Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: Surprise! More Bullshit......

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    upstate, sc
    Posts
    3,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuffy View Post
    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.....
    You said "the right management resource". I couldn't agree more. But therein lies the problem! We cant manage statewide turkey population the same because its not the same statewide. The management IS the problem and partly or mostly bc its political. Why would we manage private vs public land differently then in the low state if it weren't that way? They "counting" more birds killed on public than private in lowstate when its open 2 weeks longer? I think not. So what good is the count? And how in the hell do they come up with a margin of error? And what is it? 2 or 3%? If so then the harvest could be down only 12% or as much as 18%? Would you like it if I managed your money that way?? "Sheesh" maybe not sport? Show us sound biology to make biological decisions, including a real count/survey or don't try to change it is what I'd tell Columbia and the DNR.
    \"We say grace and we say maam, if you ain\'t into that, we don\'t give a damn.\" HW Jr.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Jame isle
    Posts
    6,041

    Default

    Maybe they should stop doing "controlled burns" in the Francis Marion during the nesting period!
    867-5309

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sumter, South Carolina
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    Except for "Sport" and our confidence in the current survey method, I'm not sure that we disagree about much of anything.

    That statistics methodology of the survey doesn't bother me, based on what I have looked at about it in the past. I think it's valid for year-to-year comparisons. As Charles notes, the harvest can/does vary a lot based on many factors...not the least of which is probably reproductive success. I would be the very last one to want to see us make resource management changes (eg. limits and season length/dates), but the low reproduction alone is enough to discourage me from doing anything that I would consider to be liberalizing it. (BTW: the Summer Survey does worry me more in the statistical sense, but, so far, I'm willing to accept it as a consistent index, too.)

    My own pet theory was to want to identify several habitat "types" across the state and try to manage each of those. But....I'd sure hate to try to argue limits/seasons in that way. As it is, I do think that we have enough data to manage at the Game Zone level, but that may be debateable.

    I guess the bottom line is that there is nothing in the Harvest Report to make me change the seasons/limits, but there may be something in the Summer Survey to make me consider tightening it.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,733

    Default

    It's funny to hear SC talk about sound biological decisions when the GA makes the decisions. It's a win a win for them the DNR is blamed fot everything and the General Assembly are the ones that make the decisions. Why would they change anything? Does anyone think more than a handful legislators care about natural resources. Half of what the DNR does is a dog and pony show to save their budget. When they do take stand for a reduction of anything SC hunters come unglued. Reducing WIC payment would be easier.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Irmo
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davisd9 View Post
    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.
    Charging any fee would weed out many of folks that get tags just because they are free. This would also cost less since less tags would have to be purchased and mailed on the front end. From a survey stand point it doesn't matter if you don't hunt, so long as the sample size is large enough to account for the real data you are looking for.

    I agree that if the fees we enough to cover the cost of the tags & distribution, then some left over for research money, that would be a good thing.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Irmo
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    One last thing about checking animals and harvest estimates. (Taken from people arguing elsewhere about deer check stations in 2008)

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    "Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure non-reporting rates. In the 10 years that I’ve been here, I’ve been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.

    On the surface, MR seems like the “cats meow.” You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you’re now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn’t check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what’s you’re answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don’t know what noncompliance is, you don’t know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that – an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan’s current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

    “Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision". Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort.”

    Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates. However, I don’t believe it will improve the estimates themselves.

    I hope I have shed some “unbiased” light on the subject of mandatory registration. Please don’t hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

    Very best,
    Mike

    Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
    Wildlife Research Biologist
    ODNR, Division of Wildlife
    9650 SR 356
    New Marshfield, OH45766
    v (740).664.2745 f (740) 664-6841
    mike.tonkovich@dnr.state.oh.us (mike.tonkovich@dnr.state.oh.us)"

  7. #47
    Mergie Master's Avatar
    Mergie Master is offline Dedicated Tamiecide Practitioner
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Saluca (not Saluda)
    Posts
    71,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBtflo View Post
    Check stations are notoriously underused. Same thing happened with deer check stations. That one's too far away, closed, too busy to check my deer (or turkey), and I have the (turkey or) deer in my truck, the game warden hasn't seen me....I'm going home. Hunted the upstate when check stations were mandatory, and deer were routinely not checked in at the club where I hunted.
    That works if you are going to process your own deer. But when we had check stations up here a processor wouldn't/couldn't take a deer that hadn't been checked in.
    The Elites don't fear the tall nails, government possesses both the will and the means to crush those folks. What the Elites do fear (or should fear) are the quiet men and women, with low profiles, hard hearts, long memories, and detailed target folders for action as they choose.

    "I here repeat, & would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule—to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race."

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    upstate, sc
    Posts
    3,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuffy View Post
    Except for "Sport" and our confidence in the current survey method, I'm not sure that we disagree about much of anything.

    That statistics methodology of the survey doesn't bother me, based on what I have looked at about it in the past. I think it's valid for year-to-year comparisons. As Charles notes, the harvest can/does vary a lot based on many factors...not the least of which is probably reproductive success. I would be the very last one to want to see us make resource management changes (eg. limits and season length/dates), but the low reproduction alone is enough to discourage me from doing anything that I would consider to be liberalizing it. (BTW: the Summer Survey does worry me more in the statistical sense, but, so far, I'm willing to accept it as a consistent index, too.)


    My own pet theory was to want to identify several habitat "types" across the state and try to manage each of those. But....I'd sure hate to try to argue limits/seasons in that way. As it is, I do think that we have enough data to manage at the Game Zone level, but that may be debateable.

    I guess the bottom line is that there is nothing in the Harvest Report to make me change the seasons/limits, but there may be something in the Summer Survey to make me consider tightening it.
    You are right. Think I was a bit chippy that day. But I meant "Sport" in the most endearing of terms....
    As mentioned, my beef is with the management and the legislature which is charged of same. I spoke with 2 of our representatives, both of whom live within 1 mile of my house the week before the proposed vote this year, one is a hunter I may add, and neither one knew dick about it nor could speak coherently as to why we needed to or shouldn't go with the proposed bill!!! Herein lies the problem....
    \"We say grace and we say maam, if you ain\'t into that, we don\'t give a damn.\" HW Jr.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    York Co
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davisd9 View Post
    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.
    I agree with this

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Under the Roost
    Posts
    23,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palmetto Duck View Post
    You are right. Think I was a bit chippy that day. But I meant "Sport" in the most endearing of terms....
    As mentioned, my beef is with the management and the legislature which is charged of same. I spoke with 2 of our representatives, both of whom live within 1 mile of my house the week before the proposed vote this year, one is a hunter I may add, and neither one knew dick about it nor could speak coherently as to why we needed to or shouldn't go with the proposed bill!!! Herein lies the problem....
    Yep

    I wish I could breathe life back in him, if I could I'd hunt him again tomorrow. - Ben Rodgers Lee

    www.springallurecustomcalls.com

    https://www.facebook.com/springallure.customcalls/

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    In my own little world
    Posts
    20,979

    Default

    DNR charges for doe tags, turkey tags should be no different.
    RIP Kelsey "Bigdawg" Cromer
    12-26-98 12-1-13

    If love could have saved you, you would have lived forever.

    Missing you my great friend.


  12. #52

    Default

    wheres that snake bastard DuckTape?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    24,581

    Default

    You've got one life. Blaze on!

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Gobbler's Knob, GA/ Bamberg,SC
    Posts
    21,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosting_the_forest_floor View Post
    wheres that snake bastard DuckTape?
    Welcome to SC Ducks. Great first post!
    F**K Cancer

    Just Damn.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    15,351

    Default

    I guess making $62,905 a year as a DNR Wildlife Biologist ol Charles Ruth doesn't really care much about the resources and wanting to do what's right for the resources since the General Assembly makes the rules anyway. Heck if I were him I'd look into becoming a professor and doubling my salary by teaching at a state university.

    Charge for turkey tags and require all hunters to fill out a questionnaire or no turkey tags next season.
    Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Highstrung View Post
    I like fishing topwater. Will one of you jot down some of this redneck ghetto slang and the definitions for those of us who weren't born with a plastic spoon in our mouths?

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    3,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfcock View Post
    I would bet the 3 bird limit passes this year, unfortunately.
    Yep, and their own data in this story tells you how ridiculous that will be. Average hunter spent five days in the field with a 22 percent success ratio. Three bird limit will have .000001 percent effect on the turkey population but I guess all that matters is that they look like they are doing something.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC
    Posts
    5,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kioti View Post
    Three bird limit will have .000001 percent effect on the turkey population but I guess all that matters is that they look like they are doing something.
    Yep.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Irmo
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck the Duck Slayer View Post
    I guess making $62,905 a year as a DNR Wildlife Biologist ol Charles Ruth doesn't really care much about the resources and wanting to do what's right for the resources since the General Assembly makes the rules anyway. Heck if I were him I'd look into becoming a professor and doubling my salary by teaching at a state university.

    Charge for turkey tags and require all hunters to fill out a questionnaire or no turkey tags next season.

    So Mr. Ruth really doesn't care about the resource because he might not agree with you?

    What would you propose he do? Run for office to change the law? He can't set fees. Only the GA can do that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •