AZ Deer Units Below Hunter Success Rate Of 15%
- Thread starter quest
- Start date
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
Some of those units are open multiple times both for Mule Deer and White Tail. I believe Game and Fish needs to close those hunts down or reduce tag numbers for those hunts when they fall below 15%. I would try to avoid these units unless you know the area.
quest
quest
azbiggame
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,107
in the above units,it is Hunter Opportunity that G & F offers to these applicant/hunters.That is what the majority of hunters want.Az. offers QUALITY hunts in the Northern units,across the "Big Ditch" ... but a few quality bucks are in units 7,8,9, & especialy 10,but knowledge of these units is a must,or lots of Luck ??? Bruce & SilverGrand
16A holds some big desert muleys, but they are hard to find.
I hunted this unit in 2010 for the whole season, and didn't even see a doe!! This unit is tough we have hunted Javelina also and you don't see anything very discouraging. We hunt hard on foot and you just don't see any animals. The country looks promising and there is plenty of water.
I hunted this unit in 2010 for the whole season, and didn't even see a doe!! This unit is tough we have hunted Javelina also and you don't see anything very discouraging. We hunt hard on foot and you just don't see any animals. The country looks promising and there is plenty of water.
B
BigChino
Guest
Here is a great buck we killed last AUGUST
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
There are some studs in some of those units. Units like 10 and 18B have the genes but not the desire to manage them to what they could be... I would like them go to a limited units get those units up, buck to doe count up 20/100. Lets have some limited units below the rim, why not?
quest
quest
Bill_in_MI
Active Member
- Messages
- 617
Hey JP!
FYI, Big Chino knows where there are a few. We put the stalk on a deer every day on my 10 day hunt in January. Saw some slammers too. I'm already booked again for next year so you can't take MY slot lol.
Seriously, JP's 2 boys have the best eyes of anyone (hunter or guide) I've ever hunted with. I also know we spent some serious all day time behind quality glass and climbed the highest points around.
I didn't kill one (only because my stalking skills need improvement) but I'll be practicing on the neighborhood ladies this year for sure. JUST KIDDING
Killed a Javi with these guys to boot. If you want to hunt deer in AZ, I'd give these guys a call.
Bill in MI
FYI, Big Chino knows where there are a few. We put the stalk on a deer every day on my 10 day hunt in January. Saw some slammers too. I'm already booked again for next year so you can't take MY slot lol.
Seriously, JP's 2 boys have the best eyes of anyone (hunter or guide) I've ever hunted with. I also know we spent some serious all day time behind quality glass and climbed the highest points around.
I didn't kill one (only because my stalking skills need improvement) but I'll be practicing on the neighborhood ladies this year for sure. JUST KIDDING
Killed a Javi with these guys to boot. If you want to hunt deer in AZ, I'd give these guys a call.
Bill in MI
Quest I agree 100% with you, why not have a couple quality deer units south of the ditch! The last survey I filled out for azgfd I added in my comment section to set aside a couple units for trophy quality deer other than the strop. I think over time we will see more quality deer hunts set aside for these units and an effort made to improve the buck to doe ratio.
The new December hunts added may be a sign that azgfd want to make an effort to provide a quality hunt, and now they will just have to work on improving the buck/doe ratio. With a drop in general rifle permits in a few select units south of the ditch, and additional opportunity for applicants to apply elsewhere besides the strip it may help spread applicants to different areas and slightly improve draw odds. Who knows what the future may hold for the deer south of the ditch, but I know the genetics are there they just need to help them out a bit!
The new December hunts added may be a sign that azgfd want to make an effort to provide a quality hunt, and now they will just have to work on improving the buck/doe ratio. With a drop in general rifle permits in a few select units south of the ditch, and additional opportunity for applicants to apply elsewhere besides the strip it may help spread applicants to different areas and slightly improve draw odds. Who knows what the future may hold for the deer south of the ditch, but I know the genetics are there they just need to help them out a bit!
I read somewhere recently that they are wanting to manage at least one unit per region for trophy quality. I think with the few december hunts this year they may be starting that. I'm not sure if it was a post here or something I read on Game and Fish, but I bet Don know more about it.
Your correct on that scremin. I believe Don mentioned he was pushing for the one unit per region and to get unit 16A for region III managed for a trophy caliber deer unit.
I'm strongly in favor of the one or two units per region being managed for trophy quality deer, or at least a much higher buck to doe ratio than the other units in that same region.
In region III alone there's 13 units total and 9 hold a huntable population of deer excluding the 15 units. If units 16A and 10 were managed for older class deer there would still be plenty of units to provide great draw odds and hunter opportunity.
The only issue I see is in region I&II where the elk populations are dominant. I know azgfd has decided to increase the buck/doe ratio in 3A/3C and that unit is thought of as a top quality elk unit. I'm not sure how it will effect the elk quality but I don't see a problem taking at least one unit in any region and turning it into a quality deer unit.
All I can do is hope something like this will happen. If anybody has more info on what azgfd could possibly do in the future on this that would be really great to hear about.
I'm strongly in favor of the one or two units per region being managed for trophy quality deer, or at least a much higher buck to doe ratio than the other units in that same region.
In region III alone there's 13 units total and 9 hold a huntable population of deer excluding the 15 units. If units 16A and 10 were managed for older class deer there would still be plenty of units to provide great draw odds and hunter opportunity.
The only issue I see is in region I&II where the elk populations are dominant. I know azgfd has decided to increase the buck/doe ratio in 3A/3C and that unit is thought of as a top quality elk unit. I'm not sure how it will effect the elk quality but I don't see a problem taking at least one unit in any region and turning it into a quality deer unit.
All I can do is hope something like this will happen. If anybody has more info on what azgfd could possibly do in the future on this that would be really great to hear about.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 08:29AM (MST)[p]I would love to see unit 9 be managed for trophy mule deer. The genetics are definetly there. My dad shot some bucks in the 1980's that would rival bucks on the strip. Used to be a great deer herd in 9, its hard to find a deer up there now.
I would like to share comments I sent to the commissioners last year when the the guidelines were open. You have to let the commission and gamebranch know how you feel. It's the only way to try and get changes. The buck to doe ratio was changed because of sportsmen/women sending comments. The hunter success wasn't changed to match for some reason?
Dear Commissioner, After reading the document titled
"commission memo on hunt guidelines," I was very dissapointed to read the response given to my comment made at the hunt guidelines public input meeting in Kingman. My comment was refering to the question about mule deer quality vs. quantity. The point was that there are 72 hunts that allow the harvest of a mule deer buck but only 7 of them are alternative management hunts. I wonder if this ratio reflects what the survey question revealed in relation to the demand of quality vs. quantity? It reads as follows: "7. If your questionnaire says that 70% supports opportunity and 30% supports quality, then offer 70%
opportunity hunts and 30% quality (alternative) hunts. Response: There are a substantial number of factors that play into the decisions on the allocation of hunts. The survey that was conducted was not intended to allocate these hunting opportunities. The Department will make recommendations on hunt guidelines based on human dimensions as well as biological data." Let me start by saying the response made me feel disregarded and confused. What are these substantial number of factors they refer to? If this survey was not intended to allocate hunting opportunities, what was it intended for? To satisify the department's curiosity or to make sportsmen and sportswomen feel like their input was considered? Is the ratio of quality:quantity demand discovered in this survey not the human dimensions they are refering to? The similar survey conducted six years ago sure seemed to influence the tag allocations and guidelines. Many of the responses from the department to other comments in the memo refered to allocating permits closer to the public demand. As far as the biological data, the department already has guidelines in place for alternative mule deer management. I believe the department has missed the point entirely on many of the comments sent in. I think they believe that by asking for quality we are asking for "trophy" deer when asking for an alternative management unit, when in reality many of the comments refer to more conservative buck harvest to promote more bucks and wider range of age class, regardless of antler size or score. I see in the guideline recommendations region I has gotten an alternative mule deer unit but region III has not. I was at the Kingman meeting (which had the highest attendance of all of them) and the general consensus was we wanted an alternative mule deer unit. How hard would it be to pick a unit in region III and follow the alternative mule deer guidelines? If it's a revenue issue, I realize that deer permits are far lower than twenty years ago but there are over 1,200 elk permits in region III that did not exist back then and they bring in roughly three times the money deer do. I realize the random mail-out survey doesn't support increasing the alternative mule deer units but the on-line and meeting attendees did and they are the ones who had to take the initiative to participate, not the people who had it delivered to them. What did those in region I do that we in region III didn't to get an alternative management unit? Another point I believe the department missed is that I, and many others, would like to see the department manage mule deer based on the pre-2006 guidelines rather than the current ones. Thank you for your attention to my comments.
Dear Commissioner, After reading the document titled
"commission memo on hunt guidelines," I was very dissapointed to read the response given to my comment made at the hunt guidelines public input meeting in Kingman. My comment was refering to the question about mule deer quality vs. quantity. The point was that there are 72 hunts that allow the harvest of a mule deer buck but only 7 of them are alternative management hunts. I wonder if this ratio reflects what the survey question revealed in relation to the demand of quality vs. quantity? It reads as follows: "7. If your questionnaire says that 70% supports opportunity and 30% supports quality, then offer 70%
opportunity hunts and 30% quality (alternative) hunts. Response: There are a substantial number of factors that play into the decisions on the allocation of hunts. The survey that was conducted was not intended to allocate these hunting opportunities. The Department will make recommendations on hunt guidelines based on human dimensions as well as biological data." Let me start by saying the response made me feel disregarded and confused. What are these substantial number of factors they refer to? If this survey was not intended to allocate hunting opportunities, what was it intended for? To satisify the department's curiosity or to make sportsmen and sportswomen feel like their input was considered? Is the ratio of quality:quantity demand discovered in this survey not the human dimensions they are refering to? The similar survey conducted six years ago sure seemed to influence the tag allocations and guidelines. Many of the responses from the department to other comments in the memo refered to allocating permits closer to the public demand. As far as the biological data, the department already has guidelines in place for alternative mule deer management. I believe the department has missed the point entirely on many of the comments sent in. I think they believe that by asking for quality we are asking for "trophy" deer when asking for an alternative management unit, when in reality many of the comments refer to more conservative buck harvest to promote more bucks and wider range of age class, regardless of antler size or score. I see in the guideline recommendations region I has gotten an alternative mule deer unit but region III has not. I was at the Kingman meeting (which had the highest attendance of all of them) and the general consensus was we wanted an alternative mule deer unit. How hard would it be to pick a unit in region III and follow the alternative mule deer guidelines? If it's a revenue issue, I realize that deer permits are far lower than twenty years ago but there are over 1,200 elk permits in region III that did not exist back then and they bring in roughly three times the money deer do. I realize the random mail-out survey doesn't support increasing the alternative mule deer units but the on-line and meeting attendees did and they are the ones who had to take the initiative to participate, not the people who had it delivered to them. What did those in region I do that we in region III didn't to get an alternative management unit? Another point I believe the department missed is that I, and many others, would like to see the department manage mule deer based on the pre-2006 guidelines rather than the current ones. Thank you for your attention to my comments.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 08:30PM (MST)[p]I would also like to see an alternative management unit for each region for mule deer. Region Two has 13B, 13A, 12A, and 12B managed for quality deer. Region Two is such a big area, and the quality hunting areas are so far away from cities like Flagstaff. I think that there needs to be an alternative management unit south of the Grand Canyon for Region Two. If I had to pick the units in Region Two that I think would be good, I would pick unit 7 or 9. Both these units have good genetics and would be good locations.
In Region Three they don't have an alternative management deer unit. A lot of people seem to think that 18b would be a good unit for it, and I agree. I don't think that unit 10 would be a logical place, because of all the private property. Although unit 10 does have good genetics. Those are just my thoughts.
In Region Three they don't have an alternative management deer unit. A lot of people seem to think that 18b would be a good unit for it, and I agree. I don't think that unit 10 would be a logical place, because of all the private property. Although unit 10 does have good genetics. Those are just my thoughts.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 00:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 00:04?AM (MST)
I agree unit 10 would not be the best choice. To much private land. Unit 9 has alot of the same habitat that the strip has. It has a national park boundry that a lot of big bucks can go into when the pressure hits. Water would be a concern but some water project could be done. Elk are doing well there, and that could have something to do with the decline of deer. Lots of cliff rose and sage for food.
As I said before, my family used to kill big bucks in 9. I shot my first buck at age 16 in unit 9 in 1992 and it was a 31" 3x3 that was with three other bucks that were bigger than him. My dad in the late 80's shot two bucks over 200" and an old two point that had one tooth left in his head, that was 33" inches wide and had huge mass. Its got everything a deer needs to get big but management. It could be a great unit again Imo.
I agree unit 10 would not be the best choice. To much private land. Unit 9 has alot of the same habitat that the strip has. It has a national park boundry that a lot of big bucks can go into when the pressure hits. Water would be a concern but some water project could be done. Elk are doing well there, and that could have something to do with the decline of deer. Lots of cliff rose and sage for food.
As I said before, my family used to kill big bucks in 9. I shot my first buck at age 16 in unit 9 in 1992 and it was a 31" 3x3 that was with three other bucks that were bigger than him. My dad in the late 80's shot two bucks over 200" and an old two point that had one tooth left in his head, that was 33" inches wide and had huge mass. Its got everything a deer needs to get big but management. It could be a great unit again Imo.
A
AZWALKER
Guest
According to survey numbers unit 10 averages right around 29/100 buck to doe ratio with the exception of 2010 when they surveyed 11/100
Unit 9 on the other hand is right around 18/100 on the 5 year average.
Looks like tag numbers should go down in 9 and stay the same in 10.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Unit 9 on the other hand is right around 18/100 on the 5 year average.
Looks like tag numbers should go down in 9 and stay the same in 10.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
I have spoken at length with reps from game and fish and the fact of the matter is more deer tags does not always equal more deer killed. The opportunity philosophy is fading though and things are changing. I agree with you, there are too many tags in unit 10. If you want to see tags lowered, you need the numbers and data to back your claim as to why they need to be lowered. Thats the one and only thing the dept will listen to. These folks are all about data. The other fact is that elk push deer out. Plain and simple. I do not believe you can have a unit that has a great elk herd and a great deer herd. Not in Arizona. The resources are too limited. So which species is gonna win in 9 and 10? No question on that one. There are supposed to be, as per the commission, an alternative management unit for deer in every region. They just added 3a/3c to that list. The dept is taking a little too much time reaching that goal IMO. What we can do is go to commission meetings, get blue slips and puch that particular subject.
Donnie Lee
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Donnie Lee
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
AZWALKER I understand what your saying. Those units are being managed for Elk and our revenue driven. I'm not against having units for Elk. There are hunters out there who want a quality unit for deer south of the ditch and I believe unit 18b would fit that agenda. As far as those units that fall below 15% we need to find out why and lets do something.
quest
quest
Here in Arizona we're very lucky to have a lot of quality elk units to choose from. It would only make sense to keep the units already managed for quality elk to stay managed for elk and not deer. I think units 8,9,10 should be left for the quality elk, and deer can fall within their normal buck/doe ratio in those units.
For deer in region III 16A or 18B would make the most sense to managed for quality deer, and to leave unit 10 managed for elk.
For region II around Flagstaff I think unit 5B or 7 would make the best fit for quality deer. Also region II already has the strip units managed for deer north of the ditch, but I still feel at least one more unit should be managed for deer much closer to the Flagstaff area.
For deer in region III 16A or 18B would make the most sense to managed for quality deer, and to leave unit 10 managed for elk.
For region II around Flagstaff I think unit 5B or 7 would make the best fit for quality deer. Also region II already has the strip units managed for deer north of the ditch, but I still feel at least one more unit should be managed for deer much closer to the Flagstaff area.
Sending emails to the commissioners and game branch is a great way to express your desires on these issues. The commissioners who responded to me last year were very helpful and one of them shared my opinion on many of the issues. I don't recall the commission mandating an alternative deer unit in each region otherwise region III would have one. The guidelines were changed to an increase in the buck to doe ratio and each region would offer at least one December general deer hunt with up to 40 permits.
[http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/huntguidelines.pdf]
page 8-4.
page 9-A.
[http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/huntguidelines.pdf]
page 8-4.
page 9-A.
B
BOW_N_ARROW
Guest
+1 on the 8,9,10 for elk.
The North Kaibab (unit 12) will let you buy a tag to hunt elk if you are drawn for deer...in my opinion, that is because AZGFD does not want elk having a strong presence in 12 (which could naturally migrate to 13). Why? To the point made earlier, elk will force the deer out. I've spent a lot of time in 9 and 12...I have seen some awesome bucks in 9, at times, but I really do think the elk presence negatively impacts the deer in that area. The strong elk units may have the genetic potential to produce great deer, but not at the expense of restricting of the premier elk units.
I was born and raised in Page, so it is hard, for me, when I think of hunting, to look South of the Ditch. So by no means am I against an alternative deer management unit in each region...I'm just lending my opinion to why I think certain units (I am familiar with) do or do not fit the bill.
JB
The North Kaibab (unit 12) will let you buy a tag to hunt elk if you are drawn for deer...in my opinion, that is because AZGFD does not want elk having a strong presence in 12 (which could naturally migrate to 13). Why? To the point made earlier, elk will force the deer out. I've spent a lot of time in 9 and 12...I have seen some awesome bucks in 9, at times, but I really do think the elk presence negatively impacts the deer in that area. The strong elk units may have the genetic potential to produce great deer, but not at the expense of restricting of the premier elk units.
I was born and raised in Page, so it is hard, for me, when I think of hunting, to look South of the Ditch. So by no means am I against an alternative deer management unit in each region...I'm just lending my opinion to why I think certain units (I am familiar with) do or do not fit the bill.
JB
A
AZWALKER
Guest
It will pointless for the dept to open any alternative mangement areas until they decide to do something about coyote populations. They can do real damage to fawns the first six months of theri lives. The dept really doesn't want to admit there is an issue because then they would have to act on it. If you ask them, they say coyotes aren't a problem for mule deer, then you read their own studies. Controlling coyotes can get flat expensive and then there's always the anti's causing issues. Mule deer are very sensative to just about any inbalance. Drought, predators, elk, over grazing... They all take there toll. I think over harvest is a small portion of the problem, if any. You can have great buck/doe ratios but like what Quest eluded to, ratio makes zero difference if your over all numbers are down. And... Just try and get the dept to give an unit population estimate. Like pulling teeth. I'm not bagging on the dept, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't with predators.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-12 AT 06:33PM (MST)[p]AZWALKER Something fishy on those numbers. I think the overall deer count for unit 10 is in real bad shape.
You can have great buck/doe ratios but like what Quest eluded to, ratio makes zero difference if your over all numbers are down.
AZWALKER That statement doesn't make any sense.
You can have great buck/doe ratios but like what Quest eluded to, ratio makes zero difference if your over all numbers are down.
AZWALKER That statement doesn't make any sense.
A
AZWALKER
Guest
Let me clarify bud,
10000 deer in area a. Buck to doe ratio of 10/100. Thats 1000 bucks
1000 deer in area b. Buck to doe ratio 0f 30/100. Thats only 300 bucks.
Game and Fish only dropped tag numbers to get buck to doe ratios up. They already know that isn't going to help the herd. They are being appeasing so we see more bucks to hunt. Doesn't help the herd 1 bit, not even a little.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
10000 deer in area a. Buck to doe ratio of 10/100. Thats 1000 bucks
1000 deer in area b. Buck to doe ratio 0f 30/100. Thats only 300 bucks.
Game and Fish only dropped tag numbers to get buck to doe ratios up. They already know that isn't going to help the herd. They are being appeasing so we see more bucks to hunt. Doesn't help the herd 1 bit, not even a little.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
Just so everyone understands how the depatment thinks about this I'll explain as it was explained to me.
Herd health is based on does and fawn recruitment. They don't look at bucks when they consider herd health until you get below 7/100 buck to doe ratio. Their research shows that if you have at least 7/100 all the does can get bred. If you truly want to see how healthy a herd is you need to look at fawn/doe ratios. If you want a good healthy sustained herd its good to see fawn to doe ratios somewhere in the 40-50/100 range. The 3bar study proved that with zero predators, even in a drought situation, you can have 90/100 ratio inside an enclosure while the ratio outside was somewhere around 25/100. Problem is, you can't remove all the predators but it does show the effect they have.
When guys get out and see less deer their first reaction is to say we need to lower tags. That may be the case if you're seeing less bucks but not deer in general. If you're seeing less deer overall, it has nothing to do with tag numbers. You're seeing the effects of something else. Drought, predation, elk, range quality.... the list goes on. The reason the dept isn't quick to make moves when deer numbers drop is because its very difficult to find the reason. They are so sensative to any change in their situation that it can be one of many reasons. Or... many reasons put together. If you have a drought, they can deal with that. Throw coyotes into the mix and they can knock the snot out of the fawns. A drought can cause low birth weights, fawns born later in the summer, less ground cover to hide in... the list goes on. Compair antelope fawns to deer fawns. An antelope fawn can outrun a coyote a few weeks after their born. A muley fawn can't get away from a coyote until they are much older. Add low birth weight to that and it can take 6 months.
Now, the dept knows that hunt success in unit 10 runs right around 10%. So for a long time they had tags set at right around 700 because they could afford to lose 70 bucks and stay above their prescribed 10-15/100 buck to doe ratio. Hunters start making noise about seeing less deer and they drop it a bit to say 650. Looks like a relatively big move to us but they are only changing the average harvest by 5 deer. Really no change at all. The buck to doe ratio is still going to be higher than prescribed. The only real change made is how much revenue they are losing. 50 tags can be a big hit fianancially to make no real change at all.
I guess what I'm saying is be very carefull and think it through before you start asking for lower tags. You may not be having any effect on the herd whatsoever but it will be having a big effect on a dept that desperately needs the money. I'm not going to ask the dept to lower tags at all in the future unless buck ratios get below 10/100. What I will push for is "daylong" hunts on coyotes and lions statewide, more habitat/water projects, more prescribed burns, especially in PJ country, and more closely monitored grazing on lease land. Those things will make a much bigger difference than cutting all the tags in the world.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks guys.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Herd health is based on does and fawn recruitment. They don't look at bucks when they consider herd health until you get below 7/100 buck to doe ratio. Their research shows that if you have at least 7/100 all the does can get bred. If you truly want to see how healthy a herd is you need to look at fawn/doe ratios. If you want a good healthy sustained herd its good to see fawn to doe ratios somewhere in the 40-50/100 range. The 3bar study proved that with zero predators, even in a drought situation, you can have 90/100 ratio inside an enclosure while the ratio outside was somewhere around 25/100. Problem is, you can't remove all the predators but it does show the effect they have.
When guys get out and see less deer their first reaction is to say we need to lower tags. That may be the case if you're seeing less bucks but not deer in general. If you're seeing less deer overall, it has nothing to do with tag numbers. You're seeing the effects of something else. Drought, predation, elk, range quality.... the list goes on. The reason the dept isn't quick to make moves when deer numbers drop is because its very difficult to find the reason. They are so sensative to any change in their situation that it can be one of many reasons. Or... many reasons put together. If you have a drought, they can deal with that. Throw coyotes into the mix and they can knock the snot out of the fawns. A drought can cause low birth weights, fawns born later in the summer, less ground cover to hide in... the list goes on. Compair antelope fawns to deer fawns. An antelope fawn can outrun a coyote a few weeks after their born. A muley fawn can't get away from a coyote until they are much older. Add low birth weight to that and it can take 6 months.
Now, the dept knows that hunt success in unit 10 runs right around 10%. So for a long time they had tags set at right around 700 because they could afford to lose 70 bucks and stay above their prescribed 10-15/100 buck to doe ratio. Hunters start making noise about seeing less deer and they drop it a bit to say 650. Looks like a relatively big move to us but they are only changing the average harvest by 5 deer. Really no change at all. The buck to doe ratio is still going to be higher than prescribed. The only real change made is how much revenue they are losing. 50 tags can be a big hit fianancially to make no real change at all.
I guess what I'm saying is be very carefull and think it through before you start asking for lower tags. You may not be having any effect on the herd whatsoever but it will be having a big effect on a dept that desperately needs the money. I'm not going to ask the dept to lower tags at all in the future unless buck ratios get below 10/100. What I will push for is "daylong" hunts on coyotes and lions statewide, more habitat/water projects, more prescribed burns, especially in PJ country, and more closely monitored grazing on lease land. Those things will make a much bigger difference than cutting all the tags in the world.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks guys.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
OutdoorWriter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,340
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-12 AT 09:16AM (MST)[p]Donnie,
Super synopsis. As you stated, minor changes in tag numbers for BUCKS does not a deer population make. It's more a case of "social engineering" by the department and often nothing more than to appease a vocal minority.
The important aspect is always the total harvest figure for unit over the numbers of hunts in it. This is why the department can take 100 tags from a late whitetail hunt where the success rate is 50% and convert them into 500 Oct. tags where the success is only 10%. The total harvest is still only 50 bucks.
Perhaps another aspect you might bring up is the importance of water catchment & trickle tanks to population growth for deer. In the grand scheme of things and with few exceptions, they are UNIMPORTANT and do nothing. In other words, there is water and then there is different water. ;-)
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
Super synopsis. As you stated, minor changes in tag numbers for BUCKS does not a deer population make. It's more a case of "social engineering" by the department and often nothing more than to appease a vocal minority.
The important aspect is always the total harvest figure for unit over the numbers of hunts in it. This is why the department can take 100 tags from a late whitetail hunt where the success rate is 50% and convert them into 500 Oct. tags where the success is only 10%. The total harvest is still only 50 bucks.
Perhaps another aspect you might bring up is the importance of water catchment & trickle tanks to population growth for deer. In the grand scheme of things and with few exceptions, they are UNIMPORTANT and do nothing. In other words, there is water and then there is different water. ;-)
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
We are only harvesting surplus bucks and still need to grow more deer. The examples given here have all been topics brought up on this forum before. I have worked on habitat, clean up projects and have attended many a G&F meeting trying to make a difference. The end result is still the same...It's All Revenue Driven...(So Frustrating for a Dedicated Hunter)! I myself will BOYCOTT those units like unit 10 in hopes G&F will open their eyes trying other alternatives to raise our deer count...maybe other fellow hunters will jump on board and do the same? Maybe then and only then will the loss of revenue open their eyes.
quest
quest
OutdoorWriter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,340
>I myself will BOYCOTT
>those units like unit 10
>in hopes G&F will open
>their eyes trying other alternatives
>to raise our deer count
>quest
Need to start doing a few rain dances for at least three to four years running.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
>those units like unit 10
>in hopes G&F will open
>their eyes trying other alternatives
>to raise our deer count
>quest
Need to start doing a few rain dances for at least three to four years running.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
A
AZWALKER
Guest
I don't think boycotting is an effective way to show the department you want to work with them. Rain is uncontrollable. Predator control on a scale big enough to make an impact is very costly. $1000 per hour for a helocopter for aerial shoots. Monitoring grazing is a tough prospect because the west was built by ranching. As Tony said, water isn't the issue everyone thinks it is. Water could theoretically contribute to higher predation rates with lions. The first effective approach in my mind is predator control. The dept sees the issue or they wouldn't have raised bag limits on lions and offered daylong hunts. And, they are doing aerial shooting of coyotes in unit 10. Point is, we will get a lot farther being creative and working with the dept than we will boycotting anything. Here's an idea, join a good org that has a healthy focus on working with the dept and help them raise matching funds for aerial shoots.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
Its all about supply and demand... Is that what wildlife conservation has been reduced to? Quest, I usually agree with you but not this go round.
I think you illustrate the problem perfectly. Wildlife management has been reduced to supply and demand... Does that make us consumers instead of conservationists. I hope you weren't one of those making all the noise about HB2072 because it took the same mentality to come up with that fodder.
Maybe you were just joking, maybe I mistook what you were saying. I hope so.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
I think you illustrate the problem perfectly. Wildlife management has been reduced to supply and demand... Does that make us consumers instead of conservationists. I hope you weren't one of those making all the noise about HB2072 because it took the same mentality to come up with that fodder.
Maybe you were just joking, maybe I mistook what you were saying. I hope so.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
Donnie, Don't get me wrong, I do agree the process is very complex in determining what's exactly wrong with our deer herds and why we cant grow more deer. You can do all the conservation you want though but no matter how you look at it...if there's no more deer, hunters are going to quit hunting. Look what happened to Idaho!
quest
quest
A
AZWALKER
Guest
I don't think we are at that point yet. What it is truly going to take is partnering with game and fish and... pushing them at times to get things done. I spoke with a dept employee recently and he was very open to new ideas. But.. we will have to help fianancially. They don't make enough revenue to coer all that needs to be done. Look at how much has been done on the Kiabab. The reason it all got done is because of efforts from conservation orgs. Problem is, there isn't a whole ton being done anywhere else. Actually, I take that back, I can only speak with certainty about my area of focus which is the northern half of region 4. There ain't jack being done out there by anyone except game and fish and a few volunteers.
Predators is the one thing we can focus on and actually do alot of ourselves.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Predators is the one thing we can focus on and actually do alot of ourselves.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
I agree with the above that predators, drought, loss of habitat etc.. will continue to be an issue with controlling deer numbers to our satisfaction. I can only hope sportsman continue to develope ideas and improve current predator control solutions to help manage predators and increase our deer numbers.
I like increased deer numbers, and at the same time I'm also in favor of a few units capable of trophy buck potential south of the ditch. IMO the strip has two major advantages for trophy deer. First the permit numbers are controlled, and they don't have many elk.
A majority deer units south of the ditch are all over hunted with too many permits given out. Being that if azgfd was to make a unit per region managed for trophy quality then why not raise the price of each of those permits to justify for the tag decrease. Unit 18B has 325 general deer permits and say they manage it for trophy deer at 45 tags instead. A deer tag with 325 permits at $42.25 will give azgfd a revenue of $13,731. Given 45 tags for a trophy quality hunt would mean each person would pay $305. I'm not sure what many think of this idea but money would not be an issue for the azgfd in this case. Would sportsman be willing to pay the extra amount for a trophy quality tag? Remember there would still be plenty of surrounding units open for opportunity, a price tag at $42.25, and buck to doe ratio's that fall within the new 20/100 guideline. New Mexico has a similar set up of a quality hunt you pay a few more bucks for, I'm not sure how they like it over there...
I like increased deer numbers, and at the same time I'm also in favor of a few units capable of trophy buck potential south of the ditch. IMO the strip has two major advantages for trophy deer. First the permit numbers are controlled, and they don't have many elk.
A majority deer units south of the ditch are all over hunted with too many permits given out. Being that if azgfd was to make a unit per region managed for trophy quality then why not raise the price of each of those permits to justify for the tag decrease. Unit 18B has 325 general deer permits and say they manage it for trophy deer at 45 tags instead. A deer tag with 325 permits at $42.25 will give azgfd a revenue of $13,731. Given 45 tags for a trophy quality hunt would mean each person would pay $305. I'm not sure what many think of this idea but money would not be an issue for the azgfd in this case. Would sportsman be willing to pay the extra amount for a trophy quality tag? Remember there would still be plenty of surrounding units open for opportunity, a price tag at $42.25, and buck to doe ratio's that fall within the new 20/100 guideline. New Mexico has a similar set up of a quality hunt you pay a few more bucks for, I'm not sure how they like it over there...
A
AZWALKER
Guest
Thats the thing though Mike, the number of tags given out has absolutely zero effect on the overall health of the herd as long as the buck to doe ratio stays above 7/100. The alternative management idea is soley for the purpose of giving hunters more and bigger bucks to hunt. Our efforts would be much more effective if they were focus on ensuring fawn and doe survival. Eveyone says (and so did i for a long time) that there were too many tags given out... until i took the time to learn the process. There aren't too many tags given out, we're just not very effective hunters. If hunt success got to the point that we were making a big dent in the buck population, enough to lower the the buck/doe ratio to 7/100, then the dept would need to lower tags. The dept has tag numbers set knowing full well we will only take a certain percentage of deer. So in unit 10 for instance, they know hunt success is around 10%. If they put out 650 tags, they know we will only kll 65 bucks. If they dropped tag numbers to 100, not only would they lose a ton of money, we would only take 10 bucks. At this point, the dept spends more time manageing hunters than they do wildlife. If we could focus on the right things to help deer herds, the things mentioned above, we could truly help the deer herds. Lower tags only puts more bucks on the ground for us to hunt, it doesn't help the herd at all.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
I somewhat agree with you in the fact that the number of tags given out have little to do with how many bucks will be harvested.
I do think that if tags are decreased significantly enough you can also create giant bucks in each unit per region. Unit 18B could be similar to 13A/13B in quality of tags were reduced to a small number. 13A/B currently give out 60-65 tags a year, if you put 300-500 tags in 13B for a few years in a row that unit would be worse than unit 18B today. So I do believe you can grow big bucks in almost any unit, being the tags are reduced enough so the deer have a chance to survive much like on the strip.
I do think that if tags are decreased significantly enough you can also create giant bucks in each unit per region. Unit 18B could be similar to 13A/13B in quality of tags were reduced to a small number. 13A/B currently give out 60-65 tags a year, if you put 300-500 tags in 13B for a few years in a row that unit would be worse than unit 18B today. So I do believe you can grow big bucks in almost any unit, being the tags are reduced enough so the deer have a chance to survive much like on the strip.
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-12
>AT 09:16?AM (MST)
>
>Donnie,
>
>Super synopsis. As you stated, minor
>changes in tag numbers for
>BUCKS does not a deer
>population make. It's more a
>case of "social engineering" by
>the department and often nothing
>more than to appease a
>vocal minority.
>
>The important aspect is always the
>total harvest figure for unit
>over the numbers of hunts
>in it. This is why
>the department can take 100
>tags from a late whitetail
>hunt where the success rate
>is 50% and convert them
>into 500 Oct. tags where
>the success is only 10%.
>The total harvest is still
>only 50 bucks.
>
>Perhaps another aspect you might bring
>up is the importance of
>water catchment & trickle tanks
>to population growth for deer.
>In the grand scheme of
>things and with few exceptions,
>they are UNIMPORTANT and do
>nothing. In other words, there
>is water and then there
>is different water. ;-)
>
>
>TONY MANDILE
>
>How To Hunt Coues Deer
Some good points brought up here. I am also for this but I have some thoughts on some things that have been said. These are just some things I have observed.
I diagree with the statement above regarding drought... If is wasnt that big of a deal, why does the department blame drought as one of the main factors of wildlife numbers? I have personally seen adult and calf deer and elk laying dead due to lack of water, laying dead around dried up water sources. Some animals may move, but for whatever reason, many dont and cant handle the stress. 2006 was a horrible year for this, and if I recall 2 summers ago in southern az wasnt too nice on the coues deer especially.
My last thought on this... I for the life of me cannot understand why our dept does not require mandatory reporting for the general hunts, yet the bowhunters have to report. I think there "guestimates" are bunk.. I don't think they want to see the real numbers and therefore shun away from this thought. Just my own opinion.
>AT 09:16?AM (MST)
>
>Donnie,
>
>Super synopsis. As you stated, minor
>changes in tag numbers for
>BUCKS does not a deer
>population make. It's more a
>case of "social engineering" by
>the department and often nothing
>more than to appease a
>vocal minority.
>
>The important aspect is always the
>total harvest figure for unit
>over the numbers of hunts
>in it. This is why
>the department can take 100
>tags from a late whitetail
>hunt where the success rate
>is 50% and convert them
>into 500 Oct. tags where
>the success is only 10%.
>The total harvest is still
>only 50 bucks.
>
>Perhaps another aspect you might bring
>up is the importance of
>water catchment & trickle tanks
>to population growth for deer.
>In the grand scheme of
>things and with few exceptions,
>they are UNIMPORTANT and do
>nothing. In other words, there
>is water and then there
>is different water. ;-)
>
>
>TONY MANDILE
>
>How To Hunt Coues Deer
Some good points brought up here. I am also for this but I have some thoughts on some things that have been said. These are just some things I have observed.
I diagree with the statement above regarding drought... If is wasnt that big of a deal, why does the department blame drought as one of the main factors of wildlife numbers? I have personally seen adult and calf deer and elk laying dead due to lack of water, laying dead around dried up water sources. Some animals may move, but for whatever reason, many dont and cant handle the stress. 2006 was a horrible year for this, and if I recall 2 summers ago in southern az wasnt too nice on the coues deer especially.
My last thought on this... I for the life of me cannot understand why our dept does not require mandatory reporting for the general hunts, yet the bowhunters have to report. I think there "guestimates" are bunk.. I don't think they want to see the real numbers and therefore shun away from this thought. Just my own opinion.
A
AZWALKER
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-12 AT 07:44AM (MST)[p]No doubt on that one. If we want more big bucks, dropping tags would get us there for sure. And I can promise you, every single unit it the state has the potential to grow massive bucks.
But again herd health and more big bucks is two entirely different things. This is where many of us differ in thought process from the dept. The dept (i believe) looks more at overall herd health, which means more does and fawns.
If tag numbers drop, the dept takes the hit and we get more big bucks. Theoretically, if the issues effecting herd health were addressed, we could all carry the weight. We can assist financially in predator control, habitat projects, water projects... so on and so forth. Theres nothing we as hunters or conservation orgs can do to carry some of the financial burden of lowering tags.
Take unit 10 for example and only for example. I don't know the current number of tags but I think its around 650. Lets say they make it an alternative managment unit. Take that down to 200 rifle tags and 100 archery tags. That would cost the dept $14,700.00 and thats if all the tags cut were at resident cost. The dept just took a $15k hit and we did nothing but put a few more big bucks on the ground. No more fawns, no more does. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense and makes us as hunters seem a bit selfish. Lower tags a little and put that $15k into aerial shoots. That 15 hours in a helo killing coyotes. Which will help the herd more?
Combine the two schools of thought. Lower tag numbers a little, like they are now and sportmen step up to the plate on the conservation side. The dept is more than willing to work with us and if they aren't the commission we have deffinately is. But we have to step it up. We need to cover some of the cost of predator control and other projects. $50,000.00 for the dept to contract a new water catchment. $1000.00 per hour for a helicopter to do aerial coyotes shoots. $3000.00 per collar times no less than 20 for a mule deer study... $60,000.00.
This is what the dept does and thats why they're here. But funding is limited... very limited. If they start cutting tag numbers or as some suggest, shutting units down for a short time, all it does is make more big bucks and cost the dept much needed money. Now sure, we'll see more big bicks but we have done nothing to help the deer herd as a whole. Lowering tags a little and keeping them there while we enhance the herd in overall numbers will last alot longer and I believe it will put more big bucks on the ground, but in a healthy way.
If we want to better the situation for the future and for our kids, we NEED to step it up and start supporting true conservation efforts now.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
But again herd health and more big bucks is two entirely different things. This is where many of us differ in thought process from the dept. The dept (i believe) looks more at overall herd health, which means more does and fawns.
If tag numbers drop, the dept takes the hit and we get more big bucks. Theoretically, if the issues effecting herd health were addressed, we could all carry the weight. We can assist financially in predator control, habitat projects, water projects... so on and so forth. Theres nothing we as hunters or conservation orgs can do to carry some of the financial burden of lowering tags.
Take unit 10 for example and only for example. I don't know the current number of tags but I think its around 650. Lets say they make it an alternative managment unit. Take that down to 200 rifle tags and 100 archery tags. That would cost the dept $14,700.00 and thats if all the tags cut were at resident cost. The dept just took a $15k hit and we did nothing but put a few more big bucks on the ground. No more fawns, no more does. Doesn't make a whole lotta sense and makes us as hunters seem a bit selfish. Lower tags a little and put that $15k into aerial shoots. That 15 hours in a helo killing coyotes. Which will help the herd more?
Combine the two schools of thought. Lower tag numbers a little, like they are now and sportmen step up to the plate on the conservation side. The dept is more than willing to work with us and if they aren't the commission we have deffinately is. But we have to step it up. We need to cover some of the cost of predator control and other projects. $50,000.00 for the dept to contract a new water catchment. $1000.00 per hour for a helicopter to do aerial coyotes shoots. $3000.00 per collar times no less than 20 for a mule deer study... $60,000.00.
This is what the dept does and thats why they're here. But funding is limited... very limited. If they start cutting tag numbers or as some suggest, shutting units down for a short time, all it does is make more big bucks and cost the dept much needed money. Now sure, we'll see more big bicks but we have done nothing to help the deer herd as a whole. Lowering tags a little and keeping them there while we enhance the herd in overall numbers will last alot longer and I believe it will put more big bucks on the ground, but in a healthy way.
If we want to better the situation for the future and for our kids, we NEED to step it up and start supporting true conservation efforts now.
Donnie
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Good points to the health of the herd! I think a healthy deer herd is the main objective and wildlife projects do help a lot. Being that the azgfd is also in favor of increasing the buck to doe ratio Statewide, and possibly a unit per region with even higher to buck/doe ratio tags will have to be cut. Who knows how many tags will be decided on, but I'm sure it will have to make sense with how much money the department can afford losing.
I'm looking forward to the coming years and seeing how the azgfd decides where to cut tags and how many. I think we're already seeing changes such as the Kaibab, going from 1,000 tags, to 750 to 500 for many years now. Also unit 3A/3C is said to be managed for a better deer herd, now we'll have to watch and see what that unit turns into over the years.
All this thought on mule deer makes me think of the Henry Mountains in Utah. I remember reading how that place has some of the worst hunting, and now it's the best or second best place to hunt in the West. It's an area managed a lot like the strip here in Arizona, but I'm not sure of all the details of why they decided to shut down hunting in the Henry Mountains for a few years. I wonder if the money they lost in tag sales for those years was not an issue or what type of decisions went into the management of that area..
I'm looking forward to the coming years and seeing how the azgfd decides where to cut tags and how many. I think we're already seeing changes such as the Kaibab, going from 1,000 tags, to 750 to 500 for many years now. Also unit 3A/3C is said to be managed for a better deer herd, now we'll have to watch and see what that unit turns into over the years.
All this thought on mule deer makes me think of the Henry Mountains in Utah. I remember reading how that place has some of the worst hunting, and now it's the best or second best place to hunt in the West. It's an area managed a lot like the strip here in Arizona, but I'm not sure of all the details of why they decided to shut down hunting in the Henry Mountains for a few years. I wonder if the money they lost in tag sales for those years was not an issue or what type of decisions went into the management of that area..
OutdoorWriter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,340
Hey Donnie, maybe we can go to antler restrictions, say 4-pt. or better across the state. ;-)
Only kidding, of course.
BTW, I'm impressed on the biological deer info you've been collecting. Kudos.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
Only kidding, of course.
BTW, I'm impressed on the biological deer info you've been collecting. Kudos.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,195
Utah has a lot going on trying to maintain the deer they got and putting in project in to rebuild it . There's no reason why we cant have a few more limited entry units it would spread out hunters applying for just the strip... I'm all for increasing bucks to does (3A/3C) any increase in deer numbers even if its just more bucks sound good to me.
quest
quest
I with you quest, something needs to be done to spread out the strip applicants and I'm all for a few units south of the ditch being the units to do it. There will always be the easy to draw deer units south of the ditch if you want hunter opportunity and a deer tag...
A
AZWALKER
Guest
I'm all for alternative management units. Don fought hard to try and get a unit in region 3 dedicated to that program.
I don't have a problem with big deer units, they fill a need. But don't let it stop there. Get some money on the ground or "in the air" and do some serious predator control for the overall health of the herd. That way in 10-15 years everyone will want to come here to hunt deer like they do Elk, Antelope and Sheep.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
I don't have a problem with big deer units, they fill a need. But don't let it stop there. Get some money on the ground or "in the air" and do some serious predator control for the overall health of the herd. That way in 10-15 years everyone will want to come here to hunt deer like they do Elk, Antelope and Sheep.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
LMAO, Tony.... I actually had that debate with you about point restritions a few years ago, don't know if you remeber that. Funny how with just a little research, a guys way of thinking can change.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
A
AZWALKER
Guest
Here's the problem I'm having with some orgs and the dept. We keep spending on areas like the Kiabab while little attention is paid to the rest of the state. I sat thru the hunt recomendation meeting a few weeks ago. 75 percent of the time dedicated to deer was spent talking about the stupid Kiabab.
There are collard deer on the Kiabab right now to the tune of at least $90k. I'm sick and tired of seeing my dfesert deer tag money go to that place. Yeah, I know people love it and they have big deer but come on. You'd think there wasn't 1 deer between the south rim and Nogales.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
There are collard deer on the Kiabab right now to the tune of at least $90k. I'm sick and tired of seeing my dfesert deer tag money go to that place. Yeah, I know people love it and they have big deer but come on. You'd think there wasn't 1 deer between the south rim and Nogales.
"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
Arizona Hunting Guides & Outfitters
SilverGrand Outfitters
Offering mule deer, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, javelina, and turkey hunts in Nevada and Arizona.
Arizona Elk Outfitters
Offering the serious hunter a chance to hunt trophy animals in the great Southwest.
A3 Trophy Hunts
An Arizona Outfitter specializing in the harvest of World Class big game of all species.
Arizona Strip Guides
Highly experienced and highly dedicated team of hardworking professional Arizona Strip mule deer guides.
Shadow Valley Outfitters
AZ Strip and Kaibab mule deer, big bulls during the rut, spot-n-stalk pronghorn and coues deer hunts.