Changing Seasons

That was a good read, they must have had alot of hunters questioning the new deer hunting format. This season should be a good test bed to see how it all works out.
 
I support the changes for the reasons the authors cited. Our numbers must grow to protect our heritage.

Bill Quimby
 
Stacking people and hunts on top of each other like cordwood is not going to recruit or retain anybody!

How many times is a kid going to want to go fishing if he never catches anything?

There always has been plenty of opportunity for someone to hunt if they want to. The same people complaining about not drawing are probably the same people putting in for Strip deer hunts and early rifle bull hunts. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

In my opinion the Department is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. The opportunity is there, but if parents would rather have their kids couped up in the house playing Xbox, there ain't a damn thing having upteen million whitetail tags will solve.

Nick
 
+1 Heat
More hunters, less desireable seasons, more pressure on the animals for longer periods of time. You have to wonder what effect the length of some of the seasons has on the deer. Quick example: A deer in 34A is hunted with unlimited bowhunters from Aug 22 to Sept 11th, then 600 rifle hunters from Oct 24th to-30th, then with 550 rifle hunters Nov 7th - 13th, then with 100 muzzleloaders from Nov 14th - 20th, then with 40 riflehunters from Dec 12th - 31st, then with unlimited bowhunters again Dec 12th - Jan 31st. 34A is not that big! It would suck to be a deer right now in AZ about as bad as it would be to be an unarmed American in Afganistan. This article is about getting tags sold and collecting revenue.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-03-08 AT 08:34AM (MST)[p]Hello Heat,
+1 , , , , , sort of!
This article is entirely about increasing revenue for the department. Anybody that doesn't see that has not lived here in AZ for very long.

"There always has been plenty of opportunity for someone to hunt if they want to. The same people complaining about not drawing are probably the same people putting in for Strip deer hunts and early rifle bull hunts. You can't always have your cake and eat it too."

You do not want to get me started on this subject! I have put in every year that I legally could (minus 3) for Bull tags since 1975, , , rarely did I apply for the "premium" tags. I have been drawn only three times!

It appears that most of the western states Game & Fish Departments have stopped managing for the benefit of the wildlife, and the quality of the hunt. Instead, they have figured out how to turn it into a money making business.
When AZ offered the "over the counter" elk tags, it became obvious that they are simply trying to generate revenue any way they can.

A good friend of mine asked the AZGF, "Why don't you just start selling elephant tags?"

ElkChaser
 
Thanks for sharing, that was a good read. Hey can any of you guys let me know if fish & game either has or plans to have any over-the-counter turkey or javelina hunts for 08'??

Besides deer, im not to familiar with the regs for other game and with changes being made, I want to make sure I understand it all correctly.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-03-08 AT 01:29PM (MST)[p]Can somebody explain to me how hunter interest is declining? Hunter interest is NOT declining. This number has been increasing year after year. And I don't want to hear anything about baby boomers!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Sep-03-08
>AT 08:34?AM (MST)
>
>Hello Heat,
>+1 , , , , ,
>sort of!
>This article is entirely about increasing
>revenue for the department. Anybody
>that doesn't see that has
>not lived here in AZ
>ElkChaser


ElkChaser:

I was born in Tucson in 1936 and have lived here ever since. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math. That was 72 years ago. is that long enough?

I shot my first of more than 50 deer in this state in 1948 when I was 12 years old. About the only years I did not take a deer in Arizona were the years I could not draw a tag.

As a former outdoor editor for a daily Arizona newspaper, I have been a very close observer of our state's Game and Fish Commission and our political process ever since 1967.

All I can say about your comment is that you need to wake up.

If the number of hunters in Arizona and across America continues to shrink, we will lose hunting. It's as simple as that. We need to increase hunting opportunities and allow more individuals to go hunting. Period.

Without a significant increase in participants, we will lose the important anti-hunting ballot measures that surely are coming.

Bill Quimby
 
No kidding. There is no lack of hunters in this state. Cabelas, Bass Pro Shops, multiple Sportsmans Warehouses, and every other mom and pop shop arent here because they think hunter numbers are declining. Anyone who thinks there is a lack of hunters hasnt been in the field lately. I mean that with no disrespect, but give me a break, there are more hunters in the Western States than there is game. Like Heat said above, fishing/hunting isnt very fun for a kid when you cant catch or kill anything. That old line about "its all about just enjoying the outdoors" only works so long. Sooner or later its just plain boring. I cant get any of my friends to even go hunting anymore because they never see any game and arent willing to spend weekend after weekend after weekend in the field to do what it takes to kill a deer here. I dont disagree that we need to protect our heritage, but I dont feel that threatened by the anti hunting movement at this point. From what I have seen they are disorganized and lack the funding to be effective. Just my 2 cents.
 
>No kidding. There is no lack of hunters in this state. Cabelas, Bass Pro Shops, multiple Sportsmans Warehouses, and every other mom and pop shop arent here because they think hunter numbers are declining. Anyone who thinks there is a lack of hunters hasnt been in the field lately. I mean that with no disrespect, but give me a break, there are more hunters in the Western States than there is game. ...... I dont disagree that we need to protect our heritage, but I dont feel that threatened by the anti hunting movement at this point. From what I have seen they are disorganized and lack the funding to be effective. Just my 2 cents. >

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the number of Americans buying hunting licenses has fallen steadily every year over the past 30 years from an all-time high of more than 21 million to fewer than 14 million today. Arizona deer hunters have gone from more than 100,000 in 1969 to about 40,000 this year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. population grows by huge leaps, reducing the percentage of voters who hunt (or even who personally know someone who hunts) even more each year.

As for hunters outnumbering game in the West, you are welcome to your opinion but you need to get real.

Please do not underestimate the anti-hunting movement just because it hasn't seriously gone after us recently. It has virtually unlimited funds and considerable political and social clout just waiting to jump up and bite us!

Bill Quimby
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-08 AT 08:47AM (MST)[p]Hello Bill,
I will start by suggesting that your right, one of us needs to wake up, and I can assure you that my eyes are wide open.

It appears to me that you are confusing percentages with actual numbers. Yes, the PERCENTAGE of hunters vs. the OVERALL POPULATION is declining.
In other words, the percentage of the general population that hunts, is much smaller today, than it was thirty years ago.
However, the actual number of hunters in the field, for any given hunt, has been increasing, dramatically.

If you disagree, go try to find a place to yourself to hunt quail.

Go up on the rim right now, with the archery deer season in full swing, and tell me there are fewer hunters afield than thirty years ago.

There are more elk in AZ today than EVER before but just try to draw an elk tag. Bull, cow, whatever. Good luck with that!

I have not yet gathered the precise data and yes, draw deer tags HAVE been reduced recently due to the drought but, overall, there are far more hunters in the field these days than there has ever been.

The irony here is that your goals, and mine, are not really very far apart. We just don't agree on how to achieve them.
My fear is that, due to the exploding population growth, the opportunities for a QUALITY HUNTING EXPERIENCE are quickly becoming just a distant memory.

A dear friend and mentor passed away two years ago (he was seventy eight). He used to tell stories about how good the deer hunting was back in the thirties and forties, just outside of LA!

If anybody wants to know where AZ is headed, just look at California.

So Bill, in closing, I sure do appreciate your willingness to help me with my math! Those really big numbers like your sportin just intimidate the hell outa me. And yes, I've only been hunting big game here for forty two years so, compared to you, I'm just a sassy, upstart young squirt! (It's been a long, long time since I was called that!)

ElkChaser
 
Bill,
I admire you statistics, but it seems that you and the fish and game feel that the only way to save hunting is to sell more licences. I would also comment that I am talking about the west coast, and you are quoting stats from the entire country. Of course hunter numbers are decreasing per capita, as urban sprawl continues throughout the country, there are less spots to hunt. Fortunately, the West Coast has preserved public lands, except now we are sustaining the hunting for the entire country. Everybody in the country wants to put in for tags out west and we just dont have the real estate or game to support it. So expect to declining numbers of hunters per capita if all we care about is selling licences vs. providing quality hunting.
 
Hunter numbers are decreasing percentage-wise, to be sure, and we all should be able to agree that this is bad. But our actual numbers also are decreasing here in Arizona, and elsewhere in the West, and all across the USA, too.

And, yes, the best way to save hunting is to get more people involved and sell more licenses.

The alternative bodes no good for hunters because there is something about bureaucracies: they will do what is needed to stay alive -- and they will grow no matter what.

If our numbers and the money we give state wildlife agencies do not keep pace with population increases, those agencies will look to other funding sources (and other clienteles) as their cost of doing business goes up.

As for us "sustaining the hunting for the entire country," that is not even remotely accurate. Check the numbers of hunting licenses sold in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas. There are more deer hunters in just those three states than all the western states combined. (Texas is the "south" or "back east," and not the "west" in this lifelong Arizonan's way of thinking.)

And, finally, as for there being too many hunters in Arizona, the federal and state lands that are legally available to hunting in our state total nearly 40 million acres. Just imagine what it would be like if we had access to all of it.

Our problem isn't too many people or "the advance of civilization," it's the locked gates that deny us access to our property.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill,
If your from Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Texas and you want to shoot a elk , buffalo, or antelope, you are going to be applying for tags on the West Coast. Sure there are more deer applicants in those states, because there is more deer. I know that your solution is to sell more licences and get more people involoved which is great. I just dont think you can expect to sell more licences as the quality of hunting is on the decline, while the cost is on the increase. I think its awesome that you have been able to take 50 deer in your lifetime. Would you be as interested in hunting if you only were able to shoot 1 deer in a lifetime of hunting? Considering the cost and commitment it takes to be a successful hunter of any species I think you are up against a hard sell to attract more interest. This discussion is kind of like someone complaining that Arizona cant fill the "cheap seats" at the DBacks games. The reason that the seats are empty is because you cant see the game.
 
Here's some more on the Diamondbacks example above extrapolated a little bit.

A - Have you ever been to a DBacks Game?

B - No?

A - Why not?

B - Can't afford the good seats.

A - What about the cheap seats in the nosebleeds?

B - Can't see the game!

Meanwhile the AZ Diamondbacks office conducts a survey of all the people that have ever bought a diamondbacks jersey, hat, or ticket to the game. Example survery question - Would you support more seats at Chase Field? Would you like it if the tickets were cheaper?

Results of the survey - The Arizona Diamondbacks have decided to remove 1000 good seats and replace them with 5 luxury boxes and 3000 obstructed view seats.

How many more Diamondback fans is that going to create? Probably not many in my opinion. All they did was make it harder to sell the cheap seats (early whitetail hunts in region 5) they already had, and piss off the 1000 (mostly season ticket holders/dedicated hunters/ADA members) folks who once had good seats.

See where I went with this and the relationship to what we have now?
 
Here are some statistics you folks should ponder:

In the ten years from 1996 to 2006, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

-- The number of hunters 16 and older shrunk 16% -- from 14 million to 12.5 million participants -- while the number of ?outdoors people? (wildlife watchers and photographers who neither hunt nor fish) grew from 62.8 million to 71.2 million participants. (This is downright frightening!)

-- The percentage of Americans 16 and older who hunt shrunk from 7% to 5% while the number of ?outdoors people? grew by 13%. (Ditto.)

-- Membership in animal rights groups such as HSUS and PETA have grown by 17%. American animal rights groups have annual budgets totaling more than $200 million!

Today, according to the same sources above, and others:

-- Twelve western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) combined sell about 2.4 million hunting licenses.

-- Just three states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan and New York combined -- sell about 2.8 million hunting licenses. (So much for the West "carrying" the hunting load.)

-- The twelve western states sell a total of about 650,000 non-resident hunting licenses.

-- Just ten states (Georgia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Illinois) combined sell about 650,000 non-resident hunting licenses. (So much for the West bearing the brunt of non-resident hunting.)

As for a decline in "quality" hunting, it depends upon what you mean by that word.

To me, quality means having a tag in my pocket and an opportunity to kill a deer. To others, it means trophy size.

In the good ol' days of pre-1970 (when Arizona's permit-only deer hunting began), we had about 100,000 hunters with a success rate of 15% to 18% in most units. Today, we have success rates of 25% to more than 50% depending upon the area. Trophy bucks were taken back then; trophy bucks still are being taken today.

The difference, though, is that a hell of a lot more of us got to go deer hunting. If we could get the locks off the gates blocking access to our public lands we could have similar numbers again today.

Bill Quimby
 
<<<<<"I think its awesome that you have been able to take 50 deer in your lifetime. Would be be as interested in hunting if you were able to shoot 1 deer in a lifetime of hunting?" Bbgellerman>>>>>>


Bbgellerman:

That does not include a dozen or so deer from Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, California, Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan, plus the fifty or more deer I shot in fifteen years of hunting on a friend's ranches in the Texas Hill Country where the limit was three or four, depending upon the year. That's just mule deer and whitetails. I have taken sixteen other types of deer in North America, Europe, Asia and the South Pacific.

Those numbers don't mean much, though. I was fortunate to do a lot more hunting (and write off my expenses) than most people over the sixty years I've hunted deer in Arizona and elsewhere. Hunting was part of my job as a hunting writer, editor and author.

As for an interest in hunting, just because I was allowed to shoot just one bison and one desert bighorn in my lifetime in Arizona it doesn't mean I've lost interest in hunting these species again now that I've filled those lifetime tags. I'd apply again in a second if it were allowed and my health permitted it!

Bill Quimby
 
>Here's some more on the Diamondbacks
>example above extrapolated a little
>bit.
>
>A - Have you ever been
>to a DBacks Game?
>
>B - No?
>
>A - Why not?
>
>B - Can't afford the good
>seats.
>
>A - What about the cheap
>seats in the nosebleeds?
>
>B - Can't see the game!
>
>
>Meanwhile the AZ Diamondbacks office conducts
>a survey of all the
>people that have ever bought
>a diamondbacks jersey, hat, or
>ticket to the game.
>Example survery question - Would
>you support more seats at
>Chase Field? Would you
>like it if the tickets
>were cheaper?
>
>Results of the survey - The
>Arizona Diamondbacks have decided to
>remove 1000 good seats and
>replace them with 5 luxury
>boxes and 3000 obstructed view
>seats.
>
>How many more Diamondback fans is
>that going to create?
>Probably not many in my
>opinion. All they did
>was make it harder to
>sell the cheap seats (early
>whitetail hunts in region 5)
>they already had, and piss
>off the 1000 (mostly season
>ticket holders/dedicated hunters/ADA members) folks
>who once had good seats.
>
>
>See where I went with this
>and the relationship to what
>we have now?

Nope. My answers to your questions:
A. Never watched a baseball, football, basketball, hockey, soccer, Frizbee or tiddlywinks match in person or on TV, and never will. I hunt, and sometimes fish.
B. Not a fan of running, jumping, hitting, kicking and/or throwing games. (See A.)
C. There's not a big-enough gun to make me go, no matter the price. (See B.)

Bill Quimby
 
The basis of the article, IMO, was based around increasing hunter opportunity, but I don't see how putting OTC tags on draw basis accomplishes this. There is no greater opportunity than unlimited OTC tags. As Heat said, the opportunity is there and still is, but it certainly was not increased. With that being said, I was resistant to the change, but have heard great things about archery hunt in 12A this year, so I am warming up to it. Fewer people, deer are more relaxed and just an overall improvement in quality of hunt. And I still don't like how the AZGF acquired the harvest data (phone in). If they wanted a more accurate count, they should have gone back to the mandatory check stations and overall increased presence of wardens out and about in the field.

It is what it is, so all we can do is let it run its course for a few years and see how it effects the data inputs used to make the changes.

Just my opinion.

JB
 
>The basis of the article, IMO,
>was based around increasing hunter
>opportunity, but I don't see
>how putting OTC tags on
>draw basis accomplishes this.
>There is no greater opportunity
>than unlimited OTC tags.
>As Heat said, the opportunity
>is there and still is,
>but it certainly was not
>increased. With that being
>said, I was resistant to
>the change, but have heard
>great things about archery hunt
>in 12A this year, so
>I am warming up to
>it. Fewer people, deer
>are more relaxed and just
>an overall improvement in quality
>of hunt. And I
>still don't like how the
>AZGF acquired the harvest data
>(phone in). If they
>wanted a more accurate count,
>they should have gone back
>to the mandatory check stations
>and overall increased presence of
>wardens out and about in
>the field.
>
>It is what it is, so
>all we can do is
>let it run its course
>for a few years and
>see how it effects the
>data inputs used to make
>the changes.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>JB

Putting over-the-counter tags on a draw basis provides more individuals the opportunity to go hunting.

Bill Quimby
 
I gotta chime in on this one. Ever see the guy with a table and three cards? Lay your money down and get a good dose of deception. Its always all about the money! When the AZGFD got sued by the idiot from NM, how did they solve the problem? They raised the fees to non-residents and they did not stop there. Resident fees went up on a large percentage basis as well. Deer tags went from $19 to $34(?) and elk tags went from $78 to $121. Hunting license that everyone has to buy just to apply went from $25 to $34. Then the good one, the application fee went up 50% from $5 to $7.50 ($2.50 increase from $5) Explain to me how all that is going to help increase the number of hunters if that's their motive.

The deer tags had to decrease because of mother nature so the revenue dropped. Had to do something to get it back so they raise the fees, raise the application fee, kill the internet applications so they could go back to collecting the total tag amount to use for two months(interest)and increased the tags by creating more hunts at the same time cutting the seasons in half or less. See the pattern? They found a way to fill the cheap seats without you knowing it.

Then they feed this article to you telling you how much greater an opportunity you have to hunt. I participated in their survey of how to change things for the better and argued strongly not to manage by raising fees because hunting will return to nothing more than a rich mans game. Ya think they even opened my survey? My guess is not. They already had their mind made up with what they were going to do, but they let the public vent before they told you what their changes were going to be. Politics and show me the money.

You all have looked at the Macro side of hunting east vs. west, AZ vs national trends, etc. Lets look at a Micro situation. I used to ocean fish until a new friend got me back into hunting. He wanted to apply for deer and I agreed saying we would not get drawn (which is why I stopped hunting and started fishing. I knew I was going fishing EVERY year, but hunting was worse than a crap shoot) Then, dang if we didn't get drawn two years in a row so I was hooked on hunting again. Then four years of "Not Drawn" or "Not Successful"! Ahhhh!!! So I said crap, I'm going to Colorado to hunt. Once again I KNOW I'm hunting every year, but it costs a lot more. As long as I can afford it I accept CO hospitality "every year".

I fully understand that AZ has limited resources and certainly must limit the tags, but in the end, its always about the money. That line of thinking will reduce the number of hunters quicker than anything and they know it, but there is always someone in line who can pay so they don't care. I get the Diamondback comparison, why didn't you go hunting? Can't get drawn. Why not apply for an area where you can get drawn? Can't see the game (cause there ain't any there! Just like the OTC elk tags) but the AZGFD will certainly take your money.

One last thing if you have read this far. In my opinion, the AZGFD is trying to fix everything that is not broke, but refused to fix the one thing that is, the stupid draw system they have. What a joke! Wanna PO someone quick, give a tag to a first year applicant who does not have a clue and stiff the guy or gal who has applied for ten years and will treat the tag with the respect that it deserves. The first year guy is on MM, ahh, I got this tag, but I have never been in the area and I can't scout, can anyone tell me where the elk are? Preference point system would be more equitable, first in line is first in time.

Sorry Bill, you lost me when you refused to listen to reason by your stubborn stance on all sports except hunting and fishing. I appreciate the fact that you know how to hunt, but I think you are missing the boat because you are pretty set in your ways. I'm a bean counter and I know that statistics can be shaped to say anything you want them to. It all depends on the base number you divide by. Who decides what part of the population gets left out or put in because they either don't fit or they actually confirm your preconceived point. Take a look at who is providing all those numbers. The same shell game guys that are trying to pry every dollar they can from us. They will say, oh its bad, but look how we are making it better for you, while they got their hand in your back pocket. cha ching. What do you think the Governer's Tag / Raffle Tag is all about? The money. How about Wyoming's regulation that non-residents have to hire a guide in most cases? Guide's lobbied for the money.

I should sleep better tonight knowing I got all this out in the open. OK, I guess I am done. I kinda feel like Dennis Miller.
Good night all
264X300
 
>>The basis of the article, IMO,
>>was based around increasing hunter
>>opportunity, but I don't see
>>how putting OTC tags on
>>draw basis accomplishes this.
>>There is no greater opportunity
>>than unlimited OTC tags.
>>As Heat said, the opportunity
>>is there and still is,
>>but it certainly was not
>>increased. With that being
>>said, I was resistant to
>>the change, but have heard
>>great things about archery hunt
>>in 12A this year, so
>>I am warming up to
>>it. Fewer people, deer
>>are more relaxed and just
>>an overall improvement in quality
>>of hunt. And I
>>still don't like how the
>>AZGF acquired the harvest data
>>(phone in). If they
>>wanted a more accurate count,
>>they should have gone back
>>to the mandatory check stations
>>and overall increased presence of
>>wardens out and about in
>>the field.
>>
>>It is what it is, so
>>all we can do is
>>let it run its course
>>for a few years and
>>see how it effects the
>>data inputs used to make
>>the changes.
>>
>>Just my opinion.
>>
>>JB
>
>Putting over-the-counter tags on a draw
>basis provides more individuals
>the opportunity to go hunting.
>
>
>Bill Quimby

How? Unlimted opportunity versus limited opportunity. I still don't see it. Sure it's archery, but it's still an unlimited opportunity. Please help me out on your reasoning.

JB
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08 AT 09:51AM (MST)[p]>>How? Unlimted opportunity versus limited opportunity. I still don't see it. Sure it's archery, but it's still an unlimited opportunity. Please help me out on your reasoning.<<

Because 53% of the ones who hunt with an OTC archery tags ALSO apply for general season permits. With archery tags on a draw, they can't do that -- i.e. one draw permit per year. IOW,no double dipping.

So...rather than ONE person hunting many days, you have TWO people hunting fewer days because someone else then gets the draw permit for the general season. And that is what G&F means by increasing opportunities -- to get MORE DIFFERENT hunters in the field. -TONY
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08 AT 10:02AM (MST)[p]Here are some figures that might help quell the notion that there were fewer hunters afield 30 years ago in 1978 than there are now, and that hunting was better then. The # after the year are the # of permits available. Enjoy. -TONY

Deer - General
1978 - 81675
1979 - 78215
1980 - 79409
1981 - 77755
1982 - 83045
1983 - 94285
1984 - 92545
1985 - 92345
1986 - 94871
1987 - 87340
1988 - 79135
1989 - 75925
1990 - 76620
1991 - 68304
1992 - 68910
1993 - 70348
1994 - 68849
1995 - 63708
1996 - 57570
1997 - 51222
1998 - 46694
1999 - 47065
2000 - 46072
2001 - 44978
2002 - 42020
2003 - 37260
2004 - 36665
2005 - 37918
2006 - 38138
2007 - 39834

1978 ? 81675
2007 ? 39834
Minus ? 41,841
1978 Success- General ? 16%
2006 Success- General ? 26%

Archery Deer
1978 - 7313
1979 - 8425
1980 - 7157
1981 - 9814
1982 - 5109
1983 - 11934
1984 - 12628
1985 - 14249
1986 - 16554
1987 - 18666
1988 - 20883
1989 - 22399
1990 - 22398
1991 - 20324
1992 - 18883
1993 - 21580
1994 - 23445
1995 - 23329
1996 - 23568
1997 - 23166
1998 - 23022
1999 - 24293
2000 - 25338
2001 - 23783
2002 - 23082
2003 - 22447
2004 - 22675
2005 - 22949
2006 - 24538

1978 ? 7313
2006 ? 24538
Plus ? 17225
1978 Success ? 5%
2006 Success ? 7%

OVERALL DEER ? MINUS 24,616

Pronghorn
1978 - 880
1979 - 844
1980 - 713
1981 - 730
1982 - 835
1983 - 834
1984 - 841
1985 - 780
1986 - 740
1987 - 591
1988 - 647
1989 - 647
1990 - 601
1991 - 574
1992 - 528
1993 - 645
1994 - 652
1995 - 656
1996 - 651
1997 - 556
1998 - 543
1999 - 497
2000 - 459
2001 - 450
2002 - 437
2003 - 360
2004 - 353
2005 - 422
2006 - 455
2007 - 473

1978 ? 880
2007 ? 473
Minus - 407
1978 Success ? 49%
2006 Success? 89%

Archery Antelope
1978 - 160
1979 - 210
1980 - 225
1981 - 225
1982 - 236
1983 - 289
1984 - 339
1985 - 364
1986 - 423
1987 - 473
1988 - 497
1989 - 508
1990 - 484
1991 - 549
1992 - 657
1993 - 666
1994 - 683
1995 - 671
1996 - 611
1997 - 585
1998 - 587
1999 - 588
2000 - 558
2001 - 536
2002 - 514
2003 - 433
2004 - 416
2005 - 415
2006 - 400
2007 - 399

1978 ? 160
2007 ? 399
Plus ? 239
1978 Success ? 9.2%
2007 Success ? 24%

OVERALL Antelope
1978 ? 1040
2007 ? 872
MINUS - 168


ELK
1978 - 5935
1979 - 5800
1980 - 5850
1981 - 5385
1982 - 5720
1983 - 6060
1984 - 6005
1985 - 6730
1986 - 6385
1987 - 6300
1988 - 6955
1989 - 7975
1990 - 8585
1991 - 9718
1992 - 10491
1993 - 11579
1994 - 14683
1995 - 14891
1996 - 14229
1997 - 11683
1998 - 12110
1999 - 15538
2000 - 15460
2001 - 18285
2002 - 16265
2003 - 13402
2004 - 14967
2005 - 15856
2006 - 16321
2007 ? 16848

1978 ? 5935
2007 - 16848
Plus - 10913
1978 Success ? 29%
2006 Success ? 40%

Archery Elk
1978 - 2865
1979 - 2990
1980 - 3450
1981 - 2925
1982 - 3600
1983 - 3935
1984 - 3760
1985 - 3810
1986 - 3699
1987 - 3680
1988 - 3615
1989 - 3925
1990 - 4230
1991 - 4806
1992 - 5315
1993 - 5318
1994 - 6880
1995 - 6780
1996 - 5756
1997 - 6151
1998 - 5386
1999 - 5440
2000 - 7168
2001 - 8507
2002 - 5827
2003 - 6708
2004 - 5577
2005 - 6676
2006 - 6510
2007 - 5132

1978 ? 2865
2007 ? 5132
Plus ? 2267
1978 Success ? 6%
2007 Success ? 29%

OVERALL Elk
1978 ? 8840
2007 ? 21980
PLUS ? 13140

Javelina
1978 - 19950
1979 - 18560
1980 - 17460
1981 - 15785
1982 - 15355
1983 - 15170
1984 - 16120
1985 - 15145
1986 - 15975
1987 - 15890
1988 - 15885
1989 - 15310
1990 - 14325
1991 - 13225
1992 - 13800
1993 - 13880
1994 - 13915
1995 - 13440
1996 - 13360
1997 - 12620
1998 - 12410
1999 - 12200
2000 - 12195
2001 - 12105
2002 - 11705
2003 - 11900
2004 - 11300
2005 - 11090
2006 - 11145
2007 - 11500

1978 ? 19950
2007 ? 11500
Minus - 8450
1978 Success ? 22%
2007 Success ? 26%

HAM
1978 - 1700
1979 - 1850
1980 - 3000
1981 - 3750
1982 - 3850
1983 - 5990
1984 - 6375
1985 - 8180
1986 - 7620
1987 - 8200
1988 - 6500
1989 - 6075
1990 - 6980
1991 - 7340
1992 - 6740
1993 - 7665
1994 - 8150
1995 - 8070
1996 - 8210
1997 - 8360
1998 - 7685
1999 - 7760
2000 - 7260
2001 - 6775
2002 - 6600
2003 - 7050
2004 - 6550
2005 - 6500
2006 - 6400
2007 - 5465

1978 ? 1700
2007 ? 5465
Plus ? 3765
1978 Success ? 11%
2008 Success ? 19%

OVERALL Javelina
1978 ? 21650
2007 ? 16965
Minus ? 4685

So here?s what we have:
Deer ? Minus 24,616
Lope ? Minus 168
Elk ? Plus 13,140
Pig ? Minus 4,685

Total ? Minus 16,329 hunters afield when comparing 1978 to 2006/07. Also note when looking at the success rates between 1978 and 2007 they do NOT compute to the lesser ?quality? aspect. And obviously the trophy size quality since 1978 hasn't diminished either if we look at the many outstanding 'lope, elk and deer killed in AZ over the last decade.

The historic high for quail hunters was 1979 when more than 100,000 went afield. Here are some figures on quail hunters for the past decade or so that actually show quite a drop from 30 years ago.

1995 68,661
1996 56,946
1997 49,328
1998 60,639
1999 60,104
2000 47,885
2001 52,432
2002 41,312
2003 51,511
2004 44,142
2005 74,991
2006 66,482
 
>LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08
>AT 09:51?AM (MST)
>
>>>How? Unlimted opportunity versus limited opportunity. I still don't see it. Sure it's archery, but it's still an unlimited opportunity. Please help me out on your reasoning.<<
>
>Because 53% of the ones who
>hunt with an OTC archery
>tags ALSO apply for general
>season permits. With archery tags
>on a draw, they can't
>do that -- i.e. one
>draw permit per year. IOW,no
>double dipping.
>
>So...rather than ONE person hunting many
>days, you have TWO people
>hunting fewer days because someone
>else then gets the draw
>permit for the general season.
>And that is what G&F
>means by increasing opportunities --
>to get MORE DIFFERENT hunters
>in the field. -TONY

Thanks Tony, I was looking at it from that perspective. I was just looking at it by shear # of available permits (i.e. unlimited meaning anyone can go).


JB
 
Yeah, a lot of people have the same understanding of what G&F meant by "more opportunities."

This is also why some seasons were shortened and others added.
And why some seasons with high success rates had permits cut and moved to seasons with lower success rates. By doing that, more than double the number of permits were possible because of the lower success rate, which is often 1/2 as much.

So if you take 400 permits from a late Dec. hunt with 50% success and move them to one with 25% success, they can actually add 800 permits to the latter and achieve same harvest goal for that unit. -TONY
 
Hello OutdoorWriter,
Thank you for collecting some actual data. I will assume that your source is accurate and will not challenge the numbers.

Hmmm, so it appears that, except for elk tags, there are indeed fewer tags sold today, than there were thirty years ago.

HOWEVER, what these numbers do not reflect is the reason for the reduction of many of these tags. My assertion is that these tags were not sold because they were not available. Not because they were not wanted.

If I recall correctly, the reason the AZGF went to a draw for archery deer tags, all javelina tags, all turkey tags, was to REDUCE the impact on the resource. I.E., there were too many people buying the tags and the resource could not sustain the demand.

You don't see many leftover tags anymore, even in the crappy units! Remember how many whitetail tags used to go unsold in the southern part of the state?

I do agree with one point Mr. Quimby made earlier. We need to fight to keep all access to all public land OPEN. It should be illegal to post any section of private land, if doing so denies access to the public land behind it. We should also petition the Forest Service to re-open most of the roads they have closed in the last ten years.

When I started hunting over forty years ago, I could buy a rifle deer, pig, and turkey tag over the counter. Drawing an antelope tag has never been easy but it was at least possible back then. Getting an elk tag has always eluded me, but I am just extremely unlucky in that regard.

Using the "DiamondBacks tickets" anology, I have no desire to buy tickets to a baseball game I can't see, or buy a tag for game that is not there (OTC Elk tag)!

I used to apply for, and usually drew, a rifle deer tag AND buy an OTC archery deer tag. Now, due to the crowds, declining numbers of deer, and declining access to places I used to hunt unchallenged, I have virtually no interest in either. I haven't hunted quail or dove in years for the same reasons.

Finally, the wildlife resource is finite.
There is no doubt that the demand for that resource has continued to grow at an astronomical rate.
If the AZGF wants my opinion, I would go for quality, over quantity, every time.

ElkChaser
 
In my opinion, for as little as it is worth, this whole "opportunity" system is a double edged sword. I support and understand the position on keeping our hunting heritage alive and well for future generations, however. I seriuosly doubt that we will ever have a shortage of hunters. Statistics show that there are considerably more applicants than permits,supply and demand theory.
I also understand the G&F position on increasing revenue, especially in light of the fact that the State of Arizona keeps dipping into the funds of various other State departments to the tune of millions of dollars to help offset the State budget deficit.
The G&F department is not the "bad guy" I respect the hardworking guys and gals of the department, but it is no big secret that I do not have an ounce of respect for the G&F commission, the commissioners are the ultimate decision makers and time and again they have ignored sound biological and statistical data, ignored surveys, ignored requests from large sportsman groups and on and on! Don't think for a moment that the commission cares about you and me, they don't. I have seen it up close and personal at a meeting. Never again will I attend any of the commission "dog and pony" shows. They are legally required to have these public meetings, but I feel that they do not really care what Joe public has to say, but what else can you expect from a government agency?
There are really only two ways for G&F to increase revenues, increase license and permit costs and, or, increase he amount of permits. Hunters are going to complain either way, there is simply no way to make everyone happy.
I have no idea yet if this new opportunity system is a good or bad thing. Hopefully after this years hunts are concluded there will be reliable statistics to analyze and see (numbers can be manipulated), I do like the fact that they are seperating the mule deer and whitetail seasons to spread the hunters out and not combining seasons. You should have seen unit 30B last year, it was a freaking zoo! It is an undersubscibed unit with too many permits and too much private land. The huntable loactions are way overcrowded as it is.
I pray that the increase in permits does not have a dramatic effect on the older age class buck population. Look what happened in New Mexico years ago when they still had over the counter deer permits in some areas, those units are still recovering from overhunting.
Personally I like the opportunity to hunt, but I would rather pay more money for licenses and permits and have an occasional quality hunt than to compete with too many hunters for fewer deer, as I have no desire to shoot young deer anymore.
I do hope that a preference point system is put into effect some day, it works well for Colorado. Stand in line and wait your turn.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08 AT 03:25PM (MST)[p]Brent,

Your opinion is worth no more or no less than anyone else's.

As you no doubt realize from reading what I've posted on CWT.com over the last year or so, mine differs on many of the issued you raised. So there's no use repeating any of it here.

Maybe some day we can sit next to a campfire and discuss it. -TONY
 
>LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08
>AT 03:25?PM (MST)
>
>Brent,
>
>Your opinion is worth no more
>or no less than anyone
>else's.
>
>As you no doubt realize from
>reading what I've posted on
>CWT.com over the last year
>or so, mine differs on
>many of the issued you
>raised. So there's no use
>repeating any of it here.
>
>
>Maybe some day we can sit
>next to a campfire and
>discuss it. -TONY

Certainly! I always respect your insight,opinion, and the knowledge you have gained over the years. The bad side of these G&F issues is that so many hunters disagree over one thing or another. Whatever happens to the future of hunting, I hope that a happy medium can be found.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-08 AT 05:07PM (MST)[p]>Hello OutdoorWriter,
>Thank you for collecting some actual
>data. I will assume that
>your source is accurate and
>will not challenge the numbers.
>

The source of the figures is available for anyone who wants it in the HUNT ARIZONA booklet at http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/hunting/Hunt_AZ_2008.pdf

>
>Hmmm, so it appears that, except
>for elk tags, there are
>indeed fewer tags sold today,
>than there were thirty years
>ago.

Yup.

>
>HOWEVER, what these numbers do not
>reflect is the reason for
>the reduction of many of
>these tags. My assertion is
>that these tags were not
>sold because they were not
>available. Not because they were
>not wanted.

The reason is actually irrelevent to the fact that there are fewer hunters afield today as there were 30 years ago, contrary to what was stated with "I have not yet gathered the precise data and yes, draw deer tags HAVE been reduced recently due to the drought but, overall, there are far more hunters in the field these days than there has ever been."

Likewise for the number of quail hunters, which are less than 3/4 what there were.

>
>If I recall correctly, the reason
>the AZGF went to a
>draw for archery deer tags,
>all javelina tags, all turkey
>tags, was to REDUCE the
>impact on the resource. I.E.,
>there were too many people
>buying the tags and the
>resource could not sustain the
>demand.

Sorta. Protecting the resource can take many directions. You can still sell the same number of tags but spread out hunters better. That's what basically occurred when deer were first put to a draw. It was pretty much the same with javelina, where entire herds in some units were getting wiped out because of 'buddy' hunting.


>
>You don't see many leftover tags
>anymore, even in the crappy
>units! Remember how many whitetail
>tags used to go unsold
>in the southern part of
>the state?
>

Yup. Getting a whitetail tag was rarely a problem. Geez, I even remember in 1960s when I was able to get a Kaibab permit every year. Getting a whitetail permit probably wouldn't be a problem now if we still had 85,000 permits available. But unless there's some sort of miracle, those days will likely never happen again.


>I do agree with one point
>Mr. Quimby made earlier. We
>need to fight to keep
>all access to all public
>land OPEN. It should be
>illegal to post any section
>of private land, if doing
>so denies access to the
>public land behind it. We
>should also petition the Forest
>Service to re-open most of
>the roads they have closed
>in the last ten years.
>

Agreed, though I have mixed emotions about re-opening all of the roads on FS lands.

>
>When I started hunting over forty
>years ago, I could buy
>a rifle deer, pig, and
>turkey tag over the counter.
>Drawing an antelope tag has
>never been easy but it
>was at least possible back
>then. Getting an elk tag
>has always eluded me, but
>I am just extremely unlucky
>in that regard.

Been there; done that. I've even had three rifle and two archery elk permits. The only ones that have alluded me are desert bighorn and bison, but I didn't start applying for the latter until 4 years ago.

>
>Using the "DiamondBacks tickets" anology, I
>have no desire to buy
>tickets to a baseball game
>I can't see, or buy
>a tag for game that
>is not there (OTC Elk
>tag)!

Those permits come as advertised. No one is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. G&F plainly states that they will be difficult areas to kill an elk. The hunts are meant to REMOVE elk from habitats where they aren't wanted; nothing more, nothing less. And geez, unless you get a governor's permit, what other one would let you hunt almost year-round??

That said, I know of a few guys who actually got to see the game, even though they were sitting behind the foul pole. ;-)

>
>Finally, the wildlife resource is finite.
>
>There is no doubt that the
>demand for that resource has
>continued to grow at an
>astronomical rate.
>If the AZGF wants my opinion,
>I would go for quality,
>over quantity, every time.
>
>ElkChaser

It's only finite to the point it can't be replaced with recruitment. As long as the total harvest doesn't infringe on that recruitment, i.e. excessive doe hunts, we should be on safe ground.

Quality is nice, but management takes in more than just game. It also involves social engineering, so to speak -- keeping more than one segment of the hunting public happy. So it's all a juggling act of sorts -- please the most people while conserving the resource at the same time. Too often, it amounts to damn if you do and damn if you don't. :) -TONY
 
Hello OutdoorWriter/ Bill Quimby/ and all the other contributors to this post!

For many reasons, and in many ways, this has been a particularly interesting, and rewarding, exchange.

I have been mistaken in some of my presumptions. I really hate to admit that and it doesn't happen very often!

This has caused me to really think about some of my presumptions, and why I feel the way I do about these issues.

This has also rekindled some of the old spark that I feared had been lost for good.

It has been a pleasure to have this exchange with some folks that are:
1) knowledgeable
2) willing and prepared to research the facts
3) willing to present their case respectfully
4) willing to consider an alternate opinion

Thank you for taking the time to respond!

ElkChaser
 
>Hello OutdoorWriter/ Bill Quimby/ and all
>the other contributors to this
>post!
>
>For many reasons, and in many
>ways, this has been a
>particularly interesting, and rewarding, exchange.
>
>
>I have been mistaken in some
>of my presumptions. I really
>hate to admit that and
>it doesn't happen very often!
>
>
>This has caused me to really
>think about some of my
>presumptions, and why I feel
>the way I do about
>these issues.
>
>This has also rekindled some of
>the old spark that I
>feared had been lost for
>good.
>
>It has been a pleasure to
>have this exchange with some
>folks that are:
>1) knowledgeable
>2) willing and prepared to research
>the facts
>3) willing to present their case
>respectfully
>4) willing to consider an alternate
>opinion
>
>Thank you for taking the time
>to respond!
>
>ElkChaser

ElkChaser:

It takes a real man to write that! I salute you.

In my seventy two years I've seen hunters go from being respected members of society to being viewed by the majority of America's 360-million-plus people as anachronisms -- participants in an activity that has no reason for existing in modern society.

I shudder to think of what will happen when the animal rights groups find an intelligent and articulate leader who decides it is time to seriously go after us.

Bill Quimby
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-08 AT 05:03PM (MST)[p]ElkChaser,

A civil discussion of issues, including controversial ones, is always healthy, and everyone will usually learn something. The whole key is sticking to the issues and not turning a discussion into a personal one with name-calling, etc.

When that happens, I just tune out. I recently quit posting all together on one site where that happened.

As for Quimby, he's older than dirt and I'm not too far behind him. But he's been put away wet a lot more than I have been. :)

Also, I bet if we had a dollar for every minute we have spent doing research for our writing, we would be able to buy a few tanks of gas. Well, maybe one anyway. :-( -TONY
 
I have a question - would there need to be a law passed in order for the G&F to pay bounties on predators? I know that all we hear about from the G&F is drought, drought drought. In fact I have heard this word so much from them I have drought coming out of my ears and am about ready to drown in drought. But back to my question. I think we all know that since the '92 law banning trapping on public property the number of predators have gone up significantly. Could the G&F make the decision to pay bounties on predators on their own or would a law have to be passed in order for them to do this? I would think a reduction in predators would result in increased opportunity within a couple of years.
 
>I have a question - would
>there need to be a
>law passed in order for
>the G&F to pay bounties
>on predators? I know
>that all we hear about
>from the G&F is drought,
>drought drought. In fact
>I have heard this word
>so much from them I
>have drought coming out of
>my ears and am about
>ready to drown in drought.
> But back to my
>question. I think we
>all know that since the
>'92 law banning trapping on
>public property the number of
>predators have gone up significantly.
> Could the G&F make
>the decision to pay bounties
>on predators on their own
>or would a law have
>to be passed in order
>for them to do this?
> I would think a
>reduction in predators would result
>in increased opportunity within a
>couple of years.

The Arizona Livestock Sanitary Board paid $50 bounties for the scalps of mountain lions until about 1969, 70 or 71 (I've forgotten the exact year, so don't hold me to these) when lions were officially classified as a big game animal and their management became the Game and Fish Department's responsibility.

I campaigned for this change in my Tucson Citizen outdoor columns, and still believe it was the right thing to do.

To my knowledge the AZGFD has never paid bounties on any animal, at least not since 1946 when I first started hunting as a boy in Yuma.

Bounties on coyotes in antelope country prior to the fawning period probably would show immediate positive results, but I seriously doubt that the public today would stand still for any Arizona agency paying bounties on any animal, or that any agency director or commission/board would be bold enough to try to open that can of worms.

Bill Quimby

P.S. I hate the "drought" excuse, too. Drought is normal in our desert state. The unusually heavy rains we've had here in Greer all summer is great but it's not normal.

And Tony, your calm, informed, and well-reasoned comments are missed on that other site. I don't know if you know it, but I complained to the site owner about the way you were treated. Please visit it again. Not all the members are jerks.
 
Nice idea ASUcoues. Is it legal for a private group to offer predator bounties? I think most AZ hunters would gladly donate money to reduce the number of predators. I think everyone here will agree that a reduction in coyotes and mountain lions in thier unit would result in an increase in game. Considering the money for tags, stamps, licences, and everything else involved with chasing game, whats a donation of $5-$10 bucks to go towards a pool for bounties. If you set up a LLC and put a stand in front of Cabelas, Sportsmans, Bass Pro, I think you could get enough money to keep the predator hunters in gas money. What do you boys think????? Is it legal?
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-09-08 AT 06:43PM (MST)[p]>>P.S. I hate the "drought" excuse, too. Drought is normal in our desert state. The unusually heavy rains we've had here in Greer all summer is great but it's not normal. <<

Bill,

"Drought" is a relative term. Even though much of AZ is a desert, it still has an historic average annual rainfall, just as the coastal rain forests do. When that average drops dramatically for a decade or more, the result is a drought, regardless of where it occurs.

For deer, it can be even worse if whatever rain does fall, does so at the wrong time of the year or in a way where it does little good.

As a hypothetical example of the latter, let's say our annual average is 7 inches, and we get that much in 6 hrs. Most of it will be wasted because it would basically flood our watersheds and wind up flowing into the rivers, reservoirs and Sea of Cortez. The ground would absorb very little of it. Then if we get no more rain for the rest of the year, wildlife would be in a heap of trouble. -TONY
 
Tony and Q - I go by Sundevil on the other site. I sincerely hope that 1) any comments I have made based on differences of opinion have not kept you from frequenting that site and 2) I am not being thrown in and classified in the jerk category.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 11:41AM (MST)[p]elkchaserreturns,

Here's a bit more info on the # of hunters. I had a contact at AZG&F pull a few historical annual reports to get the # of licenses sold. I didn't use the most recent where buying a license to apply for a permit was mandatory, however.

Here are a few years.

1977-78
Resident Hunt ---------- 80,084
Resident Hunt/Fish ----- 96,109
NonResident Hunt ------ 10,107
NonResident Hunt/Fish ---- 492
_____________________________
Total ------------------------- 186,855

1983-84

Resident Hunt ---------- 87,367
Resident Hunt/Fish ----- 93,564
NonResident Hunt ------- 5,665
NonResident Hunt/Fish ---- 141
NonResident 3-day ------- 4093 (Dove/Quail Hunters)
____________________________
Total ------------------------- 190,830

2005-06

Resident Hunt ---------- 64,353
Resident Hunt/Fish ----- 74,314
NonResident Hunt ------ 22,733
NonResident Hunt/Fish ---- 789
NonResident 3-day ------- 7,440 (Dove/Quail Hunters)
Youth Hunt/Fish --------- 23,335
___________________________
Total ------------------------- 192,964

Now, note there was no Youth license or 3-day NR one in 1977-78.
Also, althought it appears there were more licensed hunters in 2005-06, that total is quite skewed by the NR Hunt and Youth figures.

The NRHunt reflects many sales where they likely never hunted in AZ but bought a license so they obtained a bonus point for whatever species they had applied for. Actually, given the NR permit cap, 10% plus or minus a few hundred allowing for birds, etc. would be close to the number that hunted.

As for the youth total, that reflects two things:

The initiation of youth-only hunts, which weren't around in 1978. I will also speculate parents want them to build BPs, as well.

So once again, it appears there are fewer hunters overall going afield more recently than 30 years ago. -TONY
 
Tony:

Our 20-year-old grandson, who decided years ago after hunting deer and javelinas that hunting doesn't interest him, drove up from Tucson for a few days last month to visit us at our cabin.

When I went to buy him a license so he could fish the Little Colorado, we were told at Greer's Tin Star Trading Post that it was cheaper to buy a combination hunting/fishing license than a fishing license and trout stamp.

I bought him a combo license as suggested.

The point is, there probably are even fewer hunters in Arizona now than the license sales info indicates.

Bill Quimby
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-08 AT 08:00AM (MST)[p]Bill,

Yup, the combo license is actually a good deal. For an adult (over 18) who only wants to fish it's actually not cheaper, but it's certainly close to the same.

In contrast, for someone who hunts AND fishes for warm/cold water species, it's a real bargain.

Here's the cost breakdown:

Resident Fish $23.50 plus $15.75 for trout stamp = $49.25

Resident combo $54

The total for buying everything separately:

Resident Hunt - $32.25
Resident Fish -- $23.50
Trout Stamp --- $15.75
___________________
Total ----------- $81.50
Saving with combo $27.50


That said, the number of combo licenses sold likely does include some who only fish, or at least those who only fish but think they might go hunting at some point.

I always buy a combo license, but for the last 6 years, I haven't hunted ONE SINGLE day in AZ because I quit hunting with a bow, haven't drawn a big-game permit and stopped chasing birds years ago. That will change this year because I got one of the leftover WT permits for the Nov. 28 season in 36B. -TONY
 
Hi Tony:

He got a youth combo license for $26.50, which is a real bargain but pricey considering he fished just one day. At age 20, it's the last year he is eligible.

Next year, we'll try the Apache reservation and I'll buy daily licenses for both of us that will cost less than a resident fishing license and trout stamp for one adult.

I have not drawn the tags to do much hunting in Arizona in recent years, either, but I did draw a mule deer tag in unit 32 this year.
.

Haven't been able to pull a bow since a pickup truck fell on my left arm during my sheep hunt in 1993, and swatting little birds has never interested me.

Bill Quimby
 
A pickup truck fell on your arm? I would like to hear the story behind that! Were you changing a bad tire?
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-12-08 AT 04:10PM (MST)[p]Bill,

Oh, I thought the youth license ended at 18. Then, yes, he got a super deal!

I started hunting with a bow in the 1960s, using a 45# Ben Pearson recurve and wooden arrows. The only critters I ever killed were a couple javelina and a rabbit or two. I then quit bowhunting in the 1970s but eventually got back into it in the early 1990s with the new-fangled PSE bows. I did it for about a decade but sold both my compounds in 2002 to help finance my trip to Africa. -TONY
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-13-08 AT 12:10PM (MST)[p]Brent,

Been meaning to ask you:

Where and when are you hunting deer this fall?? -TONY
 
I finally got drawn for my Unit 27 whitetail tag and will be up there the last week in October 22-30, then I will be heading straight for New Mexico Unit 23 just across the border for a five day Muley hunt and be back on Nov 6th. Hopefully it turns into a full 2 week vacation in which I am sorely in need of.
What are your hunting plans?
 
Only thing I have going is the WT hunt in 36B from Nov. 28-Dec. 4. My 45-yr old son Keith also has a permit and will be along.

We'll probably camp somewhere south of the Ruby Rd on the Warsaw Canyon Rd. I plan to head down the week between the seasons to find a decent camp spot and will likely have the GPS coordinates. I just need to learn how to use my new-fangled GPS unit. :D

So if you have nothing to do for a day or two, come on by for a visit. We'll have plenty of food, and if you want to overnight, there's plenty of room in our homemade tent. All you need to bring is a cot and sleeping bag. -TONY
 
Sounds great. I will do my best to stop by for a day or two. Your son is only a year younger than me. I'll bring a few cocktails and some awesome steaks. Let me know when you find your spot. I live 10 minutes from Green Valley and maybe and hour and change from Warsaw.

Brent.
 
Yeah, I knew you lived fairly close. That's why I suggested it. If nothing else, we can talk about woodworking. (g)

We'll be heading down there early Thanksgiving Day. Although we'll hunt, it'll probably really crowded over the weekend. So the best hunting will likely be from Mon. on. One thing I'm hoping to get in addition to a buck is a coati. -TONY
 
I am only about 10-15 minutes off of I-19 so if you need a stopping point or any help let me know. I have never had much luck seeing Coatis, in my 35 years of hunting Arizona, I have only seen them once.-Brent.
 
We hunted in a different area the last time we had permits in 36B 6 years ago. But the last time we hunted in Warsaw about 8 years ago, we were making our way to a high glassing point and walked up on a whole bunch of them in one draw. We didn't count, but there had to be at least 20 of them in all.

I could've killed one easily but wasn't sure if the season was open. I later found out it was. Too late.

I want to get one mounted life-size, maybe climbing a tree or such.

I have a friend from Anchorage, AK who recently bought a place in Sahuarita, but they only spend the winter months there. His name is Matt Scully; know him? -TONY
 
<<<<<<<"A pickup truck fell on your arm? I would like to hear the story behind that! Were you changing a bad tire?" >>>>>>>>

I've written about it in Petersen's Hunting, Safari, the Tucson Citizen, and my book ("Sixty Years A Hunter", Safari Press, due out early 2009) but here it is again:

After applying 39 consecutive years I drew a desert sheep tag in 1993.

One month before the season opened, my eight-month-old truck was stolen. In the glove box was my sheep tag. Game and Fish issued a duplicate after much hard-assing, and Farmers gave me a check that allowed me to buy a new truck in time for the season. Also stolen with the truck was a pair of 10x50 Swarovski binocs, a handgun, two expensive walkie-talkies tools, two Nikon camera bodies, and about $2,000 worth of lenses. Farmers also paid to replace all of these items, except the handgun and radios, which were not covered by my homeowners policy.

Rocks punctured a tire on Day 2 of the hunt, and I was changing it when the HiLift jack slipped off the bumper. My left arm was caught above the tire when the fender well dropped, and I suddenly had compound fractures of both long bones in that arm.

We were 45 minutes from pavement in the Little Horn Mountains and one hour from Phoenix. Friends who were with me drove me to a hospital in West Phoenix, where steel plates were installed in the arm early the next morning and we returned to our camp that afternoon with my arm in a cast from my shoulder to my wrist.

I passed up twelve smaller sheep before shooting a fair ram nine days later by resting my rifle on a backpack and firing my 7 mm Rem Mag one-handed. Both of my shots hit the running ram 75 yards away. It completed my Arizona Big Ten.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill, I killed a ram in the little horns in 1986. I was sixteen years old. On another note in 1997 a friend was hunting sheep on Xmas day in the Kofas, he fell and broke his leg in three places. He laid on the hill for two days before my dad found him. He was almost dead. On that same hunt the former mayor of Yuma wandered into our camp around 8:00 pm. He had been lost and wandering for several days.
 
Thats incredible! Going out to hunt the next day after all that and still kill a ram on that hunt. You and Tony always have great stories. I can't wait to read your book.
On May 28th of this year I lost the top third of my thumb in a work accident and tried to go back to work the next day on pain killers and it was no fun, as I have a job that I wish I had three hands,let alone trying to work with one, I can't imagine what a sheep hunt would be like with a torn up arm and broken bones in a cast.
 
>Bill, I killed a ram in
>the little horns in 1986.
>I was sixteen years old.
>On another note in 1997
>a friend was hunting sheep
>on Xmas day in the
>Kofas, he fell and broke
>his leg in three places.
>He laid on the hill
>for two days before my
>dad found him. He was
>almost dead. On that same
>hunt the former mayor of
>Yuma wandered into our camp
>around 8:00 pm. He had
>been lost and wandering for
>several days.


Was the hunter who broke his leg Pete Knagge? I knew Pete had broken his leg on his sheep hunt and that he also went back out and shot a ram, but I didn't think it was in the Kofas.

Bill Quimby
 
> Thats incredible! Going out to
>hunt the next day after
>all that and still kill
>a ram on that hunt.
>You and Tony always have
>great stories. I can't wait
>to read your book.
> On May 28th of
>this year I lost the
>top third of my thumb
>in a work accident and
>tried to go back to
>work the next day on
>pain killers and it was
>no fun, as I have
>a job that I wish
>I had three hands,let alone
>trying to work with one,
>I can't imagine what a
>sheep hunt would be like
>with a torn up arm
>and broken bones in a
>cast.

The doctor gave me some super-strength pain pills, but I was extremely drowsy and out of it while taking them -- and every time I would fall asleep the most horrible nightmares imaginable would wake me up. After a morning of using those pills I switched to over-the-counter Tylenol.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill, it was a fellow named Larry Siddle who broke his leg and no he did not get a ram. He wound up having several operations on his leg afterwards.
 
Bill,

I recall you telling that tale of the one-armed kill before. It's still a good story.

The only time I came close to such a tale was in the early 1970s. While playing softball, I slid into third base and my spikes caught in the dirt. The leather of the shoe literally tore and I wound up with two broken bones in my foot. They put it in a walking cast in the emergency room.

I had a Kaibab permit for the following week. The day before I left, I went to my family doc and had him remove the cast, tape it securely and issue a prescription for more pain killers if they became necessary. So off I went to the Kaibab to hunt.

Although I had a few twinges of pain if I put my foot down a certain way, it wasn't too bad. I killed a small 4x4-pt buck down near Big Saddle on the second day. -TONY
 
>Bill,
>
>I recall you telling that tale
>of the one-armed kill before.
>It's still a good story.
>
>
>The only time I came close
>to such a tale was
>in the early 1970s. While
>playing softball, I slid into
>third base and my spikes
>caught in the dirt. The
>leather of the shoe literally
>tore and I wound up
>with two broken bones in
>my foot. They put it
>in a walking cast in
>the emergency room.
>
>I had a Kaibab permit for
>the following week. The day
>before I left, I went
>to my family doc and
>had him remove the cast,
>tape it securely and issue
>a prescription for more pain
>killers if they became necessary.
>So off I went to
>the Kaibab to hunt.
>
>Although I had a few twinges
>of pain if I put
>my foot down a certain
>way, it wasn't too bad.
>I killed a small 4x4-pt
>buck down near Big Saddle
>on the second day. -TONY
>

We hunters are crazy, aren't we?

Incidentally, my family hunted the Big Saddle country a couple of times in the early 1950s and took a couple of very good bucks there.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill,

Big Saddle Camp was a neat place, and reading the history of it is quite interesting. If I recall, Charlie "Buffalo" Jones was involved in it. That whole area was THE place to hunt during the Kaibab's glory days.

We actually camped right where the lodge was before Lady Bird Johnson had it all torn down as part of her "Beautify America" program.

There were still three wooden cabins with metal cots, and the main stone lodge with fireplace, table, chairs, etc. then. We stayed in one of the cabins and used the lodge for our kitchen and meals. There was also a screened-in affair where we hung deer. An old gas pump with the glass top sat right along the road.

One year when I had my customized 1953 Ford panel truck, we pulled in and stopped in front of one cabin. There was a 55-gal drum with trash on the side of it. A big bobcat was sitting on the rim of the can.

I had my Ruger Single-Six with the .22 mag cylinder in it under the seat. I pulled it out and rested it on the lower window frame. At the shot, the cat went 6' in the air and let out a blood-curdling snarl. By the time it hit the ground, it was dead.

I salted the hide, then drapped it over the clothesline in our backyard when I got home. The next day, it was literally nothing but tatters covered by a few hairs. My beagle pup got a hold of it and had torn it to shreds. -TONY
 
>>>>>>>>>>>I salted the hide, then drapped it over the clothesline in our backyard when I got home. The next day, it was literally nothing but tatters covered by a few hairs. My beagle pup got a hold of it and had torn it to shreds. -TONY>>>>>>>>>

A similar thing happened to the antlers of the best Arizona whitetail I ever shot. The rack was heavy, wide and tall, and covered with points ... a beautiful non-typical that looked like one of those freak saguaros. Problem was, it had held its velvet late for some reason and they still were a bit soft.

After skinning and cutting up the deer I stuck the rack on our corral fence. When I went to take the cape and antlers to a taxidermist the next day the antlers were gone!

Our German shorthair had eaten the tops off both sides by the time I found them! I hadn't photographed them, either.

What's left of them are in barrel where I store my old deer antlers and antelope horns, and whenever I see them I wonder just what they might have scored.

Bill Quimby
 
I found a big mule deer skull that still had flesh on it when I was young(late teens). So I decided to put it in a ant pile under my boat and trailer, so the ants would clean it up for me....Well several months later we hooked the boat up to go fishing and I forgot about the skull under the boat, the axles crushed the skull. The skull was a 34" 3x4
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-08 AT 05:59PM (MST)[p]I love this topic, but I respectfully disagree with most of the thoughts behind this article and what is being presented.

It sounds like one of the major issues behind increasing the # of tags, is trying to gain more hunters for future legislation and our hunting heritage. I completely understand all of the #'s Bill and Outdoor writer are presenting, and I agree that something does need to be done.

HOWEVER, increasing tags will not increase many new hunters in my mind, but only appease the complainers who cannot hunt every year! Maybe I'm wrong, but most people who have hunted X # of times in the last two decades will most likely support hunting legislation for the rest of their lives. According to this thinking, we need to target NEW hunters ONLY!

The real problem is recruiting new hunters, and I firmly think that increasing tags is BS, unless these are youth tags, or tags for those who have NEVER drawn a tag before! Bingo, new system, more youth tags, and special tags for new hunters. Try and implement it into schools or afterschool programs, or create new youth activities to increase participation. Maybe I'm over simplifying it, but don't smokescreen it with hunter #'s.

Second, we need better habitat management or some new projects to increase the resource. We need more deer, sure we can decrease success rates but that is not a quality hunt for anyone. This solution might be a little complicated and involved, including permits and FS approval. I don't have a great solution, but maybe set aside a special drawing for people who have given X # of hours to these special habitat projects, and draw a few tags for them, not for those who sit on their butt and complain.

I'm not one with all the solutions, but lets attack the real issues. I don't think simply increasing tag #'s, or decreasing success rates will solve either of the long term issues that seem to be at the root of the problem. We need to try and get more kids off of their video games, and into hunting. It's this simple minded, short term goal-type thinking that the G&F is implementing that upsets me. Try and come up with a better solution, a long term solution.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Sep-18-08
>AT 05:59?PM (MST)
>
>>>>>>>>>HOWEVER, increasing tags will not increase many new hunters in my mind, but only appease the complainers who cannot hunt every year! Maybe I'm wrong, but most people who have hunted X # of times in the last two decades will most likely support hunting legislation for the rest of their lives. According to this thinking, we need to target NEW hunters ONLY! >>>>>>>>>>


Maybe the way to make sure only new hunters get to hunt deer is to go back to a system that was in force years ago for elk and antelope: force us to wait three or four years after drawing a tag before we can apply again. NOT!

What we need is an active, well-organized and well-funded program to restore hunting access to our public lands. Only 12% of Arizona's 72.5 million acres is privately owned. The rest is in some form of public ownership. Take away the Park Service and tribal lands, and we still have a lot more than 30 million acres of land that should be available to us.

I doubt that anyone has ever tabulated how much of our public land is behind locked gates or road barricades, but I have a hunch it could be as high as 75% or even more.

Access is the real problem that denies more of us the opportunity to hunt a deer, not a lack of game.

We absolutely do need a great many new hunters, of course. I haven't looked it up in a while, but the percentage of American voters who had hunted sometime in their lifetimes was somewhere around 14% the last time I did.

I suspect it's not far from becoming a single digit now.

If that doesn't make you feel our heritage is threatened, I don't know what will.

Bill Quimby
 
Bill,

More new hunters are definitely necessary, BUT...(you'd knew there would be one, right?:)), most new hunters will come from the youngsters that are mentored by the oldsters. Thus, RETENTION of the oldsters is also a necessity, IMO. In fact, it's probably the most important aspect of the equation.

Below is a LAST SHOT column I did for AZ Hunter & Angler waaayyyy back in 1987. A lot in it still applies to the plight of today. -TONY


WE'RE LOSIN' 'EM

Copyright by Tony Mandile​


It's no big secret the number of hunters on a national level has declined over the last two decades. With the growth of many small cities into larger cities, a less rural population has resulted. This alone has cut hunter numbers. The seemingly parallel decline occurring in Arizona -- once considered to have a very "rural" population -- is even more distressing.

Unquestionably, the cities here have also grown rapidly. In the Phoenix metro area alone, the population has jumped from 900,000 in 1965 to 2.3 million now. The state's overall people count has increased proportionally, too. Yet, despite the huge influx of people into Arizona, the sales of hunting licenses have fallen substantially from historic highs.

At a recent Arizona Game and Fish Commission meeting, Education Branch Chief Kerry Baldwin explained the history of license sales. He cited a steady growth in license sales from World War II into the 1970s. The gas crisis of the 1970s signaled the peak of license sales growth relative to the changing population across the country. The key years appear to be 1970-71, when most of Arizona's big-game hunts went to a permit system.

Baldwin also pointed to the large drop in youngsters between 10 and 20 years old now getting into hunting. Overall only 5.6 percent of Arizona's residents bought licenses in 1987 compared to 9 percent of the total population in 1967. The number of youths buying licenses declined even worse.

Many factors have played a part in the overall decline. A poor economy, adverse weather and high gas prices have had noticeable but short-term effects over the years. Declines in specific game populations and regulation changes like the permit system played key roles, as well.

More discouraging, though, are the long-term variables -- the ones that will carry over for the coming decades and possibly predict the future of hunting in this country.

First, we have an aging population. This especially shows among licensed hunters because of the lower recruitment of youngsters. As more hunters get older and quit hunting altogether, fewer people will take their place in the outdoors.

Earlier, I mentioned the growth of cities. With this upsurge in a more urban population, fewer and fewer youngsters get to experience the outdoors on a firsthand basis. Instead, they watch the Discovery or Disney channel to learn about wildlife and the outdoors. By the time they become adults, their only experiences with live animals other than a domestic pet might come from a zoo.

Lifestyles have also changed drastically in the last 30 years. In many families both parents MUST work just to pay the bills. Thus, they have less free time for hunting. Instead, the adults take up golf, tennis, bowling or other pastimes -- ones they can enjoy close to home and over a few hours. To them, finding time to play 18 holes is a lot easier than finding a few days to hunt deer. These people spend a large part of their expendable income closer to home, too.

No doubt the current trend in the family makeup accounts for at least some of the lack of recruitment among youths, and it's less than encouraging:

* 30 percent of all children live in a one-parent family;

* 50 percent of all children will live with one parent by age 18;

* 90 percent of all single-parent families have a woman as the that parent;

* 10 percent of the population is comprised of 15-19 year olds;

* 93 percent of the hunters in Arizona are males.

Most juvenile hunters come from homes where hunting and fishing have been a traditional part of the adult family member's lifestyle, according to Baldwin. If juveniles do not participate in hunting or fishing by the time they hit 18 years old, they likely never will. The current surveys support this; 85 percent of current hunting license buyers started before they reached 18 years of age.

Many of my neighbors show just how true these statistics are. At least three families on my block consist of a divorced mother and one or more children. One lives across the street. The mother has been alone for nearly 12 years and somehow has made do on her earnings from two low paying jobs. She was determined to keep herself and three kids off the welfare roles.

When I first talked to the oldest boy nearly 10 years ago, James was 11. I had been outside packing my truck for a deer hunt, and James was cutting his front lawn. He shut down the lawnmower and walked across the street just to visit. During our conversation, I found out he had never hunted and fished only at the park about a mile away. He told me his mother simply never had time to take him. From what I already knew, she probably didn't have the money to spend on even the most minimal equipment either.

Two weeks after the deer hunt, I invited James into my house to see my collection of trophy mounts. They somewhat awed him at first. During the next few months, though, he became a regular visitor. He always enjoyed talking about my trips and looking at the photos from the successful ones.

All my kids are long gone, and I always have these leftover fishing rods, reels, lures, line, baseball hats and other sundry goodies, courtesy of the manufacturers. Plus, my closet contains at least 15 firearms, and I can only use one at a time.

So about five years ago I decided to "adopt" James. During one of his visits, I asked if he thought his mother would let him hunt. He said he didn't know but he would ask.

A day later, I heard a loud knock. When I opened door, James was standing there with a very big smile on his face.

"She said I can."

"She said you can what?" I asked.

"I can go hunting with you."

"Aha, now I understand. Good. But first things first. There's a thing or two we need to get done. I want you to take a hunter education course. Just tell your mom I'll take care of the registration fee and get you get to classes."

The next day I called the game department and got the dates for the next hunter ed class in our neighborhood. James and I attended together, and he graduated with flying colors. A week later, I took him out to the desert and let him shoot some clay birds with my 20 gauge shotgun. We made two more forays to the desert before I felt he had progressed enough to shoot at a live bird without becoming discouraged over missing. On the way home from that third trip, I stopped at a license dealer and bought James his first hunting and fishing license. The next weekend James killed a limit of doves. A week later, we went fishing at Lake Pleasant.

He was hooked.

James is now 20 and attending an out-of-town college on an academic scholarship. He's majoring in biology because he wants to be a wildlife researcher. Although he finds little time for hunting and fishing now, he still manages to stop by my house and reminisce whenever he comes home to see his mom. Naturally, his mother is proud of James' scholastic accomplishments -- and deservedly so.

I have no doubt the youngster will get back to hunting and fishing once he graduates. Before he left for school last August, he told me he would be home for the Thanksgiving holidays and would like to do a little quail hunting with me and my German shorthair if I have the time.

Of course, I made the time. If hunting is to survive, we need all the help we can get. James and youngsters like him represent the best help around.

----- 30 -----​
 
Great story, Tony! You are to be commended.

Few hunters are willing to take such a responsibility upon themselves in this litigation-crazy country.

I've introduced a number of kids to trout fishing in our Little Colorado River over the years, but I'm sorry to say I would reluctant to take someone else's child hunting unless I knew his/her family extremely well.

Bill Quimby
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-24-08 AT 12:28PM (MST)[p]Bill,

James was about 15 when that occurred. His mom moved sometime in 1998 or 1999, but he called me once in 2000 or 2001. I can't recall the state now, but he was somewhere in the Midwest working for that state's DNR. I haven't heard anything from him since then. -TONY
 

Similar threads

ridgetops
Early snow question
Replies
13
Views
652
txhunter58
txhunter58
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
760
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
J
Colorado CPW Commissioner Debate!
Replies
36
Views
2k
jims
J

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_7742 copy copy.jpg
20230305_171356.jpg
Screenshot_20230122_165334_Gallery.jpg
FB_IMG_1514767089922.jpg
IMG_27741.jpg
IMG_3185.jpeg
Screenshot_20220825-080730_Gallery.jpg
FCDA7E6F-2955-4D6D-9962-CD128F1F99FC.jpeg
aa1.JPG
IMG_8507.jpg
buck me.jpg
IMG_6251.jpeg

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