The new survey that DEC has out through Cornell

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I will skip my comments for now and let you all read a copy I was emailed. Read it an see what you think.

 

1.pdf

2.pdf

3.pdf

4.pdf

5.pdf

6.pdf

[Jennifer]

For those having trouble with the formatting, once you open a page of the document in a PDF viewer, go to "View" -> "Rotate View" -> "Counterclockwise". You can then zoom in and read more easily.

[BKhunter]

Personally I think they are asking good questions. I personally would like to see a comments section so you can explain your stance. I personally do not take small antlered deer anymore as I have been fortunate to get DMP tags every year and would rather take a doe than a small buck. I will say this though, I do love vension and it came down to it and I did not see any deer all year and fork horn walked passed me while the sun was setting on the last day of the season I would not hesitate to drop him and fill my tag. I hunt during bow season, regular firearm season as well as muzzle loader season. I have plenty of opportunities to harvest does for the meat and that is what I generally do this way I can be selective with my bucks. I will say this as far as AR's go, my first deer was a cow spike on my bow and I will never forget that moment. If AR's were in place that memory would not exists, so this is a catch 22 in my book and will always be strongly debated from both view points. If I had to lean one way I guess I wouldn't mind seeing larger bucks and more of them so I guess I would be in favor of them enacting AR's and understand the point of this survey.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Could have done the same thing with a short, simple survey at the time of purchasing your license. Then everyone would have a say, not just 1% of the big game hunters in the state.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

For those having trouble with the formatting, once you open a page of the document in a PDF viewer, go to "View" -> "Rotate View" -> "Counterclockwise". You can then zoom in and read more easily.

 

 

I tried to do that and save then in the correct orientation but it wouldn't work... sorry

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Could have done the same thing with a short, simple survey at the time of purchasing your license. Then everyone would have a say, not just 1% of the big game hunters in the state.

I know. just aske the dam questions you want answered. Enough of this touchy feels how does it feel crap. DO YOU WANT XXXXXXXXX--yes or no

[Jennifer]

I tried to do that and save then in the correct orientation but it wouldn't work... sorry

 

I don't think you can save it that way... it's just to be able to read it. Sorry about that.

[First-light]

I don't think you can save it that way... it's just to be able to read it. Sorry about that.

Go under tools/pages/rotate 90 counterclockwise. Then do a save as, worked for me using Acrobat

[bluecoupe]

I may of missed it but I didn't see anything indicating any improvement in the condition of the deer herd, simply bigger antlers.  I'd really like to know the criteria used for selecting the survey participants.

 

Seems like it would of been fairly easy and fair to all to implement the survey on the DEC site. Registration for the survey would be simple with your DEC ID number. They all registered hunters would have the ability to participate in the survey if they chose to do so.

[accman]

As survey's go, 1 or 2% of the population cannot adequately give the state a true feel for hunters opinions.  They should have handed out the survey to everyone who purchased a NY big game license, printed one more label, and had you mail it in by the end of the year. They could have scanned in all the votes. I think asking what WMU you hunt in including multiple areas would have been beneficial.  

 

Looks like a great survey and I'm a hunter who usually lets the small ones go, doesn't shoot doe, want's no reduction in rifle time, and will do whatever it takes to further the sport.  I'm not against hunters taking whatever they want, as long as they can use it.  How can I take the food out of their mouths.  I can't judge what's right for other people, only myself.  Hope something good comes out of this time and effort. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The only ones I am sure of that are benefiting out of all this  is Cornell...lol

[pawle76]

Could have done the same thing with a short, simple survey at the time of purchasing your license. Then everyone would have a say, not just 1% of the big game hunters in the state.

 

100% agree with you

[mike rossi]

The only ones I am sure of that are benefiting out of all this  is Cornell...lol

This is from the cornel human dimensions unit. Human Dimensions is a term for the social aspects of wildlife management... This type of survey is exactly what they do, this isn't something new or super profitable for them... They have completed  many (tens of thousands?) of these reports and I am sure this is not the only one in progress right now. They might receive Pitman Robertson grants for some of these studies, but I am not sure.

Edited October 30, 2013 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

I may of missed it but I didn't see anything indicating any improvement in the condition of the deer herd, simply bigger antlers.  I'd really like to know the criteria used for selecting the survey participants.

 

Seems like it would of been fairly easy and fair to all to implement the survey on the DEC site. Registration for the survey would be simple with your DEC ID number. They all registered hunters would have the ability to participate in the survey if they chose to do so.

"I may of missed it but I didn't see anything indicating any improvement in the condition of the deer herd, simply bigger antlers" Its not about biology, its about sociology or human dimensions...

 

" Seems like it would of been fairly easy and fair to all to implement the survey on the DEC site. Registration for the survey would be simple with your DEC ID number. They all registered hunters would have the ability to participate in the survey if they chose to do so". For the statistics to have "rigor" the number of participants has to be set, you cant just say whoever wants to participate go ahead. Additionally , doing it the way you suggest would bias the survey because  those with vested interest are more likely to respond.

 

" I'd really like to know the criteria used for selecting the survey participants". It is supposed to be a random sample or a random sample of a subgroup such as big game hunters.

[bluecoupe]

Its not about biology, its about sociology or human dimensions...

But if people are going to tout that it's not simply for increasing trophy potential then shouldn't there be some supportive data to show how the DEER will actually benefit from the changes?

 

For the statistics to have "rigor" the number of participants has to be set, you cant just say whoever wants to participate go ahead. Additionally , doing it the way you suggest would bias the survey because  those with vested interest are more likely to respond.

I don't follow that logic at all. So it's better to let a subset of people represent the whole rather than finding out what the position of the whole is. Just not following.

 

It is supposed to be a random sample or a random sample of a subgroup such as big game hunters.

The key words in that sentence are supposed to be and such as.   That gives me about as much confidence as does the government telling me how great Obamacare is...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

" Seems like it would of been fairly easy and fair to all to implement the survey on the DEC site. Registration for the survey would be simple with your DEC ID number. They all registered hunters would have the ability to participate in the survey if they chose to do so". For the statistics to have "rigor" the number of participants has to be set, you cant just say whoever wants to participate go ahead. Additionally , doing it the way you suggest would bias the survey because  those with vested interest are more likely to respond.

 

For a proposed major cultural shift in NY hunting this should be a mandatory response at the time of license sales.

[mike rossi]

But if people are going to tout that it's not simply for increasing trophy potential then shouldn't there be some supportive data to show how the DEER will actually benefit from the changes?

 

The public isn't as involved in the biological decisions as the social ones, And, among wildlife scientists, I don't think you will see a consensus that this will benefit deer. A few suggest the age structure is unnatural due to hunting and that this impacts deer. I don't know how well studied this impact is or if it is still in a "hypotheses" state... I do know that the deer class which spreads CWD the most is the same which AR protect - yearling bucks....

 

I don't follow that logic at all. So it's better to let a subset of people represent the whole rather than finding out what the position of the whole is. Just not following.

 

The statistical method has a procedure. Each analysis most follow a study design. Its not just thrown together like most people think. To follow it you need some back ground in stats.

 

The key words in that sentence are supposed to be and such as.   That gives me about as much confidence as does the government telling me how great Obamacare is...

 

How well the design of the study follows procedure, including how random the participants are chosen, determines the rigor, or how accurate the conclusions are. Some studies ( like those by gas/oil industries) are really lame and lack rigor, because they cherry pick the respondants or data. Randomness and quality data plus objectivity =  a reliable study and vice versa... The data is supposed to be random, but sometimes it is not....

[phade]

No offense to anyone, but the people questioning the survey obviously don't know the caliber of people at Cornell that conduct these studies and surveys. They know what they are doing; let them do it.

[phade]

For a proposed major cultural shift in NY hunting this should be a mandatory response at the time of license sales.

 

Not practical in the retail world, although I agree it would be nice to have 100% representation.

[mike rossi]

For a proposed major cultural shift in NY hunting this should be a mandatory response at the time of license sales.

You cant tally the results, analyze it, and reach a conclusion unless there is a design to the study. Besides doing it that way would bias the study one way or the other. Cornel HD research unit or someone at the DEC can give you a better explanation.

 

Interestingly, if this or anything else is progressing into law, the public comment period can be the final determinant. If the survey shows most hunters want it, an active response opposing it during the public comment phase might trump it all. Off course, it works the other way too...

 

To clarify what I said earlier about this study possibly being funded by the Pitman Robertson program. If it is, it is likely that the DEC applies for the grant and then pays Cornel, although they also may be able to apply, I am not sure... When you read these reports or field research, if it was funded with wildlife restoration funds (Pitman Robertson Federal Funds), it will indicate so, each grant is assigned a number which is stamped in like Made in America...

Edited October 30, 2013 by mike rossi

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No offense to anyone, but the people questioning the survey obviously don't know the caliber of people at Cornell that conduct these studies and surveys. They know what they are doing; let them do it.

 

 

Very similiar to the political polls. Never any reliability issues there, are there?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not practical in the retail world, although I agree it would be nice to have 100% representation.

 

 

What would be so difficult in putting this together. every waterfowler goes through a similiar process in registering and getting their HIP number. Seems pretty simple to me. I guess I am missing the basic ability to understand complex issues.

 

Bottom line is. If they really wanted to know what everyone wanted they could easily find out.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

You cant tally the results, analyze it, and reach a conclusion unless there is a design to the study. Besides doing it that way would bias the study one way or the other. Cornel HD research unit or someone at the DEC can give you a better explanation.

I can agree that the bias can be imparted in a small sample poll. The questions could be much clearer in a voting proposal that is utilizing all the big game hunting population.

[phade]

Very similiar to the political polls. Never any reliability issues there, are there?

 

 

Political polls are astutely accurate; they are so accurate that they can cause the public to not actually come out and vote - example - Rochester Mayor Tom Richards losing the in the primary.

[phade]

What would be so difficult in putting this together. every waterfowler goes through a similiar process in registering and getting their HIP number. Seems pretty simple to me. I guess I am missing the basic ability to understand complex issues.

 

Bottom line is. If they really wanted to know what everyone wanted they could easily find out.

 

Retailers sell the bulk of licenses from what I understand - somewhere in the 75-80% range. Retailers make very little net profit on a per license sale. In fact, most retail outlets offer licensing as a value-adding, but profit leaking service to customers. Basically, they add the DECALS outlet to entice customers to come into the store to buy other items where a profit can be had.

 

Similar to a gas station - the profit isn't really in the gas for the store owner - it's in the soda, chips, beer, and cigarettes. Ever wonder why companies like Fast Trac encourage the 5c off per gallon of gas with their "free club membership"? It's because it requires you to walk into the store rather than to pay at the pump.

 

No retailer is going to want to reduce productivity on already over-worked, under-paid hourly retail employees. The DEC and any grants they get certainly cannot fund the retailers to comp them for added workers and the associated costs (health care, taxes, benefits, etc.). I personally rather entrust Cornell personnel over those part-time button pushers, even with a miniscule sample base. At least the study is valid and reliable.

 

This doesn't include the re-tooling of DECALS to accommodate such surveys. DECALS was an overrun product cost-wise by a significant %. There is no desire to add any additional funds into DECALS from an operational perspective.

Edited October 30, 2013 by phade