HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Pennsylvania deer kills drop

04-07-2009 | 02:33 PM

#155

BTBowhunter

Giant Nontypical

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 7,220

Likes: 0

From: SW PA USA

RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Here is the example I used to shown that a shift in sample size and location could not account for the 5% decrease in breeding rates and BTB's reply where is called me a liar for simply providing a mathematical example to illustrate the point I was making.

Quote:

quote:

original Bluebird2

For those that still believe that the shift in sample size is responsible for the 5% statewide decrease in breeding rates ,here is an example that shows that is simply impossible. If you take 3 WMUs with a breeding rate of 96% and 200 doe sampled and 3 WMUs with an 86% breeding rate and 100 does sampled the average breeding rate for all 6 WMUs is 92%.

Now if you reduce the sample size of the first 3 WMUs to 100 does sampled and keep the same breeding rate,while keeping the sample size in the other 3 WMUs constant, but increasing the breeding rate by just 4%, the average breeding rate for all six WMUs increases to 93.9%.

Therefore, despite the shift in sample sizes it is impossible to get a 5% decrease in breeding rates unless the statewide breeding rates decreased by at least 5% in most WMUs.

You claimed that RSB's explanation that sampling emphasis has shifted to areas with inherently lower breeding rates as an explanation for a drop in breeding rates was impossible. A fair way to present your case would have been to change sample size only. Sample size was cited as the reason for the change so to disprove RSB assertions, thats the only thing that should have been varied in your example. Your example wouldn't support your position with sampling emphasis being the only variable so you arbitrarily added in other changes to make your little formula produce the desired results.

This is a classic example of the old phrase "figures don't lie but liars can figure".

Most of your deceptions require more intense scrutiny to detect. This one was easier because you made the mistake of spelling out what you did in your calculations. Usually you hide it better when you do this kind of thing but you do it frequently.

Ahhh, once again, the bird has misquoted and provided his distorted version of the story. Notice he didn't link to it so that no one except a very determined reader would check it out. It is his MO to provide only the parts of a story that he wants us to see. I was raised to believe that half the truth or part of the story is tha same as a lie.

Whether the bird agrees with what I posted or not, I spelled out every step so that there was no misunderstanding or confusion as to how it was done. I spelled out every step to make it as clear as possible yet the bird accused me of lying. For anyone who cares, read it and decide for yourself. My conscience is clear.My opinion and the opinion of many in that thread was that Bluebirds posting was misleading and decptive. I welcome anyone who cares to decide for himself.

Here is the link to the page that is the object of this dispute. for anyone who cares to read it unedited.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=3288280&mpage=16&key==

Here is the post, cut and pasted, from that link with bluebirds calculations and my challenge of those calculations.

Quote:

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions - 1/20/2009 5:26:23 PM

showPicture("1/20/2009 4:26:23 PM",0,0,0,3288280,30)

BTBowhunter

titleAndStar(5684,0,false,false,"","")
Life Member

[align=center]

[/align]
Posts: 5684
Joined: 2/12/2003
From: SW PA USA
Status: offline

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

For those that still believe that the shift in sample size is responsible for the 5% statewide decrease in breeding rates ,here is an example that shows that is simply impossible. If you take 3 WMUs with a breeding rate of 96% and 200 doe sampled and 3 WMUs with an 86% breeding rate and 100 does sampled the average breeding rate for all 6 WMUs is 92%.

Now if you reduce the sample size of the first 3 WMUs to 100 does sampled and keep the same breeding rate,while keeping the sample size in the other 3 WMUs constant, but increasing the breeding rate by just 4%, the average breeding rate for all six WMUs increases to 93.9%.

Therefore, despite the shift in sample sizes it is impossible to get a 5% decrease in breeding rates unless the statewide breeding rates decreased by at least 5% in most WMUs.
[/blockquote]

Blueboy smoke and mirrors at it's finest!

Lets look at his example one more time without inserting any assumptions...

200 samples @ 96%
100 samples @ 86%

200x96=19200 100x86=8600 8600+19200=27600 27600/300= 93%

nowletsreducethe more productive samples by 100...

100 @ 96%
100 @ 86%
100x96=9600100x86=8600 8600+9600=18200 18200/200= 91%

But if the weight is shifted to favor the less productive area (what RSB tells us is what really happened)...

100 @ 96%
200 @ 86%

100x96= 9600 200x86=17200 9600+17200=26800 26800/300=89%

so a shift in sampling sizes can have a significant effect. Add in seasonal differences like weather, localized disease, mortality etc etc and all of a sudden RSB's explanations make a lot more sense.

Given enough time with a calculator and a lack of scruples, anyone can put their own twist and spin on things.

< Message edited by BTBowhunter -- 1/20/2009 5:31:10 PM >

_____________________________

IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, SPOONS MADE ROSIE O'DONNELL FAT!!!
www.midwestmonsterbucks.com Guide for Tall Tine Outfitters, Member of NRA, BASS, NAHC, Life member of UBP [align=right]
(in reply to bluebird2)[/align]

Reply

0