Let's see - count every turkey killed (game check), or "assume" you have a valid sample size and method (hunter survey). Which one would give you a more accurate description of how many turkeys are killed? Obviously the first one. But then again, calling people idiots and game check gestapo-style is just easier. I love how people just immediately go to name calling rather than have a rational discussion. And no, I do not favor making decisions based on feelings and ignoring facts. that would not be smart. Nor am I some bleeding-heart liberal. Discussing it here is probably pointless. Just show up at the next CAB meeting and let them know. That's the only discussion that matters.
No name calling from me - I've been trying to explain to folks for the past 20 years that the hunter survey was scientifically valid within the margin of error. It didn't give you the exact number, but it was close enough to make good decisions on setting seasons and limits. Every branch of science uses random sampling, and I never saw any reason to believe that we weren't getting good numbers.
But for a system like GC to give usable numbers, you need every hunter to participate, and that's just not gonna happen.
But the issue with the hunter survey from the dcnr point of view was that it did nothing for enforcement. If your ultimate goal is to cut way back on the season and limits, then you want an enforcement tool, and GC is it. We said this was the goal when it started and it all seems to be right on schedule. But it hasn't passed yet. Write your CAB member and tell him what you think.
I disagree PCP.......You don't need every hunter to participate.....you just need enough to make it a valid sample size and you need about the same amount of folks to participate each year. It becomes nothing more than another sampling method that uses trends for making decisions. For example, as long as roughly 30% of hunters participate each season and that doesn't fluctuate a bunch from year to year.....then the trends are still valid. If harvest numbers remain constant over time then one can say that the population is good enough to sustain that yield
They knew from the start they would never get 100% compliance. It's just their way of insuring they get a good same size while threatening ALL hunters with fines in the process.....just like you're saying.....an enforcement tool
