|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 15:00:40 GMT -5
I feel confident in my case and the numbers Ive laid out .... have a wonderful day. Which is fine, but I am in mine and have science and statistics on my side. You have...an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 28, 2016 15:02:51 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. False, some unlike Swilk decided to just silently watch ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 15:05:00 GMT -5
Which is fine, but I am in mine and have science and statistics on my side. You have...an opinion. lol ... science and statistics. Ive not laughed this hard in some time ... seriously. Thank you. Have a terrific day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 15:06:03 GMT -5
You laugh, I laugh. Everyone else reading this will see who's using reason and who's trying to play devil's advocate, unsuccessfully. False, some unlike Swilk decided to just silently watch That's fine, if anyone else disagrees and has an argument against the survey, I would love to hear it. If you choose not to challenge it, that's your choice. After reading the study, it is obvious they took everything into account that was physically possible and was very well done. I think it should be done every year and would be a great tool to gauge how our hunters are doing.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 15:08:19 GMT -5
lol ... science and statistics. Ive not laughed this hard in some time ... seriously. Thank you. Have a terrific day. Yep, science and statistics.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 17:36:54 GMT -5
Digging further into the data, 33% of the respondents reported that they hunted on land they owned, or someone in their household owned, ie they used a landowner's license. Pretty decent representation.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 28, 2016 19:08:24 GMT -5
Which is fine, but I am in mine and have science and statistics on my side. You have...an opinion. lol ... science and statistics. Ive not laughed this hard in some time ... seriously. Thank you. Have a terrific day. Swilk, ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Now that you've got your head around statistics, we can move on to quantum physics. Steve
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 28, 2016 19:11:06 GMT -5
Swilk, ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Now that you've got your head around statistics, we can move on to quantum physics. Steve I've got Steven Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time" on my bookshelf. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 19:15:09 GMT -5
Watched The Theory of Everything recently.... fantastic movie about that man.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 28, 2016 19:16:38 GMT -5
Watched The Theory of Everything recently.... fantastic movie about that man. I see what you did there ![(rofl)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/rofl.png)
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 19:22:33 GMT -5
Two life's works....first to prove something and then to take on the task of trying to disprove that very same thing. Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 28, 2016 19:25:36 GMT -5
Seriously though, i read this whole thread and you guys got off track on the first page somewhere. I was taught two semesters of statistics clear back in 1970 on my way to a degree in Wildlife Biology and it is a valid science for determining trends when trying to manage such an unmanagable thing as population dynamics which is all wildlife Biology is. It does allow for a lot of assumptions but through backtesting and allowing error extrapolation become a quite valid science.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 19:35:34 GMT -5
If it was done each and every year it would likely line itself out. Given this single sample, the assumptions and the variables involved, I think the conclusions are high.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 28, 2016 20:08:53 GMT -5
If it was done each and every year it would likely line itself out. Given this single sample, the assumptions and the variables involved, I think the conclusions are high. You can think what you want. No problem with that, and you are right the more times the statistics are run the more valid they become. All one needs to understand, forget about the numbers, is that the guy who ran it was trying to verify an assumption to lend weight to a management decision he made or was about to make. I haven't read the entire report so I'm not sure what all it includes but I speculate it was run to verify the previous 4 or 5 yrs of assumptions/results when looking at such things as hunter success, county quotas etc. and to see if he wants to change anything for the next couple of years. Steve
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 20:27:06 GMT -5
There was a recent political poll in which a company was hired to conduct a scientific survey regarding a primary race. Their poll had a margin of error of +/-4.5 points and on election day it was proven their poll was off by 20 points.
It happens.
I take little on faith and always delve into the details to see how the person I trust most feels about the process and the results.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 20:52:22 GMT -5
Now where talking Polls..... The Plot thickens ... SMH
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2016 20:55:27 GMT -5
Don't shake it too hard....and ya need more !!!!.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 28, 2016 20:56:47 GMT -5
There was a recent political poll in which a company was hired to conduct a scientific survey regarding a primary race. Their poll had a margin of error of +/-4.5 points and on election day it was proven their poll was off by 20 points. It happens. I take little on faith and always delve into the details to see how the person I trust most feels about the process and the results. I think the same way but I find that the person I trust the most can even be wrong---can you believe that remember: the only thing wrong with the process of civilization is that it gets in the way of the process of natural selection. Later---Steve
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 28, 2016 21:45:00 GMT -5
Digging further into the data, 33% of the respondents reported that they hunted on land they owned, or someone in their household owned, ie they used a landowner's license. Pretty decent representation. Yep ..... But I am sure thats still not good enough for the Debbie Doubter's.
|
|