mandatory deer registeration ???

[Brandon]

Let me first say that I'm not trying to start a big debate over this but just wanted to hear from both sides. Personally I like the idea. Don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of the government knowing everything about me or what kind of season I had and all the laws on the books or that sort of thing, but having to register each deer you harvest and where it was harvested from would give the dnr a better idea of whats out there. I personally don't feel that you can accurrately estimate the deer population by mailing out a questioner. what do you all think:confused:

[NorthJeff]

If you take a statistical math class you can see that any survey or poll can be calculated to a very accurate range. The mail survey of 50,000 mailers gives you a degree of accuracy of 98%. I will not say it is "simple math", because although I liked math, I couldn't stand statistics when I had to take it as a class. On the otherhand, mandatory check-ins such as WI figure they get about a 80-85% accuracy rating due to the fact that a good number of hunters do not actually check their deer in, so the WI DNR has to fudge in the rest of the numbers and they do not get as clear of a picture as MI does.
Also, there is no biological information taken. The mandatory check in only lists sex of animal, what you shot it with, date, and management unit. Basically the same as MI's survey card. At the same time, we are only talking about dead deer, that's it.

I participate in WI's check-in every year. It's not a bother, it's easy, it's conveniant, it takes very little time, but there are doubts to if it can get you to an accuracy rate of anywhere near 98%, even if numbers are "fudged" or guessed as to how many do not actually check in their deer. Same with PA. PA has a mail-in system of mandatory check-in. Again, you have to remember to send the card in, and I have to admit I have forgot more than once in the past 13 years.

*Mandatory check only counts dead deer
*MI's mail survey only counts dead deer

Which one is more accurate? Well, if you understand the math, which I don't, MI will give you an accuracy rate of 98% and is much more effecient cost effective to manage. Can WI's way, or PA, or KY be more accurate? Probably not, but it would take an awful lot of money to find out.

I wouldn't care if I had to check my deer in....I just don't believe it would give us any more information, and by some accounts it would actually give us less accurate results.

[buckslayerII]

An attendee at the NELP meeting suggested that it be mandatory for every hunter to report their season results (whether they killed deer or not) through a simple 1-800 number or on the web. I think a method like this could be effective at determining herd numbers if it was done right AND KEPT SIMPLE!

Voluntary check stations could still be used to determine health and characteristics of the deer being taken.

[Ferg]

Brandon - do a quick search of this forum for this subject and you'll find volumns of research, polls, opinions etc - from Michigan to many other states that already have manditory deer checks - they, for the most part, want to do it the Michigan way - it's cheaper and likely to be more effective -

Long time lurker uh? ;)

Welcome to Management Forum -

ferg....

[Brandon]

I see nothing wrong with the mail in survey infact I received one this year. Problem I see is this is the first time I have ever received one and I have hunted for over 15 years and have harvested a number of year that have never been counted. I did my part and sent it back in but I guess I expected there to be more questions for example how may deer did I see how many bucks vs does and what unit did I see my deer. It only asked were I hunted did I harvest a deer and what sex. as for accuracy I could have furdged the survey if I wanted too, but I didn't. I think a mandatory registeration would first off prevent any fabrication and reflect a more total deer poplation state wide and in each unit.
Further I guess I would like it to come down to deer poplation by townships and would also Like to know the age of the deer taken in each unit.

[Finnlander]

North Jeff,

Not trying to knock your post down but Stats are only as good as the people who have created them. MEANING : Who determined the variables and questions to be applied to the calculation. For example: Who determined the factor to use for the surveys which were not returned. Who has determined or taken into acount the amount of untagged or poached deer, etc... 50,000 may be a good sampling, BUT I think there are tooooo many other factors and pressures which effect the way these surveys are responded too. But we all know hunters never lie;)


Don't get me wrong I agree stats are an important managment tool. But as in any poll or survey the calculations can be skewed by the questionaire. 98% accuracy is a little bit hard for me to swallow. I hope you are right in the end, but if everyone believed this survey to a 98% accuracy there would be no way anyone could argue or dispute the DNR on any of there stats.

Again I would like to belive the DNR has improved their survey to a 98% accuracy, But I too took statistics in college and know how they can be minipulated.

[NorthJeff]

And that's the point...I don't believe they are minipulated, but if you believe that, than ANY method that is used will be minipulated as well. I believe the DNR stats are actually tabulated by and independant source...MSU? Either way though many state wildlife professionals wish they had MI's way to survey dead deer. But again, we are only talking about dead deer. How many deer made it through winter? What is our fawn production for the current year? How many deer are left to shoot for the coming season? Those are the questions I'd like to know and none of those are answered with 50,000 surveys, or mandatory registration. Like I said, I participate in WI's and PA's ever year but I don't see how those methods can be any more accurate than what we currently have.

Also, as far as the 50,000 surveys go. If 43,000 are returned, than by percentage those figures are expanded to what hunters actually harvested. Basically, x number of hunters harvested deer out of 43,000, so that means that if x number of deer were harvested for 43,000 people, than y number of deer were harvested out of 750,000 hunters. You are working with concrete numbers that way.

On the other hand, in WI or PA, ALL hunters are required to complete a mandatory check-in so it's not just a matter of figuring a percentage of how many killed a deer out of how many, but instead it's a matter of counting the deer that were checked in, and then guestimating a percentage of those that were not, and adding it to the total.

It's no different that when a 1000 people are surveyed across the country to who they will vote for president. You look at the percentages, and expand then to include tendacies of all registered voters. You can predict a president to within a few percentage points when 1000 voters out of 100 million are surveyed, so it stands to reason that surveying 50,000 out of 750,000, or whatever the total number is, will give you a pretty high degree of accuracy. Just because the other 49 million voters aren't surveyed does not mean the results are flawed, because it's a percentage that is used to represent tendancies.

Again though, we are only talking about counting dead deer, of which I personally am more concerned, especially as a U.P. resident, about the number of deer left for the coming hunting season.

I have no problem taking a deer to get checked in because it's so easy...but I just don't see how it will be any more accurate and if you truly belive the numbers are "fudged", then any method that is used will also be fudged.

[Gilbey]

the 800 # or on-line required reg and entering all pertinent info in would be a great idea.

[rzdrmh]

hands down, the statistical model that michigan uses is far more accurate than mandatory check in.

spend some time researching guys. email some biologists from other states that use mandatory check in. ask them what they think of michigan's model. you'll be surprised. its extremely effective.

it sounds bad to say, but this is such a tired subject. i attended the dnr meeting for south central region in east lansing last night. they hammered this subject. the dnr has an excellent method for determining harvests. the extra money for mandatory check in would be expensive and far less effective.

as one of the biologists pointed out last night - we don't even know how many PEOPLE live in michigan. you're supposed to participate in the census every ten years, but a lot of people don't do that. and you'd expect all hunters to report their kills?

no. take a sample, and extrapolate the numbers. if you don't understand the math, you're simply going to have to trust the dnr on this one.

[yooperkenny]

hands down, the statistical model that michigan uses is far more accurate than mandatory check in.

Last night in Marquette, one of the DNR guys had this to say in response to skeptics:

"If you don't believe in the accuracy of sampling, next time you go to the doctor demand that he take ALL of your blood for testing"

[Whit1]

I was a huge fan of mandatory deer check-in until last year. I emailed a deer biologist in Ohio, which uses MDCI asking about Michigan's system compared to Ohio's. Below you will find a copy of my email and the resonse.

Please excuse the font changes.



I believe that your method of mandatory deer check-in is the most accurate method of tabulating a season's deer hunting kill and believe that it would behoove Michigan's DNR to implement a similar program.

Why do you use mandatory deer check-in rather than Michigan's method which deals heavily in statistical demographics/information? Is there any data/study showing that madatory deer check-in is a more accurate way of determining a season's take of whitetails? Sincerely, Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI


Hi Milton,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure nonreporting rates. In the 10 years that I’ve been here, I’ve been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.

On the surface, MR seems like the “cats meow.” You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you’re now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn’t check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what’s you’re answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don’t know what noncompliance is, you don’t know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that – an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan’s current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

“Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phonecall, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision". Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort.”

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates. However, I don’t believe it will improve the estimates themselves.

I hope I have shed some “unbiased” light on the subject of mandatory registration. Please don’t hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

Very best,

Mike
Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife
9650 SR 356
New Marshfield, OH 45766
v (740).664.2745 f (740) 664-6841
mike.tonkovich@dnr.state.oh.us (mike.tonkovich@dnr.state.oh.us)

[Liver and Onions]

Last night in Marquette, one of the DNR guys had this to say in response to skeptics:

"If you don't believe in the accuracy of sampling, next time you go to the doctor demand that he take ALL of your blood for testing"

Great line.

Whit,
I know that you must get tired of posting that letter, thanks again. I sure wish the DNR had made hundreds of copies of your request & the reply and then handed it out at all of the state-wide meetings. After knowing the facts, few would want to spend a lot more money on counting dead deer when our method is equal to or superior to other methods which very few states use.

L & O

[fairfax1]

........but, you gotta admit it sure is colorful.

Seriously, in reading posts on the threads about the various meetings it surely appears that the Department can do a better job of explaining how they do what they do when then develop population numbers.

There seems to be widespread skepticism on the counts and that, in turn, colors judgements on many of the other ideas and facts that Department personnel try to put forth.

I, for one, believe 'em. What's to gain by lying when you are in the middle of opposing sides? If your count is high the ag & driver-safety folks charge you are catering to the hunting lobby. If you have a low count....the hunters scream you're a lackey of the ag & safety folks. Might as well tell the truth, at least you can claim the moral high ground and look any of 'em in the eye.

Then, lastly, remember these folks have been doing this for what?..........maybe, 80 friggin' years! There is probably a semi-tractor load of thesis and dissertations and studies from a multitude of universities covering the nuts & bolts of counting deer...dead or alive. This field is well plowed.

[rzdrmh]

obviously, there is an element of sarcasm on the part of the biologist when referring to this analogy. i think its clear that he understands the weaknesses of the analogy.

nonetheless, the fundamental truth remains - sampling is very effective at determining totals with a high degree of confidence.

[NorthJeff]

Thanks again Milt..very powerful letter!

Just receiving some feedback from the Marquette meeting, it was QUITE apparent virtually NO ONE was there to actually ask the DNR how they arrive at their numbers...or to even discuss it. Accusations, finger pointing, picketing, protetests filled the air and from several reports nothing constructive happened at all...and no one really seemed to care, or want and explanation from the DNR how they get their numbers. We spend all this time complaining about the process and have "better" ideas, but then when a chance presented itself to discuss the methods, from a few accounts that have been presented to me...the public did not take the opportunity to do so.

[yooperkenny]

Just receiving some feedback from the Marquette meeting, it was QUITE apparent virtually NO ONE was there to actually ask the DNR how they arrive at their numbers...or to even discuss it. Accusations, finger pointing, picketing, protetests filled the air and from several reports nothing constructive happened at all...and no one really seemed to care, or want and explanation from the DNR how they get their numbers. We spend all this time complaining about the process and have "better" ideas, but then when a chance presented itself to discuss the methods, from a few accounts that have been presented to me...the public did not take the opportunity to do so.

(We meet again!) I beg to differ with your second hand evaluation of the meeting. There was discussion on how the DNR gets their numbers - first by the DNR during their presentation and then by the public as they questioned the numbers. Many expressed dismay at how inflated these numbers are because their personal experience indicates that there are very few deer.

It's noteworthy that Mr Doepker made it a point to say that nobody in the DNR believes that their numbers are exactly accurate, and they're not meant to be because the main purpose of collecting data is to identify trends in deer population. Their numbers, based upon pellet surveys, car deer accidents, deer harvest numbers, and so on show that deer numbers are decreasing. The public vehemently agreed.

Toward's the end sampling was discussed, specifically how OH, PA, MO do it and the point was made by the DNR how biologists in other states wished they did it like Michigan. That's when I heard the blood sample analogy I quoted. Did your sources leave the meeting early?

So I ask the question - why get hung up on how they get their numbers when all agree that they're decreasing? The DNR themselves made this exact point in an effort to channel the discussion back into gathering public comments.

To characterize the Marquette meeting soley as a circus of name calling and finger pointing is simply inaccurate and oversimplified. The picketers were outside - the discussion was inside. It was a productive meeting. Some open minded members of the hunting public learned from the DNR. The DNR certainly understands that we agree that deer numbers are down and we expect them to do their jobs and manage the herd to the best of their ability. They also better understand what we think the reasons are for the numbers going down and if they didn't already know it, that the UP deer hunting tradition is a vital part of this region's identity and Yoopers care about the deer herd.

Were Glock and I the only members at this meeting?

[Finnlander]

Easy fellas,

I for one have never seen this letter before and appreciate what it contains. Thanks for RE- posting it for someone who does not visit this site everyday. As far as counting dead deer, maybe the survey is quite accurate and hopefully it meets the 98% accuracy it claims. I too know the arguement of the number of deer in the Michigan herd is a futal one. I was trying to make the point that statistics are only as good as the data gathered and applied to the calculation. That is my point of concern and I agree the DNR has a ton of experience. Something like 80 friggin years. Its just that their history of miscalculating the herd in my eyes is notorious. (Maybe this is just ignorant misperception on my behalf). Just look at the herd numbers in the 60's and 70's and how they changed so radically in the 90's. Was that planned or was it miscalculation. I truly don't know the answer to this question??

I appreciate the the efforts of the DNR and am not DNR bashing. History has shown poor management in the past which in my eyes has improved greatly in the past 20 years. Just would like to see more consistantcy in their postitons on the population. I read the planned reduction for certain areas of the state, and was blown away. I know times change and because of disease and what not we must all adjust and adapt.

North Jeff,
Maybe I looked at the original post to broadly, for its initial intent. I believe the "dead deer count" can be statistically accurate and could be used as part of a larger formula to statistically calculate teh MI herd. Sorry for a little pessamism, I apologize :bash: I'll work on it. Must have been a bad day.;) :) Thanks for having a civil response to me questioning your post.

[NorthJeff]

yooperkenny...at least one source was there until the lights were turned off. I look at it as a lot of guys have their opinion of why the deer numbers are low...2 buck tags, predation....when there are no valid arguments or science to back it up, which from my experience is the only thing the DNR will listen to, if presented in a professional and constructive discussion.
Hopefully the meeting went better to the DNR than some think then.

[Trophy Specialist]

Last night in Marquette, one of the DNR guys had this to say in response to skeptics:

"If you don't believe in the accuracy of sampling, next time you go to the doctor demand that he take ALL of your blood for testing"
That is a good one.

If mandatory check-ins were mainly going to be used to count the deer killed by hunters, then I would be against such a measure because the post card surveys probably do a better job of that and it would be a waste of our valuable resources. On the other hand if mandatory check-ins were used as part of a state-of-the-art qaulity deer managment strategy then I'd be for such a measure.

[Hipskindt]

I lived in North Carolina for seven years. In NC the state required that you call in your kill to a 1-800 number then you would recieve a validation number to allow you to posses your deer. It only asked for County of kill, sex of the deer and weapon used. It was easy and except for poachers it was used. The great thing about it was the state had a great managment tool to see how many deer were killed in each county during bow gun and black powder season.
I currently live in Washington state where you must report big game hunting sucess or lack of sucess by the end of the season either by E mail or regular mail. I do not think the system out here is as accurate as the system I saw used in North Carolina.
Just a few thoughts on how to make a better system to track deer harvest.

Tom

[bowhunter4life]

I am in favor of checking in all deer. Kentucky is that way, and I believe they do a fine job of managing their deer herd. Jay

[FixedBlade]

I have to drive over an hour to get an otter tagged why would I want to do that for deer also?

[One Eye]

I know that lowering the harvests of antlered deer to one deer per year would make many of hunters mad, but I think that by allowing each hunter to only harvest one buck per season, we would see many more quality deer coming from all across our state. I wouldn't object if we were to go to a one buck per year system, with mandatory check in. Not trying to start a fight, just voicing my 2 cents.

Jay
Actually, studies do not support this conclusion at all. Talk to your biologist or Mr. Clute. Less than 5% of hunters actually fill that 2nd tag. As I continue to remind everyone, Michigan grew our herd the most during the years when we had 4 buck tags. This is because of the way we protected does during that system. The herd swings are more tied to our doe harvests.

If you are looking for more quality animals, perhaps your system may help that. If you are looking for more deer, reducing the buck tags will not help. BTW, I support madatory deer check in, but I do not see it happening in Michigan unless we demand it and PAY for it.

I am actually surprised this post did not get pulled for being off topic. After all, that happened to me this week when I got side-tracked on this one buck vs. two buck thing too.

Dan

[Whit1]

I just edited the part of the post above that is off topic. One Eye is correct about part of it not being "on topic".

[Thunderhead1]

I think it is a great idea...years ago if you shot a doe and wanted another doe license ya had to check the first one......what might be even better is a count of the live deer instead of the harvested ones.....with infrared they can count just about anything these days.

[target-panic]

I've hunted in Illinois for a half dozen years now. I checked in a buck this year via their on-line system. It was very simple......it asked for antler circumference measurements......where & when taken.....and if I saw any bobcats:confused: . For years now, I've b!tched that Michigan needed the same system, but I never gave a thought to the largest variable....hunters that don't comply. Thanks! I guess I do have an open mind......I can see now, how statistical models would be at least as accurate....and much more consistent. What would be wrong with a voluntary "sportsman's survey" that could be a random mailing.....or picked up at license dealers that gatherd info. on all types of game/species encountered or harvested throughout the year. Deer, bear,grouse, coyotes......fishing.....trapping? I'd do it if I thought it would help.

[NorthJeff]

After experiencing mandatory check-ins in WI, KY, and PA...it is very painless, even fun. In KY you can call in and see your deer added to the totals on the computer in an instant, in WI you can check your deer in(keep in mind there are not biologist or field staff present except at designated locations...like MI) and buy a soda, snack, burger from the waitress, bartender, or cashier that helps you, and in PA it's as simple as filling out a postage-paid card and mailing it in(althoug I admit..I have forgot..shoot me!).

It's easy to do, even more than conveniant at times...but at the same time it's costly, doesn't give any more detail of the dead deer in the count, and by most accounts, it's less accurate. I wouldn't care if we had mandatory check-in for conveniance sake, but I'd mind that we would most likely have a less accurate system at the expense of "improved PR image" with wildlife professionals and the hunting public.

Great post..again, Milt! Thanks!

[Brandon]

ok if we want to make this a statistical thing then lets look at a few things and I too do not claim to be a math person.
55000 surveys mailed out
83 counties in michigan
that means 662.6 surveys likely would have been sent out to 662 people in each county
750000 deers hunters in Michigan, average 9036 hunters per county, 662 of which would have been sent a survey
Can you accurately determine the deer population of the state of Michigan by asking very general questions to one out of every 13 hunters
and again I was never asked in this survey "what I feels are important questions" like the number of deer I seen on average per hunt in the specific area I hunted or the number of bucks vs does.

If they want to keep the survey system in place as oppesed to the check in then I think the survey needs to be more specific and need to cover a wider population of hunters. In fact why not send out a serve to every person that purchased a deer license.:bash:

[NorthJeff]

Brandon..none of those questions would be covered by checking in your deer, and again, the survey, and every other form of check-in is only doing one thing, counting dead deer...that's all they do, and MI's is probably the most accurate.

You don't need to survey all hunters to get an accurate answer..that's where the math comes in. For example, 1000 people can be polled out of 100,000,000 voters in the US and a presidential election can be predicted by + or - 4%. So, it makes a lot of sense that when you ask 50,000 people out of 750,000, we would get at least a 98% accuracy rate.

[Brandon]

Northjeff
I understand your statement but don't you think that these questions could be added to get more quality data about the over all herd. Lets face it the DNR has a bad track record when it come to implementing programs to increase, reduce, or maintain the herd. ie don't shoot does, shoot as many does as you can or you can only shoot x amount of deer per year. I think if they want to effectively manage the herd which we are all asking them to do here, then I think they need better data to make better regulations.

[NorthJeff]

Personally, I think on average the DNR numbers are pretty good, and with the level of staffing they micro-manage much less than most of us would like. I agree that additional questions would be warrented, but I don't know if that would actually offer anything definitive enough to be any type of indicator.

However, I do think the DNR could do a much, much better job in the area of education. My local DNR biologist said "education" is not their job...it's up to groups like the QDMA, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc. I think this is wrong. I think increased educational efforts by the department would improve public relations, and would be more effective in making hunters more informed decision makers when it came to making management or harvest decisions. For example, in a DMU you have x number of deer. Maybe x number of deer is 2000 too many, so they issue 2000 permits. Well, that's appropriate for that DMU. The problem is that within that DMU, because it is so large, there can be areas way to high, and way to low, that vary greatly from the "average" accounting for the 2000 permits needed. Hunters need to be more informed decision makers because a DNR biologist is not going to be out in the field holding your hand when you pull the trigger.

I don't see how the survey is not effective for what it is designed to do..count dead deer, but I agree, there is a lot more that could be done, whether it be education, or attempting new ideas in limited areas to continually attempt to improve both the herd and hunting experience.