Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 83356" data-attributes="member: 314">Welcome to the paradigm Ghost.&nbsp; The public cries for more land access, but doesn't want to pay for it.&nbsp; In the same way, the G&amp;F budgets for aerial surveys for white tails, but then doesn't fly them.&nbsp; What happens to the money that was supposed to pay for a white tail aerial survey when they don't fly it??&nbsp; As far as the game check, It's not that I'm against big game checks Ghost, that data is very important.&nbsp; It's the cost benefit ratio of doing so that I don't agree with.&nbsp; IMO, you get more bang for your buck by spending those dollars and manpower in another way.&nbsp; For instance:&nbsp; Assuming completed honesty from all hunters, game checks only take into account hunter caused mortality. That's a fairly limited data set.&nbsp; If you take that same person and apply them to recording surveillance data at set locations throughout that hunting unit, you will take into account the mortality from hunting, vehicles, predators, winter, disease, etc. etc. etc....AND population recruitment from fawn births which will provide you with an overall population estimate for that area from which to calculate tag numbers for the following year.&nbsp; No need to hope everyone will be honest.&nbsp; Just the researcher (Their Honesty) and the numbers.&nbsp; Much less room for error and fewer suspects should there be error.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 83356, member: 314"] Welcome to the paradigm Ghost. The public cries for more land access, but doesn't want to pay for it. In the same way, the G&F budgets for aerial surveys for white tails, but then doesn't fly them. What happens to the money that was supposed to pay for a white tail aerial survey when they don't fly it?? As far as the game check, It's not that I'm against big game checks Ghost, that data is very important. It's the cost benefit ratio of doing so that I don't agree with. IMO, you get more bang for your buck by spending those dollars and manpower in another way. For instance: Assuming completed honesty from all hunters, game checks only take into account hunter caused mortality. That's a fairly limited data set. If you take that same person and apply them to recording surveillance data at set locations throughout that hunting unit, you will take into account the mortality from hunting, vehicles, predators, winter, disease, etc. etc. etc....AND population recruitment from fawn births which will provide you with an overall population estimate for that area from which to calculate tag numbers for the following year. No need to hope everyone will be honest. Just the researcher (Their Honesty) and the numbers. Much less room for error and fewer suspects should there be error. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA