The new survey that DEC has out through Cornell

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Before I try to answer that, I thought of some other stuff. HIP was brought up several times. For the privilege of hunting migratory game birds, hunters are required by law to help collect biological data. That is much different than requiring people to give an opinion on a social issue - no offense, but that idea is just a little silly if you think about it.... Second, all the hip data goes to people who analyze, summarize, report, and make recommendations on MB management. The buck doesn't stop at adding up body counts. The buck wouldn't stop with a social study about AR either.

 

I used the HIP system for years and do understand what it is used for. The point I was making was not TO use HIP but a system similiar that is utilized for gathering the hunters views on the topics. Everyone has access to a phone. Understandably this is just information but I can guarantee you there will be conversations after conversation when this survey is done questioning results, participation and how it was all done. Mark my words it happened with the last one. The results were gray and the information gathering and use was very poorly explained. You put all that together surrounding a topic that is already bitterly dividing the hunting population and you just end up with a bigger divide. There were topics after topics on this forum and others surrounding the previous study. There were both sides quoting results that supported their position. and for the most part both sides were right. Same went for the crossbow topic results.

 

What might even be worse than The DEC getting the results and moving on them is them, yet again, doing another study and doing squat.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

My proposal was that the Yes/no question be handled at the time of license purchase. The survey would then become a condition of getting your license. All licensed hunters would take part ..... involuntarily if they wanted to purchase a license. You can't reach all affected parties any more fairly and completely than that.

 

As far as more complicated surveys, an internet survey with a lot of respondents is certainly more accurate than a miniscule random mail survey. Yes a few will be excluded on an internet survey, but surveying a mere 7000 respondents by mail will exclude a lot more than that. Here's the deal, we have this technology called the internet. Let's use it.

 

 

That is why I thought an automated system like we use at work and HIP has would be perfect. Everyone has access to a phone. Hell even if you guys gotta have all these fancy sliding feeling scales there is no reason when the license is purchased the paper questionairre is handed out so folks can pre read the questions. Then get on the phone. punch in your license number and answer the questions. EVERYONE..

[Doc]

I don't know, but I have always approached issues in a rather simplistic way. I never went out of my way to make things more complex than it had to be. In my mechanical designs, it was always a given that more parts always resulted in reliability hits. I look at this issue the same way. If I (or the DEC) has a question about who is for AR vs. who is against AR, the most straight forward way to get an answer is to ask the question. No need to turn it into any complex social investigation. The question is simple, and an answer to it shouldn't involve Cornell or any other statistical wizards. We find it so easy to justify taking a simple problem and expanding it into some mass of information collecting and massaging. It really does reek of government methodology.

 

I will say that the more complexity you cloak something in, the easier it is to manipulate the outcome.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It is a business Doc. Making the simple complicated keeps those people employed  and the bureaucrats feeling needed.

[mike rossi]

Culver, you said: The results were gray and the information gathering and use was very poorly explained. You put all that together surrounding a topic that is already bitterly dividing the hunting population and you just end up with a bigger divide. There were topics after topics on this forum and others surrounding the previous study. There were both sides quoting results that supported their position. and for the most part both sides were right. Same went for the crossbow topic results.

 

1) I doubt that the results were gray and poorly explained, That usually translates into "I didn't get my way" in the world of hunting... Other times it translates into "I don't understand this"....

 

2) Both sides always have valid points, the purpose of this type of investigation is to strike a balance of fairness as much as possible. As a matter of fact, you asked a few posts up about a standard for achieving equity. Here is a better answer to that question: These types of social investigations are used by wildlife managers as a tool to achieve the most fairness possible.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Mike. I can tell from your response you didn't read that report either

[SteveB]

A question for those who feel a 1% sampling is all that is needed on an issue this divisive:

 

Why bother with and the mandatory check in of kills when a 1% sample is all that is needed for an accurate count?

 

 

[mike rossi]

You are right, I didn't read that Culver. If anyone can gripe its the small game hunters. The DEC only asked ONE question about doves in 2006 and ONE question in 2009 as part of a survey about ALL small game, it wasn't even a survey specific to doves. The DEC even states: "12% of hunters opposed a dove season but we (the DEC) did not ask or attempt to identify reasons why hunters would support or oppose a law change". Link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/59626.html

 

For those interested in how common and how important these investigations are used as tools in wildlife policy making here are some links I had already posted before.

 

Cornell HDR Unit: http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/index-2.html

 

Responsive Management: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

You are right, I didn't read that Culver. If anyone can gripe its the small game hunters. The DEC only asked ONE question about doves in 2006 and ONE question in 2009 as part of a survey about ALL small game, it wasn't even a survey specific to doves. The DEC even states: "12% of hunters opposed a dove season but we (the DEC) did not ask or attempt to identify reasons why hunters would support or oppose a law change". Link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/59626.html

 

 

If they asked the hunting public a point blank question similiar to

 

The DEC has determined the populaiton of Doves in NY could sustain a monitored and regulated hunting season. Do you support the addition of a Dove hunting season in NY. Yes or no. 

 

How do you think the 64% sitting on the fence would lean? If I had been in that poll I would have been in the I don't care portion but I would have also taken a yes stance becasue, who knows, down the road I could have a opportunity to hunt them.

[mike rossi]

A question for those who feel a 1% sampling is all that is needed on an issue this divisive:

 

Why bother with and the mandatory check in of kills when a 1% sample is all that is needed for an accurate count?

Not the same at all. The harvest data represents wmus, age, and sex, and whatever other biological data they might want to collect at some time like placental scars , body fat, or whatever... 

 

Besides, *** I don't think this is decided by who is bigger in numbers or socio-econo-politico status. (I know many sportsmen have a problem with that). If 799,000 hunters want AR and 1,000 do not, I think they will look at if options exist such as how far is the closest wmu without AR and how many of the 1,000 can reasonably exercise that option. All that cant be accessed with yes/no and you betcha,  it might take a follow up study...

 

Any way to begin with, if experts say a random sample of 1% of the deer hunting community is a representative cross section of the deer hunting community, what reasons do I have to doubt them? .

 

*** According to the North American Conservation Model it definitely should NOT be decided by socio-politico-econo status AND game  and hunting opportunity should be distributed fairly

Edited November 1, 2013 by mike rossi

[WesternNY]

This is for all the emotion on this topic 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

*** According to the North American Conservation Model it definitely should NOT be decided by socio-politico-econo status AND game  and hunting opportunity should be distributed fairly

Yet the DEC gave in to Social pressure and implemented and expanded AR's in NY

[CuseHunter]

For those who think that a selection of 1% of the hunting population is too small, you are wrong. Depending on how they pick that 1% is what matters the most, there could be under-coverage or a form of bias introduced. Hopefully it was a random selection and if that's the case, then it wouldn't matter if there is 500,000 hunters selected or 5,000. In statistics which is the basis of surveys, it's not the size of the spoon when tasting your pot of soup, it's whether you mix up the pot and get a a taste of all the components.

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results.

Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform.

I'm just a college student though with a good knowledge of statistics, but obviously no expert on survey analysis.

[phade]

For those who think that a selection of 1% of the hunting population is too small, you are wrong. Depending on how they pick that 1% is what matters the most, there could be under-coverage or a form of bias introduced. Hopefully it was a random selection and if that's the case, then it wouldn't matter if there is 500,000 hunters selected or 5,000. In statistics which is the basis of surveys, it's not the size of the spoon when tasting your pot of soup, it's whether you mix up the pot and get a a taste of all the components.

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results.

Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform.

I'm just a college student though with a good knowledge of statistics, but obviously no expert on survey analysis.

I do agree with this...I'd like to know more about why it was written that way. The survey and questions are sound.

[CuseHunter]

I do agree with this...I'd like to know more about why it was written that way. The survey and questions are sound.

exactly what I thought. Personally I would look at who actually make the survey and find out personal information about them. Also I'd look to see who would be paid or construct the plan for DEC's management program IF they find from this survey there is a need for one. Usually you track the money and find your answer. Gotta love it.

[phade]

exactly what I thought. Personally I would look at who actually make the survey and find out personal information about them. Also I'd look to see who would be paid or construct the plan for DEC's management program IF they find from this survey there is a need for one. Usually you track the money and find your answer. Gotta love it.

 

I get the sense that the writing was done separate from the survey. It's actually not solid writing.

[CuseHunter]

I get the sense that the writing was done separate from the survey. It's actually not solid writing.

I was thinking the same. It almost sounds like it's something the dec inserted to the survey company as a title page. The type of writing definitely isn't cut and dry like a survey should be, there is too much input which is its downfall.

[mike rossi]

Yet the DEC gave in to Social pressure and implemented and expanded AR's in NY

Stakeholder input, which is social pressure, does shape policy. That isn't always good or always bad but in the world of hunting we have a connected few who influence many, even against their best interests and against the best interests of the sport. Stakeholder input / public comment is not a perfect system, but if sportsmen break the cycle of institutionalized thinking the system will improve...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

For those who think that a selection of 1% of the hunting population is too small, you are wrong. Depending on how they pick that 1% is what matters the most, there could be under-coverage or a form of bias introduced. Hopefully it was a random selection and if that's the case, then it wouldn't matter if there is 500,000 hunters selected or 5,000. In statistics which is the basis of surveys, it's not the size of the spoon when tasting your pot of soup, it's whether you mix up the pot and get a a taste of all the components.

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results.

Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform.

I'm just a college student though with a good knowledge of statistics, but obviously no expert on survey analysis.

 

 

Here is my issue and I am sure I did not do a good job clearly stating my concerns. I understand statistics. Sat through many a class. My problem is with this process (and I guess it is the process more thant the survey itself) The DEC has openly said that as far as they are concerned AR's are a social issue. SO I can read into that meaning they are willing to make changes or keep things the same to please the most participants (hunters) out there. As Mike said attempt to make it as fair to us. (never gong to please everyone and can't be fair to everyone).

 

So now the DEC will take the results of this study and utilize it in what ever capacity they deem right to change, or not. Do you guys remember how the last survey results were tossed around on this site alone? There were comments that no one anyone on knew participated. I got the feeling from the comments that very few had any faith in the full study and we all know the list of changes made based on it (maybe the AR expansion?). It is a social and being social there are large sections of our hunting poplulation that won't believe it if they aren't included. It will be a set up or any number of other conspiracies. The majority of us are not on sites like this. a large portion aren't following the behind the sceen dealings in preparing and executing  things like this survey and they aren't informed. WIthout full participation there are a lot of hunters that won't know anything about this until it is a done deal.  How many is large and many. I dont' know but I bet some of you Statisticians out there have a formula for it...lol. I thik NY needs major changes to take a leap forward. I just don't think a sample survey (valid or not) is going to help complete the sales pitch.

[mike rossi]

For those who think that a selection of 1% of the hunting population is too small, you are wrong. Depending on how they pick that 1% is what matters the most, there could be under-coverage or a form of bias introduced. Hopefully it was a random selection and if that's the case, then it wouldn't matter if there is 500,000 hunters selected or 5,000. In statistics which is the basis of surveys, it's not the size of the spoon when tasting your pot of soup, it's whether you mix up the pot and get a a taste of all the components.

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results.

Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform.

I'm just a college student though with a good knowledge of statistics, but obviously no expert on survey analysis.

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results.

 

1) I don't see how giving an opinion on a social issue can be a condition of buying a hunting license, sounds unconstituitional or at least contridictory to the North American Model of Conservation...

 

2) I imagine there are error tools to mitigate this?

 

3) I am not sure reluctant respondants are a target of this survey, because if a disinterested person failed to respond, I don't see how it would bias the survey, I think it would strengthen it. If we assume the intent is to distribute hunting opportunity, I don't see why disinterested/reluctant persons would be surveyed. I imagine they might even "throw out" the reluctants because their responses are not relevant to distribution of hunting opportunity?

 

Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform

 

I didn't read this survey packet, but I have seen this before. There is such a thing as "Persuasive Polling" but I am not going out on a limb and suggesting this is what is going on. This always struck me as odd and I just settled it in my mind as just trying to have an upbeat tone to the introduction.

[Jennifer]

We currently have 3,000+ members of this forum. That's hardly a huge percentage to represent all the hunters of NYS but it's quite a few people.

We can safely assume some/many of the accounts are people that are no longer active, people that signed up but only care to read (not post), and people out of state.

 

I'm curious to find out if any one of the currently active (reading) members gets one of the surveys.

 

If there any way to know how the distribute the surveys, geographically? Meaning, of the random hunters selected, do they take measures to be sure that all areas of the state are represented? I am just curious if there is going to be a bias toward WMUs that have a higher density of hunters (or not).

[Doc]

How can anybody go way out on a limb supporting a system that they aren't even a little bit associated with. Are we supposed to just take it for granted that all the proper procedures are being accommodated simply because it is the great Cornell University and it is being supported by our infallible DEC? How is that track record working out for us? I go by results, and over the years, I have not really been all that impressed.

[mike rossi]

How can anybody go way out on a limb supporting a system that they aren't even a little bit associated with. Are we supposed to just take it for granted that all the proper procedures are being accommodated simply because it is the great Cornell University and it is being supported by our infallible DEC? How is that track record working out for us? I go by results, and over the years, I have not really been all that impressed.

 

In this years NY Hunting & Trapping Official Guide to Laws & Regulations; the booklet you get when you buy a hunting license, on page 8, gives a pretty good overview of how the DEC is going about this. It is also on the DEC website, here is the link (go to page 3, very easy to do with an adobe file) : http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/1314guidefeatures.pdf

 

Just out of curiosity, would you be more confident if Responsive Management did the survey instead of Cornell; or RM did the survey along with Cornell, but independently, and the results were compared?

Edited November 7, 2013 by mike rossi

[Doc]

In this years NY Hunting & Trapping Official Guide to Laws & Regulations; the booklet you get when you buy a hunting license, on page 8, gives a pretty good overview of how the DEC is going about this. It is also on the DEC website, here is the link (go to page 3, very easy to do with an adobe file) : http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/1314guidefeatures.pdf

 

Just out of curiosity, would you be more confident if Responsive Management did the survey instead of Cornell; or RM did the survey along with Cornell, but independently, and the results were compared?

When talking about confidence in any of the DEC/Cornell projects, I can only look back historically at the deer management results which provide tangible, credible, observable, evidence of their credibility. So when it comes to my confidence, I have to say that I would be more confident if I saw more reliable and believable results. Looking back on history, I remember the late 80's and early 90's when populations in western NY ran rampant, and the huge yards (one of which I personally observed) and subsequent population controls actually required via starvation. That was one extreme failure of the statistical model. Then it was not too many years ago when the reports from all over the state talked of extreme deer shortages some of which still exist today. And only after several years of massive public outcry of hunters across the state was there a sudden and significant cutback in permits. To me it all looks pretty much like the statistical activities are for show, but the real management technique is more that of reacting to observations or reacting to conditions that are allowed to get so far out of wack that reversal policies have to be put in place. Looking at how the whole system is based on statistical voo-doo based on tiny samplings, and none of it is ever physically verified until the population situations get extremely skewed that they are obvious even to the casual layman on the street, I have to wonder why anybody has any confidence in these systems. So now they want to apply the same techniques toward an AR decision. Why should I have any confidence in it regardless of what outfit does the numbers. You ask what I would have more confidence in and my answer is neither of the choices that you offered. I would have more confidence in a result arrived at by a near 100% survey of affected people. And there have been numerous posts here on this thread that describe viable ways of doing exactly that.