View Poll Results: A poll
I only send in DMAP reports
0
0%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll
State Harvest Reports
02-06-2007, 04:11 AM
#62
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
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?
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?
02-06-2007, 06:01 AM
#63
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
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.
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?
Don't put the burden on the user.
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.
02-06-2007, 08:33 AM
#64
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Treasure Lake DuBois,Pa.
Posts: 1,571
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.
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.
02-06-2007, 08:54 AM
#65
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 522
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?
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?
02-06-2007, 02:02 PM
#67
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,621
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?
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?
02-06-2007, 02:11 PM
#68
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
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.
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.
02-06-2007, 02:12 PM
#69
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 428
RE: State Harvest Reports
ORIGINAL: Windwalker7
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?
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?
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.
02-06-2007, 02:20 PM
#70
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 522
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?
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?