AB Vs BC Limited entry system

[kootenayslam]

Hey everyone,

Just thought i'd run a poll to see if i'm alone in hoping/thinking we should go the same route here in BC as alberta as far as a the limited entry system goes.

For information:

BC is the "Lottery" style system purerly based on luck in the draw, one person can get drawn 4 years in a row at odds of 1.8:1 when the other guy can get draw 4 years in a row at 1.8:1 odds for the species(all luck of the draw)

if your not aware of the Alberta draw system:

It is based on priority, if I apply for a mule deer buck one year, don't get it i get bumped from a priority 0 to a priority 1, if i apply again the next year and don't get it, i get bumped from a priority 1 to a priority 2 and so on. Basically no priority 0 or 1 draws will get the tag if someone apply's that is at a priority 2(has applied for 3 years unsuccesfully). Once the priority 2 gets drawn then he gets bumped back to a 0 and starts the process again. Zone statistics are posted online so you know roughly which priority you will need before you get your tag in each individual zone.

For example, here in BC I missed out on my goat draw at 1.4:1 for three years straight now, I may get it this year I may not but I won't know until i get my results back in June, on the other hand I got a 126:1 elk draw when I was 14 yrs old that many guys had applied 40 years for! On the alberta system(even as BC resident with a host I can hunt still) I am a priority 6 on my antelope and know I will get my tag this year so I am allready planning on this trip, vacation is booked and my hunt is planned(based on the fact that last year in the zone I apply 100% of priority 6's got the draw)

It sure makes planning for hunts nice.

I feel it makes alot more sense and would like to see it pushed through one day here in BC but wanted to hear other hunters opinions! thanks.

[elkdom]

I think it would be better if you just move to Alberta !,

take advantage of all of Alberta's hunting opportunities:idea::-o

Good luck, :-o

[Gateholio]

How many years until my priority draw for bison, Island elk, California Sheep come in?

[kootenayslam]

I think it would be better if you just move to Alberta !,

take advantage of all of Alberta's hunting opportunities:idea::-o

Good luck, :-o


Was there but moved back but sure grew to like the draw system:p

[Steeleco]

Not knowing the Alta system one bit, I've resigned myself to treat the BC system as a "Lottery" and nothing more. If I can score a tag that fits into my plans, great. If not I'm still going hunting, where and when I wanted.

[Bigbuckadams]

I haven't got drawn, for anything, since I was 21 or 22 years old. Turning 41 this year, you do the math. My opinion, BC's system sucks & should be revised. For the record, I put in for a minimum of 4 draws per year in areas with relatively low odds ( below 15:1 ), with Sheep being the exception.

[brian]

The priority system sounds great, but I would wonder what kind of added cost is needed to handle it logistically. Last time I tried to contact our own provincial department responsible for hunting, they didn't even have email and sounded grossly understaffed. Not exactly spilling over with cash.

[bighornbob]

The alberta system would not work here becuase of our higher odds. Its been posted here before but the jist of it something like 75% of alberta draws are less then 5:1 odds. This means that you could get a draw once every 5 years under the priority system.

Here in BC something like 50% of our draws are close to 20:1 or greater. That means a 20 year wait to have a chance at getting drawn. Try explaining that to a 16 year old that just started hunting. I could see the father/son conversation now "Congratulations son you just passed CORE at 16 years of age. So lets get you applying for a moose tag. You have to pay 6 dollars a year, every year and when you are 36 Dad will take you moose hunting. Oh and while we are doing moose, might as well send in a sheep tag. As a retirement gift to you I will take you sheep hunting, that is if your dear old dad is still alive."

That is basically how it would be here for the majority of tags in BC under the alberta system.

BHB

[budismyhorse]

I think they should get rid of the fellas just putting in for the heck of it with no intention of hunting. This happens alot with goat draws, make some kind of penalty for not hunting the species you drew and the odds may go down for alot of game. Seen it with all kinds of draws, Tat sheep, moose, WK elk...lots of examples of LEH antlerless deer and elk.

tirekickers, lowering the odds of being drawn for serious hunters since inception of LEH.

[hunter1947]

Like a few others have said most regions would not withstand an AB LEH system odds are to hi ,keep the LEH system the way it is in BC

[kootenayslam]

The alberta system would not work here becuase of our higher odds.

BHB

I just Looked into it and the high odds draws in alberta.......Goat, Trophy sheep and Bison Draws (in high odds Zones)......there is no priority system used it is a pure lottery system as it is here in BC. Then the lower odds draws are on the priority system. This is directly from the Alberta Draw booklet.

[Gateholio]

Lots of questions and answers on this thread:


http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=11203&highlight=questions

[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.

[kootenayslam]

Good Read in that thread Gatehouse,thnks, I like the sounds of this suggestion in your article is this idea still on the table????

"""""""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.""""""""""""""

[Gateholio]

For it to be on the table, it would probably take a BCWF resolution to get it moving. He said "if hunters want it" and I am not sure that they do.

[6616]

BC's system would be OK if we could:

Do as Budismyhorse says and weed out the non-users. In 2006 out of 2185 goat authorizations issued, only 505 goat hunters actually bought tags and went hunting,,,, 23.1%.
Get rid of the many LEH hunts that are not required and revert them to GOS. LEH should be for conservation purposes only, not to create quality hunts, reduce hunter crowding, to buffer Park no-hunting zones, or be initiated by campaigning from NIMBY lobby groups.
Create alternative regulation based sustainable GOS opportunities similar to the spike/fork moose seasons.
Get over the highly conservative management and user attitudes that want completelly fail safe hunting harvests. For example why are White Tailed antlerless deer on LEH in regions 4 and 8, when a short time adjustable GOS could be successfully utilized.The current LEH strategy, not the system, but the way it's being used, is probably the single largest cause of decline in hunter numbers in BC. For example moose hunters in Region 4 dropped from 2400 to 500 when LEH was initiated. Were there ather alternatives, was a shorter season contemplated? Are we serious about recruitment/retention, or not...?

[BCrams]

Recalling the Region 4 moose from 2400 to 500 ......... was it Woods who was in charge??? Who's the guy working for now?

[Flingin' Sticks]

The problem I see with the AB system is one of areas. I may be off base here, but once you start applying in a certain zone, are you locked into that zone because that's where you have point? If this is the case, I'd be choked if the animal numbers went way down the year I had my necessary 5 points, or I had to move to the other end of the provience.

I don't think that the system is all that flawed as it is. If you dont' get drawn, it's not like you can't go hunting still. I do agree though that we need to somehow weed out those who don't actually use their tags.

[budismyhorse]

BC's system would be OK if we could:

Do as Budismyhorse says and weed out the non-users. In 2006 out of 2185 goat authorizations issued, only 505 goat hunters actually bought tags and went hunting,,,, 23.1%.

EGAD.... There is a major flaw right there...no way Alberta has such poor results like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a well written letter sent out along with the LEH Synopsis would change that around for the better.....every hunter in BC seems to be able to recite the letter about Billies over Nannies.....so people listen apparently.

[kootenayslam]

The problem I see with the AB system is one of areas. I may be off base here, but once you start applying in a certain zone, are you locked into that zone because that's where you have point? If this is the case, I'd be choked if the animal numbers went way down the year I had my necessary 5 points, or I had to move to the other end of the provience.
.

Nope, if you apply for a muly its the draw code ie.15-mule deer that counts not the zone. So, for example .......the CWD cull in the last few years out there of muly's you could apply for a different zone and keep your priority .......... if your fav. zone was culled through.

Some good points though guys, seems our system does for sure need some tweeking at the very least....that stat on Goats I can believe.....only 23% hunting them....... we have to somehow change this!!!because it isn't working for sure:mad: it's in the stats.

[Fixit]

The alberta system would not work here becuase of our higher odds. Its been posted here before but the jist of it something like 75% of alberta draws are less then 5:1 odds. This means that you could get a draw once every 5 years under the priority system.

Here in BC something like 50% of our draws are close to 20:1 or greater. That means a 20 year wait to have a chance at getting drawn. Try explaining that to a 16 year old that just started hunting. I could see the father/son conversation now "Congratulations son you just passed CORE at 16 years of age. So lets get you applying for a moose tag. You have to pay 6 dollars a year, every year and when you are 36 Dad will take you moose hunting. Oh and while we are doing moose, might as well send in a sheep tag. As a retirement gift to you I will take you sheep hunting, that is if your dear old dad is still alive."

That is basically how it would be here for the majority of tags in BC under the alberta system.

BHB



ecaxtally, kind of screws the new hunter

[6616]

Recalling was it Woods who was in charge?

Nope................................

[BCrams]

Nope................................


In any case....we know what woods did with his trophy elk initiative.:roll: while the GO's have him in their back pocket.

[6616]

EGAD.... There is a major flaw right there...no way Alberta has such poor results like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a well written letter sent out along with the LEH Synopsis would change that around for the better.....every hunter in BC seems to be able to recite the letter about Billies over Nannies.....so people listen apparently.

Interesting stat re goats isn't it? It must be pretty frustrating for a guy who wants badly to go goat hunting but has trouble getting a tag to hear this stat...! Luckily the utilization of the other species authorizations is much higher.

Think of the increase in odds this non-utilization for goats causes. If the non-users could be weeded out it would reduce a 4.3:1 odds goat hunt to 1:1. All goat hunt odds in Region 4 would be reduced by a factor of 4.3, or a 10:1 hunt would actually be 2.3:1.... pretty dramatic change.

Of course this is just a regional average, some MUs have better utilization levels then others due to access and other factors.

My opinion is that the species tag should be required to be purchased (refundable) along with the application.

[Gateholio]

Interesting stat re goats isn't it? It must be pretty frustrating for a guy who wants badly to go goat hunting but has trouble getting a tag to hear this stat...! Luckily the utilization of the other species authorizations is much higher.

Think of the increase in odds this non-utilization for goats causes. If the non-users could be weeded out it would reduce a 4.3:1 odds goat hunt to 1:1. All goat hunt odds in Region 4 would be reduced by a factor of 4.3, or a 10:1 hunt would actually be 2.3:1.... pretty dramatic change.

Of course this is just a regional average, some MUs have better utilization levels then others due to access and other factors.

My opinion is that the species tag should be required to be purchased (refundable) along with the application.

More frustrating stuff- I brought this up a few times- I had a 65-1 Cali sheep draw, in an area with 4 tags. Not a big area, and if you are looking for sheep, you pretty much will see other hunters.

In 19 days I didn't run into the other 3 tag holders.

I can believe that maybe there was one other, that I didn't see...But at least 2 completely blew off thier 65 to 1 odds sheep hunt!:eek:

[Kody94]

Here in BC something like 50% of our draws are close to 20:1 or greater. That means a 20 year wait to have a chance at getting drawn. Try explaining that to a 16 year old that just started hunting. I could see the father/son conversation now "Congratulations son you just passed CORE at 16 years of age. So lets get you applying for a moose tag. You have to pay 6 dollars a year, every year and when you are 36 Dad will take you moose hunting. Oh and while we are doing moose, might as well send in a sheep tag. As a retirement gift to you I will take you sheep hunting, that is if your dear old dad is still alive."
BHB

I would find it less discouraging to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that my wait will bear fruit at a relatively certain time.

I convinced my wife to get her PAL and take her CORE back in the mid-90's. She ONLY wanted to hunt Turkey. Turkey was LEH with odds ranging from 5:1 to 7:1. We both went 0 for 8 in the next eight years of draws. By the time they went on GOS, she has no interest in hunting any more....8 years of PFO letters in the mail was too much, particularly while friends landed multiple draws in the same time. She has never hunted as a result.

I think the pure lottery system works as well as the AB system wherever the odds are low. Same when they are extremely high (like more than 50:1). But where the odds are in between and you feel you should have a legitimitate expection of being successful eventually, neither system is much fun. But it would be my preference to have a system where you get enhanced odds the longer you are in. There has to be some benefit for trying and trying and trying.

My personal frustration is Grizzly in Region 4 east. I'd drop everything else for a chance to hunt G-bears for an entire season in the area I have access to and know best. Pretty much anywhere in the East Kootenay would do. I could hunt them every weekend and take a couple weeks vacation and be highly selective. Might not even kill one. I have tried 17 times now to get a draw and have failed. Thats a long fricken time, I don't care who you are (even though the folks in their teens and low 20's in the crowd might not really appreciate it. :) ). My frustration grows. I know quite a few folks that have received multiple draws in the same time period. Heck, I sit next door to a guy who has recieved 4 of them. I am sure you all saw the first timers that picked up draws out here this year too. I feel happy for them, but it doesn't make me feel better about my situation. I would feel a whole lot better if I knew I only had to wait a few more years and my time would come. It feels like I could go another 17 with the same crappy success. After this long, how do you keep upbeat about it?

Anyway, both systems have their warts. The improvements that budismyhorse and 6616 listed would definitely help. The only thing additional I'd like to see is some way to enhance odds after each year (or maybe after every 3 or 5 years of applying) for high odds hunts for species that are not really attached to recruitment (sheep, g-bears) and possibly some very specific draws made "once-in-a-lifetime".

There are two R's we are supposed to be worried about, but we always seem to talk about one. I am sure I am not the only one in my situation that feels this way about it. In some cases retention should be as important a consideration as recruitment.

Just my thoughts,
4Ster

[Kody94]

More frustrating stuff- I brought this up a few times- I had a 65-1 Cali sheep draw, in an area with 4 tags. Not a big area, and if you are looking for sheep, you pretty much will see other hunters.

In 19 days I didn't run into the other 3 tag holders.

I can believe that maybe there was one other, that I didn't see...But at least 2 completely blew off thier 65 to 1 odds sheep hunt!:eek:

That kind of frustration I could take. ;) I thought you were going to recount your missed shot the way you started that message. :eek:

Couldn't resist.

ps: It would have more effect if someone else told your story. Having an area all to yourself for 19 days on a 65:1 hunt just sounds like bragging. :p ;) :lol:

[budismyhorse]

Happens all the time GH,

My personal favorite is the dudes who put in for Tatshenshini Dalls knowing full well, they ain't going!

I was drawn one year and when my boss (who is an avid sheep hunter) asked me if I was going I said "maybe" just to get him going....he lost his mind and told me his little tale:

He started putting in for that tag 11 years prior and had never been drawn.....now he is pushing 60 and stopped putting in as he wasn't sure he'd physically be able to put in the effort anymore. He talked about firing me if I didn't go.....I think he was kidding.

I was going either way, I was just messing with him, but he didn't think that was funny at all.

[Kody94]

Happens all the time GH,

My personal favorite is the dudes who put in for Tatshenshini Dalls knowing full well, they ain't going!

I was drawn one year and when my boss (who is an avid sheep hunter) asked me if I was going I said "maybe" just to get him going....he lost his mind and told me his little tale:

He started putting in for that tag 11 years prior and had never been drawn.....now he is pushing 60 and stopped putting in as he wasn't sure he'd physically be able to put in the effort anymore. He talked about firing me if I didn't go.....I think he was kidding.

I was going either way, I was just messing with him, but he didn't think that was funny at all.

I would have. :) (fired you that is) (j/k of course)

I put in for the Tat every year that I know for sure that I can go. If its uncertain, or I know my vacation time is already spoken for with something else that year, I put in for the ultra-high odds bighorn draws instead. By my rough count, I am at least 0-for-8 on the Tat so far. Meanwhile, our friend has been twice in the same time, discovered the iceman both times, etc, etc. :)

LEH blows.

:) Cheers
4Ster

[CanuckShooter]

More frustrating stuff- I brought this up a few times- I had a 65-1 Cali sheep draw, in an area with 4 tags. Not a big area, and if you are looking for sheep, you pretty much will see other hunters.

In 19 days I didn't run into the other 3 tag holders.

I can believe that maybe there was one other, that I didn't see...But at least 2 completely blew off thier 65 to 1 odds sheep hunt!:eek:

Sounds like a couple of greenpeacers got drawn?? You would think it wouldn't take too much effort to cross reference LEH applications with license & tag purchases to pin point how many are applying under LEH just to 'save an animals life'??? Hell given the information I'd do it for free, just so we could block them from applying.

I hate the current system here in BC, mostly because my luck is about as crappy as it gets. AND please don't chime in and tell me that it's because I don't apply for lower odds...because the gawdawful odds don't make a darn bit of difference when your luck is off.

[budismyhorse]

I would have. :) (fired you that is) (j/k of course)

I put in for the Tat every year that I know for sure that I can go. If its uncertain, or I know my vacation time is already spoken for with something else that year, I put in for the ultra-high odds bighorn draws instead. By my rough count, I am at least 0-for-8 on the Tat so far. Meanwhile, our friend has been twice in the same time, discovered the iceman both times, etc, etc. :)

LEH blows.

:) Cheers
4Ster

He is 2 for 3 years applying in the Tat.....and don't forget his EK grizz...

but he has never been drawn for Moose, otherwise I'd call for an investigation. :lol:

[shanevg]

As a WA state resident, let me just say that you should appreciate your lottery draw system while you have it. Here in WA state, every year we don't get drawn we get a point. Your points are squared every year, and the number of squared points you have is how often your name is in the "pot". For example, the first year you apply, you get your name in the pot once, the second year you get 2 squared so 4 times in the pot. By the time you reach 10 years, your name is in the pot 100 times. Well, it seems like this would be a great way to do the draw, but the reality is that it sucks! Most trophy elk hunts have close to 20:1 all the way up to 1000:1 odds. The sheep and goat hunts are right around 1000:1, the moose hunts are about 400:1, and the most sought after deer hunts are around 250:1. Well it turns out that for all the younger generation hunters who start out applying now (after we've had points for 14 years) are so far behind in points they essentially never get a chance to hunt. There are less "high quality" tags than their are hunters. The state will probably never cycle through the "upper-tier" point holders so that they all get tags, and the more points they get, the less chance all the younger hunters with less points have of ever getting drawn. It gets to a point where statistically speaking, anyone with 5 or 6 less points than the max has essentially a 0% chance of ever getting drawn. Think about it, in 5 years, all the 20 point holders have their name in the "pot" 400 times vs. the 100 times for a 10 point holder. And we will still be trying to weed out those 20 point holders.

All of the hunters in WA that understand the statistics behind the numbers long to go back to the Idaho system which is identical to BC where it is straight up lottery. The only difference Idaho has compared to BC is that they limit the species you can apply for. So you can either apply for deer+elk+pronghorn (anetlope) or you can apply for moose, or goat, or sheep. That way it limits the number of applicants for each species. So if the odds are really bothering you guys that much, maybe you should suggest to BC Fish and Wildlife Department (I don't know what you guys call your department) to split it up like: you can either apply for Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, etc. or you can either apply for sheep or goat or moose or bison or elk+deer, etc. You get the general point, but trust me, a lot of hunters in the United States are starting to realize how awful "point" systems are.

Another example is Colorado where the people with the most points are the only ones that get drawn. Well the best elk hunts in the state require 18 points now and they have been going up by 1 point per year for the last 11 years. When my dad started applying it required 7 points, now 11 years later he has 11 points and it requires 18.

[Kody94]

He is 2 for 3 years applying in the Tat.....and don't forget his EK grizz...

but he has never been drawn for Moose, otherwise I'd call for an investigation. :lol:

I haven't forgotten the grizz....at least he's only gotten it once. ;)

He is around horses a lot more than me, so that could account for the quantity of shoes apparently residing in his @zz. :lol:

[happygilmore]

After sitting through the LEH meetings a couple years ago I believe that the best would be a blend of the WA points system for higher draws 80:1, 200:1 and an Alberta system for low odds draws.
Also LEH should be no or low restrictions ie 3/4 curl or any bull...
There should be a regular season with tight restrictions ie full curl, mature.
That way you can always hunt a particular animal even is your odds of finding one that meets the restrictions are low.

[Kody94]

All of the hunters in WA that understand the statistics behind the numbers long to go back to the Idaho system which is identical to BC where it is straight up lottery. The only difference Idaho has compared to BC is that they limit the species you can apply for. So you can either apply for deer+elk+pronghorn (anetlope) or you can apply for moose, or goat, or sheep. That way it limits the number of applicants for each species. So if the odds are really bothering you guys that much, maybe you should suggest to BC Fish and Wildlife Department (I don't know what you guys call your department) to split it up like: you can either apply for Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, etc. or you can either apply for sheep or goat or moose or bison or elk+deer, etc. You get the general point, but trust me, a lot of hunters in the United States are starting to realize how awful "point" systems are.


Thats one way to reduce the odds on average. New to me. I put in for 7 or 8 draws a year hoping to get one. Could happen sometime that I get more than I can use all in one year. The method above is also probably better than increasing the price of specific draws, etc, to discourage folks that aren't really serious (given the folks that are serious but don't like paying more than $5 for a "ticket" and would oppose it). Not sure what other options there are to weed out the people that aren't really serious.

[budismyhorse]

Not sure what other options there are to weed out the people that aren't really serious.

I've tried verbal abuse on one of the "largest" hunters I know. He gets a goat draw every year where I put in and it drives me nuts.....he still puts in in the hopes that one day the skies will open up and a 10 inch Billie will waltz down the mountain and hop in the back of his truck and proceed to draw and quarter itself.

it is his right however to do what he wants.

Dollars to donuts if you make him pay for a goat tag before the draw.....he won't apply for another goat tag in his lifetime.

[kootenayslam]

Thanks ShaneVG for the reply, i've heard its getting pretty tough in the states to get drawn..................Big difference in BC is the population of hunters is alot smaller in BC with quite a good game population.

Looking at the poll results it seems there is around a 60/40 majority that would like to see the system see some improvment(migrate towards a priority), also, agreed, the alberta system isn't perfect and as some posts say won't fit perfectly in BC.....and obviously the system in WA is not either ......the high odds draws may need to stay lottery or lottery after a couple applications at least(which would mean a guy dedicated to that hunt at least would get it).......that being said theres DEFINETLY room for improvement in our system there seems to be a lot of frustrated hunters out there including me, maybe come to a happy medium between the two systems because there are shortfalls of each. Like...priority system for hunts under 10:1 odds and over that go lottery after a couple seasons of priority is built up(this will mean you apply a few seasons at least before you enter the lottery for the high odds tags, this WILL improve your odds, and when you get that tag i'm guessing your going to go for it.............just an idea theres alot to look at but i think it should be looked at.........Maybe now is the time as things are going electric in victoria maybe theres more time to make some changes.

That said i'd like to know who i could contact at the BCWF to get feedback from them on whether it can or will be looked at least..........

My 2c.

[6616]

After sitting through the LEH meetings a couple years ago I believe that the best would be a blend of the WA points system for higher draws 80:1, 200:1 and an Alberta system for low odds draws.
Also LEH should be no or low restrictions ie 3/4 curl or any bull...
There should be a regular season with tight restrictions ie full curl, mature.
That way you can always hunt a particular animal even is your odds of finding one that meets the restrictions are low.


You sat through those meetings too eh..? I guess a lot of us did. The report from that review was submitted to MOE over 9 months ago. We should be writing government asking when the report will be made public and why there has been no action on this as a result of that review... I'm sure many of the points we've just made were brought up in that report.

[6616]

Happens all the time GH,

My personal favorite is the dudes who put in for Tatshenshini Dalls knowing full well, they ain't going!

I was drawn one year and when my boss (who is an avid sheep hunter) asked me if I was going I said "maybe" just to get him going....he lost his mind and told me his little tale:

He started putting in for that tag 11 years prior and had never been drawn.....now he is pushing 60 and stopped putting in as he wasn't sure he'd physically be able to put in the effort anymore. He talked about firing me if I didn't go.....I think he was kidding.

I was going either way, I was just messing with him, but he didn't think that was funny at all.

A couple of years ago at a Rod and Gun meeting everyone was asking each other what they had gotten drawn for since the draw had just taken place for that year.

There was one old guy in his early 70's (and with health problems too boot that limited him pretty much to road hunting) who piped up and said he got a Tat sheep draw. I nearly lost it and tried to explain to him that an avid sheep hunter someplace in BC is now denied his once in a lifetime opportunity to hunt sheep in the Tat because of his silliness. He got really mad at me and said it's his f__ing right and he intends to keep applying for everything just to see if he can get drawn. He's not an anti-hunter, but he is a stupid selfish dolt. It's just a game to him like 649. The best way to stop these guys is to make them buy a sheep tag before they can apply. If he doesn't get drawn he gets his money back, but if he gets drawn and doesn't go he's out $50.00. That would discourage a lot of the Lotto-LEH players who are just playing a game.

There also needs to be a system whereby authorizations that one decides he cannot use can be returned and re-drawn in a second draw (like bison). There are various legitimate reasons that can arise between spring and summer that can prevent people from going on a hunt no matter how badly they want to go. (unfortunate events like spilling boiling water in your boot for example can ruin a guys whole hunting season)

[budismyhorse]

There was one old guy in his early 70's (and with health problems too boot that limited him pretty much to road hunting) who piped up and said he got a Tat sheep draw. I nearly lost it and tried to explain to him that an avid sheep hunter someplace in BC is now denied his once in a lifetime opportunity to hunt sheep in the Tat because of his silliness. He got really mad at me and said it's his f__ing right and he intends to keep applying for everything just to see if he can get drawn. He's not an anti-hunter, but he is a stupid selfish dolt.

)


So you tried verbal abuse as well?? Worked well for me to. I find with guys like that the only thing that outweighs their stupidity is their stubborness.

Oh man, goats are one thing....but a Tat Sheep draw is waaaaay offside.... I know my boss I referred to would like to pay that old boy a visit.....

[bighornbob]

Somebody on here had a good suggestion awhile back and that was ranking the LEH draws. Basically the LEH card would come with 10 empty spots and you fill out what species/hunt you want first and down the line. All the first picks would get drawn before any second and so forth. The intension of it was to make more people get at least one LEH.

So for example my first pick would be sheep but my 78 year old dad would probably pick Anterless mule deer. This would hopefully get more people getting their first or second choice species. So the guys that are putting sheep, grizz and bison as their first picks would not be also taking doe and moose hunts from the guys that really want the meat hunts. Under this system guys would not be getting too many mutiple tags. Lets face it, every year we hear stories of guys getting 4 draws a year and not being able to take the time to do all the hunts.

Cant remember whose idea it was.

BHB

[HuntNHookSports]

The best part of the priority draw in AB is the "999" option. You can advance your priority without drawing for the tag. You can wait until your priority is higher than the odds and get a guarantied draw when you are ready. I want to take a trophy AB mule deer where I hunt geese and I know the tag will be there when all my ducks line up.

[Kody94]

Somebody on here had a good suggestion awhile back and that was ranking the LEH draws. Basically the LEH card would come with 10 empty spots and you fill out what species/hunt you want first and down the line. All the first picks would get drawn before any second and so forth. The intension of it was to make more people get at least one LEH.

So for example my first pick would be sheep but my 78 year old dad would probably pick Anterless mule deer. This would hopefully get more people getting their first or second choice species. So the guys that are putting sheep, grizz and bison as their first picks would not be also taking doe and moose hunts from the guys that really want the meat hunts. Under this system guys would not be getting too many mutiple tags. Lets face it, every year we hear stories of guys getting 4 draws a year and not being able to take the time to do all the hunts.

Cant remember whose idea it was.

BHB

I like that one too.

[ve7iuq]

I think they should get rid of the fellas just putting in for the heck of it with no intention of hunting. This happens alot with goat draws, make some kind of penalty for not hunting the species you drew and the odds may go down for alot of game. Seen it with all kinds of draws, Tat sheep, moose, WK elk...lots of examples of LEH antlerless deer and elk.

tirekickers, lowering the odds of being drawn for serious hunters since inception of LEH.

The game managers know this happens, and raises the number of draws available to counteract the no-shows.

[Gateholio]

Somebody on here had a good suggestion awhile back and that was ranking the LEH draws. Basically the LEH card would come with 10 empty spots and you fill out what species/hunt you want first and down the line. All the first picks would get drawn before any second and so forth. The intension of it was to make more people get at least one LEH.

So for example my first pick would be sheep but my 78 year old dad would probably pick Anterless mule deer. This would hopefully get more people getting their first or second choice species. So the guys that are putting sheep, grizz and bison as their first picks would not be also taking doe and moose hunts from the guys that really want the meat hunts. Under this system guys would not be getting too many mutiple tags. Lets face it, every year we hear stories of guys getting 4 draws a year and not being able to take the time to do all the hunts.

Cant remember whose idea it was.

BHB

I think that was Gilmore and I, drinking beer that dreamed that up...Or maybe it was someone on HBC, sober. Although I can hardly bleieive any good ideas come from sobriety...:-P

[Skeena Hunter 1]

Sometimes I wonder if people understand how LEH works, judging by some comments here, a lot don't. The system as it stands should work fine in theory, as long as LEH permits are given out on the basis of success(and I will be the first to say this isn't always the case). If they give out the appropriate # of permits to reach the AAH....problem solved. All these ideas to get rid of antis applying, people who don't use them, will just make things more complicated, and in fact will drop the # of authorizations....therefore not changing any odds per say.
The problem is convincing managers to give out enough permits to allow the AAH to be harvested.

[budismyhorse]

The game managers know this happens, and raises the number of draws available to counteract the no-shows.

I don't know about that....unless you know for sure.

I was under the impression that they adjust the allocations in response to the harvest. Nothing to do with the percentage Andy posted up. Percent tirekickers.

With that, if the number of animals being killed in an area stays where they want it, they don't jack up the number of draws in order to counteract the no-shows.

We need the up-front fee to be added to certain hunts. Goats, Sheep, Grizz....

[budismyhorse]

Sometimes I wonder if people understand how LEH works, judging by some comments here, a lot don't. The system as it stands should work fine in theory, as long as LEH permits are given out on the basis of success(and I will be the first to say this isn't always the case). If they give out the appropriate # of permits to reach the AAH....problem solved. All these ideas to get rid of antis applying, people who don't use them, will just make things more complicated, and in fact will drop the # of authorizations....therefore not changing any odds per say.
The problem is convincing managers to give out enough permits to allow the AAH to be harvested.

Remember in 2008 for Goat there were ~75% of LEH winners that DID NOT buy a tag = Tirekickers.

Even if a conservative 30 percent of hunters drop out of the draw because they won't pay up front, then every hunter who puts in has a 30 % better chance of getting a YES letter.

The allocations should have nothing to do with how many guys are putting in to the draw....only how many are dieing at the end of the fall. Therefore anything to better the odds of being drawn would help out no? Getting rid of tirekickers would do that without tinkering with the number of allocations set for the area.

[tracker]

Remember in 2008 for Goat there were ~75% of LEH winners that DID NOT buy a tag = Tirekickers.

Even if a conservative 30 percent of hunters drop out of the draw because they won't pay up front, then every hunter who puts in has a 30 % better chance of getting a YES letter.

The allocations should have nothing to do with how many guys are putting in to the draw....only how many are dieing at the end of the fall. Therefore anything to better the odds of being drawn would help out no? Getting rid of tirekickers would do that without tinkering with the number of allocations set for the area.


75% of leh winners don't buy tags WTF thats screwed up ,thanks for the eye opener :-x

[Skeena Hunter 1]

Remember in 2008 for Goat there were ~75% of LEH winners that DID NOT buy a tag = Tirekickers.

Even if a conservative 30 percent of hunters drop out of the draw because they won't pay up front, then every hunter who puts in has a 30 % better chance of getting a YES letter.

The allocations should have nothing to do with how many guys are putting in to the draw....only how many are dieing at the end of the fall. Therefore anything to better the odds of being drawn would help out no? Getting rid of tirekickers would do that without tinkering with the number of allocations set for the area.


You are incorrect, getting rid of the tirekickers and replacing them with seriuos hunters will just lower the authorizations and keep the success rate(drawing a authorization) the same. It is just easier to give out enough authorizations, which in a lot of areas they do not do.

[Kody94]

You are incorrect, getting rid of the tirekickers and replacing them with seriuos hunters will just lower the authorizations and keep the success rate(drawing a authorization) the same. It is just easier to give out enough authorizations, which in a lot of areas they do not do.

We don't come close to achieving AAH on goats, and the MOE only has a certain "risk tolerance" when it comes to increasing tags based on success rates.

Getting rid of tirekickers and anti's will result in realistic success rates, and in most cases will probably also allow the AAH to be acheived. Most of the time I believe that would reduce the odds for the serious applicants.

In cases where AAHs are being achieved, it will depend on the circumstances whether it reduces odds or not. I have to think, on average, it would reduce odds for the serious folks somewhat.

The more I think about it the more I am liking the Gates/Gilmore/Ale idea of having to rank your choices by species as well.

[6616]

The game managers know this happens, and raises the number of draws available to counteract the no-shows.

You are correct, at least that's the way it's supposed to work. The number of authorizations is based on the success rate so the target number of animals are still supposed to be killed.....doesn't always happen that way.

Talking about killing, it still killed me to see a guy with a coveted Tat sheep tag that he had no intention of using and wasn't even capable of using if he wanted to when there's guys out there that would practically give an arm and a leg for that tag.

[6616]

We don't come close to achieving AAH on goats, and the MOE only has a certain "risk tolerance" when it comes to increasing tags based on success rates.

For example in Region 4 the Branch uses a minimum success rate of 10% to calculate goat authorizations (risk management/tolerance), even though the success rates based on the number of authorizations compared to actual harvest is less then 10% in most MUs, so there are not actally enough authorizations issued to allow residents to reach the tagetted harvest. This is just one of the technical things about the LEH system that are screwing residents up, there are others.

[6616]

Somebody on here had a good suggestion awhile back and that was ranking the LEH draws. Basically the LEH card would come with 10 empty spots and you fill out what species/hunt you want first and down the line. All the first picks would get drawn before any second and so forth. The intension of it was to make more people get at least one LEH.

So for example my first pick would be sheep but my 78 year old dad would probably pick Anterless mule deer. This would hopefully get more people getting their first or second choice species. So the guys that are putting sheep, grizz and bison as their first picks would not be also taking doe and moose hunts from the guys that really want the meat hunts. Under this system guys would not be getting too many mutiple tags. Lets face it, every year we hear stories of guys getting 4 draws a year and not being able to take the time to do all the hunts.

Cant remember whose idea it was.

BHB


Why not just limit the number of applications each person can submit to say 4 or 5. Currently you can apply for all species, and sometimes get drawn for hunts at opposite ends of the province during the same time frame. It would force applicants to plan a little more and apply only for the hunts they really wanted.

[Fisher-Dude]

I haven't forgotten the grizz....at least he's only gotten it once. ;)

He is around horses a lot more than me, so that could account for the quantity of shoes apparently residing in his @zz. :lol:

Billy's in better shape than you two fat ba$tards, so he can make the hike in the Tat. You two would be found dead beside the iceman. :-P

BC's system ain't perfect, but we all have the same chance, and to me that's fair. AB's system favours those who have been at it a long time - do long term, experienced hunters need a gravy hunt as bad as a newbie looking to score his first animal? I don't think so.

[Everett]

My answer to the LEH mess is keep the draw system the same but run it a month sooner. Require a credit card number and all succesfull applicants get billed for a tag as soon as they draw. They than have 10 days to inform the MOE they can't hunt if they do this they get a %50 refund of there tag. Thase tags returned get redrawn.
As it stands you can't give back a LEH I personaly tried to give back a region four goat tag after injuring my back.
The other option is once we have electronic licenses is anyone one who draws an LEH who dosn't buy a tag or notify the MOE they are unable to hunt gets there credit card billed for $500 bucks.
I figure that will sort out the anti's and the tirekickers.

[budismyhorse]

You are incorrect, getting rid of the tirekickers and replacing them with seriuos hunters will just lower the authorizations and keep the success rate(drawing a authorization) the same. It is just easier to give out enough authorizations, which in a lot of areas they do not do.

.... the tirekickers would be dropped out....not replaced by serious hunters. No replacement, just better odds for hunters willing to put in.

But hey, if in fact, a more serious group of hunters kills all the tags alloted....then the next year the allocations are cut in half...you are right.

[budismyhorse]

Billy's in better shape than you two fat ba$tards, so he can make the hike in the Tat. You two would be found dead beside the iceman. :-P
OUCH! That is like saying Crosby could skate circles around me. Few are in his league.


This from on the quad....:tongue:

[bearass]

What if they the made you buy your hunting licence before you can buy leh draw tags. This may sway the odds in favor of the people who accually go out and hunt.

[Fisher-Dude]

This from on the quad....:tongue:

That's why I don't put in for the Tat. ;) I look for a sheep draw closer to your neck of the woods.

[budismyhorse]

that and the 0.000006:1 odds goat draw on Annas land.

[Fisher-Dude]

that and the 0.000006:1 odds goat draw on Annas land.

I missed it one year - 10 tags, 1.1:1 - guess who was the eleventh guy? :frown:

[Kody94]

Billy's in better shape than you two fat ba$tards, so he can make the hike in the Tat. You two would be found dead beside the iceman. :-P


My biggest claim to fame is waiting for Billy multiple times on the same grunt up a mountain. Only happened a couple times though ('98 to '00 were good times). And now it aint even close...he hasn't slowed a step since then.

[Fisher-Dude]

My biggest claim to fame is waiting for Billy multiple times on the same grunt up a mountain. Only happened a couple times though ('98 to '00 were good times). And now it aint even close...he hasn't slowed a step since then.

That was nice of Billy to haul that piano up there on his back for some campfire music. Hell of a good partner, I'd say. :smile:

[Kody94]

That was nice of Billy to haul that piano up there on his back for some campfire music. Hell of a good partner, I'd say. :smile:

The rocks I put in his pack were just to even out our weights. I swear.

[todbartell]

How many years until my priority draw for bison, Island elk, California Sheep come in?

for that reason I would take a lottery system. The best solution would probably be a mixture of both, depending on species

[dana]

I think a lot of the tirekickers are already taken account for in a lot of goat zones. Just looking at the northern Region 3 subzones. 85 tenative tags total for 08 according to the regs covering 10 subunits. The success rate for all subunits combined ranges from 2-4 goats. Don't suspect that more than a dozen hunters a year actually giver a go. Most of the subunits are 2:1 or less. I bet most that apply are enticed by the low draw odds and perhaps the fact that it isn't a real long way to travel from the major centers. Most of the applicants probably don't even have a clue what they are getting into if they draw. Even with the tirekickers, what does it matter? If a guy is serious, he can still get a tag fairly consistant. Heck, I've maintained an average of 1 tag every second year for the last 15 years.
Given the poor success rates and the fact the the goat pops in Region 3 have been struggling, the ministry has been thinking of canning the LEH hunt altogether. Really though, at the current pathetic rate of success, it is a sustainable hunt and should be kept intact.
What I would recommend the Ministry do in a lot of these poor success areas is give the actually stats and the reasons for the low harvests. Basically showing the tirekickers, guys, this is not a hunt for the faint of heart.

[6616]

That's why I don't put in for the Tat. ;) I look for a sheep draw closer to your neck of the woods.

Hey Pat, you don't need a sheep draw for his neck of the woods, it's nearly all GOS.

[Ambush]

LEH is seldom kind to me. But I would only make one change.

If you are drawn, you MUST buy the tag! If you don't buy the tag, you are not eligible to enter the draw for the next year or two. That way if you get drawn, but can't hunt for some reason, just buy the tag and you can still enter next year. But at least you have good intentions when you apply.

It should all be on computer soon, so it would be easy to police.

[6616]

A lot of people are disappointed when they successfully draw and attempt to hunt an LEH area. They think getting drawn is the hard part and getting the animal will be easy. Goat hunts for example are very seldom like the antlerless deer and elk hunts. The LEH areas in most cases, are on LEH because of a conservation concern and low population numbers and some of those hunts can be very difficult. In many cases the chances of harvesting an animal is much better in the GOS areas People have false expectations. 8-15 was a good example when it was LEH, many people didn't realize that they would have a better chance of harvesting a 6pt bull elk if they simply go to the GOS areas in the East Kootenay.

Funny how an area can be seldom hunted when it's GOS because everyone in the know is aware there are few animals available, but as soon as it goes LEH every Tom, Dick, and Harry in BC starts applying there...!

Same applies for area with good odds and lots of authorizations. There's usually a reason for that, low success rates and scarcity of animals.

There's also the point that species are allocated by regional average not by MU. This often results in lots of authorizations in the crappy areas where there's no guide and fewer authorizations in the good areas where outfitters are located. Sometimes MOE stuffs a bunch of tags into those crappy areas, knowing nothing to speak of will get shot because there's very few animals, just to make the regional average balance with the allocation percentage.

[budismyhorse]

A lot of guys, out of tradition, sift through the LEH synopsis and blindly apply to MU's with the best odds...drives me to drink. my favorite MU shot up by 35 hunters in one year due to low odds the previous year. Basically halfed the odds of being drawn.

when is that dang report coming out regarding this info? We didn't all go to those meetings for nothing did we?

[Fisher-Dude]

Hey Pat, you don't need a sheep draw for his neck of the woods, it's nearly all GOS.

Oh I know it's GOS, but the couple of LEHs in those areas (albeit at 400:1) is my real dream sheep hunt! :-P See, on an Alberta priority system, I would get the draw when I'm 447 years old - yea Alberta! LOL!

[6616]

Oh I know it's GOS, but the couple of LEHs in those areas (albeit at 400:1) is my real dream sheep hunt! :-P See, on an Alberta priority system, I would get the draw when I'm 447 years old - yea Alberta! LOL!

Do you know what the success rates are at Salmo, and Mount Assiniboine, you'd be surprized how hard it is to get a ram in those areas and how few guys actually connect. Of course Phillips Creek is GOS for the regular season with a LEH hunt later on in an attempt to get those big Montana rams that drift up here once in a while, can't depend on that though, sometimes they come, sometimes they don't. You can get a ram at Phillips Creek, but chances are it's going to be a modest sized resident ram that you could've shoot in the GOS, that is if someone hasn't already shot it during the GOS. If I was gonna hunt Phillips Creek I might just go during the GOS, however truth is there's better areas in the GOS zone.

[6616]

Oh I know it's GOS, but the couple of LEHs in those areas (albeit at 400:1) is my real dream sheep hunt! :-P See, on an Alberta priority system, I would get the draw when I'm 447 years old - yea Alberta! LOL!

Well actually it would only take about 200 years because most of the other people in the pool will start dying off at around 80 or 90 years of age.

[Geo.338]

I really hope that we never see an Alberta or U.S. type system for our LEH .I can barely stomach the enhanced odds aspect that penalizes successful applicants for three years following .

Remember this is a lottery .In no other lottery that I can think of is the winner handicapped .
I too was plagued by NIL for a long time .It is disheartening to wait all year for your moose draw or WHY and then come NIL so we started putting in for low odds areas and now EVERY year we get drawn for moose and we have had more than a handful of Grizzly draws.Goats in the area are GOS .The downside is that we must travel longer to reach these areas.The upside is we see less hunters, resulting in a better quality hunting experience .

Finally. There will never be enough Sheep ,Goats or Roosevelt Elk to satisfy the appetite we have for them .

So while our system is not perfect it is almost fair .And I am almost satisfied with it .

[Kody94]

I still can't figure out why all you guys aren't more concerned that I haven't gotten a grizzly draw in Region 4 yet. :confused:

;)

[budismyhorse]

:lol::lol:

I think you're forgetting to attach a 50 to the card when you send it in.

[PGK]

If you don't play the odds, you will hate our system. This year I wanted to kill a moose. Bull @ 8:1 or cow @ 4:1

Guess what I picked.

I'm a little surprised at the results, a lot of guys must not get drawn over here. I guess if you like to plan what you want to shoot five years in advance, the AB system is for you. I myself don't like it.

[Johnnybear]

LEH is seldom kind to me. But I would only make one change.

If you are drawn, you MUST buy the tag! If you don't buy the tag, you are not eligible to enter the draw for the next year or two. That way if you get drawn, but can't hunt for some reason, just buy the tag and you can still enter next year. But at least you have good intentions when you apply.

It should all be on computer soon, so it would be easy to police.

Good post Ambush. IMO this kind of thing should work. I voted against the Alberta system. What we have works but needs tweeking. Don't fix something that isn't broken;-).

[Bowzone_Mikey]

75% of leh winners don't buy tags WTF thats screwed up ,thanks for the eye opener :-x

That right there is the very reason why BC needs a computerized system and is a great thing about Albertas LEH system that in 6 pages nobodys mentioned.

if you get drawn in AB you untill a certain date to get your tags .. if not you give them up then they go on sale as undersubscribed tags on a first come first served basis ....

easy to track computerized like on a machine about the size of a debit machine ....the funny thing is the Company that does it for Alberta is Based in Vancouver

[GoatGuy]

Remember in 2008 for Goat there were ~75% of LEH winners that DID NOT buy a tag = Tirekickers.

This is interesting where did you get the info that 75% of Goat LEH winners did not buy a tag?





The allocations should have nothing to do with how many guys are putting in to the draw....only how many are dieing at the end of the fall. Therefore anything to better the odds of being drawn would help out no? Getting rid of tirekickers would do that without tinkering with the number of allocations set for the area.

Worry about shooting the number of animals you're supposed to shoot, not who's putting in for the draw, then you'll get drawn to go hunting.

[GoatGuy]

That right there is the very reason why BC needs a computerized system and is a great thing about Albertas LEH system that in 6 pages nobodys mentioned.

if you get drawn in AB you untill a certain date to get your tags .. if not you give them up then they go on sale as undersubscribed tags on a first come first served basis ....

easy to track computerized like on a machine about the size of a debit machine ....the funny thing is the Company that does it for Alberta is Based in Vancouver

Really, if people don't buy their tags the remainder goes into undersubscribed tags in Alberta? Are you sure?


I think we should have under subscribed tags as well. Lets put elk all on LEH and then we can buy LEH tags for hunts in June instead of having a GOS.:lol:

[6616]

This is interesting where did you get the info that 75% of Goat LEH winners did not buy a tag?

Approx correct for Region 4, don't know about the others.

Region 4, 2006:
2185 LEH authorizations available.
505 resident hunters participated in hunt (approx 23%)
2006 AAH = 333, resident allocation = 227.
Goats harvested by residents: 130 (approx 57% of allocation untilized).

[GoatGuy]

Approx correct for Region 4, don't know about the others.

Region 4, 2006:
2185 LEH authorizations available.
505 resident hunters participated in hunt (approx 23%)
2006 AAH = 333, resident allocation = 227.
Goats harvested by residents: 130 (approx 57% of allocation untilized).

Oh, I see, region 4. That makes more sense (should have realized we were talking about the center of the universe :lol:). Think the average that bought a tag is somewhere around 44% for Region 4. Will likely decline as a % due to inc in auth, but still doesn't matter, need to worry about dead goats and ask the big question.

Why aren't these MUs on GOS?

[budismyhorse]

Worry about shooting the number of animals you're supposed to shoot, not who's putting in for the draw, then you'll get drawn to go hunting.

Classic GG statement....you sound like a fortune cookie half the time. ;)

What are you saying here?? You want to persuade the MOE to up the allocations? You think all goats should be on GOS?

[GoatGuy]

Classic GG statement....you sound like a fortune cookie half the time. ;)

What are you saying here?? You want to persuade the MOE to up the allocations? You think all goats should be on GOS?


No persuading, start telling that you want to shoot your allocated harvest. You only shoot ~60% of YOUR goats in Region 4. That means you should get wayyyyyy more LEH authorizations. Probably bring the average odds down to ~2:1 across the entire region.

I don't think all goats should be GOS but if an area has goats, odds that are 1:1 and there hasn't been a goat shot since Christ was a Cowboy maybe we should consider change. If the odds are already 1:1 all we're left with is a GOS. Could be a 1 in 3 harvest rule or what have you. Point is you should be shooting your allocated harvest (no change in the allocation).

Hell look at the goat GOSs in Region 4. None of them are particularly tough areas and still nobody shoots goats.

There's a surplus of animals out there that residents aren't shooting. The LEH System isn't the problem.

I guess what I'm saying is you are getting screwed. The animals you're supposed to be allowed to shoot are not getting shot because you aren't getting enough LEH authorizations. Changing the system won't fix the problem.

[budismyhorse]

grazzi!


there are GOS goats in R4? didn't know that. There are some MU's GOS wouldn't make a lick of difference...but others are too sensitive and then there are the G/Os....

[GoatGuy]

grazzi!


there are GOS goats in R4? didn't know that. There are some MU's GOS wouldn't make a lick of difference...but others are too sensitive and then there are the G/Os....

Yep Windy Creek, all of 4-40 and across Revelstoke Lake (Script Creek). None of it's particularly tough going. Some access challenges but nothing impossible.

I agree with you there are spots that goats are vulnerable but those are easy to manage on LEH.

Just worry about your share, don't worry about G/Os, they aren't wildlife managers.:wink:

[Springer]

The only thing i would like to see changed in our draw priority system is to go back to when it started and when you were drawn there was a cheque enclosed in the envelope or a credit card number. If drawn the cheque is immediately cashed or the charge put on your credit card.
Yes there are people who do not always purchase their tags when drawn because they may have drawn to many and can't actually get out on all the hunts. As it stands you purchase anytime after the draws come out and you are succesfull.
"NO" the tags are not put up for sale if not purchased. There are however areas that not everyone puts in for and there may be a certain amount of tags left over.ex only 80 hunters put in for 100 available tags. These 20 leftover tags come up for first come first serve in September.
I have been putting my 3 boys and myself in for their draws since they were eligible at 12 years old and built up their priorities so we can for example hunt Prairie grain fed Moose for 4 years in a row,meanwhile the first one drawn of us 4 starts drawing again after year one to get the points built up again. We are able to add a partner on our tag so that makes two eligible hunters on one Moose tag.
We use the 999 priority system and plan our hunts years in advance for what we will actually be able to go on.
When the draws come up in mid June, I sit in my armchair and log-on to the WINRELM site and do them from the comfort of my own home. I am able to logon and check our draw success before they show up in the mail.
I can print my hunting and fishing licence from home on a Orange sticky tag that the Provincial government mails me.
I can go back and look at past years draws and check my existing priorities.
If my priority is more than eligible i can quit putting in for 5 years if i want then submit the next year for the hunt i can attend.....etc
The list goes on and I am impressed with the contributions and feedback the clubs have done to get the system where it is today..

My 2 cents worth.

[bc7mm]

I grew up in Sask, not sure what the Alta system is but if it is like the one used in Sask Im all for a switch.

I think B.C. lottery corp must run this one and I have the same luck with lottery tickets as I do with this draw system. 11 years to wait for a moose tag is a bit excessive.

[PGK]

I grew up in Sask, not sure what the Alta system is but if it is like the one used in Sask Im all for a switch.

I think B.C. lottery corp must run this one and I have the same luck with lottery tickets as I do with this draw system. 11 years to wait for a moose tag is a bit excessive.

I say again, what odds are the moose draws you are putting in for? 10:1 means you will wait ten years for a tag!

[Fisher-Dude]

10:1 means you will wait ten years for a tag!

No it doesn't. Go back to your stats class. All you can say for certain at 10:1 is that you have a 90% chance of NOT being drawn in any year.

[PGK]

No it doesn't. Go back to your stats class. All you can say for certain at 10:1 is that you have a 90% chance of NOT being drawn in any year.

10% chance of being drawn in one year. Hmm, as a cumulative percent, how many years would it take to theoretically be drawn? Shall we factor in reduced odds? Or do you just want to leave me alone?

[Fisher-Dude]

10% chance of being drawn in one year. Hmm, as a cumulative percent, how many years would it take to theoretically be drawn? Shall we factor in reduced odds? Or do you just want to leave me alone?

There's no particular number of years that it will take any one person to get drawn. It's totally random with a 10% chance of being drawn IN ANY ONE YEAR. There is no cumulative percent as you call it. And, "theoretically" just doesn't support your original statement that it takes 10 years to get drawn.

[Kody94]

There's no particular number of years that it will take any one person to get drawn. It's totally random with a 10% chance of being drawn IN ANY ONE YEAR. There is no cumulative percent as you call it. And, "theoretically" just doesn't support your original statement that it takes 10 years to get drawn.

I'll second that. Otherwise I'd have been drawn for my grizz draw 7 years ago (the odds have averaged about 1:10 for the 17 years I have been applying)...(am I whining again?) ;)

[EvanG]

Back to everyone putting on for these seasons just beacuse they see them in the regs, this is the biggest problem. Too many people put in for a draw with zero knowledge or previous research only to find they dont wanna go or dont have easy acess, or simply beacuse it sounded good at the time. I think in many cases it better to keep it GOS. Same old story nobody wants to go until they cant, and then dont when they get drawn. Take the caribou in 5-12 I predict it will goto leh somethime soon and then all of a sudden everyone will wanting to apply.

[Slee]

Back to everyone putting on for these seasons just beacuse they see them in the regs, this is the biggest problem. Too many people put in for a draw with zero knowledge or previous research only to find they dont wanna go or dont have easy acess, or simply beacuse it sounded good at the time. I think in many cases it better to keep it GOS. Same old story nobody wants to go until they cant, and then dont when they get drawn. Take the caribou in 5-12 I predict it will goto leh somethime soon and then all of a sudden everyone will wanting to apply.

you somed it up there. I dont know how many times ive heard of guys not going out for there leh draw because they dont know the area and dont want to take time to do the research......

I have even heard of a guy that got drawn for the Salmo-creston sheep tag and spent all his time in the EKoots hunting general season elk!!!!!!

Stop applying for these tags if you dont plan on hunting them!!!!!:mad:

[Red Foreman]

My old boss is one of those guys who puts in for everything but the only hunting he'll do is from his truck.He also is incredibly lucky getting multable draws every year.Last season he wasted a bison draw and a sheep draw.
I asked him why he didn't try for them and he said,well I shot a bison before and I didn't like the meat and there's no way I'm hiking way the hell up a mountain to shoot a sheep.Dumbass.

[bridger]

at the risk of being removed from the site i suggest a couple of things that might prevent guys from applying for tags with no intention of going if drawn. for exotic hunts like bison, sheep, rosevelt elk etc make the application fee $100(refundable if drawn and applied to tag cost if sucessful) that way guys that really wanted to go would have a better chance that the ones who were just fooling around. 2) or for those hunts make buying the tag before a pre deteremined deadine if you are drawn manadatory if you don't buy it before the deadline and forward proof the moe your authorization is cancelled and given to the next name on the list. I have discussed both options with moe guys both are possible

[Slee]

at the risk of being removed from the site i suggest a couple of things that might prevent guys from applying for tags with no intention of going if drawn. for exotic hunts like bison, sheep, rosevelt elk etc make the application fee $100(refundable if drawn and applied to tag cost if sucessful) that way guys that really wanted to go would have a better chance that the ones who were just fooling around. 2) or for those hunts make buying the tag before a pre deteremined deadine if you are drawn manadatory if you don't buy it before the deadline and forward proof the moe your authorization is cancelled and given to the next name on the list. I have discussed both options with moe guys both are possible

Im with you on both ideas. or even have the price of the leh the same as the tag for that animal. Anything to lowwer the number of guys that toss thier names in cause its only $6

[Fisher-Dude]

None of that would help your odds. If more success at harvest is had due to more "serious" guys applying, the number of authorizations available will be proportionately reduced. The number of authorizations is adjusted to achieve a target harvest, and takes the tire-kickers into consideration.

Your odds are 5:1 if there are 20 guys (10 serious, 10 who don't care) applying for 4 tags, and your odds are 5:1 if there are 10 serious guys applying for 2 tags. If the harvest target is one animal at 25% success on the 4 tags, or 50% success on the 2 tags, your odds are the same for being drawn under either scenario.

Harvest targets always determine your odds of being drawn. Complicating the system does nothing to better your odds. All it might do is make you feel better if a tire-kicker doesn't get the draw you wanted. ;-)

[bridger]

Recalling the Region 4 moose from 2400 to 500 ......... was it Woods who was in charge??? Who's the guy working for now?

he is working for the goabc as a consultant. showed up at the stone sheep harvest strategy meeting in prince george and frustrated bcwf efforts to complete a strategy he rick morley are both working for goabc maybe thats why the guides have the upper hand in region 4

[6616]

Harvest targets always determine your odds of being drawn. Complicating the system does nothing to better your odds. All it might do is make you feel better if a tire-kicker doesn't get the draw you wanted. ;-)

Yes it's supposed to work that way, but does it..?

Take for example the cases where minimum success rates are used that are higher then the actual success rate.

Another example is region 8 bull moose LEH, resident allocation is 84 but 2006 harvest was 44 and 2007 harvest was 50, How come...? Are you sure MOE is giving out the mathematically correct number of authorizations to achieve target harvest?

But you're right about one thing FD, the non-users are not the major cause of this, nor is it really the fault of the LEH system, the inappropriate manipulation of the LEH policy and procedure at the regional level by MOE may be though...!

[Fisher-Dude]

Yep, the LEH system is, unfortunately, dependent on inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets.

Enhanced odds, priority systems, stapling a $50 bill to your application - it makes no difference when we're not allowed to kill our share due to over-conservatism by politically driven game managers. :-(

[PGK]

Yep, the LEH system is, unfortunately, dependent on inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets.

Enhanced odds, priority systems, stapling a $50 bill to your application - it makes no difference when we're not allowed to kill our share due to over-conservatism by politically driven game managers. :-(

What? Please explain to me how setting a harvest goal of 100 animals and then putting out 200 LEH (hoping to get 50% participation) is a system dependent upon "inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets"

Would you like managers to place harvest quotas at the top end of the confidence interval??? Or what???

[Fisher-Dude]

What? Please explain to me how setting a harvest goal of 100 animals and then putting out 200 LEH (hoping to get 50% participation) is a system dependent upon "inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets"

Would you like managers to place harvest quotas at the top end of the confidence interval??? Or what???

Are you familiar with the allocation policy? Are you familiar with residents' current inability on many hunts, given low success/participation rates, to harvest their AAH?

G/Os harvest their quotas quite well. Residents often don't have sufficient LEH opportunities to meet their quotas. See anything wrong with this? See the need for more LEH tags in these areas, or perhaps a switch to GOS?

[GoatGuy]

What? Please explain to me how setting a harvest goal of 100 animals and then putting out 200 LEH (hoping to get 50% participation) is a system dependent upon "inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets"

Would you like managers to place harvest quotas at the top end of the confidence interval??? Or what???

There's no dependency with the LEH system. There are people who allocate the number of LEH tags which is supposed to translate into 100% utilization of the allocated harvest. Then there is the LEH System. The problem we run into is where lets say residents are supposed to harvest 20 animals and they can't because there are not enough LEH authorizations released to do that.


I'll give you a friendly example.

Residents are supposed to shoot 3 polar bears per year in zone X every single year. For the past 20 years we let go 10 LEH authorizations and didn't shoot a polar bear. This year we released 5 LEH authorizations.

That's what is happening. I hope it doesn't make sense - it isn't supposed to.


On top of that with most species there is no problem with a minor over-harvest especially when we're talking moose, elk, deer - even bears if it's boars. There are already pads built into the management strategy. Ie., minimum bull:cow ratio of 30:100, buck:doe of 20:100.

[PGK]

Then we're not talking about LEH harvest targets anymore, we're talking about being shafted on allocations. Completely different ball park

[GoatGuy]

What? Please explain to me how setting a harvest goal of 100 animals and then putting out 200 LEH (hoping to get 50% participation) is a system dependent upon "inappropriate/artificially low harvest targets"

Would you like managers to place harvest quotas at the top end of the confidence interval??? Or what???

In this case you aren't hoping for 50% participation - you want 100% harvest.;-) I'm sure that's what you meant.

[budismyhorse]

so fellas, thinking about this a little longer.

if they raised the number of resi allocations with the same system where tirekickers are compensated for instead of discouraged....would it not put the level artificially high and therefore be risky? Just throwing that out there.
The example I keep thinking is there are some MU's where there are more tags given each year than goats.....it is a tough unit and very few if any goats are taken each year.

I have no problem with this kind of thing because I know not many hunters are interested in it these days (it seems, i could be wrong).

But is this not the reason why the MOE refuses to blanket GOS more areas or increase resident allocations?

[PGK]

In this case you aren't hoping for 50% participation - you want 100% harvest.;-) I'm sure that's what you meant.

You know what I meant, I worded it funny.

[GoatGuy]

Then we're not talking about LEH harvest targets anymore, we're talking about being shafted on allocations. Completely different ball park

It all rests in the LEH system.

If people were worried more about shooting the animals they're leaving in the bush instead of the LEH system they'd be doing a lot more hunting and a lot less complaining.

Well, at least more hunting.


Life would be a lot more fun if you could go get a moose tag and go hunting instead of sitting at home waiting for the ferry god mother to drop one off in the mail.

[GoatGuy]

so fellas, thinking about this a little longer.

if they raised the number of resi allocations with the same system where tirekickers are compensated for instead of discouraged....would it not put the level artificially high and therefore be risky? Just throwing that out there.
The example I keep thinking is there are some MU's where there are more tags given each year than goats.....it is a tough unit and very few if any goats are taken each year.

I have no problem with this kind of thing because I know not many hunters are interested in it these days (it seems, i could be wrong).

But is this not the reason why the MOE refuses to blanket GOS more areas or increase resident allocations?
I think you meant resident authorizations, right? Because residents aren't shooting their allocation right now.


The answer is, there aren't enough people asking WHY. People are busy worrying about the system instead of asking if we're shooting all the animals we are supposed to or that we can.

You can put harvest rules on (ie 1 in 3, 1 in 5, whatever) - severe penalties for nanny harvest, shared hunts, shorter hunts, automatic CR like EK cougar model. Whatever.

There are thousands of things you can do to control the harvest and it doesn't have to be LEH. Even getting rid of the 'tirekickers' ain't gonna give you a dependable success rate on LEH when it comes to goats. It just won't.

We need to start worrying about harvesting our allocated harvest. Residents are leaving animals in the bush every year that multiple people could be hunting and somebody could be shooting. The reasons vary from political to social, the ridiculous to the sublime.

If resident hunters sat down and said we to worry about conservation, first nations and then maximizing opportunity and harvest we would have hunting seasons like crazy. You wouldn't even know what to do with your hunting season.

[PGK]

It all rests in the LEH system.

If people were worried more about shooting the animals they're leaving in the bush instead of the LEH system they'd be doing a lot more hunting and a lot less complaining.

Well, at least more hunting.


Life would be a lot more fun if you could go get a moose tag and go hunting instead of sitting at home waiting for the ferry god mother to drop one off in the mail.

Moose are heavy.

I think we'd have to start talking about individual cases for this to make any sense. You can't paint the whole system with one brush. It works in some, and in others not. But do you wan to be the guy that takes a population of goats off LEH because they're undersubscribed and then industry punches a road right through them in August and it's a slaughterhouse for 2 months?

Duckin' n' runnin'

[GoatGuy]

Moose are heavy.

I think we'd have to start talking about individual cases for this to make any sense. You can't paint the whole system with one brush. It works in some, and in others not. But do you wan to be the guy that takes a population of goats off LEH because they're undersubscribed and then industry punches a road right through them in August and it's a slaughterhouse for 2 months?

Duckin' n' runnin'

Easy if it's GOS throw a road closure on it.


Life really isn't that complicated.

Moose are easy - it doesn't mean you have the same management regime across the province it means you make sure that the harvest is sustainable. As I've already said there are thousands of ways to do that.

The way it is now we could change the system to whatever the hell we want. Most of the people who put in for moose in the southern half of the province (70+%) would be DEAD before they got drawn under ANY LEH SYSTEM. That's a reality that people need to address.

If you want to go hunting ask for hunting seasons. If you want to put in for a chance to go hunting keep 'er status quo.

[PGK]

Easy if it's GOS throw a road closure on it.


Life really isn't that complicated.

Moose are easy - it doesn't mean you have the same management regime across the province it means you make sure that the harvest is sustainable. As I've already said there are thousands of ways to do that.

When was the last time a road closure that wasn't manned 24/7 stopped a quadder? Just playing devils advocate

[GoatGuy]

When was the last time a road closure that wasn't manned 24/7 stopped a quadder? Just playing devils advocate


When was a barbless hook reg that wasn't patrolled 24/7 ever stop a guy from using a treble, or a net or dynamite for that matter?

The very last thing you ever want to do is to manage regulations for one or a handful of poachers. If we're that afraid about our ethics we've got a SERIOUS problem and that says something about hunting, not poachers.

[budismyhorse]

I think you meant resident authorizations, right? Because residents aren't shooting their allocation right now.


The answer is, there aren't enough people asking WHY. People are busy worrying about the system instead of asking if we're shooting all the animals we are supposed to.

You can put harvest rules on (ie 1 in 3, 1 in 5, whatever) - severe penalties for nanny harvest, shared hunts, shorter hunts, automatic CR like EK cougar model. Whatever.

There are thousands of things you can do to control the harvest and it doesn't have to be LEH. Even getting rid of the 'tirekickers' ain't gonna give you a dependable success rate on LEH when it comes to goats. It just won't.

We need to start worrying about harvesting our allocated harvest. Residents are leaving animals in the bush every year that multiple people could be hunting and somebody could be hunting. The reasons vary from political to social, the ridiculous to the sublime.

If resident hunters sat down and said we to worry about conservation, first nations and then maximizing opportunity and harvest we would have hunting seasons like crazy. You wouldn't even know what to do with your hunting season.

I just fail to see how harvesting animals for the sake of harvesting animals is how we should be managing our species. Because few sheep are killed each year by residents you want me to go out and shoot a ram that I may have otherwise passed on...for the sake of resident harvest numbers?

same for goats.

so dead animals equate to hunter opportunity?

[PGK]

When was a barbless hook reg that wasn't patrolled 24/7 ever stop a guy from using a treble, or a net or dynamite for that matter?

The very last thing you ever want to do is to manage regulations for one or a handful of poachers. If we're that afraid about our ethics we've got a SERIOUS problem and that says something about hunting, not poachers.

I would argue that BC has a growing and serious OHV/ATV use problem and that we need to take that type of access into consideration. while it may not be illegal in some places, you don't pay 15 grand for a machine that can go anywhere to stay on the trail. A deact has become a challenge. A closed area an insult...

[GoatGuy]

I just fail to see how harvesting animals for the sake of harvesting animals is how we should be managing our species. Because few sheep are killed each year by residents you want me to go out and shoot a ram that I may have otherwise passed on...for the sake of resident harvest numbers?

same for goats.

Nope not at all. You don't have to shoot anything. Who said you did?


I look at it this way. Allocation policy aside, there are X number of animals resident hunters can harvest every year. If we aren't harvesting those animals we need to ask the question, why? If it's because we're only letting 2 people go hunting even though we could let 20, why would we tell those other 18 people that they can't go? It makes no sense to me to tell 18 people to piss up a rope because they weren't 'lucky'.

Course this is an LEH thread and everybody's complaining about the system.

All I'm saying is that if you want to go hunting (I'm assuming every body does) you need to really figure out HOW you can do that. Changing the system will not do that for you and seeing as we have animals sitting around why not let a bunch of people hunt them and a couple people harvest them?

Start opening opportunity up across the province and all the sudden we won't have 'crowding' problems or localized conservation concerns because every patch of dirt surrounding one open area is LEH. Think big picture.

The way it's gone for the past 25 years is we've closed one mu down. All those hunters go into the neighboring MU. Now we have 2X the number of hunters and now we really have a problem. Sooooooooo lets close the region down. Ooooppsss all the surrounding regions are on GOS and now we've sent all our hunters to them. Double ooooooooppppppps, now they're overwhelmed and we need to close those regions. Opppppppppsss, now the entire southern half of the province is on LEH. Now lets pack everybody into a handful of MUs in the middle of Timbucktoo. Opppppps, now we have another problem. 2009 - everything's LEH, we have no hunters left, and wildlife populations that have done everything but completely destroy their winter range in places. Opppppsssssssssssssssssss......................... .....................

[budismyhorse]

so you're saying given the low hunter harvest percentage for goats for example.....they should up the allocations so less people are denied and more goats get hunted each year without harvesting any more goats than what our AAH is set at.

completely agree with your above post btw

[GoatGuy]

so you're saying given the low hunter harvest percentage for goats for example.....they should up the allocations so less people are denied and more goats get hunted each year without harvesting any more goats than what our AAH is set at.


Up the authorizations so more people can go hunting because residents are NOT harvesting their AAH.

Yes. Across Region 4 your are harvesting about 50-60% of what you are supposed to harvest. That means we're a lonnggggggggggg way from any kind of risk. Remember in terms of management the intent of the AAH is NOT a ceiling, it's a target that can be exceeded.


If you look at the cases where goats are on GOS you'll find that hunters do hunt them (a bit) and nobody shoots any goats - certainly well under the AAH. BUT hunters get to go hunting - that's huge.

Another prime example is grizzly. When it was GOS there was no issue with sow harvest. Throw it on LEH across the province and we've got a problem. First bear goes down.

LEH ain't the cracker jack tool everybody thinks it is.

[budismyhorse]

thanks for the explanation GG.

[GoatGuy]

so dead animals equate to hunter opportunity?

Yes it does if we aren't harvesting our allocated harvest.

Lets take moose in zone X for example. Average LEH odds are 10:1.

We can harvest 10 moose/year but we're only releasing 10 tags (100 applicants) and all 10 go hunting. The historical success rate is only 30% (about the provincial average).

So we can harvest another 7 moose/year.

Well, straight math tells us that right out of the gate we can release 33 LEH tags (to be conservative ;-)) to harvest those 10 moose. Right away we've let another 23 people go hunting. Why wouldn't we do that? People are saying they hate the system because they never get drawn. Well right away we took a hunt that was 10:1 and cut it down to 3.0:1. We let 33 people go hunting instead of 10.

That was easy!!!!!!!!!!


Now, if we really want to let hunters go out and hunt lets offer a shared hunt for up to whatever, say 4 hunters per dead moose. Of course we're still gonna get singles, doubles, triples and quadruples applying to go but lets say the average is 2 hunters/moose tag.

So now instead of having 33 people go hunting we have 66 people out hunting every year and the odds are 1.51:1 - - - - practically a guarantee.

That's how easy it is. Like I said there's thousands of ways to do this and as you can see we're only one deep breath from odds of <1:1.



If people want to go hunting that's the way to do it. If people want to change the system and sit at home on the couch until they become a part of it I guess that's their prerogative.

[GoatGuy]

thanks for the explanation GG.

Sorry, I was busy typing out another example to help.

It's all pretty easy really but when you look at the history I think most hunters cringe because we've been contracting since the early 80s and taking any kind of risk brings back nightmares.

We've got a pile of tools at our disposal. The key is to make sure we use them properly. LEH shouldn't be the first step - it should be the last.

[GoatGuy]

I would argue that BC has a growing and serious OHV/ATV use problem and that we need to take that type of access into consideration. while it may not be illegal in some places, you don't pay 15 grand for a machine that can go anywhere to stay on the trail. A deact has become a challenge. A closed area an insult...

Are we talking about the impact on hunting or ATV use in general right now?

I think you have a pet peeve with ATVs. :lol:

The other thing you can do is blanket a region with elevation restrictions too.

Like I said, we've got tools, lets use them.


There are areas in 7A where you can drive a truck within a 30 minute hike of goats on a GOS. No hunters, no conservation concern.;-)

[PGK]

Are we talking about the impact on hunting or ATV use in general right now?

I think you have a pet peeve with ATVs. :lol:

The other thing you can do is blanket a region with elevation restrictions too.

Like I said, we've got tools, lets use them.


There are areas in 7A where you can drive a truck within a 30 minute hike of goats on a GOS. No hunters, no conservation concern.;-)

Spend some time in the foothills on the east side of the hump and you'll get a bias real fast too. I don't want us to end up like Albertistan, we need rules, ASAP.....but I digress.

Don't tease me. I gave up a broonie hole, you give me a goat hole, sounds fair??? :razz:

[6616]

I think it would be safe to conclude that the BC LEH system would be OK in most cases if:

appropriate, realistiic, and sustainable AAHs were used.
if all proper procedures and policies to calculate LEH authorization numbers and quotas were used.
if all extra (and additional to LEH) restrictive regulations that are preventing utilization of the AAH were not in place.
and if LEH was only used when actually required as a last resort stratgey.This would probably bring odds down to a level where a points or pool system might actually work for many of our LEH hunts and there would be far fewer hunts on LEH.

[PGK]

So then the problem people are having is not with the system, it's with the allocations. Yes, I realize that the allocations are reliant on the system. But there's a simple fix to that. Change the allocation process. Instead of taking draws away from hunters when their success rates are low (which makes no sense), give them more and put more opportunity on the landscape.

The problems with low odds and no draws aren't a function of the system, they're a function of poor allocation. I think the AAH's are (for the most part) accurate, they are just being allocated to the wrong people...

[6616]

So then the problem people are having is not with the system, it's with the allocations. Yes, I realize that the allocations are reliant on the system. But there's a simple fix to that. Change the allocation process. Instead of taking draws away from hunters when their success rates are low (which makes no sense), give them more and put more opportunity on the landscape.

The problems with low odds and no draws aren't a function of the system, they're a function of poor allocation. I think the AAH's are (for the most part) accurate, they are just being allocated to the wrong people...

No it's not the LEH system and it not the allocation policy and procedures either, it's that there are too many managers with their own interpretations of policy, with regional policies that vary from region to region, managers that are just flat out not following proper procedure to calculate LEH authorization numbers, or their are external restrictive regulations in place that do not allow hunters to achieve the allocated harvest. If Allocation and LEH policies were being followed a lot of the problems wouldn't exist.

Would you believe it if I said there are managers in BC who maintain overly high AAHs so they don't have to deal with non-resident quota reductions and appeals, who are then in turn regulating harvest (to make sure that the false AAH is not attained) by putting restrictive regulations in place that stop hunters from attaining the AAH. Believe me it's happening, and it's hurting non-resident opportunites as well as resident opportunities in some cases, but effecting resident opportunities much more.

There's also away too much reliance on LEH, as GG pointed out, instead of utilizing less restrictive alternatives first and treating LEH as the last resort.

[6616]

Instead of taking draws away from hunters when their success rates are low (which makes no sense), give them more and put more opportunity on the landscape.

That's the way it's supposed to work. The annual number of authorizations = resident AAH divided by success rate. It's written exactly like that in the new allocation procedures. The only time resident allocation is taken away is at the end of the 5 year allocation period when new allocation percentages are calculated and relative importance and relative utilization factors come into play. Low resident utilization (harvest) could result in some of the AAH being transfered to non-residents. It's all based on dead-side data except the initial calculation that establishes the overall AAH. That's why we'll lose resident opportunites in the subsequent allocation period (2012 to 2016) if we don't use them during this allocation period (2007 to 2011).

[MichelD]

Don't know about the Alberta system.

B.C.'s works for me.

[PGK]

I have a hard time believing that there are provincial bios who are screwing with the numbers to save themselves headaches. But I'll contend it's not out of the realm of possibility.
I would be having a very long chat with a fellow if I knew he was pulling that kind of garbage

[Fisher-Dude]

I have a hard time believing that there are provincial bios who are screwing with the numbers to save themselves headaches. But I'll contend it's not out of the realm of possibility.
I would be having a very long chat with a fellow if I knew he was pulling that kind of garbage

When are you gonna join a club so that you can get the background on this stuff before you chirp about it?

[PGK]

Hahahahahahahaha only members of the bcwf have any idea about wildlife management hahahahaha awesome

[Fisher-Dude]

Hahahahahahahaha only members of the bcwf have any idea about wildlife management hahahahaha awesome

Do you get regular updates from your Allocations Director? No. Do you get emails on any of these subjects discussing allocations and local inequities? No.

You know SFA, and it shows. :lol:

[BCrams]

I have a hard time believing that there are provincial bios who are screwing with the numbers to save themselves headaches. But I'll contend it's not out of the realm of possibility.
I would be having a very long chat with a fellow if I knew he was pulling that kind of garbage

There are definatly provincial bio's who are using LEH hunting because its easy. Its less complicated and less of a headache to implement.

LEH has been ingrained in the system for such a period of time now as such they're comfortable and do not want to utilize other options instead of LEH.

GG pointed out excellent examples across the board. Everything from grizzly bear through mountain goats.

I firmly believe the BC gov't should be weaning themselves off LEH hunts where applicable evenly across the board as to distribute hunter pressure. (same thing as harmonizing seasons between regions for mule deer)

[BCrams]

Hahahahahahahaha only members of the bcwf have any idea about wildlife management hahahahaha awesome

Certainly have a better grasp of what can be done. The bio's know it too but they're 'set in their ways' so to speak. Not many currently on who will have to balls to say "time to get out of the LEH regime we set in BC" and take action and create hunting opportunity for resident hunters.

They're in a public service industry. I would like to think they can recognize there's plenty of room for improvement and take the initiative to take it upon themselves to push for it as well........after all, they work for us.

I know I would.

[PGK]

I don't need the fed spoon feeding me their propaganda, thanks.

[Fisher-Dude]

I don't need the fed spoon feeding me their propaganda, thanks.

Yeah, better to run around blindly and guess at what's happening, based what you observed on your grouse hunt in 7A. :roll:

[GoatGuy]

Tisk, tisk boys.

It's all numbers - either you want to know or you don't.;-)
No sense in complicating things.

[Ambush]

GG, you've made the assertion, here and else where, many times that we don't come near our resdent AAH. And numbers are numbers, so it's easy to prove.

The part that baffles me is that wildlife managers have these same numbers, and so absolutely know that we don't EVER reach our AAH. Why don't they allow increased harvest, either through more LEH or GOS's?

Is it a lack of pressure from hunters, or fear of political backlash?

Can hunters affect enough pressure on managers to create change?

Would double the membership to BCWF create a strong enough lobby to force management by science?

Who is the road block???

[BCrams]

The part that baffles me is that wildlife managers have these same numbers, and so absolutely know that we don't EVER reach our AAH. Why don't they allow increased harvest, either through more LEH or GOS's?

Who is the road block???

Public service. One would think they're all for improving the system.

I'm curious to know why as well.

[PGK]

I think if any of us were running the system, we would be very afraid of going over the AAH, so they manage under it. I would not want to be the bio in charge when you over harvested something and had to put a GOS onto LEH because before you had lots, and now you have a conservation concern.
And the 'numbers' aren't just that, they're full of uncertainty.....I know lots of guys who throw their harvest cards in the garbage because they "don't want the damn gooberment to know where I hunt"
Would you rather hit low of the AAH and have lots of animals on the landscape, or be hitting at AAH and potentially going over?
I know what I pick.

[bayou]

Not sure if the right thread for this question but was wondering when there figureing out our AAH I guess there doing it on what they feel is the population of animals in that area,( MU )(talking about goats ) Im guessing this is done by airial survey was wondering how often there done and if only goats seen are counted or is there a magic percent added in for those that may not be visable. Also wondering and using 4-25D as an example so if you got your way and had it turned into an open season and there was a AAH of 10 goats and it happened that they took 30 out that year would the area then be shut down so nobody could hunt it for the next few years.

[Fisher-Dude]

I think if any of us were running the system, we would be very afraid of going over the AAH, so they manage under it. I would not want to be the bio in charge when you over harvested something and had to put a GOS onto LEH because before you had lots, and now you have a conservation concern.
And the 'numbers' aren't just that, they're full of uncertainty.....I know lots of guys who throw their harvest cards in the garbage because they "don't want the damn gooberment to know where I hunt"
Would you rather hit low of the AAH and have lots of animals on the landscape, or be hitting at AAH and potentially going over?
I know what I pick.

AAH is set way under the point of being a harvest concern. I think you're a bit confused (again), as you seem to think AAH is the upper limit of harvest. It isn't. It's an average sustainable harvest, always set conservatively.

Going over the AAH with its inherent "safety margin" isn't really a problem for any given year. AAH is usually set with a view to a longer time period than a single year - ie it's an average harvest that a population can handle without a conservation concern over say a 5 year period. If you have ever perused harvest stats, you'd see the fluctuations year to year in harvest, often due to weather variability and other factors.

[6616]

I don't need the fed spoon feeding me their propaganda, thanks.

I don't understand how showing members a LEH spreadsheet that comes directly from MOE offices is spoon feeding propaganda. All the data is on those sheets, population estimate, harvest rate, AAH, allocation, # of authorizations, plus three years of harvest data and success rates. If it's not factual the blame lies in the MOE office not with the BCWF. It's really just information we pass on, we don't have to interpret the spreadsheets to our members, a grade 6 student could understand them, .......propaganda..???..... I don't see how?

[Fisher-Dude]

a grade 6 student could understand them

Now, now FD..play nice with him

[GoatGuy]

I think if any of us were running the system, we would be very afraid of going over the AAH, so they manage under it. I would not want to be the bio in charge when you over harvested something and had to put a GOS onto LEH because before you had lots, and now you have a conservation concern.
And the 'numbers' aren't just that, they're full of uncertainty.....I know lots of guys who throw their harvest cards in the garbage because they "don't want the damn gooberment to know where I hunt"
Would you rather hit low of the AAH and have lots of animals on the landscape, or be hitting at AAH and potentially going over?
I know what I pick.

The AAH is NOT a ceiling, it's only a target.


It isn't a 'conservation concern' number.


When you have a 2.5% harvest rate and a full curl LEH on bighorns you aren't going to have a problem if you're lucky enough to shoot 3% of the population - you probably won't shoot 5% even on a GOS. That's nothing. Most of the sheep LEHs are in Parks where they already have a reduced harvest rate. Other populations have any ram with like two sheep shot in populations that have extremely low predation. Far more of them are killed on highways.

The provincial minimum of 30 bull moose/100 cows and 20 bucks/100 does does not create a conservation concern. Alaska manages their moose below that regularly. We've got areas with estimated bull:cow ratios of 84:100 - I didn't even think that was statistically possible without significant cow harvest.

All those numbers and ratios tie right in 'diverse use of wildlife including viewing' not hit the panic button and freak out. All the rates have pads already built into them.

Female harvest for moose is next to nothing across most of the Province. In region 8 we don't even have an antlerless moose hunt and we have mule deer winter range that's getting pounded by a bunch of walking garbage cans.

Goats are special and we need a management strategy for them. That's a big talk.


Finally, if managers are worried about the AAH the answer is simple ----- LOWER IT. Then residents and non-residents get cut.


Step away from the PANIC button.

[PGK]

I knoooow what it is. Hooooly coooow. I am so done. This is exactly why I don't ever want to be involved with allocation. It's garbage. Nobody is ever happy, and according to the old timers, nobody is ever right.

[GoatGuy]

GG, you've made the assertion, here and else where, many times that we don't come near our resdent AAH. And numbers are numbers, so it's easy to prove.

The part that baffles me is that wildlife managers have these same numbers, and so absolutely know that we don't EVER reach our AAH. Why don't they allow increased harvest, either through more LEH or GOS's?
You've got stakeholders (sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes three) that don't want it - even residents have turned down opportunity on fail-safe seasons. Political pressure, lack of inventory, blah, blah, blah. Lots of problems and reasons not to do something but nobody's looking for solutions and yelling loud enough.
Is it a lack of pressure from hunters, or fear of political backlash?
Yes to first question. I don't think there's a fear of political backlash amongst resident hunters, just a need to get informed and determined.
Can hunters affect enough pressure on managers to create change?
Yes.
Would double the membership to BCWF create a strong enough lobby to force management by science?
Yes.
Who is the road block??? Haiku version: 'stakeholders'

I think there will be more information about this in the future.

[GoatGuy]

Not sure if the right thread for this question but was wondering when there figureing out our AAH I guess there doing it on what they feel is the population of animals in that area,( MU )(talking about goats ) Im guessing this is done by airial survey was wondering how often there done and if only goats seen are counted or is there a magic percent added in for those that may not be visable. Also wondering and using 4-25D as an example so if you got your way and had it turned into an open season and there was a AAH of 10 goats and it happened that they took 30 out that year would the area then be shut down so nobody could hunt it for the next few years.

Yes, aerial surveys - done all the time in the Koots especially compared to the rest of the province. Columbia Basin, MoE and Parks Canada does them as well. Parks like to do them right around Sept 10th - oohhh that looks dark and has big--horns but lets see if it's a goat anyways.:lol:

You have seasons whether they're LEH or GOS where you can't shoot 30 goats.

[bayou]

[quote=GoatGuy;435227]Yes, aerial surveys - done all the time in the Koots especially compared to the rest of the province. Columbia Basin, MoE and Parks Canada does them as well. Parks like to do them right around Sept 10th - oohhh that looks dark and has big--horns but lets see if it's a goat anyways.:lol:
Do you know if they are done annually and is there a percent added for unseen animals.
You have seasons whether they're LEH or GOS where you can't shoot 30 goats.
If the AAH is grossly over shot will the season be shut down for the next few years.
If you cant answer the questions just say its know problem but you never seem to answer what people ask.

[6616]

Not sure if the right thread for this question but was wondering when there figureing out our AAH I guess there doing it on what they feel is the population of animals in that area,( MU )(talking about goats ) Im guessing this is done by airial survey was wondering how often there done and if only goats seen are counted or is there a magic percent added in for those that may not be visable. Also wondering and using 4-25D as an example so if you got your way and had it turned into an open season and there was a AAH of 10 goats and it happened that they took 30 out that year would the area then be shut down so nobody could hunt it for the next few years.

Just looked up the data on 4-25D:

It's probably not a good case study to use for an example of moving to GOS because GOS would likely be ruled out for that zone due to the low population density. Any move to GOS would have to include a larger area to disperse hunters.

Population estimate for 4-25D is only 80 goats.
Harvest rate is 4.0% (80x.04=3.2) for an AAH of 3 goats.
Allocation is 2 goats for residents, 1 for non-residents.

LEH authorizations/resident harvest:
2006: 29 authorizations/0 goats harvested.
2007: 21/0.
2008: 21/0.
Tentative for 2009: 41/?.

Some conclusions can be drawn from this:

It could be one of those areas where the AAH is being maintained so the single annual non-resident quota can be continued.
It also could be concluded that since resident harvest has been 0 for the last three consecutive years, that there's just not 80 goats in there.
It could also be concluded that out of 21 permits only about 4 to 6 of the successful applicants are actually hunting.
It could also be possible that due to the access issue, no one at all is going in there to hunt goats. (See LEH odds 0.1:1.0, that actually means there were only 2 applicants for 21 authorizations)
It could also be possible that even if it were GOS there wouldn't be any hunting pressure or harvest anyway since GOS would have to include a much larger area and no one would bother with 4-25D due to the significant effort it takes to get in there.
Aerial surveys use a sightability factor to correct actual sightings, there are standard MOE protocols that indicate which sightability factor to use in varying conditions.

Goat surveys were done in 4-25 in 1986 (695), 1992 (1080), 2000 (342), 2005 (545). These estimates were for the entire management unit, I cannot find data broken out specifically for just 4-25D or other sub-units.

In 2000 and 2005 National Park populations were deducted from the overall total, that's why they are so much lower then previous estimates. In 2005 the Park population was estimated at 464, or in other words 1010 goat were actually estimated overall (actual sightings x sightability factor).

[6616]

[quote=GoatGuy;435227]Yes, aerial surveys - done all the time in the Koots especially compared to the rest of the province. Columbia Basin, MoE and Parks Canada does them as well. Parks like to do them right around Sept 10th - oohhh that looks dark and has big--horns but lets see if it's a goat anyways.:lol:
Do you know if they are done annually and is there a percent added for unseen animals.
You have seasons whether they're LEH or GOS where you can't shoot 30 goats.
If the AAH is grossly over shot will the season be shut down for the next few years.
If you cant answer the questions just say its know problem but you never seem to answer what people ask.

the AAHs are supposed to have a safety margin built in so an overharvest is not a serious concern and permits would be lowered in reflection of the increased success rate. If there was a grossly over-harvestthe LEH would be reduced to 1 authorization instead of closing it completely because that makes it eassier to re-open if and when there is a population recovery. considering it usually takes from 10 to 20 permits to shoot a single goat reducing the LEH to one permit would be virtually the same as closing it. Also considering this success rate a gross over-harvest is almost inconceivable.

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy;435227]Yes, aerial surveys - done all the time in the Koots especially compared to the rest of the province. Columbia Basin, MoE and Parks Canada does them as well. Parks like to do them right around Sept 10th - oohhh that looks dark and has big--horns but lets see if it's a goat anyways.:lol:
Do you know if they are done annually and is there a percent added for unseen animals.
You have seasons whether they're LEH or GOS where you can't shoot 30 goats.
If the AAH is grossly over shot will the season be shut down for the next few years.
If you cant answer the questions just say its know problem but you never seem to answer what people ask.

There's always a sightability factor. They collared a bunch of goats in the EK and then flew them multiple times to get an idea of what the sightability factor should be and when the best times are to fly them. This is all Kim's work - you should know this stuff.

You should also know that natural mortality is extremely low. Hunter harvest is measured via CI.

If any AAH is grossly over-shot or the population declines, opportunity will be reduced or eliminated in subsequent years. A 'know' brainer. No different than when people stockpile elk and they have a huge die-off in a winter kill because nobody wanted to hunt them.

[GoatGuy]

I knoooow what it is. Hooooly coooow. I am so done. This is exactly why I don't ever want to be involved with allocation. It's garbage. Nobody is ever happy, and according to the old timers, nobody is ever right.

You need to sit down and have a heart to heart with Gillingham. I was just talking to another one of his ex grads today. I don't know what kind of a magic wand that man has but good god he sure produces good biologists.

[PGK]

You need to sit down and have a heart to heart with Gillingham. I was just talking to another one of his ex grads today. I don't know what kind of a magic wand that man has but good god he sure produces good biologists.

I don't know why, but I guess I just can't get it across on the net. I know what AAH is, and how it works. I think we may be coming at it from slightly different philosophies. I typically think of it as coming from a theoretical MSY, even though I realize in the back of my head it's becoming the dodo bird. It's like when I say yards, I mean meters :lol:

He's the best there is. Period.

[6616]

I don't know why, but I guess I just can't get it across on the net. I know what AAH is, and how it works. I think we may be coming at it from slightly different philosophies. I typically think of it as coming from a theoretical MSY, even though I realize in the back of my head it's becoming the dodo bird. It's like when I say yards, I mean meters :lol:

He's the best there is. Period.

Calculated AAH is much less then theoretical MSY. I don't think there's any species in BC harvested even close to the MSY level. AAH is actually based on the harvest rate recommendations in the BC Wildlife Harvest Strategy which were considered conservative at the time of writting. Lower rates are often applied today, especially for K-Selected species. 0 to 4.0% for most K-Selected species, 0 to 15% for most R-Selected species. Many other jurisdictions sustainably harvest at higher rates then BC does.

[budismyhorse]

Fellas,

at the risk of sounding redundent...again, I posed this question awhile back and it wasn't directly answered, but going over last nights hard work by y'all it seems to me there is a fundamental problem.

the MOE decisions are extremely conservative (by the sound of it), such that they are not willing to be "the one" who sticks their neck out and puts a species in a "risky*" harvest scenario.....for R4 hunters, they want to avoid having their name in lights like a certain Mr RD.

From what I know about the MOE bio's of today, they want to manage species and go home at night, they couldn't care less about the plight of hunters. "its not my job to manage hunters": direct quote.

To actually make these changes everyone is talking about, would mean someone would have to step out of the herd and be noticed, at risk of solidifying their name with "risky" species harvest levels.

BTW, this is great stuff, thanks for all of these explanations.

* "risky" I use this term because anything that IS NOT incredibly safe or conservative to a bio, apparently means it is risky.

[GoatGuy]

Fellas,

at the risk of sounding redundent...again, I posed this question awhile back and it wasn't directly answered, but going over last nights hard work by y'all it seems to me there is a fundamental problem.

the MOE decisions are extremely conservative (by the sound of it), such that they are not willing to be "the one" who sticks their neck out and puts a species in a "risky*" harvest scenario.....for R4 hunters, they want to avoid having their name in lights like a certain Mr RD.

From what I know about the MOE bio's of today, they want to manage species and go home at night, they couldn't care less about the plight of hunters. "its not my job to manage hunters": direct quote.

To actually make these changes everyone is talking about, would mean someone would have to step out of the herd and be noticed, at risk of solidifying their name with "risky" species harvest levels.

BTW, this is great stuff, thanks for all of these explanations.

* "risky" I use this term because anything that IS NOT incredibly safe or conservative to a bio, apparently means it is risky.
I get where you're coming from but....

Ray was told to reduce the elk population by 50% (what he told me). All that's being asked of managers is to manage their wildlife at the prescribed harvest levels which encourage population growth.



It's only risky when you don't know numbers. - you know that

Garth does it with Grizzly Bears. Need I say more?

[GoatGuy]

I don't know why, but I guess I just can't get it across on the net. I know what AAH is, and how it works. I think we may be coming at it from slightly different philosophies. I typically think of it as coming from a theoretical MSY, even though I realize in the back of my head it's becoming the dodo bird. It's like when I say yards, I mean meters :lol:

He's the best there is. Period.

Nothing's managed anywhere near MSY in BC. We don't even harvest the female/juvenile segment across most of the province, for no good reason I might add.

[budismyhorse]

All that's being asked of managers is to manage their wildlife at the prescribed harvest levels which encourage population growth. very much understood.



If they are not doing that....then why?? Someone is making a decision regarding what is in your above quote.

[6616]

If they are not doing that....then why??

In many cases it's public and stakeholder input.

We(collectivelly as hunters) are probably even more conservative then many managers. There is a perception that the slightest over-harvest is a terrible catastrophy. Also then there's the NIMBY effect. As well there seems to be a certain perception amongst some hunters that they know more about wildlife management then the wildlife professionals. Remember the comment a year or so ago that "I spent four days in "un-named West Kootenay MU" hunting elk and there's no way those elk could sustain a GOS"....? Based on 4 days......??????

Remember what happened to Garth's 3pt elk proposal and spike/fork moose proposal last year....? Those were science based and supported proposals that got shot down by public and stakeholder input. Due to so much weight being given to public consultation,,,, hunters and guide-outfitters are managing wildlife right now,,,, not biologists.

[budismyhorse]

Agreed Andy,

Quote from an email of unnamed ex-BC wildlife bio.

"
These proposals indicate considerable confusion exists among wildlife managers. Their job is to provide animals for us to hunt and to explain how they propose to do this. Obviously they don't know how and are inviting input on "how", instead of "when" and "where".

Your response? I don't think what he proposes is even remotely possible given today's dynamic that exists in BC hunting circles.

[6616]

Your response? I don't think what he proposes is even remotely possible given today's dynamic that exists in BC hunting circles.

Could be, amybe after the spike/fork moose is in place for a couple years some light may ne shed on the matter.

Othwise, it's the staus-quo and we could be doomed to watching a huge winter kill event unfold again.

[bayou]

[quote=GoatGuy;435284][quote=bayou;435249]

There's always a sightability factor. They collared a bunch of goats in the EK and then flew them multiple times to get an idea of what the sightability factor should be and when the best times are to fly them. This is all Kim's work - you should know this stuff.
Thank you for answering the questions. Do you know what the sightability factor(percent) is.
You should also know that natural mortality is extremely low. Hunter harvest is measured via CI.
What do you define as natural mortality, IMO visual goat numbers are down in certain MUs if not by hunters what could be the cause.
If any AAH is grossly over-shot or the population declines, opportunity will be reduced or eliminated in subsequent years. A 'know' brainer. No different than when people stockpile elk and they have a huge die-off in a winter kill because nobody wanted to hunt them.

[GoatGuy]

[quote=GoatGuy;435284][quote=bayou;435249]

There's always a sightability factor. They collared a bunch of goats in the EK and then flew them multiple times to get an idea of what the sightability factor should be and when the best times are to fly them. This is all Kim's work - you should know this stuff.
Thank you for answering the questions. Do you know what the sightability factor(percent) is.
You should also know that natural mortality is extremely low. Hunter harvest is measured via CI.
What do you define as natural mortality, IMO visual goat numbers are down in certain MUs if not by hunters what could be the cause.
If any AAH is grossly over-shot or the population declines, opportunity will be reduced or eliminated in subsequent years. A 'know' brainer. No different than when people stockpile elk and they have a huge die-off in a winter kill because nobody wanted to hunt them.

Sightability average is 63% in the Koots I believe (Poole). Probably use somewhere between 60-65% on flights.

"IMO visual goat numbers are down in certain MUs if not by hunters what could be the cause." Could be several things. Maybe basing goat populations in some MUs on a couple of days in the bush?

Here's a good read.
A population review of mountain goats in the Kootenay Region

Kim Poole

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=10478


Should give you everything you're looking for.

[GoatGuy]

Agreed Andy,

Quote from an email of unnamed ex-BC wildlife bio.

"
These proposals indicate considerable confusion exists among wildlife managers. Their job is to provide animals for us to hunt and to explain how they propose to do this. Obviously they don't know how and are inviting input on "how", instead of "when" and "where".

Your response? I don't think what he proposes is even remotely possible given today's dynamic that exists in BC hunting circles.

Easy, change the entire way hunters are consulted. Give managers a management goal, not a round-table of opinions.

[bayou]

[quote=bayou;435667][quote=GoatGuy;435284]

Sightability average is 63% in the Koots I believe (Poole). Probably use somewhere between 60-65% on flights.

"IMO visual goat numbers are down in certain MUs if not by hunters what could be the cause." Could be several things. Maybe basing goat populations in some MUs on a couple of days in the bush?
Im guessing this comment is just another of your childish digs or maybe just defining your self for i believe it was you that said you went into an area for a week and seen plenty of animals so everything is OK. In some cases people that spend a large quantity of time in an area can have some good info versious a once a year flight.You dont have to have a degree or title behind your name,but in saying that there is some very good biologists etc out there.
Here's a good read.
A population review of mountain goats in the Kootenay Region

Kim Poole

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/public/viewReport.do?reportId=10478


Should give you everything you're looking for.
Thanks looks interesting but will take awhile to get through found page 18 and 24 interestung so far

[Ambush]

I still can't understand why the AAH is not upped on the speices that are chronicly under harvested.

If, over a period of several years, the average harvest level is still 50% of target, how then can it be "risky" to double it. Or at the very least increase it incrementily until targets are met. I beleive THAT is the job and mandate of wildlife managers.

You will always have years where everything aligns to promote a severe over or under harvest, but that's why averages are applied.

And is the ministry and it's bio's so encumbered by beuracracy, that it couldn't respond to a severe situation, in a timely fashion? Say if a new road access, severe weather and predation took a sudden toll on sheep in certain area. And again, that would have a small affect on the larger whole.

Who's the Chicken $hits?? What level do they operate at?