2013 Archery Mule deer going on Draw

Originally Posted by pottymouth

It's the harvest LC, Srd has always allowed and compensated for 15 % of the harvest to be by bowhunters! They now claim by the VOLUNTARY survey they have, that those numbers are now being exceeded!

Basically they are saying all the cad problems they had, didn't really exist, it the over harvesting done by bowhunters! So let's take more hunting away from the resident Albertan

No need to be so melodramatic potty. See this is where things get blown completely out of proportion. Let's forget about the cwd zones for this discussion as that's another kettle of fish. Hunter numbers are set according to game populations and the harvest they are trying to obtain. In the past few years we have had some hard winters and other factors that have caused mule deer populations to drop and harvest to be reduced. This has caused greatly increased wait times in the draw. It has also resulted in archers going over the 15% cap. Maybe archers aren't harvesting any more deer than they were 10 years ago but the allowable harvest has been reduced so the archer percentrage of the harvest has increased.

I certainly don't believe that archers are to blame for the decline in mule deer numbers nor do most I suspect but when the overall harvest is cut back, in fairness, all user groups should be cut back. Unfortunately, the only means of acheiving that is through a draw. At such time that populations increase and the archer harvest dips below the 15% cap, I would hope they would increase opportunity again just as they do by increasing the number of tags available for rifle hunters.

It's all proportional.

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

LOL I get that TJ....I am not THAT dense lol.

What is this comment in reference to then?????



Who cares how many bow hunting permits are sold as a percentage of total hunters? or were you just pointing out that 15.85% of hunters now purchase bowhunting permit?.....it just happens that BOTH number are at 15%???

(I can use large font too )
I think the numbers they are basing this change off of are a bunch of horse hoooey.....I don't think they are real or representative! A voluntary survey is only accurate to the point of who decides to VOLUNTARILY answer it.

LC

Try reading the comment in context and you'll get it....I hope.

If you really aren't that dense then you understand that to decide how big of percentage of harvest that archers are entitled to by representation in the hunting opopulation, you need to know what percentage of bow hunters there are. If bow hunters make up 15% of the hunting population, they are entitled to 15% of the harvest.

As for the comment above, it was in response to a question about how many bow hunters there wre in Alberta...it's 15.86% of the hunting population so they should get a proportional amount of the harvest.

There is nothing speculative about the number of archers in the province which is what I was saying in the comment you seem to have misunderstood. Please tell me you get it now...........

[Lefty-Canuck]

Tough Monday morning TJ?

How many of that 15.86% of bowhunters are also rifle hunters? and how many only bow hunt?

LC

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Tough Monday morning TJ?

How many of that 15.86% of bowhunter are also rifle hunters? and how many only bow hunt?

LC

No, it's a great Monday. I was just trying to help you understand a very simple concept that you seemed to be struggling with by highlighting the key phrases.

According to an older ABA study I saw, only 5% of their members are dedicated bow hunters. I suspect that population would be lower in the general hunting population....maybe 2-3%...and that might be high.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No, it's a great Monday. I was just trying to help you understand a very simple concept by pointing out the key phrases.

According to an older ABA study I saw, only 5% of their members are dedicated bow hunters. I suspect that population would be lower in the general hunting population....maybe 2-3%...and that might be high.

Thank you for your clear and concise explanation.

LC

[BigJon]

I am not an anti bowhunter, and by no means do I drink the "bow hunters kill all the big mulies" kool-aid....but in the end I am ok with a draw for archery mule deer hunting. It will likely make for a higher quality hunting experience in your draw years.

To the folks who are crying that it is all a ploy to take away hunting opportunities, I have to ask what their thoughts are on:

Zama Bison season
Antlered elk switching from draw to a general season in a Peace country WMU
Increased opportunities for antlerless elk in Peace country WMU's
Expanded cougar hunting opportunities

Are these a ploy to whittle away hunting opportunities too?

[walking buffalo]

Sheephunter,

Are you content having a general season changed to a Draw season without having accurate data?



Another question for all, including ESRD.

What is the Harvest ratio for Outfitters and Landowners?

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Sheephunter,

Are you content having a general season changed to a Draw season without having accurate data?



Another question for all, including ESRD.

What is the Harvest ratio for Outfitters and Landowners?

Hunters surveys have always been a cornerstone of game management in this province...I see no reason that they shouldn't continue to be.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Hunters surveys have always been a cornerstone of game management in this province...I see no reason that they shouldn't continue to be.

This doesn't answer my question. Or does it?

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This doesn't answer my question. Or does it?

Yup it sure does. Is the data 100% accurate? Likely not. Is it the information that we've relied on and set management through for decades...yup. It's the best we have right now. I can't see the point of totally discounting it. I doubt it's as inaccurate as some are portraying.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Yup it sure does. Is the data 100% accurate? Likely not. Is it the information that we've relied on and set management through for decades...yup. It's the best we have right now. I can't see the point of totally discounting it. I doubt it's as inaccurate as some are portraying.

Have you seen the harvest data broken down to Resident Archery/ Resident Draw/ Outfitter/ Landowner Harvest?


Lets back up a bit. Your continued use of the number 15.85% is irrellevant since the 15% Harvest ratio is supposed to be based on Harvest, not the number of hunters. Right?

Originally Posted by sheephunter

if bow hunters represent 15% of the number of hunters, they get 15% of the harvest.

Originally Posted by Scales

That would assume that archery hunters are as successful as rifle hunters.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No it wouldn't. The number has nothing to do with success rates and everything to with harvest numbers. Archer numbers aren't limited by draw to 15% of tags they are on general unlike rifle hunters.

We need the Harvest statistics for this discussion.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Dr Death

There was a meeting in Lethbridge a few weeks back. 3 southern SRD biologists, a few members of SABA (southern Alberta Bowhunters Assoc.) and a couple of others attended. It was actually organized by SRD. It was a small group and basically an open discussion for any issues that were brought up. Since there have been rumors of archery mule deer going to draw, that was what was mainly discussed. The bios acknowlegded SRD was proposing archery draws in zones exceeding the 15%. The power point charts highlighted many WMU's in the south indicating a 15%+ harvest by archers. One of the zones was WMU 212, an archery only zone. Interestingly WMU 404 was another. When questioned directly about that zone one of the bios said there were over 40 antlered mule deer harvested by archers last year and only 10 by rifle hunters! When asked where those number were derived from they admitted there were less than 10 hunters total who answered the survey for 404 and that indeed the harvest estimates are very unreliable due to lack of response. The same is true for all zones, we really don't know what is being harvested.

The bios also acknowledged that according to their numbers the harvest goals in most of the southern zone(not sure about the SE) are not being achieved. Thus it was also questioned as to why they were considering further restrictions when the harvests are already below management goals. Basically, by the end of the meeting SRD acknowledged there are SERIOUS problems with the harvest stats, but it is the only thing they have to go on.

I think our biologists do a good job with what they have, but due to budget restraints they don't have much. There have been resolutions put forward to have mandatory completion of surveys by all hunters. This would help the bios tremendously. SABA has indicated they would be willing to put up some of their grant money to help with mandatory surveys and that if the harvest of archers does in fact exceed 15% - draw for archers. But as it stands now the numbers mean nothing and as a bowhunter myself, I am totally opposed to any draw changes until the real numbers are available. Proper numbers and data would help our game managers with all kinds of issues. It is time hunter surveys become MANDATORY FOR ALL HUNTERS!

I think some of what I have bolded is very interesting....thanks to Dr. D for sharing his information.

LC

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Have you seen the harvest data broken down to Resident Archery/ Resident Draw/ Outfitter/ Landowner Harvest?


Lets back up a bit. Your continued use of the number 15.85% is irrellevant since the 15% Harvest ratio is supposed to be based on Harvest, not the number of hunters. Right?

We need the Harvest statistics for this discussion.

The 15.86 is anything but irrelevant...it's the number ESRD should use and did use to set the harvest percentage cap. Bowhunters should get their share. That's why the bow hunting permit was created to ensure that the number of archers could be tracked to ensure they got their share. The number of archers in the province is a known/accurate number. We need that number because it is the basis in determnining what harvest should be allocated to archers.

By defininition, to have a ratio you need two numbers...this is pretty simple math. We know for sure that 15.86% of licenced hunters in Alberta buy bow hunting permits so they should be allocated 15.86% of the harvest. That's the ratio. Once they exceed that harvest, means need to be taken to reduce the harvest.

Of course we need the harvest stats for this discussion...that's the second part of the ratio. We have those harvest stats via the hunter surveys.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No need to be so melodramatic potty. See this is where things get blown completely out of proportion. Let's forget about the cwd zones for this discussion as that's another kettle of fish. Hunter numbers are set according to game populations and the harvest they are trying to obtain. In the past few years we have had some hard winters and other factors that have caused mule deer populations to drop and harvest to be reduced. This has caused greatly increased wait times in the draw. It has also resulted in archers going over the 15% cap. Maybe archers aren't harvesting any more deer than they were 10 years ago but the allowable harvest has been reduced so the archer percentrage of the harvest has increased.

I certainly don't believe that archers are to blame for the decline in mule deer numbers nor do most I suspect but when the overall harvest is cut back, in fairness, all user groups should be cut back. Unfortunately, the only means of acheiving that is through a draw. At such time that populations increase and the archer harvest dips below the 15% cap, I would hope they would increase opportunity again just as they do by increasing the number of tags available for rifle hunters.

It's all proportional.

Has it really ? My question now is what data is more accurate, the voluntary hunter surveys, through the computer when everyone doesn't have equal access! Or the Bighorn sheep data, they tried to pass on us, that everyone stood up against?

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Yup it sure does. Is the data 100% accurate? Likely not. Is it the information that we've relied on and set management through for decades...yup. It's the best we have right now. I can't see the point of totally discounting it. I doubt it's as inaccurate as some are portraying.

Perhaps that's our own dimise, look at where that has got us!

Rackmaster, really hit the nail, on how to enforce a manditory hunter survey !

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

The 15.86 is anything but irrelevant...it's the number ESRD should use and did use to set the harvest percentage cap. Bowhunters should get their share. That's why the bow hunting permit was created to ensure that the number of archers could be tracked to ensure they got their share. The number of archers in the province is a known/accurate number. We need that number because it is the basis in determnining what harvest should be allocated to archers.

By defininition, to have a ratio you need two numbers...this is pretty simple math. We know for sure that 15.86% of licenced hunters in Alberta buy bow hunting permits so they should be allocated 15.86% of the harvest. That's the ratio. Once they exceed that harvest, means need to be taken to reduce the harvest.

Of course we need the harvest stats for this discussion...that's the second part of the ratio. We have those harvest stats via the hunter surveys.

Are you saying that according to ESRD, Bowhunters should get a floating Harvest percentage based on the number of bowhunting licences sold? Is the 15% cap now old news?


If bowhunters are exceeding their harvest ratio, then their success ratio must be higher than for rifle hunters.


I would love to see the Harvest stats, broken down to Resident Archery/ Draw/ Outfitter/ Landowner Harvest by WMU.

I'll ask again SH. Have you seen these stats, or are you accepting the numbers given by ESRD through faith?

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Rackmaster, really hit the nail, on how to enforce a manditory hunter survey !

I think it's a great idea but I also find it a bit funny how the voluntary survey has received no criticism in the past decades and how until now hunters were comfortable with it being our only source of harvest data. Why weren't you outraged about it being used two years ago to put moose and elk on draw for archers? Perhaps it did eaffect your backyard? Sorry but criticizing something just as a matter of convenience doesn't necessarily give your arguement creedence.

Could we do surveys better? Absolutely. Are the ones we are currently using so flawed that they are useless, I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Are you saying that according to ESRD, Bowhunters should get a floating Harvest percentage based on the number of bowhunting licences sold? Is the 15% cap now old news?

It should be. So raise the 15% cap to 15.86%, I've got no issue with that.

If bowhunters are exceeding their harvest ratio, then their success ratio must be higher than for rifle hunters.

How do you figure that? The number of archers isn't controlled. Your arguement would hold water if they were allocated 15% of the tags but they aren't. Their numbers are uncontrolled. Say zone X has an allowable harvest of 20 bucks and rifle hunters get 30 tags and kill 15 bucks. Their success is 50%. Say there are 100 archers that hunt that WMU and they kill 5 bucks. Their success is 5% but they still exceeed the 15% cap. This is a pretty simple math with known formuas.


I would love to see the Harvest stats, broken down to Resident Archery/ Draw/ Outfitter/ Landowner Harvest by WMU.

Me Too.

I'll ask again SH. Have you seen these stats, or are you accepting the numbers given by ESRD through faith?

I've seen some of them and I don't think ESRD is lying about the others. I don't trust them on a lot of things but hard numbers that are a result of humnter surveys, I feel comfortable that they are on the up and up.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think it's a great idea but I also find it a bit funny how the voluntary survey has received no criticism in the past decades and how until now hunters were comfortable with it being our only source of harvest data. Why weren't you outraged about it being used two years ago to put moose and elk on draw for archers? Perhaps it did eaffect your backyard? Sorry but criticizing something just as a matter of convenience doesn't necessarily give your arguement creedence.

Could we do surveys better? Absolutely. Are the ones we are currently using so flawed that they are useless, I don't buy it.

This the first time I have heard, seen or read about that hunter surveys actually had that much of an impact ! and now that I see it , Yes , i'm outraged ! Are you not?

Originally Posted by pottymouth

This the first time I have heard, seen or read about that hunter surveys actually had that much of an impact ! and now that I see it , Yes , i'm outraged ! Are you not?

Nope. I agree that it may be time to give the system is revamped as suggested by some here but are our current surveys worthless.....I think not. Even if surveys become mandatory, the stats are only as accurate as the info being entered. There's been a lot of talk recently about some hunters fudging their numbers to protect their own interests. Very pathetic to suggest that I know but you are never going to have 100% accurate results....to support either side of this issue. One of the dangers of claiming stats are flawed is that they could be flawed in your favour or against you. Easy to turn that arguement against you...............

What did you think the surveys were for????

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Nope. I agree that it may be time to give the system is revamped as suggested by some here but are our current surveys worthless.....I think not.

What did you think the surveys were for????

I definatly didn't think they were huge deciding factor in our game management! Especially when I saw the word VOLUNTARY!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I've seen some of them and I don't think ESRD is lying about the others. I don't trust them on a lot of things but hard numbers that are a result of humnter surveys, I feel comfortable that they are on the up and up.

Dang you made this last post hard to quote.


I bitched year last about elk and moose going on draw, and I previously started a thread on hunter harvest stats and bitched about that too. Now I have to bitch that people didn't pay attention to my bitching.


Instead of putting a General season on draw, if and when ESRD can confidently support their position that there is a conservation or user group equality need to restrict a season, ESRD should start using other techniques to achieve desired goals such as shortening seasons.

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I definatly didn't think they were huge deciding factor in our game management! Especially when I saw the word VOLUNTARY!

Guess you learned something today.

Seriously, how do think SRD tracks harvest numbers, hunter density, hunter participation, etc? These surveys are important and it's critical that people participate and input accurate info.

[BigJon]

Is it possible that even with the limited completion of harvest surveys the 15% is being surpassed in some WMU's?

Do F&W officers contribute to harvest stats based on what they see while doing their job?

To me it is not unfathomable that in some WMU's officers see greater than 15% of allowable harvest being taken by archers while going about their day to day business...

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Nope. I agree that it may be time to give the system is revamped as suggested by some here but are our current surveys worthless.....I think not. Even if surveys become mandatory, the stats are only as accurate as the info being entered. There's been a lot of talk recently about some hunters fudging their numbers to protect their own interests. Very pathetic to suggest that I know but you are never going to have 100% accurate results....to support either side of this issue. One of the dangers of claiming stats are flawed is that they could be flawed in your favour or against you. Easy to turn that arguement against you...............

What did you think the surveys were for????

I agree that it is wrong, but it's not new, alot of successful sheep hunter's have been doing it for years !

The stats could be flawed one way or another, but basic math and common sense, it's pretty easy to figure out !

[Deer Hunter]

SRD has the cart before the horse again.

The issue here now has become the data quality of the voluntary surveys... and not having people submit.

Really though the issue is about the number and method to which mule deer are killed in each WMU. The fact is that there is no proper way to answer that question based on the information at hand imo. Therefore there is no point pretending to know the answer or concluding that archery needs to be regulated by a draw.

The real problem that SRD should be asking themselves is how do we get this information so that we can accurately research it. Why isnt this so obvious?

Just because they did incorrect data collection with the Elk and Moose stats, doesnt make it right to do it to Mule Deer. Some folks think that two wrongs make a right apparently.

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Instead of putting a General season on draw, if and when ESRD can confidently support their position that there is a conservation or user group equality need to restrict a season, ESRD should start using other techniques to achieve desired goals such as shortening seasons.

That may be another solution in restricting archers to their 15% harvest cap. Nothing has been decided yet. Perhaps you should suggest that to your representative group on AGMAG. This is all still in the proposal stage. The end result is to get archer harvest in line with their participation numbers in some WMUs. I'm sure there may be many means of acheiving this. Your suggestion may very well acheive that and be more palatable to archers. I agree that a draw should be a last resort.

Originally Posted by pottymouth

The stats could be flawed one way or another, but basic math and common sense, it's pretty easy to figure out !

So you'd think...but a few seem to be struggling...

[pottymouth]

Can someone remind me, do they actually ask on the survey which weapon you used to harvest?

Originally Posted by sheephunter

That may be another solution in restricting archers to their 15% harvest cap. Nothing has been decided yet. Perhaps you should suggest that to your representative group on AGMAG. This is all still in the proposal stage. The end result is to get archer harvest in line with their participation numbers in some WMUs. I'm sure there may be many means of acheiving this. Your suggestion may very well acheive that and be more palatable to archers. I agree that a draw should be a last resort.

Who is on Agmag again?

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

So you'd think...but a few seem to be struggling...

Ya, but now the question is. What happens if bowhunter numbers go up to 25 %, does the bowhunter allowance go up ? If they do go up, where do they get those extra tags from? Do they take them away from the rifle guys?

Could something that looks good for the average rifle guy turn around and bite him ! or will Srd not follow suit?

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Ya, but now the question is. What happens if bowhunter numbers go up to 25 %, does the bowhunter allowance go up ?

It is proportional now so I can't see why that should change.

The numbers are a bit skewed in the fact that there is a fairly large number of hunters using both rifle and bow so you can't really count only rifle hunters and only bow hunters.