2013 Archery Mule deer going on Draw

[H380]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If the archery harvest can be reduced to below the 15% cap in affected WMUs by other means, I'm all ears.

I am a bowhunter and I would be in favor of shortening the season for archery if that would keep us without a draw .. As I said before when it was streched back out to 2 months in length I knew we were in trouble because the percentage was close before .. This just added fuel to the fire .

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not sure I'd brand 6 years of data, including 4 or 5 years of telephone surveys and observations by biologists as unreliable data. ESRD seems pretty confident in it.....

Not exactly how others who have attended meetings have put it. The sample size is far too small to accurately guage how many animals are actually taken. You cannot trust those numbers. You do remember the recent election in alberta correct? what were all the polls saying leading up to those elections? how large were the sample sizes in those polls? i guarantee they were large enough to have a much better degree of accuracy. Telephone surveys hey... Of all the people I hunt with or know quite well, I have never heard of one of them being called.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If the archery harvest can be reduced to below the 15% cap in affected WMUs by other means, I'm all ears.

but you said that the 15% were licenses sold. now it is the harvest? big difference.

[packhuntr]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not sure I'd brand 6 years of data, including 4 or 5 years of telephone surveys and observations by biologists as unreliable data. ESRD seems pretty confident in it.....

Esrd is confident in a lot of things that don't jive with real life. If mule deer management is back on the menu for this province and they indeed want to buck the trend being realized NA wide with this species, our provinces archers are not the place to look. Matter of fact it's one of the last things needing adjustment. Anyone in disagreeance with this need spend less time playing politician/talking, and more time in the field. Anyone care to ask why ESRD will not welcome the Mule Deer Foundation and associates into this province?

[KCL]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

but you said that the 15% were licenses sold. now it is the harvest? big difference.

No, he's actually talked about 15% harvest the whole time, the bowhunters make up 15% of the total hunters, therefore they are allowed 15% of the total harvest, in some WMU's, because rifle hunter tags have been drastically reduced in the draw, archers are exceeding the harvest amount and now need to be put on draw.

For instance, if there are one hundred hunters and 15 are bowhunters they are allowed 15% of the harvest. Now there are 85 rifle hunter who put in for the draw, 10 get drawn. There are now 15 bowhunters and 10 drawn rifle hunters. The rifle hunters kill 8 bucks, 80% success, the bowhunter kill 2 mule deer, much lower success, however they harvest percent for bowhunters is now 20%, they have exceeded their allotment of 15%.

It's important to note it is because mismanagement and rifle hunters being reduced now bowhunting will need to be put on draw, we have a reactive game management program in Alberta. We killed a ton of mule deer does, now we all pay the price.

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

but you said that the 15% were licenses sold. now it is the harvest? big difference.

No idea what you are saying. I haven't changed my thoughts. Perhaps reread my posts carefully and you'll see

15.86% of Alberta hunters buy bow licences...that is an indesputable fact and there's no problem with that. Where the issue lies is that archers are harvesting more than 15% of the mule deer in some WMUs. F&W has a policy that archers only get 15% of the harvest. I've never said anything different.

Originally Posted by KCL

No, he's actually talked about 15% harvest the whole time, .

Thank you!

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

15.86% is the percentage of Alberta hunters that purchase a bow hunting permit.

From the brief presentation I saw, the harvest numbers are indeed a trend over a number of years and not a single year snapshot.

here ya go. this is when you said that the 15% was the number of licenses sold. I still have no clue how they skew their math and GUESS that 15% of the harvest is by bowhunters. With their limited polling and surveys they cannot be confident in their numbers. Yes it is all they have to work with, but thats why they need to lobby to get better numbers to go by. Others in this thread have had some great suggestions to rectify this problem. I must clarify. I am in favour of reducing bowhunting, IF THE NUMBERS ARE REAL. IMO these numbers leave too much room for error.

And in the case of last year. I have little doubt that in some areas the 15% of actual harvest would have been exceeded by bowhunters. However, to make such a huge drastic change after one year when the ESRD got caught with their pants down and hopefully learned a very good lesson that mother nature is much better at reducing a population, is a travesty and a joke.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by KCL

No, he's actually talked about 15% harvest the whole time, the bowhunters make up 15% of the total hunters, therefore they are allowed 15% of the total harvest, in some WMU's, because rifle hunter tags have been drastically reduced in the draw, archers are exceeding the harvest amount and now need to be put on draw.

For instance, if there are one hundred hunters and 15 are bowhunters they are allowed 15% of the harvest. Now there are 85 rifle hunter who put in for the draw, 10 get drawn. There are now 15 bowhunters and 10 drawn rifle hunters. The rifle hunters kill 8 bucks, 80% success, the bowhunter kill 2 mule deer, much lower success, however they harvest percent for bowhunters is now 20%, they have exceeded their allotment of 15%.

It's important to note it is because mismanagement and rifle hunters being reduced now bowhunting will need to be put on draw, we have a reactive game management program in Alberta. We killed a ton of mule deer does, now we all pay the price.

The funny thing is, the numbers you grabbed from the air for your calculations is likely the same method and accuracy that our lovely (gods gift to wildlife) Bio's use.

you are 100% bang on in your last paragraph. Just look at the historical tag numbers in some of the south zones for mulies. buck tags consistently around 160 all the way up above 450-500 and then whammy, down to 10. they should be ashamed of themselves.

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

here ya go. this is when you said that the 15% was the number of licenses sold. I still have no clue how they skew their math and GUESS that 15% of the harvest is by bowhunters. With their limited polling and surveys they cannot be confident in their numbers. Yes it is all they have to work with, but thats why they need to lobby to get better numbers to go by. Others in this thread have had some great suggestions to rectify this problem. I must clarify. I am in favour of reducing bowhunting, IF THE NUMBERS ARE REAL. IMO these numbers leave too much room for error.

And in the case of last year. I have little doubt that in some areas the 15% of actual harvest would have been exceeded by bowhunters. However, to make such a huge drastic change after one year when the ESRD got caught with their pants down and hopefully learned a very good lesson that mother nature is much better at reducing a population, is a travesty and a joke.

Of course I said that because it's a fact and it brings some context to the harvest issue

The issue, however, is the percentage of harvest as I've said from my first post. According to SRD, many WMUs have seen the 15% harvest cap exceeded for a number of years but they've just never enforced their policy of putting it on draw when this happens. They aren't looking at one year here but data going back to 2003. According to them this 15% harvest cap has been exceeded in many WMUs for a number of years. From the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I'd believe it. Is it a problem province-wide? Likely not. Is it a problem in some WMUs......absolutely....just as it was with the elk and moose WMUs that got placed on draw the past two years for exactly the same reason. No one on here seemed too upset by the harvest data they used to determine that....maybe a case of not in my backyard?

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Of course I said that because it's a fact and it brings some context to the harvest issue

The issue, however, is the percentage of harvest as I've said from my first post. According to SRD, many WMUs have seen the 15% harvest cap exceeded for a number of years but they've just never enforced their policy of putting it on draw when this happens. They aren't looking at one year here but data going back to 2003. According to them this 15% harvest cap has been exceeded in many WMUs for a number of years. From the anecdotal evidence I've seen, I'd believe it. Is it a problem province-wide? Likely not. Is it a problem in some WMUs......absolutely....just as it was with the elk and moose WMUs that got placed on draw the past two years for exactly the same reason. No one on here seemed too upset by the harvest data they used to determine that....maybe a case of not in my backyard?

yes it is a fact, but a fact of what is why I question its use. It is of the total licenses sold. Yet you, and others keep repeating "harvest" and using that number. Big difference and not one person has shown how the number for licenses sold = harvest. Its a bunch of hooey IMO. Give real numbers, real statistics. Ie) in WMU 999 there were 100 rifle tags and 15 bowhunters hunted that zone at least 1 day. then take those numbers and give a HARVEST. 80 rifle kills, 5 bow kills. Those numbers and their percentages are concrete, if a proper sample is taken. Mandatory harvest reports would be best. As for the elk and moose, I venture a guess that the reason for less negative reaction at that time was the fact that the shear number of hunters this effects was miniscule compared to the number of mulie bowhunters.

Let me explain this as simply as I can. We basically have two user groups; archers and rifle hunters. Each is entitled to their fair share of the harvest. To determine what their fair share is we first need to know how many of each their are. We know for absolute fact that 15.86% of Alberta hunters bought an archery licence in 2011 so we now know what their fair share is. That's why the 15.86% number is important and why it's been brought up many times......following me so far?

Next, ESRD has been following mule deer harvest trends since 2003 and have concluded that archers have been and still are taking more than 15% of the harvest in many WMUs for several years in some cases. It's their policy that when the harvest goes above 15% for archers that the WMU goes on draw for everyone. They have not been following this policy but now feel it's only fair if they do....still with me?

Up till now it's all facts but from here is where you seem to disagree. You feel that the numbers for harvest they are using aren't accurate...fair enough. But I feel they actually have a pretty good handle on the harvest. That seems to be where we disagree. I respect your thoughts and hopefully you respect and more importantly understand mine.

You got it now why the actual percentage of archers matters in determining what their fair share of the harvest is?

[pottymouth]

I don't ever recall them asking what weapon we used to harvest our game on the phone?

I can't remember if even ask that in the online survey? does anyone have a sample survey?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by NBFK

Sounds like something an ignorant gun hunter would say......some people know how to hunt and get close. Sorry but burning a hole through an animal at 200yrds takes no skill.

So then there should be problem with showing us all up with your skill after the elk rut has ended.
Honestly... it isn't very hard to get up on a bull elk when he has love on his mind and a cow in his sights.

I've had lots of bulls pass by running vehicles close enough to throw a rope on em or spear em at the height of the rut.

Nothing against bows or bow hunters but I'm pretty sure that it would be a lot harder for bows guys if the rut wasn't hunted....and that might also make it easier for the rifle guys in the long run to.
I'm also pretty sure that if rifle guys were hunting the rut a lot more of them would be hip shooting their elk instead of making 200 meter shots.

To be honest...how many guys are bow hunting simply because they recognize the advantages of being able to hunt during the rut and before a million guys with rifles show up... outweighs the disadvantages of having to use a shorter range weapon?


Same same with the primitive weapon season.
How many guys hunted with BP or a shotty because it was more sporting?
How many did it because they saw an advantage to an early season with less competition?
Seems to me that most guys hang up their bows and their muzzys and start packing a centre fire rifle as soon as they can.

Not all...but most by far

[The Bit Runner.]

[QUOTE=pesky672;1502575]So then there should be problem with showing us all up with your skill after the elk rut has ended.
Honestly... it isn't very hard to get up on a bull elk when he has love on his mind and a cow in his sights.

I've had lots of bulls pass by running vehicles close enough to throw a rope on em or spear em at the height of the rut.

Nothing against bows or bow hunters but I'm pretty sure that it would be a lot harder for bows guys if the rut wasn't hunted....and that might also make it easier for the rifle guys in the long run to.
I'm also pretty sure that if rifle guys were hunting the rut a lot more of them would be hip shooting their elk instead of making 200 meter shots.

To be honest...how many guys are bow hunting simply because they recognize the advantages of being able to hunt during the rut and before a million guys with rifles show up... outweighs the disadvantages of having to use a shorter range weapon?


Same same with the primitive weapon season.
How many guys hunted with BP or a shotty because it was more sporting?
How many did it because they saw an advantage to an early season with less competition?
Seems to me that most guys hang up their bows and their muzzys and start packing a centre fire rifle as soon as they can.

Not all...but most by far[/QUOTE

You obviously have never hunted Elk with a bow, Dude come along next fall and see how easy it is

[trouty]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Let me explain this as simply as I can. We basically have two user groups; archers and rifle hunters. Each is entitled to their fair share of the harvest. To determine what their fair share is we first need to know how many of each their are. We know for absolute fact that 15.86% of Alberta hunters bought an archery licence in 2011 so we now know what their fair share is. That's why the 15.86% number is important and why it's been brought up many times......following me so far?

Next, ESRD has been following mule deer harvest trends since 2003 and have concluded that archers have been and still are taking more than 15% of the harvest in many WMUs for several years in some cases. It's their policy that when the harvest goes above 15% for archers that the WMU goes on draw for everyone. They have not been following this policy but now feel it's only fair if they do....still with me?

Up till now it's all facts but from here is where you seem to disagree. You feel that the numbers for harvest they are using aren't accurate...fair enough. But I feel they actually have a pretty good handle on the harvest. That seems to be where we disagree. I respect your thoughts and hopefully you respect and more importantly understand mine.

You got it now why the actual percentage of archers matters in determining what their fair share of the harvest is?

In the meetings they themselves have admitted the data is inaccurate TJ, numerous members here were there. Make the survey mandatory for say 3 years to accumulate accurate data. If it says the BH harvest is over 15% then fine it should be on draw. Until they have true data it should stay as is.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Let me explain this as simply as I can. We basically have two user groups; archers and rifle hunters. Each is entitled to their fair share of the harvest. To determine what their fair share is we first need to know how many of each their are. We know for absolute fact that 15.86% of Alberta hunters bought an archery licence in 2011 so we now know what their fair share is. That's why the 15.86% number is important and why it's been brought up many times......following me so far?

Next, ESRD has been following mule deer harvest trends since 2003 and have concluded that archers have been and still are taking more than 15% of the harvest in many WMUs for several years in some cases. It's their policy that when the harvest goes above 15% for archers that the WMU goes on draw for everyone. They have not been following this policy but now feel it's only fair if they do....still with me?

Up till now it's all facts but from here is where you seem to disagree. You feel that the numbers for harvest they are using aren't accurate...fair enough. But I feel they actually have a pretty good handle on the harvest. That seems to be where we disagree. I respect your thoughts and hopefully you respect and more importantly understand mine.

You got it now why the actual percentage of archers matters in determining what their fair share of the harvest is?

I think I understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree with the way those numbers appear to be put to use. If they use the 15.86% of hunters buy archery tags and then at the same time use that 15% for harvest. That is complete bogus if I understand that correctly. It is common sense that success rates would be much lower than rifle. therefore, if 15% of the hunters are archery, then the only logical conclusion would be a harvest well below 15%. I will stand by my feelings that the methods and size of their surveys is a handicap.

[KCL]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

I think I understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree with the way those numbers appear to be put to use. If they use the 15.86% of hunters buy archery tags and then at the same time use that 15% for harvest. That is complete bogus if I understand that correctly. It is common sense that success rates would be much lower than rifle. therefore, if 15% of the hunters are archery, then the only logical conclusion would be a harvest well below 15%. I will stand by my feelings that the methods and size of their surveys is a handicap.

There is a way higher number of rifle hunters but a huge number of them can't harvest deer because they are on draw. Man you guys are frustrating with this 15% thing, does shooting a bow make simple math impossible.

[KCL]

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

I think I understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree with the way those numbers appear to be put to use. If they use the 15.86% of hunters buy archery tags and then at the same time use that 15% for harvest. That is complete bogus if I understand that correctly. It is common sense that success rates would be much lower than rifle. therefore, if 15% of the hunters are archery, then the only logical conclusion would be a harvest well below 15%. I will stand by my feelings that the methods and size of their surveys is a handicap.

No, you don't understand what he's saying.

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

I think I understand what you are saying, but I completely disagree with the way those numbers appear to be put to use. If they use the 15.86% of hunters buy archery tags and then at the same time use that 15% for harvest. That is complete bogus if I understand that correctly. It is common sense that success rates would be much lower than rifle. therefore, if 15% of the hunters are archery, then the only logical conclusion would be a harvest well below 15%. I will stand by my feelings that the methods and size of their surveys is a handicap.

You are missing the fact that archers aren't on draw but rifle hunters are. Basically 100% of archers are eligible to hunt but only a small percentage of rifle hunters are each year. That's why your numbers don't work that way. Of course archery success rates are lower but you have a higher percentage of them hunting. It's pretty simple stats. Go back and read a few of the examples that have been given regarding tag numbers and success rates and it should be clear. Your conclusion is anything but logical........

Originally Posted by kcl

does shooting a bow make simple math impossible.

It does seem so simple......

Originally Posted by trouty

In the meetings they themselves have admitted the data is inaccurate TJ, numerous members here were there. Make the survey mandatory for say 3 years to accumulate accurate data. If it says the BH harvest is over 15% then fine it should be on draw. Until they have true data it should stay as is.

Are mandatory surveys going to be accurate? Lots of talk about people fudging numbers now that they know what's on the horizon. In some WMUs, one or two people not telling the truth could totally skew the numbers. We have 6-7 years of data already, including some very extensive telephone surveys.....I can't see the results changing a lot......if people are honest answering the questions that is. Truthfully, I'd trust the data more from earlier a lot more than what might come in the next few years. There was no motive to fudge them before.

Why didn't anyone ask for this type of scrutiny when the elk and moose draws were announced??????

[Big Daddy Badger]

[QUOTE=The Bit Runner.;1502736]

Originally Posted by pesky672

So then there should be problem with showing us all up with your skill after the elk rut has ended.
Honestly... it isn't very hard to get up on a bull elk when he has love on his mind and a cow in his sights.

I've had lots of bulls pass by running vehicles close enough to throw a rope on em or spear em at the height of the rut.

Nothing against bows or bow hunters but I'm pretty sure that it would be a lot harder for bows guys if the rut wasn't hunted....and that might also make it easier for the rifle guys in the long run to.
I'm also pretty sure that if rifle guys were hunting the rut a lot more of them would be hip shooting their elk instead of making 200 meter shots.

To be honest...how many guys are bow hunting simply because they recognize the advantages of being able to hunt during the rut and before a million guys with rifles show up... outweighs the disadvantages of having to use a shorter range weapon?


Same same with the primitive weapon season.
How many guys hunted with BP or a shotty because it was more sporting?
How many did it because they saw an advantage to an early season with less competition?
Seems to me that most guys hang up their bows and their muzzys and start packing a centre fire rifle as soon as they can.

Not all...but most by far[/QUOTE

You obviously have never hunted Elk with a bow, Dude come along next fall and see how easy it is

Nope...but I have hunted the rut.
Getting close to bull elk in the rut is just not that hard.

There was a time when all us unskilled rifle guys used to be able to hunt the rut and many managed to take their animals from the same sorts of distances that bows are used at. Most could probably also master a bow if they worked at it.
The problem is that few who take up bow hunting are interested in more than getting a tag.
The difference is the rut.
I understand that bow hunters really do sort of need that rut or at least part of it to fill as many tags as they do...and that is where I think you sort of missed my point.

I have heard enough guys state that they were going to buy a bow so they could pick up a general tag to know that that attitude is a problem.
Many are doing it only because they can get a tag and use the rut.
Many of those guys only claim to care about challenge or skill or ethics while all they are really interested in is filling a tag any way that they can.
Bow hunters...but only because they can't hunt an elk rut with a rifle verses bow hunters because that's how they like to hunt even if they can use a rifle.

Last fall (again) we saw proper right minded bow hunters getting a bad rap because of guys like that and worse still... poachers taking advantage of the opportunity to use a silent weapon during a time when they aren't as likely to have company show up at the wrong moment.

If the aim is to minimize riff raff and improve opportunity...a draw makes sense.
While muley numbers are down it wouldn't hurt to put them on a draw for all either.

We all choose to hunt with a bow, a muzzy or a centre fire for our own reasons.
At the end of the day we all have more or less equal opportunity as long as tag allocation opportunity is more or less the same for all.
Having general tags available to bow hunters that are not available to the others encourages people to take up a bow for that reason alone.

Making everyone draw for tags on a more or less equal footing should improve the odds of success for everyone but none so much as for dedicated bow hunters once the riff raff realize they aren't really any better off than the rifle guys.

If I was a bow hunter I'd welcome the idea even if it meant that I wouldn't be able to count on an elk tag an antlered muley tag etc every single year.

.

[trouty]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Are mandatory surveys going to be accurate? Lots of talk about people fudging numbers now that they know what's on the horizon. In some WMUs, one or two people not telling the truth could totally skew the numbers. We have 6-7 years of data already, including some very extensive telephone surveys.....I can't see the results changing a lot......if people are honest answering the questions that is. Truthfully, I'd trust the data more from earlier a lot more than what might come in the next few years. There was no motive to fudge them before.

Why didn't anyone ask for this type of scrutiny when the elk and moose draws were announced??????

There is no true way to get the real numbers correct. There will have to be some reliance on honesty yes. But it is far better than what is being done today. Yes no motive to fudge previously, but a far smaller sampling.

[The Bit Runner.]

[QUOTE=pesky672;1503026]

Originally Posted by The Bit Runner.

Nope...but I have hunted the rut.
Getting close to bull elk in the rut is just not that hard.

There was a time when all us unskilled rifle guys used to be able to hunt the rut and many managed to take their animals from the same sorts of distances that bows are used at. Most could probably also master a bow if they worked at it.
The problem is that few who take up bow hunting are interested in more than getting a tag.
The difference is the rut.
I understand that bow hunters really do sort of need that rut or at least part of it to fill as many tags as they do...and that is where I think you sort of missed my point.

I have heard enough guys state that they were going to buy a bow so they could pick up a general tag to know that that attitude is a problem.
Many are doing it only because they can get a tag and use the rut.
Many of those guys only claim to care about challenge or skill or ethics while all they are really interested in is filling a tag any way that they can.
Bow hunters...but only because they can't hunt an elk rut with a rifle verses bow hunters because that's how they like to hunt even if they can use a rifle.

Last fall (again) we saw proper right minded bow hunters getting a bad rap because of guys like that and worse still... poachers taking advantage of the opportunity to use a silent weapon during a time when they aren't as likely to have company show up at the wrong moment.

If the aim is to minimize riff raff and improve opportunity...a draw makes sense.
While muley numbers are down it wouldn't hurt to put them on a draw for all either.

We all choose to hunt with a bow, a muzzy or a centre fire for our own reasons.
At the end of the day we all have more or less equal opportunity as long as tag allocation opportunity is more or less the same for all.
Having general tags available to bow hunters that are not available to the others encourages people to take up a bow for that reason alone.

Making everyone draw for tags on a more or less equal footing should improve the odds of success for everyone but none so much as for dedicated bow hunters once the riff raff realize they aren't really any better off than the rifle guys.

If I was a bow hunter I'd welcome the idea even if it meant that I wouldn't be able to count on an elk tag an antlered muley tag etc every single year.

.

You are right you can get close to elk in the rut, Close to me is a 100 yards,You bet i can do that all day every day in the rut but now bring that bull to with in shooting range, Mine is 30-40 yards on Elk. Now thats were i gets interesting my friend, It is far from easy. If you picked up a bow and tried you would quickly see.

I dont bow hunt for the longer season, I bow hunt because its my passion and there is nothing more rewarding for me to harvest a animal on his terms, to out smart him on the ground. When rifle season comes i dont pick up my rifle i bow hunt. I could of harvested so many thropys with a rifle in the last 10 years but its just not about the throphy, Its all about the hunt and exsperince to me and I get it all from bowhunting.

Each and everyone of us will have our own reasons why we bowhunt but i think you will be surprised as to the people that still bowhunt in rifle season for the same reasons as mine.

On a side note if you look at the thread's on bowhunting and rifle hunting you will quickly see there is no comparison. There are way to many people out there that think that it is so easy to kill a Elk with a bow in the rut, Go through the tread and see how many are killed with rifles compared to bow's and you will understand that it is not easy my friend.

Originally Posted by trouty

There is no true way to get the real numbers correct. There will have to be some reliance on honesty yes. But it is far better than what is being done today. Yes no motive to fudge previously, but a far smaller sampling.

So I still have to wonder what is better; a smaller honest sample or a larger dishonest sample. Unfortunately, in some WMUs we are talking such small numbers that one or two people could keep a general season open or put it on draw by not being honest. While there has been some indication that ESRD indicated they were not confident in the numbers at a southern meeting, other ESRD staff seem perfectly confident in the numbers. It is a strange situation.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by KCL

There is a way higher number of rifle hunters but a huge number of them can't harvest deer because they are on draw. Man you guys are frustrating with this 15% thing, does shooting a bow make simple math impossible.

Does being strictly a rifle hunter make commons sense vanish?

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Are mandatory surveys going to be accurate? Lots of talk about people fudging numbers now that they know what's on the horizon. In some WMUs, one or two people not telling the truth could totally skew the numbers. We have 6-7 years of data already, including some very extensive telephone surveys.....I can't see the results changing a lot......if people are honest answering the questions that is. Truthfully, I'd trust the data more from earlier a lot more than what might come in the next few years. There was no motive to fudge them before.

Why didn't anyone ask for this type of scrutiny when the elk and moose draws were announced??????

What makes you think that these same "extensive telephone surveys"(which I have never met anyone who did one) are only the honest people on the other end? You have asshats answering them no matter what. If a mandatory program is instituted it must include a write up about the importance of them so that accurate harvest/tag numbers are instituted. This hopefully will smarten a few of them up.

I would rather have a large sample with a few screwing around than a small sample with a few bad apples. Larger samples = better accuracy.

Originally Posted by mulecrazy

What makes you think that these same "extensive telephone surveys"(which I have never met anyone who did one) are only the honest people on the other end? You have asshats answering them no matter what. If a mandatory program is instituted it must include a write up about the importance of them so that accurate harvest/tag numbers are instituted. This hopefully will smarten a few of them up.

I would rather have a large sample with a few screwing around than a small sample with a few bad apples. Larger samples = better accuracy.

Apparently you don't know many hunters. I was surveyed every year as was just about everyone else I hunt with. AFGA volunteers conducted them. I'm sure many on here can attest to the countless phone calls they made conducting surveys.

Unfortunately, last year and the years before it there was no reason not to answer truthfully....now with the rumblings I hear, there is a motivation. Sad I know but I've heard many people talking about it.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

You are missing the fact that archers aren't on draw but rifle hunters are. Basically 100% of archers are eligible to hunt but only a small percentage of rifle hunters are each year. That's why your numbers don't work that way. Of course archery success rates are lower but you have a higher percentage of them hunting. It's pretty simple stats. Go back and read a few of the examples that have been given regarding tag numbers and success rates and it should be clear. Your conclusion is anything but logical........

Yet those 100% of archers make up only 15% of hunters in a FEW zones, much less in others. And yet, many whine about it when 100% of HUNTERS can pick up a bow and do it themselves.

Another reason I find the whole thing bogus is they do not account for how a person spreads out their bowhunting. If a guy hunts 1 day in 4 different zones in a given season is his tag going against all of them?

With all the BS around the crazy tag numbers in virtually all of the south zones where up until last year you could get a tag every-every other year in most zones there is suddenly an issue with wait times?