Harvest Reporting

[grundsow]

What is the penalty for not reporting a deer harvest in Tenn?

Is the reporting rate monitored in any way?

 

[BSK]

Not reporting a kill would be the same as poaching (I believe).

I don't know if the State runs any attempt to "measure" under-reporting. How do you measure illegal activity?

 

[grundsow]

What's the penalty for poaching?

In PA, a hunter must tag a deer and also report it by mailing a report card.

A butcher need only check for a tag.

So Game Commission can and does go to butcher shops to record TAG data on deer itself, and then cross-check it with REPORT CARD data that comes into PGC mailbox.

Total report card count is then divided by this measured "reporting rate" to obtain the actual kill.

 

[BSK]

That's a question for scn and BGG.

 

[BigGameGuy]

Don't find out.

 

[grundsow]

Don't find out.

I'm not interested in getting away with anything or even in hunting TN. I'm just curious how other states monitor their deer herd. How accurate are the harvest numbers, herd numbers, etc.

In PA the reporting rate has reached new lows of less than 50%. So I'm asking why wouldn't the same be true for other states? If not, are there things PA could do to improve compliance while still being able to monitor reporting rate.

Does TN have deer check stations?

 

[BSK]

All deer harvested in TN must be physically carried to a check station. These check stations are just local stores or businesses (or in some situations, fire stations, etc.).

No one really knows what the compliance rate is, as trying to find out how many deer are not checked in is asking people to admit the committed a serious game violation.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

I wouldnt think there would be any formula you could come up with to figure that one. Just from the "feel" of things, I would feel that is it higher higher than 65% and less than 85% but there is no way to really tell.

 

[grundsow]

It�s interesting how other states operate. An unreported deer in TN is �poaching� with severe penalties, while the same thing in PA is a simple violation that is basically unenforceable (I believe a hunter once fought the PGC and won as his lawyer pointed out that his report card could have been lost in the mail).

There are those hunters in PA that insist that check stations would provide �better� harvest numbers and therefore better deer management. But IMO it would be terribly worse as PGC would lose the ability to monitor reporting compliance. I can�t imagine that the hunters who currently do not send in a little postcard would have the gumption to actually truck their deer to a check station.

 

[Chaneylake]

in the past, especially concerning turkeys, there is a large group of hunters that will not specify the exact area where a bird was harvested, just to keep the numbers in print down so as to help keep other hunter from moving into their areas.

 

[RKenney]

In my opinion, so called "hunters" who don't leagally report
their kill are nothing more than "slob hunters". We don't need
these kind of people who stoop to that. The wildlife agencies do
their best to manage our God give right to harvest the animals
that we hunt. Reporting and tagging your kill, I think, is a very
important part of the management of wildlife.

 

[BSK]

grundsow,

Without question, each type of reporting system has its up-sides and down-sides. And each type of reporting system will produce different levels of data accuracy. However, at least for me, it isn't the actual numbers and their perfect accuracy that are important, it is the "trends over time." Are the numbers up or down? No matter the reporting system, those trends should be fairly representative of reality. They may be a skewed sample, but as long as the reporting system doesn't change over time, the "skew" in the sample should be in the same direction each year, producing statistically valid trends.

 

[Boone 58]

This may be premature but i have to say that in the last 8 years of being in the woods year round that i have never seen so "few" turkeys out as of the last 4 weeks????
I mean i have almost seen none, nada, not even in the open cow pastures going and coming from our 40 mile one way trip to our club?
This is unheard of as i am used to seeing as many as 75 to 100 birds per trip?
Anyone else having the same issues??

 

[grundsow]

No matter the reporting system, those trends should be fairly representative of reality. They may be a skewed sample, but as long as the reporting system doesn't change over time, the "skew" in the sample should be in the same direction each year, producing statistically valid trends.

I respect your position on this, but this study published in the Journal of Wildlife Management basically says the opposite is true, at least in PA.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/ ... bility.pdf

Our analyses of reporting rates by hunters indicate that simply using hunter-reported counts of harvested deer would not serve as a valid index for the harvest of antlered deer. This is because substantial heterogeneity exists in reporting rates among DMUs, and the reporting rate for antlered deer has declined about 1% per year during 1990-2001.

Personally, I think that getting more hunters to report harvest data relies on educating them as to WHY it is important. I hear stories from guys who don�t report saying: �The PGC doesn�t need to know how many deer I kill� as though it's "big brother" watching their every move.

 

[BSK]

Fascinating (and well designed and implemented) study grundsow. Thanks for posting that.

I strongly suspect that in some areas of the state the hunter compliance with manditory check-in has been changing of late. Ever since the creation of Unit L (liberal doe harvest--three does oper day), the same patterns have been displayed in those counties' harvest numbers over time. When a county is first placed in Unit L, doe harvest number skyrocket. However, in following years, those numbers decline to almost where they started before they were designated Unit L. The question is, why? Is it because hunters are thrilled at the ability to shoot basically as many does as they want at first, and take full advantage, only to find out what a pain it is to process so many deer hence slow down their doe harvests over time? Is it the sudden intense harvest pressure on does drives them nocturnal, reducing their harvestability in future years? Or is it simply that hunters get tired of having to run every one of the does to a check station hence stop checking in their harvested does?

When the deer limits were low, taking a deer or two to a check station during the long hunting seasons was no big deal, but when deer are being harvested almost daily, those trips become far more of a pain. In personal conversations with hunters in Unit L counties, I have heard many say they no longer check does in because it is such a pain. It may be an hour's drive round trip to check in a deer, and doing that daily became a serious time/money burden.

Hopefully, some of the new census techniques the TWRA is working on (thermal imaging censuses) will provide better post-hunt deer numbers than reported harvests. Of course, they will need more funding to purchase more thermal imagers to get better regional census numbers.

 

[BigGameGuy]

When a county is first placed in Unit L, doe harvest number skyrocket. However, in following years, those numbers decline to almost where they started before they were designated Unit L. The question is, why? Is it because hunters are thrilled at the ability to shoot basically as many does as they want at first, and take full advantage, only to find out what a pain it is to process so many deer hence slow down their doe harvests over time? Is it the sudden intense harvest pressure on does drives them nocturnal, reducing their harvestability in future years? Or is it simply that hunters get tired of having to run every one of the does to a check station hence stop checking in their harvested does?

Of the three options you list, my best guess is that it's option #1. I believe the novelty of having "unlimited" does causes hunters to "open up on them" the first year, then they realize, hey I have to drag these deer out, process them, and find a place to store them. It hits them in both the wallet and the back. The following year they're much more reasonable with their harvest knowing that 1-2 is enough to fill their freezers. Of course this is only a guess and not based on any data.

Option #2. This could be a possible answer, but we'll need to test the theory. It would be nice if we could do pre- and post- deer density studies in counties that make the move to Unit L. (See below)

Option #3. Does this happen? Absolutely. But I believe it's relegated to a few illegal people/clubs. In other words I believe the masses still follow the law regardless of how many deer they harvest. Again, not based on any data.

Hopefully, some of the new census techniques the TWRA is working on (thermal imaging censuses) will provide better post-hunt deer numbers than reported harvests. Of course, they will need more funding to purchase more thermal imagers to get better regional census numbers.

I'm very excited about it. We conducted a few density studies this winter on a few select WMAs and in a few counties. Over the course of 2-3 days we collected enough information with the thermal imager that it yielded pretty stout estimates. In one particular county our distance sampling method yielded a density estimate of 11.5 deer/ square mile (95% CI = 9.5 - 13.9, CV = .098). I was incredibly pleased with this estimate (keep in mind it's a post-harvest estimate). We are still testing the process and will be working intensively this summer. Our hopes is that we can go full swing next winter and use this method to collect whole herd parameters in counties and on WMAs. Keep in mind they will be "average" estimates and the likelihood of seeing extremes on smaller properties is inevitable, but they will allow us to better manage on a countywide level.

 

[BSK]

Good stuff BGG.