an example of the value of NH F&G

[Grumpy]

...
Unless someone is philisophically opposed to a moose hunt, if a non hunter gets a ticket, there will be all sorts of folks who will gladly sign up to be a subpermitee, so the ticket would not necessarilly be wasted.

If that option is available, and a good system is in place so subpermitees and non-user permit winners can get together then the "spoiler" effect can be mitigated. I endorse that.

G.

 

[Chip]

A search of the F&G website reveals a number of ways, including straight forward donations and "product", to support their efforts. I also found the Funding/Budget info interesting. In addition to my regular licenses here I also get the CT Wildlife Journal and buy our pheasant and trout stamps.

 

[sardog1]

The only hitch here, as far as I can see, is that by participating in a lottery for a hunting permit you never plan to use, you reduce the chances of somebody getting a permit he or she does plan to use. It is a sort of "spoiler" behavior, in one sense.

Another thing to consider is that the number of permits to be offered in a lottery almost certainly reflects a biologically informed assessment of herd-habitat balance issues. In this case (like other hunting season and bag limit regulations) it is not simply a matter of recreation for the hunters, but of savvy resource management.

I don't think it is constructive to interfere unnecessarily with resource management efforts like this, even with the noblest of intentions advocated by sardog 1.

I do sort of like Kevin R's tongue-in-cheek suggestion about the mouse lottery. It appeals to my sense of whimsey. Besides, I have a ravenous appetite for good, natural sharp Cheddar cheese!

G.

It isn't interference or "spoiling" if you don't buy a permit. All you're paying for is a chance to buy a permit. If you don't buy the permit you've won, the next person in line gets it. His/her odds weren't affected (much), because the drawing ranks applicants automatically and retains the order in case someone doesn't buy the permit. In fact, "alternates" are ranked and advised of their position in the ranking. (The "much" refers to complexities of the drawing for various Wildlife Management Units that are beyond the scope of this thread.)

The number of permits is based on the moose population, not the number of entries in the drawing.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

If that option is available, and a good system is in place so subpermitees and non-user permit winners can get together then the "spoiler" effect can be mitigated. I endorse that.

G.

While I don't mean to dismiss the issue of "spoiler" -I think most F&G departments factor in a success ratio when determining bag limits. So, tags which aren't filled because hunters didn't fill their tag for whatever reason, or spoilers took a tag - all of this is usually weighted into the bag limit, if not in that year then in succeeding years.

 

[sardog1]

Just so we're clear: A resident moose permit will cost you $150 for the permit plus $22 for the hunting license. A nonresident will be paying $500 for the permit plus $103 for the license. Ain't nobody gonna be "spoiling" a moose hunt opportunity for someone else at those prices, IMO.

 

[Grumpy]

I stand corrected on the "spoiler" issue in respect to entering hunting permit lotteries if you do not intend to use the permit if you win.

The factual information provided her in respect to New Hampshire moose permit lotteries effectively rebuts my use of that label.

Glad I brought up the issue, though, because the responses have been worthwhile, enlightening and educational.

Thanks, all.

G.

 

[forestgnome]

The number of permits is based on the moose population, not the number of entries in the drawing.

The population estimation is very mysterious to me. I've heard that the estimation relies heavily on reports from deer hunters of moose sightings. If true, it's an incredible conflict of interest, since there really are no "moose hunters". Moose hunters are deer hunters who have won the lottery. The more sightings, the bigger the heard estimation, which would result in more tickets, which would increase the chances of winning a ticket. "Oh yeah, I saw 10 moose out there today"

This is why I report any dead moose I find. I have found a few near the roadways that have been hit. (These are the ones that people think suffered no injuries because they trotted away after a collision). Please report dead moose sightings to F&G.

happy trails

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The population estimation is very mysterious to me. I've heard that the estimation relies heavily on reports from deer hunters of moose sightings. If true, it's an incredible conflict of interest, since there really are no "moose hunters".

The same is true for the bluefin tuna fishery. The taxpayers are not willing to fund the necessary research to determine actual numbers of either and so both rely on the primary interests in the resource for information. BFT fisherman often report seeing enormous schools. Occasionally, spotter planes working with the fishermen will share photographs of these schools with scientists, but not until their boat(s) have taken their quotas.

Bluefin, like moose and deer, have quotas, and have to be reported. Some people say that only 10% of recreational BFT landings are reported. It's almost certainly not 100%. I'm sure the same is true for moose, deer, or any other species which is desirable for the table.

The key for both is to figure out the appropriate fudge factor to arrive at reasonably accurate numbers based on the reported numbers.

Tim

 

[NewHampshire]

The population estimation is very mysterious to me. I've heard that the estimation relies heavily on reports from deer hunters of moose sightings. If true, it's an incredible conflict of interest, since there really are no "moose hunters". Moose hunters are deer hunters who have won the lottery. The more sightings, the bigger the heard estimation, which would result in more tickets, which would increase the chances of winning a ticket. "Oh yeah, I saw 10 moose out there today"

I am sure more scientific means are used than just hunter reports. I once saw an episode on Wildlife Journal (the F&G video companion on PBS to their periodical of the same name....which is worth getting and also supports the F&G) where they used helicopters to aid in counting moose, plus they ranquilized and radio tagged a number of moose (this particular episode they were in Pisgah SP), tags which provided biologists with real time data to computers so they could track generalmovement trends. There are also biologists out in the field checking on other animals that I assume must provide incidental data on other species encountered (for example, the biologists...who's name escapes me right now....out researching Pine Martins most assuredly reports moose, deer and any other sightings to fellow respective biologists.)

And while all hunters may not be honest the truth is the majority are (and I don't consider poachers to be hunters for the record), so when querried about what they saw, number wise, in the field they usually report truthfully. The way the lottery is set up their odds of getting picked because of falsifying numbers they saw (wich only MIGHT incidentally increase permit numbers) is so low it is a non issue.

In years past I have heard critisicm from a fellow hunter about the F&G "having only a vauge idea of the bear population" in New Hampshire. He says they are going on "nothing more than estimates". While this is true (I mean, you will NEVER know a true population number without actually counting every single animal....which is practically and financially impossible) they do have more scientific means, and sure enough Wildlife Journal had a program on the methods they used to estimate bear populations. It was an interesting method in which wire was used to "snag" hair from passing bears to a pre made bait site. The hair was then sent for DNA analysis to see how many different bears visited the site. They had a number of sites set up al over which were checked frequently.

Bottom line is, the F&G does make more of an effort than just asking for eye witness accounts of animal encounters to determine moose, bear and deer populations.....but with budget constraints tightening these mehtods could be the first to be cut.

Brian

 

[Andrew]

You can also buy a subscription to NHF&G Wildlife Journal to help 'em out. The photography is world class, and the "Warden's Watch" stories priceless.

The wildlife calender almost died when it was free, now they sell it. The photography is again world class. You can also give a direct donation to the NHF&G Non-Game Fund- I do. Although that money does not go to S&R or game species programs, it does go to help the other critters.

NHF&G also is responsible for developing boat access (ramps & put-in's) to public waters. They tried to get legislation to get us paddlers to register and help this effort- but most balked and it died.

 

[Stan]

... Please report dead moose sightings to F&G.

I think F&G has a bit more reliable system to estimate game counts but forestgnome makes a great point, report dead game. I'd include deer, fox, bobcat etc. Sometimes conservation officers or biologists will determine the cause of death and learn a lot about wildlife populations, and threats, from that.

A stress on moose population is the tick. Infestation of ticks numbering in the six figures have been found on a single moose! This can be fatal to moose already stressed by a harsh winter and is especially stressful to younger moose who are still using energy to grow and extra energy to learn food sources etc.

It is F&G, in any state with significant wildlife, that studies, understands and responds in various ways, within their budget and regulatory mandate, to these things. Another reason to support F&G in whatever way we can and in the context of each of our personal priorities.

 

[forestgnome]

You can also buy a subscription to NHF&G Wildlife Journal to help 'em out. The photography is world class, and the "Warden's Watch" stories priceless.

Good call. They also appreciate donated photography. I donated the bear image on the cover of the Sept/Oct '08 issue. This helps them make a profit on the publication and I was very thrilled to make the cover. I have an issue framed!

It all helps

 

[griffin]

It isn't interference or "spoiling" if you don't buy a permit. All you're paying for is a chance to buy a permit. If you don't buy the permit you've won, the next person in line gets it. His/her odds weren't affected (much), because the drawing ranks applicants automatically and retains the order in case someone doesn't buy the permit. In fact, "alternates" are ranked and advised of their position in the ranking. (The "much" refers to complexities of the drawing for various Wildlife Management Units that are beyond the scope of this thread.)

Just curious - are the chances transferable? If I buy a lottery chance, and by some miracle I actually "win" - can I give my chance to someone else? I'm thinking of buying a chance and/or fishing license, and I do know one or two New Hampshire folks who hunt.

(I'd rather buy the license and have all the $ go to F&G, then have some of the money pay for a hat or other dust-able that I don't need)

 

[sardog1]

Just curious - are the chances transferable? If I buy a lottery chance, and by some miracle I actually "win" - can I give my chance to someone else? I'm thinking of buying a chance and/or fishing license, and I do know one or two New Hampshire folks who hunt.

(I'd rather buy the license and have all the $ go to F&G, then have some of the money pay for a hat or other dust-able that I don't need)

So far as I know you would not be allowed to transfer your permit. There's nothing explicit in the regulations that I could find (except a prohibition on selling or bartering a subpermittee designation.)

You can designate a "subpermittee" if you wish, to accompany you on the hunt. The subpermittee is allowed to shoot the moose. You must accompany the subpermittee in the field, within sight and hearing at all times, and you must take the moose to the registration station with the subpermittee. So, you'd be going moose hunting if you wanted to enable a friend to hunt.

 

[The Hikers]

You can buy a moose lottery chance for $15 for residents, $25 for nonresidents , without buying a hunting license or taking a hunter education course. The money goes into Fish & Game's budget.

If you happen to get drawn (very unlikely in your first year and extremely unlikely if you're not a resident), and you don't want to hunt moose, just surrender your chance and someone else in the drawing will be awarded the permit.

If I win, can I live-capture a Moose and bring it home for a pet?

 

[DrewKnight]

It's slightly counter-intuitive, but: All "outdoor enthusiasts" (hikers, bikers, non-hunters, anti-hunters, violently opposed to harming animal people, etc.) should buy hunting and fishing licenses (and whatever other tags are available) to support F&G so they can do their job. It would also ease the pressure on having to charge for rescues.

Buying a license does not mean you approve of the activity, but of the enforcement of the regulations of the activity.

Actually, Chip, I really like the idea of a (reasonably priced) "Outdoor user's fee" that would potentially encompass hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, mountain biking and other forms of back-country access. Economically, if we spread the load more broadly, the fees could potentially be lower for all participants while providing a broader, more distributed fee base for the agency.

I don't hunt anymore (haven't since I was a teen), and I don't fish very often, but I wouldn't object to this idea (again, if the fees were reasonable). If it funds conservation (both fish and game preservation and land conservation) and supports things like backcountry rescue, it seems worth it to me.

Thanks for the link, Patrick... I agree, fines for poaching are too light.

I had a quiet moment of repose by the side of Rt 49 the other night by the carcass of a road-killed moose... felt bad for the moose and hope the driver was OK.

 

[NewHampshire]

So far as I know you would not be allowed to transfer your permit. There's nothing explicit in the regulations that I could find (except a prohibition on selling or bartering a subpermittee designation.)

You can designate a "subpermittee" if you wish, to accompany you on the hunt. The subpermittee is allowed to shoot the moose. You must accompany the subpermittee in the field, within sight and hearing at all times, and you must take the moose to the registration station with the subpermittee. So, you'd be going moose hunting if you wanted to enable a friend to hunt.

I believe the permit is issued under the "winners" name and thus automatically makes it non transferrable (unless you miraculously sell the permit to someone with the same name ).

Brian

 

[Trail Bandit]

If I win, can I live-capture a Moose and bring it home for a pet?

I think the permit is to "TAKE A Moose". I am not a lawyer, but that wording doesn't imply that you have to kill the beast. I think there are laws about keeping wild animals as pets. If you had a large piece of land, perhaps you could put up a 20 ft high fence around it and just let the moose live there. There is no law against fencing in your "yard". Ok, this does depart from "views from the top".