Random Units Closing in AZ?

quest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,195
I'm feeling like sparking up a conversation. Would like to hear your thoughts and opinions. So just what are any of your thoughts out there on random unit closing in AZ? Like for instance what if unit 10 (for deer) were closed for a season and then opened back up again the following year? Does any one out there think this would increase the deer herd and the age class in that unit? If that worked maybe other units would follow suit? Yea or Nay? Let's get the ball rolling . . . .
 
Yea! But I doubt AZGFD would do it. Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity,Opportunity, that's what most of the hunters want, so that's what we're doing.

Look what Utah did in the Henry's. It could work here, and 10 would be a good place to start. I saw a whooper up there 3 years ago on a late elk hunt.
 
Thats one of the best ideas ive heard in a long time. I know aof a few units I would like them to shut down for a few years.
 
You have a better chance of killing an Elk in Yuma than convincing the G&F to lower tag sales.
 
Maybe the AZGFD is worried about loss of funding? They could raise the fee up for example, (a deer tag for so many cents) Then they wouldn't loose any revenue or maybe its us? Just maybe some of us are afraid of loosing some hunting opportunity? Could some of us be interested in quality while others are interested in opportunity? If AZGFD would utilize this plan then us hunters just might benefit from both!!! What's your thoughts on this guys?
 
The same results of increasing the age class could be done in all units simultaneously by reducing the number of permits and allowng the buck:doe ratio and age classes to increase.

But the AZGFD commission just voted last Saturday to lower the buck;doe ratios in as a ways to be able to offer more permits and opportunity to hunt. Quantity over Quality. There is even displeasure over the management of the alternative deer management units.

Doug~RR
 
I would like to keep this topic going. What if we were to close blank units and at the same time go with what AZGFD plans on lowering the buck to doe ratios and allow those selected units to close to increase, age,quantity? Could we address those hunters out there that wont quantity and at the same time those who wont quality? What if we shorten the season for example deer, would this allow for older age class deer?
 
Sounds like a plan. You know something else that bothers me why dont they give out info on how many points were harvest in a unit? Like unit 10 so many 4x4,3x3,2x2(forkys)exc.
 
I understand this can be a highly debated subject, but I would be all for it. I would gladly pay increased tags fee's to help offset lost revenues if it made for more quality hunting opportunity. I feel this opportunity scenario is going to bite AZFG in the butt. However, if it is a simple and viable solution than you can be sure that AZGF won't go for it.
 
I seem to recall that a year or so ago, when the Az Game & Fish was involved with making other changes, some hunter group, maybe the Az. Deer Assoc., did a survey of hunters that included questions such as what did hunters want more opportunities to hunt or management to increase or maintain quality. What were the results of that survey? Is the Game & Fish doing something that the majority of hunters have already said they disagree with? Did this survey indicate that the average hunter wants more opportunities even if that means the overall quality is going to suffer? I would be interested in knowing the reluts of that survey and how well is was responded to.
 
I recently took a hunters education class with my son and I believe the instructor talked about that same thing. I was on the phone the other day with a Game Warden/Biologist, asking about my unit and about closing units. He replied, the reason is because most hunters want quanity rather than quality! He also mentioned of being very concerned that by the year 2031 there would be lack of, or maybe no hunters by that time! He seemed extremely serious! This scenerio really bothered me. There are questions that need to be answered, like why are stores such as Cabela's and Bass Pro going up everywhere if that is a true prediction? I believe it all comes down to money! What are your thoughts on this topic?
 
It would be a waste of time to close a unit for a year or 5 if you were looking to increase the overall population. Legal hunting only impacts buck segment of the population. Weather, disease, habitat quality and predators affect the population numbers more than hunting. You would increase the number of bucks in the older age classes, but you can do that through reducing permits as easily as closing the unit. If you just open it back up with the same number of permits all you will do is create a 1 year bump in older age class deer.
 
Jim,
AZGFD discounted the ADA survey, saying it was not scientific, and went with their own survey.
Doug
 
I find your response well thought out Largo3! I agree we are talking about the buck population as far what hunters want, quality vs quantity. A lot of hunters don't want less oportunity and some of us do want quality. If we reduce the number of tags in said unit could it end up like the Kaibab? (the tag that everyone wants) If we close a unit for a year couldn't we have the oportunity to improve the habitat and get the preditor population under control? Would this take some of the stress off the deer herd due to drought?
 
The main problem is not the total number of bucks, its the total number of deer. Muley numbers are down, plain and simple. So closing a unit for a couple years would be perfect for some units here. Largo3 makes a good point if you're trying to raise only the number of bucks but like I said, Arizonas problem is total numbers not just buck numbers. The other problem here is you've got a few very smart BIG bucks and a bunch of dinks. So many people shoot 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 year old bucks that the ones that make it disappear only to be seen during the rut, if even then. I see giants all the time.... at night. They're educated. AND.... all the units we love to hunt up north in the pines aren't open during the rut. But, overall the largest problem muleys in Arizona face is predators. Deer number have been going down since they did away with trapping. So... drought, predators, questionable management motives and hunters not letting the babies get bigger equals a sh!tty place to hunt muleys.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-07 AT 07:41PM (MST)[p]Now you got me going.

The best way for G&F to manage a systematic unit closure would be this, if said hunter wants a shot at the unit that was closed for 2 years he must pay tag fees for the unit every year its closed. They would probably make more money in those 2 closed years and the first open year than if they just continued to leave it open. Could you imagine the chance at hunting a unit thats been closed for a couple years???? I'd pay, thats for damn sure! Now check this out... all the hipe over said unit would last at least 5 years, so ride the hipe then do it all over again. Do that in a couple units a year and within 15 years you've got a top notch muley state. Now think about all the regular guys that just want to meat hunt, what would they do??? They'd just shift to the open units, so G&F doesn't lose a dime, in fact they'd make more money. Think about what the non-residents would do. They'd try to get in on the hipe unit too.... more money! Think about it from the G&F point of view, they'd be making money on a product that isn't being deminished. They are trying to run the dept. like a business, so why don't we use our heads and play their game to our advantage. Appeal to their pockets, thats what motivates them anyway, we can all see that!

Donnie
 
Very interesting concept! Thank you for your comments! I say, let's get this idea rolling....how do we do it?
 
I like all the ideas on this subject. AZWALKER I like your idea a lot. I think a reasonable closure per unit would be 2-3 years and then switch to the next unit(s) in line.
 
Well first thing would probably be to get one of the big outfits keen to the idea, ADA, ABA, MDF or even RMEF. You get some of those guys on board and you might have a chance at being heard. Now another thing you need to consider is that it all sounds good when its thrown out here on a discussion board but the actual biological impacts it would have are a different story. I don't know why it would be huge challenge though. Its a good balance of managing deer herds and hunters at the same time. The problem they have now is they are managing the hunters more than the herds. This latest deal where they are gonna make some achery deer units permit hunts is a perfect example. Their motive is basically to give the 20% of the hunters that are archers 20% of the deer to make it fair for the rifle hunters. Well listen to that statement, is that based on deer mangement or hunter management. This whole thing with quantity over quality. Its not based on the quantity of deer its based on the quantity of tags they can sell. No where have I heard their plan to boost herd numbers. Oh we here about habitat improvments but they're always about some endangered frog or some mountain lions ##### is broken or some other b.s. The guys doing the real habitat improvements are the accociations mentioned above. I think we'll see changes when we have a new governer appointing new comissioners. Until then... we'll just have to make as much noise as possible.

Donnie
 
It is interesting that the AZGFD does not say anything about increasing herd numbers but claim they are providing oportunity. If they were managing deer instead of hunters that would be an oxymoron. AZWALKER has a good concept. There would not be a loss of revenue and a chance for the herds to increase. i hope that someone will bring this idea to the right organization.
The 3Bar experiment that the GF did a few years back really proves that predators are much more responsible for the decline in herds than the drought.
 
Is there anyone out there reading this that can truly make a difference and get this started? Someone...Anyone...with the right kind of pull? It looks like AZWALKER has an excellent idea! Obviously many of us hunters agree with him. That's how something like this begins...with an idea! Now let's get this into play folks!
 
Well, I was discusing this on another forum and I recieved an education from a very knowledgable outdoor writer, Tony Mandile. I'm not sure I fully agree with what he's saying but the guy knows his stuff and deffinately knows more than I do, heres what he posted:

"Biologically, it would be a meaningless move. We hunt BUCKS, not does, which are the most important for the recovery of deer numbers. All shutting down the season might do would be to possibly increase the buck to doe ratio and maybe produce some older class bucks. BUT...on the downside, it will leave more deer in an already stressed habitat, thus creating poor conditions for fawn recruitment and survival. And..the increased number of bucks would cause more infighting among them, stressing them even more.

The additional stress on the habitat is exactly why G&F has been promoting the doe hunts on the Kaibab's westside winter range for the last couple of years.

As for eliminating hunting during the rut, it too wouldn't mean much. It doesn't take many bucks to breed every doe in the neighborhood, and they will do so whether they are shot at or not.

I wrote the following article several years ago when Ray Lee was the big-game branch head. It outlines HOW our deer herds will grow. If you know anyone with some spare winter rains, tell them to send 'em to AZ. -TONY




Arizona Deer -- Oh, How they thirst




Copyright 2000 by Tony Mandile
No Reproduction without express permission


For more than a decade now, Arizona's deer population has been on the proverbial roller-coaster ride. Sadly, in recent years the downs have been a lot lower than the ups have been high. As a result, the state's overall mule deer population is currently approaching the lowest it has ever been. Although the Coues deer have done somewhat better, their numbers have also dropped.

This fact became quite evident last spring when the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) made its recommendations for the fall 2000 hunts. The total allocation for both species approved by the five-member game commission was 45,850 -- the lowest total since the AGFD began compiling data in 1946. It was 970 fewer than the 1999 total. And if the rest of this year plays out as it has so far, the permit allocation could fall even more when the commission considers next year's hunt proposals in April, 2001.

Who can we blame for all this and especially for the loss of deer hunting opportunities?

No one that could make a difference; the game department, you or me can't do a thing to change it. The culprit has been Mother Nature, or more specifically her unwillingness to bestow bountiful rains on the Grand Canyon State for more than one year in a row.

AGFD big-game supervisor Ray Lee's enthusiasm has followed the same trend as the state's deer population. After many years of watching the herds steadily decline, Lee happily witnessed the effects of El Nino over the winter of 1997-1998.

"We thought we might have turned the corner in 1999 when fawn recruitment statewide increased considerably. But it was a short-lived jump, and the reason why I had stated back then that hunters shouldn't be too enthusiastic until we have a couple rainy years strung together."

Lee's warning proved prophetic.

As it turned out, 1999 was one of the driest years on record in Arizona. The Phoenix metro area went for more than 100 days between September and December without any measurable precipitation. When the rain finally arrived, it wasn't enough to require the use of windshield wipers. Finally in March, 2000 a big storm hammered the state, dumping more than two inches on Phoenix and even more in other areas. But the two-day deluge overwhelmed the watersheds. The ground couldn't absorb the water quickly enough, and most of it ran downstream into the lakes or Mexico's Sea of Cortez.

Pointing to the Palmer Drought Severity Index compiled by The National Atmospheric Association, Lee doesn't hold much hope for the very immediate future.

"The Palmer Index examines past and current rainfalls, winds, temperatures and other factors. The most recent chart shows the southwestern United States and more specifically, Arizona, as being in the middle of extreme drought conditions. In other words, even if the entire state received two inches of rain tomorrow, it probably wouldn't take us out of that extreme category because of the moisture we haven't received in previous months," he said.

The major concern of biologists when it comes to the relationship of rain and deer is timing. Rains that come at the wrong time of the year provide little benefit to big game. In the case of deer, the two key periods to benefit them are late winter and late summer.

Lee points to the 1998 deer population jump as a perfect example of what can happen.

"We had normal winter rains, good spring rains and adequate summer rains. Statewide, fawn recruitment went to nearly 40 fawns per 100 does in areas of the state where it had dropped to as low of 20 fawns per 100 does. On the Kaibab Plateau, somewhat different climatic conditions caused the corresponding recruitment to rise to nearly 90 fawns per 100 does. It was an exceptional year. Unfortunately, it was only one, and that won't do it."

According to Lee, the lack of moisture to sustain ideal deer populations started in 1988 and pretty much reflects the trend that occurred about 40 years ago.

"Our deer numbers reached the highest ever in the 1960s, but the population dropped very rapidly from those numbers to all-time lows by the late 1970s. That's why we put deer on the permit system in 1972. And if we look back at the weather conditions from the late 1960s and early 1970s. we would quickly see they mirror the same patterns that are occurring right now. The deer population is also following the pattern."

"Then the deer numbers shot up again in the early and mid-1980s because we had an anomaly of sorts with rains that produced three 100-year floods over a five-year period. Even the normally dry Salt River was running at 200,000 feet per second and washing out bridges in downtown Phoenix.

"The result on our deer herds was quite predictable. For a few years running, all of the does had twins, their twins had twins, and those twins -- and so on. So we wound up with more deer than we knew what to do with. Over the next several hunting seasons, we had more permits available than we had hunters to apply for them. In 1986, we set the all-time record with 95,821 permits. That is more than double the permit allocation for 2000.

"The one thing hunters shouldn't do, however, is think we'll ever get to that point again. The floods were very uncommon occurrences that created the best deer habitat we've ever had. So unless those conditions repeat themselves, which isn't too likely, our traditional optimum deer numbers will be considerably less than what we had in 1986."

Fortunately, even though the permit numbers are at an all-time low right now, there are still more deer today in Arizona than there were in the 1970s when the population hit bottom. The reason is a different management concept put into place by the AGFD.

When the herds plummeted in the 70s, the hunter success did likewise, averaging 16 to 18 percent statewide -- a result of supply and demand with only so many deer to go around. This prompted many complaints from hunters. Rather than allow that trend to continue, the game department began adjusting the permit allocation whereby the hunter success remained fairly consistent at 21 to 24 percent in most units. So while fewer hunters go afield now, many of those that do get to a tag a buck.

The relationships between moisture and deer populations can be somewhat difficult to understand, but what it mostly comes down to is habitat.

'In years of good moisture, deer can normally get all the moisture they need by eating. As the rains decrease, they have to find other sources, which are mostly tanks or other standing water. That walking and use of standing water sources increases the chance for predation and burns up additional energy.

"Without water, a doe doesn't put on weight, and the chances for her to drop twins go down considerably. She also has a lower milk production when she does drop a fawn, and the lack of good cover makes the survival of that fawn more iffy because of predation. And we're not talking a lot of weight to make a difference. If a doe can increase her weight by 5 percent, it's likely her fawn will weigh a pound more when born. That is significant for the survival of a fawn that weighs five or six pounds at birth."

Another consequence of the recent drought years have been forest fires. Earlier this year, at least three major ones devastated large portions of Arizona's landscape. The highly extreme conditions for more fires prompted the U.S. Forest Service to shut down any access to large portions of several national forests in the state.

Lee feels the forest fires come under that ol' good news/bad news syndrome, though.

"Even though a lot of Arizona burned up this year, by and large forest fires are good for the habitat. It's a case of looking at fires over both the short term and the long term. At first, the effect is not too good because those areas basically are sterile. All the growth that deer might utilize this fall is gone. But Mother Nature does wonderful things to compensate.

"Once we start getting some moisture in those areas, the nutrients begin going back into the soil, and all sorts of fresh browse sprouts. Deer don't eat pine trees, but they relish these tender forbs. So in the long run, the fires can be a blessing for our deer herds. Again, though, the key factor in the equation is rainfall. If we don't get rainfall on those burned out areas this winter, the likelihood of them greening up next spring is fairly remote.

"The burned out areas are certainly a concern, but right now even the habitat where fires haven't taken a toll are being stressed. Perennial plants such as cliffrose, which is a key food source for deer, can exist a long time with low moisture from year to year, but eventually that lack of moisture will kill off individual plants. You can only stress plants so many times until they become decadent. Although this hasn't happened to any great level across the state yet, some of our range people do view it as a potential problem. For the most part, habitat is fairly resilient and will eventually recover as it always seems to do. Moisture and time are the only requirements."

The condition of the habitat isn't the only thing that bothers Lee, however.

"What concerns me more is a lack of habitat for the future. We're losing it fast as more and more people move into Arizona and especially into the places that have been traditionally good deer areas. Just look all around Phoenix, where even the desert areas within a 50-mile radius once harbored decent deer numbers. Now many of them are covered with houses and shopping malls. The same thing is occurring around Prescott, Payson, Tucson, Flagstaff or even in the White Mountains, where more and more developments of ranchettes and such are springing up. Mule deer simply won't strive in subdivisions even if the residents plant acres and acres of succulent landscaping. So even if we get several years in a row of good rainfall at the right times, we might never reach the high deer populations of the past because there will be fewer places for deer to live."

While the future appears filled with doom and gloom for Arizona's deer, in reality it could turn around quickly. In fact, even now there are places in the state where the herds are thriving and even growing somewhat, despite the so-so habitat conditions.

One such place is the North Kaibab Plateau. Several years ago, a huge fire wiped out a large portion of the winter habitat on the west side. What remained has been in good shape for the most part, so the deer have done well. Still, the game department has continually managed the deer there to keep them in check.

Lee feels the deer on the Kaibab are healthy.

"The forage is in good shape but limited right now in that it will support only so many deer. We've attempted to keep the numbers down in such a way where the herd will rebound as the burned-out area comes back. That's why we're still issuing doe permits there. If we can hold the population down to the point where it won't destroy the good habitat that now exists, we'll never have to have a drastic cut on the deer numbers there."

Another area where the deer have done fairly well is the far western edge of the state from Kingman on down to Yuma where rainfall has been significantly better over the last two years. The result was a slight increase in deer permits for the 2000 hunts.

Coues deer have also fared a bit better, according to Lee.

"We had been cutting back on mule deer permits for the past 10 years or so but didn't start making noticeable cuts in whitetail permits until the last couple of years. This is mainly due to the way Coues deer live in comparison to mule deer.

"The mule deer tend to be in larger groups. So they need more water and forage. Whitetails move in smaller groups and stay at the higher elevations where the moisture has been more prevalent. Plus, whitetails are what I like to term as a 'bushier' animal; they wander over smaller areas and use dense cover a lot more than mule deer do. The result is a lesser need for water. They get much of it from the vegetation they eat as long as the moisture content is sufficient."

At one time, Arizona's mule deer numbered somewhere between 250,000 to 300,000. Today, there are about 100,000, while the optimum goal for the available habitat is now about 200,000.

Lee feels that goal is easily attainable.

"It won't take much. We'll need some back to back years of good rainfall. Two would do it, but three would be even better. It can't be an 'every other one' deal. If we have successive years with good moisture, most of the does will drop twins, and during the next year, the yearling does will go into estrous and get serviced by a buck because they will have gained a lot more weight than they would have during a low-moisture year. In all likelihood that yearling will have a single fawn, but one is better than none.

"I certainly can't predict this will happen in the immediate future. Yet if and when it does, we could again be enjoying the glory years of plenty of deer to go around. All we need is for Mother nature to quench the thirst of our deer herds."




--------------------

Tony Mandile


You may recognize his name from a book he wrote about coues deer (can't remember the name of the book). One of the best books on hunting I've ever read.

I don't think the idea should be completely dismissed, G&F shut down unit 19a to archery deer hunting and the 13 units haven't had an archery deer hunt ever that I know of, so shutting units down isn't something G&F doesn't know about.


Donnie
 
I don't think thats completely true. Lets take unit 20A for example. There are more deer in that unit than I've ever seen and my family has had a cabin in Walker for almost 50 years. I've read magazine articles that say its got the greatest number of deer south of the ditch. It would be a perfect time to either close that unit or offer a junior doe hunt to get the ratio higher. The area is getting plenty of rain and for at least the past 5 years they've had an awsome acorn drop. G&F put out I believe 700 permits there this year and have been for at least the last 3 years. A point restriction would do well there too. I've seen a total of 5 bucks there in 10 years that were bigger than 2 points. Everytime I go up to the cabin I see groups of bucks ranging from 2 to 6 that are big tall forkies. That tells me right there that guys are shooting too many spikes and that the doe population is too high. There are places here that still get good moisture on a consistant basis. The mogollon rim usually get real good rain and I haven't seen any bigguns come out of there, even the Elk aren't huge there. There are a few units where they could try closures, doe hunts and point restrictions that would benefit. Unit 21! I had a muley hunt there last year and saw 1 deer bigger than a spike, everything else I saw were does and WT's. I also saw some awsome deer country that had PLENTY of forage and water, just no deer. What they should do there is absolutley shut the unit down and let all the deer bounce back.

From what I'm seeing out there, there should be more deer, the land can handle it.

Have you guys been to the backside of the White Tanks??? Talk about sterile looking desert. I saw some great bucks in there last year. If deer can live there, they can live anywhere.

Of course we need more rain but the land isn't hurting as bad everyone thinks.

Donnie
 
Your thoughts have some merit Donnie. Where have all the big bucks gone,with the water? Do you believe some areas just dont have the gene pool for big bucks? Would random closing make a difference in maybe just certain areas in AZ? Do certain areas in AZ have to be handled differently than other areas? Are we starting to come out of this drout? How long have we been in a drout? Let it flow boy...........Give me imput. I haven't been here very long so give me a break if I sound ignorant to this subject.
 
The point restriction sounds like a much better idea. That would be something I could understand. By the way, there are a few deer in 20A bigger than forkies. I'd love to see more, though. Good post, it get's everyone thinking on how to improve the deer herd, and lord knows they need it.
 
"Your thoughts have some merit Donnie. Where have all the big bucks gone,with the water? Do you believe some areas just dont have the gene pool for big bucks? Would random closing make a difference in maybe just certain areas in AZ? Do certain areas in AZ have to be handled differently than other areas? Are we starting to come out of this drout? How long have we been in a drout? Let it flow boy...........Give me imput. I haven't been here very long so give me a break if I sound ignorant to this subject."

I think what happens when overall numbers go down is this. Guys go out with tags in hand, don't see enough big bucks and end up shooting young dinks. A couple years of that and the bigger bucks that were around end up dieing or getting shot themselves. So then you have a alot of bucks that don't ever really make it to full potential and a few, and sometimes very few, big boys that get educated.

I think, like Elk, it depends alot on the minerals in the ground whether you're gonna have big bucks in the area. I believe overall Arizona has what it takes to be a top muley state. Just about every unit has the chance to grow big bucks. It also depends on how many lions are in the area.

I think some areas would do well with closures like 21. And some would do well with point restrictions like 20a.

I do think we're slowly coming out of the drought.

How long have we been in a drought??? 7 to 10 years

You know, after thinking about this archery draw deal, I'm starting to think it may not be all that bad. I think the units that are being chosen are going to end up with larger populations of older age class bucks. Who'd complain about that???

Donnie
 
You've been very informative! I appreciate all your comments! Thanks for the imput...Happy Trails
 
I just got done reading a hunting article "Where have all the mule deer gone?" By Todd Black. If you are interested I found it under Articles in this site. It's very interesting when he talks about quantity vs quality. He believes we need domanant older mule deer bucks to breed with the does vs the young bucks and how it affects are mule deer numbers. I wonder if he's on to something? Could this be one piece of the puzzle?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-07 AT 00:10AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-07 AT 11:08?PM (MST)
Quest, as far as closing a unit for a year of two and doing predator contol and habitat improvments, those kind of things don't work that fast. Predator control on a large scale hasn't been done effectively since they outlawed 1080 poison in the 1970's. Don't see that coming back anytime soon. Habitat improvments take time to get done. With either you have to do the work and then it takes time for the herd to respond.

Point restrictions don't work for improving mule deer populations or the number of bucks in the older age classes. It has been proven in state after state. Washington tried it and it failed miserably. New Mexico tried it with the same results.

If you force hunters to pass the little bucks and kill a bigger buck they will. If you keep hunter numbers the same, it just means you are killing a bunch of 2 year old bucks instead of yearling bucks. They will also spend more time in the field than if they would have shot their forky and gone home. That increases the chance that they will blunder into one of the older age class bucks and kill it. You can't grow more big deer by forcing people to hunt big deer. You also get a large number of forkies killed and left in the field.

Reducing hunter pressure and the number of bucks killed is the only way to manipulate hunting impacts on the buck population that will increase the number of bucks making it into the older age classes. That means in most places you can hunt more often and probably kill a smaller buck or hunt very seldom and have a chance at a larger buck.

Also, someone said that there is a need to kill doe's in a specific unit to get the buck to doe ratio back where it needs to be. That is a bad idea unless you have so many deer that they are destroying the habitat. All that doe's is lower the growth potential of the entire herd. Over time you will actually end up in less bucks available to hunt because the population will drop. Bucks do not magically appear from the gut piles of doe's. Dead does just mean less fawns, less bucks and less deer. But if you are interested in the ratio and not the population, start shooting doe's.

I agree that having to few mature bucks in a unit can affect breeding success. The problem is that depending on what you read, you can get the breeding done with between 4 & 15 bucks per 100 does. I would bet that AZ doesn't have units with ratio that are that low.

What this all boils down to is that hunting of bucks has very little affect on the overall population number. Hunting does affect the number of bucks and the number in each age class. Weather, habitat, disease, and predators determine the population.
 
Everything you talk about makes sense. I had hoped to stir up our minds so we could come up with different scenerios and ideas. With these ideas we all seem to want the same end result. Let's hope maybe someone of importance has read our views and concerns. Who knows...a difference might take place? I certainly have been enlightened and educated on this subject, especially for this area. I thank you all for your comments! The Quest continues...
 

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