MT 2012 Harvest stats? Elk

[Z Barebow]

When does MT typically update/publish the harvest stats for the previous season? When I visit the units on website, I am only getting the info for 2011.

It is April and I am thinking many of the elk killed are digested and long entered the septic system.

THX.

 

[thecrittergitter]

I don't think anybody shot any, the wolves ate them all

When does MT typically update/publish the harvest stats for the previous season? When I visit the units on website, I am only getting the info for 2011.

It is April and I am thinking many of the elk killed are digested and long entered the septic system.

THX.

 

[drahthaar]

Yeah they did, just head to the nearest sporting goods store, they will tell you.

I really think it's time for MT to go mandatory reporting. They got a hold of me and all they asked was if I shot a turkey and a wolf. Seriously???

 

[ismith]

I really think it's time for MT to go mandatory reporting.

Why, to help Z Barebow plan his season?

 

[mtlion]

Why, to help Z Barebow plan his season?

So that they know exactly how many critters were shot and where, rather than making an educated guess as they currently do. I imagine this could help better manage the resource.

 

[mtmuley]

In certain areas that makes a lot of sense. Like when they used to base the cow harvest in the Bitterroot from the Darby check station counts. Knowing how many animals taken and where can only help. mtlion, real bad day for fishing today. mtmuley

 

[ismith]

You guys actually think it would make a difference in how deer and elk are managed? Its just not neccessary unless your dealing with quotas.

 

[drahthaar]

Whatever, but it would always be helpful to know exactly, or at least very closely, how many of whatever are being taken. If it doesn't matter for management, then why keep track of bears, or lions, or wolves?

It will never happen, because it would buck their "trend" data they have collected over god knows how long. Personally, I would rather FWP talk in facts, not trends.

 

[drahthaar]

Why, to help Z Barebow plan his season?

He was asking about harvest stats. I thought about my experiences with the phone surveys and the joke they seem to be, and brought it up. Sorry.

 

[ismith]

No need to appoligize drahthaar, I was only questioning your call for mandatory reporting. I just dont see how having a precise harvest count would make a diffence when you have an estimated population and winter/fawn/calf mortality is most commonly estimated via a WAG.

 

[shoots-straight]

You guys actually think it would make a difference in how deer and elk are managed? Its just not neccessary unless your dealing with quotas.

Know exactly how many critters are taken with certain regulations in place has huge implications on managing wildlife. It would be a good tool in the box for bio's and state wildlife management.

Also mandatory check would save the state a bunch of dough.

 

[drahthaar]

It is important to me. Take for instance here in R1. compared to everywhere else in the state, our elk numbers are pretty meager. A guy gets pretty dang excited to see a herd of 15 elk. Now if you look at the harvest statistics for us in '11 and 12, you see we harvested 520 some odd cows and 569 some odd cows. When I read that the first time, I almost fell out of my chair, and nobody that hunts and lives here believes me when I tell them that.

That is from phone surveys and check stations, which many guys go out of their way to avoid. Put that together with my experiences of having never, not one time been asked if I killed an elk, I really question those numbers. Mandatory reporting would probably show that we were killing upwards of 700 or even 800 cows. How on God's green earth can so many go around blabbing about wolves and predators when we are slaughtering cows in those numbers in R1?!?

R1 was also the first to be under the horribly low objectives set in the statewide elk management plan. No crap I say! Killing cows in those numbers(phone survey numbers, let alone the REAL numbers), it doesn't surprise me. So now, here we have all these guys wanting to freak out, start hounding bears, baiting bears, shooting wolves year round, etc, because we "don't have any game left", it is apparently a dire situation caused by predators! NOT!

Having the real story could probably help spread the word on what really needs to be done. It would also help FWP tend to be more proactive than the current reactive, 4-years-to-see-the-downward-trend-holy-crap-we-better-do-something type of management situation we see now.

Mandatory reporting gives FWP, hard numbers, not just trends to stand on. At some point they are going to have to bite the bullet and start with it. The resource deserves it.

We keep such hard tabs on predators, but not the game that really brings the hunters, doesn't make sense to me.

My 2 bits.

 

[ismith]

Also mandatory check would save the state a bunch of dough.

This depends on how you intend to enforce mandatory check.

 

[mtmuley]

Basing harvest numbers off of check station data and percentages from that data to establish a trend doesn't seem like an accurate enough system for the future. Not with the future we are looking at. The phone survey is basically a joke. Obviously all hunters wouldn't report if reporting was "mandatory", but I bet a larger majority would do a mail-in than a check station. mtmuley

 

[ismith]

It is important to me. Take for instance here in R1. compared to everywhere else in the state, our elk numbers are pretty meager. A guy gets pretty dang excited to see a herd of 15 elk. Now if you look at the harvest statistics for us in '11 and 12, you see we harvested 520 some odd cows and 569 some odd cows. When I read that the first time, I almost fell out of my chair, and nobody that hunts and lives here believes me when I tell them that.

That is from phone surveys and check stations, which many guys go out of their way to avoid. Put that together with my experiences of having never, not one time been asked if I killed an elk, I really question those numbers. Mandatory reporting would probably show that we were killing upwards of 700 or even 800 cows. How on God's green earth can so many go around blabbing about wolves and predators when we are slaughtering cows in those numbers in R1?!?

R1 was also the first to be under the horribly low objectives set in the statewide elk management plan. No crap I say! Killing cows in those numbers(phone survey numbers, let alone the REAL numbers), it doesn't surprise me. So now, here we have all these guys wanting to freak out, start hounding bears, baiting bears, shooting wolves year round, etc, because we "don't have any game left", it is apparently a dire situation caused by predators! NOT!

Having the real story could probably help spread the word on what really needs to be done. It would also help FWP tend to be more proactive than the current reactive, 4-years-to-see-the-downward-trend-holy-crap-we-better-do-something type of management situation we see now.

Mandatory reporting gives FWP, hard numbers, not just trends to stand on. At some point they are going to have to bite the bullet and start with it. The resource deserves it.

We keep such hard tabs on predators, but not the game that really brings the hunters, doesn't make sense to me.

My 2 bits.

I grew up in Kalispell so I know what the elk hunting is like up there. All im saying is you cant expect exact figures to make a difference in the big picture when you only have a rough estimate of the population and all the other parts of the equation. The phone survey is probally as statistically acurate as the aerial survey. IMHO enforcing a mandatory reporting program would cost more than the current phone survey. You will still have folks in the Flathead complaining about the wolves/lions/bears/chemtrails. Thats what they do. Id be willing to bet that the decline in logging has played as big a role as any in the decline of big game numbers up there, but thats not likely to be addressed either.

 

[ismith]

For the record, I am not opposed to a mandatory report as long as it is done in a way that is convenient for the public and does not increase the bureaucratic expense and BS at the MTFW&P.

 

[drahthaar]

Well doesn't ID do a report card of sorts. I think you can fill it out online, or do a mail in? In this day and age of online everything, it would have to be cheap and easy. Have the volunteers inputting data rather than making phone calls and spending 45 minutes on the phone with someone that only wants to complain.

I am just saying, I think it would be eye opening. I personally just hate the way it is now. Oh, I forgot the fact that check stations are only open on weekends from like noon to dark, that does a lot of good!

Anyway, sorry Barebow, I turned your thread into a mess. No I have no idea when they publish the data.

 

[belly-deep]

Well doesn't ID do a report card of sorts. I think you can fill it out online, or do a mail in? In this day and age of online everything, it would have to be cheap and easy. Have the volunteers inputting data rather than making phone calls and spending 45 minutes on the phone with someone that only wants to complain.

It wouldn't even have to be that complex. it could all be done with a automated phone system...

PUSH 1 if you killed a buck; PUSH 2 if you killed a doe

ENTER UNIT AND PRESS # SIGN

 

[muleguy]

drahthaar
Sorry to say this but R1 will never have any elk just because of that 4 letter word that starts with a V .
He took the Bitterroot to it's knees before we shipped him North to you guys.
He is a elk killing machine.

 

[mtmuley]

Then we get a great guy to replace him, and he retires. mtmuley