Support Mandatory Big game reporting/Threshold model of OTC management in AZ

[bojangles808]

Comment period going on right now. email game and fish at [email protected] by dec 1st and tell them you support the "Threshold model" for otc deer management and mandatory reporting for all big game species. No it won't result in less tags (lookup other states that have done it) it will only help keep the opportunity to hunt over the counter going in the future, continue to bring in revenue from these hunts and allow AZGFD to better manage big game species with the best data possible. definitely beneficial no matter if you are an OTC hunter, someone looking to draw an AZ tag in the future, or just support western big game hunting.

for more context Brian Rimsza, chairman of the Bowhunting in AZ Record Book Committee explains the benefits starting at 17:47 on this podcast or click the show notes

802: OTC AZ Deer Hunts-Mandatory Reporting-Hunt Guidelines/Recommendations with Brian Rimsza | Jay Scott Outdoors Western Big Game Hunting and Fishing Podcast

Join Jay Scott and Brian Rimsza as they discuss OTC Archery Deer hunts-Mandatory Reporting-Hunt Guidelines-Hunt Recommendations You can show support by simply sending an email to [email protected]. The two things you need to mention in your email is what model you support and...

jayscottoutdoors.podbean.com

thank you

 

[AZ8]

The Department has already squashed the mandatory reporting idea. Several times.

 

[22lr]

This model works if you know exactly how many animals you need to take out of a herd. Little value if you dont. Alaska has multiple Caribou herds and hunts managed this way, and it works well up here. Alaska also does extensive surveys every year to determine herd size, health and carrying capacity of the land. Quotas are adjusted every year amd sometimes its a plus up in "tags," sometimes its a reduction.

The painful side for hunters on these hunts is if your trying to go somewhere without cell service and you need to check if the quotas have been reached and if your still allowed to take an animal. For the way the hunts work in Alaska, you need to call a hotline every 3 days at a min to check and make sure the quotas haven't been reached. Once the quota has been reached the season is closed in 72hrs. So ya, its a great model if you have exact quotas, minimal to no value (in my opinion) if you dont have these exact targets. I would be leary of this model on deer unless they can actually get a high fidelity look at total population, and im not sure id ever trust them to get a realistic count. Its hard enough in Alaska where they manage caribou that run in giant herds, from a management perspective I think deer would be a nightmare to manage this way. Just my personal unprofessional biased opinion. I actually appreciate this model on animal like Caribou but those are also easier animals to count

 

[realunlucky]

This model works if you know exactly how many animals you need to take out of a herd. Little value if you dont. Alaska has multiple Caribou herds and hunts managed this way, and it works well up here. Alaska also does extensive surveys every year to determine herd size, health and carrying capacity of the land. Quotas are adjusted every year amd sometimes its a plus up in "tags," sometimes its a reduction.

Harvest data doesn't need to be used as a one for one management tool per your caribou example. The fact is that accurate data is always useful more useful than a wild ass guess coming from made up management matrix.
The technology available today makes harvest reporting a super easy process on a dedicated state wildlife app or a simple single phone call away. I bought non resident deer tags, notched the tag and reported harvest information to Missouri department of conversation all 3 separate steps took less than 10 minutes of my time using the Missouri app. They now know what day the deer was killed, if I used a cross bow, if it was a taken on public or private, what county it was killed in, was it a buck or doe, how many points the buck had or if it was a mature doe using the nose measurement.
Information like what unit and day harvested can build a simple trend chart for biologists to quickly reference when making resource recommendations like season dates or which units are seeing the most hunting pressure, otherwise it's just a educated guess.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[HuntHarder]

I wish AZGD would actually consider this. As mentioned above, they have repeatedly shot this down. They usually say they do not want to discourage the average or senior hunters from doing so. I am not sure exactly how this places a large burden on the hunter, but that used to be their stance.

 

[Cameron.25]

Yeah my elderly uncle complained for a couple years about it when they implemented this here in Oregon, but it has not stopped anyone i know from hunting including him lol. Not a big deal, it literally takes me 5-10 mins online and i don't see the harm in providing accurate data so they don't have to "guess" how many animals are harvested based off the low voluntary survey responses

 

[AZ8]

Go to the 10:00 mark to hear their opinion on mandatory reporting. Been like this for years and will likely never change.

 

[realunlucky]

Go to the 10:00 mark to hear their opinion on mandatory reporting. Been like this for years and will likely never change.

When there is fact based information available for public review then there can also be accountability for those that make decisions that impact the public's resources.
Allowing guesstimation in the decision making process allows for a margin of error. This gray area is often used as a blanket cover to hide poor decision making. We didn't know; we couldn't predict; the matrix didn't indicate, and so on.
Utah uses a similar excuse to dodge the responsibility entrusted to wildlife managers when they have secondary motives then the public's best interest

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[22lr]

Harvest data doesn't need to be used as a one for one management tool per your caribou example. The fact is that accurate data is always useful more useful than a wild ass guess coming from made up management matrix.
The technology available today makes harvest reporting a super easy process on a dedicated state wildlife app or a simple single phone call away. I bought non resident deer tags, notched the tag and reported harvest information to Missouri department of conversation all 3 separate steps took less than 10 minutes of my time using the Missouri app. They now know what day the deer was killed, if I used a cross bow, if it was a taken on public or private, what county it was killed in, was it a buck or doe, how many points the buck had or if it was a mature doe using the nose measurement.
Information like what unit and day harvested can build a simple trend chart for biologists to quickly reference when making resource recommendations like season dates or which units are seeing the most hunting pressure, otherwise it's just a educated guess.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Valid points, my only devil advocate point is that it still doesn't matter if you have exact harvest data or not if you can't start with an accurate herd count.

If you can't start with accuracy, then margins of error on the harvest report are fine.

I like the idea of 100% herd size and harvest counts, but realistically its a huge and expensive proposition that doesn't add much value over surveys for most animals. Again, herd animals are easier to do that more solitary animals like deer that will always rely on survey data to paint a picture of the population size. Im not against the idea, I just don't think its worth any money until they can determine population numbers with enough accuracy to matter. *full disclosure I've never hunted AZ, just my opinions.*

 

[Blackcow]

By now there is absolutely no reason they can’t and shouldn’t have mandatory reporting. All draws are online, everyone has a portal, and they’re going to have e-tags going soon. Too many opportunities for them to get the data without putting anyone through any “ hardship” or “inconvenience”. It’ll be a simple matter of you have to fill out this before you can apply for this or we can sell you that. I mean, my son did every step buying his house on his phone, with spotty service, while we were in elk camp. Including signing his closing docs. It’s a different time.

 

[Redwing]

I live and hunt in Oregon where mandatory reporting has been in place for several years now. It's really not a hassle, and from my perspective as a hunter it's nice to have the data to look through. It puzzles me why more states don't have a mandatory reporting program in place. I'm sure it's helpful for wildlife managers to know exact numbers. There was definitely some grumbling when it was first implemented but people have accepted it and I rarely hear any complaints now.

I don't hunt in AZ, and I'm ignorant to the policies and politics of AZ wildlife management and hunting, just thought I'd add some perspective from a state where reporting is in place.

 

[dieselchessy]

We have it in Washington. I can’t say that it helps, but also can’t say it hurts. Nothing noticeable has changed other than I never see check stations anymore.
I like Idaho’s setup, other than the hassle of taking wolves in to the office to report. Having check stations and having that count as your reporting when you stop at one is nice.

 

[Grady]

This model works if you know exactly how many animals you need to take out of a herd. Little value if you dont. Alaska has multiple Caribou herds and hunts managed this way, and it works well up here. Alaska also does extensive surveys every year to determine herd size, health and carrying capacity of the land. Quotas are adjusted every year amd sometimes its a plus up in "tags," sometimes its a reduction.

The painful side for hunters on these hunts is if your trying to go somewhere without cell service and you need to check if the quotas have been reached and if your still allowed to take an animal. For the way the hunts work in Alaska, you need to call a hotline every 3 days at a min to check and make sure the quotas haven't been reached. Once the quota has been reached the season is closed in 72hrs. So ya, its a great model if you have exact quotas, minimal to no value (in my opinion) if you dont have these exact targets. I would be leary of this model on deer unless they can actually get a high fidelity look at total population, and im not sure id ever trust them to get a realistic count. Its hard enough in Alaska where they manage caribou that run in giant herds, from a management perspective I think deer would be a nightmare to manage this way. Just my personal unprofessional biased opinion. I actually appreciate this model on animal like Caribou but those are also easier animals to count

From what I read they are proposing the hunt units to close on the following Wednesday night at 12 p.m. once the quota has been made. In theory you would be able to check in once a week to see if the quota has been met or not, Either by driving into service or having a contact to keep you updated. In my opinion this is a better trade off opposed to more units slowly turning into draw only units.