# Random DWR survey call



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

Anyone else get the how was your hunt call, on a scale 1-5 how was your hunt, how many days did you hunt, and did you get one? Is that really the most important questions the dwr could come up with?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This was the 'deer' survey correct Gorgnite? For the new 30 general season deer units.

Like it OR not, These surveys are going to carry a TON of decision making power.

Basically, 1 to 5 rates satisfaction levels of OVERALL hunt. Crowding, quality, quantity.

Units that have higher ratings, 50% above satisfied. will remain about the same.

Units with below a %50 rating, Unsatisfied, will most likely see changes......

These will also be linked to winter counts, and buck to doe ratios from this winter.

Each unit will likely get a Rating, then tag cuts or increases will be recommended.
(this is how these surveys were explained to me, regaurding the new general deer units)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Pure insanity, we now have reduced our management practice to surveys. Forget about science, forget about managing game WITH hunters, we are now out of the closet as managing game FOR hunters. Disgusting!!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Oh...I don't know. Maybe the DWR shouldn't ask people where they hunted, how many days they hunted, whether they harvested or not, and what drainage their harvest took place in if they harvested. Maybe they should just ask you what you think should be done to manage the deer herd...LMAO!!


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> This was the 'deer' survey correct Gorgnite? For the new 30 general season deer units.
> 
> Like it OR not, These surveys are going to carry a TON of decision making power.
> 
> ...


Nah I only went elk hunting on the worst unit I could find, the overpressured super smart dont respond to a call let alone bugle millcreek elk... on the good side i did see some big bulls up close just no shot.. its always a day before the hunt or an hour after dark it seems. o-||


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh...I don't know. Maybe the DWR shouldn't ask people where they hunted, how many days they hunted, whether they harvested or not, and what drainage their harvest took place in if they harvested. Maybe they should just ask you what you think should be done to manage the deer herd...LMAO!!


How about how many animals I did see, along with how many guys I saw...one day i counted 20.... I didnt even bother with the morning hike after that..I figured might as well let them do all the leg work and glass from the ridgetops. The best was when the whole herd was a 100yrds from our tent and two big bulls were fighting the night before the hunt started..and since we sprayed estrus on our shoes one of the big bulls came back at 2am and figured he might want to come snuggle in our tent with us...kinda scary when a big bull is ten yards from your tent snortin and pawing at the ground..


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Pure insanity, we now have reduced our management practice to surveys. Forget about science, forget about managing game WITH hunters, we are now out of the closet as managing game FOR hunters. Disgusting!!!!!


Right about now sounds like a good time for mandatory big game check in. Really??? A survey 4 months after the hunt is over...can you say "stone age"? :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Read this information starting on page 15...
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... ations.pdf

It provides a comprehensive analysis of different surveys and some of the advantages and disadvantages. At least understand the reasoning behinds the methods before the bitching...

The document also has loads of other valuable information. I would strongly recommend all deer hunters read it in its entirety...

In regards to this discussion, this paragraph seemed to sum things up for me:
"No single method can be expected to perform in superior fashion for every situation. 
Unfortunately, the adage "you get what you pay for" is pertinent to choosing monitoring 
approaches, and often methods that require the largest investments, either in human or fiscal resources, provide the most "bang for the buck." A key challenge in choosing a monitoring technique is to first decide the level of precision or accuracy required to answer the questions you are asking. That decision will then provide the basis for determining the most appropriate technique and level of investment required. However, users have demonstrated certain methods, if applied appropriately, will produce robust data. To aid the investigator in making these choices we have selected the methodology that we judge to be the most reliable and preferred approach for each basic parameter estimation process."


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't know "how a hunter feels about his hunting experience" or "how many days did you hunt" has anything to do with game management...
There was either an animal harvested during the allotted time or there wasn't. Mandatory check-in either via website or check station is cheap and timely. Surveys are a joke...they are only as good as the people being surveyed. It's already the application period for this year and they're just now collecting "data" for last year's general season hunts??? And we wonder why the mule deer herd is declining...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I've had my share of phone calls from DWR surveyors in the past, but this year I got a mail-in packet. "Utah Annual Post-Season Big Game Survey"

Big bold letters on the envelope ask, *HOW WAS YOUR HUNTING SEASON?* "You have been selected from among all big game hunters in Utah to tell us about this past year's hunt."

It's from RMEF. -_O-

I got me some really cool return address stickers!!!

I'd just as soon that the DWR had called me again this year.


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

Maybe we should track down and hire the "Utah Mountain Man" I bet he knows how the herds are doing lol.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh...I don't know. Maybe the DWR shouldn't ask people where they hunted, how many days they hunted, whether they harvested or not, and what drainage their harvest took place in if they harvested. Maybe they should just ask you what you think should be done to manage the deer herd...LMAO!!


They shouldn't have to ask, it ought to be MANDATORY reporting via internet or mail - if you wanna hunt next season, you better fill it out. Simple "hunter politics" solution.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> I don't know "how a hunter feels about his hunting experience" or "how many days did you hunt" has anything to do with game management...
> There was either an animal harvested during the allotted time or there wasn't. Mandatory check-in either via website or check station is cheap and timely. Surveys are a joke...they are only as good as the people being surveyed. It's already the application period for this year and they're just now collecting "data" for last year's general season hunts??? And we wonder why the mule deer herd is declining...


I've said it a million times....mandatory reporting doesn't really give any different information. you obviously didn't read the link I posted. What is a joke is the ignorance people show when the simply don't understand something.

"how a hunter feels" is important because most game management decisions are socio-political. the social aspects of game management always come into play and should...

...also, information from last year's hunts began to be collected during last year's hunts. Again, your ignorance and lack of understanding shines through. Instead of spouting off, read a little on how information is gathered and what is gleaned from that information. Good grief...you might just learn something. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Oh...I don't know. Maybe the DWR shouldn't ask people where they hunted, how many days they hunted, whether they harvested or not, and what drainage their harvest took place in if they harvested. Maybe they should just ask you what you think should be done to manage the deer herd...LMAO!!
> ...


Again, mandatory reporting isn't necessarily better...for a long list of reasons:
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."

Arizona just went through this whole debate and determined that it isn't the right thing either:
http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/Hunt ... 081216.pdf
Again, do some reading and learn something!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

the survey collects old data...by the time the sampled information is collected just as many animals will have died from vehicle collisions and starvation as were harvested. mandatory reporting offers the opportunity for "real time" data which can allow for a more responsive game management approach. I for one think it is invaluable to know by the end of October how many elk and deer were killed during the general season. The fact that you have that information 4 months earlier than the sampling survey approach gives wildlife managers the time to examine what the logical approach should be for the remainder of the year. I have no clue how someone could say that mandatory reporting is more expensive than paying someone to make calls and collect data.
Wy2Ut, have you ever hunted a tightly managed ranch? When you kill an animal on the ranch, before the hide is off the animal someone has collected age, pregnancy, antler points, and weight data for that animal. Why??? Because knowledge is power and surveys collect JACK for knowledge...


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> "how a hunter feels" is important because most game management decisions are socio-political. the social aspects of game management always come into play and should...


And once again, what does "how a *hunter* feels about his hunt" have to do with *game* management?
People can say whatever they want about the hunting experience, but I'm pretty sure the MRS section in Eastman's doesn't say anything about how blue the sky was during their hunt.
People hunt with hopes of killing...they either kill or they don't kill...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stablebuck said:


> the survey collects old data...by the time the sampled information is collected just as many animals will have died from vehicle collisions and starvation as were harvested. mandatory reporting offers the opportunity for "real time" data which can allow for a more responsive game management approach. I for one think it is invaluable to know by the end of October how many elk and deer were killed during the general season. The fact that you have that information 4 months earlier than the sampling survey approach gives wildlife managers the time to examine what the logical approach should be for the remainder of the year. I have no clue how someone could say that mandatory reporting is more expensive than paying someone to make calls and collect data.
> Wy2Ut, have you ever hunted a tightly managed ranch? When you kill an animal on the ranch, before the hide is off the animal someone has collected age, pregnancy, antler points, and weight data for that animal. Why??? Because knowledge is power and surveys collect JACK for knowledge...


Another thought!

Another advantage of mandatory reporting could be that we could receive the questions in advance of the hunt in the form of a questionaire that we fill out as we go. It could be mailed with our permit. That way, we would know what to look for and wouldn't have to rely on memory 3 or 4 months later. Of course, if we're going to intentionally lie about it for whatever reason, that wouldn't change, but that already happens with the phone surveys.

Maybe a mandatory reporting system wouldn't give us any further or more accurate data, but it could change how hunters view the hunts and get us more involved. Would that be good or bad? I'd like it, but I'm sure many wouldn't. o-||


----------



## Groganite (Nov 14, 2012)

maybe they should hire more biologists to follow and study the herds..just a thought...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

SB ill agree with you on mandatory reporting. I dont care what drainage it was killed in only unit which is already on the tag. 

I also agree with W2U maybe for the first time:-? That there is a social aspect to managing game. Lol im just suprised he was the one who brought it up. Normally he hides that stuff. I think he was just set on arguing with you from the get go lol. So i want to know days afield, age and how many points the deer had. I want to know if the hunt sucked and why. Was it over crowded. Was there no bucks spotted ect. This could all be worded better than i did but you get the point.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

I've been hunting whitetails in Nebraska for the last two years and I've had to report EVERY deer I killed. It aint that hard and they have all the info they need on every deer harvested. Sure some slip through the cracks, but it's gotta be a hell-of-a-lot more accurate then what these retards are doing. It's a very simple five minute phone call to an automated system that prolly cost the state a couple hundred dollars to implement. It's a no-brainer in my opinion...


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

+1 Tex. I've read the MDWG data and analysis too and there is a synopsis that talks to the benefits of mandatory reporting in the Territories and some other states. Some will drive right by the checkpoint, but that's not much different than some of the idiots I've turned in for processing their animals in camp and then continuing to hunt when it comes to the numbers. Some will poach, some with avoid checkpoints, some will lie, and some will stop and cooperate. Some people don't answer their phone, answer their phone while in the middle of something, some forget how pissed off they were the pressure, some have stewed and gotten more pissed off, some will answer their phone and lie, and then some answer the phone on a really bad day and are rude to the survey taker. 

I only wish the gentleman calling me hadn't knawed on this bubble yum bubble gum through the thing. We've been doing the survey, why not try the check station reporting, especially with the new hunter units? Couldn't hurt. And that two point dink with a 7 inch spread can't turn into a 25 inch wide four by three. Or better yet, the 31 inch 4x4 can't turn into a forkie turd sniffing dink.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Mandatory reporting would be a good option IMO.

But with that being said it really doesn't matter when the survey is done as long as it is before the tag numbers are set. Harvest stats and spring counts have to be finished before numbers are set. (How accurate both are, is up in the air, IMO!) 

With that being said I was called last night and was not bugged by any of the information requested, other than "Which Drainage." Which unit, should suffice.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

IMHO, surveys should be conducted like the Census survey is SUPPOSED to be conducted. Did you hunt, where you successful.......that's it!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> IMHO, surveys should be conducted like the Census survey is SUPPOSED to be conducted. Did you hunt, where you successful.......that's it!


Here's the problem, The DWR's phone lines are ringing off the hook...

Who's calling? Piz'ed off hunters.....

Who are hunters?........ Well, that would be the DWR's customers.

Get the picture :roll:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, surveys should be conducted like the Census survey is SUPPOSED to be conducted. Did you hunt, where you successful.......that's it!
> ...


Not really...that's the problem...every Tom, Dick, and Harry in Utah thinks that Soapstone Basin or Currant Creek is supposed to sacrifice one 26" 4 point buck every year to them after they did nothing but buy a $35 tag. Hunters need to get over themselves and realize that is never gonna happen. Those same ticked off hunters calling the DWR asking the DWR to solve their self-esteem problem should do like the rest of the country does and go pay $5000 to kill a 350" red stag on a game ranch. Until then they need to wake up and realize that public land hunting is exactly that...PUBLIC LAND HUNTING. Without detailed mandatory harvest reporting public land deer hunting in Utah will only continue to decline. For those that think that helping out in completing mandatory harvest reporting is too much...you paid a whole $35 for the tag...


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

We have found out the "Hard Way" in Utah that perception is 9/10 the law.

Overcrowding during the archery hunt is the perfect example of "Perception" vs "Facts"


----------

