Cornelius08

"Hunting is a privelege not a right."

It doesnt matter much if it were a right, because even in states where it is a right, with noncompliance of the laws, those "rights" can still be taken away.

DougE

You'll never get 100% compliance and you'll never get an actual number of dead deer.DMAP'S have required reporting whether successful or not.It was printed right on the tag that there would be a penalty and the loss of the ability to get another dmap in the futire is no reprt was given.Still,compliance was below 70% even though nasty letters were sent out to those that didn't report,threatening a fine and ability to buy future dmaps.In the end,there was nothing that could be done because all people have to do is claim they mailed them in and they got lost in the mail.Hopefully POS will illeviate some of these issues but not everyone owns a computer.Still,there's no way to determine how many guys kill and don't tag deer and there's no way to know how many are shot and not recovered.It always has been and always will be an estimate.

We have a controlled hunt where I live.At the end of the season,we mail or e-mail everyone a questionaire that is mandatory to send back if you want to hunt again.Compliance with that is less than 80%.A high percentage of hunters don't give a rat's behind about the data.It's easier to just be a part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.

Windwalker7

You'd think that with the new fangled computer licensing system in place now, it wouldn't be that difficult for license buyers to have to do a mandatory report of deer harvested, during the previous year, before the purchase of a hunting license.

Similar to when buying a the migratory bird stamp. It seemed easy enough for the PGC or whomever, to do a survey like that for waterfowl, why not deer?


Even though results would be a year late, comparisons could be made to the report cards by mail and computer reported kills.

I'd be interested in the results.


These days with all the high tech stuff it seems simple enough.


I always hear the excuse of how much it would cost. Really?

Couldn't issueing agents have a poll type page of their computer to ask buyers of their kills and log it on?

Look how simple it is to conduct a poll on this board.

I believe the excuse about cost is just an excuse to not do it that way.

Having every license buyer reporting what they killed the previous year, would leave less room for the PGC to make up their own numbers usin their excuse of hunters not reporting kills.

Seems worth the expense for the PGC to keep tabs on who got an elk tag, who got a bobcat tag ( so the don't reapply), who sent for which county for a doe license.

If I sent an application to five counties or sent five applications to the same couty for the first drawing, can't they see that I did that? Seems they find it easy enough to track those things and don't have a problem with expense.

The too expensive excuse is a cop out!

DougE

That would be fine if everyone owned a computer but they don't.

Maverick 1

Everyone has access to snail mail. Everyone has access to a telephone.

Maverick 1

Why not have reminders sent out or telephoned for those that failed to report. Maybe around February or March.

ManySpurs

Well I can certainly say that I know of one "for sure" instance where the PGC shared harvest report info on a certain messegeboard participant with another messegeboard participant and that info turned up on a messegeboard. I also know of another "upstanding" messegeboard participant that asked a WCO to check up on some of my harvest reports a little while back. As far as I'm concerned, these incidents destroy any amount of trust that the PGC expects from those that do report their harvests. It's nobodies business but mine and the PGCs what I harvest and report.

As for the reporting rate, if the rate really is only 40%, something must be done. Although it shouldn't have to be, I'd like to see an incentive for hunters to turn in their reports. A drawing for a free Pa elk tag drawn from harvest report cards at the spring BOC meeting comes to mind, with the winning hunter having to produce a deer jawbone from his report that has been preserved in the freezer since deer season. It's laughable, and could be open to fraud, but doable.

BTBowhunter

It doesnt have to be complicated. I'll use another states successful system as an example. A deer must be called in to a computerized reporting service by 10 PM the date of harvest ( a deer hit but recovered later is considered harvested the day it's recovered) . Upon reporting, the hunter recieves a confirmation code that he must write on the tag. A deer posessed beyond that deadline is no longer legal.

It could be added for those who didnt harvest, An unsuccessful hunter simply has to report at seasons end and also gets a confirmation number.


To institute in PA as painlessly as possible, For the first few years, a hunter who is not on record with his report would then simply be required to complete it at point of sale without penalty when he applies for his license the next license year. Yes the information will be late but just like the dismal reporting rate we have now, that can be statistically accounted for.

After a few "learning curve" years, a hunter who is not on record with his report is charged an extra fee for next years license. If he has his confirmation number, he has proof that he reported and has no problem. Those that forget will learn to remember once they get hit in the wallet.

I see no reason why such a system couldnt be instituted and running smoothly in a few short years.

Windwalker7

I'm talking about when you purchase your hunting license.




The issuing agents have the computer. No need for everyone to own a computer.

Make it mandatory that you provide the issuing agent with info on what and where you bagged your deer the previous year.

If you don't provide the info, you don't get a license.

Seems pretty straight forward and easy to get a more accurate kill tally.

bluebird2

While I agree that it would be nice to have more accurate harvest data, I doubt it would made any difference in the way the PGC manages the herd. They claim they don't manage the deer based on deer density so they don't really care how many are killed or how many survive. Now that herd health is at target they are only managing the herd based on forest health and deer /human conflict.