lonnie hansen, missouri

8/14/2019 Lonnie Hansen, Missouri

1/40

Methods ofMethods of

Determining DeerDetermining DeerHarvestHarvest

Lonnie HansenLonnie Hansen

Missouri Department ofMissouri Department of

ConservationConservation


2/40

Determining DeerDetermining Deer

HarvestHarvest

Overview ofOverview of

methodsmethods

MissouriMissouri

experienceexperience


3/40

Why Do We NeedWhy Do We Needto Know Howto Know How

Many Deer areMany Deer areHarvested?Harvested?


4/40

Deer Mortality inDeer Mortality in

MissouriMissouri


5/40

re a on ore a on oSignificant on AdultSignificant on Adult

DeerDeer


6/40

Missouri Deer Well FedMissouri Deer Well Fed


7/40

Deer MortalityDeer Mortality


8/40

Hunting MostHunting Most

Significant MortalitySignificant Mortality

FactorFactor


9/40

Hunting Mortality inHunting Mortality in

Rural MissouriRural Missouri

MissouriMissouriDeerDeerBuckBuckmortality mortality

82%-97% a82%-97% aresult ofresult ofhuntinghunting

DoeDoemortalit mortalit


10/40

Importance of HarvestImportance of Harvest

DataData

BasicBasic

information oninformation ondeerdeer

populationpopulation

statusstatus Serves asServes as

basis forbasis for

setting harvestsetting harvest


11/40

Measuring HarvestMeasuring Harvest

Direct methodsDirect methodsMandatory in-Mandatory in-

personperson

checking mostchecking most

commoncommon


12/40

van ages ovan ages oMandatory In-PersonMandatory In-Person

CheckingChecking Data recordingData recording

errors minimizederrors minimized

because thebecause the

checker sees thechecker sees the

deerdeer

Ease of biologicalEase of biologicaldata collectiondata collection

Positive publicPositive public

contacts/enforcecontacts/enforce

mentment


13/40

sa van ages osa van ages oMandatory In-PersonMandatory In-Person

CheckingChecking Agency costAgency costMonetaryMonetary

Staff timeStaff time HunterHunter

inconvenienceinconvenience

and costand cost ComplianceCompliance


14/40


Other directOther direct

methodsmethods Road blocksRoad blocks

Locker plantLocker plant

checkschecks Field bag checksField bag checks

VoluntaryVoluntary

checkingchecking


15/40


IndirectIndirect

methodsmethods MandatoryMandatory

telechecktelecheck


16/40

Advantages ofAdvantages of

Mandatory TelecheckMandatory Telecheck

Simple and convenient forSimple and convenient for

huntershunters Immediate access to harvestImmediate access to harvest

datadata

Some enforcement advantagesSome enforcement advantages More cost effective for agency?More cost effective for agency?

Redirect staff timeRedirect staff time


17/40

Disadvantages ofDisadvantages of

Mandatory TelecheckMandatory Telecheck Loss of social focal pointLoss of social focal point

Increased cost?Increased cost?

Compliance?Compliance? Some lost enforcementSome lost enforcement

opportunitiesopportunities

Collecting biologicalCollecting biological

information moreinformation more

problematicproblematic


18/40


IndirectIndirect

methodsmethods MandatoryMandatory

telechecktelecheck Random mailRandom mail

surveyssurveys

RandomRandomtelephonetelephone

surveyssurveys


19/40

van ages o an omvan ages o an omMail/TelephoneMail/Telephone

SurveysSurveys Simple and convenient forSimple and convenient forhuntershunters

More cost effective for agency?More cost effective for agency? Redirect staff timeRedirect staff time Can estimate other hunterCan estimate other hunter

activities/interestsactivities/interests DistributionDistribution Days huntedDays hunted PreferencesPreferences


20/40

sa van ages osa van ages oMail/TelephoneMail/Telephone

SurveysSurveys Loss of social focal pointLoss of social focal point

Harvest data not immediatelyHarvest data not immediatelyavailableavailable

Lost enforcementLost enforcement



information moreinformation more


21/40


IndirectIndirectmethodsmethods MandatoryMandatory

telechecktelecheck Random mailRandom mail

surveyssurveys

RandomRandomtelephonetelephonesurveyssurveys

MandatoryMandatory

postcardpostcard

an ages oan ages o


22/40

van ages ovan ages oMandatory PostcardMandatory Postcard

RegistrationRegistration

Simple and convenient forSimple and convenient forhuntershunters

More cost effective forMore cost effective for

agency?agency? Redirect staff timeRedirect staff time

sa van ages osa van ages o


23/40

sa van ages osa van ages oMandatory PostcardMandatory Postcard

RegistrationRegistration Loss of social focal pointLoss of social focal point

Compliance?Compliance? Lost enforcementLost enforcement


Harvest data not immediatelyHarvest data not immediately

availableavailable


s ory o n persons ory o n person


24/40

s ory o n-persons ory o n-personChecking of White-tailedChecking of White-tailed

Deer in MissouriDeer in Missouri In-personIn-personchecking of allchecking of alldeer wasdeer was

requiredrequiredstarting instarting in19681968

Because of theBecause of thecosts (timecosts (timeand money),and money),in-personin-person

checking waschecking was

nnua os s o nnnua os s o n


25/40

nnua os s o n-nnua os s o n-person Checking -person Checking -

20032003

$782,018Total

$70,000Process checksheets and buyseals

$240,969Conservation agentsalaries/mileage

$471,049Direct payments tocheck station

operators


26/40

In-person Checking ofIn-person Checking of

Deer in MissouriDeer in Missouri We exploredWe explored

alternatives toalternatives toin-personin-personchecking onchecking onseveralseveraloccasions andoccasions andfound nofound nosuitablesuitablealternativealternative

Telecheck cameTelecheck cameonto the sceneonto the scenein the mid-in the mid-1990s as an1990s as an


27/40

An experimental evaluationAn experimental evaluationof telecheck was conductedof telecheck was conducted

to determine whether itto determine whether itwould provide similarwould provide similarinformation as in-personinformation as in-person

checking. Specifically:checking. Specifically:Were harvest reporting ratesWere harvest reporting rates

similar?similar?

Were biological dataWere biological data

Telecheck in MissouriTelecheck in Missouri


28/40

Telecheck in MissouriTelecheck in Missouri

In fall 2003, we recruited firearmsIn fall 2003, we recruited firearmsdeer hunters for the study at permitdeer hunters for the study at permitvendorsvendors

A person who bought a permit atA person who bought a permit atselected vendors was assigned atselected vendors was assigned atrandom to arandom to a controlcontrolgroupgroup or aor atelecheck grouptelecheck group

Three study groupsThree study groups Control groupControl group Telecheck groupTelecheck group No contact group. Persons buyingNo contact group. Persons buying

permits at other vendors who werepermits at other vendors who werenot aware of the study. This groupnot aware of the study. This group

did in-person check as usual.did in-person check as usual.


29/40

STUDYSTUDYRESULTSRESULTS

ummary oummary o


30/40

ummary oummary oExperimentalExperimental

EvaluationEvaluation Harvest reporting rate was 24%Harvest reporting rate was 24%

lower for the no contact grouplower for the no contact group

than for the control or telecheckthan for the control or telecheckgroup probably because huntersgroup probably because hunters

in the study felt they were underin the study felt they were under

more scrutiny than those whomore scrutiny than those whowere not in the study.were not in the study.

Age/Gender distributions wereAge/Gender distributions were

similarsimilar


31/40

Conclusion fromConclusion from

ExperimentalExperimental

EvaluationEvaluation

Telecheck is a viable wayTelecheck is a viable wayto collect harvest datato collect harvest data


32/40

OperationalOperational

Evaluation ofEvaluation ofTelecheckTelecheck

With a few exceptions,With a few exceptions,the Telecheck Systemthe Telecheck System

has worked well and ishas worked well and ispopularpopular

h i h


33/40

Any Changes withAny Changes with

Telecheck?Telecheck?

We have maintained anWe have maintained an

independent estimate of harvestindependent estimate of harvestfrom a post-season mail surveyfrom a post-season mail survey


34/40

Comparison of Mail SurveyComparison of Mail Survey

and Mandatory Checkingand Mandatory Checking

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1993 1996 2004 2005 2006 2007

Harvest

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

%D

ifference

Percentage Difference

Mail Survey Estimate

Check Station

Telecheck

o a s e eso a s e es


35/40

o a s e eso a s e esWay to MeasureWay to Measure

Harvest?Harvest? Overall, there probably is noOverall, there probably is no

best way.best way.Depends on history in stateDepends on history in state

Depends on public acceptanceDepends on public acceptance

Depends on budgetsDepends on budgetsDepends on deer managementDepends on deer management

systemsystem


36/40

The Iowa and MissouriThe Iowa and Missouri

ExperienceExperience

History of measuring harvestHistory of measuring harvest

differentdifferent Implementation of telecheckImplementation of telecheck

No change in harvest inNo change in harvest in

MissouriMissouri Iowa harvest estimate declinedIowa harvest estimate declined

by 28%by 28%


37/40


38/40

i SFi D S


39/40

Firearms Deer SeasonFirearms Deer Season

20032003Harvest Reporting RateHarvest Reporting Rate

0.768 0.785

0.588

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Group

HarvestReporting

Telecheck

Control

No Contact


40/40

Firearms Deer SeasonFirearms Deer Season

20032003

Age/GenderAge/Gender

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Doe Button Buck Antlered Buck

Age/Gender

Percen

Telecheck

Control

No Contact

lonnie hansen, missouri

Documents