I don't know Chuck, but being the 'high up' in any Gov organization down off Madison Ave has got to come with some self-imposed 'clout'. So I'm sure there is some ego associated with what he's doing. The head folks, esp in a Governing capacity, always seem to want to leave their fingerprints on the org... or legacy, as was stated earlier. So, there may not be a ulterior motive to what he's doing, other than trying to develop a legacy to leave on the org for the generations behind him to admire.

I bet he can't wait for the day he hears someone say at a conference, "Hey, that Chuck Sykes guy down in AL was a pioneer... the one who instituted the Game Check."

And of course he's pissed that it seems that there is a very poor compliance rate with it. It's his baby... he's emotionally attached to it.

What I can't get over is the fact that he and his colleagues seemed surprised that folks ARE resisting this mandatory reporting. Think about the seat-belt law, when it first was instituted. The driving masses bucked against that for, what... a decade? Now it still isn't 100% compliance (there are always going to be the 'around town', or just running a half-mile to the store where folks don't click-it), but I'd be willing to bet that a heavy, heavy majority use seat belts, even when they just drive down the road a mile or two. It's become habit, just like the Game Check system is going to become several years down the road. And how did ALEA help convince drivers that using seatbelts was a good idea? Yep, you guessed it.... writing more tickets to people who resisted the law. Sound familiar?

Will any good data be produced by the system to help prudent wildlife managers tackle the real problems? I think so. But right now, it's still in it's fledgling stages and until the compliance rate trends upwards, whatever data it produces will likely only be used as conversation towards mgmt. implications, rather than driving the mgmt. itself.