Requesting collar data for hunting purposes

[Deleted member 18333]

Some people are far more creative than I am. Never even occurred to me to ask for collar data. Slightly conflicted about this practice. To me using individual GPS locations to find a particular animal is just flat out wrong. But using collar data to find migration corridors for hunts that would time with migration, not so much.

Montana tries to balance wildlife data and hunting ethics

While GPS collars are invaluable to researchers and wildlife managers, the data they produce are the subject of debate about who should have access to the information and why.

trib.com

 

[Losing_Sanity]

It don't seem right, but if it's government information it should be accessible to the public. Nature of the beast so to speak.

 

[TheTone]

It’s super lame IMO

 

[Nameless Range]

Folks are lame as hell, and the list of those who requested the data for "hunting" purposes should be publicly accessible as well so they can be condemned and shamed publicly. Also, there are examples of data created using public funds that the public does not have access to. Put this in that pile and so be it, or at minimum, generalize the data to a point where it doesn't give exact locations. Heat maps are a good example.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

You can't pick and choose what government information is accessible and what is not, unless it's for national security. If the government spends tax payer dollars on it, tax payers have a right to the information. And the Fish and Game works for the people. It ain't right but it is what it is.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Add to my above comment, Just ask @Big Fin o fwhen that guy got his permit information on where he wants to be filming. It's government information.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You can't pick and choose what government information is accessible and what is not, unless it's for national security. If the government spends tax payer dollars on it, tax payers have a right to the information. And the Fish and Game works for the people. It ain't right but it is what it is.

That's been the issue at hand, especially since MT's constitution requires information to be available to the public. That's a good thing, and not something people are looking to stop - just to regulate it so that it's used in an ethical fashion. The lobbyist for the Newspaper Assn & the folks from MT Petroleum had valid and strong points, but in the end, limiting how the information is used still matters, and that's where this will ultimately head.

You still have access to the information, but using it in a fashion that is deemed illegal by the state is what will get you in trouble. No different than many other aspects of acquiring inside info - like insider trading - you can still have the info, you just can't profit off it.

 

[Nameless Range]

You can't pick and choose what government information is accessible and what is not, unless it's for national security. If the government spends tax payer dollars on it, tax payers have a right to the information. And the Fish and Game works for the people. It ain't right but it is what it is.

This is not necessarily true. Data that contains PII (personally identifiable information), data from which mailing lists can be created, or data that was acquired through cooperation with private landowners, are all types of data that the state creates that may or may not be released to the public. I'm not saying that this data falls into any of those categories, just that there is a precedent and that a solution where this data is just not released as is, is not inconceivable, though I think it would require a law and would be more than an internal records policy.

 

[406LIFE]

That's been the issue at hand, especially since MT's constitution requires information to be available to the public. That's a good thing, and not something people are looking to stop - just to regulate it so that it's used in an ethical fashion. The lobbyist for the Newspaper Assn & the folks from MT Petroleum had valid and strong points, but in the end, limiting how the information is used still matters, and that's where this will ultimately head.

You still have access to the information, but using it in a fashion that is deemed illegal by the state is what will get you in trouble. No different than many other aspects of acquiring inside info - like insider trading - you can still have the info, you just can't profit off it.

I applaud this move. It is too easy a temptation for some to get this info. The general info is very good for putting into your research (migration corridors) but getting the freq of the bulls in a particular range and then tuning my receiver to that and finding the bull... I'm sure that's been done elsewhere.

I remember several years ago I applied for a FOIA request for a map of the leks used in Sage Grouse studies. I wanted it for the opposite reasons; to avoid the areas I'd be around. Every game species we have has similar info and could be seen to shorten learning curves for those inclined to use the info. That would certainly decimate local populations.

 

[SAJ-99]

Some people are far more creative than I am. Never even occurred to me to ask for collar data. Slightly conflicted about this practice. To me using individual GPS locations to find a particular animal is just flat out wrong. But using collar data to find migration corridors for hunts that would time with migration, not so much.

Montana tries to balance wildlife data and hunting ethics

While GPS collars are invaluable to researchers and wildlife managers, the data they produce are the subject of debate about who should have access to the information and why.

trib.com

You just aren't lazy enough. There are rule around using technology in hunting. I'm sure something could apply that would allow the government to delay release of the data for 3 months. If there isn't it could easily be put into law.

 

[d-edward]

So, can I check my understanding on the last point raised in the article - harvest information I voluntarily self-report to FWP during post-season surveys may also be subject to public records requests?

I also have reservations about some of the "best data" coming from optional hunter participation in post-season surveys, but that's a separate issue altogether...

 

[WapitiBob]

What some fail to realize is that the information, be it animal movements via tracking collar or dept owned water catchments, is freely distributed to the "Bro's" within a game dept and all their hunting buddies. If the info needs to be kept private, hold everybody to the same standard.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

This is not necessarily true. Data that contains PII (personally identifiable information), data from which mailing lists can be created, or data that was acquired through cooperation with private landowners, are all types of data that the state creates that may or may not be released to the public. I'm not saying that this data falls into any of those categories, just that there is a precedent and that a solution where this data is just not released as is, is not inconceivable, though I think it would require a law and would be more than an internal records policy.

I'm not saying its a hard and fast rule. Although I suppose it sounds that way. There are exceptions that have been pounded out, but they too can be challenged as to the whether that was legal or not. There have been times when something has been made the law and later changed due to its true legality. So, for the most part, it is true. I can go to any county office and get names, addresses, phone numbers, etc... And, If I wanted to spend lots of money and get a lawyer, I could sue for almost any information that the government has. Like I said, it ain't always right but it is what it is.

 

[Hunting Wife]

What some fail to realize is that the information, be it animal movements via tracking collar or dept owned water catchments, is freely distributed to the "Bro's" within a game dept and all their hunting buddies. If the info needs to be kept private, hold everybody to the same standard.

That’s a pretty broad statement. I’ve been in this field for 20 years, involved with lots of collar work, and have never known that to be the case. I’m sure it’s happened but to suggest it’s routine is false.

There are websites that used to provide real-time satellite data for geese and cranes during migration. They eventually implemented a delay in data release because people were targeting transmittered birds. I don’t see why a delay or even aggregated data by year couldn’t be released. I would argue the public doesn’t need real-time access to hourly locations for individual animals. In some cases, having those data publicly available could significantly impact the study results.

 

[marksjeep]

Publish the data when the study is over via the journal article or report. If it's just routine data collection not associated with a specific study, release it at the end of the year. There is no compelling reason for the release of real time, provisional data.

 

[Mallardsx2]

When Wyoming published the migration data the units that the migrations go through doubled with applications. It never should have been made public in my opinion.

 

[Irrelevant]

When Wyoming published the migration data the units that the migrations go through doubled with applications. It never should have been made public in my opinion.

I had a real eye opening experience this fall. I used the migration mapper to e-scout my unit. I had a pretty good idea of where the elk would be based on a couple of studies over a couple of years. The eye opener was how few elk were actually there and how many more were in other completely different areas that had WAY more to do with there daily needs.