In Pennsylvania, and across the nation, our hunting population appears to be getting older. Yes, of
course, we're all getting older; what this means is that the average age of hunters is older than it
used to be. Participants in this survey averaged 47 years of age, most falling into the 45-54 age
class. Survey data from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that, in 2001, the majority of PA
hunters fell into the 35-44 age class, and in 1996 the 35-44 age class also ranked largest, but with
11 percent more hunters than in 2001.

YOU MAY HAVE BEEN one of more than 900 hunters to receive a phone call last May as part of a
survey conducted for the Game Commission, by Responsive Management, to help us learn about
your participation in, motivation for and satisfaction with, hunting here.
Hunters were selected randomly from a list of those who purchased 2000-01 licenses. The survey
took 20 minutes and consisted of more than 100 questions such as

Second of all, the PGC data includes data from a whopping 900 respondents out of roughly 1 million licenses sold.  That equates to a sample size of roughly .09%.  With your vast knowledge of mathematics; do you feel that is an adequate sample size to gain not only valid data, but to have confidence that the average age quoted is representative of the entire sample?  Do you know what a confidence interval is?

And Spoon - Stop with the logical solutions! There is absolutely no place here for independent thoughts!!

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I guess if it supports your argument, there is no reason to scrutinize the methodology of the survey, which in this case is clearly flawed?

If the data was available to scrutinize both sets of data I would be happy to do that. But, since it isn't available both you and I would just be guessing.

Sorry, your argument is busted and your interpretation of the data is clearly misguided, as usual

That may be your opinion, but as usual you are wrong. No one has explained why we lost 200+K deer hunters from 2000 to 2008 while general license sales only decreased by 112K. No one has explained why the number of bear hunters increased from 104K in 2000 to 145K in 2008. Could it be the the bear population was increasing instead of decreasing like the deer?

PAQDMA also closely examined Mr. Eveland’s calculation of the needed herd size to sustain the harvest amount stated by PGC. The density of deer is calculated by numbers of deer over a given area and therefore under the same deer numbers, the smaller area defined the higher density of deer. Mr. Eveland only included forest land and agriculture in his calculations. He did not include abandoned and reclaimed mine lands, grasslands and shrub lands not in agriculture reverted fields; all of which hold many deer. Using a detailed Pennsylvania State University analysis on suitable deer habitat which eliminates all areas not used by deer such as roads, developed areas, and water determined that habitat suitable for deer at 42,710 square miles or an amount of 7,195 square miles missing from Mr. Eveland’s calculations. That is more than 4.5 million acres Mr. Eveland did not consider in his density calculations which greatly inflates the deer densities in his report

I summarized by stating to the senator that the PGC was planning to systematically reduce the deer herd, hunter harvest success would dwindle, sportsmen would become increasingly disgruntled,

I just posted I like to read and listen to folks I think or feel know what they are talking about.. this guy obviously (IMHO) is just looking for his 15 mintues in the spotlight..

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

I beleive Alt did exactly what he was hired to do and did a dam good job of that..