Moose Management Review Listening Sessions May 2019 Big Game - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
moose management review
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Moose Management Review Listening Sessions May 2019 Big Game - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 01, 2024 183 likes •1.07k views

Moose Management Review Listening Sessions May 2019 Big Game Management Advisory Committee 1 Mo Moose Ma Management R Review Why are we here? The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has made a number of changes in

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Moose Management Review

May 2019 Listening Sessions

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Mo Moose Ma Management R Review

Why are we here?

  • The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has made a number of

changes in recent years to address concerns about moose populations.

  • While the results of these changes are somewhat encouraging, with moose numbers

in some areas improving, there continues to be management challenges.

  • As tag numbers for adult moose have been reduced to address population concerns,

hunters are increasingly raising concerns about lack of opportunities and fairness of the tag draw.

  • In fall 2018 the Minister announced the intent to review moose quota setting and the

tag draw and consider changes for 2020.

  • Ontario’s Big Game Management Advisory Committee (BGMAC) has been tasked by

the Minister with making recommendations – informed by what we hear during these sessions, on questionnaires and through other communications with hunters.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Session Format

  • Open house.
  • Information for review – same material presented on posters and slide show.
  • Big Game Management Advisory Committee members and Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry staff available for questions and discussion.

Opportunities for Input

  • Share your thoughts and concerns with BGMAC and MNRF hosts.
  • Complete the paper questionnaire and leave with BGMAC or MNRF hosts.
  • Complete the online questionnaire at ontario.ca/moosereview.
  • Any proposed changes that result from this effort will be posted for consultation at a

later date, allowing further opportunity for input.

Session F n Format & & Oppo portuni unities es f for Input ut

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Presentatio ion O Outlin line

  • 1. Moose Management in Ontario – History & Current Approach.

Slides 5-14

  • 2. Moose Population & Hunting Trends.

Slides 15-35

  • 2. Improving Quota Setting.

Slides 36-49

  • 3. Potential Changes to Hunting Rules to Increase Hunting

Opportunities for Adult Moose. Slides 50-62

  • 4. Making the Draw Simpler & Fairer.

Slides 63-88

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Moos

  • ose M

e Manag agem emen ent i in O Ontar ario – Hi History & & Current A Approach ch

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

˃ Unregulated & subsistence harvest, land clearing, settlement

  • Moose season closed due to over-hunting

˃ Concern regarding apparent declining populations

  • Moose season closed across Ontario
  • Gradual re-introduction and liberalization of moose hunting

1950’s. 1960’s.

  • Moose management goals to provide:

> A moose population as large as can be reconciled with timber production & forest management > As much hunting and viewing as the population will sustain

Moose Populations declined by 1/3 between 1960 and 1980 – including a drop of 45,000 between 1968 and 1974 while harvest continued to reach over 13,000 animals each fall

Pre-late 1800’s

1888-1895

1940’s.

1949.

A Brief H f History o

  • f Moose Management i

t in Ontario

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

  • Apparent crisis in moose populations, limited tools to

address moose harvest

  • First provincial review of moose program and

development of Moose Management Policy

> Two hunters per moose, shorter seasons – but harvest still too high

1970 - 1980

  • Reduced Seasons
  • Post-rut seasons
  • WMUs established

1980.

1980 - 1982

  • Selective harvest system instituted province-wide

> Party hunting legalized 1988

1983 2008.

˃ Calf harvest controlled in 4 eastern Ontario WMUs

  • Moose Program Review; implementation of new

policies and guidelines in 2009

  • Moose Project – season changes to address concerns

about populations, develop new population objectives

2004

2014-2017.

A Brief H f History o

  • f Moose Management i

t in Ontario

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Key ey Aspe pects o s of Moose M Mana nagemen ent i in Ontario

  • Landscape-scale and ecologically-based population management
  • Harvest management
  • Habitat management
  • Research, moose aerial inventories, hunter reporting, socio-economic

surveys

  • Engagement, sharing of information
slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Moos

  • ose M

Management P Pol

  • licy Framework
  • rk

Cervid Ecological Framework Moose Management Policy Population Objective Setting Guidelines Harvest Management Guidelines

Strategic policy on how moose, deer, elk and caribou will be managed in relation to each other in Ontario. Provincial policy for moose management – contains goals, objectives and strategies to ensure sustainable populations and a mix of benefits. Provides the process and considerations for determining how many moose are expected and desired in an area. Outlines the tools available to management moose harvest and describes the general process for determining how many moose can be harvested in a particular area.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Lan andscape-Bas ased M Management – Cer ervid Eco cological F Frame mework

Cervid Ecological Zone A

  • Woodland caribou, low densities of moose and

white-tailed deer

  • Moose objective: maintain low densities

Cervid Ecological Zone B

  • Moose, white-tailed deer and woodland caribou
  • Moose objective: maintain low to moderate

densities

Cervid Ecological Zones C1 and C2

  • Moose, white-tailed deer, with small numbers of elk

and caribou

  • Moose objective: maintain a moderate to high

density population

Cervid Ecological Zones D1 and D2

  • Moose, white-tailed deer and elk
  • Moose objective: maintain a moderate to high

density population

Cervid Ecological Zones E1, E2, and E3

  • White-tailed deer with small numbers of moose and

elk

  • Moose objective: maintain low population densities

in some parts of the zone

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Moose Hunting / Harvest Management

Provincially licenced moose harvest is managed using the following tools:

  • 1. Selective Harvest – different quotas developed for bulls, cows and in some

cases calves

  • 2. Season Timing & Length – varies by area and age of moose based on

different pressures and to achieve different objectives

  • 3. Area Management – WMU specific quotas and regulations
  • 4. Firearm Type – bow, rifle/shotgun, muzzleloader seasons
  • 5. Hunter Management – party hunting, special opportunity hunts
  • 6. Communication, Education – e.g. previous quota and applicant information

provided in HRS that may influence where hunters apply to draw

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Cur urrent S Sel elec ective Ha Harves est App Approach

  • Selective harvest is the system allowing different harvest quotas for different gender

and age components of the moose population.

  • The current approach focuses hunting pressure on calves (i.e. unrestricted harvest),

moderate pressure on bulls and least pressure on cows.

  • The current approach

assumes hunter harvest of calves is not likely to negatively impact moose populations.

  • However, recent science

indicates hunter harvest of moose calves has a much greater potential to impact moose populations.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Gener General M Moose T e Tag Quo Quota Setting P Process ess

Set % Harvest Level (percent of huntable population) Moose Aerial Inventory (current estimate & trends) Hunter Reporting Data (latest results & trends) Other Mortality Information (e.g. illegal harvest, natural mortality) Rights-based Harvest (considered directly or indirectly) Plan Allowable Moose Harvest (bulls, cows, calves) Apply Tag Filling Rates (bull, cow, firearm type – from previous year(s) data) Tag Numbers (Quota) (by sex, age, firearm type)

  • Planned harvest of bulls, cows

and calves is based on the current selective harvest approach.

  • Because calf harvest is not

controlled in most areas the level of calf harvest (based on reported harvest in recent years) must be accounted for

  • first. The remaining allowable

harvest can be planned between bulls and cows. Consider Status of Population Relative to Objective

  • Tag fill rates affect the number of

tags that can be allocated to hunters.

  • For example, at an allowable

harvest of 100 bulls:

  • Tag fill rate of 50% results in

200 tags available (100/0.50)

  • Tag fill rate of 40% results in

250 tags available (100/0.40)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Moos

  • ose T

Tag Dr Draw / / Alloc

  • cation
  • n S

System

Step 2 Large Group Allocation Step 4 Northern Resident Draw Step 3 Random Draw Step 1 Guaranteed Group Size Allocation

  • Each group that meets the Guaranteed Group Size is allocated one tag for the WMU, type of

moose and season.

  • The tag is assigned to the longest unsuccessful group member.
  • All members of these “guaranteed groups” are then removed from the draw.
  • Guaranteed group size varies between WMUs, and according to type of moose or firearm.
  • The number of applicants left in the draw after Step 1 is compared to the number of tags still
  • available. This is the Hunter-to-Tag ratio.
  • Each group whose number of Pool 1 applicants is equal to, or greater than, the Hunter-to-Tag

Ratio is issued one tag.

  • The tag is assigned to the longest unsuccessful group member and all members of the group

are removed from the draw.

  • All Remaining Pool 1 applicants (all individuals and every member of the remaining groups)

are then considered in the random draw.

  • If a tag is given to a member of a group at this step, the rest of the group is removed from the

draw.

  • In most WMUs only hunters in Pool 1, Choice 1 will have a chance to receive a tag.
  • In northern WMUs (1-42), 5% of the adult tag quota is set aside for northern residents who

were unsuccessful (or a member of an unsuccessful group) in the current year’s draw or the previous two draws.

  • As tag numbers have been reduced, the hunter:tag ratio has gotten very high and Steps 1 and 2 are sometimes skipped to avoid

distributing more tags and harvesting more moose than the population can sustain.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Moose Popul pulation & & Hun unting T g Trends nds

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Provin vincia ial M l Moose P Popula latio ion T Trend

The selective harvest system was implemented in the early 1980’s at a provincial population of 80,000 moose.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ A Population T n Trend nd

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ B Popul ulation T n Trend nd

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ C EZ C1 Popul ulation T n Trend nd

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ D EZ D1 Population T n Trend end

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ C EZ C2 Popul ulation T n Trend nd

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

CEZ D EZ D2 Population T n Trend end

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimated Number of Moose

Upper Moose Population Objective Lower Moose Population Objective

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

2019 Moos

  • ose P

Pop

  • pulation
  • n

Status R s Rel elative t to 203 2030 Popula latio ion O Objectiv ives

  • Population above objective range
  • Population within objective range
  • Population below objective range
slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Jurisdiction (Province or State) Total Hunters (2014) Estimated Moose Population (2014) Moose / Hunter

Quebec 176,710 125,000 0.71 Ontario 106,752 92,300 0.86 Saskatchewan 12,931 48,045 3.71 Newfoundland and Labrador 26,770 114,000 4.26 British Columbia 31,188 162,500 5.21 Alberta 21,560 115,000 5.33 Alaska 31,607 175,000 – 200,000 5.94 Vermont 342 2,200 6.43 New Brunswick 4,626 32,000 6.91 Manitoba 3,252 27,000 8.3 Nova Scotia 346 5,000 14.5 Maine 3,095 60,000 19.39 Yukon Territory 2,793 70,000 25.06 New Hampshire 127 3,800 29.9

Number of Hunters vs. Estimated Moose Populations (2014)

(Timmermann and Rodgers- Status of Moose in NA Circa 2015)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Why hy Ha Has O s Ontario’s M s Moose e Popul pulation D Dec eclined ed?

  • Many factors affect moose populations.
  • The influence of each factor varies

between areas and over time, and the effects of most are difficult or impossible to monitor across large areas.

  • Some factors like climate, deer

populations and parasites interact and their negative affects may be increasing.

  • Changes in habitat are strongly influenced by forest management which is affected by

external economic factors (i.e. demand for wood products).

  • Observed declines are most likely being caused by the cumulative effects of small

changes in several factors.

  • Significant concerns about calf survival and recruitment specifically.
  • Provincially licensed moose harvest is the factor MNRF has the greatest ability to

control directly to influence population growth.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Resident Licences Total Licences

Sales o es of Moose e Licen ences

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

17446 16979 16383 13478 11428 10757 10337 9493

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Tags Year

NER SR NWR Prov

Residen dent Moose e Tag Qu Quotas 199 s 1995-20 2018 18

Northeast Region Southern Region Northwest Region Provincial

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Adult M Moose T Tags I Issued t ued to Res esidents i s in n 201 2018

  • WMUs shaded yellow and

green had the greatest number

  • f resident adult tags issued in

2018.

  • Unshaded WMUs had no adult

tag quota.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Tou

  • urist I

t Industr try Tags 20 s 2018

  • There is no Non-resident moose hunting season in WMUs 46-65. Unshaded WMUs had no tags issued.
  • The map on the left shows higher numbers of tourist industry tags issued in WMUs shaded yellow and green.
  • The map on the right shows higher percentages of tourist industry tags are issued to residents in WMUs shaded

yellow, orange and red.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

201 2018 P Pool 1, 1, C Cho hoice e 1 1 App Applicants for

  • r Adult M

Moos

  • ose T

Tags

  • WMUs shaded orange and red had

very high numbers of Pool 1, Choice 1 applicants for adult tags in 2018.

  • Unshaded WMUs had no adult tag

quota.

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

201 2018 P Pool 1, 1, C Cho hoice e 1 1 Appl Applicants per s per Adul Adult M Moose e Tag

  • WMUs shaded orange and red had a

very high number of Pool 1, Choice 1 applicants for each adult tag in 2018.

  • Unshaded WMUs had no adult tag

quota.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

2018 18 Residen dent & & Tourist I Indus dustry Hun Hunters ( s (pr prel eliminary r res esults)

  • WMUs shaded orange and red had

very high numbers of moose hunters in 2018.

  • This is based on information

provided by moose hunters on up to three WMUs they hunted in.

  • This is based on preliminary analysis
  • f 2018 hunter reporting results
slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

2018 18 Residen dent & & Tourist Industry M Moos

  • ose H

Hunter r Da Days (pr prel eliminary r resu esults) s)

  • WMUs shaded orange and red had

very high levels of moose hunter effort in 2018.

  • This is based on information provided

by moose hunters on up to three WMUs they hunted in.

  • Some southern Ontario WMUs have

very high hunter effort despite their relatively small size and short season.

  • This is based on preliminary analysis of

2018 hunter reporting results

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 prelim Year Bulls Cows Calves

Moose Project changes

Moose Ha e Harvest T Tren ends

Tag reductions 2-week calf season Season delay

  • So. season shift

Moose harvest levels have been declining since before the population peak in 2004 and recent changes to tag numbers and hunting seasons to address population concerns.

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

2018 2018 Resident & & Tou

  • urist I

Industry Harvest ( (prel eliminary res esults)

  • WMUs shaded orange and red had

the highest levels of estimated moose harvest in 2018.

  • This is based on preliminary analysis
  • f 2018 hunter reporting results.
slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Improving Qu Quota S Setti ting

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Impro roving Quo Quota S Setting ( (Changes t s to Sel elec ective Ha e Harves est)

What are the concerns / challenges?

  • Results from recent scientific studies indicate that hunter harvest of calf moose can

negatively impact moose populations more than was once thought.

  • Moose aerial surveys in recent years have shown low calf numbers in many areas.
  • The shortened 2-week calf season that was implemented in 2015 was initially

successful at reducing calf harvest to planned levels but calf harvest has returned to previous levels in some areas and is increasing.

  • Because there are currently no controls on calf harvest, MNRF must first consider

recent calf harvest levels when planning allowable harvest. High calf harvest levels in an area therefore reduces the number of adult moose hunting opportunities.

  • Hunters have expressed a strong preference for adult moose hunting opportunities.
  • Changes to the current selective harvest approach and quota setting could result in

additional adult moose hunting opportunities while providing additional tools to ensure sustainable management of moose populations.

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

1. Calf harvest is largely additive to other mortality factors. This means calf harvest by hunters adds to other forms of calf mortality, leading to higher overall calf mortality rates and potential for greater impact on moose populations. 2. Calf harvest can increase the impact of wolf predation by shifting predation pressure from calves to adults. 3. Restricting calf harvest increases calf recruitment & moose population growth rate.

Three ee K Key ey Thing ngs R Resea earch I ch Inf nforms u us A About H Harves est of Moos

  • ose C

Calves i in On Ontari rio

MNRF has conducted significant research on moose to inform

  • management. This includes

intensives studies to investigate calf mortality. Moose calf in Ontario with a satellite tracking collar.

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Cal Calf H f Har arvest b by CE y CEZ

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 prelim A B C1 C2 D1 D2

2-week calf season

The two-week calf hunting season initially had the intended effect of reducing calf harvest

  • significantly. Calf harvest

numbers have since returned to higher levels in some areas.

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Cal alf Recruitm tment t t to First W Winter

  • Based on most the recent

Moose Aerial Inventory in each WMU.

  • 30 calves / 100 cows is the

threshold considered necessary to maintain a population.

  • Numbered WMUs that aren’t

shaded have moose hunting seasons but have not been surveyed in recent years.

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Per ercen ent o

  • f Estimated

Resident H t Harvest t t that t was C s Calves i es in n 20 2018

  • WMUs shaded yellow, orange, or

red had a very high % harvest of calves based on a preliminary analysis of 2018 hunter reporting results.

  • WMUs that aren’t shaded had zero

estimated resident harvest in 2018.

  • Generally a % harvest of calves

above 20% reduces adult harvest

  • pportunity.
  • A high % harvest of calves also

limits population growth.

  • Larger populations can sustain

more adult and calf harvest.

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Lesso essons L s Lea earned ed i in E n Existing C g Calf C Control W WMUs Us

  • Calf harvest restrictions were implemented in WMUs 48, 55A, 55B and 57 in eastern Ontario

in 2004.

  • Hunters were required to apply for and be issued a WMU-specific calf tag in the draw in order

to hunt calves in these areas (party hunting was still allowed on any valid tag). MNRF scientists investigated the effect

  • f the calf harvest restrictions on

calf:cow ratios and population growth rates by comparing the four calf harvest control WMUs (dark shading) to five nearby control WMUs (light grey) where no restrictions were put in place.

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Restricting calf tags improved calf recruitment. Following the implementation of restricted calf harvest in 2004, calf : cow ratios stabilized or declined slightly in most treatment WMUs, but during this same time period they declined markedly in areas where calf tags were unrestricted.

Cal Calf T f Tag ag Co Controls – Effec ects o s on n Rec ecrui uitment

WMUs without calf tag controls WMUs with calf tag controls

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

During the 10 year period following implementation of the calf tags, the growth rate

  • f moose populations in WMUs with restricted calf harvest stabilized or increased

slightly, whereas it declined sharply in the control WMUs where calf tags remained unrestricted.

Cal Calf T f Tag ag Co Controls – Effec ects o s on n Popul pulation Gr Growth R Rate

WMUs without calf tag controls WMUs with calf tag controls

slide-45
SLIDE 45

45

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Moose

Moose Population Estimate in Calf Tag Control WMUs

Calf tag controls were introduced in four WMUs in 2004. From 2003-2019:

  • The moose population increased from 883 to 1959 (+122%).
  • Adult Tag Quotas increased from 15 to 241.
  • Calf Tag Quotas increased from 58 to 280.

Cal Calf T f Tag ag Co Controls – Effec ects s on M n Moose N e Num umber ers

slide-46
SLIDE 46

46

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

2013 O 013 Ontar ario Mo Moose H Hun unter S Survey: Prefer erred M Moose T

  • se Type

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Northwest Northeast Southern Ontario

Calf No preference Cow Adult Bull

Most moose hunters strongly prefer to hunt bull moose (blue) and adult moose (red).

slide-47
SLIDE 47

47

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Set % Harvest Level (percent of huntable population) Plan Allowable Moose Harvest (bulls, cows, calves) Apply Tag Filling Rates (bull, cow, firearm type) Tag Numbers (Quota) (by sex, age, firearm type)

Effects o

  • f Calf Harves

est C Controls o s on Hunting ng O Oppo portuni unities es for

  • r Adult M

Moos

  • ose

3 scenarios presented to illustrate potential trade-offs

  • Scenario 1: WMU with moderate level of allowable

harvest (40 moose) and high percent harvest of calves (95%) in current system.

  • Scenario 2: WMU with moderate to high level of

allowable harvest (90 moose) and moderate levels of percent calf harvest (50%) in current system.

  • Scenario 3: WMU with low level of allowable harvest

(15 moose) and moderate to low percent calves (27%) in current system.

slide-48
SLIDE 48

48

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Effects o

  • f Calf Harves

est C Controls o s on Hunting ng O Oppo portuni unities es for

  • r Adult M

Moos

  • ose

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 No Calf Quota Calf Quota No Calf Quota Calf Quota No Calf Quota Calf Quota Allowable Harvest (Population Size * % Harvest) 40 40 90 90 15 15 % Calf Harvest 95% 20% 50% 20% 27% 20% Planned Calf Harvest 38 8 45 18 4 3 Planned Adult Harvest 2 32 45 72 11 12 Tag Fill Rate 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Calf Tags Issued or Quota (Licences Sold or Calf Harvest/Tag Fill Rate) 1500 16 1200 36 350 6 Adult Tag Quota (Adult Harvest/Tag Fill Rate) 4 64 90 144 22 24

slide-49
SLIDE 49

49

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Summary

  • Changes to selective harvest and quota setting to restrict calf harvest would require

hunters to apply for and be issued WMU specific calf tags.

  • Controlling calf harvest through tag quotas issued through a draw has the potential to

create additional adult moose hunting opportunities, particularly in WMUs with moderate to high allowable harvest levels where current uncontrolled calf harvest is high.

  • Hunters who were unsuccessful in the draw could be allowed to purchase a moose

hunting licence without a tag that would still allow them to hunt in a party.

  • Controlling calf harvest through tags would allow for the elimination of the two-week

calf hunting season – so calves could be hunted once again throughout any open moose hunting season, including bows-only seasons.

Impro roving Quota Se Settin ing

slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Potential C Chang nges t to Hunting ng R Rules t to Inc ncrease H Hunting ng O Oppo port rtuni unities f for Ad Adul ult M Moose

slide-51
SLIDE 51

51

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Poten ential C Cha hanges t s to Hu Hunting R Rul ules t s to Inc ncrease Hun e Hunting Op Opport

  • rtunities f

for

  • r Adult M

Moos

  • ose

What are the concerns / challenges?

  • Ontario has less restrictive hunting rules compared to many other jurisdictions. This

includes long seasons, unlimited calf harvest and few restrictions on party hunting.

  • These rules, combined with improvements in hunting equipment and improved ability to

access moose hunting areas have resulted in generally high levels of hunter success at filling tags across much of moose range – even when moose populations are low.

  • As success at filling tags increases, the number of tags available to hunters decreases.
  • MNRF could consider some changes to hunting rules to make it more challenging for

hunters and hunting parties to harvest moose and thereby allow additional moose hunting opportunities without increasing the overall harvest of moose.

  • Declines in moose populations are one factor leading to reduced adult moose hunting
  • pportunities. Growth of moose populations in many areas consistent with population
  • bjectives will also help increase moose hunting opportunities.
slide-52
SLIDE 52

52

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Res esident T Tag Fi Fill Rates Ac s Across M s Moose R e Range

CEZ C2

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.40 to 0.55, +38%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.39 to 0.39, +0% CEZ D2

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.34 to 0.45, +32%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.53 to 0.43, -19%

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

Tag fill rate = moose harvested per tag issued.

slide-53
SLIDE 53

53

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Res esident T Tag Fi Fill Rates Ac s Across M s Moose R e Range

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

CEZ C1

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.40 to 0.61, +52%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.51 to 0.51, +0% CEZ D1

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.34 to 0.44, +31%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.39 to 0.38, -3%

Tag fill rate = moose harvested per tag issued.

slide-54
SLIDE 54

54

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Res esident T Tag Fi Fill Rates Ac s Across M s Moose R e Range

CEZ A

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.22 to 0.24, +10%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.26 to 0.14, -45% CEZ B

  • Bull Gun 1997-2018,

0.38 to 0.36, -4%

  • Cow Gun 1997-2018,

0.40 to 0.34, -17%

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average Tag Fill Rate

Bull Gun Cow Gun

Tag fill rate = moose harvested per tag issued.

slide-55
SLIDE 55

55

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Res esident M Moose e Hun Hunting S Sea easo son L Leng ength i in n Ontario

  • WMUs shaded
  • range or red have

relatively short seasons.

  • Bows can be used in

all firearm seasons. Muzzle-loader and bow seasons are shown in WMUs 7A (65 days) and 18B (21 days).

slide-56
SLIDE 56

56

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Province or State Party Hunting Rules Ontario Apply in groups up to 15. No limit on number of hunters that can hunt together. Quebec Single groups (one moose bag limit) can be 2-4 people. Double groups (2 moose bag limit) can be 4-8 people. (wildlife reserve only). New Brunswick Groups of 2 (successful applicant and designated hunter). A licence is void after the tag is filled. Nova Scotia Max group of 5 (successful applicant plus up to 4 designated companion hunters). Newfoundland & Labrador Under party licence. Only names listed on the licence can hunt under the licence. Alberta Groups of 2. Primary holder plus designated partner. Saskatchewan May apply in a group of up to 4 and hunt together under one tag if successful in the draw. May also hunt as a group during regular season if each hunter has a licence. Manitoba Parties of 2 allowed. Exception is the conservation moose licence holders party of 4. Party hunters sign the backside of each others licences. Maine Permittee may select a sub-permittee to hunt with them (party of 2). New Hampshire Permittee may select a sub-permittee to hunt with them (party of 2).

Compa parison o n of Party H Hunting ng R Rules es

Party hunting is restricted in different ways in different jurisdictions – either through party hunting specific regulations, or by group application and licensing requirements.

slide-57
SLIDE 57

57

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Bul ull Tag Fill R Rate & e & Tag S g Suc ucce cess

  • L. M. Hunt. 2013. Wildlife Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR12185

As tags become more scarce, Ontario hunters appear to become more skilled or persistent at harvesting adult moose.

slide-58
SLIDE 58

58

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Cow Tag g Fill R l Rate & & Tag g Succes uccess

cow

  • L. M. Hunt. 2013. Wildlife Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR12185

As tags become more scarce, Ontario hunters appear to become more skilled or persistent at harvesting adult moose.

slide-59
SLIDE 59

59

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Wi Wildlife M e Man anag agem emen ent U Units with B Bows-onl nly S Seasons ns

Wildlife Management Units 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 have bows-only seasons but combined gun and bow quotas.

slide-60
SLIDE 60

60

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Opt ptions ns t to Reduce T e Tag F Fill R Rates es

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations Liberal party hunting rules contribute to high tag fill rates.

  • 1. Restrict party size.
  • 2. Require hunters to document the
  • ther hunters in their party.
  • Prevents coordinated hunting

among very large groups or multiple smaller groups.

  • Eliminates party tag filling.
  • Addresses concerns from some

hunters about interference by large hunting parties. Bows-only tag fill rates are lower than gun but some WMUs don’t have bows-only quotas and seasons.

  • 1. Create bows-only seasons and tag

quotas in areas that don’t currently have them.

  • Would require conversion of

some gun/firearm opportunities to bow unless population is increasing or combined with calf harvest restrictions that create additional adult opportunities. Hunter access to forest roads and areas of recent forest harvest result in higher hunter success and predator foraging efficiency.

  • 1. Restrict vehicular access by

hunters in some areas.

  • 2. Mechanically remove some forest

roads after forestry operations have ended.

  • Option 2 is the more effective

strategy to reduce hunter harvest and predation rates but also more costly. Prevalence of ATV use by moose hunters increases tag fill rates.

  • 1. Restrict ATV use to retrieval of

harvested moose.

  • A restriction used in some other

jurisdictions to reduce harvest rates. Other options could be considered to reduce tag fill rates (e.g. antler point restrictions for bulls).

slide-61
SLIDE 61

61

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

  • Figure shows adult tag quotas relative to various levels of calf harvest and tag fill rates.
  • The adult tag quota is higher when the % harvest calves is lower, but also when adult tag fill rates are lower.
  • When calf harvest is uncontrolled the percent of planned harvest that is calves can exceed 50% in a number
  • f WMUs. Tag fill rates in Ontario, particularly for bulls, often approach or exceed 50%.

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Adult Tag Quota % Harvest Calves

Planned Moose Harvest = 100

0.5 Tag Fill Rate 0.4 Tag Fill Rate 0.3 Tag Fill Rate

Controlling C Calf H Harves est & & Reduc ucing ng T Tag F Fill R Rates es

slide-62
SLIDE 62

62

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Summary

  • Adult tag quotas can be increased by growing the moose population in

accordance with population objectives.

  • Adult tag quotas can be increased by decreasing the percent harvest of

calves through changes in quota setting.

  • Adult tag quotas can be increased by decreasing adult tag fill rates through

changes to hunting rules and/or reducing moose hunter access to make it more challenging for hunters to harvest a moose.

  • The largest increases to adult quotas is likely to result from decreasing both

the percent harvest of calves and adult tag fill rates.

Summary o

  • f Potenti

tial B Benefi fits ts f from Changes t to Quota Set etting ng a and H d Hunting ng R Rules es

slide-63
SLIDE 63

63

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Mak aking the Dr e Draw S Simpler an and F Fai airer er

slide-64
SLIDE 64

64

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Making ng t the Draw S Simpler er and F nd Fairer

What are the concerns / challenges?

  • Hunters for many years have expressed concerns about the complexity and lack of

fairness with the tag draw / allocation approach. The concerns have increased with declines in tag numbers.

  • The allocation approach has been reviewed several times since it was first

implemented in 1983 but each time most hunters were reluctant to consider significant changes.

  • MNRF’s ability to address the fairness of the draw depends on what hunters consider

fair.

  • Ontario’s current tag allocation approach is a system designed to work best when there

are many more tags relative to hunter numbers and all four steps in the process can be completed.

  • With lower tag numbers in recent years group steps are increasingly being skipped and

hunters are being treated as individuals whether they apply in groups or not.

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Moos

  • ose T

Tag Dr Draw / / Alloc

  • cation
  • n S

System

Step 2 Large Group Allocation Step 4 Northern Resident Draw Step 3 Random Draw Step 1 Guaranteed Group Size Allocation

  • Each group that meets the Guaranteed Group Size is allocated one tag for the WMU, type of

moose and season.

  • The tag is assigned to the longest unsuccessful group member.
  • All members of these “guaranteed groups” are then removed from the draw.
  • Guaranteed group size varies between WMUs, and according to type of moose or firearm.
  • The number of applicants left in the draw after Step 1 is compared to the number of tags still
  • available. This is the Hunter-to-Tag ratio.
  • Each group whose number of Pool 1 applicants is equal to, or greater than, the Hunter-to-Tag

Ratio is issued one tag.

  • The tag is assigned to the longest unsuccessful group member and all members of the group

are removed from the draw.

  • All Remaining Pool 1 applicants (all individuals and every member of the remaining groups)

are then considered in the random draw.

  • If a tag is given to a member of a group at this step, the rest of the group is removed from the

draw.

  • In most WMUs only hunters in Pool 1, Choice 1 will have a chance to receive a tag.
  • In northern WMUs (1-42), 5% of the adult tag quota is set aside for northern residents who

were unsuccessful (or a member of an unsuccessful group) in the current year’s draw or the previous two draws.

  • As tag numbers have been reduced, Step 1 (Guaranteed Group Size Allocation) and Step 2 (Large Group Allocation) are sometimes

skipped to avoid distributing more tags and harvesting more moose than the population can sustain.

slide-66
SLIDE 66

66

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Adul Adult M Moose T e Tags s Issued ued to Residen dents i in 201 2018

WMUs shaded yellow or green had relatively high numbers of resident adult tags issued in 2018.

slide-67
SLIDE 67

67

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Guaranteed eed G Group Size e Tren ends

  • The Guaranteed Group Size

(GGS) is based on the expected number of Pool 1, Choice 1 (P1C1) Applicants relative to the quota.

  • GGS is not applicable if the

calculated number is greater than 15 (max group size) or if demand is less than quota.

  • The final GGS decision made

to avoid risk of overharvest.

Guaranteed group size has generally increased in the last 11 years, but those trends aren’t true for all tag types, in part because there are fewer WMUs with a GGS now compared to 10 years ago.

slide-68
SLIDE 68

68

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Larg rge G Gro roup S Size T Tre rends

  • LGS = remaining P1C1 applicants

remaining tags

  • LGS not applicable if >15 (max

group size) or if demand < quota.

The average large group size (Step 2 in the draw) has also generally increased, but like the GGS there are fewer WMUs with an LGS step.

slide-69
SLIDE 69

69

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

GGS & & LGS T Trend nds, Wher here Appl Applicable

  • A lower percentage of tags is

being issued to guaranteed groups in recent years – because that step in the allocation process isn’t being run in as many WMUs.

  • A similar percentage of tags

is being issued to large groups in step 2 of the process, even though this step is not being included as

  • ften in recent years.
slide-70
SLIDE 70

70

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Rando ndom D Draw T Trends, ends, W Where e a Draw R Requi uired ed

More bull tags are being issued in the random draw step in recent years, but similar numbers of cow gun tags and fewer cow bow tags.

slide-71
SLIDE 71

71

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Reg egul ular D Draw T Tren ends

The average size of groups has increased over time, particularly for bow, bull tags. The number of moose hunters applying as individuals is high and has increased for bull tags.

slide-72
SLIDE 72

72

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Applicants p per G Gun T Tag

WMUs shaded yellow, orange and red have very high numbers of applicants for each bull and cow gun tag.

slide-73
SLIDE 73

73

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Appl Applicants per s per B Bow Tag

There are generally fewer applicants for each bull and cow bow tag but there are still some WMUs (yellow and orange shaded) with 11 or more applicants for each bull, bow tag.

slide-74
SLIDE 74

74

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Long ng T Time Unsu e Unsuccess ssful App Applicants

  • A significant number of hunters in WMUs in southern, central and northeast

Ontario have gone 10 or more consecutive years without receiving a tag.

  • A small percentage of hunters, primarily in southern, central and northeast

Ontario, have gone over 20 consecutive years without receiving a tag.

slide-75
SLIDE 75

75

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Jurisdiction (Province or State Draw Approach

Ontario Success-weighted Random draw (priority pools(2)), Guaranteed Group Allocation, Large Group Allocation, Northern Resident Draw) Quebec Random Draw x2 (adult female moose draw, wildlife reserve draw), plus over the counter licences for general moose licence (areas outside of wildlife reserves, bull/calf only) New Brunswick Success-weighted Random draw (priority pools (5), every 5 years you move up a pool and your ballots/chances triple) Nova Scotia Random Draw Newfoundland and Labrador Success-weighted Random Draw (priority pools (9), runs twice for each pool, starts with pool 1 applications with co-applicants then pool 1 individual applicants, then same for pool 2 and so on) British Columbia Success-weighted Random Draw (successful applicants odds reduced by 66% for 3yrs), General Open Seasons (no draw) opportunities also exist Alberta Success-weighted Random Draw (priority increase with each year unsuccessful, 1yr=priority 1, 2yrs=priority 2, 3yr-priority 3, etc.) Saskatchewan Success-weighted Random Draw (priority pools (6), draw runs for each pool) Yukon Territory Success-weighted Random Draw (some areas, other areas = no draw). # of times applied and unsuccessful multiplied by itself 7 times = entries/chances in the draw. Maine Success-weighted Random Draw (bonus points (extra chances in draw) for consecutive years applied and unsuccessful) New Hampshire Success-weighted Random Draw (bonus points (extra chances in draw) for consecutive years applied and unsuccessful) Vermont No draw (2018), only 13 Bull permits divided among special priority-veterans, special opportunity recipients and the auction

Resident Draw Approach Summary Table

slide-76
SLIDE 76

76

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Making ng t the Draw F Fairer er & & Simpl pler er

Simpler

  • Hunters have previously complained about draw complexity – particularly when

the group application approach was introduced in 1992.

  • More recently they haven’t complained about complexity but questions and

criticism indicate many still don’t understand how the draw works, or how to apply to give themselves the best chances of success.

  • There are benefits to developing and running a simplified draw system.

Fairer

  • Defining “fair”.
  • Awarding preferred (i.e. bull or adult) tags to hunters more frequently is difficult to

achieve without other changes discussed previously or population growth.

  • Favouring hunters who have gone many years without a tag or treating all hunters

equally in the draw may be considered fair by some.

  • Providing greater certainty to hunters on their chances or how long they may have

to wait for a tag are also possible, along with considering a more cost-effective approach to maintain/build preference status.

slide-77
SLIDE 77

77

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Breaking Do g Down On Ontari rio’

  • ’s M

Moos

  • ose T

Tag A Alloc

  • cation A

Approach

Components of the tag allocation process:

  • Application
  • Group
  • Preference
  • Licence / tag prices
  • Tag transfers
  • Surplus tag distribution

The selective harvest approach and draw components are intricately linked. The preferred approach for one component influences potential options for others.

slide-78
SLIDE 78

78

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Applying t to the D Draw

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations

  • Hunters are increasingly

expressing frustration about having to pay for a licence to enter the draw.

  • If calf tag controls are

implemented across the province, hunters who do not receive a tag in the draw won’t be able to hunt moose (because there is currently no opportunity to purchase a moose hunting licence without a tag).

  • 1. Allow hunters to apply to the draw

with just an application fee. Fee could be similar to elk application fee ($15-$25) with cost influencing, and being influenced by other options.

  • 2. If calf tag controls are

implemented across the province, create a moose hunting licence that comes without a tag. This licence could potentially cost less than one that comes with a tag.

  • Addresses the concern from

hunters that they must pay full price for a licence to enter the draw.

  • Application fee approach has been

shown to inflate draw entries. May require further restrictions

  • n tag transfers to ensure fairness.
  • Provides the opportunity for a

moose hunter to hunt in a party even if they don’t receive a tag in the draw.

  • May result in the need for more

restrictive party hunting rules.

  • Has significant revenue
  • implications. Requires

consideration of tag prices.

slide-79
SLIDE 79

79

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Group A p Appl plication A n Appr proach

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations

  • Hunters continue to express

concerns about the complexity of the draw and uncertainty on how to apply to have the best chance at draw success.

  • Some individual applicants

express concerns about the current allocation process favouring groups.

  • With recent tag reductions

hunters are increasingly being treated as individuals in the draw whether they apply as part of a group or not.

  • When included, the guaranteed

group step has the potential to result in overallocation of tags.

  • 1. Eliminate group steps and treat all

hunters as equal in any draw

  • approach. Hunters could still apply

in a group to maintain the ability to transfer a tag, and to ensure most group members maintain their preferred status if the group

  • nly wants one tag.
  • 2. Restricting group size could lead

to distribution of tags to more groups but in some circumstances may also result in fewer tags remaining for individuals in the random draw.

  • The original group allocation,

similar to step 2 in the current process, was intended to benefit individuals in the random draw by removing entire groups of hunters when one draws a tag.

  • Eliminating both group steps

simplifies the draw approach for hunters but by itself does not address concerns about some hunters going many years without a tag.

  • Group applications can be

combined with other forms of preference – e.g. pooling of points

  • r chances in the draw by groups.
  • Eliminating group steps in the

current approach also reduces the cost and time to build, maintain and run the draw.

slide-80
SLIDE 80

80

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Preferenc ence e – Pooling ng & & Northe hern R n Residen dent D Draw

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations

  • Hunters have for many years

expressed concerns about fairness

  • f the draw. These concerns have

increased as tag numbers have been reduced.

  • The 2 pool approach with one

year in pool 2 no longer helps ensure a hunter doesn’t go many years without a tag.

  • The northern resident draw is

criticized as unfair by southern Ontario hunters, and is no longer functional in some areas with low tag numbers.

  • Hunters continue to express

frustration with the surplus tag distribution approach.

  • 1. Consider alternative draw

approaches that could better address hunter preference based

  • n a hunter’s draw history.

Options could include:

  • Point system
  • Success-weighted draw
  • Revised pooling approach
  • 2. Northern resident preference

could be eliminated, or northern residents could be provided preference in alternative ways with a different draw system (e.g. bonus points, bonus chances).

  • 3. An alternative draw approach

could allow enough time for hunters to apply for surplus tags and for those tags to be distributed through a random draw, rather than first-come, first- served.

  • Alternative draw approaches are
  • utlined on the next slide.
  • Many of the options discussed

previously (e.g. calf tag quotas, application fee approach, group applications) can be combined with alternative draw approaches.

  • Should MNRF continue to provide

some preference to northern residents in the draw, and if so, how much?

  • Short timelines will continue to

restrict options available for distributing surplus tags, but simplifying other aspects of the draw can increase the time available and allow for consideration of additional

  • ptions to make the surplus

allocation fairer/less frustrating.

slide-81
SLIDE 81

81

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Alter erna native A Allocation A n Approaches ches - De Descri riptions

Point-based stand in line approach:

  • In this approach tags are distributed to hunters based on the number of consecutive years the hunter has gone

without receiving a tag. A hunter receives one point for each year they apply and are unsuccessful.

  • Tags are distributed to hunters who have the most points for each tag type.
  • Once a hunter receives an adult tag they lose all their points and must start over accruing points (i.e. they go to

the back of the line).

  • This approach can be readily combined with a group application approach to allow pooling of points.

Success-weighted random draw:

  • An approach for distributing tags based on the number of consecutive years a hunter has gone without receiving

a tag.

  • A hunter gets one additional chance in the random draw for each year they are unsuccessful.
  • Hunters that have gone the longest without receiving a tag have the best odds of drawing a tag, but even

hunters who received a tag last year or who have never applied previously have a very small chance of success.

  • This approach can be readily combined with a group application approach to allow pooling of chances.

Pool-based random draw:

  • A hunter accumulates chances similar to a success weighted draw but every few years of applying unsuccessfully

the hunter moves into a higher pool where their chances in the random draw are multiplied by the number of years unsuccessful.

  • With a calf tag quota and draw, hunters who apply for and receive a calf tag could be allowed to keep some of

the chances they had accumulated and remain in the appropriate pool.

  • This approach is more difficult to combine with a group application to allow pooling of chances.
slide-82
SLIDE 82

82

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Alter erna native A Allocation A n Approaches ches - Com

  • mpari

rison

  • n

Point-based allocation Success-weighted draw Pool-based random draw

  • Hunters are never guaranteed a

tag but this allocation approach provides the greatest certainty to a hunter when they are likely to receive a tag.

  • The relatively predictability of this

approach allows hunters in some circumstances to strategize how (WMU, tag type) they will apply for years in advance if desired.

  • Has the potential to strongly

favour groups if pooling of points is allowed. Could be addressed by penalizing all group members some points.

  • This approach may be more

appealing to new moose hunters and hunters who recently held a tag because they still have a chance (with low odds) in a random draw.

  • Conversely, unlucky hunters who

have gone many years without a tag could by chance continue to go without a tag.

  • Has the potential to strongly

favour groups if pooling of chances is allowed. Could be addressed by penalizing all group members some chances.

  • Provides some of the benefits of

each of the two other alternatives.

  • Over time it greatly improves

the chances a long-time unsuccessful applicant will receive a tag.

  • New applicants and hunters

who were recently successful in the draw still have a very low chance at draw success.

  • Does not provide the relatively

certainty provided by the point- based allocation.

  • Improves the odds of draw

success for long-time unsuccessful applicants compared to the success-weighted approach.

  • More difficult to combine with a

group approach due to complexity and potential to strongly favour groups.

slide-83
SLIDE 83

83

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Po Point-base sed A d Allocation E n Exampl ple

Estimates are based on actual individual draw histories to 2018 and one point for each consecutive year a hunter has applied and been unsuccessful. WMUs shaded orange or red would require an individual to have many points to receive an adult gun tag of their choice in 2018. Fewer points are required for bow tags.

slide-84
SLIDE 84

84

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Suc uccess ess-Wei eighted D ed Draw E Exampl ple

Estimates are the percentage of total chances in the draw an individual applicant for a bull gun tag would have had in 2018. A hunter’s odds in the draw improve with time as they accumulate more chances but in WMUs shaded red or orange the chance of success remains quite low even after many years of being unsuccessful.

slide-85
SLIDE 85

85

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Pool

  • ol-ba

based R ed Rando ndom D Draw

Estimates are the percentage of total chances in the draw an individual applicant for a bull gun tag would have had in 2018. Chances per year increases by 3 every 5 years of applying

  • unsuccessfully. A hunter’s odds in the draw improve over time as they accumulate

chances more rapidly in higher pools, but in WMUs shaded red or orange the chance of success remains quite low even after many years of being unsuccessful.

slide-86
SLIDE 86

86

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Licen ence / Tag P Prices es

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations

  • Some hunters have expressed

concern that moose tags are not appropriately priced given the demand for this highly valued resource.

  • Many hunters have advocated for

an application fee approach for moose, similar to the elk system in

  • Ontario. Moving to an application

fee without other fee changes has significant implications for revenue required to support moose management.

  • The range of changes that could

be considered (e.g. application fee, licence without a tag, changes in the draw approach) make it difficult to predict the actual revenue implications for any one change or a combination.

  • 1. Tag prices could be increased

equally to maintain revenue to support moose management.

  • 2. Tag prices could be increased with

tags in highest demand (i.e. bulls) increased most and tags in least demand (i.e. calf) increased the least.

  • An application fee approach

would require MNRF to consider changes in prices to maintain funding for wildlife management.

  • The range of changes that could

be considered (e.g. application fee, licence without a tag, changes in the draw approach) make it difficult to predict the actual revenue implications for any one change or a combination. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the increase in tag price required to maintain the current level of revenue (likely from $50-$250).

slide-87
SLIDE 87

87

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Tag T Trans nsfers, S Surpl plus A us Allocation

Concern Options to Address Concern Considerations

  • Some hunters complain that tag

transfers are unfair as they promote groups padding their applicant numbers to boost their chances.

  • If Ontario moves to allow hunters

to enter the draw with only an application fee, further restrictions on tag transfers may be necessary to ensure the allocation system is fair.

  • Hunters continue to express

frustration about surplus tags and the first-come, first-served surplus tag allocation process.

  • 1. Tag transfers could be eliminated

and any tag that cannot be used could go back into the surplus allocation process.

  • 2. Potential changes to the draw,

including closing the application period earlier could allow hunters to apply for surplus tags and MNRF to conduct a second random draw for surplus

  • pportunities.
  • Concerns about tag transfers have

declined with restrictions implemented in 2011 requiring a hunter who has transferred a tag to accept a tag before they can transfer again.

  • Surplus tag distribution could be a

random draw or based on other draw models (e.g. point-based, success-weighted). If based on accumulated hunter preference, should hunters be penalized (i.e. lose points or chances) for receiving a tag in the surplus allocation.

slide-88
SLIDE 88

88

Big Game Management Advisory Committee

Summary

  • The current moose tag allocation system is designed to work best when tags are
  • numerous. Tag reductions have resulted in hunters increasingly being treated as

individuals in the draw, whether they applied as part of a group or not.

  • Existing moose draw technologies are nearing the end of functional life with need to

build new system in the near future no matter the outcome of this review.

  • The selective harvest system, draw process and licence/tag price are intricately linked.
  • Previous discussions about potential changes to the moose draw have not been able to

reach consensus but there are a range of options available to address hunter concerns.

  • Making the draw simpler provides some benefits to hunters while improving system cost

and administration.

  • Making the draw fairer may be difficult unless defined as something other than getting

preferred tags more frequently.

Making ng t the Draw S Simpler er and F nd Fairer