2008-2009 & 2009-2010 fall hunt guidelines

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:

 

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.