The following is an email conversation that I had with Brian Wakeling of the Az Game & Fish Department.
The conversation was about the proposed changes to the archery deer and archery elk seasons in Arizona.
You need to read this carefully, as it took me reading it 3 times (I’m a little slow to absorb) to actually realize what he was telling me. You will need to read the emails from bottom to top to understand his answers to my questions fully.
Brian wrote that the Game and Fish Department have not gotten the compliance for mandatory reporting of archery deer kills, so they didn’t use that data in their process of archery success. “What we have done is used our standard questionnaire data that we collect similarly among all weapon types.”
It is hard for me to understand how they arrive at a number to reduce hunts from survey cards that are voluntarily returned by hunters, which, were less than 50% the last time they wanted to permit the North Kaibab region.
Brian stated, “Over the last 4 years, we have sold about 23,000 archery deer tags annually over the counter. First choice applicant demand for general (86,000), muzzleloader (1,700), and juniors (2,700) was also factored in. Based on these numbers, archers should get about 20% of the harvest, although they are harvesting in excess of 30% of the animals in some units.”
The Game and Fish Department had 90,400 applicants apply for deer hunts plus about 23000 archery deer hunters and bowhunters “should” kill about 20% of the total deer killed. Boy, I know I am not good at math but, can anyone tell me how they came up with this figure?
I have a problem with 90,400 applicants, which all did not draw tags, factored into 23000 bowhunters in the field, and it was deducted that we would take 20% of the deer from this.
Brian also stated, “This 20% number we know is liberal because many people that purchase over the counter archery tags also apply for general season permits, although we don’t know precisely what the crossover is.”
The Game and Fish Department knows that we are multi-weapon hunters. I buy an archery tag every year, and also apply for general season and now have 7 bonus points for deer.
So, I am being counted twice into the formula, which is actually hurting bowhunters. I think this may be the root to the cause for them to try to permit archery deer hunters.
With their present system, they have an exact number of archery deer tags sold, but without researching and computerizing these tag holders, they cannot match them to people that apply for gun tags. So, if archery deer goes to the draw process, we can only possess one tag and, we will have to choose whether it be gun or archery.
I personally feel the Az Game and Fish Department is messing up a good thing with their calculations;
1) They are proposing major changes to the archery seasons with no factual information.
2) Because of this and other changes made in recent years, they are alienating bowhunters who have supported them continually through salary increases. donations for bowhunter education and to help catch poachers.
3) If this proposal goes through, the Game and Fish Department will lose over $100,000 yearly in revenue because hunters will have to apply for all deer hunts, which will elminate incoming funds from sales of archery over the counter tags.
4) This will affect all businesses in hunting areas; motels, gas stations, restaurants, etc, which is needed economy for our small towns.
I apologize for this being so long, but it needed to be said.
All hunters need to work together to defeat his proposal.
Keep ‘em sharp,
Garth
Garth:
We are constantly striving for the fair and equitable allocation approach. When we changed the allocation to consider demand by gender for elk, we didn’t try to steal them from the archers. We had actually stolen them from the general season hunter for years before we looked at the allocation closely. We used the formula that we have used for a long time to try to be fair. “Fair” can be an elusive thing, but believe me we are not trying to get rid of or stick it to the archers.
The mandatory reporting for archery deer has not been effective to date. We are not getting very good compliance, and so we did not use that data to determine how the allocation should be divided. What we have done is used our standard questionnaire data that we collect similarly among all weapon types.
The way that archery deer hunts figure into the equation is through the same allocation formula we use for elk. Over the last 4 years, we have sold about 23,000 archery deer tags annually over the counter. First choice applicant demand for general (86,000), muzzleloader (1,700), and juniors (2,700) was also factored in. Based on these numbers, archers should get about 20% of the harvest, although they are harvesting in excess of 30% of the animals in some units. This 20% number we know is liberal because many people that purchase over the counter archery tags also apply for general season permits, although we don’t know precisely what the crossover is. We are not proposing to permit all archery, or even all archery units that exceed 20% of the harvest. In units like Unit 20A that have January, August-September, and December season, we would only reduce seasons to January and August-September. In units like Unit 1 that only has an August-September hunt, we would initiate a permitted system that would allow for the harvest of 20% of the projected take in any given year. In units like Unit 4A, because archers do not take >20% of the total harvest, we would not implement any change to current structure.
I would encourage you to take the time to discuss this with us at a meeting where we can fully explain the proposals. I know they are not simple and they take some discussion to understand. They may not be perfect and there may be ways that we can improve them. These are working drafts and will not be finalized until the Commission acts in August. Feel free to call me at 602-789-3385. I am on the road a lot right now, but I’ll gladly speak with you at a mutually convenient time.
We really do appreciate the time you take to share your thoughts with us.
BFW
From: garth goodrich [mailto:grthgdrch@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Brian Wakeling; TERRY HENRY; chris agnew; Dan Beraldo; jeff r boyersmith; shane estep; bud hoffman; david king; Dick King; Stewart Kohnke ; mark mccullough; troy munig; mel nichols; mark perkins; mitch rawlinson; jay strangis; kevin van walleghan; stuart wright; rick younker
Subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Wildlife News
Brian,
You say the department wants to increase hunting opportunity for all hunters, so how do the archery deer hunts that are proposed fit into this?
That proposal is so one sided, I dont blame people to think G&F is anti-bowhunting.
Also, the department needs to have accurate numbers of animals killed by general hunters before they should try to make drastic changes to the bowhunters.
The bowhunters of this state have been long supporters of the Game and Fish, but every year, we have to put up a new fight.
Last year, we lost almost 1400 cow elk tags “for hunter retention”……..when do we get those back?
Garth Goodrich
Brian Wakeling wrote:
The Department’s proposal is not to eliminate September archery elk hunts. We are looking for ways to increase hunting opportunity for all hunters, not just general season hunters. We want more hunters and want to limit barriers the agency places in their way. We do not plan to hold an archery hunt in the midst of a general season hunt. We have extended archery bear hunts in most of the state throughout the summer months and we do have archers that kill bears during these hunts, but we have very few hunter that harvest bears during any spring hunt, general or archery.
I appreciate the dialogue and hope you are sending your comments our way so that we may consider them throughout this process. Again, let me invite you to the public meetings so that we can discuss the proposals in an interactive fashion and we can be clear on our intentions.
Thank you.
BFW
