Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CouesWhitetail

Ever wonder how AGFD conducts surveys for deer?

Recommended Posts

"Post back with questions and I will do my best to answer." Oh yea????

 

 

I think Jim will get back to this thread sometime after the April 17 commission meeting that he mentioned in a previous post. They have a lot going on to get the hunt recommendations ready for that meeting.

 

Amanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read something years ago that biologists also use grid patterns in various habitat types and count the number of "terd piles" found on the ground for the type and amount of habitat, and estimate the deer numbers accordingly as well as factoring hunter survey data,mortality rates, estimated predations,. etc?

 

I think it would be fun to be able to tag along sometime and see how it works!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J Hinkle

Thank you all for your patience. We made it through the Commission Meeting on Saturday without much fuss and now I have a little breathing room.

 

So here's to your questions.

 

IHunt2live:

"Great info Jim, my question would be how the hunt survey data is used so I'm looking foward to reading your next segment."

 

The Hunter Questionnaire program, by popular demand, will be my next segment. Stay tuned.

 

mason a:

"Do you take into account areas like the dos cabezas, which are most likely included in your deer surveys.

Hopefully some progress can be made , to work with the land owners. I just feel like its unfair that they can keep people out of the millions of acres of public land in our state . "

 

We typically do not survey large blocks of unhuntable habitat like the Dos Cabezas or the ORO Ranch in NW AZ

for exactly the reason you allude to. These lightly hunted areas skew the buck to doe ratios for the rest of the unit.

 

We spend millions of dollars in our hunter access program trying to keep access open to hunting areas, either privately owned or locked off by private access. Unfortunately there will always be landowners who don't allow public access on or through their private property and nothing will change their mind. As a very conservative type, I believe a person's control over their property is an important constitutional right, so while I feel for the sportsman loss, I am not upset at the landowner. It is their land and their decision who uses it. If you have specific suggestions that may work to gain or improve access to the Dos Cabezas, I encourage you to call Troy Christensen our Access Program Coordinator at 623-236-7492.

 

Tucson John:

"What stood out to be me is this assumption: "If the deer are equally distributed within our unit". I have never witnessed a unit where the wildlife is equally distributed, rather the animals are in pockets with the best conditions for survival. How is this factored into the estimate?"

 

You are absolutely correct in your observation. If we were only to survey the high density portions of a unit and then apply those densities to the rest of the unit, we would grossly overestimate the population. The key to avoiding this type of survey bias involves either surveying the entire unit (which we can't afford to do) or to apply a sampling stategy designed to cover all representative habitats and densities within the unit, which is what we do. By pre-planning our survey blocks or transects to cover all representative habitats and densities, we form a unit density average that solves the potential survey bias.

 

aztrophytakers:

"One question- Why does AZGFD refuse to make harvest reporting mandatory? It would be a very simple rule change and the info gathered would be invaluable. One would think that this would be a fundamental basic in game management no?"

 

I couldn't agree more with everything you stated except that it would be easy! The rule change would be a piece of cake. The technology hardware and software to make the mandatory reporting enforceable are quite involved and very expensive. To illustrate let's take an example. Let's say we have a rule that makes harvest reporting mandatory and failure to report results in loss of ability to buy a license or apply for a permit. Great. So I'm a hunter who forgets or neglects to report my hunt. How does the department communicate the list of reprobate harvest reporters to our hundreds of license dealers in a timely manner? And how do we force the kid working the sporting goods counter at Wal-Mart to check the list and not sell a hunting license/bear tag/artchery deer tag/etc. to the non-reporters? Sure, we can keep them out of the draw, but we can't keep them out of the over-the-counter hunts. What we would need is a statewide Point-of-Sale (POS) computerized license sales database where all license dealers are connected to a Department server. Many states have such POS systems; Colorado is one of them. With several million in hardware and software we could have one too. Only problem is we don't have the extra cash. So until somewhere down the road, no mandatory reporting until we have a POS system.

 

Lastly, simply writing tickets to the non-reporters won't work either. We currently have mandatory reporting for archery deer and the compliance rate is far less than 100%. Finding, citing and prosecuting the non-reporters takes a great deal of time and manpower and hasn't proven successful in substantially increasing reporting. We need a system that prevents non-reporters from buying future licenses until their report is submitted.

 

ultramag:

"I also think next time G&F decide to do another survey they need to get input on how the questions are asked. unlike that quality vs quanity survey that we had shoved in our@$%."

 

We are trying another approach right now through all of the organized conservation and sportsmen organizations. Quite simply I sent them all a letter and asked them the basic question, "What are your desires for hunting experiences in Arizona?". We are leaving it up to each group to interpret and respond to the question. Nothing in particular is required and nothing is off limits, as long as it is covered within the Hunt Guidelines. The Department is not leading or controlling the answer in any way. We are giving organized sportsmen/conservationists the opportunity to tell us what they want for hunting experiences before our next internal team developes recommendations to be taken to the Commission.

 

Why am I not asking all Arizona hunters? Quite simply I can't get to all of them without a structured internet survey, just like the one you didn't like. So if you want to get involved at this point, join one the many fine organizations this state has (like the Arizona Deer Association, Arizona Wildlife Federation or Chandler Rod & Gun Club as examples). Or wait until next summer and we will be taking the new guideline recommendations on the road around the state for general public comment. I'll be sure and post the meeting dates and locations on this Web site.

 

Happy Horn Huntin'

 

Jim

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J Hinkle

Almost forgot Snapshot's question:

 

I thought I read something years ago that biologists also use grid patterns in various habitat types and count the number of "terd piles" found on the ground for the type and amount of habitat, and estimate the deer numbers accordingly as well as factoring hunter survey data,mortality rates, estimated predations,. etc?

 

You are correct. Back when I hired on in 1984, pellet plot transects were being used in key areas such as the 3-Bar in Unit 22 and on the Kaibab as deer density trend indicators. The sampling design involved staking out a number of permanent line transects that could be measured year after year. Once the transect was staked out, a leaf rake was used to clear all deer pellet groups from within the transect width (6 feet?). A year later a biologist would return to the transect with a data sheet and a rake, walk the transect and count all deer pellet groups within the transect, and then clear the pellet groups after they were counted. Hundreds of these transects were walked over many years, providing a density based trend index. Fortunately, I was never in an area where these rather monotonous exercises were required, so I don't know if actual deer population estimates were ever derived from the pellet counts. To my knowledge, we abandoned these pellet plot transects years ago in favor of more direct and less labor-intensive methods for estimating deer population trends over time.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Jim. I am pretty sure I read about, or heard of those methods sometime back in the 80's.

 

That method does sound labor intensive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aztrophytakers:

"One question- Why does AZGFD refuse to make harvest reporting mandatory? It would be a very simple rule change and the info gathered would be invaluable. One would think that this would be a fundamental basic in game management no?"[/color]

 

"I couldn't agree more with everything you stated except that it would be easy! The rule change would be a piece of cake. The technology hardware and software to make the mandatory reporting enforceable are quite involved and very expensive. To illustrate let's take an example. Let's say we have a rule that makes harvest reporting mandatory and failure to report results in loss of ability to buy a license or apply for a permit. Great. So I'm a hunter who forgets or neglects to report my hunt. How does the department communicate the list of reprobate harvest reporters to our hundreds of license dealers in a timely manner? And how do we force the kid working the sporting goods counter at Wal-Mart to check the list and not sell a hunting license/bear tag/artchery deer tag/etc. to the non-reporters? Sure, we can keep them out of the draw, but we can't keep them out of the over-the-counter hunts. What we would need is a statewide Point-of-Sale (POS) computerized license sales database where all license dealers are connected to a Department server. Many states have such POS systems; Colorado is one of them. With several million in hardware and software we could have one too. Only problem is we don't have the extra cash. So until somewhere down the road, no mandatory reporting until we have a POS system.

 

Lastly, simply writing tickets to the non-reporters won't work either. We currently have mandatory reporting for archery deer and the compliance rate is far less than 100%. Finding, citing and prosecuting the non-reporters takes a great deal of time and manpower and hasn't proven successful in substantially increasing reporting. We need a system that prevents non-reporters from buying future licenses until their report is submitted."

 

I don't buy the fact that it would take"several million" to enforce such a law if it was enacted. Heck, I will quit my current job and handle the whole thing myself and only charge a couple hundred thousand;-) All joking aside I think that there is other motives at work that are keeping mandatory harvest reporting from becoming a law. Possibley the fact that AZGFD does not want the data to be public because then the gross mismanagement of our deer herds would be laid on the table in numbers that everyone could understand. How could they look the AZ sportsmen in the eye when it was disclosed that the very agency that is supposed to protect our deer herds is in fact the ones that are destroying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J Hinkle

aztrophytakers,

 

Your comment:

 

I think that there is other motives at work that are keeping mandatory harvest reporting from becoming a law. Possibley the fact that AZGFD does not want the data to be public because then the gross mismanagement of our deer herds would be laid on the table in numbers that everyone could understand.

 

While I now sense there is little chance of me convincing you that anything the Department does is good, I do feel compelled to point out that your assertion that we keep our data secret is incorrect. We publish our all our game management data annually (both in print and online) in Hunt Arizona. I keep the current copy of Hunt Arizona on my desk and use it as my primary reference for game management information across the state. The same information is available to the public. No secrets there.

 

Jim

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztrophytakers,

 

Your comment:

 

I think that there is other motives at work that are keeping mandatory harvest reporting from becoming a law. Possibley the fact that AZGFD does not want the data to be public because then the gross mismanagement of our deer herds would be laid on the table in numbers that everyone could understand.

 

While I now sense there is little chance of me convincing you that anything the Department does is good, I do feel compelled to point out that your assertion that we keep our data secret is incorrect. We publish our all our game management data annually (both in print and online) in Hunt Arizona. I keep the current copy of Hunt Arizona on my desk and use it as my primary reference for game management information across the state. The same information is available to the public. No secrets there.

 

Jim

 

 

First I have to say thanks for taking the time to clear up a lot of questions. Many of these have been asked without a clear answer over the years.

 

I think many of us can understand the complete overhaul that it would take to completely eliminate a hunter from all hunting privileges if they fail to report their harvest. I do think however that eliminating those who fail to report from the draw hunts would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

New Mexico has a great system as you know, and is essentially no different than the online questionnaire AZGF has currently. Issuing a confirmation number at the end of the survey would be easy enough, which could then be used in-turn as a key-code in order to apply for draw hunts. Granted, it would be easier if we had our online drawing system back.

 

Which leads me to another question, why don't we just adopt a similar system to that of Utah and Nevada? Their systems are identical and are incredibly efficient. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jim for taking the time to answer questions. For some reason, I am just seeing your responses now although you posted a month ago! I appreciate you providing all the extra information and I think both AGFD and hunters benefit from you coming here to explain why AGFD does what it does.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

Thank you for the response. I would like to echo the reply by Roughcut. You said, "We need a system that prevents non-reporters from buying future licenses until their report is submitted" as if it were an"all or nothing" issue. As Roughcut alludes to, this does not need to be the case. The motive to getting a hunter to participate in a mandatory harvest report program is to allow him/her access to the upcoming hunts draw, NOT PREVENTING THEM FROM BUYING A LICENSE. TO A SPORTSMAN, a license has very little value in Arizona without being able to put in the draw (please do not harp on this point in your reply without addressing the major points. I know as an AZGF employee you would place more emphasis on the value of a license in and of itself).

 

Lets just say the ultimate goal would be a POS system, which for arguments sake we will say it is, again I ask why does it need to be "all or nothing"? There is still a great opportunity for positive change. The survey and mandatory program could still be set up and applied without the POS system. The vast majority of sportsmen would report and that harvest information would be INVALUABLE. Are you saying that the Department would not value this information? It would not be too difficult, nor anywhere near the millions of dollars realm, to make a hunter report online their previous year's harvest data. I imagine the department already has the ability to keep track of license revocations that reject these sportsmen when they attempt to put in for the draw so this could easily be expanded to include those individuals who do not participate in the mandatory harvest report. These systems are already in place, such as the state of New Mexico. I can't imagine that that New Mexico has more of a department budget. They don't even require mandatory license purchase in their draw such as Arizona, so where do they get the income to impliment and oversee the harvest report program? I have to say that most likely it is because it is not as costly as you may be alluding to.

 

Again, I appreciate your replies and am anxious to see your reply to these points. We feel they are valid but of course we are not privy to some intel as you may be so please further expound if this is the case. We are very supportive when we feel things are being objectively handled. We recognize things are not always as they seem and are open to that possibility but in the case of a mandatory harvest report, we are failing to see the "road blocks" inhibiting a possible program. Thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J Hinkle

Rough Cut and the Claw,

Both of you have very valid suggestions. I will share your ideas with our rule making staff for whenever the current rule making moritorium is lifted. While I do believe that our ultimate goal is to have an online application system that is linked to harvest reporting with support from a POS system, I don't think this system will happen soon (3-5 years) for the following reasons.

 

If it aint (fundamentally) broke, don't fix it.

There is nothing wrong with our current harvest data or the methods we use to collect it. 100% of permit tag holders are mailed a questionnaire. Approximately 50% of the questionnaires are returned. We expand the returns to calculate total harvest (e.g. 100 tags in a hunt, 50 hunters return questionnaires with 10 of them reporting they killed and animal. We multiply the raw reported kill times number of tags/number of reports, which would be 10 harvested animals x 2 = 20 estimated harvested animals). We have been estimating hunter harvest this way for over 50 years which gives us very powerful trend data. A change in sampling method; mandatory vs. voluntary and U.S. Mail vs internet; would result in different survey biases and interupt our current 50+ year trend data.

 

Continued rule making prohibition.

The Governor has extended the now two-year moritorium on rule making for a third year through June of 2011. We are expressely prohibited from changing any of our Commission Rules. Most of the regulatory language that would have to be promulgated to establish a mandatory reporting requirement must be done in rule. The rule making process, including all of the required public scoping and regulatory review takes 18 months to 2-years to complete. Even if we started the rule process in July of 2011, we wouldn't have the rules effective until the fall of 2013.

 

Financial obligation.

I pretty well covered this aspect in an earlier post.

 

Final thoughts.

We have been managing game species successfully for over 50 years using voluntary U.S. Mail questionnaires to estimate hunter harvest. The data is not perfect, but it is more than accurate enough for the purposes of setting hunt seasons and permit numbers. No hunted species in Arizona is in any danger of going extinct. Future improvement in data collection and accuracy are sure to happen, but are not absolutely vital. Vast improvements to our harvest estimation would truly be a case of measuring with a micrometer, marking with a crayon, and cutting with a sledge hammer. The level of data precision required for rather conservative harvest management does not currently argue for a change in technique.

 

For further reading on our current harvest reporting system, go the following URL.

 

http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/AWV_hun..._sept-oct09.pdf

 

Thank you for your thoughts and interest. It is not a matter of if, but when.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

Thank you for the quick reply. I agree that it may be splitting hairs in data acquisition by making the report mandatory. In fact, I would concede that it may be minimal at best. However, I appreciate the willingness to make changes from current methods even when the "old way" of doing things has worked on many levels in the past. Without trying to speak for everyone, if there is a logical, theoretical way to to tweak something in a more accurate, positive manner where the cost does not outweigh the potential good then why not make the change. Aside from the increase in data, whatever amount it may be, I think it would go a long way in helping Sportsmen feel like the Department is doing ALL that they can to accurately and responsibly maximize the "conservation of wildlife resources for the use of future generations".

I think we all could agree that the responsibility of accurate and responsible wildlife conservation should not rely solely upon the Department's shoulders. The Sportsmen are a HUGE piece of this conservation pie. In fact, I would dare say that in many cases even if an individual sportsman felt like there were too many permits allocated in their favorite hunting unit to support a healthy deer population, they would still put in for that hunt to take advantage of the opportunity. They would still harvest an animal even when they felt in their own mind that the long term effect of over harvesting would result in a negative population outcome. I only bring that up because I think both the Department and the Sportsmen can not be individually trusted to properly manage but rather working together as a checks and balances system to do what's best to manage the resources for future generations.

Having said that management needs to be decided by those who are most qualified and/or invested in the successful management of the herds. I think that a mandatory harvest report system can also serve a purpose of placing an importance on accurate harvest data. In these states that have a mandatory harvest report system there is a penalty for the sportsman's failure to comply such as the sportsman's consequential inability to apply in the upcoming year's draw. Not only does this place a high value on the data sought but it is also a Litmus test for Sportsmen. It requires the sportsmen to hold up their part in the "conservation pie" or they do not get to participate in the wildlife rewards. And, the sportsmen who do comply and fulfill their part of the pie get rewarded for their simple efforts by slightly increased odds in the draw, whatever they may be. Aside from the additional important data acquired, I think this effect alone is a win, win for both the Department and the Sportsmen. Whether a "meat" hunter or "trophy" hunter the Sportsmen who are the most emotionally invested in the cause will see an increase in opportunity. It then fosters an environment of cooperation and unity which benefits the Department.

Thanks for your willingness to come of a public forum such as CW to share your insight and time with us. This fact in and of itself, in my opinion, goes a long way to helping us feel united. Hopefully, we can brainstorm in informal arenas such as this to where some positive may come from it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J Hinkle

Claw,

Your second paragraph is one the most eloquent descriptions of the essense of the north american model of wildlife management I have ever read. That truly is what it is all about. Hunter-conservationists contributing to the management of wildlife. With your permission, I will place your last post in the rule making "suspense file" for whenever the rule moritorium is lifted. The suspense file comments are used by future rules teams to help determine which rules to consider changing when they are open for review.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×