Changes To Archery Mule Deer.

[jryley]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

I didn't say anything that was wrong! You do want mule deer on draw, because you believe bowhunters shouldn't have that opportunity.... the last sentence was a question...hence the (?)....



Actually your wrong again, there will be no stomping of the feet ! Only one zone out of the 5 I hunt will go only draw! So I'll still be chasing big ones again! And If that changes down the road, well I'll buy my self a pretty little section and hunt my landowners tags...Heck we might end up being neighbors...lol

I wis the forum had a sarcasm button! Shoulda elaborated a but more! Was just poking fun at ya potty! All ingood fun. As i said before, youre obviously a smart guy with a common passion for the sport that i share! We disagree to a certain extent, but not entirely. I will say it sucks for the guys that pursue mule in said zones responsibly. Lets hope it doesnt last too long and numbers are through the roof in a couple years!0

Doesn't anyone find it a bit odd that the big threat that SRD used with the crossbow question was that if crossbow were permitted that some WMUs would likely go on draw for mule deer when apparently they already knew that some WMUs were headed for a draw? While we were busy fighting among each other and pointing fingers, we were being easily manipulated. You think we'd learn from past mistakes but if this thread is any indication, we haven't learned a thing. Sad.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

im goiing to point this out again.....IF archery hunters are taking more than their 15% allotted...it should go to draw. the math srd is using to get their numbers is seriously flawed.....aim the anger at the right place here people!

Originally Posted by 209x50

It amazes me that the ABA never asked for support from other organizations. it also amazes me theys went to the last AGMAG not fighting for proof of the archers exceeding the 15% cap but rather went in to negotiate the new draw.

Originally Posted by H380

Question I have is where did SRD come up with the magical allowed number of 15 % ? If the number of bowhunters is higher than 15 % of the hunting population , why would the allowance number not be raised as well ?

Originally Posted by sheephunter

If I'm not mistaken....bow hunter licence sales represent about 15.8% of wildlife certificate sales.

15% of the number of resident hunters buy a bowhunting tag. Yet they include the game bird and pheasant tags in the total... So the 15% based on # of resident hunters isnt a good number to use.

I pulled some public info and suggest that at least 25% of the hunters that hunt big game also bowhunt.

Anyone care to comment on this sheet? I believe the 15% number represents very little with respect to a useful cap.



http://www.mywildalberta.com/BuyLice...tatistics.aspx

You can't just eliminate the bird hunters as a large number of them also big game hunt. Where it also gets confusing is that most of those bow hunters are also rifle hunters. 95% if I'm not mistaken.

[grinr]

Re:data collection,wouldn't a very simple solution to collecting accurate harvest data be to simply require all big game harvests to be registered,either in person,online,or by phone?
I would think such a system would be pretty simple to set-up?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

You can't just eliminate the bird hunters as a large number of them also big game hunt. Where it also gets confusing is that most of those bow hunters are also rifle hunters. 95% if I'm not mistaken.

Agreed but you just cant include them as big game resident hunters and split up the big game bowhunting share based on their numbers. The 15% take is extremely low and I beleive that it is beyond 25% that bowhunt.

Also, based on the stats, resident bowhunter numbers have increased 12% between 2011 and 2008 wheras total resident hunters have only increased 4.4%. Obviously a growing population which is important in maintaining overall numbers.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

You can't just eliminate the bird hunters as a large number of them also big game hunt. Where it also gets confusing is that most of those bow hunters are also rifle hunters. 95% if I'm not mistaken.

How do we know that 95% are dual hunters?

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by grinr

Re:data collection,wouldn't a very simple solution to collecting accurate harvest data be to simply require all big game harvests to be registered,either in person,online,or by phone?
I would think such a system would be pretty simple to set-up?

You are makeing too much sense...stop that!!

Also have to figure in roadkill, subsistence, and illegal harvest.

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Doesn't anyone find it a bit odd that the big threat that SRD used with the crossbow question was that if crossbow were permitted that some WMUs would likely go on draw for mule deer when apparently they already knew that some WMUs were headed for a draw? While we were busy fighting among each other and pointing fingers, we were being easily manipulated. You think we'd learn from past mistakes but if this thread is any indication, we haven't learned a thing. Sad.

Well said and very true.

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Agreed but you just cant include them as big game resident hunters and split up the big game bowhunting share based on their numbers. The 15% take is extremely low and I beleive that it is beyond 25% that bowhunt.

Also, based on the stats, resident bowhunter numbers have increased 12% between 2011 and 2008 wheras total resident hunters have only increased 4.4%. Obviously a growing population which is important in maintaining overall numbers.

Lots of valid points...I was only saying you can't eliminate all the bird hunters....I suspect a very large percentage also big game hunt so I'm not sure how you figure more than 25%. By eliminating them all you only got to 25% and we know we can't do that.

Originally Posted by pottymouth

How do we know that 95% are dual hunters?

ABA membership poll. Truthfully, the percentage of dual weapon hunters is likely even a bit higher in the general hunting population.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Lots of valid points...I was only saying you can't eliminate all the bird hunters....I suspect a very large percentage also big game hunt so I'm not sure how you figure more than 25%. By eliminating them all you only got to 25% and we know we can't do that.

Based on the 2012 (i couldnt find 2011 but it will work for arguement sake) draw stats there was 24,427 resident mule deer hunters that were drawn (assume they were all rifle only hunters). The 2011 resident mule hunters from the stats above are 36,589. The remaining 12,162 i would hazard to believe were made up of mostly bowhunters grabbing a general tag as their are very few places that offer mule deer on rifle general tag anymore (and they usually dont have high hunter or deer numbers imo). Sure you can state the assumptions are flawed but they balance out against each other too.

So 12,000 over 37,000 is nearly 32%. So thats how I get to over 25%.

So would you agree that the 15% cap isnt a good number to use???

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Based on the 2012 (i couldnt find 2011 but it will work for arguement sake) draw stats there was 24,427 resident mule deer hunters that were drawn (assume they were all rifle only hunters). The 2011 resident mule hunters from the stats above are 36,589. The remaining 12,162 i would hazard to believe were made up of mostly bowhunters grabbing a general tag as their are very few places that offer mule deer on rifle general tag anymore (and they usually dont have high hunter or deer numbers imo). Sure you can state the assumptions are flawed but they balance out against each other too.

So 12,000 over 37,000 is nearly 32%. So thats how I get to over 25%.

So would you agree that the 15% cap isnt a good number to use???

A few flaws in your calculations but my first question is:
Does the 24,427 drawn include antlerless draws as well?

I did some looking and it appears it does so you are likely right that the percentage of bowhunters pursuing mule deer is higher than 15% but that number does not represent the general hunting population...just those pursuing mule deer. Considering, as you pointed out, opportunity for general mule deer is very limited and bow tags are general, this shouldn't come as much surprise but you can't compare a group on restricted draw to one that is not, when figuring out a percentage of participation overall. That's the major flaw.

[H380]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Based on the 2012 (i couldnt find 2011 but it will work for arguement sake) draw stats there was 24,427 resident mule deer hunters that were drawn (assume they were all rifle only hunters). The 2011 resident mule hunters from the stats above are 36,589. The remaining 12,162 i would hazard to believe were made up of mostly bowhunters grabbing a general tag as their are very few places that offer mule deer on rifle general tag anymore (and they usually dont have high hunter or deer numbers imo). Sure you can state the assumptions are flawed but they balance out against each other too.

So 12,000 over 37,000 is nearly 32%. So thats how I get to over 25%.

So would you agree that the 15% cap isnt a good number to use???

Last line ...My point exactly .

[grinr]

.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Does the 24,427 drawn include antlerless draws as well?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Yes.

I edited above.....I see how you reached the conclusion you did but it really isn't representative of the general hunting population as I pointed out above. You are comparing a population on draw to one not on draw......that doesn't work when calculating number of participants other than in the one instance which is weighted because the number of participants drawn. Look at how many applied.

The numbers we know for absolute certainty are the number of wildlife certificates and the number of bowhunting licences...what is not known for sure is how many bird hunters also big game hunt but we do know for sure that the number of bow hunters in the general big game hunting population is less than 25%...that is not even arguable. How much less is open to some speculation. But you still haven't factored in the fact that most bow hunters are dual weapon hunters.....not bow hunters only...that's where things get muddy. We also know for fact that nearly 16% of all hunters in Alberta bow hunt to some degree.

[grinr]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Based on the 2012 The remaining 12,162 i would hazard to believe were made up of mostly bowhunters grabbing a general tag as their are very few places that offer mule deer on rifle general tag anymore (and they usually dont have high hunter or deer numbers imo). Sure you can state the assumptions are flawed but they balance out against each other too.

So 12,000 over 37,000 is nearly 32%. So thats how I get to over 25%.

That's assuming quite alot considering that most(all?)of the 400's and alot of the 300's have General/no draw Mule seasons.I didn't bowhunt at all this year but I bought a mule tag.Did most of my hunting off of the FTR between Cochrane and RMH,open for mule pretty much everywhere on both sides of road iirc?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I edited above.....I see how you reached the conclusion you did but it really isn't representative of the general hunting population as I pointed out above.

The general overall hunting population has no affect on mule deer stats yet it is being used as the base in which mule deer caps are implemented.

You are comparing a population on draw to one not on draw......that doesn't work when calculating number of participants other than in the one instance which is weighted because the number of participants drawn. Look at how many applied.

The numbers we know for absolute certainty are the number of wildlife certificates and the number of bowhunting licences...

One of these numbers is semi-useful and the other isnt.


what is not known for sure is how many bird hunters also big game hunt but we do know for sure that the number of bow hunters in the general big game hunting population is less than 25%...that is not even arguable.

Post how you came up with your unarguable numbers as i am interested in your approach. My numbers appear to be arguable whereas yours are not??

How much less is open to some speculation. But you still haven't factored in the fact that most bow hunters are dual weapon hunters.....not bow hunters only...that's where things get muddy. We also know for fact that nearly 16% of all hunters in Alberta bow hunt to some degree.

At least 16% bowhunt so lets cap it at 15%... dumb math by the uninformed people who make the rules...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My numbers are not arguable because they respresent a known number...pretty simple....we know how many people buy wildlife certificates and bow hunting licences. Those are the only certanties in this whole discussion so far.

The mule deer numbers only work if both groups have the same oportunity opportunity to hunt ...they don't. If you want to use the mule deer numbers, use the number of applicants...not the number that were drawn. Even then there are too many other variables.

This is pretty simple math.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

This is pretty simple math.

Math is fine but digging into the problem is before using math is a better approach.

People think that bow hunters are getting too many mule deer. Then someone like yourself jumps into math as a solution without looking at the real problems or other solutions.

So 15% is the targeted resident bowhunting cap. That's a mistake due to the numbers used but fine.

Outfitters and landowners are consuming, on average 34%, of the antlered mule deer in the 200 zones scheduled to be put on resident archery draw.

Now there is the problem. But the solution is being rammed down our resident throats by math experts using meaningless numbers.

I like to think my numbers have more thought put into them and you have blown big holes in them (which I cannot argue..), so why not switch sides and call the current approach a pile of garbage???

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Math is fine but digging into the problem is before using math is a better approach.

People think that bow hunters are getting too many mule deer. Then someone like yourself jumps into math as a solution without looking at the real problems or other solutions.

So 15% is the targeted resident bowhunting cap. That's a mistake due to the numbers used but fine.

Outfitters and landowners are consuming, on average 34%, of the antlered mule deer in the 200 zones scheduled to be put on resident archery draw.

Now there is the problem. But the solution is being rammed down our resident throats by math experts using meaningless numbers.

I like to think my numbers have more thought put into them and you have blown big holes in them (which I cannot argue..), so why not switch sides and call the current approach a pile of garbage???

LOL...I was helping you understand the 15% number.....not making a case for anything else. I happen to have a pretty strong background in stats. Some stats are arguable...some aren't. No point wasting your time on the ones that aren't. There are enough in this situation that are...it's important to know the difference or all of your thoughts are easily dismissed by the government. Arguing that 32% of the big hunting population are bow hunters will quickly have all of your thoughts dismissed......

I was honestly trying to do you a favour and help you understand.....that's why I was so patient....so you can pout because I pointed out the folly of your arguement or you can say thanks and be better armed to fight this when speaking with the government. You pick..........

I didn't know brining up facts put you on a side......lol....this site cracks me up sometimes. I don't agree with your flawed math so I'm against you....interesting. Perhaps I was just trying to help you............

[pottymouth]

So the number they are using, based off of bow permits? Which is 15.8% of the population. What happens when bow permits go to 20% or more, does that mean that they will be adjusting the allowance to 20% or more as well?

Originally Posted by pottymouth

So the number they are using, based off of bow permits? Which is 15.8% of the population. What happens when bow permits go to 20% or more, does that mean that they will be adjusting the allowance to 20% as well?

Good question for ESRD.

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...I was helping you understand the 15% number.....not making a case for anything else. I happen to have a pretty strong background in stats. Some stats are arguable...some aren't. No point wasting your time on the ones that aren't. There are enough in this situation that are...it's important to know the difference or all of your thoughts are easily dismissed by the government. Arguing that 32% of the big hunting population are bow hunters will quickly have all of your thoughts dismissed......

I was honestly trying to do you a favour and help you understand.....that's why I was so patient....so you can pout because I pointed out the folly of your arguement or you can say thanks and be better armed to fight this when speaking with the government. You pick..........

I didn't know brining up facts put you on a side......lol....this site cracks me up sometimes. I don't agree with your flawed math so I'm against you....interesting. Perhaps I was just trying to help you............

I figured you as a self-proclaimed expert alright so the background in stats comes as no surprise.

Glad you could experience some folly and "crack up". Now you know how I feel when I last read one of your articles.

Maybe I'll take a course before I throw up any alternatives to the governments train of thought. Anyways, thanks for listening to my spew!

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

I figured you as a self-proclaimed expert alright so the background in stats comes as no surprise.

Glad you could experience some folly and "crack up". Now you know how I feel when I last read one of your articles.

Maybe I'll take a course before I throw up any alternatives to the governments train of thought. Anyways, thanks for listening to my spew!

I see you chose the first option...lol

This thread is so indicitive of of the problems we face as hunters in this province. You'd rather spend all afternoon arguing that 2+2=9 than learn a little something to better arm yourself to take the government to task. We spend so much time fighting our personal little battles on here and pointing fingers at individuals that the big picture soon gets forgotten. We are so proud that we are unable to learn and facts that might not 100% support our position terrify us.

I'm sure the boys at SRD delight in this stuff while they slip into their Grinch suits for Christmas happily knowing that all the whos in whoville are busy arguing amoungest themselves and won't notice that they are once again stealing all the hunting opportunities from beneath the tree. We really deserve what we get.

At some point we need to let go of our petty little grievances and learn from each other and realize that we likely won't agree on all points of a situation but there is likely common ground in there somewhere that will make us all stronger, if we can shut up long enough to listen. I can honestly say that the unity shown among groups over the sheep changes is indeed refreshing and something foreign to the Alberta hunting community. With a little coaltion, you might be surprised what could be done. Or you can whine about how the hunting groups are doing nothing and keep arguing that 2+2=9. It's refreshing that there is life outside of this board....life that doesn't let their ego get in the way of what's good for all. Life that is willing to be quiet and learn when they need to and speak up when they should. Sadly, we are becoming a pretty heavy anchor around their feet. Enjoy the trip down...............

[LongDraw]

Validity of the data aside, An archery mule deer draw should be a separate draw code. Seems to work well for Antelope.

SRD can absolutely control hunter numbers, and hunters can manage their draws.

[pope]

One only needs to spend time in some zones to see a mule deer archery draw is BS. Take 305 for example - since they got rid of the 3 point rule this area boasts a healthy polulation of mule deer of all sizes year after year. Now to put it on a draw for archery is ridiculous. Applying simple math to every zone will do nothing but needlessly reduce hunting opportunity.

[super7mag]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I see you chose the first option...lol

This thread is so indicitive of of the problems we face as hunters in this province. You'd rather spend all afternoon arguing that 2+2=9 than learn a little something to better arm yourself to take the government to task. We spend so much time fighting our personal little battles on here and pointing fingers at individuals that the big picture soon gets forgotten. We are so proud that we are unable to learn and facts that might not 100% support our position terrify us.

I'm sure the boys at SRD delight in this stuff while they slip into their Grinch suits for Christmas happily knowing that all the whos in whoville are busy arguing amoungest themselves and won't notice that they are once again stealing all the hunting opportunities from beneath the tree. We really deserve what we get.

At some point we need to let go of our petty little grievances and learn from each other and realize that we likely won't agree on all points of a situation but there is likely common ground in there somewhere that will make us all stronger, if we can shut up long enough to listen. I can honestly say that the unity shown among groups over the sheep changes is indeed refreshing and something foreign to the Alberta hunting community. With a little coaltion, you might be surprised what could be done. Or you can whine about how the hunting groups are doing nothing and keep arguing that 2+2=9. It's refreshing that there is life outside of this board....life that doesn't let their ego get in the way of what's good for all. Life that is willing to be quiet and learn when they need to and speak up when they should. Sadly, we are becoming a pretty heavy anchor around their feet. Enjoy the trip down...............

Well maybe the mayans had it right and we can all Kiss our butts good bye, Cause thats twice this week I agree with Sheep!! he was right about keeping the thread on Sandy Hook on track( which got derailed rather quickly) and he is right about in fighting. the competitvness about the next big rack has left hunting with much less commradery and more plain competition. Instead of woorying about what WE can hunt next year maybe we should worry about what our kids can hunt in future years.
The srd is smoke and mirrors, I stayed out of the baiting thread and this one until it came to much, they are linked by the cwd fears and silent culls , if you cant see this well....... If I shut down a zone just out of edmunchuck, or callgry and open it up on the border where oh where will all the hunters roam. smoke and mirrors.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by super7mag

If I shut down a zone just out of edmunchuck, or callgry and open it up on the border where oh where will all the hunters roam. smoke and mirrors.

I know that you know that the extended seasons in the eastern border zones became a gong show those extra weeks they were open in December....land owners I know dreaded those last couple weeks more than the entire season combined. All the road warriors who were unsuccessful accross the province flocked there to cull...or err I mean for the "extra opportunity" Not to mention they still had WT supplementals there.....thank goodness those are no longer handed out in border zones. Was nice to see for the first time in a long time that mule doe was not undersubscribed this year either....

I am just worried they are going to build the population up only to beat it down again in a few years...

LC