Eastman's: Worst Big Game Reporting State

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
12,409
Location
Colorado
A few years ago I asked the CPW Terrestrial Data Analyst the question why CO doesn't have mandatory reporting and she gave me a journal paper that determined random sampling was similarly accurate as mandatory reporting. Unfortunately it was in person (hard copy) and I can't find the paper at the moment.

That said, I would still like to see CPW go to mandatory reporting, as I think there is much to be learned about hunting pressure by unit. In particular, it would be beneficial to know how pressure and harvest was distributed across land ownership within units.
 
Last edited:

Mthuntr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
3,256
Location
In the Sagebrush of Montana
So are we going to start a petition or wait for one of the groups to do it?

I've got a little time this afternoon, if folks want to help with the language.
I don't have the knowledge of how to start one that would have the language to be effective but I'd definitely sign it. I need to get a letter put together as those can be more effective than a petitions.org email
 

LopeHunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
2,337
Location
MO-->CA-->NW-->AZ&NW
I have no idea why FWP would not want to go to mandatory reporting. I hope that FWP is just happy with the current system and feel that mandatory reporting is unnecessary. The cynical part of me thinks that FWP is opposed because mandatory reporting would show that places like the Custer are being hunted in to the ground and that the data would not back up FWP's current management. Lets hope the cynical part of me is wrong.
Winner winner chicken dinner. Facts are a troublesome thing when will create discomfort and accountability. Is better to not gather facts and go with the flow within the bureaucracy. Keep collecting those paychecks and sap the souls out of the ambitious until they also see the "wisdom" in the old ways..
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,499
Location
Helena
For this purpose, individual comment letters are less impressive than a petition with a few hundred names on it. FWP isn't legally required to do much with your opinion right now, other than count it. The commission will consider those comments, but ultimately, the legal authority to act upon those is murky at best.

Volume, rather than well thought out comments, are what is needed on this.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,299
Location
Aurora, CO
Not really fair, and I doubt that Brad says they are more accurate. And he's just an area biologist that doesn't have any say in how the data is gathered.

A few years ago I asked the CPW Terrestrial Data Analyst the question why CO doesn't have mandatory reporting and she gave me a journal paper that determined random sampling was similarly accurate as mandatory reporting. Unfortunately it was in person (hard copy) and I can't find the paper at the moment.

That said, I would still like to see CPW go to mandatory reporting, as I think there is much to be learned about hunting pressure by unit. In particular, it would be beneficial to know how pressure and harvest was distributed across land ownership within units.
Fair, although he was the department representative speaking to the commission in La Junta, and he specifically said that mandatory reporting wasn't accurate because there was no way to compel compliance. Brad gave sheep plugging and bear sealing as the example saying if you didn't have to get a something like this to get your trophy taxidermist people wouldn't participate.

Basically he was giving saying mandatory harvest reporting was what other states did, and that compared to harvest reporting random sampling is just as accurate.

What I have issue with is the fact that no other state does mandatory harvest reporting, they do mandatory reporting, i.e. you have to report regardless of if you killed something and it's compulsory by either a fine or not being able to participate in the draw.

A statistician may be able to show using regression that there isn't a statistically significant difference between the reporting methodologies at a statewide level, but within your margin of error are gross misreporting for specific herds.

ie.

371 for muzzy season 2018

harvest stats say 0 hunters were successful, 5 hunters I know of including myself killed bulls. This is not statistically significant since there were over 220,000 hunters in CO, but there were only 84 hunters in 371 which means if I know every single bull that was killed in the unit the success rate was 6% not 0% and likely I don't know all the successful hunters and the rate was more like 15%.

*I realize this is coming across as a lecture and pedantic and you know and have way more experience with this than I do... but it fires me up.
 

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
2,829
Location
Western Montana
A properly designed, truly random sample, would with a high percentage of certainty provide data that is a representative of the whole.

That’s just statistics 101, but it ain’t what FWP does and I don’t even know if it would be possible.

I can imagine a random sample model, where the randomly selected hunters that to ever hunt again, would have to report during the season and with proof of their kill so that the data would be harder and more reliable than counting on the fallible memory or trustworthiness of a hunter months after the season. Sample sizes would be determinant on the number of hunters in given districts, and even then the data would be squishy due to tags that are good for multiple districts.

Any system would have its flaws. Even mandatory reporting would require assuming hunters aren’t lying or are remembering right.Every spring when I get the phone call, and I am asked how many days I spent afield for which species, it’s just a shot in the dark.
 
Last edited:

hank4elk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
3,365
Location
SW NM
I never understood not reporting. I grew up taking the buck to local firehouse,SO substation,or Park to get validated. Had to get tag signed before you took home.
I signed tags for years as a Park Ranger later & knew the data & purpose was useful.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,499
Location
Helena

Here you go. If you don't like the language I used, shoot me a new draft via PM and we'll use it.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,299
Location
Aurora, CO
A properly designed, truly random sample, would with a high percentage of certainty provide data that is a representative of the whole.

That’s just statistics 101, but it ain’t what FWP does and I don’t even know if it would be possible.

I can imagine a random sample model, where the randomly selected hunters that to ever hunt again, would have to report during the season and with proof of their kill so that the data would be harder and more reliable than counting on the fallible memory or trustworthiness of a hunter months after the season. Sample sizes would be determinant on the number of hunters in given districts, and even then the data would be squishy due to tags that are good for multiple districts.

Any system would have its flaws. Even mandatory reporting would require assuming hunters aren’t lying or are remembering right.Every spring when I get the phone call, and I am asked how many days I spent afield for which species, it’s just a shot in the dark.
Or you could just do what Alaska does and allow hunters to report online or via a pre-paid post card with a couple weeks of their hunt, and then if they don't make it so they can't buy a tag the next year.

110055
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,299
Location
Aurora, CO

Here you go. If you don't like the language I used, shoot me a new draft via PM and we'll use it.
"mandatory reporting of harvest of big game animals" --> mandatory hunt reporting including the success or failure to harvest a big game animal.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
10,499
Location
Helena
"mandatory reporting of harvest of big game animals" --> mandatory hunt reporting including the success or failure to harvest a big game animal.
Clearly you are not a poet. That's a loooong title. Changed it too:
Mandatory Hunt Reporting with Harvest Details for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
12,409
Location
Colorado
Fair, although he was the department representative speaking to the commission in La Junta, and he specifically said that mandatory reporting wasn't accurate because there was no way to compel compliance.
A peculiar thing about state agencies is that the policy makers are rarely the agency representatives in meetings. Strange that they had a local biologist drive 300 miles across the state when there were two people above him in the terrestrial section chain of command, from 175 miles away, on the agenda as well (policy makers).

I sat across the aisle from and argued against one of the greatest bighorn sheep advocates in the agency as he proposed a policy to kill bighorn sheep on sight within a predetermined polygon of national forest lands, because the policy of the state agency is to not recommend reducing public lands domestic sheep grazing to protect bighorns. I don't blame him any more for taking that position in the meeting than I would blame my son for the sun coming up this morning. All I'm saying is don't send the lynch mob for the messenger. Address the policy makers.

We agree on the point of mandatory reporting.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,299
Location
Aurora, CO
A peculiar thing about state agencies is that the policy makers are rarely the agency representatives in meetings. Strange that they had a local biologist drive 300 miles across the state when there were two people above him in the terrestrial section chain of command, from 175 miles away, on the agenda as well (policy makers).

I sat across the aisle from and argued against one of the greatest bighorn sheep advocates in the agency as he proposed a policy to kill bighorn sheep on sight within a predetermined polygon of national forest lands, because the policy of the state agency is to not recommend reducing public lands domestic sheep grazing to protect bighorns. I don't blame him any more for taking that position in the meeting than I would blame my son for the sun coming up this morning. All I'm saying is don't send the lynch mob for the messenger. Address the policy makers.

We agree on the point of mandatory reporting.
Touche, in general agency employees get shafted on a lot of these things, at the end of the day most of the people I have worked with have been incredible and I really just want them to have the tools at their disposal to do their job well. I think our herds would be much better off if biologist had the best data possible and greater ability to adjust license quotas where necessary.
 
Last edited:

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,148
Location
Wenatchee
Clearly you are not a poet. That's a loooong title. Changed it too:
Mandatory Hunt Reporting with Harvest Details for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Do you need to be a MT resident in order to the sig to matter?
 
Top