Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[Carl 9.3x62]

Listening some today. Outfitter set aside licenses...barf. Sounds like Montana.

 

[BuzzH]

It sounded like you would have to choose a region when hunting on a general tag, but could hunt any general area within that region. I think the idea was to spread out pressure and limit hunters from hunting all over the state, although it sounds like hunters do that less than what they originally thought. I'm probably leaving something out.

Except that 80% of Resident hunters only hunt one area.

The 20% that hunt 2 or more areas are largely not killing deer. Meaning they are being very selective or just suck as hunters.

Other things being discussed are outfitter set asides that will be coming up in future discussions.

General elk tag issues between R and NR also discussion about picking a region for NR side of that.

As JM77 said early today, we are driving the bus off a cliff with many of these suggestions and if even half of this stuff passes there is going to be ramifications for both R and NR.

What is striking to me in all these recommendations, as well as the discussions the last 2 days, is that there has been ZERO talk about the needs of wildlife coming first, its 100% about social/people management.

That's tragic considering this is allegedly a "wildlife" task force.

 

[Oak]

All license allocation issues, including 90-10 for the big 5 species, are social/people management. Animals don’t care whether the person killing them is a resident or non-resident.

 

[Treeshark]

Interesting to see how much longer certain general deer areas are going to be over-the-counter options for residents. I would expect to see caps put on region G (and maybe H) sooner rather than later.

 

[WYelker]

Sorry but the last thing we should be doing is limiting residents. There is a ton that can be done before we start hammering the opportunity for residents.

I get a lot of people are whining about G and H. But choosing a region does nothing to prevent that issue, in fact, it might lead to even more pressure as more people will select it. Right now if my son and I had to pick a region we would be in G and H. To date, I have not felt the need to hunt G as I can usually scout and explore other units and find a target buck. But if for some reason I am no longer able to spend 30-50 days scouting a bunch of different general areas for a buck and I have to pick one, then the best region it will be...

The bigger issue is we make all these assumptions without complete data. Do we really know how many residents hunt each region? Do we know how many kill a buck? How many residents actually more than 2 general regions? How many pass up average bucks on regional tags to end up killing a later season white tail?

Mandatory harvest reporting is a first step in getting a complete answer...

Second, once we have that data and see what is actually happening, then we can start to conversations. It is BS to manage wildlife or people based on feelings and emotions.

Limiting buck hunting is not going to save the deer herd. It only increase the buck/doe ratio...

 

[WIbiggame]

Mandatory harvest reporting is a first step in getting a complete answer..

I am just a lowly NR from WI so might not mean much but this is crazy to me that western states don't have mandatory reporting. How can you do any accurate herd management and tag allocation without it?

Here in WI we have 24hrs to call in a deer harvest and have to report turkey harvest as well. It's a 5min automated call. They get the county of harvest, sub Unit within that county, and public or private land. Yes some might not call in a harvest but violators are going to violate.

It is nice being from out east coming to the west hunting and be able to see harvest statistics and hunter density but after doing a little digging these are just assumptions. I know they use algorithms but they are educated guesses ultimately.

Our doe tags are changed yearly based off of public input and harvest statistics (real ones). With the popularity of western hunting and the declining resources to hunt like you mention mandatory reporting should be the #1 goal.

 

[jabber]

Sorry but the last thing we should be doing is limiting residents. There is a ton that can be done before we start hammering the opportunity for residents.

I get a lot of people are whining about G and H. But choosing a region does nothing to prevent that issue, in fact, it might lead to even more pressure as more people will select it. Right now if my son and I had to pick a region we would be in G and H. To date, I have not felt the need to hunt G as I can usually scout and explore other units and find a target buck. But if for some reason I am no longer able to spend 30-50 days scouting a bunch of different general areas for a buck and I have to pick one, then the best region it will be...

The bigger issue is we make all these assumptions without complete data. Do we really know how many residents hunt each region? Do we know how many kill a buck? How many residents actually more than 2 general regions? How many pass up average bucks on regional tags to end up killing a later season white tail?

Mandatory harvest reporting is a first step in getting a complete answer...

Second once we have that data see what is really happening. It is BS to manage wildlife or people (EXCEPT NRs) based on feelings and emotions.

Lastly limiting buck hunting is not going to save the deer herd. It only increase the buck/doe ratio...

FIFY

 

[goodhunt]

Sorry but the last thing we should be doing is limiting residents. There is a ton that can be done before we start hammering the opportunity for residents.

I get a lot of people are whining about G and H. But choosing a region does nothing to prevent that issue, in fact, it might lead to even more pressure as more people will select it. Right now if my son and I had to pick a region we would be in G and H. To date, I have not felt the need to hunt G as I can usually scout and explore other units and find a target buck. But if for some reason I am no longer able to spend 30-50 days scouting a bunch of different general areas for a buck and I have to pick one, then the best region it will be...

The bigger issue is we make all these assumptions without complete data. Do we really know how many residents hunt each region? Do we know how many kill a buck? How many residents actually more than 2 general regions? How many pass up average bucks on regional tags to end up killing a later season white tail?

Mandatory harvest reporting is a first step in getting a complete answer...

Second once we have that data see what is really happening. It is BS to manage wildlife or people based on feelings and emotions.

Lastly limiting buck hunting is not going to save the deer herd. It only increase the buck/doe ratio...

If you want to make a difference for the wildlife, this is where effort should be focused. Accurate, hard data gathering as a tool to help guide management decisions. When you start to get into the social recommendations currently being discussed you need a scalpel to work on the patient, not a chainsaw.

 

[Treeshark]

But choosing a region does nothing to prevent that issue, in fact, it might lead to even more pressure as more people will select it. Right now if my son and I had to pick a region we would be in G and H.

Yep, you and many others- that’s kind of my point, and that is where resident caps for these particular areas would be very beneficial to the resource.

Region G deer is quickly approaching OIL status for nonresidents. I cannot see it surviving as a OTC free-for-all for residents for much longer.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I agree that mandatory reporting provides some nice data. However, it can be a huge time and monetary expense that doesn't provide statistically significant, different results from a good population sample. Makes no difference to me personally, I have no problem with a mandatory system, but it's not as easy as saying "go" when budgets are under constant scrutiny. The department made it pretty clear that they feel well informed by current sample sizes for answering the questions they're asking.

Speaking of that sample...none of the data presented makes a compelling argument for regionalized MD licenses in my opinion. I still have an open mind on it, as I did when they surveyed on that topic several years ago -- I believe it was right after the bad '16-'17 winter. I just don't see the justification for it outside of anecdotal complaints. I hate seeing guys all over as much as anyone, but the buck:doe ratios are still high. It's nowhere near the zoo after the first few days of the season, quality experiences can be had. At current levels of harvest I don't see an appreciable increase in user experience or buck quality by going to pick-your-region. Some feel really strongly the other way and that's fine. I'm open to seeing the data.

I can't fathom the residents of WY are ready to go full LE on G/H and/or other generals. Anything you do will affect another region. Muley guys who were no longer able to hunt G and H annually wouldn't just sit at home.

Tangential but related...@Buzz or other USFS policy expert, when the B-T redoes their Forest Plan, how does the MVU piece play into that? Is that a separate planning process? PM if you prefer. I am very familiar but rusty on NEPA.

 

[BuzzH]

Interesting to see how much longer certain general deer areas are going to be over-the-counter options for residents. I would expect to see caps put on region G (and maybe H) sooner rather than later.

If that happens next move will be 90-10 across the board and severe cuts in nr region tags.

At that point it's moved to statewide limited quota.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Yep, you and many others- that’s kind of my point, and that is where resident caps for these particular areas would be very beneficial to the resource.

Region G deer is quickly approaching OIL status for nonresidents. I cannot see it surviving as a OTC free-for-all for residents for much longer.

I'm not seeing the data that resident caps would be measurably beneficial for the resource in G and H. Maybe I'm just not aware of it. We could get there, and if so I'd just as soon look at LE and skip the middle step. Edited to add: the middle step being "pick your region" but OTC

It's all related. Say you put a cap on G/H for resident tags. Then you've got to justify the NR quotas (currently 400/600), show your math, and explain that to the outfitter lobby, resident sportsmen, and the legislature. It absolutely escalates the 90/10 DEA allocation discussion and rushes something that shouldn't be rushed. All that for a cap that we don't even know if we need.

 

[BuzzH]

Yep, you and many others- that’s kind of my point, and that is where resident caps for these particular areas would be very beneficial to the resource.

Region G deer is quickly approaching OIL status for nonresidents. I cannot see it surviving as a OTC free-for-all for residents for much longer.

It will be less than once in a lifetime for nr if g and h go limited caps on residents or lq.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not seeing the data that resident caps would be measurably beneficial for the resource in G and H. Maybe I'm just not aware of it. We could get there, and if so I'd just as soon look at LE and skip the middle step.

It's all related. Say you put a cap on G/H for resident tags. Then you've got to justify the NR quotas (currently 400/600), show your math, and explain that to the outfitter lobby, resident sportsmen, and the legislature. It absolutely escalates the 90/10 DEA allocation discussion and rushes something that shouldn't be rushed. All that for a cap that we don't even know if we need.

Absolutely, there are lots of other options and even the task force isn't talking about resident caps.

Cap residents and 90-10 is the only logical step.

 

[WYelker]

Yep, you and many others- that’s kind of my point, and that is where resident caps for these particular areas would be very beneficial to the resource.

Region G deer is quickly approaching OIL status for nonresidents. I cannot see it surviving as a OTC free-for-all for residents for much longer.

Who cares what is happening to region G nonresident? I don't care if it takes a NR 40 years to draw G. It is their choice to play that game and if we have too we can always cut more NR tags...

Secondly, where is your data to support that unlimited resident hunting is the cause of the herds demise? I mean it is not like we are all packing in 20 miles and shooting the doe left and right? What data do you have that supports that region is doom and gloom and how does resident hunting for bucks only add to the issue?

Are you saying this because big bucks are getting harder to find? After all inches of bone on a bucks head is not any indication at all of the herd health.

 

[BuzzH]

Yep, you and many others- that’s kind of my point, and that is where resident caps for these particular areas would be very beneficial to the resource.

Region G deer is quickly approaching OIL status for nonresidents. I cannot see it surviving as a OTC free-for-all for residents for much longer.

It's not a free for all. Buck to doe ratios are very good and killing bucks does not impact herd growth unless your buck to do ratios are severely low.

The data suggests that residents spread out on general areas and 80% only hunt one area/region.

There isn't much hopping around going on.

 

[bullbugle307]

Sorry but the last thing we should be doing is limiting residents. There is a ton that can be done before we start hammering the opportunity for residents.

I get a lot of people are whining about G and H. But choosing a region does nothing to prevent that issue, in fact, it might lead to even more pressure as more people will select it. Right now if my son and I had to pick a region we would be in G and H. To date, I have not felt the need to hunt G as I can usually scout and explore other units and find a target buck. But if for some reason I am no longer able to spend 30-50 days scouting a bunch of different general areas for a buck and I have to pick one, then the best region it will be...

The bigger issue is we make all these assumptions without complete data. Do we really know how many residents hunt each region? Do we know how many kill a buck? How many residents actually more than 2 general regions? How many pass up average bucks on regional tags to end up killing a later season white tail?

Mandatory harvest reporting is a first step in getting a complete answer...

Second, once we have that data and see what is actually happening, then we can start to conversations. It is BS to manage wildlife or people based on feelings and emotions.

Limiting buck hunting is not going to save the deer herd. It only increase the buck/doe ratio...

For what's its worth, every time I've ever brought up mandatory reporting to GF people in Wyoming they get REALLY touchy.

I'm all for it. But I think a lot of hunters, and the department as a whole are against it.

 

[WIbiggame]

However, it can be a huge time and monetary expense that doesn't provide statistically significant...

I really don't know this answer and feel free to call me dumb if I should know. But, how much of a monetary expense is setting up an automated registration?

Computer answers phone person types in numbers, computer runs report? You already have the people in place running the reports from the call station. Am I missing something?

Also the data on human harvest is important along with accurate herd counts. Knowing how and why a herd is thriving or dying is the only way to make accurate decisions in the management of said herd.

The department made it pretty clear that they feel well informed by current sample sizes for answering the questions they're asking.

Of course they do what benefit would it be to say the data they have is wrong or flawed?

Edit: I am not saying that the data is wrong or flawed but just pointing out some extreme bias could be coming from the department.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I really don't know this answer and feel free to call me dumb if I should know. But, how much of a monetary expense is setting up an automated registration?

Computer answers phone person types in numbers, computer runs report? You already have the people in place running the reports from the call station. Am I missing something?

Also the data on human harvest is important along with accurate herd counts. Knowing how and why a herd is thriving or dying is the only way to make accurate decisions in the management of said herd.

As far as the expense maybe it's not that much; I would assume to implement and enforce it would be expensive but I'm not an IT or HR guy. Again, I'm not against it, if cost is minimal and it's considerably more useful then great.

Of course they do what benefit would it be to say the data they have is wrong or flawed?

Edit: I am not saying that the data is wrong or flawed but just pointing out some extreme bias could be coming from the department.

Sure there could be bias. If the sample size and methodology was not adequate to answer the question of interest, that would be a problem that I hope they would get called out on. In this case the question about hunter area use was pretty straightforward, and they felt @ 30% of the population was an adequate representation to make some general assertions. Typically in a power analysis you do a small pilot to get a standard deviation, then set a target sample size based on that s.d. and a confidence interval you wanted to achieve. At least in field sciences...maybe social science uses some other iteration of the dark arts (stats) to get from A to B.

 

[ccc23454]

I agree there is value in mandatory reporting but its minimal in wyoming. Watch the regional presentations, if bio says we need to reduce/increase tags they do! This typically isnt based soley on hunters success. Its a lot of things hunter feedback, crop damage, but weather is typically biggest factor (surely for deer/lope) they have years of harvest data so they know pretty resonably how hunts went. Fishing yesterday the sheep guys were flying over doing surverys, which they plan to reduce 3 tags i believe in that area because thats what the herd needs based on experiance and scientific information. Wyoming has a pretty good g&f when it comes to this stuff. My basic opinion: if it aint broke stop trying to fix it, support it! As far as deer tags leave gens alone for now, i want to see LOTS more whitetails taken, I think they are a big part of muleys decline.