Essox

Looks like we lost the thread we were on but this is the fist part of the research paper I was telling you about that shows the estimated deer harvest rate is being inflated. It's on the PGC website under publications in the deer section. It wasn't such a big deal until we went to crossbows and the archery harvest increased to 30% or more. The bigger the archery or muzzleloader increse the more dramatic the error on the high side.

REPORTING-RATE VARIABILITY AND PRECISION OF WHITE-TAILED
DEER HARVEST ESTIMATES IN PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER S. ROSENBERRY,1 Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Management, 2001 Elmerton Avenue,
Harrisburg, PA 17110, USA
DUANE R. DIEFENBACH, U.S. Geological Survey, Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Pennsylvania
State University, 113 Merkle Lab, University Park, PA 16802, USA
BRET D.WALLINGFORD, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Management, 830 Upper Georges Valley Road,
Spring Mills, PA 16875, USA
Abstract: Use of reported harvests as an index to actual harvest assumes that the proportion of harvest reported is
equal for all types of animals and hunters and does not vary spatially or temporally. We modeled reporting rates of
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) harvest to determine whether they varied by year, deer management unit
(DMU), type of deer (antlered or antlerless), or sex. During rifle seasons in Pennsylvania, USA, from 1990 to 2001,
reporting rates varied by year, DMU, and type of deer (antlered or antlerless). Harvest estimates of antlered and
antlerless deer were precise for both statewide (CV < 2.5%) and DMUs (CV < 24%, median CV < 5.2%). For DMUs,
reported harvests were poor predictors of estimated antlered harvests (median R2 = 0.287) but generally acceptable
for antlerless harvests (median R2 = 0.909). During the 2000 and 2001 hunting seasons, statewide average predicted
reporting rates ranged from 36 to 60% and varied by year, hunting season, and type of deer. Average predicted
reporting rates also varied by DMU (range = 31.5–57.5%). Applying rifle-season reporting rates to other
seasons resulted in overestimating harvest by 26–28%. Variability of reporting rates precluded use of reported harvests
as reliable indices of actual harvest. We recommend regular estimation of reporting rates and caution against
assuming a constant reporting rate, even in consistent harvest registration systems.

I watched the april meeting where rosenberry was questioned by Boop about this. Rosenberry very clearly wasnt very happy that it was brought up in a public forum and not in private, or at least that is the impression that I got. He was definately not happy. It was very evident via the tone of his voice as well as the look on his red face. lol

He said something mumbling about it still being within their acceptable range of error.

Interestingly, it was the topic of some discussion on a few boards, and it along with other recorded meetings were removed from the pgc website.

It's easy for Rosenberry to claim Eveland is wrong on his calculations. It's a bit more difficult to claim these numbers are wrong when Rosenberrys name is on the report as a co-author. I'll bet if it made the harvest number appear lower it would have been corrected in a heartbeat. So far they have no intention of correcting it. Wayne is correct, I also watched the meeting and that was not a topic he wanted to discuss.