Mandatory Harvest Reporting?

[SMOKESTICK]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-12 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]Here a a few Simple questions;

1-) will you support legislation that requires mandatory harvest reporting in Wyoming?

2-) will you support legislation which requires a $5.00 be added to all big game licenses to cover the specific costs of collecting tooth samples from every big game animal killed?

3-) will your support of such actions be increased or decreased if the legislation also requires the WY G&F Department to send a letter back for each tooth sample submitted, stating the age of the specific animal harvested?

 

[beech18]

I would support the idea. I think every state should have somekind of reporting to know the harvest rates and age class of animal taken, days afield, etc etc.

 

[WapitiBob]

Only if the mandatory reporting carries a "no report no tag" penalty.

 

[dwalton]

1- Yes.

2-No. I think something like Nevada's reporting would be just as effective (online, quick, cheap). I really have to question the effectiveness of analyzing 91,323 teeth annually (2010 elk, deer, & antelope harvest). With that kind of money you could hire additional Game Wardens.

3- Decreased. Why use money for cards when that data could be placed online, tied to the license number.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-12 AT 10:12AM (MST)[p]Yes to the first two and yes if the results are available online to save the cost of mailing out results. If it's mandatory like it should be, then I think I would prefer that it be like NM and require you to comply or not get a tag the next time you apply. If a law is passed with no teeth in it (no pun intended), the law would not do much. They already ask that the landowner coupons be give to the landowner or sent to G&F if the animal is killed on public property, but I really wonder how many people comply, at least with the latter one, when there is no penalty involved.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

TOPGUN et al,

Yes. The only way this will work is if you can not hunt the following year if you fail to turn in a harvest report.

Clarification: I am not necessarily concerned that a response is returned, I made that suggestion as I believe many do not participate because communication must be a two-way effort. If we require hunters to submit data, I thought it only reasonable that they should send something back. The reason I suggested an reply be mailed is that not everyone is a computer person nor can I guarantee that everyone has a computer.

I believe we need to start with a standard. Once it is created, perhaps some areas will not need to submit teeth every year on every species harvested, only those areas where data is lacking and/or harvest questions remain. However, I believe a base line data set needs to be established so we will know where we are in each specific mule deer herd unit. Perhaps, we just start with mule deer as the requirement.

 

[beech18]

It could be set up with telephone if the person does not use computer as an alternate source to report.

 

[TOPGUN]

We're on this same page with this one Bob! HAPPY EASTER!

 

[BuzzH]

Hell yes there should be, that should have been legislated a long time ago.

Also, tooth cementum data for accurate ages are important, at least in a portion of the animals killed each year.

If an additional fee collected would cover more accurate aging, you damn right I'm in favor of it. Its time for hunters to start paying for management and quit being cheapskates.

 

[mmwb]

Yes to all, though as stated, there may be savings to be had if electronic responses are at least an option. It may be better if the $5.00 is submitted with the tooth and to not charge those who don't harvest. For many of us, the cost may be negligible, but for some who are trying to buy tags for a number of kids, getting and keeping them involved in hunting, it can add up. I realize it would necessitate a separate billing/payment parameter...

 

[PleaseDear]

Reads like a good plan.

Takes a few seconds to pull a tooth out and put it in the envelope.

Robb

 

[piper]

mandatory is good,like Nevada does, but there is no reason to check the teeth of every animal, a little commen sense and a small percentage of the harvested animals aged would be cheaper and smarter.

 

[MULEY204]

COUNT ME IN, I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO CAN'T GET ON A COMPUTER THESE DAYS. COMPUTER DATA WILL WORK.

 

[nontypical]

Yes,yes,and yes.

 

[ICMDEER]

I'm OK with the idea, but not sure I support legislation. Could this not be done by the Game and Fish without a new law? I'm always a bit concerned when we start making laws that appear to me to be something that could be promulgated as a rule rather than a law.

I don't see a way that the G&F lab in Laramie could do all of the teeth. I just called them and asked about my 2011 harvest samples. My results were supposed to be out over a month ago and I still don't have them. They stay really busy and are pretty short handed. They have lots of bears and lions as well as other ungulates they do. Not sure they have that capacity, so we'd need to check with them before we start making laws that bury them. And if you use a private lab for tooth samples, it's going to cost a lot more than what is proposed.

 

[mulecreek]

1) Yes
2) No
3) Decreased

I am fine with reporting, but the reason I say no to the second question is because there needs to be a plan in place regarding what to do with the data. I have no problem with the extra money but what will the data be used for? Collecting data is great if there is a plan in place on what that data will be used to make better. I see it all the time at mines. They have people who's entire job is to collect and store data but nothing is ever done with it.

Create a plan on how this tooth data will be used to create healthier herds and I will pay much more than $5.00 to help support it.

 

[deerfanatic]

I guess I'm in the minority on this one, but I would say no, no, and no. My reasoning is that I believe statistically speaking, enough people volunteer the information to get a population set that is valid. A mandatory reporting requirement isn't going to fix or provide any revolutionary management directives. Far too many other variables must be estimated to tell the final story, and the accuracy is far less statistically accurate than the current harvest reporting method. In other words, you could cook up the best bowl of chicken soup ever made, with the finest ingredients on the market, but if you dash in a little chicken $h1t for flavor, all you are left with is chicken $h1t.

In my opinion, if we want to do anything to help managers better understand the herds health and needs, add $10 to each tag to be used to keep wildlife managers spending more time out in the field and less time behind office desks.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-12 AT 09:50AM (MST)[p]Biologically speaking, if you can only collect one piece of information, the most important is the age of harvested animals. This would allow the Department to establish a baseline data base.

The harvest report would also collect more information such as which regions or hunt areas did you hunt, how many days hunted, what was the size of your hunting party, how many hunters -vs- observers, etc. I would even suggest, as an option, that the Department accept pictures and post them on their web site. This would allow excitement to build around the program as people from any where would be able to see the animals being taken in Wyoming by Wyoming hunters.

This provides a starting point, nothing more. It is not anything magical or revolutionary; however, it is how wildlife use to be managed. We are not talking about rocket science hear, just simple wildlife management. I believe we need to go back to the basics. The problem I see is that too many variables doe exist for a computer model to be reliable all of the time. Modeling can be a beneficial tool, but nothing will replace field time. As they say; garbage in, garbage out.

Thanks for all of your comments, etc.

 

[Califelkslayer]

I'm all in except the tooth collection. Mandatory reporting is necessary IMO to collect data on success rates. Failure to do so makes you ineligible to apply the following year. (Nevada)

The tooth collection should be done in the field IMO. Hunter check points, collect the teeth and move on. G&F could then verify 2X2= 1.5 years old, etc.

 

[deerfanatic]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-12 AT 07:28PM (MST)[p]Smokestick,

I am not questioning the use if the data. All I am saying is that the data being requested will be used to generate statistical trends and conclusions. Pure mathematics will tell you that if you take a random sampling of a whole data set your statistical trends between a complete sampling vs partial will be nearly identical. For example if you flip a coin ten times, you may get 3 of those tosses to be heads and seven to be tails. That isn't good based on what we know. In other words the data set was too small. So we flip the coin 90 more times. Out of 100 flips the probability that we get heads or tails in that data set is going to be very close to 50%. We could choose to flip the coin 900 more times to get an even bigger data set, but the odds of getting heads or tails isn't going to change.

There are plenty of people that volunteer the information when asked too. Making it a "requirement or you can't go hunting next year" is stupid. If the people hired to perform statistical analysis, are the ones pushing mandatory requirements because they believe they need a complete population set to run their analysis, then they obviously do not have the proper education on statistical methods to be running the statistics. If the math says the data set is not big enough statistically, maybe they should try public education to get people to want to volunteer the data, but to make it mandatory is not needed. The time needed to flip the coin 900 more times is a waste of money!

 

[scoutdog5]

I have been looking at the data that is available on the link Topgun provided, and it appears that Wyoming does field checks in virtually every herd unit in the state. It would be a simple matter to collect a tooth from each buck checked at that point. As long as the number of bucks checked is 15% to 20% of the harvest, you are going to get reasonably accurate information about the age of the harvest.

It looked like the checked far smaller numbers of does on most units, so the tooth data would not be as reliable as for bucks. On the other hand, hunters self select for larger bucks, so I would expect the average age of bucks harvested to be considerably higher than the actual averages in the population. At the same time, it is pretty tough to select for older does, so those stats would likely be more representative of the overall age of the female population.

There are three problems with mandatory reporting, in my view:

1. Poor response by hunters. (Oregon has finally added penalties this year, so maybe things will get better.
2. Inaccurate reports. Don't know how you measure this, but it does go on.
3. Successful hunters are more likely to report. Skews for higher success rates than actually occur.

With the phone surveys, you eliminate number three above, but still have the potential problem of 2.

We certainly need more accurate data based on larger sample sizes. Not sure how we get there given current budget issues, but it would seem logical to collect a tooth from every animal checked in the field.

Scoutdog

 

[wolfhunter]

I support mandatory harvest reporting.

Right now the game and fish has no clue how many bucks are being killed yearly. They guess...It might be an educated guess, but none the less it is still a guess.

That is also the reason limited quota is a better management tool.

 

[TOPGUN]

wolfhunter---I'm not quite following you on your last statement. What would LE have to do with this requirement? Do you mean they would know exactly how many animals are killed within a certain unit so that they can conrol the take easier in the following season? Thanks!

 

[MULEY204]

I think if you are required to get your tag validated by law enforcement you could improve the accuracy of your stats.

Make it mandatory ! successful or not, we want to see the tag and if you harvested we want to see and measure the antlers and pull teeth.

it's simple

 

[SMOKESTICK]

MULEY204,

I have been talking a lot about this and I appreciate all of the comments. It does help improve things as everyone adds a little bit more here and there.

Yes, this will only work if everyone is required to submit their harvest reports and enclose tooth samples with them. If everyone is doing this, it will prevent someone from sending teeth in for an animal either harvested by someone else or substituting the teeth from a cow in place of their bull, etc.

A harvest report would include a tooth envelope for every license issued. Each species may have its own specific questionnaire; however, they all (species) should have very specific questions as well.

Some states actually require that if you fill your tag, you must have a G&F person tag the animal similar to how taxidermists doe in Wyoming. I would hope that sportsmen would realize the importance of providing clear and accurate information as it will provide the G&F Department with the type and quantity of information they have never been able to get. I believe it will also be at a cost savings as well because most check stations are so limited in the amount of data they can collect as there are simply too many entrance/exits for the G&F to cover effectively.

I also thought it would be wise for the the department to allow sportsmen, as an option, to submit photos as well. Would it be cool to see the WY G&F Department with a section for harvested pictures on their web site? I thought instead of listing the hunters name or in addition to their name, perhaps the Department could place the photos with the animals estimated age below the pictures. When I worked at Deseret Land & Livestock we took pictures of everything the hunters killed. The photo board was one of the most visited sites at the check station.

It would be even better if we could actually get antler measurements; however, you can see how hard it would be to maintain consistency and accuracy because of the number of people it would take to complete such a task. However, it might be possible to get a limited number of measurements; outside spread, mass below brow tine, etc.

The date of harvest should also be included, as well as what hunt areas and number of days hunted in each hunt area. And as you suggested, this should be collected even for those which have not filled their tag. It will be interesting to see how many resident hunters are actually hunting multiple hunt areas (or regions) and how that compares to what the G&F Department has estimated.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 11:13AM (MST)[p]G&F Director Scott Talbot wrote his Opinion message in the January-February 2012 of their Wyoming Wildlife Newspaper entitled: "Mule Deer:Safeguarding an icon of the West". In it he stated that the G&F is changing the way they do business and that the problems facing the mule deer across the West present us with some of the most complicated wildlife challenges anywhere. He states that the G&F can't do it by themselves and they now realize it will take a lot of public involvement. To that effect, he stated he has directed all of his employees to increase their efforts to engage the public in virtually all facets of the department's work. Hopefully, that is not just giving everyone lip service and things we are discussing can be forwarded to the G&F with a good chance of some of them being implemented.

 

[BuzzH]

He states that the G&F can't do it by themselves and they now realize it will take a lot of public involvement. To that effect, he stated he has directed all of his employees to increase their efforts to engage the public in virtually all facets of the department's work.

I had a discussion with a retired G&F employee about that just a couple days ago while having my musk ox scored. I told him about the Platte mule deer plan and how the public was guiding about 90% of the management. The first words out of his mouth were, "isnt that convenient for the G&F, when the plan doesnt work they can say 'wasnt our idea'".

I agree, this is pure bullchit asking the department to implement a plan offered up by a bunch of people without wildlife degrees, without the working relationships with various federal and state agencies, without the existing data, etc., etc. etc.

I mean no disrespect to the rightfully concerned citizens who just want whats best for mule deer, but just because a person attends a meeting and hunts deer 5-10 days a year doesnt mean they know how to fix the complex problems that are impacting mule deer.

Its pretty obvious if there was an easy fix, the G&F would have already iplemented it. Its also plenty obvious, by the meetings I attended, that the public doesnt have any better ideas.

The game and fish is playing pass the buck...(pun there).

 

[TOPGUN]

I really didn't read it that way, but who knows! They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but everyone, including most of us here, have been clammering to get involved. I doubt that there will be wholesale changes just based on the whims of the public though. I have heard some good ideas on season dates, openings and closings, etc. that I think is more in line with what they need to listen to as far as public input, rather than some of the intricate things that are biology based and why they are paying those people to do a job.

 

[BuzzH]

I really didn't read it that way

Then you need some better reading glasses...

 

[hk3m]

1. Yes

2. I did this a few years ago. It was not hard to do. Five bucks is nothing if it would help with realistic hunting goals.

3. I did get a reply from the Dept regarding age. Info was nice to know. I think getting the info was great.

 

[deerfanatic]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 10:56PM (MST)[p]I don't see a single mention by the professionals stating a need for improved harvest reporting in the Wyoming Game and Fish Departments report titled "Statewide Mule Deer Initiative".

Buzz has a very good point in the fact that the biologists are professionals with a very broad understanding of the issues. In addition, many of us Joe Public, haven't got a clue about the big picture impacts to wildlife on a year round basis. Most of the critical winter range is closed to the public for four solid months. Unless your breaking the law and harassing the deer, we don't have the ability to get this big picture perspective to make logical conclusions.

I don't buy the arguement that 100% reporting is required because successful hunters are more prone to completing surveys. I question the cost to the agency to process the surveys, the teeth, and run the statistics. How much time would it take to process 49,119 deer teeth in 2010? What about all the teeth missing the sample set from the coyotes, bears, lions, bobcats, cars, trucks, eagles, etc. What is the annual salary plus benefits of professional biologists? $80,000 per year? How many would you need? Six or seven more? 49,119 teeth is a lot to process in a year. That's about 200 deer teeth each day working five days a week. I'm not sure six or seven covers the cost. So say ten people, definitely need ten if we include elk and antelope too. So we are up to $800,000 each year just for teeth analyzers, plus the added equipment and offices and power bills etc. the all us Joe Publics are going to ##### and moan because the "G&F only worries about selling licenses for the almighty dollar".

Toping it all off, we now have great baseline data to help manage heard objectives that we make no effort in controlling the number of hunters in an area because we are good with the "general" license concept. In a side note, I support the general license.

Smokestick, I am willing to change my opinion on the subject, but you need to dig up some better numbers and facts on cost/benefit ratio. If you look at the mathematics and laws of probabilistics, you won't be able to justify the huge cost being proposed. Maybe I'm wrong, but the ball is in your court to prove it. Here is your challenge:

1) Show the estimated amount of error (I.e statistical confidence) in the current harvest survey method. Prudent mathematical methods must be used in the explanation.
2) Show the estimated amount of error in the mandatory harvest reporting method. Hint it isn't 100% error free.
3) Determine the number of employees required to process all the data and teeth. Use supporting documentation such as currently the department processes x teeth per day per employee. The department currently processes y number of teeth annually. This proposal will require z more teeth to process, therefore we need to hire w more people. Do the same for analyzing the survey data. You will also need to show the fully loaded average cost for each employee added.
4) factor in the equipment costs in your study. Don't forget to include additional office space.

I could go on, and I don't mean to be an a$$, but what is being proposed is not going to be cheap, and isn't going to greatly improve the statistical confidence in the data enough to support the cost.

 

[TOPGUN]

BuzzH---Maybe you missed this line and also need better glasses, as I did say this in closing my post: "Hopefully, that is not just giving everyone lip service". By that I pretty well meant what you stated, but I guess I wasn't clear in that short little sentence. Everyone knows the deer are hurting throughout the west and it may take some thinking outside the box to implement things that have a positive effect, whether it involves habitat, season changes, etc.

 

[MULEY204]

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG .

WAS THE G&F COUNTING BUCKS ON THE WINTER RANGE IN THE PLATTE RIVER VALLEY AND CALLING THIS A WYOMING BUCK , WHEN IN FACT IT WAS NOT IN WYOMING DURING THE HUNTING SEASON BUT SOUTH IN COLORADO ON IT'S SUMMER RANGE.

I CANNOT BELIEVE SOMEONE WITH A DEGREE WOULD NOT KNOW THIS.

THE HUNTERS IN THAT AREA HAVE BEEN SHARING THIS INFO FOR YEARS WITH THE G&F ABOUT THE DECLINE. BUT PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DIDNOT HAVE A DEGREE THEY WHERE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED.

I QUESTION WHO HAS THE BETTER ANSWERS TO THE PROBLEMS.

I GURANTEE THERE ARE SOME FOLKS ON THIS FORUM WITHOUT A DEGREE WHO IF GIVEN THE REINS COULD FIX THIS DEER HERD .

THE G&F APPEAR TO BE A BIT PARALYZED. MAYBE A FEW LESS 5 YEAR STUDIES AND A LITTLE MORE MOVING FORWARD WITH SIMPLE FIXES IS WHAT WE NEED ...

 

[Gator]

NM system seems to work if you don't post up a Harvest report you can't draw a tag the following year.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[huntin50]

Bob,

I don't see how all the teeth for all animals could be processed in a reasonable manner. Too much data.

I do agree with mandatory harvest report for species well below management objectives. Especially deer.