Pa Antler Restrictions
01-20-2009 | 04:44 PM
#161
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
But we were told in 2000 by Alt that we had to reduce the herd to improve herd health and as a result breeding rates would increase and we would have more and bigger buck than ever before. the data you just posted proves that was a lie and you are still defending that lie.
We have all agreed that Alt was outta line with that one! When are you gonna quit beating that horse?
01-20-2009 | 05:30 PM
#167
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I know you don't like it much when your lies get exposed.
I know you don't like the little pictures when you twist the truth or beat a dead horse but the answer is simple. Stop trying to distort the truth and stop lying tosupport your agenda andyou won't have to get all frustrated trying to defend the indefensible
I know you don't like the little pictures when you twist the truth or beat a dead horse but the answer is simple. Stop trying to distort the truth and stop lying tosupport your agenda andyou won't have to get all frustrated trying to defend the indefensible
01-20-2009 | 07:05 PM
#168
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good job of exposing bluebird’s flim-flam and misguided tactics there BTBowhunter.
R.S. Bodenhorn
01-21-2009 | 03:58 AM
#169
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I know you don't like it much when your lies get exposed.
In your third calculation you doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas for no logical reason other than to produce the results you wanted. The fact is that the number of doe sampled in 2b and 5C are still almost double the number sampled in 2G and 2F.
So while my example was designed to reflect reality, yours was totally divorced from reality and designed to deceive and mislead.
01-21-2009 | 08:00 AM
#170
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Ijust got back from Cessna's taxidermy.I had to run out there to get some papers signed.He's located rightPenfield,WMU 2G.Once again,he's mounting over 400 whitetails,some of them true world class deer.1 out of every seven had spreads exceeding 20 inches.If I can figure out how,I'll post a picture.You won't convince these guys that antler restrictions aren't working as this guy keeps excellent records.