If someone doesnt want others on their land, Landowners are perfectly entitled to patrol their own property or have someone else do it for them.

Cant expect, imho, cops or wcos to go around checking everyones permission slips anytime they see hunters hunting on private lands across the state. And if a person is detained by landowner or he has gotten their backtag or license plate number and is a known trespasser because the landowner didnt give permission, then it doesnt really matter if he wouldve been required to have a slip or not.

And if a person is detained by landowner

And how would you go about that ??

DarDys, mandatory reporting is great and I believe is the law now. You're not the only one that suggested this, but it's a moot point.  You could do it as a questionaire when we buy our licenses similiar to reporting our migratory kills when we buy our state stamps, but seriously, I have no idea from year to year and just throw a few numbers out there that I think may be close(but now that I just said that, remembering 10 or 20 ducks is a whole lot different than 1 or 2 deer, so this is possible if everyone is honest). The PGC could collect every tag from every processor and randomly check them against hunter reports from computers. But that doesn't count self-processors, and we both know the commission has neither the time or the man power to check(even randomly) hundreds of thousands of tags. Mandatory reporting is already the law. Enforcing it is an impossibility.

ORIGINAL: pikepredator2

DarDys, mandatory reporting is great and I believe is the law now. You're not the only one that suggested this, but it's a moot point.  You could do it as a questionaire when we buy our licenses similiar to reporting our migratory kills when we buy our state stamps, but seriously, I have no idea from year to year and just throw a few numbers out there that I think may be close(but now that I just said that, remembering 10 or 20 ducks is a whole lot different than 1 or 2 deer, so this is possible if everyone is honest). The PGC could collect every tag from every processor and randomly check them against hunter reports from computers. But that doesn't count self-processors, and we both know the commission has neither the time or the man power to check(even randomly) hundreds of thousands of tags. Mandatory reporting is already the law. Enforcing it is an impossibility.

 
While reporting is mandatory and there is a punative consequence to not reporting, it is pretty obvious that that system is not working because the punative portion is not being enforced except in rare occassions where it is a slam dunk case.   In addition, because negative reporting is not required, it is easy to skirt the reporting regulation.  It would be impossible for the PGc to check every tag at every processor due to manpower limitiations and even if that were doen, it would miss th eentire subset of hunters that process their own.
 
By going to the type of system I proposed, all of those issues are virtually (although not completely) eliminated to the point that instead of a 30, 40 or 50% margin of error, the margin will be reduced to 5% or less.  Her eis what I proposed from above:
I. REPORTING
   a. Mandatory for all PA license holders
   b. Positive harvest, negative harvest, did-not-hunt
   c. Must report positive within five days of harvest (kill, whatever)
   d. Must report negative or did not hunt within five days of close of season
        i. Did not hunt can report anytime, but must report within five days of the last season they hold tags for
        ii. Archery tag holders must report within five days of the end of archery season
           (see SEASONS heading for new archery season)
        iii. Muzzleloader tag holders must report within five days of the end of muzzleloader season
        iv. Firearms hunters with no other tags must report within five days of the end of the firearms season
  e. Reporting done by phone or online only
        i. Suggest online reporting so a valid receipt is available
        ii. Mandatory penalties for non-reporting
             1. Loss of hunting license purchase ability for three years
             2. Fine in lieu of purchase ability for first offense
                   a. POS will be flagged if a report was not filed
                   b. License paper will print out with the following instructions to use to rectify the situation 
                          i. Provide the printed report receipt in order to prove a system error
                          ii.Pay a $250 fine in addition to the cost of the purchased license (first offense only) 
                          iii. Loss of hunting license purchase ability for three years for first offense, five years for second offense, and lifetime for third offense
              f. PGC must provide first draft reports within ten days of close of season
                  i. Report must be in Excel so that it can be downloaded and sorted by anyone wishing to do so (data cells will be locked)
                  ii. All report data date, sex, points per side, township, weapon, etc. will be included in other words, if it gets reported, the data is available (might add public/private just for fun)
                 iii. Only actual reports used - no formulas, no guestimates, no fudge factors
                 iv. As each season closes, the master report tab will be updated

 
One arguement, albeit a eak one, from the PGC is that negative reporting costs 50 cents per tag, so reporting negative harvests would result in a cost they feel is not needed.  Good decsions require good data.  Good data costs money.  To eleviate the cost to some degree simply raise the fee (its a fee, not a license increase) that the PALS compay gets from for the issuance of a tag form the current 70 cents to $1 (if you have a problem with a 30 cent increase that will result in better mangement either you don't want good management or you can't afford to go hunting).  In addition, the PGC checks at processors can simply stop -- with the severe penalties for not reporting (loss of license or $250 fine) will encourage reporting at a much higher rate than what the crosscheck of tags at a processor against reports does now; the checks don't seem to be adding any usable data with respect to AR or age structure; and there is probably some degree of overtime that could be eliminated or time that could be redirected toward law enforcement should these checks we reduced or ceased.
 
Since the reporting is required within a very short window of the close of the season (within five days of harvest or close of the season someone has tags for), unlike the duck survey whiach is months to almost a year from possible harvests, the data is fresh.  In additon, the numbers are much smaller with respect to the number of deer harvested than ducks harvested (hopefully -- LOL).
 
Reporting via the internet took me less than two minutes per tag.
 
The only folks that don't want to see this type of system are those that are afraid of 1) actual data; 2) quickly (within ten days of the close of the season rather than in April when most hunters have moved on to something else) obtainable data; 3) data that is presented in a spread sheet format so that users can manipulate cells in order to obtain the type of information they seek; and 4) those that don't want data driven decisions, but rather policy driven decisions that may not jive with what the numbers say.  Remember, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
 
 
 

With all the technology today why PSC can't set up a program the everyone gets an email or automated phone call reminding them to give a their report. This then could be tracked via email reply, PSC website, or phone in to a computer. Everyone is assigned a License # and their pass word could be first 3 letters of their last name. Failure to report would have consequences. Even if you kill or harvest nothing.

ORIGINAL: World Famous

It would never work Dars, you don't have a degree in deer management. The only good ideas come from those people...WF

 
True.  True, enough.  But my bachlor's minor was in animal bioscience with an emphasis on genetics.
 
And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.