Ask your LEH questions here...

[wetcoasthunter]

i'll echo the others and vote for earlier draws and online applications as well as online reporting. A ton more people would fill out harvest questionaires if they were available to do online. And if they are available to do online somewhere then they need to advertise the fact better

Chris

I will vote for that as well, especially the earlier draws

[GoatGuy]

Horshur, the new allocation policy is set up so that residents achieve their AAH. This means all barriers are examined and rectified. This may mean more LEH authorizations, more access, longer seasons, different seasons or going to a GOS if need be. Remember the only issue is on LEH or animals that are on quota.

So far as antlerless draws go we'll be guaranteed 98% of them, so that ain't such a big deal!

[GoatGuy]

Earlier draw dates (same time as g/os get their quota) and electronic licensing are also in the works.

[Tinney]

Chalk up another vote for an earlier draw...and MAYBE a digital system...let's not forget the hordes of hunters like most in my family who don't use the internet for much more than email...

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Earlier draws like the trial early Spatzizi sheep draw. It's hard to book a flight or finalize plans when you find out 3 weeks before the starting date of your hunt.

SSS

[BCrams]

I am for the earlier LEH draw and a phased in electronic entry system so that those who don't use the computer much can still obtain cards from their sporting goods store. I vote for a February 15-30th deadline with results by April 1st.

[Elkhound]

Okay people, let's keep the thread about LEH questions. There are good and bad hunters everywhere. For every horror story someone has, the other side has one too. Nobody will win this one. Now Gatehouse has to wade through 2 pages of junk so he can find and ask questions.

Alright, thread is edited and all relevant info has been left.

Next question please

[Gateholio]

Thanks Elkhound..

This thread is Q&A ONLY.

If you want to discuss how locals should get priority or anything else, start another thread and bicker there...

Further posts that are not of the Q&A type will get deleted without warning.

[Gateholio]

1. Why can't the LEH draws be done earlier, so there is more time to
plan,
especially for trips with acess issues.


2. Why don't we have a points based system, liek Alberta/many states do?

3. Can we phase in a computer/digital system rather than use the cards?
Once a
hunter establishes an "account" his information will always be correct,
so
there woudl be less itme wasted on correcting cards, as well as be
efficient in
other ways.

4.Statistics for hunter effort and success are reported by species and
Management unit, including all hunts by resis and non-resis. The same
info is
not available for a specific LEH hunt.
Is it possible to have a report available, containing actual permit
numbers
issued, Hunter numbers, Hunter effort in days, and success rate ?

[Gateholio]

1. We are aware that hunters would like the draws earlier and we do our
best. The problem lies in two main areas.

First, we need to assess the previous hunting season before we can set
new seasons, including LEH seasons. We need to know what the previous
year's harvest was before we determine the number of authorizations we
can give out in the next year's LEH draw. That is why it says
'Tentative Number of Authorizations Available' in the LEH synopsis. We
have not finished analyzing the previous year's harvest at the time of
publication, so that allows us to change numbers after publication of
the synopsis. Analysis of harvest is primarily done through hunter
surveys, compulsory inspection, compulsory reporting and guide
declaration reports. These all take time. Some LEH hunts do not end
until the end of February, so our window of time is tight.

Second, after all the analysis mentioned above is complete, the LEH
regulations must be passed by cabinet. Generally, cabinet only sits
once per week, so approval must wait for a sitting. If they reject the
regulations for some reason (they usually don't), we have to fix
whatever they didn't like and wait for another sitting.

However, the main problem is simply getting the previous year's analysis
done.


2. This is probably the single biggest question I get asked. Here is
the answer:

WHY BC DOES NOT USE A POINT PREFERENCE SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATING L.E. HUNTS

Point preference systems and pool systems (which are very similar) are
used in a number of North American jurisdictions. Alberta uses a
system in which points are accumulated each time an individual applies
unsuccessfully. Draws are preferentially given to those with the most
points first; the second most points second, and so on. When the system
reaches a point level where there are more applicants than remaining
available licences, the available licences are randomly assigned at that
point level. Upon being drawn, an applicant's points are deleted and
they start accumulating from zero again.

In 2005, Alberta had 213,749 applications for 71,950 available licences,
with overall average odds of 2.97 to 1. With such odds, on average,
applicants would be drawn roughly every 3 years even in a completely
random system. In B.C.'s 2005 draw, we received 151,972 applications for
26,476 available authorizations for overall average odds of 5.74 to 1,
nearly twice the average odds in Alberta.

If you examine Alberta's hunts in detail, you find that some of their
hunts are very easy to get, with many hunts in their WMU's actually
going undersubscribed. Eleven of their twenty-three categories have a
20% or better overall success rate (ie, odds of 5 to 1 or better),
encompassing 168,613 of their total 213,749 applications (79%). For
these hunts, their system will work very nicely, with people getting
drawn once every 5 years or better. However, with their high odds hunts,
it's a different story. If you want to hunt sheep in Alberta, you will
wait many years to reach the highest point level. In fact, some of
Alberta's sheep and goat hunts are not on a priority system because they
recognize that the demand is so high that nobody would get to hunt until
they reached extreme age. Fortunately, relatively few of Alberta's LEH
opportunities have such high demand, so overall their system meets their
needs.

In B.C. we are not so fortunate. In the 2005 draw, 286 of our 951 LEH
hunts had odds of 10 to 1 or higher, 161 hunts had odds of 20 to 1 or
higher and in 120 cases, the odds were 30 to 1 or higher. In some cases,
they were as high as 600 to 1. In fact, only 465 (about half) of our
hunts had odds of 5 to one or better. These 465 hunts represented only
39,834 applications out of a total of 151,972, therefore, only 26% or
our total applications were for hunts with odds of 5 to 1 or better. In
Alberta, about 80% of applicants are drawn after 3 attempts. In B.C.,
only 13% (19,751) of applicants faced odds of 3 to 1 or better in the
2005 draw, so no such turnover is possible here. Carrying the analysis
further, 41% (62,584) of our applications were for hunts with odds
greater than 10 to 1, 28% (42,992) of our applications were for hunts
with odds greater than 20 to 1 and 24% (36,690 ) of our applications
were for hunts with odds greater than 30 to 1. What this all means is
that if we go to a priority system, nearly half of our applicants can
expect to wait at least a decade, if not many times that, before they
will have any chance of being drawn. In a very few years, for many
hunts, the priority list will be so long that no new person taking up
hunting will have an opportunity to hunt prior to advanced age. Can you
imagine a teenager paying money annually to enter a system that might
provide them with a chance to hunt when they're 65 years old? Having
examined our odds situation, we believe that asking hunters to pay for
so many years before they have any chance of being drawn would be
fraudulent. Indeed, in the early 1980's, Montana scrapped their priority
system for elk because they found that nobody under a certain age would
draw a licence in their lifetime.

One suggestion we have considered relates to periods of ineligibility.
For example, we could decide that once a person has drawn a particular
species, they are not allowed to apply for some period of time.
Unfortunately, for many hunts, even once in a lifetime opportunities
don't help much. Using bison as an example, up to 2006, 38,153 people
have applied for bison in all of the draws that have ever been offered,
but only 1,454 have ever been drawn. If those 1,454 individuals were
barred from ever applying again, that would still leave 36,699 people
applying for 79 licences in the 2006 draw... not much of an improvement.
Additionally, periods of ineligibility have been offered to the BC
Wildlife Federation, but disagreement around the length of such periods
is always intense.

THE BC APPROACH

In British Columbia, we have developed a system we call 'enhanced odds'.
Rather than reward unsuccessful applicants, we reduce the chances of
previously successful applicants. All applicants that are drawn have
their chances reduced by 50% in the following year. In the case of
successful applicants for moose and Roosevelt elk, their chances are
reduced by 66% for the following three draws. This is done for all
species except deer, and the method was developed with the approval of
the BC Wildlife Federation.

The beauty of this system is that it does not discriminate against first
time applicants and it self-adjusts according to demand. If very few
people apply for a given hunt, then the system will automatically adjust
the odds reduction to less than 50% (or less than 66% for moose and
Roosevelt elk). This does not happen very often, but there are always a
few hunts that have low subscription, so there is no point in denying
opportunity to any applicant. This system does not eliminate repeat
success, but it keeps it at a low level.

The two main concerns with point systems are the length of turn-over
time for high odds hunts and the potential for these turn-over times to
discourage hunter recruitment. That being said, introducing a point
system for the compulsory inspection species (caribou, goats, grizzlies
and sheep) may be feasible if hunters want it. These are not entry
level species, so lengthy wait times would not significantly discourage
hunter recruitment.


3. Yes, we plan to replace the card application system soon. Nobody
wants this to happen more than I do. Did you ever open 155,000 pieces
of mail in three weeks?! If all goes according to plan, this (2007)
will be the last year that people will apply for LEH hunts with the
traditional post card applications. We are currently developing an
electronic licensing system for both angling and hunting licences. Part
of that system will be a new means of applying for LEH hunts. Our
current intention is for people to be able to apply either over the
internet or by phone (phone applications are used in Alberta). I can't
promise that everything will go well enough for us to start this in
2008, but that is what we are working towards.

4. There are a few statistical reports available on the Fish & Wildlife
Branch web site, but they are several years old and they do not provide
the kind of detail you are requesting. However, we do produce precisely
what you describe, we just haven't published it. These statistics are
produced annually as part of the analysis I mentioned above in answer to
your first question. We are currently considering revision of our web
site and we may provide this information later this year.