Wasted Lehs

[BIGHUNTERFISH]

I wonder what your guys thoughts are on people who get lehs and never go on the hunt?There is a guy at work who got a very low odds moose draw in region 5 and says he probably not be able to go on the hunt.I know other guys who have put in for areas they know nothing about and never go on the hunts.We have alot of great opportunities for hunting in our province but I feel cheated when a guy gets an leh and doesnt use it .What do you think?

[calvin L]

I feel that If you had to have bought the tag for a said leh before appling for it this could take the ? about not going on the hunt . If the hunter doesn't draw it they would get back all but a handling fee . I see this happining in the USA more & more .To me it is just a 180 DEG turn around from us but would take out some of the app's from it just being a low odds LEH . I am looking forward to the roasting I get from this idea :wink:


calvin L

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Let's face it. LEH kills hunter participation. It breaks up hunting parties and makes it difficult to plan trips.

Just like the Willy442 and the GOABC wants:neutral:.

SSS

[Fisher-Dude]

The way the number of tags is alloted, the game managers take into account how many people traditionally won't go hunting when they determine tag numbers. The only tags that can be re-issued if someone isn't going on the hunt is bison (they are being managed for their "pest" status).

So, if a draw has 10 tags, the game managers figure that maybe 2 won't hunt at all. Of the remaining 8, they calculate the success rate at say 75%, and they reach a target harvest of 6 animals. If all drawn hunters were to hunt, or if the tags were re-issued, they would only put out 8 tags to start with to reach the harvest of 6 animals. The target harvest is what determines numbers, not target number of hunters. So, the odds wouldn't improve for the rest of us in any case.

[Barracuda]

I have been unable to go on some leah hunts simply because of circumstances and even though I know that is factored in to the odds I would still feel better if i could have sent it back to them for re issue

[Gateholio]

The way the number of tags is alloted, the game managers take into account how many people traditionally won't go hunting when they determine tag numbers. The only tags that can be re-issued if someone isn't going on the hunt is bison (they are being managed for their "pest" status).

So, if a draw has 10 tags, the game managers figure that maybe 2 won't hunt at all. Of the remaining 8, they calculate the success rate at say 75%, and they reach a target harvest of 6 animals. If all drawn hunters were to hunt, or if the tags were re-issued, they would only put out 8 tags to start with to reach the harvest of 6 animals. The target harvest is what determines numbers, not target number of hunters. So, the odds wouldn't improve for the rest of us in any case.


This is what I understand is correct.

However, if it structured in a way that before you applied you MUST have a valid HL for the year, and that a sucessful draw meant an automatic tag purchase, then the odds WOULD improve for the rest of us, even if the numers were reduced.

Why? Because guys put in for sheep and grizz etc hunts thinking that they WON'T get it, and if they do, well, maybe they will buy a tag and give it a shot if it's conveinient...and maybe not.

Who wants to shell out $100 or $65 for atag that they never had any intention of using in the first place? The applicants will drop, the odds woudl improve, although that means less application revenue, too.

[Steeleco]

Because guys put in for sheep and grizz etc hunts thinking that they WON'T get it, I know of two cases where this exact thing happened, while I respect the guys, at the time I could have slapped them both.

Their attitude was "it's only $6"

In one other case, the guy got the grizz tag and was all stoked, till we asked him if he knew how much the taxidermy would cost him if he got one?

Once he found out he couldn't afford it, he stayed home. The good news is, he's never applied for grizz since!!

[browningboy]

This seems to happen more often than not as I've seen a few put in for certain areas with low odds, get them and find out theres no "road hunting" as theres no access so they don't bother, its such a waste.
Its too bad you couldn't "endenture" your LEH to one that could use it, really if a situation comes up out of your control, well why not? This would be a win win situation unless I'm mising something?:confused:

[416]

The way the number of tags is alloted, the game managers take into account how many people traditionally won't go hunting when they determine tag numbers.

X 2.......IIRC l remember reading on the BC govt website somewhere that as many as 4 draws where issued for every animal they wanted harvested in a particular area. This took into account all the variables including hunters not being able to go, for what ever reason.
As far as people not attempting to use their tags.........its their choice, we all have the same chance of being drawn for any given draw (barring enhanced odds), so why feel cheated?


I feel that If you had to have bought the tag for a said leh before appling for it this could take the ? about not going on the hunt . If the hunter doesn't draw it they would get back all but a handling fee .
Don't we already have enough hoops to jump through to be able to hunt? What your suggesting sounds similar to "reverse onus" where we as hunters have to pay up front for the "privilege" of being able to apply for an LEH in our own province, then if it doesn't work out, we can re-apply for a refund. We're are a strictly governed and controlled group as it is......l don't think more rules and regulations (especially ones where we have to pre-pay) is the way to keep the hunters numbers we have, let alone encourage new people to participate.

[Fisher-Dude]

The more complex we make it, the more we "demand" pre-payment, the more hunters we will lose who say "screw it". We won't recruit any newbies - the only ones who think they will benefit will hunt regardless of LEH success or not (even though they are mis-informed if they think they would somehow benefit).

We need as many hunters as we can get. To complicate the draw, to demand money up front, will simply kill off hunter numbers - and ultimately hunting itself.

Dump LEH where there is no conservation concern and go to GOS. That's what will really solve the disatisfaction with the LEH process.

[hunter1947]

Look at it this way ,at least there will be one more animal out there that will still be walking around at the end of the hunting season.

[horshur]

.Dump LEH where there is no conservation concern and go to GOS. That's what will really solve the disatisfaction with the LEH process.

what fisher said

[Chuck]

what fisher said

I never did like LEHing, what good is it anyway? What I mean is...I don't think it accomplishes that what it was intended for in the first place. An interesting idea, good on paper, but that's all imo. GOS worked for years, so where was it lacking? What went extinct cause hunters killed it off?
Just open it or close it that's all. Geez is someone trying to save the gov't some money or what? Get a good programme going, hire some competent people to run it properly and let the hunters hunt...or not.
It reminds me of the peace talks in the middle east - years of huffing and puffing and still haven't settled a darn thing - it will never end imo!

[30-06]

i know a guy who has gotten 3 grizzley draw's in his life..never gone on any of them

[416]

l don't understand why folks are annoyed if someone gets a draw and fails to follow through with it. We all start off at the same scratch line, random draw and what follows is the way is. Why is it going on unsuccessful LEH hunt is OK, but to blow it off for what ever the reason isn't, when the result is the same. Our harvest data cards give feedback on the results of the draw and changes are made accordingly......l don't see that us die hards are any worse for our chances because someone who was successful didn't go for their LEH hunt.
Youngfella........."because l can" is a perfectly legitimate reason in my books! :) The fact that we do have choices means there are going to be differences in the way people use their LEH's. While it may not be perfect, l prefer what's in place now to some of the options being suggested.

[oldtimer]

416, The biggest difference between an unsuccessfull LEH hunt and somebody not even goin is huge $$$$ not being spent by the individual. There are a large number of businesses up in my neck of the woods who describe hunting season as their # 2 best time of the year so in my opinion they can't be compared.
I believe as stated before that you should at the very least have to buy a hunting license PRIOR to applying for an LEH. Also everybody that is drawn MUST fill out their questionnaire and make sure you state wether you actually went hunting or were not able to. My 2 cents. Mike

[Shade Tree]

What is annoying is that there are only so many LEH opportunities and what is just a whim for one guy the next guy would give his eye teeth for. Many hunters really value a draw and plan their hollidays around them etc. So yes, when you get the draw that I have been applying for for the last six years and you can't be bothered to go I get annoyed.

[416]

Oldtimer.....what l understand your saying is that if you had your way, not only would we have to buy tags first, we would then have to spend "huge $$$" to make it more viable for local economies. How is that fair to the hunter? It's almost like another tax.
There are just about as many reasons why a hunter doesn't make a hunt as there are hunters. Some are viewed as valid others are viewed as not so.........but the bottom line is, from those harvest cards we fill out ( which l totally agree with) and other data, the ministry is aware of how many LEH's are required to harvest they numbers they want for sustainable animal populations
As for those non-hunts LEH's that never happen and never supported any economies .......if we all went on our LEH hunts l think you would see the number of authorizations drop as the number of no shows wouldn't be factored in the ministries equation anymore. It wouldn't change the desired harvest any more then it is now only the formula would reflect the number of hunters and time spent in the field and success rates. For example: if it takes 4 LEH's to harvest one animal (of which one of those draws never gets off the ground for what ever reason).......lets say everyone who was successful went on their LEH hunts, with all else being equal, it should require 25% less draws to harvest the same amount of animals. I don't believe the no-show LEH's do anything adverse for the rest of us and our odds of being successful.

[wetcoasthunter]

I don't believe the no-show LEH's do anything adverse for the rest of us and our odds of being successful.

Really? Lets put it this way, would you rather be drawn out of a hat of say 5 hunters that will for sure go if they get the draw or 10 hunters with a mix of guys that have no intention of going and those that will for sure go.

I'll take the 1 in 5 odds over the 1 in 10 odds any day of the week.

Granted this is a very simplified way of looking at it but to say that those guys that put into draws, when they KNOW they will not go on the hunt doesn't adversley affect the rest of us just not accurate IMHO.

[Fisher-Dude]

Really? Lets put it this way, would you rather be drawn out of a hat of say 5 hunters that will for sure go if they get the draw or 10 hunters with a mix of guys that have no intention of going and those that will for sure go.

I'll take the 1 in 5 odds over the 1 in 10 odds any day of the week.

Granted this is a very simplified way of looking at it but to say that those guys that put into draws, when they KNOW they will not go on the hunt doesn't adversley affect the rest of us just not accurate IMHO.

And your simplified way of looking at it, unfortunately, has lead you to the wrong conclusion. As I stated before, the allotted tags are based on HARVEST, not on hunters. They will give out enough tags to get their target harvest, no more, no less. If proportionately more guys hunt with their tags, they will reduce the allotment proportionately. Your odds are exactly the same either way. They will let out 5 tags for guys to pound the bush to kill 4 animals, or they will let out 10 tags for half the guys to stay home and drink beer, with 4 animals killed by the other 5 guys that get out there.

Take your pick, there is no difference in your odds. It will be 100 guys putting in for 10 tags, or 50 guys putting in for 5 tags, both will be 10:1. It's much better to have 100 guys putting money into the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund as 50 guys. Just because you are pissed off at some guy that doesn't use his tag is NO reason to deprive the HCTF of money to fund game management.

[Shade Tree]

Would this be the reason why one year they allot 50 grizzly tags for a unit and then three tags for the next year? How is this management?:-D

[Fisher-Dude]

Would this be the reason why one year they allot 50 grizzly tags for a unit and then three tags for the next year? How is this management?:-D

It would be part of the reason. Other factors might include new access roads into the area, bears killed by humans in self-defence or auto accidents, a berry crop failure that resulted in yearling mortality going up, a new inventory that showed fewer bears than what they thought, higher than normal hunter success rates in a given period, etc.

All else being equal, hunter success rates will affect allotted tags proportionately. Your example is extreme and if it's not said with tongue planted firmly in cheek, it must have been mainly due to some other drastic influence on the population to cause such a reduction in tags.

[BIGHUNTERFISH]

Fisher I am not as old or wise as you, but I have never heard of a problem with grizzlies getting hit by cars, in fact I have never heard of it ever.If you ask me Lehs are nothing but a govt. cash grab.

[416]

Fisher I am not as old or wise as you, but I have never heard of a problem with grizzlies getting hit by cars, in fact I have never heard of it ever

http://www.idaho8.com/Global/story.asp?S=6801029

Google is your friend :-D.........

[GoatGuy]

Would this be the reason why one year they allot 50 grizzly tags for a unit and then three tags for the next year? How is this management?:-D

sow harvest shouldn't be more than 30% of the AAH. In an area with 50 grizzly tags I'd imagine the AAH (number of dead animals on the ground) is probably around 5 bears which means 1.5 sows. My guess is there was probably a couple boars shot and 3 or 4 sows killed.

That'll do 'er.

[hunter1947]

When they put a certain species on LEH has anyone ever hear of the hunting synopsis taking it off ever ,i recall i have never seen this happen.

[Westicle]

I think the hunter should have to have a valid tag for every animal applied for in the LEH.

the way I look at it is I buy the tags that I would like to fill.... note I said like and not WILL...

by buying tags I help support conservation in this province, to me that is money well spent and shows the goverment that I am a Hunter and my vote counts.

[Shade Tree]

It would be part of the reason. Other factors might include new access roads into the area, bears killed by humans in self-defence or auto accidents, a berry crop failure that resulted in yearling mortality going up, a new inventory that showed fewer bears than what they thought, higher than normal hunter success rates in a given period, etc.

All else being equal, hunter success rates will affect allotted tags proportionately. Your example is extreme and if it's not said with tongue planted firmly in cheek, it must have been mainly due to some other drastic influence on the population to cause such a reduction in tags.

It was said somewhat tongue and cheeck. IMO people who do not have much intention of using their LEH is a variable that could be drastically reduced for game managers if people were charged for the tags when they get a draw. It is poor management when 50 tags go out and then they get a much higher kill ratio than expected because mangers figured only a certain number of guys would go when actually it was much higher. So the next year fewer tags are allotted. if you were charged for the tag you might think twice before putting in your draws if you where not serious. this would give game managers a better idea for predicting the kill ratio.
This is done in most states and would be easy to implement once all this stuff goes on line.

[Seeadler]

What about the "Youth and Senior's" season this year for elk and deer, the new regs came out after the LEH, so how many youths and seniors applied for LEH when they didn't have too?

[GoatGuy]

What about the "Youth and Senior's" season this year for elk and deer, the new regs came out after the LEH, so how many youths and seniors applied for LEH when they didn't have too?

Didn't have too is a big question.

In BC you don't have to put in for an LEH for antlerless muley's, wt's, wt or muley bucks, elk (both bulls and antlerless), every kind of sheep other than dalls, moose, goats, black bears etc.,

Really the only things you have to put in for are buffalo, dalls and grizzlies.:mrgreen:

In Alberta high demand species, goats (used to be grizz when they had a season) were still on randomn draw. Building points until your 100 just isn't realistic.

Priority may work on the lower odds stuff (moose, antlerless elk, does, most grizz, goat) but for kamloops lake sheep, west koot elk and buffallo amongst many others a priority system won't do you much good.

By the time your number comes up that big west kootenay bull will be making a wallow out of your ashes - p*ssin' on your grave as they say.

[GoatGuy]

It was said somewhat tongue and cheeck. IMO people who do not have much intention of using their LEH is a variable that could be drastically reduced for game managers if people were charged for the tags when they get a draw. It is poor management when 50 tags go out and then they get a much higher kill ratio than expected because mangers figured only a certain number of guys would go when actually it was much higher. So the next year fewer tags are allotted. if you were charged for the tag you might think twice before putting in your draws if you where not serious. this would give game managers a better idea for predicting the kill ratio.
This is done in most states and would be easy to implement once all this stuff goes on line.


The key to this specific problem is education. Wildlife managers will never know how many sows are killed - a difference of one or two animals makes a significant difference when it comes to grizzly bears (that could mean one or two hunters - out of 10 or 50 makes no difference). Whether it's guys who hunt using the tags or not the outcome is not affected by the number of tags being released, it's about the sex of the animals harvested.

Furthermore, there are several factors including a hard winters, disease and even access related events for hunters that will affect authorization numbers far more than a harvest which varies by +-10% annually. Participation is actually pretty easy to predict over the long run; the annual variation in tags is linked directly to the dynamics of the population. Regardless of price or tags issued participation is generally a constant with annual fluctuations that are easy to control - disease and weather are not.

This concept occurs in every other jurisdiction in North America (see CWD cull in Alberta) but folks only talk about the specific parts of a system they like.

[oldtimer]

416, Read my post , nowhere do I say we should have to purchase "tags " prior to the LEH. What I did say was that "the very least we should have to do is buys a LICENSE prior to purchasing an LEH application. Mike