Uh oh

[Ben Lamb]

or Melba and Merlene are old and cranky and on the city council and "hate the direction this country is going" and want to stick it to Dylan and Asheigh out of spite

Maybe Dylan and Ashleigh don't show up to the township meetings telling everyone how they do it in Mass?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe Dylan and Ashleigh don't show up to the township meetings telling everyone how they do it in Mass?

Dude in Mass you'd need 17 permits, finger printed twice, and would need to take your permit in person to three offices.

and then it would get rejected, because your hen house didn't meet a fire code established in 1858.


... but yeah I still think it's an interesting part of the food discussion you can have a small hobby farm in boulder with a 1/4 acre lot and in MI with 10 acres you can't have any animals period. There are certainly areas where hunters can make big public perception gains.

 

[noharleyyet]

I wonder if part of the problem is the increased politicalization.

Fact is tons of liberals own firearms and hunt, but the perception is that it’s a red thing.

Is hunting getting sucked into the polarization of our society?

Yes...man your amelioration stations. Silent running...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Dude in Mass you'd need 17 permits, finger printed twice, and would need to take your permit in person to three offices.

and then it would get rejected, because your hen house didn't meet a fire code established in 1858.


... but yeah I still think it's an interesting part of the food discussion you can have a small hobby farm in boulder with a 1/4 acre lot and in MI with 10 acres you can't have any animals period. There are certainly areas where hunters can make big public perception gains.

It's just a zoning issue in MI. We're zoned rural ag & I can do just about anything. If I follow the 85 year old outlaw neighbor, I don't even need a permit.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Dude in Mass you'd need 17 permits, finger printed twice, and would need to take your permit in person to three offices.

and then it would get rejected, because your hen house didn't meet a fire code established in 1858.


... but yeah I still think it's an interesting part of the food discussion you can have a small hobby farm in boulder with a 1/4 acre lot and in MI with 10 acres you can't have any animals period. There are certainly areas where hunters can make big public perception gains.

Also, quit showing up dressed like this, talking about vaccines & such:

 

[noharleyyet]

Also, quit showing up dressed like this, talking about vaccines & such:

View attachment 283649

 

[Sasquatchewan]

Im not worried (which may be a bad thing). 77% of the respondents had a favorable view of hunting. 77%!!! You probably couldn’t get 77% of Americans to agree that water is good for you.

Water? The stuff fish f*ck in?

I think 77% favourable is pretty good. Once you start breaking it down by species, probably not. The article touches on low support regarding hunting of bears, predators, etc. I believe that's how it starts and over time you will go from low support for predator/bear hunting/trapping, to no predator/bear hunting/trapping at all.

Once there's no more trapping and hunting of bears, predators, etc, what's next? Once those species are out of the way, moose, deer, elk, etc, are next. It probably won't happen over our lifetime, but it will most likely happen.

I believe it is our duty to control the hunting narrative. We need to control what and how we share. Guys like Tim Wells who obsess over killing animals with spears and plastering their kill shots all over social media are hurting hunting and I don't think you need to survey anyone for that.

Josh Bowmar's bear spear hunt is a great example of that, that idiot completely destroyed the bear hunting narrative in Alberta and stirred up a tremendous amount of manure in Canada. What was legal and mostly unknown, spear hunting bears, became illegal because of that idiot's show.

I think we need to be extremely mindful of what/how we post hunting content. I've taken a huge step back from posting on social media, on my already private accounts. I think most hunters should do so too. I keep getting added to stupid hunting groups on Facebook and I can't f'n handle how dumb we look as a group. The amount of pictures that are in bad taste are astounding. From ridding a gutted deer carcass to grip and grins with year old cubs propped up on bloody white tail gates.

 

[mottlet]

This should be a call to action. It shouldn’t be the action of doom and gloom, or of picking sides, or whatever. We have to get beyond simply searching for reasons, or excuses.

We have to be strategic. My take away is that knowledge is power. Whatever you think about social media doesn’t really matter. I’m not on it, but I probably should be. Why? To spread a message of ethical conservation that respectfully conserves the land and the system. This includes all factors, living and non-living. Soil, plants, animals, all of it. I follow the rules that I have fought to have set based on best science practices.

My sister is a Buddhist artist vegetarian in Portland, and I am not making this up. She is a prime example of what some fear because some jump to conclusions. However, your conclusions may be wrong. My brother and I are hunters and she loves and respects us and our opinions. We all discuss our choices, why we have chose them, and she listens. She even supports our hunting over imposiburger (or whatever it is called). She believes we have the right to do as we choose in a ethical and rational manner.

Recently we hiked to Hearst Lake in Montana to spread my Dad’s ashes. We had a long discussion along the way. She gets the system on many levels. She is thoughtful and open. We discussed The North American Model and how effective it has been, and the need for acceptance of the system. Humans and their connections are just parts of the system that must be managed like another other factor. This could be grasses, elk, noxious weeds, wolves, water or roads to name a few.

A glowing example of what we must actively communicate to the world about is black bear hunting. Due to her activity on line the only experience on line she has is with people I don’t consider hunters pulling a sow out of a den that had cubs and killing her. It was done without respect, and in a fashion I don’t agree with. It was a celebration of what will kill hunting if we don’t actively combat it. It showed a disregard for the bear and her cubs. It showed a lacked of respect for nature as a whole. This clearly turned her off to bear hunting, as it would most that don’t have other positive experiences.

We talked about how most bear hunting it done, and the need for bear management. Once she had an understanding of it, she supported it. She admitted she doesn’t like the whole killing and eating the bear part, but sees the necessity of it all. She also honored individual choice, as I did also. She would now vote to have ethical bear hunting. Why? She has information.

So, what do we need to do. We must become experts on our stances, maintain and evolve them when information arises, and spread the word far and wide in a positive manner. Knowledge is power. I challenge you to step up and confront poachers, and unethical actions. I challenge you to have a calm informed conversation with people you feel safe with. I challenge you to post information in a positive educational manner wherever you can. I have a short sentence that rules my thinking now, If I don’t, who will?

First, a sample size of a couple thousand is plenty big. I was a history major, but c'mon, surely we've all had to sit through some kind of probabilities and statistics class? Second, chickens in cities means rats. Folks may not know they don't like chickens until they live next to em, but they know they don't like rats.

Meanwhile, maybe reread this. I dunno how to get more people exposed to hunting, which the survey says was the best indicator of support for hunting, without taking more people hunting. And not your kids. You were gonna take them anyway. They may not take it up beyond going once or twice, or only for deer, or they may *gasp* show up at YOUR trailhead...but they'll probably vote to keep hunting around.

 

[SAJ-99]

I dunno how to get more people exposed to hunting, which the survey says was the best indicator of support for hunting, without taking more people hunting. And not your kids. You were gonna take them anyway. They may not take it up beyond going once or twice, or only for deer, or they may *gasp* show up at YOUR trailhead...but they'll probably vote to keep hunting around.

Sure, but have you seen the applications for big game permits? Higher likelihood that people change to a negative view on hunting after they pay entry fees for 25 yrs and never draw.

 

[Shangobango]

sample size of a couple thousand is plenty big

So says statisticians and pollsters. And why wouldn't they, their livelihood depends on it.

The ratio of those surveyed in this survey is akin to walking into a stadium filled with 300,000 people and asking 2 people in the crowd a series of questions and basing the opinion of the entire crowd on those 2 people's answers.

And yes, I took probabilities and statistics in college. I thought these surveys were hokum then and I still do now. My only source of income for half a decade was playing poker. I understand probabilities, sample size, and standard deviation better than the average person.

As to the chicken question, why in the world would anyone want to live somewhere where they couldn't have chickens, or take a leak off the back porch, or build outbuildings to their liking? Heck with that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As to the chicken question, why in the world would anyone want to live somewhere where they couldn't have chickens, or take a leak off the back porch, or build outbuildings to their liking? Heck with that.

Simmer down Cletus. Some people need that fancy store-bought medicine & such.

 

[FI460]

So says statisticians and pollsters. And why wouldn't they, their livelihood depends on it.

The ratio of those surveyed in this survey is akin to walking into a stadium filled with 300,000 people and asking 2 people in the crowd a series of questions and basing the opinion of the entire crowd on those 2 people's answers.

And yes, I took probabilities and statistics in college. I thought these surveys were hokum then and I still do now. My only source of income for half a decade was playing poker. I understand probabilities, sample size, and standard deviation better than the average person.

As to the chicken question, why in the world would anyone want to live somewhere where they couldn't have chickens, or take a leak off the back porch, or build outbuildings to their liking? Heck with that.

Sample size isn't proportional though. You'd probably need a sample size of 300+ to cover a population of 300k. It would probably be sufficient at ~400 responses for a population of 3 million. WAG.

I don't think the 14th century mathematicians gave a rip about their livelihoods depending on it when they were developing statistics.

 

[SAJ-99]

So says statisticians and pollsters. And why wouldn't they, their livelihood depends on it.

The ratio of those surveyed in this survey is akin to walking into a stadium filled with 300,000 people and asking 2 people in the crowd a series of questions and basing the opinion of the entire crowd on those 2 people's answers.

And yes, I took probabilities and statistics in college. I thought these surveys were hokum then and I still do now. My only source of income for half a decade was playing poker. I understand probabilities, sample size, and standard deviation better than the average person.

As to the chicken question, why in the world would anyone want to live somewhere where they couldn't have chickens, or take a leak off the back porch, or build outbuildings to their liking? Heck with that.

Their livelihood depends on them being correct, at least most of the time. If the model says something and the opposite happens, then people start to question the accuracy and they are out of a job.

The problem here isn't sample size. Saying something is "statistically insignificant" isn't correct. We could estimate the entire US population (300+ million) on a sample size of less than 400, so 2000 is plenty. The only caveat is we need to look at the error term. I'm sure you remember from stats, it's that little +/- number in the footnotes. If I do a sample size of 400 (95% CI) that number is around +/- 10%. When you are looking at a proportion that only goes from 0-100%, that number is big enough to drive a truck through. The firm who did the survey upped the sample size to over 2000 and got the error term down to less than +/- 3%. Still big, but more reasonable. This would be great if we were measuring hard data, like height, eye color, incomes, etc. I think your issue (and mine a little) is this is an opinion survey. It's soft data. People change opinions on stuff all the time. The game of poker is hard data. It is not someone's opinion on the makeup of the remaining deck, it is actual numbers, so not a great comparison. Unfortunately, determining adjustments to a statistical model to account for the flightiness of human opinions is almost impossible. Also we have seen people in political surveys begin to lie, making that job almost impossible.

This is the same argument I have made on MT harvest "discussions" and whether or not mandatory reporting would help. It's just math. At broad level, the estimate would stay the same, but the error term would drop. So better, but not different. The more you get to the unit level, where the sample size is small, you get even better numbers. But mostly I still hold that even if the change to mandatory reporting was made, some hunters will simply believe they are manipulated by FWP. Because for some facts are often inconvenient and it is easier to believe a lie than change your mind.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

In the most layman of terms, when the data variance stops doing this:



And does this:



You have an adequate sample size, assuming the data is arranged like this:



One problem with survey data is that it doesn't jive that well with parametric statistics, and non-parametric analysis is weaker. I don't have a problem with survey data, it can be very useful. It's just extra easy to misinterpret inference and results. It is true that at a certain point more data does not make an analysis more accurate in a detectable or meaningful way. It depends on what the cause of the variance is.

I personally consider survey data like triage. It's great for highlighting large scale changes or points for which deeper study is warranted.

 

[noharleyyet]

Polling & Public Opinion: The good, the bad, and the ugly | Brookings

Introduction to an edition of the Brookings Review that focuses on polling, public opinion, and politics.

www.brookings.edu

 

[Shangobango]

Guys I took the classes. I aced them. I understand the concept I thought it was hokum then and I think it is hokum now.

I may be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last.

 

[SAJ-99]

Guys I took the classes. I aced them. I understand the concept I thought it was hokum then and I think it is hokum now.

I may be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't be the last.

It's hokum until you are at a very large company and the boss says he needs to know what percentage of the customers will order this new product and in what amount so he can estimate pre-production, and then gives you a budget for the survey that won't cover lunch for the sales team.

 

[noharleyyet]

It's hokum until you are at a very large company and the boss says he needs to know what percentage of the customers will order this new product and in what amount so he can estimate pre-production, and then gives you a budget for the survey that won't cover lunch for the sales team.

What you are describing is definitely hoakum.

 

[Shangobango]

It's hokum until you are at a very large company and the boss says he needs to know what percentage of the customers will order this new product and in what amount so he can estimate pre-production, and then gives you a budget for the survey that won't cover lunch for the sales team.

No it is still hokuk then too lol.

I am kidding.

We aren't talking about quite the same thing and I am not saying statistics and probabilities is hokum. I am saying that the way they are applied to some of these surveys and polls is.

For instance, the survey we are talking about is supposed to predict the opinions of over 300,000,000 people. How big is the potential customer base for that particular hypothetical product?

I think there is too much potential for noise in these small sample size surveys. Some do them better than others obviously. I just take them with a big grain of salt.

Anyway, I am on a conference call I actually need to be paying attention to. The odds of that are like 1 in 10 so I better take advantage.

 

[WildWill]

Dude in Mass you'd need 17 permits, finger printed twice, and would need to take your permit in person to three offices.

and then it would get rejected, because your hen house didn't meet a fire code established in 1858.


... but yeah I still think it's an interesting part of the food discussion you can have a small hobby farm in boulder with a 1/4 acre lot and in MI with 10 acres you can't have any animals period. There are certainly areas where hunters can make big public perception gains.

One of these moves try SE Oklahoma if you're tired of city codes and HOA's.

Simmer down Cletus. Some people need that fancy store-bought medicine & such.

Why? It's easy enough to brew, distill, or grow your own #Antibioticsareoverrated.