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, 06:04 PM
#71
Host of Hosts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,780
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]>
====================================
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]>
====================================
02-06-2007, 06:37 PM
#72
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: State Harvest Reports
ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN
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.
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.
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
02-06-2007, 07:46 PM
#73
Host of Hosts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,780
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.
02-06-2007, 08:16 PM
#74
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Treasure Lake DuBois,Pa.
Posts: 1,571
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.
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.
02-07-2007, 06:07 AM
#75
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harrisburg PA USA
Posts: 69
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.
02-07-2007, 10:44 AM
#79
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Forksville Pa
Posts: 57
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.
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.
02-07-2007, 11:34 AM
#80
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 196
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.
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.