HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions? (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/118612-ny-do-u-think-we-should-have-antler-restrictions.html)

Phade 01-27-2006 04:13 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: NYSHunter

Table 1 states that their count for their particular sample in PA the 52% male newborn. Tbale 2 shows male newborn at 15,129 and female newborn at 13,965. Statically, it means about 50/50 because the sampleing must have some error rates, but its one study and a particular sample. By no means does it state that all fawns are 50% buck and 50% does. It was just some reasearch that I though some would like to review.
Statiscally, it DOES NOT mean about 50/50. Suppose a standard + or - 3%....That means the error swings both ways. So it could 55% male, and 45% female.

NYSHunter 01-27-2006 05:45 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

Phade,

Ask that question to any statistics professor that and they will disagree with you. 52% of a sample within a prescribe error rate supports 50/50. If you want to discuss the Z score and standard deviation formula we can at great length.

I did just buy "The Deer of North America" by Leonard Lee Rue and on page 250 he discusses the ratios of the sex of fawns. He suggests that sex ratios are determined by the quality of the habitat.His ratios were never 50/50, even statically. The swing in higher buck birthing rates or higher doe birthing rates is quite pronounced. Very interesting reading.



Phade 01-27-2006 06:59 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: NYSHunter

Phade,

Ask that question to any statistics professor that and they will disagree with you. 52% of a sample within a prescribe error rate supports 50/50. If you want to discuss the Z score and standard deviation formula we can at great length.


Error rates still swing either way. Just because 52% was the final conclusion, that standard deviation and error pointeris there for a reason. It COULD be 50/50, but then again, thereCOULD be a 10% difference.

Read Lee's stuff, but keep your mind open to all the other info, including your previously cited study. I think the real truth on thsi matter is going to be a combination of many people's theories. I don't think one person has yet been able to definitively put their finger on birthing rates with a certainty.

jcchartboy 01-27-2006 07:22 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: NYSHunter

Phade,
I did just buy "The Deer of North America" by Leonard Lee Rue and on page 250 he discusses the ratios of the sex of fawns. He suggests that sex ratios are determined by the quality of the habitat.His ratios were never 50/50, even statically. The swing in higher buck birthing rates or higher doe birthing rates is quite pronounced. Very interesting reading.
I might suggestrereading the information again...In all cases the pendulum swings in the buck/doe fawn ratio's favor bucks in a relative sense.

For example in good conditions the studies you are discussing suggest that the ratio was 43% males and 57% females.

In bad conditions the studies found 72% males and only 28% females.

Notice that good conditions only result in a small decline in buck production. However, in bad conditions the ratio of buck to doe fawns explodes signifactly higher.

As far as the statistical discussion is concerned, Phade is correct on that one...

NYSHunter 01-27-2006 07:53 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
Iccharetboy,

I am not sure what point you are validating about the ratio's. Its a small percentage were talking about. Can we agree the current ratio is somewhat undesirable?

On the statistical question, you and Phade are both wrong, you may agree with Phade, butyou are both wrong. If the sample of 100 deer is collected and 52 are one sex and 48 are the other sexwith a 3% error rate that PHADE suggested, that is a statistical dead heat within the prescribed error margin of 3%. I will not argue the point. This concept is called themagnitude of relations between variables. Once again, ask any graduate student and I assure you that I am correct

The question is do Ithink we shouldhave antler restrictions?Theanswer is yes, I do.

jcchartboy 01-27-2006 08:17 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
Sorry NYS,

Although it clear that you have some understanding of the statistical concepts involved the one thing you do not seem to understand is the fact that your thesis is relying on false assumptions....

You make the statement..."the sample of 100 deer is collected"...This is an incorect and faulty assumption.

Thedata we are discusing is represented by the author as representativeof the ENTIRE POPULATION of whitetail deer. Therefore your discusion of "magnitude of relations between variables" is not applicable to this situation.

The stated 52% buck ratio in no way can be "rounded" to equate a 50/50 buck to doe fawn ratio....
(If you were correct, the author a noted biologist, with an extensive background in statistical analysis would not have represented the data as indicative of supporting a statistical bias toward the production of male whitetail offspring in the overall whitetail population in the first place.;))

This should help clarify the concepts and its applications..

How to measure the magnitude (strength) of relations between variables. There are very many measures of the magnitude of relationships between variables which have been developed by statisticians; the choice of a specific measure in given circumstances depends on the number of variables involved, measurement scales used, nature of the relations, etc. Almost all of them, however, follow one general principle: they attempt to somehow evaluate the observed relation by comparing it to the "maximum imaginable relation" between those specific variables. Technically speaking, a common way to perform such evaluations is to look at how differentiated are the values of the variables, and then calculate what part of this "overall available differentiation" is accounted for by instances when that differentiation is "common" in the two (or more) variables in question. Speaking less technically, we compare "what is common in those variables" to "what potentially could have been common if the variables were perfectly related." Let us consider a simple illustration. Let us say that in our sample, the average index of WCC is 100 in males and 102 in females. Thus, we could say that on average, the deviation of each individual score from the grand mean (101) contains a component due to the gender of the subject; the size of this component is 1. That value, in a sense, represents some measure of relation between Gender and WCC. However, this value is a very poor measure, because it does not tell us how relatively large this component is, given the "overall differentiation" of WCC scores. Consider two extreme possibilities:[*]If all WCC scores of males were equal exactly to 100, and those of females equal to 102, then all deviations from the grand mean in our sample would be entirely accounted for by gender. We would say that in our sample, gender is perfectly correlated with WCC, that is, 100% of the observed differences between subjects regarding their WCC is accounted for by their gender.[*]If WCC scores were in the range of 0-1000, the same difference (of 2) between the average WCC of males and females found in the study would account for such a small part of the overall differentiation of scores that most likely it would be considered negligible. For example, one more subject taken into account could change, or even reverse the direction of the difference. Therefore, every good measure of relations between variables must take into account the overall differentiation of individual scores in the sample and evaluate the relation in terms of (relatively) how much of this differentiation is accounted for by the relation in question.
[ol][/ol]

NYSHunter 01-27-2006 08:59 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
I don’t want to post to this thread any longer. This is a thread about antler restrictions, not statistics. I have enough degrees on my wall to understand these concepts. I respect your position. I sincerely appreciate your book suggestion. I ran out and bought a copy today at a local bookstore. It looks like an excellent book. Thankyou again.

jcchartboy 01-28-2006 08:46 AM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
NYS,

No problem on the book...

P.S. Don't go to far away...your one of the few mature/logical members adding significantly to this thread....;)

RichC 02-20-2009 06:20 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
I do not think we should have antler restrictions.
I have 20 acres in the catskills and spend weeks setting up my food plots and tree stands forthe 3 deer Itake to last a year. I do not have any mounts and not every deer are even photographed but don't get me wrong I love the thrill of the hunt (bow,rifle,handgun and muzzleloader ). My family and myself like the younger deer when ever possible becausewe think theytaste better. Wild Venison is also antibiotic and hormone free which is a great plus over store bought meat . Not everyone requires a trophy .

gjs4 02-21-2009 04:52 AM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
This would be an easy thread to reply to if it was "Will western NY ever have antler restriction". The answer would be "NO" and go against one of the easier steps (but not total solution) of having a more mature deer herd.

I heard 67% hunter approval will have ARs instituted.

This state is all about revenue with everything it does. Sorry for the pessimism but i have seen both sides of the DEC; where they arent lacking their support is.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.