|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 29, 2016 14:41:56 GMT -5
I know the individual who will be writing this for the guide. I can guarantee you all that it will be in there as written in the law - nothing less or more... I would still think hilarious if the DNR said okay, law states we have to make a season for them.....1 hour on opening firearm day....noon - 1PM. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) hahaha! The wording was changed in an amendment to allow these rifles during the regular firearms seasons, instead of creating a new season.
|
|
|
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 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 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 15:00:40 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 13:28:33 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 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 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 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 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 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 11:39:33 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 arlowe13 on Mar 28, 2016 11:28:34 GMT -5
Is it known if/when the language will be "corrected"? Some time in June has been mentioned.
|
|