Did anybody know?

[SPIKER]

According to a recent New York Department of Environmental Conservation report the Empire State's whitetail hunters killed an estimated 189,108 deer, including 96,569 antlered bucks, during the 2006 season.

That's a five percent increase compared to 2005, with the buck take up 8 percent.

This reversed a three year downward trend.

Different counties had different totals...but......

DID ANYONE KNOW?

Deer kills are computer generated calculations, based on an extensive sampling of deer by DEC personnel during the fall season.

State technicians, and biologists drop in at meat processors, jot down tag information, and forward the data to statistical experts in Albany.

Essentially, the states computer program assumes that the hunters whose meat is randomly inspected, report their kills to the state at the same rates as those whose deer aren't checked.

"The computer generated figure is necessary because only about 60 percent of hunters actually report their kills to the state - even though they are legally required to do so...

Let me stop here for a minute.

This is a report that I am reading, not something that I am making up....am I the only with a problem with that last statement?

I'm not even going to go into the numbers because obviously they are fake!!

I can't believe it, that's why they say "estimated"..excuse me for those of you who already knew this, but I feel like I just found out the Easter Bunny isn't real!

[elk4me]

the Easter Bunny isnt real .

[michihunter]

I'm gonna find a post on the MI Sportsman board that revolved around the different techniques used to gather data. Believe it or not, the states that have mandatory check ins are the LEAST accurate there is. Blew me away. I'm almost positive I posted it here before. Maybe not. Here's the post copied/pasted in the next response. As I said, blew me away but makes absolute sense when you think about it.

[michihunter]

Mandatory Deer Check-In..The Myth!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The value of mandatory check-in to tabulate the deer harvest is a myth. Here's the communcation that I had with an Ohio DNR whitetail biologist concerning MDCI. Ohio is a state that uses MDCI.

Sorry about the words in red font.......it's a short story, but not really relevant to what the message says.

Some of you are talking about two different things, deer harvest totals (dead deer) and deer population totals. What follows refers to deer harvest totals and a Ohio DNR biologist's remarks concerning MI's system of totaling the harvest (dead deer) as compared to Ohio's. Keep in mind two things. First is that Ohio uses a mandatory deer check-in system. and secondly, when I wrote the email asking him to compare the two I wrote in the secure and smug frame of mind that he would answer saying that of course Ohio's system was far better and more accurate than MI's.

How wrong I was.


Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI writes:

I believe that your method of mandatory deer check-in is the most accurate method of tabulating a season's deer hunting kill and believe that it would behoove Michigan's DNR to implement a similar program.

Why do you use mandatory deer check-in rather than Michigan's method which deals heavily in statistical demographics/information? Is there any data/study showing that mandatory deer check-in is a more accurate way of determining a season's take of whitetails? Sincerely, Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI

The Response:
Hi Milton,
Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure non-reporting rates. In the 10 years that I’ve been here, I’ve been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.

On the surface, MR seems like the “cats meow.” You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you’re now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn’t check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what’s you’re answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don’t know what noncompliance is, you don’t know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that – an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan’s current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

“Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision". Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort.”

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates. However, I don’t believe it will improve the estimates themselves.

I hope I have shed some “unbiased” light on the subject of mandatory registration. Please don’t hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

Very best,
Mike

Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife
9650 SR 356
New Marshfield, OH45766
v (740).664.2745 f [phone]
[e-mail]

[BT]

Sounds about right to me

The fact is that in NY and other states , many hunters reported their worst year in recent memory and that flies in the face of Spiker's post as to the facts as seen to be by the state.
The state in truth doesn't have the ability to tell how many deer were taken , even by means of calculations and wild guesses.

[azslim]

Come to AS, they are messing with the archery deer seasons based on mythical numbers. The commision here is not archer friendly. They hold public meetins but they are just for show, their minds are already made up and they could care less about our input.

[BT]

azslim said:

Come to AS, they are messing with the archery deer seasons based on mythical numbers. The commission here is not archer friendly. They hold public meetings but they are just for show, their minds are already made up and they could care less about our input.

Thats when you hope that your state archery organization has enough members to be effective during election time.

Lobbyist are the only way to effect change and if you don't have at least 5% of the vote......your dead!
Another good reason to join your state organization and urge others to do so

[azslim]

The ABA was successful a couple of years ago but have lost out the last few years. Many achery elk tags were moved to the gun bucket and now changes to deer are in the works. Problem is our commissioners are appointed by the Gov, not much we can do about it.

[deadeye]

We have a similar situation in MI. Our deer numbers are estimates based on various means of information gathering. Bottom line, our DNR does not know how many deer we actually have or how many have actually been killed in any given hunting season.

Our seasons and bag limits are decided by the Natural Resource Commission which is a wide range of men and women appointed by the governor. Two appointees last year don't hunt at all.

Our state bow hunting organization was formed in 1946 and over the years has done many things for bow hunters. It has a group of dedicated guys on the legislative committee that keeps and eye and ear on everything going on in our state that affects bow hunters.

You may be surprised how effective polite and courteous calls and letters can have an effect on an agenda item. There have been many times that we thought the NRC had their minds made up on an issue. Michigan Bow Hunter's would get the word out and get as many to attend the meeting that was taking public comments on the issue. We gather the facts from the DNR and present them in professional manor. I have attended a few meetings only to see the surprise on some of the faces of the commissioners when they are presented the facts.

I don't always agree with everything MBH does or stands for but I would hate to see where we would be without them. As BT mentioned... it's important for everyone to join their state bow hunting organization. Support them for the big picture.

It amazes me when I work the sign up table at my local clubs 3-D shoot. Guys will think nothing of spending well over $1000.00 on a bow setup but they won't spend $20 to $30 to belong to their state bow hunting organization. Those are the guys that would scream first and scream the loudest when they loose part of their archery season.