RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

No, you directed it toward everyone. the point is that you can't seem to post here without taking a shot at someone or in this case, anyone.

Once again, the two posts you just made can't be used to make a fair comparison. The sampes are shown by county first and then by WMU.
No accurate conclusion can be drawn regarding the differences in sampling locations from the data you presented.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

duplicate post. This new server seems a bit screwed up

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Looks like an overwhelming number favor AR, and some want to raise the bar as well.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

AR is not going to work UNLESS its for all of us,i hope i did that in nice way:)

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Looks like three to one in favor to me. Pretty much mirrors what I see and hear in the field.

Sproul, we'll never agree on that one, but thanks for the way you said it:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

They can be used to make a fair comparison ,if you have any intention of being fair. But being fair is not a word that is in your vocabulary. The sample sizes and distribution are available for all to see on the PGC AWR's but you chose to not avail yourself of that info and prefer to make baseless claims.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If you had the data in a format that could be presented as a fair comparison you would have presented it by now unless it didn't fit your agenda.

Your original example several pages ago was simply decieving. If you had real numbers that would hold up to scrutiny we would have seen them by now.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

the data was two diffrent things a fair compaison well i personly like facts not what i think i can pick out of it

It seems more people favor ar now

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

n=number of doe sampled

n=number of doe sampled
1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET
1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET
2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET
2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET
2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET
2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET
2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET
2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET
2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET
3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET
3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET
3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET
3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET
4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET
4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET
4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET
4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET
4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET
5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET
5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET
5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET
5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET



The data clearly shows that the number of doe sample in areas with high breeding rates like 2B (165) and 5C (123) was 3 times the number sampled in areas with low breeding rates like 2G (40).

In your attempt to prove I was wrong you doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas, while in reality the exact opposite was true.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The post above does not answer the issue that was being discussed. Obviously you don't have the data to support your claims. The discussion was about a before and after situation. Maybe you just didnt understand what RSB was saying in the first place. He said the samplingshifts changed the emphasis and therefore was skewed toward the areas with lower reproductive rates.

Simply showing that some areas had more samples than others is meaningless in this context unless we know what the numbers were before and after by WMU. IfoneWMU has twice as many samples as another but used to have three times as many, that could produce significant changes. We simply cant tell that from what you've presented since the older data is by county and the new data is by WMU. Again, apples and oranges.

The before info was totalled by county and the after was totalled by WMU. A fair comparison may be possible but not with the information you've presented and I suspect you know that.