Pennsylvania deer kills drop
04-06-2009 | 08:17 PM
#152
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,720
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall, Pa.
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
The PROBLEMS with running this agency (PGC) is that politicians are the ones pulling the strings. Slick Ed Rendel and his expeditious crew of spenders must receive their cut from the profits. Most game lands are all but paid for by sportsman or conservation groups. Where is the revenue for licenses, fines, special tags, hunter safety course fees, the thousands of acres of forests raped for cash, and don't give me the excuse that clear cuts produce more game and ground foliage. Selective cutting will produce more habitat, ground cover and food source for game. There is also impounded items used in violation of the game laws. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars collected from Elk permits? And don't forget the doe licenses. That paper money the PGC prints each year for those who would like to harvest one of the doe the PGC tells us are walking down the streets of Philadelphia? We need more money, print some more tags. Amazing, a few years ago whenI purchased an archery stampI wasentitled to harvest a doe and buck. You want more doe harvested, but remove the doe tag from the archery stamp. Why is that? Doesn't have anything to do with the money left on the table, does it? How about an audit of ALL the money generated by the PGC, including the tree harvest revenue and post every cent in the Game News? I justwitnessed our Lebanon CountyWCO driving a brand, spankin new 4x4 with all the bell and whistles the other day. Guess that is also a necessity for the job. God forbid they have to buy a usedvehicleor fleet order. What WCO would be caught dead in a 2001 with vinyl seats and no a/c.When you lose your job, do you go out to get a loan so you can continue your extravagant life style or cut back on unassentials? I know what special Ed's answer to this would be. See if you can't set up some slots inthat real nice office in Harrisburg.
04-07-2009 | 08:32 AM
#154
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
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:
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.
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.
04-07-2009 | 02:33 PM
#155
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
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.
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:
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.
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.
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]
04-07-2009 | 02:57 PM
#156
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
Thanks for showing everyone just how flawed your example really was. You doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas but that never happened in the real world. RSB claimed breeding rates in his district increased by 13 % ,but you kept the breeding rate at the same level as before Ars. Even with totally misrepresenting what happen your example only produced a 2% decrease instead of a 5% decrease, In other words , neither you or RSB have a leg or a crutch to stand on.
04-07-2009 | 03:28 PM
#158
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
Btb, Ive looked at the latest annual report the 07/08 report and compared its embryo count data per wmu (data gathered from 2005-2007)and compared it to the year befores annual report, the 06/ 07(data gathered from 2004-2006) and of the 22 wmus on the chart, 12 of them showed decreased embryo count on the 07/08 report. Over half had experienced at least some rate of decline.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
04-07-2009 | 03:38 PM
#159
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Btb, Ive looked at the latest annual report the 07/08 report and compared its embryo count data per wmu (data gathered from 2005-2007)and compared it to the year befores annual report, the 06/ 07(data gathered from 2004-2006) and of the 22 wmus on the chart, 12 of them showed decreased embryo count on the 07/08 report. Over half had experienced at least some rate of decline.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
Btb, Ive looked at the latest annual report the 07/08 report and compared its embryo count data per wmu (data gathered from 2005-2007)and compared it to the year befores annual report, the 06/ 07(data gathered from 2004-2006) and of the 22 wmus on the chart, 12 of them showed decreased embryo count on the 07/08 report. Over half had experienced at least some rate of decline.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
but will give your point fair consideration.
Save me some time if you will for the sake of discussion .The 12WMU's that declined, are they similar in terms ofhabiat makeup?
04-07-2009 | 03:56 PM
#160
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
From: 3c pa
RE: Pennsylvania deer kills drop
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Btb, Ive looked at the latest annual report the 07/08 report and compared its embryo count data per wmu (data gathered from 2005-2007)and compared it to the year befores annual report, the 06/ 07(data gathered from 2004-2006) and of the 22 wmus on the chart, 12 of them showed decreased embryo count on the 07/08 report. Over half had experienced at least some rate of decline.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
Btb, Ive looked at the latest annual report the 07/08 report and compared its embryo count data per wmu (data gathered from 2005-2007)and compared it to the year befores annual report, the 06/ 07(data gathered from 2004-2006) and of the 22 wmus on the chart, 12 of them showed decreased embryo count on the 07/08 report. Over half had experienced at least some rate of decline.
That most likely would equate to lower adult doe bred percentage as well. That would lead one to believe that it was not "shifting" samples, but that many of wmus had declined despite further reduction.
science should tell us that wrong unfortionly that will reduce herd even
farther if nothing is done. Then i wonder if embryo count will continue to
drop or rebound