on this thread, resisting the urge to comment. But it's seems a bit confusing determining what problem needs fixing. Is the idea to save the deer from getting killed as in "manage an already struggling deer herd," which is a biological issue, or is it to manage NR hunters so residents can each have his own mountain, which is a social engineering issue? 

So,,,,how bad is "really, really bad?" Like how many is too many? Of the "amount," how many were actually NRs? 

An  800% increase sounds mind boggling until one realizes that could mean instead of one tag, the joint sold 9. And of course, other circumstances such as other sources of tags being closed down, etc. could have contributed to a switch in venues.  Brings to mind the oft repeated adage: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 😉 

And now I'll go back to lurking.....

Plus 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot lololol

[Outdoor Writer]

Though a bit dated (2008), this is a good read and still mostly applies today. It's an article from WILDLIFE VIEWS written by noted AGFD deer biologist Jim Heffelfinger.

Changing Seasons

[Riesop]

#1, he mentioned that archery hunters were required to report their harvest, that's not true today (maybe I'm wrong).  Out of those 23,000 archery tags sold in that year (I bet its four times that amount now), tell me how many bucks were taken?  You can't because they don't even know accurately.  So now you have to throw in the fact that archery technology is way better than it was in 2008 so to me that would mean that more deer are taken with archery equipment now more than ever and hunters are definitely not in the decline like they were in 2008.  So better equipment and WAY more people hunting equals more deer killed, yet the same system of over the counter tags is the same as it's always been, sell as many as you can.  I'm just saying that there has to be a better way to figure out numbers of deer taken and maybe that means we have to change the over the counter tags into a draw for a little bit.  At least with rifle hunting they know how many tags are out there and they can get a ballpark estimate of percentage of deer taken.  In archery it's just a free for all.  I'm not going to sit here and argue with you and claim that I know everything.  I just know that the number of archery hunters is WAY more than normal and we don't have an accurate way of telling how many of those people kill deer (a paper mail in postcard doesn't work unless you enforce it).  So maybe mandatory reporting and a draw is what needs to be done.

[Outdoor Writer]

58 minutes ago, Riesop said:

#1, he mentioned that archery hunters were required to report their harvest, that's not true today (maybe I'm wrong).  Out of those 23,000 archery tags sold in that year (I bet its four times that amount now), tell me how many bucks were taken?  You can't because they don't even know accurately.  So now you have to throw in the fact that archery technology is way better than it was in 2008 so to me that would mean that more deer are taken with archery equipment now more than ever and hunters are definitely not in the decline like they were in 2008.  So better equipment and WAY more people hunting equals more deer killed, yet the same system of over the counter tags is the same as it's always been, sell as many as you can.  I'm just saying that there has to be a better way to figure out numbers of deer taken and maybe that means we have to change the over the counter tags into a draw for a little bit.  At least with rifle hunting they know how many tags are out there and they can get a ballpark estimate of percentage of deer taken.  In archery it's just a free for all.  I'm not going to sit here and argue with you and claim that I know everything.  I just know that the number of archery hunters is WAY more than normal and we don't have an accurate way of telling how many of those people kill deer (a paper mail in postcard doesn't work unless you enforce it).  So maybe mandatory reporting and a draw is what needs to be done.

RE;#1

I think Jim was referring to a time when several units required reporting when they were deciding whether to put them on a draw basis for archery. 

I have little to quibble with the rest other than the fact that the current method of determining harvest stats has been used for eons here. For the most part, statistical analysis of mail-in surveys has worked just fine as long as the data base has been large enough and built in biases  -- liars & no response -- are accounted for, which they are. AGFD has the same sources available from OTC as they do for permitted tags -- the # of tags and the names and addresses of every hunter, -- which are used for mailing surveys cards if needed, just like is done for firearms hunters. The only wholly accurate deer harvest stats come from the North Kaibab gun hunt check-outs, which was the case waayyyy back when I started hunting there in the early 1960s.

But once again this is a biologial issue, unlike limiting NR tags, which again is a social issue. And I think cutting all tags because of the crowds was the main gist of this thread that seemed to go off the rails. 🙄

 

[Lucafu1]

I'm all about banning non residents and anyone with commiefornia ties😆🤷‍♂️