|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 6:12:30 GMT -5
Again, I disagree. Not much more to say than that....
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 10:45:03 GMT -5
Again, I disagree. Not much more to say than that.... Ok, that's fine. I don't know what else I could say to prove its accuracy. It's statistics, it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5
Again, I disagree. Not much more to say than that.... Ok, that's fine. I don't know what else I could say to prove its accuracy. It's statistics, it is what it is. Exactly....the folks that done the survey is a very large know firm.... They didn't just do something wrong !!! Only way some may want to believe the results is if everyone was surveyed!!!! That don't need to happen to have accurate results!
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 10:53:47 GMT -5
Ok, that's fine. I don't know what else I could say to prove its accuracy. It's statistics, it is what it is. Exactly....the folks that done the survey is a very large know firm.... They didn't just do something wrong !!! Only way some may want to believe the results is if everyone was surveyed!!!! That don't need to happen to have accurate results! Yup.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 11:14:50 GMT -5
You admit that there is no way for the DNR to know exactly how many LL and Landowners persue deer each year and then continue to try and convince me that a statistic that relies on that unknown number for accuracy is indeed accurate.
lol ....
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 11:39:33 GMT -5
You admit that there is no way for the DNR to know exactly how many LL and Landowners persue deer each year and then continue to try and convince me that a statistic that relies on that unknown number for accuracy is indeed accurate. lol .... The statistic doesn't rely on that number, though, that's where you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 11:42:12 GMT -5
Then the statistics are not an accurate representation of those who hunted deer and their success ... which is exactly what I have said all along. The statistics assume a total number of deer hunters and then use hard data of deer kill numbers and collected data from a survey to determine what percentage of that assumed number were successful and how successful. My opinion is that the assumed number they are using is not inclusive of all that pursued deer.
We can chase this tail all day long but Id rather not ....
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 11:49:38 GMT -5
Then the statistics are not an accurate representation of those who hunted deer and their success ... which is exactly what I have said all along. It is actually accurate though because they didn't survey EVERY person. The percentages are a representation of those surveyed, which can be extrapolated to represent the entire hunting population. It's kind of like pre-election polls, where a general area's vote can predict how the nation as a whole will vote, only this was done at 95% confidence, where I wouldn't give that kind of accuracy to voting. Does that help explain it better?
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 11:51:21 GMT -5
Then the statistics are not an accurate representation of those who hunted deer and their success ... which is exactly what I have said all along. The statistics assume a total number of deer hunters and then use hard data of deer kill numbers and collected data from a survey to determine what percentage of that assumed number were successful and how successful. My opinion is that the assumed number they are using is not inclusive of all that pursued deer. We can chase this tail all day long but Id rather not .... There are no assumed numbers in the percentages, it's all based on hard data from the survey.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 11:56:39 GMT -5
Then the statistics are not an accurate representation of those who hunted deer and their success ... which is exactly what I have said all along. The statistics assume a total number of deer hunters and then use hard data of deer kill numbers and collected data from a survey to determine what percentage of that assumed number were successful and how successful. My opinion is that the assumed number they are using is not inclusive of all that pursued deer. We can chase this tail all day long but Id rather not .... There are no assumed numbers in the percentages, it's all based on hard data from the survey. Never said differently ... the assumed number was their total number of deer hunters which I belive to be low considering, as you agreed, they do not know exactly how many LL and Landowners pursued deer that year. Seriously, I dont want to keep chasing this tail.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 11:58:13 GMT -5
Thats because your wrong....
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 11:58:25 GMT -5
Then the statistics are not an accurate representation of those who hunted deer and their success ... which is exactly what I have said all along. It is actually accurate though because they didn't survey EVERY person. The percentages are a representation of those surveyed, which can be extrapolated to represent the entire hunting population. It's kind of like pre-election polls, where a general area's vote can predict how the nation as a whole will vote, only this was done at 95% confidence, where I wouldn't give that kind of accuracy to voting. Does that help explain it better? But the total number of deer killed is a static, never changing number. No matter how far off they may be on the number of people who actually pursued deer the number of deer killed does not change.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 11:58:31 GMT -5
There are no assumed numbers in the percentages, it's all based on hard data from the survey. Never said differently ... the assumed number was their total number of deer hunters which I belive to be low considering, as you agreed, they do not know exactly how many LL and Landowners pursued deer that year. Seriously, I dont want to keep chasing this tail. Yes, the total number of hunters may be low, but that number WOULD NOT AFFECT THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY...not sure how many times I have to type that.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 11:59:03 GMT -5
Thats because your wrong.... Greg, If ive ever given you the impression that I value your opinion I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 12:01:01 GMT -5
It is actually accurate though because they didn't survey EVERY person. The percentages are a representation of those surveyed, which can be extrapolated to represent the entire hunting population. It's kind of like pre-election polls, where a general area's vote can predict how the nation as a whole will vote, only this was done at 95% confidence, where I wouldn't give that kind of accuracy to voting. Does that help explain it better? But the total number of deer killed is a static, never changing number. No matter how far off they may be on the number of people who actually pursued deer the number of deer killed does not change. Doesn't matter how many were killed overall, it only matters how many were killed by those that participated in the survey.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 12:08:14 GMT -5
Thats because your wrong.... Greg, If ive ever given you the impression that I value your opinion I apologize. No problem.... I just usually consider the source!!! I really had expected you to MAN up and say your wrong... We been down that road before... Carry on!!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 12:09:41 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how many were killed overall, it only matters how many were killed by those that participated in the survey. wow, really? It doesnt matter if the number of hunters is low and it doesnt matter how many deer were killed? One is an unchanging, known number. The other is of singular importance to determine what percentage of that number was successful in that killing of that first known number.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 12:12:59 GMT -5
Greg, If ive ever given you the impression that I value your opinion I apologize. No problem.... I just usually consider the source!!! I really had expected you to MAN up and say your wrong... We been down that road before... Carry on!! Love the !!! .... theyre cute. Have a terrific day little buddy.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 12:16:11 GMT -5
wow, really? It doesnt matter if the number of hunters is low and it doesnt matter how many deer were killed? One is an unchanging, known number. The other is of singular importance to determine what percentage of that number was successful in that killing of that first known number. You're missing a very important key about this study, it's based on about 8500 replies to a survey. The percentages are based on the replies from this survey, only. So for the total number of hunters, you would use the total amount of hunters surveyed, and for the total number of deer killed, you use the number of deer killed by those that participated in the survey. Now, this is what is called a SAMPLE, and in this case, the sample will 95% accurately predict the outcome if you were to actually survey every single hunter in the state. This is how statistics work. And it is very accurate.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 12:54:08 GMT -5
No problem.... I just usually consider the source!!! I really had expected you to MAN up and say your wrong... We been down that road before... Carry on!! Love the !!! .... theyre cute. Have a terrific day little buddy. Having Great Day in Luling,LA..... With live intertamement from IN.... Picking them up and puting them down! ![](http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l291/greghopper/5EBF606E-C2A6-42DC-824D-8EE5CC4AF3B7_zpsy9zesg7n.jpg) ![](http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l291/greghopper/FF14CDCD-6797-4E55-9690-6E7DF1FC0FBF_zpssiuu1syl.jpg)
|
|