Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

9. In order to institute a changes of this nature do you think the DNRE should conti

  • 66%

    Votes: 113 36.9%
  • 60%

    Votes: 47 15.4%
  • 51%

    Votes: 146 47.7%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
A simple majority might be one thing if 100% of the hunters who would be affected by the regulation change had the opportunity to vote. That is not the case with APR initiatives, only a small sample of hunters get the opportunity to vote. The 66% is designed to placate those who may be opposed to the changes but who are not included in the survey. You might not like the change but if 2/3rds of those polled voted for it, it's probable that a majority of all hunters would support it. It might be hard to say the same thing if the regulation is changed with only 51% of the sample supporting it. I see the super majority as a reasonable safeguard designed to make sure that the decision is truly reflective of a majority of public sentiment, even those who don't get to participate in the sample.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
People need to understand that this is not an election where everybody gets to vote. They should also be aware that the sample that is used is not a randomly generated sample, it has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions. The DNR is aware of that fact, Brian Frawley acknowledged that there is an inherent bias in the sample due to the fact that members of the hunter sample are taken from individuals who have previously participated in the annual harvest survey.

People should also be aware that these are not particularly large samples. For example, in the Leelanau Co. survey, a 1% simple majority would only be 12 hunters. That means that if just a simple majority was employed, implementing APR's could be based on as few as 12 votes, which would in turn impact the hunting experience of almost 4,000 hunters.

If everybody who would be impacted had the opportunity to vote and express their opinion, I would go along with a simple majority, but that is not the case and there has not been any viable suggestions made for how the sample size could be increased in a cost effective manner.

Given the fact that relatively small sample sizes are used and as a means to somewhat compensate for the inherent bias contained within the sample, in my opinion, employing a super majority insures that the decision is truly reflective of public sentiment, instead of just a statistical anomaly.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, you stated:

"People need to understand that this is not an election where everybody gets to vote. They should also be aware that the sample that is used is not a randomly generated sample, it has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions. The DNR is aware of that fact, Brian Frawley acknowledged that there is an inherent bias in the sample due to the fact that members of the hunter sample are taken from individuals who have previously participated in the annual harvest survey."

For the life of me I can't see how the inherent bias Mr. Frawley acknowledges relates to your assertion [see underlined part of quote]. Can you enlighten us?
Not exactly sure what you are asking but I'll take a stab at it.

The annual hunter harvest survey that is mailed out every spring is sent to a fairly large number of hunters who have purchased licenses. Only a portion of those hunters tend to take the time to return those completed surveys. Many hunters simply throw them in the trash. The DNR follows up with those who do not return the surveys and gives them another chance. Still a certain percentage don't return the surveys. Those hunters who take the time to complete the survey and mail it back to the DNR are likely to be more interested in wildlife management issues then those who simply throw the survey and both of the follow up postcards in the trash,

The pool of hunters who are chosen to receive the APR survey is taken from hunters who have previously participated in the annual harvest survey AND who have purchased antlerless licenses in the DMU that the APR's are being proposed for. As a result the APR hunter sample is made up of hunters who took the time both to complete the initial annual harvest survey, took time to complete and return the APR survey and who have previously purchased antlerless licenses in the DMU.

The combination of those factors creates a non-random sample composed of hunters who tend to be more avidly interested in deer hunting and more involved in wildlife management issues then the average Joe Lunch bucket hunter who does not purchase antlerless tags and failed to invest the time and effort required to complete and return the DNR surveys. It's not much of a mental stretch to assume that such a non-random sample would be more inclined to agree with management changes such a APR's when compared to a truly random sample of deer hunters.

It's similar in some ways to comparing the views of those who visit this forum compared to the average deer hunter. I'd bet pretty good money that there would be a higher level of support for APR's among MS forum members, then there would be among a randomly selected sample of Michigan deer hunters.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Percentages, shmercentages. Pick a number and move on, I say.

As to the surveys; ALL landowners owning, say, 40 or more acres should be allowed to participate, and they should be alloted one vote for each acre they own. You own 40 acres, you get 40 votes; 1,000 acres, 1,000 votes. THAT is what I would call representative decision-making, for it truly would weight stakeholder interest in the most equitable manner possible.
If that was the policy in Leelanau Co. there would not be a deer left. The large landowners are all farmers who would like to see the deer herd eradicated. Would not be a good policy in my opinion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, based on all the MDNRE survey material published over the years, antlerless tag purchase is totally not a factor or consideration in selecting the hunter sample. Consequently, your assumption [that the hunter sample has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions] falls apart.

On the other hand, considering the land fragmentation here in Michigan and the inclusion of landowners with as little as 5 acres, it's not much of a mental stretch to assume that the landowner sample would be overly represented by small parcel owners more inclined to disagree with management changes such a APR's.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong in the assertion that is bolded above. Antlerless license purchase is absolutely the determining factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. These surveys are specific to a certain DMU and antlerless licenses are the only way to determine who hunted in a given DMU with any reliability. If you want to argue about it I suggest that you talk to Brian Frawley or Brent Rudolph, they will confirm that the APR pool of potential survey recipients is based on individuals who both previously participated in the annual harvest survey and who purchased antlerless licenses in the specific DMU in question. It's not even enough to have applied for an antlerless permit in the specific DMU, they only use those who were successful in obtaining a permit.

Why, pray tell, would smaller parcel owners be less inclined to support APR's? I've seen no evidence that would support that conclusion but feel free to provide some. ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster you're 100% wrong. Antlerless license purchase is absolutely not the determining factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. Please read and consider the following excerpt from the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Wildlife Division Report No. 3360, March 2002.

"The estimate of hunter support was also calculated using a simple random sampling design. A random sample of these hunters was obtained from lists of people that indicated they had hunted in Leelanau County during 1998-2000. These lists represented randomly selected people included in annual deer harvest surveys that were conducted by the Wildlife Division
(Frawley 1999, 2000, 2001)."

Similar wording is used regarding the hunter sample protocol for all the MDNRE APR survey reports to date.
Phil -

A couple of weeks ago I sat through a presentation by Brian Frawley and Brent Rudolph, as well as 3 NRC commissioners and Dr. Mason, in which Brian outlined the process that has been used for selecting the sample pool for APR surveys. Brian clearly stated that past antlerless deer license purchases were the method used for identifying individuals to populate the pool for potential APR survey recipiants. The annual harvest survey was used to get mailing addresses, Antlerless sales data was used to insure that individuals included in the sample pool hunted in the specific DMU in question. I asked Brian about potential bias from using a non-random pool to generate the sample and he confirmed that there is a potential bias and indicated that they apply some statistical manipulations to try and minimize the impact of the bias.

There were at least 4 other MS members present at that meeting, maybe one of them will jump in and either confirm or deny my recollection of what Brian and Brent said regarding this question.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, you're 100% wrong. I talked with Brian Frawley today and he said that [during the presentation you make reference to in your previous post] both he and Brent Rudolph clearly stated that antlerless license purchase is absolutely not a factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. He said that they explained that the antlerless tag purchase universe was not used because only half the hunters buy an antlerless license/tag. He went on to say that the hunter sample proctocol that is followed is set forth in the APR guidelines and is reiterated in the state's APR Survey and Evaluation Reports.
Phil -
I may be wrong about the antlerless license aspect, I have certainly been wrong before, I'll confirm it at the next meeting. The fact remains that the APR sample used is not a truly randomly generated sample and is somewhat self selecting by being based on a sample pool of hunters who have previously participated in the annual hunter survey. Did you ask Brian about that potential bias in your conversation?

I believe that hunters who choose to take the time to respond to the DNR surveys indicates a higher level of interest and involvement in the sport then those who decline participating in the survey. This creates the potential for a sample group that will have a greater pre-disposition to support APR's then if the sample was generated simply from those hunters who purchased licenses the previous year.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
A concern regarding having a separate landowners sample, since only about 6.5% of the people living in Michigan hunt, do we really want to set a precedent in creating a situation where about 93% of the people making a decision regarding hunting, are non-hunters? I realize that non-hunting landowners, like farmers, have a vested interest regarding the deer population but still, it makes me a little uncomfortable that such a large percentage of those included in the landowner sample may not have the slightest idea of what the potential consequences of the issue may be. Food for thought, anyway.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top