|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 15, 2016 22:49:51 GMT -5
A simple question, without my opinion; What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey??? Already answered. I spoke to Chad Stewart yesterday and.... He said he just reviewed the second draft of the report. .will be reviewing the final soon. And yes he said they are typically released by now and does not know what the delay is. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jul 15, 2016 22:57:38 GMT -5
As I said,
What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey???
Think before you post on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 15, 2016 23:34:20 GMT -5
As I said, What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey??? Think before you post on this one. Shall we pontificate the reason for delay, or should you assume it's due to ubsubstantiated conspiracy theories? |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 16, 2016 9:09:56 GMT -5
As I said, What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey??? Think before you post on this one. It's in the works of being finished and should be released in a couple weeks. Again Chad did not know the reason for the delay. Regardless of the reason for delay I'll guess you guys won't believe the answer from the dnr. |
|
|
|
Post by rickybobby on Jul 16, 2016 12:23:43 GMT -5
As I said, What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey??? Think before you post on this one. Yes that is the question. My guess is it is too much like filling out a tax return and then they use the data gathered in a way it was never intended to be used to further special interest . Hunters have become so disillusioned at special interest forcing rules and regs on them through means only afforded to the special interest that they no longer feel like filling out the harvest report means anything . So the response rate keeps falling and that means the data gets further manipulated in favor of the special interest and further reduces the incentive for the non special interest to fill out and return it. |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 16, 2016 13:27:03 GMT -5
As I said, What ever happened to the 2015 deer harvest survey??? Think before you post on this one. Yes that is the question. My guess is it is too much like filling out a tax return and then they use the data gathered in a way it was never intended to be used to further special interest . Hunters have become so disillusioned at special interest forcing rules and regs on them through means only afforded to the special interest that they no longer feel like filling out the harvest report means anything . So the response rate keeps falling and that means the data gets further manipulated in favor of the special interest and further reduces the incentive for the non special interest to fill out and return it. Sounds like a bad decision. Given the opportunity to voice your opinion and not taking advantage then cry manipulation when those with a different opinion do take advantage to voice their opinion. Simple stuff really. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 17, 2016 21:08:54 GMT -5
Why does the DNR have to make assumptive predictions or adjustments just because the response rate is low? Your implication is that consistency with some sort of artificial norm is more important than open and above board honesty. As for myself, I would rather just have the honest display of what was returned and nothing more than that. The rest is just fiction and that is why the results in the surveys have been more than suspect.
Surveys without preconceived ideas or motives present results JUST AS THEY ARE without the needless estimates and projections. The reasons for delays and adjustments are that the original data does not present what the surveyors intend it to do. If the DNR believes that the situation is different from that which the original data in the responses reflect then they should supply a separate informational statement. To do anything else is neither objective nor honest. The DNR will continue to be lacking in trust as long as they follow this less than truthful process. As a teacher and student of statistics it is my opinion that the DNR is behaving in a dishonest and deceptive manner. One interested in clear open results does not present a construed set of results based out of what is assumed from another year or period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 17, 2016 21:15:41 GMT -5
You made a big show a couple post back about only dealing in facts . So lets see your facts where the DNR has previously said they were delaying the harvest (or I will make it easy and say any report) on the basis that they needed more time due to a low response rate ! Just the facts and nothing but the facts like you claim is all you deal in. No deflection or going into some childish rant , simply post up the facts where the DNR has admitted they have delayed putting out a report due to a low response rate . I never said they did. I said they admitted to a low response rate in last year's harvest report. Because of it, they also stated adjustments had to be made to previous estimates to maintain statistical correctness. It's not a conspiracy. Relax. "Statistical correctness" is often another way of saying contrived results. Time changes things. That is a fact. By predicting or assuming results based on the behavior of past data is just a way of ignoring that fact and it defeats the purpose of the survey. Make projections or assumptions after the survey with its original or authentic results are presented. That maintains the integrity of the survey. Anything else sacrifices the value of the survey due to the bias of history and possible outdated factors. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 17, 2016 21:48:32 GMT -5
Full and bows, as you seem to have some sort of connection with the DNR, I would suggest that you pass this along to them. That it would create more trust if they supply the results in their original state. They can attach addendums with projections based on prior behavior of data, with their own analysis, or that of the wizard behind the curtain, or anyone else if origin is supplied. That would go a long way in restoring honesty to the process.
In one of the prior posts, it was asked what would you do. That is my response to that question.
You may share any of my posts or statements with Chad, Mr. Mason or any one else. I could care less. I would be most surprised if they read it or if they paid any attention to it except to file in in their circular file. One has to fit into their agenda in order to receive considered attention and I certainly do not fit into their agenda with my concern for complete honesty. That was obvious from last year's NRC meeting at Houghton Lake when I called them on an inappropriate conclusion which was supposed to have been based on data that had just been supplied. It was not and even the Chairman realized it. However no answer or reason was given for the action. I believe it was stated that it was true regardless of the basis. To me that spoke volumes to their dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 2:12:33 GMT -5
From the report......
"Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter participation are affected by the willingness of people to complete and return their questionnaires. This problem can confound comparisons of estimates made between years if response rates vary greatly. The percentage of people returning their questionnaire this year was lower than previous years. To reduce bias caused by this lower response rate, an adjustment was made on the 2013 estimates to make them comparable to the adjusted 2012 estimates (adjusted to a 74% response rate). Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013. These reductions reflected the average decline noted between estimates calculated when 51% and 74% of the responses were used in 2000 and 2001 surveys."
This isn't some sort of conspiracy theory, no matter how much some of you wish it to be so. The Michigan DNR has absolutely nothing to gain by manipulating numbers, as you suggest.
License sales are the major funding source for the DNR. What you're suggesting is that they are lying and manipulating the harvest report to show APR's in a more positive light. Why would they do that? Remember, a few of you proclaimed that APR's would cause hunters to leave the sport altogether due to being "restricted". If the numbers were actually showing that, why on earth would the DNR want to manipulate their numbers to show a different result and thus intentionally lose revenue from license sales?
The answer is, they wouldn't and they aren't.
Seriously, let's put the tinfoil hats down and replace them with a common sense cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 18, 2016 5:30:08 GMT -5
FTH, is that a quote from the 2015 ADHSR? If it is, and this report has not been released to the NRC, couldn't you get in trouble for releasing this information? |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 8:03:34 GMT -5
FTH, is that a quote from the 2015 ADHSR? If it is, and this report has not been released to the NRC, couldn't you get in trouble for releasing this information? It's from the 2014 report. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 14:02:46 GMT -5
"Statistical correctness" is often another way of saying contrived results. Ridge, I respect you and your posts. However, I completely disagree with the above sratement. Hopefully my previous post showing what was changed, and why, will add clarity to you. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5
Why does the DNR have to make assumptive predictions or adjustments just because the response rate is low? As was stated in one of my previous posts..... To eliminate bias caused by a lower response rate. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 18, 2016 16:37:34 GMT -5
FTH, couldn't it just exaggerate the existing bias? It would require a judgment call on the part of those trying to correct the perceived bias, no? |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 18, 2016 17:05:12 GMT -5
In all honesty the dnr could care less if we have aprs... at least those at the higher end of command.
I have heard it directly from their mouths that as in state management aprs are not something the department is pursuing presently or in the future.
Now I stated before that a family member had said the dnr was leaning in the direction of aprs......that was true.....but in true fashion from your group you assumed that comment incorrectly.
But me a guy who loves to aggravate people never let on to the direction in which that comment was directed. And after all this time none of you ever saw the obvious.
Now ask yourself......
Where, in the past 5 years or so had the dnr try to get aprs implemented?
Hint.....it's not in the UP or SLP but somewhere in between and to really go against the grain of the all mighty Munsterlndr......in an area with know disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jul 18, 2016 17:13:04 GMT -5
Okay, let me get this straight.
It is okay for the DNR to adjust reports due to biased results.
It is not okay for the DNR to require a 66% threshold on surveys due to biased results.
I get it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 18, 2016 17:56:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 19:45:35 GMT -5
What do you care, Dale? They tell you exactly what was changed and why.
"Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013."
By all means, tell us how the above effects you or the outcome and why. Or, is it just something that you want to complain about even though you may not fully understand it?
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jul 18, 2016 20:36:21 GMT -5
What do you care, Dale? They tell you exactly what was changed and why. "Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013." By all means, tell us how the above effects you or the outcome and why. Or, is it just something that you want to complain about even though you may not fully understand it? Why change anything at all? Why not let the numbers speak for themselves ? What happens is these numbers are manipulated and than further on down the line they are used to add credibility to other data that they should never be used for in the first place. I get to see this in my line of work frequently . Numbers that I provide to the government that are clearly stated to be only used as a general guideline on their own ( not a big enough sample ) are then given to others that plug those numbers into a program and that program spits out hard numbers ( based on those unreliable numbers that I provided )that are used in situations that can mean life or death to those that use them.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 18, 2016 23:52:45 GMT -5
What do you care, Dale? They tell you exactly what was changed and why. "Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013." By all means, tell us how the above effects you or the outcome and why. Or, is it just something that you want to complain about even though you may not fully understand it? Why change anything at all? Why not let the numbers speak for themselves ? What happens is these numbers are manipulated and than further on down the line they are used to add credibility to other data that they should never be used for in the first place. I get to see this in my line of work frequently . Numbers that I provide to the government that are clearly stated to be only used as a general guideline on their own ( not a big enough sample ) are then given to others that plug those numbers into a program and that program spits out hard numbers ( based on those unreliable numbers that I provided )that are used in situations that can mean life or death to those that use them.
Please reread the following..... "Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter participation are affected by the willingness of people to complete and return their questionnaires. This problem can confound comparisons of estimates made between years if response rates vary greatly. The percentage of people returning their questionnaire this year was lower than previous years. To reduce bias caused by this lower response rate, an adjustment was made on the 2013 estimates to make them comparable to the adjusted 2012 estimates (adjusted to a 74% response rate). Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013. These reductions reflected the average decline noted between estimates calculated when 51% and 74% of the responses were used in 2000 and 2001 surveys." |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jul 19, 2016 6:26:19 GMT -5
What do you care, Dale? They tell you exactly what was changed and why. "Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013." By all means, tell us how the above effects you or the outcome and why. Or, is it just something that you want to complain about even though you may not fully understand it? Simple Definition of estimate : to give or form a general idea about the value, size, or cost of (something) : to make an estimate of (something). Why try to further dilute a guess? |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Jul 19, 2016 6:31:39 GMT -5
Oh, I get it. Can they just put out a plain, no deletions, no additions, no adjustments, report? If the response rate is less than they expect, publish it the way it is. The money the spend making adjustments and excuses would be better off examining why that is the case, don't you think??? |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 19, 2016 9:42:48 GMT -5
What do you care, Dale? They tell you exactly what was changed and why. "Estimates of harvest, hunting effort, and hunter numbers were reduced by 6.4%, 4.7%, and 1.9%, respectively, to make estimates comparable to 2013." By all means, tell us how the above effects you or the outcome and why. Or, is it just something that you want to complain about even though you may not fully understand it? Simple Definition of estimate : to give or form a general idea about the value, size, or cost of (something) : to make an estimate of (something). Why try to further dilute a guess? That's where your logic or understanding of this subject falls short. Their estimates aren't just a random guess. They're based on many factors compiled through years of statistical analysis. From the report...... "Statistical tests are used routinely to determine the likelihood that the differences among estimates are larger than expected by chance alone. The overlap of 95% confidence intervals was used to determine whether estimates differed. Non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals were equivalent to stating that the difference between the means was larger than would be expected 995 out of 1,000 times, if the study had been repeated (Payton et al. 2003)." Sorry Dale, they're not a simple guess. |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 19, 2016 13:55:51 GMT -5
Oh, I get it. Can they just put out a plain, no deletions, no additions, no adjustments, report? If the response rate is less than they expect, publish it the way it is. The money the spend making adjustments and excuses would be better off examining why that is the case, don't you think??? Obviously none of you get it. If you can read what full throttle posted it answers all your questions as to why. The problem I see is you guys are looking for anything to discredit the dnr because your dillusional idea that your way of hunting is very popular still when the fact is its not. The old days of hunting have changed, will continue to change and will never stay stagnant forever. I understand not liking the idea of special interest groups coming together and changing regs you do not agree with. But it's the reality of deer management. Things will change. You can all cry conspiracy or just except the fact your idea of how things should be is not as,popular anymore. Your own website and Facebook page should be an eye opener. Me you, Apple knocker, hitch man, Ridge, full throttle and qdm Mars are the only ones active on 95% of every sub forum. Curtis writes articles on the fb page....with little to no reply. I love Mario Bros but everyone is playing call of duty.....times have changed. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 19, 2016 18:58:53 GMT -5
BnB, your last post is dead wrong. Just because we don't have the influence to reach ALL hunters does not mean that we are not supported in our opinions. Delusional? Even the MDNR and the NRC know that a majority of hunters and former hunters support maximum harvest management. They are also starting to realize that Extreme Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions are destroying traditional deer hunting in Michigan and other mid-western states. You only have to look at the Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young entries since MAR's have reared its ugly head.
I have no problem with "special" interest groups changing hunting traditions and regulations, IF they are representative of a majority of hunters. But, when they manipulate surveys to appear to be a majority, that's when I have a problem. Their survey process leaves a lot to be desired, and they know it. Change just for the sake of change is a joke. Your mantra, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity", is also a straw-man. Nobody but YOU is expecting DIFFERENT results. We are happy with our traditional results.
I quit hunting three years ago because of the diminished satisfaction from hunting. I am not alone. In the U.P. the participation in hunting has dropped over 30% since the inception of hunters choice. This attitude in starting to encroach to the Northern Lower. MAR's have been a complete disaster in most of Michigan since 2008.
Our web-page and site have NO influence on this as 99% of Michigan hunters do not know it even exist. As for your contention that the MDNR do not support MAR's, you are strongly mistaken. Even the NRC have shown their support of this destructive agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 19, 2016 21:06:39 GMT -5
Mr. Stone......
I do not know what lead to your diminishment in hunting but I surely hope a regulation change or proposal was not the reason or any political/agency reason.
Imo that is just stupid to let those types of things deter one from something they are passionate about.
There are plenty of places to hunt deer......Michigan is only one and when old traditions must be abandoned new ones can be created.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 19, 2016 22:15:21 GMT -5
Oh, I get it. Can they just put out a plain, no deletions, no additions, no adjustments, report? If the response rate is less than they expect, publish it the way it is. The money the spend making adjustments and excuses would be better off examining why that is the case, don't you think??? Obviously none of you get it. If you can read what full throttle posted it answers all your questions as to why. The problem I see is you guys are looking for anything to discredit the dnr because your dillusional idea that your way of hunting is very popular still when the fact is its not. The old days of hunting have changed, will continue to change and will never stay stagnant forever. I understand not liking the idea of special interest groups coming together and changing regs you do not agree with. But it's the reality of deer management. Things will change. You can all cry conspiracy or just except the fact your idea of how things should be is not as,popular anymore. Your own website and Facebook page should be an eye opener. Me you, Apple knocker, hitch man, Ridge, full throttle and qdm Mars are the only ones active on 95% of every sub forum. Curtis writes articles on the fb page....with little to no reply. I love Mario Bros but everyone is playing call of duty.....times have changed. Your statement four paragraphs above this is precisely why their so-called adjustments are bogus. Things do change and one can not assume that the data ratios from the past years are still true. Important factors arise. By assuming the same rates of adjustment, they are defeating the purpose of the survey as I stated in a prior post. Leave the original results alone and publish them as is. If they have nothing to fear then they will lose nothing. They can add addendums to the report making all of the projections and assumptions that they wish. That is an honest approach but apparently honesty is not to be factored into the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by bucksnbows on Jul 20, 2016 10:53:44 GMT -5
Obviously none of you get it. If you can read what full throttle posted it answers all your questions as to why. The problem I see is you guys are looking for anything to discredit the dnr because your dillusional idea that your way of hunting is very popular still when the fact is its not. The old days of hunting have changed, will continue to change and will never stay stagnant forever. I understand not liking the idea of special interest groups coming together and changing regs you do not agree with. But it's the reality of deer management. Things will change. You can all cry conspiracy or just except the fact your idea of how things should be is not as,popular anymore. Your own website and Facebook page should be an eye opener. Me you, Apple knocker, hitch man, Ridge, full throttle and qdm Mars are the only ones active on 95% of every sub forum. Curtis writes articles on the fb page....with little to no reply. I love Mario Bros but everyone is playing call of duty.....times have changed. Your statement four paragraphs above this is precisely why their so-called adjustments are bogus. Things do change and one can not assume that the data ratios from the past years are still true. Important factors arise. By assuming the same rates of adjustment, they are defeating the purpose of the survey as I stated in a prior post. Leave the original results alone and publish them as is. If they have nothing to fear then they will lose nothing. They can add addendums to the report making all of the projections and assumptions that they wish. That is an honest approach but apparently honesty is not to be factored into the equation. Have any of you contacted the dnr with your expertise on data and statistical analysis? If so what was their reply? If not I suggest doing so rather than sitting here assuming things. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 21, 2016 23:35:42 GMT -5
The DNR has been approached in the past and more than once. Unfortunately preconceived agendas and stone walls have no ears.
Their method excludes the possibilities of important change among the contributing factors. Why have a survey if one demands that the same distributions and factors apply every time. There is no need for developing honest data if one expects it to behave exactly as it has in the past.
The DNR creates their own lack of credibility by not publishing the original resulting data prior to publishing their "adjustments". If it is no big deal to reverse the math as it is implied in the posts that are shown above, then the DNR should have no problem presenting the original data first. Their mantra, "It's true because we say it is true." is purely a socialist dogma that is shocking to find even in our present day democratic republic government. The DNR may print it but that does not mean that I do not have the right nor the reason to question it. It is also not sacred so there is no obligation to believe it. We are not sheep. Many of us are or have been hard working tax payers that deserve and demand honesty and full clear disclosure. We may not get it but that does not mean that we will not fight to continue working for it.
|
|
