Mandatory reporting, for or against and why?

[Clarence]

Why not have a simple method to self report and encourage/promote it? Not everyone will do it, but more data could be another useful tool. To make it mandatory, you have another law to enforce. If it's voluntary, you just have to estimate what percentage are reporting. This is more common than "mandatory reporting " in eastern states.

 

[Bubblehide]

In Ca we fairly recently had mandatory harvest reporting implemented. It has been kind of funny to see harvest numbers jump.

So, to answer a question asked here. Plenty of guys have told me that they don't report so that harvest numbers are artificially low, thus discouraging to others making their preferred zone easier to draw.

 

[N2TRKYS]

The management of dead animals. I'd rather they stick to the management of the live ones.

 

[Forest]

I am totally for it. It's the only way to get accurate data. Only time it's not super helpful is migratory hunts, but even then it's helpful and allows for better management decisions

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Brendan]

Zero downside for any legal hunter. We do it here - log into your account and "Report a Harvest". Can do it from the field on your phone if you have signal.

 

[danarnold]

being from a state that requires it I was blown away it wasnt standard in the states I elk hunt in. theres a lot of wasted $ in conservation efforts, I dont think this would be a wasted effort

 

[satchamo]

Coming from the Midwest where it’s mandatory to check your animals in before you even move them, I couldn’t believe that a lot of the western states didn’t require it. How is a state like Colorado ever going to make logical decisions on tag allotments and harvest quotas with out real data on human harvest!? I know there are many factors but this is the one thing we have damn good control of.

In this day and age, most states have call in systems and a lot - like Indiana - you can do it online. So to not have it at this point is pretty insane to me. I

 

[tt_johnsclist]

Only if the biologists need that specific data to answer the management questions at hand. It might seem counter-intuitive, but in many cases they already have reliable population and harvest estimates from smaller surveys or other means that provide plenty of good data for the task at hand. Mandatory harvest reporting in these cases is just an extra cost for the state to collect a big volume of data that isn’t needed or won’t be used. On top of that there are inherent problems and biases present in harvest data that have to be corrected so it often isn’t any better than the data currently being used. Many states still collect mandatory data simply because they always have, despite the fact that continued collection does little to improve the estimates that have already been generated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cnelk]

.....in many cases they already have reliable population and harvest estimates from smaller surveys or other means that provide plenty of good data for the task at hand.

Im calling Bullsh!t on this for Colorado

 

[Rob5589]

Why not have a simple method to self report and encourage/promote it? Not everyone will do it, but more data could be another useful tool. To make it mandatory, you have another law to enforce. If it's voluntary, you just have to estimate what percentage are reporting. This is more common than "mandatory reporting " in eastern states.

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.

 

[brsnow]

I was under the impression there were much bigger impacts to herd size vs hunters. As of late it was recreational users and predators. If you want tag allotment based on hunter harvest numbers, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Takes a few minutes to submit a hunter report. I have no issues. I'm sure there are a few who are dishonest.
I can't imagine trying to manage a herd without knowing what is happening in the field.

 

[Dos Perros]

I was under the impression there were much bigger impacts to herd size vs hunters. As of late it was recreational users and predators. If you want tag allotment based on hunter harvest numbers, be careful what you wish for.

Biological models can always be modified. If you think you have 100 elk in a unit, issue 20 tags, all 20 kill, and then there are 95 elk in the winter range then obviously your original count was off. Read some of the JCR’s that Wyoming puts our out and in some cases they have no clue about how many elk they have.

 

[brsnow]

Biological models can always be modified. If you think you have 100 elk in a unit, issue 20 tags, all 20 kill, and then there are 95 elk in the winter range then obviously your original count was off. Read some of the JCR’s that Wyoming puts our out and in some cases they have no clue about how many elk they have.

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

 

[NYyotekiller]

Definitely I’d say yes.

You‘d be crazy to say no IMO. I don’t see any downside to mandatory reporting. It helps everyone involved.

 

[Roughwater]

Mandatory reporting sounds like Democrat Libtards are ruling the system.
Please

Quit watching cable news

That's funny But sadly there are some few that actually believe that.

I figure the folks that manage the system have a much better grasp on game management and it also helps us hunters with planning next years hunt.

 

[LostArra]

Mandatory harvest reporting in these cases is just an extra cost for the state to collect a big volume of data that isn’t needed or won’t be used. On top of that there are inherent problems and biases present in harvest data that have to be corrected so it often isn’t any better than the data currently being used.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You think the phone and mail surveys currently in use cost LESS? Or how about the manned check stations? Online or phone app data is immediately plugged into a data base.

The system in Colorado currently in use is nothing but sampling doublespeak. They don't even attempt to sample more than 25% of the licenses issued, regardless of success. If 50,000 elk are indeed killed every year then a mandatory online/phone check-in is no bigger data burden than what is in place. It just tells you more.

 

[bluetick78]

I bet people not in favor of mandatory reporting would still look at the statistics

Haha...so true!

 

[orionthehunter1]

218,000 elk licenses sold, 53,000 hunters surveyed, that seems like accurate data is being collected. Maybe that is why there are units that have had the same percent of harvest for the last ten years. For all you guys that are against mandatory harvest do you hunt states that have it such as New Mexico?

 

[805Bowhunter]

Absolutely yes. I dont see how this can even be argued. As hunters, we need to contribute everything we can to the management of the resource. I get that F&G still needs to do their homework to ensure proper management, but why wouldnt you want to have as much information as possible. You're not giving away your hunting spot. Fill out the harvest report form so that we can have the resource tomorrow. Less accuracy means more conservative estimates from F&G and therefore less opportunity. Dont be a tool and just fill out your harvest report form.