Mandatory Harvest Reporting

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by 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

I don't think many people have a problem with a harvest report at all.
It's the 'why' that people are becoming more concerned with.

[59whiskers]

I participated as a volunteer for government game surveys through my local fish and game club years back and it was province wide. Our government provincial fish and wildlife budgets have not been properly funded for decades to properly manage the resource and have been reduced yearly since. It did not help when the NDP got in a few years back and no longer recognized the AFGA as a ligitament local organization that was a voice for hunters. To make matters worse, in this day and age the NDP before they were voted out granted more unlicensed hunting rights putting more pressure on wildlife resources and reducing opportunity for licenced hunters. Harvest reports are great if the rules apply to everyone equally. That is why the harvest reports are a joke.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 59whiskers

I participated as a volunteer for government game surveys through my local fish and game club years back and it was province wide. Our government provincial fish and wildlife budgets have not been properly funded for decades to properly manage the resource and have been reduced yearly since. It did not help when the NDP got in a few years back and no longer recognized the AFGA as a ligitament local organization that was a voice for hunters. To make matters worse, in this day and age the NDP before they were voted out granted more unlicensed hunting rights putting more pressure on wildlife resources and reducing opportunity for licenced hunters. Harvest reports are great if the rules apply to everyone equally. That is why the harvest reports are a joke.

Bingo

[Pikebreath]

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 calks and will continue to on the online surveys - we all have a choice to work with or against something .
Cat

Exactly,,,, There is always resistance to change.

I always felt that the online surveys done by AFGA members was not always gathering the most truthful data,,, probably underestimating the actual harvest,,, Who wants to tell a "acquaintance" they shot a "Bambi" on the last day of the season?

Going to an mandatory online harvest survey may not be popular with the Libertarians on this board, but we may see more hunters willing to admit to what they actually harvested at least as far as big game hunting goes.

For waterfowl and upland birds, I wonder how many hunters keep track of what they actually harvest over the season and then report numbers that would be in excess of their possession limit?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

I don't think many people have a problem with a harvest report at all.
It's the 'why' that people are becoming more concerned with.

I have absolutely no issue with the harvest reports being mandatory, if all hunters are required to participate .I have been filling them out, even though they aren't mandatory.

[Fitscottn]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have absolutely no issue with the harvest reports being mandatory, if all hunters are required to participate .I have been filling them out, even though they aren't mandatory.

X2

It takes less than 5 minutes to fill them all out ( I had a lot of tags this year, still ended up with tag soup but that’s another story ). Maybe they add value somewhere, maybe not but pretty simple either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[last minute]

Originally Posted by Scottn

X2

It takes less than 5 minutes to fill them all out ( I had a lot of tags this year, still ended up with tag soup but that’s another story ). Maybe they add value somewhere, maybe not but pretty simple either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Soab]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

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

Zones close to us are 17 yrs cause it’s all crown, so who knows how many are taken. You see a lot of moose some days but when one claims to take dozens and dozens before you can get one tag it’s a hopeless feeling

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Soab

Zones close to us are 17 yrs cause it’s all crown, so who knows how many are taken. You see a lot of moose some days but when one claims to take dozens and dozens before you can get one tag it’s a hopeless feeling

terrible

[waldedw]

In my humble opinion, we as hunters and sportsmen ( sports people ) just to be PC and all inclusive, are always saying we should have input, why don't they ask us, well now they are asking us for information that may or may not be helpful depending on who you believe on this forum, one thing is clear though that when this input from us became mandatory, a great number of " YOU PEOPLE " became instantly paranoid, why is that ???? my guess is because the reporting was mandatory and most people that are paranoid don't like when the have to do something.

It really is simple, if you were drawn for a special licence and don't want to do the mandatory reporting then don't do it, it's your choice, nobody can make you do it, but be prepared for the consequences, choose wisely.

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by waldedw

In my humble opinion, we as hunters and sportsmen ( sports people ) just to be PC and all inclusive, are always saying we should have input, why don't they ask us, well now they are asking us for information that may or may not be helpful depending on who you believe on this forum, one thing is clear though that when this input from us became mandatory, a great number of " YOU PEOPLE " became instantly paranoid, why is that ???? my guess is because the reporting was mandatory and most people that are paranoid don't like when the have to do something.

It really is simple, if you were drawn for a special licence and don't want to do the mandatory reporting then don't do it, it's your choice, nobody can make you do it, but be prepared for the consequences, choose wisely.

I cannot believe that you followed up the longest run-on sentence ever written with that line of crap.

Please go back and re-read the thread.

[waldedw]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

I cannot believe that you followed up the longest run-on sentence ever written with that line of crap.

Please go back and re-read the thread.

One thing is certain, you are an expert when it comes to crap

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by waldedw

In my humble opinion, we as hunters and sportsmen ( sports people ) just to be PC and all inclusive, are always saying we should have input, why don't they ask us, well now they are asking us for information that may or may not be helpful depending on who you believe on this forum, one thing is clear though that when this input from us became mandatory, a great number of " YOU PEOPLE " became instantly paranoid, why is that ???? my guess is because the reporting was mandatory and most people that are paranoid don't like when the have to do something.

It really is simple, if you were drawn for a special licence and don't want to do the mandatory reporting then don't do it, it's your choice, nobody can make you do it, but be prepared for the consequences, choose wisely.

They are not asking us for input, they are demanding input. but only from one group of hunters. If they demanded the input from every hunter, licensed or not, and there were penalties for anyone that didn't comply, I would support this 100%. If every single hunter reported every harvest, the data would be complete, and it could be very useful, but with only one group of hunters reporting, the information is incomplete, and not nearly as useful.

[59whiskers]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They are not asking us for input, they are demanding input. but only from one group of hunters. If they demanded the input from every hunter, licensed or not, and there were penalties for anyone that didn't comply, I would support this 100%. If every single hunter reported every harvest, the data would be complete, and it could be very useful, but with only one group of hunters reporting, the information is incomplete, and not nearly as useful.

Bingo!

[shedcrazy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They are not asking us for input, they are demanding input. but only from one group of hunters. If they demanded the input from every hunter, licensed or not, and there were penalties for anyone that didn't comply, I would support this 100%. If every single hunter reported every harvest, the data would be complete, and it could be very useful, but with only one group of hunters reporting, the information is incomplete, and not nearly as useful.

Curious do report every roadkill, winter kill or predator kill you see?

[waldedw]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They are not asking us for input, they are demanding input. but only from one group of hunters. If they demanded the input from every hunter, licensed or not, and there were penalties for anyone that didn't comply, I would support this 100%. If every single hunter reported every harvest, the data would be complete, and it could be very useful, but with only one group of hunters reporting, the information is incomplete, and not nearly as useful.

Agreed, but we all know that getting any input from the unlicensed, unregulated year round hunters will never happen. My point was that if we support it or not it is mandatory as licensed hunters and that in itself makes some people rebel against it, good, bad or indifferent.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Curious do report every roadkill, winter kill or predator kill you see?

Why would I report an animal that I don't kill? Would you even want dozens of people reporting the same roadkill , along a busy highway? Who is going to take the time to figure out how many reports are for the same animal? The point is , that there is no reason that every hunter can't file harvest reports. Filing a harvest report in no way infringes on a non licensed hunter's rights to hunt. It doesn't limit a non licensed hunter in any way, so what logical reason is there for not making it mandatory?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They are not asking us for input, they are demanding input. but only from one group of hunters. If they demanded the input from every hunter, licensed or not, and there were penalties for anyone that didn't comply, I would support this 100%. If every single hunter reported every harvest, the data would be complete, and it could be very useful, but with only one group of hunters reporting, the information is incomplete, and not nearly as useful.

tadaaaaaa...jeepers why cant people just see it for what's it's worth? A lot of holes in this data gathering,,,,well said.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Curious do report every roadkill, winter kill or predator kill you see?

ya gotta reel us in a bit more on that question or are you just trolling?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

ya gotta reel us in a bit more on that question or are you just trolling?

I think he’s making reference to the number of animals taken out of the population due to mva’s and predator’s are probably higher than harvest numbers by non regulated hunters.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

I think he’s making reference to the number of animals taken out of the population due to mva’s and predator’s are probably higher than harvest numbers by non regulated hunters.

That doesn't change the fact that if it's worth the effort to make harvest reports mandatory for licensed hunters, why not make it mandatory for all hunters. If it's worth collecting some data, it's worth collecting as complete of data as is reasonably possible. If there is no benefit to mandatory harvest reports from unlicensed hunters, then how can there be any benefit to harvest reports from licensed hunters?

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That doesn't change the fact that if it's worth the effort to make harvest reports mandatory for licensed hunters, why not make it mandatory for all hunters. If it's worth collecting some data, it's worth collecting as complete of data as is reasonably possible. If there is no benefit to mandatory harvest reports from unlicensed hunters, then how can there be any benefit to harvest reports from licensed hunters?

Still stuck in the sand I see.

The mandatory survey is for special draw licenses.

They want to know success rate for those drawn tags.

This could mean a lot of different things.

High success rate might mean number of tags stays the same or changes, depending on population counts.

Low success rate might mean the same thing.

All they want is mandatory reporting of successfully filled draws.

Helps with tag allocations.

This isn't rocket science. But I guess to some it is.

It has already been determined that a general license is not sustainable so it is on draw. Before they were working on the voluntary harvest reports and extrapolations. I am sure the decision was made to make it mandatory was to get more and better information.

By the way some members are going on you would think the world is ending.

So population estimates and counts minus tag allocation divided by the success plus percent of natural/vehicle/sustenance harvest estimates gives you population thresholds.

People are complaining about draw times, and populations but won't support the managers getting some of the information that is needed.

It is not an either or situation either. Arm chair bios. Uggggg.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That doesn't change the fact that if it's worth the effort to make harvest reports mandatory for licensed hunters, why not make it mandatory for all hunters. If it's worth collecting some data, it's worth collecting as complete of data as is reasonably possible. If there is no benefit to mandatory harvest reports from unlicensed hunters, then how can there be any benefit to harvest reports from licensed hunters?

Maybe you should lobby the Federal government to re write the treaties!

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by waldedw

One thing is certain, you are an expert when it comes to crap

Your reply lacks thought and substance. Please try again.

By the way, did you happen to re-read the thread yet?

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Curious do report every roadkill, winter kill or predator kill you see?

Because it ties more into this thread than the other, I'll ask here.
Do you recall or know how many of the 92 moose killed at Wainwright this year were by resident licensed hunters?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Maybe you should lobby the Federal government to re write the treaties!

Exactly how would mandatory harvest reports in any way violate the terms of the treaties. The treaty hunters would still be able to hunt as they do now, with no seasons or bag limits, all that they would have to do is report their harvests.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Exactly how would mandatory harvest reports in any way violate the terms of the treaties. The treaty hunters would still be able to hunt as they do now, with no seasons or bag limits, all that they would have to do is report their harvests.

Well I think you’d be pretty gob smacked as to the realities of this......

Ask and see the reply.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Still stuck in the sand I see.

The mandatory survey is for special draw licenses.

They want to know success rate for those drawn tags.

This could mean a lot of different things.

High success rate might mean number of tags stays the same or changes, depending on population counts.

Low success rate might mean the same thing.

All they want is mandatory reporting of successfully filled draws.

Helps with tag allocations.

This isn't rocket science. But I guess to some it is.

It has already been determined that a general license is not sustainable so it is on draw. Before they were working on the voluntary harvest reports and extrapolations. I am sure the decision was made to make it mandatory was to get more and better information.

By the way some members are going on you would think the world is ending.

So population estimates and counts minus tag allocation divided by the success plus percent of natural/vehicle/sustenance harvest estimates gives you population thresholds.

People are complaining about draw times, and populations but won't support the managers getting some of the information that is needed.

It is not an either or situation either. Arm chair bios. Uggggg.

Do unregulated hunters not kill animals that we require special licenses for? Does their harvest not effect the population, just as the licensed harvest does? A change in the unregulated harvest is just as valuable statistics wise as a change in the licensed harvest. The only difference is, that the people that want the data, would have more data, which would make the overall statistics more accurate.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Well I think you’d be pretty gob smacked as to the realities of this......

Ask and see the reply.

Can you expand on why harvest reports would violate the Treaties?

Other jurisdictions require them.
No court cases happening.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Well I think you’d be pretty gob smacked as to the realities of this......

Ask and see the reply.

They are already required to register all grizzly bear, bison, mountain goat, cougar and trophy sheep kills, how would expanding this to other species be a violation of the terms of the treaties?