|
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 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 arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 21:00:20 GMT -5
I know that they are unable to determine exactly how many deer hunters there are...therefore they are unable to determine a percentage of deer hunters that were successful. LL and landowners combined is a pretty big number...those that killed are known those that hunted even once but did not kill are unknown. You are right, but the TOTAL number of LL and LO remains pretty constant, and for the purpose of the survey, not entirely a deal-breaker for accuracy. The purpose of sample size is that you can extrapolate out to the entire population with some certainty. They state in the report that they did so with a 95% confidence interval, I won't go into the details of how they came up with that number, but it means what it sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 20:51:43 GMT -5
I disagree. For every unknown unsuccessful hunter the overall success rate falls. Instead of an overall success rate of over 55% it is more likely 40% or slightly less....all other percentages drop as well. So you think there are nearly 58,000 hunters in that situation? That's A LOT. The fact is, you don't know what you don't know. The purpose of a statistical sample size is that you can accurately predict data without surveying EVERY subject in the population, in this case, deer hunters. There is a ton of research, entire doctorate degrees devoted to development of how to sample a population. I think this survey could be done every year and would still give us a good representation of what really going on during our deer seasons. If only because it's simple to do and can be repeated each year with general certainty.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 20:42:13 GMT -5
There isn't...that's what I'm getting at. And without knowing that the rest of the numbers are inaccurate. But, that number will probably remain pretty constant (statistically), so the survey is still a decent representation.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 20:36:32 GMT -5
I though we had more individual hunters than that. I guess not. How do they determine the number that hunted deer but never purchased a license and also did not kill a deer? I don't think there is any way for the DNR to know that number.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 20:29:25 GMT -5
How many deer hunters do we have? I assume those numbers are based solely on those that were part of the survey and shouldn't be interpreted to read that 56.5% of all hunters killed at least one deer? In 2010, there were 268,485 "opportunities" available. I guess that means that many tags were issued. 134,004 deer were taken. The report says that there were 154,303 individual hunters in Indiana that year. They surveyed 8,591, a decent sample size, statistically. The data pertaining to my question can be found on page 41. I found the report... www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-MR_1034_2010_Deer_Hunter_Survey.pdf
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 20:09:29 GMT -5
I thought I saw some data at some point on the DNR's website that showed how many hunters took 1 deer, 2 deer, 3 deer...etc. Am I dreaming this up or does this data actually exist? Can someone point me to it? Thanks, Alex Indiana Deer Harvested per hunter… Per Responsive Management Survey - 2010 0 – 43.5 % 1 – 30.0% 2 – 12.2% 3 – 5.6% 4- 2.4% 5 -0.9% 6 - 0.5 % 7 – 0.2% 8 + - 0.6% Does not add to 100% as some responded “Don’t Know”? How does someone not know how many deer they killed? Interesting, indeed. Did they only do this survey in 2010? Seems like this data could be pulled every year pretty easily.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 27, 2016 18:52:24 GMT -5
I thought I saw some data at some point on the DNR's website that showed how many hunters took 1 deer, 2 deer, 3 deer...etc.
Am I dreaming this up or does this data actually exist? Can someone point me to it?
Thanks,
Alex
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 26, 2016 9:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 18:39:09 GMT -5
I present my new .300, lol ![](http://4-riders.com/pics/Mix6/3050BMG001.jpg) And because why not... ![](http://i62.tinypic.com/oa58vk.jpg) ![](http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/12b.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 17:29:03 GMT -5
Multiple legislators know about the confusion in this bill, so I don't see them ignoring it. Then why did they not straighten it out before they voted? Deadlines, probably. Wanted to get it passed.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 17:24:52 GMT -5
SquirrelHunter, great rifle. It appears that the 30-06 has a big following! Alex, that suppressor ought to be a good one. It was created by SWR before SilencerCo bought them out. I used to have a SWR H.E.M.S. 45 suppressor and the quality was awesome. I really can't believe how effective the silencer is. You can truly remove your hearing protection to shoot it. A .308 sounding like a 22LR just don't seem right, but it is great for hunting, not having to wear earbuds or muffs.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 15:31:50 GMT -5
Ok... What's a .243 cartridge? There is no such thing. What's a .308 cartridge? There is no such thing. What's a .300 cartridge? There is no such thing. My point is, if there are no names attached to those "calibers", we really only have 2 "cartridges" legalized right now. Heck, even the .30-30 is techincally the .30-30 Win, and the .30-06 is technically the .30-06 Springfield. So, really, we have NO "cartridges" listed at this point. Until there is technical clarification (hopefully it happens), we may very well be in a predicament when it comes to interpretation of the law. They stated 5 cartridges, not calibers. That is my point. All this talk about did they mean this, and did they mean that - is just stupid. IMHO My hope is that the DNR scraps that part and just says .243 (or even .224 &up) caliber bullets with a case length of xxx & up. I agree, it would make much more sense to have bullet diameter and case length specifications like we do for the pistol cartridges. But, after watching most of the meetings and committees on the bill, it never would have passed if they had just opened it up to all round. They wanted a "trial" of sorts, hence the 4 year sunset. I think this bill is just a stepping stone to the broader acceptance of more rifle rounds being legalized.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 15:10:15 GMT -5
I can imagine the wildcats now! For the love of god people... it says CARTRIDGES! GOOGLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN - CARTRIDGES & CALIBERS FFS Ok... What's a .243 cartridge? There is no such thing. What's a .308 cartridge? There is no such thing. What's a .300 cartridge? There is no such thing. My point is, if there are no names attached to those "calibers", we really only have 2 "cartridges" legalized right now. Heck, even the .30-30 is techincally the .30-30 Win, and the .30-06 is technically the .30-06 Springfield. So, really, we have NO "cartridges" listed at this point. Until there is technical clarification (hopefully it happens), we may very well be in a predicament when it comes to interpretation of the law.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 24, 2016 12:06:52 GMT -5
My only legal rifle, but it will do. Ruger SR762. Viper PST 4-16. SilencerCo Omega. Loves to eat 178gr Hornadys.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 22, 2016 15:07:54 GMT -5
So now it has to go to a "technical day" and then on to the DNR to incorporate it in this years hunting regs correct? This "technical day" you speak of - is this where further clarification is going to be given on what specific cartridges are going to be legalized? For example, I'm curious if the ".300" cartridge is going to include more than just the .300 Win Mag; like it being expanded to also include the .300 AAC Blackout cartridge. Yes, the specific cartridges should be cleared up on that day.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 18, 2016 10:58:51 GMT -5
HEA 1231 is on the governor's desk. Deadline for him to act on it (sign or veto) is 3/24. If he signs or does nothing, it becomes law.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 16, 2016 16:49:32 GMT -5
I usually have shots less than 100 yards with my shotgun or muzzleloader. I've only shot one deer beyond 100 yards, and that was 16 years ago at Crane, but I still want to use a .308 for close-up work. It's not about added range for me. Not about range for me, either...Greater precision, better bullets, easier to use suppressor to save hearing. My .308 will make a great Indiana deer rifle, if I don't tag out in archery season again.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 13, 2016 9:53:26 GMT -5
Statewide, private ground, limited selection of calibers. Good,I'll have to recheck it,might use the 30-06 then,last I heard it was for Southern Indiana. It was amended again to be statewide.
|
|