tag numbers are going up

[ELKOHUNTER]

Bombardeer,
You remind me of a kid I met once. All brain smarts but once the rubber hit the dirt he did't know what to do. You can sit there and tell me that money has nothing to do with it when in fact it's the number one reason tags are given out. If money wasn't the driving factor there wouldn't be a need for Gov tags, Dream tags, PIW tags and all the other MONEY making carrots that are out there. So please sit at your computer, trust the numbers that they come up with for you to read and dont try to convince me. Thank you

 

[Gudari]

Myself, and I would imagine the majority of people on here, are not members or adamant supporters of hunters alert. Thank you for posting your ?facts?. I appreciate it. I have also talked to biologists, looked at NDOW?s site, and spent plenty of days in the field. Everywhere you look on NDOW?s site you can see loopholes. Someone posts up a power point stating does in areas in which a doe hunt occurred gained 20 lbs the next year due to less competition and produced healthier offspring, resulting in 30? bucks. Ok?and this study was done where, and by whom? This scenario is a constant in this debate, and inquiring minds will continue to wonder.

I know the poll will be in my favor. What I find ironic, however, is that last year after the commission made the tag cuts, the vast majority of people were upset. People could not believe the commission would go against NDOW who has to know what is the correct protocol, right? It turns out that last year was an eye opener to a lot of people. Guys began to research, watch commission videos, and ask questions?..Questions that I still do not feel have been answered. I understand that NDOW can't count every single deer in the state. I never stated that I felt this was necessary, or remotely feasible. Please excuse the vast majority of the hunting public for questioning this astronomical increase in deer tags. I understand the reasoning NDOW is giving regarding the increase in tag numbers. I might even go as far as saying I would be onboard with last year?s quota numbers, heck maybe even a little more. Raise tag numbers in certain units, and give specific scientific evidence as to why it's a good idea, and I'll sign up. Unfortunately, I cannot get behind these outrageous numbers they are proposing across the board.

 

[brow]

Downsouth is right on the money!!! I too believe in the "conspericies" of NDOW or whatever you want to call it.
Anyone whom can honestly say that the deer numbers (overall) throughout the state are doing well enough to justify this kind of tag increase or an increase at all is absolutely and completely crazy and/or plain ignorant. Ignorant because you probably have not truly experianced the depreciation of what has become of Nevadas deer heards. I hunt, travel, and trap accross the state and have first handedly experianced the declining heards throughout. places that once used to flurish with critters now have few and if your lucky you might cut a set of tracks... I do agree that there are some areas where tags possibly could be increased but hunting with competion against others is not the greatest thing in the world and sure takes away from the experiance.
I too hunted sheep in 252 this year and it was a mess with 7 hunters, I could only imagine what 10 would be like...
NDOW has aslo reccommended rifle cow elk hunts durring the muzzleloader elk hunt. This is great,depending on the year the bulls could still be with the cows wrapping up the rut; so they are going to screw every muzzleloader bull hunter whos been waiting 15 years to draw their bull tag with a bunch of people hunting cows blasting away. That sounds like anouther great NDOW decision doesn't it... Hopefully the commission has a greater understanding and knowledge of our states wildlife then NDOW or we will all be F'D!!!

Thanks....

 

[Bombardeer]

LAST EDITED ON May-04-12 AT 03:28PM (MST)[p]Gudari: "Myself, and I would imagine the majority of people on here, are not members or adamant supporters of hunters alert. Thank you for posting your ?facts?. I appreciate it. " <--I stand corrected, however your projected views and opinions appear to parallel closely with those of Hunter-Alert supporters - unsupported statements with little or no credibility.

"I have also talked to biologists, looked at NDOW?s site, and spent plenty of days in the field. Everywhere you look on NDOW?s site you can see loopholes." <---Day's in the field as a biologist conducting surveys and collecting data? Or out hunting and scouting? Anyone can be a self proclaimed expert, and whether you're credible or qualified is subject to debate. I have already mentioned before that nothing is stopping you guys from proposing better and more cost effective approaches to managing game populations. JUST REMEMBER! it's better to provide credible facts to support your proposed approach.

Also, please provide the specifics on these loopholes that you claimed to have observed all over the NDOW website. I think it would be good for you to enlighten us.

"Guys began to research, watch commission videos, and ask questions?..Questions that I still do not feel have been answered." <--What questions remain unanswered? Additionally, what forms or methods of research were utilized, what were your research results (statistical data and facts?), and where did you find you research results.

"give specific scientific evidence as to why it's a good idea, and I'll sign up." <--I completely agree! I think NDOW needs to proactively provide the specifics to educate the public far more that what they currently do. Just an idea - I think it would be good for each tag recipient to receive a pamphlet focused on the area in which they draw describing the health of the herd, the surveys conducted along with the data collected, and how estimates are derived. I think there needs to be more education, interaction, and discussion between the sportsmen and the game biologists, and I think a pamphlet would be a step toward bridging that gap.

"I understand the reasoning NDOW is giving regarding the increase in tag numbers." <--So do I, but an elaborated narrative rather than a short bullet list (as they have provided with this years recommendations) would assist in answering a lot of questions from the get go, and would eliminate a lot of initial outrage from the uneducated sportsmen.

ELKOHUNTER: "You remind me of a kid I met once. All brain smarts but once the rubber hit the dirt he did't know what to do." <--does this make sense to anyone else? I'm a bit lost with your jumbled statement here. Please elaborate on how your metaphor parallels my personal behavior which you have only observed through forum postings.

"You can sit there and tell me that money has nothing to do with it when in fact it's the number one reason tags are given out. If money wasn't the driving factor there wouldn't be a need for Gov tags, Dream tags, PIW tags and all the other MONEY making carrots that are out there. So please sit at your computer, trust the numbers that they come up with for you to read and dont try to convince me. Thank you" <-- You are incorrect here...

Biologists primarily utilize tags/hunting for management purposes only, not for revenue purposes, and that is a FACT. State agencies have been utilizing these methods for years to manage wildlife populations. You can get on the NDOW website and review the department's annual financial summaries which delineates where funds are received and where funds are allocated and distributed. It is all spelled out, but I'll give you a short summary the best I can.

The majority of the funds received for NDOW license and tag fees (which equates to about 1/3 of the department's total revenue recieve by NDOW) pay for habitat improvement and restoration, transplant and introduction, and predator control projects, which all spell more opportunity for sportsmen like you and I. In fact, a good chunk of these revenues go towards the habitat bureau for habitat improvement and restoration projects, which again, indirectly spells more opportunity for us sportsmen. So there is no taxation without representation, unless you can prove otherwise. Money earned by the state on the behalf of wildlife is in turn used to manage wildlife, that's a FACT, until you can prove otherwise. Other funding is received from the federal government (grants, etc.), the state, and private party - these funds are allocated to keep the department running - admin costs, fuel, equipment, etc. - as well as wildlife management projects.

To further elaborate on funds received through tag fees - the PIW program primarily brings in money to the state by means of voluntary donations; however, you may opt to not donate funds and still apply and enter your name into PIW draws on top of your hunt choice application, which doesn't require you to pay an additional application fee. They do make a profit off the sales when people draw the PIW tags, but it equates to very little. Again, the majority of the income resulting from PIW program comes from voluntary donations, which you may opt to not provide based on your personal beliefs or financial status.

As for the new dream tag program now provided by NDOW,it should be noted that NDOW received a lot of pressure and demand from sportsmen to provide such a program to the public. Nevada has actually been lagging in the employment of such a program, as states like Montana, Idaho, Arizona, and Utah have employed these programs for sometime now.

The heritage tag auctions do bring in a significant amount of revenue for the heritage fund - which is funding used solely for game and fish habitat improvement and restoration, transplant/introduction, and predator control projects - all of which are aimed to provide you and I the sportsmen more opportunities to hunt and fish.

As for the silver-state tags, my uneducated guess is that funds from that program is allocated similarly to those funds received for the purchase of hunting and tag sales, but I'm not completely sure.

Furthermore, there is obviously a demand for these special tag programs mentioned above - which I'm sure a lot of you gentlemen apply for. If you do apply for these special tags and then state that you don't agree with them and their use to increase funding to provide us with more opportunities, you would then be mildly hypocritical.

As for the proposed tag quotas from NDOW, if honored, would spell more revenue (so you're correct there), but I think that I should reiterate that biologist don't make a commission off the number of tags they sell, and that is a FACT, until you can prove otherwise. These funds will be distributed for wildlife management projects.

downsouth: "Bombardeer, you're the one that resorted to name calling in this post." <--I appologize if I offended you when I stated that some of you are ignorant. I should have stated that you are uninformed and/or uneducated. Please accept my edit.

"Who's the ignorant know it all here?" <-- I don't consider myself as a know it all; however, I do feel that I am much more educated on these issues and have a better understanding as to how the system really works - which I feel is evident as I have provided you with far more facts and information to support my statements and arguments, while you gentlemen have provided little to no facts and information to support your statements, arguments, and dramatic theories.

Your move....

 

[ELKOHUNTER]

Like I said. Book smarts and thats about it....

 

[Gazelle]

3 more weeks to the draw! God I cant wait. 2 tags or 20, Just give me a fricken tag!

 

[downsouth]

I had asked these questions earlier, but did not get a response. As we are all extremely uninformed and uneducated please elaborate on these questions that I had previously asked:

Quote from Bombardeer "Their estimates are educated guesses based on fact". Isn't that a contradiction? And exactly what FACTS are they based on. Some elaborate formula based on the number of animals that were counted per square mile in a flyover. Wildlife biology is not a precise science, so I would caution stating words like ?FACT?, but hey that's just my opinion and I'm not expert. Anyone can generate a computer model to output whatever they'd like, does that make the output right?

I had asked earlier in this post about their counts this year. From what I understand they didn't go as well as years past in some units and it was blamed on the mild winter and the wildlife being scattered. Do they have to modify their formula based on the fact that the actual counts were lower? I know I've seen how they calculate the numbers before and would like to see it again and see how they factor things like this. I personally cannot see how there is much precision to this when there are so many assumptions. Nowhere in the NDOW rational memo that was released did I see them mention that these were ESTIMATES.

 

[nvhunter]

You guys are killin me!! Without looking i would bet there was just as much complaining last year when they cut the tags.

No i don't personally think that some of the areas justify the reccommended increases.

If someone disagrees so much with the increases i guess they can always turn the tag back in, although i don't forsee anyone doing that....includeing myself.

No i don't shoot a dink on the last day just to fill my tag, if i don't find what i like i go home empty handed and don't mind doing so.

Money game? Probably at least to an extent yes.

I'm not a biologist so who am i to say...other than i don't see the numbers that the increases would indicate are out there...IF its about deer numbers and not $$$$$$s

 

[Bombardeer]

LAST EDITED ON May-04-12 AT 05:28PM (MST)[p]"Quote from Bombardeer "Their estimates are educated guesses based on facts". Isn't that a contradiction?" <--no, that's not a contradiction at all...If I showed you a map and told you that the scale was 1 inch = 1 mile (fact), you could likely provide me with a ball-park estimation of the distance from one point to another, based on the scale (fact) provided. In doing so, you have made an educated guess/estimate. Again, there is no contradiction here.

"Wildlife biology is not a precise science, so I would caution stating words like ?FACT?, but hey that's just my opinion and I'm not expert. Anyone can generate a computer model to output whatever they'd like, does that make the output right?" <-- you're absolutely right, wildlife biology is not a precise science, and their model results are more than likely not spot on with the true population dynamics of the herds. However, they are more than likely in the ball-park in their estimations, as scientists and statistical analysts have used controlled experiments to QA/QC or validate the use for their population estimation models.

Here is a little more insight on how biologists collect their FACTS for their models. Please be aware that this is just a short summary of of how it is conducted and there are some hypothetical numbers thrown into the discussion to assist in describing the process...

The previous year?s pre season doe and buck count, minus that year?s harvest numbers (that is why your returned harvest questionnaire is important), minus a winter mortality factor that can usually vary between 10% to 20% (these estimates are supported by various credible research results).

For example: you figure you have 20 bucks and 100 does in an area, and you kill nine bucks during the hunt season (fact provided through returned hunt questionnaires), so there 11 Bucks left, doe numbers remain at 100. Some winter and predator caused mortality is expected let's say 14% (the % can vary from unit to unit and from winter to winter, and are based on the biologists previous multi year observations). That leaves you with 10.86 bucks and 86 does to throw into the next seasons formula.

OK, now for spring counts. NDOW sees mostly hornless bucks that yes look like does, but that is ok because the biologist knows the number of bucks and does that survived that make up that group of deer. The importance of the spring surveys are fawn counts. And you can differentiate adult from fawn during this part of the year. Now what they do is take the spring survey fawn count, which hypothically results in a 50 fawns/100 does ratio in a unit and then they divide the fawn count in half - Research studies show that fawn recruitment nearly always results ? males and the other ? females. Then fall deer surveys, in which does can be differentiated from bucks, are then paired with spring surveys to make important population summaries. I hope that helps!

If you have a better approach, please enlighten us.

 

[In_the_Shadows]

"Like I said. Book smarts and thats about it...."

ELKOHUNTER, I don't speak up very often on here but I've read through this entire thread and most of the people who have posted have had a good point to make, whether I agree with them or not I've respected most of the people who have had something to say. You on the other hand have chosen to go with the typical "they're doing it for the money" response. Really? NDOW is recommending an increase in deer tags for the money? Because that's the most logical way to do it... GIVE ME A BREAK, if they were honestly trying to increase revenue why on earth would they choose to go about it this way? Why not increase elk tags, or better yet, non-resi elk tags, think of the money they could make doing that and thats a species that everyone on here can agree is increasing in this state. Or they could just create another new stamp to tack on to all the fee's we already pay, maybe a shed hunting permit (I'd love to hear you b@#!% about that one). Anyway, my point is that they are obviously not doing this for the revenue, there is much easier ways to go about it.

Now to your attack on Bombardeer about his "book smarts." You're jealous. Plain and simple. The uneducated always like to claim that anyone who has made the effort to better themselves by going to school, getting a degree, and attempting to make a life for themselves is "just book smart" and is lost when "the rubber meets the dirt." I'm sure you are plenty smart and maybe are even educated but comments like that are just absurd. I have a degree, I spent 5 years at a university (not smart enough to get it done in 4), and I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on biological topics, but I am willing to bet any amount of money that my knowledge in the hills is far beyond what yours will ever be. I've come to this conclusion from reading your posts on here for the past couple years and seeing how the majority of them either have the same "I hate educated people and wildlife agencies" undertones or just show your barely successful hunting photos. Sorry, you have your opinions about "book smart" people, and I have my opinions about people like you.

Anyways, I don't agree with the increase in tag #'s but I have faith that the people involved (meaning the CAB's and the commission) will be able to come to some kind of compromise with the recommended quotas. Hope you're going to your counties meeting!

Its lonely at the top.... just the way I like it.

 

[Gazelle]

I think everybodys gettin a little impatiant waiting for the draw.

 

[backcountryguide]

In-The-Shadows Im glad someone finally slammed this dildo ELKOHUNTER. All we ever hear from this dude is how there are no dear in the Ruby's so dont hunt up there. Im sure he has a good grip on the deer numbers in his area considering all the the trophy two points he has killed with his bow and all the huge sheds he picks up.

 

[In_the_Shadows]

>In-The-Shadows Im glad someone finally slammed
>this dildo ELKOHUNTER. All we
>ever hear from this dude
>is how there are no
>dear in the Ruby's so
>dont hunt up there. Im
>sure he has a good
>grip on the deer numbers
>in his area considering all
>the the trophy two points
>he has killed with his
>bow and all the huge
>sheds he picks up.

Hahahahaha, glad I'm not the only one who's noticed!


Its lonely at the top.... just the way I like it.

 

[NVguide]

Bombardeer,

What about the units that haven't had a fall count in 3 or 4 years, makes me question if they can really get an accurate buck to doe ratio in those units. And in all the reports the buck to doe ratios that are observed are a far cry in most units from what they actually use as the buck ratio for the population model.

 

[NVdrhntr]

Washoe County CAB is on board for recommended quotas for all species.

 

[downsouth]

NVguide brings up a good question, I'll repost it here at the bottom as he posted it out of sequence above:

"Bombardeer, What about the units that haven't had a fall count in 3 or 4 years, makes me question if they can really get an accurate buck to doe ratio in those units. And in all the reports the buck to doe ratios that are observed are a far cry in most units from what they actually use as the buck ratio for the population model"

 

[NVdrhntr]

Using the dept.'s terminology-
"Social carrying capacity ( the maximum number of hunters that is socially acceptable in the field.")

Unit 221-223. any legal weapon. Counting res. non res and juniors. early hunt.
1101 tags.
For those of you who hunt there.
Is 1101 hunters socially acceptable to you?

 

[NVHNTR]

Don't worry most of those juniors will be hunting then late season with those who have waited years to draw. The hunters who have the knowledge and experience are going to have a great hunt. The ones that go for the guys trip to drink beer, there going to have a great time to and they might just get lucky. Bring on the tags!! This will also help level the playing field drown the road by getting rid of those top tier bonus point holders. Besides without checking I believe that early hunt only had about a 30 something % success rate. It's the late hunt thats going take a toll on them.

 

[Bombardeer]

>NVguide brings up a good question,
>I'll repost it here at
>the bottom as he posted
>it out of sequence above:
>
>
>"Bombardeer, What about the units that
>haven't had a fall count
>in 3 or 4 years,
>makes me question if they
>can really get an accurate
>buck to doe ratio in
>those units. And in all
>the reports the buck to
>doe ratios that are observed
>are a far cry in
>most units from what they
>actually use as the buck
>ratio for the population model"
>
>
>

Spoke with a biologist out of Elko and here is how they get it done during years they don't fly during the fall....

The biologists have running population models. The key variable that drives the models is spring fawn recruitment (fawns:100 adults). These are their priority flights that at least in Elko County they almost always accomplish. If they did not fly an area they would use an average tempered with past winter conditions and the surrounding management area?s (hunt units) fawn ratios. Fall flights are used more to check and true and validate the population estimates based on buck ratios. Because of this they do not feel the need to fly every area every fall.

 

[desertbonehunter]

ok, went to my local board meeting last night. Talked with the biologist, they want a 30/100 buck to doe ratio. ok, two of the three areas I hunt are well over 40 bucks right now and one is over 50,. We asked , why 30 , whats with 30 that it has to be set in stone across the state. Only real reasons was it does not make a herd any better to have more bucks and there is more competition on winter grounds. Ok, may a good points in areas with harsh winters or where fires have devastated much of the area, but in the units around my home this is definately NOT the case. Also, in these units the deer are so spread out that the ratio does not even play a big of a toll as more congested areas. So really there is NO real reason other than those mentioned why we could not have a ratio of 40/100 or 45/100. Especially when that is the way it has been managed for the last several years. The last time we increased tags this much to try and do this type of thing was late 80's early 90's when everything got slaughtered, and it has taken this long nearly 20 years to bring the herd back to what it is now, and its still no where near capacity ( in certain area). So our local game board and us locals came up with what we are going to recommend to the board is we are not going to go all the way for this 30/100 ratio all in one year like NDOW wants to do. Instead we are recommending going 37/100 in one area 35/100 in another and 39 I believe in another. We have managed for great quality all these years, why try to devastate it all in one year.

 

[NVHNTR]

What's the big secret here? Is there a reason you can't name the board, biologist or the areas? I'm sure that local game board was crapping themselves when they seen the proposals. Hot or cold? Does the first letter of the county board start with "L"? And are the areas in the Twenty somethings?

 

[desertbonehunter]

well if you read this thread at all then you would know the areas and the county its no secret. Thanks tho.

 

[NVHNTR]

I'll just waite for the commission meeting, Thanks tho

 

[ThunderBall]

Have you hunted Utah to actually see what it's like there? Very misleading photos. These pics are the exception, not the rule. All of these deer where most likely either taken on private land (CWMU tags) or one of the few premium areas that are nearly impossible to draw. Hunting on public land in an area that a person has a decent chance of drawing is a joke. I counted 42 separate camps in ONE draw with 4-8 people per camp. Very few deer, with small horns, and an amazing amount of hunting pressure.

It's a shame that NDOW is trying to turn Nevada into Utah.



>LAST EDITED ON May-02-12
>AT 07:36 PM (MST)
>
>Desertbonehunter - it's just too bad
>that NDOW won't consider using
>your personal flight survey data,
>and only end up using
>their own before making quota
>recommendations.
>
>Yeah and look what opportunity got
>Utah.....it only allowed these guys
>to shoot dinky forked horn
>bucks huh?
>
>

>
>

>
>http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos/6841000f01ca54db$5b23e310$5c045c84_display.jpg
>
>

>
>

>
>
>Boy, those are some freakin dinks!
>Who the hell would want
>to hunt in Utah? And
>those are just a hand
>full of images resulting from
>my google search for "Utah
>Mule Deer."

 

[ThunderBall]

I didn't read the entire thread... but couldn't find where anyone suggested that biologists got a commission on tag sales? That's a misleading accusation.

Bomb-all-deer do you really think that money isn't a factor?

Let's see, 14357 new tags would result in $912,930 in extra money coming in. If you take into account the number of people who get a license only if they draw then the overall total goes above a million. At a time when ALL Nevada State institutions budget's have been cut, that extra money would be a big help.

If NDOW was serious about increasing the buck kill% in a season to reduce the ratio, they could just go back to 1/2 after sunset for legal shooting time. While this would result in quite a few more bucks being killed, they wouldn't make any extra money this way

Also,,, why have doe hunts if there goal is to reduce buck/doe ratio?

Also Bomb-all-deer are you sure you don't work of NDOW or some other state fish and wildlife office? It sure seems like you have a lot of "insider" information.









>ELKOHUNTER - I am not an
>NDOW employee actually, but I
>know how it works within
>the state system as I
>read the available information and
>ask NDOW employees questions from
>time to time to remain
>informed.
>
>"It doesn't take a blind man
>to see higher quotas= money
>and the more tags the
>better to them. They don't
>care about heards they care
>about money."
>
>You're not serious, right? Biologists don't
>earn a commission on the
>tags sold. Furthermore, most biologist
>have a passion for hunting
>that parallels or exceeds most
>of our own, that's why
>they go to school, earned
>a wildlife degree, and strive
>to become game biologists. It's
>not about the money for
>them...obviously, when most make between
>$40,000 - $60,000 (supervisor wages)
><--check it out on the
>state website it's all spelled
>out.
>
>It doesn't take a blind man
>to see an idiot whom
>makes assumptions and refuses to
>use facts to back up
>their statements and arguments.

 

[NVdrhntr]

so, from the minutes i've seen from several CAB meetings, not all of them though, so far Eureka CAB does not want tag increases over 2011 levels, at least area 14.
Churchill wants no more than a 25 % increase over 2011 levels in any unit statewide.
All others so far have agreed with dept. recommendations. with some minor adjustments for species other than deer.

 

[NVdrhntr]

humboldt, lincoln and storey all want reductions from the recommendations on deer tags in their counties.

 

[NVHNTR]

Anybody know why lincoln wants such high buck ratios. Started hunting unit 24 in the late 70's when they gave out over 300 tags. It seemed like I had the place to myself. I hope the game commission stcks it to them and cuts the tags loose.