Lonnie Hansen, Missouri
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Lonnie Hansen, Missouri as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 840
- Pages: 40
Methods of Determining Deer Harvest Lonnie Hansen Missouri Department of Conservation
Methods of Determining Deer Harvest Overview of methods Missouri experience
Why Do We Need to Know How Many Deer are Harvested?
Deer Mortality in Missouri
Predation Not Significant on Adult Deer
Missouri Deer Well Fed
Deer Mortality
Hunting Most Significant Mortality Factor
Hunting Mortality in Rural Missouri Missouri
Deer
Buck
mortality – 82%-97% a result of hunting Doe mortality –
Importance of Harvest Data Basic information on deer population status Serves as basis for setting harvest
Measuring Harvest
Direct methods Mandatory
in-
person checking most common
Advantages of Mandatory In-Person Checking
Data recording errors minimized because the checker sees the deer Ease of biological data collection Positive public contacts/enforce ment
Disadvantages of Mandatory In-Person Checking Agency cost Monetary Staff
time
Hunter inconvenience and cost Compliance
Measuring Harvest
Other direct methods Road blocks Locker plant checks Field bag checks Voluntary checking
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods
Mandatory telecheck
Advantages of Mandatory Telecheck
Simple and convenient for hunters Immediate access to harvest data Some enforcement advantages More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time
Disadvantages of Mandatory Telecheck Loss of social focal point Increased cost? Compliance? Some lost enforcement opportunities Collecting biological information more problematic
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods Mandatory telecheck Random mail surveys Random telephone surveys
Advantages of Random Mail/Telephone Surveys
Simple and convenient for hunters More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time Can estimate other hunter activities/interests Distribution Days hunted Preferences
Disadvantages of Mail/Telephone Surveys Loss of social focal point Harvest data not immediately available Lost enforcement opportunities Collecting biological information more
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods Mandatory telecheck Random mail surveys Random telephone surveys Mandatory postcard
Advantages of Mandatory Postcard Registration Simple and convenient for hunters More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time
Disadvantages of Mandatory Postcard Registration Loss of social focal point Compliance? Lost enforcement opportunities Harvest data not immediately available Collecting biological
History of In-person Checking of White-tailed Deer in Missouri In-person
checking of all deer was required starting in 1968 Because of the costs (time and money), in-person checking was
Annual Costs of Inperson Checking 2003 Direct payments to check station operators Conservation agent salaries/mileage Process check sheets and buy seals Total
$471,049 $240,969 $70,000 $782,018
In-person Checking of Deer in Missouri
We explored alternatives to in-person checking on several occasions and found no suitable alternative Telecheck came onto the scene in the mid1990’s as an
Telecheck in Missouri
An experimental evaluation of telecheck was conducted to determine whether it would provide similar information as in-person checking. Specifically: Were
harvest reporting rates similar? Were biological data
Telecheck in Missouri
In fall 2003, we recruited firearms deer hunters for the study at permit vendors A person who bought a permit at selected vendors was assigned at random to a control group or a telecheck group Three study groups Control group Telecheck group No contact group. Persons buying permits at other vendors who were not aware of the study. This group did in-person check as usual.
STUDY RESULTS
Summary of Experimental Evaluation
Harvest reporting rate was 24% lower for the no contact group than for the control or telecheck group probably because hunters in the study felt they were under more scrutiny than those who were not in the study. Age/Gender distributions were similar
Conclusion from Experimental Evaluation Telecheck is a viable way to collect harvest data
Operational Evaluation of Telecheck
With a few exceptions, the Telecheck System has worked well and is popular
Any Changes with Telecheck?
We have maintained an independent estimate of harvest from a post-season mail survey
Comparison of Mail Survey and Mandatory Checking 250000
Telecheck Percentage Difference
200000
Mail Survey Estimate Check Station
80% 70% 60%
40%
Harvest
150000
30% 100000
20% 10%
50000
0% -10%
0
-20% 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1993 1996 2004 2005 2006 2007
% Difference
50%
So…What is the Best Way to Measure Harvest?
Overall, there probably is no best way. Depends Depends Depends Depends
system
on on on on
history in state public acceptance budgets deer management
The Iowa and Missouri Experience History of measuring harvest different Implementation of telecheck
No
change in harvest in Missouri Iowa harvest estimate declined by 28%
Firearms Deer Season 2003 0.9
Harvest Reporting Rate
0.8
Harvest Reporting Rate
Telecheck
0.768
0.785
Control No Contact
0.7
0.588
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Group
Firearms Deer Season 2003 Age/Gender
60
Telecheck
50
Control No Contact
Percent
40
30
20
10
0 Doe
Button Buck Age/Gender
Antlered Buck
Methods of Determining Deer Harvest Overview of methods Missouri experience
Why Do We Need to Know How Many Deer are Harvested?
Deer Mortality in Missouri
Predation Not Significant on Adult Deer
Missouri Deer Well Fed
Deer Mortality
Hunting Most Significant Mortality Factor
Hunting Mortality in Rural Missouri Missouri
Deer
Buck
mortality – 82%-97% a result of hunting Doe mortality –
Importance of Harvest Data Basic information on deer population status Serves as basis for setting harvest
Measuring Harvest
Direct methods Mandatory
in-
person checking most common
Advantages of Mandatory In-Person Checking
Data recording errors minimized because the checker sees the deer Ease of biological data collection Positive public contacts/enforce ment
Disadvantages of Mandatory In-Person Checking Agency cost Monetary Staff
time
Hunter inconvenience and cost Compliance
Measuring Harvest
Other direct methods Road blocks Locker plant checks Field bag checks Voluntary checking
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods
Mandatory telecheck
Advantages of Mandatory Telecheck
Simple and convenient for hunters Immediate access to harvest data Some enforcement advantages More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time
Disadvantages of Mandatory Telecheck Loss of social focal point Increased cost? Compliance? Some lost enforcement opportunities Collecting biological information more problematic
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods Mandatory telecheck Random mail surveys Random telephone surveys
Advantages of Random Mail/Telephone Surveys
Simple and convenient for hunters More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time Can estimate other hunter activities/interests Distribution Days hunted Preferences
Disadvantages of Mail/Telephone Surveys Loss of social focal point Harvest data not immediately available Lost enforcement opportunities Collecting biological information more
Measuring Harvest
Indirect methods Mandatory telecheck Random mail surveys Random telephone surveys Mandatory postcard
Advantages of Mandatory Postcard Registration Simple and convenient for hunters More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff time
Disadvantages of Mandatory Postcard Registration Loss of social focal point Compliance? Lost enforcement opportunities Harvest data not immediately available Collecting biological
History of In-person Checking of White-tailed Deer in Missouri In-person
checking of all deer was required starting in 1968 Because of the costs (time and money), in-person checking was
Annual Costs of Inperson Checking 2003 Direct payments to check station operators Conservation agent salaries/mileage Process check sheets and buy seals Total
$471,049 $240,969 $70,000 $782,018
In-person Checking of Deer in Missouri
We explored alternatives to in-person checking on several occasions and found no suitable alternative Telecheck came onto the scene in the mid1990’s as an
Telecheck in Missouri
An experimental evaluation of telecheck was conducted to determine whether it would provide similar information as in-person checking. Specifically: Were
harvest reporting rates similar? Were biological data
Telecheck in Missouri
In fall 2003, we recruited firearms deer hunters for the study at permit vendors A person who bought a permit at selected vendors was assigned at random to a control group or a telecheck group Three study groups Control group Telecheck group No contact group. Persons buying permits at other vendors who were not aware of the study. This group did in-person check as usual.
STUDY RESULTS
Summary of Experimental Evaluation
Harvest reporting rate was 24% lower for the no contact group than for the control or telecheck group probably because hunters in the study felt they were under more scrutiny than those who were not in the study. Age/Gender distributions were similar
Conclusion from Experimental Evaluation Telecheck is a viable way to collect harvest data
Operational Evaluation of Telecheck
With a few exceptions, the Telecheck System has worked well and is popular
Any Changes with Telecheck?
We have maintained an independent estimate of harvest from a post-season mail survey
Comparison of Mail Survey and Mandatory Checking 250000
Telecheck Percentage Difference
200000
Mail Survey Estimate Check Station
80% 70% 60%
40%
Harvest
150000
30% 100000
20% 10%
50000
0% -10%
0
-20% 1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1993 1996 2004 2005 2006 2007
% Difference
50%
So…What is the Best Way to Measure Harvest?
Overall, there probably is no best way. Depends Depends Depends Depends
system
on on on on
history in state public acceptance budgets deer management
The Iowa and Missouri Experience History of measuring harvest different Implementation of telecheck
No
change in harvest in Missouri Iowa harvest estimate declined by 28%
Firearms Deer Season 2003 0.9
Harvest Reporting Rate
0.8
Harvest Reporting Rate
Telecheck
0.768
0.785
Control No Contact
0.7
0.588
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Group
Firearms Deer Season 2003 Age/Gender
60
Telecheck
50
Control No Contact
Percent
40
30
20
10
0 Doe
Button Buck Age/Gender
Antlered Buck
Related Documents
Lonnie Hansen, Missouri
May 2020 3
Hansen
August 2019 11
Hansen
November 2019 12
Hansen 2of4
May 2020 5
Hansen Pg1
May 2020 5
Hansen Lte3of3
May 2020 2More Documents from ""
Tim Vandeelen
May 2020 1
Mike Tonkavitch, Ohio
May 2020 4
Lonnie Hansen, Missouri
May 2020 3
Chuck Nelson-economic Impact Of Deer Hunting
May 2020 4
Deer Crash Statistics
May 2020 5