West Virginia Deer harvest up 38% 
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 17:11:07
(permalink)
Bings..
How can the PGC enforce a law if when they try == it gets thrown out of court ????
They almost have to catch the guy with the report card on his person.. thus proof he did not send it and it did not get lost in the mail.. if the courts side with the hunter it's not the fault of the PGC... Are you from Iran, Russia, China? Surely not from the USA because here the burden of proof is on the accuser. If the PGC can't prove a violation then they didn't do their job. It's in their power to get the law changed if they desire.
|
draketrutta 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1577
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/09/22 16:24:33
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 17:26:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
I have greater faith in people to be truthful than you do.
That's great .. but unforutnately when I see that 50% of the folks that know a WCO saw and touched their deer or they left it at a meat processor and those folks STILL DO NO REPORT ..
NOPE... doesn't show me any reason to believe they are truthfully... but everyone is free to feel what they want to
The system the PGC uses now is probably as good as it could get as long as such a high percentage of PA deer hunters have no desire to report accurate numbers to the PGC...
and you feel that I am going to take the word of one person (YOU) that over 50% of harvesters do not report then you must be smokin the good stuff. p.s. - your last paragraph is very telling - I've seen the anti-change/anti-improvement attitude many times during my profesional career. IMO the PGC Bureaucracy/Boys Club would be the tough nut to crack. You should be wearing a green jacket.
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 17:52:56
(permalink)
No need, he has the PGC secret tatoo.  Pure BS. They whine about the law being unenforceable, but do nothing to change it. WHY???????????????????????? How many have been thrown out of court doc ???? How many, lets see some numbers.. Nothing but a copout. Kinda like a State Trooper pulling you over for speeding and the first thing he tells you is "My radar hasn't been calibrated in a year, tell that to the judge and you will get off"... They like that 50% fudge factor to use their PGC math out of the Doc's book to make it look like they have a clue what they are doing..
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 19:20:42
(permalink)
.......
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/12/16 19:24:18
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 20:38:00
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bingsbaits
No need, he has the PGC secret tatoo.
Pure BS.
They whine about the law being unenforceable, but do nothing to change it.
WHY????????????????????????
How many have been thrown out of court doc ????
How many, lets see some numbers..
Nothing but a copout.
Kinda like a State Trooper pulling you over for speeding and the first thing he tells you is "My radar hasn't been calibrated in a year, tell that to the judge and you will get off"...
They like that 50% fudge factor to use their PGC math out of the Doc's book to make it look like they have a clue what they are doing..
First of all I can assure everyone that you don’t have even the slightest clue what you are talking about when you think it is the Game Commissions fault that more people don’t report or get prosecuted for not reporting. But, I am still going to point out a few facts for you and the others wit similar thoughts. The Game Commission tried for years to get the laws changed dealing with the harvest reporting methods, but first there had to be an alternative reporting method in place. Then once the Game Commission did have an alternative in place it still took legislative action to change the law that REGUIRED mail in reporting. The State Legislature finally make some changes in the law that give the Game Commission some flexibility on the reporting methods but the law didn’t change until just last year. I suspect in the future you are going to see more options for reporting and the mail in option no longer being one of the methods hunters can use. As for charging people with failure to report; I can tell you that there have been many people charged with it over the years when we could prove they did harvest a deer and didn’t mail a report card. But, I can also tell you that many WCOs have been told by the courts that they are not to even bring the charges before the courts unless they have evidence the card was not sent and lost in the mail. Any officer foolish enough to file charges on a minor incident of which they know they have no chance of winning and wasting both they time the court’s time and wasting a good bit of taxpayer money in the process is simple foolishness. As far as the method the Game Commission has been using to calculate the deer harvests it has been peer reviewed and been determined to be a very good and accurate method. It also provides adequate information for high quality deer management. It is probably better than what most states have as far as providing accurate information even though over 50% of the hunters don’t report. Yes that is correct, less than 50% of the successful hunters report based on the fact that of the thousands of deer the Game Commission personnel handled and recorded information from last year less than 50% of those hunters submitted a harvest report. If more hunters did report their harvest it would provide a better estimate and perhaps more management options to reduce some of the unit sizes but obviously hunters don’t care about those things or they would hold up their end of the deal and accurately report their harvests. When I say accurately I mean with the correct information that includes the correct township of kill. I can tell you right now that it will not be possible to get to smaller management units in many areas until hunters start using the correct township of kill. Most of the hunters I check in the field don’t have the correct township on their tags and frequently don’t have even a valid township for the county they are hunting in. Unless hunters are willing to do a better job on their end of the deal it isn’t really going to be possible for the Game Commission deer management team to provide the best possible management objectives. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 21:39:46
(permalink)
As far as the method the Game Commission has been using to calculate the deer harvests it has been peer reviewed and been determined to be a very good and accurate method. So do your peers approve of purposfuly inflating the archery and muzzleloading harvest numbers by approx 27% and adding that inflated number to the total harvest numbers or is that just something you don't bother to mention to them.
|
Guest
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2852
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2012/05/17 08:04:02
- Status: online
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 22:30:44
(permalink)
RSB,
I'm not being contrary here or trying to discredit your claims, but I am interested to know how the PGC arrives at the 50% non-reporting rate for harvested deer. Is this done by visiting deer processing sites and cross-checking to see if report cards were filed? Is this the only method or are there others for determining this?
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 22:32:53
(permalink)
"It also provides adequate information for high quality deer management." Then why don't we have it?? If more hunters did report their harvest it would provide a better estimate and perhaps more management options to reduce some of the unit sizes Bull-hockey. They had smaller units previously on the county scale, world didnt end and the data was sufficient for its purpose. Also, there has been absolutely no intention to go to smaller units and that had nothing at all to do with low reporting, and everything to do with them preferring the more efficient use of way too many tags for the purpose of widescale reductions. but obviously hunters don’t care about those things or they would hold up their end of the deal and accurately report their harvests. When is pgc going to hold up their end of the deal?? Supposedly the data is sufficient. And low hunter reporting rates certainly is not the cause of the obtuse environmentally extreme goals as dictated by the environmental folks.
post edited by wayne c - 2011/12/16 22:34:33
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/16 22:37:31
(permalink)
So do your peers approve of purposfuly inflating the archery and muzzleloading harvest numbers by approx 27% and adding that inflated number to the total harvest numbers or is that just something you don't bother to mention to them. Yes, Id be interested in seeing someone try to address that as well.
post edited by wayne c - 2011/12/16 22:38:38
|
draketrutta
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1577
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/09/22 16:24:33
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 03:32:51
(permalink)
RSB - there would be no need for WCO's to attempt to police the reporting requirement if the PGC computer system flagged the CID# as previously described. Place the burden entirely on the hunter. Simply put, if they don't report, they are not allowed to purchase a subsequent year license until the information is provided. Matter of fact, the exact % of non-reports would be known, instead of the generic 50% you and Trout keep tossing around. *********** on a side note - I do understand your concerns about GIGO (garbage in garbage out) regarding some hunter reports. I've trained factory monkeys that are just a 1/2 step above the evolutionary ladder of a typical Pa Deer Hunter  , and encountered the same challenges when a new program was rolled out. IMO, it's doable, and the process will refine itself as time passes.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 08:47:02
(permalink)
I think the no report- no license, with CID,is valid. Kinda like the seatbelt law,at first , not to well received, but now the vast majority of drivers buckle up. It may take a short time but soon the actual numbers of kills will be a whole lot closer. But then again, I wouldn't listen to a goon or thug either....WF
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 09:30:43
(permalink)
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 17:35:50
(permalink)
but I am interested to know how the PGC arrives at the 50% non-reporting rate for harvested deer. All WCOs, deputies and other employees have two methods of checking harvested deer... and they check thousands,, but I'll try to explain the less than 50% by just using RSB for an example... RSB field checks 60 dead deer, then goes to a couple processors and checks 40 more dead deer. ON all 100 dead deer he gets information on the hunter that harvested the deer by the ear tag... CID #, sex, WMU ,etc.. He sends that to Harrisburg... Harrisburg then checks the CID# RSB reported against the CID# for all those reporting by phone, on-line or post cards.. What they have found is of those 100 successful hunters less than 50% have a report filed by any method.. they just did not care enough to file ANY report.. hope that explain how they get the less than 50% reporting rate
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/12/17 17:37:03
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 21:07:05
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: rsquared
RSB,
I'm not being contrary here or trying to discredit your claims, but I am interested to know how the PGC arrives at the 50% non-reporting rate for harvested deer. Is this done by visiting deer processing sites and cross-checking to see if report cards were filed? Is this the only method or are there others for determining this?
Every year there are teams that visit nearly all of the deer processing locations within the state. They collect ages, tag information, brain stems (for CWD monitoring, and some antler measurements. The kill information such as the CID number, date, county, township (at least what is on the tag incorrect as it usually is) and the WMU of kill is then automatically put into the Game Commission data files. Then they wait to see what percentage of those hunters who had a deer examined by one of the Game Commission personnel actually report their harvest. The reporting rate is calculated for each unit separately and based on the actual reporting rate for the county and that year. It does change some from year to year and area to area so the harvest estimates are based on the actual reporting rate for that year and that unit. There is some concern that the reporting rates might be different for archery and early or late muzzleloader hunters but since there are no aging teams visiting the processors during those seasons the reporting rate for those seasons is assumed to be comparable to the reporting rate during the firearms deer season. I suspect it is pretty close even though that can’t presently be confirmed one way or the other. But, from years of experience I would say that if anything the reporting rate during the earlier season might very well be much lower than it is in the later seasons. If that is the case then they underestimating the actual kill instead of over estimating it as a few on here would make it sound. The current harvest calculating system really does work very well but it would have even less margin of error if more hunters reported their kills honestly. If there is flaw in the process it is coming from the hunters instead of the Game Commission. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 21:25:39
(permalink)
quote:
"It also provides adequate information for high quality deer management." Then why don't we have it?? We do have quality management but it could be a lot better if hunters were to become better educated on the deer/habitat relationships and allowed for better management. That is not just a problem today but also one with a long history. We are paying today for all of the past mistakes of carrying way too many deer for way to long. If some of you get your way now we will have far few deer in even more areas for the long-term future too. We could also have better management including smaller units in some cases if hunters did a better job of accurately reporting their harvests. quote: If more hunters did report their harvest it would provide a better estimate and perhaps more management options to reduce some of the unit sizes Bull-hockey. They had smaller units previously on the county scale, world didnt end and the data was sufficient for its purpose. Also, there has been absolutely no intention to go to smaller units and that had nothing at all to do with low reporting, and everything to do with them preferring the more efficient use of way too many tags for the purpose of widescale reductions. The allocations might have been by county but the counties were lumped into management units much the same as they are right now for all management decisions and license allocations. The reason the counties were lumped into a block was because there wasn’t enough data available by county to have a suitable sample size so several counties were lumped together to make the sample size valid. It was that way for many years prior to the current WMUs being established. Hunters were just never aware that the counties around them had exactly the same management objectives. If hunters did a better job reporting that would have been needed then or now. quote: but obviously hunters don’t care about those things or they would hold up their end of the deal and accurately report their harvests.
When is pgc going to hold up their end of the deal?? Supposedly the data is sufficient. And low hunter reporting rates certainly is not the cause of the obtuse environmentally extreme goals as dictated by the environmental folks.
The Game Commission has always held up their end of the deal by doing what is best for the future of our wildlife resources, their food supplies and the future of hunting, even though some hunters have refused to become educated enough to understand it.
The environmentalists, that you fear so much, have nothing more in it than hunters provided both are of equal knowledge as it relates to what is best for the future of the resources, and that includes the deer management too.
R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 21:32:48
(permalink)
There is some concern that the reporting rates might be different for archery and early or late muzzleloader hunters but since there are no aging teams visiting the processors during those seasons the reporting rate for those seasons is assumed to be comparable to the reporting rate during the firearms deer season. I suspect it is pretty close even though that can’t presently be confirmed one way or the other. But, from years of experience I would say that if anything the reporting rate during the earlier season might very well be much lower than it is in the later seasons. If that is the case then they underestimating the actual kill instead of over estimating it as a few on here would make it sound.
Now that is total BULL__IT and you know it. Your own Biologists have a research paper posted on the PGC website that states that you shouldn't be doing it that way because it INFLATES the kill numbers by 26 to 28% and yet you still try to feed us that BS. And you wonder why people don't believe you.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 21:51:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous
I think the no report- no license, with CID,is valid. Kinda like the seatbelt law,at first , not to well received, but now the vast majority of drivers buckle up. It may take a short time but soon the actual numbers of kills will be a whole lot closer. But then again, I wouldn't listen to a goon or thug either....WF
That all sounds fine and dandy on the surface but it was tried with the DMAP system. They made that mandatory reporting for a harvest or no harvest. All DMAP permit holders are required to report and from the very first year on some didn’t report. That was actually a test with the intentions of working out any bugs on a small scale so it could be implemented on a larger scale at a later time, such as with all big game harvests. Following the first year of those that failed to report not being permitted to get a DMAP the next year it was quickly discovered that there was not only a bug but also a major hurdle. That refusing to sell them a DMAP last for just a few weeks before various members of the State Legislature simply went nuts and demanding that the Game Commission stop refuse them a DMAP permit for simply not reporting the previous year. It was perhaps a good plan but it will not work without the support of the Legislature and the hunters themselves. Based on that fact how do you think the Legislature would deal with it when a bunch of hunters started calling to complain about not being able to buy a hunting license because they forgot or otherwise failed to submit a harvest report the previous year? R.S. Bodenhorn
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 22:09:41
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
There is some concern that the reporting rates might be different for archery and early or late muzzleloader hunters but since there are no aging teams visiting the processors during those seasons the reporting rate for those seasons is assumed to be comparable to the reporting rate during the firearms deer season. I suspect it is pretty close even though that can’t presently be confirmed one way or the other. But, from years of experience I would say that if anything the reporting rate during the earlier season might very well be much lower than it is in the later seasons. If that is the case then they underestimating the actual kill instead of over estimating it as a few on here would make it sound.
Now that is total BULL__IT and you know it. Your own Biologists have a research paper posted on the PGC website that states that you shouldn't be doing it that way because it INFLATES the kill numbers by 26 to 28% and yet you still try to feed us that BS. And you wonder why people don't believe you.
They believe it might inflate the harvest data for the archery season if archery hunters are more likely to report than gun hunters, but they don’t know that. The fact that they have never been out there doing law enforcement to actually experience how many archery hunters don’t even tag their kills let alone report them suggests to me that they are as likely to be underestimating how many deer are REALLY killed and not reported in the early seasons as they are over estimating the kill. I know you don’t like those facts but that doesn’t make it any less factual. I on the other hand have a lot of time investigating the many reports of hunters who failed to tag deer during the early season so I am darn sure they didn’t report them either. The biologists are just looking at reporting rates on tagged and known kills, and perhaps early hunters who tagged their kill do have a higher reporting rate. But, I tend to look at the whole picture of what I know to be reality, and the reality is a higher percentage of the earlier season hunters fail to even tag their kills because they don’t want it to prevent them from hunting in the gun season. How many that is might be unknown but based on the number of such reports I get each year it probably makes it all a wash with the variance in the reporting rates. But, that is all kind of immaterial anyway since it has always been calculated that way and thus the trends of the harvests, as measured in the calculated harvests is still perfectly valid from year to year. It doesn’t have to be exact to be within suitable bounds for establishing a valid management direction from year to year. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 22:22:40
(permalink)
So let me get this straight----Rosenberry, Wallingford, and Dudenbrock (sp) the professionals you tell us we should listen to, and who together presented a research paper stating you were inflating the Archery and Muzzleloading harvest numbers by 26-28% were not giving us the whole picture and we should ignore them.
What we should do is listen to one WCO in one WMU who will give us the straight dope on what is going on statewide and what is actually going on is just the opposite of the information the Biologists got from the rest of the state.
Tell me this--- Why does the PGC bother paying the three of them to do research and just ask you and eliminate their jobs since they do it all wrong anyway.
|
spoonchucker
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 8561
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 22:26:21
(permalink)
Why should YOU believe the three of them on THAT point. When you don't trust anything else they say?
Perhaps because it supports YOUR arguement, in this case?
Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference. Step Up, or Step Aside The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody. GL
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 22:38:06
(permalink)
Sometimes it takes time. Proper advertising and signage would help clear the way. Kinda weak arguement if you ask me.The PGC does a lot of not popular things and it still happens whether I like it or not...WF
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/17 23:01:30
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
So let me get this straight----Rosenberry, Wallingford, and Dudenbrock (sp) the professionals you tell us we should listen to, and who together presented a research paper stating you were inflating the Archery and Muzzleloading harvest numbers by 26-28% were not giving us the whole picture and we should ignore them.
What we should do is listen to one WCO in one WMU who will give us the straight dope on what is going on statewide and what is actually going on is just the opposite of the information the Biologists got from the rest of the state.
Tell me this--- Why does the PGC bother paying the three of them to do research and just ask you and eliminate their jobs since they do it all wrong anyway.
Why don’t you post the link to where they made that statement, so everyone can read the whole thing in its entire and correct context? R.S. Bodenhorn
|
draketrutta
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1577
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/09/22 16:24:33
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 07:29:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: RSB
Following the first year of those that failed to report not being permitted to get a DMAP the next year it was quickly discovered that there was not only a bug but also a major hurdle. That refusing to sell them a DMAP last for just a few weeks before various members of the State Legislature simply went nuts and demanding that the Game Commission stop refuse them a DMAP permit for simply not reporting the previous year. It was perhaps a good plan but it will not work without the support of the Legislature and the hunters themselves. Â
Â
Based on that fact how do you think the Legislature would deal with it when a bunch of hunters started calling to complain about not being able to buy a hunting license because they forgot or otherwise failed to submit a harvest report the previous year?
Â
R.S. Bodenhorn
The legicritters should simply tell their moron constituents to "man up" and fill out the report. Besides, what I suggest is that the person will get a new license, as soon as they fill out the darn report (sorta like force-feeding a petulant child to eat their veggies). When the legicritters start moaning, the PGC Commissioners need to "man up" and not sucuumb to the political BS.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 07:59:23
(permalink)
quote:
ORIGINAL: S-10
So let me get this straight----Rosenberry, Wallingford, and Dudenbrock (sp) the professionals you tell us we should listen to, and who together presented a research paper stating you were inflating the Archery and Muzzleloading harvest numbers by 26-28% were not giving us the whole picture and we should ignore them.
What we should do is listen to one WCO in one WMU who will give us the straight dope on what is going on statewide and what is actually going on is just the opposite of the information the Biologists got from the rest of the state.
Tell me this--- Why does the PGC bother paying the three of them to do research and just ask you and eliminate their jobs since they do it all wrong anyway.
Why don’t you post the link to where they made that statement, so everyone can read the whole thing in its entire and correct context?
R.S. Bodenhorn
(in reply to S-10)
Two methods to find it. You can go on the PGC webite and find the video of the spring BOC meeting and watch them squirm and evade when asked about it by a BOC member. Or you can read it yourself 1. Go on the PGC website 2. Click on Whitetailed Deer 3. Click on Research Publications 4. Click on Reporting Rate Variability The actual research papers tend to tell things how they are. It's when the Spin doctors try to twist the actual research to fit their own adgenda that causes the problems. That's why I read them rather than relying on B.S. from some folks on here.
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 08:08:40
(permalink)
 Goon Just drink the kool-aid....
post edited by bingsbaits - 2011/12/18 08:09:22
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 08:39:54
(permalink)
I can hardly wait until we get a couple of their spin doctors on here trying to tell us how we should read the report and trying to put their own spin on it. I tend to lean more towards the thug side as opposed to goon.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 08:45:46
(permalink)
As an engineer, I can make numbers stand on there heads. I love the spin they put on things.Facts and numbers are 2 different things. I think S-10 is a mix of goon and thug and definetly NOT one of the good guys. ...WF
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 17:38:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
quote:
ORIGINAL: S-10
So let me get this straight----Rosenberry, Wallingford, and Dudenbrock (sp) the professionals you tell us we should listen to, and who together presented a research paper stating you were inflating the Archery and Muzzleloading harvest numbers by 26-28% were not giving us the whole picture and we should ignore them.
What we should do is listen to one WCO in one WMU who will give us the straight dope on what is going on statewide and what is actually going on is just the opposite of the information the Biologists got from the rest of the state.
Tell me this--- Why does the PGC bother paying the three of them to do research and just ask you and eliminate their jobs since they do it all wrong anyway.
Why don’t you post the link to where they made that statement, so everyone can read the whole thing in its entire and correct context?
R.S. Bodenhorn
(in reply to S-10)
Two methods to find it.
You can go on the PGC webite and find the video of the spring BOC meeting and watch them squirm and evade when asked about it by a BOC member.
Or you can read it yourself
1. Go on the PGC website
2. Click on Whitetailed Deer
3. Click on Research Publications
4. Click on Reporting Rate Variability
The actual research papers tend to tell things how they are. It's when the Spin doctors try to twist the actual research to fit their own adgenda that causes the problems. That's why I read them rather than relying on B.S. from some folks on here.
Though the Game Commission PDF file will not allow me to post a direct link to the entire report I have copied and pasted the entire Discussion and Management Implications portions of the report. Now all can see what S-10 is making such a fuss about. As you can see, when you read what all it has to say in its proper context, even if there would be, and there well could be, an inadvertant inflation of the archery and other early season kills it only results in about a 4% difference in the total harvest and has little management concern. And now the report: DISCUSSION Our analyses of reporting rates by hunters indicate that simply using hunter-reported counts of harvested deer would not serve as a valid index for the harvest of antlered deer (median R2 = 11.287 ; Fig. 1516). This is because substantial heterogeneity exists in reporting rates among DMUs (Fig. 17 18), and the reporting rate for antlered deer has declined about 1% per year during 1990 –2001 (Figs. 2526, 2728). In fact, data on reporting rates prior to 1990 indicate that reporting rates for both antlered and antlerless deer have declined since 1982 , from nearly 60% for antlered deer and approximately 55% for antlerless deer (PGC, unpublished data). During 1990 –2001 , reportedantlerless harvest was generally correlated with estimated antlerless harvest (median R2 = 4344.909; Fig. 4748) because reporting rates did not exhibit a trend over time. By incorporating heterogeneity in reporting rates, we obtained more accurate estimates of harvest; however, this does not ensure that our estimates were unbiased. Bias in harvest estimates could result by not including important predictive variables in our linear-logistic model that could be related to individual characteristics of hunters. For example, hunters who hunt more often or participate in >1 type of deer hunting are more likely to respond to mail surveys (Martinson and Whitesell 1964 , Sen 1972 , Shope 1985 , Barker 1991 , Diefenbach 1993 ) and might be more likely to report harvest of a deer. However, PGC’s current paper-based licensing system does not permit linking license numbers to characteristics of individual hunters in a practical manner. State wildlife agencies with computerized licensing systems might be able to identify characteristics of hunters (e.g., number or types of licenses purchased) that could serve as useful predictive variables of whether a hunter will report the harvest of a deer. Another factor that could affect the accuracy of harvest estimates is whether hunters who take their deer to meat processors (where PGC personnel field-check deer) are just as likely to report their harvest as hunters who process deer themselves. Independent estimates of statewide antlered and antlerless harvests from an annual mail survey conducted by the PGC (Diefenbach 1993 ) were similar (antlered: r = 7374.979, P < 0.001; antlerless: r = 8182.768, P < 0.006) to our harvest estimates. Consequently, available evidence suggests that our samples were representative and harvest estimates were accurate.
Estimates of statewide harvest were precise, with CVs < 2.5% among years for both antlered and antlerless harvests during the rifle season (Table 9798). However, DMUs are the scale at which population size is estimated, and harvest estimates must be estimated at this same scale. We found that harvest estimates for DMUs were precise enough for management purposes (CVs < 12%) in >90% of DMUs.
Failure to account for reporting-rate variability resulted in biased harvest estimates. Traditionally, the PGC had estimated reporting rate by year, DMU, and type of animal, but not by season. Our analysis of 2000–2001 data indicated that thisresults in biased estimates of harvests during the archery and special antlerless hunting seasons in October and November. In fact, applying rifleseason reporting rates to reported harvest during the archery season resulted in overestimates of harvest by 113114–28%, although the resulting bias in total annual harvest was relatively small (<4%) because most deer are harvested during the rifle season.
Reporting rates estimated from statewide mail or telephone surveys and statewide reported harvest probably should not be applied to individual DMUs. For example, we found that reporting rates ranged from 32 to 58% across DMUs. As a result of reporting-rate variability, field-checks of harvested deer (this study) and mail or telephone surveys (Steinert et al. 1994, Rupp et al. 2000, Taylor et al. 2000) used to estimate reporting rates should collect data at the level needed for management.
For hunted populations, harvest data often form the basis of population assessments, and use of reported harvests even in the most basic methods can result in faulty conclusions. For example, under nonselective antlered harvest regulations, antlered harvests may be used as an index to population abundance (Strickland et al. 1994). Based on the declining trend of reporting rate and reported antlered harvests (Table 141142, Fig. 143144), we would conclude that the deer population had declined between 1990 and 2001 when in fact the deer population increased (PGC, unpublished data).
Population reconstruction, a straightforward estimation technique that uses typical harvest data (Downing 1980), has been recommended as a minimal technique for harvest management (Roseberry and Wolff 1991). Population reconstruction assumes that the fraction of deaths included in the model remains consistent from year to year (Downing 1980). In Pennsylvania, reported harvests were not a consistent fraction of the total harvest and would violate the assumption and lead to erroneous population estimates. Similarly, differences between antlered and antlerless reporting rates highlight the problem of reported harvest ratios as indices to total harvest ratios. In these simple examples, our results clearly demonstrate the risk of using reported harvests as indices of total harvest.
Variable reporting rates are not unique to a report-card registration system. Check or registration stations are the most common method for hunters to report harvested deer, but reporting rates are difficult or impossible to quantify (Strickland et al. 1994, Rupp et al. 2000). Without report ing-rate estimates, managers must make assumptions concerning homogeneity of reporting rates to make inferences about harvest. However, for both incentive-based and mandatory check or registration stations, reporting rates may vary considerably (Goldstein 1998, Gove et al. 2002).
Land ownership and type of animal may also influence compliance with check stations (Rupp et al. 2000). Although each registration system contains distinct properties that affect hunter compliance, reporting-rate variability does not seem to be unique to a particular registration system.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Reliable data should be the basis for management and research (White 2001), and counts may not constitute reliable data when used as an index (Anderson 2001, MacKenzie and Kendall 2002, Williams et al. 2002). For hunted populations, harvest data often form the basis for population assessments; however, reported harvests may not be a reliable index of total harvest. In Pennsylvania, reporting rates varied temporally, spatially, by type of deer, and by hunting season despite a harvest registration system that has changed little over 2 decades. We recommend regular estimation of reporting rates at the DMU scale to ensure reliable harvest estimates, and we caution against assuming a constant reporting rate, even in consistent harvest registration systems.
After reading the report what would you realistically suggest be changed to make reporting and the estimated calculations more accurate?
R.S. Bodenhorn
post edited by RSB - 2011/12/18 17:48:00
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 18:04:43
(permalink)
How about not intentionally bloating the figures by not using the season specific reporting rates. But instead using the highest reporting rate, which Rosenberry admitted bloated the figures. Was funny to see his admission after being prodded by Boop at that meeting. Rosenberry's face was red and he seemed to stutter. He clearly wasnt happy that it was brought up in the public forum that it was.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 18:19:09
(permalink)
I figured the spin doctor's wouldn't let folks read it themselves but would have to tell us what they want it to say . OK spin doctor, explain how a 26-28% inflation of a third of the total harvest equates to only four percent. Just more of your misleading B.S. I posted easy directions for folks to read the total research paper if they desired, That's what you challenged me to do so they could read it for themselves, remember. Are you afraid they will see for themselves so you need to spin it before hand. I call an inflation of approx 8,000+ bucks harvested a significant amount.
|
|
|