Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Wildlife Summits Report Final January 3, 2005 Arizona State Game & Fish Department GUNN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 8629 West Alex Avenue Peoria, AZ 85382 Tel. 623-362-1597 Fax 623-362-1721 www.gciaz.com Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Table of Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1 Summary of Key Findings .............................................................................................................3 Demographics and Interests .........................................................................................................5 Part 1: AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges .................................................................................6 Importance .........................................................................................................................8 Performance.....................................................................................................................12 Profile Interpretation .......................................................................................................16 Missing Challenges .........................................................................................................17 Funding.............................................................................................................................17 Part 2: Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife ...........................................................19 Stressors Summary.........................................................................................................20 Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ................................22 Criteria Summary.............................................................................................................23 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit Report Demographics and Interest Areas ............................................................................................A-1 Part 1: AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges .............................................................................A-2 Importance .....................................................................................................................A-4 Performance...................................................................................................................A-5 Profile Interpretation .....................................................................................................A-6 Funding...........................................................................................................................A-8 Part 2: Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife .........................................................A-9 Most Important Stressors ...........................................................................................A-10 Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ............................A-11 Criteria Ranked by Importance ..................................................................................A-13 Phoenix Wildlife Summit Report Demographics and Interest Areas ............................................................................................ P-1 Part 1: AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges ............................................................................. P-2 Importance ..................................................................................................................... P-4 Performance................................................................................................................... P-5 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Profile Interpretation ..................................................................................................... P-6 Funding........................................................................................................................... P-8 Part 2: Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife ......................................................... P-9 Most Important Stressors ........................................................................................... P-10 Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ............................ P-11 Criteria Ranked by Importance .................................................................................. P-13 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit Report Demographics and Interest Areas ............................................................................................ F-1 Part 1: AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges ............................................................................. F-2 Importance ..................................................................................................................... F-4 Performance................................................................................................................... F-5 Profile Interpretation ..................................................................................................... F-6 Funding........................................................................................................................... F-8 Part 2: Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife ......................................................... F-9 Most Important Stressors ........................................................................................... F-11 Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ............................ F-12 Criteria Ranked by Importance .................................................................................. F-14 Tucson Wildlife Summit Report Demographics and Interest Areas ............................................................................................ T-1 Part 1: AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges ............................................................................. T-3 Importance ..................................................................................................................... T-4 Performance................................................................................................................... T-5 Profile Interpretation ..................................................................................................... T-6 Funding........................................................................................................................... T-9 Part 2: Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife ....................................................... T-10 Most Important Stressors ........................................................................................... T-13 Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ............................ T-15 Criteria Ranked by Importance .................................................................................. T-17 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Introduction The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) held four Wildlife Summits to obtain input from their stakeholders into the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) as required for federal funding under the State Wildlife Grant Program. Stakeholder groups invited by AZGFD to participate in the Summits included Department constituency groups, special interests, local governments, Native American tribes, interagency cooperators, and the general public. AZGFD contracted with Gunn Communications, Inc. (GCI) to facilitate the Summits using a real-time data collection system. During the Summits, GCI used CoNexus®, a general purpose tool for group polling, data gathering, and prioritization, to capture the opinions of the participants. Data was collected from the group using individual keypads and results were displayed instantly. After reviewing the results, Summit participants were asked to discuss their perceptions of the outcomes. At the conclusion of each Summit, the participants stated use of the CoNexus® system was effective in representing their opinions. Average effectiveness ratings ranged from 7.2 to 8.4 on a scale of 1 to 9 (9=practically perfect). This report includes information generated by the CoNexus® software, lists created during individual and group brainstorming, and participant comments. This information is meant to provide additional insight into the opinions and priorities of the Summit participants and should not be viewed as definitive. This information is most valuable when put into context and compared to the results of other public involvement activities. The statistical information provided in this report should be considered QUALITATIVE information and not statistically valid. The sample size was small and self-selected. The participants may not be reflective of the entire stakeholder community. A total of 55 stakeholders participated in the Summits. Not every participant voted every section; therefore, the number of voters will vary. The first section of this report includes pie charts identifying which groups and organizations were represented and the personal hobbies and interests of the participants. Reviewing this demographic information will provide some insight into the opinions of the participants and the voting results. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 1 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report The Summit agenda was divided into three parts. Part one began with a presentation on the CWCS and how the participants input will be used. The presentation was followed with a review and prioritization of AZGFD’s 12 challenges using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. Participants were also asked to rate on a scale of one to nine how well the Department was performing today in each of these 12 challenge areas. Identifying stressors (threats) that may impact Arizona wildlife and habitat in the next 10 years was the focus of the second part of the Summits. Participants began by creating an individual list of stressors. The participants were divided into groups. Each group reviewed the individual lists and came to a consensus of the most important three to five stressors. The small groups posted their lists, and the group as a whole discussed, defined, and combined the stressors into one list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The purpose of part three was to identify and prioritize the criteria that should be used by AZGFD to identify the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” The same process that was used to create the list of stressors was used to create a list of criteria which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. This report combines the votes from each of the four Summits into one database for analysis. The results for each individual Summit are attached as separate reports. Comparisons are made in this combined report to show differences between the results of individual Summits. The combined results have also been analyzed to determine if there were any significant differences in opinions of the various stakeholder groups. Demographic breakdowns of the individual Summit results are not included in the separate reports because they would not be statistically valid given the small number of participants at each Summit. Participant comments are included in the individual Summit reports. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 2 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Summary of Key Findings The stakeholders who participated in the Summits were very pleased that the Department was inviting them to participate early in the development of the CWCS and with a few exceptions stated the Department was performing well today. Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges Wildlife habitat was identified as the most important challenge in each of the four Summits, but was usually rated as one of the lowest performing challenges. The importance ranking and performance rating for off-highway vehicle management varied significantly from Summit to Summit. Summit participants put more value on protecting wildlife and habitats than recreational programs. It seems there may be a disconnect between what the stakeholders believed was important and where they perceived the Department was putting its resources. Some participants stated AZGFD needs to change its mission and put less emphasis on consumptive uses. The three most important challenges identified by the Summit participants were: 1. Wildlife Habitat 2. Biological Information 3. Wildlife Management The three least important challenges identified by Summit participants were: 1. Watercraft Management 2. Wildlife Recreation 3. Administrative Challenges Nine of the 12 challenges were rated 50-80 on a scale of 100 by Summit participants. The five challenges AZGFD is currently performing the best were: 1. Wildlife Recreation 2. Information and Education 3. Law Enforcement 4. Administrative Challenges 5. Partnerships Representatives of environmental organizations stated the Department was performing too well in providing wildlife recreation opportunities and viewed the top performance rating for wildlife recreation as a negative. AZGFD performance was rated the lowest on these three challenges: 1. Off-Highway Vehicle Management 2. Watercraft Management 3. Wildlife Habitat Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 3 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Stressors to Arizona Wildlife and Habitat Each Summit created a unique list of stressors, but there were enough similarities to allow the following categorization: • Invasive species • Human causes – loss of habitat due to development, human manipulation, and increased demands on limited resources and for recreation • Conflicts between humans and wildlife • Overuse of natural resources and drought • Ignorance or lack of respect for wildlife and natural resources by an uninformed public • Lack of funding for wildlife and habitat management • Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages • Inconsistent management policies, priorities, and politics influencing science Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Each Summit created a unique list of criteria, but there were enough similarities to allow the following categorization: • Special status or vulnerable species • Responsibility species - dependent on Arizona that it requires special attention regardless of other factors • Community focal species - species that indicate or regulate the health of their wildlife communities and habitats • Species of social or economic value • Species for which data are lacking to determine their status • Potential for successful recovery and management of wildlife and habitats • Future threats to habitat and species (i.e., pollution, disease) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 4 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Demographics and Interests The 54 participants who voted the demographic questions were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing and to identify their personal interests. As shown on Figure 1, representatives from environmental or conservation groups (22) accounted for forty percent of the participants. The next largest group of representation was from government agencies (19) including the wildlife and resource management agencies which accounted for thirty-six percent of the participants. Although only seven percent (4) of the participants represent a sportsman’s organization, fifty-four percent (29) either hunt and/or fish (Figure 2.) Figure 1: Participant Representation Animal Welfare 2 4% Recreational User 2 4% Self 1 2% Other 4 7% Wildlife/Resource Management 9 17% Other Government 10 19% Environmental Conservation 22 40% Sportsman 4 7% Figure 2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 4 7% Angling 9 17% Neither 25 46% Both 16 30% Figure 3: Wildlife Neither 5 9% Most of the participants (91%) watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities (Figure 3.) Wildlife Watching 26 48% Both 20 37% Animal Welfare 3 6% Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 5 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Less than half (23) of the participants use watercraft and/or off-highway vehicles (Figure 4.) Almost all of the participants (94%) watch wildlife at home and/or participate in horticulture and gardening activities (Figure 5.) Figure 4: Recreation Watercraft 8 15% Off-Highw ay Vehicle 6 11% Neither 31 57% Both 9 17% Figure 5: Home Activities Neither 3 6% Both 34 63% Home Wildlife 12 22% Horticulture Gardening 5 9% Part 1: Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Summit participants were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 6 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used during the Summit. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-paired comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the Summit participants. Participants were also asked to rate on a scale of one to nine how well the AZGFD was performing in each of the challenge areas today. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 7 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Wildlife Habitat Biological Information Wildlife Management Planning and Funding Laws and Legal Considerations Partnerships Information and Education Law Enforcement Off-Highway Vehicle Management Administrative Challenges Wildlife Recreation Watercraft Management Figure 6 shows the difference in how much more important each challenge was to the group. There were significant differences in the most important “Habitat” (value=84.8) and the least important “Watercraft” (value=12.4.) Figure 6: Importance Ranking of AZGFD’s 12 Challenges 100 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 8 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Importance Rankings by Interest Areas Figure 7 compares the opinions of the participants who hunt and fish (29) and recreational vehicle users (23) to the combined group’s importance rankings. These were the only two special interest areas where there was a difference of opinion. Participants who hunt and fish and recreational vehicle users groups ranked wildlife recreation higher in importance than the combined group. Figure 7: Sportsmen and Recreation Vehicle Users 100 Combined 80 60 Hunt/Fish 40 Rec Vehicle 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 9 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Importance Rankings by Stakeholder Group Figure 8 compares the importance rankings of the environmental and conservation (22) and government agency (19) representatives to the combined group. These two stakeholder groups had the most representation during the Summits. As seen on the graph below, the environmental and conservation group representatives ranked the following higher in importance than the combined group: • Biological Information • Laws and Legal Considerations • Wildlife Habitat • Off-Highway Vehicles Representatives of environmentalist organizations gave a lower importance ranking to partnerships, wildlife recreation and information and education lower in importance than the combined group. Figure 8: Environmental Group and Government Agency Representatives 100 Combined 80 60 Environmental 40 Government 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 10 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Individual Summit Importance Rankings Figure 9 compares how each of the individual summits ranked the 12 challenges in importance to the combined group ranking. Key findings include the following: • All four Summits ranked wildlife habitat as the most important challenge • Flagstaff and Tucson participants gave a significantly higher value to biological information • Flagstaff participants ranked biological information as number two in importance just below wildlife habitat • Phoenix participants’ importance ranking varied significantly from the other Summit’s results. Phoenix rated partnerships, law enforcement, and off-highway vehicle management much more important. Laws and legal considerations were less important • Tucson participants ranked laws and legal considerations slightly more important and wildlife recreation was ranked much lower in importance Figure 9: Importance Ranking by Summit 100 Combined 80 Agency/Tribal 60 Phoenix 40 Flagstaff 20 Tucson 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 11 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges today. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) Nine of the 12 challenges were had an average rating of 5 or higher. Figure 10 shows how the participants rated the performance on each of the 12 challenges. According to the participants, AZGFD is performing the best on the following challenges: 1. Wildlife Recreation 2. Information and Education The three lowest performing challenges (average rating less than 5) were wildlife habitat, watercraft, and off-highway vehicles. Figure 10: Current Performance by Challenge 8 6 4 2 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 12 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Performance Ratings by Interest Areas Figure 11 compares performance rankings of the participants who hunt and fish (29) and recreational vehicle users (23) to the combined group. These were the only two special interest areas where there was a difference of opinion. Both special interest groups rated each challenge area higher in performance than the combined group. Figure 11: Hunters and Fishermen and Recreational Vehicle Users 8 Combined 6 Hunt/Fish 4 2 Rec Vehicle 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 13 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Performance Ratings by Stakeholder Group Figure 12 compares the performance rankings of environmental and conservation group (22) and government agency (19) representatives to the combined group. These two stakeholder groups had the most participation during the Summits. The government representatives gave the Department higher performance ratings for the challenges than the group as a whole. With the exception of partnerships and wildlife recreation, environmentalists rated the Department as lower performing on the 12 challenges. Their performance rating for biological information and off-highway vehicles management were significantly lower than the performance ratings given by the government representatives. Figure 12: Environmental Group and Government Agency Representatives 8 Combined 6 Environmental 4 2 Government 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 14 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Comparison of Individual Summit Performance Ratings Figure 13 compares the 12 challenges performance ratings of the individual Summits to the combined group rating. Key findings include the following: • The Phoenix and Agency/Tribal Summit participants rated the challenges higher in performance • The lowest performance ratings for wildlife habitat and wildlife recreation were given by Flagstaff participants • Tucson participants rated the challenges lower in performance than any of the other Summits. The lowest ratings were given to the following challenges: o Off-Highway Vehicle Management o Law Enforcement o Laws and Legal Considerations o Biological Information Figure 13: Performance Rating by Summit 8 Combined 6 Agency/Tribal Flagstaff 4 Phoenix 2 Tucson 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN 15 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Profile Interpretation The CoNexus® software creates a profile showing the relationship between the importance rankings and performance ratings. Figure 14 shows the importance from top to bottom; the higher the challenge on the profile the more important it was to the participants. Performance is measured from right to left; the further left the challenge is on the profile the better the Department is performing. Figure 14: Comparison of Importance and Performance As seen on the profile, there are several challenges in the lower left quadrant. The participants rated the performance higher on these challenges at the same time they ranked them lower in importance. Also of note, the challenge that was the highest in performance was in the middle for performance. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 16 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report The profile results seem to reinforce comments made during participant discussions. The following issues were identified through analysis of the profile results and participant comments. A listing of participant comments are included in the individual Summit reports. • The wildlife habitat challenge needs further discussion and clarification. It was the most important challenge during each Summit but was rated third lowest in performance. Potential questions for future discussion, “What are the stakeholders’ expectations for wildlife habitat management? What can AZGFD do to meet these expectations? Are the expectations within the AZGFD mission and/or authority? • During Summit discussions, participants stated AZGFD is encouraging too much recreation, which is putting a strain on the state’s natural resources. Although wildlife recreation was the top performing challenge, some stakeholders stated performing too well was a bad thing. This opinion is reflected in the ranking of wildlife recreation as the second lowest in importance. • Watercraft management was recognized by the Summit participants as a needed program. Comments were received suggesting another law enforcement agency assume the responsibility for the watercraft program. • The importance and performance votes for off-highway vehicles varied greatly between participants. The challenge was worded to focus on managing the impacts of offhighway vehicles but a few participants stated they assumed the challenge meant the direct management of the vehicle use. Everyone seems to agree off-highway vehicles are a problem but there is no agreement on what should be done and the role of AZGFD. Missing Challenges The Summit participants were asked if there were any challenges missing from the list. The following are issues that the participants felt needed to be addressed by the Department: • Coordination between AZGFD program areas and between wildlife management agencies • Funding priorities • Private land hunting access and impacts • Game vs. non-game priorities and funding • Politics influencing sound science • Definition of pristine condition Funding Each participant was given ten gold coins representing $100. At the back of the room were 12 folders – one for each challenge. The participants were asked to spend their money as they felt appropriate. They were instructed to spend all of their money and not to break any of the coins. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 17 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Figure 15 indicates that the participants spent 24% of their money on the most important challenge – wildlife habitat. The next highest funded challenge was biological information (14%) which was second in importance. The spending priorities were very similar to the importance ranking with the following exceptions: • Planning and funding was voted as the fourth most important challenge (as shown on Figure 6) but only received the seventh highest amount of money • Information and education ranked seventh in importance (as shown on Figure 6) and received the fourth highest amount of money • Laws and legal considerations ranked fifth in importance but was tenth in spending receiving only 3% of the funds Participants commented it was difficult to put money into the administration, planning and enforcement categories when they perceived a more urgent need for additional resources to support habitat and wildlife management. Most realized there was not enough money to fund all of the challenges. Figure 15: Money Spent by Challenge Watercraft 1% OHV 4% Admin 3% Plan 7% Education 11% Information 14% Recreation 5% Manage 12% Enforce 8% Legal 3% Partner 8% Habitat 24% Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 18 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Part 2: Stressors to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife Each participant was asked to identify three stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife they believed were the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. The participants were then divided into groups and asked to review their individual list of stressors and come to a consensus on five top stressors. The participants defined, discussed, and combined the small group list of stressors into one list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. Because each Summit prepared their own list of stressors, it is not possible to combine the results. Listed below are the stressors lists in order of importance identified at each summit. Participant comments are included in the individual Summit reports. Agency/Tribal Summit Stressors: 1. Human development - built environment 2. Water quantity and quality – over pumping, diversions, degradation from pollution 3. Overuse of natural resources 4. Invasive species 5. Lack of respect for wildlife and resources 6. Ignorance of wildlife and resources 7. Human wildlife conflicts - interface between humans and wildlife 8. Recreational demand Phoenix Summit Stressors: 1. Human causes - loss of habitat due to development and growing population 2. Lack of public priority for wildlife 3. Conflicts - land use and wildlife conflicts 4. Lack of wildlife funding 5. Contamination and invasion of species and habitat - pollution 6. Natural causes - loss of habitat due to drought Flagstaff Summit Stressors: 1. Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages 2. Increased human demands on limited natural resources 3. Negative impacts from human manipulation - fire suppression, non-native species Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 19 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report 4. Politics superseding sound science and implementation 5. Inconsistency management policies and goals between land stewards 6. Lack of funding Tucson Summit Stressors: 1. Habitat loss/fragmentation - associated with growth and development 2. Habitat degradation due to resource use 3. Exotic invasive species 4. Land use priorities don't match wildlife needs 5. Inadequate funding for monitoring and management 6. Lack of an informed and supportive public 7. Lack of inter(intra)-agency coordination and inconsistent laws and policies 8. Illegal and depreciative behavior After the vote, some of the Tucson participants believed that water loss and degradation should have been included in the list of stressors that were voted by the group. To address their concerns, the group voted a quick poll on the importance of water loss and degradation as a stressor. The group rated water loss and degradation was very important (average 8.5 on a scale of 1 to 9.) Stressors Summary To help identify similarities and provide a summary, the stressor list from each Summit was combined into the following groups: Invasive species • Invasive species • Contamination and invasion of species and habitat (pollution) • Exotic invasive species Human Causes – loss of habitat due to development, human manipulation, increased demands on limited resources and for recreation • Human development - built environment • Human causes - loss of habitat due to development and growing population • Negative impacts from human manipulation fire suppression, non-native species • Increased human demands on limited natural resources • Recreational demand Conflicts between humans and wildlife • Human wildlife Conflicts - interface between humans and wildlife • Conflicts - land use and wildlife conflicts Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 20 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Overuse of Natural Resources and Drought • Overuse of natural resources • Water quantity and quality - over pumping - diversions - degradation from pollution • Natural causes - loss of habitat due to drought Ignorance, lack of respect for wildlife and natural resources by an uninformed public • Lack of respect for wildlife and resources • Ignorance for wildlife and resources • Illegal and depreciative behavior • Lack of an informed and supportive public Lack of funding for wildlife and habitat management • Lack of wildlife funding • Lack of public priority for wildlife • Lack of funding • Inadequate funding for monitoring and management Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages • Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages • Habitat loss/fragmentation associated with growth and development • Habitat degradation due to resource use Inconsistent management policies, priorities and politics influencing science • Inconsistency management policies and goals between land stewards • Politics superseding sound science and implementation • Land use priorities don't match wildlife needs • Lack of inter(intra)-agency coordination and inconsistent laws and policies Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 21 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Each participant was asked to identify three criteria to be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” The participants were then divided into groups and asked to review their individual list of criteria and come to a consensus on five top criteria. The participants defined, discussed, and combined the small group list of criteria into one list, which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. Because each Summit prepared their own list of criteria, it is not possible to combine the results. Listed below are the criteria lists in order of importance from each summit. Participant comments are included in the individual Summit reports. Agency/Tribal Summit Criteria: 1. Special status - federally listed - state species of concern - BLM/FS sensitive 2. Threats - future threats to habitat and species i.e. pollution - disease 3. Habitat status 4. Habitat trends 5. Responsibility - species so dependent on AZ that it requires special attention regardless of other factors 6. Population trend - increasing or decreasing over time 7. Population size - number of individuals in the population 8. Population distribution - where they are Phoenix Summit Criteria: 1. Impact on the ecosystem 2. Functional species - providing vital functions within ecosystems 3. Economic value - providing significant economic value 4. Indicator species - bio community health 5. Economic impacts 6. Potential for success 7. Legal constraints and opportunities 8. Heritage species Flagstaff Summit Criteria: 1. Species for which further conservation efforts support ecosystem goals 2. Ensure native species diversity Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 22 Combined Wildlife Summit Report 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Final Report Consider population trends and sizes proactively Keystone species Native and unique species Endangered species Indicator species Species with large area requirements Umbrella species Tucson Summit Criteria: 1. Declining suitable habitat 2. Threatened, endangered, sensitive 3. Demographic vulnerability 4. Geographic limited distribution- includes endemic 5. Umbrella - keystone species 6. Sensitivity to disturbance 7. Species lacking data Criteria Summary To help identify similarities and provide a summary, the criteria list from each Summit was combined into the following groups: Special Status or Vulnerable Species • Population size - number of individuals in the population • Population trend - increasing or decreasing over time • Habitat trends- increasing or decreasing over time • Habitat status – suitability of habitat for wildlife • Population distribution - where they are • Legal constraints and opportunities • Demographic vulnerability – species that are highly sensitive to disturbance • Special status - federally listed - state species of concern - BLM/FS sensitive • Threatened, endangered, sensitive Responsibility Species – so dependent on Arizona that it requires special attention regardless of other factors • Native and unique species • Geographic limited distribution - includes endemics (only found in specific areas and no where else) • Ensure native species diversity Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 23 Combined Wildlife Summit Report Final Report Community Focal Species (i.e. species that indicate or regulate the health of their wildlife communities and habitats) • Indicator species - biological community health • Species for which further conservation efforts support ecosystem goals • Umbrella species • Keystone species • Functional species - providing vital functions within ecosystems • Species with large area requirements Species of Social or Economic Value • Economic value - providing significant economic value • Economic impacts • Heritage species – recognized as state or national symbols Species for which data are lacking to determine their status Potential for successful recovery and management of wildlife and habitats Future threats to habitat and species (i.e. pollution – disease) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J 24 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit October 15, 2004 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Demographics and Interest Areas 9 Participants: • Carol Beardmore, Sonoran Joint Venture • David BeMiller, US Border Patrol, Tucson Sector • Brian Davidson, ADEQ • Katie Decker, Arizona Department of Agriculture • Elisabeth Lawaczeck, ADHS • Mark Martinez, USFWS • Henry Messing, US Bureau of Reclamation • Susan Schuhardt, Prescott National Forest • Steve Smarik, USDA-NRCS Figure A-1: Participant Representation Other 2 Wildlife/Resource Management 4 Other Government 3 Figure A-2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 1 The participants were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing during the summit and to identify their personal interests. Demographic results indicate the group was fairly homogenous: • 7 represent a government agency (Figure A-1.) • 5 hunt and/or fish (Figure A-2.) • 7 watch wildlife away from home (Figure A-3.) • 2 use off-highway vehicles and 1 uses an off-highway vehicle to launch a boat (Figure A-4.) • 9 garden and/or watch wildlife at their home (Figure A-5.) Angling 2 Neither 4 Both 2 Figure 4: Recreation Watercraft 0 Off-Highw ay Figure A-3: WildlifeVehicle 2 Neither 2 Both 0 Neither Animal Welfare6 0 Both 1 Wildlife Watching 7 Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-1 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Figure A-4: Recreation Watercraft 0 Off-Highw ay Vehicle 2 Final Report Figure A-5: Home Activities Neither 0 Both 3 Home Wildlife 5 Both 1 Neither 6 Horticulture Gardening 1 Part 1: Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Summit participants were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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. The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used during the Summit. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-2 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-paired comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the Summit participants. Participants were also asked to rate how well the AZGFD was performing today in each of the challenge areas. Overwhelmingly, the group agreed that working to ensure that habitats are protected and properly managed for wildlife was the most important challenge for the Department. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-3 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Wildlife Habitat Planning and Funding Wildlife Management Biological Information Information and Education Partnerships Laws and Legal Considerations Law Enforcement Wildlife Recreation Administrative Challenges Off-Highway Vehicle Management Watercraft Management Figure A-6 shows the difference in how much more important each challenge was to the group. There were significant differences in the most important wildlife habitat (value=78.9) and the least important watercraft management (value=9.9.) Figure A-6: 12 Challenges by Importance 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN A-4 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges today. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) All of the 12 challenges received a rating of 5 or higher. According to the participants, AZGFD is performing the best on the following 5 challenges: 4. Wildlife Management 5. Biological Information 1. Wildlife Recreation 2. Law Enforcement 3. Information and Education Figure A-7 shows how the participants rated the performance on each of the 12 challenges. Figure A-7: Current Performance by Challenge 8 6 4 2 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN A-5 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Profile Interpretation The CoNexus® software creates a profile showing the relationship between the importance rankings and performance ratings. Figure A-8 shows the importance from top to bottom; the higher the challenge on the profile the more important it was to the participants. Performance is measured from right to left; the further left the challenge is on the profile the better the Department is performing. Figure A-8: Comparison of Importance and Performance Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-6 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Group Discussion Off-highway vehicle management: • Maybe people believed that several of the topics covered more than one issue. Offhighway vehicle manager could be part of law enforcement or habitat management, for example. • The results probably reflect the makeup of the group. I don’t think anyone here is an OHV enthusiast. Habitat Management: • I don’t think Game and Fish has a lot of say-so about habitat management. That seems to be more a function of the federal government and tribal agencies. Game and Fish manages the wildlife. • It could be a marketing issue. Game and Fish may be doing a great job of managing wildlife habitat but nobody knows it. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-7 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Funding Each participant was given ten gold coins representing $100. At the back of the room were 12 folders – one for each challenge. The participants were asked to spend their money as they felt appropriate. They were instructed to spend all of their money and not to break any of the coins. Figure A-9 shows that the participants spent 20% of their money on wildlife habitat; their most important challenge (as shown on Figure A-6). The next highest funded challenge (14%) was partnerships which was sixth in importance. As representatives of wildlife agencies, the participants stated they felt the additional funding would enable them to develop more effective partnerships with AZGFD resulting in enhanced protection of wildlife habitat. Figure A-9: Money Spent by Challenge Watercraft 7% OHV 4% Plan 11% Information 7% Education 13% Manage 11% Recreation 3% Enforce 7% Legal 3% Partner 14% Habitat 20% Group Discussion • • It doesn’t seem there is enough money to spend. Some things probably are being shortchanged. I would put most of my money into planning. That should cover just about everything. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-8 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 • • • • Final Report I didn’t put anything into administration. I know it is necessary, but it is very hard to put a high priority on it when there are so many important Game and Fish functions and too little money to go around. More money probably should go into information and education. Most people think of Game and Fish in terms of hunting and fishing, not wildlife habitat management. I would put a lot into habitat management. It’s just a matter of prioritizing what the agency does. Part 2: Stressors (Threats) to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife Stressors Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife that they felt were the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of stressors: • • • • • • • • • • Excessive recreational demand Groundwater depletion Urban sprawl Water use and conservation Development Habitat destruction Invasive species Water – increase diversion, increase groundwater depletion Urban wild land conflicts Habitat fragmentation and loss • • • • • • • • • Road development Planning and zoning development Land development – urban, suburban, 2nd home, commercial, recreation Loss of habitat Fractured habitat Metropolitan growth Overuse of resources – grazing, timber, OHV, etc. Cattle grazing Misinformation and lack of education Stressors Identified by Groups The participants were divided into two groups and asked to review their individual list of stressors and come to a consensus on five top stressors. The following were the ten stressors identified by the two groups: • • • • • • Urban sprawl Forced habitat changes from growth Water loss Water Invasive species Invasive species Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • • Increased recreational demand Urban/wild land conflicts Misinformation/lack of education Overuse of resources (cattle grazing, timber) A-9 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Stressors which are the most important for AZGFD to address in the next 10 years: The participants defined, discussed, and combined their stressors into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Recreational Demand (RECREATIONAL) • Invasive Species (INVASIVE) • Human Development - Built environment (DEVELOPMENT) • Human Wildlife Conflicts - Interface between humans and wildlife (CONFLICTS) • Overuse of Natural Resources (OVERUSE) • Water Quantity and Quality – Over pumping, diversions, degradation from pollution (WATER Q) • Lack of respect for wildlife and resources (RESPECT) • Ignorance of wildlife and resources (IGNORANCE) Figure A-10: Most Important Stressors 100 80 60 40 20 0 DEVELOPMENT OVERUSE WATER Q Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J RESPECT INVASIVE CONFLICTS IGNORANCE RECREATIONAL A-10 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report The stress placed on habitats and wildlife by human development and the lack of and degradation of water were ranked by the participants as the most important threats to be addressed in the next 10 years. Throughout the day, the participants discussed the impacts of recreation on wildlife and habitat but voted recreational demand as the least important stressor. Group Discussion • • I really thought population growth would rank higher. That has to be the biggest single threat to wildlife. I’m surprised recreational demands didn’t get more support. Overuse is a big problem. Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Criteria Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three factors that should be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of criteria. • • • • • • • • Environmental threats Habitat degradation Invasive species Invasive species Balancing tourism with conservation Water loss from streams by groundwater pumping Surface water diversion Protecting our waterways Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • • • • • Population status Federally listed state species of concern BLM/FS sensitive Responsibility Threats Population trend Narrow distribution Population size A-11 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Criteria Identified by Groups The participants were divided into two groups and asked to review their individual list of criteria and come to a consensus on five top criteria. The following were the 10 criteria identified by the two groups. • • • • • • • • • • Federally listed T/E Decreased population/distribution Aquatic/Riparian/Wetland/species Identification of diversity hotspots Habitat incursions Most at risk wildlife Water needs by wildlife Population status/trends Habitat status/trends Threats status/trends What are the factors that AZGFD should use to determine if a species needs special attention? The participants defined, discussed, and combined their criteria into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Population Size - Number of individuals in the population (SIZE) • Population Trend - Increasing or decreasing over time (TREND) • Population Distribution - Where they are (DISTRIBUTION) • Threats - Future threats to habitat and species i.e. pollution - disease (THREATS) • Special Status - Federally listed - State species of concern - BLM/FS sensitive (SPEC STATUS) • Responsibility - Species so dependent on AZ that it requires special attention regardless of other factors (RESPONSIBILI) • Habitat Trends (HAB TRENDS) • Habitat Status (HAB STATUS) As shown in Figure A-11 (page A-13) the most important criteria were special status, threats, habitat status and habitat trends. However, it should be noted that the group was split on whether or not the criteria should be prioritized. After lengthy discussion the group agreed to vote the pairs, but two participants declined to vote. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-12 Agency/Tribal Wildlife Summit - October 15, 2004 Final Report Figure A-11: Criteria Ranked by Importance 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SPEC STATUS HAB STATUS THREATS RESPONSIBILI HAB TRENDS SIZE TREND DISTRIBUTION Group Discussion • • • • • The reason we do not want to rank these is because what may show up in one category may not show up in another, but it may be as important, if not more so and it may fall through the cracks because it was at the end of the priorities. The process of assessing the wildlife of greatest conservation need should take the criteria of: population trend, population size, distribution of the species, threats – including habitat threats and degree of endemism to Arizona and rank each equally in a non-prioritized or weighted process. I would think that the population of the species would be the most important criteria. How many are there? What are the trends? Using someone else’s list as criteria doesn’t make much sense. What this says is that the most important thing is what someone else believes is the most important thing. I believe we should pay attention to what others – the feds – are listing. I guess it tells Game and Fish, “don’t reinvent the wheel.” Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J A-13 Phoenix Wildlife Summit October 16, 2004 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Demographics and Interest Areas 6 Participants Figure P-1: Participant Representation • • • • • • Barbara Hawkins, Town of Wickenburg Tom Hulen, Desert Foothills Land Trust Eric Larsen, Desert Flycasters (DFC) Sam Campana, Audubon Arizona Dan Scheske, Arizona ATV Riders Ray Chavez, Town of Superior The participants were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing during the summit and identify their personal interests. Demographic results indicate the group was fairly homogenous with a few exceptions. • Even split of government representatives (2), environmentalists (2) and sportsmen (2) (Figure P-1.) • All (6) hunt and/or fish (Figure P-2.) • All (6) watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities (Figure P-3.) • Half (3) use off-highway vehicles and/or watercraft. (Figure P-4.) • Most (5) garden and/or watch wildlife at their home (Figure P-5.) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Sportsman's Organization 2 Environmental Conservation 2 Other Government 2 Figure P-2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 0 Angling 2 Both 4 Figure P-3: Wildlife Neither 0 Wildlife Watching 3 Both 3 Animal Welfare 0 P-1 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Figure P-4: Recreation Watercraft 0 Off-Highw ay Vehicle 1 Final Report Figure P-5: Home Activities Neither 1 Home Wildlife 0 Horticulture Gardening 0 Neither 3 Both 2 Both 5 Part 1: Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Summit participants were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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. The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used during the Summit. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-2 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-paired comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the Summit participants. Participants were also asked to rate how well the AZGFD was performing today in each of the challenge areas. The group agreed that working to ensure that habitats are protected and properly managed for wildlife was the most important challenge for the Department. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-3 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Wildlife Habitat Partnerships Law Enforcement Off-Highway Vehicle Management Planning and Funding Biological Information Wildlife Management Information and Education Wildlife Recreation Administrative Challenges Laws and Legal Considerations Watercraft Management Figure P-6 shows the difference in how much more important each challenge was to the group. There were significant differences in the most important wildlife habitat (value=75.9) and the least important watercraft management (value=11.) Figure P-6: 12 Challenges by Importance 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN P-4 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges today. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) All but one of the12 challenges were rated 5 or higher. Off-highway vehicle management was the lowest in performance with a value of 33.3. According to the participants, AZGFD is performing the best on the following 3 challenges. 1. Wildlife Recreation 2. Wildlife Management 3. Information and Education Figure P-7 shows how the participants rated the performance on each of the 12 challenges. Figure P-7: Current Performance by Challenge 8 6 4 2 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN P-5 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Profile Interpretation The CoNexus® software creates a profile showing the relationship between the importance rankings and performance ratings. Figure P-8 shows the importance from top to bottom; the higher the challenge on the profile the more important it was to the participants. Performance is measured from right to left; the further left the challenge is on the profile the better the Department is performing. Figure P-8: Comparison of Importance and Performance Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-6 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Group Discussion Off Highway Vehicle Management: • It is a way for people to get out and recreate without hiking. • Off-highway vehicle management didn’t rank very high with this group. That may be because some of us believe that is part of habitat management. • Off-highway vehicle management is probably a matter of education and enforcement. Anybody who has been in the outdoors has seen a couple of kids tearing down the road in an OHV at 45 or 50 miles an hour. • If you use our waterways, you have to get a registration. That is not the same with off-highway vehicles. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-7 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Funding Each participant was given ten gold coins representing $100. At the back of the room were 12 folders – one for each challenge. The participants were asked to spend their money as they felt appropriate. They were instructed to spend all of their money and not to break any of the coins. Figure P-9 shows that the participants spent 19% of their money on the most important challenge wildlife habitat (as shown on Figure P-6.) The next highest funded challenge (16%) was partnerships which was second in importance. Figure P-9: Money Spent by Challenge Watercraft 0% Admin 3% OHV 6% Plan 10% Information 6% Education 13% Manage 6% Recreation 8% Habitat 19% Enforce 13% Legal 0% Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Partner 16% P-8 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Part 2: Stressors (Threats) to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife Stressors Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife that they felt were the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of stressors: • • • • • • • • Funding Lack of funding Pollution Resource mining Abuse to land/wildlife Land use Poor wildlife management Population growth • • • • • • • • Growth number More users Water use Urban development; suburban sprawl People Development Drought Drought Stressors Identified by Groups The participants were asked to review their individual list of stressors and come to a group consensus on the top stressors. The following were the stressors identified by the group: • • • • • • Contamination and invasion of species and habitats Land use and wildlife conflicts Loss of habitat due to development and growing population Loss of habitat due to natural causes; i.e., drought Lack of funding priority Lack of public priority for wildlife Stressors which are the most important for AZGFD to address in the next 10 years: The participants defined, discussed, and combined their stressors into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs: • • • Natural Causes - Loss of habitat due to drought (NATURAL) Human Causes - Loss of habitat due to development and growing population (HUMAN) Conflicts - Land use and wildlife conflicts (CONFLICTS) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-9 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 • • • Final Report Lack of wildlife funding (FUNDING) Lack of public priority for wildlife (PRIORITIES) Contamination and invasion of species and habitat - pollution (INVASION) The stress placed on habitats and wildlife by human causes, lack of public priority and land use and wildlife conflicts were ranked by the participants as the most important threats to be addressed in the next 10 years. Although the group spent a lot of time discussing the natural causes stressors, they ranked it last in importance. The participants stated they ranked natural causes threats less important because of the inability to address this issue in the next ten years. Figure P-10: Most Important Stressors 100 80 60 40 20 0 HUMAN PRIORITIES Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J CONFLICTS FUNDING INVASION NATURAL P-10 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Group Discussion • • • • You can’t control the drought, but you can manage around it. The drought causes many problems – loss of the watershed, declining wetlands, the fire hazard, and stress on the natural habitat. If funding is a problem, maybe we should look at some sort of impact fees. A lot of communities have done that for residential development. That takes care of police and fire protection, streets and the like. We don’t have anything like that for habitat protection. When you have any kind of development or land-use planning, wildlife should be a priority. If you’re going to develop land, you have to show that you have a 100-year water supply, but you don’t have to show any impact on wildlife. Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Criteria Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three factors that should be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of criteria: • • • • • • • Revenue potential licensing Keystone species within community Herbivores and predators (elk, deer, antelope, etc. Not livestock) Species that are indicators to healthy ecosystem or community Aquatic game and non-game Research numbers Management difficulty Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • • • • • Resilience Funding available for research? Threatened or endangered status Based on legal constraints and opportunities Laws & regulations Legal ramifications Heritage species P-11 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Criteria Identified by the Group The participants were asked to review their individual list of criteria and come to a consensus of the top criteria. The following were the criteria identified by the group: • • • • • • Environmental impact Species providing significant economic value Species providing vital functions with ecosystems Indicator species (bio-community health) Impact on ecosystem Avian (Birds: predatory, migratory, and resident) What are the factors that AZGFD should use to determine if a species needs special attention? The participants defined, discussed, and combined their criteria into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs: • • • • • • • • Legal Constraints and Opportunities (LEGAL) Indicator Species - bio community health (INDICATOR) Functional Species - providing vital functions within ecosystems (FUNCTIONAL) Economic Value - providing significant economic value (ECONOMIC) Heritage Species (HERITAGE) Impact on the Ecosystem (ECOSYSTEM) Potential for Success (SUCCESS) Economic Impacts (ECONO IMPACT) As shown in Figure P-11 (page P-13) the most important criteria were impact on the ecosystem and functional species. Heritage species was significantly less important, but its ranking may be due to a lack of understanding or confusion over the definition. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-12 Phoenix Wildlife Summit - October 16, 2004 Final Report Figure P-11: Criteria Ranked by Importance 80 60 40 20 0 ECOSYSTEM ECONOMIC FUNCTIONAL ECONO IMPACT INDICATOR LEGAL SUCCESS HERITAGE Group Discussion • • • • • • • You have to look at the economic impact – both good and bad. Are you going to bring a species back so it can wipe out the crops? Management difficulty – how hard is it to protect a given species. Is it worth it? Is it costeffective? You have to have the money to do the proper research. You can’t have numbers without research. What are the legal ramifications? How likely are you to have lawsuits filed by some group asking the courts to force you to do this or that? You should look at species that have some unique cultural or heritage meaning. Some species, bald eagles for example, have a special significance. The most important think is the species’ overall impact on the eco-system. How does it fit in? What role does it have? If you wipe out a predator, does the prey take over? We have to look at a lot of different things. Sportsmen have to know that if we don’t have a health ecosystem, we don’t have a healthy sporting environment. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J P-13 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit October 23, 2004 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Demographics and Interest Areas 11 Participants Figure F-1: Participant Representation • • • • • • • • • • • Kim Crumbo, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Kevin Davidson, Mohave County Scotty Johnson, Defenders of Wildlife, SW Center Mike MaCauley, Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District Tom Mackin, Coconino Sportsmen Don Martin, Mohave Sportsman Club Mikele Painter, USFS, North Kaibab RD Steve Rich, Fredonia Habitat Partnership Committee Barbara Wilson, NPS, Glen Canyon National Rec Area Bill Werner, AZ Department of Water Resources Liz Boussard, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Other 1 Wildlife/Resource Management 2 Environmental Conservation 4 Other Government 2 Sportsman's Organization 1 Figure F-2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 0 Angling 2 Neither 4 Both 4 The participants were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing during the summit and to identify their personal interests. Note: One participant arrived late and was not included in the demographic vote. Figure F-3: Wildlife Neither 1 Demographic results indicate the group was somewhat diverse in the stakeholder groups represented but were very similar in their personal interests. Wildlife Watching 4 Both 3 Animal Welfare 2 Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-1 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Figure F-4: Recreation • • • • • Equal number of government representatives and environmentalists (4), a sportsman and one other (Figure F-1.) 6 hunt and/or fish (Figure F-2.) 9 watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities (Figure F-3.) 7 use off-highway vehicles and/or watercraft (Figure F-4.) 9 garden and/or watch wildlife at their home (Figure F-5.) Watercraft 2 Neither 3 Off-Highw ay Vehicle 1 Both 4 Figure F-5: Home Activities Neither 1 Home Wildlife 2 Horticulture Gardening 1 Both 6 Part 1: Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Summit participants were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-2 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used during the Summit. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs: • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-paired comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the Summit participants. Participants were also asked to rate how well the AZGFD was performing today in each of the challenge areas. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-3 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 7. Information and Education 1. Wildlife Habitat 8. Law Enforcement 2. Wildlife Management 9. Administrative Challenges 3. Biological Information 10. Wildlife Recreation 4. Planning and Funding 11. Off-Highway Vehicle Management 5. Partnerships 12. Watercraft Management 6. Laws and Legal Considerations Figure F-6: 12 Challenges by Importance 100 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN Figure F-6 shows the difference in how much more important each challenge was to the group. Overwhelmingly, the group agreed that working to ensure that habitats are protected and properly managed for wildlife, wildlife management and biological information were the three most important challenges for the Department. There were significant differences in the three most important challenges and the remaining nine. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-4 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) Nine of the 12 challenges were rated 5 or higher. The lowest performing challenge was offhighway vehicles (value=38.8). According to the participants, AZGFD is performing the best on the following 4 challenges: 1. Law Enforcement 2. Wildlife Recreation 3. Information and Education 4. Administration Figure F-7: Current Performance by Challenge 8 6 4 2 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN F-5 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Profile Interpretation The CoNexus® software creates a profile showing the relationship between the importance rankings and performance ratings. Figure F-8 shows the importance from top to bottom; the higher the challenge on the profile the more important it was to the participants. Performance is measured from right to left; the further left the challenge is on the profile the better the Department is performing. Figure F-8: Comparison of Importance and Performance Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-6 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Group Discussion • • Thought partnerships would rank higher. Thought off-highway vehicles would rank higher. “What’s missing in the challenges?” • How private property owners view their relationship with Game & Fish. o Need to address ranchers that have shut down access. o Use of state land is less expensive than the use of private land. o Private property rights vs. state land. Also, don’t see coordination between agencies. o State Lands need to stop scapegoating ranchers. Proper grazing activities are shown to be positive to the habitat. This information needs to get out to the public. • Loss of habitat is a number one problem. • There was no opportunity to compare game vs. non-game. o Both are important – you can’t separate them. o The perception is that game is more important. o What is the funding for game vs. non-game? o Groups of species are not considered, game or non-game. • Good science says that the habitat tells you what is important. • Politics can prevent an agency from its mission - the aggressive pursuit to enhance or restore. • Politics affects the implementation of sound science. • Early land use was proto-agriculture and included burning and managing agricultural species. This differs from current uses, including the addition of dams to the habitat. A challenge is that we must recognize that wildlife was adapted from this agricultural/protoagricultural lifestyle. o The concept of pristine conditions is not accurate compared to early land use, roughly 5,000 years ago. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-7 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Funding Each participant was given ten gold coins representing $100. At the back of the room were 12 folders – one for each challenge. The participants were asked to spend their money as they felt appropriate. They were instructed to spend all of their money and not to break any of the coins. Figure F-9 indicates that the participants spent 55% of their money on their three most important challenges (as shown on Figure F-6): wildlife habitat, wildlife management and biological information. Figure F-9: Money Spent by Challenge Watercraft 1% Admin OHV 2% Education 2% 6% Recreation 5% Plan 8% Information 15% Enforce 7% Legal 5% Manage 14% Partner 9% Habitat 26% Group Discussion: Interesting spread on lower categories OHV is managing impacts, not activity Cost of damage due to gaming and fishing activities is not paid by Game & Fish Other land managers do not receive money to handle impacts Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-8 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Part 2: Stressors (Threats) to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife Stressors Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife that they felt were the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of stressors. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ongoing drought “Wildness” politics over science Inappropriate severe fire Use of fire at “sever” levels instead of treatments which conserve soil organics, soil biodiversity, general biodiversity Future energy development Ben Brooks & Associates Suburban growth at urban interface and development of exurban, private holdings Urban and exurban development in general and in key habitats Ham encroachment (loss of habitat) Roads/Motorized vehicles Fire suppression Human manipulation of natural processes (biotic & a biotic) Habitat and habitat linkage fragmentation Population growth/urbanization Urbanization Drought Increasing human water demand impacting natural/aquatic systems Funding Urban interface wildlife issues Loss of connectivity of wildlife population Loss of habitat for all native species Negative impacts of roads Differences between land management Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • • • • • • • • • Loss of habitat Invasive exotic species Public awareness and involvement Habitat loss to development Decreased funding Loss of available funding Less game, fewer hunters = less license sales More money spent on lawsuits, other species Increased human demands - OHV use, Great hunter/fishing demands, Other outdoor recreation activities Habitat loss - Natural-fire, drought, flood, Development, fragmentation Changes to habitat F-9 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Stressors Identified by Groups The participants were divided into groups and asked to review their individual list of stressors and come to a consensus on the top stressors. The following were the stressors identified by the groups. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Inappropriate fire management with severe drought Human manipulation (fire suppression, non-native species, etc.) Unintended consequences Lack of funding Human encroachment Suburbanization Private development within an interlaced land tenure Habitat and Linkage fragmentation (urbanization, roads, agriculture) Habitat loss (many forms of loss) Competition for scarce water resources Humans, Agriculture, Grazing, Other wildlife Increased human demands on wildlife and habitat Politics superseding science and implementation Stressors which are the most important for AZGFD to address in the next 10 years: The participants defined, discussed, and combined their stressors into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Negative impacts from human manipulation - fire suppression, non-native species (HUMAN) • Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages (FRAGMENTATIO) • Increased human demands on limited natural resources (DEMANDS) • Lack of funding (FUNDING) • Inconsistency management policies and goals between land stewards (POLICIES) • Politics superseding sound science and implementation (POLITICS) Figure F-10 (page F-11) indicates that fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages and negative impacts from human manipulation included fire and non-native species were the two most important stressors identified by the group. During the day, there was a significant amount of discussion regarding inconsistent management policies and lack of funding but these issues were ranked as the least important stressors. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-10 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Figure F-10: Most Important Stressors 80 60 40 20 0 FRAGMENTATIO DEMANDS HUMAN POLITICS POLICIES FUNDING Group Discussion Concern about the use of numbers, may end up with a public skew on certain issues. Response: The data will be used to frame the discussion and determine the range of issues to be considered. This is qualitative data, not quantitative. The majority of the public may “vote” one way, this is a concern. The demographic information will assist in this area as well. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-11 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Criteria Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three factors that should be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of criteria: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Endangered species Endangered species and clusters Endangered species and those likely to become listed Species whose needs cover a large group, “umbrella” species Umbrella carnivores Large carnivores Native species Keystone native species Determine which species may be ecosystem indicators Review of scientific data from State, Federal, and civilian groups (TNC, Ducks ULTD, etc. and university sources Species for which conservation effort can make a difference Restore funding based on ecosystem goals, not species specific Does the species occur only in Arizona? Provides greatest benefit • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Does the species depend on a limited landscape component? Keystone species Environmental biased Sound scientific information Species with large area requirements Habitat utilization Broadest “common” appeal Best exemplifies “wildlife” Can they be saved? Are they keystone or indicator species? Huntability (recreation value) of animal Population dispersal Ensure diversity of all species If we save them, what is helped/hurt? Population size Population trend wild Birth weight or count (depending on species) Criteria Identified by Groups The participants were divided into two groups and asked to review their individual list of criteria and come to a consensus on five top criteria. The following were the 10 criteria identified by the two groups: • • • Species for which funding/conservation efforts support ecosystem goals Can they be saved without sacrifice to others Unique species depends on a unique habitat Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • Ensure diversity of all species Native species Endangered species (species clusters, those likely to become) F-12 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 • • • • Population trends size Keystone species Indicator species Umbrella species Final Report • • • Species with large area requirement Provides greatest benefit Species with large habitat requirements (large carnivores) What are the factors that AZGFD should use to determine if a species needs special attention? The participants defined, discussed, and combined their criteria into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Ensure native species diversity (DIVERSITY) • Consider population trends and sizes proactively (POPULATION) • Endangered species (ENDANGERED) • Umbrella species (UMBRELLA) • Species with large area requirements (LARGE AREA) • Indicator species (INDICATOR) • Keystone species (KEYSTONE) • Native and unique species (UNIQUE) • Species for which further conservation efforts support ecosystem goals (GOALS) As shown in Figure F-11 (page F-14) the three most important criteria were support ecosystem goals, ensure native species diversity, and population trends and sizes. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-13 Flagstaff Wildlife Summit - October 23, 2004 Final Report Figure F-11: Criteria Ranked by Importance 80 60 40 20 0 GOALS POPULATION DIVERSITY UNIQUE KEYSTONE INDICATOR ENDANGERED UMBRELLA LARGEAREA Group Discussion Discussion following the paired matching of participant-suggested criteria included: Need definitions – forgot what differentiated similar concepts. The most general criteria resulted in the higher voting responses. Not as many hunters were present today as might be on another day. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J F-14 Tucson Wildlife Summit October 30, 2004 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Demographics and Interest Areas 29 Participants • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter Lee Basnar, Arizona Heritage Alliance Young Cage, Tucson Herpetological Association Dennis Caldwell, Tucson Herpetological Chris Carrillo, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services Mark Dimmitt, Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum Tricia Gerrodette, Audubon Society, Huachuca Chapter Rich Glinski, Maricopa County Parks & Recreation Trevor Hare, Sky Islands Alliance Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection Bob Hernbrode, Self Greg Hess, Pima Association of Governments Sonja Macys, Audubon Society, Tucson Chapter Chris McVie, Audubon Society, Tucson Chapter Addison Mohler, Hualapai Tribe Maruch Myowytewa, Hopi Tribe Stephanie Nichols-Young, Animal Defense League of AZ Daniel Patterson, Center for Biological Diversity Linda Pfister, Arizona Quail Alliance Janice Przybyl, Sky Islands Alliance Joanne Roberts, Arizona State Parks Halina Azyposzynski, Self Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Figure T-1: Participant Representation Animal Welfare 2 Recreational User 2 Self 1 Wildlife/Resource Management 3 Other Government 3 Sportsman 1 Environmental Conservation 16 Figure T-2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 3 Angling 3 Neither 17 Both 6 T-1 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 • • • • • • • • Steve Thomas, U.S. DOT Federal Highways Dale Turner, The Nature Conservancy, Tucson Office Kim Vacariu, Wildlands Project Scott Wilbor, Audubon Society, All Birds Conservation Program Jeff Williamson, The Phoenix Zoo Tom Wood, Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory Beth Woodin, Arizona Wildlife Federation & Arizona Heritage Alliance Nancy Zierenbert, Arizona Native Plant Society The participants were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing during the summit and to identify their personal interests. Demographic results indicate the group was moderately diverse in representation and interests. • More than half (16) represented an environmental or conservation organization (Figure T-1.) • 12 hunt and/or fish (Figure T2.) • 27 watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities (Figure T-3.) • 10 use off-highway vehicles and/or watercraft (Figure T-4.) • 28 garden and/or watch wildlife at their home (Figure T-5.) Final Report Figure T-3: Wildlife Neither 2 Wildlife Watching 12 Both 14 Animal Welfare 1 Figure T-4: Recreation Watercraft 6 Off-Highw ay Vehicle 2 Both 2 Neither 19 Figure T-5: Home Activities Neither 1 Home Wildlife 5 Horticulture Gardening 3 Both 20 Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-2 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Part 1: Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Summit participants were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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. The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used during the Summit. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-paired comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the Summit participants. Participants were also asked to rate how well the AZGFD was performing in each of the challenge areas today. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-3 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 7. Information and Education 1. Wildlife Habitat 8. Law Enforcement 2. Biological Information 9. Partnerships 3. Wildlife Management 10. Administrative Challenges 4. Laws and Legal Considerations 11. Wildlife Recreation 5. Planning and Funding 12. Watercraft Management 6. Off-Highway Vehicle Management The group agreed that working to ensure that habitats are protected and properly managed for wildlife was the most important challenge for the Department. Figure T-6 shows the difference in how much more important each challenge was to the group. There were significant differences in the most important wildlife habitat (value=88.3) and the least important watercraft management (value=14.4.) Figure T-6: 12 Challenges by Importance 100 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN T-4 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges today. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) Seven challenges were rated 5 and above. OHV was rated the lowest (value=21.9.) Figure T-7 shows how the participants rated the performance on each of the 12 challenges. According to the participants, AZGFD is performing the best on the following four challenges: 1. Wildlife Recreation 2. Information and Education 3. Administration 4. Partnerships Figure T-7: Current Performance by Challenge 8 6 4 2 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN T-5 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Profile Interpretation The CoNexus® software creates a profile showing the relationship between the importance rankings and performance ratings. Figure T-8 shows the importance from top to bottom; the higher the challenge on the profile the more important it was to the participants. Performance is measured from right to left; the further left the challenge is on the profile the better the Department is performing. Figure T-8: Comparison of Importance and Performance Group Discussion • • • Feels like we’re comparing apples and oranges. How can you say one is more important that the other? Regarding the biological information challenge, “multi-use” is not part of the AGFD mission. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-6 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Final Report Game and Fish doesn’t manage land, they can only make recommendations. What if Game and Fish is doing too well a job managing the habitat? The perceived performance of the commission and AGFD differs. AGFD performance exceeds that of the commission. Thought education would rank higher. Thought recreation would rank higher than administration. Administration has to be working in order for the others to be effective. On the “information” challenge, I viewed it as if the word multi-use wasn’t there. Must use biological information to make decisions. The agency is charged with wildlife, not a multi-use capacity. AGFD should change their mission. Certain uses preclude other uses. Recreation is not typically a wildlife use. Obligation to wildlife should precede others. Other uses impact this obligation. Recreational opportunities trump biology. Surprised at the low importance of law enforcement. Game and Fish partners with many groups with mixed agendas. Fundamentally think these uses should not be part of their mission. There is effective Audubon partnering, but not many of these types of partners. Recognition from Game and Fish does not include conservation partners. Part of the reason regarding the above comments is that this room differentiates the commission from the department. The commission is more on the consumptive use side, and not as much a part of the conservation effort. Would like to see a permit-driven funding – one with less AZGFD money. Department is handling the recreation challenge well, but it’s not as important. There is an over-emphasis on the consumptive aspect. Results in these types of sessions will depend on what part of the spectrum we have been involved with. There is a split between game and non-game. There has been a perception that hunting and angling is the driving force behind the department. The department may not do a good job of telling the non-game side of the story well. However, New Mexico does this well in their newsletter. “What’s missing in the challenges?” • Funding for non-game. • Funding priorities. • Integration of programs. • Coordination between programs. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-7 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • Final Report Managing habitat and wildlife is duplicative. Remove off-highway vehicles and watercraft from list – this should move to State Parks. o OHV and watercraft was included in AGFD parenthetically, and has regulatory, funding, and legal connections to the department. o These areas should be folded into habitat management. There is a perception that AZGFD is driven by their permitting process. Game is perceived to run everything. Funding a conservation effort is difficult to get your hands around. Hoped to see a percent breakout of funding sources – if changed, this could affect the perspective of the agency. No one knows about the Game and Fish Foundation – attempted to pursue this course regarding big horn sheep and found this to be the case. There needs to be a clear mechanism available. Even commissioners and those in the agency believe almost all of the funding is from game. Don’t see an opportunity for change until everyone in Arizona funds wildlife through taxes. I believe hunting is decreasing. (There was disagreement on this point.) o This group includes non-participants with the agency. o Could make that change by making users pay. o This is wrong. Hunting is consumptive; wildlife viewing is not – but they should pay too. Game branch individuals and the commission are not aware of the department’s mission. See this as a top-down issue. Funding Each participant was given ten gold coins representing $100. At the back of the room were 12 folders – one for each challenge. The participants were asked to spend their money as they felt appropriate. They were instructed to spend all of their money and not to break any of the coins. Figure T-9 (page T-9) shows that the participants spent 56% of their money on the three most important challenges – wildlife habitat, biological information and wildlife management. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-8 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Figure T-9: Money Spent by Challenge Watercraft 0% OHV 4% Admin Plan 4% 4% Information 17% Education 12% Recreation 4% Manage 13% Enforce 8% Legal 4% Partner 4% Habitat 26% Group Discussion • • • • Some activities don’t require money, but that doesn’t mean they are not important. There are overlaps of categories. Partnerships are important, but you don’t need to spend money on it. Does AZGFD put its expenditures up against this type of chart? Part 2: Stressors to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife Stressors Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife that they felt were the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of stressors: Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-9 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Invasive species Stressors: invasive species Disease Invasive Species Invasive aquatic species Residential development Habitat loss (fragmentation) Development Human population growth Overgrazing Livestock grazing Agriculture and water diversion Predator control Off-road vehicles Mismanagement Climate change Roads Urbanization Encroachment (urban-rural growth) Population growth Development/population pressure Poor stewardship of state lands Development Habitat fragmentation Habitat destruction Air & water pollution and diminution People Legal mandates Population growth without understanding of place No ordaining relationship with nature Funding Inadequate funding for habitat management/monitoring Grazing Drought Incompatible resource use/extreme private property rights Federal politics (Bush gets re-selected President) Invasive species Habitat destruction Population increase Pollution Pesticides/endocrine disruptors Disease Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Final Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Uncontrolled population growth/sprawl Habitat loss Population growth Development (misc. encroachment by humans) Encroachment of development Lack of public info and education Faulty information Erosion of public support Cattle grazing Wildlife mismanagement Federal land politics Water pumping/diversion Agribusiness Non-native/invasive species Lack of funding for non-game species Border security infrastructure & activities Habitat loss to urban expansion Habitat loss-new development Habitat fragmentation—highways Habitat fragmentation Population growth/development (housing) Urbanization Growth/development Loss of habitat to development Habitat loss and fragmentation Habitat loss Habitat degradation Habitat loss No water Transportation impacts Predators Exotic invasive species Invasive exotics Invasive species Livestock Dept. of agriculture Humans Urban sprawl Climate change ORV’s Livestock grazing Roads Border situation—blockage of wildlife migration T-10 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Stressors Identified by Groups The participants were divided into groups and asked to review their individual list of stressors and come to a consensus on three top stressors. The following were the stressors identified by the groups: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Protection of wildlife habitat (acquisition with water rights) Habitat loss Habitat loss associated with growth/development Habitat loss Habitat loss due to human development Invasive of exotic species Invasive species Habitat degradation Quality of habitat (pollution) Habitat degradation due to resource use (grazing, water, diversions, etc.) Livestock management Illegal and depreciative human behavior Human management issues Land use priorities Pool land management policies (including AZ/Mexico border) Lack of support from an uninformed public Inadequate funding for monitoring and management Lack of inter/intra agency coordination and inconsistency Stressors which are the most important for AZGFD to address in the next 10 years: The participants defined, discussed, and combined their stressors into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. Note: Three participants did not return after lunch. Only 26 participants voted on the stressors. • • • • • • • • Habitat Loss/Fragmentation - associated with growth and development (HABITAT) Exotic Invasive Species (INVASIVE) Habitat Degradation due to resource use (DEGRADATION) Illegal and Depreciative Behavior (BEHAVIOR) Land Use Priorities don't match wildlife needs (LAND) Lack of an Informed and Supportive Public (PUBLIC) Inadequate Funding for Monitoring and Management (FUNDING) Lack of Inter(Intra)-agency Coordination and inconsistent laws and policies (COORDINATION) Overwhelmingly, the stress placed on habitats and wildlife by habitat loss and fragmentation was the most important threat to be addressed in the next 10 years (Figure T-10, Page T-12). Even though the group spent a lot of time discussing the illegal and depreciate behaviors, it was ranked as the least important. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-11 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Figure T-10: Most Important Stressors 100 80 60 40 20 0 HABITAT INVASIVE DEGRADATION FUNDING LAND COORDINATION PUBLIC BEHAVIOR After the vote, some of the participants believed that water loss and degradation should have been included in the list of stressors that were voted by the group. To address their concerns, the issue was put into a quick poll and the group voted on the importance of water loss and degradation as a stressor. As shown in Figure T-11 (page T-13), the group stated water loss and degradation were very important (average 8.5.) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-12 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Figure T-11: Importance of Water Loss and Degradation 20 18 16 Number of Votes 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 1=Not Important 5 6 7 8 9 9=Very Important Group Discussion • • • • • • • • • Thought invasive species would rate higher. Thought the public aspect would be more important. Statistics are misleading. We are a diverse group on what we think is important. Overlap of concepts may be skewing these results. It’s easy to come up with this list of eight, but priorities differ. The button we press represents what people think right now, not the hindsight view we might gain 100 years in the future. Some are causes, some are effects – it’s tough to compare. Water loss and degradation are as an important part of the picture. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-13 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Part 3: Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” Criteria Identified by Individuals Each participant was asked to identify three factors that should be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” This brainstorming activity resulted in the following list of criteria: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Population trend Trends up and down Number remaining Rarity Low numbers Population size Sensitivity to disturbance Sensitivity to habitat disturbance Sensitive to human disturbance Keystone species Lack of knowledge Overall distribution Unique to Arizona Unique to Arizona Endemics Available/potential habitat quality Actual imminent habitat alteration Quality of and availability of habitat Is loss of habitat critically affecting the species? Species viability Population viability Can the species by expected to survive without help? Endangered/threatened status Threatened w/extinction Is it threatened? Importance to system keystone or indicator species Is the species keystone and what is its relationship to ecofunctions? Keystone species Endemism range limited/restricted to Arizona? State or national symbol Habitat availability Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Needed habitat (includes food, water, shelter) Threat(s) Habitat vulnerability (in path of development?) Habitat availability Reproduction rate Geographic distribution Range of distribution Range/distribution Endemic population viability Population numbers Population size and trend T&E Population Genetic viability (numbers) Population stability Rate of recovery (reproduction migration) Species population in state declining Eminent threat of extinction Species with declining population Declining numbers over time Loss of critical habitat Habitat of species in state declining/threatened Significant loss of species habitat Species population distribution very restricted Species with specific habitat needs Wide-ranging Top carnivore Keystone status in ecosystem Umbrella/keystone Keystone species Significant ecological impact-keystone T-14 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 • • • • • • • • • • • • Endemism Population Declining population Population/status as threatened/endangered Rarity Population density vs. pressure At risk for endangered status Special status species (GESA MGTA or otherwise imperiled) Threats to habitat Critical habitat size Localized distribution Indicator of ecosystem health Final Report • • • • • • • • • Keystone species Key role in the food chain (e.g., top predator) Indicator species—critical role in ecosystem (umbrella, keystone) Put the effort where the odds of success are highest Native species Threats Loss of habitat range and/or population Collecting or over harvesting Lack of regulatory/legal protection Criteria Identified by Groups The participants were divided into groups and asked to review their individual list of criteria and come to a consensus on three top criteria. The following were the criteria identified by the groups: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Is the loss of habitat affecting the species? Habitat jeopardized Habitat availability, threats, needs What is the species/sub-species viability? Small/declining population Reduced or declining population over time Species with low numbers and a downward trend Population size, trend, recovery rate Threatened and endangered Geographical limited species Range limited or restrictive? Endemics—native vs. introduced Endemics unique to Arizona Keystone species Umbrella/keystone Sensitivity to disturbance Species lacking data Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-15 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report What are the factors that AZGFD should use to determine if a species needs special attention? The participants defined, discussed, and combined their criteria into the following list which was voted using the CoNexus® dual-paired comparison software. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the CoNexus® graphs. • • • • • • • Declining Suitable Habitat (HABITAT) Demographic Vulnerability (DEMOGRAPHIC) Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Umbrella - Keystone Species (KEYSTONE) Species Lacking Data (DATA) Sensitivity to Disturbance (DISTURBANCE) Geographic Limited Distribution- Includes endemic (LIMITED) As shown in Figure T-12 the most important criteria was declining suitable habitat. The least important were sensitivity to disturbance and species lacking data. Figure T-12: Criteria Ranked by Importance 80 60 40 20 0 HABITAT TES DEMOGRAPHIC Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J LIMITED KEYSTONE DISTURBANCE DATA T-16 Tucson Wildlife Summit - October 30, 2004 Final Report Group Discussion • • Surprised that “lack of data” had such a poor response. Loss of habitat would include most every species in Arizona. Comments Posted by Participants Throughout the day, participants were asked to post any comments they wanted included in the report. The following is verbatim transcription of those comments: • • • • • • • • • • • Produce draft Another round of meetings in Phoenix, Flagstaff, and Tucson for comments on draft Development communication and education initiatives that result in quality public policy that conserves landscaping Full funding for monitoring and management Protection of wildlife habitat (acquisition with water rights) AZGFD needs to relax their efforts to control wildlife related conservation activities The CWCS should be a vehicle for better fed-state cooperation, but not to delegate regulatory authority to state over federal laws such as Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treat Act, etc. Need to resolve conflicts between management for non-native game species and native wildlife, especially fish Healthy landscape and proper ecological functioning are on obligations: all human uses should not compromise that Ferret was shown in PowerPoint show; but we have none i.e., we need prairie dogs and ferrets in our grass lands. Will help control shrub/tree invasions. Appreciate the department for contacting stakeholders early in the process and in such an upfront manner. (There was widespread agreement on this point.) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J T-17 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy CoNexus Online Survey Report Final February 28, 2005 Arizona State Game & Fish Department GUNN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 8629 West Alex Avenue Peoria, AZ 85382 Tel. 623-362-1597 Fax 623-362-1721 www.gciaz.com Combined Wildlife Summit Report FINAL Report Table of Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1 Demographics and Interests .........................................................................................................3 AZ Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges..............................................................................................5 Importance .........................................................................................................................6 Performance.....................................................................................................................10 Stressors to AZ’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife........................................................................11 Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need ............................................15 Comment Summary......................................................................................................................19 Verbatim Comments.....................................................................................................Appendix A Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Introduction The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) held four Wildlife Summits to obtain input from their stakeholders into the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) as required for federal funding under the State Wildlife Grant Program. Stakeholder groups invited by AZGFD to participate in the Summits included Department constituency groups, special interests, local governments, Native American tribes, interagency cooperators, and the general public. Upon completion of the four Summits, AZGFD contracted with Gunn Communications, Inc. (GCI) to conduct an online survey similar to the polling that was conducted during the Summits. GCI subcontracted with Idea Sciences, owner and developer of the CoNexus® software, to manage the survey. CoNexus® is a general purpose tool for group polling, data gathering, and prioritization of issues using dual-pair comparisons. A press release was e-mailed by AZGFD staff to 16,000 stakeholders. The e-mail included a link to the survey registration site. A link to the survey was also posted on the AZGFD website. The potential participants were asked to register by providing their e-mail address. A return email with a password and link to the survey was sent to the participant. Participants were able to log-in and take the survey at their convenience (twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week between Monday, November 15 and Monday, December 6, 2004.) After voting, participants were able to provide comments. This information is meant to provide additional insight into the opinions and priorities of AZGFD stakeholders and should not be viewed as definitive. This information is most valuable when put into context and compared to the results of other public involvement activities. The statistical information provided in this report should be considered QUALITATIVE information and not statistically valid. The participants were self-selected and may not be reflective of the entire stakeholder community. A total of 418 people voted at least the survey demographic questions, and 256 of those respondents completed the entire survey. This report only includes information from the completed surveys. The online survey was divided into the same four parts. Part 1 was the collection of demographic and personal interest information. Participants were then asked to prioritize AZGFD’s 12 challenges using dual-paired comparisons. Participants were also asked to rate on a scale of one to nine how well the Department was performing today in each of these 12 challenge areas. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-1 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Identifying stressors (threats) that may impact Arizona wildlife and habitat in the next 10 years was the purpose of the third part of the survey. At the Summits, participants created their own list of stressors. For the online survey, the stressor lists from each of the four Summits were combined into one list. The list was voted using dual-paired comparisons. The final part of the online survey was to prioritize the criteria that should be used by AZGFD to identify the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” The same process that was used to create the list of stressors was used to create a list of criteria which was voted using dual-pair comparisons. Comments on a wide variety of issues were received from 98 participants. Each comment was separated into topic related categories resulting in 183 individual comments. These comments are summarized in this report and a verbatim transcript is included as Appendix A. This report also includes the results of the online survey, a breakout by stakeholder group and comparison to the Summit results. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-2 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Demographics and Interests The 256 participants who completed the entire online survey were asked to indicate which stakeholder group they were representing and to identify their personal interests. As shown on Figure O-1, more than 60% of the online survey participants were representing themselves. The next largest demographic group was participants representing recreational vehicle users (23%). During the Summits, the largest demographic groups were representatives of environmental or conservation groups (40%) and government agencies (36%). Figure O-1: Participant Representation Other 4% Wildlife/Resource Other Government 1% Management Sportsman 2% 3% Environmental Conservation 4% Recreational User 23% Animal Welfare 1% Self 61% Business/Trade Association 1% Although only three percent of the participants represent a sportsman’s organization, 63% either hunt and/or fish (Figure O-2.) This percentage is just slightly higher than the 54% from the Summits who hunt and/or fish. Figure O-2: Hunting and Fishing Hunting 10% Neither 37% Angling 7% Both 46% Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-3 Online CWCS Survey Most of the participants (90%) watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities (Figure O-3.) This percentage is similar to the (91%) of the Summit participants who watch wildlife and/or participate in animal welfare activities. Almost half of the survey respondents (49%) use watercraft and/or off-highway vehicles (Figure O-4.) This percentage is slightly higher than the 43% of Summit participants who are recreational vehicle users. Only 71% of the survey respondents watch wildlife at home and/or participate in horticulture and gardening activities compared to 94% of the Summit participants (Figure O5.) Even though the demographics groups represented were significantly different between the online survey and Summits, the interest areas were very similar with the following exceptions: o Survey respondents were slightly more likely to hunt, fish and/or use recreational vehicles. o Survey respondents were less likely to watch wildlife at home and/or participate in horticulture and gardening. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J FINAL Report Figure O-3: Wildlife Neither 10% Wildlife Watching 19% Animal Welfare 7% Both 64% Figure O-4: Recreation Watercraft 7% Off-Highw ay Vehicle 17% Neither 51% Both 25% Figure O-5: Home Activities Neither 29% Both 33% Home Wildlife 29% Horticulture Gardening 9% O-4 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Arizona Game and Fish’s 12 Challenges During recent strategic planning efforts, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) staff identified 12 challenge areas. Survey respondents were asked to review the list and determine “Which one of these challenges is the most important in achieving the AZGFD’s mission.” Agency Mission: 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 Note: The mission was posted in the survey on the second day of voting. The following is a description of each of the 12 challenges used online. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the challenge on the graphs. • Planning and Funding – Manage wildlife resources as a public trust through efficient and funded activities. (PLAN) • Biological Information – Ensure that biological information used in decision making is accurate and used to implement multi-use land management. (BIO INFO) • Wildlife Management - Make wildlife decisions that reflect sound science and values. (MANAGE) • Wildlife Habitat - Work to ensure habitat is protected and properly managed for wildlife. (HABITAT) • Partnerships – Develop partnerships that recognize wildlife as a public trust. (PARTNER) • Laws and Legal Considerations – Ensure laws and policies are sufficient to protect wildlife and their habitats. (LEGAL) • Law Enforcement - Enforce laws to protect wildlife, public health and safety and sustain recreation opportunities. (ENFORCE) • Wildlife Recreation – Provide ample wildlife recreation opportunities for the full spectrum of wildlife recreation users. (RECREAT) • Information and Education – Provide the public wildlife information and education. (EDUCATION) • Off-Highway Vehicle Management – Manage off-highway vehicles impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (OHV) • Watercraft Management - Manage watercraft impacts on wildlife and their habitats. (WATERCRAFT) • Administrative Challenges – Maintain effective agency through sound fiscal management, business practices and well-trained workforce. (ADMIN) A dual-pair comparison was used to determine which challenges were the most important to the respondents. Participants were also asked to rate on a scale of one to nine how well the AZGFD was performing today in each of the challenge areas. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-5 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Importance The participants ranked the importance of the 12 challenges as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Management Biological Information Laws and Legal Considerations Law Enforcement Off-Highway Vehicle Management Planning and Funding Wildlife Recreation Administrative Challenges Information and Education Partnerships Watercraft Management Figure O-6 shows the ranking in importance for each challenge by survey respondents. Figure O-6: Importance Ranking of AZGFD’s 12 Challenges (Scale 0-100) 80 60 40 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN O-6 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Importance Rankings by Interest Areas Figure O-7 compares the opinions of the participants who hunt and fish (152) and recreational vehicle users (119) to the importance rankings of the entire group of respondents completing the entire survey. These were the only two special interest areas where there was a difference of opinion. Participants who hunt and fish and recreational vehicle users groups ranked wildlife recreation and law enforcement higher in importance than the entire group. They also felt habitat management was less important. Figure O-7: Sportsmen and Recreation Vehicle Users (Scale 0-100) 80 All 60 Hunt/Fish 40 20 Rec Vehicle 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN O-7 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Importance Rankings by Stakeholder Group Figure O-8 compares the importance rankings of the environmental and conservation (9) and recreational vehicle user group (59) representatives to the entire group. As seen on the graph below, the environmental and conservation group representatives ranked the following higher in importance than the entire group: • Wildlife Habitat • Information and Education Representatives of environmental-conservation organizations gave a lower importance ranking to partnerships, wildlife recreation and watercraft management than the entire group. Figure O-8: Environmental Group and Recreational Vehicle Users Representatives (Scale 0-100) 100 All 80 60 Environmental 40 Rec Vehicle Group 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN O-8 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Online Survey and Combined Summit Importance Rankings Figure O-9 compares how online survey respondents ranked the 12 challenges in importance to the Summit participants. Key findings include the following: • Both the online and Summit participants agreed wildlife habitat, biological information and wildlife management were the three most important challenges. • Online respondents felt that partnerships, wildlife recreation and watercraft management were much more important. • Wildlife habitat, laws and legal considerations and law enforcement were much less important to the online responders than the Summit participants. Although law enforcement was low in importance for the online survey, 14 of the comments posted discussed the need for more law enforcement. Figure O-9: Online vs. Summit Importance Rankings (Scale 0-100) 100 80 Online Survey 60 40 Combined Summit 20 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J ENFORCE LEGAL RECREAT EDUCATION OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN O-9 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Performance Participants also were asked to rate the current performance of the AZGFD in fulfilling each of the challenges. A scale of 1-9 was used (9=practically perfect; 5=just getting by; 1=not at all.) All but three of the challenges were rated a 5 +/-. Because there is little variation in the data, the validity of these results is questionable. Figure O-10 shows how the participants rated the performance on each of the 12 challenges. Figure O-10: Current Performance by Challenge (Scale 0-9) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 PLAN MANAGE BIO INFO PARTNER HABITAT ENFORCE LEGAL EDUCATION RECREAT OHV WATERCRAFT ADMIN Because of the concern over the validity of these results, no further comparisons will be made in this report. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-10 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Stressors to Arizona’s Natural Habitats and Wildlife During the four Summits, each group developed their own list of stressors (threats) to Arizona’s natural habitats and wildlife they believed are the most important to be addressed in the next ten years. To be able to have all online survey respondents rank the same stressors, individuals were not able to create their own list. The list of stressors used for the online survey was a compilation of the stressors identified at each of the four Summits. The online participants voted this list using dual-pair comparisons. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the stressor on the report graphs. • Invasive Species (INVASIVE) • Human Causes - Loss of habitat due to development, human manipulations, increased demands on limited resources and for recreation (HUMAN) • Conflicts between humans and wildlife (CONFLICTS) • Overuse of natural resources and impact from drought (OVERUSE) • Ignorance and lack of respect for wildlife and natural resources by an uniformed public (IGNORANCE) • Lack of funding for wildlife and habitat management (FUNDING) • Fragmentation and loss of habitat and linkages (FRAGMENTATION) • Inconsistent management policies priorities and politics influencing science (INCONSISTENT) Overwhelmingly, the loss of habitat due to human causes was the most important threat to be addressed in the next 10 years (Figure O-11.) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-11 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Figure O-11: Most Important Stressors (Scale 0-100) 80 60 40 20 0 HUMAN OVERUSE FRAGMENTATIO Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J IGNORANCE INCONSISTENT INVASIVE FUNDING CONFLICTS O-12 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Stressor Rankings by Interest Areas Figure O-12 compares how the participants who hunt and fish (152) and recreational vehicle users (119) ranked the importance of the stressors to the rankings of the entire group. These were the only two special interest areas where there was a difference of opinion. Participants who hunt and fish and recreational vehicle users groups ranked ignorance higher in importance than the full group. They also gave a lover rating to fragmentation and the recreational vehicle users gave a slightly lower value to the human caused stressors. Figure O-12: Stressors Rankings by Interest Area (Scale 0-100) 80 All 60 Hunt/Fish 40 20 Rec Vehicle 0 INVASIVE HUMAN CONFLICTS Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J OVERUSE IGNORANCE FUNDING FRAGMENTATIO INCONSISTENT O-13 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Stressor Rankings by Stakeholder Group Figure O-8 compares the stressor importance rankings of the environmental and conservation (9) and recreational vehicle user group (59) representatives to the combined group. As seen on the graph below, the environmental group representatives ranked the fragmentation of habitat a much more significant threat than the group and recreational vehicle users. Figure O-13: Environmental Group and Recreational Vehicle Users Representatives (Scale 0-100) 100 All 80 60 Environmental 40 Rec Vehicle 20 0 INVASIVE HUMAN CONFLICTS Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J OVERUSE IGNORANCE FUNDING FRAGMENTATIO INCONSISTENT O-14 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Criteria for Identifying “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need” During the four Summits, each group developed their own list of criteria to be used by AZGFD to select the “Wildlife of Greatest Conservation Need.” To be able to have all survey respondents rank the same criteria, individuals were not able to create their own list. The list of criteria used for the online survey was a compilation of the criteria identified at each of the four Summits. The online participants voted this list using dual-paired comparisons. The capital word in parentheses is the keyword used to identify the criteria on the report graphs. • Special status or vulnerable species (STATUS) • Responsibility species dependent on AZ that it requires special attention regardless of other factors (RESPONSIBILI) • Community focal species - species that indicate or regulate the health of their wildlife communities and habitats (FOCAL) • Species of social or economic value (VALUE) • Species for which data are lacking to determine their status (DATA) • Potential for successful recovery and management of wildlife and habitats (SUCCESS) • Future threats to habitat and species such as pollution and disease (FUTURE) Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-15 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report The importance of the criteria was pretty much equal except for species which data are lacking and species of social or economic value which were considerable lower in importance (Figure O14.) Figure O-14: Most Important Criteria (Scale 0-100) 80 60 40 20 0 FOCAL RESPONSIBILI FUTURE Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J STATUS SUCCESS DATA VALUE O-16 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Criteria Rankings by Interest Areas Figure O-15 compares how the participants who hunt and fish (152) and recreational vehicle users (119) ranked the importance of the criteria to the rankings of the entire group. These were the only two special interest areas where there was a difference of opinion. Participants who hunt and fish and recreational vehicle users groups gave the economic criteria higher rankings. They voted the potential for success and the social and economic value of the species criteria as more important than the group as a whole. On the other hand, they ranked the science based criteria (status, responsibility and focal) lower than the group. Figure O-15: Stressors Rankings by Interest Area (Scale 0-100) 80 All 60 Hunt/Fish 40 20 Rec Vehicle 0 STATUS RESPONSIBILI FOCAL Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J VALUE DATA SUCCESS FUTURE O-17 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comparison of Criteria Rankings by Stakeholder Group Figure O-16 compares the criteria importance rankings of the environmental and conservation (9) and recreational vehicle user group (59) representatives to the combined group. As seen on the graph below, the environmental group representatives had significant differences of opinion from the remainder of the group. Environmentalists gave much higher ranking to the focal species criteria and less to the social and economic value and potential for success. Figure O-16: Environmental Group and Recreational Vehicle Users Representatives (Scale 0-100) 100 All 80 60 Environmental 40 Rec Vehicle 20 0 STATUS RESPONSIBILI FOCAL Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J VALUE DATA SUCCESS FUTURE O-18 Online CWCS Survey FINAL Report Comment Summary Participants in the online survey were able to post comments at the end of the survey. They were also able to read and respond to questions posted by other participants. Of the 418 registered participants, 98 posted a comment. Several of the comments discussed several different issues. To be able to summarize the comments, each comment was separated into individual topic areas. A total of 183 individual comments were recorded. The following is a summary of the comments received. A complete verbatim list of the comments is included in Appendix A. Comments Related to the CWCS: CWCS Specific Comments: • Final program should have a broader view to provide and protect viable habitat for all of Arizona’s wildlife. • Plan should be comprehensive of all wildlife species for which AZGFD has authority • Plan should be strategic and aggressively provide professional and scientific leadership to sustain wildlife species and their habitats Funding: • Most comments stated that AZGFD didn’t have enough funding to accomplish its mission • Three comments stated that the legislature should provide funding to protect AZ’s wildlife and habitat • One requested information on where AZGFD’s funding comes from Growth: • Six comments stated the number one concern is the loss of habitat to continued urban growth. • Legislature should be convinced to set aside sufficient land and funding for future recreational use • AZGFD should get involved in the State’s land management plans Loss of Habitat: • Twelve comments emphasized the greatest problem was the loss of habitat • Emphasis needs to be on habitat and species protection Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-19 Online CWCS Survey • • • • • • FINAL Report More habitat restoration such as road closures and water projects Protect and improve critical habitats on State Trust Lands Legislature should allow AZGFD to purchase more critical habitat Manage habitats for the greatest benefit of the animals instead of for the greatest benefit of people who use them for recreation Establish a mitigation land bank Acquisition of private lands Land Use Management Policies: • Arizona needs better land use practices and monitoring • More active stance on preservation of habitat from development and overgrazing • Federal regulations favoring abusive livestock grazing and mining need to change Illegal Immigrations: • One person commented that illegal immigration in southern Arizona is a significant threat to the habitat and wildlife Native Fish: • AZGFD needs to do more for native fishes in AZ – too much emphasis is placed on sport fish Off-Highway Vehicles: • Thirteen comments provided stories about how OHVs are destroying habitat and disrupting hunters Politics vs. Sound Science: • Six comments stated that the management of wildlife and habitats should be left to the professionals using sound science and the politics should be kept out of the decisions Volunteers: • Enlist more volunteer and amateur naturalists, ornithologists and environmentalists to do a lot of the more mundane work Water: • The lack of water is a problem Wildlife Conservation and Management: • Thirteen comments were received Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-20 Online CWCS Survey • • • • • • • • • FINAL Report Conservation needs to be the top priority Decisions require very hard choices but AZGFD has the expertise to make them Predator control needs to be implemented as a wildlife management tool Wildlife management is about more than just hunting and fishing Support cluster development projects Incorporate all open space lands into a master multiple species protection program Careful mapping of the habitat and species Difficult to meet short-term demands while trying to accomplish long-term goals The basic question is whether to support active management or passive management Youth: • Don’t forget the kids’ programs. The kids are the future and need to be included Comments Not Directly Related to the CWCS: Unrelated comments fell within the following categories: • • • • • • • • • • • Continued public access to State and Forest Service lands should be a priority Seven comments were specific to the AZGF Commissioners One comment was concerned about the continued protection of the Arizona ‘sub-species’ (population) of the bald eagle Four comments were related to recent license and permit fee changes One comment stated AZGFD needs to bridge the gap between the Game and Nongame Branches A large number of comments (16) were related to hunting issues Fourteen comments were related to a need for more law enforcement and suggestions for using volunteers to assist with enforcement Eleven comments discussed options for changing AZGFD leadership, management, and policies The Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program was the focus of four comments More than 25% (25) of the people posting comments stated they supported AZGFD Thirty-three comments were posted relating a dislike of the survey design Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J O-21 Online CWCS Survey DRAFT Report Appendix A Verbatim Comments Password WQWMTL Comment They should have the youth hunts After the regular hunts, so that the herds can be kept culled down, instead of the kids going up and scaring all of the game before the regular hunt. All they do is spook all of the game by shooting at anything that moves!! WYTUXN Just wanted to make the comment that my experience with the AZGF has been positive and feel that they are taking the right tract of planning for wildlife with public imput, science and education. I want the future generations to have the same opportunities to enjoy the AZ outdoors as I have had. Thanks, NC I believe the AZFGD has done a commendable job. Loss of habitat is by far the biggest problem facing AZ wildlife. If our legislators do not recognize that land and resources are being used up at an incredible rate, it won't matter what the AZFGD does. GNHNZU Please include the AZGFD Mission statement along with the section 2 of the survey, as it is hard to determine which of those challenges are most impactful to the mission if you don't know what the mission is. GEXNZL The impact of urban growth, which in turn promotes pollution, destruction of critical habitat, and other problems, should be addressed by the legislators, and stop the budget cuts for state agencies. 0YJEWM The economic value of many of Arizona's huntable species is an untapped resource. Drought has caused much stress on many of these species, reducing their value. The installation of Guzzlers in Nevada has improved their Upland Bird hunting considerably. (80,000 Chukars were harvested there last year.) These guzzlers have not been maintained properly, and now the Nevada authorities have authorized a $10 Upland game Habitat stamp just for the repair and/or installation of new guzzlers. Speaking for myself, I would gladly pay an additional $10 to hunt if there were more birds to hunt. Many other species benefit as well. If this is feasible in Arizona, I would love to see it considered. Of course this would not be much of a benefit if "Nuclear Grazing" practice continues. Better land use practices and monitoring would benefit Arizona to a much greater degree economically than is currently practiced. I spend over $1500 annually within the state of Arizona yearly, just to hunt quail, and I generally only visit 2-3 times each year. Thanks for your consideration! E4ZDY3 GJLYTG 0NDFMY Q5YZU3 5ZWIYM Is there a link available to monitor the results of the survey :?: Folks, I respect the Arizona Game and Fish department and believe they do a pretty good job. I don't think that the survey will help much, since it is obtuse and certainly not intuitive to take. You should redo the survey with straight forward questions that will get to the heart of what you want to know... looks like some PhD company sold somebody bill of goods. redundant and tricky is no way to do a survey. If we cannot convince our state legislators to set aside sufficient land and funding for future recreational use, we will probably see the demise of our hunting and fishing opportunities within our lifetime. Unfortunately, the developers have more clout than the sportsmen and women. It will take our concentrated efforts to sway them on these issues. I think the Arizona Game and Fish Department has done a commendable job with the resources they have at their disposal. WOULD LOVE TO SEE A WAY TO GET A "BIG GAME" TAG MORE FREQUENTLY. SOME OF MY FRIENDS HUNT "SOMETHING" EVERY YEAR BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN DRAWN FOR ANYTHING IN SEVERAL YEARS. MY CHILD COMPLETED HUNTER SAFETY BUT IT HAS BEEN FOR NOT AS HE CANNOT GET A TAG. I AM CONSIDERING PICKING UP BOW HUNTING JUST SO I CAN TAKE HIM HUNTING BEFORE HE IS 20! PERHAPS FOLKS NEED TO DECIDE BETWEEN DEER AND ELK (ONE OR THE OTHER) SO THERE ARE MORE "BIG GAME TAGS" AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS TO AT LEAST GET ONE INSTEAD OF ONE PERSON GETTING 2 AND THE OTHER GETTING NOTHING? I HAVE APPLIED FOR DEER, ELK, TURKEY AND JAVELINA AND GOT NOTHING...... BONUS POINTS? YOU HAVE TO BUY A LICENSE TO GET THOSE AND THEN YOU DON'T GET A TAG AND SO WASTED YOUR MONEY AS YOU CAN'T GO HUNTING. (THE RICH GET THE BONUS POINTS) LHN2I3 The Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program is, by far, the greatest and most successful wildlife reintroduction effort in history. No bugeting, staffing, funding, or prioritizing activities should ever place it in a subordinate position to any other AGFD activity. The ecological, environmental, biological, financial, and state-recognition benefits to Arizona are monumental, and they should never be underestimated. Any effort by Washington to remove any of the protections of the Endangered Species Act should be fought with the greatest effort possible. Law enforcement that investigates any illegal activities involving the Mexican Gray wolf (such as shootings, harassments, fabricated livestock predation, etc.) should be significantly increased. This recovery program is a real "feather in the cap" for Arizona. Any act that indicates Arizona is not supporting this effort to the greatest degree possible would significantly tarnish the brilliance that this program has brought to the great state of Arizona. Keep up the excellent work. The more capable the staff (scientists, biologists, engineers, etc.) the better the natural resource is protected. Thanks for keeping us informed. VHOWQ4 Considering the limited resources available, the Arizona Game & Fish Department is doing a creditable job. However, there currently exists a dire need for more law enforcement. Given the large expanses of public land administered by the Department, there should be a minimum of two wildlife managers per wildlife management unit. I4NZA2 Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Appendix A Online CWCS Survey DRAFT Report M4ZDEY Overall, I am happy with the job that G&F does with the budgetary limitations in place. If you can suggest an effective way to do it, I would be very willing to lobby for increasing funding and staffing. I would like to have G&F take a more active stance on preservation of habitat, both from development and overgrazing. Most of the state lands that I hunt are severely overgrazed, and every year development shrinks the areas that can be hunted. G&F should be more visible in reforming grazing lease laws and advocating for constitutional reform to address the land grant dilemma of selling off our last open spaces to fund the school system. One place to save some of your very limited resource would be to stop using G&F personnel to enforce DUI boating laws. This has nothing to do with protecting the states habitats and species, and should be ignored or left to the sherriff's department. 5MTY3N 1. Train & use more volunteers. 2. Better management of urban development by the state. 3. My experience with AZGF – great hunters education program & other educational programs/activities for kids and adults. 4. I feel that AZGF has one of the better conservation and enforcement programs, as is, and appreciate being kept informed by email. 5ZWIYM Wow, where did you get the money to even perform this survey. In this neo-conservative state, I'm surprised the legislator didn't try to steal these funds away from you. I'm a 42 year old native and I'm appalled at the limited resources that the G & F is being allocated as our state explodes with people. I stopped quail hunting 5 years ago because everywhere I went I ran across hunters hunting on ATV's rolling right through the desert. Went out this year once to the Tonto Basin and ran across the same thing. Is this legal, and if it isn't wheres the enforcement? People and ATV's are by far your biggest challenges for the future. I keep hearing the argument of the elderly and handicap needing them for the same access to our wild lands as the healthy, but I've seen nothing but beer drinking, cigar smoking bubbas riding these things in the deserts and forests. That lobby must really be a powerful one.[/b] [quote="VHOWQ4"]Considering the limited resources available, the Arizona Game & Fish Department is doing a creditable job. However, there currently exists a dire need for more law enforcement. Given the large expanses of public land administered by the Department, there should be a minimum of two wildlife managers per wildlife management unit.[ CAMPING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GMA AND WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO RAT OUT HIS BUDDY IS NOT MY IDEA OF PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT I think game and fish does a good job but the hundreds of years of mismanagement in this state is not going to correct itself over night. :roll: [quote:541fbd7f43="ME1MMU"] I'm a 42 year old native and I'm appalled at the limited resources that the G & F is being allocated as our state explodes with people. I stopped quail hunting 5 years ago because everywhere I went I ran across hunters hunting on ATV's rolling right through the desert. Went out this year once to the Tonto Basin and ran across the same thing. Is this legal, and if it isn't wheres the enforcement? People and ATV's are by far your biggest challenges for the future. I keep hearing the argument of the elderly and handicap needing them for the same access to our wild lands as the healthy, but I've seen nothing but beer drinking, cigar smoking bubbas riding these things in the deserts and forests. That lobby must really be a powerful one.[/b][/quote:541fbd7f43] I agreee with ME1MMU. ATV's are destroying hunting. I have had elk hunts ruined two years in a row now by morons cruising the roads and forest on their ATV's. I can see after a kill is made using an ATV to speed recover of a downed animal. However, going humming through a meadow at first light and scaring away a herd is wrong and unethical. Last year I went as camp cook and outfitter on a youth deer hunt which was my godson's first big game hunt. On the first day of the season I was in camp and witnessed the same pair of hunters on ATV's cruising a loop around a three road triangle. They passed my camp five times in about a two hour period. To my mind this is not ethical hunting. This year I was stalking a bull elk that I had seen with two or three cows around him on both the Wednesday and Thursday before the season. I was within about 50 yards when an ATV comes roaring down a nearby road spooking the bull and my last sight of him was his rump patch and three cows heading down the side of the canyon. I had a cow tag by the way and because of an ATV moron lost my one and only potential opportunity. Of course this went right along with the jeep that was cruising roads with a clanking cow bell and the elderly couple riding their mountain bikes in the middle of an active hunt area. What is the world coming to??? You know, I am a hunter too but the forest service roads aren't ours! Granted, a little respect towards us when using atv's would be nice but you can't expect the forest to be locked up while you hunt. It belongs to everyone including the folks that aren't hunting. I don't think folks should be buzzing by at 50 mph constantly but they have every right to be there that we do. Perhaps you should try hunting away from the roads and you won't experience this problem. If the atv's aren't on the roads then that's where law enforcement comes in. 2E3YJU [quote:848284b428="I4NZA2"]The Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program is, by far, the greatest and most successful wildlife reintroduction effort in history. No bugeting, staffing, funding, or prioritizing activities should ever place it in a subordinate position to any other AGFD activity. The ecological, environmental, biological, financial, and state-recognition benefits to Arizona are monumental, and they should never be underestimated. Any effort by Washington to remove any of the protections of the Endangered Species Act should be fought with the greatest effort possible. Law enforcement that investigates any illegal activities involving the Mexican Gray wolf (such as shootings, harassments, fabricated livestock predation, etc.) should be significantly increased. This recovery program is a real "feather in the cap" for Arizona. Any act that indicates Arizona is not supporting this effort to the greatest degree possible would significantly tarnish the brilliance that this program has brought to the great state of Arizona.[/quote:848284b428] :x ME1MMU JHMMGY DQ1MZG A3YTYY Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Appendix A Online CWCS Survey JVLOTG ME2YTL DRAFT Report I realize that you guys have to (and should) represent the interests of all Arizonians when you decide how to manage our land. Often when you present the public with the opportunity to comment on the options that are available for the management of a wildlife area you do not give them the choice afforded in this type of survey,good work. I am concerned that you may have recorded me incorrectly in the first section of the survey. all other sections are dead on my views. To explain to you how important I feel that habitat preservation is please read my comments below in the hope that conservation will allow us all to use our lands as we would use our own private land. Manage our land as you would manage your own when it comes to serving public fiscal interests when you contract on their behalf. Use our profits to better our wildlife management and preservation efforts and alot will be way better. With the establishment of off road vehicle areas and wilderness areas, we are seeing that it is possible to separate recreational interests and reduce the conflict that occurs between Bud Light drinking gas burners and (admittedly granola eating) shoe leather burning wilderness enthusiasts. I think the roadless rule is important, but it seems to me that most all wilderness designations are made to preserve mountain tops. This limits the winter recreation activities that are available to hikers who do not wish to hike in deep snow and cold. We need to preserve lowland areas unimpaired for our wildlife and for future generations. With all of the logging that we will soon see, I think that we should limit the area available to off road desert destroying off road vehicles. Is it possible to ATV in clear cut forest areas? Perhaps we can minimize desert destruction by letting the ATV people automatically recreate in areas where the state has allowed people to profit from commercial enterprises that destroy our public land. Opening these areas to motorized wheel based recreation could allow a reduction of available space for these people in areas that are not compromised by other commercial activities. Presumably, access to these areas would be better. Law enforcement and emergency vehicles could better reach these commercial enterprise areas both to enforce drunk driving rules and to offer life saving services that are necessary when these enforcement efforts fail. That is, why not make letting ATV users tromp any land that is leased for the extraction of public resources, a condition of doing business with the public on their land? I fundamentally believe that individuals should not profit from the exploitation of our public resources (Canadian mining profits are the most egregious example of this). I also believe that motorized recreation should be regulated to a greater degree. I believe that increased regulation should happen because I think that once a road is built, it is a road. We are seeing the federal government undertake a project to document as many easements on public land as possible, presumably they are doing this to prevent further wilderness classification efforts. It is actions like this that enrage those who are paying attention. This type of action on the part of the department of the interior, makes land use negotiations more difficult for everyone. These types of actions make those who are stewards of our land appear to be on the development side of the debate over public land usage. That blows all of the trust that the conservationists have in their ability to get a fair deal from those who are managing land for them. A lack of trust is what makes lawsuits creep into the process and these costly delays serve no one's interest. By making "allowing public off road vehicle usage" a condition of leasing rights that will require a lessee who plans to use motor vehicles in their extraction of public resources, you can eliminate some of the pro-development bias that many on the pro-conservation side feel is rife in your agency. This condition must be accompanied with restrictions in new OHV use areas on other public land sites in order to make land stewards appear as if they are listening to those who do not want their public land to be exploited for individual or corporate profit or destroyed by irresponsible recreation. This is particularly true because often the clean up efforts for these undertakings are often funded by the public without expense to the mess making contractor whose efforts were sanctioned by those watching our land. You are the government and you can do all of these things. I can not imagine how anyone can champion current public land management policy as being "fair to the public" or even "managed in a fiscally sound manner". That no one can do so should alarm all those involved in the implementation of your current efforts. It is only a matter of time before someone important (or a political office seeking rival) asks you "Why?". Things will look way better for you if you have an answer. To sum up my points, 1) More wilderness designations in lower elevation winter accessable areas. 2) Curb OHV and Snowmobile use on public land everywhere where the land has not yet been degraded. 3) Open all mining and lumber project areas to OHV usage and retire an equal amount of OHV accessible acres elsewhere. 4) Stand up for the public that you represent in demanding their fair share of the profits associated with the exploitation of public land, when you contract with individuals who wish to undertake such exploitation. 5) Beef is a luxury. Charge fair market value for grazing. As it is now, private citizens sell their grazing rights to others at a profit. As an owner of the public land on which the cows graze, I see no reason why individuals should be able to do so. 6) At the very least, do not charge those who practice leave no trace ethics on public land five dollars to recreate when you are not getting fair market value for the impairment of that same land by miners' and cattlemen's corporate enterprises. Until I see a fair price charged for "leave no trace" mining operations on my land, I will feel that I am being marginalized by my government's land stewards in their charging me to recreate. I run into cows when I am hiking a bunch and each cow or cow leaving that impairs my wilderness experience, reminds me of how abjectly unfair current recreation fees are. The government is again broke (running at a deficit), and it only seems right that you start making some money back by charging a fair price for the resources (of ours) that you are managing (for us). Why is this not happening now? I will stop even thinking anbout public land management if I could get an answer to this question from someone. Thank you for your consideration of my points. Respectfully, Paul I believe with limited resources the AZGF is performing remarkably. I would like to see more habitat restoration, such as road closures & water projects. Some habitats are capable of supporting greater number of wildlife however, I have noticed a decrease in wildlife quantity in some units due to multiple reasons (drought, habitat loss, etc) The topic should be addressed & more aggressively pursued, with an increase in projects, funding, & a decrease in the amount of animals allowed for harvest in such areas until the populations can recover to respectable numbers. I would also like to see a dramatic increase in the cost of out-of-state licenses & permits issued. Such increases could help fund more habitat restoration projects. I would also like to see a mandatory requirement of proof of insurance & state land permits before any guides can be licensed & or the above must be in possesion while the guide is in the field. If the guide is to have associates or helpers in the field with them, those associates must have the proper permits, insurance, & licensing independent of their cohort. Arizona Game & Fish - GF4048-J Appendix A Online CWCS Survey ZCZZJD NJRKMZ DM4YWM XY2UWN DRAFT Report While it is nice to see you asking for public imput this "survey" is very vague in its questions and as such is misleading in what it is asking, I agree with the earlier post you paid too much for some consultant to write it, when a simple survey would have given you much better results. I personally believe while it would be nice to raise "non resident" tags to try and help lower the number of aplicants, it is unrealistic to make hunt AZ a rich man's sport. And that goes for both residents and non residents. One of the biggest problems facing Arizona wildlife is loss of habitat due to human enroachment caused by the unchecked development in the state. Not only is land lost for the are built appon, but the area's that buffer it are often overran with ATV's, rails, dirtbikes, and other OHV type vehicles. This causes larger impact often times than a subdivision does due to erosion, habitat destruction, and harrasment of wildlife. I would like to see SEVERE punishments offered along with active enforcment of illeagal OHV activities, the current punishments if caught are a joke, and that is IF caught and IF the arresting officer decides to charge them. :roll: Lastly water stations added to areas that have historically had natural springs but have since gone dry due to water table drops for human use make perfect sense. I do not think intstalling water basins in area's were there normally wasn't water before would be benificial in the long run to wildlife managment, esp if eventually they were allowed to run dry or become un maintained. The Arizona Game & Fish Department does well considering it's handicaps. Wildlife management should be left to the Wildlife professionals in the Game & Fish Department and keep the legislature and the Governor away from the Wildlife funds and from making ill-informed wildlife decisions. During a recent elk hunt,the numbers of road hunters was appalling. My partner and I hunted for 3 days and were lucky to tag an elk. During those three days, we saw no other hunters other than us on foot. But there were dozens if not more vehicles packed with road hunters. We also saw atvs driving cross country spooking game and destroying habitat. I would to see increased enforcement reguarding road hunters and off road vehicle use. Thank you for the job you are trying to do, however I would to see more enforcement officers out there. OTRKM2 Wildlife and habitats should be managed by good science, not by politics. [quote:d54f07e76e="JVLOTG"]I realize that you guys have to (and should) represent the interests of all Arizonians when you decide how to manage our land. Often when you present the public with the opportunity to comment on the options that are available for the management of a wildlife area you do not give them the choice afforded in this type of survey,good work. I am concerned that you may have recorded me incorrectly in the first section of the survey. all other sections are dead on my views.