Looking at harvest data… thoughts???

[Panhandler80]

Curious what the best guess around here is.

Let’s say I’m looking at a unit that was 43% successful with non residents. 30 folks punched tags, and 40 did not.

If there was only DIY, I would venture to say that nearly every camp took a bull, because most camps will have 2 folks. Puts it at max of 86%, plus some camps took two bulls, Some will have 3 and some folks go solo. So maybe 65% success per camp. I think this would be a pretty safe assumption IF it was only DIY.

However when you throw guided hunts into the mix two things happen. Odds of success goes way up, as does the likelihood of a solo Hunter. This necessarily drives down that expected success rate, per camp / party, for the DIY guy.

The part of the equation I’m missing, I guess, is of those 70 tags for that GMU, how many do you think are guided hunts. I can make average camp size and guided hunt success assumptions.

 

[Sourdough]

I think this would be a pretty safe assumption IF it was only DIY.

Here is a safer assumption. Those harvest reports are mostly fabricated fiction. To a lesser degree if it was a draw permit, but even then the drainage is likely fabricated fiction.

 

[Panhandler80]

Here is a safer assumption. Those harvest reports are mostly fabricated fiction. To a lesser degree if it was a draw permit, but even then the drainage is likely fabricated fiction.

Hmmm. How so? Guess I’m missing something.

 

[Laramie]

Hmmm. How so? Guess I’m missing something.

It really depends on the state. Not everyone does harvest surveys the same and many don't require a returned survey- they just hope people do on good faith. Once they have the all they are going to get, they apply math and assume the ratio of surveys will be accurate. In reality, some people lie on surveys. Some people just don't fill them out. Others exaggerate. You get the idea... I do think moose is more accurate than say deer or antelope.

 

[Panhandler80]

It really depends on the state. Not everyone does harvest surveys the same and many don't require a returned survey- they just hope people do on good faith. Once they have the all they are going to get, they apply math and assume the ratio of surveys will be accurate. In reality, some people lie on surveys. Some people just don't fill them out. Others exaggerate. You get the idea... I do think moose is more accurate than say deer or antelope.

I’m looking at Alaska moose. Probably should have clarified that.

Best I can tell it would be pretty difficult to hunt this GMU and not report a successful hunt. So that number takes care of itself, and the state knows for sure how many permits were issued.

 

[Laramie]

I’m looking at Alaska moose. Probably should have clarified that.

Best I can tell it would be pretty difficult to hunt this GMU and not report a successful hunt. So that number takes care of itself, and the state knows for sure how many permits were issued.

Understood. From my research up there, I have found that some areas are almost exclusively guided while others are majority DIY. The more difficult the area is to reach by standard means, the higher the % of guided hunters.

Good luck in your research.

 

[Catchfish]

Some units have required sealing as well in areas which should help you get valid data but even then moose still don’t always get sealed. Most hunters I know are very wary of telling F&g where they got their moose. They don’t want them telling people where moose are getting killed. I’ve seen fish and game people come out to personally hunt in a reported spot when they had never been there before.
Now they could have found the area by honest methods, but the area could also have been told to them in private or they could have looked at their data they collect.

 

[Sourdough]

Hmmm. How so? Guess I’m missing something.

Example......great-great grandpa, homesteaded Alaska, had several quality hunting areas. He has pass that knowledge, down generations, those generations have built camps, and bush airstrips. Why in hell would they broadcast that information to every hunting guide, and hundreds of thousands of non-residents and resident hunters......???

Hunters "don't" really know where we put them. So we say, that is "Mystery Creek" or Crooked Creek drainage. If we have a competing guide operation near, who is a pain in the butt, we tell the hunter, he got that animal at a location in that poopy guides area. That way non-residents will flood his area.

(50+) Fifty plus years ago we would do "immersion" hunts, we would fly into a spot, and hunt and fish and live there for five or six weeks, and never ever see another human the entire time. Not so today. All so there are twice as many residents in Alaska as there was fifty years ago. Add to that that huge amounts of prime hunting country in Alaska has been turned into National Parks.

Forty fifty years ago we guided four species hunts ten day long, and nearly every hunter harvested Moose, Caribou, Grizzly and Black Bear (all four species) and we charged less then non-residents currently pay for a DIY caribou hunt. I remember guiding Dall Sheep hunts, two hunters/one guide for $700.00 total for the two of them ($350.00 each), and we supplied everything.

There is currently way-way-way too many hunters, and way-way too many Guide Operations and Transporter Operations. This sucks for the hunts (residents and non-residents) but is wonderful for those in the "hunting business".

Hunting is "NOW" all about High Production. And it is destroying the hunt experience, it is damaging Alaska, and it is impacting the quality and quantity of available animals for the hunter to experience.

 

[Panhandler80]

Example......great-great grandpa, homesteaded Alaska, had several quality hunting areas. He has pass that knowledge, down generations, those generations have built camps, and bush airstrips. Why in hell would they broadcast that information to every hunting guide, and hundreds of thousands of non-residents and resident hunters......???

Hunters "don't" really know where we put them. So we say, that is "Mystery Creek" or Crooked Creek drainage. If we have a competing guide operation in a near, who is a pain in the butt, we tell the hunter, he got that animal at a location in that poopy guides area. That way non-residents will flood his area.

(50+) Fifty plus years ago we would do "immersion" hunts, we would fly into a spot, and hunt and fish and live there for five or six weeks, and never ever see another human the entire time. Not so today. All so there are twice as many residents in Alaska as there was fifty years ago. Add to that that huge amounts of prime hunting country in Alaska has been turned into National Parks.

Forty fifty years ago we guided four species hunts ten day long, and nearly every hunter harvested Moose, Caribou, Grizzly and Black Bear (all four species) and we charged less then non-residents currently pay for a DIY caribou hunt. I remember guiding Dall Sheep hunts, two hunters/one guide for $700.00 total for the two of them ($350.00 each), and we supplied everything.

There is currently way-way-way too many hunters, and way-way too many Guide Operations and Transporter Operations. This sucks for the hunts (residents and non-residents) but is wonderful for those in the "hunting business".

Hunting is "NOW" all about High Production. And it is destroying the hunt experience, it is damaging Alaska, and it is impacting the quality of available animals for the hunter to experience.

All makes sense.

I guess to simplify my question: Using the example in original post, how many of those 30 successful hunters were guided if flown into the field out of a location other than Anchorage, Fairbanks, or a place than can be driven to from either?

 

[AKDoc]

All makes sense.

I guess to simplify my question: Using the example in original post, how many of those 30 successful hunters were guided if flown into the field out of a location other than Anchorage, Fairbanks, or a place than can be driven to from either?

All the preceding narrative in this thread aside...

Here in Alaska, the exact questions you are asking are actually part of the hunt report that the holders of drawing permits and/or over the counter harvest tickets are asked to file after the hunt period has ended...both successful and unsuccessful hunters, including those who did not hunt. The ADFG appears to do a good job reminding holders to file their hunt reports...I've received reminders over the years.

Give the ADFG a call and ask your specific questions about those specific drawing permits/GMU's. I have always found them to be helpful.

 

[Beendare]

All makes sense.

I guess to simplify my question: Using the example in original post, how many of those 30 successful hunters were guided if flown into the field out of a location other than Anchorage, Fairbanks, or a place than can be driven to from either?

Ifot.

 

[Panhandler80]

If Im understanding your question;
Driving to a spot is a whole different ballgame. Put it this way, If you can get there on an ATV, a resident has done it.

Typically transporters and guides are very in tune with their spots. Add that these big bulls paddles stick out like a turd in a punch bowl from the air. Some fly them regularly…so they know where the moose are and where the camps/other hunters are Or will be. Many of the transporters have deals with each other not to use each others spots.

As a general comment, a rifle moose hunt is typically not that difficult With a transporter.

Bottom line, my bet is that a spot you scouted on GAIA/OnX that you can drive to will have a lower success rate. In Ak, I would hire a local pilot.

All makes sense. We have hired a pilot who operates out of a place that must be flown to. Just trying to figure out how much of that success % might have been guided and how much was DIY. Harvest data breaks out resident and non resident. I’m looking just at non res. If non res tags totaled 70, I wonder how many of that 70 had a guide and how many didn’t. That’s all.

Irrelevant I suppose considering we are committed at this point.

 

[AKDoc]

All makes sense. We have hired a pilot who operates out of a place that must be flown to. Just trying to figure out how much of that success % might have been guided and how much was DIY. Harvest data breaks out resident and non resident. I’m looking just at non res. If non res tags totaled 70, I wonder how many of that 70 had a guide and how many didn’t. That’s all.

Irrelevant I suppose considering we are committed at this point.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for a hunt of a life-time with family, and I'm sincerely trying to be helpful...

The hunt report that we must file in Alaska (drawing and over the counter) requires us to answer a series of questions: Did you hunt? Did you harvest? If so, give the specific location of the kill. How wide was the rack, number of brow-tines? How many days did you hunt? Did you use any commercials services? (specifically separates transporter, guide, none, etc.). How did you get to the point that you began walking? (specifically separates, vehicle, airplane, ATV, boat, etc.).

ADFG has all of this data. Of course, as already noted by some others, it is self-report data. Thus, always subject to a footnote, as with any/all self-report data, that the exact accuracy cannot be verified.

 

[Panhandler80]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for a hunt of a life-time with family, and I'm sincerely trying to be helpful...

The hunt report that we must file in Alaska (drawing and over the counter) requires us to answer a series of questions: Did you hunt? Did you harvest? If so, give the specific location of the kill. How wide was the rack, number of brow-tines? How many days did you hunt? Did you use any commercials services? (specifically separates transporter, guide, none, etc.). How did you get to the point that you began walking? (specifically separates, vehicle, airplane, ATV, boat, etc.).

ADFG has all of this data. Of course, as already noted by some others, it is self-report data. Thus, always subject to a footnote, as with any/all self-report data, that the exact accuracy cannot be verified.

I gotcha. I couldn’t even get most of that info to load when I tried the search feature. Maybe I’ll mess around with it again later and if I’m able to get it to work, take the results with a grain of salt.

I get putting down less-than-accurate info like exact location of kill. In fact, most years I report 1-8 alligators here in Florida and I am as vague as possible on this subject and for one obvious reason…. All public record.

With the AK Deal, I do figure the % successful is accurate. If in can figure out how to get the guided vs non guided feature to populate and res vs non res, that’ll be enough info for me. I’m not trying to figure out where to go… just trying to reach a reasonable (on paper) chance of success. Of course comes down to our transporter and density in our general area of unit.

Basically I’m bored!

Hahaha

 

[AKDoc]

I gotcha. I couldn’t even get most of that info to load when I tried the search feature. Maybe I’ll mess around with it again later and if I’m able to get it to work, take the results with a grain of salt.

I get putting down less-than-accurate info like exact location of kill. In fact, most years I report 1-8 alligators here in Florida and I am as vague as possible on this subject and for one obvious reason…. All public record.

With the AK Deal, I do figure the % successful is accurate. If in can figure out how to get the guided vs non guided feature to populate and res vs non res, that’ll be enough info for me. I’m not trying to figure out where to go… just trying to reach a reasonable (on paper) chance of success. Of course comes down to our transporter and density in our general area of unit.

Basically I’m bored!

Hahaha

No worries...give a call to the ADFG, use the Anchorage office as your starting point. Give them the specific GMU, and ask your specific questions. I don't think your questions can be answered searching their website. Again, I've always found them to be helpful, but that too is subjective.

Be prepared for the ANC office to direct you to the field office for the GMU in your question, but that's no big deal...they'll even give you the number. The data has been collected.

Best wishes for a fun hunting adventure with family.

 

[Sourdough]

I gotcha. I couldn’t even get most of that info to load when I tried the search feature. Maybe I’ll mess around with it again later and if I’m able to get it to work, take the results with a grain of salt.

I get putting down less-than-accurate info like exact location of kill. In fact, most years I report 1-8 alligators here in Florida and I am as vague as possible on this subject and for one obvious reason…. All public record.

With the AK Deal, I do figure the % successful is accurate. If in can figure out how to get the guided vs non guided feature to populate and res vs non res, that’ll be enough info for me. I’m not trying to figure out where to go… just trying to reach a reasonable (on paper) chance of success. Of course comes down to our transporter and density in our general area of unit.

Basically I’m bored!

Hahaha

Here is my best advise. Most figure on a 5 or 7 or 8 day hunt. Of which 1/3 to 1/2 (and rarely, but sometimes "ALL") are not hunt-able, typically caused by weather, volcanic ash, or smoke from forest fires, 40-50-70 miles away.

Hunters, especially non-residents, given their increased "costs" could greatly improve their chance of success by spending more days in the field. 10 or 14 days in the field, would enhance probability of success.

For "super" improved results, be "boots in the field" two days before the season opens, and set-up fake camps around the area. Want to spook other hunters to a different location, set-up cheap blue tarp "fake" tents every tree hundred yards.

 

[Panhandler80]

Here is my best advise. Most figure on a 5 or 7 or 8 day hunt. Of which 1/3 to 1/2 (and rarely, but sometimes "ALL") are not hunt-able, typically caused by weather, volcanic ash, or smoke from forest fires, 40-50-70 miles away.

Hunters, especially non-residents, given their increased "costs" could greatly improve their chance of success by spending more days in the field. 10 or 14 days in the field, would enhance probability of success.

We’ll be in field for 10.5 days, obviously no hunting that first half day. Yeah wx can be a real booger. Hopefully we don’t fall in that “rare” category you referenced. I’ve traveled a lot for outdoor adventures and usually (not Surprisingly) it’s about middle of road. Did have an amazing week two years ago at sea on board a boat. Did have my honeymoon ruined 10 years ago by a direct hit from a hurricane. Feel like my two ends of the spectrum have been covered. If Alaska lands somewhere in middle I’ll be happy. If I could bet on best conditions possible at the risk of worst conditions possible the odds would need to be REALLY steep. Like 20:1.

 

[Panhandler80]

Here is my best advise. Most figure on a 5 or 7 or 8 day hunt. Of which 1/3 to 1/2 (and rarely, but sometimes "ALL") are not hunt-able, typically caused by weather, volcanic ash, or smoke from forest fires, 40-50-70 miles away.

Hunters, especially non-residents, given their increased "costs" could greatly improve their chance of success by spending more days in the field. 10 or 14 days in the field, would enhance probability of success.

For "super" improved results, be "boots in the field" two days before the season opens, and set-up fake camps around the area. Want to spook other hunters to a different location, set-up cheap blue tarp "fake" tents every tree hundred yards.

10-4. I actually ran down a a field biologist in a region we were going to hunt. He was able to provide me with some really cool data they complied. Nice folks. That was back when I had just started this and was swinging for the fences. Have since simplified things and have increased budget as a result. More guidance and not quite as remote.