Thoughts on Mandatory Harvest report proposed?

[Drewski Canuck]

Oh yeah! Now I remember!! A bunch of FN fellows who had taken Elk then did not register their harvest and were CHARGED!!!

The outcry of discrimination etc was enormous and the registration for elk ended.

Doesn't any one remember that circus?

If all register, that means FN and Metis also!

But of course that will OUT THE ABUSERS who take 10 moose in a winter, supposedly for themselves.

Otherwise the tool is useless. Kind of like a calculator missing 1/4 of the numbers between 0 - 9. Things will never add up and it will make no difference to the statistical analysis which is largely based on Ariel surveys that are already being done.

Drewski

[jmedical]

I am 100% for reporting as long as it is equitable across the board.. no groups missed. AND then is used for real herd management. If it is not going to be used to better our herds dont waste my tjme.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by EZM

Why not?

Doesn't it aid in the collection of data used to manage our resources?

Is there any reason for law abiding hunters to fear this disclosure or lie?

I see no problem here, do you?

A potential problem is one that no one sees, or has mentioned here, because AEP is keeping it quiet from the public, and can't even explain the consequences to its secret advisory council.


The implementation of a mandatory harvest report appears to be tied to a proposed change from Harvest based allocations to "Opportunity" based allocations.


No one from AEP will really explain what this means or how it will effect Resident licence numbers, however, it does appear that one result will be a mechanism that will provide Outfitters with more licences when Residents hunt and do not make a harvest.



AEP likes to take baby steps in justifying changes that negatively effect Resident hunting. Rather than explain WHY they want and the effects of an "Opportunity" based allocation system, they will first push for support for the Mandatory Harvest Survey portion of the change. Say yes to the Survey, they will take that as leverage to make the "Opportunity" allocation change.


The current Secrecy of AEP hunting consultations is more than enough reason to Not trust them nor give them Any support. It is a good reason to say NO to Mandatory surveys.

Originally Posted by Soab

Last time I filled one out they took away general mulie. Don't really want more opportunities taken away

Very true. And AEP (SRD at the time) even admitted that their survey data used to make the Mule Deer changes was considered by themselves to be "statistically Invalid"! And they went ahead with the changes based on their flawed data anyways....

Supporting the Mandatory Harvest survey could result in a disaster for Resident hunters.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

a potential problem is one that no one sees, or has mentioned here, because aep is keeping it quiet from the public, and can't even explain the consequences to its secret advisory council.


The implementation of a mandatory harvest report appears to be tied to a proposed change from harvest based allocations to "opportunity" based allocations.


No one from aep will really explain what this means or how it will effect resident licence numbers, however, it does appear that one result will be a mechanism that will provide outfitters with more licences when residents hunt and do not make a harvest.



Aep likes to take baby steps in justifying changes that negatively effect resident hunting. Rather than explain why they want and the effects of an "opportunity" based allocation system, they will first push for support for the mandatory harvest survey portion of the change. Say yes to the survey, they will take that as leverage to make the "opportunity" allocation change.


The current secrecy of aep hunting consultations is more than enough reason to not trust them nor give them any support. It is a good reason to say no to mandatory surveys.









Very true. And aep (srd at the time) even admitted that their survey data used to make the mule deer changes was considered by themselves to be "statistically invalid"! And they went ahead with the changes based on their flawed data anyways....

Supporting the mandatory harvest survey could result in a disaster for resident hunters.

Thanks for the post, this just confirms that hunters can not trust AEP to be acting in their best interest. Believe nothing they say, they are liars and what we should tell them is to shove their mandatory harvest report up their azz.

This post needs to be a sticky!!!!

[Outdoorfanatic]

Problem
1. The committee that supported this policy included the Alberta Beef Association and the Alberta Association for Municipal Districts and Counties both of which have said that they have no interest in the policy yet apparently supported it.
2. the First Nations declined to be apart of the discussion as a committee member.
3. There is no current protocol for preventing anti hunting groups from future membership to this committee.
4. There is no current way of connecting harvest data to total wildlife data, unless there is a commitment made to aerial surveys. Consequently there is no way to determine what is or isn't the appropriate level of harvest. All we'll know is what was the % success of tags issued. We have no way of knowing % success as related to total population.
5. The priority is Conservation first, First Nation second and then Recreation and then Outfitters. Well even the anti hunters call themselves Conservationist. Its the Anti Hunters who have got land access closures to traditional hunting area even in the middle of an active season.
6. Currently the Mandatory part is yet to be determined and the hunting community will have no opportunity to influence its definition. It's been suggested that forfeiting future draws is on the table.
7. The beuracratic obstacles that limit harvest success like access to the land remain ignored. ie: lease land (which is public) is still controlled as though it where private.
8. The incentive draw that Duane Radford mentions in the back of this years regs is unknown even among government officials such as biologist across the province. Not even the executive of the AFGA is able to answer when the draw takes place. Yet they say that Mandatory is necessary since the incentive style doesn't encourage enough participation.
9. Using the States as an example of success is faulty since they have over 50 models and all naturally include First Nations since all First Nations are only First on Reserve, otherwise they are just another American. The Canadian model doesn't work that way.

This proposal is extremely flawed and I'm convinced will mean trouble for the future of recreational hunters.

[normanrd]

Originally Posted by GMX

Let’s say they issued indigenous groups hunting tags much like fishing licenses they are free for them. If caught without the license they can be charged with poaching just like fishing They can pick up another tag when they filled there’s and get another animal. The law states they can only hunt for there immediate families only make exceptions for elders allowing a harvest for there household. Might stop the mass killing and I’ll just call my buddy with a treaty card to get my animal home for me hunting partner. One would think seen as they want to be stewards of the land they might agree to this yes no? Probably not...
Then I’d agree to it something has to be done eventually or moose elk and deer will be just like caribou soon.

Like this! Great idea. Then I would support mandatory reporting.