Methods of

Determining Deer
Harvest
Lonnie Hansen
Missouri Department of
Conservation
 Methods of
Determining Deer
Harvest
 Overview of
methods
 Missouri
experience
Why Do We Need
to Know How
Many Deer are
Harvested?
Deer Mortality in
Missouri
 Predation Not
Significant on Adult
Deer
Missouri Deer Well Fed
Deer Mortality
 Hunting Most
Significant Mortality
Factor
 Hunting Mortality in
Rural Missouri

 Missouri
Deer
 Buck
mortality –
82%-97% a
result of
hunting
 Doe
mortality –
 Importance of Harvest
Data
 Basic
information on
deer
population
status
 Serves as
basis for
setting harvest
 Measuring Harvest

 Direct methods
 Mandatory in-
person
checking most
common
 Advantages of
Mandatory In-Person
Checking
 Data recording
errors minimized
because the
checker sees the
deer
 Ease of biological
data collection
 Positive public
contacts/enforce
ment
 Disadvantages of
Mandatory In-Person
Checking
 Agency cost

 Monetary

 Staff time
 Hunter
inconvenience
and cost
 Compliance
 Measuring Harvest

 Other direct
methods
 Road blocks
 Locker plant
checks
 Field bag checks

 Voluntary
checking
 Measuring Harvest
 Indirect
methods
 Mandatory
telecheck
 Advantages of
Mandatory Telecheck
 Simple and convenient for
hunters
 Immediate access to harvest
data
 Some enforcement advantages
 More cost effective for agency?
 Redirect staff time
 Disadvantages of
Mandatory Telecheck
 Loss of social focal point
 Increased cost?

 Compliance?

 Some lost enforcement

opportunities
 Collecting biological
information more
problematic
 Measuring Harvest
 Indirect
methods
 Mandatory
telecheck
 Random mail
surveys
 Random
telephone
surveys
Advantages of Random
Mail/Telephone
Surveys
 Simple and convenient for
hunters
 More cost effective for agency?
 Redirect staff time
 Can estimate other hunter
activities/interests
 Distribution
 Days hunted
 Preferences
 Disadvantages of
Mail/Telephone
Surveys
 Loss of social focal point
 Harvest data not immediately
available
 Lost enforcement
opportunities
 Collecting biological
information more
 Measuring Harvest
 Indirect
methods
 Mandatory
telecheck
 Random mail
surveys
 Random
telephone
surveys
 Mandatory
postcard
 Advantages of
Mandatory Postcard
Registration

 Simple and convenient for

hunters
 More cost effective for
agency?
 Redirect staff time
 Disadvantages of
Mandatory Postcard
Registration
 Loss of social focal point
 Compliance?

 Lost enforcement
opportunities
 Harvest data not immediately
available
 Collecting biological
 History of In-person
Checking of White-tailed
Deer in Missouri
 In-person
checking of all
deer was
required
starting in
1968
 Because of the
costs (time
and money),
in-person
checking was
 Annual Costs of In-
person Checking -
2003
Direct payments to $471,049
check station
operators
Conservation agent $240,969
salaries/mileage
Process check $70,000
sheets and buy
seals
Total $782,018
 In-person Checking of
Deer in Missouri
 We explored
alternatives to
in-person
checking on
several
occasions and
found no
suitable
alternative
 Telecheck came
onto the scene
in the mid-
1990’s as an
Telecheck in Missouri

 An experimental evaluation
of telecheck was conducted
to determine whether it
would provide similar
information as in-person
checking. Specifically:
 Were harvest reporting rates
similar?
 Were biological data
 Telecheck in Missouri
 In fall 2003, we recruited firearms
deer hunters for the study at permit
vendors
 A person who bought a permit at
selected vendors was assigned at
random to a control group or a
telecheck group
 Three study groups
 Control group
 Telecheck group
 No contact group. Persons buying
permits at other vendors who were
not aware of the study. This group
did in-person check as usual.
STUDY RESULTS
 Summary of
Experimental
Evaluation
 Harvest reporting rate was 24%
lower for the no contact group
than for the control or telecheck
group probably because hunters
in the study felt they were under
more scrutiny than those who
were not in the study.
 Age/Gender distributions were
similar
 Conclusion from
Experimental
Evaluation

Telecheck is a viable way

to collect harvest data
 Operational
Evaluation of
Telecheck
With a few exceptions,
the Telecheck System
has worked well and is
popular
 Any Changes with
Telecheck?

 We have maintained an
independent estimate of harvest
from a post-season mail survey
 Comparison of Mail Survey
and Mandatory Checking
250000 80%
Telecheck
Percentage Difference 70%
Mail Survey Estimate
200000 60%
Check Station
50%

150000 40%

% Difference
Harvest

30%

100000 20%

10%

50000 0%

-10%

0 -20%
1976 1977 1978 1980 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1993 1996 2004 2005 2006 2007
 So…What is the Best
Way to Measure
Harvest?
 Overall, there probably is no
best way.
 Depends on history in state
 Depends on public acceptance
 Depends on budgets
 Depends on deer management
system
 The Iowa and Missouri
Experience

 History of measuring harvest

different
 Implementation of telecheck
 No change in harvest in
Missouri
 Iowa harvest estimate declined
by 28%
 Firearms Deer Season
2003
0.9 Harvest Reporting Rate Telecheck

0.768 0.785 Control

0.8
No Contact
Harvest Reporting Rate

0.7

0.588
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Group
 Firearms Deer Season
2003
60
Age/Gender Telecheck
50 Control
No Contact

40
Percent

30

20

10

0
Doe Button Buck Antlered Buck
Age/Gender