1 / 26

Reporting Issues and Trends of Alaska Moose Hunters

Reporting Issues and Trends of Alaska Moose Hunters. Jen Schmidt Post Doc, Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF Contact: fsjis@uaf.edu. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Background. Previously researched by Andersen and Alexander 1992 in interior Alaska Ours differs in that we:

melba
Télécharger la présentation

Reporting Issues and Trends of Alaska Moose Hunters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reporting Issues and Trends of Alaska Moose Hunters Jen Schmidt Post Doc, Institute of Arctic Biology, UAF Contact: fsjis@uaf.edu

  2. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Background • Previously researched by Andersen and Alexander 1992 in interior Alaska • Ours differs in that we: • Expanded the focus to Statewide • Added some new parameters • More of a statistical approach • Two measures of reported harvest • Subsistence household surveys conducted by members of the community through the division of Subsistence at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) • Harvest tickets that are returned to division of Wildlife Conservation at ADF&G • Measure of under reporting • Ratio = Subsistence Household Surveys Hunter Harvest Tickets

  3. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Limitations • The “year” does not match up between the two databases • Subsistence (January-December) • Hunter Harvest Tickets (July-June) • Since most moose are harvested in the fall this minimizes this issue since fall is in the same “year” for the two databases • In large communities not all households can be surveyed so survey information must be extrapolated to represent the whole community

  4. n = 97 n = 118

  5. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Model & Parameters • General linear model • Parameters (* used by Andersen and Alexander 1992) • Percent of a community that: • Attempts to harvest a moose* • Harvests a moose* • Receives meat or other parts of a moose* • Shares/Gives meat or other parts of a moose* • Is Native* • Population Size* • Median Household Income* • Presence of an Area Biologist employed by ADF&G* • Distance (Km) from a community with an Area Biologist • Presence of a license vendor

  6. Model Results Full Model P- value = 0.02 Reduced Model P-value = 0.002 *Percent of a community Positive value indicates increase in under-reporting

  7. Strong Sharing Network

  8. Results: t-tests

  9. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Conclusions • The simplest model that explains under reporting contains the percent of the community that: • harvests a moose • uses meat or any part of a moose • receives meat or any part of a moose • Smaller and more rural communities appear to have more under reporting, but if small amounts of under reporting by large cities can amount to large under reporting

  10. Under Reporting by Moose Hunters: Future • Explore if reporting rates differ in areas that have or had co-management programs or working groups • Better understand why the results from the two methods used differ for the percent of the community that hunts moose and uses moose meat or parts

  11. Statewide Trends in Moose Hunting

  12. Background • Data used was the hunter harvest tags returned by moose hunters to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) regardless of success • Statewide analysis • Dates range from 1990 to 2006

  13. n = 111,985 p < 0.001

  14. n = 111,985 p < 0.001 In the legend the change in 3 or 4 wheeler use decreases from left to right

  15. Conclusions • Management decisions at the local level can be observed at the Statewide level • Location and presence of moose influence how far hunters travel • There is a lot of spatial variability, however certain trends can be observed such as: • Increase of 3 or 4 wheelers and airboats • Relatively content number of moose hunters, harvest level, and overall success

  16. Thanks to EPSCoR for there support Also thanks to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the use of their data and feedback. Jen Schmidt Contact: fsjis@uaf.edu

  17. Examples of moose-habitat rules Direct climate effects on moose Moose void deep snow (>2.3 ft) because it increases death of moose Warm conditions are stressful for moose Winter >23°F (-5°C); Summer 57°F (14°C) Indirect climate effects: More wildfire Moose prefer recent burns (11-25 years) Moose prefer burn edges and unburned patches within a burn Moose move into burns if moose density high Moose move into burns if unburned habitat is poor for moose and/or limits the number of moose Changes in vegetation Moose prefer deciduous over spruce or tundra, so changes of spruce or tundra to deciduous will increase moose habitat Hunter behavior Moose hunting is concentrated near roads and rivers Weather (e.g., warm fall, early snow) influences harvest success Increased temperature in fall can lead to spoilage of moose meat Influence of gas price/employment on harvest level

More Related