RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 19:40:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
I figured the spin doctor's wouldn't let folks read it themselves but would have to tell us what they want it to say . OK spin doctor, explain how a 26-28% inflation of a third of the total harvest equates to only four percent. Just more of your misleading B.S. I posted easy directions for folks to read the total research paper if they desired, That's what you challenged me to do so they could read it for themselves, remember. Are you afraid they will see for themselves so you need to spin it before hand. I call an inflation of approx 8,000+ bucks harvested a significant amount.
Why don’t you call the Wildlife Management Institute and ask them, since they are the ones that both claimed there was the 26-28% variance in the archery data and then also reported it only made a plus or minus 4% difference in the total harvest. If you really read the report though you already new that and all you are doing is once again trying to undermine the Game Commission and anything about it because you either can’t or will not accept anything they do as being the best management direction or objectives. All I did was post the pertinent parts of the report so everyone could see the rest of the story you didn’t want them to know about. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 19:51:46
(permalink)
"If you really read the report though you already new that and all you are doing is once again trying to undermine the Game Commission" HUH??? They are undermining themselves! This should not even be an existing condition that s10 can point to, then he wouldnt be able to "undermine" anyone! Thats like someone scratching your car paint, then them telling you that YOU are undermining THEM by pointing it out to them! will not accept anything they do as being the best management direction or objectives. I'll go on record as saying I dont accept it. Because that statement simply is FAR from true. This is far from "best management" and there is not one shred of evidence supporting that it is, yet a TON exists that says it ISNT. "All I did was post the pertinent parts of the report so everyone could see the rest of the story you didn’t want them to know about." It looks like all you did was include a whole bunch of text that didnt add at all to the argument, just to confuse the issue with several paragraphs of completely irrelevant text, and infer that your side of the argument was hidden somewhere inside.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 19:52:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wayne c
How about not intentionally bloating the figures by not using the season specific reporting rates. But instead using the highest reporting rate, which Rosenberry admitted bloated the figures. Was funny to see his admission after being prodded by Boop at that meeting. Rosenberry's face was red and he seemed to stutter. He clearly wasnt happy that it was brought up in the public forum that it was.
So you think just accepting what hunters report killing is acceptable? I guess you either didn’t read what the report stated about just accepting hunter reports and how they change from area to area and year to your or it was really all just way over your head? I don’t think Rosenberry was stammering or embarrassed about explaining what was in the report as much as being blind sided by someone he thought already understood it from the printed report. Once again how would you suggest collecting better habitat estimates from the archery and other early and late season deer hunters, other than just accepting what they report which we all know is not sufficiently accurate? It is really easy to find fault, but when you have no idea how to do it better you are only making a fool of yourself by being critical of someone already doing the job. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 19:54:00
(permalink)
NO--- what you did was challenge me to post where the folks could read the research paper for themselves in it's entirety and then got nervous that they actually would so you played spin doctor like usual and tried to tell them how to read it. Roe tried to downplay the percentage also but anyone with basic math skills can look up the total non-rifle season kill and multiply that percentage by the 27% (26-28) and they will see your (only 4% inflation) is another BS claim. The thing is when YOU KNOW IT IS WRONG why would you use it at all except to mislead the public.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 19:57:37
(permalink)
So you think just accepting what hunters report killing is acceptable? No. I didnt say or imply that. So dont go off on a debate angle against a position that isnt even mine. I guess you either didn’t read what the report stated about just accepting hunter reports and how they change from area to area and year to your or it was really all just way over your head? Actually ive read that piece and understood it long before the time of its posting here. I don’t think Rosenberry was stammering or embarrassed about explaining what was in the report as much as being blind sided by someone he thought already understood it from the printed report. He was stammering. He was clearly uncomfortable with this being pointed out. And he only has himself to blame for being in that position. Once again how would you suggest collecting better habitat estimates from the archery and other early and late season deer hunters , HUH??????
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:09:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
NO--- what you did was challenge me to post where the folks could read the research paper for themselves in it's entirety and then got nervous that they actually would so you played spin doctor like usual and tried to tell them how to read it. Roe tried to downplay the percentage also but anyone with basic math skills can look up the total non-rifle season kill and multiply that percentage by the 27% (26-28) and they will see your (only 4% inflation) is another BS claim. The thing is when YOU KNOW IT IS WRONG why would you use it at all except to mislead the public.
Yes, I did want you to post it all instead of just the little bit of out of context parts you wanted people to take stock in. You failed to post the rest of the report though because it went on to explain that they had no better calculation method suggestions and really only cautioned that there might be some significant variances from area to area and year to year. Thus I posted the entire Discussion and Management Implications sections of the report so everyone could see the rest of what they had to say on the topic. I knew if I posted the entire report no one would read it anyway and the PDF file would not allow me to link it. But, it is right there on the Game Commission web site for all who have any interest to read in its entirety; no one is trying to hide anything about it. Once again I want you to tell everyone of a better method of collecting the data needed to have a better estimate. If you can’t do that then all you are doing is making noise about something you don’t really know how to improve and simply finding fault with what is currently the best estimate possible. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:13:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wayne c
So you think just accepting what hunters report killing is acceptable?
No. I didnt say or imply that. So dont go off on a debate angle against a position that isnt even mine.
I guess you either didn’t read what the report stated about just accepting hunter reports and how they change from area to area and year to your or it was really all just way over your head?
Actually ive read that piece and understood it long before the time of its posting here.
I don’t think Rosenberry was stammering or embarrassed about explaining what was in the report as much as being blind sided by someone he thought already understood it from the printed report.
He was stammering. He was clearly uncomfortable with this being pointed out. And he only has himself to blame for being in that position.
Once again how would you suggest collecting better habitat estimates from the archery and other early and late season deer hunters ,
HUH??????
Hey you are the one that jumped on the S-10 slam of the Game Commission harvest estimating methods bandwagon. You shouldn’t act so surprised when you get asked to pony up a better alternative if you too are setting out to find fault with what is already being done. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
- Total Posts : 26
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:19:38
(permalink)
I'm not sure where you came up with an inflation of 8,000 plus bucks, but if you just look at the buck harvest in Table 4 of the report, it looks like 193,000 bucks were harvested in 2000 which is an overestimate of about 4% and 2001, 156,000 total bucks which is an overestimate of about 5%. I'm sure these numbers hold up for the total harvest. These numbers are just the rifle season harvest and doesn't even include the October harvest. Some simple math shows where the 4% comes from. Also, it looks to me like they are evaluating their methods in an attempt to improve them. If they are really trying intentionally to inflate the harvest estimate, do you really think they would publish these results in one of the most widely read peer reviewed journasl and post it on their website?
post edited by CallJonyCochran - 2011/12/18 20:23:17
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:19:56
(permalink)
"Hey you are the one that jumped on the S-10 slam of the Game Commission harvest estimating methods bandwagon." Yes. But because of using inappropriate reporting rates as opposed to the actual obtained by their data per season! Not because they use one as opposed to using none!!! "You shouldn’t act so surprised when you get asked to pony up a better alternative if you too are setting out to find fault with what is already being done." Ive "ponied up". If you would read, Ive been up front about the problem that has such a simple solution since day one of my arguments on this topic in other threads. If they are gonna rely on their current methods at least dont intentionally bloat the figures by using the highest season reporting rate across the board!!! Its as simple as that. And if they wanted to go a step further to get better reporting rates, there are ways to reach that as well. Mandatory reporting for all, which there is no reasonable excuse against. Either way, you get more accurate data than conveniently definitively bloating the figures, as even Rosenberry had attested to as being the case. And its in absolutely no way necessary for them to do so!!!!1
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:31:20
(permalink)
"Also, it looks to me like they are evaluating their methods in an attempt to improve them." Really? And how long has this been known about, yet that facet of the reporting rate variability STILL continues to go unaccounted for? "If they are really trying intentionally to inflate the harvest estimate, do you really think they would publish these results in one of the most widely read peer reviewed journasl and post it on their website? " Its there isnt it? So is the data showing many units being reduced over the last 5 years or so despite claims of stabilization and a plethora of other stuff not supporting their "direction". They most certainly are intentionally inflating the harvest by using current methods. It is a known condition and something so incredibly simple to address, they knew the results were what they were....and continue to do NOTHING to resolve it. And then claim to use the best science availabe and strive for accuracy???...All they have done is added more to the distrust by constantly trying to decieve us and it being pointed out. They claim it is acceptable accuracy. I would add that it should be only acceptable if nothing could easily be done to make it even more accurate. Whether thats 4% or 40.
post edited by wayne c - 2011/12/18 20:32:42
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:36:48
(permalink)
1. They KNOW using the same reporting rate for non-rifle taken deer increases those harvest numbers by 26-28%.
2. They Know the percent inflation increases as the non-rifle kill increases.
3. They Know the percent non-rifle kill has increased steadly since the research was done.
4. They Know the percent non-rifle kill will continue to increase as oportunities for muzzleloaders and archers increase and especially with the legalization of crossbows.
5. The only logical reason for not changing the harvest reporting rate for non-rifle kills is to inflate the numbers to mislead the public who awaits those numbers each spring.
6. Before worrying about a better method of collecting data you should use the research data you have and correct the error YOU KNOW YOU HAVE
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:44:46
(permalink)
If they are really trying intentionally to inflate the harvest estimate, do you really think they would publish these results in one of the most widely read peer reviewed journasl and post it on their website? The politicans in Harrisburg and Washington often operate on the following premise. 1. If you tell the same story often enough and long enough people will eventually accept it as truth. 2. 95% of the people won't read what is in front of them if they have someone who will tell them what it says. 3. You can overpower the 5% that do as long as you can control the message by character assination or any other method. 4. It apparently usually works for the PGC because they sure follow the steps.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:53:54
(permalink)
CallJohnny---Look up last years total harvest-----look up last years non-rifle harvest. Divided them to get a percentage of non-rifle harvest--It will be approx 32% I believe. Multiply that number times 27%---That will give you the total inflation number-- around 8%---The non-existant bucks or deer they added to the actual kill----You can do it with bucks only, doe only, or total harvest. The error of inflation will continue to get worse as the non-rifle kill increases and they know it but continue to mislead the public. They had a couple opportunities to change it when they made other changes but chose not to.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/12/18 21:04:26
|
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
- Total Posts : 26
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 20:59:05
(permalink)
1. They KNOW using the same reporting rate for non-rifle taken deer increases those harvest numbers by 26-28%.
2. They Know the percent inflation increases as the non-rifle kill increases.
3. They Know the percent non-rifle kill has increased steadly since the research was done.
4. They Know the percent non-rifle kill will continue to increase as oportunities for muzzleloaders and archers increase and especially with the legalization of crossbows.
5. The only logical reason for not changing the harvest reporting rate for non-rifle kills is to inflate the numbers to mislead the public who awaits those numbers each spring.
6. Before worrying about a better method of collecting data you should use the research data you have and correct the error YOU KNOW YOU HAVE Could you point me the report that says they are not using the updated method that accounts for the difference in reporting rate? I just briefly looked at the management plan and the authors refer to Rosenberry et. al 2004 (the report that explains the bias in reporting rates) quite a few times, but they just give a summary of the methods in that report, and I couldn't find out if they use the new methods. I find it hard to believe that they would publish that paper, refer to it multiple times in the mgmt plan, and then not change their estimators, but I could be wrong? I'm really not familiar with any of their methods, I just happened to read the report you referred to and wanted to explain where the 4% comes from.
|
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
- Total Posts : 26
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:02:32
(permalink)
CallJohnny---Look up last years total harvest-----look up last years non-rifle harvest.
Divided them to get a percentage of non-rifle harvest--It will be approx 32% I believe.
Multiply that number times 27%---That will give you the total inflation number-- around 8%---The non-existant bucks or deer they added to the actual kill----You can do it with bucks only, doe only, or total harvest. That percentage certainly increases as the non-rifle kill increases, but the report was only referring to 2000 and 2001 (I think), it definitely wasn't referring to last year, because it was published in 2004. No doubt that number changes annually.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:06:27
(permalink)
Could you point me the report that says they are not using the updated method that accounts for the difference in reporting rate? I just briefly looked at the management plan and the authors refer to Rosenberry et. al 2004 (the report that explains the bias in reporting rates) quite a few times, but they just give a summary of the methods in that report, and I couldn't find out if they use the new methods. I find it hard to believe that they would publish that paper, refer to it multiple times in the mgmt plan, and then not change their estimators, but I could be wrong? Using rifle season reporting rate across the board for all seasons was brought up by commissioner boop at the spring meeting earlier this year. Rosenberry admitted to this, and had no retort as to why other than it was still within what they deemed to be acceptable accuracy. He gave no explanation as to why this was done. And he was VERY flustered that it had been pointed out by boop in a public forum. He actually appeared embarrassed. --My take is that even though they want continued herd reduction, they want to keep the buck harvest above 100k as long as possible. The shock value for legislators and hunters at a harvest lower than 6 digits could conceivably cause legislative actions to be taken. With the high level of hunter dissent currently, and political turmoil surrounding the issue, it seems they will do whatever they need to as far as damage control.
post edited by wayne c - 2011/12/18 21:13:34
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:08:49
(permalink)
Rosenberry admitted they were still using the same reporting rate when questioned in the spring BOC meeting but he claimed it only changed the number by 5%. The video of the meeting is supposed to still be on the PGC Website but I haven't looked for it. I watched the live feed as it was taking place.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/12/19 10:35:14
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:10:23
(permalink)
.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/12/19 10:36:18
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:12:25
(permalink)
The video of the meeting is supposed to still be on the PGC Website but I haven't looked for it. I saw it live, and afterwards it was posted there previously. This topic was discussed on other boards, and interestingly thereafter, it seems to be missing? 
|
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
- Total Posts : 26
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:18:32
(permalink)
If this is the case, then that is a problem. If the literature says there is a difference in reporting rates, then they should account for this. They probably reported 5% last year instead of the 8% you calculated S-10, because the reporting rate changed, so the inflation was less than the rate reported in the paper in 2004. That's just my guess. Also, the coefficient of variation (CV) on their estimates is at best 12% (according to the 2004 paper). So the best they can do is estimate harvest within 12%. So since the reporting rate bias is less than 12%, it doesn't effect the estimates as much as the natural variability of the estimate. I'm guessing that's why they say the 5% is within their accepted accuracy. Again, that's just my guess.
post edited by CallJonyCochran - 2011/12/18 21:19:35
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/18 21:37:34
(permalink)
They probably reported 5% last year instead of the 8% you calculated S-10, because the reporting rate changed, so the inflation was less than the rate reported in the paper in 2004. That's just my guess. My take was he used the 5% because that number showed up on the original research as you previously stated and at the time, as Wayne stated, he just threw out something to make the subject go away. The reporting rate really hasn't changed much since 2004 according to their numbers.He really didn't want to talk about it and it was very obvious that he was uncomfortable with the subject. You really need to try to find the video of the meeting. I doubt they destroyed it, my guess is they just made it difficult to find. Bedtime for me, nite
post edited by S-10 - 2011/12/19 07:12:50
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/19 08:08:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
I have greater faith in people to be truthful than you do.
That's great .. but unforutnately when I see that 50% of the folks that know a WCO saw and touched their deer or they left it at a meat processor and those folks STILL DO NO REPORT ..
NOPE... doesn't show me any reason to believe they are truthfully... but everyone is free to feel what they want to
The system the PGC uses now is probably as good as it could get as long as such a high percentage of PA deer hunters have no desire to report accurate numbers to the PGC...
Doc, Thank you for supporting the importance of required negative reporting. Oh, you didn't do that? Yes, you did. By requiring all hunters to report a positive harvest, negative harvest, or did not hunt deer desire is no longer a factor. Hunters must report or not get a license for a specified period of time. In other words, if they want to continue to hunt in PA, they must file a report. Could they file a false report? Sure. Will the majority do that just thwart the PGC? Doubtful. And if sincerely beleive that a majority will, then you are either paranoid, PGC brainwashed, unrealistic, or have a collection of tin foil hats.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/19 08:29:15
(permalink)
As the OP I have a question. What the he11 does any of this have to do with WV harvest being up ??  Unless they have migrated south and PA deer are now invading WV.
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/19 12:35:26
(permalink)
Do ya think were stretchin the boundries of the topic just a wee bit there Bings?
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/19 15:10:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
Do ya think were stretchin the boundries of the topic just a wee bit there Bings?
Thugs, goons, and not good guys will do that. Especially if they haven't been wormed like dogs with their smart pills for a while. 
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
Big Tuna
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1882
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/02/04 16:31:51
- Status: offline
RE: West Virginia Deer harvest up 38%
2011/12/19 16:21:59
(permalink)
WV is hulling in dirt from Ohio this past year,it sure brought the numbers up.
|