Post by jkd on Oct 26, 2005 11:49:41 GMT -5
215 -> 255 = +18.6% which is a significant increase...
Having said that, as Dec points out, it's meaningless as its based on how many hunters bother to go through the scoring/registration process. I would bet that 90%+ of Indiana hunters either don't know about the HRBP or don't care... so to make any argument pro/con relative to OBR on HRBP numbers is hanging your hat on a pretty small nail, don't you think...
It's what it is... an interesting factoid... just like harvest data - folks want to quote whatever stat supports their particular argument, when the FACT is that the data is merely a representation of what a particular group of hunters decided to take in a given hunting season... people want to read into that data meaningful references about sex ratio, age structure, OBR effectiveness, ignoring the fact that the data set is by definition skewed by hunter selection thresholds (available animals of a given size in a particular area seen by a given hunter which he/she deems acceptable for harvest), weather patterns, crop harvest, and available hunter population/experience.
Harvest numbers are not an exact representation of the live population dynamics, and any topical argument which claims its basis on harvest numbers has a limited foundation by definition.
I would suggest that everyone take a look at the IDNR "White-tailed Deer Strategic Plan" located at: www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/hunt/deer/deerplan.htm
In it, you will find that many of IDNR's objectives are measured by objective data collected from subjective inputs, e.g. "Objective 1: Provide annually a minimum of 88 days of deer hunting recreation that will include archery, firearms, and muzzleloader seasons, while maintaining a statewide average of 4.1 million hunter days annually with a satisfaction rating of 70%." Hunters are surveyed as to whether they are "satisfied" with their current hunting experience, and the statistical data collected from those surveys yields a measure of success/failure for this particular objective.
Taking OBR specifically, many hunters, including me, have posted anecdotal evidence to the effect that they are seeing more mature animals in the field than before OBR. Hunter reports are in fact a part of the data collection set IDNR uses. To argue that OBR is not working and base that argument on harvest data or HRBP entries is missing the point - it is statistically and logically possible for hunters to SEE more mature animals in the field, and yet be UNABLE TO HARVEST those animals during a given season, hence they do not show up in harvest data sets. That doesn't mean the animals don't exist, or that hunters are mis-reporting what they saw. Hence Problem 4 in Objective 1 of the Strategic Plan: "Lack of deer inventory information limits management of the resource." Our understanding of true population dynamics for whitetail deer in Indiana is limited.
When I was taking a course in statistical analysis at IU back in '76, a prof made a remark during lecture that has always stuck with me: "Data doesn't lie. The interpreter of the data can and often does..."
I am seeing more deer and more mature deer than I saw in our area 5 or even 3 years ago. Getting those deer within bow or gun range is a whole other agenda, but my ability or inability to harvest them doesn't mean they aren't out there...
KD
Having said that, as Dec points out, it's meaningless as its based on how many hunters bother to go through the scoring/registration process. I would bet that 90%+ of Indiana hunters either don't know about the HRBP or don't care... so to make any argument pro/con relative to OBR on HRBP numbers is hanging your hat on a pretty small nail, don't you think...
It's what it is... an interesting factoid... just like harvest data - folks want to quote whatever stat supports their particular argument, when the FACT is that the data is merely a representation of what a particular group of hunters decided to take in a given hunting season... people want to read into that data meaningful references about sex ratio, age structure, OBR effectiveness, ignoring the fact that the data set is by definition skewed by hunter selection thresholds (available animals of a given size in a particular area seen by a given hunter which he/she deems acceptable for harvest), weather patterns, crop harvest, and available hunter population/experience.
Harvest numbers are not an exact representation of the live population dynamics, and any topical argument which claims its basis on harvest numbers has a limited foundation by definition.
I would suggest that everyone take a look at the IDNR "White-tailed Deer Strategic Plan" located at: www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/hunt/deer/deerplan.htm
In it, you will find that many of IDNR's objectives are measured by objective data collected from subjective inputs, e.g. "Objective 1: Provide annually a minimum of 88 days of deer hunting recreation that will include archery, firearms, and muzzleloader seasons, while maintaining a statewide average of 4.1 million hunter days annually with a satisfaction rating of 70%." Hunters are surveyed as to whether they are "satisfied" with their current hunting experience, and the statistical data collected from those surveys yields a measure of success/failure for this particular objective.
Taking OBR specifically, many hunters, including me, have posted anecdotal evidence to the effect that they are seeing more mature animals in the field than before OBR. Hunter reports are in fact a part of the data collection set IDNR uses. To argue that OBR is not working and base that argument on harvest data or HRBP entries is missing the point - it is statistically and logically possible for hunters to SEE more mature animals in the field, and yet be UNABLE TO HARVEST those animals during a given season, hence they do not show up in harvest data sets. That doesn't mean the animals don't exist, or that hunters are mis-reporting what they saw. Hence Problem 4 in Objective 1 of the Strategic Plan: "Lack of deer inventory information limits management of the resource." Our understanding of true population dynamics for whitetail deer in Indiana is limited.
When I was taking a course in statistical analysis at IU back in '76, a prof made a remark during lecture that has always stuck with me: "Data doesn't lie. The interpreter of the data can and often does..."
I am seeing more deer and more mature deer than I saw in our area 5 or even 3 years ago. Getting those deer within bow or gun range is a whole other agenda, but my ability or inability to harvest them doesn't mean they aren't out there...
KD