phade

Yes. The last one identified the real problem with statistical evidence and accomplished what it intended to. This is a deep dive survey into the problem with a root cause analysis. I know you want to think this is simple, but trust me, Cornell is doing exactly as they should in such a process. Have faith in it even if you don't understand and think its overly-complicated. Sometimes people don't trust what their brain cannot process - its human nature. Overcoming it pays big dividends. I can pretty much say with confidence that the results will reveal the actual sentiment that you could take and run with. It may not give the info you WANT to see, but it will give an accurate picture as compared to simple Yes/No/IDGAF.

Not at all, but if that's your prerogative, so be it. The premise is to actually make complex situations simple for decision-makers. It's quite the opposite, actually, of what you believe. That's what Cornell is going to do. Take a complex social issue and determine root cause or sentiment and a direction of travel.

Again, this is going over your head. It's not business, it's actually gauging the sentiment of hunters. Go ahead and poll Yes/No. It doesn't give you a direction to head because you don't understand why the support is implied or not implied. AR could be supported because of frustrations from access. Access being the problem, not the AR desire.

Can you gauge sentiment with Yes/No? You are forcing a decision one way or the other - thus creating an invalid and therefore also unreliable survey. Mail is generally considered the norm right now because it addresses all levels of socio-economic groups. Internet, while common, makes the survey invalid because bias is introduced. Face it, YES/NO seems like is so simple it's the only way to do it. And, in reality, Yes/No actually leads to mistaken decision-making process. For example, Yes/No on AR. Do you support it? What about - determining why they are for it? This survey addresses it. The Yes/No misses out identifying those who are against it, say, as public land hunters, or those who don't have access to prime ground, or any of the other things they ask about in that survey. Why is equally as important as the overall tally of Yes/No to support. If land access determines support or non-support, acting on AR is not the course of action. The course of action could be to incentivize private landholders to open land (just as an example). In most cases, the why is more important than the actual support/non-support. I can clearly see this survey addressing that component. QDMA pushes the "lowest hole in the bucket" philosophy. This survey is aimed at determining that and why to better lead to decision making scnearios down the road. Culver supports QDMA and I am sure he follows the lowest hole in the bucket method, and this survey is no different. A simple Yes/No addresses the middle hole in the bucket...not the lowest.

I can pretty much guarantee you that DECALS has a breach of contract clause this would fall in. Again, for YES/NO is not always the best way to survey sentiment. YES/NO forces one way or the other. There's a reason that Cornell is not using it in the survey. But still, in the end, this isn't going to be a survey where Excel is used to analyze results. Rudimentary methods like that reveal little and are hardly considered valid and reliable. Any company using such methodologies is not conducting valid and reliable stats surveying. It's a much more difficult task that than you believe, trust me.

This is the crux of it. No real NEED to sample 100%. While I would love pie in the sky, it's not NEEDED.

Congrats. Sounds like a nice buck!

I have no issues with people who hold a sliding scale as the season goes on. It's their own belief.

X2 Big time. WIIFM syndrome is a major issue. What's in it for me?

Body size is more of a latitude relation.

Actually, he's largely correct. Soil quality is the foundation of what caliber deer can reach. You can manage as best as possible as humans controlling the herd, but at some point, you can only do what the soil offers. Let deer grow nice and old and fat, and cNY and wNY will offer much higher end bucks than areas around Albany. WI has huge hunter pressure per square mile, yet it consistently leads record book entries. While management IS important, we must realize there are things out of our control that nature and biology drive. Iowa is another example. Great human management of its resources. Arguably the best. But, fact is, the soil is so rich, the corn production in that state alone out-produces the entire NE US states including NY and PA. That same soil is what contributes to the 250" monsters that fall darn near every year.

Everyone thinks is so simple. You are talking out your butt, quite frankly. They are looking at a complex social issue related to hunting. It's not as simple as yes/no on AR. They're looking at a plethora of possibilities in this survey. Yes/No is not always the best question/answer combination. Levels of willingness are often considered a much more acceptable measure of social sentiment. We run SAS and R and Alteryx at my company and I'm privy to the costs because I conducted the business transactions. You know what one basic license costs for just the access to Alteryx? $60,000 dollars per year. That's just ONE analytic software and one license. Again, that's just the software. The DEC doesn't have an analytics team. Cornell or some other consultant would be needed at a likely cost of $50-100k minimum just to have them step foot in the door. And, that's not including any modifications to DECALS. Building a whole separate system is likely a breach of contract with the third-party provider of DECALS first off; not to mention the overall cost to have to seek bids, navigate RFP submissions, and determine a vendor, and then determine the cost. DECALS would likely require a significant cash outlay from the DEC. Getting that, seeing DECALS was a cost overrun, is unlikely. Conducting a reliable and valid survey is complex and they're going about it the best way possible. Would I like 100% input? Yes; but I also understand that such an undertaking would be next to impossible and the ability of Cornell is well positioned to provide the results according to scientifically proven and accepted methodologies. This method is even more desirable if Cornell can gather federal funds, of which the "other simple" method will not.

A single doe is my last choice. Buck only or buck with a bedded doe.

I'm sure. Numbers were so low that seeing them was a victory. Balance wise though...probably as good as it gets.

both in western.

So, why can states with more deer manage better than NY with a shorter season?

I don't think anyone is saying do it as they did then. It's just that the fallacy of a balanced herd is impossible with modern hunting. You can better balance than what it is now, but it is never going to be as good as it was in 1939.

Re-read my post. The season last closed in 1929-1937. From there, modern era hunting has continued. In fact, there was ONE HUNTING SEASON at all between 1908 and 1937. So, not wrong. The herd wasn't hunted for 8 seasons, but really for all but one between 1908 and 1937.

DECALS was not cheap. The third-party provider in Arizona or New Mexio...somewhere out there, is reaping the benefits of the DECALS cost. I forget the actual cost of DECALS, but I remember my face when I saw it. It wasn't a pretty face (not that it normally is). DECALS would need added investment that simply won't happen in today's economy. The Cornell study is likely pocket change for the DEC and its possibly funded by federal dollars.

You are right, but what the state did say was that there was NO DEER HUNTING BEFORE 1938-39 (in the context of modern era hunting). Period. Think about those apples for a second. Look, they didn't have an open hunting season before that 38-39 season. The herd's going to be balanced when there's no hunting going on because natural law dictates it. There have been decades of open hunting since then...and we haven't come close to reaching a balanced herd possible when there is no open season. Those two bucks remain at the top of the typical and non-typical list - even after decades of hunting, billions, maybe trillions, spent trying to improve the quality of deer hunting, with millions of hunters since. And they're still on top.

HIP is federally mandated, no? Big difference in funding. The Service is federal and doesn't care about deer hunter social desire in NY. The DEC does however, but doesn't have the coffer of the Service. HIP is based on a voluntary survey of selected migratory bird hunters in the United States. In simplest terms, the state wildlife agencies collect the name, address, and some additional information from each migratory bird hunter in their state, and send that information to the Service. The Service then randomly selects a sample of those hunters and asks them to provide information on the kind and number of migratory birds they harvest during the hunting season. Those hunters’ reports are then used to develop reliable estimates of the total harvest of all migratory birds throughout the country.

They are fluid - they've modified the gun season dates several times in the past 10 years to the conditions of the deer herd and the hunters. Case in point, they removed the second weekend this year, which was actually only a handful of years in existence. The Ohio DNR is proactive compared to the static nature of our DEC. If a change needs to be made, they do it. They don't talk about talking about it, and then ultimately do nothing or take a baby step that has minimal impact. They base the season post-rut (for the most part) with the opener being Monday after T-day. Seasons ran 7-9 days in length in total. This does not include their MZ days.

I bet it was. Why? Both NYS records in the typical and non-typical still standing TODAY were taken in 1939.

OBR would have an equal impact in terms of immediacy. People hear OBR and think only 5-6k hunters take two bucks a year. That's not the value. The value is that with two tags, hunters will plug the first thing along and then, and only then, hold out for anything with age/rack. And, with the majority of 1.5s being taken as far as age group, hunters will think twice with only one legal tag to burn. I believe two of the best things Ohio does is manage/time its gun season and OBR. Those two changes in NY alone would make a good portion of the state very likely to produce the caliber and quality of hunting many people want without limiting the choice for people like Steve to take a spiker.

If you sample 1% or 100% you still have the same subset of % who are die hards, apathetics, and whackos. Those who don't respond are the ones who I don't want answering the question to begin with, because apathy is a recipe for disaster. If you flip a coin once or 100 times, the % are still mathematically the same.