Arizona OTC Archery What's Going on?

Hunt4more

Very Active Member
Messages
1,089
Anyone else heard this rumor about changing the OTC archer deer hunt to a draw? Doesn't surprise me but for a NR that has been going on this hunt for 10 years I surely hope not.
 
Some units already changed to no over the counter, some to whitetail only and a few moved to January hunt. Depends on the unit, regulations are on the website.
 
The more units the make draw units forces more and more hunters into the few remaining OTC units. This will most likely cause more animals to be taken during the few OTC hunts which means G&F will make them a draw unit once they meet their percentage threshold.

For the life of me I can't figure out why AZ allows NR's to buy big game tags OTC. It makes zero sense. We have such a limited supply of big game animals and our AZ resident population is exploding. Arizona is not like Wyoming with decent wildlife populations and less than 700k residents. AZ has 7.4 million people and we are growing each day. We are expected to grow another million by 2030.
 
The more units the make draw units forces more and more hunters into the few remaining OTC units. This will most likely cause more animals to be taken during the few OTC hunts which means G&F will make them a draw unit once they meet their percentage threshold.

For the life of me I can't figure out why AZ allows NR's to buy big game tags OTC. It makes zero sense. We have such a limited supply of big game animals and our AZ resident population is exploding. Arizona is not like Wyoming with decent wildlife populations and less than 700k residents. AZ has 7.4 million people and we are growing each day. We are expected to grow another million by 2030.
For the life of me I cant figure out why the AZGFD allows any OTC mule deer hunting to continue. Name any other western state that allows OTC mule deer hunting. Last time I checked Residents +/- 25,000 OTC tags purchased NR +/- 5,000, not real sure NR are the problem.
 
Of course the Jan hunt. Sorry I should of clarified. Huntazido not a fan of NR’s eh? I’m sorry you feel that way. Peace and love ;-) … did it ever dawn on you it’s about money.
I have no problem with non-residents and I have helped many out that have been drawn here. But I care more about my state and the wildlife that reside here. I put in for a couple other states but I have to get drawn and that is the way it should be here as well.
 
I'm a resident and man, they took away most of the December and January OTC and it has been a tear jerker! haha. What they should do is decrease the rifle allocation and increase the archery kill allocation (20%) It has been the same percent cap for over 30 years, but there are way more, by percentage, archery hunters now compared to back then, so if they correct that, like I have told them they need to, it would allow more deer to be killed archery and allow everything to open back up.
 
Arizona bases the availability of OTC deer tags in each hunt unit on what percentage of deer harvested in that unit (over an averaged three-year period) were taken with a bow versus firearms. Once the percentage exceeds the guidelines, OTC hunts are normally shortened or closed. As was said above, this makes an ever-increasing number of OTC hunters hunt fewer and fewer units which then causes them to kill too many deer and close as well. As long as G&F sticks to this formula, it is just a matter of a very short number of years until that opportunity is gone since the remaining hunt units will see quickly increasing pressure from unlimited OTC sales with a smaller and smaller area to hunt. There are other completely workable options to prevent, or at least postpone, this from occurring (with no additional pressure on the deer and possibly even less), but so far G&F has not had an open mind at considering anything but their own narrow perspective. And yes, perhaps it should be considered to remove the NRs from the OTC deer hunt structure and make it a drawing (although there are other possibly better options), especially since national organizations like GoHunt and others have been extremely promoting these hunts to NRs in recent years. AZN98, while your figures are a part of the story, the number of permits sold to residents versus NRs has absolutely no bearing on which units are closed (except if the G&F is managing by money, which is certainly something that could be possible). Per their guidelines, harvest is the only thing to be considered, and while I don't know the numbers, it is completely believable to me that the average NR hunter (in any state) is probably a much more experienced and skillful bowhunter than the average resident since far more beginners and casual bowhunters are in the latter group, and I'm guessing that the NRs enjoy a much higher percentage success than do residents as a percentage. And since this is what the guidelines are based upon, harvest is what matters not the number of permits sold for each group.

That all being said, G&F did NOT follow their own guidelines when cutting away at the OTC deer hunts this year. By their own admission, their data was unavailable or unreliable for two of the previous three years, so they really based the entire hunt cutting recommendation on the deer harvest in the pandemic year 2020. I can tell you by being in the field a lot during 2020, the number of people camping and hunting in 2020 was SKY HIGH compared to all previous years, since they didn't have to go to work, so it's little wonder that harvests in OTC hunts were up! Permanent changes to deer hunts should not have been based exclusively on a year that was a complete anomaly.
 
Arizona bases the availability of OTC deer tags in each hunt unit on what percentage of deer harvested in that unit (over an averaged three-year period) were taken with a bow versus firearms. Once the percentage exceeds the guidelines, OTC hunts are normally shortened or closed. As was said above, this makes an ever-increasing number of OTC hunters hunt fewer and fewer units which then causes them to kill too many deer and close as well. As long as G&F sticks to this formula, it is just a matter of a very short number of years until that opportunity is gone since the remaining hunt units will see quickly increasing pressure from unlimited OTC sales with a smaller and smaller area to hunt. There are other completely workable options to prevent, or at least postpone, this from occurring (with no additional pressure on the deer and possibly even less), but so far G&F has not had an open mind at considering anything but their own narrow perspective. And yes, perhaps it should be considered to remove the NRs from the OTC deer hunt structure and make it a drawing (although there are other possibly better options), especially since national organizations like GoHunt and others have been extremely promoting these hunts to NRs in recent years. AZN98, while your figures are a part of the story, the number of permits sold to residents versus NRs has absolutely no bearing on which units are closed (except if the G&F is managing by money, which is certainly something that could be possible). Per their guidelines, harvest is the only thing to be considered, and while I don't know the numbers, it is completely believable to me that the average NR hunter (in any state) is probably a much more experienced and skillful bowhunter than the average resident since far more beginners and casual bowhunters are in the latter group, and I'm guessing that the NRs enjoy a much higher percentage success than do residents as a percentage. And since this is what the guidelines are based upon, harvest is what matters not the number of permits sold for each group.

That all being said, G&F did NOT follow their own guidelines when cutting away at the OTC deer hunts this year. By their own admission, their data was unavailable or unreliable for two of the previous three years, so they really based the entire hunt cutting recommendation on the deer harvest in the pandemic year 2020. I can tell you by being in the field a lot during 2020, the number of people camping and hunting in 2020 was SKY HIGH compared to all previous years, since they didn't have to go to work, so it's little wonder that harvests in OTC hunts were up! Permanent changes to deer hunts should not have been based exclusively on a year that was a complete anomaly.
But that didn't address the hunt the OP was concerend about -- the January OTC one.
 
Arizona bases the availability of OTC deer tags in each hunt unit on what percentage of deer harvested in that unit (over an averaged three-year period) were taken with a bow versus firearms. Once the percentage exceeds the guidelines, OTC hunts are normally shortened or closed. As was said above, this makes an ever-increasing number of OTC hunters hunt fewer and fewer units which then causes them to kill too many deer and close as well. As long as G&F sticks to this formula, it is just a matter of a very short number of years until that opportunity is gone since the remaining hunt units will see quickly increasing pressure from unlimited OTC sales with a smaller and smaller area to hunt. There are other completely workable options to prevent, or at least postpone, this from occurring (with no additional pressure on the deer and possibly even less), but so far G&F has not had an open mind at considering anything but their own narrow perspective. And yes, perhaps it should be considered to remove the NRs from the OTC deer hunt structure and make it a drawing (although there are other possibly better options), especially since national organizations like GoHunt and others have been extremely promoting these hunts to NRs in recent years. AZN98, while your figures are a part of the story, the number of permits sold to residents versus NRs has absolutely no bearing on which units are closed (except if the G&F is managing by money, which is certainly something that could be possible). Per their guidelines, harvest is the only thing to be considered, and while I don't know the numbers, it is completely believable to me that the average NR hunter (in any state) is probably a much more experienced and skillful bowhunter than the average resident since far more beginners and casual bowhunters are in the latter group, and I'm guessing that the NRs enjoy a much higher percentage success than do residents as a percentage. And since this is what the guidelines are based upon, harvest is what matters not the number of permits sold for each group.

That all being said, G&F did NOT follow their own guidelines when cutting away at the OTC deer hunts this year. By their own admission, their data was unavailable or unreliable for two of the previous three years, so they really based the entire hunt cutting recommendation on the deer harvest in the pandemic year 2020. I can tell you by being in the field a lot during 2020, the number of people camping and hunting in 2020 was SKY HIGH compared to all previous years, since they didn't have to go to work, so it's little wonder that harvests in OTC hunts were up! Permanent changes to deer hunts should not have been based exclusively on a year that was a complete anomaly.
I was born and raised in this state and have been hunting deer in this state for right around 40 years so I don't want people to think I'm all for NR hunters I love the 10% cap but to think NR are more skilled than the resident hunter is funny. I know plenty of R bowhunters that are filling OTC tags every year. Heck my son is only 19 and has killed 9 AZ deer 7 of those with a bow, archery hunters especially those targeting MD needed to be managed sooner rather than later IMO.
 
But that didn't address the hunt the OP was concerend about -- the January OTC one.
How does it NOT? While the order of the months that are eliminated first may vary (based on which are expected to cause the harvest of the most deer I presume), the method used to eliminate OTC hunts is the same no matter the month of the hunt.
 
Just to be clear, I never said I was advocating for the removal of the NRs from the hunt. I just mentioned it is one of many options to consider other than blindly basing decisions on the out-of-date and out-of-touch formulas the G&F is using with no willingness to consider anything else.
 
How does it NOT? While the order of the months that are eliminated first may vary (based on which are expected to cause the harvest of the most deer I presume), the method used to eliminate OTC hunts is the same no matter the month of the hunt.
I haven't looked in quite a while, but as far as a I know there hasn't been any per-unit limitations during the Jan. season where a draw permit is necessary. At some point in Jan. nearly every unit had been open to OTC permits. Is that not the case any longer?
 
You are correct, there are no posted quotas. However, for a LOT of years, the method that G&F uses to determine if a unit stays in the OTC hunt is to look at how many deer are killed with all weapons AFTER the hunts are over. If bowhunters take more than 10% of the total deer killed in a particular unit, then the OTC hunts have to be cut back or eliminated. That's why, each year, more and more OTC hunts are being moved to a drawing because they exceed the 10% of the total kill limit. With the elimination of some of the units, the remaining (and ever-increasing) number of OTC permit holders will consolidate in the fewer and fewer remaining units, causing those units to exceed the 10% cap, etc. etc.
 
Gauging the current population trends, social media impacts and continued habitat loss, OTC hunts we be eliminated soon. If I were a betting man, I’d say within 2-3 years.
Exactly. There are too many people. I love it when people talk about how there are fewer hunters than there were long ago and hunter recruitment is going down and all. What about all of the loss of hunting areas? In 1972, Arizona had 2 million people now there’s 7.2 million. What do you think it will be in another 50 years? Where will they be? There will be a lot in the mild climate or winter range. Also in 1972 the freeways were finished and that’s when the 40 acre people moved in. Talk to anyone from St Johns, show low, Prescott and concho and ask how much sprawl was there before 1972. I don’t see any decline in population in those rural areas.
 
Exactly. There are too many people. I love it when people talk about how there are fewer hunters than there were long ago and hunter recruitment is going down and all. What about all of the loss of hunting areas? In 1972, Arizona had 2 million people now there’s 7.2 million. What do you think it will be in another 50 years? Where will they be? There will be a lot in the mild climate or winter range. Also in 1972 the freeways were finished and that’s when the 40 acre people moved in. Talk to anyone from St Johns, show low, Prescott and concho and ask how much sprawl was there before 1972. I don’t see any decline in population in those rural areas.
How many hunters are in AZ total? When I started hunting 45 years ago in PA we had over 1 million resident deer hunters. We are currently somewhere below 600K. Even today still we have about 50K NR OTC.

Similar things have played out all over the east and upper Midwest. Michigan, Wisconsin, New York have all seen similar drops. So when AZ doubles to 50K, (and other western states), it really doesn’t counter the losses nationally. This weakens hunting’s clout nationwide.
 
I think there is two stats here to watch out for, a). Total number of hunters and b). total percentage of hunters versus the total population.... I'm sure A is going up but I would also guess B is dropping significantly. Stat B will mean us giving up "ground" to the lib's in the near future.
 
I think it’s an issue of land. We’re not making anymore new land and with the population growing, the formula will always be less land. We need fewer people or at least no more.
 
Last edited:
How many hunters are in AZ total? When I started hunting 45 years ago in PA we had over 1 million resident deer hunters. We are currently somewhere below 600K. Even today still we have about 50K NR OTC.

Similar things have played out all over the east and upper Midwest. Michigan, Wisconsin, New York have all seen similar drops. So when AZ doubles to 50K, (and other western states), it really doesn’t counter the losses nationally. This weakens hunting’s clout nationwide.

That’s where Arizona is headed. Look at PA and any of the states you mentioned. How far can you go without seeing any structure? It’s so populated and spread out that there’s hardly anything wild anymore. There’s places in AZ where it’s already like that. Those places are from Sedona to Prescott and from Concho to Linden through Snowflake or Vernon. It’s so sprawled out that’s it lost to anything important like habitat for hunting when all you get is about a mile or two between buildings.

Edit*. Heck, even make it 4 miles between buildings.
 
That’s where Arizona is headed. Look at PA and any of the states you mentioned. How far can you go without seeing any structure? It’s so populated and spread out that there’s hardly anything wild anymore. There’s places in AZ where it’s already like that. Those places are from Sedona to Prescott and from Concho to Linden through Snowflake or Vernon. It’s so sprawled out that’s it lost to anything important like habitat for hunting when all you get is about a mile or two between buildings.

Edit*. Heck, even make it 4 miles between buildings.
I understand completely. Obviously PA, and to a lesser extent states like MI and WI still have much less "wild" areas than AZ, and our whitetails (and bears) have proven pretty adaptable to woodlot life. We do have enough wild for our small (1300) but well established elk herd.

My comment is simply one of perspective. I see western state hunters in disbelief that hunter numbers are dropping. I can assure you, nationwide, they are. More disturbing, while PA shows a slow but steady decline in adult licenses, the number of junior licenses being sold is dropping like a rock. That's the future. We all need each other. Western states need the eastern, midwestern and southern states with strong hunting heritages to stay that way. There is legislative safety in numbers.
 
I think it’s an issue of land. We’re not making anymore new land and with the population growing, the formula will always be less land. We need fewer people or at least no more.
Urban Sprawl as we call it bad for mule deer yes, elk adapt better but mule deer have proven to be a sensitive species, like another species I know ;-)
 
That’s where Arizona is headed. Look at PA and any of the states you mentioned. How far can you go without seeing any structure? It’s so populated and spread out that there’s hardly anything wild anymore. There’s places in AZ where it’s already like that. Those places are from Sedona to Prescott and from Concho to Linden through Snowflake or Vernon. It’s so sprawled out that’s it lost to anything important like habitat for hunting when all you get is about a mile or two between buildings.

Edit*. Heck, even make it 4 miles between buildings.
As a native of the Verde Valley, I can state with 100% certainty that there are more elk there than ever. Point being that management plays a role as well. Here in CO we have the sprawl only without the animals.

No, I am not advocating development. I hardly go back there for all the people.
 
Can anyone honestly tell me that it is prudent for Arizona to offer Non-Resident OTC mule deer opportunity for up to 6 weeks, during the rut?

No other state that I am aware of offers non-residents ANY unlimited mule deer hunting. Let alone 40+ days in the rut.

And, since our whitetail habitat is less than 20% of our mule deer habitat, does it make sense to allow unlimited NR hunting for those either?
 
Can anyone honestly tell me that it is prudent for Arizona to offer Non-Resident OTC mule deer opportunity for up to 6 weeks, during the rut?

No other state that I am aware of offers non-residents ANY unlimited mule deer hunting. Let alone 40+ days in the rut.

And, since our whitetail habitat is less than 20% of our mule deer habitat, does it make sense to allow unlimited NR hunting for those either?
No other state that I'm aware of lets their Residents hunt mule deer OTC for 6 weeks during the rut, let alone NR.
 
Can anyone honestly tell me that it is prudent for Arizona to offer Non-Resident OTC mule deer opportunity for up to 6 weeks, during the rut?

No other state that I am aware of offers non-residents ANY unlimited mule deer hunting. Let alone 40+ days in the rut.

And, since our whitetail habitat is less than 20% of our mule deer habitat, does it make sense to allow unlimited NR hunting for those either?
It makes all the sense in the world ?. It was all the resident rifle hunters who shot the snot out of the deer during the drought last fall. Deer didn’t have a chance with the limited availability of water.
 

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.

Urge 2 Hunt

THE premier hunts in Arizona for trophy elk, mule deer, couse deer and javelina.

Shadow Valley Outfitters

AZ Strip and Kaibab mule deer, big bulls during the rut, spot-n-stalk pronghorn and coues deer hunts.

Back
Top Bottom