Mandatory Harvest Reporting

[MattB]

Deer kills here have to be reported within 12 hours.

We have a physical tag counter-signing requirement as well, but the way the regulation is structured is a train-wreck. You are essentially required to take a deer directly to have your tag countersigned before transporting it elsewhere, but that is different from harvest reporting.

 

[11boo]

Seems a little dramatic. But fair enough, it is 2024 and we are supposed to be outraged about literally anything possible right?

You must have had different experiences at road side check points than me, I suppose.

Yeah a little dramatic. Honestly I’ve only had positive experiences with CPW.
I have had Florida fish cops literally go thru every compartment on my boat because I was fishing, catch and release. They even watched me land and release a slot snook, then boarded my boat and searched it.

 

[Btaylor]

We have a physical tag counter-signing requirement as well, but the way the regulation is structured is a train-wreck. You are essentially required to take a deer directly to have your tag countersigned before transporting it elsewhere, but that is different from harvest reporting.

No counter-sign here, never even heard of that. The AGFC app has a reporting section and it works very well. If you have signal you get a checking confirmation number basically immediately and if you are out of signal, it will sync up and finish once back in signal. I've checked deer using it where I didnt have enough signal to get a call to go out but the app worked fine.

 

[Laelkhunter]

We were heading up 285 from Santa Fe, NM several years ago. About 15 miles South of Chama (our destination), there was a roadblock with several trucks pulled over. The truck's occupants (obviously hunters) were all standing around while ALL of their contents of the trucks were on the side of the road. The Wildlife Officers were searching through ice chests, duffel bags, everything. We didn't get pulled over and kept on going, but I imagine if you are on your way home after a week long hunt, last thing you want is a 2 or 3 hour delay unpacking your truck, having everything searched, then repacking your truck to continue home.
The roadblock appeared to be random, with Wildlife officers standing on the roadside, and if you looked like hunters they would flag you to the side. I would much rather a mandatory reporting system (like NM has), than to be put through the random roadside stops where they search everything for anything they might write you up for. It seems NM has both.

 

[MattB]

No counter-sign here, never even heard of that. The AGFC app has a reporting section and it works very well. If you have signal you get a checking confirmation number basically immediately and if you are out of signal, it will sync up and finish once back in signal. I've checked deer using it where I didnt have enough signal to get a call to go out but the app worked fine.

IA has a similar system, works well.

The CA countersigning reg is dumb. You may only transport your deer from the field for the purpose of transporting it to the nearest person who holds a certain title so they can counter-sign the tag. Many who can don’t even know the state grants them that authority, so you sometimes get a “no” from someone who is authorized. Certain CDFW employees, firefighters of a certain rank, postal carriers, notary public, some meat lockers - and the list goes on and on.

And even if you take a deer directly to someone authorized, if CDFW really wanted to get you they can very likely find someone who “could have” countersigned the tag that you drove by, placing you in violation of the regulation. I was threatened with that one time I took a deer directly to my butcher who counter-signed my tag but passed a CDF and police station on the way.

 

[WCB]

We were heading up 285 from Santa Fe, NM several years ago. About 15 miles South of Chama (our destination), there was a roadblock with several trucks pulled over. The truck's occupants (obviously hunters) were all standing around while ALL of their contents of the trucks were on the side of the road. The Wildlife Officers were searching through ice chests, duffel bags, everything. We didn't get pulled over and kept on going, but I imagine if you are on your way home after a week long hunt, last thing you want is a 2 or 3 hour delay unpacking your truck, having everything searched, then repacking your truck to continue home.
The roadblock appeared to be random, with Wildlife officers standing on the roadside, and if you looked like hunters they would flag you to the side. I would much rather a mandatory reporting system (like NM has), than to be put through the random roadside stops where they search everything for anything they might write you up for. It seems NM has both.

NO reason not to have both. MT and other states have "check stations"...only time I have ever seen a truck torn apart and things gone through is when somebody committed a violation. Saw it in MT a couple times while guiding. Otherwise when we pulled in with clients...it was "you hunting" yep "you get anything "nope" ok see ya later. Or if we did kill something...lets see it to confirm proper tagging and check licenses. within 5-10min we were on our way.

 

[Laelkhunter]

Not sure if they found any violations, but it sure looked like the Officers were going through the whole routine with these people. Maybe their attitude warranted a thorough check but I would not want to be standing on the side of a highway having all of my truck contents scattered about.

 

[MNGrouser]

Wisconsin used to have locking metal tags when I first started hunting. It didn't seem to be too much of an intrusion and a big part of the fun was hanging out at registration stations BSing with the other hunters coming in. I remember getting lots of kudos from older, experienced hunters when I brough my first white-tail buck in.
Now I live in MN and there is an online reporting requirement. You have to write down the confirmation number on your tag. I can't understand what wildlife agencies wouldn't want the best/most accurate information. But I can't understand why wildlife agencies do a lot of what they do.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Those metal locking tags were always the butt of jokes in our camp in WI. You could undo them with a small thin bladed pocket knife. Having to take the deer to a registration station wasn't too bad. Here in WA, if you don't fill out your hunt report online, they gig you $10 the next year you buy your licenses. I like the system in MO where you can check them in on your phone and write the confirmation number on your tag. once checked, you are free to dismantle them. It's nice if you get one down and need to take it apart for extraction. I don't see this as a burden at all but lots of places I hunt here in WA have zero cell service, so that wouldn't work. I would be all for mandatory reporting but too many people would under report if never checked by a game warden. Get home, butcher it, in the freezer and nobody's the wiser.

 

[Bubblehide]

I love how animals are more important than your constitutional rights.

@

11boo​

This has been resolved by the courts long ago and is considered constitutionally compliant. The reasoning behind it is that in person on person crimes, there is almost always a complaiant. In person on animal crimes, there is rarely a complaintant. Additionally, wildlife laws are Prima Facie laws; meaning if you appear to be on your way to or from hunting or fishing, or you appear to be hunting or fishing, you can be stopped and searched, no warrent required. The reality is that this is a minor inconvience and is often a huge component in catching poachers.

 

[Yoder]

@

11boo​

This has been resolved by the courts long ago and is considered constitutionally compliant. The reasoning behind it is that in person on person crimes, there is almost always a complaiant. In person on animal crimes, there is rarely a complaintant. Additionally, wildlife laws are Prima Facie laws; meaning if you appear to be on your way to or from hunting or fishing, or you appear to be hunting or fishing, you can be stopped and searched, no warrent required. The reality is that this is a minor inconvience and is often a huge component in catching poachers.

I look at it exactly like a DUI checkpoint. They are stopping me, questioning me, searching my vehicle all without cause. It's not a minor inconvenience, it's a violation of the 4th Amendment for the "greater good".

 

[11boo]

I would support anything but roadside shakedowns. Yes, I know CPW and any game dept has the law on their side. I do not care for it.
Mostly they “catch” some poor NR who took a nice bull and neglected to leave the proof of sex.

There are so many solutions to harvest reporting, all we do is some random phone survey and I’m not answering a random phone number.

 

[Laelkhunter]

........ Here in WA, if you don't fill out your hunt report online, they gig you $10 the next year you buy your licenses.

In NM, the only place I hunt, if you don't file the elk harvest report at the end of the season, you can not buy a license the following year.

 

[Bubblehide]

I look at it exactly like a DUI checkpoint. They are stopping me, questioning me, searching my vehicle all without cause. It's not a minor inconvenience, it's a violation of the 4th Amendment for the "greater good".

In a DUI check point, you have the right to not participate as there is no probable cause. the difference here, as the courts have already decided that looking like you are hunting or fishing, going to or from hunting or fishing meets probable cause, as animals can not communicate with humans, thus there is no complainant, thus not a violation of the 4th Amendment; that is why fish and game laws are Prima Facie laws, unlike like the laws that apply to a DUI check point. you do not have to like it, but it clearly is not a violation of the 4th.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here.

Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on mandatory reports in Idaho was near 10% and all harvest data was extrapolated from there. I honestly didn't know how accurate that might be so I tried to find out.

The most recent information I could find for harvest reporting came from 2015. In that year, 61% of mandatory reports were completed voluntarily online. (157,612 out of 254,785). To estimate bias from non-compliance, IDFG attempted to call a random sample of 50,000 of the remaining hunters by telephone to obtain their harvest reports (increased from 40,000 in 2010).These hunters were called in December 2014 and January 2015. This phone sample was larger than in 2009-2010, and four times as large as in 2006. The harvest results from the telephone sample were used to estimate the harvest by hunters who did not file reports.

The 2015 info didn't specify how many reports were collected by telephone but the same effort in 2013 collected another ~30,000 reports. If 2015 produced similar results it would mean that IDFG collected harvest reports for ~75% of deer/elk/pronghorn hunters. I would say that is encouraging and definitely lends some credibility to the harvest statistics. There is also room for improvement.

I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

Pretty simple FIX. Okla, TX, NM are all almost completely there.

online tagging

 

[cuerro viejo]

If reporting is mandatory and you lie that you didn't fill your license, and some how or some way a warden we're to end up at your house and you have said game meat in your freezer what would happen next?

GW and DA would have to prove it wasn’t legally harvested and or legally gifted. most states have final destination clauses that eliminates the need to maintain tagging or identification once at final destination

 

[Macintosh]

we have had mandatory reporting for as long as I have lived in this state, which is over 25 years. No shakedowns I've ever heard of, just check it in at any "big game check station", which includes most hunting and fishing stores and lots of small-town gas stations and convenience stores, in addition to town clerks, police, etc. They got an online reporting system going fast when the covid shut-downs happened so people could still hunt, now we can check in online except for rifle deer season, and I'm hopeful that even that will change soon. Even the biologists uniformly tell you they are all for online check-in, that the data they get from the physical check stations isnt useable unless there is a department person there to calibrate scale, etc, and in 99% of cases there isnt. Frankly, to me mandatory check-in is a non-issue that makes it real data-collection, that I think gives hunters a much better leg to stand on agsint anti-hunting efforts, as well as doing a legit better job in actually managing the game in a sustainable way. I've hunted a solid handful of states, I dont believe I have ever hunted anywhere that reporting isnt mandatory. I'm not clear what compliance rates are, but I am not personally aware of anyone that I know hasn't checked in a big game animal as required. If non-reporting is a major factor I'd be all for not being able to buy next-years hunting license if someone fails to report within a certain reasonable time (30 days, etc...normally we have 48 hours), even within the interstate wildlife compact.

 

[def90]

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here.

Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on mandatory reports in Idaho was near 10% and all harvest data was extrapolated from there. I honestly didn't know how accurate that might be so I tried to find out.

The most recent information I could find for harvest reporting came from 2015. In that year, 61% of mandatory reports were completed voluntarily online. (157,612 out of 254,785). To estimate bias from non-compliance, IDFG attempted to call a random sample of 50,000 of the remaining hunters by telephone to obtain their harvest reports (increased from 40,000 in 2010).These hunters were called in December 2014 and January 2015. This phone sample was larger than in 2009-2010, and four times as large as in 2006. The harvest results from the telephone sample were used to estimate the harvest by hunters who did not file reports.

The 2015 info didn't specify how many reports were collected by telephone but the same effort in 2013 collected another ~30,000 reports. If 2015 produced similar results it would mean that IDFG collected harvest reports for ~75% of deer/elk/pronghorn hunters. I would say that is encouraging and definitely lends some credibility to the harvest statistics. There is also room for improvement.

I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

Sure, there are plenty of ways to force a person to report, the question would be are those reports accurate. I'm assuming some guy that thinks he has a secret honey hole unit isn't going to self report so that other people can see how great his unit is.

 

[Erict]

NY has mandatory game harvest reporting for deer, bear, turkey. 7 days to report "kills", which can be reported by phone, internet/website or cell phone app. Yeah, it's not a western state, but NY sold about 580,000 hunting and estimated 208,000 deer taken in 2023, so the system can handle some big numbers. (and produces a big REPORT as well).

Though in effect for a long time, the long-term harvest reporting rate is under 50%. Combined with additional data like roadside check stations, interviews with deer processors, biologist field studies, car/deer collision reports, etc., they claim a HARVEST accuracy rate +/- 2%.

It is a violation to fail to report a kill, but tickets are rarely issued, and the judges just don't see this as much of an offense so if any fine is assessed it's usually tiny. Biologists aren't keen on having tickets issued because they don't want to discourage people from reporting their kills, even if maybe they go over the 7 day "deadline".

Bottom line is that agencies who choose to invest in a good harvest report system can efficiently gather more data and use it to make fact-based decisions.

 

[onlybrowning]

NY has mandatory game harvest reporting for deer, bear, turkey. 7 days to report "kills", which can be reported by phone, internet/website or cell phone app. Yeah, it's not a western state, but NY sold about 580,000 hunting and estimated 208,000 deer taken in 2023, so the system can handle some big numbers. (and produces a big REPORT as well).

Though in effect for a long time, the long-term harvest reporting rate is under 50%. Combined with additional data like roadside check stations, interviews with deer processors, biologist field studies, car/deer collision reports, etc., they claim a HARVEST accuracy rate +/- 2%.

It is a violation to fail to report a kill, but tickets are rarely issued, and the judges just don't see this as much of an offense so if any fine is assessed it's usually tiny. Biologists aren't keen on having tickets issued because they don't want to discourage people from reporting their kills, even if maybe they go over the 7 day "deadline".

Bottom line is that agencies who choose to invest in a good harvest report system can efficiently gather more data and use it to make fact-based decisions.

View attachment 710120

There’s also an element of “if I report the WMU, it will tract others to it.”

I feel pretty certain the reported harvest numbers are not super accurate in my area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk