HuntingNet.com Forums
Page 6 of 9
« First
4
5
6
7
8
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   PGC data flawed (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/285084-pgc-data-flawed.html)

bluebird2 02-09-2009 01:45 PM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
The fact remains that the antlerless harvests reduced the herd in both study areas, which means the study methodology was seriously flawed and raises questions regarding the accuracy of the fawn mortality study and the antlered buck study.

bowtruck 02-09-2009 01:57 PM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
:eek:

R.S.B. 02-09-2009 07:36 PM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

The fact remains that the antlerless harvests reduced the herd in both study areas, which means the study methodology was seriously flawed and raises questions regarding the accuracy of the fawn mortality study and the antlered buck study.

In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?

R.S. Bodenhorn

BTBowhunter 02-09-2009 08:04 PM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

The fact remains that the antlerless harvests reduced the herd in both study areas, which means the study methodology was seriously flawed and raises questions regarding the accuracy of the fawn mortality study and the antlered buck study.

In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?

R.S. Bodenhorn

I agree RSB,
Lets also not forget that the fawn study took place before the AR/HR program had an effect.Something BB2 seems to want toignore with that statement he just made.

bluebird2 02-10-2009 03:48 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?
What the adult doe study proved is that hunters were reluctant to shoot a collared doe and as a result the study did not produce accurate harvest data. It doesn't effect me one way or the other if the herds were increasing or decreasing in the study areas but it is important to the PGC and it is also important that the study results agree with the harvest data,since if they don't it means one or the other is flawed.

bluebird2 02-10-2009 03:51 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
Lets also not forget that the fawn study took place before the AR/HR program had an effect. Something BB2 seems to want to ignore with that statement he just made

If hunters were reluctant to shoot collared deer for whatever reason, it would result in lower than expected harvest mortality and as a result the study would be flawed no matter when it was conducted.

BTBowhunter 02-10-2009 05:34 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: bluebird2

In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?
What the adult doe study proved is that hunters were reluctant to shoot a collared doe and as a result the study did not produce accurate harvest data. It doesn't effect me one way or the other if the herds were increasing or decreasing in the study areas but it is important to the PGC and it is also important that the study results agree with the harvest data,since if they don't it means one or the other is flawed.
Actually, the study showed that hunters killed only 8% and 15% of those does in the study that died. Reluctance of hunters to shoot a colared deer has been offered as a plausible theory that has yet to be proven, hence the less visible tags and the $100 reward.

the less visible tagging and reward idea sounds like a perfectly legitimate method for improving acccuracy. It seemsthatthe same that criticized the first study and its' methods are the same few complaining about the attempt to make the reults more accurate. PGC is attempting to improve the data collection method while a few with their own agenda see fit to criticize either method.

explorer_Jack 02-10-2009 06:17 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.




In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?

R.S. Bodenhorn
How can it be scientific facts when it was not in a controled setting? It can't be accurate if something altered the outcome of the experiment that wasn't thought out and added to the equation before the experiment for the outcome to be accurate? Hunters sees collars on deer,Hunters don't shoot deer, Experiment allready screwed up and data not accurate. Reason, Hunters afraid of shooting collared deer along with undetermined number of hunters in the area where the deer was collared and released. Not to accurate for data to be collected I would say to get an accurate or even close to accurate outcome of the experemint. Scientists would be proud along with your school science teacher when they see what you consider scientific facts.:eek:

BTBowhunter 02-10-2009 06:21 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack

ORIGINAL: R.S.B.




In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?

R.S. Bodenhorn
How can it be scientific facts when it was not in a controled setting? It can't be accurate if something altered the outcome of the experiment that wasn't thought out and added to the equation before the experiment for the outcome to be accurate? Hunters sees collars on deer,Hunters don't shoot deer, Experiment allready screwed up and data not accurate. Reason, Hunters afraid of shooting collared deer along with undetermined number of hunters in the area where the deer was collared and released. Not to accurate for data to be collected I would say to get an accurate or even close to accurate outcome of the experemint. Scientists would be proud along with your school science teacher when they see what you consider scientific facts.:eek:

I'm sure your science teacher and your grade school english teachers are quite proud as well

explorer_Jack 02-10-2009 06:26 AM
RE: PGC data flawed
 
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack

ORIGINAL: R.S.B.




In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?

R.S. Bodenhorn
How can it be scientific facts when it was not in a controled setting? It can't be accurate if something altered the outcome of the experiment that wasn't thought out and added to the equation before the experiment for the outcome to be accurate? Hunters sees collars on deer,Hunters don't shoot deer, Experiment allready screwed up and data not accurate. Reason, Hunters afraid of shooting collared deer along with undetermined number of hunters in the area where the deer was collared and released. Not to accurate for data to be collected I would say to get an accurate or even close to accurate outcome of the experemint. Scientists would be proud along with your school science teacher when they see what you consider scientific facts.:eek:

I'm sure your science teacher and your grade school english teachers are quite proud as well
What ya mean?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:09 AM.
Page 6 of 9
« First
4
5
6
7
8
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.