Wildlife strategic plan

              Wildlife 2006
The Arizona Game and Fish Department's Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan for the Years 2001-2006
Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 January 22, 2001

CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the American Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939. RECOMMENDED CITATION Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Wildlife 2006. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. PROJECT FUNDING Funding for development of this Strategic Plan was provided by: the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Heritage Fund (Lottery Dollars Working for Wildlife); voluntary contributions to Arizona's Nongame Wildlife Checkoff; Projects W 53- M and W-95-M, under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act); and Project F-7-M, under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts).



Preface

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and Department (Department) serve the people of Arizona as steward of the State's wildlife. These r sources are a public trust, managed e for the benefit of present and future generations. Therefore, the needs and concerns of Arizona's citizens form the foundation of Wildlife 2006. To establish that foundation, we must measure and consider the attitudes and opinions of the public. Conversely, the public must understand both the short-term and long-term nature of our mission (see page 1), and the conflicts inherent to managing wildlife resources for a public that is not usually of a single mind. The Commission and Department are responsible for conserving, enhancing, and restoring Arizona's wildlife resources and habitats through protection and management programs, and providing wildlife resources for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use of people. Wildlife 2006 describes the strategies through which we intend to carry out the wildlife portion of this mission from 2001 through 2006. Wildlife management is influenced by many factors. Some are beyond the Commission's or the Department's control, including climatic fluctuations, changes in human demographics, and public preferences. Due to the often unexpected and unpredictable nature of these factors, we recognize that even the best plan is subject to change. Wildlife 2006 is no exception. Changes to Wildlife 2006 may be requested by the Commission, by the Department, or by members of the public throughout the six-year life of the plan. This Strategic Plan was developed with input from the public. Any proposed changes will also be presented to the public for further comment. For copies of this plan, or to provide comment on it, please see the instructions on page 91. We appreciate your interest in wildlife conservation and look forward to hearing from you. Wildlife 2006 Planning Team Arizona Game and Fish Department



Wildlife 2006 Page i



Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

The Department Mission............................................................................................................. 1 Wildlife Management Program Goals ........................................................................................ 1 Commission and Department Authorities................................................................................... 2 A Commitment to Partnerships................................................................................................... 2 A Glossary................................................................................................................................... 5 A Focus on Wildlife .................................................................................................................... 5 Scoping, Drafting, and Approving the Plan................................................................................ 6



General Challenges and Strategies ............................................................................................. 7

Challenge 1. Public Service, Planning, and Funding.................................................................. 7 Challenge 2. Wildlife Information.............................................................................................. 9 Challenge 3. Wildlife Management .......................................................................................... 10 Challenge 4. Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................... 11 Challenge 5. Partnerships.......................................................................................................... 13 Challenge 6. Laws and Legal Considerations ........................................................................... 14 Challenge 7. Law Enforcement ................................................................................................. 15 Challenge 8. Wildlife Recreation.............................................................................................. 16 Challenge 9. Public Information and Education....................................................................... 17



Game Management Subprogram .............................................................................................. 18

The Arizona Hunter .................................................................................................................. 18 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 22 Mission, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................................ 23 Game Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 24 Estimating Game Population Numbers..................................................................................... 24 Big Game Species ..................................................................................................................... 26 Mule Deer ............................................................................................................................. 26 White-tailed Deer .................................................................................................................. 28 Pronghorn.............................................................................................................................. 29 Elk ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Turkey................................................................................................................................... 32 Javelina.................................................................................................................................. 33 Bighorn Sheep....................................................................................................................... 34 Buffalo .................................................................................................................................. 35 Black Bear............................................................................................................................. 36 Mountain Lion....................................................................................................................... 37 Small Game Species.................................................................................................................. 38 Status ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Supply and Demand .............................................................................................................. 38 Tree Squirrels ........................................................................................................................ 41 Cottontail Rabbits ................................................................................................................. 42 Gambel's Quail and Scaled Quail ......................................................................................... 43 Mearns' Quail ........................................................................................................................ 45 Wildlife 2006 Page ii



Blue Grouse........................................................................................................................... 47 White-winged Dove and Mourning Dove ............................................................................. 48 Band-tailed Pigeon................................................................................................................ 50 Waterfowl.............................................................................................................................. 51 Snipe, Coot, and Common Moorhen .................................................................................... 53 Sandhill Crane....................................................................................................................... 54 Non-native Game Birds: Valley Quail, Chukar, and Pheasant ............................................. 55 Furbearing and Predatory Mammals..................................................................................... 56



Sportfish Management Subprogram ........................................................................................ 58

The Arizona Angler .................................................................................................................. 58 Current Supply .......................................................................................................................... 61 Current Demand ........................................................................................................................ 62 Future Supply............................................................................................................................ 62 Future Demand .......................................................................................................................... 63 Mission, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................................ 64 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 64



Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Management Subprogram ........................................... 66

Current Supply .......................................................................................................................... 66 Crustaceans and Mollusks..................................................................................................... 67 Native Fish............................................................................................................................ 67 Amphibians and Reptiles ...................................................................................................... 68 Nongame Birds ..................................................................................................................... 69 Nongame Mammals .............................................................................................................. 69 Current Demand ........................................................................................................................ 70 Future Supply............................................................................................................................ 72 Future Demand .......................................................................................................................... 73 Mission, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................................ 74 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 75 Conservation ......................................................................................................................... 75 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 78 Information and Education.................................................................................................... 78



Appendix 1: Wildlife 2006 Glossary........................................................................................80 Appendix 2: Comment Instructions and Form........................................................................91



Wildlife 2006 Page iii



Wildlife 2006

The Arizona Game and Fish Department's

Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan



for the Years 2001-2006 Introduction

This Strategic Plan, Wildlife 2006, reflects the preferences of Arizona's citizens as they relate to management of Arizona's wildlife and wildlife-oriented recreation. It also reflects the biological principles involved in managing Arizona's wildlife. Wildlife 2006 identifies what the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department expect over the next six years from our Wildlife Management Program. It includes specific strategies and objectives for each of the program's three subprograms: 1) Game Management, 2) Sportfish Management, and 3) Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Management. These strategies and objectives identify what we hope to accomplish, and provide guidelines for how we will manage wildlife. In short, they define what we expect from ourselves and our cooperators, and what the public can expect from us. This plan's strategies and objectives wll be the driving forces behind i the annual work plans (operational plans) that will guide our daily activities. Wildlife 2006 is a living link between the past and the future. The Department has a long tradition of providing recreational opportunities for the hunting and angling public. We also have a rich and successful history in wildlife conservation. As we strive to maintain and enhance programs for traditional stakeholders, we must also embrace relatively new and emerging interests such as wildlife watching, wildlife photography, and other less traditional recreational activities. Wildlife 2006 will be especially crucial to ensuring that a mutually beneficial and enjoyable blend of the old and the new is achieved. The Department Mission The Department's mission is to conserve, enhance, and restore Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and habitats through aggressive protection and management programs, and to provide wildlife resources and safe watercraft and off-highway vehicle recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations. Wildlife Management Program Goals The Commission and Department have management authority for the wildlife of the State, but share stewardship responsibility for wildlife habitat with many partners. The Wildlife Management Program emphasizes partnerships with land and water management agencies, property owners, lessees, and all levels of government to promote cooperative habitat management that leads to mutual benefits for all wildlife recreationists and for Arizonans whose culture and livelihood depend on productive use and care of grassland and forest ecosystems.



Wildlife 2006 Page 1



The goals of our Wildlife Management Program are to: provide fish and wildlife benefits and compatible public uses through diverse and cooperative wildlife management, while avoiding adverse impacts to habitat; protect wildlife populations, habitats, and public health and safety; and increase public awareness and understanding of wildlife resources and the Department. Commission and Department Authorities Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 17 directs the responsibility for maintenance and management of the State's wildlife resources to the Commission and Department. A.R.S. 17-102: � Most wildlife in Arizona is the property of the State.



A.R.S. 17-231: Through the Commission, the Department may: � � � � Establish policies and programs for the management, preservation, and harvest of wildlife. Establish hunting, trapping, and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods which may be used in taking wildlife. Enforce laws for the protection of wildlife. Develop and distribute information about wildlife and activities of the Department.



The Department's Wildlife Management Program, the focal point of Wildlife 2006, establishes policies and projects for management, conservation, and recreational use of wildlife. It also establishes rules for hunting, fishing, and trapping; prescribes methods that may be used in taking wildlife; and establishes services necessary to carry out the provisions of A.R.S. Title 17. This program is responsible for enforcing laws to protect wildlife and wildlife resources, resolving access issues for wildlife-oriented recreation and resource protection, and disseminating information about wildlife, wildlife-related issues, and Department activities. A Commitment to Partnerships The Commission and Department are committed to doing the public's business in public, with participation by the public. Conservation and management of Arizona's fish and wildlife resources, both of which are public trust responsibilities, clearly are the public's business. Thus, this Strategic Plan is based on a simple philosophical commitment: the Department will carry out the Strategies by which we will meet the Challenges described herein, and accomplish our wildlife goals, through partnerships. What does "partnership" mean to us? It means that we will strive to identify, and reach out to, those who are and those who might be interested in or affected by the issue at hand. It means that we will work with those partners to find common ground that ensures wildlife needs are addressed in collaborative (cooperative) fashion, with an eye on the future as well as the present and past. It means that we will work within the letter of the aw, and the spirit of the law, using l Wildlife 2006 Page 2



the best science available, but temper our actions and decisions with the knowledge that we, and wildlife, share this landscape with many other species, and many other people. Perhaps above all, a commitment to partnerships means that we expect problems to emerge, conflicts to surface, and disagreements to arise. However, we believe that through logic, reason, face-to-face interaction, and factual information, we will find ways to resolve them. We understand that wildlife conservation and recreation are but two "uses" of an intensively committed landscape, and we will strive to find their rightful place in full recognition of the "multiple use" ethic that drives public lands management in this democratic republic. In other words, a commitment to partnerships means that we will try our best to find "win-win" solutions to problems, and we will be respectful, forthright, and honest. It means that if we do fail to find common ground, it will not be for lack of effort on our part. To recognize this commitment to partnerships, throughout this document we will strive to use "partners" and partnerships without modifiers, without specifying which interest groups might be among the partners or partnerships in a given situation. Similarly, we will strive to use other terms without limiting them. For example, we may use "recreationists," without specifying whether they are consumptive or nonconsumptive, hunters or birdwatchers, hikers or anglers. We will use the inclusive "government" or "all levels of government," rather than specifying each time that we mean federal, state, local, tribal, and sometimes even foreign governments. Where more specificity is required, we will use more specific terms. However, that will not change our commitment to being inclusive, to building partnerships, to working with partners. With whom will we partner? The list is almost infinite: archers, anglers, bait-bucket anglers, birders, birdwatchers, boaters, businesses of any kind, cane pole and tournament anglers, concessionaires, conservationists, environmentalists, farmers, flyfishers, governments of any kind, guides and outfitters, hikers, hunters, industry of any kind, miners, nature photographers, off-road vehicle users, organizations of any kind, primitive weapons hunters, ranchers, students, teachers, tourism interests, trappers, "varmint" callers, wildlife watchers. In short, anyone. We are fully committed to considering and exploring every conceivable opportunity to work constructively with anyone, when wildlife interests will be well served. This commitment to partnerships is long-standing, but, like anyone else, we can always "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" even better. And so we will. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is the only State agency with the legal mandate to manage all Arizona wildlife, but it is only one of many agencies involved in natural resource management. Our partnerships with agencies, all levels of government, property owners and leaseholders, and private organizations are intended to ensure that wildlife and wildlife recreationist needs are addressed with other resource needs and land uses. Much of Arizona's wildlife management takes place through partnerships and planning with other agencies, especially those with responsibility for managing habitat and land uses. The Department reviews, revises, and, as appropriate, renews these commitments in accordance with



Wildlife 2006 Page 3



the signed agreements with our partners. Examples of commitments and interagency plans that may affect implementation of this Strategic Plan include: Bureau of Land Management: Habitat Management Plans (Note: these are being phased out in favor of Ecosystem Management Plans) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Refuge Management Plans and Recovery Plans U.S. Forest Service: Forest Plans; Land and Resource Management Plans; Arizona Wildlife and Fisheries Comprehensive Plan Various Entities: Memoranda of Understanding or Cooperative Agreements Arizona's borders do not confine our partnerships. Conservation of some species can only be accomplished through cooperation with neighboring states and countries. Some of our migratory birds and bats require partnerships with even more distant entities. Longstanding efforts by government and private cooperators to conserve North America's waterfowl are well known, and highly successful. More recently, Canada and several Central and South American countries have joined with Mexico, Arizona, and our neighboring states in efforts to manage songbirds and other "neotropical migrants" that may only winter or breed here in Arizona, or perhaps just stop over briefly during spring or fall migration. Similar national and international conservation efforts are just beginning for amphibians, reptiles, and bats.



Wildlife 2006 Page 4



A Glossary While evaluating the public comment on prior drafts of this plan, it occurred to us that some of the language in this document is foreign to our readers, and even some of the common English words were subject to widely disparate interpretations. Thus, we have included a Gossary as an l Appendix to this document. Please refer to it when you wonder what a particular word means. A Focus on Wildlife Arizona's tremendous wildlife diversity is a reflection of the State's topographic and climatic diversity. It also reflects the State's position at the junction of the four American deserts (Chihuahuan, Great Basin, Mohave, and Sonoran), and at the terminus of the temperate Rocky Mountains and the tropical-subtropical Sierra Madre of Mexico. More than 800 species of fishes, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals occur here yearround, as seasonal residents, or migrants (see Table 1). Most are native, some are not. Some are hunted or fished, most are not. Many of our native animals occur widely elsewhere, others do not. The ecological value of these animals, the attraction they hold for the public, and the factors influencing their populations are the driving forces shaping this plan.

Table 1. Species of Arizona wildlife. Non-native species include (a) those that are not native to Arizona but which are native e sewhere on this l continent, and (b) true exotics--those that are not native to North America. Note: Arizona's native crustaceans and mollusks are too poorly known for their numbers to be included in this table. Native Fish Freshwater Saltwater Amphibians Reptiles Birds Raptors Nonraptors Mammals 42 460 134 0 5 11 30 2 26 103 50 0 4 4 Non-native



Arizona's wildlife resources are often Total 797 74 greatly affected by human activities. Likewise, Arizonans are often greatly affected by wildlife. The impacts can be beneficial or detrimental to wildlife, recreationists, or residents of areas impacted by wildlife. The impact of each human activity often differs from one species of wildlife to another; an activity benefiting one may harm another. Similarly, a species of wildlife may have a positive impact in one area, a negative impact in another. Impacts may also vary with the seasons, or in response to weather. Wildlife management is the art and science of balancing the desires of the public with the biological needs of wildlife to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of species, while adequately protecting each species for the enjoyment of people. Fortunately, Arizona has a long legacy of successful wildlife management. Wildlife 2006 will help guide management responses to future challenges, building on successes of the past, and avoiding mistakes that have been made. Clearly there are many successes on which to build. Wildlife 2006 Page 5



Indeed, the effectiveness of wildlife management efforts to date can best be measured by the species of wildlife still thriving within Arizona's borders and the spectrum of wildlife-based recreational opportunities available. Restoration efforts have been a big part of our wildlife success story, as species such as bighorn sheep, deer, elk, and the peregrine falcon have now recovered from virtual elimination. To achieve the greatest return for the time and money invested, wildlife management is now largely focused on land uses and habitat. Improving forest and range management, mitigating impacts from mining and urbanization, and ensuring adequate water will be crucial to the success of wildlife management. Cooperation with public and private landowners and recreationists will continue to help ensure that they are involved in developing wildlife management decisions. Also, increased attention will be placed on outreach to the "silent majority," who affect wildlife management through their decisions on local and statewide issues. The Department will strive to ensure, however, that sound wildlife management always prevails. Although this plan has many management elements that appear to be, and often are, speciesspecific, the Department is committed to integrating its wildlife program into management of ecosystems and broader landscapes. A basic principle of ecology and ecosystem management is that biological systems composed of more species (increased diversity) are more stable and productive; therefore, they are better able to withstand environmental perturbations. Many species serve as biological barometers of ecosystem health, indicating changes in habitat quality and biological diversity. Ecosystem management cannot be successful without integrated conservation of individual species and of the habitat or biological community as a whole. Understanding species-specific needs, and meeting them, in the context of ecosystem management is essential to optimal management of wildlife resources. Scoping, Drafting, and Approving the Plan The planning process for Wildlife 2006 began with Wildlife 2000. Social research surveys, customer assessments, and evaluation of past progress also helped shape Wildlife 2006. The Department solicited public input in April and May 2000 on the challenges and strategies listed in Wildlife 2000. This input was used to develop the challenges and strategies in Wildlife 2006. The first full draft of Wildlife 2006 was made available for public comment on July 31, 2000. Public meetings were held throughout Arizona in August and September 2000, to gather more public comment. The plan was also discussed at five Arizona Game and Fish Commission meetings (August, September, October, and November 2000 and January 2001). All input on the plan was evaluated, and discussed with the Commission in public session. The plan was modified as appropriate to reflect Commission guidance and direction. The over-riding goal of this Strategic Plan is to best meet the needs of the biological resource, while remaining in balance with many different, often conflicting, public desires and the Department's limited resources. Not everyone's desires or comments will result in changes to this plan, but everyone's comments were fully considered before the final plan was adopted. The Commission approved Wildlife 2006 on January 19, 2001. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Office of Federal Aid approved it on March 20, 2001. Wildlife 2006 Page 6



General Challenges and Strategies

In pursuit of its mission, the Department will address the following Challenges and Strategies through Wildlife 2006. These Challenges are common to all species of wildlife, whether game or nongame, sportfish or native fish, abundant or rare. These Strategies define in general terms how the agency will address the Challenges through annual or biennial operational plans (work plans) within the agency's three wildlife subprograms: game management, sportfish management, and nongame and endangered wildlife management. Thus, the Challenges and the Strategies are also reflected in the three wildlife subprogram sections later in this document. For example, the agency's commitment to diverse partnerships (Challenge 5, with multiple Strategies), serves as an umbrella for a variety of typically more detailed, species-specific and other strategies in the game management, sportfish, and nongame and endangered wildlife subprograms. By not restating the Challenges and Strategies in each section, we have reduced the length of this document appreciably. Whether and how any given Strategy is implemented will, however, be contingent upon available funding, biological factors, weather, and other constraints, and in some cases will require agreements with governmental and/or nongovernmental cooperators. Challenge 1. Public Service, Planning, and Funding The Department must manage Arizona's wildlife resources as a public trust, through activities that are efficient, effective, well-planned, collaborative, and appropriately funded, with ample opportunities for public participation in planning, implementation, and evaluation. Strategies A. Maintain the agency-wide commitment to excellence in the Department's Wildlife Management Program, through: continuous process improvement, data-based decisions, efficiency in operations, delegation of authority, collaborative conflict resolution, common sense, and commitment to public service. Enhance public awareness of the Department's stewardship responsibility for Arizona's wildlife resources; the agency's goals, objectives, activities, and accomplishments; and wildlife-related issues. Build partnerships to address wildlife resource issues effectively and efficiently, in a cooperative, coordinated, and proactive manner that strives toward consensus-driven results. Conduct the Wildlife Management Program, while recognizing that efforts to meet resource needs may sometimes be tempered by societal values or by availability of fiscal resources: through a collaborative, consensus-driven approach to conflict resolution; with respect for property rights and the authorities and responsibilities of other government agencies; and without inappropriately impacting other uses of public lands.



B.



C.



D.



Wildlife 2006 Page 7



E.



Implement Wildlife 2006 through a Comprehensive Management System that includes strategy-specific objectives and approaches in operational plans to set priorities for the agency's three wildlife subprograms. Implement strategies from the Department's Off-Highway Vehicle Strategic Plan and Watercraft Strategic Plan to meet goals and objectives that are relevant to Wildlife 2006. Maintain a skilled and culturally diverse work force through aggressive recruitment and retention, and provide employees with professional growth and career progression opportunities. Maintain staffing levels in the three wildlife subprograms that are adequate to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, and periodically evaluate them to identify current and future needs. Supplement existing staff through the use of volunteers, and provide opportunities for volunteers to enhance their skills and knowledge while they help the Department accomplish its mission. Supplement existing staff with external expertise through contracts, grants, internships, interagency personnel exchanges, etc. Provide Department employees and volunteers with the training and resources necessary to implement Wildlife 2006 successfully. Periodically evaluate subprogram funding needs by determining base program and enhancement project needs for all work units. Identify and develop new sources of funding to provide program stability, buffer against inflation, and meet the needs of an expanding human population. In October 2002, 2004, and 2006, report to the public on each wildlife subprogram's accomplishments relative to the Challenges and Strategies in Wildlife 2006, and public satisfaction with subprogram performance. By December 2006, complete a Wildlife 2012 Strategic Plan.



F. G.



H.



I.



J. K. L. M. N.



O.



Wildlife 2006 Page 8



Challenge 2. Wildlife Information The Department must ensure that the biological information on which wildlife conservation and recreation decisions are based is: accurate, current, readily available; used to fully implement the multiple-use concept of managing public lands; and available to use in stewardship of private lands. Strategies A. Evaluate the quality and availability of wildlife information and improve both by increasing the efficiency, effectiveness, and scientific rigor of collection and analysis methods. Collaboratively develop and implement standardized techniques and protocols for wildlife inventory, survey, population modeling, monitoring, harvest, and for habitat assessment and monitoring. Develop and maintain manual and computerized management information systems to efficiently and effectively store, retrieve, and analyze data. Gather information on wildlife distribution, abundance, ecology, and natural history, and conduct research on wildlife issues, including disease, habitat requirements, taxonomy, and responses to management actions and land uses, and relate the findings to current or recommended management strategies. Cooperate with public and private entities in gathering and using wildlife management information. Identify trends in wildlife distribution, abundance, and harvest. Recommend actions to protect and manage wildlife, wildlife habitats, and wildlife-based recreation. Provide training to enhance staff proficiency in all areas of wildlife information collection, management, application, and dissemination. Disseminate wildlife information to the public.



B.



C. D.



E. F. G. H. I.



Wildlife 2006 Page 9



Challenge 3. Wildlife Management The Department must ensure that wildlife management decisions reflect sound science, and full consideration of relevant biological and social values. Strategies A. Develop and implement scientifically-sound wildlife management guidelines for all species of wildlife that need such guidelines, including harvested species and nonharvested species that need intensive management. In accordance with Department guidelines, when appropriate and economically feasible, enhance or reestablish wildlife populations within historically-occupied range. Maintain, improve, and restore habitats to help meet wildlife population management objectives that are consistent with wildlife recreation and conservation values. Solicit voluntary cooperation from property owners and lessees of public lands in striving to accomplish wildlife management objectives. Proactively consider the effects of wildlife management decisions on other species, public recreation, other land uses, cultural resources, socioeconomic values, and relevant resource-use groups. Continue moving from single-species planning toward ecosystem-based planning, in cooperation with external partners. Prohibit introduction of non-native species of wildlife, unless consistent with other wildlife management objectives. Develop and implement programs to minimize resource conflicts, such as wildlifelivestock competition, depredation, disease transmittal, and the impacts of non-native wildlife and feral animals. Integrate urban wildlife activities into the three wildlife subprograms and develop them to better meet human and resource needs. Promote public awareness of wildlife management issues.



B. C. D. E.



F. G. H.



I. J.



Wildlife 2006 Page 10



Challenge 4. Wildlife Habitat The Department must strive to work collaboratively to ensure that habitat is protected and managed to meet wildlife objectives. Strategies A. B. Develop and implement effective protocols to determine and monitor the quality and value of wildlife habitat. Maintain and promote wildlife habitat conservation, habitat enhancement, and land protection programs for urban areas and rural areas. On non-Department lands, achieve wildlife objectives by providing information and guidance to land management agencies and other vested interests (e.g. lessees, concessionaires), and through voluntary stewardship agreements and conservation easements with property owners. When other land protection mechanisms have proven infeasible or inappropriate, the Department may purchase properties. Note: by Commission policy, the Department purchases property only from willing sellers. The Department pays in-lieu taxes for such acquisitions. C. Advocate for, and where possible secure, instream flows and impoundment minimumstorage levels sufficient to sustain viable populations of aquatic, riparian, and wetlanddependent wildlife. Advocate for, and where possible participate in, watershed restoration to improve wildlife habitat. Monitor and evaluate the impacts of public lands uses on wildlife habitat, and the impacts of wildlife on habitat. Provide technical guidance and information to parties undertaking land and water development projects on public lands that might affect wildlife resources, to help them avoid impacts to wildlife and habitat. Where negative impacts to wildlife and habitat cannot be avoided, work with the project sponsors and permitting agencies to develop plans to mitigate, or where necessary compensate, for wildlife and habitat losses. Promote habitat improvements to resolve or reduce resource use and user conflicts. Evaluate, maintain, restore, enhance, and protect wildlife habitat on all Departmentowned or managed properties. Develop and implement processes to adopt and refine management plans for all Department-owned and managed properties. Maintain Department wildlife-related facilities in proper operating condition. Wildlife 2006 Page 11



D. E. F.



G. H. I. J.



K.



Increase public awareness of habitat issues, and provide information and expertise to communities, regional development interests, and the public regarding the impact of expanding human populations in Arizona on wildlife habitat and the needs of wildlife on both small (local) and large (landscape) scales. Solicit voluntary cooperation from property owners and lessees of public lands in striving to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives. Strive to develop incentive-based opportunities for private partners to engage in wildlife habitat conservation projects.



L. M.



Wildlife 2006 Page 12



Challenge 5. Partnerships The Department must meet Arizona's wildlife needs through inclusive partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust, and the Department as trust steward. Strategies A. B. Collaboratively address wildlife-related issues and meet public needs for wildlife protection, management, and recreation. Develop agreements with local governments for cooperative management of urban and rural lands and waters, and those in annexed areas, that are important to wildlife and to wildlife-based recreation, including hunting and fishing. Cooperate with other states, tribes, and other countries to develop and implement conservation strategies that help ensure restoration and long-term viability of wildlife native to Arizona. Cooperate with the public, other agencies, property owners, and lessees to promote public and agency awareness of access and trespass issues relative to wildlife recreation and management activities. Promote methods to minimize wildlife conflicts on agricultural and other private properties, and to enhance public awareness of property rights as they relate to wildlife conservation and wildlife-related recreation.



C.



D.



E.



Wildlife 2006 Page 13



Challenge 6. Laws and Legal Considerations State and federal laws, regulations, and policies must be sufficient to protect and conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat, and sustain and enhance ample public recreation opportunities. Strategies A. Maintain a liaison with the Legislature to review potential and pending legislation, and to maximize opportunities to cooperate with others in identifying and working toward mutually agreeable goals and objectives. Work with all levels of government, enforcement agencies, constituent groups, and the public to develop and increase awareness of laws, rules, and policies that protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, and which enhance wildlife recreation opportunities. Cooperate with entities developing non-wildlife oriented regulations, such as zoning ordinances, to maximize compatibility with wildlife management and wildlife recreation objectives. Evaluate existing wildlife and wildlife-related laws, regulations, and policies to determine whether they are still needed, are effective, or need to be changed. Identify areas of the State where laws, regulations, or policies established by other entities impede wildlife habitat maintenance or improvement, and develop and implement strategies to achieve the desired objectives. Coordinate with the State Attorney General's Office to minimize the basis for litigation against the Department and Commission, or to enforce their statutory authority when necessary. When laws, regulations, and/or policies are deemed by the Commission to be insufficient, evaluate and recommend alternative remedies, including fostering legislative reform, arbitration, mediation, and/or litigation.



B.



C.



D. E.



F.



G.



Wildlife 2006 Page 14



Challenge 7. Law Enforcement The Department must enforce wildlife-related laws and regulations to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, protect public health and safety, and sustain ample recreation opportunities. Strategies A. Use law enforcement patrols, officer visibility, officer contact, and information and education programs to enhance public awareness and knowledge of wildlife-related laws and regulations as a means of improving voluntary compliance. Develop and implement enforcement strategies and techniques, including use of patrols and volunteers, to increase deterrence, detection, and apprehension of violators, improve compliance rates, and enhance constituent involvement and public awareness. Cooperate with enforcement and land or resource management agencies in Arizona, other states, and other countries to implement and enforce wildlife-related laws, regulations, and policies. Provide training to Department employees, volunteers, and cooperating law enforcement agencies regarding wildlife-related laws, regulations, and policies. Maintain an enforcement records database, and provide employee training in its use, to help carry out the Department's mission. Evaluate wildlife-recreationist related vandalism and trespass on public and private lands, and implement information, education, and enforcement measures to address problems. Evaluate the effectiveness of wildlife-related laws, regulations, policies, and law enforcement efforts.



B.



C.



D. E. F. G.



Wildlife 2006 Page 15



Challenge 8. Wildlife Recreation The Department must provide ample public recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife-related recreationists, consistent with wildlife conservation values. Strategies A. B. C. D. E. Conduct surveys of public participation in wildlife-related recreation, and quantify rates and economic values for active and passive participation. Enhance opportunities for the public to enjoy wildlife, and promote responsible wildlifebased recreation. Encourage participation by youths, females, and other under-represented groups in hunting, fishing, other wildlife recreation programs, and shooting sports. Plan for appropriate interactions between hunters, anglers, trappers, and other wildlife users or enthusiasts when developing wildlife management programs. Identify lands and waters that are closed to public access, or that do not have sufficient access, and work with interested parties to meet wildlife management, recreation, and other access needs, without causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife or habitat and without infringing on property rights. Enact or promote closures on public lands as necessary to protect wildlife values, while providing compatible recreation opportunities. Work with all levels of government and other partners to minimize conflicts among recreationists. Increase public awareness of access needs, the public's rights to access, access etiquette, and the rights of property owners to restrict access to their lands. Strive to maintain and enhance access to wildlife recreation sites by promptly addressing concerns of private individuals who provide public access to or through the lands they own or lease.



F. G. H. I.



Wildlife 2006 Page 16



Challenge 9. Public Information and Education The Department must reach out to the public to communicate accurate, timely information promotes public awareness, understanding, and enjoyment of wildlife, wildlife issues, wildlife-related recreation opportunities, and to obtain information about public attitudes public preferences regarding the wildlife resource and related conservation, education, recreation issues. Strategies A. B. C. D. E. F. Meet the needs of the diverse public by enhancing the Department's commitment to information and education as a management strategy. Increase public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of Arizona's wildlife as a public trust, and the Department's role as steward of that public trust. Increase public support for the Department's mission and programs, and to increase and stabilize revenue bases. Increase the abilities of Department employees and volunteers to communicate effectively with the public. Monitor public attitudes on wildlife protection, management, and recreation opportunities and issues. Evaluate the effectiveness of programs in transferring agency values, information, education, and skills to the public. that and and and



Wildlife 2006 Page 17



Game Management Subprogram

In America's past, hunting was a widespread recreational pursuit, and sometimes a necessity. Today, hunting provides a unique link to our past. As our society becomes increasingly urban, outdoor recreation patterns are changing. During the last quarter of a century, even though the total number of hunters has increased, the percentage of the population that hunts has decreased. An understanding of demographics and preferences of Arizona hunters is crucial to establishing hunt objectives and guidelines. Equally crucial is offering diverse opportunities to all Arizona residents to experience and appreciate Arizona's hunting heritage. The Arizona Hunter To collect information necessary for this Strategic Plan, the Department mailed surveys in July 2000 to a randomly selected sample of 2000 purchasers of 1999 hunting licenses (211 surveys were returned as "undeliverable"). At the time of response summarization for this document, 702 (39.2%) surveys had been received. Most of the data from this survey are labeled "2000." Some questions, however, were designed to collect information on hunter activities during the previous year, and the results are labeled "1999." Similar to 1993, age, sex, and state residency were derived from a sample of 1999 hunting license receipts. Unless indicated otherwise, data are from residents and non-residents combined. In addition to the information necessary for the Strategic Plan, the survey was designed to collect data that could be used for trend comparison with data collected during similar surveys in 1987 and 1994. All surveys included residents and non-residents in proportion to their occurrence in the hunting population. Arizona population statistics were taken from the Arizona Department of Economic Security's Internet website (http://www.de.state.az/). Sales of Arizona hunting licenses reached a high in 1986. The Department provided limited opportunity to harvest two deer during this period. After 1986, hunting license sales declined until a low was reached in 1992. Several factors may have contributed to this decline: poor deer and quail hunting, application deadline for the draw shortened by a week, archery javelina was added to the draw, and an increase in the cost of hunting licenses in 1990. From 1992 to 1993, hunting license sales jumped 12.4 percent (Fig. 1). Small game hunters appear to be responsible for much of this increase, as their numbers increased approximately 11,300 (13.6%), based on the annual small game hunter questionnaire. The number of applications submitted in drawings increased by 5.7 percent in 1993, indicating that the number of hunters who bought licenses to hunt big game probably increased as well. Arizona hunting license sales continued to increase to the present, with a slight drop in 1996 and 1997. This drop may have been a customer response to poor hunting conditions for all species, especially deer, quail, and dove. In 1998, deer were added to the bonus point system, allowing unsuccessful deer applicants in 1999 to begin accumulating points. This may have reversed the drop in hunting license sales that occurred in 1996 and 1997. The percentage of Arizona residents who purchased hunting licenses has decreased since 1993, with only 3.4 percent of Arizonans purchasing a hunting license in 1999 (Fig. 2). This decrease is a reflection of Arizona's population increasing, while the number of resident hunters remained stable.



Wildlife 2006 Page 18



The proportion of non-resident to resident hunting license purchasers was 12.2 percent in 1999, an increase from 9.9 percent in 1993 and the 10.0 percent reported in 1990 (Fig. 3).

200,000 NON-RESIDENT RESIDENT



10 8



150,000



Number



100,000



Percent



6 4 2 0



50,000



0 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00



65



70



75



80



85



90



95



00



Year



Year



Figure 1. Arizona hunting license sales.



Figure 2. Percent of Arizona residents who purchase Arizona hunting licenses.



Women continue to comprise only a small proportion of hunters, 6.4 percent in 2000 versus 6.1 percent in 1994 and 6.9 percent in 1987. Ages reported on samples of licenses continued to increase during 1987-2000. Mean ages shifted upward from 36.8 in 1987 and 37.8 in 1993 to 44.7 in 1999. This shift is evident on comparison of age-class composition (Fig. 4). The "population pyramid" continues to become more top-heavy, indicating declining recruitment of young hunters. This is corroborated by the fact that fewer hunters in recent years indicated harvest of small game by junior hunters on their annual small game questionnaires.

14 12 10



35 30 25 Percent 20 15 10 5 0

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00



1987



1994



2000



Percent



8 6 4 2 0



15-24



25-34



35-44



45-54 A g e Class



55-64



65-74



75 up



Year



Figure 3. Percent of Arizona hunting licenses purchased by non-residents.



Figure 4. Age classes of Arizona hunting license purchasers.



Years of residency for Arizona resident hunters shifted back to the middle age classes during 1994 to 2000. Education level of Arizona hunters appears to have remained stable from 1987 to 2000 with 59.4 percent of respondents completing trade school or some level of college. The population size of communities in which hunters reside shifted slightly toward communities of less than 100,000 in 2000. Membership in hunting and conservation organizations remained relatively stable during 1987-2000. Subscription rates to the Department's Arizona Wildlife Views magazine more than doubled from 12.3 percent in 1987 to 27.5 percent in 1994 but dropped to 17.1 percent in 1999. The percentage that subscribed to the Department's Newsletter continued to decline from 5.0 percent in 1987 and 4.0 percent in 1994 to 3.1 percent in 1999. The percentage of hunters who had completed the Arizona Hunter Education course increased from 32.8 percent to 34.2 Wildlife 2006 Page 19



percent during 1994-2000. Adding deer to the bonus point system, which awards a permanent bonus point to hunters who complete the Arizona Hunter Safety course, was probably a factor in this increase. The rate of completion of other states' hunter education courses continued to increase (16.7% in 1987, 20.5% in 1994 to 27.1% in 2000). In 2000, 61.3 percent of Arizona hunters had completed a hunter education course, an increase of 8.0 percent from 1994. The percentage of hunters who contributed to the Nongame Wildlife Checkoff on their Arizona State Tax Form continued to decline from 31.8 in 1987, to 30.1 in 1994, to 20.1 in 1999. Survey responses indicated a slight decrease in participation in most outdoor activities from 1994 to 2000. When asked why they purchased their licenses, respondents in 2000 indicated they preferred to hunt big game and small game equally. The percentage of hunters who purchased tags for archery deer, archery turkey, bear, and lion increased from 1993 to 1999 (permit-tags became required for fall turkey and archery javelina hunts in 1991 and 1992, respectively). Fee increases in 1989 for bear and lion tags were probably largely responsible for the decline from 1987 to 1993 sales for these tags. The percentage of hunters who applied in hunt draws decreased for deer and javelina while increasing or remaining the same for all other species during 1987-1999. Of those who purchased a 1999 hunting license, 80.8 percent responded that they hunted during that year. These hunters were asked how satisfied they were with their hunting experience in Arizona. Of the 1999 hunting license purchasers, 66.7 percent scored their experience as a seven or greater, with 10 indicating extremely satisfied. The majority of hunting licenses holders who actually hunted in 1999 and scored their experience as a five or less, gave "unsuccessful hunt/didn't bag any game" and "not enough animals" as the main reasons for the lower score. There was no consistent pattern in the percentages of hunters who reported that they usually hunt various small game and migratory bird species. Interestingly, hunters must interpret "usually" to mean hunting at least once every several years, because rates of hunt participation for various species were greater from this survey than from the small game hunter questionnaires. For example, there were only 309 sandhill crane permits issued in 1999. When the 1.4 percent of respondents who said they usually hunt sandhill crane is expanded to the number of 1999 small game hunters (97,122), there are 1360 hunters "usually" hunting sandhill crane. Weapon ownership increased slightly in almost all categories, with the ownership of archery tackle almost doubling, during 1987-2000. Previous questionnaires indicate rates of ownership of most types of weapons are higher for big game hunters than for hunters in general. The person who introduced respondents to hunting remained relatively the same from 1987 to 2000. Those who introduce others to hunting are almost entirely male. Only two of 689 (0.2%) hunters with valid responses indicated that a female introduced them to hunting.



Wildlife 2006 Page 20



The majority of respondents were introduced to hunting by age 14 for all three survey periods. On average, expectations for hunt success during 1987-1994 remained the same, with most respondents indicating two hunters out of a camp of four should be successful. Since actual hunt success, in general, is less than 50 percent and to avoid inflating hunter expectations, the question was modified in 2000. On average, expectations for hunt success in 2000 were 31.2 percent and 37.1 percent, depending on the species. Actual hunt success changed little during this time; actual hunt success was less than expected for deer and spring turkey, as expected for javelina, and exceeded expectations for antelope and elk. The percentage of hunters who felt that the density of roads in their hunt area was too high increased slightly from 1994 to 2000. Of these hunters, the majority in all three years felt that roads should be closed to protect habitat and reduce hunter densities. Though a majority of hunters felt that access problems in their hunting area had remained the same, a third indicated they had been increasing. When asked where access problems were the most serious, the highest percentages of respondents in 2000 said the southeast and central parts of the state. These percentages dropped from 1994. During 1987-2000, survey responses indicated that the number of times during the last year that a Department employee had been encountered in the field remained approximately the same. In 2000, 16.7 percent of respondents indicated that they contacted a Department office before hunting; this was an increase from 12.2 percent in 1994. When given a choice of two methods of restricting archery hunts, respondents to all three surveys had a much higher preference for limiting hunters than for shortening seasons. When asked about restrictions on other hunt methods, hunters seemed to be more opinionated in 1994 than in 1987 or 2000, as indicated by the lower rate of non-response in 1994. The greatest preferences for restriction or elimination in 2000 were shown for the use of ATVs and snowmobiles. Respondents were more lenient in their interpretation of which weapon types should be classified as primitive weapons. Similar to 1987 and 1994, survey respondents in 2000 were more likely to choose rifle as their weapon of preference. However, an increased preference for archery came at the expense of rifle, with preferences for other weapons remaining stable. Rates of first choice hunt application appear to approximate hunter preferences. Though less than ten percent of respondents or members of their family would qualify and apply for a disabled hunter permit in 2000, 55.6 percent would agree to opening big game seasons two days earlier for big game hunters with disabled permits. The majority of hunters in 2000 favored having special big game hunts only for juniors aged 10-14 and disabled hunters. Respondents favored having special big game hunts only for juniors aged 10-14 at 61.7 percent with only 41.7 percent favoring the special hunts for juniors aged 10-17. Beginning with this survey, specific questions were asked regarding the Department's Juniors-Only Hunter Program. Sixty percent of respondents were in favor of allocating a percentage of big game permits to juniors-only hunts. The average allocation given was 9.1 percent. The Department currently offers juniors-only big game hunts for deer, antelope, elk, turkey, and javelina. In 2000, the Commission allocated 2 percent of all deer permits, 2.5 percent of general Wildlife 2006 Page 21



and muzzleloader antelope permits, and 5 percent of antlerless elk permits to juniors-only. Of the respondents in favor of allocating a percentage of big game permits to juniors-only hunts, 52.5 percent indicated the allocation was just right, with another 43.4 percent indicating it was too low. The majority of respondents in favor of allocating permits to juniors-only hunts were in favor of providing the opportunity for all species except bighorn sheep. When asked if juniors-only hunts s ould occur at the same time as a general hunt, or at separate h times (where, at the same time provides the junior with an increased opportunity to be drawn and at separate times provides special privileges for juniors such as fewer people in the field), respondents favored offering the juniors-only hunts at a separate time (62.7%). Summary and Conclusions Reversing a steady decline from 1987 to 1992, sales of hunting licenses have increased each year with a slight drop in 1996 and 1997 (Fig. 1). Probable causes for this increase were improved prospects for small game hunting and the bonus point system for some big game species. The longterm outlook for hunting license sales does not look encouraging. The average age of hunters continues to increase, while the number of young hunters continues to decline despite special efforts to recruit them. Special license (youth combination), special hunts (juniors-only big game hunts and juniors-only afternoon dove hunts), and special hunter education programs have not increased the percentage of young hunters as hoped. In fact, without these programs the percentage might have been much lower. In most respects, characteristics and opinions of hunters in 2000 were similar to those of hunters in 1987 and 1994. They remain heavily male and middle-aged with average or slightly higher levels of education. Since the first survey in 1987, Arizona hunters have aged slightly and increased their length of Arizona residency. A larger percentage has completed the Arizona Hunter Education course and subscribes to Arizona Wildlife Views magazine. Participation in camping, hiking, and birdwatching seems to have increased. With the bonus point system in place, hunters are apparently applying in the draw m re faithfully. Rates of weapon ownership have increased slightly, and use of archery o equipment for hunting has almost doubled. Expectations for hunt success range between 30 percent and 40 percent for big game species. Present day hunters seem to favor various potential hunt restrictions less except for restrictions on the use of ATVs and snowmobiles, and are broader in their interpretation of what a primitive weapon is. Though few hunters would qualify as disabled, most hunters would agree to an earlier opening of big game hunts for disabled hunters.



Wildlife 2006 Page 22



Mission, Goals, and Objectives Mission: Protect and manage game wildlife populations and their habitats to maintain the natural diversity of Arizona, and to provide game wildlife oriented recreation opportunities for present and future generations.



Goals: 1. 2. 3. Maintain, enhance, and restore (when appropriate and economically feasible) populations of game wildlife to provide for recreation opportunities, including wildlife viewing. Minimize adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife resources, and strive to resolve human/wildlife conflicts. Increase public awareness of Arizona's game wildlife, its management, and hunting and viewing opportunities.



Objectives: 1. 2. 3. Notes: Provide hunting recreation for 190,000 or more hunters annually (190,000 combination licenses and hunting licenses were sold to Arizona resident, junior, and non-resident hunters in 1998, the most recent year for which records are complete). Achieve a 60 percent satisfaction rating among Arizona's hunting public (i.e. 60% of Arizona's hunters indicating they were satisfied with their hunting experience over the past year). Provide Arizona's diverse publics with information and education about game animals and hunting. The general Challenges and Strategies listed earlier in this plan are also addressed for game species in other documents, such as W-53-M (Game Management) Federal Aid Narratives, Annual Work Plans, Game Species Management Guidelines, and Arizona Hunt Management Guidelines. Each species account in the Game Management Section includes a paragraph on "status," followed by a species-specific or group-specific "goal" and several "strategies." The Strategies are often reiterations of the Challenges or Strategies addressed in the earlier section of this plan. Here they are tailored to these species. The status descriptions in these game species accounts have been updated for Wildlife 2006. Minor revisions have also been made to the species-specific goals, objectives, and strategies. Reviewers should compare the status descriptions against the goals, objectives, and strategies for a given species to recommend any changes they believe are appropriate.



Wildlife 2006 Page 23



Game Surveys The Department is required by statute to establish programs for the management of game species for both hunters and non-hunters. The demand for Arizona's game resources generally exceeds the supply. Careful regulation of take is imperative, particularly with respect to ungulates. Regulation of the annual harvest requires an inventory of the game resource and an estimate of the harvest of each species. These data constitute basic information needed to formulate hunting harvest limits and season lengths. This information is also published to provide hunters and nonhunters with a reasonable chance of success in either hunting or observing game commensurate with the available supply and biological welfare of the particular species. This information is also needed by wildlife managers and land administrators to make decisions to regulate the size of the wildlife resource in balance with available habitat, and to make decisions that affect management of forests and rangelands for multiple users. The Department conducts routine annual and semi-annual surveys for different species of wildlife using a variety of survey techniques (including, where feasible to do so, aerial line, transect, and block surveys). These surveys are conducted to document occurrence and estimate numbers of particular species of wildlife, relative ratios of animals based on sex and age, and recruitment success for a given Game Management Unit. The Department frequently uses helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to survey deer, pronghorn, elk, bighorn sheep, javelina, buffalo, and waterfowl on a statewide basis. Where feasible, aerial line transect and block surveys are used to estimate populations. Surveys conducted from fixedwing aircraft are flown at approximately 70 miles-per-hour, and at least 200 feet above ground level, while observers in the aircraft record the number, age, and sex of the animals surveyed. Surveys conducted from helicopters are flown at approximately 40 miles-per-hour, at a minimum of 200 feet above ground level. Low-level operations are conducted only on the portions of flights occurring over habitat in which the species being surveyed is likely to occur. These habitats include most vegetation associations occurring in Arizona. Estimating Game Population Numbers The Department estimates statewide populations of deer, elk, and pronghorn using models that are based on simple life-table calculations. These models determine the population size necessary for estimated annual removal of animals (harvest and non-hunt mortality) over a series of years to produce observed effects on male:female ratios. The principle is that hunts for male animals reduce male:female ratios below those found in non-hunted populations, and the extent of this reduction is dependent upon the size of the harvest and of the population size. Information required for this model is (1) surveyed male:female and juvenile:female ratios for each year in the simulation, (2) harvest estimates for each year, (3) estimates of average annual non-hunt mortality rates for adult males, adult females, and juveniles, and (4) an initial estimate of the number of adult males and females in the population at the time of the first survey.



Wildlife 2006 Page 24



For elk and pronghorn, the model calculations are as follows (the sequence is slightly different for deer because they are surveyed after the hunting seasons): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The pre-hunt population estimate of the first year is divided into adult males, adult females, and juveniles based on the survey ratios collected at that time. Hunter-related mortality is deducted, producing a post-hunt population estimate. Non-hunt mortality for the entire year is estimated for each of the three population segments and subtracted. Juveniles (now yearlings) are added into the adult population on a 50 male:50 female basis. The resulting numbers are the next year's pre-hunt population estimate. Calculations begin again at Step 1 for the next year, using the population estimates from Step 4.



This process is repeated for each year in the simulation. Each time that Step 1 is completed, the male:female ratio calculated in the model is compared to the male:female ratio from field surveys. The difference indicates how closely the simulated data match the survey data. If the values are similar, it is assumed that the model is accurately estimating populations. If they are not, values of unknown variables (initial populations and non-hunt mortality rates) are adjusted until the ratios from the simulation approximate those from annual surveys. For all game species identified in this Strategic Plan, management objectives were developed by considering historical harvest levels and hunter participation rates and then projecting reasonable ranges that are likely to be met within the 6-year period of the plan. These ranges consider: changes in population levels due to climatic conditions (i.e. small game) or to active population management (i.e. bighorn sheep and pronghorn); changes in harvest strategies (i.e. black bear and mountain lion); or concerns related to habitat condition (i.e. elk).



Wildlife 2006 Page 25



Big Game Species Mule Deer Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 110,000 post-hunt adults (Fig. 5); 60,000 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 2400 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; 8100 animals harvested (Fig. 6) during 249,500 hunter days; and 16,420 archery hunters 180000 and 64,969 first choice applicants for 160000 33,569 authorized permits. Mule deer 140000 numbers fluctuate annually due to weather, 120000 habitat, predation, competition, and many 100000 other factors. Note: these estimates do not 80000 include tribal lands or National Parks. 60000

Post-Hunt Adults



Goal Maintain mule deer populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities.



40000 20000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Objectives 1. Maintain a statewide population of 123,000 to 154,000 post-hunt adult mule deer. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 12,500 to 15,000 mule deer. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 70,000 to 83,000 hunters per year. 4. Provide 310,000 to 340,000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Use standardized surveys and population and hunt modeling to assist in permit recommendations. Base harvest objectives on population targets and habitat objectives. 2. Issue permits considering hunter access and demand rates for various weapon types. 3. In Game Management Units 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 36B, 45A, 45B, and 45C, offer buck hunting opportunities that emphasize harvest of older age class animals, reduced

25000 20000 Total Harvest 15000 10000 5000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 5. Mule deer population by year.



Figure 6. Mule deer harvest by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 26



4. 5. 6. 7.



hunter densities, and higher hunter success. Specific mule deer management guidelines for these units will be included in an "Alternative Mule Deer Management Plan." Improve the condition of declining or low density herds through habitat improvement, research, conservative hunt management, or predator management. Coordinate with the Arizona Department of Transportation to determine the extent of vehicle-deer collisions and to identify possible mechanisms by which to reduce the incidence or severity of such collisions. Coordinate with land management agencies, property owners, and lessees to mitigate land uses that are detrimental to mule deer. Manage and enhance habitats through partnerships with public agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations.



Wildlife 2006 Page 27



White-tailed Deer Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 80,000 post-hunt adults (Fig. 7); 9000 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 900 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; 3600 animals harvested (Fig. 8) during 87,840 hunter days; and 3850 archery hunters and 30,573 120000 first-choice applicants for 15,797 authorized permits. Note: these estimates 100000 do not include tribal lands or National 80000 Parks.

Post-Hunt Adults 60000 40000 20000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Goal Maintain white-tailed deer populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities.



Objectives 1. Maintain a statewide population of Figure 7. White-tailed deer population by year. 85,000 to 95,000 post-hunt adult white-tailed deer. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 5000 to 6000 white-tailed deer. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 21,000 to 24,000 hunters per year. 4. Provide 80,000 to 100,000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Use standardized surveys and population and hunt modeling to assist in permit recommendations. 2. Manage white-tailed deer 8000 independently of mule deer, to the 7000 extent practicable. 6000 3. Issue permits in consideration of 5000 hunter access, season structures, 4000 and demand rates for various 3000 weapon types. 2000 4. Coordinate with land management agencies, property owners, and 1000 lessees to mitigate land uses that are 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 detrimental to white-tailed deer. Year 5. Manage and enhance habitats through partnerships with public Figure 8. White-tailed deer harvest by year. agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations. Wildlife 2006 Page 28

Total Harvest



Pronghorn Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 8000 post-hunt adults (Fig. 9); 21,000 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 250 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; 570 animals harvested (Fig. 10) during 4800 hunting days; and 20,411 first choice applicants for 14000 1190 authorized permits. Note: these 12000 estimates do not include tribal lands or 10000 National Parks.

Post-Hunt Adults 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Objectives Year 1. Maintain a statewide population of 8250 to 10,000 post-hunt adults. Figure 9. Pronghorn population by year. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 600 to 800 pronghorn. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 1200 to 1600 hunters per year. 4. Provide 4500 to 6000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. 6. Restore the historical range in Arizona by repopulating through transplants.



Goal Maintain pronghorn populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities.



Species-Specific Strategies 1. Manage and enhance habitat through partnerships with public 900 agencies, property owners, lessees, 800 and conservation organizations. 700 2. Improve conditions of declining or 600 low-density herds through research, 500 conservative hunt management, 400 supplemental transplants, and 300 200 predator management. 100 3. Establish self-sustaining pronghorn 0 populations at all transplant sites. 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 4. Identify important habitats for Year populations and determine where Figure 10. Pronghorn harvest by year. protection and improvement are possible, in cooperation with land management agencies, property owners, and lessees. 5. Use population and hunt modeling to assist in permit recommendations. 6. Provide hunter recreation that stresses the quality of the hunting experience. Wildlife 2006 Page 29

Total Harvest



Elk Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 were as follows: 26,000 post-hunt adults (Fig. 11); 7800 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 1300 mi2 classified as high 35000 quality habitat; 9800 animals harvested 30000 (Fig. 12) during 101,100 hunter days; and 25000 94,835 first choice applicants for 23,346 authorized permits. Note: these estimates 20000 do not include tribal lands or National 15000 Parks.

Post-Hunt Adults 10000 5000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Goal Maintain elk populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities, while minimizing substantiated depredation complaints.



Figure 11. Elk population by year.



Objectives 1. Maintain a statewide population of 25,000 to 30,000 post-hunt adult elk. Address local issues in Regional Operational Plans that may impact localized populations, despite current statewide population levels. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 7500 to 12,000 elk. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 16,000 to 25,000 hunters per year. 4. Provide 70,000 to 110,000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Design hunt recommendations that address population management objectives and substantiated depredation complaints. 2. Use standardized surveys and population and hunt modeling to assist in permit recommendations. Base management on population targets, herd units, and habitat objectives. 3. Develop cooperative action plans, including monitoring, with property owners, lessees, and land management agencies to minimize elk-livestock interactions.



14000 12000 Total Harvest 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 12. Elk harvest by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 30



4. 5. 6.



7. 8. 9. 10.



Coordinate with tribal authorities for elk management. Issue permits in consideration of demand rates for various weapon types. Local Habitat Partnership Committees will identify ways to manage and enhance elk habitat through partnerships with public agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations, and help maintain communication among individuals interested in elk management. Use Regional Elk Operational Plans, which will be reviewed annually by the Commission, to direct elk management goals and objectives. Develop a standardized survey protocol that produces survey-generated population estimates. Coordinate with the Arizona Department of Transportation to determine the extent of vehicle-elk collisions and to identify possible mechanisms by which to reduce the incidence or severity of such collisions. Update elk distribution maps within the Department's Geographic Information System databases.



Wildlife 2006 Page 31



Turkey Status and Use Estimates for the statewide turkey population in 1999 are as follows: 7800 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 940 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; 1930 turkeys harvested (Fig. 13) during 32,500 hunter days ( all 1999 season f = 980 turkeys harvested during 18,400 hunter days; spring 2000 season = 950 3000 bearded turkeys harvested during 14,100 2500 hunter days); 11,322 first choice applicants 2000 for 5015 authorized spring permits; 9077 applicants for 4260 fall permits; and 2133 1500 archery tags. Note: these estimates do not 1000 include tribal lands or National Parks. 500

Total Harvest



Goal Maintain turkey populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities, and maintain and enhance turkey habitat through cooperation with land management agencies.



0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 13. Turkey harvest by year.



Objectives 1. Provide hunter recreation opportunity based on turkey population status and habitat quality. 2. Maintain a harvest of 1600 to 2000 turkeys. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 10,000 to 14,000 hunters per year. 4. Provide 36,000 to 45,000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with an emphasis on contiguous medium and high quality habitat. 6. Maintain the range of all subspecies in Arizona by repopulating historical range through transplants; emphasize reintroduction of Gould's turkey. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Use the turkey habitat scorecard to identify and priority rank where efforts are needed to improve habitat quality in cooperation with land management agencies, property owners, and lessees. 2. Establish self-sustaining populations at all new transplant sites. 3. Provide hunter recreation that stresses the quality of the hunting experience. 4. Use population status evaluations to determine hunt structure and permit numbers.



Wildlife 2006 Page 32



Javelina Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 2000 are as follows: 35,000 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 2200 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; 7230 animals harvested (Fig. 14) during 87,200 hunter days; 18,277 first choice applicants for 19,935 authorized firearms 10000 permits; and 8828 first choice applicants 9000 for 9650 archery permits. Note: these 8000 7000 estimates do not include tribal lands or 6000 National Parks.

Total Harvest 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 86 88 90 92 Year 94 96 98



Goal Maintain javelina populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities, while minimizing substantiated depredation and nuisance complaints.



Figure 14. Javelina harvest by year. Objectives 1. Maintain a statewide population of 35,000 to 45,000 javelina. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 6500 to 8500 javelina. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 27,500 to 32,500 hunters per year. 4. Provide 90,000 to 110,000 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat.



Species-Specific Strategies 1. Evaluate the Department's Nuisance Javelina Procedures and offer recommendations for retention or change. 2. Issue permits in consideration of demand rates for various weapon types. 3. Manage and enhance habitats through partnerships with public agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations.



Wildlife 2006 Page 33



Bighorn Sheep Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 6500 bighorn sheep; 8 00 mi2 of 5 2 occupied habitat, including 170 mi classified as high quality habitat; 104 animals harvested (Fig. 15) during 745 hunter days; and 8408 first choice applicants for 111 authorized 140 permits. Note: these estimates do not 120 include tribal lands or National Parks, Memorials, or Monuments, but do include 100 Lake Mead and Glen Canyon National 80 Recreation Areas.

Total Harvest 60 40 20 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Goal Increase bighorn sheep populations and provide diverse recreational opportunities.



Objectives Figure 15. Bighorn sheep harvest by year. 1. Increase the bighorn sheep population to 7500. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 100 to 120 bighorn sheep. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 110 to 140 hunters per year. 4. Provide 550 to 750 hunter days per year. 5. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. 6. Maintain the existing range of all subspecies in Arizona, and repopulate historical range through transplants. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Use population modeling to assist in permit recommendations. Base management on population characteristics, herd units, and habitat potential. 2. Establish self-sustaining populations at all new transplant sites. 3. Evaluate transplant sites for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and implement further transplants as appropriate. 4. Provide hunter recreation that stresses the quality of the hunting experience and harvest of older age class rams. 5. Cooperate with land management agencies, property owners, and lessees to reduce adverse interactions between bighorn sheep, feral animals, and domestic livestock. 6. Manage and enhance habitats, specifically including development of new and maintenance of existing water catchments, through partnerships with public agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations.



Wildlife 2006 Page 34



Buffalo1 Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 206 buffalo on the Department's Houserock Valley Wildlife and Raymond Ranch Wildlife Area; 75,000 acres of occupied habitat (including two State and federal grazing allotments); 38 animals harvested (Fig. 16) 80 during 147 hunter days; and 1380 first70 choice applicants for 49 authorized permits. 60 Note: these estimates do not include tribal 50 lands or National Parks, Memorials, 40 Monuments, or Recreation Areas.

Total Harvest 30 20 10 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Goal Maintain buffalo populations at levels that provide diverse recreational opportunities.



Objectives 1. Maintain a statewide population of Figure 16. Buffalo harvest by year. 200 to 300 buffalo. 2. Maintain annual harvest at 40 to 60 buffalo. 3. Provide recreational opportunity for 50 to 80 hunters per year. 4. Provide 125 to 325 hunter days per year. 5. Provide wildlife viewing opportunities for 800 visitors per year at the Department's Houserock Valley Wildlife Area and Raymond Ranch Wildlife Area. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain herds at levels consistent with good range management practices. 2. Provide a variety of quality hunt and recreational viewing opportunities. 3. Integrate management of other species into the goals of buffalo management. 4. Increase wildlife watching opportunities. 5. Manage and enhance habitats through partnerships with public agencies, property owners and lessees, and wildlife conservation organizations.



This document uses the common name for this species that is used in A.R.S. 17, Commission Orders, and the Department's publications on hunting seasons, rather than the name used by the American Society of Mammalogists, "American bison." Wildlife 2006 Page 35



1



Black Bear Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 2500 black bears; 12,600 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 2300 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; and 4046 permits sold and 181 animals harvested (Fig. 17). Note: these estimates do not include tribal lands 350 or National Parks.

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Objectives Year 1. Maintain an annual harvest of no Figure 17. Black bear harvest by year. more than 125 female bears (including depredation take), with a total harvest of 250 or more bears (including males). 2. Provide recreational opportunity to 4000 to 7000 hunters per year. 3. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat.



Goal Manage the black bear population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona's fauna. Provide bear hunting and other related recreational opportunities.



Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain a complete database from all harvest sources through a mandatory check-out system, including age, sex, kill location, etc., to develop population trend information. Conduct a hunter questionnaire biannually. 2. Identify important habitats for bear populations and ensure protection, and improvement where possible, through cooperation with land management agencies and landowners. 3. Implement hunt structures to direct h rvest emphasis toward the male segment of the bear a population. 4. As bear hunt areas become defined, determine population numbers and characteristics on a hunt-area basis. 5. Cooperate with land management agencies to reduce conflicts between bears and humans, and increase public awareness of bears and their habitat, to reduce nuisance problems. 6. Implement hunt structures to direct harvest emphasis towards areas with high bear populations and where depredation and nuisance complaints are substantiated.



Wildlife 2006 Page 36



Total Harvest



Mountain Lion Status and Use Estimates for the statewide population in 1999 are as follows: 2500 mountain lions; 62,000 mi2 of occupied habitat, including 10,700 mi2 classified as high quality habitat; and 6826 permits sold and 246 animals harvested (Fig. 18). Note: these estimates do not include tribal 400 lands or National Parks.

350 300 Total Harvest 250 200 150 100 50 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Objectives Year 1. Maintain annual harvest at 250 to Figure 18. Mountain lion harvest by year. 300 mountain lions (including depredation take). 2. Provide recreational opportunity for 3000 to 6000 hunters per year. 3. Maintain existing occupied habitat and maintain the present range of mountain lions in Arizona.



Goal Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona's fauna. Provide mountain lion hunting (including hunting with dogs) and other related recreational opportunities.



Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain a complete database from all harvest sources, through a mandatory check-out system, including age, sex, kill location, etc. to index population trend. 2. Conduct a hunter questionnaire biannually. 3. Evaluate the management implications of population and relative density estimates. 4. Implement hunt structures to increase and direct harvest emphasis toward areas with high lion populations, and where depredation complaints are substantiated, and evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. 5. Determine population numbers and characteristics on a hunt-area basis. 6. Increase public awareness of mountain lions and their habits, to reduce conflicts with humans. 7. Implement the Department's Predation Management Policy.



Wildlife 2006 Page 37



Small Game Species Status Arizona's small game species include cottontail rabbits, tree squirrels, upland game birds (quails, chukar, grouse, and pheasants), and migratory game birds (ducks, geese, swan, sandhill cranes, coot, gallinule, common snipe, mourning and white-winged doves, and band-tailed pigeon). One or more of these species occur in virtually all vegetation types throughout Arizona, from the highest mountains to the lowest plains; forests, wetlands, and deserts; and farmlands, cities, and wilderness. The determining factor controlling small game numbers in Arizona is the quality and quantity of habitats, which in turn often reflects climatic variations. This plan emphasizes small game management through monitoring, preservation, and manipulation of habitats. Supply and Demand Many small game animals have adapted to human presence. White-winged and mourning doves nest in Phoenix and Tucson, gray and Abert's squirrels frequent feeders in Payson, and waterfowl graze suburban golf courses virtually statewide. This close association of small game animals and the human residents of Arizona provides many opportunities for hunting and for wildlife photography, observation, and study. Small game species represent a resource that is generally under-used by hunters. Use levels often are correlated with rainfall cycles, because small game abundance drops in periods of drought. The number of hunters in the field is also affected by concern for zoonotic diseases, although not all of these concerns are well founded. Although rabbits sometimes do carry plague and tularemia, these diseases are not often conveyed to humans. Rabbits and tree squirrels are also widely perceived by the public to carry hantavirus. However, studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control suggest that if these mammals do carry the virus, it is not common in them. Deer mice are far more likely to harbor hantavirus than rabbits or tree squirrels. Nevertheless, the public is concerned about the possibility of exposure to diseases that are, or may be, carried by small game animals. Thus, the Department is developing information to help alleviate these concerns so the public can more fully appreciate and enjoy the outdoor recreation represented by small game mammals. The information will include precautions to take while hunting or camping, to minimize any health risk. Small game hunting opportunity is the combination of areas open, season length, and bag limit. Supply is the amount of hunter opportunity the small game resource can provide on a sustained yield basis. The supply of hunting opportunity for small game species continues to exceed the demand placed on it by hunters. For most small game species strategic plans, supply is not quantified because the breeding populations are unaffected by hunting. The Department will monitor the response of small game species to hunting and will restrict hunting pressure if hunting is found to adversely affect Wildlife 2006 Page 38



breeding populations. However, determining the size of small game populations is difficult at best. These populations respond quickly to changing environmental conditions. When conditions are favorable, populations increase. When the reverse is true, populations decrease. A "typical" small game animal with a welldefined reproductive season also has a predictable annual population cycle (Fig. 19). The population is lowest just before the young are born. It is highest when the ratio of the young being born to the number dying is greatest. The period when young appear may last for several days to many weeks, even throughout the spring and summer. The duration depends on the species, weather, condition of the adult(s), and food availability. These factors also affect birth rates and mortality rates. Juvenile mortality tends to be higher than adult mortality. The population continues to fluctuate as appearing, adult and juvenile mortality high the population is after the annual have young, the species' reproductive availability.



REPRODUCTION H I G H



L O W 0 0



FALL FALL



WINTER



SPRING



SUMMER



Figure 19. Small game reproductive cycle.



the young are born and die. Eventually, the young stop continue, and the population begins decreasing. How natality period ends also depends on how many adults potential, condition of the adults, weather, and food



Small game mortality results from a very long list of causes, such as predation, starvation, disease, hunting, and accidents. Thus, populations are dynamic and cycle annually. If conditions are good, the population cycles upward. If conditions are bad, the population cycles downward. Small game populations can take advantage of favorable environmental conditions faster than larger animals. Small game animals usually have high reproductive potential. Under favorable conditions, their populations may increase by as much as 200 to 600 percent in a single breeding season. The number of individuals in the population at the onset of the reproductive period influences how high the population can go. The number of individuals reaching this age is dependent on how many survive, which is dependent on environmental conditions and reproductive success during the previous year. This is why, when two or three years of favorable years occur back-toback, small game population levels can become very high. The reverse is also true: if two or three bad years occur together, the population declines (see Gambel's and scaled quail graphs, Figs. 24, 25). In turn, the number of hunters afield is a direct response to the real or perceived abundance of small game animals.



Wildlife 2006 Page 39



The objectives of the following plans emphasize the availability of hunting opportunity, not the actual use. The number of hunters, the number of days they hunt, and the number of animals they take per day is dependent on the number of animals available. The small game accounts that follow are based on data from 1985-99. Also, please note that: (a) the Department has restricted hunting pressure on doves by opting for reduced shooting hours during the September season and continues to closely monitor sandhill crane hunts; and (b) the Department will continue to actively manage and acquire waterfowl production areas within the State, through revenues provided by an Arizona waterfowl stamp.



Wildlife 2006 Page 40



Tree Squirrels Status and Use Arizona's four native species of tree squirrels occur in forests and well developed riparian deciduous forests. They occupy about 7800 mi2 of habitat, of which more than 60 percent is in National Forests. During the 1999 season approximately 86,450 tree squirrels were 80000 harvested (Fig. 20), providing about 46,900 70000 days of hunting recreation (Fig. 21).

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



The Mount Graham red squirrel is an endangered species that occurs only in the Pinaleno Mountains of southeastern Arizona. This area is closed to the take of red squirrels. Goal Maintain or enhance tree squirrel habitat through cooperation with land management agencies. Continue to allow for recreation, economic, aesthetic and educational uses.



Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 50,000 to 100,000 tree squirrels. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 1.5 to 2.1 squirrels per day. 3. Provide 25,000 to 50,000 hunter days per year. 4. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. 5. Maintain the range of all subspecies in Arizona. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Develop standardized surveys to inventory populations and evaluate existing habitat. 2. Develop tree squirrel habitat evaluation scorecards to assess habitat conditions. 3. Coordinate with land management agencies to mitigate other land uses that are detrimental to tree squirrels.



Hunt Days

Total Harvest



Figure 20.Tree squirrel hunting recreation days by year.



180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 21. Tree squirrel harvest by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 41



Cottontail Rabbits Status and Use Three species of cottontail rabbits occur in Arizona. They occur throughout most habitats in the State, occupying about 135,000 mi2 (14% State, 20% USFS, 15% BLM). Their populations are highly unstable, and subject to wide fluctuations due to weather patterns. These 400000 fluctuations are reflected in hunting 350000 statistics. During the 1999 season, 300000 approximately 62,000 cottontails were 250000 harvested (Fig. 22), providing about 61,750 200000 days of hunting recreation (Fig. 23).

Total Harvest 150000 100000 50000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Goal Maintain or enhance cottontail hunting opportunity by improving access to existing habitat, coordinating with other agencies to improve habitat, and protecting primary cottontail habitat from development.



Figure 22. Cottontail harvest by year.



Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 75,000 to 150,000 cottontails. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 0.8 to 1.2 cottontails per day. 3. Provide 100,000 to 200,000 hunter days per year. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Enhance hunter opportunities in proximity to metropolitan areas.



300000 250000 Hunt Days 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 23. Cottontail hunting recreation days by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 42



Gambel's Quail and Scaled Quail Status and Use Gambel's quail is Arizona's most abundant non-migratory game bird. It occurs in the southwestern two-thirds of the State, on about 67,000 mi2 of habitat (22% BLM, 20% private, 18% State, and 13% USFS). It comprises about 90 percent of the total annual quail 1600000 harvest. The scaled quail is found in the 1400000 southeastern Arizona grasslands, occupying 1200000 about 9000 mi2 of habitat (40% State, 40% 1000000 private). During the 1999 hunting season, 800000 about 761,250 Gambel's and scaled quail 600000 were harvested (Fig. 24), providing about 400000 284,570 days of hunting recreation (Fig. 25). These two species overlap almost 200000 completely in habitat. Hunters may 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 encounter mixed flocks with both species. Year The two species are currently managed together for season dates and bag limits. Figure 24.Gambel's and scaled quail harvest by year. Goal Maintain or enhance current levels of Gambel's and scaled quail hunting opportunity by improving access to existing habitat, and coordinating with other agencies to improve habitat, and protect primary Gambel's and scaled quail habitat from development. Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 524,000 to 1,314,000 Gambel's and scaled quail. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 2.2 to 3.5 birds per day. 3. Provide 222,000 to 392,000 hunter days per year. Species-Specific Strategies Gambel's Quail 1. Develop standardized surveys to inventory populations and evaluate existing habitat. 2. Coordinate with land management agencies to ensure that livestock grazing of quail habitat is within allowable-use guidelines that provide quail with adequate food and cover. 3. Collect data to estimate demand and harvest more accurately. 4. Develop species-specific objectives for Gambel's quail.

450000 400000 350000 Hunt Days 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Wildlife 2006 Page 43



Total Harvest



Figure 25. Gambel's and scaled quail hunting recreation days by year.



Scaled Quail 1. Develop standardized surveys to inventory populations and evaluate existing habitat. 2. Coordinate with land management agencies to ensure that livestock grazing of quail habitat is within allowable use guidelines that provide quail with adequate food and cover. 3. Support research into scaled quail population levels, distribution, and habitat requirements. 4. Collect data to estimate demand and harvest more accurately. 5. Develop species-specific objectives for scaled quail.



Wildlife 2006 Page 44



Mearns' Quail2 Status and Use Mearns' quail primarily occur in the woodlands and wooded grasslands of the mountains of southeastern Arizona. They occupy about 3700 mi2 of this habitat (61% USFS). In 1999, approximately 29,000 Mearns' quail were harvested (Fig. 26), providing about 25,500 50000 days of hunting recreation (Fig. 27). 45000 Goal Maintain or enhance Mearns' quail habitat through cooperation with land management agencies. Continue to allow for recreation, economic, aesthetic, and educational uses.

40000 Total Harvest 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Objectives 87 89 91 93 95 97 1. Maintain annual harvest at 20,000 Year to 35,000 Mearns' quail. Figure 26. Mearns' quail harvest by year. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 1.3 to 2.0 Mearns' quail per day. 3. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. 99



Species-Specific Strategies 1. In cooperation with public and private partners, develop guidelines, using the most recent Department research, for Mearns' quail population and habitat 30000 management. 2. Coordinate with the Coronado 25000 National Forest to ensure that 20000 Mearns' quail population potential is achieved through enforcement of 15000 current Department standards and 10000 guidelines for high quality habitat 5000 until new Department standards and guidelines are established. 0 3. Support research into the effects of 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Year large-area overstory removal (trees and shrubs, including manzanita, Figure 27. Mearns' quail hunting recreation days by year. oak, and juniper) on Mearns' quail population levels and distribution.

Hunt Days



2



This document uses the common name for this species that is used in A.R.S. Title 17, Commission Orders, and the Department's publications on hunting seasons, rather than the name used by the American Ornithologists' Union, "Montezuma quail." Wildlife 2006 Page 45



4. 5.



Evaluate the potential for habitat and population enhancement of Mearns' quail in areas of central Arizona with Madrean vegetation, and implement management actions as appropriate. Collect data to estimate demand and harvest more accurately.



Wildlife 2006 Page 46



Blue Grouse Status and Use In Arizona, blue grouse are restricted to the White Mountains, San Francisco Mountains, and Kaibab Plateau. They occupy about 990 mi2 of habitat (90% USFS). In 1996, approximately 500 blue grouse were harvested (Fig. 28), providing about 2250 days of hunting 800 recreation (Fig. 29). The Game Bird 700 Questionnaire, used to obtain hunter and 600 harvest data for blue grouse, was 500 discontinued in 1997. The Migratory Bird 400 Stamp program will provide such data in 300 the future.

Total Harvest 200



Goal Maintain or improve blue grouse habitat through cooperation with land management agencies. Continue to allow for recreation, economic, aesthetic, and educational uses.



100 0 86 88 90 Year 92 94 96



Figure 28. Blue grouse harvest by year.



Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 300 to 600 blue grouse. 2. Maintain hunter effort at 0.2 to 0.3 birds per day. 3. Provide 1900 to 2500 hunter days per year. 4. Maintain existing occupied habitat, with emphasis on retention of medium and high quality habitat. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Coordinate with land management agencies to ensure that livestock grazing in blue grouse habitat is within allowable use guidelines that provide grouse with adequate food and cover. 2. Coordinate with land management 3000 agencies to encourage timber cuts to 2500 create small openings and stimulate herbaceous growth and berry 2000 production.

Total Hunter Days 1500 1000 500 0 86 88 90 Year 92 94 96



Figure 29. Blue grouse hunting recreation days by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 47



White-winged Dove and Mourning Dove Status and Use Arizona's white-winged doves and mourning doves have been influenced by human activities more than any other small game species in the State. Ninety-five percent of all Arizona mourning dove band recoveries between 1967 and 1975 were from the Arizona breeding 250000 population. The white-winged dove harvest consists exclusively of birds reared within 200000 the State. In 1999, 142,200 white-winged 150000 doves and 1,314,800 mourning doves were harvested (Figs. 30, 31), providing 371,400 100000 days of hunting recreation (Figs. 32, 33).

Total Harvest



Goal 0 Maintain or enhance populations of white85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 winged and mourning doves as important Year parts of Arizona's fauna while providing Figure 30. White-winged dove harvest by year. recreational opportunity to as many individuals as possible. This requires promoting land management practices that benefit wildlife, and either conducting or supporting research in areas where additional information is needed. Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 80,000 to 165,000 white-winged and 820,000 to 1,500,000 mourning doves. 2. Maintain daily hunter success rates at 1.2 to 1.6 white-winged doves and 4.7 to 5.7 mourning doves per day. 3. Provide 65,000 to 120,000 whitewinged dove hunter days per year, 2000000 and 160,000 to 280,000 mourning 1800000 dove hunter days per year. 1600000 4. Within federal season frameworks, 1400000 1200000 maximize hunting opportunities for 1000000 all white-winged and mourning 800000 dove hunters, with special emphasis 600000 on youth and female hunters. 400000

Total Harvest 200000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



50000



Figure 31. Mourning dove harvest by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 48



Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain existing population surveys, including the annual Call Count Surveys. 2. Continue developing a program to involve public and private farmers in planting food plots and nesting habitats. 3. Implement hunt structures that 160000 maintain and enhance dove 140000 populations. When populations have 120000 recovered to allow for additional 100000 harvest, bag limits and seasons 80000 should be liberalized. The 60000 framework recommendations should 40000 be specified in the Pacific Flyway 20000 Management Plan for the Western 0 White-winged Dove. 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 4. Improve dove populations through Year management agreements or land Figure 32. White-winged dove hunting recreation days by purchases to retain quality nesting year. and feeding habitat.

Hunt Days Hunt Days



350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 33. Mourning dove hunting recreation days by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 49



Band-tailed Pigeon Status and Use Band-tailed pigeons in Arizona are found in coniferous forests, oak-juniper woodland, and chaparral of the eastern two-thirds of the State, about 38,000 mi2 (40% USFS, 16% State, 16% private, 7% BLM). Their numbers in specific locations vary from year to year, 1800 depending on food supply. In 1996, 150 1600 band-tailed pigeons were harvested (Fig. 1400 34), providing 650 days of hunting 1200 recreation (Fig. 35). The Game Bird 1000 Questionnaire which was used to obtain 800 hunter and harvest data for band-tailed 600 pigeon was discontinued in 1997. The 400 Migratory Bird Stamp program will 200 provide such data in the future. Note: the 0 86 88 90 92 94 96 Western Management Unit for the bandYear tailed pigeon is currently re-drafting the management plan for this species. Figure 34. Band-tailed pigeon harvest by year. Goal Maintain or enhance band-tailed pigeon habitat through cooperation with land management agencies, and continue to allow for recreation, economic, aesthetic, and educational uses. Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 400 to 1000 band-tailed pigeons. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 0.4 to 0.8 band-tails per day. 3. Provide 850 to 1700 hunter days per year. 4. Maintain existing occupied band-tailed pigeon habitat, with emphasis on medium and high quality habitat. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Coordinate with land management agencies to mitigate land uses detrimental to band-tailed pigeons. 2. Re-institute a trapping and banding program, and develop and maintain a database for the information gathered. 3. Create a database of identified critical breeding areas. 4. Evaluate season dates and length of season.

2500 2000 Total Hunt Days 1500 1000 500 0 86 88 90 Year 92 94 96



Total Harvest



Figure 35. Band-tailed pigeon hunting recreation days by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 50



Waterfowl Status and Use Most waterfowl that migrate through or winter in Arizona nest in the Great Basin area of the Inter-Mountain West. An important factor in determining waterfowl numbers is the condition of wetlands during migration. Waterfowl abundance in Arizona does not necessarily 140000 reflect national or flyway population levels. 120000 Through the 1980s, drought conditions 100000 afflicted major duck production areas and caused population declines. Conditions 80000 improved in 1993 and 1994. In 1999, 60000 42,000 ducks and 5200 geese were 40000 harvested in Arizona (Figs. 36, 37), 20000 providing 32,800 days of hunting recreation 0 (Fig. 38). Disturbance by water-oriented 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 recreationists reduces the availability of Year production and wintering habitat. Note: the Figure 36. Duck harvest by year. Department participates as a member state in the Pacific Flyway Study Committee and Council. Where species management overlap exists, the Pacific Flyway Council coordinates western waterfowl management with the Central Flyway Council. Goal Increase waterfowl production and wintering populations within Arizona through habitat acquisition and development; and provide recreational opportunity to as many individuals as possible. Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 30,000 to 50,000 ducks and 3000 to 5000 geese. 2. Maintain hunter success rate at 1.1 to 1.3 waterfowl per day. 3. Provide 30,000 to 40,000 hunter days per year.

7000 6000 Total Harvest 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Total Harvest



Species-Specific Strategies 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Year 1. Develop standardized surveys to inventory breeding populations and Figure 37. Goose harvest by year. evaluate existing habitat. 2. Estimate population sizes and/or trends, species and subspecies composition, sex and age composition, and geographic distribution, through aerial and ground surveys, hunter check stations, banding, marking, and mailed questionnaires. Wildlife 2006 Page 51



3.



4. 5. 6. 7



8. 9.



Participate in development of migratory game bird hunt frameworks through the Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Council, and subcommittees thereof; provide equitable hunting opportunity for residents of all areas of the State within those 90000 frameworks. 80000 Determine methods to minimize 70000 waterfowl disturbances caused by 60000 activities of other resource users. 50000 Develop and implement projects to 40000 30000 enhance waterfowl viewing 20000 opportunities. 10000 Develop and implement projects to 0 enhance waterfowl populations by 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 habitat manipulations and purchase. Year Coordinate with land management Figure 38. Waterfowl hunting recreation days by year. agencies to ensure that livestock grazing in waterfowl habitats is within allowable use guidelines that provide waterfowl with adequate food and cover. Inventory significant waterfowl habitat statewide. Continue to partner with organizations to develop funding for waterfowl habitat projects.

Hunt Days



Wildlife 2006 Page 52



Snipe, Coot, and Common Moorhen Status and Use Snipe, coots, and common moorhens are locally abundant throughout Arizona as migrating, wintering, or breeding birds. Populations may fluctuate slightly due to the amount of available nesting habitat both within and outside Arizona. Numbers may vary depending upon severity of winters in northern states and habitat conditions in Arizona, but overall no reductions in populations are anticipated over the next six years. The demand for snipe, coots, and common moorhens is expected to remain low during the planning period. Coots and common moorhens readily use urban wet areas, thus they are highly visible to the public. In some waterfowl management areas, in northern Arizona, coots may compete with various ducks for nest sites. In these instances, removal of some coots may become necessary. Goal Maintain current distribution and abundance of the snipe, coot, and common moorhen and their habitat, while preventing severe competition for nesting sites with other waterfowl species within Arizona. Objective 1. Develop and provide public information about coot, common moorhen, and snipe. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain existing hunting opportunities. 2. Participate in development of migratory game bird hunt frameworks through the Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Council, and subcommittees thereof; provide equitable hunting opportunity for residents of all areas of the State within those frameworks. 3. Develop and implement projects to enhance viewing opportunities. 4. Develop and implement projects to enhance populations by habitat manipulation and habitat purchase.



Wildlife 2006 Page 53



Sandhill Crane Status and Use Three subspecies of sandhill cranes winter in Arizona. Current wintering populations of sandhill cranes include 500 to 1000 at Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, 800 to 1000 on the Colorado River Indian Reservation along the Lower Colorado River, 50 to 250 along the Gila River between Buckeye and Gila Bend, and 15,000 to 20,000 in the Sulphur Springs Valley of southeastern Arizona. In 1999, 113 sandhill cranes were harvested, providing 518 days of hunting recreation. Goal Maintain or enhance distribution and abundance of sandhill cranes and their habitat. Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 100 to 200 sandhill cranes. 2. Maintain hunter effort rate at 0.3 to 0.5 cranes per day. 3. Provide 300 to 600 crane hunter days per year. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Conduct annual surveys to determine wintering numbers, recruitment rates, and subspecies composition. 2. Manage the Willcox Playa Wildlife Area and the Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area primarily for sandhill cranes. 3. Use annual survey information to determine the potential for expansion of hunting opportunities. 4. Expand viewing opportunities to other areas.



Wildlife 2006 Page 54



Non-native 3 Game Birds: Valley Quail, Chukar, and Pheasant Status and Use The Department released several species of non-native game birds in the 1950s and 1960s. Three established wild populations: chukar, pheasant, and valley quail. The Department allows take of these birds on a statewide basis, even though the wild populations are limited to a few areas in the State, because these species are also released by operators of shooting preserves and during field trials in areas where wild populations do not occur. Goal Manage non-native game birds to enhance their habitats and abundance. Where possible, additional species of non-native game birds may be introduced. For existing and new populations, the goal is to enhance abundance and habitat of non-native game birds where they do not impact native wildlife populations, and when the effort required does not reduce budgets or personnel available for management of native wildlife. Objective 1. Develop and provide public information about non-native game birds. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain and enhance existing hunting opportunities.



3



The term "non-native" is used herein to mean the species is not native to Arizona. Some nonnative species are native elsewhere in the United States, and some are not native to this continent. Wildlife 2006 Page 55



Furbearing and Predatory Mammals Status and Use Sixteen Arizona mammals are classified as furbearers and/or predators. Furbearers are badger, beaver, bobcat, muskrat, otter, raccoon, ringtail cat, and weasel. Predators are bobcat, coyote, red fox, gray fox, kit fox, and striped, spotted, hooded, and hog-nosed skunks. Six predators/furbearers are hunted: coyote, foxes (3 species), bobcat, and raccoons. The remaining ten species are primarily nocturnal, and are not normally available to hunters. Trapping has been the principal means of harvesting the nocturnal species. In recent years, pelt prices for most furbearers have declined dramatically, with resultant decreases in annual harvests. Passage of State law in 1994 prohibiting trapping on State, federal, and other public lands further reduced statewide harvest. The coyote is common in all habitat types in Arizona. In 1999, 58 trappers took 1100 coyotes, while 14,500 hunters harvested 45,600 (Figs. 39, 40).

Number



25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99 Foxes Coyotes Bobcats Trappers



Bobcats occur statewide, but are most common in rugged broken country within Sonoran Desertscrub and Interior Chaparral. In 1999, 58 trappers took 140 bobcats, while 14,500 hunters harvested 1460 (Figs. 39, 41). Three species of foxes inhabit Arizona: red foxes in the northeast; kit foxes statewide (in areas of fine grained soil); and gray foxes statewide (in rocky habitats). In 1999, 58 trappers took 470 foxes, while 14,500 hunters harvested 4900 (Figs. 39, 42). Goal Maintain the historical range and distribution of furbearers and predatory mammals in Arizona. Allow for maximum recreational, economic, and aesthetic uses commensurate with existing populations.



Figure 39. Trapping harvest for selected furbearer species, and licensed trapper numbers, by year.



70000 60000 Total Harvest 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 85 87 89 91 Year 93 95 97 99



Figure 40. Coyote harvest by year.



Wildlife 2006 Page 56



Objectives 1. Provide opportunity for 50,000 hunter days per year, across all species of predators and furbearers. 2. Maintain trapping as a recreational 3500 opportunity on private property, in accordance with A.R.S. 17-301d. 3000 3. Develop and provide public 2500 information about furbearing and 2000 predatory mammals and their 1500 management. 4. Bobcat: maintain annual harvest at 1000 1000 to 3000 bobcats. 500 5. Coyote: encourage annual harvest 0 levels of up to 50,000 coyotes. 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 6. Foxes: maintain annual harvest at Year 3000 to 5000 foxes (all species Figure 41. Bobcat harvest by year. combined). 7. Evaluate the effectiveness of any activity targeted at limiting furbearer or predator numbers. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Encourage the public to respond to depredation situations, within the limits established by A.R.S. 17-239. 2. Continue to obtain estimates of hunter harvest of predators and 9000 furbearers. 8000 3. Maintain adequate suitable habitat 7000 for predators and furbearers. 6000 5000 4. Through surveys and research, 4000 develop information regarding 3000 range, distribution, population 2000 levels, and harvest opportunities for 1000 predators and furbearers. 0 5. Reintroduce aquatic furbearers into 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 suitable habitat. Year 6. Implement the Department's Figure 42. Gray fox harvest by year. Predation Management Policy.

Total Harvest Total Harvest



Wildlife 2006 Page 57



Sportfish Management Subprogram

This plan is based on the fact that Arizona anglers are a diverse and varied lot, and their desires for sportfishing opportunities are equally varied. It is the role of the Department's sportfish management subprogram to identify the needs and desires of these anglers, provide for the quality experiences they expect, and ensure that all the resources held in trust for them are conserved. This plan works toward achieving the Department's mission by providing direction to Arizona's sportfish managers through goals, objectives, and strategies. The vast array of fishes that Arizona anglers enjoy today is the result of more than a century of introductions made to provide fishing opportunity. Few people realize the fish sought by Arizona anglers today are, like many of themselves, transplants from elsewhere. These are valuable resources that generate millions of hours of enjoyment and learning for Arizona citizens and our visitors, and millions of dollars to our State's economy. Equally valuable are the native fisheries resources which are less frequently pursued as sport fishes. Hence, our subprogram goals and objectives have evolved to recognize the importance of providing for both resources. Since the Department was established in 1929, a variety of State and federal laws and regulations have been enacted to manage and protect Arizona's fisheries resources - both sport and native. These laws and regulations have been essential to maintaining and managing the State's limited sportfisheries and conserving and recovering the State's rare native fishes. Of all the Department's roles and programs, carrying out the Sportfish Management Subprogram may be among the most recognizable by Arizona's citizens. A 1998 survey of the general public revealed that more than two-thirds of those contacted recognized the role of the Department in enforcing fishing laws and conducting fisheries management. Of all Department programs evaluated in that survey, more respondents rated Sportfish management as excellent than any other program (18%). The Arizona Angler Angling is a major recreational pastime among Arizonans. In 1999, more than 350,000 Arizona residents and 35,000 non-residents purchased Arizona fishing licenses (Fig. 43). Total license sales have rebounded to near the peak sales of 1986, and the estimated number of days fished in Arizona has continually fluctuated around an annual average of about 7 million angler-days. The average number of days that resident anglers spend pursuing their fishing passion has remained steady during the past five years, near 22 days per year. Not all of Arizona's anglers are licensed in any given year. It is important to note that anglers younger than 14 years of age do not require licenses, and individuals who qualify are issued complimentary licenses. Beyond that, not everyone gets the opportunity to exercise their desire to fish in every year, and may not be a license purchaser. In Wildlife and the American Mind (1998. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg VA), Duda and others called the annual national count of anglers the tip of the iceberg, reporting that there is a large market of anglers who have fished in the past and, given the right conditions, will fish again in the future.



Wildlife 2006 Page 58



Evidence from our Department's 1998 survey (biennial Trend Survey) of the public suggests that as many as 26 percent of the Arizona population fished this year, but 33 percent considered themselves anglers. Duda and others (1998) suggest that as many as 80 percent of Americans have fished at some point in their lives. That suggests that we have a very arge actual audience, l and an extremely large potential audience for our Sportfish management su