Surprise! More Bullshit......

[GobblerHntr]

And not everyone checks game in, or phones it in... got it. you will never get a total physical count. People are gonna do what they want when they want to. However, if you assume most people fill out surveys accurately, the occasional dipwad is either flushed out as it is only one of thousands, or intentionally tossed out (for killing 9 birds for example). Statistically, the numbers are as accurate as you can expect to get provided enough people are sampled.

Done right, statistics work by randomly sampling a subset of the total hunters and extrapolating the results them across all hunters. At some point, sampling more people will not change the final numbers, just cost you more to send out more surveys. That's why not everyone gets a survey.

Some years I get a survey, some years I don't. Statistically it doesn't matter if I get one every year. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better off we all will be.

Wrong

But good story.

[Gut_Pile]

I'm right

That other guy, who I assume you were talking to, is wrong

[DJP]

Jbtflo's explanation of the survey system and surveys in general is correct.

[flockbuster]

Wrong

But good story.

How is he wrong? that is the way I understood it worked.

[Gut_Pile]

Yes an no.

Sample size can matter and who get's the survey can matter too.

If 100 surveys go out to 100 people one year that don't turkey hunt, what good does it do?

Then the next year the same 100 surveys go out to 100 people that do turkey hunt, you get completely different numbers.

I know nothing about this SC survey bc I don't live in SC and will never get one. How is it determined who gets a survey in the mail?

[flockbuster]

From the DNR website

The 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey represented a random mail survey that involved a single mail-out. The questionnaire for the 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey was developed by Wildlife Section personnel (Figure 1 - Adobe PDF). The mailing list database was constructed by randomly selecting 25,000 individuals who received a set of 2013 Turkey Transportation Tags which are required in order to hunt turkeys in South Carolina. Data entry was completed by Priority Data, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
Following the mail survey, a nonresponse bias test was conducted by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview program (CATI). Results from the mail survey were corrected for nonresponse bias using data collected from the telephone survey.

25,000 seems like a pretty fair sampling size to me

[Gut_Pile]

The 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey represented a random mail survey that involved a single mail-out. The questionnaire for the 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey was developed by Wildlife Section personnel (Figure 1 - Adobe PDF). The mailing list database was constructed by randomly selecting 25,000 individuals who received a set of 2013 Turkey Transportation Tags which are required in order to hunt turkeys in South Carolina. Data entry was completed by Priority Data, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
Following the mail survey, a nonresponse bias test was conducted by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview program (CATI). Results from the mail survey were corrected for nonresponse bias using data collected from the telephone survey.

25,000 seems like a pretty fair sampling size

Agreed

[Smilee]

Until there is money slated to be used only for turkey related projects there will not be any positive change.

[GobblerHntr]

From the DNR website

The 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey represented a random mail survey that involved a single mail-out. The questionnaire for the 2013 Turkey Hunter Survey was developed by Wildlife Section personnel (Figure 1 - Adobe PDF). The mailing list database was constructed by randomly selecting 25,000 individuals who received a set of 2013 Turkey Transportation Tags which are required in order to hunt turkeys in South Carolina. Data entry was completed by Priority Data, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska.
Following the mail survey, a nonresponse bias test was conducted by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview program (CATI). Results from the mail survey were corrected for nonresponse bias using data collected from the telephone survey.

25,000 seems like a pretty fair sampling size to me

Yea if you believe the bullshit they are feeding you then I guess it's a pretty good sampling

[flockbuster]

Yea if you believe the bullshit they are feeding you then I guess it's a pretty good sampling

you keep saying everything is wrong or bullshit but I don't see you posting anything other than your opinion. I may be completely wrong, but you haven't posted anything to show me where I am.

Let me try this again. What would you have them do to get more accurate numbers?

[JBtflo]

you keep saying everything is wrong or bullshit but I don't see you posting anything other than your opinion. I may be completely wrong, but you haven't posted anything to show me where I am.

Let me try this again. What would you have them do to get more accurate numbers?

[Relentlous]

What's the limit gonna be? I haven't read into it.

[surfcock]

Squatty, I'm not a fan of Ruth either, but the data from the turkey survey is about as good as you will get. It's about as accurate than any of the political polls.

[surfcock]

I would bet the 3 bird limit passes this year, unfortunately.

[BRR]

I kill 5 turkeys most years and have never received the survey.

[JBtflo]

I kill 5 turkeys most years and have never received the survey.

And through sampling a subset of all turkey hunters you find x percent of all turkey hunters surveyed kill 5 turkeys, y percent kill 4, and so on down to those that kill 0, and those that don't hunt at all. Take those percentages multiplied across all potential turkey hunters (they have turkey tags), and you get an estimate of the total harvest. At some point surveying more and more turkey hunters, up to and including all of them, will not statistically change the harvest estimate in the end, it will just cost more and be a waste of money.

You would fall into the percentage group that kills five, and are accounted for in the estimate even though you did not get a survey.

[MKW]

More info could be gathered if tags had a little more required info on them (date, county, and maybe some stats on the bird killed) and tags were issued one at a time. Kill a gobbler, turn in your tag to any place that issues licenses and get another one, up to your limit. I would be a pain if done like this and I would hate it, but at least better info could be gathered by the state. As the tag system is now, it's worthless.
You will always have folks that kill more than they should, but there is no way to control that.

[Palmetto Duck]

Never received a survey and I've hunted turkeys longer than over half on here have been alive based on my survey of the comments on here. Turkey surveys are bullshit. And deer surveys in this state at least are more bullshit. For all you statistics gurus out there that believe in the turkey survey, ever think that Johnny Lunchbucket may just fib a little each year about how many he kills hoping to portray how many are there so limits and seasons won't get reduced?

[Tuffy]

Sheesh....There is nothing wrong with using a survey to estimate a harvest index. It's not necessary for that number to be accurate in the absolute sense and it is valid for annual comparisons. It's a darned good bet that there were not exactly 16,248 birds taken, but there was about a 15% decline from 2013.

The reason for a decline and the right management response is a heck of a lot more important than how we do/could count it. For cryin' out loud.....

[davisd9]

Put a cost on the tags. Doing that and you will get some of the hunters out that sit the first Saturday of the season and hear or see nothing then complain numbers are down or those that saw a turkey during deer season and go once or twice. You will also get a better sampling size from those that actually turkey hunt. Surveys will not get sent to those that just checked yes to get a free set of tags. The cost of the tags would not even have to be very high to keep many people from selecting to get them. Some that turkey hunt may not like paying for them but it is one of the only way to get information from just those that actually turkey hunt and know half way what they are doing.

I am all for protecting turkey populations, but where is the biological data? I understand that it takes money to get data, but how much money is wasted sending out surveys to people that just got tags because they are free and they might go turkey hunting?

By charging a small amount for tags it would also open a financial resource to actually do some biological studies rather than just surveys. Surveys are fine as long as you have something to go with them.