[another_pilgrim]

I was curious. The Game News had an article on deer harvest estimates. It pointed out some of the inherent problems (non-reporting, method of reporting, etc.). Some hunters don't agree with their numbers. The polls compares the number of hunters who report their harvest against the PGC estimate.

 

[Furtaker Ron]

I always report and I think the estimate is too high. There is a post in the ar hr forums that pretty much proves it.

 

[keystone-hunter]

I turn my deer in. And I think that they lie about the harvest numbers.

 

[whil e kioti]

I always have reported my harvest. Sorry to say I have nothing to report YET this season.

I don't know if the harvest estimate is too high or too low or just right. Way too many variables in the formula used by the PGC for me to guess. It may be just right Statewide, but for some WMU's it may be too high or too low.

 

[keystone-hunter]

Estimates are too high.

I almost spit milk all over the screen laughing when I saw "the estimate is too low, there are more deer" option.

 

[yellodog]

i have no idea what the harvest is, and i don't know how any individual could say anything different. it's a big state, and no one gets around enough to get a realistic idea of more than a couple small areas.

that being said, i do put my faith in the pgc, and their estimates have been proven accurate. if anyone disagrees with that, i'd ask who should we beleive?

 

[pappybear]

I was curious. The Game News had an article on deer harvest estimates. It pointed out some of the inherent problems (non-reporting, method of reporting, etc.). Some hunters don't agree with their numbers. The polls compares the number of hunters who report their harvest against the PGC estimate.

The questions on deer harvest estimates seem to express two oposing opinions in the same question.
By voting that the estimates are too low, I would think that a hunter feels that more deer are being harvested than estimates indicate. This would lead to over harvesting and lower actual herd numbers.
If a hunter believes that the estimates are too high, he would think that not enough deer are being harvested and the herd is actually increasing.

 

[whil e kioti]

In my opinion it is possible that some WMU'S can be estimated too low or too high. It depends on how many field checks and processor checks were done in each WMU. I think that hunters who were field checked are more likely to report their harvest than those who don't know they were checked at the processors.

I believe that the report rate varies so much between WMU's for this reason.

Last year the report rate for does varied between 19% and 45%, for bucks it was between 31% and 45%.

 

[pappybear]

Just after the regular seasson last year, Pennsylvania Outdoor Life host "Jake" asked a group of about 20 hunters how many got a deer. Nearly everyone raised there hand. When asked how many reported their harvest, only 3 raised their hands.
You would think that the rate of those checked in the field and taking their deer to processors would have 100% compliance. But the estimates are still 40%.

 

[Dale Sholder]

Your opinion but then you think Eveland is right on with his bogus report so I take what you write with a grain of salt.

 

[Nathan585]

Eveland was 100% right. Other than another hastily put together false slander attempt on him, what is your point Dale?

 

[keystone-hunter]

+1

 

[Dale Sholder]

Eveland is only right because its what you want to believe simply nothing to what he has written and its been proved over and over but you still have blinders on so whatever anyone says you wont believe it becau8se it ddoesnt fit your agenda.

 

[keystone-hunter]

The documented facts show otherwise. But this is not the topic. Try to control your emotions and slander attempts and keep on track. A comment or two off topic is no big deal, but it is clear you just want to make this another unsupportable eveland slander thread.

How about sticking to the topic for once Dale?

 

[Dale Sholder]

Estimates are just that estimates. No one nopt even the PGC can acurately predicate what the kill was or how many deer theer are ion the herd yet you and others want it down to the nth degree. Come up with a better system and have it implemented. If it werentm for the lazy or uncaring hunters of PA the reporting rate might be a whole lot better but until you can make everyone report their kill then estimate is what you will get irregardless of how wrong you think they maybe. Hows that suit you better?

 

[outofstater]

I dont agree or disagree and dont eben think about it due to people dont send there cards in. I commented on another thread i think the 10 days is to long and people forget. Here in Md. we have 24 hours to check in via phone or net. Md. has a 60% check in status.

 

[THINBLUELINE]

I see that 3 people said that they never report their harvest. I am sure that none of those 3 people would be willing to explain why you would not want to report your harvest. Just curious.

 

[whil e kioti]

Outofstater: I like your idea however If a hunter processes their own deer, once it's in the freezer if they don't report who's to know? Just curious, but how do they determine they have a 60% check in status?

My point is it's still pretty much a system that rely's on hunters being honest and voluntary reporting of their kills. In this State it would probably incresae the report rate in hunters who take their deer to processors, but no guarantee that those who process deer themselves will comply.

Now let's say that hunters were required to report all their tags. Here's a example of what I mean using easy math and round numbers.

If the PGC sold 2,000 doe tags for WMU3X, and after all deer seasons were finished let's say they recieved 250 kill reports and 750 no kill from hunters. Or a 50% report rate, 25% kill, 75% no kill. All that would need to be done is apply the kill/no kill percentages to the missing tags. The total harvest would be 500 kill 1,500 no kill. Wouldn't this be better?

It would also give the PGC the power of Santa Claus and know who's been naughty and who's been nice.

Merry Chrimas to all!!

 

[outofstater]

Outofstater: I like your idea however If a hunter processes their own deer, once it's in the freezer if they don't report who's to know? Just curious, but how do they determine they have a 60% check in status?

My point is it's still pretty much a system that rely's on hunters being honest and voluntary reporting of their kills. In this State it would probably incresae the report rate in hunters who take their deer to processors, but no guarantee that those who process deer themselves will comply.

Now let's say that hunters were required to report all their tags. Here's a example of what I mean using easy math and round numbers.

If the PGC sold 2,000 doe tags for WMU3X, and after all deer seasons were finished let's say they recieved 250 kill reports and 750 no kill from hunters. Or a 50% report rate, 25% kill, 75% no kill. All that would need to be done is apply the kill/no kill percentages to the missing tags. The total harvest would be 500 kill 1,500 no kill. Wouldn't this be better?

It would also give the PGC the power of Santa Claus and know who's been naughty and who's been nice.

Merry Chrimas to all!!

I actually seen the Md. 60% check in rate on a thread on this site but forget where a few days ago. I for most part thinks the PGC compared to other states as far as rules and regs does a pretty darn good job. Now for Md. and please my state has i feel many more issues but this one seems to work. First they have a no thrill tag for deer and turkey you actually get quite a few in your reg. book and can even ask for more. They do not have your lic. # on them after kill just like Pa. you fill it out name, address , and date. On your main lic. there is a part for this too and fill it out. Than with in 24 hours you call in via phone, net they ask few questions, male, female, private, public, unit # , etc. After this you are given a confirmation # and you must write that # on your main lic. Known of a few people cited in woods for not having that confirmation # wrote on there lic. because then they are accused of not reporting than resulting in a big fine. I can say everyone i talk to in Md. does the check in but Pa. folks are different on this. I think the real kicker is the 24 hour its fresh in mind and dont put it off. Pa. for years has tried to perfect there tagging system and if you would see a Md. tag you would laugh due to its so plain and simple. I cant say there 60% is accurate but read it here but if it is sounds better then whats happening in Pa. Now the biggest one i cant figure is Colorado. I just got back last month from an elk hunt. There is no check in out there when you kill an elk or deer for atleast the units i have hunted anyway. You simply fill out tag and place on animal. With in a month they will call you or contact via mail or net of what they call a questionere of how you did, what season and unit also if you seen much game. There is a state that thrives on hunting for economey but yet no check in like us folks back east.

 

[whil e kioti]

Outofstater: If I understand what your saying then you must fill out a tag for your deer and part of your licence when you harvest a deer. Then if your caught with the deer and both arn't filled out you'r in trouble.

After that if you don't call and get the report # and write it on the tag and your licence, if you are checked say a week or so later and they see your licence was filled out but you didn't write the # on it your in trouble.

If this is correct do they do this for every deer? How many deer can you harvest in Md.? Also is their space on your licence for every deer you harvest?