Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum Charts and Graphs

Well dang......I guess everyone got busy suddenly.

Well since your last post had absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of 2 does a day................

Also, BPI asked a question about your last post that you just sailed on past so I reckon you got busy too, same as when I ask a question about how numbers are obtained. What was it you said about folks who ignore a question?

I’m ignoring his perpetual gaslighting questions……That’s quite different........

While we’re waiting though I have a couple comments on that last map……Something that was kinda interesting was a few stray counties like Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Cleburne that showed virtually no change in doe harvest despite nearly everyone else around showing big increases……I think part of it may revolve around the fact that deer populations were already kinda low in those counties compared to ones like Bullock and Montgomery where you had the big 40-50% jumps…….. I also think counties like Bullock and Montgomery had more hunters flock to those counties to scoop up the small properties and that's where the main change occurred….Even more interesting though…….I think that’s still a little different than what occurred in those really high harvest areas of north Alabama……

What I think happened in places like Marshall, Blount, St. Clair etc was similar but wasn’t as much about higher densities being knocked back and more just a matter of corn spreading the existing deer out into new areas to get shot…..There’s a lot of places in a county like Marshall for example where there arent any deer or very few…..which means you have a lot of “fringe” areas that are on the edges of where some deer exist……Corn opened up a bunch of new places for deer to get killed in these fringe areas and why I think you see the big increases…..

Bull crap. He asked a legitimate question about when gamecheck went online to get those numbers. You just choose to ignore any and all information that goes against your narrative which makes you........

Yeah. "Gaslighting" is the term used when people are gaslighting. Kind of like CNN.

Ok..……well……if you’re wanting to make a point about something then look up your own information.....I'm not obligated to indulge every search someone requests…….I asked Matt his opinion about the extra doe killing that has occurred ^^^^ in a bunch of counties…….

There's a legit point to the question though. AI says game check came online in 2016. We all know it wasn't widely used AT ALL during that time. In fact, hardly anyone I knew used it and I even remember some of those that did calling them in. Then in 2019 AI says hunting over bait being legalized in the state, and that would be about the time people caught on to game check and actually started using it.

Game check has come a long way as far as how people use it now, compared to when it was introduced, and I would have to believe that the increase in numbers would reflect that.

And that's not to say that is the only reason for the increase CNC. There could very well be increases in harvest numbers per county, but depending on game check to be your only source of data is going to give inaccurate numbers. Especially if you are just comparing the harvest numbers from when it came online with todays game check numbers.

I'm not doubting what your saying in some counties BTW. But it's just an inaccurate method to base everything off of game check when it's an inexact science.

The problem is that when WE look up that information and post it, you chalk it up to being inaccurate or biased or you just completely run past it and say it doesn't apply. If you answer the question for yourself, you can't deny the answer and have to accept it. It's kind of like getting an addict to admit they have a problem. You can tell them all you want but they don't accept the fact until they admit it themselves.
So....let's take that first step. Repeat after me......" I am CNC and I am occasionally wr....wr....wr...wrong."

This right here. I would say calling it an inexact science is a huge understatement. Of course when you are able to fluidly change the parameters of a study, you can manipulate the data to suit your agenda on a limitless basis.

Y'all might as well start pounding your head into a brick wall.

It would be just as productive as a discussion with CNC....

I’m just mapping what the data is showing…..If you want to believe its meaningless then that’s your choice I suppose…. I’m gonna go with the idea that all of those best counties along the western side of the state being grouped together showing no increase is not just coincidence……It could anything though I suppose…..Russians……Alien mutilations…..who knows……

I do believe that game check has a much greater chance of being accurate the longer it's used. And I also think you can gain fairly accurate information from year to year, now that it's widely accepted. the reason I commented on the last map you posted was because it went back to the early years of game check when bait was legalized and it was HIGHLY inaccurate, then used that data in comparison to the numbers game check produces NOW, which are more accurate. When doing that, of course it's going to show a massive increase in harvest numbers.

I've learned over the years in the athletic world that numbers can be manipulated when complete facts aren't known. Facts without context are useless. A great example of that would be the deer harvest in 19-20 compared to 20-21. According to AL records, 199,00 hunters harvested around 218,000 deer in 2019-2020. According to the same record-keeping organization, 228,000 hunters harvested around 273,000 deer the following year. Without understanding that the Covid pandemic affected people's behavior in 20-21, raw numbers are useless. But even knowing the "Covid factor" involved, there's still more that can't be really known. Was harvest up due to hunters having more time off from work... was it because meat prices in grocery stores rose... was it because more people chose solitary activities that year rather than group activities... was it because families spent time more together in the woods (spouse/kids harvesting more)? Point being is that when we do have context, there's still so many things involved that making 100% accurate statements about "cause" is impossible. Maybe the best we can say is "the Covid pandemic affected deer harvest in 20-21."

Did everybody get busy again ?

He’ll be back and taking off on another deflection tangent, as if none of the previous posts ever occurred. What you posted about the data accuracy and participation, early on versus later on GC will be completely ignored. Just like BamaRich’s pointing out the huge harvest increase due to Covid, will be ignored. Just like environmental factors that Matt pointed out (acorns and drought) will be ignored. Like someone else said, data without context is meaningless. Charting just reported kills from only roughly half the hunters in the state, with no other relevant data impacting those kill numbers being factored in, makes the charts almost meaningless, unless you’re looking at 10 yr time increments. Even then, for those kill numbers to be statistically relevant, they have to be adjusted for environmental factors (number of hunters, herd size entering the season, weather, Covid/peoples ability to hunt more in a certain year, massive acorn crops, greenfield failures, etc etc).

Stop feeding the troll!