15 research outputs found
Tanggung Gugat PT. STL selaku Pengangkut terhadap Penumpang yang Hilang akibat Kesalahan Nakhoda ditinjau menurut Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 tentang Pelayaran
No full textSkripsi ini membahas mengenai kecelakaan kapal yang terjadi saat sedang menyeberang dari Pelabuhan Ketapang, Banyuwangi menuju Pelabuhan Gilimanuk, Bali karena diakibatkan ombak tinggi dan nakhoda tidak melashing kendaraan yang ada diatas kapal sehingga kapal kemudian terbalik dan menyebabkan penumpang hilang. Di Indonesia tidak jarang terjadi kasus kecelakaan kapal tenggelam yang mengakibatkan kerugian bagi pihak penumpang misalnya penumpang mengalami luka, meninggal dunia, dan bahkan hilang. Dalam hal penumpang mengalami luka dan meninggal dunia maka tanggung jawab pihak pengangkut ada diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 Tentang Pelayaran. Namun dalam hal penumpang hilang, Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 Tentang Pelayaran belum mengatur secara berasas, oleh karenanya perlu suatu kajian mendalam terkait permasalahan tersebut agar mampu terciptanya suatu kepastian hukum yang bisa di terima oleh semua pihak, juga demi perkembangan transportasi di Indonesia. Kata kunci: pelayaran, kecelakaan kapal, pengangkutan lau
Tanggung Jawab Notaris Atas Keabsahan Akta Otentik Yang Memakai Surrogate Sebagai Pengganti Tanda Tangan
No full textNotary is a public official who has the authority to make authentic deeds and has responsibility for the deed, an authentic deed made by and before a notary after being read out is then signed by the faces, witnesses, and notary. The problem arises when the confronter is unable to affix his signature due to either physical limitations, the confronter cannot read or write, or also the confronter has a signature that changes. For this problem, for those who cannot affix their signatures, the signatures can be replaced where at the end of the deed the notary provides a statement called a surrogate. This writing uses normative juridical research methods by conducting library research to obtain various legal materials and applicable laws and regulations. This writing aims to obtain the fact that notaries must be able to be responsible for the authentic deeds they make, whether it is affixed with signatures by the confronters or those who use surrogates as a substitute for signatures. It is hoped that through the use of surrogates in the deed, the confrontants will not experience differential treatment between one another so as to get the same sense of legal certainty and justice.Notaris adalah pejabat umum yang memiliki wewenang membuat akta otentik dan memiliki tanggung jawab atas akta tersebut, akta otentik yang dibuat oleh dan dihadapan notaris sesudah dibacakan selanjutnya ditandatangani oleh para penghadap, para saksi, dan notaris. Timbul persoalan ketika penghadap tidak mampu membubuhkan tandatangannya yang diakibatkan baik oleh keterbatasan fisik, penghadap tidak bisa membaca maupun menulis, atau juga penghadap memiliki tanda tangan yang berubah-ubah. Atas permasalahan ini bagi penghadap yang tidak bisa membubuhkan tanda tangannya maka tanda tangan penghadap tersebut bisa digantikan dimana pada bagian akhir akta maka notaris memberikan keterangan yang disebut sebagai surrogate. Penulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan melakukan penelitian kepustakaan guna memperoleh berbagai bahan hukum serta peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh fakta bahwa notaris harus bisa bertanggung jawab atas akta otentik yang dibuatnya baik itu yang dibubuhi tanda tangan oleh para penghadap maupun yang memakai surrogate sebagai pengganti tanda tangan. Diharapkan melalui penggunaan surrogate pada akta maka para penghadap tidak mengalami pembedaan perlakuan antara yang satu dengan yang lainnya sehingga mendapatkan rasa kepastian dan keadilan hukum yang sama
Tanggung Jawab Notaris Atas Keabsahan Akta Otentik Yang Memakai Surrogate Sebagai Pengganti Tanda Tangan
No full textNotaris adalah pejabat umum yang memiliki wewenang membuat akta otentik dan memiliki tanggung jawab atas akta tersebut, akta otentik yang dibuat oleh dan dihadapan notaris sesudah dibacakan selanjutnya ditandatangani oleh para penghadap, para saksi, dan notaris. Timbul persoalan ketika penghadap tidak mampu membubuhkan tandatangannya yang diakibatkan baik oleh keterbatasan fisik, penghadap tidak bisa membaca maupun
menulis, atau juga penghadap memiliki tanda tangan yang berubah-ubah. Atas permasalahan ini bagi penghadap yang tidak bisa membubuhkan tanda tangannya maka tanda tangan penghadap tersebut bisa digantikan dimana pada bagian akhir akta maka notaris memberikan keterangan yang disebut sebagai surrogate. Penulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan melakukan penelitian kepustakaan guna memperoleh berbagai bahan hukum serta peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh fakta bahwa notaris harus bisa bertanggung jawab atas akta otentik yang dibuatnya baik itu yang dibubuhi tanda tangan oleh para penghadap maupun yang memakai surrogate sebagai pengganti tanda tangan. Diharapkan melalui penggunaan surrogate padaakta maka para penghadap tidak mengalami pembedaan perlakuan antara yang satu dengan yang lainnya sehingga mendapatkan rasa kepastian dan keadilan hukum yang sama
Pelaksanaan Pengangkatan Kembali Jabatan Notaris Pasca Menjalani Sanksi Pemberhentian Sementara
No full textPenulisan ini membahas pengangkatan kembali bagi jabatan Notaris yang telah menjalani sanksi pemberhentian sementara mengenai ketidaksesuaian UUJN dengan Permenkumham Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 terkait pengangkatan kembali Notaris yang telah menjalani sanksi pemberhentian sementara serta akibat hukum akta yang dibuat Notaris yang telah menjalani sanksi pemberhentian sementara namun belum dilakukan pengangkatan kembali. Perihal pengangkatan kembali Notaris yang telah menjalani sanksi pemberhentian sementara terdapat ketidaksesuaian karena UUJN menentukan dilaksanakan pengangkatan kembali sedangkan Permenkumham Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tidak ada mengatur terkait hal tersebut, terjadi kekosongan hukum dan tidak menjamin kepastian hukum. Akibat hukum akta yang dibuat Notaris yang belum melakukan pengangkatan kembali maka keabsahan akta tersebut patut dipertanyakan. Akta itu tetap sah hingga adanya pihak yang mempermasalahkan dan menjadi tidak sah dan berkekuatan dibawah tangan karena belum dilakukan pengangkatan kembali sehingga tidak berwenang menjalankan jabatan Notaris
introduction to physic and surgery, containing I. Medicinal institutionts, or physiology, hygieine, patholoy, semeiotice, and therapeutice. II. A compedious system of anatomy. III. A general account of wounds, ulcers, tumors, operations, and dressings; as also, the medicines used in surgery. IV. Botany and the materia medica. V. Pharmacy, as well chemical as Galenical. VI. A dispensatory, containing a great variety of the most efficacious officinal compositions, and extemporaneous prescriptions. VII. A syllabus of the symptoms of all the diseases incident to the human body. VIII. An index of diseases and their remedies. IX. A posologic table, containing the doses of all the simples and compounds. X. An explanation of the terms of art, accented as they are to be pronounced
No full textAlthough little is known of his life, from his own writings we know that Richard Brookes once practiced medicine in rural Surrey (see his Dedication in Art of Angling) and that sometime before 1762, he travelled to America and Africa (see his Preface in Natural History). Brookes also made some translations, most notably The Natural History of Chocolate (1724) from the French, Histoire Naturelle du Cacao et du Sucre (1719). His work went through several reprints. As late as 1834, Brookes\u27 books were listed in James Atkinson\u27s Medical Bibliography. Atkinson wrote that Brookes had "been a most industrious and intelligent practical author." His were "books of considerable research and labour.
Sex-based differences in spawning behavior account for male-biased harvest in Lake Erie walleye (Sander vitreus)
No full textSex- and size-specific reproductive behaviors can increase the vulnerability of certain demographic components of fish populations to exploitation, potentially leading to unsustainable harvest. Lake Erieâ s largest walleye (Sander vitreus) local spawning population, which aggregates on the Ohio reef complex during spring, is subject to angling. Information on the sex composition of harvest or how reproductive behavior might influence harvest is lacking. To address these uncertainties, 337 reef-spawning individuals were implanted with acoustic transmitters and their spawning behavior on the reef complex was monitored for four years using acoustic telemetry. Males arrived on spawning grounds earlier and remained on them longer than females. These behavioral differences led us to predict that recreational angler harvest during the spawning season would be male-biased. Creel surveys confirmed this prediction, although sex composition of the harvest was influenced by angling technique. Collectively, these findings suggest that sex-based differences in reproductive behaviors bias the recreational harvest toward males on the reef complex during the spawning season. This male-biased harvest seems unlikely to pose an undue risk to Lake Erieâ s walleye fishery.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author
An elecrophoretic evaluation of bi-subspecific populations of largemouth bass in small impoundments in Texas
No full textTypescript (photocopy).During 1978-1983, samples of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides were taken from 10 small impoundments (0.4 to 16.0 hectares) in north-central, south-central, and southwestern Texas and submitted to electrophoretic analysis to determine individual genetic status. These impoundments consisted of seven farm ponds and three U.S. Soil Conservation floodwater retarding structures which had been stocked with northern largemouth bass M. s. salmoides and/or Florida largemouth bass M.s. floridanus in an effort to establish stable populations of both subspecies and the intergrade. Stocking rates varied between ponds and were determined by size of impoundment, fish populations present at time of stocking, and research objectives. Stable intergrading populations did not result from the stocking regimes used in this study. In all populations studied, one subspecies or the other was effectively excluded with the formation of the first year class of largemouth bass. In 8 of 10 populations, northern largemouth bass were dominant, while Florida largemouth bass dominated the remaining two populations. Subspecific domination was the result of combined effects of differential subspecific growth, survival, and reproductive success. As a result of subspecific domination, maximum heterozygosity can only be attained through restocking of the less successful subspecies. Restocking may have to take place at intervals as short as 2 years. Comparisons of growth of northern largemouth bass and F1 intergrades indicated that northern bass attained greater total length at age I. However, F1 intergrades demonstrated significantly faster growth after age I. Total length of F1 intergrades approached or surpassed that of northern largemouth bass at age II. Evaluations of the efficacy of electrofishing and/or angling in attaining representative genetic samples from intergraded populations were conducted in four impoundments. No systematic sampling bias which could be related to discrete genotypes of individuals was found in samples collected using either of these two gear types. Differences between estimates of allele and genotype frequencies and actual population allele and genotype frequencies would not lead to formulation of improper genetic management strategies. Evaluation of the utility of lateral-line scale count as an indicator of genetic status of individuals indicated that this meristic count is of little value. . . . (Author's abstract exceeds stipulated maximum length. Discontinued here with permission of author.) UM
2016 National Survey Addendum, Report 2016-1, Web 508
No full textA historical and demographic description and analysis of hunting and fishing participation, recruitment, and retention.
The number of anglers in 2016 was a significant increase over the number in 2006, according to the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The number of hunters in 2016 was a significant decrease from the number in 2006. Light can be shed on these participation trends by looking at the changes in the number of new recruits and changes in the number of participants who have continued to participate in the sport. This report first looks at the long-term trend in participation, going back to the first National Survey in 1955. Both the number of participants 16 years and older and the participation rates of these participants are presented. This puts current participation in perspective. Recruitment and retention are then examined in total, for the male and female cohorts, and by age. This analysis builds on a previous report written by Jerry Leonard and the author after the 2011 Survey, “Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2010: Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” Report 2011-5. The 2011 report has more detail and is well worth reading in conjunction with this report. The number of anglers in 2016 was a significant increase over the number in 2006, according to the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The number of hunters in 2016 was a significant decrease from the number in 2006. Light can be shed on these participation trends by looking at the changes in the number of new recruits and changes in the number of participants who have continued to participate in the sport. This report first looks at the long-term trend in participation, going back to the first National Survey in 1955. Both the number of participants 16 years and older and the participation rates of these participants are presented. This puts current participation in perspective. Recruitment and retention are then examined in total, for the male and female cohorts, and by age. This analysis builds on a previous report written by Jerry Leonard and the author after the 2011 Survey, “Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2010: Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation” Report 2011-5. The 2011 report has more detail and is well worth reading in conjunction with this report.2016 National Survey Addendum, Report 2016-1, Web 508. Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
2016 National Survey Addendum
Report 2016-1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceRecruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
2016 National Survey Addendum
Report 2016-1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
April 2019
Richard Aiken
[email protected]
This report is intended to complement the National Report for the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions in this report are the author’s and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The author thanks Sylvia Cabrera and Rob Southwick for reviewing earlier drafts of the report.USFWSRecruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 3
Introduction
The number of anglers in 2016 was a
significant increase over the number
in 2006, according to the 2016 National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation. The number of
hunters in 2016 was a significant decrease
from the number in 2006. Light can be
shed on these participation trends by
looking at the changes in the number of
new recruits and changes in the number
of participants who have continued to
participate in the sport.
This report first looks at the long-term
trend in participation, going back to the
first National Survey in 1955. Both the
number of participants 16 years and
older and the participation rates of these
participants are presented. This puts
current participation in perspective.
Recruitment and retention are then
examined in total, for the male and
female cohorts, and by age.
This analysis builds on a previous report
written by Jerry Leonard and the author
after the 2011 Survey, “Fishing and
Hunting Recruitment and Retention in
the U.S. from 1990 to 2010: Addendum
to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation” Report 2011-5. The 2011
report has more detail and is well worth
reading in conjunction with this report.
USFWS
4 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
Number of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Watching
Participants: 1955-2016
The number of hunters and anglers
has increased since the first Survey in
1955. Angling has more than doubled. In
2016 the number of adult hunters was
16% higher than in 1955. See Figure 1.
Recently, however, from 2001 to 2016,
hunting participation went down. The
number of hunters 55 years old and older
did increase in number over that time
period, but the increase was less than the
drop in the number of 16–44 year olds.
Fishing participation went up from 2001
to 2016.
Wildlife watching was not part of the
Survey until the 1980’s, and comparable
estimates begin in 1991. Over that time
period, about a third of adult Americans
closely observed, photographed, or
fed wildlife, and that activity was at its
highest in 2016.
Analysis of wildlife-watching
participation and expenditure trends will
be presented in a later report. The focus
of the remainder of this report will be on
hunting and fishing.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Participants in Millions
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1991 1996 2001 2011 2016
Hunters Anglers Wildlife Watchers
2006
Figure 1. Number of Anglers, Hunters, and Wildlife Watchers: 1955–2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Table 1. Number of Anglers, Hunters, and Wildlife Watchers: 1955-2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older. Number in Millions)
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Hunters 9.8 12.2 11.3 12 14.3 14 13.7 14.1 14 13 12.5 13.7 11.5
Anglers 14.8 18.0 20.1 23.5 29.3 29.7 32.2 35.6 35.2 34.1 30 33.1 35.8
Wildlife Watchers N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 76.1 62.9 66.1 71.1 71.8 86
Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 5
Population and Participation index
It is interesting to look at the rate of change of the general population and hunting and fishing participation since 1955. Estimates are presented using an index where the number of the total population or participants for the base year, 1955, is set equal to 100 and the percentage change for each following survey year is added or subtracted. This efficiently shows relative change. Fishing participation has increased at a higher rate than population growth; the rate of growth in hunting participation dropped below population growth starting in 1985. See Figure 2.
050100150200250300Index 1955=100195519601965197019751980198519911996200120112016HuntersAnglersTotal Population2006
Figure 2. Indexed Change in the Number of Anglers, Hunters, and Total Population: 1955–2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Table 2. Indexed Change in the Number of Anglers, Hunters, and Total Population: 1955-2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older.)
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
Total Population
100
109
117
124
131
138
144
151
160
169
183
191
203
Hunters
100
124
115
122
145
142
139
142
141
132
126
138
116
Anglers
100
122
136
159
198
201
218
241
239
231
203
224
2426 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
Fishing Participation Rates
An important measure of the popularity of an activity is the percentage of total available people who do it. This is called the participation rate. The percentage of the total U.S. population who fished in 2016 is higher than it was in 1955. So the number of participants is more than keeping up with the increase in the pool of possible participants.
02468101214161820Percent of Population1955196019651970197519801985199119962001201120162006
Figure 3. Fishing Participation Rates: 1955–2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Table 3. Fishing Participation Rates: 1955-2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
11.8
13.2
13.7
15.1
17.8
17.1
17.8
18.7
17.5
16.0
13.1
13.8
14.0
012345678910Percent of Population1955196019651970197519801985199119962001201120162006
Figure 4. Hunting Participation Rates: 1955–2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Hunting Participation Rates
The percentage of the adult U.S. population who hunted in 2016 was 4.5%. That is the lowest rate in the 1955–2016 study period. The highest it has been was 8.9%, in 1960.
Table 4. Hunting Participation Rates: 1955-2016
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
6
4Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 7
Recruitment
Recruitment is defined here as the
percent of participants who fished or
hunted for the first time ever in the study
year. The focus of the following analysis
will be on the years since 2000. The
data are from the 2001, 2006, 2011, and
2016 Surveys. Specifically the data are
from a screening survey of the general
population, from which the wildlife-related
recreationists were selected for
later, more detailed interviews.
The screening survey database contains
information about first-time hunting
or fishing experiences for the year
immediately preceding the survey year.
Individuals who hunted or fished in 2015
(for the 2016 National Survey) were
asked a follow-up question about whether
it was their first year of participation.
Using the responses to this question, one
can obtain the distribution of first-time
anglers and hunters by age, or any other
demographic category. Age and gender
were chosen for this analysis.
First Time Anglers
Recruitment in here presented as the
percent of total participants who were
first-time participants. The percent of
anglers who were first timers dropped
slightly from 2000 to 2015. Children have
undergone the biggest drop in first-time
participation. Adult women first-time
participation was slightly down. Adult
men first-time participation had the
smallest drop in percent change from
2000–2015.
As for age groups, the recruitment
of children and 16–24 year old first
timers declined in the 2000’s. First-time
participation by 25–64 year olds as a
group was level. The recruitment of
55–64 year olds was the only age cohort
with an increase.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Percent of Anglers by Gender
2000 2005 2010 2015
Anglers 16+ Males 16+ Females 16+ Children
Figure 5. Fishing Recruitment Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
Table 5. Fishing Recruitment Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
2000 2005 2010 2015
Percent Change
2000–2015
Anglers 16+ 5 5 5 4 –17
Males 16+ 4 4 5 3 –15
Females 16+ 6 6 6 5 –18
Children 17 16 18 13 –22
Note: Recruitment rates for fishing are calculated as the percent who have participated in fishing in the
Survey year who were first time participants. The percent change in the recruitment rate is the measure of
relative change that makes the difference a percent of the rate in 2000.
8 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
It should be noted that these findings held for the number of first-time participants as well as the percent of anglers. The number of overall participants increased, so a change in the percent of participants does not mathematically necessarily mean there was a similar change in the number of participants. In this case, however, it does.
This means the growth in the overall number of anglers was not due to a steady recruitment of participants.
02468101214161820Percent of Hunters by Age2000201020152005Anglers 16+Children16–2425–3435–4445–5455–6465+
Figure 6. Fishing Recruitment Rates by Age: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
Table 6. Fishing Recruitment Rates by Age: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
2000
2005
2010
2015
Percent Change
2000–2015
Anglers 16+
5
5
5
4
–12
Children
17
16
18
13
–22
16–24
7
6
6
2
–70
25–34
6
6
7
6
5
35–44
5
5
7
5
4
45–54
4
4
3
3
–15
55–64
3
2
2
4
43
65+
2
4
3
1
–41
Note: Recruitment rates for fishing are calculated as the percent who have participated in fishing in the Survey year who were first time participants. The percent change in the recruitment rate is the measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the rate in 2000. Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 9
First Time Hunters
First-time hunting participation has fallen since 2000, both for adults as a group and even more so for the 6–15 year old cohort. However, women first-time hunting is up. See Figure 7. Figure 8 has the trend in age group hunting recruitment. The number of 16–24 year old first-time hunters significantly declined. First-time hunting for 25–64 year olds stayed level. Children first timers went down significantly. This partly explains the decrease in the overall number of hunters.
051015202530354045Percent of Hunters by Gender2000201020152005Hunters 16+Males 16+Females 16+Children
Figure 7. Hunting Recruitment Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
Table 7. Hunting Recruitment Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
2000
2005
2010
2015
Percent Change 2000–2015
Hunters 16+
4
5
5
4
–8
Males 16+
4
4
4
3
–31
Females 16+
10
12
11
13
32
Children
38
38
31
19
–51
Note: Recruitment rates for hunting are calculated as the percent who have participated in hunting in the Survey year who were first time participants. The percent change in the recruitment rate is the measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the rate in 2000. 10 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
Table 8. Hunting Recruitment Rates by Age: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)
2000
2005
2010
2015
Percent Change 2000–2015
Hunters 16+
4
5
5
4
–11
Children
38
38
31
19
–51
16–24
11
12
11
8
–25
25–34
4
6
6
4
–5
35–44
4
4
6
5
20
45–54
2
3
4
3
74
55–64
3
1
1
2
–13
65+
1
1
2
0
–34
Note: Recruitment rates for hunting are calculated as the percent who have participated in hunting in the Survey year who were first time participants. The percent change in the recruitment rate is the measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the rate in 2000.
Percent of Hunters by Age2000201020152005Anglers 16+Children16–2425–3435–4445–5455–6465+051015202530354045
Figure 8. Hunting Recruitment Rates by Age: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 6 Years of Age and Older)Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 11
Retention
Having analyzed information available
from the National Survey concerning
recruitment, it is now time to shift gears
and see what information it contains
about retention of individuals in fishing
and hunting. Individuals in this analysis
are no longer considered active anglers
or hunters if they did not participate in
the activity for three years prior to the
survey years 2001, 2006, 2011, or 2016.
Thus, individuals who participated in
one or more of the three years prior
to these survey years are considered
active anglers or hunters. For example,
for the 2016 Survey, an individual is
considered a dropout from fishing if she
had fished at some point in her life but
did not participate in 2013, 2014, or 2015.
In this section “remained active” refers
to participation in fishing or hunting in
one of the three years prior to a survey.
The “retention rate” is the percent of
individuals who have participated in
fishing or hunting at some point and have
remained active in the respective activity.
Fishing Retention by Gender
While the 2000 and 2015 retention rates
were nearly the same for both men
and women, this was not true for the
intervening years. Fishing retention
declined for both men and women from
2000 to 2010, but climbed back to the 2000
level in 2015.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent of Cohort Who Have Ever Fished
2000 2005 2010 2015
Total Male Female
Figure 9. Fishing Retention Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Table 9. Fishing Retention Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2000 2005 2010 2015
Percent Change
2000–2015
Total 59.5% 57.1% 54.9% 59.8% 0.5%
Male 65% 62% 59% 65% –0.3%
Female 51% 49% 48% 52% 1.8%
Note: Retention rates for fishing are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in fishing who
were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 2001, 2006, 2011, or 2016 Surveys. The percent
change in the retention rate is the measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the
rate in 2000.
12 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
Hunting Retention by Gender
Since 2000 hunting retention has been level overall. However the gender trends are going in opposite directions. The retention of male hunters is slightly down and that of female hunters is up significantly.
010203035404550Percent of Cohort Who Have Ever Hunted251552000201020152005TotalMaleFemale
Figure 10. Hunting Retention Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
Table 10. Hunting Retention Rates by Gender: 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015
(Population 16 Years of Age and Older)
2000
2005
2010
2015
Percent Change 2000–2015
Total
43.4%
42.5%
42.3%
43.6%
0.4%
Male
46%
44%
44%
44%
–3.0%
Female
32%
33%
36%
40%
25.3%
Note: Retention rates for hunting are calculated as the percent who have ever participated in hunting who were active in at least one of the three years prior to the 2001, 2006, 2011, or 2016 Surveys. The percent change in the retention rate is the measure of relative change that makes the difference a percent of the rate in 2000. Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 13
Summary of Survey Method
The data collection method for the
2001–2016 National Surveys has been
consistent. It was designed to provide
national-level estimates of the number
of participants in recreational hunting
and fishing and in wildlife watching
activities such as observing, feeding, and
photographing. Information was collected
on the number of participants, where and
how often they participated, the type of
wildlife encountered, and the amounts of
money spent.
The Surveys were conducted in two
stages: a screening of households
to identify households with likely
participants and a series of follow-up
interviews of selected persons to collect
detailed data. Telephone and in-person
interviewing modes were conducted. The
Census Bureau did the sampling and data
collecting. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was responsible for the report
writing and data analysis. See a Survey
National Report for more details on the
survey method (https://www.census.
gov/programs-surveys/fhwar/library/
publications.html).
USFWS
14 Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015
Imputation of 2016 Estimates
Due to changes in the 2016 Survey
screening questionnaire, some questions
were not asked similarly to previous
Surveys. In previous Surveys everyone
was asked about previous activity, such
as their last year of hunting and whether
or not the previous year was his/her
first year of hunting. Respondents who
had participated in 2016 at the time of
the screening interview were not asked
previous activity questions, so it was
necessary to impute their responses.
Twelve percent of people who had ever
hunted reported hunting in 2016 prior
to the screening interview and 20% of
people who had ever fished reported
fishing in 2016 prior to the screening
interview, so their recruitment and
retention responses had to be imputed.
The imputations were based on the
responses of similar respondents in the
three previous Surveys. For example,
the proportion of screened respondents
who had hunted or fished by the time of
the screen and had participated in the
previous year was very similar in the
three previous Surveys (for hunting,
91% in 2011, 92% in 2006, and 92% in
2001. For fishing, 85% in 2011, 89% in
2006, and 90% in 2001), so that average of
those proportions was applied to the 2016
Survey respondents. A similar method
was used to impute first timers. Four
percent of 2011 anglers at the time of the
screening interview fished for the first
time in 2010, 4% of 2006 anglers first-time
fished in 2005, and 3% of 2001 anglers
first-time fished in 2000. Four percent of
2011 hunters at the time of the screening
interview hunted for the first time in
2010, 3% of 2006 hunters first-time
hunted in 2005, and 3% of 2001 hunters
first-time hunted in 2000.
USFWS
Recruitment and Retention of Hunters and Anglers: 2000-2015 15
Summary
Since the beginning of the Survey in
1955, the number of anglers has more
than doubled and the number of hunters
has slightly increased. This is evidence
for the long term stability of these
outdoor recreation activities. However,
given that the U.S. population nearly
doubled from 1955 to 2016, the trend in
the proportions of the U.S. population
who hunt or fish gives a different picture
of the ongoing popularity of these
activities. The hunting participation rate
has fallen from nearly 9% in 1960 to 4.5%
in 2016. The fishing participation rate has
risen and fallen, from 12% in 1955, to 18%
in 1991, and recently 14% in 2016.
The Survey also measures the
participation of wildlife watchers. The
comparable estimates go back to 1991,
when 77 million people closely observe
Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus Jewell & Leschen 2004, n. sp.
No full text<i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i> n. sp. <p>Figures 1–2, 4a</p> <p> <i>Type Material</i></p> <p> HOLOTYPE (juvenile female, NMNZ, Re. 2514): New Zealand, SL, southern branch of Spence Burn, Takitimu Mts, grid ref. NZMG 21099 57879, 45°42S, 167°51E, 1140m, 14 March 1996, Tony Jewell, <i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i> Jewell & Leschen HOLOTYPE, 2004.</p> <p> <i>Additional Material Examined</i></p> <p> <i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i> (<i>n</i> = 6): <b>New Zealand, SL (Southland):</b> same data as Holotype, 1 live (captive), 5 live (wild). <i>Hoplodactylus nebulosus</i> (<i>n</i> =14): <b>New Zealand, SI (Stewart Island)</b>: Big Island, 47°08S, 167°31E, D49 20945 53275, 5 (1 live captive; 4 live wild, examined from photographs); NMNZ Re. 1569, 3; NMNZ G.549, 1; NMNZ G.550, 1; Kundy Island, 47°07S, 167°33E, D49 20965 53295, NMNZ Re. 93, 1 (holotype); Stewart Island, OM A98.91 1, (paratype, examined from photographs); Zero Rock, 46°48S, 168°14E, E48 21466 53666, 1 (live captive); Womens Island, NMNZ G.203, 46°49S, 168°14E, E48 21470 53655, 1.</p> <p> <i>Diagnosis</i></p> <p> A medium­sized <i>Hoplodactylus</i> (86–87mm SVL); mouth lining bright orange with a pink tongue; tail shorter than SVL; body scales minute (average length 0.002 x SVL); 1–2 internasal scales present; colour pattern grey with variable markings involving an overall herringboned pattern, often decorated with (or replaced by) irregular orange patches. Distinguished from all described congeners by the combination of mouth colour and tail length.</p> <p> <i>Description</i></p> <p> <i>Shape and Proportions</i></p> <p>Measurements of Holotype: live, 63.6mm SVL, 56.2mm tail length; preserved, 60.0mm SVL, 55.0mm tail length. Body stout, limbs slender, pentadactyl; SVL of fully grown adults 86–87mm; intact tail cyclindrical, moderately stout but tapering, distinctly shorter (82–91%) than SVL; adult live weight 16.2–18.4 grams.</p> <p>Head oviform, 0.87–1.08x longer than broad, forehead flat or slightly convex; snout flat or slightly concave; eye relatively small (diameter about 0.2x head width); not prominent in profile; pupil vertical with slightly serrated margins, eyebrows (= brillar fringe) prominent (width at widest point about 0.4x eye diameter); ear opening of moderate size, 1.5x longer than deep, length 0.5x eye diameter, axis horizontal pointing slightly up and back; distance from snout to eye equal to or slightly longer than distance from eye to ear.</p> <p> Digits tapering very gradually from sole to claw with faint webbing connecting bases of digits 2–4; proximal portion slightly dilated, the margin between proximal and distal portions indistinct on 1 st digit; 4 th digit the longest (0.08–0.10x SVL) on all limbs, first digit the shortest; 4 th toe of hind foot 3.7x longer than broad, length of dilated portion 0.6x total length of toe, width of dilated portion 1.7x width of distal attenuation.</p> <p> <i>Scales</i></p> <p> Mouth bordered by large and prominent labial scales, each equal or less than as wide as long, 11–13 upper and 10–12 lower, separated at the tip of the snout by a large rostral and mental respectively; rostral 2x wider than deep, subrectangular, touching the nostrils in the upper corners, partially divided in the centre by a short cleft (0.4x rostral depth) extending from the upper margin; nostril also bordered by 4 (usual) or 5 nasals of which the anterior, inner­most is the largest, and the first labial; there are one large (usual) or two small primary internasals followed by 4, 5 (usual) or 6 secondary internasals of varying size; mental about 1.7x wider than deep, trapezium­shaped, usually partially divided by a median cleft (up to half as long as the mental is deep) extending from the posterior margin; one medium­sized postmental separating the 1 st infralabials.</p> <p> All digits have straight lamellae on the undersurface of dilated proximal portion, with between 7–12 (usually 9–11) unbroken lamellae on the 4 th toe of the hind foot; apical plates undivided, slightly enlargened on 1 st digit only.</p> <p>Dorsal body scales minute, regular, juxtaposed, conical with domed tips, slightly broader than long, average length 0.002 x SVL, becoming slightly larger laterally; dorsal snout scales minute, similar in size to dorsal body scales, becoming slightly larger towards labials and nasals, regular; throat scales slightly smaller than dorsal scales; ventral body scales approximately twice the size of dorsal scales (average length 0.005x SVL), sub­flattened, mostly juxtaposed but a few subimbricate, distinctively broader than long; precloacal scales about twice the size of belly scales, each perforated with a single pore (consistently in males, inconsistently in females), forming a subtriangular patch 6–7 deep x 23–26 wide in males (up to 28 wide in females), extending onto femora for about a quarter to a third of their length; postcloacal scales slightly larger again, flattened, hexagonal or with rounded posterior margin, base of tail with 2–3 cloacal spurs (slightly enlargened in females, greatly so in males) with pointed to chisel­edged tips; tail scales 2–3x size of dorsal body scales, subimbricate, roughly pentagonal, arranged in whorls around the tail, becoming larger and more regular ventrally, with visible autonomy septa every 8–9 rows across basal half of tail (10–11 in total).</p> <p> <i>Colour</i></p> <p>Skin opaque in all colour phases. Ground colour light grey; one subadult male had a pale olive tint, and the juvenile holotype ranged between light grey and dark brown. Frequently marked with two­tone orange colouration which may consist of irregularly scattered spots, broad expanses around the primary markings (Fig. 2), or may almost entirely replace the ground colour and primary markings; orange markings less extensive on ventral surfaces, and so far only recorded from males (present on 4 of 5 males). Individuals may change colour between lighter and darker tones, and in its darkest brown phase the holotype developed a deep reddish­pink overtone along the lower lateral margins of the body and tail.</p> <p>Primary dorsal markings a paler shade of the ground colour and sometimes outlined with blackish shadings, consisting of a row of patches arranged in a herringbone configuration (angling forwards from on or near the midline) along either side of the back, sometimes meeting to create a sharp chevron across the midline, and sometimes with a large, paler spot on the lateral extremity; these patches range in shape from narrow bars to narrow triangles, broad triangles, or irregular blotches and are frequently linked longitudinally to create rough­edged dorso­lateral stripes. Usually a series of pale latero­ventral spots present.</p> <p>On the top of the head the primary markings form a single complex marking on either side, leaving a broad dark median patch on the back of the head, a dark V­shaped mark linking the eyes, and a dark double­triangle (sometimes indistinct or merging into a single mark) linking the front of the eyes across the base of the snout; snout patterned with narrow or broad, pale canthal stripes commonly link in the middle with a backward­pointing chevron to create an irregular pale M­shaped patch across the snout. A dull to bright stripe connects the eye and ear. The jaws have pale colouration extending forwards from below the eye, sometimes almost to the nostrils.</p> <p>Tail patterned with a continuation of the body markings but usually less regular (especially towards the tip) and commonly with two narrowly separated stripes along the anterior 1/4–3/4. Limbs and upper surfaces of feet and toes coloured as for body but markings small and mostly irregular.</p> <p>Venter pale grey, sometimes with a pale yellow or pink wash, or grey­brown (holotype), with pale and indistinct grey­white mottling and flecks, sometimes also with indistinct mid­grey speckles; markings more prominent on tail; throat uniform or with barely discernable speckling; undersurface of feet and toes orange­brown to light orange; precloacal scales sometimes pale yellow.</p> <p>Iris ranges from mid to dark brown with a dark filigree pattern, sometimes becoming grey­brown at the edges, and bordered (just beneath the surrounding skin, but visible when the skin is gently eased back) by a thin black ring. Mouth lining bright orange; throat lining blackish­grey. Tongue pink, usually with a large grey or indigo patch across the anterior half, anterior edges sometimes speckled with orange.</p> <p> <i>Etymology</i></p> <p> The name <i>cryptozoicus</i>, masculine and used as an adjective, is derived from a combination of the Greek words <i>kryptos</i> (hidden) and <i>zoikos</i> (living), referring to the subsurface scree habitat. The common name, Takitimu gecko, is derived from the type locality. Takitimu is derived from Maori folklore and is the name of the ancestral waka (canoe) that was swamped by waves and grounded at the mouth of the Waiau River. According to the mythology of the Murihiku people, the Takitimu Mountains is the waka turned into stone.</p> <p> <i>Comments</i></p> <p> Among the described <i>Hoplodactylus</i>, <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> differs clearly from most species in morphology and its terrestrial habits and presence in the alpine zone. It is most similar to the Stewart Island species <i>H. nebulosus</i> (McCann) and the more widespread species <i>H. granulatus</i> by the sharing of similar colouration and the presence of orange or yellow mouth lining, a character which is also shared with the species <i>H. kahutarae,</i> a group that appears to form a monophyletic group based on this character and 16Sr RNA data (Hitchmough 1997; Chambers et al. 2001). <i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i>, though, is probably most closely related to <i>H. nebulosus</i> based on the sharing of grey pigment on tongue, a unique character in the narrow­toed group of the genus, as well as a lightly mottled undersurface. Table 1 provides a full list of differences between the species and Fig. 4 illustrates some of the difference in colour pattern. <i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i> is larger than <i>H. nebulosus</i>, and has a distinctly shorter tail. The body scales are much smaller, so much so that specimens of <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> have a noticeably smoother texture than similar­sized examples of <i>H. nebulosus</i>. Adult <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> are slate grey or orange in colour, whereas <i>H. nebulosus</i> are typically olive­grey or brown, and never have orange markings.</p> <p>The original specimen of Takitimu gecko, a large juvenile female (Fig. 1), died after five months in captivity and was preserved in good condition. In January 2000 an adult male (Fig. 2) was collected live to facilitate behavioural studies and is currently being held at the Southland Museum and Art Gallery, Invercargill. Another five examples (one adult female and four subadult males) were examined live by the author and released at the type locality. While a larger series of specimens would normally be preferable before attempting a taxonomic description, the Takitimu gecko is listed as “nationally critical” (Hitchmough 2002) and further collection to obtain museum specimens is illegal. Perhaps when a more thorough revision of the geckos of New Zealand is initated, with the intention of a more critical evaluation of morphological characters (including osteology), then permission to collect material could be obtained.</p> <p> <i>Natural History and Evolution</i></p> <p>The type locality (Fig. 3) is a steep, south­facing scree slope, which is surrounded by alpine herbfield/short tussock communities, and is isolated from other scree systems in the mountain range. Specimens were found in channels of medium sized rocks (about 20 cm), often close to small islands of vegetation, between 1130–1150m. The climate is characterized by a long cold winter, a high rate of precipitation, exceeding 2500mm, much of which falls as snow, frequent cloud and fog cover, low sunshine hours, and frequent strong winds (Evans 1969; pers. obs.).</p> <p> Field observations of specimens found on the scree surface suggest <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> is saxicolous (rock­inhabiting) and is at least partially nocturnal; one specimen, found beneath a rock by day, may have been sun basking. However, excepting these occasional examples found on the scree surface, it has proven virtually impossible to study the species; the extent and nature of its activity beneath the surface of the scree is unknown.</p> <p>The single adult female found in mid January 2000, was palpated and found to be carrying two, small, but clearly discernable, embryos. Vocalization has been recorded on rare occasions, and only among males when being handled. The call is in the form of a soft chirp.</p> <p> <i>Hoplodactylus cryptozoicus</i> is the likely sister species of <i>H. nebulosus</i> based on the morphological characters listed above, and this hypothesis is supported by unpublished phylogenetic data based on mitochondrial 16S rRNA and cytochrome­b genes (R.A. Hitchmough pers. comm. 2000). This pair of taxa form a group with <i>H. kahutarae</i>, a species restricted to the Seaward and Inland Kaikoura Ranges in Marlborough and Mt. Arthur in Northwest Nelson (Whitaker <i>et al</i>. 1999), and the widespread species <i>H. granulatus</i>, by the sharing of an orange­pigmented mouth.</p> <p> The two sister species occur on separate islands: <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> occurs well inland on the South Island, while <i>H. nebulosus</i> occurs 100–180km further south, on the opposite side of the Foveaux Strait, in the Stewart Island archipelago. These two species may be derived from a more widespread ancestor that was once located in the southern portion of the south island. Though relatively recent, the development of the Foveaux Strait 11,000 years ago (M. Marra, pers. com) may have acted as a barrier to restrict gene flow in the ancestral population that resulted in the formation of two species. Another consideration is that the divergence between <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> and <i>H. nebulosus</i> could have been associated with an ecological shift from an ancestral forest­dwelling and arboreal species to the alpine and saxicolous habit of <i>H. cryptozoicus</i>. The morphological and ecological differences between <i>H. cryptozoicus</i> and <i>H. nebulosus</i> (Table 1) suggests a more ancient divergence, but any questions about the rates of speciation and ecological shifts in the genus requires a robust phylogeny that includes all of the <i>Hoplodactylus</i> species.</p>Published as part of <i>Jewell, Tony R. & Leschen, Richard A. B., 2004, A new species of Hoplodactylus (Reptilia: Pygopodidae) from the Takitimu Mountains, South Island, New Zealand, pp. 1-11 in Zootaxa 792 (1)</i> on pages 2-10, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.792.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/5495868">http://zenodo.org/record/5495868</a>
On the Problem of Vague Terms: A Glossary of Clearly Stated Assumptions & Careful, Patient, Descriptions
No full textCoase 1930 endures through the decades as one of the most-cited papers in economics due to the fact that it highlights a fundamental and equally enduring problem: "Economic theory has suffered in the past from a failure to state clearly its assumptions. Economists in building up a theory have often omitted to examine the foundations on which it was erected. This examination is, however, essential not only to prevent the misunderstanding and needless controversy which arise from a lack of knowledge of the assumptions on which a theory is based, but also because of the extreme importance for economics of good judgement in choosing between rival sets of assumptions." In 1944 Von Neumann and Morgenstern offered the simply, yet invariably rejected solution: "In… economics the most fruitful work may be that of careful, patient description; indeed this may be by far the largest domain for the present and some time to come….Economic problems [have been and are often] not formulated clearly and are often stated in such vague terms as to make mathematical treatment a priori appear hopeless because it is quite uncertain what the problems really are. There is no point in using exact methods where there is no clarity in the concepts and issues to which they are to be applied. Consequently the initial task is to clarify the knowledge of the matter by further careful descriptive work." This paper offers a stone along the path to the solution to this problem by offering a glossary in this spirit, a glossary germain to some of the most fundamental, open problems in economics. As the fate of the human race may lay in the balance to finding solutions to these problems, this glossary may be a steop in the right direction.economic terms; methodology; scientific method; coase 1930; Von Neumann & Morgenstern 1944; definitions; careful, patient descriptions
