Region 3 White-tail and moose harvets from 2010

[Kirby]

Wt does 330
wt bucks 500

The moose harvest decreased by 150 animals with the later spike/fork season.

[coach]

Thanks, Kirby. Any historical info on whitetail harvest in region 3?

[Fisher-Dude]

99
87
63
107
92
90
70
104
111
137
82
128
147
115
174
164
205
128
213
201


Years 1987 to 2006. The trend is up!

[coach]

FD - maybe you should review the spelling thread. Those numbers are a little tough to read.

[Fisher-Dude]

Still? I edited the hell out of the cut 'n' paste - looks legible to me!

Kirby can't spell "harvests" but what do you expect from a redneck living in a remote cabin?

[coach]

Looks good now.

[ianwuzhere]

where do you guys find these #'s?
and how accurate do you think they are seeing not everyone gets or sends in hunter harvest data, also assuming they send them in correct?
+/- 50% to be accurate??

[MuleyMadness]

where do you guys find these #'s?
and how accurate do you think they are seeing not everyone gets or sends in hunter harvest data, also assuming they send them in correct?
+/- 50% to be accurate??

It's called sampling...the same way a scientific poll, while not 100% exact can be taken as factually correct because a representative sampling of hunters is done, and then the total number is extrapolated from that. Like I said, not 100%, but they are generally on the range of +/- 3 or 4 % margin of error.

[ianwuzhere]

+/- 3%??
seems very low on a very hard poll to be accurate on..

[Fisher-Dude]

where do you guys find these #'s?
and how accurate do you think they are seeing not everyone gets or sends in hunter harvest data, also assuming they send them in correct?
+/- 50% to be accurate??


We get them from the MoE because we're members of FHAC and wildlife committees.

They are very accurate. Statistical sampling with a sample this size is pretty much bang on. 67,000 of 95,000 hunters get sampled, IIRC.

You would only need a sample size of 1,055 to get a confidence interval of 3%, 19 times out of 20 (95%), and 1,814 to get a CI of 3%, 19.8 times out of 20 (99%).

Val Geist calls BC's harvest stats "among the best in North America."

[MuleyMadness]

+/- 3%??
seems very low on a very hard poll to be accurate on..

That's what you get with scientific sampling...where a statistician polls (in this case harvest cards) in a representative way and analyzes the data accordingly (again scientifically). It's something that has been in existence for over 250 years (scientific sampling that is), and the results are correct 99 times out of a 100, to a degree of +/- 3 or 4 % (you do get a couple of points of variation on that...3-4 is a rule, but no sampling with a margin of error higher than 5% is considered accurate). Numbers approaching anything you suggest (in fact higher than 10% margins)would make harvest cards useless and a complete waste of money.

[ianwuzhere]

Ya ive heard BC has some pretty good harvest data history..
If the numbers are correct and 67000 out of 95000 get sampled -thats only 70% of the people who bought licenses/tags? So may be 30% who never got sampled which is a lot and can skew the total harvest #'s greatly making it not very accurate, no?
-not trying to argue #'s or anything and i would like to think the numbers are very accurate but with soo many variables i just dont think the harvest numbers are as accurate as some may think ;)

[Fisher-Dude]

Ya ive heard BC has some pretty good harvest data history..
If the numbers are correct and 67000 out of 95000 get sampled -thats only 70% of the people who bought licenses/tags? So may be 30% who never got sampled which is a lot and can skew the total harvest #'s greatly making it not very accurate, no?
-not trying to argue #'s or anything and i would like to think the numbers are very accurate but with soo many variables i just dont think the harvest numbers are as accurate as some may think ;)

No. With a sample of 67,000 in a population of 95,000 the confidence interval is 0.21%, 19 times out of 20. It is 0.27%, 19.8 times out of 20.

[KB90]

-not trying to argue #'s or anything and i would like to think the numbers are very accurate but with soo many variables i just dont think the harvest numbers are as accurate as some may think ;)

I used to think the same as you, until I took a statistics class in university, it's amazing how it all works so accurately!

[f350ps]

So now that we've covered the "How do we come up with stats" portion can we hear about the Moose numbers please? Thanks K

[one-shot-wonder]

I think it is safe to say the harvest trends are the same in region 8 as well, the WT buck harvest might not be growing that rapidly but it is likely increasing, conversely the moose harvest I believe will be drastically lower from '09. If you got 'em post 'em up!

[horshur]

see my deal is with the pine beetle harvest and subsequent new moose range created moose populations province wide should be growing even exploding and they appear to not be...so why? Even region 7 much touted world acclaimed moose management strategies..why with unprecidented new range opened up new resident hunting opportunities remain stagnant because moose numbers are not growing.....begs the question.

[coach]

see my deal is with the pine beetle harvest and subsequent new moose range created moose populations province wide should be growing even exploding and they appear to not be...so why? Even region 7 much touted world acclaimed moose management strategies..why with unprecidented new range opened up new resident hunting opportunities remain stagnant because moose numbers are not growing.....begs the question.

The spike/fork season changed and the harvest went down. How does this reflect actual moose numbers?

[horshur]

The spike/fork season changed and the harvest went down. How does this reflect actual moose numbers?

how come it cannot sustain a spike fork season when moose numbers should be increasing?...and coach I do know why they shortened the season.....I am not being an ass I am asking a legitamate question there used to be a GOS on moose then it goes leh with a spike fork regulation and then a shorter spike fork season at a time when habitat creation for moose is unprecedented. There should be more moose to hunt don't you think? there aren't, so why? If there are why aren't we?

[Fisher-Dude]

how come it cannot sustain a spike fork season when moose numbers should be increasing?...and coach I do know why they shortened the season.....I am not being an ass I am asking a legitamate question there used to be a GOS on moose then it goes leh with a spike fork regulation and then a shorter spike fork season at a time when habitat creation for moose is unprecedented. There should be more moose to hunt don't you think? there aren't, so why? If there are why aren't we?

There ARE more moose to hunt. The shortening of the season was politically-based and not science-based. Inventories indicate a doubling of the moose population since 1999 in region 8, for example.

Guide outfitters lobbied regional MoE to get the season cut back based on rhetoric and political pressure. They were also successful in lobbying provincially to get the spike/fork harvest included in allocations, as the S/F was never before included in the residents' share of harvest (only LEH harvest was counted in allocations before). In order to limit the
harvest to meet this new allocation limit, the S/F season was shortened and placed outside the rut.