Most of the 500's draw only for archery moose?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You would think with a 40% success rate they would expand the hunting opertunity. Obviously there is a healthy herd.

It's a numbers game and Bowhunter success rates play right into it....

40% of how many?....5 taken, 2 archery kills is 40%

Or 100 taken and 40 shot with archery equipment.

What about successful draw applicants who used a bow before the draw season started...are they counted on the archery success percentage?

To make sense of the numbers we need all the info including the formula.

LC

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

It's a numbers game and Bowhunter success rates play right into it....

40% of how many?....5 taken, 2 archery kills is 40%

Or 100 taken and 40 shot with archery equipment.

What about successful draw applicants who used a bow before the draw season started...are they counted on the archery success percentage?

To make sense of the numbers we need all the info including the formula.

LC

And this here is where the ABA and the AFGA , and F&W are playing games, playing stupid, or are.....


The formula is set. Allowable harvest based on management goals calculated from population estimate. Resident licences issued are allowable harvest times success rate.....


Now the games...

There is no 15% archery allocation. This is a myth. This is a number that a couple of guys in F&W and private stakeholders decided to promote as the new norm. I am not saying the number should be different, Just saying that this is NOT POLICY.... and can be changed on a whim....

And the games played gets worse... The archery allocation is not a factor of total harvested animals as you described, it is a factor of the ALLOWABLE HARVEST. Once again, As happened in the MD Archery Draw information manipulation..... The WRONG Numbers were used....

Now would someone please find out why the ABA and the AFGA refused to
call out F&W for using the wrong data to determine these archery season needed to go onto a draw.

Archery harvest allocation is supposed to be a function of TOTAL Allowable Harvest, including landowner and Outfitter allocations.

Why did F&W use the ratio of Archery/General Weapon Resident Estimated Harvest numbers instead?


What a mess.....

[Kurt505]

On a side note, of my many days a field during the the archery season, I can't remember the last time I came across another bow hunter targeting moose. Almost all bow hunters I encounter are after elk, bear, or on rare occasions deer. I can't understand how they can rationalize this decision.


Here's a clip from the last trip out to the cabin.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6j4szXwsQ8

[kujoseto]

My brain hurts. I was anticipating having to sift through a bunch of bs, but instead I just easily read through a bunch of logic and sensibility. Thanks a lot everybody

Edit: wow, great video Kurt

[3blade]

WB, you know why it hasn't been addressed... It would (will, eventually) start WW3. If archery gets looked at that way, so do outfitter allocations, rifle season draw tags, etc. Then everyone starts demanding REAL numbers, which gets expensive and reveals the BS that's been going on for years.

For now it's "better" to maintain the status quo, have everybody grumbling but no one throwing hand grenades. That'll be for next year.

[shedcrazy]

they have never done decent population studies, for any species. If it is even done at all, the areas/timeframe are chosen to reflect what the result is desired to be. Ex how can you count bull moose, from the air, in January? That would require flying reaaallly low.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant....

Aerial surveys are done all over the province every year. They are done during the winter months under the right conditions to max sightablity. There is no hidden agenda and if you knew much about moose you would know they are the easiest species to age and sex from the air no matter the time of the year. All you need to see is their backside and if they have a vulva patch or not. You would think a great outdoorsman with your vast knowledge would know that.

S

[3blade]

Originally Posted by shedcrazy

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant....

Aerial surveys are done all over the province every year. They are done during the winter months under the right conditions to max sightablity. There is no hidden agenda and if you knew much about moose you would know they are the easiest species to age and sex from the air no matter the time of the year. All you need to see is their backside and if they have a vulva patch or not. You would think a great outdoorsman with your vast knowledge would know that.

S

Edit: It was a joke. Cause we may as well laugh at this.

I know that, and you know that, and yet we still see significant "undetermined" numbers on every aerial survey. Who audits those surveys to make sure the ones doing the counting aren't seeing what they want?

No hidden agenda? How do you explain the refusal to release all info about the tag numbers for this years draw? The ghost 15% policy? The g-bear survey? Outfitter allocations being a closed door discussion? Moose going on draw when there's clearly no science based reason for it?

THAT is a rant. An entirely justified one, given how hunters are being treated.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by kujoseto

My brain hurts. I was anticipating having to sift through a bunch of bs, but instead I just easily read through a bunch of logic and sensibility. Thanks a lot everybody

Edit: wow, great video Kurt

That little one barely came up to mama's knees.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

It's a numbers game and Bowhunter success rates play right into it....

40% of how many?....5 taken, 2 archery kills is 40%

Or 100 taken and 40 shot with archery equipment.

What about successful draw applicants who used a bow before the draw season started...are they counted on the archery success percentage?

To make sense of the numbers we need all the info including the formula.

LC

Will you ask the ABA to provide the numbers and formula and then share them with us?


This is from the AGMAG meetings....







Repeated information requests to F&W have not been filled for evidence of the "15% Archery Allocation Policy", but there have been responses that it cannot be found in writing. As it is not in writing, it is considered part of the "Art" of managing hunting allocations ....

Additionally information requests to F&W for new WMU based species population estimates/ harvest goals/ Allowable Harvest quotas/ resident success rates/ have been very slow in coming.


It appears that the new moose archery draws were based on a ratio of harvest estimates during resident archery/general weapon seasons, NOT on the harvest rates in concert with the Allowable Harvest Quota. This is where things go wrong.....

As you exampled, 2 archery kills out of five harvested animals in a wmu equates to a 40% archery harvest and was used to decide that the wmu is to go on to an Archery Draw. This is the wrong methodology!

What should have been done BY POLICY is to use the percentage of archery harvest as a factor of the Allowable Harvest. Eg Allowable harvest is 20 animals, total harvest is 5, 2 by archery = Archery Harvest is 10%.


Everybody is losing opportunity due to how F&W is currently using the wrong data to determine when archery seasons should go on to a draw. We need to get this mess straightened out....