Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Proposed Changes to Moose Tag Allocation

  1. #1
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default Proposed Changes to Moose Tag Allocation


  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #2
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BPR 30-06 View Post
    Finally, after several years of waiting,something is going to happen to make things more fair.
    Especially nice touch:These changes are expected to result in more hunters being able to participate in the moose hunt each year and will help limit the minimum points required for moose tags in future years. More hunters claiming tags and hunting each year will help all hunters have the opportunity to moose hunt more frequently.


    Pretty decent proposal-even though if they bring back the "First in first served call in system" -that will be a bit of a pain.
    Thanx for posting
    Last edited by gbk; October 8th, 2024 at 04:36 PM.

  4. #3
    Borderline Spammer

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Well this will stop the complaining about unclaimed tags but just watch as the available tag numbers decrease in the coming years since more will be used and more moose will be taken

    Not sure the end result will really be any different but probably the right step anyway as it will be more predictable and people won’t feel like they are missing out due to unclaimed tags

    But until they deal with the actual reasons moose populations are declining it’s not going to make much impact in my opinion

  5. #4
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Big no to a phone-in allocation!!! I’m pleased that they didn’t consider point transfers… eliminates the chance of phantom applicants.

    I think that they could have come up with a modified group application process to cut down on unclaimed tags.
    A true sportsman counts his achievements in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. - S. Pope

  6. #5
    Getting the hang of it

    User Info Menu

    Default

    The problem is having to all apply in the second round because you are unsuccessful in the first round, all the folks want is one tag and if more than one person is successful you end up taking one tag.
    System sucks, they need to take party hunting into consideration.
    Penalizing hunters for not wanting to use up their points is just another flaw in this new system.
    For twenty plus years they forced us to party hunt.

  7. #6
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    When it comes to groups applying in the second draw, make sure that only the guy with the highest point total (or one person only) applies for the tag in the first choice, the rest of the guys apply for zone 999 with their first choice.
    A true sportsman counts his achievements in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport. - S. Pope

  8. #7
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gibb View Post
    The problem is having to all apply in the second round because you are unsuccessful in the first round, all the folks want is one tag and if more than one person is successful you end up taking one tag.
    System sucks, they need to take party hunting into consideration.
    Penalizing hunters for not wanting to use up their points is just another flaw in this new system.
    For twenty plus years they forced us to party hunt.
    The silly thing is for decades the MNR was trying to encourage groups to just take one tag. Now because of the points system, that is happening - and they are not happy.

    What has happened is that the point system worked as intended. Because of the limited number of tags, points became very valuable and hunters are trying very hard to preserve them. This is how it should be. Now tags after round 2 remain unclaimed. So what the MNR has done has created "point inflation". The simple solution is to increase the number of tags available such that after round 2, even with the unclaimed tags, the desired number of tags is allocated. This is how the rest of the world runs tag point systems. I do not understand why the MNR cannot figure this out.

  9. #8
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Menard View Post
    Big no to a phone-in allocation!!! I’m pleased that they didn’t consider point transfers… eliminates the chance of phantom applicants.

    I think that they could have come up with a modified group application process to cut down on unclaimed tags.
    X2. It appeared quite quickly that "phantom tags" was a much bigger problem than originally thought. We always like to think that as hunters,we're a very honorable bunch,but,obviously,if there's a way to game the system,there'll always be dishonorable people who will do it in a heartbeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by werner.reiche View Post
    The silly thing is for decades the MNR was trying to encourage groups to just take one tag. Now because of the points system, that is happening - and they are not happy.

    What has happened is that the point system worked as intended. Because of the limited number of tags, points became very valuable and hunters are trying very hard to preserve them. This is how it should be. Now tags after round 2 remain unclaimed. So what the MNR has done has created "point inflation". The simple solution is to increase the number of tags available such that after round 2, even with the unclaimed tags, the desired number of tags is allocated. This is how the rest of the world runs tag point systems. I do not understand why the MNR cannot figure this out.
    As long as the government stops at that juncture and goes no further,the proposal should work as intended. Allowing it to go back to the old "status quo" will make the "new" system a colossal waste of time and effort.
    If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....

  10. #9
    Apprentice

    User Info Menu

    Default

    There should be a clause that would take into consideration things beyond the person control or a least a process that a person could appeal the point taken from them. I believe this would allow for a better system. just my 2 cents

  11. #10
    Apprentice

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FishHog View Post
    Well this will stop the complaining about unclaimed tags but just watch as the available tag numbers decrease in the coming years since more will be used and more moose will be taken

    Not sure the end result will really be any different but probably the right step anyway as it will be more predictable and people won’t feel like they are missing out due to unclaimed tags

    But until they deal with the actual reasons moose populations are declining it’s not going to make much impact in my opinion
    ∆∆∆ x2 on THIS ∆∆∆

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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