Not at all. Sometimes it is easy to overlook something small in the heat of the moment.

 

Not at all. Sometimes it is easy to overlook something small in the heat of the moment.

I don't believe either of us would be considered "small".:lol::lol:

 

Touche'

 

Just thought you were all about equal time and accountability Kevin. No "facination", we just want to make sure we attribute quotes to an author.
Good to know the letter has your blessing!

Kevin?

It's an obsession he has.

:lol:

KPC

 

You can also tell a lot about a person's character when they attack someone else's character without having all the facts. Or any facts...

Did I say anything about you, or any "letter" you posted tracker?

You must have a guilty conscience or something.

:16suspect

Remember what they say about people who assume...

:lol:

KPC

 

Show us the facts, KPC. Show us where, in the first 27 posts in this thread, that private correspondence was leaked to the general public. You made the accusation, so back it up. Until then....

 

Remember what they say about people who assume...

:lol:

KPC

Whats that?

 

Show us the facts, KPC. Show us where, in the first 27 posts in this thread, that private correspondence was leaked to the general public. You made the accusation, so back it up. Until then....

Yes do tell kpc. I can only assume that it was my character you were questioning as you posted right after me and my previous 3 or 4 concurrent posts. I would like to know what conclusions you have come to if it indeed was my character in which you spoke of.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

Yes do tell kpc. I can only assume that it was my character you were questioning as you posted right after me and my previous 3 or 4 concurrent posts. I would like to know what conclusions you have come to if it indeed was my character in which you spoke of.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Who want's to play "Lets jump to conclusions"?

My jump landed on a the "Private Message sent by an Admirer" square. Sure hope I win I could use the credibility.

 

You are correct. The survey is heavily biased against passage.

When are you going to stop saying the survey is heavily biased against passage? The survey is designed to indicate whether or not a "Clear Majority" of support exists, period. That's it.

If your beef concerns the level chosen to indicate a clear majority, that's fine but it is an entirely separate issue. To suggest (continually) it is heavily biased against passage is incorrect.

Is it not? :16suspect

 

Who want's to play "Lets jump to conclusions"?

My jump landed on a the "Private Message sent by an Admirer" square. Sure hope I win I could use the credibility.

Thanks kpc how about kpc answer my question.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

When are you going to stop saying the survey is heavily biased against passage? The survey is designed to indicate whether or not a "Clear Majority" of support exists, period. That's it.

If your beef concerns the level chosen to indicate a clear majority, that's fine but it is an entirely separate issue. To suggest (continually) it is heavily biased against passage is incorrect.

Is it not? :16suspect

It is common practice in science to use reasonable approaches to make sure that a data point is valid with a probability close to 1.

It is called the 68-95-99.7 rule, or 3-sigma rule. Three standard deviations are the extreme case but 2 standard deviations are often used to determine the probability that, for example, a blood measurement is within the "normal" range.

In the case of the 12-county survey, we have a 68.5% yes vote, and a 2.3% confidence limit.

It would be perfectly reasonable to place a requirement that the yes votes be within 2-3 multiples of the confidence interval. Thus, it would be very reasonable to require that the yes responses be higher than 54.6% or higher than 56.9%. But it is totally unreasonable to arbitrarily use 66%, which is 7 multiples of the confidence interval above 50%.

It would also be reasonable, under the current design requiring a 66% approval, with a 7-fold multiple of confidence intervals as a cushion, to accept the 66% if it is within the confidence interval, as was originally done with the Leelanau County survey in 2003.

The 66% level is not justifiable from a statistical standpoint. It is only justifiable from a political standpoint. I.e. it ensures that there is a very high level of support for the initiative. Used in that way, I think it is fair and justifiable. But it is not justifiable for the reasons you stated. And it certainly, if not biased in a mathematical sense, is designed in a way that is weighted heavily against passage.

 

Show us the facts, KPC. Show us where, in the first 27 posts in this thread, that private correspondence was leaked to the general public. You made the accusation, so back it up. Until then....

Yes do tell kpc. I can only assume that it was my character you were questioning as you posted right after me and my previous 3 or 4 concurrent posts. I would like to know what conclusions you have come to if it indeed was my character in which you spoke of.

Funny how two separate individuals are convinced that my post was in reference to them.

Paranoia is a funny thing.

:lol:

KPC

 

Funny how two separate individuals are convinced that my post was in reference to them.

Paranoia is a funny thing.

:lol:

KPC

Well who was it in reference too? Set us straight.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

Funny how Mr. Cummings is still not able to point out the secret information that should not have been divulged on these forums. :lol::lol::lol:

Delusion is a scary thing.

 

It is common practice in science to use reasonable approaches to make sure that a data point is valid with a probability close to 1.

It is called the 68-95-99.7 rule, or 3-sigma rule. Three standard deviations are the extreme case but 2 standard deviations are often used to determine the probability that, for example, a blood measurement is within the "normal" range.

In the case of the 12-county survey, we have a 68.5% yes vote, and a 2.3% confidence limit.

It would be perfectly reasonable to place a requirement that the yes votes be within 2-3 multiples of the confidence interval. Thus, it would be very reasonable to require that the yes responses be higher than 54.6% or higher than 56.9%. But it is totally unreasonable to arbitrarily use 66%, which is 7 multiples of the confidence interval above 50%.

It would also be reasonable, under the current design requiring a 66% approval, with a 7-fold multiple of confidence intervals as a cushion, to accept the 66% if it is within the confidence interval, as was originally done with the Leelanau County survey in 2003.

The 66% level is not justifiable from a statistical standpoint. It is only justifiable from a political standpoint. I.e. it ensures that there is a very high level of support for the initiative. Used in that way, I think it is fair and justifiable. But it is not justifiable for the reasons you stated. And it certainly, if not biased in a mathematical sense, is designed in a way that is weighted heavily against passage.

Thanks for the response.

To further clarify, "Clear Majority" isn't my term, it is a direct quote from the DNR web site explaining the process. I'm still unclear whether you believe the bias exists in the definition or the design.

I can agree with you that the process is weighted against but biased implies something different. Can we agree on that at least?

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10371_10402-304791--,00.html

May 31, 2013


The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) today advised the public that a local organization will hold an informational meeting regarding a proposed deer antler point restriction (APR) on June 4 at the East Lansing High School.


A group known as the Lower Peninsula Deer Management Initiative (LPDMI) has proposed a four-point APR for all of Zone 3 in southern Michigan. Zone 3 includes portions of Muskegon, Newaygo, Mecosta, Isabella, Midland, Bay and Arenac County and all other counties to the south. This proposal seeks to require that all antlered deer harvested in the area have at least four antler points on one side. The restriction will be considered for implementation starting with the 2014 deer season. Antlerless deer regulations within the proposed area would continue to be determined annually by the DNR.


The upcoming meeting will be held at the East Lansing High School Student Union (cafeteria), at 509 Burcham Drive in East Lansing. Doors will open at 6:30 p.m., the meeting will run from 7-8 p.m., and the building must be cleared by 8:30 p.m. Additional meetings will be announced as they are scheduled. The LPDMI will be hosting a total of 10 meetings in the Zone 3 proposal area to explain its interest in APR implementation and answer questions about the proposal.
Landowners in the proposed area who would like to offer input about the proposal may email their comments to DNR-wildlife@michigan.gov.


The DNR supports the voluntary implementation of APR on private land. Under guidelines adopted by the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), mandatory regulations proposed by sponsoring organizations will only be recommended for implementation if DNR staff has no biological concerns regarding such regulations, and if a clear majority (at least 66 percent) of support among hunters in the proposed area is documented. Support will be determined by a DNR survey mailed to a sample of hunters who indicated on the 2012 DNR deer harvest survey that they hunted deer in the proposal area. Surveys will be mailed starting in August. Payment by the LPDMI will offset survey costs incurred by this proposal.


This process for review of APR proposals provides a uniform approach for addressing requests by individual hunters and organizations for adopting such regulations. The NRC retains full authority over decisions to implement APR and other harvest regulations regardless of the survey outcome, but the proposal review process provides valuable information to inform those decisions.


The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. For more information, go to www.michigan.gov/dnr.

 

Amazing to me how many feathers can get ruffled over 3 inches of antler

Ganzer

 

Thanks kpc how about kpc answer my question.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

If I were KPC, I would offer up so many examples of you answering questions directed at others that you could deny them all day and have some left for tomorrow. :lol:

But I'm not, so I won't. It is enough for me to know that you know it's true. :evil:

 

Well who was it in reference too? Set us straight.

Isn't it obvious?

It's in reference to you...if you think it is.

Same is true for tracker.


After all...

Perception is reality

:lol:

KPC

 

Isn't it obvious?

It's in reference to you...if you think it is.

Same is true for tracker.



After all...



:lol:

KPC

About what I figured you would say.
When you man up enough to give a straight answer, while still hiding behind a keyboard, we'll talk, until then I see no need to entertain you.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

About what I figured you would say.
When you man up enough to give a straight answer, while still hiding behind a keyboard, we'll talk, until then I see no need to entertain you.

That's fine. You don't need to entertain me.

By the way, I don't hide behind my keyboard. Anything I say here I would say in person.

KPC

 

Amazing to me how many feathers can get ruffled over 3 inches of antler

Ganzer

It ain't the anti-APR side that is spending $100,000 trying to get the regulations changed over those 3 inches of antler, so who's feathers are ruffled?

 

It ain't the anti-APR side that is spending $100,000 trying to get the regulations changed over those 3 inches of antler, so who's feathers are ruffled?

Ohh come on now...if the anti APR group's feathers weren't ruffled, why are they trying so hard to keep 3" of antler fair game?

 

Ohh come on now...if the anti APR group's feathers weren't ruffled, why are they trying so hard to keep 3" of antler fair game?

Trying so hard? Group A has put together a couple of webpages and attended a few meetings. Group B is spending $100,000 to get the regulations that they want enacted. Which group would you say is trying harder? :yikes:

 

Trying so hard? Group A has put together a couple of webpages and attended a few meetings. Group B is spending $100,000 to get the regulations that they want enacted. Which group would you say is trying harder? :yikes:

I don't know about 100k being the cost but yes group B is trying harder. NW12's group B tried hard too.........things don't come easy