Evaluating harvest reporting techniques for hunters in Illinois

Determining accurate harvests of game species is an important component of wildlife management. Several subjective factors can affect harvest accuracy. Recall bias, digit heaping, and other considerations can lead to errors.... [ view full abstract ]

Determining accurate harvests of game species is an important component of wildlife management. Several subjective factors can affect harvest accuracy. Recall bias, digit heaping, and other considerations can lead to errors. Multiple harvest reporting systems are used in Illinois, depending on site location, species, property type, and method of take determine what harvest reporting method is required. Currently, Illinois harvest reporting methods include: check-in stations, telephone, online, physical card placed in windshield of a vehicle (“windshield cards”), and site-specific harvest reporting (e.g. clipboard harvest checks). We conducted an intercept survey to record daily hunters’ harvest, opinions of current systems, evaluation of the specific hunt, public hunting site frequency, and some general contact information. Hunters were surveyed at three different types of public hunting sites that required: a) windshield card (Clinton Lake SRA), b) windshield card system for some species but not others (Sangchris Lake SP), and c) does not use the windshield card system (Mazonia-Braidwood SFWA). We received 299 completed surveys from individual hunters. Six days were spent at Clinton Lake (n=63), four days at Sangchris Lake (n=85), and four days at Mazonia-Braidwood (n=151). Waterfowl was the target species for 98% of hunters, whereas 2% hunted deer. The majority (53%) reported harvesting less on that day surveyed than on a typical day hunting at the same site. Over 80% of hunters indicated hunting between 1-3 public hunting sites per year in a typical hunting season. Additionally, harvest data from hunters using the online windshield cards was compared to the official harvest data reported on their mandatory harvest report. We examined errors in harvest reporting, digit heaping, and other trends in harvest reporting. A follow-up mail survey was conducted following the close of the waterfowl season to investigate hunting activity, public land hunting and satisfaction, and preference for reporting method. Discussion will focus on implications errors in reported harvest may have in estimating mortality and survival rates, population estimates, and factors that may be used to correct estimates.