CO 2023 Estimated Harvest is up

[ResearchinStuff]

if people are going to lie, then even 100% reporting won't make a difference. fortunately, the lying rate is something you can actually estimate and incorporate into the confidence intervals. This is all very basic stuff for people who make a living doing surveys.

 

[BBob]

Yet in the west with super low game densities, where management needs to me much more controlled it’s not a thing.

Arizona is getting there. One by one we have been adding mandatory reporting and more is coming.

 

[Ucsdryder]

if people are going to lie, then even 100% reporting won't make a difference. fortunately, the lying rate is something you can actually estimate and incorporate into the confidence intervals. This is all very basic stuff for people who make a living doing surveys.

Not really. If it’s mandatory reporting within a certain amount of time of a kill then that’s a little different than a little old lady calling you 2 months after the season to ask how many days you hunted, if you killed something and if you’re satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied , or dissatisfied with your hunt.

I will say they’ve hired the nicest group of ladies for the reporting!

I know a unit that reported 40% success this year. I also know guys that hunted it this year, and know the unit well. Zero chance that unit is anywhere close to 40%. Not on its best day with killers holding all the tags.

 

[MuleyFever]

let me ask you a question…

Let’s say a party of guys hunt a low point/no point/otc unit and do very well year in and year out. Do you think they’re going to tell the truth on the voluntary reporting? Garbage in, garbage out…

I know a unit that reported 40% success this year. I also know guys that hunted it this year, and know the unit well. Zero chance that unit is anywhere close to 40%. Not on its best day with killers holding all the tags.

Well, which is it? Are guys lying that they didn't kill or are they lying that they did kill?

I would bet most people tell the truth.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I've said the same thing about MT. Herd estimates and surveys are difficult to execute and subject to weather challenges. If you have challenges determining herd size, having mandatory harvest reporting by unit at least gives you one set of reliable data points. These systems have been around for decades now, and in Iowa you don't have to call it in anymore. You can text your kill into the system. This isn't a difficult problem to solve for CO or MT.

 

[LostArra]

if people are going to lie, then even 100% reporting won't make a difference. fortunately, the lying rate is something you can actually estimate and incorporate into the confidence intervals. This is all very basic stuff for people who make a living doing surveys.

I would just take honesty out of the picture. I'm betting that electronic check-in is a more efficient way to get numbers and it also helps with enforcement. Phone call or mailed surveys seem like something Ward Cleaver did after a hunting trip in the 60's.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Well, which is it? Are guys lying that they didn't kill or are they lying that they did kill?

I would bet most people tell the truth.

I don’t understand your question.

It can go both ways. If you have a terrible hunt in a place devoid of elk, someone could report a 1 day hunt and success, or the opposite. When places like go hunt use the stats to push people to units, the incentive to lie in both directions is equally high. If I can push a bunch of guys to a unit that’s terrible and maybe keep them from my unit I want to hunt…

 

[Jethro]

NM has a good system. Mandatory report kill/or no kill by 2/15 or late fee and no applying that year. They get very high return rates 90-100%. Just log into your account anytime after the hunt. Takes 5 minutes.

I tell the truth when I report.

 

[Tman24]

I don’t understand your question.

It can go both ways. If you have a terrible hunt in a place devoid of elk, someone could report a 1 day hunt and success, or the opposite. When places like go hunt use the stats to push people to units, the incentive to lie in both directions is equally high. If I can push a bunch of guys to a unit that’s terrible and maybe keep them from my unit I want to hunt…

This is how I do it, because of the Gohunts out there. If it was a bad hunt and I won’t be back. I tell them it was great, killed a really nice bull.
If it was a great hunt and I’ll be back. I tell them that I didn’t see a single elk.

Now if they had mandatory reporting they would get the truth from me.

 

[Hnthrdr]

If they kept harvest reports hush I think everyone would be more honest… or if you misreport and you have elk meat in the fridge then there could be big trouble

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

The way to do it is with e tags. If you don’t validate your e tag, you have an illegal kill. State knows whether or not you harvested due to the app.

There is no way to lie and stay legal.

I used the e tag this past year in Montana and I’m a fan.

 

[PredatoronthePrairie]

^ like stated above.

If accurate data is the goal to properly manage the species.

Why not make mandatory reporting. But then keep the data private so the agency's can be more effective in their goals. Why does the public need to be in the know?

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

^ like stated above.

If accurate data is the goal to properly manage the species.

Why not make mandatory reporting. But then keep the data private so the agency's can be more effective in their goals. Why does the public need to be in the know?

The data is always going to be discoverable via public records requests.

That said, things like population estimates per unit are already readily available. I don’t think having accurate hunter success numbers be public knowledge will have that much of an effect on pressure given what data is already in the public sphere.

Now if e tags record exact geographic data when validated, that information being public knowledge would be a huge issue.

 

[Crowmangler]

if people are going to lie, then even 100% reporting won't make a difference. fortunately, the lying rate is something you can actually estimate and incorporate into the confidence intervals.

I disagree that it won't make a difference. Every detail of every tag issued is known by CPW. They could make it mandatory to report a kill within 24 hours. They could also require reporting "no kill" within 5 days of the end of the season for each tag you hold. Not reporting could result in fines or loss of access in the future which would definitely make a difference to 99% of hunters.
**I'm not saying I agree with doing that, just saying it's extremely simple to do it if they wanted to know.

 

[cnelk]

It’s really very simple.

If it’s not mandatory, why contribute?

 

[bz_711]

It seems most agree...a different/better process should be in place being 2024.

Overall I'm more concerned with wolves and the big cat vote...I just want to be hunt elk with my kids and grandkids 20-30 yrs from now.

 

[Idaboy]

I love it how I read guys lie on reports, laughable....it's not like you're giving away your honey hole with GPS data, game units are huge. They really think not reporting your harvest is going to improve your hunting year after year?

Let's just play out the logic, let's say "numerous" guys in a unit say they didn't harvest year after year-> data collectors then don't think harvest rates are too high-> continue to sell tags or even make it more accessible to nonresidents -> more hunting pressure..... I guess I've never looked at harvest numbers and been attracted to high harvest rate units, quite the opposite actually

Mandatory reporting online or by phone is easy and not a big deal. Many states will ask other questions about what other game or saw and sometimes even about non biggame.

It's crowded, it's public land, it's hunting.....I'd rather see as much data as possible for game departments...boots on the ground numbers and observations probably way more helpful than 1 chopper fly over in the winter trying to count furry critters running around. It's costs a lot to perform manual field counts. Hunter harvest reporting is pretty cheap.

Lying or evading truth, never really helps any of us in the long run....it's sad the lack of integrity some seem to tolerate. Much of hunting and fishing is on the honor system....tens of thousands of hrs in my life hunting and fishing and I can recall less than 10 actual encounters with getting "checked" by fish and game. I have no problem reporting each year, I think it's part of our responsibility.

 

[chindits]

Harvest rate data is over rated. Invest limited resources in the surveys that matter.

Rightly so, tag allotments are adjusted for survival rates not from self absorbed hunter harvest rates but winter survival and potential recruitment through the spring. Winter range surveys are your most important tool out there in CO high country. It doesn’t matter if there was 20% hunter success in a unit that just had 40% winter kill or is expected to have 10% recruitment during a brutal spring.

 

[Coveyleader]

The only ones I've ever reported as being taken were moose, sheep, and goats, bears, and for good reason.

 

[sivart]

their harvest reports are complete BS. I've elk hunted Colorado for 24 years. I think i've been asked twice about my harvest info. They are going to spin it for their favor. They are showing 30 percent archery success in some very easy to draw units. It's higher success than limited entry NM. It's total bullshit.