on-line checkin

[Matador]

Do you think that the new rule on anterless bucks will or should force some kind of change to on-line checking? Don't get me wrong, I really like on-line checkin, but I can see the pontential for a lot of abuse this year. Another question, do you think the harvest data report will be in-accurate to the point it can't be trusted? Any good suggestions?

 

[Headhunter]

Uh, NO.

Harvest data wont' be affected enough to even know.

 

[MUP]

Not for me, I've not used the online check system so far. :)

 

[Andy S.]

...but I can see the pontential for a lot of abuse this year.

While I think there will be some abuse, as there has always been, I believe the overall data set will suffice to manage on a statewide level.

 

[Vermin93]

Let's hope there aren't enough dishonest, cheatin' deer hunters in TN to merit serious concern.

 

[muddyboots]

No if this rule change causes a man to be dishonest there wasn't much holding him back anyway.

 

[BSK]

The tough thing is trying to assess that question. What data exists to test theories about phone check-in data integrity? None really.

 

[TheLBLman]

The tough thing is trying to assess that question. What data exists to test theories about phone check-in data integrity? None really.

I agree, but I also believe the physical check stations of recent times past were lacking in integrity as well, although maybe as much or more an issue of complacency and ignorance causing many mistakes (just like I presume it is doing with phone/internet check-in).

A few years ago I found out it was a common practice of a surprising number of hunters (possibly even a majority of those who showed on the 2nd day) hunting on some National Wildlife Refuges to "check-in" bogus antlerless deer for the purpose of "earning" a buck tag under these refuges "earn-a-buck" rules. The refuges basically have their "earn-a-buck" totally on the "honor" system, and many hunters were actually driving to TWRA check stations, walking up to the counter, and "checking in" their doe, never mind they didn't even have a deer in their trucks. The busy store clerks generally would only come out to view a "big" buck, so this false check-in worked like a charm.

The "bogus doe" earn-a-buck scheme would appear to work even easier under phone check-in. My take is the "earn-a-buck" programs mainly just punish the honest hunter, while the dishonest are going to be dishonest regardless. But regarding phone/internet check, even though it may be easier to do something wrong, it is also easier to do it correct, or at least more efficiently. From what I understand, a lot of deer were not getting checked in at all (on a statewide basis) because many were simply not willing to drive to a check station, or there wasn't one open within a reasonable drive.

Now they have less excuse to NOT check in a deer, which some hunters do not take the killing of, or keeping up with the data any more serious than if we were talking squirrels rather than deer. The attitude of many has been it's not worth their inconvenience to report their deer kills by driving to a check station. So in some respects, phone/internet check-in MAY be providing us better data.

 

[BSK]

Good points TheLBLman.

Is phone check-in less accurate than physical check-in? I have no idea. Both are easy to spoof.

 

[Andy S.]

Good observations Wes, and I agree 100%.

 

[fairchaser]

No check in at all in some states like MS and it doesn't seem to bother their data integrity. In fact, MS boasts having the oldest average bucks harvested in any southern state. They extrapolate that from a few management areas that keep records. Hard to imagine TN would have less than statistically valid samples due to online check in.

 

[TheLBLman]

Is phone check-in less accurate than physical check-in? I have no idea. Both are easy to spoof.

My observations are that for deer actually checked-in, phone/internet check-in is probably just as accurate if not more so. Of course, the accuracy depends on the knowledge and integrity of the hunter checking in his deer, compared to where he might have otherwise taken it to a physical check station. Whether or not there are more of fewer deer checked in, that's the bigger question to me.

Often, the "operator" at a typical "convenient store" check station knows less about deer and the check-in procedure than the hunter. The store clerk is often more likely to make a mistake, than as compared to a typical hunter doing phone/internet check-in. On the other hand, a hunter lacking integrity has more incentive to incorrectly check-in a particular deer, or not check it in at all.

Bottom line is the trend data will likely be about as good (or bad) either way, but we now have multiple methods that can be checked against each other for variances.

It is also of great value to compare particular statewide data to much more accurate data maintained by such as Ames Plantation and certain WMA's. I find it particularly interesting that Ames can have such a relatively high doe harvest for so many successive years, and still believe they have too many deer. Could that imply that year-round poaching might be occurring at a much greater rate (than many think) on a statewide basis? Or could it imply that many statewide hunters simply do not check-in a significant number of their deer, particularly the female deer?

 

[BSK]

No check in at all in some states like MS and it doesn't seem to bother their data integrity.

Umm, they have no data integrity.

In fact, MS boasts having the oldest average bucks harvested in any southern state.

Boasting about something, and actually having it, are two different things. Their data indicating this old harvested buck age structure is pure garbage, and they know it.

They extrapolate that from a few management areas that keep records.

They take data from properties intensively managed for only bucks 3 1/2+ and then claim that represents the entire state. Complete and utter garbage.

 

[fairchaser]

No check in at all in some states like MS and it doesn't seem to bother their data integrity.

Umm, they have no data integrity.

In fact, MS boasts having the oldest average bucks harvested in any southern state.

Boasting about something, and actually having it, are two different things. Their data indicating this old harvested buck age structure is pure garbage, and they know it.

They extrapolate that from a few management areas that keep records.

They take data from properties intensively managed for only bucks 3 1/2+ and then claim that represents the entire state. Complete and utter garbage.

I agree BSK in case you didn't notice my tongue in cheek. ;)

 

[fishboy1]

Using harvest data from a heavily managed property like Ames to extrapolate to state wide is like comparing Ohio deer to Florida deer.
Yes, they are both have deer, but its an entirely different set of rules on what you CAN even harvest.
Ames will have vastly different data as the rules specifically target older bucks and old does. Both hunting and harvest pressure is limited and you don't have to contend with 4 wheelers, hikers, horse riders, meth labs, packs of roaming dogs, poaching neighbors....

 

[BSK]

I agree BSK in case you didn't notice my tongue in cheek. ;)

My apologies fairchaser. Obviously, MS's "data" is a sore spot with me, as it is often used erroneously by trophyists to promote their agenda.

 

[myboomisdoom]

Could you make someone send a digital picture of their harvest in the online check-in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

Could you make someone send a digital picture of their harvest in the online check-in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KS uses this with their online check in. You must physically attach the tag and attach a picture of the animal with the tag visible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[megalomaniac]

Whether a person is honest or not will not be changed by the new definition of 'antlerless buck'

 

[callemquacktn]

Seen today where Alabama is going back to a check in system again for 2017 season. Wish we would.

 

[AT Hiker]

Seen today where Alabama is going back to a check in system again for 2017 season. Wish we would.

We have a check in system, AL didnt have anything. I always thought that was weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ImThere]

I hope we never go away from online check in it sux finding a spot to check them in sometimes

What would you do if you knew you could not fail?

 

[Deer Assassin]

Good points TheLBLman.

Is phone check-in less accurate than physical check-in? I have no idea. Both are easy to spoof.

yes




under the old system you could get away with anything as well

 

[Headhunter]

No check in at all in some states like MS and it doesn't seem to bother their data integrity.

Umm, they have no data integrity.

In fact, MS boasts having the oldest average bucks harvested in any southern state.

Boasting about something, and actually having it, are two different things. Their data indicating this old harvested buck age structure is pure garbage, and they know it.

They extrapolate that from a few management areas that keep records.

They take data from properties intensively managed for only bucks 3 1/2+ and then claim that represents the entire state. Complete and utter garbage.

Not much different than Tennessee's old system. 99 percent of check-in stations (markets, sporting good stores, etc.) before online check in Tennessee never even looked at what was killed much less provided data of any kind. Also the stations manned by the TWRA or biologists were known and those who killed a good buck, no matter where, would drive past check in stations to get to a biologist to get it aged and show it off. People who killed small bucks, young bucks, etc. for the most part (unless it was a public area and they were required to check in there) would drive to a check in place where no one would look at it. Tennessee used data from a couple weekends and a limited number of places, so not much different than MS. Not bashing Tennessee, not sure what is the best answer or if there is one, but to claim Tennessee had so much info when in reality it was for sure skewed data.

 

[TLRanger]

^^^^Exactly what he said. I just wish they would add a call in number (telecheck like KY).

 

[AT Hiker]

Not much different than Tennessee's old system. 99 percent of check-in stations (markets, sporting good stores, etc.) before online check in Tennessee never even looked at what was killed much less provided data of any kind. Also the stations manned by the TWRA or biologists were known and those who killed a good buck, no matter where, would drive past check in stations to get to a biologist to get it aged and show it off. People who killed small bucks, young bucks, etc. for the most part (unless it was a public area and they were required to check in there) would drive to a check in place where no one would look at it. Tennessee used data from a couple weekends and a limited number of places, so not much different than MS. Not bashing Tennessee, not sure what is the best answer or if there is one, but to claim Tennessee had so much info when in reality it was for sure skewed data.

I have never looked at it that way but you make
some interesting points, hard to argue with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Planking]

Could you make someone send a digital picture of their harvest in the online check-in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KS uses this with their online check in. You must physically attach the tag and attach a picture of the animal with the tag visible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that's a good idea.

 

[Headhunter]

Not much different than Tennessee's old system. 99 percent of check-in stations (markets, sporting good stores, etc.) before online check in Tennessee never even looked at what was killed much less provided data of any kind. Also the stations manned by the TWRA or biologists were known and those who killed a good buck, no matter where, would drive past check in stations to get to a biologist to get it aged and show it off. People who killed small bucks, young bucks, etc. for the most part (unless it was a public area and they were required to check in there) would drive to a check in place where no one would look at it. Tennessee used data from a couple weekends and a limited number of places, so not much different than MS. Not bashing Tennessee, not sure what is the best answer or if there is one, but to claim Tennessee had so much info when in reality it was for sure skewed data.

I have never looked at it that way but you make
some interesting points, hard to argue with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you AT Hiker. I was called several things and talked about badly for saying the same thing in another post, well until the post got deleted.

 

[scn]

Unfortunately, Headhunter, your observations don't match what most of our officers and biologists saw on a statewide basis. There was little indication that folks were intentionally bypassing a TWRA check station if they didn't have a big deer. There was no observable bias in what was checked in. A lot had to do with the location of the check station. If it was convenient for them to go to the TWRA check station, they did. It was almost a community affair in a lot of counties.

And, TWRA got great data that was the envy of biologists across the country. I talked to several at various meetings, and the TWRA data was well respected by the peers from other states. And, with the statistical evaluations that were done, the the data pool was more than enough to have very valid extrapolations/projections on a statewide basis.

For a variety of reasons, the checking station check ins dropped. Many checking stations were no longer the community gathering places that they were 15 or 20 years ago. To fill in on the reduced data flow from the opening season checks, TWRA biologists are now incorporating data collected at deer processors. Early looks at that data doesn't show a significant difference or bias on the data that was collected for 30 years.

No, the system was not and is not perfect. But, it is more than adequate to give TWRA biologists a very good handle on what the deer herd is doing in this state.

I have a busy evening ahead and don't have the time to check back in to argue. I'll leave it that you should probably stick with the deer hunting that you know very well, and forgo the biology on which you really don't have a good grasp.