interesting poll

[Doc]

I think that I mentioned here last year about having talked to a couple NY wildlife biologist from the DEC about a plan to get 100% deer harvest reporting from hunters to get better numbers to help with future decisions on DMP and other population control plans. Neither biologist thought that 100% reporting would be any better than their existing statistical formulas that they use now with the low hunter reports they get currently. I found it very odd that they thought their math was as good or better than actual numbers... Not sure how that kind of mentality plays out for coming up with good information as a basis for making good management decisions... I understand that even with 100% of the hunters reporting there would be deer killed that were not reported.. but the numbers would have to be better than simply using educated guessing... I made me wonder a little about the guys making the decisions.

I look at the super labor intensive way that DEC personnel go about coming up with a harvest count, and it seems that in this age of computers, and automated hunter provided reports, a much simpler and cheaper system could be utilized. Think about DEC personnel running all over the countryside visiting processors, hunt camps, taxidermists and such, writing down data, then inputting all that data into computers and then eventually coming up with estimates of harvests along with estimates of reporting rates (which always seem to have some credibility questions).

 

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws. Want to go further with this technology? How about automatic reminder (warning) mailings, followed by automated tickets for those that ignored the reminder. The only DEC manpower required by the whole process would be the software writers that it takes to set up the process. In fact that would be paid for by those that refuse to abide by the reporting laws. I'll guarantee that almost all reports would be sent in, particularly if next year's licenses and/or permits were contingent on compliance.

[G-Man]

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws.

That's ok but I know people that report doe take every year but don't shot them as they don't want the herd decimated by mo re doe tags the next year. Was even worse with the paper mail in tags, mailed in as successful harvest and never used. That has to screw up.even the current estimates

[Doc]

"Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws."

That's ok but I know people that report doe take every year but don't shot them as they don't want the herd decimated by more doe tags the next year. Was even worse with the paper mail in tags, mailed in as successful harvest and never used. That has to screw up. even the current estimates

 

There is nothing short of 100% individual DEC inspection that will fix any occasional lying on the reports. Any kind of hunter reporting will be subject to improper and illegal inputs. Hopefully that sort of nonsense winds up to be statistically insignificant.

 

But recognizing that the current years harvest is an important ingredient in deer management, I am only thinking of a more accurate and cheap way to replace the archaic and labor intensive methods currently being used.

[jjb4900]

They should require all Deer Butchers and Taxidermists to maintain a log of all the deer they process with the hunters license information that has to be made available to the DEC on request, Taxidermist's may already do this, but there's gotta be dozens of fly by night butcher shops that pop up during the season that probably keep zero records.........I'm sure it's not possible to check them all, but random checks could help keep people in line as far as reporting goes.

[dbHunterNY]

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws.

That's ok but I know people that report doe take every year but don't shot them as they don't want the herd decimated by mo re doe tags the next year. Was even worse with the paper mail in tags, mailed in as successful harvest and never used. That has to screw up.even the current estimates

 

I haven't ever heard of that except from you so maybe it's an isolated or small percentage of people that might do that.  a little education might make them think twice about that.  from a management stand point that'd make it look like there's more deer opposed to what might be there.  they see it as continuously filled tags and hand out more that get filled.  DEC thinks there's a herd there to support the inflated number of tags.  seems to be a ticking time bomb if you ask me.

 

I look at the super labor intensive way that DEC personnel go about coming up with a harvest count, and it seems that in this age of computers, and automated hunter provided reports, a much simpler and cheaper system could be utilized. Think about DEC personnel running all over the countryside visiting processors, hunt camps, taxidermists and such, writing down data, then inputting all that data into computers and then eventually coming up with estimates of harvests along with estimates of reporting rates (which always seem to have some credibility questions).

 

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws. Want to go further with this technology? How about automatic reminder (warning) mailings, followed by automated tickets for those that ignored the reminder. The only DEC manpower required by the whole process would be the software writers that it takes to set up the process. In fact that would be paid for by those that refuse to abide by the reporting laws. I'll guarantee that almost all reports would be sent in, particularly if next year's licenses and/or permits were contingent on compliance.

 

I'm all for this idea... I think it's feasible and it'd work plenty well enough to get better, more accurate, info into DEC's hands.

[jjb4900]

I look at the super labor intensive way that DEC personnel go about coming up with a harvest count, and it seems that in this age of computers, and automated hunter provided reports, a much simpler and cheaper system could be utilized. Think about DEC personnel running all over the countryside visiting processors, hunt camps, taxidermists and such, writing down data, then inputting all that data into computers and then eventually coming up with estimates of harvests along with estimates of reporting rates (which always seem to have some credibility questions).

 

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws. Want to go further with this technology? How about automatic reminder (warning) mailings, followed by automated tickets for those that ignored the reminder. The only DEC manpower required by the whole process would be the software writers that it takes to set up the process. In fact that would be paid for by those that refuse to abide by the reporting laws. I'll guarantee that almost all reports would be sent in, particularly if next year's licenses and/or permits were contingent on compliance.

can't be any more difficult then what DMV does as far as tracking everyone's drivers license, registration and insurance status...

[phade]

I look at the super labor intensive way that DEC personnel go about coming up with a harvest count, and it seems that in this age of computers, and automated hunter provided reports, a much simpler and cheaper system could be utilized. Think about DEC personnel running all over the countryside visiting processors, hunt camps, taxidermists and such, writing down data, then inputting all that data into computers and then eventually coming up with estimates of harvests along with estimates of reporting rates (which always seem to have some credibility questions).

 

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws. Want to go further with this technology? How about automatic reminder (warning) mailings, followed by automated tickets for those that ignored the reminder. The only DEC manpower required by the whole process would be the software writers that it takes to set up the process. In fact that would be paid for by those that refuse to abide by the reporting laws. I'll guarantee that almost all reports would be sent in, particularly if next year's licenses and/or permits were contingent on compliance.

 

Geez Doc, you might be a better fit in China or some other country with that kind of hard-line stances, lol.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

They should require all Deer Butchers and Taxidermists to maintain a log of all the deer they process with the hunters license information that has to be made available to the DEC on request, Taxidermist's may already do this, but there's gotta be dozens of fly by night butcher shops that pop up during the season that probably keep zero records.........I'm sure it's not possible to check them all, but random checks could help keep people in line as far as reporting goes.

sounds like the ammo checks...lol

 

how do you take into account the many many folks that butcher their own? seems to be a growing trend with process pricing getting so high and imposing rags on processors will only push that higher and send more folks to cutting their own.

[growalot]

Not one hunter around us uses a butcher...we have not used one since the early 80's

Edited January 29, 2015 by growalot

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not one hunter around us uses a butcher...we have not used one since the early 80's

8-15 deer a year in our group wouldn't show either.

[jjb4900]

sounds like the ammo checks...lol

 

how do you take into account the many many folks that butcher their own? seems to be a growing trend with process pricing getting so high and imposing rags on processors will only push that higher and send more folks to cutting their own.

DEC already pays visits to Deer Butchers, so why not have them record  what comes in? I realize a lot of people butcher their own deer, and probably just as many don't......people are looking for ways to get more accurate harvest data so why not?, it's not really a matter of who butchers their own deer, it's a matter of finding ways to get a more accurate harvest #.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jjb4900

[phade]

DEC already pays visits to Deer Butchers, so why not have them record  what comes in? I realize a lot of people butcher their own deer, and probably just as many don't......people are looking for ways to get more accurate harvest data so why not?, it's not really a matter of who butchers their own deer, it's a matter of finding ways to get a more accurate harvest #.

 

Can they legally force butchers to do that?

 

That's an interesting concept.

[jjb4900]

Can they legally force butchers to do that?

 

That's an interesting concept.

I don't know...but the one taxidermist I use puts the tag # on the receipt for all deer brought in regardless of whether it's a mount or butcher job. I know many people butcher their own, but I bet thousands are processed by butchers, some of the bigger shops process quite a few. I have no idea if it's even regulated, the majority of the small places that pop up for the season certainly wouldn't pass a USDA inspection.

[phade]

I don't know...but the one taxidermist I use puts the tag # on the receipt for all deer brought in regardless of whether it's a mount or butcher job. I know many people butcher their own, but I bet thousands are processed by butchers, some of the bigger shops process quite a few. I have no idea if it's even regulated, the majority of the small places that pop up for the season certainly wouldn't pass a USDA inspection.

 

Yeah...butchers have their place, but doing it yourself if you have the time/space seems a no-brainer after a while.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

DEC already pays visits to Deer Butchers, so why not have them record what comes in? I realize a lot of people butcher their own deer, and probably just as many don't......people are looking for ways to get more accurate harvest data so why not?, it's not really a matter of who butchers their own deer, it's a matter of finding ways to get a more accurate harvest #.

I don't have an issue doing it but I was just pointing out it still misses a large portion of the harvest and will likely increase cutting costs. Basically a tax. Raise the price to cover it and the percentage of folks using a butchers would likely decease. Not to drag another thread into this but is a small sample is accurate for a poll I would think the accuracy of a small sample here would be as accurate?

[jjb4900]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47738.html

looks like accurate reporting falls on the hunter doing the right thing.....

[Culvercreek hunt club]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47738.html

looks like accurate reporting falls on the hunter doing the right thing.....

interesting write up. I get a chuckle about their estimates of successful hunter percentages that are reporting. I picture a phone call asking if you reporting you deer that were taken and the subsequent knock on the door issuing a ticket for not doing it. I wonder how they arrived at those numbers.

[nyantler]

I look at the super labor intensive way that DEC personnel go about coming up with a harvest count, and it seems that in this age of computers, and automated hunter provided reports, a much simpler and cheaper system could be utilized. Think about DEC personnel running all over the countryside visiting processors, hunt camps, taxidermists and such, writing down data, then inputting all that data into computers and then eventually coming up with estimates of harvests along with estimates of reporting rates (which always seem to have some credibility questions).

 

Computers are used in buying licenses, so the DEC computers already know who's got licenses and permits. We already do our reporting via computerized phone input or P.C. inputting. So the DEC computers are already fed the input by hunters. If the reporting rules were changed to require that every license or permit issued had to be reported (successful or not) a simple computer count would tally up the numbers, and a simple computer sort would identify exactly how many hunters did not report and exactly who it was that broke the reporting laws. Want to go further with this technology? How about automatic reminder (warning) mailings, followed by automated tickets for those that ignored the reminder. The only DEC manpower required by the whole process would be the software writers that it takes to set up the process. In fact that would be paid for by those that refuse to abide by the reporting laws. I'll guarantee that almost all reports would be sent in, particularly if next year's licenses and/or permits were contingent on compliance.

 

That is exactly the plan I proposed and it was basically shrugged off as not really important or necessary... like I said, I found that quite odd. They were very adamant about their figures being extremely accurate when done statistically... don't ask me how they know that, but they seemed pretty sure of themselves and showed little, if any, interest in my plan.

[nyantler]

Can they legally force butchers to do that?

 

That's an interesting concept.

 

Maybe because it's a food item you might be able to... as a health issue.  Not sure.

[jjb4900]

Maybe because it's a food item you might be able to... as a health issue.  Not sure.

http://smallfarms.cornell.edu/2012/07/07/slaughtering-cutting-and-processing/

I think it's only regulated when it's processed in a real slaughterhouse with farm raised animals, other than that there appears to be no regulations on deer butchering as far as I could see. the above link gives you more info then you'd ever need on slaughtering and butchering...and that's pretty much just for USDA health concerns, nothing as far as documenting what's coming and going.

[phade]

I would think their angle would be the tagging, not so much the health component.

 

Just not sure how you could get compliance from them to do that, and as Culver said, without implementing a tax on it.

[jjb4900]

I would think their angle would be the tagging, not so much the health component.

 

Just not sure how you could get compliance from them to do that, and as Culver said, without implementing a tax on it.

yeah, it pretty much looks like it's a free for all as far as the butcher shops go....I couldn't find anything that requires them to do any type of record keeping. I think the legit places that have actual year round businesses probably document it somehow to avoid getting stuck with someone's illegal deer, but the others who just pop up really have no interest in that.

[Doc]

Geez Doc, you might be a better fit in China or some other country with that kind of hard-line stances, lol.

All of that information is already required to be supplied by the hunters. It is already in the DEC computers or at least is mandated by law to be there. The problem is that hunters don't want to comply, and are allowed to get away with thumbing their noses at environmental conservation laws. I don't think that is right, and there are ways of fixing it.

[Doc]

That is exactly the plan I proposed and it was basically shrugged off as not really important or necessary... like I said, I found that quite odd. They were very adamant about their figures being extremely accurate when done statistically... don't ask me how they know that, but they seemed pretty sure of themselves and showed little, if any, interest in my plan.

You're dealing with people that have an existing system to defend. They maybe don't want people rocking their boat. To me what they are saying is that they want to maintain the status quo. If they admit that there is a crack in any part of their system, they leave the door open for the whole thing to be questioned and upset. It is frustrating. I understand how they might set up a defensive posture. Nobody likes their methods questioned. Perhaps had it been pointed out how such a system would save the DEC time effort and money they might have had a bit more interest ... lol.

[phade]

All of that information is already required to be supplied by the hunters. It is already in the DEC computers or at least is mandated by law to be there. The problem is that hunters don't want to comply, and are allowed to get away with thumbing their noses at environmental conservation laws. I don't think that is right, and there are ways of fixing it.

 

How does one defend themselves if accused in that situation?

 

Seems like even one level beyond a red light camera because there's not even a picture of them breaking the law. You are trying to disprove something that doesn't exist in a court of law. Where's the accuser to question?