Arizonahuntingforums.com banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Really people..........read this closely. If we do nothing, we will absolutely lose bowhunting deer like never before.
Pay attention to the last sentence, basically it says, if archery deer goes to the draw system, we will be competing with gun hunters for tags.
Ok, if it came down to it, what percentage of us would apply for rifle 1st choice and archery 2nd? That is what they mean by demand......
G&F counts only 1st choice applicants to determine demand, so we will not only lose hunting seasons, we will lose a lot of tags.
But, look at the bright side, if this goes through, we will get a permitted archery hunt in 13B IN AUGUST!!!!!!!
And, I would bet that hunt would be no more than 30 tags.
So, if you don't write or attend meetings, plan on sitting at home instead of hunting archery deer in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
Wow, Those are the worst stereo instructions I have ever tried to figure out. The cascading structure for the archery deer. Is that what you are refering to bowhuntingmaniac?? If that is what your refering to and can read your statement into it. Your way above me in political lingo. But that being said, I agree with you. I have been wondering for some time when the G&F would start trying for a drawing for archery. Looks like its come to the forefront. Great. I need to go back and read the harvest reports Desert Ram posted the other day, and see if they coorolate to this and how. I printed them and havent had the time to look. Should be someintresting reading. NOT> I cant imagine archers harvesting that many critters. I know I havent had that kind of luck.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,597 Posts
If we do nothing, we will absolutely lose bowhunting deer like never before.

G&F counts only 1st choice applicants to determine demand, so we will not only lose hunting seasons, we will lose a lot of tags.
Our omnipotent Commission chants their mantra... "increased hunter opportunity and recruitment". Putting archery deer to a draw will take away much of my current "opportunity" to hunt deer. I have grown tired of their two-faced plans to manage our archery hunts, all the while, without obtaining accurate hunt success data from the rifle-toters. Mandatory harvest reporting for all big-game species, regardless of weapon used, is what's needed to make sound and fair hunt structure guidelines.

I'm with Creed. If this passes, and the BLM/FS road-use proposals fly, we will be left to hunt through video games while sitting in our living rooms. Why is it the archers of Arizona have to be the ones to bend over and take it in the boiler-room? There's definitely an anti-archer sentiment within our Commission. The archery hunters need to come out of the woodwork by the droves and lambast the department and the Commission for their short-sided deer hunt proposals. Hunters using firearms have always had the best harvest success. Now that archers are gaining some ground, we're being penalized.

I say "whaa whaa" to the bang-bang hunters. :nyah:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
Shane, I hunt unit 42 almost exclusively. I went back to 2005 when they had data for both general and archery hunts. Archers killed 34 deer that year, riflemen took 14. That means that bowhunters took nearly 71% of the deer harvested.

I would bet that most of those deer were taken the first 2 weeks of Jan when the rut is at it's hottest. Under the G&F proposed structure, unit 42 will be a draw unit in very short order.

Having said that, I'm in the minority because I favor a draw. I do not favor the structure that is being proposed. I would rather see a given amount of tags being allotted to archers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
well guys guess what i found out today???? you wont beleive this!!!! my friend Mr don martin is backing this he has been working with G&F on this for sometime now. thats what he told me today. I DONT SUPPORT THIS AT ALL!!! THIS IS ONE STEP CLOSER TO GET ARCHERY TAKEN AWAY!! from us. i will copy and post the part about the archery deer here also give me a few mins to do it just got hoe from work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
here is what is says off the G&F site

Fall 2008 through Spring 2010
9
C. Archery hunt opportunity in a unit will be offered according to the table below. Archery deer harvest will be managed not to exceed 20% of the overall harvest in a unit. When archery deer harvest meets or exceeds 20% of overall harvest, the Wildlife Manager will recommend reductions in archery hunt opportunity according to the following prescriptions, to include permitting harvest. Permitted harvest once prescribed will be managed to meet demand by weapon type.
Current Archery Hunt Structure in Unit
Overall Harvest
Management Action
August-September and December-January
20% or greater
Eliminate December Opportunity
August-September and January
20% or greater
Eliminate last 2-weeks of January
August-September and first 2 weeks of January
20% or greater
Eliminate January Opportunity
August-September Only
20% or greater
Archery-only Permit
December-January Only
20% or greater
Eliminate December Opportunity
January Only
20% or greater
Archery-only Permit in December
No Archery Deer Hunt
N/A
Archery-only Permit in August-September
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,597 Posts
I have thought long and hard about the proposed deer hunt structure changes. I have no problems what-so-ever allowing our department the right to manage harvest objectives by units. I also have no problem with restricting archery hunters once the harvest objective has been met for a specific unit. What I would like to see is a state-wide mandatory harvest reporting rule implemented for all big-game, wherein the G&F can accurately determine total harvest success vs the objective. Once these numbers are known, they can accurately divide/allocate hunting opportunity fairly among the archers vs firearms hunters. Until they know the exact numbers on both sides of the harvest success by weapons used, IMO, the proposal is junk science.

I also think it's long overdue that the department considers an antler point minimum requirement in specified units. The AZG&F department derived from their most recent "great survey", that hunters wanted increased opportunity. As a consequence to that survey, it's been the goal of the department to grant that wish. If units with low deer numbers (ratios) had a minimum point restriction requirement (Example: minimum 3-pts on one side) the same amount of hunters would still receive the same numeric chances of opportunity to hunt, while the harvest success rates would decline due to the minimum point requirement restriction. In some cases, the actual number of permits could be increased, thus increasing hunter opportunity. Care must be given so as to not overcrowd the hunts with excessive hunters and by adding unneeded stress to ecology and habitat. Mature buck survival would increase, and thus, in subsequent year(s), they could allocate doe tags, or increase Juniors or general hunt deer tags to those specific units, in order to effectively manage herd size and ratios (buck:doe:fawn) and maintain harvest objectives commensurate with the carrying capacity of certain units. That's my $.02. Well, at least for now.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
Uhhhhhhhhh, you guys might want o check to see what G&F wants to do to the archery elk hunts..........again.
Seems they might think about pissing off the bowhunters too many times, we might go play elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
thats right guys they are really trying to piss us off!!! :smack2: we dont need to take this come on boys we need to fight
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I am so beside myself by the DESTRUCTIVE operations of this Department and Commission that I cannot and will not attend their public railroad meeting that was held tonight in Tucson.

Funny how the questions read in their survey. The survey was a money deal hiring a professional agency to construct and give them the professional answers they wanted. December of 2005 the ADA spent the money to conduct a survey that was much better than the one the AZG$FD RAILROAD paid for. The first words out of the two Commissioners mouths were that the ADA survey was not random. Those two knew the survey would show what the real hunters wanted and had already planned their reaction to it. They also planned to create their own survey that would serve their desires. Just like a lawyer would do, they crafted a survey that they can tell the Gov. was the most purest, random survey created by mankind. BS.

This is the AZG$FD RAILROAD THAT WILL KILL BOWHUNTING IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA!!!

What a legacy Director Shroufe and Deputy Director Ferrell will leave.

What a legacy Commissioners Hernbrode, Golightly and Mc Lean will leave.

How about you Leonard? I know you are reading this? What a legacy you will leave. You can brag that you were the one that discovered a new pie allocation method that was fairest way to give more rifle hunters tags. What a legacy you will leave Leonard. How about our Archery In The Schools program? Why would any kid want to learn to shoot a bow so he can go tromp through snow in November and maybe see an elk track? No, they will be playing paint ball and shooting stuff with real guns. YOU ALL ARE KILLING ARCHERY, THE BEST TOOL TO ALLOW HUNTER RECRUTEMENT AND RETENSION WITHOUT IMPACTING THE RESOURCE.

IT IS ALL ABOUT ONLY ONE THING, ONLY ONE THING, ONLY ONE THING...HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU GENERATE TO FEED YOUR MACHINE, YOUR CARRIER AND YOUR EGO'S.

I am sorry I started attending Commission meetings 5 years ago and had a heart to conserve the hunting heritage of this state.

No hunter with a heart for hunting wants to put up with the BS this Department and Commission has handed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
well I know I am new here and don't live in AZ but I like what thunder has to say, it makes sence. well I hope things work out for yall...I will be watching and hope things work out for the best
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
Creed,


YOu make some valid points, Just curious how many archers hunted that area to take that many animals. I know its all but impossible to figure that one. But would be interesting to see what the ratio of hunters - animals taken is in each unit. Normally I will end uphunting several different units with my archery tag. Which is one of the reasons I like being able to buy them over the counter. My current ratio is 1/8 for archery tags. I have filled one out of 8. And usually spend an average of 20 days in the field ( actually hunting) throughout the archery seasons.

On the other hand, I would not mind seeing a mandatory harvest reports on everything. I know they have it in place for archery deer now, and thats probably what is leading to these proposed changes. A friend of mine moved here from Kali land. For severeal of their hunts they have to either report their harvests or return mail the unused tags back to the G&F. if the tags do not return and their is not harvest report for that person then they are not allowed to hunt that species for a specific time. I would have no problem with something along those lines. I dont mind filling out the forms they send out after the hunts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I was just reading back through the Zoomerang survey the Department paid to do back in August of 2006.
Question # 41 is one of my favorites:
41. Let’s assume that if more permits are issued through the draw, then overall hunt success rates will decrease.
Would you be willing to accept lower hunt success if it meant that you could get drawn and have an opportunity to hunt more often?

This is a Dave Sipe question for you all to consider:
Let’s assume 3000 people apply for 75 archery bull elk tags for a September rut hunt. If we were to increase this number by 50 tags and offer 25 tags in September and 100 tags in November, Would you be willing to accept the lower hunt success if it meant you still don’t have a prayers chance of drawing a archery bull elk tag in Arizona for the rest of your life. If you do draw in November, I doubt you can pull your bow and wade through the snow.
This would be your odds for being drawn: .025 for choice number one and .042 for choice number two.
This would work well for the AZG$FD, they would gain revenue and less animals would be harvested.

This is what they are saying we all just voted for. Imagine that? So what is the problem we have with hunter retention?

No worrys, I am an ingun outlaw, I can shoot a buffalo a 500 yards with my hickory bow, don’t you know?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,597 Posts
I would like to meet the person responsible for Question 41. He would never sire children or walk upright again. This single survey question will be what leads to the demise of quality hunting in Arizona.

If G&F gets their wish, everyone in the state who applies will get a tag. The hunts will be immediately canceled when harvest objectives are met in each unit, which will probably be about January 2nd of each year. Oh wait, we don't have mandatory harvest reporting for firearms.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top