2010 Harvest Survey

[eastkoot]

If you want to do your survey online the website is not up yet but supposed to be in a few days. You'll need your login ID as well. Here's the link.
https://securesurveys.gov.bc.ca/logins/hunter.html

[Elkaholic]

That is a link to a file on your computer.

[eastkoot]

Sorry, edited the link should be right this time..

[BiG Boar]

Nice, will do online next year. Man they ask a lot of questions.

[yama49]

Just got my form in the mail, will try the internet form this year.

[Steeleco]

If they get the site up and running???

[Caveman]

Just got my form in the mail, will try the internet form this year.

The son & I just got ours as well and the site is still in limbo

[Everett]

Just got mine and fish and wildlife fail yet again. These guys scare the shit out of me if they can't oganize a simple online questionaire do you think they can actualy manage our wildlife. I bet if they sent Mark $20,000 he would have run the whole thing no problem.

[Slee]

Email from Chris......



Hi slee. I'm sorry the web site is not up. Roll out has not been perfect due to circumstances outside our control. The website should be up tomorrow (March 16) and if you like I can send a note to you once I confirm that.

[bigben]

Just got mine and fish and wildlife fail yet again. These guys scare the shit out of me if they can't oganize a simple online questionaire do you think they can actualy manage our wildlife. I bet if they sent Mark $20,000 he would have run the whole thing no problem.


Yup I agree what a fiasco :icon_frow the grizzly draw now this................ been trying to get on this for three days oh well try again

[Phoneguy]

Online questionaire is now working. I just did mine.

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[kamloops killer]

The Servey is up and running quick and done that easy

[BillyBull]

Nice easy basic survey, gives an option to add your email also.

[.270]

Something wrong with the online survey. It's only asking me about Elk, I didn't even buy an elk licence last year. The paper copy is asking about Goat, Sheep, WT. I'm just going to send in the paper copy.

[TPB]

The paper copy asked me about elk only, same with the online one. Im not sure what is up with yours .270, or maybe mine?

[yama49]

Really liked the online survey, quick and easy.. I think more will get done this way, once people try it... jmo

[.270]

Did the online survey ask everybody only about elk?

[mcrae]

Did mine online couldn't have been easier. So what if we had to wait a couple extra days to use the online survey option? Some of you guys gripe about the weirdest things:lol:

[CanuckShooter]

Pretty silly...you cannot fill in the survey unless they mail you a login ID...

[eastkoot]

If you don't get mailed a logon ID, they don't want to hear from you:roll:

[Fisher-Dude]

If you don't get mailed a logon ID, they don't want to hear from you:roll:

You just know that's gonna make CS feel marginalized. :lol:

Perhaps they should send him a coupon for free therapy to get over it?

[CanuckShooter]

If you don't get mailed a logon ID, they don't want to hear from you:roll:


Typical....always bitching because FN won't report harvest stats and then they don't send you the paperwork???

[Caveman]

Just did mine. They asked about Elk,Moose and Whitetail, same as the paper copy. Login info in the middle of the text in the box. Simple to use

[Fisher-Dude]

Typical....always bitching because FN won't report harvest stats and then they don't send you the paperwork???


Someday someone should explain the concept of random sampling to you.

[CanuckShooter]

Someday someone should explain the concept of random sampling to you.



Don't ask and you will never know aboriginal harvesting stats......:eek:.....random don't cut it bucko!!~!! Why go off half-baked, when more data is readily available?? The larger the sample the more accurate the results....19 times out of 20....:biggrin:

[lovemywinchester]

I just did mine as well. Just dropped it in the mailbox near my place, prepaid envelope so in she goes. My survey asked about WT, if I shot any wolves and if I hunted any birds and what I harvested. They must tailor the survey to where you are living. I was surprised they didn`t ask about all the animals you harvest. I think it would be valuable info to know how many mulies were taken as well as any bear or predators.

[Fisher-Dude]

Don't ask and you will never know aboriginal harvesting stats......:eek:.....random don't cut it bucko!!~!! Why go off half-baked, when more data is readily available?? The larger the sample the more accurate the results....19 times out of 20....:biggrin:

Like I said, someone should explain random sampling to you. You don't have a clue.

[budismyhorse]

Don't ask and you will never know aboriginal harvesting stats......:eek:.....random don't cut it bucko!!~!! Why go off half-baked, when more data is readily available?? The larger the sample the more accurate the results....19 times out of 20....:biggrin:


Random DOES cut it actually .......

you will never EVER get 100% return so you will be taking a partial, or random sample no matter how many you put out........

[CanuckShooter]

Random DOES cut it actually .......

you will never EVER get 100% return so you will be taking a partial, or random sample no matter how many you put out........


With a sample size of 10 you get way less accurate results than you get with a sample size of 100 or 1,000 or 10,000....19 times out of 20 :biggrin:

AND when you don't target your sample group you can get wildly skewed numbers..........your sample group could be demographic, age, sex, cultural background, religion....for example.....all would create swings in the results...the larger the sample the more accurate the results.....plain and simple as taught in rudimentary accounting classes..

[bowhunterbruce]

maybe if they did taylor the survey to every animals you bought tags for and areas in which you hunted for them and added bonus points to your hunter number that would increase your odds during any limited entry draws you put in for.
they would probably have a way better partisipaction level on both the surveys and the leh tags sold.jmo
bhb

[ianwuzhere]

completed my survey online- was very easy- i like it better then mailing..now maybe ill be luckier this year with lehs ;)

[300wsm]

With a sample size of 10 you get way less accurate results than you get with a sample size of 100 or 1,000 or 10,000....19 times out of 20 :biggrin:

AND when you don't target your sample group you can get wildly skewed numbers..........your sample group could be demographic, age, sex, cultural background, religion....for example.....all would create swings in the results...the larger the sample the more accurate the results.....plain and simple as taught in rudimentary accounting classes..

Don't think i learned that in my accounting classes....pretty sure i studied in in statistics.
random is better for many reasons. it is counter intuitive but true. For instance if retired folks are more likely to fill it out and send it in you are getting a different type of hunter, perhaps with more time to hunt, more experience and a higher success rate. Not a good representation of the overall sample.

JMHO
300wsm

[Eatmeat]

completed my survey online- was very easy- i like it better then mailing..now maybe ill be luckier this year with lehs ;)

my survey online was easy to.

Probably because it didn't bag any thing last year! What a looser....

[budismyhorse]

With a sample size of 10 you get way less accurate results than you get with a sample size of 100 or 1,000 or 10,000....19 times out of 20 :biggrin:

AND when you don't target your sample group you can get wildly skewed numbers..........your sample group could be demographic, age, sex, cultural background, religion....for example.....all would create swings in the results...the larger the sample the more accurate the results.....plain and simple as taught in rudimentary accounting classes..

when your sample size increases......so does the random sample to account for it.......what kind of experience do you have with this type of thing besides your own assumptions? You sound like you've never actually studied or worked with any sampling program to be honest. If you've no experience with the subject, why don't you quit confounding the issue and confusing the people that might be trying to learn something from this site.

......and accounting would have absolutely nothing to do with this subject...wow.

[6616]

AND when you don't target your sample group you can get wildly skewed numbers..........your sample group could be demographic, age, sex, cultural background, religion....for example.....all would create swings in the results...the larger the sample the more accurate the results.....plain and simple as taught in rudimentary accounting classes..

Don't you mean - when you do target your sample group you can get willdly skewed numbers...?

Thus the meaning of random (not targetting any one group).

[CanuckShooter]

when your sample size increases......so does the random sample to account for it.......what kind of experience do you have with this type of thing besides your own assumptions? You sound like you've never actually studied or worked with any sampling program to be honest. If you've no experience with the subject, why don't you quit confounding the issue and confusing the people that might be trying to learn something from this site.

......and accounting would have absolutely nothing to do with this subject...wow.

What sort of background do you have on this subject?

I studied accounting for several years, at one point in my life I was within two years of university study away from a CA degree. Statistics was a part of my studies as was auditing, costing and a multitude of other subjects.


MY statement: ""With a sample size of 10 you get way less accurate results than you get with a sample size of 100 or 1,000 or 10,000....19 times out of 20 :biggrin:""


YOUR statement: ""when your sample size increases......so does the random sample to account for it.""

Unless I am mistaken we both said the same thing.:wink:

[CanuckShooter]

Don't you mean - when you do target your sample group you can get willdly skewed numbers...?

Thus the meaning of random (not targetting any one group).


No....I meant if your sample group is smallish....you need to take care that your sample is large enough to capture a 'random' sample by targetting. ie. you would want to make sure your not sending too many into urban households, or unemployed households, or senior citizens.

I said: "the larger the sample the more accurate the results"

[budismyhorse]

What sort of background do you have on this subject?

I studied accounting for several years, at one point in my life I was within two years of university study away from a CA degree. Statistics was a part of my studies as was auditing, costing and a multitude of other subjects.


MY statement: ""With a sample size of 10 you get way less accurate results than you get with a sample size of 100 or 1,000 or 10,000....19 times out of 20 :biggrin:""


YOUR statement: ""when your sample size increases......so does the random sample to account for it.""

Unless I am mistaken we both said the same thing.:wink:



You seem to be arguing (and I'm only trying to read through your blurry statements, so I could be wrong) that the province isn't taking a large enough random sample.......

what gives you the background and evidence to argue something like that?

then in one of your posts you seem to indicate that random isn't good enough....anything else is not feasible or reliable CS. If it isn't random and controlled, its a statistical reality that one user group would in fact OVER reply and another would under reply....therefore you would actually be biasing your data FAR worse than any completely random sample would.

btw, I have worked directly with population/survey estimates daily for the past 15 yrs.......and I stress, this has nothing to do with accounting.........and there is no such thing as a CA degree......you can attain CA (Charted Accountant) status with several years experience with a bachelors degree in accounting....

[CanuckShooter]

Don't ask and you will never know aboriginal harvesting stats......:eek:.....random don't cut it bucko!!~!! Why go off half-baked, when more data is readily available?? The larger the sample the more accurate the results....19 times out of 20....:biggrin:

[budismyhorse]

what makes you think they are not asking FN's?

[CanuckShooter]

haven't been surveyed in 10 years or so.....if they don't ask how will they know?? why have online survey, and then restrict participation??

[bighornbob]

I studied accounting for several years, at one point in my life I was within two years of university study away from a CA degree. Statistics was a part of my studies as was auditing, costing and a multitude of other subjects.

Everyone with a University degree was at one point two years from a CA degree. Since a degree is four years and your first two are usually spent doing general studies of all sorts of stuff, I guess at one point I too was a couple years away from CA degree. For that matter, I was a couple years away from an Engineering degree as well as a computor science degree as well as degree in Psychology and probably another 10 degrees.

BHB

[CanuckShooter]

Everyone with a University degree was at one point two years from a CA degree. Since a degree is four years and your first two are usually spent doing general studies of all sorts of stuff, I guess at one point I too was a couple years away from CA degree. For that matter, I was a couple years away from an Engineering degree as well as a computor science degree as well as degree in Psychology and probably another 10 degrees.

BHB


Kool......35 years ago they told me two years at UBC and I'd have my CA degree....it's too bad you never went a couple extra years and got yourself a good education. :-D

[budismyhorse]

haven't been surveyed in 10 years or so.....if they don't ask how will they know?? why have online survey, and then restrict participation??


ok, I see, so you personally haven't been surveyed in 10 years.......

Your Stats prof at UBC should have tought you:

That is an N value of 1.........don't you understand that in order to form a solid opinion.......you should INCREASE your sample size.........that way you get better results 19 times out of 20 BUCKO!:mrgreen:

Can't you see the insane irony in your position? Maybe ask 1000 FN's that purchase hunting lisences whether or not they are being surveyed........then you'll have some evidence to support your theory.

Do you buy a lisence and tags every year? Because if you do, and you are not getting surveyed....that is a problem right there.

[CanuckShooter]

ok, I see, so you personally haven't been surveyed in 10 years.......

Your Stats prof at UBC should have tought you:

That is an N value of 1.........don't you understand that in order to form a solid opinion.......you should INCREASE your sample size.........that way you get better results 19 times out of 20 BUCKO!:mrgreen:

Can't you see the insane irony in your position? Maybe ask 1000 FN's that purchase hunting lisences whether or not they are being surveyed........then you'll have some evidence to support your theory.

Do you buy a lisence and tags every year? Because if you do, and you are not getting surveyed....that is a problem right there.


I concede you are way smarter than me. 19 times out of 20. :mrgreen:

I buy tags and licenses, and send in LEH cards....and don't get survey cards...haven't in years. BTW when they do send cards they never ask you if your FNs....guess it doesn't compute??

[Fisher-Dude]

What sort of background do you have on this subject?

I studied accounting for several years, at one point in my life I was within two years of university study away from a CA degree. Statistics was a part of my studies as was auditing, costing and a multitude of other subjects.



A CA "degree?" What's that? CA's have designations, like I do, not degrees. IF you were so close to being a CA, you'd know that too. Just sayin'...

[troutseeker]

None of their business, lol...

[troutseeker]

A CA "degree?" What's that? CA's have designations, like I do, not degrees. IF you were so close to being a CA, you'd know that too. Just sayin'...

I think you are both right...:p To be CA you do need a degree first then you get the designation. To be a CGA you just take some course adn some on the job training, :biggrin:

[Fisher-Dude]

I think you are both right...:p To be CA you do need a degree first then you get the designation. To be a CGA you just take some course adn some on the job training, :biggrin:

Incorrect. You need a Bachelors in order to get into the CGA program as well. Then, depending on your credits from your Bachelors, you may spend 2.5 to 5 years in the CGA program.

Point is, there's no "CA degree" or "CGA degree." They are designations gained from the respective association's program of studies, after a Bachelors (usually of Commerce) is attained.

[SimilkameenSlayer]

just done my survey, what happens to the data?

[Good2bCanadian]

Got mine in the mail today