I don’t think some of y’all understand the foundation of surveys or “simple random sampling”. That’s not meant as an insult……It’s just that sampling of this nature is not really a WAG….It’s more like a math formula…. We were required to take classes in forestry called Measurements I and II……We spent half the semester of MI studying nothing but simple random sampling, how it worked, and the math behind why it worked. They wanted us to understand it because it’s the foundation for doing a timber cruise. You sample a small portion of the whole…….you don’t measure the entire timber stand. Do you guys who don’t believe the deer survey was accurate also believe that foresters are just taking wild arse guesses at timber cruises? They are using the same concepts……..
That's a great example, CNC.
Those of you trashing the survey that they used for over 50 years don't seem to understand that you are agreeing with Chuck. He trashed it too, said it was worthless, and used that as one of the main reasons we needed GC.
I don't understand how you can trash the survey, but also be against GC. The population estimates were just baloney; the harvest estimate was very different.
There are millions of dollars exchanged every year on the basis of a timber cruise. That wouldn't happen if it didn't work. I've never been very far off on one of my 5% cruises before I've had timber cut.
But if you don't think random sampling works, then you oughta be gung ho in supporting GC.
All the labor of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.
