So there are lots of threads that talk about this scattered throughout, but they are usually in other topics that end up discussing this topic.
This is a hot topic right now as there is a technology committee that was formed somewhere and is discussing some things without much input from the public. People say they know of things that are being discussed, but they are being kept in innuendo and hushed tones, for some reason. Like our wildlife and how we pursue them should be a private discussion? I don't really get that, hence....this thread!
I know one of the key things people are suggesting should happen is taking scopes back off muzzleloaders. Some of the reasons for this is to return the hunt to a "primitive" hunt or put the "hunt" back in hunting. To reduce harvest rates so that we can add more tags is another popular narrative. I think this change is the most likely recommendation to come out of the technology committee. It was not overwhelmingly popular when it passed anyway, and has always remained controversial. And the popular narratives seem logical and persuasive, especially when you might have been on the fence anyway.
So because I logically believed adding scopes to MLs increased harvest rates, but wanted to know how much, I went and looked. I compared the last three years average harvest rate before the rule change allowing scopes on MLs passed to the most recent three years average harvest rate for the same units. (For purposes of my analysis, anything 4% or less is not considered statistically significant.) Here is what I found:
There are 29 ML units for deer where harvest rates are available. Out of 29 units, only 11 saw any increase in harvest rate at all. Of those 11, only four of those units was greater than a 4% difference in harvest. So 7 of the 11 are 4% difference or less. 4 of those 7 were less than 1.5% difference. Plainly stated, we did not see a statistically significant increase on 25 of the 29 ML deer units.
What about the other 18 units, you might be asking? Well, one was exactly the same, a 0.0% difference in harvest rates. 17 units actually decreased in harvest rate in the comparison. Of those 17, 11 of them decreased more than 4%. 10 of the 11 were actually 6% or greater in their decreased harvest rates.
I realize there is an awful lot that goes into harvesting a deer during these two different 3-year periods. But it is clear that putting scopes on MLs didn't increase harvest rates to the point where taking them back off will allow any increase in tag allotment. That is a fallacy that simply does not hold water, and should no longer be part of the discussion for if this is a good policy or not. There may be other good reasons for it, but allowing us to issue more tags by decreasing harvest rates simply is not factual, even if when we hear it we thing that sounds very rational. (I was in that group until I looked at the data, just for the record.)
This is a hot topic right now as there is a technology committee that was formed somewhere and is discussing some things without much input from the public. People say they know of things that are being discussed, but they are being kept in innuendo and hushed tones, for some reason. Like our wildlife and how we pursue them should be a private discussion? I don't really get that, hence....this thread!
I know one of the key things people are suggesting should happen is taking scopes back off muzzleloaders. Some of the reasons for this is to return the hunt to a "primitive" hunt or put the "hunt" back in hunting. To reduce harvest rates so that we can add more tags is another popular narrative. I think this change is the most likely recommendation to come out of the technology committee. It was not overwhelmingly popular when it passed anyway, and has always remained controversial. And the popular narratives seem logical and persuasive, especially when you might have been on the fence anyway.
So because I logically believed adding scopes to MLs increased harvest rates, but wanted to know how much, I went and looked. I compared the last three years average harvest rate before the rule change allowing scopes on MLs passed to the most recent three years average harvest rate for the same units. (For purposes of my analysis, anything 4% or less is not considered statistically significant.) Here is what I found:
There are 29 ML units for deer where harvest rates are available. Out of 29 units, only 11 saw any increase in harvest rate at all. Of those 11, only four of those units was greater than a 4% difference in harvest. So 7 of the 11 are 4% difference or less. 4 of those 7 were less than 1.5% difference. Plainly stated, we did not see a statistically significant increase on 25 of the 29 ML deer units.
What about the other 18 units, you might be asking? Well, one was exactly the same, a 0.0% difference in harvest rates. 17 units actually decreased in harvest rate in the comparison. Of those 17, 11 of them decreased more than 4%. 10 of the 11 were actually 6% or greater in their decreased harvest rates.
I realize there is an awful lot that goes into harvesting a deer during these two different 3-year periods. But it is clear that putting scopes on MLs didn't increase harvest rates to the point where taking them back off will allow any increase in tag allotment. That is a fallacy that simply does not hold water, and should no longer be part of the discussion for if this is a good policy or not. There may be other good reasons for it, but allowing us to issue more tags by decreasing harvest rates simply is not factual, even if when we hear it we thing that sounds very rational. (I was in that group until I looked at the data, just for the record.)