Mandatory harvest reporting

[Oak]

The topic of mandatory harvest reporting has come up frequently in the past and is something that I personally support. A few years ago I broached the topic with CPW staff who are responsible for surveying CO hunters and compiling the data and they cited the cost associated with a mandatory harvest reporting system and referenced the paper below. I misplaced the paper at the time and couldn't remember the title, but I located it yesterday when working on my decennial office cleaning and found a web link. I'm just sharing for your edification.

Evaluating Cost-Efficiency and Accuracy of Hunter Harvest Survey Designs

 

[kansasdad]

That paper is now 10+ years old. I barely skimmed the paper, and I think the purpose of the paper was more aimed at accuracy and less at cost. Self reporting gets different results compared with other methods of gathering data.

I imagine that advancements in Vice President Gore's world wide web will make online surveys much simpler and less costly than back in the day.

Kansas uses Survery Monkey to send out its surveys. Easy peasy to reply

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I’ve always wondered why states just don’t make it a pop up that locks out your account until you complete the survey. Make it so you literally can’t apply or buy a tag until you fill out the survey.

 

[AggieHunter]

I’ve always wondered why states just don’t make it a pop up that locks out your account until you complete the survey. Make it so you literally can’t apply or buy a tag until you fill out the survey.

I think New Mexico does

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think New Mexico does

That’s not surprising... they seem to be leaps and bounds past everyone in their online system.

 

[bobbydean]

NM does do some things right. I draw so infrequently, that I always check when applying. Last year, I purchased an OTC turkey tag. Had to report.

Good program. Hurts to admit your shortcomings!

 

[TheJason]

I’ve always wondered why states just don’t make it a pop up that locks out your account until you complete the survey. Make it so you literally can’t apply or buy a tag until you fill out the survey.

This would be a nice replacement for the stupid $10 ransom fee we pay when you forget.

 

[Werty]

Make the survey part of the application process for the new year hunting licenses or application.

 

[TheJason]

No different than the HIP survey one must do.

 

[Pelican]

Make the survey part of the application process for the new year hunting licenses or application.

Using the draw deadline for the survey deadline would be way to late in the year as people like to look at the harvest stats before applying. In states with later draw deadlines, it would also be to late to be useful for the game agency to use for setting the currents years permit numbers. To be useful, the surveys need to be finished well before the draw deadline or recommendations of permit numbers are made.

 

[theat]

Using the draw deadline for the survey deadline would be way to late in the year as people like to look at the harvest stats before applying. In states with later draw deadlines, it would also be to late to be useful for the game agency to use for setting the currents years permit numbers. To be useful, the surveys need to be finished well before the draw deadline or recommendations of permit numbers are made.

You would sure think so, but I got my elk survey call here in Montana just last week. I know of a few others that got the call last week as well. If they made it a requirement before applying, FWP would have my elk hunting info 2 months earlier.

 

[antlerradar]

You would sure think so, but I got my elk survey call here in Montana just last week. I know of a few others that got the call last week as well. If they made it a requirement before applying, FWP would have my elk hunting info 2 months earlier.

I also got my elk survey call last week. They left a massage on my phone and have yet to call back.

 

[Werty]

Using the draw deadline for the survey deadline would be way to late in the year as people like to look at the harvest stats before applying. In states with later draw deadlines, it would also be to late to be useful for the game agency to use for setting the currents years permit numbers. To be useful, the surveys need to be finished well before the draw deadline or recommendations of permit numbers are made.

Then change application deadlines to work according.

 

[Pelican]

You would sure think so, but I got my elk survey call here in Montana just last week.

For what type of elk tag?

 

[theat]

For what type of elk tag?

I had a 900 archery permit last fall, but did most of my hunting in general units. My mom had a breaks rifle tag last fall and she also got her elk phone call last week.

 

[Nick_CO]

Thanks for sharing. What exactly costs so much to conduct these surveys? This year I received a phone call and message from a CPW employee regarding the big game survey. Doing it that way seems like long division when you could be using a calculator, so I understand the need to take a small sample size and project the results in order to prevent making hundreds of thousands of phone calls. New Mexico figured out how to use a calculator. Maybe they possess alien technology from the Roswell Incident.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What exactly costs so much to conduct these surveys?

Person to person surveys, ie phone calls.

Personal pet peeve is when this or other studies get brought up that don't use modern methods or technology to prove why we can't have good data. Like you said, cool just because you couldn't do it cost effectively in 95' doesn't mean you can't now.

The other one that drives me nuts is when CPW shoots down hunt reporting by conflating it with harvest reporting. This isn't harvest report I'm talking about, where you report if you kill an elk or deer, this is hunt reporting, every single person that buys a big game tag has to submit a report for each of their tags no exceptions. Have the entire process online and tied to your profile.

If you don't have access to the internet you can do it in person with CPW.

 

[TheTone]

This would be a nice replacement for the stupid $10 ransom fee we pay when you forget.

At least you have some penalty for non reporting.

I’ve talked to people that intentionally give false reports where I am. Reasonings all over the board; from if I report something small vs big less people might hunt here next year, report you harvested something big so people looking at data think you’re more successful than you really are, report no harvest so state won’t reduce opportunity in the future. Without something to make sure people are honest and do them I find reporting fairly useless

 

[cedahm]

Person to person surveys, ie phone calls.

Personal pet peeve is when this or other studies get brought up that don't use modern methods or technology to prove why we can't have good data. Like you said, cool just because you couldn't do it cost effectively in 95' doesn't mean you can't now.

The other one that drives me nuts is when CPW shoots down hunt reporting by conflating it with harvest reporting. This isn't harvest report I'm talking about, where you report if you kill an elk or deer, this is hunt reporting, every single person that buys a big game tag has to submit a report for each of their tags no exceptions. Have the entire process online and tied to your profile.

If you don't have access to the internet you can do it in person with CPW.

Thanks @Oak - I will confess to not analyzing all the math in detail, but I drew a similar conclusion, they were comparing costs & efficacy of the methods that were available (or at least prominent) at the time (as they should have). Aspira has a number of things on their punchlist that rate higher priority than adding new features, but given their reach, this seems like a good co-development opportunity with several states to add that functionality to their platform. The study could be repeated with an automated & mandated solution where the costs would be known (apportioned up front software license fees plus analyst time and materials) and also wouldn't be as variable and proportionate to sample size (as the study acknowledges in their conclusion).

Concur on NM. Un-intrusive, strong incentive to comply, easy. I will grant that the mechanics are much easier for NM as, effectively, every tag is limited and they are dealing with a fraction of the numbers of both hunters and tags as CO.

Using the draw deadline for the survey deadline would be way to late in the year as people like to look at the harvest stats before applying. In states with later draw deadlines, it would also be to late to be useful for the game agency to use for setting the currents years permit numbers. To be useful, the surveys need to be finished well before the draw deadline or recommendations of permit numbers are made.

Both good points - but in another CO example - CO have STILL NOT confirmed permit numbers for elk, deer, pronghorn, moose and the draw deadline was a month ago so it can only get better.

And again, NM demonstrates a good incentive/penalty program in place to encourage responses earlier rather than later. It's free to submit your harvest report before mid-February. From February through the draw deadline (usually about a month) - it costs $8.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Surveys are only as good as the information one puts into it. But it is a good foundation for research and statistics. As long as it is accepted and understood that it is not the most accurate sometimes. There are most likely plus and minus percentage to off set that though.

I'm surprised they don't make it mandatory (some do) and hold up tags (some do) until you complete the survey and charge a $5 processing fee. That might come next...