Resource Allocation

[bowhuntin]

Elk: 2003-07

 

Total Hunters: 273,118

 

User group size:

 

Archery: 52,083 - 19.07%

M/F: 181,584 - 66.49%

M/L: 39,451 - 14.44%

 

 

Total Elk harvest: 36,827 - % of harvest

 

Archery: 7,080 - 19.23%

M/F: 23,242 - 63.11%

M/L: 6,505 - 17.66%

 

 

 

Deer: 2003-007

 

Total Hunters: 492,163

 

User group size:

 

Archery: 62,730 - 12.75%

M/F: 395,457 - 80.35%

M/L: 33,976 - 6.9%

There has been a lot of talk about the proposed season setting changes. So I thought I would post the numbers for resource allocation. When the proportions are within 3% of one another the WDFW considers the goal met. The numbers clearly show that resource allocation is working.

 

 

Total Deer harvest: 173,406 - % of harvest

 

Archery: 19,727 - 11.38%

M/F: 142,195 - 82.0%

M/L: 11,484 - 6.62%     

[dreamingbig]

Good post.  The numbers don't lie.

[NoBark]

Use these numbers in your email to the Commissioners et al.


The dept should be the ones giving these numbers to the WAC and not vise versa as was reported earlier.
This doesn't make sense.  The question on the table at the WAC should have been how the Muzzleloaders were going to have to give a few percentages to the Modern crowd in ELK and how the Modern firearms were going to have to give a percent or two the archers for DEER...BASED ON DEPARTMENT numbers!

In fact, Deer numbers are so close, it is pretty much a draw.

[bobcat]

I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.

[bowhuntin]

I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.

I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.

[Ray]

They have to define the length of the seasons somehow. This resource allocation was the plan which was agreed to at some point and likely with all user groups in mind and with representatives from each. So if that is true they should stick to the plans. Whether you like them or not. Or at least come up with a new set of rules. Basically the whole premise is that the plans are not being followed.

[NoBark]

I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.

I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.

Actually, it MANDATES that success rates be basically equal.  Here is how. If 70 % are Modern Firearms, they harvest 70% of the animals.  Let's say that 19% of them are successful in order to reach the 70% take level.

Now, look at archery.  15% of the hunters buy archery tags. Therefore they get 15% of the animals.  It will take longer to get them so seasons are longer, BUT, when Archers reach their R/A goal of 15%, we see that it took a 19% success rate.  The same as rifle. Same with Muzzy.

It's mathematical. 
   X (number of animals to be harvested)  divided by  Y (# of Hunters)  = Z (success rate)

Fill in the numbers for any of the three groups and the number of animals they are suppose to take and you will get the same 'Z' !

That is R/A. What the WAC committee is suppose to do is set the length of time each group needs to take their share.   

Now, as far as Archers and Muzzleloaders restricting themselves   One must remember that when the division of user groups came about, the selling point made to those who chose either archery or muzzleloader and took themselves out of the MASSES of rifle hunters, was that they would get longer seasons and have THE SAME CHANCE of harvest as anybody else.


I concur, if you are going to make people choose their weapon to reduce crowding, R/A is a very fair way of doing it.

[colockumelk]

If that is true how come the Muzzle Loader guys only get one weekend to hunt elk but the rifle hunters get two hole weekends to hunt elk?  I switched to bow for elk because I can't take time off of work/school and elk is my favorite animal to hunt.  I wanted longer than two days to hunt.  In my opinion the ML guys have traditionally always gotten the end of the stick.

[NoBark]

If you look at the success rate. It only takes the Muzzy boys one weekend to reach there quota of animals. 

Why?

I think because they have a better timing and perhaps better GMU's overall than the Modern crowd. (just a guess, haven't researched that one).

  If enough Muzzleloader guys complained aobut the length, their representatives on the WAC could propose moving their season one way or another so that hunting wasn't quite so good and it would take longer to reach quota.

[bowhuntin]

I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.

I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.

Actually, it MANDATES that success rates be basically equal.  Here is how. If 70 % are Modern Firearms, they harvest 70% of the animals.  Let's say that 19% of them are successful in order to reach the 70% take level.

Now, look at archery.  15% of the hunters buy archery tags. Therefore they get 15% of the animals.  It will take longer to get them so seasons are longer, BUT, when Archers reach their R/A goal of 15%, we see that it took a 19% success rate.  The same as rifle. Same with Muzzy.

It's mathematical. 
   X (number of animals to be harvested)  divided by  Y (# of Hunters)  = Z (success rate)

Fill in the numbers for any of the three groups and the number of animals they are suppose to take and you will get the same 'Z' !

That is R/A. What the WAC committee is suppose to do is set the length of time each group needs to take their share.  

Now, as far as Archers and Muzzleloaders restricting themselves   One must remember that when the division of user groups came about, the selling point made to those who chose either archery or muzzleloader and took themselves out of the MASSES of rifle hunters, was that they would get longer seasons and have THE SAME CHANCE of harvest as anybody else.


I concur, if you are going to make people choose their weapon to reduce crowding, R/A is a very fair way of doing it.

I get what you are saying, I guess what I am saying is that if you look at the number of animals harvested for each user group and you don't factor in how many people are in each user group and just look at the number of animals harvested the modern firearm guys look as if they take the majority of animals, which they do. But when we look at percentages like you just stated we are pretty much equal when it comes to success rates. I am not sure about special permits but I would bet our success rates aren't equal for those.

[RC3]

take a look at which group is taking the large bulls.........not rifle hunters.


and hey I don't rifle hunt so I'm not just stickin up for myself.

[bowhuntin]

take a look at which group is taking the large bulls.........not rifle hunters.


and hey I don't rifle hunt so I'm not just stickin up for myself.

I find that hard to believe just because of the success rate for special permit holders for modern firearm and the number of rifle hunters. I am not sure what your weapon of choice is but if you think you have a better shot at a big bull during the archery season then pick up a bow and give it a try. You may find it isn't as easy as you think. Everyone has the choice to choose which way they like to hunt.

Is there any statistics that even show how many big bulls were taken? And what would you consider a big bull five point, six point, etc.

[NoBark]

Point taken.  I understand that was one of the issues brought up.

So, here is my take.  IF (big IF) the dept has the numbers that show one group is taking a significantly larger share of big animals.......That is something the WAC can deal with in negotiations.  A move of a couple of days in a season can have a big impact on that kind of thing.  I have no problem with that. Extra special permits may solve that issue too.  These are really fairly small adjustments to the Status Quo.


R/A as it has been played out is working pretty well.  I have said it before and I'll say it again.  We are 20 years into R/A the days of big adjustments should be long behind us and our changes should be small especially compared to the ones proposed.

[RC3]

I do archery hunt, and I did not say it was easy to get a large bull.  No, I don't have any statistics on it. I was just stating my opinion that us archery hunters don't have it all that bad hunting during the rut. I was just trying to put that opinion out there.  I should have been more clear I was not talking about special permits either.

[bowhuntin]

I agree we don't have it bad being able to hunt the pre rut. If you weren't talking about special permits, I assume that you are talking about over the counter tags on the West side of the state where it is three point or better?