The poaching issue with telecheck has been studied. We argued this years ago. There is no evidence that telecheck leads to an increase in poaching or deer not being checked in.

When I was in KY, there was an assumption of 10% of the deer killed were not checked in. I don't know if Indiana has a similar assumption but regardless, it can be looked at as a constant from a management standpoint. Therefore, it can be ignored. If we had a true deer census, then it might have to be looked at more closely.

As far as #s of deer per hunter, I have n ot seen recent numbers for Indiana. But here are the numbers for Ohio, a reasonably similar state.



Here it is by percentage.



According to this website, there were 500,000 deer hunters in Ohio.
Ohio Deer Hunters

That means a 30% success rate.

give it some time, if gundude can come around, there might be hope for you too

thanks for the data, John. The conclusion can be drawn that 68.4% of hunters did not get a deer (0).

Are these individual hunters or unfilled tags/licenses?

Oh, I accept it, used it this past season....but I still like seeing what comes in to the check stations... the one I used to use quit as a check station.....

Those are # of hunters.

I was surprised so I checked the 2011 USFWS Outdoor Survey and confirmed it. They showed 533,000 deer hunters.

In contrast, IN had 266,000 hunters. So our success rate is much better. I do remember it being somewhere around 50%. But the ratios of # of deer were similar. I remember it being fewer than 5% took 3 or more deer. But that's been a while and I am on the downhill slide to 50

I'd like to see fresh numbers.

Anybody got the chart where the poachers report how many deer they harvested the last few years?

I mean surely if the DNR knows what percentage of deer the poachers took, they had to get that info some where right?

Studies have estimated poaching rates so I assume that is where the percentage came from.

However, studies have shown that TeleCheck had no impact on the rate of deer that were not checked in. That is all we care about, policy-wise, since we manage based on harvest data.

If we could somehow do a true census, we could apply all the factors and come up with much better harvest goal, likely a quota. But we can't. So we don't.

Our policy is based on imperfect data. It is a relative data management scheme. It is therefore slow to react since we need trends over time. We were slow to react to overpopulation. And we will be slow to react when the pendulum swings the other way. Tough to steer a battleship.

Also, we are forced to manage over large tracts of land, i.e. counties.

Did you know that only 26 states require deer to be checked in? Some that do not get their data from hunter surveys.

1/2 the hunters is why we can live with longer seasons 533,000 hunters with our seasons would be a problem . Now I think we can see why Ohio has short season,s

Great Point Throbak!

John, I'm just pullin guys chains cuz its cold and snowy buddy. I don't think poaching has increased in huge numbers... I do believe guys are tempted to kill a buck in bow season and get it home and decide it ain't getting checked in.

I think my biggest take away from the write your own tag and telecheck, is that the DNR obviously doesn't care how many we kill OR how many we check in. If they did... they never would've went there. My hunting buddies and I have been saying this ever since they did away with the tag being attached to your license.

I get the facetious nature of your post

DNR does care about harvest stats though. The collection method is irrelevant assuming it is in place over time. Telecheck was/is a more efficient method. When you do management based on relative data, you have to have data over time to establish trends.

It's pretty easy to argue that a well-developed and implemented scientific survey would be more accurate than any check-in program. But we will probably have to take baby steps to get there.

Everyone seems to keep losing sight of the fact that deer numbers is not the entire management issue and hunters are but one constituent of the DNR. A 100 percent hunter survey would still not make the management plan because non hunters have a say also.

Of course. But that is politics, not data. Politics and public policy are inextricably linked.

When I mentioned survey, I meant a harvest survey; not an opinion survey. The context was telecheck data v. physical checkin and the irrelevance of poaching percentage to our relative data management scheme.

Agreed John. I just think that in the recent past the other influences have had more weight then the data from harvest or otherwise. It is conceivable that harvest falls by 40 percent and not much changes because of those other influences.

I could see that. DNR will take a hit funding wise though. But maybe those other influences can pick up the slack

I like the automated check in system, they should have done that a long time ago. Where I live, the nearest check in stations were about 15 miles away and closed pretty early in the evening.

When I kill a deer in the evening, I want to get it skinned and in the cooler ASAP. If I still had to check them in physically, I would have to leave the carcass whole and check it in the next day, and it that is a work day, they might be closed by the time I can get there?

Just a whole lot easier and convenient with automated check in. Poachers are going to poach, and the check in system has little to do with that.

Side tracking a little, but when we go on line and buy our license, why in the heck don't they include a simple transport tag that prints with your license, rather than having to make a goofy one from scratch? That would take almost no effort and would be a zero cost thing for the DNR and hunters.

Here you go Steiny:

www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/tempdeer.pdf

...and one for turkey:

www.in.gov/dnr/files/turkeytag.pdf

it should be printed out on the same paper as your license. theres plenty of room. save paper
easy peasy....OMG, I said the E word lol

I think those forms were originally added with lifetime license holders in mind.

Might be worth suggesting for online license sales?

I've been printing those temp tags for several years.....

trapperDave made my point. The license you print only occupies a small portion of the 8.5"x11" paper you print. Why not have a tag or two in the blank space?

[B][/B]

This is what I've been saying all along. Put it on the same piece of paper and if you lose it? Well go buy another one like we did in the old days. This is too simple not to do.

Maybe the same guys that developed the Obamacare website do the website work for our DNR?