Mandatory Harvest Reporting

[idelkslayer]

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here.

Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on mandatory reports in Idaho was near 10% and all harvest data was extrapolated from there. I honestly didn't know how accurate that might be so I tried to find out.

The most recent information I could find for harvest reporting came from 2015. In that year, 61% of mandatory reports were completed voluntarily online. (157,612 out of 254,785). To estimate bias from non-compliance, IDFG attempted to call a random sample of 50,000 of the remaining hunters by telephone to obtain their harvest reports (increased from 40,000 in 2010).These hunters were called in December 2014 and January 2015. This phone sample was larger than in 2009-2010, and four times as large as in 2006. The harvest results from the telephone sample were used to estimate the harvest by hunters who did not file reports.

The 2015 info didn't specify how many reports were collected by telephone but the same effort in 2013 collected another ~30,000 reports. If 2015 produced similar results it would mean that IDFG collected harvest reports for ~75% of deer/elk/pronghorn hunters. I would say that is encouraging and definitely lends some credibility to the harvest statistics. There is also room for improvement.

I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

 

[CorbLand]

I think we will and already are seeing more and more states requiring it. Technology is allowing for it. Whether people are going to be honest is the question.

I think you will see people false report so success rates look low, allowing for more tags to be issued. Whether it will be enough to make a statistical difference is the question.

 

[Reburn]

I think we you and already are seeing more and more states requiring it. Technology is allowing for it. Whether people are going to be honest is the question.

I think you will see people false report so success rates look low, allowing for more tags to be issued. Whether it will be enough to make a statistical difference is the question.

Its hard to game the system when they use e tags and you completed your tag on the app. How are you going to say oh I was just kidding I didnt really punch my tag.

 

[CorbLand]

Its hard to game the system when they use e tags and you completed your tag on the app. How are you going to say oh I was just kidding I didnt really punch my tag.

Etags would make it more difficult.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here.

Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on mandatory reports in Idaho was near 10% and all harvest data was extrapolated from there. I honestly didn't know how accurate that might be so I tried to find out.

The most recent information I could find for harvest reporting came from 2015. In that year, 61% of mandatory reports were completed voluntarily online. (157,612 out of 254,785). To estimate bias from non-compliance, IDFG attempted to call a random sample of 50,000 of the remaining hunters by telephone to obtain their harvest reports (increased from 40,000 in 2010).These hunters were called in December 2014 and January 2015. This phone sample was larger than in 2009-2010, and four times as large as in 2006. The harvest results from the telephone sample were used to estimate the harvest by hunters who did not file reports.

The 2015 info didn't specify how many reports were collected by telephone but the same effort in 2013 collected another ~30,000 reports. If 2015 produced similar results it would mean that IDFG collected harvest reports for ~75% of deer/elk/pronghorn hunters. I would say that is encouraging and definitely lends some credibility to the harvest statistics. There is also room for improvement.

I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

Just curious where you got that info, because it doesn’t jibe with what I was told by a bio. Either way they need to go back to not allowing tag purchase unless you report the prior year, because without 100% reporting it is all really just a guess. They also need to prosecute people who make false statements on hunter reports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

Just curious where you got that info, because it doesn’t jibe with what I was told by a bio. Either way they need to go back to not allowing tag purchase unless you report the prior year, because without 100% reporting it is all really just a guess. They also need to prosecute people who make false statements on hunter reports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Big%20Game%20Harvest%20Statewide%20FY2015.pdf

pages 5-6

 

[11boo]

Anything but the BS roadside shakedowns. “Hunter Checkpoint Ahead”.

 

[Yoder]

Anything but the BS roadside shakedowns. “Hunter Checkpoint Ahead”.

I love how animals are more important than your constitutional rights.

 

[mjh]

I would think that when you buy a tag you enter into a contract. In my state with deer bear turkey, if one makes a kill one is supposed to register the kill. Cannot say if there is 100% compliance—but it’s part of the deal.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

[...]
I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

My state does this. Reporting rate is in the >80%/90%. Most non-compliant are non-residents. It's fun to see the number of bucks taken on antlerless hunts and vice versa.

They could have called a bunch of licencies that did report and ask again, compare the self reporting result to the phone call questioning response, and then estimate how accurate the reporting is.

 

[Customweld]

Discussion on another thread brought up the accuracy of harvest statistics and mandatory reporting and how effective it is. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further so I'm continuing that topic here.

Another poster commented that he had heard from a biologist that the response rate on mandatory reports in Idaho was near 10% and all harvest data was extrapolated from there. I honestly didn't know how accurate that might be so I tried to find out.

The most recent information I could find for harvest reporting came from 2015. In that year, 61% of mandatory reports were completed voluntarily online. (157,612 out of 254,785). To estimate bias from non-compliance, IDFG attempted to call a random sample of 50,000 of the remaining hunters by telephone to obtain their harvest reports (increased from 40,000 in 2010).These hunters were called in December 2014 and January 2015. This phone sample was larger than in 2009-2010, and four times as large as in 2006. The harvest results from the telephone sample were used to estimate the harvest by hunters who did not file reports.

The 2015 info didn't specify how many reports were collected by telephone but the same effort in 2013 collected another ~30,000 reports. If 2015 produced similar results it would mean that IDFG collected harvest reports for ~75% of deer/elk/pronghorn hunters. I would say that is encouraging and definitely lends some credibility to the harvest statistics. There is also room for improvement.

I would think it would be pretty simple for the licensing system to prevent anyone from purchasing a hunting or fishing license until they have completed their harvest reports from the previous year.

It seems like it would be a pretty simple stop feature on the checkout process of buying the next years tag. They would need to nail the timing down, so the info was available prior to setting seasons.
How accurate folks would be is the elephant in the room I guess. I don't understand the thought process of fudging your harvest report. If hunters want reliable information, they have to be willing to give reliable information.
One year, they were offering the leftover draws at vendors as a first come first served basis. If you hadn't returned your previous years report, the system wouldn't let you move forward. There were a lot of pissed off people waiting in line, when the next guy up got hung up in the checkout process.

 

[BFR]

I get a call from MFWP every year, also have a mandatory check station in one of the areas I hunt, makes it convenient. Utah has reporting on their website in my account pages, they also call in the years I get a tag. Each takes a couple minutes so no big deal.

 

[MallardSX2]

It blows my mind that EVERY state does not have a very simple app for mandatory reporting. It is VERY simple to put in place.

If a state does not have mandatory reporting, they simple don't want to know.

 

[MattB]

Not that I am proposing that other states emulate what CA does, but we have a mandatory reporting requirement for all tags. Kills need to be reported online within 30 days of harvest and there is mandatory reporting for all tags (even if unsuccessful) by 1/31. If the reporting requirement is not met, there is a $20 fee imposed that needs to be paid before you can buy your tags for the next year. The state sends out reminder emails prior to the reporting deadline as a reminder.

 

[Btaylor]

Not that I am proposing that other states emulate what CA does, but we have a mandatory reporting requirement for all tags. Kills need to be reported online within 30 days of harvest and there is mandatory reporting for all tags (even if unsuccessful) by 1/31. If the reporting requirement is not met, there is a $20 fee imposed that needs to be paid before you can buy your tags for the next year. The state sends out reminder emails prior to the reporting deadline as a reminder.

Deer kills here have to be reported within 12 hours.

 

[TVW]

Anything but the BS roadside shakedowns. “Hunter Checkpoint Ahead”.

What's wrong with road side check points?

Unless you got something to hide I'm not sure why you'd care?

 

[Lawnboi]

In wi we have to register our animal within 24 hours, it’s all online now with no need for paper. You register the deer with associated tag number.

Of course some don’t do it, and never will. But I’d hate to get stopped or found with an unregistered deer.

It’s not hard to do, and if wi dnr can afford it I don’t see how western states making millions on preference points can implement something similar to gather more data. I’m sure it would have to go through legislation.

 

[11boo]

What's wrong with road side check points?

Unless you got something to hide I'm not sure why you'd care?

I wouldn’t care if they had an online reporting system. It would be an improvement here.

I do care about the 4th amendment being used as a doormat.
Maybe you aren’t familiar with what many great Americans fought and died for.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[go_deep]

If reporting is mandatory and you lie that you didn't fill your license, and some how or some way a warden we're to end up at your house and you have said game meat in your freezer what would happen next?

 

[TVW]

I wouldn’t care if they had an online reporting system. It would be an improvement here.

I do care about the 4th amendment being used as a doormat.
Maybe you aren’t familiar with what many great Americans fought and died for.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems a little dramatic. But fair enough, it is 2024 and we are supposed to be outraged about literally anything possible right?

You must have had different experiences at road side check points than me, I suppose.