Just a reminder to complete your report(s) once you are finished big game/wolf hunting.
Printable View
Just a reminder to complete your report(s) once you are finished big game/wolf hunting.
Btw was going post on this topic.
It was not clear to me initially, so wanted to confirm. Asked the MNR
Hi,
Every hunter report includes questions about "live XXX seen".
Ie
Number of live bulls seen in this WMU?
Can you please clarify, if this type of question refers to number of animals seen "in-person" or should it include the trailCam sightings ?
Got Answer:
Good morning,
Thank you for your email. When completing your report please only include the animals that you have seen in person. Do not include the animals that you have captured on trail cam.
Regards,
Maybe it's obvious one for some, but hope it helps someone in doubt
Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk
If I see the same doe and twin fawns each day for 5 days, did I see 15 deer or just 3.... Sure can get complicated/confusing without the correct wording.
I count the deer I see. Are they the same deer I have no idea. I'm sure the MNR as a formula that takes things like that into account. if hunting the field and I see a herd of 10 deer each time I'm out and I see them 5 nights, How do I know if they are the same deer a mixture of some of the same and new ones. Or if I'm walking out or in during the daylight and I see deer running through the bush, I don't know if I have seen them before.
If I have ten in front of me which I usually can say I do. 3 moms rest fawns for 10 or more days in a row I’ll call it 5 seen that’s what I’ll report
putting down 50 deer seen is worst than saying only seen 1 in my book
Or as simple as " how many uniquely identifiable deer did you see".Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
This kinda begs the question about what these questions/stats trying to measure
Is it
hunter kill ratio ( animals seen vs animals taken)?
Why would it matter how many you have seen, the true import metric have many tags had been filled in the end of day
Or
Daylight visits etc..
Or
Animal population estimate? If latter is the case, then why would camera values not be considered. There are millions of reason why hunter world not see animals in person, but it does not mean they are not there..
Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk
I've attended a few MNR Deer seminars and that is exactly what was told to us. The harvest reports aid in accumulating data on population densities. The results trigger the increases in cull (additional tags) in areas to prevent deer/human conflicts when the numbers are too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiehunter
Why would a CO say the data collected from trail cams is irrelevant is not in line with their own mandate.
Relying on a Hunters visual count is the least accurate means at the best of times...I hunt with a camp of 8 guys and most of them don't see a single deer all week yet a couple guys see deer every day of the hunt. In the same bush !! :)
It is pretty simple. Just report the number of deer you see each time out. Don't try to game the system by adjusting for "hidden" fawns, or adjusting for seeing the same deer five times in the last five days or trail cam pics or inflating numbers if you are worried about losing future tags. All you have to do is is report the raw number. By doing that you take a constant approach each season and then the MNR has valuable data to look at long term year over year trends. As soon as you try to outsmart this very simple process it mucks everything up since the interpretation of the data is based on the assumption that hunters are just reporting what they see each day.
Answer the questions as asked.
Don't overthink things.
They don't give a rats behind what your actual answer is, they're looking for trends in the unit (more deer/less deer then years previous)
If they are looking for trends they need to ask some sensible questions that make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
X2-they probably work with inherent bias, repeated every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
Should work similarly ,if they do not change the measurement system.
That is another question-how accurate it is ever-but hey, that is a different story.
We have bigger worries with moose management,or lack of it-but that is neither in,nor out.
Nothing we will change.
EXACTLY. They aren't trying to get an actual population size or density. All the report indicates is the change in population size. If hunters report what they actually see each year, the MNR will get some idea as to whether or not deer numbers are up or down in a certain area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris915
thats exactly what they are doing. Asking the same question they always have. If people start reporting trail camera photos as a live deer they have seen, how would that compare to prior to people having trail cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
I might have bought 10 trail cameras last year for the first time. Presumably I could report 10 times more deer than the year prior but I'm pretty sure the population didn't change that much.
This comes up every year, and people constantly overthink a simple question. How many days did you hunt, and how many "Live" deer did you see.
Next we will get the questions from guys who hunt morning and evening compared to an all day hunt.
Its a known statistical process to look at long term trends. Just answer the simple questions, there are no tricks going on here
They used to ask how many hours and days you hunted. Guess days hunted are good enough now.
I saw 21 deer as a dogger in the December controlled hunt. Never seen that many ever.
To my earlier post...Doggers always see more deer than the average group hunter who takes the stand at the far end of the run and never sees anything. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cramadog2
One field near the camp harboured several deer e.g. 15+. Other fields had 0. Had we only hunted the field with lots of deer then our sightings would be impressive but could skew the data.
Your report gets mixed with every other hunters and it evens out in the melting pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Again, they don't care about the actual number. It's a trend of up vs down of years previous
Well I never suggested there were any tricks going on, I merely said the questions are outdated and make very little sense if your trying to get an accurate count of trends in population.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishHog
These questions have been on the books for probably about a decade now and for instance before wide spread use of trail cameras. So lets take a simple example, I hunt my front field and know I have a mature doe with a fawn. I see them every day for 5 days, have I seen 10 deer or two deer?
In the meantime in the back 40 where I have a feeder, I have a spike horn, a 4 pointer, 6 pointer and 8 pointer, all coming into the feeder.
I exclude them as I have not see them. How does this make any sense.
The question that I believe should be asked is "how many uniquely identifiable deer did you see". This should include the trail camera images.
So a more accurate answer to the question is that I saw Six deer in total but my answer as it stands could be two deer if I decide not to multiply all the times I saw the doe and fawn in person. If I give them the daily sightings of the doe and fawn I am up to ten deer.
In the old days when the MNR and volunteers put out winter feed, they could get a accurate idea of the population. They don't do that now.
In the old days they did fly over counts and counts in the deer yards, they don't do that now.
They could get some better ideas of population by simply dropping into local meat processors and asking what they took in for harvest numbers, I am pretty sure they don't do that either.
If they don't care about actual numbers, what is the point of the whole exercise. How do you assign the correct number of doe tags for a WMU. I think hunters today with the new technology could be providing accurate numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by blasted_saber
This reminds me of the mess in managing the Moose herd and even cod fishery.
Your still overthinking it. Most hunters hunt the same way each year, asking the same question each year gives you the same results each year and you can see trends. If people try to outthink the questions the trends are ruined. Although with these types of questions the biologists will disregard the odd flyer that could skew the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
As a long term average its a valuable system and easy if people just answer the questions as asked.
If you hunted, that is one day of hunting. If you saw deer then those are live deer.
Pictures are simply pictures of live deer. You did not actually see that live deer.
These types of surveys are compared to stuff like aerial surveys from time to time. That can give the a good population estimate based on a few simple questions from hunters. They don't want to change the questions as that changes the data completely and unless they spend the time and money to get new aerial surveys to compare actual population data to the supplied hunter reports its nothing but useless data.
Its nothing more than a baseline bit of info that shows trends. Again just answer the questions. Days hunted is a simple question, "Live" deer seen is a simple question.
Could there be lots of other questions? Absolutely, but until they ask them for a few decades and compare them to other studies its useless data.
How many days hunted. I live on my hunting ground I have no idea how many days I was out I go out when I feel like it might be for a couple hours might be for two thirds of legal time
Why don’t they just ask how many deer see on one of your sits period
They now ask and know how many where harvested
They can easily find out how many road hits happen in a area
I know guys that didn’t see a deer on their spot but say well I seen 6 on the drive there Nono
Here is my December moose hunt.
5 hunters. I’ll be hunter #1
I see cow and calf shoot at Cow one shot and they both take off into the bush.
Hunter #2 tracks them and shoots Calf
We leave cow over night and hunter #3 goes in next morning and finds cow alive but can’t get out of bed and shoots it.
We drag her out and load onto my trailer. While driving to town there is a bull moose on the side of the road.
Hunters 4 and 5 are with me in the truck and hunters 2&3 have their own trucks.
We all see same bull moose on the side of the road. No tag
There are only 3 Moose total but hunter reports will have a total of 9 Live moose seen.
hunter #1 Me - i saw 3
Hunter #2 calf and bull
Hunter #3 Cow and Bull
#4 & #5 each saw a bull
How is that OK for a survey.
It’s not just ok it’s perfect. That is how they compare year to year.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPR 30-06
People seem to think these surveys are way more detailed than they are. They simply show trends
Currently people can’t seem to understand a few simple questions yet you think they should make them more complex
It’s simply a trend indicator nothing more
Here is comment from MNR that I received back :
The animal sighting information collected in hunter reports is used in conjunction with hunter effort to develop an index of population trend (i.e., animals seen/hunter day) – not a population estimate. It is intended to include only animals the hunter sees while they are actively hunting. However, as an index it is important that the hunter reports the same way each year. The index is robust to some variation in how hunters report because it includes information from all hunters within a WMU, and the trend is what’s important, rather than the absolute value.
Aligns with what has been discussed in this thread
Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk
my question to myself ws how many deer could i have seen and still not killed one this year :P
So what information are they using to justify how many doe tags to give out in a WMU?Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiehunter
Probably the hunters success rate on does the years previous,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Or they have absolutely no clue and throw darts at a dark board, The part of wmu 50 I spend time in, they have let the wolfs wipe out the deer so no tags needed for the guys that hunt it.
I think MNRF moves so slowwwwwww that by the time they make the decision for a change the situation has completely gone a different direction and their solution is no longer the right one in some cases.
When decisions aren't science based anymore but made to please who talks the loudest you can be sure its not to the wildlife benefit.
Dont worry-no deer ,no wolfs(Maybe in theory)=more room for Caribou.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt86
We have seen this already working BETTER then expected.
No caribou-no moose-lots of wolves.Hurrah
I think your right they do not use much evidence based data and probably tend towards a conservation lower number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt86
I think they could do a lot better, if these hunter surveys are only looking for trends, what is the point in that.
You could look at a trend, oh we had 100 deer killed in car accidents last year in WMU 60 what would you do with that trend?
Issue more tags because you think the trend indicates the population is to high.
or
Issue less tags because you lost 100 animals.
I know that sound simplistic but as it stands the questions asked are not really of any practical use IMO from a management point.
The MNR on their beat's could drop into local butchers and get a count on the animals that have been processed. The tags are with the animals so you have a definite numbers, there is no compulsion for this information to be given but most processors would have no problem.
The question for sightings should be changed to ascertain how many individually identifiable animals you saw.
The count you get on the trail cameras should be included, pretty easy to tell animals apart.
SO this year I saw with my own eyes 5 individual animals I could identify.
On my trail camera I had another 3 individually identifiable animals for an accurate total of 8.
The problem I see with the present question if answered honestly is that you get a very low count from hunters as deer are so good at hiding.
We all know mature bucks are experts at avoiding hunters during the day, but get captured on cameras all the time at night.