In order for a random small percentage sample of the population to accurately represent the total population, it has be REPRESENTATIVE of the total population. Otherwise it is statistically invalid. In other words, what are the odds that a) the people who bother to answer the survey are the same types of hunters as the ones who don't bother/refuse to respond, and b) all those who respond are being completely truthful

How many of the open meetings have you attended to voice your opinion or ask questions? If the answer is none, why don't you attend one instead of constantly complain on Aldeer about what you know isn't going to work?

Well then stratify by county. Get 100 folks in each county. That's still only like 7,000 surveys. Problem fixed.

What I was getting at is that the type of people who respond to voluntary surveys and the type of people who throw them in the garbage may possibly have different hunting philosophies/yearly harvest patterns. Plus, even if they had exactly the same harvest patterns, they may lie at a different rate from one another.

An across the board mandate (thus minimizing disparities in data between hunter groups with different mindsets), and enforced (minimizing inaccuracy due to lying) can be a statistically more valid method for collecting data.

Whether or not it's a great idea, worth the trouble, or prone to government abuse, etc is a different matter. I was just saying I can see a voluntary survey being highly prone to error.

In order for a random small percentage sample of the population to accurately represent the total population, it has be REPRESENTATIVE of the total population. Otherwise it is statistically invalid. In other words, what are the odds that a) the people who bother to answer the survey are the same types of hunters as the ones who don't bother/refuse to respond, and b) all those who respond are being completely truthful

Those are all valid points - the people who return the survey may indeed kill stuff at a different level than the group that doesn't return it. But here is a key point that must be considered - whatever error factors the hunter survey might have are very likely to be the same year after year. And since we have decades of records from the survey, it gives us a statistically valid picture of the harvest. The turkey harvest according to the survey has been running around 40,000 for several years now. I don't think its really important to know whether the actual number is 35,000 or 45,000. What's important is that we can see it was 60,000 in 2007 so its obvious the harvest has declined from then. It will be a long time before Game Check can show such trends.

I will predict now that the 2017 Turkey harvest will be in the 20,000 to 30,000 range according to Game Check. I will eat crow in here if I an wrong.

I think the main benefit of Game Check in its early years will be the county info. Even if only half participate, it should still give us a better picture of each county than the survey. It will also show when the game is taken, which might be of some use. Again, I am not against the program and encourage every hunter to call in their kills. I just hope all understand the overall numbers are not gonna be reliable in the early years. The biologist at the turkey meeting I attended understood this, so I think the dcnr will understand. I'm just concerned that hunters won't and will demand changes based in faulty data

In order for a statistical sample to be representative of the population, it has to be a random sample with absolutely no bias or forced contribution. This is a basic statistical concept. This game check is not voluntary, and it's not random, therefore it is a null and void sample when it comes to statistical significance.

For one, I don't know because there's so many psychological variables involved. It might be opposite of what I would speculate who knows.

But if I were to speculate, I would guess those who respond voluntarily would be less aggressive in their numbers of deer killed per year (all other variables concerning their hunting situation being equal). I would guess those who throw it in the garbage, for whatever reason, would be more aggressive on number deer killed per year. The reason I suspect that is 1) those who break the law aren't going to own up, 2) those who knowingly overharvest versus what their particular land can sustain will sheepishly low ball their numbers and 3) i think people who voluntarily answer surveys are naturally more "compliant and community oriented" (not that I'm saying that's a preferable way to be) versus those who get pissed and rip up a govt survey, and thus would naturally be more prone harvesting inline with what they perceive would be conservative numbers.

All I'm saying its two different mindsets of people, and there would probably be differences in kill numbers

I don't have any special knowledge of the current system. Just kicking around my personal ideas on what could be influencing accuracy. To me, complete data just has to be more accurate than incomplete

That's another good point. By its very definition, Game Check is gonna record 100% of the LEGAL harvest. If it doesn't get reported, the harvest is illegal and won't be in the stats. We just have to hope the illegal harvest is small; my concern is that it won't be in the early years of the program.

When the buck limit first went into effect it showed a huge decrease in the legal buck harvest; it was 100% guaranteed to do that. Nobody is gonna admit on a govt survey that they killed more than the limit. I've always wondered just how much it reduced the actual harvest. I feel sure it reduced it some, but exactly how much is unknowable.

By comparing the hunter survey with the Game Check results in the next few years, I think we should get a reasonable idea of compliance levels, and the level of compliance should increase over the years. I think harvest numbers will go up every year for a few years, not necessarily due to increased harvest but due to increased compliance. Hopefully, at some point, the Game Check harvest will closely reflect the actual harvest. My main concern is that some hunters are gonna be spooked by the low harvest numbers in the early years and demand changes based on them. As long as everyone is willing to be patient, I think its a problem that will eventually go away. Maybe it won't take as long as I'm thinking it might.

Thanks for talking with me about it.

Good points y'all.

Hopefully everyone involved (hunters,CAB, and DCNR) will realize that the data will have some inconsistencies the first few years. But, at least it will give half of us ammunition to argue for something and half of us ammunition to argue against something. But at least is will give us something to base a decision on other than what great Grandpa said was best when he was around.

I don't understand the attitude of being hell bent against a call in game check system? The government has been fully involved In game and fish for longer than I've been alive, so I also don't understand the argument of "I don't want the government telling me how I can hunt ". They always have and always will. Statewide mandatory harvest data can't possibly hurt deer or turkey hunting, in my opinion.