UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An integrated data system for wildlife management Kale, Lorne Wayne 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A6_7 K34.pdf [ 19.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094578.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094578-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094578-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094578-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094578-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094578-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094578-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094578-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094578.ris

Full Text

AH INTEG8ATED DATA SYSTEM FOB WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT by LOBNE WAYNE KALE B-Sc. , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FOLFILLflEHT OF THE BEQUIBEMENTS FOB THE DEGBEE OF HASTES OF SCIEBCE i n THE FACULTY OF GBADOATE STUDIES Department of Animal S c i e n c e We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE OMIVEBSITY OF BRITISH COLOHBIA January 1979 © L o m e Sayne K a l e , 1979 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f Animal Science The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e January 19, 1979 ABSTRACT I D 1975 the B r i t i s h Columbia F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch implemented the Management Unit system f o r c o n t r o l l i n g and monitoring w i l d l i f e h a r v e s t s i n the pr o v i n c e . T h i s change i n management boundaries should have been accompanied by an i n t e n s i f i e d data handling system, so t h a t a c c u r a t e and r e l i a b l e management i n d i c e s c o u l d be produced f o r each H.U. T h i s t h e s i s d e s c r i b e s a data system t h a t was developed i n response t o Segion 1 b l a c k t a i l e d deer management needs and o f f e r s a nev approach t o w i l d l i f e data system management. The proposed system i n t e g r a t e s f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e d a t a , and a l l o w s managers to monitor the e f f e c t s of t h e i r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s . Management s t r a t e g i e s can be t e s t e d by manipulating e x p l o i t a t i o n pararaenters, such as bag l i m i t s and season l e n g t h s , t o determine t h e i r e f f e c t on s p e c i f i c w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , the system r e s t o r e s and upgrades o b s o l e t e data f i l e s , thus a l l o w i n g past h a r v e s t t r e n d s t o be a p p l i e d to new management zones. F l e x i b i l i t y , f o r both a n t i c i p a t e d changes i n r e s o u r c e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and u n a n t i c i p a t e d data needs, i s a l s o p r e s e r v e d . B i o l o g i s t s r e q u i r e management e s t i m a t e s f o r s p e c i f i c areas w i t h i n H.O.s t o manage w i l d l i f e e f f e c t i v e l y a t the M.O. l e v e l * Each o f the 15 U.U.s i n Region 1 have been s u b d i v i d e d i n t o between 5 and 32 s u b u n i t s , depending on area and geography. The t o t a l 246 s u b u n i t s attempt t o p a r t i t i o n l a r g e unmanageable w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s i n t o s e p a r a t e p o p u l a t i o n s of manageable s i z e . A l o c a t i o n l i s t or computerized g a z e t t e e r was used to a u t o m a t i c a l l y a s s i g n hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s t o a p p r o p r i a t e M.U.s and s u b u n i t s . i i i Hew techniques f o r hunter sample estimates are proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s - Mark-recapture methods f o r determining sampling i n t e n s i t i e s and the p a r t i t i o n i n g of l a r g e r e s i d e n t areas i n t o r e s i d e n t M-O-s can improve e s t i m a t e s . D i f f e r e n t methods f o r t r e a t i n g m u l t i p l e m a i l i n g stage data are a l s o presented. The data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s ; 1) the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of master data f i l e s and 2) the r e t r i e v a l of data from those f i l e s . F i v e subsystems of FOBTBAN computer programs c o n t r o l the i n p u t of F i s h and W i l d l i f e h a r v e s t data and manipulate them i n t o master data f i l e s . The i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l i s accomplished by s t a n d a r d s t a t i s t i c a l packages, such as SPSS. A h i e r a r c h i a l f i l e s t r u c t u r e i s used to s t o r e the h a r v e s t d a t a , thus most w i l d l i f e management data r e q u e s t s can be answered d i r e c t l y . The 1975 Region 1 b l a c k t a i l e d deer harvest data were used to t e s t the sampling assumptions i n both the hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t programs. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between r e s i d e n t H.-O.S were found f o r hunter sample sampling i n t e n s i t y , percentage response, percentage sampled, and percentage of hunters among respondents. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were e s t a b l i s h e d i n the percentage hunter success i n d i f f e r e n t r e s i d e n t M.U.s and f o r d i f f e r e n t m a i l i n g phases. The 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t program produced a non-uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n t a c t s with r e s p e c t t o H.O.s. H i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the percentage of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s checked from d i f f e r e n t r e s i d e n t M.O.s were a l s o found. K i l l s f o r f i e l d checked hunters who a l s o responded to the hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e were compared to k i l l s r e p o r t e d on i v the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Numerous i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g unreported k i l l s , misreported k i l l s , and t o t a l s exceeding bag l i m i t s , were found and a minimum e r r o r r a t e of about 20% was c a l c u l a t e d . Known buck k i l l s were g e n e r a l l y (87.9%) r e p o r t e d as bucks, while does were only r e p o r t e d c o r r e c t l y 74. \% of the time, and fawns only 48.0%. The format of the 1975 deer hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s suspected to have i n f l u e n c e d those e r r o r r a t e s . S u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters had d i f f e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s of responding to the hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Only 48.0% of u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters responded, while 59.6% of s u c c e s s f u l hunters r e p o r t e d . Hunter sample ha r v e s t e s t i m a t e s using d i f f e r e n t e s t i m a t i o n methods were compared to known k i l l s i n two Vancouver I s l a n d s u b u n i t s . During the 1975 season, 88 deer were shot i n s u b u n i t 1-5-3 panaimo B i v e r ) , while 140 were estimated t o have been shot i n s u b u n i t 1-5-7 (Northwest Bay), a l l estimated k i l l s were c o n s i d e r a b l e higher than the known ha r v e s t , with the marked success-phase m a i l i n g e s t i m a t i o n method producing the lowest e s t i m a t e s — 170 deer (193?) f o r s u b u n i t 15-3 and 179 deer (127?) f o r s u b u n i t 1-5-7. Although the t o t a l estimated deer k i l l f o r Vancouver I s l a n d remained r e l a t i v e l y constant from 1964 to 1974, the same data when analysed by M.U. and subunit showed d e c r e a s i n g h a r v e s t s i n some fi.O.s and s u b u n i t s which were balanced by i n c r e a s i n g k i l l s i n o t h e r s . , The data system proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r B- C. w i l d l i f e management t o develop an e f f e c t i v e management framework f o r B. C.'s v a l u a b l e w i l d l i f e V r e s o u r c e s . However, t c do so the proposed system or one with s i m i l a r c a p a b i l i t i e s must be implemented and supported by the B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. TABLE OF CONTESTS 1.0 I n t r o d u c t i o n .......................................... 1 2.0 Data System Requirements .............................. 8 2.1 Management L e v e l s .................................. 8 2.2 I n t e g r a t e d Data Sources ............................ 9 2.3 Accumulative Data Base .............................10 2.4 Accurate Estimates ................................. 10 2.5 C o n s i s t e n t Estimates ............................... 10 2.6 I n c o r p o r a t i o n Of Data From The Previous Systems ....11 2-7 C o m p a t a b i l i t y S i t h E x t e r n a l Data Sources ...........11 2.8 Research ........-... ... ............................12 2.9 V a l i d a t i o n ....... *,•,.> ..v. . , <*.,.. i , ... - 12 2-10 E v o l u t i o n a r y 13 2.11 P r i n c i p l e s ... .... * ... .-->. ... .13 3*0 Tli6 DcLt<i System * • 15 3m 1 -In^>6^jrd^xci} *• • **• *• *••-••.•#• 15 3 «• 2 3 u.fo iio x t s • • • «<•• »••»/••>" • 19 3*3 X»ocSi*tXOQ Xiisrfc 4.0 Hunter Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Sampling System ..................31 4.1 Hunter Sample E s t i m a t i o n Methods . . . .v - . -> --•-••---•-31 4.2 Resident S t r a t a 34 4.3 M a i l i n g Scheme .....................................36 5.0 F i l e Format ..................•- ............ .........-.40 5.1 General Information .......................41 5.2 Person Information ..................................41 5.3 Hunt L o c a t i o n - Contact ............................ 43 v i i 5.5 Hacked Data .....«.......•••«..»•.«««»••-••»•'-•••••• 44 5.6 S e n t i n e l V a r i a b l e s .....,........ — .--..--,,-.--.•-.44 5.7 Sampling Caseweights 44 6.0 F i l e Development ....................................••54 6.1 Hunting Lic e n c e Subsystem .......................54 6.2 Game Check Subsystem -57 6.3 Old Hunter Sample Subsystem ........................ 60 6.4 Hunter Sample Subsystem 64 6.5 Marked Subsystem .....,.•...,,.....,•.....•.,.,.••.-67 7.0 I n f o r m a t i o n R e t r i e v a l .................. . . i . ^ -.71 7.1 L o g i c Of R e t r i e v a l ......................... . - 7 1 7-2 I n f o r m a t i o n R e t r i e v a l V i a Standard S t a t i s t i c a l Packages .,.....'...«•—. ...,"• — — • —-—•••• ..'.*•• — •- • • • • • . — ,.74 8.0 B e s u l t s ..........«••••• «*.,•«•••*•.'• 75 8.1.1975 Hunter Sample For Region 1 75 8.2 1975 Region 1 Hunter Sample L o c a t i o n Coding ........92 8.3 1975 Region 1 F i e l d C ontacts ......• ..>.->-»--••-- 102 8.4 1975 Region 1 I n t e g r a t e d Deer Data ..-.....,....-,..111 8.5 1975 Hunter Sample E s t i m a t i o n Methods 127 8.6 1964-74 Harvest Estimates .....-.....---.-....----..138 9.0 Disc u s s i o n ..*,».,.•..-•,••-—<«•.-..,v.••-*••••>•••••«•173 9.1 1975 Region 1 Deer Hunter Sample 173 9-2 1975 Region 1 Deer Hunter Sample L o c a t i o n Coding --.176 9-3 1975 Region 1 F i e l d C o n t a c t Data ................... 179 9-4 1975 Region 1 I n t e g r a t e d Deer Data -•--•-.,•.-------181 9.5 1975 Region 1 Hunter Sample Esti m a t e s .............. 184 9.6 1964 - 1974 Harvest E s t i m a t e s ...................... 190 10.0 C o n c l u s i o n ..,....-•..........,..»......•,,--%>.,.-•••• 193 v i i i 10.1 System E v a l u a t i o n .................................193 10.2 Implementation ......................... ... ........ 194 11.0 B il) l i o g r a p h y ...,,'•.,..,...•••,..,«,..••.,,-——, — •., ,. • . , .196 12.0 appendix 1.0 .........................................198 12.1 Appendix 1.1 General Information .................. 204 12.2 Appendix 1.2 Person Information ...................205 12.3 Appendix 1.3 Hunt Loc a t i o n - Contact 206 12.4 Appendix 1.4 K i l l Data 207 12.5 Appendix 1.5 Harked Data 207 12.6 Appendix 1.6 S e n t i n e l V a r i a b l e s ...................203 12.7 Appendix 1.7 Sampling Caseweights .................209 12.8 Appendix 1.8 Examples Of Data F i l e s ..,,,.,.,......211 13.0 Appendix 2.0 Examples Of SPSS In f o r m a t i o n B e t r i e v a l -.221 13.1 Appendix 2.1 Example 1 ....,.,....,..,.,,.,,.....,,221 13.2 Appendix 2.2 Example 2 ............................ 229 13.3 Appendix 2.3 Example 3 233 13.4 Appendix 2.4 Example 4 .........................239 14.0 Appendix 3.0 - Program Documentation 244 14.1 Appendix 3.1 Hunting L i c e n c e Subsystem -.........,.244 14.2 Appendix 3.2 Game Check Subsystem .................256 14.3 Appendix 3.3 Old Hunter Sample Subsystem ..........297 14.4 Appendix 3.4 Hunter Sample Subsystem ...............331 14.5 Appendix 3.5 Harked Subsystem .....................356 14.6 Appendix 3.6 Support F i l e s ..-...-.-...-.-.....--..361 14.7 Appendix 3.7 Master F i l e ,..366 LIST OF TABLES Table I The Subunits In Begion 1 Management U n i t s .........22 Table I I E x c e r p t s From Begion 1 L o c a t i o n L i s t ............. 27 Table I I I Sampling Caseweight Formulas For Besident S t r a t a And M a i l i n g Schemes .................................... 37 Table IV Hunter Sample Caseweights ........................46 Table V 1975 Hunting L i c e n c e S a l e s For Government Agencies In Begion 1 ............................................ 76 Table VI 1975 Begion Deer Hunter Sample Showing Response C a t e g o r i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Table VII 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Percentage Of L i c e n c e Holders Sampled ..................79 Table V I I I 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Shoving Percentage Beturned And Percentage Sampled .............80 Table IX 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Percentage Beturn For Resident Subunits ................82 Table X 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Percentage Of H O O fc € J X S * * - • * -a • •'•'^ t * • • m * m m-m'it-m • m m m.m m m • * 8 Table XI 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Percentage Of Hunters By Resident Subunit --,.-.>-.,---.86 Table XII 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Percentage Hunter Success ..............................88 Table X I I I 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Beported K i l l Per Respondent ......-....-..-....-..--.-.91 Table XIV Begion 1 L o c a t i o n L i s t Showing The Number Of L o c a t i o n F i e l d s Needed To A l l o c a t e L o c a t i o n Names ......93 Table XV Begion 1 L o c a t i o n L i s t Showing The Number Of Secondary L o c a t i o n F i e l d s ..............................94 Table XVI 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing The Number Of L o c a t i o n F i e l d s Needed To A l l o c a t e L o c a t i o n Table XVII 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing The Number Of Secondary L o c a t i o n F i e l d s ....................97 Table XVIII 1975 Begion 1 Deer Hunter Sample Showing Beported Deer K i l l s For Subunits .......................98 Table XIX Percentage Of Hatching H-O.s And Subunits By F i e l d Contact Hunt H.U- ...............................-99 Table XX Percentage Of Matching M.O.s And Subunits By The Number Of L o c a t i o n s .................................. 102 Table XXI 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d C o n t a c t Data Showing Hunter Table XXII 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d Contact Data Showing Hunter C o n t a c t s By M-U- and Subunit .-..---.-..--.-.-.--.-.--.-106 Table XXIII 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d Contact Data Showing T o t a l Checked K i l l s By M-0- and Subunit ......................107 Tabl e XXIV 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d Contact Data Showing Percentage S u c c e s s f u l Contacts By M.0. and Subunit ..... 108 Table XXV 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d Contact Data Showing Percentage L i c e n c e Holders F o r Resident M.O.s 109 Table XXVI 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing T o t a l Hunters Marked And Becaptured .........112 Table XXVII 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing Percentage Of Harked Hunters Becaptured .113 Table XXVIII 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing Percentage Of Marked Hunters Becaptured In U n s u c c e s s f u l x i Ret urns ................................................115 Table XXIX 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing Percentage Of Harked Hunters Recaptured In S u c c e s s f u l Returns .....116 Table XXX Percentage D i f f e r e n c e In Success Rates For Marked And Unmarked S u c c e s s f u l Hunters ........................117 Table XXXI 1975 Begion 1 In t e g r a t e d Data Comparing Checked And. RGpoc fc©cl KxXXs • Table XXXII 1975 Region 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing Unreported And Misreported K i l l s .......................119 Table XXXIII 1975 Region 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing M i s i d e n t i f i e d K i l l s On Qu e s t i o n n a i r e s .................. 121 Table XXXIV 1975 Region 1 I n t e g r a t e d Data Showing F i e l d Contact Minimum Success And Hunter Sample Response ...,,122 Table XXXV F i e l d C ontact Minimum Success And Hunter Sample Response By Success C a t e g o r i e s .........................124 Table XXXVI R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Of S u c c e s s f u l Hunter Sample Responses With Ho F i e l d C ontact K i l l s ..................125 Table XXXVII R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Of U n s u c c e s s f u l Hunter Sample Responses With F i e l d Contact K i l l s ....................,126 Table XXXVIII 1975 Region 1 Deer Data Comparing Response Caseweights With Response-licence S a l e Caseweights .....128 Table XXXIX 1975 Region 1 Deer Data Comparing Response Caseweights With Marked Hunter Caseweights ............. 129 Table XL 1975 Begion 1 Deer Data Comparing Response Caseweights With Marked Success ( s u c c e s s f u l ) Caseweights Table XLI 1975 Begion 1 Deer Data Comparing Marked Hunter Caseweights With Marked Success ( s u c c e s s f u l ) Caseweights x i i .......................................... 132 Table XLII Comparison Of Marked Success (unsuc) And (sue) Caseweights ................................ ............ 133 Table XLIII 1975 Begion 1 Deer Data Showing Estimated T o t a l K i l l By Be s i d e n t M.U. ......... ... ................ 134 Table XLIV 1975 Begion 1 Deer Data Showing Estimated T o t a l K i l l By M.U. ............... .... .................135 Table XLV 1975 Begion 1 Deer Data Showing Known T o t a l Harvests And Hunter Sample Estimated Harvests ........ 136 Table XLVI 1964 To 1974 Begion 1 L i c e n c e S a l e s And Qu e s t i o n n a i r e Returns . . . . . . . . . . , N . . . . . . . . 139 Table XLVII 1973 Begion 1 L i c e n c e S a l e s For Government Agencies ... ... ..... ... . . . . . . . . . - - ..... .... - ........ .140 TaJble XLVIII Comparison Of Hunter Season Success For 1973 And 1974 Hunter Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v - 1 4 3 Table XLIX 1964-74 Deer Hunter Sample Data Comparing Caseweights ...................... . . . . . . 1 4 5 Table L 1964-74 Deer Hunter Sample Data Showing Known T o t a l Harvests And Hunter Sample Estimated Harvests .......... 170 Table LI Comparison Of 1974 And 1975 Known T o t a l Harvests And Estimated Harvests .................................171 Table I I I F i l e Formats For Data F i l e 199 Table I I I I Master Data F i l e Showing Data A v a i l a b i l i t y .....202 Table LIV A v a i l a b l e Hunter Sample Caseweights ............. 210 Table LV Besident M.U. groups That Here Used To C a l c u l a t e Sam p l i n g Caseweights ................................. . . 211 • Table LVI Example 1. Data F i l e F or Hunter Sample Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ............. * - - ...... . .............215 x i i i T able LVII Example 2. Data F i l e For F i e l d Contact Information ....................................,..,....219 x i v LIST OF FIGORES F i g u r e 1 B. C. F i s h And W i l d l i f e Branch 1975 Deer Hunter Sample Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .,................................,16 F i g u r e 2 Region 1 I n t e r i m F i e l d Contact Form Dsed In 1975 .18 F i g u r e 3 Management O n i t s In Region 1 ..............20 Fi g u r e 4 Region 1 W i l d l i f e Contact Form ...................24 F i g u r e 5 Flowchart For Hunting L i c e n c e Subsystem .......... 55 F i g u r e 6 Flowchart For Game Check Subsystem .,,,,,,,,,,.*,,58 Fi g u r e 7 Flowchart For Old Hunter Sample Subsystem ......,,61 F i g u r e 8 Flowchart F o r Hunter Sample Subsystem ............65 F i g u r e 9 Flowchart For Harked Subsystem ,,,,.68 F i g u r e 10 1973 And 1974 Hunter Season Success As A Function Of Time Since F i r s t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Received .,,,,....,.,,141 F i g u r e 11 Estimated Deer Hunter E f f o r t For Region 1 (M.A. 1} Frcm 1964 To 1974 ................................... 146 F i g u r e 12 Estimated Deer Harvests For Region 1 (M.A. 1) From 1964 To 1974 ..................................149 F i g u r e 13 Estimated Hunter E f f o r t And Deer Harvests For M.U- 1-2 From 1964 To 1974 ,. 151 F i g u r e 14 Estimated Hunter E f f o r t And Deer Harvests For M.D. 1-5 From 1964 To 1974 153 F i g u r e 15 Estimated Hunter E f f o r t And Deer Harvests For M.D. 1-10 From 1964 To 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . i , 1 5 5 Fi g u r e 16 Estimated Hunter E f f o r t And Deer Harvests For M.D. 1-11 From 1964 To 1974 ...................... 157 F i g u r e 17 Estimated Deer Harvests For Subunits 1-3-1, 1-2-3, And 1-4-9 From 1964 To 1974 ......................... 159 F i g u r e 18 Estimated Deer Harvests For Subunits 1-5-1, 1-5-3, And 1-5-4 From 1964 To 1974 ......,.-.,..-..,,,..-...161 F i g u r e 19 Estimated Deer Harvests For Subunits 1-5-7, 1-7-3, and 1-7-8 From 1964 To 1974 163 Figu r e 20 Estimated Deer Harvests For Subunits 1-10-8, 1-10- 14, and 1-11-6 From 1964 To 1974 i......165 F i g u r e 21 Estimated Deer Harvests For Subunits 1-11-4, 1-11- 9, and 1-13-25 From 1964 To 1974 167 F i g u r e 22 T h e o r e t i c a l Comparison Of E s t i m a t i o n Methods, Resident S t r a t i f i c a t i o n s , and H a i l i n g Treatments -,-.-..188 F i g u r e 23 Example 1- 1975 Hunter Sample Q u e s t i o n n a i r e -.--,212 F i g u r e 24 Example 2- 1975 F i e l d Contact I n f o r m a t i o n .....,,217 x v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT T h i s t h e s i s i s the culminated e f f o r t of a handful o f e x c e p t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l s , whose t a l e n t s and en e r g i e s molded together i n the form of i d e a s and techni q u e s t o enhance the management of our v a l u a b l e w i l d l i f e resources-1 1.0 IBTBODUCTjOS The B r i t i s h Columbia F i s h and 'Wil d l i f e Branch has governed the consumptive u t i l i z a t i o n of the p r o v i n c e ' s w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s f o r most of the past decade by s e t t i n g game r e g u l a t i o n s f o r l a r g e t r a c t s of l a n d c a l l e d Management Areas (M.A-)- The prov i n c e was composed o f twenty-eight B.A.s, averaging 34,000 sguare k i l o m e t e r s , with standard season l e n g t h s and bag l i m i t s f o r each game s p e c i e s . However, because w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s and hunting p r e s s u r e s were not u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d over the M.A-s, l o c a l areas o f o v e r - e x p l o i t a t i o n developed. To allow s t r i c t e r c o n t r o l of the har v e s t of the p r o v i n c e ' s game animals and to improve w i l d l i f e management, the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch implemented the Management U n i t (M.U.) system. S i n c e 1975* game r e g u l a t i o n s have been s p e c i f i e d f o r 218 M.O.s, each av e r a g i n g 4,000 sguare k i l o m e t e r s . The H.fl. system can more e f f e c t i v e l y r e g u l a t e l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s i n game abundance and hunting c o n d i t i o n s than the pre v i o u s M.A. system. Although the M.0. concept a l l o w s game management f o r r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l l a n d bases, implementation of the system had s e r i o u s drawbacks. Data c o l l e c t i o n p r i o r to 1975 was based on M.A. boundaries, so e x i s t i n g summaries and an a l y s e s of game ha r v e s t s cannot be a p p l i e d t o t h e s m a l l e r M.O.s. As a r e s u l t , b i o l o g i s t s are unable t o a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s e f f e c t s and impacts of l o n g term game har v e s t trends on animal p o p u l a t i o n s i n the M.O.s. Only i n a few cases i s i t p o s s i b l e t o t r a n s f e r meaningful i n f o r m a t i o n from the o l d M.A. to the new M.U. system. A l l p r o v i n c i a l game inv e n t o r y and management programs must now be r e s t r u c t u r e d and i n t e n s i f i e d to c o l l e c t d e t a i l e d data f o r 2 management zones w i t h i n each fl.U., so t h a t game r e g u l a t i o n s can be c o n f i d e n t l y s e t f o r M.O.s. A data system based on management zones w i l l a v o i d data l i m i t a t i o n s observed under the M.A- system and prevent l o s s of data, should the trend toward management o f s m a l l e r l a n d u n i t s make the c u r r e n t M. 0. system o b s o l e t e . The B.C. Hunter Sample Analyses (B.C. F i s h and Game Commission and B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1950-74) p r o v i d e crude i n d i c e s of game ha r v e s t s and hunter a c t i v i t i e s from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s mailed to r e s i d e n t hunters. From 1964 to 1974, a B.C. Government computer system estimated t o t a l k i l l , t o t a l hunter e f f o r t , a g e - c l a s s composition of k i l l , and ti m i n g o f harvest f o r each M.A. The e s t i m a t e s were based on assumptions which were never t e s t e d . Although the computer system was h i g h l y i n n o v a t i v e when developed i n 1964, i t was unable t o respond t o the i n c r e a s i n g data requirements of p r o g r e s s i v e w i l d l i f e management and became i n e f f e c t i v e as a management t o o l by the l a t e 1960s. I n f o r m a t i o n on a g e - c l a s s s t r u c t u r e of harvested animals and d a i l y hunter success has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y gathered at p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l game checks throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. The f i e l d checks provided b i o l o g i s t s with age and sex s p e c i f i c m o r t a l i t y r a t e s f o r w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t g e o g r a p h i c a l areas. Between 1969 and 1975, d a t a from the p r o v i n c i a l road check s t a t i o n a t Cache Creek (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1969-75) were processed by another computer program which c a l c u l a t e d r e p o r t e d k i l l s and a g e - c l a s s s t r u c t u r e s f o r each M.A. Although k i l l s i t e s were o f t e n p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d by a g r i d system, they were i n g e n e r a l never used t o d e l i n e a t e 3 areas o f o v e r - e x p l o i t a t i o n w i t h i n M.A.s nor to e s t a b l i s h harvested p o p u l a t i o n boundaries. T h i s data source was a l s o i n s e n s i t i v e to f l u c t u a t i o n s at a l o c a l l e v e l . Information from the s m a l l e r r e g i o n a l game checks was u s u a l l y analysed by hand and summarized i n crude hunting r e p o r t s . In both sampling programs, data c o l l e c t i o n bore l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n s h i p to p o p u l a t i o n parameters. The two procedures could not be compared because sampling and w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n boundaries d i d not c o i n c i d e . I n c r e a s i n g h a r v e s t s i n one area c o u l d be balanced by decreasing ones i n o t h e r s , thereby n e g a t i n g changes i n hunter a c c e s s , h a b i t a t removal, and c l i m a t i c e f f e c t s on s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s . L e v e l s of p o p u l a t i o n e x p l o i t a t i o n c o u l d not be measured a c c u r a t e l y and v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o e x p l o i t a t i o n c o u l d not be determined on a p o p u l a t i o n b a s i s . The e f f e c t s of sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n , s t r a t a , and i n t e n s i t y on the two data c o l l e c t i o n schemes were never i n v e s t i g a t e d . The hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s generated t o t a l game h a r v e s t s and crude i n d i c e s of hunter e f f o r t , while the game checks e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t i a l h a r v e s t s and d a i l y measures of hunter e f f o r t . S ince the two sources c o u l d not be i n t e g r a t e d , d e t a i l e d a nalyses c o u l d not be accomplished. I n d i c a t e d t r e n d s i n the data c o u l d be r e a l o r a r t i f a c t s o f sampling b i a s e s . T h i s t h e s i s o f f e r s a new approach t o w i l d l i f e data system management. The proposed system i n t e g r a t e s data sources and allo w s w i l d l i f e managers t o monitor the e f f e c t s o f t h e i r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s - In a d d i t i o n , tbe system r e s t o r e s and upgrades o b s o l e t e data f i l e s t o allow p a s t h a r v e s t trends t o be a p p l i e d t o new management zones. Management s t r a t e g i e s can be t e s t e d by 4 manipulating e x p l o i t a t i o n parameters, such as bag l i m i t s and season l e n g t h s , to determine t h e i r e f f e c t on s p e c i f i c w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . F l e x i b i l i t y f o r both a n t i c i p a t e d changes i n resource s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and u n a n t i c i p a t e d data needs, i s a l s o preserved. The data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s began i n December 1974, when a system t o r e p r o c e s s o b s o l e t e hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was d e v i s e d . A f t e r t e s t i n g the system on one year*s data to ensure that data q u a l i t y would warrant f u r t h e r r e c o d i n g e f f o r t , a l l a v a i l a b l e (1953-74) Begion 1 deer i n f o r m a t i o n was manually t r a n s c r i b e d onto computer cards. In September 1975, an i n t e r i m f i e l d c o n t a c t program was implemented to ensure t h a t the emerging data system would be compatible with the p r e v i o u s data c o l l e c t i o n methods- The new c o n t a c t procedures censused hunters by hunting v e h i c l e , but a l s o recorded hunter l i c e n c e numbers f o r i n d i v i d u a l h u n t e r s . In January 1976, Begion 1, i n t r o d u c e d computerized hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r the 1975 deer hunter census. A f i e l d c o n t a c t form which c o l l e c t e d hunter data by the new s u b u n i t s and c o u l d be d i r e c t l y keypunched was f i r s t used i n September 1976. The data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s was developed t o meet Begion t deer management requirements as s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 2. Although the data system and assembled data f i l e s d e a l e x c l u s i v e l y with r e s i d e n t hunters hunting b l a c k t a i l e d deer on Vancouver I s l a n d (Begion 1), the data system has the p o t e n t i a l to meet data needs f o r other b i g game s p e c i e s i n other F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch Regions. The development of the data system i s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n s 5 3 to 6. S e c t i o n 3 d e s c r i b e s i n g e n e r a l terms boa data from f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are compiled and i n t e g r a t e d , while s e c t i o n 4 pr e s e n t s new techniques f o r producing hunter sample e s t i m a t e s . S e c t i o n 5 and 6 i n d i c a t e how the master data f i l e i s formatted and developed. D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of the data f i l e and v a r i a b l e codes a r e c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix 1, while program documentation and i n p u t f i l e formats are found i n Appendix 3. The d a t a system c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s : 1) the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of data f i l e s and 2) the r e t r i e v a l of data from those f i l e s . The f i r s t part c o n t r o l s the in p u t of F i s h and W i l d l i f e h a r v e s t data and the manipulation of them i n t o master data f i l e s . I t c o n s i s t s of f i v e sub-systems cf FORTRAN ( DBC FOBTHAN: Cockle, 1977) computer programs w r i t t e n by the author t o operate under the Michigan Terminal System (MTS) a t the u n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The U.B.C. Computer C e n t r e has an Amdahl 470 V/6 Model I I computer with a c e n t r a l p r o c e s s i n g u n i t of f o u r m i l l i o n bytes of s t o r a g e . A v a i l a b l e computer packages, such as a s o r t i n g program { UBC SOBT : Buckland, 1976) and f i l e e d i t o r { UBC FILE EDITOR: Hogg et a l . , 1976) were u t i l i z e d whenever p o s s i b l e . General d e s c r i p t i o n s of the subsystems a r e presented i n S e c t i o n 6, while d e t a i l e d documentation f o r the computer programs and data formats are found i n Appendices 3.0 to 3.5. The second p a r t of the data system d e a l s with i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l from the data f i l e s s t o r e d on magnetic tape ( OBC TAPE: C o u l t h a r d , 1978). Standard s t a t i s t i c a l packages, such as SPSS ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the s o c i a l S c i e n c e s : Hie et a l . , 1975 and UBC SPSS : K i t a , 1978) and MIDAS (Fox e t a l . , 1976) can 6 be used t o d i r e c t l y access the data f i l e s . A l l the r e s u l t s presented i n s e c t i o n 8 were produced by SPSS. D e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g the l o g i c f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l i s presented i n S e c t i o n 7, while examples of t y p i c a l w i l d l i f e management g u e s t i o n s and the use of SPSS to r e t r i e v e the necessary data a r e presented i n Appendix 2. The data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s can have two a p p p l i c a t i o n s : 1) to t e s t and r e s e a r c h the data system and 2) t o produce management e s t i m a t e s . In t h i s t h e s i s , t h e data system was used as t o o l t o d i s c o v e r b i a s e s and sampling problems t h a t a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of w i l d l i f e h arvest data. Based on the r e s u l t s o f t h i s t h e s i s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i e l d c o n t a c t s and the format of the hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e have been changed to improve data q u a l i t y . Not o n l y d i d t h i s t h e s i s i d e n t i f y the necessary m o d i f i c a t i o n s , i t p r o v i d e s a method f o r monitoring whether those changes are b e n e f i t i a l . The t h e s i s a l s o i n t r o d u c e s s e v e r a l new techniques f o r improving hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e e s t i m a t e s i n s e c t i o n s 3 and 4. Using only the 1975 Region 1 deer d a t a , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the new e s t i m a t i n g methods. U n t i l a c c u r a t e and e f f i c i e n t e s t i m a t i n g methods are developed, the second a p p l i c a t i o n , p r o d u c t i o n of management e s t i m a t e s , cannot be u t i l i z e d . One o f the major l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t data r e q u i r e d t o t e s t the system c o u l d not be provided by the B. C. f i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch w i t h i n the time a l l o t t e d t o w r i t e the t h e s i s . Host of the data used i n t h i s t h e s i s were r e c e i v e d as output from a data system developed independently by the F i s h 7 and W i l d l i f e Branch i n V i c t o r i a . C o n f l i c t s between the type of data t h a t system w i l l accept and what i s r e q u i r e d by the data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s have caused c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n exchanging d a t a . Another l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s system i s t h a t to g a i n f l e x i b i l i t y i n the a n a l y s i s stage , complex master f i l e s were e s t a b l i s h e d . A competent systems a n a l y s t with a s t r o n g background i n FOBTBAH must have c o n t r o l of the f i l e development process. To r e c o v e r data from the system, a user must be a b l e t o use a s u i t a b l e s t a t i s t i c a l package, and completely understand the coding system and f i l e s t r u c t u r e f o r the master f i l e . I t i s hoped that the e s t a b l i s h e d b l a c k t a i l e d deer data f i l e s w i l l be used by both F i s h and W i l d l i f e personnel and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . Throughout t h i s t h e s i s , program development and o p e r a t i o n c o s t s were not se p a r a t e d . The system i s r e l a t i v e l y expensive f o r the f i l e development s e c t i o n , but r e l a t i v e l y e f f i c i e n t f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . Because t h e data system saves hundred o f hours of manual l a b o u r , i t i s probably cheaper t o operate than the data system developed by the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch i n V i c t o r i a . The u s e f u l n e s s o f the data system d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s w i l l be measured i n terms of the i n f o r m a t i o n provided t o B-C. w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s w i t h i n the next f i v e years. 8 2*0 MM. S J S H I BEQ01BEMENTS To manage w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s e f f e c t i v e l y a management framework, c o n s i s t i n g of o b j e c t i v e s , i n v e n t o r y , data c o l l e c t i o n , data s t o r a g e , data i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and s i m u l a t i o n , must be developed with each of i t s components r e l a t i n g t o and complementing the e n t i r e system* In B r i t i s h Columbia, the development of the H..0. l a n d boundary system must be accompanied by an i n t e n s i f i e d data handling system t h a t . 1) i s based on a land boundary system t h a t i s o l a t e s s p e c i f i c w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the M- 0. s, 2) monitors r e l e v a n t management parameters of those p o p u l a t i o n s , and 3) p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r examing the e f f e c t of management p o l i c i e s on those parameters. In t h i s r e s p e c t , B r i t i s h Columbia d e s p e r a t e l y needs a w i l d l i f e data management system with the f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s ; 2.1 Management L e v e l s In 1950, game r e g u l a t i o n s were s p e c i f i e d f o r s i x g e o g r a p h i c a l areas i n B.C. I n 1964, the province was s u b d i v i d e d i n t o 24 H-A.s which were i n c r e a s e d to 28 by 1967. M.A.s u s u a l l y encompased from twenty to one hundred major water d r a i n a g e s depending on area and l o c a t i o n . In most cases the r e c e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d M.O.s are composed o f f i v e to twenty watersheds. T h i s trend toward s m a l l e r management zones may co n t i n u e and extend beyond the M.O. l e v e l . By the mid 1980»s, many M-0. boundaries may be i m p r a c t i c a l f o r game r e g u l a t i o n s and need to be r e d e f i n e d or f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d , t o a l l o w e f f i c i e n t 9 management of w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s - In a n t i c i p a t i o n of these new boundaries, data must be c o l l e c t e d a t a l e v e l lower than the fl.0- to a v o i d the l o s s of trend i n f o r m a t i o n . Each H.D*. should be d i v i d e d i n t o s m a l l e r zones or s u b u n i t s t o i d e n t i f y l o c a l problem areas and al l o w regrouping of data as H.O.s are a l t e r e d . The subunit should c o n s i s t of one major drainage or t r i b u t a r y system. The use of s u b u n i t s w i l l not only permit f u t u r e changes: i t p r o v i d e s the data which promote those changes. 2.2 I n t e g r a t e d Data Sources The hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data c o l l e c t i o n systems must be i n t e g r a t e d to allow more powerful a n a l y s e s and v a l i d a t i o n of each component system. The two systems can be used to complement and t e s t the other as both c o l l e c t data r e g a r d i n g hunter e f f o r t and succ e s s . Hunter sample e s t i m a t e s must be comparable t o v a l u e s d e r i v e d from f i e l d checks f o r s i m i l a r l a n d u n i t s or p o p u l a t i o n s . Furthermore, the r e s u l t s of one system can be used to develop, d i r e c t , and s t r a t i f y the sampling procedures of the o t h e r . For example, the hunter sample program can be used to o p t i m i z e game check l o c a t i o n s . The i n d i v i d u a l hunter i s the common denominator between hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f i e l d c o n t a c t data s o u r c e s . Hunting l i c e n c e numbers can be used t o c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e season s t a t i s t i c s from hunter sample r e t u r n s and d a i l y i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by f i e l d c o n t a c t s . T h i s f a c i l i t a t e s d e t a i l e d a n a l y s e s of hunter dynamics, r e c r u i t m e n t , and movements, necessary t o e f f e c t i v e l y manage the impact of resource users. 10 2.3 Accumulative Data Base The new data h a n d l i n g system must i n c o r p o r a t e annual data i n t o an expanding data base. Although h a r v e s t t r e n d s were produced f o r M.A.s, d e t a i l e d s t u d i e s were not p o s s i b l e as annual data had t o be manually combined to produce those t r e n d s . Old data f i l e s were destroyed and r e p l a c e d with new ones p r i o r t o each year's a n a l y s i s . The new data system must have an accumulative data base i f i t i s t o e s t a b l i s h , i n v e s t i g a t e , and p r e d i c t l o n g term t r e n d s i n management parameters. 2.4 Accurate Estimates Accurate e s t i m a t e s and r e s u l t s are necessary f o r r e s o u r c e managers t o make v a l i d p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s . The hunter sample program must be as f r e e as p o s s i b l e of response b i a s e s and r e p o r t i n g b i a s e s , while f i e l d c o n t a c t s should a v o i d c o l l e c t i n g data with i n a c c u r a t e hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s . Data q u a l i t y must be s t r e s s e d throughout the e n t i r e system. 2.5 C o n s i s t e n t Estimates System e s t i m a t e s must be c o n s i s t e n t between d i f f e r e n t management l e v e l s . In the past, the hunter sample program used the "hunter unit* 1 (a hunter hunting i n one M.A.) as an index of hunter e f f o r t . T h i s i n d i c a t o r was not c o n s i s t e n t , because t h e sum o f "hunter u n i t s " f o r M.A.s always exceeded the p r o v i n c i a l t o t a l . Furthermore, because the i n d e x , ^hunter u n i t s " , was based on land a r e a s , the s h i f t toward s m a l l e r management zones a r t i f i c i a l l y i n c r e a s e d the index of hunting e f f o r t . T h e r e f o r e e s t i m a t e s o f e f f o r t cannot be compared over time. The new data 11 system should only use i n d i c e s t h a t are independent of both l a n d boundaries and time, 2-6 I n c o r p o r a t i o n of Data from the Previous Systems Data c o l l e c t e d under the p r e v i o u s hunter sample and game check programs must be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the data base o f the new system. P r o v i d i n g t h a t sampling and r e p o r t i n g b i a s e s can be compensated f o r , such data can pro v i d e long term es t i m a t e s o f game h a r v e s t s and hunting p r e s s u r e s . Since F i s h and H i l d l i f e data f i l e s were in c o m p l e t e l y coded and destroyed a n n u a l l y , a l l a v a i l a b l e raw data, i n c l u d i n g o b s o l e t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and game check forms, must be reprocessed. Manual re-coding of the data i s necessary t o t r a n s f e r i t i n t o a machine-readable format- a l l analyses o f the past data should be r e l e v a n t t o the new H.O. and subunit systems. 2.7 C o m p a t a b i l i t y with E x t e r n a l Data Sources Many f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g h a b i t a t , c l i m a t e and a c c e s s , i n f l u e n c e animal abundance and game h a r v e s t s . Information on those v a r i a b l e s , a v a i l a b l e from other agencies and government departments, must be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the w i l d l i f e data system t o determine t h e i r e f f e c t on w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . The development of i n t e r a g e n c y data bases i s needed t o produce i n t e g r a t e d resource management p l a n s and e s t a b l i s h c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y l e v e l s f o r w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . 12 2.8 Research In response to management requirements, t h r e e d i f f e r e n t types of data systems can be developed (Kindred, 1973). The f i r s t l e v e l , simple data processing systems , r e q u i r e s s t a n d a r d i n p u t formats and provides standard summaries and r e p o r t s . These systems, l i k e the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch systems, cannot be changed to produce more output without s u b s t a n t i a l reprogramming. I n t e g r a t e d data p r o c e s s i n g systems permit the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between system v a r i a b l e s to be examined. Standard s t a t i s t i c a l techniques can be d i r e c t l y a p p l i e d t o the data base without r e s t r u c t u r i n g or w r i t i n g s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s programs. F u l l management i n f o r m a t i o n systems , the .. h i g h e s t systems l e v e l , i n c o r p o r a t e a l l the f e a t u r e s of t h e l o w e r l e v e l s and provide the f a c i l i t i e s f o r performing s p e c i a l management t a s k s , such as s i m u l a t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n . The new w i l d l i f e data system must be developed, or have the p o t e n t i a l t o be developed, to the f u l l management; i n f o r m a t i o n l e v e l * only then can the other components of the management framework be used to t h e i r maximum p o t e n t i a l . 2.9 V a l i d a t i o n The p r e v i o u s hunter sample system was based on the assumption t h a t q u e s t i o n n a i r e respondents were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s . S i n c e only one method was used f o r c a l c u l a t i n g e s t i m a t e s , u n d e r l y i n g assumptions c o u l d not be t e s t e d and e s t i m a t e s c o u l d not be v a l i d a t e d . The new data system must use independent methods f o r 1 3 producing e s t i m a t e s , so that the e f f e c t of the e s t i m a t i o n procedures can be i n v e s t i g a t e d -2.10 E v o l u t i o n a r y The l o s s of trend i n f o r m a t i o n and d i s r u p t i o n of data p r o c e s s i n g s e r v i c e s a s s o c i a t e d with the implementation of M.U.s was caused by t h e dependence of B.C. w i l d l i f e management on the M.A. boundaries. Those boundaries c o u l d not be changed without d e s t r o y i n g the e n t i r e data system s u p p o r t i n g them. Any new data system must be f l e x i b l e and e v o l u t i o n a r y . Data elements, data format, and a n a l y s e s should be e a s i l y adapted t o meet new needs of p r o g r e s s i v e w i l d l i f e management. 2.11 P r i n c i p l e s The f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s of data system management (Kindred, 19.73) should be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the w i l d l i f e d ata system: (i) At the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e stage the data s h o u l d be machine-readable. ( i i ) Every p r a c t i c a l method of v e r i f y i n g and b a l a n c i n g the i n p u t data should be employed. ( i i i ) Data should be e a s i l y r e t r i e v e d * (iv) Only data with reasonable q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y s h o u l d be saved. (v) D u p l i c a t i o n o f data among f i l e s should be avoided. (vi) Reports should f o c u s on i n f o r m a t i o n of decision-making v a l u e . ( v i i ) The c o s t of c o l l e c t i n g , s t o r i n g , and r e t r i e v i n g the 14 data should be weighted a g a i n s t i t s value. ( v i i i ) The system should use the l a t e s t advances i n computer technology. 1 5 3.0 THE DATA SYSTEM 3.1 I n t e g r a t i o n The data system d e s c r i b e d here i n t e g r a t e s a l l major w i l d l i f e data s o u r c e s . Hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s , i d e n t i f i e d by unique hunting l i c e n c e numbers, are the common denominator among the hunter sample program, a l l t y p e s of f i e l d c o n t a c t s , and the hunting l i c e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n . In the p a s t , independent a n a l y s e s have been done on the hunter sample and game check data s o u r c e s , while hunting l i c e n c e data has never been processed. I n 1975, fiegion 1 used hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with s e q u e n t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers so t h a t r e p o r t e d k i l l s and hunt l o c a t i o n s c o u l d be assigned t o i n d i v i d u a l hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s (Figure 1 ). For the same year, hunters were c o n t a c t e d i n the f i e l d and t h e i r hunting l i c e n c e s were recorded (Figure 2 ). These procedures c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d the hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data systems. 3.2 Subunits fiegion 1 a d m i n i s t e r s 15 M.O.s •— 13 on Vancouver I s l a n d and 2 on the mainland c o a s t (Figure 3 ). Depending on area and geography, each H.O. was s u b d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e t o 32 s u b u n i t s (Table I }. Boundaries between s u b u n i t s , were drawn on 1 : 250,000 contour maps and u s u a l l y f o l l o w watershed d i v i d e s and s h o r e l i n e s . However, l o g g i n g a c c e s s p a t t e r n s and l a r g e l a k e s i n f l u e n c e s u b u n i t boundaries to some degree. The 246 s u b u n i t s , designated by Begion-H.0.-subunit, attempt t o p a r t i t i o n l a r g e 16 Figure 1 B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch 1975 deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 17 DEER HARVEST QUESTIONNAIRE 1975 All hunters please complete the following: 1. Did you hunt for deer in 1975? Yes • No • 2. If YES for each hunt, please enter the management units (M.U.) you hunted, the nearest landmark, and the number of days you hunted in each M.U. If you were successful in harvesting one or more deer, also complete the date of kill, the species, sex, and age for each of your deer. Please indicate if your deer was recorded at a Game Check. M . U . Nearest .Landmark (Creek, River) and Post Office Num-ber of Days Hunted Date of Kill Species (Check / ) Sex (Check /) Age (Cheeky) Recorded (Check / ) Month Day Black-tail White-tail Mule Buck Doe Adult Fawn Yes No WOLF HARVEST QUESTIONNAIRE 1 9 7 5 1. Did you hunt for wolf in 1975? Yes • No • 2. If YES, please complete the following: M . U . Nearest Landmark (Creek, River) and Post Office Number of Davs Hunted Date of Kill Sex (Check J) Age (Check /) Kill Recorded at Game Check (/) Month Day Mate Female Adult Juvenile Yes No • I j 1 8 F i g u r e 2 Begion 1 i n t e r i m f i e l d c o n t a c t form used i n 1975. DATE .,. OFFICERS STATION j HUNTERS ! # Days r ~ ] M.U. LOCATION Specific Area BKOTON I GAME CHECK - VEHICLE RECORD WEATHER TIME START SHEET NUMBER _ J TIME FIN. TIME SHEET STARTED Type DEER SHOT Antler J a w shot L R Tag # By # OTHER SP. # Species HUNTER 1 Licence Seas. HUNTER 2 Licence Seas. HUNTER 3 Licence Seas. T 20 F i g u r e 3 Management Onits i n Begion 1. 22 Table I P a r t i t i o n i n g of Management Units i n Region 1 into subunits shoving average and range of land area. Area Number of Area (sq.km.) M. U. (sq.km.) Subunits average (range) 1 680 9 75 ( 20 - 310) 2 890 5 180 (110 - 270) 3 2580 20 130 ( 20 - 260) 4 1470 12 120 ( 30 - 300) 5 2370 10 240 ( 70 - 410) 6 2550 12 210 ( 30 - 520) 7 224.0 9 250 (100 - 410) 8 3020 18 170 ( 30 - 360) 9 2000 11 180 ( 50 - 330) 10 3060 16 190 ( 50 - 360) 11 1910 16 120 ( 60 - 170) 12 3280 25 130 ( 20 - 480) 13 3210 27 120 ( 50 - 250) 14 5530 24 230 ( 60 - 490) 15 5950 32 190 ( 50 - 650) Total 40740 246 170 ( 20 - 650) unmanageable w i l d l i f e resources i n t o separate p o p u l a t i o n s of mangeable s i z e . These s u b u n i t s are now the most elementary management zones i n Region 1 and pro v i d e the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e f o r the new data system. Subunit i n f o r m a t i o n i s e i t h e r c o l l e c t e d d i r e c t l y or i n f e r r e d from alphanumeric d e s c r i p t i o n s of h u n t i n g l o c a t i o n s . When hunters were c o n t a c t e d i n the f i e l d d u r i n g the 1976 hunting season, s u b u n i t hunt l o c a t i o n s were recorded d i r e c t l y onto a f i e l d c o n t a c t form (Figure 4 ) . Because i n most cases s u b u n i t s p r o v i d e the most d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n p o s s i b l e , the lowest l e v e l of data c o l l e c t i o n i s a t the subuni t l e v e l . T h i s p a r t of the data system c o l l e c t s subunit data d i r e c t l y and i s dependent upon subunit boundaries. Because data . c o l l e c t e d a t the subunit l e v e l provide more s i t e - s p e c i f i c d a t a , than t h a t obtained under any p r e v i o u s checking system, t h i s i s not co n s i d e r e d t o be a major l i m i t a t i o n . In other areas o f the prov i n c e , l o c a t i o n g r i d s have been used t o s p e c i f y k i l l l o c a t i o n s . Those g r i d s are not u t i l i z e d i n t h i s system because: 1) The g r i d system was t e s t e d a t Begion 1 game checks i n 1970 and found t o be i m p r a c t i c a l f o r r e c o r d i n g l o c a t i o n s during busy checking days. 2) although k i l l s i t e s can t h e o r e t i c a l l y be determined as c o - o r d i n a t e s , hunt l o c a t i o n s may cover l a r g e a r e a s . Therefore hunt l o c a t i o n s cannot be e a s i l y recorded by g r i d systems. I f k i l l and hunt l o c a t i o n s are determined u s i n g d i f f e r e n t methods, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c a l c u l a t e s u c c e s s s t a t i s t i c s . 3) G r i d l o c a t i o n data have never been e f f e c t i v e l y analysed 24 Figure 4 Begion 1 a i I d l i f e c o n t a c t form introduced i n 1976. F o r m D A T E R e g . D i s t . O f f i c e r D a y M o . Y r . EH • m I C o n t a c t N o . T i m e C h e c k P e r s o n R e s . P r o s . L o c a t i o n C o d e R, M U . D Q U 12 14 m o n o 17 • • • • • m m m m CD m m m m m m m m m m CD LTD • H O D cm a cm • • • • • • • • W k . D a y • F I S H A N D W I L D L I F E B R A N C H C O N T A C T F O R M ( W i l d l i f e ) T I M E S t a r t F i n i s h T o t . h r s . S t a t i o n Page of pages . N a m e : H u n t L o c a t i o n D a y s K i l l D a t a S e x V <9 Q M . U . S u b H u n t e d "> "3 D M M / F A g e S p e c i m e n A n t l e r N u m b e r , 3 6 37 38 • m • m • CD m m CD. CD CD CD m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m CD • 4 9 51 L D D L D D LD • m • m • m • LD • LD • CD • m • LD • L U D m • m • CD • LD • I I 1 1 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 ! 1 i i 1 M l i 1 1 1 1 11 M i l 1 r I i 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 7 ! ! 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 C ro 26 by the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 4) Hunters tend to be r e t i c e n t about t h e i r f a v o r i t e hunting a r e a s , but w i l l d i s c l o s e which watershed they hunted i n . When s u b u n i t data cannot be c o l l e c t e d d i r e c t l y (hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ) or were not c o l l e c t e d ( o bsolete hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and o l d game check d a t a ) , M.0.s and su b u n i t s a re i n f e r r e d from h u n t i n g l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s by a l o c a t i o n l i s t d e s c r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 3.3 L o c a t i o n L i s t A l o c a t i o n l i s t o r computerized g a z e t t e e r i s used t o match alphanumeric d e s c r i p t i o n s of hunt l o c a t i o n s to i n t e g e r codes r e p r e s e n t i n g those l o c a t i o n s (Table II ). M.O.s and s u b u n i t s a s s o c i a t e d with each l o c a t i o n name are then a u t o m a t i c a l l y assigned to hunt l o c a t i o n s . When o b s o l e t e hunter sample (1964-1971) and o l d game check (1953-1974) data were processed, hunt l o c a t i o n s were manually assigned r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n t e g e r codes. Each l o c a t i o n had a unique code and as new l o c a t i o n names were encountered, they and a new code number were added to the l i s t . For recent hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ( s i n c e 1975) , the hunt l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n i s manually e d i t e d t o g i v e a d e s c r i p t i o n t h a t can be placed i n s u b u n i t s . Greek, r i v e r , l a k e , and road names are p r e f e r r e d t o that of the nearest town as the l a t t e r i s o f t e n too g e n e r a l . The keypunched alphanumeric data f i e l d s ace then assigned l o c a t i o n codes by a computer program. Since: each d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n has an i n t e g e r code, a l l the a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n from these data sources i s saved i n a Table II Excerpts from Region 1 location l i s t showing allo c a t i o n of location names to M.U.s and subunits i n Region 1. The location names have been sorted into alphabetic order. Loc - loc a t i o n , Sub = subunit, Tot = t o t a l , Prim = primary, Sec - secondary. Loc code L o c a t i o n name Post o f f i c e location Location f i e l d s F i e l d 1 2 •MU-sub Tot Prim Sec MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub MU-sub 730 ABEL CREEK 1 ADAM RIVER 1083 AHOUSAT 204 ALBERNI 1104 1013 812 703 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 0 2 0 0 1104 1013 812 703 1012 1014 705 708 707 709 454 NORTH OF GOLD RIVER 900 900 1100 124 NORTHWEST BAY 507 2 1 507 506 936 ZEBALL0S ROAD 937 ZEBALLOS-TAHSIS 1209 4 4 0 1209 1111 1210. 1213 1209 2 2 0 1209 1203 a - post o f f i c e locations are only relevant for tovn and c i t y location names 28 format t h a t i s not dependent upon the subun i t system. ; A l l l o c a t i o n names have been placed i n t o M.U.s and s u b u n i t s by a B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e t e c h n i c i a n f a m i l i a r with Begion 1 hunt l o c a t i o n s . Op t o nine l o c a t i o n data f i e l d s , c o n s i s t i n g o f M.p.^subunit p a i r s , are used to i d e n t i f y two l e v e l s of l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y . M.U.-subunit p a i r s t h a t are o f t e n r e f e r r e d to by t h e . l o c a t i o n name are assigned as primary l o c a t i o n s , while M.U.-s u b u n i t s t h a t c o u l d p o s s i b l y be r e f e r r e d t o by t h a t name are typed as secondary. Although "probable" (primary) and " p o s s i b l e " (secondary) are crude c a t e g o r i e s based on s u b j e c t i v e e s t i m a t e s of t h e l i k e l i h o o d of the l o c a t i o n being i n the s u b u n i t , most d e c i s i o n s s e p a r a t i n g the c a t e g o r i e s were e a s i l y made. For example i n Table I I , the l o c a t i o n name, "Northwest Bay" i s coded by the i n t e g e r "124" and can r e p r e s e n t both s u b u n i t s 1-5-7 and 1-5-6, although i t i s "probably" used f o r the f i r s t more than the second. The l o c a t i o n l i s t c o n t a i n s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by LOCATION COOB (124), LOCATION NAME ("Northwest Bay"), TOTAL LOCATION FIELDS (2) i n d i c a t i n g 2 l o c a t i o n f i e l d s are used, PRIMARY LOCATION FIELDS (1) showing t h a t the f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d i s a primary f i e l d , and SECONDABY LOCATION FIELDS (1) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d f o l l o w i n g the primary f i e l d s i s a secondary l o c a t i o n . The FIHST LOCATION FIELD (507) rep r e s e n t s s u b u n i t 1-5-7, the SECOND LOCATION FIELD (506) has subuni t 1-5-6, while the THIRD to NINTH LOCATION FIELDS are blank. As the l o c a t i o n l i s t was compiled s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r Begion 1, a l l a . 0 . - s u b u n i t s are i m p l i c i t l y a ssigned t o fiegion 1. The l o c a t i o n name "North of Gold B i y e r " o r code "454" (Table I I ) cannot be assigned t o p a r t i c u l a r s u b u n i t s , although 29 the name a p p l i e s t o a l l subu n i t s i n M.U.s 1-9 and 1-11- T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by LOCATION CODE (454), LOCATION NAME ("North of Gold l i v e r " ) , TOTAL LOCATION FIELDS (2), PBIMABY LOCATION FIELDS (2) , and SECONDABI LOCATION FIELDS (0). The FIBST LOCATION FIELD (900) r e p r e s e n t s M.U- 1-9, the SECOND LOCATION FIELD (1100) c o n t a i n s M.0. 1-11, while a l l other l o c a t i o n f i e l d s are blank. The l o c a t i o n l i s t a l s o s p e c i f i e s the M.U- and su b u n i t f o r a l l towns and c i t i e s * For example i n T a b l e II# the l o c a t i o n name, " A l b e r n i " , r e f e r s t o f i v e M.U.-subunit p a i r s , yet the c i t y proper i s only i n one, subunit 1-7-3- Post o f f i c e l o c a t i o n s are only r e l e v a n t f o r town and c i t y l o c a t i o n names. Hhen the M-U.-subunit i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a hunt l o c a t i o n i s processed, the i n v e r s e o f the number of M.U.-subunits f o r t h a t l o c a t i o n i s the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the s p e c i f i e d l o c a t i o n was i n t h a t M.U.-subunit. For example, i f one deer was shot i n a l o c a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d by three M.U.-subunits (eg. "Adam l i v e r i n T a b l e I I ) , each M-U.-subunit would have o n e - t h i r d of a deer shot i n i t . I f d e s i r e d , primary and secondary l o c a t i o n s can be assigned d i f f e r e n t weightings t o emphasize l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y . For example, i f primary l o c a t i o n s are s u b j e c t i v e l y estimated to be twice as probable as secondary l o c a t i o n s , then f o r Adam B i v e r one-half of a deer would have been shot i n s u b u n i t 1-10-13 and one-quarter i n each of subun i t s 1-10-12 and 1-10-14. The l o c a t i o n l i s t i s not meant to p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e M.U.-su b u n i t s t h a t l o c a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t - Each harvested animal must have been shot w i t h i n one s u b u n i t , yet the da t a system may a l l o c a t e t h a t s u b u n i t a p r o b a b i l i t y of l e s s than one. However, 30 the l o c a t i o n l i s t does provide the best use of a v a i l a b l e l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n . The p r o b a b i l i t y method i s s u p e r i o r t o e i t h e r : 1) a s s i g n i n g l o c a t i o n s to only one M.O.-subunit (often t h a t cannot be done) or 2) using only data t h a t s p e c i f y M.O.s and s u b u n i t s ( t h i s would d i s r e g a r d most of the d a t a ) . The l o c a t i o n l i s t e f f i c i e n t l y handles l o c a t i o n c o d i n g because each l o c a t i o n name i s c o n s i d e r e d o n l y once. The l o c a t i o n l i s t f o r Begion 1 p r e s e n t l y c o n t a i n s about 1100 l o c a t i o n names, assumed t o be independent of time, and has been used t o process a l l Begion 1 data from 1953-75- New l o c a t i o n s can be added to the l i s t when f u t u r e hunter sample data a r e processed. The l o c a t i o n l i s t format can be g e n e r a l i z e d f o r other F i s h and W i l d l i f e r e g i o n s . 31 4,0 HUNTER QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLING SYSTEM 4,1 Hunter Sample E s t i m a t i o n Methods Hunter sample e s t i m a t e s are d e r i v e d by s c a l i n g r e p o r t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s of respondent a t t r i b u t e s t o compensate f o r non-respondents- In the past, e s t i m a t e s sere c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the r e p o r t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondent a t t r i b u t e s by the i n v e r s e o f the sampling i n t e n s i t y . For example, i f 10 deer were repo r t e d shot i n a management zone and 1/5 o f a l l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were sampled, an estimated 50 deer were shot. By assuming t h a t the r a t i o of the r e p o r t e d t o t o t a l a t t r i b u t e s i s the same as the r a t i o of respondents to the t o t a l number of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s , the f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s were used t o produce e s t i m a t e s . t o t a l a t t r i b u t e = t o t a l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e respondents and T o t a l a t t r i b u t e = t o t a l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s x repo r t e d a t t r i b u t e respondents L i c e n c e h o l d e r s were s t r a t i f i e d i n t o r e s i d e n t a r e a s and the t o t a l a t t r i b u t e s were estimated by summing the product o f the i n v e r s e s o f r e s i d e n t area sampling i n t e n s i t i e s with the sum of a l l r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e s f o r respondents from t h a t r e s i d e n t a r e a . T o t a l a t t r i b u t e = £ A i ^ X i j i j where A i = the i n v e r s e of sampling i n t e n s i t y f o r r e s i d e n t stratum i and X i j = the a t t r i b u t e f o r the j respondent from r e s i d e n t stratum i . To analyse the d a t a , the e n t i r e d a t a f i l e 32 had to be processed and both reported and estimated t a b l e s produced. The data system developed i n t h i s t h e s i s a l l o w s e s t i m a t e s t o be obtained d i r e c t l y , because the i n v e r s e sample i n t e n s i t i e s and other caseweighting v a r i a b l e s are b u i l t i n t o each data r e c o r d . Because m u l t i p l i c a t i o n i s d i s t r i b u t i v e with r e s p e c t to a d d i t i o n , estimated t o t a l s can be c a l c u l a t e d by Reported d i s t r i b u t i o n s need not be produced and data s u b s e t s can be analysed d i r e c t l y . T h i s e s t i m a t i o n method, based on response r a t e s , assumes t h a t the response r a t e s f o r nonhunters, u n s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s , and s u c c e s s f u l hunters are e q u a l . However, s u c c e s s f u l hunters may be more motivated to report k i l l s , while u n s u c c e s s f u l ones may be l e s s l i k e l y t o admit f a i l u r e , t h e r e f o r e t h i s assumption may not be v a l i d . I f the response p r o b a b i l i t i e s are not e q u a l , non-response b i a s e s , a r i s i n g from respondents not being r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the sampled p o p u l a t i o n , w i l l a f f e c t hunter sample e s t i m a t e s . In the past, methods f o r d e t e c t i n g those biases d i d not e x i s t and the sampling assumptions were simply d i s r e g a r d e d . Sampling caseweights, independant of hunter sample response r a t e s , can be developed f o r the i n t e g r a t e d data s e t s . For many years, b i o l o g i s t s have used mark-recapture methods (Petersen 1896) f o r e s t i m a t i n g f i s h and w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . The same techniques can be used to estimate game h a r v e s t s from f i e l d c o n t a c t s (marking phase) and q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n s (recapture A i X i j i 1 33 phase). Each f i e l d contacted hunter, whose licence number i s on the hunting licence f i l e , becomes a marked hunter. The questionnaire response or recapture rate for marked hunters can be used as the sampling caseweight. t o t a l a t t r i b u t e = marked hunter reported a t t r i b u t e marked hunter respondents or Total a t t r i b u t e = marked hunter x reported a t t r i b u t e marked hunter respondent or t o t a l a t t r i b u t e = B i X i j i j where Bi i s inverse of the marked hunter response rate for resident stratum i . This method assumes marked hunters are randomly di s t r i b u t e d with respect to management zones and the p r o b a b i l i t i e s of questionnaire response f o r marked and unmarked hunters are the same. Another method for using the mark-recapture data i s to s t r a t i f y hunters by t h e i r success. Estimates can be produced by Total a t t r = t o t a l a t t r (sue) + t o t a l attr(unsuc) where a t t r = a t t r i b u t e , sue = successful, and unsuc = unsuccessful. Total a t t r (sue) = marked sue hunters x reported attr (sue) marked sue hunter resp and t o t a l attr(unsuc) = marked unsuc hunters x reported attr(unsuc) marked unsuc hunter resp or Total a t t r i b u t e = <T ^ Ci(¥j)Xij i 1 where ¥j indicates the success of the j hunter and Ci (Yj) i s the 3 4 i n v e r s e of the response r a t e f o r s u c c e s s f u l or u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters. In a d d i t i o n t o the three methods (response, marked hunter, and marked success) f o r d e r i v i n g e s t i m a t e s from r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e s , a marked sample of k i l l s can be used to e s t i m a t e t o t a l h a r v e s t . Because t o t a l k i l l * marked k i l l r eported k i l l marked k i l l r eported the t o t a l k i l l can be estimated by T o t a l k i l l = marked kill,,,,. x reported k i l l marked k i l l r e p o r t e d or T o t a l k i l l = 2 D i Z i j i 1 where z i j i s the r e p o r t e d k i l l f o r the j respondent from r e s i d e n t s t r a t a i and D i i s the i n v e r s e of the r e c a p t u r e r a t e f o r marked k i l l s s h ot by hunters from r e s i d e n t s t r a t a i . T h i s method assumes marked animals are randomly d i s t r i b u t e d with r e s p e c t t o management zones, and the p r o b a b i l i t i e s of r e p o r t i n g are the same f o r marked and unmarked k i l l s . 4.2 Resident S t r a t a The sampling u n i v e r s e f o r the deer hunter sample i s a l l r e s i d e n t and s e n i o r c i t i z e n hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s . Since l i c e n c e h o l d e r s i n d i f f e r e n t areas of the p r o v i n c e have had d i f f e r e n t response p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n the p a s t , two l e v e l s o f r e s i d e n t s t r a t i f i c a t i o n were developed: (i) Region or r e s i d e n t area - Recent hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (1975- ) were s t r a t i f i e d by r e g i o n , while o l d e r 35 hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (1964-74) were p a r t i t i o n e d by r e s i d e n t a r e a . In some years, the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch based r e s i d e n t s t r a t a on where l i c e n c e h o l d e r s purchased t h e i r l i c e n c e s , while i n oth e r years, l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were c l a s s i f i e d by where they r e s i d e d . Although s t r a t i f i c a t i o n techniques and boundaries have been a l t e r e d , the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch uses these s t r a t i f i c a t i o n s t o produce e s t i m a t e s . The method assumes q u e s t i o n n a i r e response r a t e s are uniform w i t h i n r e g i o n s or r e s i d e n t a r e a s . ( i i ) H.O. or 8 . 0 . group - For Begion 1 (or r e s i d e n t area 1) the r e s i d e n t H.O. has been determined f o r a l l hunter sample years except 1972. I n 1975, r e s i d e n t fl.0.s were d e r i v e d from town names on the m a i l i n g addresses f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , while f o r o b s o l e t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with postmarks, the r e s i d e n t M.U.s were determined from post o f f i c e l o c a t i o n s . When the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch processed the 1968-1971 hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the p o r t i o n of the form with the postmark was removed. The r e s i d e n t M.O.s f o r those years were p r e d i c t e d from the hunted M.O.s, usinq a known d i s t r i b u t i o n of hunt M.U.s and r e s i d e n t M.O.s. For example, i f i n other years 45JS of hunters t h a t hunted i n both M.O. 1-5 and H.O. 1-4 r e s i d e d i n M.O. 1-5, then 45* of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with those hunt M.U.s were typed as r e s i d e n t M.O 1-5. When r e s i d e n t M.U.s had l e s s than 50 r e t u r n s , they were combined with a d j a c e n t r e s i d e n t M.U.s to give adequate sample s i z e s . I f necessary, r e s i d e n t M.U.s were u s u a l l y grouped as f o l l o w s : (i) r e s i d e n t M.O.s 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3, 36 ( i i ) r e s i d e n t M.U. 1 - 4 , ( i i i ) r e s i d e n t M.U. 1 - 5 , (iv) r e s i d e n t M.U. 1 - 6 , (v) r e s i d e n t M.U.s 1 - 7 , a n d 1 - 8 , (vi) r e s i d e n t M.U.s 1 - 9 , 1 - 1 1 , 1 - 1 2 , and 1 - 1 3 , and ( v i i ) r e s i d e n t M.U.s 1 - 1 0 , 1 - 1 4 , and 1 - 1 5 . The M.U. or M.U. group s t r a t i f i c a t i o n assuaes t h a t q u e s t i o n n a i r e response r a t e s are uniform w i t h i n M.U.s or M.U. groups. 4 . 3 M a i l i n g Scheme In 1 9 7 5 , deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed to approximately 2 0 % of r e s i d e n t hunters i n the p r o v i n c e ( e x c l u d i n g Begion 1 ) , while n e a r l y 1 0 0 S of Vancouver I s l a n d l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were sampled and non-respondents resampled. Three methods were used f o r t r e a t i n g m a i l i n g response stage (Table I I I ) : (i) F i r s t m a i l i n g only - Only those q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d d u r i n g the f i r s t m a i l i n g are analysed and those respondents are assumed t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a l l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s . T h i s sampling scheme i s the only a v a i l a b l e method f o r a n a l y s i n g p r o v i n c i a l hunter sample data ( 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 7 5 ) and Begion 1 data from 1 9 6 4 - 7 4 . The response caseweights f o r the f i r s t m a i l i n g r e t u r n s are g r e a t e r than 1 . 0 , while f o r years with second m a i l i n g data (since 1 9 7 5 ) , the corresponding second m a i l i n g caseweights are 0 . 0 . I f N i s the sampling population i n a g i v e n r e s i d e n t s t r a t a , N1 and N2 are the number of respondents to the f i r s t and second m a i l i n g (N 1 • N2 < N), and X (N) i s some measurable a t t r i b u t e f o r 37 Table III Sampling caseseight formulas for resident strata and mailing scheme Mailing Scheme Resident Strata , F i r s t Both Phase Sr Nr cwt1= cwt1=cwt2= cwt1= 1-0 Nr1 Nr1+Nr2 Region or Besident Nr-Nr1 Area cat2= 0.0 cwt2= Nr2 Nm Nm cwt1= cwt1=cwt2= cwt1= 1-0 Nm1 Nra1*Nm2 M-U. or M.U. group ' Nm-Nm1 cwt 2= 0.0 c»t2= Nm2 cwt{i) = sampling caseweight for mailing i Na = t o t a l sampling population for resident s t r a t a a Nai = t o t a l respondents f o r mailing i from resident s t r a t a a r - Region or Resident Area m = M.U. or M.U. group 38 every i n d i v i d u a l i n N , then the mean (u) and t o t a l (!) f o r the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n are hy d e f i n i t i o n ; N u = x i N i=1 and T = Nu I f only the f i r s t m a i l i n g i s used, the best e s t i m a t e of u acc o r d i n g to the maximum l i k e l i h o o d theorem i s A Ni N2 u - S"* X i i + 0-0 x < " x 2 i NT N2 i=1 i=1 and the estimated t o t a l would be N1 N2 A T = N x X i i • 0.0 x X2i N"I ^ i=1 i=1 The s c a l a r ( N / N l ) i s used to c a l c u l a t e e s t i m a t e s from the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e s f o r the f i r s t m a i l i n g . ( i i ) Both B a i l i n g s - The r e t u r n s f o r both m a i l i n g s are combined and assumed to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a l l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s * T h i s m a i l i n g scheme can o n l y be a p p l i e d t o 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample. The sampling caseweights f o r the f i r s t and second m a i l i n g s are g r e a t e r than 1.0 and egual.. I f both m a i l i n g s are used the b e s t estimate o f u i s A N1 N2 - u 3 8 X1i + ST" X21 —W* N1 + N2 N1 + N2 i=1 i=1 and the estimated t o t a l f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s would be A. (1 H2 T = N X ^ X1i + N x <^ X2i 8.1*0*2 ^ N1 + N2 i=1 i=1 The s c a l a r (N/N1+N2) i s used t o c a l c u l a t e e s t i m a t e s from the re p o r t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of a t t r i b u t e s from both m a i l i n g s combined. 39 ( i i i ) Phase flailing - Non-response b i a s i s a major f a c t o r i n a l l m a i l i n g surveys, because when the sampling i n t e n s i t y i s l e s s than 10051, the respondents may not be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n - One method of reducing t h i s b i a s (Bartholomew,1961) i s to c o n s i d e r the sampling p o p u l a t i o n as two d i s t i n c t p o p u l a t i o n s : people who v o l u n t a r i l y respond to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and those who do not. I f the non-response b i a s a r i s e s p r i m a r l y because f i r s t m a i l i n g respondents are not t y p i c a l of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n , t r e a t i n g the data m a i l i n g s e p a r a t e l y can remove most o f t h e b i a s . Osing Bartholomew*s method, f i r s t m a i l i n g respondents a r e sampled 100X, while second m a i l i n g respondents r e p r e s e n t the nonsampled p o p u l a t i o n . The sampling caseweights f o r f i r s t m a i l i n g r e t u r n s are 1.0, while those f o r the second a r e g r e a t e r than 1.0. A N1 N2 U = NJ X N i=1 i=1 AM « M *» • <Z~" X U + N -N1 x <^ 121 4 BI N N 2 and the estimated t o t a l f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s would be A N1 N2 T ~ 1.0 x <C X11 • H-N1 x <^ X2i ^ N2 «^-» i= 1 i=1 The s c a l a r (1.0) i s used to c a l c u l a t e e s t i m a t e s from the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f i r s t m a i l i n g response, while t h e s c a l a r ((N-»1)/N2) i s a p p l i e d to second m a i l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s . 40 5 . 0 FILE FOEMAT The data f i l e s have h i e r a r c h i c a l structures, because data elements apply to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of data c o l l e c t i o n . The f i r s t l e v e l , general information , indicates how, where, and when the data were obtained. Within each general information type, there are many records containing the second l e v e l , person information , which describe the person contacted or responding. In turn each person has a variable number of hunt locations - contacts . F i n a l l y each location or contact can have a number of k i l l s This h i e r a r c h i c a l structure was preserved i n the data f i l e s to allow analyses for each l e v e l without reformatting data f i l e s . In addition to the l e v e l s , the f i l e also contains marked data , s e n t i n e l variables , and sampling caseweights . The marked data cross-reference other data sources. For example, the marked data for the hunter sample data f i l e s r e f e r s to the f i e l d contact data f i l e , and visa versa. Sentinel variables are used to se l e c t appropriate case structures, and to provide the record weightings f o r analysis, while sampling caseweight variables are sampling scalars for hunter sample data. The following sections describe.in general terms the data elements i n each information l e v e l . Details on variable codes and a v a i l a b i l i t y are presented i n Appendices 1.0 to 1 - ? . Examples of data storage are contained i n Appendix 1.8. 4 1 5- 1 General Information General i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n s data elements t h a t d e s c r i b e how, where, and when the data were o b t a i n e d . For both hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data, the SPECIES, TEAS, and DATA SODfiCE are s p e c i f i e d . For hunter sample the HUNTER STATUS or response, type, SAILING PHASE of the response, and DATA STATUS are used. The DATA STATUS f i e l d i n d i c a t e s whether the data was recoded from o b s o l e t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (1964-74), taken from F i s h and W i l d l i f e data f i l e s (1974), o r generated by the data system t o r e p l a c e missing or destroyed d a t a . For a l l f i e l d c o n t a c t data, the CONTACT BEGION and c o n t a c t date, c o n s i s t i n g of CONTACT DAI, CONTACT MONTH, CONTACT DAI OF YEAS, CONTACT WEEK OF SEASON, CONTACT DAY OF WEEK, and CONTACT SEASON TYPE , a r e s p e c i f i e d . For C o n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r p a t r o l s the CONTACT DISTBICT, CONTACT OFFICES, and CONTACT TIME are p r o v i d e d . When the f i e l d c o n t a c t data were c o l l e c t e d a t game checks, the STATION NUMBEB, CONTACT M. 0., and CONTACT SUBUNIT, as w e l l as the l e n g t h o f the check (CHECK STABT and CHECK FINISHED), are recorded., 5.2 Person I n f o r m a t i o n Person i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e s the person c o n t a c t e d or sampled. I n most ca s e s , the data r e p r e s e n t bunters, although i n f o r m a t i o n f o r non-hunters, non-contacts, and non-respondents i s saved on hunter sample f i l e s . An IDENTIFICATION NUMBEB i s used f o r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e respondent. , The HUNTING LICENCE NUMBER i s a v a i l a b l e on data c o l l e c t e d s i n c e 1975. For f i e l d c o n t a c t data the place o f r e s i d e n t of each 42 c o n t a c t e d hunter i s d e s c r i b e d by BESIDENT REGION, BESIDENT LOCATION CODE, RESIDENT H.O., and BESIDENT SUBUNIT, i f t h e hunter's LICENCE NOMEEB was c o n t a i n e d on the hunter l i c e n c e f i l e . For 1964-67 and 1973-74 hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s the postmark on returned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was used to i n f e r t h e BESIDENT BEGION, BESIDENT M.O., and BESIDENT SUBUNIT. For q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from 1968-71 the postmark was u n a v a i l a b l e so the BESIDENT REGION was assumed to be the same as the BESIDENT ABEA and the BESIDENT M.U. was determined from hunt l o c a t i o n s (see s e c t i o n 4. 2) . SOB-BE SI DENT ABBA has been used by the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch s i n c e 1975. Hunting l i c e n c e data i s a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l data c o l l e c t e d s i n c e 1975. The date of l i c e n c e purchase, d e s c r i b e d by LICENCE DAI, LICENCE MONTH, and LICENCE DAI OF YEAS, i n d i c a t e s when the l i c e n c e h o l d e r was a u t h o r i z e d to hunt. The BIBTHDAY, BIBTH MONTH, BIBTH YEAR, AGE, SEX, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, and PBEVIOUS HUNTING EXPERIENCE are a l s o a v a i l a b l e . The MINIMUM SEASON KILL data f i e l d i s not used a t p r e s e n t . F i e l d c o n t a c t data c o l l e c t e d s i n c e 1976, has recorded the number of k i l l s made by each contacted hunter p r i o r t o the check date. Summaries f o r the e n t i r e season, c o n s i s t i n g of TOTAL SEASON EFFOBT, TOTAL SEASON KILL, TOTAL SEASON BOCK KILL, TOTAL SEASON DOE KILL, and TOTAL SEASON FAWN KILL, were compiled f o r each hunter. 4 3 5.3 Hunt L o c a t i o n - c o n t a c t Hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data sources have d i f f e r e n t case s t r u c t u r e s , because f i e l d c o n t a c t data can have s e v e r a l c o n t a c t s r e c o r d e d f o r the same l o c a t i o n . T herefore hunter sample data have v a r i a b l e s which are recor d e d and summarized by hunt l o c a t i o n , while f i e l d c o n t a c t data have v a r i a b l e s by c o n t a c t . L o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s on o l d game check sheets and o l d hunter sample forms were t r a n s c r i b e d i n t o LOCATION CODES when that i n f o r m a t i o n was recoded. LOCATION CODES f o r r e c e n t (1975- ) hunter sample data were d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y from hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s . The v a r i a b l e s HUNT BEGION, HUNT H. U. , HUNT M.A. , and HUNT SUBUNIT were u s u a l l y determined from the l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with each LOCATION CODE. The TOTAL LOCATION EFFOBT, TOTAL LOCATION KILL, TOTAL LOCATION BUCK KILL, TOTAL LOCATION DOE KILL, and TOTAL LOCATION FAWN KILL were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each l o c a t i o n or c o n t a c t . HUNT METHOD and PBEVIOUS KILL w i l l be used i n f u t u r e sampling programs. 5.4 K i l l Data The type of each k i l l i s i n d i c a t e d by KILL SUBSPECIES, KILL SEX, KILL AGE TYPE (fawn o r a d u l t ) , and KILL ANTLEB TYPE, while f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data and i n t e g r a t e d hunter sample data the AGE, ANTLEB POINTS, and SPECIMEN NUMBEB are a l s o a v a i l a b l e . The date o f k i l l when a v a i l a b l e i s presented as KILL DAY, KILL MONTH, KILL DAY OF YEAB, KILL WEEK OF SEASON, KILL DAY OF WEEK, and KILL SEASON TYPE. 4 4 5-5 Marked Data C r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was exchanged between 1975 hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e and 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t data. For hunters with t h e same IDENTIFICATION NQMBEBS the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were s p e c i f i e d : MASKED HONTEB, MASKED LOCATION, and MASKED KILL. For marked hunters, the MAILING PHASE o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was added t o game check r e c o r d s , while the CONTACT M.O.-SOBONIT was w r i t t e n on the corresponding hunter sample r e c o r d s . Season summaries, MASKED TOTAL KILL, MASKED BOCK KILL, MASKED DOE KILL, and MASKED FAWN KILL, were exchanged between f i l e s . 5.6 S e n t i n e l V a r i a b l e s The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s are used to s e l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e s f o r data a n a l y s e s : HONTEB SENTINEL, LOCATION-CONTACT SENTINEL, LOCATION FIELD SENTINEL, LOCATION-CONTACTS/HONTEB, LOCATION FIELD TYPE, TOTAL LOCATION FIELDS, PBIMABI LOCATION FIELDS, SECONDABY LOCATION FIELDS, M.O. SENTINEL, TOTAL M.O.S, M.O. GBOUPING, and BEPLICATES. (see s e c t i o n 7). 5.7 Sampling Caseweights Each data r e c o r d i n the hunter sample f i l e s has sampling caseweights to allow hunter sample es t i m a t e s to be c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y . The f o u r types of sampling caseweights (response, marked hunter, marked hunter s u c c e s s , and marked a n i m a l s ) , the t h r e e m a i l i n g treatments ( f i r s t m a i l i n g o n l y , both m a i l i n g s , and phase m a i l i n g ) , and the two l e v e l s of r e s i d e n t s t r a t a (region and M.O.), combine to g i v e 24 d i f f e r e n t sampling caseweights. 45 Two other caseweights, one combining response caseweights t o f a c i l i t a t e comparisons between r e g i o n s , and one based on l i c e n c e s a l e s data, provide a t o t a l of 26 d i f f e r e n t sampling caseweights. D e s c r i p t i o n s , formulae, and underlying assumptions f o r each sampling caseweight are presented i n Table I V and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of those caseweights i s presented i n Appendix 1 . 7 . 46 Table IV Hunter sample caseweights showing formulas and sampling assumptions. Caseweight name Formula Assumptions CWT 1 Response - " b e s t " caseweight The f i r s t a v a i l a b l e on the f o l l o w i n g l i s t ; {CWT 8, CWT 4, CWT .3, CWT 2) -see caseweight number f o r assumptions CWT 2 Response - l i c e n c e s a l e s caseweight l i c e n c e s a l e s j g e g i . 1st m a i l resp (Reg) -response r a t e s are the same f o r hol d e r s - l i c e n c e h o l d e r s r e s i d e where l i c e n c e s -Regions have uniform resp r a t e s — 1 s t m a i l i n g respondents are l i c e n c e h o l d e r s CWT 3 Response - 1st m a i l i n g r e g i o n caseweight l i e hold(Reg) 1st mail resp (Reg) -response r a t e s are t h e same f o r a l l types h o l d e r s -Begions have uniform response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g respondents are t y p i c a l of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s CWT 4 Response - 1st m a i l i n g M.D. caseweight l i e hold(MU) 1st m a i l resp(MU) -response r a t e s are the same f o r a l l types of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s -MUs have uniform response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g respondents are t y p i c a l of unsampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s a l l t y p e s of l i c e n c e they purchase t h e i r t y p i c a l of unsample of l i c e n c e unsampled 47 CWT 5 Response - Both m a i l i n g s Begion c a s e w e i g h t l i e hold(Beg) 1 s t m a i l r e s p (Reg) * 2nd m a i l r e s p (Reg) -re s p o n s e r a t e s are the same f o r a l l t y p e s of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m response r a t e s - t o t a l r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l of unsampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s CWT 6 Response - Both m a i l i n g s MU c a s e w e i g h t l i e h o l d (MU) 1st m a i l resp(MU) + 2nd m a i l resp(MU) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s ' a r e t h e same f o r a l l t y p e s of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s -MUs have u n i f o r m r e s p o n s e r a t e s - t o t a l r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s CWT 7 Besponse - Phase m a i l i n g Region c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l cwt = 1.0 2nd m a i l cwt = l i e h o l d f a e q ) - 1st m a i l resp (Beg) 2nd m a i l r e s p (Reg) -response r a t e s a re the same f o r a l l t y p e s of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s -Regions have u n i f o r m r e s p o n s e r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l o f unsampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s CWT 8 Besponse - Phase m a i l MU c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l cwt =1.0 2nd m a i l cwt = l i e hold(MUi - 1 s t m a i l resp(MU) 2nd m a i l resp(MU) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s a r e t h e same f o r a l l t y p e s of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s -MUs have u n i f o r m response r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l o f unsampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s 48 CWT 9 Marked hu n t e r - F i r s t m a i l i n g Begion c a s e w e i g h t mark hunt(Beg) 1st m a i l mark hunt r e s p (Beg) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s are t h e same f o r a l l t y p e s o f h u n t e r s - R e g i o n s have uniform h u n t e r response r a t e s . - 1 s t m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled.hunters -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same response r a t e s CWT 10 Marked h u n t e r - F i r s t m a i l i n g MO caseweight mark_hr^tiMUJL_ 1 s t m a i l mark hunt resp(MU) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s a r e the same f o r a l l t y p e s of h u n t e r s -MUs have u n i f o r m hunter response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 11 Marked hunter - Both m a i l i n g s Begion c a s e w e i g h t ; mark hunt (Beg)  1st m a i l mark hunt r e s p (Beg) + 2nd m a i l mark hunt r e s p (Beg) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s are the same f o r a l l t y p e s of h u n t e r s - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s - t o t a l h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l of unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have t h e same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 12 Marked hunter - Both m a i l i n g s MU caseweight mark hunt(MU) 1 s t m a i l mark hunt resp(MU) * 2nd m a i l mark hunt r e s p (MU) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s are the same f o r a l l t y p e s of h u n t e r s -MUs have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s - t o t a l h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l of unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s 49 CWT 13 Marked h u n t e r - Phase m a i l i n g Region c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l cwt = 1.0 2nd m a i l cwt = mark hunt (Reg) - . 1 s t m a i l mark hunt resp(Reg) 2nd m a i l mark hunt resp(Reg) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s a r e the same f o r a l l t y p e s of h u n t e r s - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 14 Marked hunter - Phase m a i l i n g MU c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l cwt = 1.0 2nd m a i l cwt = mark hunt(MP) - , 1 s t . m a i l mark hunt resp(MO) 2nd m a i l mark hunt r e s p (MO) - r e s p o n s e r a t e s a r e the same f o r a l l t y p e s of h u n t e r s -MUs have u n i f o r m h u n t e r r e s p o n s e r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 15 Marked s u c c e s s - F i r s t m a i l i n g Region c a s e w e i g h t unsuc cwt = mark unsuc(Reg) 1st m a i l unsuc r e s p (Reg) sue cwt = mark sue (Reg) 1st m a i l mark sue r e s p (Reg) - R e g i o n s have uniform h u n t e r response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same response r a t e s 50 CWT 16 Marked s u c c e s s - f i r s t m a i l i n g MU c a s e w e i g h t unsuc cwt = mark unsuc(MU) 1st m a i l uinsuc resp(MU) sue cwt = mark sue (MU) 1st m a i l mark sue resp(MU) -MUs have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same re s p o n s e r a t e s CIT 17 Marked s u c c e s s - Both m a i l i n g s Begion c a s e w e i g h t unsuc cwt = mark unsuc (Reg) 1st m a i l mark unsuc r e s p (Reg) * 2nd m a i l mark unsuc resp(Reg) sue cwt = mark sue (Reg) 1st m a i l mark sue r e s p (Beg) + 2nd m a i l mark sue r e s p (Beg) - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s - t o t a l h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l of unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 18 Marked s u c c e s s - Both m a i l i n g s MO c a s e w e i g h t unsuc cwt = mark unsuc (MU) 1st m a i l mark unsuc resp(MU) + 2nd m a i l mark unsuc r e s p (MU) sue cwt = mark suc(MU) 1st m a i l mark sue resp(MU) + 2nd m a i l mark sue r e s p (MU) & -MUs have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s - t o t a l h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t y p i c a l of unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have t h e same re s p o n s e r a t e s 5 1 CWT 19 Marked s u c c e s s — Phase m a i l i n g l e g i o n c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l unsuc cwt = 1.0 1st m a i l sue cwt = 1.0 2nd m a i l unsuc cwt = .mark unsucjggg), .,.z„.J,§t m a i l mark unsuc r e s p (Reg) 2nd m a i l mark unsuc resp(Reg) 2nd m a i l sue cwt = mark unsuc (Reg) - 1 s t m a i l mark sue resp(Reg) 2nd m a i l mark sue resp(Reg) - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s " have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 20 Marked s u c c e s s - Phase m a i l MO c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l unsuc cwt = 1.0 1st m a i l sue cwt =1.0 2nd m a i l unsuc cwt = mark unsuc {MO). 1st ..mail mark unsuc (MU) 2nd m a i l mark unsuc resp(MU) 2nd m a i l sue cwt = mark sue (MO) - 1st m a i l mark sue resp(MU) • 2nd m a i l mark sue r e s p (MO) -MUs have u n i f o r m h u n t e r response r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g h u n t e r r e s p o n d e n t s are t y p i c a l o f unsampled h u n t e r s -marked and unmarked h u n t e r s have the same r e s p o n s e r a t e s CWT 21 Marked a n i m a l - F i r s t m a i l i n g Region c a s e w e i g h t ; mark anim 1st m a i l mark anim r e t (Reg) - r e p o r t i n g r a t e i s the same f o r a l l t y p e s of k i l l s - R e g i o n s have uniform response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g k i l l i s t y p i c a l o f unsampled k i l l s -marked and unmarked k i l l s have t h e same r e p o r t i n g r a t e s 5 2 CIT 22 Marked a n i m a l - f i r s t m a i l i n g MU caseweight mark anim(MU) 1st m a i l mark anim ret(MU) - r e p o r t i n g r a t e i s the same f o r a l l t y p e s o f k i l l s -MUs have u n i f o r m response r a t e s - 1 s t m a i l i n g k i l l i s t y p i c a l o f unsampled k i l l s -marked and unmarked k i l l s have the same r e p o r t i n g r a t e s CWT 23 Marked a n i m a l - Both m a i l i n g s Region c a s e w e i g h t mark anim ( l e g ) 1st m a i l mark anim r e t ( R e g ) + 2nd m a i l mark anim r e t ( R e g ) - r e p o r t i n g r a t e i s the same f o r a l l t y p e s of k i l l s - R e g i o n s have u n i f o r m response r a t e s - t o t a l r e p o r t e d k i l l i s t y p i c a l o f unsampled k i l l s -marked and unmarked k i l l s have the same r e p o r t i n g r a t e s CWT 24 Marked a n i m a l - Both m a i l MU c a s e w e i g h t mark anim(MU) 1st m a i l mark anim ret(MU) + 2nd m a i l mark anim r e t (MU) - r e p o r t i n g r a t e i s the same f o r a l l t y p e s of k i l l s -MUs have u n i f o r m response r a t e s - t o t a l r e p o r t e d k i l l i s t y p i c a l o f unsampled k i l l s -marked and unmarked k i l l s have the same r e p o r t i n g r a t e s CWT 25 Marked a n i m a l - Phase m a i l Region c a s e w e i g h t 1st m a i l cwt = 1.0 2nd m a i l cwt = mark anim (Reg) - 1st m a i l mark anim r e t ( R e g ) 2nd m a i l mark anim r e t ( R e g ) - r e p o r t i n g r a t e i s the same f o r a l l t y p e s of k i l l s - R e g i o n s have uniform response r a t e s -2nd m a i l i n g r e p o r t e d k i l l i s t y p i c a l of unsampled k i l l s -marked and unmarked k i l l s have the same r e p o r t i n g r a t e s CWT 26 Harked animal - Phase mail MU caseweight 1st mail cwt =1.0 2nd mail cwt = mark anim jMU) ni - , 1st mail .mark anim ret(MU) 2nd mail mark anim ret(KU) -reporting rate i s the same f o r a l l types of k i l l s -MUs have uniform response rates -2nd mailing reported k i l l i s t y p i c a l of unsampled -marked and unmarked k i l l s have the same reporting k i l l s rates C W T l i e hold resp Beg mark hunt mark unsuc mark sue mark anim r e t caseweight number licence holders respondents Region marked hunters marked unsuccessful hunters marked successful hunters marked animal return 54 6.0 FILE DEVELOPMENT Data are s t o r e d i n a c o i a o n format to f a c i l i t a t e i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l - Input data from a vide v a r i e t y of so u r c e s were e d i t e d , i n t e g r a t e d , and s t o r e d i n s p e c i e s s p e c i f i c f i l e s f o r each sampling year. The programs d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s may be e i t h e r : 1) ob s o l e t e (processed o b s o l e t e data and are no longer maintained), 2) o p e r a t i o n a l (process c u r r e n t d a t a ) , or 3) proposed ( w i l l process f u t u r e data sources not p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e ) . The programs are grouped i n t o f i v e subsystems that are d e s c r i b e d i n general terms i n s e c t i o n s 6- 1 to 6-5- D e t a i l e d documentation i s presented i n Appendices 3.0 to 3.7. 6.1 Hunting L i c e n c e Subsystem The hunting l i c e n c e subsystem t r a n s c r i b e s keypunched hunting l i c e n c e data i n t o a s t a n d a r d i z e d format so l i c e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n can be added t o recent (1975 - ) hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data f i l e s (Figure 5 ) . Input data are e d i t e d and a l l town names i n the m a i l i n g addresses of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s are assigned l o c a t i o n codes. The r e g i o n , H.O., and s u b u n i t are then added t o each l o c a t i o n code. A summary of the d i s t r i b u t i o n l i c e n c e h o l d e r s with r e s p e c t to r e s i d e n t H-U. and government agency i s a l s o p r o v i d e d . 55 Figure 5 Flowchart f o r computer programs i n hunter l i c e n c e subsystem. Dark l i n e s i n d i c a t e o p e r a t i o n a l or proposed pathways. H U N T I N G L I C E N C E F L O W C H A R T ON 57 6.2 Game Check Subsystem The game check subsystem processes a l l forms of f i e l d c o n t a c t data c o l l e c t e d by Region 1 s i n c e 1953 (Figure 6 ) . Hajor sources o f data i n c l u d e Region 1 road checks (1953-75), Northwest Bay game check (1954-75), C o n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r p a t r o l s (1975), and access summaries (19 53-75). The i n p u t data are e d i t e d and summarized by year.. Harvest t o t a l s and a g e - c l a s s s t r u c t u r e s are compared t o acc e s s r e p o r t s t o ensure t h a t a l l data have been c o r r e c t l y recorded. A l l hunt l o c a t i o n s are assigned M.U.s and s u b u n i t s by using the l o c a t i o n code on the l o c a t i o n l i s t . I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n hunt l o c a t i o n s , hunt M.U., and game check areas are noted and a l l c o n f l i c t s must be r e s o l v e d . Game check data f i l e s are c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d to the hunter sample f i l e s and f i n a l l y transformed i n t o the master f i l e format. 6.3 Old Hunter Sample Subsystem The o l d hunter sample subsystem processed and r e c r e a t e d hunter sample data c o l l e c t e d by the F i s h and B i l d l i f e Branch between 1764 and 1974 (Figure 7 ) . A l l a v a i l a b l e o b s o l e t e Region 1 deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were manually t r a n s c r i b e d onto ; computer coding sheets. That data was summarized by the computer and compared to the pu b l i s h e d B. C. Hunter Sample Analyses. The subsystem s u b t r a c t e d the recoded summaries from the t o t a l summaries and generated data r e c o r d s which would mimic the missing data r e c o r d s . A l l hunt l o c a t i o n s were assigned t o M.U.s and. s u b u n i t s . Sampling i n t e n s i t i e s were c a l c u l a t e d and master f i l e s f o r each year were produced. 58 Figure 6 Flowchart f o r computer programs i n game check subsystem. Dark l i n e s i n d i c a t e o p e r a t i o n a l or proposed pathways. G A M E C H E C K F L O W C H A R T part 1 old NWB game check data G-2 recent NWB check game data G-3 EN1( ^ \ 1 9 7 5 f i e l d contact * data LNWBOLD LVIOLIJ >LNWB74 L EVI75 hunter season records „ , G-6 LNWB LVI75 MODCONT L GEDIT KILLNUM FAWNTEST £ standard game check f i l e G-11 IT ECONT GAMEID access summaries-deer type G - 9 •LACCESS + (TACCESS L_ access summaries-age-class G - 1 0 ->GACCESS + (TACCESS licence f i l e L - 5 0 standard game check f i l e G _ n T A G A M E C H E C K F L O W C H A R T par t 2 A hunter season records G-11 1 -AGLOC G-11 see MATCH subsystem SLOAD game check l i s t S-1 location l i s t S-1 SEPSEAS season dates S-2 G-11 T A G S U B < -G-11 f i e l d contact data G-11 I AGLOC _ 4 _ G-11 see MATCH subsystem ON o 6 1 F i g u r e 7 Flowchart f o r computer programs i n o l d hunter sample subsystem. O L D H U N T E R S A M P L E F L O W C H A R T p a r t 1 SDIT recoded hunter sample data 0-1 Fish and W i l d l i f e M.A. data f i l e 0-2 MODHSOLD i n i t i a l f i l e 0-4 — L Z = M0DHS74 >, i n i t i a l f i l e 0-4 I MERGEHS74 recoded data 0-4 •—r~ ACTSUM actual data un ~* F SUBSUM hunter sample published data 0-3 TOTSUM t o t a l data un '— missing data un ISOSUM l MANSUM COPY GENERATE £_ generated data 0 -4 ON ro ZsABDRESMU^-CRHSPOST < 0-5 1 OLDHSLIN —k 0-10 T OLDAHSSUB ^-i t — 0-10 —I— OLDAHSLOC 1 0-10 O L D H U N T E R S A M P L E F L O W C H A R T par t 2 location l i s t S-1 •^ f postmark d i s t SAMPRATE ADDPC0DE ! location l i s t S-1 HSSAMP Ni/ l i e holder summary 0-9 CALSAMP ^ caseweightsO-9 1> ^.OLDHSLOAD <-z_ * 1975 govt agency res M.U. d i s t 0-6 Region 1 govt agency licence sales ' 0-7 province govt agency licence sales 0-8 season dates S-2 .master data f i l e M-1 ON 64 6.4 Hunter Sample Subsystem The hunter sample subsystem processes r e c e n t {since 1975) hunter sample data (Figure 8 ) . The i n p u t f i l e s a re e d i t e d and t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o a standard f i l e format. A computer program then t r a n s l a t e s a l l a b b r e v i a t i o n s i n hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s i n t o f u l l word names i n a s t a n d a r d i z e d format. Next the l o c a t i o n s d e s c r i p t i o n s a re assig n e d l o c a t i o n codes by comparing the d e s c r i p t i o n s to l o c a t i o n names on the l o c a t i o n l i s t . Hunter sample f i l e s are c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e d t o the corresponding f i e l d c o n t a c t f i l e s . Sampling i n t e n s i t i e s a re then c a l c u l a t e d and a master f i l e i s produced. 6.5 Harked Subsystem The marked subsystem i n t e g r a t e s r e c e n t (1975 - ) f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample data by exchanging data between the two f i l e s (Figure 9 ). Records with the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers on the complementary f i l e s are s e l e c t e d and a l l marked v a r i a b l e s are c a l c u l a t e d o r as s i g n e d . A summary of the number o f marked hunters and respondents by success i s produced so t h a t sampling caseweights can be c a l c u l a t e d . 65 F i g u r e 8 Flowchart f o r computer programs i n hunter sample subsystem. Dark l i n e s i n d i c a t e o p e r a t i o n a l o r proposed pathways. H U N T E R S A M P L E F L O W C H A R T par t 1 DEDIT75 keypunched 1975 hunter data ^ ^  keypunched 1975 non hunter data H-2 licence f i l e L-5 DEDIT UIHS75 U keypunched . -hunter data TRANSHS H-3 Winter data H-5 3LJL non hunter data H-5 "DEJBUF H-5 .HSRES H-5 licence f i l e L-5^HSRES H-5 licence f i l e L-5 i l e L-5L^Z^SUM" H-5 J—c DNHED|J keypunched non hunter data H-4 TRANSHS H U N T E R S A M P L E F L O W C H A R T p a r t 2 B C D abbrev l i s t S-3 A r • CHANLOC i H-5 [location ILst S-1 CODELOC i coded Iocs H-6 llocation l i s t S-1 .AHSSUB ^ _ J _ H-6 T AHSLOC H-6 X 1 uncoded Iocs H-5 FILE EDITOR see MATCH subsystem I HSLOAD I I J response f i l e H-7 SAMPINT ^ caseweights H-8 licence f i l e L-5 season dates S-2 MA-MU f i l e S-4 master data f i l e M-1 MISCLOAD 5 68 Figure 9 Flowchart f o r computer programs i n marked subsystem. Dark l i n e s i n d i c a t e o p e r a t i o n a l or proposed pathways. M A R K E D F L O W C H A R T par t 1 from GAME CHECK subsystem from GAME CHECK subsystem from HUNTER SAMPLE subsystem I hunter season records G-11 | ^ v A B C I game no match G-11 I hunter sample data 4 —1 game match hs no match G-11 H - 5 I 11 - J I I game hs marked marked G-11 H - 5 D H-5 is ma H - 5 M A R K E D F L O W C H A R T par t 2 A B C D h seas no match G-11 f i e l d hunter contact season data records G-11 G-11 to GAME CHECK subsystem MATCH llli h seas match G-11 hs match H - 5 hunt seas marked G-11 I f SMARK J L H-5 MARKSDM • * hs no match H-5 hunter sample data H-5 to HUNTER SAMPLE subsystem 7 1 ' 2s& INFORMATIONBBTBIE?AL The f i l e s t r u c t u r e d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 5.0 and Appendix 1 allows g u i c k , f l e x i b l e , and e f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l -Host data needs of w i l d l i f e management can be obtained by d i r e c t l y a c c e s s i n g p a r t s o f , o r the e n t i r e data base with standard i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l packages. The f i l e s t r u c t u r e removes the need t o compose s p e c i f i c s i n g l e purpose computer programs t o answer w i l d l i f e management r e q u e s t s . 7.1 L o g i c of R e t r i e v a l The h i e r a r c h i c a l f i l e s t r u c t u r e s t o r e s g e n e r a l , h u n t e r , hunt l o c a t i o n , k i l l , c r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g , summary, s e n t i n e l and sampling v a r i a b l e s on the same data r e c o r d . Bhen the s t o r e d data are analysed, the a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e and r e c o r d weights must be s e l e c t e d and developed. Although the f i l e s t r u c t u r e i s more complicated than c o n v e n t i o n a l data f i l e s , the complexity a l l o w s g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l . The f o l l o w i n g steps mast be completed to r e t r i e v e i n f o r m a t i o n from the data base: 1) PROBLEM DEFINITION: As i n a l l a n a l y s e s , the purpose o f the a n a l y s i s must be c a r e f u l l y d e f i n e d . The a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e and the r e q u i r e d system v a r i a b l e s must be s p e c i f i e d . 2) ASSUMPTIONS: The f l e x i b i l i t y o f the data base a l l o w s d i f f e r e n t assumptions about data u n i f o r m i t y and treatment to be made. For hunter sample da t a , d i f f e r e n t combinations of m a i l i n g schemes, r e s i d e n t area s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and e s t i m a t i o n methods can be chosen. The primary and secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s permit 72 s e v e r a l ways t o determine M.U.s and s u b u n i t s from hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s . The assumptions u n d e r l y i n g t h e u s e of these and other procedures must be e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d . 3) SELECT APPROPRIATE CASE STRUCTURE: D i f f e r e n t t y pes of analyses r e g u i r e d i f f e r e n t types of case s t r u c t u r e s . Four v a r i a b l e s , HUNTER SENTINEL,.. LOCATION-CONTACT SENTINEL, LOCATION FIELD SENTINEL and M.U. SENTINEL are used t o s e l e c t the a p p r o p r i a t e data r e c o r d s from the data f i l e (see s e c t i o n 5.6). For example, i f a f i l e with a l l respondents t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s r e q u i r e d , r e c o r d s with HUNTER SENTINEL equal to " I " should be s e l e c t e d . T h i s w i l l generate a f i l e s t r u c t u r e c o n t a i n i n g only one r e c o r d per hunter. 4) SELECT APPROPRIATE CASES: Once the proper f i l e s t r u c t u r e has been d e f i n e d , the r e q u i r e d data records must be s e l e c t e d . Any v a r i a b l e may be s e l e c t e d ( f o r or a g a i n s t ) i n order to c o n s t r u c t the d e s i r e d f i l e . F o r example, i f on l y hunters a r e wanted HUNT STATUS with the value "1" f o r hunters should be s e l e c t e d . 5) USE THE CORRECT REPLICATE HEIGHT: For o l d hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data, l a r g e numbers of u n i d e n t i f i e d h u n t e r s were censused. The v a r i a b l e REPLICATES c o n t a i n s the number of times a data r e c o r d should be used i n the a n a l y s i s . 6) CALCULATE APPBIOPBATE RECORD CASEWEIGHTS: When l o c a t i o n data are an a l y s e d , r e c o r d caseweights most be c a l c u l a t e d to r e f l e c t how much importance should be attached t o each data r e c o r d - Because hunt l o c a t i o n s have M n " (1 < n < 9) M-U.-subunit f i e l d s r e p r e s e n t i n g them, the data f i l e has "n" r e c o r d s f o r each hunt l o c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , some f u n c t i o n of H n n must be used t o 73 weight each data r e c o r d . For example, i f a hunt l o c a t i o n has 5 H-U.-subunits (3 primary and 2 s e c o n d a r y ) , d i f f e r e n t r e c o r d weights must be c a l c u l a t e d depending on which r e c o r d s are s e l e c t e d . I f a l l l o c a t i o n f i e l d s are s e l e c t e d , each data r e c o r d must be weighted by 1/5, while i f only primary f i e l d s are used then the a p p r o p r i a t e weight would be 1/3. I f only the f i r s t primary f i e l d i s used, i t r e c e i v e s a weight of 1.0. Record weighting may be used t o r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e importance o f primary and secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s . For example, i f primary f i e l d s are c o n s i d e r e d to be twice as important as secondary f i e l d s , r e c o r d s with primary l o c a t i o n s f o r the above hunting l o c a t i o n must be weighted by 2 imp.val. 3 ; p r i m . f i d . x 2 imp.val. • 2 s e c . f i d . x 1 imp.val. = 1/4 where imp.val. = the r e l a t i v e importance of the f i e l d s . On the other hand, each secondary f e i l d would r e c e i v e . ! _ • 3x2 • 2x1 = 1/8 The v a r i a b l e s , TOTAL LOCATION FIELDS, PHIHARY LOCATION FIELDS, and SECONDARY LOCATION FIELDS c o n t a i n the number of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s of each type, while the v a r i a b l e LOCATION FIELD TYPE s p e c i f i e s the type of f i e l d f o r each data r e c o r d . 7) SELECT APPROPRIATE SAMPLING CASEWEIGHT: For hunter sample data, e s t i m a t e d t o t a l s can be c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y from the data f i l e by m u l t i p l y i n g the r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e s by an a p p r o p r i a t e sampling caseweight. Depending on assumptions about the sampling procedure, a sampling caseweight or combination of 74 sampling caseweights must be s e l e c t e d . Sampling caseweights are not r e l e v a n t f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data and sh o u l d not be used. 8) CALCULATE OVERALL CASEWEIGHT: The o v e r a l l caseweight i s the product of the r e p l i c a t e weighty the re c o r d weight, and the sampling caseweight. I t s p e c i f i e s the t o t a l weighting t h a t should be a p p l i e d t o each data r e c o r d . 9) ANALYSIS: A f t e r the a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e * c a s e s , and o v e r a l l weighting are e s t a b l i s h e d , s t a n d a r d a n a l y t i c procedures can be a p p l i e d . Examples of t y p i c a l w i l d l i f e data requirements and the method of s e l e c t i n g cases and c a l c u l a t i n g caseweights t o meet those needs are given i n Appendix 2-0. 7.2 Information R e t r i e v a l v i a Standard S t a t i s t i c a l Packages Standard s t a t i s t i c a l packages, such as SPSS ( S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s : Nie e t . a l . , 1975 ) and HIOAS (Fox e t - al.,1976) can be used t o d i r e c t l y a ccess the system data f i l e s . These w e l l documented computer packages c o n t a i n a wide range of data m a n i p u l a t i o n , data s e l e c t i o n , and s t a t i s t i c a l procedures to allow easy and e f f i c i e n t d ata p r o c e s s i n g -I n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l using SPSS i s f a c i i i l a t e d by the WEIGHT c o n t r o l c a r d as the o v e r a l l caseweight can be a u t o m a t i c a l l y assigned so t h a t s t a t i s t i c a l r o u t i n e s w i l l be weighted c o r r e c t l y . Examples of t y p i c a l w i l d l i f e problems and SPSS programs c r e a t e d to r e t r i e v e the data are g i v e i n Appendix 2. 75 8.Q ESSOLf S The data system developed i n t h i s t h e s i s can he used t o produce two types of r e s u l t s : 1). output of s t a t i s t i c s t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y c f the system and 2) output of management es t i m a t e s . T h i s t h e s i s examines the v a l i d i t y o f the data system by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the sampling assumptions i n h e r e n t i n the hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f i e l d c o n t a c t data c o l l e c t i o n programs. T h i s review must be completed before v a l i d management r e p o r t s can be produced. 8. 1 1975 Hunter Sample f o r Begion 1 In December 1975, a l l a v a i l a b l e hunting l i c e n c e c o u n t e r f o i l s (22,734) from Begion 1 government agencies were keypunched to o b t a i n a m a i l i n g l i s t f o r r e s i d e n t bunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s on Vancouver I s l a n d . The keypunched l i s t and the A p r i l 1* 1975 - March 31,1976 government agency revenue r e p o r t (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch,1976) were used t o determine the d i s t r i b u t i o n of hunting l i c e n c e n o l d e r s by r e s i d e n t , H-0*. and government agency (Table ¥ ) . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e number o f l i c e n c e h o l d e r s by M-U. were obvious w i t h i n each government agency. On January 14, 1976, deer hunting q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed t o 95.61 of an estimated 23,717 Begion 1 hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s (Table VI ). By March 22, 7,413 completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e c e i v e d and 493 forms were returned by the post o f f i c e as u n d e l i v e r a b l e . The 14,773 f i r s t m a i l i n g non-respondents were seat a second q u e s t i o n n a i r e with a reminder n o t i c e . By J u l y , Table V 1975 hunting licence sales for government agencies i n Region 1 showing d i s t r i b u t i o n licence sales by resident M. U. Government Agency Port b Courtenay a Duncan Ganges Nanaimo Alberni V i c t o r i a Resident M. U. Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % 1-1 56 0.7 94 3.6 205 96.2 126 2.6 12 0.4 5785 89.4 6278 25.4 1-2 2 0.03 276 10.4 0 0.0 2 0.04 1 0.03 279 4-3 560 2.3 1-3 2 0.03 13 0.7 0 0.0 4 0.1 30 1.0 36 0.6 90 0.4 1-4 7 0.1 1602 60.5 0 0.0 17 0.4 0 0.0 19 0.3 1645 6.7 1-5 67 0.9 509 19.2 0 0.0 4305 88.3 23 0.1 32 0.5 4936 20.0 1-6 2595 33-9 97 3.7 0 0.0 ; 143 2.9 19 0.1 17 0.3 2871 11.6 1-7 17 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 0.3 2286 79.1 3 0.1 2320 9.4 1-8 6 0.1 3 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 228 7.9 1 0.02 241 1.0 1-9 233 3-1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 239 1.0 1-10 2573 33.6 4 0.2 0 0.0 10 0.2 6 0.2 7 0.1 2600 10.5 1-11 220 2.9 1 0.04 0 0.0 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.02 227 0.9 1-12 178 2.3 2 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 4 0.1 2 0.03 189 0.8 1-13 1305 17.1 2 0.1 0 0.0 4 0.1 2 0.1 9 0.1 1322 5.3 1-14 13 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 0.1 1-15 184 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.03 1 0.02 186 0.8 Other regions 191 2.5 , 40 1.5 8 3.8 237 4-9 275 9.5 276 4.2 1027 4.1 Total 7649 100.0 2648 100.0 213 100.0 4877 100.0 2889 100.0 6468 100.0 24744 100.0 a includes Port Hardy and Campbell River government agencies b includes Ucluelet government agency Table VI 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample showing response categories by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. Samp = sampled, Hunt = hunters, DNH resp = did not hunt respondents, Non con = non contacts, No resp = no response. Licence holders F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailings Resident Not DNH Non No DNH Non No DNH Non No M. U. Total Samp Samp Hunt resp con resp Hunt resp cone resp Hunt resp con resp 1-1 6278 6008 270 1427 826 165 3590 981 466 119 2024 2408 1292 284 2024 1-2 560 559 1 93 75 4 387 96 41 7 243 189 116 11 243 1-3 90 90 0 19 14 0 57 13 7 1 36 32 21 1 36 1-4 1645 1639 6 335 150 43 1111 280 111 30 690 615 261 73 690 1-5 4936 4258 678 950 440 98 2770 684 271 72 1743 1634 711 170 1743 1-6 2871 2827 44 642 289 71 1825 487 207 48 1083 1129 496 119 1083 1-7 2320 2309 11 436 201 60 1612 429 171 65 947 865 372 125 947 1-8 241 238 3 38 34 .3 163 28 36 2 97 66 70 5 97 1-9 239 237 2 52 19 0 166 42 12 1 111 94 31 1 111 1-10 2600 2591 9 554 221 35 1781 483 147 36 1115 1037 368 71 1115 1-11 227 226 1 47 17 2 160 42 19 3 96 89 36 5 96 1-12 189 187 " 2 46 17 4 120 33 9 4 74 79 26 8 74 1-13 1322 1314 8 301 107 8 898 299 57 16 526 600 164 24 526 1 - U 13 13 0 1 3 0 9 1 4 0 4 2 7 0 4 1-15 186 183 3 34 25 0 124 29 15 5 75 63 40 5 75 Total 23717 22679 1038 4975 2438 493 14773 3927 1573 409 8364 8902 4011 902 8864 78 12,913 licence holders were censused with an o v e r a l l response rate of 56.9% and an o v e r a l l sampling in t e n s i t y of 54.556. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the sampling rates f o r resident M.O.s within Begion 1 was detected (Table VII ) . Although most resident M.O.s were sampled over 9Q%, resident 8.0. 1-5 had a sampling rate of only 86.3%. The f i r s t mailing, the second mailing, and t o t a l returns a l l showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences between resident M.O.s for both the percentage return and the percentage sampled (Table VIII.).. The extended cut-off date f o r the second mailing resulted i n the second mailing having s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher response rates and sampling i n t e n s i t i e s than the f i r s t mailing. Besident M.O.s were partitioned into resident subunits and tested f o r uniformity of response rates (Table IX ). Sampling i n t e n s i t i e s f o r subunits were not calculated as the estimation of licence holders by resident subunit would be unre l i a b l e , fooled chi-sguared contingency tests showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the response rates f o r subunits within the same resident M.O. The percentage of hunters i n the t o t a l respondents was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between resident M.O.s within Begion 1 (Table X ). In general, licence holders residing on northern Vancouver Island (M.O.s 1-9 to 1-13) were more l i k e l y to hunt deer than those l i v i n g in the more urbanized southern part of the island. The second mailing had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage of hunters responding than the f i r s t mailing. Besident M.O.s were partitioned into resident subunits and tested f o r uniformity of the percentage of hunters i n the return 79 Table VII 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample shoving percentage of licence holders sampled by resident M. U. Resident K. U. Total licence holders Total sampled sampled 1-1 6278 6008 95.7 1-2 560 559 99.8 1-3 90 90 100.0 1-4 1645 1639 99.6 1-5 4936 4258 86.3 1-6 2871 2827 98.5 1-7 2320 2309 99.5 1-8 241 238 98.7 1-9 239 237 99.2 1-10 2600 2591 99.7 1-11 227 226 99.6 1-12 189 187 98.9 1-13 1322 1314 99.4 1-14 13 13 100.0 1-15 186 . 183 98.4 Total 23717 22679 95.6 Tests of s i s m i f 'icance u n i f o r m i t y of % s by M. ai^nlpr" = 63.0 P , = 0.00 80 Table VIII 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample shoving percentage returned and percentage sampled by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. Ret = returned, Samp = sampled F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailings Resident M. TJ. Ret % r e t a %samp Ret %ret $samp Ret %ret £samp 1-1 2253 37.5 35.9 1447 38.5 36.0 3700 61.6 58.9 1-2 168 30,1 30.0 137 34.6 34.5 305 54.6 54.5 1-3 33 36.7 36.7 20 35.1 35.1 53 58.9 58.9 1-4 485 29.6 29.5 391 33.9 33.7 876 53.5 53.3 1-5 1390 32.6 28.2 955 33.3 26.9 2345 55.1 47.5 1-6 931 32.9 32.4 694 36.6 35.8 1625 57.5 56.6 1-7 637 27.6 27.5 600 35.9 35.7 1237 53.6 53.3 1-8 72 30.3 29.9 64 38.6 37.9 136 57.1 56.4 1-9 71 30.0 29.7 54 32.5 32.1 125 52.7 52.3 1-10 775 29.9 29.8 630 34-7 34.5 1405 54.2 54.0 1-11 64 28.3 28.2 61 37.7 37.4 125 55.3 55.1 1-12 63 33.7 33.3 42 33.9 33.3 105 56.2 55.6 1-13 408 31.1 30.9 356 39.3 39.0 764 58.1 57.8 1-U -4 30.8 30.8 5 55.5 55.5 9 69.2 69.2 1-15 59 32.2 31.7 44 35.5 34.7 103 56.3 55.4 Total 7413 32.7 31.3 5500 36.0 33.7 12913 56.9 54.5 a % returned = 100 x returned questionnaires/total licence holders sampled % sampled = 100 x returned questionnaires/total licence holders t o t a l licence holders and t o t a l licence holders sampled from Table VII Continued Table VIII continued Tests of significance uniformity of % return f o r resident M.U.s by 1st mailing X 3^ =78.0 by 2nd mailing X i3 = 2 0« 1 by total mailing = 39.1 uniformity of % sampled for resident M.U.s by 1st mailing 2 - 76.9 by 2nd ma.iling % 2 = 69.5 by total mailing ^13 _ 4^..4 comparison of % return f o r resident M.U.s between mailings t = 4.54-comparison of % sampled for resident M.U.s between mailings t = 3.93 82 Table IX 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample showing percentage return by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. partitioned into resident subunits. Licence F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailings Resident holders subunit sampled Return "^return Return ^return Return 5Sreturn 1-1-1. 5614 2119 37.7 1362 39.0 3481 62.0 1-1-2 197 69 35.0 43 33.6 112 56.9 1-1-3 to 1-1-8 81 30 37.0 16 31.4 46 56.8 1-1-9 116 35 30.2 26 32.1 61 52.6 Total M.U. 1-1 6008 2253 37.5 1447 38.5 3700 61.6 1-2-1 to 1-2-4 225 62 27.6 62 38.0 124 55.1 1-2-5 334 106 31.7 75 32.9 181 54.2 Total M. U. 1-2 559 168 30,1 137 34.6 305 54.6 1-4-1 to 1-4-3 1133 318 28.1 271 33.3 589 52.0 1-4-4 361 120 33.2 84 34.9 204 56.5 1-4-5 72 23 31.9 18 36.7 41 56.9 1-4-7 73 24 32.9 18 36.7 42 57.5 Total M.U. 1-4 1639 485 29.6 391 33.9 876 53.5 1-5-1 117 35 29.9 21 25.6 56 47.9 1-5-2 980 299 30.5 230 33.8 529 54.0 1-5-5 2372 769 32.4 532 33.2 1301 54.9 1-5-6 339 136 40.1 72 35.5 208 61.4 1-5-9 to 1-5-10 450 151 33.6 100 33.4 251 55.8 Total M.U. 1-5 4258 1390 32.69 ' 955 33.3 2345 55.1 1-6-1 312 104 33.3 74 35.6 17S 57.1 1-6-3 79 31 39.2 17 35.4 48 60.8 1-6-4 to 1-6-6 137 47 34.3 33 36.7 80 58.4 1-6-8 1522 458 30.1 382. 35.9 840 55.2 1-6-9 to 1-6-10 777 291 37.5 188 38.7 479 61.7 Total M.U. 1-6 2827 931 32.9 694 36.6 1625 57.5 1-10-1 2330 710 30.5 562 34.7 1272 54-6 1-10-9 261 65 24.9 68 34.7 133 51.0 Total M.U. 1-10 2591 775 29.9 630 34.7 1405 54.2 continued 8 3 Table IX continued Licence F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailings Resident holders subunit sampled Return /ore turn Return ^return Return ^return 1-13-2 276 98 35.5 68 38.2 166 60.1 1-13-3 183 62 33.9 42 34.7 104 56.8 1-13-7 236 66 28.0 65 38.2 131 55.5 1-13-12 to 1-13-U 67 18 26.9 19 38.8 37 55.2 1-13-18 389 111 28.5 116 41.7 227 58.4 1-13-22 to 1-13-25 163 53 32.5 46 41.8 99 60.7 Total M.U. 1-13 13U 408 31.1 356 39.3 764 58.1 1-15-1 128 37 28.9 28 30.8 65 50.8 1-15-2to 1 -15-20 55 22 40.0 16 48.5 38 69.1 Total M.U. 1-15 183 59 32.2 44 35.5 103 56.3 Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of % r e t u r n for resident subunit groups = 0.08 = 0.99 = 0.60 by 1st m a i l i n g X \ 2 =31.1 by 2nd m a i l i n g ^22 = 9 , 7 by t o t a l m a i l i n g AS 22 ~ 1 9 * ^ 84 Table I 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample showing percentage of hunters by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. Resident M. U. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Hunters Shunters a Hunters Shunters Hunters ^hunters 1-1 1427 63.3 981 67.8 2408 65.1 1-2 93 55.4 96 70.1 189 62.0 1-3 19 57.6 13 65.0 32 60.4 1-4 335 69.1 280 71.6 615 70.2 1-5 950 68.4 684 71.6 1634 69.7 1-6 642 69.0 487 70.2 1129 69.5 1-7 436 68.5 429 71.5 865 69.9 1-8 38 52.8 . 28 43.8 66 48.5 1-9 52 73.2 42 77.8 94 75.2 1-10 554 71.5 483 76.7 1037 73.8 1-11 47 73.0 42 68.9 89 71.2 1-12 46 73.0 33 78.6 79 75.2 1-13 301 73.8 299 84.0 600 78.5 1-14 1 25.0 1 20.0 2 22.2 1-15 34 57.6 29 65.9 63 61.2 Total 4975 67.1 3927 71.4 8902 68.9 a % hunter = 100 x hunter respondents/total return t o t a l return from Table VIII Tests of significance uniformity of % hunters f o r resident M.U. s by 1st mailing X  2 = 13 18.9 P-t = 0.12 by 2nd mailing y 2 _ 13 21.0 P« = 0.08 by t o t a l mailing X 2 = 13 36.9 P ^~ 0.005 comparison of % hunteis f o r resident M.U. s between mailings t = 2.65 P * = 0.02 85 (Table XI ). The pooled c h i - s q u a r e d contingency t e s t d i d not dete c t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the percentage of hunters f o r s u b u n i t s w i t h i n the same r e s i d e n t B.U. Since 1950, B. C. hunter sample e s t i m a t e s (B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1950.^ -74.) have been based on the r e p o r t e d a t t r i b u t e s of hunters responding t o an anonymous q u e s t i o n n a i r e , The u n d e r l y i n g assumption has been t h a t f i r s t m a i l i n g respondents were t y p i c a l of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s . Because hunters were mailed anonymous q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o resurvey non-respondents. In t o t a l , 6459 deer were r e p o r t e d shot by Begion 1 deer hunters with 59.6$ repo r t e d by f i r s t s a i l i n g h u n t e r s and 40.4% by second m a i l i n g hunters (Table XII ). H i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n hunter success were d e t e c t e d between r e s i d e n t M.O.s f o r a l l m a i l i n g c a t e g o r i e s . In g e n e r a l , hunters r e s i d i n g on northern Vancouver I s l a n d (H.U. 1-9 to 1-13) had h i g h e r s u c c e s s r a t e s than hunters from the southern p a r t of the i s l a n d , a p a i r e d t - t e s t showed f i r s t m a i l i n g hunters (77.4% success) had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r success r a t e s than second m a i l i n g hunters (66.4% s u c c e s s ) . B. , P. F i n n i g a n (Game Harvest Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A n a l y s i s , 1966) argued t h a t b i a s e s i n t r o d u c e d by second m a i l i n g data having lower s u c c e s s r a t e s and higher percentage of hunters, would c o u n t e r a c t and balance each o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch has not used f o l l o w m a i l i n g s i n the p a s t . The 1975 Begion 1 deer hunter sample was used to t e s t F i n n i g a n ' s assumption. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e p o r t e d k i l l per respondent were d e t e c t e d f o r both r e s i d e n t H.U. and m a i l i n g 86 Table XI 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample showing percentage of hunters i n return by questionnaire mailing and resident M.U.s partitioned into resident subunits. Ret = return, Hunt = hunters, $hunt = Shunters. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident •— subunit Ret Hunt /fount Ret Hunt %hunt Ret Hunt $hunt 1-1-1 2119 1347 63.6 1362 926 68.0 3481 2273 65.3 1-1-2 69 37 53.6 43 24 55.8 112 61 54.5 1-1-3 to 1 -1-8 30 18 60.0 16 13 81.3 46 31 67.4 1-1-9 35 25 71.4 26 18 69.2 61 43 70.5 Total M.U. 1-1 2253 1427 63.3 1447 981 67.8 3700 2408 65.1 1-2-1 to 1 -2-4 62 35 56.5 62 40 64.5 124 75 60.5 1-2-5 106 58 54.7 75 56 74.7 181 114 63.0 Total M.U. 1-2 168 93 55.4 137 96 70.1 305 189 62.0 1-4-1 to 1 -4-3 318 211 66.4 271 194 71.6 589 405 68.8 1-4-4 120 90 75.0 84 62 73.8 204 152 74.5 1-4-5 23 17 73.9 18 12 66.7 41 29 70.7 1-4-7 24 17 70.8 18 12 66.7 42 29 69.1 Total M.U. 1-4 485 335 69.1 391 280 71.6 876 615 70.2 1-5-1 35 23 65.7 21 13 61.9 56 36 64.3 1-5-2 299 229 76.6 230 169 73.5 529 398 75.2 1-5-5 769 518 67.4 532 387 72.7 1301 905 69.6 1-5-6 136 84 61.8 72 47 65.3 208 131 63.0 1-5-9 to 1 -5-10 151 96 63.6 100 68 68.0 251 164 65-3 Total M.U. 1-5 1390 950 68.4 955 684 71.6 2345 1634 69.7 1-6-1 104 54 51.9 74 52 70.3 178 106 59.6 1-6-3 -6-6 31 20 64.5 17 10 58.8 48 30 62.5 1-6-4 to t 47 30 63.8 33 21 63.6 80 51 63.8 1-6-8 -6-10 458 346 75.6 382 272 71.2 840 618 73.6 1-6-9 to 1- 291 192 66.0 188 132 70.2 479 324 67.6 Total M.U. 1-6 931 642 69.0 694 487 70.2 1625 1129 69.5 1-10-1 710 514 72.4 562 425 75.6 1271 939 73.8 1-10-9 65 40 61.5 68 58 85.3 133 98 73.7 Total M.U. 1-10 775 554 71.5 630 483 76.7 1405 1037 73.8 continued 87 Table XI continued F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident subunit Ret Hunt $hunt Ret Hunt 5&hunt Ret Hunt •thunt 1-13-2 98 82 83.7 68 61 89.7 166 143 86.1 1-13-3 62 31 50.0 42 30 71.4 104 61 58.7 1-13-7 66 52 78.8 65 55 84.6 131 107 81.7 1-13-12 to 1-13-U 18 13 72.2 19 15 79.0 37 28 75.7 1-13-18 111 83 74.8 116 99 85.3 227 182 80.2 1-13-22 to 1-13-25 53 40 75.5 46 39 84.8 99 79 79.8 Total M.U. 1-13 4.08 301 73-8 356 299 84.0 764 600 78.5 1-15-1' 37 18 48.7 28 19 67.9 65 37 56.9 1-15-2 to 1-15-20 22 16 72.7 16 10 62.5 38 26 68.4 Total M.U. 1-15 59 3A 57.6 44 29 65-9 103 63 61.2 Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of % hunters for resident subunit groups by 1st m a i l i n g X 22 ~ 2 3 , 6 P-< = by 2nd m a i l i n g \ \ 2 = 5 , 6 P<* = 0 , 9 9 5 by t o t a l m a i l i n g X \*> ~ 20.5 P«* = 0.60 88 Table XII 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample shoving percentage hunter success by questionnaire mailing and resident M.U. Hunt = hunters, Report k i l l = reported k i l l , %succ = ^success F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident M. U. Hunt Report k i l l /DSUCC 3 Hunt Report k i l l %succ Hunt Report k i l l %succ 1-1 1427 903 63.3 981 463 47.2 2408 1366 56.7 1-2 93 68 73.1 96 49 51.1 189 117 61.9 1-3 19 7 36.8 13 7 53.9 32 14 43.8 1-4 335 216 64-5 280 176 62.9 615 392 63.7 1-5 950 842 88.6 684 486 71.1 1634 1328 81.3 1-6 642 455 70.9 487 313 64-3 1129 768 68.0 1-7 436 323 74-1 429 261 60.8 865 584 67.5 1-8 38 18 47.4 28 15 53.6 66 33 50.0 1-9 52 54 103.9 42 40 95.2 94 94 100.0 1-10 554 439 79.2 483 360 74.5 1037 799 77.1 1-11 47 69 146.8 42 51 121.4 89 120 134.8 1-12 46 69 150.0 33 41 124.2 79 110 139.2 1-13 301 357 118.6 299 322 107.7 600 679 113.2 1-U 1 2 200.0 b 1 1 100.0 b 2 3 150.0 b 1-15 34 30 88.2 29 22 75.9 63 52 82.5 Total 4975 3852 77.4 3927 2607 66.4 8902 6459 72.6 Total reported k i l l F i r s t mailing 59.6% Second mailing 40.4% Total mailings 100.0% a % success = 100 x reported k i l l / h u n t e r s b data value not used i n tests of significance Continued Table XII continued Tests of significance uniformity of % hunter success f o r r e s i d e n t M.U. by 1st mailing "X- 13 ~ 204..4-by 2nd mailing \"\^ ~ 1 8 7 ' 1 by t o t a l mailing X2^ = 370.3 comparison of % hunter success f o r r e s i d e n t M.U. between mailings t - 3.17 90 stage (Table XIII ). 8.2 1975 Region 1 Hunter Sample L o c a t i o n Coding The M.O.s and su b u n i t s f o r hunt l o c a t i o n s were obtained by matching alphanumeric hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s with standard l o c a t i o n names on the l o c a t i o n l i s t . The l o c a t i o n l i s t i s updated every year by adding p r e v i o u s l y uncoded names to the l i s t . By J u l y 1976, the l o c a t i o n l i s t f o r Begion 1 c o n t a i n e d 1099 l o c a t i o n names (Table XIV ) . A l l l o c a t i o n names c o u l d be determined t o the M.O. l e v e l and the majori t y (94.118) of l o c a t i o n names needed only one M.O. to completely d e s c r i b e them. However, 2.5$ o f the l o c a t i o n names co u l d not be d e f i n e d at the subunit l e v e l , while only 75.5% of them c o u l d be d e f i n e d by one su b u n i t . A h i g h percentage (22.0%) of the l o c a t i o n names reg u i r e d more than one subunit f i e l d . When the l o c a t i o n names were placed i n t o M.O-s and su b u n i t s , two l e v e l s of s p e c i f i c i t y were used. Primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s were "probable" c h o i c e s , while secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s were " p o s s i b l e " c h o i c e s . In t o t a l , 91.5% of the l o c a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be coded by subunit had onl y primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s (Table XV ). The most common combinations of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s were: (1 p r i m a r y ) , (2 p r i m a r y ) , and (1 primary and 1 secondary). When M.O.s and subun i t s were added to the hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s on 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , 97.2% of the l o c a t i o n s were s p e c i f i e d by one M.0., while 2.8% r e q u i r e d more than one (Table XVI ) . However,, onl y 65.0% o f the l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s could be d e s c r i b e d by one su b u n i t . Some l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s (4.2%) c o u l d not be assigned to s u b u n i t s , 91 Table XIII 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample showing percentage reported k i l l per respondent by questionnaire mailing and resident M.U. Resp = respondents, Report k i l l = reported k i l l , %succ = ^success. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident M. U. Resp Report k i l l %succ a Resp Report k i l l %succ Resp Report k i l l %succ 1-1 2253 903 40.1 1447 463 32.0 3700 1366 36.9 1-2 163 68 41.7 137 49 35.8 305 117 38.4 1-3 33 7 21.2 20 7 35.0 53 14 26.4 1-4 485 216 44.5 391 176 45.0 876 392 44.8 1-5 1390 842 60.6 955 486 51.5 2345 1328 56.6 1-6 931 455 48.9 694 313 45.1 1625 768 47.3 1-7 637 323 50.7 600 261 43.5 1237 584 47.2 1-8 72 18 25.0 64 15 23.4 136 33 24.3 1-9 71 54 76.1 54 40 74-1 125 94 75.2 1-10 775 439 56.7 630 . 360 57.1 1405 799 56.9 1-11 64 69 107.8 61 51 83.6 125 120 96.0 1-12 63 69 109.5 42 41 97.6 105 110 104.8 1-13 408 357 87.5 356 322 90.5 764 679 88.9 1 - U 4 2 50.0b 5 1 20.0b 9 3 33.3b 1-15 59 30 50.9 44 22 50.0 103 52 50.5 Total 7413 3852 52.0 5500 2607 47.4 12913 6459 50.0 a % success - 100 x reported kill/respondents, b not included i n s t a t i s t i c a l tests. Continued 92 Table XIII continued Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e uniformity of % respondent success f o r resident M.U.s by 1st mailing X \\y = 296.2 P = 0.000 by 2nd mailing y_ 2 , = 289.4 P<* = 0.000 by t o t a l mailing - 564.2 P = 0.000 comparison of % respondent success f o r resident M.U.s between mailings t = 1 . 7 8 P<* = 0.05 (one t a i l e d test) j Table XIV Region 1 location l i s t showing the number of location f i e l d s needed to allocate location names to M.U.s and subunits. Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of allocations Number of : location f i e l d s M. U.s Subunits required to allocate location name Number % Number % 0 0 0.0 28 2.5 1 1034 94.1 830 75.5 2 55 5.0 165 15.0 3 8 .7 38 3.4 4 1 .1 22 2.0 5 0 0.0 9 0.8 6 0 0.0 2 0.1 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 5 0.5 9 • 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 1099 100.0 1099 100.0 a as of July 1976 94 Table XV Region 1 location l i s t showing the number of secondary-location f i e l d s i n the t o t a l number of location f i e l d s for location names allocated to subunits. Total Secondary location f i e l d s location f i e l d s 0 % 1 % 2 % Total 1 830 100.0 __ 1 830 2 91 55.2 74 44.8 — — 165 3 25 65.8 3 7.9 10 26.3 38 4 19 86.4 3 13.6 0 0.0 22 5 8 88.9 0 0.0 1 11.1 9 6 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 8 5 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 9 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 Total 980 91.5 80 7.5 11 1.0 1071 a as of July 1976 b t o t a l location f i e l d s = primary location f i e l d s + secondary location f i e l d s . 95 Table XVI 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample shoving number of location f i e l d s needed to allocate location names to M.U.s and subunits. Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of allocations Number of location f i e l d s required to allocate location name M. .U.s Subunits Number % Number % 0 0 0.0 470 4.2 1 10866 97.2 7272 65.0 2 293 2.6 1585 14.2 3 24 0.2 789 7.1 4 0 0.0 496 4.4 5 0 0.0 30 0.3 6 0 0.0 55 0.5 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 486 4.4 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 11183 100.0 11183 100.0 96 while others (31.83E) r e g u i r e d two or more s u b u n i t s . In t o t a l , 11.6? of the l o c a t i o n s that c o u l d he assig n e d to s u b u n i t s r e q u i r e d secondary s u b u n i t f i e l d s (Table XVII ) . The primary and secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s allowed c o n s i d e r a b l e f l e x i b i l i t y i n a p p o r t i o n i n g r e p o r t e d hunting a t t r i b u t e s t o s u b u n i t s . For example, r e p o r t e d k i l l s f o r s u b u n i t 1-5-6 had 55% range o f the mean, depending on the l o c a t i o n f i e l d treatment (Table XVIII ) . The high v a r i a b l i t y f o r s u b u n i t s 1-5-6 and 1-5-7 was caused because a g e n e r a l hunting l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n , "Northwest Bay", r e f e r s to both s u b u n i t s . When those s u b u n i t s were combined the percentage range was reduced to 1.92. The accuracy of the hunter sample l o c a t i o n coding was determined by comparing hunter sample r e p o r t e d hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s to those i n d i c a t e d when the same hunters were cont a c t e d i n the f i e l d (Table XIX ). In t o t a l , 2933 f i e l d c o n t a c t hunt l o c a t i o n s were ob t a i n e d f o r hunters t h a t a l s o responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The M.U- and s u b u n i t f o r the f i e l d c o n t a c t l o c a t i o n s were determined by the f i r s t primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d f o r t h a t l o c a t i o n * I f t h a t B.O. and subunit were the same as any of those f o r any l o c a t i o n on the hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e , then the f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter, sample l o c a t i o n s corresponded. Fo r fl.0.s i n Begion 1, 44.1% of the hunt l o c a t i o n s c o u l d be matched to s u b u n i t s , while 68.4% c o u l d be determined t o M.U. For k i l l l o c a t i o n s , 55.2% were a c c u r a t e t o su b u n i t , while 76.6$ matched t o M.U. P a i r e d t - t e s t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s f o r the percentage o f l o c a t i o n s 97 Table XVII 1975 deer hunter sample hunting location coding showing number of secondary location f i e l d s i n the t o t a l number of location f i e l d s f o r location names allocated to subunits. Total Secondary location f i e l d s l o c a t i o n a f i e l d s 0 % 1 2 % Total 1 7272 100.0 7272 2 811 51.2 774 48.8 — — 1585 3 342 43.4 8 1.0 439 55.6 789 4 483 97.4 13 2.6 0 0.0 496 5 23 76.7 0 0.0 7 23.3 30 6 55 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 55 7 0 — 0 — 0 — 0 8 486 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.3 486 9 0 — 0 —- 0 — 0 Total 9472 88.4 795 7.4 446 4.2 10713 a t o t a l location f i e l d s - primary location f i e l d s + secondary location f i e l d s . Table XVIII 1 9 7 5 deer hunter sample showing reported deer k i l l s f o r subunits using d i f f e r e n t weightings f o r primary and secondary location f i e l d s . Reported deer k i l l s for M. U. 1-5 Location f i e l d treatment 1-5-0 1-5-1 1-5-2 1-5-3 1-5-4 1-5-5 1-5-6 1-5-7 1-5-8 1-5-9 1-5-10 Total Equal weighting f o r a l l 15 194 56 109 103 24 7 8 76 24 10 5 695 Only primary f i e l d s 15 1 9 5 51 102 101 34 44 1 1 3 25 10 5 693 Primary f i e l d s twice secondary 15 1 9 4 54 1 0 7 103 2 7 6 7 88 24 10 5 694 Primary f i e l d s four times secondary 15 1 9 4 53 105 102 2 9 58 9 8 24 10 5 694, Mean 15 194.3 53.5 105.8 102.3 28.5 61.8 93.8 24-3 10 5 694 Range 0 1 5 7 2 10 34 37 1 0 0 2 % Range 0.0 0.5 9.4 6.6 2.0 35.1 55.0 39.5, 4-04 o . o 0.0 0.3 Equal weighting for a l l 1 5 4 Only primary f i e l d s 1 5 7 Primary f i e l d s twice secondary 1 5 5 Primary f i e l d s four times secondary 1 5 6 Mean Range % range 1 5 5 . 5 3 1.9 99 Table LTI 1975 Region 1 i n t e g r a t e d deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing the percentage of M. D.s and subunits on the hunter sample questionnaire that could be.matched to hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d during f i e l d c ontacts. Data are grouped by the hunt M. U. recorded by the f i e l d contact. F. C. = f i e l d contact, H. S. = hunter sample, Sub = subunit. F. C. hunt l o c a t i o n s F. C. k i l l l o c a t i o n s Matched to K. S. Matched to H.i S. F i e l d contact M. U. hunted T o t a l Sub % M.U. % T o t a l Sub % M.U. 1-1 to 1-3 591 263 44.5 358 60.6 59 30 50.9 37 62.6 1 - 4 219 80 36.5 142 64.8 15 10 66.7 13 86.7 1-5 671 395 58.9 521 77.7 92 65 70.7 79 85.9 1-6 to 1 -2 99 38 38.4 63 63.6 12 5 41.7 8 66.7 1-9 95 19 20.0 31 32.6 25 7 28.0 11 44.0 1 -10 9 a 386 40.9 696 73.7 183 107 58. 5 156 85 .3 1-11 216 79 36.6 137 63.A 89 46 51.7 63 70.8 1-12 to 1-15 92 31 33.7 53 57.6 50 20 4 0 . 0 35 70.0 T o t a l 2927 1291 44.1 2001 68.4 525 290 55.2 402 76.6 Continued Table XIX continued Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of hunt l o c a t i o n s matched by subunit ~X. 2 =56.5 _\ 0 . 0 0 5 by M.U. y. 2 = 3 3 . 5 _i 0 . 0 0 5 u n i f o r m i t y of k i l l l o c a t i o n s matched by subunit % 2 = 1 0 . 9 P^ = 0 . 1 5 by M.U. J L 2 , = 8 . 8 P^ = 0 . 2 5 comparison of % matched f o r hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s by subunit t = 4..02 P^ = 0 . 0 0 5 by M.U. t = 4 . 4 1 P^ = 0 . 0 0 5 101 matched. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n the percentage of hunt l o c a t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be Batched to H.O. and subuni t with r e s p e c t to the M.U. t h a t was hunted. However, f o r k i l l l o c a t i o n s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were detected between H.O.s hunted. although the 1975 deer h a r v e s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e requested hunters to s p e c i f y l o c a t i o n s where they were u n s u c c e s s f u l , many only i n d i c a t e d l o c a t i o n s where they shot deer. As the number o f hunt l o c a t i o n s r e p o r t e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c r e a s e d , the percentage o f matching M-0-s and s u b u n i t s i n c r e a s e d (Table XX )-When only one l o c a t i o n was s p e c i f i e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e 41.8% of the s u b u n i t s and 63.7% of the M.O.s matched. When three o r more l o c a t i o n s were provided 54.5% and 76.5% r e s p e c t i v e l y matched. However, f o r k i l l l o c a t i o n s the re v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found. With one hunter sample l o c a t i o n , 57.0% of the su b u n i t s and 77.5% of the M.O.s matched, while with t h r e e o r more l o c a t i o n s 47.1% and 72.9% r e s p e c t i v e l y matched. 8.3 1975 Begion 1 F i e l d C o n t a c t s During the 1975 deer hunting season, game check o p e r a t o r s and c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s c o n t a c t e d 10,940 hunters on Vancouver I s l a n d (Table XXI ) . Although the m a j o r i t y (77.6%) of c o n t a c t s were by the s t a t i o n a r y game checks manned a t peak hunting p e r i o d s , c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s c o n t r i b u t e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y (22.5%). H i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n t a c t s between M.O.s i n Begion 1 were detected f o r both game checks and C O . p a t r o l s . Because game checks were designed t o i n t e r c e p t l a r g e numbers of hunters, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o n t a c t s was non-uniform with r e s p e c t to M.O.s. 102 Table XX 1 9 7 5 Region 1 i n t e g r a t e d deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing the percentage of M. U.s and subunits on the hunter sample questionnaire t h a t could be matched to hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d during f i e l d contacts. Data are grouped by the number of l o c a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d on the hunter qu e s t i o n n a i r e . F. C. = f i e l d contact, H. S. = hunter sample, Sub - subunit. F. C. hunt l o c a t i o n s F. C. k i l l l o c a t i o n s Matched to H. S. Matched to H. S. Hunter sample l o c a t i o n s T o t a l Sub % M.U. % T o t a l Sub % M.U. % 1 ' 1 6 6 6 6 9 6 4 1 . 8 1 0 6 1 6 3 . 7 3 0 7 1 7 5 5 7 . 0 2 3 3 7 7 . 5 2 8 1 2 3 4 7 4 2 . 7 5 9 2 7 2 . 9 1 5 0 8 2 5 4 . 7 1 1 3 7 5 . 3 3 to 9 4 5 5 2 4 8 5 4 . 5 3 4 S 7 6 . 5 7 0 3 3 4 7 . 1 5 1 7 2 . 9 T o t a l 2 9 3 3 1 2 9 1 44 . 0 2001 6 8 . 2 5 2 7 2 9 0 5 5 . 0 402 7 6 . 3 103 Table XXI 1975 Region 1 f i e l d contact data shoving hunter contacts made by game checks and Conservation O f f i c e r s . F i e l d contacts M. U. hunted Game checks C. 0. patrols Total number % number % number % 1-1 0 0.0 17 0.7 17 0.2 1-2 164 1.9 225 9.2 389 3.6 1-3 809 9.5 210 8.6 1019 9.3 1-4 465 5.5 216 8.8 681 6.2 1-5 4027 47.5 547 22.3 4574 41.8 1-6 88 1.0 323 13.2 411 3.8 1-7 2 0.0 288 11.7 290 2.7 1-8 0 0.0 10 0.4 10 0.1 1-9 197 2.3 88 3.6 285 2.6 1-10 2047 24.1 182 7.4 2229 20.4 1-11 459 .5.4 277 11.3 736 6.7 1-12 123 1.5 13 0.5 136 1.2 1-13 97 1.1 49 2.0 146 1.3 1-U 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1-15 5 0.1 0 . 0.0 5 0.1 unsp 0 a 0.0 11 a 0.5 11 a 0.1 Total 8484 100.0 2456 100.0 10940 100.0 a not included i n s t a t i s t i c a l tests Total contacts by Game Checks 77.6% by C. 0. patrols 22.5% Continued Table XII continued Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of M.U.s sampled by game checks ])£ 13 ~ 30000 P^- = 0.000 by CO. p a t r o l s X 13 = 2 1 0 0 P<* = 0.000 by t o t a l X 2 3 = 28000 P <* = 0.000 1 0 5 The number of c o n t a c t s f o r s u b u n i t s v a r i e d g r e a t l y , because some su b u n i t s were u n a c c e s s i b l e , while others were hunted h e a v i l y o r checked i n t e n s i v e l y (Table XXII ).. For example, su b u n i t s i n M.O. 1 - 1 4 were r e l a t i v e l y u n a c c e s s i b l e and t h e r e f o r e not checked, while s u b u n i t 1-5 - 7 was censused every weekend by the northwest Eay game check. Because the c o n t a c t s were non-uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d , the number of k i l l s checked f o r each s u b u n i t v a r i e d (Table XXIII ) T h r e e M.O.s (1-5, 1 - 1 0 , and 1 - 1 1 ) had over 2 0 0 deer checked, while s u b u n i t s ( 1 - 1 0 - 1 4 , 1-5-r7, 1-11-6 , 1 - 1 0 - 1 3 , and 1 - 3 - 1 0 ) had the h i g h e s t recorded k i l l s . A h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the percentage o f s u c c e s s f u l hunters contacted was detected f o r M.O.s w i t h i n Begion 1 (Table XXI? ) . In g e n e r a l , hunters checked on northern Vancouver I s l a n d (M.0- 1—9 to 1 - 1 3 ) had c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r success r a t e s than those hunting on the southern p a r t o f the i s l a n d . Game check opera t o r s and c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s r e c o r d e d hunter l i c e n c e numbers f o r most hunters t h a t were checked. A f t e r comparing those l i c e n c e numbers t o the keypunched hunting l i c e n c e s , a t o t a l of 3 7 8 8 d i f f e r e n t Begion 1 hunters were c o n t a c t e d by F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch personnel (Table XXV ) . Hig h l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the percentage of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s checked f o r each r e s i d e n t M.O. were d e t e c t e d . Over 20% of r e s i d e n t M.O.s 1 - 4 , 1-5, and 1 - 1 0 l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were co n t a c t e d , while l e s s than 2% o f the l i c e n c e h o l d e r s i n r e s i d e n t M.O.s 1 - 1 1 , 1 - 1 2 , and 1 - 1 3 were checked. 106 Table XXEI 1975 Region 1 f i e l d contact data showing t o t a l hunter contacts by M. U. and subunit hunted. Region 1 M. U. hunted Sub u n i t a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 Unsp 1 2 35 27 U1 235 0 0 0 0 244 61 4 7 0 1 2 0 76 0 AG 5 13 0 10 5 41 81 0 0 0 0 3 12 54 13 58 161 0 13 0 0 74 20 0 0 0 0 A 0 190 15 125 376 31 0 0 0 9 73 11 .0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 A 0 73 0 0 557 25 0 4 0 0 6 3 A2 30 729 0 3 0 17 6 176 0 9 0 2 7 0 16 1 3055 16 4 0 81 70 18 23 6 0 0 8 0 70 0 0 64 197 0 52 200 0 22 14 0 0 9 0 83 50 0. 137 0 0 0 87 49 14 4 0 0 10 558 2 0 48 0 100 0 9 14 0 0 2 11 0 71 37 0 10 19 7 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 54 0 187 13 14 1 0 0 13 126 0 233 0 18 11 0 0 U 0 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 14 0 11 0 0 16 3 0 0 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 22 0 11 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 2A 0 0 0 0 25 0 11 0 26 - 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 Unsp 0 32 69 157 10 14 0 0 19 107 191 18 57 0 0 Total 17 389 1019 681 4574 411 290 10 285 2229 736 136 146 0 5 11 a 1-M.U.-subunit Region 1 t o t a l = 10,940 107 Table XXIII 1975 Region 1 f i e l d contact data shoving t o t a l checked deer k i l l s by M. U. and subunit hunted Region 1 M. U. hunted Sub-u n i t a 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 r 8 9 10 11 12 13 K 15 Unsp 1 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 0 0 18 17 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 29 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 2 19 0 0 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 0 A 0 7 0 11 38 0 0 0 0 4 42 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 56 10 0 5 0 0 6 1 1 0 28 0 0 0 3 0 70 0 4 0 0 7 0 1 0 114 0 0 0 16 12 7 28 3 0 0 8 0 12 0 0 1 7 0 13 27 0 12 12 0 0 9 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 8 21 8 2 0 0 10 68 0 0 1 0 20 0 3 8 0 0 0 11 0 9 3 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 6 0 41 6 8 0 0 0 13 11 0 69 0 9 7 0 0 14 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 0 16 0 0 0 7 0 0 17 0 0 0 7 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 28 0 29 0 30 0 31 0 32 0 Unsp 0 2 9 5 0 2 0 0 8 23 69 10 21 0 0 2 Total 2 18 110 31 211 13 9 1 61 395 300 83 74 0 0 2 a region and M. U. specified under K. U. hunted Region 1 t o t a l = 1,313 Table XHV 1975 Region 1 f i e l d contact data showing percentage successful contacts by M. TJ. hunted. M. D. Total Total % hunted Contacts k i l l k i l l / c o n t a c t 1-1 17 2 11.8 1-2 389 18 4-6 1-3 1019 110 10.8 1-4 681 31 4.6 1-5 4574 211 4.6 1-6 411 13 3.2 1-7 290 9 3.1 1-8 10 1 10.0 1-9 285 61 21.4 1-10 2229 395 17.7 1-11 736 300 40.8 1-12 136 83 61.0 1-13 146 74 50.7 1-U 0 0 a 1-15 2 0 0.0a unsp 11 2 18.2 a Total 10940 1313 12.0 a not included i n s t a t i s t i c a l tests. Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of % k i l l / c o n t a c t for M.U. hunted by M.U. ^ 1 2 = U ° ° ? = 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 9 Table XXV 1 9 7 5 Region 1 f i e l d contact data showing percentage licence holders for resident M.U.s marked i n the f i e l d by game checks and C. 0 . patrols. Licence holders marked i n f i e l d Resident M. U . Total licence holders Game checks % c . o . patrols % Total % 1 - 1 6 2 7 8 4 9 8 7 . 9 3 0 3 4 . 8 8 0 1 1 2 . 8 1 - 2 5 6 0 3 6 6 . 4 2 6 4 . 6 6 2 1 1 . 1 1 - 3 9 0 4 4 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 7 . 8 1 - 4 1 6 4 5 2 2 4 1 3 . 6 1 2 3 7 . 5 3 4 7 2 1 . 1 1 - 5 4 9 3 6 8 7 3 1 7 . 7 2 9 3 5 . 9 1 1 6 8 2 3 . 6 1 - 6 2 8 7 1 3 4 1 1 1 . 9 1 0 1 3 . 5 4 4 2 1 5 . 4 1 - 7 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 4 . 8 7 0 3 . 0 1 8 0 7 . 8 1 - 8 2 4 1 1 2 5 . 0 6 2 . 5 1 8 7 . 5 1 - 9 2 3 9 7 2 . 9 9 3 . 8 1 6 6 . 7 1 - 1 0 2 6 0 0 6 6 3 2 5 . 5 61 2 . 3 7 2 3 2 7 . 8 1 - 1 1 2 2 7 0 0 . 0 4 1 . 8 4 1 . 8 1 - 1 2 1 8 9 2 1 . 1 1 0 . 5 3 1 . 6 1 - 1 3 1 3 2 2 5 0 . 4 5 0 . 4 1 0 0 . 8 1 - U 1 3 0 o . o a 0 0 . 0 a 0 0 . 0 a 1 - 1 5 1 8 6 7 3 . 8 1 0 . 5 8 4 . 3 Total 2 3 7 1 7 2 7 8 4 1 1 . 7 1 0 0 6 4 . 2 3 7 8 9 1 6 . 0 a not included i n s t a t i s t i c a l tests. Total marked hunters by game checks 7 3 . 5 % by C. 0 . patrols 2 6 . 6 % Con tinued 110 Table XXV continued Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e urn formity of % 1 icence holders marked by game checks j£ 13 = 990 P* = 0.000 by CO. X.  2 - 180 - 0.000 by t o t a l ")C 2 = 870 ?<*  = °' 00° 111 8.4 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Deer Data The i n t e g r a t e d data s e t s f o r the 1975 Begion 1 deer hunters allowed a mark-recapture system f o r c a l c u l a t i n g , hunter sample es t i m a t e s to be developed and t e s t e d . The r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r hunters marked d u r i n g f i e l d c o n t a c t s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between r e s i d e n t M.U. groups (Table XXVI )., A t o t a l of 2,060 (54.5%) of the marked hunters were recaptured by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s sampling program. The mark-recapture method r e q u i r e s t h a t f i e l d c o n t a c t and q u e s t i o n n a i r e sampling stages be independent.v The p r o b a b i l i t y o f a l i c e n c e h o l d e r being marked i n the f i e l d must not be c o r r e l a t e d with the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t he w i l l respond to the hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Marked and unmarked hunters must have the same p r o b a b i l i t y of r e c a p t u r e . Since the t o t a l number o f unmarked hunters was unknown t h a t assumption c o u l d not be t e s t e d d i r e c t l y . I n stead the percentage of marked hunters i n the hunter response f o r the two m a i l i n g s was used t o c r u d e l y t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the sampling assumption. I f q u e s t i o n n a i r e response r a t e s were independent o f whether hunters were marked, then the percentage of marked hunter i n each m a i l i n q should be the same. For Begion 1 h u n t e r s , 24.6% of the f i r s t m a i l i n g hunter respondents were marked, while only 21.3% of the second m a i l i n g were (Table XXVII Marked hunters had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher response r a t e t o the f i r s t m a i l i n g than unmarked hunters, because f i r s t m a i l i n g respondents were more s u c c e s s f u l than second m a i l i n g respondents. When the r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters were compared, the r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r the second m a i l i n g d i d not decrease 1 1 2 Table XVI 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing t o t a l hunters marked i n the f i e l d and recaptured by the hunter sample questionnaire, recapt = recaptured y fr-ecapt = ^recaptured. Recaptured by questionnaires Total ~ ~ ~ ~ — — f i e l d F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident marked — — — — M.D. group hunters recapt ^recapt recapt ^recapt recapt ^recapt 1-1 to 1-3 8 7 0 2 9 7 34-1 198 34.5 495 56.9 1-4 347 111 32.0 8 2 34.8 1 9 3 55.6 1-5 1168 374 32.0 233 29.4 607 51.9 1-6 442 149 33.7 113 38.6 262 59.3 1-7 & 1-8 198 59 29.8 43 30.9 102 51.5 1-9 t o 1-15 764 236 30.9 166 31.4 402 52.6 T o t a l 3 7 8 9 1226 32.3 835 32.6 2061 54.4 Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of % recapture f o r resident M.U. groups by 1st m a i l i n g - 2.1 p<* = 0.75 by 2nd m a i l i n g x\ = 7.1 P<* = 0.20 by t o t a l m a i l i n g A = 5.0 P* = 0.60 comparison of % recapture for resident M.U. groups between m a i l i n g s t = 1 . 1 5 P 113 Table XXVII 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing percentage of marked hunters i n hunter returns by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. group. Hunt ret = hunter returns, recapt = returns from hunters who were marked during f i e l d contacts. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident Hunt Hunt Hunt M.U. group ret Recapt % ret Recapt % ret Recapt % 1-1 to 1-3 1539 297 19.3 1090 198 18.2 2629 495 18.8 1-4 335 111 33.1 280 82 29.3 615 193 31.4 1-5 950 374 39.4 684 233 34.1 1634 607 37.2 1-6 642 149 23.2 487 113 23.2 1129 262 23.2 1-7 & 1-8 474 59 12.5 457 43 9.4 931 102 11.0 1-9 to 1-15 1035 236 22.8 929 166 17.9 1964 402 20.5 Total 4975 1226 24.6 3927 835 21.3 8902 2061 23.2 Tests of significance comparison of % recaptured for resident M.U. groups between mailings t = 3.53 = 0.02 114 s i g n i f i c a n t l y (Table XXVIII ). U n s u c c e s s f u l hunters responded to t h e .questionnaire independently of whether they were c o n t a c t e d i n the f i e l d . The r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r f i r s t m a i l i n g s u c c e s s f u l hunters were g r e a t e r than those of the second m a i l i n g s u c c e s s f u l hunters (Table; XXIX ). Because game checks were manned d u r i n g the most s u c c e s s f u l times of the deer hunting season, marked s u c c e s s f u l hunters were more s u c c e s s f u l than unmarked s u c c e s s f u l hunters (Table XXX ) . The d i f f e r e n c e i n the response r a t e s of marked and unmarked s u c c e s s f u l hunters may have been caused by the d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e i r success. For each r e c a p t u r e d hunter, k i l l s checked by f i e l d c o n t a c t s were compared to the co r r e s p o n d i n g r e p o r t e d hunter sample k i l l s (Table XXXI ) . A l l l e g a l bag l i m i t combinations were compared and numerous i r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n c l u d i n g unreported k i l l s , m isreported k i l l s , over bag l i m i t f i e l d c o n t a c t s k i l l s , and over bag l i m i t r e p o r t e d k i l l s , were d e t e c t e d . S i n c e f i e l d c o n t a c t known k i l l s d i d not c o n s t i t u t e complete r e c o r d s of hunter season success, o n l y minimum estimates of r e p o r t i n g b i a s e s c o u l d be determined. Furthermore, the percentage of unreported animals may be higher than t h a t determined here. Because on l y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s c o u l d be determined, i f a hunter was checked with a fawn and r e p o r t e d s h o o t i n g a buck, i t was assumed t h a t the fawn was r e p o r t e d as a buck. I t c o u l d a l s o be p o s s i b l e that the hunter shot both a fawn and a buck and d i d not r e p o r t the fawn. In some cases (6.5%), k i l l s were not r e p o r t e d , while i n others (13.3%), k i l l s were r e p o r t e d as another k i l l type (Table XXXII ). Although 87.9% of the known buck k i l l s were 115 Table XXVIII 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing percentage of marked hunters i n unsuccessful hunter returns by questionnaire mailing and resident M. U. group. Unsuc ret = returns from unsuccessful hunters, recapt = returns from unsuccessful hunters who were marked during f i e l d contacts. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident M.U. group Unsuc ret Recapt % Unsuc ret Recapt % Unsuc ret Recapt % 1-1 to 1-3 913 125 13.7 714 97 13.6 1627 222 13.6 1-4 184 48 26.1 159 32 20.1 343 80 23.3 1-5 437 117 26.8 372 102 27.4 809 219 27.1 1-6 331 58 17.5 267 49 18.4 598 107 17.9 1-7 & 1-8 252 19 7.5 280 16 5.7 532 35 6.6 1-9 to 1-15 416 87 20.9 407 73 17.9 823 160 19.4 Total 2533 454 17.9 2199 369 16.8 4732 823 17.4 Tests of significance comparison of % recaptured f o r resident-M.U. groups between mailings t = 1.46 Po< = 0.20 116 Table XXIX 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing percentage of marked hunters i n successful hunter returns by questionnaire mailing and resident M. D. group. Sue ret = returns from successful hunters, recapt = returns from successful hunters who were marked during f i e l d contacts. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing Resident Sue Sue Sue M.U. group ret Recapt % ret Recapt % ret Recapt % 1-1 to 1-3 626 172 27.5 376 101 26.9 1002 273 27.3 1-4 151 64 42.4 121 50 41.3 272 114 41.9 1-5 513 255 49.7 312 131 42.0 825 386 46.8 1-6 311 91 29.3 220 64 29.1 531 155 29.2 1-7 Sc 1-8 222 40 18.0 177 27 15.3 399 67 17.8 1-9 to 1-15 619 1-49 24.1 522 93 17.8 1141 242 21.2 Total 2442 771 31.6 1728 466 27.0 4170 1237 29.7 Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e comparison of % recaptured f o r resident M.U. groups between m a i l i n g s t = 2.40 = 0.05 117 Table Y Y X 1975 Region 1 integrated deer data shoving percentage difference i n success rates for successful hunters that were marked and unmarked by f i e l d contacts. Mark - Marked, Unmark - Unmarked, % d i f f = percentage difference. F i r s t mailing % success Second mailing I % success Total mailing % success Resident M. U. group Mark Unmark % d i f f Mark Unmark % d i f f Mark Unmark % d i f f 1-1 to 1-3 170 151 * - 1 1 . 2 152 133 - 1 2 . 5 164 144 - 1 2 . 2 1-4 155 134 -13.6* 148 144 - 2.7 152 139 * - 8 . 6 1-5 165 163 - 1 .2 168 147 -14.3 166 157 - 5 . 4 1-6 U9 145 - 2.7 156 137 - 1 2 . 2 152 141 - 7 . 2 1-7 & 1-8 155 153 - 1 . 3 185 148 - 2 0 . 0 167 151 -15 .6 1-9 to 1-15 166 164 - 1 .2 157 160 1.9 163 163 0 . 0 Total 163 155 - 4.9 160 147 - 8.1 162 152 M. - 6.2" over 5% d i f f e r e n c e 118 Table XXYT 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data shoving deer k i l l s checked i n the f i e l d and those reported by hunters sampled by both programs. Inconsistencies between f i e l d contact and hunter sample are indicated by superscripts; a = unreported or misreported k i l l , b = f i e l d contact success exceeded antlerless or t o t a l bag l i m i t , c = reported success exceeded antlerless or t o t a l bag l i m i t . Reported F i e l d contact k i l l s hunter sample k i l l s none * 1B 2B 3B 1D 1F 1B+1D 1B+1F 2B+1D 2B+1F Other Total none 791 14 a 3 a 0 12 a 3 a 0 0 0 0 0 823 1 B 351 1 0 4 5 a 0 9 a 7 a 1 a 1 a 0 0 1 b 479 2B 1 6 0 59 17 0 5 a 1 a 3 a 2 a 1 a 0 0 248 3B 83 35 6 1 7 a 0 2 a 1 a 0 0 0 135 1D 78 9 a 0 0 48 8 a 2 a 0 0 0 2 b 147 1F 15 5 a 0 0 5 a 17 1 a 0 0 0 1 b 44 1B+1D 48 12 1 a 0 26 2 a 9 0 1 a 0 1 b 100 1B+1F 7 2 0 0 1 a 5 0 3 0 0 0 18 2B+1D 27 9 3 0 3 3 a 3 1 a 0 0 1 b 50 2B+1F 4 1 0 .0 1 a 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 Other 3° 0 0 0 3 C 2 C 0 0 0 0 ^bc 9 Total 1567 250 35 1 120 50 21 8 2 0 7 2061 * B = buck, D = doe, F = fawn 119 Table XXXII 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data shoving unreported.and misreported k i l l s with minimum error rates f o r reporting. Reporting status Bucks Does Favns Tot: s i number • % number % number % number % Consistently reported 313 87.9 106 74.1 28 48.0 447 80.3 Unreported 28 7.9 4 2.8 4 6.9 36 6.5 Misreported 15 4.2 33 23.1 26 44.8 74 13.3 (as bucks) ( - ) ( -- ) ( 26) (78.8) (11) (42.3) ( 37) (50.0) (as does) ( 10) (66.7) ( - ) ( - ) (15) (57.7) ( 25) (33.8) (as favns) ( 5) (33.3) ( 7) (21.2) (-) ( - ) ( 12) (16.2) Total reported 356 100.0 143 100.0 58 100.0 557 100.0 1 2 0 c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p o r t e d , only 74.155 o f the doe and 48.0% of the fawn k i l l s were c o r r e c t l y r e p o r t e d . H i s r e p o r t e d fawns were re p o r t e d as bucks (42.3?) and does (57.7%), while misreported does were predominately r e p o r t e d as bucks (78.8%). To determine the cause of the unreported and misreported k i l l s , the format of the 1975 deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was examined. Those q u e s t i o n n a i r e s requested s u c c e s s f u l hunters to i n d i c a t e independently s u b s p e c i e s , sex, and age of t h e i r k i l l s . T h i s allowed hunters t o ambiguously s p e c i f y the type of t h e i r k i l l , (buck, doe, or fawn), by not s u p p l y i n g a l l the requested c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Over 11% of the 6,181 r e p o r t e d deer k i l l s c o uld not be d i r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the t h r e e standard deer types (Table XXXIII ). In order to compare f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample k i l l s , i t was assumed that a l l unknown deer, male and a d u l t k i l l s were buck k i l l s , while a l l unknown f e m a l e k i l l s were doe k i l l s . F i e l d c o n t a c t success f o r r e c a p t u r e d hunters was compared to t h e i r hunter sample responses t o c a l c u l a t e the marked success • • i caseweights (Table XXXIV ) . In g e n e r a l , hunters with no f i e l d checked k i l l s had a higher non-response r a t e than those with checked k i l l s . Only 52.8% of hunters checked without k i l l s responded t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , while over 59% of hunters with checked k i l l s responded. Because hunters could o b t a i n deer p r i o r t o being checked or a f t e r being checked, the f i e l d c o n t a c t success i n d i c a t e d the minimum success f o r c o n t a c t e d hunters. Even so the m a j o r i t y of hunters (50.5%) had the same s u c c e s s f o r both f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample data. Only 2.3% of the hunters had i n c o n s i s t e n t 121 Table XXXIII 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample shoving reported deer k i l l by sex and age with mis-identified k i l l s due to ambiguous questionnaire format. Ambiguous k i l l types are indicated by superscripts: a = assumed to be adult male, b = assumed to be adult female. Age Sex Unknown % Fawn % Adult % Total % Unknown 33 a 0.5 11 0.2 28 a 0.5 72 1.2 Male 560 a 9.1 101 1.6 4511 73.0 5172 83.7 Female 90 b 1.5 50 0.8 797 12.9 937 15.2 Total 683 11.1 162 2.6 5336 86.3 6181 100.0 11.5% of reported k i l l was impossible to accurately i d e n t i f y because of poor design of the 1975 deer hunter sample questionnaire 122 Table XXXIV 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing f i e l d contact minimum success and hunter sample response f o r recaptured hunters. Fi e l d contact minimum success Hunter 0 k i l l s 1 k i l l 2 k i l l s 3 k i l l s Total sample response number % number % number % number % number % Unsuccessful 791 26.6 * 29 4.2 # 3 2.5 0 0.0 823 21.7 1 k i l l 445 15.0 212 30.6 * 13 11.0 0 0.0 670 17.7 2 k i l l s 217 7.3 115 16.6 36 30.5 « 2 33.3 370 9.8 3 k i l l s ' 115 3.9 64 9.2 18 15.3 1 16.7 198 5.2 No response 1403 47.2 274 39.5 48 40.7 3 50.0 1728 45.6 Total 2971 100.0 694 ' 100.0 118 100.0 6 100.00 . 3789 100.0 * inconsistent data (2.28$ of t o t a l re sponse) Comparison of f i e l d contact success to hunter sample success f i e l d contact success y hunter sample success 47 2.3% f i e l d contact success = hunter sample success 1040 50.5 f i e l d contact success < hunter sample success 974 47.3 2061 100.0 1 2 3 f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample r e c o r d s . Table XXXI? was condensed t o compare response r a t e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters (Table XXXV ). Although 52.71 of hunters with 0 f i e l d check k i l l s responded and 60.3% of hunters with at l e a s t one k i l l responded, those percentages could: not be used t o i n d i c a t e response r a t e s f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l and s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s . Because s u c c e s s f u l hunters c o n s t i t u t e d about h a l f the response f o r hunter with 0 f i e l d checked k i l l s , data were r e c l a s s i f i e d before c a l c u l a t i n g r e c a p t u r e r a t e s . By assuming t h a t s u c c e s s f u l respondents had s i m i l a r response r a t e s , the r a t i o o f s u c c e s s f u l hunters t o non-respondents f o r hunters with a t l e a s t one f i e l d check k i l l was used t o remove a l l s u c c e s s f u l respondents and a p r o p o r t i o n o f the nonrespondents from f i e l d c ontacted hunters with no k i l l s (Table XXXVI ) . S i m i l a r l y , by assuming t h a t u n s u c c e s s f u l respondents had s i m i l a r response r a t e s , the r a t i o of u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters t o non-respondents f o r hunters with no f i e l d . , c h e c k e d k i l l s was used to remove a l l u n s u c c e s s f u l f i e l d c o n t a c t e d respondents and a p r o p o r t i o n of the non-respondents from the f i e l d c o n tacted hunters with at l e a s t one k i l l (Table XXXVII ) . Recapture r a t e s f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters (48.0%) and f o r s u c c e s s f u l hunters (59.6%) were c a l c u l a t e d . Although T a b l e s XXXIV to XXXVII present data summarized f o r both m a i l i n g stages and r e s i d e n t H.U.s, r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r a l l m a i l i n g schemes and r e s i d e n t M.O. groups were c a l c u l a t e d . 124. Table XXXV 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing f i e l d contact minimum success and hunter sample response condensed into successful and unsuccessful categories. Hunter sample response Fi e l d contact minimum success 0 k i l l s number 1 or more k i l l s number Total number % Unsuccessful Successful No response 791 a 26.6 777 b 26.1 1403 c 47.2 32 d 461 e 325 f 3 . 9 5 6 . 4 3 9 . 7 823 1238 1728 21.7 32.7 45.6 Total 2971 100.0 818 100.0 3789 100.0 inconsistent data (1.55$ of t o t a l response). 125 Table XXXVI 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of successful hunter sample responses with no f i e l d contact k i l l s . Data r e c l a s s i f i e d from Table XXXV by k = e + b then h = b - b = 0 1 = f + fj_b then i = c - f»b e e Field contact Binimum success 0 k i l l s 1 or more k i l l s Total Hunter sample response number % number % number % Unsuccessful 791 g 48.1 32 j 1.5 823 21.7 Successful Oh 0.0 1238 k 57.8 1238 32.7 No response 855 i 51.9 873 1 40.7 1728 45.6 Total 1646 100.0 2143 100.0 3789 100.0 126 Table XXXVII 1975 Region 1 integrated deer hunter sample and f i e l d contact data showing reclassification of unsuccessful hunter sample response with 1 or more f i e l d contact k i l l s . Data reclassified from Table XXXVI by m = g + j than q = j - j = 0 P = i + -1 then s = 1 - 1» .1 S g Field contact success Hunter Unsuccessful Successful Total sample response number % number % number % Unsuccessful 823 m 48.0 0 q 0.0 823 21.7 Successful 0 n 0.0 1238 r 59.6 1238 32.7 No response 890 P 52.0 838 s 4 0.4 1728 45.6 Total 1713 100.0 2076 100.0 3789 100.0 127 8-5 1975 Hunter Sample E s t i m a t i o n Methods although f o u r d i f f e r e n t methods f o r c a l c u l a t i n g hunter sample e s t i m a t e s were proposed, only three were used f o r the 1975 Begion 1 deer data. The marked animal e s t i m a t i o n method was not used, because the high r a t e of unreported and misreported k i l l s d i d not allow accurate c r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g of hunter sample and f i e l d checked k i l l s . The unmatched k i l l s would have b i a s e d es t i m a t e s by lo w e r i n g the r e c a p t u r e r a t e s . Since 1964, the B . C . F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch has used the r e s p o n s e - l i c e n c e s a l e e s t i m a t i o n method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g game h a r v e s t s . Because s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n response r a t e s f o r r e s i d e n t M.U.s were detected, response caseweights f o r r e s i d e n t M.0- groups were compared t o the r e s p o n s e - l i c e n c e s a l e caseweight (Table XXXVIII ). Since the r e s p o n s e - l i c e n c e s a l e sampling caseweight i s only r e l e v a n t f o r f i r s t m a i l i n g d a t a , no comparisons between second and t o t a l m a i l i n g s were made. For r e s i d e n t H-U. groups, (1-1 to 1-3), (1-6), and (1-9 t o 1^15), th e r e s p o n s e - l i c e n c e s a l e caseweights were higher than the response caseweights, while the other r e s i d e n t M.p. groups had lower caseweights. D i f f e r e n c e s of g r e a t e r than 5% were d e t e c t e d f o r f o u r o f the s i x groups. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i l i n g stage a f f e c t e d comparisons between marked hunter caseweights and the response caseweights (Table XXXIX ). For the f i r s t m a i l i n g s tage, most M.U. groups had marked hunter caseweights l e s s than the corres p o n d i n g response caseweights, while the second m a i l i n g r e t u r n s showed i n c r e a s e s f o r h a l f the groups. When both m a i l i n g s were combined, there was no net change f o r the r e g i o n i n t o t a l , although some 128 Table XXXVIII 1975 Region 1 deer data comparing response caseweights with response-licence sale caseweights. Resp - Response, Resp-lic sale = Response licence sale, %di£f - ^difference. First mailing caseweights Second mailing caseweights Total mailing caseweights Resident M.D. group Resp Resp-l i c sale $ d i f f Resp-l i c Resp sale %diff Resp-l i c Resp sale Jtdiff 1-1 to 1-3 2.81 3.34 * +15.9 2.78 — 1.70 — 1-4 3-41 3.34 - 2.1 2.98 — 1.88 — 1-5 3.55 3.34 - 6.3* 3.71 2.10 — 1-6 3.08 3.34 + 7.8* 2.79 — 1.77 __ 1-7 & 1-8 3.61 3.34 * - 8.1 2.79 — 1.87 — 1-9 to 1-15 3.31 3.34 + 0.9 2.80 1.81 Total 3.20 3.34 + 4.2 2.96 — 1.84 — over 5% difference. 129 Table XXXTX 1975 Region 1 deer data comparing response caseweights with marked hunter caseweights. Resp = response, Mark hunt = marked hunted, % d i f f = %difference. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing caseweights caseweights caseweights Resident Mark Mark Mark M.U. group Resp hunt % d i f f Resp hunt % d i f f Resp hunt %d±ff 1-1 to 1-3 2.81 2.93 + 4.3 2.78 2.89 + 4.0 1.70 1.76 +3.5 1-4 3.41 3.13 - 8.2 2.98 2.88 - 3.4 1.88 1.80 -4.3 1-5 3.55 3.13 -11.8* 3.71 3.41 - 8.1 2.10 1.93 -8.V 1-6 3.08 2.97 - 3.5 2.79 2.59 - 7.2 1.77 1.69 -4.5 1-7 & 1-8 3.61 3.36 - 6.9* 2.79 3.23 +15.8* 1.87 1.94 +3.7 1-9 to 1-15 3.31 3.24 - 2.1 2.80 3.18 +13.6 1.81 1.90 +5.0 Total 3.20 3.09 - 3.4 2.96 3.07 + 3.7 1.84 1.84 0.0 over 5% difference. 1 3 0 H-U- groups showed differences of greater than 536. In general, the marked success (successful) caseweights were over 536 lower than the corresponding response caseweights (Table XL ). Besident M-U. 1-4 always showed a large increase, while resident M.O- groups (1-1 to 1-3), (1-5), and (1-6) always had large decreases. When the marked hunter caseweights were compared to the marked success (successful) caseweights, a l l resident M.O. groups except M.O. 1-4 showed large decreases (Table XLI ) . Although resident M.O. group (1-9 to 1—15) showed a decrease for the f i r s t mailing, i t was p a r t i a l l y counteracted by a large increase f o r the second mailing.. In most cases when the marked success (unsuccessful) caseweights were compared to the marked success (successful) caseweights, large decreases were detected (Table XLII ) . However, some resident M.O.s showed consistently large increases. Estimates of 1975 t o t a l deer k i l l by Begion 1 hunters were calculated by the 19 available estimation methods representing a l l combinations of estimation methods, mailing schemes, and residence s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . Estimates f o r a l l resident M.O.s and a l l hunt M.O.s were produced, but only four of each are presented (Table X L I I X a n d Table XLIV ). The percentage range was over 3036 f o r resident M.O.s and over 2036 f o r M.O.s. Estimates of the 1975 t o t a l deer k i l l were produced f o r two Begion 1 subunits where;the t o t a l k i l l was known from gate access records or could be accurately estimated from f i e l d contact data (Table XLV ). In 1975, a permanent road check f o r 131 Table XL 1975 Region 1 deer data comparing response caseweights with marked success (successful) caseweights. Resp = Response, Mark succ (succ) = Marked success (successful) Jtdiff = ^difference. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing caseweights caseweights caseweights Mark Mark Mark Resident Resp ( succ succ succ M.U. group succ) % d i f f Resp ( succ) fcJiff Resp ( succ) fcjiff 1-1 to 1-3 2.81 2.39 * -15-0 2.78 2.54 - 8.6* 1.70 1.53 * -15.9 1-4 3.41 4.33 +26.9* 2.98 3.53 +18.5* 1.88 2.21 +17.6* 1-5 3.55 * 2.49 -29.9 3.71 3.03 -18.3 2.10 1.66 -20.9 1-6 3.08 2.88 - 6.5* 2.79 2.42 * -13.3 1.77 1.61 * - 9.0 1-7 & 1-8 3.61 2.72 -24.7* 2.79 2.71 - 2.9 1.87 1.66 * -11.2 1-9 to 1-15 3.31 2.66 -19.6* 2.80 3.60 +28.6* 1.81 1.80 - o.6 Total 3.20 2.64 -17.5 2.96 2.93 - 1.0 1.84 1.68 * - 8.7 over 5% difference. 132 Table XLI 1975 Region 1 deer data comparing marked hunter caseweights with marked success (successful) caseweights. Mark hunt -Marked hunter, Mark succ (succ) = Marked success (successful), SEdiff = %d i f f erence. Fi r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing caseweights caseweights caseweights Mark Mark Mark Resident Mark succ Mark succ Mark succ M.U. group hunt ( succ) % d i f f hunt ( succ) % d i f f hunt ( succ) 55diff 1-1 to 1-3 2.93 2.39 * -18.4 2.89 2.54 -12.1 1.76 1.53 * -13.1 1-4 3.13 4.33 +38.3* 2.88 3.53 +22.6* 1.80 2.21 +22.8* 1-5 3.13 2.49 -20.5 3.41 3.03 * -11.1 1.93 1.66 * -14-0 1-6 2.97 2.88 - 3.0 2.59 2.42 - 6.6* 1.69 1.61 - 4.7 1-7 & 1-8 3.36 2.72 -19.0* 3.23 2.71 - 16.1* 1.94 1.66 -14.4 1-9 to 1-15 3.24 2.66 * -17.9 3.18 3.60 +13.2 1.90 1.80 Hr - 5.3 Total 3.09 2.64 * -14.6 3.07 2.93 - 3.3 1.84 1 . 6 8 * - 8 . 7 over % difference. 133 Table XLII 1975 Region 1 deer data comparing marked success (unsuccessful) caseweights with marked success (successful) caseweights. Mark succ (unsucc) = Marked success (unsuccessful), Mark succ (succ) = Marked success (successful), % d i f f = %difference. F i r s t mailing Second mailing Total mailing caseweights caseweights caseweights Mark Mark Mark Mark Mark Mark Resident succ succ succ succ succ succ M.U. group (unsucc )(succ :) J d i f f (unsucc )(succ ) Jtdiff (unsucc )(succ ) % d i f f 3.67 * * * 1-1 to 1-3 2.39 -34.9 3.27 2.54 -22.3 2.04 1.53 -25 .0 1-4 1.46 4 .33 +196.6* 1.83 3.53 +92.9* 1.18 2.21 +87.3* 1-5 4 .55 2.49 -45 .3* 3.91 3.03 -22 .5* 2.40 1.66 -30.8* 1-6 3.10 2.88 - 7.1 2.81 2.42 * -13.9 1.80 1.61 -10.6 1-7 & 1-8 4.59 2.72 -40.7* 4.15 2.71 -34.7 2.46 1.66 -32.5 1-9 to 1-15 4.22 2.66 -37 .0* 2.65 3.60 +35.9* 2.05 1.80 * -12.2 Total 3.86 2.64 # -31.6 3.25 2.93 * - 9.9 2.08 1.68 * -19.3 * over 5% difference. 134 Table XLIII 1975 Region 1 deer data showing estimated t o t a l k i l l by resident M. U. using d i f f e r e n t estimation methods. Cwt no = Caseweight number. Cwt no Resident M. U. Estimation method 1-1 1-5 1-10 1-13 2 Response - licence sales . 3010 2810 1460 1200 3 Response - f i r s t mailing Region 2890 2690 1400 1150 4 Response - f i r s t mailing M. U. 2510 2990 1470 1160 5 Response - both mailings Region 2510 2440 1470 1240 6 Response - both mailings M. D. 2320 2790 1480 1170 7 Response - phase mailing Region 2270 2280 1510 1310 8 Response - phase mailing M. U. 2190 2650 1480 1180 9 Marked hunter - f i r s t mailing Region 2780 2610 1360 1100 10 Marked hunter - f i r s t mailing M. U.. 2650 2630 1420 1160 11 Marked hunter - both mailings Region 2510 2440 1470 1250 12 Marked hunter - both mailings M. U. 2400 2560 1520 1290 13 Marked hunter - phase mailing Region 2320 2330 1540 1340 14 Marked hunter - phase mailing M. U. 2240 2500 1530 1380 15 Marked success - f i r s t mailing Region 2480 2310 1200 950 16 Marked success - f i r s t mailing M. U. 2260 2240 1220 970 17 Marked success - both mailings Region 2340 2270 1360 1140 18 Marked success - both mailings M. U. 2150 2280 1450 1230 19 Marked success - phase mailing Region 2270 2280 1500 1300' 20 Marked success - phase mailing M. U. 2110 2340 1720 1510 Mean 2430 2500 1450 1210 Range 900 750 520 560 % range 31% 30% 46£ 135 Table XLIV 1975 Region 1 deer data shoving estimated total k i l l by M. U. using different estimation methods. Cwt no = Caseweight number. Cwt no Estimation method 1-2 M. U. 1-5 hunted 1-10 1-11 2 Response - licence sales 800 1430 1860 1960 3 Response - f i r s t mailing Region 770 1370 1790 1880 4 Response - f i r s t mailing M. U. 680 1500 1800 1930 5 Response - both mailings Region 720 1270 1720 1730 6 Response - both mailings M. U. 670 1420 1760 1760 7 Response - phase mailing Region 690 1210 1700 1640 8 Response - phase mailing M. TJ. 660 1370 1730 1640 9 Marked hunter - f i r s t mailing Region 740 1330 1690 1820 10 Marked hunter - f i r s t mailing M. U. 710 1340 1720 1830 11 Marked hunter - both mailings Region 720 1280 1730 1730 12 Marked hunter - both mailings M. U. 690 1320 1740 1750 13 Marked hunter - phase mailing Region 710 1240 1750 1680 U Marked hunter - phase mailing M. U. 680 1310 1770 1690 15 Marked success - f i r s t mailing Region 670 1160 1500 1610 16 Marked success - f i r s t mailing M. U.- 620 1160 1500 1600 17 Marked success - both mailings Region 680 1180 1600 1610 18 Marked success - both mailings M. U. 630 1200 1630 1620 19 Marked success - phase mailing Region 690 1210 1700 1640 20 Marked success - phase mailing M. U. 640 1250 1790 1690 Mean Raiige % range 690 180 26% 1290 340 26% 1710 360 21% 1730 360 2155 136 Table XLV 1975 Region 1 deer data showing known t o t a l harvest from permanent game checks and hunter sample estimated harvests. Subunits were determined from primary location f i e l d s . Reported k i l l and estimates w i l l be di f f e r e n t using other location f i e l d weightings. Nanaimo Subunit River 1-5-3 Northwest Bay Subunit 1-5-7 k i l l % k i l l % F i e l d contact known k i l l 88 mmmm. u o Hunter sample reported k i l l 102 115 113 81 Estimated k i l l - Response -F i r s t mailing Region caseweight 217 247 254 181 Estimated k i l l - Response -F i r s t mailing M. D. caseweight 24-0 273 278 199 Estimated k i l l - Response -Phase mailing M. U. caseweight 191 217 200 142 Estimated k i l l - Marked hunter -phase mailing M. U. caseweight 182 206 192 137 Estimated k i l l - Marked success -phase mailing M. U. caseweight 170 193 179 127 Weekday harvests (12) and k i l l s outside game check controlled area ( u ) were estimated from 1974 Northwest Bay game check records. 137 subunit 1-5-3 {Nanaimo Biver) , r e p o r t e d 88 deer shot i n the watershed, while a game check manned d u r i n g weekends and h o l i d a y s a t Northwest Bay t a l l i e d 114 deer f o r subun i t 1-5-7. Based on r a t i o of weekend to weekday suc c e s s f o r 1974 hu n t i n g season a t Northwest Bay (Kale, 1975), 140 deer were es t i m a t e d k i l l e d i n subu n i t 1-5-7 during the 1975 season. Por s u b u n i t 1-5-3 the number of hunter sample r e p o r t e d k i l l s was g r e a t e r than the game check known t o t a l k i l l , while v i c a versa f o r subun i t 1-5-7. A l l e s t i m a t e s were c o n s i d e r a b l y higher than the known h a r v e s t s . The r e s p o n s e - f i r s t m a i l i n g Begion e s t i m a t i o n method overestimated the k i l l by 247% f o r subuni t 1-5-3 and 181% f o r s u b u n i t 1-5-7, while the response-f i r s t m a i l i n g H-U. e s t i m a t i o n method produce o v e r e s t i m a t e s of 273% and 199% r e s p e c t i v e l y . When the second m a i l i n g data were i n c o r o p o r a t e d using the response-phase m a i l i n g M.O. e s t i m a t i o n method, the es t i m a t e s were reduced t o 217% and 142% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The marked hunter-phase m a i l i n g H.O. e s t i m a t i o n method r e s u l t e d i n esimates of 182 deer (206%) f o r subunit 1-5-3 and 192 deer (137%) f o r subunit 1-5-7. The lowest e s t i m a t e s were produced by the marked success-phase m a i l i n g e s t i m a t i o n method — 170 deer (193%) f o r subunit 1-5-3 and 179 deer (127%) f o r su b u n i t 1-5-7. Although nineteen e s t i m a t i o n methods were used t o c a l c u l a t e harvest e s t i m a t e s f o r the two s u b u n i t s only f i v e are presented i n Table XIV. 1 3 8 8.6 1964-74 Harvest Estimates The B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch has conducted hunter samples s i n c e 1950. In most y e a r s , every f i f t h hunting l i c e n c e c o u n t e r f o i l from government agency submissions was s e l e c t e d and i t s h o l d e r was mailed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Table XLVI ) . The percentage r e t u r n v a r i e d depending on c u t - o f f dates f o r acceptance of the forms by the F i s h and H i l d l i f e Branch. The average percentage o f l e g i o n 1 (Besident Area 1) l i c e n c e h o l d e r s sampled was 10.8% between 1964 and 1974 with the lowest sampling i n t e n s i t i e s being r e p o r t e d s i n c e 1970. Complete f i l e s f o r l i c e n c e h o l d e r s i n past years were not a v a i l a b l e , because t h e F i s h and W i l d l i f e data p r o c e s s i n g s e c t i o n only r e t a i n e d l i c e n c e c o u n t e r f o i l s f o r one y e a r . The only e x i s t i n g l i c e n c e c o u n t e r f o i l s were the 1973 Begion 1 forms. During the 1973 hunter sample, 4,550 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed to hunters who purchased l i c e n c e s on Vancouver I s l a n d (Table XLVII ). S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the sampling i n t e n s i t i e s f o r Vancouver I s l a n d government agencies were d e t e c t e d . I n some y e a r s , time and f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s a f f e c t e d the dates on which q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed and the l e n g t h of time f o r acceptance of returned forms. Begion 1 deer hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d a f t e r the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch c u t -o f f date f o r the 1974 analyses were r e t a i n e d and entered i n t o the data system developed i n t h i s t h e s i s . A t o t a l of 189 (20.6%) of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with postmarks were r e c e i v e d a f t e r the c u t - o f f date (Figure 10 ). In g e n e r a l , the hunter . success (reported k i l l / h u n t e r ) i n c r e a s e d with the length of time s i n c e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed (Table XLVIII ) . In 1973, the Table XLVI 1964 to 1974 Region 1 licence sales and questionnaire returns (from B. C. Hunter Sample Analyses 1964 - 74). Quest = questionnaire, a = reported i n t h i s thesis. Licence Quest Quest Year sales mailed returned % return % sampled 1964 23063 4162 1538 37.0 6.7 1965 23798 4759 1768 37.2 7.4 1966 24520 5162 2031 39.3 8.3 1967 25309 5211 2078 39.9 8.2 1968 25512 8143 2570 31.6 10.1 1969 24337 8023 2261 28.2 9.3 1970 25361 5121 1544 30.2 6.1 1971 24880 5000 1623 32.5 6.5 1972 22587 5000 1291 25.8 5.7 1973 26355 4550 1002 22.0 3.8 1974 22557 4486 903 20.1 4.0 1975 a 23717 22679 12913 56.9 54.5 Total 291996 82296 31522 38.3 10.8 1964 - 74 Summary Total licence holders Total quest mailed Total quest returned Average % returned Average % sampled 268279 59617 18609 31.2 6.9 U O Table XLVII 1973 hunting licence sales f o r government agencies i n Region 1 showing percentage of licence holder sampled. Government Licence Selected Agency counterfoils f o r sampling Sampled ^sampled V i c t o r i a 8081 6630 1326 16.41 Nanaimo 5274 3247 649 12.31 Courtenay 2277 a 1648 330 14.49 Duncan 2749 2392 478 17.39 Port Alberni 3345 2921 584 17.46 Ganges 241 100 20 8.30 Total 21967 16938 3387 b 15.42 a 8384 licences sold - only 2277 counterfoils available b 4550 questionnaires mailed. Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e u n i f o r m i t y of % sampled by government agencies X =63.4 ? c' ~ 0.000 141 F i g u r e 10 1973 and 1974 hunter season success as a f u n c t i o n of time s i n c e f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e c e i v e d showing the e f f e c t of B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch c u t - o f f dates f o r hunter sample a n a l y s i s - "A" and "B" i n d i c a t e c u t - o f f d ates. 142 120 5Lioo C/i o o o 3 0 ) c o CD 80+ 60+ 40 T A 0-5 6-10 16-20 26-35 11-15 21-25 36 + Days after 1st form re turned 143 Table X L V I I I Comparison of hunter season success for questionnaires returned before and after the 1973 and 1974 Fish and Wildlife Branch cut-off dates for analysis. Quest = Questionnaires. Quest % success %• Quest % success % 1-20a 655 71.3 63.8 90.5 643 71.3 97.7 90.5 1-25b 730 79.4 66.0 93.6 (717) 79.5 (101.1) 93.6 1-110 ' 919 100.0 70.5 100.0 (902) 100.0 (108.0) 100.0 ( ) estimated a 1973 cut-off date b 1974 cut-off date 144 c u t - o f f date was approximately one week e a r l i e r and an estimated 28.756 of the deer q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not a n a l y s e d . The 1973 hunter success showed a trend s i m i l a r to t h a t f o r the 1974 data and hunter success was underestimated by an estimated 9.5SJ. When the o l d hunter sample data (1964^-74) were r e p r o c e s s e d , sampling caseweights were added to the data f i l e s . For a l l years except 1972, r e s i d e n t area 1 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were given both r e s p o n s e - f i r s t m a i l i n g Begion and r e s p o n s e - f i r s t m a i l i n g M.O. caseweights. Comparisons o f the r e s i d e n t H.O* response caseweights showed d i f f e r e n c e s of over 5% f o r 70$ of the annual caseweights f o r r e s i d e n t MO. groups (Table X L X X ) . Besident M.O. groups (1-1 t o 1-3), (1-4) , and (1-6) tended to have lower r e s p o n s e - f i r s t m a i l i n g M.O. caseweights than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g Begion caseweights, while the o t h e r r e s i d e n t M.O. groups u s u a l l y had higher caseweights. The B. C. hunter sample e s t i m a t e s ( B . C . F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch 1964-1974) f o r hunting e f f o r t i n Begion 1 (M.A. ,1) show l a r g e f l u c t u a t i o n s (Figure 11 ) . Those e s t i m a t e s were based on the r e s p o n s e - l i c e n c e s a l e caseweights and used a "hunter u n i t " as a hunter hunting i n one HA. Because many hunters not l i v i n g i n Begion 1 were c l a s s i f i e d as Begion 1 hunters and hunters c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e d more than one e f f o r t u n i t , the B. C. hunter sample overestimated the hunting e f f o r t . When the r e - e s t a b l i s h e d deer hunter sample data f i l e s (1964-74) were a n a l y s e d , s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower e s t i m a t e s o f hunting e f f o r t were o b t a i n e d . The f i r s t m a i l i n g M.O. response caseweights with hunters as the e f f o r t i n d i c e s produced lower, more c o n s i s t e n t e s t i m a t e s of hunting e f f o r t i n fiegion 1. Table XLIX 1964.-74- deer hunter sample data comparing response - f i r s t mailing M. U. caseweights to response - f i r s t mailing region caseweight for resident M. U. groups i n Region 1. Resp-first mail reg cwt = Response-first mailing region caseweight, cwt = caseweight. Response - f i r s t mailing M. U. caseweights for resident M. U. group Resp- — 1 — — f i r s t 1-9, 1-11 1-10, 1-U • mail 1-1 to 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 & 1-8 to 1-3 to 1-15 reg Year cwt cwt % cwt % cwt % cwt % cwt % cwt % cwt % 1964 14.49 13.83 - 4.55 14.46 - 0.21 15.89 9.66* 13.11 -13.09* 13.36 - 1.86 16.66 14.98* 16.39 13.11 1965 13.12 13.65 4.04 8.71 -12.59* 13.85 9.60* 12.24 - 6.71* 10.67 -18.67* 17.941 36.74 17.94b 36.74* 1966 11.94 10.98 - 8.04* 10.43 -12.65* 13.38 12.06* 10.66 -10.72* 15.76 31 . 9 9 * 9.70 -18.76* 15.06 26.13 1967 11.97 11.31 - 5.28* 9.36 -12.57* 12.43 4.10 18.65 56.20* 15.67 31.24* 10.65 -10.80* 9.76 -18.26* 1968 9-52 9.03 - 5.15* 9.41 - 1.16 10.45 9.77* 9.45 - 0.74 10.54 10.71* 9.36 - 1.68 8.93 - 6.30 1969 10.71 10.31 - 3.73 11.15 4.-11 13.34 24.56* 10.50 - 1.96 11.67 8.96* 9.45 -11.76 8.85 -17.37* 1970 16.07 18.00 12.01* 20.02 24.58* 16.19 0.75 12.12 -24.58* 18.16 13.01* 15.71 - 2.24 13.42 -16.49* 1971 14.80 14.48 - 2.16 14.99 1.28 15.72 6.22* 14.51 - 1.96 18.16 22.70* 13.94 - 5.81 12.71 -14.05* 1972 a 17.58 — — -. — — _ — — _ 1973 27.03 21.30 -21.20* 23.91 -11.54* 31.29 15.76* 27.11 0.30 35.77 32.33 35.56 31.56 31.64 17.06* 1974 19.52 19.25 - 1.38 16.42 -15.88* 21.13 8.25* 19.06 - 2.36 19.41 - 0.56 18.87 - 3.33 21.15 8.35 Average 14.92 14.21 - 4.76 13.89 - 6.90* 16.37 9.72* 14.74 - 1.21 16.92 13.40* 15.78 5.76 15.59 4.49 a Response - f i r s t mailing M. U. caseweights were or s t a t i s t i c s . b resident M. U.s 1-9 to 1-15 combined. * over 5% d i f f e r e n c e unavailable. Data were not included i n averages 146 F i g u r e 11 Estimated deer hunter e f f o r t f o r Begion 1 (II. A. 1) from 1964 t o 1974 showing B- C. , F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch e s t i m a t e s (B. C- F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1964-1974) and those produced i n t h i s t h e s i s . "A" i n d i c a t e s an erroneous data p o i n t . , TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE Comparison of e s t i m a t e s between years t = 2.72 P«< = 0.01 30000+ Hun te r e f fo r t 20000+ 10000 64 66 68 70 72 Year B C publ i shed th i s thes i s 148 The B. C. hunter sample est i m a t e s f o r the t o t a l deer k i l l i n Region 1 are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the r e -c a l c u l a t e d h a r v e s t l e v e l s (Figure 12 ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n ha r v e s t and e f f o r t e s t i m a t e s e x i s t e d even though both the B. C. hunter sample e s t i m a t e s and the r e c a l c u l a t e d values were d e r i v e d from the same data. The B. C. hunter sample est i m a t e s c o u l d not be used t o e f f e c t i v e l y manage w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s , because s t a t i s t i c s were only c a l c u l a t e d f o r l a r g e g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s . The t o t a l Vancouver I s l a n d deer harvest remained r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t between 1964 and 1974 (averaging 21,000 d e e r ) , however, crude hunting r e p o r t s had i n d i c a t e d t h a t the peak deer h a r v e s t s had s h i f t e d from the southern t o the northern end of Vancouver I s l a n d . The t r e n d s i n t o t a l k i l l and t o t a l e f f o r t f o r f o u r M.O-s i n Begion 1 are shown i n F i g u r e 13 , F i g u r e 14 , F i g u r e 15 , and F i g u r e 16 . The e f f o r t estimates show d e c l i n e s f o r M-U.s. 1-r2 and 1-5, a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e f o r H.D. 1-10, and l a r g e i n c r e a s e f o r H.D. 1-11. The deer harvest peaked i n M.0. 1-2 d u r i n g the e a r l y 60's, i n 8.0. 1-5 during the mid 60»s, i n M.D. 1-10 d u r i n g the l a t e 60«s, and i n M. 0. 1-11 d u r i n g the e a r l y 70*s. Estimates f o r a l l M.U.s i n Begion 1 have been submitted to the B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch-Es t i m a t e s of t o t a l h a r v e s t f o r 15 Vancouver I s l a n d s u b u n i t s are presented i n F i g u r e 17 , F i g u r e 18 , F i g u r e 19 , F i g u r e 20 , and F i g u r e 21 - Subunits f o r southern Vancouver. I s l a n d , 1-2-3, 1-3-1, and 1-4-9, show peak harvests i n the e a r l y 60's. Harvests f o r M.U. 1-5 s u b u n i t s show l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t i e s , while s u b u n i t s 1-5-7, 1-7-3 and 1-7-8 show s i m i l a r i t i e s i n estimated k i l l . The 149 F i g u r e 12 Estimated deer h a r v e s t s f o r Begion 1 (H.ft- 1) from 1964-1974 showing B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch e s t i m a t e s (B. : C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1964-1974) and those produced i n t h i s t h e s i s . TESTS Of SIGNIFICANCE Comparison of e s t i m a t e s between years t •» 0.22 P* * 0.80 150 30000+ x c 20000 10000 Deer kil l 64 66 68 70 72 74 Year B C pub l i shed this t h e s i s 151 F i g u r e 13 Estimated hunter e f f o r t and deer h a r v e s t s f o r H.D. 1-2 from 1964 to 1974. 64 66 68 70 72 74 Year Ef for t Deer k i l l 153 Figure 14 Estimated hunter e f f o r t and deer harvests f o r 8-0*. 1-5 from 1964 to 1974. 4000+ 2000+ M U 1 64 66 68 70 Year i i 72 Ef fo r t Deer k i l l 155 Figure 15 Estimated buster e f f o r t and deer harvests f o r 8-0. 1-10 from 1964 to 1974-Year E f fo r t Deer k i l l 157 F i g u r e 16 Estimated hunter e f f o r t and deer h a r v e s t s f o r M . O . 1 - 1 1 from 1 9 6 4 to 1 9 7 4 . E f f o r t Deer k i l l 1 5 9 F i g u r e 17 Estimated deer h a r v e s t s for- safeunits 1-3-1 (Gordon) , 1-2-3 (Muir) , and 1-4-9 (Nixon) from 1964 to 1974. 800+ Deer h a r v e s t s 400+ 161 Fi g u r e 18 Estimated deer h a r v e s t s f o r s u b u n i t s 1-5-1 (Chemainus), 1-5-3 {Nanaimo B i v e r ) , and 1-5-4 {Nanaimo Lakes) from 1964 to 1974. 162 800+ x - 4 0 0 Dee r ha rves t s i 1" 64 66 68 70 =r=—r" 72 74 Year 1-5-1 C h e m a i n u s 1-5-3 N a n a i m o R. 1-5-4 Nana imo L k s . 163 Figure 19 Estimated deer harvests for suhunits 1-5-7 (Northwest Bay), 1-7-3 (Franklin), and 1-7-8 (Ash) from 1964 to 1974. 164 1-5-7 N o r t h w e s t Bay 1-7-3 F r a n k l i n 1-7-8 Upper A s h 165 F i g u r e 20 Estimated deer h a r v e s t f o r s u b u n i t s 1-10-8 (White), 1-10-14 (Eve), and 1-11-6 (Woss) from 1964 to 1974. 1-10-8 W h i t e 1-10-14 Eve 1-11-6 W o s s 167 F i g u r e 21 Estimated deer h a r v e s t s f o r subunit 1-11-4 (D a v i e ) , 1-11-9 (Bononza) , and 1-13-25 (San J o s e f ) from 1964 t o 1974. 168 800} x " 4 0 0 D e e r h a r v e s t s 64 66 72 68 70 Year 1-11-4 Dav ie 1-11-9 B o n a n z a 1-13-25 S a n J o s e f 169 high value f o r s u b u n i t 1-7-8 and the low values f o r s u b u n i t s 1-5-3 and 1-5-4 i n 1970 are suspected. Subunits i n H.U. 1-10 show s i m i l a r t r e n d s , although s u b u n i t 1-10-14 had h i g h e r h a r v e s t s s i n c e 1971 than subunit 1-10-8. Northern Vancouver I s l a n d s u b u n i t s 1 -11-6, 1-11-4, 1-11-9 and 1-13-25, show low h a r v e s t s i n the mid and l a t e 60«s with i n c r e a s i n g k i l l s i n the 70*s. K i l l and e f f o r t e s t i m a t e s f o r a l l Begion 1 s u b u n i t s have been submitted t o the B- C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. Although the e f f e c t s of winter weather, a c c e s s , and hunting r e g u l a t i o n s are r e f l e c t e d i n the s u b u n i t e s t i m a t e s , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t r e n d s i s not the concern of t h i s t h e s i s and w i l l be l e f t t o the B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. The k i l l e s t i m a t e s from s u b u n i t s 1-5-3 {Nanaimo fiiver) and 1-5-4 (Nanaimo Lakes) were compared to gate access r e c o r d s i n d i c a t i n g a c t u a l h a r v e s t s (Table L ) . Hunter sample k i l l e s t imates f o r Nanaimo Lakes were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the known h a r v e s t s . From 1964 to 1974, the hunter k i l l i n s u b u n i t 1-5-3 was overestimated by 47%, while the k i l l i n s u b u n i t 1-5-4 was overestimated by 63%. The e s t i m a t e s were extremely v a r i a b l e with e s t i m a t e s ranging from -10018 to 3288 of the known h a r v e s t . S i n c e 1971, the hunter k i l l f o r s u b u n i t s 1-5-3 and 1-5-4 has been overestimated by 277%. The 1975 Region 1 hunter sample was conducted d i f f e r e n t l y from previous samples, as the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not anonymous and an i n c e n t i v e p r i z e was o f f e r e d t o i n c r e a s e the response r a t e . Although the known k i l l i n subunit 1-5-3 (Nanaimo Biver) i n c r e a s e d by 83%, the hunter sample estimated harvest o n l y i n c r e a s e d by 19% (Table LI ). In s u b u n i t 1-5-7 (Northwest Bay) 170 1 9 6 4 - 7 4 Region 1 deer data showing known t o t a l harvest from permanent game checks and hunter sample estimated harvests based on response - f i r s t mailing M. TJ. caseweights. Subunits were determined from primary-location f i e l d s . Nanaimo River Nanaimo Lakes Subunit 1 - 5 - 3 Subunit 1 - 5 - 4 Game Hunter Game Hunter check sample check sample Year known estimated % known estimated % k i l l harvest difference k i l l harvest difference 1964 259 130 - 5 0 337 569 69 65 153 461 201 268 471 76 66 173 171 - 1 302 479 59 67 142 234 65 321 549 71 68 148 107 21 195 223 14 69 53 73 38 59 92 56 70 108 52 -50 137 0 - 1 0 0 71 46 67 46 154 435 182 72 (91) (-) — 38 (-) 73 57 244 328 205 464 126 74 48 201 419 ( - ) (183 ) — Total 1187 1740 47 2016 3282 63 ( ) not included i n t o t a l s or s t a t i s t i c a l tests. Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e uniformity of % difference for Nanaimo R i v e r *1 - 1100 0.000 for Nanaimo Lakes = 430 P~ = 0.000 comparison of % difference for Nanaimo Ri v e r t = 1 . 3 4 = 0.20 for Nanaimo Lakes t = 3 .11 p * = 0 .01 171 Table LI 1974 and 1975 Region 1 deer hunter sample data shoving known t o t a l harvests from permanent game checks and hunter sample estimated harvests based on response -f i r s t mailing K. U. caseweights. Subunits were determined from primary location f i e l d s . Nanaimo River Northwest Bay Subunit 1-5-3 Subunit 1-5-7 1974 1975 % 1974 1975 % Game check known k i l l 48 83 183 120 140 117 Hunter sample estimated harvest 201 240 119 313 278 89 % 419 273 65 260 199 76 172 the known harvest increased by 17%, yet the estimated harvest decreased. Therefore, the 1975 hunter sample estimates should not be compared to estimates from previous years. 173 9.0 DISCISSION Since 1950, w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s have used B . C . hunter sample estimates to j u s t i f y t h e i r management p o l i c i e s and strategies (flcCaughran, 1971). Lacking data on w i l d l i f e fecundity, mortality, and recruitment schedules i n d i f f e r e n t biogeocliioatic zones, b i o l o g i s t s have r e l i e d on harvest s t a t i s t i c s to indicate population trends. However, the accuracy and s e n s i t i v i t y of those harvest estimates have never been c r i t i c a l l y examined. For several game species, harvest estimates have remained r e l a t i v e l y constant u n t i l other influcences, such as f i e l d checks and public pressure, have forced regulation changes to preserve dwindling w i l d l i f e stocks. In hindsight, estimates for large geographical areas may have balanced increasing populations with decreasing ones, and access into unexploited areas with habitat destruction and overexploitation i n others. The i n a b i l i t y of the B. C. hunter sample to document harvest declines f o r s p e c i f i c w i l d l i f e populations i n s p e c i f i c geographical areas has led to the mismanagement of w i l d l i f e resources i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 9.1 1975 Region 1 Deer Hunter Sample The d i s t r i b u t i o n of licence holders by government agency showed that although most : hunters resided i n the government agency area where t h e i r licences were purchased, many l i v e d elsewhere. To obtain accurate information on the movements of hunters, actual residences should be used rather than the s i t e of hunting licence purchase. The 1975 d i s t r i b u t i o n of li c e n c e 174 h o l d e r s was o b t a i n e d by c l a s s i f y i n g a l l a v a i l a b l e hunting l i c e n c e s i n t o r e s i d e n t M.U.s and government a g e n c i e s . The r e s u l t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n and the annual summaries of hunting l i c e n c e s a l e s by government agency were used t o p r e d i c t l i c e n c e h o l d e r p o p u l a t i o n s by r e s i d e n t M.0. from 1964 to 1974. I t was assumed t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s i d e n t M.U.s was c o n s t a n t w i t h i n government agencies. Although the v a l i d i t y of t h i s assumption c o u l d not be t e s t e d , no obvious trends were d e t e c t e d i n the f i r s t m a i l i n g M.U. response caseweights {Table XLIX). In the p a s t the B.C. P i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch used anonymous q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to encourage hunters to r e p l y h o n e s t l y . Since only a few o b s o l e t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s s p e c i f i e d i l l e g a l k i l l s , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether hunters v i o l a t i n g game r e g u l a t i o n s would ever r e p o r t such a c t i v i t y . ; In 1975, Region 1 developed a computerized m a i l i n g system f o r permanently i d e n t i f i e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , so responses c o u l d be t r a c e d to i n d i v i d u a l hunters. T h i s procedure a l s o allowed r e s u r v e y i n g of non-respondents to the i n i t i a l m a i l i n g . C o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t , i n c l u d i n g r a d i o and. newspaper press r e l e a s e s and the r a f f l i n g o f a r i f l e , was i n v e s t e d to encourage hunters to respond. The e f f e c t s of the p u b l i c i t y campaign and marked q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o u l d not be separated nor compared to response r a t e s f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p r i o r t o 1975. ( D i f f e r e n t c u t -o f f dates f o r acceptance o f r e t u r n e d forms i n the past a f f e c t e d response r a t e s ) . A f t e r two m a i l i n g s 57% o f Begion 1 l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were sampled. T h i s sampling i n t e n s i t y was 15 times higher than the 1973 r a t e and ensured a b e t t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the sample with r e s p e c t to M.U.s and s u b u n i t s . 175 The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the percentage of sampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s by r e s i d e n t M.O. shows t h a t l a r g e r e s i d e n t areas should not be used as sampling u n i v e r s e s . D i f f e r e n t r a t e s f o r forwarding of hunting l i c e n c e c o u n t e r f o i l s from the government agencies t o the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, can r e s u l t i n non-uniform sampling r a t e s . S i n c e hunters q u i t e Often hunt where they r e s i d e , t h i s sampling b i a s can l e a d to i n a c c u r a t e hunter sample e s t i m a t e s . Besident H.U. appears to be s u i t a b l e r e s i d e n c e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n f o r Begion 1 and has s e v e r a l advantages. The use of one s e t of boundaries f o r both hunting zones and r e s i d e n t areas makes data p r e s e n t a t i o n s i m p l e r and a l l o w s d i r e c t comparisions of hunters l i v i n g where they hunted with those from other a r e a s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n response r a t e s and sampling r a t e s between r e s i d e n t H.O.s were d e t e c t e d , while no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between r e s i d e n t s u b u n i t s w i t h i n the same tt.0. A l l p u b l i s h e d F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch e s t i m a t e s have been based on respondents to an i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e by i m p l i c i t l y assuming those respondents were a random sample of a l l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s . By comparing the percentage of hunters, the s u c c e s s of hunters, and the success of respondents, f o r both m a i l i n g s t h a t assumption was t e s t e d . In a l l cases, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were detected. T h e r e f o r e , e s t i m a t e s based on o n l y f i r s t m a i l i n g data are b i a s e d . Although a h i g h e r percentage o f l i c e n c e h o l d e r s r e p o r t e d hunting i n the second m a i l i n g with a lower success r a t e s , the b i a s e s do not c o u n t e r a c t each .other t o produce unbiased h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s . In g e n e r a l , the use of only f i r s t 176 m a i l i n g data r e s u l t s i n o v e r e s t i m a t e s of h a r v e s t s , underestimates c f hunter e f f o r t , and o v e r e s t i m a t e s of hunter suc c e s s . Since e s t i m a t e s from o l d hunter sample data (1964-74) are based on one m a i l i n g , they are b i a s e d and cannot be d i r e c t l y compared, with, e s t i m a t e s d e r i v e d from m u l t i p l e m a i l i n g s . To produce a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s from o l d d a t a , c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s must be d e r i v e d to compensate for. non-response b i a s e s . 9.2 1975 Region 1 Deer Hunter Sample L o c a t i o n Coding In t h i s t h e s i s , two methods f o r e n t e r i n g hunt l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n were developed. L o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r o l d game check (1953 to 1975) and o l d hunter sample (1964 t o 1974) d a t a , were manually assi g n e d i n t e g e r codes as the o b s o l e t e data were recoded. Hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r recent hunter sample data (1975) were keypunched and a u t o m a t i c a l l y a s s i g n e d l o c a t i o n codes by computer programs. Since 1950, F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch data p r o c e s s i n g has manually a s s i g n e d hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s to r e g i o n s (1950 to 1963), M. A-s (1964 to 1974), and M.U.s (1975). However, as the management zones became s m a l l e r , more l o c a t i o n s c o u l d not be placed i n t o s i n g l e zones. Almost a l l l o c a t i o n names can be placed i n t o M.A., 94.2% i n t o M.U.s, while only 75.5% can be keyed to s i n g l e s u b u n i t s . T h e r e f o r e the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch data p r o c e s s i n g methods cannot be extended to produce management data at the s u b u n i t l e v e l . The data f i l e must be based on a v a r i a b l e number of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s f o r each l o c a t i o n name. When l o c a t i o n names c o u l d not be d e f i n e d by s i n g l e 177 s u b u n i t s , some s u b u n i t s were more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the name than o t h e r s . To i n c r e a s e the. f l e x i b i l i t y o f the l o c a t i o n c o d i n g , primary and secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s were used t o i n d i c a t e two l e v e l s of l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y - S i n c e 8% of the l o c a t i o n names had a t l e a s t one secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d , the i n t e g r a t e d data system r e q u i r e d a v a r i a b l e t o i n d i c a t e the type of l o c a t i o n f i e l d . A f t e r u sing the l o c a t i o n l i s t to assign, i n t e g e r codes to hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s , the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s r e p r e s e n t i n g that l o c a t i o n were compared t o oth e r a v a i l a b l e l o c a t i o n d a t a . For r e c e n t (since 1975) hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a , the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s were compared to the hunt M.O. ( i f s p e c i f i e d ) . Only those l o c a t i o n f i e l d s belonging t o the same M.O. were r e t a i n e d . As a consequence, the 1975 hunter sample data had a high e r percentage (97.2%) o f i t s hunt l o c a t i o n s d e f i n e d by a s i n g l e H.O.-, than t h e master l o c a t i o n l i s t (94.1%). Since i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the u n p u b l i c i z e d s u b u n i t s cannot be requested by q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , l o c a t i o n names are- the. only; means of e x t r a c t i n g s u b u n i t d a t a . In g e n e r a l , the most common l o c a t i o n names are the l e a s t s p e c i f i c , r e s u l t i n g i n onl y 65% of the hunt l o c a t i o n s on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s being assigned to s u b u n i t s , while 75.5% o f the names on the l o c a t i o n l i s t c o uld be. For s i m i l i a r r e a s o n s , the percentage of l o c a t i o n s with a t l e a s t one secondary f i e l d was i n c r e a s e d from the l o c a t i o n l i s t (8.5%) to the 1975 Begion 1 deer hunter hunter sample data (11.6%). The two l e v e l s of l o c a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y a llow d i f f e r e n t weighting of primary and secondary l o c a t i o n s . Data f o r r e p o r t e d deer k i l l s f o r s u b u n i t s i n M.O. 1-5 showed t h a t the r e p o r t e d 178 k i l l can vary depending cn the treatment of the location data. Some subunits, such as 1-5-1 and 1-5-4, are usually accurately s p e c i f i e d , while others such as 1-5-6 and 1-5-7 have poor contrast. By using di f f e r e n t location weights, d i f f e r e n t reported and estimated k i l l s f o r subunits can be derived. Althought i t i s not yet possible to determine the r e l a t i v e weighting f o r primary and secondary location f i e l d s , the method i s superior to either equal weighting or using only one loc a t i o n f i e l d . Because the data system has been constructed f o r primary and secondary lo c a t i o n f i e l d s , the l a t t e r two options are s t i l l a v a i lable. I t i s hoped that comparisons of f i e l d contact locations and hunter sample reported locations f o r recaptured hunters, w i l l allow the appropriate location weighting to be determined i n the future. When the 1975 hunter sample locations were compared to the location data co l l e c t e d by f i e l d contacts, s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between M.U.s. Shen game checks were situated near the hunt locations (for M-U.s 1-5 and 1-10), a higher percentage of M.U.s and subunits recorded by the f i e l d contact could be traced to the hunter sample questionnaire. Furthermore, k i l l locations were more accurately determined than hunt locations. In 1975, the hunter sample questionnaire reguested unsuccessful hunt locations using the same format as f o r successful hunt locations^ That procedure probably discouraged hunters reporting locations where they were unsuccessful. As a r e s u l t , a lower rate of matching was obtained for hunt locations than f o r k i l l l ocations. In 1976, the format of the questionnaire was changed to 1 7 3 i n c r e a s e the accuracy of the l o c a t i o n data- Hunters were requested t o supply u n s u c c e s s f u l hunt l o c a t i o n s i n one s e c t i o n and s u c c e s s f u l l o c a t i o n s i n another. Furthermore, the w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t form, i n t r o d u c e d i n 1976, r e c o r d s hunt M . U . and s u b u n i t d i r e c t l y . These procedures were designed , t o provide b e t t e r l o c a t i o n r e s o l u t i o n and should i n c r e a s e the percentage o f hunt and k i l l l o c a t i o n s matched f o r the 1976 data-9.3 1975 Region 1 F i e l d Contact Data In 1975, the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch changed i t s management system from M.A.s to M i O . s . Because Vancouver I s l a n d was M.A. 1, a l l hunters c o n t a c t e d i n pre v i o u s years hunted i n M.A., 1- With the c r e a t i o n of H-O.s, new data c o l l e c t i o n forms t h a t c o l l e c t e d data by hunt M . U . and hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s were d e v i s e d . A f t e r the s u b u n i t s were d e f i n e d i n 1976, data was c o l l e c t e d by M . U . and subu n i t . To i n c r e a s e sample s i z e s and improve the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i e l d checks, c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s were requested t o complete • - - . . . " j game check forms. T h i s process accomplished., both o b j e c t i v e s as C-G-s i n t e r v i e w e d 22% of the t o t a l c o n t a c t s and had a more uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n with r e s p e c t to M . U . s . Table XXI shows t h a t an inadequate number of hunters were contacted i n M . U.s 1-1 and 1-8. In f u t u r e years, c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s may be able to check these areas more i n t e n s i v e l y . When the c o n t a c t s were d i s t r i b u t e d by s u b u n i t s , i t was apparent t h a t many subun i t s were e i t h e r not . hunted or not checked. Because most of M . U.s 1-11 and 1-15 are r e l a t i v e i n a c c e s s i b l e , i t i s understandable t h a t these areas are not 1 8 0 censused. Where p o s s i b l e , a l l s u b u n i t s t h a t are hunted should be checked. Because hunting pressures and deer abundance vary on Vancouver I s l a n d , d i f f e r e n t hunter success r a t e s are e v i d e n t i n Table XXIV. In some areas such as M.0. 1-9 to 1-13, high deer p o p u l a t i o n s i n c r e a s e the percentage of s u c c e s s f u l hunters, while M.O.s with good access, M-0..1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6 and 1-7 p r o v i d e g r e a t e r r e c r e a t i o n and decrease the success r a t e . During 1975 deer hunting season, game c h e c k o p e r a t o r s and c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s recorded the hunting l i c e n c e numbers of c o n t a c t e d hunters. Some r e s i d e n t M.O.s had a l a r g e percentage (greater than 2036) of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s marked, w h i l e i n o t h e r s a low percentage was marked ( l e s s than 2$). Game checks and C O . p a t r o l s should be s t r u c t u r e d to mark more hunters from northern Vancouver I s l a n d (M.O.s 1-11, 1-12, and 1-13). In the p a s t , game checks were run p r i m a r i l y t o e s t a b l i s h the a g e - c l a s s composition of the h a r v e s t . On Vancouver I s l a n d game checks have been manned on opening weekends and d u r i n g a n l t e r l e s s season weekends when l a r g e number of deer are harvested. As a r e s u l t o f t h i s t h e s i s , a. new and e q u a l l y important o b j e c t i v e of game checks has been r e v e a l e d . Game checks can now be used to i n c r e a s e the accuracy of g u e s t i o n n a i r e h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s and t h e r e f o r e road checks should be designed to mark as many hunters as p o s s i b l e . 181 9.4 1975 Begion 1 I n t e g r a t e d Deer Data I n 1975, Begion 1 f i e l d c o n t a c t s f a i l e d t o sample an adequate number of hunters r e s i d i n g on n o r t h e r n Vancouver I s l a n d ( r e s i d e n t M.O.s 1-9, 1-11.and 1-13) because a l l game checks were l o c a t e d south of those areas. To process t h a t data, those r e s i d e n t M.O.s were combined with r e s i d e n t M.O.s 1-10, 1-14 and 1-15. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s grouping a f f e c t e d comparisons because hunters from the unsampled areas may have had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t response and r e p o r t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than those from r e s i d e n t M.O.s t h a t were adequately sampled. although mark-recature methods have been used e x t e n s i v e l y f o r e s t i m a t i n g f i s h and w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s , i n h e r e n t b i a s e s o f t e n c o m p l i c a t e the a n a l y s e s . I f t h e r e i s any c o r r e l a t i o n between the c a t c h a b i l i t i e s a t the marking and r e c a p t u r e s t a g e s , overestimates or underestimates o f the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n s i z e w i l l be produced. To a v o i d r e c a p t u r e c o r r e l a t i o n s the sampling and r e c a p t u r e programs must use d i f f e r e n t methods of c a p t u r e . The i n t e g r a t e d data system proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s marked hunters i n the f i e l d , and s e v e r a l months l a t e r sampled l i c e n c e h o l d e r s by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . As a t e s t of the independence of the marking and r e c a p t u r e phases, the r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r the f i r s t and second m a i l i n g were compared. Although the r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r the second m a i l i n g d r o p p e d , t h i s was p r i m a r i l y due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n success r a t e s f o r hunter respondents. The hunter sample program has produced k i l l e s t i m a t e s f o r a d u l t males, a d u l t females, and j u v e n i l e s f o r most s p e c i e s s i n c e 1964. I t has always been assumed t h a t hunters c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f y t h e i r k i l l s and r e p o r t them a c c u r a t e l y , t a c k i n g methods f o r 182 t e s t i n g t h i s a s s u m p t i o n , b i o l o g i s t s h a v e u s e d t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f a n t l e r l e s s a n i m a l s i n t h e h a r v e s t a s a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t o f a n t l e r l e s s s e a s o n s . When t h e r e p o r t e d h u n t e r s a m p l e k i l l s w e r e c o m p a r e d t o t h e k i l l s r e c o r d e d b y f i e l d c o n t a c t s , n u m e r o u s i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w e r e n o t i c e d a n d a m i n i m u m r e p o r t i n g b i a s o f 2 0 . 0 5 1 w a s c a l c u l a t e d , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m a t , i t w a s a p p a r e n t t h a t p a r t o f t h i s b i a s r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e a m b i g u i o u s f o r m a t o f t h e 1 9 7 5 d e e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s f o r r e p o r t e d k i l l s c o u l d h a v e o r i g i n a t e d f r o m c o m b i n a t i o n s o f t i e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : 1) G a m e c h e c k o p e r a t o r s a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s i n c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f y a n i m a l s . 2 ) G a m e c h e c k o p e r a t o r s a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s a t t r i b u t e d e e r k i l l s t o t h e w r o n g h u n t e r . 3 ) T h e h u n t e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m a t m i s i d e n t i f i e s d e e r t y p e s . 4 ) H u n t e r s d o n o t k n o w w h a t t h e y s h o t . 5 ) H u n t e r s d o n o t r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e y s h o t -6 ) H u n t e r s d e l i b e r a t e l y m i s r e p o r t d e e r k i l l s . S i n c e j a w s a r e t a k e n f r o m m o s t k i l l s a n d d e e r c a n b e e a s i l y s e x e d i t i s d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r B r a n c h e m p l o y e e s m i s - c l a s s i f y a n i m a l s . H o w e v e r , a t e x t r e m e l y b u s y g a m e c h e c k s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t k i l l s c o u l d b e c r e d i t e d t o t h e w r o n g h u n t e r ^ a h e n s e v e r a l h u n t e r s s h o o t m a n y d e e r , t h e h u n t e r t h e m s e l v e s may b e u n a b l e t o c l a i m s p e c i f i c d e e r k i l l s . T h u s r e a s o n s 2 a n d 4 may b e c o n f o u n d i n g . F o r t h e 1975 d e e r h u n t i n g s e a s o n , t h e s e c o n d , m a i l i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e n o t m a i l e d u n t i l M a r c h 1 9 7 6 — a p p r o x i m a t e l y 183 3 1/2 months a f t e r the banting season c l o s e d . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t hunters do not c o r r e c t l y remember k i l l s . I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t hunters d e l i b e r a t e l y misreport deer k i l l s . The comparison of r e p o r t e d and known k i l l s was made f o r hunters who knew t h a t F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch employees had examined t h e i r k i l l s . A f t e r being checked i n the f i e l d t h e r e i s no reason t h a t hunters should d e l i b e r a t e l y l i e on q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The poor format f o r the 1975 deer q u e s t i o n n a i r e undoubtly i n f l u e n c e d the number o f k i l l s m isreported. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e confused many o f the respondents and t h e r e f o r e probably reduced the response r a t e s . The F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch should design b e t t e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n the f u t u r e . The most r e a l i s t i c reasons f o r the high r e p o r t i n g b i a s seem to be reasons 2, 4, and 5 . . E f f o r t should be expended t o reduce these b i a s e s by: 1) Branch employees should spending more, time e n s u r i n g deer k i l l s are a t t r i b u t e d t o the r i g h t hunter. 2) The F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch should decide whether a c t u a l l y s h o o t i n g a deer or c a n c e l l i n g a tag c o n s t i t u t e s k i l l i n g a deer. 3) The Branch should have hunters record k i l l - type on c a n c e l l e d tags or hunting l i c e n c e s . 4) The Branch should send out i t s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s immediately f o l l o w i n g the c l o s e of the hunting season. For November 1975 game checks, game check o p e r a t o r s were reguested t o c o l l e c t hunter season r e c o r d d a t a . I t was hoped t h a t t h i s would i n c r e a s e the number of marked k i l l s . 184 U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the design of the c o n t a c t form confused s e v e r a l game.check o p e r a t o r s , while o t h e r s f a i l e d t o complete the d a t a . &s a consequence the data c o u l d not be r e l i a b l y i n t e r p r e t e d and was not used i n t h i s t h e s i s . S i n c e the m a j o r i t y of the deer harvest i s d u r i n g the a n t l e r l e s s season, hunter season summaries from the l a s t check weekends census the m a j o r i t y of hunter k i l l s . Being unable to use the hunter season r e c o r d data, an a l t e r n a t i v e method was developed t o c a l c u l a t e r e c a p t u r e r a t e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters. 9.5 1975 Begion 1 Hunter Sample Estimates The mark-recapture methods f o r determining hunter sample estimate were made p o s s i b l e by i n t e g r a t i n g f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample d a t a . In the p a s t , hunter sample estimates c o u l d only be based on q u e s t i o n n a i r e response r a t e s and a l l l i c e n c e h o l d e r s were assumed t o have s i m i l a r p r o b a b i l i t y of response. Other surveys (Bartholomew,1961) have shown t h a t p r o b a b i l i t i e s of response are o f t e n c o r r e l a t e d with types of response, because t d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s are more prone to be r e v e a l e d t h a t u n d e s i r a b l e ones. The hunter sample sampling u n i v e r s e can be c o n s i d e r as three groups of hunting l i c e n c e h o l d e r s : 1) non-hunters - l i c e n c e h o l d e r s who d i d not hunt the s p e c i f i e d s p e c i e s (although they may have hunted others) . 2) u n s u c c e s s f u l hunters - l i c e n c e , h o l d e r s who hunted but d i d not shoot any animals. 3) s u c c e s s f u l hunters - l i c e n c e h o l d e r s who hunted and shot at l e a s t one animal-1 8 5 B e c a u s e n o n - h u n t e r s d i d n o t h u n t , t h e y m i g h t f e e l t h e y h a v e n o t h i n g t o s p e c i f y on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q u e s t i n g h u n t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . U n s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s may a l s o f a i l t o r e s p o n d b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e n o h a r v e s t i n f o r m a t i o n . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s , b e i n g p r o u d o f t h e i r h u n t i n g p r o w e s s , may r e a d i l y c o m p l e t e a n d r e t u r n - q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . B e c a u s e t h e t y p e o f r e s p o n s e may a f f e c t r e s p o n s e r a t e s , n o n - r e s p o n s e b i a s e s may u n d e r m i n e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y a n d p r o d u c e b i a s e d e s t i m a t e s . S a m p l i n g a n d r e s p o n s e r a t e s f o r M . U . g r o u p s v a r i e d , t h e r e f o r e t h e r e s p o n s e c a s e w e i g h t s s t r a t i f i e d b y B e g i o n s h o u l d n o t ; b e u s e d t c p r o d u c e h u n t e r s a m p l e e s t i m a t e s . W h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e , B e g i o n s s h o u l d be s u b d i v i d e d i n t o r e s i d e n t M . U . s o r r e s i d e n t M . U . g r o u p s t o . p r o d u c e m o r e u n i f o r m s a m p l i n g i n t e n s i t i e s w i t h i n r e s i d e n t s t r a t a . The c o m p a r i s o n o f r e s p o n s e a n d m a r k e d h u n t e r c a s e w e i g h t s s h o w e d t h a t f i r s t m a i l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o b e h u n t e r s t h a n n o n - h u n t e r s , w h i l e c o n v e r s e f o r s e c o n d m a i l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e l e s s t h a n 5%, some r e s i d e n t H . D . g r o u p s s h o w e d l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f r e s p o n s e f o r h u n t e r s a n d n o n h u n t e r s . F o r t h e l a s t e i g h t y e a r s , t h e d e e r h u n t e r s a m p l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s b e e n c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r game b i r d s a n d w o l v e s . S i n c e l i c e n c e h o l d e r s , n o t h u n t i n g d e e r , may h a v e h u n t e d t h o s e o t h e r s p e c i e s , t h e n o n ^ - r e s p o n s e b i a s i s m i n i m i z e d . A s o t h e r b i g game s p e c i e s a r e s a m p l e d , b y s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e n o n - r e s p o n s e b i a s f o r t h o s e s p e c i e s may be g r e a t e r t h a n r e p o r t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . , B e s p o n s e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s u c c e s s f u l a n d u n s u c c e s s f u l 186 h u n t e r s w e r e s h o w n i n c o m p a r i s o n s o f m a r k e d s u c c e s s ( s u c c e s s f u l ) a n d m a r k e d s u c c e s s ( u n s u c c e s s f u l ) c a s e w e i g h t s . F o r m o s t r e s i d e n t M . O - g r o u p s , s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s w e r e m o r e l i k e l y t o r e t u r n g u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a n u n s u c c e s s f u l o n e s . T h i s r e s p o n s e b i a s w o u l d t e n d t o i n f l a t e h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s , i f t h e t w o g r o u p s o f h u n t e r s w e r e a s s u m e d t o h a v e e q u a l r e s p o n s e r a t e s . k m e a s u r e o f t h e b i a s i n h e r e n t i n t h e o l d F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d c a n b e o b t a i n d e d f r o m . T a b l e X L . F o r a l l r e s i d e n t M . O . g r o u p s e x c e p t H - 0 - 1-4, l a r g e b i a s e s e x i s t e d w h i c h t e n d e d t o o v e r e s t i m a t e h a r v e s t s . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e b i a s w a s n o t c o n s t a n t b e t w e e n r e s i d e n t M . O . g r o u p s . I t i s n o t k n o w n why s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s f r o m r e s i d e n t M . O . 1-4 h a d a l o w e r r e s p o n s e p r o b a b i l i t y , t h a n u n s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s f r o m t h e s a m e r e s i d e n t M . O - , I n t h e p a s t , t h e h u n t e r s a m p l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e h a s b e e n u s e d t o p r o v i d e o n e e s t i m a t e o f h a r v e s t a n d o n e e s t i m a t e o f h u n t i n g p r e s s u r e f o r e a c h g a m e s p e c i e s i n e a c h m a n a g e m e n t z o n e . T h e u n d e r l y i n g s a m p l i n g a s s u m p t i o n s h a v e n e v e r b e e n e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d n o r e x p l a i n e d t o t h e w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s u s i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . I n t h i s t h e s i s , t w e n t y - s i x d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s f o r c a l c u l a t i n g h u n t e r s a m p l e e s t i m a t e s h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d a n d o t h e r s c a n b e d e r i v e d b y c o m b i n i n g m e t h o d s . W i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t s m u s t n o w a p p r e c i a t e t h e b a s i c f u n d a m e n t a l s o f t h e h u n t e r s a m p l e p r o g r a m b e f o r e ; t h e y c a n d e c i d e w h i c h e s t i m a t e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e i r p u r p o s e s . D e p e n d i n g o n t h e s a m p l i n g a s s u m p t i o n s , h u n t e r s a m p l e e s t i m a t e s c a n v a r y u p t o 5 0 % ( T a b l e XLIII)••«••, T h e h u n t e r s a m p l e p r o g r a m m u s t n o w b e u s e d a s a m a n a g e m e n t t o o l t h a t p r o d u c e s e s t i m a t e s o n c e s a m p l i n g a s s u m p t i o n s a r e s p e c i f i e d . 187 A l t h o u g h t w e n t y - s i x e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d s w e r e p r o p o s e d , o n l y n i n e t e e n w e r e a c t u a l l y u s e d . T h e m a r k e d a n i m a l e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d s w e r e u n r e l i a b l e a s m a r k e d k i l l s c o u l d n o t be a c c u r a t e l y m a t c h e d t o r e p o r t e d k i l l s . On t h e o r e t i c a l g r o u n d s some o f t h e e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d s a r e b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s ( F i g u r e 22 ) . R e s i d e n t s t r a t i f i c a t i o n b y H . O . i s s u p e r i o r t o t h a t by R e g i o n o r r e s i d e n t a r e a , b e c a u s e t h e l a t t e r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n h a s n o n - u n i f o r m r e s p o n s e r a t e s , p e r c e n t a g e h u n t e r s , a n d s u c c e s s r a t e s . /When more t h a n o n e m a i l i n g i s u s e d , t h e p h a s e m a i l i n g s c h e m e p r o v i d e s t h e m o s t p o w e r f u l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d a t a , b e c a u s e f i r s t a n d s e c o n d m a i l i n g s h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t s u c c e s s r a t e s . T h e m a r k e d h u n t e r e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d i s s u p e r i o r t o t h e r e s p o n s e m e t h o d , b e c a u s e t h e f o r m e r r e m o v e s n o n - r e s p o n s e b i a s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h n o n - h u n t e r s . S i m i l a r ! l y , t h e m a r k e d s u c c e s s m e t h o d r e m o v e s r e s p o n s e b i a s e s f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s a n d i s b e t t e r t h a n t h e o t h e r e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d s . On t h e o r e t i c a l g r o u n d s t h e b e s t e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d i s t h e m a r k e d s u c c e s s - p h a s e m a i l i n g M .0. m e t h o d . B y u s i n g s e c o n d m a i l i n g d a t a , s m a l l r e s i d e n t s t r a t a , a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g f i e l d c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n , i t p r o v i d e d t h e l o w e s t o v e r e s t i m a t e s o f game , h a r v e s t s . F u t u r e s t u d i e s s h o u l d t e s t s i t s v a l i d i t y a n d u s e f u l n e s s a s a m a n a g e m e n t e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d . P r e v i o u s h u n t e r s a m p l e p r o g r a m s h a v e n o t u s e d f o l l o w - u p m a i l i n g s , n o r i n c o r p o r a t e d f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a , s o t h e r e c o m m e n d e d e s t i m a t i o n m e t h o d c a n n o t be u s e d f o r o b s o l e t e d a t a . T h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e m e t h o d f o r o b s o l e t e d a t a i s t h e r e s p o n s e - f i r s t m a i l i n g M . O . m e t h o d . I t i s h o p e d t h a t c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s c a n be d e r i v e d f r o m f u t u r e d a t a t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r n o n - r e s p o n s e a n d r e p o r t i n g 188 Figure 22 T h e o r e t i c a l comparison of e s t i m a t i o n methods, r e s i d e n t s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , and ma i l i n g treatments-189 E S T I M A T I O N M E T H O D I m a r k e d s u c c e s s m a r k e d h u n t e r r e sponse X r eg ion f i r s t o r a rea < / b o t h M . U . X phase R E S I D E N C E M A I L I N G S T R A T I F I C A T I O N T R E A T M E N T 190 b i a s e s i n h e r e n t i n p r e v i o u s hunter sample programs. 9.6 196" - 1974 Harvest Estimates Since 1950, the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch has sampled hunters to determine annual h a r v e s t s of most game s p e c i e s . Throughout t h a t p e r i o d , the formats of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r e s i d e n t area boundaries, the sampling i n t e n s i t i e s f o r r e s i d e n t a r e a s , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i l i n g dates, the c u t - o f f dates f o r a n a l y s i s , the e d i t i n g procedures, and the management zones have a l l been changed, at no time has the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s those a l t e r a t i o n s would have on w i l d l i f e ; h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s . For the 1973 hunter sample, hunting l i c e n c e s s e l e c t e d f o r sampling were not randomly, d i s t r i b u t e d over Region 1. Hunters tend to hunt near where they r e s i d e and t h i s would b i a s a l l h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s i f sampling i n t e n s i t i e s were based on Begion. For the 1974 deer hunter sample, 20.6$ of the r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not analysed by the Branch. D i f f e r e n t c u t -o f f dates between years c o u l d d i s t o r t annual comparisons. For the 1975 hunter sample, 60% of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were improperly e d i t e d by the Branch and had t o be r e p r o c c e s s e d before the data could be r e l i a b l y a n a l y s e d . These and other sampling and a n a l y t i c a l e r r o r s undermine the v a l i d i t y o f the B.C. hunter sample program and c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n a l l e s t i m a t e s produced. When the hunter sample data f o r Begion 1 was reprocessed s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower estimates o f hunter e f f o r t were produced. Because the Branch used hunter u n i t s (a hunter hunting i n a 191 g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a ) , hunters c o u l d generate more than one u n i t of e f f o r t . The e f f e c t of t h i s a n a l y t i c a l e r r o r was to decrease hunter success e s t i m a t e s . The r e c o n s t r u c t e d data f i l e s y i e l d e d h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s t h a t were s i m i l a r to the p u b l i s h e d e s t i m a t e s f o r a l l years except 1974, when the e a r l y c u t - o f f date f o r Branch a n a l y s i s reduced the h a r v e s t . In the f u t u r e the Branch should use a data system that can accept a l l returned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . From 1964 to 1974, the Branch e s t i m a t e d the deer h a r v e s t f o r Vancouver I s l a n d (M.A. 1). I n t h i s t h e s i s , the same data was used to estimate deer h a r v e s t s f o r M.U.s and s u b u n i t s w i t h i n Begion 1. Although sample s i z e s f o r management zones decreased as the zones were made s m a l l e r , i n t e r e s t i n g and r e v e a l i n g t r e n d s i n h a r v e s t were produced. C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t d e t a i l e d h a r v e s t data was d e s p e r a t e l y need by w i l d l i f e managers by the l a t e 1960's, i t i s u n f ortunate t h a t the Branch data p r o c e s s i n g s e c t i o n d i d n o t use the a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t o produce the r e q u i r e d e s t i m a t e s . Although meaningful t r e n d s are e v i d e n t i n the M.U. and s u b u n i t h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s , the accuracy of the y e a r l y h a r v e s t estimates must be questionned. U n t i l now, i t has been i m p o s s i b l e to compare hunter sample e s t i m a t e s with f i e l d c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n . Hunter sample e s t i m a t e s were p r o v i d e d f o r l a r g e g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s , while game check h a r v e s t s were a v a i l a b l e only f o r s p e c i f i c watersheds and l o g g i n g a c c e s s a r e a s . When the e s t i m a t e s were compared t o the known h a r v e s t , major d i s c r e p e n c i e s were apparent. Not only were the h a r v e s t s being overestimated, the b i a s e s were not c o n s t a n t between y e a r s . T h e r e f o r e , although the t r e n d s can be used, annual e s t i m a t e s 192 s h o u l d not he c i t e d as a c t u a l h a r v e s t s - Since the h a r v e s t s f o r s u b u n i t s are b i a s e d , the p u b l i s h e d h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s a t e a l s o suspected to be b i a s e d , In the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , d i f f e r e n t response r a t e s f o r nonhunters,unsuccessful hunters, and s u c c e s s f u l hunters r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r e n t h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s depending on which sampling assumptions were made- Son-response b i a s e s i n past e s t i m a t e s can be compensated f o r by using c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s d e r i v e d from more recent data. However, the redesigned q u e s t i o n n a i r e program may have l e s s response b i a s than p r e v i o u s forms- For s u b u n i t s 1-5 - 3 and 1-5-7, the harvest overestimates were reduced between 1974 and 1975- The non-response b i a s e s determined f o r r e c e n t hunter 'j sample data may be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than those a s s o c i a t e d with past h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s - I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that a f t e r the 1976 data are a n a l y s e d , s u i t a b l e c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s can be d e r i v e d to remove non-response b i a s e s from ob s o l e t e hunter sample es t i m a t e s . 193 10-0 COHCLUSION 10- 1 System E v a l u a t i o n In the i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , e l e v e n requirements f o r a w i l d l i f e data management system were i d e n t i f i e d - Those c r i t e r i a can now be used t o e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the data system developed i n t h i s t h e s i s : 1) Management L e v e l s - Subunits provide management data a t a l e v e l lower than M.O. Harvest e s t i m a t e s f o r Begion 1 s u b u n i t s have shown important trends t h a t can now be used t o enhance w i l d l i f e management on Vancouver I s l a n d . 2) I n t e g r a t e d data sources - Since 1975, when t h i s data system was proposed, a l l Begion 1 deer hunting data sources have been i n t e g r a t e d . 3) Accumulative data bases - The hunter sample e s t i m a t i o n methods allow analyses t o be done over time. Both hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t annual data f i l e s can be concatenated f o r an a l y s e s . 4) Accurate e s t i m a t e s - Although i t cannot yet be concluded t h a t the methods proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s y i e l d a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s , they do provide methods f o r o b t a i n i n g improved e s t i m a t e s . Changes i n game check d i s t r i b u t i o n and hunter sample procedures have r e s u l t e d from t h i s t h e s i s , and h o p e f u l l y w i l l r e s u l t i n more ac c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s . 5) C o n s i s t e n t e s t i m a t e s - A l l e s t i m a t e s are independent of management l e v e l and t h e r e f o r e are c o n s i s t e n t between l e v e l s . 6) I n c o r p o r a t i o n of data from the p r e v i o u s system - A l l 19a a v a i l a b l e Region 1 deer data have been entered i n t o the data system- Reports u s i n g M-0. and subunit boundaries have been produced and presented to the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 7) C o m p a t i b i l i t y with e x t e r n a l data sources - although e x t e r n a l data sources have not yet been i n t e g r a t e d with the w i l d l i f e data system, no apparent problems are p r e d i c t e d . 8) Research - A l l the r e s u l t s o f t h i s t h e s i s were o b t a i n e d by the i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l methods d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . 9) V a l i d a t i o n - The primary concern of t h i s t h e s i s has been the t e s t i n g o f u n d e r l y i n g sampling assumptions i n the hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t programs. Many b i a s e s , i n c l u d i n g nonresponse, k i l l r e p o r t i n g , and l o c a t i o n r e p o r t i n g , have been i d e n t i f i e d . Suggestions have been presented t o c o r r e c t those sampling problems. 10) E v o l u t i o n a r y - The data system was designed to provide i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would allow the system to be changed t o meet the needs of p r o g r e s s i v e w i l d l i f e management- Data v a r i a b l e s , i n p u t formats, and output r e p o r t s can be changed whenever necessary. The l o c a t i o n l i s t a l l o w s the reassignment of a l l l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n should management boundaries ever be s h i f t e d . 11) P r i n c i p l e s - The p r i n c i p l e s o f e f f i c i e n t data management are respected throughout the data system. , 10-2 Implementation In the p a s t , B.C. W i l d l i f e managers have l a c k e d a data system t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r management d e c i s i o n s and allow them, to monitor the impact of t h e i r p o l i c i e s - The process o f 195 e s t a b l i s h i n g s p e c i e s o b j e c t i v e s , conducting i n v e n t o r y s u r v e y s , and determining h a r v e s t r a t e s or quotas was i n o p e r a t i v e , as i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n w i l d l i f e h a r v e s t e s t i m a t e s t h a t c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o w i l d l i f e . i n v e n t o r i e s . I n most ca s e s , management d e c i s i o n s were simply based on "gut f e e l i n g s " , with l i t t l e or no sup p o r t i n g data. The data system proposed i n t h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r B.C. w i l d l i f e management t o develop an e f f e c t i v e management framework f o r B.C.'s v a l u a b l e w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s . However, to do so the proposed system or one with s i m i l a r c a p a b i l i t i e s must be implemented and supported by the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. Only then can the other components of the management framework be developed t o t h e i r f u l l p o t e n t i a l . 196 11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY B. C. F i s h and Game Commission and B. C. F i s h and w i l d l i f e Branch. 1950-74, B. C. Hunter sample a n a l y s e s . W i l d l i f e Management D i v i s i o n , B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, V i c t o r i a , B. C. B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch . 1969—75. Cache Creek check. W i l d l i f e Management D i v i s i o n , B . C . F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, V i c t o r i a , B. C. Bartholomew, D. J . , 1961. A method o f a l l o w i n g f o r •not-at-home 1 b i a s i n sample survey s . A p p l i e d S t a t i s t i c s 10(1) : 52-59. Buckland, T- 1976. UBC SOB?: S o r t i n g and merging r o u t i n e s , and u t i l i t y program. Computing centre* 0. B. C. , Vancouver, B. C. 121 pp. Cockl e , B. 1977. OBC FOBTBAN: FOBTBAN user's guide. Computer Cen t r e . 0. B. C. Vancouver, B. C. 119 pp. Co u l t h a r d , 8. J . 1978. UBC TAPE: Magnetic tape user's g u i d e . Computing C e n t r e . U- B. C. Vancouver, B. C. 173 pp. Fox, D. J . and K. E. G u i r e . 1976. MIDAS, S t a t i s t i c a l Besearch Laboratory., U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. 203 pp. Hogg, J . F. and T. T e n i s c i . , 1976. UBC EDIT: The l i n e f i l e e d i t o r . Computer Centre. U. B- C. Vancouver, B- C. 77 PP. Kale, W. 1975. Northwest Bay 1974 Game Check B e s u l t s . Unpub. 8. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Report, Nanaimo, B- C. 10 pp. Kindred, A. R. 1973. Data systems and management: An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o system a n a l y s i s and d e s i g n . P r e n t i c e -H a l l Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jers e y . 360 pp. K i t a , S. 1978. UBC SPSS: S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s v e r s i o n 7.01 (under MTS). Computing C e n t r e . U. B. C. Vancouver, B. C. 231 pp. Mair, S. G. and J . L. Leigh.., 1977. OBC CHARACTER: C h a r a c t e r manipulation i n FOBTBAN Computing Centre. D. B. C. Vancouver, B. C. 53 pp. McCaughran, D. 1971. An a n a l y s i s of the w i l d l i f e management data c o l l e c t i n g system. Unpub. B. C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e r e p o r t . V i c t o r i a , B. C. 46 pp. Nie, N. H-, C. H. H u l l , J . G. J e n k i n s , K. Stei n b r e n n e r , and D. H. Brent. 1975- SPSS: S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . , McGraw-Hill Book Company. U. S. A. 675 pp. 197 Petersen, C. , G. J . 1896. The y e a r l y immigration of young p l a i c e i n t o the L i m f j o r d from the German Sea. Sep. Danish B i o l . S t a t i o n f o r 1895. 6:1-77. i 198 12. 0 APPENDIX 1.0 The data f i l e s have h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e s , because data elements apply to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of data c o l l e c t i o n T a b l e I I I ) . The f i r s t l e v e l , g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n . i n d i c a t e s how, where, and when the data were obtained. Within each g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n type, t h e r e are many r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g the second l e v e l , pe r s on i nf o r a a t i on , which d e s c r i b e the person c o n t a c t e d or responding. In t u r n each person has a v a r i a b l e number o f hunt l o c a t i o n s - , c o n t a c t s . F i n a l l y each l o c a t i o n or c o n t a c t can have a number of k i l l s . T h i s h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e was preserved i n the data f i l e s t o allow analyses f o r each l e v e l without r e f o r m a t t i n g data f i l e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o the l e v e l s , the f i l e a l s o c o n t a i n s marked data , s e n t i n e l v a r i a b l e s , and sa mpling case weights . The -marked data c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e . o t h e r data s o u r c e s . For example, the marked data f o r the hunter sample data f i l e s r e f e r s to the f i e l d c o n t a c t data f i l e , and v i s a v e r s a . S e n t i n e l v a r i a b l e s are used t o s e l e c t a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e s , and to provide the r e c o r d weightings f o r a n a l y s i s , while sampling caseweight v a r i a b l e s are sampling s c a l a r s f o r hunter sample d a t a . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s s p e c i f y data elements by i n f o r m a t i o n type and i n d i c a t e how v a r i a b l e s were, coded and o b t a i n e d . Although no data source has a l l the system v a r i a b l e s , s t a n d a r d f i l e s are used f o r common i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l packages. ,Table L I U i n d i c a t e s v a r i a b l e s t h a t are a v a i l a b l e by data source and year. . 12.1 Appendix 1.1 General Information 1) SPECIES : an i n t e g e r code r e p r e s e n t i n g the game s p e c i e s , e.g. 007=deer 2) YEAR : l a s t two d i g i t s of year. 3) DATA SOURCE : 1 = hunter sample, 2 = game check, 3 = c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r p a t r o l , 4 = gate a c c e s s summary, and 5 = h u n t e r s e a s o n r e c o r d . 4) HUNTEB STATUS : only r e l e v a n t f o r hunter sample d a t a . 1 = hunted s p e c i e s , 2 = d i d not hunt s p e c i e s , 3 = nonrespondent, 4 r= noncontact , 5 = not sampled ( p u b l i s h e d hunter sample), 6 = not sampled ( a d d i t i o n a l ) , 7 - not sampled ( g e n e r a l ) . F i v e d i f f e r e n t codes were used t o s p e c i f y l i c e n c e h o l d e r s not sampled. Codes 3, 4, 5 i n d i c a t e values the F i s h and W i l d l i f e used, and together with code 6 y i e l d the a c t u a l numbers r e p o r t e d i n summaries of B.C. Hunting l i c e n c e revenues ( F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch,1976)-As i t was i m p o s s i b l e to s t r a t i f y Begion 1 o l d hunter sample data (1964-74) by both "not sampled" category and r e s i d e n t H.U., code 7 was used to i n d i c a t e the number of "not sampled" l i c e n c e h o l d e r s by r e s i d e n t M.U., r e g a r d l e s s pf t h e i r r e t u r n s t a t u s . 199 Table LII F i l e format for data f i l e showing variables by data l e v e l s . Column Variable Description General 1-3 Species code 4-5 Year integer 6 Data source code 7 Hunt status code 8 Mailing phase code 9 Data status code Sentinels 10 Hunter sentinel sentinel 11 Location—contact sentinel sentinel 12 Location f i e l d s e n t i n e l sentinel 13-14 Ki l l / l o c a t i o n - c o n t a c t integer 15-16 Location-contact/person integer 17 Location f i e l d type code 18 Total l o c a t i o n f i e l d s integer 19 Primary location f i e l d s integer 20 Secondary location f i e l d s integer 21 M.UV. Sentinel sentinel 22 Total M-U.s integer 23 M.U. Grouping integer 24-29 fieplicates integer General 30-31 Contact day integer 32-33 Contact month integer 34-36 Contact year-day integer 37-38 Contact season week integer 39 Contact weekday integer 40 Contact season type code 41 Contact region integer 42-43 Contact d i s t r i c t integer 44-46 Contact o f f i c e r integer 4 7-50 Contact station integer 51-52 Contact M.U. integer 53-54 Contact subunit integer 55-58 Check begin integer 59-62 Check finished integer 63-66 Check time integer Person 67-71 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 72-78 Licence number integer 79 Resident Begion integer 80- 83 Besident code integer 84 Besident area integer 200 85 Resident subarea 86-87 Resident M.U. 88-89 Resident subunit 90-91 Licence-return day 92-93 Licence-return month 94-96 Licence-return year-day 97-98 Government agency 99-100 Birth day 101-102 Birth month 103-104 Birth year 105-106 Age 107 Sex 108 Previous licence 109 Minimum season k i l l 110-111 Total season e f f o r t 112-113 Total season k i l l 114 Total season buck k i l l 115 Total season doe k i l l 116 Total season fawn k i l l integer integer integer intege r integer integer code integer integer integer integer code code integer integer integer integer integer integer 1 17 1 18 122 124 126 128 130 131 132 134 135 136 Location—contact Location region Location code Location M.A. Location M.U. Location subunit Total location e f f o r t Location method Contact previous k i l l Total location k i l l Total location buck k i l l Total location doe k i l l Total location fawn k i l l 121 123 125 127 129 -133 integer code integer integer integer integer code integer integer integer integer integer K i l l 137 K i l l subspecies 138 K i l l sex 139 K i l l age type 140 K i l l antler type 141- 142 K i l l day 143- 144 K i l l month 145- 147 K i l l year day 148- 149 K i l l season week 150 K i l l week day 151 K i l l season type 152- 155 K i l l specimen number 156- 158 K i l l age 159 K i l l antler points l e f t 160 K i l l antler points right code code code code integer integer integer integer integer code integer integer inte ger integer 161 162 163 164-165 166-167 Marked data Marked Marked Marked Marked Marked hunter location k i l l location-contact s t a t i o n M.U. sentinel sentinel sentinel integer Integer 201 168--169 Mark station subunit/phase integer 170--171 Total marked k i l l integer 172 Total marked buck k i l l integer 173 Total marked doe k i l l integer 174 Total marked fawn k i l l integer Sampling caseaeights 175--181 Response best real F7. 4 182-•188 Response licence sales r e a l F7. 4 189--195 Response 1st Begion real F7. 4 196--202 Response 1st M-0. real F7. 4 203--209 Response both Begion real F7. 4 210-•216 Response both M-0. real F7. 4 217--2 23 Response phase Begion real F7. 4 224--230 Response phase M.D. real F7. 4 231-•237 Marked hunter 1st Region r e a l F7. 4 238-•244 Marked hunter 1st M-U- re a l F7, 4 245-•251 Marked hunter both Begion real F7. 4 252-•258 Marked hunter both M.D. real F7. 4 259-•265 Marked hunter phase Begion r e a l F7. 4 266- 272 Marked hunter phase M.U. real F7. 4 273-•279 Marked success 1st Begion r e a l F7. 4 280-•2 86 Marked success 1st M.U. re a l F7, 4 287-•293 Marked success both Region r e a l F7. 4 294-•300 Marked success both M.U. r e a l F7. 4 301-•307 Marked success phase Region real F7. 4 308-•314 Marked success phase M.U. real F7. 4 315-•321 Marked animal 1st Begion r e a l F7. 4 322- 328 Marked animal 1st M.U. real F7. 4 329-3 35 Marked animal both Region real F7. 4 336-•342 Marked animal both M.U. real F7. 4 343-•349 Marked animal phase Begion real F7. 4 .350-356 Marked animal phase M.U. r e a l F7. 4 202 Table LIII Master data f i l e showing variables that are a v a i l a b l e fo r data sources and years F i e l d Contact Hunter Sample Variable 53 67 64 68 67 74 75 76 67 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ;ne r a i species X X X X X X X X X X X X year x X X X X X X X X X X X data source X X X X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 hunt status 1 1 1 1 X X X X X X X X mailing phase - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 X X data status X X X X X X X 2 X X 1 1 mtinels hunter s e n t i n e l X X X X X X X X X X X X (location-contact sentinel) -x - X -x - X x- x- x— x- x- x- x- x-location f i e l d sentinel X X X X X X X X x X X X ( k i l l / l o c a t ion-con tact) -x -x -x -x x- x- x- x- x- x- x- x-(location-con tact/person) -x -x -x -x x- x- x- x- x- x- x— x-location f i e l d type X X X X X X X X X X X X t o t a l location f i e l d s X X X X X X X X X X X X primary location f i e l d s X X X X X X X X X X X X secondary location f i e l d s X X X X X X X X X X X X M.U. sen t i n e l X X X X X X X X X X X X t o t a l M.U.s X X X X X X X X X X X X M.U- grouping X X X X X X X X X X X X r e p l i c a t e s X X X 1 X X X X X X X X General contact day X X X contact month X X X x - - - - - -contact year-day X X X x - - - - - - •- -contact season week X X . X contact weekday X X X x - - - - - -contact season type X X X x - - - - - -contact region X X X x - - - - - -contact d i s t r i c t contact o f f i c e r contact st a t i o n X X X x - - - - - -contact M.U. i i i contact subunit i i i i - - - - - -check begin - - X check finished - - X check time Person i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number - - X X X X X X X X X X licence number - - X X X resident Begion i i i r r r i i i i resident code - - 1 1 P - - - P P 1 1 resident area - - - - X X X X X X X X resident subarea X X 20 3 resident M.U. - - i i i h h - i i i i resident subunit - - i i i - - - i i i i (licence-return day) - - x- x- -x - - - -x -x x- x-(licence-return month) - - x- x- -x - - - -x -x x- x-{licence-return year-day) — - x- x- -x - - - -x -x x- x-government agency - - x x - - - - - - x x b i r t h day - - x x - - - - - - x x b i r t h month - - x x - - - - - - x x b i r t h year - - x x — - - - - - x x age - ~ x x - - - - - - x x sex - x x - — - — — - x x previous licence _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x minimum season k i l l _ _ _ x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t o t a l season e f f o r t s s x x - — - — - - x x t o t a l season k i l l s s x x x x x x x x x x t o t a l season buck k i l l s s x x x x x x x x x x t o t a l season doe k i l l s s x x x x x x x x x x t o t a l season fawn k i l l s s x x x x x x x x x x location-contact location Begion X X X X 1 l X 1 X 1 1 1 location code X X X - X X X - X X X X location M.A. i i i i i i i X i X i i l o cation M.U. i i X X i i i - i i X X l o c a t i o n subunit i i i X i i i - i i i i l ocation e f f o r t 1 X X X X X location method location previous k i l l X t o t a l location k i l l V V X X X X X X X X X X t o t a l l o cation buck k i l l V V X X X X X X X X X X t o t a l location doe k i l l V V X X X X X X X X X X t o t a l l o cation fawn k i l l V V X X X X X X X X X X K i l l k i l l subspecies x x x x - - - — - - x -k i l l sex x x x x x x x x x x x x k i l l age type x x x x x x x x x x x x k i l l antler type - - - x - _ _ _ _ _ _ x k i l l day c c c c - - x - x x x x k i l l month ' c c c c - - x - x x x x k i l l year-day c c c c — - x - x x x x k i l l season week c c c c - - x - x x x x k i l l weekday c c c c - - x - x x x x k i l l season type c c c c - - x - x x x x k i l l specimen number - - x x — — — - - - m m k i l l age x x x x - - - - - - m m k i l l antler points l e f t x x x x - - - - - - m m k i l l antler points right x x x x - - - — - - m m Marked data marked hunter - - x x - - - - - - x x marked l o c a t i o n _ - x x _ _ _ _ _ _ x x marked k i l l - - x x - - - - - - x x (marked location-contact) - - x x - — - — — - x x marked s t a t i o n M.U. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x (mark station subunit/phase)- - -x -x - - - - - - x- x-204 t o t a l marked k i l l - - x t o t a l marked buck k i l l x t o t a l marked doe k i l l - - x to t a l marked fawn k i l l x x - - - - - - x x x - - - - - - x x x - - ~ - - - x x x - - - - - - x x Sampling caseweights response best - - - - x x x x x x x x response licence sales - - - - x x x x x x x x response 1st Region - - x x x x x x x x response 1st M.U. - - - - x x x - x x x x response both Region _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x response both M.O. - - - - - - - - - - x x response phase Region _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x response phase M.U. - - - - - - - - - - x x marked hunter 1st Region _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x marked hunter 1st M.U. - - - - - - - - - - x x marked hunter both Region _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x marked hunter both M.U. - - - - - - - - - - x x marked hunter phase Region - - - - - - - - - - x x marked hunter phase M.U. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x x marked success 1st Region _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ x x marked success 1st M.U. - - - - - - - - - - x x marked success both Region - - — - _ - - - - - X x marked success both M.U. - - - - - - - - - - x x marked success phase Region - - - - - - - - - - x x marked success phase M.U. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ x x marked animal 1st Region _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ marked animal 1st M.U. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ marked animal both Region - — — _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ marked animal both M.U. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ marked animal phase Region - - - - - - - - - - - -marked animal phase M.U. - - - - - - - - _ _ symbols: ( ) variable type depends on source double symbol order ref e r s to variable order number type of only code used variable not used c same as station date h from hunt locations i inferred from code,m. u. , or m. a. 1 from licence data m from marked f i e l d contact data p from postmark r from resident area s season t o t a l s same as contact summaries v vehicle records transformed to hunters x variable present 20 5 5) HAILING PHASE : only r e l e v a n t f o r hunter sample data- 1 = f i r s t m a i l i n g , 2 = second m a i l i n g , 3 = l a t e f i r s t m a i l i n g . Code 3 was used f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d a f t e r the c u t - o f f date f o r the 1974 hunter sample and t h e r e f o r e not processed by the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 6) DATA STATUS : only r e l e v a n t f o r hunter sample data. 1 = a c t u a l , 2 = generated by the system, 3 •= a c t u a l data with M.A.s. When o l d hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (1964r-i974) were reprocessed o n l y Begion 1 forms were recoded. To r e c r e a t e o l d data f i l e s e x a c t l y , dummy r e c o r d s with data s t a t u s codes n 2 M were generated t o r e p l a c e missing data. For 1974 d a t a , o l d f i l e s with M.A. hunt l o c a t i o n s were a v a i l a b l e , t h e r e f o r e missing q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e p l a c e d with data coded by M.A. and i d e n t i f i e d by code B 3 M . 7) c o n t a c t date : only r e l e v a n t f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data and c o n s i s t s o f : CONTACT DAY, CONTACT MONTH, CONTACT DAY OF YEA8, CONTACT WEEK OF SEASON, CONTACT DAY OF WEEK, and SEASON TYPE (1 = p r e - a n t i e r l e s s season, 2= a n t l e r l e s s season, 3= p o s t - a n t l e r l e s s season, 4= out of se a s o n ) . 8) c o n t a c t o f f i c e r : only r e l e v a n t f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r f i e l d p a t r o l s and c o n s i s t s of: CONTACT BEGION, CONTACT DISTBICT and CONTACT OFFICES. A l l C o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r s have three d i g i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. 9) c o n t a c t place : only r e l e v a n t f o r game check data and c o n s i s t s o f : CONTACT BEGION, STATION HOMBEB, CONTACT H.O., and CONTACT SUBUNIT- The s t a t i o n number was the l o c a t i o n code f o r the game check. 10) check time : only r e l e v a n t f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t s and c o n s i s t s O f : CHECK STABTED, CHECK FINISHED and CONTACT T.IHE. A l l times were recorded using the 2400 hour d e s i g n a t i o n . 12-2 Appendix 1.2 Person Information 1) IDENTIFICATION NUMBEB - Each hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e had an unique i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. F i e l d c o ntacted hunters f o r 1975 were given i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e form numbers. 2) HUNTING LICENCE NUMBEB - The 1976 hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and rec e n t f i e l d c o n t a c t s (1975- ) had hun t i n g l i c e n c e numbers. 3) r e s i d e n c e : F o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data (1975-76), BESIDENT BEGION, BESIDENT CODE, RESIDENT M.O. and BESIDENT SOBONIT were obtained from the hunter l i c e n c e f i l e . For 1964-67 and 1973-74 hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r e s i d e n c e data were obtained from the postmark on the re t u r n e d g u e s t i o n n a i r e . The l o c a t i o n l i s t was used to i n f e r BESIDENCE 2 0 6 BEGION, M. U., and SUBUNIT from the postmark. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r 1968-71 were missing the postmark, so BESIDENCE BEGION was assumed to be the same as BESIDENT ABBA and the BESIDENCE M.U. was determined from hunt l o c a t i o n s (see s e c t i o n 4. 2) . 4) RESIDENT ABEA (1964-76) and SOB-BESIDENT AREA (1975-76) have been used by the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch t o i n d i c a t e where hunter sample respondents r e s i d e (see s e c t i o n 4 . J ) . 5) l i c e n c e date : For 1975-76 data sources, the LICENCE DAY, LICENCE MONTH, and LICENCE DAY OF YEAR showed when the hunting l i c e n c e was purchased and determines when hunters commenced hunting. 6) r e t u r n date : For o l d hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (1964-74) with postmarks, the BETUBN DAY, 8STUBN MONTH and BETUBN DAY OF THE YEAB were used t o i n d i c a t e when the completed form was mailed. 7) p e r s o n a l data : When hunting l i c e n c e data was a v a i l a b l e (1975-76), the BIRTH DAY, BIRTH MONTH, BIBTH YEAB, AGE, SEX, and P8EVIOUS HUNTING EXPERIENCE (1 - COBE , 2 = p r e v i o u s l i c e n c e ) were added to each c o n t a c t e d hunter and respondent. 8) MINIMOM SEASON KILL : Not being used a t present. Only r e l e v a n t f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data s i n c e 1976. The hunter season r e c o r d and f i e l d c o n t a c t sheets w i l l be used to determine the minimum season k i l l f o r each hunter. The numbers of animals checked and number of p r i o r k i l l s w i l l be summed t o o b t a i n the minimum season k i l l 9) season summaries : TOTAL SEASON EFFORT, TOTAL KILL, TOTAL BUCK KILL, TOTAL DOE KILL, and TOTAL FAWN KILL were compiled f o r each hunter. Season summaries f o r f i e l d c o n t a c t data without l i c e n c e number were the same as l o c a t i o n summaries. Season e f f o r t was not a v a i l a b l e f o r hunter sample data p r i o r to 1975. 12-3 Appendix 1.3 Hunt L o c a t i o n - Contact Hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data sources have d i f f e r e n t case s t r u c t u r e s because f i e l d c o n t a c t data can have s e v e r a l c o n t a c t s recorded f o r the same l o c a t i o n . Therefore hunter sample data have v a r i a b l e s which are r e c o r d e d and summarized by hunt l o c a t i o n , while f i e l d c o n t a c t data have v a r i a b l e s by c o n t a c t . 1) LOCATION CODE i When o l d game check data (1953-75) and o l d hunter sample data (1964-74) were repr o c e s s e d the l o c a t i o n code was used to i n d i c a t e hunt l o c a t i o n . I n s t e a d of using l o c a t i o n codes, the 1976 f i e l d c o n t a c t sheet c o l l e c t e d the M.U. and s u b u n i t of the hunt d i r e c t l y - The 1964 hunter sample data had s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s f u l hunts but only g e n e r a l areas f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l h u n t s . L o c a t i o n codes f o r 207 recent hunter sample data (1975) were d e r i v e d from hunt l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s . 2) l o c a t i o n p l a c e : HONT BEGION, HUNT H.O., HONT H.A. , and HONT SOBONIT were u s u a l l y determined from the l o c a t i o n . l i s t . 3) LOCATION EFFOBT : The t o t a l e f f o r t f o r each l o c a t i o n or c o n t a c t was recorded as the number o f days hunted. 4) HONT METHOD : Not being used a t present. 5) PREVIOUS KILL : Since 1976, November game checks have recorded t h e number of pr e v i o u s k i l l s t o c a l c u l a t e minimum season k i l l and provide an index of hunter season success. 6) l o c a t i o n summaries : TOTAL KILL, TOTAL BOCK KILL, TOTAL DOE KILL, and TOTAL FAWN KILL were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each l o c a t i o n or c o n t a c t . For game check data c o l l e c t e d by hunting v e h i c l e s (1953-74), l o c a t i o n summaries assumed hunters i n the same v e h i c l e had uniform success. 12.4 Appendix 1.4 K i l l Data The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s a re used t o i n d i c a t e k i l l d a t a : 1) deer type : KILL SUBSPECIES (1= b l a c k t a i l , 2= w h i t e t a i l , 3=mule), KILL SEX (1= male, 2~female), KILL AGE TYPE (1~fawn, 2= adult ) and KILL ANTLEB TYPE (0= none f o r a n t l e r l e s s animals or no i n f o r m a t i o n f o r bucks, 1=spike, 2= 2 or more points) were used t o d e s c r i b e deer k i l l s . Subspecies data were o n l y a v a i l a b l e f o r 1975 hunter sample data, while a n t l e r c l a s s was i n t r o d u c e d i n 1976. 2) k i l l date - KILL DAY, MONTH, DAY OF YEAR,, WEEK OF SEASON, DAY OF WEEK, and SEASON TYPE (see c o n t a c t date f o r codes) were recorded i f date i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e . K i l l dates were recorded f o r hunter sample data s i n c e 1971 (except 1972). For f i e l d c o n t a c t data, the date o f t h e k i l l was the same as t h e check date. 3) Age data - For a l l f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a , lower jaws from most deer k i l l s were aged by the t o o t h replacement-wear method. AGE and ANTLER POINTS were recorded f o r a l l f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a , while SPECIHEN NUMBER was used s i n c e 1975. The i n t e g r a t e d hunter sample data (1975- ) had s p e c i f i c age data f o r a l l r e p o r t e d k i l l s t h a t c o u l d be matched with f i e l d c o n t a c t k i l l s . 12.5 Appendix 1.5 Marked Data C r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was exchanged between hunter g u e s t i o n n a i r e and f i e l d c o n t a c t data gathered i n 1975. F o r hunters with the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were exchanged: 208 1) marked category : Data records from one data s e t with a matching i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number on the other data f i l e were i n d i c a t e d by the value "1" under HARKED HUNTER. Marked h u n t e r s with the same hunt M.U. or same hunt s u b u n i t c o n t a i n e d i n the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s of the other data s e t , were i n d i c a t e d under MASKED LOCATION by "1" and "2" r e s p e c t i v e l y . K i l l s on both r e c o r d s were matched and i n d i c a t e d by "1" under MARKED KILL- I f more than one k i l l was r e p o r t e d or checked, k i l l s were matched by k i l l date, hunt M-U-, hunt s u b u n i t , and deer type. 2) marked l o c a t i o n or phase: Por marked hunters, the MAILING PHASE of the hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t r a n s f e r r e d to the f i e l d c o n t a c t data r e c o r d s and the CONTACT M-U—SUBUNIT was w r i t t e n on the hunter sample r e c o r d s . 3) marked summary: Season summaries from data sources were exchanged t o produce MABKED TOTAL KILL, MASKED BUCK KILL, MARKED DOE KILL, and MASKED FAHN KILL. 12.6 Appendix 1-6 S e n t i n e l V a r i a b l e s These v a r i a b l e s are used t o s e l e c t appropriate: case s t r u c t u r e s f o r data a n a l y s i s . F o r example, hunter season s u c c e s s and a g e - c l a s s composition of k i l l s a n a l y s e s r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t data s t r u c t u r e s . The c o r r e c t f i l e s t r u c t u r e s f o r most a n a l y s e s can be developed by s e l e c t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t i n e l s and s e n t i n e l caseweighting v a r i a b l e s . 1) HUNTER SENTINEL - The v a l u e "1«« was used t o i n d i c a t e the f i r s t r e c o r d f o r each hunter or respondent. A l l other; r e c o r d have «0". 2) LOCATION-CONTACT SENTINEL - The f i r s t s e t of r e c o r d s f o r each hunter sample l o c a t i o n and each f i e l d c o n t a c t was f l a g g e d by B1*».; A l l o t h e r r e c o r d s have " 6 " . 3) SUBUNIT SENTINEL - The f i r s t M.U.-subunit group f o r each l o c a t i o n was i n d i c a t e d by fl1". A l l o t h e r r e c o r d s have "0". 4) KILL/LOCATION-CONTACT - The number o f k i l l r e c o r d s f o r each l o c a t i o n (hunter sample) or c o n t a c t ( f i e l d check) was recorded. 5) LO CATION— CONT ACTS/HUN TEB - The number of l o c a t i o n or c o n t a c t s f o r each hunter was recorded. 6) SUBUNIT TYPE - The type of M.U.-subunit f i e l d was i n d i c a t e d by 1 = primary and 2 = secondary. 7) TOTAL, PBIMABY AND SECONDARY SUBUNITS - These f i e l d s were used t o s p e c i f y the t o t a l number, and the number of primary and secondary M.U.-subunits groups f o r each hunt l o c a t i o n (see s e c t i o n s 3.3 and 7.1). 8) M.U. SENTINEL — The f i r s t occurrence o f an M.U. f i e l d f o r each l o c a t i o n was f l a g g e d by " 1 w . A l l other r e c o r d s have 209 "0". 9) TOTAL M.O.S : The t o t a l number of H.O.s f o r the, l o c a t i o n was provided. 10) M.O. GROOPING - The number of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s b e l o n g i n g to the same hunt H.O. was recorded. 11) REPLICATES - For o l d sample data (1964-74) and o l d game check data (1953-74), l a r g e numbers of u n i d e n t i f i e d hunters or respondents were sampled. Instead of d u p l i c a t i n g "n" i d e n t i c a l r e c o r d s , o n l y one record with t h e v a l u e "n" under r e p l i c a t e s was used. •; - -12.7 Appendix 1-7 Sampling Caseweights Each data r e c o r d i n the hunter sample f i l e s has sampling caseweights to allow hunter sample e s t i m a t e s t o be c a l c u l a t e d d i r e c t l y . The f o u r types o f s a m p l i n g caseweights (response, marked hunter, marked hunter s u c c e s s , and marked a n i m a l s ) , the thr e e m a i l i n g treatments ( f i r s t m a i l i n g o n l y , both m a i l i n g s , and phase m a i l i n g ) , and the two l e v e l s of r e s i d e n t s t r a t a ( r e g i o n and H.O.),: combine to gi v e 24 d i f f e r e n t sampling caseweights. Two oth e r caseweights, one combining response caseweights to f a c i l i t a t e comparisons between r e g i o n s , and one based on l i c e n c e s a l e s d a t a , provide a t o t a l of 26 d i f f e r e n t sampling caseweights. D e s c r i p t i o n s , formulae, and u n d e r l y i n g assumptions f o r each sampling caseweight were presented i n Table IV and the a v a i l a b i l i t y of those caseweights a r e shown i n Tab l e LIV and Table LV .', 12.8 Appendix 1.8 Examples of Data F i l e s The f o l l o w i n g examples show how data from hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and f i e l d c o n t a c t forms a r e s t o r e d i n f i l e s . Data r e c o r d s have been s i m p l i f i e d to emphasize l o c a t i o n - c o n t a c t and k i l l i n f o r m a t i o n . A) Example 1 On a 1975 deer hunter q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a hunter i n d i c a t e d he hunted a t 4 d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s ( F i g u r e 23 ) . , At the f i r s t l o c a t i o n , " l o c a t i o n name #1", he spent 5 days hunting and sh o t a 2 po i n t buck and a doe. At " l o c a t i o n name #2" he was u n s u c c e s s f u l a f t e r 2 days o f hunting, and a t " l o c a t i o n name #3" he o b t a i n e d a fawn dur i n g 7 days of hu n t i n g . The f o u r t h l o c a t i o n was a t H.O. 2-05 where he was u n s u c c e s s f u l a f t e r one day. The order of l o c a t i o n names does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t they were hunted i n t h a t order. When the hunter sample data was processed, assume that the f o l l o w i n g l o c a t i o n codes, H.O.s and subun i t s were added t o each l o c a t i o n name: Table LIV Available hunter sample caseweights by year and region. Hunter sample caseweights 3 Region 1 Other regions Year caseweights caseweights 1964-67 1-4 ' 1-2 1968-71 1-4b i-2 1972 1-3 1-2 1973-74 1-4 1-2 1975 1-20 1-3 a - see Table IV for caseweight names. b - caseweight 4 was determined from hunt locations. 211 Table LV Resident M. U. groups that were used to calculate sampling caseweights for d i f f e r e n t years and caseweight type. Resident M. U.s with the same number belong to the same group. Resp-first mail M.D. = Response-first mailing M. U., Resp a l l mails M.U. = Response a l l mailing M.U., Mark succ = Marked success. Year and caseweight type 1964 .65 66-71 72 73-74 75 75 75 Resp- Resp- Resp- Resp- Resp- Resp- Mark Mark f i r s t f i r s t f i r s t f i r s t f i r s t a l l succ succ Resident mail mail mail mail mail mails mails mails M. U. M.U. M.U. M. U. M. U. M. U. M. U. M. U. M. U. 1-1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1-2 1 1 1 — 1 2 1 1 1-3 1 1 1 — 1 3 1 1 1-4 2 2 2 — 2 4 2 2 1-5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 1-6 4 4 4 — 4 6 4 4 1-7 5 5 5 — 5 7 5 5 1-8 6 5 5 — 5 8 5 5 1-9 6 6 6 — 6 9 6 6 1-10 7 6 7 — 7 10 7 7 1-11 6 6 6 — 6 11 6 6 1-12 6 6 6 — 6 12 6 6 1-13 6 6 6 — 6 13 6 6 1-14 7 6 7 — 7 U 7 7 1-15 7 6 7 — 7 15 7 7 212 Figure 23 Example 1. Completed qu e s t i o n n a i r e . 1975 hunter sample 2 1 3 DEER HARVEST QUESTIONNAIRE 1975 All hunters please complete the following: 1. Did you hunt for deer in 1975? Yes Gf No • 2. If YES for each hunt, please enter the management units (M.U.) you hunted, the nearest landmark, and the number of days you hunted in each M.U. If you were successful in harvesting one or more deer, also complete the date of kill, the species, sex, and age for each of your deer. Please indicate if your deer was recorded at a Game Check. M . U . Nearest Landmark (Creek, River) and Post Office Num-ber of Days Hunted Date of Kill Month Day Species (Check ,/) Black- White-tail tail Mule Sex (Check/) Buck Doe Age (Check /) Adult Recorded (Check ,/) Yes J*^a4te>_n_---i*l ._/«c3;r/-0.«<.._ 7 1 2 °S WOLF HARVEST QUESTIONNAIRE 1975 1. Did you hunt for wolf in 1975? Yes • No • 2. If YES, please complete the following: M . U . Nearest Landmark (Creek, River) and Post Office Number of Davs Hunted Date of Kill Month Day Sex (Check / ) Male Female Age (Check /) Adult Juvenile Kill Recorded at Game Check (/) Yes 214 1) l o c a t i o n name #1 - code 24 (subunits 1-10-2 primary,1-10-3 secondary,and 1-9-2 secondary) 2) l o c a t i o n name #2 - code 116 (M.O. 1-4 primary, M.O. 1-5 primary) 3) l o c a t i o n name #3 - code 327 (subunit 1-6-9 primary) 4) Hunting l o c a t i o n codes f o r other regions were c a l c u l a t e d as: CODE = 9000 • 100 x BEGION * M.O. For t h i s example, l o c a t i o n name#4 had code 9205. T h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by 10 l i n e s i n the 1975 hunter sample deer f i l e (Table XVI ) . In t o t a l , 4 ; l o c a t i o n s -ere hunted, 15 days -ere spent and 3 deer were shot (1 buck, 1 doe, and 1 fawn). A l l ten r e c o r d l i n e s c o n t a i n t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i n LOCATI0N—CONTACT/P EHS 0N (4) , TOTAL SEASON EFF0BT (15), TOTAL SEASON KILL (3), TOTAL SEASON BOCK KILL (1), TOTAL SEASON DOE KILL (1) and TOTAL SEASON FAWN KILL ( 1 ) . The f i r s t l i n e has the va l u e "1" under HONTEB SENTINEL s p e c i f y i n g the f i r s t r e c o r d f o r t h a t hunter, while a l l o t h e r l i n e s have "O". Because the f i r s t l o c a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by 3 s u b u n i t s and had 2 k i l l s , 6 l i n e s are needed t o convey t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n (one l i n e f o r each combination). The f i r s t t h ree l i n e s s p e c i f y the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s f o r the 2 point buck, while the next t h r e e l i n e s ( l i n e s 4 t o 6) g i v e the same l o c a t i o n f i e l d s f o r the doe.j S i n c e 5 days were spent hunting a t l o c a t i o n 24 and 2 deer were s h o t , the f i r s t s i x l i n e s have KILLS/LOCATION-COHTACT (2), H0NT LOCATION BEGION (1), HONT LOCATION CODE (24), TOTAL LOCATION EFFOBT (5), TOTAL LOCATION KILL (2), TOTAL LOCATION BOCK KILL (1), TOTAL LOCATION DOE KILL (1) and TOTAL LOCATION jFAWN KILL (0). Since two s e t s of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s are used (1 f o r each k i l l ) the value n 1 « under LOCATION—CONTACT SENTINEL i n d i c a t e s t h e f i r s t group of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s f o r each l o c a t i o n ( l i n e s 1-3). The f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d f o r each group i s f l a g g e d by " I " under LOCATION FIELD SENTINEL and shown on l i n e s 1 and 4. Although l o c a t i o n 24 had 3 l o c a t i o n f i e l d s only 1 of them was a primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d . T h e r e f o r e the f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d (1-10-2) f o r each group has LOCATION FIELD TYPE of "1", wh i l e t h e others have "2". A l l s i x r e c o r d s f o r the f i r s t l o c a t i o n have TOTAL LOCATION FIELDS ( 3), PBIMARY LOCATION FIELDS (1) and SECONDARY LOCATION FIELDS (2) . L i n e s 1 and 4 c o n t a i n the f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d i n HUNT LOCATION M.O. (10) and H0NT LOCATION SOBONIT (2), while l i n e s 2 and 5 have values (10) and (3) under t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . The l a s t l o c a t i o n ( l i n e s 3 and 6) i s represented by (9) and (2) r e s p e c t i v e l y . Because the t h r e e l o c a t i o n f i e l d s only s p e c i f y 2 d i f f e r e n t M.O.s, the value "2" i s c o n t a i n e d under TOTAL M.O. FIELDS f o r l i n e s 1 t o 3 and 4 t o 6. 4 CD XI CD 01 CD 3 c+ CO p 3 H> 3 c+ (D CD 4 C f CD <-•*r-o o o o o o o o o O - ' O O - ^ O O - ' <— O ^ K) __1 — - r r - ro --> •*— ro < o o <; O - ~ ->. ->. -'• k —i -> ro ro ro ->• O ->• ro M W - » W W v O M U ) - > - 1 o ro ->• >JI 0 s 0s- .. ro O v o o o r o v j j r o r o v j j r o o o ro o • o o o -— ro O ro to ro •CH TO TO TO TO •o o o o ro ro ro ro ro Hunter sentinel Location-contact sentinel Location f i e l d sentinel K i l l s / l o c a t i o n - c o n t a c t Location-contact/person Location f i e l d type Total location f i e l d s Primary location f i e l d s Secondary location f i e l d s . M. U". sentinel Total M. U. f i e l d s M. U. grouping Replicates I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number Hunt location region Hunt location code Hunt location M. U. Hunt location subunit Total season e f f o r t Total season k i l l Total season buck k i l l Total season doe k i l l Total season fawn k i l l Total location e f f o r t Total location k i l l Total location buck k i l l Total location doe k i l l Total location fawn k i l l K i l l - subspecies K i l l - sex K i l l - age type K i l l - antler type 216 The f i r s t occurence of each M.U- i n the group of l o c a t i o n f i e l d s i s f l a g g e d by "1" under M.U. SENTINEL, so t h a t l i n e s 1, 3, 4, 6 have the value " I " . The number of times the s p e c i f i e d H.O.. i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e l o c a t i o n f i e l d group i s i n d i c a t e d under M.O- GROUPING s i n c e M.O. 1-10 i s r e p r e s e n t e d by 2 s u b u n i t s (1-10-2 and I7IO - 3 ) , l i n e s 1,2,4,5 a l l have the value "2". H.0. 1-9 has o n l y one subunit f i e l d and i s i n d i c a t e d by H 1 " on l i n e s 3 and 6. The buck k i l l i s d e c r i b e d on l i n e s 1 to 3 by KILL SOESPECIES (1 = b l a c k t a i l e d ) , KILL SEX (1 = male), KILL AGE TYPE (2 = a d u l t ) and KILL ANTLER TYPE (2 = 2 or more p o i n t s ) , while the doe k i l l i s i n d i c a t e d on l i n e s 4 t o 6 by (1 = b l a c k t a i l e d ) , (2 = female) (2 = a d u l t ) (0 = none) f o r the r e s p e c t i v e data f i e l d s . The second hunting l o c a t i o n (code 116) has two primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s and no k i l l i n f o r m a t i o n so i t r e g u i r e s 2 data l i n e s . L i n e 7 c o n t a i n s the data f o r hunt M.0 1-4, while l i n e 8 c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r hunt 80. 1-5. The t h i r d l o c a t i o n (327) has one l o c a t i o n f i e l d and a fawn k i l l . I t r e g u i r e s only one data l i n e and the fawn k i l l i s represented by RILL S0BSPECIES (1 = b l a c k t a i l e d ) , KILL SEX (0 = unknown), KILL AGE TYPE (1 = fawn), KILL ANTLER TYPE (0 = none). The l a s t l o c a t i o n i s not i n Region 1 and t h e r e f o r e i s not s p e c i f i e d on the l o c a t i o n l i s t . Hunt M.O. 2-05 i s r e p r e s e n t e d by LOCATION CODE (9205), H0NT LOCATION BEGION (2), HONT LOCATION M.O. (5), and H0NT LOCATION SOBONIT (0) on l i n e 10. B) .Example 2 During the 1975 deer hunting season, a hunter was checked i n the f i e l d on f o u r d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s (Figure 24 ). The f i r s t time was at the game check at l o c a t i o n code 67 (subunit 1-4-1). Although the hunter was stopped i n subunit 1-4-1, he a c t u a l l y •hunted f o r f o u r days at l o c a t i o n 53 (primary s u b u n i t 1-4-10 and secondary s u b u n i t 1-5-1), where he shot a s p i k e and a 3 p o i n t buck. The next c o n t a c t was at the same game check and the same l o c a t i o n was hunted and one doe was k i l l e d a f t e r hunting one day. The t h i r d time he was stoppped was a t game check 85 at su b u n i t 1-6-11 and the hunt l o c a t i o n was not s p e c i f i e d . However, game check 85 censuses hunters who were hunting i n M.O.s 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, and 1-13. The hunter spent 2 days i n the f i e l d and was u n s u c c e s s f u l . The l a s t time he was checked was by C o n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r #2 from d i s t r i c t #4, while hunting a t l o c a t i o n 158 i n s u b u n i t 1-8-3. During t h a t hunting t r i p he spent 1 day and was u n s u c c e s s f u l . T h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n would be r e p r e s e n t e d by 11 data l i n e s i n the 1975 c o n t a c t data f i l e (Table LVII ) . As with the hunter sample data f i l e , the f i r s t r e c o r d f o r each hunter i s i n d i c a t e d by the value H 1 " under HONTEB SENTINEL. However, f o r 2 1 7 Figure 24 Example 2- F i e l d contact i n f o r m a t i o n recorded during 1975. REGION I GAME CHECK - VEHICLE RECORD DATE OFFICERS — t t -STATION ^ WEATHER TIME START SHEET NUMBER . TIME FIN." TIME SHEET STARTED HUNTERS # Days I C-Vmftt'ck 6 7 C C O # 2 W # f E LOCATION M.U. Specific Area «... » /-8 DEER SHOT Antler j a w shot Type L R Tag # gy # 0~* / / OTHER SP. # Species HUNTER 1 Licence Seas. HUNTER 2 Licence Seas. HUNTER 3 Licence Seas. -» O o o o o o o o o o o o • -» o o <^  o o o ->• ->• _» O - » O - » — k fO _ i < ^ . < — <-o <- o ro ro o o o <-o <r-co U t - o - o U l oa <-U l ca w w —> vo yi ^ vn f> ui U > O O O 0 - * O - ' o —>• o — O J — ro O ^ r -O v -O -^o * r ro o o o o o o o o o o o o ro ro o o ro ro o CD o o ro ro o CD o o ro ro o CL a CD Hunter sentinel Location-contact sentinel Location f i e l d sentinel K i l l / l o c a t i o n contact Location-contact/person Location f i e l d type Total location f i e l d s Primary location f i e l d s Secondary location f i e l d s M. U. sentinel Total M. D. f i e l d s M. U. grouping Replicates Contact region Contact d i s t r i c t Contact o f f i c e r Contact station Contact M. U. Contact subunit I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number Hunt location region Hunt location code Hunt location M. U. Hunt location subunit Total season e f f o r t Total season k i l l Total season buck k i l l Total season doe k i l l Total season fawn k i l l Total location e f f o r t Total location k i l l Total location buck k i l l Total location doe k i l l Total location fawn k i l l K i l l - subspecies -» -» K i l l - sex ro ro ro K i l l - age type ro K i l l - antler type o » K i l l - jaw CL cf cr K i l l - age —k - 1 K i l l - antler points l e f t -1 -* K i l l - antler points rig h t 6 L 2 220 f i e l d .coatact i n f o r _ a t i c n , LOCATION-CONTACT SENTINELS are based on c o n t a c t s , whereas the corresp o n d i n g s e n t i n e l s f o r hunter sample f i l e s are based on l o c a t i o n s . Although the same hunting l o c a t i o n i s i n d i c a t e d f o r l i n e 1 to 6, two d i f f e r e n t s e t s of c o n t a c t data a re gi v e ( l i n e s 1 to 4 and l i n e s 5 t o , 6) and d i f f e r e n t LOCATION SUMMARIES are s u p p l i e d . The t h i r d c o n t a c t was a t game check 85, but e i t h e r the hunter c o u l d not i d e n t i f y where he hunted or the game check operator f a i l e d to r e c o r d the i n f o r m a t i o n . However, s i n c e game check 85 c o n t r o l s access to f o u r M.U.s, a l l f o u r M.U.s are s p e c i f i e d and the l o c a t i o n code i s assign e d the value M 0 " . The l a s t c o n t a c t was by a Co n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r and i s presented under CONTACT REGION (1), CONTACT DISTRICT (4), and CONTACT OFFICER (2), while CONTACT STATION, CONTACT M.U. and CONTACT SUBUNIT are not d e f i n e d . (N-B. The order of c o n t a c t s i n the f i l e s may not be i n the c o r r e c t time sequence.) 221 13.0 APPENDIX 2.0 EXAMPLES OF SPSS INFORMATION BETBIEVAL 13.1 Appendix 2.1 Example 1 L o g i c o f B e t r i e v a l 1) PROBLEM: A w i l d l i f e manager wants to know how many deer were shot by Begion 1 hunters i n each s u b u n i t of M.O.s 1-5 and 1-6 i n 1575. He would l i k e both the r e p o r t e d number of k i l l s and an estimated t o t a l k i l l assuming: i ) r e s i d e n t M.O.s have uniform response r a t e s , i i ) 2nd m a i l i n g hunter respondents are t y p i c a l of a l l unsampled hunters, and i i i ) marked and unmarked hunters nave the same response r a t e s . Furthermore he s p e c i f i e s t h a t primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s should be twice as important as secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s . 2) ASS0NPTIONS: The asssumtions are s p e c i f i e d i n the problem. 3) SELECT APPBOPBIATE CASE STB0CT0BE: Since o n l y the t o t a l number of k i l l s i s needed, l o c a t i o n summaries can be used. The a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e i s t h a t f o r l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n . 4) SELECT APPBOPBIATE CASES: 1) use only the 1975 hunter sample data f i l e 2) s e l e c t f o r hunters 3) s e l e c t f o r Begion 1 r e s i d e n t s 4) s e l e c t f o r M.O.s 1-T5 and 1-6 hunt l o c a t i o n s 5) s e l e c t f o r l o c a t i o n s with k i l l s ( i e . l o c a t i o n s without k i l l s a re not needed f o r the a n a l y s i s ) . 222 5) OSE COBBBCT BEPLICATE HEIGHT: Because the 1975 hunter sample had no missing g u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the r e p l i c a t e f i e l d f o r a l l data r e c o r d s has the value " 1 M . T h e r e f o r e the r e p l i c a t e weight i s not needed f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s . 6) CALCULATE APPBOPBIATE BECOBD CASEWEIGHTS: Because primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s are t o have twice the weight of secondary f i e l d s , each primary f i e l d has the weight of - -•- ••• • • ,- 2 • primary f i e l d x 2 + secondary f i e l d while each secondary f i e l d has one-half t h a t weight. 7) SELECT APPBOPBIATE SAMPLING CASEWEIGHT: For the r e p o r t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n , no sampling caseweight i s needed. For the estimated k i l l , the sampling assumptions i n d i c a t e t h a t sampling caseweight #20 (marked success - phase m a i l i n g M.U. caseweight) should be used. 8) CALCULATE OVERALL CASEWEIGHT: The o v e r a l l caseweight i s the product of the r e c o r d and sampling caseweights. 9) ANALYSIS: The a n a l y t i c a l methods depend on the s t a t i s t i c a l package. INFORMATION RETRIEVAL VIA SPSS The f o l l o w i n g SPSS program w i l l perform the r e q u i r e d a n a l y s i s : BUN NAME 1975 HUNTEB SAMPLE MU 1-5 AND 1-6 SUBUNIT KILLS T h i s t i t l e w i l l be p r i n t e d on every page of output. DATA LIST FIXED/1 IHST 7 ILSENT 11 LOCTP 17 IPBIMF 19 ISECF 20 IHBES 79 I.HBEG 117, IHMU 124—125 IHSUB 126-127 ILTOT 132-133 CWT20 308-314 The data l i s t s p e c i f i e s the i n p u t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the data f i l e . IHST i s the hunter s e n t i n e l ILSENT i s the l o c a t i o n s e n t i n e l LOCTP i s the l o c a t i o n f i e l d type IPBIMF i s the number of primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s ISECF i s the number of secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s 223 IHEES i s r e s i d e n t r e g i o n IBBEG i s hunt l o c a t i o n r e g i o n IHMO i s hunt l o c a t i o n H.O. IHSUB i s l o c a t i o n s u b u n i t ILTQT i s t o t a l l o c a t i o n k i l l C«T20 i s c a s e - e i g h t #20 INBOT MEDIOH TAPE T h i s c a r d i n d i c a t e s the i n p u t device f o r the •• • data N OF CASES ONKNOBN Shen the i n p u t medium i s a tape the number of data r e c o r d s d o e s not need t o be s p e c i f i e d . VAB LABELS IHMO, MANAGEMENT DNIT/IHSUB,SUBONIT Only v a r i a b l e s a ppearing i n output t a b l e s need t o be l a b e l l e d . VALOELABELS IHSOB (0) ONSP Only l a b e l l e d ouput values that do not re p r e s e n t numbers need t o be l a b e l l e d . SELECT IF (ILSENT EQ 1) Because the l o c a t i o n summaries are going t o be used, the f i r s t s e t of l o c a t i o n data i s s e l e c t e d . SELECT I F (IHST EQ 1) Records with hunters are s e l e c t e d . SELECT IF (IHRES IQ 1 AND IHBEG EQ 1) Records f o r Begion 1 r e s i s e n t s hunting i n Begion 1 are s e l e c t e d . , SELECT IF (IHMO EQ 5 OB IHMO EQ 6) Records f o r M.O. 5 and 6 are s e l e c t e d . SELECT I F (ILTOT NE 0) Records with k i l l s a re s e l e c t e d . COMPOTE BECHT=2./(IPBIMF*2*ISECF) The record weight i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s and assigned t o a i l ; r e c o r d s . IF (LOCTP EQ 2) BECHT=BECwT/2. The record weight i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s and a s s i g n e d t o r e c o r d s with secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s . TASK NAME BEPOBTED DISTBIBDTION OF DEER KILLS T i t l e f o r f i r s t s e c t i o n of output. •COMPOTE OVEBHT-ILTOT+BECWT The o v e r a l l weight i s c a l c u l a t e d . The t o t a l number of k i l l s i s m u l t i p l i e d by a l l the necessary c a s e w e i g h t s . ; •HEIGHT 0¥BBWT T h i s card a s s i g n s the weights f o r the f o l l o w i n g c a r d . CBOSSTABS ?ABIABLES=IHBD(5,6),IHSOB (0-12)/ TABLES-lfiSOB BY IHMO . .. . , The i n t e g e r mode f o r the c r o s s t a b procedure can be used t o save computational time. The range f o r HO values i s 5 t o 6, while t h a t f o r subunit v a l u e s i s 0 t o 12 (0 i n d i c a t e s an u n s p e c i f i e d s u b u n i t ) . 224 HEAD INPUT DATA TASK NAME •COMPUTE •HEIGHT CBOSSTABS FINISH The data f i l e i s read, cases are selected, permanent computations are performed, and the f i r s t analysis i s done. ESTIMATED KILL—MASKED SUCCESS PHASE MAIL M U T i t l e f o r the second part of analysis O V E H H T = I L T O T * B E C H T * C W T 2 0 This time the o v e r a l l weight must be multiplied by the sampling caseweight. OVEBHT The weight i s assigned for the following card. VABIABLES = I H M U ( 5 , 6 ) ,IHSUB ( 0 , 12)/ TABLES=IHSDB BY I H M U A s i m i l a r output table i s produced for the estimated k i l l . End of analysis. 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE MU 1-5 AND 1-6 SUBUNIT KILLS REPORTED DISTRIBUTION OF DEER KILLS FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE = 12/29/78) 12/29/78 PAGE p.225 y * * * * * * IHSUB 3jc 3fe 5^ 3k SUBUNIT * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I 0 N O F * * * * * * * BY IHHU MANAGEMENT UNIT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IHMU * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT I I T ROW TOTAL TOT PCT IHSUB 0 I 5 1 6 1 I 15 I 5 1 20 UNSP I 75 . 0 I 25.0 I I 2.2 I 1 02 I I 1 .3 I G.4 I 1.8 1 -I 1 1 I 194 I 10 I I 95 . 3 I 4.7 I 204 18.1 I 23.0 1 2.2 I I 17.2 I 0«8 I 2 I 54 I 22 I I 71.1 I 28.9 I I 7.8 I 5 .1 I 76 6.7 I 4o8 I 2*0 I •I 1 1 I 107 I 13 I 3 121 I 8 8 0 8 I l i e 2 I I 15.4 I 3.1 I I 9.5 I 1.2 I 10 o7 4 I 103 I 16 1 I 86.2 I 13.8 I 119 10.6 I 14o8 I 3o8 I I 9.1 I 1.5 I 5 I 27 I 19 I I 58.5 I 41.5 I I 3.9 I 4.4 I 46 4.1 6 I 2.4 I 1.7 I I 67 I 5 1 72 I 93.1 I 6.9 I I 9.6 I 1.2 I I 5o9 I 0o4 I 6.4 COLUMN TOTAL 694 433 61o6 38o4 1127 lOOoO (CONTINUED} ( 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE MU 1-5 AND 1-6 SUBUNIT KILLS REPORTED DISTRIBUTION OF DEER KILLS FILE NONA ME (CREATION DATE = 12/2 9/78.) 12/29/78 PAGE 3 p. 226 ! H S U B SUBUNIT R 0 S S T A B U L A T BY I 0 N IHMU • p # * * * MANAGEMENT * * * * * * * UNIT * * * * * * * J 5JC # # $ & * * ft * A * # * ft jfc * * * .* * IHMU * * * * * * $ $ $ $ $ * * * * * * * * % * * * * * * * * * PAGE 2 Of 2 \ COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT 1 I I ROW TOTAL TOT PCT IHSUB 7 I 5 I 6 1 I 88 I 14 I 102 I 86.0 I 14.0 I I 12.7 I 3 0 3 I I 7.8 I 1.3 I 9.1 8 -I 1 1 I 24 I 60 I I 28.6 I 71.4 I 84 7.5 I 3.5 I 13.9 I I 2 d I 5 04 I - I I — I 9 T 10 I 120 I I 7 0 7 I 52.3 I 1 1.4 I 27.7 I 130 11. 5 I 0.9 I 10.6 I I 5 1 64 I 10 69 I 7.3 I 92.7 I I 0.7 I 14.7 I I 0 . 4 I 5.7 I 6.1 11 _! 1 j I 0 1 52 I I 0.0 I 100.0 I 52 4.6 I 0.0 I 12.0 I I n.o I 4.6 I 12 I 0 I 32 I I 0.0 I 100.0 I I OoO I 7.5 I 32 2.9 I 0.0 I 2.9 I 694 433 COLUMN 1127 TOTAL 61.6 38.4 100.0 I 1 9 7 5 HLNTER SAMPLE MU 1 - 5 AND 1 - 6 SUBUNIT K I L L S ESTIMATED K I L L — M A R K E D SUCCESS PHASE MAIL MU F I L E NGNAME (CREATION DATE = 1 2 / 2 9 / 78) 12/29/78 P AG E p. ,227 -* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * J K IHSUB SUB UN I T  C R O S S T A B U L A T I Q N B Y IHMU O P * * * * * * * * MANAGEMENT UNIT * * * * * * * * * * < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IHMU * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * » i * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 1 OF 2 COUNT ROW PCT COL P C T I I I ROW TOTAL TOT PCT IHSUB 0 I 5 I 22 I 6 I I — 1 I 5 I 2 7 UNSP I 8 U 5 T 1 . 8 I 1 . 1 I 1 8 0 5 I I 0 . 7 I I 0 . 2 I l o 3 1 I 3 6 9 I 9 6 . 4 I 14 I I 3 . 6 I 3 8 3 1 9 . 1 I 2 9 0 6 I 1 8 . 4 I l e 8 I I 0 . 7 I 2 I 1 1 0 I 7 0 . 1 I 8 . 8 I 4 7 I I 2 9 . 9 I I 6 . 2 I 1 5 7 7 . 8 3 I 5 . 5 I 1 8 0 I 2 . 3 I I 1 7 1 1 9 6 I 9 1 . 4 I 1 4 . 4 I 8»9 I 8 . 6 I I 2 . 2 I I 0*8 I 9 . 8 4 I 2 0 6 I 8 5 o 6 I 1 I 3 5 I I 1 4 o 4 I 2 4 1 1 2 o 0 I 1 6 . 5 I 1 0 . 3 I 4 . 6 I I 1 . 7 1 5 I 4 8 I 5 9 . 3 I 3 o 8 I 3 3 I I 4 0 . 7 I I 4o 3 I 8 0 4 . 0 I 2 . 4 I 1 . 6 1 6 I 1 0 5 I 12 I 1 1 7 _ I 9 0 . 1 I 8 . 4 I 5 . 2 I 9 . 9 I I 1 . 5 I I 0 . 6 I 5 . 8 COLUMN TOTAL - I 1 2 4 9 6 2 . 2 7 5 8 3 7 . 8 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 . Q (CONTINUED) . — - ' 1975 HUNGER SAMPLE MU 1-5 AMD .1-6 SUBUNIT K I L L S ESTIMATED K I L L — M A R K E D SUCCESS PHASE MAIL MU F I L E NONAME (CREATION DATE - 12/29/781 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * IHSUB SUBUNIT BY IHMU MANAGEMENT UNIT  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PAGE 2 OF 2 12/29/7 8 PAGE p. 228 IHMU COUNT I ROW PCT I ROW COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 5 1 6 1 IHSUB 1 I 1 7 I 140 I 25 I 165 I 84 o 7 I 15o3 I 8o2 I 11.2 I 3.3 I I 7.0 I 1.3 I  3 I 39 I 102 I 141 I 27.8 I 72.2 I 7.0 I 3ol I 13o4 I I 1.9 I 5.1 I 9 I 19 I 196 I 215 I 9.0 I 91.0 I 10.7 I 1.5 I 25.8 I i Io6 i 9o7 i 10 I 11 I 104 I 115 I 9o6 I 90 o4 I 5o7 I 0.9 I 13.7 I I_ 0.6 1 5.2_ I 11 I 0 1 99 I 99 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 4.9 I OoO I 13 o0 I I 0.0 I 4.9 I i 2 1 o i 7 1 i T i I 0.0 I 100.0 I 3.5 I 0.0 I 9.4 I  I 0.0 I 3.5 I COLUMN 1249 758 2008 TOTAL 62.2 3 7.8 100.0 J 229 13.2 appendix 2-2 Example 2 L o g i c of R e t r i e v a l 1) PROBLEM: what i s the a g e - c l a s s s t r u c t u r e of the deer h a r v e s t r e p o r t e d a t the Campbell River game check during 1974 hunting season and duri n g the 1974 a n t l e r l e s s season? 2) ASSUMPTIONS: No assumptions need to be made. 3) SELECT APPBOPBIATE CASE STBOCTUBE: Since i n f o r m a t i o n on each k i l l i s needed, l o c a t i o n summaries cannot be used. The a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e i s t h a t f o r k i l l i n f o r m a t i o n . 4) SELECT APPBOPBIATE CASES: 1) use only the 1974 game check f i l e . 2) s e l e c t f o r the Campbell B i v e r game check data 3) s e l e c t f o r r e c o r d s with k i l l s . 5) USE COBBECT BEPLICATE HEIGHT: The r e p l i c a t e f i e l d s h ould be used. 6) CALCULATE APPBOPBIATE BECOBO CASEWEIGHTS: Because o n l y one r e c o r d w i l l be used f o r each k i l l , the r e c o r d weight i s "1". 7) SELECT APPBOPBIATE SAMPLING CASEIEIGHT: Game check data does not have sampling caseweights. 8) CALCULATE OVERALL CASEIEIGHT: The o v e r a l l caseweight i s the r e p l i c a t e caseweight. 9) ANALYSIS: The a n a l y t i c a l methods depend on the s t a t i s t i c a l package. INFORMATION BETBIEVAL VIA SPSS The f o l l o w i n g SPSS program w i l l perform the r e q u i r e d a n a l y s i s : BUN NAME 1974 CAMPBELL BIVEB GAME CHECK AGE-CLASS STBUCTUBE T h i s t i t l e w i l l be p r i n t e d on every page of output. DATA LIST FIXED/1 ISSENT 12 IBEP 24-29 ICTYPB 40 ICSTAT 47-50 KSUB 137 KSEX 138 KAGE 139 KAGIYB 156-158 • The d a t a l i s t s p e c i f i e s the i n p u t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the data f i l e . ISENT i s the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s e n t i n e l IBEP i s number of r e p l i c a t e s ICTYPE i s c o n t a c t season type ICSTAT i s c o n t a c t s t a t i o n KSUB i s k i l l s ubspecies KSEX i s k i l l sex KAGE i s k i l l age t y p e KAGEYB i s k i l l age with years 230 INPUT MEDIUM N OF CASES VAR LABELS VALUE LABELS SELECT I F SELECT I F SELECT IF ¥EIGHT TASK NAME CROSSTABS BEAD, INPUT DATA TASK NAME •SELECT IF CBOSSTABS FINISH TAPE T h i s card i n d i c a t e s the in p u t device f o r the data UNKNOWN When the i n p u t medium i s a tape the number of data r e c o r d s does not need t o be l a b e l l e d . KSEX,SEX OF KILL/KAGEYB,AGE OF KILL Only v a r i a b l e s appearing i n output t a b l e s need t o be l a b e l l e d . KSEX (0) UNSP (1) MALE (2) FEMALE KAGEYB (0) UNSP (5) FA»N (15) 1.5 YB (25) 2.5 YB (35) 3.5 YB (15) 1.5 YB (55) 5.5 YB (65) 5.5+ YB Only values t h a t do not r e p r e s e n t numbers need to be l a b e l led*. (ISSENT EQ 1) one record f o r each k i l l i s s e l e c t e d . (ICSTAT EQ 20) Data from t h e Campbell R i v e r check s t a t i o n (code 20) i s s e l e c t e d . (KSUB NE 0) Becords with k i l l s are s e l e c t e d . IBEP The r e p l i c a t e f i e l d has the weights f o r the an a l y s e s . TOTAL SEASON T i t l e f o r f i r s t s e c t i o n of output. TABIES=KSEX BY KAGEYB The g e n e r a l mode f o r the c r o s s t a b procedure should be used, because the age code has a range of 0 t o 65. The data f i l e i s re a d , cases are s e l e c t e d , permanent computations are performed, and the f i r s t a n a l y s i s i s done. ANTLERLESS SEASON T i t l e f o r the second p a r t o f a n a l y s i s . (ICTYPE EQ 2) Data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the a n t l e r l e s s season (code 2) i s s e l e c t e d . TABLES=KSEX BY KAGEYB A s i m i l a r output t a b l e i s produced f o r the estimated k i l l . End of a n a l y s i s . f 1974 C A M P B E L L R I V E R G A M E C H E C K A G E C L A S S S T R U C T U R E 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 P A G E T O T A L S E A S O N F I L E N O N A M E ( C R E A T I O N D A T E = 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * K S E X S E X O F K I L L B Y K A G E Y R A G E C F K I L L  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P A G E 1 0 F 1 K A G E Y R C O U N T I ROW P C T I U N S P F A W N 1.5 Y R 2 .5 YP 3 .5 Y R 4 . 5 YR 5.5 YR 5«5 + YR ROW COL P C T I T O T A L T O T P C T I O.I 5.1 6.1 15.1 25.1 35.1 45.1 55 .1 65 .1 K S E X 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 00 I 3 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 I _ 0 I 0 1 0 ' I 0 1 3 U N S P i loo.o i o.o i o.o i 6,6 i 5.6 i o.o i 6.6 i o . o i 6.6 i 0.4 I 1.5 I 0.0 I OoO I OoO I OoO I OoO 1 0 o 0 I QoO I Oo 0 I I 0 . 4 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I  1 © I 116 I 33 I 0 1 101 I 99 I 34 I 32 I 32 I 18 I 465 M A L E 1 24 .9 I 7 .1 I 0 . 0 I 2 1 . 7 I 21 .3 I 7j.3 I _6.9 I 6 . 9 I 3 .9 I 67.1 T 58 .9 I 4 9 . 3 I 6.6 I 77 .7 I 81 .1 I 63.0 I 80.0 I 6 2 . 7 I 58 .1 1 I 16o7 I 4o8 I OoO I 14o6 1 1 4 c 3 I 4 . 9 I 4 . 6 I 4 . 6 ! 2 .6 I - I 1 - I I I — I 1 1 - I 1  2 , I 78 I 34 I I I 29 I 23 I 20 I 8 1 19 I 13 I 225 F E M A L E I 3 4 c 7 I 15.1 I 0 . 4 I 12 .9 I 10 .2 I 8 .9 I 3 .6 I 8 . 4 I 5 .8 I 32.5 I 39.6 I 50 .7 I 100.0 I 2 2 . 3 I 18 .9 I 3 7 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 I 3 7 . 3 I 4 1 . 9 I I 11.3 I 4o9 I Oo l t 4o2 I 3o3 1 2o9 I 1 0 2 I 2 , 7 I l c 9 I C O L U M N 197 67 1 130 122 54^  40 51 31 693 T O T A L 28o4 9 C 7 Oo1 1 8 e 8 1 7 0 6 7 C 8 5»8 7 . 4 4 . 5 100 .0 f 1974 C A M P B E L L R I V E R G A M E C H E C K A G E C L A S S S T R U C T U R E 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 P A G E A N T L E R L E S S S E A S O N F I L E N O N A M E ( C R E A T I O N D A T E = 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 ) p. 232 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . * * C R O S S T A B U L A T I O N O F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * K S E X S E X O F K I L L B Y K A G E Y R A G E O F K I L L * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * P A G E 1 O F I K A G E Y R C O U N T I ROW P C T I U N S P F A W N 1.5 Y R 2 .5 YR 3.5 YR 4 . 5 Y R 5.5 Y P 5.5+ Y R ROW C O L P C T I T O T A L T O T P C T I O . I 5.1 6.1 15.1 25.1 35.1 45.1 55.1 65 .1 0 o I 3 1 0 1 O I 0 1 0 I _ 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 U N S P i 100.6 i 6 . 6 i 6 . 6 I 6.6 i 6.6 i 6 . 6 i 5 . 6 i 6 . 6 i 5.6 i 6.7 I 2 .2 I 0 . 0 I 0.0 I 3 . 0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0 . 0 I 0 .0 I 0.0 I I Oo7 I OoO I QoO I OoO I 0 . 0 I 0 .0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I 0 . 0 I  M A L E 1. I I 54 27.1 I I 33 16 .6 I I 0 0 . 0 T I 38 1 9 . 1 I I 34 17.1 I I 11 5 .5 I i 11 5 .5 I I 12 6 . 0 T i. I 6 3 .0 I I 199 46 .6 T I 4 0 . 0 12.6 I I - I -4 9 . 3 7o7 I I - I -0 . 0 OoO I I I -56 .7 8»9 I I 59 .6 8 o 0 I I - I -3 5 . 5 2o6 1 I 5 7 . 9 2 © 6 T I - I -3 8 . 7 2o8 I I 3 1.6 l o 4 I I — I F E M A L E 2 . I I I 78 34 0 7 57.8 I I I 34 15o 1 50 .7 I I I 1 0o4 100.0 I I T 29 12o9 43 .3 I I I 23 10o2 4 0 . 4 I I I 20 8o9 64 . 5 I I I 8 3 0 6 4 2 . 1 I I T 19 8 e 4 61.3 I T I 13 5. 8 6 8 .4 I I I 225 52.7 I - I -18 .3 I - I -8.0 I - I -0 .2 I I -6 .8 T i-5.4 I — T — -4 . 7 I - I -1.9 I - I -4 . 4 T - I — 3 .0 I - I C O L U M N 135 67 1 67 57 31 19 31 19 427 T O T A L 31.6 15 .7 0.2 15 .7 13 .3 7 .3 4„4 7o3 4o4 lOOoO 233 13.3 Appendix 2-3 Example 3 Lo g i c of S e t r i e v a l 1) PROBLEM: Compare the number of bucks shot per u n i t e f f o r t f o r M.U.s on Vancouver I s l a n d d u r i n g the 1973 hunting season. Assume t h a t each hunter has 1 u n i t of e f f o r t and use the f i r s t primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d f o r l o c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n . The b e s t — r e s p o n s e method should be used to estimate t o t a l s . 2) ASSUMPTIONS: A l l assumptions a r e s p e c i f i e d i n the problem. 3) SELECT APPROPRIATE CASE STRUCTURE: Since o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n by l o c a t i o n i s needed, l o c a t i o n summaries can be used. The a p p r o p r i a t e case s t r u c t u r e i s t h a t f o r l o c a t i o n s . tt) SELECT APPROPRIATE CASES: 1) use the 1973 hunter sample f i l e . 2) s e l e c t f o r hunters. 3) s e l e c t f o r f i r s t l o c a t i o n f i e l d s . 5) USE CORRECT REPLICATE HEIGHT: The r e p l i c a t e f i e l d must be used. 6) CALCULATE APPROPRIATE RECORD CASEWEIGHTS: When c a l c u l a t i n g e f f o r t , the i n v e r s e o f the number of l o c a t i o n s must be used as the r e c o r d weight, so th a t the t o t a l e f f o r t f o r a l l l o c a t i o n s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r hunter i s 1^ When c a l c u l a t i n g the buck k i l l , the c o r r e c t r e c o r d weight i s 1 as each l o c a t i o n summary i s only used once. 7) SELECT APPBOPBIATE SAMPLING CASEWEIGHT: The problem s p e c i f i e s t h a t caseweight number 1 should be used. 8) CALCULATE OVERALL CASEWEIGHT: The o v e r a l l caseweight i s the product of r e p l i c a t e , r e c o r d and sampling caseweight. 9) ANALYSIS: The a n a l y t i c a l methods depend on the s t a t i s t i c a l package. INFORMATION RETRIEVAL VIA SPSS The f o l l o w i n g SPSS program w i l l perform the r e g u i r e d a n a l y s i s : BUN NAME 1973 HONTEB SAMPLE V.I. BUCK KILL AND EFFORT T h i s t i t l e w i l l be p r i n t e d on every page of output. DATA LIST FIXBD/1 IHST 7 ILSENT 11 ISSENT 12 LOCNOH 15-16 IB EP 2 4-29 IHREG 117 IHMO 124-125 ILBOCK 134 CWT! 175-181 The data l i s t s p e c i f i e s the i n p u t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the data f i l e . , IHST i s hunt s t a t u s ILSENT i s the l o c a t i o n s e n t i n e l ISSENT i s the l o c a t i o n f i e l d s e n t i n e l 23a IBEP i s the number of r e p l i c a t e s IBBEG i s the hunt region IHMU i s the hunt M.U-IIBOCK i s the buck k i l l summarized by location C H T l i s caseweight #1 INPOT MEDIUM N OF CASES VAB LABELS VALUE LABELS SELECT IF SELECT IF SELECT IF TASK NAME •COMPOTE •HEIGHT FBEQUENCIES BEAD INPUT DATA TASK NAME •SELECT IF •COMPUTE •HEIGHT FBEQUENCIES TAPE This card indicates the input device f o r the data UNKNOWN When the input medium i s a tape the number of data records does not need to be sp e c i f i e d . IHMU,MANAGEMENT UNIT Only variables appearing i n output tables need to be l a b e l l e d . IHHO (0) UNSP Only values that do not represent numbers need to be l a b e l l e d . (IHST EQ 1 AND ILSENT EQ 1 Hunters a n d t h e location summaries are selected. (ISSENT EQ 1) The f i r s t l o c a tion f i e l d i s selected. (IHBEG EQ 1 AND IHMO LE 13) Vancouver lisland M.D-s are selected. , ESTIMATED EFFOBT—BEST BESPONSE The t i t l e f o r the f i r s t s e c t i o n of output i s s p e c i f i e d . HT=IBEP*CBT1/LOCN0H The o v e r a l l caseweight i s calculated. 8T The weight i s assigned f o r the,following procedure. INTEGEB=IHMU(0,13) The frequency procedure can be used to produce a one-way breakdown of data. The data f i l e i s read, cases are selected, permanent computations are performed, and the f i r s t analysis i s done. ESTIMATED BUCK KILL—BEST BESPONSE The t i t l e f o r the f i r s t section of output i s s p e c i f i e d . (ILBUCK NE 0) Only records with buck k i l l s need to be used. , HT=IBEP*CHT1*ILBUCK The o v e r a l l caseweight i s calculated. HT The weight i s assigned for the following procedure* INTBGEB=IHMU (0, 13) A s i m i l a r output table i s produced f o r the estimated buck k i l l . FINISH End of a n a l y s i s . f 1 9 7 3 HUNTER SAMPLE V.!. BUCK K I L L AND EFFORT ESTIMATED E F F O R T — B E S T RESPONSE F I L E NOMAME (CREATION DATE = 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 ) 1 2 / 2 9 / 7 8 PAGE 2 IHMU MANAGEMENT UNIT p. 236 ? 1 RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ADJ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQUENCY (PERCENT} (PERCENT) (PERCENT) UNSP 0 1 6 6 4 7 . 9 7 . 9 7 . 9 1 7 3 3 3 . 5 3 . 5 l l o 4 2 1 7 9 5 8 . 5 8 . 5 1 9 . 9 3 6 6 5 3 . 2 3 . 2 2 3 . 1 4 1 6 5 0 7 o 8 7o 8 31 o 0 5 2 3 4 4 1 1 . 2 1 1 . 2 4 2 . 1 6 1 9 9 3 9 . 5 9 . 5 5 1 . 6 7 1 5 0 2 7 o l 7o 1 5 8 . 7 8 2 1 5 1 . 0 1 . 0 5 9 . 8 9 1 1 9 1 5 . 7 5 . 7 6 5 0 4 1 0 2 6 1 8 1 2 . 5 1 2 . 5 7 7 . 9 1 1 2 0 9 6 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 8 7 . 8 1 2 7 1 8 3 o 4 3 0 4 9 1 .3 1 3 1 8 3 9 8 . 7 8 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 TOTAL 2 1 0 2 0 l O O o O l O O o O VALID CASES 2 1 0 2 2 MISSING CASES 0 • J 1973 HUNTER SAMPLE V.I. BUCK KILL AND EFFORT ESTIMATED BUCK KILL—BEST RESPONSE FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE = 12/29/78? 12/29/78 PAGE 4 IHMU MANAGEMENT UNI" p. 237 RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ADJ FR6Q CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQUENCY {PERCENT3 (PERCENT) (PERCENT 3 UNSP 0 1101 5.9 5.9 5.9 1 578 3 0 1 3 d 9 a0 2 13 59 ., 7.3 7.3 .16.3 3 515 2.8 2.8 19.1 4 1035 5.6 5. 6 24.7 5 1740 . 9.4 9.4 34.0 6 1089 5o9 5o 9 39o9 7 948 5.1 5. 1 45.0 8 143 0.8 0.8 45.7 9 901 4o 8 4o 8 50 c6 10 2694 " 14.5 14.5 ' 65. 1 11 2820 15.2 15.2 80.2 12 1125 6.0 6.0 86.3 13 2552 13.7 13. 7 100.0 TOTAL 18600 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 18600 MISSING CASES 0 238 Comparison of bucks per unit e f f o r t f o r M.U.s on Vancouver Island. Table = SPSS tabulated values, Reclass = r e c l a s s i f i e d values to remove unspecified M.U. Eff o r t Buck k i l l M.U. Table Reclass Table Reclass Bucks per unit e f f o r t unsp 1664 — 1101 — 1-1 733 796 578 614 77.1 1-2 1795 1949 1359 1445 74-1 1-3 665 722 515 547 75.8 1-4 1650 1792 1035 1100 61.4 1-5 2344 2545 1740 1849 72.7 1-6 1993 2163 1089 1158 53.5 1-7 1502 1631 948 100S 61.8 1-8 215 233 143 152 65.3 1-9 - 1191 1293 901 958 74.1 1-10 2618 2843 2694 2864 100.7 1-11 2096 2276 2820 2996 131.6 1-12 718 780 1125 1196 153.3 1-13 1839 1997 2552 2713 135.9 Total 21020 21020 18600 18600 88.5 239 13-4 Appendix 2-4 Example 4 L o g i c of R e t r i e v a l 1} PROBLEM: I s t h e r e any r e l a t i o n s h i p between hunter season success and the date of hunting l i c e n c e purchase? 2) ASSUMPTIONS: The 1975 hunter sample f o r Begion 1 r e s i d e n t s can be used to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p . 3) SELECT APPBOPBIATE CASE STRUCTURE: Since only i n f o r m a t i f o r each hunter i s needed, season summaries can be used. 4) SELECT APPROPRIATE CASES: 1) use only the 1975 hunter sample f i l e . 2) s e l e c t f o r h u n t e r s . 3) s e l e c t f o r Region 1 r e s i d e n t s . 5) USE CORRECT REPLICATE WEIGHT: For the 1975 hunter sample a l l hunter r e c o r d s have r e p l i c a t e weights of " 1 n . 6) CALCULATE APPROPRIATE RECORD CASEWEIGHTS: Because only one r e c o r d f o r each hunter w i l l be used, the r e c o r d weight i s «1«. 7) SELECT APPBOPBIATE SAMPLING CASEWEIGHT: Si n c e e s t i m a t e d t o t a l are not needed, sampling weights are not r e q u i r e d . 8) CALCULATE OVERALL CASEWEIGHT: The o v e r a l l caseweight i s «1». 9) ANALYSIS: The a n a l y t i c a l methods depend on the s t a t i s t i c a l package. INFORMATION RETRIEVAL VIA SPSS The f o l l o w i n g SPSS program w i l l perform the r e q u i r e d a n a l y s i s : RUN NAME 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE SUCCESS VS LIC PURCHASE DATE T h i s t i t l e w i l l be p r i n t e d on every page of output. DATA LIST FIXED/1 IHST 7 IHSENT 10 1HBES 79 , LIDAY 94-96 ISKILL 112-113 ISBUCK 114 ISDOE 115 ISFAWN 116 The data l i s t s p e c i f i e s the i n p u t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the data f i l e . IHST i s hunt s t a t u s IHSENT i s the hunter s e n t i n e l IHBES i s r e s i d e n t r e g i o n LYDAY i s the yearday of l i c e n c e purchase ISKILL i s the season t o t a l k i l l ISBUCK i s the season buck k i l l ISDOE i s the season doe k i l l ISFAWN i s the season fawn k i l l 240 INPUT.MEDIUM TAPE T h i s c a r d i n d i c a t e s the i n p u t device f o r the • • data N OF CASES UNKNOWN When the in p u t medium i s a tape the number of data -records does not; need to be s p e c i f i e d . . ,• • f • VAB. LABELS ISKILL,TOTAL SEASON KILL/ LXBAY,DATE OF LICENCE PURCHASE Only v a r i a b l e s appearing i n output t a b l e s need to be d e f i n e d . VALUE LABELS LYDAY (0) UNSP (1) 1-240 (2) 241-250 (3) 251-260 (4) 261-270 (5) 271-280 (6) 281-290 (7) 291-300 (8) 301-310 (9) 311-320 (10 321-330 (11) 331-340 (12) 341-365 Only values t h a t do not r e p r e s e n t numbers need t o be l a b e l l e d . BECODE LYDAY (1 THBU 240=1) (241 THBU 250=2) (251 THBU 260=3) (261 THBU 270=4) (271 THBU 280=5) (281 THBU 2 90=6) (291 THBU 300=7) (301 THBU 310=8) (311 THBU 320=9) (321 THBU 330=10) (331 THBU 340=11) (341 THBU 365=12) (ELSE=0) The recode statement i s used t o s p e c i f y groups o f l i c e n c e dates f o r the a n a l y s e s . SELECT I F (IHSENT EQ 1) One rec o r d f o r each person i s s e l e c t e d . SELECT IF (IHST EQ 1) Hunters are s e l e c t e d . SELECT IF (IHBES EQ 1) Begion 1 r e s i d e n t s a re s e l e c t e d . COMPUTE IANTKILL=ISDOE*ISFASN The a n t l e r l e s s k i l l i s c a l c u l a t e d . BREAKDOWN VABIABLES=ISKILL(0,3) ,IBUCK (0,3) ,ISDOE (0,3) IANTKILL (0,3) ,LYDAY(0, 12)/ TABLES=ISKILL TO IANTKILL BY LYDAY A l l output t a b l e s can be produce by one breakdown procedure. The range f o r k i l l i s 0 to 3 as those are the l e g a l bag l i m i t s . BEAD INPUT DATA The data f i l e i s read, cases a r e s e l e c t e d , permanent computations are performed, and the f i r s t a n a l y s i s i s done. FINISH End o f a n a l y s i s . 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE SUCCFSS VS LIC PURCHASE DATE 12/29/78 PAGE 2 p. 241 FILE NONAME (CREATION DATE = 12/29/78) ' D E S C R I P T I O N O F S U 8 P 0 P U L . A T I 0 N S CRITERION VARIABLE ISKILL TOTAL SEASON KILL r BROKEN DOWN BY LYDAY DATE OF LICENCE PURCHASE VARIABLE CODE VALUE LABEL SUM MEAN STD DEV VARIANCE M FOR ENTIRE POPULA TION 6440.0000 0.7237 0.9171 0.8410 ( 88 991 LYDAY 0 UNSP 17.0000 0.6296 0.83 89 0.7037 < 27) LYDAY I 1-240 274 2.0000 0.9462 1.0159 1.0320 ( '2898) LYDAY 2 241-2 50 215 2.0000 0.75 7 5 0.9162 0.8394 ( 2841) LYDAY 3 251-2 69 465.0000 0.5082 0.76 34 0.5828 ( 915) LYDAY 4 261-2 70 296.0000 0.5401 0.8181 0.6693 ( 548) LYDAY 5 271-280 18 3.0000 0.4122 0.6812 0. 4641 ( 444) LYDAY 6 281-290 217.0000 0.4627 0.7140 0.5098 ( 469) LYDAY 7 291-300 109.0000 0.4619 0.7165 0.5134 ( 2 36) LYDAY 8 301-310 136.0000 0.56 20 0.7930 0.6289 ( 242) LYDAY 9 311-320 103.0000 0.4478 0.73 25 0.5366 { 230) LYDAY 10 321-330 9.0000 0.2903 0.52 87 0.2796 ( 31) LYDAY 11 331-340 8.0000 0.5714 1.0163 1.0330 ( 14) LYDAY 12 341-3 65 3.0000 0.7500 0.9574 0.9167 1 4) TOTAL CASES = 890 2 MISSING CASES = 3 OR 0.0 PCT. 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE SUCCESS VS LIC PURCHASE DATE FILE NONA (CREATION DATE = 12/29/78) 12/29/78 PAGE p. 242 D E S C R P T I 0 N 0 F S U 8 P O P U L A T I O N S CRITERION VARIABLE ISBUCK f BROKEN DOWN BY LYDAY DATE OF LICENCE PURCHASE VARIABLE CODE VALUE LABEL SUM MEAN STD DEV VARIANCE N FOR ENTIRE POPULAT ION 5357,OGOO 0.6018 0.8481 ..0.7192 { 8901) LYDAY 0 UNSP 13.0000 0.4815 0.7000 0.4900 ( 27) LYDAY 1 1-240 2373.0000 0.8186 0.95 64 0.9146 ( 2899) LYDAY 2 241-2 50 1791,0000 0*6304 0o8488 Oo 7204 { 2841) LYDAY 3 251-2 tO 364.0000 0.3 974 0.68 50 0.4692 ( 916) LYDAY 4 261-270 241.OGOO 0.439 8 0.7394 0.5466 ( 548) LYDAY 5 271-280 145o0000 0 o3266 0o59 27 0.3513 { 444) LYDAY 6 281-290 166.0000 0.35 39 0.63 25 0.4001 ( 469) LYDAY 7 291-300 82.0000 0 .34 7 5 0.6442 Oo 4149 ( .. Z.3.6J. LYDAY 8 301-310 94.0000 0.38 84 0.6740 0.4543 ( 242) LYDAY 9 311-320 72.0000 0.3130 0.63 88 0.4081 ( 230) LYDAY 10 321-330 9.0000 0 O 2903 0o5287 Oo 2796 ( 31) LYDAY 11 331-340 6.0000 0.4286 0.75 59 0.5714 ( 14) LYDAY 12 341-3 65 1.0000 0.25C0 0.5000 0.2500 ( 4) TOTAL CASES MISSING CASES 8902 1 OR 0.0 PCT. 1975 HUNTER SAMPLE SUCCESS VS L I C PURCHASE DATE 12/29/78 PAGE 4 F I L E NONA ME (CREATION DATE = 12/29/78) D E S C R I P T I O N O F S U 8 P Q P U L A T I O N S CRITERION VARIABLE I A N T K I L L r BROKEN DOWN BY LYDAY DATE OF LICENCE PURCHASE VARIABLE CODE VALUE LABEL SUM MEAN • STD DEV VAR I ANCE N FOR ENTIRE POPULATION 1091.0000 0.12 26 0.33 81 0.1143 ( 8902) LYDAY 0 UNSP 4.0000 0.1481 0.3620 0.1311 271 LYDAY 1 1-240 3 73.0000 0.12 87 0.3440 0.1184 ( 2899) LYDAY 2 241-2 50 361 o0000 0 o1270 0 o3475 0.1208 ( 2 842) LYDAY 3 251-2£0 10 5.0000 0.1146 0.32 89 0.1082 ( 916) LYDAY 4 261-270 55.0000 0.1004 0.30C8 0o0905 ( 548) LYDAY 5 271-2 80 3 8.0000 0.08 56 0.2957 0.0375 ( 444) LYDAY 6 281-290 51.0000 0.1087 0.31 84 0.1014 ( 469) LYDAY 7 291-300 2 7.0000 Go 1144 0o3190 Oo1017 ( 236) LYDAY 8 301-310 42.0000 0. 1736 0.3795 0.1440 ( 242) LYDAY 9 311-320 31,0000 0.1348 0.3548 0. 1259 ( 2 30) LYDAY 10 321-330 OoO OoO -OoO -Oo 0 ( 311 LYDAY 11 331-340 2.0000 0.1429 0.3631 0.1319 { 14) LYDAY 12 341-365 2.0000 0.5000 0.5774 0.3333 ( 4) TOTAL CASES = 8902 244 14.0 APPENDIX 3.0 - PROG Eft M DOCUMENTATION. 14.1 Appendix 3.1 Hunting l i c e n c e Subsystem The hunting l i c e n c e subsystem t r a n s c r i b e s keypunched hunting l i c e n c e data i n t o a s t a n d a r i z e d format so l i c e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n can be added t o recent ( s i n c e 1975) hunter sample and f i e l d c o n t a c t data. A) DATA INPUT (Figure 5) 1) A l l data f i e l d s from the 1975 hunting l i c e n c e s were keypunched onto magnetic tape. 2) For the 1976 hunting l i c e n c e s , l i c e n c e numbers and addresses were keypunched onto one tape f i l e , while l i c e n c e numbers and other data f i e l d s were keypunched onto another. B) COMPUTER PROGRAMS 1) LICID75 added a 5 d i g i t s e q u e n t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number to the 1975 l i c e n c e data t o allow address l a b e l s t o be p r i n t e d f o r s e q u e n t i a l l y numbered q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 2) TLIC75 changed the 1975 l i c e n c e data i n t o the standard format f o r hunting l i c e n c e s . 3) MERLIC w i l l be used to j o i n the two keypunched f i l e s f o r 1976 data and produce the standard f i l e format. 4) ELIC e d i t s the hunting l i c e n c e f i l e . 5) CODEADD added r e s i d e n t r e g i o n , code* M.D.,, and s u b u n i t to each r e c o r d by comparing town names with a l i s t of l o c a t i o n names. I f the town name i s not found on the l i s t , the i n p u t r e c o r d i s saved f o r e d i t i n g or t o allow t h a t town name to be added t o the l o c a t i o n l i s t . By r e p e a t i n g the process, a l l town names are s u p p l i e d with r e s i d e n c e l o c a t i o n data. 6) GOVAGMD produces a d i s t r i b u t i o n of l i c e n c e h o l d e r s by r e s i d e n t M.U.s and government agencies. T o t a l l i c e n c e s a l e s by government agency are used t o manually c o r r e c t the known sample s i z e s , f o r r e s i d e n t M.U.s t o compensate f o r hunting l i c e n c e s which were not keypunched. 245 FORBAT L-1 KEYPUNCH FOBHAT FOR 1975 HUNTING LICENCES Column V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n 1 • L i c e n c e type 1= RH 2= SCH 2-9 L i c e n c e number i n t e g e r number 10-20 B.C. H e d i c a l number not used 21-22 Issue day i n t e g e r number 23-24 Issue month i n t e g e r number 25-26 Issue year not used 27-28 Agency code i n t e g e r number 29-49 Surname alpha char 50-51 B i r t h day i n t e g e r number 52-53 B i r t h month i n t e g e r number 54-55 B i r t h year i n t e g e r number 56 Sex 1= male 2= female 57-77 Address alhpa char 78-95 : Town alp h a char 96-101 P o s t a l code alpha char 246 FORMAT L-2 MODIFIED FORMAT FOR 1975 HDNTING LICENCES Column Variable Description 1-5 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number sequential, integer 6 Licence type code 7-14 Licence number integer number 15-25 blank 26-27 Issue day integer number 28-29 Issue month integer number 30-31 blank 32-33 Agency code integer number 34-54 Surname alpha char 55-56 Bir t h day integer number 57-58 Bi r t h month integer number 59-60 Birth year integer number 61 Sex code 62^82 Address alpha char 83-100 Town alpha char 101-106 Postal code alpha char 247 FORMAT L-3 KEYPUNCH FORMAT FOE HUNTING LICENCES C o l a IDS V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n not a v a i l a b l e by November 1977 248 FORMAT L-4 KEYPUNCH FORMAT FOR ADDITIONAL HUNTING LICENCE DATA Colama V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n 1-6 L i c e n c e number i n t e g e r number 7-8 Issue day i n t e g e r number 9-10 Issue month i n t e g e r number 11-12 B i r t h year i n t e g e r number 13-14 Agency code i n t e g e r code 15 Sex 1= male 2= female 16 Proof 1= prev l i e 2= CORE 3= signed a f f i d a v i t 249 FORMAT L-5 STANDARD LICENCE FILE FORMAT Column V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n 1-2 Year i n t e g e r number 3-7 Ident number i n t e g e r number 8-14 L i c e n c e number i n t e g e r number 15-16 Issue day i n t e g e r number 17-18 Issue month i n t e g e r namber 19-20 Agency i n t e g e r code 21-22 B i r t h day i n t e g e r number 23-24 B i r t h month i n t e g e r number 25-26 B i r t h year i n t e g e r number 27-28 Age i n t e g e r number 29 Sex code 30 Proof code 31 blank 32 Residence Begion i n t e g e r number 33-36 Residence code code 37-38 Residence M.O. i n t e g e r number 39-40 Residence s u b u n i t i n t e g e r number 41-: 58 Town alpha char 250 LICID75 SUB-SXSTEH : Hunting l i c e n c e STATUS : Ob s o l e t e PURPOSE : To add a s e q u e n t i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number to 1975 hunting l i c e n c e d ata. The ID number was used t o match address l a b e l s with form numbers on 1975 deer hunter sample q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . FUNCTION : An incremented counter was used t o add an i n t e q e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number to each r e c o r d EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCHD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= input f i l e - l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-1) tt= output f i l e - l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-2) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The number of output r e c o r d s was p r i n t e d on the t e r m i n a l . 251 TLIC75 SOB-SYSTEM : Hunting l i c e n c e STATUS : Ob s o l e t e PURPOSE : To change the 1975 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n hunting l i c e n c e f i l e i n t o the standar d hunting l i c e n c e f i l e FUNCTION : A re a d / w r i t e loop was used t o change the format. L i c e n c e number and type were changed to a 7 d i g i t i n t e g e r and hunter age was c a l c u l a t e d from b i r t h year. EXTERNAL SOBROUTINES : FTNCMD , PREAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n l i c e n c e f i l e (format L^2) 3- output f i l e - standard l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-5) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The year was entered v i a the t e r m i n a l . Improper l i c e n c e numbers were l i s t e d on the t e r m i n a l 252 MEBLIC SUB-SYSTEM : Hunting l i c e n c e STATUS : Proposed PURPOSE : To l i n k a d d i t i o n a l l i c e n c e f i l e data ( l i c e n c e i s s u e date data, agency code, hunter b i r t h date, and p r e v i o u s l i c e n c i n g data) with the hunter address l i c e n c e f i l e data. FUNCTION : The i n p u t data f i l e s are combined by matching l i c e n c e numbers. & s e q u e n t i a l ID number i s added t o each output r e c o r d . EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD,; FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - keypunched adddress f i l e (format L-3) s o r t e d by l i c e n c e number C,A,?,? — block=u,?,? 4= output f i l e - standard hunting l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-5) 5= i n p u t f i l e - keypunched a d d i t i o n a l l i c e n c e data f i l e (format L-4) s o r t e d by l i c e n c e number C , A , 1 , 6 , — b l o c k = u J 1 6 , 1 6 OPEBATOB IHSTBUCTIONS : The s t a r t i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number w i l l be entered v i a the t e r m i n a l , while the l a s t one w i l l be p r i n t e d t h e r e . - - • 253 B L I P SUB-SYSTEM : Hunting licence STATUS : Operational PURPOSE : To edit the standard hunting licence f i l e compared to maximum and minimum with unacceptible values are FUNCTION : Data values are acceptable values. Data records l i s t e d . EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard licence f i l e (format L-5) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) - l i s t i n g of errors. OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e editor must be used to examine data records with errors and i f , necessary, a l t e r them. 254 CODEADD SOB-SYSTEM : Hunting l i c e n c e STATOS : O p e r a t i o n a l PUBPOSE : To add r e s i d e n c e r e g i o n , M.U., subunit and code to the standard hunting l i c e n c e f i l e '.FUNCTION :•• The l o c a t i o n l i s t i s used to determine r e s i d e n t area r e g i o n , H.U., s u b u n i t and code from alphanumeric town names. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD , c h a r a c t e r s u b r o u t i n e s INPOT/O0TP0T FILES AND DEVICES : 2- i n p u t f i l e - standard l i c e n c e f i l e (format 1-5) s o r t e d by town C,A,41,18 — Block=u,58,58 3= p r i n t f i l e (assigned t o -out) - l i s t i n g of town names not coded. 4= l o c a t i o n l i s t (format S-1) s o r t e d by l o c a t i o n name C,A,7,30 — block=u,79,79 5= coded output f i l e hunting l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-5) 6= uncoded output f i l e - hunting l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-5) OPEHATOB INSTRUCTIONS : A f t e r CODEADD i s used, the o p e r a t o r must: 1) use the f i l e e d i t o r t o c o r r e c t s p e l l i n g mistakes on the uncoded hunting l i c e n c e f i l e 2) add town names to l o c a t i o n l i s t o r 3) c r e a t e a t e m p o r a r y l o c a t i o n l i s t t o code town names t h a t are not wanted on the l o c a t i o n l i s t . By using CODEADD and r e p e a t i n g these e d i t i n g processes* a l l town names can be assigned l o c a t i o n codes 255 GOVAGHO SOB-SYSTEM : Hunting licence STATOS : Proposed PURPOSE : To produce the d i s t r i b u t i o n of hunting licence holders by resident M.O. and government agency. F0HC3IO.tr.: A crosstabulation matrix w i l l be formed and printed. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD IHPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard licence f i l e (format L-5) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The r e s u l t s oust be compared to the statement of revenue derived form hunting licence sales so that the number of licence c o u n t e r f o i l s not keypunched can be determined f o r each government agency. 256 256 1 4 . 2 A p p e n d i x 3 . 2 G a m e C h e c k S u b s y s t e m T h e g a m e c h e c k s u b s y s t e m p r o c e s s e s a l l f o r m s o f f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a c o l l e c t e d b y B e g i o n 1 s i n c e 1 9 5 3 . * ) DATA I N P U T ( F i g u r e 6 ) 1 ) G a m e check d a t a ( 1 9 5 3 - 7 4 ) f o r m o s t V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d r o a d c h e c k s w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r e a c h v e h i c l e t h a t s t o p p e d a t t h e c h e c k s t a t i o n . T h e n u m b e r o f h u n t e r s , d a y s s p e n t h u n t i n g , l o c a t i o n o f t h e h u n t , a n d t h e n u m b e r , t y p e a n d a g e o f e a c h h a r v e s t e d d e e r w e r e r e c o r d e d . T h e a g e o f e a c h k i l l w a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t o o t h e r u p t i o n a n d w e a r p a t t e r n o f t h e l o w e r j a w . T h e l o c a t i o n l i s t w a s u s e d t o m a n u a l l y c o d e h u n t l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s . 2 ) B e t w e e n 1 9 5 4 a n d 1 9 7 3 , a n i n t e n s i v e g a m e c h e c k p r o g r a m w a s c o n d u c t e d a t N o r t h w e s t B a y ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 k i l o m e t e r s s o u t h o f P a r k s v i l l e , B . C . ) t o r e l a t e h u n t e r d y n a m i c s a n d s u c c e s s t o d e t a i l e d r a n g e a n d d e e r p o p u l a t i o n s u r v e y s . A s k i l l s i t e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s r e g u i r e d w i t h i n s u b u n i t s 1 - 5 - 6 a n d 1 - 5 - 7 , a N o r t h w e s t B a y l o c a t i o n l i s t , c o n s i s t i n g o f u n i q u e r o a d , m o u n t a i n a n d c r e e k n a m e s , w a s u s e d t o r e c o r d h u n t l o c a t i o n s . S i g h t i n g s a n d h a b i t a t d a t a w e r e a l s o c o l l e c t e d i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s t a n d a r d g a m e c h e c k d a t a t y p e s -3 ) I n 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 , a n d p a r t o f 1 9 7 6 , t h e N o r t h w e s t B a y g a m e c h e c k w a s f u r t h e r i n t e n s i f i e d t o c o m p a r e d e e r s i g h t i n g s a n d k i l l s t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d e e r p e l l e t - g r o u p s i n t h e E n g l i s h m a n R i v e r w a t e r s h e d ( K a l e , 1 9 7 5 ) - A c o m p l e x d a t a r e c o r d i n g f o r m a t t r a c e d h u n t e r m o v e m e n t s t h r o u g h 8 0 s u b - w a t e r s h e d c o m p a r t m e n t s . E n t r y a n d e x i t t i m e s , d r i v i n g r o u t e s , h u n t i n g h a b i t a t s , a n d d e e r s i g h t i n g s w e r e c o l l e c t e d f o r e a c h h u n t e r , w h i l e f i e l d d r e s s e d w e i g h t , h a b i t a t o f k i l l , a n d r u m e n s a m p l e s w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m h a r v e s t e d d e e r . 4 ) I n 1 9 7 5 , g a m e c h e c k s a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n o f f i c e r p a t r o l s u s e d i n t e r i m d a t a c o l l e c t i o n f o r m s . T h e s e r e c o r d s c o l l e c t e d d a t a b y h u n t i n g v e h i c l e , b u t a l s o r e c o r d e d l i c e n c e n u m b e r s f o r i n d i v i d u a l h u n t e r s . B o t h H . O . a n d h u n t l o c a t i o n n a m e s w e r e c o l l e c t e d . 5 ) T h e w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t f o r m , i n t r o d u c e d i n 1 9 7 6 , c o l l e c t e d b o t h w i l d l i f e a n d e n f o r c e m e n t d a t a o n a d a t a s h e e t t h a t c o u l d b e d i r e c t l y k e y p u n c h e d . H u n t l o c a t i o n s w e r e s p e c i f i e d b y M . O . a n d s u b u n i t . 6 ) H u n t e r s e a s o n d a t a w e r e f i r s t c o l l e c t e d i n N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 6 . ( N . B . A n a t t e m p t t o c o l l e c t t h i s d a t a i n 1 9 7 5 w a s c o n f o u n d e d b y r e c o r d i n g i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s ) . D e e r s h o t p r i o r t o t h e c h e c k d a t e w e r e r e c o r d e d , t o i n c r e a s e t h e m a r k e d a n i m a l s a m p l e a n d a l l o w s a m p l i n g c a s e w e i g h t s f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l a n d s u c c e s s f u l h u n t e r s t o b e i m p r o v e d . 7 ) Two f o r m a t s f o r h u n t i n g a c c e s s s u m m a r i e s w e r e u s e d t o a d d m i s s i n g d a t a t o t h e g a m e c h e c k f i l e s . ' O n e f o r m a t s p e c i f i e d 257 deer shot by general deer types fbuck, doe, fawn, e t c . ) , while another format recorded s p e c i f i c a g e - c l a s s data. B) COHEUTEB PBOGBAHS 1) LVIOLD, LN 31 BOLD, and LNWB74 were used to change coding formats and produce temporary o l d game check f i l e s from the keypunched d a t a . 2) GEDIT e d i t e d f o r data value c o n s i s t e n c y . 3) KILLNUM ensured t h a t numbers of k i l l s per v e h i c l e d i d not exceed the bag l i m i t f o r the hunters i n t h e v e h i c l e . 4) FA SHIEST t e s t e d that a g e - c l a s s data were c o n s i s t e n t with deer type. 5) GAMESUM summarized game check data so i t c o u l d be compared t o e x i s t i n g game check r e p o r t s . D u p l i c a t e d data were removed from the f i l e s and missing data were determined. 6) TGAME t r a n s c r i b e d o l d game check data (formatted by v e h i c l e ) i n t o the standard game check format (formatted by hunte r ) . 7) LACCESS and GACCESS t r a n s c r i b e d missing data and access summary data i n t o the standard game check format. 8) TACCESS w i l l be used to change the r e p l i c a t e f i e l d s with the value, M n " , to "1" by generating "n" data r e c o r d s . 9) LNHB and LVI75 were used t o t r a n s f e r 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t data i n t o the standard game check format. 10) HODCONT w i l l be used t o t r a n s f e r the da t a from the w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t form i n t o the standar d game check format. 11) ECONT w i l l e d i t the data form the w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t form. .• 12) SEDIT w i l l check t h a t previous k i l l s a r e c o n s i s t e n t between hunter season and w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t forms. 13) GAMEID adds i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers from the c u r r e n t hunting l i c e n c e f i l e to the standard data. 14) AGSOB adds the r e g i o n , M.U. and su b u n i t f o r each hunt l o c a t i o n by c r o s s - r e f e r e n c i n g the l o c a t i o n l i s t . Each hunt l o c a t i o n i s giv e n 1 t o 9 M.U.-subunit l o c a t i o n f i e l d s . I f the hunt H-U. i s s p e c i f i e d , the l o c a t i o n f i e l d d a t a are passed through a M.U. f i l t e r which s e l e c t s only those l o c a t i o n f i e l d s i n the s p e c i f i e d M.U. I f c o n f l i c t s a r i s e , the ope r a t o r i s requested t o s e l e c t e i t h e r the l o c a t i o n f i e l d data or the M.U. Next the l o c a t i o n f i e l d data a re passed through a game check f i l t e r which s e l e c t s o n l y those l o c a t i o n f i e l d s w i t h i n the area c o n t r o l l e d by the game check. The ope r a t o r i s a g a i n prompted to 258 r e s o l v e a n y c o n s i s t e n c i e s . B o t h f i l t e r s a r e d e s i g n e d t o m i n i m i z e m i s c o d i n g o f l o c a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s . 15 ) S E P S E A S w i l l s e p a r a t e h u n t e r s e a s o n d a t a f r o m f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a a n d d e l e t e d u p l i c a t e d p r e v i o u s k i l l s . f 16 ) A G L O C a d d s l o c a t i o n s u m m a r i e s , s e a s o n s u m m a r i e s a n d s e n t i n e l s t o e a c h i n p u t r e c o r d . 17 ) S u b s y s t e m M A S K E D i s r e f e r e n c e d f o r r e c e n t ( s i n c e 1 9 7 5 ) g a m e c h e c k d a t a t o c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e h u n t e r s a m p l e d a t a . A l l m a r k e d v a r i a b l e s a r e a d d e d a t t h i s s t a g e . 18) G L O A D c h a n g e s t h e f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a i n t o t h e m a s t e r f i l e b y a d d i n g s e a s o n d a t e s a n d h u n t e r l i c e n c e d a t a . 19) S L O A D c h a n g e s t h e h u n t e r s e a s o n r e c o r d d a t a i n t o t h e m a s t e r f i l e b y a d d i n g h u n t e r l i c e n c e d a t a . CODING FOBHAT FOB OLD GAME CHECK DATA Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n a l -1 I- 2 S e n t i n a l -1- new check (place or date) 3- 6 Check l o c a t i o n use l o c a t i o n code 7-8 Check day r e c o r d number 9-10 Check month r e c o r d number I I - 12 Check year re c o r d number I- 2 Deer hunters i n v e h i c l e r e c o r d number 3 Days hunted r e c o r d number 4- 7 Hunt l o c a t i o n use l o c a t i o n code 8 K i l l type use deer code 9 A n t l e r p o i n t s l e f t r e c o r d number 10 A n t l e r p o i n t s . r i g h t r e c o r d number II - 12 Age reco r d number x 10 N-B. 1 1/2=15 while 5 1/2+=65 19-30 same as c o l 1-12 37-48 same as c o l 1-12 ....... ] 55-66 same as c o l 1-12 General i n s t r u c t i o n s - code down data f i e l d - begin each page with s e n t i n a l card Options - blank deer hunter f i e l d i n d i c a t e s same hunter as pr e v i o u s - b l a n k l o c a t i o n f i e l d i n d i c a t e s same as check l o c a t i o n - blank days i n d i c a t e s 1 day hunted 260 FOBHAT G-2 CODING FQRHAT FOB OLD N08THWEST BAY GAHI CHECKS Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n a l 9 V, S e n t i n a l 9=new check 2-3 Sheet number r e c o r d number 4-6 — blank 7-8 Check month rec o r d number 9-10 Check day r e c o r d number 11-12 Check year r e c o r d number 13-16 blank 17-20 Check time s t a r t r e c o r d 2400 hr number 21-24 Check time f i n i s h r e c o r d 2400 hr number 25-27 Weather use DIB weather code 28-30 Operator 1 use N8B o p e r a t o r code 31-33 Operator 2 use NWB o p e r a t o r code 34-36 Operator 3 use NWB o p e r a t o r code 1 Hunter type blank- deer 1= b i r d 2-3 Hunter number r e c o r d number 4 Hunt days r e c o r d number 5-7 Hunt l o c a t i o n 1 use NWB l o c a t i o n code 8-10 Hunt l o c a t i o n 2 use NWB l o c a t i o n code 11-13 Hunt l o c a t i o n 3 use NWB l o c a t i o n code 14 H a b i t a t type use NWB h a b i t a t code 15 K i l l type use deer code 16 A n t l e r p o i n t s l e f t r e c o r d number 17 A n t l e r p o i n t s r i g h t r e c o r d number 18-22 Jaw t a g number r e c o r d number 23-25 Age format F3.1 26 Age p l u s 1= g r e a t e r than 27-28 other s p e c i e s number record number 29-30 Other s p e c i e s type use NWB other s p e c i e s code 31-32 Does seen r e c o r d number 33-34 Buck seen re c o r d number 35-36 Fawn seen r e c o r d number 37-38 U n c l a s s i f i e d deer seen r e c o r d number 39-40 Season k i l l bucks r e c o r d number 41-42 Season k i l l dees r e c o r d number 43-44 Season k i l l fawn r e c o r d number 45-46 Season k i l l u n c l a s s i f i e d r e c o r d number 47-80 Comments r e c o r d comments Options - i f hunter number i s blank the rec o r d i s a c o n t i n u a t i o n of previous r e c o r d . FOBBAT G-3 CODING FOBHAT FOR RECENT NORTHEST BAY GAME CHECK Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n a l -1 I - 2 S e n t i n a l -1= new check 3-6 — — blank ; 7-8 Check day r e c o r d number 9-10 Check month r e c o r d number 11r12 Check year r e c o r d number Card 1 - • , ' • • • • : 1-.6 V e h i c l e l i c e n c e r e c o r d number 7 Deer hunters r e c o r d number 8 Grouse hunters r e c o r d number 9 Non hunters r e c o r d number 10 Day o f e n t r y r e c o r d days p r e v i o u s I I - 14 Time of e n t r y r e c o r d 2400 h r number 15-18 Time o f e x i t r e c o r d 2400 hr number 19 Hunter 1 l i c e n c e type 1= BH 2— SCH 20-25 Hunter 1 l i c e n c e num record number 26 Hunter 2 l i c e n c e type same as 19 27-32 Hunter 2 l i c e n c e num same as 20-25 33 Hunter 3 l i c e n c e type same as 19 34-39 Hunter 3 l i c e n c e num same as 20-25 40 Hunter 4 l i c e n c e type same as 19 41-46 Hunter 4 l i c e n c e num same as 20-25 47 Automatic f o r area 1 blank=no 1=yes 48-49 Area 1 p l a c e use NEB area code 50 Area 1 method 1=to l o c 2=to l o c hunt and r e t u r n 3=to l o c and r e t u r n 51 Area 1 seen from 1~road 2=slash 3=timber 4=edge 52 Area 1 seen to same as 51 53 Area 1 bucks seen r e c o r d number 54 Area 1 does seen r e c o r d number 55 Area 1 fawn seen r e c o r d number 56 Area 1 u n c l a s s i f i e d r e c o r d number 57-65 Area 2 same as c o l 48-56 66-68 Area 3 same as c o l 48-50 69-71 Area 4 same as c o l 48-50 72-74 Area 5 same as c o l 48-50 75-77 Area 6 same as c o l 4 8-50 75-77 Area 6 same as c o l 48-50 78-79 — blank 80 C o n t i n u a t i o n blank-no 1=continue Card 2 1-2 K i l l 1 p l a c e use NBB ar e a code 262 3 K i l l 1 method tt K i l l 1 seen from 5 K i l l 1 seen to 6 K i l l 1 type 7-9 K i l l 1 number 10 K i l l 1 shot by hunter # 11-20 K i l l 2 21-30 K i l l 3 31-32 B i r d s 1 shot area 33 B i r d s 1 shot type 34-35 B i r d s 1 shot number 36-40 B i r d 2 41-42 B i g game pl a c e 43 B i g game method 44 B i g game seen from 45 Big game seen t o 46 B i g game k i l l e d 47 B i g game s p e c i e s 48-56 ftrea 7 57-65 Area 8 66-68 1 Area 9 69-71 Area 10 72-74 Area 11 75-77 Area 12 same as c a r d 1 c o l 50 same as c a r d 1 c o l 51 same as c a r d 1 c o l 51 use deer code r e c o r d NUB k i l l number re c o r d number same as c a r d 2 c o l 1-10 same as c a r d 2 c o l 1-10 use NWB are a code 1=unid grouse 2=blue grouse 3=ruffed grouse 4=pidgeon r e c o r d number same as c a r d 2 c o l 31-35 use NWB are a code same as c a r d 1 c o l 50 same as c a r d 1 c o l 51 same as c a r d 1 c o l 51 blank = no 1- yes use NWB s p e c i e s code same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-56 same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-56 same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-50 same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-50 same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-50 same as c a r d 1 c o l 48-50 - '• • Options -'• -• • -automatic f i e l d w i l l be used t o generate standard hunting route to hunt l o c a t i o n 263 F O B H A T G - 4 C O D I N G F O B M A T F O B 1 9 7 5 V A N C O U V E R I S L A N D F I E L D C O N T A C T D A T A C o l u m n V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n a l - 1 1 - 2 S e n t i n a l - 1 = n e w c h e c k - 2 = n e w p a g e 3 - 5 — b l a n k 5 - 6 P a g e r e c o r d n u m b e r 7 - 1 2 b l a n k , 1 3 - 1 4 C h e c k d a y r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 5 - 16 C h e c k m o n t h r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 7 - 1 8 C h e c k y e a r r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 9 - 21 C h e c k l o c a t i o n u s e l o c a t i o n c o d e 2 2 - 2 4 H e a t h e r u s e NHB w e a t h e r c o d e 2 5 - 3 6 b l a n k 3 7 - 4 0 C h e c k t i m e s t a r t r e c o r d 2 4 0 0 h r n u m b e r 4 1 - 4 4 C h e c k t i m e f i n i s h r e c o r d 2 4 0 0 h r n u m b e r 1 - 6 : b l a n k . - ; . ' v J ' : 7 L i n e l e t t e r r e c o r d l e t t e r 8 - 9 D e e r h u n t e r s r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 0 - 1 1 B i r d h u n t e r s r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 2 - 1 3 D a y s h u n t e d r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 4 - 15 M0 h u n t e d r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 6 - 19 H u n t l o c a t i o n u s e l o c a t i o n c o d e 2 0 - 2 3 b l a n k 2 4 K i l l t y p e u s e d e e r c o d e 2 5 A n t l e r p t s L e f t r e c o r d n u m b e r 2 6 A n t l e r p t s B i g h t r e c o r d n u m b e r 2 7 - 3 0 J a w n u m b e r r e c o r d n u m b e r 3 1 A g e g r e a t e r t h a n u s e 1 i f a g e i s > 3 2 - 3 4 A g e r e c o r d n u m b e r F 3 . 1 3 5 K i l l s h o t b y h u n t e r n a m r e c o r d n u m b e r 4 0 H u n t e r 1 L i c e n c e t y p e 3= B H 2 = S C H 4 1 - 4 6 H u n t e r 1 L i c e n c e n u m b e r r e c o r d n u m b e r 4 7 blank 4 8 H u n t e r 2 L i c e n c e t y p e s a m e a s c o l 4 0 4 9 - ^ 5 4 H u n t e r 2 L i c e n c e n u m b e r s a m e a s c o l 4 1 - 4 6 4 7 b l a n k 5 6 H u n t e r 3 L i c e n c e t y p e s a m e a s c o l 4 0 5 7 - 6 2 H u n t e r 3 L i c e n c e n u m b e r s a m e a s c o l 4 1 - 4 6 6 3 - 7 9 b l a n k 8 0 C o n t i n u a t i o n 1= d a t a c o n t i n u e s t o n e x t c a r d O p t i o n s b l a n k d a y s h u n t e d e q u a l s 1 d a y h u n t e d FOBMAT G-5 CODING FOBHAT .FOB F S B BBANCH HILDLIFE CONTACT FOBH i Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n e l -1 1-2 S e n t i n e l use " - I " 3 Check r e g i o n r e c o r d number 4-5 Check d i s t r i c t r e c o r d number 6-8 Check o f f i c e r record C O . badge 9-10 Check day r e c o r d number 11-12 Check month re c o r d number 13-14 Check year r e c o r d number 15 Check weekday not used 16-19 Check s t a r t r e c o r d 2400 number 20-23 Check f i n i s h r e c o r d 2400 number 24-26 T o t a l check hours not used 27-30 Check s t a t i o n use l o c a t i o n l i s t 1-3 Contact number not used 4-7 Time r e c o r d number 8-11 Check l o c a t i o n not used 12-13 Person code not used 14 Residence fiegion not used 15-16 Besidence HO not used 17 P r o s e c u t i o n s not used 18 L i c e n c e type B = r e s hunt S= sen c i t H = hunter (no l i e #)r I = In d i a n 19-24 L i c e n c e number re c o r d number 25-28 Species use s p e c i e s code ; 29 Hunt l o c a t i o n r e g i o n r e c o r d number 30-31 Hunt l o c a t i o n HO r e c o r d number 32-33 Hunt l o c a t i o n subunit r e c o r d number 34-35 Days hunted re c o r d number 36 Method b=bow hunter 37 Success r e c o r d number 38-39 K i l l day reco r d number 40-41 K i l l month r e c o r d number 42 Sex M = s a l e F = female 43-44 Age r e c o r d number or A = a d u l t F = fawn 45-48 Jaw number r e c o r d number 49 A n t l e r p t s L e f t r e c o r d number 50 A n t l e r p t s Big h t r e c o r d number 51 Season k i l l r e c o r d num of p r i o r k i l l s 52-66 L o c a t i o n name not used Options - i f data f i e l d i s blank: Check r e g i o n s e t t o 1 2 6 5 D a y s h u n t e d s e t t o 1 H u n t l o c a t i o n B e g i o n s e t t o 1 H u n t l o c a t i o n MU s e t t o p r e v i o u s H u n t l o c a t i o n MU s e t t o p r e v i o u s K i l l d a y s e t t o c h e c k d a y K i l l m o n t h s e t t o c h e c k m o n t h S p e c i e s s e t t o D E B T L i c e n c e t y p e s e t t o 1 L i c e n c e n u m b e r - l i c e n c e t y p e a n d l i c e n c e n u m b e r s e t t o p r e v i o u s v a l u e s 266 fOBHAT G-6 CODING FOBMAT FOB DEEB HONTEB SEASON BECOBD FOBM Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s S e n t i n a l -2 1- 2 S e n t i n a l 3-6 S t a t i o n 7-8 Check day 9-10 Check month 11-12 Check year 1 L i c e n c e type 2- 7 L i c e n c e number 8 K i l l # 1 deer type 9-10 K i l l # 1 MO 11-12 K i l l #1 Subunit 13-17 K i l l #2 use "-2" use l o c a t i o n code r e c o r d number re c o r d number r e c o r d number B a r r e s i d e n t S= s e n i o r c i t i z e n r e c o r d number 1= buck 2= doe 3= fawn r e c o r d number r e c o r d number same as 8-12 , 267 FOBHAT G-7 CODING FOBHAT FOB NOBTHEST BAY DEEB K i l l DATA Column V a r i a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n 1-3 K i l l number r e c o r d number 4-5 Day r e c o r d number 6-7 r Month r e c o r d number 8^9 Year r e c o r d number 10 Deer type use deer code 11 A n t l e r p t s L e f t r e c o r d number 12 A n t l e r pts B i g h t record number 13-16 Jaw tag r e c o r d number 17,^18 Age r e c o r d age xlO NB. 5 1/5+ = 65 code 19-21 Height r e c o r d number 22-23 Bumen sample number rec o r d number 24-25 K i l l l o c a t i o n use NWB area code 26-80 Comments r e c o r d a l p h a desc 268 F O R M A T G - 8 F I L E F O R M A T F O B O L D GAME C H E C K D A T A C o l u m n V a r i a b l e C o d i n g S e n t i n a l - 1 1 - 2 •- S e n t i n a l - 1 3 - 6 C h e c k l o c a t i o n c o d e 7 - 8 C h e c k d a y i n t e g e r 9 - 1 0 C h e c k m o n t h i n t e g e r 1 1 - 1 2 C h e c k y e a r i n t e g e r 1 - 2 D e e r h u n t e r s i n t e g e r 3 D a y s h u n t e d i n t e g e r 4 - 7 H u n t l o c a t i o n c o d e 8 K i l l t y p e c o d e 9 A n t l e r p t s L e f t i n t e g e r 10 A n t l e r p t s R i g h t i n t e g e r 1 1 - 1 2 A g e i n t e g e r 13 C o n t i n u a t i o n 1= n e x t c a r d b e l o n g s t o s a m e h u n t i n g p a r t y C o m m e n t s - c r e a t e d f r o m o l d V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d c h e c k d a t a f o r m a t b y r e o r d e r i n g m u l t i p l e c o l u m n f o r m a t o n t o 1 c o l u m n f o r m a t v i a L V I O L D - c r e a t e d f r o m o l d n o r t h w e s t B a y d a t a f o r m a t b y c h a n g i n g N o r t h w e s t B a y l o c a t i o n c o d e s t o V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d l o c a t i o n c o d e s v i a LNWBOLD - c r e a t e d f r o m N o r t h w e s t B a y 1 9 7 4 b y c h a n g i n g N o r t h w e s t B a y h u n t a r e a s i n t o V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d l o c a t i o n c o d e s v i a L N W B 7 4 269 F O B M A T ; G - 9 C O D I N G F O B M A T F O B G A T E A C C E S S S E C O B D W I T H D E E B T Y P E C o l u m n V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 - 4 S t a t i o n u s e l o c a t i o n c o d e 5 - 6 Y e a r r e c o r d n u m b e r •• 7 • S o u r c e 1=game c h e c k 2 = c o m p a n y a c c e s s 8 - - - b l a n k 9 - 1 0 D a y 1 r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 1 - 1 2 M o n t h 1 r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 3 - 1 4 b l a n k -1 5 - 1 6 D a y 2 r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 7 - 1 8 M o n t h 2 r e c o r d n u m b e r 1 9 - 2 0 b l a n k 2 1 - 2 2 D a y 3 r e c o r d n u m b e r 2 3 - 2 4 M o n t h 3 r e c o r d n u m b e r 2 5 - 2 6 . • . — b l a n k 2 7 - 3 0 T o t a l h u n t e r r e c o r d n u m b e r 3 1 - 3 2 ... :  b l a n k 3 3 - 3 6 T o t a l h u n t e r d a y s r e c o r d n u m b e r 3 7 - 3 9 b l a n k 4 0 - 4 2 B u c k s s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 4 3 - 4 5 D o e s s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 4 6 - 4 8 F a v n s s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 4 9 - 5 1 M a l e f a w n s s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 5 2 - 5 4 F e m a l e f a w n s s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 5 5 - 5 7 A n t l e r l e s a n i m a l s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r 5 8 - 6 0 U n c l a s s i f i e d d e e r s h o t r e c o r d n u m b e r . I 270 FOBMAT G-10 CODING FOB ACCESS BECOBDS MTH AGE-CLASS DATA Column V a r i a b l e I n s t r u c t i o n s I- 4 S t a t i o n use l o c a t i o n code ' 5-6 Year r e c o r d number 7 Source 1=game check 2=companyaccess f i l e 8 — blank 9-10 Day 1 r e c o r d number I I - 12 Month 1 r e c o r d number 13-14 - — — blank 15-16 Day 2 r e c o r d number 17-18 Month 2 r e c o r d number 19-20 — blank 21-22 Day 3 r e c o r d number 23-24 Month 3 r e c o r d number 25-26 — blank 27-30 T o t a l h u n ters r e c o r d number 31-32 blank 33-36 T o t a l hunter days r e c o r d number 37-38 blank 39-40 Male 0-5 years v r e c o r d number 41-42 Male -1.5 y e a r s r e c o r d number 43-44 Male 2.5 years r e c o r d number 45-46 Hale 3-5 years r e c o r d number 47-48 Male 4-5 y e a r s r e c o r d number 4 9 - 5 0 M a l e 5-5 years r e c o r d number 51-52 Male 5-5+ years r e c o r d number 53-54 Hale unsp years r e c o r d number 55-56 Female 0-5 years record, number 57-58 Female 1.5 years r e c o r d number 59-60 Female 2-5 years r e c o r d number 61-62 Female 3-5 years r e c o r d number 63-64 Female 4.5 years r e c o r d number 6 5 - 6 6 F e m a l e 5.5 years r e c o r d number 67-68 Female 5-5* years r e c o r d number 69-70 Female unsp years r e c o r d number FOBMAT G-11 STANDARD GAME CHECK FILE FOBMAT Column V a r i a isle D e s c r i p t i o n s 1-4 S t a t i o n code 5-6 Source 2- game check 3= C O . 5=hunter season r e c o r d 7-8 Contact day i n t e g e r 9-10 Contact month i n t e g e r 11-12 Contact year i n t e g e r 13 Contact Begion i n t e g e r , 14-15 Contact d i s t r i c t i n t e g e r 16-18 Contact o f f i c e r code 19-22 Check s t a r t time i n t e g e r 23-26 Check f i n i s h time i n t e g e r 27- 30 Check c o n t a c t time i n t e g e r 31-36 R e p l i c a t e s i n t e g e r 37-43 L i c e n c e number i n t e g e r 44-48 Ident number i n t e g e r 49 Residence r e g i o n i n t e g e r 50-51 Besidence M.U. i n t e g e r 52-54 Species code 55 Hunt l o c a t i o n r e g i o n i n t e g e r 56-57 Hunt l o c a t i o n M. U. i n t e g e r 58-59 ;- Hunt l o c a t i o n subunit i n t e g e r 60-63 Hunt l o c a t i o n code code 64-65 Days hunted i n t e g e r 66 Method not used 67 Season k i l l number 9= no data 68 Success i n t e g e r 69 K i l l #1 subspecies 0=unsp 1 - b l a c k t a i i e d 2 = w h i t e t a i l e d 3=mule 70 K i l l #1 sex 0=unsp 1=male 2=female 7 1 K i l l #1 age type 0=unsp 1=fawn 2=adult 72 K i l l #1 pts type 0=none or unsp 1= s p i k e 2=2+ pts 73-74 K i l l #1 day 75-76 K i l l #1 month 77-80 K i l l #1 jaw number 81-82 K i l l #1 age 83 K i l l #1 a n t l e r pt L 84 K i l l #1 a n t l e r p t R 85- 100 K i l l #2 101-116 K i l l #3 117-118 S t a t i o n M.U. 119-120 S t a t i o n subunit 121 T o t a l l o c a t i o n f i e l d s i n t e g e r i n t e g e r i n t e g e r i n t e g e r i n t e g e r • i n t e g e r same as c o l 69-84 same as c o l 69-84 i n t e g e r i n t e g e r i n t e g e r 122 Primary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s i n t e g e r 123 Secondary l o c a t i o n f i e l d s i n t e g e r 124- 125 L o c a t i o n 1 M.O. i n t e g e r 126- 127 L o c a t i o n 1 subun i t i n t e g e r 128- 131 L o c a t i o n 2 same as c o l 124- 127 132- 135 L o c a t i o n 3 same as c o l 124- 127 1 se- 139 L o c a t i o n 4 same as c o l 124- 127 l l 0- 143 L o c a t i o n 5 same as c o l 124- 127 144- 147 L o c a t i o n 6 same as c o l 124- 127 148- 151 L o c a t i o n 7 same as c o l 124- 127 152- 155 L o c a t i o n 8 same as c o l 124- 127 156- 159 L o c a t i o n 9 same as c o l 124- 127 160 Hunter s e n t i n e l 1= new hunter 161 Contact s e n t i n e l 1= new c o n t a c t 162- 163 K i l l s f o r c o n t a c t integer, 164- 165 T o t a l c o n t a c t s i n t e g e r 166- 167 Season e f f o r t i n t e g e r 168- 169 Season t o t a l k i l l i n t e g e r 170 Season buck k i l l i n t e g e r 171 Season doe k i l l i n t e g e r 172 Season fawn k i l l i n t e g e r 173 L o c a t i o n buck k i l l i n t e g e r 174 L o c a t i o n doe k i l l i n t e g e r 175 L o c a t i o n fawn k i l l i n t e g e r 176 Hunter Marked 0= no 1- yes 177 K i l l #1 Marked - 0= no 1- yes 178 K i l l #2 Harked same as c o l 177 179 K i l l #3 Marked same as c o l 177 180- 181 Hunter sample l o c a t i o n s i n t e g e r 182 Hunter sample m a i l i n g i n t e g e r 183 L o c a t i o n 1 marked 0= no 1* yes <sub) 2- yes <H0), 184 L o c a t i o n 2 marked same as c o l 183 185 L o c a t i o n 3 marked same as c o l 183 186 L o c a t i o n 4 marked same as c o l 183 187 L o c a t i o n 5 marked same as c o l 183 188 L o c a t i o n 6 marked same as c o l 183 189 L o c a t i o n 7 marked same as c o l 183 190 L o c a t i o n 8 marked same as c o l 183 191 - L o c a t i o n 9 marked same as c o l 183 192- 193 Hunter sample t o t a l k i l l i n t e g e r 194 . ._ Hunter sample buck k i l l i n t e g e r 195 Hunter sample doe k i l l i n t e g e r 196 Hunter sample fawn k i l l i n t e g e r 273 LVIOLD SUB-SYSTEfl : Game check STATUS : Obsolete PURPOSE : To change coding format f o r o l d game check data i n t o o l d game check f i l e . EDNCTION : The data was manually recorded i n t o 4 data s e t s per card ( c o l s . 1-12, 19-30, 3 7 - 4 8 , 5 5 - 6 6 ) . The ran data was re o r g a n i z e d i n t o a l i n e a r f i l e »ith one s e t of data per r e c o r d and i n the c o r r e c t o r d e r . EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : ETNCHD , c h a r a c t e r s u b r o u t i n e s INPUT/OUTPUT PILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) - l i s t i n g of improper data i n p u t 2= input f i l e - keypunched o l d game check data (format G-1) 4= output f i l e - o l d game check f i l e (format G-8) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The game check data f o r each year was kept i n separate f i l e s . 274 L N H B O L D S U B - S Y S T E M : Game c h e c k S T A T U S : O b s o l e t e P U B P O S E : T o c h a n g e o l d N o r t h w e s t B a y g a m e c h e c k d a t a i n t o t h e o l d game c h e c k f i l e F U N C T I O N i N o r t h w e s t B a y l o c a t i o n c o d e s w e r e t r a n s l a t e d i n t o B e g i o n 1 l o c a t i o n c o d e s - D e e r k i l l s w i t h a g e s g r e a t e r t h a n 5 1 / 2 w e r e c h a n g e d t o c o d e 6 5 . N - B - O n l y d e e r b a n t e r r e c o r d s a n d d e e r k i l l d a t a w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o o u t p u t f i l e . E X T E S N A L S U B B O U T I N E S : n o n e I N P U T / O U T P U T F I L E S AND D E V I C E S : 2= i n p u t f i l e - o l d N o r t h w e s t B a y g a m e c h e c k d a t a ( f o r m a t G - 2 ) 4= o u t p u t f i l e - o l d g a m e c h e c k f i l e ( f o r m a t G - 8 ) O P E B A T O B I N S T B U C T I O N S : D a t a f r o m e a c h y e a r w a s k e p t i n s e p a r a t e f i l e s . 275 i LNHB74 SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : Obsolete POBPGSE : To change 1974 Northwest Bay game check data (data without hunter l i c e n c e numbers) i n t o the o l d game check f i l e . FONCTION : Northwest Bay area codes were t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Begion 1 l o c a t i o n codes. K i l l data was added t o the v e h i c l e r e c ords and days hunted was c a l c u l a t e d from t h e d a y o f e n t r y . , EXTEBNAL SOBBOUTINES : none INPDI/OUTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= i n p u t f i l e - 1974 Northwest Bay game check data (format G-3) 4= output f i l e - o l d game check f i l e format (format G-8) 5= in p u t f i l e - 1974 Northwest Bay k i l l data (format G-7) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS ; The v e h i c l e and k i l l d a ta f i l e s were manually checked t o ensure k i l l numbers on the f i l e s matched • e x a c t l y . -276 GEDIT SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : Obsol e t e PORPOSE : To e d i t o l d game check f i l e format. FONCTION : Data v a l u e s were compared t o maximum and minimum a c c e p t i b l e v a l u e s . C o n t i n u a t i o n l i n e s were checked. / D a t a l i n e s with suspected e r r o r s were l i s t e d . EXTERNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCHD, FBEAD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - o l d game check f i l e (format G-8) • • 3= p r i n t f i l e (assigned to -out ) - c o n t a i n s l i s t i n g of l i n e n u m b e r s with e r r o r s . OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e e d i t o r was used t o examine l i n e with e r r o r s and, i f necessary, they were c o r r e c t e d . 277 FABNTEST SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To check that deer type and age of k i l l were consistent. FONCTION : Lines that had fawns with ages not equal to 0.5 and adult deer with ages egual to 0.5 were l i s t e d . , EXTEBNAL S0BBO0TINES : none INP0T/00TP0T FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - old game check f i l e (format G-8) • -3= print f i l e - contains l i s t i n g of l i n e s with age - deertype errors. OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The f i l e e ditor was used to correct errors. In most cases the deer type was changed to agree with the age data. 278 KILLNOtt SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To i d e n t i f y data r e c o r d s t h a t had too many c o n t i n u a t i o n l i n e s f o r TGAME to process or had more than 3 k i l l s per hunter. FOSCTIGN : The number of c o n t i n u a t i o n l i n e s f o r each h u n t i n g v e h i c l e was counted and i f that number was g r e a t e r than 15 or g r e a t e r than 3 times the number o f hunters, the data l i n e was l i s t e d . .. • EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : none INPOT/OOTPOT PILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - o l d game check f i l e (format G-8) 3= p r i n t f i l e - c o n t a i n s l i s t i n g of l i n e s with too many k i l l s or c o n t i n u a t i o n s . OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The f i l e e d i t o r was used t o modify l i n e s with e r r o r s by making one v e h i c l e r e c o r d i n t o two or by adding hunters from one v e h i c l e and s u b t r a c t i n g them from another t h a t hunted i n the same l o c a t i o n . 279 GAHBSUM SUB-SYSIEH : Game check STATUS : Obsolete PUBPQSE : To produce summaries of o l d game check data so t h a t missing data c o u l d be r e c r e a t e d , e r r o r s c o u l d be e d i t e d , and d u p l i c a t e data c o u l d be d e l e t e d . FUBCTXOIT: The t o t a l number of hunters, hunter days and deer k i l l by a g e - c l a s s was c o u n t e d u n t i l a new check s e n t i n a l was encountered. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : none ... • j INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES :' 2= input f i l e G-8) 3= p r i n t f i l e o l d game check f i l e (format has summary d a t a . OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e summaries were compared to e x i s t i n g game check and access r e p o r t s . The f i l e e d i t o r was used t o d e l e t e d u p l i c a t e d data and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s were c o r r e c t e d . H i s s i n g data was entered by programs, LACCESS and GACCESS . 280 TGAJJE SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : O b s o l e t e POBPOSE : To convert the o l d game check f i l e i n t o the standard game check f i l e . FUNCTION : The o l d game check f i l e (based on hu n t i n g v e h i c l e s ) was converted to the s t a n d a r d g a m e check f i l e (based on h u n t e r s ) . The deer k i l l s were u n i f o r m l y a l l o c a t e d to the hunters i n the v e h i c l e . EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : none INPOT/0UTP0T FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - o l d game check f i l e (format G-8) . 3= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G - 1 1 ) OPEEATOB INSTRUCTIONS : Program RILLNOH was run p r i o r t o TGAME so t h a t TGAMIwould f u n c t i o n p r o p e r l y . 281 MCGJSS SUB-SYSTEB : Game cheek STATUS : O p e r a t i o n a l PUBPOSE : To generate standard game check f i l e s from access summaries with deer type data. FUNCTION : A standard game check f i l e i s c r e a t e d t h a t w i l l g i v e the same summary as the access summary. EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - access summary f i l e f o r deer type (format G - 9 ) 4= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format #g-11) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS z The year i s input v i a the t e r m i n a l . I f the access summary cannot be e x a c t l y r e c r e a t e d an e r r o r message i s p r i n t e d on the t e r m i n a l . The ope r a t o r then must use the f i l e e d i t o r t o a d j u s t the output so that i t w i l l e x a c t l y reproduce the i n p u t summary. 282 TACCESS SUB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : O p e r a t i o n a l PUBPOSE i To produce n r e p l i c a t e s of a r e c o r d where n, i s the number i n the r e p l i c a t e f i e l d of a standard game check f i l e . FUNCTION : A r e a d / w r i t e loop i s used to generate n r e c o r d s with 1 as the number of r e p l i c a t e s . EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : none INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICBS : 2= i n p u t f i l e - standa r d game check f i l e (format G-11) tt= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : None 283 GACCESS SOB-SYSTEM .: Game check STATOS : Obsol e t e POBPOSE : To generate standard game check f i l e s from a c c e s s summaries with a g e - c l a s s data. FONCTIOH : A standar d game check f i l e i s c r e a t e d t h a t w i l l g i v e the same summary as the access summary. EXTEBNAL SBBBOOTIHIS : FTHCHD, FBEAD INP0T/OOTP0T FILES ABD DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - access summary f i l e f o r age-c l a s s (format G-10) U- output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The year i s i n p u t v i a the t e r m i n a l . I f the access summary cannot be e x a c t l y r e c r e a t e d an e r r o r message i s p r i n t e d on the t e r m i n a l . The operator then must use the f i l e e d i t o r t o a d j u s t the output so that i t w i l l ; e x a c t l y reproduce the input summary. 2 8 4 EM8B SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : O p e r a t i o n a l POBPOSE : To e d i t d e t a i l e d Northwest Bay game check .data. FUNCTION : Data values are compared to maximum and minimum ac c e p t a b l e v a l u e s . L i n e s c o n t a i n i n g u n a c c e p t i b l e values are l i s t e d . EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : ETNCHD INPOT/ODTPOT PILES AND DEVICES : 2 - i n p u t f i l e - d e t a i l e d Northwest, Bay game check data (format G-3) 3= p r i n t f i l e (assigned t o -out ) - c o n t a i n s l i s t i n g o f l i n e s with suspected e r r o r s . OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS z The f i l e e d i t o r must be used t o examine the l i n e s with e r r o r s and, i f nec e s s a r y , c o r r e c t them. 285 SUB-SYSTEH : Game check STATUS : O p e r a t i o n a l PURPOSE : To change the d e t a i l e d Northwest Bay game check data with hunting l i c e n c e numbers i n t o standard game check f i l e format. FUNCTION : Northwest Bay area codes are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Begion 1 l o c a t i o n codes. K i l l data i s added t o the v e h i c l e r e c o r d s and days hunted i s c a l c u l a t e d from day of e n t r y . Deer k i l l s are assigned to s p e c i f i c hunters by " s h o t b y hunter number " i n f o r m a t i o n . EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : none INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - d e t a i l e d Northwest Bay game check data (format G-3) u= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) 5 = i n p u t f i l e - Northwest Bay k i l l data (format G-7) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : K i l l numbers on game check data r e c o r d s and on k i l l data r e c o r d s must correspond e x a c t l y -286 EVI75 SUB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To e d i t 1975 f i e l d contact data. FUNCTION : Data f i e l d values were compared to maximum and minimum accept!ble values. EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input l i n e f i l e - 1975 f i e l d contact data (format G-4) j 3= print f i l e - (assigned to -out ). OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The f i l e editor was used to examine the l i n e s with errors and, i f necessary, correct them 287 LVI75 SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS: Ob s o l e t e . . . . . . . POBPOSE : To change the 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t d a t a i n t o the standard game check f i l e . FUNCTION : The 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t data (based on v e h i c l e s ) was t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the standard game check format ( s t r u c t u r e d by h u n t e r s ) . N.B. Hunter season i n f o r m a t i o n was d i s r e g a r d e d . EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES ; FTNCHD INP0T/O0TP0T FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2= i n p u t f i l e - 1975 f i e l d c o n t a c t data (format G-4) 4= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11). OPERATOR INSTBOCTIONS : Data source (2= game check or 3= Conservation o f f i c e r data) was ente r e d v i a the t e r m i n a l -288 HODCONT SUB-SYSTEM ; Game check STATUS : Proposed PUBPOSE : To change w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t and hunter season keypunched data i n t o the standard game check format. FUNCTION : The w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t format w i l l be changed i n t o the standard game check format. Alphanumeric data f i e l d s w i l l be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o i n t e g e r codes. Hunter season r e c o r d s w i l l be assigned t o data source " 5 M EXTEBNAL SBBBOUTINES : FTNCMJD , c h a r a c t e r s u b r o u t i n e s . INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2- i n p u t f i l e - w i l d l i f e c o n t a c t form (format G-5) and hunter season data (format G -6) . 4= output f i l e - standa r d game check data (format G-11) . OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : Warning messages w i l l be p r i n t e d on the t e r m i n a l i f incomplete k i l l data or too many k i l l s per hunter are encountered. 289 ECQ NT SOB-SYSTEH : Game check STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To e d i t standard game check data-, FONCTION : Data f i e l d values are compared to maximum and minimum acceptible values. The k i l l information i s checked f o r consistency and the number of l i n e s per hunter i s counted. A l l data l i n e s with errors are l i s t e d . EXTERN AL S0BBO0TINES : FTNCBD, FBEAD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard game check data (format G-11) 3= print f i l e (assigned t o - o u t ) - has l i s t i n g of errors. OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The f i l e editor must be used to examine l i n e s with errors and, i f necessary, a l t e r them. 290 SJLBI2 SUB-SYSTEH : Game check STATUS : Proposed PURPOSE : To edi t for consistency between game check data and hunter season k i l l records. FUNCTION s The number of previous k i l l s on the l a t e s t game check contact record w i l l be compared to the number of previous k i l l on the hunter season records* I f the numbers are not egual, the data l i n e number w i l l be l i s t e d . EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FT NOD, JOLDAY INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard game check data (format G-11) sorted by ident number and source C , A , 4 4 , 5 , C , A , 6 ,1 •—block- u,116,116. 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out ) - l i s t i n g of l i n e s with e r r o r s . OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e editor must be used to examine a l l records with the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers as the l i n e s l i s t e d and, i f necessary, the records should be altered. 291 GAMEID SOB-SISTEH ; Game check STATOS : Operational POBPOSE ; To add i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, resident region, and resident H.O. to standard game check data. FUNCTION : Licence numbers on game check records are compared to those i n the licence f i l e . For game check records s i t h licence numbers found on the licence f i l e , ident numbers, residence region, and residence H.u. are added to the standard game check data. EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : none . INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard game check f i l e format (format G-11) sorted by l i c e n c e number C,A,37,7) - block=u,116,116. a=output f i l e - standard game check f i l e format (format G-11) 5= standard l i c e n c e f i l e (format L-r5) sorted by licence number C,A,8,7 r-- block==u,58,5 8 OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : None. t 292 AG SOB SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To add H.O. and subunit data to standard game check data. . F OBC TION. : The game check data i s sorted by location code, Beg, M.O. and stat i o n code. The location f i e l d s from the lo c a t i o n l i s t are added to game check data a f t e r passing through f i l t e r s f o r fieg-M.O. and game check area. The Beg-H-O. f i l t e r s e l e c t s only those location f i e l d s that belong t o t h e s p e c i f i e d Beg-M.O., while the game check f i l t e r s e l e c t only those f i e l d s that are within the area the game check controls., If no loc a t i o n f i e l d s are selected, a message i s printed on the terminal and the operator must resolve the c o n f l i c t . EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCHD, FBEAD . INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard game check, data (format G-11) sorted by by code, Beg-MO, and station code C,A,6Q,4,C,A,55,3,C,A,1,4 — block=u,116,116 4= output f i l e - - r standard game check (format G-11) 5= input f i l e - location l i s t sorted by code C,A,1,5 — block,u,79,79 6 = input f i l e - game check control f i l e . OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : C o n f l i c t s are l i s t e d on the terminal and the operator must sel e c t one of two options. For the M.O. f i l t e r , the operator must choose between hunt M.O. and location f i e l d s , while for the game check f i l t e r , he must select either the areas controlled by the game check or the lo c a t i o n f i e l d s . I f a game check st a t i o n code i s not on the game check l i s t , the operator i s prompted for an alternative code. 293 SEPSEAS SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : Proposed POBPOSE : To separate hunter season recore records from game check records and remove previous k i l l s that have been recorded at game checks. FONCTION : Game check and hunter season data w i l l written onto two separate f i l e s . Those f i l e s w i l l then be compared and previous k i l l s that were recorded by f i e l d contacts w i l l be removed. EXTERNAL SUBE0U1INES : character routines . INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) sorted by ident number and source C,A,44,5,C#A,6,1--block=u,159, 159 4= output f i l e - standard game check data (format G-11) 5= temporary f i l e - hunter season records. 6= output f i l e - hunter season records (format G-11). 294 ftGLOC SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : Operational POBPOSE : To add contact summaries, season summaries, and hunter sentinels to standard game check data. FUNCTION : K i l l and e f f o r t summaries are determined by adding together a l l records f o r the same hunter. The f i r s t record f o r each hunter i s flagged and a l l contacts are-flagged as the f i r s t record for that contact. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : none. INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number (C,A,44,5 — block,u,159,159) 4= output f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G-11) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS 2 Game check data for years without ID numbers does not need to be sorted. 295 GLOAD SOB-SYSTEM : Game check STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To produce the master data f i l e from standard game check data by adding hunting licence dataand season data. FUNCTION : Season dates are added to contact and k i l l dates. Hunter l i c e n c e information i s added to records with hunter I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. Location information i s summarized by M.U. •-EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCHD, FBEAD, JOLDAY INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard game check f i l e (format G - 1 1 ) u= output f i l e - master data f i l e (format M-1). - -•• 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) 6= input f i l e - season dates for region (format S-2) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The year must be entered via the terminal. The t o t a l number of records written i s printed on the terminal-296 SUB-SYSTEM : Game check STATUS : Proposed PURPOSE : To produce the caster data f i l e from hunter season record data by adding hunting licen c e data. FUNCTION : hunter licence information i s added a l l records. Location information i s summarized by M.U. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, JOLDAY INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - hunter season records (format G-11) a= output f i l e - master data f i l e (format H-D 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS i The year must be entered via the terminal. The t o t a l number of records written i s printed on the terminal. 297 14.3 Appendix 3.3 Old Hunter Sample Subsystem The old hunter sample subsystem processes and recreates hunter sample data co l l e c t e d by the M.A- data system between 1964 and 1974. A) DATA IHPOT (Figure 7) 1) A l l available obsolete Begion 1 deer hunter sample questionnaires (1964-74) were manually transcribed onto computer coding sheets. No questionnaires for 1972and no postmarks f o r 1968-71 were a v a i l a b l e , as the data had been destroyed by the Fish and W i l d l i f e data processing section i n V i c t o r i a . The location l i s t was used to code a l l hunt lo c a t i o n and)post o f f i c e l ocations. 2) In the past, hunter sample data were temporarily stored on magnetic tape and destroyed a f t e r analysis. However, the 1974 data had not been erased, and M.A. hunt locations for a l l 1974 deer q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were available. 3) General sampling information, age-class data for harvested animals by M.A., and the reported d i s t r i b u t i o n of deer harvest and hunter units were obtained from published hunter sample summaries. 4) Three coding formats were used to enter government-agency licence sale data into the sub-system.. One format coded Vancouver Island licence sales by government agency, while another contained p r o v i n c i a l licence sales by resident area. The other format coded the 1975 d i s t r i b u t i o n of hunting l i c e n c e holders by M.U. and government agency for Begion 1. B) .COMPOTES PBOGBAMS 1) QEDIT edited the keypunched data. 2) MODHSOLD added resident area and mailing phase to each data record. 3) MODHS74 transfered 1974 M.A. data into the standard • format... • - -4) MEBGEHS74 removed M.A- records that had been manually recoded. 5) TOISOM produced data summaries from published data. 6) ACTSOM summarized the recoded data. 7) ISOSOM i s o l a t e d inconsistencies i n the summaries. 8) MANSUM i n t e r a c t i v e l y adjusted the f i l e s -9) SOBSUH subtracted recoded summaries from published 298 summaries to obtain summaries of the uncoded data, 10) GENERATE generated a f i l e with the same features as the missing data summaries. 11) DOPIEST found questionnaires with duplicated i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and the f i l e editor was used to give a unigue number to each. 12) ADDBESNO added resident M.0. to a l l questionnaires with postmarks and separated the did-not-hunt and nonresponse data from hunter data-13) CHHSPOST compiled d i s t r i b u t i o n s of hunt H.O.s and resident H.O.s for years withpostmarks- For those years, questionnaires without postmarks were given resident H.O.s based on that years d i s t r i b u t i o n data, while years without postmarks were given resident H.O.s based on d i s t r i b u t i o n s from other years. „ 14) ADDPCODE added the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of hunt M-O-s and resident H.O.s f o r years with postmarks. 15) OLDHSLIN expanded the data f i l e so each hunt location was represented by a data record. 16 OLDAflSSOB added M.O. and subunits for each l o c a t i o n code. 17) OLDAHSLOC provided l o c a t i o n summaries, season summaries, and sentinels. 18) HSSAMP produced a f i l e of licence holders by resident strata from 1964-74 li c e n c e sales data. 19) SAMPBATE summarized hunters and did not hunt respondents by resident s t r a t a . / 20) CAISAMP calculated the response caseweights for i n t e r a c t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d M.O. groups. 21) OLDHSLOAD transferred the old hunter sample data into the master f i l e . Season dates and sampling caseweights were added to respondent and non-respondent data., 299 FOBMAT 0-1 CODING FOBHAT FOB OBSOLETE HUNTER SAMPLE Column Variable Instructions 1 blank 2-6 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number record number 7-10 Postmark location use location code 11-12 Postmark month record number 13-14 Postmark day recordnumber 15-18 Area 1 location use location code 9993= did not hunt 19 Area 1 bucks shot record number 20 Area 1 does shot record number 21 Area 1 favns shot record number 22-23 Area 1 k i l l month integer 24-25 Area 1 k i l l day integer 26-36 Area 2 same as c o l 15-25 37-47 Area 3 same as c o l 15-25 General i n s t r u c t i o n s . Each year, species, and resident area were kept i n separate f i l e s . 300 FOBHAT 0-2 FILE FOBHAT FOB FISH AND WILDLIFE M.A. DEEB FILE Column Variable Description • Card 1 1-2 Species *DB' 3-7 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n namber integer 8 Besident area integer 9-26 blank 27-28 Location 1 M.A. integer 29-30 Location 1 buck k i l l integer 31-32 Location 1 doe k i l l integer 33-3U Location 1 fawn k i l l i n t e g e r 35-37 Location 1 t o t a l k i l l i n t e g e r 38-39 Location 1 k i l l month integer 40-41 Location 1 k i l l day integer 42-56 Location 2 same as c o l 27-41 57-71 Location 3 same as c o l 27-41 Card 2 -1-7 blank 8-22 Location 4 same as card 1 c o l 27-41 23-37 Location 5 same as card 1 c o l 27-41 38-52 Location 6 same as card 1 c o l 27-41 5 3 - 6 7 L o c a t i o n 7 same as card 1 c o l 27-41 68-71 , — blank , 72 Continuation 1= yes 301 CODING FOHMAT FOB HONTEB SAMPLE BEPOST SOHMABIES Column Variable Instructions 1-2 3-4 5-6 Sentinel year - 1=general # -2=hunt and k i l l d i s t . , -3= sex-class,, -4= k i l l f reg, -5=bag l i m i t s 1 blank record number Sentinel -1 1-4 — 5-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-36 Besident area Licence sales Questionnaires mailed Questionnaires returned Non-contacts Hunter respondents b l a n k record record record record record record number number number number number number Sentinel -2 1-4 ......—,— blank ; 5-6 M.A. record number 7-10 Besident area 1 hunters record number 11-14 Besident area 2 hunters record number 15-18 Besident area 3 hunters record number 19-22 Besident area 4 hunters record number 23-26 Besident area 5 hunters record number 27-30 Besident area 6 hunters record number 31-34 Besident area 7 hunters record number 35-38 Besident area 8 hunters record number 39-42 Besident area 9 hunters record number 43-46 Besident area 1 k i l l record number 47-50 Besident area 2 k i l l record number 51-54 Besident area 3 k i l l record number 55-58 Besident area 4 k i l l record number 59-62 Besident area 5 k i l l record number 63-66 Besident area 6 k i l l record number 67-70 Besident area 7 k i l l record number 71-74 Besident area 8 k i l l record number 75-78 Besident area 9 k i l l record number Sentinel -3 . . :; 1-4 blank 5-6 M.A. record number 7-12 Buck k i l l record number 13-18 Doe k i l l record number 19-24 Fawn k i l l record number 3 0 2 Sentinel -4 1-4 blank 5-6 M.A. record number 7-8 Besident area 1-0 k i l l recordnumber 9-10 Besident area 1-•1 k i l l record number 11-12 Besident area 1-2 k i l l s record number 13-14 Besident area 1-•3 k i l l s record number . 15-22 Besident area 2 k i l l s same as c o l 7- 14 23-30 Besident area 3 k i l l s same as c o l 1- 14 31-38 Besident area 4 k i l l s sane as c o l 14 39-46 Besident area 5 k i l l s same as c o l 7-14 47-54 Besident area 6 k i l l s same as c o l 7- 14 55-62 Besident area 7 k i l l s same as c o l 7-14 63-70 Besident area 8 k i l l s same as c o l 7- 14 71-78 Besident area 9 k i l l s same as c o l 7-14 303 FOBflAT 0-4 INITIAL FILE FOENAT FOB OLD HUNTEB SAMPLE DATA Column Variable Code I-.6 Beplicates integer 7 Data type 1=actual, 2=generated, 3=F+H N.A. f i l e 8 Hunt status 1=hunted, 2=did not hunt, 3=not returned, 4=noncon S=not sampled 9 Besident area number 10 Hailing phase 1=1st mail, 2=2nd mail, 3=late 1st mail I I - 15 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 16-19 Postmark location code code 20-21 Postmark month integer 22-23 Postmark day integer 24-27 Location 1 code code 28 Location 1 buck k i l l integer 29 Location 1 doe k i l l integer 30 Location 1 faun k i l l integer 31 Location 1 unclass k i l l integer 32-33 Location 1 k i l l m o n t h i n t e g e r 34-35 Location 1 k i l l day integer 36-47 Location 2 same as c o l 24-35 48-59 Location 3 same as c o l 24-35 60-71, Location 4 same as c o l 24-35 72-83 Location 5 same as c o l 24-35 84-95 Location 6 same as c o l 24-35 96-107 Location 7 same as c o l 24-35 N.B. Host years have only J location fields.,1974 data has 7 f i e l d s . 304 FOBHAT Q-5 INTEBMEDIATI FILE FOBHAT FOB OLD HONTEB SAMPLE DATA Column Variable Code 1-6 Beplicates integer 7 Data type code 8 Hunt status code 9 Besident area integer 10 Hailing phase code 11-15 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 16-19 Postmark code code 20-21 .. Postmark M.0. integer 22-23 Postmark subunit integer 24-25 Postmark month integer 26-27 Postmark day integer 28-31 Location 1 code code 32-33 Location 1 M.0. integer 34 Location 1 buck k i l l integer 35 Location 1 doe k i l l integer 36 Location 1 fawn k i l l integer 37 Location 1 unci k i l l integer 38-39 Location 1 k i l l month integer 40-41 Location 1 k i l l day integer 42-55 Location 2 same as co l 28-41. 56-69 Location 3 same as c o l 28-41 70-83 Location 4 same as co l 286419 84-S7 Location 5 same as co l 28-41 98-111 Location 6 same as c o l 28-41 112-125 Location 7 same as c o l 28-41 30 5 FOBMAT 0-6 CODING FOBHAT FOB 1975 VANCOUVEB ISLAND GOVEBNMENT AGENCY HUNTING LICENCE SALES Column Variable Instructions 1-4 .--5-6 M.U. 7-12 Courtenay G.A. Sales 13-18 Duncan G.A. Sales 19-24 Ganges G.A. Sales 25-30 Nanaimo G.A. Sales 31-36 Port Alberni G.A. Sales 37-42 V i c t o r i a G.A. Sales blank record number 16=other Beg record number record number record number record number record number record number N.B. Courtenay sales included Port Hardy and Campbell Biver sales. Port Alberni sales included Ucluelet sales. 306 FOBHAT 0-7 CODING FOBMAT FOB 1964-1974 VANCOUVER ISLAND GOVERNMENT AGENCY HUNTING LICENCE SALES Column Variable Instructions 1-4 blank 5-6 Year record integer 7-12 Courtenay sales record integer 13-18 Duncan sales record integer 19-24 Ganges sales record integer 25-30 Nanaimo sales record integer 31-36 Port Alberni sales record integer 37-42 V i c t o r i a sales record integer N.B. Courtenay sales included Port Hardy and Campbell Biver sales. Port Alberni sales included Ucluelet sales. 307 FOBHAT 0-8 CODING FOBHAT FOB 1964-1974 PBOVINCIAL BESIDENT ABEA HONTING LICENCE SALES Column Variable i n s t r u c t i o n s Sentinel -1 1-2 Sentinal 3-4 Year use n-1" record integer 1-6 7-12 13-18 Besident area l i e sales Besident area l i e holders blank r ec ord i n te ger rec ord intege r N.B. Licence sales refered to Fish and W i l d l i f e Hunter sample licenc e sales estimates. L i c e n c e h o l d e r s refered to published summary of revenue derived from hunting licence sales. Licences sold i n Begion 1 to hunters not residing on Vancouver Island were added to Besident area 2 licence holders. FORMAT 0-9 FILE FORMAT FOR REGION - M.O. LICENCE HOLDERS Column Variable Description Sentinal -1 1-2 Sentinal 3-4 Year integer 1-2 Region integer 3-4 H.O. integer 5-6 blank 7-12 Old licence sales (F>») integer 13-18 Region licence holders integer 19-22 Region hunters integer 23-26 Begion did not hunt resp integer 27-33 Besponse-licence sale c w t r e a l F7-4 34-40 Besponse-1st mail Beg cwt r e a l F7.4 41-47 Response-1st mail MO cwt r e a l F7.4 309 FORMAT 0-10 FILE FORMAT FOR OLD HONTEB SAMPLE DATA DESCBIPTION Column Variable 1-6 Replicates integer 7 Data type code 8 Hunt status code 9 Besident area integer 10 Mailing phase code 11-15 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 16-19 Postmark code code 20-21 Postmark M-0. integer 22-23 Postmark subunit integer 24-25 Postmark month integer 26-27 Postmark day integer 28 K i l l type 1=buck, 2=doe 3-fa»n, 4=unci 29-30 K i l l month integer , . • 31-32 K i l l day integer 33-34 Hunt H.O. Integer 35-38 Hunt location code integer 39-40 Hunt M.A. Integer 41 Total location f i e l d s integer 42 Primary location f i e l d s integer 43 Secondary location f i e l d s integer 44-45 Location 1 M.O. integer 46- 47 Location 1 subunit integer 48- 51 Location 2 same as c o l 44-47 52- 55 Location 3 same as c o l 44-47 56-59 Location 4 same as c o l 44-47 60- 63 Location 5 same as c o l 44-47 64- 67 Location 6 same as c o l 44-47 68- 71 Location 7 same as c o l 44-47 72- 75 Location 8 same as c o l 44-47 76- 79 Location 9 same as c o l 44-47 80 Hunter sentinel 1= f i r s t record 81 Location s e n t i n e l 1= f i r s t l o c a t i o n 82- 83 K i l l s / l o c a t i o n integer 84- 85 Number of locations integer 86- 87 - . - : • blank 88- 89 Total season k i l l integer 90 Total season kill-buck integer 91 Total season k i l l - d o e integer 92 Total season kill-fawn integer 93 Total loc k i l l - b u c k integer 94 Total loc k i l l - d o e integer 95 Total loc kill-fawn integer 310 QEDIT SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PURPOSE : To edit old hunter sample keypunched data. FUNCTION : Data f i e l d values were compared to maximum and minimum acceptable values. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNGMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2- input f i l e - coded old hunter sample (format 0-1) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) - contains l i s t i n g of l i n e s with unacceptible data values. OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e editor was used to examine l i n e s , with unacceptable values and , i f necessary, a l t e r them. 3 1 1 MQDHSOLD SUB-SYSTEH : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PURPOSE : To add resident area and mailing phase (1= f i r s t , 3 = late f i r s t ) to old hunter sample data-FONC1ION z. The f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of a group of records belonging to the same resident area and mailing phase was used to input resident area and mailing phase to hunter sample data-Data was added u n t i l the f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of the next grouping was encountered. Location codes »9999 # were changed to hunt status = 2 indicating that the respondent did not hunt. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD," PEEAD INPUT/OUTPUT PILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - o l d hunter sample coded data (format 0-1) 4= output f i l e - old hunter sample i n i t i a l f i l e (format 0-4) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : Groupings of resident area, mailing phase, and the f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number i n the group were entered,via the terminal. 312 H0DHS74 SUB-SISTEM : Old hunter sample STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE z To produce o ld hunter sample f i l e s from Fish and Wi l d l i f e 1974 M.A. f i l e s . , FUNCTION : The input format was translated into the output f i l e format. Hunt location codes were generated by adding 9000 to M.A. Data type was set to 3 in d i c a t i n g data came from Fish and W i l d l i f e M.A. deer f i l e s . EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD INP0T/OOTP0T FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - F i s h and W i l d l i f e 1974 M.A. deer f i l e (format 0-2) 4= output f i l e - old hunter sample f i l e (format 0-4) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : Error messages were printed on terminal. The l a s t input record was blank. 313 MEBGEHS74 SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete 1 PUBPOSE : TO merge the 1974 M.A- deer hunter sample f i l e and the recoded 1974 hunter sample f i l e s -FUNCTION : Questionnaires with i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers on the M.A- f i l e that were not on the recoded f i l e were written on the output f i l e EXTEBNA1 SOBBOUTINES : none. INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 5= input f i l e - 1974 M.A deer hunter sample f i l e (format0-4) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,Ar1 1„ 5 — block=u, 107,107 6= input f i l e -1974 hunter sample f i l e from recoded data (format 0-4) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,A, 11,5— block=u,59,59 7= output f i l e - old hunter sample data not on recoded f i l e (format 0-4) , OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS ; The MTS command, COPY, was used to copy the output f i l e into recoded data f i l e . 314 ACTSOH SOB-SYSTEM ; Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To produce data summaries for old hunter sample f i l e s . FUNCTION : Dis t r i b u t i o n s of mailing information, k i l l s , hunters, and hunter k i l l classes were calculated. The summaries were saved on an unformated output f i l e , while subroutine BSCBSUB produce printed output. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, HSCBSOB INPUT/OUTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - o l d h u n t e r sample f i l e (format 0-4) 3= print f i l e - (assigned to -out) - output tables showing d i s t r i b u t i o n of licence data, hunters and deer k i l l s . 4= output f i l e - (unformatted) - contains summary data OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS : Year number and maximum numbers of hunt locations were entered via terminal. Errors were printed on terminal. 315 TOTSUM SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To produce a summary of published hunter sample data. FUNCTION : Distributions of mailing information, deer k i l l s , hunters, and hunter k i l l classes were calculated. The summaries were saved on an unformatted output f i l e , while the subroutine HSCBSUE produce printed output. BXTEBNAL ,SOBBOUTIN ES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, BSCBSUB INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - p u b l i s h e d hunter sample data (format 0-3) 3 = pr i n t f i l e (assigned to -out) - output tables. .. • -a= output f i l e - (unformatted)- contains summary data. OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : Year number was entered v i a the terminal. Error messages were printed on terminal. 316 ISOSOM SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATOS ; Obsolete POBPOSE : To i s o l a t e errors i n hunter sample summaries. FUNCTION : The numbers of hunters k i l l i n g , 0,1,2, and 3 animals were subtracted from t o t a l hunters. The sum of hunter k i l l times k i l l number was subtracted from t o t a l k i l l . Total k i l l f o r each M.A. was subtracted from age-class data. EXTEBNAL S0BBO0TINES : FTNCMD, HSCBSOB INPOT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - (unformatted) summary data 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) -output • - tables. .. OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : Inconsistancies i n summary data were Indicated by non-zero values i n output tables. 3 1 7 MANSUM SUB-SYSTEM : 01 a hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To a l t e r summaries by subtracting or adding data to matrix positions. FUNCTION : The terminal was used to enter matrix type (1 = d i s t r i b u t i o n , 2 = age-class, 3 = licence data). The operator was then requested to enter m a t r i x p o s i t i o n and the necessary change. The re s u l t i n g summary was saved on an unformatted output f i l e , while subroutine flSCBSUB produced printed output. ; EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, HSCBSUB INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 3= p r i n t f i l e (assigned to -out) - output • • • tables 5= input f i l e - (unformatted) - summary data 6= output f i l e - (unformatted) - summary data OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS : The operator was requested to enter matrix changes via the terminal. 3 1 8 S O B S U M SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATOS : obsolete POBPOSE data. To subtract recoded summary data from t o t a l summary FOHCTION : Onformatted f i l e s were read and matrix elements of recoded summaries were subtracted from the corresponding elements f o r t o t a l summaries. The resulting, summaries were saved on a unformatted output f i l e , while the HSCRSUB subroutines produced printed output. INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 3= print f i l e - (assigned to -out) - output table showing missing data 5= input f i l e - (unformatted) - t o t a l summary data 6= input f i l e - (unformatted) recoded summary data 7= output f i l e - (unformatted) missing summary data. OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : none. 3 1 9 GENEBASE SOB-SYSTEM: Old hunter sample STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To generate missing hunter sample data from missing data .summaries. FUNCTION : The summaries of missing data were read and a data f i l e that had the same features was produced. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCHD, HSCBSOB INPUT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 3= pr i n t f i l e (assigned to -out) - output • • tables • -5= input f i l e - (unformatted) -missing data . . . . summary • - -6 = output f i l e - missing data i n i n i t i a l f i l e format - (format 0-4) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The NTS command, COPY, vas used to copy the generated data into the recoded hunter sample data f i l e . 320 POPTEST SUB-SYSTEH : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To find duplicate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and those greater than 9 0 0 0 0 . FUNCTION : Each i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number was compared to to the l a s t one i n a f i l e sorted by ID number. I f two ID numbers were the same or i f a number was greater than 9 0 0 0 0 , the l i n e number and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number were l i s t e d . EXTERNAL SOBBODTINES : FTHCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - old hunter sample data (format 0-4) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C, A, 1 1 , 5 — b l o c k = u , 5 9 , 5 9 ) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) - l i s t i n g of l i n e s with problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. • • • • OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The f i l e e d i t o r was used to change duplicated numbers. 3 2 1 ADDBESMO SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS. : Obsolete POBPOSE : To add resident M.O. and approximate hunt M.U.s to old hunter, sample data. FUNCTION : Besident M.U.s were determined from the postmark location code. Hunt M.U.s were also added. The data f i l e s were separated i n t o 3 groups : 1) Besidence area 1 hunters, 2) other resident area hunters, and 3) miscellaneous records (did not hunt,! non contacts, no response and not sampled)- Multiple k i l l s f o r the same location were expanded by duplicating the hunt loc a t i o n . EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) < 2~ input f i l e - i n i t i a l hunter sample data (format o-H) n = output f i l e - intermediate hunter sample data f o r resident area 1 hunters (format o-5) 5= output f i l e - intermediate hunter sample data for o t h e r r e s i d e n t area hunter (format 0-5) 6= output f i l e - intermediate hunter sample data for miscellaneous data (format 0-5) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The maximum number of hunt locations was entered v i a the terminal. 3 2 2 CBHSPOST SO8-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To i n f e r missing resident M.U.s from hunt M.O.s. FOHCTION : Data records with resident M.O.s were compiled i n a matrix that showed the d i s t r i b u t i o n of hunt fl.0. (s) versus resident M.O. Based on that d i s t r i b u t i o n , resident M.0.s were inferred from hunt M.O. (s) f o r records without postmarks. F o r years without postmarks the d i s t r i b u t i o n from other years was used. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTBCMD,. FBEAD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2 = input f i l e - intermediate hunter sample data (format 0-5) 3= print f i l e - output tables u= output f i l e -intermediate hunter sample data (format 0-5) 5= temporary f i l e - used f o r saving records without resident M.O. u n t i l resident M.O.-hunt M.O. d i s t r i b u t i o n was compiled 6= input or output f i l e - (unformatted)-summary of d i s t r i b u t i o n data. OPERATOR INSTBOCTIONS : The maximum number of locations was entered via the terminal. After the input f i l e was compiled into the d i s t r i b u t i o n matrix, the operator was asked whether i t was to be saved. Matrices f o r years with postmark data sere saved. If the matrix was not s a v e d , a matrix compiled from d i s t r i b u t i o n s from other years was used to predict resident M.O. f o r years without postmark data. Years with postmark data were processed before those without them. 323 ADDPCODE SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To add resident M.U. And hunt M.U.(s) d i s t r i b u t i o n s from d i f f e r e n t years so that d i s t r i b u t i o n data can be entered int o the program CBHSPOST for processing records without postmarks. FUNCTION : Two matrices were summed and saved. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) 4= input f i l e - (unformatted) - d i s t r i b u t i o n summary 5= input f i l e - (unformatted) - d i s t r i b u t i o n summary-6= output f i l e - (unformatted) d i s t r i b u t i o n summary OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : Before summing matrices, the operator checked that d i s t r i b u t i o n s were approximately the same. Years without uniform sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n were not used. 324 OLDHSUN SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS z Obsolete PUBPOSE : To change questionnaires with ' n* locations i n t o V n * records with one lo c a t i o n . FUNCTION : A read/write loop changed the data format. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2 = input f i l e • - intermediate old hunter sample data (format 0-5) 4= output f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format 0-10) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The maximum number of hunt locations was entered via the terminal. i 325 OLDAHSSUB SUB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To add M.U. and subunit l o c a t i o n f i e l d s to old hunter sample data FUNCTION : Location f i e l d s from location l i s t were added to the old hunter sample data by matchinglocation codes. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : CHARACTER subrountines-INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES 2 2= input f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format O-10) sorted by lo c a t i o n code C,A,35 ra—block=u,38,38 4 = output f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format 0-10) 5= location l i s t (format S-1) OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS : none. 326 OLDAflSLOC SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To add lo c a t i o n summaries, season summaries and hunter sentinels to old hunter sample data FONCTION : Location summaries were produced by summing data for each location code, while season summaries were produced for each i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. Hunter and location s e ntinels were also added. EXTERNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCHD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format 0-10) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and location code C,A, 11,5,C,A,35,4-— block=u,79,79 4= output f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format 0-10) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The progress of the program was printed on the terminal. 327 HSSAMP SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To produce a f i l e of l i c e n c e holders from 1975 Begion 1 government agency and p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n c e sales., FUNCTION : The 1975 d i s t r i b u t i o n of Vancouver Island government agency sales and residence M.U.s was used to predict the number of residence M.U. li c e n c e holders f r o m p r e v i o u s government agency l i c e n c e sales. licence holders not residing i n Begion 1 were added to resident area 2 li c e n c e holders. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : none INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 5= input f i l e - d i s t r i b u t i o n of 1975 Begion 1 governmentagency by residence M.U. (format 0-6) 6= input f i l e - Begion 1 government agency data (format 0-7) 7= input f i l e - P r o v i n c i a l government agency data (format 0-8) 8= output f i l e - licence holder f i l e (format 0-9) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : none. 328 SAMPBATE SOB-SYSTEM : Old hunter sample STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To create summaries of modified hunter sample data so that sampling i n t e n s i t i e s could be calculated. FUNCTION : For each mailing phase the number of hunters, nonhunters, nonrespondents, noncontacts, and not sampled li c e n c e holders were compiled by resident area and M.O. EXTEBNAL S0BBO0TINES : FTNCHD, EBEAD INPDT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2- input f i l e - modified old hunter sample data (format 0-5) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) - contains output tables. OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : SAMPBATE was used to breakdown hunting status by resident area and M.O. The f i l e e d i t o r was used to add t h i s data to the licence holder, f i l e (format 0-9). 329 CALSAHP SUB-SYSTEM : Old game check STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To calculate sampling i n t e n s i t i e s f o r old hunter sample data FUNCTION : Three types of sampling caseweights were calculated; 1) response - licence sales 2) response - f i r s t mailing Begion and 3) response - f i r s t mailing M.U. caseweights. EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD,/FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - licence holder f i l e (format 0-9) 4= output f i l e - caseweight f i l e (format 0-9) OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The number of unspecied resident area 1 hunters and non hunters as well as other resident area hunters and non-hunters sampled with resident area 1 . guestionnaires (obtained from SAMPBATE ) were entered via the terminal-M.U. groupings f o r c a l c u l a t i n g M.U. caseweights were also input on the terminal. 330 OLDHSLOAD SOB-SYST EH : Old hunter sample STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To load old hunter sample data into the master data f i l e . FUNCTION : Season dates (day of year, week of season, day of week, and season type) were added to the k i l l date. Caseweight data was added based on residence H .U. or resident area. Miscellaneous data was also written on the master f i l e . EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, JULDAY INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format 0-10) 4= output f i l e - master data f i l e (format M-D-5 =input f i l e - intermediate hunter sample data for nonhunters (format 0-5) 7= input f i l e - season dates (format S-2) 8= input f i l e - sampling caseweights (format 0-9) 331 14,4 appendix 3.4 Hunter Sample Subsystem The hunter sample subsystem processes recent (since 1975) hunter sample data. A) DATA INPUT (Figure 8) 1) The 1975 hunter sample data were keypunched d i r e c t l y onto magnetic tape. Data f o r hunter and non-huater returns were kept i n separate f i l e s . 2) The 1976 hunter sample data were not received from the Fish and H i l d l i f e Branch i n a usable format. 3) General sampling att r i b u t e s (questionnaires mailed, guestionnaires returned, noncontacts etc.) were entered by a response f i l e . B) COMPUTES PROGRAMS 1) DEDIT75 edited 1975 data. 2) DEDIT and DNHEDIT w i l l edit the 1976 data. 3) THS75 added licence numbers to the 1975 data. 4) TRANSHS w i l l a l t e r the 1976 Fish and H i l d l i f e Branch data formats. 5) DELDUP removes duplicated questionnaire returns from f i r s t and second mailing f i l e s . 6) HSBES adds resident region, M.0., and subunit. It also generates a f i l e containing hunter questionnaire i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. 7) HSSOH l i s t s the response rates 8) CHANLOC converts alphanumeric hunt l o c a t i o n names into standard formats by replacing abbreviations with proper names and removing i r r e l e v a n t information. 9) CODELOC compares bunt locations names to the l o c a t i o n l i s t and a l l matching location names are given location codes. Those input location names not found on the location l i s t are edited to remove s p e l l i n g mistakes. Valid location names are added to the l o c a t i o n l i s t and the entire process i s repeated u n t i l a l l location names are coded. 10) AHSSOB adds M.U. and subunit f i e l d s for each location code. Only those MU.-subunit groups consistent with the M.U. s p e c i f i e d on the guesticnnaire are selected. The operator i s prompted to resolve the c o n f l i c t i n g hunt location data. 11) AHSLOC provides l o c a t i o n summaries, season summaries. 332 and sentinels. 12) Subsystem HARKED cross-references f i e l d contact and hunter season record data f i l e s . Age-class information i s added for deer k i l l s found on the f i e l d contact f i l e . 13) SAMPINT calculates sampling caseweights f o r i n t e r a c t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d M.D. groups. 14) HSLOAD produces the master f i l e from hunter data by adding sampling caseweights, season dates, hunt . M.A.s, and hunting licen c e data. 15) HISGLOAD produces the master f i l e from did-not-hunt and noncontact data by adding hunting licence data. 333 FOBMAT H-1 KEYPUNCH FOBMAT FOB 1975 HUNTEB SAMPLE DEER DATA Column Variable Instructions I - 5 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number record number 6 Besidence area record number 7 Besidence sub-area record l e t t e r 8 Species 2=deer 9 Hunt status 1=hunted, 2=did not hunt 10 Hunt region record number I I - 12 Hunt M.U. record number 13r32 Location name record alpha char 33-34 Days hunted record number 35-36 K i l l month record number 37-38 K i l l day record number 39 Kill-subspecies 1=b.t., 2=«.t-# 3=mule HO K i l l - s e x 1=male# 2=female 41 K i l l - a g e 1=adult, 2=fawn 42 Kill-checked not used N.B. Ki l l - a g e coding i s d i f f e r e n t than on standard hunter sample f i l e . 3 3 4 FORMAT B-2 KEYPUNCH FOBHAT FOB 1975 DID HOT HUNT AND NON-CONTACT BESPONSES Column Variable Description 1-5 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 6 Besident area integer 7 Sub-resident area alphabetic 8 Status 2- did not hunt 4- non con 9 Hailing phase integer FOBMAT H-3 KEYPUNCH FOBNAT FOB HUNT BESPONSE FOB HUHTEB SAHPLE DATA Column Variable Description 1 Format type not used 2 Hailing phase integer 3-6 Species . .. . . not used 7-12 Seguence number not used 13-18 Licence number integer 19-21 Licence holder name not used 22 Form not used 23 Residence area integer 24 Sub residence area alphabetic 25 Blank not used 26 Hunt region integer 27-28 Hunt H.U. integer 29-30 Hunt subunit not used 31-50 Hunt location alphanumeric desc 51-53 E f f o r t integer 54 K i l l 2* point 1 indicates k i l l 55 K i l l spike 1 indicates k i l l 56 K i l l doe 1 indicates k i l l 57 K i l l fawn 1 indicates k i l l 58-59 K i l l day integer 60-61 K i l l month integer FORMAT H-4 KEYPONCH FORMAT FOR DID NOT HUNT AND NON-CONTACT RESPONSES Column Variable Description not a v a i l a b l e by January 1977 3 3 7 FOBMAT H-5 TEMPOBABY FILE FOBMAT FOB HOHTEB SAMPLE DATA Column Variable Description 1-5 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 6 Besidence region integer 7^8 Besidence M-0. integer 9-15 Licence number integer 16 Mailing phase integer 17 Hunt status integer code 18 Besidence area integer 19 Sub-residence area integer 20-21 E f f o r t integer 22 K i l l - subspecies 1=fa. t . , 2=w.t-, 3=mule 23 K i l l - sex 1=male# 2=female 24 K i l l - age l=faan, 2=adult 25 K i l l - points 0=none or no data. 1=spike, 2=2+ pt 26-27 K i l l day integer 28-29 K i l l month integer 30 M-D- status 1=added manually (disregard M-U- f i e l d ) 31 Hunt region integer 32-33 Hunt M.D. integer 34-63 Hunt location alphanumeric 338 FOBHAT H-6 STANDABD FILE FOBHAT FOB BONTEfi SAHPLE DATA Column Variable Description 1-5 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 6 Besidence region integer 7-8 Besidence H.O. integer 9-15 Licence number integer 16 Hailing phase integer 17 Hunt status integer code 18 Besidence area integer 19 Sub-residence area integer 20-21 E f f o r t integer 22 K i l l - subspecies 1-b-t.» 2=w.t., 3= mule 23 K i l l - sex 1=male, 2-female. 24 K i l l - age 1=fawn, 2=adult 25 K i l l - points 0=none or unsp, 1=spike, 2=2* pt 26-27 K i l l day integer 28-29 K i l l month integer 30 H.O. status ^ d i s r e g a r d H.O. f i e l d 31 Hunt region integer 32-33 Hunt H-0. integer 34-37 Hunt location code code 38 Total l o c a t i o n f i e l d s integer 39 Primary location f i e l d s integer 40 Secondary location f i e l d s integer 41-42 Location 1 H.O. integer 43-44 Location 1 Subunit integer 45-48 Location 2 same as c o l 41-44 49-52 Location 3 same as c o l 41-44 53-56 Location 4 same as c o l 41-44 57-60 Location 5 same as c o l 4 6 1 - 6 4 L o c a t i o n 6 same as c o l 41-44 65-68 Location 7 same as c o l 41-44 69-72 Location 8 same as c o l 41-44 73-76 Location 9 same as c o l 41-44 77 Hunter sentinel 1 indicates f i r s t record 78 Location s e n t i n e l V i n d i c a t e s f i r s t location 79-80 K i l l s / l o c a t i o n integer 81-82 Number of locations integer 83-84 Total season e f f o r t integer 85-86 Total season k i l l integer 87 Total season kill-buck integer 88 Total season k i l l - d o e integer 89 Total season kill-fawn integer 90 Total loc k i l l - b u c k integer 91 Total loc k i l l - d o e integer 92 Total loc k i l l - f a w n integer 93 Hunter marked 0=no, 1= yes 94 K i l l marked 0=nor 1= :yes 95-96 Number of f i e l d contacts integer 97-98 Game check location-H-0. integer 99-100 Game check loc-subunit integer 1:01^ 104 Jaw number integer 105-106 Age integer 107 Antler points Left integer 108 Antler points Sight integer 109 Location 1 marked Q=no, 1= =yes (M-0-) , 2=yes(subunit) 110 Location 2 marked same as co l 109 111 Location 3 marked same as co l 109 112 Location 4 marked same as c o l 109 113 Location 5 marked same as co l 109 114 Location 6 marked same as co l 109 115 Location 7 marked same as co l 109 116 Location 8 marked same as co l 109 117 Location 9 marked same as co l 109 118-119 Game check seas tot k i l l integer 120 Game check seas buck k i l l integer 121 Game check seas doe k i l l integer 122 Game check seas fawn k i l l integer FOBMAT H-7 FILE FOBMAT FOB HONTEB SAMPLE BESPONSE BATES Column Variable Description 1-2 Begion integer 3-4 M.U. integer 5-6 . . — . - blank 7-12 Licence 1 sales integer 13-18 Licence : holders integer 19-22 Hail 1 H integer 23-26 Mail 1 DNH ... . integer 27-30 Ha i l 2 H integer 31-34 Mail 2 DNH integer 35-38 Mark H integer 39-42 Mail 1 mark H integer 43-46 Hail 2 mark H integer 47-50 Harked unsuc H no resp integer 51-54 Mark sue H no resp integer 55-58 Hai l 1 mark unsuc H-unsuc integer 59-62 Hai l 1 mark unsuc H-suc integer 63-66 Hail 1 mark sue H-unsuc integer 67-70 Hail 1 mark sue H-sue integer 71-74 Mail 2 mark unsuc H-unsuc integer 75-78 Hail 2 mark unsuc H-suc integer 79-82 Mail 2 mark sue H- unsuc integer 83-86 Mail 2 mark sue H-sue integer N.B. H=hunter, DNB=did not hunt respondent, unsuc=unsuccessful, suc=successful mark=marked, 341 FOBMAT B-8 FILE FOBHAT FOB HUNTEB SAMPLE CASEWEIGHTS Column Variable Description 1-2 Begion 3-4 M.U. 5-6 7-13 Besponse-best cat 14-20 Besponse-licence sale cut 21-;27 Besponse-1st Beg cwt 28-34 Besponse-lst M - D * cwt 35-41 Besponse-both Beg cwt 42-48 Besponse-both M-U. cwt 49-55 Besponse-phase Beg cwt 56-62 Besponse-phase M.U- cwt 63-69 Mark hunt 1st Beg cwt 70-76 Mark hunt 1st M.U. cwt 77-83 Mark hunt both Beg cwt 84-90 Mark hunt both M-U. cwt 91-97 Mark hunt phase Beg cwt 98-104 Hark hunt phase M.U. cwt 105-111 Mark unsuc 1st Beg cwt 112-118 Mark unsuc 1st M-U- cwt 119-125 Mark unsuc both Beg cwt 126-132 Mark unsuc both M-U cwt 133-139 Mark unsuc phase Beg cwt 140-146 Mark unsuc phase M-U. cwt 147-153 Mark sue 1st Beg cwt 154-160; Mark sue 1st M-U. cwt 161-167 Mark sue both Beg cwt 168-174 Mark sue both M.U. cwt 175-181 M a r k sue phase Beg cwt 182-189 Mark sue phase M^U. cwt integer integer blank r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7.4 r e a l F7- 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 r e a l F7- 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7.4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 real P7.4 N.B- Beg=Begicn, c«t=caseweight,^ mark=marked, hunt=hunter, unsuc=success(unsuccessful), suc=success(successful) 342 DBDIT75 SOB-SXSTEM : Hunter sample STATOS : Obsolete POBPOSE : To e d i t 1975 deer hunter sample FONCTIGN : Data values »ere compared to th e i r maximum and minimum acceptible values. EXTEBNAL SUBROUTINES : FTHCHD, character subroutines. INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - 1975 hunter sample keypunched data (format H-1) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out ) - l i s t i n g of l i n e s and errors. OPERATOR INSTBOCTIONS : The f i l e editor Has used to examine l i n e s with errors and, i f necessary, a l t e r them. 343 TBS? 5 SOB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATUS : Obsolete PUBPOSE : To change the 1975 hunter sample keypunched format into the temporary hunter sample f i l e format. FUNCTION : A read/write loop was used to change f i l e formats. Licence numbers were added to each record by cross-referreneing the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers on hunter sample and licence f i l e s . N.B. This was necessary because the 1975 hunter sample mailing system was based on sequential i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers on questionnaires. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, character subroutines INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - 1975 keypunched data f o r hunters (format H-1) sorted by I d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers C,A,1,5 block=u,42,42 or - 1975 keypunched data for non hunters (format H-2) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,A,1,5—block==u,9,9 4= output f i l e - temporary hunter sample (format H-5) 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The input format was entered v i a the terminal (1= hunter 2= did not hunt or non-contact). The questionnaire mailing was also entered f o r h u n t e r data. 34U SM12 SUB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATOS : Proposed PUBPOSE : To e d i t deer hunter sample data FUNCTION : Data values a i l l be compared to t h e i r maximum and minimum acceptible values. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD , character subroutines INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - hunter sample keypunched data {format H-3) 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out) - l i s t i n g of l i n e s and errors. OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The f i l e editor v i l l be used to examine l i n e s with potential errors and, i f necessary, a l t e r them. 345 SUB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATUS : Proposed PUBPOSE i To change hunter sample keypunched data into temporary hunter sample f i l e format. FUNC TION : A read/write loop w i l l be used to change data formats. A sequential number w i l l be added to each questionnaire so that duplicate responses can be removed from the data f i l e by program DELDUP EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD , character subroutines. INPUT/OUTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - keypunched hunter sample data (format H-3 or H-4) k- output f i l e - temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) OPEBATOS INSTBOCTIONS : The s t a r t i n g value f o r the sequence number and input data type (1= hunter or 2= did not hunt-noncon) w i l l be entered via the terminal. The l a s t sequence number used w i l l be printed on the terminal 346 DELDUP SOB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATOS : Proposed POBPOSE : To remove duplicate responses from temporary hunter sample data f i l e s FUNCTION : Each questionnaire w i l l have been given a unique form number by program TBANSHS . A l l records with the same licence number and d i f f e r e n t form numbers w i l l be deleted by a read/write loop. Duplicated licence numbers on the did not hunt or non-contact f i l e w i l l also be deleted. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : none INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - hunt temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) sorted by licence and ident number C,A,9,7,C,A,1,5-- block .= u,53,53 4= input f i l e - did not hunt or non-contact f i l e (format H-5) sorted by licence and status C,A,9,7,C,A,17,1—block = u,19,19 6= output f i l e - hunt temporary hunter sample (format H-5) 7= output f i l e - did not hunt and non-conact f i l e (format H-5) OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS i The number of records and guestionnaries that are removed from the f i l e s w i l l be printed on the terminal. 347 HSBES SUB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATUS : Proposed PURPOSE : To add i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers and hunter residence {Region and M.U.) to temporary hunter sample data and produce a f i l e with one record per hunter. FUNCTION : A read/write loop w i l l be used to add i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, residence region, and residence M.U. to the data by cross-referrencing the licence f i l e . The the f i r s t record f o r each questionnaire w i l l be written on an output f i l e so that hunter response summaries and non-respondents can be determined. EXTERNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - hunt or did not hunt temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) previously sorted by licence C„A,9,7 — block=u,19,19. 4= output f i l e - hunt or did not hunt temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) sorted by l i c e n c e number C,A,8,7--block = u,58,58 6= output f i l e - ( i f input options 1 or 3 are requested) temporary hunter sample f i l e with hunter data (format H-5). OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS : The type of input w i l l be entered via the terminal: 1= hunt with licence f i l e , 2= did not hunt or nonconact with licence f i l e , 3= hunt without licence f i l e , and 4= did not hunt or noncontact without licence f i l e . 348 HSSOH SOB-SYSTEH : Banter sample STATUS : Proposed POBPOSE : To produce l i s t i n g showing hunter sample questionnaire response rates by resident region and B-0. F0NCTI0N : Tables showing type of response (hunted, did not hunt, and noncontact) by resident H.O. and mailing stage w i l l be produced for each resident Begion. EXTEBNAL SOB100TINES : FTNCHD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= input f i l e - hunter f i l e (format H-5) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,A,1,5— block=u,63,63 3=print f i l e - (assigned to -out) 4=input f i l e - did not hunt and noncontact f i l e (format H-5) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,A,1,5—block=u,19,19 5=input f i l e - licence f i l e (format(L-5) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number C,A,3,5— block=u,58,58 OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The output tables w i l l be manually transcribed into the response f i l e (formatH-7). 3 4 9 CHANLOC SOB-SYSTEH : Hunter sample STATUS : O p e r a t i o n a l POBPOSE ; To change alphanumeric l o c a t i o n names i n t o a st a n d a r d format. FONCTION : A l i s t o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s and corres p o n d i n g f u l l word names i s used t o t r a n s l a t e a b b r e v i a t i o n s . P e r i o d s , b r a c k e t s , the word •area', and the.symbol »** are removed from the data f i e l d . The order of l o c a t i o n words i s changed so t h a t the proper name precedes the g e o g r a p h i c a l name . EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCHD , c h a r a c t e r s u b r o u t i n e s INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 2= in p u t f i l e - temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) sorted by l o c a t i o n name C,A,34,20—block=u r53,53 3= p r i n t f i l e (assigned t o -out) - l i s t i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n d e l e t e d 4= output f i l e - temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) 5= input f i l e - a b b r e v i a t i o n f i l e (format S-3) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The operator s h o u l d examine the p r i n t e d output t o i n s u r e t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t data has not been d e l e t e d . 350 CODELOC SOB-SYSTEH : Hunter sample STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To translate alphanumeric hunt location descriptions on temporary hunter sample f i l e s into location codes on standard hunter sample f i l e s F0NCTIOB : Location descriptions are converted in t o integer codes hycomparing the location descriptions to location names on the loc a t i o n l i s t . I f the character strings are i d e n t i c a l , the record i s written on a coded output f i l e . If the character strings can not be matched, the input record i s saved on an uncoded f i l e f o r e d i t i n g . The program also contains the option whereby location codes can be constructed from hunt region and H.O. f i e l d s by: CODE = 9000 + 100 x Begion • H.O- A l i s t i n g of a l l uncoded location f i e l d s and the number of times they appeared i s printed EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCHD, FBEAD , character subroutines INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) sorted by location name C,A,34,30—block=u,63,63 3= print f i l e (assigned to -out ) - l i s t i n g of uncoded l o c a t i o n names. 4- input f i l e - location l i s t (format S-1) sorted by lo c a t i o n name C,A,7,30— blcck=u,79,79 5= output f i l e - coded standard hunter sample f i l e (format H-6) 6= output f i l e - uncoded temporary hunter sample f i l e (format H-5) OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The operator must select the operational mode via the terminal (1= code by location descriptions 2= code by reg and H.O.). After using option 1, the operator must : 1) correct s p e l l i n g mistakes i n uncoded f i l e 2) add new lo c a t i o n names and location codes to location l i s t or 3) create a temporary location l i s t with location names and the i r corresponding codes (useful for cases where large number of records have common sp e l l i n g mistake). By repeating t h i s process a l l l o c a t i o n names on the location l i s t can be coded. Option 2 i s used to code a l l remaining input records. A summary of program a c t i v i t y i s printed on the terminal. 3 5 1 AHSSUB SOB-SYSTEM i Hunter sample STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To add M.O. and subunit data to standard banter sample data. FUNCTION : Location f i e l d s consisting of M.O. and subunit are added to the standard hunter sample data by cross-referencing the location codes on the location l i s t . If Begion and M.U- are spe c i f i e d , only those location f i e l d s i n that area are selected - I f no location f i e l d s are selected, the operator i s requested to select either the region-M.U. data or .the l o c a t i o n f i e l d data. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2- input f i l e - standard hunter sample (format H-6) sorted by code, region and M.U. C,A,34,U,C,A,31,3—block=u,37,37 4= output f i l e - standard hunter sample (format H-6) 5= input f i l e - location l i s t (format S-1) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : I f the s p e c i f i e d hunt region and M.U. c o n f l i c t with the location f i e l d s , the operator i s requested to eith e r : 1) se l e c t region and M.U. i n which case l o c a t i o n c o d e i s changed to 9000 * 100 x region • M-U. or 2) sele c t the location f i e l d s i n which case hunt region and M.U. are ignored. 352 AHSLOC SUB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATOS : Operational POBPOSE : To add location summaries , season summaries, and sentinels to standard hunter sample data FUNCTION : The number of deer by type and days hunted are summed for each l o c a t i o n code and summed f o r each hunter- The f i r s t record f o r each hunter i s flagged with a '* 1" i n hunter s e n t i n e l column while the f i r s t time a location code i s encountered i t i s flagged with a w 1 " i n location s e n t i n e l column-., Onnecessary records ( i * e . those with same location code and no k i l l data) are deleted. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard hunter sample f i l e (format H-6) sorted by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number, loc a t i o n code, region and M.U. C,A,1,5,C,A,3a,4,C,A,31,3 — b l o c k =u,76,76 4= output f i l e - standard hunter sample f i l e . . OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS : The number of deleted records i s printed on the terminal . 353 SAM PINT SOB-SYSTEM : Bunter sample STATOS : Being redesigned POBPOSE : To calculate the sampling, i n t e n s i t i e s from a f i l e containing l i c e n c e sales, licence holders, responses ( hunter and did not hunt), and marked hunters (successful and unsuccessful). FONCTION : Caseweights are calculated f o r three treatments of mailing phase data : 1) only f i r s t mailing, 2) both mailings and 3 ) phase mailing, and two resident strata 1) region or resident area and 2) M.U. or M.O. grouping. Four types of caseweights are calculated 1) response 2 ) marked hunter 3 ) marked success (unsuccessful) and marked success (successful) and 4) marked animal. EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2- input f i l e - response f i l e (format H -7) 3= print f i l e - l i s t i n g of caseweights. 4= output f i l e - sampling caseweights (format H-8) OPEBATOB INSTBUCTIONS ': The operator i s reguested to group M-O-s so that adequate sample sizes e x i s t f o r c a l c u l a t i n g marked caseweights. 354 HSLQJD SUB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATUS : Operational PURPOSE : To create the master data f i l e from standard hunter sample data by adding hunting licence data, season dates, M.A. and sampling caseweights . FUNCTION : A read/write loop i s used to change the standard hunter sample format into the master f i l e format. Hunting li c e n c e data i s added by cross-referencing the standard l i c e n c e f i l e by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. Day of the year, day of week, week of season and season type are calculated from k i l l day and month. The M.A. i s determined from hunt region. M.U. sampling caseweights are added and M.U* groupings are calculated. EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, JULDAY INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - standard hunter sample data (format H-6) 4= output f i l e - master data f i l e (format M-D 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) 6= input f i l e - HA-MU f i l e (format S-4) 7- input f i l e - season dates (format S-2) 8= input f i l e - sampling caseweights (format H-8) OPEBATOB INSTRUCTIONS z The year i s entered via the terminal. The t o t a l number of records written i s written on the terminal. N.B. The output should be directed to a sequential f i l e or tape. 355 HISCLOAD SOB-SYSTEM : Hunter sample STATUS : Operational POBPOSE : To create the master data f i l e from did not hunt, noncontact, and no response data by adding hunting licence data and sampling caseweights . FONCTION : A read/write loop i s used to change the standard hunter sample format into the master f i l e format. Hunting licence data i s added by cross-referencing the standard l i c e n c e f i l e by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. H.O. sampling caseweights are added for did not hunt respondents-EXTERNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCMD, FBEAD, JOIDAY INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES 2 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - did not hunt and noncontact data (format H-6) 4= output f i l e - master data f i l e (format H-D 5= input f i l e - licence f i l e (format L-5) 6= input f i l e - hunter data (format H-6) 8= input f i l e - sampling caseweights (format H-8) OPERATOR INSTBOCTIONS : The year i s entered via the terminal. The t o t a l number of records written i s written on the terminal. N.B. The output should be directed to a seguential f i l e or tape. 356 14-5 Appendix 3-5 Harked subsystem The marked subsystem integrates recent (since 1975) f i e l d contact and hunter sample data. A) DATA INPOT (Figure 9) Input data are obtained from f i e l d contact and hunter sample f i l e s . B) COMPOTES PBOGBAMS 1) HATCH selects records from hunter sample, hunter season records, and f i e l d contact data sources that match records on other data f i l e s . 2) MABK adds marked data to hunter sample and f i e l d contact data f i l e s . 3) SMABK add marked data to hunter sample and hunter season record data f i l e s . 4) MABKSUM produces a summary of marked data f o r successful hunters, unsuccessful hunters, and marked animals. 357 MM SOB-SYSTEM : Marked STATUS : Being redesigned PURPOSE ; To cross-reference f i e l d contact and hunter sample data hy exchanging data variables FUNCTION : Marked hunter, marked location and marked animal record are flagged and season summaries are exchanged EXTERNAL SUBROUTINES : FTNCMD, JOLDAY INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 2= input f i l e - hunter sample data (format H-6) 3= input f i l e - f i e l d contact data (format G-11) tt= output f i l e - hunter sample data (format H-6) 5= output f i l e - f i e l d contact data (format G-11) 6= print f i l e - summary of marked data OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS : The progress of the program i s l i s t e d on the terminal 358 S H A J K SOB-SYSTEM : Marked STATOS : Proposed POBPOSE : To c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e hunter season r e c o r d and hunter sample data by exchanging data v a r i a b l e s FONCTION : Marked hunter, marked l o c a t i o n and marked animal record a re f l a g g e d and season summaries a r e exchanged. EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : FTNCMD, JULDAY in p u t / o u t p u t f i l e s and devices : 1= TEBHINAL (ASSIGNED) 2= INPOT FILE - HONTEB SAMPLE DATA (FOBMAT B -6) 3= INPUT FILE - HONTEB SEASON BECOBDS (F08MAT G-11) H =OOTPOT FILE - HONTEB SAMPLE DATA (FOBMAT H-6) 5= OOTPOT FILE - HONTEB SEASON BECOBDS (FOBMAT G-11) 6= PBINT FILE - SOMHABY OF MASKED DATA operator i n s t r u c t i o n s : THE PBOGBESS OF THE PBOGBAH IS LISTED ON THE IEEMIN AL-359 MABKSUM SUB-SYSTEM ; Harked STATUS : Proposed PUBPOSE : To produce a summary of marked hunters, marked success, and marked animal data so that sampling caseweights can be produced. EXTEBNAL SUBBOUTINES : FTNCMD INPUT/OUTPUT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= terminal (assigned) 3= print f i l e - summary of marked data 4= input f i l e - f i e l d contact data (format G-11) 5= input f i l e - hunter season record (format G-11) 6= input f i l e - hunter sample data (format H-6) 360 HATCH SOB-SYSTEH : Marked STATOS : Being redesigned POBPOSE : To match f i e l d c o n t a c t and hunter sample data r e c o r d s FONCTION : Game check and hunter sample data r e c o r d s s i t h the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers are separated from records t h a t cannot be matched on the other data f i l e EXTEBNAL SOBBOOTINES : ,3 FTNCHD INPOT/OOTPOT FILES AND DEVICES : 1= t e r m i n a l (assigned) 2- i n p u t f i l e - hunter sample data (format H-6) 3= output f i l e - hunter sample data t h a t match (format H-6) 4= output f i l e - hunter sample data t h a t do not match (format H-6) 5= i n p u t f i l e - f i e l d c o n t a c t o r hunter season r e c o r d s data (format G-11) 6= output f i l e - f i e l d c o n t a c t or hunter season r e c o r d s t h a t match (format G-11) 7= output f i l e - f i e l d c o n t a c t or hunter season r e c o r d s t h a t do not match (format G-11) 8= p r i n t f i l e - summary of matchs OPEBATOB INSTBOCTIONS : The progress of the program i s l i s t e d on the t e r m i n a l . 36 1 14.6 Appeaaix 3.6 Support F i l e s 362 FOBHAT S-1 FILE FOBHAT FOB LOCATION AND GAME CHECK LISTS Column Variable Coding 1-5 Code integer 6 blank 7-36 Location name alphanumeric characters 37-38 Post o f f i c e M.O. location integer 39-UO Post o f f i c e subunit loc integer 41 Total location f i e l d s integer 42 Primary location f i e l d s integer 43 Secondary location f i e l d s integer 44-45 F i e l d 1 M.O. integer 46 -47 F i e l d 1 subunit integer 48-51 F i e l d 2 same as 44-47 52-55 F i e l d 3 same as 44-47 56-59 F i e l d 4 same as 44-47 60-63 F i e l d 5 same as 44-47 64-67 F i e l d 6 same as 44-47 68-71 F i e l d 7 same as 44-47 72-75 F i e l d 8 same as 44-47 76-79 F i e l d 9 same as 44-47 N.B. The same f i l e format i s used for hunt locations and game checks access areas. 36 3 FOBMAT S-2 CODING FOBMAT FOB MANAGEMENT ONII SEASON DATES Column Variable Instructions Sentinal -1 1-2 Sentinal use a - 1" 2-4 Year record number 1-2 Begion record number 3-4 M.O. from record number 5-6 M.O. to record number 7-8 Opening month record number 9-10 Opening day record number 11-12 Closing month record number 13-14 Closing day record number 15-16 Antlerless opening month record number 17-18 Antlerless opening day record number 19-20 Antlerless closing month record number 21-22 Antlerless closing day record number N. B. M.D. from-to i s used to specify ranges of M.O.s that have the same season dates. 36U FOBMAT S-3 ABB BE VlATION FILE Column Variable Description I - 10 Abbreviation alphabetic I I - 20 F u l l word alphabetic 21 Length of abbreviation +1 integer 22 Length of f u l l word integer 3 6 5 FOBMAT S-4 FILE OF M.O.S IB EACH M.A. Column Variable Instruction 1-2 M.A. record integer 3-4 Group 1 Begion record integer 5-6 Group 1 H. 0. from record integer 7-8 Group 1 M-0. to record integer 9-14 Group 2 record integer 15-20 Group 3 record integer 21-26 Group 4 record integer 27-32 Group 5 record integer N.B. M.O. from-.to i s used to specify ranges of m.u.s that are i n the same M.A. 366 1 4 . 7 Appendix 3 . 7 Master F i l e 367 FOBMAT M-1 FILE FOBMAT FOR THE MASTEB DATA FILE Column Variable Description General 1-3 Species code 4-5 Year integer 6 Data source code 7 Hunt status code 8 Mailing phase code 9 Data status code Sentinels 10 Hunter se n t i n e l s e n t i n e l 11 location-contact s e n t i n e l sentinel 12 Location f i e l d s e n t i n e l s e n t i n e l 13-14 K i l l / l c c a t i o n - c o n t a c t integer 15-16 Location-contact/person integer 17 Location f i e l d type code 18 Total location f i e l d s integer 19 Primary location f i e l d s inte ge r 20 Secondary location f i e l d s integer 21 H.O. Sentinel s e n t i n e l 22 Total M.O.s integer 23 M.O. Grouping integer 24-29 Heplicates integer General 30-31 Contact day integer 32-33 Contact month integer 34-36 Contact year-day integer 37-38 Contact season week integer 39 Contact weekday integer 40 Contact season type code 41 , Contact region integer 42-43 Contact d i s t r i c t integer 44-46 Contact o f f i c e r integer 47-50 Contact station integer 51-52 Contact M.O. integer 53-54 Contact subunit integer 55-58 Check begin integer 59-62 Check f i n i s h e d integer 63-66 Check time integer Person 67-71 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number integer 72-78 Licence number integer 79 Besident Region integer 80-83 Besident code integer 84 Resident area integer 368 85 Besident subarea integer 86-87 Besident M.U. integer 88-89 Besident subunit integer 90-91 Licence-return day integer 92-93 Licence-return month integer 94-96 Licence-return year-day integer 97-98 Government agency code 99-100 Birth day integer 101-102 Birth month integer 103-104 Bir t h year integer 105-106 Age integer 107 Sex code 108 Previous licence code 109 minimum season k i l l integer 110-111 Total season e f f o r t integer 112-113 Total season k i l l integer 114 Total season buck k i l l integer 115 Total season doe k i l l integer 116 Total season fawn k i l l integer Location-contact 117 Location region integer 118-121 Location code code 122-123 Location M.A. integer 124-125 Location M.U. integer 126-127 Location subunit integer 128-129 Total location e f f o r t integer 130 Location method code 131 Contact previous k i l l integer 132-133 Total location k i l l integer 134 Total location buck k i l l integer 135 Total location doe k i l l integer 136 Total location fawn k i l l integer K i l l 137 K i l l subspecies 138 K i l l sex 139 K i l l age type 140 K i l l antler type 141-142 K i l l day 143-144 K i l l month 145-147 K i l l year day 148-149 K i l l season week 150 K i l l week day 151 K i l l season type 152-155 K i l l specimen number 156-158 K i l l age 159 K i l l antler points l e f t 160 K i l l antler points r i g h t code code code code integer integer integer integer integer code integer integer integer integer 161 162 163 164-165 166-167 Marked data Marked Marked Marked Marked Marked hunter location k i l l location-contact s t a t i o n M.U. sentinel s e n t i n e l s e n t i n e l integer Integer 3 6 9 168-169 170-171 172 173 174 Bark station Total marked Total marked Total marked Total marked subunit/phase k i l l buck k i l l doe k i l l fawn k i l l integer integer integer integer integer Sampling caseweights 175-181 Response best 182-188 Response licence sales 189-195 Response 1st Begion 196-202 Response 1st M.U. 203-209 Response both Begion 210-216 Besponse both M.U. 217-223 Besponse phase Begion 224-230 Besponse phase M-U, 231-237 Marked hunter 1st Begion 238-244 Marked hunter 1st M.O. 245-251 Marked hunter both Begion 252-258 Harked hunter both M.U. 259-265 Marked hunter phase Begion 266-272 Marked hunter phase M.U. 273-279 Marked success 1st Region 280-286 Harked success 1st M.U-287-293 Marked success both Begion 294-300 Marked success both M.U. 301-307 Harked success phase Begion 308-314 Marked success phase M.U. 315r-321 Harked animal 1st Begion 322-328 Marked animal 1st M.U. 329-335 Marked animal both Begion 336-342 Marked animal both M-U. 343-349 Harked animal phase Begion 350-356 Marked animal phase M.U-r e a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 real F7. 4 real F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 real F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 re a l F7- 4 r e a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 re a l F7. 4 real F7* 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 real F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 r e a l F7. 4 real F7. 4 re a l F7.4 r e a l F7. 4 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094578/manifest

Comment

Related Items