# mandatory harvest reporting



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This subject has been brought up a lot of times as a better means to help manage and understand the effects of hunting on big game populations in Utah. I recently came across this paper and thought it to be a well thought out and researched product. Take a look:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E005349.pdf


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

With the communication that we have these days, there is no reason that we should not be reporting on every hunt that we partake in. The information is to valuable.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You didn't read the report....

A few points by the article:
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."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good read. My biggest concern with 'sampling' being adequate for harvest numbers is the DWR is also only getting 'sampling' population counts MOST years. When EVERY count is only a 'sampling', the possibility of flawed/skewed data increases. I was a quality control manager for several years for a large x-ray equipment plant. The more 'samples' I had to chart, the better/more accurate the data. It minimizes the blips up/down and you get a better picture of what is 'really' happening. As a day trader in the stock market I also want as many 'triggering' factors as I can before making a buy/sell/put/call. To limit the amount of data and the diversity of data _seems_ to handcuff the decision making process.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> You didn't read the report....


I'll have to read it later when I'm not at work. Sorry.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Good read. My biggest concern with 'sampling' being adequate for harvest numbers is the DWR is also only getting 'sampling' population counts MOST years. When EVERY count is only a 'sampling', the possibility of flawed/skewed data increases. I was a quality control manager for several years for a large x-ray equipment plant. The more 'samples' I had to chart, the better/more accurate the data. It minimizes the blips up/down and you get a better picture of what is 'really' happening. As a day trader in the stock market I also want as many 'triggering' factors as I can before making a buy/sell/put/call. To limit the amount of data and the diversity of data _seems_ to handcuff the decision making process.


I think this is what the DWR is getting at when they say, "statistically valid" sample. They are trying to get a sample size large enough that the blips up/down are minimized.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Good read. My biggest concern with 'sampling' being adequate for harvest numbers is the DWR is also only getting 'sampling' population counts MOST years. When EVERY count is only a 'sampling', the possibility of flawed/skewed data increases. I was a quality control manager for several years for a large x-ray equipment plant. The more 'samples' I had to chart, the better/more accurate the data. It minimizes the blips up/down and you get a better picture of what is 'really' happening. As a day trader in the stock market I also want as many 'triggering' factors as I can before making a buy/sell/put/call. To limit the amount of data and the diversity of data _seems_ to handcuff the decision making process.
> ...


But Anis stated to me that 25% is what he considers "statistically valid". That doesn't cut it for this stat freak. :?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> wyoming2utah


Thanks for the Readers Digest version and boy did I miss the boat. 

Personally as far as I'm concerned, the very best is the check station at the mouth of the canyon. But I realize that costs a bunch.

I have a tough time trusting samples. This goes along with trusting peoples input from the hunter reporting. If we could trust everybody to do an honest report, then the hunter reports would be a good tool. If I could trust the government to pull a balanced sample and not lean it towards a pet project life would be grand. When you are taking samples and doing statics I contend you can make it say what you want.

Who do I trust?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And I still think that a mandatory report can be a valuable tool, but maybe when used with other information.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Who do I trust?


When in doubt, go with the PRO! *\-\*


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I think this is what the DWR is getting at when they say, "statistically valid" sample. They are trying to get a sample size large enough that the blips up/down are minimized.


But Anis stated to me that 25% is what he considers "statistically valid". That doesn't cut it for this stat freak. :?[/quote]

I am not an expert in stats...but, the report I have been quoting states that "Optimal 
sampling within the deer or moose programs would produce statistically valid 
harvest estimates with about 30 per cent of hunters sampled."

Also, "Effective management takes place by assessing the relative importance of the 
combination of factors and constructing a local harvest management "model" which is tested and adjusted over time. In effect, decisions are based on relative, long term conditions and average harvests, *not accurate annual information*. For effective management, objectives are set. These are usually population targets or a surrogate for population size. Where harvest control is an important component to achieving these objectives, harvest is restricted if populations are (or appear to be) declining, and liberalized if populations are increasing." Personally, I think this is what we are doing.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is what the DWR is getting at when they say, "statistically valid" sample. They are trying to get a sample size large enough that the blips up/down are minimized.
> ...





> I am not an expert in stats...but, the report I have been quoting states that "Optimal
> sampling within the deer or moose programs would produce statistically valid
> harvest estimates with about 30 per cent of hunters sampled."
> 
> ...


In wildlife management I think short term goals are an important item along with the long term goals.

Example, I have a set number of animals as a long term goal. If one year we have a severe winter I should not do nothing the following year and rely on the long term to correct itself. That following year I should adjust the permit numbers to recover more quickly. So the more current your information the better. And that is without messing with my long term goals.

I guess in a nut shell I can also do the same thing with the mandatory information. People are people of habit. If I have a mandatory report for 20 years, I believe you will see trends. Those trends then can be used with other data collected. In the long run more data collected the better you can make a decision, even if some of it is wrong. If you are looking at that trend and trends from other areas you will better off.

So why right it off?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Then how do you explain the elk herd on the Monroe 'suddenly' being at 50% of population objective? How do you explain the 'sudden' number of bison on the Henries being far greater than previously 'assumed'? It is examples like this, along with the DWR issuing count numbers they KNOW are not accurate, such as the population of elk on the Boulder elk unit. It is difficult for me to have faith in all the numbers when I can find flaws with so many of them. The mere fact that they are FORCING archers to be confined to ONE region for the first 18 days of the hunt "in order to have a better idea of how many hunters we have in each region to asses if over-crowding is a problem" when the DWR has NO DEFINITION of what constitutes 'over-crowding' to begin with makes me question the ability of the 'science' being applied by people more worried about 'social' issues rather than biology. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> If I have a mandatory report for 20 years, I believe you will see trends. Those trends then can be used with other data collected. In the long run more data collected the better you can make a decision, even if some of it is wrong. If you are looking at that trend and trends from other areas you will better off.
> 
> So why right it off?


Again, like the report says, if mandatory reporting is giving you the exact numbers for a unit and sampling is giving you statistically valid estimates for a unit, you gain nothing by exact numbers. For example, if unit 99 has 101 deer shot in year #1, 110 deer shot in year #2, and 95 deer shot in year #3, for a 3-year average of 102 deer....that information is virtually identical to a statistically valid estimate that puts deer harvest between 95 and 110 deer.

My point is that mandatory harvest reporting has its flaws and it is very expensive. If we could come up with a way to gather, dissect, evaluate, and effectively mandate these reports at a cost similar to or just slightly more than current surveys they may be of worth. As is, though, I don't see them being of any more value...especially considering their cost.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Then how do you explain the elk herd on the Monroe 'suddenly' being at 50% of population objective? How do you explain the 'sudden' number of bison on the Henries being far greater than previously 'assumed'? It is examples like this, along with the DWR issuing count numbers they KNOW are not accurate, such as the population of elk on the Boulder elk unit. It is difficult for me to have faith in all the numbers when I can find flaws with so many of them. The mere fact that they are FORCING archers to be confined to ONE region for the first 18 days of the hunt "in order to have a better idea of how many hunters we have in each region to asses if over-crowding is a problem" when the DWR has NO DEFINITION of what constitutes 'over-crowding' to begin with makes me question the ability of the 'science' being applied by people more worried about 'social' issues rather than biology. :?


Hold on...you are talking about two different things here. You are talking about population estimates versus harvest estimates. You are comparing apples to oranges.

What you seem to forget about counts is that animals ignore unit boundaries. A count on Boulder Mountain one week, for example, may yield a totally different count the next just based on weather patterns. This is also why aerial counts are not the end all for population surveys...and why estimates are usually called "Winter" population estimates.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > If I have a mandatory report for 20 years, I believe you will see trends. Those trends then can be used with other data collected. In the long run more data collected the better you can make a decision, even if some of it is wrong. If you are looking at that trend and trends from other areas you will better off.
> ...


And I appreciate the world of information that you and Pro pass on. I am one who has changed my thinking on issues because of the conversations on here. While sometimes its a bitter pill.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> *This works fine when there is no sharp change. Where there is a sharp change outside the statistical average the current information is more important.*


This is where statistically valid samples come into play....if it can be determined what is statistically valid...these sharp changes do NOT occur. But, even if they did, one year changes usually do not effect regulations or harvest numbers. Tag quotas and management plans usually look at 3 or even 5 year averages....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hold on...you are talking about two different things here. You are talking about population estimates versus harvest estimates. You are comparing apples to oranges. No, as I mentioned earlier, when you have 'questionable' data gathered in one arena, why would I assume it's 100% accurate in other arenas? Combine 'estimated' populations with 'estimated' harvest numbers and you have 'estimated outcomes that can be close/far from desired outcomes.
> 
> What you seem to forget about counts is that animals ignore unit boundaries. A count on Boulder Mountain one week, for example, may yield a totally different count the next just based on weather patterns. This is also why aerial counts are not the end all for population surveys...and why estimates are usually called "Winter" population estimates. When I get reports sent to me by the DWR, the populations that put in their reports are supposed to reflect actual populations. What good can come from publishing reports that state the Boulder has TWO HUNDRED elk while issuing 70+ mature bull tags, unlimited number of spike tags, and unknown number of cow tags? How does that explain the 'sudden' discovery of a pile more bison?


 My point is; I like data, the more data gathered/provided the more accurate the outcome likely will be. If you gather feedback from 30 hunters and I gather feedback from 100 hunters, who has more data to cipher through? If 5 of your 30 hunters give bogus info you have a bigger effect on the 'estimated' results than if the same percentage of hunters (17%) gave bogus info from my 100 hunter pool. More data lessens the possibility of flawed data skewing the end analysis.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > *This works fine when there is no sharp change. Where there is a sharp change outside the statistical average the current information is more important.*
> ...


One or two year changes should not effect regulations or long term management plans. They should effect harvest and tag quotas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> One or two year changes should not effect regulations or long term management plans. They should effect harvest and tag quotas.


This is not necessarily true...again the picture is much larger. Many more factors would come into play than simply a one or two year change in one area. If harvest reports showed a sudden surge in hunter success that shouldn't necessarily effect a tag quota...other factors would have to be considered.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> My point is; I like data, the more data gathered/provided the more accurate the outcome likely will be. If you gather feedback from 30 hunters and I gather feedback from 100 hunters, who has more data to cipher through? If 5 of your 30 hunters give bogus info you have a bigger effect on the 'estimated' results than if the same percentage of hunters (17%) gave bogus info from my 100 hunter pool. More data lessens the possibility of flawed data skewing the end analysis.


From the report:
"The one fundamental question relating to the validity of mandatory reporting 
is "Is information from 100 per cent of hunters absolutely essential in order to 
manage harvests effectively?" The simple answer is "no". Many agencies have 
been managing in the absence of mandatory reporting and with positive results 
for many decades. This does not imply that management cannot be improved 
with better organized information, but there are many aspects of Ontario's [or Utah's] 
current system that should be examined and possibly improved before 
concluding that a complete census is required. 
There is a belief that better management will result from the larger amount of 
information obtained through mandatory reporting. However, larger amounts of 
raw data do not translate into larger amounts of information if systems are not in 
place to manage and analyse the data. Assessing and improving the systems 
designed to manage the current voluntarily provided data should be completed 
before a leap is made to mandatory reporting."

Imagine the amount of information that would have to be analyzed if Utah started requiring the mandatory reporting of general season deer and elk hunting.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > One or two year changes should not effect regulations or long term management plans. They should effect harvest and tag quotas.
> ...


If I'm in an area that is having problems why would I not want to adjust my tags if there was a surge in success?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > My point is; I like data, the more data gathered/provided the more accurate the outcome likely will be. If you gather feedback from 30 hunters and I gather feedback from 100 hunters, who has more data to cipher through? If 5 of your 30 hunters give bogus info you have a bigger effect on the 'estimated' results than if the same percentage of hunters (17%) gave bogus info from my 100 hunter pool. More data lessens the possibility of flawed data skewing the end analysis.
> ...


It depends on the questions that are asked? One or two questions are easy to analyze. You can start out slow and simple. Harvest and where.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Imagine the amount of information that would have to be analyzed if Utah started requiring the mandatory reporting of general season deer and elk hunting.


There is this amazing thing called technology. :wink: It allows for programming that automatically does the analyzing for you. I get instantaneous data on stocks that is in the MILLIONS as far as the amount of data being compiled 'live'. The relatively SMALL amount of data gathered from Utah big game hunters is grade school level programming to chart trends/'estimates'.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> If I'm in an area that is having problems why would I not want to adjust my tags if there was a surge in success?


What were the reasons for the surge? That is the first question that must be asked. Maybe the surge in hunter success was a surge in the recruitment of new animals and therefore a surge in the population. Perhaps the surge was simply a bonus for an area that is doing well. Remember, we are shooting the surplus animals...and the does are the key for future population numbers. It is not past success or even current success that stipulates tag numbers...it is the number of current animals. Even if the success rate was near 100%, if the buck/doe ratio for a unit falls within the objective, the unit is still ok. The same thing would apply for Monroe Mountain....if hunter success jumped up to 50% one year, but post-hunt classifications found buck/doe ratios 15 or above, there would be no reason to adjust tag numbers.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm in an area that is having problems why would I not want to adjust my tags if there was a surge in success?
> ...


You are assuming that you are close to or at objectives. Assume that you are in an area that is at say 80% of objectives. A surge of hunters to an area along with a bad winter (which would take out your does) could cause a drop that goes outside your average.

Why would you not want to make an adjustment the following year or so?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> You are assuming that you are close to or at objectives. Assume that you are in an area that is at say 80% of objectives. A surge of hunters to an area along with a bad winter (which would take out your does) could cause a drop that goes outside your average.
> 
> Why would you not want to make an adjustment the following year or so?


If a unit is below the post-hunt objective, a surge in hunter success should equate to a reduction in tags. If a unit is at or above the post-hunt objective, it is not necessary to reduce tags. Reducing tags in a unit that has a hard winter, for example, may be helpful to the buck/doe ratio, but it doesn't necessarily help the total population. Again, you are talking about a buck hunt....and, it is the does that give birth. IN such a scenario, giving too few tags could be more detrimental than giving too many--if too few bucks are killed in an area below herd objectives, it is possible that those bucks replace/outcompete does the following winter for food and we lose recruitment.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > You are assuming that you are close to or at objectives. Assume that you are in an area that is at say 80% of objectives. A surge of hunters to an area along with a bad winter (which would take out your does) could cause a drop that goes outside your average.
> ...


How do you make that decision without the current info and not some average or five year trend?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> How do you make that decision without the current info and not some average or five year trend?


We do have the current info...every year the DWR does both classification counts and hunter surveys to determine harvest rates.

But on those same lines, the whole reason we don't base tag numbers on one year is because of trends. One year's numbers do NOT make a trend because many other factors come into play. Weather, for example, can have a major effect on hunter success rates.

On Monroe Mountain, the three year average has been below 15. It should be higher, so some action should take place to get that average up. In 2004, the ratio was 7/100, in 2005, it was 9/100, and in 2006 it was 13/100. I don't have the 2007 or 2008 numbers, but let's say, for example that in 2007 the ratio went up to 16 and then dropped back to 10 in 2008. Despite the jump, the three year averages would have stayed below objective so in 2007, no action should have been taken and efforts should have remained in place to get three year averages up.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > How do you make that decision without the current info and not some average or five year trend?
> ...


This is were you and I disagree. If I lost 40% in one year I would take a temporary corrective action until my trend was back on track.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> This is were you and I disagree. If I lost 40% in one year I would take a temporary corrective action until my trend was back on track.


What about the flipside? If your buck/doe ratio was over objective one year, would you increase tags the following year?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > This is were you and I disagree. If I lost 40% in one year I would take a temporary corrective action until my trend was back on track.
> ...


Now we are still talking about a large spike. A spike on the high side would depend on other information available. But yes I could see scenerios that would call for more tags, as well as scenerios that said wait.

I'll ask it again , why would I want to wait 5 years to take a corrective action? As you have indicated before, I get over my objective, I have a bad winter, my recovery will be slower because I have to many bucks (recruitment).

As Pro indicated earlier and I am inclined to feel the same way more information is better. In this day and age of the computer, gathering this information and quantifying is not that big a deal.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> As Pro indicated earlier and I am inclined to feel the same way more information is better. In this day and age of the computer, gathering this information and quantifying is not that big a deal.


True! The cost argument against mandatory reporting isn't an issue now, especially considering what it costs to pay uninterested telemarketers who are just doing a job to call me on the phone (usually at an inconvenient time) and ask me questions about specific events that took place several weeks or months before, most of which I have a hard time remembering because I don't have to. That costs money! Any necessary required information/questions in a mandatory report can be sent to the permit holder along with the permit so that he/she can gather the information during the hunt and report it back to the DWR over the internet. And I suspect there are computer programs already in place that can sort out and analyze this information down to the details needed. How are they doing it now, if not by computer?

And the enforcement of the program is also in place! After all, we are now applying for all permits online using an "account" number, and the DWR knows already who has which permits and can determine who reports and who doesn't by looking at their "account". And if you don't report, you don't get to hunt the next year!!

One other aspect that didn't come out in the article is the involvement of the hunter in the decision making process. Most of us are silent and/or are reluctant to speak about issues we don't think we can do anything about. Many hunters don't get involved with the process, but this way, they will. Especially if there is a comment/survey portion of the report. And this involvement will also put more of a commitment into this aspect of their lives.

Will there be some falsification of the details of the report? Probably, but there is already on the phone calls and I can't imagine it will increase or decrease any more than now! Will it be a problem due to it being a computer report? No, because a person can't get a permit in the first place unless he/she has access to a computer and the necessary skills to use it. Will it be an issue of additional governmental control over an individual? No, because hunting, like driving, fishing, flying an airplane, operating a HAM radio, or picnicking in the park, isn't a right, but a privilege that carries with it certain rules and regulations. If you're not willing to comply with the rules and regulations of an activity, then don't participate! We are required already to take a mandatory hunter safety course, to take a mandatory ethics course to hunt the Extended Archery Areas, to make a mandatory report when hunting other species, and to comply with the many rules and regulations printed in each proclamation, so a mandatory report for all big game is no different and would be just part of hunting. It isn't a cure-all, but it would be immensely valuable in solving many of the problems addressed in this forum, including the "perceived" overcrowding problem.

I, for one, would like to see it happen!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Good post, elkfromabove. There's no reason NOT to have mandatory reporting.

That said, I wish we could get past this issue so we could move on to gathering data that's much more important. Typically, we focus too much on the hunt and harvest when we should put first things first and focus a lot more on habitat data. Our current method of collecting comparative range trend data every 3 years is woefully inadequate. To continue to ignore habitat with the exception of a handful of token projects while we focus on head count samples is like growing a garden without bothering to test and prepare the soil.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I agree with you guys what's so hard about reporting your harvest info; in a lot of states I've hunted in you have to check your animals in at a check station, so on-line reporting is no big deal.

Imo if you are arguing for better deer or elk management you have no to leg to stand if you oppose mandatory reporting.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I'll ask it again , why would I want to wait 5 years to take a corrective action? As you have indicated before, I get over my objective, I have a bad winter, my recovery will be slower because I have to many bucks (recruitment).
> 
> As Pro indicated earlier and I am inclined to feel the same way more information is better. In this day and age of the computer, gathering this information and quantifying is not that big a deal.


For deer and elk hunting, the DWR wouldn't wait five years for a corrective action...it all depends on the trend. Trends are based on three year averages. What that means is simple: if one year's numbers forced three-year averages below objective, corrective actions would be taken. IF they do not, no action needs to take place because it could just be a one year problem that corrects itself the next. In such a case, you would be unnecessarily restricting hunters. Remember, buck harvests have very little impact on deer populations. You are NOT risking anything by not making a corrective action.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Will there be some falsification of the details of the report? Probably, but there is already on the phone calls and I can't imagine it will increase or decrease any more than now!


One problem with mandatory reporting versus voluntary reporting, though, is that the falsification of data errs on the wrong side. "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."

Also, I, again, question what do we gain by having more information on hunter harvests? "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)..."



elkfromabove said:


> And if you don't report, you don't get to hunt the next year!!


At first thought, the idea of not allowing people to hunt unless they submit a harvest report sounds like a good idea. However, there is a significant problem with it as well. We are talking about general season hunting. From everything I have read about mandatory reporting, I have learned that it is NEVER 100%--in other words, a percentage of the hunting public always fails to submit their reports. In some cases, the percentage of hunters failing to report is as high as 35-40%. So what, right? That only makes the hunting better for those who take it serious and do what they are supposed to, right? Well, yes an no. Where does the DWR get its money? What is the number one problem wildlife agencies across the country are facing...isn't it hunter retention and recruitment? Can we afford to lose 25% of our hunters just because they don't fill out a harvest report....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> At first thought, the idea of not allowing people to hunt unless they submit a harvest report sounds like a good idea. However, there is a significant problem with it as well. We are talking about general season hunting. From everything I have read about mandatory reporting, I have learned that it is NEVER 100%--in other words, a percentage of the hunting public always fails to submit their reports. In some cases, the percentage of hunters failing to report is as high as 35-40%. So what, right? That only makes the hunting better for those who take it serious and do what they are supposed to, right? Well, yes an no. Where does the DWR get its money? What is the number one problem wildlife agencies across the country are facing...isn't it hunter retention and recruitment? Can we afford to lose 25% of our hunters just because they don't fill out a harvest report....


Does Idaho have a lower retention/recruitment of hunters than Utah? I can't find any info showing they do, yet they have had mandatory reporting in place for more than 10 years. You can't even so much as buy a fishing license if you fail to fill out your hunting survey (that takes FIVE MINUTES to complete). You are relying on ONE study from Canada (Canada?) when there is amble evidence that is newer and closer to home that shows it can be implemented with little/no heartburn from the general hunting public. Mandatory reporting can support/dispute field counts, which can trigger certain responses from the DWR. It is unwise to rely on one source of info when other sources are available if utilized.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You are relying on ONE study from Canada (Canada?) when there is amble evidence that is newer and closer to home that shows it can be implemented with little/no heartburn from the general hunting public. Mandatory reporting can support/dispute field counts, which can trigger certain responses from the DWR. It is unwise to rely on one source of info when other sources are available if utilized.


That is not true...I have several other sources of information. I am just quoting the one source. In fact, the one report I have is from Idaho...it shows a non-compliance rate for required deer reports to be just over 20%. Interestingly, Idaho has also dropped mandatory harvest reporting for moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats because of increasing costs. Also interestingly, Idaho contracts with Systems Consultants, Inc., from Fallon Nevada to process the surveys...I am sure this company doesn't do the work for free. So, a mandatory harvest report would probably result in non-compliance of around 20% (which would mean a 20% drop in license sales) and the increased cost of paying an outside company to process the information. With the recent economy, where do you suppose the DWR would get this money?

IF you want to even get closer to home, we could look at the problems occurring in Washington with their mandatory harvest reporting. "Compared to past years, we should have received a significantly higher number of reports by now," said Dave Ware, WDFW Game Division Manager. The number of hunters who meet the deadline has decreased every year since 2001 when the mandatory reporting program was put in place."

A separate document shows that in Idaho "According to minutes of the November 1997 commission meeting, the commission decided to run the phone survey and mandatory hunter harvest report concurrently for three years to determine which method provided more accurate and timely data. At that time, department staff estimated the cost of the mandatory hunter harvest report at $287,800 per year. According to the department's interim assistant director, the department also expanded the amount spent on the deer and elk hunter harvest telephone survey from $112,776 for the 1997 hunt season to $218,705 for the 1998 hunt season, so that the survey sample size could be increased."

In Idaho's comparison of the two types of surveys, "According to the statistician we consulted, the calculations done by the two groups were not comparable, and neither calculation provided an error rate or answered the question of which method is more accurate. According to this expert, both the mandatory hunter harvest report and the telephone survey provide estimates of the actual harvest and are, therefore, subject to some error. However, steps could be taken to minimize error and bias using either of the methods. As a result, "if both methods are carried out correctly, neither is considered superior from a statistical standpoint."

Idaho has continued their mandatory reporting largely as a result of pressure from sportsmen groups.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask it again , why would I want to wait 5 years to take a corrective action? As you have indicated before, I get over my objective, I have a bad winter, my recovery will be slower because I have to many bucks (recruitment).
> ...


Still using the scenerios that we have been talking about, it does not matter High or Low spike, if I had a 40% shift I still would not want to wait to see. If the other documentation including the mandatory verified the sharp change, why would I want to what? I would rather make a small change now. That is why more inforamtion is better. The total information should verify each other and allow a better informed decision as to whether to wait or not.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> If the other documentation including the mandatory verified the sharp change, why would I want to what? .


Because you don't know if it is a trend or a one year anomaly. Again, why unnecessarily restrict hunters for an anomaly. Again, it is buck hunting....we are talking about Buck-only seasons that generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does.

FWIW, Idaho--the same state that does use annual mandatory harvest reporting--also looks at 3-year averages to "account for annual variation".


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> One problem with mandatory reporting versus voluntary reporting, though, is that the falsification of data errs on the wrong side. "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."


That may be true, but knowing that, the necessary adjustments could be made to get a truer picture. And the true numbers, as you've indicated below, would still be in the range needed the make the necessary management decisions.



> Also, I, again, question what do we gain by having more information on hunter harvests? "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)..."


Again, that may be true, but the report isn't just about the numbers harvested, but also about the specific areas hunted, the number of days/hours in the field, the number of hunters seen, the number of animals seen, the sex, ages, and trophy quality of animals seen and harvested, the satisfaction of the hunt, and any comments and/or suggestions for improvement of the hunt and/or animals. Additionally, it requires/allows the hunter to become part of decision making process, and obligates the DWR to consider that public imput, which, IMO, is good for the sport!



> At first thought, the idea of not allowing people to hunt unless they submit a harvest report sounds like a good idea. However, there is a significant problem with it as well. We are talking about general season hunting. From everything I have read about mandatory reporting, I have learned that it is NEVER 100%--in other words, a percentage of the hunting public always fails to submit their reports. In some cases, the percentage of hunters failing to report is as high as 35-40%.


We may never get 100%, but given a few years, it will be very close. Additionally, provisions can be made even for late reports, incomplete reports, etc. (A small late fee, flexible time limits, reminders, etc.), so that forgetful hunters can still make the report and get in on the following year's hunts.



> So what, right? That only makes the hunting better for those who take it serious and do what they are supposed to, right? Well, yes an no. Where does the DWR get its money? What is the number one problem wildlife agencies across the country are facing...isn't it hunter retention and recruitment? Can we afford to lose 25% of our hunters just because they don't fill out a harvest report....


Even in your worst case scenario I don't see a problem with the DWR getting its money and that's because at least 25% of the current applicants are unsuccessful in the draw now, and if 25% of the hunters were to drop out or be ousted for failing to report, the permits will still be sold. Its just that a higher percentage of the applicants would be successful. And with that higher success rate will come an increased interest in hunting, especially with the children and grandchildren of the hunters who take it more seriously.

Perhaps I'm more focused on the perceived overcrowding problem in the Southern Region and what it is leading to than I should be, but, IMHO, this should never have been considered and implemented under the circumstances it was. With proper reporting we would know who's complaining, how many complained, what specific areas are overcrowded, how many hunters caused the overcrowding, and, in fact, what overcrowding means. We were given none of this information.

And proper reporting gives us great information on the health of the herds and the habitat they use.

Maybe a two tier reporting system would work, ie: A minimal required report and a voluntary expanded report. I, for one, would give them all the true information I could, as long as I knew what was needed and could gather it during the hunt!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Perhaps I'm more focused on the perceived overcrowding problem in the Southern Region and what it is leading to than I should be, but, IMHO, this should never have been considered and implemented under the circumstances it was. With proper reporting we would know who's complaining, how many complained, what specific areas are overcrowded, how many hunters caused the overcrowding, and, in fact, what overcrowding means. We were given none of this information.
> 
> And proper reporting gives us great information on the health of the herds and the habitat they use.
> 
> Maybe a two tier reporting system would work, ie: A minimal required report and a voluntary expanded report. I, for one, would give them all the true information I could, as long as I knew what was needed and could gather it during the hunt!


Well stated!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > You are relying on ONE study from Canada (Canada?) when there is amble evidence that is newer and closer to home that shows it can be implemented with little/no heartburn from the general hunting public. Mandatory reporting can support/dispute field counts, which can trigger certain responses from the DWR. It is unwise to rely on one source of info when other sources are available if utilized.
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> *So what, I have 80% to work with.
> 
> So I can use the universities to phone people, but I can not work with the universities to develope a report?
> 
> ...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> 1) The 80% to work with that is not statistically any better than what was gathered by telephone surveys. *Depends on how you treat the information. If all I am looking for is how you are currently using the information, maybe so. But if I am using the information as discribed earlier (spikes and corrective action) than maybe not.*
> 
> 2) Sure you can work with the universities....but don't think for a second that changing systems from a non-mandatory telephone survey to a mandatory reporting is not going to add costs and require an increase in money. And, is the information really any better? From everything I have read and learned, it is not!*There is always upfront costs. Idaho even had to add money to the phone side. This tells me that they were not comparing apples to apples. But after the up front costs the remaining costs should go way down.*
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> There is always upfront costs. Idaho even had to add money to the phone side. This tells me that they were not comparing apples to apples. But after the up front costs the remaining costs should go way down.[/b]
> 
> *I would like to see their spread sheet on the costs. If you are comparing a running survey to a brand new one, well thats apples and oranges. What was the up front costs of the phone survey. Was that included in the $38000.*


Ok...but the numbers I gave you were estimates after Idaho had the program up and running for two years. So, these estimates had nothing to do with up-front costs. Adding in the up front costs would have increased those total costs.



Huntoholic said:


> No you would get hunters to comply or the rest of us are going to have good draws. There is a lot of things that you could do, i.e. loose bonus points, fishing. The reason people don't comply is their is no punishment that is enforced.[/b]


That is your assumption, but it is not true. Idaho's non-compliance rate has stayed above 20% virtually every year...Washington's has actually decreased year in and year out. Their consequences have changed because they wanted to decriminalize failure to report and increase the number of hunters reporting on time. Also, they "don't want to put hunters in jail for not following the reporting rules, but we really need this hunting data." One of Washington's incentives for complying is a drawing for special hunting permits as an incentive to hunters to file their reports early.



Huntoholic said:


> *We have to put in for just about all our hunts. No report no hunting or fishing. Everything is on the computer.*


Those numbers still have to be process and analyzed....even if it is submitted on computer, it still takes human time and costs money.



Huntoholic said:


> *How do you do this with out calling everybody. How do you know where I hunted without talking to me? So what they are saying to me is that they are probable not getting currently the right information since there consultant is recommending more information on the unit level.*


You can't do it with your harvest reports either because not all information gathered is accurate. The only accurate way of determining this information is through tags given and requiring hunters to choose. Also, in Utah's case with the overcrowding issue, a mandatory harvest reporting system gives incentive for hunters to lie to try and trick the system.

As for Idaho, "According to the department's interim assistant director, the department also expanded the amount spent on the deer and elk hunter harvest telephone survey from $112,776 for the 1997 hunt season to $218,705 for the 1998 hunt season, so that the survey sample size could be increased." However, according to the statistician who helped audit Idaho's system, "[currently] the sample sizes used far exceed the minimum number required". The audit declared that neither the mandatory reports nor the telephone surveys were better and that both had problems that needed correcting.

IN 2008, an update was given at Idaho's commission meeting: "Bruce Ackerman, Wildlife Staff Biologist, provided a report to the Commission on the Mandatory Harvest Report system, including successes, challenges, and potential changes for improvement (Appendix 41, Exhibit 4). He noted that in 1998, the Department implemented a new Mandatory Harvest Report (MHR) system to estimate total harvest of deer, elk, and pronghorn. All deer, elk, and pronghorn hunters must complete and file a MHR, regardless of harvest success. Currently, the Department issues approximately 250,000 reports to hunters annually, with nearly 80% compliance. Approximate annual cost to the Department is $250,000."

The MHR has increased the amount of information, and in some cases improved the 
information, used for making management decisions. However, paper copies sent 
through the mail, invalid responses, and declining compliance over the past decade 
continually provide challenges to obtaining accurate and timely harvest information."



Huntoholic said:


> This is only good if it enforced. This fine seems dumb to me. Take away his hunting and fishing. He will help or we don't want his kind in the field any way.[/b]


Actually, what Washington tried wasn't good because they were making too many criminals and it was costing the state too much to actually enforce the law. So, they revised it. They added an incentive draw and a $50 fine to those who choose not to report. The $50 fine was issued in part to help fund the reporting. Interestingly, Utah has a similar fine for non-compliance with its mandatory reporting with LE hunts.

What would be stupid is to punish fishermen for the mistakes of hunters. IF you took away a hunters ability to purchase a fishing license, the state would definitely lose fishing dollars which, in turn, would hurt fisheries programs.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> wyoming2utah


Like I said I would have to see what was included in the $300,000 vs $38,000. To much difference. All you are doing is putting information in columns. We have surveys on this forum and I know they don't cost $300,000.

As you yourself pointed there is a way to get a benefit from the survey. Information in a timely manner or a fine that is not off the books, but high enough to benefit wildlife.

That right, analyzing should be all most the same whether it is mandatory or phone. I still believe putting the information into columns the computer can do just like the forum surveys.

And they don't try and trick the phone surveys. If people lie they are going to do it whether by phone or computer.

Depends on the information you are asking. The fact that they increase their phone survey and it still need work says what? To me it says previous years could be wrong.

The only fisherman that are punished are the hunters who don't report. You don't think my wife is going to remind me to fill the report out when I don't have a fishing liceince or it cost me another $100. I'll only forget once. Are you going to throw 12 LE bonus points away. Not me.

I'm sorry, but with a little thought I beleive you could come up with a program that was worth while and benefical. A lot of the time in government it starts out simple and after everybody and their dog puts their wish list together it kills it. Keep it simple.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Like I said I would have to see what was included in the $300,000 vs $38,000. To much difference. All you are doing is putting information in columns. We have surveys on this forum and I know they don't cost $300,000.


The cost includes more than just putting information in columns. I don't have a breakdown of the costs, or I would post it. I am simply believing their research. The latest information I can find estimates yearly costs of conducting mandatory harvest reports in Idaho at $250,000...which is considerably more than the 112,000 they were spending on phone surveys. For, what Idaho's Game and Fish says, is virtually the same information.


Huntoholic said:


> As you yourself pointed there is a way to get a benefit from the survey. Information in a timely manner or a fine that is not off the books, but high enough to benefit wildlife.


The question isn't as to the benefit, but to the cost-effectiveness. Is the money spent justifiable? Or, can we get similar information by spending far less money? Is that money better spent elsewhere?



Huntoholic said:


> That right, analyzing should be all most the same whether it is mandatory or phone. I still believe putting the information into columns the computer can do just like the forum surveys.


A random telephone survey should require less time to evaluate because the quantity is less. And, I still think there is much more to be done than simply putting information into columns.


Huntoholic said:


> And they don't try and trick the phone surveys. If people lie they are going to do it whether by phone or computer.


Sure people lie regardless; however, I was pointing out the idea that the incentive to lie would increase if people had fear of losing something--like in the case of statewide archery. The current plan is 100% accurate and cannot be tricked.



Huntoholic said:


> Depends on the information you are asking. The fact that they increase their phone survey and it still need work says what? To me it says previous years could be wrong.


Nobody said the information from Idaho was wrong. They increased their phone survey to assure validity. The statistician said they had excess information that was NOT necessary. However, in order to improve their information it should be gathered on a per unit basis instead of a statewide basis. For our archery/dedicated hunter hunts we will be doing this.



Huntoholic said:


> The only fisherman that are punished are the hunters who don't report. You don't think my wife is going to remind me to fill the report out when I don't have a fishing liceince or it cost me another $100. I'll only forget once. Are you going to throw 12 LE bonus points away. Not me.


I disagree 100%...every fisherman in the state would be punished by a program that took money away from fisheries programs. IF a hunter was not allowed or did not purchase a fishing license because he failed to turn in a mandatory harvest report, that is money lost. IF Utah had 20% non-compliance and of that 20%, 15% were hunters who usually purchased fishing licenses, state fishery programs would lose the money that 15% supplied. That could mean a decrease in stocking at community fishing programs or popular reservoirs among other things. Fishermen would definitely be punished by hunters....that is not right.



Huntoholic said:


> I'm sorry, but with a little thought I beleive you could come up with a program that was worth while and benefical. A lot of the time in government it starts out simple and after everybody and their dog puts their wish list together it kills it. Keep it simple.


I think a program could be implemented that was worthwhile and beneficial too. My question is why should we look at something new? I believe we are already on the right track...a new system is unnecessary.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said I would have to see what was included in the $300,000 vs $38,000. To much difference. All you are doing is putting information in columns. We have surveys on this forum and I know they don't cost $300,000.
> ...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I just got off the phone with a youngster from the DWR who was taking survey samples from the archery elk hunt. Even though I knew precisely where I hunted, it took her forever to find the place on the map and I had to tell her the unit 3 times before she finally figured it out. She didn't want any details about my hunt on the extended, which is where the majority of my hunt took place. Then she insisted that she needed to know how many "times" I went hunting elk. I asked her if she meant days and she repeated "times". 30 days, I told her. She asked how many times that was. :roll: 

The point is, gathering info this way is knotheaded. A simple online form would be faster, easier, cheaper and more accurate. I gave an accurate report, but I somehow doubt she recorded my report accurately, which compounds any errors due to false reporting from others. I find it hard to believe that mandatory reporting (online) could possibly be any less accurate than the current method of sampling.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I just got off the phone with a youngster from the DWR who was taking survey samples from the archery elk hunt. Even though I knew precisely where I hunted, it took her forever to find the place on the map and I had to tell her the unit 3 times before she finally figured it out. She didn't want any details about my hunt on the extended, which is where the majority of my hunt took place. Then she insisted that she needed to know how many "times" I went hunting elk. I asked her if she meant days and she repeated "times". 30 days, I told her. She asked how many times that was. :roll:
> 
> The point is, gathering info this way is knotheaded. A simple online form would be faster, easier, cheaper and more accurate. I gave an accurate report, but I somehow doubt she recorded my report accurately, which compounds any errors due to false reporting from others. I find it hard to believe that mandatory reporting (online) could possibly be any less accurate than the current method of sampling.


Gee whiz Finn, that's ridiculous! I guy that I work with talked to a gal as well and he said she didn't have much of a clue as to what and where he was talking about. Probably same girl.

I agree that a simple online form would be better... or get someone who has a clue.

sawsman


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

I think I must have had the same girl call me last week. It was a very long pause after I told her I hunted Mt. Dutton. I thought that answer would be very clear for someone trying to find out what unit I hunted.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

That is what I was saying earlier. I have taken 2 of these surveys this year and both times hung up and wondered if the information was recorded right.


----------

