# Mandatory Harvest Reporting



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

All the talk about the deer herds in Utah, management, what to do, etc has got me thinking a lot about different options, things the other states do, what might help stuff like that-

I just have a question, Why does the Division not require mandatory harvest reporting for general season hunts, especially deer???????? I just think that the more info we can gather the better. Management is hard enough with all the "unknowns" why add another guess into the mix by not finding out what is actually getting killed. (call it what you want its just an estimate now) Now days with the internet, phone style reporting (like the HIP system) its extremely easy with little to no costs for the division or tag holder. Hell my dad the most computer illiterate person I know can get online and figure things out. 

This just does not make sense, why not???

This is probably just my negativity towards some of the current management coming out, but some of me wonders if it isnt because of the truth that might arise on how poor success rates really are, maybe not but really why not??


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I am not sure about why the division does not do reporting. But I sure dont mind reporting, especially if it helps the biologists.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

You are touching on a very important factor to the whole deer fiasco. The reduction of the deer herd has ether been one of the biggest neglects of all time or by design. For a species that is so important to the general hunting public. Its incredible the lack of data compiled. Harvest reporting is just the tip of the iceberg. As for the mandatory harvest reporting your absolutely spot on. They have it for just about every other species it would be simple enough to implement. 

The old adage goes. Where there's a will there's a way. And to me this sort of thing just proves the the DWR has a lack of will.


----------



## dodgertown (Apr 12, 2010)

I think the DWR is more interested in the Elk herds than the deer herds. To be honest if they were to do a harvest report for the general season deer hunt, with the results and numbers that they would receive it would be such a shock for the DWR that they would have to cut the number of deer tags from the 90,000 tags or whatever the number is to such a smaller number based on the animals taken. This would also cause a problem, because it would mean MUCH less money in the coffers because of the decrease in tags.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> For a species that is so important to the general hunting public. Its incredible the lack of data compiled.


This blows me away as well....... :?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Great question....I would be more than happy to report my harvest or lack there of. I gotta be honest...I almost feel guilty trying to harvest a deer in Utah anymore.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The simple answer: Because mandatory harvest reports don't give the DWR any better information.

The long answer:
A few points by the article: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E005349.pdf
1) Mandatory reporting does NOT ensure 100% reporting or 100% accuracy...in fact, sometimes hunters perceive an incentive to actually lie about their success or lack thereof--" Gamesmanship, or perceived dangers from giving true information may cause people to misrepresent the truth (i.e. lie), especially about killing an animal. This might be more prevalent for...hunters who may believe tag numbers would go down if kill rates are high or among individuals who might believe that reporting the harvest of an animal could lower their personal chance of getting a tag in future." 
2) Costs--"When all costs are considered, mandatory reporting may cost about nine 
times as much as an equal size voluntary sample and six times as much per report (see "The costs of big game harvest assessment", page 9). Optimal sampling within the deer or moose programs would produce statistically valid harvest estimates with about 30 per cent of hunters sampled. In these cases mandatory reporting from all hunters could cost as much as 23 times more than optimal voluntary programs." Also, "Statistical methods operate on the principle that a representative sample can provide information which is as good as a complete count, but less (often much less) expensive. In many cases, a complete count is not possible. Mandatory reporting ignores the economic savings which optimal sampling could provide. It should be necessary to demonstrate that the economic efficiency of mandatory reporting exceeds that of optimal sampling (i.e. that a 300 per cent increase in costs produces at least a 300 per cent improvement in information value)."
3) Hunter surveys tend to overestimate harvest which errs on the side of conservation--""Statistical Estimates" of harvest are not expected to be perfectly accurate. They depend on an assumption that the activities of hunters who report are similar to those who do not report or those who are not sampled. This is not always true. Voluntary sampling tends to overestimate harvest because hunters who feel they have something important to report (i.e. a harvested animal) tend to respond at a higher rate than those who do not harvest game. This error is on the side of conservation, but can be corrected, again by statistical techniques. Generally, statistically estimates may be either higher or lower than the true 
harvest, but they are correct "on average"."
4) Mandatory harvest reports tend to underestimate harvest--"Mandatory reports would likely underestimate harvests. Few people would be expected to report killing an animal if they did not and more advantages might be gained by not reporting actual kills. Because harvest information is "added" for mandatory reports rather than "projected"(as with sampling), every animal which is not reported represents an underestimate of the true harvest."
5) A wealth of information aside from harvest is needed to best control big game populations--"Many factors influence the abundance of game and the allowable harvest. 
These include habitat quality, productivity, predation, accidental mortality, as well as subsistence harvests and recreational hunting. Each of these differ geographically, probably annually, and they may interact in complex ways. The important point is that most of these factors are measured crudely or not at all. The value of obtaining extremely high quality harvest information at relatively high cost is undermined by having little or no information on other factors."
6) Mandatory harvest reporting rarely gives drastically different information than samples--"If all other things are equal and unbiased, a proper statistical interpretation of the harvest estimate for a hypothetical WMU would state that "the harvest was probably between 95 and 105 animals, and averaged 100 animals over the past three years." Mandatory reporting would state "the harvest was 96 in year 1, 106 in year 2, and 98 in year 3." There is no reason to believe that mandatory reporting would provide a totally different answer (like the harvest was 50 or 150 animals) and clearly the management decisions from both voluntary and mandatory assessments should be identical."


----------



## wapati (Nov 29, 2007)

More data is not always a good thing unless it, in some way, contributes to greater accuracy for what info is needed. Relying heavily on reported hunt numbers and basing herd management and objectives mainly on that would be pretty scary. If the goal is to just try and determine hunter success then it might be be good, but obviously would depend on the reporting accuracy. 

To me (In theory anyway) more focus put on actual winter counts would provide the most useful info and accuracy. I believe they DO counts in certain areas as they can, but I am sure it is pretty limited by budget, time and manpower. 

Actual counts would provide more accuracy of how many survived the previous winter, the hunts, predation, sickness/diseases, and could better determine ratios and overall counts if done before antlers are dropped but late enough that they are more visible from the air.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

I wish they had a section on the wildlife.utah.gov where you could just voluntarily submit harvest data for your deer hunt. I am on their website 50 times a year anyway, and I would love to contribute accurate data for myself and friends deer hunts. 

Whether they do anything with the data or not it would be valuable just to have it for either current or future analysis.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep! Its so ineffective and expensive the the DWR has it for just about all other species. Why do they have it for all LE? There is already a severe penalty for not reporting. No tags next yr. Sound like enough encouragement to report to me.

I have mentioned this a few times before on winter counts. A little technology could really increase the accuracy of a winter count. Some states use F.L.I.R to count wildlife at night on airplanes. Record it and later study the footage to determine accurate counts on multiple species. Predators included. Some of you military guys know just how effective this could be. 

No its not cheap. I'd say its a bargain compared to million dollar habitat projects that only benefit deer on a localized basis.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Yep! Its so ineffective and expensive the the DWR has it for just about all other species. Why do they have it for all LE? There is already a severe penalty for not reporting. No tags next yr. Sound like enough encouragement to report to me.
> 
> I have mentioned this a few times before on winter counts. A little technology could really increase the accuracy of a winter count. Some states use F.L.I.R to count wildlife at night on airplanes. Record it and later study the footage to determine accurate counts on multiple species. Predators included. Some of you military guys know just how effective this could be.
> 
> No its not cheap. I'd say its a bargain compared to million dollar habitat projects that only benefit deer on a localized basis.


1) The DWR has done it for LE hunts, but not general season hunts. Probably for many reasons but including the fact that general season hunts account for a lot more data and a lot more time to disseminate what the data means...so, the question is whether that new data would be cost effective and valuable--is it really going to give them anything new?

2) FLIR is not the end-all to counting big game--"Thermal infrared sensing technology is not new to the field of wildlife management. In fact, researchers have been studying its application since the late 1960's (Cochran 1977). Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) systems use a special camera mounted beneath an aircraft that can detect heat emitted by deer, other mammals and birds. The aircraft flies a pre-determined grid until a specified tract is surveyed. Biologists then count observed deer to estimate deer density within the area. 
The advanced technology associated with this technique would suggest that it is widely used as a deer management tool. However, the wide variation in detection rates (the percentage of deer observed compared to the number actually present during the survey) typically limit its application to small areas with high deer densities or where repeated flights within a year are possible (Diefenbach 2005). The most recent peer-reviewed research evaluating FLIR technology in a deciduous forest environment (Haroldson et al. 2003) reported that FLIR technology provided biased and variable population estimates. 
Nine aerial surveys using FLIR technology missed 11-69% of the deer and, on average, detected 56% of deer on the study area (Haroldson et al. 2003). The researcher concluded, "Until the capabilities of thermal imaging are more fully understood and the sampling protocols refined, detection rates may be too variable to provide reliable counts of animal abundance."(Haroldson et al. 2003)."

3) Again, the question is whether it is cost effective...the difference, though, between spending millions on FLIR and on habitat is that the money spent on habitat will undoubtedly benefit wildlife whereas the money spent on FLIR might never affect wildlife.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How much has been spent on habitat in the last 20 yrs? 

How many more deer do we have as a result in the last 20 yrs? Anywhere any unit in the state.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo2UT-

Are you really saying that the survey one per 100 hunters (about what they do now) is just as effective/accurate as mandatory harvest reporting would be????????????

What cost would they have with requiring mandatory harvest reporting??????? I know for a fact they have the servers/database to more than handle setting the system up and sorry man but computers can sort out the data. I bet the State would not spend a quarter of what they do manning check stations during the hunt, not to mention check stations that don't collect 1% of actual data thats needed.

The whole notion that people don't report accurate data is nothing more than what they are reporting now, have you heard the questions that come with that phone call that one in a million actually get??


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Counting poop is probably more accurate than FLIR as well........ :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Are you really saying that the survey one per 100 hunters (about what they do now) is just as effective/accurate as mandatory harvest reporting would be????????????


I don't know why I even respond to this kind of stuff...it really shows how uneducated you are about how things are done. Maybe, instead of spouting off and pulling numbers from your butt, you should actually learn what is done... :roll:

But, just so you know, telephone surveys are only ONE of several methods Utah's DWR uses to collect harvest information...AND, surveys are received from enough hunters to be STATISTICALLY VALID.



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> What cost would they have with requiring mandatory harvest reporting??????? I know for a fact they have the servers/database to more than handle setting the system up and sorry man but computers can sort out the data. I bet the State would not spend a quarter of what they do manning check stations during the hunt, not to mention check stations that don't collect 1% of actual data thats needed.


Again, this just shows how little you actually understand...Arizona, for example, just barely in 2009 decided that Mandatory Harvest Reporting should NOT be instituted because of the huge cost it would bring upon the state...they estimated that it would cost as much as 9 times more than their current methods. Again, would they really learn anything new? The answer is "NO".

Also, have you ever sat at a check station for a day? Do you have any idea what information is gathered at these stations? Do you have any idea how many hunters are checked at these stations?



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> actual data


I love this quote..."ACTUAL DATA"..."ACTUAL". Do you honestly think that the data is more "actual" in a mandatory on-line survey compared to the information/data gathered at a check station? Geez...seems to me that actually seeing the deer in the back of the truck and being able to take CWD samples would garner much more "ACTUAL" data than what could be given on-line. I can see/read it now: "Do you think that your deer is suffering from CWD? Yes or No?" And, that would give us more "ACTUAL" data?



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> The whole notion that people don't report accurate data is nothing more than what they are reporting now, have you heard the questions that come with that phone call that one in a million actually get??


Yup...I get those calls almost every year. So, I guess I am...what is it? Oh, now it is one in a million... :roll:

The bottom line is that mandatory harvest reports don't give any more actual accurate information than the current methodS are giving.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Make the dedicated hunters do the survey's,


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

That would be a good way to get hours in right?


----------

