Game and Fish population surveys

[SilentButDeadly]

I don't know alot about how G&F do their large mammal surveys, but it seems to me that doing a straight line overflight of an area could lead to some inaccuracies as to estimating true populations of game species.

 

For example, a fishermen that always fishes around submerged reefs might think that there are thousands of fish in the sea, as his reefs are always teeming with fish, however if he were to fish in the open ocean he would find it to be nearly empty of fish.

 

The same goes for game, which favor certain habitats over others, if the G&F helicopter or field crew goes to one of these areas and does a crude extrapolation of total area than they would be wildly wrong.

 

Perhaps one or more of the other readers could point us toward the published literature on how G&F does their sampling?

 

I'd like to learn more about how they come up with their totals.

 

Wildlife biologists do tend to be pretty spectacular statisticians (I mean that seriously - they know how to get the best results from the meager data that they can collect). It would be interesting to see if they incorporate vegetation maps or habitat models to help develop population numbers.

[IHunt2live]

Jim Heffelfinger's book is a good one and he talks about how they estimate deer numbers. And your right they are estimates. It would be nearly imposibale to get a true count. Read the book, it would take me all day to explain the process.

[cmc]

I don't know alot about how G&F do their large mammal surveys, but it seems to me that doing a straight line overflight of an area could lead to some inaccuracies as to estimating true populations of game species.

 

For example, a fishermen that always fishes around submerged reefs might think that there are thousands of fish in the sea, as his reefs are always teeming with fish, however if he were to fish in the open ocean he would find it to be nearly empty of fish.

 

The same goes for game, which favor certain habitats over others, if the G&F helicopter or field crew goes to one of these areas and does a crude extrapolation of total area than they would be wildly wrong.

 

Perhaps one or more of the other readers could point us toward the published literature on how G&F does their sampling?

 

I'd like to learn more about how they come up with their totals.

 

Wildlife biologists do tend to be pretty spectacular statisticians (I mean that seriously - they know how to get the best results from the meager data that they can collect). It would be interesting to see if they incorporate vegetation maps or habitat models to help develop population numbers.

 

Most of the surveys are not straight line flights. They usually fly a pre-determined area within a unit. I've seen several GPS tracks of some flights and the only straight line is to and from the zone but once in it it looks like a drawing by my 2 year old with a crayon. Toss in on the ground surveys & then browse surveys - this includes taking browse samples back for study in a lab from a controlled area and a free range area and comparing impact of wildlife on the browse. These are just the tip of what's being put into calculating out hunt recommendations. From the guys I know that spend time in the chopper and on the ground it's as detailed as they can be while looking for a wild critter in the woods - Not some random fly by by any means. I also recommend Jim Heffelfingers book for a read. The RMEF has been assisting with funding additional flights to aid in getting better survey numbers. Flights are not cheap, nor is WM's labor in the field on ground surveys. If we want try to achieve a better estimation of numbers then we need to fund additional and/or alternate methods of performing them.

 

[4Falls]

the WM's in the area usuall have a good feel for the deer population in their area. They present this information to their superiors, who promptly file it in the circular file under their desk and make up whatever they want in order to pump as many tags out as they possibly can.

[GameHauler]

the WM's in the area usuall have a good feel for the deer population in their area. They present this information to their superiors, who promptly file it in the circular file under their desk and make up whatever they want in order to pump as many tags out as they possibly can.

 

I have to ask WHY again

The Dept. is not all bad.

Yes I agree the opportunity over quality BS needs to stop NOW

if they want to retain hunter retention as many are feed up and choose

to say screw AZ, I will apply out of state.

Will their recruitment efforts make up for their retention loose efforts?

I say NO as the best recruiters are the true hunters who introduce

someone new to our beloved sport.

We have a new branch starting in the Dept. that is for this

recruitment and retention of hunters and this is a good thing

as we are growing weaker in % as apposed to the anti's and

non hunters who can be swayed either way

Pay attention, Be informed, tell them what you think and we may be heard.

Bashing them will not do a bit of good and only make them turn a deaf ear

 

[catclaw]

the WM's in the area usuall have a good feel for the deer population in their area. They present this information to their superiors, who promptly file it in the circular file under their desk and make up whatever they want in order to pump as many tags out as they possibly can.

 

 

There is obviously some very poor or politically motivated management going on in many cases, especially with regards to deer hunting. I didn't hear very many positive things about the two elk hunts this year either. Many complained of being overrun with hunters in the field. Not a good way to encourage recruitment. Are we trying to emulate Colorado???

 

As far as surveys go, some WMs are pretty good at field craft and have a handle on their units. There are some others, and I have met them, that couldn't find catfish in a swimming pool. I have no idea what they do for the reports they turn in. I one time counted 70 deer in one day during a hunt. I mentioned this to the WM and she didn't believe me. I had to go show her. She had no idea what was in her unit. I would like to have seen that year's survey.

 

The little cards they mail us leave a lot to be desired too. They should go to an online reporting system where you have to report your hunt in order to access your personal data or maybe give a deadline with a $5 penalty or something. That way EVERYONE reports. I think some people lie, but the more data you get, the more accurate your study is.

[joeybari]

+1

 

[SDHunter11]

The population surveys are not determined in one day or one week of flying in the unit. WM's usually have a good idea of how many deer are in their unit. They then fly the unit and tell the pilot where to go to try and get accurate numbers. They tend to pick the spots where they have seen deer in the past or during the year from the ground. WM's also suggest the number of tags they think the unit should have. This is not always heard by the supervisor making the decision. Although the surveys can be a good tool to use for determining the number of deer in a unit, the best way is to go out to the unit and find them yourself. Hopefully the number of tags issued and the number of deer in the unit are a good enough ratio to properly manage the population.

[bwakeling]

For most big game species, the Department conducts aerial surveys primarily to estimate male to female and young to female ratios. We are still improving survey techniques that are giving us better data on population trend over time as well, but actual population estimates for each unit are difficult to accurately determine.

 

Jim Heffelfinger's book indeed provides an excellent overview of the approach.

 

In some areas with gentle terrain and little vegetation, we may use fixed-wing aircraft to fly grids across the entire unit or representative portions. Grid size is dependent on abundance of wildlife we are surveying. If the wildlife are abundant, we can fly wider grids and still obtain enough observations to get tight confidence intervals on the ratio data we collect. On the other hand, if wildlife are not abundant, then we fly tighter grids to increase the number of observations. We still try to fly grids that are sufficiently wide to avoid recounting the same group.

 

If the terrain is less gentle, we may use helicopters to fly grids. In steep, mountainous terrain, we will fly blocks of habitat that we may contour. In these instances, the wildlife managers select blocks that are "representative" of the wildlife habitat in their unit. We try to fly the same blocks in subsequent years to get a better idea of how wildlife are trending in that unit. Our goal is to standardize approaches to the extent possible

 

We use aerial surveys for bighorn sheep (helicopter blocks), deer (helicopter blocks, helicopter grids, and fixed-wing grids), javelina (helicopter blocks, helicopter grids, and fixed-wing grids), and elk (helicopter blocks, helicopter grids, and fixed-wing grids). We have been using this approach for about 5-6 years for deer and javelina, quite a number of years for bighorn sheep, and we are just beginning to do so for elk. Elk are still primarily surveyed from the ground in many units, but the aerial techniques are working well in quite a few units.

 

The local wildlife manager is generally involved in the survey, but some get green when flying and need to be replaced by someone less susceptible to motion sickness when flying (bouncing) along an uneven landscape and staring out the side window for a couple hours.

 

Buck:doe ratios for deer have been increasing in recent years, and we have changed the season dates and lengths in most units to reduce the number of deer hunters in the field at any one time. Last year statewide buck:doe ratios for mule deer were 27:100 and for white-tailed deer were 30:100.

 

That is the short course on Department aerial wildlife surveys.

 

SDHunter11 and CMC are correct in observing that survey data is not all that goes into a hunt recommendation. The observations and data that a wildlife manager collects over the course of a year plays a large role in the formulation of his final recommendation. We try to avoid going to "where all the deer are" or otherwise attempting to bias our surveys. We try to accurately survey the unit to get the best snapshot of the herd.

 

Brian Wakeling

Game Branch Chief

[cmc]

Thanks for the post Brian.... and welcome.

 

 

cmc

[4Falls]

They should go with a similar system to NM. If you dont respond to the mandatory survey you are not eligible for the next seasons draw. The problem still exists with people falsifying the information. I know guys in AZ and NM, mostly old-timers set in their ways, who believe that if they say they were successful on their survey that they will not be drawn the following year.

 

And I stand by the fact that these days not much science is used in determining tag numbers and will cite the fact that there were 60 rifle antelope tags in unit 19b this year. Theyd already whacked 50 bucks during the rifle hunt last year and add another 40-50 this year and there wont be much for the 60 guys who pull that tag next year.

[BowFly]

It sounds to me like the only logical thing to do is slow down or stop human population growth in AZ. Stop building houses, increase the wide open spaces.

 

I vote we have tags next year for realestate developers. A six month archery season should do it, oh, and make it leagal to hunt over Starbucks!

 

Yep, uhuh... that would do it.

 

(this is a joke and in now way intended to encourage anything stupid, like hunting in city limits).

[Str8Shot]

I feel that they need a better way to gather the mandatory reporting of harvest information but don't feel that that info alone being more accurate gives significant data to determine upcoming #'s of tags ..... IMO things like 2 or 3 year rotations on units limiting the numbers of hunts in both general and archery would help in making stronger larger herds .... I have seen it in a couple units already that have had a more limited number of tags the last couple years and the quality and quantity has improved .... IMO including mountain lion in the cost of or license and keeping it year round even with the 1 lion a year rule would significantly help the predation state wide ..... But i think the reality in a world and system fed off revenue that 10-25% margins of error will never effect the need for making the $$$$$