|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 16, 2017 10:57:51 GMT -5
He is doing all of his research with a bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampy on Apr 16, 2017 11:49:43 GMT -5
The NRC replaced the conservation commission, as a result of the Mich. Natural resources and environmental protection act. Which was the result of Prop G of 1996. I believe the commission in its current form first appeared in late 1998 or early '99 The Naural Resources Commission was present prior to that. Governor Engler abolished air and water commissions, giving the governor the power to name chair of the NRC in 1991. I think what you're thinking of is when Engler split the DNR into two agencies in 1995, which created the new Department of Environmental Quality. A form of the NRC, called the Conservation Commission was formed and protected by the MUCC in 1937. In 1969, the Department of Conservation became our current Department of Natural Resources, though it had additional functions at that time. Regardless of the timeline, the NRC has been around more than "a couple few years". I was thinking the changes happened with the implementation of the MNREPA. It could have been some restructuring then. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 16, 2017 12:07:20 GMT -5
I think my meaning was lost in translation. It wasn't meant to be about the NRC but of Jims age. Over the years means a longer time period to me than him obviously. What exactly is a "couple few years" to an old fart?
I hunted more than a couple few years before there was an NRC.
And the last configuration was changed around 2011, but I know I'm wrong, I think.
There was a DEQ in there somewhere before that.
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 16, 2017 16:38:59 GMT -5
He is doing all of his research with a bias. Curious. In using population models and information acquired from DNR harvest and population data, would his study bias towards the null hypothesis? If not, why not? If so, please explain? Additionally, what statistical testing could other researchers use to test for significance and reliability? |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 16, 2017 17:28:05 GMT -5
I think my meaning was lost in translation. It wasn't meant to be about the NRC but of Jims age. Over the years means a longer time period to me than him obviously. What exactly is a "couple few years" to an old fart? I hunted more than a couple few years before there was an NRC. And the last configuration was changed around 2011, but I know I'm wrong, I think. There was a DEQ in there somewhere before that. Huh? Configuration? |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 16, 2017 17:57:10 GMT -5
I think my meaning was lost in translation. It wasn't meant to be about the NRC but of Jims age. Over the years means a longer time period to me than him obviously. What exactly is a "couple few years" to an old fart? I hunted more than a couple few years before there was an NRC. And the last configuration was changed around 2011, but I know I'm wrong, I think. There was a DEQ in there somewhere before that. Huh? Configuration? Lack of reading comprehension, eh? I said I was wrong. GEEZ! |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 16, 2017 18:00:15 GMT -5
He is doing all of his research with a bias. Curious. In using population models and information acquired from DNR harvest and population data, would his study bias towards the null hypothesis? If not, why not? If so, please explain? Additionally, what statistical testing could other researchers use to test for significance and reliability? Quite frankly, you are taking this thread way off track. If you want to talk about statistical analysis, start your own thread. I'd be happy to reply. Dr Mason is more qualified than Dr Brauker when it comes to wildlife. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 17, 2017 1:35:12 GMT -5
Jim Brauker has a PhD in biochemistry and a Master's and Bachelor's in Biology.
Russ Mason has a PhD in chemical ecology, a Master's in animal learning, and a Bachelor's in psychology.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampy on Apr 17, 2017 2:41:57 GMT -5
quote author=" ridge" source="/post/8463/thread" timestamp="1492410912"]Jim Brauker has a PhD in biochemistry and a Master's and Bachelor's in Biology. Russ Mason has a PhD in chemical ecology, a Master's in animal learning, and a Bachelor's in psychology.[/quote] I have known many highly educated people, both proffesional and Civil servants. Most are highly quizzical and unbiased, seeking only to further understand the topic at hand. Occasionally they become very agenda driven and instead of using data to arrive at a conclusion, they start with an agenda, whether for personal or financial gain. And create or twist data to support their agenda. The challenge is separate the wheat from the Chaff. Fortunately when a personal agenda drives their actions, it becomes apparent quite rapidly. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 10:40:08 GMT -5
quote author=" ridge" source="/post/8463/thread" timestamp="1492410912"]Jim Brauker has a PhD in biochemistry and a Master's and Bachelor's in Biology. Russ Mason has a PhD in chemical ecology, a Master's in animal learning, and a Bachelor's in psychology. I have known many highly educated people, both proffesional and Civil servants. Most are highly quizzical and unbiased, seeking only to further understand the topic at hand. Occasionally they become very agenda driven and instead of using data to arrive at a conclusion, they start with an agenda, whether for personal or financial gain. And create or twist data to support their agenda. The challenge is separate the wheat from the Chaff. Fortunately when a personal agenda drives their actions, it becomes apparent quite rapidly.[/quote] That's complete nonsense Carl. Much research is conducted to test a hypothesis against the null. What a few of you call bias is simply a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by swampy on Apr 17, 2017 18:08:55 GMT -5
quote author=" ridge" source="/post/8463/thread" timestamp="1492410912"]Jim Brauker has a PhD in biochemistry and a Master's and Bachelor's in Biology. Russ Mason has a PhD in chemical ecology, a Master's in animal learning, and a Bachelor's in psychology. I have known many highly educated people, both proffesional and Civil servants. Most are highly quizzical and unbiased, seeking only to further understand the topic at hand. Occasionally they become very agenda driven and instead of using data to arrive at a conclusion, they start with an agenda, whether for personal or financial gain. And create or twist data to support their agenda. The challenge is separate the wheat from the Chaff. Fortunately when a personal agenda drives their actions, it becomes apparent quite rapidly. That's complete nonsense Carl. Much research is conducted to test a hypothesis against the null. What a few of you call bias is simply a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Nothing more.[/quote] Kinda like shooting spitwads at a wall and hoping one sticks. |
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 17, 2017 19:05:22 GMT -5
Kinda like shooting spitwads at a wall and hoping one sticks. Keep thinking that all you want. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 18, 2017 17:04:37 GMT -5
OTC, I have looked at Dr. Jim's presentation several times. I have examined most of his material several times. While I acknowledge that he is an intelligent and learned man, some of his graphs and conclusions ore more than questionable. He uses graphs with no y axis labels which makes them nothing more than a picture of his own subjective beliefs, not data that can be verified. He has also presented many conclusions without having data to back it up. While his is quite free to submit his beliefs, it should not be presented as supportable conclusions based on real verifiable data. His projected or manipulated data as he called it, is nothing more than his opinion placed in a chart. He did not supply any mathematical statements to support them. As a scientist, he understands exactly what he is doing. There is no other logical conclusion than he is writing with bias to support a personal agenda. I do not fault him for that but he should label it as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 18, 2017 19:43:53 GMT -5
OTC, I have looked at Dr. Jim's presentation several times. I have examined most of his material several times. While I acknowledge that he is an intelligent and learned man, some of his graphs and conclusions ore more than questionable. He uses graphs with no y axis labels which makes them nothing more than a picture of his own subjective beliefs, not data that can be verified. He has also presented many conclusions without having data to back it up. While his is quite free to submit his beliefs, it should not be presented as supportable conclusions based on real verifiable data. His projected or manipulated data as he called it, is nothing more than his opinion placed in a chart. He did not supply any mathematical statements to support them. As a scientist, he understands exactly what he is doing. There is no other logical conclusion than he is writing with bias to support a personal agenda. I do not fault him for that but he should label it as such. Think what you wish. It's not made up or manipulated data, no matter how much some people wish that it was. It is data from our DNR. Not an opinion, not made up, and not subjective beliefs. He explained the y-axis. It represents 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5+ as you move right on the y-axis. It was accidentally not included in the graph, which he admitted and then clarified within the same post. Additionally, the population study models showing population, sex, and dispersal values that a few guys are calling manipulated, is not. Since I won't attempt to speak for him, I can only add my thought. IMHO, it is based upon scientifically proven herd dynamic mathematic models. You'll need to verify that with him though. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 18, 2017 19:58:41 GMT -5
What do you mean by "accidental" and how many more accidents by Dr Brauker can we expect. He has more than a couple few you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 18, 2017 20:41:00 GMT -5
What do you mean by "accidental" and how many more accidents by Dr Brauker can we expect. He has more than a couple few you know. No offense, but I don't think an explanation of the term accidental is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 18, 2017 20:45:46 GMT -5
Well I do. I do not quite understand your statement.
Words have meaning, sometimes more than one.
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 18, 2017 20:53:24 GMT -5
ac·ci·den·tal
ˌaksəˈden(t)l/
adjective
1.
happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 18, 2017 21:37:40 GMT -5
Une double Touche.
You are a master of your perceived intellect are you not?
Answer me one question honestly.
It really bothers me and you seem to evade my revelations.
Why do you not admit you do not live in Michigan anymore?
Your insults and insinuations do not make matters any easier.
You have an agenda.
I have an agenda.
Everyone knows who I am. Google me.
Who are you and what are your qualifications if you are not a resident of this state.
I think it really matters. Seeing you are the voice of MY opposition.
And he keeps beating.....on, LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 19, 2017 9:43:13 GMT -5
Une double Touche. You are a master of your perceived intellect are you not? Answer me one question honestly. It really bothers me and you seem to evade my revelations. Why do you not admit you do not live in Michigan anymore? Your insults and insinuations do not make matters any easier. You have an agenda. I have an agenda. Everyone knows who I am. Google me. Who are you and what are your qualifications if you are not a resident of this state. I think it really matters. Seeing you are the voice of MY opposition. And he keeps beating.....on, LOL! Again, respectfully, maybe because your revelations are immaterial to the discussions. I'm not insulting you, I'm discussing the topic. I'd like to discuss the issues, as opposed to attack the messenger. I couldn't care less who you are, that's not the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 19, 2017 23:21:26 GMT -5
The word manipulated was Dr. Jim's term not mine. I noticed that he has made some changes since my post on here and on MSF. He originally said that numbers were not important and that they were too hard to understand. He now shows them. As far as his model on deer from the Btb area, even the DNR says their numbers are an estimates at best. All they know is that when the deer stop being seen around farms and from the air(or when the Dept of Ag. is happy); and the amount of disease in the herd is close to zero rather than the 2-3% it is now then enough may have been killed. Deer check station data is irrelevant when it comes to projecting the number of living deer. I will continue to believe that and state it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OTC Archer on Apr 20, 2017 0:46:27 GMT -5
The word manipulated was Dr. Jim's term not mine. I noticed that he has made some changes since my post on here and on MSF. He originally said that numbers were not important and that they were too hard to understand. He now shows them. As far as his model on deer from the Btb area, even the DNR says their numbers are an estimates at best. All they know is that when the deer stop being seen around farms and from the air(or when the Dept of Ag. is happy); and the amount of disease in the herd is close to zero rather than the 2-3% it is now then enough may have been killed. Deer check station data is irrelevant when it comes to projecting the number of living deer. I will continue to believe that and state it. And yet, the DNR is making regulations and harvest recommendations with the same estimated data. That's what estimates and models are for Ridge. SMH. |
|
|
|
Post by jbrown on Apr 20, 2017 11:09:25 GMT -5
In my eyes its like this.. I throw no stones if I cant do it better than the first guy
If I can get it done better I have at it
I did not let the RN wife wire my home.. as an Electrician I did it myself.. see my point??
If the grandson cuts his finger I let the wife deal with it unless she asks for assistance
No matter what's said or done here will not change one pinch of the direction they are heading.. unless you effect the slush fund
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Apr 27, 2017 16:39:37 GMT -5
I am friends with Chad Stewart on Facebook. Has anyone else seen the proposed changes for future deer hunting in Michigan? They have been released and I for one am done deer hunting in Michigan. They have buckled under to the "social science" of the QDMA. APR's everywhere. I hope the NRC has the where-with-all to see through the politics of these recommendations. Hunter numbers will plummet and disease will run rampant. |
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 27 
|
Post by otto on Apr 27, 2017 18:25:05 GMT -5
HI!
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 28, 2017 2:26:43 GMT -5
I am friends with Chad Stewart on Facebook. Has anyone else seen the proposed changes for future deer hunting in Michigan? They have been released and I for one am done deer hunting in Michigan. They have buckled under to the "social science" of the QDMA. APR's everywhere. I hope the NRC has the where-with-all to see through the politics of these recommendations. Hunter numbers will plummet and disease will run rampant. This time there may be a lot more hunters that think like you. You can bet your last peso that your post will be splashed all over that other site. They are running me into the ground so they can have it to dance in for as long as there are any deer. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 28, 2017 12:20:06 GMT -5
I bet there will be fewer tags sold this year compared to last. I will buy fewer tags this year, compared to the last decade,( but I bet I shoot more deer).
All you need to be in the woods with a bow or rifle is a valid tag, so why buy more than you need?
I know one thing if .a big bruiser comes in to my sights, I don't care if it has one or ten on a side, he's mine
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Apr 28, 2017 12:54:44 GMT -5
There is a very interesting article in Woods-n-Waters by John Ozoga in which the data he found shows that shooting bucks is the only way to control CWD. So much for MAPRs being the way to go to control CWD. Jim B and the restriction group often cite Ozoga's conclusions. Let's see if they put this one out that doesn't fit their agenda.
My deer hunting will depend on my granddaughter's activity. Also I am thinking about buying one doe permit to limit my donations to the DNR. If the NRC decides to go statewide with MAPRs, I may buy more to do my part in wiping out the deer herd before the pro-restriction people get a chance to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Apr 28, 2017 17:00:27 GMT -5
Ridge, a couple years ago my hunting partner and I took 11 legal deer. We could have taken more, but how much meat can you eat.
We going to do it again.
And then some.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on May 6, 2017 5:00:05 GMT -5
Any one can follow jim braukers life and see he has spent it using others work and ideas and then calling it his own . He claims to have done great things but try to find a colleague or some one from his field of work that respects him. You aren't going to find many as they all look at him as a loser who they look at with disdain. We have all had coworkers like jim brauker who do little of the work but try to take the credit that we are happy to see move on so we no longer have to deal with them . Again talk with some of those that have worked with him on a professional basis and ask their opinion of jim brauker   |
|
