Why Do I Need to Report the Number of Days I Hunted?

December 14, 2017

Question: Why does the deer harvest report questionnaire ask about the number of days spent hunting? Why is this question important? What is the purpose of this information? (A.J.)

Answer: Your timing is perfect, as the deer tag reporting deadline of Jan. 31 is fast approaching. Deer tag reporting is now mandatory for all deer tag holders, successful or not. Successful deer tag holders are required to report their deer within 30 days of take or by Jan. 31, whichever date is first. Unsuccessful deer tag holders, whether they hunted or not, are required to report no harvest by Jan. 31 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 708.5).

Among the information deer tag holders must provide when reporting their tags is the number of days they spent hunting deer. This question gives our deer biologists some insight into the level of effort and a rough indication of population trends. For example, if the level of effort – or number of days spent hunting deer – keeps increasing for both successful and unsuccessful hunters, it could mean deer populations are declining. And the opposite holds true, too. If the number of days successful deer hunters spend in the field decreases over time, it could mean populations in a particular deer hunting zone are on the increase.

We want to thank you, A.J., for reporting your deer tag. A record high 84 percent of deer tag holders submitted harvest report for 2016. That information has provided our deer biologists with more accurate and precise harvest numbers than they’ve ever had. It’s an additional data tool in our biologists’ tool box – combined with traditional deer surveys and other field work – that is critical for calculating deer tag quotas for the next year and conserving our deer populations for the future.

Unsuccessful deer tag holders, whether they hunted or not, are required to report no harvest by Jan. 31

What a stupid law. If it's the law to report a successful hunt, then do the simple math of subtracting THAT number from the number of tags sold for the tally on report of no harvest.  More government than we need once again...

For example, if the level of effort – or number of days spent hunting deer – keeps increasing for both successful and unsuccessful hunters, it could mean deer populations are declining.

How unscientific is THAT??!!  I may not have a PhD, but I do know that stats can not have much validity using this method of gathering data. 

Think about this;
Say 1,000 hunters who normally hunt 5 days to get their deer only hunt 4 days the following year and don't get a deer.  If it takes 5 days and 100% success one year, the biologists are gonna think that the herds are in good or even over populated condition.  But then the next year no deer are harvested but 4,000 days were spent hunting them.  Biologist are gonna now think what?  That deer herds are in poor or even underpopulated condition?  The stats tell them nothing if that's how the number are being compiled.  For stats to mean something, then the data has to reliably gathered and utilized in models that have valid meaning. 

So, then, why are they really wanting to gather these stats?  To limit the number of days you can hunt.  If, for example, it takes 5 days to get a deer, then the rules are modified so a hunter, now required to report the # of days in the field, will be limited to 4 days.  I predict that the # of days a hunter is allowed to actually pursue deer during a particular season will be regulated in the future.  Because SCIENCE will prove it's needed to manage the deer population.   

I think they came up with this to reduce the number of people that hunt and increase the amount of money they can collect.  I spent 0 days deer hunting this year, reported it at the end of the b zone season and will never buy another California deer hunting license.  Fuck this state, I'm moving to Michigan   

Give the biologists a little more credit than that.  More data is good and it does't take that much effort to return an unused tag or to report the number of days.  We bitch a lot that they don't have good data on MPAs and sufficient abalone transects and Yelloweye Hotspots and all matter of other things, so lets not bitch about them actually trying to collect more data that might actually be useful.  The data is all aggregated and reported, and is available to anyone.  It would be nice if they did more of this, not less of it.

Give the biologists a little more credit than that.  More data is good and it does't take that much effort to return an unused tag or to report the number of days.  We bitch a lot that they don't have good data on MPAs and sufficient abalone transects and Yelloweye Hotspots and all matter of other things, so lets not bitch about them actually trying to collect more data that might actually be useful.  The data is all aggregated and reported, and is available to anyone.  It would be nice if they did more of this, not less of it.

+++++

Unsuccessful deer tag holders, whether they hunted or not, are required to report no harvest by Jan. 31

What a stupid law. If it's the law to report a successful hunt, then do the simple math of subtracting THAT number from the number of tags sold for the tally on report of no harvest.  More government than we need once again...

For example, if the level of effort – or number of days spent hunting deer – keeps increasing for both successful and unsuccessful hunters, it could mean deer populations are declining.

How unscientific is THAT??!!  I may not have a PhD, but I do know that stats can not have much validity using this method of gathering data. 

Think about this;
Say 1,000 hunters who normally hunt 5 days to get their deer only hunt 4 days the following year and don't get a deer.  If it takes 5 days and 100% success one year, the biologists are gonna think that the herds are in good or even over populated condition.  But then the next year no deer are harvested but 4,000 days were spent hunting them.  Biologist are gonna now think what?  That deer herds are in poor or even underpopulated condition?  The stats tell them nothing if that's how the number are being compiled.  For stats to mean something, then the data has to reliably gathered and utilized in models that have valid meaning. 

So, then, why are they really wanting to gather these stats?  To limit the number of days you can hunt.  If, for example, it takes 5 days to get a deer, then the rules are modified so a hunter, now required to report the # of days in the field, will be limited to 4 days.  I predict that the # of days a hunter is allowed to actually pursue deer during a particular season will be regulated in the future.  Because SCIENCE will prove it's needed to manage the deer population.

Facepalm. You should have just stuck with “I don’t have a PhD”, and left all the conspiratorial nonsense where it belongs, ruminating in the back of your skull  . It doesn’t work the way you think it does.

Also, Angler and Hunter self reporting is an exercise in learning MORE about a resource with FEWER government employees. If anglers and hunters accurately self report we can get a better understanding about the resource without sending a group of poor schlubs in the field to count animals.

JEEBUS

And anyone thinking self-reporting is any kind of valid scientific data worthy of taking into consideration when managing anything isn't using a PhD either. 
Here's another example;
Last week it was reported in the Mt. Democrat, local newspaper here in Placerville area, that there were many more sightings for mountain lions in the recent past.  Biologists interviewed state there is no increase in lions in our area, that the reporting is due to a higher awareness.  Now, how can biologists claim self reporting hunter success is valid and self reporting resident sightings are not valid?  It's their manipulation and interpretation that is the difference.  For some reason, probably funding, it isn't in the best interests of state wildlife biologists to come out and state that there is an increase in lions here on the West slope.  Governmental control of any resource has no oversight. 
My observation stands; The gathering of data from hunter self reporting is not a valid method of managing the resource nor should it be considered.  There just isn't a model that could accurately utilize it as the source is not proven to be accurate.  If biologists state that an increase in lion sightings is not accurate in projecting lion populations, then how can the sightings/hunter success be accurate for projecting deer populations?

And anyone thinking self-reporting is any kind of valid scientific data worthy of taking into consideration when managing anything isn't using a PhD either. 
Here's another example;
Last week it was reported in the Mt. Democrat, local newspaper here in Placerville area, that there were many more sightings for mountain lions in the recent past.  Biologists interviewed state there is no increase in lions in our area, that the reporting is due to a higher awareness.  Now, how can biologists claim self reporting hunter success is valid and self reporting resident sightings are not valid?  It's their manipulation and interpretation that is the difference.  For some reason, probably funding, it isn't in the best interests of state wildlife biologists to come out and state that there is an increase in lions here on the West slope.  Governmental control of any resource has no oversight. 
My observation stands; The gathering of data from hunter self reporting is not a valid method of managing the resource nor should it be considered.  There just isn't a model that could accurately utilize it as the source is not proven to be accurate.  If biologists state that an increase in lion sightings is not accurate in projecting lion populations, then how can the sightings/hunter success be accurate for projecting deer populations?

Jerry, you are delusional.

There are many differences between reported mountain lion sightings and an angler/hunter self reporting system. A. The reporting systems are designed to help inform management decisions not only about the abundance of the resource, but about when, where and how people are utilizing the resource. B. When people call in a mountainlion sighting, my guess is that they don't report their effort. Anglers and hunters are frequently asked to report effort. C. Mountain lion reporting programs do not have anywhere near 100% participation. Many angler and hunter self reporting surveys strive for 100% participation. It will never be achieved, but hey at least they can calculate percentage participation by comparing number of self reporting anglers to say steel-head card sales numbers. There is no way to account for participation % in mountain lion sightings.

You seem to be making the argument that unless a study is 100% accurate, then it isn't useful for informing management decisions... which is a load of baloney.  However, it is true that the more accurate a study is, and the more it controls for confounding factors, then it tends to be more reliable.   

As for scientists not wanting to see an increase in a local mountain lion population because it will have a negative impact on funding???!! That's cuckoo territory.

Ya know, I didn't attack any members here.  I challenged the validity of the data as useful for the purpose it was purported to be gather for.  I made an argument for my opinion.  Twice now you've tried to insult me.   Scientifically I presume, I've been found to be delusional.  I'm unfamiliar with any model that measures into 'cuckoo territory' though. I really don't know how to even address that my opinion is nonsense.  "conspiratorial nonsense" I believe it was called. 
Feel free to attack my observations and opinions, but leave the personal attacks to your self. 

Ya know, I didn't attack any members here.  I challenged the validity of the data as useful for the purpose it was purported to be gather for.  I made an argument for my opinion.  Twice now you've tried to insult me.   Scientifically I presume, I've been found to be delusional.  I'm unfamiliar with any model that measures into 'cuckoo territory' though. I really don't know how to even address that my opinion is nonsense.  "conspiratorial nonsense" I believe it was called. 
Feel free to attack my observations and opinions, but leave the personal attacks to your self.

Sorry for the insults. I meant them in jest.

It seems to me that you assume that you local biologist acts in bad faith, yet offer no evidence to support that opinion. I get tired of encountering people who like you assume that I act in bad faith by for some cooked up reason usually having to do with government grants. Do you even know which grants fund the biologist in question? Would an increase in local mountain lion population change his/her funding? My guess is no, it would not.

You kinda strike me as the kinda guy who would return a report card with zero information, but attach a letter detailing everything that you think is wrong with the fishery and government. “If (insert agency) would just use common sense...” Is that you?

Hmmm

I agree that self-reporting hunter/angler data isn't the best data, but it's sure better than no data.  Same goes for anecdotal, "old timer stories" data.  This information can be used in conjunction with other data sets to help inform management decisions.  Models can sometimes produce misleading results that differ from the on-the-ground truth.  More intense sampling methodologies can be hampered by things such as funding, personnel, extreme weather events, etc.

Management decisions take multiple data sets into consideration, where the shortcomings of one data set can be complemented by the strengths of another.  Given that wildlife and fisheries management does not take place in a closed system like a lab, managers need to glean as much information from as many sources as possible to inform their decisions.  Self-reporting has a lot going for it: cheap, don't have to worry about personnel or extreme weather events, covers a wide area, etc.  And it's an opportunity for hunters/anglers to participate in the data-gathering process.  You may not want to purely use self-reported data to estimate abundance, but you can use it to estimate relative abundance.  If you saw one zone reporting 50% hunter success and another zone reporting 10% success, it could be inferred that the 50% success zone has more bucks than the 10% zone.  Is it perfect?  No.  But wildlife management isn't in a lab.  As they say with fisheries management: "Fisheries science is a lot like forestry science, except you're blindfolded and the trees are moving." The same could be said (even more so) with wildlife.

If folks have new ideas on how to obtain accurate population estimates that require minimal cost, personnel, and time, call up your local wildlife management officials.  Seriously, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

You kinda strike me as the kinda guy who would return a report card with zero information, but attach a letter detailing everything that you think is wrong with the fishery and government. �If (insert agency) would just use common sense...� Is that you?

Wait.....so i should stop including angily written letters regarding all the potholes on highway 680 when i send in my report cards? Ive been doing this wrong


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

You kinda strike me as the kinda guy who would return a report card with zero information, but attach a letter detailing everything that you think is wrong with the fishery and government. �If (insert agency) would just use common sense...� Is that you?

Wait.....so i should stop including angily written letters regarding all the potholes on highway 680 when i send in my report cards? Ive been doing this wrong


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Oh that’s tame compared to some of the people that I encounter.

Me: excuse me sir, my name Archie, and I’m conducting a survey for (agency x). May I ask you a few questions about your fishing experience today?

Guy: Dont’t call me Sir, as 'Sir’ is a another legal fiction designed to force me into your navy boy loving contract. I am not a Citizen of the United States.

Me: OK, may I ask you a few questions about your fishing experience today?

Guy:  I am a free man, a sovereign citizen, and not an employee of the corporate maritime entity known as the United States of America.

Me: OK, What time did you start fishing today?

Guy: My responses to your questions are made under duress.

Me: nvm

1.Do you also swim out to save lifeguards from drowning?

2.Saying that a biologist refuses to acknowledge mountain lion sightings because it would hurt his funding is to accuse him of acting in bad faith.

3. I don’t have a guild. Ask anyone.