Eastman's: Worst Big Game Reporting State

[sneakypete]

Montana needs mandatory reporting, harvest or non harvest or a fixed amount penalty before applying for next year's tag. Another thing is biologists should visit or fly all units they are responsible for. I've invited our area biologist to visit our property without any visits!

 

[R.K.]

.

What I have issue with is the fact that no other state does mandatory harvest reporting, they do mandatory reporting, i.e. you have to report regardless of if you killed something and it's compulsory by either a fine or not being able to participate in the draw.

Missouri has mandatory harvest reporting for deer and turkey. Phone it in, website, or use the mobile app. But it is mandatory. Illinois is the same way. They also collect some biological info, as well as location, and public/private.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Missouri has mandatory harvest reporting for deer and turkey. Phone it in, website, or use the mobile app. But it is mandatory. Illinois is the same way. They also collect some biological info, as well as location, and public/private.

Yes some states do harvest rather than hunt reporting. I limited my comparison to western states, eastern states just have different variables so they are not a great comparisons. For instance in Missouri you have till 10pm the day of harvest to check in correct, obviously that wouldn't work in any western state as pack outs can literally take days and huge swaths of the states have no cell service. Similarly states in the north east, have mandatory deer check stations, but almost 100% of the deer harvested in these states are done with .5 miles of a road or ATV trail so they come out whole. Bringing out a deer whole is so ubiquitous in NH that the state doesn't have wanton waste/ edible meat laws because it's assumed you will bring it out whole. It wouldn't be feasible to require all elk/ deer in Montana were physically checked in.

 

[MooseCaboose]

This could certainly provide much better information about pressure distribution by including information on weapon type and days in the field, in addition to hunting location(s). This would be an improvement over the current hunting pressure models which only include the HD where an animal is harvested or any other survey built on the assumption hunters are only hunting with one weapon type in one HD. Right now the biological models and aerial surveys probably give us a good estimate of the ungulate populations. But they also give us virtually no insight into hunter distribution throughout the season(s).

Getting better data seems an essential requirement for developing a solution to the real trend of increased Western population that Big Fin raised in another thread. We can't begin to look at making any kind of adjustments like new season structures, more limited entry areas, pick your weapon, or myriad other solutions until we have some hard data from which to begin to identify the problems with any particularity.

 

[antlerradar]

Getting better data seems an essential requirement for developing a solution to the real trend of increased Western population that Big Fin raised in another thread. We can't begin to look at making any kind of adjustments like new season structures, more limited entry areas, pick your weapon, or myriad other solutions until we have some hard data from which to begin to identify the problems with any particularity.

This is why many will oppose.

 

[PaulRevere]

Signed. Thanks Ben.

 

[MooseCaboose]

This is why many will oppose.

Change is difficult and this policy will need a carrot for both the agency and the public. @MTGomer mentioned means of increased funding to satiate the Agency, does anyone have ideas for carrots that would incentivize the public?

The first that comes to mind for me is that it could make verifying suspected case of poaching easier. People unanimously despise poachers. But I do think there needs to be other perceived benefits as well.

 

[onpoint]

"You guys are giving the general public too much credit for complying with mandatory reporting, and giving accurate information"
bambistew

".....and if MT hunters beat them up with that data"
buzzh

Two good thoughts here.

I'm all for something changing, but there are a lotta' flies in the ointment.
Having actually been a harvest survey caller (30 some years ago) I can attest to the accuracy issues. I don't care how the info is gathered, it still will come from a hunter who may or may not be concerned with giving the survey accurate info. Crap in = crap out. A serious issue with gathering any data from public input -just a fact of the deal.
And getting the hunting public to really show up in numbers and conviction adequate to make a difference is (& I'm talking specifically MT) a tough nut to crack. And we are notoriously fickle.
.......ie., The shoulder seasons, which when floated were overwhelmingly opposed, when implemented were conversely overwhelmingly supported - maybe not on here. But Montana hunters generally love 'em. Not because they are touted as a good idea but because once even many of the naysayers tried it - they liked it. Shoot an easy back-your-truck-to-it, load it, be home in time to see the NFL playoff game turned out (to many) to be pretty cool. mdunc has repeatedly talked about hearing this general support in his travels.
Partially illustrates the complexity(s) of this whole ballgame.
Hope some changes are made, somebody actually taking some initiative is a good start.
Expatriot Buzz will cheer it on from across the border with his usual encouragement methods.