Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: BOG Proposal 11

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default BOG Proposal 11

    This proposal wants to establish a limited draw permit alternate list for each hunt choice for sheep, goat, brown/grizzly bear and moose hunts.

    Nothing pisses me off more than knowing someone that drew a hard to get permit and doesn't use it. But this isn't the answer.

    I do believe the Department of Commercial Fish & Fish factor this in when determining how many permits to issue. Also they have a hard enough time running our current system and the extra expense.

    I would be for raising the cost of the permit. This would make someone think twice about submitting. I would be willing to pay $20 to put in for a sheep permit, only if the extra $$$ made from this increase would go towards sheep.

  2. #2
    Member garnede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    soon to be back in Alaska
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    This one I like. If I put in for several species that are 1% draw and get 2 with overlaping seasons it makes sence that I could let ADF&G that I can not/ will not use one and let them re-issue it to another happy hunter.

  3. #3

    Default Except that...

    As stated by tv321, ADF&G will factor this into the number of permits originally issued, issuing far fewer than they would normally. They factor in that only a certain percentage of those awarded will actually be hunted for. That is why they issue, for example, 250 permits for an area that they only want 10 or 15 animals taken from. They know that a number of people won't hunt and then a number of those who hunt won't be successful. If they eliminate those that won't hunt from that figure, they would only issue maybe 50 permits total, thus reducing the chance of you being drawn.

    All this proposal would do would reduce the number of permits issued for any particular hunt since they would have to figure that every permit would be actively hunted. It would not help spread out the opportunities. Actually, it would more likely reduce it somewhat.

  4. #4

    Default Good One

    I drew 3 tags last year and used 1, things happen where you just can not go, what sounds good in dec. is not a reality in Sept! Use the alternate list. What i do not like is the locked into the area you draw for that species!

  5. #5
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    Anchskier_ I see your point however it sounds like you like the idea that the current system leaves room to overharvest animals and don't like the proposal that would allow the bio's to reach their harvest goals more accurately...hmm

  6. #6

    Default Actually, I didn't say that

    I didn't say anything about liking a system that could allow overharvest. Don't start putting words in another's mouth.

    I was pointing out the logical problem with the idea of an "alternate" list. It would result in a reduced number of permits being awarded as ADF&G would have to get rid of the non-hunt factor they currently use on a given hunt. It would not help spread the permits across more people but would likely end up reducing the number of people who see a permit (whether they will hunt it or not). Here is an example....

    Hunt 'A' wants 50 animals taken. Based on historical data, only 25% of the awarded permits are hunted for (so 200 permits are needed so far). Also, only 50% of those who hunt are successful (so 400 permits are actually needed to be issued - so 400 people have the option to hunt this hunt). If the non-hunters were eliminated.... You want 50 animals taken, since everyone with a permit is going to hunt, then you would start with 50 permits, factor in the 50% success rate of those who hunt and end up with only 100 permits awarded. Even if 100% of those people decided they didn't want to hunt and it went to the alternate list, that would still only end up with 200 people getting the option. Also, with the timeframe of the permits being awarded, there isn't a lot of time to go back and forth with notifying the "next on the list" people and them having time to plan a trip. If you wanted this system, you would have to have the permit drawings a lot earlier in the year than they currently are. Many people don't have time to plan trips already, not factoring in waiting for those who decide not to hunt to notify ADF&G and then have them notify you.

    I can see how the idea of an alternate list might help result in a more reliable number of animals taken, but this is not what the original poster or the person I was replying to was discussing. There would be less chance of a fluke year when everyone decided to hunt one specific area rather than be spread out (maybe a result of adverse weather conditions, or some other reason). This is where the emergency closure issue comes in. It is fairly common to have an early closure on a particular area if ADF&G notes a higher than expected harvest in an area.

  7. #7

    Default

    I would like to see an option where they (F&G) can re-draw tickets for someone who wins the draw and then realizes they can not make the hunt due to some reason or another.... As long as that indiviudal is good about letting F&G know they can not make the hunt. Just go back to the original pool and draw another name...

  8. #8
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Exclamation some folks just don't "get it"!!!

    if this passes you will have LESS chance of drawing a permit.
    period.
    end of discussion.

    quit worrying about whether the "other guy" does or doesn't use their permit...F&G already accounts for it.
    focus on just putting in for hunts you can pull off, and if something comes up and you can't go, don't feel bad about it...you are just a foreseeable statistic as far as the draw system works.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    if this passes you will have LESS chance of drawing a permit.
    period.
    end of discussion.

    quit worrying about whether the "other guy" does or doesn't use their permit...F&G already accounts for it.
    focus on just putting in for hunts you can pull off, and if something comes up and you can't go, don't feel bad about it...you are just a foreseeable statistic as far as the draw system works.
    Good point... Thanks for sharing.

  10. #10

    Default

    here's another alternative.

    Make it when you draw one tag, you cannot draw a 2nd. Share the wealth kind of thing. The same % of people still will not hunt yet more people will get a crack at a tag. It might make some coveted tags harder to draw, yet make some other tags much easier to draw.

    So, in laymens terms.....I put in for 6 tags this go around....and I happen to draw one of the goat tags first, that means I cannot draw a sheep tag. That menas you'll have one less person to go against in the draw. I keep hearing of guys drawing 2 3 or 4 tags a year and some do it continuousy which raises another question............

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TradBow View Post
    here's another alternative.

    Make it when you draw one tag, you cannot draw a 2nd. Share the wealth kind of thing. The same % of people still will not hunt yet more people will get a crack at a tag. It might make some coveted tags harder to draw, yet make some other tags much easier to draw.

    So, in laymens terms.....I put in for 6 tags this go around....and I happen to draw one of the goat tags first, that means I cannot draw a sheep tag. That menas you'll have one less person to go against in the draw. I keep hearing of guys drawing 2 3 or 4 tags a year and some do it continuousy which raises another question............
    To do something like this, you would need to adjust the way people enter the drawings. They would have to prioritize all of the hunts they apply for as a single entity rather than just within the specific species (you would end up with a 1-15 priority system rather than just a few 1-3 sets). Without that, it would be at the whim of which animal they did the drawings for first.

  12. #12
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    I think anchskier is correct; for the Kenai Mtns. caribou herd 250 permits are issued and the dept. knows only 25+/- will be harvested. I'd rather have increased odds of getting a permit than be totally disenfrachised from the system.

    Things happen; I put in for three goat, sheep, and moose tags; if I got one for each species I couldn't effectively hunt them all. I don't expect to draw ANY tags, let alone one tag from all three species.

    I don't like this proposal either.

    Tim
    Last edited by tccak71; 12-07-2007 at 10:53. Reason: grammar

  13. #13
    Member garnede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    soon to be back in Alaska
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    I can see the logic that ADF&G will reduce the tags available if this is approved, but after thinking about it the biger problem would be getting the tag to a second hunter in time for them to be able to plan and hunt. There deffinatly would not be time for the second hunter to turn the tag in if the could not hunt and give it to a third hunter. If I did not find out untill the week before a season opens that I could not go it is not reasonable that the second hunter could put togather a successful hunt in that time.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •