Originally Posted by sgtred
Devil's advocate here. Or maybe data is being collected to justify predetermined notions or whatever you want to do regardless of it being what's best or not Collect incomplete data, twist it into whatever you want it to mean. Ain't saying that's what is happening.,but it could happen . These incomplete numbers can be twisted into whatever one wants to make them, why ,they are incomplete,thus open to any interpretation


I guess I agree and disagree…….So this isn’t misunderstood with what I’m about to say….In no way am I naïve as to what government agencies or hell just people in general will do to manipulate the process to get what they want. However, we can’t always take EVERYTHING that gets done or said and immediately jump to the conclusion that their lying, have alternative motives, and it’s a sham. There has to be some room for recognizing when it is and when it isn’t. When things are done that obviously happen because of high fence dollars and we’re told its for everyone’s good….its bullchit and we all see it. Sometimes though, its not some other grand scheme and its exactly what you see at face value. As far as the current discussion here is concerned….I don’t think GC numbers are being used in a bulldoodoo manner right now to achieve a preset objective, Nothing that I’m seeing being presented here anyways screams that to me. It may very well be at some point. If I wanted to make something happen through bulldoodoo though….I think I could get my bulldoodoo data in a much less cumbersome way. All I need arew numbers and I’ll apply meaning to them….you just get me some through a study on the topic….much simpler.

Even though I argued against it myself….I do believe .these GC numbers are actually relevant from the standpoint of looking at sustainable yield trends over time….as long as my understanding of this is correct. I think it is but I’m open to hearing what I’m not seeing if anyone wants to jump in. Also, I understand why you would think that a third of the people participation is flawed and incomplete data but its actually more than enough to be able to use it for the purpose of “trend data”. Its nothing more than a sample being drawn from the whole the same way that the old survey was a sample or a timber cruise is a sample. You’re just not being told that it’s nothing more than a survey like the old way because they want to use it to also enforce harvest regs at the same time and say that EVERYONE has to do it. Are they bullshitting here to some degree….YES……but could they just come and say “Hey we need at least 10% of the hunters in each county to check their deer in please for this to work” and do it that way….nope….But like I was saying in the previous post….if we kill 50K every year for 5-10 years lets say…..then you can indeed say with good certainty that the herd is capable of sustaining the current harvest numbers under the current regulations. I don’t know how may there are total for sure but I know that its capable of sustainable yield of 50K. If this were not true then at some point along that line the numbers would have fallen. Right? So that part you can look at yourself and see if where things are trending. A potential downfall it would seem to me in this way of doing it is that the trend of an issue must first be established before we recognize the issue….at that point you’re probably pretty late to the game it would seem. You can accurately say that you should have changed things 5 years ago.



Last edited by CNC; 02/19/20 07:10 PM.
Folks that know don't shoot old does........ wink