RIP UP THOSE AZG&F SURVEY CARDS!!!!

[bowhunter4life]

I wish I could draw a tag so I could protest too!!!!

 

Travis

 

 

 

just go buy an over the counter bear tag and you too can join in on the fun!

[DesertBull]

Another good way to protest the survey cards is too attend a commission meeting. Then get down on the floor, stomp your feet and fists on the floor and throw a hissy fit. A lot of 5 and 6-yr. olds get their way using this technique. -TONY

 

 

Do the Commissioners tell you to sit down and shut up before or after the hissy fit?

[coueschaser3]

Here is my opinion.

 

Bear and lion is mandatory check in, so they can pull the tooth. There is still problems with dishonest people whether the survey is mandatory or optional, online or on paper. So heck, Make it mandatory check in. they can get 100% perfect numbers with the exception of a few whom may ignore it....not a good idea by the way, i know i guy who tried it with bear and my buddy who took him didnt let that fly... So they have perfect numbers, They can even pull a tooth and get more information from that along with anything else they want. They can compile information on mature deer and average size from particular units. heck how many of us would like to know how old the deer was? I think it would be better for game and fish....assuming they care a bout proper information an even more indepth information...and it would be good for us, assuming the information is used properly. i know dang well i wouldnt mind bringin my buck somewhere for a check in.

 

 

Check in stations are not the answer

They can not fund checkins and

If they tell me I have to spend another $50.00 bucks

to drive to Mesa to have my Deer checked, It AINT happen'n

I will give it to Amanda for the site first.

 

On line mandatory survey

 

There are always volunteers or college grads that want to get in with game and fish that typically will take whatever opportunities are offered. Easy way to solve funding and probably enough man power to where check ins could be conveniently located. Ill bet the surveys have a decent cost to them also.

 

[bowsniper]

Another good way to protest the survey cards is too attend a commission meeting. Then get down on the floor, stomp your feet and fists on the floor and throw a hissy fit. A lot of 5 and 6-yr. olds get their way using this technique. -TONY

 

It would be worth a try. They never listen when you try to talk to them as an adult, let alone as a concerned hunter.

 

Mark

[coueshunter84]

Self addressed stamped envelope and survey with every tag. Either return the unused tag or the survey, or dont hunt the next year 2 years whatever.

[Coues 'n' Sheep]

I agree with you Mark.... The cards create false data. That data has hurt bow hunters.

[DEF110]

I got my first tag in 5 years last year. Well I was in England for 4 of them with the Air Force. I drew a 27 white tail. I took an 80” to 85” buck and didn’t even get a survey card. So how many actually got a cards or do they only send it to some?

[billrquimby]

Guys, people have been conducting surveys since Biblical times. There are certain formulas that have stood the test of time.

 

Using a Statistics calculator from the Net I came up with the following.

 

THE GIVEN: There are 1,000 deer permits and you want to know how many deer were killed. You send cards to all 1,000 permit holders. From past experience, you can expect 85% (or 850) of the cards to be returned.

 

THE RESULT: If the returned cards show a success rate of 29%, you can be 99% confident that 290 deer were killed. The error factor is 1.7%, or plus or minus five deer.

 

If a confidence level of 99% and an error rate of plus or minus five deer per 1,000 permits bothers you, then you should require every hunter to check in and out of his/her unit.

 

Bill Quimby

[SunDevil]

Bill - where are you getting the 85% from?

 

I thought I remember hearing that they only get like 40% back.

[wetmule]

At the commission meeting last summer after two or three years of mandatory reporting, if I remember right, they said they were getting 40-45% compliance. On this thread alone we have at least six people that have said they didn't or wont turn them in after killing a deer, I know of many more doing the same after killing an archery buck. They are not getting accurate information and they are making decisions on lousy and incomplete information. Until they institute mandatory reporting with either a positive incentive or a penalty for non compliance - and enforce it, they will continue to get extremely skewed data, and they will be making bad decisions based on it.

If they are gonna have it - do it right - otherwise why even bother to half butt it.

[Outdoor Writer]

They have been using the same "skewed" data for as long as I can remember. And that is a VERY long time.

 

Amazingly, it all remains pretty consistent throughout all the years, i.e. the percentage of returned cards and the success rates in each unit from year to year. That's the way statistical analysis works, as Bill mentioned. It's all based on probabilities and margins of error.

 

Does it produce completely accurate data to the exact numbers? Nope, and no system -- including mandatory reporting -- will unless a game warden is required to accompany every hunter in the field and file the reports.

 

And of course, one part of the system is only as good the rest of it. So it is with predicting the deer population and how many deer can be harvested in any particulatr unit. The data for this, also based on statistical anaysis, then too is "skewd."

 

Maybe we should also demand that G&F do an exact head count of deer in every unit rather than hit and miss aerial surveys?? Sounds like a good weekend project for the ADA to take on. Gather all the members each weekend in a different hunt unit and walk a grid to count deer. That way G&F can set accurate harvest goals from accurate population stats rather than using "skewed' data all the time.

 

Here are the deer survey card figures for 2007:

 

Number mailed: 42,543

 

Number returned: 19,177

 

Return rate: 45.1%

 

Previous year's rate: 44.2%

 

Elk returns average slightly higher:

 

Number mailed: 19,235

 

Number returned: 10,249

 

Return rate: 53.3%

 

Previous year's rate: 53.3%

 

 

-TONY

[wetmule]

Conducting surveys is going to be pretty trivial and will be a moot point when the Governor and the Legislature sweeps G & F funds to pay for the 2 billion dollar deficit this Governor and the legislature created. The question is going to be what G & F employees the we personally know and respect will still have jobs?

[.270]

hey wetmule, you gotta remember one thing, half-assed is an improvement for the azgfd. they'd love to be, well, like a mule, half assed. Lark.

[SunDevil]

come on Tony - we are talking about something that can realistically be done vs something that can not be realistically done. having mandatory reporting is something that can very realistically and very easily be done (NM and UT have been doing it for years). having a game warden accompany every hunter or doing an exact head count of every deer are things that are unrealistic.

 

statistically speaking, a 45% return rate on 42.5K survey cards is more than enough from a macro level but at a micro level it falls short. the G&F are making decisions at the unit and hunt level in which they may have only sent a couple hundred survey cards.

 

so lets look at this a little closer. we will assume the 45% return rate is constant (pretty big assumption as some hunts may have had 35% and others 55% which would make the results of the 35% return rates even worse) and we will look at unit 32 white tail only (no carp and no juniors). we will use a confidence level of 95% (generally accepted amoung researchers) and a confidence interval of +/- 4%.

 

last year there were 1,475 WT tags in unit 32 (650 in oct, 650 in nov and 175 in dec). at a macro level the G&F only needed to have 427 survey cards returned (29%) in order to achieve the 95% and +/-4% levels used in this example. however, when looking at the micro level in aggregate they needed to have 760 survey cards returned (52%).

 

650 oct tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 312 cards

 

650 nov tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 312 cards

 

175 dec tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 136 cards

 

312+312+136=760

 

if 312 survey cards (48% of total) from the nov hunt were returned, than the G&F would be 95% confident that the hunter success for this hunt was somewhere between 22% and 30% (G&F reported hunt success for this hunt was 26%). so which is it? how many bucks were taken on this hunt 143, 169 or 195?

 

dec is even worse, if only 45% of the survey cards are returned, the confidence interval drops to +/-8%. G&F reported a 56% hunter success rate. so at a 45% return rate, the hunter success rate is somewhere between 48% and 64%. so what is it? were 84 bucks taken or 112?

 

the same can be done for oct and then all of them can be added together. so in aggregate, was hunter success in unit 32 for all 3 hunts 28%, 32% or 36%. where 405 bucks harvested, 468 or 535? these numbers are pretty far apart.

 

my point is that a lot of this guess work can be taken out of the equation by simply moving to mandatory reporting. yes, people will be dishonest but people are currently being dishonest in the existing structure. taking dishonesty out of the equation is unrealistic and unfortunately will always be part of the equation. the majority of the guess work involved in this reporting CAN AND SHOULD be removed by moving toward mandatory reporting.

[tjhunt2]

come on Tony - we are talking about something that can realistically be done vs something that can not be realistically done. having mandatory reporting is something that can very realistically and very easily be done (NM and UT have been doing it for years). having a game warden accompany every hunter or doing an exact head count of every deer are things that are unrealistic.

 

statistically speaking, a 45% return rate on 42.5K survey cards is more than enough from a macro level but at a micro level it falls short. the G&F are making decisions at the unit and hunt level in which they may have only sent a couple hundred survey cards.

 

so lets look at this a little closer. we will assume the 45% return rate is constant (pretty big assumption as some hunts may have had 35% and others 55% which would make the results of the 35% return rates even worse) and we will look at unit 32 white tail only (no carp and no juniors). we will use a confidence level of 95% (generally accepted amoung researchers) and a confidence interval of +/- 4%.

 

last year there were 1,475 WT tags in unit 32 (650 in oct, 650 in nov and 175 in dec). at a macro level the G&F only needed to have 427 survey cards returned (29%) in order to achieve the 95% and +/-4% levels used in this example. however, when looking at the micro level in aggregate they needed to have 760 survey cards returned (52%).

 

650 oct tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 312 cards

 

650 nov tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 312 cards

 

175 dec tags at 95% and +/-4% requires 136 cards

 

312+312+136=760

 

if 312 survey cards (48% of total) from the nov hunt were returned, than the G&F would be 95% confident that the hunter success for this hunt was somewhere between 22% and 30% (G&F reported hunt success for this hunt was 26%). so which is it? how many bucks were taken on this hunt 143, 169 or 195?

 

dec is even worse, if only 45% of the survey cards are returned, the confidence interval drops to +/-8%. G&F reported a 56% hunter success rate. so at a 45% return rate, the hunter success rate is somewhere between 48% and 64%. so what is it? were 84 bucks taken or 112?

 

the same can be done for oct and then all of them can be added together. so in aggregate, was hunter success in unit 32 for all 3 hunts 28%, 32% or 36%. where 405 bucks harvested, 468 or 535? these numbers are pretty far apart.

 

my point is that a lot of this guess work can be taken out of the equation by simply moving to mandatory reporting. yes, people will be dishonest but people are currently being dishonest in the existing structure. taking dishonesty out of the equation is unrealistic and unfortunately will always be part of the equation. the majority of the guess work involved in this reporting CAN AND SHOULD be removed by moving toward mandatory reporting.

 

 

...if you say so!

 

TJ