Although the PGC has made alot of mistakes, I have to agree with this quote

DougE, It may well be that the calculated kill is accurate enough. I even tend to agree with you that it's close enoughbut I still believe we need a better reporting system for two reasons.

1 By continuing to use a method whereby the majority of hunters ignores the law, it sends the message that the PGC isn't serious about enforcing their own laws. When any government entity simply looks the other way when 60% of the public ignores the law, it breeds disrespect for any of it's laws.

2 Partly because of the phenomenon above, the PGC needs to do anything it can to shore up it's credibility and a better reporting system would be a big step

I'd like tos ee a better reporting rate myself but none of this is the PGC's fault.The fault is directly related to the fact that more than 60% of the hunters are too lazy to comply with a simple request.Because most hunters are irresponsible,an already strapped agency is expected to spend more money to come up with a better system to appease those whiners that are the true root of the problem.It just makes no sense BT.

I dont disagree at all that apathetic or just plain defiant hunters are the root of the problem. That being said, I think it's unrealistic to beleive that it's going to get any better without a new system.

I did some looking into this and it seems that online reporting is intended to be part of the online POS licensing that should be instituted soon. I know it works for the DMAPS now as I've used it this year. Hopefully it will be accompanied by real enforcement for those that continue to ignore the law.

"It may well be that the calculated kill is accurate enough."

"BT" would you like to have your pay/salary calculated in the PGC fashion?

Please, don't be obsurd. How can any calculation be anywhere near credible if only 40% of thehunters respond?

And DougE (DCE) it could very well be that the so called 40% respondents are the near actual figure of the deer kill. It's no less plausable than the current PGC calculations. In fact, I know more than one legislator who is less than happy with the agency's calculations.

In fact, check stations ( and keep in mind that a check station does not have to be manned by a Game warden to obtain data) and a simple 1-800 number as well as an "on line" method of reporting would certainly enhance the correct report figure. But then, the agency is sure dragging it's feet to step into the21st century technology, or even the 20th century (Phone) technology. It just seems that they don't want accurate figures. It can't be the cost of such a system as if I recall correctly they spent $80,000 a few years ago to "secure" the front office. That money would have bought a swell data recording program. Just another example of poor management and priorities.

You make my point for me. Any statstician wishing to be very accurate would be ecstatic with a 40% sampling. My point was that although 40% is more than adequate to calculate an accuratekill, there are uninformed, uneducated, folks like yourselfout there who simply cannot comprehend how statistics work. Unfortunately this uninformed group is very vocal thus the need for an actual count to satisfy those who cant understand how statstical formulas are indeed very accurate in the big picture.

No that 40% figure can not be any where near the actual harvest.Remember they crosscheck thousands of deer each year to determine the reporting rate.How many report cards have you send in the the last 10 years John?Are you part of the problem?

If guys are too lazy to send in a report card,what makes you think they'll go out of their way to make a phone call,especially if they're at camp?

That unhappy legislature would be the one on the house game and fisheries committe that didn't know that they were doing a highly publicized doe mortality study in the Sproul?When someone mentioned them trapping does,he asked if they were being trapped and relocated to another area of the state.I was there and heard it myself.Yeah,those guys are a bunch of gems that really understand the issues.They also were invitedbut declined toattend R.S.B's habitat tours.Why wouldn't they want to see the other side of the strory?

How many preseasondeer does the USP estimate we have?

Where did this money come from? Was it the same mismanagement at the PFBC when they put in a similar system? How about the same system at the Capitol complex? Did the PGC have something to do with that as well? Or maybe could it have been something to do with state gov't and not the PGC?

Funny how there are times when correct information is conspicuous by its absence.

Happy New Year all!

I don't get all these rhetorical questions and circumlocutions. What are you actually trying to say?