Comments can be submitted at the meetings, or written comment can be submitted until June 25, either by e-mail to [email protected], by mail to Game Branch, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023, or by fax to (602) 789-3929.
The hunt guideline meetings will all be from 6-8 p.m. at the following dates and locations:
Mesa, June 18, Arizona Game and Fish Department Mesa regional office, 7200 E. University Drive.
Phoenix, June 18, Wildlife Building at the Arizona State Fairgrounds, 1826 W. McDowell Road.
Yuma, June 20, Arizona Game and Fish Department Yuma regional office, 9140 E. 28th St.
Kingman, June 20, Arizona Game and Fish Department Kingman regional office, 5325 N. Stockton Hill Road.
Payson, June 21, the Payson Inn (the night before the Game and Fish Commission meeting there), 801 N. Beeline Highway (Highway 87).
Page, June 21, National Park Service Headquarters conference room, 691 Scenic View Drive (just off Highway 89 between the Denny’s and the Maverick). The hunt guidelines, which will be brought before the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for approval at its Aug. 10-11 meeting in Flagstaff, will guide department wildlife managers for the next two years when crafting their specific unit-by-unit hunt recommendations.
Yuma, June 20, Arizona Game and Fish Department Yuma regional office, 9140 E. 28th St. Kingman, June 20, Arizona Game and Fish Department Kingman regional office, 5325 N. Stockton Hill Road. Payson, June 21, the Payson Inn (the night before the Game and Fish Commission meeting there), 801 N. Beeline Highway (Highway 87). Page, June 21, National Park Service Headquarters conference room, 691 Scenic View Drive (just off Highway 89 between the Denny’s and the Maverick). The hunt guidelines, which will be brought before the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for approval at its Aug. 10-11 meeting in Flagstaff, will guide department wildlife managers for the next two years when crafting their specific unit-by-unit hunt recommendations.
I would be very surprised to see a Commissioner at any of these meetings. They don't usually attend these "information gathering" meetings. They are usually attended just by Department employees.
I'll bet a cup of coffee that he and Robby will be at the Yuma meeting on Wednesday night.
Nick
I think GF is trying to overmanage something that is not having an impact on our deer populations. The only hunts I could even say MIGHT need to go to a draw are the NOTCR hunts, due to the high number of people going there, and the number of out of staters who migrate there each year. I guess this whole thing will be just another royal shafting for the bowhunters from our "in touch" commisssion.
I feel they are using this "new process in tag distribution" as the basis for how we will be getting our tags for all other species that they deem necessary. The fact that firearms hunters kill thousands and thousands more animals seems irrelevant to them and IMPACTS the resourse to a much greater extent. But if we take a few more tags away from the archery community that will solve our issue.
There are many other ways to create opportunity through a 3 year successful applicant pool for up to 5% of the tags by specie, NR may only have 1 tag in a calendar year including OTC tags, Residents are limited to 2 species tag max in a calendar year, limitations on junior hunt tags. These simple changes WILL put many more individuals in the field that really aren't revenue restrictive to the department and will diversify opportunity. Diverting a few hundred Archery tags will never solve this issue today or in the future. The real issue here is the $$ and they don't want to do anything that will slightly disrupt their revenues well guess what G&F if you keep restricting and limiting ARCHERY OPPORTUNITY all you'll really wind up with in the end are more unhappy rifle applicants because people will stop applying for archery hunts! In that scenario you'll have a bigger issue than you already have!!!! THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO limit OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A MORE DIVERSIFIED OPPORTUNITY everything else is a bandaid today, tomorrow, and most certainly in the future.
For elk they are proposing reducing the bull/cow ratio to 15-25/100 and adding 25 bull tags in various units for a late hunt. As far as the additional 25 bull tags for the late hunt, these tags would be offered next year and in the subsequent years they may take tags from the Sept. hunt and place them in the late hunt depending on demand. I don't like this part of the proposal because you know that there will be several hundred people applying for these late hunts and the dept. can justify moving tags from sept. Kind of a back door attempt to take away archery tags from the rut hunt, which I think is the commissioners ultimate goal.
For Buffalo they are proposing making tags good for one year due to the animals running back into the park after the first shot is fired.
For Javelina they are proposing managing for a 20-25% success and offering some OTC tags for units around metropolitan areas.
At the meeting Brian was talking about a Habitat Quality Scorecard. Could someone explain what that is and how it works?
Several people seem to not have a firm grip on how the 20% is being calculated, although Dr. Zogg explained it pretty simply and clearly. It is not a success rate percentage, it is a percentage of the total take in that unit. If a unit has 100 deer killed per year, they want no more than 20 of them to be killed with a bow. It makes no difference if there are 500 bowhunters or 5000 bowhunters hunting that unit, and it makes no difference how many archery tags are purchased, or where they hunt. Currently, there are about 20 units where they believe we are exceeding that, and they are planned to move to a draw beginning this very next season!
Also, they aren't planning to change this annualy. They are basing this on how many deer have been taken with a bow in each unit over the past 4 years, versus how many have been taken in that same unit with other weapons during that same time. They are getting the numbers from the survey cards.
Notags said: "HOw would you like to have patterned a certain buck after a lot of scouting, and not having a shot opportunity the first weekend, be planning on the second or third, only to find out the harvest objective was hit. Time to scount another unit and start over?"
At least with a quota system you would be allowed to hunt another unit. If it were all put to a drawing, you would be confined to just the one unit, although you'd have a guaranteed season length. I personally hate that we have to choose a unit for javelina now, and REALLY miss the old days when we could hunt all over the state. I personally think I would like to see the state opened back up for statewide archery javelina hunting, and close each unit when it meets its quota, basically my thought on the current deer permit problem since we aren't talking javelina right now.
Marsha Rute is planning to lead the charge of the local bowhunting community to oppose the archery plan.
I need to hear from Brian all the details, but some of the stuff I've read about (permitting of the archery hunts on the Kaibab , 13A and 13B)I agree with, some I don't.
Taking AZ back to the quantity vs quality equation on elk is something I didn't think that most Arizonans supported, including me, but I may be wrong.
I know I don't feel that way. I've had one elk tag in the last 15 years and decided to let a young man from the Hunt of A Lifetime use it, but AZ is known as a quality state, and we've lived with that notion for many years. Now it is proposed to go out and "whack 'em and stack 'em" and lower the bull/cow ratio, and the resulting hunt success, all at the expense of "More Opportunity."
Hmm, I'm all for more opportunity if we have the critters (which we don't) but not a the expense of lower hunt success (hmm glorified camping permits?) or lower bull/cow ratios. Just my opinion.
I'll let you know what happens up here tonight..
Don Martin
In my opinion, G&F is basing this upon the answers of a very poorly worded survey. When they ask questions like, "Is gettting the opportunity to hunt very important to you?", most people are going to answer yes. I don't think the survey properly probed what people would be willing to give up, other than overall hunt success. I think most people would answer that they can live with lower hunt success, because most people probably see themselves as better than average hunters (much like most people see themselves as above average looking). It is impossible to have more than 50% of the people be above average anything.
The only "saving" grace that I can see is that there is a bit of protection built into at least the Sept/Nov archery elk issue which I don't think people really understand. There will be a pie chart made up of demand versus harvest for the Sept and Nov archery hunts, and the permits in the future will be allocated based upon first choice demand. This is a mini-system of the method used to allocate elk permits to different weapon types now. In this instance, it might help us that they don't look at anything but people's first choice. I think the VAST majority of hunters will put in for September hunts for first choice. Even if they put some of these Nov hunts for second and lower choices, the pie chart should show that an extremely high percentage of first choice applicants want Sept tags. Therefore, if 95% of first choice applicants show a preference for Sept hunts, 95% of the kill should be allocated to be taken in the Sept hunts going forward. As long as not many archers put in for these Nov bowhunts with their first choice, we shouldn't have too much to worry about, right?
Marvin
Please correct me if I do not understand. Would not the November tags go just the same way as our cow elk tags did. Sure, you may draw one the first year until the demand is not there and they give them to the rifle hunters which is their goal in this whole equation.
Three of the Commissioners can do math and have worked on this. Leonard can also add, keep my job + keep my job = yes, oh yes.
Once the method is established, they can change the allocation numbers to accommodate their goals. Just look at all the new recommendations we get handed every year. Why do you think Hernbrode pushed for two year regulations? It is in place for two years and you can not do a thing about it but change the allocation numbers. They have no desire to truly manage wildlife for the future. They just want to leave their legacy for today. They have no understanding of how bowhunting can give more opportunity without impacting the resource. They are not bowhunters and just the thought of pulling a bow and aiming at something scares the crap out of them.
I have lost all respect for most all of the Department above the level of Regional Managers.
MARK MY WORDS...THIS WILL KILL BOWHUNTING IN ARIZONA!!!
DO NOT COMPROMISE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE.
START TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET THREE COMMISSIONERS ON BOARD THAT CAN REVERSE THE TRAVISTY THAT HAS AND WILL OCCUR BEFORE GOWRONGLY, MCLESSER AND WRONGBRODE ARE DONE MAKING THEIR LEGACY.
As much as I love Dick King and David Myrick, all their hard work and patience trying to communicate with this machine, has been and will be flushed down the toilet. The carrot they threw us December of 2005 was just stalling for the shaft they are giving us now.
I really don't know how these Commissioners can sleep at night.
PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THE ONLY WAY IS TO GET THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT CAN REVERSE THIS TRAVISTY.
Ok, how do they decide that the rifle hunters killed 100 deer?
Why do they decide bowhunters only get 20 deer? As many bowhunters as there are in this state, shouldn't we be allowed about 40? That still gives the rifle hunters 60.
Yeah, that is what G&F believes, but that is the key word, "believes", because they have no factual proof to back it up.
It is time to tell G&F to have facts or drop it. Every year, we keep going back to fight the same old fight.
You guys count it, remember it and give them heck at the meeting. We will still be sitting here listening to your positive comments of how we are screwed until WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS ON BOARD.
And, with pie allocation, we will lose tags again.
Dick I agree with you that we don't want to go to a weapons specific draw at any costs because that's truly not in anyones best interest. Any individual should have the ability to pick any weapon for any hunt he desires. The fact that they will be proposing that we go to a draw for archery tags in some units eliminates opportunity and in no way creates any! It most certainly opens the door for an all draw achery tag situation because people will think it's unfair!
I personally would like to see them go to what Marvin recommends or offer a OTC archery tag that is regulated in some manner. I really would like them to consider that OTC tags are only available to those that didn't draw a tag (certain species) in the draw process so that way they are giving them a hunt of their own. That is creating opportunity and will be beneficial to archery in the end. It will eliminate some of the crowding in some areas and encourage participation. I would make nonresidents have to buy a OTC tag from department offices (BMO) only and make them unit specific and number specific (FCFS). Then you have some controls in place and can regulate things in some manner.
Why do they decide bowhunters only get 20 deer? As many bowhunters as there are in this state, shouldn't we be allowed about 40? That still gives the rifle hunters 60."
Garth and Dave,
True, I'm not necessarily believing G&F, nor do I know how they arrived at the 20 versus some other number. As I believe I said, they are relying on the survey cards returned to determine how many deer the rifle hunters take. It was my understanding, though, that they were relying on these same cards for archers, rather than the mandatory reporting. Archers actually return their cards in significantly lower numbers than do rifle hunters, which may be the reason that they forced us to mandatory reporting. I'm not saying I agree with any of this recommendation, only reporting my understanding of their proposed guidelines.
THE DEPT POSITION ON NOT GOING TO MANDATORY REPORTING FOR ALL HUNTS IS: THEY DON’T WANT TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE HUNTERS. (We already have mandatory reporting for half of all of our big game species.) THERE IS LOW COMPLIANCE. (About 70% for archery deer mandatory harvest reporting. This is much higher than return % of survey cards, not to mention, that not all archery deer hunters are sent a survey card. Yet they do not even use the mandatory harvest reporting info for archery deer but use their survey card information instead. If mandatory surveys were required for all species it would be easier for hunters to remember which animals they needed to report on and would just become part of the hunting process with a very high compliance rate.) THEY DON’T WANT TO TURN GOOD PEOPLE INTO BAD PEOPLE BY PUNISHING (writing tickets, keeping them out of the next draw, etc.) THEM FOR FORGETTING ABOUT MANDATORY REPORTING. (Included with every application for a big game tag (regardless if it is otc or for the draw) could have a brief survey about the previous years hunt. There really only needs to be 2 questions: What units did you hunt and did you harvest an animal? THE DEPT. SAYS A SURVEY WITH EVERY TAG/APPLICATION WOULD NOT GIVE THEM THE DATA THEY NEED IN ENOUGH TIME FOR NEXT YEARS HUNT STRUCTURES. (Have an early draw for all fall hunts like we had for elk and antelope this year. It would give them the survey information in January and what could be better than that when you have hunts that end on Dec. 31st. It would also give the hunters more time to prepare for a hunt they were drawn for or make plans to hunt out of state, etc. Most of our hunt structures are based on several years of data anyway. They could still do the traditional survey cards as well.
What about all the units that the archers are not taking 20% of the harvest? Shouldn’t we get longer or more hunting seasons in those areas? Are the few extra deer that the bowhunters are harvesting in the units that have over a 20% archery harvest hurting the herd? How many bowhunters have to lose hunting opportunities for how few firearm hunters to gain? Bowhunters vs. firearm hunters and ‘chose your weapon type’ is an ugly future! We fought this before in 2002(?) and won. They introduced the Kaibab stamp and mandatory harvest reporting that year to collect better data. The archery deer hunters took a lot less deer that year on the Kaibab than estimated would be taken by Game and Fish. Once again, they need better information before they start taking away hunting opportunities especially when they are heavily promoting hunting retention and recruitment!
Guess is G&F wanted to be real bad guys they'd be out writing those folks who didn't comply tickets.
He also said that they receive about 50% of the data cards back and in his opinion, they have plenty of sound data in which to make their decisions on.
Don't know fellas, he makes a fairly compelling case for some permitted units (plus you'll get tags now for 13B) but with our burgeoning population and more demand for big game tags, I still say that its not going to be too much longer before AZ will become a "Pick your method of take" state.
Right now, according to my notes show that about 15 units statewide would be affected. (Includes 13B where there is currently no archery opportunity).
Means the rest of the state is open to unlimited over the counter tags, with three seasons (Aug-Sept, Dec. Jan)
It took a while before I understood the difference between hunt success and harvest percentage.
It seems that general hunters are going to be allowed 80% of the harvest, while archery gets 20%. Guess that is how the demand shakes out right now. G&F is selling 22-2300 OTC deer tags and has been doing it for the last 5 years.
Guys we have a limited, not unlimited resource here and my hope is that G&F is trying to spread this out as fairly as they can, based upon demand.
I don't agree with the way the department is heading of quantity over quality, and lowering of buck/doe ratios.
I do agree with shotgun only in the fall for turkey proposal and allowing those that DRAW buffalo tags to have a year to hunt the wooly beasts.
Just my 02..
Don Martin
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS BUNCH...YOU HAVE TO FILE A LAW SUIT AND SUE THEM. THIS IS THE FUTURE OF HUNTING IN ARIZONA. THE WAY HUNTERS COMMUNICATE WITH POMPASS ASSES IS TO SUE THEIR BUTTS. JUDGING BY THE WAY THE TAULMAN SUIT WAS HANDLED; I THINK HUNTERS HAVE A CHANCE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR POSITION AND WIN. IT SADDENS ME TO SEE ALL MY FRIENDS WASTING THEIR TIME TALKING TO THESE FOLKS.
AZSFW NEEDS TO HIRE TAULMANS LAWYER SINCE THE BEST LAWYER WE COULD HAVE HAD IS A JUDGE NOW. WHEN THE GOVERNOR IS TIRED OF SPENDING MONEY FOR LAW SUITS THE DERILICTS SHE APPOINTED CAUSED, MAYBE WE CAN GET 3 COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO DO THE BEST THING FOR WILDLIFE AND PRESERVE HUNTING IN ARIZONA.
THIS IS HOW YOU COMMUNICATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND COMMISSION NOW. IF IT BREAKS YOUR HEART AND YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOO BAD. THIS IS THE ROUTE THE DERILICKS HAVE CHOSEN. SAME DERILICKS THAT WAISTED SO MUCH OF THE RESIDENTS OPPORTUNITY FIGHTING THE TAULMAN CASE AND LOST UNTIL SOME LIBERAL FROM FRIGGING NEVADA SAVED THEIR ASSES. NOW THEY PUFF UP THEIR CHEST AND BRAG ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO IN THE FUTURE.
GET OVER THE WARM FUZZY FEELING YOU THINK YOU GET BY TALKING TO THEM AND START SUING THEIR BUTTS!!!!
Why do you believe any data from the G$F??? If they do not require equal data submitted mandatory for all weapons and all species, they are just pissing in the wind. This is a frigging joke folks.
Don, you won't be able to replace Gowrongly with this type of hype. We need the truth.
What has all your hard work, patients, and love produced to further bowhunting in Arizona? What is the net result from your efforts?
If they were truly interested in opportunity why haven't we created any system to limit those that just drew a tag when our sister states are doing so Utah with their limited tags and Nevada is considering regulation?
If we are truly interested in opportunity why is it we keep working on methods to take tags away from those weapons types that clearly have a much lower harvest%?
If we are truly interested in opportunity why is it there aren't archery antelope hunts in every unit where avaialable?
If we are truly interested in opportunity why is it parent's have to explain to their kids why the kid down the street has been draw for a junior hunt 4 times but yet your child hasn't?
If we are truly talking about opportunity how is it some guys have been drawn for an elk tag 5 out of the last 6 years?
If we are truly talking about opportunity how can it be a guy draws and elk, deer, javelina, turkey and antelope tag in the same year and can't take off from work to hunt them.
If we are truly talking about opportunity why is it our commission hasn't even formed a committee with sportsman,conservation groups and G&F employees to try to come up with some viable alternatives to study and propose changes to our current tag allocation process. Given our states extreme growth (tripled population) and the increased demand for tags it would seem like a reasonable line of thinking.
If we are truly talking about opportunity why is it that when the commission seeks public input they blatently sit there and disregard it?
Yes our department has some tough work ahead of it to try to resolve these and many other issues. But first they need to wake up and understand that given limited resources you have to come up with a more equitable distribution system for your product to keep your customers loyal. Even the dumbest customer will stop putting money in the kitty when all he gets are empty wishes and unfulfilled dreams. You can have the largest demand in the world for any product but your company will eventually fail unless you find a way to deliver product. They have to step back and look at the big picture to create opportunity and I can assure you that adding 200-300 late season archery tags and then moving some of them to the firearms boys is a drop in the bucket and it most certainly won't resolve the issue.
The only way to create enough opportunity with a problem of this magnitude is to limit and redistribute the opportunity you currently have over a broader spectrum. Then as things unfold if the resource grows you will be able to satisfy more of your client base. But you have to limit opportunity with all weapons types across the board to be able to create more opportunity for all of your customers. If taking a few archery tags away ANNUALLY to satisfy demand is the best they can come up with we're in worse trouble than we think and we need to be thinking about changing a few things in the department and on the commission!! Then maybe we should DEMAND some changes as well!!
Hopefully those that have some issues with all of this have:
1) Been to one of the meetings in their areas to express their concern, outrage, disappointment or whatever to G&F. 2) Has taken the time to speak one-on-one with Mr. Ordway and ask for clarification on points you don't understand or agree with to make sure you know what is really being proposed.
3) Have thought about the issues you're concerned with and have some alternatives that G&F can explore.
You know at the Kingman meeting we had 15 people in attendance. About half were archers, other half gun guys.
Kingman is a big time archery community. Seems like everyone here is a bowhunter.
But where was everyone at who had these concerns and issues? I can tell you that the meeting was publicized about as well as can happen in Kingman. It was in the paper, on the radio, phone calls were being made, talked about at the bowshop, etc.
I really believe that you have to be and stay engaged with the process in order to see things changed like you want.
Complaining on the Bowsite is ok, but bottom line is you're going to have to do more to make your voices heard (and sorry Dave, I don't support a lawsuit at this time!)
Guys I don't think Leonard is the "enemy". He's got a heck of a tough job to do and I think he's doing the best he can.
I don't agree with him all the time, and I sure don't have a problem questioning him on his statements or data.
I know I probably don't have all the facts or understand all of the ramifications on what is being proposed, but I will continue to stay involved in the process and add my 02 cents where I think it is appropriate.
Hopefully you all will do the same.
Remember, we don't have an unlimited resource here, and the demand is far greater than the product.
Don Martin
A drastic three - five year reduction of cow(any female) tags would be another good step. We need to grow more animals to create more opportunity. Rather than making people sit out or hunting during a time that is not conducive to that weapon type, why not try to grow more opportunity?
Moving Archery elk hunts up a week would probably lower the success rate thus creating a little more opportunity for others. Archery bull success rates of 35%, 40% & 50% are too high IMO. We have to be honest with ourselves if we want to make positive changes.
November archery elk hunts are too undesirable for most hunters too. Hunts during the middle (2nd or 3rd week) of October would be much more appealing and the success rates probably only be slightly better than Nov. hunts.
Where was Dick King when the current hunt structure proposals were being drafted? Where was Don Martin? Where were the AES and RMEF? Where were all of us? We were purposely left in the dark while our G&F brainiacs devised their "closed-door" hunt structure proposals.
Until the department and Commission openly invites hunters, conservationists and the various organizations to sit at the "proposal making table", we will continually be spoon-fed ill-structured proposals. We need to demand reform - and to be included into the drafting process of drafting hunt structure proposals in the future. They can say what they (G&F) will, but the current hunt structure proposals were not devised by using sound biological science. Until we realize the benefit of change, hunt structure proposals will ultimately continue to be driven by the agendas of our omnipotent G&F Commission - hell-bent on providing increased opportunity.
On the other side of the fence we as sportsman of all weapons types can't sit there and want things to stay the same because they are a hell of a lot different than they were 20 years ago. Something has to give somewhere boys and those of you that think they're fine just the way they are are seeing first hand how the democratice process works. Reality say's your not going to be hunting every year any more so accept it and lets make some positive changes for the better. There's a lot of people that want to hunt and the means aren't available so something has to give. Couple that with wolf introductions, lack of predator control, losing habitat daily, (it doesn't look like we've aquired too much lately in that regard), then the ever present threats from the anti's, drought, and it doesn't paint a rosey picture. The first step in solving these issues is to get everybody involved in working on them and our open meeting process is a complete joke in that regard.
The commission doesn't want to hear from the same spokes people that always attend the meetings and want to contest what they want carte blanche to change! They feel the archers of this state are spoiled and the same can be said of all weapons type individuals. EVERYBODY has to give something up to benefit the whole and as yet that isn't remotely going to happen! So in that stead DEMAND & personal greed will rule and we all as hunters will continue to lose ground one tag at a time until in the end we're conquered! There's enough greed to go around on this issue the commission, department, firearms hunters, archers, ranchers, developers, politicians and anti's. I seriously doubt that most of our grand children or great grand children will be able to hunt or view wildlife as we do today. In today's world, there is way too much promotion of personal agendas to make it work. It took sacrifice to build the system we have today and ultimately it will take sacrifice to see it survive. I just don't see any of the factions stepping up and making a serious committment to resolve the issues confronting us to make it survive and to that end we will ultimately have created it's demise.
I can't ever remember anyone saying anything about Leonard being the enemy.
You make some really good points. The problem I have with the recent success data is that it was taken in years when EXPERIENCED non-resident bowhunters with max bonus points and a lot of money paid guides to help them harvest elk. This is not consistent with life before Taulman. Like all of the slanted and insufficient data that is used to promote rifle hunting and conduct new bogus surveys by 3 of our Commissioners (not Leonard) this does not represent the truth!!! The 2002 elk survey data is pretty accurate. Wonder why all these other factors are not considered in the whole scope?
Here are some facts about elk in Arizona:
1) Our Director does not want to be bothered with complaints from ranchers that we have too many elk. We should just kill them all. THIS IS WHY WE CONSISTANTLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TOTAL ELK IN ARIZONA. Steve, correct me if I am wrong.
2) As Skeetsbo has preached a bazillion times....folks that draw a bull tag should only be able to apply for cow tags or limited opportunity tags for at least 3 years. Whether this really makes a difference in opportunity does not matter. This is a matter of fairness and creating retention. If you are just lucky, buy a lottery ticket.
3) The Department must do what ever is necessary to secure habitat to complete the previous model without sacrificing the model and coming up with a new model.
4) I wish everyone that applied for elk permits in Arizona had to complete 8 hours of volunteer time working on work projects for the Arizona Elk Society.
In the past on this site and others I hang out on, I've heard that comment on more than one occasion.
When you read many of the posts on this thread, you see the comments that are definitely anti G&F and how they just out to screw archers and sportsmen, they are money grubbers, yada-yada-yada.
Leonard, as Game Branch Supervisor is the point man for the "company" and as such, he gets the first hit. When I was in law enforcement and worked carnival frauds the carnies always had a guy go out before they got to a small town and smooze the local cops and sheriffs. Top hear them speak, they always painted a rosy picture of the carnival industry. These guys were called "patch men" and I guess that is what Leonard is to many of his disgruntled constituents.
Knowing how difficult his job is, I still think he is a stand up guy. I've known Leonard for over 25 years as he started his G&F career in Region III (Kingman) as a freckled face wildlife manager.
Fair is fair guys. If folks have issues or questions, I've never heard of him not calling them back and talking with them. Try that with some of your legislators.
At least Leonard will return your calls, and in my book that comes under responsive management.
Sure there are times I want to kick him in the butt over some of the recommendations, and we don't always agree and see eye-to-eye, but he is a gentlemen and a class act, in my opinion. I'm glad he is in the position he is in. Believe me fellas, we could do a lot worse...
Don Martin
I agree with much of what you have said about Leonard, which is why I called you out on this.
He is in a position to carry out directives he is given. He does not create the directives, his job to make it happen. The only thing I would say is that although he owns a bow and shoots one, he is not in my opinion a bowhunter nor does he share the same passion. He is a G$F employee trying to do his job. He is a hunter that uses what ever weapon he can use to have opportunity to hunt. Here is where the disconnect occurs. This Commission does not respect the fact that bowhunting has the least impact on the resource to produce opportunity for hunting. They want to recreate the wheel to give more opportunity to their choice of weapon that will end up giving less opportunity to less people. The success numbers they want to use for bowhunting are skewed by their inability and desire to produce accurate numbers that tell the truth. Your turn.
I am anti money hungry mongers, anti change the model to make one that fits your gender, anti require data from some but not all.
So, does that make me anti G$$$F?
I guess you just need to be there when the Assistant AG tells the Commission they can personally be sued if they discriminate. It was a pretty sight watching them tuck their tales and run. You sure you want to join them Don? I think McLean went 2 hours without talking or sucking on a cigar. Must have been a frigging world record.
IMO, anyone defending the argument that there is no "statistical benefit" in drawing odds by envoking a waiting period - is an admission to the non-support of fairness and the promotion of retention. Any hunter worth his salt knows we're all trying to draw a tag for a limited resource. All too many hunters aren't willing to take a step backward in order to give others an opportunity. With the ever-growing population in Arizona, and the sustained numbers of resource, one doesn't have to be a math professor to understand the need to explore ways that distribute fairness among hunters in the wake of opportunity. I think the biggest issue facing our Commission is getting everyone square with their notion that "increased opportunity", at whatever expense, is the direction they propose to take. When I look at the current hunt structure proposals, I don't see any that foster fairness or retention. To the contrary, all I see is half-witted proposals which will ultimately degrade both. Dave is right, there is a huge disconnect going on here. I too, cannot communicate with a Commission that has disconnected. Maybe when all the cigar smoke clears, our Commission will recognize their misdirection and disconnection. The 2006 G&F Survey needs to be damned and trashed, not exalted.
One last snippet...
Assistant AG Odenkirk got his azz handed to him by the Taulman lawsuit. Harry Reid found a way to hand him his azz back. If you take the words "I must caution the Commission" out of Odenkirk's vocabulary, the goofy bass turd wouldn't know how to speak, let alone - direct the Commission. He can put that comment in his cigar and smoke it.
ThunderDan - the rest is not directed entirely at you.
The discussion on a waiting period is getting old. Would it make any difference if they said the powerball winners couldn't purchase lottery tickets? hell no, because the number of people purchasing them is so high it just makes no statistical sense at all. Not to mention the enforcement issues, records keeping, etc. Do the math and you will see it makes NO sense.
Third, the discussion over money is getting old as well. As hunters we don't want to give them any more money, yet we also don't want them to get money via a tax initiative. Of course,they are suppose to build more waters, buy more habitat, improve that habitat, educate the public, and on and on. All of this costs more money and they receive no tax monies. Yet as the drought continues, their funds decline further. I am not saying there isn't any waste but come on there job is getting more difficult everyday.
I agree with the comments that everyone is in favor of hunter retention/recruitment as long as it doesn't impact them.
Guys, most of us just don't get it. Hunting as we know it is on the verge of changing in a major way. Our numbers are way down, game populations are low, thepopulation is exploding, habitat is being lost at an unprecedented rate, we are probably in a very long drought period, the majority of the public does not support killing predators, is against trapping, only marginally tolerates archery hunting and does not like hunting with dogs. Yet, all we can do is argue over the allocation of tags and spend ridiculous amounts of time fighting among ourselves - meanwhile our house is just about burnt to the ground and one day everyone will wake up and wonder what happened - only it will be to late.
You have stated facts we all know.
You have stated your opinion about the value of certain conversations.
You have not yet offered your opinion for remedies. I would be interested in hearing this.
Thank you for the clarification on Odenkirk. I was not aware he was the second whipping boy in the Taulman suit. I was aware it was the Commission who waged the war, not the AG's office. It was Director Shroufe who said "take your best shot", and that's exactly what they did. Thank God for Harry Reid.
I am "relatively" new to Arizona, and am just now starting to feel like I have earned a right to voice an opinion on matters that affect all Arizona hunters. In trying to craft a letter, I have tried to educate myself by reading the proposed changes. I have also read the myriad of responses not only on this message board, but my own, AZOD, AZSJ, CWT.com, etc. What strikes me is that there really is no consensus amongst us. In the absence of a consensus, why wouldn't the Commission do exactly as they want? Please understand that all (most) of you are the people I look up to; the people that I draw from when it comes to matters such as these. We could reach a rough consensus on an ethical question; a legal question; a query on equipment or elk habits. We could formulate a somewhat united response when it comes to educating the non-hunting public about a particular issue. When it comes to this stuff though, we are fragmented - meanwhile, the Commission marches to their own drum - good or bad.
Personally, these proposed changes make me uneasy, but I am having a hard time pinpointing the specific rules that I disagree with; I am having a hard time coming up with educated, reasonable alternatives to offer. The fact that I hunt archery and rifle only muddles my mind that much more.
I really think that what we need is a single, legislative-oriented group to present alternative positions (from us) to the Commission. I thought AZSFW was going to fit the bill, but I rarely hear anything about them. Maybe the Arizona Wildlife Federation? I don't know. I know the deadline for comments is upon us. I'm going to rack my brain and try to come up with something sensible
All of the conservationist have a full time job raising a family.
Some others have a full time job raising money.
I think this is one of those things where everyone is too busy to communicate. Since the Department and Commission have a mission, they can run all this by before anyone can get off work. It is what they want. They want what they want and that is what will happen. They don't give a rip about conservation or the people that support it. It is all about feeding the big green machine. Welcome to Colorado!!
Let me say that once more so you all hear...Welcome to Colorado...Did I say welcome to Colorado????
Our 14 foot snow pac from last winter just gave birth to 10 new coyote pups, two lizzards and a snake.
I can't wait to see our Commissioners with their new bows hunting down those 10 coyotes. Can't wait to share a lizzard banquet with them and smell their cigar smoke.
Life in Arizona is good.
In doing a little Google search I found an ESPN article from last year in which Brian Wakeling makes statements that strongly support the current management plan. I believe Leonard does also and if not for the bad apples on the commission this discussion would not be taking place.
Here's the link http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_fea_elk_AZ_biology_05-06
Terry
For those units under consideration, OTC archery deer hunters put in for a lottery drawing for those units. Those drawn will be able to hunt that particular unit, and all other non-lottery units and seasons. All archery deer hunters are still allowed to apply for rifle deer permits and non-lottery units. The archery harvest and hunter numbers in the units of G&F concern are regulated.
Doug~RR
I'm not sure that your suggestion isn't largely what G&F is already proposing, except for the part about all archery deer hunters could still apply for rifle permits. How would they do that, when the application date/drawing for limited entry archery deer will be concurrent with the rifle drawing? Also, you said all those drawn for specific unit archery hunts could hunt that unit, and all non-lottery units. They already plan to allow that, but would require you to additionally buy the OTC tag. Are you saying you think archers should be allowed to use their unit specific tag in the OTC hunts without buying a second tag? They don't allow this for any other species, so it would probably require a rule change and all species would need to be changed (if indeed that is even what you are suggesting).
Marvin
I was originally thinking that the lottery unit hunters would not have to buy an additional tag, but even if they did, this should not be a major sticking point (at least to me).
Most importantly, I was trying to come up with a suggestion/plan that would not force a weapons choice, and hurt archery due to some archers choosing rifle and then having the pie allocation shift further against archery afterward.
Doug
I'm not disagreeing with any of your ideas, just trying to be clear on what you're proposing, and trying to make clear what I believe G&F is proposing. I applaud your attempt to "think outside the box" as were last year's buzz words with the Commission.
I would be very surprised if you could convince G&F to split a species, and allow the archery portion of deer to be drawn with antelope and elk, while the rifle portion is done in June. However, it's not impossible, since they offer some turkey and javelina in more than one hunt (but it's not a weapon type split).
As for your point about apparently allowing any bowhunters that drew a specific unit to still be allowed to hunt the general archery hunt, I am sure that G&F currently intends to allow this with the additional purchase of the OTC tag (and obviously still an annual bag limit of one deer).
If G&F wants to just take the archers and allow some through a drawing hunt the targeted units and better manage the deer harvest, then having a spring draw for archery deer should be no problem. If on the other hand they want to make hunters choose between rifle and bow, and split the ranks, then they would need to do a fall draw. I hope it is not the latter.
Have you heard any numbers thrown out regarding the number of archery permits for each unit if they do decide to go to a draw of some type? One has to believe they have thought ahead and crunched some numbers.
Doug
June 22, 2007 (Oregon)
The recruitment of young sportsmen will be made easier now that Gov. Ted Kulongoski has signed legislation to allow mentored youth hunting.
On June 11, Gov. Kulongoski signed SB 892. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Roger Beyer, R-Molalla, establishes a mentored youth hunting program to allow children between nine and 14 years to hunt under supervision of a licensed adult. It stipulates that a single firearm may be carried during the hunt, and allows the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to develop safety and ethical standards for participation.
The bill was approved unanimously in the Senate on April 14 and passed in the House of Representatives on May 21 by a vote of 48 to 4.
This bill reflects the goals of the Families Afield campaign, established by the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, National Wild Turkey Federation, and National Shooting Sports Foundation. The campaign was developed to eliminate unnecessary hunting age restrictions and ease hunter education mandates for first-time hunters. The National Rifle Association assisted in the campaign for the measure.
Available data from states that have implemented mentored hunting programs show nearly 34,000 new hunters, both children and adults, were safely brought to the field in 2006. There has not been a single hunting-related shooting incident among the newcomers.
