Post by: coachcw on December 03, 2011, 08:16:29 PM
Post by: Caseyd on December 03, 2011, 08:21:53 PM
But I also think some is better then none
Post by: dreamunelk on December 03, 2011, 08:35:46 PM
As for them driving around with guns. Sounds like road hunters. Not the most lethal method.
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Post by: big wood on December 03, 2011, 09:04:26 PM
Post by: Todd_ID on December 03, 2011, 10:46:47 PM
Two wrongs will never equal a right. Report accurately!
:yeah:
Don't you think the WDFW feels the same way about trying to manage without accurate information? If there was something that they could actually DO, then I'm certain it would have already been done. All we can do as hunters and conservators of our sport and game is report accurately and voice an educated opinion in a meaningful way.
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2011, 11:07:50 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on December 03, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
Post by: Maximus4252626 on December 04, 2011, 03:10:48 AM
Ha ha ha! The biologist are telling the WDFW what to do and what's going on and they aren't listening.
The Biologists work for the WSDFW.
The Biologists estimate what they think the population is, based off several factors. Harvest numbers, existing habitat, predators, disease, weather, etc. are all apart of the the process they use to decide how to mange the area.
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on December 04, 2011, 03:37:46 AM
Ha ha ha! The biologist are telling the WDFW what to do and what's going on and they aren't listening.I agree...
The Biologists estimate what they think the population is, based off several factors. Harvest numbers, existing habitat, predators, disease, weather, etc. are all apart of the the process they use to decide how to mange the area.
And I also agree with BOBCAT on the poaching and tribal hunting... Tribal hunting gets lots of press but poaching numbers are estimated to be large as well.... But as you know... We will never know.....
Post by: Hunterman on December 04, 2011, 04:41:04 PM
Hunteman(Tony)
Post by: gaddy on December 04, 2011, 04:56:39 PM
Post by: Alan K on December 04, 2011, 04:59:15 PM
So by reporting (doesn't have to be an accurate report), you're dodging that fine.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2011, 05:02:14 PM
not understanding there Hunterman ? 10 bucks for ??
He's referring to the penalty you pay if you don't submit your report for deer or elk each year. I have not had to pay the $10. Not once. So I'm pretty sure they don't ask us to report our hunting activity for the purpose of penalizing us $10 every year.
They do it because hunters are their best source of information in determining deer and elk population trends.
Post by: gaddy on December 04, 2011, 05:11:21 PM
Post by: nailbender on December 04, 2011, 05:13:24 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 06:36:22 PM
Because they score the extra cash if you forget. :o
Hate to say it but I agree with you.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 06:45:25 PM
Last time I took statistics in college we learned how to obtain accurate data with a sampling of statistics from the demographic, not the need for every last person who participated to report their numbers.
Years ago biologists were able to estimate herd size etc...by field exam and a random sampling of hunters, not a complete reporting.
Mandatory reporting is new.
Mandatory reporting is all about making money.
How much do you wanna bet they will raise the penalty fee the next opportunity they get...?
Mandatory reporting is a revenue opportunity.
Mandatory reporting is also a way for biologists and the department to blame somebody else for whatever happens to the herd size... "oh, the hunters must have falsely reported...this is why we have to ____________ (insert your worst fear...)...
Mandatory reporting relieves the game managers from accountability.
Post by: bigtex on December 04, 2011, 06:53:52 PM
Turning in your harvest report to WDFW so that you can screw them out of ten bucks :tup:
Not many people know this but it is a criminal offense to not submit a harvest report. WDFW prefers to go the $10 penalty route so that way the funds go to WDFW, whereas if they were to criminally cite everyone the criminal fee would either go to the general fund or the county depending on which county the citation was in.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 06:56:41 PM
Turning in your harvest report to WDFW so that you can screw them out of ten bucks :tup:
Not many people know this but it is a criminal offense to not submit a harvest report. WDFW prefers to go the $10 penalty route so that way the funds go to WDFW, whereas if they were to criminally cite everyone the criminal fee would either go to the general fund or the county depending on which county the citation was in.
That sure doesn't help the arguement that it is not about the money..... :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2011, 06:57:13 PM
Also a big BS for their need for everyone to report.
Last time I took statistics in college we learned how to obtain accurate data with a sampling of statistics from the demographic, not the need for every last person who participated to report their numbers.
Years ago biologists were able to estimate herd size etc...by field exam and a random sampling of hunters, not a complete reporting.
Mandatory reporting is new.
Mandatory reporting is all about making money.
How much do you wanna bet they will raise the penalty fee the next opportunity they get...?
Mandatory reporting is a revenue opportunity.
Mandatory reporting is also a way for biologists and the department to blame somebody else for whatever happens to the herd size... "oh, the hunters must have falsely reported...this is why we have to ____________ (insert your worst fear...)...
Mandatory reporting relieves the game managers from accountability.
With all due respect, your whole post is BS Iceman! Sure they could get by with only a small percentage of hunters doing the reports and then extrapolating data from that. But why should they? Online reporting couldn't be simpler. There's no reason why every single person who purchases a deer or elk tag cannot report their hunting activity, so the biologists can have the best possible information. Really, what is so hard about doing the online report?
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 04, 2011, 07:03:09 PM
Turning in your harvest report to WDFW so that you can screw them out of ten bucks :tup:
Not many people know this but it is a criminal offense to not submit a harvest report. WDFW prefers to go the $10 penalty route so that way the funds go to WDFW, whereas if they were to criminally cite everyone the criminal fee would either go to the general fund or the county depending on which county the citation was in.
That sure doesn't help the arguement that it is not about the money..... :chuckle:
Well you could either pay the $10 fine. Or face the $109 misdemeanor bail forfeiture in your local county district court which is the penalty everybody would face if WDFW decided to criminally cite everyone who fails to report. Instead they go the $10 fine. You make the decision which is harsher. :dunno:
Post by: Special T on December 04, 2011, 07:03:45 PM
Bobcat i have ready MANY posts regarding hunters putting in false info into the reporting system. I believe you have even posted in those topics... I think mandatory reporting would help under perfect conditions, however NOTHING works out exactly as planned... Especially since the WDFW has such a large number of dedicated supporters. :bash:
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 07:13:14 PM
Here is the question though. Why fine or charge unreporting anyway? Do the numbers they glean from the reporting actually truly help the managers "manage" game populations? Are game numbers reported this fall really truly altering how they manage next years hunt? I would have expected managers to have a bigger plan than this yearly reporting. They should be able to manage on a long range plan, and not be quick to fine somebody for that immediate answer they do not need.
Don't wildlife managers already estimate the number of game animals poached or killed by vehicles, or tribal take (reported and not...).
Are we going to start citing drivers who do not report striking a deer with their car?
Wildlife managers are paid to do what? Wait for hunters to report what they "said happened", and then blindly manage game populations based upon these numbers? This is not what they studied for all those years in college. Let's throw away all our education and place all of our career decisions based upon what alot of pissed off hunters report....yeah! Yeah, this is how we will manage game populations!
I bet wildlife already has a "false reporting" average built into their number gathering. They already suspect that a whole lot of the reports are false, and therefore are pushing this mandatory reporting issue as revenue source plain and simple.
Yes, these are only my BS observations and assumptions. So be it, this is how I see it.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2011, 07:20:47 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 04, 2011, 07:32:59 PM
It's pretty sad that many hunters complain about WDFW's management of wildlife, yet are not willing to do their part by submitting accurate hunt reports, or they do but complain about having to do it. I do have faith in most hunters though and I feel that 90% do provide accurate reports.
Because god forbid you take the 1 minute it takes to fill out the report.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 07:48:04 PM
It's pretty sad that many hunters complain about WDFW's management of wildlife, yet are not willing to do their part by submitting accurate hunt reports, or they do but complain about having to do it. I do have faith in most hunters though and I feel that 90% do provide accurate reports.
Because god forbid you take the 1 minute it takes to fill out the report.
I feel it has alot to do with trust. Lets survey "trust". Do hunter trust that wildlife will make the proper decisions to manage game populations for the hunters best interest? Or do hunters feel that wildlife will make decisions irregardless of the hunters...
When you factor in things like the whole Wolf introduction scenario, wildlifes' apparent attitude with hunters (unreturned gun when volunteered for examination on other thread), non-related items like the new Discorver pass....,things like these...you are not going to get the majority of hunters to feel like wildlife is looking out for their needs. Ask around, I have. Alot of folks I personally know do not feel that wildlife is looking out for the hunters best interest, but rather the contrary.
Post by: bigtex on December 04, 2011, 08:05:09 PM
Alot of folks I personally know do not feel that wildlife is looking out for the hunters best interest, but rather the contrary.It's pretty sad that many hunters complain about WDFW's management of wildlife, yet are not willing to do their part by submitting accurate hunt reports, or they do but complain about having to do it. I do have faith in most hunters though and I feel that 90% do provide accurate reports.
Because god forbid you take the 1 minute it takes to fill out the report.
WDFW is there preserve and protect natural resources. Their goal is not to provide 100% success rates. People seem to think that WDFW is there so people can go out and be successful in hunting/fishing, that is not the point. Look at the WDFW mission:
To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Essentially, science is first while providing a recreational and commercial opportunity is after that.
The same goes for DNR. People think DNR is there to provide recreational access. That is false. DNR is there to bring the state money in terms of logging, it just so happens that recreation can take place on many of their owned lands. This is why DNR has much more landlocked lands then WDFW or the feds. For DNR it is logging/money first, and then providing a recreational access.
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 04, 2011, 08:10:27 PM
I do not know why someone would submit a false report, but I suppose there are some who would, just cannot fathom the reasoning behind it.
The Game dept indeed has problems, I just do not see the report as a big issue. I can certainly think of more important fish to fry.
Post by: Special T on December 04, 2011, 08:17:29 PM
Trust does have a lot to do with answers, and not the SCREW the WDFW attitude. Answers can be skewed by who asks them... There is a HOT gal that worked at the sports place near me... How many guys would tell her that the didn't kill very many birds but spent lots of time in the field...
When they ask how many ducks geese coots doves you shot last year it is often 9 months later. I don't buy my next years license right after my current one expires. They just give you the bracketed info/guesstimate... Not very accurate or valuable as far as planning goes...
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
Alot of folks I personally know do not feel that wildlife is looking out for the hunters best interest, but rather the contrary.It's pretty sad that many hunters complain about WDFW's management of wildlife, yet are not willing to do their part by submitting accurate hunt reports, or they do but complain about having to do it. I do have faith in most hunters though and I feel that 90% do provide accurate reports.
Because god forbid you take the 1 minute it takes to fill out the report.
WDFW is there preserve and protect natural resources. Their goal is not to provide 100% success rates. People seem to think that WDFW is there so people can go out and be successful in hunting/fishing, that is not the point. Look at the WDFW mission:
To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Essentially, science is first while providing a recreational and commercial opportunity is after that.
The same goes for DNR. People think DNR is there to provide recreational access. That is false. DNR is there to bring the state money in terms of logging, it just so happens that recreation can take place on many of their owned lands. This is why DNR has much more landlocked lands then WDFW or the feds. For DNR it is logging/money first, and then providing a recreational access.
I would hope that most hunters know this, that wildlife is not there to provide 100% success rates.
Personally, I feel that they are really conflicted. Wildlife is trying to manage herds size, trying to work with all the federal mandates like working wolves into the equation, and trying to bring money into the state coffers thru license and permit sales, plus fines.
Hence my comment; hunters I know do not feel that wildlife is their friend anymore. Not working for the hunter, just for the hunters money. This is what I meant. That said, this is one reason why I believe folks may not care to fill out the surveys.
? If I report another deer shot, will wildlife consider even less hunting opportunity for me in this area in the future? Could this be a legitimate concern of hunters? If a hunter does not feel that wildlife is attempting to help game herd size to increase in an area they hunt, would they feel that reporting their harvest to be detrimental to their future hunting prospects? How could a hunter feel all warm and fuzzy about cooperating with wildlife when they feel that wildlife is ushering in wolves which can devastate game populations and reduce hunting opportunity? I argue that these are a few of the reasons why hunters may not feel obliged to cooperate fully with reporting, not that the report only takes a few minutes, but that the information reported is disregarded or possibly used to limit hunting.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2011, 08:39:10 PM
If you report a deer killed in a particular unit, and many other people do the same, I would think, if anything, opportunity in that unit would be increased, not decreased, because a higher success rate indicates the unit is doing well. But either way it's ridiculous to try to speculate as to what will happen as a result of whether a person does or does not provide accurate information. Leave it up to the biologists to do what they will with the data. This is why biologists went to college and got a degree in wildlife management and took statistics courses. It's not up to us to second guess them and wonder if they really need the reports are not. Just do your part, and hope they do theirs.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 04, 2011, 08:47:17 PM
You yourself constantly suggest different game management strategies that you feel would benefit hunters and game populations. Are you second guessing them?
I do not and will not place blind faith in them anymore. I am not alone.
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2011, 08:53:03 PM
Sorry, but I second guess everything they do. I do not see improving big game numbers anywhere in the state where I have hunted, and this is after years of their game management strategies in full force. Continued issuing of doe and cow tags in areas where IMHO they should issue none.
You yourself constantly suggest different game management strategies that you feel would benefit hunters and game populations. Are you second guessing them?
I do not and will not place blind faith in them anymore. I am not alone.
I don't disagree with any of that, but man, how hard is it to provide the data the biologists need to properly manage our wildlife? Then if they DO NOT properly manage wildlife, we can blame them, instead of ourselves, since we did our part. Again, how hard is it to go online and submit a report? As Jack Diamond just posted, it took all of 45 seconds to do.....
Post by: buckfvr on December 04, 2011, 09:28:04 PM
Im tired of being fed a line of BS everytime they spew from their mouths......liars, top to bottom......
Post by: huntnnw on December 05, 2011, 06:17:56 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 06:57:23 AM
Put yourself in his shoes. He is trying to manage an area for elk and deer hunting. This area has probably more elk hunters than any where else in the state with less escapment than most places. The local Indian tribe goes up in there and kills as many elk as they want and has refused to work with him at all let alone provide harvest reports. (Most other bios are lucky enough to have tribes that work with them) Since there is alot of big bulls poaching has also risen. And now he has the Muckleshoots that come over and shoot as many as they want as well. So he has to somehow manage an elk season and keep the herds sustainable enough where there can still be a general season. All the while he has two separate user groups (Yakamas and Muckleshoots) banging away at bulls without giving any harvest data.
As far as deer goes he has had to deal with hair loss disease which has completely wreaked havoc on the local deer herds. 50% have died since 2003 due to this disease. Plus just like the elk he has two user groups (Muckleshoots and the Yakamas) just banging away at the bucks in their winter grounds and not reporting their harvest. Its sickening really, and pathetic. I guarantee you that these two user groups although are probably only maybe 10-20% of the number of non-tribal hunters kill more bucks than we do. All the while any type of predator managment is also off the table for him. Because the WDFW commission is somehow trying to make the state of WA a predator sanctuary.
But who gets blamed for the downward trend of the Yakima and Kittitas county's deer and elk herds? The WDFW and this bio.
I have been told by a couple of members on this website that the reason the Yakamas wont cooperate and the reason they absolutely refuse to submit harvest reports is because they are worried that then the truth will be known about just how much they really kill in the Yakima and Kittitas counties.
Post by: coachcw on December 05, 2011, 07:07:54 AM
Post by: HornHoarder on December 05, 2011, 07:16:23 AM
I sure hope they dont base anything off those reports...I know alot of people who put 0 year after year..why in the hell would u tell fish and game if you harvested a bull year after year in the same unit..next thing u know your seasons are cut short etc :bash:
Another good reason not to report accurately is because the info becomes public information, and can draw attention to your honeyhole. That is exactly what happened at my elk hunting spot this year. A new group of guys were camping exactly where we have camped the last several years. When we asked how they ended up here they said the harvest reports suggested it was a good spot.
Post by: rasbo on December 05, 2011, 07:23:38 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 05, 2011, 07:34:19 AM
I report all my stuff when I get something.And no false locations..well except exact roads,but area wise always truthful.I dont believe holding info will do any good.
Agreed.
We seem to collectively complain a lot about WDFW's mismanagement of game. Here's a scenerio:
- We finally decide enough is a enough and as a group we take a stand. We voice our concerns in a well designed letter, so well designed that WDFW agrees to meet with us. We meet, and the first question they ask is "ok, we'd like to thank you guys for providing your hunter reports, they are honestly one of our best tools. How do you think we can improve upon them?" And we answer "hunter reports? Screw that, we don't trust you so we've been falsifying them all along"
The meeting promptly adjourns, and we are from that day forward viewed as part of the problem, not the solution
Post by: coachcw on December 05, 2011, 09:00:07 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 09:19:54 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 09:26:10 AM
Now that the Muckleshoots can legally hunt in there the problem just doubled. Although at least the Muckleshoots share harvest data. And before someone says "yeah well how accurate are they? Probably as accurate as ours is. :twocents: "
Post by: CedarPants on December 05, 2011, 09:29:42 AM
The fact that this thread is even happening makes me believe that this state is in worse shape then I thought.
:yeah:
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 09:48:50 AM
The fact that this thread is even happening makes me believe that this state is in worse shape then I thought.
Exactly. And its only going to get worse. It seems our resources are only getting less and less. With land being lost to development and the introduction of wolves, and our states' refusal to properly manage predators (except your tribe Coastal which our state should take a lesson from.) I feel that in ten years its going to be extremely ugly.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 10:10:34 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 10:21:49 AM
It's going to get really expensive for management activities like enforcement, aerial monitoring, population counts, and capture work too. Reporting and population reconstruction models might be the most cost effective managment tool the state has available. I look forward to tribes stepping up and chipping in on management efforts.
I agree about it getting more and more expensive. Especially the enforcement. And I have always wondered why the WDFW spends the money on aerial monitoring EVERY year. Instead of every other year and using the population reconstruction models for the other years to save money. You can still watch a trend develope without spending millions on aerial monitoring every year.
You know what I wish for. I wish that the WDFW would split into three entities. A Department of Fish and a Department of Wildlife. The Department of Wildlife would have two separate departments. One Department would be consumptive wildlife only (elk, deer, bear, pheasant etc) and the other department would be non-consumptive (frogs, snails various non-game birds etc). Each of these three departments would be self sustaining and have their own budget. Oh if only I could find a genie.
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 10:26:56 AM
Sorry, someone was bound to say it eventually.
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 11:19:02 AM
Post by: Special T on December 05, 2011, 11:31:16 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 05, 2011, 11:41:27 AM
Bigtex, good point.
Here is the question though. Why fine or charge unreporting anyway? Do the numbers they glean from the reporting actually truly help the managers "manage" game populations? Are game numbers reported this fall really truly altering how they manage next years hunt? I would have expected managers to have a bigger plan than this yearly reporting. They should be able to manage on a long range plan, and not be quick to fine somebody for that immediate answer they do not need.
Don't wildlife managers already estimate the number of game animals poached or killed by vehicles, or tribal take (reported and not...).
Are we going to start citing drivers who do not report striking a deer with their car?
Wildlife managers are paid to do what? Wait for hunters to report what they "said happened", and then blindly manage game populations based upon these numbers? This is not what they studied for all those years in college. Let's throw away all our education and place all of our career decisions based upon what alot of pissed off hunters report....yeah! Yeah, this is how we will manage game populations!
I bet wildlife already has a "false reporting" average built into their number gathering. They already suspect that a whole lot of the reports are false, and therefore are pushing this mandatory reporting issue as revenue source plain and simple.
Yes, these are only my BS observations and assumptions. So be it, this is how I see it.
You fine people for not reporting so that hopefully they remember to report next time. If most people actually gave two sheets about management and quit buying into all of the conspiracy theory BS then maybe there wouldn't have to be fines. Yes the information truly helps managers. Yes, managers can manage off this falls data. It is called emergency closures if needed. Managers do manage based off a big picture, but the big picture is painted from annual snapshots of data.
People must have the perception that wildlife managers are rolling in money and that they only manage hunted species and that they get to choose where they focus their time. There is not enough time or money in a year to survey every GMU annually.
DOT keeps a database of road killed animals which are reported, discovered poached animals are reported and a large portion of tribal harvest is reported.
Iceman, I will ignore your ignorance on what wildlife managers are paid to do and what they went to school for. You obviously have a small vision of what it takes to manage wildlife and what resources this state has to do it. I can't fathom why it is so difficult to report your harvest. If so called sportsmen who claim they care about the resource can't fill out a simple harvest report, then in my opinion you have no business hunting. You obviously are someone who disregards rules and does not have the best intent for wildlife in general.
But thats my observation. I probably have it all wrong.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 05, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Post by: Special T on December 05, 2011, 11:50:58 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on December 05, 2011, 12:08:58 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 12:27:09 PM
I report our hunting but always feel maybe it will be like giving out fishing information at the boat ramp. Either not enough fish wrong kind of fish or to many fish and anyway you report will somehow shut you down somehow or bring out the crowds. So when I fill out the report does it help or hurt my next years chances with to much harvest or not enough harvest or the wrong number of certain anamals harvested. It;s the law and I do it but wonder what the future will bring.
If the amount of harvest that is occuring warrants conservation measures, don't you want that to be known? Or would you rather hold on to your opportunity to harvest as the resource slowly dwindles?
That's a rhetorical question of course. We're talking about shared resources, so I assume everyone would sacrifice some opportunity if it was in the name of conservation.
Post by: Practical Approach on December 05, 2011, 01:13:06 PM
PA so by your own words it would seem that you think is the duty of all hunters including the Yakima's to produce good numbers so that the herd can be managed.
Yes I think everyone should report their harvest for management purposes.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 05, 2011, 01:20:18 PM
Coastal you just made the point I was thinking of after reading all of this. If reporting a kill means that your area is going to get more restricted by management isn't that what we want? We want them to manage and if that means closing an area because harvest is to high so be it. The flip side is they may even increase opportunity because success is high and that means there are more animals to be taken. The hunter reports are only one aspect that gets taken into consideration and if that portion is incorrect it throws off the whole equation.I report our hunting but always feel maybe it will be like giving out fishing information at the boat ramp. Either not enough fish wrong kind of fish or to many fish and anyway you report will somehow shut you down somehow or bring out the crowds. So when I fill out the report does it help or hurt my next years chances with to much harvest or not enough harvest or the wrong number of certain anamals harvested. It;s the law and I do it but wonder what the future will bring.
If the amount of harvest that is occuring warrants conservation measures, don't you want that to be known? Or would you rather hold on to your opportunity to harvest as the resource slowly dwindles?
That's a rhetorical question of course. We're talking about shared resources, so I assume everyone would sacrifice some opportunity if it was in the name of conservation.
I report where I hunt and how I do and then let the WDFW manage from there, bad information makes for bad decisions. I hunt, they manage and if I don't give them good information I am to blame for bad decisions.
If a check bounces in my checking account when my wife doesn't report taken out $500 at the cash machine how can I be at fault, if she would have told me what she really took out of the account I could have made a better decision on what I did with the money that was still there. If WDFW doesn't know how many animals we are taking how can they manage the account?
Post by: CedarPants on December 05, 2011, 01:25:06 PM
Coastal you just made the point I was thinking of after reading all of this. If reporting a kill means that your area is going to get more restricted by management isn't that what we want? We want them to manage and if that means closing an area because harvest is to high so be it. The flip side is they may even increase opportunity because success is high and that means there are more animals to be taken. The hunter reports are only one aspect that gets taken into consideration and if that portion is incorrect it throws off the whole equation.I report our hunting but always feel maybe it will be like giving out fishing information at the boat ramp. Either not enough fish wrong kind of fish or to many fish and anyway you report will somehow shut you down somehow or bring out the crowds. So when I fill out the report does it help or hurt my next years chances with to much harvest or not enough harvest or the wrong number of certain anamals harvested. It;s the law and I do it but wonder what the future will bring.
If the amount of harvest that is occuring warrants conservation measures, don't you want that to be known? Or would you rather hold on to your opportunity to harvest as the resource slowly dwindles?
That's a rhetorical question of course. We're talking about shared resources, so I assume everyone would sacrifice some opportunity if it was in the name of conservation.
I report where I hunt and how I do and then let the WDFW manage from there, bad information makes for bad decisions. I hunt, they manage and if I don't give them good information I am to blame for bad decisions.
If a check bounces in my checking account when my wife doesn't report taken out $500 at the cash machine how can I be at fault, if she would have told me what she really took out of the account I could have made a better decision on what I did with the money that was still there. If WDFW doesn't know how many animals we are taking how can they manage the account?
Well said.
It's ridiculously ironic to me as well how many people we have on here who on one hand scream to the high heavens about the lack of tribal harvest reporting ..... then on the other hand decry the fact that WDFW expects us to report our kills.
As I've said before, we sure are a hard group to please.
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 04:29:02 PM
Post by: coachcw on December 05, 2011, 04:42:07 PM
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 05, 2011, 04:50:57 PM
or are the individual tribal members on there own, no tribal tags, no tribal oversight, nothing?
probably a repeat of what someone else has asked, but feel free to blast me for being too lazy to do a search!
Post by: colockumelk on December 05, 2011, 07:08:50 PM
Coach I think we all know the reason why they won't do harvest reports. As has been told to me by members on hee, because then the WDFW and the world would know how big an impact they actually make. Right now tjey can claim ignorance and say their impact is minimal. And no they have zero interest in proper management. This has been made quite clear over and over.
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 05, 2011, 07:56:29 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 05, 2011, 08:29:24 PM
Bigtex, good point.
Here is the question though. Why fine or charge unreporting anyway? Do the numbers they glean from the reporting actually truly help the managers "manage" game populations? Are game numbers reported this fall really truly altering how they manage next years hunt? I would have expected managers to have a bigger plan than this yearly reporting. They should be able to manage on a long range plan, and not be quick to fine somebody for that immediate answer they do not need.
Don't wildlife managers already estimate the number of game animals poached or killed by vehicles, or tribal take (reported and not...).
Are we going to start citing drivers who do not report striking a deer with their car?
Wildlife managers are paid to do what? Wait for hunters to report what they "said happened", and then blindly manage game populations based upon these numbers? This is not what they studied for all those years in college. Let's throw away all our education and place all of our career decisions based upon what alot of pissed off hunters report....yeah! Yeah, this is how we will manage game populations!
I bet wildlife already has a "false reporting" average built into their number gathering. They already suspect that a whole lot of the reports are false, and therefore are pushing this mandatory reporting issue as revenue source plain and simple.
Yes, these are only my BS observations and assumptions. So be it, this is how I see it.
You fine people for not reporting so that hopefully they remember to report next time. If most people actually gave two sheets about management and quit buying into all of the conspiracy theory BS then maybe there wouldn't have to be fines. Yes the information truly helps managers. Yes, managers can manage off this falls data. It is called emergency closures if needed. Managers do manage based off a big picture, but the big picture is painted from annual snapshots of data.
People must have the perception that wildlife managers are rolling in money and that they only manage hunted species and that they get to choose where they focus their time. There is not enough time or money in a year to survey every GMU annually.
DOT keeps a database of road killed animals which are reported, discovered poached animals are reported and a large portion of tribal harvest is reported.
Iceman, I will ignore your ignorance on what wildlife managers are paid to do and what they went to school for. You obviously have a small vision of what it takes to manage wildlife and what resources this state has to do it. I can't fathom why it is so difficult to report your harvest. If so called sportsmen who claim they care about the resource can't fill out a simple harvest report, then in my opinion you have no business hunting. You obviously are someone who disregards rules and does not have the best intent for wildlife in general.
But thats my observation. I probably have it all wrong.
Practical, since you know so much about what biologist are paid to do and what they schooled for, please explain to me what percentage of error you factor in to mandatory big game harvest report data.
I fill out the form each year. Missed it one year and got fined. I complained. No reason for the fine, I have a long history of reporting my harvest data, the record show this, yet I still get the fine. The fine is all about taking advantage of hunters, even those with a stellar reporting record. The fine is about revenue.
How long have you been in this state? I have been here for 47 years and follow the rules. My job requires that I follow the rules, so blow it. I think I must have struck a nerve with you in particular.
I care a whole lot about wildlife, so much so that I question the departments ability to maintain a healthy game population. Did you happen to read in the thread where I felt that Doe and Cow tags should not be given out? I feel that game populations are way to small in many areas of the state, and I feel that the game department could care less, and are willing to sell out our resources to stuff the state coffers with our permit application fees. I am sure you will agrue that the beloved biologists know better with their edumakation and all. Others here have argued that the Bios can make recommendations but they often fall on deaf ears. So what is the point of reporting to the bios? Sounds like they should be solely in charge of season setting and harvest quotas? Would this fix the situation?
I do not know what the answer is. It seems that season setting and permit sales is so politicized that there is no possible way to salvage the game herds in the state. Add to the bias of the game commission, tribal harvest, continual illegal taking of wildlife...., we normal guys get a hunting season that is over in 9 or 10 days for mule deer, rediculous "true spike" regulations and a game regulation manual that is 118 pages long.
How much do you want to bet that some jackazz lowly state employee like myself, and about 5 good ol' boys could put together a better game management plan that actually preserves big game populations for generations to come, better than a truck load of educated biologists and game management professionals?
Post by: singleshot12 on December 05, 2011, 08:56:28 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on December 05, 2011, 09:01:35 PM
How much do you want to bet that some jackazz lowly state employee like myself, and about 5 good ol' boys could put together a better game management plan that actually preserves big game populations for generations to come, better than a truck load of educated biologists and game management professionals?
Uhhh...I'll take that bet. Besides, coming up with the plan is 1% of the job. Dealing with the political, economic, and social realities is the hard part. All things considered, you probably have someone to thank for your opportunity to hunt for the last 47 years, especially considering some of the challenges this state has faced. If it was WDFW's job to make YOU happy...well, I bet they would have their hands full.
I can understand why PA seemed a little frustrated. You definitely lost me on this thread.
Post by: Arteman on December 05, 2011, 09:53:47 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 05, 2011, 09:58:30 PM
But yes, the incentive tags are real! Believe it or not.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 06:37:04 AM
I use to think like some on here and not report when it wasnt mandatory or you didn't get fined, but the last couple years I reported correctly. I do however think its bs you get fined if you don't, I just think you should get an incentive if you do, like a discount on your license next year, in a sence you kinda do with the way it is now, report now or pay ten dollars next year, it should be report now and save ten dollars next year, the way they go about it now puts you on the defensive, and has anybody ever known anybody to draw an incentive tag for reporting, they say they give them out if you do it in a timely matter?
Guys, it's like us doing reports of wolves we see. The WDFW needs our help to properly manage. It a responsibility we take on by accepting the privilege to hunt in WA. We're not talking about having to walk to Olympia in bare feet. It takes 5 minutes on your computer once a year. If that's too much to ask for better herd management (and some reporting is better than nonce), maybe your concern for the future of the sport isn't where it should be. In addition, with the changes that are occurring in this state regarding predators, it's going to be even more important to have as much data as possible.
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 06:43:02 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 06:53:19 AM
the incentive tag is like throwing a sugar cube to a bear , just a lil treat . Give out one or two more raffle tags and make money off them so that they can install some more gates! Save the time and money spent on cloecting the data . I know the in a couple of days I can cover a unit or two and tell you from a sportsman standpoint whether or not the games dropped in a area, or how about ussing our master hunters to gather data it would be a good way to put in there time requirements ( just a thaught) I don't wanna bash Indians in gerneral because I know there are good sportsman and land stewarts amoungist the tribe and they belong to the sight aswell as there are non tribal poaching *censored*s aswell . But atleast we all know that poaching is illegal and if you get caught your delt with , some of the tribal harvest I've seen really looks simillar to poaching in the manner thegame is taken :twocents: asfar as the yaks working on management what I hear and see is more about them getting 50% of the harvest vers doing whats right for the herd. I know that they got 10 teiton sheep tags and to me that seemed a bit much . one yak member on here drew one and worked very hard to fill his tag on a quality ram , that tells me that there's not to many in that herd 5-10 quality rams (maybe) . the mucks I saw that drew one of them clemans tag just drove up and saw a group of sheep and started to shot , they had no idea what a even decent ram was or just didn't care . that seem chitty to me since many members would love a tag yet never draw one in there life time . again thank you to all the tribal member that are trying to bridge the gap between us and work towards management , your not the one's i'm flustraited with .
Sorry, but harvest reports are raw data of animals we know were harvested. You can't roam an area and expect to be able to accurately tell how many animals were harvested, whether you're a Master Hunter or know the area really well. Why is this so hard to do? Answer: It's not hard at all. Just fill out the reports.
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 07:03:28 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 07:06:43 AM
piano thats not true , If you go into a area in the winter you can get a real good Idea of the level of game , true you wont know how far they traveled to get there but you get a good idea . if you and I fill out a report like we do , and say harvest 20 deer out of a unit , then tribal hunters show up in nov and december and shoot fiffty or more ( wich they do ) then how accurate is the tool ? all legall harvesting needs to be reported or you still have to go out and do the hard survival counts any way . that data they are gathering isn't woth a crap . the only reason that they arn't ussing the counts in my oppion is because when you know the servertity of the problem you have to do something . Now as it is all they can do is to take oppourtuntiy away from licenced sportsman thus cutting into there revenue base.
The data from harvest reports is valuable. It represents patterns in harvest that are calculable and show statistical trends. The are other tools available, yes. But to complain about having to do a 5 minute harvest report each year is ridiculous.
Post by: runamuk on December 06, 2011, 07:14:54 AM
and I better get mine done its always so simple...NO...nothing...nada zip zilch....animals win again :dunno:
Post by: singleshot12 on December 06, 2011, 07:32:30 AM
As far as the $10 penalty for not reporting - Didn't last year the revenue from that alone rake in over 2 1/2 million dollars?
Not to mention it being a black mark on the record of ones who didn't report.
With that said I mainly report because I would rather keep my 10 dollars to my self not because I think it's going help wildlife anymore :rolleyes:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 07:43:04 AM
I think some people are in denile about the effectiveness of harvest reports and wildlife management. I think we all want to believe our harvest reports are used for accurate management but when you really look at the big picture and how things operate now it just isn't true. If managers strictly relied apon them for for management things would be worse than they already are. It's a lazy way to manage game that's not truely accurate and effective in todays world. If game were managed strictly by in the field observations and counts I'm sure people would see a more positive differance :twocents:
As far as the $10 penalty for not reporting - Didn't last year the revenue from that alone rake in over 2 1/2 million dollars?
Not to mention it being a black mark on the record of ones who didn't report.
With that said I mainly report because I would rather keep my 10 dollars to my self not because I think it's going help wildlife anymore :rolleyes:
It's not the only tool the WDFW uses for gauging herd strength. It's only one. Where did you get that idea? There is in-the-field observation, aerial observation, road kill statistics, winter kill counts, and others.
And, a black mark on your record? Really? There's no black mark. Do you think that somehow when a Game warden looks at your license he has some list that shows you missed a harvest report and he automatically will give you a hard time? Other than having to pay the $10 fine that you agree to pay just by purchasing the license, how has not reporting blacklisted you? I've never heard of such a blacklist. This is such a silly argument. 5 minutes of your time is all this rule requires. If you don't have the 5 minutes, pay the $10.
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 07:50:42 AM
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2011, 07:58:13 AM
I report honestly, and accurately however i do so because I want to buy a cheaper tag next year.
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 08:07:35 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 08:15:15 AM
Ceder pants your making my point and I'm with you that its a good tool and worth while . Thats why ALL USER GROUPS NEED TO REPORT .
We're on the same page Coach, I see that :tup:
I was more directing the question to anyone commenting on this thread who honestly feels that NOT reporting will benefit our game. If any of you feel this way, I'd be interested in hearing the facts you have to show how not reporting will help our game populations.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 06, 2011, 08:25:16 AM
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 08:27:23 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 06, 2011, 08:39:06 AM
Bigtex, good point.
Here is the question though. Why fine or charge unreporting anyway? Do the numbers they glean from the reporting actually truly help the managers "manage" game populations? Are game numbers reported this fall really truly altering how they manage next years hunt? I would have expected managers to have a bigger plan than this yearly reporting. They should be able to manage on a long range plan, and not be quick to fine somebody for that immediate answer they do not need.
Don't wildlife managers already estimate the number of game animals poached or killed by vehicles, or tribal take (reported and not...).
Are we going to start citing drivers who do not report striking a deer with their car?
Wildlife managers are paid to do what? Wait for hunters to report what they "said happened", and then blindly manage game populations based upon these numbers? This is not what they studied for all those years in college. Let's throw away all our education and place all of our career decisions based upon what alot of pissed off hunters report....yeah! Yeah, this is how we will manage game populations!
I bet wildlife already has a "false reporting" average built into their number gathering. They already suspect that a whole lot of the reports are false, and therefore are pushing this mandatory reporting issue as revenue source plain and simple.
Yes, these are only my BS observations and assumptions. So be it, this is how I see it.
You fine people for not reporting so that hopefully they remember to report next time. If most people actually gave two sheets about management and quit buying into all of the conspiracy theory BS then maybe there wouldn't have to be fines. Yes the information truly helps managers. Yes, managers can manage off this falls data. It is called emergency closures if needed. Managers do manage based off a big picture, but the big picture is painted from annual snapshots of data.
People must have the perception that wildlife managers are rolling in money and that they only manage hunted species and that they get to choose where they focus their time. There is not enough time or money in a year to survey every GMU annually.
DOT keeps a database of road killed animals which are reported, discovered poached animals are reported and a large portion of tribal harvest is reported.
Iceman, I will ignore your ignorance on what wildlife managers are paid to do and what they went to school for. You obviously have a small vision of what it takes to manage wildlife and what resources this state has to do it. I can't fathom why it is so difficult to report your harvest. If so called sportsmen who claim they care about the resource can't fill out a simple harvest report, then in my opinion you have no business hunting. You obviously are someone who disregards rules and does not have the best intent for wildlife in general.
But thats my observation. I probably have it all wrong.
Practical, since you know so much about what biologist are paid to do and what they schooled for, please explain to me what percentage of error you factor in to mandatory big game harvest report data.
I fill out the form each year. Missed it one year and got fined. I complained. No reason for the fine, I have a long history of reporting my harvest data, the record show this, yet I still get the fine. The fine is all about taking advantage of hunters, even those with a stellar reporting record. The fine is about revenue.
How long have you been in this state? I have been here for 47 years and follow the rules. My job requires that I follow the rules, so blow it. I think I must have struck a nerve with you in particular.
I care a whole lot about wildlife, so much so that I question the departments ability to maintain a healthy game population. Did you happen to read in the thread where I felt that Doe and Cow tags should not be given out? I feel that game populations are way to small in many areas of the state, and I feel that the game department could care less, and are willing to sell out our resources to stuff the state coffers with our permit application fees. I am sure you will agrue that the beloved biologists know better with their edumakation and all. Others here have argued that the Bios can make recommendations but they often fall on deaf ears. So what is the point of reporting to the bios? Sounds like they should be solely in charge of season setting and harvest quotas? Would this fix the situation?
I do not know what the answer is. It seems that season setting and permit sales is so politicized that there is no possible way to salvage the game herds in the state. Add to the bias of the game commission, tribal harvest, continual illegal taking of wildlife...., we normal guys get a hunting season that is over in 9 or 10 days for mule deer, rediculous "true spike" regulations and a game regulation manual that is 118 pages long.
How much do you want to bet that some jackazz lowly state employee like myself, and about 5 good ol' boys could put together a better game management plan that actually preserves big game populations for generations to come, better than a truck load of educated biologists and game management professionals?
Ok, yes I do know a little about what biologist get paid to do, but I will confess I do not know what error WDFW has factored into the mandatory harvest reporting. I am sure one of their statisticians have factored that in.
Yes you got fined, (a small fine) for missing one year of reporting. There are probably many hunters that would not report at all if there wasn't a negative incentive. Hell, even some of the tribes have fines for not reporting. Sure there are some hunters that accidently get fined for a lapse in memory but there are many more who wouldn't report without that fine.
I have been in the state for 15+ years. I am glad to hear your following the rules. The nerve that is struck is when I folks are complaining about having to follow the rules. When someone doesn't like the rule they seem to try to find fault in the rule.
You are correct that many times bios recommendations that are based of science, edumakations, data, reporting etc. commonly fall on deaf ears. If anyone has been to a commission meeting then they know that recommendations can commonly be modified or not accepted all together, depending on nothing more than public testimony. Either by user groups or individuals altogether. The point of reporting to the bios is that at least it gives them the data to make the recomendations. The bios need all of the ammo they can get when making recommendations to superiors and the commission. Sure, sometimes it falls on deaf ears, but sometimes it doesn't.
I think anyone with common sense for wildlife management could put a great game management plan together for the state, givin no politics were involved and money were no object. However, nobody has that luxury.
I
Post by: Smithandsonstaxidermy on December 06, 2011, 09:05:10 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 06, 2011, 09:08:26 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 09:14:50 AM
My wife reports every year,but not sure what she reports,and i dont care.I refuse to do it.There do it or else communist,crap just will not work.If i was in charge,i would fire most of them and start over.
Can you please answer my question then:
For those with a negative view of mandatory reporting, I'm willing to listen to any and all reasons/facts you have to support how NOT reporting will benefit game management in this state. I can understand your viewpoint, but I'd like to hear your supporting facts as to how our game numbers will benefit if they do away with mandatory reporting.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 09:21:00 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 06, 2011, 09:21:49 AM
Post by: Smithandsonstaxidermy on December 06, 2011, 09:29:15 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 09:36:19 AM
I did anwer your question,maybe you didnt want to here what i said. I would fire most of them and start over,because they are there to manage game and they dont.
My question was how is not reporting your tags helping the game populations? (Not 'what would you do with WDFW management'?)
I'm not being confrontational, I would like to know what your thought is about how your refusal to report is dong your part to help manage game? You claim the WDFW needs to be fired because they are there to manage game and they don't - so, how are you managing game?
Post by: Arteman on December 06, 2011, 09:48:33 AM
I don't think that reporting isn't a good tool for WDFW to use. Like Smith said, I hate the do it or else attitude on top or everything else we have to pay in every year. It's like buying a sweater then getting fined for not reporting what color you bought so the supplier knows what colors to put out next year, well kinda. :chuckle:My wife reports every year,but not sure what she reports,and i dont care.I refuse to do it.There do it or else communist,crap just will not work.If i was in charge,i would fire most of them and start over.
Can you please answer my question then:For those with a negative view of mandatory reporting, I'm willing to listen to any and all reasons/facts you have to support how NOT reporting will benefit game management in this state. I can understand your viewpoint, but I'd like to hear your supporting facts as to how our game numbers will benefit if they do away with mandatory reporting.
Post by: Practical Approach on December 06, 2011, 10:21:26 AM
I agree, I don't think people in general like being told what to do or how to do it. And for the most part I think people do the right thing or have every intent to do the right thing and report. However, there is a large enough portion of hunters that make it necessary to impose a penalty for not reporting. Some folks don't report on purpose and some simply forget. I myself have felt the sting and irritation of showing up at Fred Meyer to buy my tags, only to see a penalty for not reporting added to my bill. Now it was never my intent not to report, I had reported my deer and elk, but forgot to report bear and cougar. Time went by, holidays came and went and I simply forgot. However, since that experience, I haven't forgotten again.I don't think that reporting isn't a good tool for WDFW to use. Like Smith said, I hate the do it or else attitude on top or everything else we have to pay in every year. It's like buying a sweater then getting fined for not reporting what color you bought so the supplier knows what colors to put out next year, well kinda. :chuckle:My wife reports every year,but not sure what she reports,and i dont care.I refuse to do it.There do it or else communist,crap just will not work.If i was in charge,i would fire most of them and start over.
Can you please answer my question then:For those with a negative view of mandatory reporting, I'm willing to listen to any and all reasons/facts you have to support how NOT reporting will benefit game management in this state. I can understand your viewpoint, but I'd like to hear your supporting facts as to how our game numbers will benefit if they do away with mandatory reporting.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 06, 2011, 10:23:30 AM
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2011, 10:27:54 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on December 06, 2011, 10:28:56 AM
The way I see it, we can either submit harvest reports that are accurate or the WDFW could go to a mandatory game check type of system to try to get data needed for management. Myself, I prefer the current system as it is really easy to enter the info online. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 06, 2011, 10:46:17 AM
Not to pick on anyone, but these are two examples out of many that I chose to comment on, The first one shows that you misunderstand, if the success is high in a unit, they figure it is healthy, AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITTY. , NOT reporting kills can result in a loss of opportunity,I sure hope they dont base anything off those reports...I know alot of people who put 0 year after year..why in the hell would u tell fish and game if you harvested a bull year after year in the same unit..next thing u know your seasons are cut short etc :bash:
Another good reason not to report accurately is because the info becomes public information, and can draw attention to your honeyhole. That is exactly what happened at my elk hunting spot this year. A new group of guys were camping exactly where we have camped the last several years. When we asked how they ended up here they said the harvest reports suggested it was a good spot.
The second one, how could your "honeyhole" have been found by someone only knowing how many days you hunted in a unit (the whole unit) and whether or not you killed something ?
They do not ask what road, or drainage. :dunno:
Or where you camped.
They found it the same way you did once, decided to hunt somewhere and looked for a good camp spot,
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 06, 2011, 11:30:14 AM
I asked about unit on several different forums.
I invited guys to come hunt unit with me (received a WHOLE bunch of flack for this)
I asked about camping areas and was told it was very limited, none in unit.
The only input I got from anyone was DONT GO THERE !!
Everyone complained about how crowded it was, how it was being ruined.. :'(
For the 3rd year IN A ROW, I hunted there, did not meet ANY hunters while in the woods, got into Elk every day, had the limited camping area almost to myself after Labor Day weekend, saw very few driving past camp on the few days I was there, the few hunters I did talk to were hunting in the same place, or asked about the most well known (read easiest to access) spots.
Very few were parking at gates and walking, even fewer were hearing bugles, while I called in (or my partner) 7 bulls, and bugled with at least twice as many during the first week of season.
Harvest reports is how I found the area, and we all get the same reports, success rate is still +/- 15% and hunters reporting is still close to the same number, and when I was there for the late season opener, saw very few parked at gates, and if I only would have been on the right side of creek (or worn my waders)....
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2011, 05:40:02 PM
:bash:
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2011, 05:44:52 PM
PA i dis agree with you premis that we must fine people to get info. I like the carrot approach that they currently use. Offer you into a drawing for a special permitts raffle. Here is why... Obviously there is a contingent of hunters that do not want to share info. They are willing to provide FALSE datta so they will not be punished. I don't know, but i would guess that those same people are not too concernted about being entered into a raffle, so they are likely not to take the time and Lie to enter... Corrupting good data is much worse that getting LOTS of data that is questionable in nature... there is a term for this in the survey world. SASL Chit At the Speed of Light. You get fast numbers that are computable and analizable but don't mean anything because it is difficult for you to assertain the truthfulness of the data.
:bash:
Very good points Special T. I never really thought about that before.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 06, 2011, 05:49:41 PM
Post by: Curly on December 06, 2011, 05:52:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 06:41:31 PM
Wolves will likely mean an end to OTC tags..........or maybe we can have a one weekend elk and deer season. :o
And hunt wolves year 'round. :dunno:
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 06, 2011, 06:51:21 PM
Post by: KillBilly on December 06, 2011, 07:18:21 PM
PA i dis agree with you premis that we must fine people to get info. I like the carrot approach that they currently use. Offer you into a drawing for a special permitts raffle. Here is why... Obviously there is a contingent of hunters that do not want to share info. They are willing to provide FALSE datta so they will not be punished. I don't know, but i would guess that those same people are not too concernted about being entered into a raffle, so they are likely not to take the time and Lie to enter... Corrupting good data is much worse that getting LOTS of data that is questionable in nature... there is a term for this in the survey world. SASL Chit At the Speed of Light. You get fast numbers that are computable and analizable but don't mean anything because it is difficult for you to assertain the truthfulness of the data.
:bash:
Very good points Special T. I never really thought about that before.
T good theory but a person that reports for the carrot can and is just as likely to enter phony data as anyone else. So, real data or phony data is better than none. The only absolute is the non-reporter. On another note, do you have any idea how many people report on time every year and WDFW still tries to charge them the $10.00? I hear about half a dozen of my fellow boeing workers that it happens to every year.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2011, 07:44:32 PM
I happen to think that reporting it is mostly about the $$$. your example about your friends is an indicator.
If someone else with marketing/survey experience would chime in i think we would all value your input...
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 08:36:20 PM
On another note, do you have any idea how many people report on time every year and WDFW still tries to charge them the $10.00? I hear about half a dozen of my fellow boeing workers that it happens to every year.
The very first year they implemented the $10 penalty, there wasn't a single hunter I personally knew that wasn't charged (myself included). I mentioned that I had been charged even though I reported, a buddy indicated the same happened to him ... and so on and so on. I literally could not find a single person that hadn't been charged, and everyone I asked had reported on time.
I've been hit once since then as well even though I reported everything on time
Didn't mean to get off topic, I apologize
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 09:14:44 PM
Just lucky I guess. :dunno:
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 06, 2011, 09:21:58 PM
I never get beyond the "Did you hunt" question. NO!
I keep waiting for the system to ask me why I didn't. :chuckle:
Post by: coachcw on December 06, 2011, 09:28:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 09:34:19 PM
the question how many days did you hunt ? whats that got do do with it . i bow hunt and was in elk every day passed a couple of shots on cows trying to put my buddy on a bull . i guess that i'm a unsucessfull hunter and there's no elk in there since I didn't harvest huh? A better question would be how many elk did you see.
That's how they come up with the days/kill number. I find it useful in comparing different GMU's. Some may have a lower success rate, but also a lower number of days per kill. It's just one more useful bit of information that the biologists can use to look for trends in the success of hunters in the various GMU's.
Which in turn, they can use to determine whether deer and elk populations are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.
Post by: Special T on December 06, 2011, 09:35:31 PM
6x6x6 thats funny, probably the best way for people to report if they want to keep thier info private and not screw up the rest of the info for planning purposes.
Post by: bigtex on December 06, 2011, 09:36:03 PM
I have never paid the $10 penalty and I don't personally know anyone who has.
Just lucky I guess. :dunno:
:yeah:
Post by: runamuk on December 06, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 10:03:28 PM
Quote
Your application was successfully submitted on 12/06/2011 9:59 pm.
Your confirmation number is 1100363279.
Post by: runamuk on December 06, 2011, 10:06:32 PM
Maybe people should be saving this when they do their report:for those who are organized and have a memory that works that is fabulous...for me it would be one more thing I have somewhere around here and wont find when I need it....but most people are nowhere near as scattered and chaotic as I am....QuoteYour application was successfully submitted on 12/06/2011 9:59 pm.
Your confirmation number is 1100363279.
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 10:07:07 PM
Maybe people should be saving this when they do their reports:QuoteYour application was successfully submitted on 12/06/2011 9:59 pm.
Your confirmation number is 1100363279.
I do
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Maybe people should be saving this when they do their report:for those who are organized and have a memory that works that is fabulous...for me it would be one more thing I have somewhere around here and wont find when I need it....but most people are nowhere near as scattered and chaotic as I am....QuoteYour application was successfully submitted on 12/06/2011 9:59 pm.
Your confirmation number is 1100363279.
I just save the entire confirmation page to my desktop. I always do that but have never had a need to later prove that I did in fact submit my hunt report.
Post by: bobcat on December 06, 2011, 10:12:40 PM
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wa/Hunterreport
Post by: runamuk on December 06, 2011, 10:15:08 PM
Post by: CedarPants on December 06, 2011, 10:15:37 PM
I just logged back in to the hunt report page and all the confirmation numbers are listed there, along with the time and date that I submitted them, and this goes all the way back to 2006.
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wa/Hunterreport
After getting dinged the 2nd time I always print this off and keep it with my license and take it with me each year when purchasing my new license.
Haven't needed it since I've been carrying it though
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 08:31:17 AM
PA i dis agree with you premis that we must fine people to get info. I like the carrot approach that they currently use. Offer you into a drawing for a special permitts raffle. Here is why... Obviously there is a contingent of hunters that do not want to share info. They are willing to provide FALSE datta so they will not be punished. I don't know, but i would guess that those same people are not too concernted about being entered into a raffle, so they are likely not to take the time and Lie to enter... Corrupting good data is much worse that getting LOTS of data that is questionable in nature... there is a term for this in the survey world. SASL Chit At the Speed of Light. You get fast numbers that are computable and analizable but don't mean anything because it is difficult for you to assertain the truthfulness of the data.Special T - I don't disagree with the carrot approach at all and wish that was all that it took. I still like the two pronged method. Positive incintives for those who want to take advantage of additional opportunities and negative incentives for those that aren't interested in the additional opportunities , but might otherwise need a little encouragement to remind them to get their harvest reported.
:bash:
The quality of the data and the moral decision a person makes when reporting the real or false data is kind of a different issue. A person who chooses to report false information is more than likely going to do it either way for whatever reason they have justified in their minds. :twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on December 07, 2011, 09:07:15 AM
The other thing they use days in the field for is to determine hunting pressure on animals. Number of days we chase the animals around, they are concerned about deer and elk pressure during the rut or on winter range getting to much pressure. Unfortunately the reports don't say whether you were hunting a gmu in the early or late season, so they don't know if the pressure is during the late archery deer season or early in say Swakane, or early archery elk during the rut in the Nile disrupting breeding or if it is hunting during the late season when the elk are trying to get ready and through the winter.the question how many days did you hunt ? whats that got do do with it . i bow hunt and was in elk every day passed a couple of shots on cows trying to put my buddy on a bull . i guess that i'm a unsucessfull hunter and there's no elk in there since I didn't harvest huh? A better question would be how many elk did you see.
That's how they come up with the days/kill number. I find it useful in comparing different GMU's. Some may have a lower success rate, but also a lower number of days per kill. It's just one more useful bit of information that the biologists can use to look for trends in the success of hunters in the various GMU's.
Which in turn, they can use to determine whether deer and elk populations are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.
Definately not a perfect system but at least it is some information. I report correctly ever year and let the DFW sort it out.
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
The question was asked "what is the point of the harvest reports?" Well it is for raw data so that the herds can be managed. Quality of data is the MOST important thing. With out quality data you may as well save the effort and not do it, because you do not have the right picture to make decisions from. You might as well put options on a dart board and thow darts and work off those answers.
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 09:58:03 AM
PA "The quality of the data and the moral decision a person makes when reporting the real or false data is kind of a different issue."It would be nice to know what the reporting percentage was the year mandatory reporting was initiated and how the percentage changed over time wiht the addition of penalties. That info I think can be gathered from WDFW. However, what we will never know is what percentage of people lie about the info they provide. I guess it would take a formal survey to gather that information.
The question was asked "what is the point of the harvest reports?" Well it is for raw data so that the herds can be managed. Quality of data is the MOST important thing. With out quality data you may as well save the effort and not do it, because you do not have the right picture to make decisions from. You might as well put options on a dart board and thow darts and work off those answers.
Post by: coachcw on December 07, 2011, 01:46:04 PM
Post by: loper on December 07, 2011, 02:39:06 PM
It would be nice to know what the reporting percentage was the year mandatory reporting was initiated and how the percentage changed over time with the addition of penalties.
In late January of 2009 I made a public records request of WDFW for that information.
What follows is a summary of the percentage of all reports reported by deadline.
2001: 70.1%
2002: 66.2%
2003: 64.9%
2004: 63.9%
2005: 76.4% <== penalties initiated this year
2006: 68.0%
2007: 69.1%
2008: 67.7%
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 02:48:02 PM
Thanks for posting that. Interesting, just a blip of increased reporting and then it leveled out again? I wonder how much income comes to WDFW from the late fees annually.It would be nice to know what the reporting percentage was the year mandatory reporting was initiated and how the percentage changed over time with the addition of penalties.
In late January of 2009 I made a public records request of WDFW for that information.
What follows is a summary of the percentage of all reports reported by deadline.
2001: 70.1%
2002: 66.2%
2003: 64.9%
2004: 63.9%
2005: 76.4% <== penalties initiated this year
2006: 68.0%
2007: 69.1%
2008: 67.7%
Post by: Rainier10 on December 07, 2011, 03:47:28 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 03:53:09 PM
I thought at the town hall meeting I went to this fall Dave Ware said there were 200,000 hunters in Washington state, and that they had email addresses for 60,000 of those hunters. If there are 200,000 hunters and 67% reported that is 66,000 that didn't report or $660,000 if you went off of hunters. I am guessing the 67% reporting is of tags sold so maybe not all 200,000 hunters bought tags that needed to be reported on but most that did buy tags probably bought multiple, deer, elk, bear, cougar all of which need to be reported. I have never had to pay the penalty, is it a one time $10 thing or is it $10 for not reporting your deer activity, and another $10 bucks for elk, and another for cougar and so on? If it is per animal the number of tags is probably really high and 33%having to pay the penalty is a ton of money.
I think the fee is just for missing one piece of your reporting. Obviously the more animals you are hunting and the different seasons increase your risk for forgetting to report. For instance you report your deer and elk harvest but wait till spring bear season is over, but forget to report the bear harvest info. I am pretty sure it is 10 bucks if you don't report any of your hunts or if you forget one piece of your report.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on December 07, 2011, 04:15:39 PM
In the database it only shows Bear, Elk, Deer as outstanding tags. Never been charged the fine either.
Post by: Practical Approach on December 07, 2011, 04:20:36 PM
Well, I have been watching this thread awhile and honestly dont know where to start :bash:. So I am gonna keep my mouth shut at this point...... :chuckle: But I do have a question...... I have heard several mentions of cougar reporting? Am I understanding correctly that only if SUCCESSFUL you need to file a report. I have never got one ( hoping to remedy this year :chuckle:), But have never been asked to submit a report on the tag. Thats also how I interpret the regs.When you go in and buy the tag for next year they just automatically apply the 10 buck fee. Unless you scan your receipt nobody is going to tell you you have been fined.
In the database it only shows Bear, Elk, Deer as outstanding tags. Never been charged the fine either.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on December 07, 2011, 04:26:40 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on December 07, 2011, 04:30:12 PM
Post by: steen on December 07, 2011, 05:12:22 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 08, 2011, 08:03:55 AM
Quote
I think the fee is just for missing one piece of your reporting. Obviously the more animals you are hunting and the different seasons increase your risk for forgetting to report. For instance you report your deer and elk harvest but wait till spring bear season is over, but forget to report the bear harvest info. I am pretty sure it is 10 bucks if you don't report any of your hunts or if you forget one piece of your report.Spring bear is over by June, fall season ends Nov., if you are still waiting, no wonder ...
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 08, 2011, 08:19:01 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on December 08, 2011, 08:27:57 AM
QuoteI think the fee is just for missing one piece of your reporting. Obviously the more animals you are hunting and the different seasons increase your risk for forgetting to report. For instance you report your deer and elk harvest but wait till spring bear season is over, but forget to report the bear harvest info. I am pretty sure it is 10 bucks if you don't report any of your hunts or if you forget one piece of your report.Spring bear is over by June, fall season ends Nov., if you are still waiting, no wonder ...
Your right, I don't hunt bear so shows what I know. I guess I was trying to help make excuses for folks.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 08, 2011, 04:02:48 PM
If you're not reporting or falsely reporting, you're part of the problem.
Post by: gaddy on December 08, 2011, 04:14:16 PM
Post by: Special T on December 08, 2011, 04:16:07 PM
Post by: gaddy on December 08, 2011, 04:22:53 PM
Post by: Special T on December 08, 2011, 04:27:08 PM
I think the percentage of reporters that were provided earlier are a great indicator that his is about money not information, because the fine has not changed the reporting significantly. :twocents:
Post by: coachcw on December 08, 2011, 07:15:21 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2011, 07:25:10 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on December 08, 2011, 07:37:03 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on December 08, 2011, 07:42:36 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 08, 2011, 07:43:47 PM
Wait a second.... aren't ALL hunters "licensed hunters"?not the indian hunters.
Post by: coachcw on December 08, 2011, 07:45:03 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 08, 2011, 07:46:18 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2011, 07:47:11 PM
Right bobcat , I'll call the unlicenced hunters HARVESTERS the problem is they harvest more than we do . If you want to be sickined take a drive over to the spot I showed your buddy a couple years back and see whats going on ( you know the area ) my whole oppionion and the scale of the problem really has changed in the last few weeks .
I see what you're getting at now. That went right over my head.
Post by: colockumelk on December 09, 2011, 09:49:52 AM
Right bobcat , I'll call the unlicenced hunters HARVESTERS the problem is they harvest more than we do . If you want to be sickined take a drive over to the spot I showed your buddy a couple years back and see whats going on ( you know the area ) my whole oppionion and the scale of the problem really has changed in the last few weeks .
Welcome to the club. It only takes one time doesn't it. Then you think oh its just an isolated incident. Then you go out again and see the same thing and the same EXACT vehicles and think man does this happen every day for a month or two? :bash:
I used to be pissed at the people. But not anymore. Because if licensed hunters were allowed to do this they would. Well most anyways. So its not the people I blame anymore its the system. In fact I blame the WDFW more than anyone. I blame them more than the Yakama Tribal Council. Because of course the Yakama Tribal Council isn't going to actively search for things that will make their people look bad. But its the job of the WDFW to conserve our resources and to provide for hunting opportunity for licensed hunters. Instead they just take away from us. And the reason they do this is because in order to conserve our resources they must do so. The reason they must do so is because the WDFW shirks away from reporting what happens and instead of doing the right thing and standing up for hunters rights (the ones who pay their paycheck) they take the easy out and take from us.
It would be nice if the WDFW would actively patrol the known hot spots for a month and document what goes on and then write a report about it complete with pictures, shed light on the subject and do something about it. Yes legally the WDFW can't force the Yakamas to comply with modern types of hunting regulations but they can politically coerce them with a Public Relations fight. One that the WDFW would most certainly win. If only the WDFW stood up for hunters rights. :bash:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 10, 2011, 09:47:02 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just got an update on Phills poaching activities. The good news is that the elk in the Colockum were safe yesterday. The bad news, 5 "large" mulie bucks lost their lives. They were taken in the Entiat, Crum canyon. That makes 15 bucks for the week. Not sure where they all came from.
I did get a couple of vehicle desriptions to be on the look out for. Phill drives a blue 2wd nissan with a black canopy. One of his partners drives a black mid 90's blazer with tinted windows and bigger tires. Another partner drives a beat up red toyota pickup. If any of you are up entiat or colockum, keep your eyes open for these rigs.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 10, 2011, 11:01:14 AM
Bingo! when you start doing statistac anaylis you have the potential to magnify the effect of false data. That is why a "clean" smaller sample is more useful than a compleate survey that has 100% partisipation with unknown ammounts of misinformation. You always get it, but the more you can do to eliminate it the better.
The smaller the sample, the more magnified false information will be. In other words, if you have 10 reports and one lies or misleads, it is far worse than if you have 100 samples and three lie or mislead. The first example you have 10% bad info, the second you have 3%.
But why lie or mislead on harvest report? I can understand not wanting to give your honey hole up. If someone wants to peruse the reports to find a better place to hunt, more power to them. But I don't like to see the game department post bulletins pointing people to my sweet spot. (That can be addressed to the game department) Heck tho, the reason a lot of people visit sites like this are to glean info on where to hunt. And I see lots of people bragging here about the area or at least the unit they are hunting and posting pics of their success. You won't see that from me. This is the spot I'll be very vague as far as my success goes.
I want the game biologists to have the best information. (I just don't want them to blatantly share it). Otherwise they can't do their best work. They don't have the time and there aren't enough of them to check every hunter every day to get an exact count on animals taken and hunter success. But it's easy enough for hunters to report that info. The bios need this info whether you believe it or not to make informed decisions on season length, whether antlerless hunts are needed or need to be scaled back, if there is a healthy recruitment into the herd, if there is a problem in a certain area. Hunter success rates are important, not just for the season but how many days are spent for each animal harvested.
Just because other harvesters aren't reporting doesn't mean we shouldn't. We should be working towards getting all hunting groups to report responsibly because that is the only way to good management. You can't take the moral high road when you say "well they aren't doing it so I'm not going to." Do the right thing and make them look bad is the only way to win in the court of public opinion.
Go ahead, don't report, or, lie when you do, but I don't want to hear you complain when your area gets limited because the game department got bum info out of you and others.
Post by: Special T on December 10, 2011, 11:13:16 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 10, 2011, 11:17:34 AM
I think many of us want good info, since the percent of reporters are the same i think if those concerned could opt out then the numbers would be cleaner. :twocents:
Not necessarily. What if those concerned were mostly successful hunters who didn't want to share where they scored? That would affect the success rate and make it look way worse than it was. That could lead to reduced opportunity in the future as it would look like the population was down.
In fact most of those concerned would probably be successful. If you don't get anything, what would be your objection to reporting?
Post by: colockumelk on December 10, 2011, 12:44:35 PM