2020-01-14 Game Management Advisory Commission Minutes

Home

Hawaii Game Management Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes – January 14, 2020 TN: Cause we can barely read what’s being posted. KS: Oh, sorry. I’m getting there. We’ll get to the results in a minute. So – and then when we went back in the spring we decided not to do transects without dogs because of detection rate or our ability to flush birds was significantly higher with the dogs, um, just for example – just top of my head – on Mauna Kea we were seeing like 5x the number of birds with the dogs than without and so in order for our surveys to have any statistical significance or to be valid you need observations or a lot walking without observations – so we just decided just only doing them with dogs in the spring – so immediately or pretty quickly we recognized walking without dogs was not that effective to find the birds. So a number of detections by species – these numbers are combined between the two seasons so it’s a total between the fall and the spring. I guess for Teresa I’ll just read Kapapala Ranch – Black Franklins zero; California quail sixteen; chukar zero; urkels Franklin 217; Grey Franklin and Japanese Quail both zero; Kalij pheasant 38; mourning doves zero; pea fowl one; pueo one – not a game bird but our researcher likes pueo so he included it; Ring-Necked pheasant one; spotted dove two; wild turkey 7; zebra dove 7. And then on Mauna Kea: Black Franklin four; California quail 47; chukar four; urkel Franklin 320; grey franklin two; Japanese quail three; Kalij pheasant zero; mourning dove three; Pea fowl zeros; pueo one; ring-necked pheasant ten; spotted dove zero; wild turkey 24 and zebra dove zero. Those are our round numbers that we detected between the two seasons combined in both areas. So comparing the two methodologies like I already said – it was pretty apparent and immediately we recognized using dogs was the most effective way to find and flush birds and then to increase our observations, um, and, so, the first table is just our encounter which basically just says that – you got dogs you see more birds. Although in Kapapala there was not – you actually saw a little bit less, which is interesting – but they weren’t significantly different so there was basically kind of a no difference between dogs and no dogs in Kapapala. But on Mauna Kea there was. So because of the low number of observations for most of the species we were not able to estimate population size for any species except urkels – urkels had a good amount of observations so we were able to extrapolate a density estimate for urkels but not for any other species cause they’re just – the number of observations was low. Um... And so, you get – the next slide we’ll kind of get into route – like more numbers that I’m sure more people are interested in but one thing to note, um, so under table five – that last number on the right – that coefficient of variance – in order for that to kinda have some weight that number needs to be closer to .15 and so basically and so all those numbers are too high for us to have information that can be considered valid – if that makes sense. And so in order for us to get more information to be thinking of \[unclear\] to be more valid, I guess, we would have to do much more surveys, much more man hours. Something I didn’t talk about and I don’t have a slide for but, ah, real quick – Ian gave me his numbers – man hours for – so the amount of 7