Harvest Reporting

[Doc]

If you don't have credible harvest reporting, how can you have a credible deer management system. We all know that harvest reporting is something that most hunters do only if it is convenient or only if they feel like it and most just plain don't do it. Even the DEC seems to admit that when they conjure up their "reporting rate" out of bits and pieces of field sampling.

I'm going to repeat from long ago, the plan that I have proposed to anyone who will listen (including the DEC) that would get nearly 100% compliance with the mandatory harvest reporting laws. We got new people and a new forum, and a bunch of time has passed so I figured it was about time to see what everybody thinks of it today.

First of all, you change the law so that every tag requires a report whether a deer was taken on it or not. Then we start using all the computerized data to make sure that everyone complies.

First of all, the DEC computers know every license and permit that has been issued ..... right? It's in the computer already. That system exists already.

Today harvest reports are done with computers whether it is the telephone computerized system or your own P.C.  That system exists already.

Now all Albany has to do is to do a data sort on tags issued, and harvest reports received and out pops all those that did not comply. That's a very simple software manipulation.

So far not a single DEC hand has had to touch any data. No high-paid biologists running around from one meat processor to another or checking in on taxidermists, or running anywhere soliciting info to come up with this questionable "reporting rate". No expensive hand feeding all the data that they come up with manually into computers. No assumptions, estimates or guesstimates or factors or constants or potential errors due to data manipulation and analysis. Already money from the cash-strapped DEC has been saved. Put those guys back to work doing something more productive.

OK, so now we have a list of non-compliant hunters. So what do we do with it. Automatic mailings go out explaining the fines or punishments for continuing not to comply along with a hard deadline. Punishments and fines are up to the DEC to figure out (hey, I can't do it all ..... lol). The letters give a phone number for contact if a hunter feels there's been some error. That phone number would be to a "real person", who can straighten out any problem or simply take the data then. If the hunter ignores the warning, then the fine and/or punishment go into effect. Make the fine or punishment adequate, and believe me there will be no more non-compliance.

That's it. It's that simple. It may not be 100% perfect but it sure is better than the total non-cooperation of hunters is supplying today and takes no magic hocus-pokus statistical gymnastics to try to figure out how many reports are not coming in.

OK, where is the problem with all that? So far I haven't heard one criticism that would indicate that this system would be worse than what we have right now. 

Doc

[burmjohn]

Sounds good to me!

[Buckstopshere]

I think that is a very good idea and would go a long way towards answering a lot of questions.  One thing I noticed last year (at the end of last deer season.) When the DEC violations came out, there was a number of non-reporting violations, about a handful. How did it happen? I didn't see a correlation with any other violations, so why did just a few get busted? I suppose I could check with the DEC and find out, but Doc's post got me thinking. Maybe somebody here knows.

For the record, I always report my kills and would be glad to report my non-filled tags, if given the opportunity.

[wztirem]

Doc,

I surely support your position! It would be interesting to compare the actual harvest to the DEC's expectations for a given area.

I can see a "big debate" on the horizon especially when the DEC adjusts the DMP quotas for various DMU's, institutes hunting restrictions (AR) or gimmick seasons to atone for previous mistakes.

I would still like the DEC to perform a fly over using IR technology to gauge the deer population. I would not oppose a surcharge to the big game license to help fund such a study.

[SteveB]

I think it is a great idea.

Would also like to see a simple 3 to 5 question poll required at time of renewal to

gather real feedback from hunters.

[Lawdwaz]

Even if you had an exact harvest number you still only have an estimate of the live deer population.  Would an exact number of harvested deer really change much of the management?

[Larry]

What the DEC is using is a statistical sampling plan if the mythology is correct then there counts would be highly accurate. Here is another option for those who think the DEC’s numbers are way off

Maybe what needs to happen is to have mandatory reporting on all tags for a year or two. I hate this myself but we can’t have it both ways. If we are not going to report are kills and we also don’t except the DEC’s calculated harvest data. Then mandatory reporting is the only option left, at the very lease it will tell us how good the DEC’s data is. If you don’t report on all your tag used, unused the next time you by a license you don’t receive the tags you didn’t report on. Also you pay first this would put an end to not reporting on tags fast.

[Larry]

Kill reports are a good indicator of herd size it would stand to reason if the kill goes up in a WMU the herd is increasing if the kill goes down the herd is decreasing

[fasteddie]

Sounds like a great idea Doc !!!

[Fantail]

Maybe the DEC can do more with reported harvests, maybe they won't.

What I do know is I pay good money for my son and I to get out into the woods, lease & license included, and try to fill some tags. If i'm reading some of these posts right, it sure sounds like some of you guys want to exercise more control over myself, and other people, hunters in this case, and then punish us if we're not in compliance for data.

I'm fairly sure I can't agree to that plan.

[Geno C]

i think its a better base then whats existing now... it would be a good thing to implement and try, what would it hurt? the DEC knows what tags were issued and everything has a numeric stamp and is keyed into the computer. If it was made manditory that a hunter shall be responseable, scratch that, forced to report every tag whether you harvested or not i personally think it would be a better system that is whats in place now.... should a hunter forget or just not submit this feild data then a reminder letter would be sent to the issued address and if no response or submital on the hunters side maybe a fine or surcharge might be at hand.

but on that note thats a whole other topic. What i want to know is does the DEC take into account for the deer jacked by poaching each year as well? i would assume so but then how would one determine jacked deer for each county and what not? statistics? but how?

but now the flip side of that coin would be what kind atamosity would that cause? howmany hunters would actually be turned off by that idea? enough to not want to possibly continue to hunt because some might find that to be more leg work on there end. i mean reporting a harvest should be done with out say BUT i truly wonder how this topic would stir the pot. especially for those who DO NOT report and also those who JACK deer...

food for thought

[Doc]

I think that is a very good idea and would go a long way towards answering a lot of questions.  One thing I noticed last year (at the end of last deer season.) When the DEC violations came out, there was a number of non-reporting violations, about a handful. How did it happen? I didn't see a correlation with any other violations, so why did just a few get busted? I suppose I could check with the DEC and find out, but Doc's post got me thinking. Maybe somebody here knows.

For the record, I always report my kills and would be glad to report my non-filled tags, if given the opportunity.

I noticed the same thing too. My assumption was that these are non-compliant hunters that the DEC found when they were doing their meat processor surveys in preparation for coming up with their "reporting rate" factor. If I'm right, then what that low number of arrests for "failure to report harvests" really shows is just how small of a sampling they really use. That's a real scary thought.

If you do check with the DEC, let us know what they say. I would be interested to know if my theory is correct.

Doc

[Doc]

Doc,

I surely support your position! It would be interesting to compare the actual harvest to the DEC's expectations for a given area.

I can see a "big debate" on the horizon especially when the DEC adjusts the DMP quotas for various DMU's, institutes hunting restrictions (AR) or gimmick seasons to atone for previous mistakes.

I would still like the DEC to perform a fly over using IR technology to gauge the deer population. I would not oppose a surcharge to the big game license to help fund such a study.

An excellent idea! No they could never afford a total state flyover, but a scientific sampling of certain strategic areas could go a long ways toward verifying their statistical, calculated numbers, or uncovering a need to clean up or re-calibrate their system. This would be the on-the-ground verification (well not exactly on the ground....lol) of their statistics that I have always been hollering about. I have always believed that statistical deer management systems can work, but only with periodic physical verification, re-adjustment and re-calibration to eliminate "data creep" over time.

Doc

[Doc]

but now the flip side of that coin would be what kind atamosity would that cause? howmany hunters would actually be turned off by that idea? enough to not want to possibly continue to hunt because some might find that to be more leg work on there end. i mean reporting a harvest should be done with out say BUT i truly wonder how this topic would stir the pot. especially for those who DO NOT report and also those who JACK deer...

food for thought

That would be something for the DEC to evaluate. I'm not for undue harrassment of hunters, and certainly that aspect would have to be looked at. But on the other hand, if we really don't mean "mandatory" when the law states that reports are legally mandatory then let's drop the pretense and say that reports are suggested. Because the way hunters are ignoring the law right now, they are treating it as a law that they will abide by only if they feel like it. This ignoring of that law is costing the DEC money right now. Field personel have to be pulled from more useful duties to run around the state surveying meat processors and taxidermists and other sources. Then they, or somebody, has to be paid to input the data into a computer and then the program has to run and finally they have a calculated reporting rate, which then, correct or not, gets entered into the harvest numbers and creates the calculated harvest numbers from which all other management decisions are made. It really is a very important and basic part of the whole management scheme that really needs to be gotten right.

Doc

[wztirem]

I do not know if this idea would fly; how about requiring all hunters to surrender their unused tags when purchasing a new license. Talk about getting caught red handed! Lost tags, the system is already in place to secure new tags if one was to lose thier tags during the open season. Eliminate any and all excuses for failing to report a kill.

Hunting licenses are much like driving licenses, they are a privilege which the state can revoke.

[Larry]

If you are caught not reporting your kill the penalty can be the same as poaching. So does that mean if you don’t report your kill you are a poacher?

[burmjohn]

Yes, your not following the rules, avoiding reporting could include not using your tag, which would be poaching.

[sweet old bill]

At every meeting with the Dec on hunting it has been suggested they have as part of your getting a licence you have to discuss were you hunted the prio year, did you take a deer, how many deer did you see and other factors that could be used by the DEC for real time analysis of what they should be doing i.e. reduce doe permits and or increase them.

but nothing is done by the dec...they report the herd size as the same as reported in the 1970's.

[Doc]

There has been a few attempts at soliciting hunter input, such as the bowhunting log program and the grouse counting program, and there may be others. I am not sure how these programs are working out or what they are actually doing with the data, but they have been in place for a few years now. They are attempts at doing what you are suggesting, that is getting input from hunters. No it is not associated with licensing, and therefore does not capture 100% of the data, and perhaps that would be a useful thing to add...... Basically, a mini-survey when you purchase your license. It sounds like a pretty decent idea. Perhaps some of that would provide them with a bit of a "heads-up" when their statistical methods are beginning to creep away from reality a bit.

Doc

[Fantail]

If you are caught not reporting your kill the penalty can be the same as poaching. So does that mean if you don’t report your kill you are a poacher?

Yes, your not following the rules, avoiding reporting could include not using your tag, which would be poaching.

I think Larry was talking about a kill not reported, not an unused tag.

I also think some of you guys are off your rocker a bit. Here, your willing to bend the definition of a term we are not doing just to help enforce another rule you'd like to see enforced for data. How convenient. "Look at that guy he didn't use a tag, he's a poacher." Unfrickinbelievable. I'd have to disagree out of principle.

[Doc]

To be honest, I don't even know how the term poaching is defined with the DEC. Is it illegal taking only, or does it cover any and all infractions or does the DEC even use the term? Do we even care? If there is a law, obey it. That seems simple. What you call someone who doesn't is irrelevant.

Doc

[sweet old bill]

All I am saying is that you have the one time per year you are buying your tags etc and the DEC sure could use that time to have a mini survey to get real time data from the hunter. Not all hunters do report there game they took. But also they do not have to report at that time how many hours they spent hunting. and what was the toal deer they saw. I hunted as example a total of 75% of all days available with the bow and gun both.  I saw a total of 9 deer in that time. I did not take a deer with either bow or gun and or doe permit.

[Fantail]

"does the DEC even use the term?" Come on Doc, are you kidding me? You know the DEC site's search engine is clunky but functional. And for the record, before you try and lecture me about obeying the law, I've been abiding by the DEC regs since I bought my first fishing license. And it's not so complicated. As far as reporting goes, I'd bet some of the hunters who started after the decals / phone system was put in probably don't know how easy they have it. Point is, another set of rules, regulations, and laws if you will that you seem to want the rest of us to jump onboard with will only take another stab at whats left of a traditional hunting experience. It would be like a defacto state of control for data. Another turn-off to being outdoors. Turning it all into a business. Wouldn't want that kind of hunting future. For mine or anyones kids, or for what time I have left on this earth to hunt with for that matter.

[Doc]

"does the DEC even use the term?" Come on Doc, are you kidding me? You know the DEC site's search engine is clunky but functional. And for the record, before you try and lecture me about obeying the law, I've been abiding by the DEC regs since I bought my first fishing license. And it's not so complicated. As far as reporting goes, I'd bet some of the hunters who started after the decals / phone system was put in probably don't know how easy they have it. Point is, another set of rules, regulations, and laws if you will that you seem to want the rest of us to jump onboard with will only take another stab at whats left of a traditional hunting experience. It would be like a defacto state of control for data. Another turn-off to being outdoors. Turning it all into a business. Wouldn't want that kind of hunting future. For mine or anyones kids, or for what time I have left on this earth to hunt with for that matter.

Sorry, the point I was making was that I was having a hard time understanding why a thread about harvest reporting was being side-tracked into a discussion about the definition of the word "poaching". I guess you missed that point and maybe it wasn't made all that clear.

As far as the rest of your comment, I guess I'm not understanding your point or something. As you said, the reporting system is about as simple as anyone can make it, so reporting that tags were filled and unfilled shouldn't be any particular big hassle. I really don't understand what you are getting so excited about. It's not really a huge change as far as hunters are concerned. But anyway, that's your opinion, and that's what I asked for. Thank you for your reply.

Doc

[Fantail]

If your having a hard time understanding where that came from let me point this out from this thread:

If you are caught not reporting your kill the penalty can be the same as poaching. So does that mean if you don’t report your kill you are a poacher?

Yes, your not following the rules, avoiding reporting could include not using your tag, which would be poaching.

It doesn't take a detective to see where this was going right after page 1. I didn't side track your thread. Or miss that point. The reporting system, is not convoluted as it is imo. Taxing it with more regulations and fines for unused tags would add complications and create apathy, and still not give accurate harvest reporting. And so that would be a big change. I think your idea does not encompass all the changes in a hunters plans, bad weather, a snooze, the hunters who pass on several shots because they are after points, even so far as fawns lost to predatation, the list goes on. But it does outline punishment for folks not in complete compliance for data that imo would still not be accurate as you would like. And I don't think that's what hunters in this state need.

Whats next we have to report unused Turkey tags?