BOB@BBT
03-26-2006, 06:29 AM
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1142982606209850.xml&coll=1
From the GR Press...
Column:Hunters have simple distrust of management's deer numbers
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Most of us learn about deer and deer hunting from our personal experiences, the popular media and our friends and colleagues. The wildlife officials who set regulations for deer hunting have those same sources of information, of course, but they also look to the scientific journals, where theories are not only proposed, but peer-reviewed to determine if the science behind them is sound.
Often, these journals are as dry as Saudi Arabia and, as if that's not bad enough, many contain so much math that nobody but a numbers geek could possibly comprehend it. But I recently came across a journal article that I thought might shed some light on the on-going dispute between deer hunters and deer managers about the number of whitetails in Michigan.
The piece: "How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado," is about a classic agency/clientele disagreement, how both sides attempted to resolve the dispute and where the chips finally landed.
In essence, the hunters did not believe the Colorado Department of Wildlife's mule deer population estimates, saying they were far too high. The sportsmen asked the agency to use Idaho's method instead. So the CDOW agreed to apply Idaho's method to a test area and see what happened.
Both sides agreed to test the two methods in a part of the state that was largely public land. Although the CDOW surveyed the area every few years by helicopter, it relied on the annual hunter survey and a sex-age-kill model (just as Michigan does) to make its population estimates.
The agency regularly came up with an estimate of 7,000 to 7,300 mulies. Hunters said the population was closer to 1,750.
The CDOW then conducted an aerial survey of mule deer and applied a correction factor to it. Ignoring the mathematical computations -- they caused my eyes to glaze over -- the CDOW came up with a population of 6,782 (plus or minus 2,497). The number, though a little low, caused the agency to feel justified about its regular population estimate. But when the Idaho model -- the one the sportsmen had requested -- was used to estimate the herd, the number was 11,052 (plus or minus 3,503).
In other words, the Idaho model said that at the very least, there were more mule deer than Colorado officials said there were at most.
Bottom line? The sportsmen rejected the findings of the survey, even though it met most of their criteria.
Conclusion? The sportsmen simply distrusted the management agency so much they were not about to accept the findings unless they agreed with them. CDOW officials felt vindicated.
So a year and a half and $100,000 later, the agency and hunters were in the same position as before they began the resolution dispute process.
This, I suspect, is what causes Michigan officials to consistently reject the call from some hunters for mandatory harvest registration. The system would not only be expensive, but unless it came up with significantly different results than the mail survey, it would likely be rejected by the hunters, anyway.
Department of Natural Resources officials are confident that the mail survey is statistically accurate. It has been reviewed by the likes of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and found valid. State officials don't believe there's any reason to evaluate the process again.
And the hunters? Many remain convinced the DNR is overstating the size of the deer herd. And as Colorado's experience shows, there may be no way the DNR can convince them otherwise.
Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at bgwizdz@boothnewspapers.com.
From the GR Press...
Column:Hunters have simple distrust of management's deer numbers
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Most of us learn about deer and deer hunting from our personal experiences, the popular media and our friends and colleagues. The wildlife officials who set regulations for deer hunting have those same sources of information, of course, but they also look to the scientific journals, where theories are not only proposed, but peer-reviewed to determine if the science behind them is sound.
Often, these journals are as dry as Saudi Arabia and, as if that's not bad enough, many contain so much math that nobody but a numbers geek could possibly comprehend it. But I recently came across a journal article that I thought might shed some light on the on-going dispute between deer hunters and deer managers about the number of whitetails in Michigan.
The piece: "How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado," is about a classic agency/clientele disagreement, how both sides attempted to resolve the dispute and where the chips finally landed.
In essence, the hunters did not believe the Colorado Department of Wildlife's mule deer population estimates, saying they were far too high. The sportsmen asked the agency to use Idaho's method instead. So the CDOW agreed to apply Idaho's method to a test area and see what happened.
Both sides agreed to test the two methods in a part of the state that was largely public land. Although the CDOW surveyed the area every few years by helicopter, it relied on the annual hunter survey and a sex-age-kill model (just as Michigan does) to make its population estimates.
The agency regularly came up with an estimate of 7,000 to 7,300 mulies. Hunters said the population was closer to 1,750.
The CDOW then conducted an aerial survey of mule deer and applied a correction factor to it. Ignoring the mathematical computations -- they caused my eyes to glaze over -- the CDOW came up with a population of 6,782 (plus or minus 2,497). The number, though a little low, caused the agency to feel justified about its regular population estimate. But when the Idaho model -- the one the sportsmen had requested -- was used to estimate the herd, the number was 11,052 (plus or minus 3,503).
In other words, the Idaho model said that at the very least, there were more mule deer than Colorado officials said there were at most.
Bottom line? The sportsmen rejected the findings of the survey, even though it met most of their criteria.
Conclusion? The sportsmen simply distrusted the management agency so much they were not about to accept the findings unless they agreed with them. CDOW officials felt vindicated.
So a year and a half and $100,000 later, the agency and hunters were in the same position as before they began the resolution dispute process.
This, I suspect, is what causes Michigan officials to consistently reject the call from some hunters for mandatory harvest registration. The system would not only be expensive, but unless it came up with significantly different results than the mail survey, it would likely be rejected by the hunters, anyway.
Department of Natural Resources officials are confident that the mail survey is statistically accurate. It has been reviewed by the likes of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and found valid. State officials don't believe there's any reason to evaluate the process again.
And the hunters? Many remain convinced the DNR is overstating the size of the deer herd. And as Colorado's experience shows, there may be no way the DNR can convince them otherwise.
Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at bgwizdz@boothnewspapers.com.