|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 12:59:44 GMT -5
Humor me .....
They say that there were 154,303 deer hunters ... based on their survey results they conclude the following:
0 – 43.5% of hunters killed zero deer. 1 – 30% of hunters killed 1 deer. (a single deer by 30% of 154303 is 46290) 2 – 12.2% of hunters killed 2 deer (two deer by 12.2% of 154303 is 37649) 3 – 5.6% of hunters killed 3 deer (three deer by 5.6% of 154303 is 25922) 4- 2.4% of hunters killed 4 deer (four deer by 2.4% of 154303 is 14812) 5 -0.9% of hunters killed 5 deer (five deer by .9% of 154303 is 6943) 6 - 0.5% of hunters killed 6 deer (six deer by .5% of 154303 is 4629) 7 – 0.2% of hunters killed 7 deer (seven deer by .2% of 154303 is 2160) 8 + - 0.6% of hunters killed 8 or more deer (eight deer by .6% of 154303 is 7406)
How am I doing so far? You seem to really believe Im just not seeing something so lets figure out what that might be and help me see the light.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 13:00:04 GMT -5
The above equals 145,821 deer which is well above the actual kill of 134,004 that you mentioned above.
If there were roughly 10,000 unaccounted for hunters that pursued deer that year the numbers would change to something like this ......
0 – 43.5% of hunters killed zero deer. 1 – 30% of hunters killed 1 deer. (a single deer by 30% of 165000 is 49500) 2 – 12.2% of hunters killed 2 deer (two deer by 12.2% of 165000 is 40260) 3 – 5.6% of hunters killed 3 deer (three deer by 5.6% of 165000 is 27720) 4- 2.4% of hunters killed 4 deer (four deer by 2.4% of 165000 is 15840) 5 -0.9% of hunters killed 5 deer (five deer by .9% of 165000 is 7425) 6 - 0.5% of hunters killed 6 deer (six deer by .5% of 165000 is 4950) 7 – 0.2% of hunters killed 7 deer (seven deer by .2% of 165000 is 2310) 8 + - 0.6% of hunters killed 8 or more deer (eight deer by .6% of 165000 is 7920)
A total number of deer killed of 155925 if the same percentages were used .....
But yet you say the number of hunters does not matter that the survey takes all into account?
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 13:28:33 GMT -5
The above equals 145,821 deer which is well above the actual kill of 134,004 that you mentioned above. If there were roughly 10,000 unaccounted for hunters that pursued deer that year the numbers would change to something like this ...... 0 – 43.5% of hunters killed zero deer. 1 – 30% of hunters killed 1 deer. (a single deer by 30% of 165000 is 49500) 2 – 12.2% of hunters killed 2 deer (two deer by 12.2% of 165000 is 40260) 3 – 5.6% of hunters killed 3 deer (three deer by 5.6% of 165000 is 27720) 4- 2.4% of hunters killed 4 deer (four deer by 2.4% of 165000 is 15840) 5 -0.9% of hunters killed 5 deer (five deer by .9% of 165000 is 7425) 6 - 0.5% of hunters killed 6 deer (six deer by .5% of 165000 is 4950) 7 – 0.2% of hunters killed 7 deer (seven deer by .2% of 165000 is 2310) 8 + - 0.6% of hunters killed 8 or more deer (eight deer by .6% of 165000 is 7920) A total number of deer killed of 155925 if the same percentages were used ..... But yet you say the number of hunters does not matter that the survey takes all into account? I am saying that the survey gives a representation of the percentage of hunters that took X amount of deer, statewide. Exactly what the survey was supposed to represent. Interestingly, after reading more of the study (have you read it?), they actually did include Lifetime License holders in the population size. The percentages are not meant to be used to calculate the total harvest, therefore it's not fair to the data to hold it accountable to such. This is because a large amount of people responded "I don't know" when asked "How many deer did you kill." It bewilders me that some people answered that way, but it is what it is. Yet, even though those percentages shouldn't be used, they were still only off by ~8%, which is dang near the 5% confidence interval they quoted. Again, pretty dang accurate representation.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 28, 2016 13:36:39 GMT -5
Either way it still seems like the fact some want to argue a miniscule percentage of hunters harvest the majority is a little over blown.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 13:37:40 GMT -5
8% is a 60% variance from their target 5% ... is it not? You think 60% off is pretty dang accurate?
Just stop. For the love of Pete ....
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 13:41:39 GMT -5
Either way it still seems like the fact some want to argue a miniscule percentage of hunters harvest the majority is a little over blown. All Im saying is that our overall success rate is not 56.5%.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 13:42:39 GMT -5
Either way it still seems like the fact some want to argue a miniscule percentage of hunters harvest the majority is a little over blown. All Im saying is that our overall success rate is not 56.5%. All I'm saying is that it is, Pete. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 13:44:45 GMT -5
8% is a 60% variance from their target 5% ... is it not? You think 60% off is pretty dang accurate? Just stop. For the love of Pete .... You obviously don't understand. And that's OK. But I won't stop.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 13:48:02 GMT -5
is 8 not 60% more than 5? Ive given you ample opportunity to help me see the light .... you can start at any time.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 13:52:03 GMT -5
a 60% error is pretty darn accurate.
The number of deer killed does not matter.
The percentages of successful hunters should not be used to calculate the number of deer killed.
Actually ... never mind. Ya wore me down. Have a wonderful day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 14:29:07 GMT -5
The above equals 145,821 deer which is well above the actual kill of 134,004 that you mentioned above. If there were roughly 10,000 unaccounted for hunters that pursued deer that year the numbers would change to something like this ...... 0 – 43.5% of hunters killed zero deer. 1 – 30% of hunters killed 1 deer. (a single deer by 30% of 165000 is 49500) 2 – 12.2% of hunters killed 2 deer (two deer by 12.2% of 165000 is 40260) 3 – 5.6% of hunters killed 3 deer (three deer by 5.6% of 165000 is 27720) 4- 2.4% of hunters killed 4 deer (four deer by 2.4% of 165000 is 15840) 5 -0.9% of hunters killed 5 deer (five deer by .9% of 165000 is 7425) 6 - 0.5% of hunters killed 6 deer (six deer by .5% of 165000 is 4950) 7 – 0.2% of hunters killed 7 deer (seven deer by .2% of 165000 is 2310) 8 + - 0.6% of hunters killed 8 or more deer (eight deer by .6% of 165000 is 7920) A total number of deer killed of 155925 if the same percentages were used ..... But yet you say the number of hunters does not matter that the survey takes all into account? What's your hunter success rate in the above scenario? Guess what, still 56.5%.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 14:31:45 GMT -5
And 20,000 more than the known number of deer killed ....
But like I said ... ya wore me down. Have a great day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 14:35:32 GMT -5
a 60% error is pretty darn accurate. The number of deer killed does not matter. The number of deer killed does not matter. The percentages of successful hunters should not be used to calculate the number of deer killed. Actually ... never mind. Ya wore me down. Have a wonderful day. The 60% is relative, doesn't mean much. Never said the number of deer killed does not matter. And yes, the percentages of successful hunters (according to this survery, not in general) should not be used to calculate the number of deer killed. This is due to 4.1% of the surveyed saying "I don't know how many deer I killed".
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 14:41:32 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how many were killed overall, it only matters how many were killed by those that participated in the survey. Yet, even though those percentages shouldn't be used, they were still only off by ~8%, which is dang near the 5% confidence interval they quoted. Again, pretty dang accurate representation. But like I said ... ya wore me down. Have a wonderfully wonderful day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 14:42:57 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how many were killed overall, it only matters how many were killed by those that participated in the survey. Yet, even though those percentages shouldn't be used, they were still only off by ~8%, which is dang near the 5% confidence interval they quoted. Again, pretty dang accurate representation. But like I said ... ya wore me down. Have a wonderfully wonderful day. Sure you can take stuff out of context and make it sound like anything you want. You would make a great political advertiser!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 14:45:07 GMT -5
I pasted the entire sentence and the posts themselves are in this very thread ... not sure how that is out of context but Ill go with whatever you say.
Ya wore me down .... have a fantastically fantastical day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 14:50:09 GMT -5
I pasted the entire sentence and the posts themselves are in this very thread ... not sure how that is out of context but Ill go with whatever you say. Ya wore me down .... have a fantastically fantastical day. Yes, you did, but you didn't post what I was responding to, which was describing why the survey percentages are independent to overall deer killed. And the whole 5% vs 8% thing I already explained...the difference between 8% and 5% is 3%. Their target was 5% for actual data, not including "I Don't knows", which was 4.1%... I don't care if you're not getting it, or wore down. I'll keep typing the same facts over and over again so people reading this don't get confused by your misunderstandings.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 14:51:31 GMT -5
lol ... facts.
haha .... misunderstandings.
hehe ... the difference between 5 and 8 is 3 percent.
Have a great day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 14:57:39 GMT -5
lol ... facts. haha .... misunderstandings. hehe ... the difference between 5 and 8 is 3 percent. Have a great day. You laugh, I laugh. Everyone else reading this will see who's using reason and who's trying to play devil's advocate, unsuccessfully.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 14:59:18 GMT -5
I feel confident in my case and the numbers Ive laid out .... confident enough that my initial opinion is unchanged.
Ive also had an enjoyable time with this entire conversation. Thank you.
Have a wonderful day.
|
|