Mandatory Harvest Reporting

[Smoky buck]

Took me 15 min tops to fill out. My only issue is it should be more in-depth to provide better information

[monsterdon]

Do you have to tell the truth? I've always just filled them out randomly.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by monsterdon

Do you have to tell the truth? I've always just filled them out randomly.

it was a little more in depth then I thought it would be. I was honest but figured many would lie. Wonder if theyll create a consequence for lying.

[Kurt505]

What is the point of it?

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What is the point of it?

which I'm sure is why people lie on the answers. What is the goal.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by R3illy

which I'm sure is why people lie on the answers. What is the goal.

Have they given a reason as to why they want the information?

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Have they given a reason as to why they want the information?

I think it was last year that there was a short release that the data would be used as one of the tools in setting of tag numbers for the following year. Also it was discussed as a check to resident hunters success vs outfitter allocations.

The data has been used in the past to make adjustments for draws vs general seasons.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

I think it was last year that there was a short release that the data would be used as one of the tools in setting of tag numbers for the following year. Also it was discussed as a check to resident hunters success vs outfitter allocations.

The data has been used in the past to make adjustments for draws vs general seasons.

Thanks!

Do you know if they will publish their findings?

I know a born again fn who got his card this year, shot a big muley buck, a big bull elk, and shot a moose for one of his friends.


I hope they account for that....

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Thanks!

Do you know if they will publish their findings?

I know a born again fn who got his card this year, shot a big muley buck, a big bull elk, and shot a moose for one of his friends.


I hope they account for that....

They do, by lowering the amount of draws available

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Thanks!



Do you know if they will publish their findings?



I know a born again fn who got his card this year, shot a big muley buck, a big bull elk, and shot a moose for one of his friends.





I hope they account for that....

I highly doubt that'll be accounted for, it's a shame people are like that's why there's no future in Alberta for hunting.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

They do, by lowering the amount of draws available

How can they account for the harvest that they don't know about? They can't!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

I highly doubt that'll be accounted for, it's a shame people are like that's why there's no future in Alberta for hunting.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Another one of my friends has his wife and two boys who just got new cards, his family just hunts the hunting season still but they never got an elk so they are going back for one once they start hitting the bales. His son won’t shoot a deer but I’m sure that’ll change if a huge buck walks out.

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How can they account for the harvest that they don't know about? They can't!

Data collected for this year shows success and pressure which in turn adjust tags for draws for next year. Going in a zone may have xx tags issued and harvest is xx plus the unregistered harvest amount.

Next year xx tags are issued again and there is low success on reported draws then there would be a drop in tags for the subsequent year. The unreported harvest essentially puts the data on allocations for drawn tags 1 year behind.

It is just a fact of what happens today and a person needs to take into account in their planning for hunts. You need to be more personally aware of what is going on in the areas you frequent.

[Lefty-Canuck]

There is always going to be unknowns... depredation, natural causes, disease, starvation, vehicle deaths, etc....

The survey is a HARVEST survey, looking at how much time was spent pursuing a particular animal and the rate of success.

LC

[7magtime]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

There is always going to be unknowns... depredation, natural causes, disease, starvation, vehicle deaths, etc....

The survey is a HARVEST survey, looking at how much time was spent pursuing a particular animal and the rate of success.

LC

So if the surveys are about harvest success why do they ask you the weapon used for the 248 Strathcona WT hunt? Questions about weapon used in a supposed harvest survey seem similar to what happened prior to the 500 zones going draw for archery moose a few years back. Too much of the zone harvest with a certain weapon and the unknown number harvested by non-licenced=close it or put it to a draw for residents. It seems a bit fishy to me....

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

Data collected for this year shows success and pressure which in turn adjust tags for draws for next year. Going in a zone may have xx tags issued and harvest is xx plus the unregistered harvest amount.

Next year xx tags are issued again and there is low success on reported draws then there would be a drop in tags for the subsequent year. The unreported harvest essentially puts the data on allocations for drawn tags 1 year behind.

It is just a fact of what happens today and a person needs to take into account in their planning for hunts. You need to be more personally aware of what is going on in the areas you frequent.

In some wmus, for some species, the unregulated harvest can be higher for some species, than the regulated harvest. Some wmus have very limited numbers of tags drawn, so a few animals may make up 20% of the harvest. The bottom line, is that the only way to use the data to accurately monitor the harvest, and the pressure, is to have every single hunter submit a harvest report. And even then, some people may not fill a tag, because they turn down dozens of animals, and the reports don't take that into account.

[7magtime]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In some wmus, for some species, the unregulated harvest can be higher for some species, than the regulated harvest. Some wmus have very limited numbers of tags drawn, so a few animals may make up 20% of the harvest. The bottom line, is that the only way to use the data to accurately monitor the harvest, and the pressure, is to have every single hunter submit a harvest report. And even then, some people may not fill a tag, because they turn down dozens of animals, and the reports don't take that into account.

Exactly. Data for a zone is only useful if it covers all animals taken by every hunter IMO.....

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

I think it was last year that there was a short release that the data would be used as one of the tools in setting of tag numbers for the following year.
Also it was discussed as a check to resident hunters success vs outfitter allocations.

The data has been used in the past to make adjustments for draws vs general seasons.

Took a while, but there it is.

The future of Alberta resident licenced hunters is contingent on eliminating the label "recreational".

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In some wmus, for some species, the unregulated harvest can be higher for some species, than the regulated harvest. Some wmus have very limited numbers of tags drawn, so a few animals may make up 20% of the harvest. The bottom line, is that the only way to use the data to accurately monitor the harvest, and the pressure, is to have every single hunter submit a harvest report. And even then, some people may not fill a tag, because they turn down dozens of animals, and the reports don't take that into account.

I agree
I hunt in a zone in the 500’s
There is 15 bull moose tags available
zone to the west 150
Zone to the north 150
Zone to the south 75
Zone to the south east 75

There is only one reason why there is 15 bull moose tags
It’s a shame that one side of a highway it takes 6 years and the other 2
Especially When you will see more moose in the area that takes 3 times longer

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In some wmus, for some species, the unregulated harvest can be higher for some species, than the regulated harvest. Some wmus have very limited numbers of tags drawn, so a few animals may make up 20% of the harvest. The bottom line, is that the only way to use the data to accurately monitor the harvest, and the pressure, is to have every single hunter submit a harvest report. And even then, some people may not fill a tag, because they turn down dozens of animals, and the reports don't take that into account.

Not going to dispute what you have said. Just a reality that the harvest summary does not include for all groups or types of hunting (passing on game). So a person has to take this into account when planning for outings to specific WMU's. I know of more than one group that got surprised when looking for elk around the Suffield block. Nothing that you or I can do about this other than write a letter.

The issue on resident hunter success to outfitter allocations is one that can be worked on.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

When everyone one else is wrong by your own definition then I think you need to look in the mirror.

I am sicked by so called outdoorsmen that will lie, fudge, or out right refuse to fill out a very easy harvest report honestly because they don't, or can't, understand how that survey will be used. It is one tool, and not the primary tool, that can be used to garner information. I think in my first post I showed what information could be gleamed out of the survey.

Yet you double down on the whining without substance or alternates. Reminds me of the saying "Can't see the forest through the trees"

You can't admit that maybe there is some useful information to be gathered by asking THOUSANDS of HUNTERS about their HARVEST success and DAYS hunting.

Again, one opinion is useless.........thousands show trends.

And yes Cat there is a hole in it if FN don't fill out a survey, doesn't make it useless or reason not to fill it out correctly.

So the survey is used to get a count of how many LICENCED hunters killed animals. No mention of FN harvest. Fine. Odd, but fine.

What if the harvest goal for bull moose in wmu 508 is 100, but LICENCED hunters only killed 75?
What if there was a different group of LICENCED hunters who could step in and fill that 25%, if given the tags?
Let's say the second group of hunters hunt the same amount of day's per capita as the first group, but bring in approx $2,500 per day in economic capital.
Now let's say that the people giving out the tags see the value in taking away the 25% from the first group and handing it over to the second, because it makes financial sense and they receive a lot of pressure to do so.

All of a sudden a survey showing how the 75% can't get it done, and how much revenue is being left on the table, becomes very valuable, doesn't it?

Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Or don't, I really don't care, but it shows that the OP has a valid point in questioning WHY the survey is laid out like it is.
Is it a rant, yes. But he admitted that.
Is he way off base and deserve the bashing some of you guys are dishing out? Not in my opinion.
Walking Buffalo has subtly and not so subtly tried to tell everyone what the premise is behind the mandatory surveys and from the guy I just spoke to, he's absolutely right.
We should all be leery of seemingly biased surveys. In every facet of life.

[7magtime]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

So the survey is used to get a count of how many LICENCED hunters killed animals. No mention of FN harvest. Fine. Odd, but fine.

What if the harvest goal for bull moose in wmu 508 is 100, but LICENCED hunters only killed 75?
What if there was a different group of LICENCED hunters who could step in and fill that 25%, if given the tags?
Let's say the second group of hunters hunt the same amount of day's per capita as the first group, but bring in approx $2,500 per day in economic capital.
Now let's say that the people giving out the tags see the value in taking away the 25% from the first group and handing it over to the second, because it makes financial sense and they receive a lot of pressure to do so.

All of a sudden a survey showing how the 75% can't get it done, and how much revenue is being left on the table, becomes very valuable, doesn't it?

Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Or don't, I really don't care, but it shows that the OP has a valid point in questioning WHY the survey is laid out like it is.
Is it a rant, yes. But he admitted that.
Is he way off base and deserve the bashing some of you guys are dishing out? Not in my opinion.
Walking Buffalo has subtly and not so subtly tried to tell everyone what the premise is behind the mandatory surveys and from the guy I just spoke to, he's absolutely right.
We should all be leery of seemingly biased surveys. In every facet of life.

Nailed it, exactly what the OP was trying to point out in the first place. Slow clap.....
As was mentioned in another thread for the CWD survey, these surveys are put out with a predetermined bias. Significant inferences from the data would have to be seen to sway the beliefs of the people interpreting the data and who started the surveys in the first place. Not sharing the results of the data collected with hunters and now making the surveys mandatory or risk consequences for future draws tells me there’s an agenda for who harvests the wildlife in each WMU. Not having outfitters or non-licenced harvesters partake in the surveys proves that point IMHO........

[elkhunter11]

The sad fact is that two distinct groups will attempt to use the data to benefit themselves, one group to increase their allocations, and the other to get all license numbers reduced, so that they have less competition. If the harvest numbers are high, the outfitters will argue that there are more animals, so their tag numbers should be increased, if the harvest is low, the non regulated hunters will demand that all license numbers be reduced. Either way, the non outfitted , licensed hunters are the ones that stand to lose.

[saskbooknut]

I never cease to be amazed at the armchair experts rants.
Wildlife biologists are seriously underfunded to do proper stock assessment/harvest surveys, as they would like.
They go to proxy estimates like harvest effort, success rates, spot surveys, and in Saskatchewan spotlight surveys at night on designated routes, year after year.
Mandatory reporting is one way to increase the statistical validity of the limited info they have.
For crying out loud, it takes a minute or two.
You want real, high quality management of game - you are going to have to pay more towards it, and insist your politicians make it a priority.
There was a time that Fish and Game clubs put significant time into habitat and game management, but that is mostly a thing of the past

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

I never cease to be amazed at the armchair experts rants.
Wildlife biologists are seriously underfunded to do proper stock assessment/harvest surveys, as they would like.
They go to proxy estimates like harvest effort, success rates, spot surveys, and in Saskatchewan spotlight surveys at night on designated routes, year after year.
Mandatory reporting is one way to increase the statistical validity of the limited info they have.
For crying out loud, it takes a minute or two.
You want real, high quality management of game - you are going to have to pay more towards it, and insist your politicians make it a priority.
There was a time that Fish and Game clubs put significant time into habitat and game management, but that is mostly a thing of the past

I was personally involved in many of those surveys up here and I can still remember some people on the phone telling me ( sometimes politely and sometimes not) where to go with my government survey and the conspiracy theories then were about as laughable then as they are now .
Cat

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I was personally involved in many of those surveys up here and I can still remember some people on the phone telling me ( sometimes politely and sometimes not) where to go with my government survey and the conspiracy theories then were about as laughable then as they are now .
Cat

I made hundreds of phone calls as a volunteer, doing those surveys, and the results actually helped to show me how unreliable they are. I was more specific than most people when I asked my questions, and I took more time to ask more questions to try and get the most accurate responses. My success rates were always way lower than the results from other people making the calls, because of that. Many of the people called. would claim that "we" got a moose. I would have to ask again whose tag actually went on the animal. Then there were people who absolutely refused to divulge where they killed their animals, and some people that would not answer any questions at all. After that, I have doubts that many people will ever answer the questions honestly, sure they will provide responses if it is required, but I wouldn't be too sure about the accuracy of those responses.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Another thread a person loses brain cells reading!

OP,

1) As a wildlife manager if I got that email I would have deleted it after the first sentence. It's an awful written rant.

2) The title of the survey tells you what it is. it's a HARVEST survey. They want to know if you harvested or not. It's not a citizen science population survey or it would have stated that. I know reading is hard for lots but it's all about your HARVEST.

3) The other info is used for mostly social economic issues. I have used hunt days to keep a hunt going in the past due to the economic side.

4) Most wildlife managers really don't care about what you saw on your walk in the forest and what valuable or not valuable citizen science you think you have.

5) It's just one of the many tools used. Due to it being citizen science it's not used as a primary tool in most cases.

6) Hunters are generally a poor indicator of populations. I have based that on being a hunter, talking to hunters and getting 15 days of feedback for 18yrs. No hunter sees the same thing, hunts for the same reason or thinks the same way.

7) Most species populations are based on aerial surveys with modelling in between. Not your walk in the forest, what you saw on your bait or what you consider a shooter or not a shooter.

8) It would takes months to try and put together all the data you think is needed in a HARVEST form besides the did you harvest or not question. With all the cutbacks coming to staff and budgets I am sure just the simple forms will take enough time let alone all the written in feedback.

Relax, fill it out or not.

S

Wow, I think you missed the mark by a fair bit with that post.

As part of the resource managment tool bag, which we as hunters are, wanting to know the results of our mandatory surveys and what information the directors hope to extrapolate from it is, I believe, our rite.
I don't think many cared about the answers before because it wasn't mandatory.

By your own admission, and you're not wrong, in your points #2 & #6, hunters are generally a "poor" way to determine populations. Especially when the hunters being surveyed are part of an absolutely unknown sample size due to it being a discretionary survey.
So why is it mandatory if it's such poor data?
Please only answer if you have a link with factual (as someone else claimed you had) evidence.
Opinions and guesses don't count.

In #5 & #7 you talk about how hunter surveys are only 1 tool (and again reference how it is only "citizen science") and that aerial surveys are how most animal populations are determined, with modeling in between.
Doesn't that make you curious as to why they ONLY care what an UNKNOWN sample size is harvesting. Or why they care how many days you took to do it in?
Again, please only answer with factual information backed up with a link.

Wanting to know why they so badly want such awful, skewed, possibly false data should be on everyone's mind.
When people call you on the phone with a random survey, do you ask who is funding it and what info they are ultimately trying to gain with it, or do you just answer it blindly?
If you don't like their answers to your questions do you hang up? Do you just hang up without saying a word?
Nice to have the option isn't it?
Except this is a MANDATORY survey, which you already knew.
And yet you end off with..."Relax, fill it out or not."

[catnthehat]

After following this thread I see no difference now than when we used to go the phone line surveys except now it is called “mandatory”
Whatever, I answered truthfully before on the phone calks and will continue to on the online surveys - we all have a choice to work with or against something .
Cat

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

After following this thread I see no difference now than when we used to go the phone line surveys except now it is called “mandatory”
Whatever, I answered truthfully before on the phone cold snd will continue to on the surveys - we all have a choice to work with or against something .
Cat

I agree 100%.
I'm not even sure how one would lie properly to try and skew the results when you don't even know what they are trying to extrapolate from the data.
A person might be shooting themselves in the foot without even knowing it.

[Smoky buck]

I don’t see the big deal some have with harvest reports. This is a common practice in most of North America to collect data from harvest reports. Alberta actually asks for minimal information compared to many.

So it’s become mandatory it takes only 15 min online