Prank call

[mtmuley]

Got my call from Montana FWP. Did you deer hunt? yes. Did you elk hunt? Yes. Did you see any wolves. No. No question of if I harvested a deer or elk or not. Good stuff. mtmuley

 

[brockel]

They called me about deer and antelope. Got harvest numbers from me. Asked me about wolves. No questions on elk

 

[MTGomer]

They called me too. Same questions.

I didn’t have a deer or elk tag in Montana last year.....

Well I did, but I turned it in before Aug 1

 

[Ridgerunner6901]

Pretty sad.. last year they only asked about upland birds, the year before they asked if I got an elk, this year they asked about deer and wolves.. next year I think ill mention some ufo and sasquatch sightings and see where that takes me

 

[Wildabeest]

They called me several weeks ago. They asked whether I filled my Deer B tag. I told them yes and asked if they wanted to know about my elk and buck deer tag. She very politely said “I’m only calling about that tag. Someone else may call you about the others.”

 

[EYJONAS!]

They asked me about a turkey, and sheep. no deer elk or woofs.

Meriums must be getting outta whack.....

 

[MTTW]

Did you kill a deer? No. Did you see any wolves while you were deer or elk hunting? No. Thanks bye.

From that they get hunter days, age structure, wolf population, lion population, etc.
I give that joke 2 thumbs up.

 

[ccc23454]

Was it actual mt fwp employee or a contractor from another state?

 

[MTTW]

Was it actual mt fwp employee or a contractor from another state?

It was a man who I had never talked to before. In the past it has been someone who seemed interested in what they were doing. This guy was not.

 

[F250]

Seems every state does it differently. I got a call a couple days ago from a Vermont biologist. I had pulled and sent in three teeth from deer harvested this year as they request (not required). She was unable to cross reference the information from the tooth envelope to the on line, legal, required deer report for some reason. I was happy to provide the info, and know she didn't just toss the tooth in question and move on.

 

[88man]

Got my call from Montana FWP. Did you deer hunt? yes. Did you elk hunt? Yes. Did you see any wolves. No. No question of if I harvested a deer or elk or not. Good stuff. mtmuley

Looks like you need more wolves.

 

[Addicting]

FWP harvest statistics

 

[Bowhunter999]

Looks like you need more wolves.

That might be a darn good point. They might use the ‘did you see any wolves’ question answered with a No” to mean wolf numbers are not a problem ! The less seen, the less of a problem. Maybe they should leave that question to people who are more directly concerned with wolves, such as ranchers ! Hunters are of course concerned with deer and elk numbers, but on a different context. But then, maybe it is just my disapproval of wolves that is showing.

 

[mtmuley]

That might be a darn good point. They might use the ‘did you see any wolves’ question answered with a No” to mean wolf numbers are not a problem ! The less seen, the less of a problem. Maybe they should leave that question to people who are more directly concerned with wolves, such as ranchers ! Hunters are of course concerned with deer and elk numbers, but on a different context. But then, maybe it is just my disapproval of wolves that is showing.

We still have plenty of wolves. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

Got my call from Montana FWP. Did you deer hunt? yes. Did you elk hunt? Yes. Did you see any wolves. No. No question of if I harvested a deer or elk or not. Good stuff. mtmuley

Did you see any deer? Did you see any elk?Did you see any wolves?
No.
“FWP is Happy to Report Hunter Surveys Show Population Objectives Have Been Achieved.”

 

[shrapnel]

Montana gets beat up pretty bad for their harvest data. I got a call and he was asking about my kill success, not wolf sightings. I asked him what % of calls resulted in actual harvest data and he said it was extremely low.

They call only a percentage of hunters, then they only get a small % of of those called with any real harvest numbers. This guy was a FWP employee, although his position in the department wasn’t with harvest data, he was helping with the phone polling to collect the information.

I try to give them as much information as possible, to help with their quotas and biological information. FWP doesn’t have the resources to contact every hunter until they have all been contacted and data is collected. A % of a % is a low %, making their collected data quite small.

Additional measures would help with their yearly plans and quotas, but that needs addressed with enough energy to accomplish what is needed to help make their decisions more thorough.

 

[npaden]

I am an accountant and we do rely on sampling techniques to verify some things. Generally speaking you want to keep each parameter you are testing pretty simple. Yes, No, a number.

Generally we choose to pull one sample and then test that particular sample for multiple criteria. i.e. We would pull a sample and ask that one sample, 1. did they see a deer, 2. did they harvest a deer, 3. how many days did they hunt.

It seems the MFWP pulls a separate sample for each criteria they want to know. 1 sample for did they see a deer, 1 sample for did they harvest a deer and another sample for how many days did they hunt.

Statistically if the sample is large enough it really shouldn't matter. The separate sample for each may even give a slightly higher confidence level.

The efficiency of the multiple separate samples is the issue to me, especially when switching to a mandatory online reporting system would most likely be cheaper and arguably more accurate. The rationale that people might lie when they fill out their online reporting doesn't fly with me because they are just as likely to lie to the person on the phone. I would be more likely to give accurate numbers on number of days hunted, etc. if I was filling out an online submission that I was prepared for than someone calling me out of the blue. When I've been asked the number of days hunted before I was trying to go back and get the exact days and they just told me to just guess.

As an accountant, if we can verify something with raw data and not have to rely on a sample to verify it, we much prefer that method.

 

[MTTW]

It works perfectly the way it is. In fact it works so well that they can keep the same mule deer regs for 45 years while expanding the season 3 days, all while mule deer go from thousands to dozens. While elk numbers on public land do the same. While predator numbers do whatever predator numbers do, since it is anybody's guess.

If they had more money they could have an actual open check station, and that would cause a shit storm when actual harvest numbers came out in some units. Best to leave it the way it is since it is working.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I am an accountant and we do rely on sampling techniques to verify some things. Generally speaking you want to keep each parameter you are testing pretty simple. Yes, No, a number.

Generally we choose to pull one sample and then test that particular sample for multiple criteria. i.e. We would pull a sample and ask that one sample, 1. did they see a deer, 2. did they harvest a deer, 3. how many days did they hunt.

It seems the MFWP pulls a separate sample for each criteria they want to know. 1 sample for did they see a deer, 1 sample for did they harvest a deer and another sample for how many days did they hunt.

Statistically if the sample is large enough it really shouldn't matter. The separate sample for each may even give a slightly higher confidence level.

The efficiency of the multiple separate samples is the issue to me, especially when switching to a mandatory online reporting system would most likely be cheaper and arguably more accurate. The rationale that people might lie when they fill out their online reporting doesn't fly with me because they are just as likely to lie to the person on the phone. I would be more likely to give accurate numbers on number of days hunted, etc. if I was filling out an online submission that I was prepared for than someone calling me out of the blue. When I've been asked the number of days hunted before I was trying to go back and get the exact days and they just told me to just guess.

As an accountant, if we can verify something with raw data and not have to rely on a sample to verify it, we much prefer that method.

Seems really strange to me that Fish and Game agencies have never looked at the calendar and/or used the internet.

Hmmm application periods are in Q1... we do surveys in Q1

Look at this when I login to my bank account I’m prompted to do a questionnaire.

HOLY CHIT GUYS, what if we just asked people to fill out some questions in order to apply? Ohhhh and like I heard like with “computers” and like “coding” you could ask hunters questions pertinent to their hunts.

 

[westbranch]

Seems really strange to me that Fish and Game agencies have never looked at the calendar and/or used the internet.

Hmmm application periods are in Q1... we do surveys in Q1

Look at this when I login to my bank account I’m prompted to do a questionnaire.

HOLY CHIT GUYS, what if we just asked people to fill out some questions in order to apply? Ohhhh and like I heard like with “computers” and like “coding” you could ask hunters questions pertinent to their hunts.

It looks like Idaho has had online hunter reports since 2004. I put off doing mine and then logged in to buy my 2021 tags on Dec 30 and was prompted to complete it.


I had MT big game combo tag for 2020 and had a couple missed calls and I finally answered last week. They asked if I deer hunted and if I shot a deer. Also asked if I hunted upland game. Nothing about what area I hunted in or about elk. Putting those Q&As into some statistical analysis seems like it will give you useless output.