2008-2009 & 2009-2010 fall hunt guidelines

Discussion in 'AHT Announcements & Forum Events' started by Desert_Ram, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. AZ~ThunderDan

    AZ~ThunderDan Site Administrator Staff Member Super Mod Mod Premium Member

    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:
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. here is what is says off the G&F site

    Fall 2008 through Spring 2010
    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
    Archery-only Permit in August-September
  7. AZ~ThunderDan

    AZ~ThunderDan Site Administrator Staff Member Super Mod Mod Premium Member

    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.;)
  8. 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.
  9. 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