ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Rsb, when the deception within every single comparison or data you present is clearly pointed out, it would take a true fool to believe it. When you compare years, yet leave out the highs and the lows. Or you compare very strategic years that hide the true trends. Or you you try to twist the numbers into meaning the exact opposite of what they mean. Or when you selectively group numbers together of both very high herdyears and very low totake the emphasis off the current lows.... Or when you speak badly about hunters on a continual basis...
The only "educating" you are doing is educating people on how extreme your position and how headstrong you are in your mission of treehugger agendas.
No that is just the misrepresentation of the facts spin that you and Bluebird use in your attempt to discredit the data since it doesn’t support the opinions you want people to believe.
I don’t leave data out. I generally use five year averages, when there is five years of data to use. I don’t remove any of the high years or the low years. I also use the five years periods, counting backwards from the most current year data was available, and then use each five year period back from that. When we had data that only when up to 2006 I used the years of 82-86, 87-91, 92-96, 97-01 and 02-06. Once the data for 2007 became available I used the years 83-87, 88-92, 93-97, 98-02 and 03-07.
If you consider that to be biased then you obviously have no idea about statistical analysis methods or procedure.
Once again I must say that just because you don’t like the data or that the data doesn’t support your ranting doesn’t mean the data is not accurate or that it is in any way biased. Should you find the data to be incorrect please provide the corrected data. Otherwise all you are doing it blowing smoke and have no data to support your opinions.
R.S. Bodenhorn