Fieberg, John RWhite, Kevin S2015-03-272015-03-272015-03-27https://hdl.handle.net/11299/170863The archive consists of 9 files: 1. WA_elk.R = R code used to analyze elk resighting data. 2. WA_elk.html = html output resulting from running the R code in WA_elk.R. 3. Mtg_AK_WA.R = R code used to analyze mountain goat resighting data. 4. Mtg_AK_WA.html = html output resulting from running the R code in Mtg_AK_WA.R. 5. Moose_MN.R = R code used to analyze moose resighting data. 6. Moose_MN.html = html output resulting from running the R code in Moose_MN.R. 7. sightdat.csv = resighting data collected from moose in Minnesota between 2004 and 2007. 8. MTG_Sight_Alaska.csv = resighting data collected from mountain goats in Alaska. 9. NE_MN_Map.pdf = map of collection region for moose resighting data.These files contain R code (along with associated output from running the code) supporting all results reported in "Do Capture and Survey Methods Influence Whether Marked Animals are Representative of Unmarked Animals?" in Wildlife Society Bulletin. The lead author wrote this code to analyze multi-year re-sighting data collected from moose (Alces alces) in Minnesota, elk (Cervus elaphus) in Washington, and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in Washington and Alaska, to evaluate whether detection probabilities increased or decreased as a function of time since animals were captured.Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United Stateshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/R CodeSightability modelcapture-related stressabundance estimationdetectionDatasethttp://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6Z597