Mandatory reporting, for or against and why?

[805Bowhunter]

Enforcing it is very simple; you do not report, you do not receive another tag for that species the following season. It literally takes about as much time to self report as it does to type this post.

I completely agree with this...to me its embarrassing to hear hunters whine that it takes too long or is an infringement of their rights. Whining about harvest reporting effort is about as weak as it gets. It makes hunters look terrible by not answering three extremely difficult questions...

To those who are saying no...grow a pair and do your part. In the age of internet, there's nothing that you're giving away by filling one out. I swear, hunters are our own worst enemies. When opportunity is vaporized years down the road (with California leading the charge), hunters will blame everyone else but refuse to see that they have any accountability in its collapse.

Hunting is hanging on by a thread and we literally have hunters saying...."just let fish and game conduct their winter counts." Oh ok...that sounds like a great way to ensure hunting for future generations....

 

[Dos Perros]

In Colorado some of the biggest impacts are via the ballot. Not sure you want to provide more fodder.

Well Colorado outlawed spring bear hunting and now they kill more bears than ever before.

(I’m definitely not in favor of ballot box biology but what exactly is the fear, that we will get to vote for how many tags are issued?)

 

[elkduds]

CPW's officially stated reason for not using mandatory reporting is that people lie, and that makes mandatory reports as unreliable as the "random sampling" surveys they currently rely on.

 

[brsnow]

Well Colorado outlawed spring bear hunting and now they kill more bears than ever before.

(I’m definitely not in favor of ballot box biology but what exactly is the fear, that we will get to vote for how many tags are issued?)

because there are way more bears than before.

 

[Dos Perros]

CPW's officially stated reason for not using mandatory reporting is that people lie, and that makes mandatory reports as unreliable as the "random sampling" surveys they currently rely on.

I mean it’s not that hard. You kill something, you tag it and at first cell signal check it in. Get caught transporting game not checked in and you’re in trouble. I doubt people will be either killing something and taking the risk or not killing something and checking it in anyway.

 

[sneaky]

CPW's officially stated reason for not using mandatory reporting is that people lie, and that makes mandatory reports as unreliable as the "random sampling" surveys they currently rely on.

So, they are calling everyone liars? That's a bold statement. Seems Idaho doesn't have any problems with mandatory reporting being part of the plan. You don't report, you can't buy the next year's tag until you do. I'm betting that the number of dishonest folks on mandatory reports are far lower than the number of honest people reporting.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

because there are way more bears than before.

Of course there are, did you figure that all out on your own? They didn't anticipate after closing the spring bear season that fish and game would be shooting bears and dumping them in the ditch either, did they? More time has been spent on this thread complaining about harvest reporting than it would have taken to fill out ten years worth of actual harvest reports.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

So, they are calling everyone liars? That's a bold statement. Seems Idaho doesn't have any problems with mandatory reporting being part of the plan. You don't report, you can't buy the next year's tag until you do. I'm betting that the number of dishonest folks on mandatory reports are far lower than the number of honest people reporting.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

How is the condition of Idaho’s elk herd?

 

[wytx]

I completely agree with this...to me its embarrassing to hear hunters whine that it takes too long or is an infringement of their rights. Whining about harvest reporting effort is about as weak as it gets. It makes hunters look terrible by not answering three extremely difficult questions...

To those who are saying no...grow a pair and do your part. In the age of internet, there's nothing that you're giving away by filling one out. I swear, hunters are our own worst enemies. When opportunity is vaporized years down the road (with California leading the charge), hunters will blame everyone else but refuse to see that they have any accountability in its collapse.

Hunting is hanging on by a thread and we literally have hunters saying...."just let fish and game conduct their winter counts." Oh ok...that sounds like a great way to ensure hunting for future generations....

I'll pass on growing a pair.
Hunters can do plenty without mandatory reporting, I don't believe for one minute it will save hunting.
Yes good data is a plus but how in the world do you know what gets reported is truthful. The check stations out in the field get better data .
On good condition years, the winter counts actually give very good results. Just ask our biologist from a couple of years ago, the elk herds were down lower due to snowpack and they actually saw the elk to count. Mortality surveys also give good data after the winter.

 

[brsnow]

People already lie on the surveys so that tag allotment won’t go down.

 

[805Bowhunter]

I'll pass on growing a pair.
Hunters can do plenty without mandatory reporting, I don't believe for one minute it will save hunting.
Yes good data is a plus but how in the world do you know what gets reported is truthful. The check stations out in the field get better data .
On good condition years, the winter counts actually give very good results. Just ask our biologist from a couple of years ago, the elk herds were down lower due to snowpack and they actually saw the elk to count. Mortality surveys also give good data after the winter.

Good point and well taken. My point was aimed at it being an additional data point in the bigger goal of harvest/herd dynamics. You’re correct in check stations and winter counts being very helpful as well.

I get frustrated with the tinfoil hat crew that argues that this is a liberal conspiracy to end hunting. Some simply can’t get out of their own way and it doesn’t help are collective argument to keep hunting around.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Generally speaking, how many elk die due to harsh winter conditions?

 

[brsnow]

Generally speaking, how many elk die due to harsh winter conditions?

if we could start mandatory reporting by the elk themselves we would have a better picture.

 

[N2TRKYS]

if we could start mandatory reporting by the elk themselves we would have a better picture.

Problem solved. Lol

 

[Lytro]

Personally, I don't understand why CPW doesn't require mandatory reporting. Especially considering how often they call and leave voicemails requesting you call back to take their harvest surveys. It would definitely help their inaccurate harvest statistics that are currently based on voluntary reporting.

 

[Marble]

No. Harvest rates have no bearing on actual herd size in this part of western Colorado. Year to year harvests vary with weather. I know most of you know that early season snows can disproportionately effect harvest rates, but so can drought. The drought two years ago had elk in huge winter herds down in the sage early. So what do you say, huge harvest rates so there must be a lot of elk out there? Let’s do the opposite scenario, good winter snow and a wet summer. Forage and moisture everywhere. Then you have a mild fall. All through hunting season the elk are scattered from timberline to aspen/sage ecotone. Few are harvesting elk because of this. Does that indicate anything about the size of the herd or did it just tell you success rates were down.

Then you fly the winter range in late winter and you find out the only number that matters to set next years tag limits. How many elk are in a position to make it to spring and what your bull/cow ratio is.

Having all of the info on harvest rates, plus the variables that you mentioned gives a more compete story of eveything.

Hunters can answer how many days they hunted, did they see animals, did they see hunters, predators, whatever.

I cant see a valid reason why you wouldnt then to know that.

I can tell you in CA they started this probably 4 years ago. If you didnt report you got hit with an extra fee the following year. I like how CO calls me a few months after the season and asks me four to five questions and thanks me for my time.

I dont think there is anything liberal or conspiracy related. They're just trying to get data to increase or decrease tags.

 

[Marble]

It's very presumptive to think the data collected isnt helpful. They get the data and either use it or not.

It's not a conspiracy.

 

[Dos Perros]

Also, it’s not like increasing or decreasing tags is the only lever biologists have to pull in game management. Harvest results could highlight issues with poaching, or predators, for example, leading to more vigilant game warden presence, or increase in predator tags. It’s a system. If my 17mpg Tacoma started getting 10mpg I wouldn’t just keep putting gas in the tank, I’d do something about it. But I’d have to have the data to even notice a problem.

 

[hutty]

Have to say not reporting makes me scratch my head.. Here in Maryland its way simple. We have an app on the phone, log in and click on a few boxes and you are done. Don't like an app, you can also call into a phone number and press some buttons, or log in via a laptop when you get home. Gives biologists real time data on harvest numbers and areas.