Originally Posted by Driveby
Originally Posted by Pwyse
So you are saying it is 60%, but in reality it is 60% of an unknown percentage because the hunter survey is obviously not 100%. Since we don’t know the fluctuations of that percentage, the fluctuations of the game check percentages carry even less weight.

That's why I made the comment about not turning in the survey. You can't get an accurate compliance rate for something when you don't know the compliance rate for the thing with which you are comparing it to. Like you said, it's a percentage of an unknown percentage.

That being said, I would think CNC would approve of that assessment since it would indicate more deer were killed in previous years than reported. That would lend to his side of the debate that too many were being killed.

See Harold, I'm not ALWAYS against everything you say. grin


You aren’t wrong. But bad data leads to bad decisions. Like I said earlier, him trying to prove his theories by providing bad data is useless. The fluctuations in the percentages could be caused by a huge amount of unknowns. It’s just not a reliable metric to prove anything at all. It would be very irresponsible to use his reasoning to make management decisions on a statewide level.

Now in his defense, the state is already making irresponsible management decisions in my opinion. Trying to manage a resource with a handful of game wardens is highly irresponsible.