This is an honest question that I have. What tool if any is used to measure hunter compliance to GC? Who's to say that compliance was/is much higher/lower than what is suspected? I suspect that harvest estimates pre GC were grossly inaccurate, therefore any guess as to harvest post GC based off of the already inaccurate pre GC number (my opinion) is totally flawed. If the pre GC harvest estimate was not accurate, then how can it be part of the equation when trying to come up with a compliance estimate? I understand that my opinion does not mean a hill of beans, but I just have a hard time believing much if any survey/poll data. The entire process seems inherently flawed.

It's a government program which means it's flawed their just trying to keep a job by coming up with projects. LOL

Threw a little bait out there.........

No I think he threw the whole tackle shop in

Well, Kanebreak is correct. Its either the old system was accurate therefore good enough to estimate GC participation. But if it was accurate, why the change. Or, the old system was inaccurate therefore should not have been used to estimate GC participation.

Now

Pass the butter and salt please.

I am a pretty simple dude, not a biologist by any means. I did manage a commercial hunting lodge for 10 years for whatever that is worth and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one time. I was a contract guide while in college with Director Sykes. He was an ok dude in my book. That does not mean I agree with everything he advocates for. However, I like to think that I am pretty good with numbers. Passed statistics with flying colors at AU (dont hold that against me). Any analytics is only as good as the data that feeds it. Centralala's way of thinking sums it up precisely.

I did think it was pretty laughable when they didn�t get the numbers they wanted they used the previous system to come up with a new number that was more palatable to them. I guess if the numbers are low again which they will be they will just continue to try and mesh them together to keep the numbers artificially high to hide the bigger problem.

All I can say for those looking to cheat...foolish!

Matt and Nighthunter..KNOW!


They just KNOW!

Hear that knock at the door?

It just might be them...coming for you!

I hear that they are racking up all kinds of overtime hours...just chasing down all ya game check violators!!!!

How much 100% true information has been gained by Game Check?

Not trying to avoid the question but compliance numbers and research would probably be better answered by LE. admin. staff.

This year is year one for ticket writing regarding GC. Compliance numbers IMO is tough to gather. That said, we had staff members monitor several avenues of deer "reporting" or "non-reporting. Taxidermist, processors, social media, GC, etc. and gathered enough data to compare. I was not involved but I do know the individuals doing this were our research and stats people.

Again measurables on compliance would probably be a question for LE admin staff.

If you are interested in the intimate details I suggest contacting our admin staff.

Thanks for taking time to respond. I don't know yours or Mbrock's role as far as conservation in the state. I have made the assumption that one if not both of you are biologists for the state. I may be wrong on that. You said that in your opinion, compliance numbers are difficult to measure. If the biologists do not have any faith in what the numbers are saying, how can sound management decisions be made.

There will not be any sound management decisions made until we have a higher confidence in compliance. This is a huge learning curve for a state that has had zero accountability on harvest reporting. Compliance will get better.

Thanks for your response also. This is the last thing I will post on this subject. I agree that is is a huge learning curve and respect the fact that confidence needs to be gained in reporting before long term decisions are to be made. The only argument I have at this point is that there is no way of knowing if compliance currently is good, bad or mediocre. So to my way of thinking any real confidence will be hard to come by. I have my doubts if anyone will ever be able to say we have reached the goal on compliance. For all you or I know there could be 80% compliance at this point or 20%. All that is left to do is choose the percentage that backs up whatever preconceived notions the powers that be want to implement. I do not think that anyone is intending to do harm to the resource but that very well could be the result. I certainly do not have the answer and do not envy those who are trying to make decisions with data that will never be accurate with the current GC solution. Would also like to add that compliance with GC has been 100% for my household. For all I know, that may be the only accurate information that GC has received since its inception.

It's been 100% compliance in my household as well. So that's at least 2 households that given accurate information.

So, with GC, pretty much we are looking around 10 years from inception to changes starting. That's figuring 5 years to get the compliance numbers to an acceptable level and 5 years of data at that level to get data needed.

Kane, they had to start somewhere to implement the GC. They could use information already in house, or reach up and pull numbers out of the sky.
Once they get years of data, they still won't know a whole lot more than they do now.
As you know, half of Chambers county hunters probably don't buy licenses (which eliminates this segment from the data) and probably, even more never heard of GC. (Another group eliminated) This may change some, but I doubt very much.
--100% compliance here, too, except for possibly one turkey. I forget.--
Through years of accumulated data, there could be usable information. They could use some of it to recognize local conditions and try to regulate within a small geographic area, but that will further complicate things.
I really wish we could get close to 100% particiation in GC, but it won't happen, expanding Night Hunter's and Matt's already difficult job.
(Has any of this been said already?)