RE: State Harvest Reports
 

ALLWAYS!

hatchet Jack

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Here we do not call them hunters if they haul them off to their garages and cut them up. We, have a name for them, here we call them poachers! If they do this in season they most likely do this out of season as well.

Here, the tagging stations put them in a big envelope that they either mail or is picked up by a warden or a biologist. It is really quite symple. Why would I want to go to a tagging station? It is the law here and getting caught with an illegal deer in your freezer is a $1,000 fine. So why wouldn't I want to? I guess it is because it is the right thing to do and $1,000 can buy me a lot of stakes.

I have to agre with what Windwalker is saying and that it is still very symple to do.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Is their system "NEW" or has it always been that there were check stations in these other states? People don't like change and you have to consider how Pa's hunters would respond to more change that inconveniences them. You all think everything is just so simple ,but its not. What benefits do the stores get, besides maybe a small increase in pop and snack sales? Just because other states do it doesn't make it right for Pa. I happen to think check stations are needed here in Pa, but its not as black and white an issue as you make it out to be.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Every deer I shoot goes strait to my garage where I have it skinned and quartered within minutes.I have an old refrigerator that I use to age the quarters in before I process them.Every deer I shoot gets taggedand every report card is sent in.It doesn't get any simpler than thatand I don't shoot deer out of season.

Reporting your harvest is a requirement in Pa just like it is in Maine.Our fines aren't as high but that's a legislative issue not a PGC issue.

Do you honestly believe people will go out of their way to drive to a check station when the majority won't send in a postage paid harvest report card?

I also hunt in Ohio where check stations are mandatory.They still calculate the harvest there.When I shoot a deer at 8:00am in the morning,it's no hassle torun it severalmiles down the roadto a check station.When I get one out of the woods after dark,it can be a hassle,especially if I wasn't planning to stay over another night.

I could support check stations if they were staffed with trained people that were gathering biogical data.However,I've never even had a clerk or a cashier look at any of my deer in Ohio.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Where did the 60%+ number come from.?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

The problem is still getting everyone to report. It really doesn't get any simpler than sending a self addressed ,no postage necessary card in.
The fact remains the PGC is not tough enough on non-reporters. They know who does not report but they don't know if a deer was taken.We should report, a kill or no kill.To make it easier ,a phone report system to suppliment the cards would be thesimpliest IMO, and probably the most cost effective. Everyone has a cell these days.

A new/supplimentsystem should be enacted and hunters given a year to acclimate to it. Then if you don't report, a fine and or revocation should follow. The Gc won't be able to run down everyone who did not report, but a penalty incurred by your neighbor or friend for not reporting should motivate most. The outlaws will still be the outlaws, and the WCO's surprisingly, know who they are anyway.Their time will come.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Take another look at what "Windwalker7" posted:

"Just have the tags made out where you color in the little circle for the appropiateanswer."

0ANTLERED MALE

0 ADULT DOE

FAWN
0 MALE

0 FEMALE

LICENSE #__________

NAME_______________

AREA OF KILL______________

Now please tell me why it would be necessarry to have "trained people" or a Game Warden fill out something as basic as this?

Also if PA had check stations (and we do have manditory check stations for bear and elk, and they do work. The Game Commission says they do.) you just might pass one on the way to your garage. That is quite possible you know.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

I'm not suggesting to eliminate the cards. Just give an alternative to those who don't like mailboxes.
And if it's so simple why is the report % so low???

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Sorry Doug my mistake as here it is different.

Most of check stations are small store or gas stations that are normally close by. ( Here in this area 2 within 30 miles ) You have to stop with your deer to get a tag. Your hunting license only gives you a transportation tag that allows you to take it to a tagging station. I am not trying to get in PAs problems soI will bud out now thanks.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

The big differences in the ability to check deer through a check station in a timely manner is simply in the volume of deer being delivered to the check stations on any given day and the number of check stations available.

I don’t know how long the Maine or the West Virginia seasons are without doing some research but I do know what there deer harvests were for the most recent year I could find. So I reduced the deer harvests for each state to harvests per square mile to see how there harvests compared to the harvest in Pennsylvania.

I will share that data with you:

State……………..………Deer harvest/square mile

Pennsylvania…………………..9.40
West Virgina…………………..4.30
Maine………………………….0.91

Like I said I don’t know how long the season are in those other states but I’ll bet they aren’t any shorted then the season in Pennsylvania. Therefore, it would seem rather logical that they most likely have less then half as many deer coming in on any give day then what would be coming to a check station in Pennsylvania.

I do know some hunters that go to West Virginia to hunt. They tell me that many of the locals in West Virginia will readily admit that they don’t take their deer to the check stations. So, based on that I wouldn’t be too sure that West Virginia has any better or even as good of accounting on their deer kill as we have in Pennsylvania.

I am sure we could implement check stations in Pennsylvania. But, I know it would be a costly venture and I am not convinced we would have any better harvest data then we have now. It simply can’t get any easier for hunters to report then it is now so how would it improve if we made it harder for the hunters to report their kills?

As for the fines for failure to report those are set by the State Legislature, not the Game Commission. The fine for failure to report in Pennsylvania is $25.00 if you can even prove they didn’t send it in.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

West Virginia's rifledeer season runs 2 weeks.

The Archery starts mid October until December 31st.

I haven't hunted there since 2002. I did read that they allowed a total of three deer to be taken with a bow now.

When I hunted we could take a total of 2 archery deer of either sex.

2 bucks with a rifle

2 anterless deer with a rifle

1 deer with a muzzleloader but the anterless tags could also be used during muzzleloaderseason.

Regs. were different for different counties.

some counties allowed extra buck tags to be filled with a doe.

This was a typical scene the first day of rifle. Most times all deer were taken before noon. Racks were small but deer were plentiful.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

2

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

3

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

4

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

If PA can do it for Bear and Elk it can be done for Deer. And you don't need a Law Enforcement Officer to oversee a simple check station.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

5

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

There were alwaysvehicles with several deer at the check station on the first day in WV.

I was always amazed at how it seemed everyone got one. I compared it to PA when out of a whole camp, only a few guys got a buck.

I don't think the stores and gas stations would be overwhelmed. Just look at all the places that butcher deer here in PA. That butcher has to take the time to write down how the hunter wants his deer cut up and get his phone number and such. Then he needs to get the deer skinned ASAP.

Yet these butcher manage to do it. I feel that just filling out a simple card wouldn't cause as much trouble.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

I just want to show these picture to show that most of the guys that hunted had days just like these. Everyone got deer.


If those check stations didn't get overwhelmed then PA's won't either. PA never had hunting as good as it was back in WV.

The check stations had lots of deer going through them and everyone was buying something to eat or drink. Guys would stand around and shoot the bull. I never seen it get ugly. It was just the opposite.

The store's cashier was the longest line there.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

I think Pennsylvania would be very smart to REQUIRE checking stations like West Virginia does. This makes all hunters physically take their deer and get them checked in, or else they get fined. There's lots of stations so there is always one within a reasonable drive. Of all the hunters I know, barely any of us ever send in those stupid report cards. It is definately not an accurate way to get a head count on the deer taken.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

You just can't say anything on any thread w/o bashing the PGC can you?
Get a life.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Check Stations here in MT. too.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Any method is only as good as the participation of hunters, fInes or no fines.
We had voluntary check stations at one time. They were not intended to get a "complete" count but even if they would have been, how easy is it to just drive on by?
We have mandatory report cards now. with fines for non-compliance. Yet we see "adults" bragging that they never have and never will send report cards in.
I've checked deer in WI and OH (mandatory) and the system was a joke. Hunters with the abovementioned attitute could easily manipulate, or avoid,the system. In each case there was a young female cashier who didn't have a clue about deer and surely was not about to leave the store to verify anything.
IT'S NOT THE PGC --- IT'S HUNTERS WHO MAKE WORKABLE SOLUTIONS.
PA'S system of estimating deer counts and harvests has been reviewed by outside interests and found to be scientifically acceptable.
The same people who look, with a magnifying glass, to find any fault with the PGC are the ones, in many cases, who fight against a license increase to finance new procedures.
Wisconsin has mandated checks but yet they acknowledge a lack of compliance -- how ya gonna fix that? Some here have expressed dislike forthe lawenforcement side of game management. Yet they want scenarios that open the door forviolations, they don't bad-mouth those in non-compliance, and they don't encourage more funds to enforcelaws.

Wouldn't it be nice if they just said -- yes, report cards can be totally accurate, if HUNTERS comply. So hunters, let's all be grownup enough to do what we agree to do when we purchase a license.
How about "WE" make it work?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Well John, I agree to some extent.
Management must establish the method and they are charged with enforcement of compliance. No doubt about that.
They have done step 1 -- establishing the method.
If hunters would; "do what is permitted within the confines of the regulations." then enforcement would be a breeze.
Our existing methods and any we may want to replace them with, can only be enforced and prosecuted as resources allow.
It is foolhardy to expect to catch every speeder or every hunter who simply feels the laws don't apply to them.
"If" there were unlimited finances, PGC could set up road blocks like used for DUI prosecutions, and they could concievably catch and prosecute a greater number of violators. (that applies to "any" system).
Is that what we want?

The burden is always on the user, no matter what regulation or law you look at, the affected people have the legal burden of obeying.
Please tell me what would change under "any" system.

"The Journal of Wildlife Management."
That body reviewed the herd and harvest estimating methods and found them acceptable for publishing as scientifically valid.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

[
Wouldn't it be nice if they just said -- yes, report cards can be totally accurate, if HUNTERS comply. So hunters, let's all be grownup enough to do what we agree to do when we purchase a license.
How about "WE" make it work?
[/quote]

NorthPa,
Well said.
You are 110% correct.
I will never understand why someone wouldn't send their report card in. Especially when there is contraversy in regards to the herd numbers.
It's an act of defiance that compuonds the very problem the disgruntaled hunters complain of.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Mandatory deer check stations have been a hot topic in PA for some time. Invariably, someone that supports the idea, (a) cites the practice in other states and (b) grumbles about the lowparticipation rate for our existing report card system, as if to say it doesn't give the PGC a viable handle on actual kill totals.

As noted, deer management professionals have given our current system a passing grade, per the mentioned wildlife journal's peer groupexamination. They gave that approval based on the data gathering and numbers-crunching details of our current system. Nothing more, nothing less. Boiled down to simple terms, the current systemoffers an acceptable means of calculating our deer kills by statistical analysis. Once the percentage of compliancehas been established, everything else is just analysis of of the numbers generated.

Had that explained to me years ago. No idea why it still baffles people?

Somequestions thatarise for those that demand a change to mandatory checks in PAare, how do those other states compare in the following categories: Number of deer killed on the first day; Totalnumber of deer killed in each season; Total number ofhunters out the first few days; Size of the area in each state in which hunting is concentrated; Number of potentialcheck stations available in areas where hunting is concentrated; Distancestraveled by hunters (to and from hunting areas).

Fairly apparent that it might well beapples and oranges to tout check stations in some smaller states with fewer hunters, fewer deer and fewer deer killed and then to compare the practice in those states, with Pennsylvania.

Back in 1977, the PGC conductedmid-week"checks" along majorhighways known to carry great numbers of hunters back home from northcentral hunting camps, during the first week of buck season. One of those was along Rts. 11/15, south of Selinsgrove. Several people I know got waved into that roadside check on their way home. All those pulled over were of the opinion that it was a mess: traffic backed up while the PSP decided which vehicles to wave over; instant overflowparking lots while game wardens checked vehicles for deer, etc. Betcha no one that went through that fiasco, is in favor of mandatory check stations.

Few, if anyof the stores, gas stations and gunshops that I deal with up near my camp, would be enthused about tying up their manpower and limited parking facilities, with lines of hunters having to check their deer on the way home during the first few days of firearms deer season. It often looks like a madhouse at the local gunshop/hardware store on day one, just from hunters coming in to look at Big Buck contest entries and the people bringing in their bucks.

Can't even begin to think of the traffic headaches and other problems if that mob was multiplied by hundreds of others who had to stop and check a deer Monday evening. Add to that the situationthat thestore now closes at 6PM or7PM, even though it's the first day of "deer season". If they won't stay open later than usualfor customers bringing in bucks for their contest now, why would they stay open later for check station duty?

Know a few folks that've hunted in nearby states with mandatory deer checks and almost all of them have made similar statements about how loose the system is, with little if any actual attempt made to verify the info that's required to be filed. Someone please explain to me what advantages that system offers in actual data obtained vs our current system? As I understand things, no other state claims to have a 100% accurate reporting rate and still has to compile data and analyze it to reach their conclusions each year.

You know what that is: Another calculation, just like ours is here in PA.

I've sent in every report card, except forone year when I couldn't find the card and eventually forgot about it in the midst of some other turmoil. A few other times I misplaced them, but eventually mailed them in, even if a week or solate. How much problem can it be to take 10 seconds to fill out a postage-paid card and drop it in the mail?Unless you're a doofus like me that occasionally can't find 'em...or a bonehead that just refuses to comply?

:)

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Are you saying Pa. had voluntary check stations at some time. What yr,s were they?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

How accurate are the harvestcounts at the elk and bear check stations?

If the PGC feels that sending in a card is better and just as accurate, then why don't they just have successful bear hunters send a card in?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Gobblers, I don't know all the years but I stopped at the Duncannon rte 322 check station throughthe mid - late 70's.

Windwalker -- guess you weren't paying attention.
1/3rd million deer compared to 4-5 dozen elk -- yeah you sure got a grip on the situation.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Some times it seems like a waste of words but let me see if I can help you .
In less than half of the state hunters shoot 4000 bears in three days. And in the whole state 850000 hunters shoot 500000-800000 deer over a four month period.
Not Allot of similarities between the two.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

How accurate are the harvestcounts at the elk and bear check stations?

If the PGC feels that sending in a card is better and just as accurate, then why don't they just have successful bear hunters send a card in?



Typically3000+bearskilled annuallyover a three day period (majority still taken in the northcentral regions), plus some in the overlap seasonin the first part of firearms deer (limited area); Perhaps 80-100 elk taken during a period of afew days and in a very limited area of the state.

300,000 to 400,000 deer takeneach year statewide, the majority of which are taken during the first few days of firearms...but the rest are taken from early October until mid-January.

Where is the similarity between bear, elk and deer seasons that might indicate what works fortwo otherspecies, would work for deer?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Here is what one professional from Ohio has to say about Check Stations. I can take this seriously and form an opinion from it due to his PHD in Biology. He'snot some hitman from theUSP who won't answer honest questions about his organization.


Here is a copy of an email from a hunter in Michigan to a biologist with Ohio's
DNR about Ohio's check stations, etc. The hunter believes Ohio's method of
counting dead deer is far superior than Michigan's. Perception is not reality.

Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI writes:

I believe that your method of mandatory deer check-in is the most accurate
method of tabulating a season's deer hunting kill and believe that it would
behoove Michigan's DNR to implement a similar program.

Why do you use mandatory deer check-in rather than Michigan's method which deals
heavily in statistical demographics/information? Is there any data/study showing
that mandatory deer check-in is a more accurate way of determining a season's
take of whitetails? Sincerely, Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI

======================================
Hi Milton,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory
registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern
states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I
guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both
mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure
non-reporting rates. In the 10 years that I've been here, I've been engaged in
numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also
found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who
feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be
desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for
getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to
disagree with hunters from both states.

On the surface, MR seems like the "cats meow." You kill a deer, you bring it to
the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the
end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were
taken, but you're now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size
of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The
reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone
checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low
as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more
importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to
do. If you didn't check your deer and you were asked after the season via a
phone call, if you checked your deer, what's you're answer going to be? My point
is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at
best. Moreover, if you don't know what noncompliance is, you don't know what the
true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year
out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end,
your harvest estimate is just that - an estimate. In large part it is because of
tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to
interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my
colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my
understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site
registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they
collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now
rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages.
However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of
the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to
disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan's current
system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than
mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a
great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

"Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are
required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone
call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many
individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we
know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not
hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and
are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate
non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up
later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from
this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means
the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This
unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures
for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement
that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater
precision". Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of
our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing
confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with
the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable
means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other
general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation
and effort."

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR
estimates. However, I don't believe it will improve the estimates themselves.

I hope I have shed some "unbiased" light on the subject of mandatory
registration. Please don't hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional
questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

Very best,

Mike

Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife
9650 SR 356
New Marshfield, OH 45766
v (740).664.2745 f (740) 664-6841
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
====================================

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

I would agree that you don’t need a law enforcement officer present to check a deer, but that is far from the real issue.

The real issue is having sufficient check stations and getting the deer processed through in a timely and orderly manner so hunters would be willing to take their deer there.

Your argument that it can be done for deer because it is done for bear and elk is hardly valid when you take even a few second to think things through in logical manner.

Here are a few facts concerning the normal number of animals to be checked through the check stations in one day based on the average or in the case of bears the highest ever single day harvest for that species.

Species…………………single day harvest………………….number of check stations

Pa. elk……………………….17……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..1
Pa. bear……………………..2026……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..27
W.Va. deer…………………81,775………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦N/A
Pa. deer……………………246,000…………… ………………………N/A

Since a couple of people think West Virginia hunters have great success compared to Pennsylvania I looked up some data for that state to compare to Pennsylvania. The data for both is based on the most recent harvest and license sales data available.

State…………..……deer harvest………..……# hunters…………..hunter success rate

West Virginia……….136,289………………..350,0 00………………..1 : 2.57
Pennsylvania………..362,034……………….. 961,704………………..1 : 2.66

The fact is that Pennsylvania harvests far more deer per day then other states that have deer check stations. The comparison of the single day Pennsylvania elk or bear harvests to the single day deer harvests is about like comparing a gain of sand to a basket ball.

Sure it could be done but does anyone really believe we would have better data then we have now? Do you really think we would have a much higher reporting rate then we have now? What would happen if anti-hunters showed up at some of the check stations? How would hunters be cast during such an occasion by the news media?

It just doesn’t seem that check stations would be worth all the effort and cost that would be involved in establishing and maintaining them.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

"Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are
required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone
call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many
individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations).



I think this was partially proven in this poll. 4 respondants said they nevr sent in reports, but never posted it in the forum.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Trykon,
It looks like non-reporting is a smaller % than I thought at least.
If this forum is a good indicator then I would have to assume that the PGC is estimating the herd fairly close. That's good news, because that would mean that management descisions are almost dead on.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

In talking with a employee of another states wildlife agency, he also told me something I thought was interesting about check stations and that is compliance vs. non-compliance is skewed depending on the size of the deer checked. Larger deer tend to be checked at a higher rate than small and yearling deer. I don't remember the percentages.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Does anyone know exactly how many deer where checked in last year in Ohio?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

As it looks like this is getting WAY OFF topic I am only going to say I always report my kills. Carry on.

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Fear is a tough thing to deal with HC. You need not fear. I've posted my comments of the methodology of harvest reporting and they stand --- not to scare you, but to educate you.
Cold over there near Gaines?

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

Dear Robert:
Check your PMs oldman.

By the way, did I mention that I always turn in my report cards? Quite a nice press release in the paper wasn't it?:)Even drew the attention of State Rep Tina Pickett plus one state rep that was undercover.:D

RE: State Harvest Reports
 

I'm not getting any notice of a pm. I tried to respond to yours a few days ago and could not -- only got that "bong" noise that it makes when not functioning.

I haven't seen any press release. I get my news after the neighbors are done with it --- sometimes.

My email is in my bio if you're wanting to email me.