MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
Harvest surveys
Dr. I am working on four things at once here and don't have the time to research toinght, but do you know how many deer are inspected by pgc at processors in PA each year? I need the number to figure something out. Thanks
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/17 00:47:05
(permalink)
The figure I have is around 40,000 (field checks and processors) deer they actually know have been killed....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/17 00:48:25
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/17 00:52:45
(permalink)
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/17 00:58:02
(permalink)
Maybe use this one it is more recent.. During the 2006-2007 hunting seasons, more than 29,000 deer were examined
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/17 01:10:18
(permalink)
I noticed you were suprised by 4000 deer surveyed in maryland. That is 4.4 percent of thier harvest. If we use 30,000 as a number we are only examining roughly 9.3 percent of the harvest. Either way, not enough.
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
scaremypsu
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 206
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/17 19:03:13
(permalink)
How would 30,000 be considered a poor sample size? I would think very few studies even come close to sampling 10% of the population.
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 01:16:16
(permalink)
Actually the numbers I found are around 26,000 sampled so our percent is a bit lower....
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
scaremypsu
Avid Angler
- Total Posts : 206
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 08:53:46
(permalink)
even so it is still a good sample size. Is that the recent number? I do know that in years past, employees conducting the checks were approved for overtime consequently checking more deer. In addition, doe harvest were also higher resulting in more deer at the butcher shops and higher sample sizes. However, did the extra money and larger sample size result in a more precise sample? probably not
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 10:13:09
(permalink)
scaremypsu you are right they checked more in the past.. you know the budget thing.. even my local butcher said he is having less visits in recent years to check his... WMI or not I am not about to give up on the PGC's way of estimating a harvest number.. NO ONE is doing or has a better system... PERIOD
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/18 11:03:56
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 11:01:16
(permalink)
Doc wrote= NO is doing or has a better system... PERIOD
Is that your opinion or do you have some hard evidence to support that claim?
The WMI DEER AUDIT folks have some problems with it. Our deer herd estimates can be off by over 30% also.
Here is a portion of the auditors take on our deer harvest estimates== Harvest estimation, a common factor for all 3 indices, is inadequately calculated due to a bias, and or unaccounted variability from year to year. This is a critical issue for the PGC.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 11:06:10
(permalink)
S-10... 30% off....
I know for fact you read the E-mail from the guy who runs the check station..oppss RAN.. they are doing away with them..... on my board...
and I believe that is the same percent he sighted....
so NO BETTER...
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 11:15:12
(permalink)
So- your basing your hard evidence on one e-mail from one man.  Hey Doc--Remember this  ------I'AM READY WHEN YOU ARE  Doc wrote= Posts: 1936 Joined: 3/3/2002 From: Jefferson County Status: online sounds like S-10 is gearing up for his usual I do not believe it stuff, it's not creditable, etc... and then why he knows better..... well buddy GET READY !!!!
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 12:17:56
(permalink)
Doc, you made fun of maryland for checking 4% of the harvest when we are only checking 9% or less. What is so different in the two?
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
RIZ
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 915
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/04/17 11:44:29
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 14:27:43
(permalink)
musky
do you know what a statistically significant sample size should be for a population of 1 million deer? i mean what do you think the percentage of the population should be tested? i'm not bashing you but just trying to see where your coming from on this because there are statistical methods of determinining sample size for a given population. and it's a lot smaller than you would think.
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 15:09:32
(permalink)
I understand that RIZ, trust me I have done those sampling methods. Depending on acceptable error amouts the correct sampling size for groups this large is somewhere between 5 & 10%. So marylands 4.4% sample is not any further off base than our 9% they may be under 5% due to large harvest that year or other variables.
My point is how can he laugh at thiers and laud ours?
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
RIZ
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 915
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/04/17 11:44:29
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 16:00:04
(permalink)
sorry i thought you were commenting on how small the sample size was and therefore an invalid study. because at 1st glance, the sample sizes are more than adequate for the populations.
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/18 17:23:33
(permalink)
No it was Doc who laughed when he saw that Md only samples 4000 animals
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|
RIZ
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 915
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/04/17 11:44:29
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/19 10:06:20
(permalink)
musky however you still said that they did not sample enough, why do you say that? this is a purely academic question as i need to brush up on my stats since i have not done statistical analysis in umteen yrs.
|
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3032
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
- Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
- Status: offline
RE: Harvest surveys
2010/02/19 13:56:25
(permalink)
Statistically the percentage is probably enough. Scientifically the largest sample that can be effectively handled should be done.
Had a great suggestion from our local WCO last night. Mandatory reporting either at a POS location, online or by telephone. You don't report by Febuary 15th, you dont get a license the next year. I would back that system 100%.
Better too far back, than too far forward.
|